RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Incognita]

BTW I endorse the recommendation of the NSS. IMO they are well worth supporting.

[kiki5711]

Foundations are not that easy to run and can be ruined due to mismanagement. I have a best friend who ran the foundation for social research. eventually it fell apart because the ones on the board would constantly bicker about where the money should be spent and how much salary they can take home. So, people are people. You know. Greedy. And all that. IF you gave any money to the foundation with best intentions, leave it at that. Your heart was in the right place. You were not selling your donation for goods. It was not guaranteed, at least I don't think so, that the money will be spent 100% sincerely as it should be.

If someone suspects fraud, or stealing from members donations etc...they should take the legal route and expose the foundation in court. Now if you gave $10-$50 dollars, let's just say, it's not worth the stress of "what did you do with my money", on the other hand if you gave millions, ya, I'd definitely go to court. Otherwise, I'd just find some other place to focus on where I feel the community is thriving, and move on.

[lordpasternack]

Another thing that I want to add, purely by the way, is that Andrew told me that while he was working for Richard/RDFRS - Richard encouraged him to charge his me.com account (an Apple thing) through RDFRS, as their expense. And I'm sorry, but that's not 'generous' - it's disingenuous and a few shades too nepotistic to be respected. What self-respecting charity tells its workers: "Please do charge your various utility bills as expenses to the charity's accounts"?

It only strengthens the view I already had of RDFRS as being more of a tightly reserved nepotistic circlejerk than anything else. And also makes me doubt the strength of Richard's case against Josh - since there's a good chance that he really did make such similarly 'generous' offers to Josh, which he'd forgotten the details of.

[lordpasternack]

Kiki - I don't like charlatanism, whether legal or not, in principle. And I would like to expose their charlatanism (and get their charitable status revoked if deemed appropriate) as a simple matter of principle. I gave them a simple offer - they be upfront with me, and either show me I'm wrong, or give genuine signs that they have the will and the competence to fix things - or I expose them. Not just to the Charity Commission, but to everyone I can. Because that's just how I roll.

[lordpasternack]

Re: what Ronja said - this is the email in full that I sent to Richard Dawkins on the 1st of November. I rib him about him not being answerable to me, since, despite being Mr Reason and Science, and despite supporting the notion that all people should be sceptically interrogated, and asked to provide evidence - he likes to spit and fold his arms a little bit and tell you he's not answerable to you, if you so much as look funny at his Foundation. Funny that.

Hello Richard. I'd like to enquire as to what your charitable foundation actually does, with particular reference to its mission statement, if this could be provided. This information doesn't appear to be available or manifest on either of the websites carrying your foundation's name, so far as I can see - which is peculiar, to say the least.

I know it's incredibly pertinent to ask for evidence like this. You're not answerable to me - and I should only ask for evidence from people who are answerable to me - which is, nobody. Oh well. There goes my career as a sceptic, then…

No, what I mean to say is that far from getting defensive, I'd expect you to leap on the opportunity to start gushing about and listing all the projects your foundation is involved in with regards to advancing reason and scientific knowledge and thinking, and why those things make you so passionate about what you've helped create, and why the necessity of your foundation, and your foundation's credentials as a charity (as opposed to another non-profit organisation) are obvious. And I'd expect you to waste little time in making sure your less subtle in your bragging about what RDFRS is actually doing, on your site(s).

If you don't do this then I suppose I could always satisfy my sceptical curiosity by getting someone less ignorable to ask you these questions. It seems odd that you'd be so coy.

Heather.

[lordpasternack]

Oh great, they've re-deleted all my sockpuppet's posts. The sop they threw me hasn't worked, to they'll just have to be puerile and spite me again:





Does that smell funny, or does that smell funny?

Oh, PAULA KIRBY dear - was it you? You do realise that this is going to come up when people Google you now, don't you, Paula Kirby?

Come on, Paula Kirby - you enjoy the bragging rights. You enjoy painting yourself as a paragon of integrity, intelligence, sensibility and honesty. Why won't you step up to the plate and tell us what you've been doing in your role managing RDFRS? Just what the hell is going on here, Paula Kirby?



Is this 'war' again, Paula Kirby? Well, let me tell you that, if it is, I will win, because my honesty and integrity isn't faked, and I'm right, et j'ai raison.

[charlou]

Would like to read your post there, Flora ... a link, please?

I think it's this one.

Cheers.

[lordpasternack]

[lordpasternack]

I sent them this excerpt from the Charity Commission's website, back on the 7th of November:

An effective charity is accountable to the public and others with an interest in the charity (stakeholders) in a way that is transparent and understandable.

In order to demonstrate this, the charity:

- complies with its legal obligations (and best practice), as set out in the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP), to produce annual accounts and a report which includes an explanation of what the charity has done for the public benefit during the year;
- explains in its Annual Report the extent to which it has achieved its charitable purposes in a way that people with an interest in the charity can understand;

- has well-publicised, effective and timely procedures for dealing with complaints about the charity and its activities. 

These should explain how complaints and appeals can be made, and give details of the process and likely timescales;
can show how it involves beneficiaries and service users in the development and improvement of its services; the contribution may have been by way of the appointment of beneficiaries as trustees or their involvement through discussion, consultation or user group input;

- has a communications plan which ensures that accurate and timely information is given to everyone with an interest in the work of the charity, including the media, donors and beneficiaries.

I sent them this very unambiguously firm and sincere note on the 8th of December:

You do realise that there is a small chance that, by the time I have finished reminding you gently about this, I might just be beginning to relish the schadenfreude of taking such obvious charlatans, and hopelessly ignorant incompetents, to the cleaners - and making sure that I give every last bit of mockery, ridicule and damage to your 'image' as it is in my power to do? With reason, of course. Because that's exactly what such obvious charlatans deserve, and should have handed to them. 

Even when you're Richard Dawkins. Even when you're Paula Kirby, or Elisabeth Cornwell, or Sean Faircloth, or Josh Timonen, or Andy Thomson, or heaven knows who else. I do not care who you are. If you behave contemptibly - I will make sure you damn well know about it, and then I'll make sure that as many other people as possible damn well know about it, if you're not up to resolving the issue yourself.

Feel free to return the favour. I have nothing to hide. Give me your best shot.

I do not like charlatans. I do not like people who are not into the idea of furnishing the most minimal of explanations. I do not like people who still fail at that basic task, after being reminded that they have a professional obligation as a charity to do so. I do not like the rank hypocrisy, from a foundation purportedly devoted to reason and science. I do not like the smell of hubristic incompetence that still wafts from RD.net HQ. I don't like the passive-aggressive reticence, and spite.

You either fix it, or you're getting skewered, thoroughly and painfully - and you will have richly deserved every last flinch. And it's only what you would invite on anyone else you encountered behaving in this manner. 

Do what you should do, or hell slap it up you.

Heather.

Granted, I was angry, and a little undiplomatic - but justifiably so, and even still… 

So I've poked and prodded and reminded and drawn things to their attention - and made them aware that I am keeping PZ in the loop as my witness, sorta thing. I've made them aware that I'll be complaining to the Charity Commission - and would they like to defend themselves in some way before I do that? They are reading this thread. And still nothing. Zilch. Nada. Sweet FA.

Does that smell funny, or does that smell funny?

[kiki5711]

How do you know they are reading this thread?

[Jay G]

I sent them this excerpt from the Charity Commission's website, back on the 7th of November:

An effective charity is accountable to the public and others with an interest in the charity (stakeholders) in a way that is transparent and understandable.

In order to demonstrate this, the charity:

- complies with its legal obligations (and best practice), as set out in the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP), to produce annual accounts and a report which includes an explanation of what the charity has done for the public benefit during the year;
- explains in its Annual Report the extent to which it has achieved its charitable purposes in a way that people with an interest in the charity can understand;

- has well-publicised, effective and timely procedures for dealing with complaints about the charity and its activities. 

These should explain how complaints and appeals can be made, and give details of the process and likely timescales;
can show how it involves beneficiaries and service users in the development and improvement of its services; the contribution may have been by way of the appointment of beneficiaries as trustees or their involvement through discussion, consultation or user group input;

- has a communications plan which ensures that accurate and timely information is given to everyone with an interest in the work of the charity, including the media, donors and beneficiaries.

I sent them this very unambiguously firm and sincere note on the 8th of December:

You do realise that there is a small chance that, by the time I have finished reminding you gently about this, I might just be beginning to relish the schadenfreude of taking such obvious charlatans, and hopelessly ignorant incompetents, to the cleaners - and making sure that I give every last bit of mockery, ridicule and damage to your 'image' as it is in my power to do? With reason, of course. Because that's exactly what such obvious charlatans deserve, and should have handed to them. 

Even when you're Richard Dawkins. Even when you're Paula Kirby, or Elisabeth Cornwell, or Sean Faircloth, or Josh Timonen, or Andy Thomson, or heaven knows who else. I do not care who you are. If you behave contemptibly - I will make sure you damn well know about it, and then I'll make sure that as many other people as possible damn well know about it, if you're not up to resolving the issue yourself.

Feel free to return the favour. I have nothing to hide. Give me your best shot.

I do not like charlatans. I do not like people who are not into the idea of furnishing the most minimal of explanations. I do not like people who still fail at that basic task, after being reminded that they have a professional obligation as a charity to do so. I do not like the rank hypocrisy, from a foundation purportedly devoted to reason and science. I do not like the smell of hubristic incompetence that still wafts from RD.net HQ. I don't like the passive-aggressive reticence, and spite.

You either fix it, or you're getting skewered, thoroughly and painfully - and you will have richly deserved every last flinch. And it's only what you would invite on anyone else you encountered behaving in this manner. 

Do what you should do, or hell slap it up you.

Heather.

Granted, I was angry, and a little undiplomatic - but justifiably so, and even still… 

So I've poked and prodded and reminded and drawn things to their attention - and made them aware that I am keeping PZ in the loop as my witness, sorta thing. I've made them aware that I'll be complaining to the Charity Commission - and would they like to defend themselves in some way before I do that? They are reading this thread. And still nothing. Zilch. Nada. Sweet FA.

Does that smell funny, or does that smell funny?

Forgive me for getting into a thread that I has been going on for a while. What, exactly, are you alleging about the RDFRS?

[lordpasternack]

JayG - I have asked Richard Dawkins and his colleague Paula Kirby, who claims to run the UK side of RDFRS, simply to explain what RDFRS does - with reference to the Mission Statement, if they could provide this. I first made this enquiry on the 1st of November. Richard Dawkins has absolutely been made aware of this. I have told them very unambiguously that I plan on complaining to the Charity Commission and generally tarnishing their image if they can't or won't respond to this most basic query. I banged doors, fired warning shots, and loudly stated how I would escalate things. AND I HAVE STILL HAD NO RESPONSE, SIX WEEKS LATER.

Does that smell right, to you?

[lordpasternack]

How do you know they are reading this thread?

In a nutshell - because I'm not daft.

[kiki5711]

can they read these posts without loggin in? or could we see at the bottom new names we haven't seen before/?

[Jay G]

JayG - I have asked Richard Dawkins and his colleague Paula Kirby, who claims to run the UK side of RDFRS, simply to explain what RDFRS does - with reference to the Mission Statement, if they could provide this. I first made this enquiry on the 1st of November. Richard Dawkins has absolutely been made aware of this. I have told them very unambiguously that I plan on complaining to the Charity Commission and generally tarnishing their image if they can't or won't respond to this most basic query. I banged doors, fired warning shots, and loudly stated how I would escalate things. AND I HAVE STILL HAD NO RESPONSE, SIX WEEKS LATER.

Does that smell right, to you?

Since you asked me, I'll say that it smells exactly as I would expect it to smell.