Intelligent Giving

Further to the postings that have been before, what a god send it has been in the resignation of a country director which happens to be the same country these so called projects did or didn’t take place. Even more bazaar is the fact that this person is moving to the UK, perhaps the Charity Commission might like to talk to him, I know I would. I am sure by now those who have been warned about speaking to those who have left must be thinking are we being lied to about what is taking place with former employees? I would love to answer that but given it would incriminate those speaking out I best not, it’s like living in a small village I say.

Roll on early November when we can sit down and talk to disgruntled ex country director. No doubt after reading this there will be enhanced offers of pay rises or perhaps hush money to keep this person quiet who knows, perhaps that has already taken place, just guessing. I trust senior management have been updating themselves with recent case law as they will have seen a decision handed down recently with regards that managers cannot hear grievances against themselves and must at all times be prepared to move away from contractual procedures if this adversely effects the employee. WOW what a clear statement although it has been around for quite some time.

Oh yes I forgot, LEPRA will argue they followed procedures by allowing the two people complained about in all cases to chair meetings and reach decisions. All this they say because there is no where else to go. Big gong for that answer, board of trustees is my guess, after all they supposedly independent and responsible for the charity and its overall running. God and to think somewhere someone was dismissed for accusing the Chair of fighting the CEO’s corner. Sorry was that a factual statement or defamation. I think LEPRA concluded the latter.

Largely for the benefit of Ms Vlad.

You may recall that comment was made along the lines of  "I bet that the three remaining cases are thrown out by the Tribunal". Two are still to be heard and I understand that the other was settled prior to the scheduled hearing in a way that satisfied the claimant. I am not sure whether LEPRA Trustees have yet instigated an investigation. 

Don't shoot the messenger

You accuse us of not wanting to show evidence, when we have approached the trustees, the real employers and not the employees, they just close their eyes. As for what we want, justice is what we answered, are you thick? You know where I work, perhaps you can arrange a day to visit me. I have emails from current employees too that make interesting reading. I wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t true. Now can you answer every one else’s questions. Unfounded allegations mean nothing of substance. Funny, I though the employment tribunal in Mr Zaman’s case found that racist remarks were made on the last day at least, but the tribunal was not asked to rule on it. Am I right? I will stand corrected but the written reasons are due soon so perhaps I’ll reserve my position until then.

Perhaps you might like to scourer the EAT website for unfair dismissal cases and ask yourself, did we follow the correct procedures? I’ll give you a good starting point and if you update yourself, you will notice that actually this case is still good law. Birchell v British Home Stores. Will you allow IG to publish the documents we have on their website without you then wanting to sue them for doing so? Can you at least state your position in regards to this? I am sure given your permission IG will happily post it for you.

Like I said, will the real employers of LEPRA please step forward, you are as you rightly put it, only an employee, let us deal with the employers, what are senior management afraid of?

I also very much doubt that I know 'the email address of every single person at LEPRA' - the rate that people leave in that organisation I'd be amazed if I recognised half the faces at Head Office...... I also take it from that comment that you assume to know my identity.

Don't shoot the messenger

I also very much doubt that I know 'the email address of every single person at LEPRA' - the rate that people leave in that organisation I'd be amazed if I recognised half the faces at Head Office...... I also take it from that comment that you assume to know my identity.

Don't shoot the messenger

Please do try to keep up... I have pointed out that I am not allowed to post the evidence because it would get Intelligent Giving into trouble - unless LEPRA are publically prepared to drop any legal right to sue. All I want from LEPRA is for the Trustees to hold the right people accountable. This would involve resignations or sackings and a public apology to all involved. These are not 'mistakes' to which Senior Management can simply hold their hands up (everybody makes them), they are shocking examples of misconduct.

 As for showing you the evidence..... You are almost certainly one of the three people I suspect you are - in which case you know that you're at fault and are bluffing. On the tiny off chance that you aren't, I'd invite you to get in touch with me and we can go through all of the evidence at your leisure. There is plenty of it and it amounts to far more than empty allegations. The phrase 'beyond all reasonable doubt' springs to mind.

And now (finally) will you do me the courtesy of responding to my very specific questions?

Don't shoot the messenger

"I've answered your questions" - really??? Where was that then, I must have missed it! Rather than directly answering two very simple and relevant questions (i.e. What Do you Want and Where is the Evidence) you've simply replied with more questions & allegations - much as I expected you would.

You claim to have evidence and yet accuse LEPRA of attempting to keep it hidden. Yet when challenged to show it, you don't! What are you afraid of? You know the email address of every single person at LEPRA so if the evidence exists and is so good why do you seem afraid to show it? Maybe because what you have it isn't actual evidence but allegations with nothing to back them up?

We seem to be getting nowhere with this so it's pointless posting more - other interested readers will have to decide Fact from Fiction for themselves.

'Unfounded allegations' - isn't that the accusation that you levelled at poor Mr Zaman/! How have you explained that little mess up to your employees?

You know full well the situation with regard to publishing evidence, you also know that we have plenty of it. Perhaps if LEPRA (you ) agreed to call off its overpaid legal rotweilers and guarenteed that Intelligent Giving could publish the facts without the threat of retaliation we'd all be better off. There's no point in citing sub-judice, because, given that there are no legal proceedings save for the Employment Tribunal cases, the evidence relating to the non employment matters could be made publically available if you'd allow it.

I'm disgusted that you would chose to mislead not only your own employees but also the donating public. The evidence on all the charges (which I am not allowed to reiterate here) is overwhelming as you well know. Your entire defence is predicated on a cynical attempt to keep that evidence under wraps.

 I've answered your questions, so perhaps you'd do my the service of replying to the following:

How can you consider the charity to be 'vindicated' following a finding of procedural and substantive unfair dismissal?

What have you been telling your employees about the Zaman case and the merits of the other cases in front of the Tribunal?

If there were no reporting irregularities why have two major funders decided to stop giving grants to LEPRA having been shown the evidence?

How much have you spent on legal fees defending the indefensible? Why can those fees not be found in your published annual set of accounts?

Why is LEPRA forwading the ludicrous argument at the EAT that the Trustees do not constitute 'the employers' (flying in the face of charity law and rendering Senior Management unaccountable)?

 When will LEPRA's Trustees begin an investigation into the allegations about Mr Vasey's conduct (I will not expand upon this here so as not to create extra hassle for IG- but you know what I mean)?

Who is deciding the position that LEPRA takes throughout these proceedings; the supposedly independent trustees or Senior Management (who have a vested interest)?

Finally, do you think that your conduct throughout these proceedings paints a picture of an honest and fair minded employer? Can you justify your expenditure with particular reference to your charitable objectives and your moral duty to the donating public.

 It's all been smoke and mirrors with LEPRA. You know full well that we have the evidence but have relied on threats and increasingly bizarre technical legal arguments to keep that evidence hidden. Stop digging and fill in the hole, don't spend more on making it deeper.  

Don't shoot the messenger

Dear Current Insider,

I am glad you agree with me that we were told to go away and find it. As for the challenge, I am happy to meet with you and show all I have, although I am sure there will be some form of, it isn’t what you think. Funny, that’s not what the funders are saying as you fully well know having received a letter from one already. In regards to the media, as you know the media are responsible for what they print and you can rest assured, they will have researched the story more than you allegedly investigated it. Perhaps LEPRA might like to come clean on their apparent laughing at under-spending in projects. Why is this? As for what we want, justice for the way we were treated. If dismissal is how you treat staff then I would hate to see how you treat victims, no need to answer that I already know. Read the press articles this week and perhaps you might wish to retract your allegations of accusations and evidence. As you know, the employment tribunal is not the place to investigate this type of allegation. If you want me to pursue it through the right channels say so, I will happily do it. As you know, the Charity Commission has concerns of their own which they are dealing with. Do you really want more at this point in time? Perhaps you should concentrate on reaching your target of £8m or are you already there in which case, re-adjust your goals.

"Umpire" as you well know the figures were always and have always been available if you looked for them - how else could we ever write a proposal for funding? And as for your laughable comment about US diverting money away from the cause - do you expect LEPRA to meekly concede to all your demands and unfounded allegations without protecting itself?

I think maybe readers of this ongoing thread may now be asking "What is it exactly that these people want?" and "Where is the evidence that they insist they have and why don't they publish it as they keep promising to?".

So maybe "Umpire" and "Former Insider" would like to answer these questions directly, rather than politically with another question! As you claim to be some sort of Batman & Robin of the charity world, seeking justice and fairness with no personal gain, what is it you actually want from LEPRA? If you are so confident you have the evidence then why be afraid to show it openly? I challenge YOU to show it - not do it via the media who simply want to weave their own story around it. Or is it you are only too aware that Allegations and Evidence are entirely different things?

As for your final point - no I don't expect or care if you believe me or not. Your vision of the Truth and mine are light years apart!

Development: Yes, there have been loads of them since we have taken action to clear our names. We are never surprised at the next development LEPRA take. If the word fits, use it I say. It is a pity LEPRA still refuse to acknowledge that their trustees are the employers, another tactic to divert money away from the causes you accuse us of hurting.  

I see that you have managed to find figures from somewhere. Funny, when I was working there LEPRA did not have figures to support their work. TLM produce a glossy brochure on how many people they treat but when staff approached senior management about the reasons we work in particular place or how many people are affected and treated, blank looks were drawn and staff were told to go and find it. Given that there are minutes of meetings acknowledging this I am unsure why such a personal attack when LEPRA cannot account for how many people actually are treated/helped. Yes you are right, it is probably a good thing that I no longer work there because I would have been even more frustrated with the lack of information and plucking figures from the air. Should we publish some of the emails and meeting minute on this website to prove the point? Given that there have been inconsistencies with other information submitted elsewhere; do you really expect me to believe what you say anymore?

The post by 'current insider' makes some good points. Indeed truly sustainable development work is not about doing things for people in deprived communities, but instead equipping those communities to better look after themselves. I suspect that we would disagree over to what extent LEPRA actually does that though.

It was my experience that, rather than trying to 'build the capacity' of the deprived communities in which LEPRA was working, Colchester based Senior Management imposed 'solutions' based on limited knowledge of the reality in the field. And as for the vague figures quoted - 'thousands' in every instance - that's broadly illustrative of the organisation's central failure to accurately measure its impact. It's also no more than you'd expect given the 83 year history of LEPRA!  

 As for the allegation about deliberately damaging LEPRA, I am 100% sure that isn't 'umpires'' intention, but it does appear to be the single aim of those LEPRA employees and Trustees who hide from accountablity.

Don't shoot the messenger

Thousands of people are treated for complications arising from leprosy
Thousands have had eye surgery
Thousands have had reconstructive surgery
Thousands have had safe delivery of babies
Thousands have had ulcers treated
Thousands have had blood tests for HIV and other diseases
Thousands have had thir sputum examined for tuberculosis
Thousands receive treatment for tuberculosis
Thousands receive counselling
Thousands have received bed nets I too could go on......

These things are happening every day across the world in LEPRA projects and it is an insult to extremely dedicated staff working in extremely difficult conditions for him to claim otherwise. I wonder who "Umpire" thinks sets up projects in some of the most inacessible districts in the world, often after other organisations have pulled out, to do these things? I don't know if this misinformation was posted to deliberately mislead and damage LEPRA or not, but if he really worked in a fundraising role at LEPRA and yet still didn't know these things, then maybe it is best that he is no longer there!

Don't take my unpleasantness personally insider - I'm equal opportunities when it comes to being nasty, as I'm sure Cameron will vouch [1]. This thread contains the post I was referring to and is a case in point of my issues with "total" anonymity as opposed to "verified" anonymity. Registering isn't rocket science - try Login, I think you can register from there (not sure as it was a while ago for me). Or you could always have mailed IG, via this website, to request assistance with registration.

As someone who has said right from the start that they have no interest [2] /personal or professional connection with LEPRA/influence I feel that it would be morally questionable for me to have access to information which is not publically available. Media involved? Good. Perhaps we'll see something more than smoke and mirrors. If media involvement is "my fault" then I am very impressed and consider I've done a good job. Like I said, I'm equal opportunities and don't mind whose hypocrisies or inconsistencies I challenge. If LEPRA had posted their side of the story (and I maintain that it is a pity they haven't, but they have doubtless been advised by solicitors not to comment) then I would have been equally happy to question them.

[1] I'm sure we'll argue again

[2] Except in loving a good argument and a passion for the sector which would hopefully be evident to anyone who has seen other threads on this site - have you looked at any of those, or are you just pursuing your own agendas?

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

Dear Vald from Debenham,

The invitation for you to contact me was for you to get further information which has not been forwarded to IG. You would then see the response from the funders themselves and this as you so willingly put it, is the substantiated evidence. That is, the funders cannot and will not support LEPRA’s statements for the tribunal. Secondly, the employment tribunal is exactly that, it rules on employment matters not suspicions of fraud. I do not see why you intend to wait for the hearings to conclude to know whether or not it is actual? The mere fact someone makes a disclosure in good faith is all the employment tribunal is concerned with. However, thanks to you, there will be a couple of press articles by journalists who have researched their stories and you will have the opportunity to read these when they are published. This will include the funders evidence and I am not concerned as to whether or not you conclude either way. The point is, we ex-employees were treated differently because we spoke to the trustees about our concerns. This is all the tribunal will concern itself with. I guess the press will print the facts and people can decide for themselves, it is not for you or me to conclude. Yes I agree, the whole thing is getting boring now as again you conclude with only half the facts. As you live close to me perhaps you might like to visit my house to see the rest first hand.

Dear Ms Vlad

This is getting utterly ridiculous. I have no idea why you are so venemous towards me, given, as you have repeated over and over again, you are ignorant of the facts.

I will be as as concise as possible.

I have made no 'snide' remarks to you on another thread.
I haven't registered becuause I don't know how to! I appealed for assistance a while ago and received no help or advice.
You can contact me to discover the evidence for yourself. All you need do is email Intelligent Giving and they will put you in contact.

I'm of the opinion that you're one of those genuinely well meaning people who just can't face the possibility that some charities might behave in a way that you couldn't approve of. Better shoot the messenger because the message itself is, frankly, repugnant. I can understand it in a way, but I still think the only common sense approach is to arm yourself with the facts and reach a properly informed view.

I'm sorry, but I was brought up to believe that you should stand up for what is right.... Even if you do get shot down by people who would rather bury their head in the sand. And I would repeat; the allegations made are far from petty, they are extremely serious and it is only right that LEPRA's Trustees and Senior Management are made to answer them (most of these issues will not be covered in the Employment Tribunal hearings so it doesn't help to say 'wait until then')

Umpire, your suspicions are groundless. I think I met someone who worked for LEPRA once, but can't remember their name - otherwise I have never had any connection with the charity whatsoever - not even as a donor.

A former insider (who still, somehow, has not managed to register): further to your snide remark on another thread: let's keep the argument here eh? And I would refer you to this comment, below on this thread:

[quote=me]It is a shame that LEPRA do not appear to have published what they are doing to resolve the situation and prevent recurrence (although I could be wrong on this and just not found it).[/quote]

My point all along is that we want FACTS, not the unsubstantiated and vague stuff that is pretty much all we have seen from (presumably ex-)LEPRA personnel on this thread. Once the tribunal(s) have ruled, then we have facts - i.e. the tribunal rulings. Until then, I really don't see why the allegations need any further discussion: the fact that they exist is sufficient.

And yes, mikemuses is right)

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

Re: 

"response to Vlad’s submission that she would rather be cured of a curable disease no matter how bad the morals of an organsiation"Firstly and for the record, LEPRA no longer directly treats people affected by illness."

 I may be wrong, but I'd taken that as more of an analogy than a staement regarding LEPRA's work.

LEPRA FACTS

In response to Vlad’s submission that she would rather be cured of a curable disease no matter how bad the morals of an organsiation strikes me as being a little presumptuous. Firstly and for the record, LEPRA no longer directly treats people affected by illness. The funds that era raised are used for awareness purposes. LEPRA do not supply the MDT drug to treat leprosy, this is supplied free of charge by the WHO. LEPRA received publicised criticism for their schools programme with the message it costs £21 to cure somebody of leprosy. How do they arrive at this figure?

To put it in a broad brush for you, LEPRA is nothing more than a raise awareness organization. It doesn’t treat people directly affected but merely refers them to the Government health facilities to get treated. So what does your money go towards, Staff wages, training, vehicles, training and other day to day expenses. Furthermore, during my time at LEPRA the community fundraisers spent £600,000 plus to generate £950,000. You do the figures but in my book that is almost 66% spent in costs. Taking it one step further, LEPRA say it is a vital tool in their campaign, however, I saw absolutely nothing during my time there to indicate to me that school children who had LEPRA visit them at school and who may have moved into organizations, have not come back to donate as a corporate body. Effectively one could conclude that it is nothing more than a failed PR stunt. They still send the message out that it costs £21 or now possible £25 to cure somebody of leprosy although they don’t actually treat people directly. They cannot make somebody take the drugs. All they do do is raise awareness. I could go on.

Dear Vlad,

Having though long and hard about your postings and constant criticisms of those taking action against LEPRA, I though it only fair that I try and focus your mind on a few pretty straightforward arguments. Having said that, I am sure you will find some way of turning it around which can only leave me to conclude that you are more connected than you are letting on. Firstly, I am pushing the charity commission to take action not against the charity, but against the trustees for their blatant disregard for their legal obligations. You accuse those taking action of robbing the needy and for this reason I take offence. Perhaps you should contact the charity commission and ask them what our stance has been all along. Simply, why should the public have to pay for the trustee’s failure to do their job? That is, the charity commission should make the trustees pay back the money that is being spent, and will be lost, on defending these cases. You are very quick to say it is not in the public interests to pursue the matter but it is hear that I have to disagree, a quick troll through the charity commissions website will leave you with this conclusion. “Charity trustees are responsible for the charities assets and must take steps to protect those assets at all times.” So with this in mind and bearing in mind all the litigants in these matters approached the trustees in the first instance, why are you so against us? Perhaps you should think about your very weak argument that we don’t have cases and start questioning the charity commission on why they are allowing LEPRA to waste donor’s money on all of these cases. What you must bare in mind is this, LEPRA’s legal team have tried to argue that we don’t have cases at pre-hearings already; the employment tribunals have concluded that there are cases to answer. My estimate of LEPRA’s legal expenses must be nearer the £30,000 and rising. As for the information, as LEPRA are an open and transparent charity, perhaps you could ask them to post the offending emails in November on their website? Try focussing on the trustees having to pay back the money have lost, and will lose in these cases, that way then, the beneficiaries will not be the ones who suffer. After all, they are an £8m charity according to their witness statements.

Focus your aggression to making the trustees accountable, it is what we are doing!

Hi Ms Vlad

I'm glad that we're managing to be a little more magnanimous towards each other, although I disagree that anything that I've said could be classed as self-contradictory. I also fail to see how you can bet that the Tribunal will throw out the three remaining cases whilst admitting that you're largely ignorant of the issues and the evidence to be brought to the relevant hearings!

In answer to a previous post; LEPRA weren't cleared of racism. Allegations were made which were believed in substance by the Tribunal panel, but it was decided that the incident concerned could not be explicitly linked to the dismissal. Surely you see the glaring difference!

On one thing we can all agree. Without the vehicle to bring the evidence into the public domain there's little point in discussing further (although I have mentioned throughout that I will share hard evidence to back up very serious allegations). I do hope that somebody will cover this soon because it a story that needs to be told in the public interest and, I believe, in the best interests of LEPRA itself.

Response to Vlad

I will happily accept your bet that the tribunal will not throw these cases out. I think you have missed the point completely with your contradictions. Firstly, you state that LEPRA are not perfect and made mistakes. Then you say the tribunal will throw the cases out. As for the evidence, I have said that I am happy to supply it to you via IG. You’ve not taken up the offer.

The point about the ten pounds was in response to you saying that we should all just get on with our lives and not pursue our cases. If wrongful dismissal is wrongful dismissal then doesn’t every person have a right to seek damages? If you were in a car accident that wasn’t your fault, sustained injuries which prevented you from working, (which I pray doesn’t happen to you), would you just say, oh well, I am out of pocket but life goes on. Or would you seek to re-coupe what you have lost?

If someone makes a whistleblowers disclosure in good faith and is then subsequently dismissed by the very person they complained about, would you say that is fair treatment? As for evidence in tribunal hearings, it is in the public domain. I agree that people who do not know the full story should read the papers soon. The article will be written.

I was wondering where you had got to!

Good to see you back, even if you are agreeing with me and say things better and shorter than I do :)

------------------------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

I'm a big girl, I can admit when I'm wrong.

Unfair dismissal tribunal results Obviously you are one of the three outstanding tribunal cases, which wasn't clear from the posts - I thought we were talking about an appeal hearing.

You're right, the Pudsey and Wallace & Gromit articles weren't really whistleblowing as the information in them is in the public domain for those who are prepared to dig deeper (the illegality I referred to was the Annual Return failure). I guess vague and wild exaggeration must be catching, perhaps I should get off this thread. But the principle stands, which is that IG is happy to challenge poor practice when there is evidence to do so.

Re reading posts. All I can see is a pile of sometimes self-contradictory and opinionated rhetoric - I'll happily include some of my posts in that.  I've just re-read what's still here - but confess I somehow missed this bit first time round:

[quote=Umpire]Perhaps you can tell the police that arresting somebody for stealing £10 from a shop is not proportionate.[/quote]

What on earth does this have to do with LEPRA? If someone steals something then they have to take the consequences. Any commercial organisation would sack a thief - whether from them or from a third party. Why should a charity act any differently? If the police acted disproportionately, I would love to know what level of theft is acceptable? I can then go and raid the petty cash tin immediately. I'm not even going to get started on the rest of the post, I'll just agree that you've been shockingly hard done-by, anything for an easy life. {END sarcasm}

As far as debate is concerned - there is nothing substantive to debate as you are unable to post your evidence. I love a good argument (no, really?), but the minute I make a challenge based on the evidence available to me, the answer will come back "Yes, but ..." - which is a bit pointless isn't it?

I'm refusing to engage in debate, because I don't want to participate in your debate - which is the validity of your claims.  Equally, you are refusing to participate in my debate, which is that now you have raised the issue that there are allegations outstanding against LEPRA, you should leave it at that.

Re: the essence of a charity being its work - we're in agreement then, its the approaches that are different. After all, how would that work happen without a) people to decide on what it is (if one person could save the world it would have been done already - charities have to focus) and b) people to actually do it? If I was dying from an unpleasant but curable disease I wouldn't give a damn about the morals of the person or organisation who saved my life - I'd just be grateful. Perhaps LEPRA aren't faultless - who is? Your continual slanging is still doing unnecessary reputational damage: I know enough law to know that "innocent until proven guilty" is the principle that we work under. Why should that not apply to an organisation as well as to an individual?

In my opinion, you are doing yourselves no favours by continuing to go on about it without being able to present any evidence. I was neutral to start with - now I'm betting on the fact that the tribunal will throw these other three cases out and be quite right to do so. I wouldn't mind betting I'm not the only one either - just the most outspoken.

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

I've been following this debate with interest, and agree wholeheartedly with LMC. Unfortunatlely, however, and in spite of several (dozen) posts I'm still not sure what the allegations against LEPRA actually are.

I understand from elsewhere that the charity has been accused of racism, but was cleared of this. Now, however, it seems as if staff members are being accused of fraud. But what exactly did they do wrong? Frankly, I don't have the time to wade through piles of employment tribunal documents. But I would like to hear a summary of their purpoted misdeeds. Is this possible? Maybe then the weight of moderating this thread would be lifted from IG's shoulders?

"The Tribunal found against you" Eh!!! How on earth do you figure that one out? Only one case has been heard so far and I fail to understand what part of the phrase "susbstantive and procedurally unfair dismissal" is baffling you.

I've tried to engage you in reasonable debated but I'm beginning to despair now. You clearly haven't read any of the postings..... And for gods sakes, the essence of the charity is not the individual personalities (including any dubious practice) of Trustees and the Senior Management, it is the work carried out for the good of the people that the organisation was set up to benefit.

I also very much doubt that IG would share your assertion that they blew the whistle on Pudsey!! All they did, quite reasonably, was to express an opinion on the best way to donate to charity. They weren't alleging unlawful behaviour so far as I'm aware. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

IG have already stated that they have taken legal consultation. Therefore they have incurred costs for your soapbox and gone to considerable inconvenience - quite apart from the time they have taken to review your evidence. It is your choice to pursue the case, so your legal costs are your responsibility. IG did not have the choice: you imposed it on them.

If legal proceedings are in progress and it is impossible to publicise information to validate your claims then I repeat, it is unfair to continue to be using IG as a forum to post unsubstantiated grievances. The necessary facts for anyone interested in LEPRA are on here. It is not appropriate for IG, an independent organisation, to be hosting any more detail than that.

You say that your beef is with the trustees and employees of LEPRA, not LEPRA itself. Well, what is LEPRA (or indeed any other charity) without its trustees and staff. People make mistakes. Evidently, something was wrong at LEPRA or the tribunal wouldn't have slapped their wrists as part of the ruling. It is a shame that LEPRA do not appear to have published what they are doing to resolve the situation and prevent recurrence (although I could be wrong on this and just not found it).

I know you have repeatedly offered copies of the evidence - but as I understand it, tribunal evidence is not in the public domain. I think your offer of copying it to "anyone who wants it" is morally (and possibly legally) questionable - certainly, there is no public right of access to tribunal information (source). IG amost certainly took legal advice before accepting your offer and are covered by virtue of being an organisation whose stated objective is to make information available to the public. As an individual, I have no reason to see this information other than curiosity. I'm not important enough to influence anybody. So the only reason I can possibly imagine for you wanting "anyone" to see it is because you're trying to gather support - and, well, read the rest of this post.

Looking at the public domain evidence:

• The tribunal ruled against you.
• The Charity Commission don't consider the issue sufficiently important to spend taxpayers' money on an investigation.
• The national press haven't published anything that I can find via a Google search.
• Third Sector ("the" voluntary sector magazine) is fairly opinionated - but have restricted their recent reporting on LEPRA to 'fact'.
• IG evidently do not consider that your evidence is substantial enough for them to whistleblow - otherwise I have absolutely no doubt that they would have done so (they've taken on Comic Relief and Wallace & Gromit, they'd not stop at LEPRA if the evidence had sufficient ground).

I have been known to be wrong but that rarely puts me off expressing an opinion when I really want to: I don't buy the "I'm doing it for the greater good" argument. It is clear that LEPRA are at fault to some extent, however, I am beginning to believe that you're pursuing a personal grudge out of all proportion to the original offence.

----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

Hi (Ms) Vlad. I really am not the evil charity ruiner that you appear to think I am. I just believe that these organisations should be run legally, fairly, transparently and in the best interests of the people that they exist to support. I know that is also Intelligent Giving's view and so hosting debate on the subject is hardly an inconveience for them.

There is common ground here I'm quite sure and I can perfectly understand people questioning the motives of those (me) who are submitting posts critical of LEPRA's management and Trustees. All I would ask is that you contact me to talk it through if you're in any doubt. I can give you access to all of the available evidence which comprises of Tribunal bundles submitted by both sides.

As for the last poster who made comments about a lack of evidence being made available.... This is simply because Intelligent Giving has been told that they should not allow me (or anybody else) to post any. I perfectly understand the reasons behind the advice that they've been given, but please don't blame me for being reticent... There is a mechanism for contacting me via Intelligent Giving if you wish to do so.

Finally, I'm not deliberately 'unverified', I just don't know how to change my status! Advice greatly appreciated.

Dear Anonymous,

My posting a few days ago referred you to the funders in question. They have all seen LEPRA’s statements for the recent case against them. They were the ones who concluded that LEPRA’s statements did not add up to what they actually did, not us. Perhaps you might like to take the invitation to contact them directly. As for seeing the evidence, I am only too happy to show you. Perhaps you can leave your details with IG and I will forward to you what I have. For the sake of clarity, I am certainly separate from a former insider. As for the national press, who’s to say they are not already interested in the story. Like everything, they can only report the facts that come out in a case before the courts etc. Rest assured, you will get to read about it in the national press at some point. As for a support LEPRA website, it is not going to happen from my point of view. Someone posted respect is earned, trustees who turn their backs on employees in my opinion don’t deserve respect. If an overhaul was to happen, then I am sure I’d be the first to post on a support LEPRA website. I do not get how you can accuse us of causing IG legal expenses. Perhaps you might like to support my legal expenses argument against LEPRA, it has cost me a fortune in not only legal bills, but wages as well.

We keep seeing comments aout evidence but have yet to see any. If it exists please can we see it?