to feel uncomfortable about people bidding huge sums of money for Children In Need experiences (Chris Evans this morning)?

[Megainstant]

It made me feel...odd. Or something. To hear people bidding thousands and thousands of pounds to play tennis at the Queens Club. I know all the money goes to charity. I know its a worthwhile cause. But it made me feel strangely uncomfortable and I don't really know why.

The thing that galls me slightly is that these folks have that money available but won't part with it, unless they get something, IYSWIM. One day of the year, they will happily part with 18k or 30k or whatever - just for the bullshit prestige of saying they played tennis at Queen's. It makes it quite obvious that they don't give a flying fuck about the actual children, it's just a flashy status symbol thing.

QuizteamBleakley

yes I think this is getting to the nub of my discomfort!

although who knows what other quiet charitable giving they do. Maybe they are amazing philanthropists 364 days of the year.

You've no idea what other donations they make!

And you're not 'forced' to listen for goodness sake.

Does the money not do as much good then, if you're not 100% pure of heart?

Why oh why do I join this thread every year?

I think it's lovely and a great gesture from all concerned.

I don't see a problem

I never understand why they don't do a raffle. Chris Evans has nearly 10 million listeners. If half of them bought a raffle ticket for a fiver, they'd raise £25 million.

As with most charity's, a fraction of the money goes where it says it does

If that bothers you so much go out onto the street and find a child in need (or a cancer patient, or a whale that needs saving) and give directly. Bet you don't though. IME the people who complain about charities spending money on paying their staff, or administering their business in line with the law (so it's, you know, accountable to its funders) are just tight and want to justify their tightness.

We have no idea what these people normally do with their money. Maybe they do give to charity regularly. But it remains a fact that people give more when there is an incentive. Even on a small scale when the kids come home from school with a sponsor form you, their aunt and their granny put a few quid down which otherwise you wouldn't have done. These are various celebs, top sports people and chefs and so on who are donating their time to create an experience that money cannot buy under normal circumstances and it works, people donate. And yeah,it is on a popular show, wouldn't raise quite so much tucked away on a show with about 3 regular listeners would it.

And they do often do a raffle, things with several spaces they often do one of the as a raffle and the others as the auction.

I feel this is a bit like saying why do people have cake sales? Why do they have sponsored skips, jumble sales, why are there charity shops? Why can't people just donate? Because they don't, that's why. Or because they have already donated to one charity, but another charity needs some money too, so they have to come up with some way of incentivising.

I know someone who is currently "fundraising" for a charity. Except she isn't really, she is fundraising for her own trek across South Africa or whatever, for which she pays above the odds and then some money gets given to the charity out of that. I find this sticks in my craw much more, but even if it does, she is still now incentivised to raise money for a charity, which is getting some money it wouldn't have got otherwise. Yes it would be better if she would just fundraise out of her own goodwill, yes it would be better if I just donated money directly to the charity rather than funding her fun trip, but the charity is getting money it wouldn't have done otherwise and that is the main thing. I think.

TheWrathFromHighAtopTheThing

I did say they might give money all year as far as I know to be fair

I know you are all right. I just won't listen this week.

I never watch the actual show either as I hate the 'happy/sad' thing

"Oooh. That was hard to watch wasn't it. Our lines are open until midnight tonight...And here's James Corden in a mankini!!"

I enjoy it. I like to imagine that one day I might have the odd £10 000 to splash on something silly and overpriced with all of the cash going to a good cause. If you listen to the shows they say all the time that all donations, large and small are appreciated.

So what's the alternative? Not do the auctions, refuse vast sums of money from wealthy people and tell them to spend it on a holiday instead?! Surely their money is as good as anyone else's.

Yes it does jar that people are flashing around such huge amounts of money while others are homeless, but Children in Need is a charity which does help homeless children, so it's directly addressing that inequality in some small way.

I personally prefer these jolly fundraising things to the 'misery porn' adverts they show during the CIN programme to guilt you into giving money. They're both just tactics to get people to part with cash at the end of the day.

I hate when Evans does this. I don't care how kind it is for those with loadsamoney to be bidding for experiences the kids they're supposedly collecting for willcnever get. Why not bid for a child in need to play tennis at queens? That would be truly charitable. I find it vulgar and relentless and thankfully I just switch the radio off. It's the same with that bloody carfest thing too. Constantly pushing tickets which are out of reach of a large percentage of the people they're raising money for.

In my youth I worked for a tv charity fundraising programme (not saying which one) and you wouldn't believe how much the "stars" were paid for their time. I was so angry when I found out as production team all donated their time for free. When things like CIN are begging for money I'd like to know what the appearance fees are now.

I know someone who is currently "fundraising" for a charity. Except she isn't really, she is fundraising for her own trek across South Africa or whatever, for which she pays above the odds and then some money gets given to the charity out of that

Yes I hate that sort of fundraising too. If you really wanted to do a fundraising trek you'd walk Lands End to John O'Groats, or Manchester to Liverpool or something, not the Great Wall of China or Macchu Picchu. But as you say, the charity is getting some cash. It's just a less efficient way of doing it than a direct donation.

People have to feel they're getting something in a lot of cases.

From the website.

When the Public donates a pound to BBC Children in Need, this is a pound that goes to help change the lives of disadvantaged children and young people.

All other costs not attributable to grant making are covered by investment income and gift aid.

The list of grants throughout the UK is freely available.

Why not bid for a child in need to play tennis at queens? That would be truly charitable

YES

I am with you on this OP. I had to change radio stations. And it is no way a case of sour grapes - we are by no means hard up. I was saying to DH only last night that it is actually quite disgusting people bidding what is other peoples's annual salary for pointless days doing something or other. I know it's for charity etc etc but I also think Chris Evans doesn't have a fucking clue how his listeners live - he would happily throw away wads of cash himself. I find it all very grating. I am also surprised the BBC allow this to continue.

makes Cacofonix a coffee yes I agree with you.

I think it is starting to sound like an anachronism actually

In my youth I worked for a tv charity fundraising programme (not saying which one) and you wouldn't believe how much the "stars" were paid for their time

None of the Children in Need presenters get paid for their time. I think Terry Wogan got paid but that was for his role behind the scenes and as a figurehead of the organisation rather than for his presenting on the night.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5ShlK3DH4J6XyLMXXTw355h/frequently-asked-questions-faq

I don't see why someone spending £10,000 on a game of tennis or whatever is so much more terrible than spending it all on a overpriced night out, or day at the races or whatever it is that the super-rich spend their money on.

That's the presenters.

Doesn't say anything about the stars.

I don't like it for many of the above reasons.

It's also pretty poor broadcasting imo.

If it raises money for charity, I don't give a shit.