Captain Sir Tom Moore RiP

[ddraig]

Super greedy

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

With regards to their spa thing...

In 2021, the Ingram-Moores received approval from the council to build a Captain Tom Foundation building beside their home, after referencing the charity’s name and number "numerous times" in the planning application.

The Ingram-Moores told the inquiry the inclusion of the charity’s name in the initial planning application was an error, claiming they were busy with "global media work" at the time, but they did intend to use the building for charitable purposes.

Either they were intending to use the building for charitable purposes OR including the charity name and number in the planning was an error, can't be both. Unless you're telling lies.

 

[Artaxerxes]

 

[brogdale]

With regards to their spa thing...

In 2021, the Ingram-Moores received approval from the council to build a Captain Tom Foundation building beside their home, after referencing the charity’s name and number "numerous times" in the planning application.



Either they were intending to use the building for charitable purposes OR including the charity name and number in the planning was an error, can't be both. Unless you're telling lies.

Can't really see why these thieving scum haven't been prosecuted

 

[Rebecca Riot]

View attachment 429921

Imagine getting stuck behind that for miles on end.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Imagine getting stuck behind that for miles on end.

Hot tub's gotta be delivered somehow

 

[Spymaster]

Can't really see why these thieving scum haven't been prosecuted

They've mismanaged and misled but I'm not sure they've actually committed fraud or theft. I've seen several charity administrators do this kind of thing first hand (I actually had to insist that Mrs Spy resign as a trustee from one because of certain concerns) and they rarely get prosecuted.

They're clearly revoltingly unpleasant people who couldn't have done a better job of pissing all over the old boy's legacy if they'd tried. Their reputation is fucked and hopefully they'll now be thoroughly shunned, but I think that's the best you can hope for.

 

[Wilf]

They've mismanaged and misled but I'm not sure they've actually committed fraud or theft. I've seen several charity administrators do this kind of thing first hand (I actually had to insist that Mrs Spy resign as a trustee from one because of certain concerns) and they rarely get prosecuted.

They're clearly revoltingly unpleasant people who couldn't have done a better job of pissing all over the old boy's legacy if they'd tried. Their reputation is fucked and hopefully they'll now be thoroughly shunned, but I think that's the best you can hope for.

Don't think they'll get Strictly or I'm a Celebrity, but what's the next step down? Is there a show called Celebrity Grifters?

Hmmm, if there isn't I'll pitch it to Channel 5.

 

[danski]

Don't think they'll get Strictly or I'm a Celebrity, but what's the next step down? Is there a show called Celebrity Grifters?

Hmmm, if there isn't I'll pitch it to Channel 5.

Isn’t that politics?

 

[VivaE]

They've mismanaged and misled but I'm not sure they've actually committed fraud or theft. I've seen several charity administrators do this kind of thing first hand (I actually had to insist that Mrs Spy resign as a trustee from one because of certain concerns) and they rarely get prosecuted.

They're clearly revoltingly unpleasant people who couldn't have done a better job of pissing all over the old boy's legacy if they'd tried. Their reputation is fucked and hopefully they'll now be thoroughly shunned, but I think that's the best you can hope for.

I think they have committed fraud, and intentionally so too.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Obtaining money by lying about stuff is pretty clearly fraud isn't it, at it's most basic level? Seems so to me anyway. Whether they'll bother prosecuting them is a different thing obviously.

 

[VivaE]

Obtaining money by lying about stuff is pretty clearly fraud isn't it, at it's most basic level? Seems so to me anyway. Whether they'll bother prosecuting them is a different thing obviously.

Yes, exactly. This is not a case of people inadvertently misleading donors through naivety and/or confusion on their parts. They set out to scam and deceive. I agree they're unlikely to be prosecuted but let's call what they did what it is, deliberate, opportunistic, self-serving fraud.

 

[Spymaster]

I think they have committed fraud, and intentionally so too.

Where though?

I think they've been dishonest about their intentions for sure, but what part of what they've done would satisfy a fraud charge?

 

[Wilf]

Where though?

I think they've been dishonest about their intentions for sure, but what part of what they've done would satisfy a fraud charge?

Suspect you are right. Though morally they are up there with the worst of the phone scammers.

 

[VivaE]

Where though?

I think they've been dishonest about their intentions for sure, but what part of what they've done would satisfy a fraud charge?

Well this alone constitutes fraud surely, if we're defining fraud as the misleading of donors for personal financial gain?

The inquiry report is especially critical of a £1.5m three-book deal signed in May 2020 on behalf of Captain Tom by Hannah Ingram-Moore, which promotional materials suggested would benefit the charity, but which turned out to be an almost purely commercial deal enriching the family. Although the inquiry was told the Ingram-Moores had promised to make a donation to the charity from the book deal, they did not do so. Given the opportunity by the commission in November 2022 to make a donation from the book deal proceeds, they declined.

Captain Tom’s family personally benefited from charity they founded, report finds

Watchdog’s highly critical inquiry finds Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore culpable of ‘serious and repeated’ misconduct

www.theguardian.com

 

[skyscraper101]

They should be made to walk a hundred laps around their garden every day for a year as punishment.

 

[Spymaster]

Well this alone constitutes fraud surely, if we're defining fraud as the misleading of donors for personal financial gain?

Captain Tom’s family personally benefited from charity they founded, report finds

Watchdog’s highly critical inquiry finds Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore culpable of ‘serious and repeated’ misconduct

www.theguardian.com

I'm not sure it does. If you say you're going to make a donation in promotional material and then don't, it's certainly scummy behaviour but it's probably not illegal. This is the problem with this kind of stuff. The bar is quite high and if they haven't actually misappropriated funds (and nobody is saying they have), it's all pretty grey.

There's also been no suggestion (that I'm aware of) of illegality by the Charity Commission. They've said there's been "misconduct, mismanagement, and failures of integrity", none of which are necessarily illegal.

 

[DaveCinzano]

There's also been no suggestion (that I'm aware of) of illegality by the Charity Commission. They've said there's been "misconduct, mismanagement, and failures of integrity", none of which are necessarily illegal.

Indeed, in some charities such qualities in trustees would be considered veritable assets

 

[VivaE]

I'm not sure it does. If you say you're going to make a donation in promotional material and then don't, it's certainly scummy behaviour but it's probably not illegal. This is the problem with this kind of stuff. The bar is quite high and if they haven't actually misappropriated funds (and nobody is saying they have), it's all pretty grey.

There's also been no suggestion (that I'm aware of) of illegality by the Charity Commission. They've said there's been "misconduct, mismanagement, and failures of integrity", none of which are necessarily illegal.

I can see that we're not really disagreeing here but 'a repeated pattern of behaviour' is absolutely fraud imo. The CC's conclusions are way too generous and their biggest fail is the lack of acknowledgement of the trust damage this pair of grifters have done to all the bonafide charities out there who depend so much on fundraising.

However, it adds: “The commission has concluded that Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore’s misconduct and/or mismanagement wasn’t an isolated incident but a repeated pattern of behaviour which continued past the worst of the pandemic.”

Captain Tom’s family ‘repeatedly benefitted’ from ‘mismanaged’ charity, inquiry finds

www.civilsociety.co.uk

 

[Spymaster]

I can see that we're not really disagreeing here but 'a repeated pattern of behaviour' is absolutely fraud imo. The CC's conclusions are way too generous and their biggest fail is the lack of acknowledgement of the trust damage this pair of grifters have done to all the bonafide charities out there who depend so much on fundraising.

Captain Tom’s family ‘repeatedly benefitted’ from ‘mismanaged’ charity, inquiry finds

www.civilsociety.co.uk

Well it depends what the repeated pattern of behaviour is, but we're not disagreeing with much other than that fraud is a legal term which this doesn't seem to satisfy according the CC report.

I think what you're saying is that they're a pair of sleazy, grifting arseholes who have possibly narrowly avoided criminal charges, and who shame the memory of Captain Tom.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Hollis]

Seems to sail pretty close:



Captain Tom’s family ‘repeatedly benefitted’ from ‘mismanaged’ charity, inquiry finds.


Anyway, that's enough Columbo from me.