I tried to follow a recent radio blog but gave up in disgust when I realised that the two presenters, and a subsequent third helper, were falling over themselves to make sure that their female guest was not asked any embarrassing or pertinent questions about the past performance of her animal charity organisation. This was not reporting, it was showcasing, so I downloaded it to listen to it in full when I had a stronger stomach. In her introduction, the presenter of the show was talking about somebody trying to hack her credit card facility, I had no idea that people had to pay to listen to amateur radio? Then she called her show ‘a business’? From the week before I thought it was just a personal indulgence to attack and vilify people on a public forum. It was a tough two hours but I managed to grit my teeth and I listened until the bitter end. There were few surprises but a lot of misleading nonsense was spouted. The accusations directed towards their chosen targets of animosity became very confusing since they were prevented from naming those targets. It was a lot easier to follow the show from the week before when they recklessly and slanderously named names. Which accusation was directed at which person blurred into an homogeneous mess of ‘they’ and ‘them’. I am not sure now whether they are suggesting that we sent hate mail and/or threats , or if they are referring to others? Are they suggesting that we attempted to hack their account? Our computers and phone records will of course be available at any time to those in authority who wish to pursue this matter. We could hardly refuse. And yes we do know that we cannot hide anything from a cyber team of experts.
In the last month I, and my fellow admin of a FB page, have pretty much sat back and let accusations and lies, thrown at us by the two presenters of this radio blog, fall about our ears like confetti. We have also been vilified by them on written blogs and FB and Twitter attacks. Our silence instead of placating provoked further abuse. We decided to mildly retaliate in an effort to encourage them to get it out of their system. Frankly I was surprised that they haven’t tried to implicate us in the LAG affair as well. They certainly have said that we are involved with the intruder who, they say, stole the original NTDM FB page. Not so, we have had no contact from this individual.
Their guest speaker on the current radio blog joined in the fun. I would point out to her that I have the two disgruntled emails from me to NTDM customer services and I challenge her to produce any other than my second and final email. My first was a complaint that they were unfairly charging too much to euro account holders for their merchandise. I admit that I was very abrupt in my complaint, but hey who in retail doesn’t have to deal with cross customers? My complaint was valid and they could have simply said that they would look into it. My second email, was an angry retort to what I perceived to have been a sarcastic reply from them. It was a complaint not a threat. I ask that the guest produces an email from me that shows that I issued a threat of the kind that she describes.
Strangely that would have been the end of the matter if I hadn’t been reading, the week before my customer complaint, blogs from the very presenters of this current radio blog. The blogs were about FB scam charities. I had also listened to a radio blog by somebody called Barbie about the LAG affair where advice was given on checking out FB animal charities before endorsing them or donating. I had at that time opened a FB community page and had promoted NTDM on that page. In fact the post is still there.
It was a quiet week end in April, or maybe early May, so I thought of the advice and did a little checking on NTDM to satisfy myself that I wasn’t wrong in promoting their organisation. Because of the unpleasantness of correspondence I decided not to buy a hoodie, but I still liked the concept of the campaign and probably when I had calmed down would have donated. A donation is different to a purchase because the amount is a personal choice and makes more money available to be spent on the animals. I believed that this organisation was run by well intentioned amateurs with a great idea but little experience in how to deal with the public.
By the end of that weekend in April or May I was worried. Things didn’t seem as they should be at all. In the normal course of events I would have emailed the organisation with my questions and doubts. Once bitten twice shy, emailing didn’t seem like a good idea. So I asked the questions, any potential supporter has a right to ask of a new animal charity, on their page and later on my community page. My comments on their page were quickly removed. The responses were prevarication or aggressive. One thing led to another and I was banned from their page.
I have had a FB personal page for a few years, rarely visited FB and was a complete novice. I started the community page, with help from my daughter, to promote a pledge I had recently created to ask Switzerland to outlaw the eating of cats and dogs. At that time I had no idea about screen grabs, or how people could shut critics up on FB. I thought that NTDM would respond with a statement clarifying the inconsistencies in their rhetoric; explain simply their charitable status and hopefully realise that a lot of what they were saying often didn’t make sense. I simply could not understand how an organisation co-founded by a barrister could be so badly run. That was my problem. If the co-founder was indeed a lawyer/barrister, surely she, more than most, would know that when asking for money clear explanation of charitable status and complete transparency was vital. If she wasn’t a lawyer/ barrister then why would they say she was? The rest is history. http://animalbuddy.org/2013/10/08/animal-charity-dirty-tricks-campaign-part-3/
We didn’t cause their organisation to fall apart at the seams, they did it all by themselves. At the time of the original FB page being deactivated they had close to 7k likes so we obviously hadn’t impacted on their ability to raise money. The CEO has admitted that they got it badly wrong, that they have only recently sought advice on how to handle money? She says that the dirty tricks campaign waged against people who objected to how they conducted themselves was nothing to do with her, but we are still suffering from them. Since the FB fiasco of vile attacks on Peter Egan we have received over 2000 screen shots and information collated by other observers of NTDM.
The two presenters of this current radio blog have themselves written extremely aggressively about NTDM, far more aggressively than we ever have or would write. No matter how many times I told them that they should not accuse NTDM of fraud they would not listen. I explained to them that the UK incorporated company, registered as for charitable purposes, was completely above-board insofar as complying with UK law. Again they didn’t want to listen. Truth, accuracy and facts are so often the first casualties in their reckless blogs. The non registration with the UK Charities Commission and hence the delay in Gift Aid acceptance was the only questionable area.
We didn’t like the way the leaders and the inner sanctum of NTDM did business when dealing with their supporters, donors and critics. We didn’t like the fact that they attempted to discredit credible organisations in the field of battling against the dogs for meat trade. We didn’t like their often misleading posts which would suddenly disappear. We were sceptical because they changed their explanation of their charitable status etc. so often. We didn’t like that they usually removed any comments on their FB page which were not 100% congratulatory and often banned the commentator. And we certainly didn’t like the sometimes extremely vile abusive tactics they used. In the end we didn’t believe that this was a charity that was ever going to behave in the way the public had a right to expect.
The reason the two lady presenters of the current radio blog do not like us is because we objected to the way they conduct themselves. They are obsessed with a long time FB adversary and are only interested in blaming him for the discrediting of NTDM. They have never suffered the kind of attacks many of us have from the people involved with that organisation, and specifically against us going back to May. These two women came late to this issue and then only because they suspected that their adversary might be involved. When it seemed that he was, they had to back pedal fast and choose any side he wasn’t on.
We have been told by devious means that we are under police investigation? My fellow admin went to the police yesterday to ask if that were true. It is not true, the police do not concern themselves with this kind of issue. Doubts expressed in the public interest about an organisation that has now shown publicly that it was badly administered is acceptable free speech.
NTDM is a very recent animal charity, it has been forced by events within the organization to correct itself. We humbly suggest that the administrators concentrate their efforts on convincing the public that they can now be trusted with their money, and will not use donations to fight completely pointless court battles. We now all understand, I hope, that donations they receive are for lobbying and not for rescue. We also now understand that the aim of their ‘umbrella’ WPDCMT is to offer the same service as say, Wetnose, (http://www.wetnoseanimalaid.com/) which is a highly endorsed organization, by enlisting unregistered small charities to benefit (for a fee) from their anticipated Gift Aid status?
We do not subscribe to hatred or threats of any kind under any guise. We understand that sometimes emotions run high, especially when it relates to the terrible suffering inflicted on animals by humans, but abusive behaviour towards others is completely unacceptable. Anybody who has followed us throughout this journey will know that we have never advocated or endorsed hate or violence. On a bad day we may, in private, express our frustration, but that is in no way incitement.