As for political campaigning, organisations such as Amnesty manage this by having two separate entities, one of which is a registered charity and carries out all the things that charities are allowed to do. The other exists to do the things that a charity can’t, but the set-up is entirely open and honest.

What I’m trying to say is that I personally can’t see any reason Dore did not to set up as a charity other than to avoid the transarency that that would necessiatate and to lose personal control.

This is just my opinion.

The other point to make is that Dr Snowling and colleagues confine themselves to the problem of dyslexia – as defined in the narrow, classic sense. There are thousands of people with ‘dyslexia’ and with other learning difficulties, sometimes overlapping problems and sometimes not. Even people with dyslexia can have very different ’symptoms’. I know of one person who gets bright flashes of light when trying to read text (similar to when the retina is in danger of detaching?), another two who get dizzy and nauseous when trying to read, one who gets ‘jumping’ letters, and one who cannot read at the same time as understanding the content (or write while spelling – cannot automate the reading or writing). Of these, one also improved in reading words with phonics lessons, but still could not read words and deal with the meaning simultaneously.
While dyslexia (narrow definition) does get more recognition now, for all the others with varied learning difficulties there is no-one qualified or available on the NHS to diagnose or assess them, and no real help is available.

DA, as a charity, has to published details accounts. I wonder how open they would be if they didn’t have to?

On the wider issue of charities, one problem is that charities are limited as to what they can do. From memory, they cannot undertake political campaigns and be very cautious with money.

WD has claimed that these restrictions are the reason he set up Dore as a company and not as a charity.

I have no reason to doubt him on this but I suspect other people do.

Chris

At least, as a charity, Dyslexia Action must provide detailed public information about their finances, and to their credit they have made their accounts easily accessible from their website.
Compare and contrast with Dore, for which financial information must be purchased from Companies House, and even then is extremely limited. WD has expressed charitble intentions (and has established a tiny charity – the Dore Foundation) but WD has personal financial and management control of the commercial operation.
Which scenario do you prefer?

I should say that I mean this as a genuine question, which I think is up for debate. I have no particular interest either way in the various treatment methods – my area of interest is the finance and governance of such organisations.