Second charity refuses £10k raised for woman guilty of false rape claims

[IwantToRetire]

A second charity has decided to “politely decline” £10,000 originally raised for Eleanor Williams, who was convicted this week of perverting the course of justice by lying about being raped and trafficked.

Women’s Community Matters (WCM) in Barrow in Furness, Williams’ home town, was one of two charities that were to split £20,000 crowdfunded for Williams if she did not use it to bring her alleged abusers to justice. ...

On Thursday, the former Greater Manchester police detective Maggie Oliver said it would be “unethical” for her charity, the Maggie Oliver Foundation, to accept any of the money. ...

uk.news.yahoo.com/second-charity-refuses-10k-raised-084545893.html

I can see that they might feel it is inappropriate, but those who gave money thought they were donating to support a victim of rape. So wouldn't it be a positive outcome for the money?

Or just send it back?

I think it’s a shame if it doesn’t go to a charity that supports victims. Ideally locally.

The thing is it was hijacked by the far-right. She said she was attacked by an Asian grooming gang, it stirred up a lot of awful racist abuse online and in the town itself. The money is tainted, I wouldn’t want my charity associated with it either.

I think the issue is that she lied about being rape. The far right may have tried to capitalise on it, but the false allegations are the issue.

Can a charity that supports women who have been raped or suffered male violence take money given in good faith to support a victim of rape, when it turns out the allegations are false.

The money was given by individuals to support a victim of rape.

Maybe all those who gave money should be asked what they think.

It's tainted money - I wouldn't accept it on behalf of my charity either.

I wonder if they've offered it to a male-focused charity like the White Ribbon Alliance who work to help men tackle violence against women, or an Islamic charity?

It's best it's sent back. Hopefully those who donated will pass it on to bone fide charities that help women victims of male violence.

Charity money connected to Jimmy Saville had the same issue. And that wasn't just thousands. Massive chunks of money and no-one wanted any association to it.

The taint is just to much sometimes.

But the Jimmy Saville money was eventually spent, by putting it towards things that helped victims such as his.

That may be the only way this money gets used to help people who have been falsly accused get therapy to deal with the fall out. Or to try to rebuild community relationships.

If it's been raised electronically surely it can be returned. If it's been cash collected them it would probably be best spent on something that benefits the most people.

Are links to archive sites not allowed?

Proven cases of false allegations are vanishingly rare. And in this case the charity will have to think of what it'll cost them in other donations if they accept this money - being hard nosed about it.

If it was raised via a crowdfunder then it should just be refunded. It's unethical to assume donors would be happy with this arrangement, especially in light of the highly unusual circumstances.

Well in the posts that mumsnet has censored I quoted from the article linked in the OP and it explains why it cant be returned.

Have no idea why this has been censored.

He said it was not logistically possible to return donations to the thousand-plus people who originally donated to the JustGiving page.

Now I don't see why not. If the £20k that still exists was paid back to just giving. Just giving know who paid what. They just percentage it out people wouldn't get their full donation back but they're get most of it

I don't see why they can't work with justgiving to return the money. It's not impossible may not necessarily easy.

Why not just accept the money? It will be used to support victims of rape, as the donors intended. I think they are being ridiculously precious.

All the money via Justgiving went to the Tory councillor who set it up, so not able to use details from them.

The councillor gave the money to Eleanor Williams mother, who happens to be a Labour Councillor. Some of the money was spent on councilling for Eleanor Williams and the remainder is what her mother is trying to give away, since the trial ended.

Then she needs to do a social media campaign to Garner suggestions from those that originally donated on this on how they'd like the money spent. Collate the responses then do a poll on the favourites..

Or wait for it all to die down and someone/charity will take the money and put it to good use at some point.

It needs to be returned to the donors, surely. Ans surely, in this day and age, it should be relatively straight forward to do that

That's what I said earlier. they should go back to just giving and arrange for the money to go back to them so they can give back each person who donated as much of their donationn back as possible. It's the only fair way. Yes it's a ballache and will involve a lot of hassle, but that's not the fault of the people who have given in good faith

Or as just giving hold all the data it wouldn't be that hard to say choose three options and just giving email ask those who donated and ask them to pick an option for the money to go to.

Of course the simplest option would be for the charities who were going to get the funds just to accept it and make sure it is put to the best use possible.

The other option is it sits in one woman's account for ever! And that's definitely not the best use of the money.

If it can’t be given back, she should quietly give it to a charity unconnected to this subject, maybe a food bank?

Just giving have said because they money has been removed they can no longer be part of what happens.

All of this was in the article.

We need to recognise this.

I know that but the point is the technology exists, the records of who gave exist.

The money could go back to just giving it could be returned to the people who donated.

Just because just giving don't want to know doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible just that they don't want to do it.

Local here this case has been in the local media nearly every day since her guilty verdict. Shane has found two charities willing to accept the cash. One is the James Bulger charity. I don't know what the other one is. But her mother is refusing to hand over the cash to Shane. She wants to keep it until July 23rd as that's what's in the contract.

It's all a bit suspicious she has also been suspended from the labour party as a councillor. We don't think the money is there any more or a lot of it has been spent. We think she is just trying to bide some time to recoup what's been spent. She has been flogging a lot of stuff on selling site's. A lot that could possibly be Ellie's. She has also been behaving appallingly on social media. From her Facebook profile and fake profiles she has set up. As well as supporting a certain person who is saying Jordan Trengrove is guilty based on what someone he thought was his friend said in court when it wasn't true.

We actually want it to go to a charity that supports people accused of sexual assault. Mud sticks even after they're name is cleared. It never leaves them.