@legalstyleblog reporting and it seems to just not ring true.
If it is true it can't yet have had any meaningful contact with the CPS for the seemingly straightforward defences available which were outlined above. 3/3
@legalstyleblog made out because it isn't clear that 66B(1)(c) is made out, there is 66B(8) as a possible defence and an even more powerful defence likely to be easily made out is available at 66C(3).
Add to that everything surrounding the actual technicalities and practicalities of 2/?
@barbourtwat is that the overall number of veterans has dramatically decreased over the past two decades as the Second World War generation has died.
So now the artifice of the poppy becomes the focus, rather than the people who's sacrifice and memory it stood for who were in living memory.
@barbourtwat Regrettably, the RBL and its local branches started the trend by promoting – what I though at the time were rather effective – poppy based art/installations for the centenary of the start of the First World War.
Many then insisted on reusing what had been made.
Another factor
@tomhfh@BarbaraRich_law I ask because which one of those three reasons forms the basis for *why* you take the view the 1995 scheme was bad makes an enormous difference to what sort of policy follows from that belief— and what *types* of argument someone can actually put forward for/against your view.
@tomhfh@BarbaraRich_law One final quick question Tom (linked to this thread👇) is your view the 1996 scheme was bad because:
(a) All cy-pres schemes are bad
(b) Cy-pres wasn't appropriate for Bridge House Estates Trusts specifically
(c) It was badly drafted in what it permitted
https://t.co/WwdWohpx5b
@tomhfh@BarbaraRich_law I am happy to engage in your discussion of how the world should be!
I tried to do so yesterday👇 (not sure if you saw it).
I won't repeat those details, but let me break down the key points about the relationship between legal 'is' and moral 'ought'.
https://t.co/1PNxEj5XOv
@tomhfh@BarbaraRich_law forcing them to take on a new obligation as part of their core objects.
What might be a sensible policy – a question of political 'ought', not legal 'is' – will also likely be different knowing what is known now, compared with how things looked back in 1995.
Does that help Tom?
@tomhfh@BarbaraRich_law same legislation which takes away their cy-pres scheme today could be put back by a future (perhaps more left wing) government, and they *may* decide to wait it out.
But maybe that is a risk worth taking. Either way, it is altogether different from appropriating their funds by