Hannah Ingram-Moore - Grabby and embarrasing

[SlightlyJaded]

What a disgrace this woman is.

I have been on MN for 20 years and never posted on the News board but I am just so appalled by her greed that I had to vent.

The Captain Tom Moore fundraiser was a moment in time - almost an anomaly. It could so easily have flown under the radar but it came at a time when most of the nation felt alone, frightened and utterly powerless. It was something to 'get behind' and be part of (via donations). And his daughter knows that. She knows that her dad buoyed a nation at a dark time, and she knows her dad was awarded in recognition of that. She knows how much 'we' wanted that money to make a difference to the part of the NHS that would benefit and she has continually found ways to manipulate the situation and benefit personally.

Surely she realises that such a big sum - publicly raised - is going to be scrutinized? I am embarrassed by her greed and stupidity. For her for charging for an appearance like she's a fucking celebrity. Greedy, grabbing disgraceful behaviour.

No idea why I am so invested and care so much, but i am and I do.

There was an advert - in the 70s/80s - which said 'Behind every scheme, there's a schemer!' That's my default position until I can establish to my own satisfaction I'm not being scammed.

So, whilst I despise her behaviour, I don't believe she is different to any other grifter willing to scam people. My level of loathing remains constant across the grifter-board.

Initially, I tried to give benefit of doubt and assume that she had been turned into a villain by the press but, no smoke without fire as they say.
I'm curious whether she is the black sheep of the family or whether they are all like it.

I also feel there are a lot of very dubious charities in the UK which seem to exist largely to pay their own directors generous salaries in return for not very much. I really wonder about the strength of regulation in the sector.

I became fed up with a couple of charities who constantly dropped off charity collection bags using workers who didn’t speak a work of English wandering around our stable yard at 6am. When I looked into them their websites were extremely out of date and from their filings with the charities commission there was very little evidence of actual charitable activity.

*Replying to a BBC email about this matter, Hannah Ingram-Moore said via email: "You are awful. It's a total lie."

Six minutes later she added: "Apologies. That reply was for a scammer who has been creating havoc".*

I agree with the assessment that she is an idiot, as well as a grifter.

The just giving money did go to NHS charities, that's how just giving works. It's automatically forwarded to the nominated charity. Individuals can't withdraw money.

It's their foundation that is dodgy as hell and needs to be audited.

Is she worse than, say, a pair of NSPCC pricks jangling their collection buckets at poverty-stricken pensioners as they try to go in and out of the COOP? One started commenting on how much the lady's meagre shopping cart must have cost and how she could surely spare just a few pounds more. The lady got visibly flustered at having to justify herself and I was so pissed off I intervened and led her away.

The CEO of NSPCC gets an annual base salary of £173,000, while this lady's clothes were probably new 20 years ago.

Now interviewed by Piers Morgan, rarely a recommendation. Sometimes, Mrs Moore, it's better to just keep quiet.

Yet anyone who dared question what was going on at the time got flamed - on here, at least.

When someone (usually a child, in this case a very elderly man) does something for charity and you find there is someone else (usually a parent, in this case a daughter) pushing the publicity I always feel a bit uncomfortable.

It's normally just a parent wanting their child to be seen as wonderful. But it's rarely about the charity.

Sad money obsessed grifter hubby is an accountant , kajing!...£££!... no shame the ole boys fame was achieved through raising money for nhs ,no one would av read about him if he hadn't raised 40 mill , 🤮🤮🤮 no moral compass

How did she think talking to Piers Morgan would help?

Thing is, if she’d been decent, good things would have come to them, anyway. But greedy folk always want more.

I think the swimming pool (sans planning permission) just symbolises the sense that they’d won the jackpot in life.

I am so disappointed in them as a family - it seems that they have totally taken advantage of a situation for their own benefit. Ruins her father's legacy - nomatter what anyone says, to raise £40 million was amazing.

no one would av read about him if he hadn't raised 40 mill

Agreed. She's treating the money from the books as separate income, but nobody would have bought them if it hadn't been part of the wave of people wanting to give/support the NHS - especially when Tom said about 'raising more money' from the book sales.

No professional author would ever talk about 'raising money' when earning a living from selling their creative output.

That single of You'll Never Walk Alone was the same - it was a pity/support purchase. Nobody bought it for the quality of the music; otherwise they would have just bought a normal Michael Ball recording of a much less cliched, overdone song.

I've not listened to her interview but this "family money" she kept separate from the charity. How much of it has her sister seen?

It was clear from day one what she was up to.

I think painting her as the villain and her father as either a hero or a vulnerable, manipulated man is pretty simplistic. He was a very wealthy man himself and perhaps she feels no guilt at behaving in this way because he shared her values around money. We'll never know I guess. However, she does seem like a bear of little brain.

I don’t get this. The guy left her the proceeds in his will.

What he wrote in the book is neither here nor there.

She wasn’t doing anything that other charities don’t do? Why are they not in the press?

oh because they don’t have the same level of interest!

The media want to take her down and they will do it.

There are many dubious charities, many are scams. There needs to be far more scrutiny over who can set them up.

I am unsurprised by this. But as pp said, IME it is no different from many other charities who are just as bad or worse. It is really quite challenging to find a charity that isn't run by grifters and scammers or even, in the case of a couple of high profile organisations, paedophilia and sexual exploitation, top brass lining their own pockets, buying fancy cars and houses, lots of "meetings" involving expensive trips and meals. I can't think of the name of the worst one whose senior staff were coercing vulnerable women into having sex in exchange for food aid, but I am sure someone will remind me. Look at the recent behaviour of OXFAM, look at Kids Company, Childline, NSPCC., Mermaids. That is just a quick list off the top of my head.

He put in the foreword of the best selling book about how it was an opportunity to further help the charity, there was also a tweet from his official twitter account stating the book will help the charity. We only have her word that the proceeds were to go to him/ the family.

I completely agree that the oversight/ regulation of the charities sector is truly woeful.

I worked for a charity whose CEO managed to buy themselves a huge property with the charity's money. They had managed to manoeuvre the rest of the board members into positions where they couldn't say anything without incriminating themselves. I left, knowing there was absolutely nothing I could do.
Charities are a magnet for people like that.

No, that is not what they are saying. They say that he wanted the proceeds to go to the family, not that his will said that. There appears to be no independent corroboration of this. And, even if he did say that, the publicity at the time strongly implied that the proceeds would go to support the NHS. Indeed, Captain Tom's interviews at the time seemed to say that was what was happening. There is, therefore, reason to believe that people were misled into buying the book, believing the profits were going to the Foundation when in fact they went to the family.

It’s the blurring of the lines between what was raising money for the foundation and what was lining the pockets of the family that was the problem.

Yes, the CEO of the NSPCC gets paid £173k per year for running an organisation with a turnover of £120M and around 1,500 employees. A CEO running a private sector organisation of similar size would generally expect to earn more than this. However, the behaviour you report from a collector was totally out of order. Indeed, as it sounds like they tried to make the lady feel guilty, it may have been illegal. The charity is, of course, ultimately responsible but, having organised street collections for a small charity, I know how difficult it can be to ensure that your collectors stay within the rules.