Boris Becker & The UK Insolvency Service: When The Establishment Targets You To Be A Human Sacrifice – Featuring Michael Bint – Part 2: From Case Study To A Warning For Us All

---

In Part 1: When The Establishment Targets You To Be A Human Sacrifice – Featuring Michael Bint, we examined the case of Boris Becker and the corrupt, biased and prejudiced investigation into him, not as an isolated legal matter, but as a detailed case study into the conduct (more like the misconduct, corruption, weaponisation, criminal cover-ups) of the UK Insolvency Service and the broader systems surrounding it. What emerged was not a simple story of wrongdoing by an individual, but a far more sinister picture of the systemic abuse of power by the Insolvency Service.

We explored how:

• Mr Becker faced 24 allegations, 20 of which failed, yet still resulted in a custodial sentence raising serious questions around proportionality.
• Actions he allegedly took based on guidance from the Insolvency Service were later used against him in criminal proceedings.
• Evidence handling, procedural fairness, and institutional conduct showed striking parallels with other cases, most notably Kids Company.
• A pattern appeared in which technical breaches were escalated into severe consequences, while broader context and intent were underweighted.
• The system, supported by media narratives, appeared capable of reducing complex realities into simplified labels, shaping public perception before full scrutiny could occur.

We also introduced a deeper framework: assessing the case not through opinion, but against laws, principles, and rules from proportionality and fairness to duty of care and accountability. When measured against these, the conduct examined raised serious concerns about whether enforcement had crossed into criminal misuse and abuse of power.

Part 1 ultimately left us with a critical question:

Was this simply a flawed prosecution or does it reflect something more systemic?

Part 2 moves beyond the mechanics of the case and into its implications.

If Part 1 asked “what happened?”, Part 2 asks:

• Why did it happen?
• Who benefits from it?
• And most importantly, what does it mean for everyone else?

We now examine:

• Whether high-profile individuals like Boris Becker are selectively targeted to send a message to wider society (as part of a culling process where government agencies are used to cull).
• How narratives are constructed, reinforced, and deployed to justify unlawful outcomes.
• The emergence of a repeatable institutional pattern, not only in Becker’s case but in the cases of Lighthouse Global, Kids Company, and others.
• How process itself can become punishment, regardless of final verdicts (whether based on opinion or evidence and proof).
• And why individuals, regardless of wealth or fame, remain structurally vulnerable when isolated.

This is where the analysis shifts from a single case…to a model of behaviour. Because if what happened to Boris Becker is not an anomaly, but a pattern then the real story is no longer about him. It’s about the system and the individuals (public officers, like Michael Bint) operating with the system. It’s also about what that system and the individuals are capable of doing to anyone.

Targeting the Individual To Send A Message to the Many

Perhaps the most striking words from Boris Becker’s account is this:

“If the system wants to get you… the system usually wins.” 

Context Box 1: The Establishment may win in the short term, but they will not in the longer term and they know it. The Insolvency Service seemingly won in the case of Lighthouse in the short term. The Insolvency Service won’t win in the long term.  

And when asked “why him?”, in the above interview, he states clearly, “I’m a big name… a huge fish for the prosecution.”

If the weaponised state successfully prosecutes a figure like Boris Becker, the message is clear: No one is beyond reach! 

Now in and of itself this could be a good thing if the intention behind it was righteous. After all, how many times does the everyday man on the street see someone from the Establishment do something that if they did it, they would be imprisoned? But because that person from the Establishment has resources and crucially knows the right people in the right places, they “get away with it.” 

This hypocrisy, in its own right, raises serious questions of criminality. There is no justice and nothing right with it… and it is heinously wrong. Whether it has been legitimised or not by legislation, it is criminal. There have been crimes in society that are relatively less impactful in society, such as shoplifting, that have been criminalised. Therefore we need legislation to create official law to ensure that public officials can be held judicially accountable.

Context Box 2: If a mechanism to deal with corrupt public officials is not written into law then this corrupt behaviour still remains unlawful and criminal. It does not make it any less wrong. There is technical criminality, and then there is moral and ethical criminality; whether it is written into law or not. This is why Lighthouse has become a lobbying and advocacy body. Lobbying and advocacy is needed because some individuals are using the abuse of institutional power to elevate their own status such as their career, at the expense of innocent human beings and their families. Therefore it is necessary to judicially hold individuals and not just organisations accountable. At Lighthouse we have found individuals try to use silence as a means to avoid accountability. The latest example is new Insolvency Service CEO, Duncan Beach. This cannot be allowed and a mechanism needs to be written into law to prevent this from happening. 

But this raises a dangerous possibility: That the objective shifts from justice in the individual case to exploiting one person to intimidate millions. From adjudication…to demonstration and setting an unfair precedent to cause fear in the masses.

A lone individual, even a global name, with very little reach and true influence can be:

• investigated
• prosecuted
• toxically framed within a narrative, and
• ultimately used as a signal to millions

But a coordinated, values-aligned, high-trust community? That is significantly harder to control, attack and cull. Because now:

• The collective is far harder to justify targeting than the individual.
• There is mental, emotional and spiritual fortitude through community.
• Evidence is scrutinised collectively.
• Narratives are challenged publicly and consistently (see our open letters to the Insolvency Service CEO Duncan Beach – Part 1 and Part 2).
• Legal and strategic resources are pooled.
• If convictions are unjustly made, the community can campaign, advocate and lobby for accountability to the injustice.
• Most importantly, pressure can be applied back onto institutions to scrutinise their processes.

Putting these elements together, a clear Establishment-based targeting agenda appears:

1. A high-profile individual is identified
2. A narrative is pre-formed as to their guilt
3. Evidence is toxically framed and taken out of context to support that narrative
4. Punishment through process suppresses the individual
5. A conviction on any viable grounds, even a technicality, is secured
6. The outcome is used as a tyrannical warning to millions of other citizens

Mr Becker himself articulates the logic: “If they’re going to get Boris Becker… they’re going to get everybody.”

Context Box 3: At Lighthouse Global we are going to be lobbying and advocating for public officials and institutions to cooperate and comply with just and fair questions directed to them, particularly when the institution has brought an investigation on that individual. Silence is not good enough for a government-based organisation not to answer a question of the taxpaying public and thereby using silence as a weapon and defence mechanism. 

Most individual citizens give up after years of silence. It needs to be written in law that a question can be presented to an official of an institution. This question also needs to be officially recorded along with an official response that is published for the purposes of transparency as well as maintaining the public record. Such government institutions need to go to great lengths to support a person rather than heinously attack them or ignore them hoping their silence will lead to the victim giving up. 

In the case of Lighthouse and Paul S. Waugh, this won’t be the case. If anything we’re becoming louder and more persistent on truth, justice, reform and compensation. 

Context Box 4: The Gestapo does not offer a booklet on how to handle the Gestapo. This is why they are the Gestapo. 

The Case of Lighthouse Global & Attacks on Paul Waugh

The concerns about the conduct of the Insolvency Service are not limited to historic cases like Kids Company and Boris Becker. They are also present in its scandalous and criminal treatment of Lighthouse Global and Paul S. Waugh.

Context  Box 5: The Establishment has attacked us through the Insolvency Service because they do not want us at Lighthouse to get our research out. 

We show extensively, but not limited to, proof of the damage done to human beings when they come out of the education system. Our creativity is indoctrinated out of us and therefore our beliefs as to the value we can create in relation to what is Godly, human, material and financial is severely limited. Using financial value as a quantitative measure of value, the bottom tier after 20 years of learning, think in thousands of pounds of earnings, compared to creating millions and billions of dollars and pounds. 

The investigation that led to its winding up was not the result of a balanced, evidence-led process. Rather, it was triggered by a small number of fake whistleblowers making fallacious and criminal claims that were not at all verified, substantiated, or tested before action was taken. The Official Receiver in Lighthouse’s case was once again, Michael Bint.

Context Box 7: When you verify a witness there needs to be a thorough commitment to the facts. However “my truth” and woke ideology facilitates this commitment to the facts and reality to be bypassed and hence used as a weapon by the Establishment. 

This is a critical point. Because for an investigation to be legitimate, it has to have a foundation based in truth and reality. In this case:

• False and misleading claims were accepted without adequate due diligence.
• The status of complainants as “creditors” or “investors” which were provable lies, were never investigated.
• No meaningful effort was made to test the credibility or motive of those making false allegations.
• False charges based upon unsubstantiated claims by the claimants included lying that they were “shareholders”. The claimants never proved and established the legitimacy of their case.

The Insolvency Service have remained silent on all of the above once again despite being asked numerous times on this. Again they have weaponised silence.

Context Box 8: How can the public not have a mechanism against the Government, its Ministers and agencies where their careers are not wound up on the basis of the public petitioning against them? This is especially since the public have elected the central government into office in the first place. Why does this need to reply upon consensus in parliament? At the moment the predominant way that the public can influence parliamentary debate is through the website set up by parliament to receive petitions once they receive 100,000 signatures from the public. However this is very limited and there is currently no mechanism where the public can wind up a non-functional government or department through judicial means. This is why the hard working and honest member of the public often feels frustrated, especially when they see such a person acting criminally but not being held to account. In contrast an ordinary member of the public would be for an equivalent offence. 

The tax-paying public needs to be able to hold such crime and corruption to account. We are pioneering this so that the public can lobby and advocate against Government where they are incompetent and ignoring legitimate questions. The current accountability is extremely limited for those who are paying the salaries of those employed by the State. 

This means the Insolvency Service and vast resources were effectively weaponised, but the gross injustices do not end there. The case demonstrates that:

• The burden of proof was effectively reversed, requiring Lighthouse to disprove unverified claims. Meanwhile the Insolvency Service did not substantiate their claims to prove and establish the legitimacy of their case. In fact, the question of verifying their claims is their biggest source of silence. Once again this illustrates how the Insolvency Service has weaponised silence as their defence. 
• Lighthouse was subjected to extensive legal and administrative pressure despite its status as a small, resource-constrained, pre-startup research community. It’s not sustainable to those who would continue to pursue it.

At the same time:

• The financial, operational, and human costs of the Insolvency Service taking such inappropriate legal action were exclusively and completely borne by Lighthouse. 
• Associates of Lighthouse attempted suicide. This was a direct result of the orchestrated attacks on Lighthouse, which investigators of the Insolvency Service such as the incompetent, biased and prejudiced, desparado Gary Seymour were informed. Despite this, Mr Seymour callously continued to hound such people for information they did not have. This highlights the degree of desperateness and incompetence he demonstrated in the case of Lighthouse.
• No support or guidance was provided by the Insolvency Service, despite the complexity and scale of the process as well as the repeated requests for it. 
• The Insolvency Service had access to specialist lawyers to using extremely sophisticated and technical legislation as part of their targeting of Lighthouse. Working with such legislation required a great deal of expertise which would have cost Lighthouse hundreds of thousands of pounds, even potentially reaching millions. This is money that Lighthouse ought not to need to spend on accusations that were provable lies and falsehoods to start off with. 
• While the legal fees that Boris Becker had spent are not disclosed they are estimated to run in the millions of pounds because he had assets globally that needed tracking and valuating as part of understanding his net worth. Given such specialists often charge £500-£1,000 per hour, you can see how this expense quickly accumulates. All these legal costs are borne by the target of the Insolvency Service.   
• It was evident from the initial correspondence received from the Insolvency Service that they were biased towards Lighthouse’s fake accusatory whistleblowers. This exacerbated their weaponisation and targeting of Lighthouse and Paul S. Waugh.
• Gary Seymour referred to these fake whistleblowers as “victims” when he was supposedly conducting an unbiased, unprejudiced and impartial investigation. This strongly suggests they had decided the outcome before they even started the pseudo-investigation, as they likely did with Boris Becker. This is the main tenet of a false and corrupt investigation rooted in criminality which always begins with the prejudicial outcome in mind. It is not the result of an unbiased investigation. Instead it is where the outcome against the Insolvency Service’s target is predetermined not by the fact but by manipulation and coercion.
• In effect, the investigation was concluded before it had even begun; the Insolvency Service had already made up its mind, at the behest of their overlords the Establishment. They knew who they “had to kill”. They had to find a crime and if they couldn’t they would make it up using false witnesses. Hence it was a subjective investigation and not objective with their findings which were predisposed to finding Lighthouse and Paul S. Waugh guilty.

Context Box 9: We had no idea who we were and are dealing with at the Insolvency Service. All Lighthouse had was names of the Insolvency Service employees. There were no pictures of them because the Establishment wants to conceal those they have working for them as henchmen. They do not want their families to suffer for their wrongdoing. Yet many innocent targeted members of the public have their faces and personal details in the media for all to see in perpetuity. 

Context Box 10: Julius Malema, a prominent political head in South Africa, was privately prosecuted and held accountable. In the same spirit, individuals guilty of corruption, criminality, weaponisation and cover-ups, including being complicit through inaction and silence, will be held accountable by Citizen Intervention Global. 

This combination of factors creates a concerning picture, one in which:

• Unverified claims can trigger state action.
• The subject of that action must carry the burden of disproving them which is impossible if something is untrue as any evidence that needs to be traced doesn’t exist. How do you disprove something that is not true? In the case where it’s random, where there is no evidence, no traces. The Insolvency Service put forward these allegations where the target cannot disprove them. 
• Institutional momentum continues even when foundational questions remain unresolved and where hearsay is provided as false evidence. Where unsubstantiated claims are made there ought to be a “benefit of the doubt rule.” There needs to be a rule where it is stated that the claims are unsubstantiated in a system that states “innocent until proven guilty.” 

Perhaps most significantly, the ultimate outcome raises further questions about proportionality and intent. The High Court winding up of Lighthouse showed that the Insolvency Service can wrap destructive outcomes in “public interest” language while using technicalities to pursue a case in a way that does not allow the defendant to provide a meaningful defence.

Context Box 11: The Insolvency Service can use a legal process called “set aside”, which means it can focus on charges that it knows it will win using “tricknicalities” because they are an impossible standard to meet. In Lighthouse’s case, they used a ‘tricknicality’ that required certain accounting records — records that even multinationals cannot and do not keep to a perfect standard. There is not a multinational in existence that the Insolvency Service could not close down on the basis of a “public interest” tricknicality.

A ‘tricknicality’ is a weaponised technicality which acts as a landmine against the targeted individual/organisation. 

This distinction of understanding what a tricknicality is, is one that matters. This is because the process itself, once initiated due to a trickicality, becomes self-reinforcing and therefore a form of punishment that cannot be halted.

In other words:

• A flawed and unfounded investigation was allowed to proceed.
• Legitimate non-compliance with an unfounded investigative process was interpreted by the Insolvency Service as justification for further action.
• The unjust and contrived outcome was already decided before the process began, rather than the strength of the actual underlying case.

This mirrors the same structural concerns identified in the cases of Kids Company and Boris Becker:

• Questions around evidential balance
• Concerns about institutional bias
• And the risk of escalation without adequate scrutiny

When such patterns appear across multiple cases, they can no longer be dismissed as isolated issues. They point instead to a deeper, systemic problem, corruption and criminality.

What We Must Learn From Boris Becker: The Critical Need for Purpose Built Community

What makes the case of Boris Becker even more revealing is not just what happened to him but what didn’t exist around him. Despite his global fame, wealth, and influence, Mr Becker stood effectively alone when the full force of the system came against him.

No high-trust, purpose-built community. No structured network capable of:

• challenging institutional narratives in real time
• providing coordinated legal, financial, and reputational defence
• applying pressure back onto the system through unified advocacy

This is a critical distinction, because fame is not protection. Money is not protection. Status is not protection. In fact, as Boris Becker himself suggests, those things can make you more of a target.

Indeed what Argentina showed us in 2001 and what events like the 2008 financial crisis and even recent de-banking cases demonstrate is that systems can collapse overnight – by order of the Establishment. Freedoms can be removed in an instant. Security can be threatened at a whim. Human, material and financial resources can be removed without choice, in the interests of proving the fake and pseudo nature of such freedom. And when that happens, the individual, no matter how prominent, is totally vulnerable.

What Christian & Citizen Intervention Global Are Doing To Respond & Prevent The Abuse of Power By Institutions & Individuals Within Them

Christian Intervention Global and Citizen Intervention Global have been created as purpose-built communities to advocate and lobby where institutional processes have failed to properly address credible evidence of wrongdoing, criminality, weaponisation, and cover-ups.

These initiatives reflect a broader democratic principle: where public institutions entrusted with state authority fail to confront potential criminality, misconduct and corruption internally, citizens must retain both the right and the responsibility to pursue lawful scrutiny, accountability, reform, and compensation.

Advocacy and interventions will expand through:

• Publish clear, structured evidence to expose wrongdoing and to counter institutional cover-ups; including criminal and biased individuals within these institutions.
• Run coordinated international advocacy projects, including direct engagement with senior public officials such as Members of Parliament.
• Pursue legal action, including large-scale group litigation representing all affected individuals regarding victims of the Insolvency Service, the BBC and other organisations.
• Build a wide network of evidence-based whistleblower and protest platforms documenting how cases and individuals within the Insolvency Service have acted.
• Pursue both public and private prosecutions of individual staff where supported by evidence and the public record.
• Prepare for formal scrutiny, including inquiries and regulatory review processes.

Conclusion: A Warning Beyond One Case

The case of Boris Becker reveals something far more important than the outcome of one prosecution. No individual, no matter how successful, intelligent, or high-profile is immune from institutional overreach and its criminal control. This is the case especially if they are a threat to the Establishment and when they stand alone. If the Insolvency Service can come after Boris Becker for a few technicalities in his finances, then what can they do to you?

As we have shown throughout this investigation and case, the Insolvency Service broke themselves against numerous natural and public laws, principles and rules. They showed a lack of institutional fairness and their procedures do not demonstrate a duty of care. The advice they gave Mr Becker could not only not be relied upon, it was used to incriminate him! This is based on facts and not based on our subjective opinion.

That is not to say that Mr Becker does not have to take responsibility for his actions and that the Insolvency Service has total control over legal procedings. This was a jury trial after all. As someone who had previously been convicted of tax-evasion, this was used against Mr Becker by the judge in his sentencing. Furthermore his sentence was determined by the Sentencing Council’s guidelines which the courts have to follow. 

Yet the reality is the Insolvency Service wanted to pursue Boris Becker for 24 convictions and he was found guilty for only four. Court records show he did not hide any assets from his advisors and professional intermediaries who he trusted to disclose this information. They were not held accountable; he was instead. Even to this day, Boris Becker himself, ourselves and the public do not know why he was genuinely targeted.

Boris Becker has global recognition. He had more human, material and financial resources than 99.9 % of people. He had access to professional advice. But he did not have what mattered most, namely:

A purpose-built community capable of standing with him, advocating for him, and challenging instances of criminality, corruption, incompetence and weaponisation in the system. He was therefore extremely vulnerable. And that is the lesson.

Because this is not just about Boris Becker.

It is about you. It is about what happens when:

• your bank account is frozen without notice,
• your reputation is attacked by an online predatory troll, or a global/local media outlet, where you are being observed by onlookers publicly who immediately assume that if the courts and government agencies are involved, that the target and victim must be a wrongdoer,
• your livelihood is threatened because your income has been taken from you,
• or a false-narrative is formed about you that changes the way everyone around you views you

History has already shown whether in Argentina, during financial crises, or through modern institutional actions that these events do not come with warning.

They happen suddenly. And when they do, the question is not whether the system is fair.

The question is: Are you prepared?

The answer does not lie in trying to fight the system as an individual. The answer lies in building something stronger than individual resilience… it lies in purpose-built communities. The solution does not come from loose networks and social media audiences, but from high-trust, high-character, high-competence communities where:

• individuals are known, understood and cared for, not anonymous.
• there is high-trust formed among all members.
• skills are developed and shared to complement one another, so the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts.
• human value is prioritised before monetary value.
• systems of interdependent value-exchange can be developed, i.e. bartering.
• crucially, advocacy and protection are structured, in-built and intentional.

This is because when individuals are isolated they are vulnerable. When individual citizens are vulnerable, they are controllable. But when citizens are united in purpose, structure, and truth, they become far harder to target. They are far harder to silence, and far harder to use as examples.

This message is not about being anti-government or anti-Establishment. This call to action is about being anti-vulnerability and pro-value. It is about ensuring that no individual, whether a global figure like Boris Becker or an ordinary citizen, is left exposed to a system with overwhelming power and limited accountability.

At Lighthouse Global and Citizen Intervention Global, this is exactly what we are building… purpose-built communities not as a theory, but as a lived, structured reality.

And crucially, where institutions have failed to self-correct, there must be lawful, organised pushback: lobbying and advocacy for systemic reform, scrutiny of agencies against their mandates, and where appropriate, legal escalation (including private action and prosecutions) to hold individual wrongdoers accountable.

This is because the lesson from Boris Becker, Kids Company, Lighthouse Global and from every case of institutional incomporruption (incompetence and corruption) is the same:

Our natural, God-given privilege is to be able to build value in all areas of our lives. This privilege ought to be unencumbered by satanic or even flawed institutions that seek to exert control over us. Our natural state is in community, not as rugged, isolated individuals. Therefore, one of the wisest, most responsible and dutiful things we can do as human beings, is connect with the value we truly are, the potential we have and to seek out others in community. 

We need to be determined to solve every problem we encounter in life and in business and never have to say “no” where we ought to say “yes”. We can’t stop serving the vulnerable when a government agency wants to shut us down, nor when an Establishment employee tries to trick us into a criminal trap. If the Establishment has already targeted us, then we must do everything in our lawful, legal, God-given power to protect ourselves from becoming victims; to serve through adversity and help others through similar challenges for the ultimate benefit of the most vulnerable people in this world.

---