Colonel Sir Tom - Your Circuit's Dead, There's Something Wrong...

Agreed.

I'm in my office right now funnily enough, posting this from the office jacuzzi.

 

Probably best to actually read what happened. They did put retrospective planning permission in, which was denied, and now it has to be torn down. They had planning permission for an L shaped office and decided instead to build a U shaped Spa. They clearly took the piss and thought the name of the old duffer or the charity would carry some sort of weight with the planning committee, and all this was most likely paid for by taking an over inflated salary from the charity. They’re getting exactly what they deserve.

You really shouldn’t have donated so much.

 

There is no doubt whatsoever that Mr & Mrs Hogston-Pratt have done very nicely indeed out of the whole affair.

That's the crux of the matter. Maybe (in fact I think most probably), old Field Marshall Lord Sir Tom VC did it with good intentions.

The people who donated, I believe, did so not in order to financially benefit him and far less his relatives. They donated because, as was the original intention, they wanted to thank and help the NHS for its efforts during the pandemic.

Yet through highly-paid directorships, Caribbean Holidays, luxury spas and swimming pools etc etc, Jocasta and her hubby have instead spent a good chunk of the cash on themselves.

I would have liked to have seen Caribbean holidays for some of the hardest working NHS staff. Spas for the doctors, nurses, porters and x-ray staff. Swimming pools built next to the nurses' home. Grants to students studying nursing, midwifery, paramedic science etc.

What they've done is deeply immoral, whether legal or not. They should be ashamed. Worst of all, they've damaged people's spirit. They gave out of the goodness of their hearts and got done over by these two.

I hope Karma gets them.

 

If I recall rightly, the accounts show that £240k of the charity's outgoings was on 'admin' and £165k on 'management fees'.

 

Bit like WFC’s then.

 

I would think that for a charity with nearly £40m coming in those figures are quite modest

 

Again, facts are useful, the foundation was set up after the vast majority of the £40m donations had actually been made, but not before a few back handers had been given out to the daughter as well of course:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...oundation-charity-daughter-firm-b2013335.html

 

You've clearly paid far more attention to this than I have

 

It’s called the News. It’s just odd your natural inclination is to vehemently defend some double barrelled toffs, who built an illegal spa with money creamed off from their dead dads goodwill.

 

"double barrelled toffs"?! God almighty
Having just read the piece from the Independent I don't think the sums paid to their consultancy are excessive

 

The point of doing something for charity is that you are doing it to help others less fortunate than you, and you should in no way benefit from it, at the very worst you shouldn’t be out of pocket from it, but even that is questionable in terms of your motives for doing it. If you find yourself in a position where your involvement with the charity affords you Caribbean holidays and U shaped spas, then your motives are clearly highly questionable. As Clive said, what they’ve done is not necessarily illegal, just highly immoral. The fact that you feel the need to defend them is a terrible reflection on your character.

And you genuinely think this is a good return for £1m of donations?

 

So you think any consultancy employed by a charity provides its services and expertise free of charge do you? The fact that you become so agitated when you come across an opinion contrary to your own tells me everything I need to know about your character

 

It’s not just an opinion contrary to my own though is it…

Do you genuinely think on £1m of donations, more being spent out on management fees than actual donations given out is a good return?

And yes many do give their services free of charge, my OH works for an advertising agency and they do pro bona work for charities all the time, work often worth several hundred thousand pounds.

 

Pro bono

 

Pro Bono? I’m generally against Bono.

 

Isn't that Bona?

 

A reputable chartiy should really publish the percentage of donations that are spent on charitable activities, salaries and fund raising.
Most of the big ones do on their www sites.

Anything more than about 5% spent on marketing in a company normally raises flags in business. I'd suggest fundraising could justifiably account for a higher percentage than this level, but where a charity costs more than say 50% of it's donations to run than you have to suggest that it's more a business which does charitable donations, than a charity.

 

Please keep your Bonas to yourself m8.

 

I don't think from the sums mentioned Capt Tom's charity spent anywhere near 50 per cent of its income on running costs. If the daughter has done anything wrong it's building such a hideous looking outhouse in the grounds of a nice grade 2 listed home. She really does deserve to go to prison for doing that

 

That's my feeling too. I suspect he had good intentions and he's effectively been a victim of elder abuse. Lets face it, a centenarian isn't likely to be thinking of nefarious ways to perform long cons.

 

Do we know for sure that he passed away ? How much does a fake passport cost these days ?

 

Of course the old boy's intentions were good! He set out to raise a sum of money for the NHS by walking up and down his garden path. Thanks in no small part to the marketing expertise of his daughter he pulled in 40million quid. The daughter, quite reasonably in my view, paid her business out of the proceeds for the time and effort that she and her staff put in to making the whole thing such a success. I really don't understand what people are so incensed about

 

The conduct of the Trustees of the Foundation is under investigation by the Charity Commission.

In 2021 it found that the salary Hannah Ingram Moore proposed to pay herself, 100k for three days a week, was excessive and not supported by any benchmarking evidence.

The Charity Commission inquiry will now consider the following areas:

• trustee mismanagement or misconduct in the administration of the Foundation
• proper management of conflicts of interest, specifically with the links to the Company (detailed below)
• whether the Foundation has suffered a financial loss as a resolute of unauthorised private benefit to any of the current or former trustees
• general compliance with charity law duties placed on trustees

The Charity’s priorities appear to have been building a spa in Mrs Ingram Moore’s garden. The ignoring of planning requirements and the general ‘**** you’ to the neighbours is the icing on the cake.

The thing is, they gave £38m to another charity to administer. So what exactly did they need to pay for an office with its own pool/spa for?

 

I wonder how many times she has said "do you know who I am?" to people.

 

From the numbers mentioned on this thread it looks like the charity raised 40m all of which (minus around 209k which went to the daughter's firm) has been paid to good causes or handed over to another charity with the necessary resources. and contacts to distribute the funds to maximum benefit. Apart from the nastiness of the new office and sauna I just don't see the problem

 

It’s pretty damn obvious ! If you’ve paid someone else £38m to do all your sodding admin, what the hell are you expected to do in your new office ? It was either a pool or an indoor tennis court.

 

The 30m+ that was initially raised was through the Just Giving website isn't what's investigated as far a I know, the money raised did go to NHS charities. The scrutiny here as I understand it, is about a new charity, known as the "Captain Tom Foundation" which was created before his death; this is what the Charity Commission is investigating.

 

The Daily Mail is going in hard on the daughter.

Let’s not forget that the holiday in Barbados the Mail ostentatiously organised for Sir Tom definitely did NOT kill him. He caught that Covid in hospital. Ok?

 

How many times do you need to be told this Lloyd Poncenby-Smyth, the vast majority of that money was raised before the charity was founded.

In its first year it raised £1m, gave out £160k in donations and spent over £200k on admin costs, which included over £160k in ‘management fees’.

They also initially paid both the daughter and her husband salaries as trustees which is against Charity commission guidelines. This may come as a big shock to you, but trustees of a charity shouldn’t be in it for monetary gain. The clue is in the name.

 

Ho ho. Nice one.

FFS

To help you come across as slightly less irritating I have reproduced your post below in the way that a normal person would have written it.

The vast majority of that money was raised before the charity was founded.

In its first year it raised £1m, gave out £160k in donations and spent over £200k on admin costs, which included over £160k in ‘management fees’.

They also initially paid both the daughter and her husband salaries as trustees which is against Charity commission guidelines, and of course, trustees of a charity shouldn’t be in it for monetary gain.

Pleas try to follow this style in future

 

I will promise to follow that style, if you promise to not need something explaining to you at least four times before it sinks in, deal?

It may comes a shock, but me starting my post with “how many times do you need to be told this” wasn’t a coincidence or a random act of aggression.

 

Condescending ar5ehole

 

not a pleasant condition.

 

Can get a cream for that m8. Apparently.