For a movement that's meant to protect the interests of its people, its leadership situation looks an awful lot like a rerun.
If I remember correctly, there was another head of this movement under scrutiny for a similar issue, misuse of funds for his own purposes. I'd first read this, and I hesitated to question the woman's choice to purchase a better home for herself and her family. That was before I learned there was more than one piece of real estate in there.
While there are plenty of well-founded complaints within that community (do I have to link to the recent deaths?), food deserts is the one that I'd like to bring up for now. I've come across articles on two organizations that might address that particular issue, and a more distantly potential third (is the Euphrates in that project somewhere?). Seeing how much is spent on things such as shoes and houses makes me question what priorities this leadership really holds (yes, I am comparing it to two widely circulated situations around purses).
Going by “'If you go around calling yourself a socialist, you have to ask how much of her own personal money is going to charitable causes,'” I'm not the only one with similar questions about priorities. If there's a way to put into action what the woman's contemporary mentioned, about the need for "'black firms and black accountants'" to check on "a for-profit that is not required to disclose how much it spends or pays its executives," it might go some way to allaying any concerns of the people within the movement.
"We have seen this tactic of terror time and again, but our movement will not be silenced.” On that much, I can quite agree.
By the way, thanks for the spy flick reruns - they're a timely reminder that no matter the enjoyment I derive from them or the ideas they inspire, I don't actually have to believe in the people behind them. With all due respect to his daughter on the loss of her husband you twit is too soft a word, when's the wartime royal coming back on?