Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Bluebell · Aug 31, 2010

Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

RolandRB;1281484 said:

Somebody in Gateshead was emailed the link to the document and they opened it.

Scientology business rates relief in the UK

charlie;1281862 said:

Would that be me LOL.

RolandRB;1294637 said:

Somebody at the City of Sunderland Council is giving my document a thorough reading today. Well done on whoever got the link to them.

charlie;1294671 said:

About time I'm still waiting for a reply.

Sent it on the 4th.

RolandRB;1294720 said:

They opened the web page on the 6th and gave it a brief read. On the 26th they gave it some serious study.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention to you charlie that you are due to be FAIR GAMED for doing this. You know about that - that thing the cult doesn't do any more. I hope you don't have a cat or a dog. If you do then don't let it out for the next few days.

charlie;1295267 said:

LOL Its about time I'v been blatant about it on my facebook page joining scilon groups posting anti-sci shit.

RolandRB;1295307 said:

The clams won't do much to you. Perhaps leaflet your neighbourhood saying that you associate with known paedophiles. Probably leaflet the parents picking up kids from school if you have kids there as well. Write to your boss saying the same. Nothing much.

charlie;1295373 said:

Giggle's like a girl,BRING IT ON.

Have they ever done that in the UK. ------- answer--- not to that extent on a unknown minor protester.
Most likely I will get one of these

http://img34.imageshack.us/i/30401192256e8fbbca06b.jpg

As the parent of disabled child I have informed the various disablity/mental health
organisations/charitys in Gateshead including my daughters school about the scilons, I always end by saying this scilons IT IS MY INTENTION TO GET FAIR GAMED TO PROVE A POINT.

BTW SCILONS Sodium Valpoate,Levetiracetam and Clonazepam WORKS AND HELPS PEOPLE.

charlie;1305168 said:

Strange that within a couple of weeks of Sunderland Council reading your work the org doors open .

RolandRB;1305212 said:

I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean that their doors were shut to the public and then suddenly they opened them again?

I think Sunderland Council must have acted on my document since they had studied it thoroughly. And for those reading this and wondering how I know this then my document has a page counter in it that collects other details about visits to the page. But don't worry, I don't get your email address.

RolandRB;1305674 said:

Then my guess is they have mandatory rates relief there on the basis of their being a charity and they were asked why their doors were closed if they were a charity.

charlie;1305706 said:

LOL sounds plausable.

AnotherSock;1305676 said:

I wonder if they'll still be a "charity" after August 31st?

RolandRB;1305698 said:

COSRECI has never been a charity anywhere except in terms of their articles of association. They claim they are a "South Australian charity" not because they are a charity in South Australia (they are not a regsitered charity there and do not conduct any activity in Australia and nor do they submit any accounts or documentation) but because it says so in their articles of association. And the same for the UK n that they say they are a charity because it says so in their articles of association. They are not a registered charity in the UK.

So I don't think August 31st will make a difference.

Anonymous;1305835 said:

Re Sunderland:

Do we know if they have mandatory relief? I don't think we do. If not then address please, and I'll check.

Re 'doors open': not likely to be linked to 'for charitable purposes' part of mandatory relief, there's no requirement for public access to premises or anything like that.

Anonymous;1305837 said:

No mandatory relief from NNDR for Sunderland:

Scientology rates relief: Sunderland - WhatDoTheyKnow

Sponge;1305842 said:

Excuse me if I've missed it but I can't see where it actually says that in those dox.
The most recent reply to the FOIA request simply says the council doesn't hold the info.

RolandRB;1309411 said:

Gateshead Council have been made aware of my document. That is where the Sunderland Org is moving to to become the new Ideal Org.

charlie;1309778 said:

I refer to your query about 'Church of Scientology 51 Fawcett St. Sunderland SR1 1RS'. I apologise for the delay in replying, some matters had to be checked with our Data Protection Officer. You refer to cases in South Australia dealing with taxation. While all relevant matters, regardless of boundaries, need to be taken into account the significance of a case to the decision making process will vary and weight given accordingly. I cannot say that the Australian case had any particular relevance in the decision taken with regard to Fawcett Street. If you have any further query please feel free to contact me.

Steele Stewart
Business Rate Manager
Office of the Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Telephone Number 0191 5611893
Sunderland City Council : Sunderland Home Page

RolandRB;1309783 said:

Err, hang on a minute....

"the decision taken with regard to Fawcett Street"

What decision? I thought they said they had no information on this matter so I was assuming no rates relief had been granted. Have they lied in response to a FOIA request?

charlie;1309789 said:

I was under the assumption "no information"ment they did'nt no how much rates were paid on Fawcett Street.

RolandRB;1309793 said:

The trouble with these FOIA requests is that you only get a straight forward answer if the people answering have nothing to hide. If they have something to hide then they take every opportunity to give evasive answers or even misleading answers to throw you off the scent. That is why I think for situations where there is a great deal to hide, such as the CoL, nothing will come out of FOIA requests except growing frustration and that we have to go down the judicial review path and get legal help. We are minnows versus sharks. The FOIA is not an equalizer.

Edit: I have to admit that I am getting frustrated by all this. The mealy-mouthed evasiveness from local government employees and the sheer lack of cajones of the British public who would baaw the house down if any of their children got trapped in the cult but do nothing themselves to oppose it when the going is good for them.

So I think Sunderland may have constructively lied. Why else would they be studying my document unless they had given the cult a tax break? So what I will do with my document is provide links in the table so that responses such as "none" are linked to the FOIA request that William Thackeray made so that the reader can draw their own conclusions. Where I think misinformation is used then I will mark the response accordingly such that "none" becomes "none?".

Edit: Now we know why they were studying my document and Gateshead as well.

charlie;1309795 said:

Will email back asking simple question do they recieve a rates reduction yes or no.

RolandRB;1309799 said:

Please, also, which type (mandatory or discretionary).

Edit: I emailed them as well.

Edit: It gets worse. See the Sunderland news today. By the time we get these local authorities actually doing something there will be a host of Ideal Orgs all enjoying mandatory rates relief (plus the extra 20% discretionary top-up rates relief) all over the UK. Then it will be too late to reverse it.

RolandRB;1309906 said:

Roland Berry, Sunderland City Council granted the Church of Scientology College 80% Charity Relief and 20% Discretionary Relief for their property at 51 Fawcett Street. It was granted this year but backdated to 2006. I hope this meets with your requirements but if you have any further query please come back to me.

Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx
Business Rate Manager
Office of the Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Telephone Number 0191 5611893
Sunderland City Council : Sunderland Home Page

RolandRB;1309910 said:

Hi,

thanks for your extremely timely response. Now I see they were granted mandatory relief I am intersted in knowing if Sunderland City Council applied any "public benefit" test before granting this response and if they were aware of the Charity Commission decision of 1999 where the Church of Scientology (England and Wales) was refused charitable registration on the basis not only of religious grounds but on "public benefit" grounds as well. So I have a further question as follows that is a more complicated and will take longer to provide a response:

My question is whether "public benefit" was taken into account in granting mandatory rates relief or extending it to the Church of Scientology for their premises at 51 Fawcett Street (considering that they are not a registered charity and therefore the local authority exercises their own discretion) and if the decision of the Charity Commission (CC) in 1999 to reject the application of the Church of Scientology (England and Wales) for charitable registration not only on religious grounds but also on public benefit grounds was taken into account. Therefore please state whether or not "public benefit" was considered as an issue for the initial granting or any subsequent extension and if so then please provide the details of why and how your local authority concluded that public benefit was demonstrated and if the initial granting or any subsequent extension was after the date of the CC decision then please indicate if the CC decision was known about and if so please give a detailed explanation as to why your local authority went against the CC decision concerning "public benefit". Please provide any documents in electronic format where possible but if relevant documents exist on the Internet then URLs will suffice. In the case of Scientology promotional material then a list of titles will initially be acceptable though actual copies in electronic format may be requested later.

Many thanks,
Roland Rashleigh-Berry

charlie;1309918 said:

Snap

Apologies that the last reply didn't answer your question. The Church of Scientology College were granted both Charity Relief at 80% and Discretionary Relief at 20% for their property at 51 Fawcett Street. If you have any further query please contact me.

RolandRB;1309921 said:

That just ruined my fucking weekend. :-(

...

Bluebell · Aug 31, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Sponge;1309958 said:

RolandRB;1309906 said:

Roland Berry, Sunderland City Council granted the Church of Scientology College 80% Charity Relief and 20% Discretionary Relief for their property at 51 Fawcett Street. It was granted this year but backdated to 2006. I hope this meets with your requirements but if you have any further query please come back to me.

Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx
Business Rate Manager
Office of the Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Telephone Number 0191 5611893
Sunderland City Council : Sunderland Home Page

BACKDATED? to 2006?
WHAT.THE.FUCK!?

So Sunderland City Council has also given them money back? 4 years worth of business rates??!!!!1111!!!!!????

charlie;1309964 said:

Sponge;1309958 said:

BACKDATED? to 2006?
WHAT.THE.FUCK!?

So Sunderland City Council has also given them money back? 4 years worth of business rates??!!!!1111!!!!!????

Thinking should we send this info to Sunderland ehco.

Anonymous;1309966 said:

charlie;1309964 said:

Thinking should we send this info to Sunderland ehco.

Do it!

DeathHamster;1309970 said:

Sponge;1309958 said:

So Sunderland City Council has also given them money back? 4 years worth of business rates??!!!!1111!!!!!????

I doubt that they ever paid it in the first place. That's what they've done in Clearwater, Toronto and other places: Never ever pay property taxes until absolutely forced to and as part of some compromise that's less than paying the full amount owed.

Sponge;1309987 said:

I thought about that but you just can't get away with that in the UK. If there's one thing that local council's tend to follow up "religiously", with court orders and bailiffs, it is unpaid CouncilTax/Business Rates (oh and maybe parking fines). The only way out of the bailiffs coming down on you pronto is that if you're locked in a legal dispute already involving the court over the issue (which would cost you more than the amount owed). I can't claim that all councils behave the same but the way I've often seen it is: pay up now - dispute later, and if you're right then you get a refund.

RolandRB;1309994 said:

Hi Xxxxxxx,

thanks again for your quick response. Yes, the second question concerning whether public benefit had been demonstated was also a FOI request.

What follows is not a FOI request.

The Charities Act 2006 clearly states that any charity must be "for the public benefit" and the definition of this is in the statutory guidelines issued by the Charity Commission. It is clear in reading this that the Church of Scientology is not a charity and fails the test for the very same reasons that they failed the public benefit test when the Charity Commission applied it to their application in 1999.

I have written a document about this but I guess people at your end already know about it.
Scientology business rates relief in the UK

I have a very simple guide concerning the City of London Scientology rates relief controversy at this address which is new. It is quick and easy to read, unlike the document above.
Simple Guide to the City of London Scientology Rates Relief Controversy | 19 August 2010

It is the members of the public who have to pay for this business rates relief and so the public are being forced to sponsor what many regard as a cult. It is not for the public benefit. The public don't want it and they would rather it went away. But here we are being forced to sponsor them.

I will be very interested in reading how "public benefit" was established in this case. And if it was not addressed, then I think the decision should be reversed because I assume that the decision would be unlawful. I can not see how the views of the Charity Commission can be ignored in this case as it is they themselves that define what is and what is not "for the public benefit". It took them a full three years to reach their conclusion to reject the application from the Church of Scientology (also on public benefit grounds) so I can not understand why their decision was overruled in this case. Experts might have been consulted in this case but I would suggest that any number of these would not be the equivalent of the Charity Commission itself.

Please note that the Church of Scientology itself did not appeal the rejection of their application for charitable status. They had the option of asking for an internal review. They had the option of taking it to the High Court. They have the option now of appealing to the Charity Tribunal. They have the option of reapplying for charitable status after favourable changes in the law regarding religious disrimination. They have used none of these options so I feel it would be correct to assume that the rejection on "public benefit" grounds still stands.

If you take the time to study the activities of the Church of Scientology then you will end up reading many stories of broken families, lost fortunes, forced abortions, torture, imprisonments and suicides. By forcing the public to sponsor this then you make the public complicit in these crimes.

Please also pass this email on to Xxxxxxx.

Roland

Edit: I am wondering if this should be the judicial review case because complaints are supposed to be brought within three months. This is fresh news (20AUG2010) and I have already started the FOI process. I need to keep up the momentum and if it flags then take it to the proper authorities. But I think this might have to go to judicial review to stay within the three month normal time limit.

I think legal help is going to be required. Somebody posted the contact for a QC but I got a reply back that they only act for firms of solicitors.

City of Sunderland Council will get away with turning as all into criminals unless something can be done.

RolandRB;1310018 said:

charlie;1309964 said:

Thinking should we send this info to Sunderland ehco.

The People of Sunderland just became Criminals

The people of Sunderland just became criminals. The people of Sunderland now all contribute their money into a fund that promotes forced abortions, the break-up of families, lost fortunes, forced labour, imprisonment, medical neglect and suicide. They became criminals when the City of Sunderland granted the Church of Scientology a 100% rebate in business rates just recently in 2010 but the criminality of the people of Sunderland was backdated to 2006 when the business rates exemption was backdated to. These things would not happen except for the people of Sunderland's contribution to this cause. If you ever visit there then be warned.

I am a murderer

I am a murderer amongst other things. I'll tell you some of the things I support and help you come to a conclusion. How about this? I donate money to a group that exploits its workers to the point that if women conceive babies then they are forced to abort them. My money pays for these abortions. I continue to donate to the same cause so that the hard working and extremely poorly paid slaves of the Church of Scientology, who work maybe 100 hours per week, are enforced to do the "Greatest Good for the Greater Number of Dynamics" by aborting their babies. I support this through my own donations. I effectively perform those abortions. I am guilty. I was made guilty by local government who forced me to contribute to this cause.

....

Bluebell · Aug 31, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

charlie;1310255 said:

Will you tell me what points were put across by the CULT (church) that persuaded the rates office to grant them charity relief of 80% and discretionary relief of 20% as the charity commission clearly stated http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/start/cosfulldoc.pdf. .

1.That CoS is not charitable as an organisation established for the charitable purpose of the advancement of religion because, having regard to the relevant law and evidence, Scientology is not a religion for the purposes of English charity law.

2.That CoS was not established for the charitable purpose of promoting the moral or spiritual welfare and improvement of the community.

3.That CoS was not established for the public benefit.

Some key points about Scientology and Scientologist's

Scientologist's believe that if you affirm something loudly and often, it will become true. Thus, if they say "we are a charity and we have a charitable purpose", it'll somehow become true, even when in there own word's they have denied it themselves !!!!!!!!!it is not a registered charity in South Australia or with the Australia Taxation Office. Any claims to the contrary are incorrect and this can be confirmed by searching on the government website at ABNLookup - Welcome to ABN Lookup.!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scientologist's are taught to lie through TRs (training routines)

Scientologist's are taught that "if it's true for you, it's true", therefore a lie can become the truth.

Scientologist's morality is based upon the idea that it's OK to lie to 'wogs' - this term was introduced by L.Ron hubbard the founder of the CULT (church) on a trip to the UK in 50s or 60s , he turned it round to being a derogatory term for non-Scientologist's.

Scientologist always crave celebrity endorsement and validation, not just for their pseudo religion, but also for their own products and services that they SELL.

No Scientologist's can ever be content to just be a Scientologist. They always have to try to push their pseudo religion.

charlie;1310316 said:

Also sent this

Adding a bit more to my overview on Scientology

Quote from Mr Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court in 1984:

"Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious ... it is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit and has its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard... It is sinister because it indulges in infamous practices both to its adherents who do not toe the line unquestionably and to those who criticize it or oppose it. It is dangerous because it is out to capture people and to indoctrinate and brainwash them so they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living, and relationships with others."

The late Sir Kenneth Robinson, Labour politician, described Scientology as "socially harmful ... a potential menace to the personality" and "a serious danger to health" - and had to endure five years of libel as a result. Bad things happen to people who oppose Scientology's aim of "clearing the planet".

Scientology Volunteer Ministers, have a highly questionable track record. Most Scientologists leave school quite early, many graduating straight into the paramilitary 'Sea Org' and being posted overseas. Thereafter, they only study Scientology courses, and their science fiction-based training leaves them poorly prepared to be of much use in an emergency. In the aftermath of major natural disasters such as earthquakes or the tsunami of 2004, Volunteer Ministers descend upon the area to deliver a form of faith healing called "touch assists". They have never been known to bring any useful materials with them, such as food, water or shelter, so they actually increase the scale of the problem for the legitimate relief agencies. Once there, they promote Scientology to a grief-stricken populace, and pose for PR photos that are used for fundraising purposes - not for the victims of the disaster, but for Scientology as a whole.

In the aftermath of 9-11 and our own 7-7 bombings, Scientologists BBC iPlayer - Radio - Audio on Demand actually interfered with other relief efforts, trying to keep victims from getting any counselling from their 'enemies', the psychiatrists - in some cases, posing as mental health workers themselves.

L. Ron Hubbard told his followers they could rely on the public's sense of incredulity. This was what they counted upon when they began 'Operation Snow White' in 1977: a plan to clean up their image by stealing incriminating documents from government agencies, foreign embassies and elsewhere. When exposed by the FBI in 1979, it was revealed to have been the largest infiltration of the US government in history.

The Liberal Democrats decided to exclude the 'Citizens Commission for Human Rights' (Scientology front group) that had originally arranged to exhibit at their annual conference this year. CCHR is the group that claims psychiatry is an evil conspiracy meant to enslave the world, and that it caused the Holocaust. Scientologists' beliefs are very odd indeed. Other gems include how cancer is caused by not smoking enough, that autism is psychosomatic, and that all humans are infested with the souls or ghosts of murdered aliens, called 'thetans'.

Christopher Brightmore ex-Commissioner of Citizens Commission on Human Rights. Who stood down as commissioner of CCHR on 1st Jan 2001. University Lecturer , Leicester University (not sure if he still has this post) was a lay person on the UK's General Medical Council fitness to practice panel. He was sacked for not declaring his involvement with CCHR as a conflict of interest since his role included assessing/passing judgement on psychiatrists' fitness to practice. (This is a landmark case in the UK in regard to scientology/ Conflict of Interest). Brightmore was on the GMC panel from 21/9/2001 - 21/6/2004.
Previously he was Detective Chief Superintendent Christopher Brightmore of the City of London Police (see also Kevin Hurley and Chief Superintendent Ken Stewart, Special Branch).
Media coverage of his sacking from GMC panel: GMC panellist was banned for not disclosing links with Scientologists -- Dyer 340: c1766 -- BMJ Police officers accepted gifts from Church of Scientology | Mail Online

RolandRB;1310322 said:

Sending Sunderland Council that stuff is all very well but it isn't going to change their decision. To get them to change their decision then you have got to point out something they have done wrong in making that decision. What they have done wrong is not properly establish the "public benefit" of the cult.

...

Bluebell · Aug 31, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Anonymous;1310346 said:

Originally Posted by RolandRB 51 Fawcett Street.

Q1 - this is the existing org, in town, right? not the old highschool?

Q2 - has anyone asked the about the rates situation re the old highschool?

Q3 - Did they previously reply to a FOI req from WT saying 'no info held' on the Fawcett st property?

If they DID - then that should be a lesson to all of us on the nature of dealing wiht bureaucracies - they talk shite often, but not necessarily on purpose.

If they DIDN'T - then I'm confused... :-/

RolandRB;1310350 said:

I think they made their decision very very recently. They are the only official body to have properly studied my document. I think they granted this rates relief in knowledge of and in spite of my document.

Anonymous;1310351 said:

Anonymous;1310346 said:

Q1 - this is the existing org, in town, right? not the old highschool?

Q2 - has anyone asked the about the rates situation re the old highschool?

Q3 - Did they previously reply to a FOI req from WT saying 'no info held' on the Fawcett st property?

If they DID - then that should be a lesson to all of us on the nature of dealing wiht bureaucracies - they talk shite often, but not necessarily on purpose.

If they DIDN'T - then I'm confused... :-/

Scientology rates relief: Sunderland - WhatDoTheyKnow

Records have been checked and up until the date of your request, 1st May 2010, the Council does not hold this information. I am sorry I cannot be of assistance to you on this occasion.

George Blyth
Director of Financial Resources

Sunderland City Council

Anonymous;1310364 said:

RolandRB;1310350 said:

I think they made their decision very very recently. They are the only official body to have properly studied my document. I think they granted this rates relief in knowledge of and in spite of my document.

Roland, you're in good comms with them - I suggest you politely ask when the decision was made. I am hoping and expecting that it will turn out to have been made some months ago, and the failure to correctly respond to WT was nothing more than typical bureaucratic fail - speculating in the meantime could lead to unnecessary antagonism - let's wait and see when they say they made the decision.

charlie;1310386 said:

Originally Posted by RolandRB
Sending Sunderland Council that stuff is all very well but it isn't going to change their decision. To get them to change their decision then you have got to point out something they have done wrong in making that decision. What they have done wrong is not properly establish the "public benefit" of the cult.

It's called building a case Roland , asking questions opening a dialog with them,then trying to make them see they have made a mistake.

"The old highschool" your refering to the Northumbia idle org I take it, is in Gateshead 11 miles from Sunderland (different council) , the council in gateshead are having discusion's as to what to do with the building as its a eyesore so there's a chance that a compulsory purchase order going to be put on it .
The Shadow made the council aware of the CULTS status ie: not a religion so even if the building were to finnished by them it will not get D1 place of worship we hope.

RolandRB;1310441 said:

Anonymous;1310364 said:

Roland, you're in good comms with them - I suggest you politely ask when the decision was made. I am hoping and expecting that it will turn out to have been made some months ago, and the failure to correctly respond to WT was nothing more than typical bureaucratic fail - speculating in the meantime could lead to unnecessary antagonism - let's wait and see when they say they made the decision.

This is going to need taking to judicial review. This case is recent and more significant (100%) than the CoL (although the figures don't compare). It will be easier and cheaper to take this to judicial review rather than CoL and then to use this as leverage. I need legal aid. Please, someone, work on this for me.

Somebody else can find about the date. The date I am working on for judicial review purposes is the date I was informed.

charlie;1310386 said:

Originally Posted by RolandRB View Post
Sending Sunderland Council that stuff is all very well but it isn't going to change their decision. To get them to change their decision then you have got to point out something they have done wrong in making that decision. What they have done wrong is not properly establish the "public benefit" of the cult.

It's called building a case Roland , asking questions opening a dialog with them,then trying to make them see they have made a mistake.

"The old highschool" your refering to the Northumbia idle org I take it, is in Gateshead 11 miles from Sunderland (different council) , the council in gateshead are having discusion's as to what to do with the building as its a eyesore so there's a chance that a compulsory purchase order going to be put on it .
The Shadow made the council aware of the CULTS status ie: not a religion so even if the building were to finnished by them it will not get D1 place of worship we hope.

RolandRB;1310468 said:

Fuck being nice. These people turned me into an abortionist and worse and I am not happy with it.

charlie;1310487 said:

I no your angry mate , CoL , Sunderland and other council's have been conned by the CULT , asking probing question's is just the start , I have emailed the Evening Chronicle,The Sun and will phone the Sunderland Echo on monday also pooned the beeb

Reference CAS-206353

Thanks for contacting the BBC.

We apologise for the very severe delay in replying which was due to a major fault in our systems.

We understand you were unhappy with Scientology being referred to as a religion as you feel this is inaccurate.

Unfortunately, as you’ve failed to specify when you’ve heard Scientology referred to as a religion and how it relates to a BBC programme, it is difficult for us to address your concerns. If you can get back to us with more information we will gladly answer your complaint.

I am sure I said it was on newsnight program but never mind

YouTube - Councillor John Dixon calls Scientology stupid on Twitter,faces inquiry

after watching it again I found that she never called it a religion but I am still unhappy that the producers of this program took it upon themselves to grill councillor dixon when the CULT (scientology) is getting away with not paying any business rates on there property's ie:

Apologies that the last reply didn't answer your question. The Church of Scientology College were granted both Charity Relief at 80% and Discretionary Relief at 20% for their property at 51 Fawcett Street. If you have any further query please contact me.

Yours Steele Stewart.
Business Rate Manager
Office of the Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Telephone Number 0191 5611893

I would like to ask the producers of the program to grill the cult how and why a group like scientology that has no charitable status in the UK can get away with this, especially in the biggest recession in decades
edit:
Should have put grill Sunderland Council instead of cult

....

Bluebell · Aug 31, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

RolandRB;1310979 said:

I am wondering how many of the 80%s have turned into 100%s this year (2010) for rates relief. If they can pull that off for all their Ideal Orgs then they will be able to last through all the Anon protests as these will lessen in strength. They'll still be there in ten years time robbing people of their fortunes and breaking up families with the British taxpayer backing them up all the way.

Edit: This link may be of use

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/guidance/publicbenefittext.pdf

I think this needs to be sent to all local authorities. It clearly excludes Scientology from the concept of "public benefit" and local authorities have got no business granting tax advantages as a result.

Anonymous;1310999 said:

Originally Posted by RolandRB View Post
Somebody else can find about the date.

Scientology Rates - Date and basis of relief granted - WhatDoTheyKnow

Asked for date, repeated bits of WT's earlier FOI req (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/scientology_rates_relief_sunder), asked for legal basis.

Anonymous;1311001 said:

Originally Posted by Sponge
BACKDATED? to 2006?
WHAT.THE.FUCK!?

So Sunderland City Council has also given them money back? 4 years worth of business rates??!!!!1111!!!!!????

I would bet (fairly confidently) that they hadn't paid rates for 4/5 years, and it was either drag them to court, or cede to their request. And they took the easy way out... So no money would have been 'handed back' - but debt written off - and if we can force them to reverse that decision as being unlawful ... :-D

RolandRB;1311007 said:

Exactly.

More people need to get involved in this. Sunderland might be the better test case in this due to the newness of the situation and the normal 3 month limit allowed for judicial review. I have sent a FOI request into Gateshead assuming they have already granted mandatory relief.

If anyone lurks here and is thinking of becoming active then NOW is a good time. If the Ideal Orgs can get a 100% rate reduction they will be able to weather out any of the storms of protest and still be there in ten years time doing what they always do. Yes, the protests have helped drive down membership. But the clams are establishing themselves behind the scenes using tricksy lawyers and as things look right at the moment, they are winning.

I think it helps to try to make sense of insane situations to uncover the faulty logic being used by local authorities in granting the clams mandatory rates relief and even a 100% rates relief. So how about this for the logic they are using?

Other religions get mandatory rates relief because of their charitable functions so now the law has changed to make it illegal to descriminate against Scientology then Scientology should be given mandatory rates relief as well (nowithstanding that it is not charitable). And since churches get a 100% rates rebate since they are places of worship then Scientology premises should get the same 100% rates relief even though they do not worship because auditing and training is considered by them as worship and it is now illegal to descriminate against them.

Anonymous;1311001 said:

I would bet (fairly confidently) that they hadn't paid rates for 4/5 years, and it was either drag them to court, or cede to their request. And they took the easy way out... So no money would have been 'handed back' - but debt written off - and if we can force them to reverse that decision as being unlawful ... :-D

charlie;1311044 said:

Sound's like a reasonable explanation, I think it might be time to put more pressure on Sunderland Council .

Gateshead "idle" pays no rates as its a empty building and I dont think the rates will have been set. good idea FOIing them though.

RolandRB;1311048 said:

Better safe than sorry. A premature request like that might even stop them granting rates relief.

I have updated my document to point to the Charity Commission booklet they pubished regarding "public benefit" but it is still a difficult read and just as hard as reading the Charity Act itself.

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/guidance/publicbenefittext.pdf

It would help if UK Anons were aware of its content and felt confident in sending it out to local authorities.
------
Scientology business rates relief in the UK -- 20AUG2010 -- (PDF version)

Idiot's Guide to the City of London Scientology Business Rates Controversy

charlie;1311060 said:

Sunderland Echo interested in story but want me to wait untill Sunderland Council answer my questions as to why non charity gets charity relief.

-----------------

Thank you for recent emails. I appreciate that the decision to grant could be viewed as controversial and the volume of information that you have supplied probably bears this out. Would it be acceptable to you if I raised the question:

"Will you tell me what points were put across by the Church of Scientology that persuaded the rates office to grant them charity relief of 80% and discretionary relief of 20% on their property at 51 Fawcett Street"

as a Freedom of Information Request?

If you are happy for me to do this you will receive acknowledgement of this with a date by which the Council must reply. The reply will probably be put together by one of the solicitors that dealt with the application and I will of course forward all the information you have supplied so far to her.

Would this be acceptable?

I look forward to your reply.
Steele.

YES LOL

RolandRB;1311065 said:

charlie;1311044 said:

Sound's like a reasonable explanation, I think it might be time to put more pressure on Sunderland Council .

Gateshead "idle" pays no rates as its a empty building and I dont think the rates will have been set. good idea FOIing them though.

Mr Rashleigh- Berry,

RE: Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Scientology business rates relief

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your request has been considered and it has been decided to provide the information.

Please be advised that at the Church of Scientology are not currently occupying premises in the Gateshead area and no application for business rate relief has been received or approved.

If further assistance or information is required please contact me at the Civic Centre in Gateshead.

Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
Finance and ICT Services
Gateshead Council

Anonymous;1311073 said:

Originally Posted by charlie
Would this be acceptable?

I look forward to your reply.
Steele.

YES LOL

pls point them to my FOI req of today - they might want to do their own anyway, but make them aware of it. Cheers. -JM

charlie;1311078 said:

Hi Steele

The answer is a definite yes please BUT it has come to my attention that other people have picked up on this ie: J Maxwell has put a FOI request in today so if they are doing one for him/her I suppose it's not to much of a problem having another copy.

Reply

We do have another FOI request on this matter from someone else but not a J Maxwell as yet. I look forward to receiving J Maxwell's request and you are correct one reply will probably cover all requests. I will raise your question as an FOI request this morning. You will probably receive an acknowledgement from our FOI software which will include customer number, FOI number, reply by date etc. If you don't get this receipt by the end of the day, or you have any other query please come back to me. If at any point you feel that your FOI request is not being dealt with correctly you can come back to me on it but we do have FOI people who ensure that responses are correct, timely etc.
Steele.

...

Bluebell · Aug 31, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Anonymous;1311097 said:

Originally Posted by Bluebell
Are you guys using the whatdotheyknow.com site for the FoI's?

Generally, yes. A couple of the recent queries to Sunderland have gone via email I think.

RolandRB;1311110 said:

Anonymous;1311098 said:

Originally Posted by charlie
Steele.

I confused - I thought Steele was from the Echo - now I think he/she is council?

Council

charlie;1311197 said:

IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO WORD THIS

"Will you tell me what points were put across by the Church of Scientology that persuaded the rates office to grant them charity relief of 80% and discretionary relief of 20% on their property at 51 Fawcett Street"

as a Freedom of Information Request?

OR SHOULD ANONYMOUS POST.

I would bet (fairly confidently) that they hadn't paid rates for 4/5 years, and it was either drag them to court, or cede to their request. And they took the easy way out... So no money would have been 'handed back' - but debt written off - and if we can force them to reverse that decision as being unlawful ... :-D

be asked something like, were they in arrears on there rates and did the council then right-off the dept as a cheaper solution or just wait and see what happens first.

Anonymous;1311201 said:

I very much doubt that they can disclose the financial status (arrears etc) of a ratepayer.

charlie;1311207 said:

Anonymous;1311201 said:

I very much doubt that they can disclose the financial status (arrears etc) of a ratepayer.

No harm in asking LOL, I will leave it then.

Anonymous;1312288 said:

If we can get either Sunderland or CoL to reverse their decision, that sets precedent that can be used with the other councils. With regards the Celeb Centre in particular, I bet they bring in more 'profit' and conduct more 'chargeable activities' than the other sites. While it's worth keeping the pressure up on Westminster in the meantime (please suggest FOI question suggestions) I think it's better to keep a tight focus.

RolandRB;1312303 said:

Local authorities have granted mandatory relief through making simple mistakes.

The CoL mistake is accepting Scientology was a religion and then assuming that their activities must therefore be charitable and for the public benefit. They ignored the Charity Commission 1999 decision against public benefit in this and did nothing when the Charities Act 2006 came out to revisit their decision concerning public benefit.

The CoW mistake was in deciding that COSRECI was good for the community because of all their anti drugs work and then granting charity relief without considering what the premises were going to be used for. It is used mainly for auditing and training and not to do with anti drugs work and it was already clear from the Charity Commission decision that auditing and training is not charitable in nature.

I will do a major revision of my document to make this clear.

RolandRB;1312305 said:

I'm in "good comm" with Sunderland and I think this will resolve without going to judicial review. I am trying to get Sunderland to get into comm with Mid Sussex District Council where they have been fighting the clams at St. Hill for a full 50 years. I have focused my FOI request to them on how it was established that public benefit was demonstrated for the use of the premises. Of course the premises are mainly used for auditing and training and we know that is not for the public benefit due to the Charity Commission decision so they won't be able to come up with anything and so they will have to reverse the decision.

City of London will be a tough nut to crack but there has been a lot of attention from the Audit Commission on my document so even this might resolve on its own.

I am going to work on my document today as it needs a major revision.

charlie;1312779 said:

Sunderland org is registed as a college, the charity commision can give independent colleges charitable status BUT they have pass a public benefit test but I dont think it would pass the test.

RolandRB;1312781 said:

If you read the published Charity Commission guidelines on public benefit then it is obvious, at least to me, that they had the CoS (E+W) decision in mind and they wrote the rules deliberately to exclude them from ever getting charitable status.

I will let people know as soon as my updated document is webbed. It is much better now and more suitable for use to create derivative documents for any other country where the clams get business rates relief.

I will say at this point, although the situation is very fluid, that there is a 50% chance or better of removing the clams business rates relief from England and Wales without doing much.

Anonymous;1312795 said:

They stated during the Aussie Senate hearings that the new rules were written largely to recognise, entrench and clarify existing case law, so yes. Although I assume there were a bunch of cases that fed into the rewrite.

RolandRB;1312805 said:

No doubt, but I wonder how many of those cases took up more than three years of their time.

Anonymous;1312870 said:

- keep up the good work, guys. consistency, calm & patience will get us there.

- really interesting re Sunderland: discretionary (!!) relief as well as mandatory! The council has chosen to give them an extra discount! They pay no rates at all! Does the press know about this one?

- in answer to someone's question, WT != any of (Roland, chris, J Maxwell). I can't speak for the rest of them, but for myself, I'm an ontologically distinct individual.

WT.

PS Again astonishment re Sunderland choosing to give them extra discount!

Anonymous;1312876 said:

On top of astonishment, by my reading of the Local Govt Fin Act, they actually can't do that - the discretionary relief bit says something like it can only be applied to days where s73 (mandatory charitable) relief has not been granted. s47(1b) says: "sections 43(4) to (6) ... shall not apply as regards the day." s43(5) is the 80% deduction.

I think it makes sence to wait and see what they come back with as the basis before raising it I think.

Anonymous;1312882 said:

it does? where?

Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14)

are you on the 1992 act?

is that the one I should be looking at?

Anonymous;1312885 said:

fuckitty fuck. don't tell me, I should be looking at the 1988 Act.
Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41)

Anonymous;1312886 said:

Gah - 1988 - Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41)

Roland, I pulled that link from your doc to the wiki - you may want to check and update.

Anonymous;1312887 said:

Does the 92 act superceede the 88 act?

Post about Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41)

Anonymous;1312890 said:

amends bits of it.

I'm not sure if the version of the 88 act on OPSI is 'as amended' or not.

Anonymous;1312893 said:

This is the 'as amended' version:

Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41)

I don't see any important changes in the relevant bits.

Anonymous;1312894 said:

I'm thinking it would be. And I can't see anything in the 92 act that affects anything. I had me panicking for a moment there...

Anonymous;1312896 said:

This is really important.

If Anon's reading of the Act is correct[1] then Sunderland council have really screwed up here, and will have to ask COSRECI to pay back-taxes.

So some pretty good PR in store here.

[1] 'correct' that mandatory and discretionary relief can't both be applied at once.

veravendetter;1312901 said:

sunderland anon still lurking here. this is all great progress guys. regarding the council, i have affiliations and situations which i can't explain here, which prohibit me doing anything requiring the use of my real identity, so this is just really a note of encouragement to you guys. anything anonymous that can be done, please feel free to pm me

Sponge;1312930 said:

If it was the entirely council's mistake interpreting the legislation then I'm not sure whether they'd be able to ask for repayment, would they?

Anonymous;1312936 said:

the papers would like it though.

Anonymous;1312939 said:

They're applying to more local authorities right at the moment, so Sci properties that we think don't have tax relief may not continue that way.

Scientology rates relief: Sunderland - WhatDoTheyKnow

the grant of the relief ... took place on 7 June 2010

RolandRB;1312943 said:

If you can get my document to the right people in Sunderland then it might have a good effect. Document link is below.
------
Scientology business rates relief in the UK -- 27AUG2010 -- (PDF version)

charlie;1313730 said:

4.1.4 Although charitable organisations are eligible for 80% mandatory relief, this relief can be topped up to 100% at the discretion of the local authority. This discretionary top-up is 25% centrally funded, as local authorities are required to pay 75% of any such top-up into the national rate pool. If an authority wishes to increase the relief to charities above the mandatory level, for the purposes of calculating the chargeable amount, sections 43(5) and 45(5) are disapplied and the chargeable amount is determined by, or found in accordance with, rules determined by the authority.

It's not a charitable organisation or a charity!!!!!!!.

Still waiting for my FOI request to be acknowledged, will give till the middle of next week then drop them a line.

RolandRB;1313731 said:

I have added a Sunderland entry at the end of my document for examples of how local authorities get it wrong even though I am still awaiting the answer. I wanted to acknowledge the generosity of the good people of Sunderland in paying 75% of the discretionary 20% top-up relief out of their domestic rates. Yes, you will all be paying higher domestic rates but just think of all the benefits you will get back from this good Church. LOL !

...

Bluebell · Aug 31, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

RolandRB;1313728 said:

Originally Posted by Anonymous
This is really important.

If Anon's reading of the Act is correct[1] then Sunderland council have really screwed up here, and will have to ask COSRECI to pay back-taxes.

So some pretty good PR in store here.

[1] 'correct' that mandatory and discretionary relief can't both be applied at once.

Yes it can. Most definitely. See 4.1.4 below.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister | Consultation Papers on Rate Relief

Anonymous;1313736 said:

What that clearly says is that they can offer discretionary relief over 80% if they want, it does NOT say they can both be applied at once.

"If an authority wishes to increase the relief to charities above the mandatory level, for the purposes of calculating the chargeable amount, sections 43(5) and 45(5) are disapplied and the chargeable amount is determined by, or found in accordance with, rules determined by the authority."

RolandRB;1313738 said:

Well, the point is the clams can get a 100% rates rebate with 80% mandatory plus 20% discretionary and it seems a few people thought this not to be possible in their reading of the LGFA.

Anonymous;1313781 said:

Except it's 100% discretionary - and their rules have to cover it as such.

charlie;1313730 said:

4.1.4 Although charitable organisations are eligible for 80% mandatory relief, this relief can be topped up to 100% at the discretion of the local authority. This discretionary top-up is 25% centrally funded, as local authorities are required to pay 75% of any such top-up into the national rate pool. If an authority wishes to increase the relief to charities above the mandatory level, for the purposes of calculating the chargeable amount, sections 43(5) and 45(5) are disapplied and the chargeable amount is determined by, or found in accordance with, rules determined by the authority.

It's not a charitable organisation or a charity!!!!!!!.

Still waiting for my FOI request to be acknowledged, will give till the middle of next week then drop them a line.

RolandRB;1313731 said:

I have added a Sunderland entry at the end of my document for examples of how local authorities get it wrong even though I am still awaiting the answer. I wanted to acknowledge the generosity of the good people of Sunderland in paying 75% of the discretionary 20% top-up relief out of their domestic rates. Yes, you will all be paying higher domestic rates but just think of all the benefits you will get back from this good Church. LOL !

charlie;1313732 said:

Not me bonny lad, geordie not makem LOL (no offence intended).

RolandRB;1313737 said:

Actually, now I think about it, they might not fund this from increasing domestic rates. Instead they might fund it out of cutting aid to less deserving causes such as the handicapped and disabled (Still LOL).

Edit: I put that bit about cutting back services to the handicapped and disabled in my document, it made me laugh so much, but you won't see it until a later release.

God, its going through my head at the moment. A man with worn out crutches goes in to ask for a new pair and is told "sorry, you'll have to make do with them for the rest of the year - we have other priorities, such as funding the local Church of Scientology". Why does it make me laugh so hard?

charlie;1313746 said:

"cutting aid to less deserving causes such as the handicapped and disabled"

Now don't get me started on this , red rag to a bull.

edit.
Bloody good point there Roland I will on the case on tuesday (bank holl's) I will use my contact's in Gateshead's Parent Carer groups to sus out some contact's for Sunderland dont think they will be overly impressed .

On a personal note, all I'm hearing from Gateshead Council at the minute is "budget restraint this that and the other".

RolandRB;1313747 said:

That's understandable, they're saving up bundles of cash to throw it at the Ideal Org when it opens.

Edit: Blind man goes into Sunderland Social Services with a broken cane and asks for a new one. "You'll have to make do, I'm afraid, we got more deserving causes to support such as the Church of Scientology on Fawcett Street. Try taping it together and don't tap so hard on the pavement to make it last".

Maybe somebody could send that in to the Sunderland Echo as the "joke of the day" or post it to the forum. LOL !

Sunderland Echo - Sunderland news, football, sport and entertainment covering Wearside

charlie;1313750 said:

"If" it opens, there's that compulsory purchase option.

Anonymous;1313817 said:

Just fired off:

Rules for discretionary rates relief - WhatDoTheyKnow (Brum)
Rules for discretionary rates relief - WhatDoTheyKnow (Sunderland)

RolandRB;1313821 said:

I still don't get what this is about.

Anonymous;1313823 said:

s47(1) states:

(a)the chargeable amount for the day shall be such as is determined by, or found in accordance with rules determined by, the [billing authority] concerned,

And the Office of the DPM you linked earlier, states:

If an authority wishes to increase the relief to charities above the mandatory level, for the purposes of calculating the chargeable amount, sections 43(5) and 45(5) are disapplied and the chargeable amount is determined by, or found in accordance with, rules determined by the authority.

Which means the granting of discretionary relief has to be consistent with the rules of the authority in force at the time - and rules should be documented.

They can't legitimately provide some level of discretionary relief, unless the level is specified by, or consistent with, the in-force rules at the time.

charlie;1314630 said:

been speaking to a couple of charitys in Sunderland this morning they are very interested in how they got 100% LOL. Sent them email info too.

...

AIN · Aug 31, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

TL/DR; is what?

Bluebell · Aug 31, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Was trying to make things easier to follow, instead of this huge mash of stuff.

Scn Business rates relief UK - Why We Protest | Activism Forum

Guess I was wrong and wasted my time.

Anonymous · Aug 31, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Ahhh, now I see - Carry on Bluebell.

Bluebell · Sep 1, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Ok think I've pull out the main stuff from this HUGE mash of stuff.

Scn Business rates relief UK

RolandRB · Sep 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

I've done a FOI request to Sunderland City Council that only asks for a redacted scan of the clam application form for mandatory and discretionary rates relief. I am hoping to get a quick response.

Church of Scientology application form(s) for rates relief - WhatDoTheyKnow

Bluebell · Sep 30, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Just so this info doesn't get buried in the big sci thread

Anonymous;1326315 said:

Other Audit committees for local authorities providing rates relief to Scientology:

Sunderland:
Sunderland City Council : Year Book
http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9300&p=0
(remember Sunderland is opting to award discretionary as well as mandatory (charitable) relief).

Camden:
Camden Council: Discussions: Committee details
(TCR)

Westminster:
Westminster City Council - Policy and Scrutiny Committees
Westminster City Council - Westminster Scrutiny Commission

Brum:
Finance Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Birmingham City Council

Bluebell · Sep 30, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

...

Anonymous · Sep 30, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Was this posted in the secret treehouse of Sunderland anons? It'd be kind of cool it that was a little more accessable, though I understand you don't really want scilons all over it.

Anonymous · Sep 30, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Anonymous;1329955 said:

Was this posted in the secret treehouse of Sunderland anons? It'd be kind of cool it that was a little more accessable, though I understand you don't really want scilons all over it.

it just got lost in the big 'UK Scientology Rates Relief' thread on here.

suggest we add this info to the wiki

Anonymous · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

new info re Sunderland:

FOI: Email and electronic filing search - WhatDoTheyKnow

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ness Rate System of Scientology Account 2.pdf

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque.../attach/3/Email search results 51 fawcett.pdf

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...attach/4/Email search results scientology.pdf

Sponge · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

^Shitloads of emails on 'scientology' (the 3rd link above) showing subject lines and dates but most with contents redacted.

Anonymous · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

page 97 of http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque.../attach/3/Email search results 51 fawcett.pdf

Dear Mr Hodkin

Re: Application for Business Rates Relief - 51 Fawcett Street, Sunderland, SR1 1RS

I refer to the Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc’s (‘CoS’)
application for mandatory and discretionary business rates relief. I have
considered the documentation, booklets, DVDs and additional papers
submitted to date, in support of your client’s application.
Mandatory business rates relief may be granted where the ratepayer is a
charity or trustees for a charity and the hereditament is wholly or mainly used
for charitable purposes. Under the Local Government Finance Act 1988,
‘charity’ is defined as ‘an institution or other organisation established for
charitable purposes only or any persons administering a trust established for
charitable purposes only’. I have considered CoS’ Constitution in light of the
four categories of charitable purposes as laid down in the Pemsel case. I
believe that it can be said that CoS is established either for the advancement
of religion or for other purposes beneficial to the community.

Advancement of Religion

As you note in your letter of 20th July 1999, the Council are obliged to
determine the question of whether Scientology is a religion themselves.
However, the Council cannot enter into theological debates about the
advantages or otherwise of an organisation but must act within its powers to
ensure that public funds are allocated to organisations in need of assistance
and are free to do so by reference to legal authority.

A wide definition of religion was accepted by the courts in the case of The
Church of the New Faith and the Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria,
Judge Murphy stating:-
‘… any body which claims to be religious, whose beliefs or
practices are a revival of, or resemble, earlier cults, is religious.
Any body which claims to be religious and to believe in a
supernatural Being or Beings, whether physical and visible, such
as the sun or the stars, or a physical invisible God or spirit, or an
abstract God or entity, is religious. For example, if a few followers
of astrology were to found an institution based on the belief that
their destinies were influenced or controlled by the stars, and that
astrologers can, by reading the stars, divine these destinies, and
if claimed to be religious, it would be a religious institution. Any

Page 98 of 121

body which claims to be religious, and offers a way to find a
meaning and purpose in life, is religious’

The case of R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others,
ex parte Williamson and others concerned the banning of corporal
punishment in schools. The appellants arguing, amongst other things, that the
ban was incompatible with their right to freedom of religion. The case did not
address the question of whether Scientology should be classed as a religion.
Once more, a wide definition of religion was accepted by the Court;
‘Freedom of religion protects the subjective belief of an individual’
Under cover of your letter of 20th July 2009, and contained within section ‘HI’
of your document bundle you have included a copy of the DTI’s Explanatory
Notes for the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The notes state;
’10. In the religion Regulations, regulation 2(1) defines “religion or belief”
as “any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief”. It will be
for the courts and tribunals to determine, in accordance with the
Directive’s requirements, whether a religion or belief falls within this
definition’.

The Case of Church of Scientology Moscow v Russia did not specifically
address the question of whether Scientology is a religion, as it had been
recognised as a religious organisation domestically since 1994. Similarly, in
the case of X and Church of Scientology v Sweden, the court accepted the
Church of Scientology as an applicant recognising its status as a nongovernmental
organisation without determining whether Scientology is a
religion.

In conclusion, there is no binding legal authority to base a finding that
Scientology is to be classed as a religion for the purposes of UK National Non
Domestic Rates.

Purposes beneficial to the Community

I believe that CoS’ application stands or falls on whether it can be said that
CoS is established for purposes beneficial to the community. In undertaking
this analysis I have considered guidance from the Charity Commission as well
as the provisions of the Charities Act 2006. The Act specifically places an
obligation on organisations to demonstrate the public benefit requirement.

Page 99 of 121

At paragraph 9 of their guidance note entitled “Recognising New Charitable
Purposes”, (October 2001) the Commission advise;

9. The courts are increasingly setting out the underlying principles when
deciding cases on charitable status and providing guidelines for future
cases. The analysis, by Slade J. in McGovern v Att.-Gen.( [1982] Ch.
321.) of the rules relating to political purposes is an example of this
approach. In the same way, where appropriate, we will clarify the
underlying principles raised by a particular application for registration in
order to provide guidance for future applications. For example, the
Commissioners, in reaching a decision on the charitable status of the
Church of Scientology (England and Wales), considered and set out
the underlying principles raised by that particular application for
registration as a charity in order to reach their decision and so provide
guidance for future applications3 (3 See report of the decision of the
Commissioners on the application for registration by the Church of
Scientology (England and Wales).

The Charity Commission clearly rely upon their previous decision regarding
the charitable status of the Church of Scientology (England and Wales)
however, I have read your paper entitled “Errors in the Charity Commission’s
decision on Church of Scientology (England and Wales)”, provided under
cover of your letter dated 5th September 2006.

In order to take a fresh approach I have referred to the Charity Commission’s
general guidance on public benefit, a copy of which was contained within
section ‘JK’ of your application bundle. As advised by the Commission; “public
benefit is the legal requirement that every organisation set up for one or more
charitable aims must be able to demonstrate that its aims are for the public
benefit it if is to be recognised, and registered, as a charity in England and
Wales”.

Having contemplated the descriptions of charitable purposes provided in
section C of the guidance, I am of the opinion that CoS can be said to meet
the description at b), ‘the advancement of education’ and/or m), ‘purposes
which are similar to another charitable purpose’ that being ‘the advancement
of religion’. In this regard I have also referred to the draft supplementary
guidance entitled “Public Benefit and the Advancement of Moral or Ethical
Belief Systems”.

At Annex A of the Commission’s guidance entitled ‘The Advancement of
Education for the Public Benefit’, the Commission gives examples of ways in
which charities might advance education. The ways in which education can be
advanced include formally in institutions and informally in community groups
and by making materials, or objects capable of educating, available to the
public, such as libraries or on databases. Services can be provided in the
form of lessons, seminars, conferences and lectures. Support can be provided
in the form of mentoring and coaching and knowledge is promoted and

Page 100 of 121

standards can be raised by maintaining an academic library with access for
academics and students. I am advised by Council officers that examples of
these were apparent when they visited CoS’ Fawcett Street premises.
At page 13 of the Commission’s guidance entitled ‘Public Benefit and the
Advancement of Moral or Ethical Belief System’, the Commission state;
‘We would suggest that, to be charitable, a moral or ethical belief
system must feature the following characteristics;
• it comprises a coherent and distinct set of spiritual, moral or
philosophical convictions underpinned by a moral and ethical code
which is capable of impacting on society in a beneficial way;
• it is, in principle, capable of being accepted and applied by the
public at large as a philosophy for living their daily lives or as a way
of achieving heightened or special awareness, in each case directly
affecting, in a beneficial way, how individuals interact with others;
• it is something by which a follower or adherent defines their life
and convictions
• it is generally accessible to, and applicable within, the community,
according to individuals choice and judgment
• it has capacity for application or adoption so that improved moral
or spiritual welfare of the community might result’

At page 16 of this guidance the Commission give examples of the ways in
which organisations can advance a moral or ethical belief system in a way
that is for the public benefit. I feel that the examples which directly relate to
CoS’ practices are; facilitating ceremonies and meetings through the provision
and maintenance of buildings used for ceremonies, meetings, spiritual
contemplation and instruction; raising awareness and understanding of the
beliefs and practices by producing and promoting teachings including books,
films and other information for the public; and promoting the study of the
beliefs and practices by providing or supporting schools and educational
establishments which provide education in accordance with the principles and
practices of a moral or ethical belief system. CoS has also provided evidence
of outreach work in the local community and carried out public
communications in the form of meetings for followers and adherents, concerts
and provision of material via the internet.

I have undertaken a review of public benefit and have referred to the Charity
Commission two key principles, both of which must be met in order to show
that an organisation’s aims are for the public benefit.
Principle 1. There must be an identifiable benefit or benefits, and
Principle 2. Benefit must be to the public, or a section of the public
Page 101 of 121
Underlying those principles are further considerations, each of which I
shall consider in turn.

Principle 1. There must be an identifiable benefit or benefits
1a. It must be clear what the benefits are
Cos’ Constitutional Objects state;
“The college exists for the benefit of the public at large and in
particular for the furtherance of the doctrines and Creed of the
religion of Scientology throughout the world and for the purpose of
administering religious colleges for the instruction of members of
the college or their delegates in the doctrine and creed of
Scientology, and for the training and ordination of ministers of the
religion of Scientology”

As stated in the Charity Commission’s guidance on ‘The Advancement of
Education for the Public Benefit’ ;
‘The development of an individual’s intellectual, physical, emotional
and spiritual capabilities are of fundamental value to both the
individual and to the health and well being of the society around
them. Education is about equipping people with the capacity to
understand and operate successfully in society’.
The Charity Commission also assert that;
‘The benefits to the public should be capable of being
recognised, identified, defined or described but that does not
mean that they also have to be capable of being quantified or
measured’

Nevertheless, sections ‘T’ and ‘UV’ of the bundle contain Testimonials
from Scientologists as well as case notes relating to members of the
public who have been assisted by Scientology teachings in Sunderland.
Section ‘N’ contains the cover of CoS’ guide ‘The Way to Happiness’, a
copy of which has been provided to the Council for consideration. Section
‘PQ’ and ‘R’ again contain copies of the covers from CoS’ advisory
leaftlets relating to Human Rights education and anti drug awareness
literature.

1b. The benefits must be related to the aims

The document at section ‘HI’ of your bundle is entitled ‘The Aims of
Scientology’. It was noted by Council officers when visiting the Fawcett
Street premises that this particular aim is predominant i.e.;

Page 102 of 121

‘A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war;
where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights,
and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of
Scientology’

If we take a narrow view of the aim of CoS as being the promotion of
Scientology, it may still be held that the benefits are that the followers of
Scientology become better citizens and in turn work in the community to
assist the general public.

1c. Benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm
The Commission note, ‘Benefit’ means the overall or net benefit to the
public. It is not simply a question of showing that some benefit may
result’. Furthermore, that ‘There would need to be some real evidence of
detriment or harm; it cannot just be supposed’. I can find no evidence of
detriment or harm and find that the aims of CoS are of benefit to the
community.

Principle 2. Benefit must be to the public, or a section of the public
2a. The beneficiaries must be appropriate to the aims
Previous Commission guidance has advised that ‘The public’ can mean
groups, communities, society or humanity. It can mean geographical,
social or economic communities; it does not just mean people in the UK.
For example, a charity provides benefit to the public if the benefits it
offers are made widely available even though in practice only a few
people from time to time take advantage of those benefits
In Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd, (a trust to educate
the children of employees and former employees of a tobacco
company). The Judge concluded that the words ‘section’ of the public’
have no special sanctity. They indicate that:
(i) the possible beneficiaries must not be numerically negligible; and
(ii) the quality which distinguishes those beneficiaries from other
members of the public must be a quality which does not depend on
their relationship to a particular person.
Here the fact that there is no impact on the wider community by the
limited beneficial class is considered fatal to the issue of public benefit.
The beneficiaries of the practice of Scientology appear to be the
Scientologists themselves, however, they benefit from being a member
and from undertaking teaching then going out into the wider community
to assist others.

Page 103 of 121

2b. Where benefit is to a section of the public, the opportunity to
benefit must not be unreasonably restricted
• by geographical or other restrictions or
• by ability to pay any fees charges
It is noted that there are limitations on Scientologist members through staged
learning and that members can only progress once they have reached certain
stages. However, Council officers were advised during the visit to Fawcett
Street that in order to progress through the various levels of teachings
students must demonstrate that they have put into practice the teachings and
assisted others.
In Koeppler’s Will Trusts, Lord Justice Slade, in discussing whether a charity
providing courses was charitable, stated:
“As to the element of public benefit, the participants in the courses
appear to have been selected from widely drawn categories, as
persons likely to influence opinion in their own country. Like the judge,
I find little difficulty in inferring that not only they themselves are likely
to benefit from the courses, but are likely to pass on such benefits to
others.”
CoS has advised that materials are widely and freely available whether on the
Internet or through the local library. CoS may say that society as a whole
benefits from the practice of Scientology and I can find no evidence to rebut
this.

2c. People in poverty must not be excluded from the opportunity to
benefit
CoS advise that materials are freely available and one can progress
without having to pay for courses.

2d. Any private benefits must be incidental
The issue of private benefits to individuals in being members are addressed
by the Commission;
‘Where people benefit from a charity through a membership structure that
is not unreasonably restricted, then the private benefits to the members
are the benefits they receive as a beneficiary, and so are regarded as a
necessary result of carrying out the charitable aims’
Advancing Scientology appears to benefit its members together with the
public at large. Having read the provided literature, the organisation appears
altruistic and the benefits to members are incidental to its aims.
Discretionary Relief

Page 104 of 121

On the question of whether CoS should be eligible for discretionary rates
relief, section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, provides;
‘(2) The first condition is that one or more of the following applies on the
chargeable day—
(a) the ratepayer is a charity or trustees for a charity, and the
hereditament is wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes (whether
of that charity or of that and other charities);
(b) the hereditament is not an excepted hereditament, and all or part of it
is occupied for the purposes of one or more institutions or other
organisations none of which is established or conducted for profit and
each of whose main objects are charitable or are otherwise philanthropic
or religious or concerned with education, social welfare, science,
literature or the fine arts;
(c) the hereditament is not an excepted hereditament, it is wholly or
mainly used for purposes of recreation, and all or part of it is occupied for
the purposes of a club, society or other organisation not established or
conducted for profit.
(3) The second condition is that, during a period which consists of or
includes the chargeable day, a decision of the billing authority concerned
operates to the effect that this section applies as regards the
hereditament concerned.’

In order to qualify for discretionary relief, it must be necessary to conclude
that CoS’ objects are philanthropic or religious or concerned with education,
social welfare, science, literature or the fine arts. I find that CoS’ objects do
concern social welfare.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the Church of Scientology Religious
Education College Inc is established and operates for charitable purposes and
as such should benefit for both mandatory and discretionary relief from
National Non Domestic Rates.

Sponge · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

^I'd just this second picked that one up and was trying and failing to copy/paste so thanks for doing that.

So, that's propbably the most detailed we've had so far into a local council's line of thinking on the decision to give rates relief.

As you highlighted.....<jawdrop>......

2c. People in poverty must not be excluded from the opportunity to
benefit
CoS advise that materials are freely available and one can progress
without having to pay for courses.

LIARS!

Everyone mob sunderland org and demand your free bridge to todal freedumb today. Hey, the cult says it cost nothing.

Sponge · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

It's the cult's usual culty solicitors who are the ones doing the bidding...

From: XXXXX XXXXXX [mailto:XXXXX@hodkin.org]
Sent: 12 May 2010 11:53
To: XXXXXXXX XXXXXX
Subject: Business Rates Relief
Dear XXXXXXXXXXX
Many thanks.
You indicated in our telephone call that the decision notice letter itself would be sent
out to me today. As I will be seeing my client later today I would be grateful if this
could be scanned and emailed to me, or faxed, when it is ready.
Kind regards
XXXXX XXXXXX
HODKIN & COMPANY
Solicitors
42/44 Copthorne Road
Felbridge
East Grinstead
RH19 2NS
Tel: 01342 325765
Fax: 01342 325479
This firm is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority SRA Number 00077994

The "Director of Financial Resources" is the one who gives the final say.....

----- Original Message -----
From: XXXXXXXX XXXXXX
To: XXXXX@XXXXXX.org
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:31 AM
Subject: Application for Business Rates Relief
XXXXX
Apologies for missing your call.
The Director of Financial Resources has made the decision to grant relief to the property at
51 Fawcett Street. A decision notice shall be forwarded to you in the next few days.
Kind regards

XXXXXXXX
XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX
Solicitor
Regeneration and Development Team
Sunderland City Council
Chief Solicitor's Office
Civic Centre
Burdon Road
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Direct Line: (0191) 561 XXXX
Fax: (0191) 553 XXXX
E-mail: XXXXXXXX.XXXXXX@sunderland.gov.uk

Anonymous · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Sponge;1332131 said:

LIARS!

Well, yes. I think we knew that, didn't we?

See also:

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

as they seem to have their own equivalent of 'Roland's document'.

Anonymous · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

It's interesting that the Scientologists seem to have had to appeal here, too, to get their tax relief.

If I'm understanding the docs correctly.

Sponge · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Anonymous;1332143 said:

Well, yes. I think we knew that, didn't we?

See also:

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

as they seem to have their own equivalent of 'Roland's document'.

Yeah but being so bare faced about it and on a subject which which is so fundemental to how the scientology organisation works, i.e. "spiritual freedom" via a strict price list.

RolandRB · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Sponge;1332131 said:

^I'd just this second picked that one up and was trying and failing to copy/paste so thanks for doing that.

So, that's propbably the most detailed we've had so far into a local council's line of thinking on the decision to give rates relief.

As you highlighted.....<jawdrop>......

LIARS!

Everyone mob sunderland org and demand your free bridge to todal freedumb today. Hey, the cult says it cost nothing.

They were referring to stuff you can find in the public library.

Sponge · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Anonymous;1332144 said:

It's interesting that the Scientologists seem to have had to appeal here, too, to get their tax relief.

If I'm understanding the docs correctly.

I might have to re-read but on a quick scan it seems that that way. The final decision appears to have been in May 2010 but it was around March that the application/appeal started. The backdating of the relief which we found out about from previous FOI could possibly only go as far back as March but there is a possibility that if it is an appeal on an earlier first application then the backdating could go back to whatever that date was, which it appears from earlier in this thread, to be 2006.

Anonymous · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Sponge;1332149 said:

Yeah but being so bare faced about it and on a subject which which is so fundemental to how the scientology organisation works, i.e. "spiritual freedom" via a strict price list.

Yeah, it's nice when they shoot themselves in the foot.

Sponge · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

RolandRB;1332152 said:

They were referring to stuff you can find in the public library.

But that's NOT what was said in the dox. In any case, such a thing would not be "progess" by their own standards because you wouldn't get very far on "The Bridge" from the stuff that they are willing to give to public libraries (those dim enough to waste the shelf space for it) and without any 1-on-1official scientology contact. They are trying to claim "progress without having to pay for courses".

If the council asked for copies of all the OT levels to be put in reference libraries or just for themselves, do you think the cult would hand it over?

Anonymous · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Sponge;1332131 said:

^I'd just this second picked that one up and was trying and failing to copy/paste so thanks for doing that.

So, that's propbably the most detailed we've had so far into a local council's line of thinking on the decision to give rates relief.

As you highlighted.....<jawdrop>......

LIARS!

Everyone mob sunderland org and demand your free bridge to todal freedumb today. Hey, the cult says it cost nothing.

LOL! Better advise all those rich LA clams to jump on the next flight over here!

Anonymous · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Sponge;1332157 said:

But that's NOT what was said in the dox. In any case, such a thing would not be "progess" by their own standards because you wouldn't get very far on "The Bridge" from the stuff that they are willing to give to public libraries (those dim enough to waste the shelf space for it) and without any 1-on-1official scientology contact. They are trying to claim "progress without having to pay for courses".

If the council asked for copies of all the OT levels to be put in reference libraries or just for themselves, do you think the cult would hand it over?

Hey, those books are handy for sneaky stealth drops of YFTC's.

hartley patterson · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

This paragraph was quite boggling as well:

1c. Benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm
The Commission note, ‘Benefit’ means the overall or net benefit to the public. It is not simply a question of showing that some benefit may result’. Furthermore, that ‘There would need to be some real evidence of detriment or harm; it cannot just be supposed’. I can find no evidence of detriment or harm and find that the aims of CoS are of benefit to the community.

'Find' presupposes 'looking', so this is a lie - the writer has not looked for either.

Anonymous · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

hartley patterson;1332216 said:

This paragraph was quite boggling as well:

'Find' presupposes 'looking', so this is a lie - the writer has not looked for either.

I noticed that.

Seems to me that if we could demonstrate detriment then that would be grounds for them to reconsider their decision.

Sponge · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Anonymous;1332233 said:

I noticed that.

Seems to me that if we could demonstrate detriment then that would be grounds for them to reconsider their decision.

Scientology's anti-psychiatry stance. The original Charities Commission ruling didn't quite go that far at the time (it didn't need to) but it was actually used in a New Zealand decision to reject the CCHR's application for charitable status there.
It was based on standard tests which our Charities Comission cites analogous examples of, for the explicit purpose of aiding such decisions (e.g the anti-vivisectionists groups, in that their extremist ideology of preventing one harm creates a bigger harm).

Random guy · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

The "Australian of the year", a high profile psychiatrist, came out againt the cult quite strongly. Perhaps that could be used. Then there is life in the Seaorg...

Anonymous · Oct 5, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Are we talking about the place with a blue door that's only open two days a week? (100% rates rebate on a business can hardly be a public benefit when it's only open for twelve hours a week, can it?) Or are we talking about the Idle Org (former nursing home) building that's crumbling away with no work being done on it?

RolandRB · Oct 6, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

From:
Charities and Public Benefit

No organisation that has aims that are illegal, or that intentionally deceives or misrepresents its aims and so is a sham, can be a charity. Where that sort of detriment or harm is present then there is no balancing to be done as, notwithstanding any benefits that might arise from carrying out the organisation's aims, it cannot be recognised as charitable.

OTBT · Oct 6, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

RolandRB;1332552 said:

From:
Charities and Public Benefit

No organisation that has aims that are illegal, or that intentionally deceives or misrepresents its aims and so is a sham, can be a charity. Where that sort of detriment or harm is present then there is no balancing to be done as, notwithstanding any benefits that might arise from carrying out the organisation's aims, it cannot be recognised as charitable.

The stated aims:
Code:
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part12/Chp37/pg0684.html
THE AIMS OF SCIENTOLOGY

BY L. RON HUBBARD

A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.

First announced to an enturbulated world in 1950, these aims are well within the grasp of our technology.

Nonpolitical in nature, Scientology welcomes any individual of any creed, race or nation.

We seek no revolution. We seek only evolution to higher states of being for the individual and for society.

We are achieving our aims.

The reality:

HUBBARD IN HIS OWN WORDS

"MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972

"ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 18 October 1967
[SP = Suppressive Person a.k.a. critic of Scientology]

"A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) "Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists"

Sponge · Oct 6, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Anonymous;1332524 said:

Are we talking about the place with a blue door that's only open two days a week? (100% rates rebate on a business can hardly be a public benefit when it's only open for twelve hours a week, can it?) Or are we talking about the Idle Org (former nursing home) building that's crumbling away with no work being done on it?

Yes, it's the bluedoors building in Sunderland centre at 51 Fawcett Street. The Tardis.

The crumbling former nursing home building for the proposed Idle Borg is further north, near Newcastle, on the south side of the River Tyne, in Gateshead.

Anonymous · Oct 6, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

RolandRB;1332552 said:

From:
Charities and Public Benefit

No organisation that has aims that are illegal, or that intentionally deceives or misrepresents its aims and so is a sham, can be a charity. Where that sort of detriment or harm is present then there is no balancing to be done as, notwithstanding any benefits that might arise from carrying out the organisation's aims, it cannot be recognised as charitable.

this is also particularly applicable to Narconon - which is a registered UK charity - in that its stated goal of drug rehabilitation doesn't match its actual goal of new-Scientology-victim-recruitment.

BigBeard · Oct 6, 2010

Re: Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

And there is harm on an individual level:

First by not delivering what is promised by NarCONon to the victim and their family.

Second by the physical damage created by the megadoses of vitamins and niacin combined with the extended sauna times. Both of which have been condemned on more than once by real medical doctors, including one time Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop.

BigBeard

Log in or Sign up

Sunderland Rates Relief based talk

Bluebell Member

Bluebell Member

Bluebell Member

Bluebell Member

Bluebell Member

Bluebell Member

Bluebell Member

AIN Member

Bluebell Member

Anonymous Member

Bluebell Member

RolandRB Member

Bluebell Member

Bluebell Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Sponge Member

Anonymous Member

Sponge Member

Sponge Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Sponge Member

RolandRB Member

Sponge Member

Anonymous Member

Sponge Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

hartley patterson Member

Anonymous Member

Sponge Member

Random guy Member

Anonymous Member

RolandRB Member

OTBT Member

Sponge Member

Anonymous Member

BigBeard Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Predefined Skins