... to not want to watch Children In Need

[NewName73]

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

It’s really cringeworthy ... but on balance I think YABU as it’s for one night and does a lot of good

Eg Rylan made over £900k this year from his 24 hour karaoke marathon - that’s a lot of money

Wogan was paid each year but in 2005 it was around £9k and he donated all fees to charity.

I rarely watch it but dc wanted to and I was pleasantly surprised that it was well balanced, pitched appropriately and entertaining (even Tess and I usually irrationally despise her). I find comic relief unnecessarily crass these days and really cringeworthy. Children in need is more about the dc and the groups available to support. I guess there will always be projects that mean more to us than others. I think in overall it does a lot more good than bad.

I hate it. Horrible false jollity mixed with tugging at the heartstrings. Yuk.

PERHAPS IF YOU'D PAID THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TAX BARLOW THEY WOULDN'T BE IN FUCKING NEED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Yes, exactly this. The same went for the Spice Girls when they were mugging for the camera at charity events in their heyday. Whilst being tax exiles. God forbid that any of their money should be taxed in order to educate or care for the little girls buying their merchandise, eh?

Also, re Rylan and his £900k: do you really believe that a bunch of people donated SOLELY because Rylan sang karaoke tunes for 24 hours?

Really?

Or, just putting it out there, isn’t it likely that they would have donated anyway even if ol’ Rylan hadn’t grabbed his career-enhancing opportunity?

I am delighted that there are people on here whose DC directly benefit from charities whose funding the largesse of the Distributor, CIN has provided, once they have proved themselves worthy enough.

That doesn't stop many of us finding the whole thing cringeworthy, Z lister promoting, A lister tax dodging schtick - tiresome.

It doesn't make us 'arseholes'.

It doesn't make us 'arseholes'.

If that's a response to my post, I've already said the arseholes on the thread are the ones who are trying to put people off donating. Maybe it's your comprehension skills that need some work.

'Put people off by donating'?

By which you presumably mean decide to not be bothered about who gets the donations? Coz it's the kidz, innit?

Or maybe see straight through the Z listers trying to revive a career, or the A listers who might want to take a look at their own tax affairs.

We've already had recipients on here correctly telling us to fuck off with the 'pity' heart-wrenchers.

If I donate to charities, I personally research them. Which is why I don't support RNLI because they are loaded, as are Help For Heroes.

They don't need my help. And Mermaids won't get my help.

But homeless charities, which also benefit children, will. However unsexy.

Sorry, stray 'by', first line.

Personally I'm very happy where Children In Need give the money to, just because some people are ok with it doesn't mean they're not well informed. There's a couple of charities I wouldn't personally donate to but I wouldn't feel the need to put others off donating to them as it comes down to personal choice. That's the thing about charities, it's voluntary, you don't have to donate, you don't have to watch.

Awful telly, I’m happy to donate but please don’t broadcast it. Utter dross

And, Monchat, you didn't need to use the word 'arseholes'.

But chose to.

And, Monchat, you didn't need to use the word 'arseholes

For the people it described, it's the perfect word.

And, like you said yourself, monchat, you also don't have to donate.

Doesn't make anyone an 'arsehole'. Which is what you said.

Curate yourself better.

Wow. Didn't think I could read anything so revolting. HIGNFY and heaven forbid EE being postponed for charity.

I really hope this was tongue in cheek otherwise I fear for my own children and the vapidity I have brought them into.

Doesn't make anyone an 'arsehole'. Which is what you said.

Not donating doesn't make anyone an arsehole, no. Not wanting to watch the programme also doesn't make anyone an arsehole. Deliberately trying to put people off donating to a charity, that makes that person an arsehole in my opinion. Personal choice as I've already said.

I hate it too. A so called civilized country shouldn't need to raise money for the health or welfare of its children. Shameful.

We never watch it, it's shit.

Children in Need goes to small charities that really need it. My son is disabled but he still does a lot of caring for his more disabled sister. He has to be more grown up that her and concede alot. This is very hard for a 9 year old.

Children in Need are funding a course for him to help him manage his emotions around this, have a bit of fun and meet other children like him.

They have also funded a group that gives me a few hours respite care during the holidays so that I can keep going when things get really tough.

The extraordinary wealthy asking the ordinary people to give money, it sickens me to be honest.

All of the billions raised around the globe annually for various charities and good causes, yet poverty is increasing; I wonder how gullible people in the world must be to not see these sorts of things for what they really are.

I can't bear to watch it. Either it reduces me to tears or makes me cringe, but I have donated.

Not sure of the answer but think the program needs changing. It's a very old format now. Maybe less celebs and more ordinary people fund raising plus some of the charities who benefit could tell how they spend the money raised?

Not unreasonable. I said to my wife today. Same shit, different year. Absolutely fine in donating and the cause is a good one, but what they put on the TV is crap.

Forgot it was even on.

i watched it til 10.00, first time i have watched so much, wondered what i had been missing.
very sad that all these wonderful charities exist and have to rely on this support.

i was pleased that they said "if you can, donate"