My thoughts on charity - great. I prefer anonymous so it's not actually buying popularity, but each to their own. Using celebrity to raise funds for charity - fine, if that's your thing. But making bad TV/Music/Comedy/Sport pretending it's all for charity so it need not be adequate - bad. Encouraging ordinary people to make fools of themselves - in reality showing off and using charity as an excuse to indulge - bad. Blackmailing people to give so they don't seem mean - bad. Creating your own charity to make you look like a saint whilst depriving better run official charities of donations - bad.

But isn't that exactly what Jimmy Savile used to do?

I only saw him raise millions for existing charities like Stoke Mandeville.

Totally agree,and it's why I get annoyed with idiots like Clegg/Cameron/Brown wasting my tax money on foreign aid....I also get annoyed by charities that are really businesses...claiming to be doing good,while paying out large salaries to their management.

JK2006 wrote:
My thoughts on charity - great. I prefer anonymous so it's not actually buying popularity, but each to their own. Using celebrity to raise funds for charity - fine, if that's your thing. But making bad TV/Music/Comedy/Sport pretending it's all for charity so it need not be adequate - bad. Encouraging ordinary people to make fools of themselves - in reality showing off and using charity as an excuse to indulge - bad. Blackmailing people to give so they don't seem mean - bad. Creating your own charity to make you look like a saint whilst depriving better run official charities of donations - bad.

I'm sure Terry Wogan got a spare £30 million he can give to CIN.

Why do celebrities always say please give ?

Sid Softee wrote:
But isn't that exactly what Jimmy Savile used to do?

Savile raised millions for some charities without the public knowing including for an injured cop's one

Matt Baker. I like him and admire his efforts to help the needy. If he is accused, in a few years (or after he's dead) by one of his assisted needy - and, believe it or not, there are individuals prepared to make things up for cash or delusion or desire to explain away failure - is it right that he becomes "Britain's worst paedophile"? Is it right that his reputation should be smeared and destroyed?

"Yes, if he's guilty" I can hear you say, and every single contributor to this board would agree. Including me. Probably including Matt.

But IS he guilty? WOULD he be proven guilty? Who knows? Savile is assumed to be guilty. JK was found guilty of crimes (that never took place).

Very few care. Let Matt Baker be smeared. Let his family and children watch him be destroyed and be destroyed with him. Why? Because he once dared try to do good and get famous from it. Old footage of him hugging his accuser on TV will be analysed and frozen in unflattering pose. Photos of him sneering, highlighting his broken nose, will be used to illustrate the allegations. Don't eat a bacon sandwich, Matt.

The frightening thing? Not that we human beings care so little not that Justice is broken but that the media - our one weapon for truth and honesty - would only support "the great story". That is what's truly shocking to me.