Accusation 1:

‘He said I could build on my existing work with pupils and teachers and make a difference for them and said the charity part of Lighthouse would invest in purifying water in Africa.“

The Evidence-Based Facts:

• Ms Holmes was given several special opportunities to develop initiatives to support teachers and make more of a difference in education.
• Despite this, we can show that Ms Holmes did very little to take ownership of such opportunities and the support offered to her.
• Lighthouse International Group have never claimed to be providing funds to clean water in Africa at present. Such initiatives are aspirational long-term goals. If Ms Holmes refutes this she must show proof.

Accusation 2:

”I invested £19,000 in instalments, but I had to get a loan out to fund it. But they knew I had a big asset with my house. I think they saw the long term.”

The Evidence-Based Facts:

• Ms Holmes was helped from within Lighthouse to avoid taking out loans.
• Not mentioned is the remaining £6,000 of Ms Holmes’s £25,000 fee that was privately paid for by another Associate Partner, to be paid back when possible, without interest.
• As of 2022, no more than 47 people have invested in their development through Associate Partnership Development Programs at fees between £10,000 – £25,000 (many at the lower amounts). Set across 18 years, this is a tiny amount for any business and disproves any untoward “long-term” motives.
• The long-term interests at Lighthouse International Group and its commitments are and have always been to see its people genuinely grow, develop and eventually succeed.

Accusation 3:

“Because of her investment, she became an ‘associate elect’ and part of a ‘business unit’ of members… This meant, during lockdown, she was expected to join calls lasting hours on Saturdays, during which Lighthouse leader Paul Waugh would spout his wisdom and grill other members… After the calls, members were sent edited audio recordings to listen to in the evenings — which they were then expected to provide feedback on so that Mr Waugh could assess their ‘level of understanding’.”

The Evidence-Based Facts:

• Lighthouse Associates continually extend themselves in numerous extra ways to support and enable those like Ms Holmes to work around their Monday to Friday jobs.
• There is NO obligation to be present on any of these calls in much the same way as there is no obligation to attend many lectures at universities.
• Ms Holmes chose the level of involvement and commitment, time and effort, she was willing to make and committed to this in advance.
• The purpose of feedback is quite logically to ensure understanding and clarify where errors and misunderstandings might hinder progress.

Accusation 4:

“But after speaking to another alienated member, Ms Holmes began to research the group and eventually decided to ask for evidence of where her cash had been spent…. The response, following an email and a call, was a long message from Mr Waugh in which he accused her of being hateful, toxic and disturbed, claiming it was ‘downright terrifying . . . that you are a schoolteacher with delicate little and innocent children in your care’.“

The Evidence-Based Facts:

• Ms Holmes did not raise any concerns about Lighthouse until a day before she abruptly left the organisation, 18th April 2021.
• A phone call was arranged and conducted the next day, 19th April, between Ms Holmes, Mr Waugh and Mr Cooper.
• Ms Holmes belligerently spoke and shouted over both gentlemen for nearly an hour in a manner that shocked Mr Cooper.
• Mr Cooper and Mr Waugh could not respond to Ms Holmes’s questions due to her lack of professional decorum and unreasonable, irrational attitude.
• The recording of this can be provided in a court of law as evidence of her outburst, which the Daily Mail was informed of but neglected to report.
• Mr Waugh’s remarks to Ms Holmes afterwards were an assessment and fair description of her behaviour, NOT of her as a person.

Accusation 5:

“He also said he had sent a report and a recording of the phone call with her to PhD students who ‘work specifically with teachers and their pathology in relation to their profession for observational analysis.’ .. Ms Holmes said: ‘I took that as a clear threat to my professional reputation.'”

The Evidence-Based Facts:

• Although Mr Waugh said in his message that he had sent this recording to PhDs to study and to seek their advice, he actually had changed his mind and decided not to do so.
• Mr Waugh had prepared the recording such that it was legally permissible to share it. However, he never actually sent it having decided against it under counsel, as mentioned in what was sent to the Daily Mail on 24th February 2022.
• The only threat to Ms Holmes’s professional reputation is the reality of her behaviour and what she is capable of, as displayed in her known actions on Reddit and during her phone call with Mr Cooper and Mr Waugh on 19th April 2021 (See above in response to Accusation 4).

Accusation 6:

“She adds: ‘Lighthouse bears all the hallmarks of a group that takes advantage of people by promising to transform your life and the world. But I have seen no evidence that any of their global initiatives have ever happened and it begs the question where the money goes.'”

The Evidence-Based Facts:

• Many testimonies to the contrary are included in our main response to the Daily Mail accusations and the people who have worked with Lighthouse for many years.
• Lighthouse is a pioneering human development organisation that has been in a cost-covering research and development mode (intentionally) for the last 18 years, in order to build the necessary foundations for a pioneering operation and global expansion.
• Due to the value, meaning and purpose of our goals, our Associate Partners have (on the whole) been willing to make a great many personal sacrifices to further the work and aims of the organisation.
• We can proudly say we are now, finally, in the process of expanding our work internationally, bringing the benefits our existing clients have received to many many more..

Accusation 7:

“She has yet to receive any cash.'”

The Evidence-Based Facts:

• Ms Holmes has never asked for any money she invested in her development to be returned.
• Ms Holmes is not legally entitled to any ‘cash’ and the Daily Mail makes no reference as to what this ‘cash’ is or why she might be entitled to any.
• Ms Holmes cannot own any equity or shares in the organisation. LIG is a Limited Liability Partnership.
• Ms Holmes has continually refused numerous open offers to meet and discuss her claims in person, with her lawyers if needed.

Accusation 8:

“It [LIG] accused Ms Holmes of trolling the group after leaving and said it had contacted the police and the school where she worked to complain.'”

• The Evidence-Based Facts:
• Extensive evidence exists of Ms Holmes’s active involvement as a ringleader in a co-ordinated campaign of constructive sabotage against Lighthouse International Group that will be presented in court.