Targeted Management Limited: censorship and secrecy

  1. There is a lack of clarity and transparency about new company Targeted Management Limited (TML) and its role(s) for two military charities in the North-West, Our Local Heroes Foundation (OLHF) and Support The Heroes (STH). There is also a lack of clarity and transparency about each charity itself: its business model and costs of working with TML. Here I show why I consider this to be deliberate opacity.
  2. TML of Blackpool (company number: 09036445) is owned by the same person as Prize Promotions Limited (PPL), the discredited professional fundraiser now in administration (company number: 07829587). This blog has exclusively revealed how PPL has consistently misled the public across the UK in its rip-off fundraising activities, often working illegally. STH (registered charity number: 1155853) is the third “heroes” military charity linked to Tony Chadwick and his companies. So PPL was official professional fundraiser for first Afghan Heroes (AH; registered charity number: 1132340) and then OLHF (registered charity number: 1142029). I first wrote about PPL and its role with AH January 2014, just after the Charity Commission announced December 2013 that it had opened a statutory inquiry into AH. That inquiry continues. On 9 November 2014, I appeared as a live studio guest on 5 live Investigates, the BBC Radio 5 live programme. There we exposed PPL and its work for the two military charities. ( OLHF had told BBC Radio 5 live then that it would stop working with PPL – only to still be working together December last year. ( It’s worse than that, though. OLHF was still working with PPL April 2015, it seems, according to the official listing of the OLHF stand at the Gadget Show Live 2015 exhibition, the NEC Birmingham: PPL is named in the link, as you can see. In February 2015, I wrote that TML, Mr Chadwick’s new company, was now involved with OLHF. ( There I alleged that TML was a professional fundraiser for OLHF.
  3. In April 2015, I repeated the allegation that TML is or has been a professional fundraiser for OLHF – in my first post on new charity STH. ( I didn’t allege that TML has or had any role with STH. That post drew a response (email) from STH trustee Pauline White, which I promptly and happily published in full without being asked. ( There Ms White said TML is a “management” company, not a professional fundraiser.
  4. I first made the allegation that TML was a professional fundraiser for OLHF in good faith, carefully with evidence. The evidence? An announcement from founder Steve Pearson on the OLHF website dated 19 February 2015, which I linked to. There Mr Pearson published the results of “the first prize draw” organised by TML on behalf of his charity. Professional fundraiser PPL had previously organised prize draws for OLHF. Given both companies apparently perform the same role here – an ostensibly independent company organising prize draws on behalf of OLHF – I inferred that TML, too, was a professional fundraiser. In other words, this is an operational definition of “professional fundraiser”.
  5. OLHF has again recently redesigned its website. The charity has now removed Mr Pearson’s announcement dated 19 February 2015 on TML and “the first prize draw”.
  6. I’d also archived the OLHF web page, again providing a link in my 3 March 2015 blog post. Yet the charity has now made an intervention which means that the archived web page is no longer publicly available, either. So clicking the link in my 3 March 2015 blog post produces the message on the Internet Archive ( “Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt.” OLHF has now set up a robots.txt file for its website: This is a two-line text file, as you can see. The first line is “User-agent: *”; the second line: “Disallow: /”. This robots.txt file instructs all robots to stay out of the website. The Internet Archive follows the instructions in robots.txt, including retroactively, as the site’s FAQs page makes clear. Hence now the unavailability of the archived web page.
  7. Not only is there censorship via robots.txt and disappearing web pages. But also secrecy on the OLHF website: there is currently nothing about TML and its role(s) anywhere. Searching the OLHF website for “Targeted Management” using the site’s search function produces no hits, either. Similarly, the STH website: there is currently nothing about TML and its role(s) anywhere.
  8. Remember: we only know that STH works with TML from Ms White’s response (email) to my first post on her charity. My post prompted STH to disclose – to me, at least – TML’s involvement.
  9. There is important, new and independent evidence on the role(s) of TML for OLHF: the report in The Blackpool Gazette newspaper 6 July 2015, “Collector stole cash donated to war heroes.” (It’s available on the newspaper’s website: I highlight three facts there. First, thief Simon Lacey “worked for the company Targeted Management which collected funds for the Our Local Heroes Foundation.” Second, he “disappeared with money collected from merchandise sales and donations for the Bamber Bridge-based Our Local Heroes Foundation.” Third, Mr Lacey “went all over the country raising money for the charity.” So TML raises funds for OLHF by selling merchandise and collecting donations around the country, according to the report. Sounds familiar: professional fundraiser PPL, too, had previously raised funds for the charity by selling merchandise and collecting donations around the country.
  10. TML therefore appears to perform or have performed on behalf of OLHF some or all of the same activities as predecessor PPL. Yet unlike PPL, it isn’t a professional fundraiser. TML is a “management” company.
  11. There is deliberate secrecy when TML recruits staff, too. The company consistently withholds its name when advertising posts on the government’s Universal Jobmatch website, for example. TML is the company shown as “confidential” in the Universal Jobmatch job ad for a charity fundraiser in my 29 April 2015 blog post, screen shot in Figure 2 there, a Freedom of Information request to DWP confirmed. Further, the charity isn’t identified in the job ad, either.
  12. One difference between TML and PPL: the “management” company actually has a website; PPL has never had one. Yet is laughably vague and unconvincing: none of the “wide range of organisations” for which TML allegedly provides “a range of management services” is identified by name or business sector, for instance.
  13. What is the motivation for the censorship and secrecy? It is reasonable to consider this to be deliberate opacity. There is a need for clarity and transparency about TML and its role(s) for OLHF and STH. For each charity, there is also a need for clarity and transparency about its business model and costs of working with TML. The money flows in and around OLHF and STH should be disclosed.

One thought on “Targeted Management Limited: censorship and secrecy

  1. Pingback: “Serious regulatory concerns” at Our Local Heroes Foundation, says Charity Commission | Dr Alex May

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s