Wired In and David Clark
Following our last blog entry, and ongoing questions of David Clark about the Charitable status of Wired In, Mr Clark eventually responded with what he titled “An Important Statement” on the Wired In website.
Mr Clark clearly didn’t on this occasion feel that the Wired In Terms and Conditions applied to him as his Important Statement certainly didn’t conform to the requirements “not harass or cause distress or inconvenience to any person,” that the material “is not… defamatory of any person.” Nor did he feel the need to allow discussion, as the post was closed to comment.
It is unfortunate that the site moderator, who has of late deleted comments and users with abandon saw fit to allow Mr Clark’s post to be published in it’s entirety.
In this statement, Clark is still less than explicit about ownership of the Wired In site. It seems he prefers instead to attack his critics by bringing to the public arena a collection of issues and discussions that hitherto had been personal. And by doing so via the vehicle of the Wired In website he brings in to question not just his judgement and that of his Editor, but also the judgement of those who have remained silent on the subject – both the inner circle of Wired In but also those who contribute and post professing to believe in recovery.
Irrespective of whether or not people believe that there are questions to be answered about how Wired In is owned and run, and irrespective of whether or not people think that the critics of Mr Clark are in the right or not, Mr Clark’s “Important Statement” response is beyond the pale. It is of course his prerogative to say what he wants and attack whom he wants. And as he owns the Wired In website he is entitled to use this vehicle to make the attack.
Presumably by their silence, CRI, Phoenix Futures and other sponsors do not feel that the site owner is acting in an inappropriate way. They certainly haven’t made any comment on the board and have seen fit to continue to fund Mr Clark by way of sponsorship despite him using the blogs as a tool to attack others.
Likewise, the great and the good of the “Wired In Advisory Board” seem strangely silent on the subject. It is saddening to see the likes of Rowdy Yates, Mike Ashton and David Best not speaking out – either publicly or privately, insisting that Mr Clark take down his Blog and apologising for the needless personal attacks therein.
Likewise, there are others from whom one would expect higher standards: Eric Carlin is silent on this, as is Wynford Ellis Owen who again through their lack of criticism signify approval for the way Mr Clark is conducting things.
And while it may not be possible for people on the Wired In website to voice any concerns or criticism due to the ongoing editorial censorship, there are contributors on the site who have the capacity to raise concerns outside of the website – but have not seen fit to do so. So the silence of Binge Inking, for example is especially noticeable.
Up to this point, I am only referring to the reprehensible silence of these various parties in relation to Clark's attack on people who have had the timerity to ask "is Wired in a Charity." What is shocking is the unwarranted, personalised and vicious attack on critics via the Wired In website, and the fact that people who profess themselves to care about such issues remain silent and thus complicit.
The wider question - that of ownership – we will come to that.
Remaining questions about Wired In and its Structure.
Despite Mr Clark’s “Important Statement” there is still a lack of clarity about the business structures connected with Wired In.
There are three primary organisations:
Wired International Ltd (Charity No: 1077312; Company No: 3776111)
Wired in to Recovery CIC 07249147
Wired in Ltd Company No: 3958641
The Charity Wired International Ltd was set up in 1999 and Mr Clark was a member of the Management Committee (and therefore a Director and Trustee) until 2006.
According to a description in the 2007 Annual Report “The charity Wired International Ltd has been part of the overall WIRED initiative for the past eight years. WIRED has now been renamed Wired In.”
This is a little confusing, as, strictly “Wired In” doesn’t exist as a trading body, company, trademark, trading style or in any other sense. There is “Wired in Ltd,” the business, but otherwise it’s a concept rather than an entity. The Wired Initiative website acts as a referring link to the Wired In website.
The 2007 report is an interesting read, not least because it highlights the confusing relationship between the business and charity. The report is the “Trustees Report” and should describe the activities of the Charity. So when for example, the report says “In April this year, we changed the name of WIRED to Wired In and developed a new logo…” the “we” in question should refer to the Charity. The logo in question – the “Wired in to Recovery” logo which graces the top of the Wired In website – is then something that was “developed” by the Charity and is now being used by the private company Wired In Ltd.
At present the Annual Returns for the past two years are overdue. Presumably, because the Charity has income of less than £25,000 the accounts are not available to download.
The Charity Commission website list the current Trustees as Messrs Zorko, Ashley and Peter Williams. Back in March 2010, David Clark listed the trustees as being “Mike Ashley, Tony Beddow, Wynford Ellis Owen, Canon Peter Williams and Jeff Zorko." Sadly, this change hasn’t percolated through to the Charity Commission website as yet and only three Trustees are listed.
It is unfortunate if, indeed, Wynford is a Trustee of the Charity as he is also described as one of Wired In’s “core team members.” Now, given that Wired In (the website) is owned by Wired In Ltd (the private company) there is a significant potential conflict of interest especially if the Charity is effectively funding the business. This issue is discussed in more detail below.
Following the demise of “The Daily Dose” news service Mr Clark, in his “Important Statement” says “the charity was put in abeyance after Daily Dose closed down as the Trustees felt too little income was being generated for it to continue in the normal vein.” It’s not clear what date this decision was reached, but all subsequent contributions to Wired In were made to Wired in Ltd (Private Company) rather than Wired International Ltd (charity).
Later Mr Clark says “Some months ago, I asked the charity Trustees if the charity could be re-activated so that people could sponsor Wired In To Recovery via the charity. It was agreed that the charity would be reactivated and the latest sponsors’ funding has gone to the charity.” Again, it isn’t clear when this decision was reached.
In truth, there isn’t a process of “putting a charity in to abeyance” or “reactivating” it. The charity is in breach of its obligations to produce an annual return. So while a charity may cease to receive money, or cease activities it remains active at all times. It is still obliged to produce an annual return. A charity which fails to do so risks being removed from the register of charities.
The Editor of the Wired In website has been asked, on a number of occasions about charitable status. Her answers have been unequivocal:
In November 2010, in a discussion about funding, Michaela Jones said “just so you know we are a charity with all the governance that this involves.” http://wiredin.org.uk/blogs/entry/9491/proposal
However we spin this issue, this statement was not true. The site is not part of a charity, not run or managed by a charity. It is a private business of which David Clark is the sole director.
It is not clear if this was an honest slip by Michaela, or reflected the position as she understood it from David Clark. It is unlikely it was an intentional lie. But this ‘mistake’ has been allowed to stand and has never been corrected.
The CIC Wired in To Recovery was set up in 2010, and has two Directors, Michaela Jones and David Clark. Clark say of this Company “We set up a CIC, a community interest company, together but this has not been used.” Presumably then, when you click on the Donate button, the “Wired In to Recovery” to which donations go is Wired International Ltd (the charity) and not Wired in to Recovery CIC which “has not been used.”
The Company Wired In Ltd was established in March 2000. The Director is David Clark and the company secretary is listed as Mike Ashley, who is also a trustee of The charity Wired In International.
The website http://wiredin.org.uk is registered to Mr Clark, and according to the Whois entry for the site, the registrant is Mr Clark’s company Wired In Ltd. Not, it should be stressed, the Charity Wired International Ltd or the CIC Wired In to Recovery but the Private Limited Company of which Mr Clark is the sole director.
So the upshot of this is that the web-community Wired In to Recovery is not a charitable, grassroots initiative has been asserted but is a private company owned and run by an individual.
Why does this matter? One of the recent posters on Wired In, in a sock-puppet-esque posting says “in all honesty I don’t care if it’s a charity, a business or whatever.” This viewpoint will shared by many – and will share the posters view that critics are “overly pedantic about Wired In’s status.”
Unfortunately it does matter; it has legal and moral ramifications. The bottom line is that recovery demands integrity and there is an issue here and despite all the bluster of the “Important Statement” the issue of integrity has to be resolved.
There are two key reasons why it all matters.
The first is that it creates an unusual situation where any money coming in to the Charity Wired International Ltd is then effectively being used to run/fund Mr Clark’s private company. The Charity doesn’t own the website and is not the registrant for the website – it is a private business. But, according to Mr Clark’s recent “Important Statement,:”
Some months ago, I asked the charity Trustees if the charity could be re-activated so that people could sponsor Wired In To Recovery via the charity. It was agreed that the charity would be reactivated and the latest sponsors’ funding has gone to the charity.
Based on this, money received via sponsorship has been donated to a charity, and the charity then in turn uses it to fund the activities of the private company Wired In Ltd.
If the Charity Wired International Ltd were transacting a great deal of business, and a small proportion of their spend went to commercial services (such as website hosting) this would be within the normal course of things.
Similarly if a large Charity had a relationship with a commercial business – and the profits from that business were used to fund the charity – again that would not be unusual. Several large charities run businesses (e.g. shops) so that they can run a shop and donate profits to the charity, using the Business as a trading arm.
But on this occasion the flow seems to be the other direction – the Charity funds the activities of the business, not vice versa.
So at present the only business that Wired International seems to be involved is the Wired In website. So the primary current relationship for the Charity Wired International seems to be to pass funding on to the Private Company Wired In Ltd so the latter can run the Website.
Intellectual Copyright, Ownership and Exploitation: The other reason why the ownership of the website wiredin.org.uk is how this relates to the Terms and Conditions of the website http://wiredin.org.uk/terms-and-conditions/
By virtue of the ownership of the website via Wired In Ltd and some specific wording in the Terms and Conditions, the T+Cs grant Mr Clark significant rights over material written by others and posted on Wired In.
Most significant of these is “You grant us a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide license to republish the contribution you submit to us in any format, including without limitation print and electronic format. The copyright to this material will remain with you, and you will be able to continue to use the material in any way including allowing others to use it.”
This is a very significant clause. It means that the Company Wired In Ltd has the right to use (or exploit) any of the contributions made to the website – quoting people’s blogs, using aspects of their life stories as case histories or collating their advice and comments. The form could end up in training courses, books, lecture presentations, academic papers, journal articles. No further consent would need to be sought from the contributors and no credit or acknowledgement would be owed to them either.
Should, at some point, the mining of contributions to the website result (for example) in a book or a training manual, or a website with content behind a paywall, then proceeds from this would be to Wired In Ltd – Mr Clark’s private company – not the Charity Wired International Ltd.
If one were very cynical, one could see this as a type of crowd sourcing where the collective minds of Wired In contributors can help develop a model of recovery and at the end of the process the end product is not owned by the contributors but by the website owner.
And even though the content may have been provided by third parties, they lose the right to use them once they post them on Wired In: “You may not copy, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use, content from wiredin.org.uk in any way except for your own personal or non-commercial use.”
So Wired In Ltd can republish the contributions of everyone on the site, but other people cannot – including people who have contributed. (Ironically this is contradicted later on when the Terms and Conditions state “The copyright to this material will remain with you, and you will be able to continue to use the material in any way including allowing others to use it.”)
These terms and conditions are akin to what Myspace was doing pre 2006 – encouraging contributors to publish on Myspace and then owning the rights to exploit the resources afterwards. Eventually Myspace realised that this was the wrong way to do business – and revised the terms and conditions so that the rights of ownership remained with contributors – not the site owners.
So what is the way forward?
In his Important Statement, David Clark expresses his intention that “we are going to put behind us what has happened and move onwards in a positive manner.”
For so many people, it is important that this can happen, but to ensure that it can and does, some outstanding issues need to be resolved.
Firstly, Clark really needs to remove his ad hominem and personalised attacks on those who seek to clarify the organisational structure and apologise to those who he has attacked on the website;
There needs to be an admission on the part of the Website editor that readers were misled as to the charitable nature of the website, and a clear statement of website ownership posted on the site.
While these two measures will help address the damage to date, further steps will be needed to normalise the situation in terms of accountability and charity structure:
To protect people who contribute to Wired In and those who fund the website, two things urgently need to happen. The first is that registration of the website should be moved to the Charity Wired International Ltd so that the website is wholly owned by the Charity. This will bring with it proper scrutiny of expenditure, donations and allow for transparency and accountability in terms of the recruitment and renumeration of staff. It would also leave a proper avenue for complaints, unlike the current situation.
Secondly the terms and conditions should be modified so that while the contributions to the website can be reproduced and used within the work of Wired International Ltd they cannot be exploited by private companies and the contributors have the right to veto use of the materials.
It is to be hoped that Mr Clark will have the humility to practice what he preaches, see where and how he has erred and take that important step to make amends.
26 comments:
bloomin eck well that about sums it up then, thanks for the time, effort and balance this article presents.
Am x
Well think I've got a foot in both camps so to speak. Although it is a valid question I'm getting a bit sick of it to be honest. But it does warrant an answer if only to ensure that Wired In does not fall foul of regulations with the effects that could have for the community.
At the end of the day, Wired In provides a damn good service to an ever increasing membership. It's an important resource for those seeking to find or maintain their recovery and brings together people from all walks of life. All with one aim in mind: To promote Recovery from Addiction.
As long as Wired In continues to serve the community in this way I don't really care about the other stuff. Though I obviously know that from a legal point of view, it does matter.
I think there is blame on both sides for this long running saga and only hope you can resolve it, but preferably not in public.
Now sort it out before I bang ur heads together!
jA
What exactly are we to blame for Andy? asking a question?
Hello Just Andy
Nice of you to stop by.
A while ago you said "Honesty. That’s what I crave but is it really necessary?"
WHy do you not crave it when it comes to Wired In.
I am sorry that you are a "bit sick of it." It must be tedious for you, while other people put themselves out and cause themselves hurt to try and resolve something which hasn't been handled HONESTLY.
Person A: are you a charity?
Person B: yes we are.
If it turns out the organisation is not a charity but a private business owned by one man, would you call that conversation above honest?
As it doesn't matter to you and you don't really care either way, feel free to ignore the debate.
It won't destroy Wired In, nor is that the intention. WIred In can and should be moved fully within the charity Wired International Ltd with all the scrutiny and governance that will involve.
If Mr Clark decides he would rather destroy the site rather than lose face or control that's a different issue.
There's only one head that needs knocking.
But you are right - it would have been better had this discussion not been so public. It's a shame then that Clark didn't respond to the earlier opportunies to do so and instead attacked people who asked questions.
No! As I said I think it's a valid question that hasn't received a sufficiently adequate answer, and the contradicting statements from Wired In don't help.
However, why this has to be played out in public I don't know. I've stayed away from the blogs on this on purpose. From an outsiders point of view all I can see is that it has helped to develop a certain amount of animosity between both parties. Surely that's not what any of us are about and only serves to damage the Recovery movement.
Suppose I'm just trying to be devils advocate in the hope this can be sorted. Never mind I'll just shut up! (joke!)
oops didn't see your comment Serenity...
Just wanted to respond to it but after this comment I shall 'feel free to ignore the debate'.
I'm not sure why you have to drag up my own personal blogs into the argument. Seems a bit pedantic to go looking through my blogs to find something to use as an argument. Those are my personal blogs on my personal recovery. Honesty matters in MY recovery along with a whole host of other things. These things change from day to day as I get further down that path. Not that Honesty doesn't matter now, but it's my honesty that matters (just to put the quote in the right context)
My aim in the earlier comment was not to cause offense or apportion a larger slice of blame to either party. Yes I mentioned blame but I hoped to be balanced in that statement.
It's not tedious for me, because I'll just ignore it as I had done so far. I chose to comment in the hope the situation could be rectified, relationships fixed and we could live happily ever after.
Oh well! Shoot me for trying!! (another joke so don't really shoot me!)
Hi Andy
I don't think you've caused offence. It can be rectified. It can be fixed. And the proposed course of action is easy and straightforward. Sorry for quoting you out of context. But as you are a forum moderator on Wired In, do you think David's "Important Statement" was an appropriate and measured response.
And we are having this discussion here because Wired In won't let it take place there!
Yours in Peace
ps Andy
As an aside they aren't "Your personal blogs for your personal recovery" anymore. They are the property of Wired In Ltd and he could put them on a T-Shirt and sell them at £20 a go and you could do nothing about it.
Which is partly why I have a bit of an issue about it!
Me, a pedant? Forsooth.
OK so I will comment again! I'm glad I've not offended anyone as that was far from my intention.
I do wish the powers that be (see - mentioning no names!) could have given you a clear answer. I do think it's important so that everything is seen to be above board and avoid problems down the line.
David's response was a bit personal but I have to admit I don't know how I would have responded in his situation. I don't know what's gone on behind the scenes but I do know that David has put an awful lot of his own time and money into the website to help other people. Not for personal gain or to serve his own needs.
I think the debate was getting quite heated beforehand and I can see how Wired In may have felt your persistence in this matter to be a personal attack too. When you put your heart and soul into something it's hard to separate business from personal.
To be balanced though, if you ask a valid question and don't get a suitable response, you have to be persistent. So I can't blame anyone for pushing this matter till a clear answer is given. I hope that they are looking into the situation and will come back with a clear response that clarifies the status of Wired In as a charitable organisation or CiC (or whatever the proper term is!)
LOL yes I suppose they can use my blogs but I can always do something about it. Like print my own t-shirts and sell them cheaper; plus they'd be authentic 'just Andy' T's so there's the USP for ya!
BTW... you do realise you've broken Wired In's rules on copyright by quoting out of someone else blog :) lol
Peace Out!
Hey Andy
Just to clear up some confusion - when you say "I can see how Wired In may have felt your persistence in this matter to be a personal attack too..." you mistake me for someone who had posted or pursued this prior to the "Clearing up some confusion in my mind" blog was taken down. I hadn't asked questions on Wired In - I was barred a long time ago... I watched the discussion and watched Alistair and Anne Marie ask questions I wanted to ask on the board. And when the Blog was deleted because the questions were unwanted, I resurrected it. But I am not them and they are not me.
As I hope has been made clear, Wired In would have to be restructured to make it a Charity and it certainly is not that at the moment. It's a Private Company, receiving money from a Charity.
Breaking rules is so unlike me. And as this is for "non-commercial" use I am still in the rules. So far!
No problem Serenity.
I didn't know whether or not you'd been in on the action so to speak. (Guess that's what pseudonyms are all about!)
Not that it matters particularly as I only care that it's resolved.
I certainly don't want to fall-out with anyone over this!
I get the argument for making sure Wired In is a charity. Its not right for a Charity to put money into a business. But to me, it's just semantics.
On the converse side tho, Legally, I'm sure it's bloody important so yes, it does need clarification.
Nuff said! All the best :)
For clarification Andy. Until late Feb early March I thought Wiredin was a charity. Round then I discovered that DC & MJ had set up a CIC; Wired in to Recovery. So when MJ told a new community member that Wiredin was a charity I asked for clarification. I thought it had become a CIC and wanted that confirmed.
DC's response actually raised more questions than answers and it looked like Wiredin was actually owned by his private company. So I asked for further clarification. DC didn't provide any. Despite having my 'trusted' status removed I left it. Over the next 3 & a half weeks other people asked for clarification. Ray Covery only got his 3 comments up when he threatened further action in his 3rd. No response from DC.Cliffy asked for clarification. His comment was removed. He referred to his question in a post on another blog. This comment was removed. Andrea asked why Cliffy's comment was removed. Her comment was removed. My whole blog was removed. MJ then produced her 'Letter from the Editor' blog.
Finding myself censored on Wiredin and deeply disturbed by this)I referred to my questions and subsequent wiredin actions on twitter and Facebook. I did not make any 'aspersions' (check out my twitter stream and facebook if you like) or 'suggest' anything. I just kept repeating the questions. I asked it directly of DC and MJ. I offered to meet with them and help sort out the mess if they provided a clear answer. They didn't so I wrote to the wiredin advisory Board and Sponsors.
After this DC put out his blog which contains things that are factually untrue. Re his suggestion that he had concerns about me I can prove this to be untrue. Putting aside the fact that prior to saying he had concerns he amended the 'Our Story' section (without indicating that it had been amended) on Wiredin (in which he had until recently referred to me as a new friend)I have emails and a Wiredin strategy (in which I'm named) that can show that he certainly didn't have concerns about me up to the point when MJ left the UKRF. I also have emails that can clarify exactly why MJ left the UKRF but I'm not going to go there. I don't think it's helpful.
I don't think slagging people off on public forums is something I ever want to get into. I do think people should be able to ask questions though and they should get answers. Not have their characters attacked publicly. I haven't done that. I'm not going to do it. I haven't created blogs to pursue the issue. I haven't done anything 'behind the scenes'.
At a basic level I have a problem with what appears to have been a private business setting up a donate button (in November last year)whilst saying it was a charity when it certainly looks like it wasn't. Asking people, some with little money, to support what was in essence a private enterprise.
As to this idea that DC is doing all for no personal gain I think we should take that with a pinch of salt. We all are motivated by personal gain. For me, recovery is about 'owning' this, exploring our motivations and agendas, challenging ourselves and others sometimes and striving to be honest. What is recovery without honesty? How is the community being served if censorship is used to silence voices we don't like? Why are people deleted and attacked for raising questions?
Some have suggested that this whole thing signals a rift in the recovery movement, a damaging blow. I would suggest that it is through the challenging and questioning of ourselves, as opposed to the usual targets (the easy and ultimately self-disabling blame game) that we will begin to define and support a movement. A few people and a blog site don't constitute a movement. Opinions are easy. It's the path we walk that counts and it needs to be honest and true. Wiredin Community members and the countless people in recovery and recovering deserve this.
Hi, as a long time Wired In blogger, reader and voyeur I saw the questions posted regarding the status of Wired In.
I saw Wired In's answers.
I thought the questions were reasonable, after all, I had contributed some of my hard earned cash via the donate button.
I was however unclear about the status after the Wired In response and therefore thought it reasonable that further questions should be asked.
The next thing I see was the removal of the blog - so I have no idea how far they went before removal (other than reading the above).
Then the notice from the editor. I didn't much like that.
And then the Statement. I really really didn't like that. I thought it very unprofessional indeed. I do not know Alistair or Anne Marie other then they posted on Wired In.
I can't post this obviously on WI but I can from my own views.
From what I have heard, I will be very careful from now on about how I use Wired In.
They may not have anything to hide - but it sounds like it and it looks like it.
If the owners want to make money from it, I have no problem with that - it just needs to be up front, and that is not clear.
Everyone refers to a "recovery movement" - I don't see one. All I see is lots of services, organisations, groups, sectors, regions, federations, etc
As nobody "owns" my recovery why does there seem to be so much fighting?
I want to say thank you to those who have put themselves in the line of fire in this issue. As a regular contributor to wiredin, I have been following recent developments with alarm. I'm not impressed with the behaviour of some people involved, and I have written to David Clark expressing my concerns. I may be expelled from the community, which would be a shame, but rather that than be complicit in what is (if the suspicions are right) fraud. Nor can I be party to defamation of character where the victims have no right of reply. Don't give up - there is support for wht you're doing.
Hi Alistair,
I know the response from Wired In was less than flakey and thats a big part of the problem. If a reasonable response was given I'm sure this would have blown over by now. Even if the response was 'Oh Sh*t! we best do something about this'.
The censoring is a little disturbing as I thought that was only used where unsuitable language, comments, defamatory remarks were used. To remove comments where valid questions have been asked is over the top. I was aware this had happened but to be honest I haven't kept up-to-date on this saga so I don't know the extent to which it may or may not have happened.
I haven't seen any aspersions cast up till now (see last paragraph) and know that's not what this is about. So Yes, the blog from DC seems to overstep the mark in so far as the personal statements made.
I understand the concerns about the donate button with the Charity query outstanding. However, this button was added to the site after it was suggested by members in response to funding issues Wired In was having before Christmas. In hindsight it appears wrong, but we are all that little bit wiser with hindsight. I personally don't think there were bad intentions and if anything, it shows how much its members value the site.
I don't have any problem at all with this question being raised. In fact I agree (to an extent) that it should be pushed till the situation is clarified. I think 'anonymous' put it best:
If the owners want to make money from it, I have no problem with that - it just needs to be up front, and that is not clear.
The thing that worries me is the way this is being made a very public matter. Why? Not because it isn't a valid question that deserves an answer. No, its because I feared the consequences in terms of what other people might infer from the question being raised so publicly.
I think this point is suitably made in the comment by anonalky where near accusations of fraud come awfully close to being libelous.
Having written to express my concerns on various issues, including the original question re.status, editorial policy, and copyright/access, the reply I've received has addressed none of them. I have been accused of making judgements with limited information, and I've been told that I know very little about what's really been going on. Despite this, there is nothing to add to the existing statement, and I've been assured that many people in the field are supportive of what wiredin has done and how it has dealt with the nasty attacks. So that's all right, then.
I'm awaiting further developments....
Andy - be fair, I didn't say it was fraud, or near fraud. I said "if the suspicions are right". If they're not, then why not simply say so, clarify the issues, and it will be fine. If someone is sending money to what they think is a charity when it isn't, they have been misled - obtaining money under false pretences is fraud. If someone is sending money to a company, knowing it's a company, that's fine. Nobody should have a problem with that, and I don't. If the community members want to send in their money, it's great - but it's only right that they know exactly where or who it's going to. The reasons this has become public and personal is because one simple question was responded to in a defensive and unclear way, people who remarked on it were silenced, and allegations were made against the questioners which they were prevented from replying to.
Nobody made any accusations of fraud or misrepresentation - a question was asked, unanswered, and repeated, and further questions stifled. So it stands to reason that people will wonder what's going on. When this is followed up with people disappearing from the community, a new blog policy that applies to some blogs but not others, and a statement accusing folks of appalling behaviour that cannot be proved or disproved, it's no wonder that people ask more questions. Naming and shaming people like that without letting the community comment or ask questions isn't right, surely? If you think it's close to libel to say "if" donations are solicited under false pretences (and "if" is what I'm saying) then perhaps you would agree that accusing people of slander (claiming they've said certain things) is libel too. One person asking to clear up a bit of confusion has ended up with this row - if the question had been answered, no problem. But it wasn't, and all the rest of it has come from that. I neither know nor care who said what about who, but it's become public because David and Michaela made it public by reacting the way they did.
It doesn't reflect well on the management of the site, and the way people have disappeared or had comments removed just adds to the suspicion.
It looks bad, and none of it needed to happen.
Anonalky, forgive me but I'm glad you've responded. In my opinion your taking exception to that statement again illustrates my point.
but rather that than be complicit in what is (if the suspicions are right) fraud.
take out the rather neatly bracketed proviso and you have a libelous accusation.
where near accusations of fraud
take out the strategically placed word 'near', and again you have a libelous accusation.
Sorry to be pedantic but my point is that once those seeds have been sown into the readers mind they tend to stick. It doesn't matter how shiny the surface is, mud sticks.
So having this played out in public forums will usually lead to rumours and supposition. And before you know it, terms like 'Fraud' are being banded about, along with all the dark inferences that entails.
I think that the question was legitimately posed and should have received a better response. Unfortunately these situations tend to be fluid and evolve with time. So, from an innocent question we are now left with a situation that is steadily getting worse and will only lead to hurt for one, or possibly both sides.
That is something I don't want to see happen to either side and hence why I chose to break my silence on this matter. If I'm perfectly honest I'm being a bit selfish too, as personally, a big concern of mine is that Wired In continues to offer a unique forum for us to grow in Recovery.
I won't deny the charity status of Wired In should be clarified. But if people here actually do think that Wired In is a valuable FREE resource, then why exacerbate a situation that can only serve to harm it in the long run?
I suppose my problem is not that the question was ever posed but how it has continued to play out publicly and the unwanted suspicions that are being derived from the initial question.
I know you're probably all shouting back at the screen right now "But if they only answered the bloody question properly!!!"
And Yes! You'd be right to say that, but why not try to be the bigger person here. That is if you do really care about Wired In.
hi - two quick things from yours truly:
- this blog and the comments aren't moderated and if your comment doesn't appear immediately it is because there's an automated spam trap which sometimes misclasses comments and I have to manually authorise them. i will only delete comments that are solely abusive, offensive or mere advertising.
Andy - personally I do care about recovery communities and I think that the people who are exacerbating the issue are not the people who asked questions. It is the people who refused - and continue to refuse - to answer the question properly and in a straightforward manner. Instead of doing so they have launched personal attacks, which really raised the temperature.
So far the 20 something contributions here have been more cool-headed which I welcome.
I disagree that anything here "can only serve to harm it in the long run."
This needs to be opened up, cleaned out and allowed to heal. There'll be some scar tissue. But if it isn't opened, drained and dressed it will get worse and that could be fatal.
My belief is that for Wired In to grow, and grow healthy, it needs to be moved within a structure where there is proper governance. I don't believe it is now and I think it is more like one person's fiefdom. We can agree to difer on whether or not you think this is required. But unlike inside the Wired In walls, it is evident from all the contributions here, and all the people who were regular posters who have left for been unpersoned at Wired In, that some change is needed.
I find this whole thing very sad. For a long time I have chosen to believe that this was accidental, an oversight any thing really other than an intentional lie or cover up! And I would still hope that the lesser of these options is the case.
But I also think that DC should consider too, that if wiredin were to become a Bona fide charity, he too would be protected from any accusations.... Because the governance, availability of reports, including finance reports would mean that nobody could make accusations. Also the community would have a board of trustees that they could raise governance issues with. So for me I wish that he could or would hear this, admit a mistake, draw a line and move forward as a charity with trustees, charity number and all the governance that Michaela assured me was in place, when it wasn't.
I would also add.... That I too am disappointed in so called advisors... Who say nothing and are therefore as accountable... I think!
Thanks for your comment. I completely agree with you and would hope that the benefits of becoming a proper charity were obvious.
In terms of the "advisors" I am not sure what is going on. My hope is that, behind the scenes they are suggesting and cajoling to encourage DC to get his house in order. I wouldn't expect any of those people to make public pronouncements - but I hope and pray that there is a lot of emails and phonecalling going on as pressure is brought to bear.
If they are not doing so then you have every right to be disappointed - they do DC, Wired In and the wider needs of people in recovery an intense disservice otherwise.
If, at some point changes don't happen and those same advisors should really either speak out publicly or step down privately.
But in the meantime I suspect that there is action behind the scenes.
I think one of the things DC will need to consider is that while he can continue to grow the community without any changes in structure it will be harder to secure substantial funding while this issue is unresolved.
Ultimately the business could be sold to anyone who wanted to buy it and there would be NOTHING that anyone in the community could do to stop that process. All profits would go the business owner despite the facts that the running costs had been paid for by the charity.
As this is so clearly not an acceptable model for a relationship between business and charity - no matter how worthy the activities of the business - those who understand these issues surely must be agitating for change behind the scenes.
Hi 'Anonymous', Thanks for your comments. I think you raise an important point regarding all this talk about a 'Recovery Movement'. I think you're right. At the moment it does look like a lot of 'vested interests' fighting it out for control and power.
But, and it's a big but, there are lots of people (who don't hold positions of power and don't write blogs) who are working hard within their communities to develop their own recovery and the recovery of others through the nurturing of new friendships and alliances. I've met quite a few of them in Scotland, the North-West, the North-East, the East Midlands, London, the South East, the Eastern Region and talked to others from all over the UK. Some come from abstinence-focused recovery communities, some from a harm reduction focus, some just view themselves as individuals committed to their own recovery and the recovery of others. All of them are interested in supporting the building of new recovery networks and some sort of bigger wider movement. Nearly 2000 marched in Glasgow last September and more will march in Cardiff this year. There isn't really an identifiable movement as yet but I believe there will be if we can come together as human beings, more similar than different, of equal value as human being and able to recognise the strength in our diversity.
That's why I've been doing what I've been doing within the UK Recovery Federation and that's why we focus all of our activity around core Recovery Principles. A Movement needs to have a set of core values at its centre. From there you can build.
One of the UKRF Recovery Principles is: "Honesty, self-awareness and openness lie at the heart of Recovery". Another is:
"Recovery challenges all discrimination and transcends shame and stigma". Another is: "Recovery lies within individuals, families and communities and is self-directed and empowering". I try to live by these. They are important to my own version of recovery. Which is why I asked the questions of Wiredin and continue to do so, as difficult as it's been. I don't think the principles are negotiable. I don't think I can be selective as to when I ask for openness and honesty and challenge discrimination. I think, I hope, that it is from this position I can support the emergence of a Recovery Movement. Does this make sense. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Take care.
Hi Andy,
I kind I hope I've sort of answered your question in my response to 'anonymous' as to why in some ways I think all this needs to be played out publicly. Outside of the need to stick to principles I guess it's also worth stating that Wiredin is a public forum. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that some people need to be 'protected' from some information or questions. It veers very close to a discriminatory and oppressive position. I stress I don't believe this position is yours.
Saying that I'm also conscious that this public 'row' might be used by those who are threatened by any kind of emerging recovery movement. I've struggled a lot with this. I think I've ended up here:
I'd question those who want to keep 'difficult issues' private. How healthy is a movement that is founded on secrets and ambiguity? What kind of 'recovery' are people interested in promoting? Is it some sort of individualistic enterprise where the minority will profit at the expense of the majority (same old same old with a few new faces joining the hierarchy)or is it a challenge to the way we live our lives and manage our relationships?
I gather that some who view themselves as 'leading lights' in recovery are uncomfortable with the 'conflict' and have been quick to condemn those who have asked questions. I struggle with this because it looks a lot like shooting the messenger and doing it extravagantly so attention is drawn away from the message. Why would people who are supporters of recovery do this? We know from our own experience of personal recovery that it involves conflict, difficult emotions, pain. We know that the acknowledgement of this stuff and a renewed honesty is key to our long term recovery. Why would it be any different for recovery on a organisational/cultural/societal level? Why is it different for the people who run Wiredin? Why have they responded so aggressively to a few simple questions? I'll leave it there I think. Be interested other people's views. Take care.
Thanks everyone. Andy, at risk of being even more pedantic, I'd just like to say that the brackets and punctuation ARE there and therefore the statements are not libellous. This is why editing people's blogs is so dangerous - by removing something the writer has inserted to make a point, the whole meaning of what's written can change. That's why editors of print publications (in which I have been published many times) go to uni to do degrees in journalism and get trade training in copywriting for years.So some of my issues with WI are not just about the charity stuff, they're also about the way people's writing is treated.
Post a Comment