Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
At 11:35 +0100 25/4/09, Sean Whitton wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 00:15, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent. IANAL, but this seems to be the key thing that we're stumbling on. If we press this aspect of the chapter's purpose, that it supports Wikimedia which is very obviously an educational charity, and that we support all our projects esp. Wikiversity and Wikibooks, then maybe their misapplication will dissapear. Focussing on Wikipedia whenever Wikimedia comes up is something people tend to do. S -- Sean Whitton / s...@silentflame.com OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7 Well, yes, since Wikimedia and Wikipedia differ by a single letter Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.j...@pobox.com/// ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
wow ... this is kind of surprising. i find all your points very valid.
maybe the tax officer could not read that out of the moa object(s)?
which example object out of
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/registration/exobjhome.asp
did you choose? i only noticed that the word education is in all
which i opened. and not in wm-uk's.
when founding wm-ch it helped a lot to get in touch, and also keep
contact to the tax authorities lawyers, who were very helpful to find
the right wording. the bylaws (http://wikimedia.ch/Bylaws) are
directed into being clearly independent of the wmf, but anyway
allowing us to support them without big restrictions.
what we thought about as well was electronic voting, and it is
implicitely included as well. this seems very practical in a case
where you need an emergency agm to pass e.g. some bylaw change.
and the good thing is: every time one changes the moa objects, one has
to ask again to get / renew the charity status :)
rupert.
---
http://wikimedia.ch
On Apr 25, 1:15 am, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
This is crazy. :-/ Where to start?
First, fundamentally, the aim of pretty much everything is to
increase knowledge. Teaching/education is merely a means to
communicate that to people, which is something that an encyclopaedia
natively does. To say that producing an encyclopaedia does not
advance education - especially considering that this is Wikipedia,
which has a huge impact - is simply wrong.
Second, learning how to write an encyclopaedia - something that
everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does - is inherently an
educational experience. To support that naturally supports the
advancement of education. To quote a law from 1957 - over 50 years
ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment,
is in this respect.
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia
Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That
incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity
whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other
projects that do this to a lesser extent.
Fourth, stating that the support the Wikipedia is the stated
primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd is simply wrong; where does it even
mention Wikipedia in our MoA/AoA?
(There are more points, but I'm too tired right now to phrase them
coherently...)
We should definitely respond to HMRC about this; getting lawyers
involved seems to be a very good idea. Is it worth contacting
LawWorks regarding this?
If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the
media - they'll have a field day with this.
Mike
On 24 Apr 2009, at 21:59, Andrew Turvey wrote:
Dear All,
Yesterday we received a letter from the UK Tax Authorities
rejecting our application for recognition as a charity. Citing a
legal precedent, they stated that the production of an
encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education and
therefore we were not established for exclusively charitable
purposes. The ruling they gave stated that If the object be the
mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object
unless it is combined with teaching or education.
The full letter from the HMRC is copied below with some explanatory
notes added in { }
Their objection goes to the heart of what we have been established
to do. On the surface, it does not appear that any different
wording in our constitution or correspondence would have given us a
different outcome. Nonetheless, the legal issues may be arguable -
our job is not just to produce content in isolation, but also to
spread that knowledge and make it accessible to all. I should
imagine this will come down to the finer points of law, and it is
probably best to engage a lawyer at this stage when we appeal.
If we had applied to the Charity Commission before HMRC the
application would have been considered by different lawyers but the
same law would apply. Therefore, it is likely that we would have
come up against the same problem.
I'm contacting the Foundation to ask them if they are aware of any
lawyers familiar with UK law who could help us pro-bono on this.
I'm also sending a note to our MP to thank him for his help in
speeding this up: although it is disappointed to get this response,
it is better to get it now that in 3 or 6 months' time.
In the meantime, we should probably stop referring to ourselves as
a charity or an exempt charity. Before receiving this letter it
was reasonable for us to do this as that was our honest view. Now
we know there is some disagreement over this, I suggest we should
describe ourselves as a not-for-profit instead. Whilst we can
still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed
this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
Well, this is certainly going to give us something to talk/vent/rant
about tomorrow!
2009/4/25 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
This is crazy. :-/ Where to start?
First, fundamentally, the aim of pretty much everything is to
increase knowledge. Teaching/education is merely a means to
communicate that to people, which is something that an encyclopaedia
natively does. To say that producing an encyclopaedia does not
advance education - especially considering that this is Wikipedia,
which has a huge impact - is simply wrong.
Second, learning how to write an encyclopaedia - something that
everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does - is inherently an
educational experience. To support that naturally supports the
advancement of education. To quote a law from 1957 - over 50 years
ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment,
is in this respect.
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia
Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That
incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity
whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other
projects that do this to a lesser extent.
Fourth, stating that the support the Wikipedia is the stated
primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd is simply wrong; where does it even
mention Wikipedia in our MoA/AoA?
(There are more points, but I'm too tired right now to phrase them
coherently...)
We should definitely respond to HMRC about this; getting lawyers
involved seems to be a very good idea. Is it worth contacting
LawWorks regarding this?
If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the
media - they'll have a field day with this.
Mike
On 24 Apr 2009, at 21:59, Andrew Turvey wrote:
Dear All,
Yesterday we received a letter from the UK Tax Authorities
rejecting our application for recognition as a charity. Citing a
legal precedent, they stated that the production of an
encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education and
therefore we were not established for exclusively charitable
purposes. The ruling they gave stated that If the object be the
mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object
unless it is combined with teaching or education.
The full letter from the HMRC is copied below with some explanatory
notes added in { }
Their objection goes to the heart of what we have been established
to do. On the surface, it does not appear that any different
wording in our constitution or correspondence would have given us a
different outcome. Nonetheless, the legal issues may be arguable -
our job is not just to produce content in isolation, but also to
spread that knowledge and make it accessible to all. I should
imagine this will come down to the finer points of law, and it is
probably best to engage a lawyer at this stage when we appeal.
If we had applied to the Charity Commission before HMRC the
application would have been considered by different lawyers but the
same law would apply. Therefore, it is likely that we would have
come up against the same problem.
I'm contacting the Foundation to ask them if they are aware of any
lawyers familiar with UK law who could help us pro-bono on this.
I'm also sending a note to our MP to thank him for his help in
speeding this up: although it is disappointed to get this response,
it is better to get it now that in 3 or 6 months' time.
In the meantime, we should probably stop referring to ourselves as
a charity or an exempt charity. Before receiving this letter it
was reasonable for us to do this as that was our honest view. Now
we know there is some disagreement over this, I suggest we should
describe ourselves as a not-for-profit instead. Whilst we can
still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed
this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining
that our charitable status is contested.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey
Secretary, Wikimedia UK
=
Company Secretary
Wikimedia UK
23 Cartwright Way
Beeston
Nottingham NG9 1RL
Date: 17 April 2009
Dear Mr Turvey,
Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)
Thank you for your letter of 4 March 2009 and enclosures. I am
sorry for the delay in replying.
I am aware that you have written to Nick Palmer MP {regarding
delays in responding} - a reply to that letter will be sent
separately to Nick Palmer MP.
The definition of a charitable company for tax purposes is
contained at Section 506(1) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
which states 'charitable company' means any body of persons
established for charitable purposes only. However, the
determination of charitable status is a matter of general law.
To be a charity in law it is not sufficient that a company's
activities or intended activities are charitable. The memorandum
and articles of association of the company must declare objects
that are charitable in
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
Initial advice from my barrister friend was that HMRC don't have a leg to stand on. I'm also getting a message sent round the Oxford law department to see if we can get any additional help. T -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l- boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sean Whitton Sent: 25 April 2009 11:36 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 00:15, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent. IANAL, but this seems to be the key thing that we're stumbling on. If we press this aspect of the chapter's purpose, that it supports Wikimedia which is very obviously an educational charity, and that we support all our projects esp. Wikiversity and Wikibooks, then maybe their misapplication will dissapear. Focussing on Wikipedia whenever Wikimedia comes up is something people tend to do. S -- Sean Whitton / s...@silentflame.com OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
In-Reply-To: 84fd18c8-7bae-4f64-a675-047b6a400...@mikepeel.net Two bits one highlighted from what Andrew Turvey said: Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining that our charitable status is contested. And one from the email from HMRC: Wiki UK Ltd is not established for charitable purposes only as required by the legislation and so is not a charity for tax purposes. The charity tax examptions and reliefs (including Gift Aid tax relief) are not, therefore, available to Wiki UK Ltd. I think you would be on dangerous ground using Gift Aid at all. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
Just to clarify what I meant about Gift Aid: At the moment our membership and donation forms include a Gift Aid declaration which we're encouraging people to fill in. This means that if/when we eventually do become recognised as a charity we will be able to claim all the back payments from HMRC without having to go back to people who donated in the past and ask them to make a retrospective declaration. Of course we don't actually get any money from HMRC until we are recognised but it makes the process simpler afterwards. When we applied for recognition we specifically asked HMRC whether we could get declarations before we were registered and they said yes we were fine to do that. Given the developments we could either: 1) Continue with the forms as they are 2) Remove the declarations completely, or 3) Continue to ask people for declarations but add a caveat that HMRC are contesting our charitable status and Gift Aid will only be reclaimable if they agree My suggestion is we do (3) so that it's easier to reclaim if/when we do get recognised. Andrew - Original Message - From: Peter Cohen pet...@cix.compulink.co.uk To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 25 April, 2009 12:29:00 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected In-Reply-To: 84fd18c8-7bae-4f64-a675-047b6a400...@mikepeel.net Two bits one highlighted from what Andrew Turvey said: Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining that our charitable status is contested. And one from the email from HMRC: Wiki UK Ltd is not established for charitable purposes only as required by the legislation and so is not a charity for tax purposes. The charity tax examptions and reliefs (including Gift Aid tax relief) are not, therefore, available to Wiki UK Ltd. I think you would be on dangerous ground using Gift Aid at all. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: My suggestion is we do (3) so that it's easier to reclaim if/when we do get recognised. I agree. We need either stop using the word charity entirely and anything related to it (such as gift aid) or we need to make it clear that our charitable status is contested and we are fighting the decision. I prefer the latter. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
On Apr 25, 12:15 am, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the media - they'll have a field day with this. I don't think we should contact the media at this stage. HMRC are entitled to reject any application if they think it's not a charity - and given the absense of any UK charities doing similar things to Wikimedia UK it's not completely unreasonable what they've done. They've found a case whcih supports rejecting the application so they've done that. Complaining to the media or to politicians could reflect badly on us before we've exhausted the avenues for appeal. Andrew ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: On Apr 25, 12:15 am, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the media - they'll have a field day with this. I don't think we should contact the media at this stage. HMRC are entitled to reject any application if they think it's not a charity - and given the absense of any UK charities doing similar things to Wikimedia UK it's not completely unreasonable what they've done. They've found a case whcih supports rejecting the application so they've done that. Complaining to the media or to politicians could reflect badly on us before we've exhausted the avenues for appeal. A well written letter from a lawyer is the first step, but we shouldn't rule out using the media to our advantage. Wikipedia vs The Taxman in the court of public opinion would almost certainly end up with a result in our favour! I'll repeat what I've said before - the case they've found does not support their decision in the slightest. They are completely misapplying it. The case says that original academic research is not inherently charitable, but original academic research is one thing we certainly don't do. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Second, learning how to write an encyclopaedia - something that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does - is inherently an educational experience. To support that naturally supports the advancement of education. To quote a law from 1957 - over 50 years ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment, is in this respect. To be fair with them: It was a court case, I am pretty sure changes have been made to the applicable law since then, but apparently not to this particular part of it (resp. its interpretation). You can of course try to make a precedent case out of this, by pursuing it up to the higher courts. Is there any indication in the letter as to what the options are? From a quick glance at the HMRC website, it seems that their Complaints procedure would not apply, as we're talking about a formal decision here. They have two internal procedures, called 'Review' and 'Appeal'. It should be marked in the letter whether there is a Review option (by HMRC itself) or an Appeal option to the independent tribunal (http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/tax/). It is possible that both of them are not available, which means that we would need to seek Judicial Review at the Administrative Division of the High Court...we definitely want to have a lawyer at least for Appeal or Judicial Review, and it would be good for HMRC-internal review. M. -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com: On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: (Did you intend to send that to the public list? Either way, it's here now, so replying on-list.) The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with education. I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case For reference, the case is online here: http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html though with terrible markup. I'll look for LexisNexis sources and similar, but those are typically not public, so I thought I'd share that one with the list. I've found it on LexisNexis: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=truerisb=21_T6406107890format=GNBFULLsort=BOOLEANstartDocNo=151resultsUrlKey=29_T6406107893cisb=22_T6406107892treeMax=truetreeWidth=0csi=279841docNo=152 (probably a better URL, but I don't know how to use LexisNexis!) The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them. Hopefully a lawyer will think the same. It's evident any attempt to make a UK chapter charitable will likely need one. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them. Hopefully a lawyer will think the same. It's evident any attempt to make a UK chapter charitable will likely need one. Yeah, it looks that way. If anyone knows a good charity lawyer or knows someone that knows a good charity lawyer, please speak up! PS David, are you available to come on IRC a sec? If so, /msg me - Tango42. Thanks ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
Because WMUK would be so closely associated with the 501(c) WMF, I think Mike Godwin should be pointed at this. I appreciate various factors may make him unable to further involve himself, but you don't know what UK legal-eagle contacts he can point your way. Brian. -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 25 April 2009 01:45 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected 2009/4/25 Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com: On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: (Did you intend to send that to the public list? Either way, it's here now, so replying on-list.) The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with education. I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case For reference, the case is online here: http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html though with terrible markup. I'll look for LexisNexis sources and similar, but those are typically not public, so I thought I'd share that one with the list. I've found it on LexisNexis: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=tru erisb=21_T6406107890format=GNBFULLsort=BOOLEANstartDocNo=151resultsUrlK ey=29_T6406107893cisb=22_T6406107892treeMax=truetreeWidth=0csi=279841do cNo=152 (probably a better URL, but I don't know how to use LexisNexis!) The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
Then I suggest hitting contacts in local activist groups - eg ORG. Brian. -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 25 April 2009 02:05 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected 2009/4/25 Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org: Because WMUK would be so closely associated with the 501(c) WMF, I think Mike Godwin should be pointed at this. I appreciate various factors may make him unable to further involve himself, but you don't know what UK legal-eagle contacts he can point your way. Yeah, worth letting him know what is going on, but last time I spoke to Mike about UK lawyers he said the only ones he knew would charge us. We would like someone pro-bono if at all possible. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with education. I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case and see if I can find the details, but really we need someone can that combat legal nonsense with more legal nonsense - I can only illegal nonsense! I'm not sure I agree with the CC's decision, but it isn't a particularly quixotic one in the context of existing charity law, and I can see where it came from. Consider, for example, the notes at C4 here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publicbenefit/pbeduc.asp#c However, just giving people information is not necessarily educating them. The key is whether it is provided in such a way (however structured) that it is capable of educating them, rather than just adding to factual information. I think there are ways of interpreting this sort of thing so as to encompass what we do, but it's not unreasonable for them to interpret it differently. Note that there isn't really anything like us in any of the lists of examples! Approaching this from the position that the law is fundamentally being misapplied, and we need to tell them they're Doing It Wrong, is probably just going to set us up for some angry letters both ways, a quick fall, and being filed as vexatious - and the last thing we want is for us to blow the chance fully! A more effective approach would, perhaps, be to closely compare our submission to the regulations, and see if the use of a different perspective on what we plan to do, or a broadening of our aims, would perhaps fit more comfortably with the (slightly odd) letter of the regulations. After all, we have to fit into charity law *as it exists* if we're going to be a charity at all! (...and on which note, hrm. if we're not a charity, what are the practical implications of that? I assume with our small turnover it wouldn't make a *vast* difference, but...) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk: 2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with education. I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case and see if I can find the details, but really we need someone can that combat legal nonsense with more legal nonsense - I can only illegal nonsense! I'm not sure I agree with the CC's decision, but it isn't a particularly quixotic one in the context of existing charity law, and I can see where it came from. Consider, for example, the notes at C4 here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publicbenefit/pbeduc.asp#c However, just giving people information is not necessarily educating them. The key is whether it is provided in such a way (however structured) that it is capable of educating them, rather than just adding to factual information. I think there are ways of interpreting this sort of thing so as to encompass what we do, but it's not unreasonable for them to interpret it differently. Note that there isn't really anything like us in any of the lists of examples! But that isn't what they're interpreting. They quoted a specific case which they are clearly misapplying. That there are other arguments they could use that would be more justifiable isn't really the point. Approaching this from the position that the law is fundamentally being misapplied, and we need to tell them they're Doing It Wrong, is probably just going to set us up for some angry letters both ways, a quick fall, and being filed as vexatious - and the last thing we want is for us to blow the chance fully! We need a lawyer to tell them they are doing it wrong so they can do it in an appropriate way to avoid that happening. A more effective approach would, perhaps, be to closely compare our submission to the regulations, and see if the use of a different perspective on what we plan to do, or a broadening of our aims, would perhaps fit more comfortably with the (slightly odd) letter of the regulations. After all, we have to fit into charity law *as it exists* if we're going to be a charity at all! Broadening our aims certainly wouldn't help. Our aims need to be entirely charitable, extending them isn't going to remove any uncharitable parts. (...and on which note, hrm. if we're not a charity, what are the practical implications of that? I assume with our small turnover it wouldn't make a *vast* difference, but...) At the moment, it doesn't make a great deal of difference, you are right. It may well make a difference in the not too distant future, though. We need to work this all out ASAP. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org: Then I suggest hitting contacts in local activist groups - eg ORG. Yeah, I think Seddon is on that. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
