When assessing concerns we apply the principles of fairness, consistency and proportionality. We will seek to act with impartiality, fairness, independence and honesty; we will make sure that the decisions or actions we take in any particular case are accurate and consistent with the law, with our published policies, and with other decisions; and we will aim to ensure that the actions we take are proportionate to the risk of harm involved in a particular case. Our assessment of harm will be based on an objective and thorough analysis of the evidence we gather. The Commission places considerable emphasis on our enforcement role, ensuring that charities comply with their legal requirements and that if there is evidence of deliberate wrong-doing we are hard and sharp in our response. If any action is considered necessary in this case, it will be appropriate to the risks revealed by our assessment. इस विद्यालय को आर्थिक सहायता देने वाला इरशाद ट्रस्ट चैरिटी आयोग द्वारा पंजीकृत धर्मादा संगठन है. इस संगठन को कर की छूट के अनेक विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त हैं. दूसरे शब्दों में ब्रिटेन के करदाता प्रभावी रूप से इस विद्यालय को सब्सिडी दे रहे हैं. विशेष रूप से इस विद्यालय को Gift Aid नामक कार्यक्रम का लाभ मिलता है जिसके अन्तर्गत दानदाताओं को सरकार कर में कुछ छूट देती है. पंजीकृत धर्मादाओं को अनुग्रह देने वाला सरकार से कर में 28 प्रतिशत की धन वापसी का दावा कर सकता है. उदाहरण के लिये इरशाद ट्रस्ट को 100 पाउण्ड पर 120 पाउण्ड मिलेगा.
22.
Apr. 11, 2013 addenda : Some reflections that did not fit the main article: (1) Before this article appeared, I gave a several interviews ( here , here and here ) advocating tactical support for the Assad regime; these prompted name-calling by CAIR and some hysterical reactions about me urging genocide in Syria. No: I look forward to the day when Syria is at peace with itself and a good neighbor, when its government is democratic and law-abiding. But until that distant time, I prefer that evil forces direct their attentions against each other than against the outside world. (2) To the argument that early Western support for the rebels would have prevented the Islamists from dominating them ( which they now do ), I reply that Western powers did provide early support to rebels in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt and look what that achieved - Islamists dominate all three of those countries. The same would likely have been the case in Syria. Western assistance is not that influential in altering the course of an ideological movement. (3) I dislike advocating support for Assad and respect the intentions of those who share my goals but disagree with my means. I do, however, see them engaging in wishful, non-strategic thinking. (4) That my approach gives priority to strategic considerations marks it, in the context of modern Western politics, as conservative. Liberals enjoy a confidence in their own wellbeing that conservatives lack. Where liberals tend to worry about others (snail darters), conservatives tend to worry about themselves (a sufficient electricity supply). Consistent with this temperamental difference, the former focus on civilian welfare in Syria and the latter on Western security. (5) My advice is hardly original to me but is old-fashioned Realpolitik. Put differently, it fits into a divide-and-rule tradition that goes back to the Romans. (6) Assad's staying in power has the advantage that the regime's chemical weapons are less dangerous than if he fell. इस भावना के अनुरूप मेरा तर्क है कि अमेरिका को हारते हुए पक्ष की सहायता करनी चाहिये और वह कोई भी क्यों न हो, जैसा कि मई 1987 के विश्लेषण में मैंने कहा था, “ 1980 में जब इराक ने ईरान को धमकी दी थी तो हमारा हित कुछ मात्रा में ईरान के साथ था। परंतु 1982 की गर्मियों से इराक रक्षात्मक हो गया और अब वाशिंगटन पूरी तरह इसके साथ है..... भविष्य की ओर यदि देखें तो क्या इराक एक बार पुनः आक्रामक हो सकेगा वैसे तो यह सम्भव नहीं दिखता परंतु असम्भव भी नहीं है, अमेरिका को फिर से युद्ध में आना चाहिये और ईरान को सहायता करने के सम्बंध में सोचना चाहिये” ।
