I answered you much earlier in the thread Graeme. I did not tell anyone that Michael lied in a phone call that I was not a party to. I did share with the SRA your email confirming that I had not been involved in the call, because it seemed that you had tried to mislead them with a claim that I had misled you.
You should read what I told them below, I don't mislead people and was very clear on this in 11.4. Which version of the story are you on now, you've jumped from it was all Michael's idea for me to file a DRS, to saying that I couldn't have won it without you - even though it had already been filed before you even got involved. You have been all over the place, both of you. I was so fortunate that I have all the calls recorded. There are far worse ones than I have given you so far.
The one about you coming up with the idea trying to reverse hijack Sunny.co.uk's new owner and me telling you it wasn't a good idea. Then discussing the narrative about how you could justify it to the DRS panel with some BS story. You said that he could get out of it in exchange for a fee and/or shares. from the guy. Is that the type of conduct you are on about?
Feel free to point out one thing I have changed my story on, just one?
That is because (as the attached emails show) you already knew, direct from Grant Thornton, that the administration was closed and there was nothing anyone could do with them.
That's precisely the point. Yes, on that call I was the one that told Toth the matter was closed and couldn't be dealt with by GT — but then he told me that you knew someone at GT who was handling it. That's exactly why I agreed to your proposal the next day: because you supposedly had a contact there who could intervene. If what Toth said was true, you would have brought something genuinely valuable to the table. It's all there on the call you have.
To be crystal clear, I do not believe there is a shred of merit in your claim that anything that may or may not have been said between you and Michael about Grant Thornton had any impact on your thinking going into our deal.
Yes we call it the lie. You can believe what you want, convince yourself whatever you want, you are trying to financially benefit from a lie - there are legal issues with that, regardless you two should both have some self respect and I hope potential clients take that on board when considering whether or not to deal with you. If you were a solicitor with insurance I would have sued you, but as I believe you were freestyling it, it made no financial sense. Even Setfords said you weren't in a position to do any work for them, despite you using their details on the SRA register.
You soon backed down from that and admitted it was untrue.
What are you even talking about? This is what I wrote to the SRA:
"
11.4. The Complainant notes that Mr Toth had previously represented to Mr
Wingate that Mr Davies had a personal contact within Grant Thornton.
At
that stage it is not clear whether Mr Davies was aware of, or endorsed, that
claim. However, for over two years prior, Mr Wingate had repeatedly
attempted without success to obtain information or engagement from
Grant Thornton regarding the matter. Against that background, the
suggestion of a personal connection within the administrators carried
particular weight and was presented as a unique advantage that no other
solicitor in this area of work was likely to provide. On the strength of this
representation, Mr Wingate agreed.
I didn't make any accusations I could not back up, and where I didn't have evidence, I said so. The complaint was put together by a Barrister who signed off on it all after checking all of the evidence. What is there that is untrue? In what way have I climbed down?
Anyway, I'll take the highlighted bit of your reply to be confirmation that you are happy for me to send the email chain and the credit card receipt to the panel. If you want me to add whatever the receipt meant, in terms of dialogue with GoDaddy, please let me know.
You are a grown man, you can do what you want, you don't need my permission.
