Chapter XI: Russia Part 1

1 My Initial Experiences

1 Crossing the border

I won’t say where this occurred so others do not impersonate me but I arrived at a town which was just next to the border between Belarus and Russia with the intention of crossing that border in order to enter Russia. I stayed there overnight and was aware that should I cross the border on the main road, there was a likelihood that I would be stopped and put in prison by either the border guard of Belarus or the border guard of Russia.

I therefore examined all the minor roads which crossed that frontier and the next morning, I asked a taxi driver to take me to visit a monastery which was meters near the border on the particular road which I had chosen. My intention was that I would, after my visit, either cross the border on foot or somehow persuade him to take me to a nearby town in Russia as part of the continuation of the tour where I would then either walk or take a bus or train to the nearest city.

He did not speak English and I did not speak Russian or Belarusian but I nonetheless managed to convey my wishes by pointing at a map and he in turn managed to convey his intentions to me.

We arrived at the monastery and he gave me a guided tour. The experience was not exactly Anglican or Catholic in their modern and rather “soft” incarnations but rather a more full blooded version of Christianity. The temperature at the time was around minus five degrees and I would witness a monk take a dip into some freezing cold water as part of a blessing. Whilst he was doing this, I was offered some holy water as part of which I said a prayer.

Later on, I would visit other Orthodox churches. The services provided a unique experience which did not require any understanding of Russian or indeed any other language and the message seemed to be conveyed in visual form. The priests (and there are usually several) stay behind a golden screen, come out in a procession and after some chanting go back behind the golden screen. The message seems to be that one is on a portal to another world where one might end up. It is not merely a visual message in that one does actually feel it.

After the tour, I was naturally concerned that I might have to persuade the taxi driver to take me to Russia but to my surprise I did not have to ask. He simply asked where I wanted to go in Russia to which I said “Smolensk” whereupon we drove on the bumpiest and most ill maintained road for what seemed like an eternity, all the way to a junction on the main road.

I expected that it would be the case that not only would the taxi driver not allow me to cross the border but that there would be some form of border check along the way. I was simultaneously relived at having crossed the border therefore but very concerned about potentially being stopped given that I had broken the law of a country which still has a KGB. To my surprise and infinite relief however, there were no checks at any point along the way and we arrived in Smolensk some hours later.

I could not believe that I had managed to make it to Russia.

I had intended to take the train from Smolensk to Moscow and waited in the main train station but upon approaching the train for which I had bought a ticket, I noticed that they were carrying out passport checks. I elected therefore to find a place on a minibus from a company which would not make such checks and eventually found one.

I ended up in Moscow at 2 or so in the morning. Since it was the weekend and I would not sleep that night, I ended up booking a place near the Kremlin for two days which did not do ID checks in order that I might rest and recuperate.

It was during this period that the person who had authorised my admission to the college, Tessa Jowell, was murdered for the reasons and using the method which I have outlined.


2 Meeting Dougan the detective

On the following Monday, I went to the main asylum center in Moscow and the people there gave me a piece of paper which said that they were fully occupied at the moment but that they would register me at some point. I asked if there were any lodgings for asylum seekers and they directed me to the flat of someone called John Mark Dougan who was apparently an American who had worked for Palm Beach county police in the United States. I felt that it would be reasonable to be on my guard due to the fact that he was American and in retrospect this was indeed justified due to his name.

The fact is, given my situation and given what had occurred previously in Fulbourn, namely the fact that Dougan was the name of the investigator in the Doctor Who story City of Death, a story which had led to much upset on the part of the FCO, due to particular actions on my part involving part of the plot-line of that story, it would be unreasonable to describe being directed to a person with that name in the first instance as coincidental. It would also be reasonable to presume that.

  1. The Russian government were aware of what had occurred in this respect.
  2. They perhaps wanted me to divulge things to him in order check whether I was some kind of fraudster which is why they sent me to stay with him the first instance.
  3. He was perhaps “sent” by the American government on the same pretext, in the knowledge that I might arrive, even if he himself was unaware of the fact.

I  did not however remark upon the significance of his name until I did research as part of this account of events.


3 Why the allegations against Prince Andrew are demonstrably false

Mr Dougan is also apparently a person of significance who is alleged to hold information in relation to his police force’s investigation into Prince Andrew. I can state with 100% certainty that, as a result of meeting him and my subsequent research into the affair that the Virginia Guiffre’s allegations that Prince Andrew raped her are not only malicious and false but very obviously so and that moreover the British and American governments are aware of this.

It may be true to state that he witnessed something or other with respect to Epstein although this is a dubious claim given that

  1. He does seem shall we say seem rather “naive” about the real world, something which would be expected given that as a member of the royal family, he would have been somewhat “shielded” from it. Indeed this naivety is
    1. Something which certain comedians have fun of in the past with respect to Prince Charles
    2. Something they themselves have shown if one remembers its a royal knockout which is beautifully lambasted by the following  and which was presented by someone who was later convicted of sexual offenses against young girls and which took place during his employment at the BBC
  2. The fact that the allegations were made by an obvious liar such as Miss Guiffre/Roberts casts doubt upon any such claim

The reason why the allegations of rape are so obviously untrue are as follows

1 The evidence from Mark Dougan and the actions of the FCO
  1. When I met Mark Dougan, he mentioned the fact that he had tons of information in relation to corruption within Palm Beach county police and that this included names, videos and audio and that I would have to have a similar amount of information in order to be granted asylum. The information which he was in possession of included a list of 14,000 FBI and CIA agents which he subsequently published something which was was to be expected given the alleged involvement of higher authorities in concealing the corruption in his case.
  2. MI6 were apparently concerned that he  might have evidence which showed that Prince Andrew had raped Miss Roberts due to the fact that was in possession of material from Palm beach county’s sheriff office who apparently investigated the allegations of rape against Prince Andrew. The fact that there was no such rape can be ascertained by the fact that
    1. Mark did not mention anything to do with corruption in the United Kingdom not indeed Prince Andrew which would have done so given the fact that
      1. My nationality is British
      2. I was talking about high level corruption.
      3. He could not be said not to have done so due to some fear for his life or due to the fact that he was instructed not to do so (for reasons of leverage) due to his previous release of information in relation to the the intelligence agencies
    2. MI6 are aware there is no such evidence because
      1. If had existed they would not be mentioning it in the press in that such an action would potentially alert the Russian government to kompromat which they would use against the royal family, a family which they are meant to protect.
      2. They would be aware of the purpose of “sending” him to Russia which was to act as a “net” to elicit information should I go there. They did the same, albeit with him being aware of his purpose, with Laurie Bristow who was then the British ambassador to Russia.
      3. They would have consulted with the FBI.
      4. They would not have continually remotely turned off my Iphone 4s which was no longer subject to security updates and which was thus insecure shortly before I was due to meet Mr Dougan if they indeed wanted to ascertain whether he did hold such information. It was icy and dark on that night and I continually fell over
    3. There is no such evidence.
2 The “evidence” and record of Virginia Roberts
  1. In 2011, Virginia Roberts was saying how she wished that Prince Andrew would “tell the truth about Epstein to the FBI” which is a rather unusual thing to request of someone whom you later allege had raped you. In the article she stated “She was asked to examine a list of Epstein’s friends and identify any who would have significant information about his sexual exploitation of young girls if required to testify under oath. Prince Andrew’s name was suggested by lawyer Jack Scarola and Miss Roberts replied: ‘Yes, he would know a lot of the truth,’. To seek help from someone whom she would later accuse of rape, completely discredits her allegations, even if she was the subject of some gagging order. One would not even under such an order seek his help.
  2. She also stated that she did not have sex with Prince Andrew.
  3. The mother of Virginia Roberts pushed police to investigate an incident after a social worker at a group home and told a detective “about her daughter’s past drug abuse and also how many kids in Royal Palm Beach are involved in drugs, witchcraft and animal sacrifice,”. These allegations were dismissed by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and she was not deemed credible and her rape allegations were dismissed.
3 The lack of corroborative evidence

If Prince Andrew had been the sort of person to commit such a crime, then, given the environment, it is very probable that

  1. He would have done to to others
  2. Others would have also have made similar allegations of that sort.
  3. They would not have been afraid to come forward given the publicity against Prince Andrew, an individual who certainly cannot be said to be the subject of any “reputational” protection by the state.
4 The “photographic” evidence
  1. The photo may or may not be authentic but it is only his friends who have cast doubt upon whether the photo might be genuine. Prince Andrew has never himself stated that the photo was not genuine, only that he did not witness illegal activities and does not recall meeting her. This is credible given that as a VIP, he would have met many people.
  2. She does in that photo look one or two years older than 17 and moreover having been a supposed ‘sex slave” since the age of 15, she looks very happy in that photo and it is not a forced smile.
  3. With respect to Prince Andrew,
    1. The photo looks like someone rather being rather naive about the ways certain people will inevitably attempt to exploit people like him.
    2. What made him vulnerable was the fact that he had a need for money as a result of Princess Ferguson’s apparent needs something which Epstein took advantage of. It was not sex and indeed in terms of what makes someone vulnerable it is usually money or sex but nor both.
    3. She is apparently the only “victim”.
    4. Had he been “up to something” or intending be “up to something”, he would not have posed with the victim and provided photographic evidence!
    5. If this formed part of an attempt to incriminate him and he had indeed raped here, there would have been other photos which would have been taken in secret and which would have been released in the media.
  4. By all accounts, Epstein had 14 phone numbers belonging to Prince Andrew which can be interpreted as someone desperately trying to secure information. If they were particularly close and if Prince Andrew were indeed under that man’s thumb, as it were, it would seem more likely that there would be fewer numbers.
  5. Prince Charles shook hands with Jimmy Saville. This does not make him a paedophile but shows judgement which does not take account of the ways of the world and of certain people and moreover he looks rather more happy in these photos.
5 Miss Roberts lies that he drunk, sweated and enjoyed parties
  1. He is a tee-totaller, as one can see from this article from 2005 and this article from 2009 and there is no evidence of him drinking alcohol
  2. He has a condition called anhydrosis which is not that unusual from my experience. Indeed some of my relatives have this condition. The best evidence which has been presented by the press to contradict this is risible and of course comes from the tabloids.
    1. This article from the dailymail makes s claim that it has photos and videos of him sweating  but.
      1. There is no sweat whatsoever and
        1. If he had sweated then his shirts would be wet
        2. The shininess of his shirt is due to the fact that it is made silk which I sometimes wear (along with a silk like suit).
        3. The worst one could state is that in some of those photos his hair needs a wash which would be expected that hair becomes dirty later into the night and given the fact that condensation from other people would occur.
      2. He also does not look like someone who really enjoys parties in the video contained within that article.
        1. No doubt had to go along as part of some function and rather like myself will perhaps occasionally get involved in such things if pushed.
        2. He looks rather awkward and wooden for the most part and does not dance and cannot be said to be someone who does parties.
        3. The only indication is that he smiles at the attention given by that girl which is not an indication that he likes parties.
        4. Moreover in some of those photos he is with his daughter, perhaps to make sure she is not taken advantage of.
      3. One can see that he does not drink, being as he is in some of the photos with a bottle of water and one can also see that he does not have a PDA as the article claims.
    2. It is stated in the following article from a Dublin Newspaper called the Sunday World that witnesses had seen Prince Andrew’s face “running with sweat” but
      1. This does not concur with any photos of Prince Andrew attending some function or party.
      2. There are no photos and such claims are merely anecdotal.
      3. Nightclubs tend to be hot and there will as a consequence have been lots of condensation from other people. 
    3. The following article from a tabloid provides medical evidence from two doctors
      1. The article states that anhydrosis is rare. In fact two percent of the population of the world have anhydrosis which given that 1.8 million of the population of England which is 55.8 million have cancer means that 3.2% of the population of England have cancer. As such it is nonsense to suggest that it is “rare”
      2. The article goes onto say  “Leading dermatologist Bav Shergill, a member of the British Association of Dermatologists, said: ‘Not much is known about it. Normally it’s a genetic condition.’ He said a 2014 study in Singapore found half of anhydrosis sufferers had been in the military. But he added: ‘It is really uncommon and no one has much of an idea about what causes it. I’ve been practising dermatology for 20 years and I’ve never met anyone with it.’ which only proves the fact that there is a certain attitude amongst a great proportion of doctors in England, specifically the south east, which is one of bone-headed ignorance along with “a doctor knows best attitude and a disdain” for those patients. The fact is it often goes undiagnosed probably because of ignoramuses like himself
      3. It is also stated anecdotally at least that anhidrosis does occur as a result of adrenal burnout so one can doubt Professor John Hawk, a dermatology expert at London’s King’s College and St Thomas’ Hospital, who says in the article: ‘It is certainly possible to have problems with sweating but an overdose of adrenaline would be more likely to make a person sweat more, not less.

It is also rather ironic that the surname of the doctor Mr Shergill resembles that of the director of national security at the foreign office, a Mr Shercliff (whom I have nicknamed Shergarr due to the fact that he disappeared from twitter shortly after I named him as being responsible for my harassment), given the fact that

  1. He works for an organisation which is meant to defend “king and country”
  2. He is on the DSMA committee which should have suppressed stories
  3. He is in charge of information operations (IOPS) whereby stories are spread in the press to gullible or complicit journalists which support the aims of the foreign office.
6 Evidence of state level involvement in the allegations
  1. It can be said that there has at the very least been approval of the allegations against Prince Andrew and indeed passive participation because
    1. The evidence is so obviously false
    2. The intelligence agencies are meant to protect the head of state and the family of the head of state
    3. They could have but have chosen not to
      1. Tell the American authorities that the evidence against Prince Andrew is a pack of lies
      2. Tell the press that the evidence against Prince Andrews is a pack of lies through the DSMA committee
      3. Resort to the usage of information operations (IOPS) to defend him.
    4. This was during a period when
      1. The press most notably the dailymail were being particularly vicious against the royal family, most notably with respect to Prince Andrew and indeed the Duke of Duchess of Sussex.
      2. The United Kingdom, given the effects of brexit, was in none too stable a position and such stories cannot have been said to be helpful in this respect.
    5. One can discount the inaction Royal family because they have a policy of not rebutting stories something which the Duchess of Sussex complained about.
  2. One can state that there is active involvement on the part of the intelligence services given
    1. The reasons for doing so which are outlined in the next secion.
    2. Previous campaigns against Donald Trump, Michael Flynn and indeed Princess Diana which occurred at the behest of the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom resulting in the death of the later. With respect to the other two, such campaigns occurred when Johnathan Allen was Director of national security so this does follow a pattern.
    3. The mention of his visit to pizza express.
      1. The restaurant chain was founded by someone from St Catharines, which is the same college as the director for national security who as mentioned is responsible for IOPS.
      2. Someone who is considered to work on behalf of the intelligence agencies has carried out IOPS against Prince Andrews by deleting information in relation to his visit to pizza restaurant the purpose of which is to discredit him.
      3. Such information was provided to Prince Andrew in order to discredit him when it was found not to be reliable. The fact that it was provided to him can be ascertained because
        1. He said that someone did indeed do as much
        2. He does not have an exceptional memory as one can see from the fact that he does not remember Virginia Roberts.
      4. It is likely that such information would have been provided by his secretary (or at least the confirmation of it) which would have been Amanda Thirsk who was his private secretary.
      5. She went to the same university, Cambridge, as the director of national security. It just so happens that there are others from the university who have attempted to discredit him, most notably with respect to his stay at the ex-consul general’s place in New York. One can cast doubt on the consul’s memory given that
        1. He works for the foreign office and went to Gonville and Caius college Cambridge (page 28).
        2. His history is curiously blank which indicates that he worked for SIS. His college has a notable history with respect to people working for the intelligence services and so obviously does his employer
        3. Information in relation in relation to stays at the consul general’s place or indeed others from the royal family does not appear to be recorded in the court circular which is to be expected given the need for security.
        4. He says that they are usually recorded which is not the same as always and moreover .
    4. The inevitable car crash nature of the interview seems deliberate and rather like the information which was provided in relation to his visit to Pizza express, it was arranged by his Amanda Thirsk.
      1. It  is rather implausible to suggest that she did not know that it would not be the best idea not to prepare someone who was rather shielded from the realities of the press for that interview
      2. In particular she overruled Jason Stein, the former director of communications who said that the interview was a bad idea as a consequence of which he quit.
      3. The reason for her keenness was so that e could be shot down as part of an arrangement and her supposed stupidity is far more likely to involve willful blindness.
    5. The mail tried to claim that “Princess Ferguson and her daughter pushed him to do the interview and not Amanda Thirsk but
      1. This story was only published in the mail so its veracity can be doubted.
      2. The publication of the article as well as the words “a source said” can be said to imply a need on the part of the civil and intelligence services to protect their “asset”.
      3. It speaks of a need to go to extraordinary lengths to blame a member of a royal family particularly when they are innocent something which can be seen from the eventual sacking of Amanda Thirsk.
7 Why the allegations are being spread

The question is why are both this very dubious person and her false allegations being given such prominence in the media and why aren’t her claims being dismissed by either the press or the state.

The answer to that would seems obvious in that rather like Carl Beech, her case or lack thereof serves to discredit other claims of high level abuse which might come forward after her claims in relation to Prince Andrew are inevitably found to be untrue. After all who would beleive anyone who talks about a high level pedophile ring.

The purpose of the allegations is in fact to hide real instances of child abuse involving other prominent individuals. The fact that this is the case would explain why there was a decision to both murder Epstein and to claim that he had somehow managed to hang himself from the edge of the bed by supposedly kneeing, a bed which from the only available photo looks about 5 foot tall and which would not have given him enough room to swing his legs even if he were kneeling.
As regards Prince Andrew’s alleged lack of cooperation with the US authorities, one can doubt their credibility in this case given that they will know that the allegations of rape which they are still apparently pursuing are false. It is a malicious prosecution by the authorities of the United States.


4 A small but rather awkward discovery

I left Mark Dougan’s place in order to find a somewhere to stay which would not ask for evidence that I had a visa. I eventually found an inexpensive hotel which would accept me and which was located in the Arbat district of Moscow.

During my stay at the hotel, I felt that it would be a good idea to carry out further research into the college and its relationship with the intelligence services as part of my asylum application. I had not done so previously and would not carry out a full investigation until a couple of years after my departure from Russia when, after being granted access to the members area of the website, I would have confirmation of the fact that members of the college were in fact still employed by the foreign office.

I decided to download the college magazines from the public area of the St Catharines College society website and found out that a member of the college, Sir Arthur Bonsall had been head of GCHQ in the 1970s. I also found out that another member of the college, Gervase Cowell had recruited a KGB general Oleg Penkovsky as part of his employment at MI6 during the 1960s. Here is a small biography of Mr Cowell

Gervase Cowell has a place in espionage history as a member of the husband-and-wife team from the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) which ran Colonel Oleg Penkovsky, probably the most productive spy ever recruited by the west during the cold war.

Cowell and his wife Pamela, a former SIS secretary whom he married in 1954, were sent to Moscow to “service” Penkovsky – to pass on SIS and CIA requests, to provide him with film for his spy camera, and to collect both his photographs of top-secret Soviet documents and his written assessments of what was going on in the Kremlin.

Since this was in 1962, at a time when the Soviet Union and the west hovered on the brink of nuclear war over the Cuban missile crisis, their assignment carried heavy responsibilities. The American authors, Jerrold L Schecter and Peter S Deriabin, who have examined both western and Soviet archives of the period, regard Penkovsky as “the spy who saved the world”. If this is true, the Cowells deserve credit for the part they played as frontline members of the joint SIS/CIA team that ran the superspy.

Penkovsky was a dream defector. He was well-placed in the Soviet hierarchy, and was prepared to remain in place gathering what information he could for as long as the KGB did not suspect him.

The first husband-and-wife team to run him were Charles “Rauri” and Janet Chisholm. Mrs Chisholm would take her three children for a walk in a Moscow park, Penkovsky would wander past, stop to admire the baby and leave his packet of information in the pram. But Mrs Chisholm was recalled to London in June 1962 because she was pregnant. The Cowells replaced her, but the plan for servicing Penkovsky was different.

All official British flats in Moscow kept a tin of Harpic in the bathroom. Penkovsky would be invited to a party in one of the flats. Mrs Cowell would go to the bathroom and replace the Harpic tin with one that had a false bottom containing film and instructions. Penkovsky would enter the bathroom, remove the film and insert his material – ready for Mrs Cowell to collect.

But Penkovsky had already supplied his most vital piece of information. A year earlier, he had handed over photographs of a Soviet missile manual, which had enabled the Americans to identify launch sites the Soviets were building in Cuba as being for SS-4 missiles. With a range of 1,100 miles, these were quite capable of hitting Washington.

Challenged over this disclosure by President Kennedy, the Soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev, refused to back down and remove the weapons without concessions over American missiles in Turkey. In the end, both leaders realised that their intransigence could result in a nuclear war, and they quickly reached an accommodation.

After that, the Cowells did not last much longer in the Soviet Union. The KGB, suspicious of Penkovsky for some time, arrested him on October 22 1962, put him on trial and executed him on May 16 the following year. In the subsequent fall-out, the role of the Cowells was revealed and they were speedily expelled from Moscow.

Cowell had joined SIS in 1951, having been spotted by secret service recruiters at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge, where he took a first-class degress in Russian and French. He was an ideal recruit; a reserved manner concealed a steely determination and a deep love of his country.

This obviously put me in a difficult situation given that it might have been thought by the Russian government that I was somehow working for the foreign office as an intelligence officer. I felt therefore that I had better be careful but rather unfortunately I would later on accidentally uncover certain things and blurt them out, partly due to my lack of social finesse and partly due to certain accidents on my part. I should like to state however that I would be prepared to swear on a bible that I was not “spying”.

After a few days at the hotel, I was told that I had to leave due to the fact that the police were doing checks to see who was and was not registered and was moved to another hotel in the Meschansky district.


5 The Moscow Victory Day Parade and seeing some ICBMs

On the 9th of May, I watched the victory day parade, as part of which I witnessed the amusing and unique spectacle of Russians cheering various Russian weaponry including some ICBMs whilst they trundled down the main road as part of a procession. It is the same feeling as one has at a football stadium except its obviously rather more intense.

I filmed this from the local Kentucky Fried Chicken which is very popular in Moscow where perhaps uniquely it was possible not only to eat the colonel’s finest but watch the colonel’s finest.



I also visited the museum of the Soviet Army where I saw the wreckage of the U2 spy plane which had been flown by Francis Gary Powers as part of a mission for the CIA.

Like visiting an orthodox church. these are certainly some of the things which one must witness in Moscow. One kills them and the other one buries them.

Due to the hacking and so on by the foreign office however which was still occurring, I had decided to set up this website in order to ward them off by explaining my case. This did not go to well with the authorities in Russia due to the fact in particular I rather foolishly printed an earlier version of the article on Gareth Williams whereupon some people with rather stern expressions turned up in blue suits who were not from IBM and who appeared to be keeping an eye on me.

Not long after May day, I was told that I had to leave due to the fact that checks were being made with regards to registration. One of the members of staff took me to another hotel in the Arbatskaya area of Moscow where I stayed for around 6 months and where things became even more interesting. After six months, the owner of the hotel apparently “sold up” and we moved to his other residence which was near the Kremlin.

During the period I managed to remove they spyware which the FBI had placed upon my apple mac book and which had led to much attempted destruction of evidence. To give you an idea of how stupid these people are, they

  1. Destroyed evidence in relation to Professor Simon Baron Cohen and the fact that the expert advice he give in relation to two extradition cases was nothing of the sort. I have since secured a confession from him in this regards which should have some bearing upon the Michael Lynch extradition case.
  2. Attempted to or allowed others to interfere with this website which, in light of what I would subsequently discover, was perhaps not the most sensible use of resources.

Their incompetence is masked by the impression of strength which they give by employing so many people. Personally I don’t know why America puts up with them.


5 The strange case of the dropping of the charges against Julian Assange

I stated at the hotel where, as might be expected, given the fact that I was a foreigner and given the fact of the college where I came from, I was under surveillance by

  1. The two people who managed the hotel something which is proven by the reaction to later comments which I made online in relation to Wikileaks, as I shall outline.
  2. Electronic surveillance. Indeed it was the case that my traffic was being DNS hijacked to go through the Kremlin although I do not have records which show this.
  3. “Red swallows” which is to say individuals who attempt to seduce you on the part of the state in order that you might work for them

During the initial weeks, I attempted to learn Russian but this was difficult due to the conditions in the hotel where there were lots of people in my dormitory (and thus lots of noise) and indeed various forms of electronic interference or hacking which emanated from the UK and indeed the US. For reference, although I was allowed to go out, the arrangement of the hotel room in which I was staying as well as the type of bed was almost exactly the same as the dormitory in the BBC television series Colditz.

I was not a “prisoner” in the traditional sense in that I could leave the hotel but I was under surveillance in the hotel and indeed in Moscow. Moreover when my asylum case was initially turned down in September, it was hinted at by a member of staff that should I leave there would be difficulties. I had been given advice by a place which handles asylum cases to the effect that there would probably be no problems should I attempt to leave and felt that this perhaps would be the best option.

When I made definite plans to leave, the manager of the hotel told me that the police had visited and wanted to see me. Yet strangely when I did not proceed, I heard no more about the police wishing to see me.

There had been no small amount of terseness about the fact that I was not learning Russian quickly enough. This changed however for a short period on May the 19th which may have been in relation to something for which I was responsible.

It is possible given the fact of who I was and given the fact that there was a definite reaction on the part of the Russian president to other statements which I would make on Facebook two weeks later that the decision to drop the charges against Julian Assange occurred as a result of a comment which I made on Facebook

My statement which was entirely off the cuff and which I made on my Facebook account was as follows.

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 6:22pm UTC+03,

hmm i suppose gchq havent got the message and are planning on doing a blakes 7/julian assange judging by the recent like through “temptation” or if that doesnt work (which it wont) making up some chatlogs as per the tools revealed by Snowden. it will be noted I said i would compromise in other words leave them be on twitter and so on. Because of their narcissicm (which is the philosophy which is destroyong the UK and GCHQ) theyve interpreted that as obedience. its delusional.

For reference, Blake’s Seven is a British science fiction series which revolves around an Assange-like figure who, upon making certain discoveries in relation to state level corruption and a massacre, is fitted up with false charges of sexual abuse and deported to a prison colony. The series is famous for its terrible special effects but the first episode which deals with the attempt at a cover-up by the state and the subsequent deportation of Blake is worth watching and is available here.

To my surprise, within hours of me making the above statement, Sweden decided to drop the extradition request in relation to Assange. It is possible that they did so as a consequence of the fact that I stated that Julian Assange’s case resembling the plot of the first episode of Blake’s Seven. What tends to support this conclusion is the following.

  1. The timing of my statement and the dropping of the charges is at the very least rather odd.
  2. I was a person who would have been considered to be a person of interest, given
    1. My background with the college.
    2. The fact that they may have thought that I was perhaps another Gervase Cowell
    3. The involvement of Johnathan Allen as director of national security.
    4. The presence of Laurie Bristow as the British ambassador to Russia who had been the director of national security when the harassment began.
    5. The presence of Mr Dougan.
    6. My asylum case.
  3. It is difficult to imagine that Sweden would not have examined my communications. For reference, Facebook did not at the time have servers in Russia and whatever content one types is transmitted to servers in Europe and is intercepted by the country of Sweden. The Swedish intelligence agency, the FRA has access to a program called Xkeyscore to search for and to pick up keywords. It is probable that they noted my comments and reacted.
  4. They will not have been aware of the show given that it was not broadcast or famous in Sweden.
    1. It seems reasonable to suggest that this will only have occurred as a result of my statement. They will have concluded that the case looked shall we say rather dubious.
    2. Indeed they were already somewhat unsure given the fact that they had tried to drop the case in 2013 but were pressured into not doing so by the British authorities.
    3. They might have been afraid given my statement that the Russian government might have, quite correctly, made mincemeat of their reputation upon any eventual successful asylum application where I had claimed that the countries in Europe do the bidding of the United Kingdom and that they cannot be said to follow the rule of law.
  5. I had been told fairly sternly by people in that hostel where I was staying including the management that I needed to spend my time learning Russian. A couple of hours after the dropping of the charges against Julian Assange was announced, the management told me to take the day off very suddenly and were for some reason very pleased with me and told me to relax.

Everything was going reasonably well until something happened at the end of May.


2 My accidental discoveries

The managers of the hotel would sometimes on Wednesdays ask the residents to leave for a few hours at very short notice due to an apparent “bug” infestation as part of which there was apparently a need to apply some form of chemical treatment in the dormitories. For some strange reason, I never noticed these bugs and I would not smell any chemical upon my return.

The most significant of these occasions was on the 31st of May 2017 when I made some comments on my Facebook account whilst I was staying in a library and indeed whilst staying in a cafe near the Kremlin.

My first comments were about the UK election and Brexit and the fact that I felt that there was a plot afoot to stop Brexit by the civil service. As a result of this, my train of thought led on the other elections most notably the US election. I seemed to remember that I had expressed an idea to use Wikileaks to affect an election in 2014 and that I may have a recording of this.

The latter comment, as I shall outline, led to an admission on the part of Vladimir Putin which I shall come onto later.

The former comment meant that the civil service no longer had any plausible deniability with respect to attempts to stop Brexit using the particular method which they had chosen. The fact that there had been a campaign to stop Brexit by the civil service was later admitted by a civil servant and there would be increasingly desperate attempts as part of this by the civil service.

I really did not think that there would be a reaction to off the cuff comments which I made, no doubt because I was not yet aware of the full facts in relation to my case, most notably the fact that employment of Johnathan Allen and Laurie Bristow.

It can be proven by an examination of the initial plot that

  1. My conclusion that there was a plot was not my imagination.
  2. The civil service had based their idea for the plot upon ideas which I had expressed in Fulbourn where, as you will recall, MI6 attempted to recruit me as part of which they attempted to state that I was imagining the fact that there were plots to copy my work.

If I am honest, this is partly the fault of one of the managers because he had a strange habit of attempting to play the Sherlock theme on the piano in the hotel. Sherlock was and is famously very popular in the Soviet Union and Russia. As a result of him playing the theme, I decided to watch the BBC Sherlock series in full, having initially been put off from doing so in France after watching an episode with Moriaty and for whatever reason seemed to have an effect upon my analytical abilities.

And indeed the fact that what I did at Fulbourn was noted and had an impact is proven beyond doubt by the fact that the last episode of series 4 of Sherlock is based upon what occurred, as I related here. The fact that the civil service should attempt to imitate what I did is therefore not in the least bit surprising and is to be expected.

Perhaps such abilities became particularly apparent due to the effect of the experiment which seems to increase if one gives up smoking as I attempted to do at various points in Moscow.

1 The plot by the civil service to stop Brexit

I had stated when I was in France the previous year that decisions with respect to Brexit were being made behind the scenes by the civil service or perhaps the Queen.

This was in fact partly accurate in that decisions with respect to Brexit were not being made by the elected officials but by civil servants. I did not examine the matter further until I was at a library in Moscow where I made the following rather badly formatted and spelt comment

Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 3:19pm UTC+03

While they are arguing, i would like to mention a conspiracy theory in relation to brexit. It might be argued that the establishment are absolutely against brexit and have thus seen to it that a hopelessly incompetent government is put in place one which is seen as such by the public. This isnt to favour labour as one might perhapd state the same about them A few examples include Theresa May. She firstly voted remain but is in charge of the negotiations for Brexit. To give one example of her approach or lack thereof, shes says that no deal is better than a bad deal. One would have to be delusional to beleive this or to believe her negotiating tactics thusfar will work. Boris Johnson (of all people) as foreign secretary. There are others who are better suited to the post. Why on earth was he chosen? Michael Fallon – one of the worst defence secretaries ever to have held the post. The establishment are hoping that they make auch a mess of it that the public rebel in some fashion and ask for a continuation of at the very least membership of the common market. This approach is called switch and bait

The next day I developed this theory further.


And indeed it just so happens that I watched the following Doctor Who stories which I chose due to the fact that I was in Moscow claiming asylum, the FCO were interfering in a manner which suggested that they thought that the British empire still existed and the story is an allegory for the fall of the British empire.

I noticed the following sentence “Strong and Stable” which had been used by the PM Theresa May as part of her election mantra and started thinking.

I came to the correct conclusion that they were immitating what I did with them in Fulbourn with City of Death. Moreover it is possible to prove that such a plot did occur as I outline later on.

To start with however, I should like to outline my initial analysis of the plot.


1 How the civil service attempted to stop Brexit

It should be understood that in the English political system, the civil service are ultimately in control and as part of this

  1. In order to get elected as an MP in England which is where most of the constituencies are, one has to join one of the three main political parties, as it is very rare for an independent to be elected.
  2. Someone interested in becoming an MP for one of the three main parties must go before a selection committee to be chosen as a prospective candidate. These committees have a tendency to weed out anyone who is particularly independent minded and thus MPs are appointed as candidates and then selected.
  3. Roughly two thirds of parliamentary seats are what are known as “safe seats”. That is to say, an MP from a particular party will be elected to a particular seat. It is thus only a third of the seats which generally matter and as a consequence, this is where the resources in elections are spent.
  4. When the prime minister of the governing party chooses his or her ministers, they generally have little or no experience of the particular department which they are running and remain in position on average for a period of 9-12 months to 1 year before changing from one ministry to another.

Thus it cannot be said that they are ultimately in a position to effect any change something which is described very well in the following clip of the television series “Yes Minister”.

After the referendum on exiting the European Union, it was decided by the powers that be, namely the civil service that a Brexit or at the very least a hard Brexit should not occur. Indeed the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood who took steps to block Brexit moves by ministers, strangely had the responsibility for ensuring that Brexit occurred.

Moves were then made by the civil service to ensure that Theresa May was installed as Prime Minister and in this respect one might recall the Party Games episode of Yes Prime Minister and the following clip

One might ask why Theresa May was in fact chosen

  1. There was a need to look for examples of prime ministers who were regarded as being unsuccessful. No doubt looking back, they would have first remembered the previous prime minister, Gordon Brown who was known as the “son of the manse” and who was regarded as unsuccessful, as a consequence of which they will have thought of other offspring of manses and remembered the fact that Theresa May was a “daughter of a manse”.
  2. Given her role as Home Secretary, someone who is formerly in charge of agencies GCHQ and MI5 and the fact that such agencies have files on the very people who are meant to be overseeing them, Sir Jeremy Heywood and others within the civil service will have had access to her file to be able to deduce her flaws. They will have noticed that she was temperamentally unsuited to the position of prime minister and easily controlled, at least until she had had time to learn more about the position by which it would have been too late.
  3. Unlike Boris Johnson or David Davis, she had not been in favour of leaving the European Union and could not be said to be the most enthusiastic person to lead the implementation of the result of the referendum given her apparent set of instincts previous to the referendum and could thus be “professionally guided”
  4. She would be for the most part hemmed in by two advisors who would act as the go between with other members of the cabinet and would ensure that appointments and decisions were made which would prevent any successful execution of Brexit.

To this end much of her approach to Brexit and the antagonistic nature of her person, something which is probably inherent according to one of her former underlings Norman Baker, led to a decision to give her bad advice to the effect that she should be antagonistic towards EU ministers. This advice was given in order to reduce the prospect of a successful outcome with respect to negotiations. As part of this, she was encouraged to be a “bloody difficult woman and to state that “no deal is better than a bad deal” which defied logic given the outcome upon higher education, the pharmaceutical sector and indeed defence/intelligence cooperation. This was intended to lead to an impasse and thus a reversal in position at least to some degree. It’s called switch and bait

To add to this sabotage however, rather like the episode in the television series the rise and fall of Reginald Perrin when he wants to destroy his “grot” empire, people who were entirely unsuited to particular positions were appointed on the basis of advice given by the civil service

Most notable in this respect are

  1. Sir Michael Fallon, one of the worst defense secretaries ever to have held the post.
  2. Boris Johnson, who whilst he might have made an excellent higher education secretary was clearly unsuited to the post of foreign secretary, particularly given his racial comments and his general manner which might be seen as amusing as a game show panelist but not was not best suited to the role of foreign secretary.

Certain members of the European Union may have been aware of this plan and one might ask why there is not the degree of outrage as one might have expected from individuals such as Guy Verhofstadt.

Further evidence of the fact that there was no real wish to proceed with Brexit appears evident given the fact that a Briton, Sir Julian King was appointed as security commissioner after Brexit. It was a strange decision given the fact that

  1. The United Kingdom was apparently leaving and the decision to appoint a Briton appears to indicate an intent not to leave.
  2. Another commissioner, Sir John Hill resigned in response to the decision to leave the European Union.

Overall, given all of this, it could not be regarded that there was a serious intent to proceed with brexit, especially given the fact that the fact that the civil service which is meant to be impartial did not prepare for such an outcome before the referendum

After hardening of positions in the European Union along with a certain amount of unpopularity due to knowledge of the effects of Brexit, not forgetting of course the policies of the government with regard to austerity, the civil service decided in advance that it would be an appropriate moment to engineer a situation where she would be deposed or weakened.

They commissioned a poll which stated that she would win with a landslide and advised her that she needed a large majority in order to deliver Brexit in the difficult times ahead and should therefore call an election. Again one might like to look at the following Yes Minister clip about opinion polls to see how they can provide an answer one wants.

As part of this George Osborne would, regardless of his knowledge of this arrangement, be expected to “piss in the brexit tent” as it were, by becoming an editor of a newspaper which would brief against the interests of the government. This may be expected given his sacking by Theresa May which was no doubt engineered by the powers that be through advice given to the prime minister to sack him. You can see how impartial he is in this regards in the following clip.

The powers that be in the form of her two advisors chose to provide her with bad advice as part of that election, primarily her mantra “Strong and Stable”. This mantra is particularly significant in it comes from the first episode of a doctor who story called the Mutants as you can see above. Some claim that it comes from Adolf Hitler’s autobiography but this is incorrect given that the phrase he uses is “stronger and internally more stable” which is different.

Furthermore as part of this

  1. There was a decision to insert a policy, namely the dementia tax into her manifesto, which was so obviously bound to turn out to be subject to public outrage and which was intended to be used as an ironic comment about her mental state.
  2. Another poll was then commissioned by the civil service which showed a huge drop in the gap between Labour and Conservative which itself led to a U-turn with regards to the policy, thus destroying the believably of her mantra “Strong and Stable” and also the credibility of her campaign which was so contingent upon that mantra.

Then the decision was made to ensure that Jeremy Corbyn appeared to be narrowing the polls versus Theresa and that he would gain either a small majority, a hung parliament or perhaps small majority for Theresa May. This in turn would lead to a situation where, through more behind the scenes management by the powers that be, most of the socialist policies which Corbyn proposed along would a hard Brexit would not be implemented.

In particular it would not be possible to renationalise as far as I understand under the rules of the EEA, an organization to which the United Kingdom would belong if a hard brexit does not occur, as part of the single market.

Strangely, after I published the apparent plan on June the 1st in Facebook, the polls started widening again.


Because Facebook was being read by being read by the intelligence services and the Cabinet Secretary, the plan could not be executed as originally intended because it would have led to accusations that the United Kingdom is not a democracy and that there was malfeasance on the part of the intelligence services, much as had been reported by Peter Wright in Spycatcher.

As such it was not strange that the polls began to widen again

Because of the result of the election whereby the conservative party was in a minority and to further hamper and discredit any attempt at brexit,

  1. An arrangement was made between the conservative party and the DUP, which like Sinn Fein had an association with terrorist organisations. This had the effect of discrediting Theresa May in that she had stated as a result of the terrorist attacks during the election, that enough was enough and that she was going to crack down on extremists.
  2. Boris Johnson and Michael Fallon both kept their positions.

There was a precedent for the actions of Sir Jeremy Heywood. The British press in fact been reported that his actions had previously had some effect upon the outcome of a referendum. In September 2014, just before the Scottish independence referendum, the Queen made a carefully loaded public statement which bent the rules of royal impartiality to the advantage of the no campaign. She told a crowd near her Scottish residence at Balmoral “I hope people will think very carefully about the future”. Heywood had co-written her speech with her private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt.

It was interesting therefore that a sly confirmation of his power and of what I have written above should be made in an article which appeared in a not altogether reliable or indeed reputable source of news, known as mailonline but which does inevitably participate in Information operations (IOPS) on the part of the civil serivce .  If one believes the article, one senior minister confirmed the fact that the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood does in fact wield immense power by stating ‘Be in no doubt Heywood runs the country,‘.

The author of the article then contradicts this by attempting to suggest that the cabinet secretary previously had no influence upon the governmental administration of Theresa May and was hemmed in by her two advisors which is simply a not credible claim.  It is an attempt to deflect blame through a publication which has historic association with the intelligence services, services which are under the purview of the civil service and indeed the cabinet secretary.

In fact the article also contradicts itself by the fact that is states two contradictory things in the same sentence, namely that he both is and is not a shrinking violet. He apparently is no a shrinking violet but had to wait until others got out of the way

‘Jeremy hasn’t got where he is by being a shrinking violet,’ said a senior Whitehall source. ‘As soon as Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were out the door, he took over.

Of particular note is the fact that this claim is not only contradictory but

  1. Originates from a source which can hardly be said to be impartial given it is a member of the very same civil service for which Sir Jeremy Heywood was ultimately responsible.
  2. Rather amusingly uses a very famous quote, “I didn’t get where I am today”, from the novel “The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin”.
  3. Contradicts previous reports which demonstrate how much power he could be said to wield..

Brazil or Peru?

One might think that if one were following the plot of Reginald Perrin that Sir Jeremy Heywood would have pretended to die, lots of people would attend his funeral and say what a wonderful person he was and that there would be a memorial fund, particularly given the fact that he might be somewhat embarrassed at my outlining of the “grotplot” as I called it.

And indeed the memorial service and the memorial fund have come to pass in much the same way as the novel. It is oddly coincidental as indeed the timing of his resignation is also odd as I shall explain.

If one is being objective it would be fair not to necessarily take at face value a claim that he is in fact dead. This is not to say that he is alive but that one cannot necessarily conclude that he is in fact dead.

Let’s look at the facts

  1. A decision is taken to follow the plot of th.e second series of Reginald Perrin with respect to attempts to stop Brexit as outlined above
  2. This does not work because I point it out.
  3. He apparently gets lung cancer just after the election.
  4. He apparently steps back in June 2018 due to that illness but whilst “ill” in October there is an invitation by the Russian government where he interviews Rona Fairhead for the post of Minister for international trade, the significance of which is explained here
  5. On the 22/10/2018, the queen announces essentially that Brexit is going to occur and that she is looking forward to close relations with the Netherlands in a state visit. This strangely occurs on the 5th anniversary of the escalation of my harassment and might be taken as word (which was suggested to her) that I would be left alone in Europe.
  6. He suddenly retires not the next day (because that would be my birthday which indicates an awareness of who I was and so on) but two days later after the speech on the pretext that he is “suddenly ill again”.
  7. However he is not so ill because the prime minister offers him a peerage.
  8. He then dies two weeks later.
  9. There is a memorial service with people saying how wonderful he was.
  10. A Sir Jeremy Heywood memorial fund is founded.

It can very well be argued given his involvement in the “grotplot”, the assistance he had given to Rona Fairhead as I outline below, his strange and retirement and sudden “death” as well as the memorial service and fund that he is not necessarily dead and he is shall we say in retirement somewhere.

Perhaps he is running his own memorial fund.

2 Other examples of the campaign by the civil service to stop brexit

This was not the only example. It was an ongoing campaign which I wrote about on the website. A notable example was at the 2017 conservative party conference.

The combination as well as

  1. The timing of
    1. The unfortunate events which occurred during that speech,
    2. The need in light of the disastrous election to relaunch her premiership
  2. The fact that things of a similar nature had been attempted before and since as part of an attempt to stop or soften brexit by the civil and intelligence services,

can lead one to such a conclusion, a conclusion which is entirely reasonable.

Let us examine the events which occurred during her speech

  1. Some of the letters which were affixed in the phrase “Building a country which works for everyone” which was displayed behind her during the speech fell down. The fact that this was deliberate and planned is indicated by the following.
    1. The timing of the fact that the letters fell down during her speech and not at any other stage during the conference seems at best rather fortuitous and at worst not at all coincidental. It is also the case that this did not occur anywhere else during that conference.
    2. It is also fortuitous at best and at worst not at all coincidental that the particular letters which fell down (from the section for everyone) highlight the fact that the conservatives do not in fact work for everyone and are just building a country that works. This counteracts the impression that Theresa May is a one nation conservative and does not just work for the “elite”.
    3. The whole arrangement of those letters looked rather sloppily arranged anyway.
    4. It is as pointed out by Quentin Letts, much like Reggie Perrin and thus acts as further confirmation and a follow on to the grotplot. Given what I had outlined in relation to that plot, it is reasonable to state that such a plot existed and that this was a deliberate act.
  2. The prankster who gave Theresa May her P45 during the speech highlights the apparent inability of Theresa May with regards to national security, in that she was apparently not able to protect herself let alone the party conference by means of the intelligence and security services of which she is nominally in charge. It looks like a decision by the civil and intelligence services to go on strike, as it were, and to make a fool of her and to suggest that she was not up to the job.
  3. It is also fortuitous at best and at worst not at all coincidental that the “cough” should occur during the speech where the letters fell down and where she was handed her P45. It is entirely reasonable that this has been induced in some way by the powers that be, given the fact that it is possible to induce laryngitis, given the fact that they did worse things to Harold Wilson and given the motive in rendering her unable to deliver her crucial speech

One might argue that this is all coincidence but what is the probability that

  1. During the all-important speech where Theresa May was intending to relaunch her premiership, a premiership which had affected by the dirty tricks carried out by the civil and intellıgence services before during and since the election.
  2. She suddenly experienced something akin to a form of laryngitis and was unable to deliver her crucial speech.
  3. A “prankster” delivered her P45 even though the security and intelligence services were more heavily present than would normally be the case thus suggesting her abilities in terms of keeping the country safe were somewhat lacking
  4. Some of the letters in the phrase “Building a country which works for everyone” on the board behind off her fell during her speech and not at any other stage.
  5. The disappearance of those partıcular letters provided an interpretation which was opposite to the one which had been intended and which laid the emphasis instead on helping the rich as opposed to the poor.
  6. This not having occurred at a party conference before. Someone might like to point to some examples as İ cannot remember any.
  7. I should write about the fact that there was a plot which was partly based upon Reggie Perrin to stop Brexit and that the falling down of the letters should occur during her speech

3 Confirmation a year later from a civil servant that there were attempts to stop brexit

An anonymous civil servant wrote the following in the telegraph a year and confirmed a half later how the civil service were attempting to stop brexit.

Unless there is any objection and I don’t imagine there would be, I shall reproduce it in full here because it does confirm the allegation I made that there were such attempts even if it does not confirm that they used the particular means which I have outlinedü:

“Believe me, the Civil Service is trying to sink Brexit. I have seen it from the inside”

Should MPs vote again on Theresa May’s Brexit deal, it would be anything but delivering on the Brexit vote from two years ago. How would I know? Because I work within the heart of government.

As a civil servant I can tell you large parts of the Whitehall machine are systematically working against leaving the EU.

I have met thousands of civil servants in the past few years: I can only recall five who voted for Brexit.

At first, I thought they were perhaps just staying quiet given the political climate, but my worst fear was confirmed during the high-profile remainer Gina Miller’s successful court case to make sure Parliament has a say on the Brexit outcome.

When it was announced she had won her case, I witnessed large teams within the Foreign Office break out into cheers and applause. Seriously.

A quick scroll though the social media accounts of my colleagues and you will find images of them proudly waving ‘Remain’ placards, campaigning for a ‘People’s Vote’, boasting ‘Jez we can’ and of course the usual apocalyptic messages of doom since the Brexit vote. The double-standards are astonishing. If I so much as followed the activities of Nigel Farage, I have no doubt that I would be called in for questioning. I re-call one conversation with a senior member of staff at the Foreign Office who told me she was ashamed when Boris Johnson was appointed Foreign Secretary as he is so “typically British”.

This department is particularly notorious for its anti-Brexit bias. My experience tells me that there is a genuine hatred of those who voted for Brexit. I recall my first day in the Civil Service as a graduate, being invited to a meeting of senior members of staff who spent the good part of two hours in agreement that the public made a “stupid” decision in the EU referendum.

On June 24 2016 the mood within the civil service was like someone had died.

Unfortunately, this bias doesn’t end with snide insults and childish quips. It goes to the root of their day-to-day work and has truly negative impacts on the way we conduct the important tasks ahead of us. I have in fact come across senior staff working on our post-Brexit relationships who openly talk down the prospect of a UK-US FTA and encourage anti-Trump hysteria. Many of them even joined the protests against the President’s visit last year. During his visit it was common to hear jokes about Trump’s assassination from the very people meant to be working with our closest ally. The only thing worse than being pro-Brexit in the Civil Service is being pro-Trump.

This attitude isn’t confined to their own circles, these views are even being expressed in the presence of foreign ambassadors. In one case during a meeting with a High Commissioner of a close ally, one Civil Servant branded the High Commissioner a “Tory Wanker” in the presence of several foreign diplomats.

Fortunately the High Commissioner didn’t hear this highly inappropriate comment, but the remark still remained unchallenged from civil service bosses.

But it doesn’t stop there. There is a strong presence of Anglophobia, combined with cultural Marxism that runs through the civil service. It has meant that many Civil Servants, including myself, have been actively discouraged from co-operating with Think Tanks which are seen as being “too right wing” despite sharing our goal of promoting free trade. This attitude also prevails in our work with our closest allies, particularly in the Commonwealth, where we are afraid to be seen as overly keen to work with countries that are run by “rich white men”.

Contrary to popular belief, Civil Servants often shape the views of Ministers. This makes the prevalent leftist culture within the Civil Service all the more concerning. These ardent remainer and left wing civil servants are the ones who provide the briefings, select the invites and choose the priorities for Ministers. How did we get to this point? The Civil Service is one of the biggest graduate employers, whilst universities have allowed a leftist culture of political correctness to flourish in recent decades.

Brexit is the greatest opportunity this country has faced in years, yet our Government machine is currently working from within to frustrate it. This must not go on. In the next phase of the Brexit negotiations it is vital our civil service ceases to allow the massive remain voting bias that has so far helped scupper our post-Brexit future.

Written by an anonymous civil servant

4 How one can show that they got the idea from me

I stated that the idea to stop Brexit was based upon two apparently unrelated television shows and genuinely did not notice the link between the two. The fact however is that there is a link and that links is in fact obvious and I felt rather silly for not noticing it for three years

I had not noticed that

  1. The high representative in the doctor who episode as well as Jimmy in Reggie Perrin are played by the same actor, a Mr Geoffrey Palmer a name which is significant with respect to events which had recently taken place.
  2. The idea of using “Doctor who” as a part of a plot was something which
    1. They had attempted to carry out unsuccessfully through copying the plot of Enemy of the world in 2013.
    2. I had carried out successfully when they were attempting to recruit me to MI6 in 2014

The fact that should attempt as much is not unexpected given

  1. The effect and the reaction to what I did on their part
  2. The fact that they lack imagination and have a record in terms of basing their ideas upon publicly available media most notably with respect to the Iraq War and a Nicholas Cage film
  3. The fact that what I did at Fulbourn was noted and had an impact is proven beyond doubt by the fact that the last episode of series 4 of Sherlock is based upon what occurred, as I related here. The fact that the civil service should attempt to imitate what I did is therefore not in the least bit surprising and is to be expected.

As such their thought process and search for inspiration is likely to have been as follows.

  1. One must bear in mind the fact that
    1. There was a history of involvement of the intelligence services in my case
    2. They have a policy to learn from those whom they categories as hackers no matter how inaccurate such a description might be. This is in part because they lack imagination, do not like mavericks and would appear to lack talent compared to most of the population.
    3. They will have certainly remembered what I did in Fulbourn and the effect that it had and indeed what occurred at Pembroke.
    4. They, through programs such as XKEYSCORE and ICREACH, GCHQ and others, have the capabilities to search for information which pertains to a person according to keywords which are known as “selectors”. These are not in fact new revelations in that they keyword search aspect had been revealed by amongst others Mark Thomas in 1998 or more accurately by what would appear to be the Menwith Hill branch of the women’s institute who broke into the NSA surveillance base and took loads of documents.
    5. They have a policy to base their evidence or plots on openly available media because they consider incorrectly that it affords some level of plausible deniability. If someone says that X war/plot really does sound like the plot of X film, a sitcom or some science fiction film, they think that they can claim that that person is mentally unbalanced because no-one would ever believe that British intelligence would ever do such a thing as to base their ideas upon such a film sitcom or science fiction film. The trouble is someone who is self-aware will realize that it is no longer possible for the intelligence agencies to attempt as much because it is proven that they have such a policy. The most notable examples of this are
      1. What was outlined in the Chilcott inquiry where it was shown that the evidence which MI6 and others used to support the case for taking action against Saddam Hussein (due to his supposed chemical weapons) originated from a Nicholas Cage film called the Rock.
      2. The initial full scale harassment of myself by the intelligence agencies which was of course based upon a patrick Troughton episode starring a Mr Kent. They did not however base their plot on this in that it was unsuccessful but on what they did with respect to Russiagate in conjunction with Russia, as I explain in the next chapter, which was based upon what I did in Fulbourn.
      3. What I did in Fulbourn
  2. They will have thus thought “how can we copy what he did” and they will have thought
    1. St Johns remembering of course
      1. Egypt and my father and the fact that he was invited to the UK on the basis of information he was felt to hold due to the fact that he had been an assistant to an Egyptian princess, information which was felt to be important and which he related to someone from St Johns.
      2. Julia Peterson who was a student of that college
      3. Douglas Adams in that what I did in Fulbourn was based upon one of his Doctor Who stories
      4. Doctor who and the fact that Sir Laurie Bristow who was director of national security was born on the very first broadcast of doctor who.
    2. The assassination of JFK in that this broadcast occurred on the same day.
    3. A “Mr Palmer”. due to the fact that
      1. I had written famously about Dr Oliver a double-agent in a letter to the RCMP in Canada. There is not a great selection of British spy series. George smiley is too obvious and Bond too extravagant so they fixed upon Harry Palmer.
      2. A Keith Palmer had been was assassinated by a terrorist on March the 27th
  3. Using the selectors “Palmer”, “Doctor Who”, “St Johns”, “overthrowing governments” and “Assassination”(because that’s what they wanted to do to Theresa May”). They fixated upon Geoffrey Palmer who played
    1. Jimmy in the Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin which was written by David Nobbs who went to St Johns college.  They noted his attempt to destroy Maoists, Trotskyists and so on which was a reference to the British state’s attempt to get rid of Wilson and came across Reggie’s attempt to destroy his own empire by putting unsuitable people in the wrong positions as ministers. They used this as part of the plot
    2. The high representative in “the mutants” who is of course played by Geoffrey Palmer. As a consequence In the first instance they gave Theresa May the mantra “Strong and stable” knowing that they were about to shoot her as it were by providing her with “accidentally/on-purposefully” bad election advice so that she would lose the election. With respect to Mutants, that this was seen by the FCO as an allegory for British withdrawal from Europe (which the FCO viewed as a replacement for empire) which is what their concern about Brexit is really about. British foreign policy since the end of empire has essentially been to act as a bridge between America and Europe. This will perhaps have been another selector
The probability of the usage of that phrase being “coincidental” is improbable in the extreme, given
  1. The factors outline above in relation to my history,
  2. The fact that there were attempts to stop Brexit
  3. That it would still be argued that the fact that such a disastrous phrase comes from Mein Kampf is also indicative of such a plot.
As such one must conclude that the idea came from me. To be more precise however, the actual idea of influencing a political process did not come from me but from the fact that Russia decided to do so based upon others ideas which I had expressed in conjunction with the United Kingdom, as I shall outline.
5 Historic instances of interference in the democratic process by the civil service

It is important, I feel, to view this within its proper context and to understand that such attempts at interference in the civil service are nothing new and that it follows a pattern of behaviour on the part of the civil. There have after all been previous attempts to affect elections and to unseat prime ministers on the part of those services, some of which have been documented.

1 The Zinoviev Letter

The most famous example is of course the The Zinoviev letter which triggered the fall of the first Labour government in 1924. The letter was forged by an MI6 agent’s source and was almost certainly leaked by MI6 or MI5 officers to the Conservative Party, according to an official report published in 1999.

It was of course published in the dailymail, a newspaper which has historic links to the intelligence services and which has acted on their behalf.

2 The plot against Harold Wilson

This was of course outlined in Chapter two.

3 The plot against Gordon Brown?

The evidence for this is, I should wish to emphasize, preliminary and slight and is perhaps best categorized as speculation.

It would make sense however due to

  1. The 2008 financial crisis,
  2. The resultant collapse in public confidence in the Thatcherite economic policy which appears to have led to that crisis
  3. Fears of a return to what the security service had previously fought so hard against as part of their attempt to remove Harold Wilson’s administration in the 1960s and 1970s
  4. The sizeable public deficit at the time.
  5. The reluctance on the part of the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown to follow the standard orthodoxy of austerity.

As such steps would have been taken by those who were of a conservative political persuasion within the civil service to ensure that he would not continue as Prime Minister. These steps would have occurred during the period of his administration, which perhaps to some extent, explains the difficulties he experienced during that time

As outlined in the above, the suggestion of the slogan Strong and Stable which comes from a Doctor Who story was instigated by the civil service as part of an attempt to get rid of Theresa May.

Similarly one might argue that the slogan “We’re all in this together” as was used by the Conservative party during the 2010 election originates from the film Brazil. The film depicts a gray and impoverished state with lots of control and surveillance.

The increase in surveillance and control which has occurred since that election was bound to occur as an inevitable consequence of the need to ensure social stability and order, which is the primary function of government and which would have obviously been affected by the increase in austerity and poverty which was deemed necessary and which was being planned for.

As such the slogan does provide some indications of the fact that preparations were made behind the scenes to install David Cameron on the part of the civil service.

Indeed the fact that there was a decision to rely to a greater extent upon intelligence is confirmed on Page 684 of Black door: Spies, Secret Intelligence and British Prime Ministers which states the following

“Economic austerity defined David Cameron’s coalition government, with the result that his initial priorities were overwhelmingly domestic, focusing on vigorous retrenchment and halting spiraling debt. The agenda did not preclude him from turning almost immediately to issues of national security. In some ways, Cameron’s austerity actually shaped approaches to intelligence. The economic crisis forced Britain to require “smaller, cheaper and less ambitious armed forces”. At the same time Cameron was adamant that Britain would not see any shrinkage in its global role. Like his predecessors, he desperately wanted to retain a place at the top table. once more, the fancy footwork of intelligence was required to bridge the gap between Britain’s global ambitions and the sober realities of economic decline. Intelligence is a force multiplier. It is a special kind of information that not only provides warning, but also allows more effective action. It enables states to punch above their weight and make the most of whatever material assets they have at their disposal.

Obviously this reliance upon intelligence will have applied not just with respect to foreign policy but with respect to domestic politics as well, given the need for cutbacks in domestic services such as the police etc

And with respect to such a plot, ıt should be of interest to note that one of the first steps which Gordon Brown took upon becoming prime minister was to bring back Sir Jeremy initially as Head of Domestic Policy and Strategy at the Cabinet Office.

One could also perhaps state that the then Chancellor was chosen based upon his resemblance, both in terms of his appearance and in terms of the way he treated the public and denied what he was doing, to Harvey Baines who was for the most part the financial from an old people’s home in the television sitcom Waiting for god where he subjected them to austerity. It should be stated that it is just a coincidence that his name happens to be George, he went to a school with the same name as mine (St Pauls), he has a similar background to my own and that his counterpart Harvey Baines should appear in my favorite sitcom. Or is it?

4 The plot against Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the opposition and a potential prime minister. The following report does confirm the fact that there are attempts on the part of the civil and intelligence services to affect the democratic process using methods which are more modern than those employed against Harold Wilson. Of course, given that such attempts have historically been aimed socialist prime ministers and “men of the people”, for whom people are more liable to sympathize, this is as part of an attempt to deflect from the the dirty tricks which the civil and intelligence services have carried out against a conservative prime minister, Theresa May and to give the impression that such things where they are occur are dealt with.

5 The plot against the Royal family

This is merely corroborative to the above and goes to show that the apparent constitutional arrangement whereby the head of state is supposedly protected by the intelligence services is not true and that the reverse is the case. In this respect one can have a look at Prince Andrew or indeed Princess Diana.


6 How  the appointment of Boris Johnson is a follow on

I have often remarked upon the resemblance between the pairs of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings and myself and my director of studies who shall remain nameless but who had something to do with my admission to the college.

Here is are a copy of old photos of him. He had a reputation for being shall we say rude although it is also true to state that not being absolutely polite, submissive and grateful at all times can be regarded as rude in Cambridge. He also had a reputation for being strangely dressed

I had not felt entitled to comment until it was absolutely unquestionable that any such plot existed

The resemblance is as follows

  1. I am Circassian and so is Boris Johnson (its quite diluted in his case but he is nonetheless Circassian).
  2. I am of Turkish descent and so is Boris Johnson.
  3. I went to Oxbridge and so did Boris Johnson.
  4. I did classics and so did Boris Johnson.
  5. Both my director of studies and Dominic Cummings resemble each other physically and in terms of their personality. They are both bald, known to be rude, to upset people, to be oddly dressed (although that is not the case in the photo of my DOS), to be intelligent and to have come from Oxbridge. This is even down to the scarf which Dominic Cummings was known to wear bears a resemblence to the St Catharines college colours.

It is extremely improbable particularly given the above that it is a coincidence that the two pairs should exist. It is reasonable to suggest therefore that the pair of Boris Johnson and Cummings must have chosen for some reason which was not because there an intent to do with any intent to let the leavers win. The civil service will have chosen him in the following manner and for the following reasons.

  1. Given the lack of a suitable alternative in the labour party and knowing that a replacement was needed for Theresa May, they decided to go for someone who would be felt to be similarly unsuited to the position of prime minister as Theresa May.
  2. At the time they felt that I would not find out the full details of what had occurred (not knowing about the reasons for my admission for instance) and proceeded on the basis that I would not
  3. They also decided to choose someone from either the foreign office or home office who had been closely observed by the intelligence services by the person, namely the foreign secretary, who was meant to in charge of those services.
  4. Now obviously not having learnt from the above and lacking imagination, the decided to seek inspiration from where I had partly sought inspiration and chose Doctor Who again.  Unfortunately this is much the same as thinking one has the ability to cook duck a l’orange because one merely has the ingredients without any actual ability to cook. It’s an approach where they deem that one can quantify and replicate what someone is doing by number-crunching which was neatly explained in the Adam Curtis documentary “The Trap”.
  5. As part of this they remembered
    1. The fact that people were rather fed up with the whole Brexit thing and referenda.
    2. The fact that if they don’t do something they will end up in what they deem as a not very good negotiating position (i.e no deal)
    3. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn was seen as somewhat of an enemy and was not a viable option
    4. That they need to have a prime minister who
      1. Was “on side” as it were to carry out their instructions in that they were aware that I was aware of high level corruption/infiltration.
      2. Could be relied on to put forth fraudulent/tampered evidence against me or to consent to it.
      3. Would ultimately in his objectives as prime minister fail.
    5. That I have had no small measure of success and they need a strong opponent
    6. What occurred in relation to
      1. Fulbourn in relation to my successful as opposed to their unsuccessful usage of something from Doctor Who
      2. The technique which I used to uncover information about high level infiltration formed part of something which I had developed back in 2013 using doppelgangers.
    7. That they do not like this and want to put me on “trial” as it were for uncovering corruption/infiltration.
    8. That this is partly down to certain experiments which they authorized but did not monitor and which enabled me to notice such corruption
    9. I am no doubt in their circles seen as rude and so on. (Everyone who complains against them is)
    10. I am sometimes badly dressed
    11. I had been “educated” by my director” of studies who was seen as rude and disagreeable (which is an easy thing to be in that environment). To be exact, I had four tutorials with him, all of which lasted about 10 minutes. so his total involvement in the education of myself was less than one hour.
    12. I am supposedly of a “princely” caste.
    13. I do classics and went to Oxbridge.
  6. As a consequence, they inevitably remembered the sixth doctor who was seen as unsuccessful and is best known as being disagreeable, rude and badly dressed. They also remembered the stories
    1. Timelash: which involves a Corbyn lookalike who is seen as an enemy of the people and others have pointed out the resemblance
    2. Vengeance on Varos which is about
      1. Popular referendums and how they destroy a society
      2. Being in a poor negotiating position
    3. The twin dilemma which
      1. Shows the doctor being disagreeable rude and badly dressed
      2. Involves doppelgangers
    4. The two doctors which like the trial of a time lord and the twin dilemma either involves Holmseian pairs or make reference to them
    5. In particular ” The Trial of a Timelord”
      1. Where the “relative” is known as the Valeyard and the doctor is fighting in court against him.
      2. Which involves certain brain experiments which “alter the basis of future life” on the incorrect basis of which they state that’s why they “extradited the doctor” when it was to do with his uncovering of their corruption
  7. As a consequence of which they considered that
    1. I should have my own “Valeyard“ who could be disposed of later.
    2. That each Holmseian pair (myself and the fellow) should have have a Holmesian pair as doppelgangers (Boris and Mr Cummings)
    3. It might be better if there was an accomplice who would appear to be talented but in fact lack very basic knowledge about the civil service and who would inevitably fail.
    4. They might be able to keep the pair on a leash until such time as they might, in the manner which they had intended with Theresa May, dispose of them and indeed no deal Brexit. The logical point to do this was
      1. During the period before the election last year where they rather miscalculated that one could rely upon parliament to stop Brexit or indeed the methods which were used by Dominic Cummings to swing to the election.
      2. The virus as I explain later.
    5. They might state that the experiments represented a threat to national security on the basis of which they justify their actions when what they are actually concerned about is the fact that I notice their corruption.
  8. As a consequence of which they chose
    1. Boris Johnson on the basis that amongst other things
      1. He was Circassian, as I am
      2. they had initially considered him because of the fact that in terms of his physique and his hair, he does resemble the sixth doctor.
      3. He is supposedly of a princely caste, as I supposedly am.
      4. He did classics as I did
      5. He went to Oxbridge as I did
    2. Dominic Cummings on the basis that he resembles the director or studies, physically and in terms of his character (he is seen rightly or wrongly as rude, disagreeable).
    3. His wife, Miss Symonds as another main point of contact on the basis of the fact that
      1. Dominic Cummings would control access to Boris Johnson and they would need a go betweet
      2. That person would have to be close which could not anyone in the civil service given the fact that the vote leave group were set upon tearing apart the civil service and had an aversion to it and perhaps were likely to know about the various plots against the elected government. They would also have had to have been in a trusted position to secure information as well as to influence policy and to suggest the appointment of members who were also in a position to influence policy, to do public relations for example on behalf of those who did not want no deal and against those who did want no deal when the time came. These people would of course come from the same remainery/soft brexit/Oxbridgey set who had been responsible for attempts to stop brexit in the past.
      3. They acted much like they did with Dominic Cummings and looked for other “directors of study” and came across someone with the name of another one of my directors of study (or rather my form teacher), a Ms Simmonds. She will have been singled out in a search on the basis of
        1. Her name.
        2. The fact that it will have been apparent that her mother is also named after my form teacher in form 4 from the year 1986-1987, Miss Simmonds and the fact that her grandmother was named Mrs Lawrence, who was the name of my form teacher in form 1 from the year 1983-1984.
        3. Her “class”.
        4. The fact that she was in close proximity and had worked for the conservative party and thus would perhaps be seen as sound.
        5. The face that they remembered that fact that Hayward was the name of
          1. The former cabinet secretary and person in charge of the civil service and thus, in part due to the fact that he had a reputation for covering things up, the person responsible for the arrangements which were made to stop brexit.
          2. Name of one of my directors of study or rather form tutor in form 3 from the year 1985-1986, Miss Haywood.
        6. The fact that they would have thought that the best means of influencing him or to securing information would have been through the provision of a new wife. This thought would have occurred to them when they noticed that another director of studies or rather form tutor in form 2 between the years 1984-195 had the name Bowles which would have obviously brought to mind the divorcee Camilla Parker Bowles.
  9. Unfortunately they rather came acropper because during the period when Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, I found out about the employment of Simon Shercliff and indeed much else. They were planning, should it be deemed necessary and as a fail safe, to control things through the Simmonds wing (or rather civil service) of the government and either prevent no deal or indeed get rid of Boris Johnson which might be achieved by either hampering or getting rid of the Cummings (or rather vote leave) wing of the government. Of course as part of this, one can
    1. Employ Yojimbo and sow seeds of distrust by suggesting that someone within their team has leaked information when really it is the civil service who have done so (and indeed such things are straight out of house of cards) or indeed waggle ones finger patronizingly at China and Iran and lecture them about democracy to distract people from the fact that you are not a democracy.
    2. Ask the monarchy to lobby for a deal on your behalf and get lots of coverage in a tabloid
    3. Ensure that the government is disabled by making sure its most senior members become ill with COVID and run things whilst they are out of the picture in the hope of securing your end goal.

This is an entirely reasonable conclusion given the fact that they had attempted to get rid of the previous Prime Minister on the basis of an plot which used a line from Doctor Who and which was inspired by my own plot which used a line from Doctor Who. As such it is reasonable to conclude particularly given the above that they did something similar when attempting to appoint Boris Johnson.

Generally speaking however and based upon past experience it is probably not a good idea to have old Etonians as prime ministers. In the first instance you had Anthony Eden who went to Eton and then Oxford who was of course responsible for the Suez crisis. Then we have David Cameron who also went to Eton and Oxford and who was responsible for brexit and given Boris Johnson who also went to Eton and then to Oxford and who is responsible for what does appear to be no deal.

If we are talking about irrationality which pertains to brexit, one should look no further to what I mentioned about “Knights of God” and the fact that the leader of “Anglia” in the series, Prior Mordrin lost the country because he was concentrating all his efforts and those of the government upon a person who was played by George Winter. The series is as mentioned a strange and intentional example of life imitating art although someone (I’m looking at Boris) appears to have taken that more literally than was initially intended.