COPE

[shetlandpeat]

I cannot find the report, is it still there?

[mappyboodles]

Isn't it the case that COPE was created in order to save SIC Social Services money?

 

NO! It was Franks idea, he started making sandwiches and brought it on from there. I wander what he thinks of all this mess now!

Frank Millsopp, who now works in Afghanistan for the Aga Khan Foundation, received an MBE. He was the driving force behind COPE, a social enterprise company in Shetland that exists to provide meaningful work for people with disabilities.

[unlinkedstudent]

Isn't it the case that COPE was created in order to save SIC Social Services money?

 

NO! It was Franks idea, he started making sandwiches and brought it on from there. I wander what he thinks of all this mess now!

Frank Millsopp, who now works in Afghanistan for the Aga Khan Foundation, received an MBE. He was the driving force behind COPE, a social enterprise company in Shetland that exists to provide meaningful work for people with disabilities.

 

Ah, my apologies. I was told though that initially when COPE first started getting money from SIC that the idea was 'sold' to them that if they financially assisted COPE, it would save SIC Social Services Dept. money in the long run as SS would have to do less.

 

So, on the one hand, no, I don't believe the SIC should be funding charities. On the other hand, will it cost the SIC SS Dept more in the long run by not funding COPE? Most definitely fund via the Charitable Trust though.

[shetlandpeat]

Councils should fund, or part fund the charities that do some of the work of council. You may need to be able to guarantee continuation of service and standards. It would be backward thinking not to. Although the community should step up to some roles and activities, you would not want them to fail. Even if the council contribute to the CT to maintain these. After all, it is folks lives you want to interfere with. You need to pay folk sometimes, to keep the good ones.

[paulb]

even deeper. the service user will feel abandoned. whilst working they will have a positive out look. bet that goes fast. if the services users become less independant they will have a greater demand on services. so this cost cutting is going to cost them more.

 

plain stupid.

[shetlander]

I by no means question the worthiness of COPE as an organisation but do think they've been a bit over-ambitious in terms of the various enterprises they've set up over the years – which (it seems) rely on public funding to keep them afloat and in some cases compete directly with other privately run companies.

 

I wonder if any discussions have taken place with the council/any of the trusts with a view to COPE taking over some of their services or functions? Could the council consider paying COPE the current staffing/running/maintenance costs of (say) the Islesburgh cafe or the flower park for example, thereby providing a source of both work and income for them?

[shetlander]

The shower we’ve got in the Town Hall at the moment has been panicked into swingeing and unnecessary rate of cuts by a clique of senior officers and so called ‘senior councillors’ who wouldn’t like too close a look to be taken at things that were going on over the last 20 years. The trouble is the gutless mongrels of councillors we have at the moment won’t stand up to the SIC officers who are pushing to get these cuts to save their own overpaid miserable skins.

 

Given the number of years (going back to the mid-90s) that warnings from officials about spending have gone pretty much unheeded in the council chamber, I think the ‘panic’ from council staff about the need to make cuts is quite justified.

 

If you want to blame anyone for the current rate of cuts, go back to the councillors of the last one, two or three terms. They were the ones who time after time asked officials and/or consultants – at god knows what cost and staff time - to come up with options for savings only to lose the bottle when it came to making decisions on them. They also presided over officials who allowed services (and the workforce to provide them) to expand seemingly unchecked without any question of whether they may be affordable in the years ahead.

 

Whilst I may not agree with every one of the cost cutting measures being brought in, I’m glad that the seriousness of the situation has finally dawned on the current crop of councillors who are having to make decisions to get the council out of a mess that hasn’t been of their making.

[owre-weel]

Councils should fund, or part fund the charities that do some of the work of council. You may need to be able to guarantee continuation of service and standards. It would be backward thinking not to. Although the community should step up to some roles and activities, you would not want them to fail. Even if the council contribute to the CT to maintain these. After all, it is folks lives you want to interfere with. You need to pay folk sometimes, to keep the good ones.

 

Could you please decipher

[owre-weel]

I by no means question the worthiness of COPE as an organisation but do think they've been a bit over-ambitious in terms of the various enterprises they've set up over the years – which (it seems) rely on public funding to keep them afloat and in some cases compete directly with other privately run companies.

 

I wonder if any discussions have taken place with the council/any of the trusts with a view to COPE taking over some of their services or functions? Could the council consider paying COPE the current staffing/running/maintenance costs of (say) the Islesburgh cafe or the flower park for example, thereby providing a source of both work and income for them?

 

Good balanced post Shetlander, and some good ideas.

 

The problem is that the cuts, now decided, are coming in so fast that they are not giving the managers time to do some thinking outside the box.

 

Your right though, there must be some of the councils work that could be transferred to Cope.

[BlackPhemie]

Councils should fund, or part fund the charities that do some of the work of council. You may need to be able to guarantee continuation of service and standards. It would be backward thinking not to. Although the community should step up to some roles and activities, you would not want them to fail. Even if the council contribute to the CT to maintain these. After all, it is folks lives you want to interfere with. You need to pay folk sometimes, to keep the good ones.

 

Could you please decipher

Shetland Peat has made 4203 posts to this forum – many unintelligible.

To read all the threads he posts on and to write his posts must be equal to at least 1 hour per post.

4203 hours = 175days = 5.8 months online.

Get a Life!

[exciseman]

The problem is that the cuts, now decided, are coming in so fast that they are not giving the managers time to do some thinking outside the box.

 

Well, you say that – but it was the local community that came up with the solution to the interisland ferries cuts and the parents have suggested workable solutions for the schools cuts. I’m amazed that Craigie and Budge are still on the payroll – it’s there where the real cuts should be made.

[bresail]

I have had to modify this post because of time constraints, it has now also become an email to the LCC.

We are a group of people who do not want our vulnerable people ignored and victimised. In some cases maybe they are victims already.The chances they have been given have helped them immensely, even the stroppy ones,it has also helped all of us to be more caring and understanding people. Do not take this away from us and them.

Below is, in fairness to, The Lerwick County Council, a copy of a post that was/is going to be put on a forum explaining how we could tackle a very vicious and cruel funding cut.

 

 

Here is the original post to the forum.

If we want to try to make a difference to these ridiculous and cruel cuts, we have very little time. The next council meeting is Mon 1st April 2013 but it may be changed for Easter.

I know that this is a chore but please contact the members and politely demand that they stop the proposed cuts until we have had a public discussion, which should include some of the people who would be victimised.

I am not going to propose what you say in your letters, standard letters are useless in my opinion. The same letter can be sent to each of the members.

Address the letter to the names of the recipients

Letters can also be sent to Newspapers, Private eye etc

 

 

I don't know if emails can be guaranteed to go to the named recipient.

The address is,

 

Lerwick Community Council,

1 Stouts Court, Lerwick,

ZE1 OAN.

 

I have just spoken to the clerk, to see if the meeting would be going ahead on Easter Monday. The answer is yes.

She is preparing for the meeting today and has suggested that we contact her by email and she has promised to pass on all messages and add it to the agenda.

I am loathe to put in my email, other peoples posts but I will enclose a copy of this my post and send it now.

Regards,

Rex

[mikeyboy]

colin the vets shut well over a year ago.

 

Wrong..... The Vet's office is still there but under different ownership..

 

But COPE were selling pet supplies long before the last Vet went under and, who knows, he might still have been there had his cash flow etc. not been undermined......

 

Was it not just that the guy who owned the practice retired? The fish bowl was next door selling the same stuff they do now. Is it not more likely that they interfered with his cash flow? To be honest I am not sure what percentage of income he got from selling animal feed anyway as I found him quite expensive.

[paulb]

no he went bust. he is working at westside vets. being a 1 vet practice probably had more to do with it.

 

however i like the pet shop. its a valued contribution to the street.

same with the soap place.

even the cafe which ive never been in adds to the life of the street. were was the pet shop/soap shop before cope stated them.

 

personally i am happy that they are there and long may they stay.

[bresail]

Quick apology,

Yesterday whilst in Lerwick I was handed a piece of papaer from someone that I know with details and contacts fo The Lerwick Community Council.

He thought that the Cope issue was being handled by the above LCC.

Apparently this was wrong, it is the SIC and the Amenities Trust.

I am sorry that I didn't check on my source and I am sure that someone on the forum would have quickly told me that I was wrong, if they had known. Or would they? I will give the benefit of the doubt to the forum.

So I will now address my concerns to the correct people.

Maybe other folks could also do the same.

Regards,

Rex