On 27th July 2015, the dishonest, corrupt and seemingly criminally insane in-house lawyer of Ingeus (UK) Ltd, Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood, sent the author of this site a document which purported to be a letter before claim. It was highly defective in just about every respect, and resembles a child’s temper tantrum far more than it resembles a proper letter before claim brought under the pre-action protocol for defamation.
It is also completely dishonest and acutely harassing, and indeed now forms part of the harassment claim which has been brought against Flood, Ingeus (UK) Ltd, two thug managers who maltreated and abused me in 2013, one deceitful junior staff member, and the Chief Constable of a police force which accepted bribes to harm me following Flood’s submission of a false witness statement.
I will publish the letter here first, and then analyse it in detail. Finally, I will ask the questions as to where the untrue statements are on this website, and, if indeed there are untrue statements on this website, why the promised defamation claim has not been issued.
Here is the offending communication –
As you can see, this illegal pile of dung makes no attempt whatsoever to comply with the pre-action protocol for defamation, and that is not the only way in which it breaches the law. The very first sentence is intimidating and threatening, as it makes an hysterical and unsupported statement without even pretending to provide evidence or reasoning.
The pre-action protocol for defamation is explicit about what it requires. To quote paragraph 1.3, “This protocol is intended to encourage exchange of information between parties at any early stage and to provide a clear framework within which parties to a claim in defamation, acting in good faith, can explore the early and appropriate resolution of that claim.”
Does this first sentence do that? Or does it just huff and puff without saying anything?
If there are “untrue”, “defamatory” and/or “intimidating” statements on this website, or if there have ever been any such statements, why doesn’t this sick, yellow-bellied agitator have the decency to quote the statements, and give me some idea as to why they may be “untrue”, “defamatory” and/or “intimidating”?
Quoting the words complained of, and explaining why they are unsupportable, is a specific requirement of the pre-action protocol. It is also basic common sense, if you want someone to remove published content, to tell that person what content you want to be removed and why. Of course, the obvious truth is that Flood knows perfectly well that every single sentence published on this website is either factual, or honest opinion.
So, statements that Ignoramus ignores the Equality Act 2010 as a matter of course, that sick thugs in the Northampton office physically and verbally threatened me, and that Ignoramus fabricated evidence submitted to independent case examiners are false, are they? The only problem is, Floody-babes, that Ignoramus routinely ignores the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, that sick thugs in the Northampton office subjected me to physical and verbal threatening behaviour, and that Ignoramus managers falsified paperwork which was submitted to third party investigators to pervert the investigations.
So, investigators were not conned by fraud because they didn’t realise that the falsified evidence was fake. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Also, these quangos specifically state that they do not get involved in legal issues. As for the harassment, they didn’t attempt to deny that it had happened, they just whitewashed it to do their friends a favour. Big difference.
Now, the communication turns from deceit to outright provocation. So, what other “harassing and intimidating behaviour” am I supposed to have carried out? Asking to be referred to a suitable adviser, or submitting written reports of when I have been verbally abused by your thug managers?
If anything has caused “reputational damage” to these scum, it is their own criminal and/or tortious activity, which any responsible chief executive officer would want to deal with. Anyone with a brain cell wants to get sick thugs out of their organisation so they don’t get sued. Sawyer welcomes and defends the louts, joins them by committing his own criminal acts, and then wastes £100,000 on senseless litigation just to cover up for what they have done.
As for “financial damage”, I’ve got a new dictionary definition for that – Jack “Bent Lawyer” Sawyer. Where’s your £100,000 gone, you pathetic, money-wasting moron?
So, to the demands. I’ve not removed Ingeus (UK) Ltd’s name, because that corrupt and diseased excuse for an “organisation” is responsible for all of the trouble. I’ve not removed the names of Ingeus staff, because everyone I’ve named on this site is a piece of scum who needs to be exposed for what they are. I’ve not needed to remove “untrue allegations” because, as you know, every single sentence on this website is either 100% truthful or honest opinion. There’s no “trademark” or any other bollocks on this site, and everyone knows who the site is about because it says so clearly on the header.
I’ll reply to the “letter” here in public by telling you to go and fuck a monkey’s arse. Of course, I’ve already replied to it anyway by suing the sick cretin who wrote it for damages and a permanent non-harassment order. And his scumbag employer.
If you really do care about your staff, which would be a bloody miracle in itself, it is a pity that you don’t also care about the vulnerable and downtrodden attendees whom your staff torment, bully and ritually abuse to the point of mental breakdown or suicide. If I had caused “distress” to Marshall or gLIEbrt, nothing would give me more pleasure or satisfaction. I only wish I could pay it back to the extent that it was handed out.
There is then a threat to report a civil matter to criminal law enforcement officers, which is one of the main reasons this contributes to Flood’s harassment. What Flood has done since publishing this steaming pile of skunk dung is detailed in the site posts, the navigation for which can be found on the right hand side.
Ignoramus Feedback Portal
I will now create an Ignoramus Feedback Portal, which can be found below. Flood and Sawyer, you are invited to comply with the pre-action protocol for defamation, and contact me through the contact form and let me know which statements on this site are “untrue”, “defamatory” and/or “intimidating.”
The results, and any explanation you are prepared to offer, will be published below.
THIS SECTION BELOW IS THE IGNORAMUS FEEDBACK PORTAL
THE SECTION ABOVE IS THE IGNORAMUS FEEDBACK PORTAL
NOTICE TO JACK “BENT LAWYER” SAWYER –
IT IS NOW OVER TWO YEARS SINCE YOUR SICK, COWARDLY, YELLOW-BELLIED MORONIC THUG OF A BENT LAWYER THREATENED TO BRING A DEFAMATION CLAIM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BASED ON THE “UNTRUE”, “DEFAMATORY” AND/OR “INTIMIDATING” STATEMENTS WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEWHERE ON THIS WEBSITE.
THE WAIT IS GETTING BORING.
SINCE THAT TIME, MANY FURTHER PAGES AND POSTS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED ON THIS SITE, MOST OF THEM SPECIFICALLY ALLEGING THAT YOU AND THE THUGS YOU EMPLOY HAVE ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL AND TORTIOUS BEHAVIOUR.
IF THERE IS EVEN ONE PAGE OR POST WHICH IS NOT WHOLLY TRUTHFUL, WHERE IS IT, YOU SILENT, SNIVELLING LITTLE PRICK?
YOU HAVE BEEN PREPARED TO WASTE OVER £100,000 ON YOUR PATHETIC, CRIMINAL PERSECUTION OF ONE INNOCENT WORK PROGRAMME ATTENDEE WHO ONLY WANTED TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE SERVICE YOU ARE CONTRACTED TO PROVIDE, YET YOU CANNOT AFFORD A BUS TICKET TO GET ACROSS LONDON AND THE MEASLY ISSUE FEE FOR A DEFAMATION CLAIM IN ROOM E07 AT THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE.
COME ON, YOU SICK, SLIMY, MALEVOLENT COWARD. YOU’VE SHOT YOUR MOUTH OFF, NOW PROVE YOU ARE NOT A YELLOW-BELLIED COWARDLY CUNT BY ISSUING THE CLAIM. I’VE GOT BILLS TO PAY, AND THE COSTS I WOULD TAKE FROM YOU AND YOUR LYING SCUM LAWYERS WOULD COME IN VERY USEFUL.
THE SILENCE IN HERE IS DEAFENING, ISN’T IT?