I heard on the news yesterday that the air ambulance service that flew the Hammond chap to hospital is now able to buy a new helicopter, thanks to donations recieved since Hammonds accident.
What does that say about us, that we have to wait till a celebrity is involved before we give to a worthy cause?
2006-09-25 19:30:29 · 12 answers · asked by honey lugs 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Yes basically that's exactly what it says about us, I live in Yorkshire and for years and years I have seen those guys pound the street trying to raise money for the air ambulance, some will give and others won't, Richard Hammond is seriously hurt and wham bam thank you mam another air ambulance is about to be bought, fantastic yes because they are marvellous machines that have saved many a life because they cut the travel time down dramatically, but it seems a bit sad that yet again someone famous had to be in the thick of it to make it happen.
2006-09-25 23:34:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems to be a popular thing these days if there is an accident, tragedy for disaster of any kind. People seem to have need to give money.
Your right it is ridiculous for it to take a celeb to get injured for people to donate so much money.
But it cant be a bad thing though. Just think of it as a form of advertising.
2006-09-25 19:36:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, its a bit bizarre.
I also find it strange that he went from deaths door to walking to the loo in a couple of days.
Very bad and regretable accident - yes. Exaggerated by the press because it made good news - i think so
2006-09-25 19:33:44 · answer #3 · answered by Michael H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People find it easier to give when they feel some kind of personal involvement. They relate to a face and story, not anonymous need.
2006-09-25 19:49:49 · answer #4 · answered by February Rain 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
be positive.....an incident triggered a decision.....so be happy that at least some thing good happened....this world would have ended if there would not have been an equilibrium between good and bad.
2006-09-25 19:33:51 · answer #5 · answered by uknownotlove 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-09-25 19:38:56 · answer #6 · answered by http://hogshead.pokerknave.com/ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's good they can save more poor children , but i didn't see the news
2006-09-25 19:36:51 · answer #7 · answered by spongebob 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds like it
2006-09-25 19:40:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't really want to know what you're "missing"
2006-09-25 19:34:45 · answer #9 · answered by billbowlerski 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
probably but its gona benefit everyone so whatever
2006-09-25 22:13:56 · answer #10 · answered by sleepwalker69 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋