|
Post by Jim on Jan 28, 2018 13:58:40 GMT
"targeting the beneficiary class in accordance with the objects." objects=as laid out in memorandum and articles.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 28, 2018 14:00:04 GMT
I hate charity. One of the murkiest and most dodgy forms of organisation ever invented. Scam heaven. Do you have proof that lots of charities are scamming people. How are they doing this?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2018 14:02:02 GMT
I hate charity. One of the murkiest and most dodgy forms of organisation ever invented. Scam heaven. Do you have proof that lots of charities are scamming people. How are they doing this? by collecting money from members of the public, then only 20-30% of that getting spent on their charitable aims.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 14:03:30 GMT
I hate charity. One of the murkiest and most dodgy forms of organisation ever invented. Scam heaven. Do you have proof that lots of charities are scamming people. How are they doing this? No I don't have proof. I did a short training course about how to set up a charitable organisation and yes the aims are very laudable but it seems to me it is wide open to abuse. I'm no expert though.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 28, 2018 14:17:15 GMT
Accounts have to be independently audited, money donated/granted for a specific cause or project has to be spent on such beneficiaries. I recently had to sign off Skylight Circus Arts accounts with the auditor and post them in Charity Commission website. If you want to look it's registered as Skylight Circus in Education, reg char.no 1001570.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2018 14:20:33 GMT
Accounts have to be independently audited, money donated/granted for a specific cause or project has to be spent on such beneficiaries. I recently had to sign off Skylight Circus Arts accounts with the auditor and post them in Charity Commission website. If you want to look it's registered as Skylight Circus in Education, reg char.no 1001570. this doesn't mean that Crt are acting above board. Have a look at Crt's accounts and tell me how much of the money they raised from charitable donations has been spent on actual projects? It's about as clear as mud.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jan 28, 2018 14:27:43 GMT
Accounts have to be independently audited, money donated/granted for a specific cause or project has to be spent on such beneficiaries. I recently had to sign off Skylight Circus Arts accounts with the auditor and post them in Charity Commission website. If you want to look it's registered as Skylight Circus in Education, reg char.no 1001570. this doesn't mean that Crt are acting above board. Have a look at Crt's accounts and tell me how much of the money they raised from charitable donations has been spent on actual projects? It's about as clear as mud. And that will be the darkest kind of mud you'll ever see anywhere too Peter.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2018 14:29:36 GMT
Exactly Peter, I find it amazing that there are still noaters who haven't woken up to the reality of the situation yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 28, 2018 14:43:42 GMT
Donations would be classified as unrestricted income, could be spent on core costs or whatever deemed fit. Restricted funds can only be spent the cause they were donated for.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2018 14:48:38 GMT
Donations would be classified as unrestricted income, could be spent on core costs or whatever deemed fit. Restricted funds can only be spent the cause they were donated for. so you haven't looked then? They tell people who become friends that every penny you donate goes in a seperate bank account and is just spent on the maintenance projects and doesn't go on the running costs of the organisation. scam?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2018 14:50:47 GMT
You where asking for proof that it's not above board. I worked for crt as a fundraiser, so I'm not talking off the top of my head. This is reality, don't forget we are talking about crt, not charities in general.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 28, 2018 15:05:21 GMT
I would say there are honest and worthwhile 'charities', having decent aims and keeping their accounts in proper order. When people hear the word 'charity', though, they think of the Church or some big organisation giving (reluctantly) you a handout for which you should be grovellingly thankful - even though your Government should have arranged for you to have a decent job, housing and education and medical care so that you shouldn't even be in such a position as to have to ask for 'charity'. It is galling when those doling out 'charity' (other peoples' money) do so with the smug smile of righteousness, despite the fact they know they've pilfered some of it for their new car (which they 'need' to help The Needy). No-one here is having a go at charities such as Jim's, but those such as The Red Cross with their fleets of Land Rovers, and CRT registered as a 'charity' when what they have to do with 'charity' is anybody's guess. Harrassing boaters is not a very 'charitable' thing to do. 'Charity' and it's resulting humiliation of the poor should have been put into the Dustbin of History yonks ago. Voluntary donations to worthwhile causes of your choice are a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 28, 2018 15:14:12 GMT
Foxy, it's almost worth putting up with the utter drivel you post sometimes for the pearls of wisdom that you share with us occasionally.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 5, 2018 22:59:01 GMT
The grounds of the IWA disappointment over the failed bid by CaRT is hard for me to see. Their article on the rejection states:
“With increased pressure on general EA budgets through Defra and the need to prioritise other services such as flood control, the funding for navigation seems likely to decrease and navigation assets deteriorate further. There is evidence that if navigation structures such as locks, bridges and embankments are not maintained to a proper standard this could result in a major failure leading to lengthy closures of the navigation, damage to local economies, increased local flood risk and the need to expend large sums on remedial work. [my bold]
IWA believes that these matters should be capable of resolution and that a transfer of EA navigations remains the best way to ensure the future of these waterways with the minimum impact on the public purse.”
I was gathering the impression that CaRT were living up to the prognostications of Evans & co, in overseeing the BW navigation assets gradually deteriorate, even more so as their expectations of increasing income have been disappointed, and they are seeking loans to cover the serious overheads such as management pay packets.
I fail to see how taking on even more national assets in need of continuing maintenance will help their budget. Given the rapidly approaching date for withdrawal of DEFRA funding for CaRT, the position can only worsen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 23:39:44 GMT
More crap and bullshit from the I wank alots;
On 22nd January Ivor Caplan, Neil Edwards with Jonathan Shaw (IWA’s Parliamentary Adviser) met the Defra Minister with responsibility for the Waterways, Dr Thérèse Coffey MP and her team. This was a good opportunity to explain the achievements of IWA and our vision for the future of the waterways based on our briefing for a future parliamentary debate in Westminster Hall. The meeting happened prior to Environment Agency’s announcement outlined above, but during the discussion Dr Coffey confirmed that she was still open to the transfer of EA waterways to CRT and this openness to further discussions has been confirmed subsequently by the Minister’s office. Dr Coffey showed particular interest in IWA’s management of a successful waterway, the Chelmer & Blackwater Navigation, and welcomed gifts of a copy of the Imray map with IWA’s Waterway Directory included, and a copy of David Blagrove's book on the history of the Association.
|
|