Happy New Year – May It Be Prosperous, Transparent, and Only Mildly Preposterous

Happy New Year – May It Be Prosperous, Transparent, and Only Mildly Preposterous

First things first:
Happy New Year to everyone. May 2026 bring good health, decent weather, fewer unexpected letters, and significantly less use of the phrase “this decision is final.”

Because if there’s one thing I didn’t have on my festive bingo card, it was community coffee mornings turning into a case study in governance-by-whisper, corridor discipline, and selective memory.

Yet here we are.

Why You’re Reading Another Update (And Why I Didn’t Rush It)

Some people publish first and fact-check later.
I don’t.

Since the last blog, a steady, unstoppable drizzle of new material has landed:

• letters,
• screenshots,
• handwritten statements,
• Facebook posts,
• private messages,
• voice notes,
• and the occasional “can you just log this but please don’t publish it yet” request.

So I did exactly that. Logged it. Cross-referenced it. Parked it.
And only now — when the picture is clearer, fuller, and frankly harder to ignore — am I updating.

What This Is Not

Let’s get this out of the way early.

This is not:

• an attack on volunteers,
• a campaign against social groups,
• or a personal vendetta dressed up as concern.

It is:

• about governance,
• consistency,
• transparency,
• and how people — often older, often vulnerable — are treated when questions arise.

You know.
The boring stuff.
The stuff that actually matters.

The Charity Commission: The New Invisible Roommate

One explanation has popped up repeatedly, publicly and privately, like a conversational magic wand:

“We were told by the Charity Commission…”

Interesting.
Because the Charity Commission doesn’t work like that.

For clarity (and sanity):

• The Charity Commission does not issue blanket bans
• It does not micromanage coffee mornings
• It does not instruct charities to exclude individuals en masse
• It does not require trustees to communicate exclusively via ominous letters

Trustees are expected to:

• exercise judgment,
• document decisions,
• apply policies consistently,
• and take responsibility for those decisions.

Invoking the Charity Commission without evidence doesn’t strengthen a position — it muddies it.
And it unnecessarily alarms people who assume some external authority has intervened.

It hadn’t.

Selling, Donations, and the Great Rewrite of History

Let’s address the recurring claim that keeps doing laps.

Evidence now shows — clearly — that:

• Items were offered via personal Facebook pages
• They were explicitly described as being for charity
• Friends agreed purchases in advance
• Any exchange at coffee mornings was incidental — passing items between people who already knew each other
• There is no evidence of active selling at events

In fact, trustees themselves had previously accepted items.

Which makes later claims of sudden impropriety… awkward.

Context matters.
Intent matters.
Reality matters.

Money: In, Out, and Apparently “Don’t Ask”

Another area that keeps cropping up, uninvited but persistent, is money.

Entrance fees.
Cash collections.
Raffles.
Donations.
Refunds requested directly from individuals.
Bank details being asked for.
Forms allegedly “locked away.”

None of this is automatically sinister — but all of it requires clarity.

When money is handled in community settings:

• transparency protects trustees,
• policies protect volunteers,
• and records protect everyone.

Questions about this aren’t accusations.
They’re basic governance hygiene.

And yes, people are entitled to ask.

Letters, Language, and the Art of Escalation

Across multiple letters now logged, a pattern emerges:

• vague references to complaints,
• anonymous thresholds,
• immediate escalation,
• language that jumps straight to “final decision”,
• and — my personal favourite — “not subject to appeal.”

All without clear evidence, clear process, or clear opportunity to respond.

That’s not how good governance works.
Especially not in organisations whose stated purpose is inclusion, wellbeing, and social connection.

Atmosphere vs Accountability

There’s a recurring phrase about “maintaining a harmonious environment.”

No argument there.
But harmony doesn’t mean:

• silence,
• unquestioning compliance,
• or people being quietly removed when they become inconvenient.

A genuinely healthy community can tolerate questions.
A fragile one cannot.

Where Things Stand Now

Here’s the calm bit.

• A fully updated evidence file exists
• Everything is dated, logged, cross-referenced
• Intimidating or abusive messages are quarantined and not used
• No personal abuse is being amplified
• No blog is published until it reflects the full picture

This is not about revenge.
It’s about accountability, learning, and not repeating the same mistakes under a new year banner.

Final Thought (Before the Next Coffee)

Community groups matter.
Trust matters more.

And if 2026 is going to be prosperous, for everyone, it might start with fewer corridor conversations, fewer unexplained decisions, and a little more daylight.

As ever: If you have documents, screenshots, or corrections, my inbox remains open.

Happy New Year.
Let’s aim for transparent, calm, and ideally… less preposterous. 🎉

#LetsDanceAgain #CharityGovernance #CommunityAccountability #TransparencyMatters #CharityCIO #VolunteerVoices #SafeguardingConcerns #GovernanceMatters #PublicInterest #CommunityGroups #WestMidlands #Wednesbury #Sandwell #AskingQuestions #AccountabilityNotAccusation