Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis: > Em Sex, 2005-09-02 =E0s 18:38 +0100, MJ Ray escreveu: > > [...] I think charities should get some special consideration > > because law enforces some level of openness and honour not > > required of other organisations. > > I must remember that you're restrictive to UK law.
Did you mean that as agressively as I read it? I'm not restrictive, but English law is what I'm most familiar with, so if I generalise brokenly, or you use another place's law, corrections or explanations are needed. Maybe I should have named www.charitycommission.gov.uk before, for example. Where do charities exist but not need any openness or honour? > In Brasil, for > instance, there is no such thing as "charity organization". Then no groups would get special consideration from that clause of my suggestion. What's the problem? [...] > So, a NGO (even a OCIP) is allowed to trade things, because the question > (in the brazillian sense) is if there is profit or not. I mean, selling > something for a value greater than the cost is *not* profit. Profit (in > the brazillian sense) is the value that is shared among share-holders > after the balance. That sounds more like dividends than profits to me. It's debatable whether DUS's meals and booze-ups is paying members dividends-in-kind or funding promotional events. Amike, -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]