The Rifty

[steveL]

Currently working on a story on this subject but I thought you'd like an advanced view of this little gem. Have in mind that any organisation with an income of more than £5,000 is legally obliged to register with the Charity Commission and not to do so is an illegal act. The £5,000 threshold operates like VAT; once you cross it you MUST register with the Charity Commission. You must also establish a board of Trustees and publish annual accounts (among other things).

The Rifty Youth Project has been going since July 2009 and was set up by Stephen Akers-Belcher with Christopher describing himself as a Youth Worker on the project from its start-up to the present day.

During the 8 years plus that it has been operating it has received a £5,000 grant from NHS Hartlepool (which at the time was run by fellow Labour Councillor Steve Wallace). It has also received a £5,000 grant from NIRAMAX, two lots of Holiday Hunger Money, several donations from the ward budgets of other councillors and a host of other donations including directly from Hartlepool Borough Council. Stephen even had a go at trying to raise funds on the Internet via Crowd Funding.

The Charity Commission has never heard of the Rifty Youth Project and has no record of it.

Pause there for a moment and consider this:

• Christopher was one of three people (CAB, Cranney and Alan Clark) to decide who got what from the Holiday Hunger Scheme) and decided that the Rifty would get one of the largest grants.
• The Rifty is currently operating illegally having failed to register itself with the Charity Commission, failed to set up a proper board of Trustees and failed to publish or file with the Charity Commission any accounts open to public inspection
• Despite operating illegally, Paul Beck has chosen to make The Rifty one of his two chosen charities as well as donate money intended for use in his own Hart Ward to the Rifty Project

. . . but here's the killer. A grant in 2016 for £4,987 from Labour Police Commissioner Barry Coppinger from the funds of Cleveland Police to an organisation which has been operating illegally for 8 years.

[Olivers Army]

So unless something changes then at the end of his term the Mayor, Paul Beck, will likely hand over tens of thousands of pounds to an organisation which appears to be solely under the control of Stephen Akers-Belcher (and his partner) with no proper Trustees and no obligation to publish where that money goes. Is that right?

[fred c]

So unless something changes then at the end of his term the Mayor, Paul Beck, will likely hand over tens of thousands of pounds to an organisation which appears to be solely under the control of Stephen Akers-Belcher (and his partner) with no proper Trustees and no obligation to publish where that money goes. Is that right?

You would think that particular question may well be crossing the minds of their labour colleagues and senior officers of the council, especially when you consider the S***storm created by the Manor Residents scandal..... lets face it, it didn't exactly cast a rosy glow over The LabMob or HBC.

[not4me]

we're talking about someone who put himself in the Mail telling us how he 'was in it for the long-term' as a Trustee of Manor Residents and then within a few months was denying that he had ever been a Trustee. In other words, pure scum.

[Inspector Knacker]

How is it possible to receive funding without accounting for expenditure of funds received ?
For my part, this is hard to comprehend. Surely some scrutiny is desirable, even necessary?

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

Yet again donations from Niramax, the company that has no problem getting controversial planning permission.

[Johnny Bongo]

So, just to get this straight in my head...and I'm having trouble here, with this! '' Have in mind that any organisation with an income of more than £5,000 is legally obliged to register with the Charity Commission ''.  Does this mean that an organisation that purports to do charitable work and an income 5K+ BUT does not call itself a charity (which The Rifty Project doesn't...as far as I know!) DOES NOT  have to register with the CC?  Is there some 'play on words' on the Rifty's part? Obviously, the Charities Commission is now 'aware' of this 'organisation' and hopefully, they will investigate them fully!  If there is no investigation AND / OR  everything is deemed to be ok, then I can only assume that the whole system is corrupt...which I know anyway...but it's nice for it to be confirmed!

[steveL]

So, just to get this straight in my head...and I'm having trouble here, with this! '' Have in mind that any organisation with an income of more than £5,000 is legally obliged to register with the Charity Commission ''.  Does this mean that an organisation that purports to do charitable work and an income 5K+ BUT does not call itself a charity (which The Rifty Project doesn't...as far as I know!) DOES NOT  have to register with the CC?  Is there some 'play on words' on the Rifty's part? Obviously, the Charities Commission is now 'aware' of this 'organisation' and hopefully, they will investigate them fully!  If there is no investigation AND / OR  everything is deemed to be ok, then I can only assume that the whole system is corrupt...which I know anyway...but it's nice for it to be confirmed!

In England and Wales, a charity is defined as any institution that is established wholly for charitable purposes. Once its income exceeds £5,000 it MUST register with the Charity Commission.

[seaton]

Has no one reported it too the Charity Commission?

[fred c]

Will the CEO be calling SAB, CAB & Beck to her office to clarify the circumstances surrounding the Rifty Project ?

Is it a 'Charity' ?

Is it a 'Good Cause'

Is it a 'Community Centre'

Is it a 'Community Cafe'

Is it a 'Cafe Business'

Is there a 'Senior Officer' in the Council who can tell the public what actually goes on with the Community based activities within this building and who is responsible for those activities..........

[mk1]

It all hinges on the word 'Charity'. Am I right in thinking that if you simply stop calling yourself a 'charity' then there are no obligations to keep accounts.
If so watch for subtle changes in wording next time Lying Beck announces he is donating money to the Shifty Rifty. If he stops using the word 'charity' then we know its 'business as usual'.

This is something I mocked up over 5 years ago and it still applies  today with perhaps just a slight alteration of 'ft' to 'tt'. Note the Becks are up to their necks in this as well.



Just to remind people this bus was the price of our Hospital. Lying SAB had an understanding with Wallace where he promised to sign-off on the Hospital Closure if Wallace would authorise a 'Grant' to the SCABs 'favourite charidee'. Given assurances the money would be forthcoming SAB signed on the dotted line. The Hospital became history and straight after the signing £5000 was moved into an account controlled by SAB.

[steveL]

Am I right in thinking that if you simply stop calling yourself a 'charity' then there are no obligations to keep accounts.

In a word - No. Doesn't really matter what you call yourself but if the chief purpose of an organisation is 'to do charitable things' then you are, by definition, a charity. However, there doesn't seem to be any legal obligation to keep accounts until the income exceeds £5,000.

Before that point is reached everything seems to be based on trust 

. . . I don't think I need to say anymore

[fred c]

One of the requirements of the Ceremonial Mayor is to be "The Conscience" of the council......... so why does Big Fibber Beck persist in using the term Charity, for the 'Non Charity' Rifty Project ?

[kevplumb]

Any organisation charity or not
registered with CC or not that is being  funded from the public purse should be made to account for it.
No iffs no buts
otherwise it's like setting a hungry dog loose in a butchers
you would have thought they would have learned  by now (unless they think that they can get away with the same con twice)
why am I getting a feeling of deja vous 

[Inspector Knacker]

To all intents and purposes, it appears they can turn up and take over like the Lords of the Manor as though it's all their personal feifdom. We'll it isn't.
They're just councillors, there courtesy of a system that national party participation allows  candidates to be elected who stood unopposed, would be lucky to come second.
Every ward councillor should be a politically independent resident of the ward fighting for their ward accountable to no one but the ward electorate and their conscience.