Thread: Crazy John....dies age 42

Originally Posted by Greylandy

If people only give for the sake of getting noticed, rewarded, tax breaks .. they should not bother!

I bet the charities don't see it that way! Especially when it is large sums of money. Surely they are better off with the donations than without them.

I agree, BAD news gets more coverage but donating to a charity should be done under the radar. If people only give for the sake of getting noticed, rewarded, tax breaks .. they should not bother!

What a negative comment, firstly if you noted in NM's post

which is why being busted for drugs gets mentioned but donating a cool million to allergy research does not

. I also have heard the same sort of comment when Bill Gates was donating millions upon millions to some charity/ medical cause. They were also using Microsoft and there was an underlying attitude that the $$$ should be given with/ without the requirement for using MS products. As BigJon posted

I bet the charities don't see it that way! Especially when it is large sums of money. Surely they are better off with the donations than without them.

Anyhow the main reason for the post was a) someone at age 42 dies of a heart attack, I'm 39 and just quit the smokes, it makes me think.Then b) just the difference between a well known footballer ( not to everyone) dies of suspected drug OD, the forums light up. A well known ( again not to everyone) business man and philanthropist dies of a sudden heart attack and zip, bar on the news. Just thought interesting,

Regards

Stevo

P.S Hope that is better for you Redback

Originally Posted by ak

Anyone that passes away leaving a young family behind, it's terrible regardless of them being wealthy or not.

Very true, he was capaigning not long ago to get more funding for childrens disease's , 1 of his daughters has a severe food alergy to nuts etc.

Crazy John, from what little I saw of him as his business is not represented in this region, was not a self seeking media tart.

I believe his energies went into the business.

There are many other very rich individuals who are publicity shy, and for good reason.

Footballers and the like are in the public gaze, due to their career. People follow 'football' and as a consequence, follow players and are interested in them, for whatever reason. Some players don't overly help themselves either, by seeking 'publicity'.

There are many magazines with vast circulations that pander to an eager, awaiting readership.

(Some) people want sensational gossip - I'm constantly asked to run gossip in the local paper I run, but I don't, which I think disappoints some readers...

GQ

Cant rubbish the footy boys coz I like cricket but ol Warney gets in enough strife he can share some among those that need a top up of there bad things to do list.
Always sad when anyone dies, successful or not, if you smoke you are really playing with fire, you can be fit as a malley bull and die jogging, or you can smoke and drink and live until you are 80 or a bus can get you anytime, you never know when the big fella wants you to join him. Sorry for Crazys family am sure he was a good bloke.

Originally Posted by stevo68

What a negative comment, firstly if you noted in NM's post . I also have heard the same sort of comment when Bill Gates was donating millions upon millions to some charity/ medical cause. They were also using Microsoft and there was an underlying attitude that the $$$ should be given with/ without the requirement for using MS products.

Anyhow the main reason for the post was a) someone at age 42 dies of a heart attack, I'm 39 and just quit the smokes, it makes me think.Then b) just the difference between a well known footballer ( not to everyone) dies of suspected drug OD, the forums light up. A well known ( again not to everyone) business man and philanthropist dies of a sudden heart attack and zip, bar on the news. Just thought interesting,

I don't see why my comment was negative. I said: "If people only give for the sake of getting noticed, rewarded, tax breaks .. they should not bother!" (Note the word in bold .. just in case you miss it again!)

Giving to charity to get free publicity or to flog your products is ... IMHO .. a business transaction and should be referred to as one. Yes, both parties benefit and I don't have a problem with that (insert Bill Gates example) but when people genuinely offer a donation in empathy of another human being or whatever cause, without expecting anyting in return there is no reason why it shouldn't be done anonymously. That is my point.

... and yes Stevo, we did get the main reason of your post ... see my first reply.

Originally Posted by Greylandy

"If people only give for the sake of getting noticed, rewarded, tax breaks .. they should not bother!" (Note the word in bold .. just in case you miss it again!)

Because what you are advocating still means the charities would miss out.

Originally Posted by BigJon

I bet the charities don't see it that way! Especially when it is large sums of money. Surely they are better off with the donations than without them.

Agree 100% Jon .. charities will not and should not reject such a donation but when a charity can offer some benefits to the large company donating millions .. is it still a charity donation or does it become a business partnership where both parties benefit?

Going back to my reply to Stevo, if giving is ONLY done to benefit oneself .. my personal view is .. you don't have a charitable heart and should not bother.