Did the captain Tom foundation charity really use the money to build their own spa pool??

[Terryer]

Just reading the paper this morning and see the family of Captain Tom have been ordered to pull down a building in their garden with a spa pool. I think it's a planning issue but the inference is that they used the money raised to build it. Did they really?

This

The story reads as if planning permission was requested for a building to be used by the charity and then a large additional pool house was either built instead or tacked on. It doesn't say they used the charity's money, just the charity's name as implying it was being done on the charity's behalf.

I want tobknow exactly what the money was spent on. The original money 💰.

Because all these charity's and nothing has changed.

At least Rod Stewart paid for some scans. I want to know where all this money has gone.

Same for Grenfell, I live in the area and knew people there. Where had all the money gone? The donation, the charity single. They could've build house for everyone with all that money.
And the council is still the same.

Glad to hear planning are doing their job - so unfair if chancers wheedle their way round the laws.

She was quite a successful recruitment agent if I recall. So she knew exactly what she had in her father and what she might be able to send him up for, the potential in him to be an national treasure etc etc, and then get a big whack of commission for it. Which she absolutely has. Rather shrewd to put it mildly.

All charity ultimately boils down to self-interest. I'm not specifically commenting on the Captain Tom Foundation but more generally. Anyone who gives to, works for or benefits from a charity is motivated by self-interest. It's human nature - we can try to kid ourselves that we're trying to help others but why on earth would we be doing that if we didn't think it was to make the world a better place? It's selfishness, an attempt to mould the world into a shape we like better.

We shouldn't be surprised when we hear about other forms of selfishness creeping into the sphere of charity either, someone abusing a charity for their own profit is no different to someone donating to the charity in the first place, in terms of human behaviour.

he started going for a daily walk as recommended by his consultant after a hip operation, this was stated in the early reports when it was taken-over as a PR run exercise to 'raise money for the NHS' and that bit was quickly dropped.

someone abusing a charity for their own profit is no different to someone donating to the charity in the first place, in terms of human behaviour.

What a massive reach. It's different morally, legally, and practically.

I didn’t donate when he was doing his walls. I nearly did, then I remembered I’d read previously that you can’t give money to the NHS itself to pay for more doctors & nurses, but you can donate to “friends of X Hospital” style charities.

That money can be used for new furniture in waiting rooms etc, which does benefit staff and patients, but £30 million is a lot of new chairs.

I think the public donated thinking the money would either benefit existing medical staff or pay for more medical staff. It’s a shame that legally that money couldn’t go to where the people donating thought it was going to.

My understanding of some of this is that her husband is a builder/ property developer (he's listed as a company director) and that's where their wealth comes from. Perhaps they know their way around the planning process. Some people do apply for planning permission for one thing and then it's changed into something else (and may escape scrutiny.)

I.think it wss just a feel.good thing
People were bored with nothing to.do and worried about the Covid situation and then there was dear old msn taking laps around his very substantial garden to." Raise" money for the.NHS,people bought into.it .

I was eaten alive on here for pointing out that I thought there was something dodgy going on with the money and the front and centre daughter (I didn't think he had anything to do with it I'll add). Even my husband thought I was awful for saying "I'm not convinced where this money is going... why aren't people questioning any of this" bbc breakfast were so far up their arses with their coverage. My husband was telling me about their spa last night and we had a good laugh, I did told you so face! Bit of a running joke in our house the captain Tom saga, my friend bought one of my children the kids book, 🤣 my face when he opened it! So many people taken in by it all. Who knows whether they paid for their own spa, the media have done a 360 and are insinuating it wasn't paid for by them, either way bbc breakfast aren't having them back on 🤣.

I also wondered why they just didn't give it to the NHS. I read an article the other day about philanthropy, especially with the ultra-rich, where they seem to be unable or unwilling to just donate to a charity - they have to create their own trust, named after themselves or their family, etc - they can't seem to do anything anonymously. It's very "the ego has landed" type stuff. Then it ends up either not being as successful as someone who is already doing it and wastes loads of money, or challenges the existing charity's work.

She was quite a successful recruitment agent if I recall.

The money (I think) comes from her husband's property/ building business.
Companies House always yields a lot of info.

Of course it was but Jesus if you dared say anything at the time you were pilloried. It was all absolutely bonkers, nation losing the plot over someone walking round their garden and the inference he was just some normal old chap who’d just happened to get some publicity.

They were absolutely mad times in general though.

You’d have to assume the paper is in possession of some information that they’re pretty sure about to make such inference, otherwise they’re wiiiiiiiide open to an expensive defamation case. Inference is dangerous.

I didn’t mean successful in terms of money as such, more that she knew exactly what she might be able to achieve with CT. Definitely saw huge potential for money making to generate more wealth.

This gets to the heart of the underlying issue - there is absolutely no need for so many charities to be set-up when something in existence already does that job, it just increases administration costs and divides donations and their impact. I often think that when charities are set up in memory of someone but I understand the need for a legacy to be felt.

With the wealthier people, it is about having control over where the money goes and if it is just donated to x existing charity they don't have that. I'd probably be the same tbh!

someone abusing a charity for their own profit is no different to someone donating to the charity in the first place, in terms of human behaviour.

Even following your logic to get here (which I don't totally disagree with) - there is a difference.

The difference, if you want to boil it down to cold practicalities is this:

• When I donate money to charity, I am entering an agreement with that charity. I give them money, and get to feel good about myself. They use that money for the cause I gave it to. If any money is required to go to something other than the cause, there is an agreement they will keep this to a minimum and it will still be in the spirit of furthering the cause. For example, paying market rate wages for someone to do a job. That's the agreement. We both know we're entering into it and both agree with the terms. It's clear to us both what we get from it and what we need to deliver.
• When someone abuses the money for their own end, they are breaking that agreement. They are obtaining the money fruadulently and forcing me into the situation of funding their spa (or whatever) against my will. They are lying and stealing. That's a massive difference in human behaviour from 'buying' a good feeling. imo.

It is true that they have been investigated. Appropriation of funds or such like.
Not sure what the outcome waa

As PP have said, wait and see what the investigation uncovers. However this is not the first time fingers have been pointed at his daughter so this article was not shocking.

...and yes, I think Tom's charity was a grift. At least from the faily's pov.

It has been reported in other papers too and it’s not just a planning issue.

Can't say I'm surprised about this at all

And me. I thought my husband and me were the only people not interested in Captain Tom