In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:13:46 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>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 :-)
>>
>
>Much better than relying on yours:-)
>
Do make up your mind. Your previous responses were:

"Why not?", "Where do they come from, Malcolm?", and "I'm asking you".

All three of which suggest that you were perfectly happy to rely on 
mine.

I take it from your change of subject that you now accept that all 
grants don't come from the taxpayer. Good. You're now better informed 
and have no excuse for making further false sweeping statements on the 
subject.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>
>But that isn't the target audience, Malcolm.
>

LOL!!  What a perfect Angus statement :-))

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>
>You mean to say I've made a startling discovery>
>
>Something you don't know about.
>
>I'm beginning to think all your so-called knowledge is only Google
>clickage.
>
>So when someone asks you a question, the little smart guy from Islay
>jumps on to Google and then comes up with the benefit of his
>"knowledge" :-))
>
When I have never heard of a phrase before, such as "pasturise money", I 
look it up to see what it means. What's more, when I tried Google, I 
even spelt it correctly :-)

>>>>> 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?
>>
>>
>
>I'm not, but the public might be.
>
"The public" clearly aren't. Tens of millions of us belong to and/or 
donate to charities. If there was concern about those charities 
recording grants as income then one would have expected something to 
have been said about it by now. You're the first person I've come across 
who seems to think, unlike the Charity Commissioners, that grants are 
not part of income.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>
>Not all facts are relevant.
>
But it is important, as I've just said above and you haven't read 
properly, that *all* the *relevant* facts are given.


>>>>>>>
>>>>>>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 :-))
>>
>
>Not me.  It's been a term  for as long as I can remember.
>
Well, you've beaten Google. You should write to them and claim a prize! 
Mind you, now that it has been mentioned by you in this newsgroup, it 
should appear quite soon :-)

>>>>>>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" :-)
>
>I'm not a scientist, sloppy or otherwise.
>
Well, you're certainly not a scientist........

-- 
Malcolm