To think children in need is out of touch?

[Tictocrobot]

It’s the idea that we should all be inspired by the tragic story of disadvantaged children. Sad music, celebrities visiting groups where disabled children are paraded so that all us at home feel thankful for our lot in life. We give £5 then thank our lucky stars and wash our hands of it.

I know that’s a sweeping statement but really? Disabled children aren’t tragic and why is it up to them to be inspiring?

Disabled children are people. They shouldn’t be marginalised. To only have an opportunity to go to an after school club because of a handout that could be removed at any time. The government should be making sure that all people can do all of the things.

I know, I know, budgets. But maybe just tax Amazon a bit more and stop scrimping at every turn.

In my county there is a waiting list of 400+ children to get a place at a SEN school. I have one child who I can sign up for music lessons, Cubs, swimming lessons, football club, drama club etc at the drop of a hat. I have another child who is not able to access any of those things.

I’ve gone off on a tangent. But I guess my main point is. Being disabled isn’t sad. It’s just another way of living. What is sad is the lack of funding and one night of celebrity culture and tear jerking videos isn’t going to solve that.

Doesn’t the interest raised help pay the costs of the charity?

@DesdemonaDryEyes I am extremely saddened to learn it has worsened greatly since I lived there thanks for informing me

@Riverlee I'm not talking about donations! I'm talking activism. Celebs have a voice that non celebs don't they can use that voice to put pressure on the govt as mr rashford did relatively successfully.

That said I heartily agree with pps that the best thing we could all do is NOT vote Tory!

I'm a huge George Michael fan well aware of all the good he did while not advertising the fact which makes us love him more yes? He was also vehemently anti Tory

we didn’t need a free cinema trip, we needed long term effective support at home

Exactly! There shouldn't BE young carers at all imo. We're supposed to have outlawed child labour and yet this is one of the hardest working roles there is! And they don't even get paid!

As all carers they are saving the govt a FORTUNE by providing the care that should at the very least be properly recognised and compensated for

@JayAlfredPrufrock it's far more complex than that as the thread shows. Not all charities are as altruistic as they claim and in recent years charity workers have been found on some occasions not only to NOT help the people their donors intended to receive help but actively exploited and abused them!

@PurpleNebula84 but how much can you really rely on cin? Surely better to focus on maintaining/inc local fundraising? I've heard a number of times of charities depending on cin support only to lose it at their next application

These kids are not other they are us

So true

this stuff does affect children it also affects people’s attitudes to disabled people.

Definitely - I am also disabled as is dd. Mine a result of accident, dds genetic

Disablism is still rife in uk

@A8mint yes this is another problem who is getting to decide who is in need? What are their qualifications and experience? I agree that's not something I would like seeing charitable money going to

@TheVolturi possibly true now but cin predates the revelations about saville

@Soggymarshmellows plenty of us have given very valid reasons for being anti cin it's not just the financial management it's high fees to employees, it's the emotional manipulation, it's the maintenance and promotion of othering disabled and other children struggling, it's some of the causes they support are very wrong to some of us (mermaids being one such), it's the pressure their campaigning puts on those much less well off to donate/participate, it's the celeb virtue signalling (while plugging their own latest product!), it's the BBC's own controversies...

There are a whole load of reasons

@RobotValkyrie v well said!

@Rosebel That's not really true though - what looks like a surplus is actually ringfenced restricted funds as it's been pledged to charities for multi year grants. Whatever they raise in one year, they award to charities in the next year.

People always make hyperbolic statements about the Beeb sitting on the money but the grants made by CiN, Comic, lottery etc are all freely available to see, both in their accounts, and on open access databases (360 Giving etc).It's all really regulated and transparent. People just can't be arsed to look for it or make things up. Like the PP claiming they funded a playground in a wealthy village - they don't fund capital/playground construction. All very clear on their guidance.

For those saying don’t vote Tory, CIN has existed during Labour Governments too

CIN is just celebs virtue signalling IMO. They give money to some very dubious people
Couldn't agree more.

@toomuchlaundry

For those saying don’t vote Tory, CIN has existed during Labour Governments too

True, but funding for disabled children (I can’t say for the other disadvantaged groups) has dropped HUGELY over the past ten or so years. Special needs schools and units within mainstream have been closed - because apparently those children’s needs should be catered for in mainstream. However mainstream schools aren’t then given sufficient funds to provide the training and resources necessary. Respite and support services have dropped. Once you turn 16 (or 18 depending on which county) it gets even worse. Clubs exist if you’re lucky. One playground in ten might have an accessible swing. I mean, it just goes on and on. It’s a government failing.

And I could also mention the difference in NHS funding during the last labour govt. compared to now.

I got upset watching the programme about children’s mental health. One of my DC has suffered terrible MH problems and the support from CAMHS is dire. If you’re lucky enough to have a charity nearby that can support you that’s ok but many people don’t and they just have to suffer. By not helping young people with mental health problems the government is storing up a health crisis for the future. I had to stop watching in the end I was getting so cross. I did donate though.

YANBU. I do truly believe it is well intentioned, but there's something fundamentally broken about the mentality that children have to splash their private lives across the TV as inspiration porn to access necessary support and services which should 100% be government funded and not dependent on the charity of a public who are being manipulated by advertising.

CIN plugs a gap that shouldn't be there. There's nothing inevitable about poverty and struggle for children; those things exist because of our governments' failure to fund support services. And the public watches CIN, which is celebratory and sentimental in tone, and instead of wondering why in a country as wealthy as this there are SO MANY children who don't have the basic necessities to live comfortably, they feel empowered by the idea that donating a tenner by text has made a difference, when at best it's just another sticking plaster on massive structural issues that continue to exist year on year.

And people are generous, and that's a good, kind impulse, but we seem as a nation to be profoundly unquestioning of what the actual fuck is going on with our government that we have the material for a three hour tv special on how much our kids are suffering and how important it is that we as individuals do something to fix it.

When I found out how much money they've given to Mermaids charity I vowed never to give them a single more penny.

I have mixed feelings about it...dd is disabled and I hate the format and portrayal of disabled children as "other". But then dd and our family have benefitted hugely from a charity that receives CiN funding. Its allowed us to participate in family fun/support days and adventure courses for teens that would be inaccessible otherwise. At the end of each event we were asked to fill out a detailed form monitoring exactly what benefit she/we received from the event, which was then passed back to CiN to justify the use of funds. I don't think they just chuck money away and it really does make a difference and seems to be carefully regulated.

True, but funding for disabled children (I can’t say for the other disadvantaged groups) has dropped HUGELY over the past ten or so years

Sounds like CIN is needed @Tictocrobot - the government are so corrupt & there is no accountability, they care not one bit for the needs of their population. Take away CIN and there will be even less funding.
I don’t think the onus is on celebs to pay from their wealth either. It seems no-one can promote helping others out or charities without being accused of virtue signalling.
FWIW - I don’t watch CIN.

Children in Need isn’t just raising money and awareness of disabled children. It’s for children in NEED eg bereavement, young carers, mental health etc. I am dubious about where the money goes and how much the hosts are paid to be on the show.

It seems that most local authorities don’t have enough funding and there are super long waiting lists for assessment and treatment. Not sure where the money goes. It’s probably better to donate to local charities and organisations.

@endofagain

CIN is just celebs virtue signalling IMO. They give money to some very dubious people. I choose the charities I donate to very carefully. I certainly won't give the BBC any more cash than they take for the TV licence.

Yeah. It gives me the rage.

Not sure why pp seemed to be implying that there aren’t charities in Germany when there are hundreds of thousands of them, there are also hundreds of food banks. U.K. isn’t unusual in needing charities.

The whole sob stories and rich celebs pleading for us to give money every 5 mins on all these kinds of shows and even on ads on tv drive me mad. Highlighting charities and the work they do is vital but sobbing and pleading oh please

I'm so with you OP.

It's not a popular view though.

I have a small amount of experience of CIN from working on the regional output of the programme a very long time ago.
My experience was that no one was paid. Even the crew on the night.
Rumours were that Terry wogan was paid but not sure of the truth, nor the rumour that he was quite well oiled by the end of the programme.
The tv output focussed on grants which would pull the heartstrings. The reality was that more funding went to less photogenic projects involving"troubled teens" which wouldn't encourage donations in the same as.
It's for those "unpopular" projects which I think CIN is needed.

CIN isn't just about children with disabilities... One of my dc went to a youth group (that had a fee) and I found out later that it received a grant from CIN. AFAIK no dc with disabilities, it may have been that the postcode of the venue was considered disadvantaged.

@PinkMochi

Children in Need isn’t just raising money and awareness of disabled children. It’s for children in NEED eg bereavement, young carers, mental health etc. I am dubious about where the money goes and how much the hosts are paid to be on the show.

It seems that most local authorities don’t have enough funding and there are super long waiting lists for assessment and treatment. Not sure where the money goes. It’s probably better to donate to local charities and organisations.

None of the celebrities are paid. I accept that people don't support the format - I understand that - but it's not hard to do some research to establish basic facts, before casting doubt on the integrity of the charity.

I desperately wish the state properly supported children's services & in an ideal world there wouldn't be the need for charities, but sadly there is. The charity who supports our family (funded by CiN) is an absolute lifeline. I'm not a huge fan of celebrities fronting sob stories, but it works, as evidenced bu this year's fundraising.

I can't deny my child the help he needs while I sit & wait for people to stop voting Conservative.

If there was no CiN though, I imagine a lot of people could rightfully say 'why is the BBC not sing its platform to support and raise funds for those in need'? So I think it's wrong to damn the intention of CIN. I do think it could do with an update though on how the content is presented so it is more by/with the service users, and not glam celebs interspersed with 'sad' content. It's a dated and patronising approach that creates a 'them and us' feel.

@sunnyandshare

CIN isn't just about children with disabilities... One of my dc went to a youth group (that had a fee) and I found out later that it received a grant from CIN. AFAIK no dc with disabilities, it may have been that the postcode of the venue was considered disadvantaged.

It’s not just about children with disabilities. It’s about children with disadvantages and part of the point of CiN funding is so that those disadvantages aren’t always obvious.

For example one group I used to run that got CiN funding specifically had some places for children that we were asked to take by social workers or local schools. To the outside they were just kids who’d been on the waiting list like any others. The disadvantages faced by the children were massively varied from ones who had experienced DV in the home, to ones who had parents with health issues or just a wide variety of reasons (including some that we didn’t know what the reason was).

@twelly

I will not now donate to children in need as I do not support some of the causes that they give to.

I think that's a very moral choice but I would like to think that you privately support other agencies who are helping causes that you do approve of that aren't getting grants from CiN.

@Rosebel

What annoys me is they don't know what to do with the money. Something ridiculous like £60 million is still in the kitty from previous CINs. Why not stop for a few years until they've spent that money. No point giving more when it's not being spent.

I think it's hard at the moment. There are very strong guidelines for charities. CIN will have rules about what they can and can't give grants to. Not just around what causes they can help and how they decide to distribute the money but also the criterion the bids they receive need to meet. Putting bids together and submitting them is a job and skills set in itself for the charities and when grants are given it will be very clearly proscribed what the money can be spent on. For instance, if a charity is given a draft of 2Ok a year to provide XX hours of personal support for refugees then that money will be ringfenced and can only be spent on face to face support. It can't be spent on assessments or photocopying or stamps or fuel bills for the office or coffee and biscuits for clients and volunteers. Those things are essential but they aren't high profile for the finding bodies so it's hard for charities to raise money for them.

Lockdown shut down so many face to face services. Some just paused for the duration , some went online. The problem is that if CiN (for example ) had given a grant for a charity to provide 2000 hours of face to face counselling the agency might be seen to be acting fraudulently if they then used the money for Zoom counselling or online support groups. And CiN might be deemed to be misdirecting funds if they channelled money to the relatively new and unproven field of online counselling rather than more proven, traditional types of therapy. It's a highly regulated minefield. CIN could well be sitting on funds until things get back to normal or their trustees change the criteria.

l

I always donate, they paid for a major operation for a close family member and without them, said family member would be dead now. Instead they are flourishing and that’s in no small part to CIN.
My family members story has never featured (I guess it wasn’t “sad” enough) but I agree that the filming and so on is grim. They trot these poor innocent children out year after year and treat them like they’re just supposed to be disabled to play on our heart strings. No other reason and that’s sick.
It’s my understanding that 95p out of every £1 is directly used to help children. So that’s good at least, and the celebrities aren’t paid for their contributions. Which is good.
But yes, you do raise an excellent point vis a vis the filming/“display” of disabled children.

The mending of the teddy bear was very sweet though.

I have a similar gripe with DIY SOS. Each episode, they help a family in need to finish a building project. Lots of local tradesmen and women (so not celebrities) volunteer their services and resources. If it wasn’t for the the cameras (and possible free publicity), they would not have done that work. Had the same family approached them and said ‘Please mend my roof, extend the kitchen, re-design the garden for free’, they would have probably been ignored.