As charities are supported by public money from taxes and voluntary
donations, I would like to suggest that all charities with an income
of over £1m should be subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

Any views?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article ,
    wrote:
> As charities are supported by public money from taxes and voluntary
> donations, I would like to suggest that all charities with an income
> of over £1m should be subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

> Any views?
Why only those with the income of more than a million.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:33:41 +0100, Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>> As charities are supported by public money from taxes and voluntary
>> donations, I would like to suggest that all charities with an income
>> of over £1m should be subject to Freedom of Information legislation.
>
>> Any views?

>Why only those with the income of more than a million.

I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.

What would you suggest?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>As charities are supported by public money from taxes and voluntary
>donations, I would like to suggest that all charities with an income
>of over £1m should be subject to Freedom of Information legislation.
>
>Any views?
>
What other ngs have you posted this in?

-- 
Malcolm

In article ,
    wrote:

> >
> >> Any views?

> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.

> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.

> What would you suggest?
The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts anyway. 
As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0100, Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> Any views?
>
>> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.
>
>> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
>> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.
>
>> What would you suggest?
>The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts anyway. 
>As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
>small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.

No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
have said otherwise.

If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers. 


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0100, Robert Seago
> wrote:
>
>>In article ,
>>    wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >> Any views?
>>
>>> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.
>>
>>> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
>>> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.
>>
>>> What would you suggest?
>>The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts anyway.
>>As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
>>small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>>demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.
>
>No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
>have said otherwise.
>
>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>
They already have that right.

Every charity has to hold an AGM.

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:35:17 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0100, Robert Seago
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article ,
>>>    wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >> Any views?
>>>
>>>> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.
>>>
>>>> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
>>>> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.
>>>
>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts anyway.
>>>As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
>>>small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>>>demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.
>>
>>No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
>>have said otherwise.
>>
>>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>>
>They already have that right.

No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.


>
>Every charity has to hold an AGM.

Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
day a year.

If they've nothing to hide charities should be supportive of being
included in the FoI legislation.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:35:17 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0100, Robert Seago
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Any views?
>>>>
>>>>> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.
>>>>
>>>>> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
>>>>> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.
>>>>
>>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>>The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts anyway.
>>>>As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
>>>>small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>>>>demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.
>>>
>>>No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
>>>have said otherwise.
>>>
>>>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>>>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>>>
>>They already have that right.
>
>No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.
>
So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>
>>
>>Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>
>Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>day a year.
>
Surely anyone who feels strongly enough about something will make the 
opportunity.

So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?

>If they've nothing to hide charities should be supportive of being
>included in the FoI legislation.
>
Are you supportive of businesses being included in the FoI legislation 
if they receive public money?

-- 
Malcolm

In article ,
    wrote:

> >> What would you suggest?
> >The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts
> >anyway. As for their practices which you usually object to, big and
> >probably small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
> >demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.

> No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
> have said otherwise.
Well give instances; you may be right that I haven't always demonstrated
so every time.  I don't have time to answer every incorrect thing you say.

> If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
> they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
> 
As I said, charities have to publish accounts.  You can read them if you
are a member, and the charity commission scrutinise them.

> >>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
> >>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
> >>
> >They already have that right.

> No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.

At each AGM awkward questions can be put.  If any charity is doing
something which some member questions and no satisfactory answer is made
they can go to the charity commission.
> >
> >Every charity has to hold an AGM.

> Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
> day a year.
Questions can be put by post.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:04 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:35:17 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0100, Robert Seago
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Any views?
>>>>>
>>>>>> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
>>>>>> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>>>The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts anyway.
>>>>>As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
>>>>>small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>>>>>demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
>>>>have said otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>>>>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>>>>
>>>They already have that right.
>>
>>No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.
>>
>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?

None. I'm not a member of either organisation but as a member of the
public who contributes indirectly to their coffers I should be allowed
to ask questions and receive answers. 

>>
>>>
>>>Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>>
>>Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>>day a year.
>>
>Surely anyone who feels strongly enough about something will make the 
>opportunity
>
>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>

See above

>>If they've nothing to hide charities should be supportive of being
>>included in the FoI legislation.
>>
>Are you supportive of businesses being included in the FoI legislation 
>if they receive public money?

That should be up to the government agency providers of such money to
determine in detail where it is spent and the FoI should be extended
to cover this. 


   .
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:19:07 +0100, Robert Seago
 wrote:

>
>> >>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>> >>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>> >>
>> >They already have that right.
>
>> No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.
>
>At each AGM awkward questions can be put.  If any charity is doing
>something which some member questions and no satisfactory answer is made
>they can go to the charity commission.

Non members cannot just go to an AGM and start asking questions.  The
FoI would open it up to the public at large.

>> >
>> >Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>
>> Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>> day a year.
>Questions can be put by post.

Which can be ignored.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:13:56 +0100, Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>
>> >> What would you suggest?
>> >The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts
>> >anyway. As for their practices which you usually object to, big and
>> >probably small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>> >demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.
>
>> No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
>> have said otherwise.
>Well give instances; you may be right that I haven't always demonstrated
>so every time.  I don't have time to answer every incorrect thing you say.
>

Question about where the BASC manages "reserves" or shoots wild birds
on RSPB properties.


>> If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>> they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>> 
>As I said, charities have to publish accounts. 

Doesn't give the full picture.

> You can read them if you
>are a member, and the charity commission scrutinise them.

Better and more open by FoI




Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:04 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:35:17 +0100, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0100, Robert Seago
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> Any views?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
>>>>>>> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>>>>The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts anyway.
>>>>>>As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
>>>>>>small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>>>>>>demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
>>>>>have said otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>>>>>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>>>>>
>>>>They already have that right.
>>>
>>>No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.
>>>
>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>
>None. I'm not a member of either organisation but as a member of the
>public who contributes indirectly to their coffers I should be allowed
>to ask questions and receive answers.
>
You are perfectly at liberty to ask them questions, indeed you have done 
on several occasions. And you do receive answers. The fact that you 
don't like the answers is largely your own fault.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>>>
>>>Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>>>day a year.
>>>
>>Surely anyone who feels strongly enough about something will make the
>>opportunity
>>
>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>>
>
>See above
>
This is like your attitude to the National Park, isn't it? You complain 
and whinge on the sidelines and refuse point blank to do anything 
positive, like putting yourself forward for the National Park Board, or 
like becoming a member of either organisation when you could put 
yourself forward for their Councils.

You're a very half-hearted campaigner :-)

>>>If they've nothing to hide charities should be supportive of being
>>>included in the FoI legislation.
>>>
>>Are you supportive of businesses being included in the FoI legislation
>>if they receive public money?
>
>That should be up to the government agency providers of such money to
>determine in detail where it is spent and the FoI should be extended
>to cover this.
>
So that would include your own company then?

-- 
Malcolm

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:00 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:04 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:35:17 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0100, Robert Seago
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> Any views?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
>>>>>>>> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>>>>>The charities big and small are obliged to publish their accounts anyway.
>>>>>>>As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
>>>>>>>small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>>>>>>>demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
>>>>>>have said otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>>>>>>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>They already have that right.
>>>>
>>>>No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.
>>>>
>>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>>
>>None. I'm not a member of either organisation but as a member of the
>>public who contributes indirectly to their coffers I should be allowed
>>to ask questions and receive answers.
>>
>You are perfectly at liberty to ask them questions, indeed you have done 
>on several occasions. And you do receive answers. The fact that you 
>don't like the answers is largely your own fault.

On a number of occasions I have not received answers.

>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>>>>
>>>>Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>>>>day a year.
>>>>
>>>Surely anyone who feels strongly enough about something will make the
>>>opportunity
>>>
>>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>>>
>>
>>See above
>>
>This is like your attitude to the National Park, isn't it? You complain 
>and whinge on the sidelines and refuse point blank to do anything 
>positive, like putting yourself forward for the National Park Board, or 
>like becoming a member of either organisation when you could put 
>yourself forward for their Councils.

Not at all.  Joining and undemocratic organisation doesn't make it
democratic.

>
>You're a very half-hearted campaigner :-)
>

See above.

>>>>If they've nothing to hide charities should be supportive of being
>>>>included in the FoI legislation.
>>>>
>>>Are you supportive of businesses being included in the FoI legislation
>>>if they receive public money?
>>
>>That should be up to the government agency providers of such money to
>>determine in detail where it is spent and the FoI should be extended
>>to cover this.
>>
>So that would include your own company then?


No.  It would have to have £1m income from public or donated money
annually.

Suffice to say that your opposition to FoI for charities makes it
something that should be considered.

No more time for milking you, Malcolm :-)

Go and annoy Rab.

Bye.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:00 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:04 +0100, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:35:17 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0100, Robert Seago
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >> Any views?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
>>>>>>>>> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>>>>>>The charities big and small are obliged to publish their 
>>>>>>>>accounts anyway.
>>>>>>>>As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
>>>>>>>>small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>>>>>>>>demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
>>>>>>>have said otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>>>>>>>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>They already have that right.
>>>>>
>>>>>No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.
>>>>>
>>>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>>>
>>>None. I'm not a member of either organisation but as a member of the
>>>public who contributes indirectly to their coffers I should be allowed
>>>to ask questions and receive answers.
>>>
>>You are perfectly at liberty to ask them questions, indeed you have done
>>on several occasions. And you do receive answers. The fact that you
>>don't like the answers is largely your own fault.
>
>On a number of occasions I have not received answers.
>
Yes, and that's your own fault. You're a bit like that man from People 
Too. You ask the kind of questions which make it obvious that you are 
opposed to what the organisation does and are not so much asking a 
question as criticising them based on a heavily biassed agenda. This is 
hardly conducive to obtaining answers. A classic example of your 
technique is contained in the documents accompanying your petition.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>>>>>day a year.
>>>>>
>>>>Surely anyone who feels strongly enough about something will make the
>>>>opportunity
>>>>
>>>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>>>>
>>>
>>>See above
>>>
>>This is like your attitude to the National Park, isn't it? You complain
>>and whinge on the sidelines and refuse point blank to do anything
>>positive, like putting yourself forward for the National Park Board, or
>>like becoming a member of either organisation when you could put
>>yourself forward for their Councils.
>
>Not at all.  Joining and undemocratic organisation doesn't make it
>democratic.
>
Hmm, if you believe sufficiently strongly in what you campaign about, 
you will surely do your utmost to achieve it, including exploring every 
avenue, such as joining and doing your best to change it and make it 
more democratic. You clearly don't believe sufficiently strongly to 
explore every avenue and so just sit on the sidelines and whinge about 
it.

>>
>>You're a very half-hearted campaigner :-)
>>
>
>See above.

Confirmed :-)

>
>>>>>If they've nothing to hide charities should be supportive of being
>>>>>included in the FoI legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>Are you supportive of businesses being included in the FoI legislation
>>>>if they receive public money?
>>>
>>>That should be up to the government agency providers of such money to
>>>determine in detail where it is spent and the FoI should be extended
>>>to cover this.
>>>
>>So that would include your own company then?
>
>
>No.  It would have to have £1m income from public or donated money
>annually.
>
>Suffice to say that your opposition to FoI for charities makes it
>something that should be considered.
>
Where did I say I was opposed to it?

>No more time for milking you, Malcolm :-)
>
Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You're obviously getting less 
committed as you grow older. It just gets easier and easier to demolish 
your arguments :-)

I see from The Scotsman that you were once again putting forward your 
wholly flawed points about introduced animals and getting short shrift 
from people who commented on your letter. One of them summed you up very 
well, I thought:

"Countering this unfounded argument is pointless. Angus's arguments are 
invariably circular.... adapting themselves endlessly simply to prolong 
the discussion. The process includes taking what has been said to him 
out of context, reversing the meaning - (use of double negatives , 
removing key definining adverbs etc ) , so that he will then argue round 
again. He will claim that his reworded version is what was said to 
him...not by him... , so as to draw attention away from a point he 
cannot accept the prospect of losing.."

-- 
Malcolm

In article ,
    wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:19:07 +0100, Robert Seago 
> wrote:

> >
> >> >>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or
> >> >>indirectly, they should have the right to ask questions and receive
> >> >>answers.
> >> >>
> >> >They already have that right.
> >
> >> No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.
> >
> >At each AGM awkward questions can be put.  If any charity is doing
> >something which some member questions and no satisfactory answer is
> >made they can go to the charity commission.

> Non members cannot just go to an AGM and start asking questions.  The
> FoI would open it up to the public at large.
Quite right to.  Become a member if you don't like the organisation. 
However most of them will answer legitimate queries 

> >> >
> >> >Every charity has to hold an AGM.
> >
> >> Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
> >> day a year.
> >Questions can be put by post.

> Which can be ignored.
Not if they are from members.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:19:31 +0100, Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:19:07 +0100, Robert Seago 
>> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> >>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or
>> >> >>indirectly, they should have the right to ask questions and receive
>> >> >>answers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >They already have that right.
>> >
>> >> No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.
>> >
>> >At each AGM awkward questions can be put.  If any charity is doing
>> >something which some member questions and no satisfactory answer is
>> >made they can go to the charity commission.
>
>> Non members cannot just go to an AGM and start asking questions.  The
>> FoI would open it up to the public at large.
>Quite right to.  Become a member if you don't like the organisation. 
>However most of them will answer legitimate queries 
>
>> >> >
>> >> >Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>> >
>> >> Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>> >> day a year.
>> >Questions can be put by post.
>
>> Which can be ignored.
>Not if they are from members.


Why should anyone have to join an organisation supported by public
money just to get information?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)