To wonder why there has STILL been no donation?

[kewtogetin]

This has probably been done, I know there was a long running thread about this very subject but I can't find it?
So, several months on I see Dax's parents have still not made the promised donation to Ronald McDonald hospice. On March 2nd they updated the Facebook page to say they works be making the donation 'very soon', but still nothing.
Am I the only one thinking they have no intention of donating any money out of the tens of thousands donated to them? That in fact they intend to keep it all and deny the very charity that provided them with so much support in the early weeks of their Childs life?
In fact, I don't think im the only one judging by the comments on the Facebook page.
I think they're hoping it will blow over and if they keep quiet long enough people will forget.

Keep this post active .The more visible , the more likely someone will expose the fraud officially. Shameful behaviour given so many people have major expenses associated with poorly babies and don't beg .

I've just read all of this, so I'm marking my place for (hopefully) updates on the donations.

Wannabe, contacting the press is for the best.

This is important because if you hit the right chord it is possible to raise huge amounts of money quickly by touting a hard luck story around the media.

I think more often than not these cases are genuine, but even genuine cases can quickly raise amounts that are completely out of proportion to the amount required if the request goes viral.

There are rules about distance selling and setting up charities that are supposed to protect the public. However, afaik they don't cover on line giving to private strangers.

Many people were sceptical about the details of this story when it appeared in the papers, and the people who did give were not in possession of all the relevant facts e.g. The true likelihood that the baby would receive no medical care and why money was needed.

Marking spot.

The police do prosecute with regards to crowd funding and fraud. Remember the case of the woman who lied she had cancer and set up a crowd fundraiser to pay for her dream wedding. She was prosecuted for fraud as she never had cancer and obtained money by means of deception.
The point that TD and his legions of sheep failed to understand, that if the appeal had been honest from day 1 that the proceeds were to cover loss of income, rent and incidentals etc.,then these conversations would not even be taking place. People would have known upfront what the money was for and donated or not. But, they went public and gave the impression that the money was for medical bills. Roughly 75% of the funds was raised under this misconception. That's deception and fraud.

Out of interest if Katie did not work for the friend and misrepresenting the facts in the press has lead him to being defamed and his good character being brought into question surely he would have a good case for litigation or at least a public apology

Well done Scambuster1 for those screenshots. Now people can see some of the lies that were told.

Looking at HMRC guidance, the donations could be deemed as taxable. There is case law which shows the instances where this would be the case.
'it is the character of the payment in the recipient's hands that determines whether it is taxable, but the payer's purpose in making the payment may be evidence of that character (Chibbett v Joseph Robinson & Sons [1924] 9TC48; Murray v Goodhews [1977] 52TC86 at 108H to 109C and 111E/F; Rolfe v Nagel [1981] 55TC585)' and
'
if the character in the recipient's hands is that of a payment made in order that the money may be used in the recipient's business, to supplement trading or other business receipts and to enable the recipient to carry on business, or otherwise to preserve and maintain trading stability and solvency, then it will be a taxable trading receipt (Smart v Lincolnshire Sugar Co Ltd [1937] 20TC643 at 670; British Commonwealth International Newsfilm Agency Ltd v Mahany [1962] 40TC550 at 578 and 582);'

www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/bim41810.htm

I don't get why it is apparently such a surprise to them that the mother is losing income because she can't work. That was going to happen whenever the baby was born. So why did they choose to go on an expensive holiday?

Don't upset tricky, he has habit of stamping feet and crying to MN to get threads pulled.

Your not allowed to ask any reasonable questions on the fb page if you do it was at your peril to be insulted before being blocked or posts removed.

I also remember the poster who wanted donation back and the abuse that posted all baying for blood.

I remember the bragging posts of how to milk the situation, media etc still screenshots floating about

Feel like an elephant with my memory today

The whole story was strange from the start - surely, they must have taken out insurance? Surely, the baby would not have been refused care under any circumstances?

Yes it was strange from the start, but it is apparently easy to use social media to obtain 'donations' for the vaguest of reasons.

If they obtained funds by claiming to need money for medical bills when in fact the insurance covered it, that is illegal. It used to be covered by s.15A ands.16 of the Theft Act (obtaining a money transfer by deception / a pecuniary advantage by deception) and is now covered by the Fraud Act 2006.

The gov.uk site on repeal of the Theft Act offences might make worrying reading for TD:

"Section 1 of the Act establishes a new general offence of fraud, which can be committed in three ways: fraud by false representation; fraud by failing to disclose information; and fraud by abuse of position. These are set out in sections 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
There are two basic requirements which must be met before any of the three limbs of the new offence can be charged. First, the behaviour of the defendant must be dishonest. Second it must also be his intention to make a gain, or cause a loss to another. However, there will no longer be any need to prove that a gain or loss has been made, or that any victim was deceived by the defendant’s behaviour. Each of the three limbs of the offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. "

They DID take insurance and it DID pay out. They were given hospital care and somewhere to live thanks to RMDH. They were not poverty stricken from the off so didn't truly need free money for coats and - yuk - man panties. Bunch of scammers and I truly hope that they will have to answer for themselves.

FGS - just donate already! unless you have already spent all the money! in which case, say you've changed your minds, its all the fannying around with "we're going to make a donation"

you're just stalling, and seeing if you can do the donation WITHOUT disclosing how much you have donated!!

(on the other hand, doesnt matter what you donate now really -except to the charity- we all know that you are only donating because the masses keep asking, and they will keep asking.....until you prove you have)

So they initially wanted money for medical bills but when this was covered they changed it to other stuff.

I think when they saw how much was being donated for said medical bills they wanted to keep it going.

what is the relevance of the underwear?

they aren't the first couple to have a preemie baby fgs, and not the first for something like that to happen abroad. I'm struggling to see what makes this couple so special tbh. Plenty of people have preemies and have to obviously stay off work a bit longer. They don't set up gofundme pages though!

The problem started because Tricky set up a fund raiser giving the impression full costs wouldn't be covered by insurance. He was asking people to top up the short fall, before alliance even had to chance to process the paperwork. He then took ages confirming the insurance were paying, even though the DM had confirmed it.

The money should never have been asked for, whilst giving the impression the insurance wouldn't pay as this was untrue and there had been no hint they wouldn't pay. Had he have waited and set it up saying insurance was paying but they needed money for rent at home etc, it would have been different. I can't see how its ok to ask for money for one thing (using 'mean' insurance companies as the fall guy) and then keep changing your mind about what's its for.

And he changed his mind loads of times, at certain points there was family flights included, flights home for dax and his parents (which were included in the insurance), £2k for a breast pump, a fridge, an apartment to stay in (which was provided by a charity) clothes and knickers, stuff for dax at home (which they admitted later they already had), bills at home. All these things and more appeared and disappeared over time.

I can't believe gofundme allow people to keep changing what they need money for.

I still believe Tricky felt it would be a good PR stunt and that's why he did it. He clearly wasn't in the loop as his information was way behind, everyone else. Or he purposely delayed updating.

And then to join mumsnet to call people mean, shows he is concerned about how things are turning out. The though of people in the local pub, in Skegness, talking about a mumsnet thread is laughable.

Just seen kinkys post about how she asked for a refund and was blocked. Wonder if auntie/tricky will come back to answer that?

People's brass neck can be amazing.

I donated £50 to what I thought was a charity via a Just Giving page when a former colleague said he was doing something a few years ago.

He seemed genuinely amazed I asked for it back after he didn't do the activity. It took weeks & lots of reminders for him to refund me ...

Well done to scambuster. The only way we can get something done about this is if people complain, strength in numbers and all that.

If you was an early donator you could of paid straight into the personal PayPal account by using their email address given cutting out all tax/earning declaration middle men

I must see what the US authorities have to say. Some of the donations came via the U.S. and thus section 18 of code § 1343 Fraud by wire, radio or television could apply www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343

That's interesting about people being deleted and blocked for asking for a refund.

I wait with interest to hear the explanation for that one.

A lot of American donors gave in the day or two that TD refused to update gofundme, he had time to update and delete on fb.

How do you contact US fraud officer? US law may cover this scam.