Sue

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks, the whole point of the question was to > highlight, if organisations that raise money for > something that IMO, does not legally exist, if > they need to maintain accounts, and if those > accounts can be scrutinised. I don't know how many people attended the recent benefit which I think we are talking about, but I wouldn't have thought the amount of money raised or what it was used for warranted any official scrutiny in the great scheme of things. Though if I was a supporter of the organisation concerned, I would want to know where the money had gone. My understanding was that the benefit was to pay for printing and other publicity costs (plus apparently a donation to Resonance FM Radio or whatever it's called). We (The Goose Is Out!) had 5000 double sided A5 flyers with colour printed on 350gsm card with a silk finish, and including delivery by courier paid only ?150. So you'd only need fifteen punters paying a tenner each (or ten paying fifteen pounds each) to cover that. And their postcards were A6, half the size of ours. If they've registered a domain name for their website, they'd have to pay for that, too, but that's very little if you use the right people.

I think panda boy has made it very clear that he is not part of SSW. On the other hand I do think that the way SSW and in particular their leader choose to conduct their campaign is a legitimate topic of discussion on this thread.

Also please tell people you know with cats. I've just texted them.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You would need to register the cause/ collection > as a charity - alternative being a business which > has tax implications. > You would also need a bank account in bythe name of > the cause for the donations and expenditure - you > most certainly couldn't put it into your own > personal account - that would be fraud. > > A charity has to be auditable and file accounts, > just as a business would. > > Donations are often received as cash, but also > direct debit. AS such you would need to be able to > register donors and keep a track of their > individual donations (of course, remembering to > thank them). > > Obviously, donations from street collections > wouldn't apply, but depends on the scale of the > charity and the money needed/ methods of > collection. > > Also, you'd have to look at the way the > collections could be spent. If, as an example - > someone donates money to fund a certain piece of > equipment at a hospital, that money cannot be used > for other things, so you would want to be clear > that money will be spend on general things of the > specific nature of the cause. Unless you have a > very specific thing in mind. We were told that donations up to ?20 did not need to be identified by separate donor, but we had to state to Prism that they were all under ?20 when sending the money. Those donations were separate to the ticket money. Tickets weren't eligible for GiftAid, but donations were. WeGotTickets also made a donation - a percentage of the booking fee. We sent Prism and Help Refugees a detailed breakdown of all the money streams, including also proceeds from a raffle with donated prizes. ETA: There was also a donation button at the point of online ticket sales, as we asked people to give anything they could spare over and above the ticket price, but that money went straight to Prism/Help Refugees

I've just seen this email which arrived yesterday :( Dulwich Estate & Fuller's Challenging our ACV Nomination Peter Blair London, United Kingdom 15 Feb 2016 ? LATEST NEWS: We have been informed by Southwark Council today that Dulwich Estate, in league with leaseholder Fuller's, is challenging our Asset of Community Value (ACV) status for the Half Moon Pub and its music venue. - Please do feel free to contact Dulwich Estate about this, saying that you support ACV status for the pub and would like to question them on their motives for using charitable funds to challenge its ACV status. Here is the email address of John E Major, Chief Executive - [email protected] We understand that he'd particularly welcome your views on this issue- . The Dulwich Estate. The Old College Gallery Road Dulwich London SE21 7AE Telephone: 020 8299 1000 You can find a full list of the Dulwich Estate trustees, who have approved this action, here: http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/the-trustees - Please do feel free to comment on the Fuller's Facebook page here. They are a public company and we understand that they would welcome your views on this issue: https://www.facebook.com/FullersBrewery - The Dulwich Estate Charity's registration number is: 312751 and using this number or the name, information is available on the Charity Commission for England and Wales's website: www.charity-commission.gov.uk. Do also feel free to contact the Charity Commission for its view on whether Dulwich Estate is using its charitable funds appropriately for this purpose. Thank you. With your support we can save our live music venue. We are many, they are few. Please share this update as widely as possible. Save The Half Moon on Twitter NEWS: Please RT. Our ACV status for the Half Moon being challenged by #DulwichEstate in league with @FullersBrewery. pic.twitter.com/JhSPsz26Zu http://twitter.com

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If money is raised for a cause, what requirements > exist to maintain accounts to show income and > expenditure and are these open to public scrutiny? I know this isn't exactly what you are asking, but when we held a benefit gig for refugees at The Ivy House in January, we were required to be absolutely scrupulous about how we described the organisation to whom we were donating the proceeds (Help Refugees) in all our publicity material and in ticket sales. Because it was a small voluntary organisation which wasn't a registered charity itself, we had to say "Help Refugees are a collective fund under the auspices of Prism the Gift Fund, registered charity no. 1099682'." We were told that this was a legal requirement, as Help Refugees are not a stand alone charity. I presume (though I don't know) that their income and expenditure would also be shown in Prism's accounts. In this case, we were completely confident that all the money we made would be spent in the way Help Refugees told us it would, ie for direct aid providing shelter and heating for refugees in Calais and Lesbos, so we didn't ask the question.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ridiculous. Jobsworths everywhere. Like Brussels > councils just CANNOT stop interfering. There is absolutely no point in having a speed limit at all if it isn't enforced. I am increasingly seeing drivers just blatantly and dangerously ignoring both speed limits and red lights, speeding down side roads, speeding round corners without looking, crossing on the red when the lights have been red for ages, and pulling out in front of cars which are practically on top of them. I'm amazed there aren't more accidents, and personally I don't see enforcing traffic rules as either interference or a waste of money.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Over 800 people personally wrote in to the > Church to oppose these plans. When you say they "personally wrote", how many of these 800 just sent off one of the glossy postcards produced by SSW which were already addressed and were all identical save for the space for the person's name and address? I hear your frustration with what you perceive as the council's lack of response to your queries, however I can also understand someone who already has a very demanding and time-consuming job not finding the time to reply to queries from members of the public on top of everything else they are doing, particularly if as they say they are "acting in accordance with all agreements and laws". I can't think that they would say that their plans "have been designed in conjunction with London Wildlife Trust" if they haven't, as that would be a really easy thing to check out. The fact that nothing to that effect is on their or the London Wildlife Trust's website I don't find odd, as why would it be? ETA: Lewis Schaffer has responded to this post on Twitter, again giving my full name and linking it to the Goose. This is childish and tedious. ETA: And no you won't stop me posting on here, regardless of your bullying tactics.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am hoping that posher fast-food places use some > of their profit to buy from excellent suppliers > which care for their animals (before they do the > opposite of caring by slaughtering them). It's probably a discussion for another thread, but I lived on an organic farm for a while which had cows, sheep and sometimes pigs, all out in the fields and very much cared for by the lovely farmers, who also had a mill producing organic animal feed. I too always thought it odd that the animals ended their lives by being slaughtered, however when I thought about it a bit more closely, I realised that if it wasn't for the farm they wouldn't have had lives at all. If people didn't eat meat, there would be no animals in the fields in our countryside.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > James Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Bit of a shame it's another meat-obsessed > > restaurant. Seems out of step with the times. > > > Considering that well over 90% of the UK are meat > eaters, I'd say it is well in step with the > times. > > ..and also explains the increase in instances of > Bowel cancer.. > How could that figure explain an increase, unless more people are eating meat, which I really doubt?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ... to have our Twitter page tainted by this > totally irrelevant stuff which is giving our > > followers a wholly inaccurate version of my > views is not unimportant to us. > > If it is any consolation Sue, looking at the > Goose's twitter feed as a non-follower, you cannot > see any of Lewis's crap tweets, as you can only > see what you personally tweet/retweet. Oh, thanks, yes that is a consolation, but I don't really understand Twitter. Can our followers see them? Because people are unlikely to be looking at our tweets unless they are already following us.

EDAus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > You could also consider contacting anyone who > directly supports Lewis i.e. his sponsors > http://britishamericantax.com/ and > https://www.resonancefm.com/ - alerting them to > his behaviour and the actions that you are taking. > It could be argued by their association with this > individual they are bringing their organisations > into disrepute. Thank you EDAus, however I have no wish to be vindictive. All I want is for Lewis Schaffer to stop publicly distorting my views on this issue, to stop posting my full name on Twitter and linking it to my forum name here, and to stop associating those distorted views with music events I run by linking his posts to the music Twitter page so that they appear on that page. My personal views on the SSW campaign have no relevance to the music whatsoever, so one has to wonder exactly what his motive is in doing this. I understand that some people may think all this is unimportant, but my partner and I put a huge amount of work into organising and running these events, including this year a benefit concert for refugees, and to have our Twitter page tainted by this totally irrelevant stuff which is giving our followers a wholly inaccurate version of my views is not unimportant to us.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But it's super busy all the times as evident by > the queues. > Can we not do a petition or something ? If the building is no longer fit for purpose, it's not really relevant whether it's super busy at the collection point or not. From the above it looks as if Royal Mail did try to find suitable premises in East Dulwich but weren't able to. The move will certainly inconvenience a lot of people, but it's hard to see what else they could do.

I am going to get legal advice.

Lewis Schaffer has again posted my full name on Twitter. Because he is banned from here he is now responding to my posts on here on Twitter, and again linking them to The Goose Is Out. Please can anybody help. Do you people defending him on here think that this continuing harassment is OK? Because I don't. I presume he is trying to bully me into stopping posting on here.

Maybe time to get a new battery? I'm no expert but I think they run down when they're old? ETA: I have homestart through Britannia Rescue and its been well worth the money eg when all my indicators failed and they came and replaced the fuse. ETA: They also have high speed charging equipment which will charge the battery in situ while you wait.

edhistory Wrote: ---------------------------------------------- > > > New Yorker, Nunheader and Star of Resonance FM?s > Nunhead American Radio Lewis Schaffer brings his > brilliant 5 star Edinburgh comedy show to The Ivy > House for a benefit gig for Save Southwark Woods, > with a donation to London's independent arts radio > station Resonance FM > I hadn't noticed until it was pointed out to me that this benefit "for the woods" is also for a radio station. That seems strange to say the least.

What I find weird is the way they turn people who disagree with their views and/or point out inaccuracies in their statements into "haters". Quite interesting from a psychological viewpoint I suppose.

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems to me this whole thread has been tainted by > Lewis's aggression. > > There is a conversation to be had for sure, shall > we start again? Good idea. New thread? Different title? Discussion sticking to actual verifiable facts plus opinion clearly stated as opinion? Probably started by somebody opposed to the council's plans but able to unemotionally state why? ETA: Maybe even seeking common ground? Revolutionary idea, I know .....

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks landsberger, that's a half hour playing > with flightradar I'll never get back I bet you enjoyed it though :))

Thanks for bringing us this info, Foxy. That's bad news. First the bank, now this. Seems I shall be making rather more frequent trips to Peckham in the future. Looking on the bright side - Khans, Persepolis, Lidl, Primark and Iceland :))

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes and let's not forget that ad hominem > arguments, of which there have been countless on > this thread, are unpleasant in any discourse. To > continue doing this, when an individual is banned > so cannot defend themselves, is just not cricket > is it? No, Lewis should not have outed anyone on > Twitter. But Sue, you could also engage with the > subject or leave it alone. To do neither is > trolling IMO. > The person is not here to defend himself because he has been banned. And frankly it is hard to see what defence he could have. I consider my posts are relevant, because the person in question is conducting/leading a campaign which is the subject of this thread. The manner in which that campaign is being conducted is clear to see by anyone reading the thread, and in particular the contents and tone of its leader's posts - some of which admin has had to remove altogether. How exactly am I not "engaging with the subject"? I have stated my views clearly on the many threads started on the subject on this forum. Why should I "leave it alone"? Who are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't post? How am I trolling? How would you feel if somebody started to harass you online?

LauraW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rather a lot of people on EDF seem to make a hobby > of getting into conflicts. I'm not suggesting > Lewis sought them out here. He was posting on this > forum for a campaign he is involved in. He was indeed. And then he was banned from the forum. Why do you think that was?

LauraW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a campaign and they've been working hard to > make it successful. Do you have a problem with > campaigns or are you just particularly keen for > this one to not succeed? What's it to you, Sue? I have a problem with campaigns which are economical with the truth and which are run using the kind of methods demonstrated on this thread.

LauraW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Woah, where has this accusation of misogyny come > from? Lewis gets into conflicts with people and > they get into conflicts with him but a Twitter > spat with Sue doesn't make him a misogynist. If > it's relevant, I'm a woman and have known him for > 4 years. > > I'm disappointed now that I know who Sue is that > someone in the folk scene would be in favour of > turning a green space as wonderful as COC into > another waterlogged sterile place to plant graves. > The fact that she's reacted so badly to having her > identity exposed does suggest that she was using > online anonymity as a shield while behaving > trollishly on EDF. 1. It is not "a twitter spat with Sue". It is Lewis Schaffer out of the blue posting my full name on twitter, continuing to do so when asked to stop, and associating the cemetery issue with a twitter page devoted to folk music (and community music) events which my partner and I run locally despite the fact that this issue has nothing to do with those events, and my opinions are mine and mine alone. And it is Lewis Schaffer saying that he will continue to post my full name because I refer to him by his full name on here - carefully omitting to mention that he has posted his full name at the end of his own posts on here, so clearly he is quite happy for people on here to know it! 2. I love trees, and I have an area of woodland dedicated to me via the Woodland Trust. My being "in the folk scene" does not mean that I throw reason to the winds and choose to ignore all the facts about the particular issue being discussed on this thread because I love trees. 3. As civilservant says above, many people on here know who I am in real life. And I post about our folk music events on here, so it is hardly a secret to those who don't know me in real life. That does not mean I want my full name including my surname plastered all over Twitter, and Lewis Schaffer has no right whatsoever to do that. 4. How, exactly, have I "behaved trollishly on the EDF"?