For Reason and Science?

[Robert_S]

Edit: Fuck it. Why wont the youtube link work.

Did you remember to remove the "s' from "https://www.youtub....." ?

[lordpasternack]

Subject: RD.net to be re-revamped!

Things are now developing in interesting ways within RDF, and rippling into the wider Freethought community… I may not actually be able to say much for quite some time yet, but rather interesting things are happening…

Sean Faircloth is following me on Twitter. I hardly even use Twitter, but that's besides the point.

And Robin Elisabeth Cornwell and Mike Cornwell have been removed from the list of staff on RD.net.

It's impossible to gauge precisely what these things mean - but, interesting developments are still happening, and the theme tune of this thread is hereby upgraded:

[SteveB]

[pErvinalia]

Basically, has Dawk put his foot in it again, or sent an abusive email? If not, I'm not interested. I want to see him lose his shit. Please post updates if he does...

[cronus]

Re-invention following a waning in popularity. Nothing unusual for the Dawk then?

[JimC]

Basically, has Dawk put his foot in it again, or sent an abusive email? If not, I'm not interested. I want to see him lose his shit. Please post updates if he does...

rEv, thy middle name is schadenfreude...

[pErvinalia]

[Jason]

How much does the venerable old Dawk have to do with the running of his organization anymore anyway?

[DaveDodo007]

Probably none, he certainly doesn't seem to have any business acumen at all. Not that's a bad thing of course but he should've had the sense to employ someone who does.

[hadespussercats]

I'll just leave this here:

“[N]ext time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.”

- Richard Dawkins

Show Us The Money

This is an open letter regarding the Richard Dawkins Foundation’s ‘Non-believers Giving Aid’ (NBGA) initiative. I am writing this open letter due to having spotted one small vexing discrepancy in RDF’s records, which has now escalated into situation where a handful of people have been querying RDF for over 12 weeks to date, and have failed to receive a satisfactory response.

The discrepancy itself is that there are apparently no ‘Non-believers Giving Aid’ donations declared on RDF’s 2011 annual return - despite the fact that RDF ran two separate appeals for donations through NBGA, in 2011.

Either their 2011 return is incorrect, and they need to address the error - or it is correct, and there is the very strong suggestion that a significant amount of donations made to RDF in the name of NBGA, have not gone to where they were supposed to go - and that they have been misappropriated, perhaps knowingly, and deliberately...

Given 12 weeks so far to have responded, nobody at RDF has offered a satisfactory explanation.

Senior staff at RDF (including Richard Dawkins himself) have not only failed to address the issue properly - but the organisation has come across as seriously disingenuous and incompetent in what little communication has been offered. Indeed, it’s possible that the frankly terrible responses from RDF could be the worst aspect of this situation, if it turns out that they have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the subject of the original query, and have just been keeping it close to their chests.

The repeated broaching of the issue with RDF staff also appears to have resulted in RDF’s dedicated NBGA site going offline. I am sure that this is simply an unfortunate coincidence, and that RDF will have the NBGA site back up and running if you contact them and let them know about this… but in the meantime, for the purposes of this letter, we will have to rely on the Wayback Machine’s archive of the NBGA site, for meaningful information.

A full explanation of the situation as it currently stands is detailed in the body of the letter below, and contact details for senior individuals within RDF (including Richard Dawkins) are included at the foot of this letter.

...

Letter continues here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y20 ... ZdoyU/edit

Just as a by-the-by, I've come round to your thinking on these issues. Not sure I've said as much, so... fwiw.

Keep pushing.

[lordpasternack]

How much does the venerable old Dawk have to do with the running of his organization anymore anyway?

This isn't a point in his favour, by the way. He is the founder of the charity and remains a Trustee. He has official responsibilities, which he has continually neglected. He's accountable to donors, who give to a charity in his name, expecting some kind of basic scruples, credibility and professionalism. He also waxes on about protecting RDF from "enemies". You'd think he'd take a basic interest in running his shop well.

But more than that - if he really were passionate about his charity, you'd expect him to strive towards those things without needing to be told. You'd think it would be common sense. If you can't do these basic things, then you shouldn't be allowed any official capacity in a charity.

If the IRS get involved they aren't going to say: "Oh, you hadn't the faintest clue what was going on, and had never thought to check, despite several red flags and vocalised complaints about specific individuals over the years? Well, that's alright then…"

[Brian Peacock]

I donated to NBGA 2011/2012. Can I have my money back now please?

[lordpasternack]

How much does the venerable old Dawk have to do with the running of his organization anymore anyway?

I feel the need to add - though I think you personally know this: Dawkins is not, and has not been "venerable"…

One significant part of my ongoing gripe with this issue is that RDF was quite explicitly and purposefully set up as a semi-corrupt organisation, right from the outset. Richard Dawkins had explicitly intended it to benefit his mistress directly. He could use the Foundation to fund their trysts, give her a salaried position, get her a "mistress flat" - and fold it all into the Foundation as "expenses". In one of his emails, he even referred to his charity, charmingly, as "$RDF"…

Of course he also had intentions to promote reason and science - or at least said he did… But if you follow the money, and the evidence - you'll get a very stark picture of which agendas took ultimate priority to him.

On top of that, I don't think there has been a single occasion in the past 7 years, where Dawkins has responded to valid criticism of his Foundation like a normal, reasonable adult human being. He has responded at various times with evasiveness, defensiveness, dismissiveness, petulance, denial and deceit - but I can't bring to mind one single occasion where he responded with competence. He once asked me to apologise for having the temerity to question him. He cried "blackmail" when I had spent several weeks asking him what the hell his Foundation does, and said I'd consider complaining to the Charity Commission if I couldn't get an answer.

Not once has anyone managed to get a genuinely reasonable response from him, in response to reasonable criticism of his Foundation - and they've usually had to wait several weeks for any defensive and dismissive respond they have got.

Richard Dawkins has spent the past 7 years managing his Foundation with all the devotion, commitment, savvy, integrity and care of a spoiled child. He might be surprised at how things are working out - he might be surprised to find out how much he has been shafted by an obviously corrupt and dishonest woman, whom he believed was his accomplice… But I'm not, and I think people should hang into their sympathy cards, for now…

[lordpasternack]

The conflict of interest within RDF has never been accidental or incidental - it has always been woven completely into the fabric of the organisation.

[DaveDodo007]

This has puzzled me for a long time, why no reaction from the main stream media. I admit I'm still a bit of a fan even after the shitstorm, hell I bounce around the internet and drop like a ton of bricks on anyone who criticizes the Dawk in the MSM comment sections. You have all seen me lose my shit here so imagine that turned up to eleventry!!1. The MSM tell out right lies against Richard Dawkins, no strawman is left unbeaten, no ad hom to vague to be use against him, any misinterpretation will be exploited to the max. So why is LP being ignored by the MSM as they are looking at a gift horse in the mouth? If what half of LP says is true it is pretty damning and I'm not going to defend anyone who has done wrong, I do think LP has a bit of an agenda but the truth is the truth what ever else is involved. So why wont the MSM run with it as you will see in my earlier posts I was worried Rationalia would be dragged into all this.

Like I have said I'm puzzled, It's only speculation mind but I think all the major outlets in the MSM have their own foundations and/or charities and they are full up with there own nepotism, family, friends lovers etc same as Dawkins and if they expose him they are leaving themselves exposed to further scrutiny. That's all I have got and if it is not good enough for you then fuck off.