For Reason and Science?

[JimC]

I only fire blanks...

[lordpasternack]

I'd also add that I've heard that Cornwell hasn't quite disappeared from RDF, and hasn't been investigated properly. But even still - choosing to "go invisible" is a survival mechanism that she'd only use under significant pressure.

So things are still happening, even while certain people within RDF cling to their mask of credibility.

[Calilasseia]

Oh shit, LP has lit the blue touch paper.

Where's that fallout shelter?

[Hermit]

RDF provided the fuel and the matches. Lordpasternack is doing us a favour. Any grossly mismanaged charitable organisation that cannot or will not mend its ways ought to be incinerated. I'm pretty sure that neither Dawkins nor any other trustees will go anywhere near the breadline because of it, and the charity will no longer soak up money that could have been donated elsewhere, like somewhere where it might do some good. All good then.

[lordpasternack]

I'll only add that whatever the current circumstances between RDF and the IRS - I still intend on filing my referral.

Even if the IRS has paid RDF a visit and said some unflattering things to them, the IRS still won't know the half of it.

And yeah - RDF is just not likely to get off scot-free.

[lordpasternack]

RDF provided the fuel and the matches. Lordpasternack is doing us a favour. Any grossly mismanaged charitable organisation that cannot or will not mend its ways ought to be incinerated. I'm pretty sure that neither Dawkins nor any other trustees will go anywhere near the breadline because of it, and the charity will no longer soak up money that could have been donated elsewhere, like somewhere where it might do some good. All good then.

It's not just that - but how fucking long have they had to get their act together, before it reached this point? I mean, if they had any real desire to get their act together?

Richard Dawkins is reportedly not a stupid man - but given numerous warnings over the years, he successfully managed to ignore, minimise, misconstrue and forget every single one.

[Calilasseia]

RDF provided the fuel and the matches. Lordpasternack is doing us a favour. Any grossly mismanaged charitable organisation that cannot or will not mend its ways ought to be incinerated. I'm pretty sure that neither Dawkins nor any other trustees will go anywhere near the breadline because of it, and the charity will no longer soak up money that could have been donated elsewhere, like somewhere where it might do some good. All good then.

Oh I don't doubt any of this for one moment. As I've already mentioned before, here in the UK, the Charity Commissioners are ruthless at pursuing any whiff of incompetence, or worse still, wrongdoing. I recall some, shall we say, interesting happenings, when my Entomology Society fell behind on submitting accounts, which happened as a result of the Treasurer dying from cancer. Even in those circumstances, the CC let it be known that they wanted us to find a replacement fast and remedy the deficit.

If they're that tough on an organisation handling less than £5,000 in any one year, they're sure to be even more ruthless with an organisation handling £500,000 per year.

Perhaps this was the reason RD opted to set up the foundation in the USA instead?

The problem, of course, is that the Greek tragedy that will inevitably unfold, could so easily have been avoided. If I were RD, I would not want my twylight years marked by this sort of rococo opera. But then, I'd have sought proper advice on choosing competent and trustworthy lieutenants.

[lordpasternack]

Cali - RDF’S filings are, at least on superficial inspection, not bad in the UK. There's nothing glaring that might flag them up for special scrutiny, to a regulatory body that obviously can't know the ins and outs of thousands of charities under its watch. (But if I spot any actionable I'll be onto the Charity Commission, too.)

It's in the US that there are obvious deep and glaring problems, which are clear right on the surface, to anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together, who isn't as deeply in denial as Dawkins and some of his fans and colleagues. I think that the only reason they've evaded scrutiny so far is because of the sheer number of nonprofits being processed by the IRS.

As it happens - the IRS is less anal-retentive than the Charity Commission about the particular sticking point of religion - but they are far, far clearer and stricter about the specific requirements that must be met to maintain tax exempt status - and far more encouraging of complaints than the Charity Commission.

Compare and contrast their official attitudes to complaints from the public:

Go ahead and complain. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is all ears – particularly about complaints alleging any abuse of the tax-exempt status granted to a non-profit organization.

(Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/divulge ... he_irs.pdf )

Versus:

If you have a concern about the way a charity is run or managed, or you disagree with a decision the trustees have made, you should raise it directly with the charity.

(Source: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/how ... qHsvi.dpuf )

Another example where there's more to favour them in the UK - RDF UK has the freedom to pursue "such exclusively charitable purposes as the directors of the charity may in their absolute discretion determine."

That's a lot of flexibility to play with and argue the toss over - should the Charity Commission ask them questions about their charitable purposes and spending.

They don't have that flexibility in the US. If you apply for tax exemption in the US to promote science and education - you have to make damn sure that your spending and activities are strongly focused around science and education. If you consistently fall below the standards required in fulfilling the specific purpose for which you received tax exemption - you'll lose your tax exemption the minute the IRS notices. No prizes for guessing that RDF fails on this account.

There's another rule which applies to the particular type of tax exempt organisation that RDF is - that requires them to spend at least 85% of their net income on direct charitable activity relating to their exempt purpose (and donating to 3rd parties doesn't generally count as "direct activity"). Not only does RDF spend nowhere near 85% on any charitable spending - only a fraction of their spending relates to their exempt purpose, and according to their own official records, they do NO direct charitable work. Fail.

So, basically - even without all the intrigue about mistresses and secret agendas, lies and cover-ups and shit - there's enough on the record already that would have them gubbed by the IRS. Which isn't surprising considering all that poor management.

It seems that Richard was (wrongly) so exercised about the purportedly ghoulish Charity Commission, that he hardly spent a moment keeping check on how out of order things were becoming in the US.

[Rum]

Nasty and spiteful to my way of thinking.

[lordpasternack]

Nasty and spiteful to my way of thinking.

You're right it was very nasty and spiteful of Richard to attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes about the purpose of his charity, and to lie about me when I told the truth about this. Very nasty of him to try to project blame for his organisation's problems onto the forum users - while he was essentially using his charity as a fucking harem.

It was very nasty and spiteful of Robin Elisabeth Cornwell to pursue a lawsuit against Josh Timonen which she knew to be false. Very nasty and spiteful of her to try to frame former Trustee Karen Owens for financial misconduct - and continuing to invent lies about her, years after her resignation.

It was really very fucking stupid of Richard not to address any of the issues within his charity, in the months and years I generously gave him, even while criticising him harshly.

It is not very spiteful and nasty to report wrongdoing and bad management.

It will not be spiteful and nasty when the IRS revokes their tax exemption for their obvious failures as an organisation.

If you think otherwise - I'm afraid I'm going to have to tell you that your "way of thinking" is utter bollocks.

[Rum]

If your motivation was remotely positive you would have collected the information, forwarded it to the foundation pointing out their error - deliberate or not and left it at that. You would have done your 'duty'. How 'generous' of you to give him so much time.

Bah!

[Hermit]

If your motivation was remotely positive you would have collected the information, forwarded it to the foundation pointing out their error - deliberate or not and left it at that. You would have done your 'duty'. How 'generous' of you to give him so much time.

Bah!

I think Lordpasternack started off with forwarding information on to the foundation. The response was initially to ignore her, then to stonewall and eventually to try and blacken her character. I don't think she ought to have stopped short of alerting the relevant authorities of the fact that the RDF turns out to be only masquerading as a charity, soaking up money in the process that could have gone somewhere else where it would have done some good.

[lordpasternack]

Rum - I actually did that repeatedly. It didn't get anywhere because the Executive Director at that time was (and is) with great certainty a sociopath, who is a skilled liar and manipulator, who knew exactly what she was doing and had no desire to rectify the situation beyond covering her own arse and deflecting blame.

And telling Richard Dawkins was useless because he's heavily self-deceived, hasn't a clue what he's doing, delegates everything, and remains absolutely in thrall to the woman described in the paragraph preceding this. And he is also concerned primarily with covering his own arse, rather than actually addressing issues.

It also goes without saying that there's no point in reporting to them that they set their charity up with secret agendas and serious conflicts of interest. They fucking know that already. It wasn't an accident. They're not apologising. Any good-faith attempts to reach out to them would simply be used to destroy evidence and cover their arse.

RDF will not listen to me. They will not listen to you. Nothing will be properly dealt with until the IRS steps in.

[lordpasternack]

Six fucking months since Richard Dawkins was initially contacted to account for what happened to Non-believers Giving Aid donations in 2011, and onwards: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y20 ... cslist_api

Over a month since I notified a number of organisations involved in NBGA via email.

Still not a single peep out of RDF. Not even a "thank you for bringing this to our attention".

How right... All they need is to be made fully aware of issues and given a little time and space to realise the right thing to do.

[lordpasternack]

"If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth."

- Carl Sagan

(Of course, when Sagan said that, he obviously meant to imply that the principle only actually applies to religious people and peddlers of woo. Obviously we should bend over backwards to grant special exceptions when it's people "on our side" who are threatened by the truth. Obviously. )