Cross referencing the latest Charities Direct information with that
provided by the Woodland Trust's 2006 annual review, it appears the
fundraising costs of 19.12% of total expenditure equates to over 80%
of membership income.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>Cross referencing the latest Charities Direct information with that
>provided by the Woodland Trust's 2006 annual review, it appears the
>fundraising costs of 19.12% of total expenditure equates to over 80%
>of membership income.
>
What is the proportion of *total* income?

Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote 
the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda 
and ignore the rest :-((

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 07:35:20 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>Cross referencing the latest Charities Direct information with that
>>provided by the Woodland Trust's 2006 annual review, it appears the
>>fundraising costs of 19.12% of total expenditure equates to over 80%
>>of membership income.
>>
>What is the proportion of *total* income?

Interesting you should ask that.  It appears the Woodland Trust lumps
in grants and woodland management income as "income" to the charity
itself,  and then pushes it out the expenditure side as money THEY'VE
spent. 

If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
"income" and pay tax on it?  

>
>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote 
>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda 
>and ignore the rest :-((

No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.

Are you saying my calculations are incorrect?   Remember I have an O
Grade in maths:-)

It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.

And do you know they spend more than twice the amount on access,
recreation and education (indoctrination?) than protecting ancient
woodland?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 07:35:20 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes

>>>Cross referencing the latest Charities Direct information with that
>>>provided by the Woodland Trust's 2006 annual review, it appears the
>>>fundraising costs of 19.12% of total expenditure equates to over 80%
>>>of membership income.
>>>
>>What is the proportion of *total* income?
>
>Interesting you should ask that.  It appears the Woodland Trust lumps
>in grants and woodland management income as "income" to the charity
>itself,  and then pushes it out the expenditure side as money THEY'VE
>spent.
>
Which doesn't answer my question. But then I didn't really expect you 
to. You never provide information that doesn't fit your warped 
anti-conservation agenda.

In what way are grants not income to a charity? And when the grants are 
spent, in what way is it not money *they've* spent?

>If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
>"income" and pay tax on it?
>
No, but then I'm not a charity. You seem to have forgotten, in your 
haste to come up with one of your crap analogies, that charities don't 
pay tax so your question is completely irrelevant.

The WT produce annual accounts which have to follow the Charity 
Commissioners' recommendations regarding best practice for charity 
accounts and then be submitted to them. So if the CC are happy with how 
they are presented, your comments are, unsurprisingly, once again 
irrelevant.

>>
>>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote
>>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda
>>and ignore the rest :-((
>
>No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.
>
Then you will have no difficulty in reading off the figure of total 
income and calculating the percentage of that spent on fundraising costs 
and posting it here, will you?

>Are you saying my calculations are incorrect?   Remember I have an O
>Grade in maths:-)
>
As I haven't seen the figures, I don't know whether your calculations 
are right or not. Some of your past statements involving numbers don't 
give me complete confidence :-)

>It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.
>
Do you really think so? I suggest that you are indulging in wishful 
thinking, again.

>And do you know they spend more than twice the amount on access,
>recreation and education (indoctrination?) than protecting ancient
>woodland?
>
That's presumably because they take the view that access, recreation and 
education are all necessary in order to make sure that ancient woodland 
is protected. If you don't inform people about ancient woodland, they're 
not going to realise that it needs protecting. Not that I suppose for a 
moment that you will accept something that obvious.

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:44:19 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 07:35:20 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>>>>Cross referencing the latest Charities Direct information with that
>>>>provided by the Woodland Trust's 2006 annual review, it appears the
>>>>fundraising costs of 19.12% of total expenditure equates to over 80%
>>>>of membership income.
>>>>
>>>What is the proportion of *total* income?
>>
>>Interesting you should ask that.  It appears the Woodland Trust lumps
>>in grants and woodland management income as "income" to the charity
>>itself,  and then pushes it out the expenditure side as money THEY'VE
>>spent.
>>
>Which doesn't answer my question. But then I didn't really expect you 
>to. You never provide information that doesn't fit your warped 
>anti-conservation agenda.
>
>In what way are grants not income to a charity? And when the grants are 
>spent, in what way is it not money *they've* spent?

It's the taxpayer who has spent it.  They go through the
administrative process of applying for the grant for a specific
purpose.  It's not "their" money they're spending

>
>>If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
>>"income" and pay tax on it?
>>
>No, but then I'm not a charity. 

Makes no difference.

>You seem to have forgotten, in your 
>haste to come up with one of your crap analogies, that charities don't 
>pay tax so your question is completely irrelevant.
>

Where did I say a charity should pay tax on it.  I asked YOU if you
got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it "income"
and pay tax on it?

>The WT produce annual accounts which have to follow the Charity 
>Commissioners' recommendations regarding best practice for charity 
>accounts and then be submitted to them. So if the CC are happy with how 
>they are presented, your comments are, unsurprisingly, once again 
>irrelevant.
>

Well perhaps the public will see it differently.



>>>
>>>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote
>>>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda
>>>and ignore the rest :-((
>>
>>No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.
>>
>Then you will have no difficulty in reading off the figure of total 
>income and calculating the percentage of that spent on fundraising costs 
>and posting it here, will you?
>
That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
I have explained above.

>>Are you saying my calculations are incorrect?   Remember I have an O
>>Grade in maths:-)
>>
>As I haven't seen the figures, I don't know whether your calculations 
>are right or not. Some of your past statements involving numbers don't 
>give me complete confidence :-)
>

Not much is any of your statements give me confidence :-)


>>It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.
>>
>Do you really think so? I suggest that you are indulging in wishful 
>thinking, again.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

We'll see.


>
>>And do you know they spend more than twice the amount on access,
>>recreation and education (indoctrination?) than protecting ancient
>>woodland?
>>
>That's presumably because they take the view that access, recreation and 
>education are all necessary in order to make sure that ancient woodland 
>is protected. If you don't inform people about ancient woodland, they're 
>not going to realise that it needs protecting. Not that I suppose for a 
>moment that you will accept something that obvious.

The first two is increasing the human footprint in sensitive areas
which is damaging to the natural environment and is an anathema to
conserving anything.  Dog lavatories sums it up.

And if you inform people about any woodland you're more likely to get
vandalism and destruction - like what happens at Loch Lomondside.

Do you know that I've been told by walkers that the Whinny Hill paths
are a quagmire because of mountain bikes?  So much for protecting
their woodlands. 

Seems they'd rather engage staff for fundraising than monitoring what
goes on in their woodlands.  Do you know the money they spend on
fundraising amounts to 88% of what they spend on protecting ancient
woodlands?   And what ancient woodlands do they physically protect or
do they just put in objections to planners, which anyone can do for
next to nothing.

It also seems they claim to "restore" ancient woodlands.   What a
joke!  Where do they get the 300 year-old trees to plant :-))

Sounds a bit like selling reproduction furniture as antiques :-((

Now, I wonder what you'd call people who did that?

Crooks, perhaps?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:44:19 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 07:35:20 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>>>>Cross referencing the latest Charities Direct information with that
>>>>>provided by the Woodland Trust's 2006 annual review, it appears the
>>>>>fundraising costs of 19.12% of total expenditure equates to over 80%
>>>>>of membership income.
>>>>>
>>>>What is the proportion of *total* income?
>>>
>>>Interesting you should ask that.  It appears the Woodland Trust lumps
>>>in grants and woodland management income as "income" to the charity
>>>itself,  and then pushes it out the expenditure side as money THEY'VE
>>>spent.
>>>
>>Which doesn't answer my question. But then I didn't really expect you
>>to. You never provide information that doesn't fit your warped
>>anti-conservation agenda.
>>
>>In what way are grants not income to a charity? And when the grants are
>>spent, in what way is it not money *they've* spent?
>
>It's the taxpayer who has spent it.

That's one of your sweeping statements which, as usual, isn't true.

> They go through the
>administrative process of applying for the grant for a specific
>purpose.  It's not "their" money they're spending
>
I would have thought that was obvious from the use of the word "grant"! 
However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a 
grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity 
carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately 
described as expenditure. If you don't agree, take it up with the 
Charity Commissioners and get them to change their recommendations.

>>
>>>If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
>>>"income" and pay tax on it?
>>>
>>No, but then I'm not a charity.
>
>Makes no difference.
>
Of course it does.

>>You seem to have forgotten, in your
>>haste to come up with one of your crap analogies, that charities don't
>>pay tax so your question is completely irrelevant.
>>
>
>Where did I say a charity should pay tax on it.  I asked YOU if you
>got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it "income"
>and pay tax on it?
>
It's a pointless question based on a pointless analogy.

>>The WT produce annual accounts which have to follow the Charity
>>Commissioners' recommendations regarding best practice for charity
>>accounts and then be submitted to them. So if the CC are happy with how
>>they are presented, your comments are, unsurprisingly, once again
>>irrelevant.
>>
>
>Well perhaps the public will see it differently.
>
LOL!  "The public" will doubtless yawn and carry on paying their 
subscriptions. Why should any of them be interested in how charities are 
required to produce their accounts?
>
>
>>>>
>>>>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote
>>>>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda
>>>>and ignore the rest :-((
>>>
>>>No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.
>>>
>>Then you will have no difficulty in reading off the figure of total
>>income and calculating the percentage of that spent on fundraising costs
>>and posting it here, will you?
>>
>That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
>I have explained above.
>
But I note you still haven't given me the answer to my question. Why 
not? Could it be that fundraising costs are less than 13% of total 
income? Doesn't sound as good to you, does it, as your comparison with 
membership subscriptions?

>>>Are you saying my calculations are incorrect?   Remember I have an O
>>>Grade in maths:-)
>>>
>>As I haven't seen the figures, I don't know whether your calculations
>>are right or not. Some of your past statements involving numbers don't
>>give me complete confidence :-)
>>
>
>Not much is any of your statements give me confidence :-)
>
Well, I didn't expect you to agree with that particular one :-)
>
>>>It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.
>>>
>>Do you really think so? I suggest that you are indulging in wishful
>>thinking, again.
>
>Perhaps, perhaps not.
>
>We'll see.
>
Indeed. You do love wasting your time, don't you?

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:17:42 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:44:19 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 07:35:20 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>
>>>>>>Cross referencing the latest Charities Direct information with that
>>>>>>provided by the Woodland Trust's 2006 annual review, it appears the
>>>>>>fundraising costs of 19.12% of total expenditure equates to over 80%
>>>>>>of membership income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>What is the proportion of *total* income?
>>>>
>>>>Interesting you should ask that.  It appears the Woodland Trust lumps
>>>>in grants and woodland management income as "income" to the charity
>>>>itself,  and then pushes it out the expenditure side as money THEY'VE
>>>>spent.
>>>>
>>>Which doesn't answer my question. But then I didn't really expect you
>>>to. You never provide information that doesn't fit your warped
>>>anti-conservation agenda.
>>>
>>>In what way are grants not income to a charity? And when the grants are
>>>spent, in what way is it not money *they've* spent?
>>
>>It's the taxpayer who has spent it.
>
>That's one of your sweeping statements which, as usual, isn't true.

Why not?


>
>> They go through the
>>administrative process of applying for the grant for a specific
>>purpose.  It's not "their" money they're spending
>>
>I would have thought that was obvious from the use of the word "grant"! 

It's obviously obvious.

>However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a 
>grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity 
>carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately 
>described as expenditure. 

That's very debatable because it show a falsely high income and
expenditure when as you have agreed it's not their money.

>If you don't agree, take it up with the 
>Charity Commissioners and get them to change their recommendations.
>

Depends if I can be bothered.  

>>>
>>>>If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
>>>>"income" and pay tax on it?
>>>>
>>>No, but then I'm not a charity.
>>
>>Makes no difference.
>>
>Of course it does.
>

So would you consider it as "income"?


>>>You seem to have forgotten, in your
>>>haste to come up with one of your crap analogies, that charities don't
>>>pay tax so your question is completely irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>>Where did I say a charity should pay tax on it.  I asked YOU if you
>>got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it "income"
>>and pay tax on it?
>>
>It's a pointless question based on a pointless analogy.
>

Not at all.  Just one you find difficult to answer - as usual.



>>>The WT produce annual accounts which have to follow the Charity
>>>Commissioners' recommendations regarding best practice for charity
>>>accounts and then be submitted to them. So if the CC are happy with how
>>>they are presented, your comments are, unsurprisingly, once again
>>>irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>>Well perhaps the public will see it differently.
>>
>LOL!  "The public" will doubtless yawn and carry on paying their 
>subscriptions. Why should any of them be interested in how charities are 
>required to produce their accounts?

They're probably not, that's why it needs to be brought to their
attention.

>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote
>>>>>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda
>>>>>and ignore the rest :-((
>>>>
>>>>No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.
>>>>
>>>Then you will have no difficulty in reading off the figure of total
>>>income and calculating the percentage of that spent on fundraising costs
>>>and posting it here, will you?
>>>
>>That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
>>I have explained above.
>>
>But I note you still haven't given me the answer to my question. Why 
>not? Could it be that fundraising costs are less than 13% of total 
>income? Doesn't sound as good to you, does it, as your comparison with 
>membership subscriptions?

Members are interested in what they pay and I'm sure some will find it
unacceptable that fundraising costs are more than 80% of membership
income.  And if like I do, I don't believe that grants should be
included as income to the charity as it is generally ring fenced then
the total income as presented is flawed. 

>
>>>>Are you saying my calculations are incorrect?   Remember I have an O
>>>>Grade in maths:-)
>>>>
>>>As I haven't seen the figures, I don't know whether your calculations
>>>are right or not. Some of your past statements involving numbers don't
>>>give me complete confidence :-)
>>>
>>
>>Not much is any of your statements give me confidence :-)
>>
>Well, I didn't expect you to agree with that particular one :-)

I don't agree with very much you say.

>>
>>>>It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.
>>>>
>>>Do you really think so? I suggest that you are indulging in wishful
>>>thinking, again.
>>
>>Perhaps, perhaps not.
>>
>>We'll see.
>>
>Indeed. You do love wasting your time, don't you?

Not as much as you do.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:17:42 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:44:19 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which doesn't answer my question. But then I didn't really expect you
>>>>to. You never provide information that doesn't fit your warped
>>>>anti-conservation agenda.
>>>>
>>>>In what way are grants not income to a charity? And when the grants are
>>>>spent, in what way is it not money *they've* spent?
>>>
>>>It's the taxpayer who has spent it.
>>
>>That's one of your sweeping statements which, as usual, isn't true.
>
>Why not?
>
Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought 
that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would have known 
that.

>
>>
>>> They go through the
>>>administrative process of applying for the grant for a specific
>>>purpose.  It's not "their" money they're spending
>>>
>>I would have thought that was obvious from the use of the word "grant"!
>
>It's obviously obvious.
>
That's obvious :-)

>>However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a
>>grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity
>>carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately
>>described as expenditure.
>
>That's very debatable because it show a falsely high income and
>expenditure when as you have agreed it's not their money.
>
No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be? 
And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down 
recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.

>>If you don't agree, take it up with the
>>Charity Commissioners and get them to change their recommendations.
>>
>
>Depends if I can be bothered.
>
Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you. 
What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?

>>>>
>>>>>If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
>>>>>"income" and pay tax on it?
>>>>>
>>>>No, but then I'm not a charity.
>>>
>>>Makes no difference.
>>>
>>Of course it does.
>>
>
>So would you consider it as "income"?
>
I haven't considered it at all. I see no point in doing so.
>
>>>>You seem to have forgotten, in your
>>>>haste to come up with one of your crap analogies, that charities don't
>>>>pay tax so your question is completely irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Where did I say a charity should pay tax on it.  I asked YOU if you
>>>got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it "income"
>>>and pay tax on it?
>>>
>>It's a pointless question based on a pointless analogy.
>>
>
>Not at all.  Just one you find difficult to answer - as usual.
>
It's an irrelevant question about a false analogy that bears no relation 
to the matter under discussion. Why should I be bothered to answer it?

>
>
>>>>The WT produce annual accounts which have to follow the Charity
>>>>Commissioners' recommendations regarding best practice for charity
>>>>accounts and then be submitted to them. So if the CC are happy with how
>>>>they are presented, your comments are, unsurprisingly, once again
>>>>irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well perhaps the public will see it differently.
>>>
>>LOL!  "The public" will doubtless yawn and carry on paying their
>>subscriptions. Why should any of them be interested in how charities are
>>required to produce their accounts?
>
>They're probably not, that's why it needs to be brought to their
>attention.
>
And how do you propose to do that? Write yet more letters to newspapers? 
Make sure you post *all* the facts not just selective ones.

>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote
>>>>>>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda
>>>>>>and ignore the rest :-((
>>>>>
>>>>>No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.
>>>>>
>>>>Then you will have no difficulty in reading off the figure of total
>>>>income and calculating the percentage of that spent on fundraising costs
>>>>and posting it here, will you?
>>>>
>>>That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
>>>I have explained above.
>>>
>>But I note you still haven't given me the answer to my question. Why
>>not? Could it be that fundraising costs are less than 13% of total
>>income? Doesn't sound as good to you, does it, as your comparison with
>>membership subscriptions?
>
>Members are interested in what they pay and I'm sure some will find it
>unacceptable that fundraising costs are more than 80% of membership
>income.

"Some" or a very few indeed. But the fundraising costs are less than 13% 
of total income, which is the honest way to present the figures.

>  And if like I do, I don't believe that grants should be
>included as income to the charity as it is generally ring fenced then
>the total income as presented is flawed.
>
That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of 
the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all 
grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and 
legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities) 
appears on both sides of the balance sheet.

>>
>>>>>Are you saying my calculations are incorrect?   Remember I have an O
>>>>>Grade in maths:-)
>>>>>
>>>>As I haven't seen the figures, I don't know whether your calculations
>>>>are right or not. Some of your past statements involving numbers don't
>>>>give me complete confidence :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not much is any of your statements give me confidence :-)
>>>
>>Well, I didn't expect you to agree with that particular one :-)
>
>I don't agree with very much you say.
>
Snap :-)

>>>
>>>>>It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.
>>>>>
>>>>Do you really think so? I suggest that you are indulging in wishful
>>>>thinking, again.
>>>
>>>Perhaps, perhaps not.
>>>
>>>We'll see.
>>>
>>Indeed. You do love wasting your time, don't you?
>
>Not as much as you do.
>
I'm not wasting time. I'm indulging in a little light relief between 
periods of work at my computer. I break off from time to time, read your 
latest post, have a laugh, compose a reply, and go back to working.

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:17:42 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:44:19 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Which doesn't answer my question. But then I didn't really expect you
>>>>>to. You never provide information that doesn't fit your warped
>>>>>anti-conservation agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>>In what way are grants not income to a charity? And when the grants are
>>>>>spent, in what way is it not money *they've* spent?
>>>>
>>>>It's the taxpayer who has spent it.
>>>
>>>That's one of your sweeping statements which, as usual, isn't true.
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought 
>that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would have known 
>that.
>


Where do they come from, Malcolm?


>>>
>>>> They go through the
>>>>administrative process of applying for the grant for a specific
>>>>purpose.  It's not "their" money they're spending
>>>>
>>>I would have thought that was obvious from the use of the word "grant"!
>>
>>It's obviously obvious.
>>
>That's obvious :-)
>

Sure

>>>However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a
>>>grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity
>>>carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately
>>>described as expenditure.
>>
>>That's very debatable because it show a falsely high income and
>>expenditure when as you have agreed it's not their money.
>>
>No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be? 
>And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down 
>recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.
>

Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
a charity's  income.  

Supposing I started a small charity with the equivalent of ten bob and
applied for a grant of a million bobs to do something about something.
I think it would be entirely wrong of me to show an income of a
million and ten bobs as a measure of the income of my charity that
might only have eleven bob the following year.


>>>If you don't agree, take it up with the
>>>Charity Commissioners and get them to change their recommendations.
>>>
>>
>>Depends if I can be bothered.
>>
>Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you. 
>What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?
>

None whatsoever.   But I'm sure that it is very important that an
accurate refection of income is shown.  Some of the worst cases of
business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
expenditure.


>>>>>
>>>>>>If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
>>>>>>"income" and pay tax on it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, but then I'm not a charity.
>>>>
>>>>Makes no difference.
>>>>
>>>Of course it does.
>>>
>>
>>So would you consider it as "income"?
>>
>I haven't considered it at all. I see no point in doing so.

Perhaps you should.

>>
>>>>>You seem to have forgotten, in your
>>>>>haste to come up with one of your crap analogies, that charities don't
>>>>>pay tax so your question is completely irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where did I say a charity should pay tax on it.  I asked YOU if you
>>>>got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it "income"
>>>>and pay tax on it?
>>>>
>>>It's a pointless question based on a pointless analogy.
>>>
>>
>>Not at all.  Just one you find difficult to answer - as usual.
>>
>It's an irrelevant question about a false analogy that bears no relation 
>to the matter under discussion. Why should I be bothered to answer it?
>

Because you can't without destroying your argument.

>>
>>
>>>>>The WT produce annual accounts which have to follow the Charity
>>>>>Commissioners' recommendations regarding best practice for charity
>>>>>accounts and then be submitted to them. So if the CC are happy with how
>>>>>they are presented, your comments are, unsurprisingly, once again
>>>>>irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well perhaps the public will see it differently.
>>>>
>>>LOL!  "The public" will doubtless yawn and carry on paying their
>>>subscriptions. Why should any of them be interested in how charities are
>>>required to produce their accounts?
>>
>>They're probably not, that's why it needs to be brought to their
>>attention.
>>
>And how do you propose to do that? Write yet more letters to newspapers? 
>Make sure you post *all* the facts not just selective ones.
>

I'll post the relevant facts.



>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote
>>>>>>>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda
>>>>>>>and ignore the rest :-((
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Then you will have no difficulty in reading off the figure of total
>>>>>income and calculating the percentage of that spent on fundraising costs
>>>>>and posting it here, will you?
>>>>>
>>>>That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
>>>>I have explained above.
>>>>
>>>But I note you still haven't given me the answer to my question. Why
>>>not? Could it be that fundraising costs are less than 13% of total
>>>income? Doesn't sound as good to you, does it, as your comparison with
>>>membership subscriptions?
>>
>>Members are interested in what they pay and I'm sure some will find it
>>unacceptable that fundraising costs are more than 80% of membership
>>income.
>
>"Some" or a very few indeed. 

You have no way of knowing.

>But the fundraising costs are less than 13% 
>of total income, which is the honest way to present the figures.

Not at all.  It is entirely honest to present some figures in respect
of others.


>
>>  And if like I do, I don't believe that grants should be
>>included as income to the charity as it is generally ring fenced then
>>the total income as presented is flawed.
>>
>That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of 
>the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all 
>grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and 
>legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities) 
>appears on both sides of the balance sheet.
>

But it does give a false impression of the charity's actual income.


>>>
>>>>>>Are you saying my calculations are incorrect?   Remember I have an O
>>>>>>Grade in maths:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>As I haven't seen the figures, I don't know whether your calculations
>>>>>are right or not. Some of your past statements involving numbers don't
>>>>>give me complete confidence :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not much is any of your statements give me confidence :-)
>>>>
>>>Well, I didn't expect you to agree with that particular one :-)
>>
>>I don't agree with very much you say.
>>
>Snap :-)
>

You snapped a long time ago :-))


>>>>
>>>>>>It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Do you really think so? I suggest that you are indulging in wishful
>>>>>thinking, again.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps, perhaps not.
>>>>
>>>>We'll see.
>>>>
>>>Indeed. You do love wasting your time, don't you?
>>
>>Not as much as you do.
>>
>I'm not wasting time. I'm indulging in a little light relief between 
>periods of work at my computer. I break off from time to time, read your 
>latest post, have a laugh, compose a reply, and go back to working.

So you waste your time all the time.  Thought so.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:17:42 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:44:19 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Which doesn't answer my question. But then I didn't really expect you
>>>>>>to. You never provide information that doesn't fit your warped
>>>>>>anti-conservation agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In what way are grants not income to a charity? And when the grants are
>>>>>>spent, in what way is it not money *they've* spent?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's the taxpayer who has spent it.
>>>>
>>>>That's one of your sweeping statements which, as usual, isn't true.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>>
>>Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought
>>that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would have known
>>that.
>>
>
>
>Where do they come from, Malcolm?
>
Do you mean to say you don't know?

>
>>>>However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a
>>>>grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity
>>>>carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately
>>>>described as expenditure.
>>>
>>>That's very debatable because it show a falsely high income and
>>>expenditure when as you have agreed it's not their money.
>>>
>>No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be?
>>And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down
>>recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.
>>
>
>Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
>a charity's  income.
>
No, it doesn't. Those who understand accounts can readily see where the 
income arises.

>Supposing I started a small charity with the equivalent of ten bob and
>applied for a grant of a million bobs to do something about something.
>I think it would be entirely wrong of me to show an income of a
>million and ten bobs as a measure of the income of my charity that
>might only have eleven bob the following year.
>
Not if you were any good at it, because you would raise more money in 
year two.
>
>>>>If you don't agree, take it up with the
>>>>Charity Commissioners and get them to change their recommendations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Depends if I can be bothered.
>>>
>>Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you.
>>What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?
>>
>
>None whatsoever.   But I'm sure that it is very important that an
>accurate refection of income is shown.

Which in the case of the WT it is. They have published a breakdown of 
the total income, so you can see exactly how much income derives from 
grants. Nothing is concealed.

> Some of the worst cases of
>business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
>expenditure.
>
Are you accusing the WT of business fraud?

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
>>>>>>>"income" and pay tax on it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, but then I'm not a charity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Makes no difference.
>>>>>
>>>>Of course it does.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So would you consider it as "income"?
>>>
>>I haven't considered it at all. I see no point in doing so.
>
>Perhaps you should.
>
Why should I waste my time?


>>>
>>>>>>You seem to have forgotten, in your
>>>>>>haste to come up with one of your crap analogies, that charities don't
>>>>>>pay tax so your question is completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Where did I say a charity should pay tax on it.  I asked YOU if you
>>>>>got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it "income"
>>>>>and pay tax on it?
>>>>>
>>>>It's a pointless question based on a pointless analogy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all.  Just one you find difficult to answer - as usual.
>>>
>>It's an irrelevant question about a false analogy that bears no relation
>>to the matter under discussion. Why should I be bothered to answer it?
>>
>
>Because you can't without destroying your argument.
>
You do write some rubbish, you know.

>>>
>>>
>>>>>>The WT produce annual accounts which have to follow the Charity
>>>>>>Commissioners' recommendations regarding best practice for charity
>>>>>>accounts and then be submitted to them. So if the CC are happy with how
>>>>>>they are presented, your comments are, unsurprisingly, once again
>>>>>>irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well perhaps the public will see it differently.
>>>>>
>>>>LOL!  "The public" will doubtless yawn and carry on paying their
>>>>subscriptions. Why should any of them be interested in how charities are
>>>>required to produce their accounts?
>>>
>>>They're probably not, that's why it needs to be brought to their
>>>attention.
>>>
>>And how do you propose to do that? Write yet more letters to newspapers?
>>Make sure you post *all* the facts not just selective ones.
>>
>
>I'll post the relevant facts.
>
That's be a first :-))
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote
>>>>>>>>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda
>>>>>>>>and ignore the rest :-((
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then you will have no difficulty in reading off the figure of total
>>>>>>income and calculating the percentage of that spent on fundraising costs
>>>>>>and posting it here, will you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
>>>>>I have explained above.
>>>>>
>>>>But I note you still haven't given me the answer to my question. Why
>>>>not? Could it be that fundraising costs are less than 13% of total
>>>>income? Doesn't sound as good to you, does it, as your comparison with
>>>>membership subscriptions?
>>>
>>>Members are interested in what they pay and I'm sure some will find it
>>>unacceptable that fundraising costs are more than 80% of membership
>>>income.
>>
>>"Some" or a very few indeed.
>
>You have no way of knowing.
>
Nor do you. You've claimed "some". I will stick with "very few".


>>But the fundraising costs are less than 13%
>>of total income, which is the honest way to present the figures.
>
>Not at all.  It is entirely honest to present some figures in respect
>of others.
>
Not the way you do it :-(
>
>>
>>>  And if like I do, I don't believe that grants should be
>>>included as income to the charity as it is generally ring fenced then
>>>the total income as presented is flawed.
>>>
>>That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of
>>the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all
>>grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and
>>legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities)
>>appears on both sides of the balance sheet.
>>
>
>But it does give a false impression of the charity's actual income.
>
>
No it doesn't. They've published the total of grants within the total 
income. How can that possibly give a "false impression"?

>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you really think so? I suggest that you are indulging in wishful
>>>>>>thinking, again.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps, perhaps not.
>>>>>
>>>>>We'll see.
>>>>>
>>>>Indeed. You do love wasting your time, don't you?
>>>
>>>Not as much as you do.
>>>
>>I'm not wasting time. I'm indulging in a little light relief between
>>periods of work at my computer. I break off from time to time, read your
>>latest post, have a laugh, compose a reply, and go back to working.
>
>So you waste your time all the time.  Thought so.
>
A typical Angus "jumping to a conclusion without any evidence".

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:51 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:17:42 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:44:19 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which doesn't answer my question. But then I didn't really expect you
>>>>>>>to. You never provide information that doesn't fit your warped
>>>>>>>anti-conservation agenda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In what way are grants not income to a charity? And when the grants are
>>>>>>>spent, in what way is it not money *they've* spent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's the taxpayer who has spent it.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's one of your sweeping statements which, as usual, isn't true.
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>>
>>>Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought
>>>that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would have known
>>>that.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Where do they come from, Malcolm?
>>
>Do you mean to say you don't know?

I'm asking you.

>
>>
>>>>>However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a
>>>>>grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity
>>>>>carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately
>>>>>described as expenditure.
>>>>
>>>>That's very debatable because it show a falsely high income and
>>>>expenditure when as you have agreed it's not their money.
>>>>
>>>No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be?
>>>And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down
>>>recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.
>>>
>>
>>Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
>>a charity's  income.
>>
>No, it doesn't. Those who understand accounts can readily see where the 
>income arises.
>

But the public should be aware of what goes on, if invited to become
members, without having to understand accounts.



>>Supposing I started a small charity with the equivalent of ten bob and
>>applied for a grant of a million bobs to do something about something.
>>I think it would be entirely wrong of me to show an income of a
>>million and ten bobs as a measure of the income of my charity that
>>might only have eleven bob the following year.
>>
>Not if you were any good at it, because you would raise more money in 
>year two.

Not necessarily.  Your answers are becoming more pathetic by the day.



>>
>>>>>If you don't agree, take it up with the
>>>>>Charity Commissioners and get them to change their recommendations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Depends if I can be bothered.
>>>>
>>>Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you.
>>>What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?
>>>
>>
>>None whatsoever.   But I'm sure that it is very important that an
>>accurate refection of income is shown.
>
>Which in the case of the WT it is. They have published a breakdown of 
>the total income, so you can see exactly how much income derives from 
>grants. Nothing is concealed.
>
 But it's not really an "income".  It's what is known in business as
"pasturise money".

>> Some of the worst cases of
>>business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
>>expenditure.
>>
>Are you accusing the WT of business fraud?
>
Not at all. But the inclusion of grants as income to the charity
coffers does not reflect the true income in my view.


>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
>>>>>>>>"income" and pay tax on it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, but then I'm not a charity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Makes no difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So would you consider it as "income"?
>>>>
>>>I haven't considered it at all. I see no point in doing so.
>>
>>Perhaps you should.
>>
>Why should I waste my time?
>
>
You do it all the time.



>>>>
>>>>>>>You seem to have forgotten, in your
>>>>>>>haste to come up with one of your crap analogies, that charities don't
>>>>>>>pay tax so your question is completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where did I say a charity should pay tax on it.  I asked YOU if you
>>>>>>got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it "income"
>>>>>>and pay tax on it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>It's a pointless question based on a pointless analogy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not at all.  Just one you find difficult to answer - as usual.
>>>>
>>>It's an irrelevant question about a false analogy that bears no relation
>>>to the matter under discussion. Why should I be bothered to answer it?
>>>
>>
>>Because you can't without destroying your argument.
>>
>You do write some rubbish, you know.
>

That's your scene.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>The WT produce annual accounts which have to follow the Charity
>>>>>>>Commissioners' recommendations regarding best practice for charity
>>>>>>>accounts and then be submitted to them. So if the CC are happy with how
>>>>>>>they are presented, your comments are, unsurprisingly, once again
>>>>>>>irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well perhaps the public will see it differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>LOL!  "The public" will doubtless yawn and carry on paying their
>>>>>subscriptions. Why should any of them be interested in how charities are
>>>>>required to produce their accounts?
>>>>
>>>>They're probably not, that's why it needs to be brought to their
>>>>attention.
>>>>
>>>And how do you propose to do that? Write yet more letters to newspapers?
>>>Make sure you post *all* the facts not just selective ones.
>>>
>>
>>I'll post the relevant facts.
>>
>That's be a first :-))

Not at all. I do so all the time.

>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote
>>>>>>>>>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda
>>>>>>>>>and ignore the rest :-((
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then you will have no difficulty in reading off the figure of total
>>>>>>>income and calculating the percentage of that spent on fundraising costs
>>>>>>>and posting it here, will you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
>>>>>>I have explained above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>But I note you still haven't given me the answer to my question. Why
>>>>>not? Could it be that fundraising costs are less than 13% of total
>>>>>income? Doesn't sound as good to you, does it, as your comparison with
>>>>>membership subscriptions?
>>>>
>>>>Members are interested in what they pay and I'm sure some will find it
>>>>unacceptable that fundraising costs are more than 80% of membership
>>>>income.
>>>
>>>"Some" or a very few indeed.
>>
>>You have no way of knowing.
>>
>Nor do you. You've claimed "some". I will stick with "very few".
>
>

Could be many, for all you know.


>>>But the fundraising costs are less than 13%
>>>of total income, which is the honest way to present the figures.
>>
>>Not at all.  It is entirely honest to present some figures in respect
>>of others.
>>
>Not the way you do it :-(

Of course it is.  It is entirely honest to compare fundraising costs
with membership income.  What's dishonest about it?

>>
>>>
>>>>  And if like I do, I don't believe that grants should be
>>>>included as income to the charity as it is generally ring fenced then
>>>>the total income as presented is flawed.
>>>>
>>>That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of
>>>the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all
>>>grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and
>>>legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities)
>>>appears on both sides of the balance sheet.
>>>
>>
>>But it does give a false impression of the charity's actual income.
>>
>>
>No it doesn't. They've published the total of grants within the total 
>income. How can that possibly give a "false impression"?
>

Because it's not really an income.  It's "pasturise money".


>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you really think so? I suggest that you are indulging in wishful
>>>>>>>thinking, again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps, perhaps not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We'll see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed. You do love wasting your time, don't you?
>>>>
>>>>Not as much as you do.
>>>>
>>>I'm not wasting time. I'm indulging in a little light relief between
>>>periods of work at my computer. I break off from time to time, read your
>>>latest post, have a laugh, compose a reply, and go back to working.
>>
>>So you waste your time all the time.  Thought so.
>>
>A typical Angus "jumping to a conclusion without any evidence".

Sounds like what a certain sloppy scientist does all the time.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:51 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:17:42 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes

>>>>>>>It's the taxpayer who has spent it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's one of your sweeping statements which, as usual, isn't true.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought
>>>>that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would have known
>>>>that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Where do they come from, Malcolm?
>>>
>>Do you mean to say you don't know?
>
>I'm asking you.
>
Do your own research :-)

>>
>>>
>>>>>>However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a
>>>>>>grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity
>>>>>>carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately
>>>>>>described as expenditure.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's very debatable because it show a falsely high income and
>>>>>expenditure when as you have agreed it's not their money.
>>>>>
>>>>No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be?
>>>>And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down
>>>>recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
>>>a charity's  income.
>>>
>>No, it doesn't. Those who understand accounts can readily see where the
>>income arises.
>>
>
>But the public should be aware of what goes on, if invited to become
>members, without having to understand accounts.
>
I am sure that those members interested in the exact expenditure of 
every penny of their subscription are capable of finding out for 
themselves without any help (?) from you.

>
>
>>>Supposing I started a small charity with the equivalent of ten bob and
>>>applied for a grant of a million bobs to do something about something.
>>>I think it would be entirely wrong of me to show an income of a
>>>million and ten bobs as a measure of the income of my charity that
>>>might only have eleven bob the following year.
>>>
>>Not if you were any good at it, because you would raise more money in
>>year two.
>
>Not necessarily.  Your answers are becoming more pathetic by the day.
>
>
Your analogies just get crappier and crappier :-))
>
>>>
>>>>>>If you don't agree, take it up with the
>>>>>>Charity Commissioners and get them to change their recommendations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Depends if I can be bothered.
>>>>>
>>>>Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you.
>>>>What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?
>>>>
>>>
>>>None whatsoever.   But I'm sure that it is very important that an
>>>accurate refection of income is shown.
>>
>>Which in the case of the WT it is. They have published a breakdown of
>>the total income, so you can see exactly how much income derives from
>>grants. Nothing is concealed.
>>
> But it's not really an "income".  It's what is known in business as
>"pasturise money".
>
Is it really? It seems that this is a phrase that Google has never heard 
of. I wonder why not.

>>> Some of the worst cases of
>>>business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
>>>expenditure.
>>>
>>Are you accusing the WT of business fraud?
>>
>Not at all. But the inclusion of grants as income to the charity
>coffers does not reflect the true income in my view.
>
Ah, "in your view". That says it all. If the Charity Commissioners are 
happy for grants to be included in income, then why are you bothered?


>>>>>>>Well perhaps the public will see it differently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL!  "The public" will doubtless yawn and carry on paying their
>>>>>>subscriptions. Why should any of them be interested in how charities are
>>>>>>required to produce their accounts?
>>>>>
>>>>>They're probably not, that's why it needs to be brought to their
>>>>>attention.
>>>>>
>>>>And how do you propose to do that? Write yet more letters to newspapers?
>>>>Make sure you post *all* the facts not just selective ones.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'll post the relevant facts.
>>>
>>That's be a first :-))
>
>Not at all. I do so all the time.
>
LOL!!   Not *all* the *relevant* facts.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
>>>>>>>I have explained above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>But I note you still haven't given me the answer to my question. Why
>>>>>>not? Could it be that fundraising costs are less than 13% of total
>>>>>>income? Doesn't sound as good to you, does it, as your comparison with
>>>>>>membership subscriptions?
>>>>>
>>>>>Members are interested in what they pay and I'm sure some will find it
>>>>>unacceptable that fundraising costs are more than 80% of membership
>>>>>income.
>>>>
>>>>"Some" or a very few indeed.
>>>
>>>You have no way of knowing.
>>>
>>Nor do you. You've claimed "some". I will stick with "very few".
>>
>>
>
>Could be many, for all you know.
>
Could be a "very few" for all you know.

>
>>>>But the fundraising costs are less than 13%
>>>>of total income, which is the honest way to present the figures.
>>>
>>>Not at all.  It is entirely honest to present some figures in respect
>>>of others.
>>>
>>Not the way you do it :-(
>
>Of course it is.  It is entirely honest to compare fundraising costs
>with membership income.  What's dishonest about it?
>
Work it out for yourself.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  And if like I do, I don't believe that grants should be
>>>>>included as income to the charity as it is generally ring fenced then
>>>>>the total income as presented is flawed.
>>>>>
>>>>That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of
>>>>the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all
>>>>grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and
>>>>legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities)
>>>>appears on both sides of the balance sheet.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But it does give a false impression of the charity's actual income.
>>>
>>>
>>No it doesn't. They've published the total of grants within the total
>>income. How can that possibly give a "false impression"?
>>
>
>Because it's not really an income.  It's "pasturise money".
>
See above. If Google haven't heard of the phrase, it suggests you've 
just invented it :-))

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps, perhaps not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We'll see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Indeed. You do love wasting your time, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not as much as you do.
>>>>>
>>>>I'm not wasting time. I'm indulging in a little light relief between
>>>>periods of work at my computer. I break off from time to time, read your
>>>>latest post, have a laugh, compose a reply, and go back to working.
>>>
>>>So you waste your time all the time.  Thought so.
>>>
>>A typical Angus "jumping to a conclusion without any evidence".
>
>Sounds like what a certain sloppy scientist does all the time.
>
Well, only if you are calling yourself a "sloppy scientist" :-)

-- 
Malcolm

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:44:19 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 07:35:20 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>>>>Cross referencing the latest Charities Direct information with that
>>>>>provided by the Woodland Trust's 2006 annual review, it appears the
>>>>>fundraising costs of 19.12% of total expenditure equates to over 80%
>>>>>of membership income.
>>>>>
>>>>What is the proportion of *total* income?
>>>
>>>Interesting you should ask that.  It appears the Woodland Trust lumps
>>>in grants and woodland management income as "income" to the charity
>>>itself,  and then pushes it out the expenditure side as money THEY'VE
>>>spent.
>>>
>>Which doesn't answer my question. But then I didn't really expect you
>>to. You never provide information that doesn't fit your warped
>>anti-conservation agenda.
>>
>>In what way are grants not income to a charity? And when the grants are
>>spent, in what way is it not money *they've* spent?
>
>It's the taxpayer who has spent it.  They go through the
>administrative process of applying for the grant for a specific
>purpose.  It's not "their" money they're spending

Of course it is.  Are you suggesting that the money paid to say a 
property developer remains in the ownership of the person who paid it 
out?

Get real.

>
>>
>>>If you got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it
>>>"income" and pay tax on it?
>>>
>>No, but then I'm not a charity.
>
>Makes no difference.
>
>>You seem to have forgotten, in your
>>haste to come up with one of your crap analogies, that charities don't
>>pay tax so your question is completely irrelevant.
>>
>
>Where did I say a charity should pay tax on it.  I asked YOU if you
>got a grant for upgrading your house would you consider it "income"
>and pay tax on it?

That conveniently ignores the fact that the organisation is a charity 
and that it conforms to the legal requirements with regard to accounts.

>
>>The WT produce annual accounts which have to follow the Charity
>>Commissioners' recommendations regarding best practice for charity
>>accounts and then be submitted to them. So if the CC are happy with how
>>they are presented, your comments are, unsurprisingly, once again
>>irrelevant.
>>
>
>Well perhaps the public will see it differently.

I seem to remember this is a thread you have run before and it doesn't 
seem to have made much difference to the public.

After all this is just more evidence of your petty vendetta against the 
Woodland Trust after you found you were unable to prevent them doing 
things you didn't like.

>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>Once more, your anti-conservation obsession means that you only quote
>>>>the parts of any publication which you can twist to support your agenda
>>>>and ignore the rest :-((
>>>
>>>No "twisting" at all. It's all there in black and white.
>>>
>>Then you will have no difficulty in reading off the figure of total
>>income and calculating the percentage of that spent on fundraising costs
>>and posting it here, will you?
>>
>That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
>I have explained above.

In other words you would like to pass on that question as the answer 
rather undermines the point you are trying to make.

Nice try Angus.

>
>>>Are you saying my calculations are incorrect?   Remember I have an O
>>>Grade in maths:-)
>>>
>>As I haven't seen the figures, I don't know whether your calculations
>>are right or not. Some of your past statements involving numbers don't
>>give me complete confidence :-)
>>
>
>Not much is any of your statements give me confidence :-)
>
>
>>>It's a figure that is very likely to interest the membership.
>>>
>>Do you really think so? I suggest that you are indulging in wishful
>>thinking, again.
>
>Perhaps, perhaps not.
>
>We'll see.
>
>
>>
>>>And do you know they spend more than twice the amount on access,
>>>recreation and education (indoctrination?) than protecting ancient
>>>woodland?
>>>
>>That's presumably because they take the view that access, recreation and
>>education are all necessary in order to make sure that ancient woodland
>>is protected. If you don't inform people about ancient woodland, they're
>>not going to realise that it needs protecting. Not that I suppose for a
>>moment that you will accept something that obvious.
>
>The first two is increasing the human footprint in sensitive areas
>which is damaging to the natural environment and is an anathema to
>conserving anything.  Dog lavatories sums it up.

This is just your view.  Talking of dogs and lavatories does your wood 
have a fence wall hedge etc. round it?

>
>And if you inform people about any woodland you're more likely to get
>vandalism and destruction - like what happens at Loch Lomondside.


Merely your opinion the rest of us can find plenty of example where this 
doesn't happen.  The vast majority of the Lake District for example.  I 
say the vast majority because there may be some but I am not aware of 
any.
>
>Do you know that I've been told by walkers that the Whinny Hill paths
>are a quagmire because of mountain bikes?  So much for protecting
>their woodlands.

How is that not protecting the woodland?  The path is unsuitable for 
wildlife and serves to keep people on the paths and not in the woods 
causing disturbance.

>
>Seems they'd rather engage staff for fundraising than monitoring what
>goes on in their woodlands.

You have what proof exactly that they don't monitor?   Do they ban 
cycles from their woods?

>Do you know the money they spend on
>fundraising amounts to 88% of what they spend on protecting ancient
>woodlands?   And what ancient woodlands do they physically protect or
>do they just put in objections to planners, which anyone can do for
>next to nothing.

Sounds like a thwarted property developer speaking to me.


-- 
Malcolm Kane

In article <QjiIhkDcM+eHFw3I@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane 
 writes
>In message , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes

>>
>>Do you know that I've been told by walkers that the Whinny Hill paths
>>are a quagmire because of mountain bikes?  So much for protecting
>>their woodlands.
>
>How is that not protecting the woodland?  The path is unsuitable for 
>wildlife and serves to keep people on the paths and not in the woods 
>causing disturbance.
>
You notice that he said "I've been told by walkers". Not that "I've 
walked the very short distance from my house and seen it for myself".

>>
>>Seems they'd rather engage staff for fundraising than monitoring what
>>goes on in their woodlands.
>
>You have what proof exactly that they don't monitor?   Do they ban 
>cycles from their woods?
>
>>Do you know the money they spend on
>>fundraising amounts to 88% of what they spend on protecting ancient
>>woodlands?   And what ancient woodlands do they physically protect or
>>do they just put in objections to planners, which anyone can do for
>>next to nothing.
>
>Sounds like a thwarted property developer speaking to me.
>
>
LOL!

There was a nice piece on R4 this morning describing "woodland eggs" 
sold by Sainsbury. They pay a premium price to the suppliers who keep 
their hens in woodland areas where they can find shade and food and 
where they thrive, laying high quality organic eggs. And, what's even 
better, for every box of eggs sold, there is a donation to the Woodland 
Trust, who advise and help with planting trees on the farms, of which 
there are now 130. The WT have received over £150,000 since the scheme 
started three years ago.

http://www.woodlandeggs.co.uk/


-- 
Malcolm

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a
>>>>grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity
>>>>carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately
>>>>described as expenditure.
>>>
>>>That's very debatable because it show a falsely high income and
>>>expenditure when as you have agreed it's not their money.
>>>
>>No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be?
>>And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down
>>recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.
>>
>
>Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
>a charity's  income.

Angus appears to be suggesting the charities commission connive at the 
presenting of "a false and inflated view of " the financial position of 
charities.

A serious allegation I feel.

>
>Supposing I started a small charity with the equivalent of ten bob and
>applied for a grant of a million bobs to do something about something.
>I think it would be entirely wrong of me to show an income of a
>million and ten bobs as a measure of the income of my charity that
>might only have eleven bob the following year.

Strange I thought accounts were a statement of what had happened not 
what was going to happen.

Also won't the accounts show the source of the income i.e. indicate it 
came from a grant.

>
>
>>>>If you don't agree, take it up with the
>>>>Charity Commissioners and get them to change their recommendations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Depends if I can be bothered.
>>>
>>Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you.
>>What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?
>>
>
>None whatsoever.   But I'm sure that it is very important that an
>accurate refection of income is shown.  Some of the worst cases of
>business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
>expenditure.

Coupled with the allegation above Angus does seem to have some very 
serious statements - he needs to have a word with the charities 
commission.

>
>>>
>>It's an irrelevant question about a false analogy that bears no relation
>>to the matter under discussion. Why should I be bothered to answer it?
>>
>
>Because you can't without destroying your argument.

As usual!
>
>>>>>
>>>>LOL!  "The public" will doubtless yawn and carry on paying their
>>>>subscriptions. Why should any of them be interested in how charities are
>>>>required to produce their accounts?
>>>
>>>They're probably not, that's why it needs to be brought to their
>>>attention.
>>>
>>And how do you propose to do that? Write yet more letters to newspapers?
>>Make sure you post *all* the facts not just selective ones.
>>
>
>I'll post the relevant facts.

I think you will find Angus has run the same sort of thread before and 
the public do appear to have yawned - if of course they took even that 
much notice.

>
>>>>>
>>>>But I note you still haven't given me the answer to my question. Why
>>>>not? Could it be that fundraising costs are less than 13% of total
>>>>income? Doesn't sound as good to you, does it, as your comparison with
>>>>membership subscriptions?
>>>
>>>Members are interested in what they pay and I'm sure some will find it
>>>unacceptable that fundraising costs are more than 80% of membership
>>>income.
>>
>>"Some" or a very few indeed.
>
>You have no way of knowing.

Neither have you but I would suspect that most will be quite happy with 
the fact there charity is doing what it set out to do.

>
>>But the fundraising costs are less than 13%
>>of total income, which is the honest way to present the figures.
>
>Not at all.  It is entirely honest to present some figures in respect
>of others.

I am glad you agree the most honest way is figures in respect of the 
whole picture - as they have to be for accounts.

>
>
>>
>>>  And if like I do, I don't believe that grants should be
>>>included as income to the charity as it is generally ring fenced then
>>>the total income as presented is flawed.
>>>
>>That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of
>>the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all
>>grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and
>>legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities)
>>appears on both sides of the balance sheet.
>>
>
>But it does give a false impression of the charity's actual income.

Obviously the Charities Commission don't think so.  You appear yet again 
to be making serious allegations about the honesty of the commission - 
you need to take it up with them.

>

-- 
Malcolm Kane

In message <hfnu1Jt6B$eHFwCg@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm 
 writes
>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought
>>>>>that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would have known
>>>>>that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where do they come from, Malcolm?
>>>>
>>>Do you mean to say you don't know?
>>
>>I'm asking you.
>>
>Do your own research :-)

Angus is going to love that suggestion!  Its the one he always uses.

Note to casual readers Malcolm is showing Angus the result of his tactic 
of telling people to do their own research.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a
>>>>>>>grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity
>>>>>>>carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately
>>>>>>>described as expenditure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's very debatable because it show a falsely high income and
>>>>>>expenditure when as you have agreed it's not their money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be?
>>>>>And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down
>>>>>recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
>>>>a charity's  income.
>>>>
>>>No, it doesn't. Those who understand accounts can readily see where the
>>>income arises.
>>>
>>
>>But the public should be aware of what goes on, if invited to become
>>members, without having to understand accounts.
>>
>I am sure that those members interested in the exact expenditure of 
>every penny of their subscription are capable of finding out for 
>themselves without any help (?) from you.

Of course they are.  They don't need one sided twisted attempts to skew 
things presented by a person who holds a grudge against the woodland 
trust.

>

>
>>>> Some of the worst cases of
>>>>business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
>>>>expenditure.
>>>>
>>>Are you accusing the WT of business fraud?
>>>
>>Not at all. But the inclusion of grants as income to the charity
>>coffers does not reflect the true income in my view.
>>
>Ah, "in your view". That says it all. If the Charity Commissioners are 
>happy for grants to be included in income, then why are you bothered?
>


Unless accounts have changed a lot since I last had anything to do with 
them they only have Income and expenditure.   A wonder which heading 
Angus expects grants to be put under.
>

-- 
Malcolm Kane

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:51 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Where do they come from, Malcolm?
>>>
>>Do you mean to say you don't know?
>
>I'm asking you.
>

Dear casual reader please note the above classic example of avoidance by 
Angus.  A technique you will come to know very well if you follow a few 
threads.

>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
>>>a charity's  income.
>>>
>>No, it doesn't. Those who understand accounts can readily see where the
>>income arises.
>>
>
>But the public should be aware of what goes on, if invited to become
>members, without having to understand accounts.
>

Are you suggesting the general public are unable to read the heading 
Grants in an account?

>
>>
>>Which in the case of the WT it is. They have published a breakdown of
>>the total income, so you can see exactly how much income derives from
>>grants. Nothing is concealed.
>>
> But it's not really an "income".  It's what is known in business as
>"pasturise money".

And is it shown in the expenditure or income side of the accounts?

>
>>> Some of the worst cases of
>>>business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
>>>expenditure.
>>>
>>Are you accusing the WT of business fraud?
>>
>Not at all. But the inclusion of grants as income to the charity
>coffers does not reflect the true income in my view.

As usual your view bears no resemblance to reality.  Fortunately the 
charities commission has a differing view and probably better advice on 
how things should be shown.

>
>
>
>>>>But the fundraising costs are less than 13%
>>>>of total income, which is the honest way to present the figures.
>>>
>>>Not at all.  It is entirely honest to present some figures in respect
>>>of others.
>>>
>>Not the way you do it :-(
>
>Of course it is.  It is entirely honest to compare fundraising costs
>with membership income.  What's dishonest about it?

You object to members not being given the whole picture and then you try 
to avoid comparing the advertising costs with the whole income and 
expenditure.

>
>>>>>
>>>>That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of
>>>>the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all
>>>>grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and
>>>>legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities)
>>>>appears on both sides of the balance sheet.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But it does give a false impression of the charity's actual income.
>>>
>>>
>>No it doesn't. They've published the total of grants within the total
>>income. How can that possibly give a "false impression"?
>>
>
>Because it's not really an income.  It's "pasturise money".

Again Angus appears to be making the serious allegation that the CC 
allows false impressions to be given.

>

-- 
Malcolm Kane

In message <O+f19nzfFJfHFws+@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm 
 writes
>
>In article <QjiIhkDcM+eHFw3I@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane 
> writes
>>In message , 
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>>>
>>>Do you know that I've been told by walkers that the Whinny Hill paths
>>>are a quagmire because of mountain bikes?  So much for protecting
>>>their woodlands.
>>
>>How is that not protecting the woodland?  The path is unsuitable for 
>>wildlife and serves to keep people on the paths and not in the woods 
>>causing disturbance.
>>
>You notice that he said "I've been told by walkers". Not that "I've 
>walked the very short distance from my house and seen it for myself".

Come on Malcolm you can't expect Angus to actually get some first hand 
experience no matter how small.

>
>>>
>>>Seems they'd rather engage staff for fundraising than monitoring what
>>>goes on in their woodlands.
>>
>>You have what proof exactly that they don't monitor?   Do they ban 
>>cycles from their woods?
>>
>>>Do you know the money they spend on
>>>fundraising amounts to 88% of what they spend on protecting ancient
>>>woodlands?   And what ancient woodlands do they physically protect or
>>>do they just put in objections to planners, which anyone can do for
>>>next to nothing.
>>
>>Sounds like a thwarted property developer speaking to me.
>>
>>
>LOL!
>
>There was a nice piece on R4 this morning describing "woodland eggs" 
>sold by Sainsbury. They pay a premium price to the suppliers who keep 
>their hens in woodland areas where they can find shade and food and 
>where they thrive, laying high quality organic eggs. And, what's even 
>better, for every box of eggs sold, there is a donation to the Woodland 
>Trust, who advise and help with planting trees on the farms, of which 
>there are now 130. The WT have received over £150,000 since the scheme 
>started three years ago.
>
>http://www.woodlandeggs.co.uk/
>
>
What a great scheme.   At 1p per dozen £150,000 is a lot of people who 
agree with the idea.

Today the website shows £162,816 up to 17/11/07 so even better.
-- 
Malcolm Kane

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:40:15 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article <QjiIhkDcM+eHFw3I@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane 
> writes
>>In message , 
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>>>
>>>Do you know that I've been told by walkers that the Whinny Hill paths
>>>are a quagmire because of mountain bikes?  So much for protecting
>>>their woodlands.
>>
>>How is that not protecting the woodland?  The path is unsuitable for 
>>wildlife and serves to keep people on the paths and not in the woods 
>>causing disturbance.
>>
>You notice that he said "I've been told by walkers". Not that "I've 
>walked the very short distance from my house and seen it for myself".

I've no interest in walking for walking's sake.  

>
>>>
>>>Seems they'd rather engage staff for fundraising than monitoring what
>>>goes on in their woodlands.
>>
>>You have what proof exactly that they don't monitor?   Do they ban 
>>cycles from their woods?
>>
>>>Do you know the money they spend on
>>>fundraising amounts to 88% of what they spend on protecting ancient
>>>woodlands?   And what ancient woodlands do they physically protect or
>>>do they just put in objections to planners, which anyone can do for
>>>next to nothing.
>>
>>Sounds like a thwarted property developer speaking to me.
>>
>>
>LOL!
>
>There was a nice piece on R4 this morning describing "woodland eggs" 
>sold by Sainsbury. They pay a premium price to the suppliers who keep 
>their hens in woodland areas where they can find shade and food and 
>where they thrive, laying high quality organic eggs. And, what's even 
>better, for every box of eggs sold, there is a donation to the Woodland 
>Trust, who advise and help with planting trees on the farms, of which 
>there are now 130. The WT have received over £150,000 since the scheme 
>started three years ago.
>
>http://www.woodlandeggs.co.uk/


But if you look at the WT's FAQs you'll see they won't help
individuals advice about their trees and pass them on to expensive
consultants.  But if the slimy bunch have their palms greased, they
don't mind at all.

Stuff the public - it's all about money!


 
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:40:15 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <QjiIhkDcM+eHFw3I@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane
>> writes
>>>In message ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you know that I've been told by walkers that the Whinny Hill paths
>>>>are a quagmire because of mountain bikes?  So much for protecting
>>>>their woodlands.
>>>
>>>How is that not protecting the woodland?  The path is unsuitable for
>>>wildlife and serves to keep people on the paths and not in the woods
>>>causing disturbance.
>>>
>>You notice that he said "I've been told by walkers". Not that "I've
>>walked the very short distance from my house and seen it for myself".
>
>I've no interest in walking for walking's sake.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems they'd rather engage staff for fundraising than monitoring what
>>>>goes on in their woodlands.
>>>
>>>You have what proof exactly that they don't monitor?   Do they ban
>>>cycles from their woods?
>>>
>>>>Do you know the money they spend on
>>>>fundraising amounts to 88% of what they spend on protecting ancient
>>>>woodlands?   And what ancient woodlands do they physically protect or
>>>>do they just put in objections to planners, which anyone can do for
>>>>next to nothing.
>>>
>>>Sounds like a thwarted property developer speaking to me.
>>>
>>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>There was a nice piece on R4 this morning describing "woodland eggs"
>>sold by Sainsbury. They pay a premium price to the suppliers who keep
>>their hens in woodland areas where they can find shade and food and
>>where they thrive, laying high quality organic eggs. And, what's even
>>better, for every box of eggs sold, there is a donation to the Woodland
>>Trust, who advise and help with planting trees on the farms, of which
>>there are now 130. The WT have received over £150,000 since the scheme
>>started three years ago.
>>
>>http://www.woodlandeggs.co.uk/
>
>
>But if you look at the WT's FAQs you'll see they won't help
>individuals advice about their trees and pass them on to expensive
>consultants.  But if the slimy bunch have their palms greased, they
>don't mind at all.
>
>Stuff the public - it's all about money!
>
Carrying out of the fine work of the Woodland Trust does indeed cost 
money.

-- 
Malcolm

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:40:15 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <QjiIhkDcM+eHFw3I@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane
>> writes
>>>In message ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you know that I've been told by walkers that the Whinny Hill paths
>>>>are a quagmire because of mountain bikes?  So much for protecting
>>>>their woodlands.
>>>
>>>How is that not protecting the woodland?  The path is unsuitable for
>>>wildlife and serves to keep people on the paths and not in the woods
>>>causing disturbance.
>>>
>>You notice that he said "I've been told by walkers". Not that "I've
>>walked the very short distance from my house and seen it for myself".
>
>I've no interest in walking for walking's sake.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems they'd rather engage staff for fundraising than monitoring what
>>>>goes on in their woodlands.
>>>
>>>You have what proof exactly that they don't monitor?   Do they ban
>>>cycles from their woods?
>>>
>>>>Do you know the money they spend on
>>>>fundraising amounts to 88% of what they spend on protecting ancient
>>>>woodlands?   And what ancient woodlands do they physically protect or
>>>>do they just put in objections to planners, which anyone can do for
>>>>next to nothing.
>>>
>>>Sounds like a thwarted property developer speaking to me.
>>>
>>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>There was a nice piece on R4 this morning describing "woodland eggs"
>>sold by Sainsbury. They pay a premium price to the suppliers who keep
>>their hens in woodland areas where they can find shade and food and
>>where they thrive, laying high quality organic eggs. And, what's even
>>better, for every box of eggs sold, there is a donation to the Woodland
>>Trust, who advise and help with planting trees on the farms, of which
>>there are now 130. The WT have received over £150,000 since the scheme
>>started three years ago.
>>
>>http://www.woodlandeggs.co.uk/
>
>
>But if you look at the WT's FAQs you'll see they won't help
>individuals advice about their trees and pass them on to expensive
>consultants.  But if the slimy bunch have their palms greased, they
>don't mind at all.
>
I assume you mean they won't help individuals with advice about their 
trees.

If they were to use time and therefor money helping individuals it would 
be misuse of the funds.  That isn't what the funds were raised for.
-- 
Malcolm Kane