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