Watchtower: Registered in England as a charity!?

by Bangalore 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Bangalore

  Watchtower: Registered in England as a charity!?

  http://bestcharity.info/watchtower-registered-in-england-as-a-charity/

  Bangalore
• 

  cedars

  Thanks bangalore, I've posted a link to the petition in the comments section. Hope it doesn't get removed!

  Here is the link for anyone interested in signing: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29949

  Cedars
• 

  Bangalore

  Good job,Cedars.

  Bangalore
• 

  blondie

  So does the WTS meet the UK qualifications (legal) as a charity? It is amazing what groups in the US qualify. It could be that the government should look more carefully at the requirements and the nature of the WTS.
• 

  stillstuckcruz

  I love the comment:

  Answer by Phronesis
  Who benefits? Anyone who is keen to be taught by Jehovah owing to his people:

  “This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: ‘I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to financial help [physically], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. O if only you would really pay concentration to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea. And your offspring would become just like the sand, and the young from your inward parts like the grains of it. One’s name would not be cut off or be annihilated from before me.’” (Isaiah 48:17-19)

  The funds are used in innumerable ways, often in catastrophe relief work, but also to further this teaching work that benefits all who listen and obey, as well as the communities in which we live.
  On the other hand, Satan is a fantastic enemy of this work, and his followers tell all kinds of lies about us, just as Jesus said would be the case:

  “Pleased are you when people reproach you and … lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake.” (Matthew 5:11)

  ------>Ignorance at it's highest....
• 

  MMXIV

  Blondie,

  Legally the WBTS Britain complies to the Charities Act 2006 in terms of it's puposes by "the advancement of religion" and follows guidelines for trustees and reporting etc.

  There are a number of tests that the Charities Commission make but one interesting area that the WBTS could lose it's status as a charity is if it causes detriment or harm to the public. See guidance below (apologies in advance if it's too long). It's worth a read with the WBTS' policies on blood, shunning and damning view of other religions:

  E4. Principle 1c Benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm

  'Benefit' means the overall or net benefit to the public. It is not simply a question of showing that some benefit may result.

  The achievement of a particular aim may be of some benefit to the public but, in achieving that benefit, may also have detrimental or harmful effects. In assessing the public benefit of individual organisations, we will consider any evidence of significant detrimental or harmful effects of that organisation carrying out its aims in its particular circumstances. There would need to be some real evidence of detriment or harm; it cannot just be supposed.

  The existence of detriment or harm does not necessarily mean that the organisation cannot be charitable. It is a question of balancing the benefits against the detriment or harm.

  If the detrimental or harmful consequences are greater than the benefits, the overall result is that the organisation would not be charitable.

  Examples of things that might be evidenced to be detrimental or harmful might include:

  • something that is damaging to the environment;
  • something that is dangerous or damaging to mental or physical health;
  • something that encourages or promotes violence or hatred towards others;
  • unlawfully restricting a person's freedom.

  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.

  As with the consideration of benefits, we are concerned only with the detriment or harm that arises from the particular organisation carrying out its particular aims. The fact that it may be argued there is detriment or harm to the public generally from certain types of charity carrying out particular charitable purposes does not mean that the detriment or harm actually exists. Or, if it does exist, that it necessarily applies to any organisation having those charitable purposes in its objects.

  Where the benefits are overwhelming, the existence of some inconsequential detriment would not affect public benefit.

  For example, it might be argued that the provision of motorised transport for people with a disability has some harmful effect on the environment. But, in general, the benefits of giving mobility to people with a disability are considerably greater than any consequential harmful effects on the environment. We might encourage the charity to consider ways of minimising any harmful environmental effects. But, unless the transport were grossly polluting of the environment for some reason (in which case it is unlikely to be roadworthy anyway), we would consider the benefits to outweigh the harm.

  Conversely, where there may be some benefit but the harm is considerable enough to negate the benefits, public benefit would be affected.

  For example, we recognise that there are risks involved in playing any sport. But some dangerous or 'extreme' sports involve risks that go far beyond the usual risks associated with energetic physical exercise. If an organisation is concerned with promoting participation in such a sport, we would consider what steps the organisation takes to minimise the dangers to personal safety and reduce the risks of injury to a minimum. If insufficient steps were taken to minimise the risks, then whatever health benefits there might be from the physical exercise of participating in the sport would be greatly outweighed by the dangers to physical health.

  mmxiv
• 

  cedars

  MMXIV - Thanks for posting that information. I particularly like the sports analogy, which demonstrates how a religion may not necessarily be in the "public benefit" if the beliefs are excessively detrimental.

  Cedars
• 

  MMXIV

  Cedars,

  The more I consider the charities commissions rules the more I think the WBTS are vulnerable to ex-JW's campaigning against their charitable status. Normally they could try and write off the view of an ex-JW as being biased and therefore not objective, however the fact that ex-JW's have such a view is evidence itself.

  Evidence is required, it can't be suppossed. But getting a large petition from people who have been affected would be a part of that evidence. For anyone who considers their experience as a JW was on the balance of things detrimental rather than benefitial sign the ePetition that Cedars has set up.

  mmxiv
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  Shacks, one has to be a Brit to do it...or so says the form.. Don't want to put bogus info and undermind the petition's validity..
• 

  cedars

  Yan Bibiyan - yes, unfortunately it's a Brits-only affair! It's a shame that online petitions such as this can't be started in every country where the Society enjoys charitable or tax-exempt status.

  Cedars