Customize

Narconon Hastings (UK) turned down on property tax relief

Discussion in 'Media' started by Sponge, Jul 16, 2011.

  1. Sponge Member

    (edit: In an attempt to be brief, the thread title is slightly misleading. It's not 100k rates relief for Narconon, but they were indeed turned down. Mods, please remove "100K" from thread title)
    Hastings council agrees over £100k in rate relief
    Hastings & St.Lenoards Obersver. 16th July 2011
    http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/n...cil_agrees_over_100k_in_rate_relief_1_2866135

    WIN!
    • Like Like x 15
  2. Anonymous Member

    Hell yeah! How much will this cost them?
  3. Ann O'Nymous Member

  4. Sponge Member

    I'm not sure how much they stand to lose. I can check from the gov websites what the rateable value is for the property in question and then work out roughly what they should be paying.*

    Also, I don't know whether this is both Mandatory (80%) and Discretionary (up to the remaining 20%) rates relief. By the sounds of the reason for the decision, it sounds like the lot. Need more detail really. [*edit: scrol down, see dox posted. Sounds like 20% discretionary relief.]

    What makes this unusual is that Narconon still is currently a registered charity in the uk ((No. 267386). So, perhaps the council has seen their y/e 2010 accounts (which should be due around this time of the year).

    *Edit: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/narconon-hastings.39357/#post-834571
    The St. Leonards property (up the road from Hastings) which was the address they used for Narconon Hastings(St.Leonards) was apparently scheduled to be closed for business in 2010 (tenancy was ending and building was being sold) but they still show the property as their residential rehab on their drugrehab.co.uk website. The only property on the VOA site is a language school with a rateable value of around £46,000 (which, using the business rates calualtor, would give an annual rates bill of around £20,000).
    In otherwords: I don't know. Let me talk to someone local.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Anonymous Member

    The rateable value for the premises is £46750, and the bill should therefore be 46750 x .433 = £20242.75.

    (It appears on the valuation site as a 'language school', but it's the correct address according to the Narconon website.)
  6. Sponge Member

    ^snap. Was posting as you were.

    So, I wonder if the supposed ending of the tenancy in late 2010 and subsequent building sale was put off? I'll PM somone down there who should know.
  7. Anonymous Member

    Dox from the meeting on 11th July:

    http://www.hastings.gov.uk/meetings...cabinet~report10~Non_Domestic_Rate_Relief.htm
    I could be wrong but on my reading this means they are getting mandatory relief, it was the discretionary 20% top-up they were refused. If so and the above figures are right they'll be paying 1/5th of 20242.75 = £4048.55.

    Appendix A is available by emailing the council and might make it clearer (see the note at the bottom).
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Orson Member

    This is good news. Pleasant surprise to wake up to this morning.

    Narconon. HAHA!
  9. Anonymous Member

    EPIC WIN IS EPIC
  10. JohnnyRUClear Member

    20%? A good start. That's 20% closer to reality than the USA still is.
  11. Sponge Member

    Thanks for that.
    Yeah, by that wording it does sound more like the discretionary relief. I suppose it would be unusual to go all the way against the grain and deny a registered charity the mandatory relief (the cult lawyers would be on that like a shot). So Narconon might be acknowledged legally as charity in general, except just not there locally in Hastings/St.Leonards as far as the powers of the local council are allowed to determine in terms of local benefit. As has been pointed out in the property tax situation room threads, the council probably don't care so much about mandatory relief since, to them, there is no great direct impact in local council income as the rates monies go to the central government pool to be doled back out to all councils on a needs basis (and I'll bet Hasting's needs aren't all that great).
    However, the fact that the local council has stood-up and said "no u!" to the part where they can make a local determination regardless of charitable status is is still significant and the citable secondary source newsmedia quote, "the authority could find no evidence that its work helped the local community" is pure gold.

    Also note that there are two active Narconon registered charities in the UK, Narconon (267386) who's accounts are due around now and Narconon London (1098004)who's accounts are 258 days overdue. So, who the hell knows if those charities are even compliant as of now. By the book, Narconon London, which is the one mentioned in the council dox, certainly isn't compliant on the basis of being 258 days late with their Y/E 2010 accounts.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Malory Member

    Even the thought of 4k less going to Miscavige makes me happy in my pants.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Not just limited, not just conflicting accounts, not even SOME evidence.

    NO EVIDENCE!

    Take that invisible expansion! If Narconon was actually helping anyone, there would be even some evidence that they help.

    This needs to get posted everywhere.... I need the direct link to tell everyone about this!!!
  14. Sponge Member

    I wonder if more about the residency status has come to light, i.e. discrepancies between official reports and what the cult's drugrehab.co.uk website says. i.e. If in reality they are not actually offering residential rehab then it can hardly be considered to be local community benefit.

    [reposting this related article from Oct 2010: http://myurlisname.blogspot.com/2010/10/narconon-london-fun-with-paperwork.html ]
  15. ZeroZero Member

    hmm , interesting , shows some folks are sitting up and taking notice
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    Hastings is very accessible to me. Is it worth protesting the Narconon Centre? I cant imagine that there would be any anons nearby to Hastings. I have read somewhere to not protest Scientology alone; What is your advice?
  17. xenubarb Member

    My advice is, don't protest Scientology alone. Get a friend, get a mask, make a sign. Make sure your camcorder has batteries.
    I would also suggest that the best line to follow is the money line; local governments feeling the pinch, useless slag of a fake drug rehab sucking down badly needed public resources.

    As for the presence of anonymous...we've been in Antarctic, so why not Hastings?
    • Like Like x 4
  18. Sponge Member

    I'll tell what you could do which would be really helpful and that is to actually verify once and for all if there still is a Narconon facility physically at that St. Leonards location. We do know that its "residential" status was in question ( http://myurlisname.blogspot.com/2010/10/narconon-london-fun-with-paperwork.html ).

    Address:
    Capel ne Fern, 2 Albany Road, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, TN38 0LN

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=narconon st.leonards&hl=en&ll=50.857012,0.549668&spn=0.001244,0.002401&t=h&z=19

    It was previously reported on an estate agents website (auction) as being put up for vacant possession due to the tenancy ending ( http://www.austingray.co.uk/Past-Future-Auctions.aspx 29-07-2010).
    This is the auction catalogue for that auction: http://www.austingray.co.uk/fileStore/pAndFAuctions/downloads/austin gray - auction 100.pdf (See PDF page 18)
    yet in their auctions results: http://www.austingray.co.uk/fileStore/pAndFAuctions/results/results 100.pdf there is no mention of that address, not even that it was withdrawn.

    So I'm wondering if the tenancy was extended because until this rates relief thing came up there has been an assumption that it had closed.
    For the cult to have applied to Hastings council for business rates relief for 2010-2011 it must either still be operating in that location or it has found another building in the area. The cult's websites (drugrehab.co.uk) still report it being at 2 Albany Road.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Finally work starts to pay off.
  20. Sponge Member

    From the OCMB thread, tamasin-sp, posts...
    http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=36245

    Note that the rent on that building is over £13,100 per month according to the information on the estate agents auction catalog from 2010 (presumably it'll be more now).
    On top of all the other overheads such as electricity/gas, repairs not covered by the tenancy, and other general operating costs, they would need quite some throughput of paying clients to make that place break even.
    Back in 2005, as reported by BBC Watchdog after complaints about Narconon, typical prices for rehab quackery ranged from £3,500 to £6,000 in the example shown in the programme (the price bartered depending on how desperate the cult was to get some income flowing in). At today's prices you can probably estimate that they'd need a couple of full price paying clients per month just to barely stay open, preferably three clients minimum. I seriously doubt they have achieved this on a consistent basis and I get the impression, from the Hastings Borough council dox, that there isn't an awful lot going on there at 2 Albany Road. If that is true then cult money must be flowing downlines to pay the bills.
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Anonymous Member

    wow - excellent!

    this is discretionary relief, that's been cancelled?

    (as opposed to mandatory)

    any sign of primary source docs from the council?

    - WT.
  22. Anonymous Member

  23. Sponge Member

    Scroll up the thread to: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/thre...wn-on-property-tax-relief.91113/#post-1818533

    Is that what you're looking for? I think you might need an FOI request to get at the nitty gritty of the decision but I'm not sure whether there'd be much more since on the council dox they say: "no evidence has been supplied on the extent to which services are supplied to the local community". And again: "It is recommended that this application be refused on the grounds that no information has been provided which establishes the extent to which services are provided to the local community".
    So it doens't even sound like the council had to do much if any "investigation" at all and it seems, on the face of it, that scientology-narconon just didn't provide anything like the required info.
  24. Anonymous Member

    ah! - thanks.

    so they just didn't submit any relevant docs. whoops. perhaps they didn't have any to supply.

    still, yay.
  25. Sponge Member

    Why? I mean don't let me stop you but I'm just wondering what exactly are you indending to poon. The article is pretty good and there aren't any scilons pouring over it with baaww copypasta propaganda. (yet?).
    I suppose a well thought out poon on why Narconon shouldn't even have charitable status and therefore no mandatory relief would be a good thing to post, as well as pointing out that Narconon=Scientology (which the article and council dox doesn't bother to mention).
  26. Anonymous Member

    that's right!

    "The council has made the right decision in removing 20% discretionary relief from the sham charity Narconon - a branch of the predatory Scientology cult. The council should go further and remove the remaining 80% tax relief from this phoney anti-drugs operation, which the Home Office has declared 'not fit for purpose' as a drug rehabilitation program."

    that kind of thing.
  27. Sponge Member

    ^the propblem is that the councils hands are prettymuch tied on the mandatory relief because it is based on the fact that Narconon is a registered charity and the council has no control over this. So your first arugment really has to be why you think Narconon doesn't deserve that charitable status because then, in a sensible world, without that they wouldn't get the mandatory relief (based on what the council had to say about Narconon's application and the lack of information supplied).
  28. Anonymous Member

    true.

    it's still an opportunity to point out Narconon's ineffectiveness in the media tho.
  29. Anonymous Member

    The local authority is required to grant an 80% discount where the property is occupied by a registered charity or trustees for a charity (Local Government Finance Act 1988), hence the term mandatory relief. The issue's really with the Charity Commission on that point.
  30. Anonymous Member

    ^ should've refreshed first. What Sponge said.
  31. Anonymous Member

    Note that there is apparently no other Narconon facility in the UK other than at St.Leonards. The residential[disputable] facility at Albany Road, St.Leonards is where all UK Narconon contacts (for rehab) ultimately lead to. So, if that place isn't showing any benefit to the local community then Narconon as a whole is not showing any benefit to the entire UK.
    The registered office for Narconon is Peter Hodkin's Solicitors, 42-44 Copthorne Road, Felbridge, East Grinstead.

    There are two active charities,

    Narconon #267386 (Drug Education) [link: drug-education.co.uk]

    and Narconon London #1098004 (Drug Rehab for the UK) [Link drugrehab.co.uk]

    Both of theose charities share the same admin address of 1 BRITANNIA ROAD, LONDON, E14 3RG
    The Narconon London rehab charity is physically at Albany Road, St. Leonards and the Narconon drug education is, according to drug-education.co.uk, phsyically at 85 Waldegrave Park, Twickenham, TW1 4TJ (a residential street)

    2 videos on their "drugrehabuk" youtube channel, uploaded may & july 2010 (channel created may 2010)



  32. benjonjovi Member

    I resided at this rehab for a total of 8 months , they have no money to feed the students there bastards who scam people - They couldnt give two hoots whether you complete the course or not, there is no hot water, the house is falling to bits and the majority of the time students are forced to entertain themselves as they are left on there own for long periods of time, this causing problems and risks of relapse - there is no official security- although it is frowned upon students are not supposed to leave the premises at any given time however it is easy for students to run out and get drugs ( within a 2 minute walk ) on London road, - they also have listening devices fitted in and around the house so they can spy on you and commonly encourage you to admit to situations which didnt arise through your own doing (these are called overts and they believe that if someone commits (an overt) then they will want to leave because they feel they cannot focus and be on course) again this is crazy, furthermore narconon do not recognize medical issues, and give students dangerous amounts of niacin (upto 5000g) the reccomended amount from a chemist is maximum 500g - not one member of staff is medically qualified in any way shape or form, also on arrival to the centre you will be kept locked off from the rest of the patients for anytime from 1 days to 6 weeks - during this horrendous and scarring time you are not allowed to contact your loved ones or family, also they dont believe you can just become ill they believe there is a reason for it.... they target the weak and the vulnerable and once they have hold of you, it takes alot to get out of their, they try brainwashing you and taking you to scientology conventions down the road in east grinstead and continuosly try to extort money from the paying bearer for the persons in the rehab - DONT BE FOOLED PEOPLE!
    • Like Like x 7
  33. Anonymous Member

    This guy with the guitar, his name is Marc Murphy, he was working there when i left,





    [/quote]
  34. Sponge Member

    If you can drag yourself to read through some of the past dox (I know, they're pretty boring) which were recently brought to light through FOIA requests, you will see that the charities comission draws a distinct line between rehab and education. On the former, they'll fob you off saying something like it is not within their remit to decide if it works or not.
    I've pulled out many of those dox in plaintext here: http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=430220#p430220
    By looking at how the charities comission is responding to complaints then it will help to give you some idea on how to build up a suitable case. But I rather think you'll need the assitance of another agency to attack Narconon rehab. Upon subsequent completion of David Love's work in Canada it should make life easier, especially in view of it being a commonwealth country with vaguely similar heads of charity. There you will have a lot of official documentation which has gone right through the mill.

    ----

    Also this, which I'll bring up here:

    The following is the plaintext of correspondence from the Charity Commission to the Treasury Solicitor 10th July 2003, showing that they are well aware of concerns about the efficacy or Narconon's rehab programme and the possibility of recruitment into the cult of scientology. However, back then, they are saying that Narconon wasn't actually carrying out this programme (in the UK) and were doing mainly drug education.
    [PDF page 38,39,40]

    • Like Like x 3
  35. xenubarb Member

    Maybe they could go to an org and inquire how many here had drug problems. How many here went to Narconon to help with that. And, finally, how many Narconon grads are now Scientologists?

    The first part would encourage them to open up about past drug abuse, because they'd think the purpose of the questioning would be to show how Narconon's program helps people.

    Of course, the "gotcha!" point is the fact that now, they're all members of Scientology. Yeah, Narconon doesn't recruit or anything....right?
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Sponge Member

    There's more FOIA dox released (13th/14th Feb 2012):

    (about this FOIA request: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/communications_for_scientology_r#incoming-254174 )

    The previous stuff in the OCMB link in the quote above above was in relation to complaints/concerns about Narconon (Narconon Trust, charity # 1112230). The rest of the contents of that PDF was mostly form data (applications/CC submissions and such like).

    This following collection (obtained 13th/14th Feb 2012) is regarding Narconon London ( charity # 1098004).

    Here's my tl;dr of contents.

    After looking inside and as per the descriptions in the cover letters to the FOIA requestor from the charities commission....

    1) The first PDF is the annual returns submissions, memorandum of association (from Hodkins solicitors) and the trustees annual reports: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/50871/response/254174/attach/3/lcarroll201202130526.pdf

    2) .DOC file is what it says it is: Application for registration, dated 1sty May 2003.
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/50871/response/254355/attach/3/Application for registration.doc
    There is one corrupt scan which has been sent as an addendum in PDF format here:
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/50871/response/254995/attach/3/lcarroll201202151144.pdf

    3) Accompanying information from Hodkins solicitors regarding the above charity application for Narconon London. Contains copies of support letters sent to other Narconon bodies from various politicians. Copy of letter from CC to Hodkins asking for clarification of the objects of new Narconon charity and subsequent communictions.
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/50871/response/254400/attach/3/lcarroll201202141200.pdf

    4) Docs showing requests by the Charities Comission for late accounts and more details on activities, and the cult's non-cooperation. Copy of a compaint about Narconon to the charities commission with accompanying CC'd letters to the Met police and fraud dept, plus internet photocopyasta. (like some of the other complaints, although well meaning and enthusiastic, it sounds quite retarded. Lrn2 make formal complaints).
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/50871/response/254431/attach/3/lcarroll201202141234.pdf

    5) Internet photocopypasta on Narconon (wikipedia, Narconon Exposed, Clambake and other sources).
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/50871/response/254511/attach/3/lcarroll201202140205.pdf

    6) addendum for (2) above.
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Anonymous Member

    No. 3. Did they actually redacted the names of US senators?! If they are still around, I love to personally follow their politically life closely until they overtake Sharon Angle in the shame department.
  38. TinyDancer Member

    Calling Sweden to the courtesy phone. Sweden.
  39. jensting Member

    What about the Damnation Navy compound with the RPF in it, Crowborough?

    Best Regards

    Jens
  40. Anonymous Member

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