2009/4/25 Alison Wheeler <wikime...@alisonwheeler.com>:
> All,
> I cannot speak as to the formalities behind the current WMUK, but a number
> of points do arise.
> 1. "In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that
> the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the
> 'Wikipedia' website." if true, whomever wrote and signed off on those
> letters appears to have caused the initial confusion and, indeed, current
> problem. Somehow this needs to be retracted big time. In the WMUKv1
> Memorandum we had clearly separated ourselves from WMF/WP and wrote
> clearly Charitable (within the meaning of the relevant laws) terms to pass
> those hurdles. So far as I read the discussions for WMUKv2 the MoA wasn't
> so clear in that respect being much looser.

I think the objects in the MoA are fine, but too much emphasis has
been put on our connections to the WMF in other communications - the
same mistake was made with opening a bank account and caused
considerable delay. Hopefully everyone has learned from that mistake

> 2. From Re Shaw, Public Trustee v Day [1957] "(a) increase of knowledge is
> not a charitable purpose unless combined with an element of teaching or
> education," is one of their reasons for the rejection. Certainly, with
> WMUKv1, I undertook a number of teaching / education activities on behalf
> of the Chapter, including training days for the British Library et al.
> 3. Re Thomas's "We need either stop using the word "charity" entirely ..."
> I would suggest that it should never have been used in the first place.
> WMUK/WER has only ever been "a Charitable organisation" until such time as
> it may be recognised as such.

Exempt charities are charities and do not need to recognised by anyone
unless someone actually contests our charitable status and a judge
orders us to stop calling ourselves a charity - I doubt this HMRC
decision is enough, but we should err on the side of caution.

> 4. Regarding early comments about "going to the media", by definition once
> it was on this public list it is already there. Arguably the Directors and
> their advisors should have sorted out a position on these matters - and
> with the assistance of those at the AGM tomorrow - before making this
> public at all. Instead brewery matters come to mind.

Do many (any?) people from the media read this list? It is public
knowledge now, but that doesn't mean it is likely to end up in the
media unless we take action to make that happen.

Wikimedia UK mailing list
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to