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!