David Walliams Knighthood?

DF33

AAh the luvvies and celebs know no bounds.

And now Sophie Dahl launches an appeal for £500k to shift her grandfathers wankpad to a museum.

Ok, it is where he wrote the classics.

But.....She and her hubby Net £11.5 million a year between them. And they can't pay for it apparently.

So we are all being asked to on reduced time and redundancies and whilst giving to Mr Walliams good causes.

You couldn't write it.
Give her a gong quickly for brilliant fiction......or indeed fact!

CrackFox

There are always going to be celebrities. Save your cynicism for those that do nothing positive with their fame, it's not as if they're in short supply.

As for knighthoods, I don't see the point. Most modern 'knights' wouldn't know a hauberk from a haddock. They should be required to joust for charity at least once a year and aid in the defense of the realm.

Pudseyp

He's a cockjangler...end of thred

mouth

A mate of mine is doing LEJOG in 5 days next year. Bet he doesn't get to change his credit card to 'Sir'. Ordinary people (not celebrities or tv folk or people who want to be famous) do stuff like this every day, just without the cameras and fail to get recognition for it. Eg 11 cyclists from Nottingham Uni did LEJOG and made almost 200k a couple of weeks ago and made 4th page of local paper. Crap. Utter horse crap.

I have to say I lost faith in the Merit system when Beckham got himself a rosette, but Walliams? That'd be the final nail for me.

mroli

@mouth - to be fair, they did well to get on page 4.

I think moaning at Walliams is kind of missing the point a bit - Walliams is doing an event that a charity (Sport Relief) would have publicised and hyped because the trade off is that other people will do stuff for them.

I think the fact that other people do stuff for charity is fantastic and the fact that it isn't in the papers is because they don't have a "story" to tell (ie a celeb that people identify with (for better or worse)).

There are great charities out there - someone mentioned seb4chuf earlier and I have had communication with these guys and they do great work. It is perhaps worth noting that they get a lot more media interest when one of their celeb friends gets involved. Its just the way of the world. We live in a celeb obsessed culture and just because we/you don't buy into it doesn't mean the media/vast tranches of the population don't either.

Some celebs do a lot of charity work - some of it is public eye and some of it is very much "under the radar" - personally I think any story where something "good" is recounted is better than a tedious tabloid tittle tattle story about some England rugby player having a drink and talking to a blonde.

In relation to the honours system - there was a real move a few years ago to honour "ordinary" people who did "extraordinary" things. I don't know how succesful it has been.

El Gordo

You know, you don't actually HAVE to give Walliams any money if you don't want to.

I'm mighty impressed by his swim but have no intention of handing over any money to his cause. I give money to charities of my choosing every month and don't need some bloke in a wetsuit to motivate me to do so.

I also don't begrudge him the money he earns. If he can make millions telling bad jokes then good for him. Your salary isn't a measure of how hard you work, it's determined by how much your employers value what you do. I don't work particularly hard for what I earn and I dare say the guy who empties my bin works a lot harder for a lot less but that's life, we all make our own choices.

So, am I impressed? Yes. Has he gone up in my estimation? Yes. Do I think he's a good comedian? No. Does he deserve a knighthood? No.

inkyfingers

I should add that for charities celebrity involvement it like gold dust. I helped my mum out with a small local charity that she is involved in a few years ago. They were really struggling to raise money until she managed to get the late Norman Wisdom to agree to be their patron - cue lots of local press coverage of their fundraising events and lots of donations. Norman Wisdom didn't have to do much, just show up and have his picture taken etc etc (he must have been 90 odd by then) but the effect was huge and everyone gained.

bianchimoon

fast as fupp wrote:

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Yes he has raised a stack of money but I can't stand the bloke. Hope he has the squits from one of my morning dumps.

i'm simply amazed that you dirty souths have to go for a shite in your river!

bianchimoon

fast as fupp wrote:

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Yes he has raised a stack of money but I can't stand the bloke. Hope he has the squits from one of my morning dumps.

i'm simply amazed that you dirty souths have to go for a shite in your river!

giant_man

Give him a gong for what? swimming?

Can't be for services to comedy surely ....

MrSpeedy

DF33 wrote:

bornagainbiker wrote:

How many of the whingers here have attempted more than 10 lengths of the local pool before giving up?!

Quite right Sir. Haven't swam in a p1ssy cess pit of a local swimming pool for years. So I forfeit my right to an opinion on this subject.

Mind you, last Sunday I swam in Easdale Tarn in the Lake District. Bloody freezing it was. Did an hours wild swim without canoe support or cameras.

Pity that doesn't count.

You don't consider an hours outdoor swim to be more than 10 lengths of the local pool??

There's always a billy big boll*cks on the internet who's done more than the celeb (Izzard, Walliams etc..) and without cameras but if their event inspires some fat bodies to get off the sofa I don't see the harm. Good luck to them.

mouth

in all fairness it is a remarkable achievement, swimming in other peoples unwanted. for 150 miles. not worth a knighthood though.

PedalPedant

verylonglegs wrote:

I try not to comment on worthiness of events after I got a load of grief for suggesting to a girl at work who, in her mid-twenties, was walking the 5km for Race for Life and asking for sponsorship, that she should at least run a bit of it as my 66yr old mother walks further than that with the dog every day. Didn't go down well...apparently I was missing the point!

I had to bite my tongue when I was asked to sponsor someone to do the Sport Relief Mile last year. I mean really, a mile!?

It was only later that it occurred to me to offer a pound for every minute they did it *under* 15. That way if they really went for it they could have had a tenner off me

PP

MattC59

nadir wrote:

i get kinda irritated by all these media charity luvvies, yeah they raise money for charity, but they also raise their own profile and many a media career has been, if not founded upon, then maintained by their constant exposure to us as wonderful geezers, the ooh look what they are doing to raise money for the less privilledged factor. so that keeps their profile high in the public eye and makes them hotter property with the other luvvies who are commissioning the next tv series, record deal, papparazzi or whatever.
i ultimately regard them as doing nothing more than touting for new business (for themselves) and more lucrative contracts.
i also find it fairly nauseating that groups of multi millionaire media luvvies are going around demanding that much less well off people sponsor them for charitable acts. i mean if you look at the total wealth of all those who played in live aid 9for example), they could probably have raised more than the public gave, if individually they had all just donated a couple of per cent of their wealth to the charitable cause they were performing for, and they could have spared the rest of us from having to listen to their sanctimonious drivel, and spent more time with their accountants devising ever greater and more astonishing tax avoiding wheezes, ala bono.

Tell you what, why don't you swim 140miles through the sewage polluted Thames then ?? There are far easier ways to raise your profile than that !

FFS :roll:

Frank the tank

nadir wrote:

i get kinda irritated by all these media charity luvvies, yeah they raise money for charity, but they also raise their own profile and many a media career has been, if not founded upon, then maintained by their constant exposure to us as wonderful geezers, the ooh look what they are doing to raise money for the less privilledged factor. so that keeps their profile high in the public eye and makes them hotter property with the other luvvies who are commissioning the next tv series, record deal, papparazzi or whatever.
i ultimately regard them as doing nothing more than touting for new business (for themselves) and more lucrative contracts.
i also find it fairly nauseating that groups of multi millionaire media luvvies are going around demanding that much less well off people sponsor them for charitable acts. i mean if you look at the total wealth of all those who played in live aid 9for example), they could probably have raised more than the public gave, if individually they had all just donated a couple of per cent of their wealth to the charitable cause they were performing for, and they could have spared the rest of us from having to listen to their sanctimonious drivel, and spent more time with their accountants devising ever greater and more astonishing tax avoiding wheezes, ala bono.

Bang on. Not read the rest of the thread as you have it bang to rights, thanks Dave for your efforts but you won't get a 'apenny out of me as do comic relief, children in need, sport aid or whatever.

jawooga

dilemna wrote:

I wonder what Matt Lucas got up to after Walliams dived in ............

El Gordo wrote:

So, am I impressed? Yes. Has he gone up in my estimation? Yes. Do I think he's a good comedian? No. Does he deserve a knighthood? No.

Cheers lads, I needed those laughs.