ChatterBank8 mins ago
Vote Now
42 Answers
Yes or no ,will you be watching Children in need .Worthy cause but the awful cringe worthy show by talentless so called celebs I will be giving it a pass .The beeb have went to great lengths to promote the celeb side of it already I see.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by weecalf. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Tora - "have a go at Terry taking wages if you like Andy but at least that's up front,"
In fact no, and that's my point.
Wogan quietly took a four figure sum from the BBC, the only person on the show to be paid, and said nothing.
Then, when it was exposed in 2007 - twenty-odd years later, he woffled on about 'never having asked for a fee ...' and '...gladly doing it for nothing ...' and similar sanctiminious guff, when the reality is, he'd still be taking the money now if he hadn't been rumbled.
In fact no, and that's my point.
Wogan quietly took a four figure sum from the BBC, the only person on the show to be paid, and said nothing.
Then, when it was exposed in 2007 - twenty-odd years later, he woffled on about 'never having asked for a fee ...' and '...gladly doing it for nothing ...' and similar sanctiminious guff, when the reality is, he'd still be taking the money now if he hadn't been rumbled.
Tora - "up front? ok wrong terminology, legit, it would be in the books."
Indeed - no issue with the legality involved.
The problem is the morality.
Being paid for annually for nearly thirty years and saying nothing, then being rumbled, and pretending that you didn;t know you were being paid, and you never asked for the money, and you'd dpo it for nothing, and never offering to refund the fees you have been paid ...
that's all perfectly legal.
But it makes 'Tel' look less like an avuncular Ho-de-ho Irish chamer, and more like a scheming grasping hard-faced amoral hypocryte.
Indeed - no issue with the legality involved.
The problem is the morality.
Being paid for annually for nearly thirty years and saying nothing, then being rumbled, and pretending that you didn;t know you were being paid, and you never asked for the money, and you'd dpo it for nothing, and never offering to refund the fees you have been paid ...
that's all perfectly legal.
But it makes 'Tel' look less like an avuncular Ho-de-ho Irish chamer, and more like a scheming grasping hard-faced amoral hypocryte.
TTT - "fair euough Andy but I think the far more significant thing to be outraged about is the way most of the money cllected does not get anywhere near "children in need""
I am aware that this is a perception, but i try hard to steer clear of generalised perceptions which tend to be just that - rather than actually factually-based situations.
I would be more outraged if the skimming of donations was known and proven - it may be, I don't know, but i do know, because it is a matter of record, that Wogan morally owes the charity several tens of thousands of pounds, which he can easily afford, but chooses not to donate..
I am aware that this is a perception, but i try hard to steer clear of generalised perceptions which tend to be just that - rather than actually factually-based situations.
I would be more outraged if the skimming of donations was known and proven - it may be, I don't know, but i do know, because it is a matter of record, that Wogan morally owes the charity several tens of thousands of pounds, which he can easily afford, but chooses not to donate..
andy-hughes, //I would be more outraged if the skimming of donations was known and proven - it may be, I don't know, but i do know, because it is a matter of record, that Wogan morally owes the charity several tens of thousands of pounds, which he can easily afford, but chooses not to donate..//
Terry Wogan isn't paid by the charity - he's paid by the BBC - so he's not skimming donations and 'morally' he owes the charity nothing.
http://
No, I won't be watching.
Terry Wogan isn't paid by the charity - he's paid by the BBC - so he's not skimming donations and 'morally' he owes the charity nothing.
http://
No, I won't be watching.
naomi - "Terry Wogan isn't paid by the charity - he's paid by the BBC - so he's not skimming donations and 'morally' he owes the charity nothing."
I am aware that Wogan was (he no longer is) paid out of BBC funds.
But if he saw no moral dilema in accepting money for a programme that aims to raise money for children, and he is the only presnter employed by the BBC on the programme who is either offered, or accepts a fee, and then pretends he didn't know he was being paid - then his morals and mine are different by a seriously large degree.
I am aware that Wogan was (he no longer is) paid out of BBC funds.
But if he saw no moral dilema in accepting money for a programme that aims to raise money for children, and he is the only presnter employed by the BBC on the programme who is either offered, or accepts a fee, and then pretends he didn't know he was being paid - then his morals and mine are different by a seriously large degree.
naomi -"Some of us don't shout about it. You have no idea what he does privately."
No I don't, but I - and you, and everyone else, knows what he doesn;t do publicly, because it is a matter of record.
I dislike the man as a 'personality' and I think his behaviour over his time on Children In Need has been found wanting.
I spend the entire year not thinking about him at all, then November comes round, I have my little rant, and then I forget him again.
No I don't, but I - and you, and everyone else, knows what he doesn;t do publicly, because it is a matter of record.
I dislike the man as a 'personality' and I think his behaviour over his time on Children In Need has been found wanting.
I spend the entire year not thinking about him at all, then November comes round, I have my little rant, and then I forget him again.
Latest Posts
Crosswords19 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News28 mins ago
News28 mins ago
