Is Greta Thunberg a False Flag Tool for The New World Order and Why Is Sweden Exploding?

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

What experts?

Again, stop espousing your beliefs as fact. Either back it up or stop talking crap.

Write to the financial ombudsman of the charity commission or Advertising Standards Authority if you don't believe it. Charities are strictly regulated in the UK and such claims can't be made unless their accounts back it up, which have to be submitted every year.

If caught making false claims or cooking the books a charity will be closed down, fined or banned from advertising in the UK.

www.gov.uk...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
www.gov.uk...




ETA: The figures you supplied are for Greenpeace Fund, Inc. LLP which is the US arm. Seeing as you're British the UK figures are here on the Charity Commision website: beta.charitycommission.gov.uk...

Last year it was 88% charitable spending, 5% Income generation (including training and bidwriting process for future grants).

Thank you! The guy does not know when to stop! I have tried to explain this to him, but he does not listen!

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

What experts?

Again, stop espousing your beliefs as fact. Either back it up or stop talking crap.

Lo l! Are you serious!

a reply to: bastion

So explain their own financial reports then.

Why would I listen to you Jay? You’ve proven over and over again on this forum that you have no clue, don’t research or source any of your info.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Why don’t you read the reports just like I did.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Btw when did I state greenpeace uk?

I’ve been referring to their international operations the whole time.

Read the bloody reports!

Greenpeace uk is not their only territory.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: bastion

So explain their own financial reports then.

Why would I listen to you Jay? You’ve proven over and over again on this forum that you have no clue, don’t research or source any of your info.

I did, I linked to he UK one and explained the previous figures were for US Greenpeace. There's no international figures as that's not how charities work. They're registered individually in each country and accounts regulated by other countries equivalent of the UK's charity commission. It could be done by independent meta-analysis of all international accounting but no figures exist for that as no one has done the study.

Not sure if you've got me mixed up with someone else but I'm not Jay and provided the links and breakdown for what the legal framework for charities is and the accounts of Greenpeace UK are in the post you quoted.

I used to manage accounts for an Eating Disorder charity in Lancashire, UK so have several years experience int he rules and regulations set by the Charity Commission.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: bastion

So explain their own financial reports then.

Why would I listen to you Jay? You’ve proven over and over again on this forum that you have no clue, don’t research or source any of your info.

I did, I linked to he UK one and explained the previous figures were for US Greenpeace. There's no international figures as that's not how charities work. They're registered individually in each country and accounts regulated by other countries equivalent of the UK's charity commission. It could be done by independent meta-analysis of all international accounting but no figures exist for that as no one has done the study.

Not sure if you've got me mixed up with someone else but I'm not Jay and provided the links and breakdown for what the legal framework for charities is and the accounts of Greenpeace UK are in the post you quoted.

I used to manage accounts for an Eating Disorder charity in Lancashire, UK so have several years experience int he rules and regulations set by the Charity Commission.

He was rude to you because you disagreed with him and showed proof. This guy hates to be wrong! I have tried explaining to him, but he is not the sharpest tool in the box. Just ignore him.

To be fair I can kind of see where he's coming from as the greenpeacefund.org website doesn't explicitly state it's US only, it's hidden in the fine print of the report that it's an LLP registered in Arlington, Virginia with accounts audited by the IRS (page 4). The form and function of an LLP and charity regulation is so boring and obscure I wouldn't expect anyone who hadn't volunteered or had training to work in one to have any knowledge of.

The 60% figure, or 6% campaign expenditure may appear accurate if interpreting the highly ambiguous phrase 'Grants to Stitching Greenpeace Council' as wages, benefits and admin costs but the final pages 25 and 26 give a breakdown of what the Greenpeace Council is and various campaigns that fall under that umbrella.

Out of the total liabilities assets of $18,241,500 in 2018 $17,250,762 was spent directly on campaigns in 2018, or roughly 94.5% of total revenue.

originally posted by: bastion
To be fair I can kind of see where he's coming from as the greenpeacefund.org website doesn't explicitly state it's US only, it's hidden in the fine print of the report that it's an LLP registered in Arlington, Virginia with accounts audited by the IRS (page 4). The form and function of an LLP and charity regulation is so boring and obscure I wouldn't expect anyone who hadn't volunteered or had training to work in one to have any knowledge of.

The 60% figure, or 6% campaign expenditure may appear accurate if interpreting the highly ambiguous phrase 'Grants to Stitching Greenpeace Council' as wages, benefits and admin costs but the final pages 25 and 26 give a breakdown of what the Greenpeace Council is and various campaigns that fall under that umbrella.

Out of the total liabilities assets of $18,241,500 in 2018 $17,250,762 was spent directly on campaigns in 2018, or roughly 94.5% of total revenue.

A breakdown though is always open to anyone Who wants to know how their money is spent. Grenade was stating that more donations goes on wages than actual campaigns, which is simply not true. They would never get away with that, esp lying to their supporters.

a reply to: Grenade
You quoted a 1994-1995 bit from the article, who knows how factual it is, in your post to get your 60% number but seem to have not looked at the financial reports, which you also posted that show numbers from 2013 to 2018 which disagree with that article.

What is the point of researching if you don't actually look at what you dug up?

a reply to: bastion

The "expose" article that was used to come to the conclusion about salaries does state specifically that they were talking about Greenpeace-France. I guess if you cherry pick how bad one branch of the org is doing you can disregard the rest. /s

a reply to: daskakik

I did, as you said their structure and financial reports aren't as simple to work out the exact percentages any longer.

Certainly, their listed campaign funds are no-where near 94% of the total revenue.

a reply to: Jay-morris

I wasn't rude to him at all.

I save that for you and the nonsense you fill this board with.

a reply to: bastion

I find a lot of their financial reporting and re-appropriation of funds very shady.

Ambiguity is an international charities friend i'm afraid. Especially when it's one with so many tentacles like Greenpeace.

I was not aiming the derogatory statement in my last post toward you.

Jay is the antithesis of everything i stand for which is why i find his posts so inflammatory. Logic, reasoning, compromise, understanding, all attributes of his character that i've yet to see exhibited anywhere at anytime.

I never said Greenpeace UK, i've repeatedly referred to their international operations including news articles from several of their territorial organisations.

You have cherry picked the UK financial reports, something i have never once referenced.

a reply to: Grenade
You did get one piece of data, about one branch, for one year about 25 years ago from one article you posted.

That is cherry picking.

I never said the financial reports make it hard to work out the percentages. They have a "total" and they have "salaries". It is just a matter of simple math to see the claim in that article doesn't jive with those reports.

a reply to: daskakik

They also have a total and a list of campaign contributions.

From the report:

Campaigns:
Oceans 1,347 1,406
Forests 2,149 1,883
Food for Life 1,493 1,454
Detox 1,245 1,355
Climate and Energy 2,732 2,485
Save the Arctic 2,318 2,144
Totals
10,727 11,284

11 million from a total of 85 million is not 83%.

Happy to be corrected but i don't have time to try and corroborate their financial reports from all over the world and then break them down. Considering the creative language they use in most of the reports it's not evident exactly how much goes to salaries.

I made a claim about the salaries from the expose by the French journalist. Nothing you have sourced proves that claim wrong.

originally posted by: Grenade
Considering the creative language...

Not sure what you mean by creative language, your source has an item specifically called "Salaries and Benefits".

I made a claim about the salaries from the expose by the French journalist. Nothing you have sourced proves that claim wrong.

And what you sourced doesn't back that claim up either.

In fact what you sourced has proven other member's claims that the claim in the article is not what is currently going on at that org.

a reply to: daskakik

Well by my calculations they received roughly 80m and only spent around 11m on campaigns.

a reply to: Grenade
The original claim was that 60% went to salaries.

Salaries in 2018 were 1.9M and total expenses were 19M. So 60% did not go to salaries.

I don't know where you are getting that 80M number because total revenue and support says 16,378,666.