Trustees and the duties within a Charity

Thinking back over previous posts, it suddenly became clear that there are some serious questions to be asked and answered in respect of Christian Vision and the actions of people representing the charity in respect of the Boost.tv project and the wider engagement with Calum Brannan et al.

According to this Charity Commission document :

Compliance – Trustees must:

(2) Ensure that the charity complies with charity law, and with the requirements of the Charity Commission as regulator; in particular ensure that the charity prepares reports on what it has achieved and Annual Returns and accounts as required by law.

(3) Ensure that the charity does not breach any of the requirements or rules set out in its governing document and that it remains true to the charitable purpose and objects set out there.

(4) Comply with the requirements of other legislation and other regulators (if any) which govern the activities of the charity.

(5) Act with integrity, and avoid any personal conflicts of interest or misuse of charity funds or assets.

Duty of prudence – Trustees must:

(6) Ensure that the charity is and will remain solvent.

(7) Use charitable funds and assets reasonably, and only in furtherance of the charity’s objects.

(8) Avoid undertaking activities that might place the charity’s endowment, funds, assets or reputation at undue risk.

(9) Take special care when investing the funds of the charity, or borrowing funds for the charity to use.

Duty of care – Trustees must:

(10) Use reasonable care and skill in their work as trustees, using their personal skills and experience as needed to ensure that the charity is well-run and efficient.

(11) Consider getting external professional advice on all matters where there may be material risk to the charity, or where the trustees may be in breach of their duties.

In this context you'll remember from previous posts that one of the Objects of Christian Vision is:

4. OTHER CHARITABLE PURPOSES BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE PROMOTION OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL VALUES WITH THE EMPHASIS ON HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN EVERY DAY LIFE AND IN BUSINESS.

According to the Charity Commission Website, the Trustees of Christian Vision are:

Contact  !

MR TIM BOXALL
COLESHILL MANOR OFFICE CAMPUS
THE PAVILION
COLESHILL MANOR OFFICE CAMPUS
SOUTH DRIVE
COLESHILL BIRMINGHAM
B46 1DL

Tel: 01675 435500
Email: admin@christianvision.com
Website: www.christianvision.com

Trustees 

!

• MR IAN PAUL BAKER
• NICK CUTHBERT 
• MR ROBERT NORMAN EDMISTON
• MRS TRACIE JACQUELINE EDMISTON

So, in summary, it is the duty of the people named above to act in accordance with their obligations and duties as Trustees of Christian Vision.  

With me so far?

This leaves us wondering how the emails we have seen which appear to show Robert Norman Edmiston "conspiring" with Calum Brannan and James Leavesley to take not just the Boost.tv project but also a healthy pipeline of business (or words to that effect) away from Inormas and bring them into a new company set up by Brannan and Leavesley can sit comfortably with an Object which states:

4. OTHER CHARITABLE PURPOSES BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE PROMOTION OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL VALUES WITH THE EMPHASIS ON HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN EVERY DAY LIFE AND IN BUSINESS.

One of the emails we have seen is a discussion between Mr Edmiston and Brannan/Leavesley where they are discussing the possibility of Mr Edmiston actually funding, or part-funding this Newco (now known as "Social Helium").

Surely it cannot be right, moral, honest, ethical or anything else that Christian Vision stands for, according to its own Objects, for one of its Trustees (and major benefactors) to act in this way in connection with the purchase of products and services for the charity.......

Obviously, we may have missed something - we can't claim to know the whole story and don't pretend to, but from the evidence we have available to us, it certainly looks extremely dubious and casts some level of doubt on both the charity and individuals acting on behalf of the charity.  

It also leaves us wondering whether the other Trustees are aware that this issue exists.  However, even if Mr Edmiston hasn't actually put a penny of his own money into this new company, there's no escaping the fact that he knew precisely what was going on and specifically asked for Brannan and Leavesley to indemnify him against any possible come back from their previous associates, which speaks volumes doesn't it?


Should new evidence come to light, or we receive the "other side of the story", we'll gladly update this article to reflect the fuller picture, as we have no desire to be accused of bias or, God forbid, libel.

We do feel slightly sorry for Mr Edmiston in one respect:- If he wasn't working with such incompetent fools, then these emails would never have come to light and his judgement and actions would not be in question or, at least no more questionable (that we're aware of), than since the whole "Cash for Peerages" fiasco was forgotten about.

However, we're told that there's "absolutely stacks" more to come when the time is right and we have to say that we're quite excited about the prospect! 

Whispers of irregularities in the personal finances of Social Helium Directors

We are getting some pretty plausible whispers that the directors of Social Helium - Calum Brannan and James Leavesley may not have played with a straight bat in terms of their financial affairs in the first part of 2009, when it was still Youmeo.

We've heard many examples where Calum seems untroubled by what others might consider "dodgy dealings" and we know that straight is not his thing either, but playing games with HMRC is never a good idea! 

We'll dig further and let you know - watch this space!

John talks a lot of sense!

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32

What d'ya reckon Christian Vision?

Social Helium - Hot air or just pure "bulls**t"? Part 2

We heard this week that Michelle Stott-Leavesley (i.e. James Leavesley's wife) had an accident around Christmas and that it was "allegedly" the fault of this blog!

Apparently, she'd had sleepless nights worrying about all this information being in the public domain and the fatigue and stress caused the accident.  We were very sorry to hear this until we learned that the accident in question was actually whilst away skiing for Christmas(!!).

Now, I don't know about you, but sleepless nights aren't the most common cause of accidents whilst skiing.  They are usually caused by a conspiracy between gravity and slippery stuff under-foot.  Michelle is no virgin when it comes to skiing accidents, as their blog demonstrates.

We're glad you're OK, Michelle, and had such a great time skiing!  Perhaps you'll have returned in a frame of mind to authorise payment of the Birmingham County Sports Partnership invoice that is apparently hugely overdue.  You remember the one?  We previously highlighted it in the Conflict of Interest post a while back.

Now, when it comes to hot air, spin, waffle and downright bulls**t (to quote Calum Brannan) then this has to be a prime example.  Let's face it, when you're hurtling down a frozen mountain on two planks of wood, a bad night's sleep doesn't have much impact on your concentration.

If you're worried about embarrassing information being in the public domain, Michelle, then it's usually best not to do things you don't want people to know about, or to associate yourself with people who are likely to impact your reputation in a bad way!

Sleep well.

Social Helium - Hot air or just pure "bulls**t"? Part 1

On Calum Brannan's Twitter http://twitter.com/CalumBrannan he has posted the following derogatory comment about Andrew Reynolds.

we should stumbled across the entrepreneur channel with Andrew Reynolds, me and the other half are dying with laughter! MLM bulls**t!! about 17 hours ago from TweetDeck

Surely someone working on Social Media and running a company called "Social helium" - indeed a self-proclaimed Social Media EXPERT should know better.  You'd also have thought that such an "expert" would also have ensured that their syntax was correct, so their sentence actually made sense!

I wonder what Calum's "other half" thinks of Calum's general attitude, approach to life and difficulty with telling the truth - he must find it hard to cope with at times.

Calum Brannan and others - serious deception?

Rumours have been rife for some time about a serious deception perpetrated between Messrs Brannan and Leavesley and Christian Vision, or people acting on behalf of Christian Vision - we're uncertain (if it's true) whether this was an individual act by the parties representing CV, or done on behalf of CV, but either way, if the evidence is as solid as it appears to be, then it's pretty serious stuff!! 

NOTE - As stated at the top of this blog, the statements herein are believed to be true, but haven't been independently corroborated, as such, we must state that these are unproven allegations.

The crux of the matter is that whilst Calum Brannan and James Leavesley were still being paid by Inormas, they were negotiating with CV (or its representatives) to remove the Boost.tv business and other pipeline to a new company called Social Helium.  This (it appears) wasn't just done with the full knowledge of Christian Vision representatives, namely Gavin Mills (Project Manager) and Bob Edmiston (Founder?), it seem it was actually done with their active participation, according to the emails we have seen!!

In these emails it seems Bob Edmiston and Brannan/Leavesley discussed terms for Edmiston to fund their newco (Social Helium).  It must be remembered that this may not have actually happened at the end of the day, but the email is pretty clear - it was discussed, in detail.  Furthermore, these emails also discuss the "healthy pipeline" that Calum Brannan and James Leavesley intended to bring with them from Inormas.

The emails, at best, appear to show Christian Vision's willingness to turn a blind eye as Calum and James basically stole Inormas's pipeline of business and move it over to Social Helium without the slightest signs of remorse or guilt at this blatant act of theft/fraud/misconduct...... call it what you like!!

We understand that Inormas's lawyers have written to all the parties concerned in the various roles but have yet to hear back from Brannan and Leavesley's representatives, probably because James and his wife, Michelle Stott-Leavesley, have been away skiing for some time.

The allegations also seem to include acts of theft/fraud/deception, breach of copyright, breach of fiduciary duty and various other offences, both criminal and civil - clearly these don't all apply to all parties.

One thing that is clear, if the emails are indeed correct, is that Christian Vision (or its representative in the shape of Mr Edmiston) have/has been working a long way outside their stated Objects, as displayed on the Charity Commission website for all to see, especially

4. OTHER CHARITABLE PURPOSES BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE PROMOTION OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL VALUES WITH THE EMPHASIS ON HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN EVERY DAY LIFE AND IN BUSINESS.

Does this sound moral, honest and ethical to you.......?

Watch this space......