I'd like to boycott children in need

(115 Posts)
IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sat 03-Nov-12 22:03:41

but I don't want to not donate to those in need. Shall i let my child take part but donate the money directly to charities or is there a better way?

Mumfun Sun 04-Nov-12 19:50:20

Also CIN were economical with the truth when they said Savile wasnt involved. His involvement was stopped at some point but he was for several years in CIN and there are photos to prove it!

EmmelineGoulden Sun 04-Nov-12 20:04:25

Mumfun I don't think Children in Need were economical with the truth. As far as I'm aware they haven't issued a statement saying Saville was not involved with them. Rather Roger Jones, a former Member of the Board, said he banned Saville from being involved with CiN. So obviously while Jones wasn't on the board he wasn't in a position to stop Saville being involved.

Jones also said that though he wouldn't let Saville be involved he didn't mention concerns about Saville to CiN's management because he had no hard evidence, just rumour.

Mumfun Sun 04-Nov-12 20:22:48

Well the BBC message came across that Savile had been stopped being involved with CIN. And it was highly publicised and given great prominence.

And I thought good thats really good.

And then I read the Icke forum and it was only then when it showed all the photographs that I found out he had taken part several times and I was really shocked that he had been involved after all!

EmmelineGoulden Sun 04-Nov-12 20:24:49

Which BBC message?

IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sun 04-Nov-12 20:36:07

It was made by Sir Roger Jones. Just did a google!

IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sun 04-Nov-12 20:37:32

Sorry not by the BBC, but on BBC website

EmmelineGoulden Sun 04-Nov-12 20:47:00

I saw the News story on the BBC website which was a CiN ex-chairman (Jones) talking about his role and what happened under his watch. But I haven't seen any official statement by the BBC or Children in Need.

I can see how that could have been misread, but I don't think it's CiN's fault.

threesocksfortheguy Sun 04-Nov-12 22:03:09

i am with Hazyjane, the losers will be the vulnerable children that need help from CIN.
whilst people are getting all hysterical. they will be the ones to lose out.
I do not believe that all that many people will boycott CIN and then give to a charity. a lot of people get involved with CIN for the fun element. the chance they might be on tv.
that won't happen to a person making a donation to a charity.
also often people think oh I will help <<insert cause>> by giving to a named charity.
so say SCOPE to help kids with CP, but it won't as the money will be wasted on their shops(example)
so children will lose out

LineRunner Sun 04-Nov-12 22:41:48

Back to Emmeline's post, really.

bigwombat Mon 05-Nov-12 09:07:53

Agree with threesocks - CIN fund specific projects and activities generally, not core overheads, thus ensuring key projects for vulnerable children remain funded. A donation to a small charity of £10 may well get lost in funding core overheads, rather than a specific project, unless there are 1000 other donations of £10 all specifically to fund that project (very unlikely and as I said before the time and effort for small charities to raise £10,000 themselves through donations is hugely onerous). So much more effective to use CIN.

margerybruce Mon 05-Nov-12 09:48:10

Greeting Cards for Justice

Please join in with this ........

co-ordinated campaign to send a card to highlight abuse of children and demand action

EmmelineGoulden Mon 05-Nov-12 09:56:35

"CIN fund specific projects and activities generally, not core overheads, thus ensuring key projects for vulnerable children remain funded. A donation to a small charity of £10 may well get lost in funding core overheads, rather than a specific project,"

But that just means the charity will have to fundraise for the money that funds the core overheads anyway, i.e. they still need all those £10 donations. The idea that you should just fund the frontline stuff and somehow all the core expenses of the organization are unecessary is absurd. Those frontline services woud not be available if there weren't any core expenses.

threesocksfortheguy Mon 05-Nov-12 11:36:54

surely people can find another way to make their point that doesn't affect the vulnerable.
you do realise that abused children will be among the ones who lose out?
the very thing that this hysteria is all about.

PoppyAmex Mon 05-Nov-12 12:13:50

"The problem with the idea that people should keep on supporting a charity despite it showing questionable judgement over the sort of people it aligns itself with, is that it is that sort of logic that made JS untouchable in the first place."

Emmeline's post says it all really, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that we might be helping some vulnerable people to the cost of others.

It's a horrible situation and the BBC has the moral obligation to be transparent and address what's essentially an extremely valid concern.

Like someone said upthread, it terrifies me to think why the BBC thought they would need this man's very particular brand of "skills".

EmmelineGoulden Mon 05-Nov-12 12:18:18

threesocks What do you suggest as an alternative, effective way for people to make their point to CiN?

Giving to CiN instead of giving directly to local charities also hurts vulnerable people. Just different vulnerable people. Do you think they should lose out?

The OP's plan has the added benefit, if accompanied by an email or letter to CiN, of making the point about charities needing to have robust governence and to value honesty and fair dealing over celebrity, and to be clear about the unacceptability of a culture that dismisses sexual abuse of children. If successful, such a lesson will strengthen the position of charities in this country and, long term, serve to help many more vulnerable people than would be the case if standards are not held high.

threesocksfortheguy Mon 05-Nov-12 12:20:24

no I don't tbh, I just fear a lot of people will lose out and that is sad.
I don't get your comment
"Giving to CiN instead of giving directly to local charities also hurts vulnerable people. Just different vulnerable people. Do you think they should lose out?"

what do you mean?

PoppyAmex Mon 05-Nov-12 12:24:27

I also think it's dangerous to accuse people of hysteria by the way.

This sort of insidious situations flourished under our noses precisely because "one must not make a fuss" or because we're all just "being paranoid".

In 2002 my country (Portugal) was shaken by a very similar case where boys in a state orphanage were being abused by high profile people, including politicians, actors and a much (previously) beloved entertainment star.

There was since then a massive tightening of regulation over institutions that care for vulnerable people and a change in protocols and policies, but I found the biggest difference was in people's perception.

They now demand full transparency and question things a lot more which, in my opinion, can only be a good thing.

tethersend Mon 05-Nov-12 12:35:04

I think it's sad that we expect charities to protect our vulnerable children and not the government.

It's cuts to social services, daycare, outreach, every possible avenue of support which endangers vulnerable children, not boycotting CiN.

Successive governments have deliberately inadequately funded or cut support services and then some millionaire celebrity tries to make the public feel guilty enough to donate.

In the 21st century, in one of the richest countries in the world, there shouldn't be any children in need.

EmmelineGoulden Mon 05-Nov-12 12:37:22

threesocks The OP's plan is to give to a local charity instead of giving to CiN. You have been saying this isn't good. i.e. She should give to CiN instead of to a local charity.

Why is it that the local charity losing out is OK, but CiN charities losing out isn't?

hazeyjane Mon 05-Nov-12 12:41:21

My point is more about the regular grants that CiN provide (the grant that ds's nursery receives, is enough to employ 2 staff members) - they rely on this annual grant, and I worry about these being in jeopardy.

parsnipcake Mon 05-Nov-12 12:56:07

My daughter's youth club is heavily funded by CIN. While they of course welcome small individual donations, being able to apply for larger grants which run for a number of years works out the best way for them being able to plan and run their service. Overhead wise CIN is much better than organisations like the NSPCC who spend so much on advertising ( and my personal experiences are that their interventions are often not very good) so please think hard before cancelling your donations.

EmmelineGoulden Mon 05-Nov-12 13:39:01

NSPCC are in part an advocacy organization - of course they have high advertising costs. I don't donate to NSPCC because I don't wholeheartedly support the messages they advocate and I don't like the way they advocate. But faulting an advocacy organization for advertising is like faulting a hosptial for giving out medicine.

Secure recurring grants are very nice for organizations that get them. But a sensible charity should be looking for funding from a variety of sources - because different income streams are vulnerable to different threats.

Grants from endowment foundations are very vulnerable to stock market variations, large individual donations are often down to personal relationships with organizational leadership, recurring grants from stable sources are a great boon but generally have an end life and are hard to replace, government contracts are vulnerable to changes in government policy, etc.

In general, some of the most stable funding is individual contributions from people who volunteer with an organization. But that requires a strong volunteering and reationship building program (Ohh no! Overhead! How could they!).

It's not that any particular fundraising stream is wrong. It's just that people who are saying the OP should give to CiN rather than locally despite her misgivings over the organization's ethics seem to be basically saying "give to my charity not theirs". Which isn't very convincing for someone with no personal relationship with your chairty.

threesocksfortheguy Mon 05-Nov-12 15:14:55

imo the OP can do what she likes obviously.
but when people talk about boycotting, you have to imagine what it would be like if masses of people did it, and surely that is the only way a boycot can actually work.
as for"give to my charity" not me. my dd will be an adult soon and she will then not benefit at all from CIN (we need and AIN! one)
so that doesn't work

threesocksfortheguy Mon 05-Nov-12 15:16:10

tethersend your so right, if we are so rich, we should not be cutting aid to the most vulnerable, but if you think it is bad for children, look at adult services.

parsnipcake Mon 05-Nov-12 16:00:50

Emmeline, I understand the business model Of the NSPCC, what I object to is them bullying LA's into using their services for inflated prices and poor service. As a foster carer I have been in the receiving end of their judgemental and superficial therapy a number of times, for which they charge a fortune, while taking in donations with vile adverts. CIN has, on the other hand helped many small organisations become proper, stable charities that can help families long term. I'm not of course trying to say my daughters youth club is any more worthy than anything else, but as an example, Before CIN it was run by a few parents and broken heating was a crisis. Now it has staff, a volunteer programme and a boiler contract. There aren't many organisations who do similar things.

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