 matters but how does an organisation that has links with the ACT party pass itself off as a charitable organisation? It’s not a research organisation it’s a politically motivated misrepresentation organisation. A spin organisation in the best traditions of Americana!
Hi Blossom,
Lovely to hear from you again!
You are a bit like a slippery pig…you squeal, then when I ask a question you run off…
It could be a good time to challenge the charitable status of that organisation in NZ. The authorities have been look at organisations on their register and finding a few who don’t qualify.
I haven’t seen your questions, ChristAtkinson; but even if I did see them, there is nothing that obligates me to answer them.
No Ken, not a stuffed pig squealing. Merely a realist making an observation.
Stuart,
Don’t know the rules in USA.
Here you need to be a “Registered Charity” regulated by Dept. Internal Affairs. Once you’re on the register, the rest is a doddle.
Charity…not very charitable if you ask me.
Four heads you must fall under to qualify;
Education
Relief of Poverty
Religion
Other Public purposes
see
Some interesting Charities here in NZ;
St Georges Hospital (ChCh), Ngai Tahu, and Sanitarium (Seventh Day Adventist/Weetbix etc).
Tax Free status and all that.
Did you see the recent episode exposing Sanitarium et al on Campbell Live recently?
Re: Charitable status, to prevent ambiguity
To qualify you only need to fall under one head, NOT all four
Must admit a reason for blossom’s non-appearance may have been my moderation. As you can tell he really doesn’t add anything of value. However, with the break in the exchange with Connett he might provide some entertainment.
By the way, Paul seems to want to take up my offer of a right of reply – reckons he will send something next week.
No Blossom,
Of course not Blossom, you are not obligated to answer anything.
You can just jump on this blog, say what you want and run away
The reason most people stick around to defend what they have to say is they have a sense of integrity…
(ah, I see now you may have been moderated, perhaps we could have a conversation?)
Wow! One thousand miserable dollars per month for Professor Connett to be savaged
x 2, as Connett’s wife is also paid,
$500 p/w ain’t bad as part of a multiple income stream (Books. speaking fees etc).
We need to remember, also, in these sorts of set-ups with retired people that any income they get is the icing on the cake as they already have an income from their pension and savings. An extra $24,000 per year could be quite attractive. Surely the son Michael gets something as well?
I personally think that for many of these people it is more about ego than income. In retirement people often have trouble coming to grips with loss of status and recognition and will do things like this to get a pretend status. In effect they are prepared to do it for nothing.
However, I am sure there are all sorts of ways people like Connett and Hirzy get remunerated. Ways that don’t show up in tax returns.
>
It could be a good time to challenge the charitable status of that organisation in NZ.
And that of the climate crank group whose *charitable* front NZ Climate Education Trust that took NIWA to court and lost, as every sane person observing the farce told them they would.
(NZCET also has ACT ties)
I hope someone is also keeping an eye on the *charity* to see if they attempt to somehow wriggle out of paying court ordered costs to NIWA.
Ken, What you think and what is truth can be as different as night is from day.
I remember that NZCET was on the register when first formed but had disappeared by the time of the court hearing. I assume because they couldn’t satisfy the requirements.
Charity law in NZ need to be overhauled badly.
Spoke with a guy in ChCh who did his PhD researching the subject…he constantly calls them out on their lack of transparency, lack of philanthropy etc.
You may not be aware, but did you know there is NO legal requirement for a Registered Charity to give $$ back to the community?
Many of them operate as purely as a business…when I recently criticised an exclusive “private” (but registered Charity) hospital here in ChCh publically, they responded in the media by saying they gave away…wait for it…
40 mattresses to the needy following the ChCh earthquake!!!
WoW, so generous – and when they made nearly $14million in profit.
(coincidentally, their maternity ward was bowled due to the earthquake…perhaps an excess of mattresses there…)
Come on blossom – surely you can do better than that. Why not try to engage with the discussions?
Just to see how obscenely lax the rules are take a look at;
This is a Registered Charity
Yep…Chem Trails, Amalgam, Vaccines, Fluoride……………you name it
So…we are all underwriting the krazy krazy judicial review of South Taranaki District Council’s right to fluoridate…
Hi Blossom,
You seem shy…how about I make the first move…
You seem to respect Mr Professor Dr Paul Connet,
You say he should be paid more…
So how much do you think he should be paid to keep up the good fight?
Of you look at the financial returns for 2013 for the NZ Health trust they received $200,000 in unspecified grants and spent 145,000 on legal expenses.
Their grants are not charitable donations but will be grants from the business they represent in he natural medicine and alternative health industries.
>
Interesting to note that income/assets for the previous year were small by comparison.
Seems they have a tap they can turn on when they want…a naturally alternative tap
Next years financials will be interesting, particularly in light of the legal action ramping up
Blossom
The term for which you are seeking to describe yourself is not “realist”. It is “hypocrite”. Antifluoridationists constantly and inexplicably make unsubstantiated claims about fluoridation advocates being somehow paid. Yet, as soon as Connett’s and other antifluoridationist leaders blatant financial conflicts of interest are exposed, the antis come flocking out of the woodwork, exactly as you have done here, seeking to quickly trivialize this profiting.
The amount is not important. Were it it brought to light that a fluoridation advocate was being paid ANY amount, I have no doubt, whatsoever, that you would be amongst the first in line to scream about it. The point is that amid all the nonsensical claims of “payment” to fluoride advocates, the only ones who actually seem to be profiting are the antifluoridationist leaders.
How much does FAN pay for Connett’s trips to NZ, Australia, Europe, and all over the U.S.? Is he paid a salary as Director of FAN as well as the $2k per month he and his wife make from AEHS? What other salaries are paid by FAN? What “fees” may be paid by FAN to Michael Connett and/or others? What groups, organizations, and individuals are donors to FAN? Do these donors have financial interests in keeping the fluoridation “controversy” alive?
Paul could clear up all of these questions if he chose to make the finances of his FAN completely transparent.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
And yet “sharp as a pin” Mark just
informed us that it is scientists that tow the line to keep their JOBS.
Sure beats working for a living.
One great thing about science denial is that it’s easy.
There’s never any pressure to make a new discovery or get test tubes dirty or anything.
Rather than having to do the work that a scientist is expected to do, you can do the workload of a…pundit.
Write a vanity press book or two.
Keep a blog maybe.
Give interviews on radio.
Get on the lecture circuit.
Attend some annual rally.
Hop on a plane to some country or other on a junket paid for by the local suckers every once in a while.
Nothing more strenuous than than. Just enough to stroke your fanbase.
Easy money.
And yet “sharp as a pin” Mark just
informed us that it is scientists that tow the line to keep their JOBS.
An oldie but a goodie.
How many times have we all heard that line before?
At least Mark has the integrity to speak in allcaps.
It makes things so much more truer…ish.
Claim CA321.1:
“The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.”
Ken
“They seem to be playing with names.”
I agree. It’s a shell game that requires a score card to keep up. Didn’t I read somewhere that Mary Byrne is on the Board of Directors of FAN, as well as being director of the local FANNZ? If so, then perhaps she would be willing to make FAN’s