Diane Abbott, Time To Forgive And...
News31 mins ago
Sir Terry Wogan To Receive Westminster Abbey Tribute
Confirmation, if any were needed, that Terry was indeed Showbiz Royalty?
There has been some criticism of the decision to hold his memorial service at Westminster Abbey. What do you think?
http://
There has been some criticism of the decision to hold his memorial service at Westminster Abbey. What do you think?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have a couple of issues with this news - which is nothing to do with the fact that I absolutely loathed Terry Wogan.
Point one - he was an entertainer - albeit a much loved one - he played records and talked, and was more than handsomely paid for it. He hasn't discovered a cure for cancer, he was an entertainer.
So, on that basis, are we going to clear space in the diary for when Michael Macintyre pegs it? He is the most popular comedian in the country. Or Chris Evans, whose listening figures vaporised Sir Terry’s and remain far higher than the ‘genial Irishman’ ever achieved.
People will talk about his Children In Need work – but let’s not forget, for over a decade, he was the only person on the entire production paid a fee for his time, everyone else did it for free. When he was exposed, he laughed that he ‘ … didn’t even know he received a fee, and would gladly do it for nothing …’
That indicates a man who has far too much money, that he doesn’t notice the odd nine grand (!) dropping into his account, and remember he was getting that far too much money from the licence payer. There was never any mention of him donating the ninety-plus back to CIN either, which he shamelessly trousered why production staff paid a fraction of his money worked every year for nothing.
So – apart from the fact that old twinkly-eyes was making eight figures from a publicly funded organisation, and ripping off a charity for years, we are still expected to see him as some sort of saint who deserves a ‘tribute’ in this holy place.
Like I said, he was an entertainer, not a deity, just a popular voice on the radio. So in the interests of appropriate perspective, I suggest the Songs Of Praise special he has had from his employers is quite sufficient, and he should do what all other entertainers who when they croak – be remembered fondly, and then consigned to history where they belong.
This is a step too far and offers a precedent for other ‘entertainers’ to be similarly honoured, and that demeans and dilutes the concept of a church ceremony for everyone.
Point one - he was an entertainer - albeit a much loved one - he played records and talked, and was more than handsomely paid for it. He hasn't discovered a cure for cancer, he was an entertainer.
So, on that basis, are we going to clear space in the diary for when Michael Macintyre pegs it? He is the most popular comedian in the country. Or Chris Evans, whose listening figures vaporised Sir Terry’s and remain far higher than the ‘genial Irishman’ ever achieved.
People will talk about his Children In Need work – but let’s not forget, for over a decade, he was the only person on the entire production paid a fee for his time, everyone else did it for free. When he was exposed, he laughed that he ‘ … didn’t even know he received a fee, and would gladly do it for nothing …’
That indicates a man who has far too much money, that he doesn’t notice the odd nine grand (!) dropping into his account, and remember he was getting that far too much money from the licence payer. There was never any mention of him donating the ninety-plus back to CIN either, which he shamelessly trousered why production staff paid a fraction of his money worked every year for nothing.
So – apart from the fact that old twinkly-eyes was making eight figures from a publicly funded organisation, and ripping off a charity for years, we are still expected to see him as some sort of saint who deserves a ‘tribute’ in this holy place.
Like I said, he was an entertainer, not a deity, just a popular voice on the radio. So in the interests of appropriate perspective, I suggest the Songs Of Praise special he has had from his employers is quite sufficient, and he should do what all other entertainers who when they croak – be remembered fondly, and then consigned to history where they belong.
This is a step too far and offers a precedent for other ‘entertainers’ to be similarly honoured, and that demeans and dilutes the concept of a church ceremony for everyone.
Naomi - //andy-hughes, //nothing to do with the fact that I absolutely loathed Terry Wogan. //
Nevertheless the bulk of your lengthy post is concentrated on personal criticism of ... him. //
My criticism is rooted entirely in Sir Terry's manifest unsuitability for this accolade - based on his actual career and contribution to the world, and his dodgy financial dealings with charity. These stand firm regardless of my dislike for him personally.
Nevertheless the bulk of your lengthy post is concentrated on personal criticism of ... him. //
My criticism is rooted entirely in Sir Terry's manifest unsuitability for this accolade - based on his actual career and contribution to the world, and his dodgy financial dealings with charity. These stand firm regardless of my dislike for him personally.
Baldric - //and his dodgy financial dealings with charity//
Did he actually have any dealings with charity?
As I mentioned in my post, he was paid a fee for presenting Children In Need for almost a decade, the only celebrity to receive a free for a charity event in which all other presenters and celebrities worked for nothing.
It turns out that the BBC felt honour-bound to offer him a four-figure sum from licence payers’ money, even though common sense dictates that the public would wish it to go to the charity. The BBC said it was a ‘nominal’ fee – so lord knows what else it pays him for an evening on television!
Wogan professed not to know he was being paid (!) which means either he has a dodgy accountant, or he doesn’t check his bank statements, or he simply has so much money he doesn’t notice the odd four-figure cheque dropping in once a year.
There was never any mention of him paying back the money though!
Did he actually have any dealings with charity?
As I mentioned in my post, he was paid a fee for presenting Children In Need for almost a decade, the only celebrity to receive a free for a charity event in which all other presenters and celebrities worked for nothing.
It turns out that the BBC felt honour-bound to offer him a four-figure sum from licence payers’ money, even though common sense dictates that the public would wish it to go to the charity. The BBC said it was a ‘nominal’ fee – so lord knows what else it pays him for an evening on television!
Wogan professed not to know he was being paid (!) which means either he has a dodgy accountant, or he doesn’t check his bank statements, or he simply has so much money he doesn’t notice the odd four-figure cheque dropping in once a year.
There was never any mention of him paying back the money though!
MargoTester - //Other entertainers to have a Memorial Services in the Abbey: Laurence Olivier, Richard Attenborough and Ronnie Barker. Terry Wogan, after 50 years in the business was just as deserving I feel. Your post, Andy has everything to do with your personal dislike of him. //
I don't think any of them deserved - or deserve - a memorial service in the Abbey.
And I am perfectly willing to concede that every single aspect my post is rooted in my intense personal dislike of Sir Terry Wogan - but my perspective does on alter the facts as I have stated them - they are a matter of public record.
Naomi's post asked 'What do you think?'
I have stated what I think - I can't see a problem with that.
I don't think any of them deserved - or deserve - a memorial service in the Abbey.
And I am perfectly willing to concede that every single aspect my post is rooted in my intense personal dislike of Sir Terry Wogan - but my perspective does on alter the facts as I have stated them - they are a matter of public record.
Naomi's post asked 'What do you think?'
I have stated what I think - I can't see a problem with that.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles78 mins ago
Well At Least We Can Expect Poise,...
News83 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.