Hi Operation Nimrod
In a very last last last one for tonight … I think you will find that a committee cannot be dissolved unless it is clearly dysfunctional. Even that is currently a bit flakey because it is entirely subjective and open to challenge. In terms of the CwC concerned, you don’t get a completely apologetic letter issued by Air Vice-Marshal Lloyd (mentioned earlier) addressing if this is not true!
[quote=“Veritas” post=7623]Hi Operation Nimrod
In a very last last last one for tonight … I think you will find that a committee cannot be dissolved unless it is clearly dysfunctional. Even that is currently a bit flakey because it is entirely subjective and open to challenge. In terms of the CwC concerned, you don’t get a completely apologetic letter issued by Air Vice-Marshal Lloyd (mentioned earlier) addressing if this is not true![/quote]
A largely irrelevant post as i didn’t suggest anything otherwise. I just said a committee can be dissolved.
Anyway, you haven’t answer mine or PMs posts. If a committee is disbanded, why isn’t the CE number frozen. Or the account, yet if a Squadron is wound-up the opposite happens and funds are returned to the GP Fund. Kinda flies in the face of your suggestion really.
Sometimes the ACO does the right thing (booting out the CWC) in the wrong way.
As an OC (fortunately with a very good Civ Com) I am astounded and shocked at the goings on aired in these FOIs and whilst the full unbiased details will no doubt be known but to a few, I must say the evidence is pretty bloody damning.
Ok … one very last thought for tonight in the spirit of debate and discussion.
Parking all contrary opinion, what will the current respondents actually do if the points I have made come to pass prove true in the fullness of time? (forget the 1000 lines 
[quote=“Veritas” post=7626]Ok … one very last thought for tonight in the spirit of debate and discussion.
Parking all contrary opinion, what will the current respondents actually do if the points I have made come to pass prove true in the fullness of time? (forget the 1000 lines :-)[/quote]
Depends on your points as you keep changing your stance on things. Kinda like waiting for the horses to come in then placing a bet.
Write them down for us in summary format.
Fortunately my committee continue to always act in the best interest of my cadets and dont go syphoning squadron funds into “side” accounts.
So fortunately its a problem I’ll never need to address!
"A largely irrelevant post as i didn’t suggest anything otherwise. I just said a committee can be dissolved.
Anyway, you haven’t answer mine or PMs posts. If a committee is disbanded, why isn’t the CE number frozen. Or the account, yet if a Squadron is wound-up the opposite happens and funds are returned to the GP Fund. Kinda flies in the face of your suggestion really."
Yup! Got me there on the post Err … actually the funds do not do not. Given the ACO appears to be operating outside the law currently you are disadvantaged in believing that the pages you have are definitive. It is just not that simple. The Exception Number stand s because it appears to multiple squadrons and you just dip out, The account cannot be frozen because it is in the control of the trustees of which the ACO has no current authority and the GP fund is a seperate charity that has no authority call or control over any Region/Wing/Squadron fund. I know it is hard to accept, but I have been into it because of this situation and it is straight from the Charity Commission. Please be aware of anything that comes ‘down the line’ and think about why a CwC is necessary before the formation of a new squadron.
Again you say they are operating outside of the law. How? If they are, are the police involved in investigating a crime?
When a Squadron is wound-up, so is the committee and any financial authority they had. The ACO as the governing body takes control of those funds. That’s the whole reason we are exempt status, because we have nationally set controls and regulations. If we didn’t the Charity Commission would crawl all over us. Same applies for the Scouts.
You really need to get a lawyer. A good one. Perhaps not Mr Mason. He’s a good one, but he wouldn’t be much help to you,
“How? If they are, are the police involved in investigating a crime?”
Yes … multiple. And for that reason I will leave it there. I have tried to help.
[quote=“Veritas” post=7631]“How? If they are, are the police involved in investigating a crime?”
Yes … multiple. And for that reason I will leave it there. I have tried to help.[/quote]
You haven’t helped at all though have you. You’ve just tossed some half baked suppositions and confusing statements into the mix, not answered anyone’s posts and slinked off. IF the police are investigating a crime, you are wasting even more people’s time. As a member of the ACO I find the actions at that Squadron by various elected officials disgusting and aberrant. As a tax payer it annoys me slightly more so. My third point is not allowed to be made public or posted on this forum.
Much of that comes from the days of the ADCC, where the CWC had to prove it could, find and run an HQ, staff and support the squadron financially, to the tune of £200 IIRC, given that for a large number of £200 was more than their annual wage/salary, was a lot of money, probably somewhere around £30K today. However they largely comprised local dignitaries and businessmen as opposed to the predominately parent base we have now. My cadet squadron’s original CWC had a large people on it who now have roads, pubs etc named after them. It modern times the squadron effectively exists before the CWC (although you need to have an embryonic one prior to the DF becoming a squadron) given that the majorty of squadrons form from detached flights and not as brand new squadrons formed from scratch.
On the point that the F60 has no value in the Charity Commission’s eyes is irrelevant. If money was being donated to anywhere it would have to appear in the F60 and any summary accounts produced.
The only reason that senior officers have had to offer apologies is because of the wooliness that surrounds CWCs. I can see the upshot of this being that CWCs will be more accountable to the CoC and perhaps Charity Commission and not be allowed to operate on the periphery as they do now. So outcome the situation that has arisen, may be more of a shock to CWCs, who have members (as I know) who think that they are above the ATC as they don’t have to answer to the CoC. I lost count of the times I heard “you can’t say or do that because we aren’t anything to do with the uniform side”. It might be the dog finally has it’s day.
Veritas appears to be labouring under a misconception from the start that members of a Civilian Welfare Committee are trustees. While this may be true for a very small minority of squadrons who have constituted a valid trust to handle squadron funds. The majority do not have actual trust funds. Instead, I think the real situation for this squadron and many others is that they are an unincorporated association, with no legal personality at all. The CWC cannot be trustees because they are not subject to the strict duties and responsibilities of trustees, nor are they in receipt of the limited benefits.
The issue in the instant case is that the members of the former CWC of 863 consituted a trust fund to handle the squadron moneys. Not a bad idea, due to the extra legal protections this provides for the funds. The trustees of that trust are made up of the members of the former CWC. The distinction is that the although the trustees and the former CWC members are the same people, they do so in two different roles.
Ironically, now that no member of the Salmon trust is now allowed to be a member of the CWC for 863 Squadron, the Salmon Trust probably fails as it cannot carry out it’s key aim to support the unit.
The rather unusual legal position which exists in regard to CWCs in general was fine until one committee decided to push the boundaries. Now, the Charity Commission’s review of our practices will happily ensure none of this happens again.
Finally, Veritas if you really want to enter into a legal argument, you need to produce some actual evidence of the claims you sweepingly make. or supporting law Otherwise no-one is going to take you seriously. I don’t know who actually gave the Salmon trustees their legal advice, but my legal advice is that they should sue them, because it was awful advice. Which a third year law student could pick apart. Even one who missed most of their Equity lectures.
[quote=“Veritas” post=7626]Ok … one very last thought for tonight in the spirit of debate and discussion.
Parking all contrary opinion, what will the current respondents actually do if the points I have made come to pass prove true in the fullness of time? (forget the 1000 lines :-)[/quote]Make an opinion based on the evidence.
For now, the only evidence that we have is the FOI request, and simply reading through it without any pre-conceptions the CWC does not come out of it looking like the good guys.
Veritas,
I note that you have only recently joined and only posted in this forum, so to start with - Welcome!
I have lurked and watched Air Cadet Central for a couple of years, reading the posts with interest. The people on here have a vast spectrum of knowledge and some are able to research to some depths the variety of legislation and situations that occur with in the peculiarities of the organisation, for example the excellent and well researched post whether VR(T) officers are subject to call up.
Legislation is changed all the time and the ACO sometimes is either slow to pick up on the changes or unaware the changes even effect us. With the amount of legislations changes, statutory instruments, orders in council etc it is no wonder that it is difficult to keep up. Having researched legislation in another area I am well aware that what is black and white in one section gets blurred to shade of grey by another section (or even a completely unrelated act!!).
I’m not an expert in charities law nor am I lawyer so I will not dispute your knowledge or experience in the matter. However when anyone presents something to me claiming a particular rule or legislation I always ask the question “What does the regulations or law actually say?” Not “it doesn’t say you can’t”, not “it implies this” or “there’s a blanket exemption but its very complicated” - What does it actually say? - it is very easy to find a single statement and use it to build an entire case only to find out that single statement doesn’t apply in the situation in question due to some other random act.
All legislation is available online, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?title=Charities%20Act%202006
Someone earlier said about raising an ACP with an AP - I would respectively say Call and request the relevant quotes from primary legislation.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=7650]Veritas,
All legislation is available online, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?title=Charities%20Act%202006
[/quote]
Which has been updates in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/contents
[quote=“Baldrick” post=7634]Veritas appears to be labouring under a misconception from the start that members of a Civilian Welfare Committee are trustees. While this may be true for a very small minority of squadrons who have constituted a valid trust to handle squadron funds. The majority do not have actual trust funds. Instead, I think the real situation for this squadron and many others is that they are an unincorporated association, with no legal personality at all. The CWC cannot be trustees because they are not subject to the strict duties and responsibilities of trustees, nor are they in receipt of the limited benefits.
[/quote]
Veritas is clearly the sacked former chair of the committee, and is now trying in vain to get everyone else to see that he is clearly right, and the rest of the world is wrong.
If a trust fails, what happens to the money? Does the treasury take it all?
One would imagine that funds from the Salmon Trust (should it fail) would revert to 863 Sqn as the Salmon Trust “exists to facilitate the work of 863 (Thurston) Squadron Air Cadets in helping young people in the Thurston area maximise their own potential.”
I was wondering that myself!
[quote=“timmyrah” post=7656][quote=“ex-bawtryboy” post=7654]
Veritas is clearly the sacked former chair of the committee
[/quote]
I was wondering that myself![/quote]
As was I, particularly with the choice of username:
Veritas means Truth in latin
Good question. And it depends on where the money came from, and what it was meant for. Worst case scenario it reverts to the Crown, which is unlikely. More difficult is if it reverted back to the donors.
However, if it was all donated by the Committee itself, it would revert back to the committee’s actual account. Which means the squadron wins in the end.
The alternative comes under the Cy-Près doctrine enables a court or the Charities Commission, where a trust fails, to make a scheme for the application of the property for other charitable purposes as near as possible to those intended by the donor.