Deconstructing Duncan
SNU President
by Kevin West
Comment on SNU circulars and
published literature and articles from Duncan Gascoigne
between May and July 2001, namely referring to Motion 1.
A letter was circulated by Duncan Gascoigne, President of the Spiritualists’ National Union with regard to Motion 1 on the agenda of the SNU Conference held on 12th/13th/14th July 2001.This letter begins, ‘Dear Colleagues’ and then very quickly ambles into a brief history of Spiritualism together with all the trite phraseology one would expect from a company director - which is precisely what he is. In context this would ordinarily be fine but the stresses laid within his text omit to mention that the Union has never set up any churches or centres ever in its history. Ordinary people like you and I began all the churches and centres in affiliation with the SNU; including those who have since had the courage to disaffiliate.
At a certain point in our history [not theirs] the committees and members of our churches decided to ‘affiliate’ to an organisation set up by people like ourselves, which we called the Spiritualists’ National Union, to look after our interests.
The idea of affiliation [one would assume in the first instance] was in order to reap some sort of benefit whilst at the same time making a statement of belief to the world that you are fraternal, and recognise that all Spiritualists, whatever the ministry, do the same work with a common identity and objective.
Not so with the Union. They see it very differently.
In the President’s letter, the Union is somehow delineated as the saviour of Spiritualism, which is ironic when one considers that Union Spiritualism may well be its ruin. Although Gascoigne outlines what he thinks are salient points, the enquirer is further left with a feeling of doubtful integrity towards his words.
For instance, taking the President’s epistle as a template, in 1853 the first Spiritualist Church was indeed opened in Keighley, Yorkshire. Although attempts were made to form a national body for Spiritualism during the rest of the 19th century, these attempts met with failure.
Why?
The SNU President, Gascoigne, fails to inform us. In reality, it was partly logistics; socio economics and the lack of an adequate integrated transport system. There were also other factors involved but perhaps the main one could be best described by the master writer himself, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when he wrote in ‘The History of Spiritualism’ that;
‘People immediately focussed on the differences between each other and not the similarities.’Gascoigne continues, ‘It was through these Annual Conferences that Spiritualists realised they had a united voice on many issues, albeit that these were very limited, especially in respect of churches holding property, quite often with dubious trustees.’"Dubious trustees"? A curious turn of phrase to use. We at Waterloo, I need not remind you, bought our church at auction and in 1989 and borrowed the paltry sum of £11,250 from our affiliated body, the SNU. Conversely, we find ourselves ‘holding property with a dubious trustee’ ~ a very dubious trustee - the SNU headed by Gascoigne himself!
Under the law of the land, property must be registered in the name of an individual or an appropriately recognised body who may act as trustees for the benefit of the true property purchasers/owners, i.e.; a financial institution, apposite law firm or high street bank/building society. The SNU Trust was set up in order to hold said deeds on trust for the benefit of the members.
That being the case, does the Union then have the right to convey the title to themselves? Possibly.
The fact is - they do!
Last year I made a complaint to the Charity Commission on behalf of our church in Waterloo, Liverpool. Since that time the Charity Commission have been very helpful in clarifying much of what the Union does not want anyone to know. Although the SNU continue to deny it, they are the subject of a formal complaint by Waterloo Spiritualist Church committee and they've only got themselves to blame for the current troubles they're having with the Commission.
In the eyes of the Commission, the problems thrown up by the Waterloo complaint relate, amongst other things, to true ownership of church property and land. Part of the problem is that the SNU Trust does not hold the deeds to the properties ~ as they are supposed to ~ as they were set up to do.
In fact, in conversation this year with the Head of the SNU Trust, Bob Farrell, he further told me that the Trust Property Committee is nothing to do with the SNU Trust. The Trust Property Committee hold the deeds for the benefit of the members but is entirely separate from the SNU Trust, which in effect means they apply to themselves for loans! Further, that the Charity Commission were not happy with this arrangement and the SNU Trust Property Committee were ordered to hand over all the deeds they hold to the SNU Trust proper by the time of last year's (2000) AGM but failed!
This is further evinced when the Charity Commission (Support Div.) telephoned me on the heels of this and expressed great concern about, "How many churches and property the SNU thinks it owns and doesn't. And how many Churches think they own their own property and don't!"
The scare mongering by the SNU in regard to churches having/needing charity status I would suggest is nothing more than an elaborate smoke screen for what are the true and much bigger issues, i.e.; ownership of trust property and land together with rights of occupation and their right to remove persons with difference from churches and committees.
The fact is, friends, churches DO NOT need to have charity status.
If a church holds property, as with Waterloo, and the church has been up and running for not less than one year then its premises can be registered as a Place of, and for, the purposes of Religious Worship. This exempts the building from Rates and Community Charge/Council Tax.
Please read between the lines of what they're putting out.
The Union had blitzed affiliated churches with a number of highly apocryphal circulars trying to get people to vote to pass Motion 1: Removal of the Right to Disaffiliate. There is a lot to be disturbed about in this item.
I would suggest they were successful in this endeavour partly because they failed to give adequate notice in time for conference, i.e.; people were caught on the hop and failed to grasp much of the Union's verbosity and alarmism. (I know this is true because I travel and work the UK churches. No one seems to have a clue what it's all about). Plus, a combine as big as 400 churches, split into districts, needs a minimum of six months notice instead of circa six weeks.
So much for 'Natural Justice' which comprised the entirety of Motion 2.
Going back to his enclosed report documenting previous meetings with the Charity Commissioners for England & Wales, he tells us in no uncertain terms that providing Healing and Clairvoyance is not in itself charitable, i.e.; it needs to have a 'social benefit'. This is cited as one of the reasons the Charity Commission is having difficulty recognising our Spiritualist Churches.
No it's not!
That statement is a very deceptive one! e.g.;
If I am a mechanic and I fix cars then, true, I should not have charity status simply for fixing cars. However, if I fix cars to make money for charity, 'social benefit' and worthy causes, then why shouldn't I have charity status?We offer our services as clairvoyants and healers in order to raise money for charity week in-week out, Duncan!!It is also apocryphally reported that the barrier to the Union keeping its charity status is said Motion 1: The Removal of the Right to Disaffiliate. To back this up he asks us to consider the absurdity of say, Roman Catholic or Church of England Ministers attempting to disaffiliate their parish churches away from the main orthodox body. It would indeed be difficult to disagree with the absurdity of such a notion. And one would be very hard pressed to find anything more ridiculous than a Roman Catholic priest announcing to the world that he's disaffiliating his church from Rome! "So why," argues Duncan, "should it be any different for Spiritualist churches?"
Well, Duncan, it's not that the idea is in itself ridiculous; it's more the fact that the priest's church was never in 'affiliation' with Rome in the first place!
Rome acquired the land and built the church (and all its churches) themselves, and further, employed the priest to run it for them. The priest himself never built the church and neither did his congregation. They never 'affiliated' it to Rome at some point in their history.
It always was Rome's and always will be Rome's!
WE ARE DIFFERENT!
We built [and] build our Spiritualist Churches!
We own our Spiritualist Churches!
We run our Spiritualist Churches!
We affiliated our Spiritualist Churches!His analogy has failed even the scantest of scrutiny.
Then it is reported in the SNU-owned and Editor-appointed Psychic News dated 28th July 2001 in another full-page article (Geoff Hughes) that,
"The first motion dealt with the clause within the Byelaws appertaining to a Church's right to disaffiliate. As long as that clause was in, the Union would not be granted charitable status."RUBBISH!"However, it had to be admitted that it was not the only problem and there was no guarantee that its removal would automatically attract the status sought."...You don't say.But hold on, Duncan, that's not what you're saying in your circulars. Have you misled us here into thinking that if we remove the right to disaffiliate from the rules and bye laws then all our problems will be solved?
You're a Spiritualist Minister and Union President. Surely you wouldn't deceive us?
And if it's not going to solve all our problems, then why all the verve in getting us to pass this horrendous resolution? And why hastily make it top of this year's agenda?
* One supposes it would of course have nothing to do with the Waterloo case and the fact that churches and centres are wanting to disaffiliate from you left, right and centre?
Gascoigne, Coulston and the NEC know perfectly well that the removal of your right to disaffiliate will not lead anywhere near them retaining their charity status!
YOU'VE BEEN SUCKERED!!
Friends, the removal of your right to disaffiliate represents your last freedom within this dreadful organisation. They want you to believe a lie. The fact is, there is hardly a charity in this land which isn't in affiliation with one or a number of other organisations. That principle is in itself the very backbone of what being a charitable organisation means ~ to affiliate one to the other.
So, when you place your deeds in trust with a registered body such as the SNU they will try their best to convey the title to themselves, including the title of the land where applicable. The fact is, this practice was set up for your benefit as the true owner/purchaser, not theirs!
However, as evinced in the Waterloo case, this system is open to nothing short of pure abuse!
They have not only conveyed the title for the land and Waterloo Church to themselves but they are also claiming outright ownership proper of said land and premises against the members’ wishes, together with "exclusive possession and right of occupation" over and above those self same members!!
UNBELIEVABLE?
Is this action confined exclusively to the Waterloo case? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! This is just the sort of thing they’ve been getting away with for years up and down the UK.
That is why this case is so important.
Meanwhile, Gascoigne's diatribe continues to acquaint the reader with some more corporate facts and indeed spends half the next page telling you what can amply be described in just one simply constructed sentence. I have taken a liberty here with his amblings and redefined them thus;
Complex charities like the SNU find it easier to adopt Registered Company status in order to administer their affairs more efficiently.
Why couldn't he just say that?
In his own words, ‘The Spiritualists’ National Union was incorporated under the Companies Acts as a company not for profit and limited by guarantee’.
The SNU makes a mockery of this description inasmuch as Stansted Hall is now valued at just under three million pounds and the Union’s financial statement for the year ending 2000, reads £3,800,000+. One can only imagine what the early pioneers are thinking.
It is said that no Union, no church, centre or association will ever be happy as long as it has as one of its subtleties the swelling of the bank account.
He then refers to the signing of the SNU Memorandum and Articles of Association. The connotation here is that these are somehow different in aspect and ratio from the bye laws inasmuch as they are set down in stone like the Ten Commandments. What he fails to make clear is that these, together with the bye laws, have steadily changed over the decades and are barely recognisable against the originals in application and definition. In fact the two simply do not compare in function or vision.
It is admitted that times change but in reality this change has been at the expense of freedoms for churches, members, committees and officers.
In paragraph 6 of his original letter, Gascoigne reassures us that,
‘Union Spiritualism is at the forefront of modern Spiritualist thinking’.[Digression]
So, upon its proper construction, being at ‘the forefront of modern spiritualist thinking’ must mean being,* Small-minded
* Bureaucratic
* Penny-pinching
* Legislation to the point of abuse
* Stifling criticism
* Stifling freedom of speech
* Ignoring human rights
* Gazing with envious eyes upon church members' property and land
* Channelling members’ money into incorrect and highly questionable stock market portfolio investments such as British Aerospace: Arms Manufacturers or mining giants like Rio Tinto.
Where in the SNU investment list of companies is there a single firm which is analogous with Spiritualists’ ideals? This scary list of SNU Investment/Equities companies is already partly explored on the SNU Trust Investments & Equities page.Coming back to his original text, all the things he refers to as unique to the SNU are in fact common to all other Spiritualist organisations in the UK too. There is nothing special about the SNU’s status other than often being the first and biggest in a small number of apparent fields.
It could equally be argued in times to come that because Waterloo Spiritualist Church in May 1997 was the first UK Spiritualist Church on the web, and boasts 92,000+ hits, we are somehow the voice of UK Spiritualism on the web?
I can assure you we would not presume so.
Where the Union continually describes itself as,
‘The national body in Great Britain for Spiritualism',
one could easily be forgiven for thinking such a statement detrimental to the integrity, institution and image of the other recognised organisations such as the* Spiritualist Association of Great Britain
* The Greater World
* Christian Spiritualist Association
* Corinthians
* Universal Spiritualist Association
Paragraph 7 of his pre-conference epistle treats the reader to a menu of
‘responsibilities that the Union has taken over from the churches’.Wrestled and walked off with more like!
Reasons cited are twofold.
Firstly, ‘the need to have nationally recognised standards in mediumship, education, and healing’.
Secondly, ‘the inability of some churches to continue to provide or maintain teaching and training groups’.
It is further admitted in this paragraph that ‘this has turned the whole situation around from what was originally intended’.
How true, Mr. Gascoigne.
Whilst it is fair to say that we need to aim high, if the SNU wants to be recognised on a par with other religions, then it needs to cough up the cash and stop expecting everyone to pay through the nose from their own pockets. They need to give back the freedoms they have callously taken away from the churches with their patronising 'Daddy knows best' attitude.
It should be the right of all churches to sort out their own problems without recourse to the ill-considered mercies of an appalling working group known as the SNU National Executive Committee.
This brings us neatly on to the subject of 'AFFILIATION'. Affiliation is a massively misleading term to use. What they really mean is 'INCORPORATION', i.e.; the death of individuality.
Let us define affiliation;
Association with,
Having a relationship with or to,
Linking together in a common goal/ideal/purpose,
Connection or having connection with,
Attachment to,
Membership of…Does that sound to you like SNU affiliation? NO!
‘INCORPORATION’, one would argue, is the better, more robust term best used to describe what the Union’s aims and objectives are; together with their true implications for you!
‘INCORPORATION’ defined as;
Amalgamated into singularity
Merged into one entity
Assimilate beyond recognition by digestion
Integrated through assimilation
Absorbed into the larger conglomerate
It is interesting to note that in all the four days of both Court Hearings, the SNU seldom if ever used the term ‘affiliation’ to describe the Waterloo Church. ‘Incorporation’ was a term which consistently permeated every point in their claim.
Paragraph 8, as with so much of this Union circular, he trades on our fears. He is really asking us searching questions like,
What are we going to do without them?
How will we survive in the big bad world without the SNU there to protect us?Remember those 'dubious trustees' he mentioned? One would laugh at this point if it were not so obscene.
Moving back on to his published speech in the SNU-owned and editor-appointed Psychic News PN, 28th July 2001, Gascoigne further espouses the idea of the Union not being infallible."I admit a number of mistakes have been made at all levels throughout the Union, but we should learn from these and try to ensure that they do not happen again."One might be heartened by this admission and think it purely relates to some previous decade or era until one reads just two paragraphs below this statement."During last year we had to make some very important decisions which, at last, shows that we mean business, but, more importantly, we mean what we say!"Well, Duncan, we at Waterloo know all about your mistakes, and last year we, the membership and committee of Waterloo Spiritualist Church too made a number of important decisions which show we too mean business, and, more importantly, we mean what we say!The SNU were warned several times conspicuously, both by letter and in meeting, that we would fight all the way to keep our church out of their greedy, insatiable hands ~ even if it meant going through the Courts to do it.
Gascoigne further states four paragraphs below that,
If the officers and committee of an SNU Church (WRONG ~ He should say, 'an SNU affiliated Church'. These churches do not belong to the SNU. They are Trust Properties, held in Trust for the benefit of the Members, YOU!),(if they) feel they cannot uphold this constitution and obligations according to the terms of affiliation then they should step down and form another group according to their liking elsewhere, instead of purloining or pinching one of our churches."* I'm putting it to you, Duncan, that you are the "purloiners" and "pinchers" of property."This year there has already been two occasions where the Union made a firm decision and went into two churches and removed the officers and committee because they were not prepared to uphold the constitution. I can promise you this, that should the need arise again, we will go in again. WE MEAN BUSINESS!"
* You've bought nothing.
* You've set nothing up.
* You repeatedly removed democratically elected people from their churches by various chicaneries.
One preferred method you seem to favour all over the UK is waving a land registry document in the face of a local Locksmith [whom you've just kidded into thinking you are the rightful owner of the property] and get them to change the locks while no one's around.
* Twice you called the Police to Waterloo Church and twice they chased you away with a warning that you were not to enter the premises without proof of ownership! They ridiculed you over your "pretend evidence of ownership".In the end you had to resort to a County Court Injunction which was dismissed and dissolved on you, and backfired when the Judge chastised you throughout and transferred it to the High Court for a legal precedent!
How dare you say that we - people like us at Waterloo - are thieves. Only a dictatorship would describe its malcontents in those terms. We are simply exercising our democratic rights, and through the judiciary, to show difference with you in a free society.
My impression of Coulston at the Hearing, and of you and your NEC is one of persons clothed in the garments of office and no room left for the Spirit.How sad.
The fact is, Duncan, if you win this case against us in November, you have already proved by your words, deeds and actions that your organisation is despicable, against the whole ethos, and incapable of winning by fair means.
And don't forget the right of appeal...