01516680386

sorry joe  it does not and cannot work the way that miss brooks suggests. i can tell  you that considerable progress has been made in the past few days . from my point of view joe i am working on this every day , i will not let you down or any of the members for that matter

who is    all of them ?

You already know the answer, Brian.

Answer my question:

Why was 100K paid to Thurlestone????????????????????????????

i  have not had the info for months but you have so why has it taken you until today to publicly state that metis paid thurlstone , please answer that . i agree that imperial paid metis  but who was instructing metis at the time ,i can assure you the instruction did not come from bromley . i have had a meeting with the insolvency service this morning and i would suggest you speak with paul t   as to one particular part of  that meeting . i will await your response.

This info was given to you months ago, not to mention it was posted on here months ago too. You knew all along. Again wasting time and not answering the question. Is there something wrong with you??
Do you even give a toss that 300 people have been scammed here?

i am sorry but  i cannot answer your question  but i would suggest that you ask metis law . please remember  the process was that monies came in and approx. 95 percent was paid over to metis and i have been asking metis for that breakdown since i came on the scene last october  but i understand that miss brooks had been handed the info . a long time ago and continually stated that thurlstone  were paid by imperial but they were not and i have been stating that for weeks.

Have already answered this many times, and also stated many times that the 100k was paid out by Metis Law - and sent you the copies of accounts showing this transaction.  To act surprised really does stretch credibility.  It would be good to get an answer from your client Imperial once and for all: why was 100k paid to Thurlstone???  I have been asking this question for months and neither you nor Metis Law will answer.  We both know that Fowler and Perkins know the answer to this question, but to date neither of them has said a word on the subject.  Ask Perkins to start being truthful with you AND the members.  Perkins is firmly in bed with Salih in their new "venture" so I dread to think what new scams they are cooking up between them for the next batch of victims.  Be good to sort out the existing victims before they start on the new ones perhaps?

whoever you are please  do not insult me  . i can assure you that until yesterday i did not know  but i did know that it did not come from imperial but miss brooks insisted that it did .

Only a couple of posts ago you have stated that Imperial did send the money, which is it fool?

We are now proud to anounce weve been appointed by Downsandco and Imperil as their solicitors. Read all about it:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/06/496760.html

Were pleased to breed corruption in the grandest scale representing notorius fraudsters. Like Imperial

you are crazy , until yesterday you had never said  that metis paid the money ,  no possibly i am not surprised  but i did know that imperial did not pay it  but again i can see why metis would not answer  . again your obsession with alan fowler and bill perkins comes into play  so as i said speak to paul t  he will enlighten you

now you really are mad , bark and co may act for imperial but certainly not for me.

I will repeat what Angie said:

"Metis Law would not have paid the 100k to Thurlstone without being instructed by Imperial to do so."

As the only director was Karl Dunlop it had to be him or someone authorised by him who told Metis Law to make the payment. That's not really debatable.

Then there is the mystery of the unpaid 16% which Toby Whittaker told the BBC he had paid up front on the day of the property (storage pod) sales. As this money does not appear in the accounts it means it either was not paid or it was paid to somebody else.

If it was not paid, why not and can it be recovered?
This is something that should be resolvable by the trustees by contacting Storefirst.

Agreed.  This shows astonishing mismanagement of a limited company. The company has no idea of transactions authorised by its executive officers. Why should Brooks or any outside party have to inform the firm's accountants about instructions they authorised.

Excellent meeting this morning with the parties connected to Imperial and the relevant authority. .who have gone away with lots of serious information,letters to and from ML,SFand Imperial along with copies of many other communications.
In addition the relevant authority as i understand ,happy with the documents and content with the fact that there is no missing 1.2 million and the detail relating to who got what from the initial fee..

Would agree with not avacade with regard to who gave the ok to ML to pay the 100k. ..

Positive step in the right direction, but if the money is not missing, where is it?

In Perkins' pocket. Perkins and Salih cooked it up between them. Thats why they started a new biz together

possibly you do not understand , this transaction took place in early 2013 , my firm was appointed in october 2014, we carried out  an analysis of the bank account  late last year  and it all appeared ok as all monies that should have been paid to metis law  were infact paid . miss brooks insisted that imperial had paid the monies to thurlstone  now she says it was metis law that paid the monies to thurlstone but in fairness to ml they have not confirmed this to me or anyone at imperial .  right, so if this sum was paid by ml to thurlstone then it must have been with the authority of the then sole director or the other person that they were taking instructions from .  miss brooks does not have to tell anyone anything but she has made it her job to be involved in this scheme and she has the backing of an enormous minority of members . so where does her authority come from and where does her information come from . if you are  a member then please phone me and i will help you all i can

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Downs is full of

S hit

as i said earlier  ml would only take instructions from the director at the time or the other gentleman who was giving them instructions . the people in bromley had no contact with ml ,all they did was to transfer the 95 percent to ml . why cant the people on this site understand that .  so now we have it confirmed by a government investigation team that there is no missing 1.2 million  that miss brooks has claimed  will she publicly apologise.