ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
To not want to give money to Children in Need?(80 Posts)
I know I'm being unreasonable, but I just hate the BBC at the moment and keep wondering if they're going to give the fucking money to the victims of Savile Scum Sucking Bottom Feeder Paedophile Sicko so they can pay for some counselling
It just seems to hypocritical seeing them being all jolly 'n' stuff when people out there are suffering.
yabu, stop paying your licence fee if it bothers you that much.
the children get it not the bbc.
I know of three special schools, a special needs group and a toddler group for disadvantaged toddlers who all get cin money in my local area.
None of these places are Savile or his cronies.
The decision to give to any charity is individul choice of course.
But the decision not to donate due to the abuse scandal will not hurt the BBC in any way. It will hurt the organisations who get grants from cin.
Although - I cannot stand watching all the "stars" making plums of themselves I would give extra money not too see the cast of Eastenders dancing to some lame song and don't even get me started on the Newsreaders...
Funding for posts and new computers, HR costs etc can only apply to charities that are fairly big. What about all the charities that are run entirely by volunteers and are so small that they simply don't have the avenues of fundraising that the charity that can actually support employment can do?
Oh yes, they could have the new climbing frame, or piece of paediatric physiotherapy equipment, but not the money to pay for the insurance that enables them to actually use it.
Give (or don't give) to whatever charity you want but don't try and discourage others that is really mean minded. My son's special needs playgroup was set up with funds from CIN and it is an invaluable rescource to our community. Also our local playpark which is in an area of extreme poverty, and really does makes such a difference to the local kids, was paid for by CIN. Both these things are now funded by other charities, local donations and council grants but they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the money from CIN.
Oh and my neighbour tells me that when she took her grandson in from being put in care he was handed over to her with nothing but the clothes on his back and the Health Visitor managed to get her a small amount of money CIN to buy some baby equipment and clothes. If you have a problem with the BBc take it out on them not the vulnerable children that CIN are trying to help.
I'm not arguing with the work they do. I'm really not. I just think people should be more aware of what their money is funding and think carefully if they want to fund this type of thing, or if they would rather help fund the a similar kind of thing but within the NHS which more children have access to. Or if they would like to help a charity do what they do without it having a project name attached to it.
I think people should consider where they make their donations more carefully in general, but CiN and Comic Relief make it too easy not to bother thinking about their donations. I think this is especially true of celebrities. They do their little showpiece each year for the BBC charity, have a great time with all their showbiz mates, get to feel good about doing charidee work, and then that's it until the next one comes along. When they could do so much more for individual charities if they spread themselves out.
My God - how many hyterical thickos can there be in one Forum?
But the people the money go to aren't child abusers.
People will go to huge effort for Children in Need. They will prepare sketches, or collabs between shows, or hop a mile or whatever. Why should they go to all that effort, and then you don't donate because someone else is a paedophile?
Like if a bid goes in for a part time outreach worker to support young families you don't just ask for the £13k they'll get paid a year. You add in their potential phone use, photocopying, mileage allowance, management fees to cover their mandatory in house training and hopefully a budget so they can access external training. You add in their stationary needs, the cost of a new P.C. (or half of one!), the cost of processing their wages and hr needs and all the other little bits. The funding is then allocated and broken down, each area given a different expenses code and managed throughout the duration of the post.
But all these expenses should be factored into bids. Our cin funding was broken down into smaller chunks then managed accordingly. This includes management expenses, office expenses and volunteer expenses (to cover on going recruitment and weekly expenses claims from current volunteers)
Yes the fundraising they do is very high profile and dominant but a huge range of charities get a slice of that. Especially smaller projects.
And you'll know the small scale fundraising done locally is a drop in the ocean in terms of what charities need, the biggest streams are through local authorities, national groups and corporate donations. Public donations are vital but more so for raising profile. No charity can raise everything they need by shaking tins and sponsored walks.
I know that's the type of funding it does, and it's not my place to argue with what they choose to fund. I just think people should be more informed about where their money is going when they donate.
And while its fair enough that they choose to do that type of funding, I don't think it's fair that they take so much of the fundraising market for just one type of thing, when so much more is desperately needed. Smaller charities don't have the budget or the exposure of CIN, so when companies and locals choose to do a sponsored event or whatever for CiN, they will turn down the request from the small charity.
I help to run a small, member led charity. We actually don't find it that hard to find money for the sort of things that CiN will fund. There are countless available grants from banks, rotary clubs, Freemasons etc that all want to pay for the same sort of thing that CiN will pay for. They all just want something that they can put their name to. Which is fine, but where do small charities find the money to pay their insurance costs, fuel costs, basic admin costs, for a phone so that a volunteer can be available to do the work that needs to be done, for maintaining or servicing the equipment that was bought by last years grant? Where does the money come from to even ensure these small charities can continue to run when it's all being directed into one type of funding?
OP, YAB no more U than people who suggest that people who attend church and give money to the church are complicit in child abuse.
This isn't going to the bbc this is a charity which is in conjunction with the Beeb I work for a C I N project it really is a worthwhile cause ,
And they do fund protects that support pregnant women. What they don't get involved in is pregnancy choices (abortion etc) and those processes.
But that's the type of funding it does outraged. It can't cover everything, usually one post in one project for 2 years. People sourcing funding for charities know that all the different funds have different criteria and there are lots out there. Every one of them has terms 3 times the length of what you've posted many a lot less clear!!
Cricketballs, thanks for giving your thoughts on that. I read it differently. I do understand that they do a lot of good, but I think they have the ability to do so much more.
To me, it's more like
Relief of statutory responsibility - as the body who is being rewarded the grant should already have their legal obligations in place. Yes.
Applications from local government or NHS bodies - they won't give to a special care baby unit desperately in need of an expensive piece of equipment, or a children's physio department that gives regular therapy to disabled children.
Building projects which are applying to us for more than £20,000 - they could afford to, but it will be facing the small risk that the building will not be sustainable long term, and they wouldn't want to be associated with that. So the small charity that needs more space to do what they are already doing, but better, and with the potential to then get better equipment, isn't important.
The promotion of religion - this is just common sense. Yes, I agree.
Trips or projects abroad - they should not exclude trips abroad because of the things that are more accessible to disabled teenagers in other countries that are simply impossible in the UK.
Medical treatment/research - there are other charities that raise money to fund this. Yes, I agree.
Projects for pregnancy testing or advice, information or counselling on pregnancy choices - Despite the fact that supporting women in pregnancy will lead to fewer children in need, which is supposed to be the point, they won't support something that could be seen as pro abortion.
General awareness-raising work - Despite the fact that small charities need to raise awareness to be able to generate their own income and increase the number of volunteers they have supporting them, you can't put a shiny brass plaque on 'awareness raising', nor does it sound very impressive in your list of donations made.
Bursaries, sponsored places, fees or equivalent - because individual support directly to a child isn't important.
Individuals (unless an eligible organisation is applying on their behalf) How can they hope to be the difference that some children desperately need if they won't even look at individuals.
Distribution to another/other organisation/s, for example, PTAs applying on behalf of schools - accountability. Fair enough.
General appeals or endowment funds - The children's charity that is struggling to stay afloat since government cuts can have a new climbing frame, but they can't have the money for the insurance that they need to even see children.
Deficit funding or repayment of loans - a justified project should have the funding in place before starting
Retrospective funding (projects taking place before the grant award date) - I agree with that one!
Projects unable to start within 12 months of the grant award date - I agree with this one too.
Unspecified expenditure - and this one!
Donate, don't donate... up to you.
I do know though that in this climate many projects local to me would have folded without cin funding. This after local authority funding was cut.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Mooncups incorrect. Wogan has NEVER been paid £100,000 for presenting CIN. He WAS paid £10,000 a few years back, which is considerably less. However, in recent years he has waived this or given it directly to CIN and until it was brought to his attention he didn't know he WAS paid because it was handled by his agent (they do that you know). He has also - as can be found by checking their accounts - given far more financial donations to CIN since its inception than he was ever paid.
As you say, OP, people out there are suffering. Should they suffer more because of this? Don't let's kid ourselves that people can still donate to children's charities instead. They mostly won't, unless someone shakes a bucket under their nose. Can't stand the whole CiN spectacle myself, but they still normally get a few quid out of me one way or another.
Mooncups, Terry Wogan gives his fee to charity.
hiddenhome I would like you to explain further why they are separate issues. It is alleged that Savile committed offences at the BBC and that some staff there at least heard rumours if they didn't actually know about it. It is alleged that Saville committed offences at Stoke Mandeville and that some staff there at least heard rumours if they didn't actually know about it. The BBC is part funded by you and me by licence fee imposed by the Govt. Stoke Mandeville is part funded by you and me by taxes/National Insurance imposed by the Govt.
How are the BBC still desperately trying to cover their own backsides when the Govt have launched two separate inquiries in the whole affair, regardless of what the BBC are doing (also investigating).
Oh, for goodness sake, why on earth should sick children suffer because of something that happened on the BBC 30 years ago. Yes, YABU.
I hate Terry Wogan patronising all the people who work hard and give freely whilst for years he's been taking a £100,000. fee for presenting it.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.