Search results

No, but before November 2014 it would have been allowed under Article 28 section (a) of the Nov '13 AoA to make "Reasonable and proper payment to any officer or servant or director of the company for any services to the company", under certain conditions. I think it would still have been...

It's so strange that they say this, as I can't see how that is true. They uploaded the defunct November 2013 AoA. The replacement Nov 2014 AoA is very clear: three sections to Article 28, only section (c) applies and they did not adhere to those conditions if you look at the Charity Committee...

Lucibee pointed out to me that the Trustee Act 2000 actually is the correct Act to refer to. So the 2000 Charity Act was a mistake in the accepted Nov 2013 AoA Trustee Act 2000 - Wikipedia So now I wonder if the PDF that is currently put up was dated 5 Dec 2013 because that was corrected in...

I'm sorry if I am.

Yup. From the date on the doc it appears that the new AoA were drafted in March 2014, and approved by the Association members on 18 November 2014. (Companies House registration dated 4 Dec 2014.) The new AoA had a rewritten Article 28. Section (a) from the earlier version was scrapped...

I see. Tweet by Peter White and the first page of the letter in screenshots below. Charity Commission: "Having checked the charity's record, we can confirm the Commission does not hold this information as no written approval has been given by the Commission." I really need to go rest now...

I think you may be overthinking this? An AoA was approved by the members in November 2013. Then a revised AoA was approved by members on 18 of November 2014. With the approval of that 2014 AoA document, the former one becomes defunct. The document they voted on and approved was the document...

Indeed. Note though it's not just a removal of the subclauses. In the 2013 AoA "Reasonable and proper payment to any officer or servant or director of the company for any services to the company" was possible, under conditions. But in the AoA approved by the MEAss members in 2014 that is no...

So, on the 19th of November 2013, the members of the MEAss approved of updated Articles of Association (AoA). On the 18th November 2014, the members of the MEass voted again on the AoA with a different Article 28. (It's not just a removal of clauses.) This is adopted in substitution of the...

This is what happens when I save the document currently put up. It gives "Articles-of-Association-05-12-2013" as its title. This means that this document would be the 2013 one, not the 2014 one as Riley and the MEAss claim But it's not the original 2013 AoA doc, the text of Article 28 is...

So....did Riley swap the current 2014 AoA for the 2013, earlier version that did contain subclauses 1-7? Then it is noteworthy that: Both the draft and the approved version from the MEAass website, and the 2013 application to Companies House, speak of "the 2000 Charity Act". What was put up...

@Dx Revision Watch the Dec 2014 doc supercedes the 2013 one, no? This was what was passed at the meeting of 18 Nov 2014 Edited to add: yes, the approval of the 2014 AoA document makes the 2013 one defunct.

So, I did a bit of light digging (can't resist, but keep in mind I might make mistakes): This is an archived MEAss page (7 Nov 2013) which holds the AoA draft "for approval at EGM on 19th November 2013" Policies and Documents | ME Association It holds the same texts for Article 4 and Article...

Welcome! – Project Talk Page Dec 17 archived version in the Wayback Machine, to add to

Answer thread by Nicky Proctor giving account of how the question re. payments to trustees was asked and answered during the AMG. Proctor: MEA statement in bad faith and contradicts statements made by Riley last week Questions by Peter White were reasonable and specific Riley didn't answer...

Apologies for using screenshots instead of links (too unwell to type it all out and can't access Twitter from laptop for links): Peter White says the questions he asked were based on the 2014 Articles of Association Posted AoA not the same as those registered with Companies House Ability to...

It is also a decades-old argument from the CBT pushers, used from the beginning. We're so worried about the effect of alternative treatments desperate ME patients are trying! Anyway, they should be treated with our thing based on what we just made up: graded exercise, cognitive indoctrination...

I think there are serious issues with the ethics of this study. Like with Lifelines, the psychosomatic movement takes data from mass surveillance and then uses it for their own ends, and I wonder if that is done with informed consent (truly or even any) from the people whose data they use to...

I wonder if the fact that they called it a "living" systematic review is exactly because they have insufficient crumbs to use for the interventions they want to promote (CBT & exercise). So that when the inevitable criticism comes that bringing in 1 study for each main conclusion is not a...

:emoji_dart: