|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "SPCK" bookshops
|
|
|
frin
Drinking coffee for Jesus
# 9
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Also, the most interesting development is well covered [here]. Allegedly (hosts, please check that this is okay) evidence suggests that the Brewer's are attempting to take a UK registered company/charity into bankruptcy in the US, under US law which, if successful, would deny UK tribunal claimants (and creditors) compensation.
I'm glad that neither you nor the blogger you posted to is my lawyer, Richard, as the post you link to contains some massive and obvious inaccuracies with regard to the nature of liability for a charitable company registered in the UK. I'm glad you are not my trade union either, as you are both missing something around the capacity for employees with a claim against a company which is no longer solvent in the UK to seek compensation under a National Insurance scheme. I'm incredibly glad that I am absolutely no-one's legal adviser, trade union, or insolvency practitioner. There are good reasons for paying trained people to do these jobs.
'frin
--------------------
"Even the crocodile looks after her young" - Lamentations 4, remembering Erin.
Posts: 4496 | From: a library | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
[manuel]'kay! I no' nuthing'[/manuel]
With apologies to Fawlty Towers!
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Well, look, IANABRL, but -- bankruptcy filing in the US is limited to US debtors. US Bankruptcy courts only have jurisdiction to hear matters arising under US law. So they have to have at least some sort of US presence. I don't think the Bankruptcy Court are likely to look kindly on an attempt to get out of debts and obligations that are all in the UK and none at all in the US.
What I don't know is what the effect on this is of purchase by a US company. If all assets and debts are transferred, then I suppose theoretically you could file for US bankruptcy, but then the US bankruptcy court would have to consider the claims of all the UK debtors as well.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
Just to note that any attempt to avoid valid UK liabilities by instituting invalid US proceedings, or to achieve priority status for one's own claims through invalid proceedings, would potentially be a serious matter under UK law (And I hope the Charity Commission are watching carefully).
I don't want to prejudge any of these issues - but just to point out the implications if they resolve in a particular direction.
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Of course, the shops are owned by a US charity now, so that gets to be a more arcane issue of the extraterritorial reach of UK debtors to a company operating in the UK. At least in the US, any entity operating within the US and within a given state may be haled into court over civil or criminal wrongs that they allegedly did in the US. I assume we got that idea from our Anglo legal brethren, so I'm sure UK law has similar provisions.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Last year the Brewers looked very much as if they were hardline Orthodox who apparently aimed to eliminate all Christian churches other than their own (not a useful character flaw in someone trying to run a chain of Anglican bookshops) and wanted to take over SPCK bookshops to help them do it.
Or so it seemed - now they look much more boring than that. Recent developments make them seem like old-fashioned asset-strippers, taking over failing businesses, cutting wages, putting up hours, and driving out trade unions, to cut costs until they manage to sell the buildings. Underhanded union busters, though on a small scale. As if the whole aim of the exercise was to get their nads on the money to be gained by selling the shops, some of which are in very upmarket locations in tourist-trap towns. They must be gutted that the property price crash happened when it did.
Almost disappointing. Not mad beardy weirdoes at all. Just another bunch of estate agents.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
Laura
There seems to be some doubt about the identity of the various bodies involved.
A US organisation recognised as a charity in the US is not necessarily a charity in the UK.
The legal standing of an operating entity in the UK is decided by UK law, I think.
An attempt to avoid UK debts by migrating a business ('charity') to the US would be a serious matter in UK law, and might itself jeopardise the charitable status of the UK operation.
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I totally hear you -- I'm just wittering away out loud the way lawyers do when trying to figure out how something outside of their specialty works. But at the very least, the UK creditors ought to be able to hold up the sale/dispersal of any and all UK assets to satisfy claims awarded under a UK tribunal - real estate, bank accounts, fixtures, whatever. Nothing that happens in the US could have anything to do with that. A US charity can file for bankruptcy but US courts have no jurisdiction over in the UK over UK property, nor would any judge ever say so.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I believe there is a condition put on some of the freehold property that they have to remain Christian Bookshops for a certain number of years before being sold.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
There is an update to the post I linked to above.
I'm not a lawyer but it certainly seems that 'something is rotten in the State of Denmark...' ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CaDan
Apprentice
# 8638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on Hill:
Laura
There seems to be some doubt about the identity of the various bodies involved.
A US organisation recognised as a charity in the US is not necessarily a charity in the UK.
The legal standing of an operating entity in the UK is decided by UK law, I think.
An attempt to avoid UK debts by migrating a business ('charity') to the US would be a serious matter in UK law, and might itself jeopardise the charitable status of the UK operation.
The Trustee's motion to dismiss is based, in part, on the fact that there is no US organization.
I have retrieved copies of the bankruptcy schedules and other documents from PACER. This bankruptcy filing is a mess. Schedules were filed late and incomplete. Classes of debts are categorized incorrectly.
--------------------
No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.
No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions.
No dialogue among the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions
Hans Kung
Posts: 2 | From: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25
|
Posted
God, they can't even go bankrupt properly.
Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
CaDan, that has to be some kind of record, joined Oct 2004, first post July 2008!
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CaDan
Apprentice
# 8638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by innocent(ish):
CaDan, that has to be some kind of record, joined Oct 2004, first post July 2008!
Long time lurker, first time poster! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.
No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions.
No dialogue among the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions
Hans Kung
Posts: 2 | From: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
Sig test
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duck
Shipmate
# 10181
|
Posted
This blog has published information on the Dave Walker affair, and like several others who have done so has received legal threats from Mark Brewer. Unlike most, it has published the correspondence. I would very much suggest reading for yourself, it really is quite bizarre.
(I've blogged on this also, no threatening letters for me as yet).
--------------------
'Truth is my authority, not authority my truth' - Mary Dyer, Quaker martyr.
Posts: 1014 | From: Lots of planets have a north | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I'm confused about the way the Dave Walker support facebook group and other places are referring to a "cease and desist order" that they desire to have "lifted". There is, as I understand it, a cease and desist request letter to which some have capitulated. That will never be "lifted" because there's nothing to lift. A letter is just a letter, it isn't an order.
Another option is to continue posting about the matter and take the very small risk that the Brewers would actually succeed in getting the blogs shut down. They have, AIUI, no leg to stand on, legally.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
Laura
I think part of the issue is that the letter purports to issue legal threats - and it has been written by a lawyer. It takes time and good advice to digest such a thing. Elizaphanian (linked by Duck) has published the kind of thing we're looking at, and has been able to take advice.
Dave Walker has been resident at the Lambeth Conference, with other things on his mind than dealing immediately with such threats.
There is a threat, for example, to obtain an injunction. Now I think that it would be fairly difficult to get an injunction from any judge who looked at the material - they'd be more likely to smile at the odd cartoon. And there is the question of what the costs of legal proceedings would be, and whether they are realistically recoverable from a US citizen.
And also a potential threat to Dave to disclose private correspondence and information received in trust and confidence (which might come down the line in justifying comments).
So that is why some of us support Dave, who has in my view done nothing wrong he should not be taking the flak from this alone - his reporting and care with this story is an example to us all.
Ok there is some confused terminology about a letter - a letter can't be lifted, but a threat can.
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Wow. Have the Brewers gone totally potty? The main result of the "cease and desist" letter is that now, instead of reading Dave's fairly cautious blog, I'm reading all the hardcore "bring-'em-on" types whose allegations against the Brewers go further than anything Dave ever said.
e.g. Ministry of Truth, who speculates that the Brewers are fraudulently claiming bankruptcy in the United States in order to avoid their alleged personal liabilities for the charity's debts.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I'm confused about the way the Dave Walker support facebook group and other places are referring to a "cease and desist order" that they desire to have "lifted". There is, as I understand it, a cease and desist request letter to which some have capitulated. That will never be "lifted" because there's nothing to lift. A letter is just a letter, it isn't an order.
Because, unfortunately, English law on libel is unforgiving. So some - not all - ISPs have got into the habit of removing material when convincingly challenged, and restoring it again when the challenge is withdrawn, disproved, or not followed up.
That's probably an over-reaction but it is an understandable one
Americans tend to behave similarly when challenged over intellectual property laws.
If I as the system manager of an internet server (well, as one of half a dozen system managers of a hundreds or so servers) receive a credible threat of legal action it can be in my interest to take down a page pretty promptly. Because if I don't, and it is later found to be libelous or it break copyright or whatever then it becomes my fault and I can get sued - or rather the institution I work for can, and we have more money to spend on lawyers than most of our students do so someone seeking damages is more likely to go for us.
The situation is even worse if someone says that you have child pornography on your website. You have very little option but to take down a page without investigating the accusation because the screwed-up nature of the law means that you might be breaking the law by trying to work out whether or not the item in question is illegal ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
So very often the safest thing to do is take down the site first, and ask questions afterwards.
Different legal systems have different quirks and its very hard to know where you are. In general we are much harsher on libel and defamation than the Americans, but they come down harder on copyright and terrorism. The Americans have a slightly looser regime on pornography (though not on child pornography), the British a far more libertarian attitude to gambling.
Libel can be harsh here, because there is no legal aid and the courts can give punitive damages. Basically its a system for rich people to a take money from poor people ("not unlike the rest of the legal system" I hear my inner anarchist say). If you aren't a libel lawyer, and haven't got the time or the money to talk to one, it can make sense to be vary cautious.
I don't know what we would do if we got a letter purporting to be from an American lawyer claiming that one of our staff or students had published libel on our webservers. It would depend o the situation, and the decision wouldn't be up to me alone. But if there seemed to be a real problem on the face of it we would probably pull the page first and talk to our lawyers afterwards.
This is not a hypothetical situation. In my job I have often received complaints about copyright violations, and sometimes complaints about spam. We've had the police talk to us about email and websites of people accused of crimes, or the victims of crimes (some of them very serious). We have received complaints about defamation (in one case from the BNP, which wasn't fun). We've got policies about it and we employ lawyers.
Dave, as far as I know, has no legal department. He also received the letter shortly before the Lambeth Conference which I suspect may be a big deal for him both personally and professionally. He might well have been simply too busy to pay much attention to the Brewer's bullying (which might well be why the accusations were made at this time).
Maybe it was an over-reaction to take down the entire thread from the website, but if it was it was an entirely understandable one. And one that many - perhaps most - ISPs and professional web managers would have made.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duck:
This blog has published information on the Dave Walker affair, and like several others who have done so has received legal threats from Mark Brewer. Unlike most, it has published the correspondence. I would very much suggest reading for yourself, it really is quite bizarre.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
If that is really what Mr Brewer is saying, then he's lost it. Show those letters to a court and they are going to be groaning inwardly. They look like the rantings of a looney.
quote:
(I've blogged on this also, no threatening letters for me as yet).
I copied some of the deleted posts ontop my Rant-of-the-month site (sadly less than monthly updates these days)
And I thought Mr Brewer was meant to be a lawyer?
quote:
Short extracts from letter at elizaphanian.blogspot.com purporting to be from Mark Brewer:
Neither English nor American law permits you to engage in what you term "fair comment" with respect to a private company, nor with respect to a private individual - namely, me. Obviously the law does not allow one to cloak his conduct with such sophistry and then go about defaming someone.
I thought US law allowed precisely that. Isn't it defended in their constitution? English law allows it in most circumstances as well.
quote:
Libel with malice, a malignancy of heart, is intolerable in civilized societies.
It may be intolerable, but it is tolerated because the alternative - allowing anyone who cares to to shut up anyone else by accusing them of libel - is even worse.
quote:
Mr. Walker is in no way a victim of anything done or not done, said or not said by me. I have no idea what you are on about in saying such a thing. I cannot fathom your judgmental presumptiveness in telling me to apologize to him.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
... I will seek redress in the courts of the country where I live - the United States. As your solicitor will have told you, you are subject to jurisdiction here as you knowingly libeled me on the worldwide web, you know me to be a resident of the USA and you know and intend to injure me where I live in the USA.
[...]
Your solicitor also will have told you that you are subject to service of process for a suit in the United States under the Hague Convention. You will then have to answer for your conduct in the venue where you intentionally caused me harm. I hope you understand this...
If he really thinks that suing for libel in an American court is a more serious threat than in an English court he can't be much of a lawyer.
He does seem to be a passable bully though.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Wardman
Apprentice
# 13268
|
Posted
>Dave Walker's posts on SPCK are now available as a pdf via:
Beat me to it. Excellent :-}
I'd dearly love to publish one with all the comments on as well, because I don't think those were defamatory either - noting how carefully Dave W managed the debate.
But I don't have the full copy of all of those, and just the posts were about 110 pages unless I reedited the whole lot line by line.
I think what is beginning to matter now - apart from what DW himself decides to do - will be providing good summary information to help people get to grips with the history of the SPCK situation.
Rgds
Matt Wardman
Posts: 8 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Sorry, ken, you're misunderstanding me. What I mean is, a "cease and desist letter" is not the same as a "cease and desist order". A letter is a letter -- it has no legal import of any kind. An "order"comes from a court and has legal weight.
What you're talking about is response to a C&D letter -- I understand overcaution in UK jurisdictions given the harsher standard, but calling what the Brewers are sending an "order" gives it legal weight it doesn't possess (or deserve, frankly). It's harassment.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Wardman
Apprentice
# 13268
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
What I mean is, a "cease and desist letter" is not the same as a "cease and desist order". A letter is a letter -- it has no legal import of any kind. An "order" comes from a court and has legal weight.
I'd agree there. The problem is that people have too much respect for lawyers. Another problem is that the Faith encourages too much respect to be given to bits of the law that arguably don't deserve it.
A "Cease and Desist" letter may be just as full of fantasy and falsehoods as any other letter written by anybody else (say to the Daily Mail) - it's just that they have paid a lawyer to put it on a letterhead and possibly to make it sound ominous. As it is a private letter it can also be defamatory itself with no downside.
The thing to judge is a) is what I have said true and b) what is this person writing this letter playing at, what are their motives and how serious are they?
If a publication is true, then any C&D is a paper tiger apart from the "bludgeon you with legal fees" angle.
Unfortunately Mr B copied one of his to the media without a "do not publish" rider ;-) - I kid you not. More on Monday.
I've written a long comment about the need to debunk Cease and Desist letters over at the Tall Skinny Kiwi, which I would like repost here - but it is LONG so I thought I'd better ask first.
Here:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/07/avoiding-blog-l.html
Rgds
Matt
[Fixed code. Welcome on board -- if you need to check out how to work UBB code, there's a thread in Styx made just for you. - J]
[ 05. August 2008, 01:26: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 8 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Sorry, ken, you're misunderstanding me. What I mean is, a "cease and desist letter" is not the same as a "cease and desist order". A letter is a letter -- it has no legal import of any kind. An "order"comes from a court and has legal weight.
I understand that but what I was saying is that people sometimes get into the habit of being cautious, take down first and think afterwards. And that is understandable.
Maybe I'm thinking as a service provider rather than as a user here.
And its different in different jurisdictions. Libel law is just so much harsher here, you have to be more careful. In the USA other things cause problems.
Look how careful the Ship is on any problems with copyright law - almost certainly over-cautious by the standards of our law in England. Admins pull things written centuries ago, or that have been freely copied all over the place. Not because they believe them to be copyright violations but because they do not have the time to work out whether they are or not and the downside of getting it wrong is so large its not worth the risk.
Same here. Maybe Dave, or his ISP, simply do not have the skills or the time to tell a credible threat from a spurious one.
(I don't expect lawyers and ISPs to be great cartoonists.)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
That's great news, Barnabas!
This week's Private Eye has picked up on Dave's case in some detail, having previously run a short paragraph or two about the takeover. Nothing we don't already know in the report, but it's good to know that it's being noticed, especially by a notoriously tenacious organ.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
Well, well - perhaps there are some assets out there to pay some of the creditors - including the claims of staff, their pension and NI contributions, not to say suppliers ... now we have to add the film rights for an out-of-this-world comedy, and the spin-off management manuals. Has Dilbert ever worked in a bookshop?
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Wardman
Apprentice
# 13268
|
Posted
A quick note.
We have an article up about a new petition that we launched yesterday quietly.
The article is here:
http://spckssg.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/rescuing-chichesters-christian-bookshop-new-petition-launched/
The petition is here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/chichesterchristianbookshop/index.html
The objective is to try and persuade the Diocese of Chichester, who are the landlords of the Chichester Shop to take some action, and also to achieve some local and national publicity.
There is more information about reasons why on the petition itself and the article.
The full text is below:
"We, the undersigned, call upon the Bishop of Chichester and the Diocese of Chichester to rescue this once outstanding bookshop, previously part of the SPCK chain, from the control of Philip and Mark Brewer and their changing series of organisations (St Stephen the Great Charitable Trust / St Stephen the Great Limited and now Chichester Shop Management Co).
The Brewers took control of this bookshop, of the entire SPCK Bookshop chain, with fine sounding words, but actions always speak louder than words: the former Chichester SPCK Bookshop is now but a shadow of its former self. Due to the failure of the Brewers to honour invoices for goods received, suppliers have been left high and dry at a time of recession; and the shelves stood empty until recently when stock was brought in from the former SPCK shop in Norwich, which has now been rescued by the local community in Norwich.
St Olave's in Chichester has a claim to be the oldest building in the city, yet is in a desperate state of repair. It was set up through covenant to provide information for the community, yet advertising anything that Philip Brewer considers contrary to the so-called 'Orthodox' aims of the charity is banned. Mark Brewer has claimed ownership of St Olave's Church and has announced plans to turn it into an Orthodox place of worship. These men have abused staff, treated covenants and UK employment law with contempt, disregarded debts to their suppliers, fabricated a bankruptcy filing in the USA Courts and blatantly bullied anyone who has stood in their way: it ill-behoves the Diocese of Chichester to play host to them and their presence here casts a shadow over the mission of the wider church.
Enough is enough: we urge you to take decisive action now to rescue this shop and St Olave's Church from further depredation. We call upon you to step in, and to remove these men who are bringing Chichester's Christian heritage into disarray and disrepute. We urge you, please: take back control of this building. It would be better for the shop to be closed than allowed to carry on in its current state. Then, as we see happening elsewhere around the country, people will be free to work together to create something new and bring light to this community."
It will be submitted to the Bp of Chichester every multiple of 50 sigs.
Rgds
Matt Wardman
www.mattwardman.com
Posts: 8 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Wardman
Apprentice
# 13268
|
Posted
Further Update:
There is a formal charity commission enquiry in progress:
http://spckssg.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/charity-commission-replies-formal-inquiry-in-progress/
" Charity Commission Direct
PO Box 1227, Liverpool L69 3UG
t: 020 7674 2492
f: 020 7674 2301
Your Ref:
Our Ref: WTF 1119839/685451 C & S Ldn
Date: 13 November 2008
Dear Mr Groom
St Stephen the Great Charitable Trust (the Trust) and St Stephen the Great (The Company) (1119839)
Thank you for your email dated the 27 October about the above charities. I confirm that concerns have already been raised with the Commission relating to governance and internal financial controls at the Trust and the Company.
We have therefore contacted the trustees to clarify the situation with regard to some of the points raised. On the basis both of the initial concerns raised with the Commission and of the information provided by the charity in response, on 26 September 2008 we opened a formal inquiry under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993.
Because this inquiry remains open and ongoing I will not be in a position to go into further detail at this time, but we would normally look to make a report available once the inquiry was concluded.
Nevertheless, I have noted your concerns but would like to mention that some of these fall outside the remit of the Commission.
Any concerns regarding gift aid should be referred to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs which is the organisation with the necessary expertise to deal with such matters. Furthermore, the Commission cannot get involved in employment matters.
I hope the above is clear.
Yours sincerely
William Thomas Fahey"
Matt
Posts: 8 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Wardman
Apprentice
# 13268
|
Posted
And another one: fraud on the Court.
J Mark Brewer was found guilty of "fraud on the South Texas Bankruptcy Court" for an attempt to take the Society of Saint Stephen the Great into bankruptcy there.
"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, HOUSTON DIVISION
IN RE: ST STEPHENS THE GREAT, LLC,
Case No. 08-33689-H1-7
Debtor. ORDER
The Court has considered the Motion For Sanctions filed by Randy W. Williams, chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee"). The Court finds that Mark Brewer and the firm of Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. acted in bad faith and committed fraud on the Court by filing the above referenced and numbered bankruptcy case. The filing of the case constituted a willful and deliberate attempt to delay and hinder creditors with claims against Mr. Brewer, ENC Management Company and St. Stephen the Great Registered Charity. The Court also finds that Mark Brewer and the firm of Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. violated their duty of candor to the Court as well as other provisions of the Texas Disciplinary Rules by attempting to prosecute this case based on intentional and misleading omissions and intentional and misleading statements of fact. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that sanctions should be imposed under the inherent power of this Court, 11 U.S.C. § 105 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927."
"THE HONORABLE MARVIN ISGUR, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE"
Case 08-33689-H1-7.
http://spckssg.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sanctions-proposed-order.pdf
Matt Wardman
Posts: 8 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
The Brewers are to be chucked out of Durham Cathedral ( see here and here)
[ 02. May 2009, 11:25: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The Brewers are to be chucked out of Durham Cathedral ( see here and here)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
(and ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) to the Brewers!)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
Let's hope that this leads to a renaissance of excellent (and profitable) Christian Bookselling in Durham, security of employment for staff and a chance for those of us who care about things to rejoice in hope.
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Further developments found here and here.
[replaced censor affected link with a bitly URL]
[ 10. May 2009, 21:11: Message edited by: frin ]
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
That's right - just replace the asterisks with the missing letters.
When will they cease this childish censoring?
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laurie17
Shipmate
# 14889
|
Posted
I miss SPCK as both shops and publisher.
Iregret what its demise seem to indicate about what we are losing from English Christianity as extremeists push more moderate believers out, with their tolerance and rational commitment....
--------------------
when thee touched my heart
I were undone like dropped blossom
Daw'r ffordd yn glir yn araf deg.
Posts: 659 | From: off hand | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Gallica officinalis
Shipmate
# 3886
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie17:
I miss SPCK as both shops and publisher.
Iregret what its demise seem to indicate about what we are losing from English Christianity as extremeists push more moderate believers out, with their tolerance and rational commitment....
SPCK still publish books- they sold only off the shops.
--------------------
Come for tea, come for tea, my people.
Posts: 874 | From: The Hemlock Hideout | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lilly Rose
Shipmate
# 13826
|
Posted
Although the SPCK shops have ceased to exist as we knew and loved them, there are lots of other Christian bookshops.
There may not be one in every town, but there are independant Christian Bookshops spread over the country as well as the Wesley Owen chain.
As Apothecary says, SPCK Publishing is still going strong and their books should be available either in stock or by special order, from any Christian bookshop.
Posts: 102 | From: Midlands UK | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lilly Rose:
Although the SPCK shops have ceased to exist as we knew and loved them, there are lots of other Christian bookshops.
There may not be one in every town, but there are independant Christian Bookshops spread over the country as well as the Wesley Owen chain.
As Apothecary says, SPCK Publishing is still going strong and their books should be available either in stock or by special order, from any Christian bookshop.
And mail order using abebooks rather than A****n will help keep an independent in business. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The advantage of going to Wesley Owen as opposed to ordering of the net is that you can see inside a book to check that it is worthwhile.
Also, Wesley Owen are keen to pick up more business and are not stocking a wider variety of authors. Hitherto, I didn't recognise any of the names of the authors they stocked.
Our local branch as a sort of hardcore theology section at the back.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fingerdoughnut
Shipmate
# 13822
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Our local branch as a sort of hardcore theology section at the back.
Ha! At Spring Harvest this year WO's so-called 'theology section' contained Benny Hinn and TD Jakes ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 157 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lilly Rose
Shipmate
# 13826
|
Posted
Leo,
I'm wondering if there's a typo in your post, as it doesn't quite make sense.
You say 'Wesley Owen ........ are not stocking a wider variety of authors'
Should that read 'now' instead of 'not'? so that it says 'Wesley Owen ........ are now stocking a wider variety of authors'?
Posts: 102 | From: Midlands UK | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
