Making it happen. Holding officialdom to account. Frank, fearless and free. THE DIGITAL NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH BLOG. Join our conversation YOU MAY NOW VIEW PETERBOROUGH TRIBUNE OVER A SECURE WEB LINK: PASS IT ON!

PBROtrib PAGEview COUNTER excludes casual browsers scrolling through a selection of posts

Tuesday, October 20, 2015


Someone is really not too happy with this information being passed around, and for some publications to hot to handle so we suggest Peterborough City Councillors and Officers copy this off and keep it safe because at some time in the future it will impact on the Fletton Quays development. We posted this a while back and it attracted some interest so we've updated it, in compact form minus pictures but the links we hope still work... and indeed will Peterborough City Council really need those offices? As the way we work points to a rapid reduction in office space needed thanks to new technology.
Simply its always good to know who and what you are dealing with. This is the back story behind the Fletton Quays handover by the PCC, driven by councillors, some who are no longer in power, but has the damage been done? Where is the vibrant riverside package we were half promised or are we just setting up a new folly?  The story features the names behind the whole Fletton  Quays project.... 

Failed wine maker and failed wine shop chain owner Nitin Parekh took on 14 former Threshers and Wine Rack stores to create the Wine Shak chain, NOW FAILED. seen with in one photograph with Marco Cereste  as he bottles up Peterborough City Council using BORROWED cash for new offshore property bunga bunga aka Fletton Quays... 

Mr Parekh also had High Court money troubles linked with a WELSH football club - the Football Club later wound up in the High Court, click the link below, then gently weep ...  Locking  into a huge long term deal with a serial lossmaking outfit run by a failed winemaker and failed booze retailer, and failed football club owner.

His firm fined by the City Regulator Financial Conduct Authority on June 11, 2013 for "failing to adequately protect client money and client assets".  Marco supported in yet another madcap OPM [Other Peoples Money] vanity project, by Cllr Brian Rush and Cllr Sheila Scott who are both up for re-election on May 22nd!   

NEWSDESK  - Hume Capital Securities PLC, formerly XCAP PLC, Wednesday said its annual pretax loss narrowed, but said it will retain future profits and possibly even turn to investors for more capital in order to meet regulatory requirements on the capital it must hold.

Oh Boy, did they see the Peterborough Conservatives coming ....

Hume Capital Securities shares slumped by17% to 0.290 pence Wednesday.

Its pretax loss narrowed to GBP 3.7 million for the year ended August 31, 2013, from GBP 4.5 million in the previous year, boosted by a 13% increase in revenue to GBP 6.0 million.

But the costs of restructuring some of its operations in order to secure its liquidity and capital positions during the financial year weighed upon the company.

Part of this loss was also attributed to the costs related to acquiring Hume Capital Management and to poor market conditions.

In November 2013, the company raised about GBP 900,000 before expenses by issuing 323.2 million shares in a placing with high-net-worth individuals, institutional investors and existing shareholders at 0.28 pence a share.

Chief Executive Nitin Parekh said in a statement: "The group has raised capital, cut costs aggressively and invested in the business but there is further work to do.

"This will include rebuilding the capital base of the firm, which has been significantly impacted by losses in the year, in order that the group meets its regulatory capital requirements. This will be achieved through a combination of retained profits plus potentially new capital raisings if considered appropriate."

Parekj said the company is now operating with "a far more appropriate cost base" and has an "excellent" pipeline of corporate deal flow…..

"The group is starting to attract new assets under management in a competitive environment," Parekj said.

"Our original model of having a strong corporate offering supported by excellent distribution capabilities and an active market making function still applies whilst now also being supported by a strong fund management business."

When it was still known as XCAP, the company acquired the Hume Capital Management trading businesses in December 2012. It said those businesses have been "consistently profitable" since June 2013.

Parekj said trading in the first five months of the current financial year has improved on the corresponding period in the previous year, adding that he believes Hume Capital Securities'   overall financial performance for the year ended August 31 will show a "significant improvement".

"In light of the acquisition and the fundraisings during and following the year end, the directors have prepared detailed forecasts for the enlarged group for the foreseeable future which consider the liquidity and capital position of the group," it said.


"These forecasts assume an immediate increase in profitability based on the cost-cutting measures already implemented together with increased revenue from the existing business divisions."


It said if those forecasts are not achieved the group would need to rebuild its capital base in order to meet its regulatory capital requirements.


"In this respect the directors expect that the group will be able to obtain sufficient capital resources and funding through the injection of new capital from the placement of new shares, as well as it having the ability to bring additional capital and cash in through further restructuring, and the redistribution of resources currently tied up in existing business divisions," the note said.


XCAP Securities changed its name on February 10. It proposed the name change on June 19, 2013.  It was fined GBP120,900 by the UK regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority on June 11, 2013 for "failing to adequately protect client money and client assets".


Wickham Vineyard in Hampshire,  owned by Marcos' new chum, Nitkin Parakh which produced about 80,000 bottles a year, ceased trading just before Christmas with the loss of around 24 jobs.  Having established its first vineyards in 1984, the estate had since expanded plantings to around 20 acres of 10 different grape varieties.

    Wickham Wine Estates@wickhamvineyardApr 7

vineyard has been sold and will reopen later on this year. The wine belongs to us and wine can still be purchased directly from us.

Although the UK downturn had made trading difficult over the last year, with future prospects dampened by the disastrous 2012 vintage, which saw fellow producer Nyetimber abandon its entire harvest, Wickham Vineyard’s main issue is thought to have stemmed from its loss making high street wine retail business.

Following the demise of First Quench Retailing in 2009, Wickham Vineyards’ owner Nitin Parekh, founder of investment management firm Hume Capital, took on 14 former Threshers and Wine Rack stores to create the Wine Shak chain.

With branches in the south of England, Wine Shak aimed to sell locally made wine and beer, providing producers with an alternative to supermarket distribution. However the chain entered voluntary liquidation at the end of November 2012.

The phones at Wickham Vineyard appear to have been disconnected, but earlier a spokesperson told a local newspaper: “The shops took the vineyard down as well.”

However, the spokesperson suggested that other factors had also contributed to Wickham Vineyard’s collapse, saying: “It’s been difficult trading for at least the past 12 months and they have been trying to secure investment which hasn’t been forthcoming.”

The future for the vineyard remains unclear, since Wickham Vineyard does not own the land and buildings. However, the company does own WineShare, a business that sells wine and rents vines, and The Vineyard Restaurant, both of which are understood to be continuing to trade.

E&OE Tel:+44 (0) 1733 345581 IPHONE 0743 303 145
Post a Comment





UPDATES: Post are transmitted from a variety of remote sources, immediately published on servers in the USA, additions, updates and any corrections added later on the blog version only.

Editorial policy: WE DON'T CENSOR NEWS, we will however come down hard on lawbreakers, all forms of ASB - Anti Social Behaviour, and anyone or group who seek to disturb or disrupt our neighbourhoods and communities, or in anyway abuse, take unfair advantage or financially disadvantage our citizens. We support the Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch and digitally carry the messages from this independent Neighbourhood Watch Scheme.

We are openly but constructively critical of all political parties (actual and sham), pressure groups, overbearing 'jobsworths' and those who seek to waste public funds, abuse public office, ramp up expenses, BUY VOTES and/or engage in any form of directed or robotic voting.

Whilst accepting that many in Public Office perform a valuable service and make a worthwhile contribution, there are others who are frankly rubbish. Although Julian Bray is the editor, there are several Blog administrators / correspondents who actively contribute by remote transmission to this blog.

So it could be some days before the copy (content) is seen by the Editor and properly formatted. We consider all representations and correct any facts that are clearly deficient.


THE HIGH COURT has ruled....People have a right to lampoon and criticise politicians and public officials under the Human Rights Act, the High Court has ruled.

We have the full High Court judgment, saved as a page on here. l

ampoon (lampoon) Pronunciation: /lamˈpuːn/ verb [with object] publicly criticize (someone or something) by using ridicule, irony, or sarcasm: the actor was lampooned by the press noun a speech or text lampooning someone or something: the magazine fired at God, Royalty, and politicians, using cartoons and lampoons.

Derivatives: lampooner noun lampoonery noun lampoonist noun Origin: mid 17th century: from French lampon, said to be from lampons 'let us drink' (used as a refrain), from lamper 'gulp down', nasalized form of laper 'to lap (liquid).


NUJ Code of Conduct

The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936.

The code is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to the it.

Members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles:

A journalist:

1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed

2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair

3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies

4 Differentiates between fact and opinion

5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means

6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest

7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work

8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge

9 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation

10 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed

11 A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare

12 Avoids plagiarism The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code.

The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code

The NUJ logo is always a link to the home page.

(As modified at Delegate Meeting 2011)