When is a charity not a charity?

[magnetman]

Enforcement Enforcement Enforcement. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Enforcement Enforcement Enforcement. 

Yawohl ! Yahoo!

Yabadabadoo! 

10 hours ago, Midnight said:

I think this just about sums up where we are 
https://www.narrowboatworld.com/14413-what-is-a-charity
"...a decade of neglect has left boaters with a canal system that is arguably not fit for purpose"

Midnight, let’s stuff this miserableness from others. 
Let’s keep boating on as much as we can and prove these doom mongers they’re wrong.  
Dunno why we spend so much time listen to the head line seeking  mother F’s. 
WE’re the future not the twits that have given up and moan like a ghost’s fart. 
 

Keep using it and keep the pressure on to maintain it. 
 

✊

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

An update - 

https://narrowboatworld.com/14439-not-a-charity

[Scholar Gypsy]

5 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

An update - 

https://narrowboatworld.com/14439-not-a-charity

I'd be interested in understanding this advice: "Having received advice that CaRT were aware of the ONS classification and obliged to report it under charitable law". It's certainly the case that if the Trustees would need to report if they felt they had taken decisions contrary to their charitable objects (under the serious incident reporting protocols), but I am struggling to see why Trustees would be obliged to report the ONS decision as such to the CC.  The latter will know that there are many charities that are classified to the public sector, and have been for many years.

 

It's also the case that there could be charities that ONS classify to the private sector but still fall foul of one of the tests in the Commission's guidance,  RR7.  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/358888/rr7text.pdf  - and as I say above in that case the Trustees would be required to report this.

I'm also unclear quite what you are trying to achieve?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

You still appear to be hung up on the public/private issue. Try rereading on the basis of governmental control.

 

I have learnt in the past 24 hours that CRT have admitted that they do have a problem with charitable status which  they claim they can address.

[Scholar Gypsy]

2 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

You still appear to be hung up on the public/private issue. Try rereading on the basis of governmental control.

 

I have learnt in the past 24 hours that CRT have admitted that they do have a problem with charitable status which  they claim they can address.

Not at all. As I said, it would be possible for a charity to be classified to the private sector but still fall foul of the CC guidance (I think that's all it is) on government control.  Your original article claimed that the classification to the public sector in and of itself causes a problem for charitable status: I still think that is a red herring. The Commission will make their own judgement under their legislation and case law, looking at the Governance arrangements for CRT. They might even offer advice to CRT on what to do ...

[Creaking Gate]

Question: When is a charity not a charity?  Answer: When its a charitable trust. 

 

What a complete nonsense thread/post. 

 

The question should be: When is a charity not a charity?  ....When you want to be all negative about CRT again. (but don't have much else, except stoppages to moan about).

[Allan(nb Albert)]

10 minutes ago, Creaking Gate said:

Question: When is a charity not a charity?  Answer: When its a charitable trust. 

 

What a complete nonsense thread/post. 

 

The question should be: When is a charity not a charity?  ....When you want to be all negative about CRT again. (but don't have much else, except stoppages to moan about).

You appear to be very confused.

 

The "charitable trust" in this case is the Waterways Infrastructure Trust. CRT is currently first and only trustee but the SoS (Defra) can replace CRT or appoint additional trustees alongside.

 

This is just one of the ways that government exerts control over what is supposed to be an independent charity.

 

[Higgs]

CRT should become a bank, make risky investments and get £billions of taxpayers' money in bail-outs. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Higgs said:

CRT should become a bank, make risky investments and get £billions of taxpayers' money in bail-outs. 

 

 

 

C&RT already have quite a lot of 'banks' under their control and have made a 'right pigs ear' of some of them, and, they already get £millions of taxpayers money every year.

Why throw good money after bad ?

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RT already have quite a lot of 'banks' under their control and have made a 'right pigs ear' of some of them, and, they already get £millions of taxpayers money every year.

Why throw good money after bad ?

 

You may ask why, yet again, we have something like SVB going t!ts up. Always money to solve these problems. When it comes to a "national heritage", scrooge is holding the purse strings.

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

Not at all. As I said, it would be possible for a charity to be classified to the private sector but still fall foul of the CC guidance (I think that's all it is) on government control.  Your original article claimed that the classification to the public sector in and of itself causes a problem for charitable status: I still think that is a red herring. The Commission will make their own judgement under their legislation and case law, looking at the Governance arrangements for CRT. They might even offer advice to CRT on what to do ...

The Charity Commissions statutory duty would be to remove CRT from the register of charities as per my article. However, I expect they would wish to avoid this by providing advice as you suggest.

 

***** edited to add ***** They might want to see the outcome from a ONS re-clasification.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[PeterScott]

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

An update - 

https://narrowboatworld.com/14439-not-a-charity

3 hours ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

...I'm also unclear quite what you are trying to achieve?

... ??

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RT already have quite a lot of 'banks' under their control and have made a 'right pigs ear' of some of them, and, they already get £millions of taxpayers money every year.

Why throw good money after bad ?

Defra have been having a go at them for poor financial performance over the last year or so. 

 

Not really surprising when government want to stop funding.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, PeterScott said:

... ??

 

Contrary to recent articles in TT and WW, CRT can not simply hand the waterways back to government should they feel that funding is not sufficient.

 

I want to get Defra's power to prevent disolution removed. This will give trustees more power in negotiating future funding.

 

[Midnight]

2 hours ago, Creaking Gate said:

Question: When is a charity not a charity?  Answer: When its a charitable trust. 

 

What a complete nonsense thread/post. 

 

The question should be: When is a charity not a charity?  ....When you want to be all negative about CRT again. (but don't have much else, except stoppages to moan about).

 

Another poster who doesn't moor in Yorkshire?

[Rambling Boater]

4 hours ago, Creaking Gate said:

Question: When is a charity not a charity?  Answer: When its a charitable trust. 

 

What a complete nonsense thread/post. 

 

The question should be: When is a charity not a charity?  ....When you want to be all negative about CRT again. (but don't have much else, except stoppages to moan about).

From C&RT's website :

 

"

Who we are and what we do

The Canal & River Trust is a CHARITY set up in 2012 to care for England and Wales’ 200-year-old waterways,"

It doesnt say 'Charitable trust".

[Scholar Gypsy]

3 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Defra have been having a go at them for poor financial performance over the last year or so. 

 

Not really surprising when government want to stop funding.

 

 

 

Contrary to recent articles in TT and WW, CRT can not simply hand the waterways back to government should they feel that funding is not sufficient.

 

I want to get Defra's power to prevent dissolution removed. This will give trustees more power in negotiating future funding.

 

Interesting.  I'm not sure I would buy your last sentence, in my experience it's not the way that Government spending decisions are taken. There are (and will always need to be) backstop provisions relating to the heritage assets - which are held in Trust from the Government in a linked charity. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

19 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

From C&RT's website :

 

"

Who we are and what we do

The Canal & River Trust is a CHARITY set up in 2012 to care for England and Wales’ 200-year-old waterways,"

It doesnt say 'Charitable trust".

 

A charitable trust is a way to hold and protect assets (money, property, etc) for charitable purposes. The trust's assets are managed according to the purpose set out in a trust deed, or an agreed set of rules.

In the case of ex-BW waterways a charitable trust was set up called The Waterways Infrastucture Trust. CRT is charged currently with managing this charitable trust.

It is rather a moot point because both The Waterways Infrastructure Trust and CRT are registered with the Charity Commission as charities. The Commission makes no distinction between a charity and a charitable trust other than tha way its governing document is recorded.

WIT is recorded as - TRUST DEED DATED 28 JUN 2012

CRT is recorded as - MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES INCORPORATED 12/10/2011 AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTION(S) DATED 27/03/2012 AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTION(S) DATED 26 SEP 2018 AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTION(S) DATED 19 SEP 2019 AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTION(S) DATED 23 SEP 2020

 

[Rambling Boater]

5 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

A charitable trust is a way to hold and protect assets (money, property, etc) for charitable purposes. The trust's assets are managed according to the purpose set out in a trust deed, or an agreed set of rules.

In the case of ex-BW waterways a charitable trust was set up called The Waterways Infrastucture Trust. CRT is charged currently with managing this charitable trust.

It is rather a moot point because both The Waterways Infrastructure Trust and CRT are registered with the Charity Commission as charities. The Commission makes no distinction between a charity and a charitable trust other than tha way its governing document is recorded.

WIT is recorded as - TRUST DEED DATED 28 JUN 2012

CRT is recorded as - MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES INCORPORATED 12/10/2011 AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTION(S) DATED 27/03/2012 AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTION(S) DATED 26 SEP 2018 AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTION(S) DATED 19 SEP 2019 AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTION(S) DATED 23 SEP 2020

 

The average person (whatever that means) reads the word 'charity' then feels that their donation is being used as defined in the dictionary :

 

"an organization whose purpose is to give money, food, or help to those who need it, or to carry out activities such as medical research that will help people in need, and not to make a profit: "

 

"help, especially in the form of money, given freely to people who are in need, for example because they are ill, poor, or have no home, and organizations that provide this help"

 

I'm not just having a pop at C&RT, I'm questioning any organisation who USES the word 'charity'.

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

The average person (whatever that means) reads the word 'charity' then feels that their donation is being used as defined in the dictionary :

 

"an organization whose purpose is to give money, food, or help to those who need it, or to carry out activities such as medical research that will help people in need, and not to make a profit: "

 

"help, especially in the form of money, given freely to people who are in need, for example because they are ill, poor, or have no home, and organizations that provide this help"

 

I'm not just having a pop at C&RT, I'm questioning any organisation who USES the word 'charity'.

They probably have to use the word charity in their business description as it defines what they can and can't do with their money. Most people are pretty cynical about charities these days as a fairly hefty proportion of any money they get goes to pay the extremely well renumerated people who run them, who generally ride a merry go round as they move from one charity to another, increasing salaries as they go.

And, of course, as any fule no, public schools are charities.

Was it the Peter Principle that said the purpose of any organisation ends up being the perpetuation of the organisation rather than its ostensible reason for existence?

[magnetman]

I thought the Peter principle was promotion of an individual to their maximum level of incompetence.

 

[Orwellian]

"The Peter Principle was first identified by Dr Laurence J. Peter, a sociologist, lecturer and business consultant, in his 1968 book of the same name. It states, "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."

In other words, if you work in an organization with a top-down management structure and you are good at your job, you will likely be promoted until you reach one rung above your level of competence. Dr Peter called this level your "final placement."

[Iain_S]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

(snip)

Was it the Peter Principle that said the purpose of any organisation ends up being the perpetuation of the organisation rather than its ostensible reason for existence?

 

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

I thought the Peter principle was promotion of an individual to their maximum level of incompetence.

 

It's many years since I read the book, but I recall both being included, along with the observation that administration takes up an increasing proportion of resources as the organisation grows.

 

I think the main principle was the promotion to incompetence level, though.

[MtB]

4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Most people are pretty cynical about charities these days as a fairly hefty proportion of any money they get goes to pay the extremely well renumerated people who run them, who generally ride a merry go round as they move from one charity to another, increasing salaries as they go.

 

An old mate of mine is a professional charity fundraiser. He approaches a charity and offers to raise their income, in return for 1% of the amount by which he raises their income.

 

He makes a stunningly good living out of it with all his kids in private skools and a very nice house in a prosperous village on the banks of the Thames. And yet I find it hard to criticise, although I'm sure you lot will manage it. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

An old mate of mine is a professional charity fundraiser. He approaches a charity and offers to raise their income, in return for 1% of the amount by which he raises their income.

 

He makes a stunningly good living out of it with all his kids in private skools and a very nice house in a prosperous village on the banks of the Thames. And yet I find it hard to criticise, although I'm sure you lot will manage it. 

 

 

 

 

 

This sounds pretty much like complete BS to me,

 

Name the charity for starters.