When Trustees Go Quiet - Wednesbury

When Trustees Go Quiet

Let’s keep this simple.

I asked the trustees of Let’s Dance Again CIO a series of formal, written questions about governance.

They have not answered them.

Instead, there has been noise. Accusations. Deflection. Public commentary from people who are not trustees.

But no substantive written answers.

What This Is About

This is not about personalities.
It is not about shutting events down.
It is not about volunteers.
It is not about politics.

It is about governance.

Let’s Dance Again CIO is a registered charity.
Trustees carry legal duties.
Those duties are not optional.

When concerns are raised about:

• Data protection
• Safeguarding
• Financial transparency
• Exclusion of members
• Conflicts of interest

… trustees are required to respond.

Not emotionally.
Not theatrically.
Not through supporters or intermediaries.

In writing.

The Record So Far

For clarity, here is the sequence:

6 January 2026 – Formal written governance and safeguarding questions sent to the Chair.

8 January 2026 – Formal data protection clarification requested.

19 January 2026 – Follow-up noting no response.

22 January 2026 – Further written questions regarding conflicts of interest and public claims about regulators.

4 February 2026 – Formal notice reminding trustees of their responsibilities and requesting written clarification.

To date:

No substantive written response addressing the questions.

That silence is now part of the record.

What Happened Instead

Instead of trustee responses, what followed publicly included:

• Claims of bullying
• Claims of intimidation
• Assertions about “leaking”
• Invitations to meet privately
• Commentary from individuals who do not hold trustee responsibility

For clarity:

Governance matters should not be handled in cafés, Wetherspoons or restaurants.
They should not be handled on podcasts.
They should not be handled via social media commentary.

They should be handled by trustees.

In writing.

The full email record shows boundaries being set, requests for clarification being made, and confirmation of removal where inaccurate public material was involved.

That is not bullying.

That is documentation.

Responsibility Sits With Trustees

This has nothing to do with stopping events.

Nothing to do with destroying anything.

Nothing to do with personal grudges.

It has everything to do with whether:

• Personal and special-category data is lawfully processed
• Safeguarding procedures are robust and documented
• Exclusions are fair, minuted and appealable
• Financial controls are transparent
• Conflicts of interest are declared and managed
• Public statements about regulators are accurate

Trustees hold fiduciary responsibility.

Volunteers and supporters may speak loudly.

But trustees are accountable.

Annex: 15 Core Governance Questions Still Awaiting Answers

1. Who is the named Data Controller for the charity?
2. What lawful basis is relied upon for collecting health and next-of-kin data?
3. Has a Data Protection Impact Assessment been conducted?
4. Where are registration forms stored and who has access?
5. What retention policy applies to personal and special-category data?
6. What safeguarding policy is in force and when was it last reviewed?
7. Who is the named safeguarding lead?
8. What written complaints procedure exists?
9. What documented appeal process applies to excluded members?
10. How are conflicts of interest declared and minuted?
11. When was the last AGM held?
12. Were all trustees properly appointed and recorded?
13. What internal financial controls apply to events and bingo income?
14. On what basis were public statements made that regulators are “completely happy”?
15. Have trustees formally reviewed and minuted the concerns raised?

These are not hostile questions.

They are governance basics.

The Position Now

If governance is sound, answers are easy.

If answers are difficult, that is precisely why they are being asked.

Rather than third parties attempting to badmouth individuals, speculate about motives, or escalate matters publicly, their energy would be better directed toward encouraging the trustees to do what trustees are legally required to do:

Act in accordance with Charity Commission guidance.
Respond formally.
Provide documentation.
Answer the questions.

The door remains open.
The questions remain on the table.

#CharityGovernance #TrusteeDuties #AccountabilityMatters #TransparencyNow #SafeguardingFirst #GDPRCompliance #FollowTheQuestions #PublicTrust #CharityCommission #GovernanceNotDrama #AnswerTheQuestions #LetTheRecordShow

When “Networking” Looks a Lot Like Politics — And Other Inconvenient Facts

When “Networking” Looks a Lot Like Politics — And Other Inconvenient Facts

I wasn’t planning to revisit this.

Not because the questions went away — they haven’t.
Not because new information stopped arriving — it didn’t.

But because, in a well-run organisation, facts don’t need defending and scrutiny doesn’t trigger tantrums.

Unfortunately, we’ve now reached the point where documented activity, published figures, photographs, and the organisation’s own words are being dismissed as “lies”, while former members and whistle-blowers are smeared instead of answered. When that happens, the issue stops being disagreement and starts being accountability.

So this piece exists for one simple reason:
to put the record in order — calmly, factually, and in plain sight.

A Reminder: This Is Not Opinion

Everything below is drawn from one or more of the following:

• Let’s Dance Again (LDA) public posts
• Photographs and contemporaneous social media
• Published Charity Commission records
• Witness statements from former members and volunteers
• Publicly verifiable events and dates

No rumours.
No private speculation.
No anonymous “someone said”.

Just receipts.

The Event That Won’t Go Away

On 22 June 2023, a Labour Party fundraising dinner was held at West Bromwich Albion Football Club (The Hawthorns).

This was not a community awards night.
Not a civic reception.
Not a cross-sector “networking” event.

It was an explicitly partisan political fundraiser, organised by Labour First, with tickets priced at £100 per head (£1,000 per table), raising funds for Labour Party campaigning.

The keynote speaker was Lord Peter Mandelson — Blair-era cabinet minister, Labour peer, and nobody’s idea of a neutral presence.

Who Was There?

Photographic and written evidence confirms that all three trustees of Let’s Dance Again CIO at the time were present:

• Elaine Costigan – trustee, co-founder, former Sandwell councillor
• Deborah Price – trustee, co-founder
• Maxine Hipkiss – trustee at the time (later resigned)

They attended together, seated as guests of the Mayor of Sandwell, Cllr Bill Gavan, who was wearing his ceremonial chain at the event.

This isn’t disputed.
LDA themselves posted about it.

“Elaine, Max, Jo and myself all had a wonderful evening ❤️ Lord Peter Mandelson presented an inspiring speech… thank you to the Mayor of Sandwell, Councillor Bill Gavan, for the wonderful hospitality on his table…”

That’s not inference.
That’s a quote.

Who Else Was There?

Also present, clearly identifiable in photographs and posts:

• Lord Peter Mandelson – guest speaker
• John Spellar MP – Labour MP for Warley
• Richard Parker – then Labour candidate for West Midlands Mayor (elected 2024)
• Cllr Bill Gavan MBE – Labour councillor, Mayor of Sandwell (2023–24)
• Labour NEC-linked figures and Labour First organisers

In short:
Labour MPs.
Labour councillors.
Labour party officials.

And that’s it.

The Part Nobody Has Explained

Across all images, captions, tags, and contemporaneous commentary, there is:

• no reference to any other charity
• no mention of voluntary or community sector partners
• no evidence of mixed civic attendance
• no acknowledgements of “local organisations”

Let’s Dance Again appears to have been the only charity present.

That matters.

Because when charities attend political fundraisers in a broad civic capacity, that participation is usually acknowledged. Here, it wasn’t.

This looks exceptional, not routine.

“We Were Just Networking”

That is the explanation offered.

But let’s be clear:
Networking at a party fundraiser is still party-political context.

Charity law doesn’t only care about what you intend.
It also cares about appearance, perception, and public trust.

When the entire trustee board of a charity attends a single-party fundraiser, hosted by the local Mayor, surrounded exclusively by party figures, it creates a reasonable perception of political alignment — whether that was the aim or not.

That perception becomes more acute when:

• the charity relies on council-controlled venues
• FOI requests are active about preferential access
• governance and financial questions remain unanswered
• scrutiny is met with silence, then hostility

Why This Matters Now

This isn’t an isolated anecdote pulled from the past for effect.

It sits alongside:

• unresolved questions about financial reporting
• large-scale cash-based activity not reflected in accounts
• lack of visible AGMs, minutes, or policies
• repeated failure to answer reasonable clarification requests
• public disparagement of former members and whistle-blowers

And now — accusations that facts are “lies”.

That is the point at which documentation becomes protection.

About the Smearing of Whistle-Blowers

Former members, witnesses, and volunteers have come forward in good faith.

Instead of engagement, they’ve seen:

• their credibility attacked
• their motives questioned
• their statements dismissed wholesale
• public posts framing scrutiny as vendetta

No factual inaccuracies have been identified.
No counter-evidence has been produced.
Just noise.

Calling documented facts “lies” does not make them so.
It simply avoids answering them.

The Bottom Line

No allegation of criminality is made here.
No motive is ascribed.

What is documented is this:

• LDA trustees attended a partisan Labour fundraiser in June 2023
• They were the only identifiable charity present
• They attended as a group, hosted by the Mayor of Sandwell
• This sits uncomfortably alongside ongoing governance and financial scrutiny
• Legitimate questions have gone unanswered
• Those raising them are now being publicly disparaged

Transparency doesn’t fear daylight.
Well-run charities don’t attack the messenger.

And silence, when clarification is requested, is still an answer.

A Final Note

If you are a former member, volunteer, or observer with relevant information — particularly exclusion letters, financial queries, safeguarding concerns, or governance documents — you can contact me in confidence.

Facts will be recorded carefully.
Sources will be protected.
And nothing will be published lightly.

#CharityGovernance #Transparency #PublicTrust #Sandwell #Wednesbury #FollowTheFacts #WhistleblowerProtection #CharityLaw #PoliticalNeutrality