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