Brixton Wave 2017 - 2018

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, May 18, 2017.

  1. GarveyLives

    GarveyLives Well-Known Member

    salem likes this.
  2. TopCat

    TopCat Zap it!

    Fuck sake
     
  3. editor

    editor hiraethified

    Something smells very wrong here. Why are they sitting on three quarters of a million pounds? Where did it all come from?
     
    Nanker Phelge, Gramsci and salem like this.
  4. TopCat

    TopCat Zap it!

    Smells wrong? I'm gagging on the stench.
     
    Nanker Phelge likes this.
  5. alcopop

    alcopop Banned Banned

  6. GarveyLives

    GarveyLives Well-Known Member

    Can anyone clarify the meaning of this?

    Brixton Splash Ltd is registered at Companies House under number 07071661.

    A poster has posted that company's balance sheet at 30 November 2017 and described it as that of "Brixton Wave Ltd", when it appears that no such company currently exists (not in the UK, at any rate).

    Can anyone clarify how Brixton Splash Ltd is connected to, or involved with the various 'Brixton Wave' non-events which are the subject matter of this thread?

    Apologies if I have missed something here.
     
  7. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    They have 1 director overlap as far as I can see - Ros G. So they aren't the same organisations and Wave don't suddenly have a lump of cash. Brixton Splash Ltd went from assets of c£20k pa to a much bigger balance.

    If that was coming from a govt or LA, or grant contract then they would be obliged to state where that income came from. Them not doing that implies that the income isn't coming from that sort of source*.

    But then I can't see the Brixton Wave Co. House record to see how they are, or how they're registered?

    *it looks like a capital asset, or legacy gift.
     
    alcopop likes this.
  8. ricbake

    ricbake working out how

    Isn't Wave just a feeble gentrified Splash?

    I assumed they were associated but admit some confusion or error...
     
  9. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    In terms of marketing - probably yes.

    But as legal entities - No, Wave is Ros G and fronted by a random social media events company Value My Time - the one who hates what she calls "West London" when she means the West End etc. the same grammatical errors appear in her text and the Wave PR.

    Splash remains the same set of people who always ran Splash the Ltd Company.
     
    editor likes this.
  10. editor

    editor hiraethified

    I'm still baffled how Brixton Splash - an organisation which, as far as I can see, has no event to promote or stated purpose, can end up so loaded with cash with no apparent accountability.
    If anyone knows more about these things, I'd appreciate some digging.
     
  11. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    What would you want to find out and to what purpose? Why don't you ask them?

    Their 'purpose' would be set up in their company house documents - all available online along with their contact details.

    Splash is an entity legally - so doesn't need an event - some individual may have given that cash to them to do with it whatever they want as outlined in my post above. All of that (subject to the usual money laundering things) is perfectly legal.

    Perhaps stop using emotive phrases like 'loaded with cash', and 'no accountability' as they're complying with their regulatory framework and therefore legally accountable.
     
    SpamMisery and discobastard like this.
  12. editor

    editor hiraethified

    I said "no apparent accountability," which is a fair comment from a community viewpoint. In my opinion. And they are indeed loaded with cash for something that most people viewed as some sort of people's festival.

    But what is their purpose and where did all the money come from? Their website (stuck in 2016) has no pertinent info.

     
  13. ricbake

    ricbake working out how

    Splash website shows a claim to be sponsored by the Arts Council Lottery fund and I saw something about a donation from Keith Fitchett Memorial Housing Fund subject to conditions but can't find it now.

    The year to November 2016 funds reduced by about £11,000.00
    in the year to November 2017 they increased by over £715,000.00
    £69.00 was pledged to their crowd fund site in 2016
    The Web site was last updated in April 2017
    Someone used tweeted their twitter in Feb, May and Aug 2018

    May be they could use their funds to build a Splash Memorial public toilet....
     
    ska invita, Tricky Skills and editor like this.
  14. editor

    editor hiraethified

    Interesting development - it turns out that Rosalind Griffiths registered the trademark, 'Brixton Splash from infamous to famous' without the knowledge or consent of the then committee.
    She's just lost the trademark.
     

    Attached Files:

    Gramsci and shakespearegirl like this.
  15. editor

    editor hiraethified

    Could anyone comment on the potential ramifications if a statement of accounts sent into Companies House turns out to be wildly inaccurate and not corrected for over a year?
     
  16. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    Well that depends on the history behind it doesn't it? And no one can really comment unless you post more evidence about your concerns, or the size, nature and type of inaccuracy.

    Which organisations and whose accounts are you referring to?

    You seem to be saying fraud has taken place. Co House aren't an investigatory body (see the 2006 Companies Act) - so if you have concerns - it's the police you raise them with. Ultimate sanctions could be directors being struck off Co House and not being allowed to be a director again (fixed term or perpetuity) - although that requires evidence and an investigation and a decision. Plus fines, winding up, legal action etc.

    However none of the entities we're talking about are large in Co House terms, and fall under the micro entity small business rules for reporting - hence the top level not externally audited accounts etc. which have been accepted by CH.
     
  17. editor

    editor hiraethified

    At no point have I remotely suggested fraud, and it's both inflammatory and irresponsible of you to try and make that suggestion. I was simply asking if there were any potential legal issues if a company posts up a wildly inaccurate financial statement to Companies House.
     
  18. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    fuck me thats the shittest strapline ive ever heard :D and then tried to copyright it lol.
     
    Gramsci and urbanspaceman like this.
  19. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    where did 700K come from ? :hmm:
     
  20. editor

    editor hiraethified

    :D

    I'm baffled while they're still fighting over it given that Splash is clearly, err, dead in the water, with zero chance of ever returning.
     
    Gramsci and urbanspaceman like this.
  21. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    theres 700k in the bank though is there?
     
  22. editor

    editor hiraethified

    Apparently it's nowhere near that much after all and it was a 'simple error' that led to a wildly inflated figure being posted.
     
  23. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    fuck me :facepalm:
     
  24. TopCat

    TopCat Zap it!

    How did you learn this?
     
  25. editor

    editor hiraethified

  26. editor

    editor hiraethified

    I emailed them.
     
  27. TopCat

    TopCat Zap it!

    Well can you share your questions you put to them? Plus the answers?
     
  28. editor

    editor hiraethified

    I'm researching an article for Buzz so will post it all up there, but I've already asked about how the error is made, why they still want the trademark, what their future plans are and how they intend to spend the money they do have. They could of course tell me that it's none of my business, but Splash was most definitely seen as a community festival for the community.
     
    TopCat and ska invita like this.
  29. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    Calm down - you asked a question, I answered. You said that you thought that they had returned 'wildly inaccurate financial statements to companies house".
     
  30. editor

    editor hiraethified

    To repeat: I made no accusation of fraud which is clearly a defamatory claim. The ''wildly inaccurate financial statement to companies house" is not as it is a fact.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice