|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 12, 2023 21:26:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 13, 2023 0:54:54 GMT
I've always been suspicious of these grand gesture type activities. There are loads of great causes out there that are desperate for funds that would be massively grateful for a fiver a month direct debit, without the need for all this publicity seeking and dodgy stuff. Seems a much better way of making a contribution to your chosen cause if you want to. I agree with that mate, I think charities like the more reliable money flow and also that way you only have to think maybe once a year "what can I afford? Who do I support?" It's easier than being guilt tripped by chuggers.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 13, 2023 8:23:57 GMT
The biggest rule change they should make with charities Make them publish on every advert media campaign the exact percentage of money raised is spent on the actual cause And what is spent on administration
Seems to me a lot of people would be more circumspect of where they help if they knew where there money actually goes
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 13, 2023 10:18:15 GMT
Charity can be a big con. on the face of it, it appears that Toms daughter is using the charity money and or status to her own means especially in regards to the new building.
however if tom said his book was for the family not the charity thats fair enough. however (again) with what has gone on with the charity the book money doesnt present good optics
|
|
|
Post by stiggerstackle on Oct 13, 2023 10:47:16 GMT
The biggest rule change they should make with charities Make them publish on every advert media campaign the exact percentage of money raised is spent on the actual cause And what is spent on administration Seems to me a lot of people would be more circumspect of where they help if they knew where there money actually goes There are 2 very different types of charity however, there are the traditional 'tin rattling' charities that raise public funds for specific causes, and I'd completely agree with your proposal for them. The 2nd type are trading charities, who deliver public services and contracts, who I'd more accurately describe as social businesses, who's surplus at year-end go back into delivering services, and not into a shareholders pocket. This 2nd group would be harmed by your proposal as they are effectively businesses, and need the requisite infrastructure to operate, and go through good times and bad - point being they don't rattle tins and raise funds directly from people, but they would get tarnished as most people wouldn't get the distinction and just see a 'charity' with high running costs.
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Oct 13, 2023 13:40:08 GMT
Dead simple.
Get someone like KPMG or Price Cooper & Waterhouse to do a full and thorough audit and count for every penny raised...
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Oct 13, 2023 14:12:40 GMT
Where was it stated that the income from the books would go to the family. "Theft by Deception" (theft act 1968) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or any other any pecuniary advantage.Liable for up to 5yrs.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Oct 13, 2023 17:35:41 GMT
Dead simple. Get someone like KPMG or Price Cooper & Waterhouse to do a full and thorough audit and count for every penny raised... KPMG? Like they did with Carillion and ended up with a record fine!
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Oct 13, 2023 18:07:21 GMT
What a deceitful bitch. Deserves jail time
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 13, 2023 18:10:13 GMT
I've always been suspicious of these grand gesture type activities. There are loads of great causes out there that are desperate for funds that would be massively grateful for a fiver a month direct debit, without the need for all this publicity seeking and dodgy stuff. Seems a much better way of making a contribution to your chosen cause if you want to. I agree with that mate, I think charities like the more reliable money flow and also that way you only have to think maybe once a year "what can I afford? Who do I support?" It's easier than being guilt tripped by chuggers. Yeah, exactly. That's pretty much what I do, too. Have a review every 18 months or so and swap the direct debits around a bit. Most of mine currently are animal or environmental charities but they vary. Most folk, I'm sure, can afford a couple of quid a month, you don't really notice it going out and it's easier than walking past collection buckets or chuggers.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 13, 2023 18:30:04 GMT
Charity can be a big con. on the face of it, it appears that Toms daughter is using the charity money and or status to her own means especially in regards to the new building. however if tom said his book was for the family not the charity thats fair enough. however (again) with what has gone on with the charity the book money doesnt present good optics It was a con trick the Family pulled off even when Tom was still alive. They set up a seperate Company Club Nook Ltd to receive the proceeds of the Book £800,000 The only one making the claim he wanted his Daughter to get the money is his Daughter as Tom is not in a position to dispute it, but the words he wrote in his book would belie her claim. "Astonishingly at my age, with the offer to write this memoir I have also been given the chance to raise even more money for the charitable foundation now established in my name."
Not Club Nook Ltd It couldn't be clearer www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/captain-tom-moores-tearful-daughter-31167039#comments-wrapper
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Oct 13, 2023 20:35:52 GMT
Charity can be a big con. on the face of it, it appears that Toms daughter is using the charity money and or status to her own means especially in regards to the new building. however if tom said his book was for the family not the charity thats fair enough. however (again) with what has gone on with the charity the book money doesnt present good optics It was a con trick the Family pulled off even when Tom was still alive. They set up a seperate Company Club Nook Ltd to receive the proceeds of the Book £800,000 The only one making the claim he wanted his Daughter to get the money is his Daughter as Tom is not in a position to dispute it, but the words he wrote in his book would belie her claim. "Astonishingly at my age, with the offer to write this memoir I have also been given the chance to raise even more money for the charitable foundation now established in my name."
Not Club Nook Ltd It couldn't be clearer www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/captain-tom-moores-tearful-daughter-31167039#comments-wrapperThe McCanns did similar didn't they meaning they could use what many thought was a charity for their own proposes?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 13, 2023 20:44:22 GMT
It was a con trick the Family pulled off even when Tom was still alive. They set up a seperate Company Club Nook Ltd to receive the proceeds of the Book £800,000 The only one making the claim he wanted his Daughter to get the money is his Daughter as Tom is not in a position to dispute it, but the words he wrote in his book would belie her claim. "Astonishingly at my age, with the offer to write this memoir I have also been given the chance to raise even more money for the charitable foundation now established in my name."
Not Club Nook Ltd It couldn't be clearer www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/captain-tom-moores-tearful-daughter-31167039#comments-wrapperThe McCanns did similar didn't they meaning they could use what many thought was a charity for their own proposes? It wouldn't surprise me
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Oct 14, 2023 14:17:27 GMT
It was a con trick the Family pulled off even when Tom was still alive. They set up a seperate Company Club Nook Ltd to receive the proceeds of the Book £800,000 The only one making the claim he wanted his Daughter to get the money is his Daughter as Tom is not in a position to dispute it, but the words he wrote in his book would belie her claim. "Astonishingly at my age, with the offer to write this memoir I have also been given the chance to raise even more money for the charitable foundation now established in my name."
Not Club Nook Ltd It couldn't be clearer www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/captain-tom-moores-tearful-daughter-31167039#comments-wrapperThe McCanns did similar didn't they meaning they could use what many thought was a charity for their own proposes? It’s everywhere you look. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-66921951.ampI’d never give to a charity unless it was a long established one.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 17, 2023 15:28:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Oct 17, 2023 15:47:13 GMT
It was a con trick the Family pulled off even when Tom was still alive. They set up a seperate Company Club Nook Ltd to receive the proceeds of the Book £800,000 The only one making the claim he wanted his Daughter to get the money is his Daughter as Tom is not in a position to dispute it, but the words he wrote in his book would belie her claim. "Astonishingly at my age, with the offer to write this memoir I have also been given the chance to raise even more money for the charitable foundation now established in my name."
Not Club Nook Ltd It couldn't be clearer www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/captain-tom-moores-tearful-daughter-31167039#comments-wrapperThe McCanns did similar didn't they meaning they could use what many thought was a charity for their own proposes? I think you may want to retract that, feels like very thin ice you are skating on.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Oct 17, 2023 16:13:38 GMT
The McCanns did similar didn't they meaning they could use what many thought was a charity for their own proposes? I think you may want to retract that, feels like very thin ice you are skating on. They had to change the wording of it as it wasn't a charity yet they worded it so originally They couldn't register it as a charity as the funds weren't used for solely charitable purposes but gave the impression it was. They funded their own expenses from the fund , mortgage travel etc, etc and the website originally stated it was a charity which it wasn't. Was quite publicised on line at the time but not so much in the tabloids. I think the Guardian covered it in detail. The wording was changed from charity to fund as a result
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Apr 25, 2024 10:10:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Apr 25, 2024 11:14:28 GMT
The McCanns did similar didn't they meaning they could use what many thought was a charity for their own proposes? I think you may want to retract that, feels like very thin ice you are skating on. Madeleine McCann's family could not register the fund for their missing daughter as a charity because its activity is not solely charitable. Specialist charity lawyers Bates, Wells & Braithwaite spoke to the Charity Commission about the issue. "The fund was set up partly to keep the parents in Portugal," a commission spokeswoman said. "We said that if that was the purpose, it would not be charitable because it is not for the public benefit." They used the word charity on their website originally but had to remove it as they used used over £1 million pounds for their own purposes, travel, 2 mortgage payments etc. Charity was replaced with fund
|
|