UKH

As this appears to be raising it's head again (as expected) here's link to old thread: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/the_jennifer_arcuri_affair-7106... 

It seems Miss Arcuri is rather upset that she's been cast aside as reportedly "heartbroken" (odd for just technology lessons) and is about to spill the beans.

It now emerges she wasn't the only one... shock horror

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/18/boris-johnson-jennifer-arc...

Just how bad are Boris's IT skills?

Hell has no fury like a woman spurned, or is it spermed?

It would seem that nothing sticks to Boris. Dodgy deals, affairs of the heart, back stabbing etc. He's like a very British version of that American chap.

She was cast aside like a used "tissue" 

He used her tissues perhaps 

She was on some sort of daytime chatshow this morning but it was on the telly in the canteen at work with no sound or subtitles so I don't know what was said. It was a long interview though.

Used condom?

I was thinking of a line Richie uses in bottom . 

Always made me laugh

I get the impression that she is a self publicist and blagger. By her own account she seems to have done quite well at it. I wonder if there is a book deal in the offing? If she can keep the story on the boil, the advance will be bigger.

She may be a self-publicist and blagger but to focus on her perceived inadequacies would be a useful distraction for Johnson. (Personally I'd rather she was Prime Minister than him! 😁. Seems smarter and funnier.)

I suspect there is more to come - something that seals the whole thing.

Not sure anybody is really that bothered.As a Brexiter Tory colleaguesaid, well JC is hardly covered in glory on this particular issue regarding his past history.

Really? I don’t think having a relationship with a fellow MP 30 years ago really counts.

Yet again you seem to be jumping in to dismiss legitimate concerns about the actions of the Prime Minister.

Oh right, he bunged some fruity American woman a hundred grand odd of our money as well did he?

In the eys of BJ's supporters it does.

If you really think its going to change voters opinions of BJ then carry on. I doubt it will make any difference at all.Otherwise he would have been dead and buried when the blue rinse brigade elected him as their leader.

I am not voting for him anyway, so it does not bother me in the slightest.

What a strange way to look at the world!

Its relatively easy to get a 100k from the govt for a good tech start up even with or without connections.

They dish out lesser amount to anybody who comes along with digital marketing strategy at the drop of a hat.

I did say in my post talk to BJ's supporters. They do not give a fig about it.Talk to them about their views.

I am putting over what is being said to me by them.

The Gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

Exactly. My experience in business has always been that government money isn't handed to firms on merit. It goes to the first bidder who can fill the right form in. It's a bit like business awards that you see going to similar but weaker firms in a competition you didn't even know about. The awards are window-dressing for policy initiatives or to sell magazines and they rarely hit the right recipients. For that reason I'm pretty untroubled by the whole Acuri grant stuff.

Lorraine Kelly isn't happy with her, though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50459142 and that's pretty serious

It’s too important, like with the Russian interference issue, to view these things through the prism of what his supporters think.

I don’t care about what his supporters think. I care about living in a mature democracy where illegality has consequences, whoever you are.

That's the problem. Corruption grows with desensitisation. 

Can't imagine what common ground she and Johnson had then

Arcuri and Farage are blaggers and con artists. I guess you should give BJ credit for out-conning them, though I'm loathe to give him credit for anything.

I’m sure people with no concern about the moral actions of the prime minister, potential corruption and how public money is spent couldn’t give less of a shit. 

Well not quite, the London Co-Investmetn Fund is now closed to new applicants and I don't see any others that give out hard cash rather than just loans. Also it's not meant to be open to foreign companies, I know that won't be the case but a company solely owned by a foreign national on (dodgy? See below) visa does seem to stretching the spirit.

Obviously we will probably never know but the accusation is that the correct forms weren't filled in. Certainly for other grants whistleblowers are saying the tendering process was circumvented (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/01/revealed-jennifer-arcuri-g...). 

'It was ever thus' seems a pretty shitty reason not to be bothered. Also, we are not talking about those with the loudest mouths getting the most attention (although this should be addressed as it allows poor companies to secure investment from better ones before disappearing in a puff of smoke) but potential corruption. However ill conceived the fund was in the first place it should never be used for people in high office to dole out largesse to mates, that sort of shit is third world. To say it always goes on consider the rules governing entertaining between customers and suppliers, they seem pretty draconian yet they are considered necessary to make UK a good place to do business. 

If you are not bothered as normal voter then as a businessman and investor you must see why this is unhealthy and worthy of scrutiny? If these are competitors getting money to give them an undeserved advantage then you should be livid (otherwise why do we have a whole area of law dedicated to maintaining a level playing field?). You can see how the trade show access and grant gives credence to a pretty dismal business (negligible income, depreciating assets, rising liabilities) and presumably used to secure the other investment which is now where? Presumably lining Ms Arcuri's pockets; the website has not been updated in 18 months and there seems precious little evidence of any other activity.

As I said govt dishes out money on these sort of things.I would not be surprised if to get the grants there was match funding .so the 100k could either have been 50k/50k split or 100k/ 100k split.

The funny thing is that most of the funding probably came from the EU ! Usually most of these schemes have EU funding.

The big issue with Boris is the 50 million on the garden bridge project failure. Now that is serious money.This one is petty cash.

It's 1:2.9 but I'm not sure why that makes any difference? The case stands that £126K of public money was given as a favour by an individual high up in public office whilst circumventing all process. The fact that other people were then conned into investing further doesn't lessen the original accusation, it makes it worse as the original offence/indiscretion could have been used to obtain this extra funding.

Why are you even saying this? You don't know (and from my readings there is zero indication that this is the case) but by the time it reached the London Co-Investmetn Fund it is their responsibility, no one else's.

You can argue both ways, they both point to a very lax attitude towards public finance. The amount of cash aside, the Acruri affair reeks of criminality and corruption whereas the bridge could be filed away under incompetence and narcissism.

Crucially, this "petty cash" issue looks like it could well be one of blatant and illegal corruption, the like of which we wouldn't be surprised to read about in a banana republic. The Garden Bridge fiasco, while being orders of magnitude larger, may potentially be mostly explained by the lack of sound judgement or sheer incompetence of our current PM.

Neither would reflect well on Johnson, but illegality would be taken rather more seriously by the courts. Brushing illegality off as a minor issue is tantamount to encouraging people to vote for more of it.

We will only really know what his supporters think about the issue of public finance corruption when Corbyn, Hammond or Swinson are accused of something similar!

It wasn't about the SexPistols was it?

Well argued and I won’t push back hard.

I’d just like to point out that it’s as a businessman, rather than a voter, that I’m not bothered. Grants often function as hand to mouth subsistence for unprofitable companies with questionable business plans to scrap over. I’ve always focused on sourcing money from customers, not handouts. Consequently it doesn’t trouble me which hole the money was poured into. It was likely a sunk cost anyway.

What is of interest is the degree to which Boris influenced the funding process.

Or spaffed. 

Spaff probably does 

They will say something like, they've all got their snouts in the trough at least Boris has balls of steel.... 

I give up! 

I don't want to drag this out but from my (totally inexpert) reading of the accounts this was not an unprofitable business with a poor model but a scam (total income of ~£23k over 5 years, liabilities of £380k, premises from residential flat i.e. no overheads). Not saying Johnson benefited from any of this but this can't be fashioned as someone cutting corners to give a leg up to proper business needing a break.

I'm certain we will never find out, the on going impeachment process in the US, regardless of its outcome, shows we are miles behind the them in terms of corp and govt governance.

Well everything I have read is that the £ 10Ok for quite a few foreign trade visits and the like. So at the moment it is pretty unclear as to what the business actually got and where from.

I assume from your postings you have never been involved in these type of processes.

interestingly it is said she got £100k post Johnson so to speak. 

There are alot if  bricks been thrown around with no  hard info.too much supposition and innuendo. 

I assume you have access to the full accounts and not the abbreviated ones?

I've read this that the trade missions were ones that Arcuri went on to her company's benefit rather than things she organised. Are saying her company was involved in the organisation and taking payment for services provided? Is this in addition to the £126k grant or the total payments?

Where are you seeing that?

Too much suppression more like and, if I may say, you're not above the odd bit of unfounded obfuscation. 

Anything I've said is based on my inexpert interpretation of this and googling:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08424712/filing-history

I'm happy to defer to your expertise on this and nor am I so green as to not understand that start ups are frequently money pits, most don't survive etc. However, you are going to have to do more than your usual patronising 'You don't know, you were't there, man' schtick to convince me this doesn't stink. Don't forget, the govt could have got rid of the stench by letting the independent investigation continue but chose not to.

No episode 3 season 1 contest

" would you believe it?! It's just typical, isn't it? We're on the brink of winning £10,000, and some ugly frog bint scoops up all our hopes in her garlic-stained claw and discards them like some used tissue "

Richie

Grim

It depends on if and how any grants are invested within the company, in being spent on things to help it grow. I know of one company which had one or two between starting off in a spare room, and becoming a company with branches and distributors in different countries. If they money is there it might as well be taken advantage of...it's all the same colour.

Abbreviated accounts for a company of her size. You need the full accounts to really understand the financial picture. 

My own view is that such schemes like the one with Arturi are just examples of wasteful funding rathar than corruption. 

Governments have a habit of creating funding schemes which do not meet what industry actually wants.There is little appetite amongst business and they then scratch around trying to find participants, the likes of Arturi, who just about tick the boxes. 

It’s wasteful rather than corrupt. 

'It’s wasteful rather than corrupt. '

Oh for Goodness' sake, she had businesses that were based on wishful thinking and the business experience of a toddler; Johnson arranged for her to go on no doubt well funded luxury trips so he could, if you'll pardon the expression, get inside her knickers.

This is corruption on a schoolboy scale.

Arcuri and Johnston are one of the same.

It's Boris in drag ......Can't yer see the resemblance?

You never see them in the same room together.

EXACTLY!  How much proof does one need?

This is obviously true but is also another example of you implying that because there are things we don't know then we are wrong. We, who think this affair is dodgy, could well be wrong but so far you've not provided an alternative explanation and there is enough in the accounts to see that she is running up debts and generating negligible (none in 2018) income. This could be explained away were this a proper start up launching a product but she's basically an events manager gone self employed!

The scheme itself is not under scrutiny and doesn't matter that it is a grant scheme, it could be anything, a charity, a Christmas club etc. The question is whether our current PM used his influence to misdirect its funds to one of his friends.

You can't possibly know that and even if the fund is wasteful it doesn't absolve Johnson of doing. I very much doubt anything criminal will be pinned on Johnson but even that is not the point, he should not be in this position. I can't imagine something like this going anywhere near any other PM in my memory. In fact its not even the sort of things our lower level politicians get involved in (I guess the Liam Fox thing was similar but can't remember many others).

It looks like I need to eat some humble pie. Innotech Networks was the recipient of relatively small grants (£10K and £15k) and some other assistance. Arcuri's other company, Hacker House, was the recipient of a larger (£100k) grant, this does seem a legitimate business so some of what I said above was wrong. I was starting to convince myself that Arcuri was guilty of something properly criminal, abetted (unwittingly) by Johnson whereas I now think its just dodgy low level corruption.

Thanks for that. I guess I see too many levels of waste  in this sort of thing. There is a sub world out in the UK of these type of businesses which are fed by grants etc like this business. 

It’s  an awful world if you get trapped in it. 

Johnson donating his spectacular and normally costly public speaking skills for her benefit is definitely dodgy. If he had been simply a man about town at the time it would have been OK, but he was Mayor so not. Of course everyone will simply tire of it all and put it in the stinking bin with all his other scandals. And we will be ruled by him and Comings for at least the next 5 years.

Which industry do you talk about, or have in mind?

Spot on!

So it now emerges he was warned about this before hand, but still went ahead with this Arcuri thing: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/21/boris-johnson-was-briefed-...