Customize

Judicial Review for London rates relief

Discussion in 'Scientology Property Tax' started by Anonymous, Oct 7, 2010.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief


    Letter to the DCLG, dated 12 August 2009

    Letter from the DCLG, dated 8 September 2009

    Letter to the DCLG, dated 25 May 2010

    Letter from the DCLG, dated 10 August 2010

    http://forums.whyweprotest.net/329-.../fois-dox-released-so-far-rates-relief-72322/
  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Looking at the letters to and from DCLG



    Letter to the DCLG, dated 12 August 2009

    Letter from the DCLG dated 17 August 2009 MISSING

    Letter from the DCLG, dated 8 September 2009

    then big gap

    Letter to the DCLG, dated 25 May 2010

    Letter from the DCLG, dated 10 August 2010
  3. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    What makes you think there is a missing response from 17 August 2009?
  4. Anonymous Member

  5. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Read letter dated 8 Sept 2009
  6. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Yes. Legally, it is likely wrong since Dreyfus, but HMG were asked by CoL about this and that was their response so CoL can not go against it now in this particular case.
  7. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    You do all realise that if you go the judicial review path and WIN then the judge just quashes their decision and they have to make it all over again and they JUST MIGHT come to the same decision? So we wouldn't do this just for the Craic, would we? Or through pure bloody mindedness..... would we?

    What was it they accused WT of....... was it of being vexacious? Did I remember that right?
  8. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Vexatious.

    It's just part of the FOIA. Relax and play the game.

    - WT.
  9. Bluebell Member

  10. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    ...
  11. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation v. CIR effectively changed the interpretation of all UK legislation such that when you see "charity" in any government legislation then from 1956 onwards it then meant "a charity that is subject to the High Court" - i.e. a charity "established" in the UK (again by "established" it meant subject to the High Court) - i.e. an England and Wales charity. Always. And if any government legislation after 1956 was referring to possible foreign charities as well then it would have to EXPLICITLY SAY SO in the legislation otherwise it meant a UK controlled charity.

    HMG saying that mandatory rates relief is also open to fereign charities is a load of bollocks unless it is an established charity in another EU member state when higher laws might apply.
  12. Anonymous Member

  13. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    concur. confused. shit amounts to:

    - bunch of chasing/holding replies, then

    - 'it depends on public benefit'

    no?

    - WT.
  14. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Any normal person would assume that is what is meant by the following:

    "any decision on whether a non UK charity is a charity for rating purposes must be made on the basis of whether the body in question is established for charitable purposes"

    ....but the trouble comes with the definition of "established for charitable purposes". In the Dreyfus case they defined what "established" meant and they defined it as being under the control of the High Court so a non UK charity, if it is not under the control of the High Court, is not a charity by definition.

    From the Dreyfus case:

    Jenkins LJ "I have already expressed the view that 'trust' in an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament means a trust taking effect and enforceable under the law of the United Kingdom. It follows that, in my opinion, a 'trust established for charitable purposes only', must here mean a trust taking effect and enforceable under the law of the United Kingdom and creating an obligation enforceable in the courts of the United Kingdom to apply its funds for the purposes which are, according to the law of the United Kingdom, exclusively charitable. I can attribute no different meaning to the phrase 'established for charitable purposes only' when applied to a body of persons. So applied, I think it is only satisfied by a body of persons which is under the law of the United Kingdom subject to an obligation enforceable in our courts to apply its funds for purposes which are according to that law exclusively charitable. Accordingly, I would hold that the foundation is not 'established for charitable purposes only' within the meaning of section 37(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1918."
  15. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Not sure the best place for this but it is true that the Charity Commission (England and Wales) still do not accept that Scientology is a religion and this in spite of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Scientology gets a mention in a few places.
    http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/guidance/lawrel1208.pdf

    In the above document I see:
    2.16 Section.2 (5) of the Charities Act 2006 has the specific effect of preserving the common law meaning of religion subject to the clarification in s.2 (3(a)).

    In the Charities Act 2006 Section.2 (5) that it is referring to it says:
    (5) Where any of the terms used in any of paragraphs (a) to (l) of subsection (2), or in subsection (3), has a particular meaning under charity law, the term is to be taken as having the same meaning where it appears in that provision.

    I have trouble translating the second into the first. Can anyone help? I'm having trouble understanding "where it appears in that provision".
  16. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Regarding the CoL being taken to the European Court over religious discrimination should they reimpose mandatory rates relief at 146 QVS then there is not much case law in England and Wales to go on this but there is PLENTY of case law in Canada which is very instructive.

    http://www.icnl.org/knowledge/ijnl/vol3iss1/ar_KBromley.pdf

    Edit: The above essay is awesome. Well worth reading.
  17. BigBeard Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Not being up on how things work in the UK, is there any way to get all this info into an MP's hands and letting him/her start demanding some answers from CoL in Parliment?? Considering the state of the budget, you'd think they'd be interested.

    BigBeard
  18. DeathHamster Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Thanks! Snagged in case of another run at the Toronto org.
  19. Anonymoosh Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    have passed this thread on to some interested parties, asking for some 'advice' on this issue, will let you know the feedback.
  20. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Bump cos this needs acting on ASAP



  21. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    WT where are you?
  22. Anonxmous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    We have about six weeks to get this together to the point of an initial filing if we want to pull it off. Some of us have started a project to try and make this happen. I firmly believe we can do it, and we can win, with enough folk (not that many) DEDICATED and INVOLVED over the next month to pull it together. If you have not received a PM from me, and you are interested, and have time to commit, and are prepared to put some real effort in, please PM me. For obvious reasons, I'm gonna want to verify your posting history or something to make sure you're not OSAOSAOSA before providing a access and a link to the site.

    We need researchers, document preparers/collators, folk to reach out to loldon legal types, organisers, etc. We're not aiming for a huge group; just enough people to give it a chance of success - and enough enthusiasm so that together we believe we can do it. If you want to join, you'll need to provide a reliable email address (anon is fine).

    The filing deadline is 27th December
    - so SRSBZNS is SRS!
  23. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    I just sent this as a response from an email I got from the LGO (Local Government Ombudsman)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear LGO,

    since you haven't got back to me yet then I thought I would forward you some minimum documentation (though not requested) that makes it clear that the CoLCorp and the CoW erred in granting mandatory rates relief these churches of Scientology.

    1) At no point in time did either council enquire as to the nature of the activities performed on the premises, any costs charged and if so their prices (and perhaps their sales policy). Any normal person would have done this in the sense of asking "what goes on there and are you selling anything?".

    If they had done that then they would know that the premises are mainly used for the training and auditing of its members (see the description of the activities of Division 4 from their own web site):
    Scientology Churches Structure - Divisions 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Seven-Division Org Board

    ...and that they have a price list for this that you can see from a scan shown on the following link:
    Operation Clambake present: Prices up to OT8 and beyond

    ...and that they even have a policy of hard-selling these things as stated in the Hard Sell Pack they publish:
    http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/puddle-leaks-49134/14/#post983355

    2) Neither of these two local authorities have obviously thoroughly read the decision of the Charity Commission to not grant charitable relief to the Church of Scientology in the UK and their detailed reasons which fully goes into the legal aspects. They should both have studied and respected this decision but seemed to not be familiar with it:
    http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/start/cosfulldoc.pdf

    3) There is a lack of evidence that they have considered the balance of good vs. harm that this cult does since there is no evidence that they have sought any negative viewpoints. Any normal person would have done a Google search on this and found a lot of very negative things which would lead them to conclude that this cult was not of public benefit.

    4) Eric Pickles MP on 15 October 2010 released a statement to the Guardian to urge local authorities not to give rates relief to this organisation that the public consider controversial and asked them to respect the decision of the Charity Commission in this regard and all local authorotoes have ignored this which is beyond comprehension.
    Government urges councils to stop giving tax breaks to Scientology | World news | The Guardian

    5) Both local authorities, if they had stopped to think for a moment, would have emailed Mid Sussex District Council to ask if they had ever applied for rates relief for their headquarters in East Grinstead and they would have been informed that they applied in 1999 and were turned down because they were not a registered charity. Therefore they would have asked about and probably made the same decision not to grant rates relief and not be afraid of counter legislation.
    Scientology rates relief for St. Hill Manor and grounds - WhatDoTheyKnow

    If you need any further documentation from me or wish to discuss with me in a phone call then please ask me. But I hope the above is enough as it should be enough for any normal person to see that the decision they made to grant charitable rates relief could not be justified if they had followed any reasonable procedures that any normal person would have followed.

    Roland Rashleigh-Berry
  24. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    I forwarded it to Communities and Local Government
    --------------------------
    To contactus@communities.gov.uk
    From: Roland Rashleigh-Berry (rolandberry@hotmail.com)
    Sent: 24 November 2010 09:53:42
    To: contactus@communities.gov.uk


    Dear Sirs,

    On 15 October 2010 Eric Pickles MP, in the Guardian newspaper, urged local authorities not to give rates relief to churches of Scientology. And yet they still do and nothing was sent them using the usual government feeds from the Communities and Local Government web site. A few of us have complained to both local authorities and their district auditors but still they will not remove this rates relief. We have had final refusals from the City of London Corporation and the City of Westminster about this matter so I have now brought this to the attention of the Local Government Ombudsman. However, in the absence of clear direction from central government, I am not expecting any results from this.

    Is central government willing to act to back up the statement of Eric Pickles MP by giving clear directions to local government or was this statement just a publicity stunt?

    Roland Rashleigh-Berry

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins