Let me balance the comments of MCHammer with some of my own.
Vintage I'm not quoting your whole post simply for brevity but I wanted to make clear I'm responding to you personally.
Let me make this clear. I simply pointed out the examples I did in response to Barton stating that third party actions surely only damage the third party not the charity. That statement is just completely wrong and that's a fact that has been proven a million times over in every country in the world including the UK. Your answers regarding the actual face mask while welcome seem to miss the point. Nobody is saying they aren't legit....I don't know and by your own lack of knowledge you probably don't either.
The questions I raised about the product were simply demonstrating just some of the discussions that have to take place before I can accept donations from a donor. Again I reiterate BEFORE. That didn't happen and a charity has no choice but to publicly and strongly distance themselves quickly if this doesn't happen. If you have experience in this area you should know this. In addition the idea rejections are run past all or most trustees is frankly ridiculous. If I would have had to do that in my previous role we'd have ground to a halt and been damaged massively by being so slow to react.
If your proposed donation falls foul of even just one of the charities guidelines/legal framework I should reject it immediately. There is a process a donor can follow to complain if they disagree and I simply have to be able to prove at a later date the reasons for my rejection.
In addition all this talk of potential litigation etc. is simply missing the point. A charity only exists because of it's reputation. Anyone that has been involved in charity, business or any organisation know this to be the case. But it's everything to charities. I've demonstrated already on small and big levels like Lance Armstrong why this can be the case. Damage to any charity reputation big or small can be fatal which is why these laws and guidelines exist and people get paid for making these decisions. Charities big and small will scan social media on a daily basis to ensure both that nothing negative is causing damage but also so they can support other activities that may benefit them if they are acceptable.
Which leads me to my final very personal point to you, Barton, whoever Stefan is on Twitter and anyone else that chose this particular event to jump on and link to the owners/management team you so detest. Try to take a breath and realise that maybe just maybe you might be wrong this time. Your and others comments and criticism on social media including here is damaging both to the charity you claim you wanted to support and even to the supporters trust you quite clearly do support. That's a fact. By making potentially false claims that others were involved you could be propagating a lie and lead others down that route. I've seen it happen already with responses to your tweet from several days ago. If you have direct evidence that you are not lying prove it publicly. You would have nothing to fear if it's true. I notice you don't like naming names which kind of implies you can't prove something.
If not go and read the latest update from the community trust but first taking off the tin foil conspiracy hat and realise they are saying exactly what I said days ago. Yes they are damage limiting but they are damage limiting because of the supporters trust not approaching them and subsequent cronies posting damaging, unjust criticism for not accepting the donation.
If you and the trust had any level of decency you would hold your hands apologise for the misunderstanding and move on. But you and others seem more interested in proving a point and trying to save face than doing the right thing and holding your hands up.
Finally this is the very reason why I have so little time for the supporters trust and specifically some fanatics like you that support them and come across like you represent them. There is seemingly no ability to get people on board and grow the reputation. Even though I'm know it is full of people that mean well it's constantly let down by ill considered actions an inability to understand public perception and gain support. Just look at the responses both official and unofficial in the last few days to this situation. Everything just damaging to all involved and benefiting nobody and all people want to do is play the blame game rather than look see the bigger picture. You are actually trying to damage the thing you started off trying to help. What's the sense in that? All of this simply underlines strongly why I would never want a community ownership model lead by the trust in it's current makeup and with some of the current people involved. It would be a disaster waiting to happen which is surely what you want to get away from.
Oh and also if a mod would move this thread back to Cobblers Comments I'd massively appreciate it. It's a shame some of the points being made will be missed by the majority when the vocal criticism elsewhere is not being balanced by comments such as mine.
