I am afraid you have misinterpreted my statement. Sorry, I realise I am used to quite a legalistic interpretation of words, so my phraseology can at times need careful reading. I am not trying to be clever with words, but I do generally mean exactly what I say and not something that may be very close to what I say, but is in fact different.
I did not say you recognised my use of the word commune, I said that you recognised “the commune"- in other words, you knew exactly what I was referring to when I used the word commune even if, as I said, “you would not use that word”. So what I meant was not that you in any way acknowledge the appropriateness of my use of the word commune, but that you recognised the thing I referred to as a commune. That I found interesting: that, in spite of me using the wrong word, you knew what I was talking about.
As for why the private home they own would interest me, well, it is in the annual accounts, so it is an area of legitimate interest. Charities are ONLY allowed to act to fulfil the purpose of the charity, so it is really up to SMC to justify how this “private home” contributes to their charitable aims.
Regarding the point about whether people knew about whether the funding of the school, you make the all-encompassing statement that “of course the congregation knew”. I am not sure whether you have spoken to them all, but I can assure you that many did not. Of course I suppose I could be lying about that, but that is a rather bizarre assumption to make. You can always get out of any argument by simply saying the other person is lying – look at the “flat earth” believers or the holocaust deniers.
I don’t really see the point of any conversation if you plan to respond by accusing me of lying. To be clear, what I said is repeated below. Unless all these people are lying about the fact they did not know this, that remains an unassailable fact.
“a number of people only realised that the church was subsidising the school once it was revealed by latigo." That is not an assumption, that is a fact. You can hypothesise and speculate all you like about whether people can or want to read accounts, the facts are that a number of people did not understand the information until it was presented by Latigo.
It is fine to have view or opinions, but please don't argue with facts. Unlike SMC, it is not about who makes the most forceful comment or who claims they know what other people are thinking.