Captain Tom Foundation: Hannah Ingram-Moore speaks. But is it credible?

What is she really saying?

The Captain Tom Moore Foundation made the UK headlines earlier this year. It’s a charity set up in the name of the Covid fundraiser whose endeavours made him a national treasure during the pandemic.

The Independent @Independent

Captain Tom charity spent £162,000 on costs last year – more than it gave in grants

independent.co.ukCaptain Tom charity spent £162,000 on costs last year – more than it gave in grantsAlmost £696,000 of the £1million in charitable donations from 2020/21 remains unspent

The headlines came after the charity published its first set of accounts. This led to some people raising concerns and making allegations. These are:

• Concerns that the foundation paid large amounts of money to companies co-owned by Captain Tom’s daughter, Hannah Ingram-Moore.

• Concerns that the foundation paid more on running costs than it gave to charitable causes.

• Allegations that the foundation wanted to employ Hannah Ingram-Moore as CEO on a salary of £150,000

Hannah has appeared on TV to discuss the situation. You can watch the interview here

Let’s do a word analysis.

Interviewer

I know just by being here, there is a lot of clearing up that you really want to do to kind of set the record straight. So, the charity is being reviewed, and that doesn't necessarily mean that there is any wrongdoing. So, I guess the first question from a lot of people watching was, it raised an extraordinary amount of money 39 million, where did it go?

Hannah

So back to those, imagine those original days in April 2020. And we challenged my father to walk up and down for 100 eh pound a lap. That three and a half weeks raised 38 point 9 million pounds that went directly to NHS Charities Together. The foundation hadn't even been set up at that point. So that entire 38 point 9 million, went to NHS Charities Together and they have distributed it.

I believe Hannah has some PR training, whether we’re seeing that in action here or it’s just her natural way of talking, we’re seeing a very defensive stance. She will often evoke memories of her father and his fundraising before talking about the accusations she has faced from some members of the public.

“Where did the money go?” can be answered very straightforwardly. “The money went directly to NHS Charities Together” but Hannah is in full story-telling and picture painting mode. This is an interesting choice given that she has a straightforward answer to the question.

Interviewer

Why did you want to come on here today?

Hannah

Because of course, you know, around the kitchen table with my father. It was really as we hit about 20 million in the second week that we recognised what he'd become as this beacon of hope to the world. Because it wasn't just here. It was everywhere. People from 163 countries have donated, and he's crossed the boundaries of gender, race, nationality, social status and age, and we wanted together with him to have a place where people could access that legacy that beyond our generation, the next generation and beyond people in this country. And that's why we created the Captain Tom Foundation, with love and hope.

Hannah is over 100 words into her answer to the question “why did you want to come on here today” and has still not addressed the question.

It’s a common mistake that PR people make, they think that people aren’t that smart and will be distracted by the flowery chat. However, consciously or subconsciously, people think this sounds deceptive or evasive. Even if it isn’t.

There is another possible reason for this. If someone is asked a question about a sensitive subject which will cause them stress when they talk about it, they will talk round the houses about something less stressful to avoid having to go straight to the sensitive subject.

And…so…loans

Eventually, Hannah starts to address the subject of the question… sort of. Let’s look at it line by line.

Hannah

And we published our first annual accounts, and they are independently audited.

She wants this to sound impressive and above board, which is why she says they are “independently audited”. Note, she doesn’t say the outcome of the audit, just that they were audited.

As Hannah starts to address some specifics, she starts to get nervous, with long pauses and “em”s coming into her speech. These indicators of stress are not present when she talks about her father.

Hannah

And.. em.. in that first year of the charity, my em business loaned the foundation some money because we didn't want to eat into the first donation we'd had, which is £100,000 from a corporate donator.

What is clear here, is that Hannah’s business comes first. It wasn’t “the foundation borrowed money from my company”.

Hannah always speaks about the charity in plural pronoun terms “we” and “our”. This may be factual. She takes personal ownership of the business, calling it “my business”.

Hannah

And we didn't want to that's all we had £100,000, and we didn't want to take all that money for costs. So, we loaned it on the basis that we were also lending money from my business that was suffering during the pandemic.

So we needed to have it reimbursed. What happened? So very straightforward. erm.. when the charity had a bit more money, we were reimbursed those costs. And that landed as a headline as..

(interview interjects: this was the £50,000?)

...Yes, that was £50,000 that landed as a headline that I had essentially paid myself £50,000 back into my own businesses, which is absolutely not the case.

Where to start here?

This answer fits the “and…so” pattern. That means it is story-telling and explaining. She isn’t confident that a straight telling of the facts will be strong enough so feels the need to explain why things happened as they did.

It doesn’t make sense logically. I think she wants to get across that her business, struggling in the pandemic, did a good thing by lending the charity £50,000.

She then says the charity reimbursed the £50,000 followed by the “headline that I had essentially paid myself £50,000 back into my own business, which is absolutely not the case”. Yet, she previously said her the charity did pay back £50,000 to her business.

I note, too, the mention of businesses plural. The reports on the charity suggest payments were made to more than one business of Hannah’s. Until now, she has only talked about one business that made a loan.

There is some fuzzy wording around the loan. She says it was “reimbursed” when we would expect to hear “repaid” when talking about a loan.

Hannah always talks about a “loan” or “lending” even though she talks from two perspectives, that of her business and that of the charity. She never mentions borrowing.

Finally, “So we loaned it on the basis that we were also lending money from my business that was suffering during the pandemic” is not a basis for a loan. It may be the basis not to make a loan because the lender may suffer more or that the borrower does not wish to take a loan that may cause the lender difficulties.

In this segment, Hannah predominantly speaks from the view of her company, not the foundation. This is where her priority is.

This answer, which covers her father and the loan is in response to “why did you want to come on here today”. She doesn’t say she wants to clear things up or set the record straight, instead she explains the loan.

This could be condensed to - why are you here today? My father raised lots of money for charity and my company made a loan to the foundation that was repaid. That isn’t a reason but it indicates where Hannah’s priority lies.

Absolutely

Hannah says the headlines reflect reports which are “absolutely not the case”. Regular readers will know that “absolutely” is one of my red-flag words. When I hear it used, I prick up my ears and study what is around it.

Which is just as well, judging by the next answer:

Interviewer.

There was also reports that you could have received a six-figure salary sort of £150,000 that would have worked out that 13.6% of the charities first year of income. Yeah, that's a lot of money there. We're saying that's kind of the CEO of the RSPCA that is earning sort of tenfold what this charity is earning, any truth in that?

Hannah:

Absolutely none. And keep in mind that these accounts are a snapshot in time for the very first year of the charity, and they’re independently audited, so we couldn't have made any of these numbers up. But the 150,000 so absolutely not true. What the trustees did was ask for benchmarking, please tell us if we were to, if we were to employ a CEO, what would be the benchmark what's the highest what's the lowest? And that's all … the highest happened to be 150. The lowest is about 60 depending on the charity. And so, the 150 is simply not true.

Again, Hannah goes to her PR toolkit almost immediately. She again mentions the independent audit and says that means “we couldn’t have made any of these numbers up”. Which sounds impressive, but given it is the numbers that have been audited (i.e., couldn’t be made up, i.e., are factual as Hannah says) that are causing some people concern then this only gives credence to the figures some people are concerned about.

There’s lots of wiggle room in this answer for Hannah. She doesn’t explicitly say that “the report that the charity wanted to appoint me as CEO with a £150,000 salary is not true”. It could be they wanted to pay £151,000 or £149,999. That would make Hannah honest when she says “not true” to the amount, but only in a very limited way.

It’s also noticeable that in this answer, Hannah stops using the word “pounds” when talking about money. She just uses numbers.

Complaints

Interviewer

Just looking at looking at the the complaints that have been had, and some of those you've sort of answered here in the period when it was set up. That's June 2020 - May 31 2021. Accounts showed that more money £162,000 spent in the first year on management and administration than the donations and causes, 50,000 Which you've addressed those non charitable outgoings pay to companies run by you including Matrix firm that gives skills advice to businesses, your directors, trustee for little more than 19,20 21 and then the interim CEO job offered. And then also reports claiming that the foundation. Tried to appoint you as its CEO on £150,000 salary, you addressed that a little bit there. So all of these, you're saying each one of those because you wanted to come on here today to say listen, this is not true. This is false. You've been trolled horrifically. If any of that proves to be true. Then you've stuck your head way above the parapet and sat on our sofa. Here you'll be found out

Hannah

100% And, look, that from my point of view my whole life, I've wanted to be held accountable. That's what my father taught me. Stand up, be counted and be accountable.

Hannah here says she has only “wanted” to be held accountable, not that she has been held accountable, or she has always been responsible, or acted properly or fully ethical.

Hannah

We’ve never shied away from regulation. Hold me accountable. Hold my feet to the flame. Now I'm guarding my father's legacy. Like that's how we feel. We're the guardians. We'd never hurt him.

Again, she is evoking her father’s image and attempting to bask in that. Again she is talking about being accountable rather than having acted properly or have done everything by the book.

Hannah

But I would never be able to sit on here and tell you something that's not true.

This statement is in the negative, and we have to ask why? Why not say “I am sitting here and telling you the truth”?

Furthermore, so far, Hannah has said very little of substance. She has dealt with two of the allegations, in a limited and fuzzy way. She can truthfully say she has not said anything that isn’t true. However, she has not denied any of the allegations bar one, during this interview and even then, it was in a limited way.

Hidden and truths

Hannah

It's clear, our… accounts are there to be seen, but we're not hiding anything.

Once more, Hannah isn’t coming out and saying how above board things are. She isn’t stating her stance positively, she is going to statements in the negative. Most people’s concerns are not that the charity is hiding something, it’s the details which aren’t hidden that are causing concerns. Why has Hannah brought up the issue that nothing is hidden?

The “but” in this answer reveals a lot. If she had said “our accounts are there to be seen AND we’re not hiding anything” I’d have been more assured than the version with BUT in it.

Hannah

There's nothing wrong. We haven't made any false action. And I genuinely think though that the vast majority of people know that. We feel love and support, we do. But it is those clickbait headlines have been destructive and have put the foundation at peril.

Hannah goes for social proof here, that is telling us that people believe in her and the charity. The suggestion here is that the people raising concerns are in the minority and therefore must be wrong.

I have to wonder why she feels the charity is “at peril” if she also “genuinely” thinks the “vast majority” of people know “there’s nothing wrong”.

What is missing?

Once I’ve looked at what Hannah says, I look at what she hasn’t. The striking thing here is that she hasn’t mentioned any of the money raised for charities or donated to charities by the foundation.

Given that she uses her father and his fundraising to give a positive impression, it is noticeable that she doesn’t. It would increase the perception that the foundation is an entity which does good.

Conclusion

This interview is on a subject in which the specifics cause stress for Hannah, which isn’t surprising.

Instead of dealing with the accusations head on, she’s decided to invoke the popular image of her father. The risk of doing this is that it appears evasive.

Her explanations for what has happened are not strong, and she fails to deal with some concerns. Hannah’s priorities appear to be image management and her companies. Fundraising and granting money to charities do not appear to be a priority.

It worries me that she has introduced the idea of things being hidden and is at pains to point out that the figures published are all true when there is no accusations that things are being hidden or the figures are not accurate.

For the sake of the memory of Captain Tom and the charities that could benefit from his legacy, I hope everything is above board.

If you have some words you’d like analysed, drop them in the comments below or see the about page for contact info.

More like this

A Very Curious GoFundMe

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, coughing scandal