WPUK have released a financial statement showing money received by source and how it is spent

This:

In my experience women are often not compensated for speaking so I’m pleased to see WPUK do it on occasion

Just out of interest, because of past fears of money laundering etc., I didn't think it possible to open a bank account as an unincorperated association anymore!

I did this very recently. The bank was very happy to help and provide free banking.

In order to set up a bank account for not-for-profit organisation you have to show the organisations constitution to the bank.
WPUK are not trading, they’re carrying out the activities as defined by what constitution they adopted for the benefit of their members and are therefore of no interest to the HMRC.
Try as people might to disparage them, there is nothing amiss here.

I have no issue with women asking to be paid for their time and effort to give a speech that hundreds of women are willing to pay for tickets to listen to.

I’m comfortable with speakers being paid, they’re giving their time, money and expertise, and in the current climate are likely to lose other work for opining on this topic. They earn it.

When I bought my ticket to the last one I either paid for another for someone who couldn’t afford it, or made a donation, can’t remember which. I do recommend that women organising these events are never shy to ask people to do this, as I’m completely happy to get my hand in my pocket to enable someone to attend who wouldn’t otherwise be able to.

An organisation set up by a former civil servant who campaigned against tax evasion and avoidance during a very active trade unionist period (and is married to a well known thorn in the government's side) is unlikely to be trying to swindle HMRC. Presumably the scrutiny would be significant.

jj

I'm sure you will be asking the anonymous organisers of this crowdfunder the same questions.

uk.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund

Im not assuming anything, just stating that I wouldn't be bothered if the speakers I heard were paid.
No idea if they were or not.
Maybe my bad wording.
I think filia do sponsored tickets.
Im not criticising anything wpuk have or haven't done, I really enjoyed the meeting I went to and was inspired by the women I met there.
Just a suggestion, £5 is out of reach to some women unfortunately.
Id be happy to sponsor tickets for women that cant afford it if it was an option thats not too labour intensive to set up.

I'm not sure why you are assuming that any of the speakers received a fee at the meeting you attended @MoonPomme

That speakers fees appear in a list of expenditure items associated with meetings doesn't mean that they are paid routinely, only that they have been paid at least once.

I think it's quite an ask for a campaign run by volunteers to also administer a fund for free tickets (which are priced at £5 so fairly accessible) but there's nothing to stop anyone buying a ticket on the behalf of someone else via Eventbrite.

No assumptions, just a point if view.

, to cover the distinct whiff of desperation of some on this thread.
Personally im not bothered by speakers being paid, all of the speakers at the meeting I attended had obviously put time and effort into the talks they presented, I was happy to pay the ticket price plus one for my mum and I trust wpuk to spend that as they see fit.
Might be nice if they could use some of the money to fund tickets for less well off women as filia do, if they dont already.

@stumbledin You are making a lot of assumptions about the circumstances in which speakers fees might be paid which could be resolved by contacting WPUK and asking them about it.

For those commenting about fees for speakers

I specifically said costs should be paid.

Why this distinction between say "professional" speakers who usually charge, and say a front line activist who probably has more relevent things to say, who is doing it out of committment to the issue.

If academics think that somehow their time is more precious than others fine. But I dont think a group like WPUK should pay speakers fees.

But they should pay costs.

Women do a lot of volunteering we are familiar with the various structures and our legal obligations

Lush have donated to WPUK?

This suggests that all the staff don’t agree with the company’s current war on women then, interesting.

I guess the worst case scenario is that they are not paying their taxes correctly. They would then need to sort that out with HMRC.

That sounds like a ducking stool offence to me.

Stumbledin - in academia it is routine to pay money for key speakers. This is to cover their transport, accommodation and food. I certainly wouldn't think that an academic didn't really believe in the issue just because they got paid a fee. The fee ensures you can get really top academics in , and it also gives them an impetus to create a fresh new talk. I know that WPUK is not academia, but it's a pretty close analogy. I for one have always found the quality of the talks to be really detailed and informative - I never thought the speakers were just phoning it in.

I also don't mean this to be a criticism, but I was just thinking it's kind of sad how women have been socialised to think that they have to give their time and efforts up for free or otherwise it's immoral.

JJ your posts are getting so desperate it's actual pathetic. Do you not ever read them back to your self and think "good lord, maybe I need to take the tinfoil hat off and make a cup of tea"? Fucking cringing for you mate 😂

stumbledin it takes time to prepare and deliver a talk. If it’s someone who is asked to speak a lot that takes time where they would otherwise have been able to earn money so it is entirely reasonable for them to be paid. If it’s a one off then fine to ask them to donate the time for free.

In my experience women are often not compensated for speaking so I’m pleased to see WPUK do it on occasion

I agree women are normally economically deprived if an org can pay them they should

@stumbledin I'm sure if you contact WPUK they will discuss with the circumstances in which any speakers were reimbursed beyond travel and accommodation.

In my experience, campaigns that make a rule of never compensating speakers will find that this is a barrier to speakers who are on the lowest incomes.

Sorry - groups register as charities because they want to be eligible for grants and donations. Because scrutiny by the Charity Commission is (assumed to be) rigourous, those donating and granting money have the reassurance that the money will be spent correctly.

What tax breaks there are, are very limited and unlikely to greatly increase income.

(I put in assumed to be as we have all seen newspaper reports of how some charities have not been competent, and audits etc., are always lagging by 18 to 24 months.)

Perhaps jj now you can move your narrative from 'funded by the religious right hate group' to 'tax avoiding hate group'. Doesn't have the same cache though does it? Still you aren't really interested in the truth.

I am pleased that they have decided to publish these, but do worry that some will now use this to bring up examples of what they consider to be bad practice etc., under guidelines they would have to follow is actually registered as a not for profit organisation. You can have something called a common interest company which excludes profit making but isn't regulated by the Charity Commission who have quite strict guidelines.

Just out of interest, because of past fears of money laundering etc., I didn't think it possible to open a bank account as an unincorperated association anymore!

But have to say I am sad to see that some speakers were paid. Its one thing covering speakers costs, but this is a campaign. You would like to think speakers were speaking because they are committed to the issue, not to get a professional fee.

Groups generally only become charities to get the tax breaks - I reason at all why any organisation should be registered either as a charity or as a Ltd company unless there's a clear benefit to do so.

So not odd at all.