HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |

Some arbitrary accidental thoughts
That crossed his mind, amusing because new,
He chose to represent as fixtures there,
Invariable convictions such they seemed........
Robert Browning - Bishop Blougram's Apology (1855).

Unicorn dung, as we said before, is very seldom seen. In fact, never. In that respect, it bears a close resemblance to the sponsorship money and, in most cases, the sponsors themselves that Barrie Stuart-King and his merry crew claim to have lined up just waiting for.....well, it is always something different that keeps the cheques from coming. Once, malicious people allegedly identified a sponsor BS-K had never mentioned even to those close to him and then proceeded to send scurrilous e-mails, apparently, wrecking it all. He was unable to produce even one e-mail as proof, of course. Another time, it was ACU&S being unincorporated that spoilt it. Other companies insisted on ACU&S having a new constitution. Then it was because ACU&S needed to be an Institute. Poor Stuart-King! It was a continual battle against the heaviest of odds.

BS-K, and Brandon, and the rest got the Institute they craved in March 2006. Companies House ("CH") swallowed whole the biggest load of anaesthetising rubbish they can ever had sent to them and were so overcome they asked not a single question. Not can you please name the sponsor? Not can you have ACU&S confirm that it is considering dissolution? Not may we see the 3- or 5-Year Plan referred to? Absolute zilch. There were 30 pages of it and only on four pages is there not an outright lie, a major misrepresentation or a lie by omission. They even altered Minutes published in "How's That" to back another false statement. The jury is still out on this - perhaps the Ombudsman's office will make a sensible decision - but that will be for another time.

Meanwhile, they have gone International! Our ECB ACO colleague - for how much longer, we wonder? - and BS-K drinking buddy Darrell Hair, has used his position in NSWCUSA to have them on its website and to have a cheap plastic nameplate screwed to the wall out there. So, they are really coming on by leaps and bounds. Or are they?

Here is what they told CH on page 22. "(ii) By contrast [that's to ACU&S, unable, they said, to meet the cost of current umpire/scorer training requirements] the proposed ICUS has prospective major commercial stakeholder capital funders and JVP sponsors in place, ready to 'sign up' - subject only to official approval for the use of the title 'Institute' by Companies House. (iii) The subscribing Directors of the proposed Institute have been able to achieve this only after months of negotiation [while still sitting on ACU&S General Council, of course] and undergoing due diligence reviews because the prospective funders and sponsors (a) consider the initial 3-Year Business Development Plan for the Institute [some shrinkage, there. It was a 5-Year Plan on page 16, but who's counting?] to be both realistic and achievable with their joint venture participation; (b) like and approve the Institute's proposed founding Memorandum & Articles of Association; (c) have satisfied themselves as to the calibre, composition and experience of the Institute's proposed single Executive Board; and (d) like the fact that it is a business-like and professionally structured incorporated body under the day-to-day administration of a professionally-qualified experienced Board and full-time staff of 4, [page 14: two full-time and two part-time; oh,well] each with clearly-defined and designated and responsibilities.

After reading that - and you should see the rest! - one knows how Evelyn Waugh felt when he wrote of Stephen Spender - "To see him fumbling with our rich and delicate language is to experience all the horror of seeing a Sevres vase in the hands of a chimpanzee." And what about this for self-deception? "(iv) The ACU&S is akin to a 'private members club'. The ICUS is a very different type of organisation - more comparable to a membership-based business like the AA or the RAC. [Wow! They'll be upset]. These are commercial organisations that, through astute marketing.......ramble, ramble, ramble." On page 21, they tell CH that ACU&S are "currently considering dissolution". You may remember it differently. Working hard to repair the damage the BS-K crew had inflicted before scuttling off, perhaps, but intent on survival, nevertheless.

The lies and talk of overblown schemes come thick and fast and the big mystery is why nobody at CH thought to ask one or two very obvious questions, even when they had anomalies pointed out to them. It is not too late even now and CH ought to have heard some kind of warning bell sound when IICUS and ICCT filed their accounts earlier this month. Covering the 18 month period to 30th September 2007, they were abbreviated accounts prepared in accordance with the special provisions for small companies under Part VII of the 1985 Act, and with the Financial Reporting standard for Smaller Entities. Small companies? Smaller entities? But these are supposed to be part of an international conglomerate! As it turns out, International CCT had debtors of £10,918 plus £100 cash but it owed that to creditors, leaving it with just its share capital of £960. International ICUS had £1,498 and debtors of £538 reduced that back to its paid up share capital of £960 as well. It was reported as being dormant and had not traded yet.

So, you might ask, what happened to the major commercial stakeholder capital funders and JVP sponsors? The open sesame for their cheque books was supposed to be the magic word "Institute", surely? Why else all the due diligence reviews? They loved the 3 (or 5) Year Plan; they were in raptures over the Mems & Arts; they were thrilled with the Executive Board; and the full-time staff, whether it was 4,or 2 plus 2, had them drooling. So what happened to the money? They cannot have walked away, not again. They must have existed and have been poised to act because Mr Naval Heeramaneck FCA., as a responsible qualified professional would not have dreamed of deliberately submitting a document knowing it to contain such a fundamental falsehood. It is an offence in Company Law for a start and his own Institute, that of Chartered Accountancy, would take a grave view of such a misdemeanour, just as it did of the conduct of ISP, another accountancy firm BS-K sold a pup in 2005.

Did the full- or the part-time staff get paid? Did the 14 Regional Directors and their two deputies get anything? Did poor old (age 76) Stan Bennett's 'phone ever stop ringing as the world's press looked for "immediate advice and information" about the Laws? Did it start ringing, even? Just how would ICUS have dealt with all the ACU&S liabilities, if (page 24) it had taken it over? And has there been much progress towards ICCT raising the £400,000 pa it told the Charity Commissioner it anticipated?

Another mystery is why Mr Hair let his good...um....his name be used? abused? to offer these obviously bogus companies some, sadly, spurious credibility. What does that say about his judgement? As far as the world of business is concerned, it is clearly a closed book to him, as it is to his close friend. Mr Hair is an umpire, is an umpire, is an umpire. Finance, advertising, public relations - they do not impinge upon his life in any significant way. Even so, he has displayed a singular lack of acumen. But there, if you mix with that sort of person you must expect it to rub off. The only good thing about it for him is, that by definition, unicorn dung cannot stain and is odourless. He may depend on it, Stuart-King will be producing plenty more of it. He knows about little else. And if the major commercial (yawn, yawn) stakeholder capital funder forgot to show back in March 2006, it is unlikely one will breeze through the door now.

20th August 2008.