In the past, patrons of a charity were self appointed and accountable to nobody, but that was fine. For the most part, it was their own money they were spending and the charity would not exist if they had not set it up.
Today, things are different. Patrons are apparently controlling vast amounts of money that they did not contribute. So, how are they chosen and appointed? What is the job description? What happens if they fail to fulfil their responsibilities or their behaviour becomes an embarrassment? A charity must have a good imagine if it is to survive.
For those who are interested, our current patrons are Cherie Booth, Joan Bakewell and Geri Halliwell.
This is not a personal attack on anyone; just a desire to find out how these things are done.
Hi,a patron is a celebrity or well known person who is willing to become a figurehead for charity, they are not trustees.their purpose is to lend credibility and high profile support for the charity and to raise money.
I do understand trusteeship, but still feel that patrons can somehow avail themselves of certain pecuniary advantages because they are patrons. In Cherie Booth’s case, I remember than Tony Blair was allowed to use BCC’s lecture room for press conferences before the last election. I recognised the room because I had been there. When I asked if he was paying a commercial rent, I got no reply but next day, the pink podium was covered in red cloth (which didn’t stay put).
Joan Bakewell once had a teleconference with several of us who had secondaries that she used as the basis of an article she wrote for the Guardian! The issues we discussed were not covered. Instead she described us as a bunch of silver surfers and said it was wonderful that we were coping so well with new technology. The actuality is that Joan herself was the only person taking part who was over 50. Secondaries strike too many of us before we even get to the age when we are entitled to a routine mammogram. So how did that Guardian article help us? We felt used and the only person who benefited was Joan.
Geri Halliwell was photographed smoking on several occasions, which is something you should not do if you are seriously trying to avoid breast cancer.
So how does someone become a patron? Do they ask for the job? Who decides if they get it or not?
I’m not actually very happy about Cherie Booth being a patron of this charity, or Geri Halliwell. I can’t abide what the former stands for and find the latter an airhead I’m afraid.
The names of potential patrons must be considered and approved by the full Board of Trustees, and a case must be presented to trustees as to why their association with the charity might be seen as especially beneficial.
Our patrons and ambassadors are committed to helping us raise awareness of breast cancer and the work that we do for people affected by the disease across the UK. They attend and help promote a range of fundraising events, awareness campaigns and services offered by the charity.
Our patrons
* Cherie Booth QC
* Professor Trevor Powles CBE
* Geri Halliwell
* Dame Joan Bakewell
* Allen Leighton
Our ambassadors
* Denise Lewis OBE
* Lisa Snowdon
* Rose Gray
* Meera Syal MBE
* Vanessa Feltz
* Jonathan Ansell
Actually it is part of the blurb on here so no need to go sniffing round the web.
150k on celebrity Millionaire and then 10k on another celeb quiz show. The money wasn’t for breast cancer research in general it was only for this specific charity.
A cynic (uhum) might say that the priority was televisual exposure to inject some life into a moribund “career” and not really committed fundraising.
I’d like to thank each and everyone of the ‘celebs’ who pledge their time, support and money - whereever it comes from to this worthwhile charity which has been an absolute lifeline to me. I don’t even know who half of them are (please excuse my ignorance), but i’m sure they are representative of people of have been affected by cancer. I think we should remember that none of us fit a stereotype - this disease affects people of all ages and backgrounds, not just those of us living with BC but our mums, dads, friends, children - this charity benefits so many and surely we don’t expect that we can personally affiliate with each and every chosen ambassador?
This is NOT an exclusive club (unfortunately) and i personally find it slightly ridiculous that we should think of vetting its representatives on whether they have had BC or if they are intellectual enough to apply…the disease doaesnt care, and neither do i so long as the money keeps rolling in to prevent, cure and support us all.
What is wrong with Lisa Snowdon or Vanessa Feltz as ambassadors? Why is it wrong if money was raised from TV quiz shows? I think it is acceptable that they get some publicity from it too, shoots two birds. I would expect them to raise money for THIS charity, if they are patrons/ambassadors of THIS charity, and not for BC research in general.
I agree that patrons and ambassadors need to reflect many types of people, and do not need to have suffered in order to be ‘worthy’. Who knows how they may have been affected or moved in their private and personal lives. If they use their time and celebrity for a good cause, I’m not going to argue.
I agree with Pixielox and Flora.
I think its a shame to be focusing on this issue - not against questioning if there’s a point to it, but not sure what the point of this thread is.
maybe I have a narrow understanding of what this forum is about, but my understanding is that its for us to help and support each other through this rotten illness. I believe that most of us value what the forum gives us in terms of support and friendship - its beyond price.
my understanding (for what its worth) of patrons and ‘ambassadors’ is that they are part of the fundraising/awareness raising functions of BCC. Trustees and other management mechanisms are overseen by the charity commission and are monitored by it - the rules are clearly set out.
xx