I tried asking this on the main mailing list, but thought I'd try here as well. I appreciate I'm probably overdoing but: * Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK. * The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is published. * By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published. * I am called an editor. Also note the [[McLibel case]]. Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them. Is it possible, based on the above, that a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible editors can be named in a suit if they have edited a page containing a libellous statement and failed to remove it. Would this mean UK editors are beholden to remove libel as it applies in UK courts in pages they edit? Would this place UK editors in conflict with Wikipedia? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05

Dear all A couple of quick points: - the name doesn't really matter that much: let's go for something reasonable, and concentrate our time on getting the objects and what it is going to DO, and how we are going to do it, right. It will be trading as something sensible. Yes, cheques etc would normally need to be made out to the official name, but I understand that can be changed with arrangement with the bank. - the only issue as I understand it with "Trust" is that the charity would be holding something in trust (ie on behalf of a common good) - like a pot of money or land, which is not suitable for what is being proposed - charities don't have to be limited companies, and limited companies don't have to be charities.However, it is recommended that charities that deal with a reasonable amount of money are limited companies, to limit the liability of the trustees/directors. I'm a a trustee of a charity that is not incorporated, so I have unlimited liability for anything the charity does - we've agreed that if we start to do bigger things, we'll incorporate. Charities that are limited companies are "limited by guarantee" rather than by shares, as a charity's primary purpose is not to make money for its shareholders, but to make a social return. Companies limited by shares (like Tesco) have shareholders, companies limited by guarantee have members (ie guarantors). The Memorandum has a statement in it saying what the maximum liability of each member is in the event of the organisation being wound up. Charities that are companies limited by guarantee have two types of people associated with them. They can overlap, but they do not have to be the same thing: 1) the people who set the strategic direction of the organisation - these are the trustees and directors - the terms are essentially interchangeable 2) the people who provide the guarantee - the members. In some cases, the members are the trustees. In other cases, they are not. http://www.voluntarymatters1and2.org/organisation/legal_matters/ index.html It is still unclear to me, frankly, whether for charities that seek to be membership organisations, the people who join as members for that organisation HAVE to be members in the sense of providing the nominal guarantee. I know that in the membership organisation I look after, that is the case, (in the event of us going belly-up, every member has to pay a pound) though we are not a charity. - the Charity Commission hates there being more than about 10 trustees - it prefers fewer. The trustees need to be able to meet, make decisions and work effectively - six to eight is usually a good number. It's the same with companies - how many do you really want on your board? - payments via paypal/nochex aren't that simple to set up, and other options require merchant accounts, which cost. www.givenow.org is fairly simple and works - see the link at http://www.rosentrust.org.uk/donate.html for an example of what it looks like without customisation. Finally, it is worth noting that if trustee meetings are to be conducted electronically, or by conference call, the articles must state this explicitly - see paragraph 9 of: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc48.asp#4 Best wishes Scott On Thursday, December 8, 2005, at 10:54 am, Gordon Joly wrote: ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/