BBC and children in need......... Over £6 million in wages for 127 staff !

Usual mixed thing. A lot of the programs on the BBC have a credit showing the production company. This is no different. They aren't the BBC they produce the program and the BBC broadcast it.

Then comes the numbers. Well you can look at their accounts and see it isn't as straight forwards as the video suggests. There salaries are on page 67 and on that year come to ~1m

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04723022

What the video is quoting is operational costs. Those should be broken down somewhere in it.

The usual misleading youtube twerp that uses figures that have a great big hole in them without bothering to find where the money goes. It's usually the case that if they did do that there would be no point in posting the video.
 
Sponsored Links
That works out £47,000 per person. Probably standard TV rates these days.

Is that just one show, or since it started? I didn't watch the video.

All charities make money - people work at charities, they take a salary.

I think we have too many similar charities, many should be merged into one to cut costs.
 
From what I understand, the admin costs of CIN comes from a separate fund?
Anyway, what's better?
A salary of £20k for everyone but a reduction in donations or the current salaries and the current donations?
I wouldn't expect a designer or admin person to be paid less than the going rate for a job.

A friend's daughter worked for a religious charity after qualifying, then a royal charity. Then another charity.
She needed to live in London and survive.
 
Can't stand that guy on YT, comes across as a sanctimonious **** who has a few 'isms' bubbling not too far under the surface.
 
Sponsored Links
Aren't most of the people on the BBC on annual salaries anyway?
 
Usual mixed thing. A lot of the programs on the BBC have a credit showing the production company. This is no different. They aren't the BBC they produce the program and the BBC broadcast it.

Then comes the numbers. Well you can look at their accounts and see it isn't as straight forwards as the video suggests. There salaries are on page 67 and on that year come to ~1m

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04723022

What the video is quoting is operational costs. Those should be broken down somewhere in it.

The usual misleading youtube twerp that uses figures that have a great big hole in them without bothering to find where the money goes. It's usually the case that if they did do that there would be no point in posting the video.

And ITV give all the donations to charity ......say no more.
 
And ITV give all the donations to charity ......say no more

And ITV have wound it up. Apparent costs kept low by virtue of directors payments being zero also salaries all buried in ITV's main accounts where that sort of things is paid.

The BBC approach is much like most charities. It employs people so go take a poke at just about all of them. If you look at this you might notice that more than what the donations from the TV show goes to charity. It costs to do this. It can't be done for free

ChildrenInNeed.png


This is why people like to should stick to things you understand or take the trouble to find out more rather than accept misleading info from some one who raises income from youtube. In this sort of area the worst of the lot as all they are interested in is donations.

One of our local churches runs a charity. It supports a day centre for old people who can't get out and collects them, provides food and all sorts. It needs to be staffed. Part comes from the council but it falls well short of actual costs so the employ some one to raise money. She brings in way more than she is paid and she lives on what she earns. It's a job and spends all of her time doing what she is supposed to do.

There is talk of making entities like youtube publishers. That would make them responsible for what they show. Currently they have no responsibility for it at all. They aren't the only ones.
 
A more interesting aspect of charities is the door knocking companies that get people to sign up to charities. My wife really annoyed me last year when she used one to sign up to St John's Ambulance. She could have listened. Said no, gone to their web site and signed up there. That way they would get all off it. Not 75%. :( She went ahead even though she could have ducked out and did what I suggested.

But charities get finish up with far more money working this way.
 
Blood sucking f##k pigs

In comparison ITV gave 100% of the donations to charity.


More BS.

The facts are on the charities commision website.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/802052

£5.47m of £58.89m raised is spent on admin - which is a shade under 10%.

NSPCC spends 20% on admin costs.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/organisation-structure/how-your-money-is-spent/

RWR are full of tripe and lies.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top