It's been called into question just why it is that the money sent by paedophiles should be rejected by a charity organization that is dedicated to improving the lives of children. While I can not speak for the organization (And yes, that letter was received directly from Save the Children, and the only thing that was changed was the name. Because Eileen Burke was provided with my real name, and the rest of you are not), I will explain my own thoughts on the matter.
These are my expressions opinions, and do not represent anyone else's.
My Silent War asked if their money was tainted.
Yes, yes it is. You see, reading Lindsay Ashford's "press release" was sickening. His embellishment of the truth is beyond acceptable. And his words about their acceptance of the donation was irresponsible, and self serving :"in so doing recognized our commitment to aiding the impoverished children of the world and enabled us to do so", according to Save the Children, in both verbal conversations and their written reaction to this "donation", they where not aware of the background of the group that sent the donation, and were certainly not aware of the nature of the group itself. What they sent as a thank you letter is nothing more than a form letter, evident by the exact wording with exception to the amounts sent, not a "personal" thankful acknowledging Puellula's commitment to anything.
The very mission statement provided by Save the Children states the following:
I don't personally see how being cast as a organization that supposedly recognized any commitment of a group of people that encourages the sexual abuse of children, that promotes illegal activities involving the sexual exploitation of minors would benefit a children's charity. Just stop for a moment and think, doesn't the exploitation and sexual abuse of a child completely go against the basic concept of what Save the Children is about? For crying out loud, their name is "SAVE the CHILDREN", not "Cast the kids into a pool of low life scum pedophiles".
Had Lindsay actually been wanting to make a donation to benefit children, he'd have stopped promoting the sexual abuse of them, stopped his "children should be allowed to have sex with who ever feels the desire to take advantage of them" .
The greatest donation that he, or the rest of the pedophiles in the world can make is to go into some intense therapy to help them not only understand why their feelings and behavior is such a danger to a child, and why it is both morally and naturally wrong to engage in sexual relations with a child, but to also help them understand that they should remain as far away from children as humanly possible. I do not believe for a minute that either Ashford himself or his minions continually practice their "love" from afar, and the out come of their exploitation of their victims will be detrimental to these victims.
I know, that from Ashfords selfish ploy to make victimization of children an acceptable norm, that there is little chance of him ever seeking any real help, or avoiding children. While it is sad and tragic for those who will have their childhoods destroyed by him, he clearly cares not. No, Ashfords only purpose in presenting himself as he has is to further his own deviant cause, and his deceitful actions involving Save the Children proves that even more. It would have been just as easy for him to have sent the money in without attaching the money to his group of pedophiles. Had his intent really been about doing something worthwhile, he could have even went as far as to send in the money anonymously. But, as we know, he didn't. Instead, he attached the name of his organization to it, put out a press release pretty much screaming that Save the Children accepted the group, being coy enough to attempt to make it seem as if Save the Children was giving some gold starred stamp of approval.
Another admitted "child luster" (because clearly what they are about is not even close to actual love) took fault with not only the actions of Save the Children's returning the funds, but is also complaining that I was offended enough to call Save the Children. I can only refer back to the single important fact in this matter- it's called SAVE the children. And using wrongly accredited press releases to further your own demented agenda is not beneficial to children. This was never about the children in Ashford's eyes, it was about just how they could con a charity into accepting funds from them so that he could flaunt the fact that someone (mistakenly as it was) had "accepted" something from his pedophile group. He was not out to help, or save the children. Condoning and promoting the sexual exploitation of children committed by child pornography, encouraging the sexual abuse of child by maintaining the ideal that adult- child sexual relationships should not only be accepted worldwide, but are actually beneficial to children is a far away from the idea of "saving" or helping children as one can get.
Now, people have the right to do what they wish with their money. If a group of heinous child predators decides it wants to send money to somewhere, they have the right to do that. But, just as they have the right to send their money, others have the right to refuse it. If accepting the money conflicts with the mission of the organization, or if by accepting it the organization is portrayed as being accepting of the beliefs of those who sent it, or if the organization deems that the money was sent in bad faith- then they are responsible to act accordingly to the situation.
A charity that's mission is about SAVING and helping and bettering the lives of children, sees that YOUR mission is in definite conflict with it's mission, and therefore it returns your funds, the problem doesn't lie with the charity. It lies with you. With the faulted deception with which you sent the money in.
Get over it.
For more reading on this topic, please stop by Rose Desrochers
Categories: predators,
These are my expressions opinions, and do not represent anyone else's.
My Silent War asked if their money was tainted.
Yes, yes it is. You see, reading Lindsay Ashford's "press release" was sickening. His embellishment of the truth is beyond acceptable. And his words about their acceptance of the donation was irresponsible, and self serving :"in so doing recognized our commitment to aiding the impoverished children of the world and enabled us to do so", according to Save the Children, in both verbal conversations and their written reaction to this "donation", they where not aware of the background of the group that sent the donation, and were certainly not aware of the nature of the group itself. What they sent as a thank you letter is nothing more than a form letter, evident by the exact wording with exception to the amounts sent, not a "personal" thankful acknowledging Puellula's commitment to anything.
The very mission statement provided by Save the Children states the following:
The history of Save the Children is a story of positive change and people - millions of people in thousands of communities around the globe - working together to create opportunities for the world's children to live safe, healthy, and fulfilling lives. In January 1932 in a small room in New York City, a group of concerned citizens gathered to respond to the needs of the proud people of Appalachia hard hit by the Great Depression.
I don't personally see how being cast as a organization that supposedly recognized any commitment of a group of people that encourages the sexual abuse of children, that promotes illegal activities involving the sexual exploitation of minors would benefit a children's charity. Just stop for a moment and think, doesn't the exploitation and sexual abuse of a child completely go against the basic concept of what Save the Children is about? For crying out loud, their name is "SAVE the CHILDREN", not "Cast the kids into a pool of low life scum pedophiles".
Had Lindsay actually been wanting to make a donation to benefit children, he'd have stopped promoting the sexual abuse of them, stopped his "children should be allowed to have sex with who ever feels the desire to take advantage of them" .
The greatest donation that he, or the rest of the pedophiles in the world can make is to go into some intense therapy to help them not only understand why their feelings and behavior is such a danger to a child, and why it is both morally and naturally wrong to engage in sexual relations with a child, but to also help them understand that they should remain as far away from children as humanly possible. I do not believe for a minute that either Ashford himself or his minions continually practice their "love" from afar, and the out come of their exploitation of their victims will be detrimental to these victims.
I know, that from Ashfords selfish ploy to make victimization of children an acceptable norm, that there is little chance of him ever seeking any real help, or avoiding children. While it is sad and tragic for those who will have their childhoods destroyed by him, he clearly cares not. No, Ashfords only purpose in presenting himself as he has is to further his own deviant cause, and his deceitful actions involving Save the Children proves that even more. It would have been just as easy for him to have sent the money in without attaching the money to his group of pedophiles. Had his intent really been about doing something worthwhile, he could have even went as far as to send in the money anonymously. But, as we know, he didn't. Instead, he attached the name of his organization to it, put out a press release pretty much screaming that Save the Children accepted the group, being coy enough to attempt to make it seem as if Save the Children was giving some gold starred stamp of approval.
Another admitted "child luster" (because clearly what they are about is not even close to actual love) took fault with not only the actions of Save the Children's returning the funds, but is also complaining that I was offended enough to call Save the Children. I can only refer back to the single important fact in this matter- it's called SAVE the children. And using wrongly accredited press releases to further your own demented agenda is not beneficial to children. This was never about the children in Ashford's eyes, it was about just how they could con a charity into accepting funds from them so that he could flaunt the fact that someone (mistakenly as it was) had "accepted" something from his pedophile group. He was not out to help, or save the children. Condoning and promoting the sexual exploitation of children committed by child pornography, encouraging the sexual abuse of child by maintaining the ideal that adult- child sexual relationships should not only be accepted worldwide, but are actually beneficial to children is a far away from the idea of "saving" or helping children as one can get.
Now, people have the right to do what they wish with their money. If a group of heinous child predators decides it wants to send money to somewhere, they have the right to do that. But, just as they have the right to send their money, others have the right to refuse it. If accepting the money conflicts with the mission of the organization, or if by accepting it the organization is portrayed as being accepting of the beliefs of those who sent it, or if the organization deems that the money was sent in bad faith- then they are responsible to act accordingly to the situation.
A charity that's mission is about SAVING and helping and bettering the lives of children, sees that YOUR mission is in definite conflict with it's mission, and therefore it returns your funds, the problem doesn't lie with the charity. It lies with you. With the faulted deception with which you sent the money in.
Get over it.
For more reading on this topic, please stop by Rose Desrochers
Categories: predators,
Comments
Good job LILO! United We Stand!
This is just more empowerment--more incentive to keep doing what we are doing......it works and this story proves it!!!
This is just amazing to me--My hat's off to you--and as always-let us all know how we can help fight this disgusting war.....
They take a child and pervert it to their desires.
it?
they do, do they?
they took a simple donation to a children's organization and attempted to pervert it to their cause.
we made an honest attempt to assist, out of honest good intentions - who is doing the perverting here?
yes - many of us did appreciate the idea that perhaps save our image actually appreciated our gesture - we're not exactly the white people in modern society, and every little bit helps...
moonsong:
Score one more for the good guys!! [...] let us all know how we can help fight this disgusting war.....
ah yes, one of those... having fun, are you?
lost:
If a group of heinous child predators decides it wants to send money to somewhere...
a group of what?
lady - if you actually wanted to do some good, perhaps you should find out what you are dealing with first?
in some ways it's helpful that you're all off shooting at ghosts under your beds, but innocent people (children included) get hurt that way...
i doubt i have any chance of getting through to you on this.
meantime - you seem to have forgotten your promise to 'do better' than us in contributing to that charity. have you any intention of following through on that boast?
or is it possible you lack the support?
toward delight,
aR.