David Lammy/Stacey Dooley

Brilliant Anja

He is a racist. If they are equal, they don’t need our help. They do, so they are not equal. It has nothing whatsoever to do with colour.

People will not donate if they see ordinary people (black or white) going about their everyday business being filmed. Rightly or wrongly, people look up to celebrities, which gets their attention, which gets their money.

Whether they are flown out there and fed by the charity is irrelevant, bottom line is, it makes more money for the charity in the long run.

We will only have won the war on racism when people stop noticing the colour of skin.

Dredging up what went on hundreds of years ago serves no purpose. It cannot be undone. Unless of course, you are out for revenge and payback. Two wrongs won’t make a right.

And Joelsnan has hit the nail on the head with her comments this has gone back over centuries in difference places, involving different races. How far do you go back with your resentment.

David Lammy should be ashamed he has attacked Stacey Dooley in this way as people will resent it and stop giving.

Lenny Henry has been involved in Comic Relief since the beginning. Never has anyone said all involved must be white so they would look like saviours with the upper hand.

It’s a dilemma re African leaders spending money on lavish lifestyles and wars when their people starve though. Would withdrawing aid solve that. Not without bloodshed and famine. All you can hope for is that education, good health, and examples of kindness will filter through to the people and evil dictators become a thing of the past. Through diplomacy if possible.

People are already resentful of foreign aid/charity abroad when we’ve been through a period of austerity here, necessitating food banks, cuts in disablement services, homelessness. If David Lammy cares about ‘his people’ then he’s let them down with his haughty, resentful pride. He is well fed, not thirsty, educated and clothed. But he may well have seen to it that ‘his people’ now won’t be.

The problem with the Lammy situation is the discussion moves away from the good intention behind Comic Relief to discuss racism and the various views that surround racism .

Lammy is a politician who often raises ' colour ' as an issue and I have found myself come to find him less likeable over time having listened to him on several occasions being interviewed on TV and in Parliament. He can make some good points on one hand then spins into the colonial, white man , discrimination attack and I for one switch off. It's a pity because he has a platform to bring people together but he has caused the opposite when he raises subjects such as he has over Comic Relief .

I think Lammy and those who feel seeing a white person holding a black child is somehow harking back to colonialism and using terms such as ' White Benefactor.' the ' White Saviour ' are creating an issue with the pure intention of being controversial. They of course will hold a different opinion.

I agree with the poster who said ' he saw a white woman holding a black child ' . If a person had a problem with a black person holding a white child I would call it racist so I do not shy away from thinking there is an element of that being the case.

What would those who challenge a white person holding a black child find acceptable?

Should a white person simply not go anywhere near a black person? That would beg a question should a black person go nowhere near a white person? Of course not that would be absolutely stupid but that is what is more or less being stated when a respected journalist who happens to be white is holding a black child and it is deemed as ' not appropriate ' and no matter what reason is given that is the issue.

So he said no! All mouth and backside.

Surely anything that gets money where it is most needed can only be a good thing. A woman holding a child? So what- no matter the 'colour'of either.
I don't watch Comic Relief or Children in Need anymore as I find it all boring stuff they have done before but I do donate.
I would like to think this man is intending to do something himself to raise money for these good causes but I somehow doubt it- he got his name in the paper without putting his hand in his pocket.

We might give to food banks in the UK but we don’t expect to have our photos taken with deprived children who receive the food. Lammy is right it’s an old fashioned image and we should think about the message that it sends. Lammy says he did respond to Comic Reliefs invitation- he said no.

I can loosely understand the point he was making. I wouldn't want to question any one individual's commitment. I've only just become aware of Stacey Dooley so certainly don't want to make a judgement on her. I do think I get the point on DL's perception about the photoshoot, "the white saviour" holding the black child yet again, that type of image is constantly regurgitated.

I think it's important to listen to the African voice on aid, I did read an article a while back to suggest there was a thriving cottage industry repairing mosquito nets and that collapsed when consignments where shipped in.

I've also read how China have now become the new, well maybe I shouldn't say imperialist power in Africa, but they aren't there for philanthropic purposes. The other thing I'm wondering about is trading tariffs imposed on African exports like other developing countries I'm sure what most African countries want is to be in charge of their own destiny without foreign interference. Although to state the obvious that is hampered by so many countries in that continent living under despotic dictatorships. Like all despots those leaders live high on the hog whilst the general population experience great hardship. Hence the need for foreign aid.

DH and I discussing this last night. The aim of Children in Need is to raise as much money as possible, at which it is very successful. Therefore it is aimed in a way to appeal to as many people as possible. Unfortunately I think we have become pretty immune to seeing just films of people suffering in poor or deprived areas. Watching an hour long tv programme last night I lost count of the amount of charity adverts shown in the intervals, several of which were appealing for help for refugees/starving or sick children/clean water. Over the space of a week we are saturated with them. They are undoubtedly good causes, but they just don't raise the same response from most of us that a once a year programme like Children in Need does.

Well Anniebach personally I couldn't give two hoots about celebrities and if I was going to donate, I would do so whoever fronted the film. However, there are some that are impressed by celebrity and I think it does encourage them to give.

David Lammy is not racist. What nonsense!

Didn't 'stand up to cancer' feature celebs getting their kit off last year? (Breast cancer)
I don't know, because I chose not to watch it.
Quite simple.

The celebs who go out there to persuade us to give our money are only the top layer of the whole picture. The real work goes on without them being involved at all.

GabriellaG54
I agree.

Unfortunately I have not got time to read 5 pages of comments, so somebody might have mentioned Princess Diana and the pictures of her holding black children and AIDS people. David Lammy is a racist, unfortunately, I wonder what he would have said about her?

I do find all these so called celebrities getting on the aid bandwagon hard to stomach sometimes BUT while the end result is a huge amount of money raised for good causes then where is the problem?

Might be an idea to read this www.comicrelief.com/what-we-do/children-survive-and-thrive

How things change – when she was on Strictly Come Dancing, Stacey Dooley was being lauded for all her incredible documentary work, now she is being vilified. SO unfair.

Can we remember that Sir Lenworth George Henry CBE, (aka comedian Lenny Henry) was a co-founding the charity Comic Relief.

I question exactly how much of the money raised goes directly to the target and how much on all the fuss surrounding the events and corruption in the countries which are supposed to benefit.

Like any dependency or habit, you have to withdraw help incrementally to allow the person or country to stand on their own two feet.
Like nurturing a child into adulthood, supporting an addict to kick their habit, giving countries the tools and know-how to take care of themselves.
It's ok to lend a crutch for a while but don't leave it in place long enough for it to be taken for granted, long enough for the person or country to become dependent on it and resent it's removal.
A bit like AC expecting parental help long into their adult years.
It's never a good idea.
Almost everyone (yes, even on GN) cites the black African child as dreaming of being a doctor or teacher or farmer, wheras there are many many less specialised occupations needed to build a community.
IMO, we in the West have been giving to India and Africa for decades and their situations have barely changed. Still a huge divide between the have and have-nots.
African countries are like sponges, soaking everything up and leaking it away just as fast.
Corruption is rife.
Come back in 20/30/40 years and it will be the same story. That, I can virtually guarantee.

Hope he doesn’t meet Bob Geldof ?

does. not dies!

And so long as the money gets raised, and the people get the help, dies it really matter?

I'm really torn on this one. I can see his point. Maybe they could find a better way to raise the money, perhaps by using successful Africans across the continent to show what they are doing themselves and how they need help to continue with their work.

But it wouldn't raise so much money. The Brits do love their celebs.

I wouldn't care who gave me aid if I lived in the circumstances some do.
If a black, white, brown, or sky blue pink person contributed to food and medicine reaching those who needed it.

GabriellaG54
So, white people should turn their back on deprived African areas becaused other privaledged Africans dont like white people holding or being shown amongst black children. Skin colour should be irrelevant.

I agree with you GrannyGravy13...he did come across that way. Has nobody thought that perhaps the use of 'celebrities' is what draws people in to these programmes, perhaps followed by their contribution that they might not otherwise have bothered with? Sounds shallow I know, but does that matter as long as the money comes in?