Maybe a rule that only a certain percentage of the Charity's previous 3 years avarage can be used on any individual salary, could be brought in.
It could also be banded depending on the size of the Charity.
I don't know but think that this is why the regulator (Charity Commission) flagged this up.
£150k pa to head up a major national charity with 1000s of staff and £££m budget is reasonable and less than someone with the same responsibilities would get in the private sector.
For a small charity like Captain Tom's it's not reasonable.
It's out of kilter with the other expenditure and the amount of work and skills needed.
Would £150k be a reasonable salary for the head of a L1 football club based charity without thousands of employees? Just asking for a friend…
Not at all.
Fees more likely to be £100 to £150 a day and then only if grant funded.
At present, as previously stated, no one gets paid at all.
That’s odd, because according to accounts published by the charities commission, CACT (formally the South of England Foundation) had an employee whose benefits totalled £120-£130k in the year ending March 2021.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
It depends on the type of charity, they don't only involve people. The charity I work for is better for not being funded by the Government.
I have no idea which charity you are talking about, but if it is to save listed buildings, or protected habitats, or wildlife for example what happens if the money runs out?
A lot of hard work is done by charity employees to make sure it doesn't run out. There are thousands of wonderful supporters who donate to good causes.
Millions of pounds are raised for thousands of charities, it would be impossible for them all to be Government funded.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
So why can't you post on HoC?
Because he is banned from doing so.
our next investigation is into whether he is over 13 years of age
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
It depends on the type of charity, they don't only involve people. The charity I work for is better for not being funded by the Government.
I have no idea which charity you are talking about, but if it is to save listed buildings, or protected habitats, or wildlife for example what happens if the money runs out?
A lot of hard work is done by charity employees to make sure it doesn't run out. There are thousands of wonderful supporters who donate to good causes.
Millions of pounds are raised for thousands of charities, it would be impossible for them all to be Government funded.
I don't work for the RNLI.
I think you're probably right that all charities can't be Government funded.
However this is what I wrote:
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive.
I have not said the government ought to fund a charity for the preservation of a statue (which might very well be argued to be a good cause), but have mentioned about reliance on a charity to survive.
In the context of Captain Sir Tom's fundraising, my understanding was it was for the health sector, an area needed for survival, and if his money was an extra then great. However if his money is to cover gaps in much needed funding that really ought to be governmental, then it becomes a huge risk when the charity money runs out.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
So why can't you post on HoC?
Because he is banned from doing so.
our next investigation is into whether he is over 13 years of age
So because he's banned from there he brings brigs politics into threads on here!
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
So why can't you post on HoC?
Because he is banned from doing so.
our next investigation is into whether he is over 13 years of age
So because he's banned from there he brings brigs politics into threads on here!
I have not brought politics into this thread any more than any other contributor to this thread.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
It depends on the type of charity, they don't only involve people. The charity I work for is better for not being funded by the Government.
I have no idea which charity you are talking about, but if it is to save listed buildings, or protected habitats, or wildlife for example what happens if the money runs out?
A lot of hard work is done by charity employees to make sure it doesn't run out. There are thousands of wonderful supporters who donate to good causes.
Millions of pounds are raised for thousands of charities, it would be impossible for them all to be Government funded.
I don't work for the RNLI.
I think you're probably right that all charities can't be Government funded.
However this is what I wrote:
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive.
I have not said the government ought to fund a charity for the preservation of a statue (which might very well be argued to be a good cause), but have mentioned about reliance on a charity to survive.
In the context of Captain Sir Tom's fundraising, my understanding was it was for the health sector, an area needed for survival, and if his money was an extra then great. However if his money is to cover gaps in much needed funding that really ought to be governmental, then it becomes a huge risk when the charity money runs out.
I do agree with you that there are charities covering gaps which shouldn't be there. It isn't right that anyone should have to rely on a charity to exist.
Maybe a rule that only a certain percentage of the Charity's previous 3 years avarage can be used on any individual salary, could be brought in.
It could also be banded depending on the size of the Charity.
I don't know but think that this is why the regulator (Charity Commission) flagged this up.
£150k pa to head up a major national charity with 1000s of staff and £££m budget is reasonable and less than someone with the same responsibilities would get in the private sector.
For a small charity like Captain Tom's it's not reasonable.
It's out of kilter with the other expenditure and the amount of work and skills needed.
Would £150k be a reasonable salary for the head of a L1 football club based charity without thousands of employees? Just asking for a friend…
Not at all.
Fees more likely to be £100 to £150 a day and then only if grant funded.
At present, as previously stated, no one gets paid at all.
That’s odd, because according to accounts published by the charities commission, CACT (formally the South of England Foundation) had an employee whose benefits totalled £120-£130k in the year ending March 2021.
Maybe a rule that only a certain percentage of the Charity's previous 3 years avarage can be used on any individual salary, could be brought in.
It could also be banded depending on the size of the Charity.
I don't know but think that this is why the regulator (Charity Commission) flagged this up.
£150k pa to head up a major national charity with 1000s of staff and £££m budget is reasonable and less than someone with the same responsibilities would get in the private sector.
For a small charity like Captain Tom's it's not reasonable.
It's out of kilter with the other expenditure and the amount of work and skills needed.
Would £150k be a reasonable salary for the head of a L1 football club based charity without thousands of employees? Just asking for a friend…
Not at all.
Fees more likely to be £100 to £150 a day and then only if grant funded.
At present, as previously stated, no one gets paid at all.
That’s odd, because according to accounts published by the charities commission, CACT (formally the South of England Foundation) had an employee whose benefits totalled £120-£130k in the year ending March 2021.
I think we are talking at cross-purposes.
I'm not a trustee or an employee of CACT.
I’m not suggesting you are. You’ve assumed the charity I referenced was the museum. It wasn’t. That never occurred to me because I wouldn’t have assumed anyone there is being paid.
My question was where you think CACT sits in this hierarchy, given you had set out a model for someone being paid £150k. Its senior management pay seems to be on a par with that for a small lower-tier local authority (i.e. a district council). I wonder if the level of responsibility and skill set is really comparable.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
So why can't you post on HoC?
Because he is banned from doing so.
our next investigation is into whether he is over 13 years of age
So because he's banned from there he brings brigs politics into threads on here!
I have not brought politics into this thread any more than any other contributor to this thread.
The charities money side of things is rather revealing. CACT are advertising part time posts from £11.05 per hour to £14.38 per hour. If there was equity between those posts and somebody on £120,000 a year in the same organisation, then the person on £120k, at a rough calculation would have to work between 22-23 hours per day for 365 days to match what is expected of the £14.38ph bod. They would also have to work around 28 hours per day for 365 days to match the rate for the £11.05ph bod.
Ah the RNLI. Fantastic voluntary service. When I was at Brockley County, once a year other boys would appear in our classroom inviting donations, and in return we go a paper badge and a pin:
If I had any money, which I usually didn't have, I would pay a penny or two and wear the badge which lasted all of half a day usually on a schoolboy uniform. The question remains though, what happens if the money runs out? Is it a political comment to mention that recently the RNLI were getting criticised for helping desperate people trying to cross the channel from France and Belgium?
We also used to learn about this exceptional woman:
Total digression ((:>) you were at Brockley County ? .. My school team, Raines Foundation, including myself, played B Cty at rugby .. you had a player, would be perhaps your age, Peter Wheeler, later played for Leicester, England AND the British Lions .. anyway, Wheeler or not you had a decent team and we hammered you .. sorry to digress
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
So why can't you post on HoC?
Because he is banned from doing so.
our next investigation is into whether he is over 13 years of age
So because he's banned from there he brings brigs politics into threads on here!
I have not brought politics into this thread any more than any other contributor to this thread.
Buy you do in general
How extensive is 'general'? For example on the U23's thread? You are focussed on me, but are there any other posters, using your terms of reference, who bring politics into threads on Charlton Life?
Maybe a rule that only a certain percentage of the Charity's previous 3 years avarage can be used on any individual salary, could be brought in.
It could also be banded depending on the size of the Charity.
I don't know but think that this is why the regulator (Charity Commission) flagged this up.
£150k pa to head up a major national charity with 1000s of staff and £££m budget is reasonable and less than someone with the same responsibilities would get in the private sector.
For a small charity like Captain Tom's it's not reasonable.
It's out of kilter with the other expenditure and the amount of work and skills needed.
Would £150k be a reasonable salary for the head of a L1 football club based charity without thousands of employees? Just asking for a friend…
Not at all.
Fees more likely to be £100 to £150 a day and then only if grant funded.
At present, as previously stated, no one gets paid at all.
That’s odd, because according to accounts published by the charities commission, CACT (formally the South of England Foundation) had an employee whose benefits totalled £120-£130k in the year ending March 2021.
I think we are talking at cross-purposes.
I'm not a trustee or an employee of CACT.
I’m not suggesting you are. You’ve assumed the charity I referenced was the museum. It wasn’t. That never occurred to me because I wouldn’t have assumed anyone there is being paid.
My question was where you think CACT sits in this hierarchy, given you had set out a model for someone being paid £150k. Its senior management pay seems to be on a par with that for a small lower-tier local authority (i.e. a district council). I wonder if the level of responsibility and skill set is really comparable.
Well, your description matched the museum more than CACT given the trust does employ lots of people (I don't know how many but many will be part time and/or sessional.) It also has a multi million turnover, unfortunately not something the museum can boast although @charltonnick is giving it a good try. I submitted our annual accounts last month BTW.
And I'm more likely to think about the museum than CACT for obvious reasons.
Regardless CACT being linked to a league 1 club isn't relevant as their work is with the community and would be similar whichever division were in.
The £150k pa figure didn't come from me either. It was the figure in the press reports regarding the Captain Tom Foundation and the RSPCA.
So a whole package, that might include a pension and a car, of £120k for a CEO of a successful charity with turnover in the millions might well be reasonable. How much do CEOs at other football trusts earn? Are they as good? Certainly the charity commission must have agreed it wasn't unreasonable.
Ah the RNLI. Fantastic voluntary service. When I was at Brockley County, once a year other boys would appear in our classroom inviting donations, and in return we go a paper badge and a pin:
If I had any money, which I usually didn't have, I would pay a penny or two and wear the badge which lasted all of half a day usually on a schoolboy uniform. The question remains though, what happens if the money runs out? Is it a political comment to mention that recently the RNLI were getting criticised for helping desperate people trying to cross the channel from France and Belgium?
We also used to learn about this exceptional woman:
Total digression ((:>) you were at Brockley County ? .. My school team, Raines Foundation, including myself, played B Cty at rugby .. you had a player, would be perhaps your age, Peter Wheeler, later played for Leicester, England AND the British Lions .. anyway, Wheeler or not you had a decent team and we hammered you .. sorry to digress
I hated Brockley County. A place full of bullies, so I am delighted if they got a hammering, no need to apologise for that.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
So why can't you post on HoC?
Because he is banned from doing so.
our next investigation is into whether he is over 13 years of age
So because he's banned from there he brings brigs politics into threads on here!
I have not brought politics into this thread any more than any other contributor to this thread.
Buy you do in general
How extensive is 'general'? For example on the U23's thread? You are focussed on me, but are there any other posters, using your terms of reference, who bring politics into threads on Charlton Life?
On this occasion I was referring to you, not doing an deep-dive analysis of all the posters on CL who may or may not bring politics unnecessarily into threads
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
So why can't you post on HoC?
Because he is banned from doing so.
our next investigation is into whether he is over 13 years of age
So because he's banned from there he brings brigs politics into threads on here!
I have not brought politics into this thread any more than any other contributor to this thread.
Buy you do in general
How extensive is 'general'? For example on the U23's thread? You are focussed on me, but are there any other posters, using your terms of reference, who bring politics into threads on Charlton Life?
On this occasion I was referring to you, not doing an deep-dive analysis of all the posters on CL who may or may not bring politics unnecessarily into threads
Well on this occasion, on this thread, I have not especially brought politics into it beyond the notion of politics being welded to the shape and structures and features of any society, including the government of any colour of that society. I have certainly not mentioned any particular political party. I notice that when I mentioned that it has been other posters who have introduced the RSPCA and RNLI you didn't follow that up, but instead followed up the mystery as to why I can't post on the HoC thread.
Are there concerns over the running of the Charity Commission?
My concerns are around the competence and track record of the individual responsible for greenlighting the nomination for the Chair. Get it spectacularly wrong once and it's fair to ask questions when you have to repeat the process.
If threads about England cricket can be used to discuss the running of the ECB and threads about the takeover of Charlton can be used to discuss the competence of the EFL, then I think a thread about Tom Moore (and the charity that bears his name) can be extended to question whether the Charity Commission is appropriately managed and competent to oversee perceived irregularities in this charity.
There's a story in the press suggesting that a member of Capt Tom's family was going to be offered the CEO position on a big salary. It would be interesting to know how that item came to the attention of the media (for instance, was it the Charity Commission that gave the press the story?).
From my point of view, that doesn't bother me: it's not my money. But for anyone for whom it is a big deal, the only recourse is the Charity Commission. So it would be good if it had teeth and was competent. Based on its recent appointment, it seems not.
The charity in question doesn't relate to the money donated by the public for Captain Tom's heroic, generous and inspiring efforts. All that money found its way to beneficiaries. This legacy charity is on an entirely different scale. I'm not sure it's worth the column inches that have been generated.
To put it in perspective, I don't know anyone or any company that's contributed to the charity; but millions of people were properly engaged in Captain Tom's original fundraising.
Without commenting on individual cases, the controls on charities have to be very tight. People have to have faith there is no corruption or they will be reluctant to donate. Any scandals have to be prevented for that reason.
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive. If a government of any colour, local or national, passes their responsibilities off to the charitable sector they are avoiding taking proper action themselves.
As per previous comments, whilst an interesting topic, this is for another thread?
This is a thread about a charity. Which other thread ought my comment to be on?
This is a thread about Captain Tom not a political discussion about the relationship between the/any government and charities. Suggest you start a new thread about this wider and interesting topic, maybe on HoC
I am unable to post on the HoC section. I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why can't you post on the HoC section? Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
Before I posted somebody else mentioned the RSPCA, and it was also another poster who brought up the RNLI. What 'introduction' concerns you? As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
So why can't you post on HoC?
Because he is banned from doing so.
our next investigation is into whether he is over 13 years of age
So because he's banned from there he brings brigs politics into threads on here!
I have not brought politics into this thread any more than any other contributor to this thread.
Buy you do in general
How extensive is 'general'? For example on the U23's thread? You are focussed on me, but are there any other posters, using your terms of reference, who bring politics into threads on Charlton Life?
On this occasion I was referring to you, not doing an deep-dive analysis of all the posters on CL who may or may not bring politics unnecessarily into threads
Well on this occasion, on this thread, I have not especially brought politics into it beyond the notion of politics being welded to the shape and structures and features of any society, including the government of any colour of that society. I have certainly not mentioned any particular political party. I notice that when I mentioned that it has been other posters who have introduced the RSPCA and RNLI you didn't follow that up, but instead followed up the mystery as to why I can't post on the HoC thread.
Without commenting on individual cases, the controls on charities have to be very tight. People have to have faith there is no corruption or they will be reluctant to donate. Any scandals have to be prevented for that reason.
I have previously had a positive view of CACT, that is a bit diminished after discovering the disparity of reward between the highest paid and the lowest paid. I can't remember who said it, but I am pretty sure somebody said that Captain Sir Tom's daughter should get a payment of £20k and leave it there, the point being made then, and throughout, is how much people in the charity sector can get.
I have previously had a positive view of CACT, that is a bit diminished after discovering the disparity of reward between the highest paid and the lowest paid. I can't remember who said it, but I am pretty sure somebody said that Captain Sir Tom's daughter should get a payment of £20k and leave it there, the point being made then, and throughout, is how much people in the charity sector can get.
A lot of charities have a trading arm which makes them businesses with large turnovers. Charities need good CEOs to run them and need to have salaries the equivalent of businesses of a similar size.
Pay for employees lower down the salary scale is not so good.
Comments
I would have thought rescuing desperate people was a humanitarian action, not a political one, and therefore quite appropriate for this thread.
Why introduce the issue on a thread about Captain Tom?
What 'introduction' concerns you?
As for the HoC section, this the Charlton Life terms and conditions:
Terms of Service
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this
community to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory,
inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually
oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative
of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the
copyright is owned by you.
We at this community also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or
whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal
action arising from any message posted by you. We log all internet protocol
addresses accessing this web site.
Please note that advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and
solicitations are inappropriate on this community.
We reserve the right to remove any content for any reason or no reason at
all. We reserve the right to terminate any membership for any reason or no
reason at all.
You must be at least 13 years of age to use this service.
Millions of pounds are raised for thousands of charities, it would be impossible for them all to be Government funded.
I don't work for the RNLI.
I am unable to answer that question myself.
our next investigation is into whether he is over 13 years of age
However this is what I wrote:
Charities are all very well as an extra, but in this society I don't think anybody ought to either rely on, or be at the mercy of a charity to survive.
I have not said the government ought to fund a charity for the preservation of a statue (which might very well be argued to be a good cause), but have mentioned about reliance on a charity to survive.
In the context of Captain Sir Tom's fundraising, my understanding was it was for the health sector, an area needed for survival, and if his money was an extra then great. However if his money is to cover gaps in much needed funding that really ought to be governmental, then it becomes a huge risk when the charity money runs out.
I'm not a trustee or an employee of CACT.
My question was where you think CACT sits in this hierarchy, given you had set out a model for someone being paid £150k. Its senior management pay seems to be on a par with that for a small lower-tier local authority (i.e. a district council). I wonder if the level of responsibility and skill set is really comparable.
CACT are advertising part time posts from £11.05 per hour to £14.38 per hour.
If there was equity between those posts and somebody on £120,000 a year in the same organisation, then the person on £120k, at a rough calculation would have to work between 22-23 hours per day for 365 days to match what is expected of the £14.38ph bod.
They would also have to work around 28 hours per day for 365 days to match the rate for the £11.05ph bod.
you were at Brockley County ? .. My school team, Raines Foundation, including myself, played B Cty at rugby .. you had a player, would be perhaps your age, Peter Wheeler, later played for Leicester, England AND the British Lions .. anyway, Wheeler or not you had a decent team and we hammered you .. sorry to digress
For example on the U23's thread?
You are focussed on me, but are there any other posters, using your terms of reference, who bring politics into threads on Charlton Life?
And I'm more likely to think about the museum than CACT for obvious reasons.
Regardless CACT being linked to a league 1 club isn't relevant as their work is with the community and would be similar whichever division were in.
The £150k pa figure didn't come from me either. It was the figure in the press reports regarding the Captain Tom Foundation and the RSPCA.
So a whole package, that might include a pension and a car, of £120k for a CEO of a successful charity with turnover in the millions might well be reasonable. How much do CEOs at other football trusts earn? Are they as good? Certainly the charity commission must have agreed it wasn't unreasonable.
I have certainly not mentioned any particular political party.
I notice that when I mentioned that it has been other posters who have introduced the RSPCA and RNLI you didn't follow that up, but instead followed up the mystery as to why I can't post on the HoC thread.
If threads about England cricket can be used to discuss the running of the ECB and threads about the takeover of Charlton can be used to discuss the competence of the EFL, then I think a thread about Tom Moore (and the charity that bears his name) can be extended to question whether the Charity Commission is appropriately managed and competent to oversee perceived irregularities in this charity.
There's a story in the press suggesting that a member of Capt Tom's family was going to be offered the CEO position on a big salary. It would be interesting to know how that item came to the attention of the media (for instance, was it the Charity Commission that gave the press the story?).
From my point of view, that doesn't bother me: it's not my money. But for anyone for whom it is a big deal, the only recourse is the Charity Commission. So it would be good if it had teeth and was competent. Based on its recent appointment, it seems not.
The charity in question doesn't relate to the money donated by the public for Captain Tom's heroic, generous and inspiring efforts. All that money found its way to beneficiaries. This legacy charity is on an entirely different scale. I'm not sure it's worth the column inches that have been generated.
To put it in perspective, I don't know anyone or any company that's contributed to the charity; but millions of people were properly engaged in Captain Tom's original fundraising.
I can't remember who said it, but I am pretty sure somebody said that Captain Sir Tom's daughter should get a payment of £20k and leave it there, the point being made then, and throughout, is how much people in the charity sector can get.
Pay for employees lower down the salary scale is not so good.