Surveillance
Briefly:
- I appear to have been the target of surveillance, since at least 2013. The evidence includes:
- Hacking of my computers.
- People having knowledge they could not have obtained otherwise, including a hospital Manager who advised the ambulance services not to dispatch an ambulance for which I had telephoned. He was unable to explain how he discovered I had telephoned the ambulance services.
Introduction
1. An ordinary, unremarkable person, living an unremarkable life, does not expect to find himself the target
of surveillance. The facts forced me eventually to accept I was. This is only an introductory website: here, I treat
this aspect of my case sparingly. There is a large amount of evidence which shall be set out in the site-proper
- if you click that link, please continue reading beyond the highlighted text.
(i). This information is sufficient to show I had reasonable grounds to believe such a campaign was in
progress. Courts of law have accepted less evidence, for example: the privacy invasion Action against Apple Inc., of
which this is a description
and this, the legal judgement.
(ii). Further evidence, a lot of it incontestable and a matter of record, further supports the view a
campaign involving considerable influence and resources has been prosecuted against me. This evidence includes my
detention under section without a valid diagnosis and the other matters related on this website.
(iii). While I cannot divine the motivation for such a campaign, such a confluence of improbabilities does
outrage the laws of probability: such a Campaign is almost certainly in progress.
(a). Once there exists a certain amount of proof, failure to attribute a motive is irrelevant to the
establishment of the fact that something is happening. In fact, such evidence is far more important in the
establishment of an occurrence than a description of its mechanics or motivation, otherwise the broader field of
science would not exist: from its inception, a significant portion of its work has been concerned with understanding
what is known to be happening or to happen but for which we are entirely bereft of an explanation or, at best, have
only a partial explanation.
Main Details
2. In 2013, my computer was hacked into. I reported the matter to the police.3. At the start of 2014, I noticed I was under physical surveillance. Some of the signs were:
(i). I was working on a new commercial project. I would spend the day working from the library. A Spaniard appeared at the library. He made my acquaintance.
(a). I always tape over the camera of my laptop. When he saw the tape, a look of revelation passed over face and he murmured to himself:
"That's why we haven't been able to see!"
I assumed these were the people who had hacked into my computer; they could tell a camera was installed and working but could not understand why it did not capture images.
(b). He said he was living with his sister, at her house. One day, I took him into town by an unusual and disorienting route: you are surprised to exit a quiet residential street and suddenly to find yourself in the centre of the city. When he got his bearings, he said, pointing to the top of the street:
"Oh! That's where we are; my hotel is over there!"
What hotel was that, if he was staying with his sister?
(ii). Normally, I use the gymnasium twice a day (weights at six O'Clock in the morning, and cardiovascular exercises at six O'Clock in the evening). I noticed people in each session who appeared to be observing me.
(a). One day, I approached one of them and asked, in conversational tones:
"Why is there something familiar about you?"
I am not intimidating, in appearance or manner - even people who saw and spoke to me in similar circumstances, when I was sleeping rough, afterwards declared, in statements to the police, that they did not find me threatening. She panicked and started to protest:
"I don't know what you mean! I am not involved in anything! I work for the University!"
Then she realised what I had actually said to her. She laughed nervously and repeated words I often use but which she ought not to have known me to use:
"Think about it; it will come to you."
(iii). A few weeks later, knowing the surveillance included listening devices (this can be done through computer and telephone microphones and by other means), I told the people conducting the Campaign they were inept. I described the people watching me at the gymn and I said I knew they were carrying out surveillance of me. It was late at night and I was alone in my flat.
(a). The next morning, all the people I had described the previous evening were at the gymn. This had never happened before and is extremely unlikely: people normally use the gymn at the same time. Also, they did not exercise together: three or four distinct people or sets of people who normally used the gymn at six O'Clock in the evening, suddenly all decided to use it at six O'Clock in the morning. One of them mockingly said to me:
"We're all here this morning."
(iv). In August, 2014, I fled to France. People who saw me during that period have confirmed I did not appear nervous, panicked or hunted. A girl sat next to me on the way. Without apparent relevance to our conversation, she told me to:
"Stop running."
(v). In France, the surveillance continued just as extensively.
4. The surveillance appears to have continued during my detention:
(i). I developed high blood pressure and, in November, 2021, I experienced numbness in my arms.
(a). I did not receive proper treatment: I was not properly examined, doctors gave opinions to nurses without having seen or spoken to me, they refused to answer questions regarding those opinions and to provide their GMC registration numbers and, later, the Hospital could not name some of the doctors who had provided those opinions. It was four months before I was sent to a general hospital for scans.
(b). After a few weeks without treatment, fearing for my life, I telephoned for an ambulance. The dispatcher asked to speak to a nurse at the hospital. As they spoke, the manager of the Hospital hurried onto the ward and instructed the ambulance not be dispatched.
(c). A recording of the call, provided by the ambulance services, shows the manager came to the Ward to deal with the matter of the ambulance. But he should not have been aware of that call; the only people who ought to have known of the call had not informed anyone else of it. When he arrived, there was the exchange:
Nurse: "[My name] has called an ambulance."
Manager: "I know; that's why I'm here."
(d). The Hospital and the Manager were unable to explain how he discovered I made that call.
(e). The only plausible explanation is a third party informed him of the call. If he was not instructed to, he certainly rushed over to cancel the ambulance. Such information could only have been gained by interception of that telephone call - electronic eavesdropping.
(ii). In 2025, the Hospital filed a complaint against me with the police, for abusive language towards a nurse.
(a). When the police came to caution me, I said I wanted to file a similar complaint against the Hospital.
(b). For a few weeks, the police tried to ignore my request to file a report. Having cautioned me for something similar, however, they were forced to take my report.
(c). The policeman who came to take my report had knowledge of my complaint that he could not possibly have had without access to information on my computer. That information could only be obtained by hacking into that machine.
(d). That same policeman lied in order not to investigate my unlawful detention and other serious matters I reported.
We encourage you to approach the people and organisations mentioned on this website and to request their response. We suggest you follow our guidance in doing so.
You may contact us directly.
