Here is a clip from a conference from 2016 which was run by Numitas, a financial consultancy firm and which was attended by amongst others, Charles Cotton, formerly of Sinclair computers and Dr Hermann Hauser who is famous for the “Cambridge phenomenon” and of course for founding Acorn.
In the clip, Charles Cotton states that corporate spying is needed for his work and Dr Hermann Hauser appears to agree:
Host: Well, Hermann, let me ask a question, and I mean it’s a very competitive environment now. When you think back, you obviously at Acorn had quite a competitive relationship with the guys over at Sinclair but how important is that sense of competition to….
Hermann Hauser: <Interrupts>; Very!, very, I thought we did sort of our best work when we always had to look over our shoulder, what Charles was doing at Sinclair. So there was tremendous competitive spirit and it was also very easy to motivate the team because it was said “look what Sinclair has done, he’s produced one that is, you know, a lot cheaper than ours and why can’t we do a better one for cheaper and that was a great motivator.
Charles Cotton: And I might just chip in there that there is a Greek restaurant, just over the bridge, going down Hills Road, called Panos. I don’t know whether anyone remembers that.
Hermann Hauser: That’s right
Charles Cotton: And Panos was the owner of this and Chris Curry used to go there, on almost a daily basis. I used to go there on almost a daily basis and Panos would come over when I was in there and he’d say “Chris Curry was in here yesterday and
Hermann Hauser laughs
Chris Curry: do you know who he was with.
Hermann Hauser and Charles Cotton both laugh.
Chris Curry; And that’s where the corporate spying which of course was very famous in Cambridge for a long time came ahead in the computing days, so it’s a, you know, you need the spies to let you know what’s going on with your biggest rival.
Hermann Hauser: Yes.
Some obvious questions are as follows
- Given the fact that Cambridge is known as a place where the intelligence agencies historically recruit and where they have links, who would be most likely to provide such services, apart from
- Those who work for intelligence services
- Those who work on their behalf
- To what extent would (or indeed could) Dr Hermann Hauser be aware of what the spies do in order to acquire the information which they provide, given the fact that there will be some financial incentive to do so (it does not seem plausible to expect that people would do it for free).
- If he is indeed fully aware of what has gone on in my case and approves, then as the founder of the “Cambridge phenomenon” and a venture capital firm called Amadeus and as someone who apparently approves of corporate spying,
- Can he really claim to be the person best suited to changing the image of Cambridge as being for only for a certain type of person (if that is the correct interpretation of his intent) particularly given what has happened to me.
- Is he really the best person to be chair of the European Innovation Council given that it apparently is responsible for setting policy with regards to the allocation of budgets for example and if I read correctly, responsible for vetting applications, for funding from that council.
- If he is indeed fully aware of what has gone on but dissapproves, then one must ask why he does not take action given the effect it would have in terms of public relations, unless that is he is subject to extortion by the intelligence services who use him as a “pretty face”.
- If he is not fully aware of what has gone and has proceeded on the basis of misinformation supplied by the intelligence services, then can he be regarded as innocent given that this is a case of of producer choice theory? According to this conclusion, the intelligence services , whilst nominally acting on behalf of Dr Hauser, have in actual fact been acting in their own interests which are financial and to some degree reputational. They need to stir up trouble in order to derive benefits for themselves and to ensure that both of us do not find out what has atually occured. To this end, they need to give the impression that
- To give me the impression that they are acting on his orders (when in actual fact, he has given no such orders to do what they do and is unaware or what occurs)
- To tell him that I am a threat and can attack in 45 minutes.
On a related note, and given that it is implied or stated as a supposed justification for the actions which have taken place on his behalf, can it really be rational or indeed plausible to accuse me of all sort of things including stalking when, amongst other things:
- Stalking, amongst other things, is what they’ve been doing since 2009. Having had a fixed interest in Acorn since the 1990s and having applied to Cambridge, due my liking of the mindset of the place (as I then thought it was) but having no interest in meeting anyone involved in Acorn, I am allocated for an interview at a college
- which, is a recruitment centre for GCHQ
- which, as a consequence of this, has access to my browsing records through a program called Karma police (whether this program is still in operation or indeed accurate is another matter given the fact that GCHQ falsify evidence as related here and as related below) and will have seen me accessing websites in relation to Acorn.
- where the son of the founder of Acorn happens to be present and wishes to be “friends” with me.
- Such allegations (and harassment which I have experienced)
- Began in late 2012/early 2013 whilst I was at St Catharines College and have moreover been experienced by others from that college,most notably Jenni Tucker, the former IT officer and Chris Waugh both of whom have given accounts of their experience. I have emails in relation to the problems which I was experiencing at the college. A reference to this is given in the following email.
- Really took off after I happened to have a summer job as a bedder at a college which was headed by the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, who was criticized for providing false intelligence in relation to the Iraq war and by whom I was disciplined (without being present). This harassment eventually resulted in a discovery whereby I was able to locate and track individuals who were responsible and who either worked for or on behalf of the intelligence services (I was for reference unaware of this fact at the time and some of those who were working on behalf of the intelligence services were doing so in a fashion whereby they were unaware of this fact). The discovery is known as “trilateration” and I utilized it on one of the people from St Catharines College, namely Michael Hauser Rapse, son of Hermann Hauser, whom I had avoided along with his friends by staying away from the college. In order to get rid of him, I had to pretend to be my younger brother Jack who had information on his drug dealing which, because the gentleman looked like me and did bodybuilding as I did and because of his drink and drug issues, let to a state of paranoia and his consequent flight to switzerland. Here is the person whose pictures I used and a link to some of his videos on youtube.
- It should be stated however that I only acquired information in relation to his drug dealing after these events and thanks to the “efforts” (or rather leakages) of someone who worked for SIS, one Dr Philip Oliver, who happened to be the former head of admissions at St Catharine’s college and who was responsible for admitting Michael to the college. I am supplying a copy of the email corespondence in reation to what occurred
I should like to state a few points about this email and about what occurred
- It is shash and nonsense to suggest that the authorities have any form of problem with what occurred. It is now half a decade since those events and if there was a problem they would have said so by now. Given that the police threw me out of the police station with disiniterest when I enquired about the matter and haven’t shown any evidence of a problem (which they would presumably have done if this was such an issue), it cannot be argued that there is any justification for this behaviour on their part and that for example using INTERPOL under the circumstance is a tad excessive given the fact that there has been no police interaction whatsoever..
- The authorities apparently approve of what I did in that I have had a recommendation from someone from SIS that I should work for them on that basis.
- The authorities are doing the very things which they would no doubt wish to accuse me of and worse. One example might be death threats on the part of the GCHQ and others.
- It is rather hypocritical to claim that it was wrong of me to state that I had gathered information in relation to Michael’s drug dealing. As one can see from the email, this is what the intelligence services do and they don’t keep things confidential. In this respect, I should perhaps state that it is not unimaginable that GCHQ bugged the equipment which Michael and his father use (such as phones and so on) and which the later had some part in bringing to the market (through his involvement in microproceessors).
- You will notice that Dr Philip Oliver, confirms what I alledged, that Michael was in a drug gang but which apparently “doesn’t do stuff”. For reference, Michael dealt class A drugs (cocaine) in America, sold drugs in the college and attempted to sell drugs (LSD) to me. The British and other authorities think this is acceptable or else deny that it happened because of who his father is.
- It confirms the unconfirmed statements of others in relation to his drug dealing.
- You will note that there is not only a disregarding of the actions of someone who dealt drugs but a condoning of the actions of his father who
- Made a rather large donation to the university from which he personally profits.
- Was personally friends with Dr Oliver and whose son was admitted to the college.
- Previous to this by his own admission and with increasing intensity was into corporate spying.
- I wrote the email in a rush (which would be expected given the content where I happened to mention I was in life threatening danger) and there are a couple of thing which in retrospect I would change.
- The aspect of self-blame. I was in retrospect too acquiscent and ready to blame myself given the harassment which I was experiencing and took the blame for something which was not really my fault. This is a common experience amongst those who are experiencing abuse as I was.
- Whilst I meant “Perhaps out of anger went too far” instead of “Out of anger perhaps went to far”…
- if there was a problem with my actions in pretending to have information concerning an individual who dealt drugs and who had been harassing me, at no stage whatsoever was there any form of contact from the police or other authorities, including most notably the authorities from the college where I was working and where Sir Richard Dearlove was Master. In fact, as I have mentioned, where I have made enquiries, I have been rebuffed or else thrown out of the police station.
- I felt that as someone who a) dealt drugs b) had access to people who might know about the technique c) just would not leave me alone even when I was away from the college premises, it would be a useful and fair thing to perhaps express my umbrage to some degree as part of a way of establish a method of locating and tracking individuals who dealt drugs on geo-social netowrks, something which should have been of interest to the Master of the college where I was working.
- In fact, as can be seen, I reported this discovery to a member of the intelligence services who then leaked my discovery to others including the Ugandan police. This security gap has been reported rather ironically in relation to GCHQ.
- If at this stage, there is an intention to make up stuff in response in relation to this, it’s not necessarily a good idea given that British intelligence have a clear record of making up stuff and have the tools to do so.(For reference, it is important to note that this is somewhat out of data and there will have been other developments in terms of the ability of GCHQ to make fake documents such as for instance with deepfakes)
- The intelligence services have the most appalling record in many different respects of outright lying with respect to me and others. Amongst other things they have alledged that
- Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction on the basis of evidence which they knew to be incorrect.
- Michael Flynn had some illicit contacts with a Russian which they did for the purpose of recruiting me to MI6.
- There were some sex tapes on Donald Trump.
- Russia was spreading “fake news” when in actual fact they were unable to provide examples of “fake news”.
- The Russians killed an alumni of St Catharine’s and employee of SIS when in fact the evidence shows that it it was in fact the British state who killed him.
- I had an American passport and had been arrested in the Ukraine which they achieved by putting false information on an interpol database.
- As shown by the buzzfeed dossier and my case, those who complain of infiltration and/or corruption involving the intelligence services have mental health problems.
- Porton Down were certain that the nerve agent came from Russia (To be entirely accurate, this claim was made by the person who is nominally responsible for but not actually employed by GCHQ and MI6, namely the current foreign secretary, Boris Johnson)
- Russia is spreading disinformation with respect to the Skripals. but under the pretext of “national security/pubic interest”, they do not wish to provide examples even though these are already in the public domain
- The OPCW were unable to state where the chemical weapon originated. Not true because the head of the OPCW stated that it could have come from anywhere
Update: 19/06/2018 13:00
I have emailed one of his companies to ask which of the three options above might be the case in advance of a meeting. I did so with a view to resolving this whole affair with a link to a copy of this article (which was only available in private).
One might imagine that if it was a case of “producer choice”, there would be a keenness to state as much, given that I have stated that under such circumstances he would would be regarded as innocent. Sadly the lack of confirmation in this respect, indicates that option 3 or 4 are indeed the case.
As such, it is indeed the case that Dr Hermann Hauser is benefitting from the usage of corporate spies who work at the foreign and commonwealth office. Whether he approves is another matter but frankly its irrelevant.
Update: 20/06/2018 03:40
I think the above conclusion as well as material which is related, does beg the following questions:
With regards to Dr Hauser:
- What else have Amadeus and Dr Hermann Hauser stolen?
- Why would Dr Hauser use corporate spies in an attempt to harass someone into handing over something which in small part proves the fact that a) he used corporate spies in order to harass someone into handing that “something” over and that b) claims that one has been subject to harassment are not evidence of mental ill health.
- For all the effort which has been borne by themselves and perhaps others through corporate spying and given the fact that they claim that Cambridge is this supposed “phenomenon” (clue: it isn’t and never will be and I say that as a former afficionado), what exactly do they have to show for this? Apart that is from a) a few thousand companies which nobody has heard of and b) an absolute confirmation that the stereotype which people have of Cambridge is one which is true and that it is a place to be avoided for a large proportion of people.
- If you are intent upon using corporate spies, then why on earth would you use British intelligence? The intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom use facilities in places like Menwith Hill which are funded by American intelligence. Anything that might be acquired would and has in large part naturally gone over the pond. In effect Dr Hauser with a few exceptions, is paying sums of money for the British to do corporate spying on behalf of the Americans.
- Can Dr Hauser really claim to be the person best suited to changing the image of Cambridge, as being for only for a certain type of person (if that is the correct interpretation of his intent), particularly given the fact his actions confirm the stereotype one might expect of Cambridge? In this respect, if someone like me, who was formerly an afficionado of the whole Silicon Fen “thing”, makes an application to the university and is treated in this fashion, then why would Cambridge think it likely that they would have a chance of attracting others who, like myself, might be said to have talent and who might like Cambridge, notwithstanding the fact that Cambridge (like Beirut) has 10,000 or so small technology companies which nobody has heard of.
- Although I do not at present have a record of this, I should like to ask why when I recently was in Russia and noticed the following section from the third episode of the 1970s Soviet television series Seventeen Moments of Spring (where a spy who is the spitting image of Hermann Hauser happens to feature), I was subject to a denial of service attack when attempting to upload it. Is this because
- There were aware of some nefarious assocation between Dr Hauser and Russia which is a possibility given the fact that he
- Had involvement in brokering a deal with the Russian government back in 2011.
- Learnt some Russian whilst at Cambridge.“I came back to England every summer, always to Studio School; after the third year I asked John Morgan, a teacher there, what I should do and he suggested taking a Russian course at the Sidgwick site, which I did”
- Someone upon whom Dr Hauser relied for corporate spying, who worked for SIS and who admitted his son to the college has had an association with Russia.
- There were aware of some nefarious assocation between Dr Hauser and Russia which is a possibility given the fact that he
With regards to the United Kingdom and its intelligence services:
- Why would a global investor choose to spend their money and/or why would a research company choose to associate with the United Kingdom, if the intelligence service feel they can steal on behalf of favoured customers (and in fact do so with immunity), given that when someone like myself naturally complains, they and their allies within the Oxbridge establishment either
- Smear and harrass.
- In the manner of the catholic church, ignore complaints, show stereotypical Oxbridge arrogance and either try to claim through tokenism that they are the opposite of what they are or go on about some unrelated rights related issue such as gay rights. The fact is Oxbridge, as pointed out by the higher education minister in the United Kingdom does have problem with diversity.
- Think an honorary degree from such a place is somehow an incentive or in the least bit attractive when it is repulsive.
- Try and detract from their own behaviour by making allegations against others. If you were gay and being harased in Chechnya, would you really wish to represented by the foreign and commonwealth office and Sir Alan Duncan.
- With respect to GCHQ why do they think that:
- They can steal (or attempt to steal in my case) from companies and countries in Europe on behalf of people in the United Kingdom (such as Hermann Hauser) or indeed the United States through facilities available at Menwith Hill.
- The European Union should be somehow convinced that GCHQ are the sort of people who are needed to protect Europe especially given the fact that the claims they make are untrue.
- This tweet does not give the wrong impression in that:.
- They can hardly talk about criminality when they themselves have a record of lying and inventing claims.
- Much as I obviously disagree (because amongst other things it’s inviting trouble), Hermann Hauser appears to think that corporate spying is not only acceptable but essential. The intelligence services aid him (and others in this respect) and they are all aware of what this entails. Rationally, legally and morally therefore, neither they nor the intelligence services can complain or be listened to by others if they, the people or the countries they look after are subject to the sort of treatment which they meet out to others, (This treatment for reference includes attempted murder, death threats, poisoning, large scale hacking and so on.)
- They are in effect sanctioning the sort of behaviour with which I profoundly disagree and about which they continually complain (in a quite pompous, hypocritical and self-righteous manner). It is not only hypocritical to complain but has the effect of inviting trouble from all corners of the world and demolishes any claims they might rightfully make in relation to protecting national security. It is particularly worrying when in terms of being able to protect “secrets”, the British record is quite poor and is very much a case of people in in glass houses who shouldn’t throw stones.
- They apparently have trouble recruiting, have difficulty in managing 10’s of thousands of potential jihadists given the limitations of resources but think corporate espionage is a greater priority.
With regards to Europe
- Can Dr Hauser really claim to be the person best suited to being the chair of the European Innovation Council when he has two venture capital companies and relies upon corporate espionage? He is apparently responsible for setting policy with regards to the allocation of budgets for example and if I read correctly, also responsible for vetting applications for funding from that council.
- Is it not rather odd indeed that for all the claims that as a continent it has moved on from its past, it is apparently the case that an Austrian should be in a senior position within the European government, one who acts in a manner which, without meaning to sound like some pompous leftist student, can be described and has been described by others as fascist?
- Given such circumstances and given the unhealthy dependence of the EU upon the UK, why would you expect there to be the same level of investment or success as occurs in America, China or India, particularly when the UK attempts divide and conquer when it comes to your national security?
- Why do countries which are involved in this feel they have the right to lecture others on human rights. In this respect would the European Union (for whom Dr Hauser works in a senior position) think that it is appropriate to talk about compromise between someone like myself and someone like him, given that, as can be guaged from the attitude which has historically been shown in matters concerning human rights by the EU, they might appear to be quite spineless and biased when it comes to the United Kingdom, a country which of course has had its own issues in terms of being biased.
The sorts of actions with which the Dr Hermann hauser and Amadeus are involved are without exagerration throwing Europe’s future and reputation, such as it is, down the toilet.
Frankly, I find it rather insane.