Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Great Ormond St et al. shouldn’t give the money back...

78 replies

coconuttella · 24/01/2018 22:32

... from the President’s Dinner. Hundreds of thousands of pounds that could be used to support children now is presumably just going to sit in some bank account as it’s become toxic. How does that help anyone.

It’s a crazy world here virtue signalling is more important than children’s welfare!

OP posts:
teaandtoast · 24/01/2018 22:32

Virtue signalling or make a stand for women?

Original poster
coconuttella · 24/01/2018 22:33

‘where’ not ‘here’

OP posts:
NewYearNiki · 24/01/2018 22:34

I would keep it but then again poor GOSHs reputation has already been dragged through the mud by Charlie Gard's parents.

Perhaps they'd rather be seen to give it back then have a breaking story about GOSH accepting funds from this source .

Homemenu1 · 24/01/2018 22:35

Where do you draw the line though, what if it was donated from a crime or a politically racist joke.

Tbh this isn't something great ormond can get right for everyone

Homemenu1 · 24/01/2018 22:36

Joke = party

frasier · 24/01/2018 22:36

I read that now they were closing the club, they were going to distribute all monies to children's charities. So it will do good elsewhere hopefully.

www.ft.com/content/b07c37e8-00fa-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5

jay55 · 24/01/2018 22:37

I wish they’d passed it on to women’s aid or rape crisis.

Original poster
coconuttella · 24/01/2018 22:39

Virtue signalling or make a stand for women?

Making a stand for women is calling out the behaviour as misogynistic and unacceptable, and shaming those involved so it doesn’t happen again.... Thats been done and rightly so.

Nothing extra is achieved by not accepting the money apart from denying children the support that money would bring.

OP posts:
RunningOutOfCharge · 24/01/2018 22:43

What support was it going to bring?

Original poster
coconuttella · 24/01/2018 22:44

Where do you draw the line though, what if it was donated from a crime or a politically racist joke.

You don’t in my opinion. You strongly call out the behaviour, but if they want to give the proceeds to a charity, then I’d take it... better that than for it to either do no good sitting untouchable in a bank account or lining the misogynist/racist/criminals’ pockets!

OP posts:
Original poster
coconuttella · 24/01/2018 22:45

What support was it going to bring?

Confused I imagine the £1m or so would bring quite a bit of support.... isn’t that obvious?

OP posts:
Lethaldrizzle · 24/01/2018 22:46

Yep I agree

RunningOutOfCharge · 24/01/2018 22:48

No. No it's not

You 'imagine' yet you have no clue what it would have been for?

WhattheWTF · 24/01/2018 22:53

I agree don’t think GOSH should have given it back. Why should children suffer because of this? They should have condemned the disgusting behaviour and made a point of firmly keeping the money to not disadvantage their patients. Ps I have utter respect for how GOSH handled the Charlie Gard case, poor family I felt for them, but there is no doubting that the hospital did their absolute level best to care for their patient.

Original poster
coconuttella · 24/01/2018 23:05

You 'imagine' yet you have no clue what it would have been for?

Hmm What a ridiculous comment!!! GOSH is, of course, a children’s hospital, so any money donated to it would support its objectives to alleviate the suffering of children through medical care/surgery.

OP posts:
Ginaxx · 24/01/2018 23:09

It was on the news earlier it was actually £2m. I think it's a tough one as it could do a lot of good however it didn't come from a good place.

Fauxgina · 24/01/2018 23:09

They had to make an early decision. I was surprised at first too but essentially they said - "We don't want your blood money, you can't have a night about that abuses women and ease your consciences by donating it to charity so we won't accept it."

To take the point a bit too far but for demonstration only, if i went to Harrods, held it up at gun point and took the contents of the till to GOSH should they just accept it come what may?

They rely on the good will of the public and I imagine they wanted to remain in favour.

I am hoping that the money for the evening has been returned, but that when the books close down for the President's Club the money will be distributed then and they will receive a portion that way, rather than profiting from the evening.

Viviennemary · 24/01/2018 23:09

I don't have any time for GOSH after the way the treated Charlie Gard's parents. But I can't see any point in them not accepting the money. Where would it go if they don't. But if it's going to other good causes then fair enough.

CecilyNeville · 24/01/2018 23:10

GOSH weren't due to receive money from this event, nor did they last year. They have in the past, and are returning those funds, which I think is unnecessary, but I can see why no-one would want the monies from this event.

I hope Mark Carney et al don't honour the lunches etc won with them in the auction.

BestZebbie · 24/01/2018 23:10

I would assume that for a donation of that size they will also have taken advice from the Charity Commission, which can either give permission to accept slightly dubious donations or give official backing for refusing them.

RavenclawRealist · 24/01/2018 23:11

I don't think there is a right answer if they send it back all that money is wasted! If they keep it they seem complicit in what went on and potentially future giving maybe reduced in the light of negative publicity from seeming to profit from the harassment and abuse of women! The charity's loose either way!! The focus should be on the disgusting men and attitudes that allowed it to happen not on the innocent charity's left in a loose loose situation IMO!

mari652 · 24/01/2018 23:11

I agree - was my thought when I heard it. I can see why they don't want to be mired in more unfair controversy ( I have had to explain to American friends what the Charlie Gard story was actually about) but it's not going to help anyone by handing it back. Maybe we could start a campaign to persuade them to keep it - it is really needed

ReggaetonLente · 24/01/2018 23:12

We were talking about this at work today (charity) and saying what a shit situation to be in, especially if the money had already been allocated to projects.

It's so hard though - all charities need and want their fundraising to be ethical, and sometimes that means missing out. We had to turn down tens of thousands from an alcohol company for example, because alcohol is a problem for many of our beneficiaries, and it wouldn't be right to partner with people who make money from that.

DreamyMcDreamy · 24/01/2018 23:16

I'm another one who's Sad at the fact they've given it back. That's vital funding for a children's hospital, that could have done a lot of good.
YANBU.
I think they're in a hard place though - if they'd have kept it, they'd have had people complaining/moaning/picketing etc, if they give it back they have people unhappy with them too!
Can't win situation.
As for the Charlie Gard case - from what I read of that it was horrific the amount of people thinking they knew better and creating a media shitstorm whilst at the same time having no idea about the medical reasons behind the entire decisions.
YANBU.

FitBitFanClub · 24/01/2018 23:16

I don't have any time for GOSH after the way they treated Charlie Gard's parents.
Hmm Seriously? They cared for that poor baby way above and beyond the call of duty. The parents treated the hospital appallingly and dragged its name through the mud internationally.