UPDATE: We received this two minutes ago, from Chris Wright of AfSL.
“Sorry to spoil the opportunity for a sensational headline, but AfSL has no intention of ‘shutting its doors’. It is true that our Big Lottery grant comes to an end on 31st January 2014 but that isn’t our only source of income. We also have several irons in the fire in terms of further funding. Rest assured that the future of the secretariat role for the Stakeholder Steering Group is secure with AfSL.”
MCFly says; Not a sensational headline. Factual and undenied in the above statement. It’s also good to see that AfSL can, when it wants, take less than a month to supply a statement. And the fact remains that Chris Wright did openly speculate at last December’s AGM that AfSL might not exist in a year’s time.
UPDATE 16th October. This.
We only have one source (bad journalism).
It’s facebook (even worse journalism!)
[Update: The facebook screengrab that illustrated this story has been removed. The general point is this though – if you don’t want people to know what you are doing, maybe DON’T POST IT FOR THE WORLD TO SEE ON FACEBOOK? Just sayin’. ]
But it seems that – as hinted as a possibility at its 2012 AGM – (see MCFly report), Action for Sustainable Living might be shutting its doors. At the very least, it is in dire financial straits, with at least one of its core staff job hunting. In response to a question about whether funding had run out, this member of staff confirmed “yep, end of January [2014]”
There is nowt about closure on AfSl’s website, so it may be that the news isn’t terminal.
We will (try to) get more information tomorrow and pass it on.
It will be interesting to see what plans there are for the secretariat function of the “Stakeholder” “Steering” “Group.”
manchester climate monthly 
Hi Mark,
Just wondered why this is considered “breaking news”?
AfSL’s funding by the Big Lottery was always limited to the end of Jan 2014, and the Green Seeds programme has been designed and delivered accordingly. At 4 years, this is one of, if not the longest stretch of funding Action for Sustainable Living has had the pleasure of receiving. There will be no unexpected “shedding of staff”, as all current staff are safely contracted until the agreed date.
AfSL has already secured some funding after this point, and is in the process of sourcing more.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Best wishes,
Erika Nagae, AfSL Communities and Schools Coordinator for South Manchester
Hi Mark,
Just wondered why this is considered “breaking news”?
AfSL’s funding by the Big Lottery was always limited to the end of Jan 2014, and the Green Seeds programme has been designed and delivered accordingly.
At 4 years, this is one of, if not the longest stretch of funding Action for Sustainable Living has had the pleasure of receiving. There will be no unexpected “shedding of staff”, as all current staff are safely contracted until the agreed date.
AfSL has already secured some funding after this point, and is in the process of sourcing more.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Best wishes,
Erika Nagae,
AfSL Communities and Schools Coordinator for South Manchester
One person posts on their own FB page that they’re looking for work because their contract is ending and you immediately jump to “The howle orginizashun muss bee clozin!!” Oh, very classy. Some top notch journalism there. Well done you. You’ve uncovered……..nothing.
Did you read the article? Did you go and read the account of the December 2012 AGM at which Chris Wright speculated on the potential demise of AfSL?
I have no way of knowing if you did. So I shan’t speculate.
You’re perfectly right, you have no way of knowing. Although, you could always trawl my FB page to find out… you could even post it to your ‘professional journalist’ blog, then we’d know for sure.
Both feet firmly in your mouth here mate. Oh dear, retraction time?
I’m not your mate. What, specifically, should I be retracting?
Your unfounded claims?
“But it seems that – as hinted as a possibility at its 2012 AGM – (see MCFly report), Action for Sustainable Living might be shutting its doors. At the very least, it is in dire financial straits, with at least one of its core staff job hunting. In response to a question about whether funding had run out, this member of staff confirmed “yep, end of January [2014]“”
1. A possibility. Confirmation requires proof: One core staff member is job hunting, not due to lack of funds, but due to a finite period of funding ending. This was always known. This is not proof.
3. If I were you, and I’d publicly posted a conversation from someone’s FB page, used it to stretch a very tenuous link to my own assumptions and then received confirmation from the poster AND the organisation in question that there was a perfectly normal and actually expected reason for the end in funding, I think I’d be very swiftly retracting my ignorant ‘article’.
While you’re at it, a public apology to the woman in question wouldn’t go amiss either.
You’re right. Why bother to even apologise when your audience comprises all of 10 people. Best of luck with the hobby.
Couldn’t agree more Joe.
Is the headline that AfSL is shedding staff because of funding shortfall inaccurate?
No.
Everything else in the article is couched in “maybes”. I emailed the founder of the organisation this morning, and within two minutes of receiving his statement posted it in full.
The facebook screengrab was posted with all identifying information redacted. It has since been removed.
People do indeed have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But reasonable does surely not extend to things they post in public on their facebook profiles. If they want to have private conversations, they can use messaging, or email.
Social media is used by “professional” journalists to gather information. You see it all the time on BBC, newspapers etc etc.
What you would do is up to you. What I do is up to me. If you have new things to bring to the table, I will respond. If you don’t, I won’t.
Oh Charlotte, you do make me laugh.
AfSL often asked me (I suspect the requests may dry up) to post adverts for upcoming events and for their “Local Project Manager” things. They weren’t so worried about my “professional journalism” status when they did that.
Show me where I claim to be a professional journalist? (Though I have been published in some journals, I don’t see I have anything to prove to you.)
Fun fact – AfSL just isn’t used to anyone questioning their wonderfulness. They are a prime example, in my opinion, of the smugosphere.
But since we’re talking about professionalism (and by the way, the money from Lush goes to pay for printing of the paper magazine and events – I have never made a penny from the countless hours of trawling websites, devising interviews etc), how professional do you think it was of Catrina Pickering, as the head honcho of AfSL to ignore two requests for information about how AfSL was going to meet its obligations as the winner of the tender for the Steering Group secretariat function, and then, after being asked a third time, provide “no comment”?
Was it
a) very professional
b) brilliantly professional
c) superlatively professional?
btw, it’s a rhetorical question.
“Is the headline that AfSL is shedding staff because of funding shortfall inaccurate?” Yes, it is. There is not a funding shortfall. The finite period of funding has finished. That’s not a shortfall, it hasn’t ended early, and it hasn’t ended unexpectedly. Yes, that is inaccurate.
It seems clear that you’re basing a lot of your claims on personal speculation and bad feeling: “Fun fact – AfSL just isn’t used to anyone questioning their wonderfulness. They are a prime example, in my opinion, of the smugosphere.” I haven’t found that at all. In fact, as a past AfSL volunteer (both office-based and at events), I found them very open to suggestion, criticism and reasonable improvement.
But, of course, you win. Congratulations on your astonishing revelation, congratulations on the respect it has earned you. I’m done.
I think this article is not just bad journalism, but bad friendliness. Needlessly breaking the trust of a friend is foolish, irresponsible and damaging. What I post on Facebook is for my friends only. I would hate to think any of them would use screengrabs to make up stories about organisations I was connected to.
Reality check: anything you post on Facebook is, as Marc says, not private by any stretch of the imagination. If you want your friends to know about something, why not tell them when you see them? Old fashioned, I know…
So in as far as these responses are about use of information from Facebook, they’re a fuss about nothing. Again as Marc says, the mainstream news uses it all the time. If I may follow Charlotte’s example and do a bad Australian accent (I *think* that’s what she was doing): Gord strewth, Bruce!
I was actually using incorrect spelling to illustrate lack of intellect, and therefore to highlight the lack of intellect that is needed to form a connection the two things in question.
I agree with akismet – what you post on your page is for your friends to see, not the world. That’s what privacy settings are for. There is a huge legal and ethical difference between something you post on a restricted page, and something you post on a public page.
Having consulted our Press Officer, it seems that if Marc took the screen grab from a page that was NOT available for the public to view – so, if he took it off a page that he had access to only because he had applied to be the person’s ‘friend’ and been accepted – that is NOT an accepted technique in journalism. It is frowned upon and considered unethical. Using your personal privileges to exploit a comment someone has made on a restricted page is not acceptable. Plus, the claim was wrong, as has been detailed above. My partner has since spoken to someone from AfSL who confirmed that the Big Lottery funding was always going to run out, and the person in question knew this and that it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not AfSL will shut down.
PS However obscure this blog may be, you guys all found it all right!
Wow, some real bitterness here. Charlotte and Joe you come across as (motivated by defensiveness) to be just plain outright offensive. I’m sure there’s more readers of this website than people who can be bothered to enter into this pettiness. I’ve got other things to do (but I’m stupid). Over and out.
Hi Charlotte,
of course, it might just be possible that the person “friended” ME, many moons ago?
Also; so much for your last word, and being “done”. I think you may have sacrificed yet more of that high moral ground that you are so sure that you are standing on.
All best wishes,
Marc Hudson