Did you read Peter Hitchens report in the MOS on use of Save the Children funds?

[Waaii]

My town holds a very successful Nearly New sale every year for the Save the Children Fund, raising thousands of pounds. Many people work very hard supporting it. The charity advertises supporting the Crisis in Darfur, the protection of children caught in the crossfire in Lebanon ,promotion of breastfeeding to save 3,800 children's lives and provision of free heathcare in Africa. I guess most of us would, like me, support that! However the report in the MOSunday exposes the fact that the fund is also using donated money to stop schools excluding unruly pupils. They have to date provided 'advocates' to help these students appeal against exclusion, at a cost of �1,760 per pupil for the 14 cases so far. Having worked is a senior school for many years I know that pupils have to be pretty spectacularly awful before they are excluded after (often years) of disruption. Teachers are unable to get on with teaching and the more willing pupils to learning until these pupils are removed in the interests of others. With so many deserving, suffering, starving, frightened, poverty and disease ridden children in the world, I am happy to support the Save the Children fund. However, do you think providing 'advocates' for such people as excluded pupils who have inflicted untold misery already, is a fit use of charity money ?

[dot.hawkes]

No i don't , this sort of issue should be paid for out of Government funding, most of these kids wil be in homes where state benefits are the sole income or subsidise an income, threaten the parents to withhold funding to pay for someone to make their kids go to school would be my choice. Lets see how the kid reacts when it's parent tells it there won't be any cigs or cider for them and deffo no canabis, that would make them go.

[missrandom]

I am split in two over issues like this as most kids excluded etc come from awful backgrounds and do need help. HOWEVER I dont think the money should come from a charity like save the children, it really should be used to do just that, save children (eg from poverty, disease etc), not do the job of the parents/government. So actually i suppose iam not split in two, it is an unfit use of charity money.

[Waaii]

I am sorry if this seems unfeeling, but coming from an awful background does not give or excuse anyone from behaving in a way that disadvantages fellow pupils, lessens their own posibility of rising above their background and kicking in the teeth those who try to help them.

After the war and in the 1930's there were plenty of kids who knew really awful conditions, hardship and poverty, but they did not behave in the manner of many current pupils. They had more respect for others and for themselves!

[Waaii]

Dot Hawkes. I am not sure lack of money is the issue here,
how come these 'disadvantaged' kids have mobile phones, mini discs, own tv, x-boxes and so on. Money gets found for fags and visits to the Offy ok. If they really want to fight an exclusion order I am sure they could, but why would they, most spend all thier time trying to avoid school & learning so being excluded should be what they want!

I think Children in Need have got this really wrong and I hope will discontinue this 'help' in favour of more deserving causes if they want charitable donations to continue.

[missrandom]

I aggree, as anyone I have known of thats technically "disadvantaged" ie on benefits, actually have sooo much more money than me!! Its madness, I just mean they probably have idiot parents, thats why they act like that, so they need to be addressed in some way. your right though it shouldnt effect other children and when necessary they should be excluded.