An Important Mathematical Oversight

The original intention for this website was to encourage public awareness of an historical medical crime, one that has remained a tightly-kept British state secret now for more than five decades. The matter is of enormous public interest, not least because the motivation behind the crime itself was that of advancing scientific research into areas that would come to provide the seminal knowledge behind much of the technological progress of the last half-century. My investigation into the matter inspired a parallel enquiry into some of the fundamental principles that underpin that scientific and technological impulse.

There are therefore two principle concerns of this website, and if there is acknowledged to be a substantive connection between them, that has inevitably to do with late 20th Century developments in science and information technologies, and more broadly with the idea of an burgeoning technocracy – the suggestion of a growing alliance between corporate technology and state power – one which might be judged to have atrophied the powers conventionally assigned to liberal-democratic institutions. This link therefore serves as a segue to emphasise the equal importance, to my mind, of what is going on in the X.cetera section of the site, so that that section should not appear, from the point of view of the other, as some kind of 'afterthought'.

X.cetera is concerned with a problem in mathematics and science to do with the way we think about numbers. As a subset of the category defined as integers, elements in the series of the natural numbers are generally held to represent quantities as their absolute, or 'integral', properties. It is argued that this conventional understanding of integers, which is the one widely held amongst mathematicians and scientists adopting mathematical principles, is the cause of a significant oversight with regard to changes in the relations of proportion between numbers when numerical values are transposed out of the decimal rational schema into alternative numerical radices, such as those of binary, octal, and hexadecimal, etc.

On the page: The Limits of Rationality it is argued that the relations of proportion between integers are dictated principally by their membership of the restricted group of characters (0-9) as defined by the decimal rational schema; and that corresponding ratios of proportion cannot be assumed to apply between numerically equal values when transposed into alternative numerical radices having either reduced (as in binary or octal, for instance) or extended (as in hexadecimal) member-ranges.

This is shown to be objectively the case by the results published at: Radical Affinity and Variant Proportion in Natural Numbers, which show that for a series of exponential values in decimal, where the logarithmic ratios between those values are consistently equal to 1, the corresponding series of values when transposed into any radix from binary to nonary (base-9) results in logarithmic ratios having no consistent value at all, in each case producing a graph showing a series of variegated peaks and troughs displaying proportional inconsistency.

These findings are previously unacknowledged by mathematicians and information scientists alike, but the import of the findings is that, while the discrete values of individual integers transposed into alternative radices will be ostensibly equal across those radices, the ratios of proportion between those values will not be preserved, as these ratios must be determined uniquely according to the range of available digits within any respective radix (0-9 in decimal, 0-7 in octal, for instance); one consequence of which of course is the variable relative frequency (or 'potentiality') of specific individual digits when compared across radices. This observation has serious consequences in terms of its implications for the logical consistency of data produced within digital information systems, as the logic of those systems generally relies upon the seamless correspondence, not only of 'integral' values when transcribed between decimal and the aforementioned radices, but ultimately upon the relations of proportion between those values.

Information Science tends to treat the translation and recording of conventional analogue information into digital format unproblematically. The digital encoding of written, spoken, or visual information is seen to have little effect on the representational content of the message. The process is taken to be neutral, faithful, transparent. While the assessment of quantitative and qualitative differences at the level of the observable world necessarily entails assessments of proportion, the digital encoding of those assessments ultimately involves a reduction, at the level of machine code, to the form of a series of simple binary (or 'logical') distinctions between '1' and '0' – positive and negative. The process relies upon a tacit assumption that there exists such a level of fine-grained logical simplicity as the basis of a hierarchy of logical relationships, and which transcends all systems of conventional analogue (or indeed sensory) representation (be they linguistic, visual, sonic, or whatever); and that therefore we may break down these systems of representation to this level – the digital level – and then re-assemble them, as it were, without corruption. Logic is assumed to operate consistently without limits, as a sort of 'ambient' condition of information systems.

In the X.cetera section I am concerned to point out however that the logical relationship between '1' and '0' in a binary system (which equates in quantitative terms with what we understand as their proportional relationship) is derived specifically from their membership of a uniquely defined group of digits limited to two members. It does not derive from a set of transcendent logical principles arising elsewhere and having universal applicability (a proposition that, despite its apparent simplicity, may well come as a surprise to many mathematicians and information scientists alike).

As the proportional relationships affecting quantitative expressions within binary are uniquely and restrictively determined, they cannot be assumed to apply (with proportional consistency) to translations of the same expressions into decimal (or into any other number radix, such as octal, or hexadecimal). By extension therefore, the logical relationships within a binary system of codes, being subject to the same restrictive determinations, cannot therefore be applied with logical consistency to conventional analogue representations of the observable world, as this would be to invest binary code with a transcendent logical potential that it simply cannot possess – they may be applied to such representations, and the results may appear to be internally consistent, but they will certainly not be logically consistent with the world of objects.

The issue of a failure of logical consistency is one that concerns the relationships between data objects – it does not concern the specific accuracy or internal content of data objects themselves (just as the variation in proportion across radices concerns the dynamic relations between integers, rather than their specific 'integral' numerical values). This means that, from a conventional scientific-positivist perspective, which generally relies for its raw data upon information derived from discrete acts of measurement, the problem will be difficult to recognise or detect (as the data might well appear to possess internal consistency). One will however experience the effects of the failure (while being rather mystified as to its causes) in the lack of a reliable correspondence between expectations derived from data analyses, and real-world events.

So that's some of what X.cetera is all about.. If you think you're 'ard enough!


Download my 165-page report
[pdf – 1.9MB]:

Download my Open Letter to the British Prime Minister & Health Secretary
[pdf – 612KB]:

The Limits of Rationality
(an important mathematical oversight)


Radical Affinity and Variant Proportion in Natural Numbers

Mind: Before & Beyond Computation

Dawkins' Theory of Memetics – A Biological Assault on the Cultural

Randomness, Non-
Randomness, & Structural


A Miscarriage of Civil Justice

The reference in the title to a 'miscarriage of civil justice' concerns the conduct of a civil legal housing possession claim brought against me by my landlord, following the landlord's realisation (beginning in 2014) that I was no longer occupying my flat on a day-to-day basis, contrary to the terms of my tenancy agreement (which stated that I must occupy the flat as my principle residence for at least six months in any year). As a reminder, I had been compelled to avoid daily occupancy of my flat following a serious attempt on my life there on 17/02/2014, when I had been exposed to the presence of an unknown lethal toxic substance understood to have been introduced to the property through a small gap between the base of the front door and the hall floor (re: Attempts on My life, or pp.88-89 of my report).

In spite of the fact that following my departure from the flat I had tried to alert the landlord, through its agent the Co-operative Development Society Ltd ('CDS'), of the reasons for my apparent non-occupancy, and of a serious risk to life at the flat due to the presence within it of a lethal toxic substance, the agent was unreceptive to these reports and responded to my perceived breach of tenancy agreement by issuing a Notice to Quit during February 2015. For various reasons this Notice was not acted upon and I managed to retain the tenancy and continued to pay the rent there. However, I had no success in persuading the police of the presence of a lethal toxic hazard at the flat, as the police were equally as unreceptive to my reports as either of the landlord's agents had been (re: Attempts on My life, or pp.89-91 of my report)1. My non-occupancy of the flat necessarily continued therefore, as I had no desire to become exposed a second time to the hazard I knew to exist within the flat, and to which I had been minimally exposed in February 2014, causing me to be ill for several weeks. This problem also inhibited any intention I may have had of trying to safely remove my belongings from the flat. In addition to that, there was some evidence of illegal entries to the flat during my absence between February 2014 and March 2015, and which had clearly not been for the purpose of removing anything from the flat. The police were similarly unreceptive to my reports to them during March 2015 of those illegal entries, and therefore maintaining my absence from the flat continued to be the only means for me to ensure avoidance of both known as well as unknown potential risks to my life within the flat.

I made further attempts during 2015 and 2016 to impress upon the landlord and its new agent MBM the very real circumstances that were preventing my occupation, and the reality that, so long as the relevant authorities would refuse to respond to reports of those circumstances with the appropriate concern, then I was powerless by myself to resolve the situation. MBM's response was eventually to issue a second Notice to Quit during December 2016. This however contained an error and so it was re-issued on 22/02/2017. Thereafter, the landlord issued its first claim for possession in the Lambeth County Court dated 13/10/2017. The sole ground of this claim was that of "non-occupation", as a breach of my tenancy agreement, as there were no rent arrears at that time.

My legal defence against that claim proceeded until the date of the trial at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court on 04/10/2018, whereupon a Possession Order was granted to the landlord. Thereafter, I was evicted from the flat on 28/01/2019, and shortly after lost possession of the entirety of the belongings I held at the flat, as I had nowhere I could store them, and was also unable to afford to pay for their storage indefinitely. Moreover, I could not take responsibility for physically removing my belongings from the flat, as that process would have exposed me to a known lethal toxic hazard. My genuine defence against the possession claim had not been heard in court however, and I spent the next two years – until December 2020 – trying to appeal the judgement of the 04/10/2018 in the London county courts. My conclusion that the conduct of my defence against the claim represents a 'miscarriage of civil justice' requires substantial support, and it would require the addition to my report of at least 100 pages of further explanation and documentary references to substantiate the claim, which I feel would be disproportionate in the context of that report.

The conduct of the entire case however, from the initial claim in October 2017 to the final judgement made at Mayor's & City of London Court dated 01/12/2020 was represented in a series of 39 email statements, sent between October 2018 and June 2021 to the Channel4 News Team in the UK, together with documentary evidence as attachments to those emails. The combined series of emails, together with their attachments, is available to download from the following link, so that the allegations of a wilful miscarriage of civil justice on behalf of certain legal entities (including the individual parties to my defence team) and of serial violations of Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights made against certain offices of the UK Ministry of Justice, may be judged on the papers themselves.2 [ZIP archive – 143MB]

Motive and method of the alleged perversion of my defence case

As discussed at the page Attempts on My life, as a consequence of the series of attempts on my life experienced since I came into possession of the first MRI scan evidence in December 2010, I had retained within my flat a collection of items suspected to contain various kinds of toxin. During a planned redecoration of the flat, the bedroom was being used temporarily as a spare-room, and within it I kept a large holdall containing numerous items routinely purchased by myself which were suspected to contain various lethal toxins, including certain items suspected to contain neurotoxins and radio-toxins (e.g., a bottle of water which was suspected to contain radioactive polonium210 ). I understand therefore that my discussion of the existence of this evidence within my report (p.85) and on this website presented a significant risk of ongoing liability to those organisations potentially implicated by that evidence, or by my associated allegations against the government and health service in the UK (since my possession of that evidence provided de facto validation of my claims of being the victim of an historical medical atrocity).

Frequently within other pages in this section, I have described how it has been a typical response from clinicians in all the areas of health service practice I have had cause to make use of in recent years, but particularly within those departments that I have alleged have covered-up the evidence of my two brain MRI scans, to treat my suspicions regarding the purpose and intent of my tonsillectomy at age five as the products of a 'delusional psychosis', as a means of distancing current clinical practice, as well as the reputation of the NHS as a whole, from the effects of a seriously damning controversy. I am not so naïve not to have anticipated this as the most likely response on behalf of those clinicians – because the responsibility involved in voicing objective assent to the possible truth-value behind those historical allegations was simply too great for any individual clinician to assume. The false assertion that the allegations were the products of a mental pathology would always suggest itself as a convenient prophylaxis by which clinicians might defer that individual responsibility – it mattered little therefore that the allegations themselves had arisen only as a careful and reasoned response to substantive medical evidence. What is important to emphasise at this point is that this same assertion of a mental pathology had likewise been typically exploited by the police as their justification for disregarding and dismissing evidence presented to them of the attempts on my life – attempts which, ironically, had been provoked as an organised clandestine response to the very real threat of a public disclosure of the substance behind my historical allegations. This symmetrical response shared between police and clinicians meant therefore that I had no effective protection either from the law or from health services against those ongoing attempts on my life.

It is important to take note therefore that in the conduct of the housing possession case against me the parties to my defence against the possession claim themselves similarly adopted, from the very beginning of my defence case, this identical set of false assertions regarding my mental health, and that those assertions were then employed, with the aid of an inexpert opinion on my mental capacity provided by my doctor, to deny me the legal capacity with which to give any instructions to my defence against the claim. I was effectively 'gagged', for the duration of the case, from making any statement in court about the very real series of attempts on my life which were nevertheless the only genuinely appreciable grounds for my apparent non-occupancy of the flat since February 2014.

In UK law, when a defendant has been assessed as lacking legal capacity, a "Litigation Friend" must be appointed to give instructions to his defence. This resulted in the Office of the Official Solicitor (a department of the Ministry of Justice) being appointed as my 'litigation friend' in the proceedings, which meant that my defence was thereafter under the control of an office of government; i.e., regardless of the inevitable conflict of interests this would entail given the context of my serious historical allegations against other offices of that Government. An expert opinion upon my legal capacity, which eventually restored legal capacity to me in May 2019, was not sought by my defence team (i.e., on the instruction of the Official Solicitor) until after the termination of the legal process which resulted in my eviction from my flat on 28/01/2019 and the irretrievable disposal of the entire contents of the flat (including the evidence of organised attempts on my life) by agents of the landlord on 04/02/2019. It is alleged therefore that the entire conduct of my defence, comprising three distinct legal entities (including the Official Solicitor's office), was one organised in bad faith and intentionally against my own interests – indeed the detailed evidence now suggests that it was in fact motivated chiefly in the interest of 'cleansing' the evidence of organised attempts on my life from the flat.

The conduct of my legal team in defence against the claim

The issue is detailed and complex – an outline of the problems in the case is presented in my first email to Channel4 News of 19/10/2018 (item 01 of Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf in the archive download); but essentially the case I have made in that series of emails is that the decision of the court on 04/10/2018 to grant possession to the claimant must be considered as the result of a miscarriage of civil justice, as it was the intended consequence of a concerted effort by the three parties to my defence team, who had contrived between them to suppress from the attention of the court any representation of the evidence in support of the genuine grounds for my non-occupation of the flat.

'Non-occupation' was the sole ground of the landlord's claim for possession. My contention is that this ground was not proven, in view of the facts that I had no other principle place of residence; that I had no choice but to not occupy the flat in order to avoid a persistent series of attempts on my life there (circumstances that were entirely beyond my control); and the fact that each of the landlord, its managing agent, and the police, had shown an absence of due concern in response to my reports to them of attempts on my life at the property.

My defence team were collectively simply averse to advancing any statement in my defence that averred even the possibility of a real existing threat to my life, electing instead for their preferred interpretation that my reports of attempts on my life were the products of a 'delusional psychosis'; and opting on that basis for a defence based solely upon mental disability criteria. This was in spite of the fact that there was a lack of available expert medical opinion to support such a defence; while there was an existing expert psychiatric opinion that had affirmed the possibility that I might have a valid reason to fear for my life (i.e., in the context of claims I made since December 2010 of being the victim of an historical medical crime).

The disability defence had a weak prospect of success, and so my allegation is that my defence team deliberately sacrificed the option of a stronger defence (in the terms described above), in order to 'throw' the chance of a successful defence against the possession claim in court; and that they acted in a concerted manner to that end, under an inducement imposed upon them externally, in the form of an organised imperative. In fact, no hearing of any defence took place at the trial on 04/10/2018, as the Official Solicitor intervened by telephone on the morning of the trial to accept a pre-trial offer made by the claimant, which foreclosed the hearing of any defence in court. This was in spite of my expressing protestations against the move – I was exactly gagged from giving any such instruction to my defence by the Official Solicitor acting as my 'litigation friend'. The result was that, following the granting of a possession order at court that morning, I was evicted from my flat on 28/01/2019, rendering me immediately homeless, and thereafter I lost possession of all of the belongings I had retained there due in large part to the intractable difficulty posed by the prospect of retrieving those belongings which I knew to contain a lethal toxic hazard. The belongings were all irretrievably disposed of by contractors of the landlord on 04/02/2019, without any specific warning of that event being given me by the landlord.

[The conduct of my defence team during 2018, prior to the trial date of 04/10/2018, is revisited later on this page, following my recent acquisition in February 2023 of crucial further evidence which now throws more light upon my allegations against the three parties to that team.]

The conduct of the courts during my efforts to appeal the judgement

In spite of my efforts during January 2019 to request that the court intervene to set aside the planned eviction, by making representations to the court to bring to its attention evidence of malfeasance in the conduct of my defence leading up to the trial, these arguments were disregarded by the court, and no reasonable stay or postponement of the eviction was permitted. Nevertheless, I continued during 2019-20 to pursue whatever litigation options remained available to me – the most recent being my late application for permission to appeal the court's decision of 04/10/2018 to grant possession to the landlord. My Appellant’s Notice was submitted to Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court on 27/08/2019 (re: item 18 of Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf in the archive download). The application was eventually transferred to the Central London County Court on 11/11/2019, after a delay of eleven weeks.

From their management of this case during 2019, it is reasonably clear that staff at both county courts deliberately invoked a series of procedural delays which succeeded in obstructing any reasonable efforts that I made to challenge, either the trial decision of 04/10/2018, or the implementation of that decision; or at least they have succeeded in unreasonably deferring the results of those efforts. This is most clearly exemplified by the court's conduct in response to my first Appellant's Notice of 27/08/2019, which appears to have been sequestered by clerks at the court for the period 28/08/2019 to 08/11/2019, until that is I submitted a complaint to the court on 07/11/2019 over the very issue. Immediately following my complaint, the court finally acknowledged the application for permission to appeal (while the court's published response window for dealing with such applications was "fifteen working days" – see items 19-21 of Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf in the archive download).

The application for permission to appeal the possession order of 04/10/2018 was the subject of a hearing by Judge Hellman at Central London County Court on 12/03/2020, to which I attended. Permission to appeal was refused at that hearing; but, in combination with the fact that I had no access to impartial legal advice, this refusal was chiefly a consequence of further subterfuge by the clerks at the court, in disrupting the fair process of my application following the court's decision to list the hearing made on 27/11/2019. Information regarding the decision to list the hearing was arbitrarily withheld from my attention by the clerks for a period of eight weeks following that decision, meaning that my preparation of the papers in support of the appeal was delayed beyond my control, with the result that I was unable to submit them before the 11/03/2020, only the day before the hearing itself. Hence, Judge Hellman had insufficient opportunity to appraise that evidence in advance of the hearing.

In the absence of legal advice, I made an ill-advised attempt to appeal Judge Hellman's decision in an application dated 06/04/2020. The appropriate response to this application by the staff at Central London County Court (according to Section 3.9 §2(a) of Practice Direction 52A of the Civil Procedure Rules)3 was to consult with a judge at that court upon the admissibility of the application, whereupon it might have been quickly established that an application to appeal specifically a decision to refuse permission made in the county court is not permissible under s.54(4) of the Access to Justice Act, 1999. The response from administrative staff at the court however, without consulting a judge at court, was to misdirect the erroneous application to the Civil Appeals Registry, which administers applications to the High Court/Court of Appeal, where it took until 18/05/2020 for the inadmissibility of the application to be determined by the Master of the Court of Appeal.

After consulting s.54(4) of the Access to Justice Act, 1999, it appeared the Act did not prohibit a second application (on revised grounds) to appeal Judge Price's original decision to grant possession to the claimant made at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court on 04/10/2018. Therefore, I resolved to submit such a second fresh application to Central London County Court on 01/06/2020. The arguments and evidence in support of this application were expanded on 12/06/2020 (the content of the latest application is contained in items 31-32 of Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf in the archive download, together with their corresponding attachments). Following these submissions, administrative staff at Central London County Court once again failed to observe correct civil procedure by diverting the application inappropriately to the Court of Appeal, without referring that application initially to a judge at the county court for a decision upon its admissibility. The Civil Appeals Registry eventually rejected the application on 09/10/2020 (as an appeal against the decision of a district judge in the county court cannot be heard in the High Court or Court of Appeal, and may only be heard in the county court itself) after itself delaying eleven weeks in referring the application to a judge. Thereafter, the application was resubmitted back to Central London County Court on 14/10/2020 (see item 35 of Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf in the archive download). The latest application makes serious allegations of a criminal nature against the three parties to my defence team (one of those parties being an office of Government) (see in particular the attachments to email 32 in Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf).

The second application was eventually heard by Judge Hellman in chambers at Mayor's & City of London Court on 26/11/2020, where he again refused permission to appeal (without any option for an oral hearing), in an order dated 01/12/2020. Since the grounds of the second application included substantive criticism of Judge Hellman's reasoning in his decision on the first application, there are reasons to doubt the Judge's impartiality in his latest decision. The entire legal process of the possession claim and my subsequent attempts to appeal its outcome then became the subject of an application to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging against the UK serial violations of Articles 6 & 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, citing the actions of various offices of the Ministry of Justice.

There are particular concerns arising out of Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court's management of this case earlier in 2019 also (see in particular items 09-12, 15, 16, & 18 from Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf in the archive download). There are specific allegations of fraud relating to the conduct of officials at the court, of the company responsible for producing court transcripts, and of a district judge at the court, in response to my application for a transcript of the hearing at court on 25/01/2019 of my initial application to set aside the warrant of possession (re: item 15 of Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf). If proven, these allegations would seriously undermine the principle of the Judiciary's independence of the Executive within the British Constitution.

Taken in its entirety, the information disclosed in the tranche of documents contained in the archive download reveals evidence of the effects of systematic corruption across the judicial system, and which has predetermined the actions, not only of the individual parties to my defence team (which included an office of the Ministry of Justice), but also those of officials at various county courts, including judges at those courts. I have argued in the various statements made in support of my applications to appeal during 2019-20, that it is only possible to comprehend a possible motivation behind such a degree of aggregated juridical malfeasance when it is viewed in the context of the enormity of my major historical claims against offices of the British Government and Health Service, and the consequent threat to national security (and in particular to the reputation of the cherished NHS) posed by the prospect of a public disclosure of the truth behind those claims. The trigger for this systematic corruption is therefore understood to have been any reference to my specific identity within the context of civil legal proceedings which presented a foreseeable risk of such a disclosure.

The conduct of my defence team during 2018 (revisited)

Prior to my two applications to ECtHR during February & May 2021 (and within those applications), one of the key grounds of all of my attempts in the UK at legal action to appeal the judgement made at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court on 04/10/2018, by which possession was granted to my landlord, was the fact that following the appointment of the Official Solicitor on 14/03/2018 to act as my 'litigation friend' in the proceedings, there had been an illegal restriction placed upon my access to the case papers, so that throughout the proceedings I was kept almost completely in the dark about the actions being taken by my defence team. The illegal restriction was maintained both by my solicitor and by my case manager at the Official Solicitor's office ('OSPT'), and it was only by virtue of this restriction that the confidence I naturally held that my solicitor would act in good faith and in the best interests of my defence was not seriously undermined well before the trial date of 04/10/2018.

I was unaware that such a general restriction was in place until the day before the trial, when the restriction was lifted with regard to a single document – a Confidential Psychiatric Report produced by the psychiatrist Dr. Chiedu Obuaya dated 16/07/2018, which followed my attendance for a psychiatric assessment by the doctor arranged by my solicitor at the offices of Philcox Gray Solicitors ('PG') on 09/06/2018. Dr. Obuaya's report entailed a list of enclosures, which revealed to me the extent of the restriction in place upon my access to the case papers.4 The restriction, which appeared to me quite arbitrary, was the subject of my complaint to the OSPT of 29/10/2018, on which date I also submitted a subject access request under the Data Protection Act to the MoJ for access to the papers in my OSPT case file.5

The OSPT's response to my complaint followed dated 22/11/2018. In her response, Mbina Mir of the OSPT claimed that the papers had been restricted from my access on purported health grounds, to avoid causing "undue stress" to me as a "protected party" in the proceedings.6 Ms Mir's response did not however explain the discrepancy highlighted in my complaint letter which meant that the restriction upon my access to Dr. Obuaya's report alone was lifted on 03/10/2018, while that upon my access to the remaining case papers listed as enclosures within that report was not lifted until 22/10/2018 (in effect, allowing me insufficient time to obtain advice and prepare an appeal against the judgment of 04/10/2018 before the expiry of the appeal window on 25/10/2018).

Both my complaint to the OSPT and the OSPT's response occurred before I had the opportunity to submit a subject access request to my GP Practice for copies of correspondence between PG and the practice following my initial appointment with PG on 08/01/2018. I submitted that request to Blackfriars Medical Practice ('BMP') by email on 10/12/2018, and thereafter I received a response by hand from my GP at an appointment with her on 12 December. My email #06 to Channel4 News of 09/01/2019 (in the archive was informed therefore by the content of BMP's response to my subject access request (re: SAR_BMP_folio.pdf, amongst the attachments to that email), and it was only in the light of that revealed correspondence that it became clear that the OSPT's restriction upon my access to the case papers was illegal, as it had flagrantly ignored the advice of my GP in her letter to PG of 13/03/2018 that there was unlikely to be any detriment to my health from my access to any of the case papers.

It is clear from the documentation that the restriction upon my access to Dr. Obuaya's report was handled inconsistently with that upon my access to the other case papers, and there are major divergences in the explanations provided over my access to that specific item between the responses from both the OSPT and PG to my individual complaints to each organisation (both responses are included in the attachments to my email #06 to Channel4 News). PG had received the psychiatric report on 16/07/2018; it was then withheld from my attention for 11 weeks until just 20 hours before the trial hearing, despite my solicitor having offered to send me a copy of the report during a telephone conversation on 01/08/2018, and my having agreed to receive it. Prior to that call, while the report was still in preparation, my solicitor had played down its importance for my defence, declaring with words to the effect that: "we need not rely upon the conclusions of the report at trial". So, even though my solicitor informed me that the report had concluded that my reports of attempts on my life were 'delusional', as her earlier statement had implied a degree of optimism regarding the remaining prospects for my defence independently of the report's conclusions, I was discouraged during August and September 2018 from being overly concerned about the impact of the psychiatrist's opinion on the outcome of the case.

I was shocked and angered by the contents of the report when I received it by email from my solicitor on 03/10/2018, following my return from Tunisia the previous day; i.e., in order to attend the trial on 04/10/2018, which had been allocated a whole day's court time. Not only had Dr. Obuaya's report arrived at its diagnosis of "Persistent Delusional Disorder" by inconsistent reasoning, and with deliberate and unreasonable disregard both to the contents of my own report and to those of an earlier expert psychiatric report (which had not excluded as a possibility the reality behind my reports of attempts on my life), but his report also made far-reaching, unnecessary, and reckless conclusions regarding my alleged 'incapacity' to retain any tenancy or to enter into a new tenancy agreement. In effect the doctor's report disqualified me from obtaining housing assistance from the local authority – it actually left little remaining option for my future accommodation other than detention in a mental health institution. It seemed to me that the report lacked objectivity and had been contrived with the express intention of minimising any prospect of my retaining my existing tenancy in the eyes of the court (I think this conclusion is unavoidable for anyone who has the misfortune to read the doctor's report).

This, in conjunction with the advice of my solicitor pre-trial that it was 'looking increasingly unlikely that we would be able to retain my existing tenancy at the trial' (in the absence of any justification or reasoning for this radical change in expectation), and hence of my defence team's intention to accept a pre-trial offer made by the claimant (thereby precluding the hearing of any evidence in court on the trial date), convinced me that this had been the intended outcome of my defence team all along, and that the entire conduct of my defence had been contrived in bad faith with the ultimate intention of 'throwing' any chance of my successfully retaining the tenancy. This conviction entailed the strong suspicion that Dr. Obuaya's psychiatric report had been arranged corruptly, as a key instrument towards the diminution of my right to retain the existing tenancy in the eyes of the court.

However, in spite of the evidence emerging post-trial of an illegal restriction upon my access to the case papers already referred to, I had no clear irrefutable evidence to support such a strong allegation regarding the motive of Dr. Obuaya's report. It was essential therefore, during the months following the judgement of 04/10/2018, and alongside my efforts to appeal that judgement itself, for me to investigate the allegation as far as possible and to submit various subject access requests to the parties concerned to try to elicit further data from them in order to throw more light upon the allegation (some of these requests have been referred to already in the foregoing discussion).

New evidence to indicate fraud in the arrangement of Dr. Obuaya's report

What was most striking in the content of Dr. Obuaya's report was the extent of his access to information contained in my entire medical record, revealing that he had somehow acquired the authority to conduct extensive keyword searches upon my GP records dating back at least as far as 1996. For a mental health consultant acting in a purely private capacity, and where the question of my guilt of any crime was not an issue, this unprecedented level of access was clearly disproportionate. The doctor had not identified the individual databases he had sourced the information from, and, as I have opted out of the sharing of my GP records on NHS national databases, there was no single source independent of my GP practice which might have supplied the information.

When I enquired with my solicitor post-trial on the subject, she suggested to me that Dr. Obuaya's access to my medical records had been sanctioned on the authority of the OSPT, while denying herself any involvement in the authorisation. My subsequent subject access request to the OSPT of 29/10/2018,7 while requesting a copy of my complete OSPT case file, had specifically referred to any items of correspondence in relation to the OSPT's authorisation for Dr. Obuaya to access my medical records.

Although the OSPT made a total of three separate responses to my subject access request between 02/05/2019 and 21/02/2020, none of those responses constitutes, individually or collectively, a copy of my complete OSPT case file, and none of the information supplied reveals any correspondence in relation to the issue of Dr. Obuaya's authority to access my medical records. The OSPT has admitted to having sequestered an unspecified number of items from my attention on the basis of the 'Legal Professional Privilege' exemption – an exemption which, in the context of the OSPT's role as my 'litigation friend', seems wholly inappropriate as it can only imply a conflict of interest for the OSPT in that role.

Due to a 6-month delay in the OSPT supplying its first response to my request, on 15/04/2019 I also submitted a subject access request to PG to request a copy of PG's letter of instructions to Dr. Obuaya in preparation for his psychiatric assessment and report, along with any other items of associated correspondence.8 The requested data however was never supplied by PG; i.e., in spite of my having complained to the Information Commissioner's Office on 19/09/2019 over the failure, and the ICO having written to the firm during November 2019 to encourage its response (ICO ref: RFA0875617)9. Following the OSPT's last response to my subject access request on 10/02/2020 therefore, my quest for further information to explain Dr. Obuaya's unprecedented level of access to my medical records remained unsatisfied.

By January 2023 I felt the time was appropriate to make a further subject access request to PG. The firm is obliged to retain case files for 6 years (i.e., in my case, until February 2025), although there is always the possibility that the firm might for whatever reason be 'wound-up' before that date, in which case I am unsure what the legal position would be regarding its retention of case files for data protection purposes.

I sent a request to the firm by email on 05/01/2023 asking for a copy of my complete defence case file, to be supplied in electronic format by email. The request was acknowledged the same day by a director at the firm with a promise to respond "as soon as possible". After 20 weeks, I have still not received a full response to this request; however, on 24 February I received a partial response in the form of: "a complete copy of the trial bundle for the hearing on 4.10.18". This was by no means a copy of my complete case file; however, as I had not been privy to the trial bundle either before or after the trial, this latest disclosure reveals that of the 42 documents listed in the trial bundle index, 10 items were previously unseen by myself, and were therefore items that had been withheld from my attention by the OSPT (i.e., under the 'Legal Professional Privilege' exemption) in its responses during 2019-20 to my subject access request to that office of 29/10/2018.

For the purposes of this specific enquiry over Dr. Obuaya’s authorisation to access my medical records, one of the 10 unseen items is of particular importance – being a letter from my solicitor at PG addressed to the practice manager at BMP dated 09/01/2018, in which she requests from the practice copies of my medical records held there. There is a further letter, also dated 09/01/2018 from my solicitor addressed specifically to my GP as instructions for my GP's proposed legal capacity assessment. Only p.1 of the second letter is previously unseen by myself, as p.2 of it had been included in Gillian Wildgoose's letter of advice to me of 21/02/2018.10 A third item previously unseen by myself is the claimant's third witness statement to the court of 15/08/2018. This item is significant to the extent that it reveals the particular value of Dr. Obuaya's report in securing and advancing the claimant's claim for possession during the months leading up to the trial.11

The purpose of GW's letter marked "URGENT" to the practice manager is to request a copy of my "full medical notes, computerised records and medical correspondence" in order to assist the firm in my defence – that is to say, a copy of my entire medical record as held by the practice. This was certainly without my consent, and although the letter claims to be accompanied by "signed authority" (it was not included with this received copy), at my initial meeting with GW on 08/01/2018, I recall that she had asked for my permission to access my medical records, to which I had declined, for the simple reason that I knew those records (in particular, those created following my request for a copy of my first Brain MRI scan in December 2010, and my subsequent complaint against Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Trust over its alleged cover-up of the evidence revealed by that scan) to contain frequent and misleading references to psychiatric diagnoses that I knew to be spurious and defamatory,12 and therefore would have been counterproductive to my need to persuade anyone in the context of my defence of the seriousness of my reports of attempts on my life as the grounds for my 'non-occupation'.

The only permission I had given to GW was for her to seek a capacity assessment from my GP – she did not persist with the request for access to my medical records following my refusal of consent for that access. It is possible that on the 08/01/2018 GW had asked me to sign my consent for the GP's capacity assessment, and it is likely that I would have signed such an authority, having no reason on that occasion of my first meeting with GW to anticipate that she would act in any way other than in good faith and with due respect to the clear distinction between my consent given in respect of the proposed capacity assessment, but declined with regard to PG's access to my medical records, at that first meeting in respect of the firm's proposals to obtain information from my GP practice.

I was therefore shocked to discover GW's letter to the practice manager in PG's recent response to my subject access request, and having had no previous knowledge of GW's aggressive and disproportionate request to BMP for access to my full medical records, it was not clear to what extent BMP had complied with it. The practice could not however have received any genuine authorisation for the request. For this reason, on 17/04/2023, I submitted a further subject access request by email to BMP asking specifically for a copy of the "signed authority" referred to in GW's letter. Having received no response from the practice by 05/05/2023, I repeated the request by email that day.

On 11 May 2023, I received a response by email from BMP including an attached copy of GW's letter to the practice manager of 09/01/2018 asking for a full copy of my patient file, together with a document displaying my signature being the purported "signed authority” for the request, although the form does not specify exactly what requested information the authorisation relates to. BMP's response includes the statement that: "A paper copy of your full records were sent Special Delivery to Philcox Gray by Royal Mail on 17/01/2018".

So my four-year-long dismay over the degree of Dr. Obuaya's unprecedented access to my GP-maintained records is now relieved, in spite of the dogged resistance since 2018 amongst the parties concerned to disclosing any information that might have thrown light on that question. It seems to me that that resistance can only be explained in terms of the awareness on behalf of the parties concerned that PG's request for access to my full medical records had been improperly authorised; and that GW had exploited an ambiguity between two distinct form of consent, one given, the other declined, in order to foist the former fraudulently in place of the latter as a form of discrete sanction for the declined request.

BMP's revelation also throws into perspective the degree of dissembling implied in the advice given me by GW post-trial that Dr. Obuaya's access to my medical records had been granted on the authority of the OSPT, as GW's request to BMP in her letter of 09/01/2018 was made even before my GP had offered any opinion upon my legal capacity (dated 12/01/2018), and therefore prior to the engagement of the OSPT as my 'litigation friend' in the proceedings. As PG were not at the time of GW's two letters to BMP of 09/01/2018 entitled to pre-judge the conclusions of my GP's proposed capacity assessment, what possible justification could the firm have had, i.e., other than GW's intention to act against my best interests, for such a disproportionate and aggressive demand for access to my full GP records?

Questions remain to be asked therefore, given that BMP were aware of my sensitivity over the issue of the content of my recent GP-created notes (re: Note 12 below), over the degree of alacrity shown by the practice in its willingness to comply with PG's abnormal request without first respectfully seeking my explicit unambiguous approval of it. The practice made no attempt to contact me during the period 09-17/01/2018 in order to verify my authorisation of the request or its content. It is important to point out that BMP had specifically overlooked each of GW's letters to the practice of 09/01/2018 in its response to my earlier subject access request to it of 10/12/2018, in which I had requested: "Copies of all correspondence sent and received between Blackfriars Medical Practice and Philcox Gray Solicitors, SE1, following the appointment of that firm on 8 January 2018". The response received by hand from my GP at an appointment on 12/12/2018 included only four items of correspondence – three from March 2018 and one from August that year.13

With regard to the witness statements provided to the court by Melanie Brennan at MBM (Edward Henry House Co-operative's managing agent from early 2015 onwards), in MB's first witness statement of 04/12/2017, she had not disclosed her awareness of my two emails to Nadra Ahmed at CDS (the Co-op's managing agent pre-2015) of 03/03/2014 & 13/05/2014, in which I had expressed coherent reasons for my 'non-occupation' at that time, and had explained that these were out of my control (the emails were similarly disregarded, both by NA in her subsequent correspondence to me during 2014, and also by my defence counsel in his statement of my defence of 29/03/2018; as well as in his amended defence of 04/09/2018).14 It appears therefore that, at least until after the completion of Dr. Obuaya's psychiatric report, there was policy shared between both the claimant and my defence team simply to disavow the existence of those emails; since objectively, in any version of my defence which sought to act sincerely in my best interests, it was crucial for that defence to emphasise the claimant's evident disregard for my attempts to inform it over the circumstances of my 'non-occupation' (i.e., whether the content of those emails was considered to be 'delusional' or otherwise), and which had pre-empted NA's letter to me of 12/08/2014 in which the claimant first raised its concerns over the problem. In para. 7.1 on p.2 of MB's first witness statement, she states that "No contact was made by the Defendant" in response to NA's letter, which is a blatant disavowal of my two earlier emails, and of my simultaneous telephone calls to NA at the time of those emails. However, this crucial element of my defence was overlooked in the defence counsel's response to it in para. 5(ii) on p.2 of each version of his statement of my defence.

In MB's third witness statement of 15/08/2018,15 she included repeat copies of some of the 2014 correspondence from NA to myself that were included in her first statement, but in addition she now includes as exhibits my two emails to NA from March and May 2014, and makes explicit reference to them (re: paras. 8 & 9 on p.2); but only because it was by that time considered strategically safe to do so; since the statement later relies upon Dr. Obuaya's Confidential Psychiatric Report to dismiss the reports made in those earlier communications as 'delusional', while also exploiting the reckless further conclusions of the doctor's report with regard to my inability to maintain a tenancy or to enter into a tenancy agreement; i.e., in order to weaken any remaining right I might have had in the eyes of the court to retain the existing tenancy (re: paras. 17-20 on pp.3-4). It is clear therefore that the major import of Dr. Obuaya's report upon the proceedings was the extent to which it figured as an instrument to be exploited by the claimant towards the ultimate success of the claimant's possession claim. Indeed, the report could not have served the claimant's interests better if it had been ordered directly by the claimant according to its own bespoke instructions.

27 May 2023


  1. This was a social housing tenancy I had occupied since May 2009 provided by the landlord Edward Henry House Co-operative Ltd, London SE1. I am uncertain of the precise date, but the role of the landlord's managing agent changed hands from CDS to a company called 'MBM' during the early months of 2015 – I became informed of this change during April 2015. [back]
  2. The main ZIP archive ( contains the series of 39 email statements in the form of a PDF folio (Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf), with their listed attachments as a series of accompanying numbered and dated individual ZIP files. For reasons of confidentiality, certain of the attachments listed in the emails have been excluded from the publication, and there are frequent redactions to some of the included material. This is both for reasons of confidentiality and also because some of the material is simply incorrect and misleading (including sections of my own statements), or otherwise potentially defamatory to myself or to others. I should point out that I have received no considered response to any of my emails from the Channel4 News Team, only its email auto-responses. [back]
  3. Civil Procedure Rules Committee, CPR – Practice Direction 52A – Appeals, Section 3.9 §2(a) – [back]
  4. See my first email to Channel4 News of 19/10/2018 for more detail – email #01 of Emails_C4-News_folio.pdf in the archive: [back]
  5. See my email #03 to Channel4 News of 05/11/2018 & relevant attachments in the archive: [back]
  6. See the attachments to my email #06 to Channel4 News of 09/01/2019 in the archive: for a copy of this letter, as well as the email itself for an analysis of the OSPT's response. [back]
  7. See item 07 of OS_MoJ_corres(1-7).pdf, amongst the attachments to my email #03 to Channel4 News of 05/11/2018, in the archive: [back]
  8. See item 05 of PhilcoxGray_folio.pdf, amongst the attachments to my email #11 to Channel4 News of 30/04/2019, in the archive: [back]
  9. See my emails #19, #20, & #22 to Channel4 News of 06/09/2019, 03/11/2019, & 12/12/2019, together with their attachments, in the archive: [back]
  10. See the attachments to my email #01 to Channel4 News of 19/10/2018 in the archive: – p.2 of GW's letter to my GP of 09/01/2018 is included as p.10 of the file: G.Wildgoose_advice_21.2.18.pdf. [back]
  11. Having recently acquired these items, they do not feature in the archive download of material frequently referenced above. The items may be accessed in the form of a PDF folio at the following link: Disclosure_2023_folio.pdf. GW's letter to the practice manager is item 02 of the folio. In addition to the previously unseen items described in this paragraph, the folio includes a copy of the claimant's first witness statement to the court of 04/12/2017 (item 01) by way of a comparison with the unseen third statement (item 04), as well as a copy of my subject access request to BMP of 10/12/2018 (item 05). [back]
  12. For instance, my attendances at my previous GP practice Waterloo Health Centre between November 2011 and November 2013 were repeatedly categorised within the GP-created notes there under the heading of "Paranoid schizophrenia (Review)", despite that not being the cause of my attendances at the practice, and in spite of the absence of any consistent diagnosis to indicate that I had ever suffered with that condition. These were the subject of a complaint I raised to NHS England on 12/02/2014 alleging defamation against doctors at the practice, and which resulted in my change of GP registration to BMP in early 2014. BMP were aware of my sensitivity over this issue, as I had provided the practice with a copy of my complaint to NHS England, and I had even come to an agreement with BMP following my registration there for it not to continue to reproduce these false categorisations of my attendances at the practice in its own future note-making. [back]
  13. My subject access request to BMP of 10/12/2018 is item 05 of Disclosure_2023_folio.pdf. BMP's response to that request of 12/10/2018 is available as: SAR_BMP_folio.pdf, found amongst the attachments to my email #06 to Channel4 News of 09/01/2019 in the archive: [back]
  14. All of the documents listed in this paragraph (with the exception of Dr. Obuaya's report) are to be found amongst the attachments to my email #02 to Channel4 News of 24/10/2018 in the archive: – the two statements of my defence are items 'e' & 'e2' of the folio: CasePapers(a-g).pdf within those attachments. [back]
  15. Re: item 04 of Disclosure_2023_folio.pdf. [back]

back to top ^