The Times has reported today on the association between @rebell_justice which publishes The View Magazine and is promoting the Someone’s Daughter photography project with a crowdfunding appeal, and serial fraudster Farah Damji. I am quoted in this article thetimes.co.uk/article/frauds…
The View magazine was originally the idea of Farah Damji, who first produced it whilst in Downview Prison. See @BaronessUddin in House of Lords debate on 25 July 2019 describing it as “a wonderful magazine” hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-07-…
In this podcast of 1 May 2020, Jeremy Dein QC discusses The View with Farah Damji. She identifies herself, with Clare Simms and solicitor Sara Watson, as the three women responsible for the magazine as published, and also talks of “someone’s daughter” anchor.fm/criminaljustic…
Farah Damji is fluent, articulate and knowledgeable in this podcast. She does not disown her life and history of imprisonment. Yet the interviewer, a criminal QC, does not ask a single question about governance and integrity in the management of The View Magazine CiC’s business
As the Times reports, shortly after that company was formed, in April 2020, with Clare Simms as its initial some director, a further directorship was registered (since removed) in the same false Icelandic name as Farah Damji used whilst a fugitive from UK justice in Ireland
The company, a community interest company, is limited by guarantee. The name of the second guarantor appears to be misspelled on Companies House records. If Farah Damji had used her own name, a search would have revealed a previous company compulsorily struck off the register
@rebell_justice filed this community interest statement, as required by law, on its formation. Yet one of its activities since formation has been to crowdfund litigation costs for a “Miss L” to sue the NHS for failure to treat her mental health in prison. crowdjustice.com/case/mental-he…
“Miss L” is Farah Damji, as this news report, which hyperlinks to the CrowdJustice page, says. I think there was also a hyperlink from The View’s own website a few days ago. Why was Miss L not identified? And how is this activity in the community interest? news.sky.com/story/ex-femal…
I first tweeted about The View and its Someone’s Daughter crowdfunding project about a week ago, as did others @NoXYinXXprisons@BluskyeAllison@SVPhillimore and others. @rebell_justice’s response was to complain to my chambers and to accuse me of harassment and defamation
@rebell_justice did also make a more constructive gesture towards transparency by updating its platform crowdfunder (since closed) and producing some documents. These documents don’t give me confidence in the integrity of financial governance of this company
Nor does the publication of this statement on Monday 23 August, containing material omissions, inaccuracies and unfounded allegations of harassment
This is the direct fundraising page for Someone’s Daughter. It does not tell contributors how their money will be protected. theviewmagazine.org/fundraiser-for…. Artist Jess de Wahls publicly severed her connection with it on Tuesday. Farah Damji’s is apparent from this tweet a few weeks ago
I think there are lessons to be learned here about due diligence and transparency. I hope that whatever is of value for women prisoners and criminal justice in the project can continue on a more trustworthy footing in the future, under new management of unimpeachable integrity
I’m not a criminal barrister but in my professional legal practice I see a fair amount of financial abuse of elderly and vulnerable people. I abhor it. I have also seen abuse of crowdfunding here. I will not be intimidated by the sort of threats and abuse I have received here
I am blocked by @rebell_justice but have read the statement they have published in response to the Times article. It is defamatory of me and others and I would suggest caution in retweeting or otherwise sharing it, as that is regarded as publication in the law of defamation
I’m grateful for this and a number of other similar tweets over the past week from people who actually know me professionally
I read emerging accounts of The View Magazine’s responses to others
- It’s completely wrong, especially for a community interest company, to react as they’ve done, and
- What may not harm a self-employed professional near the end of a career is intolerable for those less secure
In @rebell_justice’s extraordinary statement today, they sought to distance Farah Damji from the Someone’s Daughter crowdfunder. Their account is disputed. And misses the point. The View Magazine CiC owns that fund, and with irregularities in the directorship, that raises concern
Instead of meeting that well-founded concern in a reasonable way, this community interest company and its director have continued to make absurd, threatening and defamatory statements to and about those who have raised their voices
A reasonable way of meeting concerns would be to publish a statement, covering
- directors CVs
- risk management policies more convincing than a nameless draft
- accounts of The View Magazine CiC since formation
- appointment of two named people of integrity to manage crowd funds
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Don’t tweet like a lawyer stung by a bee. Believe it or not, the legal professions have guidance on the use of social media which doesn’t encourage outbursts like this
Because whether highly paid in private practice or underpaid in publicly funded work, what people expect of lawyers is an informed, rational, objective approach to attempting to solve other people’s problems, not relentless antagonism in the promotion of their own personal views
We do have regulators, a complaints system and sanctions for misconduct, currently under consultation
Litigation crowdfunding in the news today. The ‘spin’ in this story is focused on the Good Law Project, but there are other cases which illustrate why some regulation could be in the public interest dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9…
The unsuccessful judicial review and appeal in the Backto60 women’s state pension age case crowdfunded on raising expectations that success would bring “full restitution”, when that was impossible link.medium.com/IP1JEL2zRgb
Reclaim These Streets (I wrote about their charity crowdfunding in March link.medium.com/lLgConqARgb) have now launched a litigation crowdfunder to continue their claim against the Metropolitan police and “secure protest rights for the future” crowdjustice.com/case/defending…
This crowdfunding campaign has now raised almost £0.5M for “women’s charitable causes”. All that its organisers, who do not even identify themselves by name on the crowdfunding website, will say is that they’ll be announcing which charities they intend to support “in due course”
@ReclaimTS isn’t a charity. It is unregulated. It has not been set up to enable UK taxpayers to significantly enhance the value of their donations via Gift Aid. The crowdfunding platform profits from the donations. Direct donations to established charities would benefit them more
Donors’ generosity has been prompted by reaction to the tragic death of Sarah Everard, but there’s no evidence that her family’s or friends’ wishes have been considered or taken into account in this fundraising. This seems disrespectful, though I’m sure that wasn’t intended
And the truth turned out to be that Kate Bingham did offer her time and talents in service of the public good, and the cv that was published with the announcement of her appointment made it clear what experience and skills - all omitted from the sneer here - she had for that role
@afneil rightly excoriates the everyday sexism reflected in much of the response of the supposed intelligentsia and its licensed court jesters to Kate Bingham’s appointment
“There is an England of my mind” wrote the man who sneered at Kate Bingham as an ignorant crony. There is also an England in which even half a century ago, girls were educated to the highest academic standards and encouraged to be determined in pursuit of their aspirations
I tweeted yesterday about the “GenderGP Charitable Fund”. It isn’t a charity registered in England and Wales, and doesn’t appear to be a charity at all. The announcement of its launch is still the pinned tweet on the timeline of @GenderGP and no statement has been made about it
All of the information published about the fund suggests that contributions to it will be paid to the business which trades as GenderGP to fund provision of its commercial service to individuals who cannot afford it themselves
There is no transparency even to identify the recipient of contributions, which are processed through a third party payments service, or the legal status or administration of the fund. If it is not a charity, it should not describe itself as a charitable fund
Following the ruling in Keira Bell’s case @gendergp have launched “The Gendergp Charitable fund”. This does not currently appear to be a registered charity in England and Wales, and the word “Charitable” should not be used without the permission of the Charity Commission
I know that GenderGP is based outside the UK, and this fund may have a non-UK bank account. But it is being promoted to the public with a name that includes an English word which is restricted in charities subject to @ChtyCommission regulation, and I think that raises concerns
As does the fact that the fund’s object appears to be to promote access to medical treatment for young people in a way that does not comply with a recent ruling of the High Court in England. Can that be described as being for the public benefit in English charity law?