Monday, May 21, 2012

In Their Own Words: What the magazine says.

There are 81 full issues of the Skeptic on-line, from 1990 #1 until 2011 #1.
The remaining 2011/2012 issues are only published in-part on-line following a website policy of only publishing in-full after 12 months.

These 81 issues comprise 5294 pages total [~65pp/issue average] with 5230 text pages in total and around 3.5M words of text.

I've carefully searched this public record for answers to the questions underpinning "Who are the Australian Skeptics? On the Public Record, what is the phrase "Australian Skeptics" intended to mean?":

In Their Own Words: What the website says.

Subscribers are still not Members after 15 years.

Short form:
  • The "Who we are" page is internally inconsistent:
    • the term "Australian Skeptics" is used in contradictory and exclusionary ways, without being clarified, to mean both "the collective of Sceptics in Australia" and only the members of Y0133609.
  • There are 1000-1500 potential members in NSW who have been denied membership, which prime face suggests an investigation is warranted, or must be treated as the General Public purchasing the magazine, which might constitute carrying on a Commercial Activity, contrary to the Objects of the Act.
  • The confusion can be quickly and trivially fixed in multiple ways, but after ~15 years the confusion remains.
  • The Office Bearers, Committee and Editors/Executive Officers of Y0133609 have collectively and knowingly allowed this confusion to remain for ~15 years. I can't see any any legitimate purpose this might serve. Claiming they were ignorant of the confusion or they've been indolent, negligent, careless or worse is to claim they were derelict in their duties.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

By Sate percentages subscribers to The Skeptic, 1996.

This 1996 article appears to indicate the then relative number of subscribers per State to the Skeptic.

Vol 16, No 4 the skeptic p 63 [1996]

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Questions for Y0133609, Australian Skeptics Inc.

Arising from their Financial Reports, there are a number of serious questions the Office Bearers and 16 members of NSW Association Y0133609,  "Australian Skeptics Inc" need to answer:
  • The Primary Activity of Y0133609 has been to publish the magazine, The Skeptic.
  • The Primary Purpose of Y0133609 has been the activities and finances related to the magazine.
  • Y0133609 has been carrying on a significant Commercial activity in selling the magazine to the Public.
  • The Office Bearers of Y0133609 have been seriously remiss and derelict in their duties:
    • The failure to lodge returns from 1996-1999. Once is an accident, more is not.
    • The minimalist account data provided in the 1996-1999 returns, if presented to members, would not allow them to create a full and informed view of the Association activities or operations as can be shown by earlier and later accounts. If fuller accounts were presented to members, why would they not be filed?
    • The failure to lodge returns for the following 10 years. This is negligence, incompetence or deliberate - any and all of which should be enough to dismiss the Committee and appoint an Administrator.
    • The failure to lodge returns for the years GST was paid, 2001, 2002 and accounts must have been prepared for ATO filings.
    • Failure to notify a change of Public Officer for 5 years.
    • Trading using the Association name, bank accounts and credit card for the ~10mths De-Registered period, 25-May-2009 to 06-Apr-2010.
  • The structure and name do not reflect the Association Activities.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Financial Reports as filed for NSW Assoc Y0133609: Australian Skeptics Inc, aka NSW Skeptics

These are data extract from the Financial Reports as formally filed by the Association, with subscriber numbers as reported in the magazine, The Skeptic.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Editor of "The Skeptic": summary response to AR Editor questions.

This email conversation was supplied on condition it be published with this preamble:
At the end of 1999, the Australian Rationalist received a draft of an article by Victorian Skeptic Adam Joseph, raising some issues regarding the operations of the national body, the Australian Skeptics. Around about the same time former AS committee member Steve Roberts posted a set of criticisms of the Skeptics on the internet. The AR Editor, Ian Robinson, worked with Joseph to produce a final version of the article in April, 2000. Before publishing the article, Robinson emailed Skeptics CEO Barry Williams itemizing the criticisms and invited his response. Williams provided a detailed response to the criticisms. Subsequently, the Australian Rationalist Editorial Board decided not to publish the Adam Joseph article in the journal.  Williams’ reply to Robinson’s email is reproduced below, together with the points in Robinson's email that he was replying to, without which his comments are meaningless .  The green-coloured text is Robinson’s email, quoted in full and the blue text is Williams reply or a synopsis of it, interspersed at the appropriate points.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Editor of "The Skeptic": Didn't take the piece well... Full-text

This email conversation was supplied on condition it be published with this preamble:
At the end of 1999, the Australian Rationalist received a draft of an article by Victorian Skeptic Adam Joseph, raising some issues regarding the operations of the national body, the Australian Skeptics. Around about the same time former AS committee member Steve Roberts posted a set of criticisms of the Skeptics on the internet. The AR Editor, Ian Robinson, worked with Joseph to produce a final version of the article in April, 2000. Before publishing the article, Robinson emailed Skeptics CEO Barry Williams itemizing the criticisms and invited his response. Williams provided a detailed response to the criticisms. Subsequently, the Australian Rationalist Editorial Board decided not to publish the Adam Joseph article in the journal.  Williams’ reply to Robinson’s email is reproduced below, together with the points in Robinson's email that he was replying to, without which his comments are meaningless .  The green-coloured text is Robinson’s email, quoted in full and the blue text is Williams reply or a synopsis of it, interspersed at the appropriate points.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Pitch to ABC's Background Briefing: There's Trouble at Mill.

Sent to ABC Radio National's Background Briefing, Mon 07-may-2012 via their contact page.
Some editing [and comments].



It isn't on the breath taking scale of the HSU drama, but here's a documented tale of 20 years of rorting the system.
You absolutely know that if there's one, then there's more... [But how can we find those?]

You'd think a largish organisation who's Patrons were Dick Smith and Phillip Adams would have a high degree of integrity, but the opposite is the case...

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Australian Skeptics Inc: 2012 Update

This is an update on the Association and players. [I expect feedback to correct and expand this.]

Reasons to be Skeptical: Joe Needham response to Adam Joseph in Forum comments

[Prev]Table of Contents


Re: [Skeptics Forum] A Liar or a fool? Maybe both.

At 02:29 AM 04/05/2002, Adam Joseph wrote:
Barry Williams now belongs to this group and responds to mail. What a turnaround!! That means Needham doesn't have to be the go-between any longer. Sorry about that Joe. And may I commend you on your language this time round. You do recall the filth that streamed out of your keyboard before don't you? Had some therapy recommended by Carlson or the others? Good boy.
Sorry to disappoint you but the Cox News Service has been cross posting and that is how Barry Williams message ended up here. Barry Williams is not a member of the Skeptics-Forum.
In Barry Williams post, (at the end of this) he mentioned I walked out of the Australian Skeptics because I wanted his job. Most people around that time were very aware that I believed in a good rotation of committee people and so on. So that's lie number one.
Doesn't Barry Williams hold a paid position with the Australian Skeptics? His job is not one that normally rotates but he serves at the pleasure of those who rotate on and off of administrative posts.
He also said I put out a multi-page screed to the media and others. True.
AH-HA Guilty as charged!
And this had no effect, eliciting only "Who is this idiot?" Given that what I released to the media was a background briefing on the Australian Skeptics and most things people should know, it most certainly did the trick. The media rarely goes near the Skeptics these days. And that was the purpose of the exercise. Simply, they are seen as having little credibility left. Years back, a fortnight would not go by when some publicity involving skeptics would surface. On the rare occasion close to Christmas they would put Santa look-alike Barry Williams on for a minute to say one shouldn't believe in psychics. Wow! I somehow think people got that message years back.
You must be a sorry piece of crap to try to discredit a whole organization because you don't like one person.
I see he is now denying he related information in his biography to the Rationalists International claiming 'an engineering background', which to my mind suggests he could be an engineer. I believe that to be another untruth.
Do you know what Barry Williams background has been?
So why should I even bother mentioning any of this on this particular forum?  Because it promotes itself as a sceptical forum that's why. And if people like Williams turn up,or are mentioned, then you have a right to know that even some Skeptics groups around the world have very odd and somewhat dishonest people involved. I have merely exposed people within the Australian Skeptics who have lost the whole group credibility galore.
You are the only one who has mentioned Barry Williams. It's not like his name just keeps turning up. You were surprised to learn that some of us Yanks actually know Barry. Our knowledge of Barry Williams rained on your little parade.
There was the case of Harry Edwards a couple of years back. Stalwart and secretary with the Australian Skeptics for 17 years. He had a falling out with Barry Williams and suddenly found himself thrown out on allegations of so-called corruption. When the trumped-up matter came to court, it was thrown out. Williams and a couple of his cronies then threatened to go to the supreme court. People within the freethought movement in Australia are still waiting.
Totally unfamiliar with the case. Got any on-line news stories about it?
Anyone who dared ask for evidence of Harry Edwards guilt,including state committees, were told and shown nothing. May be Williams would like to post the 'evidence' on this forum. 'Evidence' that is supportable of course, not Williams renowned bullshit.
Australia must be a strange place. In the US an individual cannot refuse to turn over evidence in a crime or,if they do, they have time to think about that decision in jail.
So for those who need more on the trials and tribs of the somewhat discredited Australian Skeptics, what Australian skeptics regard as a small but definitive history really, 'cept Williams of course, the continue reading below.
I'm surprised the entire continent hasn't sunk into the ocean in disgrace.

{Short attention span caused me to delete the rest of your message in my reply.}

Regards,

Joe Needham AIM: JoeNeedham | YM: jneedham | ICQ: 1674329
http://forums.delphiforums.com/skepticsclub/ | www.internet-skeptics.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skeptics-forum/
Do NOT let them deceive you with the legitimization of their myth!™


[Prev]Table of Contents

Reasons to be Skeptical: Barry Williams response e-mail

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


From: "Barry Williams" <skeptics@...>

Reluctant as I am to give any credence to astrologers and other necromancers, can it be simply a coincidence that in the very month that five planets will line up in the sky, Adam Joseph should once again emerge from his self-pitying swamp to tell the world just how much he dislikes me?

For those readers lucky enough not hitherto to have been the recipient of one of Joseph's turgid diatribes, here is an encapsulated history. In the early 1990s, Mr Joseph was president of one of the
state bodies that makes up Australian Skeptics. In about 1995, he decided that I had too much power, and further decided that he should have that power. In the event, no one else agreed with him, so he
departed in a huff (he might have departed in a Toyota, but I believe it was a Huff). In Oz parlance, this is known as "spitting the dummy".

Ever since then, every couple of years or so, he has assaulted everyone he can think of with barely coherent rants, in which he enumerates all my faults -- most of which are simply figments of his
febrile imagination (he has also misssed out on quite a few -- so much for his research). Just before the 2000 World Skeptics Convention in Sydney, he targetted all manner of prominent Skeptics and the media with a multi-page screed (17 or 18 pages from memory), which had precisely no effect on the success of the Convention, eliciting from the recipients only the question "Who is this idiot?"

As for his specific (insofar as anything he says is specific) rant this time, I cannot imagine just how I would "[go] around inferring in many quarters" that I am an engineer. I suppose that, had I suffered from a serious bout of amnesia, and then discovered that my house was full of engineering texts, I might possibly "infer" that I was an engineer, but that hasn't happened, so I don't know what he is drivelling about this time. Furthermore, I haven't even "implied" that I am an engineer in any quarters, far less claimed it.

His bile directed against Joe Needham is even less rational, as he has never met Joe, and clearly knows nothing about him. It seems to stem from the fact that Joe once read one of his peurile raves, and pointed out to him that he was talking through his fundament. Still, Joe can now be satisfied that he belongs to a longish list of distinguished Skeptics against whom Adam Joseph has vented his spleen. It's doesn't quite have the cachet of being described as a "tool of Satan" by a creationist, but it has never done anyone's reputation any harm.

For the past year or so, Joseph has been quiescent, which is what causes me to wonder about manifestations of his outbreaks of bile and planetary alignments. There's definitely a research project in there for someone who is looking for a topic.

Barry Williams -- Editor -- the Skeptic


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: Appendix: Dr Steve Roberts list of questions.

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


'He's a man you must believe ‘ Dr Robert[s]'
John Lennon & Paul McCartney

In 1995 Victorian committee member Dr Steve Roberts communicated the following (edited) criticisms of the 'national' committee to Adam Joseph.
He subsequently withdrew them and was later appointed as the only interstate member of the 'national' committee in Sydney. He has since been dumped but remains active within the Victorian Skeptics branch.

1. Competence of the National Treasurer

Anyone can see that the national committee's accounts are a farce - as bad as its minutes - and it is obvious that the treasurer is not able to make the simplest statements about how much money we have, or the simplest forecasts of future obligations such as magazine printing. [S]omeone else should take over the Treasurer's job ASAP. If Sydney start to bleat that nobody else wants the job, Victoria can offer one of the several people here that could do it, and do it better. It is supposed to be a national committee, after all.

2a. National committee has lost its sense of identity and direction

Effectively the national committee is two people, who sometimes can't even talk to one another on important topics such as where conventions ought to be held. There is no guidance or leadership as to where the Skeptics are supposed to be heading. Tasks often get put off for long periods, resulting in increased costs. When I volunteered to be a member of the national committee last year this was accepted, but I have heard nothing since. It is quite possible to run a committee across several cities, using only the postal system with perhaps the occasional fax.

2b. National committee is confused with NSW committee

These are one and the same body, which has led to national funds being squandered on local NSW projects. In the past this has not mattered much, but these days more is happening in Melbourne than anywhere else and I believe that we should have the use of some of the lavish Skeptics equipment that is lying relatively idle in Sydney.

3. Use for funds, including the inheritance

We (Australian Skeptics) have no idea what to do with sums of money that come our way. It does not matter if a gift is $500 or $500,000 - we ought to have ambitions and draw up plans which could be executed if money came in. The CSF, for example, do exactly this. When I put this to Barry [Williams], he seemed to refuse to think about it. Projects attract funding - look at the US$2M centre that CSICOP/CODESH put up in 1993 (already being extended, with further appeals for money being sent out). The point is that there is money out there just waiting for a use to be offered for it.

4. Work load falling on too few individuals

A common gripe in all amateur societies. Blame me too - with increasing family and work commitments I keep finding I have to back away from doing things. The situation seems to be much worse in Sydney where I would estimate 80% of the load falls on Barry, 19% on Harry [Edwards] and 1% on anyone else. A body like the Skeptics needs a diverse set of enthusiastic people as well as being to get a crowd together.

5. Skeptics have drifted away from "investigation" towards "critical thinking"

However the general public knows what we are all about. I am not sure if we should change our charter, since to do so would be interpreted by our enemies as "Ha! They don't dare investigate because they know they will come across the REAL TRUTH about (ufo's, creation, crystals, etc.)". Also the common meaning of the word "critical" is now something like "abusive". Strictly "to criticise" means more like "to discuss the good and bad aspects of", but only pedants like myself care about that. Maybe the Skeptics should "encourage a questioning attitude" ??

6. Two big jobs (National President and Editor) held by same person

Maybe because of a lack of volunteers. I doubt if many people can afford he time that either of these posts must require. I don't think that we need a National President at all, Barry can be NSW President with equal effect in NSW, thus freeing you and others to hold more independent-sounding posts in Victoria. The Press in Melbourne doesn't like to quote Sydney people, and I'm sure vice versa.

7. Barry is acting autocratically

Stories of what Barry [Williams] has said continue to shock me, especially as he holds two powerful posts. Barry can be identified with Australian Skeptics, but not to the extent that Mark Plummer (and Paul Kurtz in CSICOP) wanted to be. We should NOT have a personality cult around the President, cuddly though he may be. The sort of arrogance I object to includes:
  • insisting on a disastrous venue for the 1994 convention;
  • mismanaging the assignment of the 1995 convention;
  • refusing to debate Harry [Edwards]' motion about magazine size;
  • refusing control over editorial content of the magazine, and my favourite perennial one
  • declining to send me the full membership list (which had at least two Victorian members with wrong postcodes) on the grounds that I hold another post in another Society.
Well, so does Harry Edwards.

8. Presentation of the magazine

This is low on my list of concerns because I am aware that the presentation has improved since Barry took it over. Also, the magazine is (or should be) renowned for its content, not its cover. I can easily believe that hard-paper, coloured covers are within reach, as are alternative ways of wrapping it for mailing. But overall I like the format and layout generally. It is unrealistic to try to sell it through newsagents (we would need to print many more copies for that to be worthwhile; Dick Smith would advise, or better still, I can ask my mate Lyle Rumble of Southern Sky astronomy magazine, who has recently done this).

9. Content of the magazine

Again low on my list because I think its not too bad. There are a lot of good articles but there have been some shonky ones, which ought to have been weeded out by an editorial committee, had one existed.

There are still too many typos and misprints (although nowhere near as bad as when Tim Mendham was editor) to allow me to show off articles with pride as something the Skeptics are doing.

ENDs


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

When a group chooses to call itself Australian Skeptics Inc and purports to promote critical thinking via a journal and public literature to schools and libraries and the media, to expose charlatans who feed society misinformation and to scientifically investigate the paranormal, its own affairs and operations need not only to be seen to be beyond reproach, but actually need to be so.

There is an urgent need for the following steps to be taken:
  1. An independent auditor needs to be called in to audit the books of the Australian Skeptics Inc and the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation, at least since 1996 when the Whalley bequest was made, and the results of this audit should be made public. There is no evidence we can find that the accounts of either group were ever independently audited.
  2. Steps must be taken to set up a truly national organisation which any interested sceptical Australian can join, and via which they can exercise influence on Skeptics policy and activity. Responsibility for running this national body could rotate every three to five years between state organisations, so that no one group can retain control.
  3. The necessity for the appointment of a full-time officer needs to be reviewed, and if it is found to be viable and an effective use of available funds, then the position should be declared vacant and widely advertised in free thought circles, with the best person for the job as selected by an independent panel being appointed.
  4. The membership of the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation needs to be revised so that it includes one or more members nominated by each state organisation, perhaps for a set term (five-ten years?) instead of for life.
  5. An effective editorial committee needs to be established for The Skeptic, which could provide a pool of peer reviewers and upgrade the reputation of the journal.
Leading Australian potential supporters of the organisation need to be drawn into some kind of formal association with the movement, perhaps through becoming 'fellows', as the parent organisation CSICOP provides. Fellows of CSICOP in the US include four Nobel prize winners, at least 15 professors, many high-profile public intellectuals (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould, Douglas Hofstadter, Susan Blackmore, W. V. Quine, Martin Gardner, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick), prominent media personalities (e.g. Steve Allen, L. Sprague de Camp, Marilyn vos Savant) and many other leading thinkers from the US and around the world. In Australia, while a few people of this stature have given talks for the Skeptics, none are formally aligned, and it is unlikely any will commit themselves until the organisation gets its act together.

Even the Skeptics' founders, Dick Smith, Phillip Adams and Richard Carleton, are not formally connected to the group, although Dick Smith is a fellow of CSICOP.

* Mark Plummer, the Australian Skeptics founding first president, has since been de-listed as a ‘fellow’ of CSICOP, according to chief executive Barry Karr.

The small group of individuals who now control the Australian Skeptics Inc. no doubt began with honest intentions, and always believed they were acting in the best interests of the Skeptics movement, but it must be clear even to them that their actions have exposed the group to accusations of dubious practices and handicapped its ability to perform its functions as effectively as it might. At the same time they have disenfranchised many hundreds of genuine sceptics Australia wide who would be only too willing to contribute time, expertise, energy and money to the cause of scepticism but who feel unable to find a valid and respected place in the movement.

If Stanley Whalley knew of the goings-on that his last will and testament would play a part in, he probably would have used as much caution writing his will as he spent on carefully studying stock trends.

Anyone with nominations for the new millennium's first 'Bent Spoon Award'?


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: LIFE MEMBER EXPELLED

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


LIFE MEMBER EXPELLED

The latest bombshell to hit the Skeptics is the expulsion of life member Harry Edwards, long-time secretary and investigator of the NSW Skeptics and original chairman of the group's $1.2 million trust fund, the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation, on allegations of 'corruption' and 'misappropriation' of funds. Edwards was served a writ in September 1999, outlining the charges and demanding restoration of almost $50,000.

When the matter came before the courts on December 3, it was permanently stayed as it had been lodged in the wrong court. Costs were awarded against the Skeptics and have been set by the Supreme Court at over $6000. Edwards had prepared a defense, which claimed, among other things, that any monies advanced to him were approved by all trustees, and if he is guilty of breaching the trust, so are the other trustees. He has never been officially charged with either corruption nor breaching the trust in any way. The NSW Fraud Squad has not been notified, nor has the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). In correspondence to Edwards, Skeptics treasurer Richard Lead stated that 'Australian Skeptics Inc will seek the penalties prescribed under Part 1VA of the Crimes Act 1900. And don’t expect any mercy'.

Edwards claims the matter is just a personal vendetta undertaken by a disgruntled committee member after a personality clash. Embarrassingly, the group sought a legal opinion from John Garnsey QC, only to be told that in addition to Edwards, all trust members were culpable in a number of breaches. Edwards believes this could be the reason no further action has been taken.

It is believed Garnsey also found that the original Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation set up with Harry Edwards as chairperson was incorrectly constituted. In 1999 a new Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation was registered with the ASIC, with Richard Lead, Richard Gordon, Trevor Case and Alynda Brown listed as Directors, all current members of the NSW committee. Victorian Steve Roberts was dumped as the interstate representative. No other members are listed in documents submitted to ASIC in January this year (2000) so it is assumed that these are the only members. (Former chairman Harry Edwards' name is conspicuous by its absence.) According to the Foundation's constitution, the only way membership of the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation lapses is "upon the member's death" (Clause 2.3.(a)). Readers may be amused by the name of the law firm which prepared this constitution - "Church and Grace".

As the story unfolded, the ‘national committee’ and its supporters dismissed Edwards as ‘a sad case of mental decline’, ‘a liar’, and more desperately, ‘a piece of shit which the English language is manifestly incapable of describing properly’, amongst panic-stricken comments. Clearly the executive was appearing a little unnerved, and concerned at obvious leaks from some of their own state committees, which, surprisingly, still continue.

When news leaked that this article was initially being prepared at the request of the editor of another free-thought group, the Australian Rationalists, calls came in from Skeptics Inc committee executives threatening to sue, even though most of the information has already appeared in various forums on the internet. Following initial threats of legal action came accusations of 'disloyalty to mates', and finally more name-calling, 'who would believe someone bitter and twisted?'

The Australian Rationalist magazine was described by Williams as 'a boring political polemic and is even less interesting to read than jam tin labels'.

After some concerned discussions within the Australian Rationalists committee, the article is still being considered for a future issue, according to editor Ian Robinson, obviously feeling pressured by colleagues.


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL POLICY

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL POLICY

In 1998 the chairman of the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation Harry Edwards in a memo to Barry Williams raised concerns over the financial status of Foundation. According to Edwards, the total amount invested on behalf of the Foundation, principally in first mortgage security over real estate, as of 1 March 1998 was $966,987. This was generating an income of about $79,000 p.a. or about 8.2%, but subsequent falls in interest rates probably reduced this amount, at least in the short term. Ongoing commitments listed by Edwards, including honoraria, scholarships, prizes, convention subsidies and a grant of $100,000 to the Mt Stromlo Observatory ($10,000 p.a. over ten years) amounted to over $25,000 p.a., leaving the Foundation's disposable income at little more than $50,000 p.a., which was available to state groups and individuals applying for grants. (In 1995/6, the first year of the bequest, $35,000 was shown as distributed to state groups, but it is not clear whether this largesse continued because later financial statements are not available.). The policy of the Foundation under Edwards' chairmanship was "to ensure the financial viability of all Australian Skeptics groups in perpetuity. It was agreed that "the capital would be maintained at a predetermined level" and that the expenses and disbursements should be "limited to an amount not exceeding income".

Edwards was concerned at pressures on the trustees to eat into capital in order to fund the increasing Skeptics salary bill and the activities of the committee. Figures submitted to the NSW Department of Fair Trading by treasurer Richard Lead show that in 1996/7 and 1997/8 the Australian Skeptics Inc made losses of $27,214.25 and $42,526.87 respectively.

However, it seemed to be the policy of at least some members of the Skeptics to simply keep spending the money until it ran out. Treasurer Richard Lead, who joined the group after Whalley’s money was received, explained to the author: 'Personally, I hope we do run out of money, but in about 10 years.

What is the point of not using it for the purposes for which it was donated?

We are not a religious organisation'. Dr Steve Roberts, the only Victorian on the 'national' body has expressed similar sentiments to the Australian Rationalists magazine editor, Ian Robinson.

Edwards proposed sending a letter to all members of the Australian Skeptics Inc committee outlining his concerns. In the draft letter Edwards explains that the Australian Skeptics Inc income for 1998/9 would only be approximately $48,000, and as projected expenditure (mainly journal printing costs and the Editor/CEO's salary and expenses) was nearly $110, 000, there would be a $60,000 shortfall. According to Edwards, Williams refused to allow him to send this letter to the Committee on the grounds that it may panic the members.

In the event, according to figures submitted to the NSW Department of Fair Trading by treasurer Richard Lead, the 1998/9 expenditure turned out to be $126,243, only $16,000 more than Edwards' estimate, but the income is listed as $143, 859, nearly $100,000 more. It is not clear whether this extra
income came substantially from the Foundation or not, as Barry Williams denied a request from the Australian Rationalist magazine to provide current information about the Skeptics' finances, nor if so whether this was at the expense of reducing the Foundation's capital, as Lead has argued for.

Edwards is no longer in a position to answer this question, as the result of the events described below.


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: FROM CRITICISM TO COMPLIANCE

[Prev]Table of Contents [Next]


FROM CRITICISM TO COMPLIANCE

While a number of members have left the scene disillusioned, others have turned a blind eye to these developments for the sake of harmony. Victorian Committee member Dr Steve Roberts wrote a lengthy statement about the NSW committee [See Addional supplement at end of article). Roberts later withdrew the four closely-typed pages of scathing criticisms and was appointed the only non-NSW member of the Trust fund. Harry Edwards claims this was to appease the Victorian committee - NSW reasoned that one interstate member with four NSW members was not going to make any difference.

After further bickering between pro and anti Ian Plimer supporters throughout state branches, and letters and public statements on radio about his treatment, the Skeptics Foundation finally gave way and granted Plimer $177,000. The cashed-up Victorian committee contributed a further $19,000.

With a total legal bill in excess of $400,000, Plimer was forced to sell most of his property and still verges on bankruptcy after the out-of-court settlement recently concluded the defamation suit against him. Many believed that, considering the Whalley bequest came about on the understanding that its main purpose was to fight Creationism, there was a moral obligation to support Plimer to the fullest extent. That one skeptic should suffer so much while other skeptics enjoy subsidised overseas and interstate trips must be a bitter pill to swallow.


[Prev]Table of Contents [Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: INTERSTATE ANGER

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


INTERSTATE ANGER

The Victorian committee expressed anger in 1995 when minutes from the 'national' committee showed they were to purchase new computer equipment and fax machines only 2 years after previously buying such equipment. A motion was also passed to pay for airfares for any of the 'national committee' who wished to attend the forthcoming 1995 Melbourne convention, unheard of previously. All queries regarding expenditure were met with disdain and a closed door from Sydney.

The South Australian Skeptics put in for a grant to purchase a computer and were met with refusal. Victoria was allowed a fax machine and some small items to appease their anger. Professor Ian Plimer, growing in concern about his legal expenses, was encouraged to apply for a grant on the basis that his legal battles related directly to fighting creationism and flying the Skeptics banner. A lengthy letter outlining his costs and a plea to the Skeptics Trust to assist met with a refusal that his application did not meet the criteria set down.

Amidst mounting criticism of Williams’s autocratic editorial style and allegations of abusing his position, accusations of lack of accountability of subscribers funds and of the bequest, cries of mismanagement, the 'national committee' suspended itself and immediately reinstated themselves as the 'NSW committee', but with no changes to matters relating to finances, policy, or the magazine. They advised that the organisational structure of the Skeptics is such that only the members of the NSW committee can vote themselves, or the editor, out, contrary to what was declared in the 1986 issue of the group's journal regarding national interests.

Victoria complained that as the Whalley bequest was left to a national body called "The Australian Sceptics [sic] Incorporated", and not the NSW committee, the trust should include interstate representation. While NSW sought legal opinion, the Victorians considered a variety of options, including a suggestion of contesting the will, which led to some splitting of ranks and fears of a wider national split.

Eventually and begrudgingly the states backed off, realising that NSW now had the money and any further disharmony would aggravate future hand-outs. Barry Williams successfully put in his application to become the full-time paid editor and CEO, and others began receiving honorariums of varying amounts for previously voluntary positions, for example to Harry Edwards $5000 p.a. as chairman of the Foundation and a further $3000 p.a. as secretary of the NSW committee, and $3000 p.a. to Peter Rodgers who was the treasurer at the time. Two loans of $8000 each were also approved for Edwards to publish two books promoting scepticism. This money was being progressively paid back through book sales by the Skeptics up to the time of Edwards' departure (see below).


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: PRESIDENT BECOMES FULL-TIME PAID EXECUTIVE OFFICER

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


PRESIDENT BECOMES FULL-TIME PAID EXECUTIVE OFFICER

At the committee meeting on November 18, 1996, the then honorary president Barry Williams proposed the appointment of a full-time Editor/Executive Office, with a remuneration of $45,000 per annum (plus expenses), which was accepted unanimously by the committee. Williams' friend Harry Edwards immediately moved that he, Williams, should be appointed to this position.

This was also accepted unanimously by the committee. Williams then resigned as president and nominated Richard Gordon to the position. Gordon was elected unopposed. In 1997 Williams took up his new appointment.

Despite the fact that other sceptics had previously expressed interest in such a position should the opportunity ever arise, the position was never advertised, even within the various Skeptics organisations, and as far as we can ascertain, no other candidates for the position were considered.

Williams has little if any formal scientific or philosophical training. His previous job seems to have been organising trade promotions and exhibitions by American companies for the US High Commission in Sydney. His main qualification for the Skeptics job seems to have been that he happened to be the President of the small NSW committee when national responsibility for the Skeptics was transferred for the time being to that state in 1986 and, due in the main to the undemocratic structure of the sceptical movement, he managed to hold on to that position for ten years. Although during that time he had performed his presidential role and that of magazine editor to the best of his ability, his performance in both was not without critics, and no-one could claim that Williams did such an outstanding job that he stood out as the only possible person in Australia who could fill the position. Williams may or may not have been the best person for the job, but this was never tested by wide advertisement for the position and competitive application by possible alternative candidates.

By his own criteria, Williams' tenure in the job has not wholly met expectations. In a proposal submitted to his NSW committee in late 1996, Williams clearly stated how he would justify the job and associated salary and expenses. Many of his undertakings do not seem to have been achieved.

Williams undertook to:
  1. 'upgrade appearance, quality and format of magazine'. A close investigation of recent issues shows only the print size and font style have changed.
  2. 'produce within three years (i.e. by 1999) a bi-monthly magazine that is sold through newsagents'. Subscribers and the public at large would be aware this has not eventuated.
  3. 'Compile and publish second volume (1986-88) of composite issues', and
  4. 'Compile and publish third volume (1989-1991)' These tasks refer to compilations of 'Best of' journal stories in published form (one was released in 1992). Williams has been unable to achieve this, even though the contents were provided to him on disk some five years ago.
  5. 'Produce and publish position papers on various topics (Astrology, numerology etc)'. The content for these are currently being compiled by individuals of the Queensland, Victorian and NSW committees, based on a series of brochures released by the Victorian Skeptics in 1993.
  6. 'To double (at least) the subscriber base by the end of 1997'. When Williams commenced as a full-time employee at the beginning of 1997, there were approximately 2000 subscribers. In the ensuing three years, $150,000 was spent on the CEO/editor’s salary and expenses, and another $20,000 on advertising and new computers. By 2000, the membership figures were still much the same, but exact figures were hard to ascertain due to the inclusion in reported figures of non-financial members and 'give-aways' to media and others. Former Skeptics trust chairman, Harry Edwards, claims he has documentation from a 1997 meeting revealing nearly 450 non-financial subscribers were included in overall subscriber numbers.
  7. 'To organise regular public meetings'. An area sadly neglected and a concern to many on the NSW committee. It is well known that Williams had a stand-up row in 1998 with current NSW president Dr. Richard Gordon over the matter, witnessed by most committee members.
  8. 'To write articles'. Williams has certainly achieved this promise. As a full-time employee, he is the only writer in the journal who gets paid. Articles sent in by other contributors as 'opinion pieces' are unpaid.
Williams aside, others on the committee have benefited from honoraria amounts ranging from $1,000 to $8,000, for attending to basically the same tasks as they did as volunteers. Interstate and overseas trips by committee members are funded on the basis of 'Skeptics business', and have increased in frequency recently and have included visits to such places as the US, Germany, and Britain. Williams himself has only recently returned from a 2-month 'Skeptics business' trip, mainly to Britain. Treasurer Richard Lead has verified this was subsidised by the Foundation but would not say by how much.

Many subscribers are now asking why many thousands of dollars are now being spent by the NSW-based organisation without any commensurate increase in Skeptics activities and with membership, still around 2000 nationally, approximately the same as in 1996. Some people have also questioned whether journal subscribers are getting value for money. The subscription price of The Skeptic has risen from $25 to $45 (an 80% increase) in three years, much greater than the inflation rate. While there has been a marginal increase in printing and paper costs, the bulk of the increased income has effectively gone towards paying the Editor/Executive Officer's salary and expenses.


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: SUBSCRIBERS ARE NOT MEMBERS

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


SUBSCRIBERS ARE NOT MEMBERS

It is important to note that, unlike most non-profit associations, the Australian Skeptics Inc does not have a general membership as such, apart from the small self-appointed group in Sydney that took control in 1986 - all that other interested members of the public can do is subscribe to a magazine called The Skeptic. This is not spelt out clearly and new subscribers are encouraged to gain the touchy-feely impression that they are members of an elite group.

In actual fact the only other people that could be truly called members are those on the various state committees, and even they have no say what occurs at the so called 'national' committee' which is incorporated in NSW, with specific names listed. Williams and the self-appointed NSW group are therefore in effect the owners of "Australian Skeptics Inc" (Y0133609). In turn, the self appointed Foundation controlling the Whalley money, although legally a separate entity, effectively belongs to this NSW committee, because of the duplication of members. Therefore, only the NSW committee can decide on each others' fate. State committee members and subscribers can only protest by ceasing their subscription to the journal.


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: CREATIVE ACCOUNTING

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


CREATIVE ACCOUNTING

The Australian Skeptics financial statement for the year 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 as presented to the committee shows $1,276,356 being received by Australian Skeptics Inc from the Whalley bequest. A trust, called the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation, was established under the chairmanship of Harry Edwards to look after the Whalley money. The statement shows that on behalf of the Foundation, the committee paid $35,000 in grants to [State] branches, and made loans of $9000 and $8000 to Ian Plimer (for his court case) and Harry Edwards (for the publication of a book). According to this financial statement $1,163,000 was then passed on to the new Foundation, leaving $61,356 presumably simply absorbed into the Skeptics budget. Total income for that year is shown as $1,380,890 and total expenditure $1,278,908, a profit of $101,982.

In July 1997 Richard Lead was appointed Treasurer of the Australian Skeptics. The Australian Skeptics Inc minutes of 15 September 1997 reports:
The treasurer's report was adopted after a lesson in "creative accounting" in which profits were miraculously turned into a substantial loss.
In the light of this statement it is perhaps not surprising that when the annual financial report of the organisation for 1995/96 was finally submitted to the Department of Fair Trading under Richard Lead's signature in July 1999 (three years late), the income had "miraculously" become $50,505 and the expenditure $50,440, a profit of merely $65, and a far cry from the profit of $101,982 revealed in the financial statement presented to the committee at the time.

How "creative" can you get?


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: MONEY – THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL?

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


MONEY – THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL?

In 1994 76-year-old recluse, Stanley Whalley, who had never heard of the Australian Skeptics Inc until shortly before he died of cancer late in that year, bequeathed nearly $1.3 million to the Skeptics. He signed his last will and testament just four days before he passed away. His wealth was inherited through his family who capitalised on property prices during the Great Depression, and was added to further by Stanley’s dabbling in the stock market. He never married and lived alone in a ramshackle house in Archie Street, Nambour, near Queensland's Sunshine Coast. A committed atheist, Whalley’s main concern was the push for the teaching of creationism in Queensland schools by fundamentalists and he asked friends what groups existed that could take them on in a good fight.

This coincided with the release of the book Telling Lies For God (Random House 1994) by Professor Ian Plimer, the former Head of the University of Melbourne Earth Sciences department, who was deeply concerned at the inroads of creationism in the education system. Telling Lies For God is a trenchant exposé of the Queensland group, the Creation Science Foundation, and debunks the creationist ‘young earth’ theory which he and many academics view as ‘a junk theory’ with no scientific validity. The book’s foreword was written by Brisbane’s Anglican Archbishop Peter Hollingworth and created a storm of protest and publicity, especially in Queensland. It would be fair to say that this would not have escaped the attention of Stanley Whalley at the time.

Plimer’s well-known connections to the Australian Skeptics Inc gave the group a higher profile that it usually got by debunking small-time UFO groups, psychics and astrologers. In exposing the antics of 'Dr' Alan Roberts, a Christian fundamentalist who was raising money to find Noah’s Ark in Turkey, Plimer caused a stir which reverberated around the world in creationist and scientific circles. This resulted in a defamation case against Plimer in Melbourne, and a Copyright/Trade Practices action by Plimer against Roberts in Sydney. Subsequent appeals in the case went to the High Court and found in favour of Roberts. The Australian Skeptics Inc, while publicly supportive of Plimer, and privately encouraging him to fight to the bitter end, did not offer to financially assist him until criticism from some aggressive members embarrassed them into loosening the purse strings to the Whalley largesse.


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: JOURNAL CRITICISED

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


JOURNAL CRITICISED

At the meeting, The Skeptic editor and NSW president Barry Williams was criticised about inaccuracies and misinformation creeping into the magazine. One article in particular, from Queensland subscriber David Lewis, irked many. It castigated the public perception that smoking was harmful. A debate ensued in letters and a series of articles, including a strong stand for the rights of smokers by chain-smoking Williams. Victorian committee member and health professional Dr. Steve Basser checked Lewis’s article and found misinterpretations of medical information and old out-dated scientific references being quoted. Williams was called on by many people to drop the debate and eventually did after 4 issues.

A large number declined to renew their subscriptions the following year and irate letters and calls continued long afterwards. Readers picked up other articles containing misinformation on statistics, and mistakes in the growing creationist debate. It was an embarrassing period for a journal that had previously been held in some esteem by its sceptical subscribers and members of the media.

Without consultation, Williams changed the policy of The Skeptic from a journal of 'scientific investigation of the paranormal' to a journal of 'opinion and fact', thus saving time in needing to check the factual contents of submitted stories. While Williams claimed articles were peer reviewed, he refused to nominate who was involved in checking the bevy of incorrect data on the smoking issue. Williams himself has no formal training in any scientific discipline. Further complaints ensued when there appeared an apparent lack of contributions because Williams and then co-editor Harry Edwards, a retired builder, began writing the bulk of the magazine.

Early 1995 saw the Victorian committee formally asking for a restructuring that would include representatives of all states on the 'national committee', and the setting up of an advisory sub-committee to 'assist' the editor. As news of the Whalley bequest came through (see "Money - the root of all evil?" below), the NSW 'national' committee declared that as the incorporated national body, it was the sole beneficiary of any forthcoming funds, but it would give state branches grants if they met guidelines established by a newly-formed trust which comprised totally of NSW committee members with secretary/magazine co-editor Harry Edwards as chairman.

As momentum for change gathered, the South Australia and ACT branches indicated support for the Victorian restructuring proposal. Williams became angry at the perceived disunity and declared, 'Whoever is trying to cause trouble can go and get stuffed'. Overtures to others on the 'national committee' led nowhere as Williams also had exclusive use of the Skeptics phone number and mailbox key. Any written or phoned complaints had to pass through Williams and he denied there were any. He claimed readers loved the magazine articles and his handling of the editorship. But who would know any different, including those on his committee, if nobody had the same access as he did to incoming mail and calls?


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: SUCCESS LEADS TO PROBLEMS

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


SUCCESS LEADS TO PROBLEMS

By 1990, the Victorian committee had become stagnant and subscribers numbers had fallen to below 200. New committee members were added to re-activate enthusiasm and Victorian subscribers began to increase with media interest and public meetings.

In 1993, the annual convention was held at the University of Melbourne with attendance by record crowds (over 700 in 2 days), no doubt due to the appearance of guest speakers such as James 'The Amazing' Randi, the controversial Professor Ian Plimer and other well known speakers. Victorian subscriber numbers were boosted until they equalled NSW (around 500).

The 'national committee' in Sydney asked for an extensive audit of the venture, despite the fact that they contributed little towards it. The 'national committee' also advised Victoria that 40% of the convention profits would be required to go into the 'national' coffers. This request, unheard of until after the conference, puzzled the Victorians. Because of the overwhelming media blitz and large crowds, the 'national committee' probably expected a substantial profit. However, due to the expense of bringing in overseas guests, the convention only broke even. After the audit was finalised, the Victorians in turn asked the 'national' committee for a complete audit of their books and an account of how subscribers' monies were being spent. The request produced only the very basic annual returns as submitted to the NSW corporate authorities, a requirement for all associations. It listed overall expenditure but contained little breakdown of what, how, when, and to whom monies were disbursed. There was no indication that these accounts had been independently audited.

Up to this time, all state branches had been given annual disbursements from subscriptions, based on their membership. Now the NSW 'national' committee claimed to be suffering grave financial difficulties and soon after declared that such disbursements would cease until further notice.

The 1994 annual convention in Sydney turned into an unmitigated disaster, with less than 70 people attending over the 2 days. Tensions at the all-states committee meeting generated into a shouting and slanging match with accusations of mismanagement and incompetence. A request to restructure the national committee to include other states was met with laughter and derision by the controlling NSW members.


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: IN THE BEGINNING

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


IN THE BEGINNING

In 1980, businessman Dick Smith, broadcaster Phillip Adams, and journalist Richard Carleton sponsored a visit to Australia by the American magician James "The Amazing" Randi, and put up a $50,000 prize for anyone who could prove psychic phenomena under Randi’s watchful eye. Over a hundred people came forward to be tested for water divining, spoon-bending, ESP, psychic photography and psychic metal detection. All failed to prove their claims before independent observers and the money remained in the pockets of the grinning sceptics.

Shortly after, interested individuals decided to set up the Australian Skeptics as the Australian section of CSICOP, which James Randi co-founded.

The objectives of the Australian Skeptics were:
  • To investigate claims of pseudoscientific, paranormal phenomena from a scientific point of view,
  • To publicise the results of such investigations,
  • To encourage Australians and the media to adopt a critical attitude towards paranormal claims, and
  • To stimulate inquiry and the quest for truth.
These aims will be pursued by
  • establishing a network of people interested in critically examining claims,
  • publishing a periodical,
  • publishing articles and books that examine the paranormal,
  • maintaining a library,
  • encouraging and commissioning research by objective and impartial inquirers,
  • conducting meetings and conferences, and
  • acting as a public information resource.
A 'national committee' was established in Melbourne led by solicitor Mark Plummer and branches sprang up in other states. Interestingly, neither Smith, Adams nor Carleton chose to be officially involved other than as kindly patrons. The first 2-page tabloid-sized newsletter went out in mid-1981 to a small number of $2 per year subscribers and to selected media.

It contained a 'Skeptics test a psychic surgeon' story and other items written mainly by Plummer or sourced from CSICOP in the US.

By 1985 the magazine The Skeptic had grown to 36 pages and the first national convention was held in Sydney with speakers elaborating on the scientific method and its relevance to paranormal medicine, creationism and the techniques of physics. They had by then introduced their famous Bent Spoon Award, given to the person or group who came out with the most unscientific 'piffle' of the year. Clairvoyant Tom Wards was the first recipient, followed over the years by other now-forgotten psychics. (One winner, Woman’s Day magazine, has increased circulation substantially since getting the award.)

In February 1986, national president Mark Plummer declared that the next convention would see state branch committees meeting with the 'national committee' and being allowed voting rights in determining policy and priorities, including the National Secretariat. This occurred some months later with the NSW president Barry Williams and his state committee taking over the national responsibilities from the Victorians. At the same time it was decided to incorporate and, because the national secretariat was for the time being in Sydney, this was done in NSW under the Associations Incorporation Act (1984) but in the name of the national body as the "Australian Skeptics, Inc".

However, the objectives as submitted to the NSW Corporate Affairs Commission in October, 1986 were changed from the original objectives of the Australian Skeptics.

The four previous objectives were ignored and what was originally an 'addendum' stating the means by which the objectives would be pursued was elevated, in slightly amended form, to the status of aims and objectives.

Why, and by what authority, the original objectives were abandoned by the Sydney group has not been explained.

What it seems to have done is misread the CSISOP documents - CSICOP has a similar list to that below, but CSISOP clearly distinguishes it from its objectives proper by prefacing the list with the words “To carry out these objectives the Committee…”.

The logical distinction between ends and means seems to have been lost on the 1986 Sydney Skeptics, who in their application to the Corporate Affairs Commission simply state:
The aims and objects [sic] of the Association shall be:
(a) To establish a network of people in Australia who are interested in examining claims concerning psychic, paranormal and cognate phenomena (including empirically anomalous phenomena, "fringe science" and similar claims) in a systematic, careful and open-minded manner.
(b) To be a public resource and to act as a "clearing house" to make information and relevant expertise relating to such claims available to interested individuals, groups, and to the media.
(c) To encourage Australians and the Australian media to adopt a critical attitude towards such claims.
(d) To publish articles and other material examining these matters.
(e) To prepare bibliographies of material relating to the interests of the Association.
(f) To conduct meetings, seminars and conferences.
(g) To encourage research into these matters by objective and impartial inquirers.
(h) To foster links with similar organisations in Australia and overseas.

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: Introduction to "Reasons to be Skeptical"

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


The Australian Skeptics Inc, that once highly respected group fostered in 1980 by Dick Smith, Phillip Adams and Richard Carleton to exchange fisticuffs with the irrational believers in UFOs, water divining, creationism, misinformation, and a spectrum of paranormal claims, has recently found itself in the somewhat unsavoury position of seeing its credibility questioned and a number of its subscribers disenchanted.

Long-time secretary and chief investigator, Harry Edwards, was recently dismissed on allegations of corruption, which were eventually found to be legally unfounded. Edwards was undoubtedly a loyal, dedicated and enthusiastic skeptic. During his 15 years tenure he wrote over 200 articles for the Skeptic and other free thought journals, authored 5 books promoting the aims of Australian Skeptics and lectured on 5 continents. Well connected in the print and electronic media, he did more to promote Australian Skeptics than the rest of his committee combined. He averaged four major investigations each year compared with his successor's one in eighteen months. His modus operandi being mirrored in many TV presentations. In addition to being elected a life member of AS Inc in 1990 he was made a life member of the Indian Skeptics in 1994. Edwards will be hard to replace. His last contribution was the selection of Sydney as the venue for the recent World Skeptics Congress (Nov.9-12, 2000), a direct result of his initiating dialogue with their like-minded US counterpart, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

The Edwards fiasco in which Australian Skeptics abandoned their credo of seeking the evidence follows closely on the heels of disgraced founding Skeptics national president and legal advisor Mark Plummer, a solicitor, who was fined $1000, and placed on a 14-month community-based order, after pleading guilty in the Melbourne Magistrates Court on October 27, 1997 to charges of theft and prohibited use of a listening device to record private bedroom conversations of a former flatmate and her boyfriend.

In sentencing, the magistrate, Mr. Julian Fitz-Gerald, said Plummer’s offence was “a gross invasion of privacy”. He said it was clear he needed psychiatric help.

Earlier in 1995, a leading member of the Western Australian Skeptics committee resigned after charges of child molestation.


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: About Adam Joseph

[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]


REASONS TO BE SKEPTICAL: Inside Australian Skeptics Inc.

Adam Joseph, 2000

Adam Joseph is a multimedia producer, research writer and broadcaster. He is a former committee member, Victorian president and spokesperson of Australian Skeptics Inc. In 1995 he walked out as Victorian President of the group.

The following article is based on Australian Skeptics minutes meetings and internal committee correspondence, documents obtained from the NSW Office of Fair Trading and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, articles in the Australian Skeptic journal, information from radio interview archives and interviews with present and past members.


[Prev]Table of Contents[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: Forum preamble

Table of Contents[Next]


Barry Williams now belongs to this group and responds to mail. What a turnaround!! That means Needham doesn't have to be the go-between any longer. Sorry about that Joe. And may I commend you on your language this time round. You do recall the filth that streamed out of your keyboard before don't you? Had some therapy recommended by Carlson or the others? Good boy.

In Barry Williams post, (at the end of this) he mentioned I walked out of the Australian Skeptics because I wanted his job. Most people around that time were very aware that I believed in a good rotation of committee people and so on. So that's lie number one.

He also said I put out a multi-page screed to the media and others. True.

And this had no effect, eliciting only "Who is this idiot?"

Given that what I released to the media was a background briefing on the Australian Skeptics and most things people should know, it most certainly did the trick. The media rarely goes near the Skeptics these days. And that was the purpose of the exercise. Simply, they are seen as having little credibility left. Years back, a fortnight would not go by when some publicity involving skeptics would surface. On the rare occasion close to Christmas they would put Santa look-alike Barry Williams on for a minute to say one shouldn't believe in psychics. Wow! I somehow think people got that message years back.

I see he is now denying he related information in his biography to the Rationalists International claiming 'an engineering background', which to my mind suggests he could be an engineer. I believe that to be another unthruth.

So why should I even bother mentioning any of this on this particular forum?

Because it promotes itself as a sceptical forum that's why. And if people like Williams turn up,or are mentioned, then you have a right to know that even some Skeptics groups around the world have very odd and somewhat dishonest people involved. I have merely exposed people within the Australian Skeptics who have lost the whole group credibility galore.

There was the case of Harry Edwards a couple of years back. Stalwart and secretary with the Australian Skeptics for 17 years. He had a falling out with Barry Williams and suddenly found himself thrown out on allegations of so-called corruption. When the trumped-up matter came to court, it was thrown out. Williams and a couple of his cronies then threatened to go to the supreme court. People within the freethought movement in Australia are still waiting.

Anyone who dared ask for evidence of Harry Edwards guilt,including state committees, were told and shown nothing. May be Williams would like to post the 'evidence' on this forum. 'Evidence' that is supportable of course, not Williams renowned bullshit.

So for those who need more on the trials and tribs of the somewhat discredited Australian Skeptics, what Australian skeptics regard as a small but definitive history really, 'cept Williams of course, the continue reading below.


Table of Contents[Next]

Index to Reasons to be Skeptical: Inside Australian Skeptics Inc

This is the Table of Contents for Adam Josephs article posted in 2002 in the Skeptics-Forum and reformatted in this blog.

  1. Forum preamble
  2. About Adam Joseph
  3. Introduction to "Reasons to be Skeptical"
  4. IN THE BEGINNING
  5. SUCCESS LEADS TO PROBLEMS
  6. JOURNAL CRITICISED
  7. MONEY – THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL?
  8. CREATIVE ACCOUNTING
  9. SUBSCRIBERS ARE NOT MEMBERS
  10. PRESIDENT BECOMES FULL-TIME PAID EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  11. INTERSTATE ANGER
  12. FROM CRITICISM TO COMPLIANCE
  13. QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL POLICY
  14. LIFE MEMBER EXPELLED
  15. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
  16. Appendix: Dr Steve Roberts list of questions.
  17. Barry Williams response e-mail
  18. Joe Needham response to Adam Joseph in Forum comments

2002 post in 'skeptics-forum'

Adam Joseph posted a well research, factual article about "The Australian Skeptics" in 2002.

The original piece was written in 1999-2000 and is around 6,500 words.
He added another 1,500 words in the forum post.

Barry Williams, the long term Editor of "The Skeptic" and paid Executive Officer of the (NSW) Association, responded in an email quoted in the forum with an unpleasant attack that fails to address any of the serious questions raised, nor points to any forum those questions had been addressed.

I understand that threats to sue for Defamation were made against Mr Joseph at the time the piece was written, possibly even after the 2002 forum post.

That these threats were not followed through with in the last 10 years suggests that they never will be. We can only guess whether the original threats were empty or why they were never completed.

I'm reposting Mr Josephs' piece for three reasons:

  • to provide a second copy on the Internet to better preserve it,
  • to update the formatting, not content, to be more readable in this format, and
  • to provide a base or reference for writing up my own research on the topic.
Why have I committed time and money to this effort?

Because I was doing "due diligence" research on an organisation I might join - which might make me a perfect candidate as a 'Sceptic' (I prefer the English/Australian spelling, not the American affectation).

I became deeply concerned as I continued my research, enough to pay for Association records in an attempt to source "the facts" and arrive at an unbiased version of 'the truth'.

What has struck me in forcefully in this research, is the degree that self-proclaimed "Skeptics" resort to "ad hominem" attacks - that is intemperate, abusive language, such as you'd never find in published Academic papers. The lack of respect shown to "targets" or dissenters, the ridicule and opprobrium heaped on 'others' as a matter of course, seems outrageous and completely unprofessional to me.

Many times I think these streams of bile and vitriol, published on-line and generally accessible, cross well into libel.

But when you read the collected editorials, comments and articles of the gatekeeper and maintainer of the culture and mores, long-term Editor of "The Skeptic" (~76 issues, or 19 years), Barry Williams, you understand both where this style originated and why it was widely modelled.