We need to talk about secular humanism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public

relating to or involving people in general, rather than being limited to a particular group of people

Nonsense - if I talk about "the public" liking this or liking that, that will generally be considered to represent a large proportion of the population not a small minority (see definition above). Or the following would be applicable.

The public like to engage in naturist activities
The public like to support Bristol Rovers FC
The public like to vote for the Green Party

In each case there is a small minority in the public that does engage in naturist activities, support Bristol Rovers and vote Green but it is nonsense and/or deeply disingenuous to claim that "the public" like these things.

Thanks for explaining how you would use the words "the public". If you want to use the words that way, feel free.

Please stop misrepresenting how I used the words "the public". It's not a numbers game so I am not interested in trying to argue for services based on the idea that the public object to minorities being catered for, unless you can link to evidence that a majority of the public object to donations to churches that aren't registered with the Charity Commission.

[ProfessorDavey]

The churches provide a service that makes a section of the public happy. Good enough reason for the service to continue - so long as they are not breaking laws.

I agree - when have I ever claimed that churches shouldn't exist, or that people (whether a majority or a small minority) should be able to donate to those churches and shouldn't choose to benefit from those churches if that is important to them. I haven't.

My argument that if those churches are charities and if so they should be subject to exactly the same rules as other charities of an equivalent size.  It is about special privileges to religious organisations that my local homeless charity (or my choral society etc etc) cannot benefit from.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thanks for explaining how you would use the words "the public". If you want to use the words that way, feel free.

It isn't how I would define it - it is how it is generally defined in the dictionary. I am using the term as it is defined. You can't simply redefine a term for your own purposes in a manner which is the exact oppose of its generally accepted (and dictionary) definition.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So a word doesn't need to be defined in the manner that it is ... err ... defined.

Using the accepted dictionary definition of the term The Public it is not correct to claim that "the public like to donate to churches".

You're still wrong. The dictionary definition you linked to says "All ordinary people" - are you suggesting that people who have been using the term "the public" to refer to...err the public...should not have been using it unless they were referring to all ordinary people i.e. 100 % of the population?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It isn't how I would define it - it is how it is generally defined in the dictionary. I am using the term as it is defined. You can't simply redefine a term for your own purposes in a manner which is the exact oppose of its generally accepted (and dictionary) definition.

Except you are not using the term as it is defined. You have taken 1 definition in one dictionary and interpreted it in a nonsensical way.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public

relating to or involving people in general, rather than being limited to a particular group of people

You comment is nonsense - if I talk about "the public" liking this or liking that, that will generally be considered to represent a large proportion of the population not a small minority (see definition above). Or the following would be applicable.

The public like to engage in naturist activities
The public like to support Bristol Rovers FC
The public like to vote for the Green Party

In each case there is a small minority in the public that does engage in naturist activities, support Bristol Rovers and vote Green but it is nonsense and/or deeply disingenuous to claim that "the public" like these things.

PD - you really need to brush up on your grammar - the definition you quoted from the dictionary is for "the public" the adjective, not the noun. You then go on to use the word as a noun.

[ProfessorDavey]

PD - you really need to brush up on your grammar - the definition you quoted from the dictionary is for "the public" the adjective, not the noun. You then go on to use the word as a noun.

The use of the word as adjective and noun are obviously related, in other words the totality of the populace not a specific subset. So a standard noun definition (also Cambridge): All ordinary people - my emphasis.

All ordinary people (i.e. the public) do not like to donate to churches - a small subset of all ordinary people (i.e. not the public) do like to donate to churches.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except you are not using the term as it is defined. You have taken 1 definition in one dictionary ...

Pretty all definitions are basically the same - obviously.

... and interpreted it in a nonsensical way.

And applied it in its standard an accepted definition.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The use of the word as adjective and noun are obviously related, in other words the totality of the populace not a specific subset. So a standard noun definition (also Cambridge): All ordinary people - my emphasis.

All ordinary people (i.e. the public) do not like to donate to churches - a small subset of all ordinary people (i.e. not the public) do like to donate to churches.

All ordinary people (your emphasis) do not like the same things.  So it's nonsensical to require "the public" to mean "All ordinary people".

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/all

every one (of), or the complete amount or number (of), or the whole (of):

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Pretty all definitions are basically the same - obviously.
And applied it in its standard an accepted definition.

Except of course you have applied it in a nonsensical way, emphasising the word "all" in all ordinary people.

[ProfessorDavey]

All ordinary people (your emphasis) do not like the same things.  So it's nonsensical to require "the public" to mean "All ordinary people".

Take it up with people who define the term - I'm just using the standard definition (unlike you).

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/all

every one (of), or the complete amount or number (of), or the whole (of):

You aren't really helping your argument are you VG, as you are making your claim more and more wrong. In reality when talking about the public liking this, or liking that, it is accepted that you'd expect the thing you claim they like to be liked by a large proportion of ordinary people. If something is liked by a small minority (e.g. 5%) it is completely wrong to claim this to be liked by the public.

You could otherwise claim that 'the public in the UK are muslims' - that statement is clearly non-sense even if maybe 3% of the population are muslim.

As they say - when in a hole, stop digging.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Take it up with people who define the term - I'm just using the standard definition (unlike you).
You aren't really helping your argument are you VG, as you are making your claim more and more wrong. In reality when talking about the public liking this, or liking that, it is accepted that you'd expect the thing you claim they like to be liked by a large proportion of ordinary people. If something is liked by a small minority (e.g. 5%) it is completely wrong to claim this to be liked by the public.

You could otherwise claim that 'the public in the UK are muslims' - that statement is clearly non-sense even if maybe 3% of the population are muslim.

As they say - when in a hole, stop digging.

The big problem is then how to be really neutral instead of taking one's own position and calling it neutral particularly since you seem, going back to be arguing for the majority rather than for neutrality.

[ProfessorDavey]

Fewer than you might think.

Maybe rather more than you'd imagine.

Apparently over 70% of christian charities are in the below £100k category, that is about 18,000 charities. The median income for all christian charities of just £23k. Now not all of those will be in the category that can benefit from the special privilege of excepted charity status, but many will be.

And that is of course the argument about excepted status, that there are too many to deal with. Yet when you look at non religious charities over 80%, some 90,000 are in that £5k-£100k category, but no exemption for the. Surely if you want to do something to reduce workload you'd target that much larger sector first ... except they don't have there religious lobby behind them.

Υes there are, but to be clear, I'm using this as an argument to do away with the current exemption, not to maintain it.
You seem to have taken my post as a defence of the status quo. It wasn't intended as such. I see no reason why churches shouldn't be subject to the same rules as other charities.

No I didn't see it as a defence of the status quo - I think we both agree that exactly the same rules should apply for all charities of the same size regardless of whether they are a church, a tennis club, a homeless charity, support medical research, help disabled children etc, etc.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Take it up with people who define the term - I'm just using the standard definition (unlike you).

Except you are using one definition in one dictionary and interpreting it in a nonsensical way evidenced by your emphasis of the word "all"

You aren't really helping your argument are you VG, as you are making your claim more and more wrong. In reality when talking about the public liking this, or liking that, it is accepted that you'd expect the thing you claim they like to be liked by a large proportion of ordinary people. If something is liked by a small minority (e.g. 5%) it is completely wrong to claim this to be liked by the public.

You aren't really helping your argument PD by disagreeing with the dictionary definition that you linked to. Your dictionary definition defined the public as "all the ordinary people" (your emphasis) and not just a large proportion, which is your personal preference of how to define "the public". Good to know that you are open to using terms in a different way from the dictionary.

You could otherwise claim that 'the public in the UK are muslims' - that statement is clearly non-sense even if maybe 3% of the population are muslim.

As they say - when in a hole, stop digging.

I suggest you take your advice and stop digging, given you just disagreed with your own link.

Let's just stick with talking about what the public like rather than what the public are. You do like your pointless discussions don't you.

I have already explained that by using the term "the public" I was not engaged in a numbers game to try to claim that most people like donating to churches. So we're in agreement that this is a minority of the public. "The public" just meant people from the public who use the services of the church and like to donate to them. It seemed a lot shorter to say "the public". So I'm going to carry on using it that way - if you don't like it being used in that way, oh well, free country and all that.

So, it seems registering church charities is not a high priority, especially as people seem to not mind donating even if the charities are not registered.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except of course you have applied it in a nonsensical way, emphasising the word "all" in all ordinary people.

It's not my definition, but here is another (again noun):

'The public is also the people who do not belong to a particular group or organization'

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

For crying out loud VG, don't you understand the position here - the excepted charities gain all the benefits of charitable status including tax advantages, without having to register as a charity - that's the whole point. If you are a non religious charity you are required to register in order to gain those benefits. So charity A (income £20k - religious) no need to register, gets tax advantages; charity B (income £20k) cannot get the benefits without registering.
If it is such a minor issue for non religious charities why is it such an issue for the religious ones. Are they all unable to use online systems!!!

PD it's you that do not seem to understand the position. Many non-religious charities get advantages from being registered with the Charity Commission. Why would they want to go backwards and not be registered and forgo the benefits? They would just have to come up with a new system to distinguish charities from non-charities.

Makes more sense to keep the charities already registered and get the smaller church charities registered as well eventually, when resources permit. Especially if the goal is to get every charity registered. Not being registered might not make much difference to church charities because of the history the church charities have with the communities they are in, but it would make more of a difference to non-church charities if they do not have a similar historical connection with their communities.

[ProfessorDavey]

PD it's you that do not seem to understand the position. Many non-religious charities get advantages from being registered with the Charity Commission.

But the point is that the excepted charities (i.e. the churches) get exactly the same benefits of being a charity yet they don't have to go through the administrative burden of registering and annual reporting.

Why would they want to go backwards and not be registered and forgo the benefits?

They wouldn't want to forgo the benefits, but I suspect a lot would like to retain exactly the same benefits without having to register/report, which is the situation for the excepted charities.

They would just have to come up with a new system to distinguish charities from non-charities.

You'd need no new system, just a system that applies to all charities in a fair and equitable basis. One that doesn't allow one set of charities to gain all the benefits of charitable status without registering while requiring another charity of the same size to have to register to gain the benefits.

Makes more sense to keep the charities already registered ...

I agree

... and get the smaller church charities registered as well eventually, when resources permit.

How long do these charities need - even if you just take the starting point as 1996, they've had 26 years, realistically since 1963. This isn't about resourcing, it is about lobbying to retain special privileges. This was supposed to have been sorted by 2001. We've had long enough already - time to sort out this unfairness and bring a level playing field for charities of equal size - all get the same benefits, all are subject to the same obligations.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not being registered might not make much difference to church charities because of the history the church charities have with the communities they are in, but it would make more of a difference to non-church charities if they do not have a similar historical connection with their communities.

I disagree - if there was a requirement for all charities with incomes over £5k to register, you wouldn't be a non registered church charity with an income of £10k - it wouldn't be a charity and wouldn't get the tax benefits etc. I can't imagine many churches giving up on gift aid uplift, and all the benefits you mentioned that your charity gets by not registering.

And, of course, the historic connections of many churches with their communities is dwindling as churchgoing declines. As pointed out previously for most churches their income is heavily based on the donations of their worshippers, who are reducing in numbers. Could they really just absorb the hit of losing 25p additional for every £1 donated. I doubt it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I disagree - if there was a requirement for all charities with incomes over £5k to register, you wouldn't be a non registered church charity with an income of £10k - it wouldn't be a charity and wouldn't get the tax benefits etc. I can't imagine many churches giving up on gift aid uplift, and all the benefits you mentioned that your charity gets by not registering.

And, of course, the historic connections of many churches with their communities is dwindling as churchgoing declines. As pointed out previously for most churches their income is heavily based on the donations of their worshippers, who are reducing in numbers. Could they really just absorb the hit of losing 25p additional for every £1 donated. I doubt it.

I meant in the current situation where the church charities are not losing out by not getting registered with the Charity Commission because they get the benefits; and the public who donate continue to donate without them being registered; and those who don't donate don't really cares enough whether they are registered to prioritise paying for the resources to get them registered.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How long do these charities need - even if you just take the starting point as 1996, they've had 26 years, realistically since 1963. This isn't about resourcing, it is about lobbying to retain special privileges. This was supposed to have been sorted by 2001. We've had long enough already - time to sort out this unfairness and bring a level playing field for charities of equal size - all get the same benefits, all are subject to the same obligations.

Again - that's a question for the government and Charity Commission. If you think it's down to lobbying happy to read any links you have to show this. I'm leaning towards inefficiency and procrastination as the reason as it's probably not a high priority for many people and manpower seems limited so they just keep extending the deadline for getting the church charities registered.

If people started kicking up a huge fuss and it seemed like a vote-winner the government would probably do more about it. We do often seem to see a lot of inefficiency in public bodies - and often the priority issues are linked to votes.

[ProfessorDavey]

I meant in the current situation where the church charities are not losing out by not getting registered with the Charity Commission because they get the benefits; and the public who donate continue to donate without them being registered

But that is only because they have the special privilege of excepted charity status. If they had to register and chose not to, they'd lose all those benefits and donors would have to increase their donation level by 25% in order for the church to remain the same financially.

Also if they weren't an excepted charity and did not register there are all sorts of other challenges for that organisation (which would no longer be a charity) including potentially being liable for corporation tax, capital gains tax, VAT issues and being liable for full business rates ... oh I forgot the other huge special privilege for churches, complete exemption from business rates unlike other charities that pay 20% and non charities that pay 100% business rates.

[ProfessorDavey]

If people started kicking up a huge fuss and it seemed like a vote-winner the government would probably do more about it. We do often seem to see a lot of inefficiency in public bodies - and often the priority issues are linked to votes.

But as I've pointed out this isn't government by inertia - in other words preserving a status quo simply by not acting, because the default is the status quo.

No in this case the default is that excepted status goes - and has been since 1996. Every time the deadline is extended, as it has been for 30 years beyond the original deadline of 2001, then this is the government actively prioritising the maintenance of the special privilege. Every time they extend they have to bring the amendments to parliament, they have to go through a whole range of statutory process. But government's of course know that the institutionalised lobbying powers of the churches always come to bare to fight against any loss of special privilege for religious, whether it is this issue, or level playing field for subsidised school bus costs, changes to requirements of admissions criteria for faith schools etc etc.

So it may well be that the general public (yes used correctly) don't know about this issue, may care about it if they know but don't see it as priority but that doesn't mean that government should cave in to those who shout the loudest and activity legislate to maintain the special privilege that was supposed to disappear in 2001.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm leaning towards inefficiency and procrastination ...

I'm leaning towards inefficiency, procrastination and almost wilful obstruction ... not on the part of the Charities Commission, but on the part of the religious organisations themselves.

So I read that the Commission has estimated that there may be 30,000-40,000 excepted charities just from the CofE. Of course they don't know because these charities aren't registered. But it is entirely up to the CofE to choose how they organise their churches in order to register them. And they sure as hell don't look to be helping matters. So if that estimate is anything like true, and with CofE membership at approx 1 million that means there is a separate charity for every 29 parishioners. That is nuts and massively inefficient - except of course by doing things this way the CofE can both avoid registration under the excepted charities approach but also claim they will overwhelm the Charities Commission.

Simple solution al round - the CofE combines mini- charities into sensibly sized ones, maybe they might look at whether they already have a structure in place ... hmm, like a diocese. Refusing to do this looks like wilful obstruction, as there is no way that the CofE would want to have 30,000 registered charities in their name, all with reporting obligations.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But that is only because they have the special privilege of excepted charity status. If they had to register and chose not to, they'd lose all those benefits and donors would have to increase their donation level by 25% in order for the church to remain the same financially.

Also if they weren't an excepted charity and did not register there are all sorts of other challenges for that organisation (which would no longer be a charity) including potentially being liable for corporation tax, capital gains tax, VAT issues and being liable for full business rates ... oh I forgot the other huge special privilege for churches, complete exemption from business rates unlike other charities that pay 20% and non charities that pay 100% business rates.

And the government seems to have decided it is more useful to them not to pursue that option. Presumably they have their reasons but as you haven't presented any links as to what they are we will both have to remain in the dark for now until more information on the matter comes to light. Right now we just have your opinions but no actual information.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But as I've pointed out this isn't government by inertia - in other words preserving a status quo simply by not acting, because the default is the status quo.

No in this case the default is that excepted status goes - and has been since 1996. Every time the deadline is extended, as it has been for 30 years beyond the original deadline of 2001, then this is the government actively prioritising the maintenance of the special privilege. Every time they extend they have to bring the amendments to parliament, they have to go through a whole range of statutory process. But government's of course know that the institutionalised lobbying powers of the churches always come to bare to fight against any loss of special privilege for religious, whether it is this issue, or level playing field for subsidised school bus costs, changes to requirements of admissions criteria for faith schools etc etc.

So it may well be that the general public (yes used correctly) don't know about this issue, may care about it if they know but don't see it as priority but that doesn't mean that government should cave in to those who shout the loudest and activity legislate to maintain the special privilege that was supposed to disappear in 2001.

And when you provide some links about this lobbying and its influence on the thinking of successive governments since 1996, I will review my opinion.

In the absence of actual evidence, it's no different to my speculation that Harry and Meghan planned their exit to LA in order to make money and control their money-making opportunities in the public eye and not because they were willing to become poorer in order to have a quiet life out of the media spotlight.