who is running ofca now answers below please

[jawsbbc]

 can someone tell me if cranney is still running ofca by the looks of it he  is now a advisor to the charity ??  jutland road has never been open since christmas  no hungry kids scheme no youthy  nothing  so were is the money going to ?? 
The trustees are satisified that the charity will continue with the support of a loan of £2,322 from Cllr K
Cranney, who acts as an advisor to the charity.
The trustees' annual report was approved on 3 July 2018 and signed on behalf of the board of trustees

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends72/0000519172_AC_20170331_E_C.PDF

[kevplumb]

The trustees would like to thank Cllr K Cranney for his generous donation, without which the charty
would not have been able to operate.

Going Concern
The trustees are satisified that the charity will continue with the support of a loan of £2,322 from Cllr K
Cranney, who acts as an advisor to the charity.

Y Khan
Trustee

2 grand in a loan does not make it a going concern in my book
methinks this is iffy
you only have to look at the list of trustees 

[jawsbbc]

The trustees would like to thank Cllr K Cranney for his generous donation, without which the charty
would not have been able to operate.

Going Concern
The trustees are satisified that the charity will continue with the support of a loan of £2,322 from Cllr K
Cranney, who acts as an advisor to the charity.

Y Khan
Trustee

2 grand in a loan does not make it a going concern in my book
methinks this is iffy
you only have to look at the list of trustees 

the said mr khan

DECISION

These appeals are dismissed.



Signed   Date 1 September 2013


Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/aa-00443-2011-ors

[mk1]

[jawsbbc]

11. I agree with Mrs Rackstraw that the appellants' poor credibility cannot be ignored. Whilst I accept the account of the recent involvement of the appellants in local affairs I find that their lack of credibility as witnesses as identified by the Immigration Judge touches upon the question of motive. I find it likely that the appellants have increased their involvement very largely with a view to impressing this Tribunal with the extent of their new private life ties in Hartlepool. That finding, in turn, leads me to conclude that those private life roots are not as strong or as durable as the appellants would have me believe. But for the existence of these proceedings, I do not believe the appellants would have been involved in the local community in Hartlepool to anything like the same extent. If they are removed to Pakistan, I accept that they will lose those private life ties but, given what I find to be their motivation for creating them in the first place, I do not find that the distress or inconvenience the severing of those ties will cause will make a significant impact upon their private lives.
12. I acknowledge that the third appellant is doing well at school. This is perhaps not surprising given that his parents are themselves intelligent and well-educated individuals. The first appellant told me about his interest in knowledge of information technology. His skills in this field would be easily transferrable to business life in Pakistan. The same is true for the second appellant's qualifications in accountancy. I agree with Mrs Rackstraw that this family will find little, if any difficulty reintegrating into the Pakistan workplace and society and I find that the first appellant, as a resourceful individual, would rapidly find employment with which to support his family.
13. Set against the (relatively modest) interference which would be caused to the appellants by their removal to Pakistan is the public interest concerned with that removal. The first and second appellants came to the United Kingdom as students and I find that they can have had no justifiable expectation of being allowed to remain here indefinitely. They have advanced an asylum claim which has been found to be false. I find that the public interest concerned with the removal of such individuals in the furtherance of immigration control is a strong one. In my opinion, that interest outweighs any inconvenience and disruption which would be caused to the private lives of these appellants as a consequence of their return to Pakistan. Their family life may suffer some dislocation but they will, of course, be removed together. The Article 8 ECHR appeals are dismissed accordingly.

[jawsbbc]

if you have the time  go through all the documents interesting reading
http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0&regid=519172