Latest post of the previous page:
TedExcellent post!
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.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.
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?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?
I would hope this is so, but it is probably waiting to be challenged in the courts!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.
Absolutely. It is a severe indictment of them that this mess is still waiting to be resolved.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.
...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.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.
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.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.
Of course, the meenister must have his (or occasionally, her) say!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.’
Couldn't agree more!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.
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.
