Charity ‘Not Inclusive’ Enough For Funding

[Cloverjo]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/womens-abuse-charity-rise-loses-5m-contract-for-not-supporting-men-2tzfxm28r?shareToken=0ab286d5d379548a2614cb7897c6ebe7

Hope the link works.

I’m all for LGBTQ+ rights, but I’m also for a charity being able to focus on whatever and whoever it likes. Not having its funding withdrawn because it chooses to help a particular part of society. What do you think?

[dannyk13]

Agree with you.

[margarettom]

25 years of service to the community trashed. Not good,

[woofgang]

Its a council contract not a charitable donation. The contract is for domestic abuse provision and it seems like they had nothing in place for gay men and no residential provision for LGBT. The contract is not just to cover women. I can get having a greater percentage of service for the sector who need it most, but you can't expect to get a council CONTRACT for anything if you can't fulfil all the requirements....ok to say "we only have one ride on mower because most of the grass cutting we do is in small areas" but "we don't cut large areas of grass because we don't have the equipment but give us the contract and we will change" won't cut it against a similar bidder who already can cover the whole of the CONTRACT.

[jim360]

Says in the article that the charity was in effect happy to look at extending its support as requested. Strange decision*.

*Understatement, it seems monumentally stupid.

[ToraToraTora]

more "woke" cobras.

[ToraToraTora]

another reminder, if it were needed, of why Local authorities need to be abolished full stop.

[woofgang]

its a CONTRACT. You don't award contracts on the basis that the contractor will "look at" extending their services. I am more shocked at whever manages the charity for putting in such a half bottomed bid.

[woofgang]

Is anybody here suggesting that men don't suffer from familial abuse?

[dannyk13]

woofie //Is anybody here suggesting that men don't suffer from familial abuse?//
No, I think that we are all aware of wives abusing husbands.

[jim360]

I accept the point about contract etc, but it is presumably difficult for a charity to extend its scope if it loses a huge source of its funding. Therefore the decision is self-defeating.

[Zacs-Master]

Not if they award the contract to another company which has the wider 'client' base they want to include.

[jim360]

As a further point, there's a difference between placing a greater emphasis on caring for one group, and actively refusing to care for any others. On the surface, I thought that this charity fell into the former camp -- ie, they had no problem expanding their scope in principle, and would have needed time to implement the necessary changes, rather than that they were refusing to alter to conform.

[Zacs-Master]

'in principle' is no good if the awarding / renewing of the contract is imminent.

[jim360]

Well, perhaps.

As long as somebody is providing the necessary charitable services that's mostly what matters, but I still feel frustrated at the decision; or, perhaps, at the manner it's being presented.

[woofgang]

ok.....you are employed by a company to award contracts. Your T's and C's require you to do due diligence and as its a public office (council) there is also a legal requirement on you to be transparent in spending use and to handle public money properly.

Two people bid for a contract. One says yes they can fulfil the whole contract; the other says "no we can't fulfil the contract but if you award it to us, AFTER you have awarded it and can't back out we will LOOK AT fulfilling the whole of the contract.....but we are a charity so you should give it to us"

I mean who are you going to choose?

[woofgang]

"perhaps, at the manner it's being presented."

you got that right

whiney charity runs to meeja

[jim360]

The extra context is that one charity has a track record with the Council already, and (assuming that this wasn't also a problem) I'd say that would weight in favour of backing a charity with a great history of providing care and with promises to expand.

In the end I'll accept that it doesn't matter what charity receives the funding, as long as it ends up helping the people who need it.

[chelle7272]

Local authority funding for charities has been cut considerably. therefore they are more likely to award contracts to the charity planning to support a wider range of people withins it aims..
Bristol has lost many charities the last 2 years. It can be a catch 22 as most smaller charities don't have funds to support bid writing at the level which is required in these times.

[Zacs-Master]

As i've already said, promises aren't much good if a contract is about to be awarded / renewed. I think you've been taken in by the somewhat sensationalist nature of The Times headline and reposting style.

There is no 'perhaps'.

[woofgang]

jim, you cannot award a public monies contract based on promises....and the history they have with the council may not be a good one.