Transcription
Oh my goodness. The BBC have now banned my video response that I did on YouTube responding to their video that they did about me. This is just ridiculous.
Like, I did a video. It was having loads of comments, loads of views. Everyone was like, "Sual thank you for finally putting the truth out there. Aren't the BBC bad? Aren't they Aren't they liars?" People were saying, "Aren't the BBC liars?" And then this video gets a copyright claim. Boom. And it suddenly disappears off of YouTube. Hm.
Now, BBC, if it wasn't you that that that did this, please tell me who it was, and please tell me why not only are you making videos about me, and thank you for retracting some of the comments, by the way. People like, "Did the BBC say Samuel was a scam?" They retracted that. Okay? They were like, "Oh, sorry. It was a junior member of staff." No one knows this stuff because they hide it. They suppress it. So this video, the only reason this could have had a copyright claim was because I in my response video, I used a tiny snippet of their video and then suddenly poof, they get the video removed.
But their video was about me and the little footage I was using was of me that they came to my event and they filmed me unauthorized, put a tiny little snippet on the show, did this whole big thing about it, complete mess of nonsense and lies. I then show a little clip of their clip of me and talk do a whole explainer, talk about the truth, provide evidence, and then boom, it gets a copyright strike because the BBC own the copyright to that tiny little snippet on YouTube. This is just wrong.
So, I'm going to have to re-upload the video, take out that little snippet that they put in, which is my me anyway. It's me, and they filmed it unauthorized. And I don't know, they'll probably try and find a way to get it banned again. Again, BBC, if this wasn't you, then tell me. Talk to me. LET'S DO A FINANCIAL FREEDOM CHALLENGE. COME AROUND MY HOUSE AND FILM ME. Let's do some deals. Let's see. Let's find out the truth. But they don't want to do that. They keep hiding just like Joe Lyset hiding. Channel 4 hiding. Lord Sugar, where you at, bro? Where you at? Where you at, bro? Uh, is that him calling me right now? I don't know. But anyway, watch this. It's probably going to get taken down again. The truth is always being silenced. It's ridiculous. This is getting beyond a a joke. Copyright claim from the BBC, as far as I'm aware. This is the video. I'm going to re-upload it. If you want to know the truth, watch this video from beginning to end before it gets taken down.
The whole show, in my opinion, was quite poorly done, poorly researched. They didn't actually fact check anything. They didn't come to me and say, "Hey, can we talk?" They came secretly in my opinion with a very strong agenda trying to fit a narrative because most of my family, my friends, my students that saw the show were just absolutely horrified at some of the weak journalism in the show. However, that's just my opinion. You do you make up your own opinion.
I'm going to go through the points of the show. So, the first point is how they portrayed me. I mean, right from the beginning, right from the get-go, the very first time you see me on the BBC show is with eerie music with me saying, "I'm going to punch you in the throat." Now, that's not a particularly great first impression. And what they did was they trolled through all of my YouTube videos and they found when I said, "As a joke, if you don't subscribe, I'm going to punch you in the throat." Now, I was kidding. It was probably a very distasteful thing to say. I shouldn't have said it. But in the context of the whole video, which was called 10 things I wish I'd known 10 years ago, it was a long video, maybe about 10 minutes long. They took about six seconds of that video of me saying that and put eerie music over it. I would play you the eerie music so you can see how stupid it was, but unfortunately the BBC have the copyrights to the music and somehow the copyrights can me so I can't show that. So the first impression of me right away is someone saying, "I'm going to punch you in the throat with eerie music on." Not a great first impression. I mean, what does that say to you? Were they trying to betray me in my correct light, or were they trying to fit a narrative? I think they were trying to fit a narrative.
They then talked about the fact that they found out that I was performing as a magician as recent as 6 years ago. This is literally a photograph that I had taken 7 years ago. The BBC HAVE PUT THEIR LOGO ON IT. NOW, IT'S PROBABLY COPYRIGHTED. AND they made this big thing about this and they showed secret footage. Now this footage that they got was of me publishing it myself. Again, taken out of context. Yes, as recent as 6 years ago, I did perform a magic show. My brother alongside with his business partner Craig Petty ran a an entertainment agency called Slightly Unusual. And I really liked performing and I'm very open about this. I talk about this in my book. And six years ago, yes, I did a few shows for Slightly Unusual. Most of them were for charity, and the ones that weren't often I said, "Can you please put the money into my into my charitable works in Africa, but that wasn't reported on, of course." Instead, they just said as recent as 6 years ago, he was doing a magic show. Wow, interesting sideline for someone that claims to be a property millionaire. And I was also doing lots of other things like climbing Kilimanjro, like playing the trumpet in the Warsaw Symphony Orchestra, like writing a gospel CD album. But that doesn't contradict the fact that I was financially free in property. In fact, when you become financially free, what it means is you can do what you want when you want. And that's everything I'm about and everything I teach.
The really shocking thing in my opinion about the BBC show is they didn't even bother to try and get the information. They just tried to fit their narrative. So they didn't even approach Slightly Unusual, the entertainment act, to say, "What was Samuel doing? Was he employed by you? Was he working for free? Was he doing it for fun, for charity?" They didn't ask these questions. and slightly unusual, Craig Petty, who I don't speak to very often really anymore, but when he saw the show, he was so outraged by the fake journalism that he actually put together a statement himself. And this is what he said. Craig Petty from Slightly Unusual, and I'm going to attach this in the description link if you want to see it. To whom it may concern, I'm a director of Slightly Unusual and previously the co-owner of Magic for Hire, the two companies that Samuel Lee worked for as a magician. I have noticed with interest that many different TV programs and online vlogs have published stories about Samuel. Many of these talk about the work he has done with my companies, but nobody has ever reached out to me directly to discuss Samuel. In 2013, he finished Bible College and his property business had grown by this point. He even owned houses in my street and I was extremely impressed with what he had achieved. I asked him to continue doing shows again since he'd finished Bible college, but he was in a completely different place financially and I knew he didn't need the money. I managed to get him a little involved for a short while in 2014, but he did this solely for enjoyment and to help me out. He was happy to get involved in several charity fundraisers. His last ever show was in 2015 where he told me he didn't want payment, but to donate money into his charity projects in Africa instead. Samuel has always been honest about being a workingclass guy and has talked openly about his history as a magician. So, it's bizarre the media would expose this as some great secret. I hope this puts a stop to the speculation about Samuel's career as a magician. All of the above is true regards Craig Petty from Slightly Unusual Limited.
So, that's when you actually speak to the people. When you actually speak to the and get the facts, I mean, is this newsworthy? Is this a big shocking deal? I don't think so. but they span it to make it look like something really fishy was going on. I mean, in the exact same way as they say things like many of his customers are unhappy. You watch the BBC show and you have you have a feeling that my customers and people that I do business with aren't happy. But that's just not true. Over 90% of our customers are happy. In fact, to the point where we run our business off of word of mouth. So, how many people did the BBC interview or have on the show to represent my customers? Bear in mind, I've had over 20,000 people do my actual live training programs. So, how many of them did they speak to? They had a grand total of two people. Two people. So, why did they get only two people that were unhappy? If there's so many unhappy people, why didn't they have 200 people? What percentage is that? That's like 0.00001% of people that they chose to speak to. And why did they ignore every week I have a winner's Wednesday? Someone becoming financially free or having their finances, their lives revolutionized as a result of my training through property investment every week. What about the 90% of people statistically that are extremely happy? So, in my opinion, it's just very unbalanced bad reporting.
When the BBC came to our free property investors crash course, they came along for free and they'd been told that there was a lot of hard selling that goes on. So, they came to the program ready for hard selling with secret cameras and they'd seen little clips and they'd put things together and they'd heard lots of hearsay. But what was the journalist Abby? What was her experience when she came to the event? Well, her experience of what she actually reported on and what actually happened was this. That she came to the event and she was told from stage what the program was, was told the price and was then given a form to fill out. A totally no obligation form to take or to fill out or to hand back in. She asked for a form. She filled out a form and on that form it says, "Can you afford the training?" And she said, "Yes." And the prices were on the form. Interesting that they never showed that form. She then handed the form in. She then booked an appointment. And then the following day, after sleeping on it, had an appointment with one of our team. And what happened when she had an appointment with one of our team? She came in saying she could afford it. And then within a couple of minutes, we said, "How would you like to pay for the training?" And the journalist was like freaking out saying, they said, "How would you like to pay? That's hard selling. I'm really sorry, but asking someone how they'd like to pay after they've come to your event, they've took a form, they've handed it in, they've ticked they can afford it, they've come for an appointment, after sleeping on it, then saying, "How would you like to pay?" That is not hard selling. and you don't even believe in the techniques. You say that you think deal selling doesn't really work. Now, of course, you don't actually say deal selling doesn't work, but you make out that we're exaggerating. You said that you were hard sold to when you spoke to one of our training advisers that explained how dealelling work. Again, that's not hard selling. That's telling you how it works. And everything that you were told is the truth. We do sell a lot of deals. I've personally packaged and sold over 200 property deals and the average fee is 234,000. Many of my students have packaged and sold property deals. This is very doable. Maybe if you'd come to the advanced training and actually learned about deal selling, you wouldn't be so skeptical and you'd see how it works. But you didn't. You came to the free course. you watched all my YouTube videos with a very strong agenda and a bias in my opinion.
If the BBC really wanted to get a true account, why didn't they at least offer to have me on the show and interview me? And they won't even do that now. They've done the reporting, they've done it, and now they're on to the next story. They won't meet with me to talk about it. They won't respond to this video. They're not interested. And not only do I think the way they reported was actually immoral, but the thing that really really saddened me about the BBC show was the fact that they brought in the suicide of Danny Butcher. I at the time said how sad I was that Danny had took his life. He was one of my students. And the BBC on their news article got my quote saying Danny had took his life. And I was really sad. I was heartbroken. I was praying for the family. They got that quote and then they put a picture of me next to it. And the picture of me, I was smiling on the picture. It was a still shot from a video of me almost laughing. What? Why? Why would you Why would Why would you take a a genuine sad gutted quote on my Facebook, which at the time when I wrote it, I had tears in my eyes, and then choose to put a picture of me next to it, almost laughing. What kind of a picture is that going to create? What? No, no one knows what was going on in Danny's head when he took his life. No one. I don't know what was going on in his head. He didn't say that. To say or to imply that I am responsible somehow for Danny's death is not only wrong, but it's just absolutely immoral in my opinion. I think to take a tragic suicide and then to use that to try and tell your story to fit your narrative, why why say in your newspapers, even BBC and on your show, why say this man killed himself after going on Samuel's training course? Like why you you could have said lots of things. If you're talking about Danny's suicide, you could say he man killed himself after serving in the army. man killed himself just 11 weeks after getting married. Man kills himself after after getting a £20,000 worth of debt to lots of other people. But no, you chose to say after going on Samuel's training course. If I said that Danny took his life because of any of the other examples because it's his of his wife or because it was his parents or because of this or it's the fault of the army because he served in the army and then this if I said that or if anyone said that or thought that even I think that would be completely wrong and shocking and immoral to try and point the finger like that. And in the exact same way, I think people that are trying to point the finger with no evidence whatsoever. No evidence. Even the Telegraph said there's no link. The BBC didn't say there's a link, but the way they suggested it and tried to make you, the viewer, point the finger. I think it's absolutely immoral. I think it's wrong.
Some people have said, "But Samuel, your training company, the customer service was bad. you didn't look after Danny properly. Let's let's talk about that. When we met Danny for the first time at the crash course, he was very excited about property. He had five deals in the pipeline. And when he became a student of ours, he knew that this was a longterm game. He knew that his family have even said that that he knew this was a long-term game. This was not going to happen overnight. And when Danny became a student, he had access to me personally. He had my brother Russell, who's the CEO of our company, had his direct line. He spent more than one hour on the phone to him on one occasion. And Danny at times was really happy and was thinking the academy was great and the training was good and property was great. And then other times he was really unhappy. And he did. He did twice. He asked us for a refund. The first time he asked for a refund, we said, "Yes, we'll work with you to give you a partial refund." He was already partway through the training, but we offered him a refund. And then Danny said, "Actually, I don't want a refund. I'm happy. I want to do property. I want to continue with the training." And we said, "Okay." And then he came back a second time. On the second time when he asked for a refund, which is a couple months later, we again we said we would give him a refund. We The point is we were working with Danny. We knew Danny. We were working with Danny and his taking his own life in my opinion had nothing to do with the fact that he didn't like our training. And to suggest that and to say that when there's no evidence is wrong. When I found out that Danny had died, I didn't even think for a second, oh maybe it's because he wasn't happy with our property training. Like it didn't even cross my mind that that might be the reason why. I've got screenshots and email threads. We were working with Danny. Danny was viewing properties the week before. I think his dad said even the day before he was viewing properties and was upbeat about how things seem to be going. So, I have no idea why he took his life. I've got evidence of everything. I'm not going to publish it cuz it will be distasteful, but it really needs to stop the blaming and fingerpointing. It's not cool. An army veteran killed himself after doing Samuel Le's course. And it's reported he didn't make any money back and just couldn't handle the debt. This is [ __ ] disgusting. Samuel le in [ __ ] jail.
Other people have said, "But Samuel, your company should have known before you took him on as a student. You should have known that he had mental health issues. You should have known that he was in the army, had post-traumatic stress disorder. You should have known that he was already in almost £20,000 worth of debt before he even met you. You should have checked that. And listen, hindsight is a great thing, but I don't know any company when you go and get even a very expensive product. if you're buying a car or if you're buying a holiday or getting married and paying for an expensive wedding. I've I've never been asked about my mental health or about whether I've got other debts. As far as most businesses in the UK are concerned, if you're an adult and you've got the money and you want to do it, then you're welcome to make up your own mind and do business. That's how business is typically done. Maybe that's not right. Maybe there should be more stricter checks in place. I don't I don't know. May maybe maybe that would be better. But what I can say is what our company did and how we accepted Danny on to do our training is no different from any training company in the UK. Whether that be property training, different training, or anything else. In what world if a university student takes their life to people say, "Oh, wait, it's the university. You know, they had student debt. They it's it's unthinkable." And someone will say, "But your company pres on the vulnerable. It prays on disadvantaged people that haven't got money. Again, this is completely wrong. No facts, no evidence. You can look at the demographic of our students. Yes, we do take people from all walks of life, but to prey on the vulnerable, to prey on people that haven't got money and are poor doesn't make any business or financial or commercial sense whatsoever. It doesn't make any sense. And we rely on our students succeeding. We rely on that because if they succeed, our business works off of word of mouth. And that's why over 90% of our customers are happy. That's why we have success students on our channel all the time. And that's what grows our company. Should there be more regulation in the wealth creation or training space? Probably yes. I'd be the biggest ambassador for regulation. and we self-regulate ourself and are pushing that more and more which I'll be talking about on future videos. I'm not asking you watching this video to show any support in any way. You don't have to comment. You don't have to give your opinions and say, "Samuel, we support you." I'm not asking for that. What I'm asking for is for people to stop placing the blame over a suicide with no evidence and making things up to try and tear me and my company down. Needs to stop.
My response to the BBC that put the documentary together. If you turned over all the stones and left nothing unturned, why did you have nothing to talk about except try and be suggestive about a tragic suicide? 20,000 students, most of them very happy, successful, wealthy. Why did you choose two for your case study? Like if you were doing a dissertation at university, you would have failed. You'd be getting an F. Why did you only choose two? And why did you pick two people that were unhappy? One of those people, by the way, I'm going to be doing a video about at a later date because it's an interesting story. Why did you choose to as the very first image have me saying, "I'm going to punch you in the throat and put eerie music over it." Let me ask you a question, BBC. Did you be honest? Did you come with an agenda? Were you really coming to seek truth? Were you really coming to give a balanced report? Or did you come with an agenda? Tell me the truth. And if you didn't come with an agenda, if you really came to seek the truth, and if you re your conclusion was that deal selling doesn't really work and I oversell it, then if you're really interested, why don't you spend a week with me doing a financial freedom challenge, BBC? I'm here. Send someone from your team. Bring your camera crew. do a financial freedom challenge with me and watch me make £10,000 from scratch and you you can choose the charity that £10,000 goes to. I challenge you if you're really seeking the truth. And for anyone watching this video, what I'll say is when you hear the media and the news or people make up your own mind. Even the BBC, they didn't do any of my paid for training. They came with an agenda. They spoke to two people. That's all I can say, guys. I didn't want to have to do this video. I know it's been a little bit morbid. However, I appreciate your support. More videos coming soon. Thank you for watching. I'll see you next time. So, that's the sad story of the BBC. It's been painful, but I'm going to keep speaking truth. And there was a time when I didn't defend myself. I just thought I'll let people see my results, but when you don't put the facts out there, people make stuff up. So, I want to say massive thank you to people that have stood with me through all the nonsense that went on in the BBC and different media channels. Thank you to the people cuz I see people commenting all over with false allegations and then I see some of some some truth speakers jumping on and responding and putting people right. So, thank you for that. I would do it if there was 10 of me. I'd just spend my whole time responding to people, you know, putting the truth out there. So, thank you for those guys that have done that and have just seen things clearly, made up your own mind. I'm going to keep doing videos. I'm going to keep inspiring, keep educating, and um your success is my oxygen. I'll see you real soon. Thanks for the support.