Jump to content


'Absolutely scandalous' charity

Recommended Posts

A national breast cancer charity is being investigated after its founder paid herself £31,000 in breach of charity law.

 

Wendy Watson MBE, who launched National Hereditary Breast Cancer Helpline in 1996, has resigned as a trustee.

 

Since 2012, the charity's accounts also show that as little as 2.8% of annual donations has been spent on "charitable activities", such as running the helpline.

 

The average spend for a charity is currently 83%.

 

The rest of the money was spent running the shops and paying staff.

 

Gina Miller, founder of the True and Fair Foundation, wants to set a minimum threshold so charities have to spend at least 65% of income on charitable activities.

 

83% is really good, but what does that entail? Should there be a minimum, over a couple of years?

But I guess if you get £xx millions in cash donations, 83% is rather poor.

Edited by El Cid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should not use the word charity. Maybe the National Hereditary Breast Cancer Helpline's operations should be called fraud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice selective posting there El Cid.

They have been shut down.

The year in question was 2-14-15 and it looks like the founder didnt understand her duties as a trustee, which is a bit silly really as she has to sign a form saying she does. She will be banned from being a trustee and if they believe there was fraud then the police could be called in and they will attempt to get monies back depending upon what the education finds. Good to see Gina Miller is where the action is at and getting headlines for her own foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems most of people who run charities don't seem to know what they are doing when it comes to giving it out but know how to pay themselves good salaries,wasn't Joe Coxes husband involved in one which got hushed when she was murdered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
83% is really good, but what does that entail? Should there be a minimum, over a couple of years?

But I guess if you get £xx millions in cash donations, 83% is rather poor.

It depends on what a charity is aimed at. One that focuses entirely on disaster relief needs lots of stuff ready to ship out quickly but in a good year their services will never be called upon and they arguably won't spend anything on "charitable activities".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice selective posting there El Cid.

They have been shut down.

...........

 

I don't think so.

 

Can you guide me to information that shows me where I may be misinformed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think so.

 

Can you guide me to information that shows me where I may be misinformed?

 

I walked past one yesterday, never seen the shop before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems most of people who run charities don't seem to know what they are doing when it comes to giving it out but know how to pay themselves good salaries,wasn't Joe Coxes husband involved in one which got hushed when she was murdered.

 

Which charity are you linking "...pay themselves ...","... hushed..." and Brendan Cox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems most of people who run charities don't seem to know what they are doing when it comes to giving it out but know how to pay themselves good salaries,wasn't Joe Coxes husband involved in one which got hushed when she was murdered.

 

I charities which gets lots of money left to them in peoples wills should have a much larger proportion of money going towards the cause; compared to one that is mostly charity shops that recycle unwanted goods.

The shops can sell brand new goods too, so they cannot be given too many tax perks. Otherwise we would have high street shops with no tax paid at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the title of the thread, I thought this was a reference to the news today that the London Garden Bridge project, championed by Joanna Lumley has been scrapped, after £37 million of tax payers money had been pumped into the project:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/london-garden-bridge-project-scrapped-sadiq-khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading the title of the thread, I thought this was a reference to the news today that the London Garden Bridge project, championed by Joanna Lumley has been scrapped, after £37 million of tax payers money had been pumped into the project:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/london-garden-bridge-project-scrapped-sadiq-khan

 

And a similar amount in charitable donations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've wasted nearly 100 million quid on that vanity project haven't they?

Not a single thing to show for it.

 

Meanwhile we're struggling to find funds to keep basic public transport running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.