[TV] Children in Need

[BensGrandad]

They have and are raising a lot of money but what an awful show in comparison to normal terrible presenters and most of the type of stars that normally appear are not. this year in fact there are very few actual stars making an appearance.to do stupid things.

 

[Emperor Tomato Ketchup]

I’ll happily stick a bluey in any proverbial hat they pass round but seriously does anyone watch this shite?

 

[spence]

There's far to many charities asking for money on TV. Gets a bit much really. Everyone has there own preferences. Myself i give to the blind and Poppy fund.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

I’ll happily stick a bluey in any proverbial hat they pass round but seriously does anyone watch this shite?

I've watched Children in need evenings over the years but you'll never be able to replace Sir Terry Wogan who for me, was the face and voice of Children in need over many, many years. He and Gaby Roslin ( to me ) made the event worth watching.

 

[Bry Nylon]

There's far to many charities asking for money on TV. Gets a bit much really.

Especially as many of the presenters and musicians doing the asking will most likely have 'tax efficient' arrangements that mean the rest of us are running just to standstill in order to make up for the shortfall their sharp practices leave in the national finances.

 

[BensGrandad]

No stint from Corrie or the newsreaders which ws always very good to watch. No world stars or bands appearing.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

No stint from Corrie or the newsreaders which ws always very good to watch. No world stars or bands appearing.

Hey BG, It could be worse. Do you remember ITV's Telephons for the late 80's, early 90's with Michael Aspel? Over 24 hours of continuous fundraising tv, let alone the 6 or 7 hours Children in need broadcasts!!

 

[BensGrandad]

As others have said there are too many charities now asking foir donations., Has any charity ever asked highly paid sportsmen/women to donate 2 hours pay. Or even entertainers if they cannot offer their services to do a turn.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I've watched Children in need evenings over the years but you'll never be able to replace Sir Terry Wogan who for me, was the face and voice of Children in need over many, many years.

I agree to an extent, but this was slightly tarnished for me when a Freedom of Information disclosure revealed that he was paid £1,300 / hour for hosting the show, especially when he routinely wandered into the audience to accept an 7-year old kid's £2 pocket money selotaped to an envelope.

Still, I guess he needed the ten grand for the night more than most.

 

[BensGrandad]

I agree to an extent, but this was slightly tarnished for me when a Freedom of Information disclosure revealed that he was paid £1,300 / hour for hosting the show, especially when he routinely wandered into the audience to accept an 7-year old kid's £2 pocket money selotaped to an envelope.

Still, I guess he needed the ten grand for the night more than most.

Also much the same to host Eurovision but that was his job a presenter. IMHO the best part tonight was Eastenders.

 

[Hillian1]

Don't care.
If watching the piece about Vanessa doesn't make you want to donate something, anything then you're dead inside.

 

[The Birdman]

Some very sad stories more money must go into research to try and help stop these children suffering.
Thank you to all who have given money.god bless

 

[Blackadder]

They have and are raising a lot of money but what an awful show

There's far to many charities asking for money on TV. Gets a bit much really. .

Especially as many of the presenters and musicians doing the asking will most likely have 'tax efficient' arrangements that mean the rest of us are running just to standstill in order to make up for the shortfall their sharp practices leave in the national finances.

Really? Do you read what you actually type? Have a word with yourselves. I dipped in and dipped out tonight but I think we should concentrate on the purpose of tonight. I seem to remember typing the same about Comic Relief earlier this year, when the usual professional moaners came out to vent their spleen. If you are not happy about the quality of the "entertainment" tonight, ask for your money back (assuming you contributed in the first place).

 

[LlcoolJ]

Bit gutting that they said earlier in the week that in the 30 odd years it's been going they've raised about £990m. Sounds a lot and has done a huge amount of good.

Conversely it's absolutely **** all in the grand scheme of things and makes you think about the good that could be done with the massive riches of the 1% of truly wealthy people and companies like Apple who've stockpiled more cash than lots of countries will ever do.

Oh and Gary Barlow et al "doing great work for cheridee". While dodging tens of millions in tax. So we're still the ones paying are we Gary? To watch you ponce about, building your ego and getting free publicity for your next album/tour.

Grinds my gears.

 

[Triggaaar]

I agree to an extent, but this was slightly tarnished for me when a Freedom of Information disclosure revealed that he was paid £1,300 / hour for hosting the show

Wow I didn't know that, I took it for granted that they all worked for free for the night.

 

[The Birdman]

Wow I didn't know that, I took it for granted that they all worked for free for the night.

I think it's bit sad if the main presenters get paid but have no problem with the staff producing it as they got yo eat.
However I hope that the moaners on here don't suffer any of these illnesses or tragedy in there families.
Also if you don't like it you can always turn over.

 

[jonnyrovers]

Really? Do you read what you actually type? Have a word with yourselves. I dipped in and dipped out tonight but I think we should concentrate on the purpose of tonight. I seem to remember typing the same about Comic Relief earlier this year, when the usual professional moaners came out to vent their spleen. If you are not happy about the quality of the "entertainment" tonight, ask for your money back (assuming you contributed in the first place).

Having charitable status does not give a production immunity from criticism. Yes 'Children in Need' does good, yes there are many out there that love a variety performance. Yes many respond with their wallets as directed by the dopamine releasing combination of light hearted ridicule and deeply saddening personal stories.

But come on? You have to accept that for a massive portion of the population, myself included, no good cause is sufficiently powerful that we'll watch hours and hours of banal rich people trying to fleece us. I make a cash donation to CIN every year through my kids school. I avoid the telly thing at all costs.

No-one wants their money back. No-one should be made to feel guilty for not enjoying the rubbish on offer last night. Donating to charity is a choice not a moral obligation. In essence, Children in Need is a good thing, the telly programme is complete rubbish, it doesn't make you a bad person if you openly share those thoughts.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Just make the rich pay their tax and give some to charities, I'm sick to death of the working class being asked to pay for everything

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[BensGrandad]

Having charitable status does not give a production immunity from criticism. Yes 'Children in Need' does good, yes there are many out there that love a variety performance. Yes many respond with their wallets as directed by the dopamine releasing combination of light hearted ridicule and deeply saddening personal stories.

But come on? You have to accept that for a massive portion of the population, myself included, no good cause is sufficiently powerful that we'll watch hours and hours of banal rich people trying to fleece us. I make a cash donation to CIN every year through my kids school. I avoid the telly thing at all costs.

No-one wants their money back. No-one should be made to feel guilty for not enjoying the rubbish on offer last night. Donating to charity is a choice not a moral obligation. In essence, Children in Need is a good thing, the telly programme is complete rubbish, it doesn't make you a bad person if you openly share those thoughts.

Very true

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

My god some people just love moaning about literally anything, even something that does only good like CIN. Who honestly cares about the quality of the entertainment?! They're not trying to win a BAFTA are they? They're all making an effort and rasing a shed load of money for great causes.

The videos are heartbreaking and enough to make most want to contribute, the entertainment is just a bit of light relief.

Yes I'm sure some celebrities like the exposure but if they're helping raise money while doing it, who cares! And yes there are other charities that many people contribute to but this catches a large audience and particularly appeals to children and some adults in the country who might not otherwise have anything to do with charity.

All the while people are spunking thousands of pounds on luxury expensive TV's, holidays, football kits and cars etc that they don't really need then the more charities that ask for money the better as far as I'm concerned.