Charities Or Businesses : Which Is Which ? Another Rizla Paper Test ?

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
Several threads have touched apon this subject wherein it is difficult at times to know the difference.

Some entities are clearly one , but not the other , whereas the fun starts when both objectives are persued under one banner.

Slightly at a tangent to this conundrum is a report from the BBC on NHS hospitals paying more in council tax than private hospitals who are registered as charities :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40993450

Question ... are private hospitals really charities ... purely rhetorical ?

As the social care sector continues to collapse , more and more entities are stepping into the breach ... some charities / some businesses.

Just look at the salaries paid by registered charities to their " Management " ... scales to attract pay mercenaries ... what would the original founders make of this ... how many members of charities could do a similar job from within the organisation ... devoting their time and energy towards the charitable cause ?

Just do a Google search ... Charity Sector Pay Scales .... and see for yourselves ... it's staggering !

Or businesses reliant on unpaid volunteers , from apprentices to full time operatives.

What is now needed is a clear distinction , in Law , as to what exactly each entity is ... a charity ? a business ? ... and , if needed , either charitable or business enterprises spun off from the main " Entity " so that there is no confusion in anyone's mind as to exactly what they are dealing with.

Often the case ... society changes but the Law remains the same ... until something goes terribly wrong ?
Interesting issue. I've been in both Nuffield and Spire hospitals. I believe the Nuffield come under a "Foundation", but I think Spire are a business. Is this right?
A good example.

Spire seem to attract fee paying patients ... a case of any pleb being told " On yer bike ! " ?

Nuffield declare themselves to being a non profit charitable foundation. One needs medical insurance cover to avail themselves of their facilities. As for plebs ... another " On yer bike ! " ?

Two figures cut off ? Your insurance only covers one !

A pleb ? Only way in is for the NHS to refer ... and pay ?

Charities or businesses ?

A comment from the Daily Chuckle ( Mail ) who have run a similar article :

Nuffield Hospitals claim charitable status yet behave in many respects the same as their competitors Spire and BMI. Having worked closely with them for a number of years it's time that these quasi charities are expelled from behind their facade.


Therein lies the essence of this thread !
Perhaps I should have said that when I went to the Spire it was either pay or wait too long to save me. I chose paying!

My knee replacements were paid for as part of my car accident compensation.
I would classify said examples as businesses masquerading as charities ... and as " Charities " , enjoy several tax advantages as well as relief against " Business " rates.

What's next ?

Social tenants " Cleansed " ( Thrown out ) of social housing by the " Charity " landlords as they cannot afford an increase in the rent ?

Or , residents outed from a " Charity " run care home because the owners are losing money , and need fee paying residents to replace the LA funded ones to balance the books ?

A charity ... a business ... never the twain shall meet .... ?

Recourse against a charity , and against a business , take on different proceedures even if said recourse is identical to both. Proving against a charity would be a lot harder than a business.

A traditional view of a " Charity " is an entity , established by an individual or group of individuals , endowed with initial funds , and run / managed by a group of supporters / volunteers to carry out the founding purpose.

How many " Charities " would past that test in today's Sad New World with the layers of " Management " now seen together with salaries that most carers / carees could only dream of ?

If not charities , what exactly are they .... ?

Hence , the classification as to who is actually who needs updating ... and fast !
More on the Business Rate ambiguity .... NHS / private hospitals ... an excellent article from today's Yorkie Post :

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/pri ... -1-8713023
Private hospitals are enjoying a £52 million tax break on their business rates bill through their charitable status while NHS hospitals are facing crippling hikes, research has revealed.


NHS hospitals ... free at the point of delivery ... pay full business rates.

Private hospitals ... pay for their services ... reduced business rates due to their " Charitible " status.

Perhaps the energy providers should re-register as " Charities " , and then pass on some savings to us poor users as " Charitable " donations from the savings to be made ?

Funny old world ... isn't it ?
Daily Chuckle ( Mail ) .... 29 February 2016 :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eveal.html

Some 1,700 organisations that claim to be charities are also operating as money-making businesses, the charity regulator revealed yesterday.

The figure was uncovered by the Charity Commission in the wake of a scandal over the methods used by Age UK, which made millions by using its name to promote household energy deals that were not the cheapest available.

While Age UK rejects the allegations and E.On says its tariffs are competitive, commission chairman William Shawcross ordered an immediate review by all charity trustees of their organisation’s commercial activities.

He warned that those which do not clean up their operations risk being stripped of their charitable status.


Therein lies the conundrum ... is it a bird or a plane ?

SORT IT OUT NOW !!!
Back with a real BANG ... this morning's Daily Telegraph :


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/b ... ying-45pc/


Charity offers retail bond paying out 4.5pc.


A charity has launched a retail bond with an annual fixed rate of interest of 4.5pc, paying out twice a year until it matures in 2026.

Affordable bonds of this type are issued rarely, usually only once or twice a year.

The offering is only available for a limited amount of time, and closes in the second week of June.

The bond can be purchased through a number of brokers, including AJ Bell and Equiniti Financial Services, and you will need a minimum of £500 to be able to invest – though you can invest more.

Your money will be invested in helping the charity, Belong, develop retirement villages for the elderly, with a focus on dementia care.

This marks the charity’s eighth bond issue, which overall have raised £150m for various charitable causes since 2014.

The bonds are expected to be listed on the Official List of the Financial Conduct Authority, and can be traded on the London Stock Exchange.

Michael Dyson, of Bondinvest Capital, the specialist consultancy, said he thought the bond reflected decent value, and that its 4.5pc rate was on par with other retail bonds issued in the past.

"It's good to see another charity raising capital commercially through the bond market," he said.

Last year Greensleeves Care, a nursing charity, issued a bond that paid out 4.25pc. The charity hopes to raise between £20m and £30m from investors, and the bond matures in 2026.

In 2016, the Charity Aid Foundation issued a 5pc bond that raised £30m.

Tracey Stakes, chief executive of Belong, said the charity was set up as an alternative to the conventional care model.

“As demand for what we offer has grown, we continue to look for ways to expand the portfolio, and a good bond will help us in building more retirement villages throughout the country,” she said.

One thing for investors to bear in mind is that retail bonds are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, so your money is not protected if the bond fails. However, these types of bonds are heavily scrutinised and are safer than other products such as mini-bonds, which are unregulated bonds issued by businesses and are not listed on the London Stock Exchange.



Anyone else see exactly what's happening here ????

How can a " Charity " be run as a charity if it issues bonds to outside investors expecting a rate of return which will now mean that said charity has new priorities ... pay the interest on the bonds BEFORE carrying out whatever work they have elected to do !!!

Surely a clear case of a wolf in sheep's clothing ... the tag " Charity " is on the tin but not now in the contents.

In essence , new partners in running a business which now needs to produce a return equal to , if not higher , than the return demanded by the bond holders.


The longer this Issue if left unchallenged , the bigger the explosion when the ticking time bomb detonates !!!

"It's good to see another charity raising capital commercially through the bond market," he said.


Sums up perfectly the ignorance of the outside world !!!
Oh dear , the Government seeks to add to the confusion that already exists :


https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... c-services

New 'big society' bid to boost charities' role in public services.

Government’s vision to build fairer society shares objectives with David Cameron’s much-mocked agenda.


The government has launched a new “big society”-style strategy designed to enable charities to play a bigger role in the provision of public services, from social care and homelessness to libraries.

Ministers say they want to help the public sector, private businesses, charities and volunteers to work together more closely to solve social problems, build stronger communities and create a fairer society.

“Government alone cannot solve the complex challenges facing society, such as loneliness, rough sleeping, healthy ageing or online safety. Government can help to bring together the resources, policies and people who, between them, can do so,” the strategy says.

It comes out as local authorities – a key source of funding for many local charities – warn that voluntary groups will have to take on the delivery of services that councils can no longer afford because of funding cuts.

The strategy is likely to be regarded with scepticism by many in the voluntary sector who feel that while austerity has driven up demand for charity services, ministers have failed to support the sector financially and sought to silence its views.


Although the paper published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is coy about the big society programme championed by former prime minister David Cameron’s government, it shares many of its objectives.

Cameron’s big society idea was launched with great fanfare in 2010 as a way of bringing charities and social enterprises in to replace supposedly monolithic and bureaucratic public services, but it failed to gain traction and was widely mocked as a cover for cuts to public services.

The new strategy promises £165m in funds taken from dormant bank accounts and charitable trusts to support community foundations, set up organisations to get disadvantaged people into employment, and tackle financial exclusion.

It also includes plans to launch “innovation in democracy” pilots in six regions around the country are also included in the document, to trial ways for people to take a more direct role in community decision-making through possible online polls, apps or “citizens’ juries”.

The culture secretary, Jeremy Wright, and the civil society minister, Tracey Crouch, write in the foreword: “Big societal challenges, including the future of social care, community integration, and housing, are being tackled through solutions that bring together public services, businesses, and communities.

“New providers are taking responsibility for youth services, domestic abuse services, addiction services, and offender rehabilitation services. New models are developing for funding and running libraries as well as children’s services.”

They add: “All this is happening because of the resourcefulness of the British people.”

They claim that civil society, philanthropy and volunteering is thriving in the UK, while businesses “are rediscovering the original purpose of the corporation: to deliver value to society, not just quarterly returns to shareholders”.

Ministers two years ago attempted to introduce a “gagging clause” on charities who received public funding, preventing them campaigning on so-called “political” issues. This was subsequently diluted after an outcry.

The strategy says: “The government is determined that charities and social enterprises should be fully confident in their right to speak in public debates, and to have a strong role in shaping policy and speaking up on behalf of those they support.”

Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said: “The strategy is an encouraging start, carrying a strong recognition of the role that civil society plays in tackling some of today’s greatest challenges, and of the need to ensure its involvement in developing new solutions.

“The real test will be embedding the strategy’s aspirations across government, ensuring expert charities are truly involved in policymaking, and that procurement processes work as well for smaller charities as they do for big outsourcing companies.”

Northamptonshire county council, which is technically insolvent and needs to make £70m of cuts over the coming months, has said it wants to encourage behaviour change in communities to create resilience in places where the council can no longer step in.

East Sussex county council said neighbourhood voluntary groups would have to take increasing responsibility for supporting older people who would no longer qualify for social care support because of big cuts.


Charities ... what do they know about running a business ?

Any business expertise amongst their invisible trustees ?

Already we have seen their haphazard approach ... SLEEPOVERS thread for one ... upto £ 400 MILLION could have been lost for their beneficiaries by them simply not doing their homework.

Grass roots organisations stepping into the void ... East Sussex mentioned ?

A case of all hands to the pump when the LAs simply fail to deliver ... little alternative.

Big Society ?

Big CON !

Cutting back services to the bone ... and then expect others to pick up the pieces ... whilst the rich getter richer ?

Sound familiar ... in CarerLand ?
Interesting one from today's Guardian ... where else ?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... e-sell-off

Disability charity under fire over home sell-off strategy.

Leonard Cheshire accused of letting down vulnerable residents and ignoring its founding principles.

Life is settling down again for Richard Keat after a summer of upheaval and distress. He was one of 20 profoundly disabled residents of a Wiltshire care home summoned to a meeting in May to be told that their residence was to close and that they had until the end of July to find somewhere else to live. Within six weeks of moving, three of them were dead.

Keat, 44, a quadriplegic with cerebral palsy, was so upset by the prospect of leaving the Greathouse home in Kington Langley, near Chippenham, that he ended up in hospital after suffering severe weight loss. “He absolutely loved it at Greathouse,” says his mother, Anne Keat. “There was always so much going on, and he soaked it up like a sponge. He made friends he will never see again, some he never said goodbye to.”

Greathouse was run not by a commercial care company, but by disability charity Leonard Cheshire. Its handling of the closure, together with a simultaneous decision to sell 17 other homes as going concerns, has sparked fierce criticism and raised questions about its stewardship of the legacy of its celebrated founder, Group Captain Leonard Cheshire.

Seventy years ago, Cheshire, a highly decorated former RAF pilot, took into his home a dying man who had nowhere else to go. A year later, 24 people with complex needs were living at the house, fortunately a large mansion in Hampshire. Today, the charity that grew from Cheshire’s altruism has an annual income in excess of £175m and supports 30,000 people a year in the UK and overseas. By 2022, it plans to be supporting 90,000.

But critics are asking whether Leonard Cheshire is straying too far from its original mission. In the early 1990s, there were more than 200 “Cheshire homes” in the UK. Half have already gone but by next year, when the sale of the 17 is expected to complete, there will be just 87 providing regulated care services, and fewer than 30 will cater for people with the most severe needs.

“I just don’t understand what they are doing,” says Anne Keat, who at 81 is highly anxious that her son will adapt to his new care home in Chippenham. “Leonard Cheshire must be turning in his grave.”


But Neil Heslop, the charity’s chief executive for the past two years, responds: “We think, as an organisation, we have a moral obligation to do more to reach more people and make a bigger difference.” He set out his early thinking in an interview with Society Guardian shortly after his appointment in 2016. He said then that he was reviewing the viability of the charity’s 20 “poorest-performing” homes, in tandem with a strategic review of all activities. Two of those 20, both in Lincolnshire, were shut last year; Greathouse has now followed and the remaining 17 are up for sale to a single, almost certainly for-profit, operator.

While the three closures, as with many since the 1990s, are ascribed to the decaying fabric and unsuitable configuration of the buildings – Greathouse residents shared three bathrooms in a house dating from the 17th century – the sell-offs are more strategic: Leonard Cheshire’s five-year plan to 2022 is “supporting journeys towards independence”, working more with young disabled people and utilising remaining homes as hubs for a wider range of activities and support.

For that, they need to be within easy reach of community amenities – a test the 17 homes have failed, though they are considered otherwise viable for another operator. Heslop is adamant that this is not following the lead of fellow disability charity Scope in getting out of residential care provision altogether. “We are committed for the long term to residential care being a key part of our activities,” he insists. However, the way in which it handled the changes over the summer seems to have done little to reassure doubters.

Jess Billing, 24, who worked at Greathouse as a care assistant, says staff were informed of its closure only hours before the residents. “Everyone was angry, we didn’t understand the reasons. But my concern was the residents. It turned out to be probably one of the worst experiences of my life because of lack of support from the big bosses.”

Although Heslop claims the charity subsequently agreed to give any resident up to six months to move if they needed it, Billing says that’s news to her.


All 20 residents had gone by 27 July when the doors were shut. “We were literally boxing everything up, taking computers down and so on, while we still had five or six residents in the building. It was disrespectful.”

Billing, who now works at another local care service, is one of several ex-Greathouse staff who continue to visit former residents in their new homes. Eleven of the 20 moved to other Leonard Cheshire homes, including Bristol and Poole, while Richard Keat and eight others went to facilities run by other providers.

It is unclear to what extent, if at all, the deaths of the three former residents may have been linked to the home’s closure.

Heslop describes the circumstances as “understandably distressing and difficult”, but says: “We are satisfied that our high standards of quality of support for these individuals persisted throughout this period.”

He maintains that the Care Quality Commission, the care regulator, is not investigating the deaths beyond its standard procedure. But CQC deputy chief inspector Debbie Ivanova has said in a statement to Society Guardian that it is “reviewing” them.

“We have asked Leonard Cheshire to look at how the closure of Greathouse and the transition of those who lived there to other providers was handled,” she said. “We will be meeting with Leonard Cheshire to review their findings and make sure that learning is identified and shared.”

Asked if, in retrospect, he would have run the closure process any differently, Heslop says: “I think we would consider how to handle better the different needs of residents, families, friends and staff at the point of initial announcement.”


For the charity, which aspires to be seen as a leader in inclusion and representation of disabled people – Heslop himself is blind – the way it proceeds with the sale will now be an acid test.

Protest campaigns have sprung up at most of the 17 homes, many of which are in the midlands and the north including one, Oaklands, near Preston, rated “outstanding” by the CQC.

Heslop says that a working group, including representatives of residents and their families, has set strict criteria or “red lines” for the sale. “If we get offered ‘x’ by somebody, and somebody else offers us ‘half x’ but we believe they are giving us the right reassurances about continuity of care and employment and alignment with our values, we must take the lower offer. We have agreed that.”


Numerous cases over the years have been reported of " Charities " straying away from their founding principles.

Trouble is time only moves forwars ... societies evolve ... charities tend to remain stuck in limbo ... unable to fulfill their orginal goals as the goalposts have changed.

Classic example ?

Carers UK ... now having reconfirmed themselves as a charity at the very time 7.8 MILLION are under siege from the Government.

In short , other than help and advice , nothing for the carer army to ease their plight.

In addition , what would the original founders make of the salaries now being paid ... a charity ???

Time for change ... new definitions of " Charities " together with a major sort out of all charities which are really busniesses in disguise ... enjoying tax advantages and secrecy which enable them to profit from their endeavours.

Both Carers UK and Greenpeace are charities ... there the connection ceases ... what exactly are charities / pressure groups / profit making charities / loose associations etc. etc. in 2018 ?

For once , new legal pigeon holes are required ... and definately NO magpies !

Nothing worse than a small knit group taking control of a charity , and excluding members from virtually all executive functions ... except for donating through the collection plates ???

A couple of other threads dovetail into this one :

https://www.carersuk.org/forum/news-and ... t=business

https://www.carersuk.org/forum/news-and ... t=business