RD.net to be re-revamped!

[DaveDodo007]

From the vaults:

I have a personal theory about why the off topic was a bugbear for Dawkins, there's been rumours that old Dicky has a MAJOR problem keeping it in his trousers which is kept out the press by very good PR. When the sexual threads got pulled this was around the time that apparently a story about the Dawk was trying to be kept under wraps. Essentially if the press did ever run the story, then having that sort of material on the site would have caused a field day for the right wing press.
OK it’s a bit hypocritical and cowardly, but it wouldn’t have exactly helped the image of the Foundation from a PR view.

I've sold that story to The Sun.

Too late to recant.

The way I understand it is that Dawkins has something of an open marriage, which he's at pains to keep under wraps. If the press DID report it he could in all likelihood sue for invasion of privacy. This is all rumour mill stuff but certain bloggers have deleted posts and shut the hell up after his PR people got wind of them. [Cough] Allegedly.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 30#p636130

To be honest I don't think this is a big deal when it comes to atheism/theism as we atheists don't have an abstinence policy, quite the opposite in fact. You name it: premarital sex, blowjobs, anal, gay, bondage and if you are lucky you get a threesome or a foursome etc, all of course paid for by the 'guvmint' freeloading handouts via contraception. the disclosure of anything short or a full on orgy of Caligulaque depths with roast baby as desert will satisfy the theists to confirm their prejudices that we are in fact in league with Satan. Whatever else is going on here a sex scandal is not happening unless Lalla Ward(sp) decides otherwise.

[DaveDodo007]

From the vaults:

I have a personal theory about why the off topic was a bugbear for Dawkins, there's been rumours that old Dicky has a MAJOR problem keeping it in his trousers which is kept out the press by very good PR. When the sexual threads got pulled this was around the time that apparently a story about the Dawk was trying to be kept under wraps. Essentially if the press did ever run the story, then having that sort of material on the site would have caused a field day for the right wing press.
OK it’s a bit hypocritical and cowardly, but it wouldn’t have exactly helped the image of the Foundation from a PR view.

I've sold that story to The Sun.

Too late to recant.

The way I understand it is that Dawkins has something of an open marriage, which he's at pains to keep under wraps. If the press DID report it he could in all likelihood sue for invasion of privacy. This is all rumour mill stuff but certain bloggers have deleted posts and shut the hell up after his PR people got wind of them. [Cough] Allegedly.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 30#p636130

If this is true, then we might do well to prepare ourselves for a visit from his tame Max Clifford clones. Not a happy prospect. Wonder what Private Eye has got in its little database with respect to all of this?

Frankly, though, I think The Sun would be the least of his worries if any of this ended up in the tabloids. They'd probably congratulate him for being able to perform like a rabbit at his age. More troubling would the likes of the Scaly Mail. Melanie Phillips would have a field day with this.

However, I cannot help but think of the furore that would result if it was revealed that a government minister was behaving in a manner consonant with the assertions presented here. (Before you jump on me for this choice of words, LP, I'm mindful of the need to protect the forum's ass ). Using funds that may possibly belong to others, to keep a mistress in a lavish pad, would see a politician's career go south faster than you could say "David Mellor". Moreover, I have a nasty feeling that if this ends up in the public domain, the SFO might want to have some words, and frankly, the last thing I want to see is RD ending up having the creotard crowd point at him as an atheist version of Kent Hovind.

It's a real pity someone who has his ear can't pull him to one side and remind him of the perilous risks he's taking here.

If you had read the emails then you should know the difference between Richard Dawkins LTD and the RDF. Nobody including LP is claiming he uses his charity to fund his (alleged) affairs.

[DaveDodo007]

But... that sort of behaviour sounds suspiciously appropriate for a cult leader.

Perhaps he'll end up with a harem, 30 Aston Martins and and a barn filled with heavy ordinance. He's practically an extispex anyway.

Richard Dawkins was already rich and famous (and influential) author and go to science guy of the oxbridge set before moving on to atheism, his move into atheism probably added to all this but can no way be described as cult like behaviour.

[Audley Strange]

But... that sort of behaviour sounds suspiciously appropriate for a cult leader.

Perhaps he'll end up with a harem, 30 Aston Martins and and a barn filled with heavy ordinance. He's practically an extispex anyway.

Richard Dawkins was already rich and famous (and influential) author and go to science guy of the oxbridge set before moving on to atheism, his move into atheism probably added to all this but can no way be described as cult like behaviour.

Yeah, you shouldn't take that seriously. At all.

[Calilasseia]

From the vaults:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 30#p636130

If this is true, then we might do well to prepare ourselves for a visit from his tame Max Clifford clones. Not a happy prospect. Wonder what Private Eye has got in its little database with respect to all of this?

Frankly, though, I think The Sun would be the least of his worries if any of this ended up in the tabloids. They'd probably congratulate him for being able to perform like a rabbit at his age. More troubling would the likes of the Scaly Mail. Melanie Phillips would have a field day with this.

However, I cannot help but think of the furore that would result if it was revealed that a government minister was behaving in a manner consonant with the assertions presented here. (Before you jump on me for this choice of words, LP, I'm mindful of the need to protect the forum's ass ). Using funds that may possibly belong to others, to keep a mistress in a lavish pad, would see a politician's career go south faster than you could say "David Mellor". Moreover, I have a nasty feeling that if this ends up in the public domain, the SFO might want to have some words, and frankly, the last thing I want to see is RD ending up having the creotard crowd point at him as an atheist version of Kent Hovind.

It's a real pity someone who has his ear can't pull him to one side and remind him of the perilous risks he's taking here.

If you had read the emails then you should know the difference between Richard Dawkins LTD and the RDF. Nobody including LP is claiming he uses his charity to fund his (alleged) affairs.

That may be the case. Do you think basic facts such as this will get in the way of duplicitous supernaturalist crowing on the matter? The enemy will lie through its teeth in order to milk any scandal to the full. Plus, if RD LTD is simply a vehicle for managing his private income, I'm slightly puzzled as to how this can be set up as a limited liability company. But I don't pretend to be an expert in this field.

[Thinking Aloud]

Plus, if RD LTD is simply a vehicle for managing his private income, I'm slightly puzzled as to how this can be set up as a limited liability company. But I don't pretend to be an expert in this field.

That's fairly common. I do it myself.

[Coito ergo sum]

plus, if RD LTD is simply a vehicle for managing his private income, I'm slightly puzzled as to how this can be set up as a limited liability company. But I don't pretend to be an expert in this field.

What else would it be set up as? And, what's the distinction "private" mean in terms of income? Is there "public" income?

[Jason]

He could sell shares in RD LTD.. then it would be a publicly traded company and he'd be accountable to his shareholders.

[DaveDodo007]

But... that sort of behaviour sounds suspiciously appropriate for a cult leader.

Perhaps he'll end up with a harem, 30 Aston Martins and and a barn filled with heavy ordinance. He's practically an extispex anyway.

Richard Dawkins was already rich and famous (and influential) author and go to science guy of the oxbridge set before moving on to atheism, his move into atheism probably added to all this but can no way be described as cult like behaviour.

Yeah, you shouldn't take that seriously. At all.

But were is the fun in that.

[Jason]

But... that sort of behaviour sounds suspiciously appropriate for a cult leader.

Perhaps he'll end up with a harem, 30 Aston Martins and and a barn filled with heavy ordinance. He's practically an extispex anyway.

Richard Dawkins was already rich and famous (and influential) author and go to science guy of the oxbridge set before moving on to atheism, his move into atheism probably added to all this but can no way be described as cult like behaviour.

Yeah, you shouldn't take that seriously. At all.

But were is the fun in that.

He was famous.. for a science writer. Which is to say not very famous.

[PsychoSerenity]

plus, if RD LTD is simply a vehicle for managing his private income, I'm slightly puzzled as to how this can be set up as a limited liability company. But I don't pretend to be an expert in this field.

What else would it be set up as? And, what's the distinction "private" mean in terms of income? Is there "public" income?

The other main option here is to be a self-employed "sole trader", but if your finances are getting complicated I believe there are some advantages to setting up a limited company.

[Coito ergo sum]

He could sell shares in RD LTD.. then it would be a publicly traded company and he'd be accountable to his shareholders.

Not necessarily. He could sell shares in a private offering, or just sell shares to individual subscribers. Doesn't have to be publicly traded to sell shares.

[Coito ergo sum]

plus, if RD LTD is simply a vehicle for managing his private income, I'm slightly puzzled as to how this can be set up as a limited liability company. But I don't pretend to be an expert in this field.

What else would it be set up as? And, what's the distinction "private" mean in terms of income? Is there "public" income?

The other main option here is to be a self-employed "sole trader", but if your finances are getting complicated I believe there are some advantages to setting up a limited company.

That doesn't make much sense, because a sole trader (here called a sole proprietor) is personally liable for the debts, obligations and suits against the company, whereas a limited company or a corporation has limited liability. That's the main reason for setting up an entity like that.

Alternatively, typically there is a lower corporate rate for profits, so if he didn't plan to pull money out of the company in the short term, he could reduce tax liability that way. Although that would normally mean the money gets taxed again when it is distributed to shareholders (him).

[lordpasternack]

From the vaults:

I have a personal theory about why the off topic was a bugbear for Dawkins, there's been rumours that old Dicky has a MAJOR problem keeping it in his trousers which is kept out the press by very good PR. When the sexual threads got pulled this was around the time that apparently a story about the Dawk was trying to be kept under wraps. Essentially if the press did ever run the story, then having that sort of material on the site would have caused a field day for the right wing press.
OK it’s a bit hypocritical and cowardly, but it wouldn’t have exactly helped the image of the Foundation from a PR view.

I've sold that story to The Sun.

Too late to recant.

The way I understand it is that Dawkins has something of an open marriage, which he's at pains to keep under wraps. If the press DID report it he could in all likelihood sue for invasion of privacy. This is all rumour mill stuff but certain bloggers have deleted posts and shut the hell up after his PR people got wind of them. [Cough] Allegedly.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 30#p636130

To be honest I don't think this is a big deal when it comes to atheism/theism as we atheists don't have an abstinence policy, quite the opposite in fact. You name it: premarital sex, blowjobs, anal, gay, bondage and if you are lucky you get a threesome or a foursome etc, all of course paid for by the 'guvmint' freeloading handouts via contraception. the disclosure of anything short or a full on orgy of Caligulaque depths with roast baby as desert will satisfy the theists to confirm their prejudices that we are in fact in league with Satan. Whatever else is going on here a sex scandal is not happening unless Lalla Ward(sp) decides otherwise.

Again - it's not the sex, per se - it's the documented, and the possible, conflict of interest. The very conscious and deliberate conflict of interest in some cases. And the possible rank disingenuousness and hypocrisy of Richard, preaching to us back in the day about how having conversations of an explicitly sexual nature does not become a website devoted to reason and science - but having his little secret agendas, secret email accounts and backroom deals with his mistress, and Executive-Director-to-be, was fine.

Also - there are other documented cases where there was real expressed intent to use the Foundation itself to benefit his mistress - placing the conflict of interest firmly on the wrong side of everything - without the shades of grey of the above. And, well, there is more that I won't discuss publicly right now... But all will be documented, in time.

And it also casts light on how Richard's preaching to us at the time of the off-topic purge in 2008 (which you may not know the details of) - about the grave possibilities of losing charitable status - perhaps had more to do with his own guilty conscience than our behaviour.

And my contention is - the reason he is lying about all of this... Lying to me - an atheist, and someone who has quite possibly had more sexual partners than he's had already - is that he knows he has things to hide which wouldn't bode well for his Foundation (as well as, perhaps, his marriage).

Also - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - all of these documented cardinal sins would have been entirely forgivable, if only they could demonstrate that in spite of all the conflict of interest, they were still managing to run the foundation well, and fulfilling their mission and their stated commitments to donors of the charity. But - as I have documented - they have not - and Richard doesn't appear to give much of a shit.

And if you wish to argue that The Adventures of Richard's Penis are not relevant to the Foundation's documented failures - then, by all means - be my guest...

[Thinking Aloud]

He could sell shares in RD LTD.. then it would be a publicly traded company and he'd be accountable to his shareholders.

There's a distinction between "publicly traded" and just "limited", and that's to do with size. Huge companies like BP, Tesco and Serco are traded on the stock exchange - known as PLCs - ordinary limited companies can indeed sell their shares, but they can only be traded privately. To become a PLC you've got to be huge.

Most small limited companies will have a handful of shareholders (or only one - like in my case) to whom they're accountable, and they're most likely to be the folks who set the company up - often the same people who are the company's Directors.