“We have received the letter from Mr Galloway, which is published on his website (www.georgegalloway.com). As we have an ongoing statutory inquiry into Viva Palestina (Lifeline for Gaza) there is a limit to how much more we can comment on.

As a general point, the Charity Commission, as the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales, is required by law and committed to acting fairly, proportionately and in the interest of charity. The Commission is an evidence and risk based regulator, which forms its own findings and conclusions based on evidence. It does not favour nor discriminate against any particular type of charity.

The Commission recognises that charities often deliver essential services in areas where the need is greatest, and is aware of the importance of legitimate humanitarian aid reaching those in need quickly. When conducting statutory inquiries, the Commission aims to minimise disruption to legitimate charitable work, whilst ensuring charitable funds are protected. Any restrictions that are placed on bank accounts are done so as a temporary and protective measure to protect those charitable funds. Restrictions do not prevent legitimate charitable work from continuing. We will authorise any legitimate payment asked for by the charity.

The Commission opened a statutory Inquiry into Viva Palestina or Lifeline for Gaza on 23 March 2009. Viva Palestina is charitable, and it was required by law to register as a charity in England and Wales. During the six weeks prior to opening the inquiry, the Commission attempted to contact the charity on repeated occasions in an effort to secure acknowledgement that the funds are held for charitable purposes. However, at the date the Inquiry opened, the Commission had received no substantive response to the issues that had been raised, either from the charity or individuals connected with it.

In addition, the Commission has concerns over financial governance arrangements relating to the use of funds. These facts require further investigation, and given the failure to reply to the Commission, led to the opening of an Inquiry under Section 8 of the Charities Act 1993.

Viva Palestina sent the Commission an application to register as a charity on 1 April 2009 and on 8 April 2009 it was entered on the Register of Charities (with registered charity number 1129092). The charity’s entry is available to view online at:

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/ShowCharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1129092&SubsidiaryNumber=0.

The Inquiry remains open and ongoing.”

A search of the Charity Commission website shows that Viva Palestina was only registered as a charity on 9th April 2009, strange then that less than 4 days later the Charity Commission has decided to invesitgate them. At the same time The Commission appear reluctant to investigate the Zionist charities which actively seek funds to support Israeli troops! Get a grip Charity Commission, if you do your job without fear or favour people might accept what you do, but choosing to investigate pro-palestinian charities whilst ignoring zionist chartities can only bring your work into disrepute.

The Commission has no powers to register any organization against its will. But someone has to register a charity. Who did the paperwork? Who submitted the accounts? Who provided the signatures of the trustees? Are you suggesting that these were collected illegally? In which case, why have they not reported the matter to the police?

The investigation is being carried out under the Charities Act 1993, precisely within its powers. If the trustees disagree, they can seek judicial review. We know that the “inspirer” of VP has much faith in England’s judicial system.

Come to think of it, when the Gorgeous One was handing out the dosh to “the prime minister of us all,” didn’t he say that VP members had to collect receipts for what they had brought? Why? Surely the donors were delighted that their aid had reached its destination. These are not receipts for food, fuel etc. but for the aid handed over. Who would the receipts be for, if not for a statutory organization like the Commission?

It seems relevant that there are no commentators in the charity world who think that the Commission are wrong here. See, for example, the blog of Charity Times. Even the single commentator’s statement about “zionist chartities” does not allege that the Commission was guilty of “registering an organisation as a charity in order to be able to then freeze its accounts.”

When it comes to blurring the line between organizations that are charities and those that aren’t, GG has form.

Wrong.

So why should the Charity Commission investigate?