... to not want to watch Children In Need

[NewName73]

... and be quite annoyed that HIGFY is not on in its usual slot?

So just don't watch it? You can't watch anything else or do anything else for one night?

Just what I was about to say.

Lots of arseholes on this thread. Children In Need is an amazing charity.

For the people saying about 'bad' charities, which are these? I'd be interested to know more.

I'm sure they don't support any charities that 100% of people would consider 'bad', but they will inevitably pass money on to charities which many of those giving donations would, at best, not choose to prioritise and, at worst, charities which some will find morally objectionable. Yes, they have a public audit trail as to where the money is given, but you have to really search through it to find the whole picture.

For me personally, just one of those categories is charities which work with children with potential transgender issues. I am NOT saying that these children - all children - shouldn't be fully supported with whatever they're going through, but I have serious misgivings as to some of the charities' motives and methods and the greater long-term (sometimes irreversible) effects that their work will have on children.

Of course, many will disagree with me and if they choose knowingly to give to any of these named charities then all well and good to them - it's their free choice. However, giving to a generic umbrella term like 'Children In Need' takes away the agency of the individual giver. I daresay too that there may be a number of smaller charities, alongside the many, many excellent and worthy ones, who know which buttons to push and which words to say to obtain the funding, but which wouldn't be very high on most people's 'worthy' list if they stood alone. Just to clarify, I am NOT talking about charities that do unsung and unglamorous but nevertheless essential work in the background.

Added to this that CIN isn't a specific charity - it's a grant-giving organisation. Therefore, there's a whole extra level of admin/bureaucracy involved before the money can be passed to - and received by - the individual charities.

Also, they lead you to believe that the money you give now will all go straight to the charities over this year. In fact, they invest a great deal of it to be released over sometimes several years, and some of the funds they invest in may be contentious to many people.

I'm not denying that a great deal of good work is done because of CIN, but it seems a strange way of going about things. Normally, charities will identify the need and then seek donations to support it. CIN, on the other hand, asks for all of the money first and then looks for things to do with it. I can't imagine you'd do too well if you shook a bucket on the High Street with the same principle:
"Give generously to charity!"
"What cause are you collecting for?"
"Well, just give and then, once I've collected as much as I can, I'll see how much there is and then find something worthy to do with it."

There are other things to do than watch TV. I haven't had a TV since 2009 and have been fine. And I've somehow managed to find ways of donating to worthwhile charities anyway, just not the ones that are constantly in your face.

People who don’t care are ‘arseholes’?

Some of us have actually worked for charities - people who only bother themselves with charity for one or two days in the year are the ‘bad guys’.

I think there is a question now as to whether Children in Need type charities are inadvertently enabling Government's to evade responsibility?

Never seen it. Is it any good

As the telethon programme has grown so has the money donated.

Small local charities would never be able to raise the money they get from organisations like Children in Need.

There was a lovely bit this evening when a little girl who had benefited from CIN met the stars from Doctor Who. She had the biggest smile on her face

To those of you saying you don't know where the money goes ... ive worked for orgs that received money, you have to be a registered charity and apply through a grant process. It's strict and the reporting of outcomes is strict too. They support a wide range of projects including those which the general public don't donate directly to (donkeys charities get more often). Don't watch it if it's not your cup of tea, it's a bit corny, but the money does good stuff

For the small grants programme you don't have to be a registered charity, but you do have to be a properly set up up and constituted group. I'm involved with four local groups in a deprived area that all receive CIN funding (3 involving children and 1 the elderly). The process is thorough, and you have to report what you spend the money on same as the bigger grants. They are also great at talking you through the process and/or giving support to you throughout

The other thing we have found is that once you get through their vetting procedures other funders, especially small ones with less ability to vet as well as CIN, are much happier to fund you so they help in that area as well

People are often surprised when they look at the list of locally funded groups in my area and see how much good CIN do.

Agree about the girl who met the Doctor Who actors, she was lovely. I also found the ‘performance’ of He Ain’t Heavy He’s My Brother very moving. I have a lot of time for the presenters of the One Show too, Matt Baker looked knackered as well he might after the Rickshaw Challenge.

Anyway love it or loathe CIN I shall gladly have a Countryfile Calendar displayed on my wall next year. I miss Terry Wogan too.

I gather that Wogan was entitled to a presenting fee (I seem to remember reading about £9-10K, but I may be wrong) which his agent just accepted on his behalf without him actually really noticing it.

I don't know for a fact, but I got the impression that Terry actively supported CIN and most likely gave far more than his fee back to them.

However, I really found the annual R2 auction for "Things that money can't buy" extremely crass and annoying. Oddly enough, people did always manage to buy the things that were offered with money - just people who happened to have an awful lot of it. When a 'lot' was at £20K and Wogan was urging "Come on, don't be so tight - this is worth a lot more than that!" it sent out a very clear message to those of us listening who couldn't possibly have spared even £100, without our own children ending up 'in need' as a direct result. I don't know why they couldn't have raffled things off online for £5 or £10 a ticket, so everybody would have had chance to support the charity as they were able (instead of receiving the clear message that their pittance wasn't worth having) and also maybe win a lovely prize. There would have been nothing stopping the extremely wealthy listeners from buying a few thousand tickets in one go and massively increasing their chances.

webuiltthisbuffetonrockandroll thank you for guiding monchatestmanifique, who was in dire need of some 'comprehension'.

So, I support Shelter, CentrePoint and Age UK, but finding the often embarrassing and cringeworthy antics of Z listers, plus many wealthy actual, rich celebs trying to emotionally blackmail me to contribute to a Kids Charities Clearing House something I'm not lining up behind... makes me an 'arsehole'?

Give your head a wobble.

I did really love Terry, though.

In a month's time, it will be a full decade since his last R2 breakfast show broadcast - and not far off 4 years since he left us completely.

Watch or don't but to post you 'hate it' is utterly heartless. The poor families and kids.

You demonstrate nicely why I hate it. My kid doesn’t need your pity. Her clubs need your donations, but don’t pity us.

Terry Wogan was paid over £1,000 an hour to host CIN. The money was paid by the BBC licence fee payers not the charity.

Daily Mail link

Yep, the R2 'Things that money can't buy' irritated the pants off me, too.

Yes they can, if you have £50,000 to splash on a glorified golf trip to Florida. Etc.

There is a world of difference between “I don’t watch Children in Need on telly because it is embarrassingly bad” and “I hate children’s charities”. In case the finger-wagging posters haven’t noticed.

Never would.

When TW got paid he was paid by BBC not from CIN funds. He also donated to CIN, it was like his baby.

We have even got Liam bloody Payne on telly (it gets worse...he is travelling around Africa baring his profound soul to a bloke who used to be in the SAS) because that is preferable to watching the cast of Casualty dance around a maypole with Mr Blobby (or whatever crap ‘look at us displaying what great sports we are’ activity is on).

None of the other presenters were paid. He shouldn't have taken licence fee payers' money for the gig.

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I just watched the Dragons' Den 'I'll Get This' CIN special on BBC2 during the news on BBC1.

I've nothing against the Dragons at all, but after having their lovely meal and social occasion (some might also say very good PR), they ended up donating an extra £5K each and then making it clear that their combined 'extra' giving total came to a whole £25K (some of which could be written off for tax as well). There will have been plenty of ordinary people making unremarkable phone calls in order to give £25 to whom that money will be a far, far greater personal sacrifice than £5K would ever be to any of the Dragons.

What’s HIGNFY?

Asking for a friend.

• -shut up Ian - -

Good cause, heartbreaking stories but the programme is beyond shite

we watched a bit. mainly about the rickshaw challenge.
but tbh I hate the fact that once these children hit 18 they are forgotten.
(and the screeching)

sent out a very clear message to those of us listening who couldn't possibly have spared even £100

Totally agree. They did do the hourly “twenty quid for a piece of tat” auctions, but it always felt like your money just wasn’t enough.

I went to a local charity ball for a charity I really wanted to support. I had a couple of hundred quid we’d set aside to donate to them and had thought we could bid in their auction, or take part in the two or three other fundraisers they had there. There was a table or two of TV and radio clebs, and big businessmen who got more and more drunk who completely monopolised the whole thing. The first item for auction was a round of golf and dinner at the local club. Bids opened at £20, next bid was a grand. That set the tone for the whole thing.

The organiser had given a stall over to a smaller charity who supported kids with disabilities and they had a tombola They got most of my money. It was the busiest stall of the night over at the “poor” end of the room. They took over 5k that night.