Minis Guest List A-list Spam Scam Ripoff London England

It is with some amazement that I have learned that Dr Rhodri is continuing with his pointless tirades against myself and my company. However, I shall make one, hopefully final attempt, to set the record straight the difference between myself and Rhodri is that I can prove that what I say is true I have copies of his web-pages taken during the period in question; the content is explicit and the evidence is irrefutable, in respect to all the alleged defamatory comments I have made.

I have great difficulty in picking the key points out of Rhodri's latest rambling rebuttal but will attempt to address those that I can identify in the following paragraphs.

I am perplexed by Rhodri's claim that we hand out flyers outside clubs. While there are some nightclub promoters who do operate in this way, we do not and have never handed out flyers and see no need to. Most of our business comes from word-of-mouth recommendations and through our website. However, there is nothing wrong with it, so what is he point?

Rhodri claimed One ruse he confessed to was persuading potential guests that admission was free before a certain time, make them queue up for some length of time, and then persuade them to pay after they missed the deadline for free entry. What complete lies. It's actually what he suggested he would do with his some of his party club guests.

It appears that Rhodri now seems takes exception to the name of my company, Minisguestlist. I have no idea why this should be because one of the principal services provided by my company is to supply guestlist services to clubbers in London. While we certainly provide other services, including event management, this is one of our core business activities and remains a major source of revenue.

Clearly, Rhodri neither understands the industry nor has he made any effort whatsoever to learn anything about it before exposing his ignorance to the general population in this manner.

With regard to his allegation that I falsely claimed to have a database of 11,168 London-based people who attend A-List nightclubs (not a list of 11,168 A-List people as he incorrectly states), while I can no longer remember the exact figure at the time, the fact that my database continues to grow, through subscription, and now stands at nearly 50,000, the figure he quotes seems entirely likely. What on earth was his point here?

Next he criticises me for the fact that out of this database of people, achieved a response rate of less than 0.2%' (only a 0.2% responded) and no-one attended. I would have thought that this was due more to the nature of the product than to the social means of the people in my database. While I can send out advertising to as many people as he wishes, I cannot force the people on my database to attend. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water Just as matter of interest, all the mail-shots that I do are logged by the software that I use. These logs show both number emails sent and the content; proof of sending is not an issue and Rhodri would be well advised to publicly withdraw his allegations concerning both the size of the database and whether the mail-shot was actually performed. He employed the company to provide a service; a PR mail-shot was sent as per the contract. What more could he reasonably expect?

Rhodri also seems surprised that I said that many probably couldn't afford the 150 entry fee. Even the most affluent of people would hesitate to pay 150 for something without knowing what they were getting for their money. I know people who gladly pay more than that, per head, to attend charity dinners, etc. but they know in advance what it is that they are paying for. I cannot imagine many people paying 150 for a party' where no entertainment was provided, no music, only a finger-buffet and, oh yes, I was forgetting the girls. Well, maybe there are people who would pay for that but I personally don't know any.

Again, in the same sentence, Rhodri states that 150 would be small change to the people on my database. However, my database consists of people who attend A-List nightclubs. As many will be aware, nightclubs charge premium prices. It is therefore evident that people attending these clubs have a guaranteed minimum disposable income. However, not all are millionaires ready to be fleeced, not matter what Rhodri would prefer.

Rhodri also alleges that I covet his model directory and the Party Club. Nothing could be further from the truth and I consider it sick, in the extreme, that there are people around who exploit others in quite such a manner. I am glad that the Party Club no longer exists; this is one less media for the exploitation of innocent young girls. It dissolved in October 2005 because it was a failure - a 4,000 loss every time he threw a party. It is shameful that he managed to actually sell 13,000 worth of shares. I pity the people who bought those shares.

By the way, the icqurimage website describes itself as a directory of independent actors, dancers, models, musicians, personal trainers and personal assistants; he still hasn't explained why he needs photographs of scantily dressed musicians, personal trainers and personal assistants even if there might be some rationale for actors, dancers and models.

Having been told originally that his doctoral dissertation was gained at Harvard, we are now told that it was at Oxbridge. Rhodri says, Why would anyone with a PhD from Oxbridge claim to have one from Harvard? Duh! That was my very point.

Rhodri makes it clear from this that he was at either Oxford or Cambridge but doesn't care to specify which. He wonders how I could gain access to the Alumni database from Harvard simply it because it is freely accessible for anyone to search. Similarly, Oxford and Cambridge are also very proud of their Alumni and their databases are also freely searchable. It appears, however, that neither university is very proud of Dr Rhodri because he doesn't appear in the databases at either http://www.ox.ac.uk for Oxford and http://www.cam.ac.uk for Cambridge. Search for Rhodri Walters and note the conspicuous absence of results.

Having lurched from one untruth to the next, Rhodri has now turned his attention to me. I have never made any bones about the fact that, while qualified, I don't practice law. My other business interests keep me fully occupied and I am certainly not the first person to obtain a degree in a subject that later turned out to be irrelevant to what they did in later life. My degree was actually obtained at the London Guildhall University and I am a lifetime member of the National Association of Paralegals. Rhodri's comments about McDonalds (the burger branch) are as insulting as they are childish. I told him that I once worked for McDonalds when I was 15 years old. Clever.

Further, he pours scorn on the fact that I work from home; where does he work, if he works. For me, working from home is necessary because I am the primary carer for my aging and disabled mother (who lives with me, not the other way round). Rhodri's remarks are offensive and hurtful and, since he is fully aware of my situation, were clearly designed to cause maximum distress. It is not easy being a full-time carer while, at the same time, trying to run a business.

Of all the libellous things that he has said in an effort to besmirch my good name, this is the one thing that shows the levels to which this man will sink in what seems to have become a personal vendetta against me, my family and my company.

Next, let me address the police issue. Next time he has tea with the Assistant Chief Constable, he should tell him exactly what he does for a living. I bet the Assistant Chief Constable wouldn't invite him for tea if he knew the nature of his business activities.

Finally, I welcome a visit from Rhodri's solicitors. He has my home address and has even published it online in his original, baseless, accusations. Should I publish his in the same manner? I don't think so; there are some things that I will not do, no matter what the provocation.

I will not dignify any more of Rhodri's ravings with a response, either now or in the future. The matter is, as far as I am concerned, closed This is a (supposedly) educated 48 year old man who seems to have made it his life's ambition to try to sully the reputation and damage the business prospects of a 27 year old who did nothing more than to fulfil his obligations as part of a business contract.

At the time I was sorry that Rhodri did not achieve the level of response for which he had hoped but the law forbids me from rounding up people at gunpoint and forcing them to attend. I refuse to entertain this any more. It's just getting too childish. Let's see however if Rhodri continues with this. It will be embarrassing for him if he does.

It is with some amazement that I have learned that Dr Rhodri is continuing with his pointless tirades against myself and my company. However, I shall make one, hopefully final attempt, to set the record straight the difference between myself and Rhodri is that I can prove that what I say is true I have copies of his web-pages taken during the period in question; the content is explicit and the evidence is irrefutable, in respect to all the alleged defamatory comments I have made.

I have great difficulty in picking the key points out of Rhodri's latest rambling rebuttal but will attempt to address those that I can identify in the following paragraphs.

I am perplexed by Rhodri's claim that we hand out flyers outside clubs. While there are some nightclub promoters who do operate in this way, we do not and have never handed out flyers and see no need to. Most of our business comes from word-of-mouth recommendations and through our website. However, there is nothing wrong with it, so what is he point?

Rhodri claimed One ruse he confessed to was persuading potential guests that admission was free before a certain time, make them queue up for some length of time, and then persuade them to pay after they missed the deadline for free entry. What complete lies. It's actually what he suggested he would do with his some of his party club guests.

It appears that Rhodri now seems takes exception to the name of my company, Minisguestlist. I have no idea why this should be because one of the principal services provided by my company is to supply guestlist services to clubbers in London. While we certainly provide other services, including event management, this is one of our core business activities and remains a major source of revenue.

Clearly, Rhodri neither understands the industry nor has he made any effort whatsoever to learn anything about it before exposing his ignorance to the general population in this manner.

With regard to his allegation that I falsely claimed to have a database of 11,168 London-based people who attend A-List nightclubs (not a list of 11,168 A-List people as he incorrectly states), while I can no longer remember the exact figure at the time, the fact that my database continues to grow, through subscription, and now stands at nearly 50,000, the figure he quotes seems entirely likely. What on earth was his point here?

Next he criticises me for the fact that out of this database of people, achieved a response rate of less than 0.2%' (only a 0.2% responded) and no-one attended. I would have thought that this was due more to the nature of the product than to the social means of the people in my database. While I can send out advertising to as many people as he wishes, I cannot force the people on my database to attend. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water Just as matter of interest, all the mail-shots that I do are logged by the software that I use. These logs show both number emails sent and the content; proof of sending is not an issue and Rhodri would be well advised to publicly withdraw his allegations concerning both the size of the database and whether the mail-shot was actually performed. He employed the company to provide a service; a PR mail-shot was sent as per the contract. What more could he reasonably expect?

Rhodri also seems surprised that I said that many probably couldn't afford the 150 entry fee. Even the most affluent of people would hesitate to pay 150 for something without knowing what they were getting for their money. I know people who gladly pay more than that, per head, to attend charity dinners, etc. but they know in advance what it is that they are paying for. I cannot imagine many people paying 150 for a party' where no entertainment was provided, no music, only a finger-buffet and, oh yes, I was forgetting the girls. Well, maybe there are people who would pay for that but I personally don't know any.

Again, in the same sentence, Rhodri states that 150 would be small change to the people on my database. However, my database consists of people who attend A-List nightclubs. As many will be aware, nightclubs charge premium prices. It is therefore evident that people attending these clubs have a guaranteed minimum disposable income. However, not all are millionaires ready to be fleeced, not matter what Rhodri would prefer.

Rhodri also alleges that I covet his model directory and the Party Club. Nothing could be further from the truth and I consider it sick, in the extreme, that there are people around who exploit others in quite such a manner. I am glad that the Party Club no longer exists; this is one less media for the exploitation of innocent young girls. It dissolved in October 2005 because it was a failure - a 4,000 loss every time he threw a party. It is shameful that he managed to actually sell 13,000 worth of shares. I pity the people who bought those shares.

By the way, the icqurimage website describes itself as a directory of independent actors, dancers, models, musicians, personal trainers and personal assistants; he still hasn't explained why he needs photographs of scantily dressed musicians, personal trainers and personal assistants even if there might be some rationale for actors, dancers and models.

Having been told originally that his doctoral dissertation was gained at Harvard, we are now told that it was at Oxbridge. Rhodri says, Why would anyone with a PhD from Oxbridge claim to have one from Harvard? Duh! That was my very point.

Rhodri makes it clear from this that he was at either Oxford or Cambridge but doesn't care to specify which. He wonders how I could gain access to the Alumni database from Harvard simply it because it is freely accessible for anyone to search. Similarly, Oxford and Cambridge are also very proud of their Alumni and their databases are also freely searchable. It appears, however, that neither university is very proud of Dr Rhodri because he doesn't appear in the databases at either (( info redacted by ROR))

Having lurched from one untruth to the next, Rhodri has now turned his attention to me. I have never made any bones about the fact that, while qualified, I don't practice law. My other business interests keep me fully occupied and I am certainly not the first person to obtain a degree in a subject that later turned out to be irrelevant to what they did in later life. My degree was actually obtained at the London Guildhall University and I am a lifetime member of the National Association of Paralegals. Rhodri's comments about McDonalds (the burger branch) are as insulting as they are childish. I told him that I once worked for McDonalds when I was 15 years old. Clever.

Further, he pours scorn on the fact that I work from home; where does he work, if he works. For me, working from home is necessary because I am the primary carer for my aging and disabled mother (who lives with me, not the other way round). Rhodri's remarks are offensive and hurtful and, since he is fully aware of my situation, were clearly designed to cause maximum distress. It is not easy being a full-time carer while, at the same time, trying to run a business.

Of all the libellous things that he has said in an effort to besmirch my good name, this is the one thing that shows the levels to which this man will sink in what seems to have become a personal vendetta against me, my family and my company.

Next, let me address the police issue. Next time he has tea with the Assistant Chief Constable, he should tell him exactly what he does for a living. I bet the Assistant Chief Constable wouldn't invite him for tea if he knew the nature of his business activities.

Finally, I welcome a visit from Rhodri's solicitors. He has my home address and has even published it online in his original, baseless, accusations. Should I publish his in the same manner? I don't think so; there are some things that I will not do, no matter what the provocation.

I will not dignify any more of Rhodri's ravings with a response, either now or in the future. The matter is, as far as I am concerned, closed This is a (supposedly) educated 48 year old man who seems to have made it his life's ambition to try to sully the reputation and damage the business prospects of a 27 year old who did nothing more than to fulfil his obligations as part of a business contract.

At the time I was sorry that Rhodri did not achieve the level of response for which he had hoped but the law forbids me from rounding up people at gunpoint and forcing them to attend. I refuse to entertain this any more. It's just getting too childish. Let's see however if Rhodri continues with this. It will be embarrassing for him if he does.

In reply to Mr.Vohra,

In rebuttal to the many false claims and misrepresentations of Mr.Vohra, a detailed reply follows. The first approach was in fact made by Minesh (Mini) Vohra, of the correctly stated home address, dated the 23rd December 2004 in a personalised invitation to my icqurimage.com address (letter held for legal purposes) in which he specifically states,

?Please let me know if there is anything that I can do for you. If I can assist you with any of your partying needs then please give me a call, or e-mail and I will be pleased to help you! As well as organizing your personal guest lists for you and your friends, I can also help with arranging larger parties such as birthdays, anniversaries, and other special events. I will also be pleased to help if you have any corporate events such as work parties, product launches, special occasions etc. For further details please e-mail or call me.?

This ad verbatim quotation is clear evidence that his first statement is entirely false and untrue. In correction of Mr.Vohra's next statement, ?The terms of the agreement were for us to do a mail shot, to our database, to advertise a party he was hosting on the 12th March 2005.? Mr.Nimmo was in actual fact the host and President of the aforementioned party, and provided the payment of ?1,168 for the mail shot. The term allegedly refers not to whether a mail shot was sent, rather to whether 11,168 bona fide Email addresses were in actual fact contacted. Can Mr.Vohra prove that all 11,168 purported Email addresses were bona fide subscribers to his service? Not only did Mini's Guest List compose the Email shot themselves it was sent in the name of the partyclub.org Email address from his recorded IP address.

A quick calculation reveals that some 20 respondents to a mail shot of 11,168 ?subscribers' corresponds to a response rate of 0.002%, a figure that would embarrass even the most disreputable of spammers. I am at least glad that he has admitted that ?we did indeed send out the mail shot?. This response rate corresponds to a cost per response of ?58.40 per respondent, none of whom paid to attend a ?5,000 party with limousine, champagne, hostesses and models, where no guests entered the bedrooms, appeared in lingerie or indeed received payment for sexual services, as Mr.'Mini' Vohra well knows from his lengthy attendance of the party.

Mr.Vohra is clearly correct in surmising that ?not many people can afford the 150 pounds price tag? although Mr.Vohra clearly is na about the costs of hosting such events as a supplier of advertising and not an organiser per se.

To claim that the ?pictures and text? for the mail shot were supplied by myself are entirely false.

?Other stipulations of the agreement entitled Minisguestlist to a performance-based commission on the sale of tickets for a subsequent party scheduled for 23rd April 2005. In principle, we were initially interested, as the commission level was attractive.? If Mr.Vohra had such a low opinion of the party as stated in his reply, why did he in fact choose to endorse the second party by signing a second agreement entirely unrelated to the first verbal agreement. If Mr.Vohra had any reservations relating to the quality of the product, atmosphere, pricing or ethics why did he choose to endorse a second party in April by signing a contract after attending his first in March?

In his statement ?It transpires that the reason why none of the invitees from my database were interested in the Private Party was because www.partyclub.org (the company that organises these parties) is no less than an arranged monthly party for dirty people to pay ?150 to have promiscuous and casual sex in, as it says on his website, the many bedrooms, which have a full service available from their ?hostesses''. These so called hostesses are in fact hookers who charge money for sex and the full bedroom service'. I say hookers with respect because I understand that many of the girls involved are duped into providing sexual favours as described in the following paragraphs? Mr. Vohra makes false and defamatory statements regarding the nature of the parties and of the guests, and as he well knows from his attendance of a party these statements are entirely false as 60 witnesses may attest.

Mr.Vohra's statements that I enter girls into a modelling competition is false and misleading, and reads as though Mr.Vohra is projecting his own sexual fantasies upon innocuous networking events for private patrons, and the presence of models at parties is no more evidence of prostitution than it would be if they were invited to appear at a shopping mall. The statement ?He further tells them the modelling competition is a lingerie show and provides underwear for all the girls. They must wear this before, during and after the show; all night in fact.? is nothing short of a lie, as he well knows from his single appearance at a party. Such fantasies as to his own self-importance and social status continue in his statement that I personally ?begged' him to attend. Not only did Mr.Vohra attend with his friends, but he stayed not for 30 minutes as stated, but for over three hours before persuading guests to leave with him to a nightclub.

The statement that ?only 8 guests arrived in total, of which 6 were girls? is a complete misrepresentation given that over 70 individuals attended the party over the course of the night, although the party was financially unsuccessful due to Mr.Vohra's own inability in his only function as a ?guest list'. Does Mr.Vohra regard his own performance, in his contracted function as the owner of a guest list who sole purpose it is to recruit paying guests to parties and or clubs, as satisfactory? Many prospective users of the services of Mini's Guest List might disagree. If not even 0.01% of 11,168 ?subscribers' to a guest list can afford ?150 to go to a party that Mr.Vohra personally endorses through the act of sending a mail shot from his ?data base', then this must surely call the commercial value of Mr.Vohra's services into question.

Mr. ?Mini' Vohra's statement that there was no music is entirely false as is his claim that his party left after 20 minutes. If he felt that there was ?no party atmosphere? and that ?Everyone in attendance looked extremely uncomfortable; People in dentist's surgeries look more comfortable than those guests who were at this party.? then why did Mr.Vohra sign an agreement to endorse the following party in April? I was informed by my Head of Security that Mr.Vohra was taking ?email addresses? and certainly personally witnessed him exchanging details with more than just two guests.

?Although I had signed a contract to promote and sell tickets to Rhodri's next party which was to be held on the 23rd April 2005, the contract in itself was performance related. I perform, and I get commission and a profit share. No initial payment was offered or agreed, so it was up to me whether to become involved or not.? The agreement also stipulated that Mr.Vohra would provide hostesses and models, an element of the agreement which was certainly broken.

The claim that I had introduced myself as a PhD is correct, but of an equally well known UK University, and not Harvard University as falsely stated by Mr.Vohra.

The arrangement of tickets by a Mr.Chris Davis, a supplier to Mini's Guest List, was through the insistence, recommendation and under the influence of Mr.Vohra, and the claim that ?the gentleman referred to as Chris [was] in no way involved Minisguestlist? is entirely false and untrue as correspondence testifies.

The demise of the Party Club in April 2005 after the introduction of Mr.Vohra is in no small manner attributable to my own regrettable decision to employ the services of an individual who clearly is himself of questionable character. The claim that Mr.Vohra is able to recruit the services of the constabulary is about as credible as his claims to be able to provide paying guests to a private party. I will leave the decision as to whether or not to employ Mini's Guest List to individual clubs and consumers, although his attitude to a former paymaster given here might give more of an indication as to his true nature.

Perhaps Mr.Vohra would himself care to explain why his own website was taken down for the period of a year? Was it removed through the failure of his own company or for other reasons? Surely Mr.Vohra can afford to pay a hosting bill of less than ?50 a month?

Rhodri James Walters PhD

I have recently discovered the article on your website and wish to respond comprehensively to these libellous accusations and will start by repudiating each one point by point.

Firstly, Dr. Rhodri James Walters claims ?A Private Social Club in London was approached by a Mr. Minesh Vohra of Mini's Guest List'. The Private Social Club in question was not ?approached' by Minisguestlist; in fact we were approached by them in the person of Dr. Walters himself as President of the Party Club. The terms of the agreement were for us to do a mailshot, to our database, to advertise a party he was hosting on the 12th March 2005.

If the mail shot was only ?allegedly sent' as he maintains, than how come he also claims that he had 20 people respond to him that were attributable to us? Clearly this is because we did indeed send out the mailshot.

No paying guests attended because firstly, I'm sure not many people can afford the 150 pounds price tag for entry to Rhodri's so called ?Private Party' and secondly, because the product in itself was simply entry to a party and nothing more. This was not a matter for us, we simply sent out the invitations as instructed.

We did the mailshot (pictures and text supplied by Rhodri) and sent it out to our database as a service in exchange for payment. Our database was simply hired as an advertising tool. Other stipulations of the agreement entitled Minisguestlist to a performance-based commission on the sale of tickets for a subsequent party scheduled for 23rd April 2005. In principle, we were initially interested, as the commission level was attractive.

Rhodri states ?20 responses were obtained that were attributable to Mini's Guest List, of these fewer than five booked and no paying guests attended from his guest list'.

It transpires that the reason why none of the invitees from my database were interested in the Private Party was because www.partyclub.org (the company that organises these parties) is no less than an arranged monthly party for dirty people to pay ?150 to have promiscuous and casual sex in, as it says on his website, ?the many bedrooms, which have a full service available from their ?hostesses''. These so called hostesses are in fact hookers who charge money for sex and the ?full bedroom service'. I say hookers with respect because I understand that many of the girls involved are duped into providing sexual favours as described in the following paragraphs.

Rodhri (owner of www.partyclub.org ) has another website www.icqurimage.com, (pronounced ?I seek your image') which claims to be a ?directory of independent actors, dancers, models, musicians, personal trainers and personal assistants'.

Nothing strange so far until you notice, that not one of the ?actors, dancers, models, musicians, trainers and personal assistants' are Male. It is simply a massive directory of girls, girls and more girls. Only girls can submit their details and photos to the website, but in return they have to supply Rhodri with their home phone number, address and other such personal details.

If you visit the website, it becomes immediately apparent that www.icqurimage.com is international in scope with sections of the website dedicated to major US and European cities such as (but not limited to) Amsterdam, Paris, Las Vegas, New York and London. Closer scrutiny reveals that there is not one single photograph of, say, a male actor, musician or personal trainer. All of the photographs on the website are of girls in varying degrees of undress and mostly in provocative poses. What woman who is interested in a career as a personal trainer or as a personal assistant to a Managing Director of a company, for example, would expect to be employed on the basis of how she looks topless or nude?

While Rhodri makes no money directly from this website, he admitted to me that it provides him with a large portfolio of girls to invite to the events organised by www.partyclub.org (Rhodri of course waives the 150 pounds entry fee for the girls to entice them to attend). He then tells the girls that have registered on www.icqurimage.com they have been entered into a modelling competition; the location and time of which is, conveniently, the same as that for the www.partyclub.org event.

He then tells them that if they enter the modelling competition, this will further their career, no matter which industry they work in. He also maintains that he will make sure that they have a strong chance of winning - he of course says this to each and every one of them.

He further tells them the modelling competition is a lingerie show and provides underwear for all the girls. They must wear this before, during and after the show; all night in fact.

Each girl is then advised that they must ?do whatever it takes'. This includes providing sexual favours for money which, in itself, he claims is the way that ?most models make it to the top'. In his own words ?every successful woman has slept her way to the top, you must do the same if you want to succeed'. He tries to convince them (mostly pretty young girls) that this is the accepted way to a successful modelling career.

To return to night of the party which took place on Saturday 12th March 2005 ? this night was also my birthday. Rhodri begged me to attend, even if only for a short while, offering promises of food, drink, and a birthday cake. So I agreed that I would pop by with my friends and family on the way, but to only stay for a maximum of 30 minutes as I already had my own celebrations to consider.

Rhodri claims that ?fewer than five booked and no paying guests attended from our guest list'.

This is in fact quite true and not surprising when you remind yourself of the 150 pounds price tag. What he doesn't tell you is that Rhodri himself only had 8 guests arrive in total, of which 6 were girls (freebies from www.inqurimage.com ? all told they were in the modelling competition).

As for the modelling competition, the girls were told that the winner would receive ?500, and that the chosen one would be contacted the day after the party. Of course, none of the six girls heard anything?
The other 2 guests who were at the party along with the 6 ?Model entries' were men who were duped into paying the ?150 on the promise of a lavish and luxurious party. They got no such thing.

When my group arrived we found there was no music and certainly no party atmosphere. Everyone in attendance looked extremely uncomfortable; People in dentist's surgeries look more comfortable than those guests who were at this party. I was, apparently (as Rhodri had advertised against my permission) the VIP celebrity that had been promised and everyone seemed excited by the arrival of my group. I tried to mix with the ?guests' as much as possible and contrary to Rhodri's claim that I ?scoured the party for E-mail addresses from almost all who were attendant, regardless of their means or social status', in fact I gave my contact details to two people at the party and did not take any email addresses at all.

Bearing in mind that my group included my partner, my brother, his wife and several close friends, once it became obvious as to the nature of the ?party', we left after approximately 20 minutes. Our group made up 60% of the total attendees and when we left, the remainder wanted to leave with us. I made it clear that we would not take people away from the party but once the party had finished, if anyone was interested then they could join me in my birthday celebrations at a later time, hence why I provided my details to the 2 of the 8 guests who had asked for them.

Although I had signed a contract to promote and sell tickets to Rhodri's next party which was to be held on the 23rd April 2005, the contract in itself was performance related. I perform, and I get commission and a profit share. No initial payment was offered or agreed, so it was up to me whether to become involved or not. Once I understood the sordid nature of Rhodri's scam I, personally, did not want any further involvement with Rhodri Walters and certainly did not want the Minisguestlist name associated with such questionable events.

This of course explains why as Rhodri claims my Vice-President ?was unrepentant, scoffing and dismissive?, I'm sure she was. We would have no interest in speaking with a man with such low moral standards.

Three final points are worth mentioning:

1. Rhodri introduced himself to me as a ?Dr.' who had produced his doctoral dissertation while at Harvard University. Since discovering the above article I performed a search of the Harvard University website and could find no record of a Rhodri James Walters ever having attended Harvard. This casts doubts, in my mind at least, as to the validity of his claims or the legitimacy of his use of the term ?Doctor'.
2. The production of printed tickets was not in our contract; the printing of tickets was an entirely separate arrangement between Rhodri and the gentleman referred to as Chris and in no way involved Minisguestlist.
3. The last point concerns the limousine service. He says ?limousines arrived to pick up guests at pre-scheduled and pre-advertised locations which were not there'. The limousine service is a normal service advertised by www.partyclub.org on their website for all such events. Rhodri himself is responsible for organising the limousines and also for arranging pick-up locations. Therefore, if he arranged for guests to be at locations that didn't exist, then he is either totally incompetent, a bad businessman, or both. Or perhaps he, disappointed with the success of his now seemingly redundant company, is simply trying to lay the blame elsewhere.

Interestingly, a recent look at www.partyclub.org reveals that Rhodri is now offering shares in his organisation for ?1000. I would strongly advise anyone considering buying shares to think again, based upon my experiences.

Furthermore, in my personal opinion, the parties are a rip-off, and of a questionable nature. I would not advise anyone to use services provided by either of Rhodri's 2 companies - www.partyclub.org & www.icqurimage.com.

Finally I have submitted details to the police in respect to both of these companies, and expect Rhodri will get a knock on his door in due course.

I have recently discovered the article on your website and wish to respond comprehensively to these libellous accusations and will start by repudiating each one point by point.

Firstly, Dr. Rhodri xxx claims A Private Social Club in London was approached by a Mr. Minesh Vohra of Mini's Guest List. The Private Social Club in question was not approached? by Minisguestlist; in fact we were approached by them in the person of Dr. Rhodri xxx himself as President of the Party Club. The terms of the agreement were for us to do a mailshot, to our database, to advertise a party he was hosting on the 12th March 2005.

If the mail shot was only ?allegedly sent? as he maintains, than how come he also claims that he had 20 people respond to him that were attributable to us? Clearly this is because we did indeed send out the mailshot.

No paying guests attended because firstly, I'm sure not many people can afford the ?150 price tag for entry to Rhodri's so called ?Private Party? and secondly, because the product in itself was simply entry to a party and nothing more. This was not a matter for us, we simply sent out the invitations as instructed.

We did the mailshot (pictures and text supplied by Rhodri) and sent it out to our database as a service in exchange for payment. Our database was simply hired as an advertising tool. Other stipulations of the agreement entitled Minisguestlist to a performance-based commission on the sale of tickets for a subsequent party scheduled for 23rd April 2005. In principle, we were initially interested, as the commission level was attractive.

Rhodri states ?20 responses were obtained that were attributable to Mini's Guest List, of these fewer than five booked and no paying guests attended from his guest list?.

It transpires that the reason why none of the invitees from my database were interested in the Private Party was because www.partyclub.org (the company that organises these parties) is no less than an arranged monthly party for dirty people to pay ?150 to have promiscuous and casual sex in, as it says on his website, ?the many bedrooms, which have a full service available from their ?hostesses'?. These so called hostesses are in fact hookers who charge money for sex and the ?full bedroom service?. I say hookers with respect because I understand that many of the girls involved are duped into providing sexual favours as described in the following paragraphs.

Rodhri (owner of www.partyclub.org ) has another website www.icqurimage.com, (pronounced ?I seek your image?) which claims to be a ?directory of independent actors, dancers, models, musicians, personal trainers and personal assistants?.

Nothing strange so far until you notice, that not one of the ?actors, dancers, models, musicians, trainers and personal assistants? are Male. It is simply a massive directory of girls, girls and more girls. Only girls can submit their details and photos to the website, but in return they have to supply Rhodri with their home phone number, address and other such personal details.

If you visit the website, it becomes immediately apparent that www.icqurimage.com is international in scope with sections of the website dedicated to major US and European cities such as (but not limited to) Amsterdam, Paris, Las Vegas, New York and London. Closer scrutiny reveals that there is not one single photograph of, say, a male actor, musician or personal trainer. All of the photographs on the website are of girls in varying degrees of undress and mostly in provocative poses. What woman who is interested in a career as a personal trainer or as a personal assistant to a Managing Director of a company, for example, would expect to be employed on the basis of how she looks topless or nude?

While Rhodri makes no money directly from this website, he admitted to me that it provides him with a large portfolio of girls to invite to the events organised by www.partyclub.org (Rhodri of course waives the ?150 entry fee for the girls to entice them to attend). He then tells the girls that have registered on www.icqurimage.com they have been entered into a modelling competition; the location and time of which is, conveniently, the same as that for the www.partyclub.org event.

He then tells them that if they enter the modelling competition, this will further their career, no matter which industry they work in. He also maintains that he will make sure that they have a strong chance of winning - he of course says this to each and every one of them.

He further tells them the modelling competition is a lingerie show and provides underwear for all the girls. They must wear this before, during and after the show; all night in fact.

Each girl is then advised that they must ?do whatever it takes?. This includes providing sexual favours for money which, in itself, he claims is the way that ?most models make it to the top?. In his own words ?every successful woman has slept her way to the top, you must do the same if you want to succeed?. He tries to convince them (mostly pretty young girls) that this is the accepted way to a successful modelling career.

To return to night of the party which took place on Saturday 12th March 2005 ? this night was also my birthday. Rhodri begged me to attend, even if only for a short while, offering promises of food, drink, and a birthday cake. So I agreed that I would pop by with my friends and family on the way, but to only stay for a maximum of 30 minutes as I already had my own celebrations to consider.

Rhodri claims that ?fewer than five booked and no paying guests attended from our guest list?.

This is in fact quite true and not surprising when you remind yourself of the ?150 price tag. What he doesn't tell you is that Rhodri himself only had 8 guests arrive in total, of which 6 were girls (freebies from www.inqurimage.com ? all told they were in the modelling competition).

As for the modelling competition, the girls were told that the winner would receive ?500, and that the chosen one would be contacted the day after the party. Of course, none of the six girls heard anything?
The other 2 guests who were at the party along with the 6 ?Model entries' were men who were duped into paying the ?150 on the promise of a lavish and luxurious party. They got no such thing.

When my group arrived we found there was no music and certainly no party atmosphere. Everyone in attendance looked extremely uncomfortable; People in dentist's surgeries look more comfortable than those guests who were at this party. I was, apparently (as Rhodri had advertised against my permission) the VIP celebrity that had been promised and everyone seemed excited by the arrival of my group. I tried to mix with the ?guests? as much as possible and contrary to Rhodri's claim that I ?scoured the party for E-mail addresses from almost all who were attendant, regardless of their means or social status?, in fact I gave my contact details to two people at the party and did not take any email addresses at all.

Bearing in mind that my group included my partner, my brother, his wife and several close friends, once it became obvious as to the nature of the ?party?, we left after approximately 20 minutes. Our group made up 60% of the total attendees and when we left, the remainder wanted to leave with us. I made it clear that we would not take people away from the party but once the party had finished, if anyone was interested then they could join me in my birthday celebrations at a later time, hence why I provided my details to the 2 of the 8 guests who had asked for them.

Although I had signed a contract to promote and sell tickets Rhodri's next party which was to be held on the 23rd April 2005, the contract in itself was performance related. I perform, and I get commission and a profit share. No initial payment was offered or agreed, so it was up to me whether to become involved or not. Once I understood the sordid nature of Rhodri's scam I, personally, did not want any further involvement with Dr. Rhodri xxx and certainly did not want the Minisguestlist name associated with such questionable events.

This of course explains why as Rhodri claims my Vice-President ?was unrepentant, scoffing and dismissive?, I'm sure she was. We would have no interest in speaking with a man with such low moral standards.

Three final points are worth mentioning:

1. Rhodri introduced himself to me as a ?Dr.? who had produced his doctoral dissertation while at Harvard University. Since discovering the above article I performed a search of the Harvard University website and could find no record of a Dr. Rhodri xxx ever having attended Harvard. This casts doubts, in my mind at least, as to the validity of his claims or the legitimacy of his use of the term ?Doctor?.
2. The production of printed tickets was not in our contract; the printing of tickets was an entirely separate arrangement between Rhodri and the gentleman referred to as Chris and in no way involved Minisguestlist.
3. The last point concerns the limousine service. He says ?limousines arrived to pick up guests at pre-scheduled and pre-advertised locations which were not there?. The limousine service is a normal service advertised by www.partyclub.org on their website for all such events. Rhodri himself is responsible for organising the limousines and also for arranging pick-up locations. Therefore, if he arranged for guests to be at locations that didn't exist, then he is either totally incompetent, a bad businessman, or both. Or perhaps he, disappointed with the success of his now seemingly redundant company, is simply trying to lay the blame elsewhere.

Interestingly, a recent look at www.partyclub.org reveals that Rhodri is now offering shares in his organisation for ?1000. I would strongly advise anyone considering buying shares to think again, based upon my experiences.

Furthermore, in my personal opinion, the parties are a rip-off, and of a questionable nature. I would not advise anyone to use services provided by either of Rhodri's 2 companies - www.partyclub.org & www.icqurimage.com.

Finally I have submitted details to the police in respect to both of these companies, and expect Rhodri will get a knock on his door in due course.

Mini of Minisguestlist.com