Counter-surveillance sweep by Nationwide Investigations Group

In July 1994 the private detective agency Nationwide Investigations Group conducted an electronic counter-surveillance
sweep of my parents' home in London. They checked for radio transmitter devices, and tested the telephone line for attached
bugs. They found nothing.

I am afraid that I was unsurprised at their not finding any evidence of covert surveillance. It had been made very clear to me,
particularly during 1990-92, that audio, and almost certainly video, surveillance of my parents' home was taking place. But this
would not have been made quite so obvious unless the persecutors were confident of their apparatus being undetectable using the
technology the police, or a private agency like Nationwide, would be using.

I don't know very much about the surveillance technology that has been used against me, but I understand that devices can be built
which switch off on receiving a coded command, and may switch on again after a counter- surveillance sweep has completed; that devices
may rapidly alter the frequency of transmission, "frequency-hopping" devices which presumably cannot be detected in a sequential scan
of the sort employed by Nationwide; and of course "probe" microphones can be inserted "through-the-wall", although I hesitate to
believe our neighbours would permit this.

We paid Nationwide

Correspondence with Keith Hill MP, 1997-2001

In early 1997 I went to see my local MP, Keith Hill (Labour - London Streatham), at one of his surgeries, to ask his advice
and enlist his support in combating the MI5 conspiracy. He appeared helpful during the meeting, promising assistance to find
a lawyer and help with my legal efforts. Unfortunately, a month after the meeting he was much less inclined to assist, as the
following letter shows.

My thought on reading his letter was that he had appeared helpful at the surgery merely to get rid of me without a fuss; he
never had any intention of constructive advice or assistance.

I wrote to Mr Hill a year later, on 20 May 1998, stating that I wished to make a complaint to Police regarding the continuing
actions against me, and requesting his help in so doing. He responded a week later;

Again I wrote to Mr Hill on 10 November 1998, stating;

I am sure you will remember me from your surgery a year and a half ago, and subsequent letter dated 20/5/98 which is reproduced
over the page.

Once again I am asking you if you can help me, particularly in obtaining the passenger list for the BA flight in 1993, where four
of my persecutors confronted me. The harassment has restarted over the last two weeks, by "coincidence" as I have restarted
faxing your fellow MPs. If these faxes worry my persecutors then they must be having some effect - therefore, I feel encouraged
to continue them.

Several of your Parliamentary colleagues have expressed the view that I should be making more of an effort to secure the
assistance of my MP rather than presenting the matter to random members of the Commons. I hope you will be more helpful now
than on the earlier occasions I contacted you.

A letter from MI5

I wrote to the Security Service stating that I wished to bring a complaint against their activities in my life. Here
is their reply; "if you believe you have been the subject of inquiries by the Security Service or that the Security Service
has done anything else in relation to you or your property, you may wish to apply to the Security Service Tribunal who are
able to pursue these points on your behalf."

Please see further items for replies from the Security Service Tribunal, and Interception of Communications Tribunal.

384

Bindman and Partners, Solicitors

As early as the start of 1995 I was in communication with a local lawyer to attempt to identify the "persecutors". In
January 1996, on the advice of my psychiatrist, I wrote to Robin Lewis at the well-known London firm of Bindman and Partners.
My doctor told me another of his patients was being represented by this firm, and described them as the "underdogs' solicitor".

My three-page letter to Mr Lewis (dated 23 January 1996) went into quite a lot of detail about what had happened at my former
employers in Oxford in 1992, and the external-to-the-company stimulus to that harassment. I also described the BA incident in
June 1993, and suggested that Mr Lewis's firm could represent me in a legal action, either against my former employers, or against
one of the organisations which had been molesting me.

Robin Lewis's reply was brief in the extreme, and is reproduced here.

My reply (dated 11 February 1996) said I was "disappointed to receive your insultingly brusque reply to my letter and would ask
you to look again at the matter." To which Mr Lewis replied;

I wrote to him again on 29 February 1996; he replied as follows.

On 29 March 1996, and again on 21 April 1996, I did again write to Robin Lewis, but he did not reply.

Three years later, on 25 May 1999, I again wrote to Bindmans, following a referral from MIND's legal department. Again I wrote,
this time to Nick Braithwaite, with a detailed statement; and again they sent a reply terse to the point of rudeness.

On the phone I suggested to Mr Braithwaite that his refusal to take my instructions was due to prejudice against the mentally ill.
He spluttered and coughed, and said words to the effect that he usually found that a mentally ill person's complaint would be a
product of their delusion.

My Summons against BBC

In March 1997 I issued a Summons against the BBC for Nuisance in my local county court. I claimed injunction against
them continuing their harassment.

Please see the next item for the results of the summons.

384

My claim against BBC is struck out

My summons was struck out on the basis of it "disclosing no reasonable cause of action". The district judge pointed
out that I had no clear evidence, which would be needed for the claim to have any chance of success. My intent to submit
the defendants to interrogatories or cross-examination also cut no ice with the district judge.

I was prevented from issuing further proceedings against the BBC without leave of the court. But this differs from a
"vexatious litigant" order; I am still able to sue other organisations and individuals.

383

Buerk and Lewis deny their spying

This letter was sent on 6 February 1997 to me by BBC Viewer and Listener Information, in reply to a letter I had sent
them on 17 January. The letter says the BBC would "never engage in any form of surveillance activity such as you describe".

The BBC also informed me that they had spoken to Michael Buerk and Martyn Lewis, and that these two newscasters had
categorically denied spying on me. However, the BBC and these two employees have refused to put these denials in writing.

Needless to say, I do not accept the denials of the BBC and its employees. I think they are lying. Unfortunately I cannot
prove otherwise, and my attempt to "smoke them out" by suing them hit a brick wall.

384

"Steve" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164817105.655865.164060@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Which would be unworkable, and would leave the SA centrally legally
responsible should the GSL fail to deliver.

Don't forget that a data controller has a limited time to respond.

Yes it is.

Most large organisations have a fair idea what the systems they have are.

How do you imagine the SA would deal with;

"Dear Sir, I am Rupert Peregrine Farquar, I was a member of a Scout Group in
Anytown, and request a copy of the data you hold on me"

How many days do you imagine it will take just to identify who within the
organisation holds data?

"Steve" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164809975.513020.28700@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

Nobody.

We are talking about handing over data for an individual in excess of that
which the recipient has an immediate need for.

"eddie" btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:X5mdneaPic5cDvDYnZ2dnUVZ8sWdnZ2d@bt.com...

Agreed. If you have told scouts that you will only use their data for the
purpose of the scouts, then I think I am not allowed to pass data to
Explorers without their permission (unless you take the view that "Scouts"
included Explorers although I did not mean that as I did not think of it!).

Anyway, I agree with Eddie that you should ask the young people if they
agree first. But this does seem to annoy the Explorers because in most
cases, the scouts do not give their permission. As discussed in another
thread, in my view communication works much better if the recipients are
already keen - if the Explorers have made no effort to meet the scouts then
is it surprising they would rather be young leaders and not join a Unit?