Sunday, 17 March 2019

Lammy Dodgers

From the Daily Mail

Critics round on MP David Lammy as Comic Relief suffers £8MILLION drop in Red Nose Day donations amid fears public was put off by his bitter 'white saviour' row with Stacey Dooley over Strictly star's trip to Africa

Comic Relief raised a total of £63million - compared to £71.3million in 2018


I don't think so. I think Lammy's an arse and I think most people recognised that in this case.

Here's the real problem

This year's Comic Relief's Red Nose Day show was watched by 600,000 fewer people than in 2017.

Some 5.6 million people tuned in to watch the star-studded telethon on BBC One last night, but last time round the biennial fund-raiser was watched by 6.2 million viewers.

6.2 million down to 5.6 million is a drop of around 10.7%. 71.3 down to 63 is a drop of around 13%. Not an exact correlation, but probably close enough. People are finding something entertaining to watch on a Friday night on Netflix rather than a bunch of old has-beens doing the equivalent of a company Xmas show.

14 comments:

Shiney said...

@MW

I also think most people have become heartily sick of the virtue signalling, holier that thou cnuts in the arts and the BBC as well.

I donate to local charities like the stroke club in my town - why should I give money for Comic Relief and the like to piss away on grandstanding and telling me I'm a 'gammon' and don't have an opinion?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Agreed Although for once, I agreed with Lammy.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Why are they comparing 2019 viewers with 2017 viewers, but 2019 takings with 2018 takings

Shiney said...

@MW

Yeah.... Lammy was right on this occasion. But that doesn't give the nasty little racist a free pass.

Bayard said...

Shiney, I think, for a lot of people, it is the giving that is important, not where the money ends up. This is a very Buddhist approach.

Shiney said...

@B

"I think, for a lot of people, it is the giving that is important, not where the money ends up"

welllll.... yes and no - most of the time its not some 'zen-buddhist' giving for its own sake but virtue signalling as in

"look, I'm shedding tears over brown-people you whitey-capitalist scumbag"

which is precisely why the corporate/fake charities get away with their current practices.

formertory said...

Good to see the "load of smug celebs being annoying" option is comfortably ahead in the online poll. Lenny Henry in particular seems to be assuming the mantle of World Champion Virtue Signaller once smugly worn by Bono - until that pious and saintly man got rumbled reducing his music company taxes by re-registering elsewhere. Netherlands, IIRC.

pen seive said...

How much does the management board organising Red Nose day get paid, both in salaries and expenses? Who pays for these "celebrities", complete with film and support crews, to travel to these shitholes where the population is increasing daily, despite widespread drought and famine? How many 50 pence pieces from old dears pensions does it take before the aims of this so called charity is met?
A local charity, formed to help local children with cancer, receives no publicity, apart from local, receives no funding from the government (had recently been told by HMRC it is not considered a special case for tax purposes), and the people running it rely solely on donations and often meeting expenses from their own pocket. Guess which one I support?

The Stigler said...

pen sieve,

"Who pays for these "celebrities", complete with film and support crews, to travel to these shitholes where the population is increasing daily, despite widespread drought and famine?"

Well, the BBC pays for the crews. The celebrities do it for free.

There's actually some really sincere people who want to help out in some of these things, but celebrity agents know that appearing on Comic Relief is good publicity. You create some headlines and then you get a TV show, an advertising campaign, product endorsements.

On the radio last Friday were two acts performing "for Comic Relief" but really just plugging their new single. The BBC should have auctioned off these slots, collected the rents from the artists.

Bayard said...

"most of the time its not some 'zen-buddhist' giving for its own sake but virtue signalling"

Even if the donors are only virtue-signalling to themselves.

pen seive said...

TS,
When you say the celebrities do it for free, does this mean they pay for their own travel and accommodation, or does this come from the charity's funds (all those 50 pence pieces)? If so, wouldn't it have been more productive if they had used that money to donate directly to the charity?
The gesture in helping others in dire straits is an admirable one, and I can only applaud it, but if that gesture is misjudged, used inefficiently, or as a cynical means solely to keep celebrities in the public eye, a better way should be found.
The Chinese don't donate money. Instead they send out engineers, doctors, and other professionals to build or rebuild infrastructure and train locals to maintain that infrastructure. That not only shows a level of humanitarian aid, but allows the local population not to become dependant on others providing food, money, or medicines but to become self sufficient. Surely this may be a better way to help?

Lola said...

People may be beginning - in the mass - to realise that the Beeb is just another establishment self serving racket. I never ever watch it.

Bayard said...

"but allows the local population not to become dependant on others providing food, money, or medicines but to become self sufficient."

We don't want that. We want the third world to buy manufactured stuff from us, especially arms, so that we can buy their raw materials.

Robin Smith said...

The Beeb are losing close to a million licenses a year. Astonishing, but true. But I reckon its all to do with Brexit. :)