"Écoutant, en effet, les cris d'allégresse qui montaient de la ville, Rieux se souvenait que cette allégresse était toujours menacée. Car il savait que cette foule en joie ignorait, et qu'on peut lire dans les livres, que le bacille de la peste ne meurt ni ne disparaît jamais, qu'il peut rester pendant des dizaines d'années endormi dans les meubles et le linge, qu'il attend patiemment dans les chambres, les caves, les malles, les mouchoirs et les paperasses, et que, peut-être, le jour viendrait où, pour le malheur et l'enseignement des hommes, la peste réveillerait ses rats et les enverrait mourir dans une cité heureuse" - Albert Camus, La Peste.

"Listening to the shouts of joy that rose from the city, Rieux understood that such joy is always threatened. For he knew what those jubilant crowds did not know but could have learned from books: that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks, and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city."

The Vital Part Played by the Police

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 conduct of the Chief Constable must be gross negligence (equivalent to bad intention) or evidence of participation in serious crimes, lately rising to the level of attempted to murder a vulnerable person (a person detained under section).
(i) This page is posted on 07 October, 2024. On this day, I am directing the press office of this Police Force to this website and this page and inviting a response thereto.
(a) Should I receive no response by 14 October, 2024, I should name the Police Force and its Chief Constable.

1. The police Force has conducted itself curiously throughout this matter, as explained briefly elsewhere on this website. For example:

2. In 2015, I wrote to the Chief Constable in charge of the police Force. I described the campaign against me. At that time, there was much less evidence.
(i) He must have considered the matter not to be so fanciful: two police officers were sent to the Hospital to investigate the matter.
(a) They did not speak to me. I was not aware of their visit to the Hospital until, more than a year later: I requested copies of my hospital records and found, therein, notes to the effect that two police officers had visited the Hospital twice.
(ii) by the time I learned of the visit, the Chief Constable had been dismissed.

3. I wrote to the new Chief Constable, returning the matter to his attention. I was informed that the matter would be not be investigated because I was delusional.
(i) I explained that the diagnosis was not valid: it has never been explained to me why the conclusions I have reached are wrong - see No.2 (v) (a) the main page of this site
(ii) I asked the police to explain why the conclusions I had reached were wrong. It did not do so.
(iii) Despite clear proof that I had been falsely diagnosed, and its own failure to defend its assertion that I am mentally disordered, the police took no action. It leaned its apathy on a diagnosis it must have known to be false.

4. Over the course of the next few years, I had occasion to report to that Police Force and its Chief Constables offences including assault, perjury and battery. For all of these offences, there was clear evidence including, in some instances, CCTV footage.
(i) The Police Force and its Chief Constables did nothing. They were not able to explain their refusal to act on or even to record these reports.
(ii) They did not answer questions I put to them; they disregarded the Principle of Accountability.

5. On 16 September, 2024, I wrote to the Chief Constable. I informed her that my medication for hypertension had unreasonably and dangerously been withdrawn and I was simultaneously being subjected to harassment that must be designed to vex me and, thereby, cause an attack, such as a stroke, that might cause my death.
(i) I invited her to visit this website. I had previously reported to her, in detail, all the matters treated on this website, and I had provided her with a large amount of evidence to support such statements as I made.

6. On 16 September, not having heard from the Chief Constable, I went to the Police Headquarters. I was told I could not see her.
(i) I explained that, since my life is in danger, I expected a response from her: if I did not receive a response from her by the evening of 17 September, I should return on 18 September and I would remain there until she spoke to me regarding the matters I had reported to her.

7. On 17 September, I was told that the police had said I should not contact the Chief Constable or my MP again, even by email. No explanation was given.

8. By forbidding me from contacting my MP, the police deprived me of the right to representation in Parliament: I cannot bring matters to her and, as I have explained elsewhere on this website, other MPs refuse to act on these matters because they say a parliamentary custom prevents them from doing so.
(i) No explanation was given for these edicts by the Chief Constable. She cannot have failed to understand that:
(a) denying a hypertensive medication to manage high blood pressure is dangerous,
(b) I must be under a good deal of stress,
(c) her response: merely to instruct me never to contact her or my MP, without explaining why or answering the reasonable questions I put to her, must add to the stress I was under.
(d) her response could well have been the last straw that caused an attack, such as a stroke or heart attack, that might kill or maim me.
(e) She cannot have had any reason to doubt my reports to her that the discontinuation of my prescription was accompanied by harassment, likely to cause anxiety and induce such an attacks as have been described.

9. On 18 September, the psychiatrist in charge of my case informed me, formally, of the instructions from the Chief Constable. I asked him to have her explain her reasons and to say why she had not provided those reasons when she issued her instructions. He said he would do so.
(i) The response from the police, ent to the Psychiatrist, was brief. I quote it in its entirety:

"My fear in responding is that it will begin a chain of events where my response will give him the opportunity to ask more questions!
If you could reiterate what it seems you have explained already, that the matters he speaks of are not within the remit of the Police or MP and therefore correspondence is not necessary.
If you require a more detailed response I am happy to provide one.

10. The police appeared to say it was feared a conversation might follow any response. Where people start from different positions, congress is the only way to achieve reconciliation of those positions and arrive at the correct view. It should be sought rather than avoided.

On 24 September, I sent an email to the psychiatrist in charge of my care, asking him to forward certain questions. At the time of posting this page (07 October), I had received no response