selfies

Yes, I think it does, Soutra

Dragonfly said it does. Don't go on facebook myself.

It does soutra and tonight they've announced that the selfie campaign has raised over two million pounds. Which is amazing.

I know it does - which is why I fundraised for them when DH had Lymphoma. Does the money raised by these "selfies" go to Cancer Research then?

Cancer Research UK covers all cancers.

You've said it all - especially thatbags and rosesarered so I don't need to add my own reservations about the inherent narcissism of this campaign. At the risk of alienating breast cancer sufferers and survivors, however, I hope all cancer charities stand to benefit as there are many dare I say less high profile cancers (bowel, pancreatic, lymphoma to name just 3 close to my heart) which do not attract the same publicity and even sympathy . I would rather donate to Cancer Research- either sponsoring participants in the Race for Life, or even doing it myself as I did the year DH was diagnosed with Lymphoma, raising over £1000 from incredulous supportive family and friends.This latest campaign is clever marketing and I am not knocking fundraising or the supporters of cancer charities, but rather like wearing a pink ribbon to "raise awareness" I don't basically get it.

Because people are stupid penguin that's why! Just think, all these stupid people are voters..... makes ya think huh?

Why on earth would you cover your face and hair in Sellotape? Stupid and painful.

CRUK have announced over 2 million pounds have been raised as a result of the selfie campaign, so I say brilliant. That's 2 million quid they probably wouldn't have had otherwise.

This is just so stupid, not to mention dangerous.

Not for any cause, according to this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2585163/Sellotape-Selfies-Sellofies-viral-Now-people-wrapping-faces-clear-tape-resemble-grotesque-ogres.html

I am a bit concerned. On FB men have started to wrap their faces up with cellotape and then take selfies - for the same cause apparently. This could be dangerous particularly if children pick up with the same idea.

I can see the logic in that women who wear lots of makeup normally may feel 'defenceless' without it ie vulnerable. But I think makeup should be totally banned in school, and it is sad that young girls feel pressurised into wearing it.

I read somewhere that the selfie social media campaign was initiated by a member of the public and not by the cancer charity who were surprised by the big jump in donations.

It was said lightheartedly, Lady Jings.

Yes, the pud's in t'oven.

You don't need to be "downtrodden and beaten"! Stop piling it on Lady!

I think there just needs to be more funds finn.

I agree with you on the 'tone' of opportunistic marketing ploys, B. I don't particularly like it either. However, the rise in social media and how it is used is raising awareness. I think there can be no doubt about that. I suppose it amounts to providing more choice in how funds are raised.

Is more choice needed, I wonder?

Now I need to shove a savoury bread pudding in the oven.

People are free to post their makeupless selfies if they want to. Equally, I'm free to voice my objections about the campaign.

mere should be in inverted commas to denote sarcasm

jings, it's a mere matter of principle with me. Let's pass on my objections to this particular selfie thing; count me as downtrodden and beaten on that argument. And the wrong I perceive is not such a big wrong perhaps.

The principle remains: the end (whatever it happens to be, even a good end/goal) does not always justify the means is what I'm saying. If the means of achieving something good are wrong, then we should not use those means. It's a perfectly good principle to start from and to work with. That is all I'm doing.

There is something wrong with the school, if all the thirteen year olds are wearing makeup.

(Is she really thirteen already. Time flies)

Agreed, Bags, but sometimes we're all so busy and wrapped up in our own lives that a gentle poke in the wallet doesn't come amiss. Thinking of children in need, comic relief, sports relief - they would never raise the funds they do without a high profile campaign. I know a lot of people make regular donations to their chosen charities anyway - this is just a chance to do a bit of profile-raising, isn't it?

Why bother? How can raising money for cancer research be anything but good? It is most likely just a passing idea that someone had and ran with, without giving it much thought. And it's doing very well.

Simple as that.

I criticise it because I have a thirteen year old daughter who doesn't feel she can go to school without make-up. That's crazy and the tone of this campaign only makes that kind of pressure on young girls and women worse than it already is.