Today is the the 28th of June 2018 and the Intelligence and Security Commitee have released a report criticising the Blair government for allowing torture to take place upon British citizens. They have blamed such actions, for the most part, on the Americans. One must remember however that
- The report seems to state that the British were mostly passive participants in the torture, whereas, to be entirely fair in this respect, America has not shied away to the same extent from its guilt in this respect.
- 9/11 itself was used to bury bad news by the civil service
- Allegations were made against Michael Flynn by the civil service in order to bury bad news and as part of an attempt to recruit me to MI6.
- This occured whilst there was apparently reconciliation and peacemaking as a result of the peace process in Northern Ireland.
As such, even with this (partial) criticism, it is possible for other instances of torture to be ongoing and for a revelation of torture in one respect to be useful in terms of concealing other forms of torture. In other words, it is possible to conceal some particularly terrible news with some bad news..
I should wish therefore to report that today, after the report by the ISC, I received a response to my complaint which I sent to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in relation to amongst other things a system of psychological torture which is operated by the British government and which is condoned by other western governments.
This complaint does not pertain only to myself but to many other people who are subject and who have been subject to the same treatment. In my case this began when I studying at St Catharines College which is a centre of recruitment for GCHQ. Were it to be the case that they agreed with my complaint, this would obvious open the floodgates to other cases which have occured in the UK and other countires. As such, the decision was given today in that the ISC report would help to bury other more serious and more systematic forms of torture.
It is not unexpected that there should be negative decision given that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal rubber stamps decisions and actions made by the intelligence services. 99.5% of complaints to the Investigatory Powers tribunal (which is the only body to which complaints in relation to the intelligence services can be addressed) are unsuccesful.
A copy of the letter is given and it is very useful to have:
Despite the expected negative decision:
- It does not provide any information as to why my complaint should be regarded as unsustainable just “because” which quite evidenly makes a mockery of British law.
- I now have categorical proof, should it be needed, that I have been through all procedures nder UK law in order to seek a remedy for my complaint against the intelligence services. There is, for reference, no avenue by which I could request that the intelligence and security commitee examine my case.
- It is possible to say that under the law, and as pointed out by the European Court of Human Rights, the intelligence services have immunity from prosecution; the tribunal cannot investigate the actions of bodies which are run by the Cabinet Office such as the Joint Intelligence Committee or the Joint Intelligence Orgnisation even though they and the Cabinet Secretary (who apparently had some complications from cancer three days after this letter was sent and went on leave) have ultimate responsibility for the intelligence services.
- It should be stated that this letter was sent just 2 days after the response to the complaint in relation to the behaviour of the United KIngdom’s intelligence agencies which I had sent toto the Europrean Commission. This clearly showed that they ignore evidence which I have provided whilst claiming that they have done so., As such, one can say that the IPT were awaiting the outcome of that complaint before deciding what should be the deciision (or rather how much they could get away with)..
- The statement that there is “no realistic prospect of success” is perhaps true in that the likelihood of success for any complaint to the IPT is approximately 0.5%. It’s essentially a statement which says that the complaint has no realistic prospect of success because complaints to the IPT in general have no realistic prospect of success.
I can also state that, as all startups appear to have concluded, it would be utterly pointless trying to establish myself within the European Union or indeed the United Kingdom. Im my case this is because of
- The corporate spying and harassment which takes place within the European Union at the behest of Dr Hermann Hauser in conjunction with agencies like GCHQ.
- The dependency of the European Union upon the United Kingdom in relation to intelligence related matters as well as the fact that they have free reign to do as they pleasewithin Europe.
- The keeness to indicate as much in response to my complaint to the European Commission where they did not look at the evidence
- The unwillingness to do so on the second occasion.
I should just like to add that withn the last 30 minutes at 8:00, whilst I have been writing this, individuals from the United Kingdom have been accessing this blog through the homepage.
One can see this (not as well as might be beneficial) from the following graph (There were for reference only 2 accesses at 7:30 from the United States and France)
I shall write an article about this at some later stage and this does not constitute proof nor is it explained very well.
The spike in views, as I have been writing this, given that what I write is monitored might be regarded as suspicious and as I shall prove at some later stage, quite often an indication that someone is indirectly signalling to me to go to that particular country. It is a statement of contempt for the complaint, myself and European sovereignty.