Legally, Saf and Ash are not as 'free' as they'd like to think.
To start, the minute a charity is setup, they are bound by law to responsibly manage the interests of the charity, not themselves. Unless justifiable by law and the charity commision, they cannot impulsively transact with companies in which they have/had a personal financial interest in. When the accounts are published, we will be able to see what has been spent and where. For example, justifications will need to be made for purchases such as the 'new golf', sponsorship for Ashley's boxing, any funds that have gone into 'CLIB 100' etc, but only IF monies for these things have come directly from the foundation.
In addition, fundraising is very important. We've seen them use ITS and Abbott L etc as third party fundraisers. Donors should be made aware of the amount that the third party fundraiser (ITS, Abbott L) will retain. It's not good enough to just state 'profits will go to TAF', donors should be made aware of exactly how much money is retained by those third parties. This is guidance provided by the commission.
Importantly, the charity commission advises charities to explain their reserves (money in the bank), which they refuse to do clearly. They are hindering the charity by requesting more funds without an explanation as to why their reserves are so high - people won't donate which in turn hinders the charity long term. Again, not acting in the best interests of the charity.
They are also legally bound to execute the mission of the charity which they've set out per the below.
1. They claim to help children access treatment not readily available from the NHS - who have they helped and when? What treatment have they had?
2. They work with with cancer research and medical institutions to advance early diagnosis - What have they done to progress this? How do they measure success in this area? Who are they actively working with?
3. They accelerate the availability of new treatments in the UK - what new treatments are being worked on/accelerated?
4. Magical moments (an initial promise which has now been removed)? Why was this not executed? Why was ITS, Abbott L prioritised over providing magical moments for children, especially when their reserves are so high, 'apparently'?
The facts are, they are basically fucked.
1. They have not executed their promises
2. They claim that 'every penny' of the GFM was put into the charity. If this is the case, why are they asking for more money with such high reserves? When they say 'every penny', does that include A's funeral? If A's funeral was paid for out of the GFM money, how much was spent and what did it include (custom dress for Saf? Suits for Ash and his family members)? How many other 'discretionary' purchases were made between the GFM and the launch of TAF?
3. If 'every penny' of the GFM was put into the charity, and the reserves are miraculously low, what have they been spending it on and how is it helping and supporting with their mission? Do they need premises aka the farm of Saf's 'Office' is the Social media manager works from home and there are only 3 trustees? This could be considered 'mismanaging the funds'.
Bottom line, there is no way they can answer anything without admitting wrongdoing I'm afraid. No justification for having high reserves when children are in desperate need of support. No justification for low reserves when we've seen hardly anything done in almost a year!
To start, the minute a charity is setup, they are bound by law to responsibly manage the interests of the charity, not themselves. Unless justifiable by law and the charity commision, they cannot impulsively transact with companies in which they have/had a personal financial interest in. When the accounts are published, we will be able to see what has been spent and where. For example, justifications will need to be made for purchases such as the 'new golf', sponsorship for Ashley's boxing, any funds that have gone into 'CLIB 100' etc, but only IF monies for these things have come directly from the foundation.
In addition, fundraising is very important. We've seen them use ITS and Abbott L etc as third party fundraisers. Donors should be made aware of the amount that the third party fundraiser (ITS, Abbott L) will retain. It's not good enough to just state 'profits will go to TAF', donors should be made aware of exactly how much money is retained by those third parties. This is guidance provided by the commission.
Importantly, the charity commission advises charities to explain their reserves (money in the bank), which they refuse to do clearly. They are hindering the charity by requesting more funds without an explanation as to why their reserves are so high - people won't donate which in turn hinders the charity long term. Again, not acting in the best interests of the charity.
They are also legally bound to execute the mission of the charity which they've set out per the below.
1. They claim to help children access treatment not readily available from the NHS - who have they helped and when? What treatment have they had?
2. They work with with cancer research and medical institutions to advance early diagnosis - What have they done to progress this? How do they measure success in this area? Who are they actively working with?
3. They accelerate the availability of new treatments in the UK - what new treatments are being worked on/accelerated?
4. Magical moments (an initial promise which has now been removed)? Why was this not executed? Why was ITS, Abbott L prioritised over providing magical moments for children, especially when their reserves are so high, 'apparently'?
The facts are, they are basically fucked.
1. They have not executed their promises
2. They claim that 'every penny' of the GFM was put into the charity. If this is the case, why are they asking for more money with such high reserves? When they say 'every penny', does that include A's funeral? If A's funeral was paid for out of the GFM money, how much was spent and what did it include (custom dress for Saf? Suits for Ash and his family members)? How many other 'discretionary' purchases were made between the GFM and the launch of TAF?
3. If 'every penny' of the GFM was put into the charity, and the reserves are miraculously low, what have they been spending it on and how is it helping and supporting with their mission? Do they need premises aka the farm of Saf's 'Office' is the Social media manager works from home and there are only 3 trustees? This could be considered 'mismanaging the funds'.
Bottom line, there is no way they can answer anything without admitting wrongdoing I'm afraid. No justification for having high reserves when children are in desperate need of support. No justification for low reserves when we've seen hardly anything done in almost a year!
I think TAF is funding their lives, in addition to what they earn being Influencers and their cross-promotions, which is also a murky area because a lot of what they do is tied in with TAF. I also think they justify what they’re doing because they’re ‘fundraising and raising awareness’. Bottom line is that the Foundation isn’t doing any work for children with cancer, they’ve made it extremely hard for any child to get funding and we aren’t seeing any meaningful collaborations to progress research into childhood cancers.
. Also the photo looks like a pile of pubes 
dirty ratty beard
