Before and after - by Richard... Sunday, October 03, 2010

Before and after - by Richard... Sunday, October 03, 2010

Your really don't have to take my word for this one – the evidence is visible for all to see. Above, Exhibit A, a screen grab from the Charity Commission web site, taken when Booker and I were investigating TERI-Europe's accounting procedures. Below is Exhibit B, a screen grab of the current site, after we had drawn the Commission' s attention to some accounting anomalies, following which TERI-Europe were required to submit new accounts.

And now Booker, in his column, puts the matter in perspective, noting that next weekend, as delegates from 194 countries gather in South Korea for a crucial meeting of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their big talking point will be whether the IPCC’s chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri should resign.

Booker's column is heavily "legalled" but it still manages to get through the very peculiar story of Rajendra Pachauri's idea of accounting – for it is he that is one of the founding directors of TERI-Europe and trustee.

The interesting thing is that, when we had completed our investigation and approached TERI-Europe with our evidence, the charity's secretary immediately admitted that there were "anomalies" in the accounts. She could hardly do anything else – we had them banged to rights.

The Charity Commission agreed to investigate. Not the least point of interest was that the charity's trustees – "responsible", in the commission’s words, “for approving the accounts before submission” – included, alongside Dr Pachauri, two other luminaries of the global warming establishment.

Sir John Houghton was a founder of the IPCC, and had long played a key role in it. Sir Crispin Tickell was one of Houghton’s most influential allies back in 1988, as "our man at the UN" and as the adviser who talked Mrs Thatcher into enthusiasm for global warming at that crucial moment (a fervour she later disavowed).

Since it seemed that both TERI-Europe and the trustees were in serious breach of the Charity Commission's rules, this has led over recent months to a protracted series of exchanges with the commission.

First, the names of Houghton and Tickell swiftly disappeared from the list of trustees. Then, in May, after an audit by a firm of accountants, the commission's website showed dramatically revised figures for one of the three years in question. The charity's income for 2008 had now risen from £8,000 to £103,980, its expenditure from £3,000 to £97,419.

But the figures for the previous two years were unchanged. The commission explained that it had allowed this "to save the charity a considerable amount in accounting fees". It also claimed that the errors were due to the charity’s "inexperience in preparing accounts", though the figures for earlier years showed no sign of "inexperience".

In response, we devised "10 searching questions" which Booker put to the the commission. Why, for instance, was its website continuing to give false information? Would the commission show equal leniency to other bodies found to have provided misleading accounts, since normally a charity would be severely penalised for such offences?

Bizarrely, when we eventually got the response it didn't give a direct answer to any of the questions, except to say that the Commission was not prepared to disclose the date on which Houghton and Tickell had resigned as trustees.

But clearly the commission had been embarrassed by my questions, since over the next few weeks revised figures for two more years appeared online. Income for 2007 rose from £9,000 to £49,878, for 2006 from £7,000 to £16,610 – showing that nearly £150,000 had not previously been disclosed. And, as can be seen from the commission's website, the accounts are now shown to have been up to "1,246 days overdue".

Doubtless, compared to the difficulties Dr Pachauri may face next weekend in holding on to the post which has helped him so to extend his institute's fortunes, these accounting anomalies in one of its branches may seem pretty small beer. But an important question remains: why, when they came to light, did the Charity Commission struggle so long and hard to give this particular charity such an extraordinarily easy ride?

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Splattergate - the Muslim version - by Richard... Saturday, October 02, 2010

And only now do we learn from The Observer that the charities that backed the film were "absolutely appalled" when they saw the director's four-minute short, "which was withdrawn from circulation amid a storm of protest."

The Guardian, however, which premiered the film, merely says: "The film may have been somewhat tasteless, but it was an imaginative attempt to challenge public apathy over climate change, and, highly unusually for attempts to communicate about this subject, funny too."

The paper goes on to say that it "warned users of its site that the film contained footage that could cause offence, and continues to link to another version of the film posted on YouTube."

So that's it, is it? Everything is OK? Well, Dellers doesn't think so.

=============================

James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work,How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.

Richard Curtis's snuff movie: A satire? A canny marketing strategy? I don't think so

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: October 2nd, 2010

588 Comments Comment on this article

Richard Curtis’s eco-fascist snuff movie was a disaster for the green movement, I think we can all agree.

Well, not quite all of us to judge by one or two bizarre comments and newspaper responses I’ve seen today. Let’s just dispense with a few of them.

1. It was an internet “hit.”
Yes, it surely was. In much the same way that the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand ‘Sachsgate’ tapes were a hit or the Paris Hilton sex tapes were a hit or Britney Spears shaving all her hair off was a hit. Not all publicity is good publicity. Duh.

2. It was all part of Richard Curtis’s “cunning plan”.
Yeah right. Because, of course – see above – the 10:10 campaign really wanted everybody screaming, even green commenters on the Guardian’s pages, about what a despicably misguided exercise it was to show people who don’t being believe in Man Made Global Warming being blown to smithereens like Islamist suicide bomb victims. Yes, that’s just the way to win over the undecided to your cause: threats, bullying and emotional blackmail.

3. Richard Curtis is a secret “denier” and devised the project as satire.
I think the psychological term for this is “projection.” Curtis has scripted many good films over the years – well, one, anyway – plus of course he co-wrote Blackadder. Ergo, in some people’s minds, a guy who can be so funny could never actually have been responsible for such car-crash propaganda without meaning it to be car-crash propaganda. Well, I’m sorry Curtis fans, but this doesn’t wash. As exhibit a) I present The Girl In The Cafe – whose liberal, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist sentiments were painfully of a piece with the kind of Weltanschauung exhibited in No Pressure and as b) I offer 4. below.

4. This was an unfortunate accident. It isn’t representative of the green movement.
Er, actually, tragically, this is exactly how the green movement thinks. I refer you to my piece James Lee is Al Gore is Prince Charles is the Unabomber.

5. It’s actually “funny” and people who don’t think so haven’t got a sense of humour.

Hmm. Let’s see what “Thegavster” has to say about this on the previous post. I think he makes the point rather well:

So the killing of people who do not subscribe to the 10:10 campaign is “funny”. It’s “funny” to kill children in a classroom? Its “funny” to kill people who have a different opinion? What sort of people find that funny? If the people who pressed the button were dressed in Nazi uniforms, would it still be “funny”? Would those who made this video and who find this “funny” still find it “funny” if a similar video was produced showing supporters of the campaign being blown up? Would the video still be “funny” if it was made by animal rights activists and showed children and others being blown up because they didn’t support animal rights campaigns? Would a similar video be “funny” if made by Islamic extremists and showed non-Muslim children being blown up? Would it still be “funny” if the video showed Muslim children being blown up by that crazy Pastor in the US who wanted to burn Korans?

The premise is nonsense and the people who made the video should be ashamed. Indeed, those who support this campaign commercially should be ashamed as well and stop that support. It is disgusting and outrageous. Just because you have passionate beliefs, you do not have the right to advocate the sort of behaviour defined in the video, just because you believe you are right. If its not acceptable for other groups, its not acceptable for you either.

If this has done anything for me, its scared me. It warns me that these people may well advocate this sort of sanction if you don’t support their cause and as such are no different from any other extremist apart from the fact that they have strong support in high places. What it has also done is made me even more determined to do everything I can to stop them. In short it has actually had the opposite affect that they had hoped. Come on people, its time we stood up and did something about this plague!

Tags: Eco Fascist, No Pressure, Richard Curtis