D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
Children In Need:
New TV phone-in scandal: BBC kept £100,000 of Children In Need cash
The BBC kept more than £100,000 viewers had pledged to charity for itself.
www.standard.co.uk
"Captain Tom" charity | Watchdog to review accounts
- Thread starter knuckles
- Start date
www.standard.co.uk
That was my kids that did that. As I told them, you're hungry so go and get some cake if anyone stops you just say you are children in need.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
She could still be a parasite, even if that were true. Not taking a Covid loan out you weren’t entitled to isn’t the only criteria for being a parasite.
I am suprised, as we are listing charities helping themselves, that a certain charity hasn't been mentioned. The one that flies a French man, his wife, brother, 14 friends, the milkman and the guy that used to say boo to a goose, over for a football match. Oh and it/they put them up in a posh hotel and paid their expenses. Talk about a seagull following a trawler, more like a pig with his snout in the trough.
5 Hit Gibbon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2020
- Messages
- 7,150
Charity is one of the best grifts going.
If you look at how much some of the people running some of the larger ones take in wages and the actual percentages of money going to the people who need it, it's quite shocking in some cases.
If you look at how much some of the people running some of the larger ones take in wages and the actual percentages of money going to the people who need it, it's quite shocking in some cases.
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
I remember when those banks went pop in Iceland several years ago. Some high profile charities had tens of millions in them.
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
Claimed over twice as much as the recipients of the charity money received....
That's not necessarily a problem.
All charities have to keep reserves - often 6-12 months of their running costs, so that they can continue to operate, or wind down some services slowly if needed (for example, lots of charities might run with grants from local authorities - most of which have been cutting services for over a decade now, and if they end a charity's funding, the Charity Commission doesn't want the charity to have to close overnight and leave the people they're helping high and dry).
You also have plenty of charities that are grant givers themselves. Something like the Bridge House Trust, which has been around for hundreds of years, was originally meant to keep a large reserve so that they could replace any bridges across the Thames if they collapsed. It now uses the money to give grants to lots of smaller charities. It has well over a billion pounds in assets, which it invests, and they can award many millions of pounds in grants each year from the profits.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
A charity with a billion in assets is scary, I don't trust large scale charities at all.
FIFA is a registered charity right under our noses.
:)
What do you imagine they're up to? I picked the Bridge House Trust because the background of why they have the money is interesting - they became a charity which gives out grants, because it's no longer the 15th Century and they don't need all that money to maintain the bridges. If Tower Bridge did collapse, then they'd have to replace it - so it's an example of a charity that has to keep huge reserves, but also one that has expanded it's remit to other good causes, rather than sitting on money that it doesn't need for it's original purpose.
The moral of the Captain Tom story, is not that charities can't be trusted, but that grifters will get caught out.