Friday, 10 January 2014

The Charity Commission summarises it's decision but will the Hales exclusive brethren be told the truth about the finer detail?

One of our EB contacts advised us yesterday that the news was out among the Brethren re CC decision.  This morning we asked if there had been any mention or discussion of the CONDITIONS attached to the decision.  Our contact replied: "Absolutely none.  Just that CC had accepted our charitable status & big pats on the back all round.  Including it being said 'We would not have won without BDH' and 'The position is unassailable' etc."

Or here's a summary;

Charity Commission will accept application for registration from Preston Down Trust after organisation agrees to amend governing document

9 January 2014

Regulator says the amended trust deed, together with the commitment to changes it affirms, characterises an organisation with exclusively charitable objects for the public benefit

The Charity Commission has announced that it will accept an application for registration from the Preston Down Trust (PDT) based on a revised governing document. The PDT, a Plymouth Brethren Christian Church meeting hall, has agreed to re-submit an application for registration and to amend its trusts by entering into a Deed of Variation, which sets out, in a manner binding on the trustees, the church's core religious doctrines and practices.

In a decision published today, the Commission says it is satisfied that under the new governing document the organisation is charitable and that the Commission will be able to regulate the charity against the new trusts.

In June 2012, the Charity Commission rejected an application for registration by the PDT on the grounds that it was not satisfied it was able to determine conclusively that the doctrines and practices of the PBCC as practised by PDT met the public benefit requirement in charity law. The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (PBCC) practises 'separation from evil' which to some extent limits members' contact with the public.

The PDT appealed that decision to the Charity Tribunal. In early 2013, it requested a stay in proceedings with a view to saving on mounting legal costs.  The Commission, with the support of the Attorney General, agreed to see if the issues could be dealt with outside of the Tribunal.

In the decision, the Commission concludes that whilst the PBCC's practice of 'separation from evil' results in both a moral and physical separation from the wider community, it has seen evidence of an organisation which is "evolving and increasing its level of engagement with the public". It says the PDT was able to demonstrate a beneficial impact in society, including through providing public access to worship, engaging in street preaching and limited engagement with the wider community, including through encouraging charitable giving and providing disaster relief assistance.

The regulator has carefully considered all available evidence, including unsolicited information supplied by individuals critical of the PBCC and opposed to the  registration of PDT as a charity. It says the evidence it has received suggests that "there were elements of detriment and harm" associated with the doctrines and practices of the PBCC, especially its disciplinary practices, which include socially isolating members who have not complied with strict codes of behaviour. The Commission also saw evidence that individuals who had left the Church were prevented from having regular contact with family members who remained in the Church, including parents and children. The PDT itself has acknowledged "past mistakes".

The regulator says it took extremely seriously concerns about these practices because the question of detriment and harm is relevant in terms of assessing charitable status.

The Commission is now satisfied that the PDT's new trusts incorporating its core doctrines and practice of faith signal an approach, including a new emphasis on compassion and forgiveness, which it hopes will limit any detriment or harm resulting from its practices. 

William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission said:

"I am pleased that the PDT has agreed to adopt a new governing document and am confident that the organisation now qualifies for charitable status. This was a complex and sensitive case, which involved strong views and feelings on both sides of the argument. I am grateful to all those who shared information with us, and for their patience in awaiting today's decision.

I hope that the organisation's new explicit focus on compassion and forgiveness will help allay the concerns of people who remain uncomfortable with some of the practices of the PBCC."

The Commission is satisfied that it will be able to regulate the activities of PDT against its new governing document and says that it will monitor the PDT's compliance in line with its existing policy. The Commission regularly monitors charities that were the subject of a complex or high-risk registration process to ensure that they are operating in line with their trusts and charity law.

In addition, the Commission will assess any serious individual concerns or complaints about the PDT in line with its risk framework and usual practice.

The Commission emphasises that its role is not to pass moral or ethical judgment on religious groups, but to assess whether religious organisations applying for registration as charities meet charity law requirements, particularly in relation to public benefit which requires the practice of the religion to provide benefit to the wider community.

The PDT has confirmed that it will withdraw its appeal from the Charity Tribunal as a result of the Commission's decision.


PR 02/14

For press enquiries contact our press office.

Notes to Editors

- See more at: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/news/charity-commission-will-accept-application-for-registration-from-preston-down-trust-after-organisation-agrees-to-amend-governing-document/#sthash.HKulwyUt.dpuf


  1. Wonderful to hear the good news - 100 % proof the PBCC had no case to answer in the first place.

    Mr Pie

    1. You didn't read it Mr Pie, did you?

      So much for Athol's 'you will not change us'!

    2. It’s not altogether good news for anyone. The Preston Down Brethren will perhaps be relieved that the immediate crisis is over, but now they are permanently lumbered with a long list of legally binding conditions that they must comply with, which entail renouncing some of the meticulously documented practices that have been officially recognised as harming ex-members, their own children and the public.

      As far as we have been told, the Preston Down Trust has not yet been registered as a charity, but the process to reach that stage has been agreed. The congregation have still to agree unanimously to the Deed of Variation, which contains a statement of Faith in Practice that binds them to behaving acceptably in several respects and then they have to re-apply for charitable status. For example, they will have to abolish most of the emotional and practical barriers that make it difficult and traumatic for individuals to leave the church, and they will have to agree that it is now acceptable for Brethren to socialise with ex-Brethren and to allow the continuation of family relationships where a family member has left the community, including providing access to family members, in particular children. That is a really major and very welcome change. Let us hope the Brethren pay more than lip-service to it.

      They would be well advised to do so, because their compliance will be monitored, and failure to comply with the conditions could still lead to de-registration and transfer of their assets to another charity.

      Then there is the question of the many other Brethren trusts, which are not yet legally bound by the new constitution. We have still to see whether the Charity Commission will require a similar set of undertakings from them as a condition of retaining their charitable status.

      Then there is the rather sobering fact that the Charity Commission has officially documented some of the detrimental behaviour of the HEB and filled filing cabinets with the evidence to prove it. That evidence will still be there if the dispute arises again.

      And the Brethren might mull over the fact that in the UK this is the first time in living memory that an official, secular body has taught a church a lesson in moral principles and made it agree to some of these principles. It happened in 1978 in the USA when the Mormon Church was obliged to drop its ban on black priests as a condition of keeping its tax concessions, but I don’t think it has ever happened before in the UK. The forced change will not be a particularly proud event in the annals of Brethren history.

    3. Mr Pie/John Handel/Dr Spoon/Creatures of the Night/et al

      Do not be quite so cocky. I think you may find there is a long road ahead; perhaps with revealed improprieties warranting further investigation.


    4. Anon 18:07
      What - Aren't you pleased at the outcome of this matter?
      Just think - More free pies, more Happy smiley people holding hands and RRT on standby to assist the emergency services. Just so thankful these people are here to dispense these goodies to us so cheerfully.

      You are right dear friend - It's the long and narrow road that leads to life.
      Better get off the wide one?

      Mr Pie

    5. Hope the happy, smiling people holding hands aren't the same sex, Mr Pie (James?) That would never do!


  2. Mr Pie - every time members of the PBCC refuse to eat or drink with people about whom there is no evidence of sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, revilement, drunkenness or robbery, they have a case to answer.

    Very sadly, it looks as if the PBCC is going to continue to treat all non-Brethren people as if they fit those categories. It's all down to how James Taylor Jnr saw non-Brethren people and Bruce D Hales has decided to follow his lead.

  3. William Shawcross believes the EB/PBCC has a "new EXPLICIT focus on compassion and forgiveness" ??!! So far, the Brethren have been so unexplicit about this new focus of theirs they have been completely SILENT about it. Are you sure of your facts, Mr Shawcross?

    Seems to me more like the Hales Excl Brethren now think they are free to proceed as before - just look at their statement! This whole saga is just starting to feel like a horrendous waste of everybody's time. All I can see is more heartache on the horizon for anyone - member or non-member - who disagrees with the Brethren corporation. Their duplicitousness has not decreased one iota, IMO.

  4. We can appeal this decision if it affects us - maybe we should. We could certainly challenge some of the statements

  5. We were told at the close of the meeting last evening, that we have got full victory over the CC matter. It would seem that most of the peebs did not Know, because a person prayed at the start of meeting for victory over CC matter.

  6. Ian summarized the various points very well; but I think they still have a loophole:

    "they will have to agree that it is now acceptable for Brethren to socialise with ex-Brethren and to allow the continuation of family relationships where a family member has left the community"

    I think (and may be wrong) there is still the exception of eating and drinking with a non-member. So a visit is OK but no eating or drinking with the non-member.

    1. The CC seems to have conceded they were not going to prevent the PBCC keeping their charity status. Regardless of any changes or concessions in the new document, it is doubtful these can be practically enforced, since the CC function is to ensure church groups meet the criteria of a charity, as opposed to imposing on their moral affairs and internal decisions. To imagine this church allowing its members to socialise with the outside world, is unrealistic. It will not happen.
      However, there has been genuine gestures of good will on both sides and this could result in better aftercare for those who choose to leave. There is no doubt some positives will be coming out of this and I think the CC will be keeping their eye on the ball to ensure fair play.
      Ian, has made some very balanced and constructive points on this blog along with Mr Pie and Mr W Spoon.
      Both members and ex members now have a mile stone from where relations can be improved through mutual forgiveness and understanding. The spirit of Christianity can indeed triumph when two sides work together to resolve painful issues.

      Fransisca D Maria

    2. Ian always balanced and constructive, but Pie in the Sky and Spoon....? Respectfully... are you reading the same blog?


    3. To Anon 11 Jan 2014 (Fransisca D Maria)

      I don’t know who you are, but you have completely misread the situation.

      You gave yourself away saying “Mr Pie and Mr W Spoon had made very balanced and constructive points on this blog” yet, they are nothing but hilarious spoofs !. Your post is typical EB/PBCC misinformation & spin using the tactic of mixing inaccurate misinformation with some element of truth, thereby giving it all an initial veneer of perceived accuracy, which falls apart once scrutinised

      Quote - “The CC seems to have conceded they were not going to prevent the PBCC keeping their charity status”

      No, the CC has not conceded anything, if you actually read the 55 page full CC decision document you would realise that !

      The CC haven’t been duped (unlike some MP’s) by the glossy new rebranding started in Aug 2012 renaming the group the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Full info of who the group are, its history, its background, its practices, its harm and detriment are all listed in all their sordid & shameful detail. The Exclusive Brethren do not come out of this with good integrity at all !

      The new Schedule 1 & 2 documents are completely new and quite remarkable, in that they clearly stipulate more compassion, care and basic Christian values be displayed by the group, in particular to former members or those trying to leave.

      That is a shocking & shameful indictment on the Exclusive Brethren, that a secular organisation such as the CC has had to request a supposed ‘christian’ group to be more compassionate and Christian !

      Your Quote
      “…..since the CC function is to ensure church groups meet the criteria of a charity, as opposed to imposing on their moral affairs and internal decisions….”

      No, the CC clearly stated back in 2012, they would not get involved in issues of doctrine or practice, UNLESS those doctrines and practices were found to be causing Harm. This is the disbenefit aspect that the CC has to consider

      The CC found & state that the Doctrines & Practices DO cause Harm. ! Therefore adjustments to doctrines and practices have been made and additional clarity given as to the basic standards to be met towards those trying to leave & towards former members.

      (If the CC had found no evidence of Harm or Detriment they would not have needed to make the EB/PBCC make adjustments and bring extra clarity !)

      Just picking out these examples, which are significant changes amongst many others

      3. Separation
      1) The principle of separation outlined at paragraph 2 above involves drawing away from the world in a moral sense, rather than in a physical sense.

      2) Within the parameters set out above, the principle of separation permits inter-personal communication and social interaction with non-Brethren (including former Brethren)

      7) No action should be taken in any way to treat vindictively, maliciously or unfairly persons whether within or outside the community, including those who were within the community and who are leaving or have left the community

      The decision must be abided by, the EB/PBCC must adhere to what has been agreed and follow it through as per this –

      Clause 15
      The Commission is also satisfied that on the basis of this documentation, the Commission will be able to regulate PDT and other PBCC meeting halls against these trusts. If the trustees do not comply with the trusts, the Commission will be able to regulate on the basis of a breach of trust. If the trustees are unable to comply with and carry out the trusts, the Commission may regulate on the basis that a cy-près occasion has arisen and the trust property will be applied for charitable purposes of a similar nature.

      The Test is, will the EB/PBCC comply ?

    4. The test isn't whether the PBCC will comply, but whether they can comply and continue to worship God freely in all good conscience.
      If anything in the document infringes on this now or at a later date, it can be considered null and void. This country has long recognised the freedom to practise Christianity according to conscience.

      Therefore it will be a test for government, not the PBCC to fully comply. It is neither the role of CC or any government to impose how a church wishes to conduct its affairs. I as an individual and many other church groups support this right to worship without hindrance or threat of persecution.
      There is a warning from history that must be remembered - The Nazis sought ultimately to destroy Christianity by first destroying the Jews.
      We should therefore be careful for what is wished for and rather be more focused on the preservation of Christianity and celebrate the benefits it has brought to the nations. Let us cherish the PBCC and do everything to support their efforts to limit evil.

      Fransisca D Maria

    5. Fransisca D Maria

      I see your continuing to use the same tactic of mixing misinformation & unsubstantiated claims with Christian words and phrases, thereby desperately attempting to give the whole morass an initial veneer of perceived accuracy, which falls apart once scrutinised.

      Its so sad, but your posts are full of typical EB/PBCC bluster & fear mongering which ignores facts & Biblical truth

      Quote - “The test isn't whether the PBCC will comply, but whether they can comply and continue to worship God freely in all good conscience”

      To put it bluntly, that’s nonsense. The EB/PBCC have agreed to a legal document & decision, on the basis of which the CC will allow the privilege of Charity Status. There is no automatic right to Charity Status, especially for a group which has been proven to commits acts & practices which result in Detriment & Harm as detailed in the 55 page report

      If the EB/PBCC do not comply, they will be in breach of Trust & risk losing the Charity Status !. If they had no intention of complying then they should not have agreed to a legal document !

      The issues that brought about clarifications & changes explained in “Faith in Practice” Schedule 2, were as a result of the Harm & Detriment arising from certain practices, much of the Harm & Detriment is soberly & sordidly detailed in the 55 page report.

      However, Fransisca D Maria,

      You now appear to be equating these Harmful & Detrimental practices which have had to be mitigated through the “Faith in Practice” document with - “whether they can comply and continue to worship God freely in all good conscience”

      Are you seriously in all good conscience matching and comparing the Harm & Detriment to worshipping God freely !, thereby saying these practices are contained in Gods Word in the Holy Bible !

      As a Christian myself, I find some of the practices of the EB/PBCC totally abhorrent & NOT found in the Bible

      Quote – “This country has long recognised the freedom to practise Christianity according to conscience”

      Yes, Fransisca D Maria, that is true, however, only if those practices are NOT resulting in Harm & Detriment.

    6. Dear EB/PBCC sycophantic supporters, are any of the following practices & actions as quoted & listed in the 55 page Charity Commission decision 2014, justified by Gods Word in the Bible ?

      Bearing in mind that ALL Christians in All Bible following Churches are part of the One Body (Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 10), that Gods love is towards all men (John 3:16) and that we are instructed to love our neighbour (Mark 12, Matthew 22), and that Christians are to be Salt & Light (Matthew 5).

      54.Examples of restrictions imposed on members are in the following areas

      eating/drinking with non-members;
      joining in worship with another faith;
      joining in association with non-members, joining professional bodies, unions, owning shares in a company, being in a business partnership with non-members;
      living in adjoined premises;
      voting or holding positions in town councils;
      marrying outside of the PBCC;
      children participating in a number of school activities including school dinners and religious worship; and
      as a result of other restrictions, not attending university.


      The nature of the doctrines and practices of the PBCC generally;
      The imposition and control of strict codes of behaviour pervading all aspects of life restricting freedom of choice through a centralised and authoritative system
      the nature and impact of the Disciplinary Practices31;
      Variations in the practice of disciplinary action of an arbitrary nature subject to the judgment of leaders and the assembly;
      Harsh disciplinary action taken in relation to often minor deviation or transgression;
      Physical separation of family members during disciplinary processes with family members living separate lives with little or no contact often leading to permanent divisions within families;
      Detrimental impact on health and well-being of those subject to discipline and their family members; and
      Lack of support and isolation from friends within the Brethren community.
      the impact of the doctrines and practices on those who leave PBCC;
      The exclusory effect on family life and relationships when members leave as a result of a complete severing of ties;
      Where contact is made this is infrequent, the quality of any contact and relationship is impoverished;
      Absence of assistance and support to those who leave including vulnerable children and young people;
      Those who leave are ostracised and consequently treated differently from other members of the public;
      Loss of social network; social isolation;
      Impact on finances where persons have been dependant upon the Brethren for employment and mortgage;
      Loss of inheritance where relatives remain and leave their property to the Brethren which is encouraged;
      Inability to participate in funeral arrangements and services of Brethren relatives;
      Threats of legal action against those who speak out against the Brethren; and
      Fear and anxiety of repercussions for themselves and family members who remain in the Brethren.
      the impact of the doctrines and practices on children within the PBCC.
      Limitation on educational activities for children (e.g. limitations on the use of technology and censorship of materials within Brethren schools);
      Limitation on social interaction with non-Brethren children within and outside of the school environment;
      Inability to attend university as the lifestyle conflicts with Brethren principles and practices; and
      Limited career opportunities due to restrictions on education and for girls who are expected to marry and have children.

      These publicly available published details are a shocking & sad indictment against a so called christian group and are just some of the examples of Harm & Detriment (the disbenefit) which the Charity Commission scrutinised. It is this which required the CC to obtain further clarity and adjustment of the practices of the EB/PBCC to help reduce the Harm & Detriment

    7. B / Rev 08:53

      I think you are a quite devious person yourself to say the least and good at making a mountain out of a mole hill. I also have an acute sense of your wickedness by the way you react.
      You have just accused Fransisca Maria of spreading misinformation, but I happen to trust her simple witness to the real nature of the brethren.
      There is a tendency to react when one cannot stomach someone's point of view. The truth hurts sometimes, but it is no less valid. I believe her words come from a conviction of what is true.
      Your spirit is completely wrong here and it's not the first time.


    8. David - I've been thinking a lot about what you've written.

      I was discarded in the early 1960s by a lovely friend from this group of Exclusive Brethren and I was baffled about why she had done this to me - it was uncharacteristic of her to be heartless.

      If at that time I had known more about why these Brethren were behaving as they did (in obedience to James Taylor Jnr's radical directives) I might have felt extremely hurt. It seems that Brethren were being taught that any association with a non-Brethren person was wrong because it linked them with evil.

      I knew when my Exclusive Brethren friend wrote to me to end our connection that I was the same person she'd known for eight years or so - a young, serious-minded, hard-working, unworldly Christian - and I therefore didn't feel ostracised for being evil. Had I been a member of the Brethren and expelled from the fellowship and my birth family for, let us say, questioning Mr Taylor Jnr's separatist directives, I would have had to bear both the burden of an unthinkable personal loss plus the additional sense of being in some way wrong or iniquitous - because that was what the new system was teaching.

      That would have taken a huge toll on my emotional and spiritual life, probably lasting over a very long period, and I'd have had a lot to absorb and a massive adjustment to make. I therefore think it's important to try and stand in the shoes of those who've been discarded.

      As it is, I'm going to cling to the reformed PBCC's declaration that "Holy Scripture commands us to be good neighbours to others, and deal with all other people (including former Brethren) openly, honestly and fairly".

      I'm almost making a song of those words, and I hope and pray that Brother Rev and all other contributors to this site will soon find it a blessing to be treated openly, honestly and fairly in normal kind, courteous and communicative relationships with Brethren members.

  7. Maybe we should start inviting them to social functions, bbqs, kids birthdays etc and see how they respond. I would love to take my brother who is still in to a concert or for a pint.

  8. Post - 03-47 a Concert / a Pint
    Far be the thought.
    I''m afraid that is about as likely as the Pope preaching to the crowds in his birthday suit.

    Dr Pie

  9. "Mr Pie" is now "Dr Pie".

    1. I think he's John Handel or maybe, James (who has only appeared briefly on The Third Sector blog)

      Pie in the Sky

    2. The EB/PBCC lot get my vote to continue as they are.
      I love them for at least 24 reasons -

      1 Those pie days
      2 The street preaching
      3 The RRT
      4 Their splendid meeting rooms
      5 The free tracts
      6 The happy and smiley children
      7 The unity amongst themselves
      8 The commendable way they do business
      9 Their clean and well presented detached houses
      10 Their openness and kindness
      11 Their excellent schools
      12 Their quiet and humble spirit
      13 Their conviction and clear vision
      14 Their efforts to restrain evil
      15 Their quiet and gentle nature
      16 Their remarkable contribution to mankind
      17 Their common sense approach to life
      18 The welcome on their notice board
      19 Their unique insight in spiritual matters
      20 Amazing ability to overcome problems
      21 Their positive outlook and willingness
      22 Their efforts to promote Christianity
      23 Their efforts to preserve the traditional family
      24 Their respect for those in authority

      Now what's wrong with that?


    3. What is wrong with that? Well, Cindy, there is quite a lot wrong with that as you probably know.

      Some of it is untrue, some of it is inconsequential and the genuinely positive contributions that the EB make to the rest of the human race have to be balanced against the detrimental and harmful effects, as officially listed by the Charity Commission, plus certain other detrimental effects that the CC did not list, such as the vast cost to the UK and other countries of the Brethren’s elaborate tax-avoidance schemes, which some of the Brethren think may be illegal.

      I don’t want to expand on the negative effects here, as that has already been done elsewhere.

  10. Just talked to a Peeb yesterday and he told me that some of the sites that they can normally access on their computers have been blocked - looks like BDH is trying to control the flow of information. By the way does anyone know where he is? He never surfaced in the UK .

  11. The best solution is to recognise the need to work together instead of against each other.
    Secondly, whilst democracy has been used to protect Christianity, it's not God's ideal.

    Right judgements and practises come from priciples set out in the Holy bible and the word of God. His will, not the will or vote of the people, ultimately holds sway and is key to a way being made through for those that love Christ and obey him.
    God is control over every so called democratic election and outcome.

    These are principles contained in the Bible and the PBCC and some other church groups also adhere to them and will not be swayed by popular thinking or ideas from the world's system or from former members who have turned back and desire an easier way.
    Jesus said, I am the truth the way and the life. Are we prepared for the cost it involves to go against the tide? Are we obedient to his word. Very simple really!

    Not a member of the PBCC, but fully recognise and support these lovely people and their desire to worship freely according to good conscience.

    Fransisca D Maria

    1. Fransisca or Francisca?

    2. The idea that democracy is not God’s ideal is often promoted by leaders of authoritarian churches, probably because it guards the leaders against any moves to make church governance more democratic or to make the leaders more accountable. However, it is an idea that has very poor support from scripture and no support at all from history and experience. Quite the reverse in fact.

    3. It seems that the EB can like democracy...

    4. Well that's a more creative name than John Handel, Mr Pie, Dr Pie, Dr Spooner etc. Same blah blah though.

    5. "God is control (sic) over every so called democratic election and outcome."

      You and I may believe that but some brethren obviously don't otherwise why did they attempt to influence the result of elections in Australia and New Zealand. Was God incapable of getting it right on his own? I hope He was suitably rebuked for allowing the wrong outcome in New Zealand.


  12. The Exclusive Brethren, now calling itself the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, has been outed as a church which is a stranger to compassion. It is salutary that it has taken a secular state body to remind a church which professes to be mainstream that compassion should govern what it does.

    It is hard to understand how the EB/PBCC could declare victory to their members when a regulator has had to tell them not to act with vindictiveness to those who are about to leave or who have left. It is also an indictment of the capricious nature of their entirely unaccountable international leadership, who are described in the draft deeds as the ‘Ministers of the Lord in the Recovery’ (length of title appears to be in inverse proportion to compassion), that the doctrines and the leaders have to be nailed down in a binding document due to their well-known characteristic of moving the doctrinal goal posts to wrong foot people and to appalling effect.

    The Charity Commission has had a hard time politically over the last couple of years, not least because of its attempts to regulate this tiny but wealthy and disproportionately harmful organisation. Its resources are limited. I do hope that they are able to monitor compliance with appropriate vigour. I am sure that they will need all the help that they can get.

  13. As of Easter 2014 I am yet to find anyone who has read the decision or has any knowledge of the specific items in the new schedules attached to the deed. There is complete denial as to anything that has any effect/implications on the way that they operate as a church or as individuals. They have access to the CC site and detailed decisions but it is as if they are scared to read it. The typical rebuttal is that "...I love and trust Mr Hales and don't need to read it ...'. I have also been warned by a 'heavy' at level 2/3 global to NOT be compromised by what 'the opposers' are writing or be convinced by what is being published. The joke is that a lot of what they are complaining about, I contributed. When I have tried to reason about the inclusions of the schedules, I have been chopped off at the ankles.

    I hope that the Charity Commission is aware of the resources this cult has, and also that they state whatever suits them, white lies are completely acceptable, and in some cases the truth appears to be the last option!

    They successfully blindfold and whitewash memories and brain-blank their lesser members, and presumably believe they can do the same thing with the Charities Commission.