I notice it is the ATC GP Fund with the beneficiaries being the ATC and it is changing to Air Cadet Charity. The ATC GP Fund should only be supporting the ATC and not the greater RAFAC. Will the beneficiaries of the Air Cadets charity change to include the CCF.
to take a well known example - The Royal British Legion and Poppy Appeal
Note the “and” - they are two separate organisations, one charitable (Poppy Appeal) the other a Membership organisation (The RBL).
People often don’t realise this and see the two as one - no surprise given the obvious link and connection.
But is also why there is so much confusion and bad taste in people’s mouths when they see the RBL spending money on non-charitable items - such as the new logo (Daily Mail article - poor reporting but it has a catchy headline and so grabs attention) it was not charitable money (money destined for charitable purpose) that was spent, but from the RBL pot - raised via membership fees, legacy funds and other such incomes.
the charity commission is in place to stop the misuse of such funds - See the Captain Tom story in the recent press - all of the money he raised was intended for charity, any spenditure that was not in the name it was collected for is fraudulant.
The Poppy Appeal has very low “running costs” as the RBL pick up the tab.
What many don’t know is you can help the Poppy Appeal without being a member of the RBL, indeed “Poppy Appeal Organisers” those who arrange collection tins, buckets and poppy boxes to be on the streets and in shop tills and businesses have no obligation to be an RBL Member.
You’ve hit another important point there too; the difference between restricted and unrestricted funds.
It is possible to make donations to charities and specify that it is subject to being spent only on certain activities. Theoretically, a donation could be made to the Air Cadet Charity and the donor could stipulate that the money is only to be spent on the provision of flying activities.
I’d be curious to see how the charity world mitigate that, if say every cadets’ parents decided to impose those terms on their donation (subs).
I suspect the subs will be payable directly to HQAC, who would then issue a grant to the Air Cadet Charity (this would mean subs wouldn’t be considered a donation), but it’ll be interesting to see if that’s been thought of.
but subs are not a donation. it isn’t voluntary to pay it or a voluntary amount, or indeed over a voluntary timeframe.
If however someone donated £5000 to the organisation then yes they could legitimately say “this must be spent on X”
Our Squadron has had that recently with a Tesco blue coin charity scheme - the submission was for updated IT (new laptops) and so what we must spend the money on.
on a previous Squadron we had a grant for band instruments - the trouble being the CFAV who submitted the grant application left by the time the money arrived, and no one was interested or knowledgable enough to know how to spend it - and any interested Cadets that CFAV had recruited had also left or were about to. I think we ended up giving the money back as we couldn’t spend it in the manner it was intended
At the risk of derailment and as someone close to being in the know, this is the press and general public adding 2 and 2 and coming up with 5.
Did people not realise that they already lived in one of the biggest houses in their village before all the fun and games? Breaching planning conditions isn’t the same as misappropriation of funds and paying someone a salary is typical practice in charity circles as shown above!
Thankfully, else I’d be unemployed.
And me! Charities paying staff isn’t new.
The issue is people like granting or donating money for the cause, it is often much harder to get money in to pay for back office costs like admin, data, HR, finance etc.
Back on topic:
I note for the first time they have more specifically mentioned sqns who are charities in their own right, not just wings and regions, and so my hope is they don’t do what they seemed to be trying before and forcing everyone to adopt this structure “to protect them”
I think it was always pretty apparent she was in it for self-promotion.
It seems pretty cut-and-dry that they’ve been misusing funds. She even claimed in an interview that Capt Tom “wanted his family to benefit from the release of his books” but the blurb and foreword clearly says he’s excited to continue earning money for charity long after he’s gone.
Yeah nah, you’re wrong.
Zero mis-appropriation of funds.
You know better than someone’s daughter their wishes? (bearing in mind it was a ghost writer for the book)
Out of the £35m raised for NHS Charities, not a single penny was given for extra security, damage caused by news crews and plenty of others. To the point that NHS Charities didn’t ever actually thank the family, Boris did, Beckham did but NHS Charities didn’t. The fundraising efforts (pre Cpt-Tom Foundation) cost the family.
We all know the media lie and twist the truth about almost everything yet this one thing they’re correct on?
The BBC reporting itself was impartial however they did add fuel to the fire by keep reporting on things that are typically quite insignificant (i.e. private citizen has breached planning consent).
Back on topic however, it’s good that some progress is being made and will be interesting to see what RAFAC will look like in 5 years from the impact of this.