In March of this year, I decided to submit a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in relation to the actions of the United Kingdom and its intelligence agencies. This Tribunal has thus far not deigned to respond to that complaint and there does not appear to be an indication as to the expect date of any judgment.
I realize that the action of my part is probably a futile one given the fact that the tribunal, without wishing to be unfair, functions effectively as a rubber stamp for the actions of the intelligence agencies which it is nominally responsible for overseeing. There is in fact, according to several ECHR judgments, no remedy under UK law for the actions of those agencies.
The intelligence agencies are in fact aware that there is no effective restraint upon their behavior and have indicated as much by behaving in much the same manner as they always have done and as if I had not submitted any complaint.
Given this, I elected therefore to submit a complaint to the European Commission in April of this year as one is entitled to do when a member state is in breach of European Union legislation. In this respect, the commission states that
…it may take legal action – an infringement procedure – against an EU country that fails to implement EU law. The Commission may refer the issue to the Court of Justice, which in certain cases, can impose financial penalties...
I did so partly as someone who would like to believe in the Union and who would like it as well as its member states to be sovereign. It cannot be seen as reasonable to allow a situation whereby one member state can effectively interfere in the functioning of that Union as is the case at the moment.
As I wrote that complaint however, I had a niggling feeling at the back of my mind that when it comes to the actions of the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom, any claim that European law applies would appear to be wishful posturing.
I have outlined elsewhere that I am a supporter of the departure of the European Union from the United Kingdom in that the Union has unfortunately, at present, an unhealthy dependency upon the United Kingdom with respect to its intelligence related requirements. It is obvious to state that if a country or union does not control its defense and intelligence services but is instead dependent upon others for such important things, it is not sovereign and can only be seen as a client state. Accordingly, the European Union thus must regrettably at present be regarded as a client state of the United Kingdom
The correspondence which I have received in relation to the complaint which I submitted on April the 13th unfortunately does nothing to dispel this impression. My complaint is as follows
I suspected that due to the fact that they were taking more than the standard 15 days to reply to my complaint, they did not wish to address it. This is confirmed by the response.
I outline why it is entirely untrue to state that they have read my complaint and do not wish to in the following email (I repeat the complaint so have elected not to include this).
The irony of this complaint is that, as someone who would dearly love to believe in European sovereignty and independence, such complaints are liable to annoy those within the European Union who profess to be interested in such things but who in fact when it comes down to it are not. This should be regarded as important in that, as I have outlined in the previous article, without security, the prospects of any technology company of a comparable size to those in America and China existing in the European Union is fanciful at best. I will of course be happy to correct this should the outcome of the complaint prove what is stated here is incorrect.
I should furthermore like to comment upon the fact that some are currently commemorating the terrorist attacks which occurred exactly a year ago today in London.
If I were a relative of one of the victims, I would feel insulted and aggrieved at the fact that the United Kingdom chose to use the limited resources they have in harassing people like me, thus leaving them in a position where they were less able to prevent those attacks.
EDIT 3:00PM June the 3rd:
Individuals in the Union Kingdom are happy to signal that they view the European Union and its member states as being dependent. This is indicated by the following:
- I finalized this article at 14:33 today, as shown by the following screen shot.
- Within half an hour Professor Simon Baron Cohen and St Catharine’s (both of whom read this) decided to follow Cambridge neuroscience on twitter and I am notified of this, having commented upon the actions of both here and on facebook.
The fact that they both followed Cambridge neuroscience at the same time and within half an hour of me finishing my article is a coded way on the part of GCHQ (St Catharine’s being their recruitment center; Professor Simon Baron Cohen just wants my work and is happy to work in conjunction with them standing by and not intervening when the harassment occurs) of stating that
- They have a disdain for the judicial process in the United Kingdom and indeed the European Union.
- They have a disdain for my human rights in that they are central to the complaint.
- They have a disdain for European sovereignty and prosperity.
- The United Kingdom is not in fact interested in protecting Europe and in having a close relationship in terms of security because they are interested in stealing from them.
With respect to such behaviour, I should like to state that I listened to an interview with Jimmy Saville a while back where he talks about having “ultimate control”. This can be correctly interpreted as not having the mental faculties to understand personal boundaries.
The way the United Kingdom behaves suggests that his attitude, something which was of course reflected in his behavior, is reflective of a mindset and culture which exists in the British establishment and to which I am subject (even if not sexually)
The British establishment through Cambridge cannot entertain the possibility that maybe I might wish to go elsewhere and that they do not have a divine right to certain things.
And this is reflected in the fact that one of the people responsible for the harassment, does charity work for the same reasons as Jimmy Saville, namely to cover for the evil (which is the right word) they commit. Even the expression and general “aspect” is the same.
People ask how such people “get away with such crimes”, “Why didn’t we do anything”.
Well the answer to that is quite simple: these things happen because they are allowed to.
EDIT 5:00PM June the 3rd
Before I went out and just after I updated the article, I noticed the two articles which are shown below had been published in in the mail. As I have outlined elsewhere, the mail since the beginning of the first world war has had very close links with the intelligence services and has been used to send coded messages to me. In one instance this was as part of an attempt to recruit me to SIS (this rather strange affair involved claiming Michael Flynn had become too closely acquainted with a Russian spy at the college next door to St Catharines) and in another instance this was part of an attempt to entice me to the college where I was to asked whether I might like to be recruited to SIS.
I should like someone to calculate the probability of it being a coincidence that
- Two articles are published about burglary one of which is published within half an hour of the update to this post (15:28 CET)
- The article describes two people who have the same age (one year out in both cases) and sex respectively as two people (one of which is myself) who live in a place which has been burgled.