To disagree with Children in need

Why often seems forgotten about is these children will inevitably turn to adults and there is a complete cliff edge in terms of support once your disabled child hits 18. What would be be more helpful is campaigns to change policies surrounding disability benefits.

Well maybe there's a reason these charities (in general) don't rely on the GOV. Based upon that.... well let the charities raise money because I think the majority of the receiving will be grateful opposed to them feeling exploited.

Actually the basic care, which everyone gets if they can't afford better, is pretty bloody amazing too (at least by UK standards). My great aunt had a knee replaced (operation followed by 2 weeks of rehab in a live in rehabilitation facility on the Baltic) in just under 3 months. Meanwhile the good old nhs took a little under 2 years to offer MiL the same (no rehab).

I've been thinking about this a lot today and watching little bits of the CIN programme. I've been trying to work out which things should be provided by government/nhs and which are optional extras that should be fundraised for. I was thinking that while there were a lot of charities getting money from CIN that were doing "nice but not essential" things for children wouldn't be needed if the government funded things properly. So like the organisation that took young carers out on trips. I initially thought that the government wouldn't be able to fund that. Then I thought that if the government/nhs funded proper care then there wouldn't be any young carers at all. I'm not sure what the answer is with my dc's inclusive sports club though. We pay a subsidised amount for our children to go to a club that they are allowed to go to, that has a higher staff to child ratio. I've tried doing mainstream activities with them but they aren't allowed to go anywhere like scouts or playschemes etc unless I stay with them and then the other children make fun of them because my dc are the only ones with a parent staying. If social services funded a PA for them who was less embarrassing than me then they could go to scouts etc. But I do wonder if that would end up more expensive than running their inclusive sports club.

I think part (or most of it) will be simply down to numbers - who hears about it and is inspired to donate. If Jim knows 200 people IRL and 10% are inspired to donate a fiver, he makes £100.

Yes, This as well.

I think some posters are being quite obtuse and just want to believe that CIN never does anything positive.

Depends why they have investments - presumably they get an income from them, which can be used to cover costs, a quick Google suggests some is used to cover running costs on top of the 5p/£ that goes on Admin.

Having administered a (very small) grants fund myself, it is a lot of work to do well and very time consuming. People complain about admin costs and lack of accountability, but part of that admin cost is providing monitoring information to the funder. I don't know what larger funders do, but we certainly went through the monitoring info in detail to ensure the aims of the funding were met, adding to admin costs on our side as well.

Nothing is perfect, of course, but I know of some excellent local organisations who have received funding from Children in Need, and it's made a difference to them.

I think part (or most of it) will be simply down to numbers - who hears about it and is inspired to donate. If Jim knows 200 people IRL and 10% are inspired to donate a fiver, he makes £100.

If 10% of Vernon's listeners are inspired to donate a fiver he makes over £3m. Then the other radio 2 hosts talk about it in their shows, and if he's got social media then the sheer scale of people who are aware of the challenge is massive.

I've not donated in the past & have no intention of ever donating.

I prefer to support my local animal rescues & wildlife hospitals as I know exactly where the money is going.

I find the mawkish sentimentality of things like CIN very offputting.

Germans pay a fortune in health insurance if they want quality, speedy care.

Which is fine for those who can afford it...

And how do you propose the NHS pays for this? 🤷

Money doesn't grow on trees. It comes out of the pockets of taxpayers, and there isn't enough of it to pay for everything. The only alternative to increasing taxes is for people to raise money for charity, and CIN is just one way of doing that. I can't see another option really.

The one that really got on my bad side is the radio 2 auction for things money can t buy.
loads of rich people showing their rich by spending ridiculous amounts on experiences and things they don't really need
plus
I've always felt that it made those children in need and other people struggling financially feel worse as they would love to drive around in a rolls with Chris Evans for example, but know they will never afford to do so.
and
the number of people going on these things and leaving their kids out or picking one of the kids to go with them I always found strange

Maybe we should look at society and ask ourselves why Jim down the road doing exactly the same thing as Vernon Kay wouldn’t raise anywhere near the same amount

Because, like it or not, we live in a culture where celebrity is celebrated. I don't think we can turn the clock back because social media just encourages it.

But the UK’s charity sector is over two and a half times larger to serve a population that’s 20% smaller. And it isn’t because German people are cold or uncaring.

Is it like for like? I'm not nitpicking, I'm genuinely interested and not sure how to find out.

Here, a lot of things like ballet companies, orchestras, theatres and museums are charities. The National Trust etc. So almost "company" charities.

Is that the same in Germany?

I did say least worse. 'New' Labour where just Tory light as far as I'm concerned. It is 100 times worse under the Tories though, they really have destroyed the country, again.

Maybe we should look at society and ask ourselves why Jim down the road doing exactly the same thing as Vernon Kay wouldn’t raise anywhere near the same amount, and why we need the visual images of children to raise additional funds for them, but whilst we are doing this there are charities out there that need funds and their fundraising efforts are not going to raise the amounts they can get from a grant from CIN or similar organisations

The virtue signalling is deafening on this thread this morning

Agree with it or not, but Jim from the end of your street could run 3 days of ultra marathons and not raise £4m. Why is it wrong with someone with a public profile to use that for good?

How do you know that these “rich celebrities” didn’t donate last night and/or use their profile to lobby for change?

Other charities, likely ones people on this thread donate to rather than the big commercial machine that is CIN, use celebrity and even royal patrons - is that wrong too? They also likely pay their CEOs high salaries

If the government funded social services more where do you want that to come from? Yes we all agree that those that don’t pay their fair share should be targeted first but after that? If taxes go up, people will moan, if pensions/benefits get cut people will moan

Even in the richest of society, charities are needed. Money is raised in many ways from fundraising gala dinners, to packing your shopping in a supermarket to a once in a year tv show

If you are not interested you can switch off but it doesn’t mean it is not needed or doesn’t have a place in the calendar

@Tatumm who pays for subsidised activities for disadvantaged children, theatre groups for disabled children, additional support for bereaved children etc. Do services like this all come from taxes or do they not happen?

Yes of course.

But the UK’s charity sector is over two and a half times larger to serve a population that’s 20% smaller. And it isn’t because German people are cold or uncaring.

And that's fine don't watch it then I know of several.local charities who benefit from the likes of children in need they organise activities and subsidised days out for disabled children who cannot otherwise access these things
Nobodies forcing anybody to donate just don't watch it 🙄

He raised over 5 million Quid ,it doesn't matter why he did it ,he did it and it will benefit children who are in need hugely ,its better moaning whilst not actually doing anything.

What I really, really loathe is attempts to manipulate my emotions.

I hate this contrived 'fake' emotion. Televised tragedy, carefully designed by the best script-writers and camera-operators, to extract as much sadness as possible from the audience, who watch because they actually enjoy having their feelings aroused in this way.
At core, it is the same thing as watching a good 'weepy' film. Pictures and music on your glass screen making you cry - you watch because you like it.

It is similar to when a camera-operator in a war zone or disaster area will linger too long on e.g. the face of a parent whose child has just died. There is no need. It does not add any 'news' or information to the account. It is just disgusting emotional pornography.

I give to several charities every month my direct debit. I thought carefully about where my money was to go (poverty abroad and environmental causes).
I will not spend money so that disadvantaged children in this country can have dance lessons or better wheelchairs or whatever, when there are still hundreds of thousands of children with no access to clean water and no toilets.
That is my rational choice.

You make your own choices about where to donate, but please put some proper thought into it and don't do it just because of a social emotional fest.

@Tatumm there are charities in Germany

I don't watch it but am fortunate to be able to donate.
I think though that kids get a lot from being involved.

Many funds go to various youth groups who do you think should pay for them, NHS?