My reply to point out some facts.

11th August 2012.

It seems that the anonymous blogger is at it again....what a coward.

Here is what the coward has written on his blog;

You will also find the Andrew Penman and Nick Sommerlad from the Da*** Mi****s Investigations team mentioning this case named Philip Smith-Lawrence's operation which billed itself as "The Virtual Concierge" has been shut down in the High Court in the public interest.

Point of fact: The court did not close down any company which billed itself or was named 'The Virtual Concierge' as that company has never existed in any form whatsoever, so therefore the company could not be closed.So the cowardly blogger is completely wrong once again and really needs to get the facts right.

Point of fact: 'The Virtual Concierge' was the name given to the digital touch screen information kiosk itself, an inanimate yet functional object.

Point of fact: The two journalists named me in an attempt to link me with another case that they had investigated, an attempted link that was very spurious at best.

Commenting on the case, Investigation Supervisor Scott Crighton said:

"AMI promoted itself as something it was not, selling franchises which did not deliver the advertised returns." 

Point of fact:  Scott Crighton was an administrator and NEVER was involved directly with the CIB case, save for reading what was put in front him. It is strange that the Official Receiver has stated to me that he has seen documentary proof that franchisees did make money and he doesn't understand why the CIB team didn't pay more attention to the information provided to them.

The CIB were in possession of various documents, including financial statements, showing what each franchisee generated in terms of revenue, and they chose to ignore the fact that franchisees had made money from their franchise business. They, the CIB, focused on the few franchisees that failed to operate their franchise business in accordance with the operations manual.

I will also add that a number of franchisees that I had inherited when I took over the company, never actually operated their franchise business at all.That means they never even started their business! The same franchisees never responded to any of my attempts to contact them and they never made any attempt to contacted me, so how was I supposed to deal with these franchisees if there was not contact?

Scott Crighton has flatly refused y invitations to meet me and my legal team on numerous occasions to explain his exact role in this debacle.He has not given any valid reason why he will not meet me or my legal team.

The case is still continuing and is now being dealt with The Official Receiver, Public Interest Unit who can be contacted on 0161 234 8531.

Point of fact: The OR dealing with this case has all the relevant contacts of all the people relevant to this case.I am sure that he will be thrilled to find out that the blogger has publicised his telephone number.However, it doesn't matter to me if the telephone number of the Official Receiver is publicised.

We thank everyone for their support with this blog and hope this result has helped a lot of those who have lost life savings and helped those who have stressed over Philip Smith-Lawrence and his company Advanced Media Information Ltd.

Point of fact: The blogger and all those who have supported the blog are leaving themselves wide open for legal action. No-one, let alone 'a lot' of people, to my knowledge, have lost their life savings. This is clearly sensationalism on the part of the cowardly blogger. Remember that I have all the documentation connected to this case, including the questionnaire's sent out by the CIB, and completed by the franchisees, and returned to the CIB. Not one of the questionnaires I have seen, and completed by a franchisee, directly refers to the loss of their life savings. One of the franchisees does however mention that during a conversation, this is called hearsay, that he was told that a franchisee had lost their life savings. If this was the case why didn't the franchisee in question ever mentioned this fact to the CIB or the Official Receiver? The only plausible answer is, that it isn't in fact, true.

Every potential franchisee had the option NOT to sign the agreement.No franchisee was ever forced to sign any agreement with the company. Every franchisee had the option to take the agreement to their solicitor, whether they exercised this option or not was up to them, the franchisee.

We never give into bullies!

This phrase is consistently used by the cowardly blogger and it just goes to show the level to which the cowardly blogger will stoop too.It is not a school playground, it is the real world and real world business.

Thanks 

Philip Smith-Lawrence