• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

It’s just not cricket: another charity scam

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5696579/Sir-Ian-Bothams-charity-handed-94-000-daughters-PR-company.html

Sir Ian Botham's personal charity handed up to £94,000 to his daughter's company last year.

The cricket star's foundation didn't spend anything on charitable activities despite receiving almost £137,000 in donations.

Charity Commission published accounts for the year to March 2017, highlighting the feats of endurance people have undertaken to raise funds for his group



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, One percent said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5696579/Sir-Ian-Bothams-charity-handed-94-000-daughters-PR-company.html

Sir Ian Botham's personal charity handed up to £94,000 to his daughter's company last year.

The cricket star's foundation didn't spend anything on charitable activities despite receiving almost £137,000 in donations.

Charity Commission published accounts for the year to March 2017, highlighting the feats of endurance people have undertaken to raise funds for his group



 

9_9 My Mum used to say charity begins at home, but I don't think this is what she meant exactly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These ego / celebrity charities do seem to spend extortionate amounts on fund raising events.  That doesn't actually look unreasoanble in terms of costs given what the events are (though do they have to be these celeb fests?) but is disproprotionate to what it brings in; it looks like his daughter is forging a comfortable career from her work with the charity which is not the ethos that donors expect.  It doesn't look to be at all fradulent but it's morally dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Charity sector has been on a stellar run for the last 10 years. It is hard to knock or criticise an organisation that helps the needy. However I do feel we have reached a peak with the revelations of people using charities to have fun abroad and abusing people/children for their own gains.

The sector has to be more transparent with it's money or there will be a huge crash in the industry (logical after any boom).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 201p said:

The sector has to be more transparent

What are the requirements now, and what would be needed?

I guess I would like to see the following on any fund-raising material (like a health warning on cig packets): Amount of money raised, amount spent on stated purpose of the charity, amount spent on fund-raising, total pay and benefits spent on each of the 5 most highly paid employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BurntBread said:

What are the requirements now, and what would be needed?

I guess I would like to see the following on any fund-raising material (like a health warning on cig packets): Amount of money raised, amount spent on stated purpose of the charity, amount spent on fund-raising, total pay and benefits spent on each of the 5 most highly paid employees.

http://www.charitychecker.net/

not ideal but sheds some light 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, One percent said:

http://www.charitychecker.net/

not ideal but sheds some light 

OK, that's pretty good: thank you! However, I'm not sure how comprehensive it is.

Oxfam scores "below average", as it only spends 69% on charity work, and the CEO salary is quite high (150k).

The Mormons apparently spend 100% of their donations on charitable work, which makes me think this isn't the best measure (so, no money whatsoever ends up being spent on nice cars or whatever for the senior leadership?) In fact, it may be that you can't define the charitable cause of a religion with any degree of satisfactoriness.

I can't find the Jehova's Witnesses or Scientology (both of which would probably also be classified at 100% spent on charitable work).

Christian Aid scores above average (79%) but also has a big CEO salary (150k). Save the children does OK (83%, but CEO also on 150k).

Wow, all these bastards are on 150k if they tell you at all.

Hang on, no they're not: Age UK clearly has a more senior CEO (200k), and spends only 47% of its income on the elderly (excluding said CEO). Royal academy of arts only spends 44% on charitable causes, and also has a fat 200k CEO. Royal British Legion (I'm trying to look up RNLI, and keep getting side-tracked), is a more conventional outfit, with a 150k CEO and spending 69% of income on charitable causes. OK, got to it at last: RNLI is another 150k CEO institution, and spends 59% of its income properly.

It's all pretty sordid, really. As many posters have pointed out: don't give to big charities, and make sure you know what the little ones are actually doing.

Edited by BurntBread
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sick of charities, you have to be a forensic accountant to figure out if they're legit or not. Most of them have turned into self-serving institutions, like our universities, they exist purely to make the top bods wealthy while they doing little to no work and taking zero risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is much harder to say no, because of the emotional process.

1. Do you want to buy double glazing? NO.

2. Do you want to donate, JUST £2 a month to help the [insert needy cause]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the model of it. There are charities that of course do good work, and are important. But are we at the peak for chasing those donations now? There is only so much to go around.

---

1. Tax efficient

2. Get discounted rates if you decide to open a chain of shops

3. You need not to produce anything, which fits in to the service economy. Making things is a dirty business in this Health and Safety conscious world. Leave that to China.

4. Your staff are largely free volunteers. Your business will never be under fire from unions, government enforced wage rises, or bad publicity zero hour contracts.

5. It will be difficult to be a bad business as you have the leverage of doing for a good cause. (Unless there is abuse and scandal, which has torpedoed this model).

6. If you deal in any goods and stock, it will be free from donations.

7. If you open a shop, plan to organise an event or open an office, objections by NIMBYs, planners or other businesses, this will be less as you are doing it for a good cause.

8.  "High pay" for directors is countered because you need to pay the best for the best talent.

9. The work is never done. This isn't inventing a new gadget or phone that needs to have planned obsolescence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "charity" has certain connotations attached to it - the most vital of which is that you do things for charity for free, and out of the kindness of your heart.

So judge your charities via that yard-stick.

If some cunt is getting paid - then it is NOT a charity.

Fucking end of...

 

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/05/2018 at 22:02, BurntBread said:

OK, that's pretty good: thank you! However, I'm not sure how comprehensive it is.

Oxfam scores "below average", as it only spends 69% on charity work, and the CEO salary is quite high (150k).

The Mormons apparently spend 100% of their donations on charitable work, which makes me think this isn't the best measure (so, no money whatsoever ends up being spent on nice cars or whatever for the senior leadership?) In fact, it may be that you can't define the charitable cause of a religion with any degree of satisfactoriness.

I can't find the Jehova's Witnesses or Scientology (both of which would probably also be classified at 100% spent on charitable work).

Christian Aid scores above average (79%) but also has a big CEO salary (150k). Save the children does OK (83%, but CEO also on 150k).

Wow, all these bastards are on 150k if they tell you at all.

Hang on, no they're not: Age UK clearly has a more senior CEO (200k), and spends only 47% of its income on the elderly (excluding said CEO). Royal academy of arts only spends 44% on charitable causes, and also has a fat 200k CEO. Royal British Legion (I'm trying to look up RNLI, and keep getting side-tracked), is a more conventional outfit, with a 150k CEO and spending 69% of income on charitable causes. OK, got to it at last: RNLI is another 150k CEO institution, and spends 59% of its income properly.

It's all pretty sordid, really. As many posters have pointed out: don't give to big charities, and make sure you know what the little ones are actually doing.

There needs to be a clear metric that is very visible and checked.

Again - and get shit from Xyy - its Brown again.

Before 200k most charities behaved like, err, charities.

Cime Brown, and he funnelled money to them and they built up massive number of well paid employees.

Just have a look at big charity payrolls before and after 2000ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MrPin said:

Charity is not about giving  £30 a month to an organisation that somebody says is real, and you will never meet.

I will never ever set up a direct debit to a charity.

I was helping a mate sort out hus dead spinster aunts estate. 60% of her income was being sucked away at 50-100 / m to various shit charities.

The whole sector needs halting, cancrl all DDs. Then some rules and teansoarency put in place.

Furst obe, is identifying real cgarities. Until thats done all charity money raising should be stopped.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, spygirl said:

I will never ever set up a direct debit to a charity.

I was helping a mate sort out hus dead spinster aunts estate. 60% of her income was being sucked away at 50-100 / m to various shit charities.

The whole sector needs halting, cancrl all DDs. Then some rules and teansoarency put in place.

Furst obe, is identifying real cgarities. Until thats done all charity money raising should be stopped.

 

Who, though, is going to define a real charity?

It will end up like the big lottery fund, children in need, comic relief where helping disadvantaged (read immigrant) groups becomes part of the remit and diversity part of the aim.

Whilst I do financially support certain things I fundamentally disagree with thr idea that charity = good.  The recent Oxfam and Save the Children scandals merely serve to underline that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Who, though, is going to define a real charity?

It will end up like the big lottery fund, children in need, comic relief where helping disadvantaged (read immigrant) groups becomes part of the remit and diversity part of the aim.

Whilst I do financially support certain things I fundamentally disagree with thr idea that charity = good.  The recent Oxfam and Save the Children scandals merely serve to underline that.

Well thats the mess we find the 3rd sector in.

In a matter of 20 years its been ruined.

Charitabke fonations are dropping. Working for a cgarity is rspidly becoming put in same nox as estate agents.

The whole lot needs gutting and a hard framework in place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2018 at 12:18, Frank Hovis said:

Who, though, is going to define a real charity?

It will end up like the big lottery fund, children in need, comic relief where helping disadvantaged (read immigrant) groups becomes part of the remit and diversity part of the aim.

Whilst I do financially support certain things I fundamentally disagree with thr idea that charity = good.  The recent Oxfam and Save the Children scandals merely serve to underline that.

The rule of thumb is do not donate to national charities but local ones. There's one near me called Animal Aid, and another one for saving a village church. I have given to them as I know they are setup for that purpose and know people that work there etc.

Sadly nowadays people give to charity to make themselves feel better, rather than for any care out of what the money is spent on. This is I believe why middle aged women nowadays dress in pink and blabber on about running/cycling/jogging 3 miles simply so they can post about it on Fakebook and get some attention.

"Me great uncle's grandson's friend got cancer so I'm running 3 miles to raise money for it!" - Probably will raise about 62p but that is by the by for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spunko2010 said:

The rule of thumb is do not donate to national charities but local ones. There's one near me called Animal Aid, and another one for saving a village church. I have given to them as I know they are setup for that purpose and know people that work there etc.

Sadly nowadays people give to charity to make themselves feel better, rather than for any care out of what the money is spent on. This is I believe why middle aged women nowadays dress in pink and blabber on about running/cycling/jogging 3 miles simply so they can post about it on Fakebook and get some attention.

"Me great uncle's grandson's friend got cancer so I'm running 3 miles to raise money for it!" - Probably will raise about 62p but that is by the by for them.

Got to love the national charities .... I was walking down the pedestrian shopping area and there they are .... about five of them in red logoed t-shirts with badges and tins and a Team Leader in the centre directing operations. It was a team from the charity Shelter who were collecting not unsurprisedly for the homeless ... they seemed to miss the other collecter who was also collecting for the homeless, she was sat on the floor about three metres from the Shelter Team leader; a young homeless person. Obviously charity begins not with the homeless on the street but back in the plush Shelter offices.

Edited by satch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, satch said:

Got to love the national charities .... I was walking down the pedestrian shopping area and there they are .... about five of them in red logoed t-shirts with badges and tins and a Team Leader in the centre directing operations. It was a team from the charity Shelter who were collecting not unsurprisedly for the homeless ... they seemed to miss the other collecter who was also collecting for the homeless, she was sat on the floor about three metres from the Shelter Team leader; a young homeless person. Obviously charity begins not with the homeless on the street but back in the plush Shelter offices.

I worked for one of those door to door sales organisations for a very short period. It was one of those horrid bravado-based positions where you were pressurised to do whatever it takes to get sales, most of the time it was flogging Powergen to old biddies for £30 commission. Every so often though some big charities used to pay us to do door-to-door on their behalf and didn't give a toss about how it was done frankly.  Ever since then I never donate to these chuggers which are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing about it but the religious groups which spend 100% of donations on charitable work...  Why do I have a suspicious belief that their definition of "charitable work" involves printing religious books and travelling to heathen lands to save the souls of the wicked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2018 at 07:16, The XYY Man said:

The word "charity" has certain connotations attached to it - the most vital of which is that you do things for charity for free, and out of the kindness of your heart.

So judge your charities via that yard-stick.

If some cunt is getting paid - then it is NOT a charity.

Fucking end of...

 

XYY

With the charity mugger workers in the street I think the sad thing is they bring in more charitable donations even after paying these guys their salary and commission.  You do wonder how much gets frittered away post this in beaucracy etc and then after in some cases a lot gets siphoned off by African warlords.  So some money will get through ultimately just a lot of wastage.

I remember being out as few years ago and hearing how some major charity was only prepared to pay 60k salary or something for some senior it bod, and how disgraced he was with this pittance.  Granted I'm unfortunately not in these lofty pay sectors but would be great if they could find people who can do a good job but not expect only slight reductions in their 100k private pay when moving to the charity sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/05/2018 at 22:02, BurntBread said:

OK, that's pretty good: thank you! However, I'm not sure how comprehensive it is.

Oxfam scores "below average", as it only spends 69% on charity work, and the CEO salary is quite high (150k).

The Mormons apparently spend 100% of their donations on charitable work, which makes me think this isn't the best measure (so, no money whatsoever ends up being spent on nice cars or whatever for the senior leadership?) In fact, it may be that you can't define the charitable cause of a religion with any degree of satisfactoriness.

I can't find the Jehova's Witnesses or Scientology (both of which would probably also be classified at 100% spent on charitable work).

Christian Aid scores above average (79%) but also has a big CEO salary (150k). Save the children does OK (83%, but CEO also on 150k).

Wow, all these bastards are on 150k if they tell you at all.

Hang on, no they're not: Age UK clearly has a more senior CEO (200k), and spends only 47% of its income on the elderly (excluding said CEO). Royal academy of arts only spends 44% on charitable causes, and also has a fat 200k CEO. Royal British Legion (I'm trying to look up RNLI, and keep getting side-tracked), is a more conventional outfit, with a 150k CEO and spending 69% of income on charitable causes. OK, got to it at last: RNLI is another 150k CEO institution, and spends 59% of its income properly.

It's all pretty sordid, really. As many posters have pointed out: don't give to big charities, and make sure you know what the little ones are actually doing.

Then you have to ask what is the 83% charitable work money going to as Save the Children was reported to be one of the NGOs involved in illegal people smuggling off the coast of North Africa (and if so what else might have been smuggled at the same time?) and there were claims that at least part of their funding was from Soros funded organisations.

How many other charities are involved in similar "charitable work".  Why take the risk in donating to them only to maybe eventually find they're involved in stuff like smuggling (apart from the crazy wages paid to their top brass) - and in any event why don't they all just pop along to the banks to ask for some of the bailout money and the other money stolen from taxes, savings and pensions etc.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2018 at 11:43, spygirl said:

There needs to be a clear metric that is very visible and checked.

Again - and get shit from Xyy - its Brown again.

Before 200k most charities behaved like, err, charities.

Cime Brown, and he funnelled money to them and they built up massive number of well paid employees.

Just have a look at big charity payrolls before and after 2000ish.

Now when did I ever give you shit double-oh seven...?

I just feel that you have an unhealthy obsession with blaming Gordon Brown for 100% of the UK's woes since the turn of the new century.

It was hardly his fault.

In the kingdom of the two-eyed - the one-eyed man is mong...

;)

 

XYY

 

Edited by The XYY Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another cheat

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5831625/Hospice-boss-used-charitys-credit-card-splash-90-000-suits-jailed.html

hospice boss who used the charity's credit to spend more than £90,000 on suits, designer Mont Blanc pens and luxury hotels has been jailed for four years.

Graham Leggatt-Chidgey, 63, of Rokeby, near Barnard Castle, County Durham, refused to let other staff at Butterwick Hospice open credit card bills when dealing with travel expenditure, Teesside Crown Court heard.

His dishonesty has cost the popular North East-based charity £100,000 in lost donations after news of his arrest led to public anger about the fraud and hostility towards fundraisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.