Pinsent Masons LLP Bent Lawyer Gary Coleman Lies To The High Court

This post examines the role which the corrupt and deceitful law firm of Pinsent Masons LLP have played in this case, a role which specifically breaches both the civil and criminal law. Part of the evidence which proves Pinsent Masons LLP’s criminal liability cannot yet be posted to this website, as it has not yet been aired at a public court hearing. This evidence will still be used in my attempt to join Pinsent Masons LLP to the existing claim as a tortfeasor.

If anyone thinks that Pinsent Masons LLP is a fine, upstanding law firm, just because it has offices all over Great Britain and in other countries (including Deutschland), they will need to think again. Evidence of their deceit and corruption has already been posted in the form of Tara Hepworth’s deceit in signing every document of a Directions Questionnaire submission with a Statement of Truth in the appropriate manner, except for the Questionnaire itself, where Hepworth just printed the words “Pinsent Masons LLP” in the signature box as the document contained lies.

Now, a senior employee of Pinsent Masons, known as Gary Terence Wayne Coleman, has submitted a blatantly deceitful witness statement to the High Court of Justice Birmingham District Registry, and appended it with a false statement of truth.

Before examining this false witness statement in detail, I will just publish an extract from the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 3C, which would seem to anyone reading it to be perfectly explicit in the portent it conveys. The relevant section is CPR PD 3C 2.9 (1), which, as you can see from the graphic below, states “A limited civil restraint order – is limited to the particular proceedings in which it is made.”

I will now publish the deceitful witness statement of Gary Coleman, who appears not only to be a bent lawyer, but actually a bent Senior Associate of what is supposed to be a reputable firm of solicitors. I also have evidence of criminal behaviour committed by “Bent Gary”, but, for now, I cannot publish it to the website as it has not been publicly aired. It is almost inevitable that it will be aired at a public court hearing in the first half of 2018, and, at that time, it will be published.

pinsent-mason-llp-bent-lawyer-gary-coleman-lies-to-high-court

Paragraph 2 is obviously a lie, as Coleman is 100% aware that what he has stated in his witness statement is all pure cobblers, especially the lie that a limited CRO bars the issuance of a claim in the High Court (see above).

There are multiple factual errors in paragraphs 4 to 6, but they are not worth examining in any detail as they don’t affect the portent of the lies. What is significant is that Coleman is engaging in character assassination, and then, in paragraph 7, he admits that the the contentions of his previous paragraphs had no bearing upon my ability to issue the claim anyway. He decided that lie was one too many to tell, for reasons known only to himself.

Paragraph 8 is a blatant and obvious contempt of court. As above, a limited civil restraint order is limited to the particular proceedings in which it is made (CPR PD 3C 2.9 (1)). Coleman obviously knows this, but he still wants to bullshit the Court in order to waste its time. The issue of “subject-matter” is of no relevance, as Coleman is perfectly aware.

I did serve a N266 Notice to Admit Facts on the five applicants to try to get them to admit the deceit prior to a hearing at which judicial time would be wasted, but the Pinsent Masons LLP bent lawyers refused to respond to it. Needless to say, both the N266 Notice and the refusal were exhibited to my witness statement and put before the judge.

It is noted that Coleman doesn’t bother to deny that any of the abuses occurred. He just wants the court to get rid of the action on grounds which he knows are completely spurious. Of course, everything I have stated in my particulars of claim is 100% truthful. All I want is justice, all Coleman wants is to scam a court and get tortfeasors he knows are sadistic and evil off the hook for what they have done. Yes, even mass murderers have a right to be represented at their trial, but there is a difference between representation and deceit.

Coleman’s statement in paragraph 12 belies a total misunderstanding of the issues of res judicata, cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, Henderson v Henderson, and abuse of court process, or, at least, a purported misunderstanding. In truth, Coleman obviously knows he is bullshitting the court. There is no room here to go into a detailed analysis of these issues, which would belong in a theoretical post if I had time to address them at all, but the most obvious argument is that torts which complete in April 2016, if indeed they have completed, cannot have been included in proceedings which were issued seven months earlier.

Paragraph 13 is a sick joke. If Coleman believes that bribing police officers to violently assault an innocent victim, submitting false allegations of tax crime against the same victim to the government, and illegally obtaining private telephone numbers from third parties to repeatedly cause a nuisance to the same victim are “staff members carrying out their day-to-day contracted tasks to the best of their ability”, he should exhibit to his statement the contracts which specify that staff should carry out such tasks.

It is to be noted that he does not deny that any of these events took place.

Paragraph 14 is just silly. Anyone reading this site will know that what these scum have done goes way beyond the threshold needed for criminal liability. As for the argument that “our tortfeasors have committed so much wrongdoing that there will be a long trial, therefore decide the case in our favour”, which the applicants’ counsel even had the barefaced gall to advance at the hearing, I don’t think that quite results in cases being decided justly. Anyway, if these sick idiots don’t want to waste their money, why don’t they just settle the case without the need for litigation?

The application for Part 24 judgment is totally without merit, as there is probative evidence which is not available to the Court now which will be available by the time the case goes to trial. All bent lawyers add a Part 24 to a groundless Part 3 just because they can do so without having to pay an extra appo fee. It is time they were kicked in the nuts for it and penalised with an appropriate order.

The costs bollocks is also totally without merit, as there is an authority from the Gibraltar court which proves that denying a litigant access to the court at first instance would contravene Article 6(1) of the ECHR. As ever, Coleman doesn’t believe a single word he is writing, and just wants to con the Court in order to help his equally corrupt mates. When you consider how sick those scum mates are, you realise that a limit on lying and attempting to deceive courts is desperately needed, without a victim litigant needing to risk a Part 81 action, in the interests of the public but paid for out of the litigant’s own pocket.

As for Paragraph 20…..well…..If Coleman honestly believes that a Limited Civil Restraint Order made in county court proceedings bars the issuance of a claim in the High Court (a belief which can be disproved by reading one line of the relevant CPR Practice Direction) then I submit that his clients have an excellent claim for professional negligence.

If you are looking to instruct solicitors, you now know to avoid Pinsent Masons scum. Unless, of course, you actually want a solicitor to lie on court documents for which you will be responsible, giving you the chance of being locked in a prison cell with burglars, pickpockets, murderers, paedophiles and AIDS-infected male rapists. Given his performance in this case, you might even end up sharing a cell with “Bent Gary.”

More on Coleman to come, especially if I can get his sick employers joined to my claim for damages.

Ingeus (UK) Ltd Manager Ross Marshall Lies To The High Court

Ingeus (UK) Ltd manager Ross “Dross” Marshall has two abiding characteristics. Firstly, he is a thug. Secondly, he is a liar. Although he has now departed the Northampton office where he maltreated, bullied and abused me in 2013, he is still causing trouble and attempting to destroy my life. It is his second characteristic, that of being a pathological liar, which will be examined in this post.

I will just briefly recap the history of Marshall’s malice and troublemaking for those who are new to the case. On 18th March 2013, he promised me a referral to one of the best advisers in the Ingeus (UK) Ltd Northampton office, in response to a formal complaint. In April, when the time came for the resolution to be implemented, he reneged on his promise. At the time, I had no idea why I was being victimised, but it has since revealed that a junior staff member, Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer, was telling extreme defamatory lies about me behind my back, and Marshall used these lies as an excuse to maltreat me even though he knew at every stage that they were lies.

Marshall persistently refused to give me access to a suitable adviser and to allow me to benefit from purportedly being on the Work Programme. When the complaints were escalated above his head, he still meddled and interfered to prevent any higher manager from taking action and reversing his unconscionable acts. Once he had completely destroyed any hope I had of being allowed to participate in Year One of the programme, he misrepresented communications to criminal law enforcement officers to cause even further anguish.

Having robbed me of Year One in entirety, Marshall then refused me access to the whole of Year Two, despite the fact that the Regional Director Louise Preston had specifically mandated that I be given such access. Marshall, and another sick thug known as David “Depravid Bully Boy” Bishton refused me access to Year Two, removed my statutory right of access to the complaints procedure, and forced me off the Work Programme altogether, at the same time forcing me to lose my entitlement to state benefits.

Marshall continued to harass and abuse me even after I had been forced off the Work Programme. He forwarded a document containing extreme defamatory lies to a third party investigator in order to pervert the investigation into his employer, he forwarded other forged and falsified documents to cover up for the antics of another manager Mark “gLIEbrt” Gilbert, who is literally the nastiest piece of scum I ever had to deal with, and he also illegally obtained my cell phone number from a third party to make repeated nuisance calls, and sent my file to an irrelevant department so that I would be inundated with unsolicited email.

Now, Marshall is being sued for harassment along with five other defendants. In response, he failed to acknowledge service of the Part 8 claim form and shoved his head up his arse. However, that didn’t stop him getting involved in a malicious and totally groundless application being made by his employer, and purportedly by four other defendants, including himself. The application, apart from being groundless, is also fraudulent and the bent lawyers from Pinsent Masons LLP have made an application on behalf of a litigant without that litigant’s knowledge or consent.

Marshall has submitted a dishonest witness statement, signed with a false Statement of Truth, to the High Court of Justice Birmingham District Registry. As with all other witness statements filed in support of Ingeus (UK) Ltd and its illegal treachery, the statement has been written in “Pinsent Masons-speak” by the bent lawyers, and then Marshall has just signed the false Statement of Truth. Hiding behind a solicitor is, of course, no defence to contempt of court.

Here is Marshall’s false witness statement. I have redacted it in three places, to protect the identity of an employment adviser in the Northampton office, who has committed no wrongdoing. The portent of the entire statement remains unaltered.

ingeus-uk-ltd-ross-marshall-lies-to-high-court

The first five paragraphs are routine bullshit and have been written by Pinsent Masons LLP bent lawyers. Paragraph 6 is obviously a lie, paragraphs 7 and 8 are factual.

Paragraph 9 is deceitful and probably amounts to a contempt of court. I will now relate the truth of what happened on Monday, 18th March 2013. I had submitted a formal complaint (as Marshall correctly states in Paragraph 8) regarding the conduct of an employment adviser known as Matthew “Hedge T.” Rimmer. Rimmer had, completely out of the blue and for no apparent reason, raised his voice and became extremely threatening and abusive.

I met with Marshall on 18th March 2013, the Monday after the incident occurred. Marshall told me he was going to take no action regarding Rimmer for two reasons. Firstly, Rimmer was leaving the employ of the Ingeus (UK) Ltd on 12th April 2013, and, secondly, at around the same time I would be due to move onto the case load of “Mrs Y.”

I accepted the agreed resolution for two reasons. Firstly, there was no point in pushing the Rimmer incident any further, as any escalation to a higher manager would only result in a meeting held after Rimmer had already left the organisation. There is no point in coming across as a serial complainer when the complaining can’t possibly achieve anything anyway. Secondly, I had overheard “Mrs Y” working on many occasions (Ingeus (UK) Ltd has an “open plan” office and just about any conversation can be heard anywhere in the room), and I knew that “Mrs Y” was both a highly competent and skilled adviser, and a mature adviser with a calm temperament to whom I would relate extremely well. I considered that, on balance, I had received an excellent result and was happy to accept it.

Of course, I had no idea at the time that Marshall would renege on his promise and refuse to implement the agreed resolution. As Marshall himself states, this meeting of 18th March 2013 was the first time I had met him. Obviously, if I had to deal with him now, I wouldn’t believe a single word he says about anything, but at that time I had no idea what a dishonest, malevolent, vicious piece of scum he was.

Marshall has, for once, been honest in stating that I did not ask to be referred to “Mrs Y.” Only a gibbering idiot asks a manager for something that a manager has just promised to provide. If a manager in an office of that type tells you that he is going to do something, you believe that he will actually do what he promises to do.

The deceit and contempt arises from the fact that Marshall states that I “assert” that “I asked to be referred to a different adviser.” I did not and do not. Marshall is perfectly aware that I have only ever asserted the truth, that I was explicitly promised a referral to “Mrs Y”, and had no need to “ask” for it.

The deceit is continued into Paragraph 10. This issue has nothing to do with “personal requests” (none were ever made), it has to do with deliberate victimisation of a “client” by promising that “client” a referral to a suitable adviser in response to a formal complaint and then deliberately reneging on that promise in order to victimise, distress and disadvantage that “client.”

Paragraph 11 is also deceitful. The period after which Ingeus (UK) Ltd moves “clients” to a different adviser is less than six months, but that is a technicality. What is significant is that I was promised a resolution in response to a formal complaint, and then Marshall vindictively refused to implement the resolution. Unless all other “clients” are promised resolutions which are then reneged upon, I was obviously treated wholly differently from all other “clients.”

The truth is that I was victimised and abused by Marshall as a result of the slander of the 1st defendant, Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer, even though Marshall was aware at every stage that Dyer was lying. At the time, I was totally unaware that Dyer was slandering me behind my back, and was frightened and confused by Marshall’s behaviour.

Paragraphs 12 and 13 have a significant element of dishonesty. The “policy and procedures” of Ingeus (UK) Ltd extend to the stage at which a complaint is referred to the Regional Director. This complaint had been so referred following the incident of 5th July 2013. Consequently, Marshall and gLIEbrt had no authority to be dealing with the matter at all.

It is, of course, a complete lie that the “meeting” was scheduled to “attempt to find a solution.” Had anyone in the Ingeus (UK) Ltd organisation actually wanted to resolve the complaint, they could easily have done so. There was still three months of my scheduled year one time left, so they could easily have referred me to “Mrs Y” and closed the complaint. They could also have informed me of the libels which the 1st defendant, Dyer, had just committed to paper, and asked me if there was any truth in any of the allegations.

Of course, gLIEbrt and Dross Marshall were already aware that the libels were entirely false. One of Dyer’s lies was that I had stared at her through the glass doors, and managers who either work in, or regularly visit, an office obviously know whether or not there are any glass doors in that office. There are no glass doors anywhere within the office at Charles House, 61 Derngate, Northampton, NN1 1UE.

Furthermore, Dross Marshall was the manager of the Northampton office during the entire time that the events Dyer alleges were supposed to have taken place. During March, April and May 2013, Marshall sat at the very next desk to where Dyer was sitting, and the very next desk to the bank of computers at which the “clients” or attendees sit. Had I done anything, even one thing, which was remotely untoward or suspicious, Marshall would have noticed it, stepped in, and at the very least a report of the incident would have been created. The total absence of any such reports is concrete proof not only that Dyer’s lies are 100% pure fabrication and deceit, but also that Marshall was 100% aware of Dyer’s deceit at every stage.

The reason that Marshall and gLIEbrt arranged the “meeting” was so that two “big, tough, hard men” could torment, harass and abuse me in a way which the Regional Director “Loopy” Louise Preston would not be able to do. In hindsight, I was foolish to attend, but at the time I had not seen Dyer’s libels and had no idea what was happening. I knew there was something wrong, but I had no idea what. I certainly had no idea that a person who had been friendly and supportive towards me up until 24th May 2013 had invented these malicious lies behind my back.

Of course, gLIEbrt has refused to acknowledge service or to submit any form of evidence in this application. The application which Pinsent Masons LLP have made purportedly “on his behalf” is fraudulent. It is also to be noted that Marshall refused to acknowledge service, and also that he completely avoids the issue of Dyer and the libels apart from one short paragraph where he admits to forwarding the document to a third party. He completely avoids the issue of his use of the libels as an excuse for threatening behaviour and harassment, and defends the case against himself by simply pretending that it doesn’t exist.

It is true that gLIEbrt did most of the shouting, threatening and humiliating. He was the senior manager and in control of everything which was taking place. He personally arranged for administrative staff to falsify statements in support of the libels so he could hold them up in front of my face and threaten and torment me. The Department for Work and Pensions later disclosed one defamatory and grossly offensive document which gLIEbrt had pretended had been authored by an employment adviser. The document had been redacted, but so poorly that the author’s email address was still showing. It was that of Sue Reeve, an administrator. The entire pantomime had been set up for the sole purpose of inflicting alarm and distress on an individual whom Marshall and gLIEbrt knew was wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. It is one thing to accuse someone of doing something they have not done, it is quite another to engage in threatening and humiliating behaviour without even having the decency to tell the recipient of the behaviour what they are supposed to have done. This obviously crosses the line from ‘regrettable’ to ‘oppressive and unacceptable’.

Marshall did his fair share of gloating and threatening also, but he did take very brief notes. The purpose was so that he could falsify the account of the meeting and pervert the third party investigation which he and Gilbert knew would soon follow.

At no time was there any attempt to discuss, or even to allow me to discuss, a potential positive or constructive resolution. There were two elements of complaint. Firstly, that I was not receiving any form of adequate support on the Work Programme. The answer to that was to refer me to the adviser with whom I should have been working, “Mrs Y.” Secondly, that I was being subjected to bullying and threatening behaviour from members of staff without even having a clue as to what was going on. The answer to that was to show me the libels Dyer had authored and to ask me for my version of events. A five year old child could have resolved the first element of complaint within a minute, and the second could have been partially resolved as well. Once I knew of Dyer’s lies, I could just simply avoid Dyer and issue my own statement telling the truth. If these two steps had been taken, it is unlikely the matter would have progressed any further, even though the course of conduct of harassment perpetrated by employees of the Ingeus (UK) Ltd had already gone past the point of civil or criminal liability.

Instead of trying to resolve the complaint, the management decided to be as vindictive and sadistic as they could possibly be, in an attempt to control the situation by suppression and force. They couldn’t care less about the complaint being escalated, because they knew that their “business partner” would just whitewash the abuses, and also that any report of the incident would be issued in several months’ time when it would all be too late anyway.

They deliberately and maliciously referred me back to the one adviser in the building with whom I had severe bad history, and then falsified the account of the meeting to suggest that I had “agreed” to this. Obviously, I would not, and did not, author multiple written complaints about an individual, then go into a voice meeting and agree to being “sent back” to them, and then come out of the meeting and start submitting written complaints again. The evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Marshall is lying, although I do state once again that it was extremely unwise to go into such a meeting without a third party present, and probably unwise to engage in any form of dialogue which didn’t leave a valid audit trail.

The reason I did so was because I felt it would go against me in the investigation if I did not cooperate with the apparent attempt to resolve the issue. The investigator is supposed to have a mediation stage, at which I could once again make the reasonable request to be referred to a suitable adviser. In the end, the investigator refused to action the mediation stage and I was left in a hopeless situation.

Paragraphs 16 and 17 are deliberate deceit for the reasons given above.

Paragraphs 18 and 19 are completely false. By the time of October 2013, I had lost all hope and was in a state of perpetual anguish where I had no idea what to do next. The management had refused to engage at every stage of the complaints process and I now had no hope of ever gaining any benefit from being on the Work Programme unless I could do something dramatic and force a change. My only hope was to reach the Regional Director, “Loopy” Louise Preston, and demonstrate to her how grossly unfairly I had been treated. I also somehow had to reach the junior members of staff in the office who could have at least offered me some degree of support had they realised how desperately I needed it.

So, I composed three creative emails, two of which were sent to both the senior management and every junior member of staff in the office whose address I could work out. The third was never sent as the first two received entirely the opposite reaction from that I had hoped for.

The target of the emails was Preston, the only individual with the power to overrule the heartless and sadistic actions of the managers beneath her. Reaching her, and persuading her that the persecution had gone far enough, was the only hope I had of recovering even a consolatory crumb from the abject, pitiful wreckage of a Work Programme which had promised much and delivered less than nothing.

Instead, Marshall, who was the cause of all the trouble in the first place, decided to twist the knife in still further and rub salt into the gaping wound his treachery and malice had caused. He misrepresented the communications to law enforcement officers in a deliberate attempt to cause still further pain to the victim he already knew was suffering acute mental anguish as a result of his previous unconscionable turpitude.

The emails cannot possibly be described as “threatening”, as there are no threats contained within them. They cannot possibly be described as “aggressive”, for the same reason. Whether they are “vulgar” is probably a matter of interpretation, although they pale into insignificance in that regard when compared with much of the revolting dross of the mass media. In any case, even if they were vulgar, that is no excuse for deceit intended to harm.

It is also to be noted that the words Marshall uses to describe the emails are the exact same words always used by “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood. This is not a witness statement in Marshall’s own words. It has been dictated to him by the Chief Executive’s office and its bent lawyers, and that specific paragraph is “Flood-speak.”

The emails are what they are. Cries for help from someone in acute distress and very serious trouble. Even with the hindsight of nearly five years, I still can’t perceive of anything I could have done differently to make the blind, deaf and dumb see, hear or speak. There comes a point where the drowning man can do nothing more than drink water and die.

Paragraph 20 is almost certainly deceit, as it is not probable that members of staff, some of whom actually have a conscience and who know when a soul is suffering, would wrongly describe these cries for help using the same pejorative terms as Dross Marshall. He is just bolstering his deceit with hearsay he knows cannot be proved or disproved.

He is also telling the same lies that Flood told on a previous county court witness statement, As Flood wasn’t in the organisation’s Northampton office in 2013, he couldn’t possibly have witnessed anything. Now, he feeds his lies to Marshall parrot fashion, and Marshall signs the false Statement of Truth.

A “reasonable action for him to take as a manager to protect his staff” would have been to apologise for his detestable behaviour which had led to this occurring, refer me to a suitable adviser and stop the persecution.

In Paragraph 21 Marshall admits to forwarding the libels authored by Dyer to a third party. Had this action been intended to facilitate a complaints process Marshall would also have taken the step of obtaining my version of events so that the issue could be dealt with properly. Instead, he just forwarded the libels on the basis that they were factual, an action which was guaranteed to do exactly what he intended, which was to pervert the investigation and to whitewash his own unlawful abuses and the abuses of his employer.

If forwarding defamatory content containing false allegations of criminal activity to governmental bodies is considered to contribute to, or even establish, a tort of harassment in Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17, then it must also so do in the present case.

Paragraph 23 is overtly deceitful. While it may be true that “Depravid Bully Boy” Bishton was in authority over Marshall in November 2013, and that it was he, Bishton, who bears ultimate responsibility for refusing me access to year two, the truth is that Marshall and Bishton connived and committed the act together.

This Paragraph entirely misrepresents the incident, because it simply misses out four months of time. What happened in March 2014 has no relevance to the fact that Marshall and Bishton refused me access to the second year of the Work Programme in November 2013, despite the fact that the Regional Director Preston had explicitly mandated that I be given such access in July 2013.

It was on 8th November 2013 that I was summoned to another so-called “meeting”, this time held in the public office in front of staff members and all other attendees. Marshall informed me that I was not going to be permitted to take part in year two of the Work Programme. When I asked for his reasons, Marshall mockingly said “he’s busy.” The “he” presumably refers to a Mr , who was at the time administering a large proportion of year two of the Work Programme.

There are two points to make. Firstly, it is not my responsibility to lose out on a year of a government service which I am entitled to receive just because Ingeus (UK) Ltd cannot staff its office adequately. Secondly, and more importantly, the issue of “he’s busy” isn’t even relevant. When a previous employee known as left the office in early August 2013, another individual, the individual I have to refer to as “Miss X” because no one even has the decency to tell me their name, joined the organisation. That individual, “Miss X”, was administering year two of the Work Programme, and is the individual to whom I should have been referred if, indeed, Mr was busy.

Instead, Marshall simply refused me access to year two of the programme. He could see the acute distress his actions were causing, but that just gave him even more pleasure and satisfaction. Having refused me access to the programme, he then threatened to report me to the Department for Work and Pensions for refusing to participate in it. As this could result in the loss of my income, and subsequently homelessness and acute privation, this threat obviously crosses the line from ‘regrettable’ to ‘oppressive and unacceptable’.

Paragraph 24 is false. I was never moved to ‘in-work support’ as my case had been moved to a third party known as Avanta following the starting of my business. I was forced to start a business before I would have chosen to as a result of being forced off the Work Programme, although I was looking at the possibility of starting a business.

I was not referred to a local adviser and there was no programme which lasted for six months. As above, my case file had been transferred to Avanta. Only in the case where a “client” does not subsequently start a business is the file moved back to Ingeus (UK) Ltd.

Dross Marshall deliberately and maliciously obtained my cell phone number from Avanta and illegally used the excuse of the ‘in-work support’ (which only applies to people in salaried employment and not to those who have been transferred to other providers because they have started businesses) to begin making nuisance calls. Whether any of these nuisance calls would have been malicious in nature is not known as I blocked the incoming number.

At the same time, I started receiving idiotic and totally irrelevant spam emails. I sent the statutory notice under the Data Protection Act 1998 for the unsolicited emails to cease, but Ingeus (UK) Ltd ignored the notice.

As above, I consider these actions to amount to harassment as they are illegal. Anything which is illegal must be unacceptable and continuing to do something illegal after you have been asked to cease is oppressive. In any case, they are merely a continuation of the far more serious course of conduct of harassment related above, which is obviously and blatantly oppressive and unacceptable.

Until I read Marshall’s false witness statement, I had no idea that he was personally involved in this specific turpitude. However, he appears to be assuming personal responsibility for it.

As these actions were carried out as part of his employment duties, the employer would also be vicariously liable.

Paragraph 27 is false. It is no part of the duties of a manager of Ingeus (UK) Ltd, nor its policy, to illegally obtain cell phone numbers, send unsolicited email, move someone’s case file onto a totally inappropriate and irrelevant programme after it has already been transferred to another provider, or to continue to send out spam when a public authority informs that it is illegal.

It is all typical Dross Marshall bullshit, and these scum will continue to tell any lie until they either drop dead (ohhh, if only!) or are prevented from doing so by a court. In the case of Marshall, a Part 81 application is probably not going to work, as the court would probably consider that there is not enough public interest or engagement of the overriding objective. This is in direct contrast to Dyer, Flood, and the corrupt police officer with whom they connived in February 2016. Part 81 satellite litigation remains highly likely, although exactly what form it takes remains to be seen.

As for Ingeus (UK) Ltd, they have now wasted over £100,000 in unrecoverable legal costs just to protect thugs like Dross Marshall and Mark gLIEbrt. It is scarcely surprising, then, that Marshall is prepared to lie to protect them in return. Marshall is also still an Ignoramus employee, so it is more than likely that Jack “Bent Lawyer” Sawyer and Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood have threatened him with loss of his job if he does not lie. Marshall obviously would not even have 1% of the moral fortitude needed to resist such treachery, as he is a sick, sadistic piece of scum who enjoys bullying and abusing people anyway.

Wouldn’t it have been simpler and cheaper just to have provided me with the Work Programme?

Ingeus (UK) Ltd Employment Adviser Kate Dyer Lies To The High Court

Anyone who has been following the posts made to this site will be aware of the deceit, malice and treachery of an Ingeus (UK) Ltd employment adviser known as Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer. Going back to very first post made on the site, which published a document full of lies and libels which was authored as long ago as 7th August 2013, Dyer has persistently used deceit to incite thugs to bully and abuse innocent people, and, has also used deceit to pervert investigations into the behaviour of her employer.

Dyer’s initial deceit was entirely self-motivated. No-one other than Dyer told lies behind my back, while being outwardly normal and friendly to my face. Even the office manager, Ross “Dross” Marshall, who is a sick, odious thug who gets his kicks from seeing innocent people suffer, did not cause any trouble until March and April 2013. Marshall promised me a referral to one of the best advisers in the building, an adviser I can only refer to as “Mrs Y” as I am not naming people who have not set out to cause me harm, on 18th March 2013.

In April, Marshall reneged on his promise, and my Work Programme fell apart from that point on. At the time, I did not understand why Marshall was victimising me, and, indeed, the case went all the way through the Ingeus (UK) Ltd sham complaints procedure and two third party investigations before I was shown the lies which Dyer had invented. That is no excuse for Marshall, as he was obviously fully aware that Dyer was lying right from the start. He abused and maltreated me for fun, not because he believed he had the slightest justification in doing so.

Dyer’s lying and conniving went up a notch with the 7th August 2013 libels. Now, Dyer committed malicious falsehoods to paper for the first time, with the dual intention of alarming and distressing the victim, and of perverting the third party investigations into her employer. These libels have been published on this website in the very first post, and analysed in detail. There is no point in analysing them again here.

At the time of 7th August 2013, it is not entirely clear whether Dyer was acting solely on her own malice, or whether the thug managers Ross “Dross” Marshall and Mark “gLIEbrt” Gilbert had procured her deceit in the way that gLIEbrt procured false witness statements from administrators in the Northampton office. He did this so that he could hold them up in front of my face, taunt me, and pretend that the statements were written by employment advisers.

It is clear by that date that Marshall and Gilbert intended me serious harm, as Gilbert had already hijacked a meeting at which the weak and spineless Regional Director “Loopy” Louise Preston was supposed to be addressing my complaint. He deliberately and maliciously prevented me from being referred to “Mrs Y”, the referral which Dross Marshall had promised on 18th March. Even now that most of the evidence has finally been revealed, it is still not known to what degree Dyer was coerced and to what degree Dyer acted out of spite.

By 19th February 2016, when Dyer submitted a false malicious report to a corrupt officer of Northamptonshire Police, it is clear that Dyer is being coerced to an extreme degree. The lies contained in that false statement, which has been published in full and analysed in this post, are Flood lies, and not Dyer lies.

The corrupt and sick Chief Executive Officer of Ingeus (UK) Ltd, Jack “Bent Lawyer” Sawyer, and his bent lawyer Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood, had conspired with a corrupt police officer, now named as PC 1248 Anstead of Northamptonshire Police, to set up a fake “investigation” based on an obvious lie that I was “harassing” Dyer, and also based on an equally obvious lie that the truthful statements amount on this site amount to criminal harassment.

The role of Dyer is still not crystal clear, though, as it has been revealed that the corrupt police officer, Anstead, had a pre-existing relationship with Dyer. It seems likely that Dyer introduced the bent copper to Sawyer and Flood, and played a far more significant role in setting up the scam than was at first apparent. I must be careful, though, not to jump to erroneous conclusions. Research is continuing, and I will only be able to publish more facts when firstly, I know them, and, secondly, I am legally able to publish them.

Dyer is still under Sawyer’s corrupt thumb, to the extent that she has now filed an hysterical false witness statement, signed with a false Statement of Truth, in the High Court. Sawyer and Ingeus (UK) Ltd made a malicious and totally groundless interlocutory application to the High Court in September 2017, and the witness statements submitted to the Court all had one characteristic – each author attempted to cover up their own tortious acts, and their own tortious acts only. Dyer was left without anyone to cover up for her malice and deceit.

Belatedly, over a month later, Sawyer and his cronies decided that the application would have little chance of success (at least without a bent judge) without some form of denial of Dyer’s criminal and tortious acts. So, they coerced Dyer into lying to the High Court. The witness statement was written by bent lawyers in “Pinsent Masons robot-speak”, and Dyer was ordered to sign the false Statement of Truth.

It is more than likely that Dyer was threatened with loss of her job if she did not lie to the Court. That is one of the difficulties with lying about attendees as Dyer did on 7th August 2013 – if Ingeus (UK) Ltd sacked her for gross misconduct, she would have no possible claim for unfair dismissal. It is also likely that she was paid in money or drugs as a reward for lying, just as she almost certainly would have been after lying to the police in February 2016.

Here is the false statement –

ingeus-uk-ltd-kate-dyer-lies-to-high-court

The first three paragraphs are routine bullshit. Paragraph 4 is obviously a total lie, but it is so general in nature as to be meaningless. It is also “Pinsent Masons-speak”, as all witnesses who are coached by this corrupt and dishonest law firm use exactly the same phraseology and write in the same robotic way. Obviously, no-one has yet trained their lawyers to read the CPR.

Paragraph 5 is obviously false. Dyer is perfectly aware that there is copious evidence of her slander. Matthew Rimmer would not have acted aggressively and very nearly violently towards me had he not been lied to by Dyer and told that I was some form of pervert who was making her feel uncomfortable. The individual I only know as “Gerome” would not have dragged me into a room and verbally abused me had Dyer not told him the same lies.

Marshall and Gilbert would not have victimised me had they not been lied to, although they were aware of my visual impairment and were aware at every stage that Dyer was lying. They bullied and abused for “fun”, not because they believed they had any justification. This is proven by the fact that they continued their bullying and abuse after Dyer had published the libels dated 7th August 2013 to them. Managers know whether or not there are any glass doors within their own office, so even if they had not known before that date that Dyer was lying (which they did), they would have known at that point. It didn’t stop them.

Paragraph 6 is evasive because it fails to state that the “letter” is made up of 100% pure lies. If Dyer wanted nothing to do with me the obvious thing to do would have been to tell me, or get one of her friends in the office to tell me. That would have been the end of the matter. The reality is that Dyer was having too much fun telling lies about the visually impaired “weirdo” and watching her thug friends threaten and abuse me that she no desire whatsoever for it to stop.

Paragraphs 7 and 8 continue the deceit, and Paragraph 8 is a blatant and obvious contempt of court. Anyone who can continue to advance the lie that a visually impaired person stared at them through glass doors when there are no glass doors anywhere in the building, among other obvious lies, by appending the lies to a witness statement and then affirming the lies with a Statement of Truth, has gone beyond the point where they need to be restrained by a Court. Part 81 proceedings are now appropriate, and a Part 81 letter has been sent to Dyer, to which Dyer refuses to offer any response.

Paragraph 9 continues the deceit and the contempt. The lies told by Dyer to the police have been published here. They are so extreme, gratuitous and outrageous that even a five year old child would know they were lies. The police, of course, knew they were lies, but had been bribed by Sawyer and Ingeus (UK) Ltd to assault and imprison me only a short time before an interlocutory hearing was due to be held in the county court.

The police are now defendants in this claim, and in the sister claim D90BM054 which will proceed to trial in February to June of 2018. Dyer shows no remorse for having deliberately wasted the time and resources of another public authority in pursuance of her sick and depraved persecution.

For the purposes of a future Part 81 application, the most significant fact of all is that the lies which Miss Dyer told to the police do not match the lies told on 7th August 2013. Yet, Dyer has described both sets of lies as factual accounts on the witness statement.

It may be possible for someone to give two different accounts on two occasions and actually believe both accounts at the time they were given. Not everyone has a perfect memory. However, when you have given two different accounts (which on this occasion both happen to be completely and deliberately false), and you have been told that the two accounts don’t match, then it is provable to the criminal standard that you have deliberately lied when you declare that both accounts are accurate and factual.

The rest of the statement is in “Pinsent Masons-speak” and the Statement of Truth is obviously false.

What happens now with Dyer remains to be seen. There is a possibility, I would say even a probability, that Part 81 proceedings will be brought at some stage. One of the difficulties is getting the timing right, because although Flood and Dyer have told more than enough lies to warrant a Part 81 action now, there is a third contemnor hiding in the background. I have evidence which has arisen in another claim, which is highly probative in this claim, and any Part 81 action arising from it. I am not able to publish this evidence as it has not yet been publicly heard, but it is there. The only fact which is certain is that, given the extent of the deceit and its potential for harm, some action must be taken at some stage.

Ingeus (UK) Ltd “Counsel” Matthew Flood Lies To The High Court

As everyone who has been following the developments on this site already knows, Ingeus (UK) Ltd’s so called “counsel” Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood is an habitual liar and deceiver. He is also a sick, malevolent thug who cares about nothing except inflicting harm and suffering on innocent people.

During 2015, his first year as an Ignoramus employee, he managed to lie belligerently and extensively to myself, mostly fairy stories covering up for the criminal and tortious acts of employees in the Northampton office, who had subjected me to sickening maltreatment and abuse in 2013. He also managed to lie extensively on court documents signed with Statements of Truth, including both a defence and an interlocutory application notice.

In the first three months of 2016, he added to this criminality and deceit by lying to the governmental tax authorities, and also to a corrupt officer of Northamptonshire Police. This officer has now been revealed to have had a pre-existing relationship with Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer, a drug-crazed Ingeus (UK) Ltd junior staff member who, like Flood, has an incredible penchant for deceit, and who, also like Flood, has taken that penchant to the extent of lying to courts and criminal law enforcement officers.

These lies have all been published and proven on previous posts published on this website, and a quick click through the post navigation on the side of the site will allow you to find these posts, and, if you haven’t already done so, acquaint yourself with the previous deceit and contempt of Flood and Dyer.

Now, in 2017, Flood has told more lies, this time to the High Court. He has authored a false witness statement, and signed it with a false Statement of Truth, with the intent of perverting an interlocutory hearing applied for by his employer under totally false pretences.

The statement containing the lies is published in full below, although I have redacted one word. That is the name of an employment adviser who works in the Northampton office. This adviser has committed no wrongdoing, indeed they are one of the best advisers in the office, and the adviser to whom another pathological liar Ross “Dross” Marshall promised me a referral on 18th March 2013. I have therefore resolved to keep their name off this site if it is possible to do so.

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-lies-to-high-court

Paragraph 1 is obviously a lie, as it states that the contents of the statement are “true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, even though Flood knows that it is riddled with lies and intended to deceive the court, as well as being so grossly offensive and demeaning that it continues the harassment for which Flood is being sued in the first place.

Paragraph 2 is also pure bullshit, as the claim form and affidavit obviously disclose multiple reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

Paragraph 5 is a lie. Although Flood was in the public seating on 13th December 2016, I did not meet him, and would have done anything humanly possible to avoid meeting him.

Flood’s character and demeanour can be determined from Paragraph 13, in which he attempts to twist the perfectly normal action of waiting for a Court to return sealed papers before serving them into some purportedly nefarious means of evading a Court order. Given that Rix LJ in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123 did not bar a defence filed (obviously) after a claim form from contributing to a tort of harassment (para. 53), I humbly submit that this unwarranted and nonsensical slur also so contributes.

In Paragraph 14 Flood repeats a lie told by a bent Pinsent Masons LLP lawyer, Gary Terence Wayne Coleman, that a claim issue can be barred by a Limited Civil Restraint Order. This type of deceit can only achieve one objective – to waste the time of a Court whose time is needed by litigants advancing a genuine case in which they believe. Coleman’s own witness statement full of lies will be published in a forthcoming post.

Flood also purports to be a “professional” lawyer, and therefore ought to be capable of reading a CPR Practice Direction.

Paragraph 14 also contains “Pinsent Masons-speak.” All of the witnesses filing statements on behalf of Ingeus (UK) Ltd and their corrupt lawyers are coached, use exactly the same phraseology, and write like Pinsent Masons robots. I have witnessed the same phenomenon in a previous case. It is directly in contravention of CPR 32 PD 18.1, unless the witnesses aver that it is not practicable for them to express themselves in their own words.

Paragraph 15 is deliberately deceitful. It is not remotely arguable that a course of conduct of harassment which completed in 2016 was “investigated” in 2013. In any case, a purported “investigation” by Ingeus (UK) Ltd’s corrupt business partners has no bearing upon this claim. Furthermore, the submission of defamatory content and falsified evidence to pervert the purported “investigation” forms part of the course of conduct of harassment carried out by Ingeus (UK) Ltd and its employees.

There has been no trial of the issue of whether the course of conduct of harassment committed by Ingeus (UK) Ltd and its employees gives rise to a cause of action, nor of whether any of the component parts are capable of contributing to a course of conduct of harassment. Even if there had been such a determination, it would not preclude the possibility of a cause of action being formed by further acts of harassment.

It is arguable whether or not Flood’s letter of 17th July 2015 could contribute to a course of conduct of harassment. It is certainly obnoxious and deceitful, but there is nothing overtly threatening or demeaning. However, it has to be seen in the context of the greater course of conduct, in which the statement that the so-called “services” “provided” to me were “appropriate” is made. Such a statement is grossly offensive, inflammatory, and is obviously capable of causing alarm and distress.

The letter dated 27th July 2017 is a different matter. It deliberately and explicitly makes false allegations that I have committed both a civil tort (defamation) and a civil tort which is also a criminal offence (harassment). It also makes an illegal threat to report a civil matter to criminal law enforcement officers. This letter is far more abusive, demeaning and threatening than any of the three letters in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123, and each of those letters was determined by Rix LJ to be capable of contributing to a course of conduct of harassment (para. 42). It must therefore follow that this letter so contributes.

Paragraphs 20 to 22 are blatantly deceitful and amount to a contempt of court. I have made a detailed analysis of the lies, defamation and character assassination contained in the false statement which Flood submitted to a corrupt police officer involved in the turpitude and the criminality in this previous post.

Paragraph 23 is untrue. Sawyer may not have personally paid the bribes to Anstead and the other bent filth, but as Chief Executive it is not possible that he was not involved in the criminality or the deceit. He will have personally ordered Flood to lie to the police, he will personally have provided the funds which were paid to the officers involved in the misfeasance, and he will have authorised or ordered Flood to coerce Dyer into lying to the police, either through bribery, threat, or both.

In any case, Sawyer is not the defendant, Ingeus (UK) Ltd is. It matters not whether Sawyer was personally involved in the wrongdoing, but it would be a strange Chief Executive indeed who did not demand to kept informed when an illegal persecution of this magnitude was taking place.

Paragraph 24 is nonsensical. An analysis of an astrological birth chart is not an excuse for any form of criminal or tortious activity. Neither is “someone told me to do it, guv, honest” a mitigation. If you purport to be of sound mind, you are responsible for the acts you commit, including those which are criminal and/or tortious. All the involvement of another agitator in the attack would do is reinforce the liability of Ingeus (UK) Ltd.

This is one of Flood’s typical behaviours. Every time he commits an illegal act, he always blames someone else and tells the lie that they told him to do it. He did exactly the same thing with his lies to the tax authorities. It is a shame no-one tells him to shove his head in the gas oven after sealing the room and turning on the gas. Of course, it doesn’t even matter if some other piece of scum in the Ingeus (UK) Ltd office did tell him to commit these acts. He is still supposed to be a grown adult with enough discernment to know when not to act like a moron.

In any case, what the hell do “threats made to female probation officers on staff” (whatever that means) have to do with a case where there are no female probation officers, no probation officers of any kind, and no threats, other than those made by Flood’s own detestable self?

It is hardly surprising that Flood and his scumbag employers are in “agreement” with Ross “Dross” Marshall’s statement. Firstly, Ross “Dross” Marshall is exactly the type of sick, depraved, malevolent thug which Ingeus (UK) Ltd management is seeking to promote to responsible roles. It is even possible that Marshall was promoted out of the Northampton office as a “thank you” for bullying, abusing and maltreating me, and forcing me off the Work Programme. Secondly, Marshall’s “statement” is written in Pinsent Masons-speak, and was written by the same bent lawyers who dictated this drivel to Flood. Marshall’s lies and contempts of court will be published in a forthcoming post.

The most blatant and obvious lie of all is contained in paragraph 26. This lie amounts to a contempt of court. Flood has stated “At paragraph 61 of his Affidavit dated 18 April 2017, the claimant confirmed that he “was forced to invent a fake “business” in order to sign off the work programme provided by the Fifth Defendant.” In reality, the text of Paragraph 61 of my affidavit dated 18th April 2017 reads “The first paragraph is a blatant lie. Flood was aware, and has always been aware, that none of the statements on the www.ignoramus-abuse.org website have ever been “untrue”, “defamatory” or “intimidating.”

There is nothing in Paragraph 61 which even references businesses, fake or otherwise, or signing off from the Work Programme. The paragraph is in a section which is referring to entirely different matters, those being the threatening and harassing nature of Flood’s communication dated 27th July 2015.

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-proof-of-deceit

Flood’s malicious false report to the government that I had defrauded the tax authorities came in February 2016, at exactly the same time as he lied to the police, and only four months after he committed outrageous contempt of court on a county court defence. He then committed further and even more outrageous contempt by repeating the lie that I had defrauded the tax office on an interlocutory application in the county court.

It is not remotely arguable or possible that Flood had any genuine belief that I had defrauded the Revenue Service. His false report was a malicious attack on an innocent opposing litigant whom he wanted to completely destroy, even to the extent of inflicting a totally unjust criminal record on that litigant.

In Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17, the only extant authority I have been able to find arising from the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 and similar causes of action, both the Court of Appeal and the Lords found in favour of the claimant even though they believed that the defendant was “genuine but misguided.” It must therefore follow that a case where the harasser is actuated solely by malice and a desire to harm establishes the tort to an even greater extent.

Furthermore, in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123, Rix LJ determined that court papers were capable of contributing to a course of conduct of harassment (para. 53). Therefore, Flood’s repetition of the deceit on a court document signed with a Statement of Truth further establishes the continuation of his course of conduct of harassment.

The incidents involving Rimmer, “Gerome” and Donlevy are dealt with in detail elsewhere on this site. I cannot repeat the contentions here as this post is already extremely long. As for the complaints, it is true that Ross “Dross” Marshall dealt with the complaint in March 2013 to my satisfaction. However, he deceived me and later reneged on his promise to implement the agreed resolution. Had he kept his promise to refer me to “Mrs Y” and provide me with the second stage of year one of the Work Programme, it is extremely unlikely that there would have been any further difficulty. If you deal with complaint No 1, you don’t get any of the others.

The complaint regarding “Depravid Bully Boy” Bishton was “resolved” by Bishton refusing me access to the complaints process and then ignoring all communications. No-one but a moron would consider that to be resolving a complaint “to my satisfaction.” It is regrettable that Flood continues to be economical with the truth even when the evidence explicitly disproves everything he says.

The statement that Ingeus (UK) Ltd violated the Data Protection Act 1998 with an intent to harass is the truth. The “organisation” illegally obtained my private cell phone number from a third party and used it to cause repeated nuisance. It also sent unsolicited email (“spam”) which the Office of the Information Commissioner confirmed was illegal. Whether this conduct crosses the line from ‘regrettable’ to ‘oppressive and unacceptable’ is probably arguable, although I would argue that any harassment which is illegal is unacceptable. No other position exists unless you accept the absurdity that illegality is acceptable.

I would also argue that the key point in this issue is that Ingeus (UK) Ltd was sent the relevant statutory notice, and decided to still keep sending the unlawful communications. Even though the communications themselves were just routine drivel and not malicious, I would argue that continuing to annoy someone after a) a statutory notice has been sent, and b) the conduct has become illegal, is oppressive.

It is also significant that Ross “Dross” Marshall, the thug who was responsible for forcing me off the Work Programme in the first place, now appears to have taken personal responsibility for these illegal acts. I was not aware of his involvement in this specific unlawfulness until he personally admitted it. Some thugs are thick as well as nasty, aren’t they, Dross?

The rest of Paragraph 31 reads like an advertising brochure and does nothing to address the allegations of harassment other than offer a blanket denial. It is also completely untrue and grossly offensive. Flood is a “bullshit machine” whose lies are deliberately made to be as virulent and sickening as possible. The only intent is to cause the highest possible degree of harm to the victim.

What happens with Flood now remains to be seen. There is still a possibility that I will be applying for leave to bring Part 81 proceedings for contempt of court, as I have already threatened to do with Dyer. As there is now a third contemnor who is telling extremely dangerous lies in another different but related claim, it is highly probable that I will be making a Part 81 application with three respondents. There is a lot more water, or in Flood’s case poisoned urine, to flow under the bridge yet.

Ingeus (UK) Ltd Employment Adviser Kate Dyer Lies to Northamptonshire Police

Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer is a deceitful, sadistic, malevolent, conniving bitch who takes extreme pleasure from persecuting and harming innocent people. Even though Dyer’s insane behaviour has gone on now for over four years, there is no sign of it stopping. In fact, it is getting even worse. In 2013, Dyer told lies and fairy stories about me behind my back, in order to incite the sick thugs in the Ingeus (UK) Ltd management to maltreat me and deny me access to services.

On 7th August 2013, Dyer committed these lies to paper, and published a set of libels to the thug managers with two objectives. The first objective was to cause alarm and distress to the victim. The second was to pervert the third party investigation into Dyer’s employer which had been necessitated by the management’s refusal to provide me with the Work Programme. These libels have been published on this website, here.

On 19th February 2016, Dyer took this malice and treachery a massive step further. Dyer made a completely false statement to a corrupt police officer of Northamptonshire Police, with the intent of inflicting a totally unjustified criminal penalty on the same innocent victim. This false witness statement has now been aired at a public court hearing, and so can be published below. I will then go on to analyse each of the lies in turn, and explain exactly why they are lies.

ingeus-uk-ltd-kate-dyer-lies-to-police

If anything can be said in Miss Dyer’s defence, it is that she is being coerced into continuing to tell lies and cause harm to an innocent victim, by the vicious and sadistic thugs in the Ingeus (UK) Ltd chief executive’s office. These are Chief Executive Officer Jack “Bent Lawyer” Sawyer and his bent lawyer Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood. Flood also made a blatantly and obviously false statement to Northamptonshire Police, which has been published here. Dyer’s own false statement is written in Flood’s words, not Dyer’s, and Flood has deliberately manipulated Dyer’s deceit to attempt to create a false violent threat where none exists.

However, even allowing for the fact that Dyer should have the guts to stand up for what is right and not be bullied into committing criminal acts, there is another factor which means that Dyer is unquestionably involved in the gross moral turpitude and criminality which underpin these acts. That is the fact that the corrupt police officer who took these false statements and acted on them, namely PC 1248 Anstead, had an existing relationship with Dyer at the time. The exact nature of this relationship remains unknown, but it is obvious that Dyer introduced the bent copper to Sawyer and Flood, and so facilitated the bribery and the deceit.

The first three paragraphs of the false statement are routine bullshit, although it must be pointed out that the Ignoramus managers make no effort whatsoever to accommodate any kind of special circumstance, whether it be physical, homelessness or mental illness. They just subject everyone to the same routine bullying, because it is cheaper. It is only when someone submits a complaint, as I was forced to do, that the managers take that as a sign of rebellion and make sure that they subject that complainant to as much humiliation and abuse as possible.

The lies which Dyer told to the police don’t even come close to matching the lies which Dyer told to management three years earlier. It is beyond belief that a cold, calculating, sadistic liar such as Dyer couldn’t even be bothered to read a statement full of lies authored three years earlier, to make sure that the two sets of lies matched, but that is the situation we are faced with here.

On 7th August 2013, Dyer told a half-truth that I “instigated conversations” in March. In reality, I simply asked for an adviser appointment to be rescheduled, and it was. Now, Dyer tells a completely different fairy story to the police.

She says she “first became aware of me” when asked to raise travel expenses. This is wholly untrue. The only time Dyer ever raised travel expenses for me was on 10th May 2013, just over two months after we first met when I asked for my appointment to be rescheduled. If she “was not aware” of me until May, how did she provoke Rimmer into verbally abusing me on 11th March 2013?

The lie that I would sit next to Dyer while she would input data into the computer so I could “see what she was inputting” is an extraordinary one. Firstly, travel expenses are raised by an adviser signing a bus ticket which the attendee then takes to the receptionist. If there is any electronic record taken, it must happen after the attendee has obtained the signature and already left for the reception desk. Secondly, anyone who worked with me during that time would confirm that I have extreme difficulty seeing the screen if I am right next to it. I would have no chance whatsoever of seeing what was on someone else’s computer screen if I was sitting next to them.

Regarding travel expenses, the truth is this – on 3rd May 2013, I approached Dyer and Mrs Sturgess (who was sitting on the next desk) to see if either of them would sign my bus ticket so I could get the refund. Mrs Sturgess took the ticket and signed it. A week later, on 10th May 2013, I asked the same two advisers, and this time Dyer took the ticket and signed it. This was during the time when Dyer was behaving normally towards me in May 2013.

(Anyone reading the above paragraph may wonder whether I am alleging that Mrs Sturgess caused me harm at any stage, given that I have stated that I am only naming people on this site who have deliberately set out to cause me harm. No, I am not. The only reason Mrs Sturgess has been named is that she is mentioned in Dyer’s document full of lies, therefore, she has been named already. The only way I could have avoided this was to have redacted Dyer’s libels, and that would have been severely contrary to my own interests.

I only ever met Mrs Sturgess on that one occasion, on 3rd May 2013, and, while she was aggressive and inquisitive in the way Ignoramus advisers are ordered to be, there was no targeted malice towards myself. Of course, any adviser who was aware of Dyer’s lies at the time I was being humiliated by Marshall and Gilbert has caused me harm to some extent, but the advisers are salaried employees who have to cover their own backs and save their own jobs before sticking up for a victim of bullying and abuse. I don’t attach any blame to them.)

Just in case Flood should invent another fairy story that I was “obsessed” with Dyer because I still have a bus ticket with her signature on it, I will explain the simple truth. When you are on a Work Programme, you get given a lot of irrelevant, nuisance paperwork. On that date, 10th May 2013, I had a carrier bag full of useless paperwork, and just threw the signed bus ticket into the bag when I left the office. When I got home, I filed the papers onto the heap and forgot about them. It wasn’t until two years later that I discovered I still had the ticket. By then, litigation was imminent so I retained it in case it would one day come in useful as evidence. Hopefully, it will do just that.

The next part of the false statement is just generalised lies which no trained police officer would take seriously. If someone has committed a criminal offence, it must happen on a date, at a time, and at a place. If we assume by default that the place is the Ingeus (UK) Ltd Northampton office, where are the dates and times? Any trained police officer would know this was someone making a false statement to harm an innocent victim. The police officer who took the bribe, PC Anstead, obviously did know this, as internal paperwork shows PC Anstead referring to the civil court case between myself and Dyer’s employer. The motive for the deceit is obvious.

The “positioning” and “staring” lies are repeated, albeit in generalised terms which mean absolutely nothing. There is a new lie added that I “followed her around.” There is no explication of where I followed her to or for what purpose, when it happened, or even how many times it happened. If it has any truth, it is probably a reference to the time when Dyer rescheduled my adviser appointment, and I probably walked behind her towards the receptionist’s desk. That is the type of thing Flood would pick up on and twist into something nasty, as he has done on his false witness statement to the High Court, which will be analysed in a forthcoming post.

Dyer has lied by stating that “official complaints” were made “about myself.” In truth, I explicitly stated that the complaint raised after 5th July 2013 was not a complaint against Dyer. It was a dual-faceted complaint regarding the fact that I was receiving no support whatsoever while purportedly being on a Work Programme, and the fact that I was being subjected to threatening and abusive behaviour from staff in the office.

The emails referenced in this false statement were cries for help submitted to multiple staff members. The were obviously not targeted at Dyer, and Flood is once again looking for any excuse to cause trouble. He has ordered Dyer to misrepresent the emails, and also, for shock effect, to include a quote “they had just raped my grandmother” without providing any context for the quote. Dyer’s entire false statement is written in “Flood-speak.”

It is true that in February 2016 I published Dyer’s libels onto this website. I believe I was fully justified in exposing the lies which have destroyed my Work Programme and since destroyed my life. If you invent fairy stories about people, you must expect that those people are going to expose you in public as a liar.

Dyer’s drug addiction is referenced briefly in passing. If Dyer believes that she is not addicted to a drug, she is welcome to bring a claim for defamation in the High Court. Given that her employer is already subsidising her legal representation and her existing deceit to the High Court, I’m sure she would have a willing backer if that backer thought the action had any prospect of success.

My statement that Dyer needs psychiatric help and should not be working with members of the public is a statement of honest opinion. Lying to the police to further harm a victim and the submission of a false witness statement to the High Court (which will be published in a future post) have done nothing to alter that opinion.

The most outrageous of Dyer’s false statements are those which follow. “I am genuinely concerned for my safety, as I do not know (sic) what he is capable. I live locally and worry he knows where I live or could easily find out. I am worried (illegible) that he is watching me, just recently he bumped into me on the street.”

These are Flood lies, not Dyer lies. They are designed to invoke an entirely false threat of violence so that a far more serious criminal charge can be brought by the police officers to whom Flood had paid bribes. Of course, no police officer with half a brain cell would take this drivel seriously unless there was something substantiated by a description of an actual incident, and a date, time and place of the incident.

The truth is that I had no contact with Dyer following the Donlevy incident of 5th July 2013. I deliberately avoided the office altogether except for mandatory appointments from that moment on.

On 9th September 2015, I was walking down St Giles Street in Northampton Town Centre, when someone who I believed may have been Dyer (I am visually impaired so I cannot be sure) came out of Dreams Coffee Shop and walked across the road in front of me. That was it. Absolutely nothing happened, and Dyer on this occasion hasn’t even bothered to invent a fairy story that anything did happen.

The timing is also significant. So, two people who are routinely in the town centre every working day happen to be on the same street at the same time once in a three year period, and one walks across the other’s path without anything occurring. That makes Dyer so “concerned for her safety” that she goes home and forgets about it for five months before suddenly lying to the police only two months before an interlocutory hearing in a case between the person being lied about and her employer. How convenient!

Anyone who is being “walked home from work by colleagues” and “constantly looking over their shoulder” because someone they have victimised was on the same street as them once in a three year period would be admitting that they genuinely do need psychiatric help. Of course, it is all Flood’s lies, put on to the paper in Dyer’s virtually illegible scrawl handwriting.

For the avoidance of doubt, I should state that I don’t believe the police officer who took this false statement, PC 1097 Tredwell, was involved in the malice and the turpitude. It was PC 1248 Anstead, who took Flood’s false statement, who then proceeded to lie to other police officers, make false inputs onto the police computer system, and then to assault and falsely imprison the victim being lied about on these false statements, and who accepted the financial inducement to commit these acts, and it was Anstead who had the prior relationship with Dyer the liar.

There will be more to come on both Anstead and Dyer. Research is continuing into the relationship between the two, and Dyer has since authored a blatantly obvious false witness statement and submitted it to the High Court. This will be published on this website very shortly, as it has now been aired at a public court hearing.

There are other documents which I would very much like to publish, but which I am unable to reveal at this stage as they have not been publicly aired. This is an ongoing case, and any relevant material will be published as soon as it can legally be published.

Ingeus (UK) Ltd “Counsel” Matthew Flood Lies to Northamptonshire Police

On 19th February 2016, the sick, malevolent thug Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood, who goes by the ridiculous name of Ingeus (UK) Ltd “Global General Counsel”, authored a false statement to Northamptonshire Police, with the intent of causing extreme harm to an innocent victim.

Flood calls himself a “counsel”, but I would be astonished if he is any form of qualified barrister. He writes letters like an eight-year old, has little to no understanding of the law, and operates on the basis that being as aggressive and obnoxious as possible in all situations is the way to conduct not only litigation, but also life itself.

Flood is also a pathological liar, and I do honestly believe that he has some form of medical condition which means that he is unable to tell truth from pure fiction. He dreams up a reality he would like to exist, and then acts as though that “reality” does exist. He seems totally incapable of the normal human thought process which analyses the reality of a situation, and then decides how to act on it based on what is really there.

In any case, he is obviously a sick, depraved thug. He is aided and encouraged in his criminal and tortious activities by the equally sick and depraved Chief Executive Officer of Ingeus (UK) Ltd, Jack “Bent Lawyer” Sawyer. None of the criminal and tortious actions committed by Flood in the last two years would have been tolerated by a chief executive with even the most basic level of human decency.

The case of Flood’s lies to the police is a relatively complex one, and the full truth of it has not yet been revealed. It is known that Sawyer and Flood bribed two corrupt police officers (at least) into assaulting and falsely imprisoning an innocent victim, so that the victim would be weakened and brutalised just before an interlocutory hearing in a case against their employer. It is also known that Sawyer and Flood coerced a weak and pathetic drug addict junior staff member into also making a false statement to the police.

Finally, it has now been revealed that the weak and pathetic drug addict junior staff member, Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer, had an existing relationship with one of the bent coppers who pocketed the bribe. The exact nature of the relationship remains unknown, and, even if I am able to use legal interrogatories to determine its nature and duration, I may well be restricted as to what I am able to publish until the material is aired at a public hearing.

As “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood’s false statement has now been aired at a public hearing, I am now able to publish it in full and outline the detestable lies one by one. The image which contains the statement must of necessity be a long one, but I have compressed it to make it load as quickly as possible.

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-lies-to-police

I will now outline the lies one by one.

The first point to note is that these “witness statements” are supposed to be appended by a signed statement of truth. In reality, the filth couldn’t care less who abuses their system and how many lies they tell. Have you ever known anyone be prosecuted for lying to the filth? Me neither.

It is also virtually impossible to take civil action, as the idiots who run the legal system seem to think that protecting would-be liars from what they call a “flank attack” is more important than protecting innocent citizens who are a sitting target for lies to the police. See Ward LJ’s lead judgment in Westcott v Westcott for the most detestable example of this flawed thinking.

In truth, it would be easy to automatically stay any defamation claim in civil proceedings until the criminal case was over. Then, if the criminal case succeeds, the civil claim automatically fails, but if the criminal case is either not prosecuted or does not succeed, then the civil case could continue in the usual way. It is not that difficult to design a legal system which would work, without the present despicable mess where any piece of scum can tell literally any lie on a police witness form and know that, whatever happens, they will get away with it.

In this case, I don’t believe there was ever any realistic intent to maliciously prosecute. The whole purpose of the charade was to harm and terrorise the victim, for which Flood and his equally evil employer Jack “Bent Lawyer” Sawyer were happy to pay a significant sum of money. I don’t yet know exactly how many police officers took bribes, but it was at least two. What I do know is that one specific bent police officer, who had a pre-existing relationship with one of the authors of the false statements, helped set up the entire faked “investigation.”

The first part of the statement is just routine drivel. The lies start as page one changes to page two, where Flood invents a spurious “obsession” that I was supposed to have with Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer. This had two purposes, firstly, it helped the corrupt police officer formulate a bogus “stalking” charge, and, secondly, it allowed Flood to parrot out the lies told by Dyer in August 2013 so they could cause even further harm.

Believe me, if I was ever going to be obsessed with something, it wouldn’t be a smelly drug addict.

The most pathetic lie of all is that I would try to “get swapped” to Dyer as my adviser. In the first place, I had been explicitly promised a referral to an adviser I can only refer to as “Mrs Y” (because I am not naming anyone on this site who has not intended to cause me harm) by Ross “Dross” Marshall on 18th March 2013. Marshall reneged on the promise and stabbed me in the back, and I was doing everything I knew how to try to get management to look at my case again and make the promised referral. Why in the name of God would I want another bloody referral to someone else who wasn’t Mrs Y, leaving me in the same stinking mess as before?

Furthermore, after Dyer had gone off the planet and started behaving oddly in June 2013, I would obviously have resisted a referral to Dyer for more reasons than just my desperate need to get referred to Mrs Y.

Dyer never had any “concerns” of any kind. Dyer is a two-faced lying bitch who behaved in a friendly manner towards me to my face, while making up extremely nasty lies about me behind my back.

Dross Marshall never at any time told me to “leave Dyer alone” or to “only deal with my adviser.” Had he done so, the incident would have been recorded, and referenced multiple times in the copious documentation produced by internal complaints and third party investigations. It is not referenced because it did not occur.

Flood lies by stating that I sent “abusive” and “threatening” emails under a pseudonym of “Mark Gilbert.” I have never sent any email at any time which could be considered “abusive”, nor any email which contained “threats.” If I had, Flood would specify and outline those “threats.” This is supposed to be a statement to the police, so where are the dates, times, and details of incidents?

Mark Gilbert, of course, is not a pseudonym, but the sick, malevolent, depraved excuse of an “Operations Manager” who terrorised me in June to August 2013, and whose vile acts continue to disadvantage me to this day. I am still living on £20 a week less than an unemployed person, not to mention living with the constant trauma caused by the incidents.

Flood lies by stating that this website contains “personal details” of staff members. In reality, all it contains are their names.

There are obviously no “abusive” or “nasty” messages regarding Ignoramus or its staff on this website, only a factual account of the way I was tormented and abused by Marshall, Gilbert and Bishton in 2013.

Flood purports to be a professional lawyer, and he represents an organisation with a budget of tens of millions. If there was even one false statement on this website, or even a statement the truth of which I would not be able to prove, Flood would issue a defamation claim quicker than old Jug Ears rips Camilla’s panties off. Isn’t it strange that Sawyer, Flood and their cronies will spend £100,000 on useless litigation just to destroy one human being’s life, yet they won’t back up their bellyaching by paying one tiny issue fee in the Royal Courts of Justice to get the totally unspecified “untrue statements” on this site removed?

Sawyer, you are a stinking, cowardly, yellow-bellied piece of scum. I have been waiting since 2015 to defend your pathetic defamation claim, and the wait is getting boring.

Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer was referred to as “Officer A” on this site initially for two reasons. Firstly, that was the name used in the ICE fake “report”, even though Dyer is not an “officer” of any kind. Secondly, until Dyer’s libels were revealed to me on 31st July 2015, I had no reason to name Dyer as one of the troublemakers. I simply didn’t know. As soon as the evidence was revealed and I did know, Dyer was named and the libels were published on this website.

Flood obviously did not “alert security” anywhere, and this fairy story is just one of several which he has invented just so that corrupt police officers who were taking his bribes could create a phony charge of “harassment with fear of violence.”

Even if I had been posting defamatory content on this site, which I certainly had not and would not, that hardly creates a fear of violence. Perhaps Flood has a delusion that electrons come out of the PC screen and violently attack people?

Flood did send a malicious communication dated 27th July 2015. I have not published it on this site because it is honestly a waste of time and space, although it is still part of the evidence I have submitted to the court now that I am suing Flood for damages and a permanent non-harassment order. I may publish it in another post, along with a falsified document which bent lawyers at Pinsent Masons LLP created to try to cover up one of Flood’s contempts of court.

Flood then tells a fairy story that I have “attacked his professional standing”, and, of course, he uses the words “alarm” and “distress” as these are used in Parliament’s drafting of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. In reality, all I have done is published Flood’s contempts of court and proven that he is a contemnor. He has suffered no “alarm” or “distress” as he is an habitual deceiver with a pathological desire to harm who knows exactly what he doing and simply doesn’t care.

Flood then invents more bullshit about the DWP and documents. When I asked the DWP for the documents to which I am entitled under the Data Protection Act 1998, I received only a tiny fraction of those. The obvious reason is that the DWP was trying to protect its beloved business partner from litigation which it knew would cause negative media exposure of the whole Work Programme fiasco. Eventually, after three attempts, the DWP did reveal the papers to which I was entitled.

Flood now attacks an astrological analysis in the most pitiful way possible. If I suffered a violent and abusive childhood, how does that equate to me committing any kind of act which would engage the criminal law? Anyone who knows astrology knows that a Pluto-Mars square is a pain aspect, and that pain can often be recycled by the individual causing pain to others. There is a slightly increased statistical probability that someone with such an aspect will become a murderer or a paedophile in adult life, but there is also an increased probability that they will become just the opposite – a highly moral and principled fighter for love, truth, peace and justice. Mohandas K. Gandhi of India had a Pluto-Mars square in his birth chart.

Anyway, what the hell does any of this drivel have to do with crime reports to the police, which are supposed to contain dates, times and details of incidents which breach the criminal law? It is just stage-managed padding and filler for the benefit of a corrupt police officer intending to harm a victim.

As a result of Flood’s lies to the police, he is being sued for damages and a permanent non-harassment order. The other idiot who lied to the police, Dyer, is also being sued for the same relief, and the filth themselves are being sued in two actions, which will probably become three. There is also an internal police investigation taking place, which has just been paused so that the civil cases can complete first. I take that to mean that the filth have now decided that there is too much evidence to publish the whitewash which no doubt they would have published had they been able to get away with it.

Publishing this false statement means that I have now named PC 1248 Anstead as the bent copper who connived in this deceit. It was not my intention to name any bent coppers until I had secured more evidence, but redacting this false statement just to protect Anstead would have been nonsensical.

As far as Anstead goes, let’s just say I am on the trail of evidence. Whether I am able to obtain anything of major importance (I believe that I will), and whether or not I am able to publish that evidence prior to the case against the police going to trial, remains to be seen. For now, it is enough that I have finally been able to publish Flood’s deceit and prove the extent of his malice to the world. More on Flood as the news and the cases develop.

Pinsent Masons LLP Bent Lawyers Cover Up Ingeus (UK) Ltd Contempt Of Court

Do you think that Pinsent Masons LLP is a reputable firm of solicitors? If you do, think again. Not only are they morally bankrupt enough to represent the sick bullies and thugs that are Ingeus (UK) Ltd, they are even prepared to cover up for contempts of court, connive with criminals and bent filth, lie to governmental authorities to harm opposing litigants, and commit their own contempts of court to allow criminals to escape justice.

I am going to keep this post relatively short, as there are some acts committed by Pinsent Masons LLP which may well lead to them being joined to legal proceedings as defendants in the future. For now, it doesn’t make any sense to flag to them my intentions, although they are obviously already aware of the extent of their own criminality. They simply don’t care. As long as they are being paid blood money by sick, sadistic thugs, they will tell any lie and commit any criminal act just to harm an opposing litigant.

As you already know if you have read the previous post, Ingeus (UK) Ltd’s sick, twisted and corrupt in-house lawyer, Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood, told multiple lies on court forms in late 2015, with the intent of perverting the course of justice. The lies were so obvious that a five-year old child could see through them, but that didn’t bother Flood, who is a pathological liar to the degree that he probably does have a mental illness which needs professional treatment.

At the Directions Questionnaire stage in Claim No. B00YP012, Tara Hepworth of Pinsent Masons LLP stated on the DQ form itself that Flood was not in contempt of court. The statement was written in the usual Pinsent Masons robot-speak which also characterises all of the witness statements which their so-called “clients” submit to the courts. The CPR says that witness statements should be in the author’s own words, but Pinsent Masons will ensure that all witnesses write like coached robots.

That is not the problem here, though. The problem is that Hepworth has blatantly lied on a court document signed with a statement of truth, with the intent of interfering with the course of justice in a highly significant material respect. Or, at least, a document which SHOULD be signed with a statement of truth. Unbelievably, Hepworth has tried to con the court by signing all of the other documents in the bundle, and then just printing the words “Pinsent Masons LLP” in the signature box on the document containing the lies.

pinsent-masons-llp-contempt-of-court

It couldn’t be any more obvious, could it? “We want to take the money off these scum, and pervert the course of justice for them, but we don’t want our own pure white arses to end up within a mile of the deceit and contempt of court which will be necessary to achieve our objective.” Hepworth has now disappeared from the scene as the litigation has moved into another gear, but this is still an act of contempt which I will be using in future applications to the court.

I believe the reason Hepworth has disappeared from the scene was that she was also involved in a criminal conspiracy which involved lying to a corrupt police officer with a pre-existing relationship with a “client”, and, as I am hot on the trail of this bent copper and about to uncover some highly significant evidence, Pinsent Masons decided not to leave the same bent lawyer on the case to avoid the risk of a course of conduct of harassment being formed. Of course, the course of conduct of harassment committed by the bent firm of lawyers itself is unaffected.

The lawyers which have replaced Hepworth are just as bad, if not worse. While Hepworth lied to the police in attempt to pervert the course of criminal justice, another extremely nasty character by the name of Gary Terence Wayne Coleman connived with the corrupt Ingeus (UK) Ltd chief executive’s office to lie to the tax authorities. The same bent lawyer has since filed a completely dishonest witness statement, signed with a false statement of truth, with the High Court in Birmingham. As the witness statement has now been aired at a public hearing, it will be published in due course.

There will be a lot more to come on Pinsent Masons LLP. For now, all I will say is stay the hell away from them if you want your case to be litigated honestly and fairly. If you want to end up in serious trouble, and possibly end up in prison because you have lied on a court document, then they will be a good choice for you. Remember, hiding behind a solicitor is no defence to contempt of court.

Ingeus (UK) Ltd “Counsel” Matthew Flood Contempt Of Court And Lies To The Tax Authorities

The Ingeus (UK) Ltd in-house bent lawyer, Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood, is as nasty a piece of scum as you are ever likely to find on this planet. In July 2015, he became aware of the sickening maltreatment, degradation, bullying and abuse I had been subjected to by thug managers in the Ingeus (UK) Northampton office, specifically Marshall, Gilbert and Bishton, in 2013.

His response to this knowledge? To embark upon a campaign of criminal deceit and harassment which was deliberately designed to worsen the anguish and trauma caused by the thug managers in 2013. As if that wasn’t enough, Flood even conspired to inflict serious financial loss and a totally undeserved criminal record upon an innocent victim already weakened and sent to the verge of bankruptcy and homelessness by the sick scum who use his employer as an excuse to inflict terror upon innocent people.

On 4th November 2015 and 10th December 2015, Flood told multiple lies and committed extreme contempt of court on a defence and interlocutory application in the county court. The lies told on the application even included a lie that I had made a fraudulent claim for tax credits. Flood was later to repeat this lie to governmental authorities in an attempt to get me criminally prosecuted and destroyed for good.

I will firstly exhibit the lies told on the 4th November 2015 defence. Note that as these documents have been aired at a public court hearing, they are able to be published without violation of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Firstly, here is a contempt of court designed to cover up for the deceit and malice of Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer. In paragraph 2 of a document full of lies and libels, Dyer states that she is “happy” for me to be shown a copy of the lies. Flood then states on a court defence that the document “was not intended to be seen by the claimant.”

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-contempt-of-court-1

Here is a contempt which is as grossly offensive as it possible to get. There is still a possibility that I will attempt to bring a Part 81 claim against Flood as well as Dyer and a corrupt police officer who has lied on a witness statement in a different but related claim, and if I do this piece of nastiness will be at the forefront.

It appears to be standard “Ignoramus-speak” to misuse the word “agreed” on every document they produce. As in, they order you to do something, or they inflict some kind of nasty action upon you, and they say that they “agreed with you” that this would take place. If you are on an Ignoramus Work Programme, watch out for this as it is obviously an “official” way of humiliating people.

In this case, Flood has told two obvious fairy stories. Firstly, I obviously did not “agree” to be swindled out of Year Two of the Work Programme. Secondly, Flood is, and always was, aware that the “relationship” between myself and the stated adviser was anything but “good.”

Obviously, there was no justification whatsoever for robbing me of the whole of a year of purported “support” and forcing me off benefits to which I was legally entitled.

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-contempt-of-court-2

This list of contempts is by no means exhaustive, but I don’t want to turn this post into a bore-fest.

I will now move on to the lies which Flood told to both the county court and the tax authorities that I had made a fraudulent claim for tax credits.

Below, I have exhibited the lies on Flood’s court application. A solicitor signed the false statement of truth, but that is no excuse.

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-contempt-of-court-3

The next piece of filth is dishonesty and contempt to a ridiculous degree. Flood has stated that paragraph 61 of my affidavit dated 18th April 2017 contained a statement that I “was forced to invent a fake business”, when, in reality, paragraph 61 of my affidavit does not even reference businesses or tax credits as it in a completely different section of the affidavit.

Flood also blatantly lies by pretending that he had a “suspicion” that I was engaging in tax or benefit fraud. His employer had access to the papers from 2014 for over a year before he invented his lies to the tax authorities, and, had there been anything wrong with those papers, it would have been noticed at the time. Furthermore, and obviously, Flood’s lies to the tax authorities were told at exactly the same time as his even more blatant lies to the courts and a corrupt police constable who had a pre-existing relationship with Dyer. The exact nature of that relationship is still not known to me, but I am gathering more evidence on an ongoing basis.

Another one of Flood’s hallmarks is that he always tries to pass off his vile antics onto other people. It is always someone else’s fault, no matter what he does. I don’t doubt Lesser is an evil piece of scum, for no-one could stomach working in that environment if they had an ounce of human decency or dignity, but Flood is the inventor of these malicious lies. From a legal perspective, it makes no difference whatsoever if Lesser did submit the dishonest “report” – it is still conduct which was procured by Flood and for which he is legally liable, and it is also conduct for which Lesser’s employer, the 5th defendant, Ingeus (UK) Ltd, is vicariously liable.

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-contempt-of-court-4

Here is the actual text of paragraph 61 of my affidavit –

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-contempt-of-court-5

Finally, here is the confirmation from the tax authorities that I had complied in full with the requirements for starting a business and claiming working tax credits.

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-contempt-of-court-6

Flood is being sued for damages and a permanent non-harassment order as a result of this continued persecution and deceit. The case is ongoing. However, Flood’s detestable acts did not stop there. Far from it. At the same as making a false, malicious report to the tax authorities, Flood also lied to a corrupt police officer who had a pre-existing relationship with Dyer and probably with his employer, in an attempt to inflict an even more serious criminal penalty on an innocent victim. Now that the lies which Flood submitted to corrupt law enforcement officers have been aired at a public hearing, they too can be published on this website.

Ingeus (UK) Ltd Operations Manager Mark Gilbert Lies To Torment Victim And Pervert Investigation

On 19th August 2013, Mark “gLIEbrt” Gilbert, the slimy, deceitful and vicious Operations Manager of Ingeus (UK) East Midlands, authored a dishonest, malicious communication with the dual intent of causing extreme harm and loss to an innocent victim, and of perverting a third-party investigation into his employer.

Ten days previously, Gilbert and Ross “Dross” Marshall, the sadistic thug who at the time was manager of the Ingeus (UK) Ltd Northampton office, had bullied, abused and browbeaten me in a voice meeting which in hindsight I should not have attended. However, at the time I had no idea of the lies which employment adviser Kate Dyer was spreading behind my back. These lies were only revealed to me two years later as part of legal disclosure.

The lies had been committed to paper two days before the meeting, although I was not aware of that fact, obviously, as I was not even aware of the lies themselves. I have published the libellous document in a previous post, which can be accessed by clicking here.

As with the lies of Dyer in the previous post, I have published the lies of Gilbert in this post, and then gone on to analyse the deceit in detail. I have redacted my own postal address, partly because these scum got it wrong anyway, and partly because there is no point in inviting trouble. However, if anyone wants it badly enough they can obviously find it on another page of the site.

ingeus-uk-ltd-mark-gilbert-lies

The first two paragraphs are obviously bullshit. Had there been any “agreed” actions, there would obviously have been no need for any further so-called “meetings” to “discuss” them, would there? The very fact that a further so-called “meeting” was necessary proves that there was no “agreement” on any “way forward.” Of course, the existence of the further complaints submitted in the first three days of August also proves that there was nothing but total disharmony, chaos and aggravation in the entire case.

On 29th July 2013, Gilbert had unilaterally hijacked a meeting at which the Regional Director, “Loopy” Louise Preston, was supposed to be addressing my submitted complaints. As the complaints had been escalated from Gilbert himself, that fact alone shows how detestable the Ingeus (UK) Ltd complaints procedure is. So, you escalate a complaint because a manager has totally failed to deal with it, and then that very same manager prevents the escalation from being heard by someone purportedly in authority over them.

Gilbert had maliciously ordered me back onto the case load of an adviser with whom I had severe bad history, and with whom I would obviously never be able to work constructively in a million years. Preston couldn’t have cared less, and just sat there like a stuffed teddy bear while Gilbert carried out his malice. At no time was any constructive resolution, such as referring me to the adviser to whom I had been promised a referral back in March, even contemplated. Gilbert had gone into the 29th July fake “meeting” with his malicious anti-resolution already determined, although he tries to cover up that fact in this document full of lies.

The long third paragraph is obviously the worst and most extreme pack of lies anyone could possibly tell. It has been deliberately made so to be as offensive and wounding as possible. It is not difficult to prove that Gilbert is lying as fragrantly and maliciously as possible, because the adviser with whom Gilbert tells the outrageous lie that there had “always been a successful and productive working arrangement” is the same adviser who was the subject of the first complaint which I submitted prior to the 29th July farce.

If my so-called “working arrangement” with this adviser was “successful”, at what did it succeed? It succeeded in provoking me to submit multiple complaints because I was receiving no support whatsoever on the Work Programme, and it succeeded in causing a lot of negative emotion in both myself and the adviser as the “working arrangement” was plainly unworkable.

And what did the “arrangement” produce? It produced a referral to a third-party learning centre which had no facilities to deal with a visually-impaired person, it produced only one job interview in eight months, which was entirely due to my own effort and nothing to do with the adviser, and it produced the aforementioned complaints and anguish. The complaints remain unanswered and wholly unresolved five years later, and Gilbert’s employer has wasted over £100,000 just to turn a blind eye to his obvious and blatant lies.

The rest of the pointless diatribe relates to Dyer, and to the lies which were published in the previous post. There is no point going over these issues again.

Gilbert tells one more blatant and obvious lie by alleging that I had approached Dyer for “support.” Firstly, I was quietly addressing envelopes and had no need of “support”, secondly, my own adviser was sitting on the next bloody desk, and, thirdly, it is obvious that my issues with Dyer had nothing whatsoever to do with “support.” Is there any lie so blatant that gLIEbrt won’t tell it?

If gLIEbrt had had the slightest interest in giving me any form of “support”, all he had to do was refer me to a suitable adviser, as had been promised to me on 18th March, and allow that adviser to provide the Work Programme. He wouldn’t do it. Why?

It also bears repeating that gLIEbrt was in possession of the libels and deceit authored by Dyer two days earlier, but deliberately hid them from me. If you want to resolve a complaint, the first thing you have to do is get the facts out into the open so everyone knows what they are dealing with. gLIEbrt had no intention whatsoever of attempting to resolve anything.

All gLIEbrt was interested in doing was making my life as miserable as humanly possible, and ensuring that I gained no benefit from being on the Work Programme. His treachery and deceit were obviously not going to protect Dyer, as his refusal to provide me with a suitable adviser guaranteed 100% that the complaints would be escalated to third parties and then to court if necessary. Had I been referred to “Mrs Y”, the matter of Dyer’s libels would probably have remained hidden until I left the programme in 2014, and consequently forever. Instead, they have now been aired in public on this website, and at a hearing in the High Court. gLIEbrt hasn’t done Hate Liar any favours, nor anyone else for that matter. Even his scum employer is £100,000 down as a result of his malice.

gLIEbrt is now being sued for harassment, along with Dross Marshall, Hate Liar and the scum employer itself. The Ingeus (UK) bent lawyers have now made an “application” to the High Court on his behalf, but gLIEbrt himself hasn’t submitted a single word of evidence. It couldn’t be more obvious that the application is fraudulent, and that gLIEbrt is too much of a stinking coward to go into a court and answer for what he has done.

I leave the subject there, but will no doubt return to it in forthcoming posts. In the meantime, if anyone has information on the current whereabouts of Mark “gLIEbrt” Gilbert, I would be extremely grateful if they could contact me and let me know.

I will finish with the verse from the Ingeus (UK) Ltd Company Song which is dedicated to Gilbert –

“When an unemployed person needs help, I laugh in his face!
I make his problem so much worse, I’m a chuckling disgrace.
Then I lie to the regulator to cover up for what I’ve done.
Oh! The Ignoramus management has such fun!”

Sums up the bastard in four lines.

Ingeus (UK) Ltd Employment Adviser Kate Dyer’s Libels and Deceit Exposed

On 7th August 2013, Ingeus (UK) Ltd employment adviser Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer authored a document containing multiple malicious falsehoods regarding a Work Programme attendee (myself).

The purpose of the document was two-fold. Firstly, Dyer intended the lies to cause alarm and distress to the victim, which can be proven by the second paragraph in which Dyer states that she is “happy” for the victim to be given a copy of the lies. The second purpose of the document was to pervert the course of the forthcoming investigation by a third party into Dyer’s employer.

The lies are easily proven to be lies, so I will publish the document immediately below, and then provide a comprehensive analysis of each of its paragraphs.

Note that as the document has been aired at a public court hearing, it is no longer barred from publication by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 32.12 2(c)).

ingeus-uk-ltd-kate-dyer-lies

In paragraph 4 Dyer states “initial conversations were instigated in March by Mr Wardle”

This is partially true. On 8th March 2013, a Friday, I was suddenly offered a job interview at DHL Logistics on the Crow Lane Estate in Northampton. The problem was that the interview was scheduled for the same time as my next adviser appointment, on the afternoon of the following Tuesday, 12th March 2013. I needed to get my adviser appointment changed quickly, and my designated adviser, a thug known as Rimmer, was not in the office. As Dyer was sitting on the next desk from Rimmer’s empty desk, I asked Dyer what I needed to do to get the appointment changed. Dyer took control of the situation and changed the appointment.

When I returned to the office the following Monday, Rimmer was back in the office and told me about the changed appointment before I even needed to raise the issue. I had brought my passport into the office for photocopying in preparation for the interview. About an hour later, I photocopied the passport, and the message on the screen suggested that the machine had retained a copy of the image. As this was a security risk which required urgent attention, and Rimmer had left the room (presumably for a lunch break) I told Dyer of the problem. I was assuming it would be quickly referred to someone with a responsibility for servicing the office equipment, but I was just fobbed off with a “Oh, those machines don’t store images, forget it.”

When Rimmer returned to the office, he launched into an extremely aggressive verbal attack. He ordered me to deal only with him as he was my designated adviser. It appeared as though he was about to physically assault me so I quickly moved away in the direction of the receptionist’s desk. As soon as I got back home, I filled in the formal complaint form and submitted it. This was the complaint which resulted in Dross Marshall promising me a referral to “Mrs Y”, a promise on which he reneged.

I had absolutely no idea at the time why Rimmer had been so aggressive or why it should be considered wrong to alert the nearest member of staff when an emergency arises. Dyer had begun spreading lies and inciting other staff members to act violently towards me without my having any knowledge of this. I had only met Dyer for the first time three days before the incident, and Dyer had rescheduled my appointment efficiently and with no fuss. I had no reason to suspect that anything was wrong.

There is a telling lie in the next paragraph, where Dyer states that “I did express concerns on the frequency of these conversations” and that Rimmer acted on that basis. As stated above, I first met and spoke to Dyer on a Friday, 8th March 2013. The incident with Rimmer occurred on the following Monday, 11th March 2013. Isn’t it strange that Dyer should express concern over “frequency of conversations” when there were only two days between the first time I ever spoke to her and the Rimmer incident, and those two days were a weekend when the office was closed?

As for the conversations being “witnessed” by Rimmer and Kaighin, isn’t it convenient that the only two staff members who “witnessed” this were the two who had left the employ of Ingeus (UK) Ltd by the time this statement was made? Rimmer left the organisation on 12th April 2013, and Mrs Kaighin departed in the first week of August, literally days before this false statement was published to the office managers.

Why didn’t Dross Marshall, who was the office manager, and who was sitting on the very next desk to Dyer throughout the entire time these “events” were supposed to be happening (apart from a short break for the birth of his first child), notice anything?

The simple fact is that if I had done even one thing which was untoward or suspicious, even the slightest thing, Marshall would have intervened and a report would have been created. The complete absence of any such reports proves that Dyer has invented the whole fairy story.

The following paragraph is more twisting and misrepresentation. Dyer states that employees move desks in the office every month, and that I would “place myself close to her desk.” During March, April and May of 2013, the employees only moved desks once, because the office manager Dross Marshall had not produced the new seating plan due to the birth of his first child. Miss Dyer was only moved from one desk to the next. Both desks are directly adjacent to the bank of computers where the attendees sit. Therefore, it is obvious and perfectly normal that I would “place myself close to her desk.”

The “continuously stare” lie arises from my visual impairment. The “repeatedly walk past” lie arises from the fact that Dyer’s desk was next to the door where attendees have to leave the room to go the lavatory, and the “approach me at varying times throughout the day” is just a lie, full stop. The “several members of staff” who noticed this have no identity, unlike the previous two who had conveniently left the building.

During late March, April and May, Dyer and I would speak to each other from time to time, as is perfectly normal in an office of that type. I would also regularly speak to other members of staff, with whom I had previously worked. It is perfectly normal for people who have met before to exchange pleasantries when they pass each other in the office or when they meet at the drinks machine. Dyer would speak to me first as often as the other way round. Even after the Rimmer incident I had no idea that she was spreading lies behind my back.

The “glass doors” lie is the easiest of all to prove to be a lie, as there are no glass doors anywhere within the building. There is not even anything approximating glass doors. There are only wooden doors with extremely small plastic windows through which even a fully sighted person would be challenged to see.

The Sturgess incident has a tiny grain of truth in that it is true that I did interrupt Dyer to speak to her. The incident happened on 6th June 2013. Previously, on 16th May 2013, I had returned to the office from an interview at Regus Business Systems on the Brackmills estate. Dyer and two other nicotine addicts were leaving the building at the time I returned. One of them asked me about the interview, and Dyer stood to listen with interest.

On 6th June 2013, I returned from another interview at Jackson Grundy Estate Agents in Duston, Northampton. The time was 5:25pm and the office was due to close in 5 minutes. As Dyer had shown an interest in my previous job interview, I saw no harm in interrupting briefly to tell her I had just had another one. I did not discuss “clothing” and would have absolutely no reason for doing so.

The whole of page 2 is just more lies. On 24th May 2013, the last day before the May Bank Holiday break, I was standing at a drinks machine and Dyer came over to tell me that she was now drinking black coffee. Later in the day, she told me that she had just got an ‘A’ in a course she was studying. She was behaving like a genuine friend, as she had done eight days earlier when I came back from the Regus interview. I did not overhear her talking to Ryan, that is another lie she has invented to try to cover up the fact that she once treated me like a friend to my face, while spreading malicious lies behind my back.

I did not return to the office again in May, as I had influenza and I was also forced to attend a third party “learning” centre. I returned in June and the incident of 6th June 2013 was the first time I spoke to Dyer after 24th May 2013. I had no idea that anything was wrong, and certainly no idea that Dyer was spreading extreme malicious lies behind my back.

I have never at any time approached Dyer while she was making external calls to “JCP” or anyone else. There was one incident following gLIEbrt’s threatening behaviour on 27th June 2013 that I went over to Dyer’s desk to try to find out what was going on, and Dyer picked up a telephone receiver and pretended to be speaking into it. That was on 5th July 2013, and was immediately followed by threatening behaviour by another adviser. At that point I escalated my complaint in writing to the Regional Director and did not visit the office again except for mandatory appointments. By then it was obvious that there was something seriously wrong and it needed intervention from someone in authority.

The rest of the false statement is just generalised lies. Dyer did not feel “uncomfortable” or “harassed” at any stage, she was enjoying causing trouble and persecuting a victim. By then, her lies had filtered through to management and I had been threatened and abused by Dross Marshall, Mark gLIEbrt and an individual who I only know as “Gerome” because when he forced me into a room and threatened me he had no remit to be even addressing Work Programme attendees. He was working on some other form of outsourced government business.

In summary, the document is 99% pure fabrication and lies, and its portent is 100% fabrication and lies. This document was hidden from me by Dross Marshall and Mark gLIEbrt as they carried out their own persecution, harassment, threatening behaviour and denial of services, despite being 100% in the knowledge at every stage that I was wholly innocent of everything Dyer had falsely alleged.

The document then went on to pervert two third-party investigations before it was finally revealed to me in response to a judicial review letter before claim.

When the corrupt Ingeus UK chief executive’s office (Chief Executive Jack “Bent Lawyer” Sawyer and his corrupt thug of a lawyer Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood) got hold of this document, they used it as an excuse to lie to both the county court and the High Court with the intent to pervert the course of justice.

Flood also used the lies as part of a 100% dishonest false statement made to a corrupt officer of Northamptonshire Police. It has since been revealed that this corrupt police officer had a pre-existing relationship with Dyer, and connived with the criminals who made false statements to “do a favour for an old friend.”

Flood also paid bribes on behalf of Ingeus (UK) Ltd to two corrupt police officers, so that those officers would trespass on my property, assault me, and hold me in a cage for 21 hours with no possible justification prior to an interlocutory hearing.

Dyer also lied to the police, and has since submitted a witness statement containing multiple deliberate lies to the High Court of Justice. I have issued a Part 81 Letter Before Claim intending to bring committal proceedings for contempt of court against Dyer.

These further incidents are particularised in the posts which follow this one.