So, here's my train of thought:

I have great difficulty understanding why Raystede won't make their cafe vegan. It would be very easy to do and would end the annoying protest which damages their reputation. Surely it must be more than just stubbornness that prevents them.

I recalled something Morgan Williams, Raystede's president, said in a newspaper report about the Make Raystede Vegan campaign.  As if it justified their cafe serving animal products, he said that Miss Raymonde-Hawkins had “secured legacies and funding from a wide range of supporters”.  At the time, I wondered why he said that. No one had asked him who their donors were. Why was he being defensive about funding?

Then I remembered some research I'd done about meat companies who donate large sums of money to organisations they call “influencers”. They call it strategic investment.

For example, in a report by the Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) – Meat Industry Strategic Plan Report 2011-2013 – they write about the AMPC's plans to “Develop, implement and verify a set of robust, credible standards for environmental stewardship, animal welfare and ethical behaviour”. Under the heading of Marketing, they add that their priorities include the continuation of “investment and communication of the evidence on the benefit of healthy beef and lamb diets for meeting nutrient requirements and preventing obesity and chronic disease at key life stages”. They state that they “manage issues by gaining support from key influencers by partnership (eg Dieticians Association of Australia)”. And they “Deliver key health messages to GPs, child health nurses, and nutrition experts”. They spend millions of dollars on this. $33 Million in 5 years.

So the dieticians, doctors and nurses are the key influencers to convince people that meat is healthy. Who do you think the key influencers would be to convince people that the meat industry has high animal welfare standards?

Is it possible that former Raystede trustees, years ago, accepted a large donation from a meat company on condition that they open a cafe that sells animal products, thus communicating to their visitors that meat, fish and dairy can be humane, to keep them buying it? And if this is true, if they accepted a donation with conditions, can they legally break those conditions now?

Law degree anyone?

This is, of course, all speculation because they won't speak to us, but let me just add one final piece of information. On Raystede's new articles of association, as amended by special resolution of the members on 13 December 2018, there has been added a clause which wasn't in the original 1964 or the 2012 Articles.

Under Section 2: Powers [of the charity]:

2.9 to refuse to accept a gift or gifts of any form, whether financial or otherwise, if to accept it would be

2.9.1 unlawful; or

2.9.2 within the judgment of the Trustees, in all the circumstances,         detrimental to the achievement of the Objects.

Maybe they want to make sure it doesn't happen again?