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?

QuickLookBusy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:06:19

Why do you want to boycott?

LifeIsBetterInFlipFlops Sat 03-Nov-12 22:08:06

?

germyrabbit Sat 03-Nov-12 22:08:21

yes

usualsuspect3 Sat 03-Nov-12 22:08:39

Why?

Shinyshoes1 Sat 03-Nov-12 22:09:22

why Children in Need ?

lucyellenmum Sat 03-Nov-12 22:09:28

WTF????

PoppyAmex Sat 03-Nov-12 22:10:17

Is it because of Max Clifford's appointment as PR Ambassador?

threesocksfortheguy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:10:52

oh yes please boycott CIN
lets make the vulnerable suffer.
especially disabled children.
ffs some people need to get a grip

PoppyAmex Sat 03-Nov-12 22:12:14

Unless I misunderstood it, OP is saying she'll still contribute and give money directly to charities, just sounds like she lost faith in the institution.

PoppyAmex Sat 03-Nov-12 22:13:42
IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sat 03-Nov-12 22:15:25

Yes due to max Clifford. It's a genuine question/query?!! I'm not not going to donate money to those in need, perhaps there is a better charity for my money?!!

threesocksfortheguy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:16:43

oh dear
so CIN should suffer....
crazy

threesocks - there are other charities and fund raising stuff y'know.

IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sat 03-Nov-12 22:18:07

Thank you PoppyAmex

ommmward Sat 03-Nov-12 22:18:15

donate the money directly to the charities, yes.

Also, write to the BBC and to CiN and tell them what you are doing and why.

NettoSpookerstar Sat 03-Nov-12 22:20:23

Entirely up to you.
I can see why you'd find Max Clifford offensive, but I won't be boycotting.
They give money to Young Carers which my daughter benefits from.

PoppyAmex Sat 03-Nov-12 22:20:25

I agree, make sure you write to the BBC - many of us have already and I feel it's a very important point to be made.

threesocksfortheguy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:20:37

yes I do know, but I also find this mass hysteria a bit odd.
to then talk about boycotting a very big fund raiser imo seems just "look at me"

IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sat 03-Nov-12 22:31:17

Not asking for a 'look at me' , rather hoping I can try and do something and perhaps make a (small) stand.

hazeyjane Sat 03-Nov-12 22:31:46

A grant from Children in Need helps keep the special needs nursery open, that my ds goes to (they have been badly squeezed by the cuts.). I can pm you the details of the centre if you would like to make your charitable contribution to them!

threesocksfortheguy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:32:43

well my dd's school will hopefully still support it, they also often benefit from it.
I doubt if people giving to charities would help her school.

IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sat 03-Nov-12 22:37:58

Happy to donate to your school hazey Jane. Won't be able to donate to everyones. Honestly though, just really torn what to do.

SucksToBeScaryMe Sat 03-Nov-12 22:38:32

Give money to Clic Sargent instead?

LineRunner Sat 03-Nov-12 22:38:54

To be honest, I always want to boycott Children in Need and the NSPCC.

Barbardos seem great - they work with actual children's homes to keep real teenagers safe from sexual exploitation.

threesocksfortheguy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:40:30

what about disabled Kids?
do they not need help. they are already amongst the hardest hit and not thanks to shit like this, even a charity the helps them will be hit.

hazeyjane Sat 03-Nov-12 22:41:10

By the way, I do agree that MC shouldn't have any role in children in need, I just worry that if there is a mass boycott, then centres that rely on a regular grant from them will suffer. A lot of the places they support are organizations that struggle to fundraise on a mass scale, and don't have the profile of some of the larger charities.

QuickLookBusy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:42:10

I really do not understand why the BBC would be so stupid as to appoint Max Clifford to anythingangry

He's admitted he's kept stories out of the papers, that he knows lots of "stuff" which would appaul people. He's either boosting and therefore a liar, or he's telling the truth and either way he isn't a fit person to be associated with a children's charity.

Does anyone have an email address, for CIN or the BBC so I can raise this/complain about this?

LineRunner Sat 03-Nov-12 22:43:21

I'd like to give money directly to the services for disabled children. Happy to do that.

My understanding is that CiN take the funds, and then services have to bid to CiN for the money. It's the same with Comic Relief. Services (local charities and voluntary groups) where I live get very little back from both appeals compared with the money that local residents think they are giving to 'local good causes'.

PoppyAmex Sat 03-Nov-12 22:46:14

Quick

BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ

Email: trust.enquiries @bbc.co.uk

Telephone:
The information line on 03700 103 100
Or textphone on 03700 100 212

threesocksfortheguy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:50:03

hazeyjane thanks you put it better than me.
it will be children like ours who will suffer.
whilst people boycott and feel so triumphant

QuickLookBusy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:50:35

Thank you Poppy.

I will email them tomorrow.

QuickLookBusy Sat 03-Nov-12 22:50:58

Meant to add when I've had less wine

IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sat 03-Nov-12 22:55:39

Thanks again Poppy. Will email too. I'd like to say again, I want and will donate , just elsewhere .

LineRunner Sat 03-Nov-12 22:56:02

You can go straight on to the BBC website, to Complaints, and in about 30 seconds submit, 'It is a mistake for Max Cliiford to be associated with CiN.'

ChippingInLovesAutumn Sat 03-Nov-12 23:00:02

I don't understand why they would have involved in anyway with CiN?? Absolute disgrace.

IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sat 03-Nov-12 23:07:23

LineRunner, too many letters to fit on the complaint line!!! Have shortened and submitted though! Thank you

coff33pot Sat 03-Nov-12 23:08:54

Complaining is fine but I cant see how its going to do anything other than children suffer the loss of funds.

You could just not watch it but go in and donate at a post office for CIN. That way you would be hurting their ratings as such but I cant see them being bothered otherwise.

LineRunner Sat 03-Nov-12 23:09:09

I think I wrote 'Max Clifford should not be part of Children in Need'. Short and sweet, as they say.

LineRunner Sat 03-Nov-12 23:10:53

Well, I would like (a) to give my money direct to the frontline service anyway, and (b) not to have MaxClifford involved with CiN.

People like the OP and me do give money and will give money, every year.

mignonette Sat 03-Nov-12 23:12:33

I have repeatedly emailed Chris Evans as his address was posted on another thread seeing as he's organising charity donations. Not sure it'll do much as he seems pretty self obsessed /self satisifed but you do what you can .

Would like to see a march past Downing St/Central London to protest against any attempts to cover this heap of stink up and to show support of these brave people who now feel able to come forward...

Viviennemary Sat 03-Nov-12 23:18:34

Children in Need is not a charity I am very keen on I'm afraid. It is difficult with children at school because you feel obliged to give. I'd rather give to my charities of choice than be put under pressure in this way. Especially when you think it's sponsored by the BBC. Why don't they get their overpaid stars to dig into their deep pockets. They have a lot more money than I have. I can't bear a multi millionaire telling me who I should give my money to. I'll decide for myself thank you.

mignonette Sat 03-Nov-12 23:23:24

Have emailed the BBC.

QuickLookBusy Sat 03-Nov-12 23:57:04

Me too.

I hope they listen. He is NOT a suitable person to be working for a children's charity.

mignonette Sat 03-Nov-12 23:58:56

Please everybody, email BBC with your thoughts...

coff33pot Sun 04-Nov-12 00:10:38

I will not boycott it. There are a lot of unsuitable people around, stars, politicians, presenters, vicars, school teachers etc. It is extremely sad and worrying.

Only way is to out people for what they have or alledgedly have done and complain all you like and can, but not at the cost of sick and disabled or needy children and schools. The government and NHS cutbacks have hit these hard and I dont see the point in making another dent in it.

Boycott THEIR individual programmes, political votes, churches etc instead.

LineRunner Sun 04-Nov-12 00:14:42

I thought I would give my tenner this year to Barnardos. Straight into the shop. Cut out the administrative middleman. Take some books with me as well to donate.

FromEsme Sun 04-Nov-12 00:15:28

LineRunner I didn't know that charities have to bid to Children in Need. Thanks for that.

Viviennemary Sun 04-Nov-12 00:17:30

I will look at the charities children in need give to and choose from these. I'm not giving directly to children in need. I've decided.

LineRunner Sun 04-Nov-12 00:20:27

There's a form online to apply for a Children in Need grant. I think once a charity gets the thumbs up they can get funded for a number of years, though.

A friend of mine showed me the form for Comic Relief. (We both helped to run a old people's lunch club years ago.) It said it won't support existing charitable schemes, only new ones! Hopeless to my friend, who just wanted to keep going what she had built up against the odds.

LineRunner Sun 04-Nov-12 00:23:18

I've just had a look and seen that CiN gave some money to a local mainstream school working with children on the autistic spectrum for a special lunchtime club. I shall send them the cash instead.

LilQueenie Sun 04-Nov-12 00:36:16

damn wish I knew where that article was I read earlier. Someone on the board of CIN had doubts about jimmy savile and kept him away from the whole thing. I feel assured there are some good people in the world. On the other hand why is everyone bidding so high on that leeches book on ebay. seriously just over a hundred quid for one copy.

threesocksfortheguy Sun 04-Nov-12 09:46:09

well it looks like the most vulnerable will be hit again

LineRunner Sun 04-Nov-12 09:47:25

Not if people give money directly to a relevant front line charity or service.

QuickLookBusy Sun 04-Nov-12 09:48:34

threesocks I hope people complain to the BBC and Max Clofford is removed, rather than people not supporting CIN.

LineRunner Sun 04-Nov-12 09:50:36

That would be best, QuickLook.

mignonette Sun 04-Nov-12 09:51:54

Please email the BBC to get Clifford removed.

EmmelineGoulden Sun 04-Nov-12 11:07:02

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. Even though nurses said children would pretend to be asleep when he came on the ward no one wanted to say "no" to JS because "what if it hurt fundraising?". The reuirement for good judgement cannot be held hostage to short term fundraising - it will ultimately hurt the publics trust in all charities and hit fundraising very badly in the medium and long term.

Everyone involved in charities - volunteers, board, staff, people who donate - all need to be insisting on the high standards. As a charity, aligning yourself with someone who admits unapologetically to trying to cover up child abuse is not really doing that. The association sends the wrong message about the aceptability of abuse by celebrities generally. It also makes me wonder what has happened at CiN that they feel needs the sorts of skill Clifford brings to the table. He's not exactly known for his honest and forthright approach is he?

mignonette Sun 04-Nov-12 11:33:07

Excellent point Emmeline

Viviennemary Sun 04-Nov-12 11:35:44

Yes Emmeline you have made excellent points. If JS hadn't raised so much money for charity then he would have been exposed sooner. It was not wanting to sabotage the fund raising that held people back. So it seems from what I've read and seen on TV.

stinkinseamonkey Sun 04-Nov-12 11:38:33

"Complaining is fine but I cant see how its going to do anything other than children suffer the loss of funds."

the OP and others will still have the same amt of "spare" money to donate direct to charity

Trills Sun 04-Nov-12 11:39:37

There are a lot of posts here from people who seem not to have read that you do want to give money to charity just not via Children In Need.

Find a local charity that you like and give directly to them.

LynetteScavo Sun 04-Nov-12 11:41:12

"It also makes me wonder what has happened at CiN that they feel needs the sorts of skill Clifford brings to the table"

Yes, I am hmm confused about why MC is involved.

FromEsme Sun 04-Nov-12 11:42:26

Emmeline very good points.

hazeyjane Sun 04-Nov-12 12:26:29

I understand that people will give their money to another charity, my worries are that people will tend towards giving to the 'big name' charities, and one thing that CiN is good at is spreading out regular grants to smaller charities,and centres that receive some govt funding, but rely on things like CiN and fundraising for equipment, extra staff etc. The other worry is the point about it being a regular grant - it is a bit like setting up a direct debit for a donation, these are valuable to charities, because they can plan for the future, with some idea of the sort of donations they are likely to receive. My worry if people boycott and don't donate money, then what will happen to the regular grants?

I understand the concern, and the connection with the JS case (although I think there was a lot more to it than covering up because of fears over fundraising). But I also worry about the effect on the actual people who benefit from the money that CiN raises.

stinkinseamonkey Sun 04-Nov-12 12:30:57

I think most people prefer small local charities that they can see, around here anyway people go out of their way to donate to/shop at the charity shops for the smaller local ones than the big ones

personally I have a few fav big ones and a few fav local ones

hazeyjane Sun 04-Nov-12 13:05:12

But there are lots of places that rely on charitable funding, that I don't think people are even aware of.Ds's nursery had a fundraiser last year and most people I asked for sponsorship had either never heard of it, or thought it would be completely govt funded (it is the only specialist early years setting in a very large area). The same with portage, no-one knows what it is (unless they have a child who has benefitted from it), but the one question every paed, SALT, physio and ot asked me about ds, was 'does he get portage?' - such an amzing thing, which relies heavily on charitable donations.

stinkinseamonkey Sun 04-Nov-12 13:07:26

corporate donations are also usually to small local ones

LineRunner Sun 04-Nov-12 13:42:18

Very thought-provoking, Emmeline.

mignonette Sun 04-Nov-12 15:47:34

I'm donating to a local appeal for a specialist wheelchair....

hazeyjane Sun 04-Nov-12 16:00:00

corporate donations are also usually to small local ones

and with the recession, a lot of business donations have stopped. I know that one local business has had to stop donating to ds's centre.

bigwombat Sun 04-Nov-12 16:07:37

A small local disabled children's charity I'm involved with is currently receiving a CIN grant. We're getting a significant sum (for us), can't see how we could possibly raise a similar sum from individual donations - the amount of extra fundraising work and administration would be huge and, as we're all unpaid volunteers with other jobs, practically impossible! CIN have a very strict process for awarding the grants and then monitoring them (similar to the Big Lottery). It would be a very sad thing if the appointment of MC seriously affected their income.

Darkesteyes Sun 04-Nov-12 16:43:02

Great post Emmeline. Some very good points.

IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie Sun 04-Nov-12 17:55:55

Thank you all for your comments. Have been reading through the thread and to the comments concerned about fewer donations to groups in need, kept thinking but, but , (!) and then I saw Emmelines post.... well said. I couldn't articulate the right words but I feel you have captured my feelings perfectly.

hazeyjane Sun 04-Nov-12 19:33:17

I have emailed the bbc, stating that I fear that appointing MC will lead to people boycotting Children in Need, and that they have made a mistake in giving him a role within the charity.

I'm afraid I won't be boycotting the charity though.

If anyone would like to contribute directly to a small charity, please consider this centre in Devizes or wiltshire portage - thankyou.

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.

hazeyjane Mon 05-Nov-12 16:09:21

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

well yes, I realise that I will be more passionate about the 2 charities that IK linked too, which is why I have organised fundraisers for them and why I linked to them (in a desperate attempt to beg)!

that is also the reason why something like CiN or the National Lottery works well for charitable organisations that struggle with attracting donations, rely on regular grants to stay open, but often stay under the radar - unless you find yourself in the position of needing/being referred to them. Only then do you realise how essential they are to the children and families that need them.

BlissfullyIgnorant Mon 05-Nov-12 16:15:31

Haven't read entire thread BUT...

The BBC seem to have done a lot for children over the decades - not all good

Just because somebody decided not to give to Children in Need does not mean they aren't allowed to give to other charities.

If you want a recommendation, try http://www.oliviasvision.org/
Which is unique in the UK. It funds research into uveitis. smile

NigellaTufnel Mon 05-Nov-12 16:28:34

Can anyone tell me what the problem is with MC? Apart from him being the leading proponent of a kind of sleazy PR. Is there any specific?

QuickLookBusy Mon 05-Nov-12 17:00:26

Nigella, it's his admission that his main job isn't PR but to keep "things" out of the media for his clients.

He has admitted he knew Alan Clark MP (now dead) had sex with two 14 year old girls and he helped keep this out of the press.

I would also like to know if he has kept other crimes against children out of the press.

Viviennemary Mon 05-Nov-12 17:02:20

So is Max Clifford being paid for this role? Or is he doing in on a voluntary basis.

NigellaTufnel Mon 05-Nov-12 18:07:30

Yeauch!

EmmelineGoulden Mon 05-Nov-12 18:34:42

My pet peeve around charity giving is people who seem to think charities should spend little on good governance, relationship building, advertising and the hundred and one other overheads that build stability and long term success.

That CiN have low overheads is not something I find to particularly appealing about them. It seems even more like a mistake when they are being highlighted for an issue of judgement, ethics and good governance.

Simatmum Thu 15-Nov-12 11:20:50

Yes, I am going to withhold my donation to CIN this year, and give to children's charities instead.

Extrospektiv Thu 15-Nov-12 16:12:45

"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. "

-now why am i not surprised?

Extrospektiv Thu 15-Nov-12 16:13:24

Charitable work & Subsidiarity>big government all the way
And I'm not a Thatcherite or even a Tory, just a moderate.

Viviennemary Thu 15-Nov-12 16:35:24

Well maybe the BBC should kindly donate £10 from everybody's licence fee and cut their costs accordingly. That would solve the problem. It's all about self promotion for the stars. I am very cynical about this event I'm afraid.

NigellasGuest Thu 15-Nov-12 18:01:25

I emailed my complaint to the BBC trust a week or so ago and have received the following reply. Please read below:

"Thank you for your email to the BBC Trust. I am responding as a member of the Trust Unit which supports and advises the Chairman and the Trustees.
I note your concerns about reports regarding Max Clifford's involvement in this
year's Children in Need event.

Whilst I appreciate your concerns, I should explain that the BBC Trust has no
role in day to day editorial or operational issues, such as the appointment of
PR or fundraising staff.

BBC Children in Need is a registered charity and the Trust has no influence on
its appointments. If you would like to contact Children in Need directly, you
can do so via:

Email: pudsey@bbc.co.uk

Post:
BBC Children in Need Appeal
PO Box 1000
London
W12 7WJ

Tel: 020 8576 7788

I hope this is helpful and thank you for bringing your concerns to the Trust's
attention.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Grogan
BBC Trust Unit"

mignonette Thu 15-Nov-12 19:42:58

I got fobbed off with the same email, Nigella'sGuest, basically saying it is nothing to do with the BBC and I should email CIN. So I have.

NigellasGuest Thu 15-Nov-12 20:50:08

well yes so have I, Mignonette - It was just my longwinded way of telling people there's no point emailing BBC trust.... just email pudsey@bbc.co.uk not that that will make any difference either

damibasiamille Fri 16-Nov-12 21:11:24

Re Max Clifford, having sex with 14-year-old girls is a crime. And isn't there a crime of "failing to report a crime" or possibly "helping a criminal to evade justice"? Only asking . . .

Also, if I remember rightly, Roger Jones also said something to the effect that "the paedophiles were round CiN like flies around a honey-pot" but that he was able to keep them at bay because the police tipped him off.

Seems to me it's up to all of us to be extremely vigilant.

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