Can the organisations at least be named?

knobmeup wrote:
I know, aren't we the lucky ones!

andyh wrote:
The People's Voice.

its true oi wanted it to be a teen site. sanctum zone: i beliebe

Fair comments. The Charity Commission (CC) has to allow trustees to manage their staff, and the trustees were merely required to carry out an annual review to prevent further conflicts of interest. In my view the trustees are still failing to do so, but the CC can't intervene unless the charity suffers actual harm. They don't care about harm to third parties it seems.
Still, I feel I have the moral highground, so I just have to be patient and wait for new people in these organisations to take over, and X is getting well past her best I can tell you.
As I've said already, my main aim in discussing this issue is to try to brainstorm the general problem with secret courts. Looks like there is general apathy about the subject though.

It looked like members here might be interested in the conspiracy angle. For instance, my intervention achieved one notable success. The two organisations were being used as virtual quangos of a major political party. This party was benefiting from the charitable status to run campaigns against another major political party. My concerted complaints to the Charity Commission eventually put a stop to that, and now both organisations have had to become far less discriminatory. Before, most of their senior officers were party members, and a fair number were MPs of that one party. X considered all this to be harassment of these organisations, and her political party, so she pretended to be personally offended to get it into court. So, if all I can do here is to illustrate just one more example of how the political system is corrupt, then that is it I suppose. Unless, unless I find a way to break the silence, without going to jail, I hope.

WhistleblowerX wrote: WhistleblowerX wrote: If it's unlawful it's prosecutable, you can't have it both ways. The Charities Commission may have determined the best and perhaps cheapest way to deal with the situation was to impose an annual review condition to prevent a recurrence. That is still intervention by the CC.
A charity suffers actual reputational harm by allowing such practices as you allude to therefore the CC is well within it's purview taking action.

WhistleblowerX wrote: Moral highground holds no legal currency.
In my humble opinion, waiting for someone to retire, be deselected or pop their clogs has no claim to moral superiority.


WhistleblowerX wrote: Really?
Care to remove those selective reading glasses and try again? I've bolded it to make it easier.

feather wrote: Did that come across as apathetic to you?

Aye and i guess you missed my comment on the entire judiciary being corrupt and in need of toppling too eh wbx

I'm sure we've been here before.

WhistleblowerX wrote:
Stick allegedly at the start of each sentence.

Oh , all these barbed comments sting a bit. But, thank you all for in your own genuine ways for trying to get me not to take myself too seriously. I probably need reminding now and then, whilst I earnestly strive to have my political and legal viewpoint justified, out in the cold, when once I was a star in my sphere of activity. No-doubt the objects of my hard-faced campaigning probably felt that I was threatening their political aspirations. Maybe I should be shut up and banned, maybe I am completely misguided. But in the end, there has to be kindness, and the ability to step back, and see how others feel, and be willing to change, with dialogue, and admit not to be perfect, etc.. Well, I've tried that, and the only alternatives between finding truth (whatever it is) and madness is either giving up, or seeing the funny side and lampooning the hell out of the system. As corrupt and inflexible people continue to take over, more strongly and determinedly, the billionaires gathering all to themselves and destroying the planet, they would love the disaffected to fall out amongst themselves. Avoid this language, please forgive my zipped and hampered voice. I hear similar pain here.

knobmeup wrote:
It's what you do with it that really matters. Apparently.

WhistleblowerX wrote:
"I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am,"

Let it go.
Life is full of little episodes that'll eat you up inside if you dwell on them.
Use whatever skills and abilities you have in a similar but different field. Experience satisfaction again instead of daily regret.

Btw, I'm not sure if I am addressing a male or female here, I don't suppose it would be a breach of your court agreement to at least proffer up that much info.

Ab Origine wrote:
Easy to answer. I googled 'Freedom of Speech' and your forum came up. So, I felt inspired, obliged even to say hello and express my point of view, whoever might respond, with whatever responses might transpire. I take responsibility for my tangle of thoughts, right or wrong, or a mixture of both. The core of my belief is not to judge others for judging me, but to judge myself if I judge others. Always fairly, even if it needs a very good self-deprecating sense of humour. Those who will not back down, no matter what, could be budding dictators in waiting.

I hope you will acknowledge that no-one here has made the slightest attempt to restrict your speech, quite the contrary, we have been frustrated by how little you've shared.

It is a good idea not to take yourself too seriously. Life is precarious up on a pedestal.
Calm down, laugh and enjoy life.
We all get shit days and say daft things at times but we can't go back and change it, so learn from it, drop the rest of the baggage and keep moving forward.


and smile ffs!!

feather wrote:
Thanks Feather, that is very good advice that I have received from my own solicitor in slightly different format. I continue to use my qualifications and skills in a related field, helping local communities, which is very satisfying. But it sometimes rankles to see the crooks carrying on regardless, but then most MPs, Judges, TV presenters, etc. are all caught up in a self-serving money-making, world-destroying carry-on movie of such epic proportions, why should my little script get a giggle?

WhistleblowerX wrote:
HAVE HIM/HER UP AGAINST THE WALL!

I could sit here and bore everyone with a tale of a 20yr community worker who walked away, dropped £6,000 from their salary and became a computer salesman, rather than have their fingerprints on a statutory sector coup of a voluntary sector series of major projects.

That saw the closure of long standing, diverse programmes, cost the community many jobs and ended up with a homogenised, blend of blandness being contained in a building which was designed like Fort Knox, rather than welcoming and open buildings it replaced.

Within a couple of years it had also managed to incredibly rack up £5 million in debts.

Did it jar to walk away?
Hell yes!
Would it have been more painful to stay and participate in that fiasco?
There is no way I could tolerate that.

Conclusion: I've been better off out of it and I have my principles, memories and self respect intact.

Let it go girl. Let it go!!

Wow, i'm impressed that this forum ranks so high on a google search for "freedom of speech".
Especially as it isn't really a free speech forum

eta. What engine did you use and which page? I just did a google search for free speech forum and freedom of speech forum and got nowt pointing to this site...

this seems to betray you somewhat no wbx?

knobmeup wrote:
Have you not read the following welcome on the Home page here? - 'Whether it’s talk­ing about the truth move­ment, con­spir­acy, or altern­at­ive news and opin­ions that floats your boat, or you just enjoy hav­ing a friendly chat & a bit of fun, then wel­come to the Sanc­tum Zone…this is the place for you! Our com­munity is all about free speech where people can dis­cuss or dis­agree on any topic, all in a pleas­ant atmo­sphere of mutual respect. Here at Sanc­tum Zone you will be made to feel at home among free think­ing and open minded people just like yourself.'

There is some free speech going on here, but some resistance to it too, obviously, going by Knobmeup's attitude. We can agree or disagree, but if someone doesn't think this is a free speech forum, then why is he commenting at all?