- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Friday, November 27, 2009

Being Charitable to the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Trust will fight to keep charity status
The Sensible Sentencing Trust says it will not give up its status as a charity without a fight. The trust says its existence is under threat after being told its status as a charitable organisation is likely to be revoked. Charities Commission chief executive Trevor Garrett says organisations whose main focus is political advocacy, are not eligible to be officially recognised as a charity. "The courts have been quite clear that political advocacy is not a charitable purpose. That's why for example a political party can't register as a charity."

Now I don’t like the Sensible Sentencing Trust, I think we can all agree with that right? But I have a big issue with this ruling, Greenpeace are a charity, so are Amnesty International, both seek to change policy and are political advocates and there is no way in hell I would want to see either one stripped of their charity status for attempting to do exactly what the Sensible Sentencing Trust does. You can’t push for an advantage against your opponent that you would never tolerate against your own. Better that there are changes all round that force public disclosure of donations, forget canceling the SST’s charitable status, I don’t care about that, what I care about is who funds the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

It has always been my suspicion that the SST are funded by GEO – the private prison corporate who are anxious to start running prisons in NZ. Overseas private prison companies fuel shrill victims rights groups to create a public discourse that warps hate into social policy.

The Standard touched on these concerns earlier this year

Sensible Sentencing Trust and GEO Group, a deafening silence
Yesterday Tane did an excellent post speculating on links between the Sensible Sentencing Trust and GEO Group. GEO Group derived from the notorious Wackenhut Corrections and it now wants to run privately run and publically funded prisons in NZ. In the US, the GEO Group supports organizations preaching almost exactly the messages as the SST does here.

So Garth, who is funding you?


At 19/12/09 3:24 am, Blogger Paulles said...

I agree with the comments in this blog...who is funding you Garth and why?
Here is a point that might have escaped the attention of some. Peter Ellis and Scott watson are excluded by the SensibLE Sentencing Trust based on politiacl reasoning. The webmaster determined that these two men who were found guilty in a court of law would not feaqture in the Offender database. I spoke with Garth and he told me that the web master was wrong and that no one in SST should make a judgement that differs from that of the sentencing courts....nothing has happened these two criminals remain unnamed in the Offender database. The question is why. If it good enough to name others found guilty on a court of law, then why not these two men? The SST is clearly playing political games and for their own advantage. But why...what have they got to gain and what are theyb trying so desperately trying to hide. This Trust is far from up front with a clear mandate to destry some lives and yet let the worst offender remain unnamed. Commission of Enquiry or some such nonsense was mentioned to myself...this is not a call that the SST should be making. They are over steping their level of expertise and general pourpose for such a site. Ask Garth if he would be prpared to remove names such as petet Holdem, Paul Bily, to name but two...that would never happen.so who is funding this Trust and why? The SST is clearly not on even ground in it's decision making as it has now accepted a the norm in certain cases and mind you two of the worst cases that public ackowledgement in their Offender Database is a judgement call by the powers that be in the Trust. sadly they are now putting themselves above the law of the land. 12 good men and women in both cases found the defendants gulity..whether or not they are actually guity is not relevant hereconvicted and sentenced accordingly. It=s it right and just for the SST to judge a case that good New Zealanders have already judged and found such defendants guilty.

I am of the opinion that all is not well in the SST as it seems to have gone off trck and is not becoming a law unto itself...Shame on the Sensible Sentencing Trust.


Post a Comment

<< Home