Hello, Spunkychick!
Welcome to the Forum!
Spanner
We Need Your Help...NOW!!!
by SpannerintheWorks 128 Replies latest members private
-
-
Dansk
I found this interesting from the British Charities Commission:
In order for an organisation to be charitable, it must not be merely for the benefit of particular private individuals (1) . It must be of a public character. This principle affects every issue of charitable status and every topic considered in the Review of the Register. We must be clear what the principle means in practice. This publication sets out our understanding.
Charity and benefit for the community
2. Any charity needs to meet two fundamental criteria. First its purposes must be exclusively and legally charitable. Much of the Review of the Register is about whether particular purposes are in fact charitable eg the relief of unemployment.
3. Secondly, all charities must also be for the benefit of the community or an appreciably important section of the community. In other words charity should have a public character. After explaining what is meant by "benefit", this publication explores the key questions:
- what is meant by "the public"?
- to what extent may individuals benefit privately?
- to what extent is public character affected by charging?
The meaning of "benefit"
4. A charity must provide a recognisable advantage for people at a level which reflects their needs.
5. "Benefit" in this context means the net benefit to the public. It is not simply a question of showing that some benefit may result. For example, it may be that the achievement of a given aim would provide some degree of benefit, but would for other reasons cause greater harm so on balance it would be to the public disadvantage. If the harm outweighs the benefits, the purpose would not be charitable.
Charities should benefit people
6. The law presumes that the public will benefit from purposes that are for the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or the advancement of religion. That can be challenged in individual cases. In other cases it is necessary to show that the purpose will indeed be for the benefit of the public. In all cases the Commission must take a view on the evidence before it. We believe this flexible approach continues to be appropriate. The legal principles are covered in more detail in Annex A.
The meaning of "the public"
7. Having a public character means that benefits must be provided to the public at large or at least a sufficient section of the community. This is not a simple matter of numbers. What is "sufficient" will vary from case to case depending on the organisation’s purposes. A review of the relevant Court decisions is at Annex B.
The public character of charity is upheld by ensuring that an organisation benefits either the public as a whole, or a sufficient section of it. Whether this is the case can only be decided on a case by case basis. If the beneficiaries of the organisation are defined solely by some personal connection eg family relationships or common employment then the organisation can only be charitable if its sole object is the relief of poverty.
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/rr8.asp
How can the WTBS be of benefit to people when one considers its record on child abuse, suicides, broken families, false prophecies, lies, etc. ?
Dansk
-
SpannerintheWorks
Dansk,
Interesting info. No doubt the WBTS answer will be something like, "but we do benefit the general public; we are spreading the good news of the kingdom, and are giving FREE Bible Studies!" But what needs to be exposed is the hidden agenda behind these studies, and the dire consequences for those who decide to reject the WBTS after learning the real truth.
This is interesting:
First its purposes must be exclusively and legally charitable.
Can this be said of the WBTS?
And this even more so:
5. "Benefit" in this context means the net benefit to the public. It is not simply a question of showing that some benefit may result. For example, it may be that the achievement of a given aim would provide some degree of benefit, but would for other reasons cause greater harm so on balance it would be to the public disadvantage. If the harm outweighs the benefits, the purpose would not be charitable.
And I couldn't believe our luck when I read this:
6. The law presumes that the public will benefit from purposes that are for the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or the advancement of religion. That can be challenged in individual cases. In other cases it is necessary to show that the purpose will indeed be for the benefit of the public. In all cases the Commission must take a view on the evidence before it. We believe this flexible approach continues to be appropriate.
I think it is highly unlikely that the Charities Commision is aware of the real truth behind the WBTS!
Spanner
-
Shakita
I like Englishman's idea.
FOR THOSE WHO ARE LURKING FROM THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.....don't you think it is time for some NewLight? Why don't you use your common sense and realize that the internet coupled with the new generation of Jehovah's Witnesses who are leaving your organization due to your ignorance of their needs and wants will be your eventual downfall. If you want to survive as a recognized religion into this new millennium, you must change to fit the times or you will die out as your older generation dies off and is replaced with the newer generation that is not afraid to question authority. Remember, as you lose this newer generation of JW's, you lose $$$$$.... So important to keep all those properties and assorted interests, huh? Just a thought from someone who has left with her family and will keep others from joining this organization that promotes unhealthy and criminal acts.
Mrs. Shakita
-
Dansk
Spanner,
I think we might find that each INDIVIDUAL congregation is a charity and not just the organisation as a whole. Soooooooo, if we single out say, one congregation, with enough evidence we can legally attack it for flaunting the charity commissions' guidelines. This would set a precedent for attacking all other congregations - plus the BIG ONE!!
Right. Who'd like to nominate a congregation? What evidence of wrongdoings do you have? Remember, this is for the UK only. American legislature is obviously different - but please feel free
Dansk
-
worf
I think this is a great idea. The wts can be brought down. All it takes is belief and a variety of ideas.
This is Worf. I've been kind of out of the loop recently because of my divorce case and college. But with my divorce case just about over, I would like to rejoin this effort.
Spanner, can you e-mail me? I have a couple of ideas that could prove to be effective like the other good ideas posted in this thread.
I think Metatron's point is right on target: 'All we have to do is use our imagination.'
Kaplaa!
Worf
-
Dansk
I've just been browsing the Charity Commission's website and EACH INDIVIDUAL congregation IS a charity.
Well, isn't THAT interesting!
So, have YOU been victimised, defamed, abused, etc? Please let us know - and give us the name of the congregation.
Dansk
-
berylblue
3. Secretly obtain proper forms from congregation Secretaries ( including the correct envelopes, ex-elders!) and disfellowship
anyone you like ( or don't like).
Use your imagination.
That was funny.
Rosemarie
-
worldlygirl
Anyone out there from North Carolina, USA? I know this state still has "alienation of affection" laws on the books. See the following article available at www.rosen.com. I'm betting there are other states with this law, too.
An outsider's interference with marriage can cost the outsider big bucks in North Carolina Non-lawyers are often surprised to learn that a spouse can sue for money damages in this State based on allegations of emotional harm caused by a third party to the marital relationship. These lawsuits for “alienation of affection” and/or “criminal conversation” are usually brought by the innocent spouse against the guilty spouse’s lover; but an alienation action may also be brought against someone like an in-law or other near relative who has advised a defecting spouse to leave the marital relationship. There is a three year statute of limitation for criminal conversation and alienation of affection, pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 1-52(5). This statute starts on the date that alienation occurred, which is determined by a court on a case-by-case basis.
Fairly high-dollar awards in such cases have existed here for a number of years, a fact not generally known. As long ago as 1926, for instance, a jury in Macon County rendered a verdict in the amount of $12,000 against the lover of plaintiff’s wife. A 1931 jury in Forsyth County held against plaintiff wife’s father-in-law for $38,000. A Rowan County jury awarded $30,000 against a husband’s girlfriend in 1969. In 1982, our Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in the amount of $25,000 in compensatory damages and another $25,000 in punitive damages. A 1990 Forsyth County jury award of $300,000 in punitive damages for alienation was sustained on appeal, even though the court struck the compensatory award for $200,000.
In the past several years, however, North Carolina juries have become even more generous, in 1997 alone handing down $1.2 million against a female paramour in Forsyth County and awarding another jilted wife $1 million in Alamance County and a deceived husband $243,000 in Wake County. In late 1999, a judge in Durham County valued compensatory damages in a case brought by a husband against his wife’s lover at less than $3,000 in compensatory damages but the judge still awarded $40,000 in punitive damages on the criminal conversation claim. Since our Supreme Court refused to abolish these causes of action in 1984 and since our legislature has also shown no strong interest in doing so since that time, sizeable damage awards remain a real possibility in North Carolina. At the present time, more than 200 alienation actions are filed in an average year. -
worf
To Lawrence (Shunned Father),
I know I promised you my story some months ago. I am still going to mail it to you. Just got tied up with serious personal matters; I had to fire my divorce attorney and I decided to just represent myself. (Pro Se). Thats just about over and I still want to join the worldwide lawsuit. You will be hearing from me soon.
Kaplaa!
Worf