To disagree with Children in need

Same old discussion every year.

Rich people asking poor people for money.

If you must have something every year why children why not animals or old people.

i totally agree

The Government don’t fund anything.
it is the taxpayers who do the funding.

As it happens I'm going to the Senedd tomorrow to speak to members about funding for care and treatment of a particular disability, at an event I persuaded them to put on. What are you doing?

Of course change to policy and practice is needed, but that's the case for pretty much every charitable organisation. No charities would be needed if policy and practice in that charity's field were adequate. You might as well say you don't agree with Shelter because housing policy should be better, or you don't agree with Macmillan because cancer nursing should be properly funded through the NHS, or you don't agree with the RSPCA because animal welfare crimes should be prosecuted by a specialist police unit, or you don't agree with Oxfam because the government should be giving more in overseas aid. The list is endless.

Personally, I never watch Children In Need because it's terrible TV, and I rarely donate because I tend to donate to other charities year-round, but I couldn't say I 'disagree' with it.

Agreed with the OP already, but I suspect some of the celebrities do it to raise their profiles. Cynical maybe.

Do you sincerely believe very wealthy people sit around watching Children In Need on a Friday night. I don't know I can't imagine it but perhaps.

My town runs a Christmas Shopping Evening that usually coincides with Black Friday but this year was a week early. Which meant that the vast majority were not watching Children in Need. Neither was it mentioned by anyone attending...not even the special guests. Ironically I'd seen a post suggesting that the person turning on our lights would be doing something for CiN...which of course I disputed as I knew they'd be switching on the lights!

I'm also getting very irritated by the emphasis on it being BBC Children in Need. It makes it sound like kids who watch ITV won't get support.

I haven't watched any of it but I'd be interested to know if the puppeteers/Muppeteers on MasterChef were the genuine originals if anyone knows.

Good grief, such cynicism over his awesome achievement for charity….. wow 😯

Wow 🙁 What a sad comment!!

Because dying people are not a priority! Most hospices are charities, but don’t know if any that aren’t, and receive a small proportion of government funding. The modern hospice movement was founded by a woman doctor, Cecile Saunders, who thought hospital palliative care was under par. A lot of children’s hospices provide huge amounts of respite care and long term support - people, if they have a choice, prefer children to die at home and hospices support that.

i used to work in a hospice and every time at public events we had someone come up to us and say they didn’t donate as they thought govt should pay for us, my colleague would ask them what they were doing to make that happen. It was always nothing.

It’s competitive as a charity to get money from CIN and there is a process of due diligence before the grant is awarded and then in reporting and impact.

for everyone who is saying that the government should be doing all this; yes they should. What are you doing to communicate this and hold them to account? Anything at all?

Pretty sure they wouldn’t appear if they didn’t want to!

Eh? Pretty sure they’re not being seen in either way!

Forgive me for not coughing up the cash I need to pay my gas bill, no matter how much a multimillionaire celebrity asks me too:

Terrible programme. Mawkish sentimentality. Outdated. Too many 'celebs' and so called stars desperately trying to prop up their flagging careers. Virtue signalling at its worst

I seem to recall that Terry Wogan didn't know that he was being paid for it. Maybe his agent was a little too 'keen' in organising it (and getting their cut).

I suppose the thing is that, surely any pay would have been coming from the BBC rather than from CIN funds - as they would have had to pay for several hours of programming at that time regardless.

Or is it the done thing that the BBC pay the equivalent of what they would pay to the stars as a donation to CIN?

I got the impression that Terry did donate a lot of his own money to CIN anyway, but I can see how it looks rather murky that he was being paid to raise money for charity.

Children have three parents, the two biological, and the State.
So why is it my problem?

I agree that everything should be properly funded, however it is not. They need that money, as much of it as possible where I think it’s sad that children in need needs to exist it’s sadder that you are looking at it this way.

It's a horrible annual bore and wouldn't watch.

It's so monotonous every year.
How about changing it to older people in need, or pets in need. Just children all the time yawn.

Emotional blackmail. I’ve never watched and never will.

It’s not just disabled children. There are loads of charities helped by children in need where there are other reasons. Some support bereavement charities for children. The diy sos for children in need was for one of those charities. There will be others.

But yes, there are lots of things included send that are underfunded and the country is in crisis and needs to look better at this. I work for a charity that supports disabled children and adults and there’s never enough money.

I work for a small youth work charity and we provide mentoring services to Young people Age 12+ this was funded by CIN. We need so much more though as the need massively outweighs what we can offer due to funding.

I believe so re sir Terry.
I was involved with one regional broadcast and everyone, including celebrities and the production staff worked for free.

I had some involvement with CIN several years ago, so my perspective may be out of date.
CIN disperses the money in the form of grants, usually via branches of CIN at a regional level.
The case studies you see on tv are the minority of the hardest hitting and emotionally appealing.
Most of the money goes to causes which are no less worthy imho but less popular, such as older teens, drugs and alcohol related support.
There are also grants made to organisations I absolutely wouldn't support.
It's manipulation via the media but if it were done with more transparency it simply wouldn't raise the funds required.