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?

Maybe we should look at society and ask ourselves why Jim down the road doing exactly the same thing as Vernon Kay wouldn’t raise anywhere near the same amount, and why we need the visual images of children to raise additional funds for them, but whilst we are doing this there are charities out there that need funds and their fundraising efforts are not going to raise the amounts they can get from a grant from CIN or similar organisations

I did say least worse. 'New' Labour where just Tory light as far as I'm concerned. It is 100 times worse under the Tories though, they really have destroyed the country, again.

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.

Is it like for like? I'm not nitpicking, I'm genuinely interested and not sure how to find out.

Here, a lot of things like ballet companies, orchestras, theatres and museums are charities. The National Trust etc. So almost "company" charities.

Is that the same in Germany?

Maybe we should look at society and ask ourselves why Jim down the road doing exactly the same thing as Vernon Kay wouldn’t raise anywhere near the same amount

Because, like it or not, we live in a culture where celebrity is celebrated. I don't think we can turn the clock back because social media just encourages it.

The one that really got on my bad side is the radio 2 auction for things money can t buy.
loads of rich people showing their rich by spending ridiculous amounts on experiences and things they don't really need
plus
I've always felt that it made those children in need and other people struggling financially feel worse as they would love to drive around in a rolls with Chris Evans for example, but know they will never afford to do so.
and
the number of people going on these things and leaving their kids out or picking one of the kids to go with them I always found strange

Money doesn't grow on trees. It comes out of the pockets of taxpayers, and there isn't enough of it to pay for everything. The only alternative to increasing taxes is for people to raise money for charity, and CIN is just one way of doing that. I can't see another option really.

And how do you propose the NHS pays for this? 🤷

Germans pay a fortune in health insurance if they want quality, speedy care.

Which is fine for those who can afford it...

I've not donated in the past & have no intention of ever donating.

I prefer to support my local animal rescues & wildlife hospitals as I know exactly where the money is going.

I find the mawkish sentimentality of things like CIN very offputting.

I think part (or most of it) will be simply down to numbers - who hears about it and is inspired to donate. If Jim knows 200 people IRL and 10% are inspired to donate a fiver, he makes £100.

If 10% of Vernon's listeners are inspired to donate a fiver he makes over £3m. Then the other radio 2 hosts talk about it in their shows, and if he's got social media then the sheer scale of people who are aware of the challenge is massive.

Depends why they have investments - presumably they get an income from them, which can be used to cover costs, a quick Google suggests some is used to cover running costs on top of the 5p/£ that goes on Admin.

Having administered a (very small) grants fund myself, it is a lot of work to do well and very time consuming. People complain about admin costs and lack of accountability, but part of that admin cost is providing monitoring information to the funder. I don't know what larger funders do, but we certainly went through the monitoring info in detail to ensure the aims of the funding were met, adding to admin costs on our side as well.

Nothing is perfect, of course, but I know of some excellent local organisations who have received funding from Children in Need, and it's made a difference to them.

I think part (or most of it) will be simply down to numbers - who hears about it and is inspired to donate. If Jim knows 200 people IRL and 10% are inspired to donate a fiver, he makes £100.

Yes, This as well.

I think some posters are being quite obtuse and just want to believe that CIN never does anything positive.

I've been thinking about this a lot today and watching little bits of the CIN programme. I've been trying to work out which things should be provided by government/nhs and which are optional extras that should be fundraised for. I was thinking that while there were a lot of charities getting money from CIN that were doing "nice but not essential" things for children wouldn't be needed if the government funded things properly. So like the organisation that took young carers out on trips. I initially thought that the government wouldn't be able to fund that. Then I thought that if the government/nhs funded proper care then there wouldn't be any young carers at all. I'm not sure what the answer is with my dc's inclusive sports club though. We pay a subsidised amount for our children to go to a club that they are allowed to go to, that has a higher staff to child ratio. I've tried doing mainstream activities with them but they aren't allowed to go anywhere like scouts or playschemes etc unless I stay with them and then the other children make fun of them because my dc are the only ones with a parent staying. If social services funded a PA for them who was less embarrassing than me then they could go to scouts etc. But I do wonder if that would end up more expensive than running their inclusive sports club.

Actually the basic care, which everyone gets if they can't afford better, is pretty bloody amazing too (at least by UK standards). My great aunt had a knee replaced (operation followed by 2 weeks of rehab in a live in rehabilitation facility on the Baltic) in just under 3 months. Meanwhile the good old nhs took a little under 2 years to offer MiL the same (no rehab).

Well maybe there's a reason these charities (in general) don't rely on the GOV. Based upon that.... well let the charities raise money because I think the majority of the receiving will be grateful opposed to them feeling exploited.

Why often seems forgotten about is these children will inevitably turn to adults and there is a complete cliff edge in terms of support once your disabled child hits 18. What would be be more helpful is campaigns to change policies surrounding disability benefits.

@SpaceRaiders exactly this. I worry about this all the time. It was relatively easy to persuade the staff at the children centre to let my non sitting or rolling 13 month old to join in with the under 1's group. But (understandably) nobody wants my autistic 9 year old in the toddler gymnastics class and he can't go to the one for his age as he can't follow the instructions. And it's going to get worse as they get older.

Two things can be true at the same time. I'm grateful for the facility built by CIN near me, and I would feel exploited if I had to expose my private medical information with sad music over it on national television. Besides, disabled people being grateful for charity is just a bit icky all round - we want access, not pity. As a PP has rightfully said, if e.g. the government funded care properly, there wouldn't be young carers

@elliejjtiny I really feel for you. Unfortunately the majority of people will never truly understand. Despite my two being autistic with lower support needs, every single accommodation they have I’ve had to fight for and the prospect of having to do so well into their early adulthood and beyond is frankly frightening. I’m exhausted.

I understand the practical aspect - and that's why I don't tell people not to donate. But that doesn't mean I can't raise awareness of the need for radical systemic overhaul at the same time. Children (and adults) should not have to rely on charity or justgivings etc to get a wheelchair.
Non-disabled children don't have to "pay" for their sports clubs by having their most difficult moments retold on national television. Yes, the funding is essential. No, the way we have to go about it is not good.

Hear bloody hear. Spot on!

@drawingmaps charities aren't just for people with disabilities there's things like St Gemmas hospice that is ran by a charity. I do agree though that it shouldn't be left to the charities and the Gov "should" step up like with many other things. I imagine people or the parents have agreed to discuss past medical history details.

Yea well said, @drawingmaps

Access, not pity

yep, you got it in one OP! it's awful.

helping others is nothing more than us fulfilling our duty as human beings, us paying the immense social debt we incur in our lives.

it's despicable to rob these individuals of their divinity in the feeble attempts to raise a few quid.

I can’t watch it as why are we, as a country, pouring shedloads of money to support other countries, whilst we need funding to support our children.