RiffRaff Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 So is your ire aimed at those who've questioned Branson's motivations for providing financial assistance, or at those who've criticised the McCanns for, apparently, accepting it? Yes, and yes again. To me, it doesn't matter what RB's 'motivations' are - he certainly doesn't need the publicity, and whether you like/loathe him, his actions should be seen as an extremely generous gesture. Lucky old him, he's in the financial position to be able to do so - I suspect that most of the posters who've 'condemned' him for the action are probably suffering from the green-eyed god of envy.... As regards the family's 'acceptance', why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e5c4p3 Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Maybe we should lighten the mood on this thread and debate who'd play the McCanns in the inevitable Hollywood film? I'd go for Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise (standing on a box). I don't know if they've ever been in a film together but you never know - they might really hit it off! Jimmy Krankie to play Gerry. The voices are identical. That would be fan-dabi-do-zee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Maybe we should lighten the mood on this thread and debate who'd play the McCanns in the inevitable Hollywood film? I'd go for Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise (standing on a box). I don't know if they've ever been in a film together but you never know - they might really hit it off! Doesn't that Huntley chap act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticusFinch Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 And a sensible article in the Obsever yesterday... http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2170338,00.html The article itself wasn't bad but it's spoiled by the inane title. "Maddy" is a tabloid creation to try and personalise the story in a mawkish and tacky way. Broadsheets like the Observer should be above such tat, leaving it instead to the dumbed down red tops. I was that annoyed when I saw this in yesterday's Observer that I was toying with the idea of sending an email to the editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Yes, and yes again. To me, it doesn't matter what RB's 'motivations' are - he certainly doesn't need the publicity, and whether you like/loathe him, his actions should be seen as an extremely generous gesture. Lucky old him, he's in the financial position to be able to do so - I suspect that most of the posters who've 'condemned' him for the action are probably suffering from the green-eyed god of envy.... As regards the family's 'acceptance', why not? I'm staggered by both your naivety and the crassness of the suggestion, particularly in the context of this thread, that any posts could be motivated by envy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiffRaff Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 I'm staggered by both your naivety and the crassness of the suggestion, particularly in the context of this thread, that any posts could be motivated by envy. Crass? Naive? How so? OK, then - How would you explain why so many folk have got a downer on RB's involvement? I think it's a marvellous gesture by him, and hope that it spurs on many a well-heeled person to contribute similarly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Crass? Naive? How so? OK, then - How would you explain why so many folk have got a downer on RB's involvement? I think it's a marvellous gesture by him, and hope that it spurs on many a well-heeled person to contribute similarly... Branson is a businessman, probably one of the most publicity-hungry, high profile in the country (as his personal appearance in many publicity stunts for his various products will attest). All publicity is good publicity, and the donation of £100,000 is minor compared to the purchase of equivalent advertising air time. Additionally, his media spokeswoman announced the donation almost before it had been made. If the gesture was entirely benevolent, could he not have made it anonymously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Crass? Naive? How so? OK, then - How would you explain why so many folk have got a downer on RB's involvement? I think it's a marvellous gesture by him, and hope that it spurs on many a well-heeled person to contribute similarly... The problem with Richard Bransons gesture is that by doing so it sends a clear message out that he thinks the Portugusese police have got it totally wrong. Now I can understand family or close friends jumping to the Mccanns defence, and even stumping up the cash for their legal fees, but Richard Branson as far as I know is not a close family friend, in fact I'm not sure he's even talked to the Mccanns directly, so he only knows the Mccanns for 4 months via the media, in other words he doesn't know the Mccanns at all. If Branson is therefore so generous with giving strangers money for legal fees, then what about other people that find themselves needing legal help? Will Branson now give generously to everybody in the land that need legal help, especially those that may not be guilty of the crimes they are accused of? What marks out the Mccanns as a special case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiffRaff Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Branson is a businessman, probably one of the most publicity-hungry, high profile in the country (as his personal appearance in many publicity stunts for his various products will attest). All publicity is good publicity, and the donation of £100,000 is minor compared to the purchase of equivalent advertising air time. Additionally, his media spokeswoman announced the donation almost before it had been made. If the gesture was entirely benevolent, could he not have made it anonymously? And that's the basis of your objection, is it? That his donation should've remained anonymous?? Does that really make one iota of difference? No. Not a jot. Presumably if you'd also been in the fortunate position of being able to donate an equal amount, you'd have not told a soul, then.... Good on you, if so. You have my undying admiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasilRathbon Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 I'm just glad that Richard Branston has given his spare £100K to a desperately worthy cause. Better the Mccanns get it than some organisation funding cancer research or helping animals.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.