WPUK have released a financial statement showing money received by source and how it is spent

[OvaHere]

womansplaceuk.org/2020/11/28/wpuk-financial-statement-2020/

Perhaps we can quit with the 'dark money' narrative now.

I was a little surprised to see a grant from Lush Charity Pot in there. Perhaps as a company they aren't a total write off after all.

JJ I’m an FCA with 20 plus years experience including substantial experience in Charities Accounts. I will contact them on Monday to ask if they need any assistance which I would provide free of charge.

@calllaaalllaaammma

Charities don't pay tax on most types of income as long as they use the money for charitable purposes.

Yes but they are registered, usually both as charities and as companies limited by guarantee. WPUK don't appear to be either unless something has changed recently.

How is anyone coming up with £50k per year? It looks like a £42k difference between income and expenditure. Take away the quarantined £5k and that means it's about 12k a year as 'profit'.
I'm no accountant so I may have this all wrong.

I'm pretty confident however they are managing finances it will be legitimate considering how much scrutiny they come under and how desperate some people are for them to make a misstep.

"I have no idea." JJ 2020

Shocked, I tell you, shocked.

Im sure if someone thinks there’s been a breach of HMRC rules by WPUK they can flag it up with HMRC

I mean that would be the responsible thing to do right? Rather than making insinuations.....

Yes but they are registered, usually both as charities and as companies limited by guarantee. WPUK don't appear to be either unless something has changed recently.

They don't need to be either a charity or a company limited by guarantee. Plenty of groups are unincorporated. It's perfectly legitimate and in no way suggests they are tax evading. Presumably your knowledge on such matter is non-existent?

My god the desperation.
I went to a wpuk meeting in 2019, it was wonderful and I met some brilliant women there.

Oh god...surely by now those goal posts are getting a bit too heavy to keep moving around when proven wrong...

@Whatwouldscullydo

Oh god...surely by now those goal posts are getting a bit too heavy to keep moving around when proven wrong...

Surely it's more ladylike to say "Shifting the lacrosse posts"?

(Happiest Days of Your Life is one of my favourite films).

Well the truly ladylike thing to to would be get a man to do it surely

Just report them and move on..no ones listening to wpuk...are they....an awful lot of worrying over what we are constantly told is nothing....

Groups generally only become charities to get the tax breaks - I reason at all why any organisation should be registered either as a charity or as a Ltd company unless there's a clear benefit to do so.

So not odd at all.

I am pleased that they have decided to publish these, but do worry that some will now use this to bring up examples of what they consider to be bad practice etc., under guidelines they would have to follow is actually registered as a not for profit organisation. You can have something called a common interest company which excludes profit making but isn't regulated by the Charity Commission who have quite strict guidelines.

Just out of interest, because of past fears of money laundering etc., I didn't think it possible to open a bank account as an unincorperated association anymore!

But have to say I am sad to see that some speakers were paid. Its one thing covering speakers costs, but this is a campaign. You would like to think speakers were speaking because they are committed to the issue, not to get a professional fee.

Perhaps jj now you can move your narrative from 'funded by the religious right hate group' to 'tax avoiding hate group'. Doesn't have the same cache though does it? Still you aren't really interested in the truth.

Sorry - groups register as charities because they want to be eligible for grants and donations. Because scrutiny by the Charity Commission is (assumed to be) rigourous, those donating and granting money have the reassurance that the money will be spent correctly.

What tax breaks there are, are very limited and unlikely to greatly increase income.

(I put in assumed to be as we have all seen newspaper reports of how some charities have not been competent, and audits etc., are always lagging by 18 to 24 months.)

@stumbledin I'm sure if you contact WPUK they will discuss with the circumstances in which any speakers were reimbursed beyond travel and accommodation.

In my experience, campaigns that make a rule of never compensating speakers will find that this is a barrier to speakers who are on the lowest incomes.

I agree women are normally economically deprived if an org can pay them they should

stumbledin it takes time to prepare and deliver a talk. If it’s someone who is asked to speak a lot that takes time where they would otherwise have been able to earn money so it is entirely reasonable for them to be paid. If it’s a one off then fine to ask them to donate the time for free.

In my experience women are often not compensated for speaking so I’m pleased to see WPUK do it on occasion

JJ your posts are getting so desperate it's actual pathetic. Do you not ever read them back to your self and think "good lord, maybe I need to take the tinfoil hat off and make a cup of tea"? Fucking cringing for you mate 😂

Stumbledin - in academia it is routine to pay money for key speakers. This is to cover their transport, accommodation and food. I certainly wouldn't think that an academic didn't really believe in the issue just because they got paid a fee. The fee ensures you can get really top academics in , and it also gives them an impetus to create a fresh new talk. I know that WPUK is not academia, but it's a pretty close analogy. I for one have always found the quality of the talks to be really detailed and informative - I never thought the speakers were just phoning it in.

I also don't mean this to be a criticism, but I was just thinking it's kind of sad how women have been socialised to think that they have to give their time and efforts up for free or otherwise it's immoral.

I guess the worst case scenario is that they are not paying their taxes correctly. They would then need to sort that out with HMRC.

That sounds like a ducking stool offence to me.

Lush have donated to WPUK?

This suggests that all the staff don’t agree with the company’s current war on women then, interesting.

@jj1968

Wow, that's quite a turnover for an unconstituted organisation that's clearly trading. I wonder how they are registered with HMRC when they don't seem to have any formal structure.

JJ1968 here’s some info on setting up community groups www.resourcecentre.org.uk/information-category/starting-a-group/ there isn’t anything untoward about what WPUK are doing.

Women do a lot of volunteering we are familiar with the various structures and our legal obligations

For those commenting about fees for speakers

I specifically said costs should be paid.

Why this distinction between say "professional" speakers who usually charge, and say a front line activist who probably has more relevent things to say, who is doing it out of committment to the issue.

If academics think that somehow their time is more precious than others fine. But I dont think a group like WPUK should pay speakers fees.

But they should pay costs.

@stumbledin You are making a lot of assumptions about the circumstances in which speakers fees might be paid which could be resolved by contacting WPUK and asking them about it.