Sue

Otta, you're right and I apologise. Google is indeed a wonderful and worrying thing, as I just found. Unless this is an elaborate double bluff, it appears that not only do Southwark Woods not exist, but Lewis Schaffer doesn't either. https://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/american-comedian-lewis-schaffer-revealed-to-be-english-character-actor-brian-simpson/2013/ https://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/this-conversation-with-two-comedians-really-happened-and-i-dont-even-drink/ So given the youtube clip I posted on the new (cemetery) thread in this section, also thanks to google, where one of the other organisers of SSW has clearly been in cahoots with Lewis's "comedy" since at least 2014, has this all been just "comedy" fodder? Maybe Lewis/Brian could let us know, via one of his alter egos. Because if so, he's got quite a few questions to answer, I would say, given the trouble he has caused the council and others. ETA: And he has form in this kind of thing, if the following (from Wiki) is true - but who knows. "Edinburgh Fringe Stunt In 2009, he announced as a publicity stunt that he would be sponsoring the Edinburgh festival comedy awards that had previously been called the if.comedy or Perrier awards.[3] He claimed he had purchased the naming-rights to the awards for "?99 with his mother as a judge". This was reported as fact in various publications[4] and lead to threat of a lawsuit from the award's rights holder[3] and being fired by his theatrical agents.[5]" ETA: Don't read that second link, which is an interview with him, unless you like extremely offensive remarks about people from a particular racial/religious group burning easier than others.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks to Sue for providing the lead: > > > Lewis Schaffer is a Brit called Brian by Anna > Crockatt of the Relatives. > > Published on 8 Nov 2014 > > Beautiful Anna Crockatt, one-half to one-fifth of > The Relatives (usually with Richard Guard) > questions the authenticity of Lewis Schaffer, Lisa > Moyle, Nunhead and everything that Nunhead > American Radio is and stands for. She repeats the > slur that Lewis Schaffer isn't an American but a > Briton from the Brownhills I don't understand any of that. How did I provide the lead? Where does the quote come from? The Relatives are a local band, I don't get the connection.

I googled her. Admin, I'm assuming as this is in the public domain with the two names on it that it is OK to post here, but if not appropriate please remove it.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > How come my post is "argumentative", but yours > > (also disagreeing with other people?) isnt? > > > Look I am not trying to row with you, but maybe > when you type things like > > > ETA: And Otta, why would anybody "care to go > > looking" on the internet for information about > me, > > unless they had ulterior motives? > > It feels a bit like you're singling people out and > demanding answers from them. When in this case all > I meant is that you'd put your name on a website > which is publicly available, that was all. How do you know I've put my name on a website? The only people whose full names are on the main part of the website are the artists. My name is in tiny tiny letters in faint grey on black at the bottom, for copyright reasons, along with that of the website designer, also for copyright reasons. You must have really gone out of your way to find that. I had to really search to find it myself. Nobody looking at the website would ever notice it, under normal circumstances. I find that quite creepy, to be honest.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Sue - "someone harassing a woman" might have been > acceptable, but Newton didn't say that. He/she > was going way OTT for effect. Remember his/her > first post suggested "for women associating with > Lewis, don't think that because you're not the > target this week you won't be next" and *anyone* > associating with Lewis "deserve to have children > spit in your face on the street". As Otta said, > Lewis is being a complete twunt, but as we've seen > on this thread, Newton wildly overstating a case > loses people who would otherwise be sympathetic. So because in your/Otta's opinion Newton's comments were over the top, it therefore follows that Lewis wasn't harassing me on Twitter? > > And one has to wonder why it is only me (clearly > a woman) he has singled out to focus his > aggression on outside > > of this forum. > > Obviously I can't prove this, but I suspect that > you are the only person on this thread Lewis has > been able to figure out a real-life name for. I > actually don't think your gender entered into his > limited thinking. Lewis had been angling for some > time for people to post enough information for him > to identify them - now we know why. Yes, that is possibly true, but one has to wonder whether, if he found out a man's identity on here and posted it publicly on Twitter, and stated their ED forum name as well, and linked it to a Twitter page which is not their personal page, whether he would then continue to do so - more than once - when asked to stop. Do you think he would have done that? Obviously we can't know. But I suspect not. > I once had an object lesson in why you should > guard on-line identity unless otherwise necessary. > I used to be post with my real name, until one day > about 20 years ago someone actually rang me at my > place of work to shout at me and threaten me about > something I'd said online. Since then I have been > *much* more careful about what I reveal on the > net. > > IIRC I had a similar conversation (though not with > that particular anecdote) with you on here a few > years ago. Quite possibly. I am - I think - careful about identity theft, so there is some information I would not put online. However it never in a million years occurred to me that somebody could use my personal posts on a topic on here to try to discredit my music events, if that is what he is trying to do. Some time ago - after he had started posting on here, but before he was banned - he sent me a friend request on Facebook. Obviously I didn't accept it, but I now wonder whether he was trying to find out more personal information about me. I'll never know that, either. But at that point he must have known my name. It's not so much that my full name is a massive secret. Lots of people know it, obviously. It is that he deliberately used it in order to link it to my posts on here and to the Goose, and continued when asked to stop.

kiera Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would say that the reason Sue was targeted was > because she was openly trying to discredit him/SSW > publicly. > In Sue's own words > ".......My thoughts were more that any of their > supporters > reading the thread would see the lie of the > land,so to speak, and stop being supporters - not > necessarily of the actual cause, but of the > organisation relating to it." Eh? I posted that in relation to a possible reason for not closing down this thread, ie so SWW's supporters could see from his own posts what sort of a person he was and decide of their own accord to dissociate themselves from his organisation. Although they will only be able to see some of it because his worst ones were deleted, and then he was banned. I don't think anybody needs to discredit him publicly - he has done a good enough job himself on here, as you can see if you read the whole thread. But hey, easier to distract attention from that by having a go at me, eh, as we also saw further up the thread by some other SSW supporters. Interesting strategies some people have.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > God Sue sometimes it feels as though you're just > looking for something to argue about. I was replying to your post, which I disagreed with. That's what a forum is for. How come my post is "argumentative", but yours (also disagreeing with other people?) isnt? ETA: And I have had some involvement with harassment, including setting up a harassment and bullying helpline in one job and introducing a harassment and bullying policy in another, and if you don't agree that Lewis's behaviour is harassment then we will have to differ on that point.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > "Harasser of women" - We all know that that makes > Lewis sound like something that he doesn't deserve > to be painted as. > Harassment is not limited to sexual harassment, if that is what you are getting at. A simple (ie non-legal) definition is "Aggressive pressure or intimidation". And one has to wonder why it is only me (clearly a woman) he has singled out to focus his aggression on outside of this forum. ETA: Penguin68, I very much doubt if he sees our music gigs as competing with his "comedy" gigs, as I imagine there is very little audience crossover. However it does look as if he is trying to damage my credibility amongst the people who come to our music gigs, otherwise why publicly post to our Twitter page which is set up for the sole purpose of promoting our gigs (and sometimes for sharing folk music related tweets likely to be of interest to our followers)? ETA: And Otta, why would anybody "care to go looking" on the internet for information about me, unless they had ulterior motives?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Newton Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > In the interests of keeping this thread > focussed on the original issue > > > > Nice way of sounding high minded whilst > supporting a known, unrepentant harasser of > women. > > Honestly, Newton, you are starting to sound as > over-emotional and over-exaggerating as Lewis and > the SSW. If the thread is going to be locked, I just want to ask why you (Loz) think what Newton said is either "over-emotional" or "over-exaggerating" - seeing as I was the one being harassed. Since the harassment has continued after my asking the harasser to stop, he is clearly unrepentant. So the description seems quite factual to me. And I guess wanting the thread to exclude anything to do with that could also be seen as supporting the harasser, though that's perhaps more of a stretch.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You nailed it, I think ANY organisation however > small or large that collects money should be > legally required to account for all the money > collected/given/donated to it and show how and for > what the money is used. And if it's not at present a legal requirement, surely the organisers have a moral duty to let their followers/paying audience know exactly where their ticket money and/or donations went?

I just googled it. It doesn't seem to involve any actual food, just tablets, or possibly a very low calorie diet, is that right? And it costs over ?100 for the nine days' supplies? Not being funny, but if you eat very little for 9 days you are bound to lose a lot of weight, especially if you are a bit hefty to start with. Much of it will be water which will go straight back on as soon as you start eating normally again. And it's a legal version of a pyramid selling scheme? (Not putting it down for that, I used to sell things in one and also started selling them because I got good results with them personally). Do you have a link to more information? I'm not sure I landed on the right site/s when googling it.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't agree with that at all. I've lived in > Dulwich and some surrounding areas all my life and > I've always frequented the Half Moon and other > places in Herne Hill too. I used to go to gigs at The Half Moon when I lived in South Norwood in the late seventies/early eighties (and to the other Half Moon in Putney, which was even further). If it became a decent music venue again, I'm sure people would travel to go to it, depending on who was headlining. I would - it's only a short bus ride away, or a not too long walk. ETA: The Ivy House (now community-owned) has an events manager who co-ordinates bookings for music and other gigs. I presume The Half Moon would have to have the same.

Thank you for that summary, Penguin68, that is really useful.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was suggested further up the thread that a new > thread be started. Would it not be possible to do > that, and start again with sensible people like > panda boy putting their case sensibly? > > I did, nobody wanted to use it, it is still here:- > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5 > ,1637832 I didn't see that either, Penguin68, thanks for starting it.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's just stop all this and starve them of the > attention they so desperately crave. My thoughts were more that any of their supporters reading the thread would see the lie of the land, so to speak, and stop being supporters - not necessarily of the actual cause, but of the organisation relating to it. I think there are valid arguments to be put forward on both sides and it is a pity that things developed in the way they did. It was suggested further up the thread that a new thread be started. Would it not be possible to do that, and start again with sensible people like panda boy putting their case sensibly? Nobody who has been banned would be able to post on it. I'm not volunteering to start it, for obvious reasons :(

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?