Customize

London Rates Relief Based Talk

Discussion in 'Scientology Property Tax' started by Bluebell, Aug 31, 2010.

  1. Bluebell Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Don't think TCR has ever been on the Scis church locator website



    As for this, I call BULLSHIT, there no date on the article
  2. Bluebell Member

  3. RolandRB Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    It most definitely was. It used to be the London Church of Scientology. It is not any longer as this is now 146 QVS and this could result in 68 TCR having to pay business rates now. Might we see a change of the lettering above the door soon?
  4. Sponge Member

  5. Bluebell Member

  6. RolandRB Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Then I don't know what this upcoming court case or court appearance or court whatever is all about. I think that Camden Council hate the clams nearly as much as mid Sussex. Camden made their C/S wear a chef's hat when handing out vitamin pills for their Purif they run in the basement and they made Coco move out. They earlier complained about my bike I had chained to the railings out the back there that I had to use as part of my Purif as having one leg shorter than the other I could not do the running part of the Purif and had to cycle round instead.

    I would like to think that Camden are taking them on about business rates and the other London authorities are looking on with interest but I just don't know. We will all have to wait for another few months I guess.
  7. RolandRB Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    I haven't received Communion from the C+E in a long time but when I did they never had to wear chef's hats to do it because the local council decided that it was foodstuff. When I say mid Sussex Council and Camden Council hate the clams then I do so with some justification. Let's hope that Camden Council have got something nasty planned for the clams in this upcoming court thingy.
    -------------
    Scientology business rates relief in the UK
  8. JohnJohn Member

  9. RolandRB Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Yes, we know. But we would like more details on the court case between Camden and the Church of Scientology at 68 TCR.
  10. RolandRB Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Camden Council v the Clams at 68 TCR

    What is going on with this upcoming court date?

    I want to know.

    If you know then PM me and I promise not to pass it on. I'm good like that. Signed the Official Secrets Act and all that.
  11. Random guy Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Should you even be saying you signed the act if you did?
  12. Anonxmous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Don't "beg the question"
    "Please explain how the Scientology Celebrity Centre at 42 Leinster Gardens, is for public benefit."
  13. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Umm, did I miss something? What is basis for thinking there is upcoming court case?
  14. RolandRB Member

  15. Anonymous Member

  16. RolandRB Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    It's a slightly strange usage which seems to indicate that this will be a drawn out process and not something quick and simple like they had not paid their business rates and a date had been set for a hearing at a magistrates court as part of the process described below.

    Business Rates recovery action

    .....but I suppose it could be drawn out. What do other people make of it?
  17. RolandRB Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    If it IS just a magistrate's court for recovery of unpaid business rates then how come Camden are refusing to give information and say it is sub judice? It surely would not be for a magistrates court with just the magistrate making a decision in a straight forward case like this.

    Wondering......
  18. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Some CoL FOI Internal Review's need chasing up plz you guys.
  19. Anonymous Member

  20. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    'kin a.

    - W "well informed" T
  21. RolandRB Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Fucking Hell!

    How did that turn up? :eek:)
  22. Bluebell Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    The KING of FOIer's WT of course.

    Also, thought you'd be 'wetting' yourself there Roland LULZ
  23. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    It's a very interesting document.

    In that it sets out their current reasoning, and in that they do seem to plan to release further information re past FOIA requests, I'm not sure how much further FOIA can take us. I think maybe they've released everything interesting now.

    The strongest counter-argument (that I can think of) for the view put forward in that document - that they shouldn't risk litigation - is that the likelihood of the applicant sueing them is not a legitimate consideration when deciding whether to grant mandatory relief.

    And that point won't work on FOIA.

    As far as I can see it, we'd need to be heading for either:

    complaint to the auditors (we should definitely do this anyway)

    or

    judicial review

    - WT
  24. AnotherSock Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Minutes to a meeting dated September 27th... on the even of Anon Day in other words.

    I appreciate that "members are requested to decide..." and we don't know the outcome of their decision yet, but... wow. I don't think this will end well for the cult.

    Well done W.T., Roland and certain other Anons who shall remain nameless (of course).
  25. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    thanks BB. ;)

    Yes, Roland gets his own mention in the minutes.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    We do. They decided to keep the mandatory relief.
  27. AnonLover Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    sorry if this is stupid lazy faggot question, but i noticed the bottom of this document mentions this:

    ^^is that something we've already seen?
  28. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    good point. we don't have that.

    the current document summarises their reasoning though, so I'm not sure it's worth the bother of getting it.
  29. Bluebell Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    where do the say that?
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Employing Carter Ruck in a failed attempt to spike a BBC documentary: £1m+

    Getting to OT8 and learning it's nothing but "you mocked up your own past lives": $350,000 each

    Losing your cult's tax exemption in City of London: £304,226.45 per year

    Knowing that the above has to be reported to David 'psychotic midget' Miscavige at 2pm on Thursday: priceless
  31. Anonymous Member

  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    They haven't lost it.

    Yet.
  33. Bluebell Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Financial implications

    15. The total cost of mandatory relief in the current financial year, including the City premium and the supplement for Crossrail is £304,226.45, the vast majority of which, £288,674.45, is borne nationally through the NNDR pool. Of the remainder, £2,592.00 is the City premium and £12,960 is the Crossrail supplement.


    WWP - Rates Valuation Info

    WOW pretty damn close with my calulations
  34. AnonLover Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    i beg to differ... quoting their claims verbatim from that doc could be useful. Plus, stories & claims change as times change. so historical proof of what they stated then vs. what they state now could be valuable.
  35. Sponge Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    One thing stands out, and it is the same thing that was always suspected ever since rates relief was granted by CoL. That is the fear of the costs of litigation. The report makes no bones about that. A bit OTT in my view. They speak in terms of "recovering costs" without regard to what is right in law. Like they don't care that although they may believe it is not a charity that has any public benefit, they are willing to finance it and let the public think, through this local authority endorsement, that it is a charity.

    In someways you can hardly blame them for being concerned about costs with the threat of public spending cuts especially when even the central government is reluctant to debate the issue and provide more solid information (including Charities Commission who didn't seem to clarify things with respect to the 2006 charities act, which is surprising). They clearly need more help because they almost admit to being totally unqualified to make these difficult and contentious decisions.

    What I can't understand is why a local authority should even have to worry about the definition of charity in terms of public benefit when a decision was made on the cult, by a government appointed body, The Charites Commission, in 1999 that still stands today. IMO any litigation should be aimed at the body who formed that decision (the Charites Comission) and not a Local Authority who is merely following that advice (or should)
    What is the point of having Charity Comission rulings if a local authority empowered to grant relief based on charity and public benefit can't even rely on that same directly relavent information?
  36. Bluebell Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Re-reading ^^^ Sponge sums it up really


    That to me basicaly says fu Charity Commission, we're scared that CoS will sue us if we stop the rates relief.
  37. AnotherSock Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Hmm...

    I don't read this so much as a refusal to end the COSREC tax avoidance scandal, but as an appear for central government to resolve matters, or at least to back them up with regard to the cost of litigation.

    This doesn't say "never." It just says "not alone." In a sense, we're stronger than ever before because we have fresh, accurate information about CoL's decisions... and none of it comes out in support of the cult.

    Also, we might still find that Sen. Xenophon severs Scientology's tax lifeline at the Australian end.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    good point.

    so apply for it:

    WhatDoTheyKnow - make and browse Freedom of Information (FOI) requests
  39. Anonymous Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Absolutely right.

    As far as I can see, the decision to grant (and maintain) charitable relief is based on the cult's notorious litigiousness, and its financial resources.

    So for the moment, the cult's usual tactics have been working.

    As far as I can see though, this does make CoL vulnerable to judicial review because:

    1)

    The criteria in the Local Government Finance Act, about whether or not mandatory relief should be granted, have nothing to do with the likelihood that the applicant might take the local authority to court.

    They also have nothing to do with the deep pockets of the applicant.

    CoL have said that this is a matter of the administration of justice: justice should be the same for all applicants.

    It is wrong for CoL to be making this decision based on the fact that Scientology is rich and likes to sue.

    2)

    Even if (1) is incorrect, CoL have made a mistake in calculating the risk/reward ratio of going ahead and taking away the mandatory relief.

    That's because they've only considered one year's mandatory relief (£300k).

    They should be considering all the past, present and future mandatory relief relating to this site.

    That comes to many millions of pounds (depending on how many years you use for the calculation) - so the potential legal costs become insignificant.




    Roland, if I write a 'letter before claim' making the above points, would you put your name to it and send it in? (since you're already namefagged)

    A 'letter before claim'
    Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review - Ministry of Justice
    is the first step in the judicial review process - but it doesn't commit you to suing them or hiring a lawyer or paying their costs or anything.



    Anons please add any futher grounds for judicial review which you think might apply (outside of the ones above and the ones in Roland's document).




    - WT
  40. AnotherSock Member

    Re: London Rates Relief Based Talk

    Xenu, disconnection and assorted Hubbard-paranoia

    Dubious benefits, certainly unrelated to any of the stated aims from the cult PR material

    There's an awful lot of harm to weigh against dubious cultist "wins"

    I'm not convinced there's any benefit, regardless

    We might debate wheelchair accessibility at QVS... or the cult's Hubbard-source policies about disabilities, both physical and mental

    ROFL, ROFL, ROFL...

    Not sure what this means. Celebrity fast-tracking? $3000 suits for Miscavige? (If he was normal size, his suits would cost at least $4000, so technically, he's a bargain... if you want a psychopath in charge.

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