5th July 2019 - update
There are only two credible propositions in relation to this story: either, what I have set out in detail on this website about what is being done and why it is being done is sincere, or I am a truly wicked individual. There is no middle ground.
If the former, then those involved in producing so many difficulties for a genuinely noble enterprise are themselves guilty of serious wrongdoing.
If the latter, then you can add maniac to wicked as well. For anyone to actually do the things alleged would involve reaching new heights of absurdity: e.g. picking a company, Worthington, already under the spotlight in relation to the Rangers saga, in order to perform a public fraud; then, not satisfied with round 1, decide to do it all again in public just to make absolutely sure the authorities were paying attention!
In endeavouring to ensure that the objectives on this website are achieved, certain priorities have had to take precedence. For example, do you concentrate on trying to complete acquisitions in order to look after the interests of shareholders, and deal with time consuming litigation later; or do you focus on litigation and deal with the acquisitions when the litigation is complete? Historically we have only pursued litigation in the event that it was necessary to remove an obstacle to achieving the objectives. That is why, periodically, the emphasis on litigation has ebbed and flowed as it has been either more or less important. In light of recent developments, it is now clear that it is impossible to achieve the objectives without a wide ranging series of actions against those responsible for undermining everything that we have been doing. This is not an idle threat, but something that cannot now be avoided. An extract from an email sent by the CEO of one of our target acquisitions summarises just one of the problems that a failure to thoroughly litigate has caused (names changed to protect the innocent):
“X are selling dietary supplements. Any negative publicity would not stop someone spending a very small sum on Amazon, or on the High street buying dietary supplements. However, Y clients make
deposits of anything between £10,000 and £150,000, and then wait 3 to 4 months before seeing anything tangible in return (product vesting certificates, installation etc). It’s taken 20 years to build
our reputation, if just one piece of bad press, or a rumour alleging financial impropriety were to enter the high-end design community, it would finish us off. Though I am of course aware of
your good character (and no doubt B’s), unfortunately there is a lot more controversy surrounding Z than I had envisaged. I know, and you know the truth, but unfortunately, people are not actually
interested in the truth. If a potential Y client was aware of the above, they would simply avoid risking a deposit with us, and run with a competitor instead.
My main competitor sold ......to another company a few weeks ago. H and I immediately and instinctively took to Google to check out any new firepower he might now have, we are of course always interested in any developments or changes to our competitors structure. Any discovered purchase/acquisition of Y would be immediately checked out by our competitors for similar reasons, and with the insinuations about Z, my competitors would definitely attempt to sow doubt about Y, and worry clients, designers and architects into contracting with them instead. My sales guys would do exactly the same thing if they were aware of any such issues surrounding our competitors. When your earnings are commission based, as is very much the case in the luxury ......industry, sales execs will use every angle they can to close deals, especially in the currently tough Brexit climate”
In the light of the above, and other problems that have been caused by third-parties, litigation is now unavoidable. Those responsible will know what it feels like to stand in the way of my 30 year promise. When they are tired and exhausted and wishing it would all go away, it won’t. It will go on and on and on until those who I hold most responsible for the campaign of malice, falsehood and interference have been fully held to account. And that includes those responsible for the recent development, of which I have agreed - at this stage - to say nothing.
This website will now only be commenting on the ensuing litigation. All I will say, in the meantime, is that the interests of stakeholders are very much being protected and that the objectives set out on this website will be achieved, including the changes to legislation in relation to libel and the other serious issues that this website has highlighted.
30th June 2019 - This website will be updated on 5th July at 7.30pm
29 May 2019 - update
It appears that a largish holder has been selling Whetstone shares quite aggressively over the last few days. My family and friends have taken advantage of the recent prices to acquire significant numbers of additional Whetstone shares. The temporary silence on this blog is not in any way related to what is or is not happening to Whetstone. A considerable amount of effort continues to be expended in ensuring that the stated objectives mentioned on this website are achieved. I expect to be able to up date on these matters during June.
22 January 2019 – A Sign of the Times
However one voted in the 2016 Referendum, there is one conclusion that is increasingly uniting people: that the ruling class across the political spectrum are incompetent, divorced from reality and that radical change is needed. Before I say what I believe that change should be, it is helpful to illustrate the two Britains of modern history.
Looking at the “achievements” of our political elite, when contrasted with the Britain bequeathed to the current generation by our forefathers, it is difficult not to conclude that only the idiot sons of the great men of yesteryear chose to go into politics. How else to explain the litany of failings and absurdities overwhelming the Country? A Country that is almost £2 trillion in debt and increasing; where reported crime has increased from 472,989 in 1953 (population 50m) to 3,811,268 (population 65m) in 2016 and where violent crime has increased from 24,380 offences to 374,216 annually in the same period; where prisons are overcrowded universities of crime, drug abuse and Jihadism; where our brave service personnel are hounded by fee hungry human rights lawyers, gorging on public money; where the Country’s energy supply is increasingly reliant on unreliable wind and solar power, so that we are coming perilously close to blackout; where five year olds are exposed to state sponsored sex indoctrination; and where men are encouraged to self identify as women so that they can frequent women’s changing rooms, or compete against women at the Olympics. The list of madness and woe goes on and on.
So it is hardly surprising that a ruling class that has so mismanaged the Country should display such mind boggling incompetence when dealing with an important national issue like Brexit.
Whether you voted Leave or Remain, it is clear that a more competent government - tasked with conducting Brexit negotiations - would have expressed the desire of Britain to be continuing good neighbours of the European Union, expressed its desire for a free trade agreement whilst honouring the referendum result, but planned from the start for No Deal - aware that the EU has a vested interest in making leaving the EU as difficult as possible, and for the leaving country to be seen to be materially worse off - because if Britain is seen to succeed outside the EU the calls for other countries to leave would become louder, and the durability of the whole EU project would be put at risk. Any payment to the EU, desperate as it is for Britain’s cash, should have been linked entirely to the free trade agreement. Britain should have said “if you want our cash you know where to find us”. Being serious about No Deal would have ensured that we got the best possible deal available. Instead, the unwillingness of the political elite to plan for, or consider properly, No Deal whilst keeping open the possibility of a mutually respectful deal, has ensured cringeworthy national humiliation instead.
The current cross party attempt to “take No Deal off the table” is another manifestation of weakness and incompetence. Taking No Deal off the table is essentially saying that we will agree to anything that the EU would like us to sign - in other words National Capitulation of the kind only ever seen by a country defeated in war.
And the justification for this humiliation is because No Deal would apparently be a “Catastrophe”, “National Suicide”, “a Cliff Edge” and all the other exaggerated descriptions that we have heard. And yet even the Bank of England, who falsely forecast doom for merely voting to leave, has described No Deal as simply meaning that our growth will be less than it otherwise would have been – hardly a Catastrophe or National Suicide. If the risk of slightly less growth in the short-term could be described by the doom mongers as a Catastrophe or National Suicide, how on earth would they have described Britain’s decision to enter the Second World War? Perhaps they would have said “No one voted for rationing” or “No one voted for blackouts” or “No one voted for a hard border” and we should “Take War off the Table”. In other words, “Surrender” in exchange for an allegedly more comfortable life.
And it is clear that the so called Irish Backstop problem is an invention, for the simple reason that leaving without a deal would cause the very thing that the EU claims that it doesn’t want, so the problem is entirely theirs not ours. We want free trade and we don’t want a hard border. So who is going to put in place the sort of border checks threatened by the EU? Not the Irish and not us. So the EU should be given a stark choice - take out the Backstop from the Agreement or we leave with No Deal and you get the border problem you claim you don’t want now, rather than in two years time - after the transition period - and you don’t get the £39bn that you would have had had you been reasonable. It is therefore inconceivable that the EU would kiss goodbye to £39bn - and get the so called hard Border immediately rather than in two years time, or indeed never with a fair free trade agreement successfully negotiated. It is entirely the behaviour of the cross party group of MPs that are risking No Deal by giving the EU the very strong impression that No Deal cannot happen so that the EU can therefore be completely intransigent.
Ultimately the Brexit decision is about National Self Determination, where our historic institutions can be reinvigorated and there is an opportunity for National Renewal. One of the main reasons why Britain has been able to run such a vast national debt, is that our rule of law and relative freedom from corruption means that foreign nationals can be confident that title to assets bought in this country will be protected by a relatively incorrupt judiciary and legal system. Given a choice, would you currently trust £1bn to UK institutions and our rule of law, or those in Saudi Arabia, Iran or China? Whilst that remains the case, being in the EU or outside the EU is secondary to our future success. But if we allow our institutions and rule of law to be further degraded by our current ruling elite, then the predictions of “Catastrophe” and “National Suicide” really would come about, whether we are in the EU or not. And don’t forget this is an EU ruled by an elite even further out of touch with the populace than those in Britain: its decision making vies with North Korea for most secretive; and there has not been any high profile EU figure that has ever been held to account for any greed, incompetence or corruption, despite the accounts not being given a clean bill of health for decades previously.
Now contrast the bumbling incompetence and cringeworthy behaviour of our ruling elite with the confidence and assurance of the Britain built by our ancestors. This is the Reverend John Eadie writing in c1860; and these are not the claims of a politician seeking election, but taken from the Forward of the Family Bibles then found in homes up and down the Country:
“The glory of our land is not only in its profusion of Bibles, but its Protestant liberty of studying and diffusing sacred truth without molestation or hindrance. The Word of God is within the reach of everyone, and neither the reading nor the circulation of it is by authority proscribed. This sacred privilege, won for us by the toil and blood of our fathers, is a prime element of our national greatness. That illustrious rank which our country occupies has been secured for it as much by its Christian institutions as by scientific discoveries, maritime adventure, and mercantile enterprise. Its peace – its liberties – its social progress – its mechanical inventions – its means of mental culture and refinement – its numerous organisations for the relief of want, misery, disease, and old age – its myriads of ploughs, forges, looms, and ships - its vast power and extent of dominion - has really sprung from that impulse, dignity, industry, and self-respect, which Christianity creates or deepens among people who receive it in its original purity and integrity. Christian civilisation necessarily leads to genuine and permanent greatness; for liberty, fraternity, and equality, in the highest and widest sense, can only flourish under the shadow of the Cross. While the Bible brings salvation to everyone who receives it as the Word of God – and this is its great and primary mission – it also soothes and elevates the temporal condition of man. “The life that now is“ is not beyond its sphere of salutary influence. The fruits of the “tree of life” refresh and satisfy the saved, but its “leaves“ are, at the same time, “for the healing of the nations.” No wonder that our reflecting and pious people hold scripture in such high veneration, and excel all other countries in their efforts to circulate it. No wonder that our English version, which “hath done great things for us“ should be prized so highly, and that in every Christian household there should be a copy – a large and a loved one – familiarly and reverentially named the “Family Bible“. No wonder that we should abhor and pity infidelity, for it is a wicked as well as a worthless creed, not less the foe of patriotism than the enemy of vital piety. The estimate in which we hold the Bible will always be a criterion of our ecclesiastical and national superiority.”
Clearly no lack of confidence or cultural cringe there! It is no coincidence, that the extent to which we have turned our backs on the last sentence (and where Christianity is now everywhere inhibited so as not to “cause offence”) directly reflects the increasing decadence, disorder, ruling incompetence and decline that we witness now so clearly.
For those who have studied our history, there have been periodic revivals of real Christianity in cycles of 100 to 150 years, often when it seemed least likely. Well, such a time is very much now, when it seems if anything even less likely than before.
So what has all this got to do with what I am doing?
Without doubt, in my view, the false teaching of the so-called progressives over the last few decades is now being brutally exposed, and I believe that increasing realisation will lead to a readiness for large numbers of people to rediscover the Country’s Christian roots and to have a personal relationship with their amazing and stunning Creator, as has happened powerfully in the previous revivals. The intention of my book, which catalogues the spiritual and financial journey to fulfilling my 30 year promise, is to be an aid to just such an outcome, acting as a guide to the reader in relation to every kind of opposition and obstacle the world can offer and yet, by trusting in the reality and promises of God, every single opposition being overcome, according to the promise that “Every child of God overcomes the World”.
When I was visited by “the Boys from South Armagh” claiming to be from the IRA, in relation to an attempt to extort the reported £250,000 from me, the balaclava hooded man pointed out that people were murdered for a lot less than £250,000. I replied by asking “do you think Jesus was scared of evil people?” and pointing out that his threat meant that I could enter paradise sooner than I had been expecting, that he was offering to do me a favour by bringing forward that happy day! That is a conversation I suspect he remembers to this day. The Gospel gives us the ability to overcome evil.
To me the publishing of my book and my Christian mission are the most important objectives of all; and the fulfilment of the miracle referred to on this website, a mere trifle by comparison. But, for the reasons stated, necessary nonetheless for the far more important work to commence. But as stated previously, the obstacles and injustices that I have experienced in fulfilling my promise will also be a catalyst for important legislative changes.
When Whetstone shares do exceed £2.38 per share, when Worthington has come out of liquidation, and when I have fulfilled my 30 year promise, I have little doubt that the gifting of shares will be copied by others trying to emulate what will have been a unique and extraordinary story. However they won’t be doing it for the reasons we are doing it, the motivation and circumstances will not be, and indeed cannot, be the same - unless they too have spent 30 years writing the same book! This is a unique and true story, designed to lay the foundations for the really important work that needs to be done. And this is a work that, as described above, is urgently needed.
Which brings me to the conclusion that time is of the essence and that the time is now.
24th December 2018 - Whetstone transaction news
23rd December 2018 – Happy Christmas
I would like to wish all of those who have supported us through some extraordinarily difficult times a very Happy Christmas and a particularly prosperous 2019.
As for William Stevenson who engaged in the criminal hacking, and others who have tried to undermine what is being achieved, from my point of view I bear no personal animosity. I take action only to the extent absolutely necessary to protect the interests of stakeholders (e.g. in relation to the injunction etc). As regards personal revenge, my biggest personal “revenge” will be for such people to witness the miracle happen and for them to realise that, not only have they completely wasted their time, but they have deprived themselves of a share in that success.
Having said that, I have a duty to look after the interests of stakeholders whose personal wealth has been damaged by the delays these people have caused to our plans coming to fruition, and who have also suffered considerable anxiety as a result. So I just wanted to make it clear that the forthcoming action is definitely not revenge from me, but something that has to be done in the interests of justice. And for those who have asked to be sued, you can hardly complain when it happens can you? So please don’t get all upset when your request is granted: that would be a pity.
But in the meantime I wish even you a Happy Christmas.
16 December 2018 – update
Further to my post of 19th April 2018, the FCA have now notified the Court that they do not expect to be in a position to reach any conclusions concerning that investigation until 2020. That is a quite amazing statement, on the basis that they have been investigating this matter since April 2016. At the very least it highlights the fact that the sustained libel that we have endured on the Internet is, shall we say, “highly debatable“. In fact, of course, the reality is that every single one of those malicious falsehoods are gradually being exposed to the light and then comprehensively shredded. With there being so many of them, I’m not surprised it’s taking the FCA twice as long as it should have done to reach a conclusion.
In my post of 17th July 2018 I highlighted the comic injustice of a government agency applying to court in secret (i.e. without notice to the defence at all) in order to obtain a freezing order over the defendants assets which then specifically prevents the defendants from using any of the money frozen to mount any kind of defence to that action at all. Furthermore, in the event that it was possible to obtain third-party funding to ultimately and successfully contest the action, none of those costs would be reimbursed. The two year time frame notified to the Court by the FCA only serves to exacerbate the first extreme injustice. If there is anybody in the FCA (or the world for that matter) who thinks that such behaviour by the state is anything other than an embarrassing betrayal of our hard won British freedoms, then not only has such a person lost his moral compass, it has been crushed by a giant bull elephant and then used as a jungle convenience by a buffoonery of drug addled orangutans.
In the same post of 17th July 2018 I highlighted some of the obstacles that I personally have had to endure in fulfilling my 30 year promise, and that the ill conceived FCA action was merely the latest hurdle to me completing that undertaking.
When I launched this website in November 2016, I said that a new company would be launched which would provide a gifted mirror image shareholding to Worthington shareholders who had been the victims, along with us, of the campaign of tortious interference referred to on this website.
As part of that launch, I personally arranged all of the funding for Whetstone and, along with Allan Biggar, personally guaranteed it. The subsequent failure to list on NEX was a blow at the time, but I am happy to say it has been very much a blessing in disguise. Not only are the sole market maker spreads on NEX a deterrent to active trading, but there has been more active trading in Whetstone shares on Britdaq, with its order driven activity, than for most companies on NEX. Furthermore, the fact that Britdaq is simply a regulated share matching platform has allowed us to develop essentially as a private company. In the light of the campaign of tortious interference highlighted on this website, that has very much been in the Company’s interest - although I’m very hopeful that the Company will be in a position to update shareholders before Christmas.
When I launched this website I said “It is somewhat ironic that the last chapter of my book looks like being played out in public, when I would have preferred it to remain private, but I suppose it has the benefit of enabling people to see a genuine miracle take place, whilst it is still possible to deny that it will.” In fact, the number of obstacles and the extent of opposition that I have had to face along with other members of the team, only serves to highlight quite how much of a miracle this success will be. After all, when has it ever been the case that a company has been forced into liquidation in the circumstances I have highlighted on this website, that the shareholders have been gifted a mirror image shareholding in a lifeboat company and that company has then gone on to surpass the heights of the previous company, all against a backdrop of a thoroughly unjust and ill conceived FCA action whilst being unrelentingly attacked by a a posse of committed libellers? It just doesn’t happen ordinarily, it requires a miracle.
I now want to put some flesh on the bones of what I expect that miracle to look like:
The Whetstone share price to exceed the highest share price for Worthington in 2014 and for the audited net asset value per share of Whetstone to exceed the highest audited or unaudited net asset value per share of Worthington in 2014; and
My 30 year promise to be fulfilled; and
For Worthington to come out of liquidation via CVA
All in spite of opposition doing everything possible to prevent these outcomes from taking place.
Massive strides have been taken in recent weeks to achieving these objectives, including clear progress in relation to the original WRN litigation, and I am optimistic that the journey is close to an end.
But I thought it may be helpful to set out my definition of what I mean by miracle, so that those critics who think the above is impossible may have the opportunity to repent and believe the Good News. After all the greatest love I can have for my enemies is to give them that opportunity.
In the meantime, I’ll be updating readers in relation to William Stevenson and others in the coming week. Don’t forget, I always keep my promises, even though sometimes it takes longer than planned!
26 July 2018 – Litigation update
The Genesis of the campaign against Worthington was the criminal hacking of various computers carried out by William Stevenson. Hacking computers is a straightforward criminal offence; attempted blackmail as part of that illegal hacking is also a criminal offence; and selling stolen information is also completely illegal, never mind any data protection breaches, etc. There is no debate as to whether these criminal acts took place or whether William Stevenson engaged in them; the only question is why he has not been prosecuted already, and why the FCA thought it appropriate to endorse criminal activity as a basis for the fishing exercise I have previously disclosed. It is clearly not in the public interest for hacking to be cheered on by the authorities, when those same authorities claim that it is a criminal offence. The nature of the hacking, the way it was carried out, the creepy behaviour of the individual involved, and the repercussions of that criminal activity have combined to demonstrate that it is certainly in the public interest for this prosecution to take place.
It is also notable that the "ill-conceived" FCA action was founded on this criminal activity. Had there been no hacking and selective publishing of stolen information, there simply would not have been anything like the campaign of damage caused against Worthington and those associated with the company, and no FCA action. I'm actually being generous at the moment, because I think the FCA action is much more culpable than merely "ill-conceived". How much more culpable is currently being evidenced. But perhaps it is no surprise that an action founded on this criminal activity should itself continue in ways that are at best open to severe criticism.
As part of this private prosecution, we will be seeking to establish the interplay between Stevenson and the campaign of Tortious Interference that relied on his illegal actions. In particular, to what extent the campaign may have been financed by those connected to him and how many of the internet postings have been similarly linked.
This is one strand of our action to "drain the swamp" and helps to highlight how the campaign against Worthington was born out of criminality. The huge damage that has caused will form the basis for civil claims; but, for now, it is our priority to prove that we have been subjected to a criminal campaign that has been malicious in character, extensive in nature and highly damaging.
I will notify readers as soon as Mr Stevenson has been served with the Summons.
22nd July 2018 – Litigation continued
I know that Peter Hitchens isn't universally liked by our chattering classes, but his article today coincidently highlights a number of issues that I have mentioned: in particular, the way that the state can bring ruinous proceedings against innocent parties and then refuse to reimburse them after their ill conceived state action has proven to be flawed; and the way that the vital presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a fair trial is being tossed away by a government and society that really doesn't understand how crucial these freedoms - hard won by our much more serious and honourable predecessors - are. Sadly, Peter Cook's warning that Britain was in danger of "sinking, giggling into the sea" is probably all too likely to happen. By the time we realise that these ancient freedoms were important, it may well be too late to restore them as the ruling elite becomes ever more unaccountable. The whole article is well worth a read (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk), but it demonstrates why actions of the kind I am bringing are very important.
In my previous post, I mentioned a number of the difficulties that I have faced which have highlighted structural unfairness, both in the judicial system (see also the article above) but also in relation to casual libel in social media and elsewhere, and the highly damaging effects of this modern day scourge. Despite having been very busy on business and other matters I have examined the best way of proceeding with the promised litigation, and concluded that the priority should be to bring the first action against the individual who was the source of the whole campaign in the first place - and for whom there appears to be no defence whatsoever. All the damage that flowed from that, including the ill-conceived FCA action, can then be seen in its true light. As the disclosure process proceeds, it is my expectation that the action will help to identify those who have been active in the campaign of Tortious Interference. I also feel that it is important that those who have been anonymous in libelling the Worthington team as part of that campaign should lose their anonymity, that it is important to drain the swamp and identify these individuals. As previously stated, we have been successful in obtaining substituted service before, and will be employing the same mechanism this time. The time limit for bringing proceedings in relation to TI is six years, whereas libel is only twelve months. If the defendants can demonstrate that they were not part of the coordinated TI campaign, and that they have been timed out in relation to libel, then we will not proceed with the action against them. But we will publish the names and details of who they are. Failure to defend the action or provide these details will result in judgement by default, which can then be enforced after the tracing exercise is complete. We are going to find out who these people are and we hope that this exercise will also be of help to others trying to restrain anonymous libel on the internet.
I will be updating this blog in relation to proceedings against the "worst offender" mentioned in my previous post on Thursday next week.
17th July 2018 - The Devil's last roll of the dice
When I began this website, I set out clearly my motivation for doing so together with the fact that I have been writing a book "In Full and Final Settlement" for nearly 30 years. Ironically, having taken extreme measures to obtain a sneak preview, the FCA can now vouch for that fact – having obtained my journals, diary entries, email notes, scanned documents etc, relating to the book stretching back over all of that time. So, yet again, exactly what I said I'd been doing is exactly what I have in fact been doing.
Without wanting to give too much away before the final chapter is complete; on the night of 19th April/very early hours of 20th April 1995 something astonishing happened which categorically proved the reality of God and the truth of the Gospel to me, which I can't deny happened and which has been a powerful source of sustainment to me through every kind of difficulty or obstacle ever since. These obstacles have been both within (my own innate flaws - those shared by all human beings and those specific to me) and without - the quite remarkable series of tribulations I have experienced. Before I set out some of those ordeals below, it may be worth mentioning an extraordinary conversation I had in the weeks following the night of 19th April 1995.
That there is a spirit of evil in the world is proven every day by the extent of human wickedness. There is no evil thought that can be imagined - none - that someone, somewhere, hasn't done or isn't actively trying to do right now. And when it comes to being tested - when to do right involves the possible loss of one's life, loved ones. money or power - human nature has a consistent track record of failing dismally. And every evil regime the world has ever seen has needed to be sustained by apparently ordinary people "just following orders", more concerned with self preservation or self interest than justice.
It is against that backdrop that the conversation to which I refer took place. My brother and I were at Waterloo station awaiting our train. Not wishing to pass up the opportunity for some light refreshment, we bought a couple of pints from the pub just below the concourse. Whilst in the pub, we were approached by a man trying to cadge a drink. We bought him the drink and the three of us sat at a table sharing a very friendly, amicable and engaging conversation about Christianity. When the time came for us to catch our train, as we stood up to leave, the man looked at me and said in a calm and unemotional voice
"Why don't you throw yourself off a bridge and give us all some peace".
This wasn't an abusive, expletive ridden tirade, but something much more sinister; and the choice of words was particularly interesting.
In a separate incident shortly afterwards I walked past a wreck of a middle aged man, slumped on a bench, stinking and filthy, with matted hair, black teeth and worn out clothes: the very epitome of a tramp, whose life was completely broken and apparently hopeless. Tempted to conclude his case was indeed hopeless, I realised that was not actually the case. I decided to approach him and ask whether he believed there was a God. In reply he simply repeatedly pointed up to signify he did, thereby demonstrating that this broken man was also completely mute. I said to him "Only Jesus can help you; believe in the Lord Jesus and you can be saved". Immediately I said that, he literally began foaming at the mouth. I didn't even know that was possible. To my shame, I was so freaked out by the incident that I hurriedly walked away.
Before giving my opinion as to the purpose of the ordeals I have encountered since 1995, it may be helpful to describe what some of them have been:
The lifelong stigma of prison for an offence not involving dishonesty and which, apparently, is not even an offence today. The systematic referral to it over decades has been a major practical obstacle to fulfilling my promise ever since, despite the much trumpeted and completely empty claims from the liberal establishment that they believe in rehabilitation.
The bogus tax demands for £4.5m and £5m issued respectively to me and my brother Brendan shortly before he suffered a fatal heart attack. The continued pursuit of those claims by HMRC despite my having successfully appealed to the high court to have the demand referred to the third tier tax tribunal; my obtaining an injunction against HMRC to restrain them but their overturning it purely on the grounds that it is not possible to injunct the Crown. Having been made bankrupt as a result, losing my locus even to continue to challenge the demand.
And what happened to the £10m they were claiming? I said I would happily give them a 5% bonus if they could find the imaginary cash, providing they made sure to forward me my share. Sadly, with no evidence of gambling, womanising, expensive cars or yachts neither the Official Receiver nor my Trustee in bankruptcy were ever able to find the imaginary millions that would have made both me and HMRC very happy bunnies indeed; and they had to conclude, regrettably, that what I had maintained to HMRC from the outset was completely true. And it was possibly even more disappointing for HMRC in the case of my poor brother Brendan's estate. The sum total of his estate amounted to approximately £4,000 having lived in a rented flat, existed on Mars Bars and driven a Ford Escort valued at about £800. In fairness to HMRC they did at least have the decency not to try and claim 5 millionths of the £4,000 total assets from his estate. Advice to HMRC (and the FCA for that matter) - you have a law of "unexplained wealth" when trying to establish what tax to collect; use a bit of common sense and apply a similar rule of "unexplained poverty" before needlessly causing even further hardship to people with enough problems already.
Having been made bankrupt, losing my ability to finance a defence to the directors disqualification proceedings. The fact that the authorities pay vast sums to hire top QCs and retain high powered firms of lawyers at large taxpayer funded expense; and the huge sums large corporations and high net worth individuals expend in order to obtain the very best legal advice and advocacy in Court proves conclusively that someone representing himself has virtually no chance against them, whatever cock and bull the establishment may claim to the contrary. Look at what they do themselves, not what they say - and they spend vast sums on the best representation they can possibly obtain. Justice is bought in this country today. Fact.
Credible threats to rape and murder, me, my wife and my children. With it having been falsely reported that I had received £250,000 from Rangers (I didn't receive a penny, all of the £250,000 was paid either to Worthington or its Pension Fund), we were visited by a criminal gang demanding the £250,000 and also, separately, by an Irish man claiming to be a representative from the IRA. Until you have been faced with the real threat of murder from underworld characters who would happily kill for £10,000 let alone £250,000, you have no idea how your mind needs to adjust to a completely different mindset where normal rules don't apply in order to assess and deal with the threat. Eventually those responsible were arrested by the Police.
Hacking and blackmail. Around the same time my email account was hacked and all my emails stolen by a particularly obnoxious and creepy individual, who tried to blackmail me into providing him with the so called Rangers five way agreement, on pain of him dumping all my emails on the internet. All or some of these emails were subsequently bought by Dave King.
Malicious Libel and the Campaign of Tortious Interference. This has already been catalogued extensively on this website, but to have all your honourable efforts repeatedly attacked by those inventing malicious lies to undermine the work being done has been extraordinarily challenging.
The recent FCA raid on my house directly caused by the lies on the internet. In endeavouring to justify their need to raid my house, the FCA - under oath - either deliberately or recklessly misled the Court by claiming that my previous conviction was for concealing property, when it manifestly was not. That is not an easy mistake to make, particularly as I have already pointed out what the conviction was actually for on this website, and that the Judge stated unequivocally that the case before him did not involve dishonesty. But you can see why such a representation may have been helpful: by claiming that I had previously been convicted for concealing property it provided a justification for the raid in order to prevent me from doing so again - that I had "form" as it were. And so, yet again, my previous conviction for something not involving dishonesty has been used against me in a reckless or dishonest fashion - decades later - despite all the rehabilitation pretence. The number of "reckless" falsehoods used by the FCA in assembling their case is quite breathtaking. I was going to catalogue the top ten barnstorming lies or falsehoods from the FCA over the next ten days, but have decided to heed the advice of a friend of mine and reserve that for the impending Court hearings.
However the most surprising thing about the FCA relates to the way that they are empowered to conduct a case, which I am sure most readers will find completely shocking.
Not only did the FCA apply in secret to the Court (i.e. without notice to the defence at all) and deliberately or recklessly mislead the Court; but the order they sought and obtained was a freezing order over my assets, which specifically prevents me using any of the money frozen to mount any kind of defence to their action at all. And in the event that I am able to find a fairy godmother willing to fund a defence, and we win, we do not get our costs back. In other words the State can bring ruinous proceedings against a citizen, using the vast resources of the State to hire expensive lawyers and QCs - with no expense spared - and then supercharge the lack of equality of arms referred to above by deliberately making it virtually impossible for the defendant to defend themselves. And if it ever did proceed to charges being brought, the maximum allowance for legal advice is, apparently, £50 per hour for a lawyer which would just about pay for the janitor cleaning the lawyers offices. Any "top up" paid by the defendants friends and family is again specifically not reclaimable from the State should the defendant win.
I am staggered that the FCA, and the government who passed such astonishingly unfair legislation, can go into work without a real sense of abiding shame. I would be too embarrassed to work under such a ridiculously biased regime. They really have camped in the moral low ground.
If the case does proceed I will be applying for those involved in the misrepresentations to Court to be removed from the case.
So, the purpose of the obstacles?
Finally, I don't like bringing proceedings against those who have been involved in trying to frustrate all our efforts to bring real value and success to Worthington shareholders - especially now success is within touching distance - and I am mindful of my obligation to be personally forgiving, which I have been. However, I also have to protect the interests of third parties affected by the campaign against the companies and we have been advised to bring criminal charges against the worst offenders, prior to any claim for civil damages. The first criminal charges will therefore be filed against the worst offender very shortly.
2nd July 2018 - update
When I launched this website in late 2016, I said at the time that "It is somewhat ironic that the last chapter of my book looks like being played out in public, when I would have preferred it to remain private, but I suppose it has the benefit of enabling people to see a genuine miracle take place, whilst it is still possible to deny that it will"
Despite every conceivable type of opposition, which I propose to summarise over the next couple of weeks - prior to the launch of the legal action against those primarily responsible for the campaign of Tortious Interference - that final chapter is now close to completion. And keep in mind that the acquisition programme originally planned has, thus far, had to take place without the benefit of liquid main market listed paper. How much simpler would the whole process have been had we had the benefit of easily traded shares from the outset - if, say, Worthington had not been undermined?
As I said, I will be outlining the extent of that opposition prior to 18th July when a full litigation update will be provided, together with some rather surprising news relating to the FCA. But for long suffering shareholders of Worthington, the next few weeks should bring some very welcome news.
19th April 2018 - Developments
As readers will be aware Worthington was on the receiving end of a whole series of false allegations of fraud linked to the apparent guaranteed conviction of Craig Whyte for fraud in relation to Rangers. Consequently it was falsely alleged that the Worthington pension fund was plundered in order to provide money to Rangers. That too turned out to be completely false with the money returned with interest and costs, with the money never having been at any risk whatsoever. Nonetheless, during the intervening period between the false allegations of fraud and the acquittal of Craig Whyte in relation to those allegations, Worthington was under a cloud linked directly to those false allegations. These foundation lies (the false allegations of fraud relating to Rangers and the Worthington Pension fund) permeated all discussion of Worthington and was hugely damaging. The team at Worthington have had to battle these lies, and those flowing from them, from early 2012 onwards. One of the consequences of the pension fund lies was that a government appointed trustee replaced those appointed by the company. These trustees have charged hundreds of thousands of pounds in fees to the pension fund whilst the previous trustees had worked on an unpaid basis. And it should be emphasised that the Rangers pension agreement entered into by the previous trustees was to replace Lloyds as first charge holder over assets so extensive that the pension deficit would have been completely eliminated had the transaction completed. Lloyds had been willing to advance over £20m on the same assets (audited at significantly greater than £50m), whereas the Worthington pension fund would have had the same security (which survived any insolvency event) with only £3m advanced. In other words probably greater security than low yield government funny money (i.e bonds from a government in approximately £2trillion of debt that is fast increasing).
As we have seen, the problem with "bearing false witness" is that lies are often believed and therefore have hugely destructive effects. It is not an unimportant matter to falsely allege wrongdoing, it causes huge difficulty to those falsely accused - and often takes very extensive time and resources to finally overcome. Amid all the false allegations surrounding Rangers and the Pension Fund it was also then claimed, inter alia, that the Worthington team would actually choose a company (Worthington) to perpetrate a pump and dump fraud. In other words they would deliberately choose a vehicle already under the spotlight to engage in a very public crime. Barking mad wouldn't even begin to describe such people. And yet there are those who actually believe such patent nonsense, whereas any self respecting fraudster would ensure that the vehicle they were using was one least likely to be under suspicion and not connected to them in any way. In contrast, the true motivation is described on this website and I would encourage readers to read and then re-read the honest design section of this website written at a time when any suspension of trading in Worthington was not in view.
Of course, the truth is that the motives and actions of the Worthington team have been extraordinarily honourable. Never before have shareholders of a company in liquidation, that has been the victim of the type of concerted campaign faced by Worthington, been gifted a mirror image shareholding in a new company established to complete deals that the former company was unfairly no longer able to complete.
And yet, because lies are designed to have a semblance of believability, they are consequently often believed, at least in part. So much so, that it transpires that the FCA have apparently been investigating Worthington since April 2016. Yesterday morning I was treated to a full scale home visit by the FCA. So, despite being under a cloud for the best part of five years and despite having been given advanced warning of the visit (so much so that I sent a text to myself to record the fact I knew it was coming the following morning) it was considered necessary to pay a "surprise visit" and to take away phones, computers etc. Had we been engaged in any wrong doing, and been likely to dispose of the evidence as suggested, would we really still have it all at home years later? Really? But of course, as we have not done anything wrong, all emails from the relevant time are still safely in place. This looks like being the second time that my life has been "open to the public" after the hacker decided to steal all my emails and selectively publish the worst he could find (none of which bear detailed scrutiny).
I have had the opportunity to review the FCA information and to listen to their point of view, and it is clear to me that the removal of computers etc was a major fishing exercise - because the information that they had in their possession spectacularly failed to support the conclusions they were expecting to reach having believed the noise on the internet.
By way of small example, it was suggested that a report produced by Mazars into the solvency of Worthington in early/mid 2014 (commissioned by Worthington) had concluded that the initial deals intended to be completed by Worthington had no value because "Mazars must have seen them" and had concluded that the Pension Fund was unlikely to be able to be funded going forward, without a major compromise being reached. In fact, of course, Mazars were not asked to review these prospective transactions because the Report was designed to show the Pension Fund what they could expect to receive from a liquidation of Worthington "as was" prior to any deals being concluded, in order to have the base case compromise. Were such a compromise not to be reached then future transactions could be done in a new company or via a Scheme of Arrangement so that the pension deficit was not an obstacle to completing future transactions.
It was also clear that it didn't seem to compute that we would gift mirror image shares to investors for the reasons repeatedly stated, and that there must surely be some selfish motivation instead. It would save a lot of time and expense if people would finally get the message that we mean exactly what we say.
So, irony of ironies, a company that has gone beyond what anyone could have expected in looking after the interests of shareholders should be subject to critical examination by the FCA. And all the lifestyle companies where endless shares are issued to keep the directors in the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed are seemingly untroubled by the FCA at all.
Furthermore, in their ex parte application to Court to take my personal information, they failed to disclose material evidence in their possession that would have been of interest to a Court in deciding to grant that intrusion. Furthermore, the declared reasons for needing it were clearly illogical at best. An urgent application will therefore be made to hold those failings to account in the next few days and I will provide a further update in that regard.
Whilst the FCA action is an inconvenience for me personally (albeit I have not been charged with anything and am not on bail), Whetstone Capital and other companies of interest to readers are separate legal entities and will continue to develop. I understand that news will be forthcoming in this regard very soon.
In the meantime I apologise for any failure to respond to any messages. I still don't have my phone or computer but can be contacted via this website's "contact us" email address until I organise replacements.
2nd March 2018 - Small company acquisitions and fundraising.
For anyone starting an entirely new enterprise in the early part of their business career, it is highly unlikely that they will have a team around them that they already know have battle hardened expertise in the core disciplines that they require. The business of recruitment for them is going to necessarily be hit and miss to a degree: the founder is not going to know whether many of the recruits are actually able to do the job for which they have been hired. It is one of the reasons why so few early-stage companies succeed.
Over the last 30 years I have come to know perhaps a dozen or so individuals that have proven expertise and complete reliability in their specific field, and to know exactly how they will deal with particular issues in a way that is both consistent and valuable. Developing personal experience and recognising the experience and expertise of others is only something that can be accumulated over a considerable period of time – i.e. it takes multiple experiences to know ones own abilities and flaws and to properly recognise the strengths and weaknesses of others.
Recognising what particular ability a person has and ensuring that they are placed in that position is a core essential. It is no good putting someone who is poor at admin but great at sales in charge of filing! This simple but important truth is something that it takes time to understand about oneself and about ones colleagues. The team I am working with have the necessary qualities in each core discipline to make any business where they agree to work together a success, and to enjoy doing it. That accumulation of experience and range of business contacts and associations is a valuable intangible asset, not available to most early-stage companies.
My own particular role and expertise in any company that I am associated with is to bring to the table an extensive knowledge of the stock market, the structuring of acquisitions and deal negotiation as it relates to stock market investor perspective (as readers will be aware I began trading on the stock market at age 18, over 30 years ago). My role is not to be involved in managing companies, which I neither like nor am good at, nor to be involved in any form of administrative function. I also feel that people tend to enjoy what they are best at. And I enjoy the stock market very much.
With that in mind, I thought it would be useful to explain how, from a stock market perspective, a small company should go about its acquisition and financing strategy and which, for those who do not understand the market properly, may seem at first glance to be counter intuitive.
Almost all smaller companies are too willing to engage in heavily discounted share placings as a way to finance their business. Thus, whenever the share price shows any sign of life, the Board (often having limited market experience themselves) will be easily seduced by a smiling corporate financier suggesting that now is a very good time to carry out a discounted placing - which the financier knows he will then be able to sell into the market at a premium. Money for old rope for the financier, but a value and morale crushing blow to all the existing investors who have been paying the market price for their shares. Do that too many times (and once is too many for me), and investor interest eventually dies, defeated by a Tsunami of discounted shares in issue. Thus, the short-term attraction of immediate cash for the small developing company, ends up depriving the company of necessary funding in the future, often leading to financial trouble further down the line. Any acquisitive company that does not engage in discounted placings, and restricts the issuing of freely traded stock to the minimum required to enable the company's development plan to be achieved, has a higher prospect of ensuring that the stock continues to attract investor interest - and therefore funding is ultimately achieved on more attractive terms for the company (i.e. at a higher share price), as well as rewarding existing investors by ensuring that their market purchases are not devalued by heavily discounted placings. One of the secrets to the successful development of an acquisitive stock market listed company, is actually to restrict the number of freely tradable shares to a minimum - within the bounds of any free float regulations. Naturally the business plan has to make sense but, taking that as a given, the stock market strategy should not be to issue shares like confetti, and to ensure that supply and demand favours an increasing price.
For an acquisitive company, in parallel with the market strategy of not issuing discounted shares, it is a key objective to persuade vendors that it is in their
interests to sell their business or asset at below fair market price. Why would the vendors sell their business or asset at below market price, you may ask? Because, ultimately, they will receive
more than fair market price for it.
If a vendor sells an asset clearly worth £1 million to the listed company for £1m then investors in that stock market company will be completely unmoved by the transaction, and in fact the shares (and therefore the vendor share consideration too) would probably tend to wilt on the news, as investors express their lack of appreciation by selling their shares, driving down the share price and eventually stock market volume too. On the other hand, were the vendor to sell the asset into the listed company at a 50% discount to fair market value, for example, the transaction would be seen as being very good news for the listed company, investors would respond by buying the shares, shares would appreciate (including those of the vendor), volume and investor interest would also increase, and investors would be enthusiastic about the next forthcoming transaction causing the shares to increase ahead of it. In fact it is entirely probable that after the second or third acquisition, the share consideration of the original vendor would have appreciated by more than the discount he accepted for the asset in the first place. You therefore have happy vendors, happy investors and a listed company with genuine momentum to complete further deals that continue that virtuous cycle.
Of course, you need to understand the stock market and be persuasive in order to convince vendors to do that. They need to believe in the plan and know that the people carrying it out understand what they are doing. Most smaller companies do not have the level of market expertise and other abilities that such a strategy requires. I believe that the team I am working with have all the required skills, and that vendors will indeed be persuaded by such a value enhancing strategy.
Of course, die hard critics will say that "They're only making discounted acquisitions, restricting the free float, avoiding discounted placings, generating profit and paying dividends to get people to buy shares"
Err, yeah, that's exactly what we will be doing. More investor interest means more volume, a higher share price and a greater ability to make value enhancing acquisitions in the interests of all parties.
Obviously there are also other factors that determine whether a company will succeed: from cost control - e.g. not having expensive offices before the size and profitability of the Company warrants it and paying remuneration predominately on a Results basis, etc - to sales and marketing. But as far as an acquisitive company's stock market strategy is concerned, the above is, in my view, the best way to achieve the company's objectives. I hope to comment on one or two examples of value enhancing acquisitions in the near future.
(Note to the reader: The recent Whetstone issue of gift shares is not a discounted placing in the way described above, which was designed to grant WRN holders a mirror image interest for the reasons previously stated. WRN holders did not subscribe to a placing at a discounted rate, and would not therefore all have an incentive to sell for a quick turn).
11th February 2018
Shares in Whetstone Capital Group Plc began trading on the Britdaq platform on Friday. For more information see www.whetstone.capital and www.britdaq.com
In the meantime our legal team have prepared Freedom of Information and Data Protection requests which are being served on various Government Departments and Private Organisations on Wednesday, as part of our continued investigation into the Campaign of Tortious Interference referred to on this website.
5th February 2018 - Update
When I established this website over a year ago I was very clear about the motivation for doing so and what we were trying to achieve. The declared motivation and objectives were sincere and genuine, so it follows that all alternative explanations put forward by anyone else must necessarily be false.
The extent of the damage caused to Worthington and the Injured Parties caused by the Campaign of Tortious Interference described in the Report on this website is now becoming crystal clear, to the extent that the very large financial impact can now be specifically quantified. In particular, the first in a series of acquisitions negotiated for Worthington is now generating net pre tax profits of $2m per MONTH from one seam of coal. The second seam is now coming into production and will, due to economies of scale, more than double net pre tax profitability. Certain of the Injured Parties (as defined in the TI Report) provided a seven figure sum of money to help bring these assets into production. This first operation is the first of several and, had Worthington not been undermined in the way that it was, production and profitability would be at an even more advanced stage. In addition to the coal assets, we had also negotiated very large oil, shale gas and limestone acquisitions amongst other deals.
The claim for damages currently being prepared will exceed the £5 per share figure announced by Worthington in January 2015, being its estimate of the value to Worthington of the transactions that had been negotiated. Of course, the defendants in the case about to be launched will clearly not be able to pay the damages - which is another reason why establishing the new company and providing a mirror image for Worthington shareholders was necessary. However, at the end of the process, we will have a High Court judgement upholding the level of damages and proving a loss to Worthington and the Injured Parties of at least £5 per share. This will likely result in the bankruptcy of all those who have been actively involved in the campaign against Worthington and associated parties. We have already begun the process of identifying those involved. But more importantly, it takes a case like this - where the reality versus the false allegations is so extreme - for the law to be changed. And important changes to the law need to be made.
There will be further news later this week.
4th January 2018
As readers will be aware, I have campaigned tirelessly to ensure that small Worthington shareholders receive a gifted mirror image shareholding in Whetstone Capital Group Plc. Despite having been very public about this for over a year, it seems that my commitment to the cause of the WRN shareholders is the reason why the Company is not now able to list on the NEX Growth Market.
It appears that, despite the fact that I can buy 29% of any listed company on any London market without restriction, my support of a solution for WRN shareholders is reason enough for NEX to disallow Whetstone.
I am, of course, considering my position and will comment further in due course.
3rd January 2018 - Focus on litigation
I am now going to be pursuing various legal claims against the key principals behind the Campaign of Tortious Interference detailed in the report on this website.
It normally takes direct personal experience of an injustice before someone is sufficiently motivated to do something about it. For the rest, as it doesn't affect them directly, most people tend to shrug their shoulders and generally couldn't care less.
So, for example, the damage caused by lies propagated on the Internet is of no concern to most people because it doesn't affect them directly. Well, I have been directly affected and I am going to pursue those responsible. Having focused on looking after the interests of Worthington shareholders over the last twelve months, I decided to hold fire on litigation until time and resources permitted my intended legal actions to be vigorously pursued. And, as readers have probably gathered by now, once I'm determined to do something – even if it takes 30 years – I carry on until it is accomplished.
Separately I will also be taking a variety of action against various government departments. This includes, for example, HMRC. In particular I received a demand for £4.5m of tax which - having not earned £10m of income - I was unable to pay. I appealed to the tax Commissioners to have this demand set aside but the demand was upheld. I appealed to the High Court and was successful in overturning the Commissioners decision and having it referred to the third tier tax tribunal. Despite the claim being subjected to a tax tribunal, HMRC persisted in making a claim for £4.5m. I obtained an injunction against HMRC requiring them to desist, but they subsequently overturned that injunction on the medieval basis that it is not possible to injunct the Crown - I.e. not that my case wasn't overwhelming but that the Crown cannot be injuncted. That injustice (claiming for a debt that was credibly disputed) led directly to my bankruptcy. And, once bankrupt, I lost my locus to persist with the tax tribunal case and therefore my ability to contest the case which the High Court had granted me. That cannot be right on any fair basis. Once bankrupt I also lost my ability to defend my directors disqualification case and had to represent myself, which is an impossibility if you are not personally expert in the civil law. This double injustice, despite the prosecution describing me as sincere and well meaning, led to a great deal of personal abuse from ill informed critics and which further fed a series of other injustices. To say I am seriously hacked off is an understatement.
My motivation for what I am doing is spelt out on this website. My honourable intention couldn't be clearer (see Honest Design section) and sometimes it takes personal experience of injustice before there is a catalyst for anything to be done about structural unfairness. Make no mistake, I will be holding every false accusation or innuendo, from whatever source, to account. I now have the time and resources to do that.
3rd January 2018 - Small Worthington Shareholders section updated.
22 July 2017 – Insolvency Practitioners and the Second Legal Claim
Even the Communist Party of China eventually recognised that market forces and the profit motive were generally more efficient providers of goods and services than State control. There are some exceptions, like National Defence etc, where the State is the logical provider, but these are relatively few and far between.
One service that is provided by the private sector, however, which does not currently perform efficiently is in the area of corporate insolvency, because the profit motive actually works against efficient service.
When a company enters insolvency with relatively small realisable assets which would only fund a few hours of insolvency fees, there is an incentive for the insolvency practitioner to realise sufficient assets quickly in order to pay their fees and complete the liquidation: the longer it goes on, beyond the available realisations, the more unpaid work they would end up doing. Generally speaking, therefore, insolvency practitioners don't take on cases where there are no realisable assets because they won't get paid, unless one or more creditors are prepared to fund them. However, where there are very substantial realisable assets, the profit motive ceases to act as a spur to efficiency. This is because the longer the insolvency and the more time they can “justify”, the more they can bill for their services and the more profit they actually make. So it is not in the commercial interests of insolvency practitioners for a large insolvency to be completed quickly and efficiently. In theory, insolvency practitioners are supposed to be officers of the court with an almost saintly sense of public service where their own commercial interests don't enter their minds at all, and where they don't bill the maximum they can per hour for as many hours as possible. In reality, of course, insolvency practitioners are flawed human beings like anybody else and therefore the temptation to maximise profit at the expense of creditors very often proves irresistible. Theoretically creditors can challenge the extent of fees charged but this rarely happens – because creditors generally can't be bothered and the cost of doing so for individual creditors is often prohibitive; so insolvency practitioners are left writing their own cheques. The recent eye-watering fees being charged in relation to the Rangers liquidation is yet another example of this unfortunate, but currently legal, conflict of interest.
Whilst there are some noble exceptions to this rapacious insolvency culture, the greed it engenders often leads to other unsavoury behaviour, and this is where we come to the Second Legal Claim.
Prior to the purchase of Rangers Football Club in May 2011, MCR (insolvency and restructuring specialists) were retained by Mr Whyte to advise on all aspects of the transaction. Prior to the completion of the Rangers takeover MCR was sold to Duff and Phelps for a significant initial consideration but which also included a multi million pound deferred consideration. This deferred consideration specifically related to a major insolvency case from which the vendors of MCR were hoping and expecting to earn very substantial fees. Unbeknown to Mr Whyte that large insolvency case was none other than Rangers Football Club plc. So at the time that Mr Whyte was retaining them to advise on a successful restructuring of Rangers, they actually had a direct multi million pound incentive to ensure that Rangers went into liquidation/administration instead. Following the takeover of Rangers by Wavetower (the Whyte vehicle) the MCR team, now part of Duff and Phelps, were retained to negotiate with HMRC in order to agree a solution to the various tax problems faced by Rangers. However, instead of negotiating in good faith on behalf of Rangers/Wavetower, having been retained to do so, they actually advised HMRC to reject any restructuring proposals coming from Rangers and to appoint them as administrators instead. Following the administration of Rangers the MCR vendors were then able to, and did, receive the multi million deferred consideration they had planned. This unethical, and probably illegal, treachery is evidenced in an affidavit from HMRC. Similarly, the multi million pound deferred consideration incentive is confirmed by an affidavit submitted by the CEO of Duff and Phelps in the recent Scottish trial.
The losses and reputational damage resulting from this duplicity is the subject of the Second Legal Claim.
23 July 2017
The activity of Duff and Phelps only came to light in affidavits relating to the Whyte trial. Clearly, had it been known at the time they were seeking to be appointed administrators, they would have been sacked on the spot.
23 June 2017 - Worthington Claims
Further to my post of 16 June 2017, readers may be aware that one of Worthington's subsidiary companies has been granted an extension of time in which to submit a claim for the entire sum held on deposit by the liquidators of RFC 2012 plc. The defence to the claim was originally predicated on the proposition that the acquisition of RFC 2012 plc by the RFC Group Ltd ("Wavetower") and the assignment of the first charge debt from Lloyds bank to Wavetower was a fraudulent transaction and/or amounted to unlawful financial assistance. The recent not guilty verdicts on both these counts would appear to leave the road open for a successful claim, particularly as a verdict of unproven was also available to the Scottish jury.
The Wavetower claim is in fact the smallest of the Rangers related claims and readers may have noticed that litigation specialists and funders have recently been appointed as directors of various Worthington subsidiaries in order to pursue these claims.
The April 2013 share purchase agreement relating to Worthington's interest in Law Financial contained an insolvency clause so that, in the event of the insolvency of Worthington, ownership of Law Financial would revert to the vendors. The vendors of Law Financial are willing to waive this insolvency clause subject to the successful exit of Worthington from liquidation via CVA. Proposals in this respect are intended to be submitted to the liquidators within the next two weeks.
30th May 2017 - Worthington website
A website claiming to herald the relaunch of Worthington is a fake and illegal site and I would urge readers not to provide any information to those behind the site, which has already been reported to the appropriate authorities. Whilst it is hoped that Worthington will come out of liquidation, this site has nothing whatsoever to do with that effort.
15th May 2017 – Court Order
I am pleased to confirm that at the High Court hearing in London this morning the Honourable Mr Justice King granted an injunction in the terms requested by the Claimants (Allan Biggar, Aidan Earley, Equity Media Partners Ltd, Greenland Mining Management Ltd) and made the following order. That:
A full copy of the Court Order is attached below.
Any breach of this Order makes those in breach (including those who assist in its breach) liable to imprisonment or fined or to have their assets seized.
I will be commenting on this case in more detail before Friday, but I can confirm that this Order affords to Newco the necessary protection to enable its launch to proceed as planned, and for long-suffering shareholders of Worthington to finally benefit from the acquisition program that had originally been planned for Worthington.
10th May 2017 – Court Order
Allan Biggar and I attended the High Court in London yesterday in order to obtain an order for substituted service and an Interim Injunction in relation to the operator of the https://nunaminerals.wordpress.com/ website and various email accounts. The High Court granted our application for substituted service and allowed a reduced notice period for an on notice Interim Injunction. The Judge felt that the Defendant(s) should have the opportunity to attend Court prior to any Interim Injunction being granted as there were insufficient compelling reasons for an ex parte Injunction to be granted. Consequently the on notice Injunction Hearing will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, London, WC2A 2LL at or after 10am on Monday 15th May 2017.
We would have preferred to have obtained the Injunction yesterday so that the Newco Website could be launched on Friday. However, it now makes sense to launch the website on Friday 19th May 2017.
As stated in my post of 3rd May 2017, the multi million pound claim in relation to the Tortious Interference described in the report on this website will take place following the conclusion of the case now being heard in Scotland. Consequently the current action now being taken against one or more of the perpetrators of that campaign (see bundle below) is a non money claim designed to prohibit the campaign from continuing, albeit we will be pursuing him/her/they for our legal costs.
6th March 2017 - Congratulations to Tom Winnifrith
It would be churlish of me not to pay appropriate recognition to Tom Winnifrith for his recent valiant efforts in trying to restrain himself from calling as many companies and individuals as he possibly can fraudsters, referring to them instead as Dogs and Bastards, etc. For a fraud enthusiast like Tom (he might have been a UFO enthusiast in other circumstances), who struggles not to call his local checkout girl a fraudster, and who normally spends most of his time rereading his telephone directory to double check he has accused everyone in it of fraud, this is real progress. So well done, Tom, I'm impressed.
However, in an area where Tom hasn't made much progress, I couldn't help noticing Mr Winnifrith's rather fantastic interpretation of recent communications with the Official Receiver. Apparently, the O.R. is now going to be a witness in the legal action that I am bringing against Tom (I wonder if the O.R. knows that?). And in the parallel universe run by Tom, where reality is whatever Tom says it is, the Official Receiver has already donned his black hat and pronounced a sentence of death on anyone connected with Worthington. But I'm not going to criticise Tom for his sense of imagination here, if Tom can continue to control his urge to call everyone he meets a fraudster then I accept that something has to take up the slack. For Mr Winnifrith it is imagining the death of his enemies, for someone else it might be eating chocolates.
I note that Tom is also rather hopeful that if he spends his waking hours trawling through 52 companies that he says I was associated with, he may find something that I don't know myself. Bizarre as it may seem to Tom, I brought this first action knowing full well my own history. I have never claimed to have an unblemished record; this first case is about whether or not it is right for somebody to invent lies in the destructive way that Mr Winnifrith does.
There is therefore nothing Mr Winnifrith can discover that I don't know about already; I went into this action with my eyes very wide open knowing full well what to expect from Mr Winnifrith. As I have mentioned in a previous post, far from being the wrong person to hold Mr Winnifrith to account, I'm precisely the right person because I am relatively impervious to Mr Winnifrith's malevolent approach. For anyone with an impeccable reputation, to even be associated with holding Mr Winnifrith to account, would be to invite intensified abuse and false accusations from him, which would damage the Claimant's profile on the internet even further. In addition, not many people are prepared to be subject to the abusive insults that are Mr Winnifrith's speciality. I don't need to sully this website by repeating them here, but anyone having a glance at Mr Winnifrith's writing will know precisely what I'm talking about.
This first action is therefore also a pathfinder to prepare the way for actions by multiple parties. There will be many developments over the coming days which Mr Winnifrith may think is the "big surprise" I have referred to but, make no mistake, there will be no room for doubt when it takes place.
Lastly, it is clear I know a lot more about the rules concerning shadow directorships than Mr Winnifrith does; but, for now, I'll let him waste some more time demonstrating how little he understands the subject.
1st March 2017 - Public Interest
Mr Winnifrith makes much of his spurious claim that he acts in the public interest. The cases that are being brought against him will highlight that it is not in the public interest to steal emails and publish them, nor is it in the public interest to destroy the whole concept of rehabilitation by inventing lies about anyone who happens to have a long spent conviction, and it is certainly not in the public interest to run a protection racket. If the Court were to rule that it is in the public interest to do these things then, literally, God help us all.
Mr Winnifrith has tried to shift the debate from the fact that he is a proven and highly destructive liar - who played a central and highly active role in trying to destroy Worthington - to the rather quaint idea that I was a shadow director and it was really me who was responsible for the problems faced by Worthington instead. Brilliant.
As regards surprises, the only surprise unveiled by Mr Winnifrith yesterday was that there was a government agency that he hadn't already contacted; I would have thought he would have set up a group email by now.
That said, unfortunately for Mr Winnifrith, I do have a surprise for him but my surprises are on an altogether bigger scale.
I am not being vindictive, readers will know that I have done everything fair and reasonable to avoid having to take the steps that are being taken, and will be taken, to hold Mr Winnifrith properly to account. And he knows that too.
27th February 2017 - First Claim Launched (a day earlier than planned)
See Litigation Summary Section
26th February 2017 - Strange Appearances
One of the allegations made in the Tortious Interference Report on this website is that Mr Winnifrith is engaged in blackmail and racketeering. Sharp eyed readers may have noticed that there are significant numbers of individuals and companies who:
1. Have been targeted by Mr Winnifrith for false and destructive reporting
2. Have subsequently taken space at his Investor Show, or appeared as a guest speaker, and
3. Where the attacks have ceased or have been materially reduced.
We have been conducting our own investigation into this curious anomaly and would invite Readers to submit their own list of companies or individuals where this odd phenomenon has taken place.
Which sort of individual or company, having been on the receiving end of Mr Winnifrith's malicious falsehoods, would then voluntarily choose to pay to take space at his Investor Show? All very strange.
There is a sub category that we are interested in as well - those companies who have taken space at a rival investor show (and so not had the "benefit" of appearing at Mr Winnifrith's Investor Show), and been subject to concerted attacks by Winnifrith.
This is all very fascinating.
28th January 2017 - Reckless Tom
This website has already highlighted and catalogued a whole series of false, reckless and damaging statements made by Mr Winnifrith and about which I have direct personal knowledge (see 28th December 2016 post below); I have also highlighted Mr Winnifrith's remarkable ability to brazenly criticise others when his own failings match and often greatly exceed those he targets (see here). I have also highlighted the inevitable and hugely damaging effects that his malignant influence has on fledgling companies (see homepage and 20th and 21st December 2016 posts). Therefore, having witnessed the extent of his malicious, destructive and unjust "news" first hand, I decided to review in detail his commentary on other companies on the basis that "grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles". In other words, having been singularly unable to report any of the Worthington story in an honest, fair-minded and objective way, it obviously follows that Mr Winnifrith would be equally unable to tell the truth about other companies he targeted. I have therefore decided to begin a series of articles highlighting his dishonest and hugely damaging attacks on some of these other companies.
Almost all of the companies that Mr Winnifrith targets are early stage, fledgling companies that have the exceptionally difficult task of building a new business from scratch, often with a new product, in highly competitive or emerging markets with limited resources. To have any prospect of success, these companies require the support, goodwill and confidence of their backers and business associates. That goodwill and support is a very precious and fragile necessity for these smaller companies in particular. Indeed even large banks and financial institutions require the trust and confidence of their customers and business partners to avoid a run on deposits and an ensuing liquidity crash. Smaller companies don't have the Bank of England to bail them out through the printing of cash or quantitative easing and are particularly vulnerable to the unlawful and unregulated activities of Mr Winnifrith - because they are often pre revenue, pioneering companies with much of the business plan, market or product as yet unproven. They are therefore uniquely susceptible to a campaign of vicious, sustained, malicious libel orchestrated by Mr Winnifrith designed to destroy all confidence in the fledgling company so that the company is catastrophically undermined. Mr Winnifrith can then claim "vindication" having himself been the cause of the failure in the first place. It is far easier to destroy a fledgling company than it is to build it, or to drive a smaller company share price down than to tip a good long-term investment (I haven't analysed Mr Winnifrith's unregulated share tipping in detail, but I suspect that his basket of long term buy recommendations are materially worse than his "guaranteed" success from recommending investors sell shares in those companies that he targets for his unlawful campaigns and where known associates of his are often short).
African Potash (“African”) (Part 1)
The first series of articles I decided to review (relating to companies in which I have no interest) and which are written by Mr Winnifrith, concern African Potash.
A classic theme of Mr Winnifrith's campaigns is to label an entire company a fraud: that is, to claim that the whole company and everyone in it is engaged in a concerted and deliberate attempt to defraud investors for personal gain and that the company is a criminal enterprise. That is the plain meaning of Mr Winnifrith stating that "African Potash is a fraud". So Mr Winnifrith, a failed politician, failed businessman, award winning hypocrite, consistent and deliberate liar and pseudo journalist reckons that he is qualified in his sole, chronically inept, judgment to decide - without any weighing of evidence by a properly constituted jury - to proclaim a whole company a fraud? One has to wonder whether his behaviour is that of an imbecile or a sociopath. And a sociopath, don't forget, who publicly takes pleasure in the demise of those he targets. Most of us know our own failings - I certainly know mine - but it is painfully clear Mr Winnifrith is not acquainted with his, or he would be too shame faced to consider, let alone make a career out of, criticising others in this way.
By labelling African Potash a fraud Mr Winnifrith is effectively saying that the entire Board of Directors, including Peter Hain (former MP and Cabinet Minister), Mark Simmonds (former MP and senior consultant to Kroll Associates, the worldwide investigators) and Elias Pungong (partner at Ernst and Young) are all either engaged, or complicit, in a criminal enterprise. He is not saying that heads should roll but that the entire company is a fraud whose whole essence is to defraud investors, that there is no plan to build a lawful business and it is designed instead to defraud investors for.....for what exactly Mr Winnifrith?
The purpose of the series of articles that I am publishing regarding Mr Winnifrith's commentary on various companies that he targets, is not to pass judgement on whether or not a company is good or bad, or whether it is likely to be a commercial success or not, it is to identify and expose obviously false and highly damaging reporting by Mr Winnifrith. Along the way, a pattern of behaviour by Mr Winnifrith and ShareProphets is also emerging – but I will write separately about that in due course.
On 1st December 2015, African Potash announced a transaction with Beryl Holdings which, on the face of it, had the potential to generate significant revenues for African Potash with any payment being linked only to success. That looked like a relatively prudent deal structure. No income, no payment.
On 6th January 2016, African Potash announced a collaboration with COMESA. To have negotiated such an arrangement with what amounts to Africa's answer to the European Economic Area would have taken a great deal of time and effort to put in place. Clearly the Directors of African Potash thought they were trying to build a viable and worthwhile business, but Mr Winnifrith would like them to know that they were actually, unbeknown to them, building a fraud.
On 23 August 2016, Mr Winnifrith published a confidential agreement which he claimed showed a £600,000 "bung" paid by African Potash to "Beryl's boss Neverl Kambesha" in relation to the 1st December 2015 deal. This was labelled by Winnifrith as "explosive evidence" that African Potash and their advisers had deliberately colluded to mislead investors in a placing by not mentioning it.
Mr Winnifrith's fraud twitch, which he appeared to have under some minor degree of control for a short period up to that point, then went into complete spasm. He wrote to the A-Z of regulators, including his local neighbourhood watch, to tell them what absolute rotters/fraudsters everyone associated with African Potash were. And how everyone should go to jail, including sons and daughters of the guilty, and anyone who has ever been vicariously associated with the African Potash coven. (Steady Tom, or even writing about it might make you unclean).
So let's take a look at that alleged "bung".
Mr Winnifrith claims that a crucial clause of the agreement (1.6.5) was not mentioned in the RNS. That clause is as follows:
"Beryl has a number of associated and subsidiary companies involved in agriculture, commodities and mining in Africa and will select with AFPO's agreement [my emphasis] another one of its associated or related companies suitable for a London Stock Exchange IPO, RTO or similar transaction or pre IPO Investment and AFPO will either introduce third party funding or invest itself GBP£600,000 for equity or quasi equity to enable this transaction or other necessary costs to be met".
And Mr Winnifrith states that
"In other words African was obliged to come up with £600,000 or ensure that cash was sent to a company wholly owned by Beryl's boss Neverl Kambesha whatever sales were generated by this deal. Punters thought this deal came at no cost to African just upside potential"
"Up until now the worst we could accuse Cleverley of was in lying in an RNS on January 6 2016 to get the January 12 bailout placing away - see HERE. But this is far worse"
So Mr Winnifrith says that it was this clause that convinced him that African Potash was a fraud and that lyin' Tom (to coin a phrase) was now convinced that Chris Cleverley and everyone connected with African Potash was instead a fraud.
Well: Imbecile or Sociopath, Tom, which is it?
It is clear that anyone associated in any way with business would know exactly what that clause means. It means exactly what it says. Having made an agreement with Beryl it became clear that Beryl had other businesses that could be floated in London. African Potash wanted to have the potential to be involved in assisting with that floatation. African would need to agree that the proposed floatation was up to standard, but if it was it would like to either invest directly or arrange the funding. That clause is not in any way an obligation to pay, or even a right to pay, but an understanding of a way forward and an expression of interest. Unless African agreed with the quality or suitability of the float there would be no float and no payment.
If African had been obliged to mention it, it would actually have been seen as another potential source of profit. African would have been within their rights to have said something along the lines of “Furthermore we have come to a broad understanding with Beryl that, subject to African being satisfied with the quality or suitability of the business, African will assist Beryl float one or more of Beryl’s subsidiaries on AiM. It is our hope that this will generate additional income for African in due course, both by way of fees for advising on the prospective float and also by assisting with a £600,000 fund raise. Again, subject to being satisfied with the quality of the subsidiary, African may itself choose to subscribe for all or part of the intended £600,000 fund raise”
Is Mr Winnifrith surprised that he can't find the £600,000 bung in the accounts (as he searched empty handed on 4th January 2017)? Only an imbecile would conclude that that clause represented a bung in the first place. Is Reckless Tom going to apologise for labelling African Potash a fraud on that basis ("Up until now the worst we could accuse Cleverley of was in lying in an RNS on January 6 2016 to get the January 12 bailout placing away - see HERE. But this is far worse"). His targeting of African Potash in this dishonest and destructive way undermined the company by littering the internet with allegations of fraud, driving away investment and making Nomads unwilling to act. When it comes to whom to sue, the parties he is currently trying to persuade to sue Cantor and/or the Directors of African Potash would be better advised to turns their guns on Mr Winnifrith instead.
Fledgling companies need to be protected from this kind of behaviour and any website engaged in tipping UK shares should be regulated by the FCA. What is the point, you might ask, of newspapers or brokers complying with certain reasonable standards if a loose cannon can simply set up in business and drive a coach and horses through the entire regulatory framework? Rogue websites, like ShareProphets, should either comply with good practice and be accountable to the FCA or be closed down.
Mr Winnifrith likes to flatter himself that he plays a worthwhile role in AiM regulation: that Reckless Tom can do a job that the regulators, having to deal in truth, can't do. What would happen if ShareProphets is closed down? Pretty much what happened before it arrived on the scene. If a company fails to deliver, the share price falls, investors buy at lower prices or shun the company altogether. The market performs this role in a gradual and measured way. Investors can make up their own minds at each stage of the company's progress or lack of progress. Trying to cause precipitous collapses or the resignation of Nomads and the suspension of share trading, as Mr Winnifrith does, artificially distorts the market and also prevents entrepreneurs from being able to learn on the job. An enthusiastic entrepreneur confident that he has just signed a great deal, only to find that dealing in Africa is less reliable than he thought will be more wary next time, if there is a next time, chastened by the market reaction. Three years later he may have learnt enough to make a success of the venture. Simply trying to destroy fledgling companies, in the way that Mr Winnifrith does, serves no useful purpose and destroys the livelihoods of investors and employees in the companies he targets. He should be regulated and if he isn't regulated, he should be closed down. It is past time that this particular rogue trader was put out of business.
24th January - Birthday Present
My thanks to Tom Winnifrith today for helping me to celebrate my 50th birthday. I resisted the temptation to point out to him yesterday that he is, as usual, wrong regarding his central assertions. I am of course not bankrupt and was discharged after just one year. I have also been working on a detailed analysis of various similarly fake news stories he has published over the years, and the resulting damage he has caused to countless other companies. The first of a series of articles on these cases will be published this week. This latest fake news story and alll the other instances where his fake news causes real damage underlines just why Mr Winnifrith and Shareprophets need to be put out of business. That case has been given added weight by his latest own goal.
6th January 2017 - Who better to bring action against Winnifrith?
Mr Winnifrith has set great store by the idea that, because I pleaded guilty to and was sent to prison 25 years ago for an offence not involving dishonesty, and that I have also been bankrupt and am currently disqualified as a director (though also currently permitted to be a director by the same Court), whatever he says is right and whatever I say is wrong.
No doubt when Mr Winnifrith first began his assault on Worthington, he must have assumed it was a soft target: the false but perceived Craig Whyte connection (and Whyte's unrelated criminal charges in relation to Rangers) and my own, unconnected, failings more or less gave him license to say anything he wanted. And he did. What he will discover is that conflating entirely unrelated matters is a very unwise thing to do; and he will also discover that the truth exposes and destroys all falsehood, no matter that casual lies can throw dust in the air for a short period.
Therefore when the actions that are being brought against Mr Winnifrith by me, and those I support, are eventually successful - despite this apparently unpromising backdrop - it will be a spur for anyone else who has a justified grievance against Winnifrith to step forward. After all, if Winnifrith can lose to "a convicted criminal, multiple bankrupt and banned director", what hope has he against anyone else?
Incidentally, in relation to the charges that I pleaded guilty to 25 years ago, the defence against the charges was that the omission was both honest and excusable. It was accepted by all parties, including the Judge and prosecution, that the omission was honest but I pleaded guilty to the inadequate accounting being inexcusable. In hindsight, bearing in mind that these events took place between the ages of only 18 and 21, when most teenagers are doing what most teenagers do, and that I wasn't involved at all in the accounting function, I think it was in fact excusable and so I should perhaps not have pleaded guilty. But that is another story…
6th January 2017 - A question of Moral Authority
When considering lecturing others about any particular issue, it is advisable to establish whether one has the appropriate moral authority to do so. For example a married man, engaged in multiple illicit affairs, would not appear the obvious choice to criticise others for lack of marital fidelity.
Similarly, if there is a God (and I obviously believe there is), then - unless he has lived as a man, subjected to the same temptations and problems as men - he would have no moral authority to judge men. Indeed Christ says that he has been given authority to Judge because he is the Son of Man.(John 5:27). Without such moral authority, it would be possible to say to any so called god, trying to condemn men "you don't know what it's like to suffer pain and suffering and temptation and misery. There you are, sitting in your ivory tower, untouched by grief and poverty and despair, and yet you presume to judge me?". Only a God who had suffered everything that we suffer, and yet not sinned, has the moral authority to Judge mankind.
In my own case, I did not feel that I would have the moral authority to be involved in public evangelism, whilst I had creditors who could rightly claim that I owed them money or that I had in some way let them down financially. Critics could understandably argue "that's all well and good, but what about all these people he owes money to". Therefore my objective to repay creditors, that I no longer have any legal obligation to reimburse - and anyone else who could justifiably claim that I had lost them money - was designed to remove that stumbling block. In other words, by paying several million pounds to these former creditors, I will have bought the right to speak with moral authority. Consequently, whilst people may disagree with the message that I intend to preach, they will at least have to acknowledge that I genuinely believe it myself.
Readers will be aware that I had intended to quietly achieve my objectives, publish my book, and then commence full-time evangelism without any "song and dance" about it. However, the action of Winnifrith and others became itself an obstacle to my achieving this near 30 year objective. For that reason only, it became necessary to talk publicly about what I am actually trying to achieve. And, of course, with Worthington poised to complete its acquisition program, and my former creditors interests protected through the Olympus Trading holding, that objective was very close to completion. I suppose the late twist in the tale, being subjected to the unlawful and vicious campaign referred to in the Tortious Interference Report, adds to dramatic effect; but then every good book needs a genuine villain, and Mr Winnifrith and co are performing that role with genuine aplomb. Having said that, over the last 28 years I have witnessed my fair share of heroes and villains, and Mr Winnifrith has at least contributed to an exciting final chapter. Fortunately, despite best endeavours, he and others will not be able to prevent the acquisition programme completing (through the new vehicle) and the objective ultimately being achieved.
However, with respect to appropriate moral authority, if Mr Winnifrith had an ounce of self awareness, he would realise that his own failings conclusively disqualify him from any role involved in the criticism and condemnation of others. Perhaps one day that truth will break into his conscience.
6th January 2017 - Biggest Hypocrite in London Award (update).
Flushed with success after collecting his award on New Year's Eve, Mr Winnifrith has wasted no time in putting down a marker for the coveted prize in 2017. By sneakily arranging his financial affairs so that - to use his own words - his creditors "won't get a cent" when the inevitable Court Order to pay damages finally arrives, Mr Winnifrith has ensured that he can enjoy the freedom to libel all comers with unrestrained abandon; and, whatever else happens, his creditors will have more success finding gold at the end of the rainbow than cash from Mr Winnifrith. Having put in place a scheme to rob his creditors in this way, close watchers of Winnifrith can probably guess what happens next? Naturally, he has decided to criticise the financial arrangements of others.
For those interested in finding out the truth about Mr Winnifrith's imaginative claim that "Mr and Mrs Earley live in a £3m house whilst bankrupt", see below. But for everyone else, why not just savour the smooth, refined, effortless, style of our 2016 Award Winner as he shows yet again why - when it comes to hypocrisy - Mr Winnifrith is simply a Giant, casually flicking his competitors out of the way.
6th January 2017 - Mr Winnifrith's comments on my family home
Having arranged his financial affairs in such a way that he can libel anyone he attacks with impunity, so that his creditors "won't get a cent", Mr Winnifrith no doubt assumes that everybody else should arrange their finances in the same way that he does.
In contrast, in 1991, my wife and I bought a house in Beverley Way, New Malden for £129,500. By December 2003, I had also generated almost £1 million cash from stock market trading and investment. Sitting in Paris with my wife, around Christmas 2003, I was very happy, relaxed and peaceful. I had earned enough money to live a contented life, and the temptation was to ignore my promise to repay former creditors and enjoy a tranquil life instead. However, I decided to keep my promise and go ahead with a plan to purchase a private company, using my cash, with the intention to float that company on the market at a value exceeding the amount I owed to former creditors. By January 2005, we sold our home in Beverley Way because we needed a bigger house for our family. The Beverley Way property had increased substantially in value, and we were able to take the equity out of that house to put down as a deposit on our current property. Our current property has also substantially increased in value and yet we have used all the equity in it to support the effort to repay my former creditors. All the difficulties - the upset and the trauma that has caused - and the long suffering support of my wife and family in this endeavour forms part of my book. Suffice to say, however, that the rather grubby effort by Mr Winnifrith to put his assets beyond the reach of his creditors is the polar opposite of what we have done.
New Years Eve 2016 - Tom Winnifrith wins major Award
There are awards for a multitude of achievements in the field of human endeavour: The Oscars, the Nobel Peace Prize, Sports Personality of the Year, the Albert Einstein Award, etc. But unfortunately, until now, there has been no award for the Biggest Hypocrite in London. I considered asking for nominations from readers but swiftly concluded it was a futile exercise: there can be only one winner, a Titan who stands so head and shoulders above the rest that everyone else can merely quake beneath the great man's shadow. For every one amateurish effort from a mere mortal, Winnifrith can point to ten, 24 karat, solid gold, in your face, hole in one, smashes. Mr Winnifrith is a one off, a legend, where the only right response is to simply applaud him onto the stage, to receive possibly the most deserved award of any likely to be given in 2016 (and probably for many years to come).
Here are just some of Mr Winnifrith's masterstrokes:
Attacking many companies for allegedly misleading investors, and then proceeding to lie to donors (not investors, donors) when raising money himself.
Claiming to believe ardently in free speech, but quickly deleting any post that might shed light on the murky genesis of ShareProphets.
Claiming to have been libelled whilst he himself manages double shifts in a state of the art libel factory.
Claiming to be liberal minded, but being kicked out of the Liberal Party for helping to produce Racist material that even the BNP found offensive.
Accusing companies of lying, whilst making a career for himself out of lying on a blockbusting scale.
Criticising directors when his own performance, whilst a director of Rivington, was strikingly worse than many of those he attacks.
But possibly the coup de grace, the piece de resistance, the magnum opus of the great man is his use of guilt by association.
Mr Winnifrith regularly tries to add weight to his false allegations of fraud against smaller companies by identifying any director, officer, substantial shareholder or adviser who may have had failings in the past to allege that the targeted company must therefore, currently, be engaged in fraud - regardless of whether or not the previous failing involved dishonesty.
So, who does Mr Winnifrith choose as a backer and investor for ShareProphets? Who do you think the Grand Master would choose to be involved with a share tipping website, focused in large part in driving down the share prices of smaller companies? None other than Mr Christopher Potts, of course. A man found guilty of distorting markets and therefore, by Mr Winnifrith's definition, defrauding smaller investors. A man who ran naked short positions of more than 250% of the issued share capital of Room Service, whilst a market maker. A man found guilty of market abuse. How could I have missed it? Perhaps it's the purity of the hypocrisy, the faultless, matchless perfection. Whatever the reason, I can do nothing but gaze in dumbstruck wonder.
I have nothing whatsoever against Potts and hope he is indeed a reformed character and is now - alone amongst men - perfectly virtuous. But for sheer, exquisite, championship winning hypocrisy, Mr Winnifrith serves up a blistering ACE.
Even then, so natural is he as a performer, as Winnifrith takes his bow in front of the Royal Box at Centre Court and gives his victory speech to the awestruck crowd, he delights them with another, mere aside. He manages to slip into in his speech that he doesn't believe in rehabilitation - unless that person happens to be giving him cash.
Truly, we are in the presence of greatness; Mr Winnifrith we salute you!
30th December 2016 - Thought for the day
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
I would like to express my sincere thanks to all those who have sent me messages of support; it would seem that Mr Winnifrith has upset a large number of people. I have also been urged by several people to set up a donations facility on the website, so that they can assist with legal costs in the multiple legal actions being prepared against Mr Winnifrith and ShareProphets. I have therefore set up a facility as requested and anyone wishing to donate can do so publicly or anonymously at their option.
In the event that money is received it will only be used to pay legal costs where Mr Winnifrith and/or ShareProphets is a defendant. In addition to actions referred to in the Tortious Interference Report and elsewhere on this website in relation to Mr Winnifrith, we will also be willing to consider helping anyone else who has a legitimate grievance against him.
No money will be drawn down from gofundme except against solicitor invoices that are first published on this website, and which relate specially to action against Mr Winnifrith or ShareProphets.
The name of the campaign is simply "Stop Winnifrith" and can be found here
29th December 2016 - My disqualification
I have noticed various comments about my disqualification which could benefit from some factual input.
Very simply, I had put in place a solvent restructuring of a company in order that, following the restructuring, creditors would be paid in full - without the proceeds being eaten up by an insolvency practitioner (which, anyone who has had any dealings with insolvency practitioners will know, often leads to large fees and little left for creditors). The idea was to realise its investments in an orderly way over twelve months. What could not have been seen at the time was that the Global Financial Crash would take place during the twelve month period and cause the market and liquidity in smaller company shares to virtually disappear, resulting in the inability of the restructuring to be completed successfully. At the time of the disqualification hearing, I could not afford representation, and therefore had to represent myself (never a good place to be). Nonetheless the chief finding was that, even though the intentions were honourable, the restructuring increased the risk to creditors. I personally believe that was using the benefit of hindsight, but that was the finding. As readers will be aware, there was no suggestion of dishonesty and I was described as "sincere and well meaning", and a "clear and cogent witness" - by opposition counsel and the Registrar.
29th December 2016 – What the Winnifrith case is actually about
I've listened to Mr Winnifrith’s factually light podcast today and I will respond in more detail in due course. In the meantime, in answer to his suggestion that I am trying to close down bearish comment that is, again - along with his account of what took place in Court - simply untrue. Markets have always had bear comment and always will have bear comment; the markets worked perfectly well before Mr Winnifrith and his libel factory arrived on the scene, and will do so again when he leaves. Very simply, when companies fail to deliver on their promises, the share price falls because investors grow sceptical and decide to exit. Commentators can point to lack of cash generation, lack of delivery against business plan etc, and all the multitude of other reasonable criticisms that they may have, and bears can go short as much as they like. The main specific objection I have is that it is wholly wrong for Mr Winnifrith to denounce entire companies as frauds, on his hypocritical and self appointed say so, in order to destroy the business. This distorted and dishonest coverage of companies - whilst trying himself to be unaccountable to the FCA (whilst still offering investment advice) or to be subject to any recognised journalistic code of ethics - is undoubtedly destabilising the market. If Mr Winnifrith thinks that a company can just carry on regardless, as though nothing has happened, when his unilateral allegations of fraud litter the intent and starve the target company of capital, then he is either telling yet another lie or he is utterly deluded.
My objective is indeed to close down ShareProphets and, on the basis that he has no assets, to seek to make Mr Winnifrith bankrupt so that he can never again cause the misery and pain that he has caused to so many innocent parties. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I fully expected to be subject to an intensified campaign of abuse when holding Mr Winnifrith to account, and I expect that to continue.
29th December 2016 – Recent Rescission Application
Another question that Mr Winnifrith raises in his podcast is the idea that the position of Worthington has in any way changed vis its last announcement by virtue of a hearing that took place recently. To be clear, the views on this website are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Worthington or its Directors. However, I happen to know what that hearing was about because the application to rescind the winding up order, was made by the debenture holder of Worthington (Renatus Capital Ltd, my brother’s company) and had to be made within five business days of the winding up order being granted. This was not Worthington's application for a Judicial Review, which was the subject of the recent announcement, but a separate application. By making the application for rescission within five business days of the winding up order, the debenture holder achieved two things: firstly, should Worthington wish to make an urgent application for a Judicial Review, it can now do so more easily - if the rescission had been granted it would be more difficult to argue that it needed to be done on an urgent basis. Secondly, if the Judicial Review permission is granted Worthington, or the debenture holder, could apply for leave to rescind again out of time - but will be able to point out that application was originally made within the five day window. One of the many problems with Mr Winnifrith is he likes to state as facts things that he knows virtually nothing about. What the directors of Worthington decide to do in relation to these matters is not the subject of this website and is not for me to second guess.
Incidentally, had I wanted to be a director of Worthington or thought that I was likely to be involved in the management of Worthington, and been invited to be a director and wanted to take up such a role, I could have applied for permission to be a director of Worthington in the same way that I did for one of its subsidiaries. The Court does not give permission to be a director to individuals that it considers to be dishonest. But the facts are that I am not involved in the management of Worthington and Doug Ware was very clear about that. Will I be involved as a director of the new company? Maybe: if only so that I can't be accused of being a shadow director.
28th December 2016 - poor Mr Winnifrith
As part of Mr Winnifrith's assault on fledgling, vulnerable, early-stage companies, he accuses them of lying and making misleading statements. He says that he only targets companies that are not generating cash - which fledgling companies, by their very nature, do not do. Having identified what he considers to be statements that, in his sole opinion, are not precisely accurate (making no allowance for human error), he then labels the entire fledgling company a fraud in order to drive away investment and ensure that the company does in fact fail (causing substantial loss and misery to employees and smaller shareholders), so that he can then claim that his original false claims were in fact true.
When labelling fledgling companies frauds, Mr Winnifrith claims that he is exercising his right to free speech which is an important civil liberty. However one of the key cornerstones of English civil liberty, is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, in a court of law tried by one's peers. Mr Winnifrith's deliberate labelling of parties, who are currently innocent, as fraudsters in this way is not "freedom of speech", but an attack on that central principle.
Who is this person who makes allegations of fraud on an industrial scale? You would have thought, perhaps, that somebody who sets himself up in judgement over others would have to be - at the very least - someone who has a track record of only telling the truth? Someone who doesn't himself have a track record of making misleading statements? Someone who isn't a serial liar?
When considering Mr Winnifrith, it becomes obvious that he has said the following things which would appear to thoroughly disqualify him from such a role. The list relates only to what I know about personally; but, if you are a shareholder or employee in any of the other companies targeted by him, it is fair to say that - if he can say so many things that he knows to be untrue about one company or situation - it is inconceivable that he isn't also telling at least some lies about your company as well:
When trying to raise funds for his defence in relation to the first legal action that I brought against him, Mr Winnifrith raised money from donors on the basis that this was a libel action (see 8th March 2015 post) when in fact, as he well knew, this was an action to prevent him publishing stolen emails. Is Mr Winnifrith going to admit that he deliberately misrepresented the "investment case"?
He also stated in relation to that first legal case, that he was there to defend pensioners. That was another lie: the Trustee in control of the pension fund was appointed by the Government.
He claimed to have "won" in Court whilst failing to disclose that he had reached a private agreement to stop calling Worthington a fraud - and for all his posts to become like "internet chip paper" - whilst allowing his subscribers to think that he had not entered into such an arrangement. And if he agreed not to call Worthington a fraud, if he really thought Worthington was a fraud, that would suggest that his campaign "to expose frauds" is a sham and/or he knew full well that he would lose at trial.
Mr Winnifrith states that I was convicted of corporate theft. That is a blatant lie
Mr Winnifrith states that I was interviewed under caution several times in relation to Rangers. That is another lie.
Mr Winnifrith states that Craig Whyte is behind Worthington, that is another lie.
The list of Winnifrith lies goes on and on and on and on.
He has stated that Companies House have taken no action to strike off Worthington because they are being 'lent on' by other agencies. I am a director of Sevco 5088 Ltd and happen to know the current status with Companies House, and Mr Winnifrith's account is similarly untrue. He would also have you believe that the SFO are investigating. What he means is that he has given them a file, rings them every ten minutes and asks whether they have read it. And would they please, please, pretty please do so. It may surprise Mr Winnifrith, but government agencies have to deal in truth; so it is not those who have worked as hard as possible to protect shareholders and pensioners who will have any issue with the law, but those who have spent the same amount of effort trying to destroy vulnerable companies in the way that Mr Winnifrith has.
I have not wanted to be involved in a confrontational campaign to close ShareProphets: indeed, I have done everything reasonably fair and possible to avoid such an event; not least because I and colleagues have wanted to concentrate on delivering value for Worthington shareholders. However, now that it has become necessary to proceed down this route, this campaign will not stop until either Mr Winnifrith is personally bankrupt (so that he cannot resurrect any similar unlawful campaign) and/or ShareProphets is closed down so that it is no longer a blight on the London Market: there will be no more deals with Mr Winnifrith because his word, contrary to his claim, is - as any independent observer will agree - completely worthless. There will be more details on this campaign tomorrow.
On a personal level, I am very aware of my own personal failings – indeed you will be able to read about those failings in detail in my forthcoming book, which is predominantly about the grace of God. However, what is difficult to stomach, is the notion that a deeply flawed and ocean going hypocrite should, as Mr Winnifrith does, set himself up as a judge over all. That cannot be allowed to continue and this campaign will not stop until Mr Winnifrith is permanently discredited.
A very Happy New Year to men of goodwill.
28th December 2016 - Litigation Summary section updated
I will also be posting again later today
21 December 2016 - Should a whole company be destroyed or should an individual resign?
Mr Winnifrith states in one of his articles today that he only targets bad companies that don't generate cash. It may surprise him, but most early stage companies don't generate cash; that is why they are vulnerable and that is one of the reasons they are targeted by Mr Winnifrith. Furthermore, most early stage companies will not succeed; that is the risk of investing in early stage or concept stocks. What isn't required is for these fledgling companies, already engaged in the exceptionally difficult task of building a new business, to also be subjected to savage libel and malicious falsehood.
Mr Winnifrith finds it difficult to write a complete sentence that doesn't involve a manifest libel or gratuitous insult but, for arguments sake, assuming that what he was writing was entirely true, he should not be trying to destroy an entire company but seeking the resignation of whichever individual or group of individuals was/were responsible for whatever he complains about.
Take Cloudtag, for example. Presumably, when they were brought to the market, the Nomad was satisfied that the product was potentially viable and that the company wasn't populated by a legion of fraudsters? On that basis, one would assume that the sanction for any wrong doing, if there were any, would be for the party involved to resign, as happens with larger companies, rather than for the whole company to be destroyed. It is a deliberate policy of Mr Winnifrith to affix the fraud tag to an early stage company in order to destabilise and ultimately destroy it, so that his malicious falsehood becomes self fulfilling - to the serious detriment of the company's employees and smaller shareholders.
When I resolved to become involved in the necessary task of holding Mr Winnifrith to account through the Courts, I fully expected to be, and expect to continue to be, subjected to an intensified campaign of abuse. One of the reasons that Mr Winnifrith has not been held to account to date is because, understandably, most people would prefer to avoid being subjected to special abuse. In my case, such is the injustice that Worthington and its shareholders have suffered at the hands of Mr Winnifrith, and the other Interferents described in the Tortious Interference Report, that this intensified abuse is a price well worth paying,
20th December 2016 - Cloudtag and the Nomad system
One of the many serious allegations levelled against Mr Winnifrith in the Tortious Interference Report on this website, is that his activities distort and destabilise the market in smaller company shares. One of the several ways that he does this is to raise the prospect that a Nomad is going to resign, and to try and bring that about, which would result in the suspension of shares in the target company. The prospect of suspension then becomes a predominant consideration for investors in the target company, rather than the company's commercial prospects (which should be the key consideration), causing investors to flee the company, causing the share price to fall and thereby undermining the company's ability to raise capital, whilst at the same time giving the impression that the shares are collapsing due to Mr Winnifrith's allegations of fraud.
In Mr Winnifrith's podcast today he states that it is the intention of one of his colleagues to contact all the clients of Cloudtag's Nomad, in order to try to destroy the business relationship between Cairn and those clients, in order that Cairn will consider it too damaging to remain with Cloudtag, with the intention that Cloudtag's business will be destroyed because it will not be able to find a replacement Nomad (which Nomad would want to replace Cairn in the firing line?) - to the satisfaction of those who are short of the stock. Is that right or fair? Is it lawful? I don't think so. I do not know very much about Cloudtag or its prospects, or whether it is a good or bad company, but I do know that deliberately trying to destroy the company in this way is unjust.
This also exposes a fault line in the Nomad system when in essence you have a corporate serial killer on the loose, preying on entrepreneurial companies in the vulnerable development stage. By their very nature development stage companies are going to make mistakes, and many of their sales targets will be missed, but to label them as frauds and then try and destroy them in this way is pretty abhorrent. The real losers end up being the smaller investors who are locked into a private company unable to finance its business plan leading, inevitably, to the destruction of the company. It seems to me that whether or not a Nomad resigns has taken on a significance far greater than that originally intended when the AiM rules were first designed and which had not envisaged the activities of Mr Winnifirith. This activity is having a seriously destabilising effect on the smaller company sector as a whole.
Perhaps a solution might be to have a two tier AiM sector, as happens in other countries. For a company to join AIM it would need a Nomad, but if it subsequently loses its Nomad, it would be relegated to the "No Nomad" section of the market on a caveat emptor basis. This would at least address this distortion until Mr Winnifrith's activities are ended.
19 December 2016
I have noticed Mr Winnifrith's recent postings suggesting that I have accused him of insurance fraud and stealing £100,000 from one of his previous companies. To be clear, the report on this website accuses Mr Winnifrith of, inter alia: publishing stolen emails, breach of contract, distorting and destabilising the smaller company market, racketeering, tortious interference, malicious falsehood and deliberately destroying smaller companies (who are less able to defend themselves) whilst not applying the same approach to large companies who would have the time and resources to effectively combat him. The two things he is not accused of (insurance fraud and stealing £100,000) are instead the matters that he chooses to refute whilst ignoring the other 28 pages of the report. The report raises a question over the insurance claim and this missing £100,000 because, if an individual is involved in all the other unlawful activities mentioned, it is worth investigating, or re-investigating, whether these other unfortunate events might also have a less than innocent explanation.
On the other hand, in keeping with his uncontrolled compulsion to libel almost everybody he targets, Mr Winnifrith - in the very same post - proceeds to state as fact something that he knows to be untrue: namely, that I was convicted of corporate theft when in fact, as the Judge stressed at the time, my conviction over 25 years ago did not involve dishonesty (see home page).
If Mr Winnifrith thinks that this type of obfuscation will help him in the various forthcoming legal actions, I think he is going to be disappointed.
19 December 2016
I have been asked to clarify what constitutes a small shareholder in relation to the gift of shares in the new listed company. In order to ensure that small WRN shareholders have a mirrored exposure to the deals that Worthington was going to complete, it is not possible for the Injured Parties referred to in the Report to also be gifted shares. The Injured Parties will only participate in the new company to the extent that they have provided funds to it, or the transactions themselves; they will therefore have to sue the Interferents referred to in the Report for any losses sustained in relation to the matters raised in it. All other WRN shareholders will be entitled to the free shares.