If it was paid for by the taxpayers it would be regarded, rightly, as government expenditure. It would be more difficult to target, it almost certainly wouldn't reach the groups Comic Relief have decided to help and it would cause a lot of people to feel snarky because they wouldn't have a choice about whether or not to contribute. This way, whether or not you like the comedy and the antics, each of us has a clear choice about whether or not to dip into our pockets and for how much if we do. And if you don't like the comedy on television or radio, for heaven's sake do what you would do normally and control the "off" buttons. There are other channels, after all.

As to the celebs - I very much doubt whether they take any pay for visiting the various places and spending time with the various projects, which means that quite apart from any monies they might contribute they're certainly giving their (expensive)time to help. The locations aren't exactly glamorous and you can see that the presenters go through an emotional wringer. Quite apart from Comic Relief, a lot of celebs do a huge amount of work for charities and it very rarely gets any attention because they very properly don't publicise it. But if you were to hear that Lenny Henry or Ricky Gervais or any of the others had contributed shedloads of money does that mean you WOULD contribute?

By all means choose not to give any of your money if you don't think it's worthwhile. But I'm not sure that means you're entitled to knock those people who are trying to raise funds or those who are wanting to contribute.

One day every two years ...is that too much of a strain on your smile muscles?

Anne