I'd like to boycott children in need

[IWouldLoveToStandAsAnIndie]

but I don't want to not donate to those in need. Shall i let my child take part but donate the money directly to charities or is there a better way?

[damibasiamille]

Re Max Clifford, having sex with 14-year-old girls is a crime. And isn't there a crime of "failing to report a crime" or possibly "helping a criminal to evade justice"? Only asking . . .

Also, if I remember rightly, Roger Jones also said something to the effect that "the paedophiles were round CiN like flies around a honey-pot" but that he was able to keep them at bay because the police tipped him off.

Seems to me it's up to all of us to be extremely vigilant.

[NigellasGuest]

well yes so have I, Mignonette - It was just my longwinded way of telling people there's no point emailing BBC trust.... just email [email protected] not that that will make any difference either

[mignonette]

I got fobbed off with the same email, Nigella'sGuest, basically saying it is nothing to do with the BBC and I should email CIN. So I have.

[NigellasGuest]

I emailed my complaint to the BBC trust a week or so ago and have received the following reply. Please read below:

"Thank you for your email to the BBC Trust. I am responding as a member of the Trust Unit which supports and advises the Chairman and the Trustees.
I note your concerns about reports regarding Max Clifford's involvement in this
year's Children in Need event.

Whilst I appreciate your concerns, I should explain that the BBC Trust has no
role in day to day editorial or operational issues, such as the appointment of
PR or fundraising staff.

BBC Children in Need is a registered charity and the Trust has no influence on
its appointments. If you would like to contact Children in Need directly, you
can do so via:

Email: [email protected]

Post:
BBC Children in Need Appeal
PO Box 1000
London
W12 7WJ

Tel: 020 8576 7788

I hope this is helpful and thank you for bringing your concerns to the Trust's
attention.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Grogan
BBC Trust Unit"

[Viviennemary]

Well maybe the BBC should kindly donate £10 from everybody's licence fee and cut their costs accordingly. That would solve the problem. It's all about self promotion for the stars. I am very cynical about this event I'm afraid.

[Extrospektiv]

Charitable work & Subsidiarity>big government all the way
And I'm not a Thatcherite or even a Tory, just a moderate.

[Extrospektiv]

"I think it's sad that we expect charities to protect our vulnerable children and not the government.

It's cuts to social services, daycare, outreach, every possible avenue of support which endangers vulnerable children, not boycotting CiN.

Successive governments have deliberately inadequately funded or cut support services and then some millionaire celebrity tries to make the public feel guilty enough to donate.

In the 21st century, in one of the richest countries in the world, there shouldn't be any children in need. "

-now why am i not surprised?

[Simatmum]

Yes, I am going to withhold my donation to CIN this year, and give to children's charities instead.

[EmmelineGoulden]

My pet peeve around charity giving is people who seem to think charities should spend little on good governance, relationship building, advertising and the hundred and one other overheads that build stability and long term success.

That CiN have low overheads is not something I find to particularly appealing about them. It seems even more like a mistake when they are being highlighted for an issue of judgement, ethics and good governance.

[NigellaTufnel]

Yeauch!

[Viviennemary]

So is Max Clifford being paid for this role? Or is he doing in on a voluntary basis.

[QuickLookBusy]

Nigella, it's his admission that his main job isn't PR but to keep "things" out of the media for his clients.

He has admitted he knew Alan Clark MP (now dead) had sex with two 14 year old girls and he helped keep this out of the press.

I would also like to know if he has kept other crimes against children out of the press.

[NigellaTufnel]

Can anyone tell me what the problem is with MC? Apart from him being the leading proponent of a kind of sleazy PR. Is there any specific?

[BlissfullyIgnorant]

Haven't read entire thread BUT...

The BBC seem to have done a lot for children over the decades - not all good

Just because somebody decided not to give to Children in Need does not mean they aren't allowed to give to other charities.

If you want a recommendation, try www.oliviasvision.org/
Which is unique in the UK. It funds research into uveitis.

[hazeyjane]

seem to be basically saying "give to my charity not theirs". Which isn't very convincing for someone with no personal relationship with your chairty

well yes, I realise that I will be more passionate about the 2 charities that IK linked too, which is why I have organised fundraisers for them and why I linked to them (in a desperate attempt to beg)!

that is also the reason why something like CiN or the National Lottery works well for charitable organisations that struggle with attracting donations, rely on regular grants to stay open, but often stay under the radar - unless you find yourself in the position of needing/being referred to them. Only then do you realise how essential they are to the children and families that need them.

[parsnipcake]

Emmeline, I understand the business model Of the NSPCC, what I object to is them bullying LA's into using their services for inflated prices and poor service. As a foster carer I have been in the receiving end of their judgemental and superficial therapy a number of times, for which they charge a fortune, while taking in donations with vile adverts. CIN has, on the other hand helped many small organisations become proper, stable charities that can help families long term. I'm not of course trying to say my daughters youth club is any more worthy than anything else, but as an example, Before CIN it was run by a few parents and broken heating was a crisis. Now it has staff, a volunteer programme and a boiler contract. There aren't many organisations who do similar things.

[threesocksfortheguy]

tethersend your so right, if we are so rich, we should not be cutting aid to the most vulnerable, but if you think it is bad for children, look at adult services.

[threesocksfortheguy]

imo the OP can do what she likes obviously.
but when people talk about boycotting, you have to imagine what it would be like if masses of people did it, and surely that is the only way a boycot can actually work.
as for"give to my charity" not me. my dd will be an adult soon and she will then not benefit at all from CIN (we need and AIN! one)
so that doesn't work

[EmmelineGoulden]

NSPCC are in part an advocacy organization - of course they have high advertising costs. I don't donate to NSPCC because I don't wholeheartedly support the messages they advocate and I don't like the way they advocate. But faulting an advocacy organization for advertising is like faulting a hosptial for giving out medicine.

Secure recurring grants are very nice for organizations that get them. But a sensible charity should be looking for funding from a variety of sources - because different income streams are vulnerable to different threats.

Grants from endowment foundations are very vulnerable to stock market variations, large individual donations are often down to personal relationships with organizational leadership, recurring grants from stable sources are a great boon but generally have an end life and are hard to replace, government contracts are vulnerable to changes in government policy, etc.

In general, some of the most stable funding is individual contributions from people who volunteer with an organization. But that requires a strong volunteering and reationship building program (Ohh no! Overhead! How could they!).

It's not that any particular fundraising stream is wrong. It's just that people who are saying the OP should give to CiN rather than locally despite her misgivings over the organization's ethics seem to be basically saying "give to my charity not theirs". Which isn't very convincing for someone with no personal relationship with your chairty.

[parsnipcake]

My daughter's youth club is heavily funded by CIN. While they of course welcome small individual donations, being able to apply for larger grants which run for a number of years works out the best way for them being able to plan and run their service. Overhead wise CIN is much better than organisations like the NSPCC who spend so much on advertising ( and my personal experiences are that their interventions are often not very good) so please think hard before cancelling your donations.

[hazeyjane]

My point is more about the regular grants that CiN provide (the grant that ds's nursery receives, is enough to employ 2 staff members) - they rely on this annual grant, and I worry about these being in jeopardy.

[EmmelineGoulden]

threesocks The OP's plan is to give to a local charity instead of giving to CiN. You have been saying this isn't good. i.e. She should give to CiN instead of to a local charity.

Why is it that the local charity losing out is OK, but CiN charities losing out isn't?

[tethersend]

I think it's sad that we expect charities to protect our vulnerable children and not the government.

It's cuts to social services, daycare, outreach, every possible avenue of support which endangers vulnerable children, not boycotting CiN.

Successive governments have deliberately inadequately funded or cut support services and then some millionaire celebrity tries to make the public feel guilty enough to donate.

In the 21st century, in one of the richest countries in the world, there shouldn't be any children in need.

[PoppyAmex]

I also think it's dangerous to accuse people of hysteria by the way.

This sort of insidious situations flourished under our noses precisely because "one must not make a fuss" or because we're all just "being paranoid".

In 2002 my country (Portugal) was shaken by a very similar case where boys in a state orphanage were being abused by high profile people, including politicians, actors and a much (previously) beloved entertainment star.

There was since then a massive tightening of regulation over institutions that care for vulnerable people and a change in protocols and policies, but I found the biggest difference was in people's perception.

They now demand full transparency and question things a lot more which, in my opinion, can only be a good thing.

[threesocksfortheguy]

no I don't tbh, I just fear a lot of people will lose out and that is sad.
I don't get your comment
"Giving to CiN instead of giving directly to local charities also hurts vulnerable people. Just different vulnerable people. Do you think they should lose out?"

what do you mean?