|
Post by Phil Occifer™ on Nov 2, 2009 20:47:59 GMT
Please Sir, can my name go in the hat/pot/commode for the next chance to meet Kylie? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Den Tistry on Nov 2, 2009 21:25:40 GMT
I heard Kylie had put her name in the pot for the chance to meet you!
|
|
|
Post by dora on Nov 2, 2009 21:55:18 GMT
I heard Kylie had put her name in the pot for the chance to meet you! She should be so lucky....lucky, lucky, lucky! Boom boom! ;D
|
|
|
Post by lolliepop on Nov 3, 2009 6:58:17 GMT
First may I say yes I was once asked if I would like to go to the lunch but because of my husbands ill health I was unable to attend but surely that doesn't mean after one refusal there is no chance of getting another one. And as regards 'snide remarks' your words not mine I was just asking a sensible question not goaded by anyone else. It seems to me there are a lot of people who are true TOGs who do a lot for CIN and never blow their own trumpets about it and therefore it would have been nice as this will be the last one of the lunches with STW being in charge of the morning show if a draw could have been done of all loyal TOGs. It seems to me that no one is allowed to make a sensible suggestion with out being shouted down by certain people. Where has the friendship of the TOGs gone? Such a shame that freesom of speech does not apply here.
|
|
|
Post by Payne N Diaz on Nov 3, 2009 7:56:42 GMT
Please Sir, can my name go in the hat/pot/commode for the next chance to meet Kylie? ;D As opposed to getting your head stuck in the pot ...
|
|
|
Post by hellenbach on Nov 3, 2009 7:56:51 GMT
First may I say yes I was once asked if I would like to go to the lunch but because of my husbands ill health I was unable to attend but surely that doesn't mean after one refusal there is no chance of getting another one. And as regards 'snide remarks' your words not mine I was just asking a sensible question not goaded by anyone else. It seems to me there are a lot of people who are true TOGs who do a lot for CIN and never blow their own trumpets about it and therefore it would have been nice as this will be the last one of the lunches with STW being in charge of the morning show if a draw could have been done of all loyal TOGs. It seems to me that no one is allowed to make a sensible suggestion with out being shouted down by certain people. Where has the friendship of the TOGs gone? Such a shame that freesom of speech does not apply here. As pointed out by Norman, this charity lunch was organised by me with the blessing of Sir Terry. I chose people to go, and it is nothing to do with who has worked hard to raise money for BBC Children in Need. You are right hundreds of thousands of people raise money for Children in Need and never get recognition for their good work, but then they do it for the right reasons. I am not going to carry on with this discussion on here, if you have a problem please feel free to contact me privately.
|
|
|
Post by Ricky T Outhouse on Nov 3, 2009 8:13:21 GMT
You remain free to say whatever you like. What I was saying was that I do not agree with you. I have seen the photographs that Hellen took and there are several people there who I do not recognise and I assumed that they are some of the thousands of 'loyal togs' who also support CIN and who would not otherwise easily have an opportunity to meet with STW. I think it is right that some invitations have always gone to people who are not from the ranks of those who are forever blethering on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by lolliepop on Nov 3, 2009 8:44:01 GMT
I was saying what you said Ricky that it would be nice if EVERY TOG had the chance to have their names put forward. But yet again this is taken as a personnal dig at people when it wasn't. It seems that people are not allowed to put forward suggestions on this site anymore and it is a shame. As for contacting you Helen the last time I did that you never replied so I don't think I will bother. And as far as I am concerned this is the end of the matter and any suggestions I think are a good idea in the future I will keep to myself as it seems there are only one set of rules we are allowed to work by on here.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Occifer™ on Nov 3, 2009 8:56:19 GMT
Please Sir, can my name go in the hat/pot/commode for the next chance to meet Kylie? ;D Mind you, that Cerys Matthews seems okay too perhaps a meeting with her and Kylie together would be more ....er..entertaining?
|
|
|
Post by Ricky T Outhouse on Nov 3, 2009 9:01:50 GMT
There is a banner ad at the top of my screen that says 'FABULOUS KYLIE BEDDING' My only thought was that it almost certainly would be!
|
|
|
Post by Phil Occifer™ on Nov 3, 2009 9:05:33 GMT
Mine just says WINLED tv. They can't even spell winkled!!
|
|
|
Post by LucyQuipment on Nov 3, 2009 12:15:54 GMT
That doesn't seem very fair as there are a lot of TOGs who have given their time to being on the Calendar Crew and would have loved to have gone. Maybe the best way would have been to put all names of past and present helpers into a hat and let the names be drawn by STW. I know Lollie has said there's an end to her input on this subject, but I just have to correct a misapprehension that seems to be prevalent and seemingly giving rise to bad feeling. There have never been a lot of Togs on the Calendar Crew - there has only ever been one, original Calendar Crew of 9 people: Hugh, Clare, Mick, Edi, Kelly, Anton, Gowon, Hells and Tude (in no particular order). Loads of other people have helped over the years, and done whatever they could, and in my experience Hellen has always fallen over backwards to try and acknowledge these people. The lunches were never a free-for-all. Reading Lollie's original post I assumed that she was unaware that these affairs are invitation only. However on finding that she had already been invited and was therefore aware of the situation, I fail to understand the reason for her original comments. Knowing that the lunches are private and invitation only, the suggestion that all Togs (btw, who gets to define "loyal"?) should be able to put their names in to a draw for an invitation is therefore irrelevant. And the suggestion would have been better put to Hellen privately. I'd also like to point out that raising money through the Togs, ie the calendar etc, and for Children in Need, are two separate things, and don't neccessarily cross over. "Where has the friendship of the TOGs gone? Such a shame that freesom of speech does not apply here." - Freedom of speech is not at issue here. Posters are entitled to say what they like (however see last comment). Just don't get upset when the response doesn't suit you and you are taken to task for inaccurate statements. Oh, and you're right. There is only one set of rules you are allowed to work by on here - Mick's.
|
|
|
Post by Mick Sturbs on Nov 3, 2009 20:28:38 GMT
I have always tried to remain relatively impartial as far as individual disagreements go, particularly those where there have been differences of opinion in the past. I don't interfere with what Tude & Hells do, and they (unlike what some seem to believe) don't interfere with what happens here. But people need to understand that just as I have the last say here, they do with events that they take the time and trouble to organise.
If someone plans an event, why would they want to extend an invitation to someone who clearly doesn't like them and wastes few opportunities to complain about what they do? I would do the same. But because these events involve Terry, to whom people seem to think they should have unrestricted access, a lack of an invitation suddenly becomes a sinister plot.
It is abundantly clear that some people don't like the fact that they have ready access to Terry, but that didn't happen by accident and it took a long time to gain that trust and only happened after a tremendous amount of hard work and a phenomenal amount of money raised for CIN. It’s not ‘lucky’, they earned it.
I am proud to call these people my friends; nevertheless, I don't expect any kind of preferential treatment because of it. I paid the same as everyone else did for their 'lunch', just as I pay for my place at the convention.
No-one has done more for Children in Need than Tude & Hells. It's not compulsory to like them, but no-one can deny that they have done so much to raise money for a wonderful cause that any fair minded person must surely admire and respect their achievements.
|
|
|
Post by Ava Bike on Nov 3, 2009 20:45:35 GMT
There is a banner ad at the top of my screen that says 'FABULOUS KYLIE BEDDING' My only thought was that it almost certainly would be! I hope our Jo doesn't see this!
|
|
|
Post by LucyQuipment on Nov 3, 2009 20:48:31 GMT
There is a banner ad at the top of my screen that says 'FABULOUS KYLIE BEDDING' My only thought was that it almost certainly would be! I hope our Jo doesn't see this! Wow - does your Jo want a Kylie duvet and pillows then? That's one you yer Christmas pressies sorted, Aves ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Luke Warm on Nov 3, 2009 20:56:07 GMT
Ding dong friends and strangers!
Just to add my bit, as someone who has the rather surprising claim to fame of having attended every convention so far along with a few other bashes.
This was my first TOG lunch, and I felt genuinely priviledged and grateful to have been invited. It was a super do - lovely venue, food and company.
Some people I knew, and others I met for the first time, and as is TOGs tradition, we are all from different backgrounds and even ages. But you know what? - we all got on swimmingly because we have something in common - an appreciation of Sir Terry and the team, but also supporting CiN. It wasn't a freebie!!
As with anything (I should know) you can never please all the people all of the time, but strike me, these are bloomin marvellous.
And sorry to anyone I didn't get a chance to say goodbye to, but I had to dash for a pre-booked train.
Ho hum.
Onwards and sideways.
LW - back here on the boards for the first time in eons.
And finally.... Calm down dears.
|
|
|
Post by iona on Nov 4, 2009 14:12:29 GMT
I normally steer very clear of debates like this on the boards - hence I don't read posts other than those on the notice board as they are usually quite interesting and topical, although somewhat slow to move on these days. But I do feel I want to add my bit from a personal point of view. I shall not come back to read any replies so please don't feel the need to reply to me, as I won't see it. Some years ago I, along with a couple of other Togs who were subsequently banned, instigated what we thought was a brilliant way to raise money for Children in Need in the guise of a song, written and performed purely by felllow Togs, to sell solely to Togs. For whatever reason (and the reasons don't need to be dragged up again) it was poo poo'd by those who could have made it an enormous success. However, we were able to sell it to enough supportive Togs who helped to raise around £400 for Children in Need. It was a funny song and those who bought it still have a laugh when they listen to it.
Other than that, MC and I have helped to raise a lot of money by hosting Deadly's quizzes - as have many other Togs, I know. I have had it pointed out to me recently that, although it is not the duty of other Togs to support such quizzes and that the quizzes are designed to sell tickets to friends, family, neighbours etc., we both still feel it is a thankless, unsupported and difficult task, although a very rewarding one, to host these quizzes.
When Terry ceases to be our much loved Togmeister at the end of the year, if we do still continue to be Togs we most certainly won't continue to raise money for Children in Need but will continue giving from our pensions to our local animal/children's charities, where in this present climate it might be more advantageous and appreciated.
As a PS to this...although we would love to have been invited to the lunch, we wouldn't have gone anyway as we couldn't afford it, so none of this is sour grapes!
|
|
|
Post by Mahatt Micoat on Nov 4, 2009 19:05:47 GMT
I have always tried to remain relatively impartial as far as individual disagreements go, particularly those where there have been differences of opinion in the past. I don't interfere with what Tude & Hells do, and they (unlike what some seem to believe) don't interfere with what happens here. But people need to understand that just as I have the last say here, they do with events that they take the time and trouble to organise. If someone plans an event, why would they want to extend an invitation to someone who clearly doesn't like them and wastes few opportunities to complain about what they do? I would do the same. But because these events involve Terry, to whom people seem to think they should have unrestricted access, a lack of an invitation suddenly becomes a sinister plot. It is abundantly clear that some people don't like the fact that they have ready access to Terry, but that didn't happen by accident and it took a long time to gain that trust and only happened after a tremendous amount of hard work and a phenomenal amount of money raised for CIN. It’s not ‘lucky’, they earned it. I am proud to call these people my friends; nevertheless, I don't expect any kind of preferential treatment because of it. I paid the same as everyone else did for their 'lunch', just as I pay for my place at the convention. No-one has done more for Children in Need than Tude & Hells. It's not compulsory to like them, but no-one can deny that they have done so much to raise money for a wonderful cause that any fair minded person must surely admire and respect their achievements. I try to stay out of "disagreements" on these boards but feel in this case I will break my own "rule". All I really have to say though is HEAR HEAR Mick !
|
|
|
Post by Mahatt Micoat on Nov 4, 2009 21:18:29 GMT
PS:
I would have loved to have gone to the lunch but like so many others wasn't invited. Am I angry about it? NO !
What I AM is happy that my friends that DID go (and we ARE all friends here aren't we?) had a good time and that a goodly amount of money was raised for CiN. After all, that's what the charity lunch was all about wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Mick Sturbs on Nov 5, 2009 14:49:43 GMT
I normally steer very clear of debates like this on the boards - hence I don't read posts other than those on the notice board as they are usually quite interesting and topical, although somewhat slow to move on these days. But I do feel I want to add my bit from a personal point of view. I shall not come back to read any replies so please don't feel the need to reply to me, as I won't see it. Some years ago I, along with a couple of other Togs who were subsequently banned, instigated what we thought was a brilliant way to raise money for Children in Need in the guise of a song, written and performed purely by felllow Togs, to sell solely to Togs. For whatever reason (and the reasons don't need to be dragged up again) it was poo poo'd by those who could have made it an enormous success. However, we were able to sell it to enough supportive Togs who helped to raise around £400 for Children in Need. It was a funny song and those who bought it still have a laugh when they listen to it.
Other than that, MC and I have helped to raise a lot of money by hosting Deadly's quizzes - as have many other Togs, I know. I have had it pointed out to me recently that, although it is not the duty of other Togs to support such quizzes and that the quizzes are designed to sell tickets to friends, family, neighbours etc., we both still feel it is a thankless, unsupported and difficult task, although a very rewarding one, to host these quizzes.
When Terry ceases to be our much loved Togmeister at the end of the year, if we do still continue to be Togs we most certainly won't continue to raise money for Children in Need but will continue giving from our pensions to our local animal/children's charities, where in this present climate it might be more advantageous and appreciated.As a PS to this...although we would love to have been invited to the lunch, we wouldn't have gone anyway as we couldn't afford it, so none of this is sour grapes! Perhaps I can shed a little light on this. The reason that the song was not played on R2, or put forward for Eurovision is that Pauly didn't think it was good enough and told me so directly. I've not mentioned this before because it's always a delicate matter when it comes to people's creativity, and I'm suire a lot of hard work went into it. However, I was not going to say so at the time, because I had no wish to have Pauly subjected to the sort of abuse that Jake heaped on me. Once again, it's a case of seeing a conspiracy where there is none. I can't say that I'm sorry you're gone. Anyone else who feels similarly is welcome to join you.
|
|