It’s clear that Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore, Capt Tom Moore’s daughter and son-in-law, and their children were completely overwhelmed by the enormous success of the Captain Tom campaign, touching as it did the public’s soft spot for an NHS under pressure, and at a time when fears concerning Covid were rampant. As custodians of the enormous sums raised, they were clearly not able to cope, did not have the necessary experience of running, and being properly accountable for, a major charity and were poorly advised about the need to ringfence themselves, visibly, financially, and physically from the fund.
The story so far: a planning application had been made, in the name of the Captain Tom Foundation, to put an oblong building in the grounds of the family property. But, without seeking further permission, an extra wing had been added to this building for use as a spa. The local authority has ordered that this be torn down, and now an appeal is being heard.
Naivety, duty and lack of experience
I watched Piers Morgan’s interview on TalkTV (12 October 2023), expecting a familiar aggressive approach but was pleasantly surprised by a balanced questioning of a family clearly suffering discomfort, embarrassment and facing an ongoing story without some foreseeable and tidy ending. Not to mention relentless abuse and even death threats on social media – “I hope you all get Covid and die” was one example from a source vain enough to name himself, apparently.
Naivety, perhaps a sense of duty to Captain Tom Moore and a degree of self-importance, all played a part in attracting close scrutiny, criticism and the usual flood of nastiness that seems to come so readily from the darker side of the misguided souls who think they have the right to say whatever they choose on “social media”.
Being at the centre of the newly created Foundation clearly led to the presumption that it was a good idea for Hannah to become its CEO but, as she said in the TalkTV interview, with hindsight she should never have accepted the apparent “offer” from the Trustees to take up the job. An independent, experienced person should have been approached – the fact that it was the Trustees offering the post indicates a failure on their part to act in the best interests of the enormous fund of which they seemed to be joint custodians.
The use of the spa – public or private?
Morgan quite rightly blind-sided the family about the “spa” bath which seemed to have been installed for their private use. They also couldn’t really tell Piers what the Captain Tom Building was for except for a rather vague and woolly explanation that it was to “honour his memory” and that it was “something for the community.” Really? How would it be used by the community? The fuss over the spa bath could so easily have been avoided had it or something like it been promoted for people needing water therapies or rehabilitation treatment. But, the Ingram-Moores got themselves stuck in the “deep end” of what seemed to have become obstinacy over removal of the spa bath, using a vague excuse about its removal “affecting the architecture and structure” of the building and also using the unpredictable outcome of the Planning Appeal in the coming weeks as reasons for doing nothing about the issue.
As Piers said, “it’s not good for the optics that you just won’t remove the spa” and therefore attempt to defuse the criticism of its existence in the first place. Hannah and Colin had no answer to that. It seems more than a little naïve or just plain daft to allow a planning application for their “new building” and spa bath to be made, using the Foundation’s name rather than their own. Didn’t they read the application before submitting it a year or so ago?
Good public relations can be crucial
An experienced PR adviser would have surely urged them to either get rid of the spa bath altogether or publicly and prominently announce its re-purposing as a therapeutic pool for the “community benefit” rather than for their family’s personal use.
Now, the Ingram-Moores face a volley of vociferous calls for them to “give back the money” (part of a headline in the Daily Mail on 13 October) earned from Captain Tom’s three books, together with other proceeds apparently generated by promoting the use of his name as a “trademark”. But the money did not come from the Foundation so was not taken out and didn’t need to be “given back”.
Legal inheritances are not public property
Something rather obvious here is being overlooked by critics and by the press looking for another angle from which to discredit those who assumed responsibility for the Fund.
Captain Tom had an agent who brokered the book deal with Penguin/Random House. It was a deal between the Author and the Publisher, not involving the Foundation. The earnings from this and other unspecified licensing use of Captain Tom’s “brand” were his own, whether paid to him or to the company apparently set up to “protect his name” according to Hannah. What’s not clear is whether Captain Tom was the sole shareholder of “his” company, but whether he was or not, presumably the shares and/or funds earned by his writings and other endeavours would have passed into his personal estate after his sad and untimely Covid-related death. There seems to be an ambiguous reference in the introduction to Captain Tom’s third book that its publication might enable him to “raise more funds”. Did he mean that proceeds from the book should go to the Foundation? Or did he simply mean that the further raising of his profile through another publication might lead more donors to the Foundation in his name? It’s not completely clear what was meant.
So – what about “giving the money back”? It would appear Captain Tom’s personal earnings were not channelled into the Foundation so there seems to be nothing to be “given back”.
A good lawyer might advise that, in and amongst the furore of this saga, it might have been a good idea to publish Captain Tom’s will if it shows (which would be quite normal) that his estate is simply passed on to his surviving family. If the will was officially registered, it is in the public domain anyway, but offensive social media devotees and lazy journalists seem to have failed to check.
But the point is that his personal earnings, although boosted by the massive attention he received from his fund-raising activities, were his to pass on to whomever he chose. If that was the family, all well and good and perfectly legal. It’s then their choice and their private business as to whether to use a legitimate inheritance for themselves or to donate some or all of it to the Foundation.
Even with the best will in the world, caution is vital
Mistakes have clearly been made. Poor judgement, lack of experience, some obstinacy, and an inability to recognise when to “back off” and seek expert, independent advice all appear to be at the root of the Ingram-Moores’ problems, less so than any alleged attempts to deceive or worse. It’s not too late to put the record straight and to let competent others carry out whatever is necessary to restore some respectability to the situation and silence the narcissistic users and abusers on “social media”.
