Lying for Reason and Science

[lordpasternack]

There's a lot that Richard Dawkins can do about it, should he finally go and retrieve his balls from this woman's nightstand, and engage his brain. I've already attempted to contact some people from within RDFRS - to whom I've shown the full battery of evidence yet to be troweled into this thread. Letting potential donors know is the next decent step, and another pressure on them - not to concede to my wishes as such - but to do the obvious right thing.

Indeed, unless I had evidence of something truly nefarious - a regulatory body would probably tell me to go through the charity's complaints procedure instead. (The non-existent complaints procedure, of course, in RDFRS's case.)

In truth, though, I don't know how I'd complain to the US regulatory body. What would I say?

"Dear Regulatory Body - the Executive Director of this charity looks like a real slimy, lying, double-dealing twat - and here's all my evidence suggesting that. Please send them a strongly worded letter about this matter. Thanks."

[Clinton Huxley]

Well, that's my point. If there is evidence of illegal activity, that needs to go to the regulators. If you just have evidence of people being scumbags, well, unfortunately that is not a crime. You could even get yourself into trouble, libel and all that.

[lordpasternack]

If you just have evidence of people being scumbags, well, unfortunately that is not a crime. You could even get yourself into trouble, libel and all that.

Not if I merely present evidence and let people judge for themselves.

And if I have evidence of people in charge of charities being scumbags - the founder(s), the staff, and as many current and potential donors as possible, DESERVE TO KNOW.

Again - I can't believe that I can post evidence of scumbaggery from a person at the helm of a charity (and an organisation that plenty of us once had a strong connection to) - and the most that people want to discuss with me is the finer points of my own motives and actions…

[Robert_S]

LP, if you think you have evidence for dubious dealings at the RDFRS, is that not more of a matter for the Charity Commission or whatever body regulates charities in the US? There's not a lot we can do about it....

I hope that's in the works. In the meantime, I don't mind reading the juice and being a sounding board to an extent.

Oh yeah, it just occurred to me that the fact that there was no contract between JT and RDF is why that whole lawsuit happened in the first place.

There's a lot that Richard Dawkins can do about it, should he finally go and retrieve his balls from this woman's nightstand, and engage his brain. Indeed, unless I had evidence of something truly nefarious - a regulatory body would probably tell me to go through the charity's complaints procedure instead. (The non-existent complaints procedure, of course, in RDFRS's case.)

In truth, though, I don't know how I'd complain to the US regulatory body. What would I say?

"Dear Regulatory Body - the Executive Director of this charity looks like a real slimy, lying, double-dealing twat - and here's all my evidence suggesting that. Please send them a strongly worded letter about this matter. Thanks."

Maybe it's a good idea to just stick with the deeds as the evidence reveals them and leave the character evaluations to the reader.

Also, it might be useful to clarify the situation to the perspective of the person with some extra money wanting to out it to a good cause. What do you say to:
"I'm considering giving my money to this organization. Maybe the people have major flaws and sometimes treat each other horribly, but can I expect that they'll get the resources where they're needed in a reasonably efficient manor?"

[John_fi_Skye]

As one very lately arrived here, and with therefore no axe to grind (though I'll concede Dawkins's TV programmes had never made me admire him), I think this is fascinating. Lord P, I'm pleased you've now got a couple of people who're more informed than me posting that they want to see your information. In the hope that I'm not encouraging you to get into any kind of litigation problems, so will I be.



Just remembered that my grandad used to pronounce "axe" to rhyme with "makes".

[lordpasternack]

Robert - if you'd read their latest fundraising drive, you'd be in little doubt. It was a soufflé - eggy and cheesy, and whipped up and puffed out with rhetoric, PR-speak and half-truths. Perhaps their greatest claim to success in the past two years is being the largest single financial donor to the Clergy Project. Which is something of a non-achievement, when all that we have to do to nullify it is to all give directly to that cause ourselves.

[Clinton Huxley]

It's your quest, LP, knock yourself out. Presenting evidence of dodginess by RDFRS is fair enough, potential donors need to know what kind of organisation they are dealing with.

You have made comments about where the money goes, implying that something shady is happening. Also about the relationship between Dawkins and this woman. If your allegations are correct, you are ok but if not, could be an expensive mistake.

But then, if you are just posting this stuff here, hardlly anyone is going to read it....

[Robert_S]

Actually, this part of the forum is open to the world.

[Clinton Huxley]

Actually, this part of the forum is open to the world.

My front window is open to the world but not many people peer in....

I was wondering, if LP said something libellous, would Rationalia be liable, as the "publisher". Don't know.....

[lordpasternack]

You have made comments about where the money goes, implying that something shady is happening.

I was actually mostly implying that something INCOMPETENT is going on - that, from what I am informed, they're running this all through one person's personal PayPal account, making it very difficult to audit - which they probably aren't doing at all, anyway (which we can glean from RDFRS's history) - and just trusting this person, and not being upfront with donors about that set-up - which donors ought to be concerned about on a basic level.

And if that all really is the case, then, in the first place - you'd have thought Richard would have learnt from Timonen's alleged embezzlement… And in the second place - it's really lovely that he trusts people, and all - but if he wants to hold that 'trust' of his as sacrosanct, and off-limits from our scepticism - then he's clearly in the wrong job, and is showing a fundamental lack of respect to donors. He's running a charity. He needs to shove his pride, and a great deal of his well-intentioned 'trust' up his arse - and respect his donors by engaging the 'critical thinking', and providing the 'evidence-based understanding' of which he is reportedly such a fan.

Also about the relationship between Dawkins and this woman. If your allegations are correct, you are ok but if not, could be an expensive mistake.

They are correct.

But then, if you are just posting this stuff here, hardlly anyone is going to read it....

I'm just starting here, for now.

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm pretty sure that being able to provide properly auditable accounts is a requirement of the regulators.

[Audley Strange]

You know, I think I'm more interested in pseudo history or pseudo science books like the stuff by Graham Hancock, Zechariah Sitchin, the Holy Blood/Holy Grail folk etc... at least, in those, you can make a game of extracting the nuggets of truth from the woo matrix.

You know what... I was thinking about just this thing since I've been watching the utterly hilarious Ancient Aliens. I mean it is preposterous, totally, but once you get by all the sci-fi bullshit it tells you quite a lot about ancient architecture, empires, belief systems, art, history, politics, fascinating natural phenomenon and a whole host of other topics that without the hilarious Centauri Ambassador Molari lookalike most people would have zero interest it. Same with the Assassin's Creed games. They've got tonnes of nice articles in the games about architecture history and European politics during the middle ages all wrapped up in a war between Templar's and Assassins.

Is pseudoscience them perhaps stealth knowledge or is it a case of "a little knowledge is a dangeous thing."

I'm not sure, but I'm curious about it.

Sneaking in knowledge through entertainment can be fine... the problem is making sure the audience gets the right stuff and does not mix it up with the fictional bits.

and pseudoscience really mixes fact and fiction far too much for my taste... separating the two can be a pain.

First. Sorry for the Derail LP. It's tangentially relevant btw, but if it bothers you I'll stop

Secondly @ Svartalf. Sure in Hancock et al it's Lies presented as truth and that can get muddling. However in AA and AC (and I'm sure other things) the nonsense is so preposterous as to be unbelievable by almost everyone so no real need to separate.

I guess my question is, at what point do you accept something as plausible without knowing it's actual? I think we do it all the time and it concerns me a bit but not too much. We take scraps of info and think we see a picture, but it's a trick of the eyes or light the gaps filled in by our own beliefs and presumptions.

[lordpasternack]

I'm pretty sure that being able to provide properly auditable accounts is a requirement of the regulators.

Yes, but 'auditable accounts' are incredibly easy to massage, fabricate and launder - particularly if all the money is travelling through one person's hands - being counted amongst all of their PERSONAL cashflow - and all they have to do is take a few liberties in calling the shots on what their 'salary' or 'other income' is, or 'expenses' are… Anyone who has ever been self-employed knows just how fast and loose you can play with decency, and still provide an 'auditable account'. The most grotesque televangelists provide 'auditable accounts'.

And none of this evades the point that there should be continuous INTERNAL auditing, as well as the compulsory external auditing.

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm pretty sure that being able to provide properly auditable accounts is a requirement of the regulators.

Yes, but 'auditable accounts' are incredibly easy to massage, fabricate and launder - particularly if all the money is travelling through one person's hands, and all they have to do is take a few liberties in calling the shots on what their 'salary' or 'other income' is, or 'expenses' are… Anyone who has ever been self-employed knows just how fast and loose you can play with decency, and still provide an 'auditable account'. The most grotesque televangelists provide 'auditable accounts'.

And none of this evades the point that there should be continuous INTERNAL auditing, as well as the compulsory external auditing.

This is all "could be fiddling the accounts". Well, anyone "could be fiddling their accounts". It's just a fact that there are statutory requirements around how money is handled by charities. They need to be able to show money in, money out and where it went. Either the RDFRS is following these procedures or it is not. If you have reason to suspect they aren't following proper accounting procedures, I'm sure you could make a complaint to the relevant regulator, who would then decide whether to investigate.

You seem to be insinuating that because they "could" be fiddling the accounts, they "are" fiddling the accounts.
Throwing mud at a wall....

[surreptitious57]

I am starting to see why Heather is so determined now : it has to do with the fact that
RDFRS is a charity and so any financial misappropriation is a greater offence : least
morally if not legally : than if it was just a standard business : and does seem odd
that one would appoint them selves as producer of work they had zero in put on
but presumaby Richard is aware of this so why allow it : seems rather strange