Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder why there has STILL been no donation?

999 replies

kewtogetin · 29/03/2015 20:05

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
60
LilMissSunshine9 · 13/04/2015 22:38

Well considering the gofundme page specifically stated the money donated was to cover medical bills

LilMissSunshine9 · 13/04/2015 22:40

Exactly once it was known the insurance was paying out the funding page should of been stopped and a new one set up asking for donations to cover rent bills etc etc. All money raised on the original funding page donated to charity.

ScamBuster1 · 13/04/2015 22:48

The story did not just happen to appear in the paper. The fundraiser most likely contacted DM. I have a SS where he stated he had contacted The New York Times. This was about 7 hours after they heard about Dax's birth.

fourteen · 13/04/2015 22:51

Scam as long as the story he sold was "medical bills might not be covered" then I don't see the problem.

That was certainly the gist of the first story I read.

JoanHickson · 13/04/2015 22:56

Scammerbuster can you please share?

fourteen · 13/04/2015 22:58

Why does it matter if he said he'd contacted the NY Times?

Genuinely puzzled here...

ScamBuster1 · 13/04/2015 23:03

I think what this and other crowd funding efforts (Homeless in Heathrow come to mind) highlight, is that we do need legislation to cover crowdfunding. Right now it's possible to set up a campaign using a fake FB profile and fake address. Fundraisers should have to sign a declaration that they believe all facts presented are accurate etc. There should also be a cap before accounts need to be audited. The ludicrous campaign reported over the weekend of a family looking to raise over £100K to pay for their sons private education. There are no guarantees that, in the unlikely event they raise that amount, that they don't use it to buy a nice house etc

DCITennison · 13/04/2015 23:04

On all this talk of something brewing, upcoming story etc...

Is it just me who reads it differently?

I took it that that comment was made by a non-supporter (probably a MNer?) off the back of all the talk here of getting the media to look into the murkiness of all that's happened.

A way of putting the wind up them maybe, not a hint that those two were lining something up with the DM or whoever.

I can't see why the papers would chuck money at them now, what have they got to say that anyone's going to be remotely interested in? Well, besides where the money's gone but the papers clearly aren't interested in that angle anyway.

Their story doesn't have legs, they had their moment in the spotlight and proved to be a pair of dullards. I just can't see any of the papers caring one jot what's going on with them now.

RebootYourEngine · 13/04/2015 23:05

In one breath he says that it was only meant to be local fundraising then the next he says tgat he contacted the new york times.

StupidBloodyKindle · 13/04/2015 23:13

I would be inappropriately amused if there was a simple shot of thousands of jelly babies on Facebook with a message saying We bought shares in Bassetts.
I am going to Hell.

The lack of transparency is disconcerting, but I thought someone thread had ascertained the confirmation of donation would be the same as what they posted.

Clearly, they are damned if they do, damned if they don't, by which I mean:
If they have donated £500 it is 17k too little
If they donated 17k it would only be because they were forced to
If they put up accounts of where every penny went, they will be forced to justify every purchase and condemned for anything deemed frivolous, which could well be most of it
Don't misunderstand me, I have already said on here that they ought to be accountable to those who gave in good faith but I am not sure what would motivate them to do above and beyond right now, as they probably think, why bother, the intenet hates us anyhow, in for a penny in for a pound.

StupidBloodyKindle · 13/04/2015 23:19

someone upthread
ie they gave a donation to see what the receipt looks like and confirmed it is the same as the cropped screenshot
so the couple may have given a genuine donation, and therefore met last week's deadline but I suspect not for 17 grand.
That said I would spend 17 grand in gin if I lived there. Have any of you lot actually been to Skeggy?
You know there's something wrong when the best slogan is It's bracing!

CheapTrickster · 13/04/2015 23:43

Someone on another page has suggested people who have donated and feel like a crime has been comitted to contact crime stoppers so that the fraud can be investigated by the police.

ScamBuster1 · 13/04/2015 23:44

Re the New York Times - Richard has been quoted in several interviews that 'this was just meant to be a little fundraiser by the local community that, whoops, just landed in the media. I feel that as he spoke to the NYT in such a short timeframe, it disputes the 'meant to be local' angle.

facedontfit · 13/04/2015 23:56

Loving your tweets scambuster

ScamBuster1 · 14/04/2015 00:39

Why thank you facedontfit Wink

londonrach · 14/04/2015 07:39

Tbh as insurance paid out 100% of the money should go to the charity. Sadly i think they got away with it. Poor dax

youarekiddingme · 14/04/2015 08:14

I'm beginning to wonder how much of this has been down to TD doing rather than L & K. I'm not saying the donation should nt made as they have said they would but.......

NY times was contacted 7 hours after Dax was born.

Surely at this point the parents were with him, mum recovering from birth and most likely dad has just text his boss his partner, friend, an update and reason I won't be back at work message?

If L is a PT in TD gym perhaps it's was also the loss of his earnings that set TD thinking?

I think it's a case of celebrity they don't know to handle and they dug a hole they couldn't get out of. They clearly aren't fully aware or coping because they are deleting messages left and right forgetting about screenshot and cache copies.

I really do think that honesty and transparency and a fair donation would be their best chance of moving forward right now.

LittleIda · 14/04/2015 10:15

It says the Barry teen's insurance expired before the accident. Bit silly really.

fluffymouse · 14/04/2015 10:49

disappointed and little I agree. It seems like some people will now think they don't need insurance/to make wise financial decisions as the public will bail them out.

LittleIda · 14/04/2015 12:46

Yes, or the other option is you can make sure you are fully insured, but claim that you won't be getting any money, have the papers and national tv publicising it to make it look legit, then get an insurance payment and assistance from a charity to fully cover expenses and keep the donated money anyway (other than a fiver to get the "Thanks for your donation page.") Hmm

DisappointedOne · 14/04/2015 13:21

In another article they say they're "hoping the NHS will cover the cost". Shock

LilMissSunshine9 · 14/04/2015 15:08

LittleIda Grin

SoljaBonita · 14/04/2015 19:13

The wrong assertion that there are two crowdsourcing pages has been taken as fact by some here so people are quoting a figure of 30000 out of nowhere.
Also the RMH charges I believe $39 a night, which whilst heavily subsidised is not 'free'.
Just pointing out this out as rather serious accusations are being made based on glaring errors.

MyArksNotReady · 14/04/2015 19:15

The insurance paid the claim, which will not just include medical fees.