Email this site to a contact

 

KPMG: the self-appointed executioner that destroyed the rest of my life to please a multi-criminal landlord, as well as his criminal aides in the police, judiciary, etc. = in the 'Brotherhood'

KPMG

 

(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:

 

If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

In reading this page on KPMG:

Remember that the ROOT CAUSE for ALL the events...

...is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, ANDREW DAVID LADSKY - deciding, with his gang of racketeers, (*) that he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot...

- through extortion, persecution, etc. - at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders).

(*) Since 2011, Martyn Gerrard has taken the driving seat.

For whom KPMG joined the other assassins - in saying:

YES! Of course! O' Great One!

(Looking at this page KPMG: was it worth it?)

(While Ladsky was, for sure, informed directly, or through 'the Brotherhood', of the actions KPMG was taking against me after he contacted it - this page will nonetheless provide him and his thoroughly evil gang of gutter racketeers with endless sadistic kicks...

...- adding to their reasons to continue laughing their head off at me, as well as add to their endless "contributions").

 

Sections (and Summary) (also under Overview # 14, and snapshot in Case Summary, Header 1.12)

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

  C O M M E N T S

 

(1)- INTRODUCTION

(Snapshot under Overview # 14 and Complaint summary # 7.1)

Extracts from Accountancy magazine show that KPMG was ranked the 3rd largest UK accountancy firm in 2014, with fee income of £1.9bn ($2.9bn), and 11,340 employees, including 588 partners. (Global revenues, also for year-end 2014, were $24.82bn).

In Oct 07, I joined KPMG London as a marketing strategy manager in its then Manufacturing, Retail and Distribution division.

Over the years, moving to other groups, I then performed various roles that included spending a fantastic year (1999-2000) in KPMG Germany, thanks to the best boss I ever had during my working life: Paul Scott. (see below, summary of my KPMG work experience).

I resigned from the firm 10 years later, in Jan 08, following 10 months of ongoing, horrendous victimisation.

This page covers events essentially from Feb 07 to Sep 08 - with some references to past events.

The key individuals involved in my case from Feb 07, until I resigned (and, for sure, afterwards), were: Peter Bassett, Global Advisory Executive partner, and Human Resources partner for my group; Ceri Hughes, director, my line manager; Jeanette Dunworth, Lead Human Resources Business Manager Infrastructure.

Behind them was a sizeable supporting cast of: other partners (by definition: senior partners), including Ward Pratt who headed my last work group, Knowledge Management; a number of ‘colleagues’ in my work team; so-called ‘health services support’; IT services.

It took me EIGHT years before I could bring myself to write this page (launched in August 2015). The hurt was too raw and too deep. Even after all these years, reliving the events from writing the page and going through the documents, made me realise that the pain, very deep inside me, is still as strong as ever - and so is the anger, to which utter disgust has since been added.

WHY? Because until 2007, I had held KPMG in very high esteem, on, quite literally, a pedestal for being so good to me; in particular for finding me, in summer 2002, ‘a temporary’ non-client facing position “until my personal situation was resolved” – that eventually turned into permanent positions as my horrendous nightmare continued. (See summary below).

I felt proud to be part of KPMG,...

 

...and fully endorsed its Values and Code of Conduct,...

  • “KPMG people act lawfully and ethically”
  • “We report breaches of laws and regulations”
  • “We surface issues, speak-up if something does not seem right”
  • “We stand firm, no matter how strong the pressure from internal or external sources. KPMG people do not compromise”
  • “We seek the facts…”
  • “We are open and honest in our communication…”
  • “…we act as responsible corporate citizens…”
  • Above all, we act with integrity
 

...because they reflected my own values (e.g. (1)- my Dec 02 letters to the court; (2)- my 9 Aug 03 letter to a judge; (3)- my attempts at communicating to my fellow leaseholders the true findings from the tribunal hearings). I therefore also bought in fully into the yearly compliance training.

In the midst of my horrendous experience with ‘the system’ in relation to my ongoing nightmare, KPMG was ‘my rock’, ‘my safe heaven’, the one entity left in which I believed and trusted blindly.

These perceptions had led me to be one of the employees who had contributed to its winning The Best Company to Work for’ award.

KPMG was also the place where, for the whole day, I could forget about my personal situation by immersing myself in my work.

As related on this page, it ALL changed from mid-Feb 07.

Incandescent with rage at ‘my daring’ to launch this website, (after 5 years of being told repeatedly to 'Get Lost!' in 'response' to my numerous cries for help) and expose their criminal actions (far less precisely at the time, than now),...

'the brothers' lynch-mob trio of Andrew David Ladsky, judiciary and police renewed their pact (# 5), made in 2001 (police) and 2002 (judiciary) to, this time: destroy me.

Being part of the Establishment (below), and the most ideally placed of the foursome to do this, KPMG agreed with the objective (# 5.2). Appointing itself as executioner, it joined the trio in dishing out a concerted regime of ongoing criminal psychological harassment against me: from # 3.

To cover-up the impact its intended malefic actions would have on me, and put the blame on me, the foursome's unbelievably sick, sinister, Machiavellian strategy rested on KPMG using the horrendous actions the other three were taking me against me.

The impact on me of the treatment was magnified hugely by the fact that – at the time - I knew that KPMG had absolute knowledge of my personal situation - i.e. that it knew that I was an innocent victim of organized crime by the Ladsky gang of racketeers and its supporters.

Among other, from McGrigors, a firm of solicitors previously associated with KPMG that had, as demonstrated in this slide: in Mar 07, looked at 84 pages of my website, while in Apr 07 it looked at 37 pages (a total of 121 pages).

I knew that McGrigors was looking at my website, within days of its first visits in Mar 07 - and therefore by the 30 March meeting (# 3.4). (NB: As in the case of the recordings, I only revealed this evidence in 2015, with the launch of this page).

KPMG therefore knew about the multi-criminal activities of Rachman Andrew David Ladsky and of his gang of racketeers; what they had done, and were continuing to do to me (# 5).

Nonetheless, KPMG agreed with the trio's objective:

  • ...because, while THEY attacked me in the first place: in their very sick, extremely twisted minds, they ALL, 'of course' perceive themselves as being 'my victims'.
  • when one ‘like me’ ‘dares’ to stand up against its injustice it refuses to address, and then resorts to exposing it - breaching its omertà of: 'Don't point the finger at the perpetrator, point it instead at its victim'...
  • – under its ‘One for all, all for one’ mantra, it immediately closes ranks - telling ‘the little people’, as summed up very succinctly, by the epitome of the British Establishment, Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London, to a taxi driver: “Fuck off and die!” (Source: The Guardian).
  • Because not held to account for its actions - as (among other), its group members ensure that their devised legislation is rigged to protect it and, 'the law enforcers', the police and judiciary are part of the group...
  • (4)- BECAUSE, (like the other 'Big 4' accountancy firms) (among others), KPMG does a lot of highly lucrative work (£100m+ annual fees) for the public sector (Media on KPMG, below).
  • (7)- BECAUSE I was 8 years from retirement - making it very difficult to find another job. I most strongly assert that my tormentors perceived this factor as giving them the green light to abuse me and torment me - at will. (They relied on this to the very end).

I took me more than 2 years before I was able to force myself to set foot again in the City (business district), and 5 years before I could go to Canary Wharf, where I last worked.

As my life-savings were rapidly going down, it eventually forced me into early retirement.

Financial outcome of losing 8 years of work: I lost over £1 million in potential income and pension...

ALL BECAUSE 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky' decided he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders) - and KPMG joined the group of assassins - by saying: "Yes, of course!" = Absolutely, utterly unbelievable!

Eight years on, I am reporting events in the public domain BECAUSE:

  • in the eight years, it made no attempt at contacting me i.e. at showing remorse and compensating me for what it had done to me: being a key player in, as it stands, destroying the rest of my life (whatever is left of it); (in Jan 08, verbally, KPMG offered me a measly £62,000 - I did not take) (# 10.2);
  • I believe my experience at KPMG is of public interest. In particular, I hope that it will save others from going through the horrendous, absolute sheer utter hell I have...and continue to go through.

(*) While KPMG very clearly determined it to be 'unacceptable' for me, a salaried individual, to fight Rachman Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers over a £500,000 fraud - by contrast, the multi-billion £ KPMG sued an employee over a £545,000 theft.

In the light of what took place, (as a non-lawyer), I hold the view that KPMG breached the following legislation:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - s.1, s.7 (criminal offences)

In this kingdom, an employer is "vicariously liable " for its employees’ actions – in which it is taking an active part through: "directing or controlling or influencing"; "consent or connivance". (In a partnership, a partner doing this - is definite evidence of being "vicariously liable").

(NB: KPMG's 'Dignity at Work Policy' (obtained in 2007) provides some examples of conduct defined as amounting to: "Harassment"; "Victimisation"; "Bullying"; "other conduct" - which took place in my case).

(I referred to the above under lines 286-307 of my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS)

Events contained throughout this page.

Malicious Communications Act 1988 - s.1 (criminal offences)

Defamation Act 1996 - the claims are: (1)- false; (2)- not made in good faith; (3)- made with malice.

I repeat my list of documents under the Malicious Communications Act.

It is a certainty that KPMG is processing many more documents containing defamatory comments about me, but: it has denied me access to them e.g. # 7 ; # 15.1.

Data Protection Act 1998 - s.4 and ALL of Schedules 1, 2 and 3.

Processing false, sensitive data about me. I repeat my above Comments.

 

The non-KPMG partners covered on this page, support the findings of the Stanley Milgram’s ‘obedience experiments - and, in particular, the conclusion, 50 years later, that:

People follow leaders because they see them as representative of an identity that they share"

"They don't inflict harm because they are unaware of doing wrong but because they believe what they are doing is right

From: “Stanley Milgram taught us we have more to fear from zealots than zombies”, The Guardian, 1 Sep 11

(I wonder: have they all been getting at least a ‘Happy new year’ card from 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky' ever since?)

As to the KPMG partners concerned, their moral depravation is way beyond repugnant and repulsive.

 

PS: For sure, 'my daring' to launch this page will lead to my being subjected to a lot more persecution, including many more attacks by the Establishment's henchmen e.g. Her Majesty's police helicopters...

...-because, like Ladsky and his mafia and their other devoted supporters: judiciary; police; politicians; local council and Local Government Ombudsman; 'regulators', including KPMG's ICAEW, etc., etc.,

...KPMG will also perceive itself as being 'my victim'.

PPS: The impact of this page on the named individuals?

Back to sections

 

(2) - Yearly feedback on my performance, and key events in my personal life - between October 1997 and October 2006

In the light of the criticisms voiced against me during my so-called 'performance appraisal':

- I compiled this document that contains:

  • Extracts from the yearly assessments of my performance - that very clearly demonstrate a massive disconnect between 2007 and the previous years i.e. that the 2007 criticisms were fabricated.
  • Brief details of some key events at the time in my personal life - also with the intention of demonstrating that the highly vicious, cruel, perverse and sickening accusation, in 2007, that I had "let [my] personal problem interfere with [my] work life" - was false...

(There isn't enough space on this page to include extracts from my document).

Back to sections

 

(3) - The meetings KPMG did not want to have a written record of.

 

(3.1) - Peter Bassett, partner, set up a 13 Feb 07 meeting with Jeanette Dunworth, Human Resources (HR) - in a highly underhanded manner.

(As I discovered 7 months later, as well as once I had resigned from KPMG, Andrew David Ladsky had been in frequent contact with KPMG since Oct 06...shortly after I launched my website).

On 12 Feb 07, Peter Bassett, Global Advisory Executive Partner and Human Resources (HR) Partner for my group – and key driver of the criminal psychological harassment activities (Persecution # 1) against me in 2007 - asked me whether I could attend a “half-hour catch-up meeting” the following day. Replying that I could, I asked what I needed to prepare; reply: “Nothing”.

Immediately suspecting that it was connected with my website, after 10 minutes, I went to his office, and said: “I can’t stand the suspense. Can you please tell me what you want to discuss tomorrow”. Reply: “It’s just a catch-up meeting

Instead of having the meeting in his office, the following day Bassett takes me to a conference room floor. As we reach it, he tells me that he has asked somebody from HR to attend.

The HR person is Jeanette Dunworth, Lead HR Business Manager Infrastructure – an individual who would also played a key part in the dishing out of the criminal psychological harassment regime against me – is already in the room when we arrive.

Contrast Bassett and Dunworth's approach with the fact that HR policy required:

  • An employee to be informed beforehand of the reason for the meeting to allow for preparation, as well as,
  • give the employee the chance to bring somebody along of his/her own choice (as KPMG 'remembered to offer' in Dec 07 - # 10.1).

Ah! but 'of course': "it was in no way a formal meeting"! (below)

I was so upset and so sickened by what had taken place, that I took part of the afternoon off, as well as the following morning e.g. my 13.02.07-16h13 email to Ceri Hughes, my line manager. (In her 16.02.07 emails to me she claimed that she had "not been informed").

Back to sections

(3.2) - While he had involved Jeanette Dunworth, HR, Peter Bassett refused to issue notes of the 13 Feb 07 meeting, at which, among other, as "a warning", he raised my usage of "KPMG's IT systems": “sending emails to the media about the closure of my website”; “looking at my website”, in spite of the fact that - considering KPMG's IT policy - they were not serious matters.

Following my Claim against KPMG, it refused to provide me with an alleged "IT report on [my] usage of [its] IT systems".

My writing the 14.02.07 Draft Notes of the meeting threw a spanner in the works as, taking 3 weeks to 'respond', 'Bassett' claimed falsely, in 'his' 07.03.07 'response', that they were "not an accurate account of what we discussed".

The following are the main points from the 13 Feb 07 meeting - based on my 14.02.07 Draft Notes as, afterwards, Peter Bassett told me that he had no intention of issuing notes “because it was “not a formal warning...if [I] continue[d], the next time w[ould] be”.

I discussed this under: Header 3.1 of my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 10.2, below); paras 5 and 7 of my 03.04.08 Claim (# 12).

(I first sent my Draft Notes to my line manger, Ceri Hughes, on 18.02.07; then to Bassett and Dunworth, cc’d Hughes on 20.02.07).

Lines 34-37 - “[I had] been using my KPMG equipment for my personal use": (1)- "sending emails, such as for example, on 27 December"; (2)- looking at my personal website, doing this 30 times on one day;

Lines 38-40 - “There must not be a connection between my website and KPMG. The KPMG logo and name are captured at the bottom of email. Likewise, when looking at [my] website there will be a record that [I am] doing this from KPMG equipment

Line 43 - “If [I] continued using KPMG equipment, next time [I would] receive a formal warning

Lines 41-42 - “It [had] been noted that [I] stay in the office very late, up to the early hours of the morning

Three weeks later, in 'his' 07.03.07 'response' to my Draft Notes, 'Peter Bassett' claimed falsely that they were "not an accurate account of what we discussed"

My view on the 3-week delay is that, to ensure ‘damage limitation’ in the face of my clearly unexpected capture of what was said at the meeting, including the manner in which it took place – is that the email had been drafted and redrafted ad-infinitum in KPMG – and by et.al., such as possibly some party/ies in the Jewish-Freemason ‘Brotherhood’ (Persecution # 6).

"I have reviewed these and must comment that I do not believe these to be an accurate account of what we discussed."

"I did need to raise with you the firm’s concerns as to what is considered to be inappropriate use of KPMG’s IT systems." (1)

“…there have been occasions when you relaunched your Web site and sent notification of the relaunch to other Web sites and media organisations which have lead to KPMG’s address appearing on those sites.

This is, I understand, a result of your having sent the relaunch emails from your KPMG email account.” (2)

"In addition there has been a high volume of hits to various sites including leasehold-outrage.com. Over the months of December 2006 and January 2007 this amounted to several thousand hits to at least 20 different sites." (3)

"I also said that whilst we were at this time bringing it to your attention the firm would not be taking any further action. [4] However, should there be any further abuse of KPMG’s IT systems [5] this could result in formal proceedings taking place." (6)

(see below for other parts of the email)

(1)- "inappropriate use of KPMG's IT systems" - In my Draft Notes? Yes. (More on this, below, under this entry)

(2)- "sending emails about the relaunch of [my] website from [my] KPMG email account" - In my Draft Notes? Yes - although I did not specify “notification of relaunch”.

At the time, I did not recall doing this. I thought I had only sent a few emails around the time of the closure of my website, as it had also led to my losing the associated email account. However, while I had opened a new email account on 8 Oct 06, I did subsequently find a 27.12.07 email I sent to the Daily Express (I had also contacted on 4 Oct 06). Hence: it may be that I sent others.

KPMG name appearing on emails and sites

Oh dear! Horror of horror! Media organisations would see that KPMG had an employee who was actually behaving as per its Values and Code of Conduct:

  • standing firm against breaches of legislation”;
  • complying with [its] code of conduct”;
  • acting lawfully, ethically, and with integrity [including with fairness vis-à-vis her fellow leaseholders]”;
  • taking ownership”…
  • ...(In spite of being repeatedly dismissed, pushed away, sent from pillar to post - in the hope that I would eventually give up)

...Code and Values it reinforced through compulsory training re. “[my] legal obligations” in relation to the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act; “Key Independence training”, etc .e.g. my 2004 training record.

As I wrote in my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 10.2, below), lines 94-101:

I hold the view that I have not done anything that brings shame on KPMG

and ended with:

The irony is that it is my behaving [as per the KPMG Code] that has led to my current situation”.

(I also add that, at the start of the emails, I wrote: “Please note that this email is sent in my personal capacity and not in my capacity as an employee of KPMG” – other examples: 04.10.06 email to the Guardian newspaper; 04.10.06 email to the Independent newspaper).

(Sent the day after the threat of closure of my website: 03.10.06 email from ISP attaching the unlawful, hitlerian letter from Ladsky-Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel- PJ # 2).

(3)- "high volume of hits...including leasehold-outrage.com"

In my Draft Notes? Yes - although I did not specify the alleged number of hits, and number of sites ("December 2006 and January 2007 amounted to several thousand hits to at least 20 different sites.")...

...I suspect, because Bassett did not quote these numbers at the meeting.

(1)- YES, I was using my KPMG computer to look on the internet – but was doing this in the evening i.e. after work. During my lunch break, I also tended to look at various newspapers.

(2)- For my website, as I working on it – on my personal computer - I used the KPMG computer principally to check that the various links worked. That, in itself, would have generated many “hits”. During the 13 Feb 07 meeting, Bassett said that I had “looked at my website 30 times on one day” – lines 36-37 of my Draft Notes.

Under para.6 of its undated pack of lies Defence (posted 17 Jun 08) to my 03.04.08 Claim (# 12, below), KPMG wrote:

The Respondent…obtained an IT report relating to the Claimant's IT use…(which highlighted some 10,000 hits on a small number of websites related to the Claimant's "personal issues")"

 

Looking at My Diary for end of 2006, and early 2007, I conclude that quite a lot of it entailed looking up legislation. Other searches related to: finding visuals for my website; identifying the sale of apartments in my block, etc. = as KPMG stated: “related to [my] personal issues”.

Hence, not the kind of things that would ‘justify’ subsequently barring me from accessing the Internet (# 4, below).

In my 17.08.08 letter to ACAS (# 16, below), and my 02.09.08 letter to Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal (# 16) - I reported KPMG refusing to provide me with evidence in support of its accusations against me...

...claiming under para.10 of its 31.07.08 ‘response’ to my 01.07.08 Subject Access Request (# 15.1, below) that:

[its IT] report was commissioned by the firm’s General Counsel and is subject to legal privilege

(4) - "the firm would not be taking any further action". In my Draft Notes? Yes.

As to "not taking further action"....other than implement the ploy we devised with the ‘Dear Brother’ Andrew David Ladsky et.al. in the Jewish-Freemason 'Brotherhood', (as your writing Draft Notes of the 13 Feb 07 meeting knocked off our original plan), …

…– of using his 26.03.07 letter (# 3.5, below) - you define as: ‘a pack of highly vicious, malicious, totally unsupported accusations against you' - as an excuse to cut you off from all the internal sites, as well as Internet (# 4, below).

(The claim of "not taking further action": a psychological harassment tactic - Header 1.15)

NOTE that, on 9 Feb 07 i.e. 4 days before the meeting, Ladsky had phoned KPMG.

I was NOT told about this at the time, and only discovered it 8 months, after battling with KPMG in relation to my 09.07.07 Subject Access Request (# 7, below) (as I reported in my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS, lines 25-31) (# 16).

The documents KPMG finally sent me in its 05.10.07 communication included skeleton notes of a 9 Feb 07 telephone conversation with Ladsky, in which he made, typically for that multi-criminal Rachman vermin (*), absolutely outrageous accusations against me. (In my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 10.2), I covered this under Header 5.1).

(*) I repeat my Comments under Persecution # 1(4)

“[The] woman is reckless. [She is] clinically unwell

= Counting on the typical English Establishment tactic of locking up 'inconvenient' individuals in mental institutions (Secret prisoners)

Did KPMG ask for the reasons behind these (outrageous) claims?

(As can be seen from e.g. the Overview / Case summary and ExtortionLadsky and his gang of racketeers are those who are “[extremely] clinically unwell”. In fact, extremely sick, totally demented psychos, is another expression that comes to mind).

[Ladsky is] looking for [KPMG] to stop her using KPMG [systems]

On what basis could Ladsky – an external party to KPMG - make this hitlerian, dictatorial demand? Did KPMG ask?

(NB: In his 26.03.07 letter to KPMG, Ladsky falsely claimed that I used my KPMG computer “to update my website” - # 3.5, below)

[NR has] been updating her website, inciting breach of the peace

In the light of the previous claim, I read this as implying that ‘I was updating my website using KPMG’ systems'.

I repeat my question: as an external party to KPMG, how could Ladsky make this claim?

inciting breach of the peace” = Euphemism for exposing his and 'Jewish' gang organized crime activities (Extortion) - that undermines the frequent propaganda complaint of the Jewish community of being "the victim of antisemitism".

 

In fact, what KPMG also did not tell me, (in addition to the above 9 Feb 07 contact), and I only discovered as a result of filing my 03.04.08 Claim (# 12, below) is that Ladsky had - apparently - been approaching KPMG since Oct 06:...

...para.6 of KPMG's undated pack of lies Defence:

"The claimant's landlord Mr Ladsky contacted the Respondent in October 2006 making serious allegations against the Claimant." (1)

"In January 2007 Mr Ladsky made further contact with the Respondent and threatened legal action against the Respondent in connection with allegations of libel." (2)

(1)- WHY wasn't I told about these "allegations against [ME]"? ('The KPMG Way'!)

(NB: Hence, at the time that Ladsky's corrupt solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn, was targeting my then website host to get the closure of my website - Overview # 9)

(2)- Ditto about my not being informed. See, below, my view on these alleged threats.

As I reported in my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS, lines 25-31:

This had never been communicated to me. The first time I was told he had approached KPMG was on 30 March 2007 i.e. 5 months after the said initial contact - and it was positioned as being very recent..." (# 3.4, below)

I also raised the issue in my 02.09.08 letter to Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal (# 16).

In my 17.08.08 letter, to ACAS, lines 14-16, after quoting the above from KPMG, I communicated that, following my 01.07.08 Subject Access Request,...

...in its 31.07.08 'reply' (# 15.1), KPMG refused to tell me what these "serious allegations" were:

I am satisfied that you have been provided with the correct material. I enclose a second copy for completeness”.

 

And, KPMG continued to do this in its 22.08.08 'response' to my 01.07.08 Request for information (# 15.2):

We have explained why we took the decision that we did in relation to IT restriction following the allegations made by Mr Ladsky

 

WHY? Because KPMG was a spinning 'a story' as a cover-up for its criminal psychological harassment regime against me - as reported in the remainder of this page.

KPMG knew that the alleged accusations against me were false (e.g. McGrigors' visits to my website).

And, it did not believe for one second the alleged so-called threats from Rachman Ladsky - because it knew that he did not have a leg to stand on e.g. below, my Comments on Ladsky's 26 Mar 07 letter: # 7 and # 17.

REALITY: It was ALL concocted through collusion, conniving and conspiring. Anything to dish out 'retribution' on behalf the 'dear brothers' Ladsky and other tribe members!

(KPMG was behaving in exactly the same morally depraved way as that of the Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police mafia that is processing 2 highly vicious, malicious, libellous so-called “crime reports” against me following fabricated ‘complaints’ against me by Ladsky - which it did not challenge – and in relation to which the police did not give me the chance to defend myself against them…

…and even went as far as claiming that it had “No suspicion of false reporting” - even though it never contacted me to get my side of the story (Overview # 13 and # 16 ; my 17.10.11 Appeal Request in the context of my 19 Apr 11 Claim against the police et.al.). (Part of the same tribe!).

 

CONCLUSION:

ANYBODY can just walk off the street into a KPMG office and make outrageous, scurrilous accusations against an employee and KPMG, ‘The Best Company to Work for’, that 'Above all, acts with integrity', does not say anything to the employee – thereby denying the employee the right to defend herself / himself against the accusations.

Or, is it only multi-criminal members of the Jewish-Freemason 'Brotherhood' who can do that?...and then join forces with KPMG in persecuting the employee for 'daring' to stand-up against Establishment-controlled organized crime. (*)

As I repeated in my 17.01.08 Grievance, and included in the summary: KPMG was very clearly siding with Andrew David Ladsky against me.

(*) AN EXCEPTION: Tony Fry, partner - When, in 2002, Ladsky and his corrupt solicitor Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, approached KPMG following my stupidly sending a fax on KPMG's headed paper to 'my' local council and tribunal (police KP # 8 and # 9 ; section 2-Background)...

...- behaving in a professional, open and honest manner - consistent with KPMG's 'Dignity at work policy' - Tony Fry issued me with these notes of the meeting I had with him (they include my Comments).

(5)- “should there be any further abuse…”

To recap on what I had done - that was considered “an abuse of the KPMG IT systems

  • [I had] looked at [my] website on many occasions, as well as at other sites related to [my] personal issues” (Comment # 3, above);
  • [I had] sent emails to media organisations about the closure, as well as relaunch of my website” (Comment # 2, above).

(Doing ALL, outside of working hours).

What were KPMG's IT policies?

Under lines 237-255 of my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS, (# 16, below)...

...I extracted from KPMG’s policy on the use of the Internet:

Conducting personal business - Staff should be aware that no computer network can be guaranteed as being absolutely secure…staff using the KPMG network for personal business (such as conducting online banking or shopping) do so at their own risk…”

And wrote:

This clearly demonstrates that KPMG staff can use the Internet for “personal business".

I then quoted from Peter Bassett's above email: “there have been occasions when you relaunched your Web site and sent notification of the relaunch to other Web sites and media organisations which have led to KPMG’s address appearing on those sites” - followed by:

Accessing “the KPMG network for personal business (such as conducting online banking or shopping)…will also “lead to the KPMG address appearing on those websites”. Why isn’t that an issue?

In the same 05.08.08 letter to ACAS, at lines 189-230,..

...I quoted KPMG's IT policy on the use of emails:

When using KPMG's email system internally or externally, staff may not send any email, attachment which:

  • Makes representations or express opinions purporting to be those of KPMG.
  • May damage KPMG's reputation or its relationships with its clients, or which may embarrass clients of KPMG.
  • Is illegal, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, offensive, or damaging, or which may be considered by others to cause distress, sexual, racial or other harassment or discrimination.
  • May infringe copyright.
  • May introduce a virus or other malicious software to any KPMG or client network.
  • Constitutes 'junk' email (usually non-business messages posted to multiple addresses) or is posted to multiple news groups.
  • Is for private commercial purposes unrelated to KPMG.
  • In addition, even where none of the above categories of email traffic are involved, where an individual has excessive amounts of personal email traffic on their system (defined as levels of personal email activity sufficient to cut into their working time or to interfere with the performance of their duties), this may also be treated as a disciplinary offence

 

KPMG could not hold any of the above against me - including the last part of the 2nd item on the email policy: "which may embarrass clients of KPMG"...

...- as, by claiming that, KPMG admits that, in my 'perhaps' raising, to a very small number of media organisations, awareness of my website that exposes organized crime activities (*) - it actually endorses these activities.

BUT, that is exactly what it did...in the process employing a criminal psychological harassment tactic - Header 1.15.

(*) Note that, in 2007, the content of my website was far less 'precise' than it is now. As evidence, I cite the fact that the attacks by HM's British Transport Police shot up as soon as I started to load reworked legal pages on my website, in 2013.

My so-called "inappropriate use of KPMG's IT systems, that could result in formal proceedings taking place", and "could potentially have led to [my] dismissal" were just a front for KPMG taking action against me (and it continued!)...

...- as 'retribution' on behalf of its 'brothers' who were incandescent with rage at being exposed for what they are - see Introduction. (I also stated this under paras 4 and 12 of my 03.04.08 Claim).

 

As I wrote under lines 249-252 (and 80-84) of my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS:

It provides further evidence in support of my position that the victimisation and harassment I have suffered at KPMG from February 2007 onwards is due to my exposing on my website malpractice / wrongdoings by parties with which KPMG has a working relationship e.g. the Ministry of Justice; the police [# 3.4 below]; the ICAEW (points 1,4) [of my 03.04.08 Claim against KPMG]”

"As I wrote under point 33.1 [of my 03.04.08 Claim] KPMG sided against me in the context of my personal problem – ironically – for behaving in the manner it prescribes in its Code of Conduct and its Values…”

IMPLICATION: Having honest, highly principled, law-abiding employees – who act as per its Code of Conduct, by standing up against organized crime activities and related breaches of legislation (lines 94-101 of my 17.01.08 Grievance)...

...- is evidently perceived by KPMG as being ‘bad for business’ - and can potentially "lead to dismissal" (# 3.4, below).

YEP! Definitely part of 'the Establishment'!

(6) - “could result in formal proceedings taking place

'Bassett' was aiming to ensure consistency in 'his' spin (*) as, on 13 Feb 07, he had said that "if [I] continued, [I] would receive a formal warning" - line 43 of my Notes.

A "formal warning" would clearly refer to this meeting – for which, ‘very conveniently’ there would not be any record – thereby leaving the door wide open to fabricate accusations.

(*) Note that in its Defence, KPMG then escalated this to claiming that it "could potentially have led to [my] dismissal" - while using a totally different context: # 3.4, below. (Hence the subsequent use by Bassett of: "formal proceedings"?)

Back to sections

(3.3) - Other statements in the 7 Mar 07 'response' 'from' Peter Bassett, to my 14 Feb 07 Draft Notes demonstrated further his - et.al. - underhanded and morally repugnant method of operating.

They revealed their intended very sinister Machiavellian plan of using my horrendous personal situation as a cover-up for what KPMG was about to do to me – a fact KPMG confirmed in its Defence against my Claim - by claiming falsely:

(1)- that I had “wanted KPMG to consider my personal issues”, and had “been unable to disentangle [my] "personal issues" from [my] work and that as a result [my] performance has suffered”;

(2)- portraying itself as having “gone far beyond the help an employer could be expected to provide in such circumstances”.

 

"I am sorry you felt it necessary to put your version of what was discussed in the meeting into a set of notes" (1)

"As I said to you at the meeting it was in no way a formal meeting [2] and Jeanette was invited [3] to discuss with you the support that Well Being could possibly offer you and to encourage you to meet with Julie Bennett." (4)

"We felt that given your on-going situation, which you touched on again in the meeting, and the impact it continues to have on your life [5], it could be beneficial for you to talk to Julie."

"I recognise the continuing problem that you have with your Landlord [6] and want to reassure you that we will continue to support you in any way we can [7], although we are clearly not able to become directly involved in the dispute." (8)

"I did raise concerns with you about the amount of time you spend in the office as I am aware that you are sometimes here all night or going home in the early hours of the morning. [9] I mentioned this only out of concern for your safety and well being." (10)

"I believe the above sets out what Jeanette and I discussed with you and would hope that you still feel supported by me and the firm" (11)

(1)- "sorry you felt it necessary to put your version of what was discussed" - A meeting:

…– and he ‘did not expect’ this to be recorded?!?! Why not?

Because, behind 'his' hypocritical comments, Bassett et.al. in 'the Brotherhood' had a very sinister plan in store for me - discussed under # 5.2, below.

And my producing Draft Notes of the meeting put a spanner in the works. (However, it was a temporary set-back as, colluding with Andrew David Ladsky, Bassett et.al. came up with a solution to 'justify' a follow on meeting - see # 3.4, 30 Mar 07).

Note the “your version

As demonstrated by the content of this entry, that starts with, above, the capture in my Draft Notes of IT related points - it is blatantly obvious that, contrary to Bassett's claim: "I do not believe these to be an accurate account of what we discussed" - that I had captured the main points he held against me at the meeting (as I pointed out under lines 82-86 of my 17.01.08 Grievance). (# 10.2, below)

In fact, I also captured: (1)- his complaint about my "staying in the office very late" (Comment # 9, below): (2)- the way the meeting was set-up (Comment # 3, below) - which, of course, Bassett did not capture.

(Another one worried about having 'certain' conversations recorded was one of Bassett's main accomplices, my line manager, Ceri Hughes - see # 8, below).

In fact, KPMG was so concerned about the evidence I held against it that it / on its behalf, its 'brothers' approached my private doctor - # 13, below.

(2)- "it was in no way a formal meeting"

But, later on in the email ‘Bassett’ wrote: “should there be any further abuse of KPMG’s IT systems this could result in formal proceedings taking place” (See # 3.2 Com 6, above)

Any further= would refer to this meetingfor which, ‘very conveniently’ there would not be any record – thereby leaving the door wide open to make all kinds of accusations at 'the next meeting'...which, of course, in spite of my writing Draft Notes of the 13 Feb 07 meeting, did not stop Bassett and Dunworth from doing precisely that at the next meeting, on 30 Mar 07 (# 3.4 below).

(3) - "Jeanette was invited"

Under lines 14-33 of my 14.02.07 Draft Notes, I reported the underhanded way in which Bassett set-up the meeting.

In my 17.01.08 Grievance, lines 48-64, I wrote:

  • line 58: “The situation felt to me like an ambush”;
  • lines 61 & 62: “I was extremely upset by the manner in which the meeting had been handled
  • lines 74 & 75: “I also told PB “The only thing that was missing from the situation yesterday was a pair of handcuffs

(4)- "Jeanette was invited to discuss with you the support that Well Being could possibly offer you and to encourage you to meet with Julie Bennett"

WHY would I want “the support of WellBeing” and “meet with [its representative] Julie Bennett”?

Had I shown ‘signs’ of ‘needing help from WellBeing’?

Nop! I was happily getting on with my work. One week previously, on 5 Feb 07, I had just come back from a one-week holiday in France that had very effectively ‘recharged my batteries’.

On the personal side - On my return, I discovered that my (priceless) website Host, HostDime, had been battling on my behalf with Rachman Andrew David Ladsky through his corrupt, racketeer solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, hell-bent on, yet again, achieving the closure of my website (Overview # 9).

However, it did not affect me, as I realised that I had one very important ally definitely on my side: HostDime. Further, by then, (in order to survive), I had built up a lot of resilience to the Ladsky mafia's criminal method of operating.

WHY did Peter Bassett do this?

Because he was positioning his pawns - with the objective of implementing his et.al. very sinister, Machiavellian plan.

(5)- "felt that given your on-going situation, which you touched on again in the meeting, and the impact it continues to have on your life"

Of course, I “again touched on [my] situation in the meeting” – because Bassett created the situation – by forcing me to talk about it: lines 63-102 of my Draft Notes.

Motives?

  • To make me talk about my situation - hoping I would show signs of distress - and then use this opportunity to throw KPMG's 'health services' at me;
  • should I file a claim against KPMG, it will ‘look good’ in the Defence to support the (false) accusation that ‘I’ brought "[my] personal issues at work" - as demonstrated further down.

Part of the ploy, was also to influence my decision-making for the benefit of 'the brothers': Bassett telling me: “You must resolve your situation” which, as I reported, made me very angry – lines 103-126.

Communicating my anger during the meeting was, evidently, the 'wrong reaction' as, 3 days later, in their illegal 16.02.07 letter, Ladsky-Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, threatened me with "bankruptcy and forfeiture" (copy of definition) if I failed to "pay immediately £8,937" to a company I had never heard of - as I reported in my 25.02.07 reply (Portner # 3).

(Note also Bassett's other attempts: (1)- on 2 May 07 - Comment # 8, below; (2)- in the 05.08.07 email he and Ceri Hughes had clearly dictated to Finbarr Geaney - # 9.4, below).

Of course, ‘the brothers’ Andrew David Ladsky et.al. in the Jewish-Freemason Brotherhood wanted me to give up my fight – in order to then crush me afterwards for ‘my daring’ to stand-up to them…once I had closed down my website i.e. out of public view.

I did NOT ask for help. Indeed, as I reported in my 14.02.07 Draft Notes:

  • lines 47-51 - it was Bassett who raised “KPMG’s offer of help” – to which I replied that I could not see how KPMG could help me;
  • lines 52-54I related my experience with the Well Being service (more detail in the below paragraph), saying that the person had totally misunderstood my situation. To this Bassett replied: “that’s history”, while Jeanette Dunworth said that there had been “a change of staff”.

= THEY WERE FORCING ME TOWARDS THEIR ‘HEALTH SERVICES

WHY?

In addition to their planned ‘punishment’ for ‘my daring’ to expose, in the public domain, the criminal activities of their ‘brothers’ (Introduction)...

...- the secondary objective behind pushing me to use the ‘health services’, as well as talk about my personal problem – were in case I subsequently took legal action:

(A) - To cover up the impact their planned criminal psychological harassment (as discussed in the remainder of this page) would have on me - by falsely claiming that “[I had] let my "personal issues affect my state of mind and thus approach to my work and relationships with colleagues”:

para.11 of KPMG’s undated pack of lies Defence (posted on 17 Jun 08) to my 03.04.07 Claim in the Employment Tribunal (# 12):

The Claimant has on occasion wanted the Respondent to consider her "personal issues"" (1)

"The Respondent believes that the Claimant has been unable to disentangle her "personal issues" from her work and that as a result her performance has suffered" (2)

(1)- (I assume that it should read “occasions”). There was only one instance, in c. late 2006. KPMG had widely promoted that it was a member of an initiative under which employees could apparently get assistance if they were suffering domestic violence.

It had led me to contact WellBeing to see whether KPMG could help me re. my being followed on an ongoing basis (Persecution # 2). It replied that it could not – lines 52-62 of my Draft Notes.

   
 

Addressing the above '(2)' at the end of the quote brings me to the long awaited (8 years) answer to the question KPMG / its 'brothers' had tasked 'my' doctor with asking me (# 13):

Did I record my conversations at KPMG?

YES. I DID: # 8.1 and # 9.1, below.

 
     

 

The above false accusation was first communicated to me in the 05.08.07 fabricated so-called ‘feedback on my performance’ ‘from’ ‘a colleague', Finbarr Geaney (# 9.4, below).

It was again repeated during my so-called ‘performance appraisal’ meetings on:

(B) - To claim that ('the ever so caring') KPMG had ‘gone out of its way to help me’:

KPMG's undated pack of lies Defence e.g.:

Para.4(a) - "in fact the Grievance Panel felt that the Respondent went to great lengths to support the Claimant during her personal difficulties" (1)

Para.11 - "The Respondent continued to support the Claimant and make allowances where possible." (1)

Para.12(a) - "the Respondent believes that it went far beyond what could be reasonably expected of an employer in such circumstances in terns of the support it offered" (1) (2)

1)- Yep, these claims were made by KPMG, that claimed: 'Above all, we act with integrity'!

(2)- In my 01.07.08 Request for Information (# 15.2), I pointed out that KPMG failed to define how it did this. However, I concluded that WellBeing and the other things it pushed at me over the following months was what it was referring to) (# 5, below).

See # 5, below for my assessment of KPMG's so-called 'offers of help'.

(6)- "I recognise the continuing problem that you have with your Landlord"

And could have added: 'In fact, I am very familiar with it from (among other) our previously associated firm of solicitors, McGrigors, which, during Mar 07, looked at 84 pages of your website'.

A continuing problem” - Bassett forced me to talk about during the meeting (lines 63-102 of my Draft Notes).

(See also Comment # 5, above)

(7)- "want to reassure you that we will continue to support you in any way we can"

Cue to laugh out loud given subsequent events – as reported on this page.

Ditto; another one that would ‘look good’ in a Defence – and as also happened - see Comment # 5B, above.

(8)- "although we are clearly not able to become directly involved in the dispute."

Yet again, another - written - comment that ‘would support’, ‘if required’, the false accusation that ‘I’ brought “[my] personal issues at work” - 'and tried to involve KPMG'.

BUT: getting involved ‘indirectly’, from behind closed doors is, as for many in the English Establishment = 'Brotherhood', one of our specialities when dealing with Proles like you who dare challenge as well as expose Establishment's organized crime activities (Case summary).

IN FACT: on 2 May 07, I noted in my diary of events that, in a corridor, Bassett had told me:

"Why don't you bring an end to the dispute and pay the £10,000 demanded in the claim? KPMG could get a lawyer to make this very tight". (Anything to satisfy the greed of a member of 'the Brotherhood', and of one of his ethnic group!)

To this I replied: "I don't owe the £10,000" (and was proven right by the fact that, after I had resigned from KPMG, it eventually ended with a Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL" the claim against me (Portner # 31).

I then related what happened in 2003 when "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end" I accepted Ladsky's 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' - by paying £6,350 I did not legally owe (Overview # 3).

What did psycho Ladsky do? He repeated the original demand, as though no 'offer' had been made, accepted and paid, and sealed in a court-endorsed Consent Order (Overview # 6).

(9)- "amount of time you spend in the office...you are sometimes here all night or going home in the early hours of the morning"

The amount of time I spent in the office” was due to Bassett’s dear ‘brother’, Ladsky, turning my apartment into a hellhole in which I felt incredibly unsafe due to being subjected to ongoing harassment and threats...

and from knowing that the other ‘brothers’ and their henchmen in the Kensington police mafia are his lapdogs.

I stayed “all night” only once, and that was afterwards, on 4 Apr 07'courtesy' of Ladsky and his corrupt solicitor Jeremy Hershkorn (Overview # 11).

Of note: during telephone conversations:

  • Julie Bennett twice raised the fact that I was "staying late in the office"; and subsequently,
  • Seraphina Burch, Occupational Health adviser, BUPA Wellness at KPMG, also said it to me when I phoned her following her 08.05.07-13h29 email - by which time it had been inflated to “[my] staying in the office all night”, as well as
  • Jeremy Nelson, head of security, when I spoke to him on 27 Apr 07 (# 3.4, below)

= deliberately adding to the pressure, on Bassett's order = Bassett was playing Ladsky's hand.

(Under the pressure of deadlines, many people often stayed very late in the office).

(Unable to face being in the apartment, from early April 07, I started to rent a room in east London – at a cost of £450 per month = more drain on my savings) (while the judas was probably also getting paid for passing information on me! ; events also captured under paras 122-123 of my 19.07.11 Witness Statement to Theresa May, then Home Secretary).

(10)- “out of concern for your safety and well being” – No, he was not.

I repeat: Bassett was playing Ladsky’s hand. He knew that my apartment was hell e.g. that the previous week, on 6 Feb 07, a major escape of water had narrowly missed my apartment. (But the many others did not!).

(11)- "I...would hope that you still feel supported by me and the firm"

10/10 for irony...considering what took place subsequently, as reported on this page - supported by many documents....and recordings!

(I may be wrong, but I suspect that Peter Bassett is 'Jewish' – 'like' Andrew David Ladsky.

What Peter Bassett did from Feb 07 onwards certainly demonstrated the same extremely sick, vicious, cruel, sadistic, perverse psyche as Ladsky and his 'Jewish' gang of racketeers, as well as their 'Jewish' supporters in the judiciary (kangaroo courts), etc., etc. – and for whom he fell over backwards to assist).

Back to sections

(3.4) - Failure to make me capitulate by: Peter Bassett, at the 13 Feb 07 meeting; Ladsky and his corrupt solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn, through their 16.02.07 threat of “bankruptcy and forfeiture”, followed by their 27.02 07 fraudulent claim, and (thanks to my priceless website Host, HostDime), the ‘brothers’ in the police having failed to get the closure of my website...

...- Peter Bassett et.al. in ‘the Brotherhood’ devised what was by then Plan C: at a 30 Mar 07 meeting with Bassett, Jeanette Dunworth, HR, telling me:

because of communication from Mr Ladsky claiming that “your website contains anti-Semitic comments” it has been decided that to protect you and KPMG it would be best you no longer have access to the internet”.

Translation: 'And to ALL the internal sites as well...as you will discover by the time you return to your desk'.

OF NOTE: KPMG had absolute knowledge of the many criminal actions against me by Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers through, among other, its previously associated firm of solicitors, McGrigors looking at 121 pages of my website during March-April 07.

They did not show me the communication from Ladsky, and nor did they subsequently issue me with notes of the meeting.

In its ‘response’ to my Grievance, and in its Defence to my Claim, KPMG claimed to have been ‘absolutely justified in cutting off my access’.

 

In his 30.03.07-10h08 email, Peter Bassett, wrote:

Please could we meet for a further follow-up meeting with Jeanette at 12 noon today?

The only prior meeting that had taken place was on 13th Feb 07 with Bassett and Dunworth (above).

At 10h21 (on the same email), I replied that I could. However, I wondered what was there “to follow-up as, during the 13 Feb meeting, Bassett had said: “should there be any further abuse of KPMG’s IT systems this could result in formal proceedings taking place”. I had not “[made] any further abuse of the IT systems”.

Still, I concluded that it would no doubt be another 'Guantanamo Bay style meeting'. It was - as they did not supply me with evidence in support of the accusations.

As what was said at the meeting was – of course - NOT recorded on paper – and, 2nd time round, I did not produce my own notes, because I did not want to, yet again, be called a liar (# 3.2, above), I recorded events in / under:

OF NOTE - One month later, in their 23.04.07 letter, Bassett and Dunworth falsely claimed to have, at the time, informed me of another action - resulting in ever more damning evidence against KPMG (# 4.2, below).

 

Unlike at the 13 Feb meeting, Jeanette Dunworth, HR, did the talking, while Bassett put on an act of appearing sort of human (as I wrote, at the time, in my diary of events).

She told me that Andrew Ladsky had approached KPMG claiming that "[my website] contains anti-Semitic comments” – and that he was “very persistent.

I denied it, saying that 2 weeks previously, Ladsky had made the same false, totally unsupported accusation to Notting Hill police (police # 3), (Overview # 13).

I reported that a TDC Simon J Dowling, Notting Hill police, had:

  • in ‘his’ (=’Brotherhood’) 16.03.07 email to my website Host, HostDime, accused me – without any evidence in support - of “having committed a crime”, and of being “a Nazi;
  • as a result of being challenged by my website Host who asked: “Are you aware that there are laws against making false accusations?”,
  • in ‘his’ 20.03.07 email ‘Dowling’ had backed down – stating: “If you are unable to close the site down I will let the victim know as there is nothing we as a police force can do [1] except class it as a racist incident.” (2)

(1)- So much for the accusation in the previous email of 16.03.07 that “[I had] committed a crime”!!!

(2)- Thereby nonetheless claiming, an equally totally unsupported accusation of “a racist incident

As I could not remember the exact wording, I offered to supply the emails. After the meeting, I sent them to Bassett by attaching them to my 30.03.07-16h35 email.

In his follow-on 02.04.07 email, Bassett wrote:

We do think these look a bit odd and ‘un-police like” (= the Brotherhood needed to show some 'disapproval' after its plan had been foiled by my website Host)

- and suggested I sent them to KPMG’s head of security, Jeremy Nelson – which I did with my 03.04.07 email. (I had already approached Nelson following Julie Bennett, WellBeing, contacting him: 23.02.07 email - see # 5, below, for my first contact with Nelson, in Feb 07).

As I reported under lines 1138-1153 of my 17.01.08 Grievance, on 27 Apr 07, Jeremy Nelson phoned me to say: “the police [the Kensington police mafia] is not going to take the matter further. Isn’t that good news?” ("The matter" being its malicious accusations in its above criminal emails).

This was taking place 24 days after the police had sent the emails. WHY? Because, on 24th April 07, I had uploaded the police's emails on my website. As I stated in my Grievance,

"I never received any communication from the police confirming what Jeremy told me.

I found it very strange that the police considered it sufficient to have the message relayed to me through him."

Explanation: an ex. cop (perhaps one who had "retired") - with still, very strong links with the police. And, of course, Her Majesty's police is part and parcel of the Establishment - tasked with protecting it, at any cost, from ‘the Proles’ / “the Oiks” / “The Great Unwashed” such as I who 'dare' challenge its illegal activities.

In my diary of events, I also recorded Jeremy Nelson telling me, on 27 Apr 07, that

"[I am] making claims of fraud on my site [1], and that the police will only take action if [I] go and report it in person".

He added: "Mr Ladsky followed the right procedure. He reported your site to the police." (!!!) (2)

I laughed at that saying “with all the evidence contained on the site ‘I’ have to tell the police what to do. You only have to look at the banner on the site…”. Nelson did not want to let me talk.

(1)- = Proof that KPMG was looking at my website, and, of course, continued to do so e.g.

(1)- the 121 pages of my website looked by McGrigors (# 3.4) ; (2)- the email from BUPA Wellness at KPMG - # 5 ; (3)- Julian Walker's comments in his 19.07.07 letter, about KPMG's counsel briefing him - # 7.

(2)- Aside from this being laughable, Nelson very conveniently ignored a key difference:

  • when I approach the police "in person" e.g. in 2002 and 2010, Overview # 17, not only does the police refuse to investigate my complaints, it protects Ladsky through conniving, collusion, cover-up and fabrications.

And the same treatment continued when I supplied Her Majesty's Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police et.al. with the very damning evidence of criminality against Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - as evidenced by what took place pre and post filing my 19.04.11 Claim - Overview # 18.

And, it has continued following my 25.11.14 letter to Her Majesty's Theresa May, then Home Secretary, on which, among others, I (twice) copied the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, as well as the Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (HO # 3.1(iv)).

I also said that the obvious intention of the (above) emails was to scare my website Host into closing my site. As I was saying this, Nelson kept talking over me. It was like two monologues taking place at the same time, competing to be heard.

He repeated, more accurately, snarled: "I am not going to get involved in the semantics.” (lines 1045-1046 of my 17.01.08 Grievance). (Yep! definitely an ex. cop from the same mould as e.g. DC DR Adams from the Kensington police mafia).

KPMG was reporting on my movements to the State goons, and 'the brothers' (# 6.3, below).

IN SPITE of my saying that Ladsky’s totally unsupported accusation was false, Jeanette Dunworth, HR, told me:

because of Mr Ladsky’s communication claiming that "your website contains anti-Semitic comments" [*] it has been decided that to protect you and KPMG, it would be best you no longer have access to the Internet

(*) Ladsky’s criminal activities (e.g. Extortion) are challenged, as well as exposed so, automatically, as ‘a Jew (in name only): he pulls the “anti-Semite card ” out.

(No, in the process of colluding and conspiring with the Kensington-Notting Hill police mafia (and Ladsky), Dunworth, the henchwoman, did not also repeat what it had captured 2 weeks previously in its so-called "crime report" against me (Overview # 13) - that "the victim [Ladsky] feels vulnerable and intimidated [by me]" (!!!) (Look at e.g. Extortion for 'the truth' of these claims).

However, KPMG's action amounted to doing the same thing as the police that claimed "to have no suspicion of false reporting").

 

 

In its pack of lies Defence - KPMG claimed re. paras 8- 12, 33(2)-33(4) of my 03.04.08 Claim against KPMG:

"Para.4(b) - the Respondent was right, to restrict the Claimant's internet access due to her contravening the Respondent's IT policy;” (1)

"Para.6 - …the Respondent decided to restrict the Claimant's access to the internet as a precautionary measure.” (2)

Para. 7 - This was not the start of or indeed any part of a campaign of victimisation but in fact a way of avoiding implementing the disciplinary procedure for the Claimant's serious breach of the IT policy which could potentially have led to the Claimant's dismissal.” (3)

"Para.12(b) - the Respondent believes that it was necessary to restrict the Claimant’s access to the internet following the Claimant's abuse of the Respondent’s IT systems and the threat of legal action from Mr Ladsky." (4)

(1)- WHICH "IT policy"?

As a cover-up ploy, KPMG is mixing deliberately the 13 Feb with the 30 Mar 07 meeting - which had nothing to do with its "IT systems".

What I reported above is all that I was told at the 30 Mar 07 meeting (Header 4 of my 17.01.08 Grievance; para.8 of my 03.04.08 Claim).

My use of "KPMG's IT systems" was raised - at the 13 Feb 07 meeting: # 3.2 - not at the 30 Mar 07 meeting.

Hence KPMG's claim amounts to cutting off my access 6 weeks after it raised the matter with me!

I again stress that Bassett and Dunworth did not issue me with notes of the meeting.

NOTE that KPMG also made the same claim in its 22.05.08 'response' to my Grievance (# 11).

(2)- I repeat my above # 1 Comments.

Under para.13 of my 01.07.08 Request for additional information, I asked for the definition of “precautionary measure”. (As with everything else), I did not get a reply (# 15.2).

(3)- "could potentially have led to my dismissal" - Unbelievable!

= KPMG aiming to portray itself as being 'ever so caring'.

NOTE also KPMG's very sick claim in its 22.05.08 'response' to my Grievance, that it had "not taken action against [me] out of concern for my wellbeing" (!!!) # 11 - Comments 8 & 9.

On 13 Feb 07, Bassett had said: "if [I] continued, [I] would receive a formal warning" - line 43 of my Notes.

For the purpose of KPMG's spin, in 'his' 7 Mar 07 email, 'he' changed that to: "formal proceedings taking place" - meaning?

(4)- See my Comments, above, under # 3.2 - Comment 4.

 

KPMG was acting exactly like the Kensington police mafia (Overview # 13, # 16): very conveniently accepting accusations against me (# 3.5, below) without any challenge whatsoever. I repeat my Comments under # 3.2, above.

 

What hurt me beyond words was that my website Host, HostDime, who did not know me, believed in me and backed me up...

...- whereas KPMG that had known me for 10 years and was aware of the history (in fact, as discussed below, it had all the detail) was ‘siding’ with criminal Ladsky and, by implication, his equally criminal aides, against me (lines 280-282 of my 17.01.08 Grievance)

 

KPMG was falling over backwards deliberately to help a multi-criminal Rachman vermin landlord punish me for 'my daring' to stand up to his criminal activities:

 

(1)- KPMG had absolute knowledge of Ladsky's numerous criminal activities as,

(NB: As in the case of the recordings, I am only revealing this evidence in 2015, with the launch of this page).

 

(2)- Peter Bassett - et.al. - had taken the decision - regardless - of what I would say during the meeting as,...

by the time I went back to my desk, I had been cut-off from, not only the internet, but ALSO from ALL the internal sites as well.

= I could NOT do my work (# 4, below)

 

(3)- Knowing that it would have a devastating impact on me (# 4.1, below),

Peter Bassett had Julie Bennett, WellBeing - the pawn he and Dunworth had forced me to approach at the (above) 13 Feb 07 meeting = in preparation for his sinister, Machiavellian plan (# 5.2, below),...

- waiting for me outside the meeting room (lines 1029-1034 of my 17.01.08 Grievance).

 

That was Plan C as:

  • I had spoiled Plan A by unexpectedly issuing Notes of the 13 Feb 07 meeting (# 3.2, above), which 'meant' that ‘follow-up’ false accusations against me could not be based on it;

Still very trusting of KPMG, and concerned that Ladsky had brought his long-standing personal vendetta against me to KPMG – as well as the fact that I was in a captive situation - I did not challenge the rationale of the decision, nor asked for evidence of the accusation.

(It was not offered to me). (I only saw a highly redacted version of some of it 7 months later, after going into a drawn out battle with KPMG: next entry).

Back to sections

(3.5) - After a drawn out battle, 7 months later (# 7), KPMG finally supplied me with a heavily redacted 26.03.07 letter from Andrew David Ladsky, containing the accusation raised at the 30 Mar 07 meeting,...

...as well as other equally false, highly vicious, malicious and defamatory accusations against me – which KPMG knew were false,...

...and very conveniently: did not challenge; nor did it take notice of the police emails I had supplied it with following the 30 Mar 07 meeting.

As in the case of the 9 Feb 07 communication (# 3.2, above) - I only discovered this, 7 months later (!!) following a drawn out battle with KPMG in relation to my 09.07.07 Subject Access Request (# 7, below), when, with its 05.10.07 correspondence it finally supplied me...

...with a heavily redacted version of Ladsky’s 26.03.07 letter. From what is left of it:

In October 2002 your firm wrote to the leasehold valuation tribunal and The London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [1] alleging that i (sic) was proposing to steal £750,000. [2]

The letter making this allegation was on your headed notepaper and signed by your employee Noelle Rawe (sic)” (1)

your employee clearly used your company’s good name to add to her defence to a private action brought against her to recover properly due service charges(3)

"You once again claim that this has been done without your consent by Noelle Rawe [4] and that there will be no further repetition or use of KPMG internet services.” (5)

Your assurances cannot be relied upon as your employee is acting with your consent or treats any warnings she has been given by your firm with complete and utter contempt evidenced i (sic) by her view of your professional body who she considers to be “run by little dictators fertilising malpractice in your industry” (see web site on accountants).” (6)

Whatever the case you continue to liable me in the most offensive manner and seem either unwilling or unable to stop it.” (7)

The allegations she makes that she has been followed 24/7 for several years [8] over a £5000 bill [9] undoubtedly display clinical paranoia [10] and the accompanying descriptions and racist overtones along with the other views of myself [11] and various professional advisors, the government and their respective regulating bodies etc make this a “HATE” website of the most vicious nature created by your employee [12] and administered through you (sic) company internet service.” (13)

"The matter has been reported to the police who confirm they are dealing with a racist incident [14] and are in contact with the ISP hosting the offending site.” (15)

Furthermore, you say in your letter that this is Ms Rawe’s personal view and that you do not condone racism. However, it seems, you are happy and willing to employ racists [16] so long as they cause such offence outside office hours [!!!] and one wonders where your company draws the line.”

Perhaps you could clarify this for me and for the Commission for Racial Equality who i (sic) am involving in this matter [17] as frankly i (sic) find it breathtaking that you are allowing your employee to behave in this way which must be contrary to any good faith employment provisions under which she must be expected to behave with a degree of propriety [18] and be restricted from using your name and notepaper [19] for her personal vendettas." (20)

(1)- "In October 2002 your firm wrote to the leasehold valuation tribunal and The London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea" - As evidenced by the rest of the sentence: this is not true. It refers Ladsky 'complaining' to KPMG, in 2002, about two faxes I had sent: above, # 3.2, Comment # 4.

(2)- "i was proposing to steal £750,000" - I was proven right about Ladsky and his gang of racketeers' plan to defraud leaseholders - as it turned out: some £500,000 (Overview # 3).

(3)- "properly due service charges" - FALSE - Note that by then, end Mar 07, I had placed on my website absolutely undeniable evidence of Ladsky's fraudulent demand: Overview # 1, # 2 , # 3 - including Ladsky's 21 Oct 03 'offer' to me that knocked off £8,000 from the original demand....

...which KPMG knew from (among other) its previously associated firm of solicitors, McGrigors, that had looked at 84 pages of my website during Mar 07.

Note also that, 6 weeks before sending the letter to KPMG, Ladsky had asked his other corrupt solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, to send me a 16.02.07 letter threatening me with "bankruptcy and forfeiture" (copy of definition) if I failed to "pay immediately £8,937" to a company I had never heard of (Overview # 10).

'My daring' to not be intimidated, led the mafia to file a 27.02.07 claim against me (i.e. one month before Ladsky's letter to KPMG) - which, 16 months later, resulted in a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL" of the claim against me (Overview # 11).

Yep! Another Ladsky example of "properly due service charges"...and another example of his numerous "contributions".

(4)- "once again" - What was KPMG’s previous communication to Ladsky? When? In response to what from Ladsky?

I do not know, as the previous 2 paragraphs are totally blacked out.

Perhaps the paragraphs refer to some communication that took place at a local Masonic lodge?

(5)- "no further repetition or use of KPMG internet services"

On what basis – as an external party to KPMG – could Ladsky make the claim that "[I used] KPMG's IT services to work on [my] website"? - as implied by the next paragraph (and, as he had already claimed during a 9 Feb 07 call to KPMG (above).

This accusation was totally false - as I had my personal computer at work, and had my personal 3G card to connect it to the Internet.

Further, as I reported under lines 439-450 of my 17.01.08 Grievance: it would have been an impossibility for me to “update [my] website using KPMG’s IT systems” - and KPMG knew this. Moreover, it could verify it.

(6)- "Your assurances cannot be relied upon...treats any warnings with utter contempt"

The arrogance and belief of superiority of that hitlerian, Rachman multi-criminal vermin (*) from the gutter is really beyond words. Who the hell does he think he is?

(*) I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)

"her view of your professional body who she considers to be “run by little dictators fertilising malpractice in your industry” - my page on Pridie Brewster and the ICAEW (complaint summary # 6.1). (I maintain my view).

(7)- “KPMG liables [him]” – FALSE - Aside from the fact that his accusations are falsethe party concerned was I, not KPMG. It is my personal websitenot a KPMG website.

NOTE that, to cover up its criminal psychological harassment regime against me, in its Defence, KPMG claimed to be 'concerned' about Ladsky's threats against KPMG - Comment # 4, above.

(8)- "allegations she makes that she has been followed 24/7 for several years"

See Persecution # 2 for the mountain of evidence - of which I had already captured quite a lot by the time of Ladsky's Mar 07 letter.

BUT, Ladsky also had to protect his lapdogs in the police and related agencies – that operate as a fully integrated team with his resources in dogging me, hounding me, harassing me and persecuting me on a daily basis.

(9)- "over a £5000 bill" - FALSE - Actual amounts: (i) - £14,400 in 2002 ; (ii) - £14,400 in 2004 ; (iii) - £10,350 and £8,993 on 27 Feb 07 - one month before his letter.

(10)- "undoubtedly display clinical paranoia" - Note that during the (above) 9 Feb 07 conversation, Ladsky had described me as: "clinically unwell".

= Ladsky was counting on the typical English Establishment tactic for dealing with ‘inconvenient’ ‘little people’ 'like me' who 'dare' rock the boat i.e. stand up to Establishment-controlled organized crime:

pass them off as "suffering from mental issues" - with the ultimate objective of getting them sectioned. (The entry contains other examples of Ladsky's similar comments about me).

And labeling me as 'suffering from mental issues' is exactly what KPMG set out to do (# 5, below) with the objective of implementing its very sinister Machiavellian plan (# 5.2).

(11)- "racist overtones along with the other views of myself"

Ladsky’s criminal activities (e.g. Extortion) are challenged, as well as exposed so, automatically, as ‘a Jew (in name only): he pulls the “racist card” out.

(12)- "various institutions" - After the ICAEW, he brings in other public institutions – knowing that KPMG has working relationships within the public sector (media, below).

"make this a "HATE" website" - Hate” (with “racism”): another staple word used by white-collar criminalJews’ like Ladsky when challenged on their criminal activities.

And, ‘of course’, it extends to any challenge of their mates and flunkeys in the institutions who very conveniently turn a blind eye to their criminal activities e.g. Overview # 7.

(13)- "administered through you (sic) company internet service" - I repeat: This was a false accusation - and KPMG knew it was false.

(14) - "police confirm are dealing" - FALSE - because, 6 days earlier, in its 20.03.07 email to my website Host, the police stated "there is nothing we as a police force can do" (above).

"racist incident" - an accusation the police (like Ladsky) did not support with one iota of evidence. Why? Because it does not exist.

(15)- "police in contact with ISP hosting the offending site" - FALSE - for the reason stated just above - which foiled the plan Ladsky and his mafia police henchmen had connived - leading them (in collusion) to resort to this alternative line of attack - that provided KPMG with a useful basis for its actions against me.

(16)- "it seems, you are happy and willing to employ racists" - Back again with the standard favourite: "racism"!

The racists (and very sick psychos) are Ladsky and his lapdogs in the Kensington and Notting Hill police mafia.

(17)- "involving the Commission for Racial Equality" - Why include that in the letter? I repeat my above comment. Ladsky could not hold anything against KPMG.

What did “the Commission for Racial Equality” have to say? Where is the evidence? You do not have a leg to stand on Ladsky.

I certainly have never been approached by this Commission, nor, has my website Host.

Did Ladsky actually contact “the Commission”? Perhaps it was another of his statements of the type made in relation to the construction of a penthouse apartment - that was "most categorically NOT going to be built"?

(18)- "behave with a degree of propriety" - er…following his example – and that of his gang of racketeers?

The gall of that vermin is really beyond words.

By Mar 07, their mastery of “propriety” was already extensively demonstrated – and documented – on my website e.g. Overview ; Extortion ; numerous breaches of legislation categorised as criminal.

(19)- "using your name and notepaper" - He is referring to what had taken place in 2002 (police # 2, background) i.e. 5 years previously.

(20)- "her personal vendettas" - in the plural!

Oh dear, oh dear! ‘Daring’ to stand-up against that mafia organized crime activities is defined as “vendettas”.

My views on the meaning of "vendetta"? In relation to Ladsky and his gang of racketeers, I cite the examples contained under e.g. Home Office, # 3.1(iv) - # 1 to # 10.

THAT is what I call "VENDETTA"

This website contains many, many more examples e.g. under Extortion.

Conclusion:

This is a letter from an extremely sick psycho who went berserk from being exposed for what he is: a thoroughly evil multi-criminal vermin (*) from the gutter. (*) I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)

The Jewish-Masonic network that also found itself exposed on my website (and had probably contributed to the letter) rallied round as, following his letter:

  • (2)- the British State has since continued to subject me to horrendous, life-destroying, criminal psychological harassment: Persecution page.

 

WHY did Peter Bassett, partner, and Jeanette Dunworth, HR, not communicate to me the above highly vicious, malicious and defamatory accusations against me by Ladsky?

And there are, no doubt, a lot more, as KPMG redacted over 50% of the letter.

I repeat my suspicion that Peter Bassett is 'Jewish' - 'like' Andrew David Ladsky.

Back to sections

 

(4) - For 24 days, from 30 Mar until 23 Apr 07, KPMG cut off my access to all the internal sites, as well as internet.

The messages I was getting from trying to access the sites made me feel as though I were a criminal. Yet, I was the victim of crime by the Ladsky gang of criminals, not the criminal.

I kept highlighting my plight in numerous emails, as I was unable to do my work.

On 30 Mar 07, by the time I returned to my desk from the (above) meeting with Peter Bassett, partner, and Jeanette Dunworth, HR, I discovered that KPMG had cut my access not only to the internet (as had been said),..

but also to ALL the internal sites - as I first reported in my 30.03.07-15h46 email to Dunworth, on which I cc'd Peter Bassett.

(Just as well that a ‘Human Resources’ representative was present at the meeting! HR = the henchmen and henchwomen of management…added to many others – as demonstrated by my experience in KPMG).

That was the first of many, many emails over the following 24 days, in which I kept highlighting my plight, and the impact it had on me - including the horrible automated messages I was bombarded with from trying to access the sites - that made feel as though I were a criminal.

As evidence, in my emails, I included many printscreens of the messages I was getting e.g. the below examples.

The majority of the below emails are referred to under Header 4.2 of my 17.01.08 Grievance.

In further support of what I reported, see # 4.2, below, the letter I was asked to sign on 24th April.

Date

To / From

Extracts

05.04.07-10h37

TO: Jeanette Dunworth, cc'd Peter Bassett

"Nearly one week and still no action; very upsetting; makes me feel like a criminal". (1)

"I come in in the morning with the mindset of forgetting about my case for the day. Every occurrence of this reminds me of it, makes me think that it is I, the victim, who gets treated as though I am the criminal."

I followed this by stating that I was taking the rest of the day off.

10.04.07-10h28

TO: Dunworth, cc'd Ceri Hughes (my line manager)

"No change in the situation" (By then it was DAY 11)

10.04.07-12h08

TO: Hannah-Maria Talbot, cc'd Dunworth, Hughes

"Jeanette said to have contacted Global IT - but no action yet taken."

"I can't work like that. This is in addition to getting very upset by this."

10.04.07-12h14

FROM Hughes - TO: me, Talbot; cc'd Bassett, Dunworth

"I do need noelle (sic) to access the kpmg (sic) intranet in order to fulfil the tasks I have asked her to work on" (2) (By then it was DAY 11)

(in her 10.04.07-16h14 email, Talbot replied to me: "will look into this and get back to you as soon as I can")

11.04.07-09h49

TO: Talbot, cc'd Hughes, Dunworth

"No change in the situation; I am being denied access to practically everything" (I captured several printscreens to support my claim).

11.04.07-09h55

TO: Hughes

"Seeing this blanket denial of access to sites after more than one week makes me wonder whether I should read in this the message that I should pack up and leave"

11.04.07-10h04

FROM: Hughes, TO me

"It is an error that you do not have access to the intranet"

"Obviously it is very upsetting for you [3], but I do not think for one moment that you should read anything more sinister into this."

(My inserted reply on her email) "Thank you for the reassurance. Yes, it is very upsetting. At least, until a week ago I had the working day during which I could be in a state of relative normality. Not any more. The horrendous nightmare has overtaken every single part of my life." (4)

11.04.07-12H09

TO: Hughes

"Apparently IT needs to write a rule to allow me access to the Intranet, while excluding the Internet"

13.04.07-16h01

TO: Dunworth

"No change - still unable to access Intranet sites" (By then, it was DAY 14)

17.04.07-10h44

TO: Serena Patching, IT, cc'd Hughes, Bassett, Dunworth

"No change whatsoever" (To prove the point, I captured many printscreens in my email) (By then, it was DAY 18)

17.04.07-16h59

TO: Patching, cc'd Hughes, Dunworth

Returning the spreadsheet Patching asked me to complete in her 17.04.07-15h40 email - and stating:

"I have included another 20 examples, but this hides a lot more I cannot access"

"It would be easier to define what I can access rather than what I cannot access – which is very little."

"Because of the nature of my work, it’s impossible for me to identify what I am likely to need."

"For more than two weeks now I feel totally cut off"

18.04.07-12h26

TO: Patching, cc'd Hughes, Dunworth

"Earlier on this morning I was able to access the KWorld home page, as well as the Global Advisory home page. (I did not try others, to avoid the risk of yet again seeing these horrible messages “Forbidden access”, “you have been denied access”, “you are not on the approved list of contacts”, etc. that make me feel as though I am a criminal)" [As captured e.g. in my 17.04.07-10h44 email to Patching]

"Well, this was short-lived, as these horrible messages have yet again appeared when I tried to access the KWorld home page and the Global Advisory home page a few minutes ago."

23.04.07-11h34

FROM: Abhi Anand, TO: me cc'd Hughes, Dunworth

"As advised, We have granted access to Internet for Noelle now." (By then, it was DAY 24) (5)

23.04.23-11h38

TO: Abhi, cc'd Hughes, Dunworth

"I understand from Peter Bassett that I am meant to be agreeing to something.

Can you please let me know what I am meant to do." (6)

01.05.07-10h00

FROM: Patching, TO: me, Anand, cc'd Hughes, Dunworth

"...could you confirm you are able to access all the Global Intranet websites you require to complete your work [7] and have no internet access?"

"We completed some changes to your account late last week..." (8)

01.05.07-10h27

TO: Patching, Anand, cc'd Hughes, Dunworth

"Can access internal sites. For test purposes, just tried BBC weather website and it opened. (8)

As I know that I am barred from accessing any external sites: I have NOT been doing it."

(1)- As can be seen in the email, after my first email of 30.03.07-15h46, I had also sent Dunworth a 02.04.07-10h11 email, cc'd Bassett, reporting another site I could not access.

(2)- "need noelle to access the kpmg intranet in order to fulfill the tasks I have asked her to work on"

= PROOF, added to: (1)- 01.05.07-10h00 email (below); (2)- 23.04.07 letter (below) that KPMG prevented me from my doing my work.

(3)- "Obviously it is very upsetting for you" - and could have added: But it sure is a lot of fun for us!

(4)- "The horrendous nightmare has overtaken every single part of my life [i.e. also entered my work life]

NOTE that during part 1 of my so-called 'performance appraisal' on 9 Oct 07, Ceri Hughes refused point-blank to take into consideration the impact on my ability to perform my work, of what had taken place: # 8.1, below.

Peter Bassett and Kathy Woodhouse did the same thing during part 2, on 24 Oct 07: # 9.1.

(5)- “As advisedby whom? Peter Bassett – et.al. in KPMG and related Jewish-Freemason ‘Brotherhood’ because they had had their (temporary) quota of sadistic kicks?

(6)- "what am I meant to do?" - See # 4.2, below, for what Bassett asked me to do.

(7)- "confirm you are able to access all the...websites you require to complete your work"

= PROOF, added to: (1) 10.04.07-12h14 email (above); (2) 23.04.07 letter (below) that KPMG prevented me from doing my work.

(8)- "We completed some changes last week" - The only change they had made was reconnecting me to the network.

BUT: having this 'in writing' - which, by then, had already been claimed by Bassett in his (below) 24 Apr email - would 'support' KPMG's claim that it had been trying 'ever so hard' to resolve 'the issue' - as demonstrated by e.g.

Back to sections

(4.1) - Unsurprisingly - and considering 'the reason' given (# 3.4 above) for cutting my access to ALL the websites - I went through 24 days of horrendous distress, torment and anguish.

It was also a demeaning and humiliating experience as, in an attempt to do my work, I had to ask colleagues to look up information for me.

I spent a large part of Apr 07 sobbing uncontrollably at my desk, and took time off my annual leave repeatedly.

By mid Apr 07, I saw my doctor who prescribed me tranquilisers and an anti-depressant.

In its Defence to my Claim, KPMG “denie[d] exposing [me] to nearly a month of extreme distress”; claimed (also falsely) to have “kept [me] fully informed of the technical difficulties” (a cover-up).

As I reported under:

...being cut off from ALL the sites for 24 days, while being bombarded with the horrible automated messages, had a devastating impact on me. I was in tears at my desk practically every day during that period, at times sobbing uncontrollably, feeling extremely distraught.

In the first week of April, I found it so difficult to cope with the situation that, practically every day, I left the office, taking time off as annual leave. (When I raised this subsequently with Ceri Hughes, she told me that I could charge my time under the "Compassionate Leave" code (!!!). That monster was never far away from getting a good laugh).

My being cut-off from accessing the sites made me feel like a pariah, very isolated, and was a degrading, demeaning and humiliating experience as, in an attempt to do my work, I had to ask colleagues to look up information for me.

I ended-up telling them that I was barred from accessing the Internet. It helped fuel rumours / a whispering campaign behind my back.

Not only could I not do my work, 'I' the glaringly obvious victim of multi-criminal Andrew David Ladsky - which KPMG had absolute knowledge of - was being treated as though 'I' were a criminal (reinforced further by the above messages),...

...while 'he' was treated as 'the victim' - who, 'on the face of it', could play the Hitlerian dictator, ordering KPMG about.

'On the face of it' because, as is glaringly obvious: the real motive was KPMG appointing itself as executioner on behalf of 'the brothers' for 'my daring' to challenge them, as well as denounce them on this website - by deliberately cutting me off from ALL the sites - as also evidenced in the below 23 Apr 07 letter issued by Jeanette Dunworth, HR.

Hence, as they were getting the emails from me: the evil, morally depraved, unbelievably perverse monsters had been getting their sadistic kicks from seeing me extremely distraught and sobbing uncontrollably at my desk - and, consequently, hell-bent on making it last.

(I repeat my above perceptions of Peter Bassett).

By mid-April, I saw my doctor who prescribed me tranquilisers and an anti-depressant. (As detailed under # 13, below, 'mysteriously', one year later, 'he could not find any record of doing this' !! my 10.04.08 letter to him proving he had done it, by attaching the scanned prescription and packaging).

They, like others in KPMG, certainly support the conclusions from the Milgram's findings.

Under para.12(e) of its undated pack of lies Defence (posted 17 Jun 08), KPMG had the gall to state:

"The Respondent denies exposing the claimant to nearly a month of extreme distress in relation to restricting her access to the internet." (1)

"The Claimant was kept fully informed of the technical difficulties involved in putting the necessary restriction in place." (2)

(1)- "denial of exposing [me] to extreme distress" - Look at the above evidence, and under # 4. If you are a normal human being: how would you react to having this done to you?

Also: how does KPMG explain that it had Julie Bennett, a 'WellBeing' representative wait for me (# 3.4) at the end of the 30 Mar 07 meeting with Bassett and Dunworth?

(NB: in its Defence, KPMG was playing the same game as e.g. (1)- Her Majesty's then Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, and (2)- the so-called Solicitors Regulation Authority - extracts under Overview # 7...

because ALL part of the same, extremely sick tribe of rotten to the core monsters!).

(See also # 6(4), below, the claim about my "alleged distress")

(2)- "[I] was kept fully informed of the technical difficulties":

(Aside from KPMG's criminal action against me), firstly, there was 'no technical difficulty' (as also claimed by Bassett, (below)); secondly, looking at the emails that were exchanged during April (# 4, above), it is glaringly obvious that this claim is also false.

They were ALL getting endless kicks from seeing me suffer.

As to its 'conclusion' about doing that to me - in its 22.05.08 'response' to my Grievance, KPMG concluded that it had "a couple of learning points to HR" (# 11- Comment 12).

Back to sections

(4.2) - After making me go through 24 days of horrendous suffering, on 24 Apr 07, Peter Bassett asked me to sign a 23.04.07 letter 'agreeing' to be barred from using the internet; letter that confirmed:

(1)- my being deliberately cut off from the network;

(2)- that I had been “unable to carry out [my] day to day work”.

On getting the signed letter, Bassett looked as though he was walking away with a trophy.

In its Defence to my Claim, KPMG claimed that what it did was “a legitimate and proportionate response to [my] abuse of [its] IT systems”. (No, I had not used its "systems" after the Feb 07 meeting; hence, my Comments under # 3.2 apply).

In his 24.04.07-09h10 email to me, cc'd Ceri Hughes, Peter Bassett wrote:

As I mentioned to you yesterday, it has been agreed that while IT cannot put in place the necessary arrangements [*], your intranet / internet access will be restored, subject to your signing a letter in which you undertake not to go outside the permitted sites

Please would you print out and sign the attached letter?"

(*) - "while IT cannot put in place the necessary arrangements"

= A COVER UP that would 'support' KPMG's claim that it had been trying 'ever so hard' to resolve 'the issue' (see # 4, Com 8 references, above). (It was followed by an (above) email that had the same objective).

KPMG, one of the country's largest IT service suppliers, 'had difficulty' cutting off my access to the internet, while maintaining my access to the internal sites? Pull the other one!

As can be seen in the below letter, in Apr 07, KPMG had cut me off deliberately from the network ...for 24 days.

Note that during Part 1 of my so-called ‘performance appraisal’ with Ceri Hughes, she attributed this to "a mistake"! (# 8.1, below).

The attachment to Bassett's above email was a 23.04.07 letter issued 'by' Jeanette Dunworth, HR - stating:

"...following a meeting attended by you, Jeanette Dunworth and me on 30 March 2007, you were informed that your internet and intranet access [1] would be restricted."

"Since then you have been unable to access the external internet or the global intranet." (2)

"IT have been working to try and allow you access to the global intranet (together with www.webex.com) in order to enable you to carry out your day to day work. [3] This has not yet been achieved...."

"In the meantime, we have decided to re-instate your internet and global intranet access.

This is solely for the purposes of allowing you to do your job [4] and under no circumstances should you access the external internet [5] (save for the site www.webex.com).[6]

KPMG may monitor your internet/intranet use to ensure that you have not accessed any non-work related sites." (7)

"Please can you sign and return to me the enclosed copy of this letter to confirm your agreement to your internet and global intranet access being re-instated as described above" (8)

(1), (2)- "informed your internet and intranet access would be restricted"

NO! Jeanette Dunworth, HR, only mentioned the internet (# above) - as I reported under e.g. lines 134-135 of my 17.01.08 Grievance.

WHY restrict my access to the intranet i.e. the internal sites? (as I stated under lines 233-236 of my Grievance).

To claim that this is what I was told would prove that KPMG had been intent on stopping me from doing my work...which is exactly what 'The Best Company to Work for' - did - over a 24-day period - and it wanted me to know it!

(2), (3), (4)- "Since then you have been unable to access the external internet or the global intranet" ; "in order to enable you to carry out your day to day work" ; "decided to reinstate your access solely for the purposes of allowing you to do your job"

= Providing - additional (*) - absolutely undeniable proof that KPMG cut off my access to the key tool I needed to do my job.

(*)- Other evidence: (1)- under para 12(2) of its Defence (# 6(4), below); (2)- 10.04.07-12h14 email from Hughes (above); (3)- 01.05.07-10h00 email from IT (above).

This a very important point - given was took place at my so-called 'performance appraisal', during which they point-blank refused to take into consideration the fact that their action had prevented me from doing my work - Hughes: # 8.1, below ; Peter Bassett and Kathy Woodhouse, HR: # 9.1.

(5)- "under no circumstances should you access the external internet"

Because we are hell-bent on getting endless sadistic kicks from continuing to inflict demeaning and humiliating treatment on you.

It is tremendous fun seeing you having to ask your colleagues to look things up for you on the internet. And they are also enjoying it immensely.

We ALL agree with 'the dear brothers': who the hell do you think you are daring to stand-up to them and expose them in the public domain?

As noted above in my 01.05.07-10h27 email, and in Bassett's 24 Apr email, my access to the Internet had then not been cut off.

As I reported under Header 4.6 of my 17.01.08 Grievance, it was a source of (additional) anguish when I inadvertently ended-up on the Internet.

As also reported under Header 4.7, it seemed that my access to the Internet was cut off sometime in Sep 07 which, in the process, cut off my access to 2 'permissible' sites (see Comment, below).

I highlight the fact that the ban on my usage of the internet extended to the KPMG.com sites.

I was taken off from dealing with external enquiries - even though the role limited my contacts to within KPMG:

  • my 24.04.07-09h34 email to Bassett and Hughes - also stating: "I need a point of contact for sites I am unable to access", citing training material as an example;
  • 25.04.07-15h28 reply from Hughes: "Other than webex.com, I am not immediately aware of other sites that you need to access."

But, I was enjoying the work (for which I was particularly suited: lines 370-372 of 09.10.07 meeting) (# 9.5, below) = ‘a good reason to have me taken off’!

(6)- "(save for the site www.webex.com)"

As I reported under Header 4.7 of my 17.01.08 Grievance, by Sep 07 KPMG had also cut off my access to the Webex.com site e.g. 26.10.07 and 21.11.07 printscreens.

Under lines 330-335 of my Grievance, I wrote:

"...on 21 November 2007 I was unable to join a call (on SharePoint) [*] due to being denied access by Websense. I had been able to join these calls in the past….Given my current situation, I did not bother reporting it. I see no point doing this.”

(*) Note at lines 548-553 of my so-called ‘performance appraisal’ meeting with Hughes on 9 Oct 07, that she had emphasised that “it [was] important [for me] to be [on these calls]” (# 8.3(3), below).

(7)- "KPMG may monitor your internet/intranet use" - And "monitor" it did! To the extent that it was near impossible for me to use my computer - as I reported under Header 9.1 of my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 6(2), below).

(8)- "sign and return to me the enclosed copy of this letter" -

In my 24.04.07–9h34 email to Bassett, cc'd Hughes, I replied that I would do so (no choice!), and highlighted that: (1)- somebody needed to takeover over the .com enquiries (Com # 5, above); (2)- I needed a point of contact for sites I needed to access - citing the examples of training materials.

As I reported under lines 245-250 of my 17.01.08 Grievance, before returning the signed letter, the following day, I saw Bassett and again raised the issue about accessing the online training materials.

He got irritated, telling me that I would need to go through Hughes in order to put a case forward - and told me, in an authoritarian tone: “Sign the letter!

Once I had handed the signed letter to him - (I had also attached to my 25.04.07-13h45 email to Bassett, cc'd Hughes), he could not hide his satisfaction, leading me to perceive him as though he was walking away with a trophy.

(I repeat above perceptions of Peter Bassett).

In ' response' to para.9 of my 03.04.08 Claim, in its pack of lies Defence, KPMG asserted:

"Para.12(d)- the Respondent denies that asking the Claimant to sign a letter confirming that she would not access the internet was anything more than a legitimate and proportionate response to the Claimant's abuse of the Respondent's IT systems" (*)

(*) - WHAT "abuse of IT systems"?

What I reported above is ALL that I was told at the 30 Mar 07 meeting (# 3.4) i.e. no mention of "IT systems" - and Bassett and Dunworth did not issue me with notes of the meeting.

Back to sections

 

(5) - What was KPMG doing concurrently as it was dishing out its ongoing criminal psychological harassment on me - in tandem with its 'brothers'?

Implying, as well as stating, that 'I needed medical help', by 'offering me the assistance of its health services' (Yep!).

Timing its 'offers' with events, demonstrating that it was monitoring me very closely, KPMG did this from Feb to May 07 when it finally got the message that, while I had helped it tick a box by seeing one of its so-called ‘specialists’ in Apr 07, I was not going to bite on the hooks it kept throwing at me.

 

With the (above) 13 Feb 07 meeting, (that was followed by the (above) 30 Mar 07 meeting, and then my being totally cut-off from ALL the sites for most of Apr 07)...

...KPMG kick-started its joining of 'the dear brothers' lynch-mob trio (below) by, in tandem, dishing out extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, barbaric treatment on me - with the objective of destroying me (below, # 5.2):

(NB: NOTE that KPMG knew exactly what was happening in my private life, from, among others, its previously associated firm of solicitors, McGrigors (above).

Also, from the fact that KPMG evidently monitored my website very closely e.g. (1)- below, 8 May 07 email from BUPA Wellness ; (2)- Jeremy Nelson's comments to me on 27 Apr 07- # 3.4 ; (3)- Julian Walker's comments in his 19.07.07 letter, about KPMG's counsel briefing him- # 7.

Rachman Andrew David Ladsky and his corrupt solicitors, Portner and Jaskel who:

  • Early morning, on 6 Feb 07, Ladsky had caused / ensured causing a major escape of water that narrowly missed my apartment. By then it was the 4th malicious escape of water. (A lot more was to follow, reaching the 9th time, by 18 July 14).

Her Majesty's West London County Court corrupt judiciary who:

  • Accepted, and pursued viciously the 27.02.07 claim against me, in spite of the fact that it breached legislation, my Lease and Civil Procedure Rules (WLCC # 1), and of my immediately highlighting this in Mar 07 (WLCC # 2).

Her Majesty's corrupt Kensington-Notting Hill police which:

  • At the same time, and without ever contacting me at any point in time, sent my website Host, extremely vicious, malicious, defamatory, racist and xenophobic emails falsely accusing me - without any supporting evidence - of "having committed a crime; of being a Nazi" (# 3.4, above ; police # 3).

As you can see, between KPMG since Feb 07, and the above trio - no effort was spared at kicking me down to the ground, and then keep on kicking me, and kicking me, and kicking me to destruction (below, # 5.2).

Back to sections

KPMG's 'Health services'

In the context of the above, desperate to get me to use its 'health services', from Feb 07 to end May 07, KPMG kept on throwing them at me - implying, as well as stating, that 'I needed medical help'

= Typical criminal psychological harassment tactics - Headers 1.5, 1.14. 1.17, 1.18 and 3.1.

I have summarised the events, as well as added my Comments on the 08.05.07-13h29 email from BUPA Wellness KPMG.

Julie Bennett, WellBeing, was the first pawn Peter Bassett and Jeanette Dunworth, HR, quite literally, forced me to contact, during the 13 Feb 07 meeting (# 3.1, above) - as I captured in my 14.02.07 Draft Notes, lines 52-54, 127-128 and 130-131.

She then went on to play a key role with, behind the scene, Dunworth (and, of course, Bassett).

BRIEF OVERVIEW

WellDirect

Julie Bennett made me contact WellDirect which, as I had predicted, was a complete waste of time: my 23.02.07 email.

Jerry Nelson, head of KPMG security

'Bennett' suggested I talk to Nelson re. my problem with Kensington police "to offer some level of support" (her 22.02.07 email; lines 1085-1091 of my 17.01.08 Grievance).

(I hold the view that 'the suggestion' was the outcome of conniving between Bennett, Bassett and Nelson - by anticipating that I would tell Bennett about my experience with the local police mafia) (my 1st meeting with her on 22.02.07).

While I did not capture this in my 23.02.07-19h28 email to Bennett, in my diary of events, I wrote that:

  • the tone of voice told me that he was an ex. cop: brusque, abrupt, arrogant and superior;
  • when I told him about my conclusion that Kensington police was protecting Ladsky because he is a Freemason, he immediately barked back: "No he is not!" How would he know?

(My next contact with Nelson was in Apr 07 (# 3.4, above)).

Julie Bennett, WellBeing

Knowing that telling me, at the above 30 Mar 07 meeting, of the decision "to cut off [my] access to the internet” would affect me very badly, Peter Bassett had lined up Bennett to wait for me outside the meeting room.

As she was insisting that I see a councillor, I could tell that she was under strict order to secure agreement from me. I reminded her that I had seen my own therapist and preferred using him.

Bennett told me that there was “a specialist service within Well Being that can send me to see somebody in Harley Street”.

As I reported in my 17.01.08 Grievance, lines 1040 to 1042: “I decided to play the game and help her ‘tick the box’ by going along with the idea. The person was Shirley Caplin (10 Apr 07, below).

Nuffield Proactive Health

In its 07.04.05-15h25 email it sent me “an invitation for a Health & Wellbeing Assessment”. It was the 1st time in my 10 years at KPMG I had received this.

(The title of the person I was meant to contact: "Occupational Health and Rehabilitation manager" - conjuring up to me China's "rehabilitation centres for dissidents"...who, in this island-kingdom, are referred to as "extremists").

'By amazing coincidence', this email was:

  • 2 hours after I had broken down in tears on the (KPMG landline) phone when talking to a friend as I related some of the horrendous treatment I was being made to endure by various parties since 2002; (I reported this event under Header 9.2 of my 17.01.08 Grievance - stating that KPMG was monitoring my telephone conversations);

Shirley Caplin

46 Harley St, London. I saw her on 10 Apr 07 (e.g. my 07.04.10 email to Ceri Hughes).

To ensure I was in the ‘required’ frame of mind, by then, it was DAY 11 of my being cut-off from ALL the internal websites, as well as the Internet e.g. my 10.04.07–12h08 email to IT (# 4, above).

As I reported in my 17.01.08 Grievance, lines 1042-1044, Caplin did not listen to a word I said.

From reporting this to Julie Bennett, she told me that she would talk to Jeanette Dunworth "to organise something through BUPA".

Among other, in my diary of events, I noted that at the end of my 50-minute meeting with Caplin, she said: “there is a lot going on; that she [was] very worried about me, and that she [would] report back that I need[ed] to see somebody else.”

= The Establishment’s flunkey implementing its omertà: 'Don’t point the finger at the perpetrator; point it instead at its victim'.

OF NOTE: Following my 01.07.08 Subject Access Request to KPMG, in its 31.07.08 ‘reply’ it claimed that it “was not provided with a copy of Caplin’s report” (# 15.1, below).

REALLY? ‘Perhaps’ because it was “confidential”...as "confidential" as KPMG / on its behalf, its 'brothers' approaching my private doctor the following year, to help it in its pack of lies Defence against my Claim, and pack of lies 'response' to my Grievance? (see below, # 13).

Oh! KPMG also "did not know Shirley Caplin's qualifications"! (31.07.08 letter) = KPMG sends its employees to see so-called "specialists" it knows nothing about!

BUPA Wellness at KPMG

A Seraphina Burch sent me an 08.05.07 email asking me to contact her "for a review". (This email contains an overview of events with KPMG 'health services', as well as my Comments).

Failing to talk to her, I replied (same email) asking for an explanation of “review”.

By ‘another amazing coincidence’, in the morning, before coming to work, I had loaded an update on my website that included exposing the game played by West London County Court, as well as a section in which I said “what will you tell my family and friends when they say to you: you killed her because…”

I reported this event under Header 9.2 of my 17.01.08 Grievance - stating that KPMG was also monitoring my website.

Other evidence: (1)- the comments from Jeremy Nelson on 27 Apr 07- # 3.4; (2)- the 121pages of my website looked at by McGrigors- # 3.4 ; (3)- Julian Walker's comments in his 19.07.07 letter, about KPMG's counsel briefing him- # 7.

Julie Bennett, WellBeing

Because, as I reported in my 17.01.08 Grievance, under lines 1134-1138, I had not taken up the above offer of "a review" either, 11 days later, Bennett sent me a 17.05.07 "Just a courteous email to see how you are".

In her subsequent email of 21.05.07, she was still trying to get me to bite on one of the hooks.

My 21.05.07-19h25 reply amounted to telling her - et.al. - to back-off.

She followed this the next day by stating: “I would like to keep in contact with you just to ensure you are okay”. She never did

= The message had finally sunk in that I was not going to bite on any of the hooks they kept throwing at me.

As I wrote in my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 10.2, below), under Header 8:

As to the offers of help and assertions of being “concerned” about me, considering the treatment I have been made to endure since February 2007, I have come to view them as KPMG ‘beating me up’ on the one hand, and offering to attend to my wounds on the other.

Furthermore, as having the ulterior motive of finding something to use against me

Back to sections

(5.1) - Failure by KPMG to get me to bite on the (above) hooks, led the 'brothers' henchwoman, my line manager, Ceri Hughes, to pick-up the baton, by aiming to convince me that 'I needed psychiatric help'...

... = Continuation of the criminal psychological harassment tactics: Headers 1.5, 1.8. 1.14, 1.17, 1.18, 3.1 and 4 e.g.

  • On 17 July 07, Ceri Hughes told me that “[I was] emotionally unstable”, she then changed to “emotionally fragile” (my 17.01.08 Grievance, lines 1069 and 1070).
  • Hughes repeated this again on 28 Aug 07: You are emotionally fragile”.
  • Not ‘liking’ my reply, hers was: “I say that and now you are going into a rant” (my 17.01.08 Grievance, lines 1076 to 1079).
  • (“A rant”: inability to control emotions = another psychological implication).

(NB: "Ranting" and "emotional" were two of the descriptions used in a KPMG report against Mr Paul Moore, the ex. KPMG partner who became head of regulatory risk at HBOS - and then warned about "the bank's potentially dangerous sales culture".

The media reported that KPMG had found “no substance” in Mr Moore’s claims. The "no substance" translated in a £17bn bail out of the bank by the British taxpayers!). (At Nov 15: everybody is getting away scot-free - Trust Fund-Intro).

Back to sections

(5.2) - I most categorically assert that KPMG's blind determination to get me to use its 'health services' had the (typical) very sinister motive of having me 'officially' declared as 'suffering from mental issues' - and, in cahoots with some in 'the Brotherhood' - with which it was joining the dots - ultimately sectioned.

By then (and since then), 'my crime' was that I 'dared' stand-up to Establishment-controlled organized crime - and, failing to get my situation resolved, I then 'dared' to report my experience in the public domain.

The English Establishment's typical response when facing ‘inconvenient’ ‘little people’ 'like me' who ‘dare’ rock the boat by challenging them is to declare / describe them as e.g.

My experience at KPMG has similarities in particular with that of Kay Sheldon at the Care Quality Commission: "she was referred to Medigold, a private occupational health company". (*)

Private Eye also reported on the underhanded approach of the doctor she spoke to, "who wrote in an email that he would be involved in her case "behind the scene"" (*)

On occasions, the Establishment follows this by sectioning people e.g. Secret Prisoners.

I am absolutely convinced that this was the plan.

(*) Part of the criminal psychological harassment tactics - Headers 1.5, 1.14, 1.17, 1.18, 3.1 and 4.

NOTE that during the above period, KPMG was concurrently joining the dots with the ‘brothers’:

(1)- Rachman Andrew David Ladsky:

  • in a phone call to KPMG, on 9 Feb 07, he described me as “clinically unwell” (# 3.2(4), above);

(*) Ladsky was betting on the Establishment’s typical tactic…and reminding it of it!

(2)- The Kensington-Notting Hill police mafia:

To these are added KPMG's continued persistence, in July and August 07 - as reported above.

The utter, total moral depravation of ALL of these people is beyond words!

What absolute, rotten to the core, thoroughly evil monsters!

Back to sections

 

(6) - Following my failing repeatedly to bite on the (above) hooks, thereby undermining its and 'brothers' Machiavellian plan, KPMG added other forms of criminal psychological harassment against me in the pursuit of its objective of destroying me. E.g.

(1)- excluding me from communications and meetings;

(2)- making me hotdesk;

(3)- 4 months into the ban, making me use a spare computer to access…yes: the internet.

Another motive for making me hotdesk was to monitor my movements in order to report them to the State goons-‘Brotherhood’, added to also prying into my personal life for the same purpose.

Exemplifying yet more perversion: I was offered the role of…'privacy liaison officer'.

In its Defence, KPMG only‘addressed’ my being made to use a spare computer by making the outrageous comment that: “Any limited relaxation of the restrictions to her access was supervised and solely to allow the Claimant to continue her work and alleviate her alleged distress"

Causing me extreme distress, anguish and torment, demeaning me and humiliating me by treating me like a criminal and a pariah by cutting off my access to the network for 24 days, followed by making me a sign a letter ‘agreeing’ to be barred permanently from using the internet – was only the start of KPMG’s criminal psychological harassment regime against me.

Other actions intended to help the achievement of the above objective of destroying me - entailed:

(1 of 6) - Excluding me deliberately on communications, and from meetings that impacted on my work

Thereby affecting my ability to do my work.

The motive in doing this was to then claim during my so-called 'performance appraisal' that I "lacked initiative; proactivity; determination; tenacity" (below, Hughes: # 8.2 ; Bassett and Woodhouse: # 9.3).

(It is also a psychological harassment tactic: Header 1.2)

Back to sections

(2 of 6)- From end Apr / early May 07, spying on my computer, making it near impossible for me to use it

Reported under Header 9.1 of my 17.01.08 Grievance.

From end Apr / early May 07 i.e. shortly after my access to the network was reinstated (above, # 4.2), every 2-3 minutes, and sometimes more frequently, everything ‘jumped’ on my computer: the icons, files and shortcuts on the desktop.

When typing, in practically all types of files, what I typed also flickered, and the egg timer on the mouse pointer came on, as well as flickered for several seconds i.e. the document turned into saving mode.

Asking an IT expert, he agreed with me that the cause was spy software, and suggested that it might be Demon (very appropriate name). On 03.10.07 I captured a printscreen of a message that came on my computer - not for the first time.

In July 07, I told Ceri Hughes that KPMG was using spy software on my computer. (Very tellingly), she replied: “You can’t prove it!

Also very tellingly, and amazingly for a director who claimed during Part 1 of my so-called ‘performance appraisal’ on 09.10.07, lines 237-238to be too busy to find tasks for anyone to do”; lines 396-397 "I haven't got time to give you permission to do your job" (# 8.2, below)…

without telling me, she took it upon herself to contact IT to report the flickering (something I could have done myself, but had not done because I knew the reason): her 18.07.07-16h50 email, followed the next day by this 19.07.07-11h12 email to me, asking: “What was the outcome?” (my reply is on the same email).

OF NOTE: KPMG failed to address my claims, in both, its 22.05.08 'response' to my Grievance (# 11), and in its pack of lies Defence (# 14, below).

Another event - In Oct 07, I created a personal folder in Outlook, I headed HR. In this, I placed the recent exchange of emails. A while later, my Outlook froze and the HR folder disappeared = KPMG deleting evidence - BUT: I had copies!

(NB: Under Comment # 5, above, in relation to Ladsky's 26.03.07 letter to KPMG (# 3.5), I state that I kept my personal computer in the office, and had a 3G card to connect to the Internet. The 3G card was from Vodafone - a KPMG client (*). Under 3.4 of the Persecution page, I reported an event that led me to conclude that Vodafone was hacking into my personal computer).

(*) And a member of the Establishment that gets away with massive State = taxpayer handouts.

Back to sections

(3 of 6)- From 5 May 07, making me hotdesk

Reported under Header 9.4 of my 17.01.08 Grievance.

In ‘her’ (= Peter Bassett) 08.05.07-11h32 email, my line manager, Ceri Hughes, wrote: “to help us work more closely together, I’ve arranged for you to have a host desk over here [office block across the street from where I was] 2-3 days a week

Translation:

E.g. In my 19.07.11 Witness Statement to Theresa May, then Home Secretary, under paras 100-105, I reported being tailed as soon as I left the office, including at lunchtime.

As I reported in My Diary on e.g. 9 Aug 07 and 8 Feb 13, when I was based in Canary Wharf (from Oct 07), I was also closely monitored, inside the building, as well as when I went out. (Hence, picking up the baton from the State goons who tracked me going there, and would take the baton back when I left the area).

I stated under Header 9.3 of my 17.01.08 Grievance that, under the banner of being "concerned about [me]"

- Ceri Hughes had an obsession with finding out what my plans were, who my friends were, where I was going after work, and what I was doing i.e. had been tasked with digging out as much information as she could - and gave examples. Among many others:

(1)

Her unbelievable aggressiveness and hitlerian tone following my not phoning her after the West London County Court's so-called 'hearing' on 24 Aug 07, at which the blatant colluding and conniving with Ladsky's corrupt solicitors continued.

In fact, Hughes came across as though she was demented, telling me at one point: "If I don't hear from you, I'll phone the police" (lines 1162-1190 of my Grievance).

KPMG knew, through ‘the Brotherhood’ what had been planned and, to add to their sadistic kicks wanted me to provide feedback immediately after. Hughes' reaction endorsed my conclusion.

(2)

In Jun 07, when I went to visit a friend in the north of England, the "I-am-too-busy-Hughes" insisted on booking my ticket online, under the excuse that "I did not have internet access".

On the day of my departure, when I was at King's Cross station, a State goon made it abundantly clear to me that he had been provided with the details of my trip. The same thing happened on my return... even though I had had to change my plans due to adverse weather (which, of course, I had had to inform Hughes of).

(3)

As I also reported under Header 9.3 of my Grievance, lines 1156-1159, Hughes asked me repeatedly for the address of the room I was renting in East London from Apr 07. As I was refusing to tell her, she replied that she "would find out".

She stopped asking because it no longer became relevant - as the State goons had tailed me to the address.

(4)

Hughes also went on a fishing expedition during my so-called 'performance appraisal' on 9 Oct 07: # 8.4, below.

Ceri Hughes also resorted to using plants to obtain information from me. E.g. when a friend of mine arrived in London (on 25 Oct 07), because the State goons that monitored us and hounded us, had not managed to get the information they wanted / 'needed', Hughes had a temp probe me over a made-up 'interest' in doing bodyguard work.

Concurrently, Peter Bassett had been doing the same thing of attempting to get information from me, and 'assess my state of mind', by using the secretary in my then group.

(In using plants, Bassett and Hughes were joining Ladsky and the police in the practice).

OUTCOME: with KPMG, added to:

(1)- the state goons in the CCTV control rooms; (2)- the sentinels in 'the concentration camp';

(3)- the bugging of my apartment / informant where I was renting the room reporting on me: I was under 24hr surveillance...

...a situation that has continued ever since, with some informants being replaced by others.

Surprise, surprise: in its 22.05.08 'response' to my Grievance (# 11), KPMG failed to address my claims.

 

The psychological harassment from my being made to hotdesk started on day 1:

  • In her 09.05.07-09h48 email, Ceri Hughes asked me “Are you OK? Sorry I’m on the phone”. If she was hoping that I would complain, thereby giving her et.al. more sadistic kicks, 5 minutes later, I replied (same email): “EXCELLENT!”
  • At the end of the day, she sent me this 09.05.07-17h14 email: “Sorry, I’ve not been around much today. Hope you’ve been OK. I am still on the phone

= So much for 'the reason' "to help us work more closely together"!

The consequences of my being made to hotdesk = actions to add to the criminal psychological harassment:

  • I had to change desk practically everyday and told where to sit, usually, when I arrived in the office. If Hughes was not around, she would leave orders with junior team members (!!!) as to where I should be sitting.
  • On c. 6 occasions, I had to change desk during the course of the day because the permanent occupant arrived.
  • I could not divert my phone, because the permanent occupants usually had their phone diverted to voicemail = I could not get calls, and consequently needed to check my voicemail.
  • I had to use a small locker in which to store my files and computer. It was located next to Hughes’ desk. I could see that she was very clearly getting her sadistic kicks from seeing me struggle to fit my work things into a very small space.

My being away from the other office where my 'permanent' desk was located, was also used as another opportunity to add to the psychological harassment.

In the draws of an empty desk, I had left personal documents, mainly of a financial nature e.g. pay slips, income tax returns, bank statements, passbooks for my savings accounts, etc. – hence, documents important to me. (I had done this believing that it would be safer than in my apartment – events under e.g. Persecution 1(4)(16)).

A temp joined the group in early Jun 07. On two occasions during the previous week, I explained to her that the locked draws contained my personal belongings, and offered to take them away. Both times, she replied that I could leave them where they were.

First thing on Monday 11 Jun, the temp sent me an email telling me that she had taken all my personal belongings from the draws and had placed them in boxes on my desk. She knew perfectly well that I was just 2 minutes away, across the street. Hence, she / Bassett had called security to open the draws.

This psychological harassment tactic is described under Header 1.8.

The hotdesking game lasted 5 months, until early Oct 07, when I moved to Canary Wharf e.g. Hughes' 02.10.07 email.

Back to sections

(4 of 6)- Making me use a computer, in order to? Er...access the internet!

Captured by Ceri Hughes on pg 17 of my appraisal form.

I then reported it under: (1)- Header 4.9 of my 17.01.08 Grievance; (2)- para.12 of my 03.04.08 Claim; (3)- lines 87-103 of my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS.

In her 07.08.07-19h10 email, Ceri Hughes tasked me with reviewing competitor websites on their use of new media, and asked me to "use [her] spare laptop which you will be able to access these external sites that you will need to complete this task."

Recall that Peter Bassett had me sign a 23.04.07 letter 'agreeing' to be barred from using the Internet - which was most definitely not computer dependent; had copied Hughes on the letter, and I had done, likewise, when returning the signed version (above, # 4.2).

Also, that in her 25.04.07-15h28 email, Hughes had agreed to my being cut off, including from the KPMG.com sites.

The next day, in her 08.08.07-10h04 email, Hughes asked me when I wanted to use the computer, and stated: "You can use my log on details".

To my replying, 08.08.07-10h19, that I had accidentally discovered that I could access the Internet from my dedicated computer, and whether she, therefore, still wanted me to use her spare computer, she replied that she did want me to use her computer.

REASON? It provided an opportunity to pile on yet more criminal psychological harassment:

  • As the spare computer was kept in Hughes' desk, I had ask for it on a daily basis (of course, in front of all my colleagues). As the project amounted to several days of work, the same process was therefore repeated.
  • On occasions, when Hughes was away and a secretary was sitting at her desk, it meant that I had to ask her.
  • To use the spare computer, I had to log onto the network under Hughes’ name, which meant that I could not access my email account.
  • To access my account, I had to unplug her computer, and plug in the one dedicated to me. And, I had to do the same thing to send emails.
  • This provided a source of fun to the sadistic, perverse monsters who were monitoring me, and would ask me for "[my] response" to emails, knowing full well that I had not yet accessed them.

'The fun' with "the spare laptop" continued: 14.08.07-12h11 email.

In the light of the ban imposed on me, my being able to access the Internet through my own computer was, of course, a source of additional distress.

As I wrote in Header 9 of my 17.01.08 Grievance:

It confirmed my perception that the true motive in imposing the draconian measure against me, including letting me suffer a whole month of anguish and distress, is to humiliate and demean me.

Concurrently, I cannot help perceiving it as ‘punishment’ for ‘daring’ to stand-up and fight for my rights against a rogue landlord and his equally rogue aides."

At lines 358-359 I wrote:

It leads me to feel that, since 30 March 2007, a perverse game is being played intended to cause me distress, humiliation and demean me.”

Under para.12(e) of its undated pack of lies Defence (posted 17 Jun 08), KPMG had the gall to state:

"Any limited relaxation of the restrictions to her access was supervised and solely to allow the Claimant to continue her work [1] and alleviate her alleged distress." (2)

(1)- "to allow [me] to do my work" - after 4 months!

Note that under para.12 of my Claim I had stated: "In August 2007 I was allowed to access the internet on the condition that I use a spare computer."

And, under para.8, that my access had been cut off on 30 March 2007.

= More proof (added to that listed, above, under # 4.2 - Comments 2, 3 and 4) that (among other) KPMG prevented me from doing my work.

(2)- "to alleviate [my] alleged distress" (!!!) (see also # 4.1, above).

(It sure is very crowded in the "fantastically corrupt" bottomless cesspit of moral depravation in which many in the English Establishment, their hangers-on and their cronies reside with their henchmen, henchwomen and flunkies).

Look at the evidence under # 4 and # 4.1.

Translation of "solely to allow the Claimant to continue her work":

In my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS, lines 87-93 - I wrote:

Under para.12(2) of its Defence, KPMG denies that it caused me “extreme distress” for practically the whole month of April 2007 (point 33.5) [of my Claim] and that it implemented “supervised”, “limited relaxation of the restrictions” on access to the Internet to “allow [me] to continue [my] work and alleviate [my] alleged distress”.

As I wrote in my 1 July 2008 request, the “limited relaxation” took place on 7 August 2007 (point 12). Hence, this was more than 4 months after barring me from accessing the Internet on 30 March 2007.”

 

I also highlight that, in spite of playing a very active part in:

  • my being cut-off from the .com sites, in Apr 07;
  • my being removed from dealing with the KPMG.com enquiries, also in Apr 07; and

... 5 months after Bassett made me sign the letter, in her 03.09.07-09h50 email to me, Ceri Hughes wrote:

I think that you can assume that KPMG's internet site is not a forbidden area.”

I replied (on the same email):

"The letter I was asked to sign on 25 April states “under no circumstances should you access the external internet (save for the site www.webex.com)"

Note that: Bassett had cc'd her on his 24 April email to which he attached the letter; and I did the same thing in returning it (above, # 4.2, Com # 8).

What Hughes should have done, as Bassett told me, and I reported in my 25.04.07-13h45 email, is “develop a business case” and "contact him"…to get me, a KPMG employee, ‘permission’ to access the KPMG websites…when it suited her.

Back to sections

(5 of 6)- In Aug 07, unable to stop having their fun, Ceri Hughes asked me whether I wanted to be the 'Privacy Liaison Officer' for the group (Yep!)

In her 15.08.07 email, Ceri Hughes asked whether

"[I] would be willing to take on the role of Privacy Liaison for the group, to ensure that our internal and external information sharing using the Portal and dot.com platforms is consistent with the privacy guidance..."

Note the sadism and perversion of the woman (and of those who put her up to doing this) - given what KPMG had done against me by then - among many others:

Ceri Hughes was very clearly having a laugh – with et.al. in KPMG, starting with Peter Bassett, partner.

= A continuation of the wicked conduct by extremely sick, morally depraved, seriously twisted individuals.

To my 20.08.07 email in which I turned down 'the offer', saying:

"The main reason is the combination of subject matter and what has happened, and continues to happen to me at work. From going through some of the material on the Privacy site I know that I would not be able to forget about it"

in her 20.08.07 email, Ceri Hughes replied:

"OK. I'm disappointed about that."

Yeah, right! Translation: that sure was a lot of fun!

Too bad you had the self-esteem to refuse it, as you would have provided me, Peter Bassett et.al. in KPMG and the Jewish-Freemason Brotherhood with endless fun.

But: only one battle lost; we have a lot more in store for you!

Back to sections

(6 of 6)- In Sep 07, making me upload data on an internal website, under SharePoint, a new platform, when I had just completed an external course that did not take into consideration KPMG's unique requirements

At the end of Sep 07, I was sent on a SharePoint course e.g. 24.09.07 email; pg 7 of my 2006-07 Performance Appraisal form. I referred to it briefly under Header 9.5 of my 17.01.08 Grievance.

It was a generic course, run by an external organisation, that was not familiar with KPMG's unique requirements.

The day after I finished the course, I discovered that 'the help' I was meant to provide to a group (I could not get to tell me how it wanted its content to be presented) also entailed my being expected to load their content under the new platform:

Ceri Hughes' 28.09.07-15h49 email (that contains an exchange of emails on the subject):

"...of course this includes putting the content into the Portal. Collecting the content was the first step, but of course it needs to be uploaded into the portal."

During Part 1 of my so-called 'performance appraisal', Hughes held 'my misunderstanding' against me: below, # 8.3(2).

As I was doing the work, I certainly felt that I was being watched very closely - no doubt, for signs of stress.

Aside from making me use a spare computer, in its pack of lies Defence (# 14), KPMG did not address any of the other above events which, admittedly, were partly summarised under para.32 of my Claim.

However, it failed to address them in its 22.05.08 'response' to my very detailed 17.01.08 Grievance (# 11).

 

Overall conclusions on the above: actions that fully support the subsequent conclusions from the Stanley Milgram's experiments (above).

Back to sections

 

(7)- Feeling increasingly ostracised, and still not knowing what Andrew David Ladsky had communicated about me to KPMG before the 30 Mar 07 meeting - I submitted a 09.07.07 Subject Access Request (under the Data Protection Act 1998).

It led me to go into battle with Julian Walker, KPMG's Compliance, over the following months, as he used typical stonewalling tactics.

In its Defence against my Claim, KPMG denied it had refused to comply with its legal obligations, and claimed that it had “provided [me] with all relevant documents” - even though, among other, in its Defence it raised some alleged communications from Ladsky, “in October 2006 and January 2007”, it claimed it “could not ignore” - it had not not supplied me with (and never did).

Feeling increasingly ostracised by my line manager, Ceri Hughes, other colleagues, as well as partners, I submitted, to Peter Bassett, partner, cc'd Ceri Hughes and Jeanette Dunworth, HR, a 09.07.07 Subject Access Request (under the Data Protection Act 1997 (DPA)).

This is discussed under Header 5 of my 17.01.08 Grievance.

In this letter, I:

  • captured what I had been told at the 30 Mar 07 meeting with Bassett and Jeanette Dunworth, HR (# 3.4);
  • stated that I had not been supplied with any supporting evidence - and had the right to defend myself against false accusations against me...
  • ... - and was therefore now requesting "a copy of all documentation, whether electronic or in hard copy pertaining to me regarding Mr Ladsky’s accusations against me including any evidence he may have provided to attempt to substantiate his false accusation against me";
  • reported that my access to all the sites had been cut off by the time I had returned to my desk - and that, 24 days later (# 4.1), I was made to sign a letter 'agreeing' to be barred from accessing the internet (# 4.2).

My secondary objective was to have a written record of events – as Bassett and Dunworth had not issued notes of the 30 Mar 07 meeting – as I captured under Header 4.1 of my 17.01.08 Grievance (among other: # 3.4, above). As can be seen in the 'reply', KPMG did not challenge what I wrote.

The 19.07.07 'reply' (includes my Comments) from Julian Walker in which he used the psychological harassment tactics of: 'Controlling information' - Header 1.14; 'Deception to prevent exposure' - Header 4; 'Frustrate and discourage' - Header 2 (and continued to do so) - by stating:

  • 'inability to understand what I was looking for';
  • an assumption that I was "looking for the information for the purpose of legal proceedings against Ladsky" (1)
  • "allegations made against [me] by Ladsky are subject to legal privilege"; (2)
  • "you already hold a great deal of the personal data that I understand exists on file such as your website details" (3)
  • "I have been informed by the firm's General Counsel in broad details of your dispute with Mr Ladsky" (4)

(1)- God forbid that 'I' should file proceedings against 'the dear brother'!...

...because, in the process, it would also expose 'the Brotherhood' that is so actively helping him and protecting him and his gang of racketeers.

(2)- FALSE - It is not "subject to legal privilege"

"s.35 of the Data Protection Act 1998 - Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary-

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights."

(3)- "that I understand exists on your website" - Of what relevance is this to my SAR? None!

Julian Walker could have added: and I understand this from, among others, McGrigors and Jeremy Nelson.

Oh dear! Oh dear! The highly inconvenient mountain of black-on-white evidence I have against the 'brothers': Ladsky, police, judiciary, etc.

(4)- "I have been informed by the firm's General Counsel in broad details of your dispute with Mr Ladsky"

Ditto; 'as well as by McGrigors, Jeremy Nelson', etc., etc., etc.

In my 31.08.07 letter - I replied:

  • "what KPMG thinks I 'need' is not relevant";
  • "the papers are not privileged and caught by the non-disclosure provisions" - for which, in support, I quoted s.35(2)(a) of the DPA. (Note that in his letter Walker had referred to it...claiming that it barred me from getting access to the data!).

And insisted that it supplies me with the communications.

Julian Walker finally sent me a 05.10.07 pack containing:

  • a 28.11.02 letter Silverstone had sent me;

Added to the pack, are notes of a meeting between Ladsky and KPMG, on 4 Nov 02 - which KPMG supplied me with following my SAR in July 08 (# 15.1, below).

In my 24.10.07 reply:

  • I challenged the heavily redacted text in the above 26 Mar 07 and 28 Nov 02 letters;

In his 14.11.07 letter, Julian Walker claimed:

he had "redacted text to comply with the DPA's s.7 "right to privacy"", and because "the text relates to Ladsky's allegations and his proposed actions against KPMG (rather than you)." (1)

re. the apparent missing communications from Ladsky, that

"Ladsky telephoned and copied his correspondence to various KPMG persons. I have provided the notes of conversations where they exist." [2]

"However, it is not necessary to provide you with copies of each of the duplicated letters; in providing a copy, you have been given a copy of the information processed(3)

(1)- "Ladsky's proposed actions against KPMG" = KPMG was spinning a story as a cover-up for its criminal psychological harassment against me -...

...as, whatever Rachman Ladsky said, KPMG did not believe it for one second - because it knew that he did not have a leg to stand on e.g. above, my Comments on Ladsky's 26 Mar 07 letter: # 7 and # 17 - and it had all been connived.

(2)- "notes of conversation where they exist" - So, aside from the skeleton 9 Feb 07 notes, (# 3.2, above) "no notes" were made of what Ladsky had said about me!

In failing to do that, with which law was KPMG complying with? That of the Jewish-Freemason Brotherhood?

The same law it applied by failing to issue notes of the (above) 30 Mar 07 meeting, and had planned to do for the (above) 13 Feb 07 meeting - had it not been for my issuing the Draft Notes (# 3.2, above)...

which Peter Bassett - falsely - described as "not being being an accurate representation of what was said." (# 3.2, above)

Yep! KPMG definitely does not believe in recording notes of events...and enlists a doctor to ask a patient whether she had recorded conversations - to ensure there is no evidence (# 13, below).

(3)- "you have been given a copy of the information processed" -

NO, I HAD NOT! as following filing my 03.04.08 Claim, under para.6 of its pack of lies Defence KPMG stated at least 2 other alleged communications "from Ladsky in October 2006 and in January 2007" (see extracts, under # 3.2, above).

It claimed that "Ladsky made serious allegations against [me]". Clearly, this is personal data to which I am allowed - by law, under the DPA - to have access to.

Note that, as also captured under the above, after submitting its Defence, in its 31.07.08 'reply' to my 2nd Subject Access Request of 01.07.08 (# 15.1, below), it continued to deny me access to the data.

WHY did KPMG not supply this data to me?

This is the same morally depraved conduct as that of the Kensington police mafia that is processing two highly vicious, malicious, defamatory so-called "crime reports" against me following fabricated 'complaints' against me by Rachman Ladsky - which it did not challenge...

...- and, to date, is continuing to process the data - in spite of my mountain of black-on-white evidence against them - because the judiciary endorsed the breach of my rights.

Conclusion: same conduct - because part of the same tribe!

Subsequently, KPMG made the following assertions - that are very clearly FALSE - in:

its 22.05.08 'response' to my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 11):

You felt you were stonewalled by KPMG, particularly in respect to your data subject access request

We feel that the firm was acting in accordance with its legal duties and responded correctly in respect to the data subject access request.”

its pack of lies Defence to my Claim (# 12):

"Para.8 - The Respondent denies that it refused to comply with its legal obligations in responding to the Claimant's data subject access request of 9th July 2007"

"The Respondent provided the Claimant with all relevant documents in accordance with the request and it was processed in the usual way and specifically without any "stonewalling"

"Para.12(c) - the Respondent complied fully with the Data subject Access Request and denies refusing the Claimant access to any information which she was legally entitled to

One year later, KPMG's continued with the same conduct, in relation to my 1 July 08 Subject Access Request (and my 1 July 08 Request for information) (# 15)

Back to sections

 

(8) - I was made to endure a 10-week wait before finally having what turned out to be Part 1 of my so-called 'Performance Appraisal' with Ceri I Hughes, on 9 Oct 07 - past the policy deadline.

Her 'reason' for the delay: "waiting to hear from HR due to what you wrote on your form". On 2 pages of my appraisal form, I had related the actions taken against me by KPMG from Mar 07 that had impacted on my ability to perform my work.

In its Defence, KPMG denied that: “any variations from the normal process or timetable were designed to humiliate [me]”; “the appraisal process was unduly delayed

In her 22.06.07 email, my line manager, Ceri Hughes reminded me and team that: (1)- the performance appraisals had to be completed by 30 Aug; (2)- the goals for the coming year, set by 30 Sep. A 29.06.07 policy email confirmed these deadlines.

In her 02.07.07 email only to me, Hughes wrote: "you need to make sure you can give a clear account of progress in all areas of the form."

= She was preparing the ground for my 'appraisal' - knowing full well that the actions she and Peter Bassett, partner, had taken against me had impacted on "all the main areas of the form".

In her 19.07.07-08h41 email, she 'offered' to help me "putting your list of feedback people together." (Why should 'I need help'? = A telltale sign of her wanting to ensure I contacted 'the right people').

In my 19.07.07-10h27 email I replied - what she already knew, and was relying on - that, in effect there was only one person I could realistically ask feedback from: Finbarr Geaney, one of her team, as, while I had had contacts with hundreds of people over the year, the extent of the interaction was too limited to justify asking for feedback.

Further, a lot of the work Hughes asked me to do: assessing the content of many internal sites (detailed on pg 7 & 8 of my appraisal form), entailed my working solo - as she subsequently said: "[I was] the only resource she [had] to whom she could give the work to" (# 9.5, below).

Then, Hughes, Bassett and Woodhouse used this against me - by claiming that "[I] should not have been working in isolation"! (# 9.5, below). It was all part of the plan!

In my 27.07.07-11h00 email to Hughes, I reminded her of what she had told me face-to-face, on 19 July: "You said something about “the impact on others”.

Ceri Hughes 'did not like' that - at all - as I reported under lines 504-512 of my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 11, below):

On 30 July 07, Ceri Hughes asked to speak to me in a meeting room. In an angry, aggressive tone, she said that she did not like my email of 27 July, “being quoted on what I said on 19 July” [*].

I found her reaction most interesting, added to the fact that she called me into a meeting room to tell me. What was the ‘big secret’?

What have I written in my email to trigger this reaction? Reporting that the solo nature of a lot of my work for a large part of the year had limited my opportunities for interaction with others, and therefore the opportunity to get feedback? I had already captured this in a previous email to CH.

This left quoting her comment about “my impact on others” when I spoke to her on 19 July.”

(*) A psychological harassment tactic - Header 1.9 - intended to intimidate me, and therefore shut me up.

I had mentioned it deliberately in my email, because my 'internal radar' told me that Ceri Hughes (with Peter Bassett) were cooking something involving "[my] impact on others".

Her reaction to my capturing her comment in my above email confirmed it and, shortly afterwards my suspicion was confirmed when I received the so-called 'feedback' 'from' Finbarr Geaney (# 9.4, below)

I also asked for feedback from somebody in another group, Denise B, senior manager / director, with whom I had had extensive contacts during the earlier part of the appraisal year (below, # 9.4).

On 1 Aug 07, I filed my 2006-07 performance appraisal form on the system.

It was in preparation for my year-end appraisal set with Hughes for 7 Aug e.g. her 26.07.07-19h44 email.

The day before, she cancelled the meeting, giving as 'reason' that she had "sent your form to HR, due to what you wrote" - which is on pages 22 and 23. Extracts from what I wrote:

That I had “managed to achieve my objectives in spite of the very distressing conditions under which I have had to work for half the year to date”. And,

While by mid-year, I was suffering greatly from events taking place in my private life (unlawful threat of bankruptcy, fraudulent claim filed against me, false accusations, etc.) [snapshot above], I nonetheless opted to leave this out of my mid-year performance appraisal. Being at work and concentrating on it gave me the possibility to forget about my problems.

I can no longer leave this out of the equation as my personal situation has entered my work life and has led to events that have impacted on my ability to perform my work, as well as my wellbeing

I then referred to / discussed:

In the light of the false accusation by:

...that "[I had] raised issues relating to my personal circumstances",...

...as can be seen from the form, I used just 2, short sentences, in 2 full pages, to refer to it.

Back to sections

The policy emails communicating that I was missing the deadlines for the completion of my appraisal process, and the ensuing financial penalty - caused me to suffer ongoing anguish and distress

Worried about the approaching 31 Aug deadline for completing the performance appraisals, in the third week of August, when I asked Ceri Hughes when she would do my appraisal, she replied: "I still haven't heard back from HR".

18 Sep 07: she gave me the same reply.

  • The 21.09.07 policy email stated a deadline of: 12 Oct for the year-end reviews; 31 Oct for the recording of agreed goals for the coming year.
  • And "Failure to meet this deadline will result in the bonus payment for the staff member being delayed until February 2008"

End September: yet again, Hughes gave me the same reply.

  • A 05.10.07 KPMG Europe policy email stated: “line managers are informing people of their promotion”.
  • A 05.10.07 KPMG UK one that: there were “only 5 days left to secure your bonus by having your completed appraisal logged on the system by 12 October 2007

In early October, for the 4th time, I repeated my question to Hughes.

It finally led her to send me a meeting request for 9 Oct, at 16h00.

On the day, she informed me that the meeting room had been changed. Looking at the meeting room booking system, I saw that the room was booked for for 1.5 hrs - leading me to expect that it was the time she allocated for my appraisal. In fact: it was not, as she ended the meeting after less than one hour (# 8.4, below).

By then, 10 weeks had gone by since I logged my appraisal form on the system.

This is part of the psychological harassment tactics - Header 1.11.

In its pack of lies Defence, KPMG asserted:

"Para.9 - The Respondent denies that any variations from the normal process or timetable were designed to humiliate the Claimant."

Para.12(f)the Respondent denies that the appraisal process was unduly delayed..."

Back to sections

(8.1) - The "waiting to hear from HR" excuse turned out to be a continuation of the criminal psychological harassment - as, with the objective of covering up the actions KPMG had taken against me - during the 9 Oct 07 meeting, Ceri Hughes refused point-blank to acknowledge the events I captured on my form, that had very seriously impacted on my ability to perform my work.

Following the predetermined very sick script of falsely "blaming me for bringing my personal problem at work" - she threatened to end the meeting if I persisted in raising it - as evidenced by my secret recording of the meeting (KPMG was so worried I had done that it enlisted my doctor to ask me) (in vain) (# 13).

Anticipating, in the light of events from 13 Feb 07 onwards, that KPMG would make false accusations against me in order to cover up the absolute hell it had, and was continuing to make me go through, I decided to secretly record the meeting.

Note that KPMG was so worried that I had done that, in 2008, it enlisted, what turned out to be my Judas doctor, to ask me whether I had "recorded my conversations at KPMG" (# 13, below)

This is the recording - and my transcript, with my Comments.

RECORDING TO BE PLACED

I referred to events under: (1)- Header 6.3 of my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 11) and supplied this version of my notes of the meeting; (2)- para.17 of my 03.04.08 Claim against KPMG (# 12)

Some key points from the meeting:

At the start of the meeting (line 47), I stated that my objective was to get clarity on my position at KPMG.

Lines 53-54

CH -"We won’t be focusing on some of the issues you brought up in your form, around what’s going on in your life outside of KPMG”

Lines 57-60

ME - “And the things I have highlighted that have actually impacted on me for half the year [1]. Who will discuss that?"

CH - "We won’t be discussing it in this meeting

Lines 66-79

CH - “Well, previously,…although you had this awful thing happening to you outside of work, you kept a very distinct line between work and non-work [2] As you have demonstrated in this form [1], now you see the two as criss-crossing, as running"

ME - “Because of what happened. Because it has invaded my work life. Because it came into my work life. Because KPMG when Ladsky"

CH- “Do you think it is KPMG’s fault it invaded your work life?(3)

ME - “Let me finish, please. When Ladsky, apparently came and made accusations against me, right, KPMG then took action against me

CH - “Noëlle we are not going to discuss that"

ME - “Yeah but, which is why I captured it, because, I said, before I had not captured it, but now it has invaded my work life, and it has impacted. I have had a month, practically the month of April, without having intranet access; and getting the messages. As I captured in my form, the effect of that on me was absolutely devastating.”

CH - “And I read that, and I accept what you are saying, but we are not going to discuss it today

(1)- # 8, above.

(2) - = A key part of the very sick strategy for covering up the impact on me of KPMG'S criminal actions against me.

Note that Ceri Hughes captured it in my appraisal form, on pg 18:

"Noëlle must ensure that there is a very clear distinction between the situation in her personal life and her professional life"

This accusation was expanded on during the 24 Oct 07 meeting with Peter Bassett and Kathy Woodhouse (below, # 9.4) - using the fabricated 5 Aug 07 ‘feedback’ ‘from’ ‘my colleague', Finbarr Geaney (below, # 9.4).

KPMG then repeated the lie under para.11 of its Defence - above, # 3.3 - Comment # 5.

The only time it had been noted that my personal problem was impacting on my work was in 2002 - recorded in 2002-03. From then on, I started to build immunity to the barbaric attacks from the Ladsky mafia and its devoted supporters, and regarded KPMG as my safe heaven where, concentrating on my work, I could forget about them for the whole day...

...as demonstrated undeniably when you consider the events taking place in my personal life from early 2007...

...and Ceri Hughes's feedback on my performance at mid-year, in early Apr 07 (Yep! in spite of her above comment!):

pg 21 - "Noëlle's involvement with the conference in March was hugely useful to the event and she played a key role.

I am personally very grateful for the efforts that she put in..."

Anybody who has done that for some 100+ people coming to an event from all corners of the world, will know that you cannot achieve that if you 'lack in proactivity', or 'let personal matters interfere with your work'.

Note also the early part of the 'feedback' 'from' Finbarr Geaney: # 9.4, below.

I also highlight Hughes' 31.08.04 glowing feedback on my performance - at a time i.e. year 2003-04, when I was also going through hell in my personal life: (1)- with 'my' so-called advisers; (2)- with the Ladsky mafia and courts mafia; (3)- the court service's complaint department, etc. Proving that I could leave that hell behind me as soon as I walked through the KPMG doors.

(3)- Damn right I do! And you Ceri Hughes played a key role in the events.

Lines 89-109

CH - “Can you not appreciate that this discussion...is how you progressed against your goals, and your performance against your goals

ME - “You cannot dissociate the two; the environment under which I have had to perform - which is why I have had to put that in

CH - “But I have to. That has to be the basis that we progress this discussion. And if you don’t agree to that, then I can’t progress the discussion

ME - “All I am saying is that it cannot be put aside and ignored

CH - “But it has to be; has to be

ME - “It has impacted on the way I have worked

CH - “I would suggest to you that, actually, that’s something we need to address for the future as development [*]. It can’t impact

ME - “It’s not a question of development. It’s just a question of my being treated differently from others

CH - “I am not treating you differentlyBecause you chose, in your Dialogue form, to raise issues that are related to what is going on outside of KPMG

ME - "No, I did not. I very specifically say in my form that, at mid-year, I had not put it in, even though I was going through absolute sheer utter hell. I made no reference to it whatsoever in my form. I did not bring it in. And I do specify the reason I am bringing it in is because it has now invaded my work life

(*)- UNBELIEVABLE!

Lines 119-147

CH - “This discussion and this document is about your goals, your performance against those goals in KPMG. The two have to be separate

ME - "My being deprived of the tools to work with for a whole month, surely"

CH - “What about the other 11 months?

Me - “We are going to talk about the other 11 months. I am saying that you cannot cross out the fact that, for a whole month, I was reduced in tears at my desk, getting all these messages making me feel as though I was a criminal. With no intranet access

CH - "That’s not something we can discuss today Noëlle

ME - “But, it cannot just be ignored. That is something that has impacted on my performance; because I did not have the tools for starters, never mind anything else

CH - “We are not going to revisit that. I think that we have discussed this enough times" [1].

"Again, I have not been part of the discussion you had with HR" (2) but I have been assured, or it has been assured to me that it was explained that that was a mistake, that you were meant to have intranet access" (3)

"It was unfortunate, regrettable, and something that we should and would wish to avoid [4], but nevertheless it did happen. There is nothing more that I can do, or anyone else can do to change that(5)

ME - “Funnily enough, when I signed the letter, I immediately got the intranet back. It must be the best IT fix ever. I am just mentioning that.”

CH - “What can I say to you? I absolutely was not involved in any of that(1), (2)

ME - "As my performance appraisal manager, you need to know that;…”

CH - “As I said at the beginning, the purpose of this discussion is not to focus on the things that are happening outside of KPMG(6)

ME - “But that took place inside KPMG

CH - “Okay, but we are not going to focus on it in this discussion. I need you to understand and accept that before we can go on, because we are going to be talking at cross purposes

ME - “Well, there we are(7)

(1)- She never discussed it - in spite of being copied on my numerous emails over a 24-day period (above), during which I reported endlessly that I was totally cut off from ALL the sites.

(2)- Ditto about being copied on everything - starting with the 13 Feb 07 meeting. And, of course, behind the scene, she was liaising with HR, and Peter Bassett - including in the game of making me wait 10 weeks to have my 'appraisal'.

(The game of involving more than one party is a typical psychological harassment tactic: Header 2).

(3)- A ‘mistake’, KPMG, ‘the IT specialist’, made last for 24 days! at which point it made sign a letter 'agreeing' to be barred from accessing the Internet.

(4)- Cue to laugh out loud

(5)- ...As we have agreed to say with 'our dear brothers’ including Andrew David Ladsky in the Jewish-Freemason ‘Brotherhood'.

(6)- Hughes was focusing on "outside of KPMG", but, as you can see from the full, pages 22 and 23 of my form, my reference to my personal situation amounted to only 2 sentences. = Hughes' raising this several times demonstrated KPMG's blind determination to put the blame on me for the way I had felt from 30th March onwards.

(7)- There I was indeed: facing a very sick, morally depraved individual who is a perfect example of the (above) subsequent conclusions on the Stanley Milgram's experiments.

Back to sections

(8.2) - Ceri Hughes’ other key objective was to portray me as "lacking in proactivity" - when, in fact, she had been cutting me deliberately out of the loop on communications and meetings...in preparation for then accusing me of this 'failing'.

Lines 177-221; 245-251 - Regarding my assessment of the content of the services and industry sites (a massive job, as can be seen from pg 7 of my form) - Ceri Hughes claimed that, having completed this stage, "the next step was for you to contact the relevant leaders".

It was not. I replied that a presentation to the leaders had been intended, at which my findings would be discussed, and she had not said anything to me on this. (1)

At lines 301-302, I read from pg 4, 1.2 of my form: "an agreed output and plan is required, as well as senior management commitment to get the ball rolling; getting buy in in the allocation of resources".

Continuing to be purposely obtuse, Hughes replied “But you got the senior commitment: we are asking you to do it” (line 303).

After claiming to “not know the presentation [I was] referring to” (line 215), she then stated “Ward and I have used the industry information that you put together” (line 252-255). At which point I repeated that I had not had feedback on the outcome of the meeting (lines 256-259, and 272). I repeated this later on (lines 438-441).

Her reply was: “the action was on you to work with the groups, to find out that information” (line 260). WHY - as project lead - did not she communicate the outcome of the meeting to me – a member of her team? (2)

(1)- I had stated this on pg 3 of my form, at the time of setting my goals – and identified the fact that Hughes was project lead, and the partner, Ward Pratt, her boss, was the project sponsor.

(2)- Aside from ‘the small detail’ that I did not know when the meeting took place, my approaching the groups would have certainly demonstrated to the industries and service lines that ‘knowledge management’ was incapable of sharing information within itself.

REALITY: Hughes was keeping me out of the loop deliberately, as part of her, Peter Bassett (and probably et.al.)’s plan to accuse me of ‘lacking proactivity’.

The motive in doing this, added to other false accusations, was to ‘justify’ their ‘assessment’ that I was ‘in dire need of training’ (below) – with the ultimate objective of covering-up their criminal actions against me – by ‘demonstrating’ that ‘it was my fault’.

Her comments demonstrated this again:

Lines 424-425 – “From my perspective, there was a lack of pro-action to get things to the end point that I know you are more than capable of delivering” (1)

Lines 430-431 -“I would have expected you, you personally [1], and someone in your grade and with experience to do is,…”

Line 442 - "what I need you to do moving forward is be much more vocal about that

Lines 451-453 - "I think, actually, it’s a critical point Noëlle [2]. It will relate later as we talk about skills and behaviours. It’s something I think that you really need to take on board, because, you, it’s about, it’s the accountability skill or behaviour or competence." (3)

Lines 458-459 - “And if you ask once and don’t get a satisfactory result, then you ask again you know, or you follow it up more formally" (3)

Lines 630-632 - "When there is something to take forward, you are just going to take it forward, or, if you feel you need more mandate, you are going to shout for it(3)

(1)- = YOU changed!

Hughes captured these comments on pg 10-11 of my form.

(2)- Of course! It is "critical" to our plan to put the responsibility on YOU for the criminal actions we took against you - and for you to swallow that (poisoned) pill (See Introduction)

(3)- = ‘YOU must be proactive’; YOU must show initiative’ = ‘YOU need training!’ (see # 9.6 and # 9.7, below, for Bassett and Woodhouse sealing 'this need') = a typical criminal psychological harassment tactic – headers 1.8, 1.11, 1.14, 3.1.

Unbelievable! Hughes was certainly redefining the principles of project management!

It makes you wonder how I managed to get the kind of feedback I got from colleagues over my then previous 9 years at KPMG – including from Hughes in 2003-04 if I “lacked proactivity” - doesn't it?

Oh! I forgot!: I had - 'of course' - 'suddenly' "changed"!

When did this 'sudden transformation' take place? Immediately after the Mar 07 global event (pg 5, 3.1 of my form). See # 8.1, above, for Hughes' comments on my form.

'Lacking proactivity' was one of the key accusations they were absolutely hell-bent on making stick against me - as also evidenced during Part 2 (# 9.3, below)

IN SPITE of being the project lead, Ceri Hughes also expected me to define my role to the internal clients.

She put on an act of claiming ‘disbelief’ that her failure to do this had prevented me from moving on to the next stage:

At line 266, she put the onus on me to define my role. I replied that it was her role (as project lead) to do this: lines 286; 322-329; 338-349. I read my entry on pg 2 of my form: “Industries – Need to define my role, if any

Her claim of ‘disbelief’ is under lines 350-352, 391-394, 399-400, 447-449.

While, at lines 396-397, she stated: “I haven’t got time to give you permission to do your job”, and at lines 237-238, claimed to be “too busy to find tasks for anyone to do” (# 6.2, above)

(Note that, in Nov 07, Hughes was continuing to play the same game: # 10.1, below).

Back to sections

(8.3) - Other events demonstrating that Ceri Hughes was cutting me deliberately out of the loop.

(1)- Lack of feedback on: (i)- the end-use of my review of competitors' use of new media; (ii)- a survey I carried out; (iii)- my draft of a newsletter

In her 07.08.07-19h10 email, Ceri Hughes asked me to carry out a review on competitors' use of new media.

Lines 579-594 - Hughes said that my review was being shared among various people, and that it was “incredibly useful; a superb piece of work; put together very quickly”.

While she had indeed complimented me on the work, she had not told me what she was doing with it.

I pointed out that, likewise, I had not received feedback on:

  • a survey (lines 571-577);
  • a the draft of a newsletter (lines 566-567) (*)

(*) = More of the same as in the case of the above in relation to my work on the industries and service lines content.

(2) - My being expected to load a group's content under a new platform

As reported above, under # 6.6, I was asked to do this when I had just completed a course on a new platform. I raised the issue from line 465.

Lines 473-482 - Ceri Hughes claimed 'surprise' at a colleague 'not telling me what she had told him' (*)

I opted to play Hughes' game - by giving her the chance to add a tick to my 'training requirements' - as well as play the superior parent-child role (lines 497- 510). In this instance, the morally depraved parent who engineered the situations in order to satisfy its cravings for domination.

Note her lecture at lines 515-518 about "defining the scope of work; confirming that you have a shared understanding of what you are going to do" - and contrast that with her conduct (above) in relation to the services and industries project.

(*)- Acting as per the conclusions on the Milgram's experiments - practically ALL in the team were dancing to Hughes’ tune.

Seeing how I was being treated (being totally cut off from all the sites for 24 days, and sobbing uncontrollably at my desk ; being then barred from using the Internet and having to ask them to look things for me ; other forms of psychological harassment) - encouraged them to play an active part in dishing out the criminal psychological harassment.

In other words: when you are down, count on 'your colleagues' to kick you down even further.

(3)- Stressing 'the importance' of my being on weekly calls - and then cutting my access

Lines 548-549 and 553 - Ceri Hughes: "It’s important that you maintain, become part of a network. There was talk of a weekly call being set-up”

As can be seen from the 23 Apr 07 letter Peter Bassett asked to me sign (above, # 4.2), the only external site I was "allowed to access was Webex so that [I] could take part in internal conference calls".

As I reported under Header 4.7 of my 17.01.08 Grievance, the following month KPMG had also cut off my access to this site: 21.11.07 printscreen of the message that was returned when I tried to access the site.

(4)- Suggesting that I use Instant Messenger Communicator

Lines 635-636 – Having got confirmation from me - of what she already knew - that I was not using Instant messenger communicator, Ceri Hughes told me that “it would be a good thing for me to use to communicate [among other] with her”.

If she 'did not have time to respond to an email': why would sending her a message through this make a difference?

Advantage: with Instant Messenger there is no evidence of communication! Well, none that can be produced by the end-user - unlike with emails.

Back to sections

(8.4) - In breach of KPMG's guidance, Ceri Hughes stopped my so-called 'performance appraisal' after less than one hour, saying that she would "schedule another hour during the week".

She then concluded the meeting by going on yet another fishing expedition about my personal life.

Lines 609- 610: “Something I should have pointed out at the beginning, I’ve got another meeting at five, so we are not going to finish today” and “will have to schedule in another hour later on in the week” (lines 614; 688-689). By then, the meeting had lasted less than one hour, and there was a lot more left to cover.

Ceri Hughes' conduct breached 'KPMG's guidelines on performance management 2007'.

As I then reported to Jeanette Dunworth, HR (below), and during the 24 Oct 07 meeting: never in my 10 years at KPMG had had an appraisal handled in this manner.

The room had in fact been booked for 1.5 hrs – leading me to the expectation that my full ‘appraisal’ would be completed on that day.

It led me to absolutely view this as a continuation of the criminal psychological harassment regime which, in Header 6.5 of my 17.01.08 Grievance, I expanded to: "a continuation of the harassment and bullying tactics intended to torment me, demean me and humiliate me."

(And it continued!)

Under # 6(3), above, I report Ceri Hughes' obsession with my personal life - very clearly for the purpose of passing the information on to 'the brothers'. I cite the example of the Aug 07 so-called 'hearing' in West London County Court.

By end of Sep 07, the conniving, collusion and conspiring between the West London County Court corrupt judiciary and the Ladsky-Portner mafia was continuing as strong as ever (WLCC summaries). From Oct 07 both went into silent mode for 3 months i.e. until Jan 08 (WLCC # 15).

As can be seen at lines 658-681, Hughes kept on trying to find out whether I was going to go on holiday = would be out of town / of the country - and where I would be going = help the State goons and Ladsky mafia resources to continue tailing me, monitoring me, and hounding me.

I noted in my diary that, one month later (6 Nov 07), Hughes was continuing to fish for information by asking me whether I planned to visit my girlfriend in Australia, at Christmas. (Of note: by then, the court was still sitting on the transcript the 24 Aug 07 so-called 'hearing': West London County Court # 12.2).

(In Jun 07, Hughes had absolutely insisted on booking me a rail ticket to visit a friend in the north of England (line 670) - on the excuse that I could not access the internet (# 4.2, above).

Yes, that's what a director who claimed to be: "too busy to define my role" (# 8.2, above); “too busy to find tasks for anyone to do” (# 6.2, above) - decided to spend her time on. I knew her motive in doing it, and got confirmation of it.

And Hughes was not the only one in 'the team' attempting to get personal information from me.

= Other examples that endorse the conclusions on the Stanley Milgram's findings.

Back to sections

 

(9)- Ceri Hughes' failure to set-up 'Part 2' of my so-called 'appraisal', led me to send a 15.10.07 email to Jeanette Dunworth, HR, in which, among other, I related Hughes’ refusal during my ‘appraisal’ to take into account what KPMG had done to me.

As evident in KPMG’s Defence to my Claim, this email was perceived as highly inconvenient, an unexpected spanner in the works.

It resulted in Ceri Hughes being replaced for 'Part 2' with Peter Bassett, partner, and Kathy Woodhouse, HR.

I reported events under Headers 6.4 and 6.5 of my 17.01.08 Grievance.

• In my 11.10.07-09h32 email to Ceri Hughes, I reminded her of her undertaking to complete 'my appraisal' "by the end of the week" (above) and that I had not been contacted.

• in her 11.10.07-10h54 email, she replied: "Unfortunately my diary is completely committed at the moment...", and that "an extension for completion has been granted." I had not seen it. All I had, were the above policy emails.

• As Hughes was not setting-up the meeting as promised, as well as ignored my request for evidence of this, I sent a 15.10.07-10h05 email to Jeanette Dunworth, HR, cc'd Hughes, relating what had taken place since the end of Jun 07, as well as during the 9 Oct 07 meeting - including reporting Hughes' refusal to discuss what I captured on pages 22 & 23 of my form (# 8, above) - and asked:

"I would like to know why events that have impacted on my ability to perform my work are being ignored – especially in light of the fact that the two months plus delay in holding my performance appraisal was due to HR looking at what I captured on my form."

I also stated that I was “looking for honesty” in relation to my position at KPMG.

• In her 15.10.07-17h40 reply, Dunworth wrote that: she needed to consider the issues I had raised; gave confirmation from HR that the deadline for completion had been extended to 19 October.

• In my 15.10.07-18h10 reply, also cc'd to Ceri Hughes, I again repeated that, in the light of Hughes untypical conduct, I was "looking for honesty".

OF NOTE: Under para.9 of its pack of lies Defence to my 03.04.08 Claim, KPMG wrote:

"During the ['appraisal] process the Claimant made further allegations against her performance manager.”

It is very clearly not true.

I copied Ceri Hughes on my emails. If she objected to what I wrote, why didn't she get back to me? (It very clearly is not due to 'shyness' e.g. her 14 Dec 07 letter to me (# 10.1).

REALITY: the cabal perceived my (above) 15.10.07-10h05 email as extremely inconvenient; an unexpected spanner in the works.

Hence, their objective of adding to their criminal psychological harassment tactics had backfired on them! (Since the 13 Feb 07 meeting, they had wanted to ensure that there were no written record of events).

Exposed, KPMG used the very sick tactic of continuing to portray me as ‘a highly undesirable employee’! (Note also that in her 22.08.08 'response' to my Request for information, Naomi Crossman failed to address (like everything else) my request for "detail of the allegation": # 15.2 - Com 15).

• In her 17.10.07-12h33 email to me, Hughes informed me that she was pulling out of the process.

• In her 19.10.07-14h57 email (i.e. on the day of the 'new' deadline), Dunworth stated that Peter Bassett, partner, was taking over, and that, "given the concerns I recently raised, a member of the HR department will also attend the meeting to ensure that your appraisal is finalised in a fair and independent way."

• In his 22.10.07-16h59 email, Bassett confirmed the meeting for 24 Oct. The "HR member" was Kathy Woodhouse, 'European Lead HR Manager' - who sent me a 23.10.07-15h05 email to introduce herself.

On 24 Oct 07, the "fair and independent way" translated into a continuation of the same treatment i.e. continuing with the same script.

Back to sections

(9.1) - During Part 2 of my so-called 'performance appraisal', on 24 Oct 07 (I also secretly recorded), with Peter Bassett, partner, and Kathy Woodhouse, Human Resources (HR), positioned as "there to ensure a fair and independent assessment"...

...they, likewise, totally ignored KPMG's actions that had impacted very seriously on my ability to perform my work.

They blamed me repeatedly for the events - and claimed (as subsequently repeated in KPMG's pack of lies Defence) "to have done all they could over the last 9 months to help [me]".

Their only 'response', repeated 10 times, to my raising the events was: "It has not been a good year for you"; "you've had a really, really difficult year", and variations on this theme.

(The preceding events are detailed above)

(See above for introductory note).

I referred to events under: (1)- Headers 6.7 and 6.8 of my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 11) and supplied this version of my notes of the meeting; (2)- paras 20-29 of my 03.04.08 Claim against KPMG (# 12).

This is the recording - and my transcript, with my Comments.

RECORDING TO BE PLACED

Line 375 - Me

“Yeah, but he assumed that it was “my house problem”. Right?” (1)

Lines 376-380 - PB

“Okay, but I mean, we don’t need to discuss what was behind it [2] He may have assumed that, what he observed and commented on was the behaviour and impact that was having on the team."

"Whether it was caused by one thing or another, isn’t really the issue [3] It’s the question of what he perceived” (4)

Lines 381-382 - Me

I could also get other colleagues to report that, in April, I was in tears at my desk for the whole of April

Line 383 - PB

"Heu, hum!" (5)

Lines 384-392 - Me

“So, that’s got nothing to do with it. Because my access to the internet was cut off, and I could not do my work, and the messages I was getting back made me feel like a criminal.

And I felt such injustice, as I had not done anything, and I was the one who was actually suffering, and being made to feel like a criminal." (6)

So that had an impact: Oh gosh! Did I look miserable then? Yeaaaah! Was I in tears? Yes! Practically every day. So if they see that: yes, I am in tears.

Now you could say: “Oh! It’s your house problem!

(1)- I was continuing to challenge the so-called ‘feedback’ ‘from’ Finbarr Geaney (# 9.4, below) – which I knew had been fabricated by Peter Bassett and Ceri Hughes. (Note her reaction, # 8, above, following my reporting in an email that she had told me to consider 'my impact on others’).

(2)- Of course not! Let’snot discuss what is behind it”:

Peter Bassett and his henchwomen and henchmen, Ceri Hughes, Jeanette Dunworth, HR, IT staff, etc, morally depraved, gutter ploy to cover-up the true reason:

their criminal actions against me - from Feb 07 onwards - to please the dear ‘brothers’, Andrew David Ladsky et.al. in the Jewish-Freemason ‘Brotherhood.

What was "behind it" - was KPMG, and only KPMG.

(3)- Same blind determination as Ceri Hughes who, for sure on Bassett's order, refused point-blank to take into consideration the impact the actions taken against me by KPMG had on me.

(4)- What was in it for Geaney to ‘adapt his perception'?

(5)- Note the total lack of comment from Bassett. Yep! That’s a KPMG ‘Human Resources partner’!

(6)- E.g. my 05.04.07-10h37 email to Jeanette Dunworth, HR ; my 17.04.07-10h44 email to Serena Patching, IT.

Line 392-395 - KW

“What that would say to me,...that this has not been your best year [7]; it hasn’t been the happiest year [8], and it’s probably not been the best year in terms of personal impact relationships [9], as opposed to the work and your detailed business understanding. I don’t think we are saying anything different here(10)

Lines 396-399 - Me

”…the fact that I managed to actually keep up a front as much as I did, I think that it’s all triple ticks for me to be able to do that – given what I was being put through this year. I think that a lot of people would have gone under(11)

Line 400 - PB

“Hum, hum" (12)

(7)- Yep! That’s how what I was saying was addressed!

It was the 1st of 9 times that Kathy Woodhouse said this during the meeting.

The others are at lines: 646, 648, 664, 670-671, 698-699, 728-729, 861 and 921. As to Peter Bassett, he said it at lines 879-880 - bringing the total to 10 times! (Summarised in my Comments on the 25.10.07-08h30 email from Bassett / my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS).

(8)- Yeah! ‘courtesy' of Peter Bassett, Ceri Hughes et.al. in KPMG and their mates in ‘the Brotherhood’.

(9)- = Keeps on pushing it, and pushing it – because of their sinister Machiavellian plan to cover up their actions against me: attributing 'failings on my part' - that were 'so bad', that 'I needed' 'no less' than a "training coach" (below).

(10)- We were saying something very different; but they did not want to hear me – because hell-bent on implementing their Machiavellian plan to cover up the impact their criminal actions had on me.

So much for the claim that Woodhouse's presence was to ensure a "fair and independent assessment" (# 9, above).

(11)- Which was their objective.

(12)- Note, yet again, the ‘no comment’ from Bassett.

Line 628 - Me

"What happened, from April, things changed. April / May, there was a switch

Lines 629-633 - KW

"Is that because of your unhappiness, because you said earlier that you were very distressed in April; you said: I would be at my desk in tears(13)

“Do you think it’s chicken and egg? Is it because you changed, or is it because things have changed around you?

Lines 634-645 - Me

"Because things changed. I was happy doing my work. For me, work was actually my safe heaven, the place where I would forget about my personal problem."

"Then my problem came into KPMG. And then it impacted on me...the messages made me feel like a criminal" (5)

"I would say: But I have done nothing wrong!” I am not a criminal. I am not the one who has been stealing from people. I am not the one who has been lying to the courts" (14).

I am not the court that has actually issued judgments against people to make them pay money they did not owe." (15)

"I am not the one who has done that, and for me,...added to the fact of, at the time, I had been threatened with bankruptcy for not paying a fraudulent claim against me [above]. I had so much going there as well. And it was all piling up(16)

Lines 646-648 - KW

"It sounds to me like, you’ve had a really difficult year.”

"A really, really difficult year."

Lines 664-667 - KW

"it’s not been a happy year for you, has it, in both work relationships, external relationships; you felt isolated; your career development aspirations have stalled. I suspect that’s why your personal development plan feels a bit thin”

Lines 668-669 - Me

Because I lost faith in having a future here. Because of what has been happening. Because I felt that I have been isolated

Lines 670-672 - KW

"We probably got to get to a point that says: okay, this has not been the best year, for lots of good reasons [17], but: how are we going to move this forward?..."

Lines 698-699 - KW

"I mean, quite honestly, I think, you know, this year it has been tough,…”

(13)- UNBELIEVABLE! Who "reduced me to tears at my desk"? KMPG!

(14)- See Extortion

(15)- Overview # 3

(16)- Which was the cue for Peter Bassett to dump on me as much as he could – in order to achieve his et.al. sinister plan: to punish me for ‘daring’ to stand-up against – and expose - organized crime by the ‘brothers’ (see Introduction).

(17)- ' We are, of course, going to ignore totally!' (see below: training ; overall 'assessment')

Lines 727-729 - KW

“…how do we draw a line under this year? I think, you know, we will agree to disagree [18]...it has not been a fantastic year for us [19] and it won’t have been a fantastic year for you" (20)

Line 861 - KW

"It’s not been a great year. You need to leave it behind" [21]

Lines 688-689 - PB

"What is the way we can fix some of this?" (22)

Lines 739-742 - PB

People like Ceri have spent a lot of time really trying to find a solution for a way forward [23]...

But we have, in the last nine months or so [24] been working very hard to try and find ways to help you with whatever the situation." (23)

(18)- But our views will prevail over yours.

(19)- WHY? Reward from the Jewish-Freemason ‘Brotherhood’ from inflicting this life-destroying, highly vicious, sadistic, perverse treatment on me, not substantial enough?

Not able to increase, since Apr 07, the size of the project for the Ministry of (In)Justice?

(20)- By then, it was the 7th time (out of 9 times) that Woodhouse said this.

(21)- Of course! ‘Forget what KPMG has done to you – in the name of ‘the Brotherhood’...

...– and concurrently what its ‘brothers’: Rachman Ladsky and his gang of racketeers; their supporters: corrupt and criminal judiciary, police, ministers, council, ‘independent regulators’, etc. did to me. (Aiding and abetting crime is a criminal offence).

Move on!

(22)- What hypocrisy – as they continued with the same treatment when they saw that I was not going to play along with their plan. (# 10.1, below)

Reply 8 years later (2015): you could start by admitting what you did to me – instead of ignoring / denying the parts you 'decided' to 'respond to' in:

  • ...preceded / followed by a total rejection of both;

...– and then, in terms of compensation, look at what I wrote to ACAS (# 16) in my 05.08.08 letter (as the basis on which I estimated it did not materialise, due to my being psychologically unable to look for other work, the cost has now gone up to over £1 million).

(23)- Look at the above sections, from 13 Feb 07 onwards - including the point-blank refusal to take into account what had taken place: Hughes # 8.1 ; Bassett and Woodhouse, above - call that "help"?

Bassett was continuing to pin events to 'my personal situation' (# 9.4, below).

After I resigned, they, of course, continued with that line: above, # 3.3, Comment 5B.

(24)- "last 9 months or so" = since Feb 07.

It made it the 2nd time (previous was at lines 615-616) that Bassett gave away the fact that he recognised the glaringly obvious: my situation at KPMG changed completely following the 13 Feb 07 meeting I had with him and Jeanette Dunworth, HR; meeting for which he refused to issue notes.

Lines 746-748 - PB

"There isn’t a sense of any, sort of, exclusion that’s meant to be deliberate. I think sometimes, when we get isolated we can then maybe put out signals that makes it difficult for people to come to us. It’s one of those sort of cycles we get into." (25)

Lines 800-802 - KW

if you are looking very sad, very unhappy, I might think, as your manager that I was protecting you by, well, you know, maybe Noëlle isn’t strong enough at the moment to deal with that” (26)

Lines 764-765 - PB

"I don’t think that you should feel that anybody is against you, or excluding you, or any of those things” (27)

Line 766 - Me

"That's what I felt"

Lines 767-771 - PB

“I know; I can see it, and I heard it. And this is what is sort of so frustrating from my point of view, that when we are racking our brains for what can we do, how can we help? We don’t always feel that’s understood it’s being our attitude."

The last nine months has been about trying to find solutions, trying to provide support (28), trying to help you through all of this" (29)

Lines 789-793 - KW

"And maybe, you just have to be big enough [30] to say: okay, that was then, that was yesterday, let’s put it behind, let’s move forward." (31)

Because otherwise: where is this going Noëlle? You know, you’ll become more and more unhappy at work; you’ll become more and more isolated. At some point, the thing will become untenable – I am sure(32)

(25)- 'Of course', it was 'my fault'!

Perhaps instead of sobbing uncontrollably at my desk during the best part of Apr 07, unable to do my work, because I had been cut off from ALL the sites, concurrently making me feel as though I were a criminal - I should have been jumping with joy on my desk…

...thereby depriving Bassett et.al. in 'the Brotherhood' of their sadistic kicks?

(26)- Unbelievable! But: great double act!

(27)- The master of pretence!

This is one of the typical criminal psychological harassment tactic: Headers 1.14 and 4 – although Bassett stopped short of calling me ‘paranoid’…unlike his master / 'Jewish' tribe member, Andrew David Ladsky in his 26 Mar 07 letter to KPMG (# 3.5, above).

(28)- Claim KPMG repeated in its Defence to my Claim - above, # 3.3, Comment 5B.

(29)- Yep! What is reported on this page is a KPMG partner's definition of KPMG "helping an employee".

(I repeat the references to the criminal psychological harassment tactics - Header 1.14 and 4).

Bassett was continuing to pin events to 'my personal situation' (# 9.4, below).

After I resigned, they, of course, continued with that line: above, # 3.3, Comment 5B.

(30)- As “big” as KPMG that fabricated highly vicious, malicious, perverse accusations against me – in order to cover-up what it did to me?

(31)- 'Of course', Let’s very conveniently forget what KPMG did to me to please its Jewish-Freemason mates!

(32)- It had reached that point - and, by their conduct during my so-called 'appraisal', Bassett, Hughes and Woodhouse ensured it stayed there.

Back to sections

(9.2) - From the start, Peter Bassett demonstrated that he was set on continuing to go for my scalp.

Anticipating that Peter Bassett would be set on criticising me, at the start of the meeting, I asked for a recap of what Ceri Hughes had told him about Part 1 of my so-called ‘appraisal’ on 9 Oct 07 (above, # 8.1 ; # 8.2).

Lines 26-29 - The first words he uttered confirmed my suspicion: “she felt the things you have done were of a reasonable quality(*). To my questioning the word ‘reasonable’, he replied “means of the quality that might be expected

Lines 56-58 – Prompted by Kathy Woodhouse (KW), I quoted some of Hughes' complimentary comments.

(*)- Yep! Bassett was definitely going to continue going for my scalp! (Meetings on 13 Feb and 30 Mar 07; cutting me off from ALL the sites for 24 days ; making me sign a letter ‘agreeing’ to be barred from accessing the Internet – as well as having a hand in various other events aimed at adding to the criminal psychological harassment).

Back to sections

(9.3) - Using the 'assessment' 'from Ceri Hughes' that "I had not completed my goals" (# 8.2), they portrayed me as "lacking initiative, proactivity, determination, tenacity "...

...- when, in fact, Ceri Hughes had been deliberately cutting me out of communications that prevented me from progressing my work (which Bassett knew, as he was behind the plan).

Lines 32-53; 59-60; 66-73 - Peter Bassett launched immediately into criticism: that Ceri Hughes had said that "there were a lot of things you have not done" (1)

Questioning “a lot of things”, I talked about my work reviewing the service lines and industries content (# 8.2, above). I repeated what I had said to Hughes: that she had not come back to me on the next stage. That, as project lead, it was her job to ensure I could progress to the next stage.

Line 76-88Angling for the label Hughes had already attached to me, Kathy Woodhouse said: she expected you to demonstrate initiative(2). I repeated the same thing, saying: “How many times am I supposed to ask for feedback?”

And, at lines 105-106: “When I find myself being cut off and isolated from what is going on, it’s rather difficult for me to then be able to perform my activities.”

At this point, KW stated: "we have a difference of opinion regarding business goal achievements… But there are some things that Ceri felt that you should have achieved more(1)

Lines 516-535 - PB suggested that perhaps the reason I had not asked Hughes why I being excluded from the service lines and industries meeting, was "because I did not want to hear the answer" (3). I denied it saying that I was not scared of people being honest with me.

For the comment about my "lacking tenacity" - see # 9.5, below - lines 311-324.

(1)- Hughes had also given me a lot of work to do that had not been set as part of my goals; pg 5-7 of my form – as she recognised, on 9 Oct 07, at lines 616-617.

(2)- During the 9 Oct 07 meeting, Ceri Hughes’ key objective had been to portray me as "lacking in proactivity" (# 8.2, above) - when, in fact, she had been deliberately cutting me out of the loop on communications and meetings; not got back to me on my work: other examples (# 8.3, above).

On pg 11 of my form, Bassett reported my saying that "[I had] been isolated from the decision process"...followed by "we shall have to agree to disagree" - something they repeated on numerous occasions during the meeting.

(3)- Any opportunity to put the blame on me!

Back to sections

(9.4) - Sinking to a new depth of moral depravation, they used a so-called ‘feedback on my performance’ ‘from’ ‘a colleague’, Finbarr Geaney - that had very clearly been fabricated by Bassett and Hughes...

...– to accuse me of “letting my personal problem affect my work, and thus impact on the team”. (Hughes had already claimed this on 9 Oct 07 - # 8.1).

They placed all the weight on this ‘feedback’ at the expense of another that was diametrically opposed.

Lines 113-141 - Peter Bassett angled for the next label: ‘my impact on others’, by first talking about my relationships with the service lines and industries – referring to the three Skills and Behaviours dimensions I stated as my objective on pg 14 of my form: Making an impact ; Business understanding ; Managing relationships.

Lines 142-143; 157-158 - He focused on the first one: ‘Making an impact’, asking me for “the things you can point to as having made an impact

I mentioned the 30.07.07 feedback from Denise B, senior manager / director, with whom I had had extensive contacts during the year (I captured it on pg 15 of my form). (I extracted it under lines 802-818 of my 17.01.08 Grievance).

"Noëlle, was very giving of her time and her experience, in particular her contacts, her network and her technical knowledge.

She was very cooperative…I felt I could contact Noëlle at any time to test ideas or check my understanding.

She would often deliver much more than was asked and at short notice, in particular she would suggest easier ways to get information or indeed people to contact.

She showed professionalism, enthusiasm and a positive attitude despite many structural changes ongoing within Advisory at the time of the project.

In terms of making an impact, well I would definitely get in touch with Noëlle again in terms of a similar situation

Lines 163-171PB claimed that "Denise’s feedback relates more to “business understanding”, not your personal impact on people, the way you present yourself, the way you communicate(1)

(1)- When you consider the definition of 'Making an impact' on pg 11 of the form: "Communicates with impact, in a way that is open, honest, consistent and clear. Confidently conveys messages in a credible and persuasive manner. Gains agreement through promoting and negotiating a position to the benefit of both parties." (Similar version on pg 15 of the the Skills & Behaviours guide)

And compare it with Denise’s feedbackit is obvious that it was definitely feedback on this dimension (in addition to the other two).

REALITY: Denise's 30.07.07 feedback threw a spanner in the works of the Ceri Hughes-Peter Bassett et.al. cabal - undermining its sinister Machiavellian ploy.

Line 187 - "What are your working with the rest of the team, with Ceri’s team?”. I knew what Bassett was angling for - leading me to say, lines 188-189: “Well then we are coming to Finbarr Geaney’s ‘feedback(2)

The 05.08.07 so-called 'feedback' 'from' Finbarr Geaney:

The first part refers to the Mar 07 global event [# 8.1, above] - stating that I was “always on top of the detail; always willing to see what needed to be done and get on with doing it

Outside of the conference organisation itself, I have not worked very closely with you on specific projects, but we have worked together as part of the same team and I would feedback a little on my interaction with you at this level –and specifically on your impact within the team." (7)

You have a well known personal legal difficulty with your house.

This problem does get you down a lot and it sometimes impacts negatively upon your mood in the office and thus your impact with colleagues(7)

I think that you need to find some way of bringing closure to this house issue,[8] or to better manage the impact which it has on your mood whilst at work.” (7)

Lines 190-198 - Realising I had figured out that 'the feedback' had been fed to Geaney, Peter Bassett tried to cover it up e.g. having first referred to him as a "he", he then said "she"; claimed to not know in which group “she” was in.

Having read 'the feedback', at line 217, I said: “That’s a very different change of writing style and tone”

Lines 218-220 - PB said: “I think it’s quite interesting [3], ...he could easily have not bothered. But I think he is trying to put that in a sort of constructive way, genuinely sort of saying: look, I think this is a bit of an issue(4)

Lines 221-226 – To my challenging the “You need to find some way of bringing closure to this house issue”, by asking: what does he know about my situation?”, Kathy Woodhouse quoted “your well known difficulty[5] and asked whether I was “sharing [my] problem a lot of people in the office.”

Lines 227-231 – I denied talking about it in Ceri Hughes’s team, and said that people were talking about it behind my back.

Lines 235-237- To my rejecting the comments by saying: “That’s his point of view”, KW replied: “you have a responsibility to consider carefully this feedback and to think about it…” (6)

(2)- I could not control my ironic tone, because I knew that Bassett and Hughes were behind what ‘Geaney’ wrote.

One week before my receiving the email, Hughes' reaction to my capturing, in my above email (# 8), her comment about 'my impact on others', led me to conclude that they were cooking something on this.

Under line 787 of my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 11, below), and para.23 of my 03.04.08 Claim, I wrote that 'his' "feedback had been influenced"; to be more precise: dictated by Peter Bassett and Ceri Hughes!

And the objective was to cover-up what they had done to me - by putting the blame on 'me' for the way I felt, especially from 30 Mar 07.

Of course, the false accusation of 'letting my personal problem affect me at work' had been raised by Hughes during Part 1 of my so-called 'performance appraisal': lines 66-79, # 8.1 above - as it was a key part of the script.

(3)- Isn’t it just "interesting"! He liked his own creation!

(4)- See above for other related extracts and comments.

(5)- “Well known” – Included to add weight to their fabrication i.e. that my alleged talking about it affected ‘the team’.

Considering the absolute horror of my personal situation at the time (# 5, above), the claim of knowing my situation well” (which Bassett certainly did know from, among other, McGrigors) adds further support to the conclusion as to their unbelievable moral depravation, evilness, cruelty, sadism and perversion. They are monsters!

(I repeat my above perceptions of Peter Bassett)

(6)- No, I do not have a responsibility to consider malicious, fabricated so-called ‘feedback’ on me. The place for that is the garbage can / gutter, where I also place those who wrote it – and those who endorse it.

I also submit that your employer contacting your doctor (# 13, below) to get him to ask you ‘whether you have recorded your conversations at work’ - is also blatant proof of its Machiavellian plan.

(7)- "your house problem gets you down a lot; impacts negatively on your mood and thus on colleagues"

How unbelievably sick to use the horror of what was happening to me outside of work, as a cover-up for the impact their criminal actions had on me. What thoroughly evil, gutter monsters.

Yep! Definitely a perfect match with Andrew David Ladsky! Was that perhaps his input?

(8)- "you need to find some way of bringing closure to this house issue"

That looks like a direct input from 'the Brotherhood', starting with Ladsky: expecting me to ‘just walk away like a good little girl’, and very conveniently forget all that I have been made to suffer, as well as lose.

= Having failed to influence me:

... Bassett was now using a junior member of staff to tell me what 'I should do' in my private life!

Of course, KPMG captured the false accusation in its pack of lies Defence: # 3.3, Comment 5(A).

Back to sections

(9.5) - With Hughes (no doubt on Bassett's order) having ensured that I would be isolated by the nature of the work she asked me to do, and by cutting me off deliberately from meetings and communications...

...- the other label they attached to me was "lacking in relationship building" - yet again dismissing a feedback I had received that contradicted their 'assessment'.

Lines 245-272 - To Kathy Woodhouse commenting on my "having insufficient feedback from others", I replied that while I had been in contact with hundreds of people (pg 5-7 of my form), the extent of the dealings did not justify my asking for feedback. The main sizeable projects on which I had worked entailed doing solo work.

Lines 260-264Peter Bassett: "one of the things clearly that Ceri feels is that maybe you should not be working quite so much in isolation, and should have been more engaged with the rest of the team in what you were doing." (1)

"In doing the KM event, clearly you were very active and involved with people. And since, it would seem that you have not been(2)

Lines 275-286PB summed up his pre-determined conclusions: “clearly your business understanding is very strong, and that’s recognised; you demonstrated that. Clearly, you do have an overview of the Advisory business,…

...but on the personal side, the skills and behaviours around making an impact and managing relationships, this has not been really so strong, both in terms of your personal impact on people (above), and your relationship building around this that has not been so successful

He then knocked down my quoting Denise’s feedback (# 9.4, above) by saying that it demonstrated responsiveness “A reaction to somebody else coming to you, rather than you reaching out and forming relationships yourself” (3)

Lines 311- 313 - KW - “what could you have done differently and better, so that your personal impact and personal relationship-building would have been stronger this last year?(4)

Lines 314-324 - To my giving an answer she 'did not like', she kept pushing the boat out, saying: “There may be something about tenacity(5)

Lines 336-364 – When I quoted some feedback I had received from a German colleague two years previously, as evidence against their assessment, PB replied: "Well, exactly, and that is the impression you were making three years ago" (6)

(1)- Hughes had given me projects that only I could do:

Line 308-311, 9 Oct 07 - Ceri Hughes – “In the pool of resource I have got allocated to me, you are the resource I have allocated to industries, because your strengths are: your attention to detail; your knowledge of the business; your experience as client-facing person; your accuracy; and your commitment to get the job done. You are the perfect person to do all that with service lines and industries

Lines 370-372 - Hughes – “...there are a lot of people who say they [understand our services], but they don’t…you are one of the few people who has that overview of all the service lines.”

How could I “engage the team” in my work? It did not have the necessary knowledge. I sure wish I could have shared some of these massive projects (pg 7-9 of my form).

On pg 15 of my form, Bassett's captured "Ceri's view that I should have had considerably more interaction with other members of the team".

(2)- Funny that, how, on this as well, I ‘suddenly’ changed 'overnight'. (See Hughes' comments about my work for the event - # 8.1, above.

(3)- To which I should have said: how do you think I built the network of contacts I was praised for by that particular colleague?

One good feedback from a senior individual (Denise) is dismissed, but ‘one’ 'from' a junior team member (Finbarr Geaney) that criticises me – based on extremely sick, morally depraved fabrications - ‘has far more importance’!

REALITY: Denise's 30.07.07 feedback threw a spanner in the works of the Ceri Hughes-Peter Bassett et.al. cabal - undermining its sinister Machiavellian ploy.

Having isolated me as much as they could, they were not expecting me to get this feedback. (It covered a period of c. 2 months, in the earlier part of the 2006-07 appraisal year).

(4)- = Woodhouse kept pushing to make the ‘lack of proactivity’ label stick on me.

(5)- Cue to laugh out loud!

When you look at e.g. my website (Case summary), what I have been doing since 2001: does it look to you as though I am the type of person who “lacks tenacity"?

My ‘tenacity’ and resilience were - in fact - a big issue for them – as they tried their damndest to break me.

(6)- = Continuing with the script used by Hughes: 'This year ‘I’ had changed'! And this 'sudden' transformation had taken place, literally from one day to the next', after the Mar 07 global event!

Back to sections

(9.6) - To seal their ‘assessment’, with the objective of covering up KPMG’s criminal actions against me, they put the blame for events squarely on me...

...– by ‘determining’ that ‘my training needs’ were 'so dire', that ‘I needed’ no less than “a training coach”!

Lines 401-455 - Peter Bassett kept pushing the boat out and continued to put his hooks in place, by referring to “working relationships (# 9.5) ”, “interaction with others” (# 9.4).

Lines 458-517 - Determined to continue putting the blame on me, PB asked me whether I was "in a slightly wrong role?". I replied that the role was right; what was wrong was the lack of endorsement to move to the next stage.

Lines 435-451 - PB even suggested that my "going on training courses could help you get out of the isolation” (!!!) – to which I replied that I did not have any problem establishing contact with people. I reiterated the issues I had stated previously.

Lines 815-823 - They concluded that I 'needed' "a proper development plan", and no less than "a training coach" (*), followed by reemphasizing.

...lines 857 - 'the issues' of "proactivity, tenacity and self-motivation" (# 9.3).

(*) = Essential for sealing their sinister Machiavellian cover-up plan:

'see how dire her training needs are?' = 'It's all her fault!' (Bassett captured this on pg 17 & 24 of my appraisal form).

It makes you wonder how I managed to get the feedback I received from partners and staff during my previous 9 years at KPMG – doesn't it?

Back to sections

(9.7) - While throughout they kept repeating that there was "a difference of views" in many areas, they, of course, ignored it...

...– and gave me an overall rating: “Needs development” – hence, putting the final seal on their ‘assessment’.

(Bassett et.al. in KPMG and their mates in 'the Brotherhood' were counting on the consideration of my age (8 years from retirement) to make me swallow the poisoned pill - that would have given them a freehand to continue abusing me at will i.e. continue feeding their insatiable craving for sadistic kicks).

Lines 584-616 - Peter Bassett raised my aspiration to be promoted to senior manager, and claimed, against my assessment (pg 18 of my form), that he saw "no reason why I should not continue to pursue the idea" (1)

Lines 806-807- Kathy Woodhouse "...I actually think that there should be quite a quite large ‘agree to disagree’ on various things(2)

Lines 879-880 - PB - "...it has not been a good year all around..." (3) there has been strong performance results in terms of output and quality...

...But the bit that is more about the skills and behaviours [4] has not been proven and therefore we put it in the ‘needs development’ category" (5)

Lines 897-902 - PB - "...we’ve agreed that there is a difference of views in a number of areas" (2)

But, for the sake of the appraisal that we have to do a merit rating, and are now looking at ‘NI-8(6) – which is the one that reflects the quality of output, but the need for further work and development on the other dimensions" (5)

Lines 903-904 - KW - “I think we should put a note on there: again, a difference in the points of view [7]; that both parties have agreed that the most important thing is to move forward" (8)

(1)- When you consider what had been happening, Bassett’s game plan in saying this was to give him a platform for making me swallow his ‘assessment’ of ‘my training needs’.

(2)- And our way of dealing with it is to impose our morally depraved, totally twisted position.

= the KPMG way of avoiding to deal with the real issues; of failing to own up to, and take responsibility for its actions.

(3)- Take the blame!

(4)- "skills and behaviours" - above: # 9.3 ; # 9.4 ; # 9.5.

(5)- ‘THE KPMG WAY’:

It's your fault! YOU need development!’ Of course, on the dimensions it had ’identified’ - that suited its fabricated story.

Yep! That’s how KPMG covers up its months of ongoing criminal psychological harassment regime against an employee! That's how its 'Values' translate in practice.

And once the employee has resigned? It continues denying it! (Comment # 20, above)

Consider what ALL these henchmen and henchwomen did it for! A thoroughly evil, Rachman crook from the gutter.

Well, as the saying goes: 'Birds of a feather flock together'!

(6)- 8-NI rating - (pg 24 of my form) (printscreen) - “Your overall performance does not meet the requirements and immediate improvement is required.

While you deliver strong performance results, you are not demonstrating KPMG’s Global Values and Skills and Behaviors. It is important that you develop a plan focusing on changing your behaviour and / or improving your skills and behaviours

(If you are decent person reading this: are you able to control yourself from laughing?).

According to the 29.06.07 memo about the firm’s expectations on ratings, it placed me in the “minimum 7% of the population”, in the lowest 10% of KPMG UK staff.

(7)- "A difference in the points of view" 'We will continue to ignore totally'.

THEY (like Hughes who had been briefed to do the same thing):

Bassett wrote on pg 11 of the form: "we shall to agree to disagree", and on pg 22: "While we disagree about the details and have different perspectives on events..."

And could have added: Who cares! It's OUR (very sick, twisted) view that counts!

(8)- Wishful thinking! No way was I going to accept that!

And then have them continue with the same treatment of abusing me, demeaning me and humiliating me - in the process, adding to their and 'Brotherhood' mates sadistic kicks. NO WAY!

(I submit that Bassett et.al. were counting on my age to make me swallow their poisoned pill - below # 10.2)

Peter Bassett: as in the case of the 13 Feb 07 meeting: will you also describe the above (from # 9.1) as "not an accurate account of what we discussed" (# 3.2)?

Based on my assumption as to your membership of Ladsky's ethnic group: probably!

Yep! From section 8 to section 9.7 above, that was my so-called 'performance appraisal' at KPMG, ‘The Best Company to Work for’, that claimed, and promoted: 'Above all, we act with integrity'.

Back to sections

(9.8) - In its pack of lies Defence, to the parts of my Claim (# 12) relating to my 'performance appraisal' KPMG 'decided' to respond to, typically, it denied them - and failed to address some highly material events.

 

KPMG's Naomi Crossman undated pack of lies Defence contains some outrageous, brazen assertions about some of my claims 'she decided to respond to' in relation to my so-called 'performance appraisal':

"Para.9 - In view of the allegations and comments that the Claimant had included in her appraisal form relating to her personal circumstances [1], a departure from the standard timetable was agreed to reassure the Claimant that her concerns were being taken seriously and that the process was fair." (2)

"...an independent HR Senior Manager was asked to continue and finalise the process instead [3], which was another departure from the standard process intended to ensure that the claimant felt that the Respondent was taking her concerns seriously(4)

Para.10 – The Respondent denies conducting the appraisal process in such a way as to force the Claimant to leave her employment with the Respondent.” (5)

"The Respondent confirms that the pay rise [6] and bonus that the claimant received was appropriate for the performance rating she received "(7)

Para.12(f) – the Respondent denies....that it did not take all relevant factors into consideration during the claimant's personal appraisal process(8)

Para.12(g) - the Respondent denies fabricating any failings against the Claimant in order to mark down the Claimant's performance or for any other purpose" (9)

Para.12(h) - any differences in the performance appraisal process conducted in relation to the Claimant were to the Claimant's advantage [10] and the Respondent denies that the claimant suffered any detriment as a result" (11)

Para.12(i) - the Respondent denies that it ever wanted the claimant to leave her employment with the Respondent or took any action designed to force her to do so.” (5)

(1)- FALSE - What I included on pages 22 & 23 of my form - included only 2 sentences in relation to my personal situation - out of 2 full pages (# 8).

(2)- FALSE

Paras 13 - 30, 33.6 - 33.8 of my 03.04.08 Claim.

Considering the content of:

...does it look to you as though "[my] concerns were taken seriously and the process was fair"?

NOTE how Crossman i.e. KPMG very conveniently ignored in my Claim:

Para.17

Ceri Hughes refusing, during 'my appraisal', on 9 Oct 07, to take into consideration the impact of KPMG's actions on my ability to perform my work, and threatening to end the meeting if I persisted in raising it (# 8.1).

Para.27

Peter Bassett and Kathy Woodhouse doing the same thing on 24 Oct 07 (# 9.1)

Paras 23 and 24

The so-called 'feedback' on 'my performance', 'from' Finbarr Geaney, on which Bassett and Woodhouse focused - and in relation to which I stated that it had been "influenced" (# 9.4)

NOTE that,...surprise, surprise, in its 22.08.08 'response' to my 01.07.08 Request for information, KPMG repeated the lie by stating: "KPMG has done nothing other than treat you fairly" (# 15.2).

(3)- As is glaringly obvious under sections 9.1 to 9.7 - the so-called "independent" Kathy Woodhouse read from the same script that had been used by Hughes. Hence, the assertion is FALSE.

(4)- "taking my concerns seriously" - FALSE - I repeat my references under Comment 2 to the # 9 sections.

(5)- LIE - "denial of wanting me to leave KPMG" - Considering my so-called 'appraisal' - added to the other forms of ongoing criminal psychological harassment from Feb 07 onwards: the message was loud and clear.

As I discuss under # 10.2, above, Bassett et.al. in KPMG and their mates in 'the Brotherhood' were counting on the consideration of my age as giving them a freehand to abuse me at will.

(6)- FALSE - I did not receive "a pay rise". (7)- As to "[my] bonus", it was lower than in previous years: para.31 of my 03.04.08 Claim.

Hence: I did suffer detriment as a consequence of the (very sick) fabrications against me.

(8)- LIE - "denial of not taking the relevant factors into consideration during my appraisal" - I repeat my references under Comment 2, above.

Look at the evidence.

Listen to the recordings (section 8.1 ; section 9.1).

Read the transcripts (9 Oct 07 ; 24 Oct 07).

WHO IS LYING: KPMG OR I?

(9)- LIE - "denial of fabricating failings against me" - I repeat my above # 8 Comments.

(10)- FALSE - Considering what took place with Hughes, Bassett and Woodhouse (references under Comment 2, above) - does it look to you as though:

  • the 10 week wait "waiting to hear from HR" (# 8);
  • the change of 'appraisers' (# 8.4)...

...- amounted to "differences in the process conducted to my advantage"?

And, (11) that I "did not suffer any detriment as a result"?

See my (below) (# 11) overall assessment of 'the response' to my Grievance, from Peter Terry, KPMG partner - as it is equally applicable in the case of KPMG's Naomi Crossman's pack of lies Defence - including the above.

Back to sections

 

(10) - My exit out of KPMG

 

(10.1) - Confirmation in Nov 07 that what I had said during the 24 Oct meeting had been ignored – was the last straw; no way was I going to agree to this fabricated ‘assessment’.

As punishment, I was totally marginalised by Ceri Hughes, and consequently saw no point going to work - which prompted Hughes et.al. to send me a threatening letter, ensuring that ‘Dear Mr Ladsky' would get hold of it.

Going through absolute agony and, concluding that a solicitor I was consulting was batting for KPMG, in December, I had off-the-record meetings with partners outside of my group. I was told to take compassionate leave until the next meeting in early Jan 08.

Two days after the 24 Oct 07 meeting (# 9.1 to # 9.7, above) a 26.10.07 policy email, stated: “Your partner will have spoken to you about your salary (effective from 1 October 2007) and any bonus; the information is available online”. Of course, nobody had spoken to me about that.

It was followed by a 30.10.07 policy email, that the “goal completion deadline has been extended to 16 November 2007

In my 07.11.07-09h53 email to Peter Bassett et.al., I asked why, 2 weeks on, my appraisal form had not yet been returned to me.

I also highlighted the fact that: (1)- Ceri Hughes had put my name against some projects for 2007-08, without my being informed of, what she had described as “lots of changes having taken place” – thereby “confirming my point: I have missed out on communication”; (2)- my goals for the new year had not even been set.

(In my 22.11.07-11h44 email to Hughes, in response to her asking me to contact the industries, I repeated the fact (I had also emphasised in my 21.11.07-12h24 email to her) that I had not received any communication on the industries). (I followed up on the actions I proposed to take, in my 28.11.07-12h24 email. I had no follow-up).

My form was returned to me the day after my chaser email to Bassett: 08.11.07-10h28 automated message.

Seeing that the rating (# 9.7, above) had remained unchanged (pg 24 of my form) i.e. that what I had said during the 24 Oct 07 meeting (# 9.1 to # 9.7) had been ignored – was the last straw

No way was I going to let myself be treated in that way by accepting this fabricated ‘assessment’.

To ask me to endorse the form was, for me, like asking an individual to plead guilty to a crime s/he has not committed – and, as a result, end-up being falsely imprisoned.

Peter Bassett chased my endorsement of the form: 15.11.07 and 25.11.07 emails – to which I replied that “I was considering my reply”; then, that I would be returning it the following week.

During that time I was going through absolute agony. Because of the ‘huge amount of credit’ KPMG had accumulated in my esteem since joining the firm in 1997, I could not bring myself to face the facts.

In Nov 07, I saw a solicitor I had contacted in July 07, following KPMG's stonewalling me in relation to my Subject Access Request (# 7, above). Surprise, surprise: he ended up batting for KPMG! (Persecution # 3.1(1)(1)). "Fantastically corrupt" Britain indeed!

In an attempt to get clarity and objectivity on my perceptions, I spent 4 days developing a draft in which I captured what had taken place. (Which became my Grievance - # 10.2, below).

In early Dec, I set-up an ‘off the record’ meeting with a partner outside of my group to discuss my dilemma: I assessed the situation as “very serious” but, because KPMG had been so supportive of me in the past, I did not want to kick-start a formal grievance procedure process. I wanted to stay at KPMG, but my situation in my group had become untenable.

On 5 Dec 07, I explained, to Ceri Hughes, the reason for the delay in returning the form on the system – and asked her to inform Bassett of this.

Unable to set a meeting with another recommended partner until mid-Dec, I felt in a state of limbo, not knowing what to say to Hughes and Bassett, as I did not know what the outcome of the meeting would be, and what I was going to do.

I could not face going to the office, as I had nothing to do. Indeed, from c. mid November, I found myself being totally marginalised e.g. my 21.11.07-12h24 email to Hughes that my offers of help to various individuals were not taken up.

Practically a whole week went by without my receiving any direct / indirect communication from Hughes = punishment for ‘my daring’ to not swallow the poisoned pill.

On 12th Dec, as I waiting for the partner to phone me, Hughes phoned me to ask if I was unwell. I replied that I was not, and was waiting to hear from a partner, and could not say anymore than that.

Aside from not wanting to discuss my off-the-record conversation, I did not want to say that I felt very distraught, lost, confused, and abandoned. (Bassett and Hughes would have enjoyed seeing me suffer).

When I went to the office (this section is # 10.1), I found a 14.12.07-11h30 email 'from' Hughes to which she attached a letter

(given the content = my conclusion: from Jeanette Dunworth, HR e.g. the 24 Apr 07 letter, # 4.2, above) containing numerous threats; (bar the last sentence, all written in one paragraph - all reproduced below):

“You have not requested holiday and as far as I am aware there is no legitimate reason for your recent absence from work." (1)

"To be absolutely clear, the fact that you are being advised by someone in KPMG about work matters of concern to you and are waiting to hear back from them is not a valid reason for your recent absence from work and you are required to return to work immediately."

"Unauthorised absence from work is a serious matter and can lead to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal." (2)

"We may also withhold your salary for the period of your unauthorised absence."

"It is therefore in your best interests to return to work without further delay [3], at which point I will arrange a meeting for you and Peter Bassett to discuss your conduct over recent weeks." (4)

"You will be given every opportunity to explain your absence [5] and can bring a colleague with you, if you wish, to provide support." (6)

"In the meantime, if you have any queries please contact Jeanette Dunworth or Kathy Woodhouse.” (7)

(1)- "no legitimate reason for your absence from work"...

...because what I have done to you recently (all the entries under # 8), and what Peter Bassett, Kathy Woodhouse and Jeanette Dunworth did to you, also recently (all the entries under # 9)...

...- 'is perfectly acceptable; that's the KPMG Way!' That's our interpretation of the KPMG Values...for which we have top level endorsement!'

Also, how dare you deprive us of the opportunity to see you in a terrible state - demonstrating that our actions have hit you really hard? (We, and the 'dear brothers' we communicated this to, had so enjoyed seeing you sobbing uncontrollably at your desk for the best of Apr 07).

(2)- "Unauthorised absence from work is a serious matter and can lead to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal."

Unlike your sadistic, wanton conduct Ceri Hughes, 'KPMG Director' - and highly cruel and vicious henchwoman?

  • all the entries under # 4 re my being cut off from the network and the internet, and unable to do my work;
  • determined to assist Bassett et.al. in KPMG and 'Brotherhood' very sinister Machiavellian plan: # 5.2, your picking up the baton in your portraying me as 'suffering from mental issues': # 5.1;
  • all the entries under # 6 re. other forms of psychological harassment - for which you were the key implementer, including assisting the persecution against me by reporting on my movements and prying into my personal life- # 6.3;
  • all the entries under # 8 re. part 1 of my so-called 'performance appraisal' - and your following the script by refusing to acknowledge what had been done against me, and fabricating false, malicious, vicious 'failings' and accusations against me;
  • the information you fed for all the entries under # 9 re. part 2.

(3)- "your best interests" - Translation: 'our best interest'. I repeat the 2nd part of Comment # 1, above.

(4)- "I will arrange a meeting for you and Peter Bassett to discuss your conduct over recent weeks"

Oh dear, Oh dear! 'My daring' to challenge the way I was being treated, followed by 'my daring' to not swallow the poisoned pill.

And WHO will discuss your conduct, Ceri Hughes - and the equally ruthless and sadistic conduct of Peter Bassett, partner, kingpin executioner:

  • his unbelievably underhanded handling of the 13 Feb 07 meeting: # 3.1 ; # 3.2 ; # 3.3;
  • ensuring that I was (criminally) cut-off from ALL the internal sites for 24 days, and unable to do my work: # 4 - in order to get sadistic kicks from seeing me sobbing uncontrollably at my desk: # 4.1;
  • his being very clearly behind other forms of psychological harassment: # 6;
  • his being very clearly behind what you and Dunworth did to me in relation to my so-called 'performance appraisal': all the entries under # 8 ; # 9;
  • continuing with the concocted script of false, vicious and perverse accusations against me during part 2 of my so-called 'performance appraisal': all the entries under # 9.

And, no doubt, Bassett was also involved in the subsequent, equally morally repugnant, gutter tactic events - starting with this letter 'from' you.

(5)- "You will be given every opportunity to explain your absence"

Translation: 'which, as in the case of your 'performance appraisal' (# 8 and # 9), we will totally ignore - because we know that we won't want to hear what you have to say'.

(6)- "can bring a colleague with you, if you wish, to provide support"

Trying to make up for the 13 Feb 07 (# 3.1) and 30 Mar 07 (# 3.4) meetings?

And 'perhaps' recommending that I use 'my colleague', Finbarr Geaney (# 9.4)?

(7)- "contact Jeanette Dunworth [HR] " - The other highly vicious henchwoman who would have continued to ignore me totally - as:

  • when I told her (and Bassett), at the 30 Mar 07 meeting (she led) that Ladsky's accusations (she did not show me) - were false, she ignored what I said: # 3.4; she then failed to ensure I was issued with notes of the meeting: # 3.4;
  • having also failed to ensure that notes of the 13 Feb 07 meeting: # 3.1, were issued: # 3.3 - when I issued my Draft Notes, she did not provide any feedback, giving Bassett a freehand to falsely deny them: # 3.2;
  • when, as a result of her key part, I was cut off from all the network for 24 days, and reported my plight endlessly, including to her - she just sat back and enjoyed the show: # 4 ; # 4.1 - and then issued a letter for me to sign 'agreeing' to be barred from using the internet: # 4.2;
  • when, in the background, determined to assist Bassett et.al. in KPMG and 'Brotherhood' very sinister Machiavellian plan: # 5.2, she kept having 'health services' thrown at me - in spite of my stating very clearly at the 13 Feb 07 meeting that I did not want to use them: # 5;
  • ...and continued to do so for the 24 Oct 07 meeting: # 9.1 - in spite of my 15.10.07 email to her: # 9 - and of her having first claimed re. the latter, that she wanted to ensure "a fair and independent assessment of your performance": # 9...
  • ...she had preceded by holding on to my form for more than 2 months: # 8 - in the process causing me endless anguish, as I could see from the policy emails that I was missing the deadlines for the completion of the appraisal process and goal setting.

"or Kathy Woodhouse" - for another round of:

  • "It has not been a good year for you";
  • "You've had a really, really difficult year";
  • "Quite honestly, I think, you know, this year it has been tough", etc. (from # 9.1 to # 9.7)?

No thanks; 9 times was more than enough! (summarised in my Comments on 25.10.07-08h30 email from Bassett / my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS).

Hughes said to have sent me the letter on that day. I never received it – because, in spite of my ensuring that my employee file stated that ALL correspondence needed to be sent to my PO Box (Reason - Persecution # 3.2) – Hughes had sent it to my home address. WHY?

So that ‘‘Dear Mr Ladsky', for whom Hughes, Peter Bassett, Jeanette Dunworth, Kathy Woodhouse, KPMG ‘health services’, IT services et.al. at KPMG had fallen over backwards to help since early 2007, could intercept the letter and see that KPMG was more than ever on his side, determined to assist him in any way it could, including not relenting on the criminal psychological harassment.

Back to sections

(10.2) - In early Jan 08, KPMG made me a verbal offer of a measly £62,000 (US$109,000). I did not take it, naïvely assuming that the partnership did not have knowledge of what had actually taken place.

To communicate events, I filed a 17.01.08 Grievance. As I was writing it, I concluded that I could no longer allow myself to be subjected to horrendous, abusive treatment – and resigned at the end of Jan 08 - under Constructive Dismissal.

In mid-Dec 07, when I had an off-the-record meeting with a partner outside of my group (# 10.1, above), I said that it was clear to me that, in spite of denying it, KPMG wanted me to leave, and that I expected compensation for constructive dismissal:

(At the time) Section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act; extracts from a case:

Constructive dismissals: Where the employee resigns because of the employer’s conduct. Where the employee believes that the employer is victimising them for reasons other than their conduct or ability to do their job properly.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT): In a constructive dismissal case the Tribunal should consider the question of whether an employer had reasonable and proper cause for its conduct before going on to consider whether the conduct complained of was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the employer/employee relationship of trust and confidence.

In early Jan 08, the partner told me that KPMG was prepared to pay me £62,000 (US$109,000), which "include[d] an ex-gratia payment’. The total sum would be tax free." I replied that I would think about it.

Perceiving this sum as measly, I naïvely assumed that the partnership did not have knowledge of what had actually taken place.

Due to lack of experience, at the time, I had not realised that it ‘appeared’ to be the maximum compensation awarded by an Employment Tribunal. (NB: Subsequently, ACAS quoted me the sum of £68,000 - # 16, below).

To me, this amount in no way compensated me for the 11 months of horrendous, absolute sheer utter hell I had been made to endure (since the 13 Feb 07 meeting - # 3.1).

Further, I also knew that, because of that extremely traumatic, life-destroying experience, psychologically, I would not be able to work in the United Kingdom ever again. Which is what happened - eventually forcing me to take early retirement.

(It took me more than 2 years before I managed to force myself to set foot again in the City (business district), and 5 years before I could go to Canary Wharf, where I last worked).

Furthermore, there was the consideration of my age: I was 8 years from retirement.

I submit that this was a key factor on which Peter Bassettet.al. in KPMG and their mates in 'the Brotherhood' – were counting on to make me swallow their poisoned pill (above: # 9.1 ; # 9.7) - that would then have given them endless opportunities to add to their sadistic kicks by continuing to make me suffer to their (extremely rotten) heart's content.

(More detail on my assessment of my situation - at the time - in my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS (# 16), under: 2. Conclusions, and 3. Settlement).

On 9 Jan, I phoned the partner to say that I would be filing a grievance. On 17 Jan 08, I handed him my 17.01.08 Grievance (as well as posted him a copy by Recorded Delivery on the same day).

When I started to write it, I wanted to stay at KPMG. However, by the time I finished writing it, I had to face reality: I could no longer allow myself to be subjected to this horrendous, abusive treatment. The torment I went through in making the decision is obvious from the document.

In the summary of my (well documented and extensively supported) 17.01.08 Grievance - I wrote:

Events demonstrate that KPMG wants me to leave and that, instead of saying it, resorted to highly underhanded tactics to force me to leave. This causes me to feel a breach of trust and confidence.

The outcome of my performance appraisal [# 9.7, above] is the ‘last straw’. I can no longer allow myself to be subjected to abuse, and believe that the situation allows me to consider myself as having been constructively dismissed

I concluded with: “I intend to pursue compensation for my anticipated financial loss”.

I refer to my 17.01.08 Grievance extensively on this page.

See below, # 11, for the 'follow-up' to my Grievance.

In its 24.01.08 letter, KPMG HR - stated that:

it was "not in receipt of a resignation letter from you; you have not terminated your employment contract with KPMG""

"you have been on special paid leave since 18th December 2007."

"Without responding in detail to the content of your complaint, KPMG does not believe that you have been constructively dismissed whilst you remain in employment with KPMG."

"...if you wish to continue to assert that you have been constructively dismissed then please confirm that your intention was to resign when submitting your written complaint..."

It then asked whether I wanted "KPMG to investigate [my] complaint under the modified grievance procedure"

On 29 Jan 08, I phoned to confirm that I had resigned under constructive dismissal. As to the grievance procedure, I said that while I had captured comprehensive details in my grievance, I was happy to come and talk to KPMG.

HR confirmed the conversation in its 01.02.08 letter, and that

an investigating officer will be appointed and will contact me.”

In my 05.02.08 letter, I confirmed I had resigned under constructive dismissal.

Back to sections

 

(11) - In relation to my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 10.2), KPMG continued to engage in its typically underhanded tactics – this time with the objective of making me miss the 3-month deadline for filling a Claim (# 12).

Following the appointment of an "investigating officer" who went immediately on a 3-week holiday, KPMG then claimed that I was “on garden leave for 3 months”.

Accepting that I was not, it then went into silent mode until a one-page 22.05.08 letter from Peter Terry, partner, in which, betting on the assumption that I had not recorded conversations, using lies, he dismissed his 'selected parts' of my Grievance - preceding them with a wholesale rejection.

 

(1 of 11) - The games played by KPMG's Human Resources

Following KPMG HR’s (above) 1 Feb 08 letter that it was appointing “an investigating officer who will contact me”, on 8 Feb…

…I received a 06.02.08 letter from Nick Northcott, Assistant HR manager – stating:

Following your letter dated 17 January 2008,…, I would like to confirm that I have been appointed as Investigating Officer into your complaint.

I will be in touch with you shortly to arrange a time for us to meet and go through your complaint in detail

In the afternoon of Friday 8 Feb, Northcott left a voicemail on my mobile at 14h30, asking me to phone him, and gave me his mobile number.

First thing on Monday 11 Feb, I phoned him on his mobile and left a message asking him to phone me back. I repeated the same thing in the afternoon, as I had not heard back from him.

Same thing on Tuesday 12 Feb, morning. I then phoned him on his landline number and got the following message: “8 February. I am on annual leave until 27 February” (!!!)

It went on to suggest an alternative contact, I was, likewise, unable to contact, and for whom I left a voice message.

As the person did not return my call, by the end of the end of the day, I sent this 12.02.08 letter to the partner I had spoken to in early January, in which I explained events, and asked for an explanation.

In his 13.02.08 reply, the partner informed me that an Hannah-Maria Pateman, HR, would be contacting me. Also, that a Lynsey Dalvarez had sent me a letter on 11 Feb.

The 11.02.08 letter from Lynsey Dalvarez, senior human resources assistant - stated, among other:

"confirmation of my resignation date of 17 January 2008".

"You will be place on Garden Leave from the date of your resignation [*], and you will not be required to attend the office for the remainder of your notice period."

"You will continue to receive your salary and other contractual benefits until your final date i.e. 17 April 2008." (*)

"...up until 17 April 2008 you will remain an employee of KPMG and subject to your terms and conditions of employment, in particular therefore, as an employee, you are not free to begin employment elsewhere or compete against the Firm, or act in any way contrary to the Firm's interest." (*)

(*)- A trick intended to stop me from filing a claim, as the deadline was 3 months i.e. 16 Apr 08.

Returning a call from Hannah-Maria Pateman who had been given my above 12 Feb letter, I told her that I was not on garden leave as I had resigned on the ground that I perceived KPMG to have committed a fundamental breach of my contract of employment i.e. constructive dismissal. Consequently, I had not given a 3-month notice.

(I had been cramming in as much as I could on employment legislation. After my experience with the solicitor in Nov 07 (added to my experience in 2003-04 with other solicitors, and with a barrister), I knew that there was absolutely no point my contacting another solicitor).

I told Pateman that I needed to research the difference between the grievance procedures, and would get back to her. Following more desk research, and keeping my fingers tightly crossed that I was opting for the right option (re. then being able to file a claim within the 3-month deadline, if necessary), I told her that I was opting for a modified grievance procedure.

Pateman confirmed the conversation in her 20.02.08 letter to me. She also stated that KPMG "will not seek to recover payment made to you in error for the period 18 to 31 January 2008".

In my 22.02.08 letter to her, I confirmed what had been agreed. I also re-extended my offer of meeting with KPMG to discuss my Grievance, even though I was not required to do so under the modified grievance procedure.

(NOTE to those who might currently be in the situation I was in: (1)- I am not a lawyer; (2)- this was 8 years ago). (I also wish you the very best of good luck).

Back to sections

(2 of 11) - After the above, KPMG went into silent mode - with its next letter to me being its 'reply' to my Grievance.

Having run out of tricks, KPMG went into silent mode (as I reported under para.2 of my 03.04.08 Claim).

It's a typical Establishment's tactic. It was following the example of e.g. the West London County Court - Ladsky and Portner & Jaskel mafia that had recently gone into silent mode for 3 months, until Jan 08 (WLCC # 15).

Other examples: (1)- 'my' then MP, Malcolm Rifkind who did the same thing following my challenging him; followed by (2)- the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the then Ann Abraham - for the same reason.

Back to sections

(3 of 11) - Betting on the assumption that I had not recorded conversations (KPMG had enlisted my doctor to ask me (# 13)),..

...4 months after I submitted my 17.01.08 Grievance, (# 10.2, above)...

...in his 22.05.08 one-page ‘reply’ (includes my Comments) to his 'selected parts' of my Grievance - preceded by a wholesale rejection - KPMG partner, Peter Terry - stated:

it has been decided that your grievance should not be upheld

You felt that KPMG had used "underhand" tactics to force you out of the firm(1)

You believed KPMG had monitored you inside [2] and outside work [3], including your IT use(4)

You alleged you had been bullied, harassed and victimised by KPMG(5)

1. “We feel that there is no evidence to suggest that KPMG bullied, harassed or victimised you(5)

2. “We feel that KPMG went to great lengths to support you during your personal difficulties(6)

"We feel that KPMG was indeed right to restrict your internet access due to you contravening the firms IT policy(7)

We also believe that KPMG should have it made it more clear to you that the only reason you did not face disciplinary action [8] was their overriding concern for your health and wellbeing(9)

You felt you were stonewalled by KPMG, particularly in respect to your data subject access request(10)

We feel that the firm was acting in accordance with its legal duties and responded correctly in respect to the data subject access request.” (11)

"we have highlighted a couple of learning points to HR in respect to the withdrawal of your internet access(12)

We have recommended that in future cases the technical issues of restricting access are explored prior to withdrawing an individual's access(13)

(1)- "underhand tactics to force me to leave" - Captured under Header 7 of my 17.01.08 Grievance.

Not addressed in 'the response'. Absolutely! It started with the 13 Feb 07 meeting (# 3, above).

(2)- "KPMG monitored you inside work" - Header 9 of my Grievance.

Absolutely! Above, # 5 and # 6.3.

(3)- "outside of work" - I did not say that. Under Header 9.3 of my 17.01.08 Grievance, I reported “an obsession with what I do outside of work” - # 8.4.

However, I did state that KPMG was monitoring my website (# 3.4, above): Header 9.2 of Grievance. What I did not reveal (and knew from Mar 07) were McGrigors' visits to my website.

(4)- "including your IT use" - Header 9.1 of my Grievance. Absolutely! # 6.2.

And the response to all of the above? None!

Also, why have these as the 2nd point (I placed them at the end of my Grievance) when there were far more important points to be addressed? Because it was taking place!

(5)- “there is no evidence to suggest that KPMG bullied, harassed and victimised you

FALSE - In my 17.01.08 Grievance, I used these terms in the Summary, and under Headers 4.4, 4.5, 6, 6.3, 6.4, 7 and 9 – reporting events that very clearly endorsed my assessment.

When you look at what I reported in my Grievance, and captured on this page: it is an absolutely - undeniable - fact that KPMG did this to me.

KPMG repeated the same LIE under para.4 of its pack of lies Defence.

(6)- "KPMG went to great lengths to support you during your personal difficulties"

FALSE - KPMG repeated this lie under paras 4(a), 11 and 12(a) of its pack of lies Defence (extracts under # 3.3 Comment 5(B))

= KPMG continuing with its sinister Machiavellian cover-up plan: # 3.3, Comment 5(A) ; # 8.1, lines 66-79 ; # 9.1, including lines 768-772 ; # 9.4, entailing fabricating a so-called ‘feedback’ on my performance.

For my assessment of KPMG's so-called "support": see # 5, above.

(7)- "KPMG was right to restrict your internet access due to you contravening the firm's IT policy"

KPMG repeated this under paras 4(b) and 7 of its pack of lies Defence.

FALSEAs a cover-up ploy, KPMG is mixing deliberately the 13 Feb 07 meeting (# 3.2) with the 30 Mar 07 meeting (# 3.4) – as the latter had nothing to do with its “IT systems”.

My use of IT was raised at the 13 Feb 07 meeting - NOT at the 30 Mar 07 meeting.

As to the 13 Feb 07 meeting, during which my use of "KPMG's IT systems" was raised, as discussed under # 3.2, Comment 5 - what I did most definitely did not warrant cutting off my access... 6 weeks later (!!!) - to the internet...

...as well as to ALL the internal sites for 24 days (# 4), and then making me sign a letter 'agreeing' to be barred from using the internet (# 4.2).

Note that following my 01.07 08 Subject Access Request (# 15.1), KPMG refused to provide me with the evidence in support of its accusation - # 3.2, Comment 3.

As to "restricting your internet access" - Translation: cutting me off from the entire network for 24 days - # 4.

(8)- "should have made it more clear to you, could have faced disciplinary action"

It had been communicated: (1)- I had captured it in my Draft Notes of the 13 Feb 07 meeting (# 3.2) ; (2)- Bassett had communicated this in 'his' 7 Mar 07 email - # 3.2, Comment # 5 and Comment # 6.

Of note: with the aim of 'justifying' its actions, by the time of its Defence, KPMG had escalated it to: "could potentially lead to dismissal" - # 3.4.

(9)- When you look at what KPMG did to me over a 10-month period, it is glaringly obvious that it was notconcerned about [my] health and wellbeing”.

I repeat my Comments under # 5.2, above.

The ploy in stating that was to endorse its very sinister Machiavellian plan of putting the responsibility on me for the way I felt from Mar 07 onwards – as a direct result of the actions it took against me.

(10)- "KPMG stonewalled you re. [my] Subject Access Request" - Absolutely! # 7, above.

(11)- "the firm was acting in accordance with its legal duties and responded correctly"

FALSE - It did not: # 7, Comment 3. (And nor did it one year later re. my other SAR: # 15.1)

NOTE that KPMG repeated the same lies under paras 8 and 12(c) of its pack of lies Defence - extracts under # 7.

(12)- "a couple of learning points to HR in respect to the withdrawal of your internet access"

= Taking any opportunity to continue with the criminal psychological harassment regime - and to have a good laugh.

"To HR" - It was Peter Bassett, Global Advisory Executive partner, and Human Resources partner for my group who was dictating the moves to Jeanette Dunworth, HR (and to Ceri Hughes) .

Re. Dunworth, I repeat my Comments under # 10.1 Comment 7.

(13)- "recommended in future cases technical issues of restricting access are explored prior to withdrawing an individual's access"

= Continuing to use the lie (that would also look good in its Defence against my Claim) that what happened was ‘not KPMG's fault’ e.g. Bassett's email of 24 Apr 07 (# 4.2).

Note also Ceri Hughes' comment on 9 Oct 07: "It was a mistake" - # 8.1.

And, ‘of course’, KPMG ‘had to cut off my access’, ‘because I had, of course, committed a very serious breach’! (Comment 8, above)

Peter Terry could have added: 'unless we are dealing with somebody like you – as it was extremely satisfying to see you sobbing uncontrollably at your desk for the best of Apr 07' (# 4.1).

 

The explanation for the 4-month delay in 'responding' to my Grievance?

See the made-up excuses from KPMG's Naomi Crossman - in her:

Back to sections

(11.1) - My overall assessment of KPMG's 'response' to my Grievance, and of its subsequent main documents.

 

Overall conclusion on Peter Terry's 'response' to my 17.01.08 Grievance: lies wrapped up in this overall message (*):

(*) Applies also to KPMG's subsequent documents:

Just as well that

KPMG [had] a policy of ensuring that work-related grievances are treated in a fair and equitable manner”!

 

ALL the above documents will have been reviewed and endorsed by senior-level partners.

I cite them as additional support to my assessment that KPMG is vicariously liable for the actions taken against me.

YEP! That’s the KPMG that also summarised its 'Values' as: "Above all, we act with integrity"...and was voted ‘The Best Company to Work For’. (Yes, in 2006, I helped it gain this rating).

That's how it behaves when it bets (after attempting to ensure that it is safe to do so) on there not being very damning evidence against it.

No wonder KPMG hooked up with thoroughly evil, multi-criminal Rachman vermin Andrew David Ladsky from the gutter - and that it joined the other 'brothers' in actively assisting him and protecting him..

'Birds of a feather flock together'!

(It’s very crowded in that "fantastically corrupt", bottomless cesspit of moral depravation in which many from the English Establishment and their hangers-on and cronies reside with their henchmen, henchwomen and flunkies).

Back to sections

 

(12) - As KPMG had gone into silent mode since Feb 07, within the 3-month deadline, I filed my 03.04.08 Claim against KPMG in Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal.

My 03.04.08 Claim contained 5 pages of Particulars in which I captured the main events related on this page (as well as contained in my 17.01.08 Grievance - # 10.2, above).

In its 08.04.08 acknowledgment, the Stratford Employment Tribunal provided me with a case number (3200936/2008). It also stated:

"...also sent a copy of your claim to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) [# 16]..."

"The Conciliation Officer's duty to conciliate in these proceedings lasts until 08/07/2008..." (*)

(*) A 13-week period - "the standard conciliation period” - tribunal Rule 22(6)

Back to sections

 

(13) - KPMG was so concerned about the evidence I had in support of my Claim that it / on its behalf, its ‘brothers’, approached my private doctor to get him to:

(1)- ask me whether I had “recorded [my] conversations at KPMG”;

(2)- refuse my request for a referral to a psychiatrist for the purpose of mitigating my loss.

In May 08, the colluding and conspiring had extended to the psychiatrist I had found through a contact, as he had very clearly been tasked with ensuring that I would be ‘put out of action’. (Another one who stood to benefit from it was Ladsky re. his 2nd fraudulent claim against me).

 

(1 of 13) - My private doctor

KPMG was so concerned about the evidence I had in support of my Claim (# 12, above) that it / on its behalf, its 'brothers': Andrew David Ladsky / others in the Jewish-Freemason 'Brotherhood'...

...approached my (then) private doctor (of 37 years) who is Jewish, 'like Ladsky et.al. in his gang') to:

  • get him to lie I had not seen him one year previously, when he had prescribed me an anti-depressant and tranquilisers: my 10.04.08 letter to him,...
  • ...he then used as an excuse to not give me a referral to a psychiatrist – for the purpose of ‘mitigating my loss’ in relation to my Claim against KPMG.

He had preceded this by telling me: “You should not have filed a claim against KPMG”. What did it have to do with him?

What took place is discussed in more detail in My Diary 2009 - 1 of 3.

I reported the above in e.g. my 05.08.08 letter to ACAS (# 16), line 94 to my Comments after line 129.

The motive behind doing this?

So that KPMG could then 'safely' deny my claims:

Er...Yes: when I was there, KPMG summarised its 'Values' as: 'Above all, we act with integrity'!

(2 of 13) - The psychiatrist

One month after I saw 'my' doctor, in May 08, the colluding and conspiring then extended to the psychiatrist I had found through a contact.

As discussed in My Diary 2009 - 2 of 3, within less than half-an-hour of the 'consultation', he 'recommended' that I "[I] should immediately book [myself] in a clinic for two weeks" (my 11.05.08 letter to him)...

...thereby continuing to pursue the 2007 objective I discuss under # 5.2 and # 5.1 - and in relation to which, at the time, Andrew David Ladsky was, of course, also adding his "contribution" e.g.

My being locked up and, no doubt, drugged (e.g. Secret prisoners) (and 'perhaps' even killed: e.g. the death threats (Extracts from Psychological harassment - Header 1.13) ...e.g. 'as a result of a bad reaction to a drug') would have benefited:

The upshot of it all was that I had not found a doctor to assist me in mitigating my loss in relation to my Claim against KPMG.

TWO thoroughly rotten, corrupt ones (*), one of whom had been my doctor for 37 years (!!!) - led me to the obvious conclusion that there was no point my looking for somebody else.

= The prospects looked good for KPMG...and continued to do so: # 14 ; # 16.

(*) A not infrequent occurrence in the English medical sector - in "fantastically corrupt" Britain (other examples under # 5.2, above).

Back to sections

(14) - Granting itself an additional 3-week extension, on top of the 21 days allowed by the tribunal, in its undated (posted 17 Jun 08) and unsigned Defence, KPMG continued to bet on the assumption that I had not recorded conversations.

Using a litany of lies, as well as failing to address some highly material events, KPMG's lawyer Naomi Crossman demanded that my Claim be “struck out”...and concurrently escaped a Default judgment order.

 

(1 of 14) - The 6-week extension

In her 30.04.08 application to the tribunal, KPMG's Naomi Crossman stated:

"Our response [to my Claim - # 12 ] is therefore due to be presented on or before 6th May 2008."

"KPMG is unable to comply with the 28-day time limit because the internal grievance procedure has not yet been concluded" (1)

- giving as "reasons: the length of the grievance letter (26 closely typed pages) [2]; the number and complexity of issues raised [3]; witnesses' availability; investigating officer's holiday." (4)

"...the issues in the grievance are the same as those set out in Ms Noëlle Rawé claim."[5] "Therefore, the outcome of the grievance will be directly relevant to our response."

"...therefore [asking] for the time limit for [our] response to be extended to 27th May 2008" (6)

(1)- Tribunal Rule 4 - 28 days to respond; the tribunal's 08.04.08 acknowledgment of my Claim also stated the 28-day deadline.

As KPMG was served on 8 Apr 08, its 28-day deadline for responding to my Claim was 6 May 08.

(2)- My objective was to provide comprehensive, detailed evidence, thereby limiting the need to research events...but my evidence was totally ignored!

(3)- "the complexity of the issues raised" - As can be seen from: (1)- KPMG's 22.05.08 'response' to my Grievance (# 11, above); (2)- its undated Defence to my Claim (below), KPMG certainly did not get bugged down by "the complexity of the issues".

There was nothing "complex" in what took place. It is called criminal psychological harassment.

NOTE that Naomi Crossman repeated this:

(4)- "investigating officer's holiday" - KPMG appointed somebody who went immediately on a 3-week holiday (!!!) (# 11, above).

As can be seen from the various letters reported on this page, there certainly was no shortage of staff in KPMG's HR. The underhanded tactics that KPMG used. Unbelievable!

(5)- I stated "the same issues in [my] grievance and in [my] claim" - Surprise, surprise!

Had you acted on my Grievance KPMG, you could have avoided my Claim...and the whole of this page.

(6)- "extend time limit for response to 27th May 2008" = Asking for a 21-day extension. In its 07.05.08 correspondence, the tribunal granted it the extension.

In actual fact - in breach of tribunal Rule 18 - KPMG allowed itself an additional 3 weeks - bringing the total to an extra 6 weeks, as Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal sent me KPMG's - undated, and unsigned - Defence with its '16.06.08' letter -...

...posted the following day, day on which it received my 16.06.08 letter (proof of delivery at the back of the letter) reporting the delay (it was a chaser letter, as I had already raised this in my 08.06.08 letter to the tribunal)...

...- and quoted the implications: the breach of tribunal 'Rule 8 - Default judgment' ; 'Rule 9 - Respondent taking no further part in the proceedings'. (see # 16, below, for detail)

Of course, in line with my [very extensive] experience with the judicial system of this island-kingdom: it was ignored!

The sequence of events also raises some interesting questions as to WHY KPMG did not date its Defence (an issue I raised in my 22.06.08 letter to the tribunal).

(No, aside from my letters, I did not make an application (Rule 11). However, there is Rule 10, "the chairman / judge can make an order on his own initiative"

= Another judge in my case (kangaroo courts), this time Judge Haynes, who suffered from a sudden attack of extreme blindness, as well as amnesia about the rule of law).

Hence, KPMG took 68 days to 'respond' to my Claim... and escaped a Default judgment order!

Back to sections

(2 of 14) - In her undated (posted 17 Jun 08) and unsigned Defence (includes my Comments) - KPMG's lawyer, Naomi Crossman, rejected my 03.04.08 Claim, demanding that it be “struck out".

In the process she:

(1)- continued with, as well as added to the litany of lies in Peter Terry's 22.05.08 ‘reply’ to my 17.01.08 Grievance (# 11);

(2)- failed to address some highly material events.

 

In her undated pack of lies Defence to my 03.04.08 Claim (# 12) - KPMG's Naomi Crossman stated:

"Summary - The Respondent denies that the Claimant was constructively dismissed [1] and further denies any victimisation or harassment against the Claimant." (1)

"The Respondent denies that its actions in respect of the Claimant amounted to a fundamental breach of the employment contact entitling her to resign and claim constructive dismissal.” (1) (2)

"Para.13 - The Respondent avers that the claimant was not constructively dismissed and no compensation is due." (1)

“…the Respondent believes that the Claimant has no reasonable prospect of success and therefore her claim should be struck-out(3)

(1) - (2) - Consider these assertions against: (1)- the evidence contained on this page; (2)- the legal definition of 'constructive dismissal'.

(3)- From Civil Procedure Rules 24.2 (Practice Direction): “claim struck out; no reasonable prospect of success”.

The summary judgment tactic – to 'support’ a litany lies - is a typical response from the "fantastically corrupt", morally depraved English Establishment when faced with a legitimate claim detailing its illegal actions

…– because it perceives 'the little people' ‘like me’, as non-entities who do not have the right to have rights – there to be used, abused and tormented - at will – by ALL of them (Overview # 19).

Hence, KPMG joined the rank of the following who did the same thing in relation to my - equally legitimate - 19.04.11 Claim in the Queen’s Bench Division:

KPMG also joined the rank with Andrew Ladsky’s solicitor, Ayesha Salim, CKFT, who filed an Application for summary judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder) that was, likewise, a web of lies (CKFT # 6.6).

I repeat my Comments under # 12, above.

Other extracts from KPMG's Naomi Crossman undated pack of lies Defence (to which I have attached my Comments), are contained throughout this page.

Back to sections

 

(15) - My asking KPMG for information to assist ACAS' so-called 'negotiation process' - was the cue for KPMG to continue with its morally repugnant conduct.

In its 08.04.08 acknowledgement of my 03.04.08 Claim against KPMG (# 12), Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal (# 16) stated that it had "sent a copy of my Claim to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS)" (# 16)

As KPMG had (through a litany of lies) rejected 'its selected parts' of my documents it had 'decided' 'to respond to':

while not supplying any evidence in support of its assertions and denials ,…

I concluded that, to assist the negotiation process, I needed KPMG to provide clarifications and supporting information in relation to its ‘responses’.

Back to sections

(15.1) - The final 31.07.08 'response' from Julian Walker, KPMG's Compliance, to my 01.07.08 Subject Access Request was a continuation of the denial of my rights, and of the cover-up – through yet more lies wrapped up in another ‘Get lost!’ message.

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, (as I had done one year earlier - # 7) I submitted, to KPMG, a 01.07.08 Subject Access Request.

As pointed out by KPMG in its initial 11.07.08 reply: “A subject access request is not a substitute for the Disclosure Provisions found in the rules of the Employment Tribunal”. (*)

In the light of its Defence, I was, indeed, after “disclosure”. So: at the end of the day, it was just a matter of the wrong title!...although KPMG would still have used the same underhanded, gutter tactics.

(*) By then, I should have known better, given the cramming of the law I had done re. e.g. the fraudulent claim filed against me in West London County Court by Andrew David Ladsky - Portner and Jaskel: Overview # 11).

KPMG's Julian Walker's 31.07.08 'response' (includes my Comments) to my 01.07.08 SAR - in which (as one year previously), he continued to use the psychological harassment tactics of: 'Controlling information' - Header 1.14; 'Deception to prevent exposure' - Header 4; 'Frustrate and discourage' - Header 2:

Paras 3 & 8

Walker-KPMG refused to provide me with Ladsky’s alleged letters of Oct 06 and Jan 07 (para 6 of the Defence) – in relation to which Naomi Crossman had claimed that Ladsky had: “made serious allegations against [me] it could not ignore”; “threatened KPMG with libel action(1)...

... - claiming: "This information would not be your personal data" [2]; satisfied you have been provided with the correct material" (1)

Para.10

Walker-KPMG refused to provide me with an alleged IT report about my use of KPMG’s IT services(para.6 of the Defence) (# 3.2 - Comment 3)...

...– claiming “the information is subject to legal privilege(3)

Paras 12, 13 & 14

Walker-KPMG claimed to not have any informationre. the so-called “specialist” Shirley Caplin, KPMG insisted I see, in Apr 07 (# 5) (4) – including "not knowing about her qualifications" (5)

Para.15

Walker-KPMG claimed to not have any informationre. the contacts KPMG had insisted I had with Julie Bennett, Well Being, from Feb 07 (6)

Para.16

Walker-KPMG claimed tonot have any informationre. Seraphina Burch, BUPA Wellness, contacting me on 8 May 07 (7)

Para.17

Walker-KPMG claimed tonot hold files concerning [my] personal circumstances

(1)- FALSE - See my # 3.2 - Comment 4.

(2)- FALSE - It is my personal data – in so far as Ladsky is making – alleged – threats and / or accusations against KPMG - that are based on me.

In addition, in processing this false data about me, KPMG is breaching the Data Protection Act 1998.

(3)- FALSE - Claiming "legal privilege" is one of Julian Walker's standard replies. (He did the same thing 1 year previous re. my previous SAR - # 7).

In its Defence, under paras 4(b), 6, 7, 12(b), 12(d) and 12(e), KPMG was making false accusations against me, as well as claiming that it was ‘justified’ in the actions it took against me – while denying me access to its alleged evidence.

WHY? Because KPMG’s claims were false! See my Comments under # 3.2.

(4)- FALSE – When you look at section 5, all the ‘health services’ KPMG was throwing at me between Feb and May 07, as part of its very sinister Machiavellian plan (# 5.2) (until it finally got the message that I was not going to bite on the hooks) – and the timings with certain events…

…- it is glaringly obvious that there was a lot communication taking place about me – and this would have included communication to and from Caplin pre and post my visit. See also my Comments under Caplin, # 5.

Maybe KPMG will claim that “it was confidential”…as “confidential” as KPMG approaching my private doctor (I assume, post my resigning in Jan 08), to get him to ask me “whether [I had] recorded [my] conversations at KPMG” (# 13) - to help KPMG determine whether it could then lie with impunity in its ‘response’ to my Grievance, my Claim, and other documents?

(5)- I repeat my Comment under Caplin, that KPMG sends its employees to see so-called "specialists" it knows nothing about!

(6)- FALSE - From Feb 07, Julie Bennett, WellBeing, played a key role with, behind the scene, Jeanette Dunworth, HR (and, of course, Peter Bassett, partner) in throwing KPMG's 'health services' at me. (# 5)

KPMG held (and probably still processes) A LOT of false, malicious, perverse, libellous data about me (see # 5) – it was no doubt planning to pull out to ‘substantiate’ its numerous lies under e.g. paras 4(a), 9, 11 and 12 of its ‘Defence’.

(7)- FALSE - I repeat my above Comments 6.

A Seraphina Burch (# 5) sent me a 08.05.07 email asking me to contact her "for a review". This email contains an overview of events with KPMG 'health services', as well as my Comments.

(8)- FALSE - I repeat my above Comments 6.

I also add e.g.: the fact that KPMG’s ex associated firm of solicitors, McGrigors, looked at 121 pages of my website between March and April 2007 – and, no doubt, produced its ‘assessment of my situation’.

What would KPMG have pulled out of its bag of morally depraved tricks 'in support' of its highly vicious, malicious, libellous and extremely sick accusation, under e.g. para.11 of its ‘Defence’ - # 3.3, Comment 5A?

I repeat my (above) (# 11) overall assessment of 'the response' to my Grievance from Peter Terry, KPMG partner - as it is equally applicable in the case of KPMG's Julian Walker's pack of lies 'response' to my Subject Access Request, and his excuses.

Back to sections

(15.2) - Naomi Crossman took 7 weeks to fail to respond to my 01.07.08 Request for information as, in her condescending, dismissive, hitlerian, pack of lies 22.08.08 ‘response’,...

...she asserted falsely that the Defence (she wrote) addressed some of my questions – and, aiming to trick me, a Litigant in Person, claimed that the rest "would be provided in KPMG’s witness statements".

As in the case of my above SAR, motivated by the fact that KPMG had, in its pack of lies Defence, denied the parts of my Claim it had 'decided' to respond to' (yes: and, by definition, ignored the rest) - without any supporting evidence, I opted to send it a 01.07.08 Request for information in relation to various parts of its Defence.

In her initial acknowledgment of 22.07.08 (= 3 weeks after my 01.07.08 Request), Naomi Crossman implied that my “four page list requesting additional information” would require considerable time to respond to.

REALITY: Naomi Crossman took 7 weeks to – fail – to reply to my Request.

Using Julian Walker's psychological harassment tactics of: 'Controlling information' - Header 1.14; 'Deception to prevent exposure' - Header 4; 'Frustrate and discourage' - Header 2, in his 'response' to my SAR (# 15.1, above)...

...in her 22.08.08 'response' (includes my Comments) to my 01.07.08 Request for information - KPMG's Naomi Crossman stated:

As I am sure you are aware, it is appropriate to ask for further information from the other party in an Employment Tribunal claim if one party is not aware of the details of the other party’s case(1)

We have stated in the detailed response to your claim [2] that we do not accept that you were constructively dismissed [3] or that KPMG did anything other than treat you fairly(4)

"It is our position that you have therefore been made aware in appropriate terms of KPMG’s case(5)

It is likely that an order for the exchange of witness statements will be made.” (6)

This will provide further detail of KPMG’s position(7)

To the extent that the requests that you make are relevant [8], further information will be provided in the appropriate statements(9)

Providing the requested information at this stage will mean unnecessary and disproportionate expense and commitment of time and resources [10] in light of the complexity of the case(11)

From my 01.07.08 Request:

  • Paras 1-10 - Ladsky's alleged Oct 06 and Jan 07 communications;
  • Paras 11- 15 - evidence and rationale for cutting me off the internet (and more!).

We have explained why we took the decision that we did in relation to IT restriction following the allegations made by Mr Ladsky(12)

At this stage, we do not see how the identity of the person or persons who took such decisions is relevant to your claim or necessary for you to understand our defence. [13] We will not therefore be providing this information.”

From my 01.07.08 Request:

  • Paras 19-24 - "departure from standard timetable" re. my so-called 'performance appraisal'
  • Paras 25-27 - accusation I made "further allegations against [my] performance manager"
  • Paras 28-33 - claim that "KPMG continued to support [me]"
  • Paras 40-43 - claim that "KPMG made allowances where possible"
  • Paras 44-51 - claim that on "occasions [I] wanted KPMG to consider [my] personal issues - as [I] acknowledged"
  • Paras 52 - 54 - claim that "KPMG allowed me supervised access to the internet to allow [me] to do my work and alleviate [my] alleged distress"
  • Paras 55-59 - claim that "[my] appraisal process was to [my] advantage"

3. Your appraisal (19 to 51 of your request)"

The approach taken to your appraisal process is properly explained in the response [14] and will be detailed further in the relevant witness statement.” (15)

4. Response to the Claimant’s allegations (52 to 59 of your request)." (16)

"Again this will be dealt with in the relevant witness statement.” (17)

I hope that this is of use to you(18)

(1)- Looking at what I was asking in my 01.07.08 Request: does it look to you as though I was asking for something 'I already knew'?

Note also the condescending comment: “As I am sure you are aware

Message to Naomi Crossman – KPMG: “As I am sure you aware”, making false statements in a defence amounts to contempt of court: CPR 32.14. Is your failing to date, as well as sign your Defence (*) (unlike I who signed and dated my Claim) an attempt to evade contempt of court?

(*) As I reported in e.g. my 22.06.08 letter to the tribunal.

Evidently, like your ‘dear friend’ Andrew David Ladsky, you fell over backwards to assist, and his gang of racketeersyour ‘Values’ translate into perceiving yourself as being: ‘above the law of the land’.

(2)- FALSE - Where is "the detail in the Defence"? There isn't any.

ALL that it is is a series of lies wrapped up in a resounding 'Get lost!'.

(3)- Heil Hitler!

We say that "[you] have not been constructively dismissed" (Summary of Defence, # 14, above) - and that's the end of it!

Consider this assertion against: (1)- the legal definition of 'constructive dismissal'; (2) the evidence contained on this page = KPMG's assertion is FALSE.

(4)- "KPMG only treated me fairly" - FALSE - I repeat my Comments under:

Draw your attention to what:

Does it look to you as though "KPMG did anything to me other than treat me fairly"?

(5)- FALSE - I repeat my Comment 2 - that I was not "aware of KPMG's case"...

which, in reality, was: executioner on behalf of 'my victims': its 'brothers'.

(6)- "It is likely" = KPMG would, for sure, have ensured it.

Of course, the “Above all, we act with integrity KPMG” would aim to trick me, a Litigant in Person, in telling me that information would be provided at the stage of “the exchange of the witness statements”.

FALSEWitness statements are not the forum "for obtaining information". The exchange of information - a ‘cards on the table approach’ - takes place before:

  • through a formal request – (as I did), and / or

KPMG was planning on using the same underhanded, morally depraved ploy as that of the Metropolitan Police Service in relation to my 19.04.11 Claim against the police et.al. in the Queen’s Bench Division:…

…supplying me with a less redacted version of its so-called “crime reports” after I had issued my 19.07.11 Witness Statement i.e. once it was too late. (QB # 4.3 ; # 4.4 ; # 4.7(1) - my 29.08.11 Supplementary Witness Statement.

KPMG not only joined the rank of the police, its overall heads (and of the conniving and colluding Queen’s Bench judiciary) (My Diary # 2.6), it also joined the rank of Andrew David Ladsky and his corrupt solicitors Portner and Jaskel who, (also with conniving, colluding and conspiring judiciary, this time in West London County Court), ignored my Civil Procedure Rules Part 18 Request for information – Portner # 25.

= ALL part of the same very sick ‘Brotherhood’ tribe!

(7)- “provide further detail of KPMG’s position”. Yeah, sure! I repeat my Comments under 6, above.

(8)- Note the unbelievably condescending tone, and hitlerian statement: KPMG ‘decides’ on “the relevance of what [I am] asking for"!

(9)- Note “statements” in the plural.

Planning on having its henchwomen and henchmen and flunkies such as:

…- to write pack of lies witness statements ‘in support’ of KPMG’s position?

(It might have also planned to include Peter Bassett…although ‘tricky’ for a partner to be shown up as lying through his teeth).

I also repeat my # 6 Comments.

(10)- The gall of KPMG! On top of everything else, it attempts to make me feel guilty about “causing it unnecessary and disproportionate expense…”

While being a totally spurious argument – as I have the right to defend myself against KPMG’s false accusations and claims against me – and I had the right to demand for its evidence - at this stage: YOU did that TO ME KPMG! You should have thought about “the costs” before! (*)

Ah! But, being part of the English Establishment, you thought you could trample all over me, and crush me – ‘the Prole’ / “the Oik” / one of “The Great Unwashed”.

(*) = KPMG using another of the Ladsky mafia’s gutter tactics e.g. CKFT’s Lanny Silverstone’s 25.06.03 letter blaming me falsely for “the costly LVT process” - CKFT # 3 / LVT Case summary # 1.2.

(11)- "Complexity of the case" - This is a repeat by KPMG's Naomi Crossman.

See my Comments # 3 to her 30 Apr 08 application to the tribunal (# 12, above).

(12)- FALSE - The onlyexplanation” KPMG provided me at the 30 Mar 07 meeting (# 3.4) is as I report under # 3.4 - and reported under Header 4 of my 17.01.08 Grievance ; para.8 of my 03.04.08 Claim.

KPMG did not show me any of Ladsky’s “communication” – including, as came to light under para.6 of its Defence (and referred to under paras 1-15 of my Request for information), his alleged correspondence of “October 2006 and January 2008” (extracts under # 3.2 - Comment 4 - that includes my assessment as to KPMG's sinister motive).

NOTE that, as a cover-up ploy:

…- KPMG is mixing deliberately the 13 Feb 07 with the 30 Mar 07 meeting – as the latter had nothing to do with its “IT systems”.

Hence, not only was KPMG continuing with its very sick, morally depraved cover-up, it was also continuing to deny me the right to defend myself against Ladsky’s alleged accusations against me.

(13)- "The identity of the individuals who took such decision" is most definitely relevant to my Claim "and necessary for me to understand KPMG's Defence"....

...but, it's not difficult to figure out who concocted this Machiavellian plan: KPMG in collusion with its mates in 'the Brotherhood'.

(14)- FALSE - Call para.9 of KPMG's Defence "a properly explained response"?

Yes: 'à la KPMG' = lies!

(15)- “will be detailed further in the relevant witness statement”.

Translation: pack of lies statement like the Defence, the ‘response’ to my Grievance, the 'response' to my SAR, etc.,

that will be (perhaps) from Peter Bassett, partner, and ‘from’ the henchwomen and henchmen and flunkies Ceri Hughes, Kathy Woodhouse and Jeanette Dunworth, HR – et.al.

OF NOTE: Claiming that she was addressing “Paras 19 to 51 of [my] request” – Naomi Crossman failed to address my Request under paras 25-27: her accusation that I had “[I had] made further allegations against [my] performance manager”.

Reason? Because it was not true - see my Comments under # 9.

(16)- Relates to:

  • my being made, by Ceri Hughes, to use a spare computer - see # 6(4), that also includes extracts from KPMG's Defence;
  • the claim under para.12(h) of the Defence that “the way the performance appraisal process was conducted was to [my] advantage”

(17)- "will be dealt with in the relevant witness statement" - I repeat the first part of my above Comments 15.

(18)- “I hope that this is of use to you” - A line that, no doubt, had Naomi Crossman et.al. rolling on the floor with laughter.

I repeat my (above) (# 11) overall assessment of 'the response' to my Grievance from Peter Terry, KPMG partner - as it is equally applicable in the case of KPMG's Naomi Crossman pack of lies 'response' to my Request for information.

Back to sections

 

(16) - My initial experience with Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal, as well as with ACAS’ so-called ‘conciliation service’, led me to have a very strong feeling of déjà vu…many times: they were ignoring my communications; going into silent mode.

Told by ACAS at the end of Aug 08 (!!!) that “employment tribunals do not deal with claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997”, I withdrew my Claim in Sep 08, as the tribunal said that it could not transfer it to the High Court.

Considering my then ongoing experience with West London County Court re. the 2nd fraudulent claim filed against me by Ladsky, followed by my experience with the Supreme Court Costs Office when I then tried to claim back my costs...

...– I concluded that there was no point my filing the Claim in the High Court - as I would continue to be denied justice and redress. (I was proven right, as it happened, for the 6th, 7th and 8th time, in 2011...which WAS in the High Court).

 

(1 of 16)- The tribunal ignored repeatedly my asking about the impact on the conciliation period of the 25-day extension it granted to KPMG (on top of which KPMG allowed itself a further 3 weeks)

As reported under # 12, above, on receipt on my 03.04.08 Claim, Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal had sent a copy of it to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) (below), and had stated: "the conciliation period lasts until 8 July 08”.

Over a 5-week period, I sent 3 letters to the tribunal asking about the implication, on the conciliation period, of the 25-day extension it had granted KPMG to respond to my Claim (# 14).

In my 2nd and 3rd letters, I also raised the issue of KPMG breaching the tribunal's Rules by allowing itself an additional 3 weeks to respond (# 14):

09.05.08

"Can I assume that the conciliation period, through ACAS, currently set to end by 8 July 2008 (your letter of 8 April 2008) is concurrently extended by the same period?"

08.06.08

"One month ago, in my attached 9 May 2008 letter to you, I acknowledged your correspondence stating that your Tribunal had granted KPMG an extension for its reply to my claim until 27 May 2008 (v. the original deadline of 2 May)."

"By yesterday’s post, Saturday 7 June 2008 i.e. 8 working days since the 27 May 2008 deadline, I have not received KPMG’s reply (i.e. its ET3 form) to my claim."

"I note from the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 that, under Schedule 1 - Rule 5(2) “If the Secretary accepts the response he shall send a copy of it to all other parties and record in writing the date on which he does so”.

"Should I assume that KPMG has opted to not reply to my claim? Or perhaps, under Schedule 1 – Rule 6, that the response has not been accepted by the Tribunal?"

"In my 9 May 2008 letter, I asked whether, “…the conciliation period, through ACAS, currently set to end by 8 July 2008 (your letter of 8 April 2008) is concurrently extended by the same period?” i.e. an extra 25 days. I have not received a reply."

16.06.08

"I have not received a reply to my enclosed 8 June 2008 letter..."

"On 7 May 2008, Judge Jones, agreed to KPMG’s request of 30 April 2008 by granting an extension until 27 May 2008 to file its reply to my claim (attached)."

"As three weeks have now passed since this extended deadline, I conclude from your silence that KPMG has not submitted a response."

"I note from the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, Schedule 1 – Consequences of a response not being presented or accepted – Rule 8 - Default judgments" (I then quoted the Rule).

"Rule 9 -Taking no further part in the proceedings" (I also quoted the Rule)

"I await clarification from you"

My quoting from the tribunal's Rules in my 08.06.16 letter led Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal to (finally) note one of my letters:

on 17 Jun, day on which it received it (proof of delivery at the back of the letter), with its 16.06.08 letter, it sent me the undated (and unsigned) Defence from KPMG (above, # 14, from Comment 6)....

...raising some interesting questions as to WHY KPMG did not date its Defence.

(In the 1st paragraph of my 22.06.08 letter to the tribunal, I raised the issue about the Defence being "undated - and unsigned").

However, the tribunal still failed to reply to my question about the impact of the extension on the conciliation period.

In my 22.06.08 letter to the tribunal:

  • I raised the fact that KPMG's Defence was sent "3 weeks post the extended deadline", and followed this by stating my conclusion that it "amount[ed] to a breach under Rule 8(2)(a)". Needless to say that, as previously, it ignored my writing this.
  • I wrote that, as it had stated in its 16.06.08 letter that it had "forwarded KPMG’s reply to ACAS", I had sent a 21.06.08 letter to ACAS (below) (on which I copied the tribunal).

In this letter to ACAS, I repeated my question - stating that I was “still in the dark as to the implication of the seven-week plus delay on the conciliation period

Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal never replied to my question.

The lack of response is typical of the English Establishment and its cronies - motivated by various objectives, and part of the psychological harassment tactics (Header 1.11).

It was a continuation of my experience with the judicial system of this island-kingdom (kangaroo courts): being treated like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights...

...- because, this time, I (profile), 'the Prole' / "the Oik" / one of "the Great Unwashed", had 'dared' file a Claim against KPMG, a very well connected member of 'the Establishment', that does a lot of work in the public sector...

...- factors which, in this "fantastically corrupt" island-kingdom, grant an automatic status of being ‘untouchable and unaccountable’.

 

The follow on communication from the tribunal were these 19.08.08 Directions and Order:

"Employment Judge Haynes, to whom this case has been referred, is unable, from the papers before him, to asses the time for which the matter should be listed.

Both parties must, on or before 3 September 2008, advise the Tribunal of:

1. their time estimate for the hearing;

2. the number of witnesses whom they intend to call;

3. any dates to avoid over the next 9 months."

"ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Having reviewed the file in this case and considered any representations made by the parties, Employment Judge Haynes, ORDERS that

On or before the 10 September 2008, you provide the Tribunal and the other party with the following additional information:

Identify each and every party incident which you intend to rely upon as a breach of your contract by the Respondent, giving (1) the date (2) who was involved (3) what was said or done.

The Claimant will not be entitled to rely at the Hearing on any incidents not so identified."

Back to sections

(2 of 16) - Having gone into a typical silent mode by not responding to my letters, following my phoning her at the end of Aug 07, the ACAS 'conciliator', Caroline Doyle, told me that "employment tribunals do not deal with claims under the Protection from Harassment Act".

In her 11.04.08 letter to me, 'the conciliator', Caroline Doyle, introduced herself and enclosed a booklet ‘How Acas can help – Conciliation explained’. Outlining the role of a conciliator, it claimed that public-sector-funded ACAS conciliators were “impartial; not taking sides; independent”.

Bearing in mind the above factors – added to, at the time, my one year, and still ongoing battle with the West London County Court judiciary following Ladsky’s 2nd fraudulent claim against me (Overview # 11) - understandably, I had very little hope of 'the conciliator' living up to the claims

...and proved to be correct: there was NO 'conciliation process'.

In fact, being at the receiving end, it felt to me like there was a very cosy arrangement going on between Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal, KPMG and ACAS – leading me to have a very strong feeling of: déjà vu...many times (*)

(*) The collusion, conniving and conspiring between the Ladsky mafia and: (1)- the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal; (2)- in relation to 2 separate claims, with the West London County Court judiciary; (3)- Wandsworth County Court...not to mention, (3)- my multiple experiences with the so-called 'independent regulators'.

This perception had started 2 months after I filed my Claim (# 12), when, on top of the 25-day extension allowed by the tribunal, KPMG granted itself another 3 weeks to file its Defence – and the tribunal kept on ignoring my (above) letters pointing out that KPMG was breaching the tribunal Rules – that should have led to a default judgment against KPMG (discussed under # 14).

I did not get a reply from ACAS Caroline Doyle to my (above) 21.06.08 letter in which I raised the issue of the impact of the extension on the conciliation period. However, I must have got an answer verbally, as I continued sending her letters past the deadline.

In fact, her 11.04.08 letter was the only written communication I received from her.

In this letter, she wrote that she “would be in touch in due course to discuss your claim”. She had not.

While, subsequent to filing my Claim, the ink on my letters to the tribunal had 'evidently' ‘mysteriously’ disappeared by the time they reached it (as it had done - and was continuing to do - with my communications to West London County Court, etc),...

the same thing was clearly happening with my letters to the ACAS 'conciliator', Caroline Doyle – as she (typically) went into silent mode, ignoring my correspondence (*):

(*) If she spoke to me, I do not recall it. Further, I have no evidence in my letters to her that she did.

01.07.08

To copy her on my correspondence to KPMG: (1)- my 01.07.08 Request for information (# 15.2) ; (2)- my 01.07.08 Subject Access Request (# 15.1)...

...- explaining that I had done this “with the objective of assisting the negotiation process”.

28.07.08

To copy her on the 11.07.08 initial ‘response’ from KPMG to my Subject Access Request claiming that some of what I was asking for came under “standard disclosure” ...

...following which, I stated: “thereby leaving me in the situation of KPMG denying my position, while not supplying evidence in support of its assessment.”

05.08.08

In which, with the objective of confirming that I had a valid Claim against KPMG, I challenged, with some supporting evidence, some of its assertions and claims in its pack of lies Defence (# 12).

In the last part of my letter, under 3. Settlement, I stated the amount of compensation I was seeking from KPMG (£550,000 + 6 months salary), giving my reasons and, in support quoted legislation as well as case law.

(As I had predicted, being unable to then look for another job due to the psychological trauma I had suffered as a result of my experience at KPMG, I was eventually forced to take early retirement. My losing 8 years of work means that I have lost over £1 million in potential salary and pension).

I also stated that, if an agreement could not be reached, I would transfer my case to the High Court – in spite of the fact that, in the light of my experience so far with the courts, I was under no illusion as to the outcome.

17.08.08

To copy her on the 31.07.08 final ‘response’ from KPMG to my Subject Access Request (# 15.1), highlighting that KPMG was still denying me access to ‘its evidence’ ‘in support’ of its accusations against me.

I repeat that, throughout the time of my letters, the ACAS 'conciliator', Caroline Doyle, was in (typical) silent mode. I also repeat my conclusions under the tribunal's section.

By the end of Aug 07, I phoned her to ask her what was happening.

At that point (!!!), Doyle told me that "employment tribunals do not deal with claims under the Protection from Harassment Act" (as I captured in my below, 2 Sep 08 letter to the tribunal).

Back to sections

(3 of 16) - In the light of Caroline Doyle, ACAS, telling me that “employment tribunals do not deal with claims under the Protection from Harassment Act”, I withdrew my Claim (# 12) from the tribunal, as it could not transfer it to the High Court

I sent a 02.09.08 letter to Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal (copied to KPMG) asking it to transfer my Claim to the High Court – stating as reasons:

  • the fact that it came under the Protection Harassment Act 1997 - in relation to which I cited examples of events, that also demonstrated KPMG's appalling conduct; (I added other legislation...including, wrongly Article 10 of the HRA (as it only applies to state institutions));
  • the amount of compensation I was seeking (£550,000 + 6 months salary);

and quoted Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

I also stated:

"Prior to having my claim transferred to the High Court I wish to extend the Defendant the opportunity to try to negotiate a settlement through the National Mediation service – as, so far, there has not been a conciliation process to speak of."

In fact, there had been no communication from KPMG on this subject (since its measly £62,000 offer prior to my resigning in Jan 08 (# 10.2). (Of note, as I reported in my 02.09.08 letter to the tribunal, Caroline Doyle, ACAS, had told me that the maximum compensation allowed by the tribunal was £68,000).

Of course, KPMG ignored my offer - and continued to do so when I repeated it in my 14.09.08 letter.

In its 10.09.08 reply, the tribunal pointed out that

CPR do not apply to Employment Tribunals. We have own rules of procedure.

We have no power to transfer the case to the High Court”.

It also stated:

"Judge Lamb has further directed that this case now proceeds to be listed for a Case Management Discussion with a time estimate of 2 hours before a judge sitting alone."

It left me with only one option: withdrawing my Claim from the tribunal – in order to then file it in the High Court.

I communicated this in my 14.09.08 tribunal (copied KPMG), and quoted tribunal Rule 25 – Right to withdraw proceedings.

The tribunal acknowledged receipt of my letter in its 18.09.08 letter.

In its 27.11.08 (1) judgmentthe tribunal wrote:

"JUDGMENT

Upon application by the respondent [2], the proceedings are dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant."

(1)- 11 weeks / 3 months after my 14.09.08 letter!

(2)- Maybe KPMG was debating whether 'it should charge me for its costs', and / or because I was being monitored and tracked to see whether I was going to the High Court...which, for sure, I was (Persecution # 2)...

...as I was dogged, hounded, harassed and persecuted during the time of my 19 Apr 11 Claim against the police et.al.

Well 'the Brotherhood''s Stasi goons with, no doubt, Ladsky adding his 'Mossad' 'dogs' (Persecution # 2) in appreciation of KPMG falling over backwards to help him in his objective of destroying me - wasted their time doing this.

Considering - in addition to my experience with Her Majesty's Stratford Employment Tribunal:

...– I concluded that there was no point my filing the Claim in the High Court - as, in this "fantastically corrupt" environment, I would continue to be denied justice and redress.

I was proven right - as it happened for the 6th, 7th and 8th time, in 2011...which was in the High Court - when I was also a Litigant in Person.

Further, as demonstrated by the conduct of:

...I also knew that there was no point my attempting to find advisors to represent me on my Claim.

In this fantastically corrupt, Freemason-controlled environment of, 'one for all, and all for one', and concurrent omertà about its conduct - my card is very clearly marked as: 'DO NOT HELP this woman who dared challenge our illegal activities'.

(As happened e.g. on 11 Aug 11, when, in relation to my Apr 11 Claim against the police et.al., I approached some solicitors said to specialise in cases against the police).

 
OUTCOME?
 
 

THIS PAGE ON KPMG!...

...(an outcome predicted by e.g. Lord Denning).

 
PS: I also remind you of THE ROOT CAUSE FOR ALL THAT IS REPORTED ON THIS PAGE.

Back to sections

  C O M M E N T S

 

Some media on KPMG

 

(1 of 3) - Public sector contracts e.g.

(In addition to the 2007 project for the DCA, referred to in the Introduction to this page)

Private Eye, # 1349, 20 Sep-3 Oct 13 (from pg 19) - “Tax, Lies and videotape – Britain’s shadow tax system revealed

"Income from taxpayers via UK government contracts – 2012/13 - KPMG: £95m."

(For other extracts from the article, see British Virgin Islands # 4)

From the same issue of Private Eye, (pg 27):

"Ministers are over the moon today at a new report from KPMG, predicting that the proposed High Speed rail link between London and Birmingham will give the biggest boost to Britain’s economy for decades...

That High Speed Gravy Train Route In Full: Government, direction of money flow, bank account of KPMG."

 

Private Eye, # 1385, 6-19 Feb 15 (pg 30) - "NHS PLC – A consultant will see you now"

"NHS England and its nine “commissioning support units” – regional bodies that advise local clinical commissioning groups – also shelled out more than £13m to the big four accountancy firms:...

...KPMG: £3.48m from various commissioning support unit; KPMG - the plugged-in firm whose health practice is run by former Department of Health commercial director Mark Britnell, one of the pioneers of ”commissioning” who now profits so well from promoting it to NHS clients across the country."

 

Private Eye, # 1390, 17-30 Apr 15 (pg 10) - "Coaker dependency"

"Labour’s shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker had a free “analyst” supplied by KPMG to “support” his frontbench role between September last year and February…"

"If Coaker wants to understand waste in defence spending, he can do no better than consult KPMG. It received multimillion-pound fees for designing a failed attempt to privatise the military procurement agency, Defence Equipment and Support, in a project known as “GoCo” that never went anywhere.

It also advised the Ministry of Defence on the disastrous “Future Strategic Tanker” PFI, which gave the RAF refuelling planes that couldn’t fly into war zones. Despite this, KPMG is still promoting PFI as good for the armed forces."

From the same issue of Private Eye, same page: "Signal failures – Mandarin sauce"

" …in January, mandarins at the Department for Transport commissioned KPMG to report on the implications of re-regulating buses outside London..."

 

(2 of 3) - Revolving doors between KPMG and the public sector, and its influence on the 'regulatory' (*), as well as tax system

(*) Or, (using an expression from an MP): 'how KPMG marks its homework'

See extracts from media articles under:

 

(3 of 3) - Political contributions

(In addition to, above, providing individuals on 'free' secondments)

"Accountancy giants channel £500,000 in resources and staff to Conservatives ahead of election", The Independent, 29 Jul 09:

"Analysis by The Independent has revealed that leading companies including...KPMG have given the Tories nearly £500,000 since the start of last year as they attempt to build ties with the party...

The firms involved already hold government contracts worth millions of pounds between them... Some estimates put the amount to be spent [by the public sector] on consultancy over the next three years as high as £4bn...

KPMG, which also holds many public sector contracts, gave the party donations-in-kind worth more than £100,000 since the start of last year.

A single KPMG consultant working in the Department for Children, Schools and Families costs the taxpayer £1.35m over three years, a parliamentary inquiry found."

Back to top