NB Because of the devastating impacts the weaponisation of the Insolvency Service has made on Paul S Waugh’s health and wellbeing, this open letter has been prepared and sent on his behalf by team members at Lighthouse Global and Citizen Intervention Global.
Mr Beach,
1. Introduction to this Three-Letter Series
This open letter forms the first in a series of three public letters concerning the conduct of the Insolvency Service in the matter of Lighthouse International Group (now Lighthouse Global and referred to as Lighthouse in these letters) and associated proceedings.
While this case involves a specific organisation, the issues it exposes extend far beyond Lighthouse itself. The evidence, now documented, raises wider concerns regarding investigative standards, accountability and the abuse of state authority by the Insolvency Service. For that reason, the matters addressed in this letter are not merely private grievances – they are matters of clear public interest.
You have assumed the role of Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service at a time when serious, evidenced and publicly documented concerns regarding its conduct are no longer capable of being dismissed, deferred or contained. What now sits before you is not a routine operational issue. It is an institutional problem involving the misuse of state power and its agencies, the pursuit of corrupt investigations without a valid factual foundation, the failure to confront credible evidence once presented, and the failure to answer dozens of questions.
These matters are already established in the evidential record. They have been formally put before the Insolvency Service. They have not been addressed. That failure is no longer historical. It is ongoing. It now sits directly with you.
The problems you are currently facing are clear:
- An evidential record demonstrating that corrupt investigations have been initiated and sustained on grounds that are demonstrably false or unverified.
- Evidence of misrepresentation to the court that has been formally submitted and remains uncorrected.
- Severe and, in some cases, life-altering human consequences arising from enforcement action that should never have been initiated.
- A pattern of institutional non-response when confronted with substantiated evidence.
- A widening disconnect between the Insolvency Service’s stated Charter and its actual conduct in practice.
- A growing body of scrutiny from affected individuals, organised advocacy and public documentation that is no longer containable.
If these matters are not addressed fully, transparently and without delay, the consequences will not stabilise. They will escalate:
- The evidential record will continue to expand and will be placed in the public domain in a structured and sustained manner.
- Advocacy efforts, including those led by Citizen Intervention Global, will intensify and widen in scope.
- Engagement with Members of Parliament will increase, with a clear trajectory toward parliamentary scrutiny.
- Legal action will progress, including coordinated claims under a Group Litigation Order (GLO) and the pursuit of accountability through all available lawful mechanisms on behalf of every victim of the Insolvency Service and UK citizens.
- The reputational exposure of the Insolvency Service will deepen as further evidence is brought forward.
- Personal accountability will attach to current leadership (Duncan Beach, CEO) where credible evidence of misconduct and institutional failure is ignored at the expense of its victims, including private prosecutions of individuals responsible/complicit in these matters and hence failing their public duty.
This is not a matter that will dissipate – it will intensify. The only question is whether the Insolvency Service, under your leadership, chooses to confront what is now evidenced, or becomes further defined by its refusal to do so.
As Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service, Mr Beach, you are the senior public official responsible for the integrity and conduct of the institution you lead. The purpose of this letter is therefore not only to bring the documented concerns directly to your attention, but to ensure that they are formally placed on the public record. Having now been informed of the evidence and the seriousness of the issues involved, it will not be possible for the leadership of the Insolvency Service to claim ignorance of these matters. This letter, therefore, serves to place your office publicly on notice for the concerns raised and to hold the leadership of the Insolvency Service accountable to its public duties.
The conclusions set out in these letters are based on evidence, including material already provided to the Insolvency Service and evidence available in the public domain. They are stated plainly because the seriousness of these matters requires it.
The purpose of publishing these letters in sequence is to address the issues in a structured and transparent manner. Each letter examines a different dimension of what has now become a matter of serious public concern. As stated previously, these issues extend beyond the case of Lighthouse and affect other individuals, companies and, ultimately, the citizens of the United Kingdom. The current shocking and terrible state of the United Kingdom is unfolding one government agency at a time, and yours, in our view, is one of the most complicit.
Part 1 addresses the foundational issues in this matter: first, whether the Insolvency Service is operating in accordance with its stated purpose and Charter when tested against the evidential record, and second, the decision to initiate and sustain a weaponised and corrupt investigation that appears never to have had a valid factual basis.
Part 2 will address the severe human consequences that have come through the Insolvency Service’s actions, including the psychological, reputational and economic harm inflicted upon individuals and families, the concerns regarding misrepresentation to the court, and the possibility that the state process was amplified through media reporting before the underlying facts were properly examined.
Part 3 will address the responsibility of institutional leadership, including your role as Chief Executive, the constitutional principle that public authorities remain accountable to the citizens who fund them, and the increasing trajectory of public, parliamentary and legal scrutiny now surrounding this matter.
These letters are written in the public interest—not merely in the interest of Lighthouse and its Associates—and form part of the evidential record concerning the conduct of the Insolvency Service in the Lighthouse case.
2. Part 1 Overview
This first letter addresses the following matters, each supported by evidence already provided to the Insolvency Service and available for independent examination:
- Prior notice & continuing non-response – the Insolvency Service has already been placed on formal notice with supporting evidence and has failed to acknowledge or respond.
- The Insolvency Service, its purpose & its charter – a gap between the Insolvency Service’s stated role and its actions when tested against evidence.
- Invalid foundation of the corrupt investigation – the case was initiated and sustained without a legitimate factual basis. All findings presented by the Insolvency Service to the court rely on purported false whistleblowing based on false opinion and provably false facts that do not exist.
- Use of state power on false grounds – coercive powers exercised on unverified and demonstrably false allegations based on irrefutable evidence which amounts to hundreds of pages.
- Escalation beyond internal processes – the matter is progressing through advocacy, political and public accountability channels. Lighthouse, through its not-for-profit subsidiary organisations, has now officially become an advocacy, lobbying and protest-based organisation for the purposes of challenging government against this sort of incomporruption* and behaviour. (* incomporruption: corruption through covering up incompetence in the effort to preserve a reputation)
- Evidence of a wider pattern – similar concerns indicate this is not an isolated case.
- Threatened legal action, no follow-through – legal action was threatened by the Official Receiver, invited by Lighthouse for full scrutiny, and not pursued by the Insolvency Service.
- The central question – why the corrupt investigation was initiated at all.
- Direct questions for leadership – specific issues requiring a clear and substantive response.
- Consequences of continued silence – non-response will be recorded and will escalate the matter further.
3. Prior Notice & Continuing Non-Response
On 6 January 2026, an open letter was emailed to you, posted via recorded delivery and publicly published via CitizenIntervention.org, outlining serious concerns regarding the conduct of the Insolvency Service in the case of Lighthouse. That letter was intended to provide you, as the incoming Chief Executive, with an early and unfiltered understanding of the institutional failures you had inherited and the urgency of addressing them.
It remains neither acknowledged nor answered by any member of staff at the Insolvency Service. It seems you have fitted in like a hand in a glove.
Your silence is therefore now part of the evidential record. It’s prudent to point out that silence is a very temporary strategy. We are very aware that this strategy works for the Insolvency Service most of the time. I want to emphasise that it won’t work for you here, and it will be more damning for you in this case.
This continuing non-engagement is incompatible with the Insolvency Service Customer Charter, and nor is it sustainable in reality. Your Charter commits you and the organisation to fairness, transparency, accountability and responsiveness.
While the Charter publicly articulates principles of fairness, transparency and accountability, the conduct evidenced in this matter proves the existence of a very different operational reality, an unofficial charter operating in practice (which we are in the process of publishing): inappropriate control through process, guilty until proven innocent, “we will find something wrong on you to get our numbers up” (in our case you found a £17 irregularity), protection of institutional reputation over truth, and punishment of citizens who challenge procedural misconduct.
The contrast between the Charter’s stated commitments and the conduct now documented demands explanation.
4. The Insolvency Service, Its Purpose & Its Charter
The Insolvency Service purports to exist to manage financial failure fairly, protect creditors and the public, take action against genuine misconduct, and uphold trust in the United Kingdom’s economic and legal systems.
That stated purpose must now be examined against the evidential record.
An institution that persistently fails to serve its stated purpose, while continuing to present itself publicly as if it does, operates as a scam in substance. The gravity of that conclusion is heightened by the fact that this is the very institution entrusted with identifying and addressing such conduct.
We have strong reason to believe, based not only on our experience in the case of Lighthouse, but also on our extensive investigation into numerous other cases and the growing body of documented evidence, that the Insolvency Service is not operating in accordance with either its stated purpose or its own Charter. Instead of functioning as a fair and accountable public body, there is increasing evidence of an institution that presents itself as a guardian of the public interest while acting in ways that contradict that claim.
In the case of Lighthouse, and in other cases now under scrutiny, the evidence indicates that the Insolvency Service has invoked the façade of public interest, fairness and protection, while in reality:
- pursuing innocent individuals
- harming families
- destroying reputations
- damaging livelihoods
- defending flawed processes once exposed
In simple terms: you run with the sheep and hunt with the wolves.
There are criminal levels of misrepresentation, which is why it’s a scam. This constitutes a scam in substance!
We, along with Citizen Intervention Global, together with those affected, will advocate on behalf of every citizen and every victim of the Insolvency Service until accountability is secured, both personally and institutionally. Public office will not provide cover for corruption, misconduct, the covering up of wrongdoing, and criminal levels of misrepresentation. This is why it is a scam.
We will expose the fake whistleblowing and fake virtue signalling conducted by the Insolvency Service staff in great and specific detail. Whistleblowing is a sacred and protected responsibility in the UK, and any violation or abuse of such a responsibility in itself is a criminal act. Posturing as an agent of protecting and serving the public interest, while evidently not, is a clear indicator of fake whistleblowing.
Mr Beach, you now face a clear choice: to investigate these matters thoroughly, in full, and reform the Insolvency Service into what it claims and ought to be, or be held accountable, both personally and institutionally, for the wilful continuation of that abuse of power and responsibility.
5. The Provably False & Maliciously Triggered Corrupt Investigation That Should Never Have Existed
The Lighthouse case now evidences not merely procedural error, but a far more fundamental defect that raises serious concerns regarding the integrity of the process: the provably false and corrupt investigation, that was maliciously triggered by fake whistleblowers, that should never have proceeded.
The Insolvency Service initiated and sustained enforcement action on the basis of allegations by fake whistleblowers that were demonstrably false and repeatedly shown to be so.
These fake whistleblowers are namely; Mr Jeffrey Leigh-Jones, Ms Joanne Holmes, Ms Rachel Jones, Mr Anthony Church, Ms Tania Francis, and Ms Dagmar Spaeth.
From the earliest stages of the corrupt investigation, Lighthouse provided evidence demonstrating that the allegations were false, along with the intentionally murderous and destructive motives for these false allegations, by fake whistleblowers. In addition, substantial information relevant to those claims was publicly available online for Insolvency Service staff and the wider public to review.
The involvement of the Insolvency Service investigator, Gary Seymour, raises serious concerns as to the independence and objectivity of his enquiries. His characterisation of the fake whistleblowers (complainants), as ‘victims’ as part of his pseudo-investigation, further calls into question the impartiality of the process. The manner in which this was conducted gave the appearance of a level of personal bias throughout. In reality, we are the parties adversely affected by Mr Seymour’s misconduct.
The obvious question that therefore arises is: Why this evidence, which was provided directly and is also publicly available, was not properly examined or acted upon by the Insolvency Service at the time?
This raises serious concerns regarding the basis upon which the weaponised and corrupt investigation was allowed to continue and whether the allegations that triggered it were ever subjected to the level of scrutiny and verification that should precede the exercise of coercive state authority. Evidently, Mr Beach, what we have here is a corrupt investigation that has cost the British taxpayer millions. This institutional corruption, misconduct and cover-up is the sort of thing like the Watergate Scandal that brings down whole organisations and governments. As it stands, the case of Lighthouse is only a thread we’re pulling at. We now know it’s attached to a great deal more, and every time we look, there’s way more to be found.
This inevitably raises a fundamental question regarding motive and responsibility. When allegations that have been demonstrated to be false are relied upon to initiate and sustain a prolonged, corrupted investigation, it becomes necessary to examine how such allegations were allowed to trigger and sustain the exercise of coercive public authority?
Two conclusions arise: the Insolvency Service allowed itself to be weaponised by fake whistleblowers acting with demonstrably malicious intent toward Lighthouse and its directors. Or the Insolvency Service itself pursued and sustained a targeted and weaponised investigation while relying upon those allegations to provide the appearance of legitimacy. Or, both.
We are fully aware of who we are and what has taken place, as are those fake whistleblowers responsible for the provably false allegations. We believe the Insolvency Service is also aware of what has happened, and has been aware throughout. The facts are now contained, the evidence is in our possession, the position is clear and the game is up!
6. Weaponisation of State
In either case, the responsibility rests with the Insolvency Service, and now it rests on you, Duncan Beach. A public authority exercising powers coercively has a duty to verify the factual basis of allegations before deploying the machinery of the state. The evidence now available raises serious questions, aligned with serious culpabilities, as to whether that duty was fulfilled in this case.
What is already clear is that the individuals responsible for making the provably false allegations acted with demonstrable hostility and malice. Their conduct, therefore, makes the failure to properly scrutinise their claims before initiating and sustaining the weaponised and corrupt investigation all the more concerning.
Had appropriate due diligence and verification been undertaken, the matter would have been closed before coercive state mechanisms were engaged and millions of taxpayer money spent.
Instead, despite repeated notification and the presentation of contradictory evidence, the weaponised and corrupt investigation continued and the Insolvency Service failed to properly verify or reassess the allegations on which its actions were based.
The consequence has been years of enforcement action, the expenditure of substantial taxpayer funds, and the deployment of state enforcement machinery in pursuit of a process that lacked a valid factual foundation from the outset.
When state enforcement powers are exercised on the basis of allegations that were never properly verified, the consequences extend beyond a single case and raise serious concerns about the integrity of the investigative process itself and the very organisation you now lead.
When the underlying allegations could not withstand scrutiny, reliance shifted toward procedural technicalities to sustain enforcement; retrospectively and falsely justifying the continuation of the Lighthouse case.
The irony in this case is that Lighthouse was wound up on the grounds of non-compliance, despite our repeated efforts to engage and comply by raising dozens of legitimate questions with the Insolvency Service. Although there was clear pressure for compliance, those questions were never addressed by the Insolvency Service. This demonstrates an apparent inconsistency in standards, one for the Insolvency Service and another for those subject to, and targeted by, its actions. The unavoidable inference is that answering them would have undermined the continuation of the proceedings and the corrupt justification of this case as well as the taxpayer funding behind it.
This sequence creates the appearance, and increasingly the evidential reality, of an institution defending its own procedural trajectory rather than pursuing truth, proportionality or justice. This is the epitome of incomporruption.
The reality of the injustice underlying this process will be exposed through legitimate and lawful means, and those responsible will be held accountable both personally and institutionally.
7. Escalation of the Case of Lighthouse to the Highest Office
The matters raised in this letter, and the letters to follow, will continue to be examined through lawful and transparent processes until the full circumstances surrounding the case are properly understood and accountability is established. Where wrongdoing is identified, those responsible will be held personally accountable, and appropriate institutional pressure will be applied to ensure reform in line with the public interest.
The evidential record surrounding this matter continues to expand. Advocacy efforts, lobbying, protesting, public documentation, and engagement with Members of Parliament are already underway. This includes escalation beyond domestic channels, with formal correspondence issued to senior international political figures, including an open letter addressed to President Donald J. Trump, placing these matters within a broader context of institutional accountability and public interest.
It is increasingly likely that the conduct of the Insolvency Service in the Lighthouse case will be subject to UK parliamentary scrutiny within the next two years. More on this will follow in subsequent letters.
On the evidence currently available, the circumstances surrounding the initiation and continuation of this corrupt and pseudo investigation raise serious and unresolved questions regarding the conduct, judgment and oversight exercised by the Insolvency Service.
As Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service, the responsibility for ensuring that these matters are properly examined and addressed now rests with you.
8. A Pattern That Cannot Be Ignored
The Lighthouse case will not be dismissed as an isolated occurrence of malfeasance, and it will not be allowed to continue as be treated as it is.
Evidence now publicly available strongly suggests that similar concerns regarding investigative standards, proportionality and due diligence have arisen in other cases involving the Insolvency Service. We are currently conducting a research-based investigation into cases over the last 20 years in which the Insolvency Service has caused harm to citizens, including cases that have not been publicly reported or published on its website. We intend to present our findings to key members of government and other relevant parties.
Public examples frequently cited include the handling of the Kids Company pseudo-investigation and the treatment of individuals such as Boris Becker by Michael Bint. Unless these cases are confronted with clear, provable evidence, they remain ignored. We are actively gathering that evidence, and through sustained advocacy, these issues are being brought to light and addressed. We are developing a process that will make accountability inevitable. Cover-ups are never sustainable, and with focused advocacy, their collapse will only be accelerated. Act, or be acted upon.
When such concerns arise repeatedly, the issue ceases to be confined to a single case. It now becomes a matter of systemic public concern regarding the standards by which state enforcement powers are exercised.
9. Legal Threats Made, Scrutiny Avoided
A further matter of significance concerns direct correspondence from Michael Bint, then Official Receiver, in which legal action was threatened in relation to material published online by Lighthouse, as evidence in these emails between Mr Bint and Mr Waugh.
If you search for “Michael Bint Insolvency Service”, or “Gary Seymour Insolvency Service”, their misconduct appears at the top of Google. This is not going away and others, who are in a leadership role, who are ignoring this, will be in a similar position to Michael Bint.
The threat from Mr Bint was met with a clear and unequivocal response. Paul Waugh expressly invited such legal action to be pursued, on the basis that it would allow for full disclosure and independent examination of the evidential record outside of the Insolvency Service private and hermetically sealed kangaroo court system, including material demonstrating serious concerns regarding the conduct of the Insolvency Service. Additionally, the Insolvency Service’s reliance on exaggerated statements, attempts to derive unwarranted credibility from the Secretary of State, and the use of manipulative tactics have not been effective in this case. We know this got under Mr Bint’s skin, and his subsequent actions demonstrate this. It’s crucial to point out that these manipulations will not work on others through our advocacy, lobbying, and protest efforts.
No such legal action has been taken by the Insolvency Service and Michael Bint. Mr Bint knows that he has no grounds to challenge us legally with the Insolvency Service’s wrongdoing under the spotlight. The threat made was therefore disingenuous and appears to have been intended as an act of intimidation and provocation. It reflects a pattern of hubris, arrogance, poor judgment, and sheer foolishness within the organisation, including on the part of Michael Bint.
In circumstances where legal proceedings were expressly invited, the absence of any follow-through is notable and requires explanation. It raises legitimate and unavoidable questions as to whether the evidential basis required to sustain such action exists, and whether the matters raised would withstand scrutiny if tested before a court.
This forms part of a wider evidential pattern in which serious issues have been raised, supported by documentation with full evidence, and placed before the Insolvency Service, yet remain untested through any process capable of independent examination.
10. The Foundational Question
Everything that has followed in the Lighthouse matter ultimately traces back to one fundamental question:
Why was the corrupt pseudo-investigation initiated at all?
If the allegations underpinning the weaponised and corrupt investigation were provably false or unverified, then every subsequent action taken in this case must necessarily be re-examined in full and transparently, not behind closed doors. The legitimacy of the entire process ultimately depends upon the answer to that question.
That is the issue addressed in this first letter.
11. Matters Requiring Your Response
In light of the matters set out above, several fundamental questions now arise which require clarification from the ‘leadership’ of the Insolvency Service.
- What verification process was undertaken by the Insolvency Service before the Lighthouse corrupt and pseudo investigation was initiated?
- What steps were taken by the Insolvency Service to examine all the evidence provided by Lighthouse (publicly and in court documentation) demonstrating that the allegations underpinning the corrupt investigation were false?
- Why was substantial, publicly available information and evidence denouncing the allegations not properly examined before enforcement action was pursued?
- What internal review, if any, has been conducted regarding the decision to continue enforcement action once serious concerns about the validity of the allegations had been raised?
- What steps will now be taken by you and the “leadership” of the Insolvency Service to ensure that the circumstances surrounding the initiation and continuation of this corrupt and pseudo investigation are independently examined and done in full?
These questions, therefore, require a clear and substantive response from the ‘leadership’ of the Insolvency Service in the name of public interest and concern to every United Kingdom citizen.
12. Failure to Respond Will Not Bring this Matter to an End… It Will Intensify It
This matter will not dissipate through wilful ignorance, silence and inaction.
The conduct of the Insolvency Service’s previous ‘leadership’ demonstrates a clear lack of institutional appetite to confront internal failure, corruption, misconduct and the evidential record now before it. That absence of engagement is no longer capable of being characterised as oversight. It forms part of the conduct itself and will be recorded accordingly and they will be held accountable personally.
This includes the actions of former Chief Executive Dean Beale, who has since departed to the Centre for Public Interest Audit (which is ironic given he refused to internally audit his own organisation he was leading), and Alex Pybus, who, despite being placed on notice of serious concerns, failed to act and remained silent. Responsibility for that conduct does not fall away by virtue of departure from office, nor is it diminished by continued silence or inaction. Personal accountability remains.
That lack of institutional appetite is evidenced in several ways:
- A reluctance to engage with sustained external scrutiny, including the legal, reputational and evidential exposure that such scrutiny brings.
- An apparent inability to rely on verifiable factual evidence capable of withstanding independent examination under pressure.
- An unwillingness to confront the personal and professional consequences that may arise where serious institutional failings are acknowledged and corrected rather than concealed in order to preserve the Insolvency Services false reputation and corrupt pathologies.
- A preference for maintaining a false institutional position, reputation and perceived authority, rather than engaging in the more demanding process of full accountability.
- A reliance on institutional protection mechanisms that shield decision-making from meaningful external challenges.
We are currently establishing purpose-built, community-led watchdogs across government to promote integrity and ensure that conduct remains aligned with each institution’s intended purpose
Taken together, these factors demonstrate an organisation not operating with the level of rigour, transparency and evidential confidence required of a public authority exercising coercive powers of the state. An institution that operates in this way, when tested against its stated purpose and the evidential record, constitutes a scam in substance.
The consequence is clear.
Where a corrupt institution lacks the appetite for scrutiny, it will avoid it.
Where it avoids scrutiny, accountability is delayed.
Where accountability is delayed, harm is prolonged.
That position is NOT acceptable and we will advocate for truth and reformation.
These matters require direct engagement, transparent examination and a willingness to confront the evidential record in full, not partially.
Silence will not be accepted as a response. It will be recorded and treated as part of the evidential record of institutional conduct, which means personal and institutional accountability will ensue.
The bottom line is, this matter will not dissipate. We will not stop until the record is clear, reform has happened, and compensation for every victim has taken place!
Mr Beach, as Chief Executive of a public authority, you are 100% accountable (in depth, breadth and height) to the public you serve. That accountability cannot be avoided. We advocate, and as Christians we pray, that you respond appropriately and justly, in the interests of all, including you, the citizens of the United Kingdom, the employees of the Insolvency Service, and the practitioners who rely upon a trustworthy and effective institution.
We will continue to pursue this matter through all lawful avenues, including lobbying, advocacy, public, parliamentary, and legal channels, until it is fully examined and addressed in full and appropriately.
A clear and substantive response is now required without further delay.
13. The Second Letter
The next letter in this ongoing series will examine the human consequences of this corrupt investigation, including:
- The severe psychological, reputational, well-being and financial harm inflicted upon individuals and families at Lighthouse Global.
- The major concerns regarding the Official Receiver’s misrepresentation along with blatant, provable and evidential lies to the court.
- The role that mainstream media reporting has played in reinforcing the narrative surrounding these proceedings before the underlying facts were properly examined.
For that reason, this letter places the matter directly before you, Mr Beach, as Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service. The issues raised are serious, evidenced and now publicly documented.
You are therefore invited to acknowledge this letter, confirm whether you intend to examine the matters raised, and state what steps you will take to ensure that the conduct of the Insolvency Service in the Lighthouse case and beyond is properly and thoroughly investigated in full.
Mr Beach, your response, or continued silence, will form part of the public and evidential record regarding how the leadership of the Insolvency Service chooses to respond when these matters are formally brought to its attention. As Chief Executive, the responsibility for ensuring that these matters are properly examined now rests with you.
This is the legacy of Dean Beale, Alec Pybus, Gary Seymour, Joseph Sullivan, Michael Bint, Karen Baldock, and Daniel Curthoys. This does not have to be yours.
I look forward to your prompt and substantive response addressing the matters raised in this letter.
Yours resolutely,
Paul S Waugh
Citizen Intervention Global
In association with Private Prosecution Service UK (PPS)
For your reference:
Ref 1: Insolvency Service CEO Duncan Beach Introduced to Institutional Incompetence & Corruption
Ref 2: The Insolvency Service Customer Charter – The Insolvency Service’s Commitment to Our Customers
Ref 3: The Provably False Allegations Against Lighthouse International Group & the Accusers
Ref 4: Extra Lessons For Karen Baldock, Dean Beale, Michael Bint & Gary Seymour – UK Insolvency Service
Ref 5: The Case of Lighthouse and Substantial Information Published Online
Ref 6: The Insolvency Service Failed to Verify the Provably False Allegations
Ref 8: The Case of Kids Company – The Innocent Charity Destroyed By Insolvency Service Oppression
Ref 10: Former Insolvency Service CEO Dean Beale’s Great Escape Plan Revealed
Ref 11: Public Accountability Through Open Letter To Alec Pybus, former Insolvency Service CEO
Related articles:
Investigation into the UK Insolvency Service & Boris Becker Part 1: When The Establishment Targets You To Be A Human Sacrifice – Featuring Michael Bint
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
One of The Most Powerful Institutions in The World That Governs Your Life – That You Have Never Heard Of!
The DNA, Pathology and Modus Operandi of a Fake Whistleblower: The Case of Jeffrey Leigh-Jones
This is a substantial open letter to Duncan Beach and it’s only the first part of a series! It’s telling that there was no reply to the original open letter that was sent to Mr Beach. Now as these new letters are being written and sent it will be very revealing what, if any, response comes back.
The Insolvency Service has committed atrocities against the British citizens it is supposed to be serving and protecting. The waste of public funds to pursue personal vendettas, as Michael Bint and others have done, is criminal. The fact that they provably collude with the likes of the BBC to inflict maximal reputational damage on their targets is testimony of their tyrannical attitude.
I pray that Duncan Beach has a semblance of conscience that will enable him to look at this case and act with responsibility.
A waste of public funds yes, and seemingly, a knowing waste. What I mean is, the investigation into Lighthouse was launched on the testimony of lying sources who were never questioned. As a result they sought to destroy Lighthouse before the investigation. There was never any room for counter claims or for them to actually receive our evidence. Shocking that this happens to the UK’s own citizens by a government agency! But not surprising nowadays.
Time and time we’ve asked the Insolvency Service to investigate the veracity of their sources. Michael Bint flatly refused to entertain the idea. It’s very inconvenient for their corrupt investigation to look into the sources, their motives and the way the Insolvency Service‘s resources were mobilised. The case for them and the establishment wanting to destroy Lighthouse and its people is shown by the disproportionate amount of resources invested in trying to decimate us.
Thank you very much for this update — and thank you to Paul Waugh for writing such a direct and detailed open letter; the way it challenges Duncan Beach and lays out the orchestrated whistleblowing behind the investigation is striking, showing how this behaviour sows distrust among the average UK citizen. Silence in response is itself a response, revealing the truth of where accountability truly lies. The consequences of such actions will not go unavoided, no matter how long this is dragged out, and by holding them accountable to the truth, we ensure that others won’t have to endure what we have faced with the Insolvency Service.
Thank you for such a thorough and well thought out letter detailing the Institutional and endemic biases, challenges and problems that are at the heart of the Insolvency Service. One thing that in particular stands out is the tactic they use of non-response when they receive information that does not suit them or their agenda. In contrast they are happy to act on information that, even though is based upon lies, if it propels them towards their aims. This shows they do not care about truth. This is evident in the case of Kids Company and Boris Becker. Indeed Boris Becker discusses that recommendations made by the Official Receiver were then used against him to send him to prison!!! This is state sanctioned law fare and needs to be investigated and reformed with due compensation paid.
Thank you for sharing this open letter to the Insolvency Service CEO and for providing such a clear example of holding government agencies accountable.
So often, we feel powerless and unsure how to challenge wrongdoing or respond to attacks by false whistleblowers. This article offers a strong and thoughtful explanation of the current state of the Insolvency Service, highlighting cases such as Lighthouse Global, Kids Company, and Boris Becker, and raising serious concerns about a lack of care for individuals. It shows how significant harm can result when accountability is missing.
I pray for the new CEO, Duncan Beach and that he will take responsibility, make right what has gone wrong, and lead meaningful reform so the Insolvency Service truly serves and protects citizens rather than trying to destroy them.
God bless
Everyone reading this, whether directly affected by the Insolvency or not, needs to start out by recognising that government agencies are public entities, run by public servants. That means they were created and are run in order to serve the public, funded and paid for by the public. That means they work for us, the public. They are responsible to and must answer to us, the public. They are not a private entity and they are not privately funded and could not exist without the public. Therefore when they cease to genuinely serve the public, when they refuse to answer scrutiny by the public, when they go against their contract with the public, when they start acting at the public’s expense they have become a rogue entity. They are acting illegally, corruptly, immorally, unethically and must be held to account publicly, by the public, which is exactly what CIG is doing here and bravo! This is an excellent letter and is comprehensively damning on the Insolvency Service and it’s lineage of cowardly and ignoble CEOs. Their silence is condemning them with every day that passes. Looking at the Insolvency Service’s Charter and how they have treated Lighthouse they’re clearly, just from this, with no other information, going against their own promises to us the public. The bad news for Mr Beach, if he continues in the same vein of silence, is that the evidence against him, his predecessors and his agency only increases as we the public become more and more organised, united and vociferous. That will only escalate until it becomes inevitable that the Insolvency Service folds under the full weight of the truth.
If the Insolvency Service were to come across an organisation that fraudulently investigates organisations, demands bodies of evidence without explanation, causes severe distress and harm to individuals within that organisation, what would their response be? Would they condone it? If this company was allegedly responsible for directly or indirectly even causing death in its targets, what then? Because that is what the Insolvency Service is doing and has done.
I find their tactic of silence at the very least, childish foolishness. Conservatively it is incomporruption. At worst, it is corruption and high hubris. To think that they can be silent in the face of questions when they feel entitled to harass and invade people’s lives is grossly tyrannical and abhorrent. They try to squeeze the life out of their targets, they make up their mind before conducting an investigation whether to seek prosecution and in a real sense, execution… yet they cannot, will not answer critical questions?
I sincerely hope Mr Beach comes in to correct and address the wrongs in his organisation.
Thank you for sharing this open letter to Duncan Beach. This is so an eye opening , you are revealing so much that is not happening within the Insolvency Service, which is despicable, considering they claim to work in the publics interest. What you are helping me and all of us understand is the malicious tyranny that goes on and how that effects those who they are going after.
The fact that they never replied or acknowledged the previous letter, wow. If they send out letters and they are not acknowledged, what they then send are letters of legal action and prosecution. One rule for them, another for everyone else.
Thank you so much Paul and everyone else involved in writing this open letter, a very powerful and insightful read.
When you start looking more closely at the Insolvency Service, you see an entity that is concerned with its own survival rather than serving the public generally and legitimately. Their refusal to receive evidence from Lighthouse is deeply revealing about who is being dealt with. If they were legitimate, they would be seeking all information that is relevant, so it is clear that they are not. There is something very rotten here, and I am glad they are being exposed.
Thank you for this powerful and thorough letter of accountability to Mr Beach. This letter lays out very clearly, in detail, that the Insolvency Service, like the BBC, are indifferent to the welfare of the citizens they have a duty to serve fairly and effectively.
What they have done in facilitating and enabling this co-ordinated and biased campaign of attack against Lighthouse, is nothing short of tyrannical and despicable.
Mr Beach has a choice now to make this right, not just for Lighthouse but for the many, many other citizens it has caused severe harm and damage to. The crucial questions we have already asked and will continue to ask, must be answered and we pray Mr Beach looks at his own conscience and answers them promptly.
As stated, the need for a response is essential, as a lack of response is also noted in the evidential record. If the IS has a solid case, why has no further action been taken? Lighthouse has invited the opportunity to get all the facts out in the open, so surely such an invitation would be welcomed by the IS if their intentions to serve the public are wholesome?
I pray that the individuals mentioned and the new CEO will learn and act on what has been shared here and in the coming letters, because the truth will always come to the surface anyway. It is better to right wrongs now, rather than let them fester and cause further harm over time.