Paul C. Dickie pcd-sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk, 25 Oct 2005 19:23:52
>In message <380-2200510124184248797@M2W055.mail2web.com>,
wrote:
>>Have a look at www.sharkinfestedwaters.net - lots of interesting
>>images. The people behind it would want at least their expenses
>>covering, though, if you wanted anything specially shot.
>
>How about getting someone specially shot? o-)
>Or would an ordinary shooting suffice?
>
>I've got a little list, they never will be missed....
As someday it may happen that a victim must be found...
It's odd, but I'd never considered you to be a tailor; a dressmaker,
perhaps...
--
< Paul >
< ... who also knows the *meaning* of Miya-Sama...>
kinkiminx, 25 Oct 2005 20:24:55
Sounds like a better idea to recreate images or come up with new ideas, not only does it avoid copyright problems but I think it would probably be more saleable if it hasn't been seen before. If you decide to make one, I'm happy to model for it (free) and know a few photographers who might be interested.
demolitionred, 26 Oct 2005 06:22:12
Sorry, I'm still unclear.
The current laws aren't in place yet and the calendar may or may not be on the net. (I suggest we should put it up)
since the images have been passeds by the BBFC they are not illegal but could become ilegal under theseproosals is taken as stills...so I think we're ok on that front?
as for the copyright, how close to the original would the image have to be to be in infringemnet?
Can we not do scenes that have appeared in films/on TV that could fall foul of the law?
clare, 26 Oct 2005 06:42:34
I don't think there is a copyright problem. As long as the photographer are using their own effort and skill so that it is an "original work" and not a copy, there is no infringement. A new photo with different models etc cannot be a copy of the original image. It is only a copy of the idea, and there is no copyright in ideas.
There is a problem with the Obscene Publications Act. The fact that images of similar scenarios in different contexts have been passed by the BBFC doesn't mean these images would be not be considered obscene by the police. It's a risk. And considering that the images will be more than mild bondage and fetish, it is a big risk.
It is not Backlash with only £1000 in the bank that risks prosecution, but the individuals who publish and distribute it.
It would no doubt be a very interesting trial, since all the images are based on images passed by the BBFC. But it would be the police/CPS who chose to mount the prosecution, not the BBFC.
Edited to add: There is a defence of "public good", which means that publication is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other *objects of general concern*.
I haven't looked at whether the public good defence would include political commentary, although I would imagine that it would.
Author wrote:
> Sorry, I'm still unclear.
> The current laws aren't in place yet and the calendar may or may not be on the net. (I suggest we should put it up)
> since the images have been passeds by the BBFC they are not illegal but could become ilegal under theseproosals is taken as stills...so I think we're ok on that front?
> as for the copyright, how close to the original would the image have to be to be in infringemnet?
> Can we not do scenes that have appeared in films/on TV that could fall foul of the law?
*** This message has been edited by clare on 26 Oct 2005 06:48:14 ***
Manniq, 26 Oct 2005 08:16:24
No, dem: this is one of the dishonesties within the government proposal.
Both the OPA and the BBFC are able to take a work 'as a whole'. That means they can say that although specific scenes taken on their own might be obscene or abhorrent, they are integral to the whole of the artistic enterprise and as they only form a minute part of it, can stay.
That means, as various people have noted, that taking odd scenes out of films passed by the BBFC would probably fall foul of the government proposal - and could fall foul of current law, in the sense that by placing them on a calendar or t-shirt, someone would be publishing them and thus be responsible for an obscene publicaiton.
An argument of this sort occurred when the West Midlands police seized a publically available book of images by Mapplethorpe. Thrown out in the end (the case, not the book!) because the questionable images made up a tiny percentage of the whole - but had they been published separately, say on a postcard, they could have been problematic.
Basically, a string of images, currently published as a film, can be OK'd by the BBFC.
Individual images taken from that film could still be obscene - and under current law the PUBLISHERS of those images could be in trouble.
The government proposal would apply that same principle to the possessors of those images.
So no more late night vidcapping for you!
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Sorry, I'm still unclear.
> The current laws aren't in place yet and the calendar may or may not be on the net. (I suggest we should put it up)
> since the images have been passeds by the BBFC they are not illegal but could become ilegal under theseproosals is taken as stills...so I think we're ok on that front?
> as for the copyright, how close to the original would the image have to be to be in infringemnet?
> Can we not do scenes that have appeared in films/on TV that could fall foul of the law?
Manniq, 26 Oct 2005 08:22:04
Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material - and Backlash members.
Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still would not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Police thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was by protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
Regards,
M
P.S. The serious other point is that some local councils now control political debate by arbitrarily 'fining' organisations whose literature clutters up their high streets. Makes handing out of flyers much harder - and again, would open Backlash to high costs if, say, we handed out flyers at a particular club, a percentage ended up scattered around a street, and a council decided to levy a charge. Such a charge would be low level from their perspective - but again, capable of wiping out our current funds.
I really, really think that we should have some way of distancing Backlash the pressure group from Backlash the publisher of leaflets, flyers, calendars, etc.
Author wrote:
> I don't think there is a copyright problem. As long as the photographer are using their own effort and skill so that it is an "original work" and not a copy, there is no infringement. A new photo with different models etc cannot be a copy of the original image. It is only a copy of the idea, and there is no copyright in ideas.
> There is a problem with the Obscene Publications Act. The fact that images of similar scenarios in different contexts have been passed by the BBFC doesn't mean these images would be not be considered obscene by the police. It's a risk. And considering that the images will be more than mild bondage and fetish, it is a big risk.
> It is not Backlash with only £1000 in the bank that risks prosecution, but the individuals who publish and distribute it.
> It would no doubt be a very interesting trial, since all the images are based on images passed by the BBFC. But it would be the police/CPS who chose to mount the prosecution, not the BBFC.
> Edited to add: There is a defence of "public good", which means that publication is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other *objects of general concern*.
> I haven't looked at whether the public good defence would include political commentary, although I would imagine that it would.
> Author wrote:
> > Sorry, I'm still unclear.
> > The current laws aren't in place yet and the calendar may or may not be on the net. (I suggest we should put it up)
> > since the images have been passeds by the BBFC they are not illegal but could become ilegal under theseproosals is taken as stills...so I think we're ok on that front?
> > as for the copyright, how close to the original would the image have to be to be in infringemnet?
> > Can we not do scenes that have appeared in films/on TV that could fall foul of the law?
>
>
clare, 26 Oct 2005 08:44:42
Avoiding liability by incorporation is not necessarily that straight forward. It could have the opposite effect. This is not the place to go into why.
Nor is it really the time, maybe after consultation is finished.
Because it raises difficult questions for the calendar, and those issues would be the same for the exhibition, I'm thinking we should deal with both ideas together after the consultation has finished and we have time to address the problems with the thoroughness they deserve.
Author wrote:
> Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material - and Backlash members.
> Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still would not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Police thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was by protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
> Regards,
> M
> P.S. The serious other point is that some local councils now control political debate by arbitrarily 'fining' organisations whose literature clutters up their high streets. Makes handing out of flyers much harder - and again, would open Backlash to high costs if, say, we handed out flyers at a particular club, a percentage ended up scattered around a street, and a council decided to levy a charge. Such a charge would be low level from their perspective - but again, capable of wiping out our current funds.
> I really, really think that we should have some way of distancing Backlash the pressure group from Backlash the publisher of leaflets, flyers, calendars, etc.
>
Manniq, 26 Oct 2005 08:52:51
With respect - which really means I am going to disagree.... yes, there are some things that can wait (such as the exhibition).
But things are happening NOW. Flyers are being published now. And ideas for publishing (T-shirts, calendars, etc.) are coming out now. These all have a liability aspect. They also have a timetable and lead time: you can't just say 'tomorrow I will publish x'.
Small things will need a week or two from idea to delivery Big stuff will take months.
So unless we say that as a campaign we will just not think about producing anything until after the consultation, we need to have some idea and understanding of the legal framework in which we are operating ASAP. Because that framework will influence what we produce and how we produce it.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Avoiding liability by incorporation is not necessarily that straight forward. It could have the opposite effect. This is not the place to go into why.
> Nor is it really the time, maybe after consultation is finished.
> Because it raises difficult questions for the calendar, and those issues would be the same for the exhibition, I'm thinking we should deal with both ideas together after the consultation has finished and we have time to address the problems with the thoroughness they deserve.
> Author wrote:
> > Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material - and Backlash members.
> > Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still would not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Police thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was by protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > P.S. The serious other point is that some local councils now control political debate by arbitrarily 'fining' organisations whose literature clutters up their high streets. Makes handing out of flyers much harder - and again, would open Backlash to high costs if, say, we handed out flyers at a particular club, a percentage ended up scattered around a street, and a council decided to levy a charge. Such a charge would be low level from their perspective - but again, capable of wiping out our current funds.
> > I really, really think that we should have some way of distancing Backlash the pressure group from Backlash the publisher of leaflets, flyers, calendars, etc.
> >
Mick, 26 Oct 2005 09:47:20
I understand that producing a T-shirt with an illegal image might have a liability aspect but surely a T-shirt with a Backlash slogan (much the same as the Anti-hunting Tshirts) cannot be a problem?
Mick_H
========================================
Message Received: Oct 26 2005, 08:53 AM
manniq@hotmail.com, 26 Oct 2005 09:47:20
Cc:
With respect - which really means I am going to disagree.... yes, there are some things that can wait (such as the exhibition).
But things are happening NOW. Flyers are being published now. And ideas for publishing (T-shirts, calendars, etc.) are coming out now. These all have a liability aspect. They also have a timetable and lead time: you can't just say 'tomorrow I will publish x'.
Small things will need a week or two from idea to delivery Big stuff will take months.
So unless we say that as a campaign we will just not think about producing anything until after the consultation, we need to have some idea and understanding of the legal framework in which we are operating ASAP. Because that framework will influence what we produce and how we produce it.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Avoiding liability by incorporation is not necessarily that straight forward. It could have the opposite effect. This is not the place to go into why.
> Nor is it really the time, maybe after consultation is finished.
> Because it raises difficult questions for the calendar, and those issues would be the same for the exhibition, I'm thinking we should deal with both ideas together after the consultation has finished and we have time to address the problems with the thoroughness they deserve.
> Author wrote:
> > Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material - and Backlash members.
> > Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still would not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Police thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was by protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > P.S. The serious other point is that some local councils now control political debate by arbitrarily 'fining' organisations whose literature clutters up their high streets. Makes handing out of flyers much harder - and again, would open Backlash to high costs if, say, we handed out flyers at a particular club, a percentage ended up scattered around a street, and a council decided to levy a charge. Such a charge would be low level from their perspective - but again, capable of wiping out our current funds.
> > I really, really think that we should have some way of distancing Backlash the pressure group from Backlash the publisher of leaflets, flyers, calendars, etc.
> >
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2466
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
demolitionred, 26 Oct 2005 10:09:06
T-shirts cost loads and are a high price item. We still have unfettered ones left over....
demolitionred, 26 Oct 2005 10:11:42
Ok. so. the only people they can really trace is bobbette and I cos we 're registreed with IC...what can they do to me? Bobette probably doesn't want to expose himself.
and how realistic is all this?
Given a) most people don't know we exist.
b) people copyright images on flyers all the time....
Manniq, 26 Oct 2005 10:46:12
Everything has a liability aspect. Its just that there are different liabilities according to what you happen to do. If the t-shirt has just got a slogan on it, then fine and fair enough in terms of obscenity. But there could be all sorts of issues that the local police MIGHT decide to take up with the wearer or publishers, according to whether they decide to pull you in.
A bit like the sinking feeling you get if you are in a car that's just been MOT'd and are stopped by the traffic cops: if they want to, they probably will find SOMETHING.
istr that an anti-Iraq protestor got booked by his local police for a slogan on his t-shirt.
There are two reasons I tend to be very wary of this whole liability thing.
First, because in the dim and distant, I worked as an parliamentary agent - and what is drummed in to you then is that you and the candidate are wholly and personally liable for whatever goes wrong in the campaign. And I have personally known individuals who were driven to bankruptcy by vindictive opponents picking on every little detail of a campaign after the event. One area that has always been a favourite focus for this sort of tactic has been leaflets.
Second, although we might like to think we are fairly free in this country, there are a load of impediments to speech - again, espesh in the area of publishing. In the '70's, a fairly infamous political case (one of the first bits of politics I was involved with) was the 'Incitement to Disaffection' case, brought by the government against a number of peace activists.
Basically, these individuals handed out leaflets to soldiers informing them of their rights if they wished to leave the army (and, if memory serves, also telling them how to desert). The case found its way, I think, to the Court of Appeal.
In 1968, individuals handing out anti-Vietnam war leaflets were prosecuted under the Public Order Act.
None of the above should be taken as reasons for us NOT to do stuff. It should, however, be taken as reason for us to be careful, given that we are taking on a government with a track record in extreme control freakery.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> I understand that producing a T-shirt with an illegal image might have a liability aspect but surely a T-shirt with a Backlash slogan (much the same as the Anti-hunting Tshirts) cannot be a problem?
> Mick_H
> ========================================
> Message Received: Oct 26 2005, 08:53 AM
: manniq@hotmail.com, 26 Oct 2005 10:46:12
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [backlash] a backlash calendar?
> With respect - which really means I am going to disagree.... yes, there are some things that can wait (such as the exhibition).
> But things are happening NOW. Flyers are being published now. And ideas for publishing (T-shirts, calendars, etc.) are coming out now. These all have a liability aspect. They also have a timetable and lead time: you can't just say 'tomorrow I will publish x'.
> Small things will need a week or two from idea to delivery Big stuff will take months.
> So unless we say that as a campaign we will just not think about producing anything until after the consultation, we need to have some idea and understanding of the legal framework in which we are operating ASAP. Because that framework will influence what we produce and how we produce it.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Avoiding liability by incorporation is not necessarily that straight forward. It could have the opposite effect. This is not the place to go into why.
> > Nor is it really the time, maybe after consultation is finished.
> > Because it raises difficult questions for the calendar, and those issues would be the same for the exhibition, I'm thinking we should deal with both ideas together after the consultation has finished and we have time to address the problems with the thoroughness they deserve.
> > Author wrote:
> > > Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material - and Backlash members.
> > > Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still would not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Police thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was by protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
> > > Regards,
> > > M
> > > P.S. The serious other point is that some local councils now control political debate by arbitrarily 'fining' organisations whose literature clutters up their high streets. Makes handing out of flyers much harder - and again, would open Backlash to high costs if, say, we handed out flyers at a particular club, a percentage ended up scattered around a street, and a council decided to levy a charge. Such a charge would be low level from their perspective - but again, capable of wiping out our current funds.
> > > I really, really think that we should have some way of distancing Backlash the pressure group from Backlash the publisher of leaflets, flyers, calendars, etc.
> > >
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2466
Graham Marsden, 26 Oct 2005 12:27:35
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> istr that an anti-Iraq protestor got booked by his local police
> for a slogan on his t-shirt.
I believe there was also a guy down here in Portsmouth three or four
years ago who was arrested for a "public order offence" after someone
took exception to him wearing a t-shirt saying "Cool as Fuck"!
Cheers,
Graham.
Mick, 26 Oct 2005 14:04:25
Surely if I stand outside the House of Parliament with a T-shirt saying "I disagree with this proposed law" I have less chance of being arrested than if I stand there with a T-shirt saying "Fuck you and your laws" though I do appreciate your point of view. The consensus would appear to be against T-shirts at present (unless someone can seriously reduce the cost) so there is probably no need to discus the matter further at this stage though there may be concerns as to what to write on a banner if people ever need to march to oppose any future law.
Mick_H
========================================
Message Received: Oct 26 2005, 10:46 AM
manniq@hotmail.com, 26 Oct 2005 14:04:25
Cc:
Everything has a liability aspect. Its just that there are different liabilities according to what you happen to do. If the t-shirt has just got a slogan on it, then fine and fair enough in terms of obscenity. But there could be all sorts of issues that the local police MIGHT decide to take up with the wearer or publishers, according to whether they decide to pull you in.
A bit like the sinking feeling you get if you are in a car that's just been MOT'd and are stopped by the traffic cops: if they want to, they probably will find SOMETHING.
istr that an anti-Iraq protestor got booked by his local police for a slogan on his t-shirt.
There are two reasons I tend to be very wary of this whole liability thing.
First, because in the dim and distant, I worked as an parliamentary agent - and what is drummed in to you then is that you and the candidate are wholly and personally liable for whatever goes wrong in the campaign. And I have personally known individuals who were driven to bankruptcy by vindictive opponents picking on every little detail of a campaign after the event. One area that has always been a favourite focus for this sort of tactic has been leaflets.
Second, although we might like to think we are fairly free in this country, there are a load of impediments to speech - again, espesh in the area of publishing. In the '70's, a fairly infamous political case (one of the first bits of politics I was involved with) was the 'Incitement to Disaffection' case, brought by the government against a number of peace activists.
Basically, these individuals handed out leaflets to soldiers informing them of their rights if they wished to leave the army (and, if memory serves, also telling them how to desert). The case found its way, I think, to the Court of Appeal.
In 1968, individuals handing out anti-Vietnam war leaflets were prosecuted under the Public Order Act.
None of the above should be taken as reasons for us NOT to do stuff. It should, however, be taken as reason for us to be careful, given that we are taking on a government with a track record in extreme control freakery.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> I understand that producing a T-shirt with an illegal image might have a liability aspect but surely a T-shirt with a Backlash slogan (much the same as the Anti-hunting Tshirts) cannot be a problem?
> Mick_H
> ========================================
> Message Received: Oct 26 2005, 08:53 AM
: manniq@hotmail.com, 26 Oct 2005 14:04:25
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [backlash] a backlash calendar?
> With respect - which really means I am going to disagree.... yes, there are some things that can wait (such as the exhibition).
> But things are happening NOW. Flyers are being published now. And ideas for publishing (T-shirts, calendars, etc.) are coming out now. These all have a liability aspect. They also have a timetable and lead time: you can't just say 'tomorrow I will publish x'.
> Small things will need a week or two from idea to delivery Big stuff will take months.
> So unless we say that as a campaign we will just not think about producing anything until after the consultation, we need to have some idea and understanding of the legal framework in which we are operating ASAP. Because that framework will influence what we produce and how we produce it.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Avoiding liability by incorporation is not necessarily that straight forward. It could have the opposite effect. This is not the place to go into why.
> > Nor is it really the time, maybe after consultation is finished.
> > Because it raises difficult questions for the calendar, and those issues would be the same for the exhibition, I'm thinking we should deal with both ideas together after the consultation has finished and we have time to address the problems with the thoroughness they deserve.
> > Author wrote:
> > > Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material - and Backlash members.
> > > Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still would not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Police thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was by protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
> > > Regards,
> > > M
> > > P.S. The serious other point is that some local councils now control political debate by arbitrarily 'fining' organisations whose literature clutters up their high streets. Makes handing out of flyers much harder - and again, would open Backlash to high costs if, say, we handed out flyers at a particular club, a percentage ended up scattered around a street, and a council decided to levy a charge. Such a charge would be low level from their perspective - but again, capable of wiping out our current funds.
> > > I really, really think that we should have some way of distancing Backlash the pressure group from Backlash the publisher of leaflets, flyers, calendars, etc.
> > >
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2466
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2473
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
clare, 26 Oct 2005 14:49:05
Don't forget that there is a demonstration exclusion zone around Parliament, because Mr Haw was too noisy for the local comooonity. These days you need advance permission to protest there.
Author wrote:
> Surely if I stand outside the House of Parliament with a T-shirt saying "I disagree with this proposed law" I have less chance of being arrested than if I stand there with a T-shirt saying "Fuck you and your laws" though I do appreciate your point of view. The consensus would appear to be against T-shirts at present (unless someone can seriously reduce the cost) so there is probably no need to discus the matter further at this stage though there may be concerns as to what to write on a banner if people ever need to march to oppose any future law.
> Mick_H
> ========================================
> Message Received: Oct 26 2005, 10:46 AM
: manniq@hotmail.com, 26 Oct 2005 14:49:05
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [backlash] a backlash calendar?
> Everything has a liability aspect. Its just that there are different liabilities according to what you happen to do. If the t-shirt has just got a slogan on it, then fine and fair enough in terms of obscenity. But there could be all sorts of issues that the local police MIGHT decide to take up with the wearer or publishers, according to whether they decide to pull you in.
> A bit like the sinking feeling you get if you are in a car that's just been MOT'd and are stopped by the traffic cops: if they want to, they probably will find SOMETHING.
> istr that an anti-Iraq protestor got booked by his local police for a slogan on his t-shirt.
> There are two reasons I tend to be very wary of this whole liability thing.
> First, because in the dim and distant, I worked as an parliamentary agent - and what is drummed in to you then is that you and the candidate are wholly and personally liable for whatever goes wrong in the campaign. And I have personally known individuals who were driven to bankruptcy by vindictive opponents picking on every little detail of a campaign after the event. One area that has always been a favourite focus for this sort of tactic has been leaflets.
> Second, although we might like to think we are fairly free in this country, there are a load of impediments to speech - again, espesh in the area of publishing. In the '70's, a fairly infamous political case (one of the first bits of politics I was involved with) was the 'Incitement to Disaffection' case, brought by the government against a number of peace activists.
> Basically, these individuals handed out leaflets to soldiers informing them of their rights if they wished to leave the army (and, if memory serves, also telling them how to desert). The case found its way, I think, to the Court of Appeal.
> In 1968, individuals handing out anti-Vietnam war leaflets were prosecuted under the Public Order Act.
> None of the above should be taken as reasons for us NOT to do stuff. It should, however, be taken as reason for us to be careful, given that we are taking on a government with a track record in extreme control freakery.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > I understand that producing a T-shirt with an illegal image might have a liability aspect but surely a T-shirt with a Backlash slogan (much the same as the Anti-hunting Tshirts) cannot be a problem?
> > Mick_H
> > ========================================
> > Message Received: Oct 26 2005, 08:53 AM
om: manniq@hotmail.com, 26 Oct 2005 14:49:05
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: [backlash] a backlash calendar?
> > With respect - which really means I am going to disagree.... yes, there are some things that can wait (such as the exhibition).
> > But things are happening NOW. Flyers are being published now. And ideas for publishing (T-shirts, calendars, etc.) are coming out now. These all have a liability aspect. They also have a timetable and lead time: you can't just say 'tomorrow I will publish x'.
> > Small things will need a week or two from idea to delivery Big stuff will take months.
> > So unless we say that as a campaign we will just not think about producing anything until after the consultation, we need to have some idea and understanding of the legal framework in which we are operating ASAP. Because that framework will influence what we produce and how we produce it.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Avoiding liability by incorporation is not necessarily that straight forward. It could have the opposite effect. This is not the place to go into why.
> > > Nor is it really the time, maybe after consultation is finished.
> > > Because it raises difficult questions for the calendar, and those issues would be the same for the exhibition, I'm thinking we should deal with both ideas together after the consultation has finished and we have time to address the problems with the thoroughness they deserve.
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material - and Backlash members.
> > > > Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still would not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Police thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was by protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > M
> > > > P.S. The serious other point is that some local councils now control political debate by arbitrarily 'fining' organisations whose literature clutters up their high streets. Makes handing out of flyers much harder - and again, would open Backlash to high costs if, say, we handed out flyers at a particular club, a percentage ended up scattered around a street, and a council decided to levy a charge. Such a charge would be low level from their perspective - but again, capable of wiping out our current funds.
> > > > I really, really think that we should have some way of distancing Backlash the pressure group from Backlash the publisher of leaflets, flyers, calendars, etc.
> > > >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2466
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2473
Mick, 26 Oct 2005 15:22:51
Shows I'm from the sticks, what do I know, mind you it is understandable. (looks up at the title of this mail and thinks it has nothing to do with calenders)
Thanks
Mick
========================================
Message Received: Oct 26 2005, 02:49 PM
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 26 Oct 2005 15:22:51
Cc:
Don't forget that there is a demonstration exclusion zone around Parliament, because Mr Haw was too noisy for the local comooonity. These days you need advance permission to protest there.
Author wrote:
> Surely if I stand outside the House of Parliament with a T-shirt saying "I disagree with this proposed law" I have less chance of being arrested than if I stand there with a T-shirt saying "Fuck you and your laws" though I do appreciate your point of view. The consensus would appear to be against T-shirts at present (unless someone can seriously reduce the cost) so there is probably no need to discus the matter further at this stage though there may be concerns as to what to write on a banner if people ever need to march to oppose any future law.
> Mick_H
>
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
bobette, 26 Oct 2005 15:59:16
Author wrote:
> Ok. so. the only people they can really trace is bobbette and I cos we 're registreed with IC...what can they do to me? Bobette probably doesn't want to expose himself.
> and how realistic is all this?
> Given a) most people don't know we exist.
> b) people copyright images on flyers all the time....
I'm pretty 'out' anyway. I would like to do a calendar - i've got images that are perfectly OK that i've taken in clubs - needle play, thrashed bums, which 'could' fall foul of any new law.
Or exhibit them on a website called 'BANNED'! Just to demonstarte the sort of thing that couple fall foul of this legislation...
SnowdropExplodes, 26 Oct 2005 16:44:26
--- bob@citybikecouriers.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> Author wrote:
> > Ok. so. the only people they can really trace is
> bobbette and I cos we 're registreed with IC...what
> can they do to me? Bobette probably doesn't want to
> expose himself.
> > and how realistic is all this?
> > Given a) most people don't know we exist.
> > b) people copyright images on flyers all
> the time....
>
> I'm pretty 'out' anyway. I would like to do a
> calendar - i've got images that are perfectly OK
> that i've taken in clubs - needle play, thrashed
> bums, which 'could' fall foul of any new law.
>
> Or exhibit them on a website called 'BANNED'! Just
> to demonstarte the sort of thing that couple fall
> foul of this legislation...
I don't think you fully understand the legal issues
here.
Those images would almost certainly already be
restricted by the Obscene Publications Act, and if you
put them on a calendar or a website (whether or not
that website is based in the UK) you could go to
prison for 3 years. That is what the law is at
present, and this is explained in the consultation
paper.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Manniq, 26 Oct 2005 18:45:52
Actually, if you do that, you will probably now be arrested. You must have missed the recent government criminalisation of this type of activity. No. I'm not joking.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Surely if I stand outside the House of Parliament with a T-shirt saying "I disagree with this proposed law" I have less chance of being arrested than if I stand there with a T-shirt saying "Fuck you and your laws" though I do appreciate your point of view. The consensus would appear to be against T-shirts at present (unless someone can seriously reduce the cost) so there is probably no need to discus the matter further at this stage though there may be concerns as to what to write on a banner if people ever need to march to oppose any future law.
> Mick_H
> ========================================
> Message Received: Oct 26 2005, 10:46 AM
: manniq@hotmail.com, 26 Oct 2005 18:45:52
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [backlash] a backlash calendar?
> Everything has a liability aspect. Its just that there are different liabilities according to what you happen to do. If the t-shirt has just got a slogan on it, then fine and fair enough in terms of obscenity. But there could be all sorts of issues that the local police MIGHT decide to take up with the wearer or publishers, according to whether they decide to pull you in.
> A bit like the sinking feeling you get if you are in a car that's just been MOT'd and are stopped by the traffic cops: if they want to, they probably will find SOMETHING.
> istr that an anti-Iraq protestor got booked by his local police for a slogan on his t-shirt.
> There are two reasons I tend to be very wary of this whole liability thing.
> First, because in the dim and distant, I worked as an parliamentary agent - and what is drummed in to you then is that you and the candidate are wholly and personally liable for whatever goes wrong in the campaign. And I have personally known individuals who were driven to bankruptcy by vindictive opponents picking on every little detail of a campaign after the event. One area that has always been a favourite focus for this sort of tactic has been leaflets.
> Second, although we might like to think we are fairly free in this country, there are a load of impediments to speech - again, espesh in the area of publishing. In the '70's, a fairly infamous political case (one of the first bits of politics I was involved with) was the 'Incitement to Disaffection' case, brought by the government against a number of peace activists.
> Basically, these individuals handed out leaflets to soldiers informing them of their rights if they wished to leave the army (and, if memory serves, also telling them how to desert). The case found its way, I think, to the Court of Appeal.
> In 1968, individuals handing out anti-Vietnam war leaflets were prosecuted under the Public Order Act.
> None of the above should be taken as reasons for us NOT to do stuff. It should, however, be taken as reason for us to be careful, given that we are taking on a government with a track record in extreme control freakery.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > I understand that producing a T-shirt with an illegal image might have a liability aspect but surely a T-shirt with a Backlash slogan (much the same as the Anti-hunting Tshirts) cannot be a problem?
> > Mick_H
> > ========================================
> > Message Received: Oct 26 2005, 08:53 AM
om: manniq@hotmail.com, 26 Oct 2005 18:45:52
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: [backlash] a backlash calendar?
> > With respect - which really means I am going to disagree.... yes, there are some things that can wait (such as the exhibition).
> > But things are happening NOW. Flyers are being published now. And ideas for publishing (T-shirts, calendars, etc.) are coming out now. These all have a liability aspect. They also have a timetable and lead time: you can't just say 'tomorrow I will publish x'.
> > Small things will need a week or two from idea to delivery Big stuff will take months.
> > So unless we say that as a campaign we will just not think about producing anything until after the consultation, we need to have some idea and understanding of the legal framework in which we are operating ASAP. Because that framework will influence what we produce and how we produce it.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Avoiding liability by incorporation is not necessarily that straight forward. It could have the opposite effect. This is not the place to go into why.
> > > Nor is it really the time, maybe after consultation is finished.
> > > Because it raises difficult questions for the calendar, and those issues would be the same for the exhibition, I'm thinking we should deal with both ideas together after the consultation has finished and we have time to address the problems with the thoroughness they deserve.
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material - and Backlash members.
> > > > Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still would not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Police thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was by protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > M
> > > > P.S. The serious other point is that some local councils now control political debate by arbitrarily 'fining' organisations whose literature clutters up their high streets. Makes handing out of flyers much harder - and again, would open Backlash to high costs if, say, we handed out flyers at a particular club, a percentage ended up scattered around a street, and a council decided to levy a charge. Such a charge would be low level from their perspective - but again, capable of wiping out our current funds.
> > > > I really, really think that we should have some way of distancing Backlash the pressure group from Backlash the publisher of leaflets, flyers, calendars, etc.
> > > >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2466
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2473
zak, 26 Oct 2005 20:39:03
Original Message:
-----------------
-OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 26 Oct 2005 20:39:03
--- bob@citybikecouriers.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> Author wrote:
> > Ok. so. the only people they can really trace is
> bobbette and I cos we 're registreed with IC...what
> can they do to me? Bobette probably doesn't want to
> expose himself.
> > and how realistic is all this?
> > Given a) most people don't know we exist.
> > b) people copyright images on flyers all
> the time....
>
> I'm pretty 'out' anyway. I would like to do a
> calendar - i've got images that are perfectly OK
> that i've taken in clubs - needle play, thrashed
> bums, which 'could' fall foul of any new law.
>
> Or exhibit them on a website called 'BANNED'! Just
> to demonstarte the sort of thing that couple fall
> foul of this legislation...
I don't think you fully understand the legal issues
here.
Those images would almost certainly already be
restricted by the Obscene Publications Act, and if you
put them on a calendar or a website (whether or not
that website is based in the UK) you could go to
prison for 3 years. That is what the law is at
present, and this is explained in the consultation
paper.
Oh DO keep up. The idea is to demonstrate the difference between what is
legal now and
what would not be should the moronic suggested proposals become law...
zj
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 26 Oct 2005 20:39:03
Original Message:
-----------------
-OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 26 Oct 2005 20:39:03
--- bob@citybikecouriers.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> Author wrote:
> > Ok. so. the only people they can really trace is
> bobbette and I cos we 're registreed with IC...what
> can they do to me? Bobette probably doesn't want to
> expose himself.
> > and how realistic is all this?
> > Given a) most people don't know we exist.
> > b) people copyright images on flyers all
> the time....
>
> I'm pretty 'out' anyway. I would like to do a
> calendar - i've got images that are perfectly OK
> that i've taken in clubs - needle play, thrashed
> bums, which 'could' fall foul of any new law.
>
> Or exhibit them on a website called 'BANNED'! Just
> to demonstarte the sort of thing that couple fall
> foul of this legislation...
I don't think you fully understand the legal issues
here.
Those images would almost certainly already be
restricted by the Obscene Publications Act, and if you
put them on a calendar or a website (whether or not
that website is based in the UK) you could go to
prison for 3 years. That is what the law is at
present, and this is explained in the consultation
paper.
Oh DO keep up. The idea is to demonstrate the difference between what is
legal now and
what would not be should the moronic suggested proposals become law...
zj
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
SnowdropExplodes, 26 Oct 2005 21:20:55
--- "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
wrote:
> Oh DO keep up. The idea is to demonstrate the
> difference between what is
> legal now and
> what would not be should the moronic suggested
> proposals become law...
Pay attention, dear.
The Obscene Publications Act covers more material than
the proposed law would do, for the most part.
The aim would be to show stills of scenes recreated
from mainstream movies, that might be affected.
HOWEVER
Under the Obscene Publications Act, having been
imitated, taken out of context and presented as stills
of sexual violence or violence in a sexual context,
those scenes would be illegal now, and all those
involved in producing and publishing the calendar
would therefore be personally liable (especially since
backlash has not been incorporated as a
limited-liability company).
It might make for great publicity, but it wouldn't
make the point we want it to, and it would set the
campaign back quite a bit on purely material and
practical grounds (as opposed to moral, or PR
grounds).
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
PS apologies for that opening; however, if you will
make that sort of play yourself...
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
zak, 26 Oct 2005 23:38:55
Original Message:
-----------------
-OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 26 Oct 2005 23:38:55
--- "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
wrote:
PS apologies for that opening; however, if you will
make that sort of play yourself...
Settle down, you'll hurt yourself in a minute...
zjk
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D252
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 26 Oct 2005 23:38:55
Original Message:
-----------------
-OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 26 Oct 2005 23:38:55
--- "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
wrote:
PS apologies for that opening; however, if you will
make that sort of play yourself...
Settle down, you'll hurt yourself in a minute...
zjk
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D252
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
«No Name Set», 28 Oct 2005 01:49:24
It doesn't work like that.
Being a limited-liability company limits the **financial**
liability, in the event the company goes bankrupt, of:
- the shareholders/guarantors to the amount of their initial
share capital investment/their guarantee pledge
- the directors, so long as they have not been acting
negligenlty or criminally, as compared with the officers of an
unincorporated society who are regarded as personall, jointly
and severally, liable for the society's debts, without limit
(this is because a company's directors are seen as employees of
the shareholders (guarantors, etc...) whereas a club's committee
are acting "principals").
Being a company does not limit liability for criminal actions
(was about to write "any other" but going backrupt isn't per se
criminal!) - and it could spread the burden wider, or in
directions that may not have been predicted.
AIUI, off-the-peg companies are limited by share capital
(because they're intended for small/solo businesses. This would
give us the problems of added bureaucracy (compare the lengths
of the "model" memorandum and articles between a Co Ltd by share
capital/guarantee for a starter), and of course shareholders,
who own the company, in a way guarantors don't. And don't even
*think* about trying to buy an off-the-peg Co Ltd by share
capital and convert it - it's easier to start from scratch.
Rosemary
manniq@hotmail.com writes:
Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material -
and Backlash members.
Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still wou ld
not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Polic
e thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was b y protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
Regards,
M
--
Rosemary
«No Name Set», 28 Oct 2005 01:52:07
Or more likely because Someone In There found it severely
embarrassing how easily the Countryside Alliance and its varous
friends could fill Parliament Square to sardine-can like
overcapacity for substantial periods, with high-profile media
friendly, and sometimes noisy activities - not to mention high
profile Labour defectors coming to address such gatherings! - or
the amount of support from passers-by, tooting taxi an dbus
drivers. etc. Brian was caught up in this all, and certainly
got a lot of publicity out of it, but I don't think was the
prime target.
As for whether you'd be arrested for walking along the public
highway wearing a loud-mouthed T-shirt, that probably depends on
how "innocent" you were looking, or alternatively how
objectionable. People have been hauled out of gay pride marches
for wearing a T-shirt saying "Fucking Queer" - or for that
matter, a plastic meat cleaver 2" long in their hat band, in the
case of Terry Higgins, adjudged to be an "offensive weapon". So
it's never wise to underestimate the fickleness of The Powers
That Be.
--
Rosemary
Manniq, 31 Oct 2005 16:08:28
Ho Hum...which is why I asked the question.
Any suggestions as to how one COULD spread the risk/liability - or is this just something that can't be done.
Bear in mind, though, that part of my concern is nto criminal activity, but government and councils using civil regulations to make life awkward.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> It doesn't work like that.
> Being a limited-liability company limits the **financial**
> liability, in the event the company goes bankrupt, of:
> - the shareholders/guarantors to the amount of their initial
> share capital investment/their guarantee pledge
> - the directors, so long as they have not been acting
> negligenlty or criminally, as compared with the officers of an
> unincorporated society who are regarded as personall, jointly
> and severally, liable for the society's debts, without limit
> (this is because a company's directors are seen as employees of
> the shareholders (guarantors, etc...) whereas a club's committee
> are acting "principals").
> Being a company does not limit liability for criminal actions
> (was about to write "any other" but going backrupt isn't per se
> criminal!) - and it could spread the burden wider, or in
> directions that may not have been predicted.
> AIUI, off-the-peg companies are limited by share capital
> (because they're intended for small/solo businesses. This would
> give us the problems of added bureaucracy (compare the lengths
> of the "model" memorandum and articles between a Co Ltd by share
> capital/guarantee for a starter), and of course shareholders,
> who own the company, in a way guarantors don't. And don't even
> *think* about trying to buy an off-the-peg Co Ltd by share
> capital and convert it - it's easier to start from scratch.
> Rosemary
> manniq@hotmail.com writes:
> Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material -
> and Backlash members.
> Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still wou ld
> not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Polic
> e thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was b y protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
> Regards,
> M
> --
> Rosemary
«No Name Set», 02 Nov 2005 18:12:20
One can *spread* the liability for illegal activities by getting
more people involved - either personally in the action, or by
having any formal structure with committee members, who would be
deeded as "in charge" of the organisation, and thus liable for
their position, whether or not personally taking action.
That does not *reduce* it - it may mean there are simply more
people getting the same penalties.
In a commercial organisation, many prosecutions would be brought
against "the bosses" rather than the shop floor workers, since
the latter may be regarded as only carrying out the bosses'
wishes. This is not guaranteed - there are some laws that
cannot be passed up the chain away from personal liability
always, and the Nurenburg trials famously endorsed the finding
that "I was only obeying orders" is no excuse if the orders were
illegal. [But take, for example, the case of a certain
newspaper prosecuted for printing what purported to be the
thoughts of a soldier with the hots for a prisoner he was
charged with executing. The company was prosecuted, and the
editor personally, but not all the typesetters, ad sales bods,
van drivers, etc, personally - though given the nature of the
newspaper, they might all have been taken to have a far greater
commitment to it than simply pocketing a pay cheque.]
In a voluntary organisation, where people are there out of
commitment and not just to pay the mortgage/rent, and can vote
with their feet if they don't like the way the group is going,
the individual culprits are more likely to be pursued. Though
lines can be blurred (in both directions, as above) and whether
or not a case is worth pursuing in the face of the numbers of
other pressures on the forces of law and order is another
matter. ROund here at least, the police have to prioritise in
the face of pressing demands on their time as to what is most
serious.
There is also the option of getting so many, many people to turn
themselves in for something that is, in the overall scheme of
things, "trivial" that it is just not worth the person-hours in
pursuing them all. (The disadvantage of this is that you then
risk pissing off our Friends in Blue, and you never know when
you might actually need them. Or need their goodwill .... I had
2 of them arriving at my gate this afternoon when I was out in
the front garden painting my filing cabinet, looking for someone
to do with a murder investigation.)
As for the situation of TPTB making one's life ever more
difficult by "investigating" everything, even if they find
nothing - well, if they decide they do not like a particular
individual, there's not much structurally that can be done to
reduce their disklike of that individual (or individuals).
Only wondering, rather publicly, whether they don't have better
things to do with their time. Of course, round here they
definitely *do*; maybe elsewhere it's different??
Rosemary
manniq@hotmail.com writes:
Ho Hum...which is why I asked the question.
Any suggestions as to how one COULD spread the risk/liability - or is this just something that can't be done.
Bear in mind, though, that part of my concern is nto criminal activity, but government and councils using civil regulations to make life awkward.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> It doesn't work like that.
> Being a limited-liability company limits the **financial**
> liability, in the event the company goes bankrupt, of:
> - the shareholders/guarantors to the amount of their initial
> share capital investment/their guarantee pledge
> - the directors, so long as they have not been acting
> negligenlty or criminally, as compared with the officers of an
> unincorporated society who are regarded as personall, jointly
> and severally, liable for the society's debts, without limit
> (this is because a company's directors are seen as employees of
> the shareholders (guarantors, etc...) whereas a club's committee
> are acting "principals").
> Being a company does not limit liability for criminal actions
> (was about to write "any other" but going backrupt isn't per se
> criminal!) - and it could spread the burden wider, or in
> directions that may not have been predicted.
> AIUI, off-the-peg companies are limited by share capital
> (because they're intended for small/solo businesses. This would
> give us the problems of added bureaucracy (compare the lengths
> of the "model" memorandum and articles between a Co Ltd by share
> capital/guarantee for a starter), and of course shareholders,
> who own the company, in a way guarantors don't. And don't even
> *think* about trying to buy an off-the-peg Co Ltd by share
> capital and convert it - it's easier to start from scratch.
> Rosemary
> manniq@hotmail.com writes:
> Which takes us back to the argument I put forward early on for there being some sort of legal vehicle between publication of flyers and other material
-
> and Backlash members.
> Maybe, if making Backlash a company is too big a step, we could pick up an off-the-shelf company and re-christen it Backlash publishing. It still wou
ld
> not protect Directors from ultimate responsibility - but it would limit liability is the Polic
> e thought that the way to clampdown on Backlash was b y protracted legal wrangling aimed at bankrupting key individuals.
> Regards,
> M
> --
> Rosemary
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2701
--
Rosemary