Chapter VII: The First and second phases of the harassment

1 The First Phase of the harassment 2012-2013

1 St Catharines college 2012-2013

It should be stated that

  1. The attempt to make me hand over any work was “baked in” as part of the reason for my award of a place at the university given that it was, as stated based upon a John Wyndham novel. This was the reason why it was arranged that I should be friends with Michael Hauser Raspe.
  2. I had done nothing wrong because I inquired whether there was an issue on more than one occasion but was told that there was not.
  3. It did not occur because I was “moaning” in that
    1. I made entirely reasonable and measured complaints in relation to alcohol, welfare and harassment by members of staff and student in a college which has a reputation in that regards and which has a reputation in the foreign office and elsewhere for either allowing or participating in corruption. Indeed one can, as mentioned, go back to the 19th century with the Robinson voting scandal to see evidence of such corruption.
    2. The response to complaints has been to do nothing, engage in creative inertia, make a very silly and obviously fraudulent counter-complaint or indeed to take some form of revenge in response, in a more subtle manner initially and a less subtle manner later on.
    3. I would attempt out of the blue to join the RAF & Navy in the summer of 2011 but was turned down by a couple of individuals who did not know who I was due to the fact that I am on the spectrum. This information obviously pertains to the purpose of the college and is moreover a comment upon the selection processes used by the armed forces given what has subsequently occurred, who I am, who my father was and given the fact that the Israeli Defence Force recruit people on the spectrum.
    4. I would attempt to join in college and university life including
      1. The Shirley society in 2011 said I was not permitted to join because I was not a fresher even though the requirement for “freshers” only applied to acting freshers
      2. The Athletics society in 2011, where I had been invited and from which I was excluded by the people who formed part of it. It seemed like a good idea because at the time I used to go to the gym and it was one of my fixed interests.
      3. The May Ball committee in 2011. I did not receive a response to my email where I stated that I wanted to join the committee whilst the girl who had issues to do with drugs and alcohol and who had to leave for a year was made food and drinks officer.
      4. The choir at Kings in 2012, as part of which I received lessons for which I had offered to pay from the musical Director of Studies at St Catharines. This did not proceed because of the fact that the chaplain, Anthony Moore did not like me (due to his alcohol issues) and because they thought I was attempting to join the choir at St Catharines. I thought it was a good idea because I wanted to see whether singing might improve the effect of the experiments, because it represented a challenge equal to getting into Cambridge and because a choir is not something you associate with the usage of drink and drugs. I also sensed that it might act to balance my relative lack of ability in classics.
      5. Being a chapel warden from which I was directly excluded by the then chaplain because I had complained to him personally about his issues to do with alcohol.
      6. The yearly college fundraising effort where students would ring alumni asking for donations. I think it is reasonable to state that I was eminently qualified, given that, as I stated in my application, I raised the second highest amount of money for my former school as part of their fundraising effort. I only came second because the father of the person who came first bought a job lot of tombola tickets to ensure that he won. When I applied however, I not only found that my application was turned down but that the alumni and development office had leaked my application details to all the other candidates. This can only reasonably be said to be deliberate given what occurred subsequently with donations.
      7. Through my project but there was no apparent help or interest on the part of the college or university and much creative inertia and indeed warnings that people were after it. I did so in order to contribute and I felt given my record that I would be able to raise money
  4. Even after all these years that they have learnt from this or changed their ways given the fact that
    1. They won’t apologize and continue to act with an arrogance which suggests that they have nothing to apologize for.
    2. No-one has resigned, been sacked or been disciplined. In all cases, they have stayed where they are and in some cases, they have been promoted to senior positions in the foreign office or indeed government.
    3. They apparently have a welfare officer but
      1. Welfare was and is already the responsibility of members of the tutorial team.
      2. They still have individuals employed in the foreign office in which capacity they are still authorized to carry out the harassment as part of the third direction/COINTELPRO. This obviously rather negates such efforts.
    4. They and the university go on about things like the Nobel prize, the royal society and “prestige” which, given the context of the harassment, makes them and those prizes look rather silly. “You mean that piece of wool on your tit” is the phrase that comes to mind. They feel the need to be seen to have achieved rather than to gain satisfaction from any achievement.
  5. They have been rather hoist by their own petard by subsequent events.
  6. They did not observe certain rather important consequences of the experiment. In many ways it is not unlike when the doctor regenerates
    1. I had related the fact that as a result of taking hydrochloride variant of the drug in December 2010, which took no small preparation, the onerophrenic stage was unusually strong and I met my own representation of the devil. Consequently I do not fear such things in any way
    2. In other words I faced my fears and the experience, which is not recreational and should not be viewed as such, is not unlike one of those rites of passage where the elders of a tribe leave the child out in the jungle and cover him with honey to be eaten by ants. This has had the result that I realize that whatever representation I had of god and so on was entirely incorrect and it is probably true to state that there is more truth in the orthodox conception of hell than the catholic one. To be frank, heaven can hardly be paradise if you have to be alongside the sort of people who tend to talk about such things particularly given the fact that heaven is meant to be for eternity which is a heck of a long time.
    3. More importantly it had other effects in terms of facing my fears in that for some reason, I had a craving (and it was a craving like smoking) to go to the gym. It had previously been the case, probably as a result of PE classes at school and my lack of coordination, that I had an aversion to exercise of that sort. I overcame this and proceeded to go to the gym for the next three or so years. I was particularly skilled at pushups being able to do 1000 or so at a push although at the moment, having restarted again, I am more into cardio. At no stage previous to this had I any real inclination to exercise to the extent that I did after the exercise.
    4. I had at one stage a craving to learn the piano which was most peculiar and I rented one for a period but it is rather more difficult to learn the piano when you are meant to spend your time learning the İliad and so on. I suspect, had this not occurred at university, I would be a concert pianist who went to the gym a lot.
    5. I also at one stage had a craving to buy new clothes, specifically Ede and Ravenscroft who were  downstairs from the college because I liked the fact that they make, lets face it, nice clothes which more importantly are made without exploitation and made locally. In fact if you peer downstairs through a window next to the shop you can see them tailoring as opposed to being made in a sweatshop in Myanmar.
    6. I did overcome temporarily to a large extent the negative aspects (temporarily) which pertain to being on the spectrum whilst retaining and enhancing that which is positive. As such one might state that it might offer a cure although perhaps such an environment (A small Cambridge college and studying classics) is likely to hamper that and further work is needed in this respect. There is the proviso that one is in the long term overwhelmed by the new experiences of relating to other people and in certain cases and in certain environments (A certain small Cambridge college and studying classics) one can shut down.
    7. It does given that it enhances GDNF and BDGF offer other possibilities.

The harassment initially appeared to take place at the behest of students and certain members of staff and indeed the foreign office.

During the summer of 2012, things proceeded in this manner,

  1. I requested to change tripos from classics to “classics and philosophy” in order to encompass only those parts of classics which where more “systematic” in nature such as paleography and linguistics and only those parts of philosophy which pertain to mathematics. I knew that this was the right decision based upon my psychological profile and the fact that I wasn’t doing very well. There was shall we say a well mannered argument which led to the senior tutor being involved as part of which I felt I had to be quite insistent. The senior tutor was at the time a Mr Paul Hartle, the person within the college who was the “head honcho” for matters which pertain to the foreign office. He stated “You are a student at the college for some reason”.
  2. I began work in semi-earnestness on my project.
  3. As there had been from the outset and especially from hereon, there would be the usage of informers and people who were working on behalf of the intelligence services, whose reliability is in doubt for those reasons and because Dr Hauser would resort to bribery to secure information. I am in two minds about this but it would perhaps be a little unfair given that it can be argued that these were youthful indiscretions which they will have learnt from. In particular I can name two people on the spectrum who acted in this capacity.
  4. As stated, I very reluctantly met Michael Hauser-Raspe at the local Wetherspoons where he was rude and unduly interested in my work.
  5. I had again complained to some extent about the issue of alcohol again over the summer due to the fact that students were drinking mixtures of vodka and out of buckets in the Middle Combination Room (MCR). The porters, one of whom visibly appeared to have an alcohol issue or at least a tolerance for it, would turn a blind eye and scoff at my concern as if I was deranged for making such complaints. It was not as if
    1. The college did not have a reputation in this regards
    2. There had not had issues in relation to the college, its attitude to alcohol and welfare, something about which I had complained, which they failed to deal with and which led to me avoiding the college main site for the most part over the course of the past twelve months.
    3. There had not been an annoyance at my complaints. A notable example of the attitude towards such things would be the fact that the then chaplain who was an alcoholic would sneer at me as if I was clearly deranged when I made mention of the fact that I was going to avoid the college may ball due to the fact that a student was put in charge of the food and drink committee who
      1. Clearly had mental health issues to do with drugs with the result that they had intermitted (left for a year).
      2. They were supposedly meant to monitor on her return but did not.
      3. Had developed an alcohol problem upon her return.
      4. Was thoroughly obnoxious as a result.
      5. Had been one of the reasons why I avoided the main college site.
  6. Laurie Bristow was director for national security and Simon Shercliff was head of counter-terrorism.
    1. It would not be unexpected in light of
      1. This and other appointments which had previously taken place (David Green and Lord Sainsbury).
      2. The above points.
      3. The sense of entitlement and annoyance at my complaints.
      4. The fact that the cabinet office were responsible for my admission to the college as well the harassment which gradually took off during this period
      5. The fact that it had been preordained that I should hand over any work
    2. That a “directed conversation” of the following nature would occur.
      1. I used to go to Jesus Green swimming pool on my own to swim. On one occasion, a middle aged girl was insistent that I should sit next to her for no apparent reason. Whereupon she spoke to a friend of hers and stated that “I don’t like my autistic relative and want to stop being in contact with her”. Shortly afterwards it was the case that the relative who worked for the home office would start to become distant, even though up until that point we had appeared to get on well and he has been concerned to be in contact.

Upon the start of term, I complained about the chaplain and his alcohol issues, as others had done in a huge dossier which the senior had a copy of and which was suppressed thanks to the efforts of a student. I would as time went on, have to raise other complaints. A reference to this can be seen in the following email.

I am minded to upload the others but one has to consider the fact that many of the people involved were of a young age at the time and may have learnt from this. Then again maybe they haven’t.

Harassment is something that others had or would complain about in the college most notably a former employee of the college who would talk about amongst other things the fact that he had been “kicked off projects” and had been harassed and indeed Jennifer Tucker who had a Tribunal during that period. Both of these individuals it should be state had disability related issues.

The issues which I encountered during this year included

  1. Problems which I outlined in relation to the behavior of students and of staff, including some of the porters who had been giving me the silent treatment over the Christmas period no doubt because of my valid complaints and because of the fact that one of them was making fun of my voice which has some autistic traits. Complaints about this were dismissed by Dr Oliver and would be dismissed by Dr Irena Borsym.
  2. An attempt to make sure that I lost the room ballot by the porters and students.
  3. My key card to certain areas of the college suddenly not working, something which no-one else had had a problem with.
  4. The fact that things which I had discussed in confidence with a member of the intelligence services, Dr Oliver, in relation to my work were not kept confidential. Other students would start talking about “my secret project” even though I had never discussed it with anyone.
  5. Concerns which I expressed about harassment from students and staff, the potential for my nervousness/lack of eye contact to affect others and the fact that I was unused to the effects of experiment (positive as it turns out but unfamiliar and in line with someone who had more facets of someone who is neurotypical) which they were meant to monitor as part of my admission. I was told I was being “paranoid” initially except when in a conversion where I discussed my work that I was “right to be paranoid” without explaining why.
  6. Mentions by a student as to how her own project had been destroyed by a member of her faculty because her supervisor did not like her whilst they had kept the work. This was something which was mentioned by the person who would attempt to recruit me to MI6, a Julia Petersoni who said with reference to tutors that “They love doing that”.
  7. My project.
    1. There was the aforementioned “creative inertia” on the part of Simon Baron Cohen.
    2. There were some instances where Dr Hauser would suddenly appear on the scene appearing “unhappy” or to be more precisely irritated who would walk into my view as he would do later that year.
    3. Mr Kang Tchou and his flatmate also appeared on the scene and would later be blamed incorrectly for fomenting things even though he was involved. Kang who worked for the CIA had been apparently sent by Paul Hartle, who was the chief person with responsibility for things GCHQ, to “look after me”. Kang Tchou for reference comes from a Chinese family which was apparently very famous in Shanghai for making Soy Sauce and which consequently was allowed to immigrate to the United States. Their father apparently stated that back in the day they were considered to be “like the Kennedys”, which is probably true but a bit unfair on the sausages given that Kang in particular is fat, very definitely harmful to health and full of shit.
    4. I had because of warnings from Dr Oliver amongst others changed my email address to a gmail account to avoid surveillance in relation to my project. This was I might add before the Snowden revelations so the choice of email provider wasn’t perhaps the wisest one
    5. I would also be warned by an academic during the summer that I should protect my work with an tone which stated that she knew that someone was going to steal it. Indeed when I suggested that GCHQ might be a good option, she said “NO” almost in the same manner as in the “Whose a Pretty Boy then” episode of the television sitcom Only Fools and Horses when Corinne asks Delboy whether he wants a cup of tea after he has ruined the kettle. She will no doubt deny this but she also strongly advised me that I might like to try places which were not in Cambridge and made mention of the NAS and Autistica. Here are her emails and I have redacted sections which pertain to the work.
    6. I should mention that at this stage that I knew nothing about GCHQ, the FCO or intelligence and felt that it would be a good idea to involve them. I would only find out in a meeting with Kang Tchou in 2015 that the criminal elements within college and beyond who were responsible for the harassment were not in fact part of some loose criminal outfit but worked for the foreign office and that GCHQ was involved.

Such harassment would continue and grow until by mutual agreement, İ decided to leave the main site again and to work during the summer period at another college.

I say mutual agreement in that I agreed that they wanted me to leave.

 

2 Pembroke college 2013

I was at the time a supporter of liberal interventionism in places like Iraq based the inaction and cowardice on the part of others which I had witnessed in Bosnia and Rwanda in the early 1990s, an attitude which I loathe but which nonetheless still exists today particularly in the European Union who

  1. Refuse to provide protection for businesses and individuals from the corporate spying and related harassment which takes place at the behest of the foreign office, through locations such as Menwith Hill
  2. Have come to the strange conclusion that one can secure the defence and intelligence requirements which they refuse to provide or pay for from the country which is engaged in corporate espionage throughout Europe.
  3. Do the bidding of the foreign office as part of which they will either
    1. Ignore or participate in a) the corporate espionage which takes place or b) US and UK foreign policy decisions
    2. Perhaps talk about the need for others who are subject to aggression from the UK and the US to make peace with them in a manner which to be frank is loathsome, cowardly and Srebrenica-like.
  4. Talk instead about the need to deal with for example gender equality, female genital mutilation, strategic development goals, climate change, the “Russian threat” even though to deal adequately with such things one needs the economic strength which can only come from building a technology sector which they refuse to defend.

As such, I chose a summer job as a bedder at a college, Pembroke, which was headed by the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. I ignored the fact that he was criticized for providing false intelligence in relation to the Iraq war, a decision which perhaps was naive. Then again it is rather like watching films about how welcoming East Germany was and wanting to believe that it was true.

Despite being away from the college premises and indeed in another college, this harassment sadly continued online in the manner which others would report. It also included a poisoning of the same type but of

  1. Lesser severity than I would experience in Birmingham as a result of catching a drug dealer
  2. Greater severity than I would experience in college next year.

The poisoning occurred shortly before I was due to meet Dr Kate Plaisted Grant for the second occasion where she told me not to involve GCHQ. This would continue to occur again when I attempted to proceed with the project in Spring Term 2014 and beyond.

The harassment eventually resulted in a discovery whereby I was able to locate and track individuals who were responsible and who as it would turn out either worked for or on behalf of the intelligence services, whether they were aware or unaware of this given

  1. The function of St Catharines college and the fact that several members who worked for the army and indeed intelligence services formed part of the staff.
  2. The employment of Sir Laurie Bristow and Simon Shercliff at the foreign office and previous instances which had occurred the previous year as part of their employment.
  3. The fact that the nature of the harassment was similar to that experienced by others which can only have been sanctioned by the cabinet office.
  4. The fact that such harassment would have been sanctioned by the cabinet office given
    1. The reasons for my admission.
    2. The fact that I was at a college which was headed by an ex-head of the intelligence services.
    3. The fact that they would have been observing things.
    4. The fact that attempts to get hold of my work formed part of the reasons for my admission.

That discovery which I made is known as “trilateration”. As a result of information which was provided by a member of the college who is or was a member of staff and who shall remain nameless, I utilized it on one of the people from St Catharines College, namely Michael Hauser Rapse, the son of Dr Hermann Hauser, whom I had avoided along with his friends by staying away from the college and who had been involved in the harassment.

I felt this discovery would impress Sir Richard Dearlove given the following

  1. One can track individuals on geo-social networks. Because these networks are used for amongst other things drug dealing and other nefarious usages, one can track their movements, find who they associate with, where they live, where they go and thus penetrate drug gangs and assorted mafia.
  2. From the point of view of preventing terrorism, this is pertinent given the fact that, as mentioned, 90% of terrorist attacks involve the usage of drugs. To go further one can look at
    1. Deash to see that that is true given the fact that their “army” used Captagon
    2. The German army in WW2 who relied upon methampetamine.
  3. I would manage as had been intended to secure information in relation to drug dealing.
  4. One could at the time, because what I had discovered was secret, penetrate any installation or building where such networks are used and fool the people there or nearby that one is present and working as such and such. I know this because I was present within Prince Assad’s palace in Syria on one of these networks and managed very easily to convince people that I was the chef de partie in the kitchen.
  5. I used part of the technique (the part that was not leaked) to good effect against the Russian government to secure a partial confession from Vladimir Putin in 2018.

As stated, noone was aware of the security flaw, something which should have been kept secret. After it was leaked (because noone bothered to ascertain the implications), it was reported that people who work in the intelligence services (GCHQ) and indeed the Kremlin were unaware of the impact of such tools and were thus traceable without reference to any telecommunications network. Apart from being able to track an individual in an organisation, one could find out where they went, with whom they associated, very possibly ascertain their vulnerabilities (an affair for example) and acquire leverage and influence within the organisation. This seemed rather obvious to me and it also seemed logical to suggest that if secure locations such as the Kremlin and GCHQ were unprotected then places such as, to give an extreme example, nuclear installations were likely to be. Indeed

  1. it was reported to be the case with trident and would no doubt then have been the case with installations belonging to what I had then considered to be adversaries but then, as a result of the leak, the Kremlin has disabled GPS around the Kremlin and no doubt other installations and I shudder to think of the security precautions or lack thereof which the British government has taken. So not only have they lost a valuable tool to penetrate any organisation but they have rendered themselves vulnerable to such penetration. And its any installation or organization which is vulnerable. But one must ask what should one expect when you have such individuals as Sir Richard Dearlove of WMD fame running that college, Sir Laurie Bristow formerly of the Iraq planning groups as director of national security and Simon Shercliff as head of counterterorrism.
  2. If one considers the matter and looked at the trends, in light of other forms of digital destruction, meeting on dating apps in particular was likely to a large extent supplant traditional ways of meeting. Indeed, if one can presume, as I think one can, that most dating takes place between the ages of 18-34 and takes into consideration the fact that a) there were 45.9 million americans in that age range were before the pandemic  b) in the US there are 30 million users of these apps c) This trend towards digital meetings was likely to continue and d) such a trend would have been seen in other countries, it does not seem that the impact of the discovery was fully examined (but then why would it be with such individuals) both in terms of the opportunities and threats. It is important to remember that one does not necessarily need to be anyone senior (ie usually above 40) to gain access to information within an organization, it can, as one saw at Little Sai Wan be a cleaner. And indeed it was a cleaner who made the discovery in this case. As such there are very real security problems with any individual from such an organisation who uses such apps
  3. The question is in the intervening seven years, what improvements have been made. There is a certain grudging half-arsed effort on the part of certain companies but nothing by governments which might quite reasonably choose to ban such apps as a security risk or indeed Apple and Google which might ban certain features which pertain to these apps.
  4. One should ask what information has been gathered or securing of “leverage” has taken place. It is the case that in at least three countries, this leakage has resulted in people getting killed.
  5. It might be argued that whilst at work at a sensitive job these apps must be turned off through the android settings menu because they transmit when they are not being used but then
    1. Knowing what I know, most people in the UK would not bother and most people would not be checked by the authorities
    2. It would make it easier to identify a person as working for a sensitive organization given that if that person were tracked outside of work, the fact that their communications went dead at 9am would mark them out.

The important point is that I was the only person who was aware of this major security flaw as proven by the fact that

  1. No-one in Cambridge was aware of what was occurring or of what I had discovered
  2. The first research papers came out after my discovery

The fact that Sir Richard Dearlove is still involved in intelligence related matters through the CSIS despite this and despite his involvement in the WMD fiasco for which he was roundly criticized in the Chiclott inquiry demonstrates that he has absolutely no sense of responsibility or shame. The fact that people and institutions with the British establishment such as Cambridge and parts of the American establishment still back him and people who participated in this and the aftermath demonstrates that they have absolutely no intelligence whatsoever in that they reward the most egregious human and organizational failures whilst a) defending those involved and b) concentrating their ire against those who i) have talent and ii) point such things out. If you want to understand why the west is on the decline, this does rather epitomize why. Much the same of course can be said about Laurie Bristow and indeed various individuals from the college, most notably Simon Shercliff who were involved in this and the aftermath and who have rather amusingly been given various gongs.

I decided to test it upon a worthy target and chose Michael Hauser Raspe. This was not for the purposes of blackmail which would have been easy but simply to secure a confession of criminality. He seemed liked a worthy target because

  1. I was away from the college and had indeed specifically avoided the college and its members and was not being left alone.
  2. He could have easily met me as I had offered but refused to do so.
  3. He did computers and was in that circle given the fact that his father and others are famous for their involvement in computers.
  4. He himself had a masters degree in computers from UCL
  5. He could have asked his friends, family or indeed the police what was occurring.
  6. He sold drugs and it seemed like a fair challenge given the fact that
    1. No-one was willing to do anything about this
    2. Most people tacitly approved of the usage of drugs and drink
    3. Someone had suffered as a result of his actions and nearly died.
    4. The fact that he was emblematic of a culture not just within the college but within the UK. Without mentioning the name, the senior person in the department for health who formed part of my admission, signed off welfare in the knowledge that the person who was in receipt of it would purchase drugs. As a consequence of this that person died of a brain hemorrhage, something which was easy to foresee. I do not think people within that circle are in a position to dictate to others.
    5. There is a correlation between the usage of drugs and terrorism.
  7. I did not go as far as was possible and in fact was rather in awe of what I had discovered. İ did not for instance, as I had considered might be possible, do a live broadcast on some social media site or other and ask people from the university or some gentleman’s club such as Whites to place bets as to where he would go, in the manner of John Cleese in the film Rat Race. I did not attempt to blackmail him. I wanted a confession about his drug dealing

As part of this,

  1. I located him
  2. I pretended to be my younger brother “Jack” who was a journalist who had information on his drug dealing which, because the gentleman looked like me and did bodybuilding as I did at that time, managed to convince him. Here is the person whose pictures I used and a link to some of his videos on youtube and er some picturesScreenshot from 2018-07-02 20-52-39
  3. I quoted some insults from Brideshead revisited at him, specifically those from Anthony Blanche or indeed those which Sebastian uses. This seemed appropriate given who he was and the fact of his resemblance to Sebastian Flyte.
  4. I asked him to confess to his drug dealing.

He was so drug/drink addled,paranoid and guilty that rather unexpectedly, he

  1. Refused to meet me.
  2. Could not work out what was going on and did not consult people who did computer science amongst his friends, his wider circle or indeed his family.
  3. Fled instead to people within Cambridge to people who would not know about computers and specifically those who dealt drugs.
  4. Fled the country to Switzerland, to Geneva in fact whereupon he met his “girlfriend”.
  5. Thought there were three people chasing him, given that this all involved three tracking devices as part of the trilateration.
  6. He subsequently fled through the alps on a railway line and to an airport.
  7. Fled back to England and went crying to his father and his “friends”.
  8. Refused to answer my questions.

It’s a curious reaction if you are not guilty to flee all the way to Switzerland, through the alps and back again because someone says they have information on your drug dealing and offers to meet.

At the point, I informed Dr Oliver who worked for MI6 of what had happened but he did not in turn inform the Hauser family or indeed anyone related to this.

  1. Due to a small “mistake” on my part, a group of people ended up chasing a non existent “Jack” who had some non existent recordings in relation to Michael’s drug dealing around Cambridge for a week.
  2. Again, at no point did Dr Oliver inform his family nor indeed did Michael speak to anyone in authority.
  3. I say “mistake” but in retrospect, this cannot be considered to be so in that Dr Oliver subsequently made the confession which I was seeking.

Unfortunately, part of what I did, much like the evidence in relation to weapons of mass destruction, will have been misinterpreted particularly given the fact that the master of Pembroke college never bothered to question me. It will inevitably have been thought through what I did that I was somehow making fun or Sir Richard Dearlove because it just so happens that “Jack”

  1. Also happens to be the name of Sir Richard Dearlove’s father.
  2. Grew up near Sevenoaks (given that I grew up there) as his Jack Dearlove did.
  3. Is disabled (I’m not but people classify ASCs as a disability for some unfathomable reason and it runs in families) as Jack Dearlove was.

I only acquired proof of Michael’s drug dealing after my discovery of trilateration and my testing of it. This was not due to Michael but the aforementioned member of MI6, Dr Oliver whom I had informed of my discovery, who happened to be the former head of admissions at St Catharine’s college, who was thus responsible for admitting Michael to the college and who used to drink at the Baron of Beef house with his father. He also, as I have related elsewhere, has worked for Russia.

I am supplying a copy of the email correspondence in relation to what occurred which consists of an admissionXX1I should like to state a few points about this email and about what occurred

  1. He fled because he was paranoid and felt that I had information about his drug dealing.
  2. I secured a confession from an informed source which confirms the unconfirmed statements of others in relation to his drug dealing as have been outlined above.
  3. I wrote the email in a rush (which would be expected given the content where I happened to mention I was in life threatening danger) and there are a couple of thing which in retrospect I would change.
    1. The aspect of self-blame. I was in retrospect too acquiescent and ready to blame myself given the harassment which I was experiencing and took the blame for something which was not really my fault. This is a common experience amongst those who are experiencing some form of abuse as I was and indeed given the situation, my panic would be expected.
    2. This email was written in a panic due to the situation I was in and I meant to say “Perhaps out of anger went too far” instead of “Out of anger perhaps went to far”. I commonly rearrange things a great deal when typing due to apparently being dyslexic. Even if I had been angry, I think under the circumstances that would have been acceptable.
  4. If you mewl on about “privacy”, you have to accept mine in relation to stalking and harassment as well as my particular rights. It would seem that people are more concerned about protecting someone who dealt drugs and who fled in a fit of paranoia as a result (which indicates guilt) than the important discoveries which I made part of which, unlike others who to be frank f*cked about for years on end, I used against Vladimir Putin

The reaction from the authorities is telling

  1. If there was a problem with my actions in pretending to have information concerning an individual who dealt drugs and who had been harassing me, at no stage whatsoever was there any form of contact from the police or other authorities, including most notably the authorities from the college where I was working and where Sir Richard Dearlove was Master. In fact, as I have mentioned, where I have made inquiries, I have been rebuffed or else thrown out of the police station. It has been nearly a decade since these events occurred so it is rather late at this stage to start complaining
  2. The authorities apparently approve of what I did in that I had a recommendation from SIS the next year that I should work for them on the the basis of what I did.
  3. They no doubt want Michael to be drug and drink ridden so they can secure a hold on him and it would seem inevitable that they have information on him and his father secured through breaches of privacy.
  4. If they were genuinely concerned about Michael, they would have dealt with his drug and drink issues as well as hid drug dealing.
  5. It is perhaps alleged that this is stalking but
    1. What I did was with a specific aim in mind which was to secure a confession of criminality.
    2. This is what they were doing and indeed the state was doing from the outset.
    3. It is an allegation which comes straight from House of Cards. Interestingly it was from the re-release of the novel which was released on February the 23rd 2013 as the harassment took off.
  6. It would be rather odd for Switzerland to complain given that I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago for a couple of weeks and they said nothing. It would also be odd for them to make claims given their claims about amongst other things the Spiez laboratory being hacked by the GRU which they would have known wasn’t true. If there was a criminal offence, such information would have been passed onto the British who would have used that information against me. Yet strangely they did not and resorted to other methods which shows there was no offense nor indeed no valid or true information to the effect that my actions were criminal. The validity of any “evidence” which may be presented is disproven, given not only this but the environment I was in and the disruption tactics which are used as part of this by such organisations as GCHQ, most notably MITM attacks and faking messages as part of JTRIG.
  7. The authorities in the form of the college, Cambridge, the intelligence services and the cabinet office interfered in no less than three important things which should have been of interest to them
    1. My ability to discover what I discovered occurred as a result of the experiments which they failed to monitor and in relation to which they did not, like future discoveries which occurred as a result of these experiments, show any intellectual curiosity. Instead they discounted the evidence in this respect and upset the experiment through the harassment to which I was subject and which included attempts to poison me. Such an outcome should be in part expected given the fact that the experiment involved a drug which is used for hunting. They cannot state that they have any complaints in relation to the experiments which formed part of my admission given that
      1. Neither they, the NHS nor indeed anyone else stated that nor asked if there was any problem at any stage.
      2. Although they would in any case have been responsible, they could have avoided this by asking me or requiring me to keep quiet.
    2. Instead of taking an interest in my discovery of trilateration and its possibilities, they did not secure it with the result that it is now possible for what I had intended to occur to others to occur to them. Indeed, this was reported by Bellingcat and others beforehand.
    3. They felt it was appropriate to use this as a pretext for something which had been intended in order to attempt to steal my work on behalf of Michael Hauser Raspe, his father and Professor Simon Baron Cohen. This work was meant to be charitable but they and others wanted it to be profit making. The end result of this could be seen in what occurred later on as a result of events in Fulbourn, as I shall outline. As part of this
      1. They showed all too clearly that they are unwilling to deal with drug and drink related issues and were and remain resolutely defensive of that culture and of those who participate in it.
      2. They act in the defence of such people who come from a certain background.
      3. They showed that they were entirely unconcerned about security or indeed welfare.
      4. They confirmed the fact that
        1. They had harassed by admitting it later on.
        2. I had been detained at the behest of the intelligence services.
        3. They were attempting to steal my ideas and had not imagined such attempts through the fact that
          1. They base their idea to stop Brexit upon something which I did in Fulbourn. Because I was unaware of the fact of who was responsible, I outlined what was being attempted online, as a consequence of which, because of the lack of plausible deniability with respect to such an attempts, they could not stop Brexit and are now faced with no deal.
          2. They passed on information to Russia on the basis of which the Russian government
            1. Attempted to influence the political process of the United States through perception management
            2. Did so because of a need to detract from Russian infiltration of British intelligence by claiming that there was collusion between Trump and Putin.
    4. It is of course rather silly that a) individuals with records such as those pertaining to Sir Richard Dearlove, Sir Laurie Bristow, Hermann Hauser and his son, Simon Baron Cohen and b) a college which had, did and would have individuals who would work for the foreign office who concealed corruption and infiltration, should attempt to make counter-allegations and expect to be believed particularly when
      1. They resorted to very obvious and feeble lies as one can see from the counter-complaint from Irena Borsym below.
      2. They prove my complaints by increasing the harassment rather than doing the standard thing of involving the authorities.
      3. As I outline in Chapter ten, they supplied false information to INTERPOL and would make death threats on the part of GCHQ and others
      4. Such things will have occurred at the behest of the Prime Minister and the minister for the cabinet office.

 

2 The Second Phase of the harassment 2013-2014

The harassment would intensify upon my return from Pembroke at the end of September 2013.

It just so happens that Jock Kane died on the 27th of September. This may have been coincidental given that he was in his nineties or indeed it may not have been given that he may have been in a position to outline the corruption and harassment to which I was subject and the culture within the intelligence services.

A few days after my in the 9th of October, it was announced that two missing Doctor Who stories have been found. These were The Web of fear (minus episode 3) and The Enemy of the World. This was pertinent in that they no doubt felt incorrectly that they could use the later as the inspiration for what occurred in my case, given the fact that it offered some form of plausible deniability whereby they might be able to state that my subsequent complaints sounded like I had been watching too much Doctor Who. I did not however remark on or notice this at the time and did not really pay attention to the episodes.

It should be stated that

  1. There would have been an awareness of the existence and content of the episodes given that they would have been recovered many months previously and that the timing of the release would suggest a need to cover for what was about to occur. Indeed the so called “omnirumour” about the existence of certain missing episodes started in early 2013.
  2. Indeed it may very well be suggested that the intelligence services have an awareness of the existence of certain missing stories and decided in this instance that it would be a good idea for it to be “found”. This is not unimaginable given the fact that people who have are in possession of missing BBC television and radio material are very unlikely to be aware or to take precautions against state level surveillance. As such it is very easy for GCHQ or the NSA to pick up upon the fact that someone through their internet searches or telephone calls will possess missing material.

It sounds like what occurred to me for the following reasons

  1. It involves doppelgangers.
  2. It involves spying.
  3. A person from within the lead villain’s circle (Salamander) finds out about certain things and is smeared and generally harassed. This can be said to correlate with me given the fact that he has the same name and initials as me (G Kent).
  4. He seeks help from someone who is in France who is played by an actor who has the same name as me and whose second name means truth (George Pravda). He is then poisoned as a result of speaking the truth in that the word Pravda (правда) is Russian for truth. This can be said to correlate with me given the name and the fact that
    1. It would be expected that I would go to France where my parents lived
    2. It would act as a warning not to seek help given
      1. The experience of Richard Tomlinson where there was much cooperation between the authorities of Europe and the UK
      2. The fact that the following were employed in the capacity where similar forms of liaison as had been used in the case of Richard Tomlinson were possible
        1. Julian Braithwaite, a member of the college was then Permanent Representative to the Political and Security Committee of the EU.
        2. Simon Shercliff was head of counter terrorism at the FCO
      3. It would sound like Doctor Who
  5. The name of the actor which is the same as mine is a little cynical play on names. If I as someone who speaks the truth go to seek help from someone, either myself or that person will be poisoned. And indeed this is what would indeed occur to me and indeed this did occur to Gareth Williams.
  6. The story is as suggested, about a person known as Salamander who is feted as the Saviour of the world for amongst other things saving it from natural disasters of which he is actually the cause. This can be said to roughly correlate with the intelligence services given the fact that their actions have of course led to much upset in the middle east in particular.
  7. The person who is smeared and who has the same name as me (G Kent) turns out to be a double-agent, so it is a message that I will be treated as a fake victim.

As stated, in this term, there would be an intensification of the harassment which occurred in order to get hold of my work. This would start upon my arrival and really become apparent from the first of series of break-ins to my room on the 22nd of October 2013 where there was an attempt to steal material relating to my work. In addition to the break-ins, I would also experience hacking into personal online resources, the destruction of personal equipment, smear campaigns involving staff and students and beyond, the usage of informers, stalking online and and offline as well as muggings in college and indeed on the street as well as poisoning. To reiterate a primary person who was involved and who acted as a visible Clarence Beeks was the ex-CIA and NSA operative, Kang Tchou who hoped to personally profit from my work and who was eventually chosen as a scapegoat. His flatmate, Chris Kerr was an associate of this and a rather nervous one.

The harassment would go on to include attempted murder, death threats, the co-opting of foreign intelligence services and the misuse of psychiatry as part of which they attempted to recruit me to the foreign office, something which would have rather deleterious consequences for those involved as well as their allies. It was

  1. Not unexpected given
    1. The history of GCHQ in relation to members of the college concealing significant corruption which occurred under their watch something which I have already outlined
    2. The experience of Richard Tomlinson and indeed that of at least two members of the college
  2. Admitted to have occurred by Dr Oliver but could not have occurred without higher authority given its scale
  3. Proven to have occurred through
    1. The events which occurred as a result of the detention and subsequent attempted recruitment to MI6
    2. The detention and attempted recruitment itself where they attempted to copy my work.
    3. The actions of Rona Fairhead and the Cabinet Office when I was in Moscow
    4. The theft and the response to it. This included
      1. An attempt to resort to financial reprisals after I called the police in relation to the thefts
      2. What is outlined in the emails.
      3. The ludicrous reactions from John Pyle and Professor Simon baron Cohen amongst others to what occurred
      4. The manner in which they handled my CCTV request
        1. They were willing to examine and show the CCTV of a break-in to the police when it pertained to their own interests but broke the law with respect to my request.
          1. During this period a burglar called “Michael Jane” carried out a series of burglary from November the 13th to the 15th of 2013 at various Cambridge colleges including St Catharines. He was caught and sentenced to prison on the 19th of November thanks to CCTV evidence from amongst other places St Catharines.
          2. The college did not have a problem in assisting the police in this matter and it is not as if they were unconcerned given that if they were not they could have chosen not reported the burglary.
          3. It moreover shows a degree of alacrity for the burglar to commit the act, to be caught and sentence within 6 days given the fact that the average detection rate for burglary during that period was 12%.
        2. This is rather different from my case
          1. When I reported the burglary which occurred in my room on K staircase on October the 22nd. The college initially refused to examine the footage of the camera showing who entered the staircase which would have been helpful in narrowing down the list of suspects given that not many people enter that staircase during the afternoon. They used the pretext that “Four hours was too much footage for them to look at” and that amusingly “They did not have the technical means to speed up the footage“.
          2. There was an obvious breach of the law in relation to the CCTV which proves they had something to hide. When I asked them to carry out a Subject Access Request under the data protection act 1998 in order to assist them by showing the exact times when I left my room and returned, they refused to do so and would not let me look at CCTV footage of myself.
          3. When I persisted they made various counter-allegations which were obvious lies and which
            1. Served to conceal the fact that they did not want to view the CCTV.
            2. Had been attempted some months before against another member of staff who worked on the same staircase.
          4. The fact that they asked a porter to view the CCTV footage, refused to involve the police and did not show the footage to PC Simon Railer who visited me on the 24th of October at 3pm. Asking a porter to investigate is rather like asking Ronnie Biggs to assist with the investigation into the great train robbery for the following reasons
            1. Only the porters would have had access to my room which could only have been opened with a key given that I kept my room always shut. As such any access to my room would have had to have involved the porters
            2. I had made complaints about the behaviour of one porter in particular called Steve which were not dealt with. Here is a not very high quality picture of Steve from 2012. This was during the period when there was much drinking in the MCR something of which he and others approved.
            3. I am not into all this freemasonry conspiracy nonsense, but it looks even more odd when they eventually asked a porter Mark Rivvers who is now the senior porter at Fitzwilliam college and who would appear to be a Freemason to look at the CCTV footage rather than myself or the police. When I was experiencing intrusions into my room at nighttime during the subsequent term when I was moved to Hobsons block, he stated that if someone had entered my room, I would have woken up because “I am a light sleeper” which he could only have known had he been entering my room whilst I was asleep in that’s the only place where I slept.
            4. In addition to the fact that the foreign office has a strong association with the college, many of the porters also worked for the British government as part of the armed forces. Mark Rivvers as a musician, Steve Smith according to rumour as a Sergeant and the then head porter Dom Mucrone worked for the RAF as a fight dispatcher (page 110).

The exact sequence of events in the initial stages is related in the informal complaint which is contained below as part of a series of emails which pertain to this period. There are many others but I felt given the amount of information, the need for focus (as well as the time involved in going through the emails) and the simple proof needed that it would be better to only include a small selection.

 

1 Request for help from the college 20/10/2013

This occurs two days before the initial break-in and pertains to later emails from Mr Bainbridge. It was clearly stated in person, in other emails and confirmed by others that the work was meant to be charitable with a small proportion for myself which seems reasonable given the costs involved. It should be state that I only asked for a loan

It is not as kind an offer as it seems given emails which occur subsequent to the theft.

 

2 Surveillance by the IT office on K staircase 22/10/13

This was received when I disconnected my ethernet connection due to the fact that I sensed that my work was under threat and that my computer was being monitored. Kevin asked an indeterminate number of people who were not affected in order to ensure plausible deniability for the sorts of actions (surveillance and hacking of my computer) which were occurring in my case.

They ruined this by the fact that

  1. The then IT officer, Stephanie Clarke, came up to my room and made a subsequent request to see what was wrong with my IT connection (no doubt because they thought that I was using a VPN).
  2. They proved that they were doing as I thought by the fact that, a few hours after I disconnected my internet, the first of a series of break in to my room occurred where material pertaining to my project was stolen.

 

3 The arrangement to visit by the police 24/10/2013

There was disdain on the part of the college to my report of the break-in and sniggering from the porters, one of whom Mike Reynolds would state “You can kiss that one goodbye mate”. Due to this and the need to gather evidence as soon as possible, I felt that it would be appropriate to call the police. They visited, did not have any training with regards to the autistic spectrum, harassment and moreover could not be bothered to investigate the break in saying “we can’t look at the CCTV footage of the door to the staircase” and “can’t question people”.

The porters and staff did not request that they look at the footage. I should also wish to emphasize the fact that I did warn the police that the work may have security implications but they were unconcerned.

Shortly before this email at 2pm in the morning, I had been in the MCR and Kang Tchou popped out of the Masters Lodge to put psychological pressure on me as part of which he said that

  1. Drugs are normal and I was being judgmental and hints how I might like to hand over my work to the Hausers.
  2. Donations to secure admissions were despite appearances and despite the legality accepted by the university and helped to facilitate admissions.

This was the first of several almost daily meetings at the MCR and indeed he would stalk me around college with the help of the college staff and his flatmate would often accompany him. He had a financial interest in my work as proven by

  1. Statements by Doctor Oliver where he claimed that he had fomented things in relation to the harassment
  2. The fact that he would berate me for wanting to make my work charitable.
  3. The fact that he would pressure me into handing my work over through him and not to the Hausers.
  4. What later transpired at the Jim Wah restaurant in January 2015 where he attempted unsuccessfully to diddle me out of my work.
  5. What transpired in April of that year, shortly after I had stated that I intended to visit Amadeus Capital Partners and had made arrangements in that respect in the hope of sorting things out with the Hauser family. I made the mistake of informing Doctor Oliver and shortly after I did so
    1. I experienced yet another break-in to my room where a copy of some very early stage plans went missing
    2. Kang was all of a sudden extremely keen to accompany me down to London and I did not bother going
    3. He went to the Oxford and Cambridge club which is virtually next door to Amadeus Capital Partners without me.
    4. He laughed knowingly when I asked whether he had been in contact with Hermann Hauser.

 

4 An instance of revenge by the college 24/10/2013

As you can see, this occurred within 30 minutes of my sending my email to the police. İt will be noted that David Bainbridge is head of admissions and is responsible for looking after students with disabilities but despite the fact that

  1. I am doing something charitable and to say thank you to the college and the university
  2. I have asked for a loan with interest rather than a bursary

He send a snarky email saying that other students who are not in college are getting loans which occurs half an hour after I email the police. This indicates that he is aware of the need to cover-up the thefts which were occurring. Indeed it is not the only response of this kind

 

5 Another instance of revenge by the college 25/10/2013

The day after the visit from the police, I was also issued with a bill for a period when it was known that I was not living in college on behalf of the then head porter Dominic.

This is just one instance of such tactics to give you a picture of what occurred and within the context in particular it is not a mistake but an attempt to state that I should not have involved the police.

 

6 Meeting with the acting senior tutor Dr Irena Borsym and my account of that meeting 28/10/2013

I met with the acting senior tutor on that day and I related my misgivings about how the college was handling the matter. She was dismissive, had no training as regards harassment or indeed the autistic spectrum and did not want to know. Indeed others have stated that she is aggressive, has poor social skills and had threatened students on a previous occasion when she was acting senior tutor. It is the reason why she has never become an actual senior tutor and why they had to fish out a fellow from another college to act as senior tutor this year..

I should wish to emphasize that at this point I was always polite which in retrospect is a mistake given that fact that “politeness” of the sort which is expected is in fact a means of keeping people quiet. I have found that being polite does not work and with respect to my comments about Dr Oliver being helpful later on, this is an example of where I am overly polite, given the fact that it is self-evidently not the case that he was helpful.

 

7 The senior tutor’s response the next day and my request for an SAR 29/10/2013

Instead of responding to my justified complaints about the response of herself and the college, she twists what occurred and indeed the fact that she is lying is proven by

  1. The ludicrous counter-complaint she makes below.
  2. The fact that I am not the only person who has the experience of my words being twisted or claims being made that I had said or done things when I hadn’t given the experience of two former employees of the college, including Jenni Tucker who was involved in a court case in relation to the actions of Stephanie Clarke and one other.

Moreover the fact that Dr Irena Borsym offers to view only 3 hours of CCTV shows that she does not wish to take my concerns seriously and does not wish to examine the footage. It cannot be said to be a question of time given that one can, shock horror, fast forward video footage. Moreover she does not call the police.

There are very few people on K staircase and it was during the daytime when students would be at lectures. It would be very easy to determine who went in and who left.

Furthermore it will be noted that at this point, she does not mention her later counter-complaint which was dated the 28/10/2014 but which she sent over a week later for some reason. If the complaints had been valid about “staff being under threat”, she would not have waited for the best part of two weeks!

In any case, I respond to her claims

Unsurprisingly I do not receive a response to the subject access request which is telling. I do so in order that it may be possible to narrow down the time by ascertaining when I left and when I returned. It is in fact college policy and indeed a legal requirement to let me view my own footage. As regards other people being in the footage, there is of course the possibility of zooming in so only I could be seen.

They choose not to comply with this which shows that they

  1. Are breaking the law
  2. Have something to hide namely the thefts which they are responsible for

Later on after the DRC meeting they supposedly arrange for the people who were responsible for the thefts, namely the porters (and not the police) to view the footage. Only they can have been responsible because only they have copies of the keys and it is therefore a bit like asking a guilty party to examine themselves. This is particularly so given the fact that the porter (Mark) who did supposedly examine the footage would enter my room when I was asleep, as I have indicated.

Irena moreover would state that they would only call the police if they saw anything suspicious on the CCTV which obviously discounts the possibility of them doing so in that

  1. Nothing suspicious would have occurred occur outside K staircase which they know full well is not why I made the request.
  2. I did so to ascertain a list of people who did enter and leave that staircase

The fact that they are breaking the law can be seen through the fact that they did ask the police to look at footage of another break-in at the college which occurred a few weeks later. One of the porters who had a disability revealed the break in to me and after he found out that I told other people was annoyed at me. This was no doubt because he felt under pressure to cover for the other porters in that he was somewhat “vulnerable” due to his disability.

 

8 Further request for a subject access request 31/10/2013

Her reluctance to comply with the law and lack of response and indeed college policy shows that the college has something to hide.

 

9 Report of a further break in 1/11/2013

I report that there have been further break-ins and thefts.

 

10 Another request for a subject access request 5/11/2013

I again do not receive a response to the Subject Access Request indicating that there is something to hide.

 

11 Response from Dr Irena Borsym 6/11/2013

She brushes off the request by stating that she is seeking legal advice which is obvious nonsense given the fact that it is as stated college policy and moreover a legal right under the data protection act 1998.

It is obvious that she does not want it to be possible for someone to examine the footage by narrowing down the time.

 

12 Response from myself 6/11/2013

Here I state that I would like her to ask the police to look at the CCTV footage and do not receive a response again indicating something to hide.

 

13 Email to Dr Oliver and response 7/11/2013

Here I email Dr Oliver and he responds that “didn’t she state that she was seeking legal advice”. Given the fact that he is head of admissions and would know or could ask what the law states and what the policy of the college is in this regards and given the fact that he professes to be “concerned about me”, this goes to prove that he is acting on behalf of the authorities within the college body.

This deceit is unsurprising given the fact that he works for the intelligence services.

 

14 The counter-complaint from Dr Irena Borsym 8/11/2013

It is an obvious lie which is disproven and moreover disproves other similar attempts for the following reasons

  1. The purpose is to affect
    1. The hearing of a complaint with a higher authority, as part of a meeting at the disability resource center. She would not tell me who she claimed had made the complaint until that meeting, thus not allowing me time to prepare and leaving my anxious.
    2. My Subject Access Request to view the CCTV footage which is outlined in the response below. It is legal under college policy and indeed under the data protection act to view CCTV footage of oneself as indeed was proven by the comedian Mark Thomas. I did so given that it was claimed that it was apparently not possible to fast forward video footage and to determine the actual time of my leaving the college and returning something which is evident nonsense. She is trying to avoid her legal responsibilities by not complying with them and by lying.
  2. The claims are obviously false because
    1. The letter is dated the 28th of October but she only sends it the best part of two weeks later. Had it been the case that the staff were in any way upset, she would not have waited that long a period before sending the letter. She moreover waits another four days before I am due to be told to leave the college site which would indicate that I am not a threat.
    2. Had the concerns been genuine, she would have mentioned them before she sent the letter twisting what I stated. Indeed the fact that she lies here proves the fact that she lies elsewhere.
    3. They ended up allowing me to stay on the college site which they would not have done if I was a threat.
  3. The claims are disbelieved by
    1. The person appointed to look at the informal complaint, a Professor John Pyle
    2. All of the members of staff who she had claimed had complained.
      1. One of these did not speak English very well and was a member of cleaning staff and could not have understood what I was saying.
      2. The other was Stephanie Clarke who also denied the fact of what was claimed and who had in any case been involved in a court case for making similar claims which were disbelieved by other members of staff
      3. The last one was the masters secretary who denied that I had scared her and found it laughable.
  4. It is a common tactic used by Cambridge tutors to ask people to move out due to mental health/autism related issues on the basis that they pose a “risk” to others
  5. One does not merely demand that someone moves out on the basis of allegations which they refused to divulge the nature of, which were entirely false and which were made in response to my own complaints of break-ins and harassment (which they were and still are trying to cover up).
  6. The reverse is the case. In addition to the thefts, she and the college knew full well that others within the area of South Green road posed a risk to me because of the fact that I had uncovered drug dealing in relation to Michael Hauser Raspe which took place in that area. She and the college are thus protecting someone who took drugs and dealt them and putting someone who reported the fact in harms way.

Interesting none of the other attendees at the meeting which included

  1. A friend of someone from Amadeus Capital Partners and someone who taught a member of the Hauser family, Emily Hauser
  2. Someone from the DRC which had close links with the college through the disability liaison officer Dr Oliver and which refused to listen to further complaints
  3. Professor Simon Baron Cohen

Spoke out about

  1. These flagrant and obvious breaches of due process and the law.
  2. The fact that during the meeting she
    1. Breached the privacy of a member of staff and a student and brought up their issues which pertained to the usage of alcohol
    2. Said I should live in a home
    3. Was rude and obnoxious

 

15 My response 9/11/2013

It will be noted that CUSU who did not elect to help me did not respond and said they did not assist with individual cases.

 

16 Response to the DRC meeting 13/11/2013

She states that the police would only be called on the basis of anything suspicious which was recorded on CCTV.

It would be obviously the case that there would not be anything “suspicious” going on outside K staircase which is where the camera is given that is not where the theft occurred.

The point was, as to determine a list of people who went in and out of that staircase during that period which would have been few if any during that time of day when people are busy with lectures and so on.

She thus shows that the college were covering up something for which they were responsible (the theft) and did not want to call the police.

 

17 My response and hers 13/11/2013

Here I rebut the points which she continues to make. There would obviously be “no proof” given the fact that she and the college were demonstrably trying to conceal it by

  1. Not letting me view the CCTV
  2. Not calling the police as they did with regards to Michael Jane.
  3. Lying about privacy laws
  4. Breaking the law by not addressing my subject access request and by brushing aside the college’s policy in this regards.

As a consequence I submitted an informal complaint to a Dr John Pyle

 

18 The informal complaint 21/11/2013

  1. It should like to note that I am polite in this letter as indeed I am in all of the other letters even though I am experiencing harassment, something which is obviously impolite. I have found that this approach is unfortunately, much as I did repeatedly try under circumstances where I was being subject to burglary, poisoning, rumour spreading and so on, not a workable one. I have found that one unfortunately has to be rather more abrasive.
  2. As one can see in the letter, where I am at fault and causing potential problems, I highlight them but am dismissed as being “paranoid” so it can hardly be said to be in response to any concerns or anger about my behaviour. The fact is that I am the only one who is highlighting the potential for problems with others.

 

19 The appointment of Dr Pyle as informal complaints office 26/11/2013

 

20 Asking to see the college complaints procedure 04/12/2013

I asked for a copy of “the ordinances” in order to see the full complaints procedure but am informed that this is not permitted.

So I got a copy from the barman instead. it’s hidden on page 7

http://docdro.id/X6LCKvV

Anyone would think they didn’t like people complaining and had something to cover up.

If they had had some issue or other, they would have used the disciplinary procedure in section 11 of that document but chose not to.

 

21 Dr Pyle’s “thoughts” on the complaint 20/12/2013

Dr Pyle is for reference s a fellow of Royal society and moreover was partly responsible for the UN move to stop the usage of CFCs in the 1980s. He did an impressive job of appearing to be “impartial” whilst doing the opposite.

It is obvious to state that he is not being impartial given the fact that

  1. He has not recognized or taken account of what the college policy is and the law says with regards to CCTV nor indeed the college’s refusal to comply with the law in this respect nor indeed especially to call the police. He states that there is a “lack of evidence” something with which is complicit and it is moreover almost word for word the same phraseology used by the then DPP David Green who was also from the college when he decided not to prosecute Michael Lynch
  2. He states that there was nothing suspicious about the CCTV footage and that the police were unable to proceed. In the first place, Dr Irena Borsym stated that she would only call the police if there was anything suspicious which is why the police could not proceed. It would be obviously the case that there would not be anything “suspicious” going on outside K staircase which is where the camera is. The point of the CCTV request was to
    1. Determine a list of people who went in and out of that staircase during the period when I went out. This would have been few if any at that time of day, given the fact that other students would have been at lectures and so on and
    2. Supply a list of people to the police.
  3. Thus this reveals the fact that Dr Pyle is obviously covering up for the college.
  4. He states that autistic spectrum conditions are “new territory” which perhaps they are for the college but which hasn’t the case for normal society for decades.
  5. He states that I was uncertain whether I had in fact lost the USB key which is a lie. I was entirely certain that it had been stolen and it has been admitted and proven by what occurred
  6. I quite reasonably refuse to accept his interim judgement
  7. In addition to being “busy” at the end of term and indeed to some extent during Christmas, he jets off to New Zealand where apparently he is unable to deal with my complaint. I am bound to state perhaps it is inappropriate for him to visit New Zealand given the fact that that is where Dr Hauser lives in the winter months.
  8. Neither he nor the college take account of other forms of harassment which include further break-ins to my room, rumour spreading and pressure by Kang and indeed by the porters include one called Mike Reynolds who is thankfully now dead and who said about my USB key “You can kiss that one goodbye mate”
  9. There are two conclusions. Either he is stupid or is covering up for the criminal activities within the college. It is obviously the later

Dr Pyle is blatantly acting on behalf of the college.

 

22 The response from the EHRC 14/02/2014

As I was rather less than happy with what was occurring, I submitted an enquiry to the Equality and Human Rights Commission asking to know whether the colleges had to comply with the equality act more specifically the public sector equality duty.

I had not heard back from them and was under pressure from the college which included harassment. The master of the college, Dame Jean Owen Thomas who had allowed her premises to be used for the purposes of harassment and who was obviously therefore not keen to deal with it, asked me on the 13th of February when I would be going back to study even though I had not been given a decision in relation to the complaint in relation to the harassment wwich ı had been experiencing and which she sanctioned.

I told her that I was waiting for a reply from an organisation to which she replied “Which organisation”. In response I told her it was the EHRC.

The very next day I got this ludicrous response from that organisation.

Apparently the EHRC considers that they do not have to because

  1. The colleges do not receive funding from the government but through the university and as such they do not have to comply with the public sector equality duty.
    1. This is rather like saying that the treasury receives funding from the taxpayer and therefore a government department does not have to comply with the PSED.
    2. Undergraduates do not study at the university, they live in and have tutorials at a particular college and go to particular faculties which are part of the university. Apparently then the requirements of the equality act do not apply to colleges where students live and study.
    3. Apparently the equality act does not apply to collegiate universities such as Oxford and Cambridge which have a demonstrable problem with accepting people from non-traditional backgrounds
    4. It does however apply to all the other universities however and thus Oxbridge has an exemption from the equality act.
    5. The EHCR not only claim that they do not have to comply with the act but refuse to endorse efforts to compare how the colleges are performing in terms of equality.
  2. They are not public authorities which they are according to the University itself and the colleges have to reply to freedom of information requests and cannot delegate such a responsibility to the university.This nonsensical reply, the later claim that they do not provide legal advice when, as you can see, they do, the fact that the reply occurred the day after the master of the college wanted to know which organisation I was hoping to hear back from, the fact that the harassment was ordered by the cabinet office indicates that the EHRC acted at the behest of the college and the intelligence services, most notably Simon Shercliff and Laurie Bristow.

Indeed it cannot be regarded as coincidental that later that day I was pickpocketed on the way back from college given that it would occur increasingly from that point, both inside the college and out.

On one notable occasion, I went to get some computer related materials from Maplins, was pickpocketed, returned to the MCR, where Kang Tchou, who was waiting for me, winked at me indicating that he knew what had occurred. I expressed the fact that I had been pickpocketed and he went “So?”.

With respect to Kang, I should state that during this period and indeed in the previous term he would stalk me and appear in the MCR to pressure me on behalf of Dr Hauser, through a personal profit motive.As part of this, I was poisoned.

On one occasion we both happened to be in the the MCR and I was preparing a coffee using the machine which had installed there and walked away from the kitchen whilst the machine did its work. I did not pay sufficient attention to the fact that he dropped a white substance in my coffee although I observed this out of the corner of my eye.

When the coffee was ready, I sat down and he gave me the most evil smirk and after I drank the coffee I fell ill.

When the foreign office spread their lies about Alex Navalny or indeed Salisbury or indeed Gareth Williams and others and when others go along with them, you can guess what I think of them.

Oh and if the United States are going to talk about a “Chinese threat” particularly in light of what occurred in relation to Kang, the fact that the United States protect him and in light of the following, please don’t waste your breath.

 

24 The breaking of the law by Dr Wardy (18/2/2014)

This relates to the meeting I had with Dr Oliver and Dr Wardy to discuss the situation and to express my unhappiness at the harassment within college. Dr Wardy lied in that meeting and alleged that I had said sexist words against a girl (I am ever so slightly couldn’t-give-a-stuff about such things now because of the fact that certain people who mewl on about gender equality do so in order to maintain other forms of inequality and to shut people like me up).

He also claimed to have copies of what I had not actually said in emails. In actual fact, I had expressed concern that the fact that I was on the spectrum was making the firl nervous but he claimed to have no recollection of this. So when I made complaints about myself which were perhaps true in relation to the girl he deemed these were invalid but where he made complaints about myself which were totally false in relation to the girl he deemed that these were valid. It does seem a remarkable effort.

I asked for the copies of the emails (which don’t exist but to which I am entitled to as part of a subject access request even if this is not couched in formal terms) and he says he has just then deleted all my emails which is not only a clear breach of the data protection act and of college policy but also indicates that he is making up stuff and has lied.

It provides further proof the college broke the law with respect to the data protection act in other respects (the CCTV in relation to the breakin and my Subject access request) something which further bolsters the proof that there was harassment in relation to attempts to get me to hand over my work.

I should add one other interesting thing. He is irritable (because that’s the way he sometimes is) but for another reason.

Before the meeting someone broke into my room and installed spyware on my phone and broke the fastmode/bootloader switch so they could monitor what I was doing and so I could not uninstall the spyware. The fact that this did occur is proven by the fact that

  1. The manner in which the college reacted to the break-in and attempted to conceal the fact proves there were break-ins and that fact that it is entirely likely to have occurred in this case.
  2. The admission from Dr Oliver that such harassment of which the break-ins formed part did occur.
  3. The reaction from Dr Wardy

I had no intention of doing so beforehand but I felt it would be a good idea to record that particular meeting not for the contents of that particular meeting but in order to provoke a reaction. I knew

  1. He would know he was being recorded because he was a senior member of the college, a close friend of Dr Oliver and someone who had showed arrogant disdain to my concerns in relation to the harassment at the outset. All of this would indicate that he would know that the phone had spyware on it through which he would be made aware that I was was making a recording.
  2. He would prove that he knew he was being recorded by the way that he would react in a subsequent email, as he often did in emails (because he really wasn’t known for understatement as I am sure others will attest).

As a consequence of his reaction, one can say that he knew that spyware had been put on my phone and that he was being recorded. This is signified by the fact that.

  1. He would not in my particular case have got so irritated/worried at such a simple request because for me at least he was very difficult to irritate.
  2. The mention of lawyers in his first email can only relate to the meeting which we had and which he would have known would have had to have been recorded for me to take action and not to the email. It does not pertain to anything before the meeting because the email occurred as a consequence of that meeting

As a consequence of this one can also state there had been another break-in to my room and damage to my phone. It’s not as if the college can state that I am lying giving their previous activities in this respect

In that meeting as had been the case from the outset, Dr Wardy showed absolutely no concern whatsoever about the break-ins to my room (because he knew what was occurring as one can gauge from the email) and in fact said that I was flushing my degree down the toilet because I was not studying (which would have been rather difficult because of the harassment of which he was aware). To be frank the toilet is exactly where a degree from a place which behaves in this way belongs and given this section in particular and the behaviour of the people involved, its cannot be exactly said to signify intellectual caliber. Quite the opposite in fact.

He also stated that autistic spectrum conditions were a middle class luxury which was a bafflingly ignorant comment from someone who got a distinguished first at St Johns college and became a fellow at the college. It’s not so much offensive but he rather discredited himself in my eyes. He then oddly warned about the dangers of impotence in people who become busy at some task such as business which for all I know partly explains the way he came across.

This was by the way a meeting where Dr Oliver again made his famous “Dr Hauser bought the whole of Newnham” as he had done previously along with statements to the effect that Dr Hauser was ruthless.

What I did was legal because it is legal to record conversations (but not to replay them without permission) whereas what the college did is illegal.

I would like to add a small comment. Whilst I was adding the above section which was complete (and subsequently reedited) at 14:05 Sunday the 20th of September) local time

Cambridge university tweetIt is indicative of illegal interception and a directed response because of

  1. The fact that it pertains to my directory of studies in classics and myself who studied classics. The video as you will note from the tweet only focuses upon the classics section of books.
  2. The usage of the word “tall tales”
  3. The timing occurring as I write the above.

Basically they wish to state that my account of illegal interception and surveillance (by means of going into my room and installing spyware) is a tall tale and how I might like to go back to study classics. The trouble is that they.

  1. Send this message by means of illegal interception and surveillance.
  2. Signify the fact that they still expect me to hand over my work to the Hausers and to do classics which I haven’t done for the best part of a decade and which they know I wasn’t particularly good at in any case.

If you want to understand the utterly putrid culture at Cambridge something which forms part of the stereotypical impression which many people have of Cambridge and which in fact is entirely justified, then read the above. Cambridge is a greatly overrated university one which has a sense of entitlement and which very much relies on past glories and large subsidies from governments and indeed Europe. It is high time that government funds went to more deserving universities which don’t behave like parasites and which don’t resort to a bit of public relations to conceal the fact.

And its high time Cambridge stopped complaining about things like brexit, the loss of ARM and the economic effects of the lockdown. The first two were their fault and the later one was partly their fault and they don’t really deserve any sympathy. They certainly don’t come across as a place where anyone can do business but as a mediocre snotty little club where only a selected few who are destined not to achieve anything significant on a global scale are allowed to do business and whom only those who have a history of turning a blind eye to such things (the civil service in the UK and in the European Union and others) will back.

The fact that Cambridge Enterprise and indeed the University as a whole have a poor record of social inclusivity is proof of this. The unfortunate fact is someone like Steve Jobs would have inevitably been shown the door, something which is inevitable given the location. Cambridge and indeed Oxford are places with strong links to the political establishment and conservative ways of thinking (with respect to being able to proceed and succeed with new ideas) whereas California and Shenzen are not, which is why they are successful.

 

25 Dr Pyle illegally dropping the complaint 28/02/2014

Again one can tell that he is acting on behalf of the college given that fact that he drops the complaint even though I said I would only do so if certain conditions were granted and even though he could offer the option of a formal complaint.

 

26 The response from Dr Hartle 03/06/2014

Dr Paul Hartle is the person responsible for academic and personal welfare within the college namely the senior tutor. He is (or was) the person with links to the main body of GCHQ. This is his response where he states that my claims are down to the fact that I am on the autistic spectrum and that I should not libel people. The college had not as of yet implemented the equality act.

As the months went on I was subject to an increasing amount of harassment which is outlined in an email. Much of this involved Kang Tchou but it would not have been possible for him to have acted alone.

Here he states that he does not deal with welfare issues within the college but then this is part of his job function so he is lying. This shows that he does not want to deal with the harassment which was admitted to by Doctor Oliver and which is proven to have occurred by the manner in which the college handled the complaint.

I had been moved at short notice after the Christmas period from room K14 which was in Sherlock court to Hobsons room 5 where there were intrusions into my room during the day and night. They would apart from stealing things and damaging equipment move things around in much the same way as the East German security service did.

The intrusions into my room at night were carried out by various individuals. Amongst others this may be said to have included, a porter by the name of Mark Rivvers who was by his own account a Freemason and ex soldier and who remarked that I was a light sleeper.

He could only have known this by either

  1. Entering my room at night given that
    1. That’s the only place I slept
    2. It was always locked
    3. Only porters had access to a key.
  2. Handing the key to someone else which would signify their involvement and indicate knowledge that was passed on but then in the college site only one porter is usually on duty

The fact that I was not woken up indicates

  1. Military training particularly given the fact that I would place furniture in front of the door.
  2. Perhaps the usage of drugs given the fact that I am a light sleeper and given a situation where I was being poisoned

I should also state that during this period

  1. There was the usage of drugs within my corridor but I did not remark upon the fact and avoided the people involved from the outset because I sensed that they were worth avoiding.
  2. There was also the sound of a computer from below the floorboards and the room below. That room along with that general area had previously been used for keeping cleaning materials and it did not contain computing equipment and none of the other rooms had their functions changed. That room which had been left open at certain times of day was suddenly out of bounds. I recognized the fact that it was a computer from
    1. The sound of the fan which was not that of a boiler.
    2. When the fan started up, my mobile internet traffic would sometimes go dead particularly when
      1. I was looking at how to deal with the situation
      2. I was researching my project
      3. I would use tor
    3. There was some rustling at odd hours of the morning, centimetres away from the floorboards which indicated that they were placing interception equipment as close as possible to my room so they could capture mobile phone traffic.
    4. There was no other reason for that room to be used.