I had in the past read reports that some people felt too much money was being spent on impressive buildings, sports equipment, etc., and not enough money on helping individual soldiers with practical, financial and mental health issues.
Many of these very high profile charities seem to be increasingly adopting the sort of questionable ethics and methods of big business. Because they are held in very high esteem by the general public and are "well connected", it is likely that employees are reluctant to raise issues that might not be believed and therefore damage their own reputations. What a shame if it is found that this organisation, which has received so much money from caring members of the public, has not fulfilled its duty to former soldiers and has bullied employees who have tried to raise concerns.
Yes Eloethan, and I think that was the view of Tim Collins, which reinforces the view that people I know have held for some time. HFH does buy impressive buildings, sets them up and then sometimes hands them over to another charity eg RBL, to run, but not many people are made aware of that.
Other charities such as RBL, SSAFA and the mental health charity for ex-servicemen and women (name escapes me) have a broader reach, helping not just soldiers from recent conflicts, but all servicemen and women, ex- service personnel and their families too.
I am sure all have a place, so it would be a pity if what started out as a very laudable concept which caught the public's imagination should be mired in controversy.
It's the bullying allegations that are worrying. Employees should be able to state their concerns, but if these allegations are true £200,000 I think it was that was paid to ex-employees as kind of 'hush' money and they had to sign a clause and everything to say they would not discuss it. If this is true, it is hardly the actions of a caring organisation.
I will wait to hear what the outcome is, but I know this is not the first time I have heard things about this charity.