Intro: Gary Waterman is a man who, as a result of some possibly difficult circumstances, has, what they call "Gone off on one". His difficult circumstances seem to revolve around leasehold/freehold issues in the building where he has a flat. He was, at one time, a director of the company that managed the property. There appears to have been an issue between him and the rest of the board as the Companies House filing in respect of him says "Termination of Appointment" in July 2023.
Subsequent to this, he has taken to uploading videos to YouTube telling the world how he has established "links" from this to that to the other 'proving' that virtually every commercial enterprise in existence today is operating fraudulently, that Companies House is complicit in enabling this to go on and it all boils down to a global conspiracy. From his start point with his leasehold problems, he jumps so quickly to linking Lloyds Bank (who he alleges furnished forged/fraudulent bank statements to him) to the demise of Nicola Bulley and alleged irregularities in the management of the Madeleine McCann Fund.
It was one of his recent videos on the McCann topic that caught my attention so I looked into that. Below is my message to Gary Waterman, pointing out the errors, inaccuracies and plain stupid 'links' that he relies upon to 'prove' his claims. The reason I decided to do this was because, having looked at one of his other videos, I posted a comment on his page pointing out what I thought was wrong with his posts and offering my advice (for what it is worth) that he looks again at his claims and to beware of the companies and company directors who may view his allegations as libellous and to remember, big corporations have big budgets and they can employ some serious legal people to go after him (should they wish). His response was to post a comment which said that if I disagree with him, then perhaps I am one of the people conspiring against him. This got me angry but I responded with a call for him to retract the allegation or I shall take this argument more public. Two days later and I have heard nothing more from him so here we are.
Gary: Let's start with the Madeleine McCann story, your video titled "Missing Madeleine McCann links to decades long government fraud."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USv6sZkoFYc&ab_channel=Gary
According to you at 2.03 into the video, you state "Where millions of pounds of taxation money, public money was put through that account". At this point, you wander off, naming the Company Secretary from the Incorporation document. Well, let's hold on a bit and leave them until later. Before moving on to them, let's examine the statement you made re "millions of pounds of taxation money etc".
The fund's first set of accounts from 31 March 2008 show £1.8M income and a surplus of £1,052,027 to be carried forward. There is also a statement of Income, stating that "Income comprises donations received by the company along with revenue recognised in respect of merchandise supplied, exclusive of VAT". Not much room for millions of pounds of taxation money there, is there?
The following year's accounts describe how the Daily Express and other publications were making amends for a year of bogus speculation and accusations the previous year. The Express and other publications offered donations to the Fund. The auditors report for this year shows Income of £629,000 and a negative year end balance of £361,763.
The report for 2010 shows a similar pattern with Income at £233,099 and a year end deficit of £220,230. Tax was also paid (£2,598).
The annual report for 2011 contains the following lines: "Over the past financial year, as with the previous one, the costs of the search continue to be higher than the fund's annual income". And at year's end, there is a loss of £344,849.
The next 2 year's reports show that the publication of the book "Madeleine" by Kate McCann significantly improved the fund's position. There was also mention of David Cameron but only reporting his setting up of an inquiry. No mention of a couple of quid from government. And so the account trails go, only getting into a positive balance of funds following money raised as a result of the Kate McCann book. Nowhere throughout the accounts, from incorporation to date is there any suggestion of "taxation money". An apology and correction might be called for here.
So; let's look at the next couple of minutes of the video:
Off you go, on a magic carpet ride through the names and addresses of the entities involved in the McCann fund incorporation. You seem to get hung up a bit on the word "Temple".
You point out that, on the McCann incorporation paper, the agent is Bates Wells & Braithwaite. While pointing this out, you throw in one of your standard lines about links to fraud. No details yet but we shall see as the video grinds on. Further down the page, you highlight the name BWB (No 2) Limited. At this point you introduce an element of mystery: This is the point where you throw in the phrase "millions of taxation funds etc". The mystery arises from the lack of clarity: you are pointing to the First Director , while pointing out that this is on the McCann Fund incorporation page, giving rise to the question "Which of the 2 entities, McCann Fund or BW(No 2) Limited? You really ought to make that very clear. In my argument above, I have assumed you were referring to the Fund. Only you can answer that one.
Now you march on to "Let's have a look at those companies", starting with BWB (No2) Limited and point to London Law Secretarial Ltd and this is where you develop the fixation on the term "Temple". BWB(No2) Ltd was dissolved January 2018. Never mind, the incorporation document for this company, as you point out, names London Law Secretarial Ltd as the company secretary. What a coincidence! A company whose business is provision of secretarial services, featuring as a company secretary! You tell us how the Temple" address is linked to this etc Well of course it is: it is the address of the Company Secretary. If a different address had been used, they would be in trouble with Companies House. And off we go, lickety split to look at London Law Agency Ltd. At this point, you wet your knickers and proudly tell us that the company shown on the incorporation does not exist.
Hmmm. Companies House shows that to be a firm of solicitors, based in Wimbledon. No mention of Temple there. Originally incorporated in 1967 with the name Ganvilon Motors Limited, just as pronounced by you with an air of triumph. Aah! in 1969 the company name was changed to The London Law Agency Limited. Yes it was ! Don't argue. Read the entry dated 27 October 1967, especially the part that begins "Special Resolutions were duly passed, 1. That the name of the company be changed to The London Law Agency Ltd."
Undeterred, you continue with "Jordan and Sons is also on that document". No, it isn't. That name appears on the next filing under the title of"NEWINC". Now you link Jordan & Sons with "my company, where fraudulent documents...etc". So what?
Now you get silly, saying "The evidence here is now overwhelming, the authorities need to..." Forgive me but I am not overwhelemed. There has been not one scrap of evidence of anything produced so far. And you insist on telling the world, at the start of each of your videos, how you are an ex-policeman. Now you point again at Ganvilon Motors and declare it has an address of Cliffords Inn on this document. No it has not! That address is the address of the solicitor dealing with the incorporation of Ganvilon Motors. I know this to be true as I read it on the same document you claim to be reading.
Next you tell us Ganvilon Motors Ltd is not registered on Companies House. The Incorporation Document you claim to be reading, dated 17 October shows the company name as "Ganvilon Motors Ltd". How about that? Read the other document, the one you used to accuse Jordan & Sons of something untoward, titled NEWINC. It gives the name of the company as Ganvilon Motors Limited. You can see the "Limited" if you just move your gaze from Jordan & Sons, up the page a bit and there it is! Do you see it now, just above the line showing Statement of the Nominal Capital". Having spouted that rubbish, you state, quite definitively, "That is fraud". Tell you what, how about if I forward your rubbish to the injured party (the one you accuse of fraud) and see what they have to say about that?
Bashing on; you now pick on a couple of people involved with the Madeleine Fund, starting with Philip Tomlinson and you tell us about his involvement with Thomas Burton Developments Ltd and how this company was incorporated in 1992 and is still active. I should point out here that Philip Tomlison was born in 1931 and is probably enjoing his retirement now.
And off you go, via Thomas Burton Developments, on a foray into lala land. You mention that Burton Developments are linked with Swift Incorporations Ltd, saying "which you may remember Swift Incorporations and Jordans were both involved in starting up your company with forged bank documents." Suddenly, you are on a page of the Gazette newspaper focussing on an article about Nicola Bulley with some nebulous claims from a "Private Investigator" and his efforts to clear up some inaccuracies about the disappearance of Nicola Bulley. Well I am buggared if I can see the connection there. Make your mind up; how did you make that leap from bad mouthing a company to a nutter who can out plod all the plod in Lancashire? After reciting the past work of Mark Williams-Thomas, the private investigator who actually claims to be a "crime reporter", you say, randomly, "I suspect (unclear) have information that police officers were killed in relation to all this." All what? Anyway, it takes only a second or two for you to leap from a company he was once involved in, GumFighters and then you pounce on how this company was employed by various councils to clean their streets. According to you, that is important to note. A search on his former company GumFighters shows a previous name for the company of Hallco 369 Limited and you then comment on how "this crops up a lot where sequential number is given to a particular company for their initial registration." And off you go, yet again, with a company incorporation document for Hallco369 Ltd. Absolutely rivetting! Not! But you pick up on a person's name and show how he is involved with a company named Fortdale Properties Limited, telling us to remember "Property & real estate factors heavily in all this fraud". No evidence anywhere of this. Perhaps I should plough on, perhaps there will be evidence later. "And the fake bank documents I have acquired links to a property limited company" and next you are naming a director of the Fortdale Properties company, named Jeremy Paul Janion and you are off. On a swift series of "links/goes through" to various companies who have all used Swift Incoporations Ltd. "And you can see someone else linked to GumFighters UK "Kathryn Janion " Don't bother telling us how this is linked anywhere. She is obviously related to the director you previously named, Paul Janion. You mention her name with "If that's a real person". I take it you have grounds for doubting the existence of this person? Well, if she is not real there will be a number of companies looking for her; she is linked to 8 companies in the period 1992 to date. One of the companies you connect her with, 3G Cleaning Ltd is shown as Signaward Limited from 10 April 2001 to 11 May 2001. Aagh, screams your inner Sherlock Holmes. Look how quickly the name was changed to Graffiti Fighters UK Ltd. Scandalous! Changing the company name after only a month. You tell us "it is all, I believe, part of this fraudulent system". What "fraudulent system"? You still haven't shown that yet. Oh God! You expand on your thoughts by saying it is all down to Companies House allowing companies to chop and change their names to avoid litigation so that crime can be committed. Being an ex-policeman, you would know the meaning of "litigation" surely? It is not connected with the criminal legal system but rather refers to settling civil disputes. Never mind. What is the purpose of Companies House if not to track and regulate the changes in company names, the appointment and resignations of directors etc?
Oh no! Back to the old chant about Swift Incorporations Ltd and Jordan and Sons and the links of those 2 entities to the beginning of your difficulties.
Along on another twist strewn set of 'linkages' now, from Temple Secretaries Ltd there is a link to Osprey Deep Cleaning. Whoa! Back to GumFighters UK now (this is the timing of your video, not mine) and we get a name: David Bovell. He now "goes through to another company Opportunity Investment Management Plc, with a Belgium address." Now, with no idea why, you point to Mark Williams-Thomas, saying he was linked to that company. Which company? Opportunity Investment etc? No, he is NOT. "AND Specialist Investigations is linked through to him". Well, of course it is! He was one of the 2 original directors who founded the company!
Sadly, you refer to a discredited rag, The Sun, for your next foray and pick up on Clarence Mitchell. And here is another of your cock-ups. You show the Companies House front page of Clarence Mitchell while your commentary says "Let's look at Madeleine McCann's Companies House records". Clarence Mitchell is NOT Madeleine McCann. Not to worry. You correctly show that he is linked to JBP Associates Ltd., listed by Companies House as engaged in PR and communications and this company was started by Swift Associates. And away we go to BWB Secretarial, routing through "Temple" and BWB Secretarial to Philip Kirkpatrick. Linked how? Is it because he was a director of BWB (No2) Ltd? Regardless of the pointless link, you plough on and link him to "The Death Penalty Project Ltd" and then point out that Keir Starmer is also linked to this company. So what? Anyway, you point to the address for the Death Penalty Project at 10 Queen Street, EC4R 1BE and say, quite glibly, this address comes back to the same address on the Madeleine McCann's Fund page. It bloody well doesn't! The incorporation document for the McCann fund shows an address of 2-6 Cannon Street EC4M 6YH.
Whoa! Stop! You continue wth Keir Starmer and sieze upon his tenure as Director of the Death Penalty Project as a link "through Companies House records to Nicola Bulley, that is linked to Madeleine McCann that is linked to this fraud". Absolute tosh! You have not shown a single link to any fraud. Having shown us how you don't have a clue about how companies work, creating imaginary links, you finish up by urging us to watch something by Sonia Poulton regarding Madelin McCann. I have seen a few of her pieces so perhaps I shall. After all, who could resist the lure of an important input that can't even spell the name of the subject correctly? (her name was not McGann.!) I will be most interested in the section marked "Unprecedented public spending". Oh dear! I just tried to watch the video and got the message "This video is not available any more". So, I searched all of her videos, looking for the tag "McCann" and came up with more than a slack handful. Tedious though it was, I skimmed through the lot. None of the dramatic revelations you were promising in your piece.
In summary; you stared off with a promise to show "links". At the end, there are no links of any note.The fact that a pair of companies doing what they do for a living (Swift & Jordan& Sons) does not make a link to anything. Still less does it show any evidence of fraud etc. It does seem obvious that you want to blame a couple of companies for your misfortune but, for that, you have to be at least partly to blame. All your talk about forged bank statements etc point to one thing: your possible culpability in any alleged wrong doing. You were, after all, a director of the company and directors have certain responsibilities. In fact, it would be fair to say that, if we were daft enough to use your phantom link logic, then you are presumably linked to all the crap in this video (same banks, company secretaries etc). And that, in turn, links you to Madeleine McCann, Nicola Bulley et al.
So, who now is complicit in the global conspiracy etc? You or me?
No comments:
Post a Comment