Charity application rejected

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/25 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@...>:
> 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
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Andrew Whitworth-2]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Sean Whitton <sean@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 00:15, Michael Peel <email@...> 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.

Avoiding mention of Wikipedia would be a good start, it's a large and
popular website and any mention of it is bound to mix in peoples
preconceptions.

It may also be worthwhile to mention your support of Wikieducator, a
commonwealth-based charity which is both similar in some ways to
Wikiversity+Wikibooks. Wayne Mackintosh, a member of the WMF advisory
board is also a prominent member of Wikieducator, so maybe you could
get some support from him?

You also want to be clear that you are supporting MediaWiki, the
open-source software.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Andrew Turvey]

On Apr 25, 12:15 am, Michael Peel <em...@...> 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
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/25  <andrewrturvey@...>:

> On Apr 25, 12:15 am, Michael Peel <em...@...> 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
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Alison Wheeler-2]

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.

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.

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.

Best wishes for the future,

Alison Wheeler



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/25 Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@...>:

> 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
now.

> 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
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Virgin, Steve]

I am media consultant at dow jones and I am a member of this group and a member of wikimedia uk and I am not telling anyone.

When we are ready I can give anything the board wishes to emea editor at dow jones newswires personally. I also know editor of wall street journal too.

But nothing comes from me before the board sanctions it.

I am 'onside' and 'ally'. I want to help not be an obstacle.



-----Original Message-----
From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@...
To: wikimedia@...; wikimediauk-l@...
Sent: Sat Apr 25 14:12:55 2009
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected

2009/4/25 Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@...>:

> 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
now.

> 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
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Andrew Turvey]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Hi Alison,

Taking your points in turn:

1. "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."

I put the full letter received from HMRC in my original post. The relevant part of our letter to them - which was drafted by me and signed off by the Board - was:

"Wikimedia UK – the operating name of Wiki UK Limited – has been set up to support the “Wikipedia” website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, in ways that are compatible with UK charity law. These supporting actions all follow our ultimate aim of promoting education, culture and heritage. The Foundation is a US registered charity, but the rules are slightly different so Wikimedia UK has been established as an independent organisation, free to apply its funds as it chooses."

Supporting the Wikimedia projects is what we are here to do. I do not accept that I have misrepresented the chapter at all or that there would be any benefit in "retracting" anything. There has been no confusion. Dressing it up in different words won't change anything, and adding "charitable" to the Memorandum & Articles won't make HMRC look at it any differently. Wiki Educational Resources never got to the stage of applying for charity recognition, so we can't say that thet case would have been treated any differently.

Supporting Wikimedia projects is what we did in the Wikipedia Loves Art project and the Wikimania Conference planning - the two activities we were able to provide in our correspondence with HMRC. Focusing on a project other than Wikipedia would not help us at all - our activities have to be exclusively charitable so if supporting Wikipedia doesn't pass, then supporting a group of projects including Wikipedia won't pass either. Besides, Wikipedia is the most widely known project and in practice the one we'll spend most of our time supporting. That's the one everyone's heard of - so lets use it when talking to external people.

2. "with WMUKv1, I undertook a number of teaching / education activities"

WMUK also has plans for education activities - for instance http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Projects/Proposals#Schools_project . Hopefully this example can help us in our appeal.

3. "WMUK/WER has only ever been "a Charitable organisation" until such time as it may be recognised as such."

Not true. Being a charity is a matter of fact and not dependent on official recognition. As an organistion who reasonably considered themselves to be a charity, under the £5,000 Charity Commission limit and applying for HMRC recognition it was perfectly reasonable for us to describe ourselves as an "exempt charity" - which we occasionally did, albeit that most of the time we haven't seen the need to say anything at all about our charity status.

4. "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"

I don't accept this at all and it's not the way we've been doing things. We agreed at the outset that we would be open, transparant and participative - what we've done here is an example of this. We've always kept our supporters informed every step of the way. As soon as I received the letter I wanted to let our supporters on the email list know and have a broad debate about what we should do as a next step. The AGM will no doubt discuss this tomorrow as will the new Board in it's first meeting. There's no need to rush into anything and no advantage in keeping it under wraps and springing it on everyone tomorrow.

Having something discussed in public is not the same as contacting the press.

Andrew

---- Original Message -----
From: "Alison Wheeler" <wikimedia@...>
To: wikimediauk-l@...
Sent: Saturday, 25 April, 2009 14:04:15 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected

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.

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.

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.

Best wishes for the future,

Alison Wheeler



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[rupert.thurner-3]

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...@...> 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 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 law and be otherwise in acceptable  
> > charitable form so that the company could only carry out charitable  
> > activities.
>
> > The objects of Wiki UK Ltd are stated at clause 3 of its memorandum  
> > of association:
>
> > "The charity's Object is to aid and encourage people to collect,  
> > develop and effectively disseminate knowledge and other  
> > educational, cultural and historic content in the public domain or  
> > under a license that allows everyone to freely use, distribute and  
> > modify content, by means including (but not limited to):
>
> > [9 ways are them listed - for example 'acting as a voice and  
> > representative for the community of UK residents and citizens who  
> > use and edit such repositories'] "
>
> > 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. {We actually said "support the “Wikipedia”  
> > website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, in ways  
> > that are compatible with UK charity law"}
>
> > The stated objects are not charitable in law. The production of an  
> > encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of of education and  
> > has not been accepted as such in law. In Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729  
> > Mr Justice Harman said "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". Nor is the support the  
> > Wikipedia, the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd, a charitable  
> > purpose.
>
> > 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.
>
> > To help us improve customer service, please quote our reference  
> > number and provide a daytime telephone number in any correspondence.
>
> > Yours sincerely,
>
> > Higher Officer, Technical
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@...://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK:http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Andrew Gray-3]

2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:

> 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.gray@...

(who cannot, sadly, be in Manchester this afternoon...)

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Dahsun]

In reply to Andrew's comment as to wheher charitable status was a "worthwhile investment of their time and energy"

Of course we are all volunteers, and this may sound rich coming from someone who chose a barbecue in London over the AGM. But there are several reasons why we want charitable status, the tax advantage of being able to reclaim income tax on donations is considerable and IMHO justifies the hassle of Wikimedia having a formal UK operation.

But there's also a lot of extra credibility that you get from being a registered charity - many doors are open to a registered charity that would otherwise be closed.

So I would hope that the new board would make the attaining of charitable status one of their top objectives.


WereSpielChequers


--- On Sun, 26/4/09, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@...> wrote:

> From: Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@...>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
> To: wikimediauk-l@...
> Date: Sunday, 26 April, 2009, 1:29 PM
> 2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:
>
> > 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.gray@...
>
> (who cannot, sadly, be in Manchester this afternoon...)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l@...
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

     

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/27 Dahsun <dahsun@...>:
>
> In reply to Andrew's comment as to wheher charitable status was a "worthwhile investment of their time and energy"
>
> Of course we are all volunteers, and this may sound rich coming from someone who chose a barbecue in London over the AGM. But there are several reasons why we want charitable status, the tax advantage of being able to reclaim income tax on donations is considerable and IMHO justifies the hassle of Wikimedia having a formal UK operation.
>
> But there's also a lot of extra credibility that you get from being a registered charity - many doors are open to a registered charity that would otherwise be closed.
>
> So I would hope that the new board would make the attaining of charitable status one of their top objectives.

I agree. Even if it doesn't reduce our donations (which seems
extremely unlikely - people don't generally donate to non-charities)
then we still lose a significant amount of gift aid. Other
organisations are also going to be far more likely to partner with a
charity than a non-charity.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Gordon Joly]

At 11:35 +0100 25/4/09, Sean Whitton wrote:

>On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 00:15, Michael Peel <email@...> 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 / <sean@...>
>OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7
>
>____________

Well, yes, since Wikimedia and Wikipedia differ by a single letter....

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly@...///

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Gordon Joly]

>
>
>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.


I think the Register may have its talons in here...

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly@...///

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/27 Gordon Joly <gordon.joly@...>:
>>
>>
>>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.
>
>
> I think the Register may have its talons in here...

Maybe, but does anyone read The Register other than for BOFH and case
studies on bad journalism?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[David Gerard-2]

2009/4/27 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:

> Maybe, but does anyone read The Register other than for BOFH and case
> studies on bad journalism?


The hardware reviews are nice if a bit press-releasy ...


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Andrew Turvey]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

I can't see anything (yet) at http://www.theregister.co.uk/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Joly" <gordon.joly@...>
To: wikimediauk-l@...
Sent: Monday, 27 April, 2009 14:11:32 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected

>
>
>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.


I think the Register may have its talons in here...

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly@...///

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Gordon Joly]

At 14:50 +0100 27/4/09, David Gerard wrote:
>2009/4/27 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:
>
>>  Maybe, but does anyone read The Register other than for BOFH and case
>>  studies on bad journalism?
>
>
>The hardware reviews are nice if a bit press-releasy ...
>
>- d.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly@...///

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Peter Coombe]

And it's in. Good old Andrew Orlowski.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/

Pete / the wub

2009/4/27 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@...>:

> I can't see anything (yet) at http://www.theregister.co.uk/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gordon Joly" <gordon.joly@...>
> To: wikimediauk-l@...
> Sent: Monday, 27 April, 2009 14:11:32 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
> Portugal
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected
>
>>
>>
>>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.
>
>
> I think the Register may have its talons in here...
>
> Gordo
>
> --
> "Think Feynman"/////////
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> gordon.joly@...///
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l@...
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l@...
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Peter Coombe]

2009/4/27 Gordon Joly <gordon.joly@...>:

> At 14:50 +0100 27/4/09, David Gerard wrote:
>>2009/4/27 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>:
>>
>>>  Maybe, but does anyone read The Register other than for BOFH and case
>>>  studies on bad journalism?
>>
>>
>>The hardware reviews are nice if a bit press-releasy ...
>>
>>- d.
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/
>
> Gordo
>

Ah, I was 2 minutes too late. I should refresh more often!

Pete / the wub

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@...
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org