I despise Children In Need

[Miggins]

I think I despair of the need to hold this annual event rather than despise it. We live in a relatively rich country and in these modern enlightened times no one should have to rely on charity.

[nottingram]

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Rashfords company MUCS Limited appears to handle his 'image rights' which we all know is a tax dodge to avoid 40% tax.

Think its pretty common knowledge that most of the top footballers go down this route.

In that case I would agree it is disappointing.

I would hope he uses a significant proportion of the tax he therefore saves, on charitable causes, like his own campaign. He may feel he does not trust where it will go once with the government, I can’t imagine getting agreements in place for this to be ring fenced is particularly easy. 

[BaaLocks]

27 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Rashfords company MUCS Limited appears to handle his 'image rights' which we all know is a tax dodge to avoid 40% tax.

Think its pretty common knowledge that most of the top footballers go down this route.

Maybe Rashford thinks he can do better things with his money than the UK Government can, that was kind of the point of the post taken to the ultimate end point.

I've long said if I had my time again I would stand to be an MP (I wouldn't but bear with me) and my 'thing' would be variable taxation. We have a base level of tax, which is needed to cover the running of the country - schools, infrastructure, police, etc - and then individuals can elect to pay more tax (indeed are encouraged to) but they have a say where that tax goes. For example, I pay the base 25% but I can elect to pay another 5% as long as it goes to the NHS. And for the most wealthy those numbers are published and made available to all.

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

Maybe Rashford thinks he can do better things with his money than the UK Government can, that was kind of the point of the post taken to the ultimate end point.

I've long said if I had my time again I would stand to be an MP (I wouldn't but bear with me) and my 'thing' would be variable taxation. We have a base level of tax, which is needed to cover the running of the country - schools, infrastructure, police, etc - and then individuals can elect to pay more tax (indeed are encouraged to) but they have a say where that tax goes. For example, I pay the base 25% but I can elect to pay another 5% as long as it goes to the NHS. And for the most wealthy those numbers are published and made available to all.

I'd vote for that - and yes, telethons like Children In Need are essentially voluntary selective taxation aren't they

[BaaLocks]

14 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I'd vote for that - and yes, telethons like Children In Need are essentially voluntary selective taxation aren't they

Unfortunately on post taxed income, which is the bit that irks me most. And unfortunately, we still pay all the tax for Carrie's wallpaper and various MP's (of more than one party) second jobs etc, etc. This is just extra we are then supposed to find behind the sofa because the government can't. Yes, I know we have Gift Aid but it is far from 100%.

But I get your point, thx for making it, it calms me a little.

[Stive Pesley]

18 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Unfortunately on post taxed income, which is the bit that irks me most.

It also irks me that so many charities are formed with the express purpose of avoiding tax*. The whole thing needs sorting out

 

*especially Private Schools -  how is that really a charity??

Edited November 16, 2021 by Stive Pesley

[angieram]

If you want to turn this into another politics thread, be my guest.

It will get closed.

[angieram]

On Children in Need and philanthropy, giving.

There are many people who are distrustful of or embarrassed by accepting state aid, who can be reached by charitable organisations. I have worked with many organisations who have used CIN monies to make a real and lasting difference in people's lives. Some of these are people who have been failed by statutory services, whose approach wasn't right for them.

CIN administration and grantgiving is a lot more straightforward and recipient friendly than some other major funders (The National Lottery is a nightmare and has created a bureaucratic gravy train for a host of people, for example). By comparison, CIN is straightforward, flexible and user friendly.

There are many, many people who have given to charitable causes over hundreds of years. Schools, hospitals and most things we now take for granted as being state provided were not always there. Charitable organisations often pave the way for future state provision.

People who give feel good about giving and this is evidenced as one of the five ways to wellbeing.

Many people who raise money for CIN may not give in more traditional ways, but give because of the entertainment value, the celebrity they associate with, the chance to be on tele! This doesn't make it a bad thing, just a different thing. 

Because celebrities use the available tax systems of the day to maximise their income, doesn't mean they aren't using or donating the monies they save for good. They may think they better know how to use it than the government! ? 

There are many, many television channels and if you don't like CIN don't watch the BBC.

 

[Mucker1884]

43 minutes ago, angieram said:

If you want to turn this into another politics thread, be my guest.

It will get closed.

ANGE!!!

[ramsbottom]

On 16/11/2021 at 09:31, Miggins said:

I think I despair of the need to hold this annual event rather than despise it. We live in a relatively rich country and in these modern enlightened times no one should have to rely on charity.

Same here.

The DIY SOS special last night highlighted the fact that 25% of children in this country are classed as being in poverty.  That's around 3 million kids who aren't fed or clothed properly.  Considering the billions being spent on HS2 and other vanity projects it's a disgrace that this kind of thing is necessary...

[Miggins]

4 hours ago, ramsbottom said:

Same here.

The DIY SOS special last night highlighted the fact that 25% of children in this country are classed as being in poverty.  That's around 3 million kids who aren't fed or clothed properly.  Considering the billions being spent on HS2 and other vanity projects it's a disgrace that this kind of thing is necessary...

You put it in a nutshell, @ramsbottom.

[BaaLocks]

7 hours ago, angieram said:

On Children in Need and philanthropy, giving.

There are many people who are distrustful of or embarrassed by accepting state aid, who can be reached by charitable organisations. I have worked with many organisations who have used CIN monies to make a real and lasting difference in people's lives. Some of these are people who have been failed by statutory services, whose approach wasn't right for them.

Philanthropy - such a lovely word, but what we are talking about here is state failure to support those in need. Putting CIN in place to cover up for that failure is not a good thing, ensuring the state supports in the way a state should is a good thing. Ergo: CIN is simply training bad behaviour at the highest levels.

7 hours ago, angieram said:

There are many, many people who have given to charitable causes over hundreds of years. Schools, hospitals and most things we now take for granted as being state provided were not always there. Charitable organisations often pave the way for future state provision.

People who give feel good about giving and this is evidenced as one of the five ways to wellbeing.

Do you have examples? Something a little more modern than bread and fishes and without religious undercurrents of the likes of Salvation Army (or even Mother Theresa)? And by that I mean having led the way for future state funded care, not just philanthropy ad infinitum.

As for people feeling good, I feel good eating a pot of ice cream but that doesn't make it a good thing for me to eat it three times a day. I have no problem with philanthropy (and I'm not suggesting we go all totalitarian and rely on the state for all our support) but it all veers towards the North American model of volunteering, cookie sales and the like where many question who it is being done for, the person in receipt or your LinkedIn profile.

7 hours ago, angieram said:

Many people who raise money for CIN may not give in more traditional ways, but give because of the entertainment value, the celebrity they associate with, the chance to be on tele! This doesn't make it a bad thing, just a different thing. 

Because celebrities use the available tax systems of the day to maximise their income, doesn't mean they aren't using or donating the monies they save for good. They may think they better know how to use it than the government! ? 

Marcus Rashford is likely a good example in both cases, someone who can raise awareness and do something to help the problem. But it doesn't make it right that the problem is there in the first place.

7 hours ago, angieram said:

There are many, many television channels and if you don't like CIN don't watch the BBC.

What? I can't watch the Beeb ever again, any channel, just coz I don't agree with one program :-). 

I won't watch CIN, that is for sure, but that wasn't really the point of the thread.

Edited November 17, 2021 by BaaLocks

[Stive Pesley]

On 15/11/2021 at 17:35, sage said:

He donated the fees to said charity.

Just thinking about this. Assuming you are Wogie ITK and it's true. Who paid the fees to him in the first place? The BBC...who are funded largely from the license fee that we all (ahem..most of us) pay. 

The whole thing is just weird the more you think about it.

"We've created a society where there are children in need, despite that fact that we could easily eradicate child poverty were there the will to do so - but instead we're organising a special TV show where celebrities will entertain you in return for you donating money to the cause"

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Just thinking about this. Assuming you are Wogie ITK and it's true. Who paid the fees to him in the first place? The BBC...who are funded largely from the license fee that we all (ahem..most of us) pay. 

The whole thing is just weird the more you think about it.

"We've created a society where there are children in need, despite that fact that we could easily eradicate child poverty were there the will to do so - but instead we're organising a special TV show where celebrities will entertain you in return for you donating money to the cause"

Weve also created a society where some parents believe a mobile phone, tv etc etc are more of a necessity than feeding their children, safe in the knowledge that someone else will pick up the tab.

[Wolfie]

5 hours ago, ramsbottom said:

Same here.

The DIY SOS special last night highlighted the fact that 25% of children in this country are classed as being in poverty.  That's around 3 million kids who aren't fed or clothed properly. 

And that's a big assumption.

Definition of child poverty: A child is considered to be growing up in poverty if they live in a household whose income is 60% below the average (median) income in a given year.

I would imagine a large majority of the parents concerned would not want us to assume that they're not looking after their kids properly. The definition isn't fit for purpose and needs changing to something meaningful

[BaaLocks]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Weve also created a society where some parents believe a mobile phone, tv etc etc are more of a necessity than feeding their children, safe in the knowledge that someone else will pick up the tab.

That's called a false opposition - setting up a mythical version of something that you have no evidence to support it with. Just like I could say that we've also created a society where some (with some being the key word in both phrases) prefer to send their children to boarding school rather than take time to parent them in a meaningful manner. It's an easy game really, the Daily Mail have been doing it for decades.

[Stive Pesley]

35 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Weve also created a society where some parents believe a mobile phone, tv etc etc are more of a necessity than feeding their children, safe in the knowledge that someone else will pick up the tab.

I know you're just on the wind-up, so I won't bite as it will only get the thread deleted ?

But on a serious note, our 11 year old just started at senior school and it's a bus ride away. Since Trent Barton scrapped their mango card, the only way you can use contactless payments now is if you have a debit card (which he obviously doesn't have - being 11) or a mobile phone with the app.

As an incentive - the "old-fashioned way" of paying with cash is 25% more expensive - so we had to buy him a mobile, despite not really wanting to. And we're lucky because we could afford to buy him a smart phone and contract. What does a family do that can't afford that?

So we have public transport providers now discriminating against the poor, and doing their best to trap them in poverty

 

 

[Norman]

10 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I know you're just on the wind-up, so I won't bite as it will only get the thread deleted ?

But on a serious note, our 11 year old just started at senior school and it's a bus ride away. Since Trent Barton scrapped their mango card, the only way you can use contactless payments now is if you have a debit card (which he obviously doesn't have - being 11) or a mobile phone with the app.

As an incentive - the "old-fashioned way" of paying with cash is 25% more expensive - so we had to buy him a mobile, despite not really wanting to. And we're lucky because we could afford to buy him a smart phone and contract. What does a family do that can't afford that?

So we have public transport providers now discriminating against the poor, and doing their best to trap them in poverty

 

 

Nah, he's right. It's priorities. Maybe he hasn't used the best examples. 

I have worked with the most abused, illiterate, abusive, addicted, uneducated, violent people this country has to offer. 

The tale is always one of priorities. That comes from a lack of education, addiction and abuse normally. I can't be arsed to get into it further because none of you will change your stance and, as you say, it will only get the thread deleted. 

And it's a vicious circle, particularly abuse and addiction. Which is why we will always need charities. People don't have the same start to life, the same chances and therefore the same priorities as people on here. Priorities, priorities, priorities.

The problem will never be solved as to why we need charities. Society is far too complex for an answer to that. 

[angieram]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

Philanthropy - such a lovely word, but what we are talking about here is state failure to support those in need. Putting CIN in place to cover up for that failure is not a good thing, ensuring the state supports in the way a state should is a good thing. Ergo: CIN is simply training bad behaviour at the highest levels.

Do you have examples? Something a little more modern than bread and fishes and without religious undercurrents of the likes of Salvation Army (or even Mother Theresa)? And by that I mean having led the way for future state funded care, not just philanthropy ad infinitum.

As for people feeling good, I feel good eating a pot of ice cream but that doesn't make it a good thing for me to eat it three times a day. I have no problem with philanthropy (and I'm not suggesting we go all totalitarian and rely on the state for all our support) but it all veers towards the North American model of volunteering, cookie sales and the like where many question who it is being done for, the person in receipt or your LinkedIn profile.

Marcus Rashford is likely a good example in both cases, someone who can raise awareness and do something to help the problem. But it doesn't make it right that the problem is there in the first place.

What? I can't watch the Beeb ever again, any channel, just coz I don't agree with one program :-). 

I won't watch CIN, that is for sure, but that wasn't really the point of the thread.

I don't know how to do multiple quotes, but I will take your challenges in order.

I don't think CIN was ever put in place to cover up state failure. In fact it came out of the surge of awareness of public philanthropy after the success of Live Aid and similar televised events that both raised awareness and money at the same time. It had created a new era of individuals with no other power thinking that they can do something that "makes a difference" (as opposed to waiting for or demanding governments do it.)

CIN grants are specifically targeted to additional provision, not services that is already statutorily funded, so it is complementary.  Very clear in both theirs and the National Lottery's grant funding conditions.

Examples of philanthropy?

Youth club provision, which as recently as the 1960s and early 70s was almost wholly provided by voluntary organisations and is now almost entirely delivered by local authorities. (Interestingly when local government funding pressures meant LAs tried to place provision back into the voluntary sector there was a huge outcry.) Lots of that earlier voluntary provision was by church based organisations, not sure why you have a problem with charity that is based on faith, btw? 

State Surestart provision grew out of the model operated and run by Homestart charities for many years, so much so that Homestart had to reinvent themselves as their model had been "stolen" by local authorities. Homestart have benefitted from CIN grants which I have helped write. 

Homelessness provision was entirely voluntary for many years, but is now government funded but mainly let back out to the charity sector, who are much better at delivering it than councils because they know how to reach the unreachable! Have benefitted from National Lottery awards and Sports Relief funding, I have supported several such applications at a local level.

Community transport schemes started off entirely voluntarily but local authorities recognised their value and grant funded them, in some areas taking the full delivery into council services. Have previously benefitted locally  from CIN grants applied for by me.

Eating disorder services in Derbyshire started with a small charity lobbying for better access and is now government funded to deliver multiple services, including under contract to the main mental health services Trust. Have benefitted from CIN grants applied for with my help.

I could go on, and on and on.....these are just a few of the charitable led initiatives that have changed the way government has viewed and delivered services over the 36 years I have worked in the sector.

Your comparison between the wellbeing of giving and eating ice cream is so silly it doesn't even deserve a response but if you want to learn something you can read about Five Ways to wellbeing here - https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/self-help/guides-tools-and-activities/five-steps-to-mental-wellbeing/

Interestingly enough, these were adopted by the NHS after being developed by the New Economics Foundation.

I might suggest you think about adopting a few of these as an alternative to knocking things down.

I mentioned avoiding the BBC for a short while to avoid hearing about CIN if it annoys you, not giving it up for life!  Just like I avoid Big Brother or Pop Idol or I'm a Celebrity or threads about Football Manager or other computer games.

I won't be responding to this thread again, but felt I couldn't let your idea that somehow CIN is a cause of prolonging child poverty, rather than a genuine attempt to offer alternative solutions, go unchallenged.

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

I think really the "TV Charity Fundraising Event" is very outdated.

The Rashford debate is a bit different, effectively he lobbied for a change in government policy by using his fame and popularity, instead of donating huge amounts of money to MPs which is the "dignified" way to influence government policy.

But what I think is really important is, the actual causes and people in desperate circumstances in need of help.

That's why *fundraiser plug alert* I'm running the Derby half marathon on 28th November in support of domestic violence charity Refuge

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tobias-garrud1