bristol indymedia: press release (pre-server seizure) (2)
- Thread starter WasGeri
- Start date
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
I have a question regarding the 'legal status' of BIMC - as in what sort of organisational model it employs (if any) - is it a 'limited company not for profit', a 'charity', a IPS or what?
Presumably to manage funds it has or may received it must have some sort of 'collective' bank account, together with some sort of 'accountancy practice' in place?
I understand that IMCUK holds an account with Triodos Bank in Bristol, so presumably it is some sort of 'legal' entity entitled 'The Independent Media Centre (IMC) UK' - the 'payee' for donations - although I am unaware of the nature of it's organisational structure. It just strikes me that if there is a bank account, there must be at least one authourised signatory to be able to release funds accrued.
My curiosity is aroused because this may have some bearing on how any prosecution might proceed - whether against an individual or against BIMC as an 'organisation'.
Also, because certain kinds of 'organisational model' (e.g. Industrial Provident Societies [IPS's]) are able to raise funds in different ways. This could be useful, as I understand legal costs can quickly mount up.
Presumably to manage funds it has or may received it must have some sort of 'collective' bank account, together with some sort of 'accountancy practice' in place?
I understand that IMCUK holds an account with Triodos Bank in Bristol, so presumably it is some sort of 'legal' entity entitled 'The Independent Media Centre (IMC) UK' - the 'payee' for donations - although I am unaware of the nature of it's organisational structure. It just strikes me that if there is a bank account, there must be at least one authourised signatory to be able to release funds accrued.
My curiosity is aroused because this may have some bearing on how any prosecution might proceed - whether against an individual or against BIMC as an 'organisation'.
Also, because certain kinds of 'organisational model' (e.g. Industrial Provident Societies [IPS's]) are able to raise funds in different ways. This could be useful, as I understand legal costs can quickly mount up.
I think that BIMC is an "unincorporated association".
This is a useful guide - even though it's a PDF:
http://www.pavs.org.uk/support/documents/Setting_up_a_group_pack.pdf
Initially I thought that your questions about BIMC's status were a bit of a side-issue, BB, but it turns out to be very pertinent:
"... an unincorporated association has no separate legal existence and remains for most purposes a collection of individuals. Any property or contracts would have to be held by individuals on behalf of the group, or any legal proceedings taken against the group would, in reality be against the individuals themselves, making them personally liable."
The implications of this seem to be:
* if someone felt maligned by BIMC (or a similar IMC in the UK) and sued for libel they could sue an individual member, not BIMC as a whole
* the defence that BIMC is a news organisation and is therefore entitled to protect its source fails. Any criminal prosecution would be against an individual member, not against the organisation. Presumably the individual could run a similar defence that they are a journalist and therefore entitled to protect their source. Not a position that I'd like to be in, though.
* individual members of BIMC (or similar IMC in the UK) who accept money on behalf of BIMC may be liable for tax or have it taken into account re. their welfare benefits.
The above points are my interpretation based on reading a few websites so may well be completely wrong!
This is another informative site:
http://www.kessler.co.uk/tpfc/tpfc-chapter1.html
Scroll down to the section "Temporary Charities: unicorporated associations".
"An "unincorporated association" is an organisation where a number of people join together for a common purpose (not a business purpose), whose relationship is governed by rules arising under a contract made between each member. Clubs and societies will generally have the status of an unincorporated association unless specific steps are taken to set up a company or a trust. An unincorporated association is a "body of persons" and thus treated as a company for tax purposes: see the definition in s.832(1) ICTA 1988."
This is a useful guide - even though it's a PDF:
http://www.pavs.org.uk/support/documents/Setting_up_a_group_pack.pdf
Initially I thought that your questions about BIMC's status were a bit of a side-issue, BB, but it turns out to be very pertinent:
"... an unincorporated association has no separate legal existence and remains for most purposes a collection of individuals. Any property or contracts would have to be held by individuals on behalf of the group, or any legal proceedings taken against the group would, in reality be against the individuals themselves, making them personally liable."
The implications of this seem to be:
* if someone felt maligned by BIMC (or a similar IMC in the UK) and sued for libel they could sue an individual member, not BIMC as a whole
* the defence that BIMC is a news organisation and is therefore entitled to protect its source fails. Any criminal prosecution would be against an individual member, not against the organisation. Presumably the individual could run a similar defence that they are a journalist and therefore entitled to protect their source. Not a position that I'd like to be in, though.
* individual members of BIMC (or similar IMC in the UK) who accept money on behalf of BIMC may be liable for tax or have it taken into account re. their welfare benefits.
The above points are my interpretation based on reading a few websites so may well be completely wrong!
This is another informative site:
http://www.kessler.co.uk/tpfc/tpfc-chapter1.html
Scroll down to the section "Temporary Charities: unicorporated associations".
"An "unincorporated association" is an organisation where a number of people join together for a common purpose (not a business purpose), whose relationship is governed by rules arising under a contract made between each member. Clubs and societies will generally have the status of an unincorporated association unless specific steps are taken to set up a company or a trust. An unincorporated association is a "body of persons" and thus treated as a company for tax purposes: see the definition in s.832(1) ICTA 1988."
inks said:
This is bollocks.
And your experience of media law is what?
And your motive for discussing matters that may well come up in a court case is what?
inks said:
So... what's this all about then? Is it perhaps the same old shit as got the other threads binned, but dressed up in a salad of legalistic words?
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
inks, you are but the merest whisper away from your tagline being changed to 'banned as fuck'
Anyway, this is a line from an article that I linked to above:
"... or any legal proceedings taken against the group would, in reality be against the individuals themselves, making them personally liable..."
I don't see how an individual could claim to be a news organisation. Any legal action taken against 'BIMC' would actually be taken against individual members, it seems.
From one BIM press statement:
"Bristol Indymedia considered that the system was journalistic material covered by special provision under the law."
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/315147.html
That would place the individual being sued needing to prevent a defence that they are a journalist, as I read it.
What's your interpretation?
"... or any legal proceedings taken against the group would, in reality be against the individuals themselves, making them personally liable..."
I don't see how an individual could claim to be a news organisation. Any legal action taken against 'BIMC' would actually be taken against individual members, it seems.
From one BIM press statement:
"Bristol Indymedia considered that the system was journalistic material covered by special provision under the law."
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/315147.html
That would place the individual being sued needing to prevent a defence that they are a journalist, as I read it.
What's your interpretation?
inks said:
That incorporation has no effect whatsoever on whether journalistic material is involved.
But that it is relevant to anyone wanting to dicuss how to inflict maximum damage on individuals involved.
And your point is?
Adds: and would you like to answer the questions?
Or does your reference to "character attack", when I'd not mentioned character, itself provide the answers?
"That incorporation has no effect whatsoever on whether journalistic material is involved."
Probably true - sort of. The material remains the same.
The difference is the ground that you're basing a defence on.
"I am a journalist and entitled to the legal protection of my sources"
is a different basis for a defence from:
"BIMC [or similar IMC] is a news organisation and therefore entitled to legal protection of its sources"
I think that it would be legally easier to establish who is and who isn't a journalist, probably membership of the NUJ would come into it, for example.
Establishing whether BIMC [or similar IMC] is a news organisation would be more complicated and open to interpretation. And more precedent making.
Probably true - sort of. The material remains the same.
The difference is the ground that you're basing a defence on.
"I am a journalist and entitled to the legal protection of my sources"
is a different basis for a defence from:
"BIMC [or similar IMC] is a news organisation and therefore entitled to legal protection of its sources"
I think that it would be legally easier to establish who is and who isn't a journalist, probably membership of the NUJ would come into it, for example.
Establishing whether BIMC [or similar IMC] is a news organisation would be more complicated and open to interpretation. And more precedent making.
"The law refers to journalistic material. Show me the law that refers to "news organisations"."
A link to the relevant legislation would be interesting, if you've got anything. Is there a definition of "journalistic material"?
I am interested (as I suspect many people will be) because I run a news site, like many others who've started their own amateur blogs / boards. With my last site I twice got threatened with legal action, one I decided to take no action on despite receiving communication from an actual law firm and everything, and the second I deleted the relevant posts (I'm not messing with The Guardian's lawyers - not with their track record!).
Whether posts on BIMC fit the definition of journalistic material would be an interesting legal debate, I think. One that will happen sooner or later although probably not on this occasion. When it does happen it may have implications for a lot of UK based interactive websites.
The incorporation (actually unincorporation) thing is relevant because it defines who the current legal action is being taken against. That's quite important - especially to the person who is currently facing criminal prosecution!
A link to the relevant legislation would be interesting, if you've got anything. Is there a definition of "journalistic material"?
I am interested (as I suspect many people will be) because I run a news site, like many others who've started their own amateur blogs / boards. With my last site I twice got threatened with legal action, one I decided to take no action on despite receiving communication from an actual law firm and everything, and the second I deleted the relevant posts (I'm not messing with The Guardian's lawyers - not with their track record!).
Whether posts on BIMC fit the definition of journalistic material would be an interesting legal debate, I think. One that will happen sooner or later although probably not on this occasion. When it does happen it may have implications for a lot of UK based interactive websites.
The incorporation (actually unincorporation) thing is relevant because it defines who the current legal action is being taken against. That's quite important - especially to the person who is currently facing criminal prosecution!
Ah - is this relevant:
"3.12 Confidential journalistic material includes material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism and held subject to an undertaking to hold it in confidence, as well as communications resulting in information being acquired for the purposes of journalism and held subject to such an undertaking."
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/crimreduc/regulation/codeofpractice/surveillance/part3.html
Too late in the night for me to unpick that though.
"3.12 Confidential journalistic material includes material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism and held subject to an undertaking to hold it in confidence, as well as communications resulting in information being acquired for the purposes of journalism and held subject to such an undertaking."
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/crimreduc/regulation/codeofpractice/surveillance/part3.html
Too late in the night for me to unpick that though.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
I think suing Indymedia for libel is a completely hatstand idea....I only know one person who has sued for libel successfully and he had tens of thousands in his bank account at the time and the libel was widely reported in the national media and the libelled person was also widely heard of.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
.....and if you sue someone successfully for libel it helps if the person/organisation you are suing actually has some dosh in the first place.
on_the_fly
New Member
yawn
MORE BIM
MORE BIM
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
innit? I'm losing the will to live regarding all this, and I'm getting mightily pissed off that Urban is being used as a platform for the spats surrounding the whole sorry fiasco. There are a number of posters who have registered here for no other purpose.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Well, madzone, you have also brought it up on 'neutral threads' and are part of the problem too, but at least you post on other threads about other stuff too, and didn't register solely to bang on about BIM.
on_the_fly
New Member
madzone said:Easy tiger
I got abused to fuck for saying the same thing.
Fine abvuse me but this is well past its sell by date IMO and my opinion is my own and ill stick to it no matter who tried to change it....
Some of us are still interested in the BIM debate, and want to continue discussing it in a civilised manner here on Urban75.
All you and madzone and other uninterested people need to do is ignore the few remaining BIM-related threads.
Please.
All you and madzone and other uninterested people need to do is ignore the few remaining BIM-related threads.
Please.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
update
just noticed this small posting on bim:
http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=24352
the volunteer who was originally arrested has been in answer bail this month, but still hasn't been charged with anything.
bim is still asking for financial support for legal fees.
just noticed this small posting on bim:
http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=24352
the volunteer who was originally arrested has been in answer bail this month, but still hasn't been charged with anything.
bim is still asking for financial support for legal fees.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
Isambard said:
I guess until the Crown Prosecution Service have had a long look at it, which could be months and months and months......
Consider it as being moved to a slightly warmer corner of limbo,
Or a few steps up from the pits of hell, in a quiet waiting room.
What could they be charged with ? Incitement or conspiracy to cause criminal damage or endanger railway traffic I suppose.
But any evidence would be on the servers that were seized.
How long does the bail term run for? I'm hoping the CPS realise there is no evidence, there was no crime (quite possibly the original "stone dropper" BIM poster might have have been bullshitting) and they will close the file.
But any evidence would be on the servers that were seized.
How long does the bail term run for? I'm hoping the CPS realise there is no evidence, there was no crime (quite possibly the original "stone dropper" BIM poster might have have been bullshitting) and they will close the file.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
Isambard said:
Sorry, I can't really respond any further. Anything I may say may reveal certain legal thinking. Needless to say the police case is very tenuous, given that they have referred it to CPS.
(cue the frothing trolls claiming whatever they are claiming!).
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
Isambard said:No worries you keeping local knowledge for local people Munkeeunit!
I just hope that the BIM volunteers come out of it OK and the issue will be closed and that we have learnt from it.
Thanks very much.
