Calum Brannan - Social Media's Cowboy Builder?

This blog has been created to document the business antics of Mr Calum Brannan, a self-proclaimed young technology entrepreneur and Social Media guru.

The contents herein are published (and should be read) on the strict understanding that they are believed to be true, fair and accurate.

However, there is no means of independently corroborating the various sources of information used to create this content and, therefore, any aspects or comments that are proven (on the balance of probability) to be inaccurate will be removed or amended appropriately and are unreservedly apologised for in advance.

It should also be noted that, whilst third party comments will be vetted for illegal, abusive or defamatory content, all parties named herein have the unfettered right of reply and their comments will be published unedited if their identity can be validated.

In reading this blog you expressly accept the caveats detailed above and agree to consider the information contained herein with an open mind.

This blog documents the activities of Calum Brannan and his business associates.

Showing posts with label Christian Vision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Vision. Show all posts

Monday, 15 February 2010

2009 - Long Year, Tall Tales, Downright Lies, Hairdressers and Social Helium

In Calum Brannan's own words:

  • The long year – 2009
    Some 12 months after we launched Youmeo, American startup Friendfeed launched and was achieving massive growth doing what we were doing. The worlds a big place and we knew that we wern’t the only ones predicting this is how social networking would become. Friendfeed was setup by ex-Google employees, with it’s growth doing so well we had our innovation validated but we and we failed to raise next round investment we needed and failed to secure a robust revenue model. Our team and investors all walked away with our heads held high, we had pushed for inovation and many ways succeeded – but what an experience it had been.
  • Present day - 2009 to now.
    Aged 20, I’m working on some very exciting ventures collaborating with some of the greatest minds in British business, some are already trading and generating healthy returns:
    • Appointment-Toolkit; this service provides text message reminders and marketing to doctors, hairdressers and dentists.
    • Social Helium: a social media consultancy business where current and previous clients include house-hold names, ‘AAA’ PLCs, charities and government organisations. We are social networking experts.
    • Spendego – a new type of advertising agency for todays social media world.
    My teams are regularly involved in roundtable discussions and consultancy with leading CTO’s, marketing directors, CLO’s and CEO’s from a range of companies including Simon & Schuster, Vodafone, Bebo, AGA, Lighterlife, Christian Vision, Yahoo and Glam Media to name but a few.
 What a load of garbage, Calum - The only time you're "regularly involved in roundtable discussions...." with AAA clients, CxOs, etc is between the time you fall asleep and the time you wake up.  You're dealing with a charity that look like they are about to get hauled hard for their (alleged) unethical conduct in conspiracy with you and James Leavesley, i.e. Christian Vision

Aga aren't a client of yours, don't seem to have any formal business arrangements with you and probably wouldn't be too impressed to find that you're naming them as such.

Vodafone - can't find anyone there who's even heard of you and they weren't too pleased to find you're naming them!

Lighterlife - fair enough, they seem to know you.
But the rest is just a badly punctuated, poorly spelt figment of your fertile imagination, it seems.  Who are these government organisations?

You were getting near the truth with "failed to secure a robust revenue model."

But then it all went wrong again with "Our team and investors all walked away with our heads held high, we had pushed for inovation and many ways succeeded – but what an experience it had been."

By the way, there are 2 "n"s in "innovation".
The truth is that Youmeo is still with the Liquidators and you're now on your 4th company in less than 12 months and you'd probably be flat broke by now if you hadn't (allegedly) lied and deceived your biggest (only?) client into coming with you for the rest of the Boost.tv project when you unceremoniously dumped Inormas after they had bailed you out from Red Brick Labs and youmeo!

It's just sad and pathetic to see you trying to perpetuate the lies - do you even know when you're lying anymore?

It's a pity (as a number of people have commented during this research) that, when you're young and described in such terms as "charismatic and persuasive", you can't find ways to use this for honest, beneficial purposes, instead of looking for a quick buck and acting like (what appears to be) little more than a charlatan and a con artist in order to achieve your ends, whatever the cost to others who choose to support you or buy in to your "bulls**t".

Just out of interest, do you actually know off the top of your head exactly how many individuals you've let down, either as investors or clients through failed businesses, failed promises or failed deliveries of product?  Do you even care?

Wednesday, 27 January 2010

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.





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  Help for this section. Opens in a new window.
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 




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! 




Sunday, 3 January 2010

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


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

Watch this space......



Wednesday, 30 December 2009

Calum Brannan and his team's technical abilities

At his offices, in Coventry, very close to where he lives, Calum and James set about trying to build what they had promised their clients and getting as much publicity as they could:


http://www.wmictcluster.org/Inormas  - read about how James Leavesley and Calum Brannan met



http://twitter.com/inormasmedia - "We are a social media technology and strategy company based in the UK. Our team is a mix of experienced marketeers and cutting edge technicians."


Unfortunately, these "cutting edge technicians" weren't quite as sharp as they claimed and an independent audit of the system demonstrated some pretty fundamental issues in just about every aspect of the system.......


Here's what the report about the system they'd developed for their largest client had to say at the time [it's important to note that we've been told that some of these issues have now been addressed.]



Introduction:
The Bxxxx TV site is far too complex as outlined in the points below.

The purpose of this document to highlight some of the more serious problems with a view to providing guidance on the way forward.


Overall complexity:
Although the scope of this site is quite wide, it has been built in a way that makes the system difficult to maintain. Inormas are currently in the development phase, before people are using the site and it already slow and cumbersome - making changes will become much more difficult (if not impossible) once the site goes live.

The data structure is extremely (and unnecessarily) complex, the database contains over 100 distinct tables. By comparison, Facebook (built on the same basic code, happily supports 250 million users and all their content and applications with just 30 tables.

The system does not appear to have any design documentation or project plans and most of the code contains no comments (something that goes against all best practice). Although the system uses a framework, it uses it poorly and with a system this complex the framework is no substitute for a clear definition of the goals of the system, how it has been implemented and how the data is organised – all of which seems to be missing.


Poor use of MVC (Model View Controller):
The purpose of an MVC framework is to separate the different major functions of the site so that it can be worked on by people with different skills and easily maintained on an ongoing basis.

The Model, which is the heart of data driven site, should contain the business logic, in particular the routines that access and update information or data.

The View should contain templates to display the site in different languages and for different devices like mobile phones.

The Controllers should identify which View a request needs and which Models it needs to access to provide the data for templates. All contemporary literature and generally accepted best practice (including Zend) recommends keeping the Controllers small and simple.

This site contains over 13,500 lines of code in the controllers, including one of the most important controllers, which has 3,000 lines of code on its own – this is anything but “Small and Simple”.

There is also far too much code in the Views, which do not use a dedicated templating language. There is even more code in the View helpers which also access the Models but do not show up in the Controllers.

This means that the organisation provided by the framework is almost completely subverted. The code starts to become one mass of up to forty thousand lines of interconnected spaghetti code, which probably explains why the system is so slow and makes it almost impossible to build a Version 2 of this system as it stands today.

The Controller should act as a manifest or list of which resources are required for a particular request or action. This means that when the site has performance issues, you should be able to quickly identify which resources are causing the problem. The complexity of the Controllers and the fact that some resource access goes through the helpers, not the Controllers, makes identifying performance issues very difficult and extremely time consuming and it make rectifying issues near to impossible.

Another good reason that the Controllers should be kept simple is that Models and Views can often be easily transferred from one framework to another (see next section), whereas the Controllers are more unique to a particular tool. Some frameworks use no code in their Controllers whatsoever.

The whole framework directory structure is also very complex, with no documentation or guidelines of why it has been implemented in this manner.


Choice of Framework:
It is debatable whether an MVC architecture is the ideal structure for a social media site. Because the site will contain content, which is defined by managers and ultimately end users, it is questionable whether the structure of the site should be driven by its directory structure, as opposed to being data driven.  Again, this has performance implications.

Regardless, having chosen an MVC structure, it is difficult to see why Zend was used. It is one of the biggest and most complex frameworks and is widely regarded as one of the slowest performers, whether this site will scale to a million users is highly questionable.


Organisation and Management:
As above, a number of the fundamental design decisions were highly questionable, but the technical management of the site and development work is also flawed.

The source control system doesn’t work meaning that a number of people are directly using FTP (File Transfer Protocol) to update the main working copy of the site.  This makes it almost impossible to test potential solutions. It also means that updating the site is complex with a good chance that one persons changes could overwrite, or otherwise compromise, somebody else’s.

There is no structured project management or work allocation/monitoring, other than a bug list with over a hundred items on it. Key members of the team are often too tired to produce high quality work or communicate effectively. Tasks are poorly defined and undocumented, which is confusing for the users, bad coding practice and will be very difficult to understand in six months time when something needs fixing and the developer that did has left.

There are no written guidelines on the configuration of the site. The site would not work with a standard installation of PHP because a depreciated (out of date) method was used to separate the PHP code from the HTML in the Views.

All of the above leads to very slow progress, poor morale and the application of unrealistic deadlines, which were never met, which is also going to impact relations with the client. Whilst this situation may be acceptable in the design phase, it should not exist in the development phase and is completely unacceptable and untenable once the site goes live.

It would be far more intuitive both for people using the site and for people maintaining it in the future, if content, such as polls, surveys, adverts, etc. could be added or maintained by editing a representation of the page itself.

Conclusion:
It is possible to rectify some of the more serious problems but it would be highly unlikely that such action and direction would come from the same people who created the existing system.

A large amount of the system could be migrated to a better design but it would have to happen very soon before the problems became entrenched and the system needed to be started from scratch.



In other words, the current approach must be stopped and the solution migrated to a robust, reliable, scalable and properly built platform without delay because if this system goes live as it stands, it probably won’t work, it will consume vast amounts of time to keep it limping along and Inormas will lose credibility with the client to a degree which is probably unrecoverable.


So, the question is this:  "Does this sound like the sort of project you would want to have spent a very significant amount of money on?"  and, moreover, "Do these guys sound like they know what they are doing?"


"Cutting edge developers" that's pretty similar to how the people who built the Titanic would have described themselves at the time, doesn't it? 

 


Wednesday, 23 December 2009

Interesting events today.......

Today I registered with Christian Vision's new website Boost.tv and had a really good look around at the functionality.  Whilst it's far from perfect, it's not bad, I have to admit!

However, without warning, my login stopped working and then I got password reset emails for this Blog, as well as my Googlemail account and Twitter account. 

I wonder how/why that happened!

It looks like someone didn't want me sniffing around the Boost.TV website and then tried to hack this blog and my email!

Was that you, Calum Brannan?

Tuesday, 22 December 2009

Calum Brannan's appalling investor track record

With three failures in about 6 months, Calum Brannan seems to have an amazing record of using other people's money but delivering very little in return......


Looking at the funding for Youmeo.com, he seems to have persuaded a large number of bright people to part with many £tens of thousands and yet achieved little, which begs the question as to how his new concept, "Social Helium" will fare.


Listed as shareholders for Youmeo, we have the following (amongst others!):


Norman Younger - 1 share - Investment £1.00
Calum Brannan - 89 shares - Investment £8900
Votivation Ltd - 5 shares - Investment £17150

Calum Brannan - 90000 shares - Investment £zero
Votivation Ltd - 5000 shares - Investment £zero
James Leavesley - 13970 shares - Investment £10,001
Paul Tuson - 4576 shares - Investment £9356.91
Lisa Meadows - 4576 shares - Investment £9356.91
Orchard Growth - 629 shares - Investment 1286.17

Richard Boot - 9779 shares - Investment £19999.91
Michelle Stott - 6985 shares - Investment £20000.01
James Leavesley - 5588 shares - Investment £9999.84
Richard Boot - 5588 shares - Investment £9999.84
Ronald Blease - 2235 shares - Investment £3999.58
3 others 1397 shares each  - Investment £1000 each


(Note to self - Must investigate Votivation Ltd)



So, in summary, Calum Brannan managed to get more shares than anyone else (in fact, everyone else put together!!) without ever significantly putting his hand in his pocket, whilst everyone else funded his gravy-train to the tune of about £111,150 - I bet they were annoyed when it went down!!


Imagine how James Leavesley and Michelle Stott-Leavesley, a young married couple, must have felt pissing such a huge amount of money down the drain and yet James seems to stick with him - hard to understand unless he expects to see his money back sometime!!  What other reason could there be for them starting CBJL Ltd and promoting their new concept of "Social Helium".



As anyone who's ever been to a fair knows, you should never trust a kid with helium - they either have a concentration lapse and let go of the balloon, so it floats away, or they breathe it thinking that it sounds cool to have a voice like Mickey Mouse!



I'm finding it hard to imagine why anyone would want to invest into, or even get involved with Social Helium or any business in which Calum is actively involved (!) when he's taken down, or attempted to take down, three companies in the same space within less than a year - does that seem like a safe bet to you? 


I wonder if the DTI know he's had such an appalling track record?


On another note, we hear that there's been some very interesting movement with respect to the whole Bob Edmiston / Christian Vision / Boost TV saga and there should be more here very soon - If you like some scandal, generously laced with hypocrisy and dirty dealing, then you're gonna LOVE this!


We just want to ensure we've checked our facts before we publish.

 

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Calum Brannan re-writes his CV

According to Calum Brannan's LinkedIn Profile, which he's obviously updated in the last few days (!!), he's never worked for Inormas!  Instead, he now seems to have used the time between the Spring and Autumn of 2009 working for SalonToolkit and Youmeo.


I'm sure that this will come as a huge shock to the people who've been paying his salary for the last 6+ months, as they don't seem to get any credit at all for the time and money they spent on him!


Moreover, Youmeo has been in the hands of the Receivers for the last few months, since his Red Brick labs/Youmeo venture, which he operated with James Leavesley, ran out of money and went down the pan!!  Which is why the original www.youmeo.com URL doesn't work!!


According to Calum's version of events, on LinkedIn, his employment history looks like this:


Experience

Information Technology and Services industry
September 2009 – Present ( 4 months)
Helping businesses understand the everchanging world of social media and digital marketing.
Internet industry
May 2009 – Present ( 8 months)
A new startup using SAAS to provide low cost, quality diary management and SMS reminder solutions.
Government Relations industry
September 2007 – Present (2 years 4 months)
We were founded in 2004 by the British Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses, funded mostly by what is now called the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills.
Privately Held; Internet industry
April 2008 – August 2009 (1 year 5 months)
Youmeo.com was founded by young entrepreneur Calum Brannan in 2008, after being re-branded from PPLparty.com


It is a social networking aggregator. This technology allows its users to manage and update all their social networks from one location.


Youmeo is based from a converted Electric Factory in Coventry and it's team includes people from Bebo, Yahoo, BBC, KPMG, Media Corp and Trutap.
Calum has 6 recommendations (2 reports, 1 co-worker, 3 partners) including:

Information Technology and Services industry
September 2008 – June 2009 ( 10 months)
Internet industry
April 2005 – March 2008 (3 years)
PPLparty was created in 2005 for the clubbing community, it was sold into Youmeo.com in early 2008, where a new board and team transformed it into the cutting edge social media aggregator.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, there you have it - Calum Brannan has re-written his CV and ex-sponged Inormas from it.  This begs an interesting question - if Calum was working on the development of Salon Toolkit for this period of time, why was he asking for a salary from Inormas, when he wasn't actually doing the job they were paying him for........?


Perhaps more importantly, was he fulfilling his duties to clients like Christian Vision during this time?  And, even more importantly, what has happened to all the code written for Christian Vision, by his team, whilst he was off developing Salon Toolkit at Inormas's expense....?


We've also heard a rumour, unconfirmed as yet, that there may have been some extremely unsavoury and possibly illegal shenanigans going on between Bob Edmiston, the multi-millionaire chief of IM Group, Founder of Christian Vision and major benefactor to Grace Academies in Coventry and Solihull and the Calum Brannan / James Leavesley duo, now operating as CBJL Ltd.


You'll recall from the earlier blog, entitled

A bit more background about Calum Brannan

That the 4th Charitable objective of Christian Vision is, quote:




Now, we're pretty certain from the information shown to us, that this simply isn't the case where Robert Norman Edmiston's conduct in this matter is concerned...... and, if it's true, there are going to be some pretty heated exchanges on the subject when the Trustees of CV find out about this!!


Not to mention the few words that "Benevolent Uncle Bob" is going to want to have with James and Calum about the mess they've made of things!!


On the other hand, where Calum's concerned, it's not even clear that he knows when he's lying and when he's telling the truth, as we have reports of him doing it without even taking a breath!



Watch this space - the juicy stuff is coming!!