Information Tribunal Case No. EA/2011/0082 & 0083 (ICO FS50347960 and FS50361229)

teh win.

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i761/20120525%20Corrected%20decision%20EA20110082%20&%200083%20_w_.pdf

(teh losses

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i760/20120518 Decision EA20110043.pdf

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i759/20120518 Decision EA20100199.pdf
)

Awesomeness!

Best Regards

Jens

I am a bit behind in Mr. Thackerey's FOIA request. What is it we now know, and what is the document 35 which is still denied?

We don't actually know anything new yet, but the Information Tribunal has ordered the City of London to respond to

• this query about Alderman Luder and his meetings with Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc., which immediately preceded and may have caused the granting of charitable relief from business rates (i.e. 80% tax relief) to Scientology's London HQ.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alderman_ian_luder_scientology

• and this query about COSREC's representations to the City of London arguing that their application for tax relief should be kept secret.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/scientology_objections_to_releas

both of which FOIA queries the City of London had refused to respond to, deeming them to be vexatious. This judgement determines that CoL was wrong to deem them vexatious, because (para 26)

The cases which were lost related to

• the identities of individuals who, as Scientology "Volunteer Ministers", were falsely purporting to perform charitable works (while in fact being engaged in Scientology recruitment),

• and the identities of Scientology representatives redacted from information supplied by scientology to the City of London in support of Scientology's application for tax relief.

in both of which cases the Information Tribunal determined that the individual's right to privacy was more important that the public interest in the release of that particular information.

So COL-corp will now have to release the two the two documents?

Two sets of documents.

Yes, they will - or find a good reason why not. Their old reason has been struck down.

There's an obvious reason for COSRECI wanting details of their application kept secret. The main one being that they claimed they had not applied for rates relief on their headquarters previously when in fact they had and were turned down in 1999.

I've no idea what might be going on with Alderman Luder.



http://exscn.net/content/view/159/109/

The scientologists, it now emerges, secured relief of £281,344 on the full rates of £351,680 on their London base - a discount of 80 per cent.
The City of London Corporation said the group had been entitled to the huge reduction because it carried out "charitable works". A member of the corporation, Alderman Ian Luder, a partner with leading City accounting and consultancy firm Grant Thornton, spoke at the building's grand opening of the "effective" help scientology provided for drug users.

A "partner" for Grant Thornton, no less, and there appears to be a connection:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2945246/Scientology-tax-victory-could-cost-Revenue-millions.html

The case is the first of hundreds that are likely to go against HMRC and could cost the authority "hundreds of millions of pounds", said Paddy Behan, tax partner at Grant Thornton.

Thank you Roland, I knew that he spoke at the building's opening but hadn't spotted the Grant Thornton connection.

In one of his emails reporting back to CoL, Ian Luder refers to the bundle of pamphlets that he's been given by Scientology as their 'propaganda', so he's obviously not drinking the kool-aid. But it does seem as though he might have been doing a favour for one of his firm's clients.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...er-set-for-election-as-London-Lord-Mayor.html
"Ian Luder, a tax partner at Grant Thornton,"

http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/entity.php?ntt=460

Grant Thornton used to do the tax returns for Church of Spiritual Technology (a Scientology front)

They used to audit the Irish accounts as well before they recused themselves a few years back.

Nice smiling good man. He looks the OTO type to me. I think some serious digging is required.

This struck me as a bit odd:
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25616/former-lord-mayors-knighthood-dropped

Also, a bit of background:
http://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/travel-shabbat-works-me

The reason he was denied a knighthood due to supporting the idea of banker's bonuses does not wash with me. As Lord Major it was his job for that year to promote the trade of the City of London which is mostly financial services so he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. To deny him his knighthood on the basis that he was supporting banker's bonuses is therefore a nonsense. It would make more sense if it were due to something else.

Since he was an expert in tax savings then perhaps some people could dig around in that area.

You mean like Her Majesty ...

View attachment 526953995.jpg?key=620432&Expires=1338056016&am

This is the only dirt I could dig up on Luder. He seems like a regular guy to me (i.e. a cunt).

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...hthood-for-Lord-Mayor-who-backed-bankers.html

Mr Luder's private life provoked controversy when he became Lord Mayor over a bizarre feud involving a neighbour's cat.

Police were called after he and third wife Lin fell out with neighbours Tony and Debbie Pay.

The Luders were accused of locking the Pays' cat, called 'Fat Cat', in their home and rejecting pleas to stop feeding the animal. The pet later died. Mrs Luder, who works for a US law firm in the City, sought to ban the Pays from approaching her front door.

Mr Luder resigned as a Labour councillor in Bedford in 1999 after leaving his second wife Liz, a fellow Labour councillor and former mayor of Bedford, for Lin, his mistress and 13 years his junior.

Councillors voted against making him an honorary alderman of Bedford. His former wife Liz said the vote was influenced by her former husband's 'sudden desertion' of his family and 'all-too-public behaviour surrounding that event'.


Reading more then it seems he was dropped from the knighthood list for some quite ordinary reasons:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...e-and-a-furious-row-over-fat-cat-6813395.html

And to finish off:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...riving---boss-8217-s-200-000-Rolls-Royce.html

Nice little write up about this decision in Private Eye this week, entitled 'Cult Cornered'.

Is there a link to this article? I think you might have found an old article.

Anon is right, it's in this week's Private Eye.

'dogged investigation'

Can we have some clues as to what it contains?

It's a summary of the judgement linked atop this thread.

I would scan it but I don't have Private Eye in front of me right now. Or a working scanner.

The link at the top of this page no longer works, because the Information Tribunal has revised its decision to give the City of London 35 days to comply (there was previously no time limit given).

The revised decision is at this URL:
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.... Corrected decision EA20110082 & 0083 _w_.pdf

There are no changes other than the insertion of the time limit.

At least this topic is still being kept in the public radar.

It'll also be interesting to see what the actual information was that they were so reluctant to reveal.

The term "propaganda" has acquired negative connotations over time. However it can simply mean, "promotional materials" or "pamphlets" (think "promote and propagate").

If there is nothing else within the email indicating that Mr. Luder was unimpressed with the Scientology publications, I would assume he was using "propaganda" in its older, less pejorative, and more formal sense.

My impression of the tone of the email was that he was unimpressed with Scientology.

Anyway, judge for yourself:

Page 12 of this document:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/r...RECRateReliefInternalcommunications170311.pdf

It may be nothing. They just got fed up with the requests.

Which brings me to the next point. That is it is becoming clear that these scumbags have made their decision and they are sticking to it no matter what and thumbing their noses at any and all who question it. So I feel we have to bring this to its logical conclusion. If these scumbags think it is right to force us to give money to this cult so that they can brainwash people and force abortions on their slave followers and that these scumbags have considered that this is right and just..... and given we have no power to change this..... then the only thing left for us to do is to limit the impact this will have on members of the public by diverting the cults recruitment efforts right into their laps. If the children and grandchildren of these honourable council members could be recruited into the cult then the damage would be done there and the obortions performed on their own children or grandchildren. I think this is the only option left to us to limit the harm to society.

If you buy a Dianetics book, for example. you can fill in a form and send it in. I suggest that people make use of this system.

Luder outlines 3 methods for determining how the CoS London property might be taxed:

A) Change of use from "offices" to "place of worship"
B) May still qualify for mandatory relief without a favorable Charities Commission ruling
C) Discretionary relief

So Luder met with the Scientologists and now finds himself in the somewhat awkward position of having to convey their intentions to the City of London. Moreover, he's about to pass along a box of colorful pap that no one will want to read. I think anyone in his position would want to say, "Hey don't shoot me; I'm only the messenger."

I suspect "Louise" is the redacted party.

Yeah, that email does have a pretty clear arse-covering function.

one of the other (lost) cases, #43:

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...ation-that-public-bodies-should-not-disclose/

another fine clusterfuck brought to you by scientology.

I think some of the problems facing us and CoL is that there seems to be neither procedure, nor any criteria, for revoking tax reduction and/or charitable status. Perhaps a better plan of action would be to request the appropriate CoL procedure for revoking the tax relief?

They say they 'reconsider' it yearly. Or 'reevaluate' or some such.

Bearing in mind that if they don't grant it then they'll get sued to shit by Scientology (which I suspect is the threat, explicitly or implicitly) and even if they win they'll lose non-recoverable costs, versus if they do grant it then it costs them nothing (because central government funds make up the difference), I think there's zero to nothing chance of this decision changing, in the absence of external pressure or a change in circumstances.

This is great! All of William Thackeray's FOI requests paying off.

So what's the verdict on Alderman Ian Luder former Lord Mayor in regard to church of scientology criminal cult tax evasion? Gullible man or nasty bastard?

Well, it's different from ordering pizza...

Can anyone see any scientology connections here in his listed conflicts of interests declaration?
from here:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/membersManager/memberInterests.aspx?id=167
Do we have evidence of scientology connectionsthat should have been declared but haven't been?

home

A - Z

contact us

search

help

online services

my details

shopping cart

City of London > Online services

LINKS IN THIS SECTION:
View Committees
View Wards
View Chairmen
View Members
Committee meeting dates
Public committee documents
Subscribe to committee papers

Members Register of interests

REGISTER OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

Member

Name Mr Alderman Ian Luder JP BSc (Econ)
Authority City of London Corporation
MEMBERSHIP OF OR POSITION OF GENERAL CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT OF

1. Name of any:
a) body to which you are appointed or nominated by the authority;

NIL

b) body exercising functions of a public nature;

NIL

c) body directed to charitable purposes;

Company/BodyPosition held
Worshipful Company of Coopers Liveryman and Court Assistant
Royal Society of St George (CofL branch)
Northants County Cricket Club Member
The Lords Taverners Member
Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers Liveryman and Court Assistant
I have various shareholdings, which make me a member of the companies involved, but none exceed the limits set out in question 5.
Order of St John Member
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Member
Riseley Historical Society
The Youth Hostels Association Member
Freemasons Grand Charity
Bedford Historical Records Society Member
City Livery Club Member
Castle Baynard Ward Club Member
Diabetes UK Member
Guild of Arts Scholars, Dealers and Collectors Honorary Freeman
Coleman Street Ward Club Member
The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) Member
Castle Baynard Educational Foundation Trustee
Farringdon Ward Club Member
City Pickwick Club Member
National Trust for Scotland Member
The Lords Taveners
The Honourable The Irish Society Governor
Charity of Alderman Samuel Wilson Trustee
The Woodland Trust Member
Lord Mayor's Appeal Director
Beford Rugby Union Football Club Member

d) body whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party or trade union);

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
Society of Financail Advisers
Chartered Institute of Taxation
Royal Society of Arts
EMPLOYMENT

2. Employment or business carried on by you;

Company/BusinessPosition
Audit & Scrutiny Panel, The Local Government Association Independent Group Member
Arthur Andersen Private client Services (in dissolution) Partner
House of Lords- Audit Committee Independant External Member
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, Audit Committee Independent External Member
Fitness to Practice Panels, Nursing & Midwifery Council Panel Chair

3. Name of any person or body who employs or has appointed you;

Non Executive Chairman of Basildon & Thurrock University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust
Non Executive Director, Barndoc Healthcare Ltd.
REMUNERATION

4. Name of any person or body, other than the relevant authority, who has made a payment to you in respect of your election or any expenses incurred by you carrying out your duties;

None re Election Expenses
NIL
BENEFICIAL INTERESTS

5. Name of any person or body who has a place of business or land in the authority's area, and inwhom you have a beneficial interest in a class of securites of that person or body that exceeds the nominal value of £25,000 or one hundreth of the total issued share capital (whichever is the lower);

Hydro Hotel (Eastbourne) Plc
CONTRACTS

6. Description of any contract for goods, services or works made between the authority and you or a firm in which you are a partner, a company of which you are remunerated as a director or a person or body as described in (5) above.

NIL
DECLARATION OF GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY

7. Name of the person or body from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25.

Alderman Ian Luder BSc (Econ)
NB. Alderman Luder served as Lord Mayor in 2008/09 and as Sheriff in 2007/08.
In relation to the mayor or chair of an authority, Standards for England takes the view that where hospitality is extended to the office holder for the time being rather than the individual, there is no requirement under the Code of Conduct to register the hospitality and has confirmed that this principle extends to the City's ceremonial office holders (i.e.. The Lord Mayor, Sheriffs and Chief Commoner).
A Schedule of declarations of receipts of gifts can be found at Appendix A
A Schedule of declarations of receipts of hospitality can be found at Appendix B
LAND AND PROPERTY

8. Address, or description, of any land in which you have a beneficial interest in the area of the authority;

25 Andrewes House, Barbican, London EC2Y 8AX

9. Address, or description, of any land where the landlord is the authority and you are, or a firm in which you are a partner, a company of which you are remunerated as a director, or a person or body of the description specified in (5) above, is the tenant;

NIL

10. Address of any land in the authority's area in which you have a licence to occupy for 28 days or longer;

NIL

Appendix A - Schedule of Gifts Received

Gift ReceivedDonorDate Received
2 Ties The Sheriffs' Society 02/10/2007
2 Commemorative plain glass tumblers and a small decanter W.Co. of Hackney Carriage Drivers 05/10/2007
A Pair of White Leather Gloves W.Co. of Glovers 09/10/2007
Visitors Book Castle Baynard Ward Club 10/11/2007
Engraved early 20th Century Ink Well and Silver Stand Royal Society of St. George, City of London Branch 10/11/2007
Double-Sided Silver Photograph Frame The City Livery Club 10/11/2007
Engraved early 20th Century Silver Salver The Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers 10/11/2007

etc etc!
huge list continues here:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/membersManager/memberInterests.aspx?id=167

Can anyone see any scientology connections in his listed conflicts of interests declaration?
from here:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/membersManager/memberInterests.aspx?id=167
Do we have evidence of scientology connections that should have been declared but haven't been?
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/committees/member/displayMemberDetail.aspx?id=167

Christopher Brightmore, City of London Police, the Lord Mayor of London, Alderman Ian Luder, Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley, accounting and consultancy firm Grant Thornton.....................Bingo! Tax Exemption!
Naughty naughty naughty church of scientology cult