And just about
smear campaign pressing
How could they see many of our readers, has long been a widespread campaign smear against CharityWatch.de. In recent weeks the situation has deteriorated so much that not only attack the employees of CharityWatch.de now even editors of major journals and the press law are publicly slandered with lies (which damage both from the standpoint of both the professional reputation) because mention or recommend Charitywatch.de. Now Stefan Loipfinger, editore di CharityWatch.de, ha presentato denuncia per diffamazione e calunnia. La Procura sta indagando.
Primavera 2010: Tutto è iniziato circa un anno fa con una mail circolare diffusa con cui Charitywatch.de venne diffamata ed offesa a livelli incredibili. Tra le altre cose v’era anche una minaccia: se Charitywatch.de non avesse subito smesso con il proprio lavoro, ci sarebbero state delle conseguenze. Persino la Procura e gli investigatori della Polizia criminale sono sconvolti sul contenuto perverso. A tutt’oggi non è ancora stato individuato chi ha scritto questa mail. Le indagini sono ancora in corso.
AFI (Animal Friends International). Sulla Homepage di “sage-die-Wahrheit.de” (di la verità) Harry Lermer, il responsabile del contenuto e redattore della pagina diffonde supposti intrallazzi di CharityWatch.de . Ivi si afferma che Stefan Loipfinger si finanzia per via di minacce e ricatti. Queste affermazioni, e tante altre, non corrispondono a verità. Le relazioni negative non sono mai basate solo ed esclusivamente dalla negazione di informazioni. L’attività di CharityWatch.de non si finanzia di supporti economici di associazioni protezionistiche. L’abbonamento proposto è indicato per i lettori i quali in futuro vogliono mandare aiuti sensati. Gli introiti subscriptions are not enough right now - and surely will remain so in the future - to cover living expenses. For false statements reported on sage-die-Wahrheit.de was forwarded the complaint to the prosecutor. Moreover, in the imprint, Harry Lermer says he does not represent more interest groups and that for years is no longer active no association (ndt animal). The fact is however who with his wife, Erika Lermer and other people you can trust in 2008 founded the International Association Animal Friend, who owns the website sage-die-Wahrheit.de! The president is Martina Klein and is registered at the home of the domain registry DENIC as the administrative manager of the defamatory website! Martina Klein is also on the board of the association. Bund detuscher Tierfreunde . The animal much disputed, Sigurd Tenbieg is also guiding him in the two groups mentioned. Erika Lermer collects with its advertising agency "DDM Dialog Direkt Marketing, largely shares of members of the assoc. Bund deutscher Tierfreunde should instead be used for animal protection. The company previously called DDM Publicity and HL did not include only the initials of Harry Lermer, but was also its own.
- Staff . A few weeks ago appeared a certain ; eine Inga Pahl and Richard Schulz. Both seem to exist only in the form of an email address and a virtual (eg on Facebook). They have created some forums and defame not only CharityWatche.de but also editors of major magazines and print legal renowned.
- If a journalist is on the side of the reports Charitywatch.de he / she is put in a bad light with defamatory statements by their directors. This pressure has to serve them so that in future the media do not mention more neutral research carried out by CharityWatch.de. Thousands of defamatory emails back to the website of Lermer, Pahl, Schulz and Folk Niebelschuetz. Niebelschuetz was on the board of Arche 2000 Tierhilfe aktiv and V in Hamburg .. Today he runs the Charity Association fuer Tiere and V, which has a ban on fundraising in the Rhine-Palatinate. The DDA which unfortunately is only responsible for the Rhine-Palatinate has "no doubt that the deals gathered may be used as provided in the statute "Unfortunately, in other regions / Land of the German Federal Republic is not offered the use of the Guardia di Finanza controllato.Solo check if at least half of the funds collected is used for its intended purpose in the statute associations. Unfortunately, the job of PR is often considered as "corresponding to the state" and the beholder, it is also part of the advertising. But who makes offerings certainly prefer to end up in the hands of those who need it, rather than into the pockets of advertising agencies.
Sfruttare l’occasione per giustificare le proprie mancanze. Poichè nel frattempo ci sono oltre 120 organizzazioni nell’elenco delle strutture non consigliate, CharityWatch.de ha molti nemici. Alcuni tramite la campagna diffamatoria trovano delle scusanti per la valutazione negativa avuta, mentre altri trovano le scuse per nascondere le loro magagne. Solidarizzano con i diffamatori perché i soldi dei loro soci ed offerenti vengono mandati sempre di più ad associazioni più serie. CharityWatch.de deve essere screditata direttamente, per evitare che la gente si rivolga piuttosto ad organizzazioni trasparenti e serie.
Lodi. Chi si loda si imbroda. Tuttavia troviamo a questo punto, giustificato e necessario indicare almeno alcune delle tante valutazioni positive di altri – quasi come contropeso alle innumerevoli accuse. Il giornale Sueddeutsche Zeitung ha lodato nel febbraio 2010 il lavoro di CharityWatch.de, editore Stefan Loipfinger, dedicandogli più di mezza pagina di giornale. Un paio di settimane dopo è seguito un articolo sul Financial Times Detuschland di un’intera pagina. La FAZ am Sonntag, Boerse Online, Private Wealth, Netecco, la Apotheken-Umschau e persino Finanztest e Test della Stiftung Warentest (Fondazione Test prodotti) hanno consigliato ai lettori di leggere CharityWatch.de. La Polizia di Schleswig-Holstein consiglia, in una circolare riguardante la lotta alle persone poco series which raise funds, read the site CharityWatch.de. Repeat interviews on public law that are transmitted on radio and TV. No one has ever received a Euro - as is the allegedly defamatory. At this point the team CharityWatch.de apologizes to all those who have been sued by defamatory. Conversely, it is also an evidence of credibility CharityWatch.de. Who has a clear conscience does not need this kind of campaign - definitely too expensive - - to generate interest.
CW-rating. Tens of thousands (!) Of mails, hundreds of comments in various forums and web pages created just make insecure not only the readers of CharityWatch. But the fight against the misuse of the offers is important. Citizens must be able to get an idea of \u200b\u200btheir organizations providing aid. This can be done only through viewing the budgets on public facts then. If the defamatory question the right to ask questions about the use of the funds collected is in stark contrast to the transparency that should ensure a 'serious organization. In fact, already here and those who defame associations ciriticate you delimit the serious part of the sector. More people read CharityWatch.de greater the chance that the money will be made where there's really something good.
ORIGINAL
02/04/2011 by Stefan Loipfinger
In-house
had massive smear campaign
determine how many of our readers, runs against CharityWatch.de long been a smear campaign. In recent weeks the situation has now worsened to such an extent that not only employees of CharityWatch.de are affected. Also well-known magazine editors and public-service media and professional reputation are harmful lies verbreitet, nur weil sie CharityWatch.de zitierten oder empfohlen. Jetzt hat Stefan Loipfinger, Herausgeber von CharityWatch.de, Anzeige wegen Verleumdung und übler Nachrede erstattet. Die Staatsanwaltschaft ist dabei, den Fall zu prüfen.
Frühjahr 2010. Es begann mit einer großflächig verbreiteten e-Mail vor etwa einem Jahr, in der das Team von CharityWatch.de auf unterstem Niveau verleumdet und beleidigt wurde. Zudem war eine Drohung enthalten, dass es Konsequenzen gäbe, sollte CharityWatch.de seine Arbeit nicht sofort einstellen. Selbst die Kriminalbeamten und die Staatsanwaltschaft zeigten sich über den perversen Inhalt entsetzt. Bisher konnte der Urheber der e-Mail nicht ermittelt be. Investigations are still under way.
AFI. On the home page say-die-Wahrheit.de published Harry Lerman, who is responsible for the content and editorial, alleged machinations of CharityWatch.de. Logically, it is claimed, Stefan Loipfinger finance through threats and blackmail. This corresponds to how much, not the truth. Negative reports not only based on information denial. Was financed and the operation of CharityWatch.de in any case by the financial support from aid agencies. The offered subscription addressed to interested readers who sense their donations in the future want to use. The revenue from the subscriptions ranging from not present - and that is also safe for the foreseeable future - to cover the costs.
say the false claims on-the-Wahrheit.de were brought to the prosecutor to the police. In other Harry Lerman said in the imprint to represent club interests no more and no association for years for everything to be working. The fact is, together with his wife Erika Lerma and others would do well trusted people in 2008, he founded the Society Animal Friends International, owners of the domain say-die-Wahrheit.de is! The CEO Martin Klein as administrative contact at the site of slander central registry DENIC registered. Martina Klein also found as board chairman at the Federation of German animal lovers. The controversial animal rights Sigurd Tenbieg is also in both the Executive Committee. Erika Lerma collected with the advertising agency DDM Dialogue Direct Marketing "significant portions of the dues to the League of German animal lovers should actually be used for animal welfare. The DDM was formerly known as HL advertising agency and not only bore the initials of Harry Lerman, it belonged to him.
supporters. appeared a few weeks ago, Inga Pahle and Richard Schulz. Both appear only in the form of a web.de-mail address and other virtual manifestations (Facebook) to exist. They founded their own forums and to slander not only CharityWatch.de, but also editors of renowned magazines and public service media. Will a journalist a journalist reporting the positive CharityWatch.de not think about you, they put it on the boss with false allegations in a bad light. This pressure should result in neutral media access will no longer search from CharityWatch.de back. Thousands of defamatory messages refer to the websites of Lerma, Pahle, Schulz and Folko Niebelschütz. Niebelschütz was CEO at Ark 2000 animal aid active eV in Hamburg. Today he heads the association for Charity Pets eV, which is covered in Rhineland-Palatinate with a collection ban. The ADD Supervisory and Service Directorate, responsible, unfortunately only in Rhineland-Palatinate, has "doubts as to the statutory use of donations." In other states, the use of donations is unfortunately not tested accordingly. Only the tax offices examine whether more than half of the PPI for statutory purposes. Unfortunately, the separation between public relations, usually as "statutory" registered and advertising depends on the eye of the beholder. The donor, however, will see his money is safe rather be in the hands of the needy directly, than in the pockets of an advertising agency.
freeloaders. Since are now available to more than 120 organizations on the warning list for not recommended facilities, there are many opponents of CharityWatch.de. Some see the slanders good excuses for their poor evaluation or use them to hide their shortcomings. They express solidarity with the detractors, because the money their members and donors, is now turning more serious clubs for good and not for its dubious uses available. CharityWatch.de to be discredited in order to hinder the introduction to transparent and honest organizations.
Praise. self-praise is vanity. Nevertheless, it seems justified and necessary, at least on some of the many other positive assessments to point - so to speak, as a counterweight to the numerous allegations. The Süddeutsche Zeitung praised in February 2010, the work of CharityWatch.de Editor Stefan Loipfinger on half a page. A few weeks later a report was followed in the Financial Times Germany on a full page. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Sunday, Exchange Online, Private Wealth, Netecco, the pharmacy look around and even financial test and the test of Stiftung Warentest recommended donors to read CharityWatch.de. The police in Schleswig Holstein recommends CharityWatch.de in a circular letter to the fight against rogue fundraiser. And always carry public service broadcasters through radio and television interviews. No one ever got even a single euro - as claimed by its detractors. For the inconvenience to the charity would watch team to take this opportunity to apologize to all those who were denounced by detractors. On the other hand, this is also a testament to the credibility of CharityWatch.de. For those who have a clear conscience, must no such - by campaigning to be heard - certainly costly.
CW opinion. tens of thousands (!) Mails, hundreds of forum entries, and several specially created web pages not only confuse the readers of charity watch. But the fight against abuse of donations is important. The population must be formed to aid organizations own opinion. The only way is through insight into the financial numbers, ie on published facts. Are the detractors, the privilege of questions on the use of donations ie denied, then that is in stark contradiction to the statements of transparency any serious organization. Even by itself limits the slanderers and the associations criticized by reputable part of the sector. The more people read CharityWatch.de, the more money will arrive where it really good cause!
