Donations website failed to file accounts

The trustees of online donations website CharityGiving have not filed any accounts since the year ending 5 April 2009 and currently face a shortfall of at least £250,000.

The Charity Commission suspended the organisation's website on Friday (12 July) after “serious concerns about mismanagement in the administration of the charity by the trustees in relation to the operation of the online donations portal and risk to charity funds.”

The commission has since opened a statutory inquiry into the Dove Trust, which operates the portal.

A shortfall of at least £250,000 was found...


» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Nichola Ross Martin's picture

I've got serious concerns!    5 thanks

Nichola Ross Martin | | Permalink

The Dove Trust has been investigated since 2011. What on earth has the Charity Commission been up to all this time? Is this the "North Staffs" of the charity world?

Folks, if in any doubt just donate directly to your chosen charity. Ask them for their account details and you can do it via your online banking, or send them a good old cheque.

HM Treasury are currently consulting on new methods of donating to suit the digital age (that is for those who have decent internet or a phone signal).

Remember to Gift Aid your donations too, and these qualify for higher rate tax relief.

If you are a charity, don't forget to sign up for the Gift Aid Small Donations scheme, that could be worth an extra £1,250 per year.

daveforbes's picture

     1 thanks

daveforbes | | Permalink


If a charity receives £1000 of donations in year 1:

If we take the subscription fees into account for total donations to charity of £1000***, then this helps to illustrate the incredible offering of Charity Giving:


  Charity Giving Just Giving * MissionFish ^ Virgin Money Giving ^^
With Gift Aid £1,210.00 £954.00 £1,050.00 £1,095.00
Without Gift Aid £1,000.00 £717.00 £800.00 £845.00

Above is from CharityGiving's website. They do seem to be working on tight margins (or zero in some cases).

I think it will all depend on whether it turns out to be poor bookkeeping or something more sinister. My gut feeling is that if there was something dishonest going on, if you are processing £5M donations a year for 30 years, there would be a bigger hole than £250K.

I bet the professional fees will rack up !

Time will tell.


robertlovell's picture

CharityGiving update - 18 July

robertlovell | | Permalink

The CharityGiving website has published the following message on 18 July:

“The distributable assets held by the Dove Trust are less than the amounts payable to the charities that should be receiving funds. This means that at any one point in time income received for a charity was being used to make payments to another charity which had earlier receipts that could not be met from existing funds. For example, receipts for charity "A" were funding payments made to charity "B" as charity "B's" income had been used to pay charity "C." This is not acceptable and it is therefore important that the amounts owing and available are reconciled before any further payments can be made.

“The Interim Manager and his team tried to ascertain the correct financial position of the Dove Trust. This was not helped by the fact that the last accounts filed were for the year ended 5 April 2009. The trustees could not satisfy the Interim Manager or the Commission about the charity's financial position or the extent of the shortfall and the Commission acted to restrict movement on the charity's bank account to prevent payments leaving the accounts without approval from the Commission.

“This situation could not be allowed to continue and the Charity Commission extended the powers of the Interim Manager to act to the exclusion of all trustees on 12 July 2013. It was agreed that further funds should not be received to ensure that they were not tainted by the problems of the past. Therefore the web site was suspended and the Dove Trust's banks were instructed not to receive further funds.”

The company has also outlined what is being done now, with the following two immediate priorities:

1. To ascertain the correct amount owing to the different charities and to consider what assets are available to repay them. The amount of the shortfall has yet to be quantified and there are many accounts to reconcile.

2. To identify and set up proper mechanisms that will enable charities to resume fundraising as soon as possible in a way that ensures that funds raised after the 12 July are ring fenced appropriately. Discussions are in progress with other portal providers to see how funding can be resumed. Some charities and fundraisers are already using multiple providers and have redirected their income to other alternatives.

Misleading comparisons on Charity Giving's site?

anne in basingstoke | | Permalink

Dave Forbes paragraph above includes what he says is an illustration from Charity Giving's website.  I was alarmed by the huge fee percentage the table apparently shows as being claimed by JustGiving (over 23%) and other similar charities.  However, I have just checked JustGiving's site and this exlplains how their fee is between 2% and 5% of the gift including gift aid.   Most odd!  Why has JustGiving not raised this misinformation with Charity Giving already - unless I have misunderstood something?  Do the fundraisers also charge set up fees, which would eat into any small gift?


What are the Charity Commisioners doing?

rc.falconer | | Permalink

How did the Charity Commissioners allow this situation to develop? If a company fails to file annual returns and accounts Companies are active levying penalties and striking off companies. I don't know how much the Charity Commission costs, but it not money well spent.

@anne in basingstoke

pauljohnston | | Permalink

As present we are bombarded to pay £2-£3 per month by advertisements on the TV.  Each time I see this I do wonder how much actually is spent on the Charity objects.

I think that all Charities should have to show this difference ie amount actually paid to trust objects (eg starving in Africa) over amount paid including gift aid as a percentage in all requests for donations.  That is admin = x%


Charity Giving Figures (@anne in basingstoke)

phoare | | Permalink

The figures quoted above from Charity Giving's website have been adjusted to take into account a "subscription fee" which it seems the charity pays to be on the site in the first place (i.e. your 'set up fee'). For Just Giving, that's a £216/annum fee and the figures quoted above show what a £1000 donation to the charity in a year would result in the charity getting once the transaction fee and the annual subscription fee is taken off. If that charity got £2000 in the year, the deduction is nothing like as large. 


The Black Knight | | Permalink

That's the internet for you.

Legalised scamming in the name of charity! disgraceful.

I will refuse to use such methods of donating in future and express my reasons.

and people have the nerve to complain about bank charges and greedy bankers.

Thanks Dave for opening my eyes!

I am with Nichola, pre internet super fraud day methods are best.

It does make you wonder whether any of your money reaches the needy (those on less than £26K p.a anyway)


The Black Knight | | Permalink

So Faith, Hope and Charity are all completely corrupt then.

Perhaps they forgot to pay the police the protection money?

Accounting for Charities

RKemsley | | Permalink

The concern is the staff time needed to record the merchant fees/admin fees and other costs associated with on-line donations, using justgiving or paypal or  doing a major event like the London Marathon or similar. Each event has an event fee/subscription fee which either the charity pays in the hope to raise additional money to raise awareness of there 'thing' or participants pay to raise funds for their specific charity. As it is the net amount that is transferred to the bank account, it is necessary to record the gross amount donated ( income) and then the associate fees (expenditure) in the charities accounts so that the trustees can see which events/on-line companies charge. We cannot get away from the fact that to make money you have to spend money and in business we accept this as they are profit making and part of the commercial world.  For some reason we struggle to understand charities in the same way although this is in fact the case that they are companies operating within the not-for profit sector and running charities even small ones cost money. Despite the many volunteers, operation expenses occur and these can only be covered by donations. Even Volunteer hours should be accounted for as donations of time to give the true operating cost of the charity to enable an accurate risk and reserve policy. However, why this company has been allowed to not submit accounts is a concern on three fronts. Did the charities that it raised money for account for the donations they should have got, afterall if the systems are robust enough these charities should be aware of what is due to them and raised the alarm in their own trustee meetings. Secondly, the damage to generous giving is challenged again when it is already a serious tough business to win funding from big and small supporters. The new gift aid rules make bucket donations possible to a level and cheques cost charities to process. Thirdly where is the independent  examiner in this process. I thought they had to be appointed by the trustees each year, similar to external auditors. Surely they have a responsibility to follow through on.It seems to me to be the same problem with regard to integrity to value other peoples money for other peoples use. Trust is the key here and it does raise concerns on what are The Charities Commission is really able to enforce and what role HMRC should be getting involved in. Maybe charging Charities who fail to file accounts on time is not considered charitable?

in reponse

RKemsley | | Permalink

Anna  All charities should show this information for transparency and to assess risk.  FX rates are an issue when dealing with foreign projects as well as the culture differences. Sadly, a lot of charitable money raised does not get to it intended project. But we can be discerning in where and how we give. Local charities you can volunteer your time and skills which you will know has a direct and immediate effect on the work of your chosen charity. Also, for larger charities, ask to see the accounts and the social corporate responsibility document to see how the admin costs are managed. Charity work is a salaried job for many and all valuable. We need to test that the charity work and the integrity of the trustees matches to ensure the very good work of many charities is not blighted and giving stops. I would encourage people to donate their skills, especially in 'Treasurer' and 'external independent examiners' roles for local charities to gain a better understanding of the complexities for accounting for charitable funds.


The Black Knight | | Permalink

someones costing has gone astray If the Staff required to bank and fill in a gift aid declaration cost more than that?

perhaps if charities were not buried in pointless accounting (e.g. the potential cost of volunteers)

etc etc etc then they could attend to important matters such as making sure fraudsters were not taking full advantage from theirs eyes being diverted to corporate responsibility and other made up nonsense statements, which take up the most time fabricating.

Unfortunately charity accounts are so not useful (being written for people who prefer to look at paintings rather than numbers) that it is an ideal environment for fraudsters to operate.

George Gretton's picture

Fecking, fecking Hell! What a load of shysters........

George Gretton | | Permalink

Fecking, fecking Hell! What a load of shysters........

Lets try to establish a firing squad order and bullet count - as somebody said once on You Tube, after I suggested that the Producer of William Christie's "King Arthur" (Henry Purcell / John Dryden, 1691) "should be shot", responded with "Should be shot - twice!"

I personally could get stuck in there and sort out the chaos - I'm both pro-active accountant and IS / Ac system Head Case. Peter Stevenson and I saved The Richmond Fellowship back in 2001 from self destruction on account of a single jerk.

But would I be welcome? Remember me offering to sort out Simpleton Simon Jackson's manure at the Institute of Brewing and Distilling?

"Thank you for your interest, and you are the VERY LAST person that we want here! You might sort things out! And show reality! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!" Bang goes my liberty!

Zarine Kharas seems in first position (what gender?). Truly a cranium-in rectum situation. 

"Can't happen!" Bow-locks - it just did.

The firing squad could start with peripheral limbs and then ever so gradually move in.

Bloody Hell, I actually set myself up on Just Giving to get funds through to NAPAC (The National Association for People Abused in Childhood, aka "moi").

It b(e)ggars belief. There are so many grotesque charlatans about, and they are totally blatant and unabashed.

Let me loose on them on the TV! Watch shredding in action!

Yours, George, Friday 19th July 2013, 21:46, BloodySteringTime.


I can't "knock" the CC - they are supposed to be "doing" the IBD!


George Gretton's picture

The Charity Commission suspended the organisation's website..

George Gretton | | Permalink

The Charity Commission suspended the organisation's website..

on Friday 12 July..................

Glad you think so!

I've just made a small donation (today is the 20th July) to my preferred charity, The National Association for People Abused in Charity via my "George Gretton" fundraising page.

It's all gone through; I have recieved my PayPal confirmation, and the two messages from Just Giving, one to me as a fundraiser in receipt of a donation, and one in respect of me as a donor.

So that site is not "suspended" at all. 

There's no immediately visible alert that grabbed my eye as I, surprisingly, just logged via a search onto the site.

Que pasa?

Does anybody have any further information?

Yours, George, Saturday 20th July 2013, 10:02 BST; Bloody Hot and Sticky!

But I am decent; a T-shirt and shorts!




2009 accounts

The Black Knight | | Permalink

List of audit concerns/qualifications

Related party transaction loans to the trustees.

A going concern material uncertainty.

What indeed have the charity commissioners been doing all this time?

George Gretton's picture

C'est entierement incroyable, Hastings, quesc'e y arriive?'

George Gretton | | Permalink

C'est entierement incroyable, Hastings, quesc'e y arriive?' (Sorry, run out!)

"Watson, even my own wondrous mind is incapable of assimilating this bovine manure."

Bloody Hell, Holy Cow, Joisus Croist, BK; what a mind-fecker set of "Accounts"; and I've only dotted about a bit so far.

We have a "Milk Cow" operation, as where the Atlantic U-Boats used to "top-up" from supply submarines, to spare them returning to port, as those U-Boat sailors would have preferred to do, so that they had a break from getting Depth-Charged by My Dad and his Convoy Escort Companions-in-Arms!

Must dash for now; have an errand to run, AND Reports to send / file. But

"I'll be back, Arnie, and having fun!"

Yours, George, Monday 22nd July 2013, 13:22 BSwelterTime



company sic codes

The Black Knight | | Permalink

sic but two companies are listed as Dormant.

No wonder they can't generate the funds to repay the loans.

can't be right? shirley

George Gretton's picture


George Gretton | | Permalink

Shirley? Reference?


P.S. Fecking hell, those "Accounts" are interesting! I'm still not through them, but look at those "Debtors"!

2009 accounts signed, explicitly qualified in mid-2012. But "Charity" still, TODAY, operating?

The losses and Theft MUST be determined. 

One of my widely circulated IBD emails PLEADED for BANK ACCOUNT FREEZING, and a determination of the sordid charade. The same totally applies here.

There are very striking parallels here with the absurd IBD accounts, and some striking differences, especially in the Audit Report.

Do we have a responsible auditor here? Is there some light in the tunnel?

Yours, George, errand-bound, Monday 22nd July 2013, 13:47 BST.

"Property" in South America? Strictly Unrepeatable Observations!


George Gretton's picture

I'll bung in an Action Fraud Report later on

George Gretton | | Permalink

I'll bung in an Action Fraud Report later on


Airplane I think

The Black Knight | | Permalink

think it was Airplane (the film)

"surely you don't mean that"

"don't call me Shirley"


Perhaps you ought to read.

richardgolding | | Permalink

Perhaps you ought to read. Nowhere does it say that the Charity Commisssion have suspended Just Giving's website.

George Gretton's picture

Hello Richard, I think that YOU, need, "ought", to read!

George Gretton | | Permalink

 Hello Richard, I think that YOU, need, "ought", to read!

Pious Git!

Robert Lovell, at the top of this page, who gives a seemingly genuine photo on his Profile, said:

"The Charity Commission suspended the organisation's website on Friday (12 July) after “serious concerns about mismanagement in the administration of the charity by the trustees in relation to the operation of the online donations portal and risk to charity funds.”

I should have hoped so to!

So, strictly being infantile, you ought to get some glasses, or an open, enquiring mind.


In one of Arnie's most divine moments, which gets quoted a great deal, the villain says words whose acronym goes 

"FY, A-H"

except that when the villain then pulls the trigger of his revolver, he finds that there is no "BANG", no bullet in his pistol.

Arnie then does a subtle left-eyebrow-lift (modelled on James Bond encountering Ursula Undress on the Beach?) (whoops, my Freudian typo!), repeats back the 

"FY, A-H", with a lovely emphasis on the "you", and thumps the other bod.

In real life, apparently, they are great mates.


But I'm a Professional Accountant, so I couldn't POSSIBLY, while maintaining the best POSSIBLE taste, say anything like that to you.

But you know what I mean!

Yours, George, Monday 22nd July 2013, 18:13 BST, errand run.

P.S. If anybody can offer any informed clarification, that would be great. I'm going to do an "Action Fraud", once I have run one of my anal-yses past you all.


George Gretton's picture

BK, re "Shirley".....

George Gretton | | Permalink

BK, re "Shirley".....

Yes, I remember know.

Thank Codd for humour.

Laughing is SO MUCH BETTER than crying, and then getting depressed, and then getting ECT.......


CharityGiving does not = JustGiving    1 thanks

anne in basingstoke | | Permalink

Dear George, An apology from you may be in order.  As Richard suggested, you would benefit from reading the article.  Charity Giving is not the same as Just Giving.

Dear Everyone on this stream, I do wonder why some of you are so rude in your posts, or is this the language you use in everyday life?  In my experience, rude people often have an undealt with problem (although arrogance and insecurity may mean they will not acknowledge it).   These rude personae can stop them making secure, long-lasting and enjoyable relationships.  I do hope any of you in this category will decide to access help so that you become more pleasant people to deal with and can grow old at peace with yourself and others.  Your comments would also be easier to read!

Have a great day, all of you!!

Charity Giving - slight curve

Mark Hogan | | Permalink

On a slight curve, I have a Client who Limited Co (not a Charity) hasn't filed Accounts or Annual Returns since 2009. Does anyone know if there can be any sort of innocent reason for this or how long Companies House are liable to let the situation continue?  

just accountancy

The Black Knight | | Permalink

anne in basingstoke wrote:

Dear George, An apology from you may be in order.  As Richard suggested, you would benefit from reading the article.  Charity Giving is not the same as Just Giving.

Dear Everyone on this stream, I do wonder why some of you are so rude in your posts, or is this the language you use in everyday life?  In my experience, rude people often have an undealt with problem (although arrogance and insecurity may mean they will not acknowledge it).   These rude personae can stop them making secure, long-lasting and enjoyable relationships.  I do hope any of you in this category will decide to access help so that you become more pleasant people to deal with and can grow old at peace with yourself and others.  Your comments would also be easier to read!

Have a great day, all of you!!

Always has been a pool of piranhas.

Can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have rules of professional courtesy?

You are right though!


George Gretton's picture

Hosanna Ann(a) - you bring Clarity, and a Codd-send

George Gretton | | Permalink

Hosanna Ann(a) - you bring Clarity, and a Codd-send

Hello Anne, thank you so much for your brilliant clarification!

I have now got, firmly, into my head that the article refers to CharityGiving rather than to Just Giving!

I’ve now been there, and found that there is text referring to the problems. I will read it carefully later on.

Phew, what a relief; I have set myself up as a Fundraiser on Just Giving for my preferred Charity, “The National Association for People Abused in Childhood”, with my page called “George Gretton”, (as usual), and so I’m happy that that site is ongoing.

When anybody wants to thank me for what I do here, they can go there and donate; the funds are urgently needed, and I am about to massively increase the demand for their services, by pointing children there, as well as adults.

The NSPCC has told me in writing that my sort of experiences are “outside the scope of the NSPCC”, so it’s not worth children who have suffered female and maternal sexual psychopathy going there!

Because they don’t believe in those things!


Pete Saunders was the Founding Member of the wonderful NAPAC Charity (, but I am spiritually a co-founding member, such was the catastrophic extent of the consequences of the two primary assaults that I experienced as a young child, a sexual assault first when I was five, followed by a psychological “closing down” battering when I was 7, that effectively succeeded in keeping me quiet for over half a Century.

I was only quite recently healed, and accordingly emerged as a “Survivor”, albeit as a very, very angry, even incensed one, on account of what “people”, in denial and worse, did to set me back along my journey, as well as on account of the initial insults.

My assailant never apologised and repented, which added dreadful final fuel to the fires of anger and distress within me, almost at the cost of my own life – my second and third suicide attempts, both of great seriousness and intent.


I’m not greatly moved to apologise to Richard, on account of the fact that he could have usefully been a whole lot more practically helpful by pointing out that actual mis-identification of mine, rather than being a Somewhat Superior Smart-Arse.

He could have chosen to say instead, as I would have done in the circumstances:

“Hello George, you seem to have got a wire crossed; the site closed is actually CharityGiving rather than Just Giving, and I have checked that it has indeed been closed down.”

as a result of which he would have got a “Hosanna” message rather than you.


So your kind words have saved me going to some lengths in the context of The Dove Trust and CharityGiving: I was about to anal-ytically shred the “Accounts”, but I now don’t need to do so.

And I was also going to rage at The Charity Commission, who are the bods that are now ACTUALLY INVESTIGATING the dire IBD, both on my behalf and on their own, I think and hope properly, effectively and terminally.

I have been given such personal assurances by a Regional Operations Director, who is in charge of the case, and refers to “Mr Gretton’s complaints of fraud”, and not even to the mere masking of this core problem by the very obvious accounting carnage of some years.

At last – it’s almost exactly a year since I first ran into that sordid scam.


And now, onto the Codd-send!

I won’t just crucify you, nail you to your cross, on account of your transparent well-intentioned-ness, in the context of your “rudeness” wanderings.

On LinkedIn I was recently reminded of Thumper’s injunction to shut up if you can’t be “nice”, and I wrote some profound stuff there that DIDN’T get deleted, as had previous such material!

I agree with you in principle about a possible correlation between rude gits and unresolved problems at a psychological level, and that arrogance may mask the problem to the sufferor, as a vehicle for psychological denial, and arising from the shunting of uncomfortable stuff down into the “unconscious”, that Freud recognised so brilliantly and creatively long ago.

What a bloody useless entity the unconscious is; as in the case of an appendix, it only mis-functions, by giving pro-crastination problems, although children are obviously confronted with problems that they can’t possible address, on account of power-imbalance-abuses by the relevant adults; that’s a really, really difficult one.


And even with my caveat above, I suggest that it’s really, really unwise for YOU to start preaching about relationships and peace, and about becoming more “pleasant”, and getting “help”.

I embarked on my personal journey of recovery, against tremendous odd as it turned out in the later phases, about 40 years ago, when I switched course at Oxford from my dead-safe Engineering Science to the deep blue sea of Physics and Philosophy.

I embarked on psychotherapy three years later, when I had taken my finals, and I just recently definitionally agreed, with a profoundly wise Doctor of Psychology, that I has done enough in individual psychotherapy, mainly on account of a previous Art Psychotherapist, a woman that I found that could trust, as a woman, for the first time in over 50 years.

That was two years ago; I will be 60 in October. Free prescriptions! And true Freedom, at last.


In my writing I am deliberately provocative and challenging; I’m not just rude; if you think so then you have missed the point.

Please consider going back and reviewing my posts; a number of people have inferred from them that I am a transparently honest and sincere person, and three such individuals have separately contacted me, in contexts that include fraud and psychopaths on the one hand, and psychopaths and child sexual abuse on the other, with an absolutely and dreadfully catastrophic interim outcome for her children.

I have been able to refer her to effective help in getting her children back, along with support for her on the way.

I do react vigorously when I’m annoyed or angered by what I consider to be inappropriate behaviour, but I know full well that everybody’s health is optimised by taking perceived offense straight back to the perceived offender; in that way the situation is sometimes resolved in a very good way, and in addition the cat / spouse / offspring don’t get kicked later in the day as a result of failing to deal with an issue when it first arises.

I’m now a close friend of a man that I publicly accused on LinkedIn as either being a liar, or of having mental / psychological health problems. It turned out that we both have analogous experiences in the latter aspect.

And I don’t hold back in communicating my concerns in a number of areas, in which being “nice” and “polite” amounts to outright and naked denial.

I regard that as my duty to Society, and especially to those who are still suffering as I did myself until recently, in their cases on account of the fact that they do not believe that anybody will actually believe, in turn, their dreadfully sad story. They can be dreadfully imprisoned within themselves.

Watch me get on with that!

I collaborated with a dear artist friend on a painting that explicitly communicates my most shocking and distressing truth, and I / we will use it to bring release and safety to people of all ages who are still trapped in the legacy of their abuse.

If anybody wants to download a scan of it, here’s a link to the 110MB file.

For me, who can’t paint, and only supplied the basic imagery with a ridiculously vague sketch, but with lots of words, it’s a 21st Century Work of Art of Great Power.

It’s not visually shocking or obscene, but the message contained in it and emanating from it is very, very challenging and distressing.

So it’s only for mature and responsible and personally strong adults. But its message IS the way forward for many. That's why it exists.

Yours, George, 23rd July 2013, 11:18 BST


George Gretton's picture

My child sexual assault post is still there - thank you...

George Gretton | | Permalink

My child sexual assault post is still there - thank you...

for not getting it moderated off, thank you very much.

In one sense this material is off-thread - this thread is to do with a totally dud and fraudulent "Charity", with, en passant, a property in Venezuela. 

I salute the Auditor of "Dove" or whatever it is so misleadingly called - I think that he spelled things out really well, and went for the clear qualification, unlike Chantrey Vellacott re the IBD.


But I reserve the obligation to bung child protection stuff anywhere and everywhere; it a catastrophic problem that responsible adults need to address, and I feel the strong need to challenge and confront decent people with it's realities.

Here's a rather more palatable interview on the subject of child protection, just located:

And if you can manage it, please bung a post on in response, just to acknowledge my distressing and shocking material, and distressed in itself comment.

It's bloody hard work doing this stuff, and (in some ways, albeit not all) I am just a regular bod, and not Superman; just being Subrelational Man is massively easier.

I waver and struggle just like anybody else, and a deafening silence just doesn't help. 


I note separately with relief and delight that an AW reader contacted me in respect of a MASSIVE, and I mean MONUMENTAL problem, that spans financial fraud and child sexual abuse, both emanating from the same man, in this case a true and full bore psychopath.

I have been able to refer her on to an organisation that I know that can help her; but the main thing is that she is no longer isolated, all on her own.

She thought that I might be able to believe her dire story, and I was indeed able to, and she could believe that, once we had had a couple of phone conversations.

I know how much every detail of hers fits with what I already understand in this neck of the woods, right down to the finest detail. It's still devastating, but now there is more room for hope.

Yours, George, Thursday 25th July 2013, 16:23 BST





when will they get it

The Black Knight | | Permalink

read it George

when will they get it. Psychopaths will not spend a long time thinking about it because they don't care. Mainly because the part of the brain that does empathy aint working properly.

They recon 40% of large corporate middle managers and high flyers are psychopaths because they can copy all of the attributes (including Charisma) you would see in a high flyer, are extremely good at lying and the only difference is the trail of destruction behind them. They thrive in a fast changing environment!!!

Just to link the thread diversion back to corporate fraud, tax fraud and other wrongdoing.

We could do a much better job of these crimes but would question whether it was right and then sit there worrying about it and questioning whether we had covered our tracks properly. The psychopath therefore has a distinct advantage in our modern day society.

How many high flyers can you think of that have shown a don't care attitude? (by their actions not their words)

Brain scans are the future!! Every politician should have one for a start.

George Gretton's picture

Thank you, thank you and thank you, BK.........

George Gretton | | Permalink

Thank you, thank you and thank you, BK.........once again.

it is immensely rewarding when somebody else wraps something up so well, in ways that I could not have got to, being so close up to the coalface.

My personal definition of a psychopath / sociopath is of a person whose primary instinct is to harm and destroy, where the primary instinct in the rest of us is to care for, nurture, keep safe, love, encourage etc.

Such individuals realise their disgusting ambitions in a variety of different ways, that are not in themselves significant, except as a route to harming and destroying others.

Maxwell didn't actually NEED the money he stole from pensioners, but it was a GREAT way to simply harm and damage them, as vulnerable individuals.

The abuse of sexuality is the most potent weapon in the armoury, by a million miles, but a psycho can only get away with so much like that. So finance is a major alternative route, as you so eloquently say.


I love your "by their actions not their words" bit. It's spot on!

I try to stick to evaluating people purely by reference to their behaviour / actions; nothing else really matters to me, Freddie.

Ignore the suit and collar and tie; ignore the status, class, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc etc etc. Some priests are wonderful people, others are child sexual psychopaths; you can't differentiate them on account of their attire, but you CAN watch their even public behaviour. Watch those hands, and where they stray, and also watch the recipient's reaction.

[I was watching a waitress cringe, and flinch, and try to draw away the other day in the pub when a "HandyMan" was at work intruding upon her physically. I wanted to thump him, but that would not have helped. So I just said thank you to the obviously understanding and grateful waitress as I left.]

If remotely possible OBSERVE the suspect's behaviour as a third party when he or she is engaged in interacting with somebody else; that can be jaw-dropping, so obvious is what is going down.

I happen to have the weird but very useful capacity to observe as if from externally, while also experiencing as a participant on the receiving side. A bloody sort or capacity, but very informative indeed.


And how do we challenge the psychos?

We think.

We evaluate behaviour, and clearly identify them by so doing.

We identify how the chap or chapess could have behaved very differently, and gasp in respect of the difference (what would I have said or done in the same circumstances?).

We compare notes with others, and keep on comparing notes, and build groups of like minded individuals.

We discuss these issues openly.

We call a German Philosopher a German Philosopher, to his or her face; (apologies, Imanuel!)

We get in their faces (I'm a "Specialist" here, Jack Nicholson.)

We provoke, so that they make mistakes, and indeed even complete fools of themselves, even if they are Nobs in a "Reputable" Firm of Accountants or Solicitors.

We REPORT them, time and time again for every gaffe and slip, to non-corrupt agencies; The Solicitors Regulation Authority seems OK, but steer clear on a default basis from "Accounting Institutes".

As Pete Saunders said of child abuse in the UK, we have an epidemic on our hands.

Exactly the same is true in finance and accounting. Fraud is RIFE; The trend of Companies House legislation is an obscene joke.

[Put me in a room with David Cameron and Jo Swinson and watch me challenge their BEHAVIOUR in this context, ignoring their mere RANK and STATUS.]

Us straight and honest and decent individuals have to stand up, be counted, and engage collectively in the war.

It does help, quite a lot, if you are pretty mad, as I am, where that madness is focussed anger.

Let the thread revert to the nailing of Financial Psychopathy!

Yours, George, Friday 26th July 2013, 11:23 BST






every curse

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Every curse comes with a gift!

or is it just part of the same curse being able to see?

the only bit you are in charge of is how you use the gift?


George Gretton's picture

Yes, BK, you once again put it supremely well.....

George Gretton | | Permalink

Yes, BK, you once again put it supremely well.....

I am indeed in charge of how I now use my pretty weird collection of varied gifts, that semi-miraculously survived, at least partly because I hid them in a place of safety, as if in a Himalayan snow and ice field, whence they were ultimately called back down by another wondrous, warm, and caring person.

I devote their use to the Service and Protection of Honest and Decent People, as I make explicit in my letterhead, to which the ICAEW took such deep exception when I was trying to negotiate a Practising Certificate; they REALLY could NOT handle that.

That was just six weeks before they invented a "Complaint" against me for NOT having said Certificate.

But I have only earned £6,000 since Feb 2008, in respect of Bookkeeping, so I can hardly have been "Engaged in Activity as a Principal in A Firm" without such a Cert"!

I additionally devote their use to the nailing of scumbags, but then that's a natural extension of being protective; the pro-active part.

As for the Kassandra aspects, of gifts, and curses, and being able readily to readily perceive Truth and Reality; bloody hell! It's just the way I am.

Many, many thanks again, kind and wise BK.

Yours, George

George Gretton's picture

Just One More Bite-At-The-Cherry-O

George Gretton | | Permalink

Just One More Bite-At-The-Cherry-O

I’ll take the liberty of adding just one more off-official-and-overt-message comment in this thread. I’ll refer below to enhanced future plans as to the location of this sort of material.


The lead item in last night’s Nationwide BBC News was a story in respect of that monstrous scumbag called Stuart Hall; some of my material posted yesterday might have been written in anticipation of the news article.

The Attorney General, Nigel Grieve, had personally taken action to address the apparent shortness of the sentence previously imposed on Hall, which had provoked and evoked feelings of outrage.

The sentence was indeed increased, in front of Hall, who attended via video link from his current place of incarceration.

In the first place it was the Judge’s (or Judges’) second consideration for increase that impacted so massively on me.

The Judge explicitly recognised that Hall had, more or less grossly and grotesquely, actively perpetrated yet another vile psychological assault on his former victims, but this time in the recent here-and-now of the course of the contemporary investigation into his offenses.

The Judge very heavily criticised Hall for heavy-handedly claiming innocence when he knew full well that he was utterly and profoundly guilty as charged.

The BBC showed this very, very abusive clip again, a veritable moving image of the abuse of multiple persons at once, when Hall, with his well-established smug self-satisfaction in front of cameras, asserted that the accusations against him were false etc, etc, and even, for feck’s sake:


Now here we have a blackest and foulest pot calling wondrously courageous people, who bore witness to his crimes, liars. Feck him, to be very, very polite and restrained!

I salute you Judge, for your true and wondrously explicit perceptiveness.


Perhaps that wise and empathetic Judge would have imposed a boundary of safety on the Barrister, and “Officer of The Court”, whose personally abusive aggression, “acting” on the defence side in another previous and notorious child sexual abuse case, recently led directly to the death by suicide of a still vulnerable former abusee of the two “music teacher” individuals charged, and subsequently convicted, in that case.

Her suicide came decades after the original offenses, but was triggered by the same source, albeit in a third party.

Even that ultimate victim’s sense of family and motherhood could not sustain her belief in her own inherent goodness, and, in contrast, in her own abusers’ evil; her self-belief was insufficiently robust, even then, decades later, to survive the Barrister’s blistering, even psychopathic, and totally unjustified (as in Justice) assaults on her integrity.

He actively mimicked the behaviour of her two previous abusers.

He aggressively called her a liar, and he once again broke her spirit, as had already happened decades previously; but this time the cost was her very own life.

What a tragedy.

What an obscenity, for that to happen in a supposed Court of supposed Law and supposed Justice.


We have a Problem, Houston; the grotesquely adversarial approach to the supposedly calm and rational activity of establishing innocence or guilt in a Criminal Case has woefully departed from the rails.

As indeed did that Train in Spain, where the driver had long since taken leave of his senses, particularly in the area of responsibility and safety.

But, as ever, most, but not all, failed to recognise and address the situation and grasp the nettle of this man’s evident madness, and articulated desire to play with his passengers’ lives.

Same difference. Same result. Non-accidental Death.

Which of the two responsible individuals will be brought to account for their actions, and made responsible for the consequences of those actions?


Reverting to last night’s news article, a woman who had by the skin of her teeth avoided being raped by Hall was eloquent in describing her incensed frustration.

She was incensed by Hall’s naked and blatant and enduring gross intransigence, by his perpetuating denials of guilt, and by his ongoing denial of the associated harm and damage for which he was and still is responsible, and that he was ACTIVELY FAILING  to try to undo or address, in conceivably making an effort to remedy by sincere apology, thus bringing some healing to the situation.


I connect this strongly to my account yesterday of my equivalent situation in respect of my own primary assaulter and abuser; both Hall and my prime abuser relentlessly continue / continued even unto death, to abuse, blatantly, in public and private; I note in my case that I do not even think in terms of denial; she knew just what she was doing.

My abuser, very happily for me, is dead now, 6 odd years since, but Hall isn’t, and he perpetuates his abuse to this very day, every day that he fails to recant.

A real and true problem, Maria; what on earth and in Codd’s name do you do with an unrepentant “person”, like that, if you can even refer to a person?

What do you do with a piece of canine faeces in which you have had the misfortune to tread?


One an immensely more positive note, I had a delightfully wondrous and kind and supportive Internal Message yesterday from Henry Osadzinski, of Accounting Web / Sift Media (if I can take the liberty of “doing” a bit of relevant and meaning-communicating remedial capitalisation?).

He especially kindly referred to the idea of he and his colleagues “learning” from what I had offered, albeit in an environment in which that particular sort of learning was unexpected.

That learning, recognition, and the acquisition of associated understanding is just what I am going for and promoting, for a very, very practical reason.


People who are currently still trapped in these ongoing abuse situations often bung out all sorts of informative and communicatory messages, but they pass one by if one is not appropriately receptive in raw conceptual terms, and in terms of understanding what actually goes down on this world, so as to be able connect with, and interpret, the message correctly and usefully.

If you do not believe, yourself, that grotesque and ultra-perverted abuse goes on, then the reported message, where I quote from an actual instance, from a young girl to her mum, that milk came out of her grandfather’s willy, might conceivably be missed. I spare you the fine detail of that case.

But if that sort of thing, in a person’s mind, just DOES NOT HAPPEN, and in the strongest Freudian sense IS DENIED, with all of the MASSIVE power that that entails, then the child can simply end up being seen as a nasty little fantasist, with another layer of concrete added to her problems.

I actively chose to flag this stuff here in AW because there are a whole lot of decent and honest and wise people here, and they, suitably informed, can look out for and spot current sufferers who are looking, and waiting, to be rescued. They may end up reviewing historical conversations, and re-interpreting their true meaning.


I met somebody like that one day recently, on a hospital visit in connection with my early 2012 heart surgery, where the subsequent middle aged woman was checking my weight and blood pressure.

We “spotted” each other, just through verbal and other communication, in about 2 or 3 minutes.

She vigorously (and I mean it, Codd alone knows what they thought) kept other staff members out of the room while we compared notes for a further 5 or 10 minutes.

The next day I called by to check whether she was OK after the experience, and she said how she had been very, very struck, and had done a whole lot of thinking, the previous afternoon and evening. I gave her my card with my contact details.

I’m due back there soon, and I will leave her a copy of the NAPAC 2012 Annual Review, of which I acquired multiple copies for personal distribution.

It’s both an immensely depressing publication, but it’s also even more uplifting.


I have a blog on this site called “George’s rants”, and it may well be that in the future I confine my more-fundamental-than-accounting writing and ranting to threads in there.

Yours, George, 27th July 2013, 11:10 BST



the_Poacher | | Permalink

There seem to be many dodgy things going on with charities these day -dodgy or no accounts,  incompetence, high salaries for some CEOs, dishonesty, use for tax avoidance etc.

Apparently even some prviate schools are registered as charities. 

It's about time this sector was sorted out.  For a start, lets get rid of gift aid.  Charitable donations are a spending choice, why should they attract tax relief? 

Then, lets resource the Charities Commission and HMRC to check what these charities actually do with our donations.

George Gretton's picture

Hello Kindred Poacher...................

George Gretton | | Permalink

Hello Kindred Poacher...................

1. I suggest that MANY private school are registered as Charities. So is one of the TOP Opera Houses, and MANY other such vested-interest organisations.

2. Yes, lets make Pseudo-Charitable Donations out of post-tax residue.

3. Let Charitable Status be reserved for Organisations whose objectives and purposes are purely altruistic, as in helping the needy and the poor and the disadvantaged and the sick.

I suggest that most private schools (and I spent 9 years at a Boarding Public School, Ampleforth College) cannot remotely fall into the primary objective of altruism; parents pay to give their children the best education that they consider is available to them, as is only healthy and natural if they are decent people who care most about their kids and have the means to self-fund their children's education, sparing the state a whold bundle of expense in the process.

That is in no way altruistic, although it is in family terms clearly worthy - and my wife and I (with help from my parents) paid for a wonderful private education for our two sons, continuously at the same local private school between the ages of 4 and 18.

No boarding, thank you very much indeed.


In poking around with The Charity Commission I came to learn that a previous CEO to Sam Younger had proposed that such schools have their Charitable Status withdrawn. She seems to have lost her job as a result.


As Jo Swinson pointed out to me, we now have "Community Interest Companies", that are NOT thought of as "Charitable" in the altruistic sense, but that are identified as as NOT Profit Oriented, so that they don't get Corporation Taxed. Note that they do not distribute anything either - they retain all surpluses.

4. Just yesterday I offered my very own services to The Charity Commission, as a Forensic Accountant that can smell bogus charlatanism a hundred paces upwind.

5. My main target The Money Laundering Institute of Brewing and Distilling is a perfect example, in respect of before it was hijacked.

The objectives of the original "Charity" in the 1970s were to raise standards within the Alcoholic Drinks industry, by organising training, exams, certificates etc. - all very worthy stuff for that industry, but nothing to do with helping the needy.

The IBD itself will cease to exist when the scam blows, hopefully before the 2012 "Accounts" hit the public domain at the end of September, when I will create absolute havoc in respect of the slowness with which the investigation Statutory Agency is (not) proceeding.

But it may be possible that out of those ashes will arise a CIC that does not pay tax, but which reverts to serving the industry that funds it by raising standards and improving quality within the industry. I'd be happy to help disentangle the goodness from the badness, but strictly within a new legal company framework.


Oh Codd, see how you pressed yet another of my buttons!

But let's REALLY and TRULY aim for:

"Non Truly Charitable Donations ONLY out of Taxed Income."

True, altruistic rather than vested interest "Charities" ONLY to attract relief. 

The real charities will stay safe in their funding, and the bogus charities will have to cut their cloth to accommodate their reduced income.

Yours, as ratty as ever, George, Fridegg the 16th August 2013, 11:22 BST