RST's new Treasurer

[wabashcannonball 0]

Nah, thats the wan where the goalposts are moved to suit, usually to a grey area created by the grey suits..... wunner if Bluedell is gonny spill the beans...

[rbr 1,247]

Getting back to the point , is it best practice to appoint someone without meeting them on one persons recommendation . Then for the new treasurer to back the same individual on a financial matter that has been debated to death over 4 forums for nearly 2 weeks . Just seems a bit too cosey for me that's all.

[craig 5,198]

Yes Craig, stop being so damned grey.

 

Its how us accountants work MF, you should know that by now

[maineflyer 0]

Its how us accountants work MF, you should know that by now

 

I thought it was the absence of blood .... which is why the breed is so prone to sucking it out of the living.

I've certainly got one on the hook at the moment who seems to be three parts leech.

[Guest Pokeherface]

Does it perhaps go some little way towards explaining the wagon circling seen at the RST if a professional accountant, beholden to laws and regulations that will certainly see any irregularities spill over into their non RST life is questioned before they even have a chance to get a foot in the door? In the face of this type of thread, no wonder the RST are reluctant to trade blows with all their detractors.

 

 

The RST needs to 'lose' certain people as a matter of urgency but threads like this illustrate very clearly that the fault in most debates is in no way a one way thing.

[Frankie 8,150]

 

The RST needs to 'lose' certain people as a matter of urgency but threads like this illustrate very clearly that the fault in most debates is in no way a one way thing.

 

Nobody has suggested otherwise... Indeed, most of the posts in this thread express disagreement with the original somewhat cynical post.

 

But that's what open debate is about.

[Guest Pokeherface]

The first 3 or 4 posts were not in agreement with the OP. After that the theme changed to one of naming unprofessional professionals (Shipman) and a move towards stating that not all accountants are neccessarily ethical. That may well be true, but this person (of whom I have no knowledge) is fairly clearly under suspicion before even taking up his/her duties from certain posters.

 

There is no way that the RST can be blamed for not wanting to debate with people happy to besmirch or call into question the name of someone they know nothing about save their qualifications and a single aquaintance.

 

 

There is an industry made of finding fault with the RST and as often as not, the criticism is wide of the mark. Ordinarily this is not a problem but as more and more silly side-shows come up, the over-all thrust of those who want better for the ailing organisation is derailed.

 

People were quite literally celebrating the latest board room scuffle after Mr. Harris' statement but as ever, more information comes out that contradicts his version and slowly but surely people end up somewhere in the middle. On RM we had people assuming that MD was drawing a wage and paying the SLC because of the fuss with the CC machine. When that proved untrue, the legalities were suddenly the focus. The very same happened with Mr. Harris' statement. initially people were focused on a few words that showed the RST in the worst possible light and gradually the gaze was shifted to lesser and lesser 'crimes' as more information was brought into the public eye.

 

Here we have a professional being questioned by a single poster, a few (3 I think) pointing out it is perhaps an unwise line of questioning, followed by near 3 pages of people slating accountants.

 

Just my tuppence worth. It is not a defence of this accountant or the RST, it is seeing the same mistakes made time after time by those trying to better the trust.

[Frankie 8,150]

The first 3 or 4 posts were not in agreement with the OP. After that the theme changed to one of naming unprofessional professionals (Shipman) and a move towards stating that not all accountants are neccessarily ethical. That may well be true, but this person (of whom I have no knowledge) is fairly clearly under suspicion before even taking up his/her duties from certain posters.

 

There is no way that the RST can be blamed for not wanting to debate with people happy to besmirch or call into question the name of someone they know nothing about save their qualifications and a single aquaintance.

 

 

There is an industry made of finding fault with the RST and as often as not, the criticism is wide of the mark. Ordinarily this is not a problem but as more and more silly side-shows come up, the over-all thrust of those who want better for the ailing organisation is derailed.

 

People were quite literally celebrating the latest board room scuffle after Mr. Harris' statement but as ever, more information comes out that contradicts his version and slowly but surely people end up somewhere in the middle. On RM we had people assuming that MD was drawing a wage and paying the SLC because of the fuss with the CC machine. When that proved untrue, the legalities were suddenly the focus. The very same happened with Mr. Harris' statement. initially people were focused on a few words that showed the RST in the worst possible light and gradually the gaze was shifted to lesser and lesser 'crimes' as more information was brought into the public eye.

 

Here we have a professional being questioned by a single poster, a few (3 I think) pointing out it is perhaps an unwise line of questioning, followed by near 3 pages of people slating accountants.

 

Just my tuppence worth. It is not a defence of this accountant or the RST, it is seeing the same mistakes made time after time by those trying to better the trust.

 

A few things if I may:

 

Unfortunately by their very nature internet forums and any kind of thread you care to mention often deviate from the point at hand to irrelevant tangents. Just as conversations and opinions change in real life, so they do here.

 

Sure some people won't concentrate on the matter at hand and that may well derail the odd debate somewhat. Indeed, there is a fine line between what is appropriate and what is not. Petty comparisons to Shipman (though not meant seriously I'm sure) are exactly that and the only person that doesn't gain from such comparisons is the person who posts it. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that.

 

To that end, I'm sure (or I'd hope) that the Trust (like the rest of us) are more than capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff. To allow a minority of people to tarnish the opinion of the majority is unfair and incorrect. Just as any Trust critics have tried to show that certain recent issues are the fault of a minority of board members, not the whole organisation.

 

Of course controversial subjects such as financial irregularities are going to provoke speculation; some helpful, probably even more not. However, once again, any attempt to deflect from the actual problems raised to the way people make their criticism (or indeed the critics themselves) is somewhat disingenuous and equally unhelpful.

 

Finally, there's no need to protest your innocence over defending the Trust or such-like. Balance to the debate is welcome and more people would do well to examine both sides more often. To that end, perhaps you'd care to examine the Trust contribution to inaccuracy, besmirching professionals and less than constructive suspicions?

[bmck 117]

There is no way that the RST can be blamed for not wanting to debate with people

 

Unfortunately nothing can justify throwing out reasonable objections because of unreasonable ones. The bad thing about actually allowing debate is that unreasonable things come out; it's just that all the other alternatives stifle any form of debate. In essence, they are using unreasonable objections as a convenient way out of answering any at all, just like David Murray would, and they absolutely can be blamed for that.

[Frankie 8,150]

I should also add that any cynicism about accountants in this thread is mainly because of the context of this forum where we have two such professionals as well as other people who regularly come into contact with them; be it socially or through business.

 

It's a bit of gentle ribbing between members who know each other. I'm sure if Ms Mueller was present she'd enjoy that as well as refuting the less gentle cynicism.