children in need

Didn't CiN experiment with a third presenter joining Terry and Gaby a few years ago.

I'm sure I remember Craig Doyle co-hosting in some form one year, while Denise Van Outen presented her own chunk of the show (a talent show of some sort!). I also think they had a competition with a kid joining them to present not so long ago.


As for the future - certainly agree with BRING BACK GABY! I'd rather have seen Wogan go actually!

I think it should be Terry and Gaby, plus another male and female host, hosting throughout the evening.

Dermot was the funniest, he just poped out of nowhere being soooo out of tune, even the audience laughed....

my views on children in need

think the lack of gaby spoilt it as her and terry seem to hit it off better,

I think her best CIN error was when she accidentaly saw all the naked chefs on the 98 or 99 programme because she went on stage too early before a screen came down to hide them and she ended up behind it with a full frontal view.

I don't like the attutude when the presenters almost berate you for not donating, remember some years ago terry calling everybody who couldn't donate by credit card an egit

finally my biggest gripe is the totaly depressing music played with the films of where the money has gone, particularly if the children are disabled. children with disabilites are not depressing and their lives aren't necessarily either,. We can donate to CIN without the emotional blackmail thank you very much

Nick Robinson - Never Sing Again - Please !

Would anyone have the video of the newsreaders in WMV??

I wonder why Children in Need feels the need top go on to 2am anyway.

Any other normal night of the year, mainstream TV doesn't continue until 2, so why does CiN?

I feel if it finished earlier, viewers may make more of an effort to watch to the end, to see what the final total is.

Why, in a bid to get people who have just come out the pub drunk to pledge, therefore pushing the total over last year's final total.

Why else?

I'll pledge elsewhere but I gave nothing to CIN this year, mostly cause I had no ensentive to watch after geting screwed over with both who and Newsreader Rapsody.

2 hours of crap for just five minutes? Yeah, Cheers (!)

And the less I say on the abilites of the newsreaders to actualy sing Boheaemian Rapsody, the better I fell.

After that I gave up, attempted to stay up for VideoGaiden but fell assleap due to being bored thanks to CIN

Thanks a freaking buch, if VideoGaiden gets canceled I'll...!

So despite the poor programme, Children in Need managed to beat last year's ratings

7pm-10pm: 9 million viewers (39% share), Peak: 11.1 million viewers

10pm-1am: 5.6 million viewers (48% share)

Therefore the show will be considered a success, and no changes to the format will be made. So expect Wogan, Kaplinsky & Cotton, and every musical act who's got a single out, again next year

It seems that in the BBC only ever judge a programme on it's quality when ratings are low!

Because critical success determines how much money they'll raise.

The ONLY aim of CIN is to raise as much money as possible.

More viewers = more donations.

It's simple really if you try and apply a little bit of thought.

i'd never claim to be the friendliest of all forumers, but every thing you seem to post is either snidey or smug. you come across as if you are socially retarded, unable to add even an ounce of civility to your posts now and then.

get over yourself, please.