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?

I was always very confused by why there have to be money collected for treatment. If its essential, it should be free on the NHS.

We are NEVER going to have 'a needs meets all' NHS or a fair society. Never going to happen. So unfortunately charities like CIN provide for some of those unmet needs. No, children shouldn't have to be pitied, but pity is a strong human emotion and either God, if you believe in him, or nature has given it to us or caused it to evolve in us for a reason. It ensures the down and outs in society don't get left aside to struggle. It helps societies bond. It moves people to give. Pity seems to be despised as an emotion, but it is a positive and functional one if it moves us to resolve negative situations and meet unmet needs.

I get some of the objection to it, but what is the alternative? We are not becoming a more compassionate society, quite the contrary, and this post is indicative of the growing trend of cynicism that is partly responsible for that.

I know and support an organisation that receives help from CiN so I do know it isn’t just liberal virtue signalling and actually does have positive effects on children’s lives.

They don't just hand out money will nilly
(Or so I believe) organisations have to apply for a grant and give the exact purpose of what the money will be used for. Then the board decide whether the request is deemed worthy or not

Not all treatments are provided by the NHS, or are only provided abroad. Hence people fund raise for these treatments.

Some treatments are only in early stages of development, or haven’t been approved for the disease the patient wants to use it for.

I also imagine that during Children in Need, people who don’t want to donate directly to CIN will be prompted to donate to their local children’s hospice etc, so other children charities will benefit indirectly.

Having worked for orgs that received children in need funding i can't emphasise how important this money is.

The problem with relying purely on donations direct to charities is that the fashionable causes get good funding but the more niche, the ones that aren't as good at pr, the ones that aren't media friendly don't raise enough despite potentially being more important. I'm grant writer and the process is very laborious often but it means funding goes to good organisations.

I personally don't watch telethons, not my bag, but I am happy to donate to them.

I do give money to charity but I also resent being asked to give money by people who are much better off than me.

I understand your sentiments, but Vernon Kay raised over £4m. I doubt that you or I could do that.

It often needs a high profile person to get involved in fund raising. Why do you think that charities have them as patrons?

I've not looked at the accounts in detail, but they do need to account (and hold money for) multi year grants.
All charities need reserves.

@crumblingschools I'll vote for whomever does the least harm at the moment, Tories being the ones who do most.

We have had children's charities for over 300 years but just because we've done something for hundreds of years does not mean we should keep doing it, we'd still have child labour and no state education if we'd done that. The government took over/ended those things, so why not the rest? Why do we have charities filling holes in our social and medical systems when it would be better, more efficient and safer if they plugged those holes themselves?

Nordic countries are well funded, high taxed and have excellent pubic services. They still have thousands of charities. Are you implying that Nordic countries, held up as the model for societal aspiration, are not fair and decent societies because they have charities?

“We don’t do charity in Germany we pay taxes. Charity is just a failure of governments’ responsibilities.”
Henning Wehn

But people give to it because charitable giving is all about making the donor feel good and propping up the charity sector. It has little to do with the needs of the intended beneficiaries.

@JellyMops the inference has been that we need something like CIN because of the Tories but CIN existed during Labour governments too

Vernon Kay is making Vernon Kay feel good. If he wanted to really help children who are in need, he’d do the Labour of understanding the issues properly and get behind a lobbying campaign to win adequate statutory support.

He could do that as well.

Many funds go to various youth groups who do you think should pay for them, NHS?

I don't watch it but am fortunate to be able to donate.
I think though that kids get a lot from being involved.

@Tatumm there are charities in Germany

What I really, really loathe is attempts to manipulate my emotions.

I hate this contrived 'fake' emotion. Televised tragedy, carefully designed by the best script-writers and camera-operators, to extract as much sadness as possible from the audience, who watch because they actually enjoy having their feelings aroused in this way.
At core, it is the same thing as watching a good 'weepy' film. Pictures and music on your glass screen making you cry - you watch because you like it.

It is similar to when a camera-operator in a war zone or disaster area will linger too long on e.g. the face of a parent whose child has just died. There is no need. It does not add any 'news' or information to the account. It is just disgusting emotional pornography.

I give to several charities every month my direct debit. I thought carefully about where my money was to go (poverty abroad and environmental causes).
I will not spend money so that disadvantaged children in this country can have dance lessons or better wheelchairs or whatever, when there are still hundreds of thousands of children with no access to clean water and no toilets.
That is my rational choice.

You make your own choices about where to donate, but please put some proper thought into it and don't do it just because of a social emotional fest.

He raised over 5 million Quid ,it doesn't matter why he did it ,he did it and it will benefit children who are in need hugely ,its better moaning whilst not actually doing anything.

And that's fine don't watch it then I know of several.local charities who benefit from the likes of children in need they organise activities and subsidised days out for disabled children who cannot otherwise access these things
Nobodies forcing anybody to donate just don't watch it 🙄

Yes of course.

But the UK’s charity sector is over two and a half times larger to serve a population that’s 20% smaller. And it isn’t because German people are cold or uncaring.

@Tatumm who pays for subsidised activities for disadvantaged children, theatre groups for disabled children, additional support for bereaved children etc. Do services like this all come from taxes or do they not happen?

The virtue signalling is deafening on this thread this morning

Agree with it or not, but Jim from the end of your street could run 3 days of ultra marathons and not raise £4m. Why is it wrong with someone with a public profile to use that for good?

How do you know that these “rich celebrities” didn’t donate last night and/or use their profile to lobby for change?

Other charities, likely ones people on this thread donate to rather than the big commercial machine that is CIN, use celebrity and even royal patrons - is that wrong too? They also likely pay their CEOs high salaries

If the government funded social services more where do you want that to come from? Yes we all agree that those that don’t pay their fair share should be targeted first but after that? If taxes go up, people will moan, if pensions/benefits get cut people will moan

Even in the richest of society, charities are needed. Money is raised in many ways from fundraising gala dinners, to packing your shopping in a supermarket to a once in a year tv show

If you are not interested you can switch off but it doesn’t mean it is not needed or doesn’t have a place in the calendar