Customize

Sunderland rates relief: new info needs analysis

Discussion in 'Scientology Property Tax' started by Anonymous, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. Anonymous Member

  2. Anonymous Member

    Section Ai, page 2:

    "Q: Is it a registered charity? A: South Australian Charity"

    "Most services are free"

    by Peter Hodkin.
  3. Anonymous Member

    Ai, page 37

    "My client is registered as a charity in Australia" (Hodkin) - untrue.
  4. Anonymous Member

    Aii, page 51: Sunderland rejected Scientology initial application for tax relief.
  5. Anonymous Member

    Aiv, page 80 and elsewhere: references to Narconon.

    Narconon relies (for its charitable registration) on the fiction of it being entirely separate from Scientology.
  6. Anonymous Member

    Bi (at the start) contains Sunderland's initial report concluding that Scientology did not deserve rates relief.
  7. Anonymous Member

    Bi (pages 39 / 40): Brighton and Hove Council's 2001 decision that Scientology did not qualify for rates relief.
  8. Anonymous Member

    Bi page 52: internal council email
    "Their beneficial work, literature etc is a mere consequence of their overall aims i.e. to promote scientology."

    Bii page 5, letter from Council to Hodkin explaining reasons for now granting tax relief.
    "I can find no evidence of detriment or harm and find that the aims of CoS are of benefit to the community."
    "CoS has advised that materials are widely and freely available ... I can find no evidence to rebut this."
    "CoS advise that materials are freely available and one can progress without having to pay for courses".

    Ci page 14 - the Council got legal advice from Simon Goldberg of Trinity Chambers.

    Ci page 75 - Camden Council asks Sunderland Council if they allow tax relief to Scientology, whether they got legal advice and whether they would be willing to share it! ;)

    Cii page 5 - Peter Hodkin (Scientology) requests a copy of the legal advice, under FOIA. They told him no.

    Cii page 54 - email Peter Hodkin to Sunderland Council, "A refund for the client of £12,599 has also been sent to me. ... a repayment of the sums paid by my client since 2006, with interest". Asks for repayment of further sums, without time limit.

    Cii page 61 onwards - emails from anti-Scientology campaigners to Sunderland Council, giving a link to roland's Big Document. Seems odd that they Council can claim they have no evidence of harm caused by Scientology, if they have seen this document. Overlooked perhaps? Also shown is the text of Bryan Seymour's Scientology investigation in Australia.

    Cii page 72 - re FOI requests - "the requests are straightforward but I expect some follow up after we have informed them that we are granting relief" :)

    SUMMARY
    • Sunderland initially refused relief.
    • Then Hodkin appealed with a mass of case-law which (he argued) supported his position.
    • Council met with Hodkin and Massimo.
    • Council revised their decision and allowed rates relief, on the (somewhat false!) basis that:
      • Scientology courses are largely free,
      • No proof of harm from Scientology,
      • Education is a charitable purpose.
  9. Anonymous Member

    Sunderland's response also contained name, email address, postal address and phone number of an anti-Scientology campaigner.

    The document has now been removed from the web. Information Commissioner's Office informed re breach of Data Protection Act. WDTK has temporarily suspended access to this query and response until it's sorted out.

    I kept quiet about it until now for obvious reasons.
  10. RolandRB Member

    They had read my Big Document since I got a lot of page hits from Sunderland council during this time. I did not say in the document that Scientology was a bad thing but instead invited people to follow some suggested links. Perhaps they were too busy to do this.

    "I can find no evidence of detriment or harm" = You didn't look, you stupid slag.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Leaving aside that the evidence is offline for the moment, what can we do about Hodkin's demonstrably false statement that "[his] client is registered as a charity in Australia"? Does a solicitor have any personal liability for making false (or misleading or mistaken) claims in pursuit of a benefit for a client?

    Of course there are also similar examples in the applications he handled for Fitzroy St and TCR and QVS.
  12. Anonymous Member

  13. Anonymous Member

    A good point.

    It's probably against the solicitors code of practice or something.

    We need the exact text of where in each application he says they're a registered charity.

    It also seems to me provably false for him to say that most Scientology courses are free of charge.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Although he could always argue that he was only passing on what his client told him.

    We'd have to show that he knew these things were untrue.

    His lifelong membership of Scientology could be relevant here. Can we prove that?
  15. Anonymous Member

  16. RolandRB Member

    The latter, most definitely. I can not believe he gave a price list to the people assessing the application. Mind you, they were dicks for not asking for one. Seems like they were doing things right for a long time and then some PC dickheads poked their nose in and fucked up years of good work.
  17. RolandRB Member

  18. Anonymous Member

    Actually I don't think he specifically uses the words "registered charity" anywhere else. The other examples are claims to be a "South Australian charity" only. Maybe when all taken together they could amount to 'passing off'. Not sure that's his handwriting on the actual Sunderland application though.

    sunderland.jpg

    146qvs.jpg

    [IMG]

    tcri.jpg

    FWIW the formulation used in the Birmingham app from 2011 is "A charity registered as an incorporated association in South Australia", which might suggest they've changed tack slightly since the Today Tonight programme last year. But that was c/o the Birmingham org not Hodkin (as far as I can tell, the name's redacted), so he may not as such have had anything to do with it.
  19. Anonymous Member

    ^ The images are just to illustrate the point, not intended to actually be used for anything.
  20. RolandRB Member

    Is there any text in that lot where they claim they are covered by the laws of England and Wales and subject to the courts ?
  21. Anonymous Member

    Not as far as I can tell, only in the Charity Commission/Camden Council correspondence that caused the confusion in the eligibility thread.
  22. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  23. Anonymous Member

  24. RolandRB Member

    ^^^
    I think they can get out of it if the letter was confidential. However, if Sunderland sent it to them then I think they might have lost its LPP at their end so you could insist on having it.

    It is still something very useful that we need to understand the difference in treatment across the country and I hope we get it. It might not have influenced the Sunderland decision much but they can always say that it did and keep it a secret unless we prise it out of them.

    In a sense, I can sympathise with the CoLCorp because if central government had said they were not going to pay a penny to help if I were wanting to take tax relief away from an evil cult then I would keep the rates relief in place also. But as for Sunderland giving them 100% relief for seemingly no reason then we are talking some serious pratts there.
  25. Anonymous Member

    *bump* for activity pending.
  26. Anonymous Member

  27. RolandRB Member

    ^^^
    I guess that other public authority was Camden. God knows why they granted mandatory rates relief knowing that Camden had refused it. And presumably they knew about the CC saying that they held the same view about COSRECI.

    If they had this information they were on very safe ground to turn down mandatory rates relief knowing that Camden had two premises in their borough with far higher non-domestic rates. It was turned down on the jurisdiction issue and if this had not been challenged for these two more expensive properties then surely they could see that this was likely correct.

    And the CoLCorp as well since they became aware of it.

    These learned and highly paid solicitors and comptrollers and the like are basically thicker and more useless than the people in their boroughs emptying the bins. If they swapped jobs then more correct decisions would be made (but litter would pile up in the streets).
    • Like Like x 1
  28. greebly Member

    There are most certainly some discrepancies in the information to be focused on correctly.

    A complete concise un-cluttered list is in order with no insults and respect shown for the local govt staff.
  29. RolandRB Member

    ^^^
    OK, I will be nice to those tosspots
  30. Anonymous Member

    Information Commissioner's Office, Decision Notice FS50364680

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fs_50364680.ashx

  31. RolandRB Member

    At the very least this will end up costing the council more than the rates relief they gave the cult.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Doubt it. Why?

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