Cancer charity conman jailed

Cancer charity conman jailed

Jason Jones

Thousands of women took part in Race for Life

First published in News

A MAN who posed as a Cancer Research UK collector has been jailed for pocketing supporters’ donations.

Jason Jones, 29, went out officially collecting in Bournemouth and Christchurch with the charity’s branded collection pots, badges and sashes to ask shoppers and passersby to give generously to the good cause.

But the fraudster was really keeping the cash for himself and never gave Cancer Research a penny, potentially robbing the charity of up to £1,000 a week.

A girl Jones was dating joined him shaking collection tins, unaware he was stealing the funds, and he would even take money from friends and revellers on nights out in town. Magistrates sentenced Jones, who was found guilty of theft and fraud at trial, to 24 weeks in prison.

Cancer Research UK sent Jones five collection ‘goblets’, stickers, sashes and 100 badges last October after he registered as a collector online, Prosecutor Lisa Dytham said.

He stood collecting at different locations in Bournemouth, including outside ASDA, Christchurch and at a Southampton football club game.

It was then that the girl he was dating saw him shove £30 from the tins in his jeans.

Area co-ordinator Ros Fry was alerted, and contacted Jones several times to ask him to cough up.

Mrs Dytham said: “A volunteer collector within the Bournemouth area can collect £1,000 a week from donations off the street from members of the public with one goblet.

“Jones had five. Realistically it is hard to pinpoint what he took, but we have to be aware of what potentially Cancer Research UK were deprived of.”

Mitigating, Mark Proctor said Jones had been motivated by an addiction to controlled drugs and moved back to his parents’ Bicester home after being caught last December.

Bench chairman Doug Day said Jones’ serious crimes had breached the trust of the charity and everyone who had parted with their change.

Mr Day said: “People put their hands in their pockets and took out money they earned by honest means to give to what they saw as a worthwhile charity.

“An aggravating factor is that you enlisted the help of a young lady and she too was collecting spuriously at Southampton Football Club, unaware that she was really involved in defrauding a crowd of proper fans.

“This is something that the public will find abhorrent.”

Police Sergeant Mark Scammell, from Christchurch, dealt with the case.


He said: “I do not want this to detract from people donating to street collectors who are volunteering their own time and are out doing good work.”


He added: “If anyone is thinking of stealing in this way, the consequences are quite obvious to tell from Jones’ jail term.”

CANCER research volunteers said cases of theft affect all charities.
Ros Fry, area volunteer manager for Dorset, said: “Cancer Research UK
relies heavily on the goodwill of members of the public to fund life-saving work in Dorset and all over the UK.


“Incidents like this are damaging to not only ourselves, but also every other charity, and reduces the trust and confidence that supporters have.
“We need the support of the general public more than ever to
continue our pioneering work.


“While extremely rare, instances of bogus fundraising do occur and charities take steps to reduce this, although we do rely on members of the public to alert the police toany suspicious fundraising activity.


“More than 60 individuals or groups are currently engaged in a variety of voluntary fundraising activities for Cancer Research UK in the Dorset area.
 

“The charity’s ground-breaking work into the prevention, diagnosis and
treatment of cancer is funded entirely by the public and so money raised is crucial to fund research into 200 types of cancer which affect almost
30,000 people in the South West every year."

THE Fundraising Standards Boards gave the following recommendations for
those who donate to charity: Are the collectors wearing proper identity badges?


Do they seem knowledgeable enough about their charity and its work? If
you’re still unsure, call the charity or contact Action Fraud on 0300 1232040.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:27am Tue 17 Jul 12

andyjb10 says...

Absolute scum
Absolute scum andyjb10
  • Score: 0

9:47am Tue 17 Jul 12

Arjay says...

Collecting cash in tins is always going to lead to temptation - and many people regard those who shake a tin right in your face as glorified beggars.

I would have thought most responsible charities would have moved on to more sophisticated methods of fund raising these days?.....
Collecting cash in tins is always going to lead to temptation - and many people regard those who shake a tin right in your face as glorified beggars. I would have thought most responsible charities would have moved on to more sophisticated methods of fund raising these days?..... Arjay
  • Score: 0

10:03am Tue 17 Jul 12

pete woodley says...

The 24 week sentence clearly shows that crime does pay.
The 24 week sentence clearly shows that crime does pay. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

10:21am Tue 17 Jul 12

Old before my time says...

If I worked in the ironic punishment department... well let's just say he'd wish he'd given the money to charity.
If I worked in the ironic punishment department... well let's just say he'd wish he'd given the money to charity. Old before my time
  • Score: 0

10:25am Tue 17 Jul 12

Victor_Meldrew_Lives! says...

Vermin. Should have got 24 months not weeks. Low life.
Vermin. Should have got 24 months not weeks. Low life. Victor_Meldrew_Lives!
  • Score: 0

10:35am Tue 17 Jul 12

rudolph_hucker says...

The only time I give to anyone collecting on the street is to the veterans who sell rememberance day poppies.
The only time I give to anyone collecting on the street is to the veterans who sell rememberance day poppies. rudolph_hucker
  • Score: 0

10:42am Tue 17 Jul 12

Capricorn 1 says...

Arjay wrote:
Collecting cash in tins is always going to lead to temptation - and many people regard those who shake a tin right in your face as glorified beggars.

I would have thought most responsible charities would have moved on to more sophisticated methods of fund raising these days?.....
I agree, and I echo the comment made by the person above about the poppy collection.

I give to charity through direct means, not through street collectors and most definitely not through these chuggers who try to hijack you in the street.
[quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: Collecting cash in tins is always going to lead to temptation - and many people regard those who shake a tin right in your face as glorified beggars. I would have thought most responsible charities would have moved on to more sophisticated methods of fund raising these days?.....[/p][/quote]I agree, and I echo the comment made by the person above about the poppy collection. I give to charity through direct means, not through street collectors and most definitely not through these chuggers who try to hijack you in the street. Capricorn 1
  • Score: 0

10:58am Tue 17 Jul 12

The Renegade Master says...

It's inevitable in life that you will encounter the occasional scumbag, but when said scumbag is defrauding one of the most worthwhile charities around to feed a drug addiction it cannot help but make you feel nauseous.
However, it has to be said that the vast majority of charity helpers are hard working, dedicated and trustworthy people who should not be tarred with the same brush. So please don't stop giving to worthwhile causes who rely on us to pay for vital work/research.
It's inevitable in life that you will encounter the occasional scumbag, but when said scumbag is defrauding one of the most worthwhile charities around to feed a drug addiction it cannot help but make you feel nauseous. However, it has to be said that the vast majority of charity helpers are hard working, dedicated and trustworthy people who should not be tarred with the same brush. So please don't stop giving to worthwhile causes who rely on us to pay for vital work/research. The Renegade Master
  • Score: 0

11:01am Tue 17 Jul 12

Old Colonial says...

"Mitigating, Mark Proctor said Jones had been motivated by an addiction to controlled drugs and moved back to his parents’ Bicester home after being caught last December."

Sick and tired of drink and drugs being used as 'mitigating' circumstances. How did he fund his 'addiction' after he was caught? Or did he have a miracle cure once the easy access to funds had dried up?
"Mitigating, Mark Proctor said Jones had been motivated by an addiction to controlled drugs and moved back to his parents’ Bicester home after being caught last December." Sick and tired of drink and drugs being used as 'mitigating' circumstances. How did he fund his 'addiction' after he was caught? Or did he have a miracle cure once the easy access to funds had dried up? Old Colonial
  • Score: 0

11:12am Tue 17 Jul 12

The Liberal says...

Lesson to learn: always ignore chuggers. Even if they're not on the take, they annoy the heck out of shoppers and are paid a commission for signing you up for a direct debit. I honestly don't know why respectable charities use them.
Lesson to learn: always ignore chuggers. Even if they're not on the take, they annoy the heck out of shoppers and are paid a commission for signing you up for a direct debit. I honestly don't know why respectable charities use them. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

11:44am Tue 17 Jul 12

MrPitiful says...

Not sticking up for this guy in any way but just to a couple of the comments above..

According to the report, he was addicted to controlled drugs - one would assume that being controlled, he was getting them from a doctor. In this case, the money he was collecting from the tins was probably funding a lifestyle or something else as he would have to be taking a hell of a lot of controlled drugs to need that much cash to pay for them! And you would question the doctor who was giving him the prescriptions as well.

Also, he was using a collecting tin to obtain the funds as opposed to "chugging" people into signing direct debits. The guys who do this in the street are a pest but they cannot be compared with the bloke in this article. The chuggers are just a nuisance but they are not dishonest. They don't take cash & therefore cannot get involved from stealing from the charities or indeed the public who donate.

Easy to generalise & tar everyone with the same brush, especially where emotive issues like charities & fundraising are involved
Not sticking up for this guy in any way but just to a couple of the comments above.. According to the report, he was addicted to controlled drugs - one would assume that being controlled, he was getting them from a doctor. In this case, the money he was collecting from the tins was probably funding a lifestyle or something else as he would have to be taking a hell of a lot of controlled drugs to need that much cash to pay for them! And you would question the doctor who was giving him the prescriptions as well. Also, he was using a collecting tin to obtain the funds as opposed to "chugging" people into signing direct debits. The guys who do this in the street are a pest but they cannot be compared with the bloke in this article. The chuggers are just a nuisance but they are not dishonest. They don't take cash & therefore cannot get involved from stealing from the charities or indeed the public who donate. Easy to generalise & tar everyone with the same brush, especially where emotive issues like charities & fundraising are involved MrPitiful
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Tue 17 Jul 12

HRH of Boscombe says...

Not much different to charity directors then.
.
Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary.
.
These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting.
Not much different to charity directors then. . Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary. . These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Tue 17 Jul 12

bwilliamson says...

What a lad! Much respect for him.
What a lad! Much respect for him. bwilliamson
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Tue 17 Jul 12

bwilliamson says...

MrPitiful wrote:
Not sticking up for this guy in any way but just to a couple of the comments above..

According to the report, he was addicted to controlled drugs - one would assume that being controlled, he was getting them from a doctor. In this case, the money he was collecting from the tins was probably funding a lifestyle or something else as he would have to be taking a hell of a lot of controlled drugs to need that much cash to pay for them! And you would question the doctor who was giving him the prescriptions as well.

Also, he was using a collecting tin to obtain the funds as opposed to "chugging" people into signing direct debits. The guys who do this in the street are a pest but they cannot be compared with the bloke in this article. The chuggers are just a nuisance but they are not dishonest. They don't take cash & therefore cannot get involved from stealing from the charities or indeed the public who donate.

Easy to generalise & tar everyone with the same brush, especially where emotive issues like charities & fundraising are involved
Dear, not everything a newspaper says is completely accurate. You don't need to write a whole essay from the phrase 'I would assume'
[quote][p][bold]MrPitiful[/bold] wrote: Not sticking up for this guy in any way but just to a couple of the comments above.. According to the report, he was addicted to controlled drugs - one would assume that being controlled, he was getting them from a doctor. In this case, the money he was collecting from the tins was probably funding a lifestyle or something else as he would have to be taking a hell of a lot of controlled drugs to need that much cash to pay for them! And you would question the doctor who was giving him the prescriptions as well. Also, he was using a collecting tin to obtain the funds as opposed to "chugging" people into signing direct debits. The guys who do this in the street are a pest but they cannot be compared with the bloke in this article. The chuggers are just a nuisance but they are not dishonest. They don't take cash & therefore cannot get involved from stealing from the charities or indeed the public who donate. Easy to generalise & tar everyone with the same brush, especially where emotive issues like charities & fundraising are involved[/p][/quote]Dear, not everything a newspaper says is completely accurate. You don't need to write a whole essay from the phrase 'I would assume' bwilliamson
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Tue 17 Jul 12

spooki says...

"Police Sergeant Mark Scammell, from Christchurch, dealt with the case." haha 'SCAM'mell geddit?
"Police Sergeant Mark Scammell, from Christchurch, dealt with the case." haha 'SCAM'mell geddit? spooki
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Tue 17 Jul 12

andyjb10 says...

bwilliamson wrote:
What a lad! Much respect for him.
What a complete tool you have made yourself out to be by congratulating a man who has been sentenced to a jail term for robbing a charity
[quote][p][bold]bwilliamson[/bold] wrote: What a lad! Much respect for him.[/p][/quote]What a complete tool you have made yourself out to be by congratulating a man who has been sentenced to a jail term for robbing a charity andyjb10
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 17 Jul 12

pauls55 says...

I'm so fed up with people using drug addiction as an excuse for vile acts like this. I have quite liberal views normally but he if ever has cancer I hope all the charities and hospitals look at his record, shut the door in his face and say "Sorry you're on your own now mate."
I'm so fed up with people using drug addiction as an excuse for vile acts like this. I have quite liberal views normally but he if ever has cancer I hope all the charities and hospitals look at his record, shut the door in his face and say "Sorry you're on your own now mate." pauls55
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Tue 17 Jul 12

paulthefish says...

Old before my time wrote:
If I worked in the ironic punishment department... well let's just say he'd wish he'd given the money to charity.
agree totally. if only it worked that way! this waste of space deserves to suffer big time!!
[quote][p][bold]Old before my time[/bold] wrote: If I worked in the ironic punishment department... well let's just say he'd wish he'd given the money to charity.[/p][/quote]agree totally. if only it worked that way! this waste of space deserves to suffer big time!! paulthefish
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Tue 17 Jul 12

paulthefish says...

bwilliamson wrote:
What a lad! Much respect for him.
what?? if you really meant this then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.....
[quote][p][bold]bwilliamson[/bold] wrote: What a lad! Much respect for him.[/p][/quote]what?? if you really meant this then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror..... paulthefish
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Tue 17 Jul 12

ASM says...

there are far worse scum than this guy, the headline is a bit much, why wasn't he ordered to pay it back, make the git work for it and give 24 weeks full wages to the charity rather than lock him up at tax payers expence
there are far worse scum than this guy, the headline is a bit much, why wasn't he ordered to pay it back, make the git work for it and give 24 weeks full wages to the charity rather than lock him up at tax payers expence ASM
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Arjay says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Not much different to charity directors then.
.
Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary.
.
These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting.
So what kind of salary should we be paying a Nobel prize winning scientist, and highly regarded team leader, like Sir Paul?

Bearing in mind the figure you mention is no more than small change, to most bankers......
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: Not much different to charity directors then. . Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary. . These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting.[/p][/quote]So what kind of salary should we be paying a Nobel prize winning scientist, and highly regarded team leader, like Sir Paul? Bearing in mind the figure you mention is no more than small change, to most bankers...... Arjay
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Tue 17 Jul 12

pete woodley says...

A lot of these so called charity collectors,do it for the commission,and in a lot of cases,they get a lot more than the the charity.A recent report of a charity van being vandalised,was wrong as it was NOT a recognised charity,but were the public informed,NO,they were not.We once had a individual going around with an owl,collecting,that went on beer money.One man who collected in Poole,admiitted when i challenged him,that he only gave 10%,if that to a charity.He bought a business out of it.I have encountered many other scams,and have serious doubts about several well known local ones.HRH is correct,when he mentions the director taking £140.000 as a salary.
A lot of these so called charity collectors,do it for the commission,and in a lot of cases,they get a lot more than the the charity.A recent report of a charity van being vandalised,was wrong as it was NOT a recognised charity,but were the public informed,NO,they were not.We once had a individual going around with an owl,collecting,that went on beer money.One man who collected in Poole,admiitted when i challenged him,that he only gave 10%,if that to a charity.He bought a business out of it.I have encountered many other scams,and have serious doubts about several well known local ones.HRH is correct,when he mentions the director taking £140.000 as a salary. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Tue 17 Jul 12

HRH of Boscombe says...

Arjay what's bankers got to do with anything?
.
Just because he has a nobel prize and a title doesn't excuse him from nicking £140k from cancer victims every year.
.
Ask them if they consider it small change.
.
As a director he's hardly pioneering genetics anymore.
.
I believe his work was on how cells replicated themselves. Doesn't really blow me away when you consider cancer is mutating cells and grow due to replicating mutant cells. He didn't exactly solve the problem did he?
Arjay what's bankers got to do with anything? . Just because he has a nobel prize and a title doesn't excuse him from nicking £140k from cancer victims every year. . Ask them if they consider it small change. . As a director he's hardly pioneering genetics anymore. . I believe his work was on how cells replicated themselves. Doesn't really blow me away when you consider cancer is mutating cells and grow due to replicating mutant cells. He didn't exactly solve the problem did he? HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Tue 17 Jul 12

bosco1 says...

Well it makes your blood boil, you cant stoop much lower but The country is run by certain members in power who dont seem to mind fiddleing there expences, what happens to them you may well ask.? Anyway lets hope this guy or his family one day become ill/Cancer lets hope theres no money left for him.I do hope likewise people still want to donate to charity as and when.
Well it makes your blood boil, you cant stoop much lower but The country is run by certain members in power who dont seem to mind fiddleing there expences, what happens to them you may well ask.? Anyway lets hope this guy or his family one day become ill/Cancer lets hope theres no money left for him.I do hope likewise people still want to donate to charity as and when. bosco1
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Tue 17 Jul 12

MrPitiful says...

bwilliamson wrote:
MrPitiful wrote:
Not sticking up for this guy in any way but just to a couple of the comments above..

According to the report, he was addicted to controlled drugs - one would assume that being controlled, he was getting them from a doctor. In this case, the money he was collecting from the tins was probably funding a lifestyle or something else as he would have to be taking a hell of a lot of controlled drugs to need that much cash to pay for them! And you would question the doctor who was giving him the prescriptions as well.

Also, he was using a collecting tin to obtain the funds as opposed to "chugging" people into signing direct debits. The guys who do this in the street are a pest but they cannot be compared with the bloke in this article. The chuggers are just a nuisance but they are not dishonest. They don't take cash & therefore cannot get involved from stealing from the charities or indeed the public who donate.

Easy to generalise & tar everyone with the same brush, especially where emotive issues like charities & fundraising are involved
Dear, not everything a newspaper says is completely accurate. You don't need to write a whole essay from the phrase 'I would assume'
"Dear" - If you read my comment properly, you will ses I am not assuming anything, nor am I insinuating other people are doing so. I am however pointing out possible misunderstandings raised elsewhere. My points are not in an essay form and nobody was forcing you to look at them, never mind read them.

However, given this remark, along with your previous one, I would now definitely assume your intelligence is questionable and you need to sort yourself out.
[quote][p][bold]bwilliamson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrPitiful[/bold] wrote: Not sticking up for this guy in any way but just to a couple of the comments above.. According to the report, he was addicted to controlled drugs - one would assume that being controlled, he was getting them from a doctor. In this case, the money he was collecting from the tins was probably funding a lifestyle or something else as he would have to be taking a hell of a lot of controlled drugs to need that much cash to pay for them! And you would question the doctor who was giving him the prescriptions as well. Also, he was using a collecting tin to obtain the funds as opposed to "chugging" people into signing direct debits. The guys who do this in the street are a pest but they cannot be compared with the bloke in this article. The chuggers are just a nuisance but they are not dishonest. They don't take cash & therefore cannot get involved from stealing from the charities or indeed the public who donate. Easy to generalise & tar everyone with the same brush, especially where emotive issues like charities & fundraising are involved[/p][/quote]Dear, not everything a newspaper says is completely accurate. You don't need to write a whole essay from the phrase 'I would assume'[/p][/quote]"Dear" - If you read my comment properly, you will ses I am not assuming anything, nor am I insinuating other people are doing so. I am however pointing out possible misunderstandings raised elsewhere. My points are not in an essay form and nobody was forcing you to look at them, never mind read them. However, given this remark, along with your previous one, I would now definitely assume your intelligence is questionable and you need to sort yourself out. MrPitiful
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Tue 17 Jul 12

O'Reilly says...

It is persons such as this louse who give a bad name to genuine collectors.
It is persons such as this louse who give a bad name to genuine collectors. O'Reilly
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Tue 17 Jul 12

hamworthygirl says...

l Dont ever give to charity in the street or at the door only the poppy sellers as someone mentioned. Anyone can rattle a tin in the high street, I prefer to donate online or to local charity shops, and would never agree to direct debit. Shame on this man maybe a sentence of cleaning the streets of all the rubbish which will be left after the olympics and the toilets that would be better than a few weeksin jail.
l Dont ever give to charity in the street or at the door only the poppy sellers as someone mentioned. Anyone can rattle a tin in the high street, I prefer to donate online or to local charity shops, and would never agree to direct debit. Shame on this man maybe a sentence of cleaning the streets of all the rubbish which will be left after the olympics and the toilets that would be better than a few weeksin jail. hamworthygirl
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Tue 17 Jul 12

BournemouthMum says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Not much different to charity directors then.
.
Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary.
.
These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting.
I was going to say the very same thing myself. I was cold called recently by Oxfam and talked into donating monthly by direct debit. After the caller took my bank details she told me that she had to read a legal statement. I was astounded by what this statement said. Basically the caller was not from Oxfam, but a different company who collects payments on behalf of charities and that £9million was paid to them. So basically out of my £16 monthly donation, only about 30p would find its way to the people who actually need help. Total scam. Needless to say I cancelled the direct debit.
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: Not much different to charity directors then. . Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary. . These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting.[/p][/quote]I was going to say the very same thing myself. I was cold called recently by Oxfam and talked into donating monthly by direct debit. After the caller took my bank details she told me that she had to read a legal statement. I was astounded by what this statement said. Basically the caller was not from Oxfam, but a different company who collects payments on behalf of charities and that £9million was paid to them. So basically out of my £16 monthly donation, only about 30p would find its way to the people who actually need help. Total scam. Needless to say I cancelled the direct debit. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Tue 17 Jul 12

rudolph_hucker says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Not much different to charity directors then.
.
Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary.
.
These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting.
I was going to say the very same thing myself. I was cold called recently by Oxfam and talked into donating monthly by direct debit. After the caller took my bank details she told me that she had to read a legal statement. I was astounded by what this statement said. Basically the caller was not from Oxfam, but a different company who collects payments on behalf of charities and that £9million was paid to them. So basically out of my £16 monthly donation, only about 30p would find its way to the people who actually need help. Total scam. Needless to say I cancelled the direct debit.
Last year I had a knock on the door by a couple who to me looked like children's TV presenters - one black, one white, very bright clothes, over-the-top voices.
When they saw the look on my face, they told me don't worry, they were not selling anything.
Then they proceeded to go on and on about the Big Issue and the work it does in my area.
Then they said they wanted direct debit donations, how much would I like to give?
I got angry. I pointed out the whole point of the Big Issue was to stop people begging, yet here you are knocking on my door, asking for money!
They pulled a face like it was my loss and left.
Parasites. I should have set my cat on them.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: Not much different to charity directors then. . Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary. . These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting.[/p][/quote]I was going to say the very same thing myself. I was cold called recently by Oxfam and talked into donating monthly by direct debit. After the caller took my bank details she told me that she had to read a legal statement. I was astounded by what this statement said. Basically the caller was not from Oxfam, but a different company who collects payments on behalf of charities and that £9million was paid to them. So basically out of my £16 monthly donation, only about 30p would find its way to the people who actually need help. Total scam. Needless to say I cancelled the direct debit.[/p][/quote]Last year I had a knock on the door by a couple who to me looked like children's TV presenters - one black, one white, very bright clothes, over-the-top voices. When they saw the look on my face, they told me don't worry, they were not selling anything. Then they proceeded to go on and on about the Big Issue and the work it does in my area. Then they said they wanted direct debit donations, how much would I like to give? I got angry. I pointed out the whole point of the Big Issue was to stop people begging, yet here you are knocking on my door, asking for money! They pulled a face like it was my loss and left. Parasites. I should have set my cat on them. rudolph_hucker
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Tue 17 Jul 12

HRH of Boscombe says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Not much different to charity directors then.
.
Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary.
.
These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting.
I was going to say the very same thing myself. I was cold called recently by Oxfam and talked into donating monthly by direct debit. After the caller took my bank details she told me that she had to read a legal statement. I was astounded by what this statement said. Basically the caller was not from Oxfam, but a different company who collects payments on behalf of charities and that £9million was paid to them. So basically out of my £16 monthly donation, only about 30p would find its way to the people who actually need help. Total scam. Needless to say I cancelled the direct debit.
It's a shame because I do like to help when I can but refuse to be fleeced by these businesses that prey on genuinely good peoples conscience.
.
A lady in my office recently returned from the backup trust ski trip for people with spinal injuries. She decided to raise the money for a new wheelchair for a guy she looked after on the trip. I gladly donated as I knew every penny would go to help this bloke who was struggling. I've even seen the pic of him in his new chair. Direct charity is far more beneficial. There's always people around you that you can help directly.
.
Paul Nurse may have a Nobel prize but I don't think taking £140k/yr are the actions of a noble man.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: Not much different to charity directors then. . Only the director Paul Nurse takes £140k of donations but calls it a salary. . These big 'charities' and just businesses based on pulling heartstrings. That's what I find disgusting.[/p][/quote]I was going to say the very same thing myself. I was cold called recently by Oxfam and talked into donating monthly by direct debit. After the caller took my bank details she told me that she had to read a legal statement. I was astounded by what this statement said. Basically the caller was not from Oxfam, but a different company who collects payments on behalf of charities and that £9million was paid to them. So basically out of my £16 monthly donation, only about 30p would find its way to the people who actually need help. Total scam. Needless to say I cancelled the direct debit.[/p][/quote]It's a shame because I do like to help when I can but refuse to be fleeced by these businesses that prey on genuinely good peoples conscience. . A lady in my office recently returned from the backup trust ski trip for people with spinal injuries. She decided to raise the money for a new wheelchair for a guy she looked after on the trip. I gladly donated as I knew every penny would go to help this bloke who was struggling. I've even seen the pic of him in his new chair. Direct charity is far more beneficial. There's always people around you that you can help directly. . Paul Nurse may have a Nobel prize but I don't think taking £140k/yr are the actions of a noble man. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Arjay says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Arjay what's bankers got to do with anything?
.
Just because he has a nobel prize and a title doesn't excuse him from nicking £140k from cancer victims every year.
.
Ask them if they consider it small change.
.
As a director he's hardly pioneering genetics anymore.
.
I believe his work was on how cells replicated themselves. Doesn't really blow me away when you consider cancer is mutating cells and grow due to replicating mutant cells. He didn't exactly solve the problem did he?
I'm so glad that's been explained to me.

Thank goodness we have folk like you to guide us in the right direction.........

.
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: Arjay what's bankers got to do with anything? . Just because he has a nobel prize and a title doesn't excuse him from nicking £140k from cancer victims every year. . Ask them if they consider it small change. . As a director he's hardly pioneering genetics anymore. . I believe his work was on how cells replicated themselves. Doesn't really blow me away when you consider cancer is mutating cells and grow due to replicating mutant cells. He didn't exactly solve the problem did he?[/p][/quote]I'm so glad that's been explained to me. Thank goodness we have folk like you to guide us in the right direction......... . Arjay
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Tue 17 Jul 12

BournemouthConspiracy says...

I hate scum that stoop down to the lowest of lows to defraud people.

Give him 50 years inside the less scum of his likes on the streets the more honest people they'll be around.
I hate scum that stoop down to the lowest of lows to defraud people. Give him 50 years inside the less scum of his likes on the streets the more honest people they'll be around. BournemouthConspiracy
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Tue 17 Jul 12

angynatnat says...

This is wrong in everyway SICK even!!!! All he gets is 24 weeks in prison. He should get life. I hope he gets treated like hell in prison. This man belongs in the gutter!!!!
This is wrong in everyway SICK even!!!! All he gets is 24 weeks in prison. He should get life. I hope he gets treated like hell in prison. This man belongs in the gutter!!!! angynatnat
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Huey says...

angynatnat wrote:
This is wrong in everyway SICK even!!!! All he gets is 24 weeks in prison. He should get life. I hope he gets treated like hell in prison. This man belongs in the gutter!!!!
steady on!
[quote][p][bold]angynatnat[/bold] wrote: This is wrong in everyway SICK even!!!! All he gets is 24 weeks in prison. He should get life. I hope he gets treated like hell in prison. This man belongs in the gutter!!!![/p][/quote]steady on! Huey
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Bewildered1 says...

"cases of theft affect all charities", Enough said. I never give money, only time and unwanted stuff. Too many organisations are taking the public for a ride. Look at their annual accounts on the Charity Commissioners website.
"cases of theft affect all charities", Enough said. I never give money, only time and unwanted stuff. Too many organisations are taking the public for a ride. Look at their annual accounts on the Charity Commissioners website. Bewildered1
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Tue 17 Jul 12

portia6 says...

Give him community service and
a fine.
Give him community service and a fine. portia6
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Tue 17 Jul 12

HRH of Boscombe says...

Arjay wrote:
HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Arjay what's bankers got to do with anything?
.
Just because he has a nobel prize and a title doesn't excuse him from nicking £140k from cancer victims every year.
.
Ask them if they consider it small change.
.
As a director he's hardly pioneering genetics anymore.
.
I believe his work was on how cells replicated themselves. Doesn't really blow me away when you consider cancer is mutating cells and grow due to replicating mutant cells. He didn't exactly solve the problem did he?
I'm so glad that's been explained to me.

Thank goodness we have folk like you to guide us in the right direction.........

.
No problem at all. My pleasure.
[quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: Arjay what's bankers got to do with anything? . Just because he has a nobel prize and a title doesn't excuse him from nicking £140k from cancer victims every year. . Ask them if they consider it small change. . As a director he's hardly pioneering genetics anymore. . I believe his work was on how cells replicated themselves. Doesn't really blow me away when you consider cancer is mutating cells and grow due to replicating mutant cells. He didn't exactly solve the problem did he?[/p][/quote]I'm so glad that's been explained to me. Thank goodness we have folk like you to guide us in the right direction......... .[/p][/quote]No problem at all. My pleasure. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

9:33pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Arjay says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Arjay wrote:
HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Arjay what's bankers got to do with anything?
.
Just because he has a nobel prize and a title doesn't excuse him from nicking £140k from cancer victims every year.
.
Ask them if they consider it small change.
.
As a director he's hardly pioneering genetics anymore.
.
I believe his work was on how cells replicated themselves. Doesn't really blow me away when you consider cancer is mutating cells and grow due to replicating mutant cells. He didn't exactly solve the problem did he?
I'm so glad that's been explained to me.

Thank goodness we have folk like you to guide us in the right direction.........

.
No problem at all. My pleasure.
One teensy-weensy note I might add?...

Sir Paul Nurse (who, incidentally, is also President of the Royal Society) received his Nobel Prize for the discovery of the protein molecules that control the division of cells.

Sorry that doesn't 'blow you away'.

Probably doesn't go into that much detail, in your 'Bumper Colouring Book of Nobel Winners'

Still, as that achievement doesn't simply
'solve the problem,' it's probably not really a very important step forward, is it?

Sort of thing any £10K a year 'A' level intern could have sorted out, hey?

Who needs Nobel quality scientists anyway?... they obviously cost too much!....
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: Arjay what's bankers got to do with anything? . Just because he has a nobel prize and a title doesn't excuse him from nicking £140k from cancer victims every year. . Ask them if they consider it small change. . As a director he's hardly pioneering genetics anymore. . I believe his work was on how cells replicated themselves. Doesn't really blow me away when you consider cancer is mutating cells and grow due to replicating mutant cells. He didn't exactly solve the problem did he?[/p][/quote]I'm so glad that's been explained to me. Thank goodness we have folk like you to guide us in the right direction......... .[/p][/quote]No problem at all. My pleasure.[/p][/quote]One teensy-weensy note I might add?... Sir Paul Nurse (who, incidentally, is also President of the Royal Society) received his Nobel Prize for the discovery of the protein molecules that control the division of cells. Sorry that doesn't 'blow you away'. Probably doesn't go into that much detail, in your 'Bumper Colouring Book of Nobel Winners' Still, as that achievement doesn't simply 'solve the problem,' it's probably not really a very important step forward, is it? Sort of thing any £10K a year 'A' level intern could have sorted out, hey? Who needs Nobel quality scientists anyway?... they obviously cost too much!.... Arjay
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Tue 17 Jul 12

gameon says...

If Police Sergeant MARK SCAMMELL really beleives that A sentence of 6 months out in 4 will be a deterrant to the rest of the low life no principles thieving brigade then hes living in cuckoo land for gods sake get real with these scum preying on decent honest peoples beliefs he should have got minimum 5 years with no parole Sergeant Scammell hel be out in 16 weeks do you really think he wont do this or committ crime again ????? get real mate.
If Police Sergeant MARK SCAMMELL really beleives that A sentence of 6 months out in 4 will be a deterrant to the rest of the low life no principles thieving brigade then hes living in cuckoo land for gods sake get real with these scum preying on decent honest peoples beliefs he should have got minimum 5 years with no parole Sergeant Scammell hel be out in 16 weeks do you really think he wont do this or committ crime again ????? get real mate. gameon
  • Score: 0

10:28am Wed 18 Jul 12

HRH of Boscombe says...

Arjay if he's such a brilliant scientist why is he claiming £140k a year from cancer patients in a pen pushing role?
Arjay if he's such a brilliant scientist why is he claiming £140k a year from cancer patients in a pen pushing role? HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Norwegian Justice says...

He needed money for drugs. He`s got human rights to tou know. Should have given him an ASBO!
He needed money for drugs. He`s got human rights to tou know. Should have given him an ASBO! Norwegian Justice
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Arjay says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Arjay if he's such a brilliant scientist why is he claiming £140k a year from cancer patients in a pen pushing role?
I'm not sure if you're just a troll, trying to wind me up, or if you are a genuine idiot?

Have you any idea just how much benefit cancer patients have derived from advances in science made so far?

Clearly there's more to do -- and we need top quality researchers to carry on the vital work.
Describing Sir Paul Nurse as a 'pen pusher, who is taking money from cancer patients?.......

OK , I surrender -- you just have to be a troll.

Even an idiot couldn't be that stupid!...
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: Arjay if he's such a brilliant scientist why is he claiming £140k a year from cancer patients in a pen pushing role?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure if you're just a troll, trying to wind me up, or if you are a genuine idiot? Have you any idea just how much benefit cancer patients have derived from advances in science made so far? Clearly there's more to do -- and we need top quality researchers to carry on the vital work. Describing Sir Paul Nurse as a 'pen pusher, who is taking money from cancer patients?....... OK , I surrender -- you just have to be a troll. Even an idiot couldn't be that stupid!... Arjay
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Wed 18 Jul 12

HRH of Boscombe says...

Arjay I know you're on here most days like myself and have probably seen me comment on other stories. To call me a troll I can only see as a sign of weakness that you have nothing further to add.
.
I don't care one way or the other if you agree with me but I WILL make my points! Properly without spineless sidesteps about bankers and trolls.
.
Please do tell though. What part of Chemotherapy was he involved in and AGAIN why is such a special scientist taking cancer patients money for a pen pushing job???? Answers instead of insults would be appreciated :)
Arjay I know you're on here most days like myself and have probably seen me comment on other stories. To call me a troll I can only see as a sign of weakness that you have nothing further to add. . I don't care one way or the other if you agree with me but I WILL make my points! Properly without spineless sidesteps about bankers and trolls. . Please do tell though. What part of Chemotherapy was he involved in and AGAIN why is such a special scientist taking cancer patients money for a pen pushing job???? Answers instead of insults would be appreciated :) HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Arjay says...

As a geneticist, I doubt that much of Sir Paul's work was specifically related to chemotherapy? So I fail to see the relevance of that comment in this context.

If you really believe that one of our leading scientists, knighted for his work, who is the current President of the Royal Society, as well as a Nobel laureate, can be dismissed as a 'pen pusher' then you are indeed an idiot.

That is not intended as an insult by the way, but simply a statement of fact.
As a geneticist, I doubt that much of Sir Paul's work was specifically related to chemotherapy? So I fail to see the relevance of that comment in this context. If you really believe that one of our leading scientists, knighted for his work, who is the current President of the Royal Society, as well as a Nobel laureate, can be dismissed as a 'pen pusher' then you are indeed an idiot. That is not intended as an insult by the way, but simply a statement of fact. Arjay
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Wed 18 Jul 12

HRH of Boscombe says...

Arjay wrote:
As a geneticist, I doubt that much of Sir Paul's work was specifically related to chemotherapy? So I fail to see the relevance of that comment in this context.

If you really believe that one of our leading scientists, knighted for his work, who is the current President of the Royal Society, as well as a Nobel laureate, can be dismissed as a 'pen pusher' then you are indeed an idiot.

That is not intended as an insult by the way, but simply a statement of fact.
Yawn you really are getting boring. I asked you the same question twice now and you cowardly dodged it both times.
.
Bruce Forsyth is also a knight too lmaf. Please don't get me started on royals and titles.
.
Don't state things as facts when they're still your opinions. You sound like a teenage girl from the late 80s lol.
.
Once again pretty please! Why is such a great scientist claiming so much from a charity pen pushing? The term is loosely slung around like mud for directors in other businesses on this site. Is the genetics lab in the corner of his office?
[quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: As a geneticist, I doubt that much of Sir Paul's work was specifically related to chemotherapy? So I fail to see the relevance of that comment in this context. If you really believe that one of our leading scientists, knighted for his work, who is the current President of the Royal Society, as well as a Nobel laureate, can be dismissed as a 'pen pusher' then you are indeed an idiot. That is not intended as an insult by the way, but simply a statement of fact.[/p][/quote]Yawn you really are getting boring. I asked you the same question twice now and you cowardly dodged it both times. . Bruce Forsyth is also a knight too lmaf. Please don't get me started on royals and titles. . Don't state things as facts when they're still your opinions. You sound like a teenage girl from the late 80s lol. . Once again pretty please! Why is such a great scientist claiming so much from a charity pen pushing? The term is loosely slung around like mud for directors in other businesses on this site. Is the genetics lab in the corner of his office? HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Arjay says...

'Yawn'? --- hmmm, if that's your best response, then you're not the only one getting bored!

Sir Paul Nurse is now CEO and Director of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation.
The salary you quoted was his previous salary, when he headed up Cancer Research.

Not quite sure how much you feel someone in that position should be paid?

Before you come up with some laughable, fluffy, left wing 3rd world figure, remember the old saying 'you pay peanuts - you get monkeys'

The Francis Crick Institute will pay the going rate for the CEO of a major an predigious medical organisation (which happens to include Cancer Research UK).

They will have chosen their candidate with care. They will not have given it to some random 'pen pusher.'

In reality, despite what you may think, there are relatively few people capable of taking on such a daunting role.

Sir Paul Nurse is one such person....
which is probably why he was invited to take on the position.
'Yawn'? --- hmmm, if that's your best response, then you're not the only one getting bored! Sir Paul Nurse is now CEO and Director of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation. The salary you quoted was his previous salary, when he headed up Cancer Research. Not quite sure how much you feel someone in that position should be paid? Before you come up with some laughable, fluffy, left wing 3rd world figure, remember the old saying 'you pay peanuts - you get monkeys' The Francis Crick Institute will pay the going rate for the CEO of a major an predigious medical organisation (which happens to include Cancer Research UK). They will have chosen their candidate with care. They will not have given it to some random 'pen pusher.' In reality, despite what you may think, there are relatively few people capable of taking on such a daunting role. Sir Paul Nurse is one such person.... which is probably why he was invited to take on the position. Arjay
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree