Cheryl Walmsley
No Longer Posts on the DG
This poster can no longer respond to posts or PMs
Hey......I'm eating here!!
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by Cheryl Walmsley on Mar 29, 2008 9:47:35 GMT 1
I do remember reading somewhere though that if charitable donations are made for a specific purpose then they can't be used for any other purpose without the consent of the person who donated. This means that if you accept donations specifically for something you can often end up with a chunk of money you can't use. EMW will be able to confirm that. It must happen quite alot, loads of charities have donate buttons on their website where they wouldn't necessarily have anything but paypal details for each donator.
|
|
|
Post by andrealouisea on Mar 29, 2008 9:54:18 GMT 1
Sherbetdip - It is Janet George
Personally I cant think of anyone I'd trust more with charitable funds
|
|
Cheryl Walmsley
No Longer Posts on the DG
This poster can no longer respond to posts or PMs
Hey......I'm eating here!!
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by Cheryl Walmsley on Mar 29, 2008 10:14:35 GMT 1
totally agree with that andrealouisea. :-)
|
|
laine
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 177
|
Post by laine on Mar 29, 2008 10:19:21 GMT 1
so has a decision been made as to who gets the money?? Surely all this is doing is preventing SOMEONE getting some well needed money?? My vote is EMW but whoever gets it im sure everyone that donated will be pleased knowing their money has been used for a good cause??
|
|
Cheryl Walmsley
No Longer Posts on the DG
This poster can no longer respond to posts or PMs
Hey......I'm eating here!!
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by Cheryl Walmsley on Mar 29, 2008 10:23:59 GMT 1
laine i thnk that's the point. you can't use money that has been donated for a specific purpose, for any other purpose, except with the express permission of the person/people who donated it. if you're not sure who they are then you can't get that.
sorry crossed posts with someone on page 1 there, I had no idea JG had been banned. was it to do with this?
|
|
laine
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 177
|
Post by laine on Mar 29, 2008 10:31:43 GMT 1
no wasnt to do with this!!!
The way i see it is that money was donated, not to an official charity per sae - just money given to one person (Janet) for a reward so not sure that the chraritable donation 'clause' really applies to this situation. The only other alternative if what your saying is true is for the money to just sit and do nothing. No reward is needed for help in finding the scum that hurt maggie so it sits in a pot doing nothing.
Makes loads of sense!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by st4ffsmum on Mar 29, 2008 12:37:42 GMT 1
Janet George was not banned with anything to do with the Maggie Fund. She was the person nominated to hold the pot of funds for The Justice For Maggie Appeal. I asked for people to contact me who donated on the DG as Janet does not have the list of people from PMs anymore. Janet has contacted people from the Saddle Up forum.
People had asked me when they donated for Maggie that if the money was given to charity that it specifically DIDN'T go to EMW, (I don't know why) I only wanted to clarify this. A few people have PMd me asking the money to go into an account to help other horses and their owners in similar circumstances.
The money has to be used in some way to benefit horses AND in Maggies memory. Maggie is what all this is about.
It can only be the decision of the people that donated. Janet has asked me to clarify that she can only record the information given to her.
If you did donate please respond to me by PM, thank you
|
|
|
Post by st4ffsmum on Mar 29, 2008 12:40:14 GMT 1
And I would like to point out that the Reward Money did work with Maggies case, its just it wasn't given to the person who gave the information ::)And in the case Of Roxy the pregnant mare who has been attacked twice Jo would like to offer a reward but is unable to at present.
|
|
|
Post by rhillahorse on Mar 29, 2008 12:42:00 GMT 1
Perhaps if the group concensus is to donate the money to EMW the people who requested otherwise could have their money refunded? Personally, I will go with the flow, I'm happy for my donation to be used in any way which benefits horses.
|
|
fjords
Novice Poster
Two young Fjords for sale - email me
Posts: 27
|
Post by fjords on Mar 29, 2008 12:59:39 GMT 1
I am glad the money is safe and with Janet - I trust her totally. I personally am happy for the money to go to EMW, or to become another reward for information relating to a similar crime.
Its a shame that people have asked that their donation *not* go to help support the valuable work EMW does. In fact I'm amazed that someone would even think to request that. Presumably people that did request that can be contacted and offered an alternative, but could the rest happily go to EMW?
|
|
dawnsandy
Olympic Poster
My horses my life!
Posts: 603
|
Post by dawnsandy on Mar 29, 2008 14:08:20 GMT 1
Hi I donated money but havent pm'd you as to be honest do not have any great ideas about how to use the money. How much infact was the total raised? Perhaps if I knew that I may be able to think what best to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by specialsparkle3 on Mar 29, 2008 15:16:25 GMT 1
Having just returned from hols, I know nothing about this. I have pm'd as I did donate, but why can the money not be used for the original reason? and will someone let me know what happened to Janet, please.
|
|
|
Post by dunoon12 on Mar 29, 2008 15:36:46 GMT 1
Ok well, the first question is why wasnt the money given to the person that gave information that led to the arrest in the first place, as that was the original purpose of the donation given - wasnt it and the reason why people donated?. If that person refused to accept the money then that is there right however they need to understand that it is there responsibility then to decide where it should go as technically it was raised for that purpose and therefore technically the money belongs to that person even if they refused to accept it they should suggest where it should go to!! Just a thought.
It may be worth seeking legal advice from the Citizens advice bureau. But you are never going to get the same decison from all who donated which then doesnt help as you are bound to upset someone and puts the holder of the money in a difficult situation, so in some respects it may have been better not to have asked in the first place for ideas as to how to use the money, but i fully understand it was done with the best intentions.
|
|
|
Post by rhillahorse on Mar 29, 2008 15:41:49 GMT 1
Because the person who gave the information was one of those arrested. I'm sure the donators can come to some amicable agreement without having a big barney! ;D
|
|
|
Post by dunoon12 on Mar 29, 2008 15:53:30 GMT 1
Oh well that would explain it all then - sorry didnt know that thanks for that - that makes it difficult then doesnt it!! And to your last comment - yes one would hope so.
If it wasnt practicle to lobby parliment in respect of sentences to reflect the crimes commited against horses then maybe another way would be to consider (with the donators agreement of course) to give the money to say ILPH or a similar charity with the expectation that it is used to educate children and young people about caring for animals. Because to be absolutely honest its a hard road to get any legislation changed but to try and protect future horses or any animal then maybe education would be a way forward and the ILPH may be able to assist with that - just an idea i shall keep my nose out of it now.
|
|