2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>: > 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.
I don't think there's "clear misapplication" here, but I think we're fated to disagree! To be honest, that's by the by - they've made their ruling, and we can abide by it or we can argue with it. The important thing is deciding where to go from here, and I think it's not nearly as clear a decision as it may seem. Fighting this is a legitimate desire, and I confess my first reaction as well, but it'll take a lot of time, a lot of effort, and the need to spend scarce money on legal fees. I have no doubt the board (or whoever the board is tomorrow) will happily throw themselves at it, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile investment of their time and energy at this stage. Charitable status is a good thing to have, but choosing to fight at great effort to get it, on an uncertain playing field, is going to have the real risk that we drift into focusing on that and not towards a dozen *productive* things we could be doing in the intervening years. Do we really want to make ourselves eternal hostages waiting on the Charity Commission's next ruling? If we *can* function as a not-legally-charitable-body, doing exactly the same things, then... well, I can't help but feel there's a lot to be said for doing just that. We can address this problem some time in the future, when we can point to things we have done, and have some basis for making it absolutely clear in *practice*, rather than just on paper, why our aims and activities are charitable. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk (who cannot, sadly, be in Manchester this afternoon...) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org