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.