The Steadfast Trust - WTF??

[Admiral Yi]

That's the stereotype, and that's what a lot of people believe. So, when a white person goes in for assistance, they get better help, more help, and more options.

wut?

[merithyn]

That's the stereotype, and that's what a lot of people believe. So, when a white person goes in for assistance, they get better help, more help, and more options.

wut?

Is that not the stereotype where you are? It certainly is here.

[Admiral Yi]

Is that not the stereotype where you are? It certainly is here.

I was responding more to the 2nd sentence.  "White people have more options."  Sounded to me like you were describing reality.  If you were talking about perception, I still disagree but it's not that big a deal.

[Viking]

They could have just started a golf/tennis club instead.

No, that would really be discrimination.

[Neil]

That's the stereotype, and that's what a lot of people believe. So, when a white person goes in for assistance, they get better help, more help, and more options.

wut?

Is that not the stereotype where you are? It certainly is here.

It's a good idea to remember that your country is very, very racist.  Stereotypes in your country might be different from elsewhere.

[garbon]

Some of us dislike people who are so kneejerk with accusations of Racism without evidence to back it up. YMMV.

Now, if you'd actually bothered to do the research I might take you more seriously; having done the research myself then yes, there is enough smoke (connections of various former and current directors to the BNP or EDL or similar organisations) to suggest that there may be a fire, muddied by the fact that several figures connected with it have openly criticised groups such as the BNP and EDL and also muddied by the fact that most of the criticisms and blogs come from sites that I quite frankly won't be visiting again (the rancid nature and obvious agendas of most of the posters made Languish look like a bastion of subtlety.)

And further muddied by the fact that theyve been around since 2004 and still retain their charity registration despite a number of other similar organisations not getting a listing in the first place.

Unfortunately, this is too muddied to understand.

Are you saying they are or are not a racist organization based on your research?

Best I can make it out is that he now thinks they probably are but he's annoyed that you and I didn't do more research than a couple links to come to our conclusion.

[dps]

Some of us dislike people who are so kneejerk with accusations of Racism without evidence to back it up. YMMV.

Now, if you'd actually bothered to do the research I might take you more seriously; having done the research myself then yes, there is enough smoke (connections of various former and current directors to the BNP or EDL or similar organisations) to suggest that there may be a fire, muddied by the fact that several figures connected with it have openly criticised groups such as the BNP and EDL and also muddied by the fact that most of the criticisms and blogs come from sites that I quite frankly won't be visiting again (the rancid nature and obvious agendas of most of the posters made Languish look like a bastion of subtlety.)

And further muddied by the fact that theyve been around since 2004 and still retain their charity registration despite a number of other similar organisations not getting a listing in the first place.

Unfortunately, this is too muddied to understand.

Are you saying they are or are not a racist organization based on your research?

Best I can make it out is that he now thinks they probably are but he's annoyed that you and I didn't do more research than a couple links to come to our conclusion.

I think what he was saying is closer to:  "There's reason to be suspicious about their motives, but no real proof, and given that other, similar groups have been denied or lost their status as registered charities because they were just fronts for racists groups suggests that these guys are either legit, or have at least hidden their real agenda well enough to meet the standards required to be a registered charity."

[garbon]

I think what he was saying is closer to:  "There's reason to be suspicious about their motives, but no real proof, and given that other, similar groups have been denied or lost their status as registered charities because they were just fronts for racists groups suggests that these guys are either legit, or have at least hidden their real agenda well enough to meet the standards required to be a registered charity."

Ok

[Agelastus]

Some of us dislike people who are so kneejerk with accusations of Racism without evidence to back it up. YMMV.

Now, if you'd actually bothered to do the research I might take you more seriously; having done the research myself then yes, there is enough smoke (connections of various former and current directors to the BNP or EDL or similar organisations) to suggest that there may be a fire, muddied by the fact that several figures connected with it have openly criticised groups such as the BNP and EDL and also muddied by the fact that most of the criticisms and blogs come from sites that I quite frankly won't be visiting again (the rancid nature and obvious agendas of most of the posters made Languish look like a bastion of subtlety.)

And further muddied by the fact that theyve been around since 2004 and still retain their charity registration despite a number of other similar organisations not getting a listing in the first place.

Unfortunately, this is too muddied to understand.

Are you saying they are or are not a racist organization based on your research?

Best I can make it out is that he now thinks they probably are but he's annoyed that you and I didn't do more research than a couple links to come to our conclusion.

I think what he was saying is closer to:  "There's reason to be suspicious about their motives, but no real proof, and given that other, similar groups have been denied or lost their status as registered charities because they were just fronts for racists groups suggests that these guys are either legit, or have at least hidden their real agenda well enough to meet the standards required to be a registered charity."

I completely fail to understand what is so opaque about my post; composed as it was of perfectly straightforward English. I am genuinely uncertain whether to  or  or  here...

Well...

Firstly, Garbon, I was specifically pointing you out as a person who presents conclusions without doing the research. If you feel I should include Merithyn in my critique - well, that's your opinion and in your own words - YMMV.

Secondly, for people who can't be bothered to take their time to do any research -

BNP - British National Party (party that skirts the edge of the anti-Racism laws.)
EDL - English Defence League (party that likes to pretend that it doesn't skirt the edge of the anti-Racism laws.)

The founder directors of Steadfast had links to these organisations and others of their ilk. None of these people are directors now.

The Charity itself shares contact details with a shop that sells patriotic English goods ("tat" being a more appropriate description.)

Of the current batch of directors, some have links, others don't. Of those that do have links at least one of them has been openly critical of the EDL despite his former association with the party.

Four other organisations claim to be "branches" or "linked organisations" to the charity - two of which have been openly repudiated by the Charity themselves. The other two are both accused of being smokescreens for pre-existing fascist groups - by posters on websites that lean towards "shoot first", "anyone not me is the enemy", "guilt is true irrespective of evidence" etc. and whose posters generally have a pretty nasty tone to their posts.

As I said, "the rancid nature and obvious agendas of most of the posters made Languish look like a bastion of subtlety."

The charity has been around since 2004; following its establishment a number of similar organisations tried to register themselves as charities and were rejected by the Charities Commission. Despite which, Steadfast itself is still a registered Charity and has been around long enough for genuine complaints to have got it delisted. As DPS said, that either makes them genuine or bright enough to meet the required standards.

As I said in an earlier post it's also not had enough income for the last five years to force it to register a full set of Accounts with the Commission. Since this level appears to be the derisory sum of £10000 they're not big enough to be concerned about in any case.

So, once again in plain English - there's enough "smoke" to suggest the possibility of a "fire", but no actual hard evidence of said "fire".

[garbon]

So again like I said, you're annoyed that we're near the same conclusions (you are more cautious than I am) and I based mine just off the spiel provided by the charity register.

[garbon]

Oh and no I didn't read most of your recent post. Talk about a yawn.

[PDH]

Who cares?  Its England.  They have been on the decline since the Somme.

[mongers]

Who cares?  Its England.  They have been on the decline since the May 1979.

Fixed it. 

[Neil]

Who cares?  Its England.  They have been on the decline since the May 1979.

Fixed it. 

You're old enough to know better.

[mongers]

Who cares?  Its England.  They have been on the decline since the May 1979.

Fixed it. 

You're old enough to know better.

Tyr's away, so I'm deputising.