Captain Sir Tom Moore

[maggiebee]

Have just been reading that his daughter has received £150,000 from the charity. Surely this can't be right?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../captain-sir-tom-moore.../

[nicebloke1]

NJ, you need to read your own link. Its a planning application problem, nothing to do with funds.

[barry1010]

That "old man going for a wee stroll" generated a lot of goodwill and a huge amount of money that was paid to the NHS.
Why criticise that?

[ToraToraTora]

well barry because it seems a lot of it never got anywhere near the NHS. No one is criticising the effort, just the subsequent leeching.

[barry1010]

Every single penny went to the NHS.
This news is about the daughter's charity that did not handle that money in any way. The charity was set up after that

[barry1010]

The £38M that lockdown hero Captain Tom Moore raised during Covid is 'not under investigation', NHS… https://mol.im/a/12271907 via https://dailym.ai/android
NHS Charities Together said: 'The Captain Tom Foundation is a completely separate organisation that was established after Captain Tom did his fundraising for our Covid-19 Urgent Appeal and the Charity Commission has made clear that the £38 million he raised for NHS Charities Together is not under investigation.'

[naomi24]

Nicebloke. //Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband used the Captain Tom Foundation name on the first plans for the building, with later revised plans turned down.//

It has everything to do with funds and the whole thing stinks.

I find it very sad that Captain Tom did what he did with a good heart and with the best of intentions. His daughter does not appear to have inherited her father's goodwill.

[barry1010]

Yes, it has everything to do with funds donated to her charity and nothing to do with the NHS £38m.

[douglas9401]

Heart-string tugging disgrace where a publicly funded bloated organisation gets a massive handout through the efforts of PR knobs, a compliant media and a public too scared to be left out of the whole 'good causes' nonsense.

[ToraToraTora]

Good effort from the old boy but £38m lasts about an hour in the NHS. That amount is stolen from the kitchens every week.

[nicebloke1]

No council can demand a building be taken down because they object to where the funds come from to build it( not that I know of)? They can only act on the present planning laws.

[naomi24]

As I understand it they requested planning permission for work connected to a charitable foundation. That was granted. They subsequently built something, without permission, that could, by no stretch of the imagination, be claimed as beneficial to the charity. Had the initial proposal been made in a name other than that of the charity the chances are that retrospective planning consent would have been granted for the changes. It's all about the charity and by extension the funds used for the project.

[nicebloke1]

Other than the present planning laws, the rest appears at this moment in time speculation? I responded to the info in NJs link.

[naomi24]

So did I.

[New Judge]

//NJ, you need to read your own link. Its a planning application problem, nothing to do with funds.//

It may have nothing to do with the specific funds raised by Captain Tom but I suggest it will play a part in the investigation into the family’s charity:

“It has emerged the Ingram-Moores requested planning permission for a "Captain Tom Foundation Building", which was "for use by occupiers... and Captain Tom Foundation", according to documents submitted to Central Bedfordshire Council in August 2021.”

“Then, in February 2022, the family submitted revised plans for the already partly constructed building, which called it the "Captain Tom Building". The plans included a spa pool, toilets and a kitchen, which the Design & Access and Heritage Statement said was "for private use".”

It seems likely that the family is capitalising on the notoriety of the Captain Tom Foundation (otherwise why would they call their construction the “Captain Tom Building”). I’ve looked at the revised planning application and it seems the proposed building is almost 50% larger than the original. As well as that, many of the planned uses of the original building (which may have been beneficial to the charity) have been removed from the revised proposal. As above, it is now stated as primarily for “Private Use”.

I am not commenting on whether or not Central Bedfordshire Council was right to revise the revised plans. As you say, that is purely a planning matter. I'm rather more interested in how the original plans for this building were sold to the Council (and by extension, to the public) and what its actual purpose is.

[nicebloke1]

And all the above NJ is no more than a breach of the original planning application. In my view, but I understand people are hoping that some sort of embezzlement of funds can, in some way be proven. Until such time may arise its nothing more than speculation. Would it surprise me if that was the case, no, but I hope not.