Giving money away or donating it would contravene that, unless the Winnie Pooh In a world where you can be anything be kind shirt but in fact I love this trust was set up to allow this in the first place., I read the article. I understand. I just don’t understand why they can’t “change their charter” to give the money to some other charities.Well I even gave to 3 different places helping the Koalas and other animals where did that go? Is there anything to stop the fire service re-donating part of the cash onwards. Surely once they have it, it’s theirs to with as they see fit?Rather than question the RFS check what Red Cross are doing/not doing with the millions donated to them.Maybe they should open a firefighter division and hire people who take care of animals that are saved by the firefighters? Like a medic group? They could rewrite their charter and do that.Monica Prieto The NSW Rural Fire Service is a government agency specifically organized to fight fires. It is staffed mostly by volunteers. They aren’t for animal rescue or medical services. Just fire fighting and prevention. Things like this and stupid legal rulings like this, that turn people away from donating to charities.
Winnie Pooh In a world where you can be anything be kind shirt, hoodie, tank top, sweater and long sleeve t-shirt
The stated purpose of the Winnie Pooh In a world where you can be anything be kind shirt but in fact I love this Charity was supporting the NSW Rural Fire Service (a largely volunteer organization) and that is what the judge has ruled that the funds shall be spent on. ruling was quite correct – think the original did not expect millions, so said fire service only. ok, so stupid not the correct phrase to use, but the court could have allowed the money to have been shared. agreed, was correct to the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the donations,Brian Tomo Tomkinson Nope! There was a deed of trust. It was quite specific. If you had donated to a charity for disaster relief in East Timor would you be happy to see it spent on a vaccination program in Syria? the court couldn’t have done that at all. The court went by the rules of the trust.If the literal interpretation of a law leads to such an absurdity as this, then it seems to me the courts have failed the donors. Whatever happened to the spirit of the law or the glaring intent of the donors. Nonsense!The clearly stated purpose of the Charity is expressed in the deed of trust. The judge ruled that the deed of trust be adhered to.