Children in need.

Its all over the BBC today, many people do daft things for good causes.
Do you give or do you avoid organised charities for your own reasons?

On the local radio this morning there were continuous auctions for some great days out, tickets for pantomimes, football events, sought after tickets for sell out concerts etc....highest bidder won the prize.

Now I know the object is to raise as much money as possible, but one woman was out bidding everyone else for all the really good prizes. They would bid £50, she would come in with £500 because obviously money was no object.

I thought this was selfish in the extreme....do you?

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/17/children-in-need-2017-on-tv-everything-that-is-happening-on-the-bbc-show-7084894/


"Tonight is the annual Children in Need spectacular and there is a ridiculous amount to look forward to on the BBC show, which will hopefully raise millions in the process.
As ever, stars of stage and screen will be going out of their way to put on a show and encourage the public to dig deep for the Children in Need cause.
There will be hordes of famous faces dancing, singing, being quizzed and making themselves look quite silly over the evening, all in the name of charity.
The presenters for the evening are Tess Daly, Ade Adepitan, Graham Norton, Mel Giedroyc, Rochelle and Marvin Humes, so there is bound to be a lot of entertainment on offer just from that lot.

I just give to my favourite charities. When it first began it was mainly about ordinary people doing stuff at local centres and people raising money and being shown on tv or mentioned, they would be filmed, once celebrities got involved and took over, I stopped watching. I think this is the one that started with ordinary money raisers being the stars as it were.

I hate the TV shows like this and Red Nose Day.
Gets on my very last nerve.

Hate the shows, they are very commercialized, but, its about what they do and achieve for many that do need.

The sad reality of this, is they are even needed. As the sad reality is that events like this are needed to remind people that there are people and children out there in more need than us. We take it for granted how we are infact born lucky, solely based on geography.

The multi millionaire organisers  of children in need thank you for you donations

A few statistics.
Children in need was first started in the UK in 1955.
So far over £890 million has been raised to help children and disadvantaged youngsters.
None of the TV presenters or celebs are paid.
All the money goes to help kids in the UK.

Didge wrote:Hate the shows, they are very commercialized, but, its about what they do and achieve for many that do need.

The sad reality of this, is they are even needed. As the sad reality is that events like this are needed to remind people that there are people and children out there in more need than us. We take it for granted how we are infact born lucky, solely based on geography.

Well said Didge.
Whether you like the shows or not (I record them and fast forwards later watching the good bits) the fact is the money donated is well needed and put to good use.
Most of us on here (I am guessing) are loved by someone, comfortable in our beds at night, have enough food, don't suffer from a debilitating illness...we, our kids and grandkids are the lucky ones, not everyone is as fortunate.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:Hate the shows, they are very commercialized, but, its about what they do and achieve for many that do need.

The sad reality of this, is they are even needed. As the sad reality is that events like this are needed to remind people that there are people and children out there in more need than us. We take it for granted how we are infact born lucky, solely based on geography.

Well said Didge.
Whether you like the shows or not (I record them and fast forwards later watching the good bits) the fact is the money donated is well needed and put to good use.
Most of us on here (I am guessing) are loved by someone, comfortable in our beds at night, have enough food, don't suffer from a debilitating illness...we, our kids and grandkids are the lucky ones, not everyone is as fortunate.

Indeed Syl and thank you

Millions of children die each year from starvation, desease etc. We like to think we do much, but in reality, we do little and are in fact poor in how we assist the world and think it boils down to the fact we never place ourselves emphatically in the position of others less foturnate tham ourselves. We place our needs as a priority, when in reality its the tribalism we continue to engineer between us. That sees countless children suffer. 

Yes the world has a problem with populations, but does that mean we should do nothing to help those that need help? Is it geography that sees us look the other way, when if we saw a child in the street hungry, we would generally not look the other way? Does it only have to be close to home, that people only wake up and do something?

Children are in the main blameless. When kids do wrong, its because others either instill a hate in them or are bad teachers. We spend most of our times complaining about the most mundane issues that never really effect us and yet many millions of children suffer daily.

So to those complaining here on children in need.

I say this, if just one child had their live made better, would it not be worth it?

The reality is this, it should never be one day, but every day, that we think of and help children in need.

Have a good evening Syl

x

You look at the wider picture and I agree with everything you say.

Children in need is a charity where the money solely goes to help kids in the UK.....something so many people go on about...charity begins at home, help our own etc etc....I have the feeling that many people who go on like this wont even be giving even though they know the money is kept in the UK for children living in the UK.

You have a good evening too Didge, laters. x

eddie wrote:I hate the TV shows like this and Red Nose Day.
Gets on my very last nerve.

Me to. Used to like children in need, but its just a way for so called celebs to get publicity.

Never liked red nose day either

magica wrote:

eddie wrote:I hate the TV shows like this and Red Nose Day.
Gets on my very last nerve.

Me to.  Used to like children in need, but its just a way for so called celebs to get publicity.

Never liked red nose day either

So do you think no children benefit from this magica?

Didge wrote:

magica wrote:

Me to.  Used to like children in need, but its just a way for so called celebs to get publicity.

Never liked red nose day either

So do you think no children benefit from this magica?

They do, and the news reels of some of the children they help is heartbreaking.

The total raised so far this year has just been shown... £50,168,562.....that will help so many children in need.

magica wrote:

eddie wrote:I hate the TV shows like this and Red Nose Day.
Gets on my very last nerve.

Me to.  Used to like children in need, but its just a way for so called celebs to get publicity.

Never liked red nose day either

I record it and fast forward the bits that arent interesting.
Some of it is heart breaking...its not all about celebs getting publicity.

I think people provide excuses not to watch

As it cuts them up inside

That is why they hate it

Its never a valid reason

Didge wrote:I think people provide excuses not to watch

As it cuts them up inside

That is why they hate it

Its never a valid reason

Its not easy to watch, both my OH and I have sat watching it clutching a tissue.

I think a lot of people are cynical of giving to charity nowadays, but when we know the full amount given is donated, it is imo worth giving.
There for the grace of God goes any of us with kids in the family.

Didge wrote:

magica wrote:

Me to.  Used to like children in need, but its just a way for so called celebs to get publicity.

Never liked red nose day either

So do you think no children benefit from this magica?

I'm not saying they don't, its just not for me.

magica wrote:

Didge wrote:


So do you think no children benefit from this magica?

I'm not saying they don't, its just not for me.

That is a fair and honest point, but is it based on it hitting you emotioms?

As I know you do care?

Of course I care, no child deserves what many get, life can be cruel.

It's not for me at the moment. I've watched it for years, just didn't want to this time, I might watch it again next year, who knows.

I never watch it, used to, but to me it's a load of crap,and i'd like to see a full breakdown of where all the money goes !

Syl wrote:You look at the wider picture and I agree with everything you say.

Children in need is a charity where the money solely goes to help kids in the UK.....something so many people go on about...charity begins at home, help our own etc etc....I have the feeling that many people who go on like this wont even be giving even though they know the money is kept in the UK for children living in the UK.

You have a good evening too Didge, laters. x

Children in need provide for children who NEED help

End of.

It’s a great cause and I salute the people who give their time and money for such causes.

In this modern world we are becoming more and more insensitive and shallow.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Syl wrote:You look at the wider picture and I agree with everything you say.

Children in need is a charity where the money solely goes to help kids in the UK.....something so many people go on about...charity begins at home, help our own etc etc....I have the feeling that many people who go on like this wont even be giving even though they know the money is kept in the UK for children living in the UK.

You have a good evening too Didge, laters. x

Children in need provide for children who NEED help

End of.

It’s a great cause and I salute the people who give their time and money for such causes.

In this modern world we are becoming more and more insensitive and shallow.

Well said Sexy M. x

nicko wrote:I never watch it,  used to, but to me it's a load of crap,and i'd like to see a full breakdown of where all the money goes !

The programme is filled with the charities and the individuals they have helped Nicko.

Syl wrote:Its all over the BBC today, many people do daft things for good causes.
Do you give or do you avoid organised charities for your own reasons?

On the local radio this morning there were continuous auctions for some great days out, tickets for pantomimes, football events, sought after tickets for sell out concerts etc....highest bidder won the prize.

Now I know the object is to raise as much money as possible, but one woman was out bidding everyone else for all the really good prizes. They would bid £50, she would come in with £500 because obviously money was no object.

I thought this was selfish in the extreme....do you?

I can't stand things like Children in Need.   I can't stand watching all those celebrities poncing around under the guise of do-gooding.   It just smacks of fake to me.   I gave up on this kind of thing after the Kids Company scandal.  I tend to give to things that reach out to me, personally, and in much more understated ways.

Syl wrote:A few statistics.
Children in need was first started in the UK in 1955.
So far over £890 million has been raised to help children and disadvantaged youngsters.
None of the TV presenters or celebs are paid.
All the money goes to help kids in the UK.

And how do you think the great machine is kept oiled and running?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Its all over the BBC today, many people do daft things for good causes.
Do you give or do you avoid organised charities for your own reasons?

On the local radio this morning there were continuous auctions for some great days out, tickets for pantomimes, football events, sought after tickets for sell out concerts etc....highest bidder won the prize.

Now I know the object is to raise as much money as possible, but one woman was out bidding everyone else for all the really good prizes. They would bid £50, she would come in with £500 because obviously money was no object.

I thought this was selfish in the extreme....do you?

I can't stand things like Children in Need.   I can't stand watching all those celebrities poncing around under the guise of do-gooding.   It just smacks of fake to me.   I gave up on this kind of thing after the Kids Company scandal.  I tend to give to things that reach out to me, personally, and in much more understated ways.

I think a lot of people do that.
Children in need do a lot of good...along with that comes the show business element of it all, and it does grate on some.
It veers between razzle dazzle, self promoting, and pulling at your heart strings, and I think a lot of people feel manipulated by that.

But if you watch any of the NSPCC TV ads they are designed by experts and  acted by child actors to deliberately ring every ounce of sympathy from the viewer....its how they get their donations to pile in.

The bottom line is if it makes money and it gets to the people its pledging to help...its a good thing.
Not all charities do what they say, Children in need does..

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:A few statistics.
Children in need was first started in the UK in 1955.
So far over £890 million has been raised to help children and disadvantaged youngsters.
None of the TV presenters or celebs are paid.
All the money goes to help kids in the UK.

And how do you think the great machine is kept oiled and running?

All the presents and celebs appear voluntarily.
The total money raised goes to charities not BBC admin.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


And how do you think the great machine is kept oiled and running?

All the presents and celebs appear voluntarily.
The total money raised goes to charities not BBC admin.

That wasn't the question.   Do you honestly believe there are no admin costs?

Anyone can write a scathing piece to calm their guilty conscience that they themselves do sweet sod all to help kids that are going through a hard time.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


And how do you think the great machine is kept oiled and running?

All the presents and celebs appear voluntarily.
The total money raised goes to charities not BBC admin.

One could hardly call them celebrities.     

Kem Cetinay, Rylan Clark-Neal and Maya Jama?   Who the fuck are they in the scheme of things?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

All the presents and celebs appear voluntarily.
The total money raised goes to charities not BBC admin.

That wasn't the question.   Do you honestly believe there are no admin costs?

https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2016/nov/16/bbc-children-in-need-charities-costs

The BBC say not.

"Capital letters don’t work well on radio. So when the excellent promotions for this week’s BBC’s Children in Need appeal tell us that “all your donation will go to Children in Need”, do they also mean “all your donation will go to children in need”?

The BBC insists that they do. After past criticism for implying that the appeal had no administration costs, it has settled on a form of words explaining that “every penny” of a cash donation goes out in a grant to a good cause because overheads are met from other income."

Syl wrote:Anyone can write a scathing piece to calm their guilty conscience that they themselves do sweet sod all to help kids that are going through a hard time.

Did you know that Terry Wogan got paid £1,300 per HOUR for doing Children in Need?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

All the presents and celebs appear voluntarily.
The total money raised goes to charities not BBC admin.

One could hardly call them celebrities.     

Kem Cetinay, Rylan Clark-Neal and Maya Jama?   Who the fuck are they in the scheme of things?

Tess Dailey was good...Graham Norton, Mel (from Mel and Sue is very popular)...you are just being picky now.

Syl wrote:Anyone can write a scathing piece to calm their guilty conscience that they themselves do sweet sod all to help kids that are going through a hard time.

It's pretty much mirroring what a lot of people think.   

I don't doubt CIN does a lot of good, but pretending they spend every single penny on kids isn't true.   It's mathematically impossible to run a charity on fresh air.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Anyone can write a scathing piece to calm their guilty conscience that they themselves do sweet sod all to help kids that are going through a hard time.

Did you know that Terry Wogan got paid £1,300 per HOUR for doing Children in Need?

That was years ago wasn't it?

Its changed a lot since then...Wogan also put loads back into it and did a lot free for Children in need too.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Anyone can write a scathing piece to calm their guilty conscience that they themselves do sweet sod all to help kids that are going through a hard time.

It's pretty much mirroring what a lot of people think.   

I don't doubt CIN does a lot of good, but pretending they spend every single penny on kids isn't true.   It's mathematically impossible to run a charity on fresh air.

Read the link, they claim admin is taken from other sources not out of the donations.

In any case, raising over £1,000 million since it started is no mean feat.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

One could hardly call them celebrities.     

Kem Cetinay, Rylan Clark-Neal and Maya Jama?   Who the fuck are they in the scheme of things?

Tess Dailey was good...Graham Norton, Mel (from Mel and Sue is very popular)...you are just being picky now.

Tess Daly?   She wouldn't even have her mug on TV if she looked like a sack of spanners.  I'm sure she jumps at every opportunity to add her poncing to the long list of poncers on that ghastly show.    I didn't watch it last night, thank God.  I was out at a Depeche Mode concert... who, incidentally,  promote and support a charity for clean water for third world countries.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's pretty much mirroring what a lot of people think.   

I don't doubt CIN does a lot of good, but pretending they spend every single penny on kids isn't true.   It's mathematically impossible to run a charity on fresh air.

Read the link, they claim admin is taken from other sources not out of the donations.

In any case, raising over £1,000 million since it started is no mean feat.

How much did you donate then?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Read the link, they claim admin is taken from other sources not out of the donations.

In any case, raising over £1,000 million since it started is no mean feat.

How much did you donate then?

I always donate...the amount isn't any of your business....nosy cow.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Tess Dailey was good...Graham Norton, Mel (from Mel and Sue is very popular)...you are just being picky now.

Tess Daly?   She wouldn't even have her mug on TV if she looked like a sack of spanners.  I'm sure she jumps at every opportunity to add her poncing to the long list of poncers on that ghastly show.    I didn't watch it last night, thank God.  I was out at a Depeche Mode concert... who, incidentally,  promote and support a charity for clean water for third world countries.

The charity Depeche Mode promote and support is brilliant, I would never knock anyone for helping others....but I bet you didn't wonder exactly how much of their profits went towards the actual charity.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


How much did you donate then?

I always donate...the amount isn't any of your business....nosy cow.

Every farthing counts, I guess

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tess Daly?   She wouldn't even have her mug on TV if she looked like a sack of spanners.  I'm sure she jumps at every opportunity to add her poncing to the long list of poncers on that ghastly show.    I didn't watch it last night, thank God.  I was out at a Depeche Mode concert... who, incidentally,  promote and support a charity for clean water for third world countries.

The charity Depeche Mode promote and support is brilliant, I would never knock anyone for helping others....but I bet you didn't wonder exactly how much of their profits went towards the actual charity.

I don't actually care.   Anymore than I care about Children in Need.    The difference being that Depeche Mode seem to be doing their bit with some dignity, whereas CIN have to rely on desperate to be famous quick ring my agent so called celebs.   I'm actually more inclined to give to Charities that don't have to use pretentious tactics to wring money out of the public.

George Michael said it best when he wrote...

"...and charity is a coat we wear, once a year..."

Nothing could highlight that better than CIN.    Everyone getting hysterical about being seen to give just because a bunch of celebs are gormandising their egos?

How about this guy?    Anyone been giving to him?   He's doing this all alone. This is the sort of thing I'd rather give my money to.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I always donate...the amount isn't any of your business....nosy cow.

Every farthing counts, I guess

Farthing?.....you are showing your age a bit there.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


Every farthing counts, I guess

Farthing?.....you are showing your age a bit there.

I figured that would be more within your understanding actually....

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


Every farthing counts, I guess

Farthing?.....you are showing your age a bit there.

Joking aside, I DO remember them.  They had a wee wren on the back.

HoratioTarr wrote:George Michael said it best when he wrote...

"...and charity is a coat we wear, once a year..."

Nothing could highlight that better than CIN.    Everyone getting hysterical about being seen to give just because a bunch of celebs are gormandising their egos?

How about this guy?    Anyone been giving to him?   He's doing this all alone. This is the sort of thing I'd rather give my money to.

Most of the donations come from anonymous people who give quietly.
The people who publicly fund raise do it not to promote themselves but the cause.

George Michael did so much for various charities, usually quietly, no one knew just how much he had given till after his death, but he also appeared on the big TV extravaganza's too to lend his support.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:
Farthing?.....you are showing your age a bit there.

Joking aside, I DO remember them.  They had a wee wren on the back.

I remember them (vaguely), and the three penny bits, the shape has made a comeback in the new £1 coins.

The video was amazing, what a man. x

I would see  nothing wrong whatsoever if he received a hefty donation to help his cause, no matter HOW that hefty donation was raised.

Maybe we could have an 'Animals in need' TV show where celebs did their bit to highlight little known causes and raise tons of cash?

The point is does it matter HOW money is raised as long as its honest and donated to the causes it says it does?