2009/4/25 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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.