Lying for Reason and Science

[Audley Strange]

I've followed this for a while out of amusement because I'm of the opinion that a lot of the RDF stuff is a vanity project for Dawkins to leave some kind of legacy and that he's not that bothered about anything much apart from RD bit in the title.

How intelligent is Dawkins? I don't doubt he's a fantastic specialist when it comes to evolutionary biology or promoting science, but he's spent most of his life in academia no? I doubt he has a strong grasp of business or is the type that is capable of schmoozing.

I guess my question is this, LP, what do you see as your endgame here?

[lordpasternack]

I guess my question is this, LP, what do you see as your endgame here?

Getting some rather iffy truths about them out - and hoping they eventually respond by doing the right thing.

I do think that people deserve to know these things, and to have their scepticism piqued a little more when it comes to RDFRS.

[Audley Strange]

Unlike some, I have the ability not to read things that annoy me and like you I agree that people, especially any that have donated, should have such relevant information.

The problem is though, that here and there some people think you're on some kind of mad obsessive crusade and to be frank a lot of your accusative rhetoric has been self defeating. Do you recall a while back you ranting about trying to find an answer as to what they were up to and someone else asked and got that answer simply by asking them? They see you as a crank with a grudge. People here see you as a crank with a grudge.

People being railed at and vilified are not going to welcome your criticisms with open arms. They'll end up ignoring you. I'd suggest that it might be in your best interests to tone it down, stick to facts let others make their own judgements about people's character.

But don't fucking stop otherwise.

[lordpasternack]

Thanks, and I agree otherwise. I got very worked up about that issue the last time - and I think I was justified in the circumstances - though I
did, tactically, go about it the wrong way.

You may also wish to remember, though, how quickly and graciously Richard Dawkins himself responded to my apology. Despite anything that he may say about me, or like to believe about me when I piss him off or get worked up - HE knows full well that I'm NOT merely 'a crank with a grudge'. He also quite purposefully smiled and waved at me when he saw me at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne two months ago. A genuine smile.

I'm afraid that whatever rifts and frustrations there are between us over whatever specific issues - he knows what I'm about, knows that he can't dismiss me on the terms that he tried to dismiss me on (and that I won't let him if he tries) - and on some fundamental level at least, he does like me.

He likes me and there ain't shit he can do about it. (And I like him and there ain't shit I can do about it. )

[Audley Strange]

You've made my point. I do recall how civil RD was to you even after that, I'm more than positive you can be the same, even whilst criticising the shenanigans. A dispassionate analysis of such is much more likely to be listened to than "You're all liars and charlatans" yeah?

[lordpasternack]

And I managed to listen to him and be civil after he ranted about me being essentially a mad harrassing stalker, with a screw or two loose…

And sometimes a little prodding and ridicule doesn't go amiss.

You can't insist that I be COMPLETELY dispassionate about the fact that the Executive Director of a charity devoted to reason and science, gets right back to various pursuits of lying and distorting history, less than a year after someone resigned, strongly accusing her of exactly this. And she still has her position - and is liable to get just another slap on the wrist and told not to do that again…

I suppose it's a matter of finding the right balance.

[lordpasternack]

Or as Hitchens said - stridency is the least I should muster!

[Calilasseia]

Was RD forum the first "atheist" forum for all of you people? I was involved with a a bunch of forums then so I did post that much. I was mainly looking for places to practice some Finnish on a daily basis.

My first was Sam Harris' forum, though I don't know if it still exists. It was a quiet little place, and I spent most of my time arguing with a hopelessly devout Christian who called himself The Champion. I think he showed up at RDF too, though it wasn't long after I joined RDF that I became a degenerate, non-intellectual pervert, and I didn't talk to him much there.

You people have corrupted me, and I thank you.

I'm reminded here of the old aphorism ... "Nostalgia isn't what it used to be ... don't worry, wait long enough and it will be".

Aaaaah, TheChampion, or as those of us who dealt with his tard on a regular basis knew him, TheChumpion or TheChimpion. He provided much comedy gold before his eventual departure. Then of course we had AfDave, who's still plugging away at TalkRational if memory serves, but who turned up at RDF and immediately made himself look like a prize arse, particularly when the pack of hounds who have been following him since his first appearance at antievolution.org turned up to add to the delights. Then there was Samurai, who was well and truly a weapons-grade fucktard, and Bodidhartha, known ot many as BodhiOdour ... oh, was he ever a serious case for the funny farm. We also had Supersport over there, who was another tardmonger par excellence (he moved to Rants 'n' Raves for a brief spell, before setting up shop at TalkRational, and providing the regulars there with an easy target for their SAM launchers).

Oh he did ... I can't remember if we banned him, or if he left by himself.

I think he was eventually banned by the mod squad after racking up about 2½K posts. He just became too obnoxious a troll to keep, and he outlived his entertainment value.

In some senses you're right, though, Surreptitious - it's quite bizarre that I should keep pushing when at times it seems that I give more of a fuck about Richard's Foundation, and his purported values, than he does.

Remind me ... if ever I set up an organisation like this, to make sure I put people into positions of responsibility that I would never regard as bed fodder.

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....

Seriously old bean, that's the mother of all nuclear options. If LP amasses evidence that would stand up in a court of law, and hands it to the CC, they'll go fucking ballistic. You do not want to be too close to Ground Zero once the rectal plutonium goes supercritical and doesn't so much hit the fan as vaporise it. Basically, if the CC goes ballistic over this, the next thing that will happen is that they'll call in the Inland Revenue's heavy metal squad to go over the books, and those people have powers of search and seizure that would make the Gestapo jealous. Here's a tip for you: if you ever go into business, do not fuck with the tax bods ever, unless you want your life to be a world of hurt for decades. If the CC decide it's time to push the button, and HMRC get called in, it'll be a shitfest of cosmic proportions. The sad part being of course, that lying scumbags like Ken Ham will have a field day over this. Which is one reason LP might wish to be careful about lighting the blue touch paper under this particular rocket.

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

Heh, tell me about it. My Entomology Society gets put through the wringer on a regular basis because we're registered with the Charity Commission, and the people doing our accounts have to know what they're doing. If they don't, we end up being fucked over big time, and we're an organisation that has about 120 members and bugger all in the way of a public commercial presence. So an organisation that does have a public commercial presence, as RDFRS has, is playing with fire big time if it's trying to pull the wool over the CC's eyes. Fucking hell, this is going to be one serious Greek Tragedy if they are.

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.

Well, I think anyone 'massaging' accounts to present a pretty picture is going to discover that those nice tax people have something to say about this. Given the shitfest that would ensue if my Entomology Society failed to meet proper standards, which would be subatomic in scale compared to the shitfest that would accompany serious shenanigans at RDFRS, I think RD had better start looking around for some properly accredited accountants with experience in the charities sector fast, otherwise he's going to find himself in the centre of a maelstrom he won't like one bit. HMRC will probably take one look at what's going on in his organisation, and piss themselves laughing before wheeling out the "Lester Piggott" routine.

Not missing the point at all. If this lady is mixing her personal money with the charities money, im pretty sure that is illegal and is a specific thing about which a complaint could be made

If memory serves, here in the UK, mixing business and personal accounts in this manner invites a visit from the Serious Fraud Squad.

I guess it all depends, then, on what she uses that PayPal account for. If ONLY charity donations are going in there, it is probably not a problem.

well, doesn't change the fact that it's in HER name and that nothing prevents her from going shopping with whatever monies end up there.

There's the rub, CH.

Christ. It's perfectly straightforward.

If you have evidence that the officers of the RDFRS are not following statuory reporting and accounting practices for charities, this is a matter for the authorities. Paas the info on to them. They can decide if anything could or should be investigated. It doesn't matter if you think this is impossible.

If you just don't like the way RDRFS operates but don't have any evidence that they are actually breaking any laws, then, by all means, moan on and on and on about it on here but you are wasting your time. If they are a shit charity, walk away, start your own, get involved with something else. You clearly are obsessed.

It woiuld be nice to see you get stuck into THIS forum a bit more, rather than flogging this one horse. Flog some more horses.

As I've already stated, old bean, this is the nuclear option, and then some. The shitfest arising therefrom would be headline news around the world, if it transpired that there was serious misdemeanours being perpetrated with the charity funds. And of course, this would give the lying scumbags in the corporate creationism industry in the USA the mother of all wet dreams.

I just prodded the RDF donations page to see where the Paypal buttons are directing users to at present. They both go to Paypal sites clearly titled "The Richard Dawkins Foundation For Science And Reason"; the Paypal email addresses used for the two accounts are paypal.uk @ richarddawkinsfoundation.org (UK) and paypal @ richarddawkinsfoundation.org (US). As Paypal's payment system is email-address based, it seems unlikely that either account is someone's personal account, unless one of those addresses is a personal one. As both Paypal accounts are in the RDFSR's name, it also seems unlikely that they could be overlooked in any official accounting.

Paypal accounts require direct electronic access to a BANK account for the deposit of funds. Therefore, it's entirely possible that the funds go directly to RD's personal account if that's the way he set up the bank accounts, although it's unlikely since the foundation is an established non-profit which certainly has its own bank accounts. And I agree that any jiggery-pokey with the donated funds would raise red flags given the requirements for filing tax returns to maintain tax-exempt status.

Seth, if your IRS is anything like HMRC over here, they'll make their displeasure extremely manifest if there is malfeasance afoot with the funds.

Is the other stuff better than we have seen so far? So far its looking like you just don't like this woman much and are hunting around for any stick to beat her with.

I think you're mainly being contrary, or dense, to be honest. I think that if you saw that kind of behaviour in one of your own managers - you'd at least put them down as a bit of a bullshitter.

That would describe at least 80% of the management that I've had contact with in my working life. At least.

Only 80%? You've had an easy ride.

You're ill, too, Hermit?

While your obsession causes me occasional moments of amusement, I don't like so many forum members making that the topic.

Also, as has been pointed out, shenanigans like the editing and deleting of film credits will not bring the foundation down. If that is what you want to do, you'd be better off demanding to look at its accounts. Late last year Pensioner provided a link to what is publicly available via The Charity Commission for England and Wales. So far four annual reports can be viewed there in PDF format. While they don't reveal much detail, a summary is interesting. Over four years the foundation's reports claim to have received 535268 pounds worth of donations, incurred £108864 in costs, made donations to the tune of £146149 and have £280594 sitting in a bank at the end of it. Subtracting all the latter amounts from donations made, there is a discrepancy of £81836. Now I am not saying there is anything wrong about the discrepancy. I am not an accountant, and I may well have made a mistake somewhere because of that, but you might spend some of your time and energy chasing up more details, and perhaps find someone with the expertise and authority to audit and analyse the accounts properly. None of the reports are audited. Perhaps that should be done one day. By an independent auditor.

While the ratio between donations received and donations paid out is not particularly wonderful, it is worth noting that of the £156497 that were paid out, at least £102039 went to the RDFRS US branch, and what happened to that is anyone's guess. For all we know, a goodly part went into a swimming pool and other home improvements. That leaves £44110 worth of other donations the foundation has actually made out of the over half a million it has received.

The trustee shuffle listed in the 2010 report is a bit mystifying. One left late in '09. A new one was appointed Feb '10, and another on the 20th of May. Then yet another resigned on the 22nd of May, and the newly appointed trustees in turn resigned a few days later (25th and 28th of May respectively). There may be a perfectly innocuous explanation for all of this, but it does look odd.

I don't know where to look for financial statements that are publicly available concerning the US branch of the foundation. That may be something worth chasing up too.

Given the hoops my Entomology Society has to jump through, courtesy of the Charity Commissioners, with an income that's at least two orders of magnitude lower than this, and their insistence upon properly balanced books, I'd say there's going to be a serious shitstorm let loose if there's a discrepancy in the accounts of a charity of the size of RDFRS, equalling 14% of its income.

And I managed to listen to him and be civil after he ranted about me being essentially a mad harrassing stalker, with a screw or two loose…

And sometimes a little prodding and ridicule doesn't go amiss.

You can't insist that I be COMPLETELY dispassionate about the fact that the Executive Director of a charity devoted to reason and science, gets right back to various pursuits of lying and distorting history, less than a year after someone resigned, strongly accusing her of exactly this. And she still has her position - and is liable to get just another slap on the wrist and told not to do that again…

I suppose it's a matter of finding the right balance.

There's also the political dimension. Namely, how this is going to hand ammunition on a plate to RD's enemies. Which is why I presume you've been cautious about pushing the aforementioned nuclear button.

Fucking hell, something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark, Horatio.

[Jason]

Anyone wanna take a shot at the actual content of what she's posting instead?

I enjoy reading it. Though I do not care a thing in the world for RD.net or the RDF any more I find Heather's investigative reporting charming and engaging. I usually work up at least a half smile.

[lordpasternack]

Anyone wanna take a shot at the actual content of what she's posting instead?

I enjoy reading it. Though I do not care a thing in the world for RD.net or the RDF any more I find Heather's investigative reporting charming and engaging. I usually work up at least a half smile.

Awwwwwwww…


And Cali - I think the problem of real eyebrow-raising shenanigans (even if none actually truly illegal) is mainly within the US branch of the charity. I don't think the IRS is quite as stringent. Certainly not if they let some of those megachurch pastors and televangelists live tax-free, as registered non-profits. Though they indeed might jump at the chance to bite RDFRS - which only ups the ante on RDFRS getting it's damned act together, as opposed to hoping that people like myself shut up about what I see - which is at least suggestive that some individuals aren't suitable for their positions. (I almost said 'fucking' act together, incidentally - and then I remembered, they've had their fucking act perfectly organised since the start. )

And RDFRS US got away with the fact that Josh Timonen bagged 90% of $300K of the store's profits as his salary (while operating it somewhat independantly of RDFRS, through his business) - with or without Richard's hinted or assumed blessing, we may never know. Though it definitely would be an interesting twist to this tale, if it came out that, as I've been informed by Chalkley at least, that Josh really was told that the store was essentially his 'baby', and his money for investing into doing better projects for RDFRS. (The charity certainly didn't excell itself when it revealed that they'd been doing all this without a contract, hadn't checked Josh's books in three years, and realised, 9 months into proceedings, that the evidence supporting their case had been 'lost forever' - and had their case dismissed with prejudice - and then tried to sell us the line that they merely stopped litigating because it was costing too much...)

But anyway, the point is, they seem to have got away with all of that mess, one way or another.

And the handling of donations through Ms Cornwell's personal PayPal account at least seems to have been a temporary issue - though I still have such low faith in RDFRS, that I'm willing to bet that the amount of proper internal auditing that goes on with regards to their donations PayPal accounts, is close to zero.

As to not wanting to light the touch paper under RDFRS, if there are any genuine actionable issues? Meh… That non-excuse is used by religious groups all the time, as the rationale for covering up or omitting to report shitty or nefarious affairs - and I seriously don't respect it when it's 'them' - so why should I respect it when it's 'us'? I mean, I'm not champing at the bit to bring them down completely - but there are several ways in which the organisation smells at least a little bit off to me - and if I do find something, well, I might consider running it past Richard first, and giving him a chance to respond - but if I don't see anything positive forthcoming, well then, yeah, I'd report them, without any qualms.

Whether he likes it or not, Richard took on very specific responsibilities when setting up charitable organisations - especially so when he made claims about promoting critical thinking and evidence-based understanding, and knew he'd be engaging with scientists and sceptics, who might indeed be prone to turn around and take a good sniff around HIS OWN quarters. If he can't manage to keep those charities in a good state of order in those circumstances - then that is his problem. I don't think that 'the movement' is served by letting incompetence or downright dodginess off the hook.

[Calilasseia]

So apart from making sure I hire people I'd never think of as bed material, your advice to me if I ever find myself in RD's position, is hire competent accountants and the like? Not that I'd have done otherwise.

Of course, my comment on the political dimension was reflecting on the fact that if this all went tits up, we'd all be bored shitless with the likes of Ken Ham pointing at RD as if he was the atheist version of Cunt Hovind, and indulging in self-satisfied crowing for years to come. The fact that the situation is more complex, and RD wasn't raking in loot to finance a luxury lifestyle for himself, would be details that lying bastards like Ham wouldn't bother themselves with, whilst vomiting out the entirely predictable propaganda. I'd rather not see this shitfest arise, personally, though there might be an argument for it being cathartic if RD is knocked off his pedestal. I'd prefer it if his light dimmed to the point where the shitfest was anti-climactic, and any crowing by the creotard crowd looked like sour grapes and vindictiveness even amongst the rubes in the Bible Belt, but then reality is going to give us what it sees fit to give us, not what we wish for.

[Tero]

[Pappa]

So apart from making sure I hire people I'd never think of as bed material, your advice to me if I ever find myself in RD's position, is hire competent accountants and the like? Not that I'd have done otherwise.

Of course, my comment on the political dimension was reflecting on the fact that if this all went tits up, we'd all be bored shitless with the likes of Ken Ham pointing at RD as if he was the atheist version of Cunt Hovind, and indulging in self-satisfied crowing for years to come. The fact that the situation is more complex, and RD wasn't raking in loot to finance a luxury lifestyle for himself, would be details that lying bastards like Ham wouldn't bother themselves with, whilst vomiting out the entirely predictable propaganda. I'd rather not see this shitfest arise, personally, though there might be an argument for it being cathartic if RD is knocked off his pedestal. I'd prefer it if his light dimmed to the point where the shitfest was anti-climactic, and any crowing by the creotard crowd looked like sour grapes and vindictiveness even amongst the rubes in the Bible Belt, but then reality is going to give us what it sees fit to give us, not what we wish for.

I agree with the majority of that.... though personally I'd prefer to see him get his act together and put his talents and prominence to good use than fade away.

[lordpasternack]

We've established at least one thing for certain in all of this, though. He's not the Messiah - he's a very naughty boy!

[Robert_S]

We've established at least one thing for certain in all of this, though. He's not the Messiah - he's a very naughty boy!

Well what's to be done to with the naughty boy then?