Booklet CC47 'outlines [the Charity Commission's] role clearly?

Submitted by Syarikat (Netherlands), Apr 28, 2006 at 05:49

Clearly, indeed.

I think that even if one would hold that is no serious risk of harm to the charilty, its assets, or beneficiaries, it would be clearly nonsensical to argue that their is no serious risk of harm to THE REPUTATION of the charity, especially in view of the type of offenses that British law penalizes when they affect Muslim sensitivities.

So the rationale must be that the use of the Commission's powers of intervention is not necessary to protect this reputation, an/or this does not represent a proportionate response to the issues in the case.

This is clearly a matter of interpretation, and the Commission's interpretation as far as it can be inferred from its email defies all common sense.

Are they the final authority in such matters with no possibility for appeal?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".