To not want to give money to Children in Need?

(80 Posts)
hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 20:54:45

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 hmm

It just seems to hypocritical seeing them being all jolly 'n' stuff when people out there are suffering.

gordyslovesheep Mon 12-Nov-12 20:56:34

you are not giving money to the BBC

but no one forces you to donate so I don;t think yanbu or yabu

Chubfuddler Mon 12-Nov-12 20:56:59

Don't then

DorsetKnob Mon 12-Nov-12 20:57:49

Then don't, nobody is forcing you to.

FeckOffCup Mon 12-Nov-12 20:57:52

Give directly to a charity other than children in need then in you want, YANBU to not want to go through the BBC after recent revelations.

OpheliaPayneAgain Mon 12-Nov-12 20:58:15

I think that's an irrational OP, Op!

but you choose which charities to give to. CIN has never been one of mine and I object to funding an evening of shit through my licence fee.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 20:58:49

It's just making me sick seeing them on tv getting all excited. I know the money's not going to them, but they're just a bunch of hypocrites. How many more paedophiles are they still employing, they seem to have a track record of it hmm

Children Need Protecting From The BBC from what I can see.

I'll give the money to something else.

BloominMarvellous Mon 12-Nov-12 20:59:21

I'm donating to my local hospice instead. I don't want anything to do with children in need.

I am so angry at the BBC.

squeakytoy Mon 12-Nov-12 20:59:30

YABU for the reasons you state.

The children are IN NEED, not the BBC..

mrskeithrichards Mon 12-Nov-12 21:00:34

The money given to children need is basically a big pot that other charities apply to for funding.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 21:01:28

Yes, the children may very well be in need, but do you think they're the right people to be doing this? They should be ashamed of themselves angry

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 21:02:31

They should not be fronting this, it's disgusting. They are disgusting.

Are they going to set up a charity to help the victims of their organisation?

missymoomoomee Mon 12-Nov-12 21:03:16

Why are you watching BBC if it makes you so sick you caan't donate to charity?

Don't donate if you don't want to but I fail to see why you need to start a thread about it, especially since there are about 57 million others.

mrskeithrichards Mon 12-Nov-12 21:03:24

The BBC don't 'do' anything other than raise the funds though. I don't see the problem. Many charities benefit with a wide range of services surviving solely on children in need money. The BBC don't do work the with children.

HarlettOScara Mon 12-Nov-12 21:04:00

YABU in that some of the money raised by CiN will go to charities who support children who have suffered abuse. Not donating to CiN doesn't hurt the BBC but it does hurt those charitable organisations who benefit from the donations if there is less money to go around.

however, YANBU to choose a different charity to support.

mrskeithrichards Mon 12-Nov-12 21:06:29

At least look up some of the charities who benefit and donate directly <cough> my work <cough> to make sure I've got a job to go back to!!

wigglesrock Mon 12-Nov-12 21:06:37

So don't.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 21:09:22

The only things I watch is Holby City and the news (which is biased these days anyway because they're so busy trying to cover their arses). I watch nothing else as I'm not interested.

You are not permitted to have a tv in this country unless you pay the BBC, which I also resent.

Would you rather they cancelled it this year and didn't raise money for charity? Or would you like them to come on and say "we're not going to do fun and jolly this year. Why not watch us while we have a serious debate about child abuse instead. All evening."

The net effect of either will be less money for children's charities.

But feel free to give the money you would otherwise have donted to it to another charity instead, if you prefer.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 21:16:56

I think they should show a bit of humility instead of just glossing over what's happened. I think they should cancel it this year and encourage people to donate money to childrens charities instead. Yes, it won't be as much fun, but a lot of people aren't feeling very funny because of these revelations.

McChristmasPants2012 Mon 12-Nov-12 21:17:29

since the JS saga has come to light I have not watched the BBC.

I think like the NOtW the BBC should be shut down.

PuffPants Mon 12-Nov-12 21:19:20

The causes are still worthwhile.

On a slight tangent, I object to being shouted at by wealthy celebs to donate to causes they could entirely solve themselves with a few weeks' pay.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 21:20:56

It should be shut down McChristmasPants They're a load of pompous, arrogants twats with a sense of entitlement angry

dh phoned them to tell them that there is no one living in our flood wrecked house and he got the licence transferred to the apartment. Guess what? We've had threatening letters about our home address not having a tv licence now sad



missymoomoomee Mon 12-Nov-12 21:24:19

confused you are making a 'stand' against a charity while still enjoying programmes on the BBC. That doesn't sound like double standards at all.

nokidshere Mon 12-Nov-12 21:25:01


There are a huge number of people working for the BBC and the recent allegations are about a handful of them. Some of the people giving their time and effort to children in need won't have even been born when all this stuff was going on.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 21:26:13

Two programmes which I pay for missy? I'd gladly not bother with it at all if you were permitted to have a television without having to pay these jokers hmm I'd gladly forego both programmes if I could be free from the bastards.

nokidshere Mon 12-Nov-12 21:29:55

It just seems to hypocritical seeing them being all jolly 'n' stuff when people out there are suffering

I missed ^^ bit!

Thats NU its bloody stupid! There are millions of children in this country suffering every single minute of every single day. We could all be described as hypocritical just by going about our daily lives giving them maybe a fleeting thought.

You make it sound like the JS stuff is the only time this has happened - do you live in a bubble? If only eh! Yes its crap, yes its a terrible thing to have happened, but it is still happening to someone right now whilst we are debating it on here.

missymoomoomee Mon 12-Nov-12 21:39:50

So whats the point in taking it out on a charity? You aren't hitting the pocket of the BBC, you are hitting the pocket of the charities that benefit from Children In Need.

If you really wanted to make a stand against the company (although I don't particulary agree with that sentiment either since the BBC is a changed place from 30 odd years ago) then get rid of the TV and watch the other channels online and don't pay the licence. As it is you are making a half hearted attempt at outrage aimed entirely at the wrong place while still using the service they provide.

Molepomandmistletoe Mon 12-Nov-12 21:46:18

I think they should have given everyones licence fee for this year to the charity.

PropertyNightmare Mon 12-Nov-12 21:55:00

Hmmmmm. You are not being unreasonable to be passed off at the bbc. Dh wants his licence fee back for the years that they were bankrolling paedo-chops.

PropertyNightmare Mon 12-Nov-12 21:56:32

Good point molepom. Think of all the fees we paid in good faith that were then misused and enabled the abuse of girls on TOTP etc.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 21:57:39

Changed place from 30 years ago? hmm Hardly, they're still screwing things up now!

higgle Mon 12-Nov-12 21:58:48

YANBU it is always excrutiatingly awful - I would, however, give them money NOT to do it.

missymoomoomee Mon 12-Nov-12 22:08:02

I mean the staff have changed from 30 years ago and I can't see how holding those there now liable for what happened helps. Those that worked there back then and helped cover this up absolutely should be though, I didn't make that clear.

I see you haven't commented on your double standards though. Why take your outrage out on a charity while still using the services the actual company provides?

amothersplaceisinthewrong Mon 12-Nov-12 22:10:04

I don't give to Children In Need, I support other charities and don't feel bad about not supporting any but those. If I gave to every charity that asked then I would be in need of it myself. And I NEVER EVER give to charities that phone up..... British Heart Foundation, take note.

threesocksmorgan Mon 12-Nov-12 22:11:33

end of
you are blaming CIN for what the BBC have let happen.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 12-Nov-12 22:13:11


I love the BBC but I haven't supported Children in Need or Comic Relief for years for a variety of reasons, none of which are anything to do with Saville.

somewheresomehow Mon 12-Nov-12 22:15:16

i would like to know how many and how much the so called 'celebs' on this show get paid for doing there 'bit' in cajoling blackmailing people who may not be able to afford to donate to this cause but feel they have to because some celeb tells them they should because its for a good cause

thekidsrule Mon 12-Nov-12 22:18:01

i wont be supporting CIN well i suppose apart from the £1 mufti at school,i cant deny him that

not because of the Saville subject but for other reasons

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 12-Nov-12 22:37:00

Another reason not to give money to Children in Need could be found in the list of things that they won't give charities the money for.

From their website

We don't give grants for...
Relief of statutory responsibility
Applications from local government or NHS bodies
Building projects which are applying to us for more than £20,000
The promotion of religion
Trips or projects abroad
Medical treatment/research
Projects for pregnancy testing or advice, information or counselling on pregnancy choices
General awareness-raising work
Bursaries, sponsored places, fees or equivalent
Individuals (unless an eligible organisation is applying on their behalf)
Distribution to another/other organisation/s, for example, PTAs applying on behalf of schools
General appeals or endowment funds
Deficit funding or repayment of loans
Retrospective funding (projects taking place before the grant award date)
Projects unable to start within 12 months of the grant award date
Unspecified expenditure

Also from their website,

Small grant applications can be for any amount up to £10,000 a year and we are looking for projects where a relatively small grant can make a big difference for children and young people.
For main grant applications there is no upper limit but we make very few grants over £100,000 and most grants are for much less. The total amount of money requested each year is far more than we have available to give and requests for larger grants are always more competitive.
Funding can be awarded for between one and three years, depending on the nature of the request. Grants can only be made for one year at a time for holidays/residentials.
BBC Children in Need will consider funding support costs associated directly with a project, but we cannot fund organisational overheads and running costs where these are not integral to the project you are applying for.

So basically, they will pay for anything that they can put a shiny plaque on. Anything that actually helps a small charity pay for the boring but essential things isn't considered important enough for Children In Need to support.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 22:51:47

I wonder if they give the money to charities for Retired Paedophiles then sad

missy yes, perhaps I do have double standards, but there are three other people in the house and they like the television too. I only watch two programmes on BBC and we watch the other channels. People are forced to pay these people just to have a television.

cricketballs Mon 12-Nov-12 22:59:20

but to put in context...

Relief of statutory responsibility - as the body who is being rewarded the grant should already have their legal obligations in place
Applications from local government or NHS bodies - this is a charity awarding to help beyond the realms of the government/NHS
Building projects which are applying to us for more than £20,000 - as they can't afford it
The promotion of religion - this is just common sense
Trips or projects abroad - why should they fund this?
Medical treatment/research - there are other charities that raise money to fund this
Projects for pregnancy testing or advice, information or counselling on pregnancy choices - due to the moral/religious troubled waters this would represent
General awareness-raising work - there are more practical projects requiring funding
Bursaries, sponsored places, fees or equivalent - why fund one child when you can help many
Individuals (unless an eligible organisation is applying on their behalf) - as above
Distribution to another/other organisation/s, for example, PTAs applying on behalf of schools - accountability
General appeals or endowment funds - as in the majority of grants.funding etc there has to be a specific reason in order to grant funding to ensure accountability
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) - as the two points above
Projects unable to start within 12 months of the grant award date - to ensure accountability and auditing
Unspecified expenditure - as above

As other have stated, the BBC are just the 'hosts' of this charity and do not benefit (other than viewing figures) and they do fund a lot of worthwhile projects that I know my own DS has benefited from

Fakebook Mon 12-Nov-12 23:00:29

I wonder if they give the money to charities for Retired Paedophiles then, because its CHILDREN in need. The clue is in the name.

WorraLiberty Mon 12-Nov-12 23:03:34


You don't withdraw potential money from needy and often desperate children just to make a point.

If it makes you feel good to do so then fine

But I hope this thread doesn't encourage others to do the same.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 23:04:22

What does Comic Relief do? Perhaps they give the money to charities for Retired Paedophile and Debauched DJs from that. Wouldn't surprise me. They all look after each other don't they?

JS used to raise plenty of money for charity hmm

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 23:06:16

I'm not trying to withdraw potential money from needy people Worra Anybody can donate to whichever charity they want without getting involved in children in need. I think people should donate to childrens charities, it's just the CIN that's making me feel this way.

joanbyers Mon 12-Nov-12 23:06:21


I remember 15 years ago, Lou Reed's Perfect Day was remade, the BBC claimed, for Children in Need. I spoke to Lou Reed about this, because he said he would never allow a remake (artistic integrity and all that), but then he said the reason he did it was because it was for charity.

What he didn't appear to realise was that the BBC in addition to charity were using to say how wonderful they were because it's funded by taxes.

I felt that this was pretty disgusting tbh.

BBC 'we are so wonderful' video:

hiddenhome - that post earlier where you said you wanted the BBC shut down and then your dh "phoned them to tell them that the is no one living in our flood wrecked house" etc...

Why would your dh ring the BBC about that? The BBC have NOTHING to do with collection of the licence fee or ensuring people have a licence. The Govt set the licence fee, not the BBC, and it is collected and licences issued by TV Licensing which is NOT connected with the BBC. So, bit stupid to ring them about your not being at your other address. Nor did they send you the threatening letters.

YANBU to decline to give money to Children in Need if you don't particularly like that charity or where the money goes. I don't. YABU to blame the current staff at the BBC for what went on 30+ years ago with the vile Savile creature. Seems hugely fitting that the SHOULD do Children In Need now more than ever BECAUSE of the past in many ways.

Teabagtights Mon 12-Nov-12 23:08:26

I've never given to cin. Charity begins at home.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 23:11:02

It was the licence fee people he phoned, not the BBC.

OldMumsy Mon 12-Nov-12 23:11:21

hidden YANBU. I am pretty sickened by the BBC these days.

hiddenhome (again) - so, by the same token, no one should give any money to Stoke Mandeville hospital and all the wonderful work they do there for people who have suffered disability through accidents etc? Because Savile raised money for them? Do you think that hospital should be closed down because he raised money for them? My cousin went there after a road accident which left him paralysed at the age of 21. He was there for over 6 months. It is a wonderful place with wonderful staff. If people choose to stop giving them money, I dread to think what will happen. But your argument would with the BBC would have to apply to them too. You can't have it one way and not the other.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 23:14:27

They are separate issues and places Voice.

It's the whole jolly, false bonhomie (sp?) that makes me feel angry. They way they're still desperately trying to cover their backsides whilst hosting this. It just seems perverse and insulting that's all.

hiddenhome Mon 12-Nov-12 23:17:17

The BBC are nasty parasites on the population of this country (licence fee) and they can't even get their story straight, show any remorse or humility over this abuse scandal (not just JS remember) and I loathe them.

MooncupsAndSaucers Mon 12-Nov-12 23:20:03

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.

Delalakis Mon 12-Nov-12 23:23:51

Oh, for goodness sake, why on earth should sick children suffer because of something that happened on the BBC 30 years ago. Yes, YABU.

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).

Delalakis Mon 12-Nov-12 23:24:49

Mooncups, Terry Wogan gives his fee to charity.

BreconBeBuggered Mon 12-Nov-12 23:28:01

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 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.

Kethryveris Mon 12-Nov-12 23:28:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Kethryveris Mon 12-Nov-12 23:31:12

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 12-Nov-12 23:37:43

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!

mrskeithrichards Tue 13-Nov-12 09:11:24

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!!

mrskeithrichards Tue 13-Nov-12 09:14:16

And they do fund protects that support pregnant women. What they don't get involved in is pregnancy choices (abortion etc) and those processes.

Mrsjay Tue 13-Nov-12 09:20:14

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 ,

ethelb Tue 13-Nov-12 09:24:51

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.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Tue 13-Nov-12 09:32:00

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?

mrskeithrichards Tue 13-Nov-12 09:40:21

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.

mrskeithrichards Tue 13-Nov-12 09:45:45

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.

blindworm Tue 13-Nov-12 09:46:00

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?

Portofino Tue 13-Nov-12 09:50:49

My God - how many hyterical thickos can there be in one Forum?

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Tue 13-Nov-12 09:52:05

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.

allcatsaregrey Tue 13-Nov-12 09:53:32

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.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Tue 13-Nov-12 09:56:31

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.

allcatsaregrey Tue 13-Nov-12 10:05:25

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...

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.

MrsBucketxx Tue 13-Nov-12 13:55:06

yabu, stop paying your licence fee if it bothers you that much.

the children get it not the bbc.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now