Rosie Huntingon-Whitely is one of the most beautiful girls on the planet. She is kind and intelligent, too. So when she does something, it shoots straight to the front pages of the press and sits there sparkling, for all the world to gaze upon. And believe us, they do.

Which is why her visit to Cambodia has been so useful for UNICEF. There this week to film a segment for Soccer Aid, the model/ actress has been instagramming pictures to her 1.4 million+ followers and gracing the headlines of the Daily Mail Online, the world's most read web page. The girl who is given huge sums to flaunt the likes of some of the world's biggest brands, including Burberry, is now promoting another: UNICEF. The centrepiece? The plight of Cambodia's children.

So this is all good, jolly and productive, right? Wrong. For if one glazes over comments left under the articles which brandish pictures of her blowing kisses with these suffering children, another image begins to appear: one of scepticism, and jealousy.

'She's not Mother Theresa' bursts one, among shells of 'Her shoes cost more than they make in a lifetime'. This may be true, but does that mean Rosie should keep well away from the disadvantaged, and stay safe and cosy in her LA stomping ground? Does this mean that the rich philanthropists of the world should stop associating themselves with those they help, and focus on their Rolls Royces and Chelsea townhouses? Or maybe, we should all stop buying nice things, and give all our money to charity.

For this, effectively, is what the commentators are suggesting. That promoting the disadvantaged is nothing more than a publicity tool, that those 'with' are not entitled to help those 'without'. Nothing makes us at The Society HQ more angry. People shouldn't be guilty for what they have, but should use it to the advantage of others. Which is exactly what Rosie, and celebrities like her, are doing. She has the ability to catch the eye of millions worldwide - so why not bring the plight of Cambodian children with her?

That is what doing good means. The age-old question of whether there is such thing as 'true altruism' is brought to the forefront, but should one care? Rosie has probably got 10,000 more followers on Instagram as a result of her current trip. But does that devalue what those 10,000+ will do with their newly-acquired knowledge of Cambodian poverty? No.

So we ask those commentators, and observers, and sceptics, to get off their high horses. The comments are so unbelievable that it is hard to imagine them not being tainted by something as blinding as jealousy. About looks, about money, about lifestyle.

There are always rewards for doing good, not least the satisfaction of knowing that one has helped someone. As we always say, there is nothing better than making someone smile.

Who cares what we get along the way? It's what we give that matters.