Koptalk Konman held to account for charity money.

by Honorary Insider



You may remember my recent post on here, Koptalk “charity” site closed after police and commission informed.

It detailed the history of the Lauren and Mortgage Pledge Fund – including my personal support for it. The post was widely read and received many comments.

It looks like there is a strong interest in having the blog hold Duncan Oldham to account for all the monies raised. We are willing to do this after we have prepared a dossier. We are willing to report it to the Charity Commissioners and, depending on whatever advice they give us, to the Northumbria Police, if appropriate.



1. Let us know if you contributed to the Lauren & Mortgage Pledge Fund. This would include money, goods or services. Also indicate if you have supporting documents for your donations or any form of receipt. Also let us know if you know what others contributed.

2. Let us know of any activities which Duncan Oldham said was for the benefit of the charity, such as raffles, or the sale of balls, shirts or anything else.

3. We will report back our summary findings on the blog. If we then decide to file a formal complaint we will be asking any who contributed to the funds to allow us to attach their name to it. That would be anyone who donated cash, goods or services or bought raffle tickets or goods or services which were sold on the basis that part or all the proceeds would go to the funds.

We will not attach your name without your explicit written permission. We would never publicise your name. We would protect your privacy at all times. Please write with information even if you anticipate that you would not want to attach your name.

Send your emails to rupertinsider @ gmail.com or Koptalk.Insider @ gmail.com

I, personally, would then co-ordinate the audit and prepare the dossier.

The Lauren & Mortgage Pledge Fund – Just How Big Did It Get ?

In that first post, I mused that the Fund probably exceeded £1,000 which is the threshold at which a charity must be registered with the Charity Commissioners. Whether the Lauren & Mortgage Fund was a charity, according to the legal definition, or something less, will be up to the Charity Commissioners to decide once they have all the facts.

We know that it was not registered with them.

Judging by the pledges on Koptalk forums at the time, cash donations alone far exceeded that amount. Then there were the unlimited number of signed shirts at Robbie Fowler£199 each, the two FA Cup Final tickets at £1,600 and signed balls and team shirts and possibly raffles and other offers.

As reported on the blog, some who bought and paid for goods from Koptalk never received them and gave up pursuing Oldham when he did not reply. Some received fake memorabilia with fake signatures and fake certificates of authenticity. That is almost a separate issue, but worth mentioning to us if you do write in. Obviously, the profit from those fraudulent deals will have been greater than if they were honest deals. It’s also possible that people paid more because the sales were in aid of a charity.

Was an appeal even necessary?

In my first post I explained how Lauren and her family could have been helped financially if Duncan Oldham had passed on to them my professional advice about special disability benefits available to them and the importance of lodging a claim quickly.

Every day we are receiving new information which makes his appeal for charity look even less credible.

Mumsafan, was a respected poster and moderator on Koptalk at the time. Like many others, she has since left and is now posting on the new site, Est 1892.

She posted there that a personal tragedy similar to Lauren’s befell a friend of hers, who woke one morning unable to walk. But she was able to get financial help from the Social Fund from day one.

In her post, Mumsafan states that she advised Duncan Oldham of this source of funding within days of the tragedy happening to Lauren.

From my own reading of the Social Fund website, it appears that Lauren and her family would have been able to apply for a crisis loan. This, together with her eligibility for Disability Benefits, which I explained in detail in my first post, makes us wonder even more if there was a need for a charity appeal in the first place.

When we have totted it all up we may be shocked at how much Duncan Oldham raised in this appeal and did not account for to the Charity Commissioners or anyone else we know about. Personally, I think we are talking about tens of thousands of pounds, here.

Under pressure from this blog, Oldham has recently said that if anyone wants to know what happened to the money “ask Lauren”.

It may come to that in any subsequent investigation by the authorities.

But we want to be sure that Lauren knows not only what Oldham passed on to her and her family but what he raised in their name. We want the normal, legally required accounting that applies to every charity over £1,000.

It looks like some of those funds were mingled in the same account with Oldham’s business and personal funds. Some donors did not receive receipts. Neither Oldham nor his mother has ever given a public accounting of the money that passed through their hands.

Its time to hold the Koptalk Konman to account.

Photo: Duncan Oldham of the Koptalk website



6 Responses to “Koptalk Konman held to account for charity money.”

  1. Pete Says:

    U look like such a fat twat in yer pic, u should change it and save yourself some dignity…

  2. scratch Says:

    From the Charities Commission website…

    I want to set up a charity to assist a specific person suffering from a [rare] disease/disorder

    In general, it is not charitable to set up a charity for the benefit of a specific named individual or individuals. To be charitable, you would therefore need to define the people who can benefit from your organisation much more widely.

    Alternatively, you can set up a non-charitable trust fund to benefit the named individual(s) or join forces with an existing charity that is already set up to benefit sufferers of, and/or carrying out research into, the particular [rare] disease/disorder.

    So, if it is not a charity as defined by the Chairities Commission, what will they do? It’s not within their juristiction is it? Basically, he’s just taken donations from people for Lauren (which he may, or may not have passed on, I’ve seen nothing to prove it either way, just specualtion from yourself and Rupert on one side, and Duncan’s initial word on the other). So, apart from calling it a charity appeal (i’m assuming that he did, as it seems to be the focal point for you) what can the Charities Commission do? He can’t register with them, by their own definition, so they can’t go after him.

  3. rupertinsider Says:


    That is a photo of Duncan Oldham of Koptalk.

  4. Pete Says:

    Nice 1 – keep the photo on then chap as he is a lying Fat twat…

    Glad the Pool are having a great run at the mo… YNWA

  5. scouse Says:

    Imagine if you were the owner of Koptalk (pretty ugly thought isn’t it) You saw these stories appear about you, I’d do everything possible to get my side of the story over to prove my innocence.

    From what we can see Koptalk has never once replied to an email or public query on the blog although he does reply indirectly (like for the stuff over the Sun advertising etc)

    You deserve everything you get Koptalk, there was simply no need for you to personally get involved with donations so by mixing pleasure, business(if thats what you call it) and charity you’ve only got yourself to blame.

  6. rupertinsider Says:


    You continue to find ways seek a loopholes for Oldham

    However your attempt to define our main point for us fails.

    Our main point is that he collected money for the Lauren & Mortgage Pledge Fund. He never issued receipts to all – or even a majority of donors. He never made a public accounting. He directed that the money be sent to his or his mother’s account where it appears to have been mingled with other monies. He sold memorabilia for the fund but never gave an accounting of how much he sold and what proportion of the proceeds, if any, he contributed to the fund.

    He began by saying he was unwaged and could not afford a donation. Yet during and shortly after he boasted of large and regualr bets he placed, and of many high tech gadgets, a Mercedes upgrade and various other vehicles and properties he bought or was buying not to mention foreign holidays.

    He did not acknowledge the advice he got from at least two well-informed people about how Lauren and her family could get substantial emergency and ongoing financial help from government bodies.

    he never closed the appeal but close the site after someone on this blog claimed that they had telephoned his local police about it, after first speaking with the charity commissioners.

    So our main point is we want a anccounting.

    As it happens he has never ever given the name and address of a bank. But the Chairty Commissioners and the Police would have the power to do that if they wish to investigate.

    There are reasonable grounds for suspicion and we have individuals who wish to lay a formal complaint. Whether it falls within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner or the Police or both is for them to decide when they receive our dossier.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: