Charlie Brooks lambasts Tom Watson over gambling industry job

1. 1. On 21 September 2020, Charlie Brooks, who writes a column in the Daily Telegraph newspaper about horse racing, lambasted Tom Watson over his new job in the gambling industry (“Will Watson keep barking at betting industry now?”).
   2. Former Labour deputy leader Mr Watson recently began working as an adviser to Flutter Entertainment, the gambling company behind, among others, Paddy Power, Betfair and Sky Bet.
   3. Mr Brooks seemed to relish giving Mr Watson a good kicking in his column.
   4. This surely had nothing to do with the fact Mr Watson was one of the foremost campaigners against News International and its phone-hacking. Charlie and his wife Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive, were acquitted in the 2014 phone-hacking trial.
   5. For some reason, the Telegraph columnist omitted to mention any of this.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards publishes report into Sir Bob Neill MP

1. 1. Today (29 September 2020) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has published her report into Sir Bob Neill MP (see previous post).
   2. Sir Bob breached the MPs’ Code of Conduct, according to the Commissioner.
   3. It was my complaint and investigations on the blog that prompted the Commissioner to open her inquiry.
   4. Here‘s her report: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/pcfs/rectifications/sir-robert-neill-mp-rectification.pdf.

The Mail on Sunday: “Own goal! Sir Bob guilty on football stadium lobbying”

1. On 27 September 2020, The Mail on Sunday newspaper exclusively reported the outcome of the inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into ex-planning minister Sir Bob Neill MP (screen shot in Figure 1).
   

   Figure 1. The Mail on Sunday (27 September 2020)

2. The article acknowledges I was the first to expose Sir Bob’s failure to declare he was on the payroll of a firm – The Substantia Group – behind a luxury hotel development in his constituency, when lobbying the local council for it (see 22 June 2020 post and references therein).

Removed charity continues to present itself as registered charity and raises funds

1. 1. I came across the DFY Foundation in The Mail on Sunday newspaper on 13 September 2020, when it was mentioned at the end of an interview with England rugby union player Freddie Burns. Mr Burns is an ambassador (screen shot in Figure 1). There the “new mentoring foundation” solicited funds, directing readers to a third-party website to make donations.
      

      Figure 1. Freddie Burns interview: The Mail on Sunday (13 September 2020)

   2. The DFY Foundation isn’t on the Charity Commission public register of charities. There isn’t a UK-registered company with that name, either. What’s more, I couldn’t see the legal structure on the DFY Foundation website.
   3. Therefore, that day I emailed Nick Robinson, founder and chief executive of sports agency International Sporting Consulting (ISC). Mr Robinson and ISC are behind the DFY Foundation. Mr Burns is an ISC client.
   4. I asked Mr Robinson what is the legal structure of the DFY Foundation. He didn’t respond.
   5. On 17 September 2020, I sent a reminder. This time Mr Robinson replied, saying he hadn’t “seen any previous email”. “We are R4UK trading as DFY, as mentioned on the website.” Yes, the information is there, but I’m sure it wasn’t when I first looked (screen shot in Figure 2).
      

      Figure 2. Registered company number: DFY Foundation website at 17 September 2020

   6. R4UK Ltd (registered company number: 08397672) was incorporated on 11 February 2013, according to Companies House. It’s a company limited by guarantee, a structure often used by charitable companies.
   7. Yet the public register of charities reveals R4UK Ltd (registered charity number: 1152812) is a removed charity. Date of removal: 9 June 2016.
   8. Nevertheless filings at Companies House show R4UK Ltd continued to present itself as a registered charity after its removal from the register of charities.
   9. The latest accounts at Companies House are made up to 28 February 2019. There R4UK Ltd identifies itself as a charity and specifies 1152812 as registered charity number.
   10. Despite the disclosures in the company accounts, Mr Robinson also said in his email: “We are a non-profit at the moment, but are hoping to be registered on the Charity Commission in the future.”
   11. All very confusing.
   12. Mr Robinson didn’t respond when I pointed out the discrepancies for R4UK Ltd between the public register of charities and the company register.
   13. The confusion doesn’t end there. Mr Burns is an ambassador, according to The Mail on Sunday. Yet the rugby player identifies himself as a trustee in his Twitter biography (screen shot in Figure 3)!
       

       Figure 3. Freddie Burns Twitter biography at 18 September 2020

   14. If Mr Burns was a trustee, he almost certainly would be a director of R4UK Ltd. Companies House records show this is not the case. Moreover, the DFY Foundation website, too, states Mr Burns is an ambassador.
   15. As I say, the DFY Foundation is raising money from the public. There needs to be clarity on many things, but above all its charitable status.
   16. When asked for comment, a Charity Commission spokesperson said in an email: “DFY Foundation is not a charity registered with the Commission. We have contacted R4UK Limited to make clear that it should not, in any circumstances, be representing itself as a registered charity, and advise that it should take steps to register with the Commission if it meets the legal requirements. Should further concerns come to light we would assess them.”

Free scratch card and opacity when you shop at Lidl

1. Lidl’s new loyalty scheme, Lidl Plus, potentially promotes gambling to people of all ages, by giving members a free scratch card when they shop. Also, the scratch card terms and conditions are inadequate, failing to disclose the probabilities of the possible prizes.
2. A scratch card that’s free to play isn’t gambling, of course. Yet the scratch card format itself is problematic because each play is a game of chance – namely outcome depends on chance only. No skill is involved.
3. The scratch card format is the same whether it’s free to play or not (i.e. gambling). Therefore, the German supermarket’s scratch cards legitimise games of chance and potentially promote gambling.
4. Free bet offers are a staple of gambling advertising in the real world and online. Free bets encourage gambling, by definition.
5. A second problem is under-18s will be exposed to the scratch cards.
6. Yes, only persons aged 18 and over can play the scratch cards. Nevertheless under-18s, accompanied or not, are allowed in the shops. As such they’re exposed to the new loyalty scheme and its branding, even if they can’t participate.
7. What’s more, the situation is worse for accompanied children: they’ll be even more exposed to Lidl Plus, if the responsible adult(s) engages with the loyalty scheme at the tills. (Lidl Plus is a smartphone app: the scratch cards are digital.)
8. Finally, the scratch card terms and conditions, which are published on the company website. 1 in 5 of all cards give prizes (“rewards”), according to para 2(g) (screen shot in Figure 1).
   

   Figure 1. Lidl Plus: scratch card terms and conditions at 7 September 2020

9. Meanwhile, para 3(a) details the possible rewards (Figure 1).
10. Yet para 3(a) fails to disclose the probabilities of the possible rewards. Are all possible rewards equally likely or not, for instance? Here there needs to be transparency.
11. Lidl didn’t respond to a request for comment.