IS THAT  'CHILDREN IN NEED'  OR  'NEEDY CHILDREN'?

Every year the BBC hosts an evening of fun and frolics with the aim of raising money for 'children in need'.  Every year the event rakes in upwards of £40 million.  It is a lot of money, subscribed to by generous donors across the length and breadth of Britain.  Every year I bury my head in another channel - any channel, or no Channel at all - with the express intention of avoiding any contact with the hype, hysteria and brash whooping that accompanies the pointlessness.  Over the years groups of middle-aged men and women have swum through ice-cold water, tumbled out of aircraft hoping their parachute will open before they die, or immerse themselves in a bath of cold baked beans for two hours - and all for the chance to 'be on the telly'!

As with all so-called 'good causes', one is left wondering where the money raised actually goes to?  My first thought is just how much is taken in admin costs, especially the salaries of those at the top.  When researching information regarding large, well-known charities, the money paid to chief executives, directors and those involved the 'equality and diversity' racket was mind-blowing.  Comparisons with those at the helm of our utilities sprang to mind!  As Christmas approaches, viewers of commercial TV stations are currently subjected to adverts for a wide range of charities - or bad causes - as I think of them.  'Help the children in Gaza' they cry, or 'Support famine relief' in some God-forsaken, war-torn African country where the ruling junta are 'doing very nicely, thank you!'  Helping the homeless on the streets of Britain is a common theme spread across several charities.  Gone are the days when the narrater, having hopefully appealed to your conscience while you take in the visual poverty, asks for a donation 'big or small'.  Oh no, they now seek a specific amount, one of them asking for £29.80p.  Audacious, arrogant and frankly, a bloody cheek!  

Captain Tom will be turning in his grave - either metaphorically if he was cremated, or physically if buried - as news breaks that his daughter and son-in-law did very nicely out of the book sales.  The public bought the books because they thought the cover price was going to our most popular charity of all - the NHS!.  Little did they know it would be funding the double-barrelled Ingram-Moore's lifestyle to the tune of £1.5million. 

Some 30 years ago, I was organising motor shows for a well-known car magazine.  I hosted over forty shows during a 7-year period.  The shows were free to the public and because they attracted families, I arranged children's activities, helicopter rides, industry-relevant trade stands and a few charity stands.  Lessons were learned as patterns evolved.  Initially I invited national charities that had relevance to the location, a hospice or a hospital ward dedicated to the wellbeing of those suffering from a particular ailment.  I also invited a local animal sanctuary,  or dog rescue centre.  No fees were charged for any charity when attending the two-day show, all profits made over the weekend being retained by the charity.  What emerged was a pattern whereby the national charities just didn't turn up with no warning, telephone call, no bye-your-leave, in short - sweet naff all!  A call by me on the Monday morning after the show would reveal the same answer -'We were short of volunteers', there was a mix-up with staffing'.  Common to all 'No-shows' was a total lack of manners.  Without fail, all the animal charities appeared and were staffed for the duration.  I got wise to this behaviour early on and started charging the grand sum of £25 per stand.  Because the events were held outdoors, there was no lack of space for stallholders. Guess what?  'No-shows' became a thing of the past.  Animal charities by the way, were still given free space as they had been supportive and professional from day one.  I only ever give to animal charities, their cause is far more deserving.

Less than a week after this year's Children in Need evening its 'Chair', as opposed to 'Chairlady' or 'Chairwoman', (How the hell can anybody be a 'Chair'?), Rosie Millard resigned after protesting that grants were given to a charity whose former chief had been embroiled in a child abuse debacle.  James Rennie, the chief in question, was convicted in 2009 of child sexual assaults.  Having read of his 'interests' and subsequent jail sentence, I can confirm that he, along with the Ingram-Moore's, will not be invited round for afternoon tea!

I do wonder just how many of those contributors to Children in Need realised over the years just where their hard-earned dosh was going?  Perhaps they would be surprised, shocked even, to learn that £466,000 had, over the years been given to LGBT Youth Scotland.  That is an enormous sum and begs the question raised in the title of this article.  Are these 'children in need', or just plain needy?  Normal is male or female, everything else is a lifestyle choice and should not be subject to public or charitable funding.  Rosie Millard appears to be someone with principles and will therefore be awarded an 'Attaboy' from me and naturally invited round for afternoon tea, scones and... and...  a choice of Raspberry OR Tayberry jam with her clotted cream.  I can be no fairer than that!

If the above informs, amuses, titillates, provides gut-wrenching belly laughs or, in the case of Lib-Dems and Guardian readers, merely offends,  please look at the Trouser Press website for details and availability of books written under the name Anthony Mann and published by Trouser Press:- www. trouser-press.biz

Until the next post, for all my American readers - 'Have a nice day!', for those attempting to retain their humour within the confines of these Septic Isles - 'Do your best to get through the day!'.