Vicar of Dibley

If we had been told the episode was the next best thing to a charity beg maybe we wouldn't be so offended. I sat down to watch this expecting from the trailers and magazines to be an episode about the vicar's 40th birthday- which would have made a good storyline. Getting what I got instead was a shock, and hardly appropriate. I think this episode put the nail's in TVOD's. Very poor.

What a bunch of grippit buggers you are. Honestly.

Just to point out the first special of Vicar of Dibley was about Geraldine being there 10 years. The second, shown the other day, WAS ACTUALLY based around her 40th Birthday and the other Live Aid hardly got a mention. IT DID NOT HIJACK THE SHOW AT ALL. FIRSTLY BECAUSE IT WAS THE LAST FEW MINUTES FOOLS.

Get a grip. Get on the phone, Get your cheque book, Get your bank card, donate damn money instead of winging here. Alternatively, and more preferably please volunteer to help in these countries and leave Britain and gain some respect for yourself.

You see that's the ill thought-out patronising argument that has offended so many.

People DO donate and DO think about issues...we're not COMPLETELY self absorbed...

It is very poor of you to assume that those complaining about it don't give to charity. VERY POOR indeed.

Well I feel as though I should add my tuppence to this "argument".

I was neither offended or patronised by the episode of Vicar of Dibley on New Year's Day. I was surprised by the ending, but I felt it was very effective in the message it put across - no doubt about it, it was powerful television.

I thought it was a fitting end to a series centred around the Church of England, the concept of Christianity is all about loving "thy neighbour as thyself". As such I have no complaints that this was shown in a "comedy" show where I wasn't expecting such a plight to be highlighted.

I think anyone who complains about the end of the episode is well within their rights, but perhaps they should have a long hard think about other people in the world.

Well done to the cast and production crew for having the guts to go through with such a thing. Well done BBC - if that wasn't public service broadcasting, then I'll eat my hat.

There we go again - not everyone has to be patronised and preached into donating to charity by assuming they know nothing about world problems, and that's how many people seem to be viewing it.

Not everyone, but a large amount do need 'preaching'. You can't deny that. Otherwise, why is there such a surge in charity donations everytime an appeal is featured on the television?

(although as mentioned before the Vicar of Dibley wasn't asking for donations. in fact, i think they went out of their way to keep fundraising out of the programme.)

Yes it was very emotive, powerful television and, as a telephon, was produced very well. The ending montage was edited very well and is the sort of fantastic post-production that gives me goosepimples when I see it. I agree wholeheartedly that the cause was a noble one and the episode made a point.

However the arguement I'm raising is the episode should not have been used in this way without appropriate listing. No matter what the message: save the children, end poverty, drink coca cola - they have no place in a situation comedy. Product placement is not permitted in the UK, and yet this "product" advertising is.

I'm beginning to wish I'd seen this now - I've been for a few hours and all I've heard is "Did you see the Vicar of Dibley last night?", rapidly followed by people complaining about it. The comments I've heard, which have come from people who generally support the cause, are politically aware and have donated to the tsunami appeal, fall into one category - they reckon it was badly handled.

Before anyone criticses me for commenting on something without seeing it, look back on my comments - they have been general and about the idea of such matters being presented as part of comedy, rather than on this issue alone.

I have to agree with (and I'll get your name wrong here, sorry) isontine (sorry again) 100% on his comments. I think that's what I was trying to say a few pages back.

I would add that it's always the poorer people who are milked for money for charity, when if some celebrities just donated a week's wages, or if the government actually cancelled some debt, or gave aid without strings attached, they could make a massive difference.

Still, I've always looked upon the Vicar of Dibley as a rather tedious, middle-of-the-road, My Family-esque comedy. I suppose it's an achievement that it's managed to cause this much discussion. If nothing else, I almost have some grudging respect for the programme makers on that basis.

That's correct; in fact the main objective of Band Aid 20 wasn't to raise cash, but awareness. Thing is though we are aware. And it is our right not to pay a blind bit of attention to it if we choose not to.

I think more of an issue is how much we can actually do about it. A million people marched on the streets of London in a bid to stop the war in Iraq, and still the government ignored them. It may be a defeatist attitude, but it appears that it doesn't matter whether we wear daft bands, march on the streets, create merry hell or bounce upside down on trampolines outside Downing Street, the government will do what the hell it wants.

Perhaps there should have been a private screening of TVOD in Downing Street - they're the ones that can do something about it.

I think about these problems every day, and donate quite a lot every week as I am forever in charity shops (Oxfam, Red Cross, Heart Foundation, Help the Aged, Cancer Research - some of these are already working in Africa) buying secondhand CDs, books and clothing. This is how I prefer to support charities. Unfortunately, these shops are forever stigmatised by chavs and the like as 'uncool' which really gets my goat. In effect, I donate to charities every week of my life.

The sad fact of the matter is, is that no matter how many millions we donate, we don't remove the core cause. The real people responsible for the abhorrent situations are those greedy and corrupt politicians and leaders in Africa and elsewhere responsible for causing all the poverty in Africa in the first place.

How on earth some of those dictatorial politicians can live in luxury and allow their subjects to die of things like malaria, typhoid, cholera etc... beggars belief. It's VERY uneven wealth distribution. If the money was shared more equally among Africa's people, we'd see a very different scene.

When these people are removed from power and replaced by more humane politicians the situation might improve in leaps and bounds. But while they remain there, the situation won't improve. A change in leadership will bring about more rapid change than a bi-yearly telethon.

Sums it up really.