CAPTAIN Tom Moore impressed the nation along with his lockdown heroics elevating hundreds of thousands for the NHS – however his daughter’s actions have tarnished his legacy.
Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin pocketed £1.5million from a guide deal, giving none to his charity.
8
8
8
8
The Captain Tom Basis final night time requested for the money again “instantly and with out the necessity for additional motion”.
A Charity Fee report discovered the couple plundered the conflict veteran’s reminiscence for their very own revenue.
It’s understood a lot of the funds had been put into an unlawful luxurious spa of their backyard utilizing the Captain Tom Basis charity identify.
The block was demolished earlier this yr after the household misplaced an attraction in opposition to Central Bedfordshire Council’s order for it to be torn down.
COMMENT: Captain Tom Moore could be ashamed of his daughter’s obscene greed
THE SUN SAYS…
CAPTAIN Tom Moore led a lifetime of unblemished selflessness.
He could be ashamed of his daughter’s obscene greed.
The general public-spirited World Warfare Two veteran turned a nationwide hero throughout Covid by elevating nearly £40million for the NHS with a sponsored stroll aged 99.
It earned him a knighthood, the love of hundreds of thousands and even a chart-topping hit.
However it was maybe lucky Sir Tom by no means lived to see Hannah Ingram-Moore and husband Colin plunder his philanthropy as a get-rich-quick scheme.
The pair sickeningly pocketed huge sums, cashing in on his reminiscence and giving subsequent to nothing to the charity they arrange in his identify, as a Charity Fee probe confirms.
Hannah paid herself a lavish wage and constructed a spa.
What an appalling finish to probably the most uplifting story of that bleak Covid period.
If the Ingram-Moores have a shred of decency they may hand each final remaining Pound to the charity a duped public thought it was funding.
The report additionally reveals that Ingram-Moore, 54, blocked from paying herself a £150,000 wage as charity CEO, took £85,000 a yr and reimbursed her personal agency with £80,000 in prices from the muse.
The couple hoodwinked the general public by promising royalties to the charity from its merchandise web site.
As an alternative patrons had been redirected to exterior websites the place no fee to good causes was collected.
They usually gave the charity £8,900 from a Capt Tom gin from earnings considered properly over £100,000.
Publishers Penguin agreed to pay a £1.4million advance to the Ingram-Moores’ personal firm for Capt Tom’s memoir on the understanding a contribution could be made to his charity.
He raised practically £39million for NHS charities by strolling 100 lockdown laps of his backyard.
Within the prologue to Tomorrow Will Be a Good Day, Capt Tom, who died in 2021 aged 100, wrote: “I’ve additionally been given the prospect to boost much more cash for the charitable basis established in my identify.”
Simply £17,000 in royalties went to charity.
The report concluded: “The general public would understandably really feel misled given no donation has been made to the charity.”
Final yr, Mrs Ingram-Moore wept as she instructed Piers Morgan she and her hubby pocketed £800,000 from guide gross sales.
However the true scale of their plunder is much better.
The Ingram-Moores, who used Capt Tom’s identify to attempt to promote their £2.25million house in Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire, have been banned as charity trustees.
Penguin mentioned: “We’re extraordinarily dissatisfied.”
Liz Brownsell, of legislation agency Birketts, mentioned: “There may be nothing suggesting fraud.
“It’s extra an ethical than a authorized concern.”
How Captain Sir Tom Moore rose to fame & his daughter’s controversies
REPORT’S FINDINGS
The 30-page report printed on Thursday after a two-year inquiry discovered the Ingram-Moores carried out repeated cases of misconduct.
These embrace “disingenuous” statements from Mrs Ingram-Moore about not being provided a six-figure sum to develop into the charity’s chief government.
The fee mentioned it had seen proof she had set out expectations for a £150,000 remuneration package deal earlier than taking up the function.
The report additionally discovered there was a deceptive implication that donations from guide gross sales could be made to the muse.
It added the general public “would understandably really feel misled” to study that gross sales of his autobiography didn’t profit the charity.
An advance of practically £1.5million was paid for a three-book deal to Membership Nook, a agency for which the couple are administrators.
The fee additionally discovered there was no proof to help Mrs Ingram-Moore’s claims she attended an awards ceremony – for which she was paid £18,000 – in a private capability.
It mentioned simply £2,000 of that sum was donated to the charity.
The Ingram-Moores used the muse’s identify in an preliminary planning utility for the unlawful spa pool block – which they claimed had been made in error.
The Charity Fee opened the case in March 2021 earlier than it was escalated to a statutory inquiry in June 2022.
Learn extra on the Scottish Solar
The watchdog’s chief government David Holdsworth mentioned the report discovered “repeated failures of governance and integrity”, and that its inquiry had been honest, balanced and impartial.
He added mentioned the muse arrange in Sir Tom’s identify “has not lived as much as that legacy of others earlier than self, which is central to charity”.
Charity Fee report’s key findings
The 30-page report printed on Thursday got here after a two-year inquiry
It discovered the Ingram-Moores carried out repeated cases of misconduct.
These embrace:
“disingenuous” statements from Mrs Ingram-Moore about not being provided a six-figure sum to develop into the charity’s CEOa deceptive implication that donations from guide gross sales could be made to the foundationno proof to help Mrs Ingram-Moore’s claims she attended an awards ceremony in a private capability, for which she was paid £18,000The couple used the muse’s identify in an preliminary planning utility for an unlawful spa pool block at their house
8
8
8
8
