The League Against Cruel Sports has denied front-page allegations in The Times today that it squandered a £3.5m legacy, describing the article as a “mishmash of exaggerations, half-truths and malicious nonsense”.
The newspaper reported allegations by a whistleblower at the charity that a £3.5m legacy donation was “squandered” on staff pay rises, a failed prosecution and foreign travel.
But a spokeswoman for the charity told Civil Society News the claims were a “shameful, politically motivated and unfounded attack”.
“The claims refer to a legacy bequest of £3.5m which we are alleged to have wasted, but the truth is we haven’t spent any of it,” she said.
“We were able to rebut every single accusation but none of our responses were used [by the Times] which suggests that the journalist was after a cheap headline, and not actually interested in accuracy.”
The spokeswoman also denied a claim that the charity was “saved” by the donation.
“The suggestion that we were ‘saved’ by the legacy is completely unfounded,” she said. “It has arrived in instalments, the last of which arrived in January 2016, so we are now deciding how to spend the money in the most effective way possible.
“The legacy was very welcome and a tribute both to the donor’s passion for animals, and the work that we do. We are really excited by the opportunity this gives us to expand our work further, making a real difference for animals, and ensuring that every penny is spent in the way that [the donor] would have wanted.”
According to the charity, “great care and attention” was taken in the management of the legacy in question.
“[Our work] in the last year shows that we are efficiently and effectively using donors’ money wisely – and in the way they would want us to use it,” the spokeswoman said.
“Charities are being targeted in certain parts of the media at the moment, potentially as an attempted repeal of the Hunting Act is on the cards, so our supporters and anyone who looks closely at this will understand what this story is really about – trying to discredit opponents of hunting.”
The Times also criticised the Charity Commission for failing to investigate.
The newspaper reports that the Charity Commission was contacted by a whistleblower and offered evidence of suspected “serious non-compliance with the potential to damage the charity’s reputation or the reputation of charities generally”.
It alleges the regulator “declined to examine internal emails, invoices, payroll documents and minutes from meetings of trustees”. It also claims the two whistleblowers have since been dismissed from their posts.
This afternoon a spokesman for the Charity Commission confirmed it received complains about the charity’s use of funds but decided it was a “decision for the trustees” to address.
"Although the Commission’s functions include encouraging and facilitating the better administration of charities, and taking remedial action to tackle misconduct or mismanagement, the law prohibits the Commission from acting directly in the administration of a charity,” the spokesman told Civil Society News.
“The decision-making process of how to apply the charity’s funds rests directly with the trustees of the charity. Charities are accountable to donors, beneficiaries and the general public. To ensure transparency and enable donors and the wider public to make informed decisions on supporting charities, including how charity funds are spent, the Commission makes information about charities available widely through the charity search tool on the Commission’s website.”
