David Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Eleven charities have been fined by the UK's data watchdog for misusing information about millions of past donors to seek further funds. Those fined include Oxfam, Cancer Research UK, The Royal British Legion and Battersea Dogs' and Cats' Home. The Information Commissioner's Office said offences included secretly piecing together data from various sources and trading personal details to target new and lapsed donors. It said charities must obey the law. But it limited the individual fines to between £6,000 and £18,000 because donors could be unhappy at more punitive fines. "[People] will be upset to learn the way their personal information has been analysed and shared by charities they trusted with their details and their donations," said Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham. "No charity wants to alienate their donors." Wealth screening The regulator said that some of the charities had hired companies to profile the wealth of their donors. It said this was done by investigating their incomes, lifestyles, property values and friendship circles among other means. In some cases, the "wealth screening" process was also used to flag those most likely to be convinced to leave money in their wills. Some charities are also accused of tracking down additional data about past supporters - for example using old telephone numbers to identify current ones. This ignores the fact people have the right to choose what information they share. In addition, some of the charities shared data with each other without seeking permission. "Supporters of animal charities could have their information shared with homeless, humanitarian or religious charities even though the supporters only expected their information to be shared with other animal charities," the Information Commissioner's Office said. "Some charities don't know if the information has been shared one or 100 times. This can result in lots of unwanted charity marketing." Follow-up fines The Information Commissioner's Office carried out the probe after reports that charity supporters were being pressured into follow-up donations. Last December, the British Heart Foundation and The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were fined for similar activity. The full list of charities affected by the latest penalties is: The International Fund for Animal Welfare - £18,000 Cancer Support UK - £16,000 Cancer Research UK - £16,000 The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association - £15,000 Macmillan Cancer Support - £14,000 The Royal British Legion - £12,000 The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children - £12,000 Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity - £11,000 WWF-UK - £9,000 Battersea Dogs' and Cats' Home - £9,000 Oxfam - £6,000 The Charity Commission for England and Wales - another regulator - said it was now investigatingwhether follow-on action needed to be taken against individual trustees. "The generous British public expect charities to safeguard their data and raise funds responsibly, and in return they donate in their millions," said the commission's chief operating officer David Holdsworth. "Sadly in these cases charities have not kept their side of the bargain. "We are working with the charities concerned, the Information Commissioner and the Fundraising Regulator to ensure that any necessary remedial action is taken." You might think that fining charities for being a bit too eager to solicit donations is rather unfair. But make no mistake, the kind of offences that the Information Commissioner uncovered are seen by the regulator as very serious breaches of the Data Protection Act. They would have probably meant far more serious penalties for commercial organisations. Piecing together information from other sources not provided by donors, ranking people according to their wealth, and in a couple of cases trading data with other charities all meant that millions might have received marketing approaches they did not expect or want. One of those fined, the NSPCC, said it was disappointed by what it regards as an unjustified punishment. But the Information Commissioner hopes that charities will now be aware that they have to be just as careful with personal data as any business. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39502258?ocid=socialflow_twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 It's a shame that the work the charities do is impacted by a decision made by those at the upper reaches of the hierarchy. It should be made to come out of the pay packets of those who made the decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 why do wrestlers need charity? Pay per view income for Summer slam alone should cover all WWF costs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 22 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: why do wrestlers need charity? Pay per view income for Summer slam alone should cover all WWF costs! Steroids aren't cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 what is a fine for £20k when they employ people on £2m per year, peanuts, now don't do it again phhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie20 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 49 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said: It's a shame that the work the charities do is impacted by a decision made by those at the upper reaches of the hierarchy. It should be made to come out of the pay packets of those who made the decisions. Quite a few who are earning six figure salaries. It really makes me angry when I see adverts saying 'donate £3 a month and restore someone's sight in Africa' or '£5 a month will supply a whole village with fresh water for a week' then to find that the CEO of the said charity is taking £250k a year as a salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Wolfie20 said: Quite a few who are earning six figure salaries. It really makes me angry when I see adverts saying 'donate £3 a month and restore someone's sight in Africa' or '£5 a month will supply a whole village with fresh water for a week' then to find that the CEO of the said charity is taking £250k a year as a salary. My point exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 it's that salary which demands the greed and tactics of underhanded people to claw in money. CEOs of charities still have targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted April 5, 2017 Author Share Posted April 5, 2017 29 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said: Quite a few who are earning six figure salaries. It really makes me angry when I see adverts saying 'donate £3 a month and restore someone's sight in Africa' or '£5 a month will supply a whole village with fresh water for a week' then to find that the CEO of the said charity is taking £250k a year as a salary. I take it you don't watch Comic Relief on TV with all those skint celebrities, me neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coneheadjohn Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 We do something every year for charity but only ever donate direct to the hospitals themselves for exactly the reason @David has highlighted. Sheffields Children Hospital has its own charity so we go straight to them. I'm fairly sure Derby is the same,we will look to donate to them this year. These stats really upset me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 21 hours ago, David said: I take it you don't watch Comic Relief on TV with all those skint celebrities, me neither. Especially when Gary "I definitely pay my taxes" Barlow is on it. Cnut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashz09 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 I never give to charities. Especially after hearing most of their money raised in a lot of cases only around 2%-10% actually go to the cause! My missus just shuts the door on them maybe I should learn from her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Not only that, but a lot of organisations adopt charity status for the tax breaks. It's quite easy to set up as a charity My old neighbours used to run a church (registered as a charity) from their house! All they had to do was say they "worked in the community". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 I donate to charity sometimes, i also have raised money for charities too. the annoyance i have is charities constantly shoved in your face, pride park on a match day is a good example, there are always people there collecting. Ok, i dont have a problem with that, its them shaking their buckets at you and purposly standing in your way asking for donations. If i want to donate i will but dont try and pressure me into it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Saido Berahino's foundation failed to pass on funds raised at a 2015 event for WaterAid, the charity claims. WaterAid says it "has not received any money" from a dinner the Stoke City striker hosted in Mayfair in May 2015. The Charity Commission is "deciding if there are regulatory issues to assess". The new agent of ex-West Brom striker Berahino declined to comment. However, BBC Sport understands the dealings with WaterAid were arranged by the 23-year-old's previous representatives. "WaterAid was approached by the Saido Berahino Foundation in February 2015 regarding a dinner to raise funds for the foundation," a statement from the charity read. "The event was not managed or paid for by WaterAid, and attendance was by invitation only. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39510588 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 On 05/04/2017 at 12:57, Mostyn6 said: it's that salary which demands the greed and tactics of underhanded people to claw in money. CEOs of charities still have targets. So true Mostyn. I really don't mind CEO's of businesses getting huge wedges .. that is between them and their shareholders and we have a right not to buy from them. ... Charities and to a certain extent near monopoly public utilities need to be governed by a different set of rules. By that I mean ethics, decency and all those things that drive fair play before bean counting. I'd start with some sort of statute that no charity can pay its senior staff more than £ X per year. it would be in the rules of charitable status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 24 minutes ago, jono said: So true Mostyn. I really don't mind CEO's of businesses getting huge wedges .. that is between them and their shareholders and we have a right not to buy from them. ... Charities and to a certain extent near monopoly public utilities need to be governed by a different set of rules. By that I mean ethics, decency and all those things that drive fair play before bean counting. I'd start with some sort of statute that no charity can pay its senior staff more than £ X per year. it would be in the rules of charitable status. that job you offered me, i'll give it a miss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 1 hour ago, LesterRam said: that job you offered me, i'll give it a miss That's ok mate. We're a charity. It's a bit like being a purist designer. There are just some things you have to do in a certain way. It might be cheaper, more efficient or better in some ways, but if it doesn't look right then you don't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 On 05/04/2017 at 11:48, David said: The full list of charities affected by the latest penalties is: The International Fund for Animal Welfare - £18,000 Cancer Support UK - £16,000 Cancer Research UK - £16,000 The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association - £15,000 Macmillan Cancer Support - £14,000 The Royal British Legion - £12,000 The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children - £12,000 Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity - £11,000 WWF-UK - £9,000 Battersea Dogs' and Cats' Home - £9,000 Oxfam - £6,000 I hope all the fine money is given back to charity somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 I work for a charity. It operates exclusively in Derbyshire and turns over around £150,000 per year. In total, for staff, overheads, service delivery. We are really quite efficient and very frugal! When you read all this stuff about charities in the media it is almost always about large national or international charities with multimillion pound turnovers that are run more as businesses. If you aren't sure about the collections at Pride Park ask if the charity is local. Sight Support Derbyshire were there last week - they do a great job and are very worth a donation. Please don't make blanket assumptions about charities as most do great work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.