Recently ClearlySo was asked to raise capital for a business we know well. It has been going for over a decade, is well-established in its marketplace, and sells products people like at affordable prices which generate a satisfactory gross margin. The firm has over  £1 million in sales, operates at breakeven and achieves considerable social impact; but the road to get there has been long and difficult. The lessons have come painfully, yet the CEO has matured greatly, he has built a strong Board with an effective Chairman, and with a bit more capital they could thrive. Sadly, investor's initial reactions are somewhat unenthusiastic - I won't say much more, due to client confidentiality.

At the end of last year the Social Enterprise Mark Company launched the '50in250' campaign. It's designed to help public and private sector organisations buy from certified social enterprises. The campaign provides these organisations with an easy way to develop ethical supply chains and achieve meaningful corporate responsibility.

At the beginning of last month, I attended Skoll World Forum's fringe forum - Oxford Jam run by Emerge Venture Lab. I am told it's a Jam worth getting stuck in* and sure enough I book myself in for one full day of back-to-back sessions between 8am and 5pm. 'Fringe' event-styled apparel thoughtfully selected and 12-hour caffeine-intake strategy in place, I begin with conversation at a breakfast session organised by Cisco.

Over the past few weeks I have been shifting in my seat over reactions to the Government's decision to limit the tax breaks rich people can receive for charitable giving. We would all like to see more charitable giving, and with all the pressure charities are under, this seemed potentially ill-timed. However, I felt distinctly uncomfortable watching a steady cast of charity execs provide political cover for and plea for continuing this subsidy to the rich. There are sacrifices that need to be made and, after all, there is nothing to stop wealthy individuals from giving should they wish to do so. When the social enterprise sector came out with similar pleas for Community Investment Tax Relief (CITR) for the well-off I felt downright queasy.

I have a good friend, let's call him AK, who broadly speaking works in IT. Introduced at a party, strangers are prone to start grilling him about their poor broadband connection or recurring laptop glitches. He almost certainly won't know how to fix them. On the other hand, you could certainly have a useful conversation with AK if you are a CIO with a budget the size of a small country's sovereign debt, and you need help formulating a five-year strategy to update your firm's legacy software. AK's title is research analyst and vice-president in a major international IT research organisation. Few people outside the IT sector, or for that matter inside, understand what he does. But most people do think they know what "working in IT" means.

It's 11am on a chilly spring morning and I, along with an assortment of other hacks, am waiting outside Pudding Mill station for a tour of the Olympic Park. We're all there for the same reason - to see if this talk of legacy is anything more than hot air.

From 28th-30th of March, I was part of the team running the fantastic Oxford Jam. For those of you that were there, I hope you had a great time, and for those of you that weren't, allow me to explain a little more about it, and why you should go next year.

We have studiously avoided commenting in any press coverage on the launch of Big Society Capital (BSC) today.   As an applicant for funding, it would strain credibility for us to pose as independent observers of this new institution.   Cynical readers have therefore been warned!   More charitable readers of our blog also have the information they need to take what we say with a "pinch of salt", should they choose to do so. Nevertheless, today's announcement is an important milestone for the sector and we feel obliged to offer some comment on it, as we have done in previous posts on the BSC. We offer four observations.

I've always had a pathological fear of heights. So, when I was offered the chance to offer a bit of mentorship while taking a ride on the Ferris Wheel in Liverpool, I had mixed feelings.

This invitation came from the charismatic founder of SMARTA, Shaa Wasmund. Would I like, Shaa asked, to be part of The Revolution on Liverpool's Echo Wheel. All I had to do was endure two revolutions while giving an entrepreneur some business advice. "You'd be perfect," Shaa pitched - well, how could I resist?

The large US based software and content management company, Salesforce, is most definitely not a social enterprise. Its attempt to hijack this increasingly popular term, as part of its recent marketing campaign, actually risks harming the social enterprise sector. This is not to suggest that Salesforce. is a bad business. In fact, they operate a good contact management system, used by us here at ClearlySo, and we understand they give away some of their licenses to charities. This makes them a progressive business, but not a social enterprise or a social business. Why, given ClearlySo's general aversion to time-wasting debates about definitions, are we taking such a strong stand on this recent development?