INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

YMCA & Local Authority

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
Ian Abbott
Posts: 145
Joined: December 4th, 2007, 3:23 pm

YMCA & Local Authority

#1 Post by Ian Abbott » December 29th, 2007, 2:54 pm

Below is a duplication of something I've posted on the 'Lancashire Secular Humanists' Special Interest Forum but I'd be interested to learn from anybody who has confronted similar issues ... or just some good ideas - if 'two heads are better than one' then 'hundreds of heads ....etc) :notworthy:

LSH members will see (in our January Newsletter) an article by Ken Hayes concerning Wyre Borough Council's handing over of part of their leisure services to the YMCA.
Letters of complaint have been sent by Ken and myself concerning the matter and both have received non-conciliatory replies from WBC. The question now is ‘how best should we pursue this grievance’?
Quite apart from the fact that the YMCA, being an overtly religious organisation, will undoubtedly dissuade certain members of the community from availing themselves of these facilities; there are ethical concerns.
WBC is constrained by various equal opportunities legislation which (quite properly) prevents their employees suffering discrimination based on gender, sexuality, religion, race or lifestyle.
Not so with a religious organisation!
They have special dispensations under these laws whereby they can discriminate should they be able to argue that ‘not to do so would run contrary to their religious ethos’.
Now, wrong as we may think that to be, their argument is upheld in law based on the supposition that people who affiliate themselves to a particular religion or sect would (presumably) also sign-up to its ethos.
But I don’t want my local authority to condone or support any organisation, engaged in supplying a public service, discriminating among employees who are (in every other regard) living perfectly lawful lives but whose life-choices run contrary to the Christian ethos of the YMCA.
I personally don’t want to (even tacitly) support religiously engendered discrimination.
By virtue of the fact that all members of the local community who avail themselves of the facilities (now supplied by the YMCA) are thereby involuntarily supporting the YMCA.
And yet, it seems, WBC’s view is ‘so what?’
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#2 Post by Alan C. » December 29th, 2007, 3:09 pm

Ian Abbott
LSH members will see (in our January Newsletter) an article by Ken Hayes concerning Wyre Borough Council's handing over of part of their leisure services to the YMCA.
Can you tell us which part/s of the leisure services they have been given control over? Sports centres? Swimming pools? Other?
Cheers, Alan.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#3 Post by Alan C. » December 29th, 2007, 3:20 pm

They have special dispensations under these laws whereby they can discriminate should they be able to argue that ‘not to do so would run contrary to their religious ethos’.
Surely this only applies within their own organisation? (the YMCA) And could not be used in other areas they might be involved in.
The same would apply to the Salvation army, they could insist that you have to be a Christian to join, but couldn't stop an Atheist say.........working in a soup kitchen that they (Salvation army) had an involvment with.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Ian Abbott
Posts: 145
Joined: December 4th, 2007, 3:23 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#4 Post by Ian Abbott » December 29th, 2007, 3:49 pm

It's four local Gyms & swimming pools.
One aspect of my initial enquiries regarding 'employment' that concerns me is that the YMCA stipulate 'only committed Christians' will be considered for management posts in these facilities.
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

Ian Abbott
Posts: 145
Joined: December 4th, 2007, 3:23 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#5 Post by Ian Abbott » December 29th, 2007, 4:04 pm

Just to clarify ... these are three jobs advertised on the YMCA website.
The first could be argued to be an 'in-house' posting as you quite rightly say Alan.
The second two however are simply posts (subcontracted to the YMCA by a local authority) for which, under any other ciscumstances, the religiosity (or otherwise) of the aplicant would never be brought into question.

Chief Executive, YMCA South Devon, circa £33,000The successful candidate will have a personal commitment to the Christian faith and be able to promote the ethos of the YMCA enabling others to experience, explore and express the faith based motivation of its work.

Housing Support Worker, Kingston and Wimbledon YMCA, £20,014 per annum, 40 hours per week (over 7 days)As a Christian based organisation, you are required to be in sympathy with the Christian Aims and Purposes of the Association.

Deputy After-school Coordinator £7.28 per hour 23 hours per week, Mon-Fri -(2.30pm-6.30pm-2 days) & (1.30pm-6.30pm-3 days)- The days varyAs a Christian based organisation, you are required to respect the Christian ethos of the YMCA and uphold its values.
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#6 Post by Alan C. » December 29th, 2007, 6:11 pm

You're absolutely right, they can make the demand regarding the first job, but I would think they would be breaking the law in respect of the other two.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Ian Abbott
Posts: 145
Joined: December 4th, 2007, 3:23 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#7 Post by Ian Abbott » December 29th, 2007, 8:40 pm

Alan; you said ... “but I would think they would be breaking the law in respect of the other two" … Sadly they are not!
The special dispensation Faith Groups have under employment regulations means that they 'can' in fact refuse to employ any person - in any capacity - if they establish that person’s religious views or lifestyle choices are not in keeping with the ethos of that groups faith.
This has the effect of giving any bigoted Local Authority a ‘get out clause’.
Some bigoted Authorities may indeed not like the idea of employing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or atheist people but, because of equal opportunities legislation, they are prevented from discriminating on those grounds.
However, if that Authority were to subcontract work to a Faith Group (such as the YMCA) that Faith Group can make such distinctions if they can establish that the religiosity or lifestyle choices of the applicant is not in keeping with the ethos of their (that group's) faith.
Most people will not be aware that by allowing their Local Authority to contract-out various social and welfare services to Faith Groups they (the residents of that community) are in fact supporting and condoning such discrimination … and it is being done in their name!
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

Ian Abbott
Posts: 145
Joined: December 4th, 2007, 3:23 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#8 Post by Ian Abbott » December 30th, 2007, 12:20 pm

Even concerning the first advertised post Chief Executive, YMCA South Devon, circa £33,000 The successful candidate will have a personal commitment to the Christian faith and be able to promote the ethos of the YMCA enabling others to experience, explore and express the faith based motivation of its work.
Surely the requiremnt for a succesful applicant to 'possess a personal commitment to the Christian faith' should give some cause for concern when that Cheif Executive is to oversee the delivery of public and welfare services to the wider (religious, non-religious and other beliefs) comunity; by virtue of the fact that the reason s/he should have that Christian commitment is (according to YMCA requirements) to 'promote the ethos of the YMCA enabling others to experience, explore and express the faith based motivation of its work'
In my view this seems to expose the lie in the naive (or is it convenient) assumption that any 'faith group' seeking to be empowered by a Local Authority to deliver services to the community at large does not have an ulterior motive.
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

Ian Abbott
Posts: 145
Joined: December 4th, 2007, 3:23 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#9 Post by Ian Abbott » December 31st, 2007, 9:28 am

Just to return to my original request ... I'd be interested to learn from anybody who has confronted similar issues ... or just has some good tactical suggestions about how best to persuade my Local Authority to reconsider :idea:.
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

User avatar
whitecraw
Banned
Posts: 233
Joined: July 10th, 2007, 12:18 am

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#10 Post by whitecraw » December 31st, 2007, 2:48 pm

I say 'More power to your elbow, YMCA!' Local government already has too much power vis-à-vis the voluntary sector. It's (among other things) eroding its unique value-diversity. Don't give the bureaucrats morality-police powers as well.

Ian Abbott
Posts: 145
Joined: December 4th, 2007, 3:23 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#11 Post by Ian Abbott » December 31st, 2007, 3:41 pm

I’m a bit confused by Whitecraw’s response.
I would like to go to my Local Authority owned swimming pool; bought and paid for by Council Tax payers such as myself. As a secular humanist I do not want to support any religious organisation whose declared vision is to achieve "… an inclusive Christian Movement, transforming communities so that all young people truly belong, contribute and thrive". [From YMCA Website].

“I say 'More power to your elbow, YMCA!'” … Staggering! … Only sane & sensible suggestions from now on please. [And take that sharp pencil off Whitcraw ... replace it with a soft crayon].
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#12 Post by Alan H » December 31st, 2007, 5:40 pm

whitecraw wrote:I say 'More power to your elbow, YMCA!' Local government already has too much power vis-à-vis the voluntary sector. It's (among other things) eroding its unique value-diversity. Don't give the bureaucrats morality-police powers as well.
I don't see how giving the responsibility to a non-inclusive - if fact, a self-proclaimed discriminatory organisation - improves the 'value-diversity' situation.

In what way does local government 'already has too much power vis-à-vis the voluntary sector'? I don't understand what you mean. What 'unique value-diversity' and how is it being eroded?

If by 'bureaucrats' you mean the democratically elected local council, then are you saying that you don't want them to be the ones who decide how our taxes are spent, but are happy that it is done by an unaccountable, unelected and discriminating organisation?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Ted Harvey
Posts: 172
Joined: September 10th, 2007, 4:41 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#13 Post by Ted Harvey » January 2nd, 2008, 12:42 pm

I agree with the spirit of whitcraw’s comment that Local Government, especially in Scotland, already has far too much power vis-à-vis the voluntary sector.

In my work that includes community regeneration activities, I find time and time again that the dead hand of Local Government controls, constrains and at times terminally suffocates, initiatives from the voluntary sector. Much of this is a consequence of the over-whelming domination by the Labour Party in large tracts of Scotland. I am not making a party political point here, and I want to emphasize that. But it’s a simple reality of politics that whenever any party ‘enjoys’ a dominant position for a long time, this corrupts that party and it becomes a machinery for personal advancement or, worse still, protection.

It remained until very recently the position that in large tracts of Scotland if you were a voluntary organisation or group of people, you had to be prepared to ‘play the game’ and ensure that your local councillor and Local Government officials found your activities ‘acceptable’ i.e. in line with the dominant Labour Party line on the matter. This is a major reason for the social enterprise sector having hitherto found it so difficult to make any progress in poorer communities in urban Scotland. There has been a semi-official ‘line’ adopted by the Labour establishment in Scotland that social enterprise is some sort of privatisation and therefore ‘bad’. This is really much the same as the line taken against housing associations until Labour Local Government was given inducements and accommodations to begin to re-establish its (baleful) domination of Local Government on affordable rented housing.

I have long suspected that part of the consequences of this approach, whether by default or design I’m not sure, was to keep large parts of our Scottish communities, especially poorer ones, in a position of deference and dependence to Central and Local Government grant funding and the conditions that go with that.

(Of course an aspect of this one-party domination in Scotland that has been of direct concern to secularists has been the enduring alliance between the Labour Party and the Roman Catholic Church with the consequent public-funded, sectarian-based schools that blight Scotland).

Aside of this tawdry political management, my experience is that virtually all Local Government officials exist in a different cultural mindset from the voluntary and community sectors that they supposedly serve. In large part this is because these officials practice in a highly bureaucratic world, where compliance and risk-avoidance displaces initiative or personal commitment to external activities. These officials have some of the most generous salaries and conditions of service and, above all, have public-funded pension provisions (like MPs) that verge on the obscene when compared to what many taxpayers have to look forward to.

Such people inhabiting such a world will tend to find it difficult to comprehend or empathize with the realities and purposes of the voluntary and community sectors. Thye comprehend little of the financial frugalities that the voluntary or community organsiations must exist exist on, and their loyalities must be to Local Government, profession and then politicians in that order - whereas the very existance of voluntary and community organisations are predicated upon their own client or interest communities.

One exception I should make to all this in Dundee where the council seems to have had an admirable cross-party (but Labour Party led) commitment to genuine and effective commitment to community development.

There are a couple of causes for optimism on all this. Firstly, in my most local geographical area of operation I have already seen the positive impact of the PR electoral reforms in eroding the previous arrogance or laxity of local politicians. Secondly, one of the more potentially exciting elements of the SNP administration in Edinburgh is the way that it seems to be willing to extend a genuine hand of partnership to the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors in the way that Local Government just does not seem capable of doing.

Nevertheless, based on long experience, I know to wait and judge politicians on deeds achieved and not on what’s promised. For one thing there needs to be a David Milliband-style ‘double devolution’ of power through Local Government and onwards onto communities directly. The current reforms in Scotland may worsen things with the devolution of power from Edinburgh but leaving it mired in the Local Government silo.

tubataxidriver
Posts: 375
Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 10:39 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#14 Post by tubataxidriver » January 2nd, 2008, 9:05 pm

I think a good thing to remember in all this is that the Local Authority remains fully responsible for the delivery of the relevant public services, however they may choose to do this, and if the delivery of the services is discriminatory in the way it is delivered (as defined in the Equality Act 2006) then, by my reading at least, the Local Authority itself could be subject to legal remedy under the Act. See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/acts/acts ... 003_en.pdf

Unfortunately there is nothing to stop a Local Authority contracting out such services, even to a religious organisation, and there is nothing to stop the religious organisation from making a profit from the exercise, as long as the services are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The legal definition of discrimination is: "A person (“A”) discriminates against another (“B”) for the purposes of this Part if on grounds of the religion or belief of B or of any other person except A (whether or not it is also A’s religion or belief) A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others (in cases where there is no material difference in the relevant circumstances)."

The subcontractor would be able to claim whatever exemptions under the act are applicable, including religious get-outs. However, there are provisions in the Act relating to the voiding of contract clauses if they resulted in discrimination. Remember that the Local Authority will be a party to the contract. In my view it might therefore be possible to legally void a contract subcontracting services in this way - I am sure the legal eagles will be considering this.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#15 Post by Alan H » January 2nd, 2008, 9:40 pm

tubataxidriver wrote:The subcontractor would be able to claim whatever exemptions under the act are applicable, including religious get-outs. However, there are provisions in the Act relating to the voiding of contract clauses if they resulted in discrimination. Remember that the Local Authority will be a party to the contract. In my view it might therefore be possible to legally void a contract subcontracting services in this way - I am sure the legal eagles will be considering this.
I'm not sure I understand this - too much legalese! Are you saying that a religious organisation, once awarded a contract, could subsequently ignore some anti-discrimination clauses?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Ian Abbott
Posts: 145
Joined: December 4th, 2007, 3:23 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#16 Post by Ian Abbott » January 3rd, 2008, 9:28 am

Alan H wrote:I'm not sure I understand this - too much legalese! Are you saying that a religious organisation, once awarded a contract, could subsequently ignore some anti-discrimination clauses?
Yes! Precisely that! As I attempted to demonstrate with the sample job advertisements from the YMCA web-site (above) this is exactly the issue.
Exemptions from legislation requiring employment equality on all other employers are extended (almost uniquely) on religious grounds and to religious organisations.
There are also religious exemptions in the Equality Act, which deals with the provision of services.

Some, perhaps most, Christian organisations consider that Christianity is the engine which motivates their staff and are not willing to employ non-Christians.
Others have been unwilling to dispense services to those of whom they disapproved, such as practising homosexuals, who decline to participate in some religious activity, such as prayer… Although I do not suggest that this is occurring in this particular case.

There are three primary considerations I am seeking to address and in an effort to do this I am inviting your suggestions about how you would approach it.
1. How do I (for example) use those Local Authority provisions (paid for by all for the equal benefit of all), the management of which have now been handed to a religious organisation, without subsequently supporting the religious mission of that organisation whether I want to or not?
2. How can a Local Authority be persuaded to reverse this decision which, by virtue of the fact that favouring one particular religion or brand of religion in this way will inevitably discourage (either passively or actively) other members of the community from using it? Remember … it is a ‘publicly funded’ facility!
3. How can a Local Authority be compelled to reverse a decision which allows a religious organisation (contracted by the Local Authority to manage a public facility) to utilize discriminatory employment practices which the Local Authority itself is prohibited in law from doing?
Last edited by ThinkHumanism on January 3rd, 2008, 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: To fix quote tags
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

tubataxidriver
Posts: 375
Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 10:39 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#17 Post by tubataxidriver » January 3rd, 2008, 5:32 pm

No, what I am saying in the "contract" bit is that as a non-religious organisation, a Local Authority will still be subject to legal review as regards its compliance with the requirements of the Act. If it has placed a contract with the "religious sub-contractor" to manage a public service then the provisions of this contract must be in line with the Act and if any clauses are not then they may be subject to voidance, i.e., striking out. I.e. in practice the Local Authority is not allowed to include clauses in the contract which permits the religious subcontrator to discriminate. This is my reading of the Act, anyway. Sorry if the legalese is inpenetrable - I am not a lawyer. I am sure if a lawyer had written this it would be far clearer. :wink:

Ted Harvey
Posts: 172
Joined: September 10th, 2007, 4:41 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#18 Post by Ted Harvey » January 3rd, 2008, 7:19 pm

I think that even if we can set aside the legalistic wording we can raise concerns in plain but just as legitimate ways with regard to public services and ‘faith groups’.

If an organisation insists in putting, say, ‘Christian’ in their title, and then wants to undertake delivery of public services I hold that the organisation’s motives can be immediately viewed with suspicion.

Public services are intended to be accessible to all, in the widest meaning. Why should secularists, Muslim or Jewish adherents be required to seek or accept a public service being delivered by people who are so ‘faith-based’ as to insist on proclaiming it in their title when delivering the service?

Some ‘faith groups’ will presumably claim they are providing the service for the common good of the community or society. Given the reality that society or the community today is almost invariable of individuals with secular or multi-faiths perspectives, one is again entitled to doubt the motives of these 'faith groups'. If their commitment is to the universal good, why insist on an exclusive and potentially excluding wording in their title?

My understanding on the inability of a Local Authority to divest itself of its legal obligations is clear – an Authority cannot avoid statutory obligations by sub-contracting or agency deals. However, in practice who is to identify and challenge maladministration? This is well illustrated by Ian Abbott’s posting here. There is also the abject statutory compensation mess that Scottish Local Government has finally gotten itself into over non-equal pay for its female employees over many decades. It is hardly an endorsement of the fitness of the individual Local Authorities on any equalities watchdog role.

The clients that many public services are delivered to are vulnerable, isolated and under-informed on their rights. It is likely that in some situations, the recipients of public services delivered through agencies such as ‘faith groups’, and therefore at ‘arms length’ from the Local Authority, will not even be aware that these are public services provided for by the Local Authority.

There is also, in my experience, an enduring perspective among many of those in public service that if an organisation is religious, there can be an automatic and favourable presumption that it is ethical, transparent and well-governed. I myself have been present at formal meetings in Scotland on public services where I have witnessed a cosy, to say the least, familiarity between Local Government officials and councillors and representatives of representatives of the mainstream organised religions. Indeed at almost all of these meetings at some point the convenor (usually a local councillor) will say something like ‘and now I think we should hear what Father X (or Minister X) might want to say on the matter.’

It is a matter of critical integrity that public services are seen to be accessible to all eligible recipients on the basis of transparency and equity. The motives of any organisation that insists on proclaiming a particular ‘faith’ adherence in its title whilst purporting to deliver services on such a basis can be, I believe, held suspect.

Ian Abbott
Posts: 145
Joined: December 4th, 2007, 3:23 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#19 Post by Ian Abbott » January 3rd, 2008, 8:46 pm

The ‘thumbnail’ argument that gets people thinking more broadly … especially those whose eyes start to roll when they hear that you’re (once again) “attacking religion” is: “What if, for the sake of argument, you replace the word ‘Christian’ in YMCA with (say) Hindu, or Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or (god forbid) Atheist? Would you support a Local Authority who handed this publicly funded facility to that organisation?”
The usual response is“Ahhhh … well … er!”
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: YMCA & Local Authority

#20 Post by Alan H » January 3rd, 2008, 10:22 pm

Ted

Excellent post!
Ted Harvey wrote:If an organisation insists in putting, say, ‘Christian’ in their title, and then wants to undertake delivery of public services I hold that the organisation’s motives can be immediately viewed with suspicion.
Any idea of how many do use the word Christian in their title when delivering these kinds of services? Many may not, of course, and they are perhaps more insidious because of their possible anonymity.
Public services are intended to be accessible to all, in the widest meaning. Why should secularists, Muslim or Jewish adherents be required to seek or accept a public service being delivered by people who are so ‘faith-based’ as to insist on proclaiming it in their title when delivering the service?
Of course, some may want to loudly proclaim that they are a 'faith' organisation. Which is worse: a religious organisation whose title at least warns potential users of where they are coming from or one that hides behind a name?
My understanding on the inability of a Local Authority to divest itself of its legal obligations is clear – an Authority cannot avoid statutory obligations by sub-contracting or agency deals.
I would hope this is so, but it is probably waiting to be challenged in the courts!
There is also the abject statutory compensation mess that Scottish Local Government has finally gotten itself into over non-equal pay for its female employees over many decades. It is hardly an endorsement of the fitness of the individual Local Authorities on any equalities watchdog role.
Absolutely. It is a severe indictment of them that this mess is still waiting to be resolved.
The clients that many public services are delivered to are vulnerable, isolated and under-informed on their rights. It is likely that in some situations, the recipients of public services delivered through agencies such as ‘faith groups’, and therefore at ‘arms length’ from the Local Authority, will not even be aware that these are public services provided for by the Local Authority.
...and in fact this may be seen by users and others to be a failing of local council's responsibilities and one that a religious group has 'had' to do because of this.
There is also, in my experience, an enduring perspective among many of those in public service that if an organisation is religious, there can be an automatic and favourable presumption that it is ethical, transparent and well-governed.
Excellent point that I had not thought of. Presumably most of these organisations will be charities and have responsibilities to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, but, if they are part of a larger religious organisation, it may be difficult to see exactly what's going on.
I myself have been present at formal meetings in Scotland on public services where I have witnessed a cosy, to say the least, familiarity between Local Government officials and councillors and representatives of representatives of the mainstream organised religions. Indeed at almost all of these meetings at some point the convenor (usually a local councillor) will say something like ‘and now I think we should hear what Father X (or Minister X) might want to say on the matter.’
Of course, the meenister must have his (or occasionally, her) say!
It is a matter of critical integrity that public services are seen to be accessible to all eligible recipients on the basis of transparency and equity. The motives of any organisation that insists on proclaiming a particular ‘faith’ adherence in its title whilst purporting to deliver services on such a basis can be, I believe, held suspect.
Couldn't agree more!

One thing I came across a few days ago was a consultation from OSCR from a year or so ago about how religious charities describe themselves on documentation, leaflets, etc. I think the proposal was that they must be unequivocal about stating that they were religious, but I'll try to find out what the outcome was.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply