Why is Tesco letting a cult fundraise in its shops

[WhyIsTescoSupportingACult]

obviously NC for this

went to the big Tesco in Beckton, east London, earlier today. 2 young men were enthusiastically dancing and singing whilst holding those fundraising buckets. They were collecting donations for the UKCG ‘helpline’.

UKCG is a Christian cult, started in Brazil, but now present in a number of countries. Their leader/founder has spent a significant amount of time in jail. They are a dangerous organisation.

why is Tesco allowing a cult to fundraise in its shops??

Okay, so you're saying it's substantially true that the individuals in the photos OP has posted on a forum read by millions are definitely guilty themselves of what the charity has been accused of? Wow, good luck with that one!

I'm another one who thinks you should ask for the copies to be removed op, you had no business taking them, never mind posting them online

That being said, I agree with your post.

Already have done.

Scientologists, private schools and universities are all registered charities. I wouldn't expect to see any of them shaking tins in Tescos.

The stores do pick and choose who they let in to fundraise.

This example is worrying. If you have BHF, or Bernardos or even the Salvation Army in there, you would have a good sense of where the money is going to. Not so with this organisation. I think it is important to ask exactly where this money is going to. Is it to pay for the massive churches they have across London, to line the pockets of their leaders or to support charitable work? If it is to support charitable work, does this have an evangelical bent (e.g. we will feed you, but you have to attend a service first).

I am very careful about who i donate to. I don't support street fundraising, unless it is a charity I already know and like.

Tesco has some responsibility here. By housing these fundraisers, they are given an extra layer of 'respectably' as people will naturally think they are sound, cos they are in Tesco.

I bloody hate these chuggers hanging around inside supermarkets , time they were stopped

Intriguing.
mega wealthy church.
huge in west Africa.
absolutely MASSIVE complexes (I've visited one)., depressing 'miracles' by leader, fleece members by tithing (though, to be fair, all the Pentecostals do that).
my guess as to why they're allowed is that a)Tesco sees 'Christian, charity and just agrees with b) store workers who are members of the church pushing for the charity to be allowed to fund raise in the supermarket.

highlight scandal stories on Tesco twitter?

Surely it depends on the charity? I collect for Marie Curie in supermarkets during Dafodil week and at Christmas. The money goes directly to the local hospice. Marie Curie couldn't exist without donations and their hospice care is amazing.

Religion and belief is a protected characteristic under the equality act - you cannot discriminate against an organisation on the basis of belief.

No, it isn't. The people in question have in effect defamed themselves by appearing in a public place and publicly associating themselves with the charity; the facts about the charity are not what OP claims but have been widely publicised already, not least by them. Giving what they are doing a wider audience does not constitute defamation.

People talk some real rubbish about the law on MN.

What is substantially true is that they are fundraising for and supporting a charity that does and supports these things. OP is clearly not saying that these individuals are personally guilty of each and every abuse this charity might perpetrate. As the individuals concerned have already come out and publicly demonstrated that they are supporting the charity, they have no basis for any sort of legal action.

Some priests in the Catholic Church are known to have abused children. The Catholic Church badly mishandled this over the years and allowed them to get away with it. Taking a photo of a Catholic priest and claiming he is a paedophile due to his association with the church which had some priests who were paedophiles would still be slander.

@Grimpo I was about to dive in and say exactly the same. At least 4 people through this have said something along the lines of ‘legally speaking you should blur the faces’. All four of them clearly have no legal background at all. So annoying when people do this.

Not sure that is True Saffron. If the scientologists wanted to fundraise in Tesco, given that they believe in pretty bonkers stuff and there is lots of evidence of them being a cult, then i think Tesco would be on v firm ground to say no to them. The belief has to be shown to be worthy of respect in a democratic society, and i think alot of religions would fail that test if it was ever litigated.

Never understand why people ask questions on MN to people who can't know the answer rather than go direct to the people concerned.

Never heard of this group, if they are a registered charity then that will be why they are fundraising. If you object then you need to take that up with your local Tesco surely.

Of course they do! Clearly you have never heard of juxtaposition in defamation law.

Also, they could be employed by an outside agency that supplies chuggers to charities, which means they have no affiliation to the charity itself.

@Grimpo you seem to have a legal background, can orgs like Scientology or UKCG be discriminated against legally?

Um, I wouldn't assume someone who doesn't know about juxtaposition and innuendo in defamation law has a legal background...

You need to contact Tesco about this. Tbh I haven’t heard of this particular group, but if they’re a cult then Tesco need to know.

Another misstatement of the law. Protected characteristics relate to individuals, not organisations.

I have indeed heard of juxtaposition. This is not it, given that these individuals have directly associated themselves with the charity in question.

Actually I have a background in media law and know what I'm talking about and unless OP can prove that these individuals are a) members of or are employed directly by the charity and are not casual Xmas workers recruited by a third-party agency and b) are aware of and have engaged in the alleged bad practices of said charity, she is risking a claim for defamation by broadcasting their faces on a forum read by millions alongside accusing the charity of being a cult.

Equality Act: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10

(1)Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.

(2)Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.

(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

Scientology is an established religion whether you think they are bonkers or not. I totally disagree with Islam and think their attitude to women is harmful but organisations cannot discriminate against them.

I could be a newspaper delivery boy who shoves copies of the Daily Mail through people's letterboxes every morning but that does not mean I am guilty of their shitty practices by association. If these men are third-party casual Xmas chuggers recruited by an agency and have no affiliation to the charity as individuals then they are being defamed by having their images shared on MN.

This has chilled me to the bone. Victoria Climbie suffered so so much. I can’t articulate my reaction.