"This seems to argue a bad cause or a bad conscience, or both. Sure are we that it is not he who has gold that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit. Neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest his deeds should be reproved, neither is it the plain-dealing merchant that is unwilling to have the weights or the metre brought into place, but he that useth deceit." - Translators' Preface to the King James Bible.

What We Have Done to Prevent Misinformation

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.

1. Misinformation and disinformation (the propagation for some reason, including innocent error, of incorrect information) are not imagined problems. We don't want that here, from me or from anyone else.

2. I have asked news organisations, including all those mentioned, below, and almost every person and organisation mentioned here to fact-check or have the statements I make here and have made in reports to them fact-checked. I suggested that, if the task were difficult for them, we might discuss how to have the statements fact-checked. They all declined to do so.
(i) I have invited everyone with whom I have communicated to point out logical or other flaws in my reasoning and the statements I have made. they have not done so.

3. I have also had occasion to approach Alphabet and Google on certain matters (these will be treated on the website proper). Google takes misinformation very seriously and the implications of the statements I make might not be insignificant.
(i) I asked Alphabet and Google to have these and other facts checked. I offered to discuss how that might be done, if it were considered too onerous a task for them. They declined to do so.

4. I have written to think tanks. They exist purely to consider such matters.
(i) I approached such think tanks and human rights organisations as Chatham House , Global Freedom of Expression, Just Security, the Atlantic Council and Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Global Freedom of Expression.
(i)As with everyone else, I reported the facts and put my conclusions to them, and I furnished them with the evidence by which I arrived at those conclusions.
(ii) I invited criticism of my views and of the evidence.
(iii) I suggested that they have the facts checked and offered, if they thought it might be too great a task for them, that we discuss how we might have the facts checked to a satisfactory standard. They did not respond.

5. Universities are not only institutions of learning, they have an important function in the integrity, solidity and success of society.
(i) Universities make it possible for people to make serious, rigorous and considered thought and the understanding of matters of import their life's work.
(ii) They allow young, keen, curious minds, relatively uncompromised by bias and undimmed by life's failures to develop ideas and engage in intellectual endeavour that might advance and improve to society.
(iii) Ostensibly, universities accept this role; they consider and propound views on a weighty matters: the war in Ukraine, human rights violations around the world, the cases of Mr Navalny and Mr Kara-Murza, etc., etc.
(iv) We sometimes won't agree with them but they must address important matters and bring to bear such intellectual integrity and rigour as they are able to muster. It helps to make a healthy and strong society. Our views and norms must be questioned and tested. Or else we and society ossify.

6. I have written to universities here (in the United Kingdom), on the Continent and in the United States.
(i)As with everyone else, I reported the facts and put my conclusions to them, and I furnished them with the evidence by which I arrived at those conclusions.
(ii) I invited criticism of my views and of the evidence.
(iii) I suggested that they have the facts checked and offered, if they thought it might be too great a task for them, that we discuss how we might have the facts checked to a satisfactory standard. They did not respond.
(a) Given the number of students, the partnerships and relationships they have with other institutions and the fact that they are institutions of learning, this should not have been too difficult for them to do. In fact, they should have welcomed the opportunity.

7. I wrote to such universities as: Oxford University, Cambridge University, University of St Andrews and others (see ticker at the foot of each page of this website).

8. I particularise The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and Harvard itself.
(i) Sir Robert Buckland was Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, between 2019 and 2021.
(ii) During that time, he was directly responsible for my detention: he could have ended it at any moment: see No.6 of the page regarding the local MP's conduct in my case .
(iii) He could not show that I mentally disordered or dangerous but he insisted my detention continue.
(iv) I reported the misconduct of the judiciary to him. He refused to act. He claimed, it was none of his concern. See No.8 (i) (a) and (b) of the main page of this website.
(v) In response to his assertion that he could not act on such matters (the misconduct of the judiciary), I sent him a copy of the document: "Can the Judiciary be Kept Honest (and by Whom)" and invited his response thereto. He did not respond.

9. In the middle of 2023, I learned that the Kennedy School had granted Sir Robert a fellowship. His work there relates to "AI, Digital Courts and the impact on international standards of justice and the rule of law".
(i) I wrote to the Dean of John F. Kennedy School, informing him that:
(a) Sir Robert had been directly involved in my unjust detention, which violates fundamental human rights, including freedom of thought and
(b) he had ignored serious misconduct by the judiciary.
(ii) I provided him with evidence supporting such statements as I made to him.
(iii) I encouraged him to point out any flaws in my conclusions or reasoning and, if he could not, to explain why Sir Robert's association with that institution, and in such a capacity, would reflect poorly on the probity of the Institution.
(iv) I received no response.

10. I wrote to The president of Harvard, Professor Bacow, and reported the matter, making the same points I had made to Professor Elemendorf, the Dean of the Kennedy school, at that time. I received no response.

11. When Ms Gay became President of Harvard, I reported the matter to her, repeating the same points. I received no response.

12. I reported the matter, made the same points, provided the same evidence and explained that the Kennedy School and University Presidents had ignored my concerns on these matters, to each member of:
(i) the Harvard Corporation and
(ii) the Harvard Board of Overseers .

13. Their response was to erect a wall of silence and indifference.
(i) In such a situation, the normal response would be a letter to me:
(a) seeking clarification if the facts were not clearly understood,
(b) explaining that something would be done, if the facts were accepted or
(c) explaining why the appointment was proper, the facts provided notwithstanding.

14. A primary intention, in approaching people and institutions as described here, was to seek the truth, even if the truth would be that the conclusions I have reached are incorrect.
(i) If the conclusions I have reached are not wrong, it is important that fact be acknowledged and these problems addressed: the implications are obviously very serious and no right-thinking and responsible person can suffer society to run such risks as are occasioned by such conduct as I report. None of us is safe in such a world; there can be no real success or freedom in such a world.

15. My attitude will continue to be earnestly to seek congress, with a view not to buttress my views but to arrive at the truth. (i) I think this must aid the discovery of flawed notions and, consequently, prevent their propagation.

16. Misinformation cannot properly be addressed without transparency; everyone should be aware of precisely what is said and how it is said and be able openly to respond and to be heard in the same place.

17. As I have mentioned, elsewhere on this site: I continue to report these matters to relevant individuals, organisations and authorities. As I do so, I shall direct them to this website.
(i) I shall also write to people and organisations I have previously approached, direct them here and invite their comment.
(ii) This website is a preview of the website proper, which will be more detailed. It allows people and organisations, mentioned here and who are not mentioned here but will be mentioned in the website to come, to offer a response in time, to refute statements that I make and or to offer explanations, where they think there has been a misunderstanding. This should help avoid misinformation. It is the main reason I have created this introductory site.

18. If you have suggestions for preventing misinformation, please email them to me at contact@togetherwithourfriends.org

Actions You might Take

1. If you are concerned by what you read on this website (I hope you will be), please write to organisations and individuals mentioned here. Inform them of the statements made here and invite their comment thereon. Below, I have suggested some points and questions you might put to them.

2. I offer suggestions under geographical headings but nothing is to prevent a person with no connection to a geographical location from taking actions suggested for that location:
(i). What happens in one place affects what happens in another. We all have an interest in what happens everywhere else.
(ii). People who promote values and principles must be prepared to answer reasonable questions about their earnestness and dedication to those values, where there are grounds to do so.

Please Follow this Advice, if You Communicate with Individuals or Organisations

1. Be courteous; do not insult or threaten. That is important. I do not think any purpose is to be served by incivility and violence (which is what threats are).
(i) We want an atmosphere conducive to free expression. a threatening environment where people are insulted would be an obstacle to what we are trying to do.
(ii) This part is mandatory, what follows is advisory.

2. I recommend you write (email or letter) to people and organisations: it is easier to prove what you have said to them.

3. Regardless of how you communicate with people and organisations, insist on a written response and inform them that, in the interests of openness, you will send me a copy of the response so I may respond to it.

4. Transparency is the surest way to get to the truth; people should see what is said about them and precisely how it said it. Their responses should be displayed prominently in the same place those statements have been made.
(i) I shall display responses by people and organisations you have approached. I shall not wait until the website is complete to display any responses offered, in response to this website, by people and organisations mentioned thereon.

Wherever You might Be in the World

1. Write to:
The Economist,
The Times,
The Guardian. Choose the "Guardian Journalism" button and follow the steps from there,
The British Broadcasting Corporation,
The Daily Mail,
The Mirror,
Sky News,
The Daily Telegraph,
The New Yorker,
The New York Times. Choose "Feedback on our coverage" and continue from there,
The Washington Post. For area in which you need help, choose "Journalism". For "Journalism Issue", Choose "Send feedback about a news article",
Fox News,
CNN News,
CBS News,
Le Monde,
Der Spiegel,
The i,
The New Statesman,
News UK,
The Financial Times,
Agence France-Presse. You may use the form on that page,
Reuters,
Westdeutscher Rundfunk
Die Zeit,
Radio Free Europe,

1. Direct them to this site and ask them to respond to the statements made here, including that:
(i) they have refused to report these matters but have not denied that they have happened and are happening, and that they either made no effort to explain why they would not report these matters or their explanations were implausible (that they did not think the matters merited reporting) and
(ii) their refusal to report these matters is especially strange given their reporting of the cases of Mr Navalny and Mr Kara-Murza. Ask them to explain why those cases were more important than this case.

2. Ask them if they now wish to deny that such statements as I made to them and am now repeating here are true.

The United Kingdom

1. Write to your MP. You can find his/her name and contact details here. Inform them of the statements made here. Direct them to this site and ask them to respond to those statements, including:
(i) that MPs have refused to act because they say a rule of the House of Commons prevents them from acting in matters regarding the constituents of other MPs. Direct them to this page, which explains why this is not correct . Ask them to respond to the arguments there that this should not prevent them from acting.
(a) Remember, this concerns matters such as serious misconduct by the Government, the courts, the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Care Quality Commission, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Legal Services Board, etc., etc. Ask them why that does not affect you as their constituent.
(b) Ask them why, since the custom cannot be enforced, they think it should be grounds to ignore such serious threats to vital structures, the nation and public's interests and important principles, values and even the law.
(ii) Ask them if they now wish to deny that such statements as I made to them and am now repeating here are true.

3. Write to The Prime Minister. Direct him to this site, ask him:
(i) why he ignored these matters when they reported to him, as Leader of the Opposition, and he was provided with clear proof supporting them,
(ii) why, for years, he refused to oppose and to hold the Government to account on these matters and
(iii) what he is doing about these matters, now that he is Prime Minister,
(iv) if it is true that he did not deny that the reports I made to him were valid and
(v) if he now wishes to deny that such statements as I made to him and am now repeating here are true.

3. Write to the Labour Party (I have directed you to the complaints page because its contact page has no email option that would be useful to you), the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and the Green Party. Direct the Parties to this site and ask them to respond to the statements made here, including:
(i). Party leaders, including Labour: Sir Keir Starmer, Ms Angela Rayner, Ms Rachel Reeves, Mr David Lammy, Mr Wesley Streeting and Mr John Healey, Liberal Democrats: Sir Edward Davey, Ms Daisy Cooper, and Mr Alistair Carmichael, Reform UK: Mr Nigel Farage, Mr Richard Tice, Mr Ben Habib and Dr David Bull and, Green Party: Ms Carla Denyer and Mr Adrian Ramsay: (a) refused to oppose and to hold the Government to account by ignoring on my reports to them (supported by evidence) that such things as I have described were happening,
(b) effectively concealed these matters from the public for years (in the case of labour and the Liberal Democrats, since January 2024 in the case of Reform UK and since June, 2024 for the Green Party) and (c) when they campaigned for the General Election of 2024, ignored my warning that not to inform the public of such matters before it voted would be to conceal from it (the public) important and relevant information (serious problems and misconduct within government and public bodies) so that people would not make informed decisions when they voted, which would probably make the Election undemocratic. Have them explain why that warning ought not to have been taken seriously.
(ii) that they did not deny that the matters I reported to them were true.

4. Write to the Conservative Party. Direct it to this page and ask it why, when it was in government, it ignored these matters when I reported them to it, and furnished evidence to support those reports to Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State for Justice, Health, Home Secretaries and ministers in those Departments and Ministries, between 2017 and 2024.
(i) Ask them if it is true that they did not deny that the matters I reported to him were true.

The European Union and its Constituent States

1. Write to: your MEP, you can find their name here and their contact details here, the European Commission, individual commissioners and the President of the Commission, the European Union Parliament and its president. Direct them to this site and ask them to respond to the statements made here, including:
(i) that the European Commission, its President (Ms von der Leyen), each Commissioner, the President of the European Union Parliament and each member of the previous Parliament refused to act on these matters when I reported them to them, provided them with proof supporting those statements and offered more proof, if they required it.
(a) Remember this concerns such matters as serious misconduct by the European Court of Human Rights
(ii) that they did not deny that the matters I reported to them were true.

2. Ask them if they now wish to deny that such statements as I made to them and am now repeating here are true.

3. Ask them why they intervened in such cases as those of Mr Alexei Navalny and Mr Vladimir Kara-Murza, in Russia, but not in my case and whether that means values, principles and human rights must be observed in Russia but not in the United Kingdom. Examples of those interventions are:
(i). The condemnation of judicial decisions against Mr Navalny
(ii). The warning to Russia that: "While we fully respect Russian sovereignty... the European Union considers issues related to the rule of law, human rights, civil society and political freedom are central to our common future."
(iii) The statements upon the death of Mr Navalny.
(a) Ask them why, when I repeatedly wrote to them over a month, requesting their assistance because I was being denied proper medical care, while I repeatedly experienced numbness of the arms, which might have been strokes and could have led to my death or serious and irreversible damage to me, they did not act. And yet, when Mr Navalny died, they acted and levied sanctions.
(b) Ask them how they knew I would not die or suffer serious and irreparable harm as a result of the refusal to provide me with proper medical care.
(c) Ask them if and how they would have known, had I died as a result of the refusal to provide me with proper medical care.
(c) Ask them what actions they would have taken had I died.
(iv) Criticism of the sentencing of Mr Kara-Murza and insistence that prisoners receive proper healthcare.
(v) The imposition of restrictive measures against individuals, because of the sentencing of Mr Kara-Murza and human rights violations.
(vi) The MEPs' debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. In particular, on Repression in Russia in the cases of Mr Vladimir Kara-Murza and Mr Aleksei Navalny. Nothing on abuses in my case.

3. Write to your executive head of state (Prime Minister, President or Chancellor):
(i) Put to them the questions suggested, above, for MEPs, the European Union Commission, etc.
(ii) Ask them why they spoke for Mr Navalny and Mr Kara-Murza but ignored my case.
(iii) Ask them if it is true that they did not deny that the matters I reported to him were true.
(iv) Ask them if they now wish to deny that such statements as I made to them and am now repeating here are true.

The United States of America

1. Write to: the President (President Biden), the Vice-president (Vice-President Harris), the Secretary of State (Mr Blinken), the Minority Leader in the Senate (Senator McConnell), Chairman of The Democratic National Convention (Mr Jaime Harrison).
(i) Direct them to this Site and ask them to respond to the statements made here.
(ii) Ask them why they ignored those matters.
(ii) Ask Senator McConnell and Mr Harrison whether they forwarded those reports to senators, as I requested. If they did not, ask them why they did not:
(iii) Ask them why they have been concerned about and spoken and acted on the cases of Mr Navalny and Mr Kara-Murza but not mine.
(a) Ask them if this means human rights, the rule of law and va.ues are more relevant to Russia than they are to the United Kingdom.
(iv) Ask them if they agree that close allies should be held more to account and higher standards should be expected of them than of than countries that are not?
(v) Ask them if they deny that the matters I reported to them are true.

2. Write to your news organisations, listed under "Wherever You might Be in the World" , above. Put to them the points suggested at the end of that Section.

Canada

3. Write to The Prime Minister,
your MP. You can find their name and contact details here and
your senator.

4. Direct them to this site and ask them:
(i) Why my case was considered less worthy of their time than that of Mr Alexei Navalny or Mr Vladimir Kara-Murza, below, are examples of actions they took:
(a) Referring to Mr Kara-Murza's detention, Prime Minister Trudeau denounced Russia's "disregard for democratic principles and universal human rights, including for its own people."
(b) The Canadian Parliament granted Mr Kara-Murza honorary citizenship, in order better to advocate for him.
ii) whether they deny that the matters I reported to them are true.