Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Captain Tom Moore (ed. RIP)
Comments
-
I don't know but think that this is why the regulator (Charity Commission) flagged this up.Gribbo said: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.
£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.7 -
It was on the BBC Ten o clock news about a week ago. Thought then it was odd I hadn’t seen it reported elsewhere so The Mail certainly were not the first. The BBC report made it seem that what has happened is pretty damning.Cloudworm said:
Or it’s The Daily Mail, where you took the headline from, which is sullying his name...and his daughter’s.PrincessFiona said:
Maybe she was giving up a comparable salary to do this and/or was bringing a lot of skills and experience but it does seem excessive in the circumstances and sullying her father's nameME14addick said:
Fundraising isn't easy and money has to be spent to get people to donate. Money doesn't flow into charities without a lot of very hard work.AFKABartram said:
Depends what you mean by properly run. As in a business? yes, you’re probably right. Where the focus of what revenue received actually goes towards what people were donating towards and not to salaries, running costs, expenses etc, I’m more cynical.ME14addick said:
Most charities are properly run, don't let the very few bad apples cloud your thinking.AFKABartram said:Don’t know the story here so won’t judge, but realised a few years ago there are huge things wrong with the charity sector imo.Really saddens me that I feel so cynical and untrusting in the industry
Anyway, I’m detracting this a bit.4 -
Capt Sir Tom Moore: Watchdog to review charity's accounts
Published0 -
.
0 -
Theres a lot more here than simply the 150,000 salary.
Hope the charity gets shut down, clearly wasn't serving the purpose a charity should be designed for.3 -
The £33 million raised was dealt with & distributed by NHS Charities Together. All the other stuff relates to a different charity set up by the family. According to the BBC, the families charity has paid four other charities £160,000 but spent £209,500 on support costs including management, plus various payments to companies owned by the family. A charity that pays out more to “support” & “management” than actual charities doesn’t sound right to me.RickAddick said:The problem with the Captain Tom sort of fundraising is that it can raise significantly more money than the recipient has the skills to deal with.
Managing £39M requires specialist skills that were (probably) unlikely to exist within the Captain's immediate family and friends. Once you start asking for advice, every chancer in the country is likely to turn up on your doorstep offering their 'expertise'.
Once the fund had started to grow beyond it's initial target and media interest increased, the family may have done better to have selected a number of established charities and suggested that donations were paid directly to these.
If the reports of salaries and expenses paid to those managing the fund against money paid to end recipients are true, then Sir Tom's legacy has been sadly tarnished and some of his family members may, in time, regret the day the Captain started his first walk.9 -
I don’t tend to donate to the bigger charities. They have £m’s sitting on the balance sheet and pay their exec officers £000’s. Would much sooner donate to local charities that I have an affinity with.AFKABartram said:Don’t know the story here so won’t judge, but realised a few years ago there are huge things wrong with the charity sector imo.Really saddens me that I feel so cynical and untrusting in the industry10 -
But those big charities need to pay decent wage to get the best people in to run an organisation of that size.Believe charities have to declare what percentage of donations are use for wages/costs etc and what percentage is actually used on the charitable part.4
-
I'm sure the old man was a decent and genuine person but the family are clearly grifters who used the pandemic and goodwill to take advantage. Never sat right with me they took him on a long haul holiday which during a time when the pandemic was bad and he was a 100 years old.14
-
Yep. Rereading this whole thread is kind of ghoulish ('the best of us', fucksake). Doing the laps of the garden was their idea too, not his - call it marketing genius, call it a grift - it was bothjacob_CAFC said:I'm sure the old man was a decent and genuine person but the family are clearly grifters who used the pandemic and goodwill to take advantage. Never sat right with me they took him on a long haul holiday which during a time when the pandemic was bad and he was a 100 years old.7 - Sponsored links:
-
A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.5
-
ME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.
I've already made my findingsME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.
1 -
Agreed. Not sure benefitting from the charity was their original motive. But £150k does seem inappropriateME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.2 -
Agreed. Absolutely awful to make judgements on people who are properly staying within the lawME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.0 -
Don't worry, The Daily Mail won't!Henry Irving said:As a trustee of a registered charity who gets paid nothing, not even expenses, I can absolutely see the value in having paid staff to do jobs.
They can commit proper time to it and bring in skills and experience that trustees and volunteers may not have.
Most paid staff in charities are needed to deliver the service so that IS what people donated for.
Do some people in some charities see it as a gravy train? Sure, but most charity staff aren't well paid.
And as we see in this case there is regulation that at least tries to stop abuses.
That doesn't, from what I see, justify £150k pa in this case but we don't have all the facts.
I'd be more annoyed about bonuses for bankers in banks we, the public, bailed out or water bosses and shareholders taking huge bonuses and dividends after polluting our rivers.
And don't even mention PPE or track and trace1 -
While I'm here being cynical, and not to detract from Captain Tom himself who just went along with an idea in a doubtless good-hearted spirit, but a charity drive to pay for the NHS - kind of an extra, optional tax if you will - while the current bunch of thieves, crooks and liars in power gut and plunder it...a charity drive, to boot, fuelled by nostalgia for World War II and whipped up into a nationalistic fervour, is pretty much Exhibit A for how the Tories under Johnson operate. The grift aspect is a delightful cherry on top14
-
Errr, so are you going to wait as you just, 'agreed', or pass disparaging remarks like, 'benefitting from the charity' or that they have acted 'inappropriately'?PrincessFiona said:
Agreed. Not sure benefitting from the charity was their original motive. But £150k does seem inappropriateME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.
Which is it?0 -
No one needs £150k to run & distribute money from what was really just a one off fundraising event, of which the person doing the "fund raising" has now died.PrincessFiona said:
Agreed. Not sure benefitting from the charity was their original motive. But £150k does seem inappropriateME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.
Imo all that needs to happen is that the money that was raised is distributed & the "charity" closed down. Pay the daughter £20k and be done with it.0 -
Interesting debate.
There is no doubt that when you work in a not for profit organisation, that your salary gets scrutinised in a way that those in the private sector do not. This is why Charity Commission exists.
Did Sir Tom's daughter go through a competitive independent selection panel? I rather doubt it.
Therefore it seems to me that there was a clear conflict of interest here.
I am just sad that the quirky old gentleman who wanted to help the NHS will now be remembered for other reasons.4 -
I've no doubt that £150k is overinflated. I've no idea if £20 is fair, though even that seems pricy to me. Whatever the market rate for the job undertaken, the fact that it was done by a family member screams potential conflict of interest to me. I wouldn't expect any claims from a family member other than minimal expenses.golfaddick said:
No one needs £150k to run & distribute money from what was really just a one off fundraising event, of which the person doing the "fund raising" has now died.PrincessFiona said:
Agreed. Not sure benefitting from the charity was their original motive. But £150k does seem inappropriateME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.
Imo all that needs to happen is that the money that was raised is distributed & the "charity" closed down. Pay the daughter £20k and be done with it.
If the justification for paying a high salary is to get the necessary skills, then they should have advertised the role publicly up front. I'm not sure if this happened, but guessing it didn't. Would love to be proved wrong on this point.1 - Sponsored links:
-
You just cherry-picked words she'd written without reading the full sentence, didn't you?Cloudworm said:
Errr, so are you going to wait as you just, 'agreed', or pass disparaging remarks like, 'benefitting from the charity' or that they have acted 'inappropriately'?PrincessFiona said:
Agreed. Not sure benefitting from the charity was their original motive. But £150k does seem inappropriateME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.
Which is it?0 -
Didn’t I what?Powell Is Pleasant said:
You just cherry-picked words she'd written without reading the full sentence, didn't you?Cloudworm said:
Errr, so are you going to wait as you just, 'agreed', or pass disparaging remarks like, 'benefitting from the charity' or that they have acted 'inappropriately'?PrincessFiona said:
Agreed. Not sure benefitting from the charity was their original motive. But £150k does seem inappropriateME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.
Which is it?
2 -
Agreed, a lot of burying heads in the sand.Leuth said:
Yep. Rereading this whole thread is kind of ghoulish ('the best of us', fucksake). Doing the laps of the garden was their idea too, not his - call it marketing genius, call it a grift - it was bothjacob_CAFC said:I'm sure the old man was a decent and genuine person but the family are clearly grifters who used the pandemic and goodwill to take advantage. Never sat right with me they took him on a long haul holiday which during a time when the pandemic was bad and he was a 100 years old.0 -
Are there three issues here?
Cost of management services
Payments to two companies -1 for the daughter 1 for her husband
Attempt to get daughter in as high salaried exec for a charity presumably that is to be wrapped up once any money that was left in the pot was distributed?0 -
Looking at the accounts, it appears that The Captain Tom Foundation was set up after most of the money raised by Captain Tom Moore had been distributed to NHS charities.
The Captain Tom Foundation appears to have been set up as a grant making foundation to which other charities can apply for grants.1 -
For someone with a PR background - which is how the initial fundraising originally started getting attention - she must have known that this had the potential to all get quite murky as the focus of the story moved on.
While I can understand wanting to commemorate loved ones, have often wondered about the costs involved (both initially and ongoing) in creating foundations that might replicate the work of other charities that already exist, and so effectively diluting the amount that the good causes will receive?
The massive amount raised for the NHS charities was a great legacy, but what came after it always had the whiff of trying to cash in one way or another and build someone a longer lasting profile.0 -
This is a discussion and unlike some people I use it to get different points of view as my mind isn't necessarily already made up. I have opinons and whilst this may not apply to everyone, I may change my mind.Cloudworm said:
Errr, so are you going to wait as you just, 'agreed', or pass disparaging remarks like, 'benefitting from the charity' or that they have acted 'inappropriately'?PrincessFiona said:
Agreed. Not sure benefitting from the charity was their original motive. But £150k does seem inappropriateME14addick said:A lot of speculation on here, it would be better to wait for the findings of the Charity Commission before making disparaging remarks about the family.
Which is it?
'Does seem inappropriate' is hardly damning wording is it?5 -
the best you can say is that the charity raised a lot of money for the NHS .. there are LOTS of pretty mundane 'executives' in the NHS earning in excess of 100 grand and they escape all scrutiny3
-
The money never was "for the NHS" was it. It, originally was for the charities that provide tea and coffees, kids toys, books etc. The number of people that believed it was to pay for nurses, drugs and PPE was disingenuous in the first place.Leuth said:While I'm here being cynical, and not to detract from Captain Tom himself who just went along with an idea in a doubtless good-hearted spirit, but a charity drive to pay for the NHS - kind of an extra, optional tax if you will - while the current bunch of thieves, crooks and liars in power gut and plunder it...a charity drive, to boot, fuelled by nostalgia for World War II and whipped up into a nationalistic fervour, is pretty much Exhibit A for how the Tories under Johnson operate. The grift aspect is a delightful cherry on top0 -
Cafc43v3r said:
The money never was "for the NHS" was it. It, originally was for the charities that provide tea and coffees, kids toys, books etc. The number of people that believed it was to pay for nurses, drugs and PPE was disingenuous in the first place.Leuth said:While I'm here being cynical, and not to detract from Captain Tom himself who just went along with an idea in a doubtless good-hearted spirit, but a charity drive to pay for the NHS - kind of an extra, optional tax if you will - while the current bunch of thieves, crooks and liars in power gut and plunder it...a charity drive, to boot, fuelled by nostalgia for World War II and whipped up into a nationalistic fervour, is pretty much Exhibit A for how the Tories under Johnson operate. The grift aspect is a delightful cherry on top
He knows, but, attention, yay.Cafc43v3r said:
The money never was "for the NHS" was it. It, originally was for the charities that provide tea and coffees, kids toys, books etc. The number of people that believed it was to pay for nurses, drugs and PPE was disingenuous in the first place.Leuth said:While I'm here being cynical, and not to detract from Captain Tom himself who just went along with an idea in a doubtless good-hearted spirit, but a charity drive to pay for the NHS - kind of an extra, optional tax if you will - while the current bunch of thieves, crooks and liars in power gut and plunder it...a charity drive, to boot, fuelled by nostalgia for World War II and whipped up into a nationalistic fervour, is pretty much Exhibit A for how the Tories under Johnson operate. The grift aspect is a delightful cherry on top3
