To disagree with Children in need

[BrokenBrit]

Perhaps I should preface this and say I do give to charity and I recognise we don’t live in a fair and decent society where services are properly funded.

However, I think it’s pretty shameful having children plastered all over the tv revealing their private medical diagnosis so as to get some money for essential funding.

I also hate the narrative of disabled people needing pity and charity with the sad music and dimmed lights (I’ve not watched it this year but that has been previous years experience!). Either that or as some sort of inspiration! I just hate this narrative!

Then there are the jolly celebs making themselves feels good singing a song and raising a few £ when what really needs is change to policy and practice, a properly funded NHS, proper provision for children with SEND and much, much more. But let’s donate a quid and feel good about ourselves hey.

AIBU?

"piss on pity", right? Iconic

Oh yea and who's going to pay for these gold plated services you feel entitled to?
Everyone whines about having the highest taxes since year dot....but perhaps if we got our lazy, entitled kids off their backsides and contributing to the economy and taxes, then the country might be in better shape. We need to up our productivity pronto and the young should have energy to do it instead of languishing in a uni racking up debt and being indoctrinated.

What with the Job Centres telling folk not to work more than the minimum hours... because of course....getting UC is a gateway for claiming many more benefits....like having your rent paid, council tax free, prescriptions free and much more.
To then all the media Influencers, peddling aspirational lifestyles so that people watching feel inferior. What a waste of space they are, contributing zero to our country bar misery. Comparison is the thief of joy.
We have lost the resilience and cohesion of our forebears to strive to make things better and pay for the services we so desire.

people are socially pressured for example at work places ect to act, or look like ridiculous 🙄 as a way of social inclusiveness,

so they are seen as a companies who just care ect...

Then you have z list celebrities such as Amanda Holden using this as a way to show her clevage enhancing arresting skimmy dress, and then theres that time Maths Genius tv presenter back in the day,
nowadays and some time acts like she's a Hollywood actress starlet trying to acctract the attention of film presenter
I can't rember her name now?

Exactly. I refused to donate after reading how much money was "left over " from previous years.
Actually I refused to donate after finding out how much Terry Wogan was paid for his night of charity work.
It's appalling that they got children to go on National TV with their heartbreaking stories while sitting on millions of pounds in the bank

Celebrities often do corporate guest appearances. An evenings work is a whole years take home on minimum wage. Or a teachers salary if you are well known.
They can fundraise between themselves frankly.

Higher taxes for all is not really fair.
The government should be relied upon to fund the bare minimum - along with the assumption that the child's own family is the most responsible.
The people who can afford to pay more obviously do so and have to be shown where their money is best spent - hence the public appeals.

Without the public appeals we would all be ignorant of so many needy charities. It is uncomfortable to see the lives of others but that is their reality and they should not be stigmatised to hide their need for assistance.
Poeple who donate are worthy. That is a good thing to do.
We should not have to look away nor hide special needs.

Governments (our taxes) can not look after every aspect of all people's lives. It funds education, Arts, roads, health, housing, social security and so much more - all of which are not less worthy than helping families care for children with disabilities.

Of course the BBC keeps aside some of the money in a fund. Many of the charities receive an ongoing grant every year as opposed to a single donation. You need to have a set-aside fund to ensure that funding can be maintained in, for example, years when less money is raised. The set-aside will be fully audited

As someone who works in the charity sector for a small local charity, although I don’t watch children in need (I never have) I just wanted to point point that Children in Need don’t just support charity that help children with medical conditions.

The argument that it should be a fully funded service provided by the government is probably true, the government wouldn’t fund our crèche service at our community centre for example, therefore we need funders such as Children in Need to be able to provide this service for our community in need.

Also these funders have so much in the bank accounts as they have different rounds of funding for charity to apply for, and their projects range from 1-3 years where money is paid at different points throughout the project. Hope that makes sense.

I hate the fact the country is in such a state, these poor children are suffering because of it. It's shameful. Hate seeing kids suffer.

That's very noble but naive. But you won't raise any money unless people feel for whoever they are giving to. And you won't achieve that unless you tell them their stories.

That's why all charities tell the "stories" of the people they are raising money for. And they also do similar, for slightly different reasons, on shows like X factor. It draws people in emotionally.

Personally I think it's great that there are charities to fill the gaps in government provision and help children albeit at the loss of some privacy for them (with their parent's consent). There is no money in the government's coffers. And people don't want to pay more taxes. We are in an appalling state economically as a country and likely to be for some time. We don't have enough money to pay for adequate care for people and services generally are massively underfunded. No extra money is coming to kids in need from the government anytime soon. What do we to, tell them to wait. Sorry no you can't have get wheelchair or adaptations or whatever that you need or would improve your life, because of some moral high ground. I would rather be practical. Get people what they need and vote and/or lobby for change later.

To me your post illustrates why, when it comes to things that human beings actually need, leaving it up to charity is inadequate.

Charity's fine for the nice extras that make life more pleasant, or for heritage railway preservation or donkey sanctuaries or whatever. But when charity is used to supply actual human needs, it lets society off the hook when it comes to providing for the needs of those with less captivating stories, less sympathetic circumstances, and less appealing faces.

Nobody should have to parade themselves and their stories in front of the local parish Charitable Women's Hoity-Toity Assistance Board like some kind of modern day Inspector Calls scenario, but in a system like that, those with a heartrending story — which they have to reveal to all and sundry to get what they need — aren't even the worst off. Some people whose need is just as great will lose out because their plight doesn't tug the heartstrings in the right way.

Any system of supplication to charity, rather than entitlement to assistance, is demeaning to the "lucky" recipients, and cruel to those who don't happen to have the characteristics that catch the attention of charitable hearts.

When there are dozens of charities that people can be signposted to, most of which can't help, it disguises the fact that the provision people are entitled to as members of our society is inadequate, and forces them to become a beneficiary of others' charity rather than claiming their fair dues.

‘Disagree with’?

Do you mean you disapprove of it?

It's outdated and I find it cringy. I haven't watched for years.

I donate to charities in my community. I don't need preaching to.

I what sick world is it "trolling" to state an objection about a "national treasure"?

How is helping children outdated? I'm confused.
I don't watch the show so perhaps it is stuck in the 80s.

I’d rather higher taxes to pay for adequate services, that’s higher taxes on a sliding scale. Inheritance tax doesn’t need to be cut for example or cooperate tax cut, they could be used to find proper adequate service for children in need, rather than these children services begging for money

I agree that the big TV appeal approach does feel a bit outdated now. But I guess pulling on people’s heart strings is the way to raise money, they know it works. I mean how much do people give to children in need the rest of the year? Agree of course they should be funded by the government, but they aren’t.

There is so much I dislike about CIN.

Years ago when wearing PJs to school was all the rage for CIN day I'd have to go out and by new ones for my younger two who wore my eldest's scruffy hand downs to bed. It was a bloody waste of money.

I do give to charity, but I'd rather give directly to specific charities. I'd also rather pay higher taxes, if the government were going to fund services properly., which this government seem unable to do, not through lack of taxes but through lack of spending sensibly.

The only two personal stories I watched on CIN should have been helped by CAMHS and government funded Children's Centers.

I've never watched or donated to either that or comic relief.
Some rich slebs trying to guilt trip me into giving my hard earned money just doesn't do it for me.

I would hardly call decent support services and provision for disabled children and adults ‘all aspects of people’s lives’. A decent society supports those who are more vulnerable in certain areas. That is an important thing for taxes to go towards - and austerity has caused a lot of damage to those that need it most.

Becoming disabled could happen to any of us at any time, the ‘othering’ of disability and ‘it won’t happen to me and if it did I’d pay my own way through it’ is so frustrating but so prevalent. And probably why the government can get away with giving so little to disabled people.

I dont like it and never watched it. My extent of a donation is buying a biscuit in Greggs. Its enough. I donate cash to local charities, never these big ones

Reminds me of the saying "if only charities were fully funded ,and governments had to have fund raisers to finance wars"

I was uncomfortable with radio 2 reading out how poor the people were donating. It was people donating their Christmas money and people who would struggle to the next pay day. Seemed a bit wrong. They sounded like they needed it more than the children getting some additional therapy.

CIN funds a children’s club at our local Mencap year on year. If it didn’t, the club wouldn’t exist and a number of kids and families would miss out on support which helps them socially, emotionally, physically etc That’s not ever going to be paid for by a government because it’s not a priority when there are people at immediate risk not having their needs met.

To say people will just support a charity directly is really naive, those sorts of local donations are vital but small in amount and inconsistent, having a business model like CIN is different means a charity is operating on less of a month to month basis and that there is less risk that projects will just stop because the money has run out and nothing is coming in.

I don’t like the CIN program and don’t watch it, now my kids are older I don’t usually even know it’s on. Whilst I don’t disagree in principle with the comments in the OP, the organisation does a lot of good work with kids and families who need more than they would get without it.

Just to reiterate (because people keep saying they do) what someone posted earlier, looks like the celebrities who appear don’t get paid, and if they can raise 4x the amount of money doing a frankly awful challenge than just donating, why wouldn’t they? I see it the same as someone ‘normal’ doing a sponsored run or something.

I felt this way too. Lots of people who weren't very well off donating significant amounts, like £100. I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth.