London Capital and Finance

Lungboy

GDB2222 wrote: »

Both of them clearly had nothing to do with the goings on at LCF, and it's grossly unfair for anyone to suggest otherwise.

But nobody *is* suggesting otherwise.

GDB2222

Lungboy wrote: »

But nobody *is* suggesting otherwise.

Why did Williams's company need to issue the statement you quoted? Why is all this appearing on a thread dealing with LCF?

Malthusian

GDB2222 wrote: »

Why did Williams's company need to issue the statement you quoted?

Because they took 325 grand from a company which received 60 million for promoting and facilitating a collapsed Ponzi scheme. They then paid 85 grand a year to an MP for 20 hours work a month. This was the case until the Easter weekend when the 325 grand was paid back. Notwithstanding Mercer's bleating that these two facts have nothing to do with each other, they are still facts, and interesting facts.

Why are you going on about Williams? No-one is interested in him.

Plus, it's not going to help the LCF investors get their money back.

Nobody said it would. It's still of public interest.

Lungboy

Because Crucial accepted money from Surge which came from LC&F. That's very different from saying Crucial had anything to do with the potential scam at LC&F, which nobody, including the BBC, have said.

Malthusian

If anyone is still wondering why an MP accepting money from a group of companies eyeball-deep in LCF is newsworthy, ShareProphets has put it far better than I could be bothered to.

I think ShareProphets tends to disappear behind a paywall so I have quoted a few paragraphs which are hopefully fair use.

Whoever is paying, Mr Mercer his salary is mouth watering. Pro rata it up for a full working week and this 37 year old former soldier is hauling in the equivalent of £731,000 a year. That is almost five times what the Prime Minister earns. Perhaps Mercer thinks that is fair. If so he has a bloated sense of his own self importance, something that is not unusual for an MP.

Crucial Academy/Group seems to do good work, training up ex solders in cyber security. No -one can fault that. However it is a relative start up with no accounts filed yet, in part due to it changing its year end so delaying that unpleasant task. And critically its major shareholder is Paul Careless of Surge Group and it has been bankrolled by Surge with an interest free loan of £325,095. Now why is that conmtroversial?

[...]

Good companies currently borrow monies at, perhaps 5%. Weaker ones might pay 8%. Folks borrowing on their credit cards pay 17% so what sort of companies would be paying interest at 20%? Yes, really rotten companies that are likely, in many cases, to go bust. In financial markets what is termed a junk bond yields 12%. So this is mega junk and as such the risk of capital loss ( and default on interest payments) is exceptionally high.

That is the maths Mercer needs tpo consider as he weighs his salary from Crucial Group. It has been funded by the profits made from a marketing company that is pushing investment products on naïve investors which they think are safe but , are in fact, incredibly high risk.

We have covered about half a dozen such mini bond schemes on ShareProphets. So far only a couple have gone bust but this is just the tip of an iceberg which will, in the end, see several hundred thousand vulnerable folks losing money they cannot afford to lose – perhaps Mercer should listen to some LCF victims HERE and think again.

If I was running such a shocking marketing scheme I’d try to get some good PR by throwing some loose change, in terms of the wider business, at a “good cause”. And I’d try to get a dupe of a Tory MP who really thinks he is worth five times what the Prime Minister take home on an hourly basis, on board to make it all even more respectable.

Supercalafragalistic

GDB2222 wrote: »

So, if it is not nonsense, what point are you making about the connection between Williams and LCF? Clearly, Captain Careless is going to spend or invest his money. Why pick on Williams?

The only reason that seems to have been given is that Williams employed a pal from his army days who happens to be an MP. Both of them clearly had nothing to do with the goings on at LCF, and it's grossly unfair for anyone to suggest otherwise.

Plus, it's not going to help the LCF investors get their money back.

Okay . I will try and be more clear
1. I was not making a point...I was seeking clarification to see if i had it correct....hence the question marks.
2. Williams...i haven't even mentioned him! He wasnt and isnt even in my mind!
3. The reason i sought clarification was I had read a statement regarding Mercers involvement with Crucial , which seemed to me, to be indicating , that there was no link between crucial and surge. Hence my question.

I cant do anything to get money back at all! I have never claimed to. And I thought this was just a general forum to chew the fat about issues surrounding this.

I shall now go peacefully on my way, and will not furrow your brow and darken your day with my posts again.
I wish you luck in your endeavours....and of course all the Bondholders.

masonic

GDB2222 wrote: »

That's interesting. Unless they can show that advice was given in the vast majority of cases, that's going to benefit only selected investors.

That's the case in these types of situation. Each investor must make their own complaint, escalate to to the FOS, where it will be judged on its own merits and according to the judgement of one individual (with possible rubber-stamping by a second individual). Two identical complaints could achieve different outcomes.

It's been suggested here that, as any advice to ordinary investors would have been outside the scope of LCF's authorisation, it ought not to be covered by FSCS. Have I understood that correctly? Apparently, the lawyers don't agree, or there's no point in what they are doing.

The correct understanding is that there is a claim route for actual regulated financial advice, but not for a conversation that was merely thought to be regulated advice by the recipient, or a conversation that could have been mistaken for advice as judged by a knowledgeable third party. But, it has been shown in other cases that the FSCS may decide to pay out even when they have no grounds to do so.

sully1311

Have I Got News for You article: https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/johnny-mercer-grilled-over-second-2805213

and of course you can see it on the iPlayer

Malthusian

Malthusian wrote: »

I want to believe that'll be hilarious, but I suspect that either the lawyers will either designate LCF as a no-go area, given Crucial's supposed upcoming legal action, or Hislop will make a couple of digs at Mercer, Mercer will look stony-faced and that will be it

Hahahahahahaha wrong again Malt. That episode's never going to be released on VHS like Tub of Lard or Sperm of the Devil, but for those of us who understand the ins and outs of LCF, it's still comedy gold.

The libel case is toast. If that's the best Mercer can do on a comedy panel show, imagine him in front of a judge, under penalty of perjury, trying to claim that Crucial Academy never received a penny from Surge. Which we already know is untrue, as a matter of public record on Companies House.

Has Mercer even lawyered up? What on earth possessed him to go on a comedy panel show run by the people he's suing?

Poor !!!!!!. He looks very tired. Well, poor is probably the wrong word here. Point is, you need a limitless supply of vim and vigour to keep making serious dough in this game, and by his own admission he hasn't got it. Bash the wine gums on resignation in the next week.

jimjames

GDB2222 wrote: »

The question is whether Neil Williams and his company have done anything wrong? You apparently think they have, but you have not spelt out what that is. Perhaps you should stop hiding behind slurs and innuendo.

Just because you sell a company at a point in time doesn't mean you can completely distance yourself from everything that was done by that company prior to that point when you were employed by them the whole time.