Will you be donating to Children in Need on Friday, or are you as angry with the BBC as I am?

I am getting better at saying "I admire what you do and support your charity in spirit, but my priorities regarding charitable giving are this, this and this and at present I am not in a position to increase that." If they don't like it, tough, but the "reputable" charities have taken that sort of response very well and I no longer feel guilty.

We will definitely still be supporting CIN. Why should historical wrongs and some poor judgement now stop us helping the small charities that are helped by a fun evening?

And now Max Clifford, who is recorded on video claiming that he knows where the bodies are buried, having protected celeb and political sex offenders fom being outed, is appointed to Children in Need in the last couple of days, to do their PR. The murkiness gets worse.

I hope he's doing it FOC.

But he'll need to be paid exorbitant expenses, of course!

NO

I never donate to CIN just because it gets on my nerves and I have other regular donations in place throughout the year – one for children, one for animals and one for mental health. These change from time to time geographically or in terms of the particular support they provide. Children and animals always feature and the third one varies depending on my interest in a particular charity. Also from time to time, I sponsor charity walks/runs/pub crawls/triathlons and so on. And yes, Barrow I think quite a lot of people are feeling charity fatigue, especially at this time of year.I am not sure that disapproval of events at the BBC – whether ignoring potential evidence about Jimmy Savile's activities over decades or the tax "fiddling" for high-powered "stars" is best expressed by sidelining a charitable event. But, then again, sidelining might result in a salutary experience for a smug corporation.

I agree with wisewoman. As Caitlin Moran said on twitter the bbc as an entirety did not actually physically abuse any children. It has made wrong decisions I know but that should not stop us helping "children in need."

I may seem like a real old misery guts but I do not support children in need because I find the whole thing very distasteful and I particularly hate the whole celebrity circus around it. I do not support the nspcc for professional reasons, and I would never support the RSPCA for many reasons which boil down to not liking their tactics. I do support certain charities and prefer to pay them direct. There, I said I was a misery guts.

I like this Mumsnet post by 'Emmeline':

The problem with the idea that people should keep on supporting a charity despite it showing questionable judgement over the sort of people it aligns itself with, is that it is that sort of logic that made JS untouchable in the first place. Even though nurses said children would pretend to be asleep when he came on the ward no one wanted to say "no" to JS because "what if it hurt fundraising?". The reuirement for good judgement cannot be held hostage to short term fundraising - it will ultimately hurt the publics trust in all charities and hit fundraising very badly in the medium and long term.

Everyone involved in charities - volunteers, board, staff, people who donate - all need to be insisting on the high standards. As a charity, aligning yourself with someone who admits unapologetically to trying to cover up child abuse is not really doing that. The association sends the wrong message about the aceptability of abuse by celebrities generally. It also makes me wonder what has happened at CiN that they feel needs the sorts of skill Clifford brings to the table. He's not exactly known for his honest and forthright approach is he?

nightowl I'm with you!

Go Kieran!!!!

Great bunch of kids!!!!

Nightowl I am with you too. We donate to various charities including Save the Children and a small charity called SafeatLast.
I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that the BBC and the celebs do CiN for altruistic reasons.
The Beeb do it to enhance their brand image and for the celebs it is an opportunity for self promotion.

I fail to see the connection.

That's not fair janeainsworth.

Why shouldn't celebrities do things for the good of others, just as anyone else might?

Lordy! The BBC is in a bad place just now but I think it would be a more dangerous world without it. Nothing but Murdoch's Sky and similar would be my worst nightmare! The BBC has a strong history world wide and something Britain should be fighting to preserve. There is a political desire in some quarters to get shot of it. I do not want to be manipulated into thinking 'The BBC' is a feckless institution. It has huge strengths..you will only miss when they are gone.

Savile abused the kids..let's not let him keep winning by letting his misdemeanours be overshadowed by the squabble about the BBC! Give to CIN and hope that money helps damaged children.

Well said nanej, You have articulated exactly what I was thinking. If we end up in a Murdoch world we are really in trouble.

JO5 wasn't that the problem with JS, that everyone thought he was doing things for the good of others and no-one questioned his motives?
Celebrities are not ordinary people. Some of them have talent, but they have only become celebrities by marketing themselves and promoting their image through people like Max Clifford.

jane some may even be decent people! Celebrity and decency are not mutually exclusive.. let's not over generalise or believe Savile is the 'norm'!

I agree, nanaej

Re the BBC I especially agree with your observation that 'there is a political desire in some quarters to get shot of it'. I'm surprised that more of us haven't picked up on this.

I am with you nightowl and jane

I hope we don't get rid of it, but try to make it what it should be :- a centre of independant neutral excellence.

Glad to know I'm not the only miseryguts. I agree we should not get rid of the BBC though, but should strive to make it what jeni says.

[hsmile]