More grumpy stuff...

[Diane CBPFC]

If Elton John spends 2 grand a week on flowers for his house, and World Vision will let you sponsor a child (which, according to the organisation, makes a real difference to the children in question) for £20 a month, then Reg could buy some artificial plants and improve the lives of 400 children with that money. I remember thinking much the same with the whole Madonna scenario. If these stars are so intent on making children's lives better, then why dont they plough some of their vast fortune into materials for schools and hospitals, sponsor staff to build and run them and benefit more than the one child that they want to take home and lavish millions on?
If they did all that and then asked if they could adopt one of the kids, then people may not see it as being quite so much like child purchasing.

But then the florist's children will starve!

Rich people are rich because they keep their money - it is usually the working class that helps poor people. We have been world vision sponsors for over 20 years - it is my favourite charity because it works in a community for about 15 years setting up services and training before moving on leaving independant people.

[Mince]

I think the arrogance comes from people who think "god, what could the UKRAINE offer this child?" as though life under the patronage of a rich pop star has to be a better option than an Eastern European slough of despond.

Which people are you talking about?

...but I do care that he's world-travelling pop star with little or no time to devote to one of the most important jobs on the planet - being a parent.

Well, that applies to anyone raising children who has a job.

Yes, I do agree that adopting kids seems to be a fad amongst the less grounded celebrities.

I love the use of words here: "fad", "less grounded". Do any of these words have any bearing on reality?

I'd prefer that they established orphanages with their money and used their conncetions and wealth to make sure they were kept funded.

If you wanted to adopt a kid, would you instead do that with your money?

Celebrities may say "hey, it's OUR money..." and of course it is, but they shouldn't cry foul when nations say "hey. they're OUR kids..."

Well, actually, the nation said he could not adopt because of his age and marital status.

[Vulture]

I'd prefer that they established orphanages with their money and used their conncetions and wealth to make sure they were kept funded.

a) This statement takes me back to the old addage: if ALL the wealth was shared equally between ALL the world, everyone would get 1/6d each (I heard [or mis-heard it] a long time ago).

b) A lot of the money would probably be used for 'kick-backs' and the children would get very little.

c) In Elton John's case, his connection and wealth wasn't enough for him to be able to adopt the child.

d) Surely it's Elton's money to do as he wishes? I bet the child in question wouldn't quibble!

[Malc]

Which people are you talking about?

You know, people...

[robbie62]

the question is why after all these years he decides that his life is empty without a child,or if he always wanted one why did he not try with his wife..  by his own admission he can be difficult to live with, so do they give him a child so he can copy his mates maj and brad or leave the kid alone so he can have some sort of normal life instead of some circus that he would have to put up with .
look at michael jackson's "children" look at the life they have had .i would'nt wish it on anyone
buy a puppy elt

[Roger Kettle]

Well said, Rob. Sort of.