The Culprits

GALLERY OF SHAME – The Culprits Who Deliberately Destroyed My Two Years On The Work Programme, And Who Made My Existence A Living Hell

Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer

The root cause of a great deal of the suffering I had to endure at Ignoramus Northampton was due to the nefarious and malevolent conduct of one junior member of staff, an Employment Adviser known as Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer.

It has to be borne in mind, though, that one junior member of staff alone cannot completely destroy an innocent person’s interaction with the Work Programme. This will only happen if managers use the difficulty as an excuse to put the boot in, and to deliberately cause as much pain and suffering as possible to an innocent victim of their treachery and malice. This was the sole intention of the Ignoramus managers, from even before the time when Dyer’s hatred and loathing of myself became known.

Dyer’s contribution to my suffering and torment came in the form of lies. Detestable lies, which would make anyone reading them think of me as a sick, depraved pervert. At first, these lies were verbal, and then on 7th August 2013 Dyer produced a document containing nothing but vile and severe defamation and malicious falsehoods. This document, or at least one version of it, is included in Post No. 10 of this site.

This document was subsequently forwarded to third party investigators, for the purposes of perverting investigations into the conduct of Ingeus (UK) Ltd. This fraud resulted in the organisation escaping warranted penalties for its persecution and tormenting of an innocent individual, who was never at any stage made aware of either why he had been persecuted at Ingeus, or why third-party investigators had refused to offer due redress.

Obviously, Dyer is not responsible for the depravity and gross moral turpitude of the Ignoramus managers, or the fact that I was denied any access to suitable advisers or even the entirety of Year Two of the Work Programme. However, Dyer made the bullets which the managers fired into my body, and effectively made it impossible for me to get my Work Programme needs assessed or dealt with. The ultimate responsibility for the terror I endured lies with those in positions of authority, but Dyer’s evil contribution remains highly significant.

Ingeus Management Credo

Ross “Dross” Marshall

Ross “Dross” Marshall was the so-called “Performance & Delivery Manager” at Ingeus Northampton in 2013 and early 2014. Doesn’t that job title suggest someone having a J. Arthur? It certainly conjures up that image to me.

Marshall is grossly incompetent, dishonest, and a sick, malevolent thug. He was directly responsible for all of this trouble occurring in the first place. He ignored the data feed which came through from the Department of Work and Pensions, and subjected me to a constant detriment by failing to comply to any degree with the provisions of Equality Act 2010 Section 20.

Marshall solely and directly caused all of the misery I was to suffer at Ingeus Northampton, and has effectively destroyed my life. On 11th March 2013, I was forced to raise a complaint over a relatively minor incident. Marshall said that he was not going to do anything about the issue because the following month I would be referred onto the case load of an adviser I can only call “Mrs S.”

(I am only naming people on this site who have caused me harm, grief or loss through deliberate malicious intent. Even those who have caused me harm through negligence, or through simply being the wrong person to deal with my case, are not being named. Mrs S. is one of the best advisers in Ingeus Northampton, and is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.)

I did not escalate the complaint because I was more than satisfied with Marshall’s proposed resolution. Then, a month later, the truth emerged. Dross Marshall had lied through his teeth. I was not referred to Mrs S., and multiple escalations of my case failed to achieve any restitution. I lost the whole of Year One of the Work Programme through Marshall’s deceit and gross turpitude, and he then, in conjunction with Depravid Bishton, deliberately and maliciously denied me access to Year Two.

Marshall also lied in August 2013 by promising to respond to emails sent in a hoaxed attempt at “mediation”, and instead forced the case to be sent to ICE.

Marshall also lied by slandering me and making false allegations to law enforcement officers in November 2013, in a deliberate sadistic attempt to inflict emotional distress.

Marshall behaved like a thug and subjected me to physical threats and abuse in carrying out Bishton’s orders that I be denied access to year two of the Work Programme.

Mark “gLIEbrt” Gilbert

gLIEbrt lied to me on 27th June 2013, by stating that all of the problems at the Northampton site had been resolved. This led directly to the 5th July incident, at which I was verbally threatened and abused by my own so-called “adviser”, as a direct consequence of attempting to resolve any remaining misunderstandings. gLIEbrt also refused to comply with the complaints procedure by failing to provide a written report of “suggestions for resolving the matter.” This was done deliberately to avoid the creation of evidence for future escalations of the case.

gLIEbrt also submitted dishonest and defamatory imputations to ICE. The extent of these libels is not yet known, although I have gained access to some vital documentation through the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I also have access to the defamatory libels published in gLIEbrt’s ‘final response’ of 19th August 2013.

[Update 7th August 2015 – I now have access to further evidence of gLIEbrt’s despicable conduct, which makes the events of 9th August 2013 even more sickening and vile than I ever realised.

gLIEbrt subjected me to extreme harassment, threatening behaviour and abuse, on the back of a document submitted by an “adviser”, which gLIEbrt must have known was entirely false. I was never permitted to see the document, and only saw it for the first time two years later when it was revealed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in response to a legal demand.

I am unable to reveal the document or its contents due to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules.]

gLIEbrt also committed the grossest possible fraud to deceive the “Independent” Case Examiner, and to ensure that I was unable to obtain due redress. He told the fairy story that I had a “good working relationship” with an adviser who had made a humiliating and unlawful referral in May 2013. He knew, of course, that my “working relationship” with this individual was an unmitigated disaster, and was only lying to prevent me from having access to the adviser promised to me by Dross Marshall in March.

David “Depravid” Bishton

Bishton is a sick, malevolent, twisted thug whose sole intention is to cause as much suffering as possible to innocent human beings. I had never even heard of Bishton when the complaints were submitted after 6th September 2013, but he came back with the most virulent, abusive and demeaning response possible.

Not only was no action taken to ensure that the Work Programme was provided in accordance with the DWP contract, Bishton also unlawfully removed my right to submit complaints, and my right of access to Year Two of the Work Programme.

As a direct consequence of this tort of intimidation, I was forced to sign off benefits and live on tax credits, at a huge financial loss I could ill afford. This came after I had just finished a course of therapy to cope with the abuses inflicted upon me by gLIEbrt and Dross Marshall. I have been living on starvation rations for two years, and have currently lost a four-figure sum which I can only reclaim through the ensuing litigation. The loss continues to mount on an ongoing basis.

“Loopy” Lou Preston, Regional Director

At first, I didn’t include Preston in the list of culprits, because I intended to include only those who acted with deliberate sadism and malice to cause me as much pain and suffering as humanly possible. I don’t believe Preston is a vile, diseased, repulsive malevolent excuse for a human being in the way that Marshall, gLIEbrt and Bishton are, but in the end someone with a job title of Regional Director has to take responsibility for the atrocities which they wilfully refuse to prevent. It is just as vile an act to stand by and witness suffering and loss you can easily prevent, as it is to cause that suffering and loss in the first place.

Preston was the Regional Director when the case was escalated to that level, after gLIEbrt had refused to take any action to deal with it. Not only that, gLIEbrt had refused to comply with the complaints procedure to any degree, and had failed to provide any “suggestions for resolving the matter.”

Preston was supposed to deal with the escalation, but instead I was summoned to a three-way meeting with Preston and gLIEbrt. Preston just sat there like a stuffed parrot while gLIEbrt hijacked the meeting and imposed his own vile and sadistic agenda upon it. That agenda was to send me back to the untrained so-called “adviser” who had made the humiliating referral back in May, in order to cause as much suffering, pain and anguish as possible.

So, you escalate a case to a higher level because the idiot at the level below has failed to deal with it, and then the idiot who failed to deal with it at that lower level comes in and hijacks the meeting at the higher level. That is supposed to be an acceptable complaints procedure?

When the meeting took place, there were only two more months to go before I should have been passed on to Year Two. There was another adviser carrying out the same work as the ones I had desperate trouble with, known as “Mrs S.”, to whom I could have been sent for two months before moving on to one of the year two advisers. Had this been done, it is unlikely that the case would ever have reached ICE, never mind the Parliamentary Ombudsman or the Courts. This wouldn’t have been right, fair, or even legal, but I would have tolerated it as it would have been a bearable solution that would have allowed me to gain some benefit from being on the Work Programme.

So, did Preston deliberately cause me pain or loss through malice? In the end, you have to say yes, as Preston sat back and allowed gLIEbrt to hijack a meeting at which they, Preston, were supposed to be responsible. Preston also took no action to correct the wrongdoing once the case had reached ICE, and also refused to take any action regarding Bishton’s abusive and sickening acts in November. Preston was copied in on all emails, but sat back and watched an innocent human being continue to suffer.

When you deliberately refuse to step in and end the suffering of someone who could easily end up taking their own life or losing their entire income as a result of the maltreatment they are being subjected to, you can hardly claim that your inaction does not constitute malice. Preston is as weak as gnat’s urine, and obviously has nothing resembling a conscience.

2015 MISCREANTS

Jack Sawyer, Chief Executive Officer

On 19th June 2015, I wrote to Ingeus (UK) CEO Jack Sawyer requesting that we enter into discussion and negotiation, in order to eliminate the necessity for expensive and time-consuming litigation. Sawyer obnoxiously replied that the case had already been investigated and a final response issued.

That is the whole point, isn’t it, Mr. Sawyer? Your so-called “final response” was fraudulent, demeaning, and evasive, and led directly to both further maltreatment and the perversion of investigations carried out by third parties. It is itself one of the causes of action in the forthcoming litigation, and consequently demands further address.

As Mr. Sawyer had only taken up the post of Chief Executive Officer in the period following the 2013 atrocities, I was hoping that he would at least be prepared to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution to avoid litigation in this case. After all, it would save considerable sums of public money and be in the best interest of all parties.

I obviously need to be compensated for losses sustained as a consequence of unlawful and unconscionable actions by Ingeus operatives. The organisation itself, however, also needs to learn from this case and improve its practices. If private entities are going be given this colossal degree of power through usurpation of government roles, they need to begin taking their responsibilities seriously and acting with at least a perfunctory degree of competence. They also need to rigorously remove any “rotten eggs” from their personnel basket.

It is a desperate shame, not just for myself but for anyone who is yet to be forced through the Ignoramus door, that Mr. Jack Sawyer does not take these responsibilities seriously.

Matthew Flood, “Global General Counsel”

Matthew Flood Contemnor

The only responses I have received from Ingeus (UK) Ltd in 2015 have come from Matthew Flood, “Global General Counsel.” One would assume from the title that he is a professional barrister, yet he writes letters like an eight-year old.

One would also assume that someone with such a title would have at least a rudimentary knowledge of legal terminology and the Civil Procedure Rules, yet the evidence so far suggests otherwise. The responses to my Letters Before Claim have been entirely non-compliant with the CPR Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct, or any relevant Pre-Action Protocol.

Flood has also resorted to acting like a thug, being deceitful and making puerile threats. Within a week of this website being created, Flood issued an atrociously-written “Cease and Desist” letter making all manner of ludicrous and unsupportable statements. The letter will be examined and analysed in a forthcoming post.

Even though the letter failed to comply with virtually any requirement of the relevant Pre-Action Protocol, a fully-compliant response was sent within two days. No matter what the provocation, I must maintain the moral high ground.

Any further obnoxious or unconscionable behaviour by Flood will be reported here accordingly.

UPDATE 17th November 2015 – Flood has now submitted a defence to the County Court Money Claims Centre which is literally riddled with contempts of court – deliberate lies on the Statement of Case which Flood knows perfectly well are deliberate lies. These lies are particularised in the following post –

http://www.ignoramus-abuse.org/ingeus-abuse-7-matthew-flood-contempt-of-court/