2026 -We are still being harassed

This vendetta narrative is a fabrication designed to discredit my investigation without addressing the disturbing evidence at its core.

3. The threatening to set fire to an old lady in her summer house claim:
Their claim: That I was convicted for threatening to set fire to an 82 year old lady in her summer house.

Rebuttal: This is another malicious lie; it can be disproven by a simple Google search – my criminal record would show that there was no such conviction.

4. On the allegations of racism:
Their claim: I am an "open racist" who has targeted the Vietnamese‑run Sophia Nails.

Rebuttal: This accusation is demonstrably false.

My actions, as a matter of public record, show the opposite: I personally support and lend funds to Vietnamese entrepreneurs through the micro‑lending charities Kiva and Zidisha.

My investigation has always focused on specific, documented criminal links to a property, such as the conviction of the leasehold owner in Operation Violet Panama, not the ethnicity of its operators.

This accusation is a cynical attempt to divert attention from that evidence.

5. The harassment, stalking and slander claim:
Their claim: That I harassed, stalked and slandered certain individuals.

Rebuttal: This entire claim rests on the false premise that I purchased my property from Gareth Edwards and Jane John.

As previously established, that is not true.

Without that foundational lie, their narrative of a personal vendetta collapses, as there is no factual basis for the "reason" they invent.

6. On the tunnels and evidence being "Debunked":
Their claim: That my tunnel claims have been debunked; one was just a "hole in a bush."

Rebuttal: Claiming something is "debunked" is not the same as proving it so.

I have presented a substantial body of verifiable evidence that contradicts this dismissal: audio recordings analysed others, video of physical site changes, witness testimony, and documented connections to known criminal activity.

To ignore this evidence and label it a "hole in a bush" is a misrepresentation of the facts.

7. The claim that I have altered 90 per cent of their emails:
Their claim: That I have changed 90% of their emails.

Rebuttal: I have not altered any of the writer's emails.

Their claim can be disproven as I kept the original emails from the writer, saving them as .eml files.

This method retains the headers on the email as well as the original content.

I have also kept emailscfrom other fake identities as .eml files.

8. The Mumbles pier reference:
Their claim: "As for the mumbles why post a video that early in the morning on telegram with no caption or anything of you standing on the pier and then a couple of hours later the building is set on fire?"

Rebuttal: I did post a video taken on Mumbles pier, and there was a serious fire.

I did not make that video, nor was I in that video.

I edited the video so as not to reveal the identity of the person that did make it.

In any event, the writer's statement makes no logical sense; many people would have been in that area in the morning.

It does not follow that someone's mere presence in an area makes them an arsonist.

9. The 2024 fire at Sophia Nails:
Their claim: That they think I was responsible for the 2024 fire.

Rebuttal: I was not responsible for that fire. I learned recently that I was not the only person that had been forced from their home.

When Sophia Nails relocated to 13 Quay Street, the person who lived in the flat above the shop stated that they had to move out as carcinogenic fumes had caused them to have seizures.

Original screenshot in righthand corner

There are other similarities, both properties were bought without a mortgage, both properties were left empty, even though the 13 Quay Street property was arranged as flats above the shop and were capable of being let.

The 2024 fire was preceded by a similar fire in 2007.

That fact, and the fact that the property was vacant when both fires happened, might help establish the true cause of that fire.

The evidence of others:
Their claim: You have absolutely no one backing you or your claims up.

Rebuttal: As detailed in my report, nine other people made recordings in my property and shared their corroborating experiences in my documentary, "The Ammanford Untouchables."

The Ammanford Untouchables (YouTube).

My evidence is not my word alone; it is a collection of witness testimony and physical recordings.

My supporters are people who have examined the evidence and found it credible.

The coordinated effort to silence me is, in itself, an indicator that my investigation has merit.

Even the family of one of those named has supported me.

Conclusion: Their messages are not a genuine attempt at dialogue; they are calculated pieces of a larger campaign to silence and discredit me. They misrepresent basic facts, make false accusations, and ignore the substantial body of evidence I have presented. My request remains for an independent body to examine all the evidence – my recordings, my documents, and the counter‑claims made by these individuals – to determine the truth.

My claims are supported by extensive audio recordings, video evidence, witness testimony, and verifiable physical changes to the location.

For example:

• I have recordings of machinery running overnight coming from a property with no connected water services, yet a drain connected only to that property was recorded flushing something into that drain.
• When the drain cover was lifted, a choking gas was present.
• A former US soldier identified AK‑47 fire in the recordings.
• A Swedish sound engineer independently noise‑reduced the extracts.
• Photographs and video show a potential tunnel entrance that was mysteriously cleared shortly after I disclosed its location in a phone call.
• Lady Lesley Cooper independently confirmed with local residents that tunnels exist in the area.

To dismiss this as a "hole in a bush" is to ignore a mountain of evidence.