A charity, a company or a fraud?

As a follow-up to the post yesterday, the following observation has been brought to the attention of the Authority regulating Charities in England:

"I am an academic investigator and reporter examining the origins and background of a venture called 'Radio Caroline' which primarily existed from March 1964 until mid-August 1967.

The person responsible for the charity in question is going by two names. He is using his correct legal name of Malcolm Smith on your forms, but a bogus name of Peter Moore on his charity page. On the UK Companies House web site is a company that is directly tied to the charity, and the CEO of the charity has used both names to imply that they are two different people.

I paid for a book advertised on the charity page and shortly afterwards one of the three listed trustees on your site, wrote that he was refunding my payment.

It is clear that the purpose of this charity and the registered company are one and the same while pretending to be two different ventures.

Evidence shows that this charity is operating in a deceitful manner to solicit money from the public using false pretense."

If this policy is allowed to continue, then anyone filing an official document with any government operating under the laws of the United Kingdom, can state one name on the official document and then hide behind a fake identity when discussing the same matters with the public, and sometimes slip-up and use both the real and fake identities on official forms and pretend to be two different human beings.

But more than this, a UK Charity can then claim not be affiliated with another venture registered with UK Companies House, while co-mingling assets of both in order to trade with the public as a private company, and solicit funds from the public as a public charity, at the same time.

While the entity in question does not merit a public enquiry paid for by tax payers, it does merit a superior governing body taking a look at what the UK Charity commission and UK Companies House are allowing to be filed as true and honest documents. Even though there is a penalty for filing false information, if the law is not applied and applied evenly without favour, then the entire fabric of the judicial system in the United Kingdom becomes a joke.

This is the reason why we are constantly opposing the British Broadcasting Corporation from making the bogus claim that "Your BBC" is 100 years old, when in fact it is only 95 years old. To let the BBC off the hook with that kind of propaganda, and to allow the constant mis-telling of the real story about Radio Caroline (1964-1967), is to allow an Orwellian mind-set to become the gold standard where up becomes down; left becomes right for most of the time, and then sometimes the order is reversed, and sometimes both are accepted as being true.

In other words, no judge in any court of law could ever make any ruling because there would no longer exist any standard by which evidence can be admitted and ruled upon as being true, and therefore with no evidence, only anarchy can prevail.

That is why this investigation has far-reaching implications beyond trying to unravel the true story of Radio Caroline between 1964 and 1967, and the nonsense being promoted by both Paul Alexander Rusling and Malcolm Smith.