Does anyone else hated Children in Need? (The TV show, not the cause)

Does it matter that people use it for their own personal gain? As long as the money goes to charity, I don't mind that people gain something from it in the meantime.

Causes don't always need to be carried out by genuine people for them to yield positive results.

But if people were actually genuine more would be done year round

I really ****ing hate it. I may sound like a miserable old ****, but it's really the ****test thing ever. I'll happily give money to charity, I don't need Dean Gavney and Sid Owen pretending to be Benny and Bjorn from ABBA, or the BBC news team dressing up like Queen to give money. It just seems like its used by a lot of Z-Listers to try and increase their reputation or get back on TV.

Even the fundraising done by the general public is annoying. I don't mean people who cycle from land's end to john O'Groats, that's actually amazing. I mean the people who go into work dressed as a giant dildo or such nonsense (obviously I'm aware no one actually dresses up like a giant dildo to raise money, I'm exaggerating) and their fundraising effort is clearly more about getting attention then actually helping people. Why can't people just give money or make an effort all year round to help others, rather then needing incentives to do it once a year and in a really superficial manner?

I hate the children in need stuff too... I hate it so much.

Mainly its how awful the TV show they have on all day is - its just, baaaad. Then there are the "sponsored x" things.

See, I don't mind giving to charity - I do that. I don't mind people doing things to raise money - like you say, cycling hundreds of miles etc. Stuff that's hard. What I hate are either the stupid stuff that just annoys me or the "skydiving" for charity, that's NOT something you do to raise money! That's something you do for fun.

People at school used to say "omg did you watch children in need last night it was soo good"... wtf? People watch that? I'd rather tear my eyes out with a blunt pencil.

Exactly. Plus its a bit rich from the BBC to lecture on what children need what with the Jimmy Saville scandal.

The reality is the cause needs the attention to get donations.

If for example Children in Need did nothing on television, and posted everyone in the country a leaflet explaining who they are and a envelope for a donation - do you think they would raise nearly as much?

People donate because they feel a connection with the fundraising, they feel involved as they are watching it all happen. The celebrities and tv stars deffinately help, a familiar face will make donors feel more comfortable about giving.

I personally prefer to support local charities, but I can see why CIN has been so successful for all these years, long may it continue

Actually back in the 80s the Children In Need trustees quietly banned Jimmy Saville from any association with the cause because they recognised he was a seedy character. Not that the BBC should get any credit for that!

But why do people need to see a familiar face or feel comfortable when giving? Here's a reason to give- people are dying or suffering and by giving money you can help improve or even save lives.

Our vision is that every child in the UK has a childhood which is:

* Safe
* Happy and Secure
* Allows them the chance to reach their potential

The fact that CiN is necessary in itself shows that state support is failing - the vision of CiN is something that the government should be persuing - not something that is funded through charity and so ends up as a lottery won by people in the right place at the right time meeting the right criteria.



Never mind the fact that the CiN website and fundraising IS all focused on the "fun" and not on what the actual money is used for.