This is a follow up to the information I posted yesterday regarding previous employee of Revelation TV, Sarah Acott, and her concerns about alleged dishonesty and deception at Revelation TV:
Below is the reply Sarah Acott received from Peter Darg, Trustee of the Revelation Foundation, after sending the Trustees her two part Building the Foundations Report (transcript on the previous post).
From: PETER DARG xxxxxxxxxx
To: Sarah Acott xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012, 21:11
Subject: Revelation TV
Your timely comments about Building the Foundation were very useful in clarifying to the trustees the issues you raised.
We are aware that you could mis-understand the perception raised in some of the fund-raising telecasts from your familiarity with the ministry workings.
Whereas in the minds of the trustees the current arrangements are clear and proper, we do need to express these appeals in a way that doesn't lead to any appearance of misleading viewers.
In short, the channel was started in a sacrificial way by Howard and Lesley by risking their own private assets to finance the work. As the license holders, they had every right to develop the station and sell airtime to various ministries (a common practice by nearly all the Christian channels worldwide). Their vision for the ministry was, however, not to just create another 'pay to pray' channel, but to provide relevant programmes of interest to meet the spiritual needs of a UK audience.
Thus, the idea of the Foundation developed as a way to fund these broadcasts and we have become holders of the license.
At present, out of the 168 hours a week that Revelation is on the air, Howard and Lesley have been granted a mere 20 hours a week for 'paid programming'. Out of this income they are able to pay salaries for their children to work at the channel and to cover all their own costs of living. Indeed, they take no salary from the Foundation in spite of the many hours they put in to the Foundation's broadcast activities. They have also funded major equipment and operating expenses out of their own pockets.
The Foundation is responsible for 148 hours a week of TV and that is why we ask for public support. It is our only source of income to make possible all the live programmes, specials and unique shows that make Revelation so appreciated by viewers. This arrangement is fully compliant with Charity Commission regulations.
All the complications of closing Cocks Crescent facility and moving to Spain have preoccupied staff and trustees for months. Your concerns are well noted and we working now to make the fund-raising programmes quite clear to viewers that the Foundation activities are transparent and what the needs are and how expenses are managed, as we have done all along.
I trust this will give you better insights into the channel.
From: Sarah Acott xxxxxxxxxx
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, 13 April 2015, 15:38
Subject: A Serious Matter
I'm writing in relation to a Facebook post (in November 2014) that I was alerted to by my father. The post is very clearly written about myself and a copy is attached.
In it, there are many false statements and false accusations. The first thing I want to address is your assumption that I have gone to the charity commission. I can tell you I haven't had contact with them and neither has my father.
In relation to the letter from your solicitor regarding a million dollar donation not happening due to my report sent to Peter Darg, I do find it strange that you feel you can blame that on me. I contacted Peter with my report and did so as he is a trustee and has a legal responsibility to investigate these things. If Peter felt the need to disclose the details of my report to 3rd parties I do not see how I can be responsible. It was intended for Trustee’s eyes only, at least initially unless they felt to pursue it further.
Further more, let me take this opportunity to clarify that the report was not written by my father, but he did tell me to hold back a bit so if anything he influenced it in your favour and I do have records to prove this if need be.
Your account of the early days of the channel is very misleading. There were 2 members of paid staff, Vince (who did music) and Steve (the electrician). My younger brother and I were being reimbursed train fare only, as we were travelling in from Essex daily. Things were on this basis for approx 6 months and then a further 4-5 months earning a wage that because I was having to pay for travel from Essex and having to be in most days often for short hours to do scheduling barely gave me enough to buy a sandwich at the end of a day! I burnt through all my savings during this time (around £2k). It also should be noted that I gave up paid full time employment to work for you as a volunteer because I believed in the vision and knew that my skills in TV would be invaluable to you.
The work I did for Revelation was mainly to run the live shows as I was at the time the only experienced all rounder who could run them. In the early days, I also worked in the office, but your accusations of sending money back to viewers I do not understand. Any money sent back to viewers was not my idea. I was 17 at the time and whilst I did eventually end up managing the office as well as the studio, I know that I was only following instruction from the then office manager – John Campbell and Producer - Sarah Tun. This was not malicious on their part either, just a misunderstanding.
This happened in the first weeks of starting the station and was not a decision that I had anything to do with, as I was mainly studio based from day 2 of the station. You have indicated that I took it upon myself to just do this without instruction – I did not. I was as surprised as you were when I was told this was the way we were treating viewer donations, especially knowing you had mortgaged your house, but at 17, didn't challenge a direct instruction from the office manager and producer. If you remember after you fired all the office staff, it was only you, me, my brother and Brian. At this point, Lesley came on board and took over the office.
You are also clearly confused regarding events as you have accused me of saying things that I had never thought, let alone said! I knew you had mortgaged your home and I knew the strain you had put yourselves under financially more than most, as my parents have done similar themselves when buying TV equipment and it was this empathy that led me to help you.
You have me confused with an older woman, who's name I believe was Elizabeth, but we are going back a long way now. The dispute in the office which led to you firing all the office staff was something to do with a comment she had made and some concerns she had.
After receiving an email from you that you had sent to all the staff, I called you straight away and clarified that the comment she had made was not made in a horrible way and that the whole office including myself had come to your defence. I can't remember exactly what she had said, but I do recall a questioning of your mental state and if the pressure was too much for you. We all agreed that there was a lot on your shoulders, but everyone else present including myself and I believe, Sarah Tun and John Campbell, told her that her concerns were not warranted. When I spoke to you, I do recall that you told me that she had been a troublemaker generally and that she had been saying things along the lines of what you are accusing me of. I think you have confused her with me and I don't appreciate it as I gave you a year of my life and loyal support.
After your firing all the office staff, I actually came to your home in Surbiton and trained Lesley on the admin systems etc. If your assertions were true, I would have been fired with all of the office staff, but I continued to work with RTV until that December. I also trained both Luke and Joel in the studio.
Now to my report... It’s very interesting that you have decided to edit and omit all the relevant parts that substantiate what I was saying. Things such as…
In light of Howard’s email to email@example.com, it is now confirmed that all money from airtime sales etc goes to 21st Century TV and that this money goes to Howard and Lesley. There have been many programmes which suggest that Howard and Lesley do not take a wage from the station and I guess to some extent that could be true as they might take it as a dividend, but this is deceptive.
The report also doesn’t hold weight without the transcript, which demonstrates a number of things including that an image of transparency is constantly thrown at viewers. Transparency doesn’t mean just what you want people to see. I will forward my original email to Peter Darg so that everyone can be on the same page.
I wrote the report because for years you had been saying publicly that you didn't take any money from not only the charity, but also the station. People talk of how amazing it is that you don’t take a wage because you said it all the time. If you actually read my transcript between Gordon and Doug, you will see that there was a clear non disclosure. Howard, until the time you sent the email to firstname.lastname@example.org there was no honesty about 21st Century and where you get your money to survive from. It had always been said “through other means”. This is grossly misleading as are the BTF shows which should be said to be exclusively showing the charity arms finances are often explicitly said to be the channels entire finances.
Where did your quote come from that I had said “the Condors are raking it in”? I don't think you have actually read my report properly as I was very explicit that I actually had no problem with you even earning millions from the channel. Also I was clear I had no intentions to take this info public, but I did make clear that all the information I had was in the public domain already and that people like Gordon's blog were so close, but it would only be a matter of time before they connect the dots. All the ministries who buy airtime must be confused as to why they pay 21st Century and why the revenue from sales is not revealed.
My father, brother and myself have served you well. Part of being faithful is also being honest and direct when things are not ok. That's all I was doing with my report and it turns out that everything factual that was written in it is actually true. Peter Darg also confirmed the facts for me in his response, which I will also include in a forward.
In terms of your motives, I can only speculate, but there has been so much talk of transparency and yet one of the largest sources of income had not been declared until recently. This is not transparency and is now subject to a charity commission investigation as a result. My words were direct, but said with love and concern, not malice as you imply.
Can you please tell me what you disagree with factually regarding my report? If I have made a mistake I am happy to apologise, but as far as I know all actual facts relating to finances are now admitted to publically i.e. the existence of 21st Century TV Ltd, when before there was clear denial of money going from the station in any way to yourselves. This was my main concern and has still not been fully addressed.
You have said some very strong words about the Charity Commission and their agenda. Do you really not see a problem with telling donors only part of the picture, yet constantly talking about transparency?
Surely, the Charity Commission have explained to you why they are investigating and what they are unhappy with?
Personally, I can see where this is not just an issue because you are a charity, but generally a problem with misrepresentation. This might also be an issue for Advertising Standards and Ofcom. Do you see where the issue is here? No one minds you making money, but making money secretly and then creating an artificial need for the charity arm of the station is surely something that needs to be looked at? Do you not understand peoples concerns?
Legally, I don’t think it’s a problem for a charity to give it’s profit making side to a limited company, housing associations seem to work on this basis as do other organisations. It’s purely regarding transparency. Do you really believe that you have been transparent?
At the end of the day Howard, I don't really like having to write this email when I am currently working 90hour working weeks. You have all my contact details on the report... you could have called me if you had that much of a problem with me. I also don't understand why you were privy to my report as it was for the trustees, which you are not one of. I'm sure this is some sort of breach and I will now be contacting the charity commission for their advice on this matter.
I hope you can now see that you have falsely accused me and I expect a full retraction and public apology from yourself as I and my father are well known in the Christian media industry and will not stand for my reputation (and my fathers) to be tarnished in this way. Your untrue accusations could prevent me and my father from getting work in the future, which is grossly unfair. My report was sent to Peter Darg as it is his duty as a trustee to address such legitimate concerns.
I will wait 14 days for a response from yourself and the trustees before taking further action regarding the false accusations, but I intend to contact the Charity Commission sooner regarding breach of confidentiality, making false statements and editing out the main points my report for propaganda purposes.
Howard Conder's Facebook post that Sarah Acott refers to above is no longer available to view online. As Sarah rightly says, the second part of her report, i.e. the essential transcript of the conversation between Gordon Pettie and Doug Harris which proves non-disclosure is deceptively omitted. See below:
December 4 at 1:46am ·
"Now the post I have been putting together that hopefully will enlighten you:
The beginnings of Revelation TV:
I would like to give you a brief outline of how we arrived to where we are today.
I, Howard Conder, am the founder of Revelation TV and a director/shareholder of a company called 21st Century Television Ltd who along with my wife, Lesley Conder, somehow managed to start up Revelation TV (RevTV) against all the odds. To many folk, including our Pastor Chris D. from our Church in Esher, Surrey thought we were mad and this endeavor would fail.
It was our bank manager at the time who said it would work because of our determination.
With my wife's permission, we remortgaged our home at 45 King Charles road where we had fostered over a hundred children over 13 years. We took a huge risk in putting our home on the line to start Revelation TV and the only way we could raise enough finances to launch RevTV was to remortgage our only asset, our family home.
Knowing that we had only 125k to play with we had to be very focused and run a tight ship in order to make it to the launch day (Feb 14th 2003) and even then, once we started to broadcast on the Sky platform, we had a very small amount of time to make an impact before we would run out of money. When I look back, I was absolutely crazy. We had only enough money to last just a few weeks and sure enough we had been broadcasting about four weeks and I realised we were not going to make beyond the end of March 2003. Therefore, I gave notice to those who were providing studio and office facilities that I would have to quit as I didn’t want to leave bad debts.
What happened next was truly amazing…. To cut a long story short, for the whole story is already has been written in the book Gordon Pettie wrote; ‘Hey Howie’, and that is our service providers decided to keep us going for three months.
Anyway, we had a few folk which we paid for their help in those early start up days and some folk kindly volunteered their time, whom we believed at that time, shared the vision we had and that was to have a Christian Channel that would have a more British approach to broadcasting the Gospel message. Not screaming and shouting at the audience and continually begging for money.
I clearly recall that some of those who were helping to run the office were sending back money back to viewers. Viewers, who were sending in funds in order to keep the channel going. These were unsolicited funds as we were prohibited by Ofcom to ask for funds on air and besides, to be frank, I didn't expect money to come in to save Revelation TV from going off the air as I had already spoken to my wife about the fact that we would now face loosing our home as the mortgage we had managed to have by that time was a huge sum somewhere in the region of £500, 000. So both Lesley and I were mentally prepared to lose our family home. We had done our utmost to start the channel and the rest was up to God if He wanted it to continue, then it was now up to Him.
To my utter amazement, funds from the viewers have started to come in big time and in large amounts. I recall cheques for sums as large as £1,000 to £5,000 were coming in daily but as I said earlier, a certain folk in the office were sending the money back to the viewers and when I asked what on earth were they doing? One person replied, well your coming off the air so I am sending the money back to the viewers. Please bear with me as I think you see how relevant this matter is because I believe this very same person is one of the instigators of bringing a complaint about us to the Charity Commission.
To continue with what this person said to me about returning money back to the viewers, which was maybe a misunderstanding on her behalf of what really was happening in that the money was to help RevTV stay on the air, it’s what she said next that really showed me her true colours. .. she said 'I don’t believe you put any money into starting this channel' .... I soon discovered that this person had also convinced others in the office that her actions were appropriate. This clearly under minded my integrity and authority to run this channel so I asked those in the office to leave immediately. This they did and I went home and explained the situation to my wife and asked her to get involved by running the office from home. Lesley had no skills in using a computer so I quickly showed her what to do and that was when she jumped into action to help us deal with the office work. I recall asking my son Joel to help me although he was studying at Kingston College at the time. Joel had to drop his education and come and help me at the studio plus I asked my other son Luke to help as well even though at that time he had no media skills whatsoever.
Due to the sheer volume of work we now faced, having lost a big part of the team, we decided we could no longer foster so we notified Social Services that we would be stopping fostering. This was a big sacrifice for my wife for she was a dedicated foster carer, she adored the children and was so good with working with the parents with the aim to restore the children back to living with their birth parents, where it was deemed possible by Social Services. Lesley became such an accomplished carer for it was the requests of many of the social workers to try and first place the children with us rather than other foster carers and having received many accolades from the Foster management team for our dedication, we were well satisfied and really enjoyed the roll of foster carers. We had no desire to ever cease from this most rewarding work. Lesley and I over 13 years fostered around 130 children. Quite often we were over numbers as it was referred to where we had at one time eight foster children plus our own four children (total 12) . It was Lesley’s life and her love but now been forced to help me with the running of the channel, she didn’t have much of a choice as we now faced loosing our home due to the fact the money we borrowed to start the channel was secured by a charge on our home.
So why is this all relevant to the Charity Commission investigation?
Anyway, I believe a certain Sarah nee J. is one of the dissenting accusatory voices that has either directly or indirectly approached the Charity Commission, for it came to my attention what she had written to one of our trustees a year or two ago, making accusations yet again about me and my family saying that the Conders were making fortunes out of the channel. I also believe that she is in cahoots with Chris F. who again I believe to be another complainant to the Charity Commission. ... also a certain Sheila P. who has been like all these others I that I have named, falsely accusing us of gross misconduct, misappropriation of money, deception etc etc.. .. I can go into this more at length if needed but what I am trying to say is that some folk have taken it upon themselves to falsely accuse us of wrong doing not just in this one complaint to the Charity Commission but have been doing so for many years now and I believe they seem to have convinced the Charity Commission enough by making similar accusations or assumptions about our behavior. I welcome the Charity Commission investigation, for I trust they will discover there is no substance to these claims of wrongdoing. However, I am beginning to doubt that the Charity Commission can be impartial for me thinks they have ulterior motives, like they want to close us down for we teach that we were created rather than believing the lie that life began by and through evolution. Plus we speak out about abortion and that life in the womb is precious and should not be killed. Definitely not PC, as is our biblical stance on same sex relationships being an abomination to God. This is without mentioning our stance with that the Jewish People have every right to the land known as Israel.
Sadly these accusers have come from Christians as I would have expected it from the Gay community for they have accused us of Haters of homosexuals ... if you were interested you might be more enlightened in this matter as I have had so much hate mail from the Gays but the bottom line is that they too cant wait for RevTV to be closed down. ... but somehow i don’t think that they have not brought such allegations ,maybe just one , namely Robert P. or his partner (cant recall his name right now but they sign themselves off at the end of their emails to us as ‘Proud Sodomite’ and ‘Spawn of Satan’)
I have a huge number of emails from this couple, which I have kept in order to prove what they said about us even after having replied to them and reassured them that neither myself nor others in the RevTV team do NOT hate them. All our efforts to engage with them have been to no avail but we did try hard.
We even had Peter Tatchell as a guest on one of our live programmes recently. A most delightful gentle man and I am sure if you were to speak to Peter he would bear out that we were most respectful and very hospitable towards him ....
I should even have expected that maybe a Muslim may have brought a complaint against us but I don't think they would even be a part of this Charity Commission investigation as they are more decent than these so called Christians are who are behind this conspiracy to bring us to our knees.
I can only put it down to jealousy and them not sharing our biblical views on doctrinal issues.
Worth mentioning here which may come as a great surprise to many, is that we don't hate Muslims which has so often been expressed about us in social media and in the news papers for it were true how come we employ a practicing Muslim and have done for some years ???
I believe that these folk accusing us and complaining about us seem to be also annoyed that my family, the Conders, are making a fortune or at least are making a living. How terrible is that to make a living these days ??? We are not making a fortune as you will discover.
And as you will soon find out that they don't even earn a lot of money. And just for the record, my wife and I have received an average income over the last twelve years an average of £40k per annum. Hardly a fortune. And especially if you calculate that we are on call seven days a week with an average of 12 hours a day, (Mon-Fri) …. hardly even a fair income. A cleaner earns more than us when you apply hour for hour worked.
All the Conders have worked very long hours as in deed have Gordon and Lorna Pettie so my point is that I have had enough of people making false assumptions and writing blogs or writing to news papers etc with their theories and assumptions that we are making huge sums of money and now with the Charity Commission making announcements that basically make us out to be charlatans, I now have asked the trustees to give me back RTV. .. What I initially wanted to do was to give RevTV to the Revelation Foundation charity thinking this was the right and fair thing to do as the viewers are now supporting the channel to such a greater level than ever so we could take off the air many of the paid ministries which we would rather not have had on our channel but for financial reasons we had little other choice at the time. This was the time before we were receiving adequate support from the viewers. I always wanted RevTV to be a TV broadcaster that would be more culturally sensitive to the British mind set.
Having said; I don't want to live off of viewer’s money, as my pride wouldn't let me. I wanted to work for my living as an independent person therefore an agreement was eventually made for me to hand over RevTV to the Revelation Foundation, and for this to become a reality, the process of handing over the companies and shares of those companies linked to the running of RevTV including Revelation TV Europe SL , began years ago.
The process has been a nightmare, especially here in Spain where the red tape is even greater than the UK where everything has to be notarized with all parties having to be present at the time of notarizing documents. Because the trustees were living outside of Spain, as far away as Canada, it was so difficult to coordinate. This is why the process is still ongoing. Even yesterday Lesley had to go to a notary in the UK to get a step closer to make this hand over complete. It seems never ending!!! So frustrating.
However, enough of that for the moment, now to the point. I have written to the trustees to ask for the return of RevTV come back to the Conders. What was meant to be a goodwill gesture has become the biggest nightmare of my life. Its been so hurtful to hear false accusations and cruel murmurings against us. It has made me cry, angry and thinking that I should just give up and live a normal life, or by God's grace and favour, somehow just start all over again.
It's a sad day to be in a position of having built up an organisation. Which for the first time has been adequately supported by its audience our lovely Church Without Walls viewers. Unlike the BBC WHERE we the viewers are forced to pay the license fee (to the tune of 3.2 Billion a year) whether we like the BBC or not we are forced to pay.... such compulsory funding from folk like us goes to produce filth. We also have to put up with the constant use of four letter words, expletives and other immoral ungodly programmes, which we can't or won't watch yet we are forced to fund them through the license fee. Whereas, our viewers willingly offer financial SUPPORT every month to operate RevTV. A very different situation to that of the BBC and now the Charity Commission says we are spending too much on broadcasting just beggars belief.
In recent weeks, it was in the news that the BBC spent 10 million on redundancy payments to some staff members only to re engage them again. Outrageous! Also the BBC is self-regulating and somehow it has become acceptable to both the BBC and the modern day producers and management team to broadcast programmes which contain foul language whereas others have to comply with Ofcom regulations. It’s a joke.
Another item worth mentioning is for the first time we have made an appeal to raise funds to purchase premises where we would RevTV would have their own studio and offices. That looks like that will also be jeopardized. This also must have got right up the noses of our dissenters as each day we made it known to our viewers just how much was coming in to achieve the objective of building a studio. IS IT ANY WONDER THE TIMING OF THESE COMPLAINTS ARE MADE NOW ? ..
Anyway, that aside, I am a fighter for justice and fairness and I don’t mind starting again if I have to.
We have always sort to conduct ourselves with integrity. .. many times I have been given money which folk had said this is for you Howard and every time I have given it to the Revelation charity. One such gift as we call them was €20,000, I felt it that the Charity needed it more than myself so I gave the cheque to Gordon to put in the charity. My son Luke said I was mad as he said you could have bought yourself a car for that dad.
I also made a contribution, a gift to the Revelation Foundation charity of £350,00 in one lump sum. ...my accountants said I should consider only making a much smaller contribution to the charity and put the majority into a pension fund as I didn't have a pension fund. I was determined to not take that advice so decided to gift it all to the Revelation Foundation charity.
This has not been the last gift we as the Conders have made to the Revelation Foundation, so it begs the question. Why would we be doing this if we didn’t believe in the VISION ?????
Being accused by Sarah nee J. where she wrote: ‘the Conders raking it in' as some say we are doing.. Simple maths would show that we as the Conders have put in to the Revelation Foundation far more than has ever come back to us by either wages or benefits from the Revelation Foundation and or 21st Century Television Ltd.
Now with regards to our family working and getting paid by the Revelation Foundation: Hearing what I am heard last week has again really upset me that I have requested to the trustees that I don't want members of my family being paid by the Revelation Foundation and that as soon as possible Lesley and I will pay them.. Call it pride.
Also when there has been a need like television equipment to be replaced or bought which is essential to the running of the channel, and knowing that the Revelation Foundation has not sufficient funds to buy it... We, the Conders buy it . We did so last year when all our cameras needed to be purchased and not wanting to burden our viewers with this expense. . (Ironically, we do have the legal right to ask the viewers for financial support but I felt that many of our viewers would support such a request but knowing this would mean it could cause some great hardship I refused to go down this route of appealing to them to fund these cameras as the total was approaching half a million) so as 21st Century Television Ltd had the funds to make these purchases, therefore we bought them and please note that we the Conders did not ask nor expect to be reimbursed for this half a million pound or so expenditure but some months later, Gordon Pettie thought it was right for the Revelation Foundation to reimburse 21st Century and subsequently an arrangement to make monthly payments was arranged with the help of their accountants in what was a proper and legal method and above board.
All this has been greatly misunderstood by our enemies and sadly from what I am hearing so has the Charity Commission with thanks to Sarah nee J’s false reckonings where Sarah nee J. wrote to the trustees of the Revelation Foundation circa October 2012:
'Dear Peter and Trustees
I originally wrote this report to you in February, but was asked not to send it at the time (by her father) due to the then climate that existed at Revelation. There are a few things I do not agree with regarding the way that the channel operates, however today I just want to focus on finances.
Peter, (a trustee) I don’t know if you would remember me. I was the then 17 year old girl who used to run the live shows during the first year of the channel?
I have knowledge of the inner workings of the channel, as I didn’t just do the live shows, but also training others, scheduling and working in the office before it was moved to Surbiton. During this time I learnt about the finances, airtime sales etc so have put my own knowledge together with that available on the internet and come to the following conclusions. The conclusions below were written back in February before Howard’s email to ????? (the team )now look as being correct. I have not edited this much further so a lot of this is now possibly old news, so please bear with it.
The issue I wish to raise is that donors to the channel are being misled in the way that funds are raised and presented on the Building the Foundation programme. The programme leads the viewer to believe that the finances reported on the pie charts are a representation of the entire channels financial operation. This is not true and could be accused of being fraudulent. I am only bringing this to you because I believe that this is something that you as the legal overseers should be aware of.
It became obvious to me when I watched one of the first Building the Foundation programmes years ago. The income stated leaves out one of the largest income streams into the channel – airtime and advertising sales. Having worked in the office during the set up of the channel I know about the 21st Century television account and believe that the money from this huge source of income is going straight into this account. From what I can gather from the charities commission website 21st Century Television makes donations to the Revelation Foundation. The donation total for 2009 was £350,000 I believe. I have a problem with this as by my maths this is nowhere near the total that is received in airtime and advertising. Using very conservative figures I come to the below sums.
Airtime at £350 per 30 min slot x 4 paying ministries = £1400 per day x 365 = £511,000 per year
Advertising at £15 per spot x 12 = £180 per day x 365 = £65,700
As you can see from this very conservative estimate there is around £200,000, which is going into this account. Howard and Gordon have always said “come and look at our books” I’m sure they would be happy for someone who hasn’t a clue how a station is run to come and look, but I believe this over confidence is a bluff.
I do not know what is happening to the money that goes into 21st Century, but as Trustees I hope you do. The reason I am bringing this up is the dishonesty and deception. When I tell people I used to work for the station they often comment about the transparency of the finances and how wonderful it is to see exactly where the money goes. The problem is they are not seeing where all the money goes and if people found out what sort of a response should we expect from the poor old ladies at home who give “the widow’s mite” in good faith that the money is needed and that there is transparency. How would Jesus respond?
My own suspicion is that 21st Century tops up the Revelation Foundation at the amount it needs. If I am correct then how wrong is it to convince people of a need, which isn’t real? This is fraud and those who are aware of this deception need to repent. I am aware that for some of you however, that this would be unknown.
There needs to be either a clear distinction for viewers between 21st Century Television and the Revelation Foundation or preferably all money to flow through the Revelation Foundation as this would give the clarity and transparency that the viewers expect. Also I cannot see the charities commission looking favourably on the current reporting of finances.
Considering that in the initial mission statement of the channel was a very clear statement of not asking for funds on air – things have not only gone very far from the vision, but also veered into an area of possible criminality.
Please see my other document BTF Report, which is a transcript of the last Building the Foundation programme (February 2012).
I would like to make it clear that the last thing I want is for this information to go into the public domain. I have sat on this for years and feel I should have confronted earlier, but feel that with the current Trustees there is an opportunity for things to be put right.
I pray you will have the strength and courage to do what is needed.
Howard’s email said that he didn’t feel comfortable taking from “the widows mite”, which sounds very sacrificial when said in that way, however by taking the entirety of the stations earned (as opposed to donated) money they have created a deficit which the “widows mite” then has to fill. Personally I cannot see this as a good argument and whilst I don’t wish to be cynical, I believe this is done in this way so that the viewers cannot see how much money is being taken by Howard and Lesley.
I realise that is a heavy accusation, however I do accounts for a charity myself and can’t see this any other way. I have no problem with Howard and Lesley taking even millions every year as that is their choice. However it is not being fair or honest with the viewers and those who do give the “widows mite”.
I would never go public with this information, as I spent 6 months as a volunteer and a further 6 months on a wage that covered my train fare and not much more. So for me to see something that I invested so much of myself into be brought down by either the charity commission or a police investigation would be a personal loss. However after Howard’s email I’d be very surprised if no one else did as it’s not difficult to connect the dots.
You are welcome to contact me with any questions or queries sarahacott@ ?????'
END OF QUOTE FROM Sarah nee J.
Wow…. What an audacious, ignorant and even libelous set of accusations Sara nee J. has made. I am totally shocked at her false assumptions.
I am sure when all is revealed that it will prove that Sarah is totally out of order.
For as I said earlier, my wife and I have received an average income over the last twelve years an average of £40k per annum each. Which is no where near the amounts Sarah nee J. has assumed we have made. And this past year both Lesley and myself donated 25k each to the Revelation Foundation alone without mentioning other charities we have given to this past year.
Meanwhile, while these scurrilous accusations continue to be made, my faith is in God to provide and He has shown me all through my walk of faith that he has been faithful to His promises and that's where I want to return to so we can get on with the job of ministering to our lovely Church Without Walls congregation. All this is just a big distraction.
God have mercy on you all who have brought these false charges for you know only too well what you do.
I haven't taken legal advice or sought any approval for what I am writing to you today, therefore I guess I am at risk of being misunderstood or being misquoted but I want you to know what is on my heart and if you don't or can't read that then so be it.
Ironically, most of our viewers have been amazing since the Charity Commission’s press release and the viewers have rallied to the challenges we now have. Many have increased their financial support and some have for the first time given to the Revelation Foundation charity. One such gift was a staggering fifteen thousand pounds. PTL.
I even heard when i was in the office where one person called in to offer us encouragement saying he was not a Christian but wanted Revelation TV to continue and wished us well and to continue doing a good job.
So what I believe was meant to harm us has only turned out to be for our good. We are blessed to have very discerning viewers.
Please forgive my lack of grammar as I'm not well educated and I'm not going to spend the time checking the spelling etc as I have a lot to do so I apologise for any mistakes.
I apologise for not pulling any punches with you for as you will sense, I am very upset. Try and put yourself in my position or the position you have put the trustees in and especially Gordon and Lorna Pettie.
There is much more to share and I am happy to be very open about these matters as I feel it’s not me that they are personally attacking or accusing but the work or ministry we have in reaching people who need to hear the full gospel of Jesus Christ.
May God be my judge and deal ever so severely with me if there is anything I have done wrong, for I would not want any soul to stumble and not enter the Kingdom of God on account of me. I would rather throw myself in the sea.
I don’t like any of this, but Lord, let your will be done in Jesus name. Amen !
Yours most sincerely,
What stands out to me about Howard Conder's rather rambling self congratulatory
Facebook post above is that he has betrayed the gospel of Jesus Christ for impure motives (2 Corinthians 2:17; 1Thessalonians 2:3). Conder writes that he
wishes to "....take off the
air many of the paid ministries which we would rather not have had on
our channel but for financial reasons we had little other choice at the
time." This tells me that he has a conflict between building up his TV station and proclaiming the "full Gospel of Jesus Christ" - the true gospel that is (1 Corinthians 9:16)!
It is quite clear which is more important to him and I believe this is a major reason
why he is experiencing problems. RTV continue air out
and out deceivers like Jesse Duplantis, Sid Roth, Joyce Meyer and Seventh Day
Adventists to name but a few - and for no other reason than money!!!
one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the
other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You
cannot serve God and money. (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13)
"..... I would not want any soul to stumble and not enter the Kingdom
of God on account of me. I would rather throw myself in the sea." Is Howard Conder causing any "little ones" who believe in Jesus Christ to stumble by airing false teachers and deceivers (Matthew 18:6)?
"One of these little ones. Whether child or adult, a pure, simple soul, which has a certain faith it be not strong enough to resist all attack." http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-6.htm
Please read below further communications between Sarah Acott, Gordon Pettie and Alan Tun:
From: Alan Tun <email@example.com>
To: 'Sarah Acott' xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015, 17:16
Subject: RE: A Serious Matter
I am coming to London for the next trustee meeting on Wednesday 20th May. I can meet you in London on Thursday 21st in the morning if you´re free. I know you said you are normally at work during the week, but rather than not tell you I was coming to London, I thought I should at least give you the information. We would reimburse your train ticket if you were to come in as we wouldn´t want you to be out of pocket.
On 5 May 2015, at 16:08, Sarah Acott xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, I won't be able to meet on a Thursday as it would mean closing my business for the day and I can't afford to lose a days trading at the moment as I'm in the process of expanding.
I'm quite disappointed that I've had no response from either Howard or the Trustees. I don't know if Howard is still trying to discredit me in order to exonerate himself, but he can't lie his way out of this one. It's gone too far and I can, if need be, get people to testify that I was at the station after the office staff were fired. I still even have contact with some people who I met at the station after the this time.
The deadline of 2 weeks lapsed over a week ago. I gave a grace period because Howard was abroad, but still I have heard nothing from either Howard of the Trustees. Whilst I appreciate our conversation Alan, this needs to come from Howard and the Trustees directly.
I will give until Friday for a proper response to my email dated 13th April. I took the time away from my hectic schedule of 90 hour working weeks to write it and I expect Howard to do the same under the circumstances. He had the time to write the offending Facebook post and many others like it, so I know he has the time to put this right personally.
As an alternative, I believe I am entitled to a right of reply and am happy to talk to Howard live on TV via phone and if he truly believes he is in the right then he will be happy to debate me publicly.
If this doesn't happen I will take this public and make sure that everyone knows what Howard has been doing to cover his tracks. I'm sorry Alan, but this is very serious and I do need Howard and the Trustees to personally acknowledge this.
I have contacted the charity commission already as I felt it was the right thing to do, but am holding off going public until Friday to give Howard and the trustees one last chance.
From: Gordon Pettie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Sarah Acott xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015, 11:21
Subject: Re: A Serious Matter
Thank you for your email of the 5th May. I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairmen of the Revelation Foundation. I confirm receipt of your email of the 13th April.
I note that you say you have been in touch with the Charity Commission since your email of the 13th April. Presumably the Charity Commission are now aware of the points you wrote to us as a Charity about. In view of this fact I consider that we are best waiting to see how they wish to proceed.
However there are a number of general points that I am willing to make at this time concerning your email of the 13th April.
Your letter of the 13th April is addressed to Howard, with the trustees copied in to it. As you are aware Howard is not a trustee of the Revelation Foundation and has not been for many years.
As a Trust we were not involved in the day to day running of the TV station during the period when you were involved. Therefore we have no comment to make on the points you raise concerning your work at that time.
The Facebook page that you refer to in your email/letter is a personal one that Howard is responsible for and as a Charity we have no involvement with it. When we were made aware of the posting that you refer to, we advised Howard to take it down, and my understanding is that it was removed. I am not aware that any copies of that posting are still on the web.
You are correct in saying that you stated in writing when you sent your original report to Peter Darg that it was your intention that it was for ‘trustees eyes only’. However in view of the serious allegations that you made in it, we felt it necessary to investigate the matter further and to do that we needed to make the report available to Howard to read so that he could answer points in it concerning himself and the Conder family. The Charity Commission already have copies of the minutes of Trustees meetings so they are aware of that investigation.
We take your concerns seriously but in view of the involvement by you of the Charity Commission, i really believe that we have to wait their decision on how to proceed with your complaint.
With kind regards
From: Sarah Acott xxxxxxxxxx
Date: 08/05/2015 10:25 (GMT+00:00)
To: Gordon Pettie <email@example.com>, Howard <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Alan Tun <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: A Serious Matter
Thank you for your email, but unfortunately it seems you are too concerned with distancing yourself from this situation that you cannot even show genuine sympathy or realise the implications of my taking this situation public.
Gordon, to be frank, you are the person whom Howard has credited for the set up of the charity and also therefore, the fundraising tactics in question. In many respects, I actually hold you more accountable for the lack of transparency, as Howard would have to some extent just been going with your guidance.
I would appreciate a copy of the minutes relating to my report from 2012 that you say the charity commission have. I feel you at least owe me that.
I can see that you are not willing to comment, so on that basis, perhaps we will have to wait on the charity commission. However, if no one changes my mind the general public can also decide. I have everything prepared and ready to send and I feel to warn you that Howard's editing of a report for propaganda is likely to trend very quickly.
Gordon, I'd much rather work with the charity than pull it down. It's not beyond redemption, but right now I don't think there's any reason to salvage it as the rot is coming from the top (and that's not just Howard).
I'm gutted that only Alan, who is no longer a trustee, was willing to actually try to deal with this situation. I wanted an opportunity to salvage the channel, but without repentance, this is not possible and under these circumstances, God can't help you either.
Howard and you the trustees have until midday to give me a reason why Revelation it worth saving and a willingness to deal with the rot.
From: Gordon Pettie <email@example.com>
To: Sarah Acott xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, 8 May 2015, 11:23
Subject: Re: A Serious Matter
I cannot operate with a gun to my head. You have no idea what is going on in our lives and to say you give me and the trustees less than two hours to reply to your email is not a situation I can work within.
Alan has been trying for to arrange to meet you on our behalf. My understanding is he is still trying to make that happen. He has a free hand on our behalf to do that.
You suggest that I am trying to distant myself from your accusations and not showing repentance. Quite frankly I take exception to some of your comments.
'Rot at the top' - Presumably you are referring to me.
'God cannot help you' - I am willing to trust my Lord.
I leave you to decide what you do. That is not my decision.
From: Sarah Acott xxxxxxxxxx
To: Gordon Pettie
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; Howard <email@example.com>;
Alan Tun <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com"
Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, 8 May 2015, 11:52
Subject: Re: A Serious Matter
have had weeks to respond and haven't. As Trustees you have the ability
and duty to take disciplinary action with Howard regarding his lies and
editing of my report. You haven't even given me an apology for the
situation, with which you are involved by association even if you didn't
personally write the article.
The gun to your head, is the one
you put there and I don't want to pull the trigger, but will if needed.
I've asked you for a reason not to pull the trigger and instead you give
me the opposite. A little humility and repentance goes a long way.
have just had a conversation with Alan Tun. He has informed me that
Howard refuses to read my emails. The reason he won't is because he
knows he has lied and reading the truth will make it real.
has always been a bit unpredictable, but to do what he has done and be
allowed not to face the truth is madness. That is what you trustees are
here to do. You are supposed to hold people accountable and you have all
Howard can't bury his head in the sand forever and you
are not protecting him or Revelation by allowing him to continue like
this. If Howard cannot face me, how will he face the genera public when
he is exposed?
Sarah Acott has now published these things in her own words: https://godvschristianity.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/why-i-think-revelation-tv-is-being-investigated-by-the-charity-commission/
Gordon Pettie And The Barlow Clowes Fraud: http://bewareofthewolves.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/more-revelations-about-revelation-tv.html