I despise Children In Need

[angieram]

29 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I think really the "TV Charity Fundraising Event" is very outdated.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

But I despise those sort of initiatives.  Shouldn't be needed. ?‍♀️

[sage]

2 hours 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"

I agree, however I don't despise Children in Need just the turds who make it a necessity

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

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.

I'm not really sure what you think puts you in a position to say what I have or have not witnessed. 

If you choose to believe that sort of thing doesn't happen then thats your perogative of course.

I personally haven't witnessed any children living in poverty, I don't assume that means it doesn't happen.

I wouldn't know about the Daily Mail as I don't read it and pity you because you obviously must read it to have that opinion. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour 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

Out of interest, did they put the prices up 25% for cash payments, or make mobile payments 25% cheaper?

Having heard the stories about the universal credit cut of £20 a week (despite the fact that this was actually reverting to its normal level) I know how stories can get slightly twisted.

[TigerTedd]

2 hours 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 would argue that a Mobil phone is an essential necessity. Beyond, of course, food and shelter to stay alive. Access to education and information should be incredibly high on the list. Check out maslows hierarchy of needs. 

We live in an amazing age where, if a society can’t offer school or learning opportunities, the entire internet, infinite learning opportunities and opportunities to develop, learn, grow, self actualise and hope for a better life beyond mere survival, can be accessed through a Mobil phone. A relatively small price to pay for years of information. 

information is knowledge, and knowledge is power.

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

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.

 

Yes, yes, that’s all well and good, but do you have any evidence?

[angieram]

4 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

Yes, yes, that’s all well and good, but do you have any evidence?

?

[Miggins]

1 hour ago, Norman said:

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. 

@NormanReally take exception to this as every child in this country is in the education system from the age of of 5 to 16 or 18 if they stay on for A levels. Nursery provision also available from babies up until school age. Having taught for 31 years there is currently a huge emphasis on Personal, Social and Health Education and the issues you mention are thoroughly and sensitively dealt with at all levels. Where do you think this lack of education comes from given the current provision provided?

 

[GboroRam]

24 minutes ago, Miggins said:

@NormanReally take exception to this as every child in this country is in the education system from the age of of 5 to 16 or 18 if they stay on for A levels. Nursery provision also available from babies up until school age. Having taught for 31 years there is currently a huge emphasis on Personal, Social and Health Education and the issues you mention are thoroughly and sensitively dealt with at all levels. Where do you think this lack of education comes from given the current provision provided?

 

Lack of education comes from the disenfranchised. I'm currently fostering a 9 year old boy who can't read or write. His dad can't read or write either. The example has been handed down through the generations, and attending school isn't really a priority. He's in year 5 and can't read. Not because he hasn't had opportunity to be educated - because the people who formed his early years were uneducated as well, because of all the dreadful things that happen in broken homes, because nobody expected anything from him and he's been allowed to slip through the cracks. And frankly school are just happy if he turns up with a red jumper and doesn't kick off through the day. 

I don't hate Children in Need, or any of the other charities. But I don't agree that charities are the only people that can make these changes or can work out how to reach them. Councils given the resources can make the same differences - like you said, they are doing it in some areas now. They might work with other groups, maybe incorporating them into the organisation directly if it works. 

If it's a core function of a modern society we should all pick up the costs, through direct taxation. It's fairer, as we all pay a share dependent upon our ability to pay. It's unfair that core services should be funded through the generosity of others.

Generous gifts to charity should provide those non-core services that provide extra. Housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, educating our children - that's the role of a modern society, not a charitable service.

[maxjam]

36 minutes ago, Miggins said:

@NormanReally take exception to this as every child in this country is in the education system from the age of of 5 to 16 or 18 if they stay on for A levels. Nursery provision also available from babies up until school age. Having taught for 31 years there is currently a huge emphasis on Personal, Social and Health Education and the issues you mention are thoroughly and sensitively dealt with at all levels. Where do you think this lack of education comes from given the current provision provided?

 

Mine were/are home schooled from 11-16 and we mix with a lot of other families that don't have kids in the school system for very different reasons to us (our reasons are because the local secondary schools are crap we figured we could do a better job)

[Comrade 86]

12 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Mine were/are home schooled from 11-16 and we mix with a lot of other families that don't have kids in the school system for very different reasons to us (our reasons are because the local secondary schools are crap we figured we could do a better job)

How's their maths?

[Miggins]

15 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Mine were/are home schooled from 11-16 and we mix with a lot of other families that don't have kids in the school system for very different reasons to us (our reasons are because the local secondary schools are crap we figured we could do a better job)

Despite both of us being teachers I often thought that if we had had children I could have home educated them because we could have achieved so much in a morning on a one to one  basis that we could have spent the afternoons doing lots of fun things! Swimming, bike rides, museums, cooking, art etc! Alas, it was not to be.

Despite that I had a lot of fun teaching! The children were lovely. I miss them!!

Edited November 17, 2021 by Miggins

[Miggins]

28 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Lack of education comes from the disenfranchised. I'm currently fostering a 9 year old boy who can't read or write. His dad can't read or write either. The example has been handed down through the generations, and attending school isn't really a priority. He's in year 5 and can't read. Not because he hasn't had opportunity to be educated - because the people who formed his early years were uneducated as well, because of all the dreadful things that happen in broken homes, because nobody expected anything from him and he's been allowed to slip through the cracks. And frankly school are just happy if he turns up with a red jumper and doesn't kick off through the day. 

I don't hate Children in Need, or any of the other charities. But I don't agree that charities are the only people that can make these changes or can work out how to reach them. Councils given the resources can make the same differences - like you said, they are doing it in some areas now. They might work with other groups, maybe incorporating them into the organisation directly if it works. 

If it's a core function of a modern society we should all pick up the costs, through direct taxation. It's fairer, as we all pay a share dependent upon our ability to pay. It's unfair that core services should be funded through the generosity of others.

Generous gifts to charity should provide those non-core services that provide extra. Housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, educating our children - that's the role of a modern society, not a charitable service.

Wishing you and your boy all the very best, @GboroRam.

[maxjam]

Just now, Miggins said:

Despite both of us being teachers I often thought that if we had had children I could have home educated them because we could have achieved so much in a morning on a one to one  basis that we could have spent the afternoons doing lots of fun things! Swimming, bike rides, museums, cooking, art etc! Alas, it was not to be.

Personally, I wouldn't want to home school them through primary school (assuming it was a good school) as they pick up as much social skills as they do eduction and you need a good 6th form to set them up for Uni.  IMO you can easily lose a child through secondary school though if the schools aren't great, if you don't push them and keep it interesting they can lose the will to learn. 

We used to get regular visits from the education board to check we were on the right path and he told us several times that the schools in our catchment area were all in a 'low aspiration area' and regardless of how much money they threw at the school the majority of parents weren't interested, which led to the kids being uninterested, which led to teachers becoming bored and leaving etc dragging everyone down. 

We only taught 6 GCSEs (only needed 5 to get into 6th form) and our eldest got 8/9 in them all (equivalent to A* A** in old money).  Our youngest is 14 and takes his maths GCSE next summer, followed by 2 more next year and 3 the year after - its gives us lots of time to do the extra-curricular stuff you mention.  TBH its been really good fun but only really doable as my wife and I run our own business from home, if even one of us went to work it would have been far, far tougher. 

Anyway... back on topic, I don't agree with Children in Need - I dunno how true or accurate it is anymore but I recall reading the BBC spending millions on wages/admin etc a while back so I stopped.  Whenever its on now all it does is trigger me to take something down to the local charity shop or make a donation direct to Alzheimer's Research as two of my Grandparents suffered with it ? 

[angieram]

26 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Lack of education comes from the disenfranchised. I'm currently fostering a 9 year old boy who can't read or write. His dad can't read or write either. The example has been handed down through the generations, and attending school isn't really a priority. He's in year 5 and can't read. Not because he hasn't had opportunity to be educated - because the people who formed his early years were uneducated as well, because of all the dreadful things that happen in broken homes, because nobody expected anything from him and he's been allowed to slip through the cracks. And frankly school are just happy if he turns up with a red jumper and doesn't kick off through the day. 

I don't hate Children in Need, or any of the other charities. But I don't agree that charities are the only people that can make these changes or can work out how to reach them. Councils given the resources can make the same differences - like you said, they are doing it in some areas now. They might work with other groups, maybe incorporating them into the organisation directly if it works. 

If it's a core function of a modern society we should all pick up the costs, through direct taxation. It's fairer, as we all pay a share dependent upon our ability to pay. It's unfair that core services should be funded through the generosity of others.

Generous gifts to charity should provide those non-core services that provide extra. Housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, educating our children - that's the role of a modern society, not a charitable service.

I largely agree with your post and sorry if I made it sound otherwise. However, I have seen enough young people (in fact people of all ages) who have been failed over the years by inflexibility in statutory services to know how desperately charitable provision is needed.

In fact there was a discussion on here only recently about the man who lives on the roundabout in Derby and people asked why he just shouldn't be rehoused. Someone rightly pointed out that he might not be in a place where he wants to engage with those services that are available. 

No matter how good they are, there are individuals and families who won't engage with official systems, just like the children you describe, so there will always need to be a choice of provision. 

I'd also add that a lot of voluntary sector provision is user led or strongly influenced, so has less of that prescriptive role that you sometimes get with statutory services. I know many statutory workers who will ask charities for help where they know their response will be quicker or more likely to receive a positive outcome.

As you say, it shouldn't be either or, the two sectors should be complementary.

 

[GboroRam]

5 minutes ago, angieram said:

I largely agree with your post and sorry if I made it sound otherwise. However, I have seen enough young people (in fact people of all ages) who have been failed over the years by inflexibility in statutory services to know how desperately charitable provision is needed.

In fact there was a discussion on here only recently about the man who lives on the roundabout in Derby and people asked why he just shouldn't be rehoused. Someone rightly pointed out that he might not be in a place where he wants to engage with those services that are available. 

No matter how good they are, there are individuals and families who won't engage with official systems, just like the children you describe, so there will always need to be a choice of provision. 

I'd also add that a lot of voluntary sector provision is user led or strongly influenced, so has less of that prescriptive role that you sometimes get with statutory services. I know many statutory workers who will ask charities for help where they know their response will be quicker or more likely to receive a positive outcome.

As you say, it shouldn't be either or, the two sectors should be complementary.

 

I'd say there's plenty of failings from local authorities, and I'm not defending them at all. But there's innovative ways that groups can integrated with local services and utilise them in partnership to achieve things. But if it's down to charity, it means it only gets done from the kindness of other people's generosity. That bit sticks in my craw if I'm honest. Feeding children shouldn't be reliant on the affluent feeling flush enough to fund it - not in a modern society. I want my tax money to be used to help the most vulnerable. I don't want charity doing that kind of stuff. Because let's be honest, although we all hear stories of the benevolent rich like the Beckhams ("yes, but they give loads to charity and never talk about it" types) but the vast majority of charity collection comes from those who don't have fast sums to give - swathes of ordinary men and women in the street gifting smallish sums in their millions.

And don't get me started on those charities who abuse the goodwill of their sponsors, hounding the vulnerable to gift more than they realistically can afford.

[BaaLocks]

2 hours ago, angieram said:

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

<snip>

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

Your mail started quite well and I was actually enjoying reading about the examples you laid out, interesting content and much appreciated. Towards the end you just got petty and condescending, as another poster said in reply to one of my other comments, you have no idea who I am what I do, what I know and what I value. And your tone, which frankly comes across as lecturing and a bit self important, did mean my interest waned by the line.

[Stive Pesley]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Out of interest, did they put the prices up 25% for cash payments, or make mobile payments 25% cheaper?

Having heard the stories about the universal credit cut of £20 a week (despite the fact that this was actually reverting to its normal level) I know how stories can get slightly twisted.

The 25% discount thing came in when they introduced Mango cards, which must have been around the mid-2000's. I guess to incentivise people to use the contactless system - easier for the drivers, more convenient, the "future" etc

Scrapping Mango cards seems to have been done so that they can save money on having to manage their own travel card infrastructure, which makes sense for them - but shifts the cost burden  of maintaining a contactless payment medium, onto the passenger

So they've gone from a contactless system (and a 25% discount) that was available to literally anyone who wanted a mango card - to a contactless system that penalises people without bank accounts or smart phones

 

[Comrade 86]

15 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

The 25% discount thing came in when they introduced Mango cards, which must have been around the mid-2000's. I guess to incentivise people to use the contactless system - easier for the drivers, more convenient, the "future" etc

Scrapping Mango cards seems to have been done so that they can save money on having to manage their own travel card infrastructure, which makes sense for them - but shifts the cost burden  of maintaining a contactless payment medium, onto the passenger

So they've gone from a contactless system (and a 25% discount) that was available to literally anyone who wanted a mango card - to a contactless system that penalises people without bank accounts or smart phones

Still can't get my head around the fact that poor people need mobiles. In days of yore two cans and some string sufficed. Can't believe we've 'created a society' where that's no longer the case.

[G STAR RAM]

56 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Still can't get my head around the fact that poor people need mobiles. In days of yore two cans and some string sufficed. Can't believe we've 'created a society' where that's no longer the case.

Why does it not surprise me that you fail to understand such a simple concept?