ICO investigation reveals how charities have been exploiting supporters

[SpeedFreak]

Suspended sentence for what criminal offence exactly?

I am not referring to this in a legal capacity, more that they remain in a period of review for compliance, after which the threat is lifted if compliance is demonstrated.

 

[Resident]

IMO a charity should NOT be given charity status unless it can prove that at LEAST 80% of donations goes towards the actual cause.

There was a well known charity, usually organises sexist fun run (women only, however try organising a men only event and you'd be hung, drawn and quartered) that was caught out pushing 10% of funds raised to the actual cause, the rest disappeared in mysterious "Administration costs"

Charities should also be forced to publish public earnings and expenditures at the end of each tax year.

 

[JonJ678]

The RSPCA is important. It's competently run, certainly by the standards of other charities, with a clear plan on how to make life less crappy for animals mistreated by people.

I think I agree with Resident - being obligated to publish detailed accounts probably would kill off some of the inefficiency in the sector.

They are not corporate businesses. The hint is in the name "charity", they are literally not corporations. They're seriously restricted on how they can spend money (it has to be inline with their objects, roughly analogous to a constitution). They do need to raise money, and are somewhat limited in how they do so, but this is solely in order to further their objects. For the RSPCA, these are along the lines of better treatment of animals.

I'm completely indifferent about the "wealth screening" stuff and irritated by the ICO fining them, probably because I consider the RSPCA to have the moral high ground over the ICO.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Better bump up those CEO wages, cause we know how hard working for a charity must be.

 

[Burnsy2023]

The RSPCA is important. It's competently run, certainly by the standards of other charities, with a clear plan on how to make life less crappy for animals mistreated by people.

I think I agree with Resident - being obligated to publish detailed accounts probably would kill off some of the inefficiency in the sector.

They are not corporate businesses. The hint is in the name "charity", they are literally not corporations. They're seriously restricted on how they can spend money (it has to be inline with their objects, roughly analogous to a constitution). They do need to raise money, and are somewhat limited in how they do so, but this is solely in order to further their objects. For the RSPCA, these are along the lines of better treatment of animals.

I'm completely indifferent about the "wealth screening" stuff and irritated by the ICO fining them, probably because I consider the RSPCA to have the moral high ground over the ICO.

So they RSPCA should be able to break the law and do whatever they want because you agree with the cause?

 

[Rainmaker]

So they RSPCA should be able to break the law and do whatever they want because you agree with the cause?

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest unfortunately. The ArsePCA actively encourage their workers to break the law. They have convictions ranging from breaking and entering to blackmail and were convicted of perverting the course of justice. Their own chief officer admitted in court that they encourage 'inspectors' (notice the use of rank to imitate officers of the Crown) to break the law. They are a scourge and need closing down. They have even sued people for using their name (the initials are a trademark) in written text criticising them, hence my adoption of the now popular vernacular ArsePCA.

When you allow a charity to become judge, jury and executioner you have a clear conflict of interest. They ought not be allowed to be the investigating and (private) prosecuting party in a case. The state has separation between the police and CPS for a reason, but no such oversight currently exists for the cancer that is the ArsePCA. Thankfully the government is now making noises about putting an end to their practices in this regard.

 

[ChroniC]

All they looked at was a charity using what it could (albeit illegally) to make more money. Hardly a worth while practice given it was supposedly to make more money for the needy.
What should instead have been investigated was how that money was wasted and spent on the top brass, company running and the like, so that we can finally have a true picture on how much the companies are conning you to make money for themselves and not for the needy.

 

[neil_g]

The RSPCA is important. It's incompetently run, with a clear plan on how to make the most publicity that it can use to get more donations from a few high profile cases of animals mistreated by people.

FYP.

in my experience they do not care about the small fry cases that won't get headlines.

 

[peterwalkley]

One I forgot earlier. Several charity callers have claimed to me over the years that the telephone preference service rules don't apply to them .... They are wrong.