This year's bail-out...

Nationwide dropped them, the Masons dropped them, last year BeHIT was
kept afloat by Legal & General:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...080331_e_c.pdf

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:53:40 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

Nationwide dropped them, the Masons dropped them, last year BeHIT was
kept afloat by Legal & General:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...080331_e_c.pdf


I like the way you use the term BeHIT - it's very mature that you
know.

Were you surprised when Nationwide "dropped" their financial support
because they do not support organisations who carry out political
lobbying and BHIT had started doing that?

I wasn't - seems quite reasonable to me. Many organisation support
charities on the proviso that there is no political activity - such as
lobbying MPS. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

When was that - seven or eight years ago? Hardly news.

When you say that the Masons also "dropped" them - is that quite
true?

The Masons usually agree to give money for one, two , or three years.

In the case of BHIT I think they gave it for both of the years they
agreed to - or is that incorrect?

They did the same with "Parkinsons' Disease Society Brain Research"
and then no more funding.

It would not be accurate to say that the Masons dropped their support
for that charity - would it?

I see that they got donations from an impressive list of organisations
this year (as normal)

3M
Credit Suisse
Legal & General
Premier League


That's not surprising when you realise that their aim is:

"The promotion of the wearing of bicycle helmets in order to reduce
deaths, suffering and disability due to bicycling accidents."

Very laudable - as I am sure you agree.

You really are quite dishonest aren't you - as your above post shows.


--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a ****.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
Nationwide dropped them, the Masons dropped them, last year BeHIT was
kept afloat by Legal & General:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...080331_e_c.pdf

I notice that they have decided there is no need to audit their accounts,
one assumes from the tone of the accountants note they do not agree/or
approve.

Most of the funds are spent on staff wages and soliciting for more funds
rather than published aims

Ian Bidwell wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
Nationwide dropped them, the Masons dropped them, last year BeHIT was
kept afloat by Legal & General:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...080331_e_c.pdf

I notice that they have decided there is no need to audit their
accounts, one assumes from the tone of the accountants note they do
not agree/or approve.

Most of the funds are spent on staff wages and soliciting for more
funds rather than published aims


I think the charity commissioners will take complaints about a charity
failing to perform its charitable aims, and instead spending its funds on
staff salaries.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Ian Bidwell wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
Nationwide dropped them, the Masons dropped them, last year BeHIT was
kept afloat by Legal & General:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...080331_e_c.pdf

I notice that they have decided there is no need to audit their accounts,
one assumes from the tone of the accountants note they do not agree/or
approve.


I wouldn't read anything into that. Audit is not required and serves
little purpose but costs more. The accountant's statement regarding
opinion is just a standard clause for unaudited accounts.

I'm not sure about the law for charities but for a standard Ltd company
of this size it is not necessary to get an accountant involved at all.

Most of the funds are spent on staff wages and soliciting for more funds
rather than published aims


I think this is common for most charities.

Judith M Smith wrote:

I see that they got donations from an impressive list of organisations
this year (as normal)


Premier League



Ah right, the Premier League is 'impressive'?
Only as a bunch of self-gratifying ****s who care nothing about football
but only about how much they can get out of media coverage.
And what, exactly was the huge sum they donated?
Yup, less than lunch.

Apart from Petr Check I don't know of any other Preimer League players
who have a helmet and his was after going to hospital. That and
I don't see any other keepers with protective headgear.

'Impressive'? gawd, you're easily pleased.



--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:53:40 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

Nationwide dropped them, the Masons dropped them, last year BeHIT was
kept afloat by Legal & General:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...080331_e_c.pdf

DID YOU MAKE THE LOU KNEE POST WHERE YOU CALLED SOMEONE A "PIECE OF
****"? YES OR NO?

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:15:38 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

Judith M Smith wrote:

I see that they got donations from an impressive list of organisations
this year (as normal)


Premier League



Ah right, the Premier League is 'impressive'?


'Impressive'? gawd, you're easily pleased.


Relevance - nil.

Keep up the good work.

I find it quite impressive that an organisation like The Premier
League have decided to give money to a worthwhile charitable cause.


Give us a laugh - tell us where cyclehelmets.org gets their funding
from? It looks like their web pages are getting out of date.




--
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Aug 10, 8:29*am, "Ian Bidwell" wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in ...

Nationwide dropped them, the Masons dropped them, last year BeHIT was
kept afloat by Legal & General:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...s/ScannedAccou...

I notice that they have decided there is no need to audit their accounts,
one assumes from the tone of the accountants note they do not agree/or
approve.

I was wondering about that. From this side of the pond it was not
clear if that was a standard bit of boilerplate or a sign of worry.
However it did seem a bit strong.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

On Aug 10, 8:52*am, Nick wrote:

Most of the funds are spent on staff wages and soliciting for more funds
rather than published aims

I think this is common for most charities.

All too often that is true but it usually means its a pretty dubious
charity, at least over here. The most recent info I can easily find
for Canadian charities requires 80% of income be dispersed for
charitiable purposes or one loses one's charitable tax free status.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada