Koptalk stunt deprives kids of potential £560

by Rupert Insider

The Koptalk appeal for Alder Hey kids in Liverpool was designed as a free publicity stunt for Duncan Oldham and his failing site. In that respect , it bombed.

Oldham and his site came out of it looking worse than when he went in.

But Alder Hey hospital did get about £2,000 worth of goods from generous LFC fans.

We congratulate the donors. Happy Christmas to them!

But they and the kids were cheated out of a potential £560 . That’s how much donations of £2,000 would have been increased if they had been sent to Just Giving – a trusted agency which maximises tax benefits to registered charities increasing the original donation by 28% if the donors pay UK taxes.

Its not as though Oldham did not know about Just Giving and the available tax breaks. We recommended it on this blog. Some of our readers have donated to Alder Hey through it.

And Oldham knew about it as long ago as 13th July 2005 when he joined members of KT who were spontaneously sponsoring another member for charity. The Koptalk donation of £100 through Just Giving, at that time, was converted to £128.

So why did he deprive the donors and the kids of the 28% in this Alder Hey appeal?

He must have had a reason for insisting the money passed through his hands at such high cost to the charity.

charity-commission-logo-200.jpgThat’s one of the question the Charity Commissioners may want to look into when we submit our dossier to them. It appears that Oldham did not observe the law in this matter, just as he flouted it in all previous appeals that achieved more than £1,000 in any given year. He did not register it with the Charity Commission.

The law is intended to protect the public especially the generous public. It knows how easy it is for someone with a web site to use a good cause to raise money and then misuse the money.

That’s why it insists on donations being accounted for separately and not being mixed with the organisers business and personal funds, and why it insists that the organiser can’t dip into the money or borrow from it as an operating fund.

It also insists that all the organisers dealings with the fund must be arms-length. He may not profit from the appeal by selling goods and services to it.

These rules are for everybody – even the most honest and upstanding.

They apply even more to Oldham who has a long history of dishonesty and shady dealings on his web site and in his trading and also in his handling of charities. This blog has detailed them.

As a result he knew that we were scrutinising his every move on the Alder Hey charity. Under that scrutiny he went to great lengths to claim he was being honest this time. In fact, a normally honest and trusted person would not have had to protest so much.

As a result this appeal was conducted more transparently than his others. But that’s not to say it was conducted properly. That is a judgement for the Charity Commissioners.

It appears that once again he mixed the donations in the same bank account that held his personal and business funds. We don’t know the name and address of that account. Perhaps the Charity Commissioners will insist on knowing.

We don’t even know if he held donations in a drawer in his office or in a sock under his bed. We have no way of knowing if he borrowed the money to pay bills, to make one of his big frequent bets, or buy the plane tickets for what was probably a phantom trip to New York.

But the point is – he could have. The law is supposed to rule out even the possibility.

Our scrutiny stymied some of Oldham’s tricks – but we don’t know if we caught them all.

It looked like he was playing with the idea of selling to the kids the Argos vouchers he already had earned from advertising on Koptalk. In other words the kids would get what he wanted to sell them at the price he set – he would convert the vouchers that could only be exchanged for a certain line of goods into cash for himself.

It also looked like he was chopping and changing the rules of accountability. He would promise openess and then close threads. His sums did not add up. He never scanned and produced the receipts for the purchase of the goods.

But the potential irregularities of this Alder Hey Appeal pale in comparison with those of the Lauren charity which may have run into scores of thousands of pounds – almost all of which is unaccounted for independently or verifiably. He failed to register that, too. So the Charity Commissoners may want to take that into consideration when they examine his handling of the Alder Hey appeal.

But apart from the irregularities and the accounting why did his Alder Hey publicity stunt fail?

His original idea was that it would involve him waddling into our beloved Alder Hey dispensing gifts to children right and left. He would ensure that the photographers would be there to capture the images for the local Liverpool media. And the kids caught in the photo would have their faces launched unto the internet by Oldham who would milk the event for every ounce of publicity he could for his web site.

The scheme would help buy this Wallsend-dwelling Yorkshirmen and Newcastle season-ticket owner some Liverpool cred. It would help repair the damage to his reputation. It might attract new members. And the clincher was that it was free – it would be paid for by donations from his members.

It started to go wrong when we and many who read this blog contacted the local media and the hospital with our concerns about the publicity aspects, the danger that the children images would be misused and so on. Click here for one of our letters to Alder Hey.

In response, Oldham claimed he was no longer interested in publicity . But his sidekick Katie gave his surreptitious intentions away when she revealed that she and Steve would be taking photos of the kids.

The hospital decided that Oldham was not welcome. And the members of his family he would send would not be allowed access to the children. They would not be allowed to take photographs of them. They would be restricted to visiting the hospital’s fund- raising office.

You can catch some of the hospital’s caution in this recording of a telephone conversation that was sent into us by a reader. It was about 11 am on 20th December, 2006. The hospital had made an appointment with Koptalk to bring their stuff to the office the evening before. But Koptalk failed to show and had offered no explanation. In fact they did not arrive for another two days.

http://koptalksucks.com/koptalk-alderhey-phonecall.mp3

Those of you who were following the events on Koptalk would know that Steve and Katie were supposed to be Liverpool on Tuesday night 19th December . And Oldham was supposed to be in New York with his X-Box mate Smoove.

It looks like the New York story may have been a cover to explain why he was not allowed to go to Alder Hey. But not to worry because 13 year old Charlotte was running Koptalk, making the tough decisions, issuing orders to Steve and Katie and holding forth in a manner remarkably like her ignorant father’s. (Of course, it wasn’t Charlotte, at all, but Oldham using her name, as he had used Steve’s earlier in the day).

So this little publicity stunt reminded the world of Oldham’s previous shady charities, it brough him to the attention of the Charity Commissoners in Liverpool, he failed to get access to the hospital, he and his cronies were forbidden to make images of the children or publicise their stunt and our scrutiny even caused him to cough up a donation – something he could not manage for the Lauren fund.

Best of all the kids got £2,000 worth of goodies from generous people on the net.

But who would trust a charity organised by such a gaggle of cloak-and-dagger pretenders hiding behind multiple false user-names who can’t talk straight.

How much easier, if you want to help Alder Hey or any other charity to send donations to Just Giving

You will see the records without any fuss, you will know the money goes where it was intended and you will earn another 28% over and above the value of your donation.

Advertisements

20 Responses to “Koptalk stunt deprives kids of potential £560”

  1. scouse Says:

    “KopTalk didn’t deduct a single penny from the amounts received for any form of expenses and we turned down the offer of publicity.”

    Why did they feel the need to state they didn’t deduct a penny as if this is some big thing? Come on Oldham it was for charity for gods sake damn right you shouldn’t deduct a single penny.

    No PR, you didn’t turn it down you just won’t get any from the Liverpool press as they were warned in advance of your scam.

    As rupert says you’ve deprived them of another £500 by greedily doing this through your paypal accounts and this is going to come back to haunt you.

    Don’t mix business with pleasure, and certainly don’t mix charity with business!!!

  2. scouse Says:

    Koptalk – if you wanted no publicitly why did you feel the need to manually promote this story to your RSS feed to it would appear on Newsnow?

    Double boost for Alder Hey thanks to players and fans KopTalk.com 23:57

    The funny thing is no-one has bothered to click it so your attempts at earning brownie points to Newsnow readers has failed.

  3. Macers Says:

    People have the right to donate to which appeal they want to. The LFC supporters that gave, probably, would not have donated ANY money had it not been for the Koptalk website, so its hardly a case of the Hospital doing without. They clearly have £2000 that they would not otherwise have had. You also seem to forget that quite abit of that money came from oversees and therefore isn’t subject to tax relief of 22% (28% when grossed up).
    You are twisting what was a good appeal/deed into something for your own gains and point scoring, which in turn says more about youself than Koptalk.

  4. rupertinsider Says:

    Macers:

    “People have the right …”

    That old chestnut again. Yes, we have the right, too, to point out how a con man works first by exploiting the name of LFC and then the name of Alder Hey as a publicity stunt for his business and the whole stunt to be paid for by generous donors.

    We also have the right to point out that he refused once again to follow the law that requires him to register with the Charity Commissioners.

    How do you know what percentage of the donations came from outside the UK and what percentage of that was from expatriates subject to the UK taxes? Did Oldham reveal those details or were they obscured too? They would be required if he had registered, as he is obliged.

    I am not an expert on the law on charitable donations – but I see nothing that says that the 28% was not available for donations from overseas payers of UK tax. As I understand it, Just Giving collects the rebate on behalf of the registered charity which is the recipient – not on behalf of the donor.

    Furthermore, if the argument is that Oldham played the role of collector or animator- as far as I know there was nothing to stop Oldham from registering the appeal, drumming up the money and then sending it to Just Giving as a contribution from payers of UK taxes thereby securing the 28%

    Why was it so important that the cash be in his business and personal account and languish there. Why was it so important that he decided what it would be used for and he should make the purchases. But having done all of that – why has he not produced the receipts?

    “..which says more about yourself than Koptalk”

    I certainly hope so. I believe the blog’s scrutiny ensured that most of the money donated went to Alder Hey. Too bad we were not around when he was raking in the tens of thousand for the Lauren appeal. Also too bad that the donors and the recipients were done out of at least 560 pounds because Oldham insisted the money went through his hands.

    Finally, its not people’s right to donate that is in question but Oldham’s right to run unregistered charities and mix the funds with his own and his business and dodge and twist and try to profit from what, by definition, is supposed to be a charity not a publicity campaign. Luckily this time, as far as we know, he did not use the appeal to get a higher price for his fake memorabilia as he has in the past.

    We have made clear that the issue is not donations to Alder Hey – we have congratulated those who donated.

    But Alder Hey is very well endowed not only by the NHS but by many private trusts and charities and scores of support groups in Liverpool and by the families of the children. The idea that it needed this money for Christmas from a guy from Wallsend who has no connection with Liverpool is nonsense.

    Contrary to what you say, I believe that many more people would have donated to Alder Hey if they knew the appeal was registered and run by someone honest or if they were shown how to earn an extra 28% by sending it through Just Giving, or directly to the hospital. And if you insist that the Koptalk appeal was above board in every respect, why did he not secure the tax bonus of 28% for his donors and the recipients – why are you defending his failure to do this?

    Also contrary to the whole tone of your comment, that it is merely a point scoring exercise, the Charity Commissioners have expressed a concern and interest.

  5. rupertinsider Says:

    scouse

    “Double boost for Alder Hey thanks to players and fans KopTalk.com 23:57”

    One of my earlier posts was that this was an attempt to ape the players and the LFC tradition of visiting Alder Hey.

    You see how he tries to make the association that somehow players and Koptalk are working together, without actually stating it. He’s been doing it for years. Its a lie. He and his site are pariahs at LFC.

  6. dunks_going_to_prison Says:

    Been reading your blog with avid interest the last few days. Theres quite a bit here that I reckon dunk could go to jail for:

    1. Charity fraud & non-registration/failiure to declare (6 months min)
    2. Tax evasion (6 months min)
    3. VAT evasion/non-registration (6 mths)
    4. Trading standards offences various e.g. fake memorilibia/book etc
    5. Benefit fraud
    6. Copyright/stealing/pirating of software/pictures etc

    If as it has been suggested that various authorities are onto him, all the above combined (if found guilty) could get him 5 years + inside at the VERY least

    I’m sure there are other things that will be brought to their attention as well.

  7. Macers Says:

    Rupertinsider

    Well it is the season of the ‘chestnut’ and most certainly the ‘old’ ones too, as this website continues to cook and re-cook the old chestnut to death; give it the kiss of life and re-cook it again.
    If you are no expert in tax law they why quote figures? What your mis-leading title suggests is that if all the donations came from within the UK and they all took the time to register (suppling name, and UK postcode) then and ONLY then would the full tax relief be granted.
    How many do you think would have taken the time and effort to do this ? Koptalk provided the means for people (LFC supporters) to make this quick and painless exercise.
    The tax relief is only granted on donations from people within the UK as they (strangely enough) are the only one’s paying UK tax!
    I understand what you are trying to achieve but come on everyday you wheel something else out with a different spin on it. Its boring now (as it started to be weeks ago). We, LFC supporters, only want to support and find out about things relating to the team. If you put as much time and effort into your website regarding Liverpool FC instead of Koptalk you would probably have a website to rival Dunk’s. I reckon its time your ‘old chestnuts’ were binned and some new LFC one’s were cooked instead – a welcomed new flavour all round !

  8. Alan Says:

    without koptalk it would be a slow and painful exercise? all you have to do is donate it online and they add the gift aid. Having worked for a charity before , i have a bit of knowledge on this. The charity submit their donations and then there is 28% of the total added “gift aid”.

    Before you come on here saying “no you didnt work for a charity etc” in reply, it was for the National Trust, which is a registered charity, and who take donations from the public, and them donations have gift aid added also.

  9. rupertinsider Says:

    Macers

    You’ve got Oldham’s snake oil salesman patter down to a “T” .

    This second post of yours on the subject is as full of ifs ands and buts as the first. To make your contrived criticism work you first tell us that a majority of the donors would have been from overseas although you offer no evidence to support that.

    Then you assume that all overseas donors would not be eligible for UK tax. You should go back to your books or should I say your bookie.

    Hint: I pay UK taxes and I do not live in the UK.

    Then you assume that few people if any at all would have donated to Alder Hey if Oldham had not come along on his white horse offering them use of his personal bank account. And while struggling to make that assumption you miss the facts that are staring you in the face. 2,000 was donated and a potential 560 was lost. Its not a question of ifs ands and buts.

    Now having constructed your straw man, you need to add some fake clothes. So you tell us that the donors would not want to provide simple information about their tax status in order to get the 28% credit and would much rather hand over their cash to Oldham, a guy with a betting addiction, and let him mix their money with his and spend it as though it were his and forgo the 28% into the bargain.

    If you are interested in the subject and not so much in defending a known con artist who runs an appeal from Wallsend while pretending to be in New York all the time hiding behind the user names of his 17 yr old step brother and 13 yr old daughter, you would have spent some time reading the links I provided to “Just Giving”.

    That site explains very clearly that as long as the recipient is a registered charity in the UK they will do all the paperwork to recover the tax credit for the charity. The qualification is that the donor pay UK taxes – not that they live in the UK – spot the distinction?

    You cite my headline but fail to note the word “potential”. 560 was the “potential” loss. The actual loss may be more it may be less depending on how many donated, how much they donated and how much of the total came from payers of Uk taxes. Oldham gave us rough estimates and partial accounting but no hard facts – do you have them?

    Why don’t you run around to the shed and help Oldham rummage through his pockets and the socks under his bed and through his betting slips and then come back with some facts instead of assumptions.

    Your posts are special pleading – Oldham must be allowed to make his own rules and make his own assumptions without evidence or proof.

    As for your old chestnut remarks. We’ve always admitted that we repeat ourselves on the blog – partially because it is not aimed at the thousands we have helped to leave or steer clear of Koptalk but those few still there or those thinking about joining who don’t know his history. But the main reason is that Oldham repeats himself. You can’t teach a dirty dog new tricks.

    As for your remarks about how good his site is compared to ours – that’s silly. We are a specialist blog which monitors Oldham and Koptalk. We frequently get more hits than his even though we are restricted in our subject matter have no forums and don’t offer free gifts or other inducements as he does.

    You give yourself away with that remark. There are only a small handful of people who would claim that Koptalk is a good site. Those of them who are not newcomers are too dependent on him for hand-outs or too deep into his cult to be reliable judges.

  10. Insider Insider Says:

    Hi Macers,

    First of all, something I’ve explained before many, many times, but you may have missed it – this site isn’t a Liverpool FC site.

    This site is here purely to talk about Duncan Oldham and his many scams.

    When the scams stop, the site stops. Or when everyone reading it gets bored. On Monday we had over 8,000 visitors to the blog, suggesting that the boredom isn’t there for all.

    You are right – the “gift aid” only applies to UK citizens. That’s about all you are right on though – in terms of it being a “slow and painful” exercise to register for gift aid, you are talking nonsense. Either uninformed nonsense, ill-thought-out nonsense, or nonsense aimed purely at trying to defend the long-time thief and anti-Red Duncan Oldham! People go to the website at http://www.justgiving.com/notdunk and provide a couple of quick details before they leave their credit card details. Where does this differ in any great “slow” or “painful” way compared to using Pay Pal? How much more “time and effort” does it need?

    You sound like one of Dunk’s apologists, even if you aren’t. Have you ever donated to a charity yourself and allowed them to take the gift aid amount? Online it’s a tick in a box, offline it’s a tick in a box with perhaps a signature. Who told you it was such a hard process?

    Whether the amount would have been £560 or not remains to be seen – that’s if we ever see any details from Oldham again. Remember – he’s hidden them, removed all evidence from his site.

    The amount taken by Pay Pal for admin fees is unlikely to be lower than that charged by Just Giving. Why not find out for us though? Go to the Alder Hey forum which Dunk says is open to guests to see and then look at the donations people left – check their locations from in their user profiles (it’s a condition of membership that your location in your user profile is your real geographical location). It might take an hour to do, but that’s the longest it would take. You’ll need to know the amount donated (before transaction charges) and the amount “received” (after transaction charges), and then you can work it all out. Let us know how wrong we are.

    Oops – forgot. You can’t view user profiles on Koptalk because the Konman doesn’t even let his moderators see those, never mind members. You can’t see who donated because Oldham deleted all of those as soon as the heat was on for him to be open about this collection. Oh no, you can’t even see the forum unless you are a member, it wasn’t actually made visible to non-members as promised. In fact even members can’t see the Alder Hey forum now – Duncan Oldham removed it whilst pretending to be in New York.

    Sorry for being so confrontational, but I really don’t think that you’ve read this blog properly. That’s the excuse I’m giving you for now. I could be wrong – you may just think that it’s perfectly acceptable for Oldham to act in this way, contrary to what so many people really think.

    Oldham’s attitude to this blog is understandable – he hates the fact we’ve exposed so many of his lies. I started it all off earlier this year as a bit of a laugh for a few people to see. It took off because as word spread so many people had been “hurt” in some way by Oldham. More and more people came forward with stories about things much more serious than his made-up transfer rumours and him pretending to have Rick Parry and Robbie Fowler as members of his site.

    Oldham was exposed for the liar he is, the conman he is, the thief that he is. He runs a Liverpool website purely to rip off Liverpool supporters. He was a Leeds fan as a kid, he currently has a Newcastle season ticket. He’s not been to a game at Anfield this season as far as we know, although there was talk of a sighting early on in the season at one game. If so, it was the first time in years. He sells tickets he gets hold of like a tout – £1600 for FA Cup final tickets.

    Last time I looked, there were still no receipts to be shown on Koptalk and it looks like we’ve had good reason to be concerned about this collection. And I so wanted to be able to apologise at long last, just for once for Oldham to have acted honestly.

    Again, I’ll hold back and assume you’ve not read the blog, because this next statement from you makes you sound like Duncan Oldham himself: “We, LFC supporters, only want to support and find out about things relating to the team.” WRONG! LFC supporters care about much more than “things relating to the team.” What about the campaign to stop Kelvin MacKenzie from broadcasting on the BBC or Granada? What about the boycott of The S*n (a taboo subject on the S*n-loving Koptalk.coN)? What about the campaing supporting Michael Shields’ mistreatment in Bulgaria? What about the “Reclaim The Kop” campaign?

    Liverpool fans care. We’ve a few bad pennies, I don’t doubt that for a minute, but we care. We care about each other, we care about our club. We care about the reputation of our club. Whether we are from the city or not, we care about the reputation of the city our club plays in, the city our club got its name from.

    So don’t try and tell us to concentrate on “things relating to the team”. Being a Liverpool fan is about so much more than that, and unless you are a fan yourself of Liverpool Football Club you might never, never fully understand that.

    Are you a fan of LFC?

  11. waldo jeffers Says:

    Think I’m right in saying that JustGiving requires you to state whether a donation is a personal one or something that you’ve collected from a group of people. The latter doesn’t qualify for tax relief.

  12. Macers Says:

    rupertinsider

    Greetings again

    First of all I didn’t say
    “a majority of the donors would have been from overseas” thats why I didn’t provide evidence of “evidence to support that”. Then I didn’t assume that “all overseas donors would not be eligible for UK tax. You should go back to your books or should I say your bookie”.

    I don’t I have bookie but I hold a MA in payroll (ITEPA 2003) and know a little (to say the least about UK tax law).

    Then if this is so “Hint: I pay UK taxes and I do not live in the UK” then may I suggest a change of accountant? (or maybe thats because you do the accounts yourself, I’,m sure Mr brown loves you, lol !)

    Again, I’m sorry but you have twisted this “you assume that few people if any at all would have donated to Alder Hey if Oldham had not come along on his white horse offering them use of his personal bank account. And while struggling to make that assumption you miss the facts that are staring you in the face. 2,000 was donated and a potential 560 was lost. Its not a question of ifs ands and buts”.
    It is staring me in the face but that is not why I first posted my comment, I did so because you made it seem that Koptalk deliberately cost the hospital £560. They didn’t, they simply provided the means for Liverpool supporters to donate their own money. What my post was about was fact the LFC supporters who donated would have more than likely not done so had they not seen this appeal on the website. You seem to be tarring the rest of us with the hate brush you who for Koptalk. Who cares if it was for publicity, big deal, the main point of my post was that you are trying to score points of the fact that Koptalk ran a Hospital appeal without tax consultation first. What as this website done for Alder Hey or any other hospital? And if you where so annoyed at not getting Mr Brown’s charity relief and it was so easy to do so why did you or this website not organise an alternative ?
    Grow up
    And to the real LFC supporters on this website you are being used by somenone who is using our Club name to grind an axe. How many hits do you think this would get if it wasn’t for Liverpool FC, very few !

    Have a great Christmas and a brilliant new year
    YNWA

  13. rupertinsider Says:

    Macers

    You talk about your “main point”. How many more posts will you need to find it?

    I can save you time. Your main point is to defend a well-known liar, con man and charity fraud artist and his shabby website. The rest of your self-contradictory ramblings and your never ending supply of unsupported assumptions are contrived and irrelevant.

    Your comments about my tax situation demonstrates that you are not well informed on the topic. I suggest you do what my original article suggested – read the Just Giving website – its clear enough even for you. If you need further help contact them.

    You are an Oldhamite and you share his style of discourse – irrelevancies, false assumptions and references to LFC supporters that sound alien from his lips. You also share his sensitivity to the success of this blog in pricking his balloon.

    You can huff and puff but your site is not coming back and your cons are never going to get as far as they did before.

  14. Insider Insider Says:

    @Macers – I am guessing that “MA” means Modern Apprenticeship? I am also guessing that you are college student, rather than lecturer. I am also guessing that the Act of Parliament you are quoting is something you’ve studied as part of a more general course, perhaps business studies course. Payroll is (you probably know this) the “thing” that companies have to pay their staff. If the staff want to, the companies can set up automatic deductions from their salaries to a charity of their choice – it’s something I believe has been allowed for years. It is not the same “thing” as the Gift Aid “thing” that is used on Justgiving.com, church collection envelopes, National Trust membership application forms.

    I hope you do well in your studies and you get a decent job at the end of it.

    You’ve not read this blog in full, or you aren’t much of a Liverpool fan. Duncan Oldham knowingly carried adverts for the S*n earlier this year to wind people up. Duncan Oldham admits to reading the S*n, having it delivered to his home every day. Duncan Oldham uses stories from the S*n to save him having to make his own up. Duncan Oldham even tried to claim he had evidence on tape of Peter Crouch talking to exclusively to the S*n and said he’d use it to end Crouch’s LFC career when he felt like it. Read the blog and find it all – including the evidence, it’s not made up.

    What other subjects does your course cover? Media Studies or some kind of Sociology module? I hope it does – and I hope they show you the S*n newspaper from April 1989, the issue that claimed Liverpool fans pissed on the bodies of those who were killed. And that the Liverpool fans pick-pocketed those who were killed. GREAT BIG FAT LIES. That “newspaper” has suffered a massive loss in its circulation in the Merseyside area as a result. A boycott still stands to this day – 17 years later. Duncan Oldham is the only so-called Liverpool fan I have known to ignore the S*n boycott once they know about it. He’s a member of a very small minority in doing so.

    I’m guessing you don’t know much about Hillsborough. I’m guessing you’re only 17 yourself, born the year the Hillsborough disaster happened. WELL AS A LIVERPOOL SUPPORTER YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT IT.

    Why do you think we have the flames on the club badge? You know what YNWA stands for, what about JFT96?

    Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster
    (WARNING: This page has some very harrowing content, not a nice thing to read and it will cause most readers of this blog a great deal of upset).

    You are defending Dunk on what really is a minor issue*, and your lack of real qualifications is making you look a touch silly to be honest. Ask your lecturer after Christmas how the Gift Aid system works. If you are a lecturer then I suggest you resign after Christmas before someone sues you for ruining their potential career by teaching them so badly.

    And if you are a Koptalk member, why not ask Dunk to show those receipts that he promised he would. Can you think of a good reason why he shouldn’t, if he’s been totally honest about everything?

    * EDIT: Actually it’s not that minor an issue – if done above board Dunk would have collected more money, because even if one of the donations came from the UK it would have had that extra 28%. Look at our http://www.justgiving.com/notdunk page:

    Total donated online: £80.00
    Plus Justgiving has reclaimed Gift Aid of: £18.33

    And that’s a mixture of UK and overseas donations.

    I’m willing to talk more with you, but I urge you to read the blog more closely first, and I want you to try and stop doing any more digging on that hole you started.

    Duncan Oldham has used Alder Hey to get himself some extra cash and to get himself some publicity. And you think that’s ok!

  15. Macers Says:

    Insider Insider

    Thanks, but I have completed my studies and already do have a good job. You can check out the website, I believe its ippm.org
    The Act I quoted relates to 1 of 4 tax scheldules (scheldule E) I would be happy to explain it in full but it would probably bore you are much as this topic is boring me ! Anyway the reason I mentioned it is because it contains the tax relief you have been mentioning its called Give As You Earn (is has been called other things too!). I posted here to point out the way rupert was twisting titles but you seem quite good at twisting things too. If you read my posts you will not find me once saying fraud, Dunk, tax evasion or stealing from charities is OK and how could you possibly know what I think?.
    I accept that tax relief could have been granted on the majority of the cash donated but without the original appeal on Koptalk there would be NO cash to get relief on as 22% (28% grossed up) of nothing is nothing.
    I suggest you read what I have been typing more closely and without twisting it this time.
    Sorry but if you need any other advice relating to tax, NI or pensions you’ll have to pay like everyone else.

    Now that that is sorted lets hope we stuff Watford like a turkey later !
    YNWA

  16. Insider Insider Says:

    Macers – the site you mentioned had no mention of “Gift Aid”. “Gift Aid” has nothing to do with payroll, some people qualify without having earned any wages (Capital Gains reasons instead), which is why you might not be aware of it.

    Give as You Earn is not the same as Gift Aid.

    Here’s an explanation, for you or anyone else who’s unsure – http://www.pan-uk.org/GiftGaye.htm

    If you want to pay me a fee for that advice please give it to the Alder Hey page I set up – http://www.justgiving.com/notdunk or give it to something more local to where you live!

    I don’t dispute that there is something positive from this. Alder Hey seem to have got some stuff they wouldn’t have got had Koptalk not tried this on. What I’d like to see now is how much profit Dunk made from it – because I’m fairly certain he must have, because he won’t scan those receipts in, and he’s now admitting that he didn’t hand them over to Alder Hey at all.

    Then again, he’s in New York until tomorrow of course, he went for nine days to sort his new place out over there – he told us this from a plane that had no internet access, by posting on his forum.

    This appeal was actually illegal too from what we’ve been told. As soon as it went over £1000 it became a legal requirement for it to be registered as a charity.

    His past charity dealings were well over that threshold, at the very least he took £10,000 for his disabled cousin – in that case though he didn’t show anything to his members for the money they donated. At least this time he’s taken photos of some boxes.

    Anyway – as you say it’s Watford shortly, and I believe a point would give us our longest unbeaten home run since 1991. So come on Red men!

    (And come on Dunk – scan those receipts in)

  17. Hansi Says:

    Well it looks like he ‘s back, prior to the 9 days he said when he “left”. But before he decided to be back he had to cough up another user to keep posting. He obviously understood that pretending to be Charlotte was to easy to see through. So now he’s also Jordy. A bloke that registered on 21.12.2006 at 21:04 and already is an Administrator on the site. By 21:37 the same evening he’d reached the total of 24 posts.

    “Who is Jordy?” wondered some of his members. This is what Dunk said:

    #56954 – 17 minutes 14 seconds ago Re: I met Rafa and the players today!!!! [Re: Kop_5]
    Dunk Dunk
    KopTalk.com
    Registered: 20/08/04
    Posts: 13650

    Jordy is on hand to moderate the forums usually when Steve and Katie are both AWOL.
    Well,they were supposedly in Liverpool for the match two days before and there were no signs of Jordy then. It was Charlotte who was running the site that night.

  18. Koptalksucks.com Says:

    @Hansi: The whole “create a new user account” and “everyone is going AWOL or moving to NY” thing is just a total joke.

    Infact Dunk is a joke. Dunk, please, pack in.

  19. Insider Insider Says:

    Did he pick the name “Jordy” because it sounds like Geordie? It’s a strange name and it took me a moment to remember why the name had a familiar ring to it at first. Then I remembered – Michael Jackson had some problems with someone called Jordy. Just a coincidence? Probably, but given Dunk’s fascination with Fred West and his sick jokes about sharing his bed with his daughter’s 12-year-old mates, and his claims about how underage girls are his best chance of getting any success sexually, maybe it’s not a coincidence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordy_Chandler

  20. rupertinsider Says:

    And add how he described in detail his young daughter’s reaction to finding out on TV (in his company) that she had lived “two feet” from a notorious paedophile for years. And in the process of telling that story he gave her address away.

    Not to mention his claim that she was raped at school when she was 8.

    Its strange that the owner of a football site would so often use that site to return to these themes, abusing the privacy of his very young children in the process.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: