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 –
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.