Shetland Home Company

[Ghostrider]

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?

[Mrs Miggins]

Peter Malcolmsons is Ingrid Webb - the general manager of COPE's father.

[maddisp]

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?

[MuckleJoannie]

 

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

[Ghostrider]

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.

[Fly-on-the-Wall]

Really Shona, you know what the situation is. This is a biased opinion of a friend is it not.

[Ghostrider]

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.

[Colin]

"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..

[Ghostrider]

 

"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.

[Windwalker]

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?

I've not commented on this thread so far, simply because its not been of interest to me. I have used some of the services Cope offer and commend them on the work they do to provide meaningful work for the less able in our community.

 

However as they use public funds, they, whether we like it or not, are therefore open to public scrutiny. It seems clear that some people are concerned whether these funds are being used to the best advantage of those whom Cope are there to support.

 

In my opinion, for what it's worth, cope seem to be doing little to provide information to the public by whatever means to clarify its work and how it uses the funds. It is not difficult nor that expensive to keep it website up to date and provide information. After all they found the money to rebrand and publicise that part of their work.

 

Any organisation using public funds are answerable to the public and will be required to provide information and reports of how things are going. The board of management or whatever they are called should make this information available to the founders, ie us.

 

Whilst I agree with you that some posts from some individuals on some forums can lead to wrong or suggestive information, Your swipe at this "forum" and your quip about ill informed statements, doesn't do anything to help with clarity, but suggests to me that only the privileged know what cope is doing with the grant they have recieved.

 

Whilst I believe and assume that the management and board! of Cope are in fully compliance with the conditions of the grant, it's clear that others have some concerns. I would therefore suggest that Cope could simply update their website giving the public some more information about their work, how this work has benefited their workers and how they have used their funds to the best advantage of those they are providing the service for.

 

And for the record I reserve my right, in accordance with the rules of many forums to use a pseudonym.

[Mrs Miggins]

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 ***

[Fly-on-the-Wall]

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.

[Meggie]

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.

[Silver_Birch]

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.

[Colin]

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..