When Facts Are Branded “Lies”: Why We Are Publishing This Briefing

When Facts Are Branded “Lies”: Why We Are Publishing This Briefing

We did not set out to publish this briefing publicly.

Our clear preference was to deal with these matters quietly, proportionately and through proper channels — trustees first, then regulators, alongside Freedom of Information requests and formal correspondence. That approach was taken in good faith.

However, that position has become impossible to maintain.

In recent days, former members and whistle-blowers have been publicly smeared, accused of “lying” and “making things up”, and subjected to trolling and personal attacks. This has happened despite the fact that:

• the issues raised are grounded in verifiable facts and figures
• many of the key numbers come directly from Let’s Dance Again CIO’s own public posts
• trustees were given reasonable opportunities to respond, clarify, or correct the record
• no substantive response or correction has been issued

Silence on governance questions, followed by public accusations against those raising them, is not accountability. It is intimidation by implication.

We are therefore publishing the following briefing to protect those individuals, to place the facts clearly on the public record, and to make it absolutely clear that what follows is not opinion, rumour or malice — but a black-and-white summary of figures, statements, timelines and inconsistencies, drawn from:

• Let’s Dance Again CIO’s own public statements
• published Charity Commission accounts
• contemporaneous witness statements
• observable activity records

No conclusions are asserted beyond what the evidence reasonably supports.
No speculation is added.
No language has been embellished.

What follows is the briefing in full, reproduced exactly as held on file.

Briefing Note

Let’s Dance Again CIO – Governance, Financial & Regulatory Concerns

Status: Updated comprehensive briefing (post–21 January blog)

1. Purpose of this Briefing

This briefing consolidates all matters raised since the last updated Master Foundation Document (MFD) and subsequent blog publication. It draws together factual evidence, figures, activity statements made publicly by Let’s Dance Again CIO (LDA), witness statements from former members, and identified gaps or inconsistencies within submitted financial accounts.

The briefing is evidence-led. No assertions are made beyond what can be substantiated by:

• LDA’s own public posts and statements
• Published accounts
• Witness statements
• Observed activity records

2. Summary of Key Concerns (High Level)

• Scale of activities publicly claimed appears materially inconsistent with reported income
• Extensive cash-based activities with no visible accounting breakdown
• Bingo activity raising questions under gambling legislation
• Repetition of near-identical income figures across reporting years
• Absence of constitution, policies, AGM records, or minutes
• Failure to respond to reasonable clarification requests
• Subsequent public disparagement of whistle-blowers and former members

3. Activity Scale – Publicly Stated by LDA

At a clearly defined point in time (LDA 4th Birthday post – 2 November 2025), LDA publicly stated:

3.1 Shows

• 48 monthly shows hosted
• 49th show advertised (Tom Jones tribute)
• First show: 18 November 2021
• Example ticket volume: 96 tickets sold for first show
• Ticket prices commonly referenced: £10–£15 (with food) / £10 bring-your-own

3.2 Coffee Mornings

• 178 coffee mornings held by that date
• Weekly frequency stated
• Entry charge referenced: £2.50 at the door (includes brunch & hot drink)

3.3 Bingo

• Regular bingo sessions advertised
• £100 bonus bingo prizes publicly promoted
• Multiple bingo desks identified
• Bingo described as a recurring feature alongside other cash activities

3.4 Additional Cash-Based Activities

Regularly advertised activities include:

• Raffles (£1 per ticket)
• Cake stalls
• Sweet stalls
• Bric-a-brac sales (50p / £1 pricing stated)
• Auctions
• Greeting card sales
• Ticket sales for:
  • Day trips (£20 cited)
  • Theatre / pantomime trips (£25–£30 cited)
• Deposits (£10 per person referenced)

4. Financial Reporting – Core Issue

4.1 Headline Concern

The figures reported in accounts do not credibly reflect the scale, frequency, or diversity of activities described above.

4.2 Year-on-Year Similarities

• Income figures across successive reporting years show remarkable similarity
• This is inconsistent with:
  • Expansion of shows
  • Increasing ticket prices
  • Growth in coffee mornings
  • Additional bingo and fundraising activity

4.3 Cash Handling

No breakdown is provided for:

• Cash collected per activity type
• Cash reconciliation processes
• Bingo takings vs payouts
• Raffle proceeds
• Stall income
• Ticket handling (cash vs other)

This absence materially limits confidence in the accounts.

5. Bingo & Gambling Compliance

5.1 Observed Practice

• Bingo advertised with fixed and bonus prizes
• Regular sessions promoted
• No evidence of:
  • Licence disclosures
  • Small society lottery registration
  • Prize limit compliance statements

5.2 Regulatory Risk

Without clarity on structure and limits, bingo activity may fall outside permitted exempt gaming and requires explicit explanation.

6. Governance Documentation – Missing

Despite repeated requests and extensive public activity, there remains no evidence provided of:

• A governing constitution
• Financial controls policy
• Cash handling policy
• Gambling or fundraising policy
• AGM notices or minutes
• Trustee meeting minutes
• Recorded decisions regarding sponsorship arrangements

This is particularly notable given:

• Scale of income claimed
• Sponsorship references
• Handling of vulnerable service users

7. Engagement & Right of Reply

• Trustees were given reasonable opportunity to respond
• Requests were factual and specific
• No substantive response or correction has been issued
• No counter-evidence has been produced

8. Treatment of Former Members, Witnesses & Whistle-Blowers

8.1 Post-Disclosure Conduct

Following the raising of concerns:

• Public posts have framed the issues as “lies”
• No factual inaccuracies have been identified
• Former members have been trolled and disparaged
• Witness credibility has been attacked without evidence

8.2 Regulatory Relevance

This conduct is significant because:

• Trustees have a duty to respond constructively to scrutiny
• Whistle-blowers should not be discouraged or smeared
• Silence on substance combined with reputational attacks is inconsistent with good governance

9. Comparator Analysis (Illustrative)

This briefing does not allege exact income figures. However, even conservative extrapolation using LDA’s own numbers indicates:

• At the point LDA stated it had held 178 coffee mornings, with regular attendance of 150+ people and a £2.50 entry fee, this alone equates to a conservative minimum of approximately £66,750 in entry income (178 × 150 × £2.50), excluding bingo, raffles, stalls, food sales, trips, and other cash-based activity.
• 48 shows × 80–100 attendees × £10–£15 = tens of thousands of pounds in gross ticket sales. £38,400 on lowest figure estimate (48 x 80 x £10) 
• Bingo, raffles, stalls, trips and deposits materially increase turnover

These comparator figures sit uncomfortably alongside modest headline income figures reported in accounts.

10. Why This Matters

This is not about criticism of community activity. It is about:

• Accountability
• Transparency
• Protection of beneficiaries
• Proper stewardship of funds

The combination of:

• Scale
• Cash handling
• Governance gaps
• Silence in response
• Attacks on whistle-blowers

… materially elevates regulatory concern.

11. Position Statement

• All facts cited originate from LDA’s own public material or direct witness evidence
• No allegations of dishonesty are made — only requests for explanation
• The burden of clarification lies with those responsible for governance and accounts

End of Briefing

#FactsNotSmears #FollowTheMoney #CharityGovernance #TransparencyMatters #Whistleblowers #PublicRecord #Accountability #NumbersDontAddUp

When the Numbers Don’t Add Up: Follow the Cash, Follow the Silence (An Update)

When the Numbers Don’t Add Up: Follow the Cash, Follow the Silence (An Update)

LET'S DANCE AGAIN 

Charity number: 1202816

21 January → now.
Since the last blog, silence has not clarified matters — it has amplified them.

In the days since publishing “When Silence Becomes the Answer”, a significant amount of new material, evidence, and public statements have landed. Some quietly. Some noisily. All of it points in the same direction:

👉 The figures now published bear no reasonable resemblance to the scale of activity being described, promoted, photographed, and witnessed.

This post brings everything together.

Not conjecture.
Not rumour.
Documented figures, published accounts, public statements, and unanswered questions.

The Published Figures (Now on the Charity Commission Record)

Let’s start with the numbers — because they are no longer missing.

Charity Commission financial returns show:

Financial year ending 31 March 2024

• Total gross income: £14,300
• Total expenditure: £11,710
• Income from government grants: £12,390

Financial year ending 31 March 2025

• Total gross income: £19,150
• Total expenditure: £17,520
• Income from government grants: £0 / N/A

So in plain English:

• Income rises by £4,850
• Expenditure rises by £5,810
• Government grant income disappears entirely
• Net surplus remains modest

On paper, it looks… tidy.

In reality?
It raises more questions than it answers.

The Activity vs Income Disconnect

Across the same period, the organisation publicly promotes and hosts:

• Weekly coffee mornings
• Monthly large-scale social events
• Ticketed shows and “spectaculars”
• Bingo sessions
• Raffles and prize draws
• Auctions
• Bric-a-brac and ad-hoc cash sales
• Bar sales
• Catering and food provision
• Regular cash collections at the door

This is not occasional activity.
This is continuous, cash-heavy operation.

Yet the entire organisation — all of that activity — allegedly turns over just £19,150 in a year.

That is:

• ~£368 per week
• before costs
• across multiple events, venues, and income streams

At this scale, one of two things must be true:

1. The organisation is operating at a level far smaller than publicly presented, or
2. Not all income is being captured, recorded, or reported

Those are not allegations.
They are logical possibilities created by the published figures themselves.

Bingo, Gambling, and Why This Matters

We have now received multiple consistent statements confirming that bingo sessions are run.

This matters because under the Gambling Act 2005, charity bingo is tightly regulated.

In short:

• Certain small-scale bingo can operate without a licence only if all proceeds (minus allowable expenses) are returned as prizes
• Fixed prize structures, retained surpluses, or pooled funds can trigger licensing and reporting requirements
• Cash handling must be transparent and auditable

Concerns raised include:

• Repeated identical prize amounts
• Monthly “bonus” payouts
• No evidence of licensing or exemption clarity
• No publicly available explanation of how bingo income and payouts are handled

The question is not “is this illegal?”

The question is: 👉 Where is the clarity, documentation, and transparency you would expect from a registered charity?

At present, there is none.

Cash Handling: The Black Hole Question

When an organisation relies so heavily on:

• Cash at the door
• Cash raffles
• Cash bingo
• Cash food and drink
• Cash auctions

…it must be able to show:

• Clear collection processes
• Separation of duties
• Reconciliation against event activity
• Transparent recording into accounts

Yet:

• No cash-handling policy has been published
• No internal controls have been evidenced
• No breakdown of income sources appears in the accounts
• No explanation has been offered despite repeated opportunities

The figures sit there, smiling politely, while the activity screams something else entirely.

Governance: Still Missing in Action

Despite claims of extensive policies, we have seen:

• No constitution
• No AGM records
• No minutes
• No membership decisions documented
• No appeals process evidenced
• No safeguarding decision records

This is not academic.

Recent mass exclusions, bans, and allegations were:

• Made without recorded meetings
• Made without minuted decisions
• Made without appeal mechanisms
• Made without transparency

Several witnesses state decisions were taken:

“By one or two individuals, without consultation, and based on hearsay.”

That is not governance.
That is risk.

Sponsorship, Relationships, and the USP Question

A further issue now documented concerns commercial sponsorship linked to a trustee’s family business (USP).

Again, no accusation is made — but:

• There is no recorded discussion
• No conflict-of-interest declaration published
• No minutes evidencing approval
• No explanation of value, benefit, or terms

In any properly governed charity, this would be:

• Declared
• Minuted
• Managed transparently

Here, it is simply… absent.

Patterns, Not Personalities

This matters enough to say clearly:

This is not about personalities.
This is about patterns.

Patterns of:

• Silence
• Control
• Missing records
• Financial figures that don’t align with observable activity
• Governance that exists only by assertion

When organisations are confident in their governance, they publish answers.

When they are not, they block, ban, and stay quiet.

The Question Remains

So we return to the simplest, fairest question of all:

👉 If everything is in order, where is the evidence?

Not reassurance.
Not Facebook posts.
Not “trust us”.

Evidence.

Until then, silence really does become the answer.

#CharityGovernance #FollowTheMoney #FinancialTransparency #CashHandling #BingoLaw #GamblingAct2005 #TrusteeDuties #Safeguarding #Accountability #SilenceIsAnAnswer #Sandwell

When “Community” Comes With a Loyalty Clause (and a Calculator) - A Follow-Up on Wednesbury Town Hall

Peace on Earth (Transparency Required)

It’s amazing what happens when you open a window.

Since publishing my earlier piece on the use of Wednesbury Town Hall and the way certain “community” activities are being run, the amount of information that has landed in my inbox has been nothing short of astonishing.
And no — this isn’t gossip, rumour, or Facebook froth. It’s documents, letters, screenshots, and first-hand accounts.

So let’s be clear from the outset:
this blog follows on from the original, builds on it, and reflects new information received in recent days.

And yes — before anyone else rushes to sharpen a calculator — one of the figures previously referenced related to two people, not one. Accuracy matters, so that’s corrected here. What hasn’t changed, however, are the far more serious questions about governance, exclusion, transparency, and oversight.

“Decisions Are Final” – Community, But With Terms & Conditions

Multiple people — many elderly, some long-standing attendees — have now shared copies of letters informing them that they are no longer welcome at events, coffee mornings, trips, or activities.

The wording is strikingly consistent:

• Attendance terminated.
• No meaningful explanation.
• No appeal process.
• Decisions described as “final”.

For groups that publicly describe themselves as tackling loneliness and isolation, this raises an obvious question:
since when did community support come with a one-strike policy and no right of reply?

Trips, Refunds, and Who Holds the Keys

Documents seen show that trips and outings are being organised under the banner of the organisation, with payments taken and refunds issued directly.

What has caused concern for many is not the trips themselves — people enjoy outings — but how decisions and finances appear to be controlled.

Letters instruct excluded members to provide bank details directly so that refunds can be arranged. That immediately raises legitimate governance questions:

• Who authorises refunds?
• Who independently checks them?
• Who has access to bank information?
• What safeguards exist around personal data?
• Where is segregation of duties?

These are not accusations.
They are basic governance questions any properly run organisation should be able to answer without defensiveness.

Accounts That Don’t Explain Themselves

Several people with experience in finance and governance have now contacted me independently, all asking variations of the same thing:

“How do the accounts explain the scale of activities people are being charged for?”

This blog will not speculate with figures. It doesn’t need to.
The issue is simpler — the published financial information does not clearly explain income and expenditure relating to trips, events, and refunds, nor how funds are controlled or overseen.

Transparency isn’t optional just because an organisation calls itself a charity or a community group.

Promotion, Preferential Access, and Public Space

Another recurring theme raised by multiple contributors concerns the use of a public building.

Wednesbury Town Hall is not a private club. Yet concerns have been raised about:

• Preferential access and hire arrangements.
• Other groups being edged out or discouraged.
• Promotion of certain activities by elected representatives.
• A lack of clarity over who approved what, and why.

Public spaces must be open, fair, and demonstrably neutral — not quietly monopolised.

When Raising Concerns Becomes the “Problem”

Perhaps the most troubling pattern is this:
people say they were excluded after raising safeguarding, conduct, or fairness concerns.

That should ring alarm bells for anyone involved in community work.

Silencing people who ask questions is not protection.
It is the opposite.

A Simple Principle

Let’s strip this right back.

If an organisation is:

• using a public building,
• handling money from members,
• organising trips,
• holding personal data,
• excluding people without appeal,

then it must expect scrutiny.

That isn’t hostility.
It’s accountability.

If This Has Happened to You

If you have:

• received a termination or exclusion letter,
• been removed without explanation,
• been discouraged from raising concerns,
• questioned finances or governance and been shut down,

you are not alone.

You may wish to:

• keep copies of correspondence,
• note dates and witnesses,
• seek independent advice,
• or raise concerns with appropriate oversight bodies.

This blog exists so people know they are not imagining things.

Final Thought

“Peace on Earth” is a lovely slogan.
But peace without fairness is just quiet.

And quiet, in public life, is where problems grow.

#Wednesbury #CommunityGovernance #TransparencyMatters #PublicSpace #CharityAccountability #Safeguarding #AskingQuestions #FollowThePaperwork #NotHostilityJustOversight

Follow the Money, Sandwell: The Consortium That Ate the Voluntary Sector

Follow the Money, Sandwell: The Consortium That Ate the Voluntary Sector.

You know that phrase “the voluntary and community sector”?

The one that conjures up images of plucky volunteers, borrowed kettles and heroic biscuit tins?

Well… let’s talk about what it actually looks like in Sandwell when you follow the money.

Spoiler alert: it’s not the church hall raffle.

Once upon a time, there was a Consortium…

At the centre of Sandwell’s community-funding universe sits Sandwell Consortium CIC — an organisation that markets itself as a helpful co-ordinator, facilitator, enabler and general good egg.

In practice, it now looks suspiciously like a parallel commissioning arm of the Council, only without elections, scrutiny committees, or awkward things like public accountability.

Over just two financial years:

• 2022/23: ~£759,000
• 2023/24: £901,893

That’s over £1.66 million of public money.

Not for filling potholes.
Not for cutting grass.
Not even for directly delivering most frontline services.

But for… support.
And coordination.
And advice.
And other wonderfully flexible words that can mean absolutely anything you want them to.

But wait — it gets better

Sandwell Consortium doesn’t sit alone at the top of the money tree.

Look a little wider and you find the same familiar names cropping up again and again:

• SCVO
• Citizens Advice
• Black Country Women’s Aid
• Brushstrokes
• Murray Hall
• Kaleidoscope
• Ideal for All
• St Albans
• And a growing cast of “infrastructure” bodies

Different logos.
Different mission statements.
Same small club.
Same revolving door of six-figure grants.

This isn’t diversity of provision — it’s concentration of funding, year after year.

Now let’s add politics to the mix (because of course we should)

Here’s where things become… interesting.

Sandwell Consortium’s history and operation are not politically neutral. Over time, it has been closely intertwined with people who:

• Sit (or have sat) in Cabinet
• Shape funding frameworks
• Influence partnership structures
• Oversee the very grant systems that benefit Consortium-linked organisations

Entirely declared. Entirely “within the rules”.

But if this were the private sector, people would be muttering words like “capture” and “cosy arrangements” into their coffee.

In Sandwell, it’s called partnership working.

The red flags aren’t exactly subtle

When you actually read the grant spreadsheets — line by line, payment by payment — Sandwell Consortium lights up like a Christmas tree:

• Very high total funding
• Multiple large payments
• Repeated payments in the same periods
• Near-identical descriptions reused again and again
• Money coming in from several different directorates
• Very little publicly visible performance reporting

In fact, when scored against standard transparency and risk indicators, it sits right at the top alongside other “too big to question” organisations.

At some point, a charity receiving this level of funding stops looking like voluntary sector support and starts looking like an outsourced council department with a nicer website.

And meanwhile, the rest of the sector is told to be grateful

Small groups are encouraged to “engage”.
New organisations are advised to “partner up”.
Communities are reminded to go through the “proper channels”.

Translation:
If you’re not already inside the ecosystem, good luck getting in.

Because when millions are locked into a tight network of “trusted partners”, there isn’t much left — except consultation exercises, pilot schemes, and photos for the annual report.

This isn’t about one organisation

Let’s be clear: this is not about whether Sandwell Consortium (or any other named organisation) does some good work. Many do.

This is about system design.

A system where:

• Intermediaries are paid millions to manage grants
• The same intermediaries sit at the centre of political influence
• Cabinet Members are embedded in recipient organisations
• Scrutiny is weak
• Outcomes are vague
• Accountability is blurred

All wrapped up in the warm, comforting language of community, co-production and partnership.

Lovely words.
Awful governance.

The question Sandwell should be asking

Not:
“Is the Consortium doing good things?”

But:

Why has so much public money, influence and decision-making power been concentrated in the hands of so few organisations, so close to the political centre of the Council?

Because when you follow the money, you don’t find chaos.
You find structure.
And when you follow the structure, you find power.

Next up: mapping the spider’s web — names, money, roles and relationships — all in one place.

Stay tuned. 🕷️

#FollowTheMoney #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #VoluntarySector #PublicMoney #Governance #Transparency #PoliticalInfluence #CommunityFunding #Consortium #Accountability #LocalPolitics #TaxpayersMoney #PowerAndMoney

Legal Notice & Disclaimer

This blog is based solely on publicly available information, including Companies House filings and Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council financial data.

All commentary represents opinion, analysis and satire, written in the public interest.

No allegations of wrongdoing are made against any individual or organisation.

Readers are encouraged to verify all financial information independently using original source documents.