Chapter IX: Leaving England Part 1

1 Some preamble about what happened next and about Richard Tomlinson

1 Introduction

Before providing an account of what occurred next, I should like to state the following.

  1. I did not know at this point that after Laurie Bristow left at the end of 2014 a member of the college would replace him as director for national security in 2015. That individual was of course a Mr Johnathan Allen and he will have been responsible for directing the harassment.
  2. It was rather unfortunate that during this period, I would uncover more information which admittedly was not as significant as that which I would uncover during and after my time in Russia in 2017.


2 The Euroweenies

My experiences over the course of the next few years were not unlike those of Richard Tomlinson in the 1990s after he  left MI6. One find that the governments of Europe and indeed in other parts of the world are unwilling to offend, stand up to or act in a sovereign manner with respect to the United Kingdom. Indeed it would be latter admitted by the German and Polish authorities that they could not do so and the Polish authorities in fact would advise me to go to the United States.

The reason why this should be the case is very clear. The unfortunate fact is that the European Union and its “countries” are not sovereign. They willingly choose to be dependent upon the United Kingdom and the United States for their defense and intelligence requirements because they do not wish to setup nor to pay for their own arrangements in this respect.

The countries of the European Union are thus not in any real sense countries but colonies because a geographical area which does not have its own sovereign defense and intelligence structure and which is dependent upon that which is provided by another country is by definition a colony.

One might ask why should they make this choice? It is very simple and it is alas largely to do with genetics but not in relation to race but merely the quality of leadership. The unfortunate fact is that most of the bravest, most courageous and patriotic leaders were slaughtered in the first and second world wars. The result has been that those who chose to become political leaders are largely composed of those who are rather less brave, courageous and patriotic.

Anyone who does actually possess those values in any reasonable measure will find either that the resultant weak leadership rather difficult to tolerate or that the leadership does not tolerate them because they are not weak and do not subscribe to the philosophy that says that one should be weak. As a consequence they will decide either to enter other trades or to emigrate. It is not doubt one reason why apart from racial prejudice the descendants of people who immigrated from African or Asian after the second world war decided that politics was not a trade worth pursing.

This is the reason why the European Union has an obsessive reverence for “gender ideology” which is code for stating that Europe should be weak and effeminate and does not occur out of any concern for things such as equality between men and women. As part of this when there are issues in relation to someone who is capable of fulfilling a certain role but who is prevented from doing so, they other and highlight the category to which a person belongs. It is only whether someone is able of fulfilling a position which can matter.

One example of this focus upon characteristics as opposed to abilities is Greta Thunberg where people make reference to her gender (along with her interest in climate change which is another means by which the European Union ignore human rights issues) but pay far less attention to the fact that she is on the autistic spectrum, something which entails greater abilities and intelligence in many respects, usually in mathematics and science.

One must discount those whose diagnosis is perhaps doubtful (Turing and others) for the sake of accuracy and neutrality and because for all the talk of “gender equality”, it is rather more interesting with respect to Greta Thurnberg that one does not really hear challenges in relation to the fact that most autism diagnoses are for men. This could be a symptom of why women don’t become scientists in that they are perhaps not considered “geeky/nerdy” (or autistic) enough. Then again women not tending to be autistic might a natural feature, one which inevitably would mean that

  1. There will be fewer women who are scientists
  2. If there are challenges and attempts to remedy this by ensuring “gender equality”,
    1. This will mean a quality of scientific output which will be lower.
    2. It would demonstrate that they are prepared to sacrifice economic well-being as part of their gender ideology.

As part of this, they take no account of the rather more important issue of neurodiversity, classify dyslexia and autism as disabilities rather than differences even though they are essential to the progress of humanity and expect others not to take offense at this, much as they tend to do when others classify people who belong to their favored groups as less able or even sick. When they refer to “equality” they always contradict themselves by excluding the neurodiverse and where they do include them they do not mention the concept of neurodiversity but treat people on the spectrum or who are dyslexic as less able or “disabled”.

To them effeminacy and weakness is a religion, which they are as obsessed about to the same extent as those on the bible belt are obsessed about Jesus Christ. It is their doctrine and political philosophy. To be crude they like being shafted by others and moreover think it is unreasonable that others complain when they are subject to aggression.

It is the reason why they

  1. Refused to do anything about Rwanda or Srebrenica. It requires a certain amount of bravery and courage which they do not possess and which they treat as a psychiatric illness. When they do bring about certain “causes” such as Belarus, they demonstrate the fact that they do so out of a sense of cowardice and hypocrisy through the fact that at the same time, they turn a blind eye to what UK intelligence gets up to in the UK and on European soil.
  2. Either hand-wring, talk about “compromise” when it comes to things of a similar or indeed any magnitude of importance. Then decades after a catastrophe such as Rwanda or the Srebrenica has happened, they state “never again” usually as part of a pompous and hypocritical ceremony where they are doing as much again but with respect to something else. (This is even though the European Union was set up on the basis of “never again”) One example of this can be seen through the fact that they not only turn a blind eye and defend the misuse of surveillance by the intelligence agencies of the UK and the US (including when their leaders are themselves subject to such surveillance) but also victimize victims of such surveillance. To give an example of how the leadership
    1. Turn a blind eye you can look at Angela Merkel who grew up in the GDR and who apparently thinks its acceptable to have her telephone conversations bugged by the American government. Apart from a moan or two, she does not to take demonstrable action against this. She and her useless government apparently think you should not complain about this and other forms of surveillance and where you do they will either be passive or side with America.
    2. Cooperate and victimize and are a gutless and spineless embarrassment you can look at the case of Edward Snowden or indeed that of Richard Tomlinson or indeed myself.
  3. Are uninterested in the fact that American foreign policy in this respect, represents a threat to their economic well-being. Prosperity can only occur through having a technology sector worth speaking of something which they refuse to protect given that they
    1. Allow the corporate espionage which takes place at the behest of GCHQ and the NSA through Menwith Hill.
    2. Are unduly keen to be subservient to those agencies as part of which they will cooperate with them. There are a couple of notable examples which are
      1. Salisbury
      2. My case
      3. Their concern about the elections which have taken place in Belarus. This also occurs because they need to draw attention away from their own failings and cowardice with respect to the fact that they allow abuses of human rights by not standing up for the privacy, security and independence of European citizens when faced with American and British interference of one sort of another on European territory. Given the sophisticated nature of that interference it tends, like the methods used by the stasi, to be more insidious and nasty than that which is allegedly apparent in countries like Belarus and it is thus convenient for the EU authorities to ignore.
  4. Do not remark upon the fact that the refugee influx which Europe has had to deal with is the result of British and American policy in relation to defense which they support either actively or passively.
  5. Don’t like President Erdogan nor indeed the Polish or Hungarian president because they apparently like democracy when in reality it is to do with the fact that they either are at variance with the whole gender ideology or actually show a degree of strength and willingness to be anything less than absolutely effeminate.
  6. Obsess about a thousand different causes which even if you support them are objectively of lesser importance than sovereignty or defense and which can only be sustained by being sovereign and being in a position to defend oneself. They do so because
    1. They are cowards. If you want a demonstration of this, try muting every term on the European Commission, parliament and council twitter feeds which pertains to things other than sovereignty and defense. You will soon hear absolutely nothing from their twitter feeds.
    2. They have a prejudice against certain groups such as those on the spectrum or those subject to the abuses of the surveillance state. In order to silence such people, they will highlight the needs of groups or certain causes which they favour. If someone so much as farts in the presence of such groups in a foreign country people like Guy Verhofstaft will start doing a very good impression of Scrappy doo on twitter. On the other hand when people on the spectrum are mistreated by the state or the intelligence services, they deem that this is perfectly acceptable, as one can tell for example by their silence and inaction. They may say grudgingly that it is everyone is equal but only in the sense that people are “separate but equal”. They don’t actual mean it because they at heart they are bigots.
    3. They view the characteristics of a person as more important than their ability. The fact that a woman is barred from particular position is important because they happen to be a woman rather than because they have certain abilities.
  7. Will be an embarrassing footnote in history in 50 years time unless they change their positions in and do so promptly. The EU is an entity which, in addition to the above, has a demographic problem in that
    1. It has an aging population but promotes abortion and even with respect to those who are alive and capable, they think it is acceptable to amongst other things disable them by turning a blind eye to the usage of drugs or to classify those who are actually able as disabled (I make reference to the neurodiverse).
    2. Those who don’t follow this ideology will inevitably outnumber them (ie those who belong to certain groups such as Muslims who will inevitably out-breed them because they subscribe to the sort of views which were formerly held in Europe and which perhaps render them more European than many Europeans currently are)
  8. Do not realize that people will associate the promotion of such characteristics as a form of moral corruption particularly given the fact that the EU which has a ideology of being weak is the prime promoter of them. No other group of countries in their position would act in the way which they do. They no doubt deem that this is offensive when the truth is their the effect of their cowardice upon the peoples of Europe is rather more offensive. And to be even more offensive, I think even a racist would be able to point to what they call “bongo bongo land” and note that they would find the European Union to be a cowardly embarrassment.
  9. Should perhaps look in the mirror before blaming Russia/Iran/China/Nigel Farage for Brexit given the fact that they consistently fail to look in the mirror to see where they are at fault.

They don’t seem to understand that this makes a mockery of Germany and the European Union which was set up in response to what Germany did. Germany is one half of the Franco-German axis which forms the basis of the European Union. Since the 19th century we have had

  1. The establishment of Germany which occurred in response to a war with France.
  2. The first world war with millions of deaths.
  3. The second world war where they were responsible for genocide and mass murder and promoting popularizing the concentration camp.
  4. The German democratic republic where they popularized and really invented the modern surveillance state.

And unsurprisingly Germany gives tacit approval to the continuation of some of what they invented (the surveillance state) and indeed participates in what occurs to some extent whilst promoting an ideology which says that one should be give in to it and to be weak. As such, this rather does make a nonsense of the European Union which claims to have been established partly to fight the sort of thing one saw in the GDR but which at the same time shows its approval of what they did.

The current “show of strength” on the part of the European Union with regards to the negotiations with the United Kingdom is entirely immaterial given that it will still chose to remain dependent upon the United Kingdom for its defence and intelligence requirements.

In this respect, perhaps the reason why the United Kingdom are currently stating that they do not wish to comply with the withdrawal agreement is in order to provoke the European Union into another show of strength whereby they attempt to give the impression that they are not beholden to and would not act on behalf of the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom does not pull the strings. As part of this the EU is apparently threatening legal action.

Again it again does not negate the fact that when it comes to defence and intelligence, regardless of brexit, they would crawl across broken glass in order to beg the UK and the US to tell them what to do.

In any case it would seem doubtful that the relevant bills would get through the House of Lords.


3 Richard Tomlinson

My experiences can be said to be similar to those of Richard Tomlinson with one major difference. He received an apology because he agreed not to confirm the existence of an document at the inquest into the death of Princess Diana.

Richard Tomlinson had claimed that

  1. MI6 had been monitoring Diana before her death.
  2. Her driver on the night she died, Henri Paul, may have been an MI6 informant.
  3. Her death resembled plans he had seen in a document in 1992 for the assassination of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, using a bright light to cause a traffic accident.
  4. Diana and Dodi may have been killed by MI6 in the same way.

The plot to kill Slobodan Milosevic is recounted on pages 98-99 of his book the Big Breach and is as follows

Shortly after returning from my Belgrade trip, Nick Fish, P4/OPS/A, the targeting officer for P4 section and assistant to String Vest, called me into his office. `How’d you like to work on my plan to assassinate Slobodan Milosevic then?’ he asked casually, as if seeking my views on the weekend cricket scores.

`Oh come off it, I’m not falling for your little games,’ I replied dismissively, believing that Fish was just trying to wind me up.

`Why not?’ continued Fish, indignantly. `We colluded with the Yanks to knock off Saddam in the Gulf War, and the SOE tried to take out Hitler in the Second World War.’

`Yes, but they were legitimate military targets in wartime,’ I replied. `We are not at war with Serbia, and Milosevic is a civilian leader. You can’t top him.’

Fish was undaunted. `Yes we can, and we’ve done it before. I checked with Santa Claus upstairs,’ he said, flicking his head disparagingly towards Bidde’s office on the tenth floor. Fish was perpetually at war with everybody, even the jovial, silver-haired SBO1. `He told me that we tried to slot Lenin back in 1911, but some pinko coughed at the last minute and the Prime Minister, it was Asquith then, binned the plan.’ Fish’s disappointment was plain. `Santa Claus has got the papers in his locker, but he wouldn’t show them to me. They’re still more secret than the Pope’s Y-fronts, apparently.’

Has MI6 ever assassinated a peacetime target? It was a question that a few of us sometimes discussed on the IONEC but nobody quite dared to ask one of the DS in class. It was a taboo subject, left unsaid by the DS and unasked by the students. One evening down at the Fort bar, when nobody else was listening and after several pints of beer, I asked Ball about it. `Absolutely not, never,’ he replied, his face puckered with sincerity. I was not very sure, however, as he had already proved himself a convincing liar. In any case, if an assassination were plotted, only a tiny handful of officers would know about it and even if Ball were one he would not make a lowly IONEC student privy to such sensitive information.

I did not take Fish’s proposal too seriously but a few days later, in his office again to sort out expenses from the Belgrade trip, he casually threw over a couple of sheets of A4. `Here, take a butcher’s at this.’ It was a two-page minute entitled `A proposal to assassinate Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic’. A yellow minute card was attached to the back, showing that it was a formal document rather than just a draft, and the right margin showed a distribution list of String Vest, C/CEE, MODA/SO (an SAS Major, seconded to MI6 as a liaison officer with the increment) and H/SECT, the assistant to the Chief himself. I checked the date on the top-left corner, established that it was not 1 April, then sat down at the visitor’s chair beside his cluttered desk to read it. Fish’s first page was a justification for the assassination, citing Milosevic’s destabilising plans for a Greater Serbia, his illegal covert support for Radovan Karadzic and his genocidal plans for the Albanian population of Kosovo. The second page outlined the execution of the assassination.

Fish proposed three alternative plans for the attempt and gave advantages and disadvantages for each. His first proposal was to use the increment to train and equip a dissident Serbian paramilitary faction to assassinate Milosevic in Serbia. Fish argued that the advantage of this plan was its deniability, the disadvantage that it would be difficult to control. His second plan was to use an increment team to infiltrate Serbia and kill Milosevic with a bomb or sniper ambush. He argued that this plan would have a high chance of success but would not be deniable if it went wrong. The third proposal was to arrange a car `accident’ to kill Milosevic, possibly while attending the ICFY (International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia) peace talks in Geneva. Fish proposed using a bright flashing strobe gun to disorientate Milosevic’s chauffeur while the cavalcade passed through a tunnel. The advantage of a tunnel crash was that there would be fewer incidental witnesses and a greater chance that the ensuing accident would be fatal. `You’re off your trolley,’ I muttered and passed it back to him. The audacity and ruthlessness of the plan was astonishing. Fish was serious about his career in MI6 and he would not send a suggestion like this up to senior officers out of frivolity. `This will never get accepted,’ I added.

During February 2008 however, Tomlinson was a witness for the inquest into the deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed which took place in Paris. His previous claim that he had seen that document suddenly shifted to a claim that he couldn’t be absolutely sure that he had seen it. A few months later in September of that year, MI6 suddenly

  1. Dropped all legal objection to the publication of his book, the Big Breach where he recounts his life at MI6
  2. Released the proceeds from the publication to Tomlinson
  3. Admitted that their previous legal actions against him were disproportionate.
  4. Allowed him to come and go as he pleased to the United Kingdom

This had nothing to do with the fact that government lawyers had decided not to prosecute him for publishing The Big Breach. The claim on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service that they did not do so because there was no real prospect of conviction in a jury trial and that it would reveal “sensitive matters” is obviously nonsensical. The fact is that the trial could have taken place in secret under the terms of the Official Secrets Act with the usage of secret evidence or even with a secret court.

This decision and the decision to release the proceeds from the book, to state that previous legal actions against him were disproportionate and to allow him to come and go freely must therefore have occurred for other reasons.

It would not seem cogent to suggest that it was because he was about to reveal information about a method which they had been intending to use to assassinate foreign leaders in that

  1. It’s not exactly news or a secret that they kill people. It would in fact be admitted in court by the person who had initially sacked Tomlinson, Sir Richard Dearlove, that MI6 does have a license to kill.
  2. It would be expected that MI6 would kill foreign leaders and it is surprising that Richard Tomlinson should complain about this.
  3. Tomlinson had already revealed a method of doing so and it was no longer secret.

It can only have been to do with the fact that

  1. They were afraid that he was going to reveal that they may have used such a method against Princess Diana in an upcoming court case which would take place in a foreign country where it could not be guaranteed that they could affect the outcome.
  2. What he was about to state was true. If it hadn’t been
    1. They would have submitted counter-evidence to the court showing that he was incorrect
    2. They would not have felt the need to do a deal with Tomlinson
    3. They would not have resorted to the information operations which I outline below

As such, they

  1. Wanted him to keep quiet in some way
  2. Could not do so by preventing him from going to the court in that it might look odd.
  3. Had to do a deal
  4. Asked him  to “temper” his opinion by casting doubt upon his initial allegations.

The reasons why Diana would have been murdered had nothing to do, as is alleged by some, with the Royal family. Word was put about to this effect to discredit those who were affected by the murder, most notably Mohammed Al Fayed and to discredit by association any allegations that she had been murdered.

Indeed an allegation that the royal family ordered her assassination does sound silly becauseif there had been orders issued to deal with troublemakers, the defence and intelligence services have done an appalling job as one can see from

  1. Squidgy-gate
  2. The fact that the state refused to protect them from press intrusion  which was part of the reason why Prince Harry and Meghan decided to in effect resign from the Royal family.
  3. The fact that the intelligence services know that the allegations of rape which were made against Prince Andrew are nonsense and are ones which they have promoted, as I shall relate in Chapter eleven in the section which pertains to a Mr Mark Douggan.

Diana will have been killed by the intelligence services because of her campaign against landmines and because of the fact that the arms companies which the intelligence services represent were rather unhappy.

This can be ascertained by the fact that

  1. As mentioned, efforts were made to spread the allegation that the royal family were responsible for Diana’s death in order to discredit those who were affected by the death of Diana and who would repeat such allegations
  2. There are other instances of discreditation by association by the intelligence services. For example the employment of information operations (IOPS) in the press and in particular the express something which is evident through the fact that
    1. The intelligence services have a historic relationship with the press.
    2. The express is is seen as a rather downmarket newspaper
    3. The express is a newspaper which has been declining in popularity and the publication of stories in relation to Diana cannot have occurred to improve the circulation because they would know by know that this has proved to be ineffective
    4. The publication of such stories must have occurred for occurred for some reason. This can only reasonably be said to be due to those who would have had a vested interest in doing so which would have been the intelligence services who would cooperate with that newspaper
    5. The stories in relation to Diana consist of an avalanche of false information mixed with some which is true.
    6. This constitutes an effort to make people naturally associate accounts of the murder of Diana with the realm of “conspiracy theories” given the last point and given the downmarket nature of the publication and to discredit any truthful account of how she was murdered.

Arguably the fact they dropped actions in the case of Richard Tomlinson but not in mine does rather tend to indicate that they did a deal. They know however that I will never agree to such a grubby and grudging compromise whilst they mistreat me (as they do online to him).

It is rather ironic that

  1. Their shoddy attempts to conceal the fact that they arranged the murder of Diana reveal the fact that they did.  It is a bit like the usage of the term “conspiracy theory” which the intelligence services are said to promote in relation to cases like these, something which in turn reveals the fact that there is something to hide. As such, it would appear that James Bond has turned into Mr Bean.
  2. Sir Richard Dearlove was head of operations at MI6 during the period when Diana was murdered and it is fair to state, given Chilcott and my case that he does not have the most impressive record of accuracy.
  3. I should only be above to show that Diana was murdered as well as why because of the harassment by the foreign office in that it would not have occurred to me before all this started. In particular, I would not have taken an interest in the case of Richard Tomlinson had I not been harassed.


2 Cambridge (July 2014 )

During my stay at Fulbourn, it had been arranged by the local council that I would stay at some temporary lodgings after my departure.

Given events which had occurred, most notably the the fact that Julia had threatened to have words with the council after she found out about the recording, it was unsurprising that these lodgings were near the drug gang which had been involved with Michael Hauser Raspe, even though I had been assured that my lodgings would be away from Cambridge and aware from any drug gang. This seems quite reasonable given what had occurred and given the fact that Cambridge is rather expensive anyway and that it would have been in line with government policy to put me in a location which was less expensive.

Given the offer of a “plane ride” and “food”, the harassment which I had experienced during the previous year, the location next to the drug gang and the fact that I had a recording of the attempted recruitment or rather pressure and threats by MI6 to work for them, which the authorities might have felt that “others” (namely the FBI) might have had access to, it did not seem like a good idea to stay in those lodgings which appeared on the balance of probabilities to have been chosen in order to offer the authorities a convenient way of eliminating someone who was considered to be a problem.

I spoke to the council who were apparently unable to find a more suitable location and therefore elected to find a hotel.  There were apparently no rooms available at the Travelodge near the station when I went to inquire nor indeed at other places at a price which could be considered reasonable for Cambridge. When I was in the Travelodge making my inquiry, someone just walked into the hotel and informed me that there was a place down the road but this seemed a little “insecure” and his arrival which appeared to have occurred solely on the basis of showing me available places could be interpreted perhaps as being a little “odd”.

As such, I decided to leave Cambridge and to go to Ely where again there were apparently no rooms available at a price which could be considered reasonably cheap for the local area.

I also felt that I might visit the local cathedral where I saw the local vicar who for some strange reason made mention of the fact that it was “St Catharine’s day” which was strange given the fact that it was not and given the fact that that particular festival was in November.

I walked all the way to the Travelodge where again the lady at the reception said there were no rooms available. She then phoned someone who said there were rooms available at a particular place which was rather out of the way as part of which she arranged a taxi.

Whilst the taxi driver was driving me there, he mentioned the fact that he had apparently worked for the American embassy in London and how it was often the case that the people who go to public school particularly the sons of rich people are targeted by drug gangs. The driver was British so I am not sure how true this was. It sounded more like a confession of events which had occurred on the part of someone who worked for the foreign office and a hint at the fact of who he was and the fact that I was under surveillance.

Indeed I rather sensed that the person who attempted to guide me to a certain hotel in Cambridge as well as the person at the cathedral were under similar employment. I also sensed the fact that

  1. The hostel was obviously unsafe, despite promises having been made
  2. The lack of apparent support from the local council
  3. Affordable hotel rooms were suddenly unavailable on a weekday in both Cambridge and Ely
  4. I had to pay for a hotel which was fairly expensive as well as a taxi there and back.
  5. A cheaper place could have been arranged without recourse to a taxi, despite an apparent confession on the part of the driver

Were all intended to ensure that I might run out of money and leave me in a difficult situation. The FCO could not delete or gain hold of the recording or directly harm me because they would have felt that the FBI would have access to the recordings where Julia had suggested that MI6 might do as much, so they had to contract it out to some druggies. They were aware of the fact that I had the third recording where Julia showed that she was keen for me to go on a plane ride and where she confirmed through her statements that she worked for MI6 because I told Julia whereupon she screamed at me.

As such, overnight, I had to think as to what to do next.

Given my experiences in various parts of the UK, the lack of support as well as the fact of what had occurred, I felt that it would be wisest to leave the UK.

The next day therefore, I went to various embassies in London including the Norwegian embassy where the staff did not want to know and that of Belgium. Whilst I was in the Belgian embassy, I spoke to a very nice lady who was seemingly understanding about my situation, who checked my passport and said that I had some entitlement to live there based upon my previous residence during the early 1990s. This would however, much to my disappointment, turn out not to be the case when I did go to Belgium, no doubt because of the intervention of the foreign office. İt was rather naive in retrospect, not knowing much about MI6, to expect that if I left England, I would be left alone by them.

I went to Dover where yet again there was no ferry nor indeed a hotel which was available at a price which was reasonable given the location. This is not to say that I was being stingy but there genuinely were no single rooms within the normal price bracket for that area.

I therefore slept and not very well in some woods on a cliff next to the tunnels where the Dunkirk rescue had been planned and woke up a few hours later and went to the ferry terminal. There were apparently no ferries to Belgium but there were some for France so I bought a ticket and embarked to France.


3 France, Belgium and then France (July 2015- January 2015)

I exchanged what little money I had on the ferry, found that I had about 20 euros left and arrived in Calais. I considered whether to stay in France but I had heard horror stories about the way in which they treat autistic people and I did not wish to burden my parents.

I therefore elected to take the bus to Belgium because there were no trains and after crossing the border and bunking some trains, I eventually ended up in Ghent at around 5pm, utterly exhausted.

I decided to stay in a psychiatric hospital given that from a “sales” and business perspective and given my previous experiences and most notably my financial situation, it would be the most suitable place. I could work on programming which I felt would be likely to be of interest to the staff there which I might “sell” to them or rather make charitable whilst being able to benefit from free lodging, food, security and any healthcare that might perhaps be necessary.

I intended to stay in this situation until such time as it was possible to establish myself in Belgium with their help.

Before I got a chance to continue my work, I was shortly moved to another place called Sleidinge where again there was an attempt to recruit me to SIS by an individual who knew a lot about my situation. I ignored him however, in as much as it was possible, until I completed the first iteration of an app which the staff were too busy to examine. For whatever reason whilst I was there they showed a film called Mercury rising which for whatever reason was being broadcast on the television.

It subsequently turned out that, contrary to the reassurances which had been given by the embassy, that there were certain administrative blocks in terms of establishing myself there. This would not be unexpected given:

  1. The experience of Richard Tomlinson in terms of European cooperation with SIS which is related in his book the “Big Breach” along with that of Annie Machon.
  2. The cooperation through the Mutual Assistance Act and various European Union legislation. France is of course subject to the Lancaster House Treaties, the mutual assistance act, the European Arrest Warrant and moreover is part of NATO. As is the case with the rest of Europe it cooperates with the United Kingdom in matters in relation to intelligence as part of which they treat the United Kingdom as the senior partner, something which the United Kingdom sought to exploit after the signing of Article 50 which gave notification of their intent to leave the European Union
  3. The fact that in terms of intelligence, the European agencies are very much subordinate to those of Britain which is evident through the fact that for example, without the intelligence provided by GCHQ, the German signals intelligence service BND reported that they were virtually blind, something which was proven by the terrorist attack a few days after that report.
  4. The fact that I had a recording of the attempt on the part of MI& to recruit me which was in exchange for my work
  5. They were still after my work and would continue to harass as part of that.
  6. The apparent conclusion that I worked for an American intelligence agency and their interference in this respect.
  7. What I devised in the hospital was not of interest to the hospital due to apparently being busy with patients.

During this period, I spoke online with Chris Kerr online who was a flatmate and accomplice of Kang. During our conversation, I revealed the fact that I had been in contact with the FBI and that I had a recording of MI6. For whatever reason he shortly afterwards changed his name on Facebook and then deleted his profile which cannot have been in relation to the recording but in relation to his involvment.

Here are some photos of Chris just so that you can remember him. He went to Winchester College and worked for the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL)

On the 15th of September, after not being helped in terms of integrating myself in Belgium with for example an asylum claim, I decided to go to my parents house in France where the situation was similar to that which I had experienced in Belgium in that I was subject to administrative and other roadblocks in terms of integrating myself. The other roadblocks consisted of a refusal to deal with what the UK was doing in terms of hacking and so on.

It might be argued that France could not recognize what had happened given my lack of awareness at time of who was responsible but they were fully aware of what was occurring. The fact is

  1. They operate much the same system of harassment which I experienced in the UK or allow it to occur on their territory. For instance, they
    1. Took months this year to deal with hacking which emanates from the United Kingdom and which occurred through a French service provider (OVH) and they only eventually dealt with this grudgingly and partially. It is notable that they will not confirm that the United Kingdom was responsible and prosecute as requested which is a reasonable request.
    2. Would willfully ignore my complaints in 2018 about the UK which I expressed online which they were observing and indeed my attempts to warn them about infiltration in person at the Quai D’Orsai, online as well as by post.
  2. They would have known about the role of the college and would have carried out background checks. The polish border guard did in 2015 and it took them about five minutes. The fact that they had carried out background checks was confirmed in 2015 when I had a meeting with them at their embassy in Amman because they made a reference to Kang, so they were certainly aware of what was occurring but chose to do nothing about the hacking and so on which occurred subsequently. They choose to allow it because they can quite easily stop it but chose not to do so because ultimately they approve of this behaviour.
  3. I was apparently not able to register due to not having healthcare insurance something which would apparently only be possible through being in receipt of an exportable benefit. This situation strangely would not apply a year later shortly after I applied to MI6 under pressure from the FCO who promptly, as I had expected, would reject me, in that I would that year have access to healthcare and would thus be registered. The French government would not however deal with the harassment which including hacking.
  4. They are good friends with people from my college as you can see from the following photo of Johnathan Allen and his French counterpart at the UN, a Mr Nicolas de Rivière, talking about how they respect human rights for “everyone everywhere” which they most certainly do not.

During this period, there was electronic interference including hacking and so on, as well as harassment on the wrongplanet IRC chat-room which given

  1. My situation
  2. The fact that the chatroom is for those individuals who are on the autistic spectrum, individuals who are particularly sought after by GCHQ
  3. The fact that chatrooms are subject to infiltration by GCHQ.
  4. The fact that GCHQ has links with the college
  5. The fact that they are persistent in their criminality
  6. The death threat which would occurred in Jordan the next year as part of attempts to make me hand over my work

Was to be expected.

The interaction which occurred between Kang Tchou and Professor Simon Baron Cohen and which I related in an earlier chapter occurred during this period, in October to be precise and took place before some apparent interception of work which I had sent to a relative who had offered to help.

During this period it should also be stated that,

  1. Without knowing that GCHQ were involved in the harassment at this stage, I applied to join the organisation. I was rejected however as I was in all of my subsequent applications.
  2. My bank card was cancelled. It was cancelled under the spurious reason that it was out of date when it was not. The purpose of the cancellation was twofold.
    1. To stop me from accessing my funds
    2. To make me return to the UK.


4 A Visit to Britain with another revelation (2015)

I subsequently after the denial of any help on the part of the French state as well as much persuasion or rather pressure on the part of the UK through for example what appeared to be the interception of work as well as the cancellation of my bank card, made arrangements to go back to the United Kingdom to meet Kang Tchou to “resolve matters”. It took a bit of “persuasion” on my part.

I eventually met Kang on the 7pm on the 29th of January at the Yim Wah restaurant in Cambridge after mistaking the day on which we were meant to meet. It was however a very interesting and revelatory meeting.

In this meeting, I went to “apologize” for my behaviour even though a) I had nothing to apologize for and b) the college and he, in particular, did. As a consequence of this, he relaxed and revealed far more than he should have done which, given the context of what had happened at Fulbourn and what I had come to  “apologise” for, was perhaps rather foolish.

In this meeting he revealed that

  1. He had worked for the CIA.
  2. He had apparently been sent by Dr Paul Hartle, the senior tutor to “look after me”.
  3. Dr Paul Hartle worked for GCHQ and was the person with responsibility for that organisation.
  4. Students are invited to the college in the expectation of hope that we might work for the intelligence services and that the college is a recruitment center.
  5. They were afraid that I might find out so that was another reason for employing him which was rather self-defeating in that he had just revealed what he was afraid I might find out.
  6. How this is very much like a film series called the Bourne identity which I had never watched apart from the third film, a film which, given the fact that I had not watched the first two, I did not understand
  7. How we were going to do a deal and how he was going to invest in my work and how we were going to go 50/50. This turned out to be a trick.
  8. That the college is about eugenics apparently.
  9. How he was not staying in Cambridge and had to go home, no doubt because he felt he was bound to get hold of my work.

This claim about the CIA, although not recorded is consistent with

  1. What had occurred in college and beyond.
  2. Subsequent evidence in relation to who had ordered the harassment (the foreign office) in that it would not be unexpected that a member of the CIA should be present in college particularly given
    1. The role of the college
    2. Exchanges of people such as Gareth Williams between British and American intelligence
  3. His linkedln profile which shows that he worked for US intelligence
  4. His behavior and the fact that others had named him as a scapegoat in relation to behaviour which is consistent with that of someone who worked for the CIA.
  5. The- fact that, a couple of months after the meeting, I outed him as working for the CIA on his Facebook profile and he was obviously not too happy. I have done so again recently and for whatever reason, he had not responded to, nor deleted my posts, nor indeed has he blocked my account. He has however for some reason stopped posting.

Before my meeting with Kang, I went  to the college to try to “sort things out” and hoped that they would apologise. I was told however by a very snooty porter, Mike Reynolds who had been involved in the harassment in a rather angry tone that “I was persona non grata”. I even attempted to pass on a message to Dr Oliver to the effect that I was aware of problems in relation to security on various communication networks, this was not acted upon by the porter and I was told to go away. It is not exactly unexpected that they should be unconcerned with security.

The next day I went to Boots and noticed that Dr Paul Hartle was, while attempting to appear as if he was not there, was peering at me through a shelf which contained, from recollection, hemorrhoid creams.

I had another meeting with Kang on Saturday, as had been arranged, at the Oxford and Cambridge Club where his friend and former flatmate Chris Kerr was also present. Chris said that “I’m the one who looks after the technical aspects” and “a bitcoin account is by the way a good way of checking for intrusions” when we were talking about Kang and things which had occurred online in France as if to show sympathy for what had occurred and the position he though I was in

Kang had said with respect to the harassment that Chris was the one who did the technical stuff in college and indeed, to reiterate, when I mentioned that I had been in contact with the FBI, he changed his name on Facebook and then deleted his account. There was one other thing which I shall relate.

In the meeting, Kang tried to deny that he had made the offer at Jim Wah, said that I was in fact going to help on a site called “New History and Us” and be paid 8 dollars an hour as part of this. He made an inquiry as to whether I had a patent, an enquiry which served merely to confirm knowledge which would have already been passed on to him given his role in college. I confirmed that I did not for that early stage of work (although I would a few months later) and he seemed rather pleased about this.

During a little jaunt to Kang’s favorite Saville Row tailor “Norton and Sons”, his friend Chris Kerr strongly advised me to leave the UK and not to come back in that according to him, given

  1. The fact of what had occurred in my case.
  2. His incorrect claim that Gareth Williams was killed because he was spying for another country (He wasn’t someone else was and he was murdered to conceal the fact)
  3. Julia Peterson’s claim that something of a similar sort might happen to me
  4. The fact that I had a recording

there was a strong probability that something would “happen to me”. The reason why he gave me this warning however was because he wanted me out of the way so he could profit from my work which Kang was going to copy as had been the intent in college. The fact is that

  1. He would have been aware of what actually happened to Gareth Williams due to his membership of the MCR and close contacts with Dr Oliver.
  2. He had been aware of what had happened to me which was not entirely dissimilar in terms of the fact that I had been poisoned by people who were involved in corruption (most notably Kang) and had ended up in hospital. The claim that Gareth Williams was poisoned (and then murdered) because he was intending to pass on information was clearly nonsense.
  3. With respect to the recordings, he would have been aware given his stated concern about such things that
    1. The FBI and the NSA would have already had access to my computer as part of their daily rounds and would have had access to those recordings.
    2. They could not now do away with me because it would seem obvious why given the recordings.
  4. He would have been aware that it would be and is difficult to establish any tech business in Europe because they regard sovereignty and defence as dirty words.

After the meeting, Kang seemed pleased, confirmed that he was leaving Cambridge and left for the United States a few days later thinking he had “won”.

He hadn’t because amongst other things, I would not toddle off and do something else.


5 Ireland (2015)

I elected to visit Ireland in February 2015 because neither France nor Belgium appeared to be places which could protect me from the actions of the foreign office. I felt that, given the recent history between the United Kingdom and Ireland, there would be a greater likelihood that I might be able to proceed with my work there with the benefit of some protection.

This however would not be the case; I would be informed by Irish citizens that Ireland had nothing apart from that which was provided by the United States and the United Kingdom.

Indeed much as one would wish it was not the case and as one who is aware of the need for thing to be different, it is debatable whether a country which is so dependent upon the United Kingdom for trade and indeed intelligence can really be described as independent. I would like to however to be corrected about this but I sense that will not occur.

It is also regrettable, much as I wish it wasn’t the case, that Ireland does not appear to have learnt from the child abuse scandals in the 1970s and 1980s in that

  1. Abuse is still ignored/tacitly sanctioned by the authorities.
  2. Foreign governments now carry it out. To put it in simple terms, they went from a situation where the British were responsible for abuse, to a situation where  the Catholic church was responsible for abuse and then went back to a situation where  the British are  responsible for abuse.
  3. The abuse is not sexual but comes in other forms at the behest of the intelligence agencies.
  4. Abuse in Ireland occurs because of submissive attitudes towards the authorities.

Some people might state that I have said the above because I don’t like Ireland. Far from it. I like Ireland and the Irish but they deserve much better. If you will they haven’t (apart from a few notable exceptions such as Sinn Fein) escaped a colonial mindset whereby, like the English, they are mentally subservient to which ever authority which is in charge. If one is talking about the Irish catholic church being irrational and disregarding human rights, the intelligence agencies and the medical authorities which work in concert with them are far more opposed to any sense of rationality, justice or morality. They are the new religion, one which does not make reference to any god and in fact, rather like soviet communism, seeks to replace him. To misquote Orwell, one might state that the maxim “Four legs good, two legs bad” has changed in this instance from “Four legs good, five eyes better.”

These agencies don’t have any particular sense of loyalty to their country or indeed patriotism. They only care about their own power and abhor any fundamental criticism particularly when the obvious fact that they are rather lacking in the upstairs department is pointed out. It is obvious in that in order for these agencies to operate, they need money, something which, in light of the economic decline of the west and the fact that power is moving to the east, is going to be lacking, a fact which they seem to think they can overlook whilst they continue on much the same basis.

During that week in İreland, I met with someone at Trinity College who said that there was a strong likelihood that it would be possible to proceed with my work. As a consequence of this, I elected to move there on a permanent basis. I took the precaution, in as much as it would be possible, to chose a place of residence where I would not have to register and which I felt might afford some anonymity and protection from SIS.

I made an incorrect choice however due to my inexperience.

I did not unfortunately pay sufficient attention to this at the time but it was unfortunately the case that SIS were aware of my preferences in terms of the sort of place I wanted to live. I had expressed the fact to Kang amongst others that I would ideally like to live in a place similar to where I had grown up and that I missed my dog.

It would not be unexpected that arrangements should be made in this respect given what had recently occurred with Julia, the FCO and the college, and indeed before where similar things had been arranged with Pauline Lewis and indeed Michael Hauser Raspe. One must also consider a) What had occurred with the FBI b) The fact that the FBI as a whole are exceptionally dim but tend to lash out with the vast amount of power which is allocated to them and c) the fact that the landlady was American

The place which I selected

  • Suddenly appeared on after a third search using the same criteria as two previous searches and appeared to have been inserted upon my carrying out the third search (although I did not notice the importance of this except in retrospect). It is not as if I would have neglected to notice this place because it stood out and I am the sort of person who notices details.
  • Was far cheaper than comparable properties
  • Was next to Powerscourt Estate
  • Was not unlike the place where I grew up in with respect to the location in particular. You have seen a picture of the house in chapter four.
  • Would have a dog

The similarities between the two are that in both cases they are

The place looked and was not unlike Inverlaire Lodge if one changes the scale and indeed the weather which was for the most part rather wintery

Inverlaire Lodge
Brook Cottage

Inverlaire Lodge was of course used as the inspiration for the television series the Prisoner. Indeed it was not dissimilar in terms of the way things occurred in terms of being able to proceed my aspirations and in terms of being under surveillance. The fact is that in the modern age, there is no need for a village to keep people prisoner and the need for physical barriers of the sort which were on show in the prisoner is rather redundant.

Brook Cottage would appear to have been arranged in the hope that through the “comfort” afforded, (in that it was not unlike my house, there was a dog and so on) I might lose interest in my project. The house was owned by an American known as “Mary Drexler” who would appear to have worked on behalf of MI6 or the CIA/FBI. This was all to expected in retrospect and was indicated by the fact that

  1. She only took cash and the place was very cheap
  2. They had a need to cover for what happened at Pembroke and Fulbourn.
  3. She said that there were “problems” with the internet due to the telephone line. These occurred most notably whenever I watched Blake’s Seven.
  4. When I stated that I was going to proceed with “some work at the university”, she seemed concerned and said that someone called Lorraine would be moving in and would act on her behalf. Loraine would
    1. Check what I was up to, would monitor what I did online and subject my connection to denial of service attacks in that these occurred on a local basis and really commenced after she moved in.
    2. Provide some tobacco which gave me a throbbing headache in much the same way as tobacco which was sometimes provided at the college and which had been poisoned.
    3. Make various veiled statements with a threatening tone saying how there was a shooting party the moment I informed her I had bought a patent for the project.
    4. Made reference to the fact that Cambridge University wins most of the Horizon 2020 European funding when Cambridge had not replied to an offer of collaboration
  5. When I attempted to transfer money from my bank account to “a swirl card” via western union, this was blocked and I was left without money. When I explained to Mary my situation in relation to MI6 because of this, she seemed to understand but stated that there were other residents going into people’s rooms who somehow had “access to keys” and was it perhaps me. This was an obvious lie given the fact that she left a little box which was attached to the wall and which contained the keys open and did not remark upon the fact when she was in front of it. The intent was to cover for what she was doing.
  6. I would experience harassment which followed a pattern in that it was similar to that which had occurred in the Cambridge and elsewhere. This included
    1. Intrusions into my room where I had material stolen in much the same way as had occurred in Cambridge. This included
      1. My ipad which I needed to demonstrate my work which Mary Drexler “found” under my bed (Along with 300 euros). I certainly never put it there because I repeatedly searched for it
      2. A flashcard with a letter which I wrote but did not deliver offering my services to the Russian government. This occurred in response to something which I said about Kang. I wrote this because my situation was somewhat desperate and they would not leave me alone. Almost immediately the harassment ceased (temporarily) and Not long afterwards when I was on my forced travels and when they felt that the logical endpoint was that I might end up in Russia, the foreign office appointed the director of national security, Laurie Bristow, as ambassador for Russia. This was a pointless act in any case given that I did not have anything to “sell” and the Russian government would have been aware of what I was aware through their historic relationship with the college and GCHQ.
    2. The use of covert human intelligence sources who would monitor my moments and attempt dissuade me from my project. One came up to me outside the library in bray stating that there was nothing in Ireland and that everything is run by the Americans and British
  7. The house was subsequently put up for sale which may indicate a need to dissociate themselves from the fact that this occurred.

I made attempts to set up the project at Trinity College Dublin with the help of two individuals, one of whom worked at one stage for INTERPOL and who made reference to the fact that MI6 has files on everyone when he met me. I did not however receive help from the Trinity alumni and relations department when I attempted to make a donation (no doubt because there is always some mysterious process with such things) nor indeed from the Garda on the one occasion when I mentioned the harassment. I also experienced a certain dismissiveness on the part of the local catholic priest.

I would experience cyber-bullying on the wrongplanet IRC chatroom where Kang Tchou at the behest of the channel ops was given the authority to harass and stalk me. In response to all this harassment,

  1. I decided with much trepidation and lack of preparation given the lack of alternatives (I had been to three different EU countries by that stage and none of them had been willing to help and I was staying at a place owned by an American and being harassed by an American) to discuss things perhaps with the Russian embassy, if they were interested, in that Russia was out of the sphere of influence of those who harass in Western intelligence. On the way there, right outside in the location where only officials are allowed to park was a well dressed individual who knew me by the manner in which he glanced and waved at me as if he was expecting me. It is difficult to describe what I mean but perhaps Dylan Moran describes that “look” which some Russians (and Circassians) give you which is very distinctive and that person had that look. He was Russian and he was expecting me and I recognized the look because I am Circassian. I went inside and mumbled a few words and much to my relief, I was told I needed an appointment.
  2. Because the harassment was ongoing, I eventually outed Kang as a CIA agent on his facebook page, the wrongplanet IRC channel and moreover told Mary Drexler that I had a recording of our meeting a Yim Wah in January. In response to this my flat was raided and it was a sign that she, British intelligence and American intelligence were working in concert.

It was fortunately the case that on the disk which was stolen was a letter which I had prepared for the Russian government (but did not send) which stated that I would wish to seek asylum and would you be interested in various information (which they already had as it turns out). Not long afterwards when I was on my forced travels and when they felt that the logical endpoint was that I might end up in Russia, the foreign office appointed the director of national security, Laurie Bristow, as ambassador for Russia.

The odd thing is that the Americans only became alarmed when I told Mary Drexler about the recording whereas the British who, given it was Ireland were assigned to surveil me as opposed to the British, were not remotely concerned about my visit to the Russian embassy which they will have known about given the fact that the Russians were aware. It was also the case that, as I relate later, Dr Oliver on behalf of SIS and by extension Johnathan Allen tried to pressurize me into working for that organization. He did his pro-Russian spiel which was genuine. It is obviously not the case that he should have been pressurizing me into working for SIS given the letter, indeed perhaps the visit and given the fact that I had already been turned down.

I saw it was fortunate because the harassment intensified briefly (in particular the use of covert human intelligence sources) but then suddenly abated and I had thought that the harassment was finally over and that MI6 were backing off because they were scared and that there was the prospect of detente. Indeed, its a very useful tactic to write such letters and not to send them in that it not only serves a useful purpose in getting them to back of but helps to secure information from those within the services who are a bit paranoid which is many if not most of them. I would do the same again not only with respect to writing letters but also choosing locations (for example Jordan was useful in terms of securing a confession from Dr Oliver because he and others felt that I was going to join ISIS)

Because of this, the fact that I was quite naive, the intense loneliness and isolation I felt at that point (something which I have not experienced since) as well as the continued pressure from SIS, I experienced a situation whereupon distance was lending enchantment to the view and felt, after advice which was given, that I might apply for jobs at all three agencies, all of which were all rejected. For whatever reason my applications were unsuccessful and the harassment still occurred to a degree on the wrongplanet IRC chatroom.

Under pressure and in an attempt to compromise, I even attempted, after a suggestion from Lorraine, to take all the blame for the harassment at St Catharine’s, which I should not have done and even reported Kang for a breach of the Official Secrets Act. As part of this, I even went all the way to Newry police station in Northern Ireland. Nothing was done and he was allowed to visit the Uk subsequent to my report.

Because of the “discouragement” on the part of Loraine, GCHQ and others and because of the fact that should I release my work, there was no guarantee that there would not be intervention on the part of GCHQ and JTRIG to ensure that my work was not successful, I thereby gradually ceased work on the attempt to establish the project at Trinity College Dublin.

One of the indications of the fact that there was some form of detente was the fact that my Swirl card, which is a prepaid debit card with a lifetime limit without registration of 2500 euros would magically reset itself when I needed as indicated by my financial records. I performed transactions from my Lloyds account to top it up and the total came to 4113 euroes, indicating that there was interference to ensure that the card could have more than the set amount loaded onto it. İndeed and I shall perhaps dig those emails out at some point, the card on approaching the limit would magically reset itself and I would receive an email to the effect that it was a new card. Here are my financial records

The only people who could have done this under the circumstances are an intelligence agency which is perhaps understandable given the detente, given what was occurring at Brooke cottage and given the fact that I was encouraged to apply to work for them (but was rejected), as you can see from the following emails

Things seemed however calmer and for whatever reason I thought thing would be fine. After encouragement from a certain resident who arrived after the departure of Loraine and who said that everything would be fine if I returned to France, I expressed the fact that I was not sure. He then offered me a cigarette which rather like that offered by Lorraine gave me a throbbing headache.

Even given this, I was somewhat naive at this stage and left Ireland thinking that perhaps he was right. He wasn’t for obvious reasons (namely the cigarette) and because of what occurred subsequent to my departure.

It does however outline, as with my proposed solution to the informal complaint what happens when you attempt to compromise and to “Europe” with these people. The verb Europe means to compromise with aggressors who then promptly attempt to eat your arm.

Where I did ask for collaboration in the UK, it was not forthcoming, in particular with respect to the Welcome Trust, which might be due to the fact that the then Master of the college, Professor Dame Jean Thomas was one of its trustees.

Where it was however, it formed part of an attempt to deceive.