SMiSA's Latest Update

[Eaglesham saint]

Watch out he's back

[civilsaint]

Surely I can't be the only person who couldn't give a flying f**k about how many people are on the SMiSA board?
In terms of what they are doing with my zillions of pounds in direct debit payments, so long as it isn't funding the renewal of Trident and Theresa May's next pair of leather trousers, I'm relaxed about that.
 

That though is the attitude that facilitates gross mismanagement of finances of community groups. Unless you know who they are and how decisions are taken you can't possibly conclude that your money is being spent wisely. There's enough history of community groups misappropriating cash to suggest you should care.

Note: I am absolutely not accusing anyone involved in SMISA of mismanaging finances. Transparency/clarity is in everyone's interests.

[FTOF]

26 minutes ago, civilsaint said:

 

 

That though is the attitude that facilitates gross mismanagement of finances of community groups. Unless you know who they are and how decisions are taken you can't possibly conclude that your money is being spent wisely. There's enough history of community groups misappropriating cash to suggest you should care.

Note: I am absolutely not accusing anyone involved in SMISA of mismanaging finances. Transparency/clarity is in everyone's interests.

 

No it doesn't.

[BuddieinEK]

No it doesn't.

It makes it a damned sight easier.

[Kendo]

7 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

It makes it a damned sight easier.

 

You should have replied "Yes it does." After all it's the pantomime season.

[Kombibuddie]

3 minutes ago, Kendo said:

You should have replied "Yes it does." After all it's the pantomime season.

oh no it's not

[FTOF]

18 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

 

It makes it a damned sight easier.

 

Whether there are one or two more members on a board than there should be?

This seems to be the main focus of this completely pointless and seemingly endless thread, intended or not.

I think not.

The make up of the board; more so, but that's not what Drew was alluding to in his post.

Edited December 30, 2016 by FTOF

[BuddieinEK]

In terms of what they are doing with my zillions of pounds in direct debit payments, so long as it isn't funding the renewal of Trident and Theresa May's next pair of leather trousers, I'm relaxed about that.
 

If it was just about "numbers" on the board then I too would be totally relaxed and willi g to just wait and support amendments to the constitution as required.

This particular statement also seems to have been given a resounding amen and that does indeed concern me.

Total transparancy and total accountability.

The majority voting against my wishes doesn't concern me one bit... That is democracy.

The majority willing to accept abuse of the group in terms of finance or management does.

I am NOT for one second suggesting this is taking place... But how sweet would it be if another poster was unable to create a stooshie because we were watertight in every possible way?

[Kendo]

14 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

 

If it was just about "numbers" on the board then I too would be totally relaxed and willi g to just wait and support amendments to the constitution as required.

This particular statement also seems to have been given a resounding amen and that does indeed concern me.

Total transparancy and total accountability.

The majority voting against my wishes doesn't concern me one bit... That is democracy.

The majority willing to accept abuse of the group in terms of finance or management does.

I am NOT for one second suggesting this is taking place... But how sweet would it be if another poster was unable to create a stooshie because we were watertight in every possible way?

 

 

The only reason he causes a stooshie is because others take issue with him. I don't even read his stuff anymore let alone respond. 

[Stuart Dickson]

Phew, eh? SMiSA's board only has 11 members. That's me shut up isn't it? Well no - not at all. 

SMiSA is a Community Benefit Society and as such it has legal obligations. I think it would struggle to explain to the FCA why it granted a gift from the profits of the society to a commercial business to cover the cost of wages. 

[rebella15]

11 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Phew, eh? SMiSA's board only has 11 members. That's me shut up isn't it? Well no - not at all. 

SMiSA is a Community Benefit Society and as such it has legal obligations. I think it would struggle to explain to the FCA why it granted a gift from the profits of the society to a commercial business to cover the cost of wages. 

It is not a Community benefit society, and  it cannot call it self that because it was registered before August 2014, please do your homework mate.

It also is not registered by the Charities Commission  as you said before either.

Come on you are showing your ignorance  , old man 

[pozbaird]

24 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 That's me shut up isn't it? Well no - not at all.

 

Please make it your New Year resolution.

[Drew]

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

 

If it was just about "numbers" on the board then I too would be totally relaxed and willi g to just wait and support amendments to the constitution as required.

This particular statement also seems to have been given a resounding amen and that does indeed concern me.

Total transparancy and total accountability.

The majority voting against my wishes doesn't concern me one bit... That is democracy.

The majority willing to accept abuse of the group in terms of finance or management does.

I am NOT for one second suggesting this is taking place... But how sweet would it be if another poster was unable to create a stooshie because we were watertight in every possible way?

 

 

Watertight?

Even if that were achievable, I very much doubt that the poster in question would beat a retreat. He'd simply do what he so often does - make stuff up.

 

[Stuart Dickson]

20 minutes ago, rebella15 said:

It is not a Community benefit society, and  it cannot call it self that because it was registered before August 2014, please do your homework mate.

It also is not registered by the Charities Commission  as you said before either.

Come on you are showing your ignorance  , old man 

SMiSA claims it is a Community Benefit Society - it's on the foot of every page on their website, and it's stated in the SMiSA Constitution. 

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg15-12.pdf Check out page 31 of this document

Quote

Purpose of a community benefit society

5.4 The purpose of a community benefit society is to benefit ‘the community’. The community can be said to be the community at large. Societies can specify a defined community, such as a locality. In serving the needs of any defined community the society should not inhibit the benefit to the community at large.

Further

How can the SMISA Directors equate their gift of £9k to a Commercial Business and an further £15k interest free loan with this legal requirement

Quote

8.7 Directors, executives and employees are entrusted with control over the society's assets and should not use those assets for their own benefit. The ultimate duty is to act in the best interests of the society − even if a director has been appointed by a particular member or elected by a particular group.

And finally would you say that SMiSA is compliant with this 

Quote

8.10 Directors have a duty to bring to the role of director the skills that they have and the skills reasonably required to perform the role. This is determined by the definition of the role of director in the rules and governance arrangements of the society. It is important that the powers and duties of directors and executives are made clear in the society’s rules and governance arrangements.

 

[repairman]

Looking good Mr Dickson.

[Callum Gilhooley]

35 minutes ago, repairman said:

Looking good Mr Dickson.

More Chins than a Chinese phone book.

[pozbaird]

12 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

 

Edited December 31, 2016 by pozbaird

[Stuart Dickson]

Hmm, I take it "Repairman" is the same person who just phoned my son's mobile phone to make interesting threats? You know, just when you think football forums couldn't scrape much lower, here we go again...  

[WeeBud]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Hmm, I take it "Repairman" is the same person who just phoned my son's mobile phone to make interesting threats? You know, just when you think football forums couldn't scrape much lower, here we go again...  

I guess if he's got your son's mobile number then either you, or your son, know who he is............if he has truly threatened your son, report him and rightly let the appropriate authorities deal with any lowlife who would behave in such a manner

[Kombibuddie]

1 hour ago, rebella15 said:

It is not a Community benefit society, and  it cannot call it self that because it was registered before August 2014, please do your homework mate.

It also is not registered by the Charities Commission  as you said before either.

Come on you are showing your ignorance  , old man 

if it is not a community benefit society (despite saying it is) what is it?

[Stuart Dickson]

23 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

if it is not a community benefit society (despite saying it is) what is it?

When you do a search on the registered companies number it says it is a Industrial and Provident Society. In August 2014 the legislation changed 

https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/registered-societies-introduction/co-operative-community-benefit-societies-act-2014

You'll note the FCA says this

Quote

Letterhead and websites 

You could write: ‘[name of society] is a registered society under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014.’

It would be incorrect to refer to your society as a ‘community benefit society’ or a ‘co-operative society registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014’ if your society was registered before 1 August 2014.

SMISA say this on their website

Quote

SMiSA is operated as an Community Benefit Society 1877 Society Ltd.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Stuart Dickson

[repairman]

45 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Hmm, I take it "Repairman" is the same person who just phoned my son's mobile phone to make interesting threats? You know, just when you think football forums couldn't scrape much lower, here we go again...  

Wrong! But hey, you normally are Mr Dickson.

 

 

[BuddieinEK]

1 hour ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

More Chins than a Chinese phone book.

Uncalled for and personal abuse!

You may well see it as innocuous or even deserved... but to me it crosses a line that I wish we collectively didn't.

Settle for calling him a twat if it makes you feel better... but this is a bit personal bud! 

[Stuart Dickson]

34 minutes ago, repairman said:

Wrong! But hey, you normally are Mr Dickson.

Seems rather co-incidental. A coward hiding behind an alias, with a handful of posts does a bit of online stalking and digs out a picture and within minutes someone "just happens" to anonymously phone my son to make a number of threats. It's the third time it's happened over a number of years. The previous two incidents were reported to the police and this time round has also been reported. And funnily enough in each one of these "incidents" the coward has chosen to threaten one of my sons rather than have a go at me. 

[repairman]

1 minute ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Seems rather co-incidental. A coward hiding behind an alias, with a handful of posts does a bit of online stalking and digs out a picture and within minutes someone "just happens" to anonymously phone my son to make a number of threats. It's the third time it's happened over a number of years. The previous two incidents were reported to the police and this time round has also been reported. And funnily enough in each one of these "incidents" the coward has chosen to threaten one of my sons rather than have a go at me. 

It's all a big conspiracy Mr Dickson. If you think I'm the one who contacted your son (I'm sure you wouldn't make that story up....) you're wrong. Again!