Letter from church - Formal notice of church rate due!

marleyboy

The demand states clearly that it's voluntary. The demand is permitted by law. The recipient is a genuine recipient with a genuine financial need.

I think the difference in the wording "DEMAND" and "DONATION" apply here, making the letter misleading. Unless of course you are going to argue that both words actually mean the same thing. simply adding the word "VOLUNTARY" doesnt make it any less than an apparent attempt to mislead.

MarkyMarkD

But it is a demand, which has legal backing.

And it's also voluntary, as it's intended to let off conscientious objectors.

If the wording displeases you, that is down to the original Act of Parliament, not something to criticise those request funds under the Act for.

ben500

marleyboy wrote: »

I think the difference in the wording "DEMAND" and "DONATION" apply here, making the letter misleading. Unless of course you are going to argue that both words actually mean the same thing. simply adding the word "VOLUNTARY" doesnt make it any less than an apparent attempt to mislead.

Have you seen the document? I realise the op used the term "demand" but I assure you such documents are not demands they are requests, not only are they requests but it is as I posted previously CLEARLY identified as a voluntary contribution.

marleyboy

No I havent seen the document, but cant it be titled more clearly as a "voluntary request" as its first headline, as it has obviously confused and worried people with its title, enough at least for it to be posted on this forum. If the first paragraph contains the word DEMAND obviously alarm bells start ringing. Much the same if you get a letter with "FINAL DEMAND" stamped onto its envelope.

Labman_2

marleyboy wrote: »

No I havent seen the document, but cant it be titled more clearly as a "voluntary request" as its first headline, as it has obviously confused and worried people with its title, enough at least for it to be posted on this forum. If the first paragraph contains the word DEMAND obviously alarm bells start ringing. Much the same if you get a letter with "FINAL DEMAND" stamped onto its envelope.

The meaning of words & our interpretation of them change over time....especially with reference to 'legal terms'. The word 'demand' in a legal context (as opposed to DEMAND or FINAL DEMAND) may have had a different meaning 50+ years ago. Titling the letter more clearly, I agree would have helped....but there also maybe constraints on the legal format for the letter laid down 50 years ago?

As an aside, I do wish that people would take a moment to consider that their interpretation of another MSE posters posts could be wrong & that before they jump in with both feet they really should ascertain the facts.....via PM to avoid clogging up threads?....discuss!

Superscaper has repeatedly explained his/her position & IMHO offered the 'olive branch' to the 'detractors' & still they wont 'shake hands'!

quickstepqueen

Woah there guys. What has this thread turned into???

I read the original OP's post.

Through our letterbox many of us get letters saying that we've won x,y,z. They read legitimate. They sound official, using terms that sound legal and above board. They make us believe until we read the small print. These letters are often what people will call scams.

If I had received the letter the OP had, with it's official, legal wording which sounded above board I'm afraid I would initially wonder if this was a scam.

The thing is I see more "scam" letters than letters from the Church. Therefore surely, naturally, one would initially think that it was all just a bit odd and maybe not true? Especially if I didn't have any links to local churches.

Sure, I would check it out, especially because they were quoting law but like others have been saying, people may have thought initially, just like the OP thought, that it could have been a scam.

Receiving a letter from someone you don't know, quoting law and legal terms that you don't understand, would really make me anxious.

I understand that what the Church is doing is legal and complies with legislation but I bet there are a whole lot of people right now, sitting with this letter at home, who are also wondering if this is a scam?

Surely this is a bit like seeing a new £20 note for the first time. If you hadn't seen one before you would look a bit puzzled initially and wonder if it was a fake. If I had been sent this letter, never having seen one before I too would wonder if it was a fake, a scam. It doesn't mean it is one but these days we do have to check everything, just in case.

marleyboy

I agree totally with the above post, the legal wordings as stated might have been ok 50 years ago, but common sence would surely make way for progress, im sure the letter in question isnt 50 years old.

MothballsWallet

Labman wrote: »

The meaning of words & our interpretation of them change over time....especially with reference to 'legal terms'. The word 'demand' in a legal context (as opposed to DEMAND or FINAL DEMAND) may have had a different meaning 50+ years ago. Titling the letter more clearly, I agree would have helped....but there also maybe constraints on the legal format for the letter laid down 50 years ago?

True, but isn't it common sense for the politicians not to restrict the formatting or wording of a document like this in the first place? Or to pass an Amendment to the Act later on when its inadequacy is brought to their attention (preferably by a judge)?

IMHO, a statute book shouldn't really contain a law that hasn't been at least looked over for review at least once in 50 years or more. I'm sure we've got some dumb laws still on our statute book.

ben500

Good post queen, the op originally asked is this a scam? Mark attempted to answer to the contrary that it wasn't and went on to explain the legalities of it before being pounced upon by one or two who choose to place their own interpretation on the document and repeatedly associate it with lawbreaking scams, as the thread continued it was agreed it was not a scam but some even after agreeing still continued to associate with examples of scams leaving a clear implication that some simile existed when it doesen't.

Because we personally don't understand or agree with something doesn't make it wrong, immoral or illegal.

superscaper

ben500 wrote: »

Because we personally don't understand or agree with something doesn't make it wrong, immoral or illegal.

I completely agree, and the same goes for the opposite. Agreeing with something doesn't make it right or moral. (Except nobody has disputed the legality of course so nothing to argue about there.)
But as this is my opinion it means I'm completely wrong. My morality counts for nothing because it's not identical to the people that are better than me.
I wish I had this Book of Facts others have that could tell me how to adjust my sense of right and wrong in line with this universal law I'm missing out on.

Who knows how many opinions I've expressed over my lifetime. I only wish I'd known sooner I had no right to.

There are only two things we disagree on.

1. Our opinion on how right the letter is. I'm perfectly happy with disagreeing on this and have certainly explained myself enough despite your determination to demonise me over it. And I've got nothing more to say on it, it seems you aren't able to see what everyone else can in my posts.

2. The really important point we disagree over and the only reason I feel like I have to keep posting on this thread is whether I'm allowed to express an opinion or not just because it differs from yours.

I think a lot can be read into the fact you haven't once addressed a single poster's comments about me. You only see what you want to to enable you to categorise me into some specific box, which is why you keep using the straw man argument as well.

Why is it you can't bring yourself to agree to disagree on our views on this thread but instead insist that I have no right to express my views? I accept you have your opinion, why can't you accept I have mine? I personally don't have the ego to say that your opinion is just simply wrong, I disagree with it and that should be enough. By definition I can't call your opinion factually wrong and wouldn't do so why do you feel that you can?