Who here is on Timonen's side?

[Gallstones]

No. Don't worry. The cheese is safe.

I suppose Josh may remain alive for the time being.

But the bacon!! Has anyone checked the bacon?!

Iz OK...I eated it...

But, but, you didn't save any for the rest of us.

That means we will have to kill another pig.

[borealis]

I remember there being a sentence in that store/site that said that all the profits go to charity/foundation... Does anybody else remember that?
Funny for Josh that he wrote that - or didn't change that when he knew almost all the profits go to himself.

[Geoff]

I remember there being a sentence in that store/site that said that all the profits go to charity/foundation... Does anybody else remember that?
Funny for Josh that he wrote that - or didn't change that when he knew almost all the profits go to himself.

Um...not if he's calling it all "expenses" - just means there were no profits!

[Atheist-Lite]

I remember there being a sentence in that store/site that said that all the profits go to charity/foundation... Does anybody else remember that?
Funny for Josh that he wrote that - or didn't change that when he knew almost all the profits go to himself.

It was Richard Dawkins duty to keep everything legal and aboveboard, it was his charity. Does anyone know if the charity commission are involved at this end yet?

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk

[Bella Fortuna]

I remember there being a sentence in that store/site that said that all the profits go to charity/foundation... Does anybody else remember that?
Funny for Josh that he wrote that - or didn't change that when he knew almost all the profits go to himself.

I guess he was kind of a charity case...

[klr]

I remember there being a sentence in that store/site that said that all the profits go to charity/foundation... Does anybody else remember that?
Funny for Josh that he wrote that - or didn't change that when he knew almost all the profits go to himself.

I guess he was kind of a charity case...

That would be a very charitable interpretation.

[Coito ergo sum]

I remember there being a sentence in that store/site that said that all the profits go to charity/foundation... Does anybody else remember that?
Funny for Josh that he wrote that - or didn't change that when he knew almost all the profits go to himself.

Since the beginning, I have had the sneaking suspicion that it was that kind of possibly false representation that generated the lawsuit. Dawkins has to take the position that he knew nothing of Josh's chicanery, otherwise the foundation risks being called to the carpet for defrauding donors and customers of the Store. They would be exposed to a lawsuit (and still might be), or worse - action against their charitable status, or fines or worse.

That doesn't mean it's not also true that Timonen was up to chicanery, but if the Foundation failed in its obligation to maintain compliance it could nevertheless jeopardize its status.

[paul]

Why, all of a sudden, was he accused of embezzling out of the blue, after years of developing the site and earning money through the store?

Because it had only just started making money.

Well, actually the store was successful from its inception. It started doing well within a few months of going live and I believe hit a peak within about a year, speaking anecdotally--I never saw the balance sheet. It was the only place to buy Dawkins memorabilia, all of which Josh himself produced.

And, the embezzlement is in part supposed to be that Timonen used company funds to pay personal expenses. That means that it would not be readily apparent to Dawkins that the money was being used by Timonen. The proper way to take funds from a company is to make an actual distribution - like a salary/wage, dividend to shareholder, or payment to an independent contractor. You don't just have the company pay your bills, especially if you're not the owner of the company.

I basically agree, one doesn't have the institution write a check for one's own personal expenditures--although it seems to work for Sarah Palin--and I implored Josh to segregate his from the company expenses, for fear of exactly this mess. While it seems disingenuous how the site indicated that all proceeds benefited the foundation, Josh's compensation was enmeshed with foundation-related expenditures. It was hard to tell where Josh's payment left off and the foundation's expenses started. He was paid from the store, but the foundation itself benefited in the form of video productions and other projects, which Josh funded out of his own checking account, producing at far below typical costs. He did a great deal of shooting and video editing on his own--a virtual "one man army," as he put it--and saved the foundation a lot of money over the years in question. If he did spend $950K, I'm sure the foundation got a good deal at that rate.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Robert_S]

Paul: Have you brought this up at RatSkep?

[Jason]

Bollocks.



RatSkep... oh you mean Bernhard and Kym's funhouse? Who in their right mind would go there seeking rational discourse.. wait a bit.. paul came here. I retract my previous, unfinished, question.

[Gallstones]

For a person who has seen no real evidence for claims being made, a lot of unfounded claims are being made.

paul, if you really want to sing Josh's praises and be his impromptu publicist, this isn't the place where that would be most effective. Either you are taking the piss or your judgment is faulty.
So why the fuck are you here?

[Bella Fortuna]

He did a great deal of shooting and video editing on his own--a virtual "one man army," as he put it--and saved the foundation a lot of money over the years in question.

Or, uh, a two-man army - the other one of whom was a volunteer using his own time and equipment and resources to travel, shoot, and edit video footage.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why, all of a sudden, was he accused of embezzling out of the blue, after years of developing the site and earning money through the store?

Because it had only just started making money.

Well, actually the store was successful from its inception. It started doing well within a few months of going live and I believe hit a peak within about a year, speaking anecdotally--I never saw the balance sheet. It was the only place to buy Dawkins memorabilia, all of which Josh himself produced.

And, the embezzlement is in part supposed to be that Timonen used company funds to pay personal expenses. That means that it would not be readily apparent to Dawkins that the money was being used by Timonen. The proper way to take funds from a company is to make an actual distribution - like a salary/wage, dividend to shareholder, or payment to an independent contractor. You don't just have the company pay your bills, especially if you're not the owner of the company.

I basically agree, one doesn't have the institution write a check for one's own personal expenditures--although it seems to work for Sarah Palin--and I implored Josh to segregate his from the company expenses, for fear of exactly this mess. While it seems disingenuous how the site indicated that all proceeds benefited the foundation, Josh's compensation was enmeshed with foundation-related expenditures. It was hard to tell where Josh's payment left off and the foundation's expenses started. He was paid from the store, but the foundation itself benefited in the form of video productions and other projects, which Josh funded out of his own checking account, producing at far below typical costs. He did a great deal of shooting and video editing on his own--a virtual "one man army," as he put it--and saved the foundation a lot of money over the years in question. If he did spend $950K, I'm sure the foundation got a good deal at that rate.

The problem with that is that it's not good enough. A charitable foundation must be able - by law - to account for what expenditures go to where. There are IRS repercussions. By using foundation money for personal expenses it's possible that Timonen was committing a crime. We don't know all the facts, but it's possible. And, to suggest that it's hard to tell where Josh's payment left off and the foundation's started is not an explanation - it's an identification of a major problem. In a private company that an individual owns, one can use company funds to pay personal expenses and account for it later. When one doesn't own the company, and uses funds for personal expenses. it's embezzlement.

[Feck]

For a person who has seen no real evidence for claims being made, a lot of unfounded claims are being made.

paul, if you really want to sing Josh's praises and be his impromptu publicist, this isn't the place where that would be most effective. Either you are taking the piss or your judgment is faulty.
So why the fuck are you here?

Paul seems to unaware how so many members of this forum were vociferous about the actions of Josh long before the court case ?
not that it matters but The crux of his argument seems to be that Richard knew all the proceeds of a shop marketed as a charity were going to Josh and his friends . Well fine that makes Richard complicit but it sure as shit does not make Josh a nice guy does it ?

The fact that many many people gave money to buy shit with a scarlet letter on it (irony?) thinking they were supporting the work of the foundation when actually hundreds of thousands of pounds was going to upgrade the life style of Josh and 'what's her face' is causing outrage . And lest we not forget copying an 'A' from someone else's font and colouring it red does not give you the right to take the credit for designing a Logo for a charity that after all turned out just to be a cash cow for himself .

CES may be right and Dawkins may lose the legal case BUT , Paul don't try and make out Josh showed any ethics never mind deserves any sympathy especially on this of all forums .