Jump to content

Shetland Home Company


Sukibind
 Share

Recommended Posts

Think you'll find that SCT Trustee James Smith is no longer the Chair of COPE Ltd, it's just a case of SCT not updating their website.

If my sources are correct then Neil Jamieson is the Chairman for COPE.

Interestingly the lovely Peter Malcolmson has been appointed a new Trustee for SCT - I assume he'll declare a conflict of interest when discussing future funding for COPE.

 

Thanks for that. One question though, the company records page I linked to doesn't show James Smith as an ex-Director either, so on what basis was he Chairman when he held the post?

 

....and curiosity, (or maybe stupidity), but what's Peter Malcolmson's link to COPE that would make his being a SCT Trustee a potential conflict of interest, has he been made a director of COPE since those company details were filed, or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Think you'll find that SCT Trustee James Smith is no longer the Chair of COPE Ltd, it's just a case of SCT not updating their website.

If my sources are correct then Neil Jamieson is the Chairman for COPE.

Interestingly the lovely Peter Malcolmson has been appointed a new Trustee for SCT - I assume he'll declare a conflict of interest when discussing future funding for COPE.

 

Thanks for that. One question though, the company records page I linked to doesn't show James Smith as an ex-Director either, so on what basis was he Chairman when he held the post?

 

 

 

This page shows him as being a director and resigning on 4 November 2013

 

http://ukdatacentre.co.uk/company/SC186555/COPE+LTD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a brief skim through these comments and am totally amazed by the level of ill informed, opinionated and down right personal comments made! (And just for the record this is shona manson on Paul's account)

What mostly annoys me on this alleged forum is that you all make your comment under a pseudonym? What's that about?

And ur point ghost rider is?

 

My point is a lot of public money is vanishing and the public don't seem to be being informed of where exactly its going nor what exactly its doing, and it appears to be nigh on impossible for a member of the public to easily find out the answers either. This is the internet age, yet there is virtually nothing to be found on the web about COPE, unless a few "fluffy" comments.

 

If folk are ill-informed, its because the information is hard come by. Whose fault is that? Their's or COPE's. Having attempted to educate myself about COPE online, and found next to nothing, I'm favouring the latter explanation right now. Without it all folk can know is what they are told in the media goes in one end of the organisation, how the organisation portrays itself in its day to day dealings with the public, and what comes out the other end. As time goes on by all appearances more and more folk are becoming more uncomfortable with the scene thats being presented to them on that basis.

 

Public money, is everyone's equally, and any one person has an equal right to any other to raise a query about its use, and/or hold whatever opinion the choose, and voice it. Anyone who receives public money there is not only an obligation on them to whoever granted them those funds to comply with whatever conditions accompanied it, there is also an obligation on them to reasonably satisfy the public at large they are worthy recipients of the funds and are managing them responsibly, prudently and productively. At best COPE are guilty of exceedingly poor PR, as members of the public appear to becoming increasingly concerned regarding how responsible, prudent and productive their current behaviour is.

 

Using nicknames is the rule rather than the exception on the vast majority of internet forums and many other types of sites (ebay, Amazon sellers, many F/B users etc) I've seen, even moreso in the past when this site was established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This page shows him as being a director and resigning on 4 November 2013

 

 

 

http://ukdatacentre.co.uk/company/SC186555/COPE+LTD

 

 

Cheers for that. It says a lot about the SCT's admin procedures that despite having made a number of other changes to the details of the trustees on their site, in almost 17 months of being out of date they've not even gotten around to removing the prominent first line for James Smith's description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Cheers for that. It says a lot about the SCT's admin procedures that despite having made a number of other changes to the details of the trustees on their site, in almost 17 months of being out of date they've not even gotten around to removing the prominent first line for James Smith's description."

 

 

In fairness, that information should also be on (and belongs on) Cope's web site and, it isn't 

 

There is a fair chance that they (Cope) got a grant to help pay for the web site and, now that it's "up", and even though it appears to be only 1 page,  there might be no one within the organisation who is capable of maintaining it and, perhaps, not enough available funds to pay "outside interests" to do the job.

 

The big problem with web sites is that;

Everybody wants one, few know what to do with them once they have one... 

 

It costs Time and Money to keep them up to date and, in these days of "austerity", is that the "best" way to spend what little(?) they have?

 

Would they also get a "panning" for spending their money that way?

 

As an aside;

Spoke with Brian Priest this week and he told me he has now retired.   Seems quite confident that his "replacement" will be able to do what he did and, you never know, he might also be able to maintain the web site.

Either way, he (Brian) is going to be greatly missed..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Cheers for that. It says a lot about the SCT's admin procedures that despite having made a number of other changes to the details of the trustees on their site, in almost 17 months of being out of date they've not even gotten around to removing the prominent first line for James Smith's description."

 

 

In fairness, that information should also be on (and belongs on) Cope's web site and, it isn't 

 

There is a fair chance that they (Cope) got a grant to help pay for the web site and, now that it's "up", and even though it appears to be only 1 page,  there might be no one within the organisation who is capable of maintaining it and, perhaps, not enough available funds to pay "outside interests" to do the job.

 

The big problem with web sites is that;

Everybody wants one, few know what to do with them once they have one... 

 

It costs Time and Money to keep them up to date and, in these days of "austerity", is that the "best" way to spend what little(?) they have?

 

Would they also get a "panning" for spending their money that way?

 

They had a perfectly good site for a long time if I recall correctly, I'm sure a little updating to "make do" if expertise and funds were short, could have been performed as easily and cheaply as putting up that current holding page was. It would have been more benefit to them than what they have. I may well be wrong, but I seem to think that page promising a "brand new site" has been sitting there exactly as it is now for several months - hints of the same affliction the SIC frequently suffers from perhaps, grandiose plans not thought through or followed through very well.

 

I'm not going to argue that you'll never please all of the people all of the time, but I'm really struggling to see the sense in spending on a re-branding exercise which achieved.....well, somebody if going to have to tell me what, as I'm out of guesses, over a basic functional website putting their services and products in front of people as a virtual shop window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a brief skim through these comments and am totally amazed by the level of ill informed, opinionated and down right personal comments made! (And just for the record this is shona manson on Paul's account)

What mostly annoys me on this alleged forum is that you all make your comment under a pseudonym? What's that about?

And ur point ghost rider is?

 

*** Mod edit - comment removed - people's personal and/or private relationships are not up for discussion on this forum ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It states 10 - 15  additional placements - surely this means new placements and not maintaining their existing ones (which they already get funding for). What you need to find out is what COPE classes as a session, a couple of hours, a morning or a day. Taking on 10 new placements of only a couple of hours each week does not amount to much for all the funding received.

On my visits to the COPE businesses I have not yet seen any new placements, all the placements have been there for years, so they're not even managing to move them on to 'secure employment with the local community'. Perhaps they don't really want to move them on!!!!

You would think that any new placements would be seen in their outlets in order to justify that the grant had been spent accordingly.

All the new faces at COPE are staff and there seems to have been quite a few of them over the last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went into the site www.companycheck.co.uk and downloaded for £2.00 the accounts for year 2014.  All a bit above my head I am afraid - but loads of information and at least it gives accurate figures for mulling over.

 

1 - Employee Costs fell from £694,433 in 2013 to £594,088 in 2014 yet the staffing levels fell on avg by only 2. (Don't understand that one)

 

2 - Participants Wages fell from £12,589 to £8468 in 2014 - they do not get much in the way of remuneration - but I accept that    their may be reasons for this.

 

3 - Avg Staff Management and admin - in both years was 3

     Avg Staff in 2014 was 27 and 2013 was 29

     Avg Participants was 31 and 2013 was 50

 

Supported Costs (which I assume is grant money) is paid to support the General office and finance staff-£65083, Management-£65021, Office costs-£19568, Legal & Prof-£7546 and Finance costs-£11176 - Total £168,394 down from 2013 £203,153.

 

I feel this supports what I saw the other day with more staff to participants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that any untrained member of the public can get a job looking after the clients at COPE? Whilst their peers at the EGC are looked after by highly trained qualified staff. Is this why so many family and friends have been hired in the past few years, because they know who they are employing?  Or are they just 'feathering their own nests'!  Either way it seems an extremely unhealthy way to run a business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that any untrained member of the public can get a job looking after the clients at COPE? Whilst their peers at the EGC are looked after by highly trained qualified staff. Is this why so many family and friends have been hired in the past few years, because they know who they are employing?  Or are they just 'feathering their own nests'!  Either way it seems an extremely unhealthy way to run a business.

As I have said earlier in this thread;

I am, largely, supportive of the work that Cope do but, I do have some reservations, particularly in respect of trying to find work placements for people who are, by any "normal" measure, unemployable.

 

Perhaps they should change  their "mission statement" to something more appropriate to the work they do..

 

Anyway, in response to your post...

 

Maybe because "trained" members of the public are to expensive?

 

Maybe because the EGC is operating at a different level?

 

Maybe the "clients/participants" would be better off at the EGC, albeit at greater expense to the "public purse"?

 

Maybe "family and friends" have been hired because they just might have some experience of dealing with the "clients/participants"

 

You are making some unfounded(?) accusations (that may, or may not, be true) and you are in danger of comparing apples with oranges..  The only similarity seems to be that they are both fruit..

 

I would agree that certain family relationships might be considered "unhealthy" but, if you are so sure that you are correct, please provide us with proper "proofs" or, as advised by others, report your concerns to the proper authorities..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...