Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

she should be charged with fraud

No I haven't tried running a charity Fred.
2517

Fury over £234,000 salary of the top boss at Save the Children: Charity chiefs' huge wages must be reined in, say MPs
High earner, thought to be Jasmine Whitbread, among 20 earning over £100k
Another nine on six-figure salaries at charity's UK arm
Surpassed by highest paid employee at Marie Stopes - who earns £290k
MPs today condemned the pay rates and secrecy surrounding figures

the charity is for the directors .
never give another penny to charity

My son's American University tutoring was correct:

1. If you are going to set up your own business, then try to set it up as a charity. The tax treatment is amazingly generous.
2. Pay yourself a generous salary and expenses and live well out of it.
3. If you don't want to bother with 'set-up costs' then go and work for someone else's charity, preferably the bigger the better. All the awkward questions will hav ealready been asked and the answers dealt with satisfactorily.

Lastly,

Most 'chuggers' earn around 50% commission on donations fixed to 'direct debit bank payments'.

'Chugger' (noun)

British informal defintion:

A person who approaches passers-by in the street asking for subscriptions or donations to a particular charity:
As in "when you have chuggers outside your shop, people just cross the road"

How much do chuggers cost?

It would be interesting to know the total amount the government gives, on behalf of the taxpayers, to all registered charities.
2517

"No business can make money without spending money and fundraising is no different.

The real danger behind this story is the perpetuation of a myth that charities run solely on the goodwill of free volunteers and should never spend any money on anything other than the good causes they support.

Yes there is wastage in the sector but we need people educated about the reality many charities live in rather than the continuation of a misguided view many people have."

And then there is also the 'abuse' committed by those of poor morality who are closely associated with charity work and may or may not have power to direct financial gain not only towards their charity but also towards themselves and their complicit associates.

Exec,

The sort of business you should get involved with.

Sounds a winner!

Why don't you offer your services as a carer moving on to organiser!

Is no 10 becoming a cat walk or another darker alley?

Fred should Blair be tried for war crimes ?

MrT and others ...... i am sure there's an awful lot more than simple misuse of funds

JB,

Personally, I didn't like Blair in 1997. I thought him intelligent, egotistical and more interested in his own future history and personal success. I thought him as shallow and measuring his own success on hanging onto power, rather than utilizing the “power” he had for general benefit. (Similar in personality to Cameron’s. Both rely on media sound bites and popular generalisations.)

I didn't like the way he followed Maggie Thatcher in the way he formed a "presidential" form of government, as Cameron is concreting into the present government. I prefer more collegial form of government, rather than follower the leader government

I thought he should have regulated the "city" and "financial" services, rather than run after them as Osborne is repeating.

I thought he was wrong in following Bush into Iraq. (So was IDS, and a horde of "knowledgeable" tories. (Misled? But followed by knowledgeable IDS and large parts of the tory party.)

I would like to see Blair defend himself in court of law against the Iraq Crimes?
But unfortunately probably his decisions were based on “judgement” and I doubt that he would be found “guilty” of any crime.

But it might be salutary to others, to consider going to war.

PS . I would like to have seen Thatcher tried for the sinking of Belgrano, which many consider to be an act of Murder.

(Check the cost of the Falkland’s war.)

Good on you Fred your right Blair was a parasite , Don't forget the Argies were invading OUR islands >>

How much as Bob Geldoff made from his offshore companys with the contact's he has got with African head of states ? How much tax does he pay in the UK

an interesting point about the belgrano, but i guess if you're at war, "being shot while running away" might be deemed justified, just as was the fire-bombing of dresden and then hiroshima

as for relying on the media and similar, it is just a fact of modern life in all its guises and you'll just have to get used to it
had it been otherwise, it is unlikely ronnie reagan would have been elected and, had it been in this era, then douglas-home wouldn't have stood a snowball's

JB,


Forgot!

The Falklands only 8000 miles from Nelson Column, just down the road from Buck Palace!

Bloody barmy, expensive ego trip for a failing Prime minister.

an interesting point about the belgrano, but i guess if you're at war, "being shot while running away" might be deemed justified, just as was the fire-bombing of dresden and then hiroshima


Generally considered amoral!

I suppose we never sunk any German warships in WWII that were steaming away. Far better to let them head towards you and start an attack. And I guess we never used submarines to sunk warships without giving them a warning first. The Belgrano was a warship which was part of an enemy force. The alternative was to wait till it attacked us first. If it was not a beligerant then why was it at sea with hundreds on board?

war and morals make interesting bedfellows of course, and amoral is always just an observer

any comment about dresden and hiroshima?

Britain received international criticism after the sinking after the Argentine Junta announced that the warship had been returning to its home port and was outside the 200 mile exclusion zone imposed by Whitehall.

But Major David Thorp, who spent 34 years working as a signals expert in military intelligence, has disclosed for the first time that he was asked to carry out a trawl of all the intelligence on the sinking at the direct request of Margaret Thatcher a few months after the end of the war.

He was ordered to compile a report for the Prime Minister called “The Sinking of the Belgrano” that has never been published.

From his own signals intercepts and those from other Government agencies, he proved that the Argentine cruiser was heading into the exclusion zone.

Major Thorp was in charge of a top secret signals interception section hidden on the amphibious warship Intrepid as it steamed with the Task Force.

Around Ascension Island, 4,000 miles from the Falklands, his team began picking up naval communications sent to the Argentine fleet which they were easily able to decipher.

The report states that in late April 1982, they intercepted a message sent from naval headquarters ordering the Belgrano and its escorts to a grid reference within the exclusion zone and not back to base as the Argentines later claimed.

The Belgrano was sunk by two torpedoes fired by the hunter-killer submarine Conqueror on May 2 with the loss of 323 lives a number of miles outside the exclusion zone.

“For some reason they decided on a rendezvous point still within the exclusion zone,” Major Thorp said. “Whether they were trying to raise a thumb at us I don’t know. At the time I thought it was strange thinking why didn’t they go straight into port?”

In his new book, The Silent Listener, Major Thorp wrote: “The findings of my final report stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated but the objective of the ship was to relocate to a prearranged RV within the exclusion zone.”

Despite the report being read by Mrs Thatcher she never disclosed the information either in Parliament or elsewhere possibly because she did not want to reveal Britain’s eavesdropping capabilities.

But during her infamous BBC exchange with the schoolteacher Diana Gould who confronted her on the sinking Mrs Thatcher made an intriguing reference to the report saying: "One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published." Mrs Gould died earlier this month.

In recent years the Argentine navy has accepted that the sinking of the Belgrano was a legitimate act of war.

that's seriously interesting and just helps to highlight how little we know of what is going on behind closed doors