On the SUbject of the Companies Act and company types

Started by Inscrutable, January 10, 2008, 07:38:20 am

Previous topic - Next topic

Inscrutable

I know Cyber-Angel had a similar topic in December last year that she voluntarily locked.  I just wanted to clarify a couple of points (would have done in the other one before it was locked but didn't see it until today).

Firstly (and this is me being very anal) C-A asked about type of company as defined under the Companies Act 1985 and amended in the Companies Act 2006.  Technically the 2006 act didn't amend, it replaced as it was a full redraft of primary legislation (although one could argue that at the time of the formation of the company, the 1985 Act was in force).

Secondly, I just wanted to clarify Harvey's point about being no requirement to post such information.  Actually this is entirely dependent on what sort of Business Association Planeside is.  If they are a registered company as defined under the Act there is a requirement (as of 1 January 2007) to list on the website the following details:

   - The comany's registered name
   - The company's registered number
   - The company's registered address (as registered with Companies House)

Of course, the Planetside may not be registered as such a company (General Partnerships, Limited Partnerships, etc fall under different legislation and therefore have different requirements).

Thirdly, I wanted to say that as a member of the public (and potentially a customer - I'm not sure whether or not C-A has bought the software but it matters little in any case) C-A has EVERY right to ask for that information and those people who shot her down were simply wrong to do so.

(Personally, I'm not that interested in what sort of company Planetside is, but I absolutely defend C-A's right of enquiry!)

I should explain in signing off that I have a proffessional involvement in the implementation of Company Law in the UK, but the comments above should be treated as my PERSONAL views.

Once again, sorry for bringing this back up but I thought that it was important to get this off my chest.

Inscrutable


Harvey Birdman

January 10, 2008, 08:12:33 am #1 Last Edit: January 10, 2008, 08:14:47 am by Harvey Birdman
I think if you re-read what I wrote you will see that I said pretty much what you said re: the type of companies that are required to post information.

Sorry if you feel that was 'shooting her down'. I wasn't aware that a statement of fact was such a hostile act.

::)

I'll repeat what I said in that thread - unless you're planning on suing or buying stock, what the hell difference does it make? Don't you think that the principals of Planetside are aware of their responsibilities under relevant business legislation? Or do you feel it is a role required of you, to carry on about their internal business structure as if you had some inherent right to know? As you said, certain types of company are required to post this information. Others are not. Why don't you just assume that they might have the degree of competence required to meet their obligations without public hectoring over regulations that are, in the end, irrelevant and inapplicable to their business?

>:(

Inscrutable

I'm sorry, you are of course correct - I had misinterpreted what you originally wrote and I apologise unreservedly for that.  However, I also think that you've misinterpreted what I wrote above - I really don't feel that it's my right to interfere with Planetside's internal business structure or dictate what they should be doing.  I have every confidence in the company's competence and they have given me no reason to think otherwise.

As I expressly stated above, I'm not personally interested in the specific answer to C-A's question, I just think that if I, you, C-A, or frankly anyone, wants to know what sort of company they should have the right to ask.  The actual question was so high level that I don't honestly see what the problem is - no-one asked for full disclosure of company records, or Director's details or any such thing.  The question was merely what sort of company Planetside is, which I think is a perfectly legitimate one to ask, if only out of interest.  (Even if the question isn't relevant, it is still legitimate; and in any case it is Planetside's place to state how relevant it is by giving an answer or refusing to do so.)

All of the rest of my post above was merely clarification of the legal detail, and was therefore somewhat extraneous to the argument I've again put forward in the paragraph imediately above this one.

Inscrutable

Harvey Birdman

January 10, 2008, 09:00:52 am #3 Last Edit: January 10, 2008, 10:35:16 am by Harvey Birdman
Quote from: Inscrutable on January 10, 2008, 08:39:10 am
... it is Planetside's place to state how relevant it is by giving an answer or refusing to do so.)[/i]...


I'd say that's precisely what did happen, the first time around.

<edit>

And as I think of it, don't you think that the fact you DON'T find a statement is, in fact, the statement itself, implicitly? It's required for some companies, not others. You don't find one; ergo, it's possible, anyway, that it's not required.

As Sonshine said, what purpose is there in this inquiry? Do you honestly think that you've caught them in non-compliance? Why? What evidence led to these particular suspicions?

Or are you in the habit of this sort of thing; do you walk up to a local (insert colloquial munchie here) vendor and demand to know the ownership structure of his stall? How do you think said stall-owner would respond? He'd probably feel it was a rude intrusion into something that was none of your business.
</edit>

Cyber-Angel

Quote from: Inscrutable on January 10, 2008, 07:38:20 am
I know Cyber-Angel had a similar topic in December last year that she voluntarily locked.  I just wanted to clarify a couple of points (would have done in the other one before it was locked but didn't see it until today).

Firstly (and this is me being very anal) C-A asked about type of company as defined under the Companies Act 1985 and amended in the Companies Act 2006.  Technically the 2006 act didn't amend, it replaced as it was a full redraft of primary legislation (although one could argue that at the time of the formation of the company, the 1985 Act was in force).

Secondly, I just wanted to clarify Harvey's point about being no requirement to post such information.  Actually this is entirely dependent on what sort of Business Association Planeside is.  If they are a registered company as defined under the Act there is a requirement (as of 1 January 2007) to list on the website the following details:

   - The comany's registered name
   - The company's registered number
   - The company's registered address (as registered with Companies House)

Of course, the Planetside may not be registered as such a company (General Partnerships, Limited Partnerships, etc fall under different legislation and therefore have different requirements).

Thirdly, I wanted to say that as a member of the public (and potentially a customer - I'm not sure whether or not C-A has bought the software but it matters little in any case) C-A has EVERY right to ask for that information and those people who shot her down were simply wrong to do so.

(Personally, I'm not that interested in what sort of company Planetside is, but I absolutely defend C-A's right of enquiry!)

I should explain in signing off that I have a proffessional involvement in the implementation of Company Law in the UK, but the comments above should be treated as my PERSONAL views.

Once again, sorry for bringing this back up but I thought that it was important to get this off my chest.

Inscrutable




Thank you very much, I would like to put on record that I Have Brought the Deep + Animation version of TG2 and whilst I find many aspects of this software difficult I am learning form many here.

As to why I asked in the first place "Inquiring Minds Need to Know" springs to mind and further more people have the right to know more about with whom they are dealing professional courtesy at the very least,  courtesy is hard to find now days I suppose.

Also for the record I consider that post in December as past hence and there was time for reflection after I posted and in light of comments made I decided that the last thing that was needed was either bad feeling or worst still the beginnings of a flame war with that in mind that thread was closed, I said what I did at the time as I needed to say it people from the United States call it "Clearing Out You Closet", I have moved on now...Thanks for the memories and all that.

Mr Birdman,

If I have offended you in any way shape or form then please accept my apologies, I am not here to fight a war I am here to learn and that as they say is that, you win I lose and thats life.

____________________________________________

As to my gender, well just be careful about making assumptions in that regard as you might be wrong.  I Consider this matter closed and I will close by saying that I am a Philosopher not a Genius.  :)

Regards to you.

Cyber-Angel 

Inscrutable

Lol - there was meant to be no assumption - I actually meant to type "(s)he" which is my usual approach to such things!  I just forgot to go back and add the brackets.  Really sorry if it caused offence...

Inscrutable


Harvey Birdman

January 10, 2008, 09:19:48 am #6 Last Edit: January 10, 2008, 09:25:37 am by Harvey Birdman
Quote from: Cyber-Angel on January 10, 2008, 09:08:52 am

Mr Birdman,

If I have offended you in any way shape or form then please accept my apologies, I am not here to fight a war I am here to learn and that as they say is that, you win I lose and thats life.


Nope - no offense taken.


Quote from: Cyber-Angel on January 10, 2008, 09:08:52 am
As to my gender, well just be careful about making assumptions in that regard as you might be wrong

Cyber-Angel 


Yeaaaaahhhh... I kind of wondered about that. Well, you know what they say - I only open my mouth to change feet...

::)  :D

Cyber-Angel

Quote from: Inscrutable on January 10, 2008, 09:16:45 am
Lol - there was meant to be no assumption - I actually meant to type "(s)he" which is my usual approach to such things!  I just forgot to go back and add the brackets.  Really sorry if it caused offence...

Inscrutable




Non Taken, a lesson in linguistic semantics you could call it.

Regards  to you.

Cyber-Angel  8)   

Cyber-Angel

I submit that this thread be closed now and to quote Hal From 2001: A Space Odyssey "Dave, This Conversation Can Serve No Practical Use Any More, Good-buy"  Inscrutable since you stated this thread would you second the motion and thus carry the motion?

Regards to you.

Cyber-Angel

rcallicotte

At this stage, something with the words "rat's ass" comes to mind...
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Inscrutable

Cyber-Angel, I agree, I'm locking this thread.

As C-A has stated that (s)he had no ulterior motive when asking the original question, I shall (for the sake of completeness, clarity and transparency) say now that neither have I.  I remain a loyal Planetside customer.

It seems that this thread (and the original thread) has done nothing but evidence the innate paranoia of some people, and their inability to appreciate the concept of "an innocent question" (yes, there IS such a thing as innocent).

If that sounds like a snide attack at some readers here, I'll allow them to make their own judgment (subject to their paranoia) as to whether or not it is...