New kid on the block - 'The Great War Group'

[Guest]

I wish all the organisations concerned good fortune. 

 

GWG- new kid on the block, media savvy, obviously well organised (and well funded) .....well,up to a point Lord Copper.

 

1) Still not listed under that name at Companies House- either as straightline company or one limited by guarantee.  No other company details located on it's website under another name or registration.

 

2)  Not listed with the Charities Commission-   despite publicly soliciting donations on it's webpage (Button "Donate") 

 

           One might reasonably expect that as there are 4  "Additional Trustees" listed on the Home Page, then it's corporate structure might be a little clearer.

 

(and, by the way, "Additional Trustees"- additional to whom?)

 

3)  Not listed as a data controller under that name with the Information Commissioner.  Yet solicits personal data(including financial) and has a Privacy Policy (including details of how to complain to the Information Commissioner)

 

           These are matters of statutory governance and transparency

 

And, for the sake of neutrality and disinterest:

 

From Companies House:

 

THE GREAT WAR FORUM LIMITED

06569901 - Incorporated on 18 April 2008

1 Regents Place, Eastbourne, England, BN21 2XY

 

From the Register of Charities

 

[and separate  register entries for 11 branches]

 

From the Information Commissioner, data controller register

 

Registration number:

 

Z8973081

Date registered:

 

09 March 2005

Registration expires:

 

08 March 2021

Payment tier:

 

Tier 1

Data controller:

 

The Western Front Association

Address:

BM Box 1914
London
WC1N 3XX

 

 

 

Edited 7 October , 2020 by Guest

[keithmroberts]

10 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

I was referring obliquely, subtly, to the locking of a GWF thread which dared to discuss the WFA. Apparently not allowed here.

I take that point, and am inclined to sympathise with it. I was unhappy to see that thread closed, given that some at least of the GWF trustees are members of the GWF and are free to comment.  I am inclined to the view that they have probably made a collective decision not to respond to debate here, which is a shame given that it is now many years since their own forum closed.

Comments can sometimes go beyond what is reasonable or proper, but I would like to hope that while discussions of this sort would be better placed in "Other Great War Chat", they will be allowed to continue. Members of other G-W organisations, have contributed in this topic, and in the past we have had constructive replies to criticism from a director of one of the commercial companies offering services. A failure to comment from the WFA is certainly not because they have been prevented from doing so.

I stood down after my stint, and try to avoid any criticism of my successors, but regret that the thread that you refer to David was closed, and  hope that this one, will be allowed to run its course.  There are remedies for intemperate or offensive posts that can be applied to protect sensible debate, just as there can be occasions where legal concerns must take priority in the management of any forum.

[Gareth Davies]

I wish all the organisations concerned good fortune. 

GWG- new kid on the block, media savvy, obviously well organised (and well funded) .....well,up to a point Lord Copper.

1) Still not listed under that name at Companies House- either as straightline company or one limited by guarantee.  No other company details located on it's website under another name or registration.

2)  Not listed with the Charities Commission-   despite publicly soliciting donations on it's webpage (Button "Donate") 

One might reasonably expect that as there are 4  "Additional Trustees" listed on the Home Page, then it's corporate structure might be a little clearer.

(and, by the way, "Additional Trustees"- additional to whom?)

3)  Not listed as a data controller under that name with the Information Commissioner.  Yet solicits personal data(including financial) and has a Privacy Policy (including details of how to complain to the Information Commissioner)

These are matters of statutory governance and transparency

Have you written to the GWG to let them know your concerns rather than just throw stones on here? 

 

[Guest]

 There is no stone throwing.  The matter was raised here by me a little while back, so is clearly known  to GWG judging by one response.  There has to be corporate paperwork of some sort in place- eg bank account, if GWG takes money by card- and the set-up requirements for bank and CC users are formal and well-known. Looks a good product but, frankly, I cannot understand the reticence on normal matters of transparency and identification.

[Gareth Davies]

I don't see any reticence. Has anyone actually asked the GWG but has failed to get an answer?  If that was the case then maybe they would have a claim on your transparency and governance concerns but a lack of response from the Trustees on here proves absolutely nothing. 

 

I see stone throwing and unsubstantiated assertions (accusations?).

[Chris_Baker]

Give them a break. They've only just got the thing off the ground. If their form of organisation requires registration at Companies House, I am sure it will come. I can't see that they have made any claim to be a registered charity: they say that are a non-profit organisation with charitable aims. Frankly, given my own WFA experience of that, I'd steer well clear of registration as it brings a burden of overheads. And when I registered my own company as data controller with ICO a few years back it took weeks for it to be processed. As Gareth says, if you are so concerned, just ask them.

[Guest]

 Chris- what does the publicity about "Trustees" say?  

 

For the record, I e-mailed GWG at 9.13 a.m. this morning and copied in my previous post from this thread. Look forward to the response.

[Chris_Baker]

I have no idea what it says. Sorry. I am sure the email esponse will be illuminating.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

I see stone throwing and unsubstantiated assertions (accusations?)

 

    None intended or implied.  Information put up in a neutral manner  from current online data with the appropriate regulators 

[ianjonesncl]

 

I write this as a 'Founder Member' having signed up. (Though at the moment the web site is refusing to recognise my password)

 

I figured the cost is about a pint of beer a month, and given the fact I have only seen the inside of my local once, and have had one run ashore,  in the last six months,  this years subscription is in the bank.

 

 I do enjoy listening to Alexandra Churchill on various history programmes, which was the reason I explored the offer further. I have worked with young people on a Great War project, so the fact that the CWG is reaching out to that generation, and young historians are running the group, I feel will help provide continuity of interest in the Great War into the future. 

 

The quality of the offering of the magazine, conference, virtual battlefield tours and newsletters is something that will manifest over the next year. The number of new and renewing members will give an indication as to their success. 

 

I will offer to contribute (Once password problem gets sorted !)

 

I do hope the GWG guys do have all of the governance side sorted out and they are ticking the relevant regulatory boxes. It would be shame if things started to go awry. Whilst respecting Chris' point about giving them a break, unfortunately my experience of being involved in the running various organisations, is regulatory authorities can be less forgiving. 

 

Ian

 

 

 

[Bethany Moore]

On 07/10/2020 at 14:25, ianjonesncl said:

 

I write this as a 'Founder Member' having signed up. (Though at the moment the web site is refusing to recognise my password)

 

I figured the cost is about a pint of beer a month, and given the fact I have only seen the inside of my local once, and have had one run ashore,  in the last six months,  this years subscription is in the bank.

 

 I do enjoy listening to Alexandra Churchill on various history programmes, which was the reason I explored the offer further. I have worked with young people on a Great War project, so the fact that the CWG is reaching out to that generation, and young historians are running the group, I feel will help provide continuity of interest in the Great War into the future. 

 

The quality of the offering of the magazine, conference, virtual battlefield tours and newsletters is something that will manifest over the next year. The number of new and renewing members will give an indication as to their success. 

 

I will offer to contribute (Once password problem gets sorted !)

 

I do hope the GWG guys do have all of the governance side sorted out and they are ticking the relevant regulatory boxes. It would be shame if things started to go awry. Whilst respecting Chris' point about giving them a break, unfortunately my experience of being involved in the running various organisations, is regulatory authorities can be less forgiving. 

 

Ian

 

 

 

Hello Ian,

 

I'm sorry to hear about you having problems with logging in. If you pop me an email on greatwargroupinfo@gmail.com - I'll get that sorted for you

 

Bethany

 

I wish all the organisations concerned good fortune. 

GWG- new kid on the block, media savvy, obviously well organised (and well funded) .....well,up to a point Lord Copper.

1) Still not listed under that name at Companies House- either as straightline company or one limited by guarantee.  No other company details located on it's website under another name or registration.

2)  Not listed with the Charities Commission-   despite publicly soliciting donations on it's webpage (Button "Donate") 

One might reasonably expect that as there are 4  "Additional Trustees" listed on the Home Page, then it's corporate structure might be a little clearer.

(and, by the way, "Additional Trustees"- additional to whom?)

3)  Not listed as a data controller under that name with the Information Commissioner.  Yet solicits personal data(including financial) and has a Privacy Policy (including details of how to complain to the Information Commissioner)

These are matters of statutory governance and transparency

And, for the sake of neutrality and disinterest:

From Companies House:

 

THE GREAT WAR FORUM LIMITED

06569901 - Incorporated on 18 April 2008

1 Regents Place, Eastbourne, England, BN21 2XY

 

From the Register of Charities

 

[and separate  register entries for 11 branches]

 

From the Information Commissioner, data controller register

 

Registration number:

 

Z8973081

Date registered:

 

09 March 2005

Registration expires:

 

08 March 2021

Payment tier:

 

Tier 1

Data controller:

 

The Western Front Association

Address:

BM Box 1914
London
WC1N 3XX

Hello,

 

We have seen and read your email and will reply to you with all the relevant information as soon as we can

 

Regards

 

Bethany 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Bethany Moore said:

We have seen and read your email and will reply to you with all the relevant information as soon as we can

 

Regards

 

Bethany 

 

    Thank you Bethany.   May I expect that the response may be posted here? Or may I have permission to put the response on to GWF if made by direct e-mail to me?

 

Hope all is going well-  But you really,really, really don't want the powers-that-be playing awkward. That really can be very,very tiresome. An ounce of prevention.............

 

Now, go and enjoy a dismal weather evening in Rowley Regis with as much aplomb as you can-That's an order

 

 

[Muerrisch]

Whatever else the GWF is, it is NOT a message board for the GWG

47 minutes ago, Bethany Moore said:

Hello Ian,

 

I'm sorry to hear about you having problems with logging in. If you pop me an email on greatwargroupinfo@gmail.com - I'll get that sorted for you

 

Bethany

 

Hello,

 

We have seen and read your email and will reply to you with all the relevant information as soon as we can

 

Regards

 

Bethany 

 

Whatever else the GWF might be or should be, I do not see it as a message board for the GWG.

[Bethany Moore]

Thank you Bethany.   May I expect that the response may be posted here? Or may I have permission to put the response on to GWF if made by direct e-mail to me?

Hope all is going well-  But you really,really, really don't want the powers-that-be playing awkward. That really can be very,very tiresome. An ounce of prevention.............

Now, go and enjoy a dismal weather evening in Rowley Regis with as much aplomb as you can-That's an order

Yes we will be posting the response here so that everyone can see the answers to the points. 

On 07/10/2020 at 18:54, Muerrisch said:

Whatever else the GWF is, it is NOT a message board for the GWG

 

Whatever else the GWF might be or should be, I do not see it as a message board for the GWG.

I completely agree. Just trying to be helpful and why I've advised to contact me through email.

[Guest]

Thanks..... enjoy the delights of Rowley Regis ce soir

[Bethany Moore]

Thank you and yourself

[Guest]

From your site;

 

I'm a proud History nerd

 

You and me both!!   Go for it!!

[kenf48]

15 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

Whatever else the GWF is, it is NOT a message board for the GWG

 

Whatever else the GWF might be or should be, I do not see it as a message board for the GWG.

 

Quite, thank you

[Chesterboy]

Also as a Founder Member, if you can be classed as one or how do you class someone who pays a subscription as a founder member.  
 

 It would be nice know how many founder members there are. 
 

 I have found it strange, that as a founding member that I have no say in the Trustees or how the The Great War Group is set up i.e. charity, a SME 

 

Will

[Muerrisch]

23 minutes ago, Chesterboy said:

Also as a Founder Member, if you can be classed as one or how do you class someone who pays a subscription as a founder member.  
 

 It would be nice know how many founder members there are. 
 

 I have found it strange, that as a founding member that I have no say in the Trustees or how the The Great War Group is set up i.e. charity, a SME 

 

Will

 

Ask the GWG, not the GWF.

[Gareth Davies]

Hear hear.

[Chesterboy]

6 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

 

Ask the GWG, not the GWF.

It’s a general observation 

[Muerrisch]

 

25 minutes ago, Chesterboy said:

It’s a general observation 

 

Clearly not:

 

how do

 how many

 

are not observations, they are questions.

[Guest]

Shall we call  them "rhetorical questions" and abandon ship on this one, with the result probably an agreed  no-score draw? 

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

On 06/10/2020 at 14:41, Hedley Malloch said:

 

What's your point here, Tom?

 

The WFA has many faults, but it is under some semblance of democratic control, unlike the GWF and the newcomer. To its credit it spends large amounts of money on trying to get the message out through mags, e-letters, funding research, webinars, and many of its branches have been quick to adopt Zoom and Teams as a way of keeping in touch. It is fortunate that it has the services of people like David Tattersfield, Ralph Lomas, Jonathan Vernon, and the late and much lamented Jon Cooksey. It is true that it has gone through a lot of cash doing all this, but at least you can see where it has gone. It is not like, for example, the Gallipoli Association which is sitting on a cash mountain with no idea apparent of what to do with it.

 

Hello Hedley - as you are now aware my comment had nothing to do with the WFA. Clarity of communication was foiled for other reasons.

Tom