1. Since 2017, I have reported the matters treated on this website to the Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State for Health and Justice and Home Secretaries and Cabinet Secretaries of each government of the United Kingdom.
2. I supported such statements as I made with evidence: much of it incontestable, all of it cogent, and I invited them to show flaws in the logic or evidence. None denied the validity of the statements I made but nothing was done. The buttons, below, signpost the responses of departments and ministries to my reports.

The Baroness May

3. I reported these matters to Baroness May in 2017, when she was Prime Minister. I received a response from her office, informing me my report had been forwarded to the Department of Health and Social Care.
(i). I explained the issues I reported to her involved more than merely that department: misconduct by the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service, etc. I required her Office to do more than simply reroute mail. I received no response.
(ii). The response from the Department of Health was it could not interfere in decisions by the NHS. I have treated that response here.

Mr Boris Johnson

4. While Prime Minister Johnson was in office, I reported these matters to him, including the refusal of his Secretaries of State to carry out fundamental functions and to uphold the law. He returned no response.

Mr Rishi Sunak

5. While Prime Minister Sunak was in office, I reported to him the matters treated on this website, including the refusal of his Secretaries of State to carry out fundamental functions and to uphold the law. He returned no response.

Sir Keir Starmer

6. I started writing to Sir Keir Starmer when he became Leader of the Opposition, in 2021. I reported to him the matters treated on this website and that his shadow secretaries of state had refused to oppose and to challenge the government and to hold it to account.
(i). He claimed a convention of the House of Commons forbade him to act. I explained that Convention did not apply to the leader of the opposition, in matters such as I brought to his attention. He offered no response.
(ii). While they repeatedly cited that Convention as an excuse not to act on my reports, Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Secretaries of State frequently did refer to people and cases outside their constituency, before, while and after they were refusing to act on my reports, on those grounds.
7. Since he became Prime Minister, I have telephoned his office on several occasions: I returned these matters to his attention, emphasised my unlawful detention and that the Secretary of State for Justice, who may restore my freedom at any time, is unable to produce a valid diagnosis to justify my detention but will not discharge me.
(i). I asked him to demand, from the Secretary of State of Justice, a valid diagnosis of me and to furnish me with it.
(a). At first, his office agreed to do so. Subsequently, it refused to produce the document: the authorities are deliberately detaining me unlawfully. The Prime Minister's Office, if not the Prime Minister himself, appears to be party to such efforts.
(b). For, where such grave accusations are made and supported by such potent evidence, and all that is required of the Prime Minister's Office is that he produce a valid diagnosis underpinning my detention, he must produce such a diagnosis, as indeed he initially agreed to do. The state may not detain a person and refuse, upon request, to produce proof of the lawfulness of his detention.