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. Continuation of the Public Record
This letter forms the second in the series of three public letters concerning the conduct of the Insolvency Service in the matter of Lighthouse Global (formerly Lighthouse International Group) and associated proceedings.
The first letter addressed the foundational issue in this case: the decision to initiate and sustain a corrupt and pseudo investigation that never had a valid factual basis.
This second letter addresses the consequences that arose once a corrupt and weaponised investigation without a valid factual foundation was allowed to proceed, each supported by evidence already provided to the Insolvency Service and available for independent examination.
As an overview this letter focuses on:
- The severe human consequences – Individuals and families subjected to prolonged and significant psychological, reputational and financial harm.
- Process operating as punishment – The investigative process itself inflicts damage irrespective of any proven wrongdoing or being cleared of any accusations, and initiated on the assumption of guilty until proven innocent.
- Misrepresentation to the court – Provably false statements presented by a public official in court with material impact on proceedings and purposely misleading the Judge and court in order to achieve an end.
- “Leadership’s” failure to act – Senior officials (Alec Pybus, Joseph Sullivan, Michael Bint, Daniel Curthoys, Gary Seymour, Victoria Prime) at the Insolvency Service, the Insolvency and Companies Court, and the Department for Business and Trade placed on notice of serious issues (including provable criminal actions) and failing to investigate or correct the record.
- Escalation to unlawful outcomes – Enforcement actions, including an unlawful warrant of arrest, pursued despite a collapsed factual foundation and provable lies.
- Media amplification of false allegations – provable and evidential false claims repeated publicly, compounding reputational harm.
- Intersection between state process and media narrative – Evidence highlighting coordination or influence prior to proper factual verification and provable falsehoods.
- Institutional duty of care breached – Failure to exercise the level of care required when deploying coercive state authority.
- Systemic human impact – The cumulative psychological, material and economic harm arising from severe institutional failures and weaponisation.
- Accountability now required – The necessity for transparent examination in full and response from current “leadership”.
When the power of the state is exercised on the basis of unverified, demonstrably, and evidentially false allegations by fake whistleblowers, the consequences do not remain confined to procedure. They enter the lives of real individuals, children, families, and communities.
The Lighthouse case demonstrates that the use of coercive state authority, once initiated without proper foundation and instead provable falsehoods, has the capacity to inflict profound psychological, reputational and financial harm which is often irreversible.
This is neither an isolated case nor the end of the matter. It reflects a wider pattern of corruption, criminality, cover-ups, and the weaponisation of process and what is taking place is genuine whistleblowing in response to fabricated and fake whistleblowing. The reality is the deeper and broader we dig, the pattern of wrongdoing becomes clearer, more widespread, and more deeply rooted. Individuals are now coming forward to substantiate these findings through their own direct experience, and this is just the start!
The Insolvency Service was weaponised throughout this process. Technicalities were abused, falsehoods were relied upon, and fake whistleblowers were used to initiate and sustain a narrative that contradicted reality and the evidence to prove that. This reflects what can only be described as the incomporruption* playbook, corruption born out of the need to conceal incompetence, wrongdoing and preserve reputation. That playbook is now being exposed.
*incomporruption: corruption through covering up incompetence in the effort to preserve a reputation.
When errors are made, the response has not been one of correction or accountability. Instead, it has been fabrication, misrepresentation, manipulation of process, and abuse of legal technicalities to construct a case against individuals who have done nothing wrong. Investigations are initiated or pursued on flawed or knowingly false premises, and then sustained through further distortion once the initial failure becomes apparent.
At its core, this represents a failure of due diligence. The Insolvency Service had a duty of care to properly assess the credibility of allegations before acting. That duty was not met. Once that failure occurred, a cover-up followed, one that has been maintained at the expense of innocent individuals.
There is now a clear and repeated pattern, once the process is weaponised or a mistake is made, it is compounded. False narratives are constructed, facts are reframed, and actions are justified retrospectively in order to defend prior decisions, justify the use of public funds, and protect institutional credibility. This is an outright cover up of wrongdoing and is criminal.
The cost of this is borne entirely by the hapless individual. People are subjected to processes they are not equipped to defend themselves against, particularly within a system where the legal and institutional structures operate in alignment with the same authority. The imbalance is profound, and the consequences are severe.
The reality is this; individuals have been misrepresented, public officials have lied and manipulated. Public servants have orchestrated narratives to sustain actions that should never have been taken. This is not an error. This is a pattern of conduct that demands full exposure and accountability.
This letter therefore addresses the human consequences of the corrupt, pseudo and weaponised investigation, the recorded conduct of public officials before the court, and the wider pattern by which that harm was significantly compounded.
2. Severe Human Consequences
The corrupt and pseudo investigation and enforcement actions pursued in the Lighthouse matters have had severe and far-reaching consequences for the individuals involved and for our families.
Over a prolonged period of time, individuals associated with Lighthouse have experienced significant deterioration in their physical and mental health. The pressures created by the Insolvency Service’s weaponised investigation, the reputational damage arising from public allegations, and the prolonged uncertainty surrounding the proceedings have imposed extraordinary strain on those involved.
Weaponisation in this context is the deliberate use of process as a means of destruction. It is designed to break individuals through procedure itself, regardless of whether they are ultimately cleared. The damage is done in the process, inflicting profound and often lasting harm on human lives.
Where there is evidence or credible reporting of such weaponisation, it must be subject to rigorous scrutiny. This is not acceptable conduct within any system that claims to operate with integrity or justice.
Christian and Citizen Intervention Global will actively intervene in cases where there is reason to believe that a government agency has weaponised its powers against an individual or group, whether for political, ideological, or other purposes. This cannot be allowed to stand.
This is corruption. It must be stopped. Accountability will not stop at the institutional level. Every individual involved will be subject to investigation.
Families have been placed under immense stress with children suffering greatly. Professional reputations built over decades have been destroyed. Individuals have faced social stigma, livelihoods ruined and ongoing uncertainty regarding their personal and professional futures with documented cases of Associates at Lighthouse being suicidal.
The consequences extended beyond reputational damage alone. Death threats have been received and personal safety has been severely compromised, where in some cases people have had to leave their families and relocate overseas for safety and recovery.
Death threats have been on the basis of outright lies and falsehoods, fake whistleblowing, and weaponisation.
Families have been forced to live under constant stress and fear created by a corrupt process that should never have been initiated. Individuals have been pushed to the brink of suicide under the pressure of a prolonged corrupt investigation, reputational destruction and public vilification due to fake whistleblowing and devastating weaponisation.
We were subjected to sustained and intrusive surveillance. Our bank accounts were shut down without explanation, phones were hacked, our devices were interfered with, and our privacy was systematically violated. Despite this, no criminal or unlawful conduct was ever found.
This fact is critical. It exposes the reality that significant taxpayer-funded resources were deployed in pursuit of an outcome that did not exist. The failure to find any wrongdoing left those responsible unable to justify the investigation and I guarantee you that public officers like Michael Bint were shocked and dismayed at this fact.
In response, Mr Bint had to provably and criminally lie in order to wilfully mislead the Court, the Judge, and the public to achieve an unlawful outcome at our expense. These statements were central to the proceedings and materially influenced the outcome. This is nothing short of a corrupt, heinous, lying, and dirty tricks campaign.
When your officials like Mr Bint moved away from truth and what is accurate, what followed was the deliberate construction and manipulation of a false narrative to cover up that failure, protecting reputations and careers at our expense. Something was manufactured where nothing existed. This is corruption and a scam of the highest order.
Those responsible, including Joseph Sullivan, Michael Bint, and Gary Seymour, must be held personally accountable, and that responsibility rests with you, Mr Beach. We will ensure that their wrongdoing, criminality, and cover-ups are fully exposed, publicly and without exception, followed by appropriate accountability, including private prosecution where the evidence supports it.
The conduct in this case is of such seriousness that it warrants removal from office, a full independent investigation, and fundamental reform of the Insolvency Service.
When the power of the state is exercised without proper verification of the facts, the damage inflicted is not abstract. In reality, the damage is personal, human and in many cases irreversible. The people at Lighthouse, their lives and their families’ lives have been irrevocably changed by the prolonged, tyrannical actions of the Insolvency Service and the fake whistleblowers it has relied on.
3. Process as Punishment
It is widely recognised that the process of any investigation can itself operate as a form of punishment, especially when falsely triggered as part of an overall hate and smear campaign.
Prolonged process of a corrupt investigation, reputational damage, financial disruption and public scrutiny impose real and often irreversible consequences on those subjected to enforcement action long before any findings are made. That reality is precisely why regulatory authorities must exercise extreme care before initiating such processes and must ensure that the factual basis for doing so has been properly and thoroughly verified.
For that reason, the exercise of coercive state authority carries a duty of care. Public institutions entrusted with such powers must ensure that investigations are initiated only where the factual basis is sound, accurate and that enforcement actions are pursued with fairness, diligence and proportionality. It is essential to have mechanisms in place to terminate a corrupt investigation when it becomes clear that bureaucratic procedures have been misused, abused or that errors have occurred through incompetence or human oversight. This is incomporruption*.
In the case of Lighthouse, the evidence raises serious concerns that this duty was not merely neglected but that the investigative process may have been pursued in a manner incompatible with the responsibilities of a public authority exercising coercive state power.
Where that duty is not properly fulfilled, the harm inflicted can be profound and devastating across the board.
4. Provable Lies & Misrepresentation to the Court
A further and deeply serious issue arises concerning representations and deliberate (provable and evidential) lies made to the court during the course of the Lighthouse proceedings.
Evidence demonstrates that statements made to the court by Deputy Official Receiver Michael Bint were wilful lies and demonstrably false when measured against the available evidence. This is a criminal action. These statements concerned matters central to the proceedings and had the capacity to materially influence the outcome of the hearing.
Public authorities, like Mr Bint and Mr Sullivan, appearing before a court are subject to a duty of candour. The information presented must be complete, accurate and not misleading. Courts rely upon the integrity of representations made by public authorities when exercising judicial authority.
Where a public official presents information to the Court that is demonstrably false, the consequences are not theoretical. The Court is wilfully misled, and judicial decisions are made on a factual basis that does not reflect reality. In such circumstances, lives, reputations and personal liberty are placed at risk and often the consequences are irreversible.
In the Lighthouse case:
- Evidence demonstrating the inaccuracies was formally submitted.
- Supporting documentation directly contradicted the statements relied upon.
- Senior ‘leadership’, including Alex Pybus (acting CEO at the time) and the Official Receiver (Joseph Sullivan), was placed on notice.
Despite this:
- No corrective action was taken.
- No investigation into the Insolvency Service’s conduct or its sources was initiated.
- No attempt was made to correct the record.
- Instead, further cover-ups followed, along with more avoidance and silence which compounded the original misconduct, corruption, and criminality rather than correcting it.
The continued absence of any response now forms part of the evidential record.
By way of example:
Example 1 – In 2025, Mr Bint informed the Court that Mr Cooper’s “non-cooperation had been dealt with by Judge Schaffer.” This statement is directly contradicted by the Court record. On 26 November 2024, Judge Schaffer expressly refused to issue a warrant of arrest and instead directed that an independent medical report be obtained. That medical evidence was subsequently submitted to the Court in accordance with that direction.
To characterise those events as a finding of “non-cooperation” was wilfully and materially misleading, incompatible, and a direct contrivance with the duty of candour owed by a public authority. This was not an error or misunderstanding. It was a knowing misrepresentation to the Court, amounting to lying to a Judge and perverting the course of justice, a criminal act under UK law. The statement had the capacity to influence the Court’s understanding of prior proceedings and the conduct of the individual concerned.
Example 2 – Mr Bint further informed the Court that the Insolvency Service had “no indication” as to whether Mr Cooper would attend the February hearing at which a warrant of arrest was issued. This statement is also contradicted by the documentary record.
In advance of that hearing, both the Court and the Insolvency Service were in receipt of:
- Continuous NHS Med-3 certificates confirming medical incapacity.
- Medical evidence previously accepted by the Official Receiver.
- Written submissions explaining the inability to attend.
- Explicit notice that Mr Cooper was overseas on medical advice and for safeguarding reasons, including documented death threats that had been formally reported and were subject to police involvement.
The assertion that there was “no indication” of attendance was false and knowingly misleading in the face of the evidence already on record. It was a calculated attempt to damage Mr Cooper’s reputation by weaponising the law to secure an outcome at any cost. This is lawfare. This is corruption.
The conduct of Michael Bint demonstrates a clear pattern of targeted hostility towards Lighthouse and its people. This arises from our refusal to be intimidated in any way and our unwillingness to tolerate his abuse of position, unlawful conduct, and deliberate manipulation of process.
Mr Bint refuses to take responsibility for his falsehoods. Instead, he has sought to defend and conceal his wrongdoing by using the law to pursue and attack those holding him accountable for the harm he has caused.
The irony is stark. The Insolvency Service exists to identify and address misconduct and corruption in the public interest, yet in this case it fails and refuses to confront its own, choosing instead to protect it. This is blatant hypocrisy and a scam.
The only entity in this matter that is truly insolvent is the Insolvency Service itself. It is insolvent morally, ethically, as well as in its competence and conduct. The very body tasked with addressing insolvency has, in this case, demonstrated a failure of integrity, capability, and accountability.
This raises a fundamental question: who regulates the Insolvency Service when it fails in this way? Currently no one, but that’s about to change.
The consequences of this failure and corrupt process ultimately extended to the pursuit of an unlawful and unjust warrant of arrest against a medically incapacitated individual (Mr Cooper) as officially documented by the NHS, demonstrating how far the enforcement process was allowed to proceed despite the collapse of the factual basis on which it was originally founded.
The evidence demonstrating the false statements was therefore placed directly before the ‘leadership’ of the Insolvency Service and was blatantly ignored. Silence in the face of provably false statements to a court is not neutrality. It is institutional failure and inaction becomes part of the misconduct itself and an abdication of the responsibilities attached to public office and a failure to uphold the standards expected of a public authority exercising coercive state power.
Silence in the face of provable, evidential, and wilful misrepresentation to the Court is not neutrality, it is an institutional position. It amounts to condoning the use of falsehoods to secure outcomes. In these circumstances, inaction is not passive, it is active participation in the misconduct, corruption and coverups. It forms part of the corruption and the cover-up, and represents a clear abdication of the responsibilities attached to public office.
The persistence of these failures and cover-ups reveals a systemic issue. Where inaccurate representations to the Court are identified and no corrective action is taken, the process is being knowingly upheld on false grounds and state authority is being abused and being exercised corruptly.
Accountability in these circumstances requires more than acknowledgement. It requires correction of the record, proper investigation, and clear action to address the failures identified, correction of the record, accountability, reform and full compensation.
These public officials, including Mr Bint, Mr Sullivan, and Mr Seymour, are not fit to hold public office. They should be removed. The Insolvency Service requires full structural overhaul, not superficial change. This is how you’ve deceived the public, but avoid confronting the problem. It’s just the appearance of change that changes.
Installing a new figurehead on top of a boil (or a compromised institution) achieves nothing. It is cosmetic, not corrective.
Take Mr Bint as a clear example. Why was he demoted from Official Receiver to Deputy Official Receiver during the course of the Lighthouse case? This demands a full and transparent explanation.
5. “Leadership’s” Failure to Act
The issue is not confined to the conduct of a single official. Where credible evidence is presented demonstrating that a public official (Michael Bint) has wilfully and criminally misled the court, senior leadership carries a clear duty to investigate the matter and, where necessary, take immediate steps to correct the record.
These circumstances are not procedural failings, they are a breakdown of integrity. The Lighthouse case was advanced using unreliable and provable false representations to the Court. Where a judicial decision is secured on demonstrably false grounds, the entire process is corrupted and the outcome is illegitimate and those responsible (Mr Sullivan, Mr Bint, Ms Okhiria, Mr Seymour, Mr Curthoys, Ms Prime and others) must be held accountable.
As stated before, the responsibility to address these failures now rests with you.
Accordingly, steps are now underway to ensure that the conduct of Alec Pybus, Joseph Sullivan, and Michael Bint, including their failure to act after credible evidence of serious misconduct was presented to them, is independently examined and that appropriate accountability follows.
Where senior officials are placed on notice of serious misconduct and fail to act, that inaction is not administrative oversight. It is a conscious failure to discharge the responsibilities of public office and becomes part of the misconduct, corruption, and coverup itself.
6. Secretary of State
This failure to act is not limited to internal ‘leadership’ alone.
The matters outlined in this letter were previously escalated beyond the Insolvency Service to central government. A formal complaint was submitted to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade at the time, Kemi Badenoch, setting out concerns regarding the conduct of the Insolvency Service, the integrity of the investigation, and the evidence of misrepresentation and harm arising from it.
That correspondence forms part of the public record and details the same pattern now presented to you. View the Secretary of State complaint letter.
Despite this escalation to the highest level of departmental oversight, no corrective action, investigation or substantive response followed.
This establishes a clear and evidenced pattern: concerns raised, evidence provided, and no appropriate due action taken. Instead, those responsible escalated the misconduct through criminal cover-ups, sustained falsehoods, and deliberate deception.
The continued absence of any response following escalation to both departmental and ministerial level materially increases the seriousness of the issues now under consideration.
The current Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Peter Kyle, is copied into this correspondence and his attention is now being formally drawn to these matters, given their clear public interest. The issue is therefore not one of awareness. It is one of institutional response.
Mr Beach, you are now in receipt of the same evidential position. The question is no longer whether the Insolvency Service is aware of these matters, but whether its current ‘leadership’ will act where others have failed to do so. Be under no illusion, any failure to act transparently, lawfully, and accountably, as required of you as a public officer, makes you complicit in this unlawful, corrupt, and criminal conduct.
7. Escalation to Unlawful Outcomes
The continuation of the corrupt and pseudo investigation, despite the collapse of its factual basis, led to increasingly severe enforcement actions. This included the pursuit of an unlawful warrant of arrest, the deployment of over ten officers to remove a member of Mr Cooper’s family from a plane, the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money, and the harassment of individuals at their homes, including officers attending properties, peering through windows, and concealing themselves in private gardens.
It also includes further conduct and skullduggery that has yet to be fully uncovered, but which we have strong grounds to suspect.
Why would Mr Bint go to such extremes, knowingly committing criminal acts through false statements that need to be covered up and risking his reputation and career? What is he hiding that he believes justifies criminally misleading the Court and pursuing an unlawful and corrupt course of conduct designed to destroy us?
Such escalation raises a fundamental concern: how a process lacking a valid foundation and based on provable falsehoods, was permitted to progress to one of the most serious forms of state enforcement.
When enforcement continues after the factual basis has failed, the issue is no longer procedural. It becomes a matter of misuse, abuse and weaponisation of state authority. This is not just organisational wrongdoing. We are charging the Insolvency Service with a criminal act that hasn’t got traction yet, but it will… and soon.
8. Media Amplification of Allegations
A further and deeply troubling dimension of the Lighthouse case concerns the role played by sections of the media in amplifying false allegations that were demonstrably and evidentially false as part of a targeted attack.
All of this has been carried out on the basis of “what can Lighthouse do about it?” without the resources, including reach. The government and media will readily claim they believe in the freedom of speech, but what they don’t believe in is the freedom of reach. They selectively grant the reach to those who they are ideologically aligned to, and withhold it from those who challenge them.
Public reporting relating to Lighthouse repeated and promoted allegations that were directly contradicted by available evidence. Despite the existence of verifiable material challenging the narrative being presented, those allegations were nevertheless broadcast and published as though they were established fact.
The consequences of such reporting were immediate and severe. Reputational damage was inflicted upon individuals associated with Lighthouse before the underlying facts had been properly examined or tested and to this date they still have not been despite dozens of appeals directly and publicly. Once such narratives enter the public domain, the harm caused can be profound, and in most cases are impossible to reverse.
One clear example is the misleading narrative around alleged financial irregularities within Lighthouse. The figure in question is £17.
£17…
Set that against the tolerance levels routinely seen in large organisations, where reporting inaccuracies can reach materially significant percentages as 24% inaccurate, and the contrast is stark. The reliance on such a trivial figure demonstrates the extent to which the Insolvency Service has stretched to construct a case where none of substance exists.
Is £17 technically an irregularity? Yes. But context matters. At the point of reporting, the balance was £0. The account in question functioned as a pass-through account, with funds accrued and owed to Associates and subsequently distributed. There was no deficit, no loss, and no financial misconduct. In fact, the position being £0, rather than a material deficit, reflects proper handling, not wrongdoing.
What is telling is how this was presented. The Insolvency Service did not transparently communicate the trivial nature of the figure. They relied on implication rather than clarity, knowing that full disclosure would expose the weakness of the allegation. This is not scrutiny. This is distortion! This is criminal distortion and further criminal covering up.
It demonstrates a willingness to elevate the insignificant into the appearance of misconduct in order to sustain a narrative, which is fundamentally false. That approach is not credible, and it will not withstand proper examination.
In this case, the problem goes beyond inaccurate reporting. Evidence obtained through a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) demonstrates that BBC journalists were in communication with the Official Receiver prior to a hearing as part of the Lighthouse proceedings.
This demonstrates that the state broadcaster was not operating independently or impartially, but was being used to circulate and amplify unverified and provably false information originating from the Insolvency Service, presenting it as fact before it had been properly established.
If a public authority responsible for enforcement action allows unverified and provably false allegations to be repeated and amplified through national media reporting, the resulting reputational harm becomes an extension of the investigative process itself.
The evidence now available raises serious concerns that the narrative surrounding the Lighthouse case was not simply the product of independent and impartial journalism but may have been reinforced through interactions between the Insolvency Service and media representatives. Such circumstances require careful and transparent and thorough examination.
What is crucial is this, when institutions such as the Insolvency Service and the media are weaponised, they have the power to take a saint and portray them as a serial killer, something they certainly are not. That is the reality of institutional force combined with public narrative.
These institutions are equipped to target individuals and sustain that position, particularly where the individual lacks the resources and reach to defend themselves. That imbalance is not incidental, it is structural. This goes far beyond misrepresentation. It is a heinous and satanic miscarriage of justice of the highest order.
When state investigations intersect with media reporting in this way, the potential for reputational destruction is enormous. Public authorities therefore carry a responsibility to ensure that unverified and provably false allegations are not allowed to be criminally disseminated in a manner that compounds the harm inflicted upon those subjected to any form of investigation.
In the Lighthouse case, the evidence indicates that the opposite occurred. The resulting damage to individuals, families and professional reputations and livelihoods has been severe.
The issues raised in this section therefore extend beyond questions of journalistic conduct alone. They raise serious concerns as to whether the corrupt, pseudo and weaponised investigative process itself was accompanied by a parallel public narrative that amplified unverified and provably false allegations. This process contributed to a targeted attack intended to inflict reputational damage and personal harm upon those subjected to a corrupt, pseudo, and weaponised investigation with a predetermined outcome! This is a deliberate and sustained assault intended to destroy and cause grievous and lasting harm.
These matters are now becoming part of a wider evidential record concerning the conduct of the Insolvency Service and its individual staff members and their loved ones in the Lighthouse case. As that record continues to develop, the circumstances surrounding the interaction between state enforcement processes and media reporting are attracting increasing scrutiny from policymakers, regulators and Parliament itself and will be key to the lobbying and advocacy efforts.
Mr Beach, as Chief Executive, the responsibility for ensuring that the relationship between enforcement authorities and media reporting operates in accordance with the standards expected of a public institution now rests with you. From our perspective, we will get to the bottom and the extent of this targeted attack through private investigators as part of a broader investigation into the conduct of the Insolvency Service and the state broadcaster, the BBC.
9. The Human Cost of Institutional Failure
Taken together, these matters demonstrate that the consequences of this corrupt, pseudo and weaponised investigation extend far beyond procedure.
They concern:
- the treatment of individuals and families
- the responsible use of state authority
- and the integrity of the Insolvency Service itself as a government institution
The Lighthouse case illustrates how the corrupt and incompetent actions of a public authority can have profound personal consequences for those subjected to investigation. The reputational, psychological and economic effects described in this letter are not abstract outcomes of the legal process. They are the lived consequences of corrupt decisions taken by institutions, and specifically certain individuals within these institutions like Michael Bint, exercising the authority of the state.
This case is not about procedure, it is about the abuse of power and position. The Insolvency Service exercised coercive authority without the fairness, proportionality, or responsibility required of it. This is a breakdown of institutional integrity and a breach of public trust.
10. Advocacy
When public institutions such as the Insolvency Service fail to act transparently, honestly, proportionately, and in accordance with its charter, the consequences are systemic. It destroys confidence in the institution, undermines its legitimacy, and erodes public trust.
The seriousness of the issues outlined in this letter has already led to the emergence of structured advocacy and lobbying efforts to ensure that the circumstances surrounding the Lighthouse case, and other cases raising similar concerns, are properly examined and justice prevails.
Mr Beach, if you fail to address the issues, misconduct and criminality outlined in these letters, you will become the focal point of this scrutiny and the figurehead of our lobbying. If not dealt with, it’s cases like Lighthouse that mean your tenure has failed before it has started. As the saying goes, a new broom sweeps clean. To date, there is no evidence of any meaningful sweeping.
Where institutional narratives diverge from the factual record, advocacy for truth becomes necessary.
These efforts are focused on: transparency, accountability, and reform where public authority has been exercised and abused in a manner that raises legitimate concern. They reflect a fundamental democratic principle, that where institutions entrusted with public power fail to confront credible evidence of wrongdoing, citizens retain both the right and the responsibility to pursue lawful scrutiny and correction.
The evidential record in this matter continues and advocacy will expand through:
- Structured public documentation
- Coordinated global advocacy and lobbying, including engagement at the highest levels
- Engagement with UK Members of Parliament
- Legal process, including coordinated group litigation (including potential Group Litigation Orders) on behalf of those affected and every victim of the Insolvency Service
- Creating a public network of thousands of evidence‑based whistleblower and protest websites that document how the Insolvency Service and specific officers have handled cases
- Public and private prosecution of individual Insolvency Service staff where evidence and public record supports such action
- Preparation for formal scrutiny processes
As this record develops, it is increasingly likely that the conduct of the Insolvency Service in the Lighthouse case will attract parliamentary scrutiny within the next two years. The trajectory will be addressed further in the next letter.
What is now evidenced in the Lighthouse case represents a macro-level psychological, human, material, and economic abuse of state process and resources.
11. The Need for Accountability
Where serious human consequences arise from the exercise of state authority, it becomes essential that the circumstances leading to those consequences are thoroughly examined and in full.
Where the exercise of public power has caused significant harm, accountability is not optional. It is a necessary condition for maintaining public trust in the institutions of the state.
The seriousness of the concerns raised in the Lighthouse case has already led to the development of structured advocacy efforts aimed at ensuring that these issues are properly and transparently examined in full… not behind closed skulduggerous doors. Initiatives such as Christian Advocacy and Citizen Intervention Global have emerged to document evidence, engage with policymakers and pursue lawful civic action where citizens believe that 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 misconduct and corruption internally, citizens retain both the right and the responsibility to pursue lawful scrutiny, accountability, reform, and compensation.
Mr Beach, as the new head of the Insolvency Service, you are now responsible to ensure that the issues raised in this series of letters are examined transparently, objectively and thoroughly without institutional defensiveness. Your lack of scrutiny will not be left unchallenged.
The evidence has been presented. The consequences have been demonstrated. The trajectory is established.
The remaining variable is the response of the ‘leadership’ of the Insolvency Service.
12. Matters Requiring Clarification
In light of the serious concerns outlined above, several issues now require a clear and substantive response from the leadership of the Insolvency Service.
- What steps, if any, have been taken by the Insolvency Service to assess the human consequences arising from the enforcement actions pursued in the Lighthouse case?
- Has the Insolvency Service conducted any internal review concerning the proportionality of the enforcement measures undertaken during the course of this corrupt and pseudo investigation?
- What procedures exist within the Insolvency Service to ensure that representations made to the court are complete, accurate and properly verified before being presented?
- Has any internal review been undertaken regarding the accuracy of representations made to the court by Michael Bint during the Mr Cooper vs Official Receiver proceedings? If so, what has taken place? And what have been the outcomes?
In light of the matters outlined in this letter and crucially…
- Please confirm what steps you, as Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service, now intend to take to ensure that the circumstances surrounding the initiation, continuation and conduct of the Lighthouse corrupt investigation are independently examined. Will any institutional failures and corruption identified be properly and thoroughly addressed?
- If you investigate Mr Bint and find him to have misled and lied to the court (as he provably has), what do you intend to do to rectify the record and the situation regarding the case of Lighthouse and the unlawful warrant of arrest issued to Mr Cooper in February 2025 and at the hearing in July 2025?
These are not abstract or procedural questions. They go directly to the exercise of state authority and the responsibilities attached to it and we demand answers! At some point you, along with the Insolvency Service have to answer these questions because it’s not going to go away.
13. The Next (Third) Letter
The third and final letter in this series will address the broader institutional implications of the Lighthouse case.
It will examine:
- the responsibilities of institutional leadership,
- your role as Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service,
- the constitutional principle that public authorities remain accountable to the citizens they serve, and
- the increasing trajectory of advocacy, public lobbying, private and public prosecutions, whistleblowing websites, parliamentary and legal (private and coordinated) scrutiny surrounding this matter.
As stated before, the serious matters raised in this series of letters will therefore continue to form part of the developing public and evidential record concerning the conduct, corruption, and weaponisation of the Insolvency Service in the Lighthouse case and the response of its ‘leadership’ once these issues have been formally placed before it.
Mr Beach, let me remind you, your response to the matters raised in this letter, or your continued silence, will form part of that record and it will define your legacy or be a significant stain on it. As Chief Executive of a public authority, the responsibility for ensuring that these issues are thoroughly examined in full now rests with you. A failure to act does not remove that responsibility, it engages it, and renders you complicit in these criminal actions. In those circumstances, personal accountability will follow, including the initiation of private prosecution.
Mr Beach, your response to the matters raised in this letter, or your continued silence, will form part of the record. It will define your legacy, and it will not be forgotten.
Yours resolutely,
Paul S. Waugh
Citizen Intervention Global
in association with Private Prosecution Service UK (PPS)
www.paulswaugh.com
www.citizenintervention.org
For your reference:
Ref 1: Open Letter to Duncan Beach, Chief Executive UK Insolvency Service – Part 1 of 3
Ref 2:The Provably False Allegations Against Lighthouse International Group & the Accusers
https://insolvencyservicecorruption.com/lighthouse-false-accusers/
Ref 3: Insolvency Service Rap Sheet
https://insolvencyservicecorruption.com/rap-sheet/
Ref 4: A Gross Failure In Their Duty Of Care By Michael Bint And The UK Insolvency Service
Ref 5: Two Blatant Lies in Court, One Weaponised State: How the Insolvency Service and Michael Bint Misled the Judiciary
Ref 6: Public Accountability Through Open Letter To Alec Pybus, former Insolvency Service CEO
Ref 7: Complaint Letter To the Secretary of State For Business & Trade: Kemi Badenoch
https://insolvencyservicecorruption.com/secretary-of-state-complaint-letter/
Ref 8: Timeline of Trolling and Media Smear Attacks on Lighthouse
https://davidvsgoliath.global/timeline-of-trolling-and-media-smear-attacks-on-lighthouse/
Ref 9: Website documenting the misconduct, criminal lies, corruption and cover ups of Michal Bint
Related articles:
Unmasking the Beast: The Final Reckoning for the BBC
The DNA, Pathology and Modus Operandi of a Fake Whistleblower: The Case of Jeffrey Leigh-Jones
Open Letter to Duncan Beach, Chief Executive UK Insolvency Service – Part 1 of 3: The Corrupt Investigation Launched On The Back of Fake & Orchestrated Whistleblowing
When “Consumer Champion” Stella Creasy MP Fake Whistleblows: Power, Hypocrisy and the Real Scandals Being Ignored
Thank you for sharing this second open letter to Duncan Beach. Seeing the list of consequences caused by government incompetence and corruption is disgraceful. The way the Insolvency Service treats individuals causes real harm to individuals and their families, promoting the interests of the Establishment to the detriment of ordinary citizens.
The whole process they put people through is punitive, even when someone is innocent. This shows again that the way the Insolvency Service operates has real, deep systemic issues that need to be urgently addressed by the new leadership under Duncan Beach.
It is crucial to hold the Insolvency Service accountable for its actions until real change happens. God bless.
The more I read, the more outrageous the reality clearly is. Duncan Beach’s silence is becoming even more damning. Why no response to such serious issues, criminal issues even? I had hoped that Duncan Beach would be able and willing to take responsibility for the Insolvency Service’s criminal wrongdoing and have some maturity. Sadly, it looks like he may be cut from the same cloth. Or worse, under orders from his superiors to stay silent on the matter of Lighthouse Global. This is deeply concerning and a major violation against the British people.
£17? Not only are there other organisations that have actually falsified their accounts to hide millions, but the UK government itself has major financial scandals (both the current Labour government and past Conservative ones). If Kemi Badenoch thinks she can start a new identity as Tory party leader and leave her past wrongs behind as Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she is sorely mistaken. She, like all at the Insolvency Service, must face the reality of how the agency has been weaponised to try and destroy Lighthouse. Thank you for this. God bless everyone who has been so grossly and inhumanely treated by the Insolvency Service. It is disgusting and not what this country ought to be founded on.
Whoah, thank you for this letter to Duncan Beach detailing the situation. The fact that the first letter has not received a response is damning. Silence is one of their methods when it suits them. Reading the depth of the incomporruption at the Insolvency Service is quite frankly scary. And this is the organisation that we as tax payers trust to hold other companies and institutions accountable. I wonder if the National Audit office have audited the internal controls because having read this article and the case of Kids Company and having watched the interview with Boris Becker discussing his case, clearly these don’t appear to be isolated incidents.
If anything they seem symptomatic of an organisations that wants to win despite contrary evidence, in order to be able to inflate its importance and justify its budget to the public. I understand that when big companies go bust and the public ask the question “why did this happen” that they blame an organisation like the Insolvency Service.
However this means that the Insolvency Service needs to improve how it monitors and assesses the big companies, not waste hundreds of thousands and millions on an organisation such as Lighthouse.
Thank you for writing this letter to Duncan Beach. This behaviour is atrocious and must be held to account to the fullest extent. How many people have suffered at the hands of the Insolvency Service without any support system to challenge them effectively or ensure that challenge could stand? This is where Citizen Intervention Global comes in.
This is a rallying cry to all citizens — and especially to Christians — who have been treated unjustly, whether by the Insolvency Service or any other governmental organisation.
God bless you, Paul, and Lighthouse.
Thank you for this very thorough and damning letter which has clearly laid out, what happens to every day citizens, when positions of authority are abused, procedures, standards and charters that are put in place for their safety of public and also organisations, are not adhered to and when adequate and substantive responses are not pursued and due diligence is abandoned to cover up and save face.
I appreciate the highlighting of the shameful example of Mr Cooper and how far Michael Bint and other insolvency service employees, have been willing to go to in order to cover over their dangerous incompetence and unconscionability.
I really hope Mr. Beach understands that everything here that we and others have experienced at the hands of his organisation, and his subsequent next steps in regards to our situation, will be recorded. Truth is never and will never be silenced indefinitely. I pray that he takes the action he knows he must to ensure justice is served appropriately.
When this case has outlasted such an employee churn over at the Insolvency Service, it does cause you to wonder why chaos and disarray this institution is in for there to be no real consistency in leadership. Any other organsiation like that, you’d have questions if not alarm bells. And that’s before the litany of other items on their rap sheet. The IS as it stands ought to be chalked up as, at best, a government bureaucratic experiment gone wrong and utterly revoked. Make government small and accountable again.
It’s damning the list of the failures and misdeeds that have been done. Incorruption is very fitting words, them hiding their mistakes by placing them on Lighthouse. There’s serious failings in how authority was exercised and raises big questions about their conduct, oversight, fairness, and accountability. The human impact of this is hard to ignore. There people just don’t care at all. To be engaging with media before court has concluded just says t all. Thee’s intention. How can we trust a service that does this…we can’t.
Mr Beach’s silence on the matter speaks volumes as it has with all of his predecessors. His is either the result of being happily complicit in the Insolvency Service’s silence and attempts to evade accountability for as long as possible, or he’s quickly learning the reality of what he is part of by having his hands tied by his superiors.
What we are seeing here with the Insolvency Service is a well documented experience that demonstrates and exposes how our public institutions are deliberately geared to systematically control and even destroy people’s lives where it suits the establishment’s agendas and its puppet masters. Individuals within it are chopped and changed to maintain a generally faceless and inhuman entity. Stubborn silence is maintained to avoid any engagement with the problems, crimes and injustices it commits – acting as though they don’t even exist. Technicalities and rules are weaponised and abused to rule over, control and intimidate, not to maintain righteous and just order. This is what is ruling over us as subjects of a dark system of control, not governing us for and in our best interests as the people of a nation.
What I love and appreciate through this approach is how everything here is being systematically confronted, challenged and documented and put on public record without relent. The evidence and the collateral against this agency and its people grows every hour, every day, every week and month they refuse to take responsibility and so the weights on the scales shifts more and more in time in our favour.
What I appreciate about our response to the Insolvency Service is the substance, consistency and transparency. It’s been 4 years since they got in touch with an approach as part of their corrupt pseudo investigation. They used the opinions of fake whistleblowers to try to completely destroy us, our lives and our livelihoods.
It is disgraceful the amount of taxpayer resources that have been wasted trying to decimate us and our work at Lighthouse. How much is it… hundreds of thousands? Millions?
Now all their effort is spent trying to cover up and justify sheer incompetence and corruption. Meanwhile, the other cases we’re discovering and analysing are revealing how much they are working against citizens and the public interest they present themselves to represent.
What a read, thank you so much for sharing this with us. Reading how what has happened has affected so many, and how the Insolvency Services have caused distress to Mr Cooper and his family, is disgraceful and I pray Mr Beach is taking this seriously and is doing an internal investigation.
How are we, the public, supposed to trust government agencies when they attack innocent people, and nearly causing them to take their own lives?
Thank you so much for these open letters, for the time and effort they have taken. For those who haven’t read the first letter, please take the time to read it…
Thank you for this clear and through, step-by-step explanation of how the Insolvency Service operates and what they need to be held accountable for.
As described ‘no response’ is a response in itself and often speaks more loudly than any excuse they can come up with for their own mistakes. Any organisation truly working in the public interest would build public trust, by admitting to mistakes and correcting them.
There is no other way to operate honestly, and trying to appear ‘whiter than white’ and ‘perfect’ only leads to further lack of trust in the the Insolvency Service’s ability to do their job.