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 that 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 numerical values, i.e., when those 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 otherwise 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!

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]


Download my 167-page
report: Special Operations
in Medical Research

[pdf – 1.88MB]:

Download my Open Letter to the British Prime Minister & Health Secretary
[pdf – 363KB]:

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 Selectivity


Applications for Political Asylum

Following the experiences at my flat in London on 17/02/2014 (see the page: Attempts on My Life; or pp.90-91 of my report), and my immediate departure from the UK on that date, I travelled overland across Europe, eventually arriving in Turkey during the first week of March; staying there initially on a tourist visa. In June of that year I needed to return to the UK to renew my passport, and following that I returned straightaway to Turkey on a fresh passport, arriving on 23 June, and obtained a fresh tourist visa on my arrival. Thereafter I remained in Turkey for the full 90-day period, and beyond. A short time after the expiry of that visa, during the first week of October 2014, I attended the office of the Immigration Department in Istanbul and made an application for political asylum in the Turkish Republic, on the grounds of having been a victim of a medical and state crime in the UK; of the wholesale suppression of the evidence of that crime amongst all UK institutions and regulatory bodies, including the police; and the clandestine attempts on my life there in response to my efforts to bring to light that evidence.

At the same time, I submitted copies of the Brain MRI and MRI Head scans discussed on other pages in this section to a total of four separate hospitals in Istanbul. I then notified the Immigration Dept. of the contact details of the Neurology Depts. at the four hospitals. Following these actions the Immigration Dept. accepted my application, granting me refugee status during November 2014, and following this I received some free medical attention from two of the hospitals. The purpose of this was really to exclude the possibility that I might have any incipient health problem requiring urgent medical treatment. There was no discussion between any doctor and myself at either hospital in which a doctor explicitly confirmed to me in person that the MRI scans revealed evidence of the illicit implants I have referred to in the scan images reproduced in the pages linked above. I judged that the key to this process was discretion, and I did not feel it was appropriate to try to force that kind of opinion from the doctors, who would thereby be compelled either to lie, or to expose themselves to extreme personal vulnerability. However, I think it is reasonable to assume that such corroboration had taken place discretely between one or more of the hospitals and the Immigration Dept.; for otherwise it is most likely that, in the absence of such corroboration, the Immigration Dept. would have rejected my application for asylum on the grounds that it was frivolous and unfounded (i.e., for a citizen of an EU member state), inundated as Turkey was at this time with asylum applications from Syrian refugees.

In this context, I think it is highly significant that the British Prime Minister made an impromptu solo visit to the Turkish President early in December 2014. The arrangement appears to have been rather exceptional – it did not attract the fanfare of a formal state visit. Although it occurred at the time of a serious escalation in the Syrian conflict, and an efflux of refugees from Syria into Turkey and Europe, there were at this time other diplomatic missions from the EU and UN (rather than from the heads of individual member states) to Turkey, ostensibly with regard to the Syrian and Kurdish questions. There was no explicit justification given, as far as I am aware, for the Prime Minister’s exceptional visit. There is considerable room for speculation therefore over the true purpose of that visit.

I remained as a refugee in Istanbul until March 2015. Throughout this period there was nothing to encourage me of the prospect of actually obtaining medical corroboration of the evidence I had submitted to the hospitals in Istanbul. In February 2015, I received information that a Notice to Quit had been served on my flat in London. In addition to that, there were indications of fraudulent activity in one of my UK bank accounts. Therefore, in order to protect my tenancy and the property in my flat, and also to obtain new cards from my bank, I had no choice but to return to the UK. The Immigration Dept. warned me that I would have to relinquish my refugee status if I wished to leave Turkey (I am subsequently informed that this is not in concordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Turkey is a contracting party). However, as I still had no guarantee of obtaining any explicit expert corroboration of the MRI scan evidence by remaining in Turkey, and as I faced the prospect of remaining there without any control of my bank account, I was basically forced to do so.

The circumstances upon my return to the UK on 07/03/2015 and the events of the following eleven months are in part reported in Attempts on My Life; and on pp.91-94 of my report. In response to the resurgence of attempts on my life during January 2016 described there, and the apparently increased desperation behind those attempts, I was forced to depart the UK once more on 08/02/2016. I travelled overland from London to Milan and then took a flight to Istanbul, hoping to resume my earlier application for asylum there. Upon arriving however I discovered that my entry to Turkey was now banned as a consequence of having ‘relinquished’ my earlier refugee status, although the ban was not explained to me in those specific terms. I telephoned the Immigration Office while being held at the airport, but there seemed to be no possibility of an appeal against the exclusion.

I was deported from Istanbul back to Milan, from where I travelled to Rome, and then took a flight to Tunis, where I stayed for the next eleven weeks, in relative sanctuary, and with some chance to recover from the effects of the attempts on my life in the UK.

During the periods of my stays in Turkey and Tunisia, I had experienced an almost complete absence of the attempts on my life that were so universally and persistently a problem for me across the whole of mainland Europe. The understanding I arrived at was that the organised clandestine forces (for the sake of argument, I will refer to them as ‘mafia’ forces), widely contracted with the task of my elimination across Europe, did not have the customary presence, or the logistical and distributive reach, within these mainly Muslim populations to effect their plans. This meant that I was able to survive, that is to eat and drink food products normally, without needing to exercise the extreme caution and preliminary testing that had been so essential to my survival at home.

I was limited to the terms of a tourist visa in Tunisia, implying that I could remain there for a maximum of 90 days. To attempt an application for asylum in Tunisia would have meant approaching the office of UNHCR – an eventuality that I had avoided in Turkey (as Turkey has its own legal mechanism independent of UNHCR), and which I anyway thought it best to try to avoid at this point in time. It was during this stay in Tunisia, in April 2016, that I submitted my formal complaints to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), over the regulatory conduct of the UK Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman. The substance of my complaint was the apparent complicity of the PHSO in the alleged cover-ups of the evidence of my MRI scans at two major London NHS Trusts – complaints over which to this day I have received no acknowledgement either from the Commissioner or from the OHCHR.1

Asylum Application in Norway – May 2016

I left Tunisia on 21 May 2016, taking a ferry to Sicily. Thereafter, I travelled north through Europe overland in the direction of Norway, intending to make an experimental application for asylum there, which I did at the end of May 2016.

Despite having given the Norwegian Immigration Dept. (‘UDI’) ample cause to understand why the exceptionally serious and unprecedented nature of my claims against the UK Government meant that there was no effective prospect for the resolution of those claims by appeals to national institutions, and that consequently I had no protection from the law in the UK against a persistent clandestine threat to my life there, the UDI rejected my application on the principle that it was “obviously unfounded”, in view of my citizenship of an EU member state (a reactionary decision reflecting this rather chauvinistic policy shared between the so-called “safe” states of the EU and its affiliates – one that the Turkish Immigration Dept. had avoided in light of its respect, I assume, for the MRI evidence). This decision was subject to an appeal, pending the outcome of which I did not enjoy the protection of the Norwegian Government. The appeal was conducted following my departure from Norway therefore, and in view of the rather half-hearted and cautious position toward the case adopted by the Norwegian lawyer appointed by the UDI to represent me in the proceedings, the result of the appeal (given on 25/08/2016) was only to reinforce the original judgement to reject my application.

The Norwegian decision was essentially a prophylactic one, by a government department unwilling to take ownership of the political import of my exceptional claims against the government of one of its economic associates, and could only be sustained with disregard to the content of my April 2016 formal complaint to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights over the regulatory conduct of the UK Health Service Ombudsman (a copy of which had been supplied to the UDI in its entirety). The exceptional content of that complaint ought to have given the UDI reason to suspend its normal expectations over EU citizens’ access to justice by appeals made through their own national institutions.

I left Norway at the end of the first week of June 2016, following the initial rejection of my asylum application. I spent the next five weeks travelling overland through Eastern Europe, spending time in Romania, Moldova, and Poland, where at least I could survive relatively cheaply. In these countries, as might have been expected, I started again to experience attempts on my life through the ‘traditional’ method of indirect poisoning, meaning that it became once more important for me to keep changing my location on a daily basis. The implication here is that my movements were being constantly monitored, so that local organised criminal networks could be alerted to my presence in their region, and promptly engaged in the task of my elimination. I no longer had the financial resources to sustain this behaviour for any length of time. At the same time I seemed to have run out of options for seeking asylum in countries immediately outside the borders of Europe. Therefore, I determined I had no choice but to return to the UK to try to make my case more vocally at home. I returned from Krakow to London by a combination of trains and buses in mid-July 2016.

The events following my return during the next three months are related in Attempts on My Life; or on pp.95-96 of my report. Due to the apparently heightened urgency behind the attempts on my life in October 2016, and the circumstance that I could no longer safely leave my luggage unattended in the UK, I left the UK again on 17/10/2016, travelling overland via Spain to Morocco; once again seeking the relative sanctuary of a Muslim country; arriving there on 20/10/2016.

An Approach to UNHCR in Rabat, Morocco – December 2016

I visited the International Polyclinic in Rabat, giving them copies of my MRI scans, hoping that I would be able to elicit from them some form of medical opinion in support of my claims with which to support an application for asylum in Morocco (in particular, with regard to the problem in my left shoulder, which had been refused assessment or treatment in the UK – see the page: C-Spine MRI Scan (July 2020); or pp.72-82 of my report). After making enquiries at the Moroccan Immigration Office, I learned that I would need to approach the office of UNHCR in Rabat to apply for refugee status determination under UNHCR procedures. I attended the UNHCR office during November 2016 and was given an appointment to be registered as an asylum seeker on 09/12/2016. However, money I had been expecting to receive into my bank account whilst in Morocco had not been paid, leaving me stranded with insufficient funds to pay for accommodation, and unable either to afford the fare back to the UK. I had no choice but to borrow money from the British Consulate in Rabat to pay for a flight back to the UK in order to sort out my finances; meaning that I would not be able to attend for the registration appointment on 09/12/2016. I returned to the UK by plane on 02/12/2016, courtesy of a loan from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

My Second Approach to UNHCR Rabat – October 2017

The events in the UK following my return and prior to my next departure in September 2017 are related in Attempts on My Life; or on pp.96-97 of my report. In late September, I travelled by bus to Paris, and from there took a plane to Cairo, Egypt, arriving there on 28/09/2017. My intention was to attend the office of UNHCR in Cairo, to repeat the earlier aborted asylum application made in Rabat the previous year. The location of the Cairo office is completely opaque to anyone unfamiliar with the city, buried as it is among the backstreets of October City. When I eventually managed to locate the UNHCR office, during the first week of October, it was completely inundated with refugees apparently from sub-Saharan and East Africa. The two officers I spoke to were clearly unprepared to receive an application from a British refugee there (in spite of the grounds for my application being completely authentic) advising that in view of my declared need for medical assessment I might have a better reception if I returned to UNHCR in Rabat instead (the officer also informed me that my previous asylum application in Turkey was unfairly terminated simply for the reason that I needed to return temporarily to the UK). I could appreciate that the office there seemed completely overstretched, so I did not try to insist against their advice, resolving instead to leave Cairo and head for Morocco once more.

I took a flight from Cairo to Casablanca on 10/10/2017 and thereafter continued by train to Rabat the same day. On the following day I visited the office of UNHCR and was given a registration form and told to return to the office with the completed form in a few days to register my application. I returned there on 13 October with the completed form, together with a written statement explaining the reasons for my asylum application.2 There was a preliminary meeting with a female officer during which I gave a verbal report of the contents of my statement, which she notated onto a computer. I was given a certificate of registration as an asylum seeker and told to go away and await the office contacting me by email (I had no fixed address in Morocco) with a date for a formal interview.

After leaving the UNHCR office, I noticed that there were two distinct errors in the details of my identity recorded upon the registration certificate: i) my name was recorded spelled as “JONES, Micheal Stanley”, rather than its correct form of JONES, Michael Stanley; and: ii) my date of birth was recorded as “16-04-1961”, rather than the correct date of 17-04-1961. It seemed unlikely to me that this coincidence of two distinct errors in the details of my identity could have arisen as an innocent mistake. After all, the circumstances of my asylum application were exceptional and extraordinary, and, in view of the fact that it was unlikely there was any precedent for a British citizen seeking political asylum with UNHCR in Rabat, it seemed more likely that the errors had occurred as part of an attempt to obscure the fact of my application from detection by external agencies; although it was less clear to me at that time the motivation behind this concealment.

I did not address the errors in my registration certificate to the office in Rabat immediately for the reason that I was not staying in Rabat and frequently had difficulty in making contact with that office by telephone. However, during the two-week period following the date of my registration I was surprised to experience several attempts upon my life in Morocco of a similar nature to the attempts I had previously experienced in the UK and Europe; i.e., by methods of indirect poisoning. For the first time then, the organisation of attempts on my life had managed to assert itself within a predominantly Muslim population, where I had previously enjoyed relative sanctuary.

As the entire substance of the protection offered by my certification as an asylum seeker in Morocco depended upon the agreement of the details of my identity as recorded upon the certificate given me by UNHCR Rabat with the details of my identity shown on my passport, in view of these new attempts upon my life I became increasingly suspicious about the motivation behind the errors recorded upon the certificate. Had any of the attempts on my life been successful, then there need have been no correlation made with the fact of my asylum application (with its associated reports of attempts on my life by poisoning), since the person recorded as that asylum seeker did not exist as such. Hence, under these circumstances, the event of my death abroad need not had have attracted any unwanted controversy.

I wrote a letter of formal complaint to UNHCR Rabat dated 30/10/20173, and returned to the office on that date with the intention of delivering the letter and also demanding a corrected copy of the registration certificate to reflect the true details of my identity. My letter of complaint was intended to address UNHCR’s failure to process my application for asylum with the urgency it required (in view of the pressing medical issues involved, and also in view of my recent reports to the office by telephone of attempts on my life whilst in Morocco). In the context of my remarks upon the misrepresentation of the details of my identity on the registration certificate, p.5 of the complaint alleges UNHCR’s complicity by default (at least) in the organisation of attempts on my life in Morocco.

In view of these emerging suspicions, prior to attending UNHCR to deliver my complaint, I had made a photocopy of the false certificate to retain for future reference. When I arrived at the office I was received by one of the G4S security staff. I told him my purpose was to obtain a corrected certificate and showed him the certificate with the incorrect identity details along with my passport. He told me to wait and returned after a short while with the person, whose name I am unaware of, but whom I believe is a Moroccan national, and whom I understand occupies a supervisory role at the UNHCR Rabat office.

I showed this person the incorrect certificate, pointing out the two errors, and asked him to provide me with a correct one. He asked that I give him the certificate so that he could find my registration and supply me with an amended one. At that point I was wary of handing over the original certificate (in view of my suspicions), as I felt sure it would not be returned to me, so I offered him the photocopy, suggesting that when he gave me the new certificate and returned my copy of the old one, I would then give him the original false certificate. He appeared to misunderstand me, stating that he would give me a new certificate along with a copy of the new one as well. I stressed that I wished to retain my copy of the original certificate with the incorrect identity details. He seemed unsettled, and was unsympathetic to my wish to retain my copy of the certificate. This tended to reinforce my suspicion that the errors on the original certificate had not been made accidentally.

I gave him my copy of the false certificate together with my passport. He went off leaving me to wait in the security office immediately inside the UNHCR building to return after 5-10 minutes with a newly printed, signed and sealed certificate showing my corrected identity details. The new certificate showed the revised date of 30 October 2017, but had the same case and dossier numbers as the certificate originally given me on 13 October. He also held in his hand a copy of the new certificate (it was clear he had not retained my copy of the old one to return to me). He handed me the new certificate and demanded the old one in return. I declined to give him the old certificate since he had not returned my copy of it, as I had specifically requested, and it was clear to me that he was unwilling to do so. He threatened that he would not return my passport to me unless I gave him the old certificate. I repeated that I would not give him the old certificate until he returned my copy of it. He was intractable and, as I was sorting the papers I held in my hand, he violently snatched the plastic sleeve containing the old certificate (plus another document of mine unconnected with UNHCR) from me, saying angrily “GIVE ME the certificate!”. He then turned to make off with it. I tried to grab the documents back from him but was intercepted by two G4S security staff who restrained me. I was then forced to leave the building.

From outside the building I asked the security staff to return my passport. I also asked that I could speak with the female officer who had first received me when I attended UNHCR a few days prior to my registration, so that I could submit my complaint letter to her. That officer came outside to see me a little later (I was not allowed back inside the building). She accepted my letter of complaint; however, she was unreceptive to my report of what had just occurred between the supervisor and myself and I did not succeed in my request to get my copy of the old certificate returned to me. Neither did I succeed in getting back the other document held in the plastic sleeve which the supervisor had snatched from me.

Since I merely wished to retain my copy of the certificate given me on 13 October, and not the original certificate itself, the supervisor’s behaviour was aggressive, rude, and tyrannical. In the context of my registration as an asylum seeker, it was completely unacceptable. I am now without any copy of the original false certificate, on which there were errors in my recorded identity details that I allege were not made accidentally. The outrageous behaviour of the supervisor in response to my efforts to retain a copy of the false certificate adds indisputable weight to the allegation that the certificate originally given me on 13 October was material evidence of UNHCR’s attempt to conceal the fact of my asylum application from detection by external agencies; and is indicative of fraudulent and corrupt behaviour by an employee or employees of that office.

Although UNHCR Rabat has acknowledged its receipt of my formal complaint dated 30/10/2017, since that acknowledgement I have received no further correspondence from that office to indicate that it has any intention to formally address the complaint.4

On 10/11/2017, while still in Morocco, I sent an email to UNHCR Rabat pointing out its obligation (in view of the pressing medical issues involved) to treat my application under Accelerated RSD Processing, according to the requirements set out in Sections 3.4 & 4.6 of UNHCR’s publication Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination Under UNHCR’s Mandate. The RSD Team in Rabat replied by email on 23 November with an appointment for refugee status determination scheduled for 14 February 2018.5 The implied three-month delay was indicative of that Team’s disregard for the arguments made on pages 6-7 of my letter of complaint with regard to the urgency of the medical issues detailed there, and of my need for immediate access to appropriate health assessment and care. I should point out that UNHCR Rabat’s corrupt handling of my asylum application had only facilitated the circumstance of my further exposure to attempts on my life by poisoning whilst in Morocco, and has therefore exacerbated the accumulated risk to my health through continued exposure to non-fatal doses of toxicity.

As was clear from the general reticence of UNHCR Rabat in response to my complaint (I have yet received no considered response to that complaint), and from its refusal to respond with appropriate urgency to the medical issues involved, I now had no more effective sanctuary in Morocco than I had at home or across Europe. It seems that during the year between my two approaches to UNHCR Rabat, European ‘mafia’ forces had taken steps to enhance their influence there – an expansion which it is conceivable was motivated partly in anticipation of my prospective return to renew my asylum application in Rabat. In view of this and also in view of the consequent risk that I might simply be abducted and ‘disappeared’ whilst in Morocco, I resolved to leave and return back to the UK once more, which I did by bus and ferry on 24/11/2017.

On 29/12/2017, I made a formal complaint by email to the UNHCR Inspector General in Geneva alleging misconduct and corruption against an employee or employees of the office in Rabat, in view of the treatment I received at that office on 30/10/2017. I received a brief acknowledgement of my complaint by email from the Inspector General’s office (‘IGO’) dated 04/01/2018; but to this date have received no further response from that office.

On 11/02/2018, three days prior to the scheduled appointment for RSD interview at UNHCR Rabat, I sent an email to that team notifying them of my absence from Morocco and hence of my inability to attend the interview. I asked that they postpone the assessment while keeping the application open, pending the outcome of my formal complaint to the UNHCR Inspector General.

On 26/04/2018, sixteen weeks following its acknowledgement email, and in the absence of any further communication from the Inspector General’s office, I sent them an email requesting a progress report on their investigation, and an indication of when the complaint might be resolved.6 After what is now 44 months I have received no acknowledgement or response of any kind whatsoever to that enquiry, while my complaint is now four years old. In their email to me of 04/01/2018, the IGO had acknowledged merely an allegation of “inappropriate behaviour” in my complaint. My enquiry of 26/04/2018 reminded the IGO that the complaint’s chief allegation is that of corruption, in addition to that of inappropriate behaviour. Could it be that the implicit irrefutability of the corruption allegation suggested by my complaint is the reason for the IGO’s complete inertia and silence over the matter since my email of 26/04/2018?

27 December 2021

back to top ^


  1. A copy of my letter of complaint to the OHCHR (excluding the archives of correspondence listed as enclosures in that letter) may be accessed at: [back]
  2. My statement in support of my application to UNHCR Rabat is available as item 1 of the PDF folio of documents relating to my asylum application in Morocco: [back]
  3. My complaint to UNHCR Rabat is available as item 2 of the same PDF folio. [back]
  4. See the email exchange listed as item 4 in the same PDF folio. [back]
  5. My email of 10/11/2017 is listed as item 5 in the same PDF folio. The response from the RSD Team on 23/11/2017 is part of the email exchange listed as item 6. UNHCR’s publication: Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination Under UNHCR’s Mandate is available at: [back]
  6. My complaint to the UNHCR Inspector General and the IGO’s acknowledgement are available as items 7 & 8 of the aforementioned PDF folio. My email of 11/02/2018 to the RSD Team in Rabat is part of an email exchange listed as item 6. My email to the IGO’s office of 26/04/2018 seeking an update on the progress of their investigation is listed as item 9. [back]