Debentures registered against league against cruel sports two companies

J

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
I am absolutely astonished not only by Mr Blair's revelations but by the fact the LACS is having to sell property in the West Country.

Did the LACS contribute to Labour Party funds?

IF THEY DID, WERE THEY IN A FINANCIAL POSITION TO REASONABLY GIVE MONEY TO THE LABOUR PARTY UNDER REASONABLE TRADING PROTOCOLS?

Perhaps they can enter this forum and state their case?

Coupled to the fact the LACS have two limited companies both of which have Debentures Registered.

League Against Cruel Sports (UK) Ltd Company number: 02880406

A Debenture was registered against the company on 5 January 2009

The League Against Cruel Sports Company number: 04037610

A Debenture was registered against the company on 21 July 2009.

The definition of a DEBENTURE: AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDEBTNESS OR A BOND OF A COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGING A DEBT AND PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST AT FIXED TERM INTERVALS
 
J-M,

first things first. I'm assuming that "IF" the LACS were indebted to the Labour party, by way of a debenture, then this should show up within their accounts.

Again "IF" they did, then I would be surprised to hear that the costings of parliamentary time, what was it? £12.5 million? Would have been effectively sold by the Labour party, for considerably less than its value.

Research is needed, and by somebody who has a better understanding of "accounts", than I. It may well be that I'm on completely the wrong track, and if I am, then doubtless I'll be told!

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
J-M,

first things first. I'm assuming that "IF" the LACS were indebted to the Labour party, by way of a debenture, then this should show up within their accounts.

Again "IF" they did, then I would be surprised to hear that the costings of parliamentary time, what was it? £12.5 million? Would have been effectively sold by the Labour party, for considerably less than its value.

Research is needed, and by somebody who has a better understanding of "accounts", than I. It may well be that I'm on completely the wrong track, and if I am, then doubtless I'll be told!

Alec.
Click to expand...

Nobody suggested that the LACS was indebted to the Labour Party.

A question was posed, did they the LACS give the Labour party money when there was a Debenture registered?

Normally Debentures are registered by a company's bankers
 
It could be so many things. The only way to find out is to go through the annual report and accounts with a fine tooth comb and weed it out.

Simsar you make me laugh to! The pink is again for JM

Personally I do not trust the LACS or Labour. Actions have spoken from those sides that are not akin to the words spoken. Accounts submitted to the Charities Commision do have to represent what is there but what it is spent on could be sugar coated slightly, for example, a nice meal with friends could be allocated to "marketing" or "research"...
 
I hate to try to be fair to LACS - but a couple of points should be remembered:

1. At the time LACS was campigning to get the Hunting Act passed it wasn't a charity.

2 Although LACS undoubtedly provided some funding for some anti-hunt MPs itwas relatively small beer compared to the £1 million donated to Labour by IFAW subsidiary, the Political Animal Network.

3. I suspect that as allegedly a lot of McCartney money went into buying sanctury land, HE might not be too impressed by them being flogged off!
 
JanetGeorge said:
I hate to try to be fair to LACS - but a couple of points should be remembered:

1. At the time LACS was campigning to get the Hunting Act passed it wasn't a charity.

2 Although LACS undoubtedly provided some funding for some anti-hunt MPs itwas relatively small beer compared to the £1 million donated to Labour by IFAW subsidiary, the Political Animal Network.

3. I suspect that as allegedly a lot of McCartney money went into buying sanctury land, HE might not be too impressed by them being flogged off!
Click to expand...

Oh pooh pooh JG!

Good points.

If McCartney did put alot/ most of the money in then why not just buy for himself and live and let live?

It makes you wander how many people realise exactly where their donation is going when they hand it over. I am very sure that many would have been very unimpressed that their money was given to a political party when they were under the impression it was going to "save animals". All very cloak and dagger to have all these subsidiarys and tenticles that wouldn't always be associated with the parent organisation...
 
J-M,

I've just spoken with a friend who is an accountant, specialising in bankruptcy. Now that I actually understand what a debenture is, parts of my previous posts wont have made any sense, what so ever! I apologise. Right, embarrassingly, that's that, out of the way.

The said friend is going to explore the accounts of the LACS, and see what can be found.

It does sound as if the Labour party are putting pressure on those who they've loaned money to, doesn't it? My chum seems to think that the debt is being called in, but he'll view the accounts, and give an informed opinion. I'll report back.

Alec.
 
Paddydou said:
Oh pooh pooh JG!

Good points.

If McCartney did put alot/ most of the money in then why not just buy for himself and live and let live No didn't Mccartney do live and let die sorry had to put that in?

It makes you wander how many people realise exactly where their donation is going when they hand it over That's why we don't give please don't get me going on that one. I am very sure that many would have been very unimpressed that their money was given to a political party when they were under the impression it was going to "save animals". All very cloak and dagger to have all these subsidiarys and tenticles that wouldn't always be associated with the parent organisation...
Click to expand...

RSPCA have avery nice office block through donations too!!!
 
Last edited:
I have been pondering this matter all day and for the life of me, I cannot understand why LACs have Debentures and any party has required that sort of security.

There is I believe a very legitimate public interest in this issue, bearing in mind they accept donations from the public.

It is alleged they give money to the Labour Party.

The reason for a Debenture is to secure borrowing. But why, allegedly do LACs have to borrow, how much, from whom and for how long and for what purpose. That question can be answered by going to their registered office at Godalming in Surrey and demanding to see the Debenture document, which they are obliged to show one under the Companies Act.

I simply cannot figure out how they can take donations from the public, apparantly, yet having borrowings requiring Debentures, then allegedly giving money away to a political party.

Perhaps the LACs could come onto the forum and share - we would provide a most courteous welcome and conduct. Of course you would!
 
Last edited:
Judgemental said:
It is alleged they give money to the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

I've said this before - but it's worth repeating: this is flogging a dead horse. There is NO evidence that LACS gve money to the Labour Party although there is NO doubt that in the '90s - at least - LACS did make 'donations' to a few individual MPs (Elliot Morley was one) to fund 'political researchers'.

The Political Animal Lobby (an IFAW subsidiary) was the organistion that made donations to Labour - in particular the £1 million donation.
 
JanetGeorge said:
I've said this before - but it's worth repeating: this is flogging a dead horse. There is NO evidence that LACS gve money to the Labour Party although there is NO doubt that in the '90s - at least - LACS did make 'donations' to a few individual MPs (Elliot Morley was one) to fund 'political researchers'.

The Political Animal Lobby (an IFAW subsidiary) was the organistion that made donations to Labour - in particular the £1 million donation.
Click to expand...

This is facinating and becomes somewhat sinister because a) Elliot Morley was an Agricultural Minister, was he not. b) He was rabidly anti-hunting and c) He is one of the three labour MPs currently charged with fiddling their expenses.

Undoubtly IFAW gave money to the Labour party.

You might say and quite reasonably so, this is flogging a dead horse but I have a hunch that this dead horse might just get up, 'is it dead and has somebody flicked some dirt in it's eye to make it blink, to see if it's really dead?'

In the light of Mr Morley and the expenses scandal I think there is far far more to all this than meets the eye.

Something is not right somewhere
 
Judgemental said:
In the light of Mr Morley and the expenses scandal I think there is far far more to all this than meets the eye.

Something is not right somewhere
Click to expand...

When you're talking LACS, you can be sure there's quite a lot 'not right'. But it's all pretty old and goes back to when LACS was NOT a charity and didn't have to submit its accounts to the Charity Commissioners. I would expect its accountingtobe squeaky clean now.

Some of its practices back in the '90s were 'interesting'. LACS used to fund Prof Stephen Harris's 'research' -but indirectly. LACS sent the money to a wildlife charity who sent it on to the Prof so it wouldn't 'taint' the research (a new form of money laundering!:rolleyes:) Unfortunately we didn't find out until after the publication of the 'research' was old news.

The funding of Mr. Morley's research assistant was prior to him becoming a Minister, so even older news.
 
JanetGeorge said:
When you're talking LACS, you can be sure there's quite a lot 'not right'. But it's all pretty old and goes back to when LACS was NOT a charity and didn't have to submit its accounts to the Charity Commissioners. I would expect its accountingtobe squeaky clean now.

Some of its practices back in the '90s were 'interesting'. LACS used to fund Prof Stephen Harris's 'research' -but indirectly. LACS sent the money to a wildlife charity who sent it on to the Prof so it wouldn't 'taint' the research (a new form of money laundering!:rolleyes:) Unfortunately we didn't find out until after the publication of the 'research' was old news.

The funding of Mr. Morley's research assistant was prior to him becoming a Minister, so even older news.
Click to expand...

Call it my suspicious mind and when I find a company has a Debenture registered, I simply will not have anything to do with them. Why, because the person or party holding the Debenture can call the loan in at any time.
 
Tip.

When making a charitable donation you do have the option of saying what you want the money used for. So if you want to be sure that the donation you give is used for a specific purpose all you have to do is write a short note with the donation saying "Dear Sirs please find enclosed my donation of £x which I wish to be used for the purposes of Y" they are then legally bound to use that donation for that purpose.

I do still give money to charities but I make sure that it is going to the "right" place. If you tick a box that says £25 "could pay a vet for the day in the Sahara" your donation "could" be used on anything that charity deems a reasonable expense for any of its projects.
 
'WARE RIOT

With this talk of debentures, Judgemental is almost certainly guilty of hare-hunting while the true quarry slips away. A charity is perfectly entitled to fund its operations by borrowings and if this borrowing is secured by a debenture or charge over its assets, then that is acceptable practice. Indeed, the fact that a debenture exists would indicate that borrowing have been formalised by a loan agreement and that the facilty could not be withdrawn without notice - unlike as with overdrafts - unless the terms of that agreement were breached.

Perhaps we should now nudge Judgemental onto the correct line and ask, irrespective of whether the funds are borrowed, donated, or whatever, if the LACS is expending that money on proper charitable objectives as laid down by the Charities Act and Charity Commission guidance?

LACS has fallen foul of the rules on political campaigning before, see:

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/RSS/News/pr_lacs.aspx

Charity Commission guidance on political campaigning is here:

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Publications/cc9.aspx

If you have any concerns that a charity is pursuing non-charitable objectives, then you should formally complain to the Charity Commission. It is statute-bound to investigate your complaint and reply to you.
 
Eagle_day said:
'WARE RIOT

With this talk of debentures, Judgemental is almost certainly guilty of hare-hunting while the true quarry slips away. A charity is perfectly entitled to fund its operations by borrowings and if this borrowing is secured by a debenture or charge over its assets, then that is acceptable practice. Indeed, the fact that a debenture exists would indicate that borrowing have been formalised by a loan agreement and that the facilty could not be withdrawn without notice - unlike as with overdrafts - unless the terms of that agreement were breached.

Perhaps we should now nudge Judgemental onto the correct line and ask, irrespective of whether the funds are borrowed, donated, or whatever, if the LACS is expending that money on proper charitable objectives as laid down by the Charities Act and Charity Commission guidance?

LACS has fallen foul of the rules on political campaigning before, see:

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/RSS/News/pr_lacs.aspx

Charity Commission guidance on political campaigning is here:

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Publications/cc9.aspx

If you have any concerns that a charity is pursuing non-charitable objectives, then you should formally complain to the Charity Commission. It is statute-bound to investigate your complaint and reply to you.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't disagree with a word you have said.

However we are not out with the beagles or bassets, we are stag hunting.

In the circumstances and at this juncture, the Tufters have only just been put onto the harboured stag and he is not scenting as well as he might, just before and where the pack find him 'lying'. Do you like that?

The reason this thread was started was as a direct result of the H and H reporting that the League were selling their land/property on Exmoor.

The questions concerning their fiduciary propriety is not at issue.

What is of considerable interest, why are they selling.

As they have two limited companies, what information is available at Companies House.

What do we find there, a Debenture against each company.

Therefore reasonably and quite properly one asks is the Debenture holder forcing the sale?
 
This bit is good...

"It is becoming increasingly clear that exposure to cruelty to animals coarsens or even deadens the senstivities of those involved, and that in later life such people are more likely to be violent and or abusive to people as well as animals".

The cases and studies they are refering to involve very disturbed children who carry out acts like setting fire to the family dog, removing the eyeballs from their siblings hampster while it is still alive and watching it die...

These studies have been seriously taken out of context for the purposes of their report. I would love to see the findings of a study on adults who have grown up hunting and see how it compares.

I know I have bleated on about it but they have spent a whooping £961,216 on "Education". All that money being pumped into our schools to teach them how bad we all are...
 
Right, I'm back with the promised report, such as it is.

My accountant chum says that he can't find any mention of a debenture in the favour of the Labour Party, or anyone else, for that matter. The only thing which he did find was the sale of a building, but that was back in '94.

There is a duty to disclose all charges, and it would seem unlikely that the LACS would hide such a charge. Does anyone have any knowledge of the dates when any such agreement took place? Approximate, will do.

Alec.

Ets, Sorry, it's a bit early in the morning! I've just read JM's opening post, and I'll relay all that on to my chum. It'll take a day or two, I suspect! a.
 
Last edited:
I think its the companies taht they are linked to not the actual organisation... Difficult one to follow as it seems the hole goes very deep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top