Yes. Yes - this.Brian Peacock wrote:This isn't a public hearing LP. You don't have to justify your views to us - we've been there, in various ways, and we know your reasons for pursuing this, and that, when you get down to it, people like RD, however much they are 'on the right side' as it were, still need to be held to account when they take money from others under false pretences and/or blur the necessary demarcation between their organisation's charitable activity and their personal whims. Don't get distracted by the personal stuff, just bind up all the apparent financial irregularities into a nice neat package and get it out there.
I also plan to bind up all of the apparent interpersonal irregularities, which go together with the financial irregularities to paint a picture that is, well, very irregular.
One thing that I have written in my IRS referral is that the NBGA issue is not only evidence of potential fraud, but it is incontrovertible evidence as it stands, of terrible mismanagement and incompetence.
Because no matter how many ways they try to massage the numbers, destroy evidence and plead that the money had been "resting in their account" - there's no way that they're ever going to get a fine polish on that turd.
The interpersonal aspect of the conflict of interest within RDF has had detrimental consequences that go far beyond the balance sheet.
Richard handpicking mistresses for leadership roles within his charity, without any kind of vetting or monitoring processes, would have been a betrayal of donors' trust even if no costs had been incurred by RDF. The prioritising of those mistresses over the fulfilment of the stated mission, would have been a betrayal even if not a cent had been lost.
This is a man who once had his wife help him put his razors through blind trials, so that he could pick the best razor without any undue bias due to branding and marketing. Does he not think that the people he chooses to lead his charity might be of a bit more consequence than the utensil he chooses to scrape hair off his face in the morning? And perhaps his penis is a far greater threat to the impartiality of his judgement than any marketing campaign?
It really is sad because Richard really was in a great position to have achieved the things that he said he wanted to achieve. It's sad that he has forfeited so much because he was so distracted by other pursuits, sad that he still insists he is "proud", and sad that it will take many more months of denial before he finally comes to terms with how badly he has underachieved, and how much he has betrayed people.