The Victims of Crimes Trust is a mystery but might, inadvertently, have revealed much about getting a media profile and journalistic scrutiny.
It used to be a high profile campaigning organisation which aimed to “raise awareness of the issues that are faced by victims of crime in the aftermath of the crime”. Vince Cable (before spotting the credit crunch) had a moment to support of the charity: “Victims of Crime Trust is an excellent organisation that gives support and hope to the families of victims of terrible crimes”. It was set up in 1994 and was particularly prominent between 2003 and 2006 “promoting the crudest possible line in punitive criminal justice policy” according to Nick Davies of the Guardian.
Norman Brennan, its director, was quoted in the Daily Mail more than 300 times between 2001 and 2007 and more than 250 times in The Sun over a similar period. According to Media Guardian, PC Brennan (he is/was a British Transport Police officer) conducted 7,000 media interviews in the nine years to 2005.
Norman Brennan's media profile
And he was eminently quotable, saying things like:
- “Granting of asylum to a murderous asylum-seeker: “It just goes to show Britain is a soft touch when it come to immigration matters.” 27 July 2003: The Mail on Sunday
- On arming the police: “We must arm them before more are killed.” 16 March 2003: Sunday Mirror
- As far as I’m concerned, the criminal justice system is in crisis and in freefall at the moment. You have got gun crime, knife crime, violent crime and the fear of crime the worst I have ever known it in 27 years of policing.”
- He accused Lord Woolf of “putting the offenders first“
And then . . . . nothing. Not a word.
So what’s happened to the Victims of Crime Trust?
Its website isn’t even on Google. The website is unavailable, and has been for some time. I contacted the person who registered the domain name but they did not return my emails.
The Victims of Crime Trust has not filed anything with the Charity Commission since December 2005. It is over 1200 days late filing its accounts.
The most recent accounts (dated July 2004) revealed that the Trust had an income of £80,000, up slightly on the previous year. Unusually, 96% of its expenditure was on salaries, up from 66% the previous year. The Trust still owed Norman Brennan more than £24,000. When I spoke to the Charity Commission, it confirmed that they were in the process of stripping the organisation of its registered charitable status.
Why does this matter?
The Victims of Crime Trust was, briefly, a very effective organisation at getting its views heard in the media. But it didn’t provide any services, formally represent any victims of crime (or speak on their behalf) and appears to have lacked sufficient support to sustain itself financially. But that didn’t stop it from getting a signficant media profile.
The Trust, like the Taxpayers Alliance, went for quite a while without any real media scrutiny. Nick Davies’ book exposing PR and a failure to fact-check in the newspaper industry was published in 2008. It appears that no journalists asked who it represented, where its money came from or how it spent its cash. And as the people behind Starsuckers have demonstrated today, it is not alone in finding it easy to get stories into the media without scrutiny.
It really matters for those charities and campaigners who really do represent people, conduct research and have ensured that they can stand up to scrutiny. There is a constant reminder that, in the eyes of the media, all of that doesn’t really count for anything as long as you are available for comment and the comment fits the editorial line of the media outlet.
* If you work for the Victims of Crime Trust and it is actually still a thriving operation, please do reveal yourself and I will gladly set the record straight.
Related posts:
- Taxpayers Alliance: a case study of poor journalism
- Journalists Liverpool fans can trust
- Prison reform: urgent and compelling
Tags: Journalism, Victims of Crime Trust
I came up against this one man band a few times in media studios and you are absolutely right. There are proper organisations that work with and represent the interests of victims, notably Victim Support, whose voice is pushed out by the self-serving interests of publicity seekers. Interestingly there was a confluence of concern about the antics of the victims of crime trust – the Met police, victims groups and the Howard League. All of us refused to appear on media programmes with them because we considered they lacked legitimacy.
Ratcheting up an already heated debate about crime by pretending that all victims want blood and guts does not help.
Maybe your actions, and those of others (like Nick Davies) acted as a sufficient deterrent to journalists for him to give up.
Frances – thanks for the vote of confidence in Victim Support! And Matthew – very interesting and useful reading. I found your blog as I was doing my ‘once in a while’ Google to find out what the Victims of Crime Trust was doing nowadays as – having had years of journalists saying ‘thanks for the quote but it’s a bit too sensible – we’d rather get something juicy from Norman Brennan’ – I was becoming more and more conscious that they were getting no coverage and being mentioned less and less. Maybe the fact that their press enquiry line switched to a £1 a minute premium rate number contributed?!
That’s fascinating, Paul. So at the moment it appears that there are a number of factors:
- the increasing sums paid to Norman Brennan by the charity
- a concerted effort by mainstream organisations to not participate in the story
- the pressure of raising additional funds which discouraged journalists from getting an easy quote
I’ve tried to contact the person who setup the website but can’t get a response.
Well something has changed overnight. Norman has been quoted in national media both yesterday and today…
Where has he been quoted?
The Daily Express: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/151170/Free-in-6-months-yob-who-threw-bleach-in-mum-s-face
But not as the Victims of Crime Trust, just as himself.
Does anyone have contact details for Norman Brennan? None of the trust websites are working and the phoneline is dead… but the 2010 quotes indicate he’s alive and well! I am keen to talk to ex-policepeople in general for a TV project hence the interest…
Norman lives in Queens Road, Twickenham. He has a flat in a rather modern red brick edifice at the north end of Queens Road.
He’s around and about, but not quite as ebullient as in the past, and considerable less bumptous.
Try the Sunday Telegraph 21st February.
There are a fair few ex policemen working in Victim Support and we’ve just taken someone on secondment from the Met for a new and important national role. Drop me a line if you want to talk to any of them…
i knew Norman Brennan. He went out with my friends sister in 1983. I didn;t really like him as he had a funny moustache.
FYI he shaved that off over 2 years ago…
I’m told there was an article yesterday in the Telegraph on fraudulent activity at the Trust, but its not online annoyingly.
The victims of crime trust has run out of money and no longer is in operation. Andrew Gilligan wrote a damming article in the Evening Standard a few years ago, resulting in BA one of the trusts biggest sponsors pulling their support. This hit Norman hard as he saw something he had been trying to build up over 10 years dissappear almost over night.
The crux of the article was the disappearance of £300k, which seems like a lot of cash, but if you divide it over the 10 years the trust was in operation it works out to approx £30k/year. With a 2 full time staff not including Norman (who was not paid) and office rent and running costs to pay it seems like a reasonable expenditure, so there is no sensational story. This is the alleged fraudulent activity, i.e. it cost £300K to run an organisation for 10 years +
Gilligan has embarked on a second attack on Norman, see Sunday Telegraph Feb 21st 2010 raking up the same old story.
Norman returned to work as a PC in the British Transport police, but has recently retired.
Its a shame that the media try and destroy someone with a passion and the commitment to try and speak out and make a positive difference to society.
Really Norman is the only one who can tell the full storey.
Anna B I can put you in contact with Norman …
I’m working with Anna B on the same TV project. If you could put me in touch with Norman I’d be really grateful – we are developing a documentary series and we think he’d be a really good person for us to speak with.
I like the irony of these requests in light of Frances Crook’s comments above.
Having said that, i would be grateful if you could put me in touch with Norman as I would like to hear from the horse’s mouth what happened to his charity.
gareth [dot] jones@civilsociety [dot] co [dot] uk
Sorry i meant comments from Paul Fawcett
@Gareth Jones:
I dont understand the irony, Anna B states she is keen to talk to ex policepeople and Norman fulfils this criteria…
OK perhaps i got the wrong end of the stick on that one.
I wasn’t trying to be ironic – just reporting what happened here week in week out over the many years that the Trust was very active.
I’ve worked with the media long enough to know that ’sensible’ comment can often translate into ‘boring’ which is as much a reflection of what media consumers expect to see, read and hear as it is the personal approach of any particular journalist.
Thanks for the above information. I was wondering what happened to the Trust. I have been paying a small direct debit to the Trust for well over 6 years and was beginning to wonder what was happening with it. I first met Norman Brennan as a result of coming to his assistance when he was being assaulted whilst on duty. I found him to be passionate about the injustice faced by victims of crime in the UK and determined to make the Government take note. At the court case that followed for his assailant, I saw first hand the nonsense that is British justice and decided to support his Trust as a result.
As far as I know the charity is currently being wound up by the charity commission, I could be wrong, perhaps it’s worth while cancelling that Diect debit or contacting the comission to find out what the deal is…
I am led to understand from a colleague who has Charity Comm connections that VOCT filed no accounts since 2003/4.
Questions have been asked about funds and their use. During one of norman’s “career breaks” VOCT was placed in the position of paying his BTP salary, plus employer NIC’s and VAT, very expensive.
Gilligan’s article questions property transactions, but those who have known Norman over the years have been aware of many property purchases and rent outs.
We should all await the results of the Charity Comm enquiry which will be made public. But, failure to file accounts, for VOCT, Charathon and Protect The Protectors is an offence, which the Charities comm takes seriously.
The thing is we can all speculate on this, only Norman can answer allegations and its unfair to slur him further when he his no right to reply.
Dont forget that Gilligan is writing in a manor to place Norman in the worst possible light. He makes assumptions, inuendo and plays massively on negative half truths, whilst being economical with anything positve.
In the past when writing in the evening standard Gillgan wrote about Norman turing up for a press conference in a Porsche dressed in Black designer gear. The implication being he was using money from the VOCT to support a glamourous lifestyle.
The facts are, his porsche was a bottom of range 15 year example costing less then £10K (and a bit of a banger) and he was dressed smartly in black as he had just attended the funeral of one of the homocide victims whoose family he was supporting. Gilligan forgot to mention that!
So with Gilligan you are only getting half the storey and portrayed in an extremely negative light.
Norman is currently seeking legal advice to determine his next steps to clear his name.
I have been wondering why the VOCT haven’t contacted me for a long while – my calls and emails were no longer returned; the VOCT gave me much support after the murder of a child, I had attended meetings and it was comforting to be with people who genuinely knew what I was going through.
I decided to try one last time today to try to contact them and found this blog.
The VOCT may have been mis-managed but I find it extremely unlikely that it was deliberate fraud on the part of anyone rather that it was in fact the lack of funds to employ staff to manage it well and the reliance on volunteers. I for one received much help and support from them, furthermore, they put others in touch with me that I understand I helped – from a mother in the North who had a child murdered to a police officer in Northern Ireland who was setting up a Victim Support unit.
Norman, if you get to see this – many thanks for all your time and support.
For those interested, I asked the Charity Commission and this is what they had to say:
“Andrew Gilligan from the Sunday Telegraph did contact us prior to writing his piece. Mr Gilligan asked us whether we currently had an investigation into the Victims of Crime Trust. I responded by explaining that currently there is no investigation (Inquiry or otherwise) into the charity.
“I explained to Mr Gilligan that we had previously had an investigation (not an Inquiry) into the charity, which concluded in 2007. Mr Gilligan was familiar with this as he has written about it previously. It may be helpful if I copy below for you the previous statement, which we issued to Mr Gilligan in October 2007 when we concluded our investigation:
***”Following previous contact with you in March 2006 and as a result of allegations made in your article in the Evening Standard about the administration of Victims of Crime Trust (“VOC”) and Charathon UK (“CUK), the Commission opened a Compliance case to evaluate your concerns and establish what, if any, regulatory action we needed to take. In particular, we assessed the allegations made about low levels of charitable expenditure and high administration costs at both charities and the loans between the charities, connected organisations and Norman Brennan.
“We have concluded that there has been mismanagement by the trustees in the administration of both VOC and CUK, and in the manner in which the CUK trustees managed relationship of CUK with its trading subsidiary (“CUK Ltd”). There was a lack of financial and administrative controls and records in both charities.
“The trustees of CUK were unable to provide us with the necessary documents to demonstrate how the charities had applied their funds or the level and nature of charitable activity undertaken. The trustees of VOC were also unable to provide us with the necessary documents to show whether loans and debts had been entered into by the charity, what the terms of these loans and debts were and why these had been in the interests of the charity.
“We have provided the trustees of VOC with advice and guidance to put the charity back on a proper footing and will monitor their performance, with a review scheduled for 12 months’ time. VOC will shortly be filing accounts for the last three years.
“The directors of CUK Ltd have dissolved the company. The charity CUK is in the process of winding up. Once we have received all necessary paperwork from the trustees, we will remove it from the Register of Charities.”***
“In terms of any more recent engagement with the charity, the position (as sent to Mr Gilligan) is as follows:
***”In September 2008, Victims of Crime Trust informed the Commission of their intention to dissolve the charity. We provided the charity with advice and guidance on the dissolution process. We have engaged with the charity on a number of occasions since this date, most recently in October 2009, providing further advice on the winding-up process.****
“We also asked Mr Gilligan to provide us with any evidence to support concerns he may have about the charity. To date, this has not been provided to us. You asked specifically about a) allegations of £300,000 “going missing” from the charity and b) allegations “over property transactions” . We have not received a complaint, or been provided with information to support any such allegations.
“The charity has failed to submit its 2007 and 2008 accounts, and has also failed to submit Annual Returns for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. The charity has received a number of reminders regarding its failure to submit the required documents to the Commission, the most recent of which was sent in September 2009. The charity has not been removed from the register because the Compliance Investigations case (described above) closed in October 2007. It is our usual practice that the existence of any Compliance Investigations case within 2 years of the final reminder letter, would prevent the charity from being removed. We will continue to pursue the charity for its outstanding documents.”
could you read this??
inthenameof0809.blogspot.com
I knew Norman and Clive his right hand man.They opened up a new world for victims who were forgotten once there cases were finished at court when nobody else was ready to help them victims.
Norman had also been a victim of severall serius assaults in the past so he new first hand about help and assistance for victims. Between Norman and Clive and other helpers in the victims of crime trust and protect the protectors a lot of time and effort was given to victims in the UK and America with the september 11 visits.
Sadly both organisations are now finished probable through non funding and preshure of work with hardley any thanks. if the previous goverment had helped victims as much as they helped perpitrators Norman and clive would still be around.