Suffererof1crankymofo

Oh dear, should I have said Beaujolais socialism instead then?

@Ghostrider - you're not surely talking about the 'working class' SNP candidate, are you? Sounds awfully like a champagne socialist.

Not to mention the fact there's an awful lot of people not voting LibDem for various reasons, including their stance on Viking Energy.

Except our UKIP candidate cannot be arsed to even attend debates in Shetland - what message does that send? He's a working fisherman and I've read his explanations as to why he couldn't attend. Would you be financially able to stop work at one of your busiest times of the year to attend a debate in Orkney? If he wants to go fishing thats fine. If he wants to be taken seriously as a candidate, then he should try making an effort. If he cannot make an effort now, will he be out fishing when he is needed in parliament? He's funding his own campaign. From what I've seen on Failbook, he's making a lot bigger effort than many of his opponents who have more financial backing and resources behind them. He's not the only candidate not to have turned up at an event in Shetland either. He's stated that he wouldn't work as a fisherman should he be elected. He's easy to get hold of on the telephone, landline or mobile (when at sea). He'll answer questions on a wide range of subjects and doesn't avoid the issues unlike many. So he's making a bigger effort than many. What message is he sending out? That money don't grow on trees and you have to go out and earn it!

Except our UKIP candidate cannot be arsed to even attend debates in Shetland - what message does that send? He's a working fisherman and I've read his explanations as to why he couldn't attend. Would you be financially able to stop work at one of your busiest times of the year to attend a debate in Orkney?

And for pensioners outside of Lerwick? Wasn't that one of the points made by the SIC that there wasn't an equivalent for those pensioners living outside of Lerwick and hence it would be discriminatory to continue to fund the lunch club being at Freefield? One evening a month for those outside of town is not an equivalent.

You got skype? It does funny things like that, which is why I de-installed it.

Wasn't it ground rent/feudal as opposed to rent on the actual building? Surely,therefore, the building is a separate entity? Now couldn't that have been rented out to another party?

They went into liquidation and are no more as far as I know.

But is it additional work placements? The 15 placements could well be existing placements or the ability for 15 new people to attend their "business sessions". This is funding from the government, not from the national lottery; the latter organisation won't fund ongoing positions last time I checked resulting in many charities keeping the same positions but inventing new job titles and 'new' projects simply to keep people in basically the same positions. The actual full text does not refer to "work placements" but states:- COPE Ltd COPE Ltd provides employment and skill development opportunities for adults with disabilities through a variety of social businesses across Shetland, and provides around 120 skill development sessions and 43 supported business sessions every week for adults with disabilities. The organisation has 32 full-time staff, three part-time staff, one sessional worker and two volunteers. The Enterprise Ready Fund award of £112,312 will enable COPE Ltd to provide an estimated 10 to 15 additional placements, while also providing opportunities for participants to move on to secure employment within other local businesses within the islands. In addition, it will allow the business to make a number of improvements to its social enterprise premises, and allow for the recruitment of a temporary member of staff to formalise its skills and development opportunities and help it to achieve the PQCASSO award level three, a nationally recognised quality mark. Ingrid Webb, COPE Ltd General Manager, said: “We are delighted that we have been awarded funding through the Enterprise Ready Fund, as it will assist us to fill long term plans in working towards sustainability and developing organisational excellence throughout our social enterprise. “Funding will allow us to introduce improvements to the physical structures of our business units, whilst implementing quality frameworks for staff and participants. Most importantly the funding will allow COPE Ltd to provide formal recognition of its participant’s employment skill development and therefore assist individuals’ longer term employability prospects and within the local community. “Being able to move ahead confidently with these improvements is key to underpinning COPE Ltd’s future and longer term sustainability. We are delighted to have been successful in attracting this funding to our company.” For more information contact Sarah Jackson, Assistant Manager 01595696889.

Double standards. If they wanted to do anything, they could start off with stopping those letters sent out from the TV Licensing people bullying folk into thinking that they must advise if they don't have a television on the premises when there is no legal requirement to advise them of such.

And sure enough, it's in The Shetland Times.

Actually, I don't want COPE to be a massive success because I don't necessarily feel they are the best folks for the job. I'm a firm believer that the more charities do then the less governments (national and at local level) feel obligated to do the tasks undertaken currently by charities. "we would love to know" - is this the royal we? I don't recall appointing you spokesperson to speak on my behalf.

Recent job position advertised was for a Team Leader at £10.20ph - that's hardly what I'd call "just above the minimum wage". Another thing, according to their website (currently under construction), "Cope Ltd is a charity and social enterprise which provides employment and employment skill development for adults with disabilities". Their entries on OSCR though state:- "Purposes:The prevention or relief of poverty,The advancement of education,The advancement of health,The advancement of citizenship or community development,The advancement of environmental protection or improvement,The relief of those in need by reason of age, ill health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantageBeneficiaries:People with disabilities or health problems,Other charities / voluntary bodies Objectives 3.1 .I The relief of poverty and distress of adults (i.e. persons over the age of 16) with learning difficulties in Shetland by aiding them to advance into employment and pursuing any other objects for the benefit of people with learning difficulties which are now or hereafter may be deemed to be charitable in law.3.1.2 The prevention or relief of poverty among people affected by ill-health, financial hardship or other disadvantaae throughout the world." Perhaps the word "learning" is missing from their website?I think it's been put forward previously that the only employment is with COPE itself.

Oooh, toys and pram spring to mind!

"No fault of their own and, if they are being 'exploited'(?) in order to proved employment for their able bodied 'trainers'(?) at public expense, a great shame." I think there's an element of truth in that. Just who is keeping whom in employment?

Colin, wasn't it the case though that the SIC and the SCT had a signed agreement going back a couple of years though regarding the funding of the care homes and the agreed amount?

paulb, with respect, the SIC's own policy on complaints states that they have 20 working days in which to respond. I never said I agreed with that policy but if you could be bothered to look, enquire or ask as to the SIC's guidelines regarding replies to general correspondence, I'd be pretty much amazed if you discovered it was less than 10 working days. So yeah, in my book, you're being unreasonable, demanding that you get a detailed considered response in under 8 days given the nature of your enquiries. And hell yes, there are many adults out there who had dyspraxia and the like as a child who didn't have therapy; in case it hadn't escaped your notice, not all 'childhood labelled conditions' extend into adulthood.

I don't see anyone suggesting that the truth should be hidden. As for plastering your offsprings' names all over the internet though, with or without their consent, I fail to see how it is helping them. There are good professionals and bad professionals within the education system, but not allowing one official to respond within the given published timescales and choosing instead to rant on here is hardly likely to make suitable progress, is it, apart from making you feel better. And there's many adults with 'conditions' who never had 'treatment' or 'therapy' and who have managed to turn into well balanced adults without the assistance of the nanny state.

I'm sure your children will be delighted with you broadcasting their private business on the web.

paulb, what are you trying to achieve here? I mentioned a solicitor specialising in eduational law but they usually only take on cases when clients have a child currently at school and the education authority are refusing to undertake the necessary assessments/provide the necessary services and the like, and take them to Court to rectify the matter.

Just appoint a solicitor specialising in education law. Sorted.

^ The English equivalent allows voting (via telephone) provided that a trust has had permission in advance from the Regulator, which begs the question as to whether or not the SCT have had, in writing, prior permission for votes to be acceptable by means of telephone attendance and if the OSCR operates in the same manner as the Regulator for England.

@Ghostrider Wills was on the phone, as were Ratter and Massey. They could stay on the blower, no doubt, to make up the quorum but couldn't vote. Whether or not that should have been permitted is another farce. No doubt the technical difficulty could well have been the fun n games associated with getting 3 participants on a conference call, four if you include the room in Isleburgh!

It's already gone "tits" up. Which bits of VE constitutes an institutional conflict of interest? If I'm understanding this correctly, SIC are the Landlord, guess that is a conflict of interest but not on its own an institutional one. Having, however, the obligation to be the Planning Authority and the fact that they will be involved re the roads and the converter station (which only has outline planning permission, not full), but I guess those are deemed okay on their own because unlike with the care homes they don't make financial gain from those alone ... but add on the fact that where the wind turbines are proposed to be seated (some on SIC land) and they need the converter station and the roads because without them they would be useless; again, you have a conflict of interest but is it an institutional one? The SIC grants itself planning permission all the time; for example, for school buildings but there isn't financial gain. With VE, there would be financial gain. So if the Planning Department and the SIC Councillors didn't give permission for certain bits of VE (like the converter station) the Developers would probably appeal (and we know who to - I'm taking it they have the right to appeal to the Gov.) but if they do give permission for the remaining bits of VE, the argument could be put forward that they couldn't approve it due an institutional conflict of interest dependent perhaps also upon who sits on the SIC Planning Committee. So the SCT allowed a staff member to remain and vote because unlike SIC councillors who represent the financial and legal part of the SIC, the social services staff member doesn't have a 'direct' financial interest in the running of the care homes. If the SIC isn't allowed to run commercial profitable venture in line with EU legislation(?), then dependent upon the amount they receive as a landlord, whilst in the past the land might not have made profit and have therefore been exempt, additional income coming in might run the risk of no longer being exempt ... unless the SIC aren't charging VE rent? The SIC run Sullom harbour thingy and that's income so does the EU legislation apply only to new ventures? I think certain people have always wanted it so that when VE got to a certain stage, SIC Councillors on the SCT wouldn't be able to vote. Was it at this same meeting that they had their financial advice which was written about by Wills - he said that the Trustees would be getting information re the funding for VE before their next meeting from financial advisors relating to the proposed £70 million drawdown from SCT funds being used as, I presume, 'gearing'/deposit, to raise the further capital required for VE. Because on the one hand, if they remove the institutional conflict of interest, they can make decisions on their own. Plus, if the SCT decide that the advice they received is that its too risky and/or that they have an idea that the SIC are going to make things difficult in the future re VE, they'll sell or transfer their shares - not that they weren't ever going to be reducing their stake in VE anyway, dependent upon how they financed the project. So who picks it up? SSE or the remaining party, who have already, albeit some at arm's length, created several new companies currently not 'actively trading' (with the names of such companies being the names of hills where turbines will be placed)? It wouldn't surprise me if this isn't, and hasn't, been planned all along, albeit it was apparently Duncan who went off for legal advice ... but who whispered in his ear that it might be a good idea to get it? Call it conspiracy theory if you will but the timing of all of this is somewhat suspicious; that, or the whole saga is just getting too complicated to follow!