To disagree with Children in need

He could do that as well.

Vernon Kay is making Vernon Kay feel good. If he wanted to really help children who are in need, he’d do the Labour of understanding the issues properly and get behind a lobbying campaign to win adequate statutory support.

@JellyMops the inference has been that we need something like CIN because of the Tories but CIN existed during Labour governments too

“We don’t do charity in Germany we pay taxes. Charity is just a failure of governments’ responsibilities.”
Henning Wehn

But people give to it because charitable giving is all about making the donor feel good and propping up the charity sector. It has little to do with the needs of the intended beneficiaries.

Nordic countries are well funded, high taxed and have excellent pubic services. They still have thousands of charities. Are you implying that Nordic countries, held up as the model for societal aspiration, are not fair and decent societies because they have charities?

@crumblingschools I'll vote for whomever does the least harm at the moment, Tories being the ones who do most.

We have had children's charities for over 300 years but just because we've done something for hundreds of years does not mean we should keep doing it, we'd still have child labour and no state education if we'd done that. The government took over/ended those things, so why not the rest? Why do we have charities filling holes in our social and medical systems when it would be better, more efficient and safer if they plugged those holes themselves?

I've not looked at the accounts in detail, but they do need to account (and hold money for) multi year grants.
All charities need reserves.

I understand your sentiments, but Vernon Kay raised over £4m. I doubt that you or I could do that.

It often needs a high profile person to get involved in fund raising. Why do you think that charities have them as patrons?

I do give money to charity but I also resent being asked to give money by people who are much better off than me.

Having worked for orgs that received children in need funding i can't emphasise how important this money is.

The problem with relying purely on donations direct to charities is that the fashionable causes get good funding but the more niche, the ones that aren't as good at pr, the ones that aren't media friendly don't raise enough despite potentially being more important. I'm grant writer and the process is very laborious often but it means funding goes to good organisations.

I personally don't watch telethons, not my bag, but I am happy to donate to them.

I also imagine that during Children in Need, people who don’t want to donate directly to CIN will be prompted to donate to their local children’s hospice etc, so other children charities will benefit indirectly.

Not all treatments are provided by the NHS, or are only provided abroad. Hence people fund raise for these treatments.

Some treatments are only in early stages of development, or haven’t been approved for the disease the patient wants to use it for.

They don't just hand out money will nilly
(Or so I believe) organisations have to apply for a grant and give the exact purpose of what the money will be used for. Then the board decide whether the request is deemed worthy or not

I know and support an organisation that receives help from CiN so I do know it isn’t just liberal virtue signalling and actually does have positive effects on children’s lives.

We are NEVER going to have 'a needs meets all' NHS or a fair society. Never going to happen. So unfortunately charities like CIN provide for some of those unmet needs. No, children shouldn't have to be pitied, but pity is a strong human emotion and either God, if you believe in him, or nature has given it to us or caused it to evolve in us for a reason. It ensures the down and outs in society don't get left aside to struggle. It helps societies bond. It moves people to give. Pity seems to be despised as an emotion, but it is a positive and functional one if it moves us to resolve negative situations and meet unmet needs.

I get some of the objection to it, but what is the alternative? We are not becoming a more compassionate society, quite the contrary, and this post is indicative of the growing trend of cynicism that is partly responsible for that.

I was always very confused by why there have to be money collected for treatment. If its essential, it should be free on the NHS.

I do a lot of fund raising with a charitable organisation. We are all volunteers and no-one gets paid at all for their efforts. We all do it because we want to.

I donated to a local charity who are working with (of course anonymous) disadvantaged families. They had a list of items those children needed and I bought some and dropped off at the specified location.
I did find it sobering that they had a stat that 1 in 5 children experience "food insecurity" (I have to admit I'd never heard the phrase before )
The lifestyle/income brackets and spending habits in general where I live means I can't imagine it's anything like that here, which means there must be some areas where its affecting much more than 20% kids

I agree with your points that this should be covered by better use of government funds - but the reality is that doesn't happen, and if charities (CIN being one) didn't try and fill the gap, the gap would be even bigger.

I don't like the virtue signalling of slebs either- but, it clearly works. And if that's what it takes to make some money to support people who need it, its the lesser of two evils.

Totally agree @BrokenBrit and @Blanc4

I am not totally against charitable work (I've done some myself) but I am also concerned about how charities are running and whether all in need can get access. When I was at a low point with my SEND child I approached one charity who turned us away as our local authority hadn't bought into their services. It was a humiliating experience and I felt totally abandoned. I had to go it alone as the local authority couldn't provide either. In view of this, I'd like the government to properly fund support for disabled children and adults rather than relying on charities because its down to luck and postcode if you can get any help.

It's interesting that posters who have actually benefitted from the funds raised by CIN have painted a completey different picture.

I never watch the show, will donate to someone fundraising though.

Big charities wouldn’t be able to function if they paid the CEO peanuts. They’re paying the market rate. Nothing wrong with that. You need someone experienced at the helm.

I guess you don't have a child in need?
I do he's severely. Disabled A lot of things he can access are funded by things like children in need but I suppose you can just make A thread on here and feel.good about yourself 🙄

Meh. I ran London marathon on a charity place for Macmillan years back, sure, it was a bucket list thing for me and I did raise plenty of money. But the benefit that my family and I had from macmillan during 3 bouts of cancer care were over and beyond what the NHS could even be remotely responsible for providing.

I think the same is true of children in need. I'm not denying that the NHS is grossly underfunded nor that parents/families/general public should not be asked to pay for even the basics. But many of the things that this money will pay for is beyond the remit of the nhs, and for that I will happily donate a few quid.