Page 2 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

There is really no point in your trying to create confusion, as you plainly are, by sending me hundreds of pages saying so little of any consequence to the central issue. It is just a waste of your time and of your paper. I understand the game you are playing. Just answer, please, the straightforward questions put to you and stop telling me they have already been answered somewhere in past correspondence, or on your website. Forget all the peripheral details, such as whether or not a minor creditor has been paid in full, whether l really had pneumonia, which director Mrs Hillgarth had lunch with, whether you were wearing your longjohns or your under- pants and so on. You need to wake up and acknowledge the fact that you stand accused
of two very serious criminal offences — namely blackmail and fraud.
(comment/reply) ...by sending me hundreds of pages... might I remind you that your initial letter of 23 March 2016 was 13 pages, subsequent individual letters from you total 66 pages, but not including those required to be responded to by me from both our Freeholders and RBK&C, and most especially your Draft Crime Report dated 12 July 2016 running to 9 pages and your Preliminary Notice Bundle dated 23 September 2016 running to a staggering amount consisting of a two page covering letter, an 18pp Preliminary Notice, 14pp of itemised documents, with one running to 53pp and the others averaging 5pp each, and a 20pp Witness Statement from Mrs Hillgarth -
If, as it would appear, you are suggesting that replies were firstly not required, or secondly the replies were of such banality and irrelevance as to be useless, or thirdly and most per- tinently, you considered the multitude of accusations and innuendos in each and every one of your listed correspondence above did not invite nor indeed expect comment, expla- nation, apology, agreement or denial, then you have my apologies and regret for having done so. But I would propose that any third party perusing your correspondence to me would confirm they all do indeed request and expect detailed responses save for those agreed as outside of the statutory period but some, relevant to queries, has been been supplied despite no obligation to do so.
As regards: ...Forget all the peripheral details, such as whether or not a minor creditor has been paid in full, whether l really had pneumonia, which director Mrs Hillgarth had lunch with, whether you were wearing your longjohns or your underpants and so on...
I would simply add that had you not wished me to make comment, explanation, apology, agreement or denial, then surely you should not have raised the queries, accusations and innuendos in the first place, including the “peripheral”?
And surely: ...such as whether or not a minor creditor has been paid in full, is of the utmost relevance and hardly a “peripheral detail” as explained in my letter of 1st November 2016, namely:
Witness Statements from Mr. White (his initial and the revised) and Mrs Hillgarth’s both maintain that monies due to our initial electricians, BES/Nigel Brooks, was not paid and it was inferred that requests for payment were ignored or indeed refused (following the same comment as attributed to Mr White’s outstanding £1590).
In my reply to you dated 14 June 2016 (with my comments attached to your letter (you hav- ing mistakenly dated it 14 May 2016 but actually meaning 14 June) referencing, amongst multiple other references, Mr White’s Witness Statement’s inaccuracies, one of which was the above reference to non payment to BES/Nigel Brooks.
To recall, I wrote/replied (on 14 June 2016):
b) reference to not paying our Electrician, Nigel Brooks. I think it can be established and confirmed by Tony White that APR Lawrence were so impressed with our Electricians, that they purloined them leaving us high and dry. Our extensive new electrics were finished off by our backup sparks with supporting invoices obviously. Nigel Brooks accepted our explanation (I am presuming) as we did not hear back following his request for final part payment in April 2016 – and yes I have full supporting evidence. Again, this is an extraordi- nary additional item on the Witness Statement as surely both AR Lawrence and Nigel Brooks could have both been in their rights to pursue us legally for unpaid debts. We were never further contacted over and above my email reply to Leo White on 8 September 2015 and to Nigel’s bookkeeper on 16 April 2016 (some two years after we had initially paid Nigel