Oh what tangled webs we weave ...

[Robbo]

FFS echo, where have I accused her of anything? ..... don't misquote me or put words into my mouth ... now, I am gonna give you something very easy to do here and unless you do it, you ain't gonna be a member of this site for very long .... please show me where I have accused Suzie of falsifying anything??
echo, to do what you just did is real low ... by ostensibly stating I accused Suzie of anything in the hope it creates a well of indignation of 'Robbo bullying some helpless female' ... I didn't even know Suzie did the accounts till someone mentioned it in this thread and all I have done is question [once again] why these records were not presented ... and because someone had named Suzie as the person responsible for the accounts compilation I naturally used her name and tagged it onto the questions I have been asking all along.

echo, I don't like the stroke you just pulled there, I really don't because you are using a woman to create the idea I have falsely accused her of something .. and I haven't ... you need to find that phrase where I have accused her or you really do need to apologise .....

 

[The Coalthief]

This is an ugly thread and hardly a good advert for paintball.
People should bear in mind that youngsters new to the sport may have parents checking out what it's all about.But this thread,and comments made within,may give them cause for second thoughts.
IMHO the thread should be binned.
Thanks.

 

[Echowitch]

<quote> And if the accounts were made up by Suzie a </quote>

A bad choice of words on your part perhaps then?

 

[Gadget]

Gadget .... I have something that's troubling me at the moment, if what you suggest is true re this councillor fellow having been sent the accounts; if this is the case, why wasn't this mentioned 3 months ago when the questions were first asked?

Pete - I've no idea when the councillor became involved, but the questions that were asked a few months ago were along the lines of "What's the charity number?" and "When will the accounts be published?" - the answers given were that it's not a charity and that the accounts would be published once all the funding had been allocated. People are now questioning why the allocation is taking so long and the explanation given is that allocation is sat with this councillor who has experienced delays with the British Legion. I just don't think the questions asked initially covered the area of how the funds were being distributed.

On the question of why they couldn't publish a subset of the accounts now - yeah, fair point, I'd guess they're almost certainly computerised and wouldn't take much effort to produce and if I were in this situation I'd certainly get them out asap, however I'm sure people would be looking for an independent audit which could prove to be an additional cost they'd rather incur once..........or they might just be acting bloody minded and thinking 'sod it, we told them when we'd publish, why should we change?'.

Of course the third option is that they might actually have fraudulently duped loads of ballers and are hastily covering their tracks/booking tickets for Venezuela - but I think that's probably the least likely scenario.

<quote> And if the accounts were made up by Suzie a </quote>

A bad choice of words on your part perhaps then?

To be fair Echo, I didn't read "made up" as being "falsified", more as being "done" - that might be down to my appreciation of Lahndahn/Essex lingo though.

 

[leachy]

Sorry Pete, but I feel my argument with barnett is insignificant compared with the "fund" You can see from the thread that was on UKS that barnett causes trouble then sits back and lets his sheep do the rest. It appears thats what happening here. The only thing that will settle this, is the accounts. Now its sounding like you won't see them until " They publish it after the end of the financial year, or at the most appropriate time." thats in April so add another couple of months on to your three months

 

[Robbo]

<quote> And if the accounts were made up by Suzie a </quote>

A bad choice of words on your part perhaps then?

'Made up' in the sense of compilation for God's sake ... the only reason you have chosen to interpret in that way is because that says more about you than it does about me.

 

[Gadget]

Sorry Pete, but I feel my argument with barnett is insignificant compared with the "fund" You can see from the thread that was on UKS that barnett causes trouble then sits back and lets his sheep do the rest. It appears thats what happening here. The only thing that will settle this, is the accounts. Now its sounding like you won't see them until " They publish it after the end of the financial year, or at the most appropriate time." thats in April so add another couple of months on to your three months

Leachy - I don't consider either Echo or myself as anyone's 'sheep', I'm as interested as the next person in getting the truth out there, it's just that from an completely unbiased position it just doesn't look nearly as bad as some people are painting it.

 

[Robbo]

Pete - I've no idea when the councillor became involved, but the questions that were asked a few months ago were along the lines of "What's the charity number?" and "When will the accounts be published?" - the answers given were that it's not a charity and that the accounts would be published once all the funding had been allocated. People are now questioning why the allocation is taking so long and the explanation given is that allocation is sat with this councillor who has experienced delays with the British Legion. I just don't think the questions asked initially covered the area of how the funds were being distributed.

On the question of why they couldn't publish a subset of the accounts now - yeah, fair point, I'd guess they're almost certainly computerised and wouldn't take much effort to produce and if I were in this situation I'd certainly get them out asap, however I'm sure people would be looking for an independent audit which could prove to be an additional cost they'd rather incur once..........or they might just be acting bloody minded and thinking 'sod it, we told them when we'd publish, why should we change?'.

Of course the third option is that they might actually have fraudulently duped loads of ballers and are hastily covering their tracks/booking tickets for Venezuela - but I think that's probably the least likely scenario.

Gadge, i think the enduring problem we have seen in this thread is one of non-disclosure which for any right-minded person creates a degree of doubt.
If I had been questioned about something so seroius in public then the FIRST thing I'd do to clear my name is by publishing it right away especially as the prevailing response we have had is, 'We've had them all the time' ... it just makes no sense gadge, it really doesn't.

 

[Gadget]

I'm still thinking bloody-mindedness rather than fraud, but will be glad when they do get published and we can hopefully forget this drama.

 

[Rebel Tackleberry]

Reb, I only found out about this councillor thing today

I've been forwarded the following from Tim Barnett. Are you saying you didn't receive the email below on Tuesday?

Tuesday 07/02/12 16:14
From: Tim Barnett
To: Pete Robinson

A local councillor (**** ***** – email address: ****.*****@*********.gov.uk) is trying to assist me to find recipients for the money. I’ve included his email address so that you can contact him directly. Whilst it may cause me some embarrassment for him to think there is a degree of suspicion surrounding the project, in the interests of transparency and the fact that I have absolutely nothing to hide, you are welcome to contact this councillor directly. He will confirm that his is assisting to find a recipient(s) for the remaining funds and his last email to me on the matter a few weeks ago said that he was liaising with the Social Services to find someone who would benefit.

I've removed the councilors name from public view as they obviously didn't intend getting embroiled in a mess like this when they agreed to help with the allocation of funds, but the stars represent letters so you can tie it directly back to the original email.

Echowitch also obtained the same information independently yesterday and confirmed that the councillor was still in the process of allocating the remaining funds, but aspersions are still being cast on this!

but bear in mind Reb, all barnett had to do was to present some relevant gumpf on what was being asked .... if he'd posted accounts, balance sheets, statements, etc etc etc, there would be no need for me to call anyone ....

I quite understand that, but I also understand that the whole point, as originally declared, of setting S4S up in the stated manner, was to allow ALL of the money to go to specific causes and that ALL parties (remember this isn't just a Shoreline initiative) were providing their services for free. Surely it's perfectly logical that all parties would also want to minimise what it cost THEM in time to administer the fund? I've not had that conversation with anyone but it seems logical to me that minimising each parties costs is best done by publishing all the final information, rather than incurring time and costs all the way through.

You can also ask the question why, after the situation was explained in public on December 1st, should these parties be pressured into spending more of their time and money posting premature and unfinished accounts just because somebody decides to start a rumour that it's all a scam? They've always said that it would all be disclosed once the money was allocated, so we could all see exactly who had been helped by the donations.

Why does it have to be assumed that there is something untoward going on? Does anyone actually have any real evidence that things aren't as we've all been told?