Letter from church - Formal notice of church rate due!

RadoJo

For what it's worth SuperScaper, whilst I agree that there was some scope for misinterpretation of your original comment, you have gone above and beyond to explain, clarify and spell out what you meant since then. I agree in principle that I personally would afford a letter like this the same treatment that I offer to the profiteering clothing collections - they too are legal, but the way they are worded has been widely agreed (on forums like this no less to be deceptive. If those who read your initial post one way are unwilling to accept that they were mistaken in attributing a certain stance to you then so be it - there is no more you can do. It is telling that MarkyMarkD uses the word 'inferring' - that is something a reader does in their interpretation not something a writer does, so he is unwittingly right that the inference (made by him) was that this letter was a scam.

I just hope that the OP has managed to glean something useful from this thread!

superscaper

RadoJo wrote: »

For what it's worth SuperScaper, whilst I agree that there was some scope for misinterpretation of your original comment, you have gone above and beyond to explain,

It's strange I've admitted as much myself about my own post and yet I'm not allowed to explain myself and my interpretation of my own post is less valid than someone else who doesn't even know me. I'm glad I'm not going completely mad (I couldn't understand why correcting the interpretation again and again was being ignored) and that other posters such as yourself have actually read what I've said without prejudice.

Humanist

Some history is relevant here.

The Act under which these demands are issued dates from 1860. The 1956 [Church of England] Measure also referred to transferred powers from the old Vestries to the new Parish Councils and confirmed the parish councils' "Power to make levy and collect a voluntary church rate for any purpose connected with the affairs of the church including the administrative expenses of the council and the costs of any legal proceedings".

The 1860 Act abolished COMPULSORY church rates, which until then were due from everyone to help pay for the local Church of England parish church. Non-conformists and Catholics and others obviously objected, and by the end many were refusing to pay. The Act, instead of abolishing church rates altogether (which was probably impractical and certainly impolitic at the time) made them unenforceable: it stated: "No suit shall be instituted or proceeding taken in any ecclesiastical or other court, or before any justice or magistrate to enforce or compel the payment of any church rate made in any parish or place in England or Wales."

Times have changed (though the CofE remains established with all sorts of privileges), and it is unusual and certainly questionable now for local CofE churches to be issuing rate demands as if we still lived in the 19th century.
The legality of what these churches are doing cannot be questioned. The morality of it is quite another thing, since they are patently setting out to deceive recipients into paying as if this was just another bill. Why else would a church that was merely asking for donations

a) quote a local council rating reference number?

b) quote the rateable value?

c) state in bold: RATE DUE: £---- ?

d) refer to it as a "formal rate demand" with "remittance advice attached"

e) suggest that only "conscientious objectors" are "protect[ed from] proceedings to enforce payment, but this does not affect the legality of the demand" when there is no legal power of any kind to enforce payment and has not been for 147 years?

I see these demands as a con, deliberate or merely unthinkingly repeated by tradition. Whether a con is the same as a scam, I do not know, but legality is not the same as morality and these church demands are immoral.

Humanist

CORRECTION - sorry - the "1860" Act was actually 1868.

marleyboy

Perfectly put Humanist, Albeit the letter in question is legal, does not make it moral. In that sence, if it is immoral, it is wrong. Superscaper is not alone in his opinions, the majority of the posters in this thread share the same opinion on that, whereas one or two have a different opinion on it, of which they too are entitled to have. As one posted "just because someone cannot understand it, doesnt make it wrong", that doesnt make it right either, moreso, it merely makes it misleading and confusing, which is deliberate. That is exactly what makes it wrong.

MarkyMarkD

RadoJo wrote: »

It is telling that MarkyMarkD uses the word 'inferring' - that is something a reader does in their interpretation not something a writer does, so he is unwittingly right that the inference (made by him) was that this letter was a scam.

I meant implying - and that mistake is one that annoys me when others make it! We are all human and to err is human.

I just hope that the OP has managed to glean something useful from this thread!

Me too!

Superscaper and I have resolved our differences (off this thread - thanks, Superscaper).

As regards the original topic, I still stand by my view that there is no aspect of a scam associated with this payment demand. The reason it's expressed as a demand, and calculated using ratable values, is that that is the way it's meant to be worked out and demanded. The fact it's voluntary is shown, but only to the extent it's meant to be shown - it was never meant to voluntary in the sense that anyone who doesn't want to pay it doesn't have to; it was meant to be voluntary to the extent that conscientious objectors didn't have to pay it in conflict with their consciences.

I probably wouldn't pay if I received one of these demands. But it still isn't a scam, and they still have every right to ask for the money and to express their demand in the way they have done. IMHO.

superscaper

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Superscaper and I have resolved our differences (off this thread - thanks, Superscaper).

And thanks again MarkyMarkD. Although we clearly disagree I'm glad we can both not take it personally and move on to other things without any kind of grudge. You've certainly gained a lot of respect from me in not rebuffing my "olive branch", it's surprising how many people actually want to remain in conflict and make it personal.