WPUK have released a financial statement showing money received by source and how it is spent

She hasn't mentioned it for ages and I think discrimination cases have a six month time limit.

It may come as a surprise to you that there is a wait for things to come to court and that this wait has grown somewhat due to Covid...

Nothings bugging me really except that its unusual that an organisation with such a high turn over, that pays fees, doesn't appear to have any legally binding structure or properly audited accounts.

They'd need a turnover of £10m before the audit requirement kicked in, and £1m as a registered charity. I think (sadly) WPUK is a fair way off needing audited accounts.

To add, the constitution is the legally binding document which all officers and members must adhere to.

doesn't appear to have any legally binding structure or properly audited accounts.

JJ, you obviously have zero experience running an not for profit organisation. If you did you will know that community organisations like WPUK, local football clubs, the old folks lunch club etc have to have a constitution to be able to open a bank account.
They don’t have to have audited accounts as it’s a. very expensive and b. not required in law for such organisations.

And we know the US religious right supports GC activism, and they have surreptitiously funded movements they support before, so it's not particularly surprising some have questioned whether that is happening now

Were you equally suspicious when it was revealed that a political party took a substantial donation from a pharmaceutical company that manufactures puberty blockers ?

And non of that is you making any changes conjectures?

As I said, clueless....whether contrived or honest!

jj
I thought she'd [Allison Bailey] given up her case. It will have timed out anyway now I think if she hasn't filed.

You love to spread misinformation don’t you? You don’t need to look far to confirm she hasn’t; try her Twitter profile.

But I've never made any claims about WPUK funding. And I don't think speculation is necessarily an attempt to smear. When a host of organisations appear which appear to be drawing significant funding and which are not formally constituted or publish audited accounts then I think it's inevitable that people will speculate about where it came from. And we know the US religious right supports GC activism, and they have surreptitiously funded movements they support before, so it's not particularly surprising some have questioned whether that is happening now.

jj: they're dodgy because A.
MN: no you misunderstand A is legitimate because.....

jj: then they're dodgy because B.
MN: no you misunderstand B is something different

jj: then they're dodgy because C.
MN: no C is a legitimate response to ....

Seriously jj I'm embarrassed for you 🤣

Pre action letter is a threat to sue?

Let's add that to the list of things you don't understand, shall we?

The sheer effrontery of them, sending lawyers letters. Who do they think they are?

That's being defamed and seeking legal advice then as Treestumps said.

So there is no evidence that they're being funded by the American far right, no evidence of funding at all really.

I mean do you accept that now @jj1968? That the accusation that they are a) has no foundation and b) is a deliberate attempt to smear?

"Unless Lush is actually a Nazi group disguised as a soap factory?"
I think you might be into something
Has anyone thrown a fit at lush yet for funding a hate group?

and this:

We are often encouraged by our supporters to take legal action to challenge these slurs and defend our reputation, including when they have been made about individual members of WPUK. On occasion, we have done this by sending pre-action legal letters and this has usually resulted in the withdrawal or deletion of the defamation.

womansplaceuk.org/slurs-slander-libel/

What I want to know is where is the Evangelical Christian anti-gay American astro-turf dark alt-right Nazi money that is supposedly propping WPUK up? Unless Lush is actually a Nazi group disguised as a soap factory?

Anything stuck yet?

Surely slinging repeated random slurs around against an organisation is a bit....against the spirit? I thought the guidelines were against that kind of thing.

Why would anybody need to sue wpuk?

For Pete's sake. Still clueless and still digging...

Nothings bugging me really except that its unusual that an organisation with such a high turn over, that pays fees, doesn't appear to have any legally binding structure or properly audited accounts.

A. It's very common. Why do you think it's a usual?
B. £50k is not a high turn over by any stretch of the imagination!

With regards litigation then WPUK have threatened to sue many people

They have? I've missed that - I've seen them be defamed and take legal advice, but never seen a threat to sue - can you link me? The only threat to sue I can see is from Allison Bailey - and she's followed through on that, despite interference with the crowd funding

an organisation with such a high turn over

Less than 2000£ per event, are you serious?

You seem to know a lot about it @jj1968. Who has WPUK threatened to sue?

Their style seems much more to set a stall out before the court of public opinion.

And we all know who runs WPUK, so no that's not bugging me. Nothings bugging me really except that its unusual that an organisation with such a high turn over, that pays fees, doesn't appear to have any legally binding structure or properly audited accounts.