BY NIGEL BEAN & PAUL READ
What are the UK Charity Commission public benefit rules for a charity?
From the Charity Commission’s website:
The ‘benefit aspect’
To satisfy this aspect:
- a purpose must be beneficial – this must be in a way that is identifiable and capable of being proved by evidence where necessary and which is not based on personal views
- any detriment or harm that results from the purpose (to people, property or the environment) must not outweigh the benefit – this is also based on evidence and not on personal views
The ‘public aspect’
To satisfy this aspect the purpose must:
- benefit the public in general, or a sufficient section of the public – what is a ‘sufficient section of the public’ varies from purpose to purpose
- not give rise to more than incidental personal benefit – personal benefit is ‘incidental’ where (having regard both to its nature and to its amount) it is a necessary result or by-product of carrying out the purpose
This week a 14 page report was handed to Charity Commission investigators pointing out why the League Against Cruel Sports never merited charity status. The evidence passed to them is shocking and shows LACS in a very bad light – at times they have been criminal. Here below is a brief summary from part of this report. A further section showing their pressuring of the National Trust shall be published in due course.
Summary of evidence on LACS
- The following information will prove beyond any reasonable doubt the League Against Cruel Sports are of no public benefit and should have their charity status removed immediately.
- The information will show they do not have a valid cause. They rely on carefully-written propaganda to fool the public into believing their campaigns are justified.
- To pull the wool over the eyes of the public they have used manipulated science from a professor they nicknamed the ‘chosen one’.
- Hunt monitors serve no purpose other than to inflame situations, provoke confrontation and then capture the aftermath on film.
- Hunt Monitors carefully shoot footage that can be made to look like someone is breaking the law but is fraudulent or acted out.
- LACS’ use of hunt monitors puts people’s lives in grave danger.
- Registered charities are bullied by the League into making controversial public decisions.
- Some of the information provided here (and in a 14 page report) to the Commission may pre-date LACS’ charity status, but their earlier mischief sowed the seeds of resentment, discontent and hatred that is very much evident today and thus cannot be discounted.
- Douglas Batchelor, the CEO who steered the League to charity status, publicly inferred twice fox hunters were child abusers. This in itself should be subject to a police investigation. This smear set the tone for the social media vitriol we see today directed at hunters and now recorded by the Countryside Alliance – http://www.countryside-alliance.org/two-thirds-of-country-sports-supporters-are-bullied-online-for-their-beliefs/
Douglas Batchelor ex-CEO of the League Against Cruel Sports recorded in Hansard:
“In much the same way as while paedophiles may feel that they enjoy abusing children and are therefore justified, a civilised society condemns their pleasures and regards them as socially unacceptable”.
Douglas Batchelor again around 2011:
“In my blog post last week I referred to the grooming of children to kill for fun. It evoked a storm of protest from the hunters and shooters. They really did not like being labelled with the language more commonly used for other perversions”
- Baroness Angela Smith of Basildon ignored counter evidence and used her parliamentary position to promote false propaganda. For example, the counter-evidence from the circuses has only just come to the public’s attention and needs a public airing.
- Baroness Angela Smith of Basildon, Vice President of the charity of the League Against Cruel Sports ignored honest citizens’ cries for help. While they were being threatened with violence (even sent a letter bomb) she was busy promoting false propaganda.
- Animal rights groups rely on discovering the one bad apple which they then use to generalise i.e. everyone else is doing it. However the evidence shown below suggests unless a prosecution has arisen from that bad apple’s activities then it’s just as probable someone innocent has been set up with mischievous and deceptive intent.