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

[OvaHere]

womansplaceuk.org/2020/11/28/wpuk-financial-statement-2020/

Perhaps we can quit with the 'dark money' narrative now.

I was a little surprised to see a grant from Lush Charity Pot in there. Perhaps as a company they aren't a total write off after all.

I think, with the evidence presented front and centre (not that it should be necessary to do so), I am inclined, for once, to tut disapprovingly and turn my back.

£50,000 in ticket sales sounds a lot like trading to me. Against how much in costs for said events... selective reading + no idea how such organisations work = very uninformed posting!

Having opened a similarly not for profit, run by volunteers, local organisation I know how it works.

@yourhairiswinterfire

And when you see proof that they are... what will you sling at them next?

They probably kick puppies and kittens or sumfink...

It's a shame we can't just have a bit more honesty. You know, a bit of foot stamping and sticking out of the bottom lip, along with the words "they're big fat meanies who won't let men exert control over women!!".

I think I would actually have more respect for that than for the behaviour I've seen on here.

£50,000 in ticket sales sounds a lot like trading to me.

Oh bless you think income = profit! May I suggest a GCSE in Business Studies.

Your first post was about taxes and HMRC.

You were told that was bobbins, so you shifted to shady insinuations about the structure, but still wanged on about HMRC. look, I’m feeling charitable, so I’ll help you out here. If you think they’re missing a trick there, then you need to vaguely threaten them with a report to Companies House, not HMRC.

They’ll tell you to jog on, of course, but you don’t seem to mind that.

It really is important, when you’re making baseless accusations, that you make accurate baseless accusations, don’t you think?

It really is important, when you’re making baseless accusations, that you make accurate baseless accusations, don’t you think?

Quite.

"£50,000 in ticket sales sounds a lot like trading to me."

Don't be so bloody silly! Have you any idea of the costs in setting up meetings and conferences?

I've done it for our charitable childminding association and we're lucky to break even, despite good ticket sales - and that's without the added security measures that WPUK need to prevent the lunatics trying to disrupt the meeting.

I don't think they are trying to evade taxes. I think they are trying to evade accountability by not having named directors/trustees.

This is what is really bugging you isn’t it? Not having names and addresses of individuals that can be threatened, stalked, harassed, reported for ‘hate incidents’, made the victims of vexatious litigation, harass their employers and family and friends, remove from their work...

Also a change of tune on taxes there I note.

It's no secret that the co-founders of WPUK are Ruth Serwotka, Kiri Tunks and Judith Green. Other members of the campaign can be gleaned from those on events listed as a WPUK speaker if one is really interested. There's nothing to see here at all. WPUK have a PO Box for obvious reasons.

"£50,000 in ticket sales sounds a lot like trading to me."

Really? For 27 live events? Doesn't sound like a lot to me at all - and my only experience with this stuff is the village fete!

@Aesopfable

I don't think they are trying to evade taxes. I think they are trying to evade accountability by not having named directors/trustees.

This is what is really bugging you isn’t it? Not having names and addresses of individuals that can be threatened, stalked, harassed, reported for ‘hate incidents’, made the victims of vexatious litigation, harass their employers and family and friends, remove from their work...

Also a change of tune on taxes there I note.

Agreed

@Aesopfable

I don't think they are trying to evade taxes. I think they are trying to evade accountability by not having named directors/trustees.

This is what is really bugging you isn’t it? Not having names and addresses of individuals that can be threatened, stalked, harassed, reported for ‘hate incidents’, made the victims of vexatious litigation, harass their employers and family and friends, remove from their work...

Also a change of tune on taxes there I note.

With regards litigation then WPUK have threatened to sue many people and in fact I suspect they reason they haven't ever gone through with it is that you generally need a formal organisation to be able to sue someone. That hasn't stopped them throwing out allegations of defamation thought despite the fact is would be very difficult to counter sue them because they are not constituted. Almost as if they want to have ther cake and eat it.

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.

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.

an organisation with such a high turn over

Less than 2000£ per event, are you serious?

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

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!

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

Why would anybody need to sue wpuk?

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.

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?

@TreestumpsAndTrampolines

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

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

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/

"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?

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?

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

Pre action letter is a threat to sue?

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