"The captain is in his bunk, drinking bottled ditch-water; and the crew is gambling in the forecastle. She will strike and sink and split. Do you think the laws of God will be suspended in favour of England because you were born in it?" - Captain Shotover, Heartbreak House - George Bernard Shaw.

Introduction to and Overview of this Website - What We Are about

The ticker at the bottom of the page shows some (by no means all) of the organisations and individuals I have had cause to contact. The page regarding prevention of misinformation explains why I contacted these people. Sometime were required to carry out certain services, due to commercial relationships I had with them (e.g.: Dell Computers). I was surprised at their response. Of course, it is relevant to the matters in issue: I should not mention it otherwise. Some were approached because it was their métier (think tanks, human rights organisations, etc., etc.). In each case, inexplicably, they did not act as the situation demanded: they erected a wall of silence and indifference, they offered responses that were not cogent or their response was otherwise bewildering.

The site proper will treat these and other cases in detail and will furnish evidence to support such statements as are made.

1. There is no right greater than freedom of thought: the right to think what one pleases and to hold conclusions and beliefs one has arrived at after careful consideration of the facts.
(i) Other rights may be argued to be as important; none can earnestly be said to be more important.

2. Consider a situation where a person who, after carefully considering certain facts, arrives at conclusions that might be embarrassing to the authorities:
(i) The authorities, without being able to explain why he is wrong, tell him he is mistaken.
(ii) They pressure him to discard the conclusions he has reached and instead adopt conclusions that are not embarrassing to the authorities but which do not make sense, considering the facts.
(iii) Of course, the man refuses to do so.
(iv) He is then detained for a decade, on the grounds that his beliefs are wrong.
(v) The technical grounds for his detention are section, based on a diagnosis of a delusional disorder but:
(a) the diagnosing psychiatrists accept that the definition of a delusion demands that a person first be given clear and obvious evidence that he is wrong, before he is diagnosed (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). This is an important condition. It prevents abuse of psychiatry, as happened frequently in the USSR (see: Questions Of Madness: Repression by Psychiatry in the Soviet Union
(b) None of them is able to show the conclusions he reached are wrong, or even to propose plausible alternative interpretations of the facts that led him to the conclusions he reached.

3. The situation I have described is not hypothetical; this is happening to me right now in the United Kingdom. In November, 2024, I shall have been detained for ten years. My detention will continue for the foreseeable future; I may still be detained ten years from then.

4. The conclusions I have reached, that are now grounds for my detention (based on proof that no one has been able to rebut) are that I have been the target of a Campaign, including physical surveillance and interception of my communications, which continues to this day.
(i) No one has been able to suggest plausible alternative interpretations of the proof that led me to those conclusions.
(a) One Psychiatrist, whose report was praised by the courts and which became grounds for my detention claimed that my belief that computer had been hacked into was clear proof that I am delusional. He and the Court knew that I based that belief on the security logs of that Machine, which clearly showed such a thing had happened, that I took the Machine to the police, reported the offence and offered to leave it as evidence. The Police later claimed the fact that I found the evidence of hacking was proof that I am delusional. They said a normal person would not have thought to look at the logs.
(b) No one has been able to explain why the logs of the computer were wrong and they are right; Yet it is I who is said to be delusional.
(c) One court rejected the official definition of a delusion on the grounds that it cannot be satisfied in my case: the conclusions I have reached cannot be shown to be wrong.
(d) The Court did not offer its own definition of a delusion. It therefore rejected the official, professional definition and continued my detention on the basis of a secret definition, known only to itself.
(e) That same Court said my beliefs cannot be correct because the Campaign against me would require many people of different social classes to work together. And yet the world is replete with examples of different people working in the same undertaking, including the courts where you have people from messengers to the Lord Chief Justice all involved in the same undertaking: the delivery of justice.

5. If the Campaign has not involved, certainly its concealment snd continuance has been guaranteed by the strange conduct (often even misconduct) of individuals and organisations including: (i) Courts, from county courts to the European Court of Human Rights. They have made dozens of unlawful decisions in cases involving me. In most instances, they knew the decisions would be unlawful: they made them anyway.
(a) I define an unlawful decision not as one that displeases me but rather as one that is clearly incompatible with the law.
(ii) Parliament, which has refused to uphold the law and to hold Government to account. Some MPs and even the Archbishop of Canterbury have filed false or unreasonable reports against me with the authorities.
(iii) The opposition (the Labour Party, when it was in opposition, the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and the Green Party).
(a) From their leaders to local party offices, they have refused to oppose, to hold the Government to account, to uphold the law and to defend the public interest.
(b) They have concealed serious misconduct by the Government, the NHS, the courts and other public bodies.
(iv) The police, which has refused to investigate serious offences, including the filing of false records in the NHS and the assault and battery of a vulnerable person (a patient).
(a) In some instances, there was clear evidence, including CCTV footage to support the reports.
(b) Chief Constables have been unable cogently to explain why their police forces would not act. They have failed to answer reasonable questions regarding the conduct of their forces.
(iv) Lawyers, who have refused to uphold the law and properly to represent me. For example: submitting false reports to courts without first consulting me, ignoring me when I showed them the reports were false and then asking the courts to ignore me because they said I was insane, when I tried to show the Courts that the reports were false.
(a) The statements I declared to be false were such claims as that my belief that my computer had been hacked into was clear proof that I am delusional.
(b) I said that statement was false because the belief was based on the security logs of that machine, which showed it had indeed been hacked into.
(c) The lawyers (And everyone else) were unable to explain why the logs were wrong and they were correct.
(v) Organisations such as the General Medical Council (GMC), the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Legal Services Board (LSB) have refused to perform their duties and Secretaries and Shadow Secretaries of State responsible for their sectors refused to act. For example:
(a) The GMC refused to act on my complaint that a psychiatrist perjured himself and also falsely diagnosed me, in order to have me sectioned. It did not deny that such reports were true; it said it did not consider them to be important matters. And yet it knew I was, even at that time, detained as a direct consequence of such misconduct.
(b) The NMC refused to keep an accurate register, as demanded by statute (paragraphs 1 and 4 of that Article - Article 5 of Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001). Its Register did not show whether a nurse against whom I wished to file a complaint was in fact a nurse. The register showed someone with a similar name working in a different region of the country). When I telephoned the NMC, I explained the problem and asked if the nurse on the Register was the same nurse against whom I intended to file a complaint and who was working in my region. The NMC refused to say. I reported the matter to the NMC's Chief Executive. She did nothing and the register was not updated for over a year. It was the same nurse but with the wrong details appearing on the Register. The NMC and its Chief Executive therefore not only refused correctly to keep a register of nurses, as required by statute, it also knowingly impeded an attempt to register a complaint against a nurse.
(v) the European Commission, its president and each of its members, the European Union Parliament and its President, each of the executive leaders of the countries forming the European Union, the President, Vice-president and Secretary of State of the United States President (President Biden, Vice-president Harris and Mr Blinken), individuals such as President Obama and his organisation, the Obama Foundation and many others. For example: Chancellor Olaf Scholz' Government told me that he had received my reports and supporting evidence. It did not reject the validity of those reports; it said he had more important things to do. I wrote to him asking him if he stood by those words, he did not respond. I wrote to the German Ambassador to London, asking if the Chancellor and Government of Germany stood by those words, the Ambassador and the Embassy's Press office would not answer that question.
(a) When, over several weeks, I repeatedly experienced numbness of the arm and could, at any time, have suffered an attack that might have ended my life or occasioned grave and irreparable damage (such as a stroke), I was denied suitable primary medical care for more than a month. I was only sent to a hospital for scans about six months later. During that time, I wrote to all the people mentioned, above, and other authorities, including the Secretary of State for Health and his Shadow (Mr Wesley Streeting, now Secretary of State for Health). Their response was to erect a wall of silence and indifference. They have not denied that I could have died or suffered serious and irreparable harm during that time, as a direct consequence of deliberate denial of adequate medical care or that they had reason not to believe that what I reported to them was true.
(iv) News organisations, including:
The British Broadcasting Corporation,
The Economist,
The Times,
The Guardian,
The Daily Mail,
The Mirror,
Sky News,
The Daily Telegraph,
The New Yorker,
The New York Times,
The Washington Post,
Fox News,
CNN News,
CBS News,
Le Monde,
Der Spiegel,
The i,
The New Statesman,
News UK,
The Financial Times,
Agence France-Presse,
Reuters,
Westdeutscher Rundfunk
Die Zeit,
Radio Free Europe,
Have not denied that these things have happened and are happening, but they have refused to report them. They have either refused to respond or said that they have other matters to report.

6. These are not simply bad things happening to someone; it is the destruction of fundamental structures without which civilised society is impossible (the judiciary, parliament, law enforcement, health services, etc.). It is the hypocrisy of the people entrusted with the husbandry of these structures.

7. Democracy requires more than simply that people periodically vote freely and that those votes accurately to be reckoned: people must have the information to make informed decisions.
(i) When important information is concealed from the public before it votes, elections become fraudulent and undemocratic.

8. When the United Kingdom General Elections where announced, in June 2024, I wrote to each MP, each political party and their leaders. I informed them of my case, provided them with proof to support the statements I made and pointed out that, these matters being of such importance, should the public not be informed of them before it voted, especially when politicians were campaigning: talking to anyone who would listen (and many who didn't want to), claiming to be discussing and drawing attention to the problems facing the country, the elections would not be democratic because people would be making uninformed decisions.
(i) None of the MPs denied that the facts I reported were real or that not to inform the public of them before the election would make the elections undemocratic. None of them acted, apart from two: Mr Alexander Chalk and Mr Simon Baynes. The extent of their action was to report me to the Fixated Threats Assessment Centre (FTAC).
(a) Mr Chalk was, at that time, Secretary of State for Justice and had refused to act on my reports of misconduct by the courts. He said as a politician there was nothing he could do about it. I showed this was not true see document entitled "Can the Judiciary be Kept Honest (and by Whom)" of which I sent him a copy. He did nothing. The copy of that Document on this website bears the date: 10 August, 2024 because, on that date, I converted the Word Document to PDF. Apart from a table of contents, no alteration has been made to the original document, which I wrote on 19 February, 2020 and have sent to Secretaries of State for Justice and other people and organisations.
(b) Mr Chalk, as Secretary of State for Justice, had also repeatedly failed to justify my detention, to answer pertinent questions I put to him regarding the validity of the diagnoses which are the basis of my detention and even to describe the model by which I was determined to be require detention.
(c) The Archbishop of Canterbury had previously filed false or unreasonable reports with the FTAC against me. I tried to discuss those reports with the FTAC, it refused to communicate by email and insisted on telephoning me. I sent it an email informing it I would record the telephone call, in order to create an objective account of the conversation. The FTAC did not call me: it instructed that I not contact it in future.

9. I am preparing a website to set out the matter in detail and to display proof by which the statements I make might be evaluated. The website will be available here, from April, 2025.

10. You might like to visit the other pages on this introductory site; click on the tabs at the top of the page.