Why am I so disgusted at the Charity Commission investigating Capt. Toms charity

[openspaceman]

8 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I’m less troubled by the fact they have been investigated than I am by the dubious activities of a poorly equipped or morally corrupt board of trustees which led to the investigation. 
 

„What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation.

It's a very real problem, we may want to help financially to sectors where the government has failed to address problems but don't want to see money frittered away in "administration" of the charity.

 

In the past most charities were unincorporated, often run by volunteers and without employees, the asset holders were the volunteer trustees who were personally liable for the charity's doings. Trustees generally could not charge for services to the charity, although "professional" services were excepted, so solicitors and bankers tended to like serving as trustees.

 

Now most are companies by guarantee and have the same structure as any company but without the shareholding. The trustees (often elected by a  eclectic membership) are no longer liable for debts and form themselves into a board like any other company, these trustees then elect a chairman who wields a lot of power in steering the  charity.

 

Meetings are poorly minuted and a cabal forms round the chairman which makes any decisions, dissenters are sidelined by being excluded from sub committees.

 

Our local little charity came into a windfall and immediately attracted such a group, became incorporated and employed one of the trustees in such a manner (in fact unlawfully but the charity commissioners turned a blind eye).  Then having appointed one of their number  as a "manager" they decide  his pay should come into line with equivalent managers in the private sector, so his salary and emoluments double withing the first year of service.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

It's a very real problem, we may want to help financially to sectors where the government has failed to address problems but don't want to see money frittered away in "administration" of the charity.

 

In the past most charities were unincorporated, often run by volunteers and without employees, the asset holders were the volunteer trustees who were personally liable for the charity's doings. Trustees generally could not charge for services to the charity, although "professional" services were excepted, so solicitors and bankers tended to like serving as trustees.

 

Now most are companies by guarantee and have the same structure as any company but without the shareholding. The trustees (often elected by a  eclectic membership) are no longer liable for debts and form themselves into a board like any other company, these trustees then elect a chairman who wields a lot of power in steering the  charity.

 

Meetings are poorly minuted and a cabal forms round the chairman which makes any decisions, dissenters are sidelined by being excluded from sub committees.

 

Our local little charity came into a windfall and immediately attracted such a group, became incorporated and employed one of the trustees in such a manner (in fact unlawfully but the charity commissioners turned a blind eye).  Then having appointed one of their number  as a "manager" they decide  his pay should come into line with equivalent managers in the private sector, so his salary and emoluments double withing the first year of service.

That’s the recognised pathway....

 

Scandalous. 

[Steve Bullman]

I’m not a fan of charities. Yes we ran charity events here at arbtalk and I did research them thoroughly before choosing them. I’d like to think a greater percentage of the money raised went to the actual charity, but will never really know.

 

i did have one incident I wasn’t too happy about though. This occurred at a trade show where i took the girl the charity sent to help me out to get a coffee. When we ordered I went to pay and she said she’d get it, I told her not to be silly and her reply was ‘it’s ok, comes out of my expenses’. I politely declined and explained to her she was here to help me raise money for the charity and I would be taking a coffee out of those funds. I was quite disgusted by this attitude. Ok we aren’t talking 6 figures but still 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

14 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

I’m not a fan of charities. Yes we ran charity events here at arbtalk and I did research them thoroughly before choosing them. I’d like to think a greater percentage of the money raised went to the actual charity, but will never really know.

 

i did have one incident I wasn’t too happy about though. This occurred at a trade show where i took the girl the charity sent to help me out to get a coffee. When we ordered I went to pay and she said she’d get it, I told her not to be silly and her reply was ‘it’s ok, comes out of my expenses’. I politely declined and explained to her she was here to help me raise money for the charity and I would be taking a coffee out of those funds. I was quite disgusted by this attitude. Ok we aren’t talking 6 figures but still 

No, not 6 figures, but in many respects even worse since it demonstrated to you (and now to us as you retell it) that such attitudes are absolutely pernicious and endemic with reach from the very ‘top’ to the absolute roots of charitable management. 
 

🤮 

[Steve Bullman]

Old boy I know had a poppy appeal sealed collection pot in his chip shop every year. The charity would collect it, count it up and send him a statement of what he had raised. One year he told all his staff that whatever they put in he would double it. As a result he had a pretty good idea what the minimum amount that should have been in the pot. When the statement came back from the charity the figure was significantly lower than that 

[difflock]

Another aspect that troubles me about some/most/all of the big "brand name" charities are the "chuggers" they employ, both on the high streets and in "telesales" operations. All getting highly motivating commissions!

[ChrisNewport]

After uni and jobless my mate was a chugger for a day, stood in town centre all day signing people up to £5 a month direct debit, minimum 2 years. Every one that he signed up he would get £25 in wages. No one signed up. If they did the first 18 months £5's went to pay his £25 and the rest in admin costs. Not till a year and a half after making your first direct debit would the charity see any of your money.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

17 minutes ago, ChrisNewport said:

After uni and jobless my mate was a chugger for a day, stood in town centre all day signing people up to £5 a month direct debit, minimum 2 years. Every one that he signed up he would get £25 in wages. No one signed up. If they did the first 18 months £5's went to pay his £25 and the rest in admin costs. Not till a year and a half after making your first direct debit would the charity see any of your money.

That absolutely stinks but I fear it just about typifies the business of charities and is about as big a disincentive (as if I ever needed one) to body swerve the whole lot as I ever needed. 
 

Another one, which will actually see me change the TV channel, is earnest (so called) celeb’s, do gooders and virtue signallers in (what must be) staggeringly expensive TV advertising campaigns about in growing toe nails in Africa etc. 
 

That patronising t’wt Ewan McGregor springs to mind. 

[benedmonds]

One of my "favorites"  is the charity parachute jump.

 

All parachute injuries from two local parachute centres over a 5-year period were analysed. Of 174 patients with injuries of varying severity, 94% were first-time charity-parachutists. The injury rate in charity-parachutists was 11% at an average cost of 3751 Pounds per casualty. Sixty-three percent of casualties who were charity-parachutists required hospital admission, representing a serious injury rate of 7%, at an average cost of 5781 Pounds per patient. The amount raised per person for charity was 30 Pounds. Each pound raised for charity cost the NHS 13.75 Pounds in return. Parachuting for charity costs more money than it raises, carries a high risk of serious personal injury and places a significant burden on health resources.

[trigger_andy]

15 hours ago, difflock said:

Was it motivated by greed, spite and envy of his success?
Did someone else fancy the top job shoulda bin their gig?
Surely plenty of other less reputable charities would have stood investigating first?
Anyway, it really pissed me off.
Marcus

 

 

So in light of everything posted have your views on why the charity was/is investigated and do you now see why it was?

 

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by trigger_andy