3 ms·
I used to donate to the Open Rights Group but you soon realise that all you are funding is for the guy in charge to do as he pleases, regardless of what the maj
by PaulKeeble 12y ago
I used to donate to the Open Rights Group but you soon realise that all you are funding is for the guy in charge to do as he pleases, regardless of what the majority of members want. You fund his ever increasing life style and he complains on your behalf. I think a lot of the members would much prefer some input into the campaign, especially since the campaign is ineffective.
Having found the founders position untenable in a number of ways I realised I couldn't support that position and that the detonators opinions (despite having a discussion) didn't matter. I can't recommend donating to the ORG really, its a bit of a scam and it is definitely not a Charity.
- rlpb 12y ago> ...but you soon realise that all you are funding is for the guy in charge to do as he pleases, regardless of what the majority of members want. Can you support this claim, please? As far as I can see, they publish everything that they do. The way I see it, a political organisation needs strong leadership, because a unified voice is what gives it clout. If members want something else, then they should organise elsewhere and get it done. I don't want to donate to an organisation that dilutes its impact by being pulled in fifty directions by its members. I want it to do one thing well. To me, what's most important is that the ORG openly (and accurately) states what it is doing with members' money. Are you claiming that they are corrupt in some way, that they aren't doing what they say they're doing, or that they are accurately reporting what they're doing but you disagree with it? > You fund his ever increasing life style and he complains on your behalf. Please quantify this. ORG publishes annual financial reports. Is this not enough for you to state exactly how the founder's lifestyle is inappropriate?