As someone with a reasonable knowledge of this situation, this thread does make interesting reading.
What is revealed from the wide opinion is the immediacy by which this particular CWC is condemned without any real knowledge of the situation. Not that general discussion shouldn’t happen on this or any topic, but just suppose that
The formation of the Salmon Trust and movement of funds was made with the full consultation of ATCHQ, their recommendation and agreement
That CWCs are actually independent charities in law, with a common objective to support the cadets but answerable to UK Law over and above the ACO
As an independent charity, there is no right of command authority over them by anyone in the civilian or uniformed pillar.
That an ATC review of the relationships with CWCs is underway at the insistence of the Charity Commission who consider the ACPs to be outside Charity Law, not because the ACO has choice in controlling CWCs
That in law, the ACO cannot exercise control over any charity and must abide by that law if it wants charitable support/status at local level
That members of the CWC concerned have received full written apologies from Dawn McCafferty’s boss over the bad conduct and actions of senior uniformed and civilian officers towards them who have acted without authority (I have personally seen the letter!)
There are probably a few more, but if you keep your minds a little more open (whether you are happy with your own CWC or not), then you might just be in for a fewer surprises further down the line. At least let me say that you shouldn’t believe all you read in the papers!
[quote=“Veritas” post=7603]- That CWCs are actually independent charities in law, with a common objective to support the cadets but answerable to UK Law over and above the ACO[/quote]Do you have any proof of this?
Yes. I have received releases from the Charity Commission, but if you read the first few paras of ACP-10 you will see that they are defined as ‘Exempt Charities’. This means they are required to act as full-blown charities in every respect but are exempt from being required to submit annual returns to the Charity Commission. By the way, F60 is meaningless in terms of the Charity Commission - certainly it is good governance to know what is going on, but as a form it goes nowhere and is completely unrecognised by the Commission.
SQUADRONS, and their formation are charity status exempt. Not Committees. Squadrons can act without a committee but a committee cannot act without a Squadron, hence the unit itself are the exempt. Otherwise you would have to have different exempt numbers when committees are dissolved and re-formed. When a Squadron stands down, their charity exempt number is suspended in ACP8.
The majority of wing and squadron Welfare Funds in England and Wales are registered with the Charity Commission as “Excepted Charities” and as such must be administered in accordance with Charity laws under the Charities Act 2006. The Charity Commission except the charity from the duty to be registered for Non-public Sports and Welfare Funds of the wings/squadrons of the Air Training Corps in accordance with the regulations made under the Royal Warrant dated 5 Feb 1941 (subsequently revised and amended – latest 19 Feb 1990) for the government of the Corps.
[/quote]
Sorry guys … I don’t want to cause a problem, but for all the opinion expressed, you are wrong. An Exception Order is a legal granting of recognition of the alignment of a body under an affiliated charitable objective (i.e. the squadron/cadets) from which the CWC are the responsible executors. It is not uncommon for Charity Exception Orders to be granted to multiple circumstances (think of churches in a diocese, branches in the Red Cross and so on) so if you believe in the suspension of charity exception numbers under ACP8 then you will find (promise) the you are wiping out 40 or 50 squadron status at a throw.
Having just seen these latest posts I should add that it is not my place to be argumentative, but I do believe you are in for a big surprise. Place your bets!
Unfortunately I need my beauty sleep, so please do keep debating because it is healthy. But remember where you saw it first.
[quote]1131. Charities Act 1960. This Act may affect welfare funds operating throughout all levels of the Corps, except in Scotland and Northern Ireland, insofar as such funds can be regarded as held for purposes which are charitable in law and on the facts of each case the question may arise whether the funds are liable for registration with the Charity Commissioners under Section 4 of the Act. However, it is the policy of the Commissioners, where an obligation to register is seen to arise, to make Orders excepting welfare funds from that requirement. Requests for Excepting Orders will be submitted by HQ AC based on information obtained from copies of Welfare Fund Receipts and Payment Statements forwarded annually after the close of each financial year. The liability to register under the Charities Act arises when:
a. The Welfare Fund constitutes a charity in law; and
b. The fund has:
(1) Any permanent endowment (that is, property held subject to a restriction on it being applied for the general purpose of the fund), or
(2) Income from investments or other property in excess of £15 per annum, or
(3) The use and occupation of any land (which includes buildings on the land).
In making such excepting Orders the Commissioners in practice will include not only the welfare funds directly concerned but all other funds held on special charitable trusts (which may normally be expected to be held for particular local charitable purposes of the squadron or unit). Applications to the Commissioners should include particulars of any funds held on such special trusts.[/quote]
The committee is NOT a charity, expemted, excepted or otherwise.
The Squadron, or specifically the SQUADRON fund (not CWC fund - 123 anytown SQUADRON fund) is what has exepted status, and therefore by extension the squadron which it is the fund of.
The committee has no legel entity as such other than as trustees of said SQUADRON fund.
If you make me dig out the extracts from the charities act I will hunt you down and make you write it out 1000 times!
You quite rightly state that the trustees (i.e. chair and honorary - note honorary - treasurer) are responsible in law - of course they are, and that law of course superceedes the ACO in authority, but thats like saying the law of the land has a higher power than a teacher or a Judge more power than a Copper.
Aww go on then Perry … just one more before I log off.
AP 1919 potentially is way over any ACP I grant you. But then again, when you are looking at the wrong clause, and AP1919 has been adjudged to be completely out of date, unfit for purpose in this circumstance and flawed, no amount of quoting is going to change the fact that the welfare fund is the charity and that is administered by the CWC, not the squadron (although the squadron is the charitable objective). Hey I am not saying that anyone should be disadvantaged in terms of control. But these are established facts as given.
[quote=“Veritas” post=7616]Aww go on then Perry … just one more before I log off.
AP 1919 potentially is way over any ACP I grant you. But then again, when you are looking at the wrong clause, and AP1919 has been adjudged to be completely out of date, unfit for purpose in this circumstance and flawed, no amount of quoting is going to change the fact that the welfare fund is the charity and that is administered by the CWC, not the squadron (although the squadron is the charitable objective). Hey I am not saying that anyone should be disadvantaged in terms of control. But these are established facts as given.[/quote]
Established fact where? You have already changed your stance now saying that the Squadron funds are Charity Excepted. Previously you said the committee. So which one is it?
Considering a committee can be dissolved, i know where i would place my money (pun intended).
“but thats like saying the law of the land has a higher power than a teacher or a Judge more power than a Copper.”
Errr … but it does if a teacher, judge or copper is wrong or acts contrary to law!
“The committee has no legel entity as such other than as trustees of said SQUADRON fund.”
Agreed. But the squadron fund (and assets by the way) are held in perpetuity for the cadets. I agree its a bummer but this seems to be where it is at.
In fun I can raise you 1000 times writing the extract with 2000 times Oh gosh you are right - and no copy ‘n’ paste the moderators will never agree it :-). So no arguments, but please do think carefully.
[quote=“Veritas” post=7620]“but thats like saying the law of the land has a higher power than a teacher or a Judge more power than a Copper.”
Errr … but it does if a teacher, judge or copper is wrong or acts contrary to law!
“The committee has no legel entity as such other than as trustees of said SQUADRON fund.”
Agreed. But the squadron fund (and assets by the way) are held in perpetuity for the cadets. I agree its a bummer but this seems to be where it is at.
In fun I can raise you 1000 times writing the extract with 2000 times Oh gosh you are right - and no copy ‘n’ paste the moderators will never agree it :-). So no arguments, but please do think carefully.[/quote]
Ahem, I think what the Hon Mason was trying to get at was, you were comparing apples to cushions and oranges to wheels.
Oh, and the “assets” are not help in perpetuity if they are donations of equipment or public property supplied. I refer you back to your last sentence Sir.
The fact is, that the funds, the property and everything connected to, are not the CWC’s, but the squadron’s*, the squadron is the legal and charitable entity, without which, no fund, no CWC.
And remember you can have a squadron and squadron fund without a CWC, and that squadron and its fund will still have exepted charity status and a exepmtion number…
So how then, can the cwc be the charity?
To add - I don’t mean the CO’s, but the squadron as an “entity”.
