Diabetes UK vs Diabetics

Ohhh, how great it is to learn that our unelected government departments can help themselves to details of your bank accounts and you will be none the wiser...

La~La~La...

Oh, christ! The Government's issued us with another letter saying that we're going to be imprisoned. I think this lass got a bit offended that we said that she's a bit of a Chari-Titty on our website. LMFAO.

In 1996 Diabetes UK (British Diabetic Association) spent £609,000 of charity money on solicitors' fees suing a diabetic family. Lord Justice Walker described this as "scandelous" and "deplorable". When they were successful with the litigation Lord Justice Walker awarded them 3/4 of their costs (£609,000). This is the Taxing Master's Certificate at the High Court.

I am going to give you a brief (although long!) breakdown as to what is going on at the moment between Diabetes UK, the Diabetes Foundation, the Charity Commission and a diabetic family. I understand that you will probably feel bombarded with a lot of information and so if you have any questions feel free to ask me and I will answer them. Although it is the British Diabetic Association (BDA) named as the Claimant in the current litigation at the High Court, I am instead going to refer to them as the name they now operate under, Diabetes UK.

Diabetes UK are trying to make my diabetic friend and her diabetic father homeless. They are spending at least £1500 of charity money every single hour on solicitors fees in order to make a diabetic family homeless. They have spent in the region of £100,000 of charity money this year already on legal costs. Between November 2005 and February 2006 Diabetes UK spent almost £50,000 on solicitors fees. The Charity Commission have stated that this is a "necessary" and "desirable" act (Section 18, Charities Act (1993)).

In 1996 there was a court action between this diabetic family and Diabetes UK (at the time they were known as the British Diabetic Association). The family had set up their own diabetic charity - The Diabetic Society. Diabetes UK took the family to court and argued that 'The Diabetic Society's' name was too similar to their own. They argued that if a person was to donate to The Diabetic Society, they may be under the impression that it was either a part of Diabetes UK or connected to Diabetes UK.

What the family did not know at the time was that a legacy for £1,200,000 had been left to 'The Diabetic Society'. If the family had established and continued running The Diabetic Society that is what they would have received as soon as the person died.

The litigation taken by Diabetes UK is known as passing-off and is one of the most expensive forms of civil litigation to take. Diabetes UK spent £609,000 of charity money on this court action. Even though they won the litigation, they were described as "scandelous" and "deplorable" by Lord Justice Walker at the High Court with the amount of charity money they had spent on this and wasted. 10 years later, and with interest accrued, the judgment debt now stands at over £800,000. There is £100 of interest added to the judgment debt every single day. Diabetes UK are forcing the sale of a diabetic family's home even though both Lord Justice Walker and the Lord Chief Justice Phillips of England recommended that they do not do so. They are forcing the sale of a diabetic family's home even though their property is worth less than one quarter of what the judgment debt stands at. You have to remember that if Diabetes UK are successful with this litigation the family will be also responsible for what legal fees Diabetes UK have incurred to be successful. Diabetes UK have spent almost £100,000 of charity money on legal fees this year.

That is quite difficult to understand (not even I understand fully!) , so I will explain it like this. If you owe a person £200,000 and that person forces the sale of your home (through court litigation) for £150,000... The judgment debt (what you owe) would fall to £50,000. However, if you have spent £100,000 on solicitors fees to win, that £100,000 would be added on to the judgment debt. You may have got yourself a Sale Order (what forces the sale of a home), you may have sold the property and gained £150,000, but you will automatically be out of pocket £100,000 (your legal fees). The judgment debt would not necessarily lower (substantially).

Lord Justice Walker told the family after the passing-off action that for them to appeal they would have to give Diabetes UK some of their costs. This is known as Security of Costs. A simple way to explain this is to say that Diabetes UK had legally won the litigation and they were entitled to some of their legal costs. It would only be fair that Diabetes UK should get something towards their legal costs before another action (an Appeal against Lord Justice Walker‘s judgment) was started with which Diabetes UK would then have to incur further legal expenses to defend. Diabetes UK had spent £609,000 of charity money and the figure quoted by Lord Justice Walker to Appeal was £160,000.

This was challenged by the family before Lord (Chief) Justice Phillips who reduced the figure to £40,000. This was still out of the family’s range. Diabetes UK had used charity money to start this action and the family had no other choice but to use their personal savings. Luckily for them, the family’s counsel, Mr Nicholas Pumfrey QC (who is now a senior member of the judiciary at the High Court, Lord Justice Pumfrey as he is now known) also felt passionate about this case and decided not to charge the family for his services after they had lost the case.

Lord Justice Walker stated at the end of this litigation:

“It is a matter for the Plaintiff (Diabetes UK) whether it will seek to enforce to the utmost in the substantial Order for costs. Mr B and Miss A have been a thorn in the flesh of the BDA (Diabetes UK) for a large number of years. The fact is that they are both diabetic sufferers who were at one time devoted workers for the Plaintiff. There is a great deal of background to this matter which was rightly not place before me and which I have not adjudicated on. A charity is not always and invariably bound to place its immediate financial interests at the forefront if it would tarnish its long term reputation.”

Although a different charitable situation, there was the case of Muman v Nagasena in the Court of Appeal, reported in [2000] WLR 299.

Towards the end of his judgment, Lord Justice Mummery said,

“In this case very substantial amounts of money have been spent on litigation without achieving a resolution. The spending of money on this kind of litigation does not promote the religious purposes of a charity… No more money should be spent from the assets of this charity until (i) the Charity Commissioners have authorised the proceedings and counterclaim and (ii) all efforts have been made to secure a mediation of this dispute in the manner suggested.”

This case began in the High Court before that of Diabetes UK's litigation of passing-off. Our understanding is that the charity which the case Justice Mummery ruled on had spent £50,000 of charity money on legal costs (one twelfth of what Diabetes UK went on to spend). At no point in time did the Charity Commission take any involvement in Diabetes UK’s litigation.

After Diabetes UK were successful with the litigation they purchased in the region of 40 companies from Companies House with names relevant to 'Diabetes', 'Diabetic', and 'Diabetics'. The reason being was to stop anyone else from setting up a charity for diabetics. If you wanted to establish a charity for diabetes you need to call it a name! There is no point having a charity for diabetics called The Cancer Society. If there are no names left for you choose from about 'diabetes' or 'diabetic' or 'diabetics', you will not be able to call your charity anything. Diabetes UK spent hundreds of pounds on setting up each company. The reason why they spent so much was, again, they used solicitors to make sure that each company would be established correctly and each combination of company name was found and purchased. All of these companies are dormant and they have been dormant for ten years. They have no income, they have no assets, they were establised purely to gain ownership of the name. Diabetes UK use charitable money every year to keep these dormant companies open. Companies House do not let people establish a company and allow their company to remain dormant. They charge a fee so that all dormant companies remain open (although not active). The reason why Diabetes UK did this was to make sure that they continued monopolising the world of diabetic charities. They had been the number one charity for peole with diabetes for decades and felt that they were entitled and justified to hold that position (in whatever way they could). Now you know why they are the UK's leading diabetic charity.

I refer to a comment posted on my previous blog entry. Diabetes UK spend approximately £1200 every year on using an organisation called Smee and Ford (or as they like to be known as, The Legacy People). This is a legitimate company and I am no way commenting on either negatively or positively their involvement with Diabetes UK currently or any time in the past. LOL. On behalf of Diabetes UK, Smee and Ford trace all legacies left to any diabetic charity, or any Will which refers to 'diabetes', 'diabetic', 'diabetics'... It was Smee and Ford who found out about the £1.2million pound legacy and something had to be done to stop it from being paid out to The Diabetic Society (the passing-off action). Diabetes UK had to get The Diabetic Society's name in order to get that legacy.

These are only a few of Diabetes UK's dormant Limited companies:

Diabetes UK,

Diabetes England,

Diabetes UK England,

Diabetics UK,

British Diabetic Association,

The British Diabetic Association,

BDA Research,

BDA Trading,

Diabetes UK Services,

Society for Diabetes,

Society for Diabetics,

Diabetes Society,

Diabetic Society,

Diabetes Research,

Diabetes Scotland,

Diabetes Northern Ireland...

To our knowledge, each company Diabetes UK own has all other combinations of the name connected with it purchased as well. For example, when Diabetes UK purchased the name 'Society for Diabetes Limited', they also purchased 'The Society for Diabetes Limited'. As I have said, all of these companies are dormant and each one costs hundreds of pounds to keep open every single year.

The family had been members of Diabetes UK (BDA) for several years before this litigation and it was because of the charity’s administration and support costs that they set up their own diabetic charity. Diabetes UK had, and still do, over 70% administration and support costs (in their accounts last year the figure was 75%). This means that for every pound you donate to them only 25% (25 pence) goes towards helping diabetics. The other 75% goes towards paying their staff wages, buying new offices, legal bills…

The family were expelled from Diabetes UK when they (and several other members) declared publicly their dissatisfaction of how Diabetes UK spent their income. I personally find it quite ironic that Diabetes UK expelled the family for saying that Diabetes UK do not spend their income wisely and then over the next ten years spend over three-quarters of a million pounds on legal fees suing diabetics.

The family set up a charity called the Diabetes Foundation. At the time of the litigation there was several newspapers which heavily criticised Diabetes UK for starting the passing-off action and for the amount of money they had wasted. Diabetes UK had a substantial loss of income (donations, legacies…) due to this bad publicity and the Diabetes Foundation had a substantial increase in income. The Diabetes Foundation was set up to run fundraising events, it was to provide a 24 hour helpline telephone number for diabetics, and the active doings of a charity. (The Diabetic Society was purely for the ‘business’ side of a charity. The company was established to provide things such as blood glucose monitors to hospitals…)

As soon as The Diabetic Society was established Diabetes UK sought (and were granted) an injunction to stop the ‘Society’ name from operating. Following this was the passing-off action.

In 1997 the Charity Commission for England and Wales made their first allegation that Mr B (the diabetic father involved with the current action against Diabetes UK) had misappropriated substantial amounts of charity money from the Diabetes Foundation. Mr B was disqualified from running the charity and a Receiver and Manager (a person who takes control of the charity) was appointed. The Charity Commission used to use Binder Hamlyn to appoint Receivers and Managers. Binder Hamlyn was a subsidiary company of Arthur Anderson. Yes, the Government used Arthur Anderson lol. They no longer exist. A Receiver and Manager takes over the charity until the Charity Commission have concluded any investigation they are doing, or until new Trustees and Directors have been appointed to take control of the charity.

Today the Diabetes Foundation is an operationable charity. However, it does not provide any sort of literature for diabetics (e.g Diabetes UK provide a [I think] quarterly magazine), it does not employ any staff [e.g to deal with enquiries], it does not have any helpline number that diabetics can use to get advice about diabetes, it does not hold fundraising events, it relies mainly on legacy income. The Diabetes Foundation does promote itself on the internet, although should you serach I am sure you will be interested to know that it promotes itself still (9 years after Mr. B was disqualified from acting as a trustee) at Mr B's address.

The Charity Commission appointed the Trustees of Diabetes UK to take over the Diabetes Foundation. The trustees of Diabetes UK still are trustees of the Diabetes Foundation. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Diabetes UK is also a Trustee of the Diabetes Foundation. Every year charities have to decide who they want to make grants to. These grants could be to other charities, hospitals, individuals who need financial support… Any one can make an application to a charity for a grant and it will be considered by the trustees. Last year the Diabetes Foundation had a legacy left to them of over £600,000.

I quote from the Diabetes Foundation's Reports and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 2005:

“Accordingly, the Trustees approached a number of charities and, after careful consideration of their written proposals, selected Diabetes UK as the most suitable recipient.”

The Diabetes Foundation gave Diabetes UK half a million pounds.

The allegations made by the Charity Commission that Mr B had misappropriated substantial amounts of charity money (from the Diabetes Foundation) were dismissed at Southwark Crown Court in April 1999 as "false, groundless, and not true".

Even so, the Charity Commission refused to lift the disqualification of Mr B from being any part of the Diabetes foundation (or any other charity).

Since the allegations of theft have been dismissed at Southwark Crown Court, the Charity Commission have made the same allegations to the Metropolitan Police and the Holborn Fraud Squad many many (!) times. Each time the Metropolitan Police have refused to take action.

Since the time that the allegations were dismissed and the Diabetes Foundation was taken over, Mr B's daughter Miss B, has become a Director and Trustee of another diabetic charity (Stay with me!!! I know it sounds complicated... Just read it slowly! Lol).

At this time I cannot give you the name of this diabetic charity, but I will call it 'The Unnamed Diabetic Charity'. Miss B was not disqualifed from acting as a charity trustee of the Diabetes Foundation - it was her father. There was nothing stopping her acting in her own capacity of any charity if she wanted to. The fact is that if the Charity Commission are making allegations of the kind they were about her father, they are going to look at her with suspicion whether she wants to run a charity for diabetics or a charity for the Uncharitable lol.

The Chief Executive of the Charity Commission for England and Wales used to work for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Make of it what you will, but Mr Andrew Hind (the Chief Executive of the Commission) went from working in the media industry to running a government department in a few years.

Between December 2001 and November 2003 the Charity Commission and Diabetes UK went on the BBC (at least) five times stating that the Mr B has stolen, and I quote now,

"... a quarter of a million pounds of charity money..."

"... fifty thousand pounds of charity money..."

"... hundreds of thousands of pounds of charity..."

"... huge amounts of charity cash..."

".... in the region of £10,000..."

"... thousands of pounds have gone missing..."

It really depends what day of the week it is as to what figure they quote lol.

One of the programmes they liked going on was called Kenyon Confronts. This programme has now been axed from the BBC. It was axed in 2003 / 2004. On these programmes the presenter, Diabetes UK and the Charity Commission stressed details of The Unnamed Charity.

Although they never said Mr B's daughter was a trustee of The Unnamed Charity, they heavily stated, "Donate to Diabetes UK... We have greater resources than other diabetic charities, such as The Unnamed Diabetic Charity..."

Nothing has ever come of the allegations made by the Charity Commission or Diabetes UK, although they still state it publicly that Mr B has misappropriated charity money when they know that the allegations were dismissed at Southwark Crown Court, and the police and Holborn Fraud Squad have stated that the Commission have "no real proof to support their allegations".

In the past few months a very large legacy has been left to The Unnamed Diabetic Charity. Unfortunately this legacy was found out about by Diabetes UK and the Diabetes Foundation less than a week after the Croydon Advertiser published their article that the UK's leading diabetic charity, Diabetes UK, is making a diabetic family homeless. It wasn't exactly the best timing for Diabetes UK to find out that the person they are using charitable money to make homeless is about to receive (for her charity) a six-figure number.

The Charity Commission issued a court Order under Section 18 of the Charities Act (1993). This part of the Act states that if the Commissioners are 'satisfied' that it is 'necessary' or 'desirable' to e.g suspend a trustee, disqualify a trustee, appoint further trustees, replace trustees, freeze bank accounts, stop payments... then they have the legal right to do so.

They do like saying in their Orders that should you disobey them in any way you are liable to be imprisoned... and spanked by the Commissioners ... Ok, they don't really say that bit about getting spanked. But you do get used to 'you're off to prison, we hope you like porridge' tone of their letters after a while lol.

And so that is what they did. They stopped the legacy in the will of the deceased being paid to The Unnamed Diabetic Charity on the grounds that they were satisfied it was desirable to do so. Since that time they have issued another court Order under the same Section of the Charities Act. The Charity Commission are satisifed that it is desirable to suspend Miss B from being a Trustee of The Unnamed Diabetic Charity. The Commissioners are satisfied that it is desirable to "use their regulatory powers" to appoint persons to take over The Unnamed Diabetic Charity. I wonder who they are going to appoint?

When considering who you think the Commission will appoint, remember that The Unnamed Diabetic Charity was run from Miss B's home address... which Diabetes UK are currently trying to get their hands on.

I have discussed these matters with various and many people as to what is going on. Not only about the litigation taken by Diabetes UK against my diabetic friend but also what the Charity Commission (a government department) have been upto with the BBC (and Diabetes UK). We have come to the conclusion that we are "satisfied that it is necessary and desirable" to act in the way that will now happen.

It has come to our attention recently that under s18 of the Charities Act (as mentioned above), the Charity Commission have issued yet another Order. This Order was issued on a website that had been set up specifically about the litigation taken by Diabetes UK against my diabetic friend. The owners of this website have been Ordered by the Commission that anything "negative" about Diabetes UK or the Diabetes Foundation must be "removed immediately and permanently" and that details of the current litigation taken by Diabetes UK must be approved by Diabetes UK before it is published. This Order states that should this website disobey the Commission they will be "liable to imprisonment, have their assets seized and be fined (same old same old)".

Unless I am reading the wrong Charities Act, I am pretty certain that the Charity Commission do not have the statutory power to threaten people with imprisonment unless they publish only positive things about charities in general. I may be wrong but I have always thought that there was such a thing as Article 10 of the Human Rights Act which states that everyone is entitled to state their knowledge (not necessarily opinions) of something.

Look on the bright side. At least Diabetes UK arn't using charitable money to pay their solicitors to remove anything which could be considered "negative" about them.

Please tell everyone you know that Diabetes UK (the UK's leading diabetic charity who has our Queen as their Patron) are using donations and legacies given to them to pay lawyers fees so that they can make a diabetic family homeless.

I will be publishing the documents concerning what is written above, tonight at 10pm.

Add your own unique tags to this blog and tell your friends and family to read what I am publishing.