Sorry, but I think this is irrelevant as it only applies to Jehovah's Witnesses themselves.
Earnest, the statement you commented on could possibly be irrelevant. The only way this could be successfully argued is to prove that showing those anti-blood transfusion articles to householders counts as "discouraging members of the public in general" to refuse transfusions. After all, if they wanted to keep it out of the public knowledge, the WT can simply elect to not print their wacky anti-transfusion articles. But they don't, and they want to scare normal people into refusing blood. It all depends on how well the point can be argued. If they were smart, the WT would get a convert and then say, "Oh by the way, if you need a transfusion, you can't get one." That would be the only way to get them off the hook.
Sarah Whalley, a press officer for the Charity Commission said: “We would need to look on a case-by-case basis at any charity advancing religion that has any practice that might be defined as causing detriment or harm.”
Her open-ended statment would be the key to winning this battle. We've got mounds of stories to show how many poor kids died from not receiving a transfusion. Plus--and this would be tougher to argue--how about the allowing of PEDOPHILES to go canvassing the neighborhood?? "Detrimental" is just the right word to describe that policy!