Podcast appearances and mentions of john picton

In episode 65, we chat to John Picton from the Charity Law & Policy Unit at the University of Liverpool about charity law and the ethical and legal challenges surrounding certain kinds of charitable donations. Including:   Charity Law What are some of the key principles of UK charity law? (e.g. public benefit, charitable threshold etc.) The “Dead Hand” & Cy Pres Why have some critics argued that perpetually endowed charitable institutions are problematic? What does legal theory have to say about the balance between respecting donor intent and avoiding “zombie” trusts? What is the practical process for freeing up money from an endowed structure whose purposes are no longer deliverable? How difficult is this? What is the legal status of charitable gifts made in wills? When heirs challenge donations, what issues does it raise? Tainted Donations Why are some donations seen as “tainted”? What is it about them that is “bad”? What powers and responsibilities do charity trustees have when it comes to assessing whether or not to accept a donation? Is it possible to give donations back? Or is this harder in practice than you might think? Can charities keep donations on the basis of “turning them to good purposes”? If so, how do they ensure the donor doesn’t get benefit (e.g. social status, reputation, warm glow)? Should there be any sort of statute of limitations on tainted donations (e.g. those stemming from proceeds of slavery etc)? If institutions have assets that are tainted and want to do something about it, is it enough to give them to any “good cause”, or do they need to be directed at a cause related to the nature of the taint? (I.e. is it a case of making reparation?) Nationalising charitable assets? There have recently been proposals that the charitable assets of private schools should be seized by the government, and similar ideas have been floated in the past. Is this feasible in practice? Are there broader issues of principle in terms of charity law? Academia & Practice How well does academia informs practice (and vice versa) when it comes to philanthropy? Where might there be gaps? How can we getter stronger links between academics and practitioners? Related Links:   The University of Liverpool’s Charity Law & Policy Unit John’s blog for The Conversation, 'Sackler donations: why museums and galleries can be stuck with gifts – even if they don’t want them' John’s blog for The Conversation, 'Supreme Court Legacy Ruling: Leaving A Gift To Charity Can Be Egoistic As well As Altruistic' John’s Third Sector article 'Purely Academic: The Rare, Gruesome Nature Of Failed Charitable Gifts By Will' Picton, A. J. (2017). Egoism and the Return of Charitable Gifts. In R. Hickey, & H. Conway (Eds.), Modern Studies in Property Law (Vol. 9, pp. 175-194). Oxford: Hart. CAF Giving Thought podcast on “Tainted donations” CAF Giving Thought podcast on “Philanthropy, Death and Taxes” CAF Giving Thought blog, “When should charities say no to donations?”

In episode 56 we take a deep dive into the issue of "tainted donations". Is some money "bad", and if so can it ever be turned to good uses through philanthropy? Including: Recent versions of the tainted donation issue: Epstein & MIT Media Lab, the Sacklers, The Presidents Club The history of tainted donations: mediaeval prostitutes, Rockefeller & Carnegie in the firing line, George Cadbury, George Bernard Shaw, William Booth What do we mean by tainted? In cases where there is no clear illegality, how do we navigate much more contested ethical grey areas? Do we need to differentiate between criticisms of specific ways in which has been made (e.g. fossil fuels, arms manufacture, tobacco) and broader structural critiques of capitalism as a whole? Do the ethical concerns associated with a particular source of money relate directly to the way in which the money was made, or are they indirect? Does this affect the moral status of a donation? In a highly interconnected world, with global financial systems, does it make sense to talk of any money as ‘tainted’ or ‘pure’? Is it better for charities to refuse ethically dubious donations in order to avoid damaging themselves by association, or do they have a responsibility to take the money and put it to good uses? What level of control is a tainted donor seeking to exert over how their money is used? How does this affect the decision about whether to accept it or not? Will the donor get personal benefit from their donation- either in the form of tangible thanks or recognition, or in the form of more intangible social status and connections? Does this make accepting a gift more problematic? Does a organisation’s decision to take money always imply approval of the donor to some degree? Is it possible to counteract this implication through overt condemnation whilst still taking the money? In order to justify taking a charity accepting a tainted donation, does its work have to address a harm related to the way in which the money was made i.e. does there have to be some element of reparation? Is there a statute of limitations on tainted donations? What should we do in cases of historic wrongs that occurred so long ago that no one affected is still alive? On what legal basis can charity trustees decide to refuse a donation? How do trustees balance the potential reputational risk of accepting a tainted donation against the certainty of financial loss from not accepting it? Does public opinion actually support charities turning down donations from tainted sources? If a donation has already been made, is it even possible in charity law for it to be returned?   Related Links  -Ronan Farrow's New Yorker piece on Jeffrey Epstein and MIT MEdia Lab -CAF Giving Thought Blog, “When Should Charities Say No To Donations?” -CAF Giving Thought Blog “The Wages of Sin: Doing good with bad money” -The “Criticisms of Philanthropy” chapter from my book Public Good by Private Means -Matthew Ross’s HistPhil article about the history of donations to Notre Dame -Ben Soskis’s Atlantic article “Dirty Money: from Rockefeller to Koch” -G.K. Chesterton's attack on J.D. Rockefeller: "Gifts of the Millionaire" -Beth Breeze’s Guardian article “Should charities accept contrition cash from dubious donors?” -John Picton’s Conversation article “Sackler donations: why museums and galleries can be stuck with gifts – even if they don’t want them”  

When Toronto attorney Charles Vance Millar died in 1926, he left behind a mischievous will that promised a fortune to the woman who gave birth to the most children in the next 10 years. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll follow the Great Stork Derby and the hope and controversy it brought to Toronto's largest families during the Great Depression. We'll also visit some Portuguese bats and puzzle over a suspicious work crew. Intro: The programming language Shakespeare produces code that reads like a stage play. In a qualification round for the 1994 Caribbean Cup, Barbados and Grenada seemed to switch sides. Sources for our feature on the Great Stork Derby: Mark M. Orkin, The Great Stork Derby, 1982. In Re Estate of Charles Millar (1937), [1938] 1 D.L.R. 65 (Supreme Court of Canada). Chris Bateman, "Historicist: The Great Stork Derby," Torontoist, Oct. 29, 2016. David Goldenberg, "How a Dead Millionaire Convinced Dozens of Women to Have as Many Babies as Possible," Five Thirty Eight, Dec. 11, 2015. Adam Bunch, "The Great Toronto Stork Derby — Why the City Went Baby Crazy During the Great Depression," Spacing Magazine, July 23, 2013. Steuart Henderson Britt, "The Significance of the Last Will and Testament," Journal of Social Psychology 8:3 (August 1937), 347-353. Peter Edwards, "1926 Will Sparked Toronto's Great 'Stork Derby,'" Toronto Star, Sept. 9, 2006. "Big Family, Big Prize," Philippine Daily Inquirer, Jan. 17, 2002. Douglas J. Johnston, "Will Power," The Beaver 81:4 (August/September 2001), 37-39. Marty Gervais, "Stork Derby of '26 Meant to Tweak Beaks of Clergy," Windsor Star, June 23, 2000. Craig Zawada, "Dumb Moments in Legal History," Saskatchewan Business 20:6 (Nov. 1, 1999), 7. Pat MacAdam, "The Mischievous Will: Toronto the Good Left Shaken by Staid Lawyer's Quirky Last Wishes," Ottawa Citizen, Aug. 2, 1999. John Picton, "Lawyer's Will Started Baby Boom," Toronto Star, Feb. 26, 1989. Kathleen Walker, "Stork Derby Strangest of Lawyer's Bequests," Ottawa Citizen, Dec. 14, 1981. Susan Schwartz, "Prim Toronto Was Site of Baby Race," Montreal Gazette, Dec. 9, 1981. "Mrs. Annie Smith," New York Times, Jan. 21, 1948. "Toronto Bequest Provides for Second 'Stork Derby,'" New York Times, March 12, 1946. "Stork Derby Victors Lonely for Children," New York Times, July 6, 1938. "Topics of the Times," New York Times, June 1, 1938. "Last of 'Stork Derby'?", Ottawa Evening Citizen, May 31, 1938. "'Stork Derby' Winners Paid," New York Times, May 30, 1938. "Stork Derby' Prize Awarded 4 Women," New York Times, March 20, 1938. "Justice 'Troubled' in Baby Derby Plea," New York Times, Feb. 27, 1938. "Four Mothers of Nine Win Shares in $500,000 Stork Derby Cash," New York Times, Feb. 13, 1938. "Has Her 12th Baby," New York Times, Jan. 6, 1938. "Stork Derby' Will Upheld on Appeal," New York Times, Dec. 23, 1937. "Toronto Baby Race Upheld on Appeal," New York Times, Feb. 24, 1937. "Lady Astor Declares Stork Derby 'Horror,'" New York Times, Nov. 29, 1936. "Stork Derby Will Upheld by Court," New York Times, Nov. 21, 1936. "'Baby Clause' Held Valid in Millar Will," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Nov. 19, 1936. "Ruling on Stork Promised in Week," New York Times, Nov. 17, 1936. "Dr. Hayne Thinks Toronto Mothers in 'Piker' Class," [Spartanburg, S.C.] Herald-Journal, Nov. 4, 1936. "Stork Derby 'Winner' Offers to Split Prize," New York Times, Nov. 2, 1936. "Birth Derby Ends; 6 Mothers in 'Tie,'" New York Times, Nov. 1, 1936. "Reaper at Finish Line in Baby Race," [Washington, D.C.] Evening Star, Oct. 30, 1936. "'Stork Derby' Will Is Attacked by Kin," New York Times, Oct. 29, 1936. "Foul Is Claimed in Baby Derby," [Washington, D.C.] Evening Star, Oct. 27, 1936. "Stork Derby Rule Taken by Premier," New York Times, Oct. 24, 1936. "To Fight Baby Derby Fund," New York Times, Oct. 16, 1936. "Threats in 'Baby Derby,'" New York Times, Aug. 30, 1936. "Another Baby Enters $500,000 Stork Derby," New York Times, Aug. 18, 1936. "12 in Toronto Stork Race, Parents of 89, Join Party," New York Times, Aug. 1, 1936. "Mrs. Kenny Leads in Stork Derby," Nashua [N.H.] Telegraph, Feb. 6, 1936. "'Dark Horse' in 'Stork Derby' Now Believes in Birth Control," Milwaukee Journal, Nov. 29, 1935. Phillis Griffiths, "Stork Derby Field Scorns Split Prize," New York Times, Sept. 15, 1935. "$500,000 Carried by Toronto Stork," New York Times, Sept. 8, 1935. "Toronto 'Baby' Will Safe," New York Times, Sept. 7, 1935. "12 in Toronto Stork Race, Parents of 89, Join Party," New York Times, Aug. 1, 1936. "The Commonwealth: Birth Race," Time, Dec. 20, 1926. Listener mail: "I Met a Celebrity at the London Openhouse!! Lord Palmerston, The Fuzzy," Reddit London, Sept. 24, 2018. Rachel Nuwer, "Bats Act As Pest Control at Two Old Portuguese Libraries," Smithsonian.com, Sept. 19, 2013. Julie H. Case, "These Portuguese Libraries Are Infested With Bats -- and They Like It That Way," Smithsonian.com, June 7, 2018. Patricia Kowsmann, "The Bats Help Preserve Old Books But They Drive Librarians, Well, Batty," Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2018. Universidade de Coimbra Library. Christina Caron, "Zanesville Animal Massacre Included 18 Rare Bengal Tigers," ABC News, Oct. 19, 2011. Kathy Thompson, "Ohio Exotic Animal Owner Speaks Out 1st Time Since Ordeal," [Zanesville, Ohio] Times Recorder, Oct. 18, 2012. "William Walker: Diver Who Saved Winchester Cathedral Remembered," BBC News, Oct. 6, 2018. This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listeners Wil, Cassidy, and Sydney, inspired by an item on 99 Percent Invisible (warning -- this link spoils the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

John Picton goes to the market in Kumasi to look at factory printed cloth to see how it is still influenced by traditional designs. He also looks at the history of the modern printed cloths and how manufacturers try to keep pace with changing societies

Transcript -- John Picton goes to the market in Kumasi to look at factory printed cloth to see how it is still influenced by traditional designs. He also looks at the history of the modern printed cloths and how manufacturers try to keep pace with changing societies

John Picton goes to the market in Kumasi to look at factory printed cloth to see how it is still influenced by traditional designs. He also looks at the history of the modern printed cloths and how manufacturers try to keep pace with changing societies

Transcript -- John Picton goes to the market in Kumasi to look at factory printed cloth to see how it is still influenced by traditional designs. He also looks at the history of the modern printed cloths and how manufacturers try to keep pace with changing societies