"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
I would have a lot more sympathy with the VAT on school fees stupidity if it was part of a root-and-branch look at the charitable sector. A tidy-up and removal of charitable status from many of the grifters would be of an advantage to society.
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
A quick step towards addressing abuse of charitable status might be government providing a whistleblowing service.
It might be the least bureacratic option - but it would need someone like @Cyclefree tonlead it.
While a large proportion of those who work in charities do so for the best of motives, quite a number don't. And not a few charities have poor governance and completely inadequate controls on management.
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
A quick step towards addressing abuse of charitable status might be government providing a whistleblowing service.
It might be the least bureacratic option - but it would need someone like @Cyclefree tonlead it.
While a large proportion of those who work in charities do so for the best of motives, quite a number don't. And not a few charities have poor governance and completely inadequate controls on management.
Kids Company should have been the high profile wake-up call.
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
I would have a lot more sympathy with the VAT on school fees stupidity if it was part of a root-and-branch look at the charitable sector. A tidy-up and removal of charitable status from many of the grifters would be of an advantage to society.
We have a vindictive, nasty and hypocritical government.
One of my pet hates are people doing an 'adventure' (say, trekking to Everest base camp), and raising money for charity as they do so. Except they take their expenses for the trip out of the money raised.
That's wrong IMO.
(For clarity, when I've raised money for charity in the past, I've tried to ensure that the money raised is very separate from what I spend doing the thing, and in one large case, had its own bank account. If people give money to the charity, it goes to the charity. If someone buys me a beer, well, it goes to me. )
That's a good piece. It shows precisely why the legislation is needed and explains a big part of why University Vice-Chancellors resisted; they need the income from Chinese overseas students to be viable.
One of my pet hates are people doing an 'adventure' (say, trekking to Everest base camp), and raising money for charity as they do so. Except they take their expenses for the trip out of the money raised.
That's wrong IMO.
(For clarity, when I've raised money for charity in the past, I've tried to ensure that the money raised is very separate from what I spend doing the thing, and in one large case, had its own bank account. If people give money to the charity, it goes to the charity. If someone buys me a beer, well, it goes to me. )
Even if they pay for the trip themselves, sourpuss that I am, I do resent being expected to stump up for charity if someone is doing something highly enjoyable, e.g. a trip to Machu Picchu or a cycle ride round Suffolk, when their main hobby is clycling. The comedian Henning Wehn did a riff on this saying he would like someone to sponsor him for a charity for a holiday lying on a sunlounger in the Med.
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
I would have a lot more sympathy with the VAT on school fees stupidity if it was part of a root-and-branch look at the charitable sector. A tidy-up and removal of charitable status from many of the grifters would be of an advantage to society.
We have a vindictive, nasty and hypocritical government.
But, hey-ho. That's democracy.
Starmer is going to put them out of power for a generation. Just rejoice at that news.
By rhe way CR, did you catch the Speccie leadership interviews? What did you think?
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
A quick step towards addressing abuse of charitable status might be government providing a whistleblowing service.
It might be the least bureacratic option - but it would need someone like @Cyclefree tonlead it.
While a large proportion of those who work in charities do so for the best of motives, quite a number don't. And not a few charities have poor governance and completely inadequate controls on management.
I manage to be a Trustee without embezzling anything, in fact, it costs me money.
The key thing is the ethics and leadership of the Chair/CEO of the Trust who sets the tone. Good governance is also key, and requires effort and is somewhat time-consuming, but good people asking good questions - who are supported in doing so - gets you a long way.
One of my pet hates are people doing an 'adventure' (say, trekking to Everest base camp), and raising money for charity as they do so. Except they take their expenses for the trip out of the money raised.
That's wrong IMO.
(For clarity, when I've raised money for charity in the past, I've tried to ensure that the money raised is very separate from what I spend doing the thing, and in one large case, had its own bank account. If people give money to the charity, it goes to the charity. If someone buys me a beer, well, it goes to me. )
Even if they pay for the trip themselves, sourpuss that I am, I do resent being expected to stump up for charity if someone is doing something highly enjoyable, e.g. a trip to Machu Picchu or a cycle ride round Suffolk, when their main hobby is clycling. The comedian Henning Wehn did a riff on this saying he would like someone to sponsor him for a charity for a holiday lying on a sunlounger in the Med.
I probably fall in that category. I raised money for a charity when I spent a year walking the coastline of Britain. I was going to do it anyway, and had the funding (thanks to a redundancy...).
The thing is, people *expected* me to be doing it for charity. Early on in my planning, I had a couple of conversations like this:
"I'm going to spend a year walking the coastline of Britain." "Oh, who're you raising money for?" "No-one probably. I'm doing it for myself." A look of disgust: "Why aren't you raising money for charity?"
I did not 'expect' anyone to sponsor me. If they wanted to give money to the charity, brilliant. If not, cool. If anything, I saw a bit of my role as being raising awareness of the charity.
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
An endorsement from Donald Trump tells you everything you need to know about what is wrong with Keir Starmer's politics and why he isn't fit to be Prime Minister
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
Sion Simon is an idiot. He thought Labour would win an election under Brown, that foot and mouth wasn't a crisis, and that he could write funny sketches.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
One of my pet hates are people doing an 'adventure' (say, trekking to Everest base camp), and raising money for charity as they do so. Except they take their expenses for the trip out of the money raised.
That's wrong IMO.
(For clarity, when I've raised money for charity in the past, I've tried to ensure that the money raised is very separate from what I spend doing the thing, and in one large case, had its own bank account. If people give money to the charity, it goes to the charity. If someone buys me a beer, well, it goes to me. )
Even if they pay for the trip themselves, sourpuss that I am, I do resent being expected to stump up for charity if someone is doing something highly enjoyable, e.g. a trip to Machu Picchu or a cycle ride round Suffolk, when their main hobby is clycling. The comedian Henning Wehn did a riff on this saying he would like someone to sponsor him for a charity for a holiday lying on a sunlounger in the Med.
I probably fall in that category. I raised money for a charity when I spent a year walking the coastline of Britain. I was going to do it anyway, and had the funding (thanks to a redundancy...).
The thing is, people *expected* me to be doing it for charity. Early on in my planning, I had a couple of conversations like this:
"I'm going to spend a year walking the coastline of Britain." "Oh, who're you raising money for?" "No-one probably. I'm doing it for myself." A look of disgust: "Why aren't you raising money for charity?"
I did not 'expect' anyone to sponsor me. If they wanted to give money to the charity, brilliant. If not, cool. If anything, I saw a bit of my role as being raising awareness of the charity.
I'd like to do that walk too, JJ, along the English coastal path.
Perhaps the most dangerous minister in the cabinet after the Chancellor.
Will no journalist ask him just how much energy prices should rise for the average household compared to a 2021 baseline, to fund his accelerated Net Zero fantasy?
He clearly doesn’t care about the energy cost to the average manufacturing business, he’s happy to see those all offshored on the altar of reducing UK carbon emissions.
British companies are paying the highest electricity prices of anywhere in the developed world, official data has shown.
The cost of power for industrial businesses has jumped 124pc in just five years, according to the Government’s figures, catapulting the UK to the top of international league tables.
It is now about 50pc more expensive than in Germany and France, and four times as expensive as in the US.
The figures will fuel concerns about the future of UK industry amid warnings that high energy prices are crippling domestic manufacturers.
They underline the challenge facing Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who wants industrial businesses to switch away from gas to electricity-powered processes.
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
Sion Simon is an idiot. He thought Labour would win an election under Brown, that foot and mouth wasn't a crisis, and that he could write funny sketches.
In all of these he was tragically misguided.
I think we all know he's an idiot, but that's not really relevant to this.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
However, it looks like the Mail have got a new toy to play with, with the highlights of Boris's book to run.
Does this work to the Conservatives' advantage, or against it? Presumably, not all the revelations can be as rubbish as trying to stop the Sussexes leaving the UK?
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
I would have a lot more sympathy with the VAT on school fees stupidity if it was part of a root-and-branch look at the charitable sector. A tidy-up and removal of charitable status from many of the grifters would be of an advantage to society.
We have a vindictive, nasty and hypocritical government.
But, hey-ho. That's democracy.
Starmer is going to put them out of power for a generation. Just rejoice at that news.
By rhe way CR, did you catch the Speccie leadership interviews? What did you think?
Thanks. Still can't bear to turn my attention to it.
I know that doesn't bode well, and I'm not doing my job.
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
Intended by who? Is this Labour's equivalent of the shadowy cabal that Nadine Dorries exposed pulling the strings of the Conservative Party? Is it the Jews? Is it guacamole? Is this why Baroness Warsi resigned yesterday?
Perhaps the most dangerous minister in the cabinet after the Chancellor.
Will no journalist ask him just how much energy prices should rise for the average household compared to a 2021 baseline, to fund his accelerated Net Zero fantasy?
He clearly doesn’t care about the energy cost to the average manufacturing business, he’s happy to see those all offshored on the altar of reducing UK carbon emissions.
British companies are paying the highest electricity prices of anywhere in the developed world, official data has shown.
The cost of power for industrial businesses has jumped 124pc in just five years, according to the Government’s figures, catapulting the UK to the top of international league tables.
It is now about 50pc more expensive than in Germany and France, and four times as expensive as in the US.
The figures will fuel concerns about the future of UK industry amid warnings that high energy prices are crippling domestic manufacturers.
They underline the challenge facing Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who wants industrial businesses to switch away from gas to electricity-powered processes.
And if the Telegraph ever finds out who was responsible, they're going to jolly well given them what-for...
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
One of my pet hates are people doing an 'adventure' (say, trekking to Everest base camp), and raising money for charity as they do so. Except they take their expenses for the trip out of the money raised.
That's wrong IMO.
(For clarity, when I've raised money for charity in the past, I've tried to ensure that the money raised is very separate from what I spend doing the thing, and in one large case, had its own bank account. If people give money to the charity, it goes to the charity. If someone buys me a beer, well, it goes to me. )
Even if they pay for the trip themselves, sourpuss that I am, I do resent being expected to stump up for charity if someone is doing something highly enjoyable, e.g. a trip to Machu Picchu or a cycle ride round Suffolk, when their main hobby is clycling. The comedian Henning Wehn did a riff on this saying he would like someone to sponsor him for a charity for a holiday lying on a sunlounger in the Med.
I probably fall in that category. I raised money for a charity when I spent a year walking the coastline of Britain. I was going to do it anyway, and had the funding (thanks to a redundancy...).
The thing is, people *expected* me to be doing it for charity. Early on in my planning, I had a couple of conversations like this:
"I'm going to spend a year walking the coastline of Britain." "Oh, who're you raising money for?" "No-one probably. I'm doing it for myself." A look of disgust: "Why aren't you raising money for charity?"
I did not 'expect' anyone to sponsor me. If they wanted to give money to the charity, brilliant. If not, cool. If anything, I saw a bit of my role as being raising awareness of the charity.
I'd like to do that walk too, JJ, along the English coastal path.
Be interested to hear about your experiences.
I'll PM you. It's all on the web.
(Annoyingly, Google have inserted adverts randomly all over the pages. I'll correct that when I get a round tuit.)
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
Sion Simon is an idiot. He thought Labour would win an election under Brown, that foot and mouth wasn't a crisis, and that he could write funny sketches.
In all of these he was tragically misguided.
I think we all know he's an idiot, but that's not really relevant to this.
I think it's entirely relevant to make this logical progression:
1) Sion Simon claims something implausible.
2) Sion Simon is an idiot.
3) Therefore, Sion Simon is probably talking bullshit.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
In some ways, it's a similar dynamic to Boris DS.
If you are a doughty, patriotic right winger, Starmer is manifestly unsuitable for the job. Much as wet Conservatives and anyone to the left of them felt about Boris.
And yet both won. And the questions each success raises are pretty troubling. Why couldn't the forces of rationality beat Boris before he had trashed the joint? How did the Conservative government 2019-24 screw up to such an extent that Starmer could walk into Downing Street basically unopposed?
So we get the derangement, and even the fantastical plans that something para-democratic (the Supreme Court, Guido's blog) would somehow stop them and save us all.
It didn't then, and I very much doubt it will now.
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
That's an interesting conspiracy theory, but these sorts of things are really, really hard to do and hide. It's not as though it was a secret that Brown was going to take over from Blair; or that Johnson had his chums undermining May at every possible opportunity.
The problem is that Streeting was (and is) not an obvious choice, and many other Labour MPs will covet Starmer's position. *If* such a plan was real, then people would have known. And it would have been in the interests of some to both publicise it and torpedo Streeting's chances.
"The number of betting adverts during the opening weekend of the Premier League season almost trebled compared to last year, new research says."
"...a 165% increase on the opening weekend a year ago."
Not sure I'd count 165% increase as 'almost trebling'...
Luckily, understanding how numbers work is not important at all when reporting news in any way. Ahem.
It's rubbish anyway because they are mainly talking about how often a player wearing his team sponsor's logo ran into camera shot. 29,000 times, apparently.
One of my pet hates are people doing an 'adventure' (say, trekking to Everest base camp), and raising money for charity as they do so. Except they take their expenses for the trip out of the money raised.
That's wrong IMO.
(For clarity, when I've raised money for charity in the past, I've tried to ensure that the money raised is very separate from what I spend doing the thing, and in one large case, had its own bank account. If people give money to the charity, it goes to the charity. If someone buys me a beer, well, it goes to me. )
I don't see it as much these days as, say, a decade ago but I couldn't agree more and never once gave to any of them.
I was of the view, rightly or wrongly, they were doing it to get people to pay for their holiday and the charidee element was secondary. I am sure some were altruistic but a fair few were just freeloading.
And the donation they would want would not be a quid or two either.
One of my pet hates are people doing an 'adventure' (say, trekking to Everest base camp), and raising money for charity as they do so. Except they take their expenses for the trip out of the money raised.
That's wrong IMO.
(For clarity, when I've raised money for charity in the past, I've tried to ensure that the money raised is very separate from what I spend doing the thing, and in one large case, had its own bank account. If people give money to the charity, it goes to the charity. If someone buys me a beer, well, it goes to me. )
Even if they pay for the trip themselves, sourpuss that I am, I do resent being expected to stump up for charity if someone is doing something highly enjoyable, e.g. a trip to Machu Picchu or a cycle ride round Suffolk, when their main hobby is clycling. The comedian Henning Wehn did a riff on this saying he would like someone to sponsor him for a charity for a holiday lying on a sunlounger in the Med.
With this logic, you can extended it to anything. Running a marathon ? , but you like running.
I get the argument about not wanting to pay the cost of someones holiday but if they are paying themselves, whats the issue?
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
In some ways, it's a similar dynamic to Boris DS.
If you are a doughty, patriotic right winger, Starmer is manifestly unsuitable for the job. Much as wet Conservatives and anyone to the left of them felt about Boris.
And yet both won. And the questions each success raises are pretty troubling. Why couldn't the forces of rationality beat Boris before he had trashed the joint? How did the Conservative government 2019-24 screw up to such an extent that Starmer could walk into Downing Street basically unopposed?
So we get the derangement, and even the fantastical plans that something para-democratic (the Supreme Court, Guido's blog) would somehow stop them and save us all.
It didn't then, and I very much doubt it will now.
Hang on. Are you saying Starmer should not be criticised over the way he has acted with these 'donations'?
And are you saying we cannot make fun of him because of the mess he's made of it?
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
Sion Simon is an idiot. He thought Labour would win an election under Brown, that foot and mouth wasn't a crisis, and that he could write funny sketches.
In all of these he was tragically misguided.
I think we all know he's an idiot, but that's not really relevant to this.
I think it's entirely relevant to make this logical progression:
1) Sion Simon claims something implausible.
2) Sion Simon is an idiot.
3) Therefore, Sion Simon is probably talking bullshit.
Doesn't necessarily make him wrong though. A few people here saw him as the "Kinnock" figure in labour. I think what he claims may well be plausible in this case.
His "WebCameron" parody youtube videos were incredibly embarrasing.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's like Covid. You think its on its way out and then it comes back in a concentrated burst from a particular region
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's a joke.
Wasn't it meant as a parody to the Naomi Campbell story. That is how I read it.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
In some ways, it's a similar dynamic to Boris DS.
If you are a doughty, patriotic right winger, Starmer is manifestly unsuitable for the job. Much as wet Conservatives and anyone to the left of them felt about Boris.
And yet both won. And the questions each success raises are pretty troubling. Why couldn't the forces of rationality beat Boris before he had trashed the joint? How did the Conservative government 2019-24 screw up to such an extent that Starmer could walk into Downing Street basically unopposed?
So we get the derangement, and even the fantastical plans that something para-democratic (the Supreme Court, Guido's blog) would somehow stop them and save us all.
It didn't then, and I very much doubt it will now.
The way to address that is to discuss whether they are any good at governing, rather than closing down the discussion, well they won the election.
Boris Johnson was not good; Starmer remains to be seen.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's a joke.
Wasn't it meant as a parody to the Naomi Campbell story. That is how I read it.
Mon père était outilleur
Exactly. Which was pretty much the preceding post.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
Some people have been waiting 14 years to have a pop at a current Labour PM, they are just a little over excited at the moment.
From yougov:
You said of the Labour government "I expected them to do well, but I have been disappointed". What is the main / biggest reason you think this? % of 607 Britons who gave this answer to a prior question
It is reported tonight that Reeves is to tone down the rhetoric on non dons
The i is reporting warning to Reeves that if she changes the rules on borrowing longer and higher interest rates will happen affecting mortgages
A couple in Scotland have launched a review on WFA which if successful will mean it has to be reinstated for this year
Schools warn thousands of pupils will have to go to state schools because of the vat on private schools
It seems the tax raising promises will fail to raise the money they have promised so where does she go now ?
And apparently Starmer has called the row over the penthouse farcical
Which if it's successful everyone who works for a living should give up and move abroad.
There is a highly detailed debate about the precise eligibility for WFP (not WFA) to be had, and I'm ready for that with my models and my data. But the idea that any policy that reduces the incomes of older people, however rich, can be challenged on age discrimination grounds is farcical, and a damning demonstration of the gerontocracy in which we now live.
There are processes to follow and if Reeves has done that then the WFA will be means tested this year
I assume you support following the rules
G, he is a whiner with plenty who wants more at expense of poor pensioners, loaded but still greedy for more from poor pensioners. You would need to count your fingers after shaking hands with some of the chisellers on here, swinging bricks for hearts.
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
Sion Simon is an idiot. He thought Labour would win an election under Brown, that foot and mouth wasn't a crisis, and that he could write funny sketches.
In all of these he was tragically misguided.
I think we all know he's an idiot, but that's not really relevant to this.
I think it's entirely relevant to make this logical progression:
1) Sion Simon claims something implausible.
2) Sion Simon is an idiot.
3) Therefore, Sion Simon is probably talking bullshit.
Doesn't necessarily make him wrong though. A few people here saw him as the "Kinnock" figure in labour. I think what he claims may well be plausible in this case.
His "WebCameron" parody youtube videos were incredibly embarrasing.
It's still nonsense to suggest that's *why* he was elected. He was elected because he was the only vaguely plausible candidate in a field where his rival was a deranged racist aged about 12 with the intellect of a stuffed donkey. And the reason he was standing is because nobody else who wasn't mad as a box of frogs could plausibly go forward to the membership.
Yes, most people thought he would do a Kinnock. Me included. But that doesn't mean it was some grand plan or conspiracy that was sodded up by Massive Johnson and Lettuce Lady.
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
Sion Simon is an idiot. He thought Labour would win an election under Brown, that foot and mouth wasn't a crisis, and that he could write funny sketches.
In all of these he was tragically misguided.
I think we all know he's an idiot, but that's not really relevant to this.
I think it's entirely relevant to make this logical progression:
1) Sion Simon claims something implausible.
2) Sion Simon is an idiot.
3) Therefore, Sion Simon is probably talking bullshit.
In this case, I'm not sure he is. Getting things right by accident to us all.
I wouldn't be surprised is Starmer was primarily chosen in 2020 as an old Pope by young cardinals. A Michael Howard figure, there to fix up the party (because boy, it needed fixing) with the central case being that he lost in 2023 or so by a smaller margin than Jez before handing over to the next Labour PM who could win in 2028. No shame in that. It's just that events created an unexpected opportunity.
(Some echoes of the "Maggie was just meant to be the stalking horse in 1975" trope.)
Do the Conservatives have a Starmer figure, even if they have realised that it's what they need? It doesn't really look like it.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
Some people have been waiting 14 years to have a pop at a current Labour PM, they are just a little over excited at the moment.
From yougov:
You said of the Labour government "I expected them to do well, but I have been disappointed". What is the main / biggest reason you think this? % of 607 Britons who gave this answer to a prior question
Receiving gifts scandal = 2%
Its a Telegraph/Guido/CBeebies bubble thing.
People might think receiving gifts isn't directly relevant to how they perform in office, but are still disgusted by it.
It's definitely cut through on the WhatsApp chats.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's like Covid. You think its on its way out and then it comes back in a concentrated burst from a particular region
I know, it's like people doing the two minutes hate but have no off switch.
Not that I have ever been a Starmer fan, just fed up with the endless negativity.
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's a joke.
Wasn't it meant as a parody to the Naomi Campbell story. That is how I read it.
Mon père était outilleur
Exactly. Which was pretty much the preceding post.
People are *way* overkeen to defend Starmer.
Its not so much defending Starmer as a bit of curiousity and surprise at the intensity a significant minority on here have latched onto what is mostly a nothing burger.
FWIW - Starmer clearly lost the PR battle on this one but it is still an irrelevance. Can he turn around the economy is what will make or break them.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's a joke.
Wasn't it meant as a parody to the Naomi Campbell story. That is how I read it.
Mon père était outilleur
Exactly. Which was pretty much the preceding post.
People are *way* overkeen to defend Starmer.
Some have even flounced as they cannot handle him being criticised. Same people happy to, rightly, put the boot in to Sunak when he fucked up.
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
Free use of a penthouse thicko, does news not reach your mansion in South of france
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
A quick step towards addressing abuse of charitable status might be government providing a whistleblowing service.
It might be the least bureacratic option - but it would need someone like @Cyclefree tonlead it.
While a large proportion of those who work in charities do so for the best of motives, quite a number don't. And not a few charities have poor governance and completely inadequate controls on management.
I manage to be a Trustee without embezzling anything, in fact, it costs me money.
The key thing is the ethics and leadership of the Chair/CEO of the Trust who sets the tone. Good governance is also key, and requires effort and is somewhat time-consuming, but good people asking good questions - who are supported in doing so - gets you a long way.
Of course; that's how it should work. But I've heard too many stories which say that's not how it works in quite a few charities.
You can't rely on good leadership being the default - and where it's absent, it can be very difficult for an individual member of staff to do anything about it.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's like Covid. You think its on its way out and then it comes back in a concentrated burst from a particular region
I know, it's like people doing the two minutes hate but have no off switch.
Not that I have ever been a Starmer fan, just fed up with the endless negativity.
I must have missed your feeling fed up at the endless negativity when the Blue team were in charge.
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's like Covid. You think its on its way out and then it comes back in a concentrated burst from a particular region
I know, it's like people doing the two minutes hate but have no off switch.
Not that I have ever been a Starmer fan, just fed up with the endless negativity.
I must have missed your feeling fed up at the endless negativity when the Blue team were in charge.
There were brief intermittent bright spells. May had a spell where she had a lot of support. Rishi got a couple of months goodwill as he wasn't Truss before it became clear he wasn't actually much better.
I heard that the former MP and PB fave Sion Simon has propounded the theory that SKS was never intended for the PM role - he was meant to banish the left, and then hand over somehow to Streeting. The Tories being so shite ruined the plan.
Intended by who? Is this Labour's equivalent of the shadowy cabal that Nadine Dorries exposed pulling the strings of the Conservative Party? Is it the Jews? Is it guacamole? Is this why Baroness Warsi resigned yesterday?
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
A quick step towards addressing abuse of charitable status might be government providing a whistleblowing service.
It might be the least bureacratic option - but it would need someone like @Cyclefree tonlead it.
While a large proportion of those who work in charities do so for the best of motives, quite a number don't. And not a few charities have poor governance and completely inadequate controls on management.
I manage to be a Trustee without embezzling anything, in fact, it costs me money.
The key thing is the ethics and leadership of the Chair/CEO of the Trust who sets the tone. Good governance is also key, and requires effort and is somewhat time-consuming, but good people asking good questions - who are supported in doing so - gets you a long way.
Of course; that's how it should work. But I've heard too many stories which say that's not how it works in quite a few charities.
You can't rely on good leadership being the default - and where it's absent, it can be very difficult for an individual member of staff to do anything about it.
The problem comes when the whole point of the charity is to subsidise the lifestyles of those running it. It’s common, almost seen as normal, with American “Foundations” but severely frowned upon under UK charity law.
How the odious woman in the news today hasn’t been totally cancelled by now, I have no idea. I suspect she has a little black book of very powerful people collected over decades.
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
Was it money paid to the Labour Party? They sent a letter asking for funds every day. I gave them £100 early on which I assumed was to cover the election. This could have covered everything from travel PPBs food hotels and everything else involved in a campaign. What i'd like to know is why the use of this penthouse is different from any other Labour Party expense? The two articles don't explain what a Labour Party expense should be used for. So could you explain?
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
A quick step towards addressing abuse of charitable status might be government providing a whistleblowing service.
It might be the least bureacratic option - but it would need someone like @Cyclefree tonlead it.
While a large proportion of those who work in charities do so for the best of motives, quite a number don't. And not a few charities have poor governance and completely inadequate controls on management.
I manage to be a Trustee without embezzling anything, in fact, it costs me money.
The key thing is the ethics and leadership of the Chair/CEO of the Trust who sets the tone. Good governance is also key, and requires effort and is somewhat time-consuming, but good people asking good questions - who are supported in doing so - gets you a long way.
Of course; that's how it should work. But I've heard too many stories which say that's not how it works in quite a few charities.
You can't rely on good leadership being the default - and where it's absent, it can be very difficult for an individual member of staff to do anything about it.
I was told the following - that New Labour looked at trying to remove charitable status from private schools. On more than one occasion.
The biggest blocker was that if you did it by charitable contribution, quite a few schools did (and do) more *free* charitable services than a number of charities. Charities run and liked by the kind of glitterati that Blair & Co. loved.
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's a joke.
Wasn't it meant as a parody to the Naomi Campbell story. That is how I read it.
Mon père était outilleur
Exactly. Which was pretty much the preceding post.
People are *way* overkeen to defend Starmer.
Its not so much defending Starmer as a bit of curiousity and surprise at the intensity a significant minority on here have latched onto what is mostly a nothing burger.
FWIW - Starmer clearly lost the PR battle on this one but it is still an irrelevance. Can he turn around the economy is what will make or break them.
It is not a nothing burger, is it? The hypocrisy alone is massive.
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
Was it money paid to the Labour Party? They sent a letter asking for funds every day. I gave them £100 early on which I assumed was to cover the election. This could have covered everything from travel PPBs food hotels and everything else involved in a campaign. What i'd like to know is why the use of this penthouse is different from any other Labour Party expense? The two articles don't explain what a Labour Party expense should be used for. So could you explain?
"The politician Keir Starmer has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury clothes and apartments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
I see Starmer derangement syndrome is real.
It's a joke.
Wasn't it meant as a parody to the Naomi Campbell story. That is how I read it.
Mon père était outilleur
Exactly. Which was pretty much the preceding post.
People are *way* overkeen to defend Starmer.
Its not so much defending Starmer as a bit of curiousity and surprise at the intensity a significant minority on here have latched onto what is mostly a nothing burger.
FWIW - Starmer clearly lost the PR battle on this one but it is still an irrelevance. Can he turn around the economy is what will make or break them.
Whilst this might be true politically, it is a pretty sordid line of argument. Being good at doing your job should be no defence against being a crook. All the more so when it is not yet clear that Starmer IS good at the job.
I didn't oppose Johnson because he was bad at his job. Indeed there were some aspects of the job he was very good at. I opposed him because he was lying, grifting scumbag. Should we have a different set of criteria for Starmer just because he is playing for the opposing team?
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
Was it money paid to the Labour Party? They sent a letter asking for funds every day. I gave them £100 early on which I assumed was to cover the election. This could have covered everything from travel PPBs food hotels and everything else involved in a campaign. What i'd like to know is why the use of this penthouse is different from any other Labour Party expense? The two articles don't explain what a Labour Party expense should be used for. So could you explain?
Does it have to be 'money' to be buy influence?
That makes no sense. Did my £100 buy influence just not as much? I really don't understand your point and neither I think do you
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
A quick step towards addressing abuse of charitable status might be government providing a whistleblowing service.
It might be the least bureacratic option - but it would need someone like @Cyclefree tonlead it.
While a large proportion of those who work in charities do so for the best of motives, quite a number don't. And not a few charities have poor governance and completely inadequate controls on management.
I manage to be a Trustee without embezzling anything, in fact, it costs me money.
The key thing is the ethics and leadership of the Chair/CEO of the Trust who sets the tone. Good governance is also key, and requires effort and is somewhat time-consuming, but good people asking good questions - who are supported in doing so - gets you a long way.
Of course; that's how it should work. But I've heard too many stories which say that's not how it works in quite a few charities.
You can't rely on good leadership being the default - and where it's absent, it can be very difficult for an individual member of staff to do anything about it.
The problem comes when the whole point of the charity is to subsidise the lifestyles of those running it. It’s common, almost seen as normal, with American “Foundations” but severely frowned upon under UK charity law.
How the odious woman in the news today hasn’t been totally cancelled by now, I have no idea. I suspect she has a little black book of very powerful people collected over decades.
I know of one charity that lobbied for donations from Government(s) and the EU, then used the money to hold conferences at just out of season resorts to lobby for more money. The actual charitable object they promoted…. No, they didn’t do that.
Supported a nice lifestyle for the co-founders. Husband and wife - his&hers Range Rovers parked outside a nice big Georgian house in a fashionable part of London.
As to the lady above, she’s in the New Upper Ten Thousand. The grifting daughter of Sir Tom forgot that she wasn’t in the magic circle.
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
Was it money paid to the Labour Party? They sent a letter asking for funds every day. I gave them £100 early on which I assumed was to cover the election. This could have covered everything from travel PPBs food hotels and everything else involved in a campaign. What i'd like to know is why the use of this penthouse is different from any other Labour Party expense? The two articles don't explain what a Labour Party expense should be used for. So could you explain?
Does it have to be 'money' to be buy influence?
That makes no sense. Did my £100 buy influence just not as much? I really don't understand your point and neither I think do you
I think the point is that £100 buys a tiny bit of influence. £20,000 buys a lot more.
Which is why the rules on gift (cash or in kind) in companies covered by the Bribery Act(s) are as they are - £100 would need some sign off. £20,000 in most places would cause compliance to come say hi - just for reporting being offered it.
"The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees."
"The inquiry found that unauthorised payments totalling £290,000 for consultancy services had been made to Ms Hellmich, which was in breach of the charity’s constitution."
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
I would have a lot more sympathy with the VAT on school fees stupidity if it was part of a root-and-branch look at the charitable sector. A tidy-up and removal of charitable status from many of the grifters would be of an advantage to society.
We have a vindictive, nasty and hypocritical government.
But, hey-ho. That's democracy.
Starmer is going to put them out of power for a generation. Just rejoice at that news.
By rhe way CR, did you catch the Speccie leadership interviews? What did you think?
Thanks. Still can't bear to turn my attention to it.
I know that doesn't bode well, and I'm not doing my job.
I will eventually get there.
I am Team Jenrick anyway, but the boy done good. Keen to hear your thoughts when you have time.
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
Was it money paid to the Labour Party? They sent a letter asking for funds every day. I gave them £100 early on which I assumed was to cover the election. This could have covered everything from travel PPBs food hotels and everything else involved in a campaign. What i'd like to know is why the use of this penthouse is different from any other Labour Party expense? The two articles don't explain what a Labour Party expense should be used for. So could you explain?
Does it have to be 'money' to be buy influence?
That makes no sense. Did my £100 buy influence just not as much? I really don't understand your point and neither I think do you
£100 is nowhere near enough. £100 gets you put on the list of mugs who donate. You are one of thousands. At best, you will be forgotten. At medium, you will be pestered by them for future donations. At worst, you will be pestered by many people (*).
But £20,000 is different. That is a different list. They will care for you. They will nurture you. You may be invited to events; the larger the figure, the greater the events. They will want more money from you, so will want to know what *you* want. And therein lies the start of potential corruption.
And Alli has given far, far more than £20,000 to Labour figures. Apparently, that buys you a voice in candidate selection and a Number 10 pass...
(*) If you give to certain charities, you can suddenly start getting pestered by other charities. It's almost as though the mug list is shared amongst them...
A bad thing for SKS in all this mess is that he cannot keep his family out of it in future. His wife's 'gifts' of expensive clothes means that she is justifiably on the radar; and he himself dragged his son into it with his half-baked excuse over an £20,000 bung.
Could you explain '£20,000 bung'? Who or what organisation was paid this money and what did they receive in return?
Was it money paid to the Labour Party? They sent a letter asking for funds every day. I gave them £100 early on which I assumed was to cover the election. This could have covered everything from travel PPBs food hotels and everything else involved in a campaign. What i'd like to know is why the use of this penthouse is different from any other Labour Party expense? The two articles don't explain what a Labour Party expense should be used for. So could you explain?
Does it have to be 'money' to be buy influence?
That makes no sense. Did my £100 buy influence just not as much? I really don't understand your point and neither I think do you
I think the point is that £100 buys a tiny bit of influence. £20,000 buys a lot more.
Which is why the rules on gift (cash or in kind) in companies covered by the Bribery Act(s) are as they are - £100 would need some sign off. £20,000 in most places would cause compliance to come say hi - just for reporting being offered it.
But they are not the rules for politicians. The Telegraph et al were certainly not suggesting they should be the rules over the last 14 years.
I would like a cap on political donations but Starmer et al taking some football tickets or a room in a flat for a couple of weeks is nothing different to what PMs have done over my lifetime.
Comments
A Charity Commission inquiry found Bungs For Starmer was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on clothes, glasses and accommodation for Starmer.
When asked, Starmer replied: "I am totally entitled to these items. I am a very important person, you know; far more important than you. Did you know my dad was a toolmaker?"
This is like the grifting daughter of Sir Tom. Massive bills for consultancy services.
It might be the least bureacratic option - but it would need someone like @Cyclefree tonlead it.
While a large proportion of those who work in charities do so for the best of motives, quite a number don't. And not a few charities have poor governance and completely inadequate controls on management.
F1: not exactly a shock, but Ricciardo is out, and Lawson is in:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/breaking-ricciardo-to-leave-rb-with-immediate-effect-as-team-get-set-for-mid.1O8CDJ6kYB9VsxpPrbqxX0
But, hey-ho. That's democracy.
One of my pet hates are people doing an 'adventure' (say, trekking to Everest base camp), and raising money for charity as they do so. Except they take their expenses for the trip out of the money raised.
That's wrong IMO.
(For clarity, when I've raised money for charity in the past, I've tried to ensure that the money raised is very separate from what I spend doing the thing, and in one large case, had its own bank account. If people give money to the charity, it goes to the charity. If someone buys me a beer, well, it goes to me.
By rhe way CR, did you catch the Speccie leadership interviews? What did you think?
The key thing is the ethics and leadership of the Chair/CEO of the Trust who sets the tone. Good governance is also key, and requires effort and is somewhat time-consuming, but good people asking good questions - who are supported in doing so - gets you a long way.
The thing is, people *expected* me to be doing it for charity. Early on in my planning, I had a couple of conversations like this:
"I'm going to spend a year walking the coastline of Britain."
"Oh, who're you raising money for?"
"No-one probably. I'm doing it for myself."
A look of disgust: "Why aren't you raising money for charity?"
I did not 'expect' anyone to sponsor me. If they wanted to give money to the charity, brilliant. If not, cool. If anything, I saw a bit of my role as being raising awareness of the charity.
In all of these he was tragically misguided.
Be interested to hear about your experiences.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/26/britain-burdened-most-expensive-electricity-prices-in-world/
British companies are paying the highest electricity prices of anywhere in the developed world, official data has shown.
The cost of power for industrial businesses has jumped 124pc in just five years, according to the Government’s figures, catapulting the UK to the top of international league tables.
It is now about 50pc more expensive than in Germany and France, and four times as expensive as in the US.
The figures will fuel concerns about the future of UK industry amid warnings that high energy prices are crippling domestic manufacturers.
They underline the challenge facing Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who wants industrial businesses to switch away from gas to electricity-powered processes.
Does this work to the Conservatives' advantage, or against it? Presumably, not all the revelations can be as rubbish as trying to stop the Sussexes leaving the UK?
I know that doesn't bode well, and I'm not doing my job.
I will eventually get there.
(Annoyingly, Google have inserted adverts randomly all over the pages. I'll correct that when I get a round tuit.)
1) Sion Simon claims something implausible.
2) Sion Simon is an idiot.
3) Therefore, Sion Simon is probably talking bullshit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4g07v7x70lo
"The number of betting adverts during the opening weekend of the Premier League season almost trebled compared to last year, new research says."
"...a 165% increase on the opening weekend a year ago."
Not sure I'd count 165% increase as 'almost trebling'...
Luckily, understanding how numbers work is not important at all when reporting news in any way. Ahem.
If you are a doughty, patriotic right winger, Starmer is manifestly unsuitable for the job. Much as wet Conservatives and anyone to the left of them felt about Boris.
And yet both won. And the questions each success raises are pretty troubling. Why couldn't the forces of rationality beat Boris before he had trashed the joint? How did the Conservative government 2019-24 screw up to such an extent that Starmer could walk into Downing Street basically unopposed?
So we get the derangement, and even the fantastical plans that something para-democratic (the Supreme Court, Guido's blog) would somehow stop them and save us all.
It didn't then, and I very much doubt it will now.
The problem is that Streeting was (and is) not an obvious choice, and many other Labour MPs will covet Starmer's position. *If* such a plan was real, then people would have known. And it would have been in the interests of some to both publicise it and torpedo Streeting's chances.
I was of the view, rightly or wrongly, they were doing it to get people to pay for their holiday and the charidee element was secondary. I am sure some were altruistic but a fair few were just freeloading.
And the donation they would want would not be a quid or two either.
I get the argument about not wanting to pay the cost of someones holiday but if they are paying themselves, whats the issue?
why resent it ? Why not just say no.
And are you saying we cannot make fun of him because of the mess he's made of it?
His "WebCameron" parody youtube videos were incredibly embarrasing.
Mon père était outilleur
Boris Johnson was not good; Starmer remains to be seen.
People are *way* overkeen to defend Starmer.
From yougov:
You said of the Labour government "I expected them to do well, but I have been disappointed". What is the main / biggest reason you think this? % of 607 Britons who gave this answer to a prior question
Receiving gifts scandal = 2%
Its a Telegraph/Guido/CBeebies bubble thing.
Yes, most people thought he would do a Kinnock. Me included. But that doesn't mean it was some grand plan or conspiracy that was sodded up by Massive Johnson and Lettuce Lady.
I wouldn't be surprised is Starmer was primarily chosen in 2020 as an old Pope by young cardinals. A Michael Howard figure, there to fix up the party (because boy, it needed fixing) with the central case being that he lost in 2023 or so by a smaller margin than Jez before handing over to the next Labour PM who could win in 2028. No shame in that. It's just that events created an unexpected opportunity.
(Some echoes of the "Maggie was just meant to be the stalking horse in 1975" trope.)
Do the Conservatives have a Starmer figure, even if they have realised that it's what they need? It doesn't really look like it.
It's definitely cut through on the WhatsApp chats.
NEW THREAD
Not that I have ever been a Starmer fan, just fed up with the endless negativity.
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-he-took-20-000-donation-after-promise-to-protect-family-in-sky-news-interview-13221892
Or if you prefer a right-wing rag:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/25/keir-starmer-flat-labour-donor-waheed-alli-son-gcses
FWIW - Starmer clearly lost the PR battle on this one but it is still an irrelevance. Can he turn around the economy is what will make or break them.
But I've heard too many stories which say that's not how it works in quite a few charities.
You can't rely on good leadership being the default - and where it's absent, it can be very difficult for an individual member of staff to do anything about it.
They are everywhere.
How the odious woman in the news today hasn’t been totally cancelled by now, I have no idea. I suspect she has a little black book of very powerful people collected over decades.
The biggest blocker was that if you did it by charitable contribution, quite a few schools did (and do) more *free* charitable services than a number of charities. Charities run and liked by the kind of glitterati that Blair & Co. loved.
So it’s basically Der Sturmer, reborn.
I didn't oppose Johnson because he was bad at his job. Indeed there were some aspects of the job he was very good at. I opposed him because he was lying, grifting scumbag. Should we have a different set of criteria for Starmer just because he is playing for the opposing team?
Supported a nice lifestyle for the co-founders. Husband and wife - his&hers Range Rovers parked outside a nice big Georgian house in a fashionable part of London.
As to the lady above, she’s in the New Upper Ten Thousand. The grifting daughter of Sir Tom forgot that she wasn’t in the magic circle.
Which is why the rules on gift (cash or in kind) in companies covered by the Bribery Act(s) are as they are - £100 would need some sign off. £20,000 in most places would cause compliance to come say hi - just for reporting being offered it.
But £20,000 is different. That is a different list. They will care for you. They will nurture you. You may be invited to events; the larger the figure, the greater the events. They will want more money from you, so will want to know what *you* want. And therein lies the start of potential corruption.
And Alli has given far, far more than £20,000 to Labour figures. Apparently, that buys you a voice in candidate selection and a Number 10 pass...
(*) If you give to certain charities, you can suddenly start getting pestered by other charities. It's almost as though the mug list is shared amongst them...
I would like a cap on political donations but Starmer et al taking some football tickets or a room in a flat for a couple of weeks is nothing different to what PMs have done over my lifetime.