View Full Version : Terry Wogan's selfless dedication
nearly spat out my wine watching Children in Need as Sir Terry Wogan just congratulated himself on 31 years of presenting Children in Need then played down the audiences applause.
have we forgotten that up until 2007 he was being paid up to £10000 for this selfless act (a nights work) of raising money for needy children.
at the time he was on almost 1 million a year from radio 2, but still claimed his pound of flesh from Children in Need and only stopped when his greed was exposed in 2007.
:mad::mad::mad:
Aussiewicker
20-Nov-10, 02:56
Give him his due:
He's been the mainstay of the event every year, helping to raise over £500 million for the kids since 1980, when the appeal was broadcast
on BBC One in it's current telethon format. (source: wikipedia)
I think you're just jealous...... ;)
Well done Sir Terry (even though I can't stand listening to you on the radio).
i think your missing the point ....
if he'd donated his services for free these last 30 years then yes, i'd give him his due, hell i'd even listen to his radio show.
as it stands, he's taken a yearly fee for a charity night, and not just a nominal, expenses fee, but tens of thousands of pounds ...
lets also not forget that talking on end for hours comes naturally to old Tel, so it's not even like hard work for him
(believe me, it's not a jealousy issue)
'I would rather go to jail for spanking my kids, than for them to go to jail because I didn't'
why don't you just raise your kids (without spanking them) in a normal, wholesome way that would prevent them going to jail ...
is spanking your kids the only way to keep them out of jail ?
please explain your signature ... :confused
teddybear1873
20-Nov-10, 04:45
'I would rather go to jail for spanking my kids, than for them to go to jail because I didn't'
why don't you just raise your kids (without spanking them) in a normal, wholesome way that would prevent them going to jail ...
is spanking your kids the only way to keep them out of jail ?
please explain your signature ... :confused
Kept me out of jail. I ain't in favour of beating the crap out of a kid, but when I got the belt at school and then seen stars from my faither, I took a second thought.
The problem with todays society is that most kids rule and dictate adults. Plus kids have the upper hand now.
At the very least bring back the belt at the high school.
Kept me out of jail. I ain't in favour of beating the crap out of a kid, but when I got the belt at school and then seen stars from my faither, I took a second thought.
The problem with todays society is that most kids rule and dictate adults. Plus kids have the upper hand now.
t
At the very lest bring back the belt at the high school.
more discipline at school is a cert, but not with violence, violence at home normalises violence at school, kids expect it and act accordingly.
how can you teach a kid not to act in a violent manner when their teacher is being violent towards them ?
i was kicked black and blue at home for getting into trouble, but it didn't stop me
not getting caught kept me out of jail ;)
Aaldtimer
20-Nov-10, 05:28
'I would rather go to jail for spanking my kids, than for them to go to jail because I didn't'
why don't you just raise your kids (without spanking them) in a normal, wholesome way that would prevent them going to jail ...
is spanking your kids the only way to keep them out of jail ?
please explain your signature ... :confused
A wee bit confused here...how did this enter the equation?
Or is it just thread drift?:confused
sorry, i should clarify ...
'I would rather go to jail for spanking my kids, than for them to go to jail because I didn't'
this was the signature of Aussiewicker's
he/she has since hastily removed this signature
in light of Aussie's defence of Terry Wogan on a Children in Need thread while advocating violence towards children, i felt it should be pointed out.
no thread drift here my friend
Metalattakk
20-Nov-10, 05:51
A wee bit confused here...how did this enter the equation?
Or is it just thread drift?:confused
I suspect it's the alcomoh...er..the alcohom...ach, it's the drink!
Terry Wogan is a broadcasting legend though. His stint hosting "Buzzcocks" last weekend was priceless. :lol:
Aussiewicker
20-Nov-10, 08:57
sorry, i should clarify ...
'I would rather go to jail for spanking my kids, than for them to go to jail because I didn't'
this was the signature of Aussiewicker's
he/she has since hastily removed this signature
in light of Aussie's defence of Terry Wogan on a Children in Need thread while advocating violence towards children, i felt it should be pointed out.
no thread drift here my friend
I think you'll find that I have not removed my signature at all. What gave you that idea?
I do not, and neither does my signature, advocate violence to kids.
Maybe you should stick to the original matter of your thread; That being Sir Terry Wogan having taken payment for his support of Children in Need.
Too many people on this forum taking threads off course, but not normally the instigator of the
thread: Strange behaviour.
Walter Ego
20-Nov-10, 09:11
Someones been paid for promoting a charity?
I'm aghast.
Whatever next. We'll probably be told that the people who build the sets are paid wages.
TW may have been paid £10,000 in the early days but there are reports that last year he took in the region of £375,000 - hardly selfless!
Aussiewicker
20-Nov-10, 10:29
nearly spat out my wine watching Children in Need as Sir Terry Wogan ........... have we forgotten that up until 2007 he was being paid up to £10000 for this selfless act (a nights work) of raising money for needy children.
at the time he was on almost 1 million a year from radio 2, but still claimed his pound of flesh from Children in Need and only stopped when his greed was exposed in 2007.
Note: Terry Wogan has been paid, since 1980, for his Children in Need promotion by the BBC, and not from any charity monies. There is no 'dipping into the till here'. Whether he should donate his time and efforts payment-free is another matter, but Natcho implies that he is taking the payment from the charity, and this is incorrect.
annemarie482
20-Nov-10, 10:55
this is an extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Wogan
about his children in need work.
Children in Need
Wogan first appeared for Children in Need in 1978 during a five-minute appeal on Christmas Day, and repeated this in 1979. In 1980, the appeal was first broadcast as a telethon with Wogan presenting alongside Sue Lawley and Esther Rantzen.[19] Wogan has been the presenter of this annual event ever since.[20]
He has campaigned extensively for the charity and often involves himself via auctions on his radio show, or more directly by taking part in well-publicised sponsored activities. The BBC Children In Need 2006 programme trailer featured Wogan in a wrestling ring, supported by various television personalities. His opponent (Ken Bruce) appeared confident in defeating him, until Terry removes his shirt to reveal the physique of a bodybuilder. He has since joked on his BBC Radio 2 programme that the media had got it wrong, and that his body was superimposed on somebody else's head.
He is reported to be the only celebrity paid for his participation in Children in Need, having received a fee every year since 1980 (£9,065 in 2005). Wogan, however, has stated that he would "quite happily do it for nothing" and that he "never asked for a fee". The BBC stated that the fee had "never been negotiated". Wogan's fee has been paid from BBC resources and not from the Children in Need charity fund.[21] There is no record, however, of Wogan ever having repaid his fee from previous years.
billmoseley
20-Nov-10, 10:55
yes maybe he was wrong to take a cut of the money but then look at the good it does and also the amount of fun people have each year raising money. i bet most people on here smiled at least once yesterday at the antics people got up to
annemarie482
20-Nov-10, 11:01
i know i sure did billmoseley :D
I was going to reply to this but it's got rather heated so I won't bother as I can't stand TW/Tel anyway and I agree he's no need to accept the money he could have donated it as an example if nothing else, so no comment from me then ok!!! :confused.
changilass
21-Nov-10, 03:28
Devils advocate:
How do you know that he didn't donate his fee, but kept his annonimity?
He may well have donated it anonymously but we will never know. What amazes me about the whole Children in Need thing is the amount of cash that is pledged by individuals. Some people can bid absolutely huge sums for something like dinner with a celebrity. I really don't know how they can afford to splash sums in excess of £50,000. There must be a lot of disposable cash flying about out there.
It may surprise you to know that 6 figure salaries in many places and areas of endeavour are the norm. And that these types of peeps routinely spend the minimum wage every week on toiletries :lol:
Someones been paid for promoting a charity?
I'm aghast.
Whatever next. We'll probably be told that the people who build the sets are paid wages.
There is a "slight" difference between Terry Wogan, who earns a seven figure salary annually, taking a £10 000.00 cut per year for a night of presentation of a cherished charity (and then patting himself on the back for doing so) and the set builders who will be on an ordinary five figure salary. I would have to agree with Nacho on this one: patting yourself on the back for helping a charity when you are being well paid for it is in very bad taste!
An interesting related statistic: those who can least afford it are those that most contribuit to charities. I used to help at unicef annual christmas fundraising in Portugal. We used to have a briefing before the fundraising. They had a statistic that I will never forget: people who contribuited to charities and were on a minimum type wages would give on average 3% of earnings. If earning above 4 minimum wages the contribuition tended on average to be less than 0.05%. And this was easily verifiable in situ by ladies ladened with expensive shopping bags scurrying to cross the road to avoid being asked to give a coin to unicef.
Apparently the appearance fee is for the syrup, Sir Tel comes fer free.
It may surprise you to know that 6 figure salaries in many places and areas of endeavour are the norm. And that these types of peeps routinely spend the minimum wage every week on toiletries :lol:
It would make you sick wouldn't it? Still I wouldn't turn it down if someone paid me that obscene amount of money. I wouldn't spend it on toiletries though - or dining with a celebrity :lol:
Walter Ego
22-Nov-10, 09:08
It would make you sick wouldn't it? Still I wouldn't turn it down if someone paid me that obscene amount of money. I wouldn't spend it on toiletries though - or dining with a celebrity :lol:
What's obscene about earning a good amount of money?
Just out of interest, Hobbit (and welcome to the forum:D) where would you say the cutoff point is between reasonable money and obscene money?
Aussiewicker
22-Nov-10, 10:40
What's obscene about earning a good amount of money?
Just out of interest, Hobbit (and welcome to the forum:D) where would you say the cutoff point is between reasonable money and obscene money?
It sounds like 'reasonable money' is money you earn yourself whereas 'obscene money' is money that someone else earns...... ;-)
Am I right?
Walter Ego
23-Nov-10, 09:19
It sounds like 'reasonable money' is money you earn yourself whereas 'obscene money' is money that someone else earns...... ;-)
Am I right?
Bang on.:Razz
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.