BBC children in need

[Fingers]

It’s awful.

I remember looking forward to this event night. Celebs doing a turn. Programmes doing something different.

Is it because I is old that it’s so **** or is it just **** now?

 

[flecc]

I can't even watch it and haven't for some while.

I don't even think the BBC should be doing this anyway, it's far outside of their charter and just a cheap way to fill many hours of programming.
.

 

[Muddy]

I love the whole good feel factor about it and enjoy seeing the stories behind their work. The stories about kids dealing with cancer, caring for ill parents and bereavement among others is just heart wrenching and I wonder who would be helping them if it wasn’t for pudsy
Attitudes like yours sum up the attitude of modern society not giving a funk about anyone needing help
Why anyone would complain about such a well intended well supported charity is beyond me.
It’s one night of one channel raising millions and supported by millions of people which highlights sad stories, wonderful people and let’s people know some of us don’t want the Tory world of austerity or the hate filled world of trump
But if you are happy hating it, fill your boots. I love it

 

[flecc]

Why anyone would complain about such a well intended well supported charity is beyond me.

The BBC is not a children's charity, I for one would rather is concentrate on doing what it's chartered to do, something it's signally failing in.
.

 

[Fingers]

The BBC is not a children's charity, I for one would rather is concentrate on doing what it's chartered to do, something it's signally failing in.
.

It's raised a billion pounds since it's started. That can't be a bad thing. My problem is it just isn't the celebration it once was. But maybe that's because I'm older.

Most if not all TV stations have registered charities. When people vote on X Factor or I'm a Celeb a portion of the money goes to charity.

 

[Gubbins]

Whilst not knocking children in need, I have noticed that on some other charity fund raisers the celebs dont actually do it for nothing and their fees take a masive chunk of the donations.

 

[Muddy]

The BBC is not a children's charity, I for one would rather is concentrate on doing what it's chartered to do, something it's signally failing in.
.
What is it chartered to do? Why are you so angry about such a positive thing?
I think of the beeb as a station which should reflect and celebrate all things relevant to the uk and try to do it in a stimulating and interesting manner.
When you see all the local kids all over the land getting together in a common good to support the less fortunate I am really amazed anyone can moan about it. Does your tv only have one station?
I’d rather moan about eastenders as it’s complete shoit, your attitude doesn’t even compute any logic with me

 

[flecc]

What is it chartered to do? Why are you so angry about such a positive thing?
I think of the beeb as a station which should reflect and celebrate all things relevant to the uk and try to do it in a stimulating and interesting manner.
When you see all the local kids all over the land getting together in a common good to support the less fortunate I am really amazed anyone can moan about it. Does your tv only have one station?
I’d rather moan about eastenders as it’s complete shoit, your attitude doesn’t even compute any logic with me

The charter requires the BBC to inform, educate and entertain.

Creating something to then inform about it is a distortion of the first aim, dare I say fake news, creating the story, then disseminating it.

The same factor invalidates the education aspect.

And these amateurish productions hardly qualify as entertainment in my view and that of many others.

There are a number of well known charitable bodies dedicated to helping children in all sorts of unfortunate circumstances. Those who wish to donate to those causes are easily able to do so without the BBC straying from what it's supposed to be doing.

Should you suspect me of being mean in this respect, during last year alone I gave away over a quarter of my income for charitable purposes and during my last ten working years that gifting was half of my entire income. As a result I have not been able to add tax relief to much of that giving since it greatly exceeds my annual income tax due.
.

 

[flecc]

I have noticed that on some other charity fund raisers the celebs dont actually do it for nothing and their fees take a masive chunk of the donations.

That is true, and often the supposed giving by the stars of entertainment is nothing of the sort. For example, the Variety Club of Great Britain donated minibuses are funded by donations from businesses gained from cold calling by a team of paid operators.

Giving to charity is fraught with such problems for the well intentioned, for another example there's even what most might call a scam behind the BBC's Children in Need appeal.
.

 

[Gubbins]

I read that it takes 10,000 OAP's paying £2 per month each just to pay Cancer Research UK chief exec' s salary.

 

[tommie]

This is the issue i have with charities, i want my tenner or whatever to go directly to those who need it most and within the shortest time possible - unfortunately i perceive a lot of people getting very rich on the poor and needy.

for example.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793340/why-children-need-sitting-90million-fortune-charity-stashes-sum-away-investment-portfolio-instead-handing-out.html

Why is Children In Need sitting on a £90million fortune? Charity stashes sum away in investment portfolio instead of handing it out

• Charity also has £2.2million in its accounts up from £900,000 last year
• Spokesman said money being temporarily held and would be given away
• In 2008 BBC faced investigation after keeping £100,000 of charity money

BBC Children in Need has kept £87.7million stashed away in its investment portfolio instead of giving it directly to charity, its latest accounts reveal.

The charity, which has raised more than £600million for youngsters in the UK since 1980, is preparing to launch a fresh appeal to viewers next month.

But some donors may be surprised to discover it does not give the money directly to good causes.

 

[flecc]

This is the issue i have with charities, i want my tenner or whatever to go directly to those who need it most and within the shortest time possible - unfortunately i perceive a lot of people getting very rich on the poor and needy.

for example.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793340/why-children-need-sitting-90million-fortune-charity-stashes-sum-away-investment-portfolio-instead-handing-out.html

Why is Children In Need sitting on a £90million fortune? Charity stashes sum away in investment portfolio instead of handing it out

• Charity also has £2.2million in its accounts up from £900,000 last year
• Spokesman said money being temporarily held and would be given away
• In 2008 BBC faced investigation after keeping £100,000 of charity money

BBC Children in Need has kept £87.7million stashed away in its investment portfolio instead of giving it directly to charity, its latest accounts reveal.

The charity, which has raised more than £600million for youngsters in the UK since 1980, is preparing to launch a fresh appeal to viewers next month.

But some donors may be surprised to discover it does not give the money directly to good causes.

Thanks for this informative post Tommie. In a similar vein the BBC annoyed me a few years ago by saying that it took the team distributing the money a whole year to do that due to the size of the amount.

Nonsense of course, money can be very quickly given, clearly they were taking a year to ensure their highly paid jobs continued. The last published average salary of the large team doing this was £42,000, but it's no longer possible to get the full information since it seems the BBC has managed to obtain exclusion from Freedom of Information.
.

 

[Gubbins]

Thanks for this informative post Tommie. In a similar vein the BBC annoyed me a few years ago by saying that it took the team distributing the money a whole year to do that due to the size of the amount.

Nonsense of course, money can be very quickly given, clearly they were taking a year to ensure their highly paid jobs continued. The last published average salary of the large team doing this was £42,000, but it's no longer possible to get the full information since it seems the BBC has managed to obtain exclusion from Freedom of Information.
.

Perhaps the answer is really simple.. keep the money invested long enough to earn the original donation so they can then say that every penny goes to a good cause and still keep the cash.

 

[Muddy]

Jesus, what a lot of misery and glum outlook
I’m not sure about how much they sit on but in last nights highly informative and entertaining show they let us meet some of the people receiving fantastic help and support by highly professional and caring staff whom children in need pay their full salary. They can’t bankroll that without a pile of cash. The families getting this help couldn’t be more grateful and thankful for their vital support
Not sure why any mention of the stars supporting the charity are being mentioned in the same sentence as taking money because I don’t believe they are
I’m going to ignore this thread now as it’s one of the most mean spirited depressing piles of Shoite I’ve ever had the misfortune to read. Enjoy your bitterness and contempt for such a caring bunch, you seem to enjoy it as much as I enjoy supporting them and seeing the results

 

[RobF]

Jesus, what a lot of misery and glum outlook
I’m not sure about how much they sit on but in last nights highly informative and entertaining show they let us meet some of the people receiving fantastic help and support by highly professional and caring staff whom children in need pay their full salary. They can’t bankroll that without a pile of cash. The families getting this help couldn’t be more grateful and thankful for their vital support
Not sure why any mention of the stars supporting the charity are being mentioned in the same sentence as taking money because I don’t believe they are
I’m going to ignore this thread now as it’s one of the most mean spirited depressing piles of Shoite I’ve ever had the misfortune to read. Enjoy your bitterness and contempt for such a caring bunch, you seem to enjoy it as much as I enjoy supporting them and seeing the results

Nature of the internet, I'm afraid.

Some users see it as their mission in life to shoot down anything posted which is remotely positive.

I suspect 99.9% of the population think Children in Need is either a damn good thing, or they have no strong view either way.

But vanishingly few of those people post anything, so negativity rules.

 

[Gubbins]

My views have been tarnished a bit by my Mothers experiences, she used to send money to just about every charity that pushed an envelope through her door not even questioning the dubious and sometimes badly spelt claims in the packaging. Before long she was receiving requests for money daily, but luckily she is reasonably ok mentaly so ignored all the "you have one a prize" offers because she doesnt do competitions, but would still send a tenner to any name that she recognised, especially if they gave her a free pen to write the cheque with, and wouldnt accept that some of them may be fake.
The true scope of this didnt become apparent to me until she moved out for a month to have her flat refurbished and I saw the mountain of mail she had been receiving piled up in a corner so finally managed to get her to stop.
As the requests for money started to dwindle the genuine charities started to ring her up, sometimes bordering on being a bit agressive, but their requests fell on deaf ears, literally (97 years old and wont wear her hearing aid) so now she lets me vet who she sends money to.... or at least I think she does...
Personally I think Children in Need is a good thing and am amazed how much money is raised, but the entertainment is not up my street so I dont watch it..
After all viewing isnt compulsery and the TV does have other channel buttons...

 

[flecc]

Perhaps the answer is really simple.. keep the money invested long enough to earn the original donation so they can then say that every penny goes to a good cause and still keep the cash.

Unfortunately inflation can cancel the gain.
.

 

[flecc]

Enjoy your bitterness and contempt for such a caring bunch,

Nature of the internet, I'm afraid.

Some users see it as their mission in life to shoot down anything posted which is remotely positive.

No-one has posted any bitterness or any contempt for these people, that resides only in your mind.

Some of us are merely cautious about how we give and who we give through to ensure it goes where it should, promptly and as intact as possible.

I have personally known examples of very well known charities absorbing huge proportions of donated money in running costs, those sometimes blatantly benefiting the already well to do.
.

 

[tommie]

The problem is there`s no transparency, your donation floats off into the ether.
Some of the TV programmes should do a full investigation into their practices, how much goes to administration and how much eventually reaches those in need.
I would confidently suggest there`s quite a few living the high life on the spoils.

 

[flecc]

The problem is there`s no transparency, your donation floats off into the ether.
Some of the TV programmes should do a full investigation into their practices, how much goes to administration and how much eventually reaches those in need.
I would confidently suggest there`s quite a few living the high life on the spoils.

Unfortunately the whole charitable sector lacks scrutiny. A friend of mine of 52 years standing until his death was a civil service executive officer in the Charity Commission for several years and confirmed all my own observations of widespread abuse. He also complained of the Commission's lack of teeth, an inability to do anything meaningful about it. He wasn't alone in that, many have publically said the same over the years.
.