Scott Dylan: My Response to the Jack Mason Interview with The Business Desk

When the recent article featuring Jack Mason was published, I expected emotion. What I didn’t expect was how easily years of hard work, collaboration, and complexity are simplified. They were reduced to a single narrative of blame.

It’s simple to tell a story in black and white — one person the hero, another the villain. But business, life, and relationships are never that neat. What happened between myself, Jack Mason, and others who worked alongside us wasn’t a tale of deceit or manipulation. It was the reality of building something ambitious under enormous pressure. This was during a volatile economy. We were also navigating conflicting loyalties.

I don’t deny anyone their feelings. Jack’s experiences are his own, and I genuinely wish him healing. An article centered on emotion, while ignoring facts and legal context, leaves the public with half a picture. And half a picture can be more misleading than no picture at all.

Key Takeaways

• The recent Business Desk interview with Jack Mason misrepresented key facts about Scott Dylan’s role and intent.
• Many of the businesses acquired were already failing; the aim was to stabilise, save jobs, and protect creditors.
• Scott Dylan accepts accountability for his own decisions but rejects attempts to rewrite history or shift blame.
• The contempt case concerned civil proceedings, not criminal behaviour, and is being used unfairly to distort events.
• Dylan continues to focus on rebuilding ethically through NexaTech Ventures and campaigning for civil justice and prison reform.

The Missing Context

The reporting omitted the truth in many cases. Many of the businesses we acquired were already in serious trouble before we became involved. They were collapsing under debt, struggling with unpaid suppliers, and weighed down by years of poor management.

Our goal was to prevent liquidation — to save jobs, protect creditors, and keep these companies operating. Sometimes we succeeded. Other times, we didn’t. Some of those successes went on to sell for upwards of a million pounds. The intent was always to rebuild, never to strip assets or walk away leaving damage behind.

I’ve faced scrutiny, legal challenges, and consequences that forced me to reflect deeply. Still, intent matters. It wasn’t about harm; it was about rescue. It was about stabilising and finding a way forward when others had already given up.

As I said on LinkedIn: I’m proud of what we achieved, despite the noise. Hundreds of jobs were saved. Dozens of companies avoided closure. To paint everything as one grand deception is simply false.

The Reality Behind the Headlines

What frustrates me isn’t criticism — it’s repetition. The same headlines get recycled, the same quotes resurface, and the same insinuations are shared without anyone checking the actual records.

Some of the claims have been tested in court; others are ongoing. Yet nuance doesn’t sell. “Scott Dylan in legal dispute” grabs more clicks than “complex corporate litigation with competing claims.”

When I served a sentence earlier this year for civil contempt of court in the High Court, it wasn’t for fraud or dishonesty. It was a civil breach during disputes with Barclays. Most coverage failed to explain that distinction. Anyone who reads the judgments — not just the headlines — sees the complexity.

I’ve said publicly that some judgments were fair, and some weren’t. I accept the parts I must, and I live with the consequences. What matters now is how I move forward, not how others choose to misinterpret my past.

On Jack Mason Personally

I don’t wish Jack harm. We built something that worked for a time. We shared vision, ideas, and ambition. But like many partnerships, ours fractured under pressure. That’s not unique — it happens when ambition outruns communication and trust begins to fade.

If Jack found that period painful, I’m sorry. I never set out to cause harm. Still, I can’t allow one person’s emotional narrative to erase the truth or diminish the people who fought to keep those businesses alive.

Jack now seems intent on rewriting history. Perhaps it’s for redemption, or perhaps to avoid being cast as the bad guy. Whatever the reason, he should look in the mirror. He wasn’t groomed, bullied, or controlled. Every major decision was made under his leadership as CEO.

During the contempt trial, Jack had his own independent solicitors and barristers. At no point did he raise the allegations he now makes publicly. Not once — because they aren’t true.

When the sentence was handed down, he left for Barcelona early and avoided facing his punishment. That was his choice. I don’t hold it against him. But if he regrets it now, he should own it, rather than hiding behind a hit piece disguised as journalism.

This isn’t his first attempt to rebuild his image through the press. It’s a pattern. Jack Mason’s done it before — most notably in an article with Prolific North after issues involving Dreamr. His former business partner accepted a disqualification undertaking on the condition that the investigation against Jack was dropped by the insolvency service.

To suggest that his problems began with me is absurd. His conduct in business raised questions long before our paths crossed. The judge in the contempt case saw through Jack Mason’s manipulation and stated clearly that his version of events wasn’t accurate. I suspect others will reach the same conclusion.

For years, I took bullets for Jack — publicly and privately. I shielded him even when he didn’t deserve it. After this recent article, that chapter is closed.

The Cost of Public Narratives

When your name becomes a headline, it stops being yours. You turn into a concept people either condemn or defend. Online commentary thrives on outrage and reductionism.

For over a year, I’ve been publicly dissected — every court filing, every story, every whisper. Behind that noise is a person who faced consequences, served time, and is trying to rebuild. But redemption doesn’t trend.

I’m not hiding from my past. I’ve accepted it. What I won’t accept is the rewriting of history to serve someone else’s agenda.

Moving On — And Building Something Better

The past year has been brutal but transformative. Prison taught me more about humanity than any boardroom ever could. It showed me how quickly civil prisoners and vulnerable people are forgotten. That experience changed my priorities and perspective.

Now, my focus is on rebuilding with integrity. Through NexaTech Ventures, I’ll continue supporting early-stage AI and technology businesses with transparency and ethical guidance. Due to ongoing restrictions, operations won’t be based in the UK, but the mission remains global.

I’ll also keep pushing for civil justice and prison reform, because I’ve lived through the system and seen where it fails.

I’m not rewriting history or asking for sympathy. I’m setting the record straight. Truth isn’t always comfortable, but it still matters.

Closing Thoughts

Yes, I read the article. No, I don’t agree with it. I believe it was orchestrated by Jack Mason to deflect from his own accountability. Reading it felt like seeing my life rewritten with only fragments of truth.

I can’t change that version of the story. All I can do is continue speaking honestly, correcting falsehoods, and letting time reveal what quick journalism never can.

I hold no bitterness — only perspective. In time, I believe the full picture will emerge: a story of ambition, mistakes, lessons, and the long, necessary road to rebuilding trust.

To those who judge, that’s your right.
To those who believe in fairness and second chances, thank you.
And to those who value truth over spectacle — you’ll always have my respect.

— Scott Dylan

Next Reads

• Education Cuts in UK Prisons Are an Assault on Rehabilitation
• AI and Integrity: Why Ethical Tech Investment Matters