[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]

Attempts on My Life (2010-2024)

On pp.84-87 of my report, I have described how in November 2010, following a period of several years during which I had feigned a withdrawal of my earlier allegations against members of my family (that they had benefitted financially from my victimisation as a child to a fraudulent tonsillectomy operation), I intentionally provoked both my mother and my sister with a renewal of the same allegations. This resulted, during December 2010, in their conspiring to orchestrate an attempt on my life. The misconduct of the Lambeth Police in response to my reports of this attempt resulted in the complaint detailed in the page: Complaints to the Metropolitan Police & IPCC.

At approximately the same time, I had made a subject access request to St Thomas’ Hospital Information Governance Dept. for a copy of the Brain MRI scan originally conducted at St Thomas’ Radiology Dept. in October 2008. My receipt of the copy during December 2010 would transpire to be the point at which I first obtained access to any prima facie evidence that would confirm the basis of my historical allegations about the event of my ‘tonsillectomy’ in 1967. Coinciding with this, during the two-week period leading up to New Year 2010/11, and before actually receiving the copy of the scan from the hospital, I started to experience other attempts on my life, in the form of indirect attempts at poisoning, in various food products I purchased, cigarettes, and bottled water. It was clear that these attempts were highly sophisticated and organised, were unconnected with any contemporaneous threat posed by members of my family, and that they emanated indirectly from the broader institutional and/or corporate bodies potentially implicated in the allegations I had made. I understood at the time that there would have been a range of high profile institutions (not least that of Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust) concerned to prevent at all costs any public disclosure of the evidence of my Brain MRI scan – at that point in time, the only prima facie evidence in support of my historical allegations yet to have emerged.

The fact that certain products I purchased from various local stores appeared (astonishingly) to contain poison suggests several things:

1. That there was a degree of determination and preparedness behind attempts to assassinate me which can only be understood as a form of organised imperative, exercised with ultimate power and influence, and with unlimited resources.
2. There was a degree of foreknowledge of the shops that I frequented, and of the kinds of products that I usually purchased, as well as of my immediate movements, in terms of exactly when I would be at a particular store.
3. There was such a degree of penetration of local businesses by organised criminals contracted with this undertaking, that such criminality could be induced and mandated within the management and employees of the stores at short notice.
4. That the reasons behind the planned assassination obviated the use of any ‘conventional’ method of killing, such as by shooting – in other words, it would be problematic if I should die by violent means, rather than by means which could be interpreted publicly as ‘self-inflicted’, ‘accidental’, or as ‘natural causes’.

Until I lost possession of my flat in January 2019, I had retained numerous items in my possession that were suspected to contain various kinds of poison, collected between December 2010 and February 2014, including a bottle of water, which I strongly suspected to contain a solution of radioactive polonium-210. I had consumed literally a few drops of the water, being habituated at this time to taste-testing everything I consumed, and was able to distinguish, after researching the toxic effects experienced as a result of that exposure, that it was likely to have been poisoned with a radioactive substance – polonium-210 has recently been employed in other assassinations.¹

I made several attempts to report these events to the police, both at police stations and on the telephone. On each occasion however the police simply dismissed outright the possibility of a genuine attempt to poison me, refused to accept any poisoned product as evidence, and generally dismissed my reports as ‘probably delusional’. A call handler on the ‘101’ service even suggested that I pour the water suspected to contain polonium “down the sink”.

During December 2010 I visited St Thomas’ Hospital Accident & Emergency Dept. on three separate occasions with symptoms of mild poisoning, the last of these being on 31 December, following my minimal consumption of the poisoned water. On each of these occasions I had managed to avoid consuming any fatal dose of poison, so that during my attendance at the hospital the symptoms were not immediately apparent to an external observer, and these visits were largely attempts on my part to obtain some biochemical evidence, through blood or urine tests, of these attempts on my life. On each visit to St Thomas’ however the doctor assigned to me made reference to the online summary of my SLaM mental health record, on which was recorded my period of supervision by the START Team (see p.48 of my report), and which alerted them to the suggestion that my complaints of poisoning were delusional. Consequently, they felt no obligation to take these complaints seriously, refused to make any blood or urine tests, and referred me instead to mental health services.

In view of the fact that my reports of attempts on my life were being persistently spurned both by the police and subsequently by health services, and despite being in possession of evidence that would have proved attempts of poisoning, it became clear from these experiences that any recourse to the police or to medical services was useless for me, against what was becoming an insistent threat to my life. Ironically, only by succumbing to a fatal or near-fatal dose of poison would I have had any chance of impressing upon the police or health services the reality of these attempts. Therefore, I saw the necessity to urgently vacate my flat, which I did on 01/01/2011.

When I returned to my flat six weeks later I discovered that my locks had been tampered with, as though they had been expertly picked but leaving them stiff and slightly damaged. It also appeared that certain consumable items I had left in the flat may have been poisoned, as after taste-testing a selection of these I experienced symptoms of an immediate disturbing increase in heart rate which, had I continued to consume the product in normal amounts, I suspect would have resulted in heart failure. Since my experiences before New Year 2010/11, every product I ate or drank had to be tested in gradually increasing amounts, starting with the merest taste (alternatively, with certain products, I would make initial tests on the skin on the inside of my wrist). On numerous occasions since December 2010 the symptom experienced from the oral presence of a tiny amount of various products was just such a disturbing increase in heart rate, to which I would respond by washing my mouth urgently, and consuming large doses of vitamin C to counteract the toxicity. While this has been highly inconvenient, only by rrously taste- or skin-testing everything I consumed did I manage to succeed in anticipating every attempt at poisoning. However, it has not been possible entirely to avoid repeated exposures to non-fatal doses of toxicity.

I attempted to report the illegal entry to my flat to the police by telephone, and also by visiting Kennington Police Station. However, my report was spurned once more. Consequently, following those events and through until the autumn of 2012 I was unable to make regular use of my flat, in view of the anticipated risk to my life there, and had to maintain constant motility and secrecy over my whereabouts, avoiding using any regular channels of communication, to prevent my movements being tracked. Effectively, for a period of 20 months, I was forced to remain in hiding.

Later, towards the end of 2013, there was a further resurgence of these attempts, meaning that again I had to take great care over my movements, avoiding shopping in the same shop more than once, and always travelling to unfamiliar locations to shop, and of course continuing to taste- or skin-test everything I ate or drank, before consuming it normally. This was my only recourse to any form of protection, since it was clear that any attempt I might make of presenting evidence of poisoning to the police would be sneered at, and would at best result in a further referral to mental health services.

A serious attempt on my life in February 2014 understood to have originated from my family

After three years of experiencing these kinds of attempts on my life, I was becoming quite adept at anticipating and averting attempts to poison me, and the attempts on my life had largely (but not completely) abated between the autumn of 2012 and the end of 2013. However, there began in January 2014 what I understand to be a resurgence of attempts by members of my family, firstly to establish my whereabouts, with a view to then arranging their own (second) attempt on my life (see pp.84-87 of my report for an account of the first attempt). However, I am uncertain exactly which events had precipitated this renewed concern on their part.

I had had no further contact with my mother or sister since the events in December 2010, when I had communicated to my sister by email my awareness that they had orchestrated an attempt on my life. In that email I had included comments intended to confuse my sister over my actual address. Following this my sister would have been uncertain whether or not I remained at the address they knew as mine. On 10/01/2014 I received an unexpected email from my sister containing no content other than an unrecognisable hyperlink. The email was sent to a distribution list containing eight email addresses with mine as the last, none of the others which I recognised. I did not follow the link, but instead forwarded the email to the Staffordshire Police, as I thought it highly suspicious.

This scenario was repeated on the 29 January, and again on the 11 February, each time with emails containing unrecognisable hyperlinks (different from the first, and from each other) and each sent to a varied handful of addresses. Again I did not follow the links, sensing that my sister was trying to lure me into clicking on a link which would then enable her, or her associates, to track my location. On the 13 February, I received an email from a different, remote family member, alerting me to the fact that my mother had become dangerously ill, suggesting that I should contact my sister;which was odd since my sister clearly had my email address, and had sent an email to me only two days before, containing no information whatsoever. I did not reply to the email of 13 February.

On the supposition that my sister might somehow have obtained some assurance of my address (despite my refusal to subscribe to the tracking links), with a view to orchestrating a further attempt on my life, there were limited options available to her and her partner-in-crime. In view of the fact that I would be unlikely to answer the door to any assailants they might send to call on me (I assumed by this time my sister was wise to this policy of mine with respect to unexpected callers), aside from staking-out my flat for extended periods of time by contractors who would not be familiar with my appearance, the only conceivable means of access to my residence were my external letterbox and the small gap underneath the door of my flat. I was, needless to say, already alert to the possibility that someone might try to deliver a toxic substance by either of these two routes.

On 14 February 2014, the day after the email from the remote family member, I was at home when I noticed distinct feelings of numbness on the left side of my head, with some faintness. The symptoms were not at that time very persistent, but I noticed them intermittently throughout the day. It was not enough to convince me that someone had put poison under my door, but being alert to that prospect, the next morning I took the precaution of cleaning the floor inside the front door with a damp cloth and a vacuum, while wearing protective gloves.

I did not experience further symptoms until the afternoon of Monday 17, when, about 30 minutes after returning to my flat, I began to feel very sick and faint, with more numbness on the left side of my head. I cleaned the floor inside the door again with a vacuum, but did not use a cloth. After a while I started to feel more ill with pain in the left side of my head and an increasing heart rate. My heart rate was accelerating and seemed uncontrollable, and I became worried of an incipient heart attack. I prepared to call 999, but hesitated, in view of my previous experiences with emergency services. At the same time I took 2g of soluble vitamin C (a very large dose) which quickly moderated the heart rate and it eventually subsided. The sickness and faintness persisted however, along with numbness on the left side of my head, so I determined I had no choice but to leave the flat, which I did the same day.

Following this event, I was ill for a period of several weeks with ongoing neurological and cerebral-vascular problems involving the left side of my head, leading me to suspect that the substance I had been exposed to at my flat may have included some form of neurotoxin. I strongly suspect that some extremely toxic substance (i.e., potentially fatal if inhaled in tiny amounts) was placed under my front door on more than one occasion between 13 and 17 February, and that the effect of attempting to vacuum the substance was to make it airborne (i.e., by it being partly expelled through the fan of the vacuum cleaner). I had no adequate defence against such an attack, and for the remaining duration of my tenancy (which ended in January 2019) I could not determine to what extent my flat remained contaminated, and so I was unable to safely occupy the flat after 17/02/2014.

I left the UK on 17 February due to the implicit threat to my life should I have remained there, and spent the next thirteen months as a de facto refugee from that country and from the European mainland (see the page: Applications for Political Asylum; or pp.122-123 of my report, for a description of my application for political asylum in Turkey). It was therefore infeasible for me to make any report of the events in February to the Lambeth Police. I did however report them to the Major Investigations Dept. of the Staffordshire Police by letter sent as an email attachment on 26/02/2014, attaching the two additional suspicious emails from my sister. I have received no response to this report from the Staffordshire Police, and there is neither any indication that the Staffordshire Police have referred the report back to the police in Lambeth.

My efforts to report the Feb. 2014 attempt on my life to the Lambeth Police

It became necessary for me return to the UK in March 2015, principally for financial reasons (see paragraph 4 of the page: Applications for Political Asylum). When I visited the flat for the first time to collect my mail on 07/03/2015, I spoke to my neighbour who reported to me that that same morning he had heard someone unlocking the door to my flat, and noises coming from inside the flat like the opening of cupboards and movement of furniture. He had assumed that it was me, until I informed him that I had only just that moment returned to the flat for the first time in over a year. He also pointed out that the keyhole covers from the two mortice locks on my front door had been removed, which I also acknowledged. There was no one to my knowledge who had copies of the keys to the flat who may have entered there legitimately.

That same afternoon I reported the suspected illegal entry to my flat to the police in person at Walworth Police Station, at the same time attempting to alert the police to the presence of a serious toxic hazard at the flat, as a result of previous attempts on my life there, and which was preventing me from occupying the flat. Neither of these reports however was greeted with any serious attention. After several further phone calls to the police on the ‘101’ number over the following days, eventually it was agreed that an officer would visit me at my address on 13/03/2015.

I met with PC Burgess 184LX of the Lambeth Police outside my address at 2pm that day.² Despite my neighbour having agreed in advance to be present at the arranged time of the officer’s visit, he was not however at home when the officer and I rang on his doorbell. This was unfortunate because the significance of this occasion was that it was the first time there had been any available witness evidence to support the series of reports of attempts on my life, and associated illegal entries to my flat, that I had tried to make to the police since December 2010.

From the recording of our discussion, it is apparent that PC Burgess was not briefed appropriately regarding the nature of my report made at Walworth Police Station with respect to the context of an attempt to poison me at the flat, and the fact that the apparent illegal entry had not resulted in anything being obviously removed from the flat. Hence, in the absence of evidence of a property crime, or of an open and explicit threat of violence, the officer saw no reason to pursue an enquiry, or to make any crime report. In the absence of my neighbour’s testimony, the content of our conversation was essentially me trying to impress upon PC Burgess, with some apparent frustration, the reality of the toxic hazard at the flat – which in itself was evidence of an attempted murder – and to elicit some meaningful response from the police, without which I could neither safely occupy the flat, nor safely remove my belongings from the flat.

Generally since December 2010, the Lambeth Police have refused to treat my reports of attempts on my life (and the material evidence offered to them) with the seriousness and sensitivity they required. The nature of those allegations, and of the specific non-visible evidence in support of them, demanded the attention of officers with criminal investigation skills (CID), as well as forensic/toxicologist teams. However, as already mentioned above, the Lambeth Police were anyway predisposed to treat my allegations as ‘delusional’, which tended to preclude the police from investing these kinds of resources in response. The result of Lambeth Police’s exclusive reliance on ‘beat coppers’ in the assessment and collection of evidence was its blindness and insensitivity to any evidence other than that which pointed to an obvious crime against property, or to the sort of intended violent crime where the perpetrator incriminates her/himself by issuing an open written or verbal threat to the victim.

In the recording, PC Burgess is generally dismissive of the potential evidence of an attempt to deliver poison under the front door of my flat, because there was no obvious visible sign of it. As the officer’s remit, as she understood it, ended at the recording of the obvious visible signs of a crime, she was unreceptive to my information about the existence of a highly toxic substance at the flat, which could not be seen, and which was particularly concentrated in my vacuum cleaner. PC Burgess was also reluctant to accept a copy of the evidence of my statement of the events of February 2014 made in my letter to the Staffordshire Police of 26/02/2014, and the tracking emails sent by my sister at that time. Her remarks in the recording suggest that she felt this would have overcomplicated her task of making a report upon what we had discussed, and what she had seen (or not seen) at my flat that day.

Despite informing PC Burgess that my report of the attempts on my life in February 2014 was made only to the Major Investigations Dept. of the Staffordshire Police, as I was not in Lambeth, and had no way of making an effective report to the Lambeth Police, it is apparent from the recording that she did not see the relevance of making any referral to the Staffordshire Police for their evaluation of my report, or with regard to intelligence about a possible investigation of members of my family by that force. This lack of a ‘joined-up’ approach on behalf of the Lambeth Police, and the unwillingness to link-up the then current report with my series of previous reports (other than as further indication of ‘delusional thinking’ on my part), or to attach any credibility to those reports, meant that the evidence of poisoning, which undoubtedly existed at my flat, would continue to go uninvestigated; and therefore would continue to prevent my occupation of the flat indefinitely. Having already been minimally exposed to that toxicity, and feeling lucky to have survived that exposure, I did not feel that I could safely dispose of the evidence that I knew to exist in my vacuum cleaner for instance, and to do so would have been to destroy the evidence of an attempt on my life. In view of the suggested illegal entry to my flat, I had also to consider the possibility that my belongings, or fixed facilities within the flat, might have been ‘booby-trapped’ in my absence. Hence, in the absence of any resolve by the Lambeth Police to take seriously my reports of the existence of a serious toxic hazard at the flat, I remained unable to safely occupy the flat, or to remove my belongings from there. There was however no further response from the Lambeth Police to the reports made to them in March 2015.

The continuation of attempts on my life by poisoning, apparently in association with my complaints against various medical institutions

As I remained unable to occupy my flat following my return to the UK in March 2015, between May 2015 and January 2016 I stayed instead at the flat of an old friend in another part of London. During much of that period there was a relative reduction in the frequency of organised attempts on my life. There had however been comparable periods of relaxation of those efforts before, between 2011 and 2014, only for them to be re-engaged at a later opportunity, apparently with the intention of taking me strategically by surprise.

In July 2015, I came into possession of items from my medical records from 2013 – specifically, two letters of referral of myself to mental health services, in response respectively to my two complaints made in 2013 regarding the cover-ups of MRI evidence at Guy’s & St Thomas’ and UCLH NHS Trusts (see the other pages in this section: Complaint to GSTT NHS Trust & 2nd MRI Head Scan). This encouraged me to make two further complaints: the first against The South London & Maudsley NHS Trust (‘SLaM’) in October 2015; the second against UCLH NHS Trust in November that year. These two complaints followed shortly after my several attendances at the Royal London Hospital (‘RLH’), with regard to the problem that developed in July 2015 in the region of my thoracic spine/left shoulder blade (there is no connection however between RLH and the complaints to SLaM and UCLH). In relation to the problem in my left shoulder, I have alleged that doctors at the Neurology Dept. of RLH deliberately misrepresented my reports of the symptoms and were wilfully negligent towards the assessment of the problem.³

The end of the year 2015 therefore was marked by a general resurgence of my interactions with medical institutions, partly in relation to my earlier (and still unresolved) complaints against GSTT and UCLH over their respective cover-ups of evidence; together with two new complaints against UCLH and SLaM. Added to these was the prospect of a new potential serious complaint against the Neurology Dept. at RLH. This is the context – the new complaint against UCLH was referred to the PHSO on 28/12/2015 – in which I experienced a further resurgence and intensification of attempts on my life towards the end of January 2016.

There was an increased determination behind these new attempts, in view of the kinds of substances employed, and the tactics employed to deliver them. The substances again appear to have included radiotoxic substances (symptoms of exposure to which are unmistakable, even in the mildest doses), and they were delivered to me by persons with whom I had some sort of passing incidental acquaintance, by their replacing items already in my possession with identical items containing poison; although it is very difficult for me to substantiate these claims, since I am not inclined to attempt to retain the evidence. However, in my judgement it is an indication that those contracted with this undertaking were employing methods of last resort (in view of the nature of the substances involved, which are difficult to safely handle even by the poisoner), and therefore were absolutely determined to succeed, no matter what. It is also suggestive of a degree of synchronicity between the processes of my complaints against several medical institutions and the cyclical nature of these attempts on my life; bearing in mind that my first experiences of attempts to poison me began in December 2010, in exact coincidence with my application for a copy of my Brain MRI scan from St Thomas’ Hospital Information Governance Dept. (GSTT NHS Trust). Bearing in mind also that during the period following my return to the UK in March 2015, when there was a noticeable lack of activity on my behalf regarding the unresolved 2013 complaints against GSTT and UCLH, until late 2015 (when I renewed attempts at litigation against UCLH), there was a corresponding period of reduced intensity in clandestine attempts to poison me.

In view of the increasing desperation behind these more recent attempts, I felt I had no choice but to leave the UK once more, which I did on the 08/02/2016, becoming once more a de facto refugee from my home country. I spent the next five months outside the UK and mostly outside mainland Europe (where the attempts on my life are generally most persistent and organised), returning to the UK in July 2016 (see Applications for Political Asylum; or pp.123-125 of my report, for an account of my movements during this period). My commitment, for a large portion of the period December 2010 to July 2016 (during which time I received very little income) to constant mobility and secrecy over my whereabouts, as a way of tactically avoiding attempts on my life, meant that I needed to spend a significant portion of my limited savings on travel and additional accommodation. As I had by July 2016 been able to safely occupy my flat in London only for roughly 17 months (September 2012 to February 2014) of the intervening 67 months, I was by that time running very low on cash. Therefore, in July 2016 I felt that I had no choice but to try to make my case more vocally at home.

Between July and October 2016, I submitted copious information and evidence to various national news organisations with regard to my historical allegations against the NHS and the British Government; the recent cover-ups by several London hospital trusts of medical evidence that would otherwise have supported those allegations; as well as evidence which pointed to the inactions of the police with respect to reports of those cover-ups, and with respect to evidence of attempts on my life; together with evidence of the refusal to appropriately assess or treat my current health problems, in particular by the Royal London Hospital. There has however been no recognition or acknowledgement whatsoever from any of these news organisations in response to my reports. Despite all of these efforts therefore, I remain without any protection from the law against the still-persistent organised attempts on my life.

As I had meagre financial resources, I was unable to maintain indefinitely the mobility and tactical avoidance necessary for me to survive the attempts upon my life. One consequence of this was that, as I could no longer afford my usual habit of changing accommodation on a nightly or two-nightly basis, I tended to remain in certain hostels in London for extended periods of several days or longer. During the first two weeks of October 2016, while booked consecutively into two separate hostels, and with the perpetrators apparently taking advantage of the length of my stays, my luggage was broken into on two separate occasions and attempts were made to poison food and toiletry items I kept there. There were signs on each occasion that the lock on my case had been tampered with, meaning that I was able to anticipate each invasion before succumbing to a fatal toxic exposure. Subsequently, after testing certain toiletry items on my skin and experiencing toxic reactions, on each occasion I was able to avoid any further exposure by discarding all of the consumable contents of my luggage. The novel ‘directness’ of these kinds of attempts to invade my property meant that it was becoming increasingly problematic for me to leave my luggage unattended for any length of time at all.

Both of these attempts were reported to the Metropolitan Police, either on the ‘101’ number, or by visiting Holborn Police Station. Characteristically, the police refused to pay any serious attention to these reports, unless I could present them with some form of medical evidence of poisoning. However, as my exposures on each occasion were relatively mild, and as there were no obvious visible signs of poisoning at the time of visiting the police station, it was most unlikely that I would succeed in getting a doctor to take my reports seriously either (especially in view of my earlier experiences at St Thomas’ Hospital A&E Dept. in December 2010 – see above). In the circumstances, the most likely result of any approach to health services would be that of being further referred to mental health services – a result that would be quite counterproductive, as the effect would only be to reinforce the likelihood of the same form of response on any subsequent occasion, due to the reduplication of such referrals existing in my medical records. Ironically then, the only circumstances in which the police might have taken my reports seriously is if I had succumbed to a fatal or near-fatal dose of poisoning.

I have related above that, as all attempts since December 2010 to poison me by indirect methods had failed consistently, the perpetrators were now employing methods of last resort, involving an increased ‘directness’ in their approach. It is important to point out that, in order to be able to guarantee access to my luggage (i.e., for instance, by being booked into the same dormitory as myself), and to have some indication of how long was my intended stay in a particular hostel, the perpetrators must have depended on the complicity of the respective hostel management in order to plan and execute the attempts. They must also have employed additional persons to watch my movements, so that if I was to return unexpectedly to the hostel at the critical moment, then they could be adequately forewarned of that possibility. In view of the combined odds working against me therefore, and in view of the unavailability of any protection from the Metropolitan Police against the continuance of these organised attempts, on the 17 October 2016 I was forced once again to flee the UK, and the European mainland (see Applications for Political Asylum; or pp.125-130 of my report, for an account of my efforts at seeking asylum in Morocco in November 2016; and again in October 2017).

My first attempt at seeking asylum through UNHCR in Morocco was short-lived, and I returned to the UK on 02/12/2016. The following few months, until April 2017, were spent in much the same manner as before my departure in October 2016; i.e., by moving from hostel to hostel and from town to town on as frequent a basis as I could afford. I developed a strategy of inhibiting attempts to break into my luggage by sealing the fastenings on my suitcase with writable sellotape, which I would then ‘sign’ with indelible marker pen. This method proved to be more secure than any lock (I was unconcerned about theft), as any invasion of the suitcase would have necessitated destroying the unique inscription on the seal, leaving it obvious to me that someone had broken in. The problem persisted however that it was unsafe for me to leave the suitcase unattended and unsealed for any length of time at all – for instance during time spent in the kitchen cooking a meal.

In April 2017, I found a place to stay with a friend who had become terminally ill, so that in exchange for sanctuary, I acted as his carer for several months. The location was one that I had not frequented previously and while I was there I refrained from most internet use, or from regularly using a mobile or smartphone, so that my presence might remain as private as possible. It could not have been a permanent solution however, as I was largely inhibited from any communication, such as would be essential in order to advance my medical claims. After five months in this position, I resolved to depart the UK once more to pursue again the application for political asylum with UNHCR that had been aborted at the end of 2016, departing the UK once more for North Africa on 27/09/2017.

The attempts on my life follow me to Morocco

The quite remarkable events occurring in association with my asylum application in Morocco during October 2017 are related in the page Applications for Political Asylum (see this link, or pp.126-130 of my report, for an account of my approaches to UNHCR in Cairo, and again in Rabat, Morocco). In that section I have referred to the fact that the common pattern of attempts on my life by methods of indirect poisoning (involving the supply of toxic products masked as standard ones, by routine purchases made at shops and market stalls) had now extended to Morocco, within a predominantly Muslim population, amongst which I had previously enjoyed relative sanctuary from such organised attempts on my life. This indicated to me that during the year of my absence from Morocco significant steps had been taken by European ‘mafia’ to extend its distributive reach (and economic influence) into this domain, seemingly in anticipation of my return there to pursue again my previously aborted asylum application. At the same time (I suspect these two developments were not unconnected) there were strong indications of corrupt behaviour by staff at UNHCR Rabat, who had tried to conceal the fact of my asylum application from detection by external agencies, by falsifying the details of my identity on the asylum registration. The upshot of this was that, had the attempts on my life there succeeded, the event of my death in Morocco need not have attracted any unwanted controversy.

For these reasons, and because UNHCR Rabat were resistant to my requests that they should process my application without further delay (in view of the pressing medical issues involved), as I now had effectively no more protection in Morocco than I had anywhere in Europe, when UNHCR notified me by email on 23/11/2017 of a three-month delay prior to my interview for refugee status determination, I decided to leave Morocco the following day and return to the UK, travelling overland.

My return to the UK in November 2017

After returning to the UK, things continued much as before – with the need to constantly change my location to stay ahead of attempts to poison my belongings. This was usually manageable, except for instance on New Year’s Eve when it was necessary to book my accommodation a week in advance. On 23/12/2017 I made an online booking for New Year’s Eve at a hostel in Hackney. Consequently, my attackers had a reasonable amount of time to plan a significant attempt on my life. This involved the use of sedation after I arrived at the hostel, leaving me unconscious for several hours having left my luggage unguarded. Several items in my backpack appear to have been tampered with, and therefore I suspected may have been poisoned. I addition, I believe that the battery in my mobile phone may have been exchanged for a modified battery (for what purpose remains unclear). I noticed that the battery showed signs of slight damage. As both the phone and battery were quite new, this indicated to me that the battery had been swapped. Fortunately, when I awoke I realised immediately what had occurred (being anyway alert to this kind of possibility out of sheer necessity), and again was able to avoid any fatal toxic exposure by discarding the consumable contents of my backpack, and abandoning any further use of that particular phone.

These events were reported to the police at Stoke Newington Police Station, where I had a meeting with Detective Sergeant Bent (no satire intended) on 08/02/2018. In spite of the fact that in the sequence of events which followed the making of the booking online, up until and including my reception at the hostel, there were circumstantial factors that might have indicated to the police that the hostel management were complicit in the attempt on my life I was trying to report, and in spite of my offering material evidence to DS Bent which would have confirmed the reality of an attempt to poison me and to tamper with my phone, DS Bent dismissed all my reports out of hand, declaring: “I think it’s all in your head”; and stated that he was unwilling to invest police resources in examining the evidence.

One might raise the question: If they were able to sedate me in the hostel, then why didn’t they just finish the job? My answer to that would be that the plan in place was clearly that I should succumb to the effects of the various poisoned items after having left the hostel (since it was a one-night booking), so as not to invite any suspicion upon the hostel management, whom I have good reason to believe were implicated in the attempt. This underscores the idea that in general the method in all the attempts on my life was to cause me to suffer poisoning in as indirect a way as possible. My death might then be interpreted either as ‘self-inflicted’, ‘accidental’, or as the result of ‘natural causes’ (since not all poisons are readily detectable after death); thereby without attracting any unwanted controversy.

I appreciate that in recounting these events, which in their very nature and persistence over time are truly exceptional, that the narration begs an enormous suspension of disbelief from the reader, not least in terms of explaining how I have actually survived all of these attempts, if they were as determined as I have presented them to be. The key here is in the indirectness of the attempts (implying a loss of control by the perpetrators over the end result) – a characteristic determined by the chief concern on behalf of those responsible for avoiding unwanted controversy. The other key factor enabling my survival has been my constant vigilance and attention to detail (not to mention a great deal of luck), which has so far meant that I have always been able to anticipate when it was likely an attempt had been made, even if this meant being exposed to a non-fatal dose of toxicity.

It is worth emphasising that, to maintain such a series of attempts on my life over a period of what is now 15 years (with some periods of relaxation) – requiring access to toxins not readily available in the public domain (including, indeed, nerve agents and radio-toxins), plus the logistical provision of such substances within standard manufactured products – must have demanded a level of civil influence and control (including over both manufacturers and their supply networks, and exemplified in particular by the continual suppression of police interest or action) such as is only befitting those in the position of state actors. This returns me to the point made earlier – that the organised criminals serially contracted with this urgent undertaking acted with the protection of those having ultimate power and influence, supported by unlimited financial resources.

Suppression by the courts of the facts of attempts on my life (2018-2020)

I have stated above that I retained a collection of items within my flat that I knew or suspected to contain various lethal toxins. I have also stated above that as a consequence of Lambeth Police refusing to take seriously my reports of the existence of a lethal toxic hazard at the flat, I could no longer safely occupy the flat, nor could I safely remove my belongings from there. My inability to occupy the flat resulted in the landlord (a social housing co-operative) issuing a civil claim for possession in October 2017 on the grounds of my perceived ‘non-occupation’, although these circumstances were of course beyond my control, meaning that I was without fault in the matter. My legal defence against that claim took place at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court between November 2017 and October 2018, whereupon a Possession Order was granted to the landlord a the trial hearing on 04/10/2018.

The conduct of my legal defence against the possession claim is discussed in much greater detail in the page: A Miscarriage of Civil Justice. I have alleged there that the conduct of my defence represents a deliberate miscarriage of justice, for the reasons that my defence team acted in bad faith and under corrupt inducement purposely to undermine that defence and to sacrifice my rights to the tenancy. I shan’t attempt to reinforce those arguments here, but the important point to make in the context of this historical account is that the corruption of my defence was driven by the cynical (government) imperatives of: a) maintaining official disregard and denouncement over the fact of a series of attempts on my life at the flat, by the false imputation that my reports of those attempts were ‘delusional’; and: b) removing and thereby ‘cleansing’ the evidence of those attempts on my life from the flat (as I was unable myself to safely remove my belongings from the flat following the eviction on 28/01/2019, the entire contents of the flat were disposed of by agents of the landlord 7 days later).

The effect of the housing possession case was to render me officially (rather than merely de facto) homeless, as well as destitute of all my belongings, and I spent the remainder of 2019 and most of 2020 attempting to appeal the outcome of the housing possession case in the London County Courts; although permission to appeal was finally refused in those courts on 01/12/2020 (see: The conduct of the courts during my efforts to appeal the judgement).

A full account of relevant events between 2018 and 2021 is represented by three additional pages in this section: the aforementioned A Miscarriage of Civil Justice; Applications to the European Court of Human Rights – detailing my two applications to the ECtHR in 2021, in which I alleged serial violations of Articles 6 & 8 ECHR against the UK Ministry of Justice in respect of its handling of my housing possession claim; and: Swedish Asylum Applications, in which I discuss my two applications for political asylum in Sweden between 2018 and 2021 – this account includes considerable detail regarding the continuation of attempts on my life while in Sweden.

Travels to the Far East in search of safe healthcare options (2022-2024)

Having departed Sweden at the end of September 2021 and having no home to return to in the UK, during the succeeding months I travelled eastward through Serbia, Albania, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Thailand, eventually arriving in Vietnam in July 2022. I spent the remaining months of 2022 visa-hopping through Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, and Thailand, eventually arriving in Sri Lanka during January 2023, where I remained until May that year. I had an increasing need to pursue diagnostic heath assessments over several health issues, including the unresolved problem in my rear thorax (as related at the page: C-Spine MRI (July 2020)), and other problems I understood to be the accumulated effects of attempts on my life in recent years. In addition, I had a pressing need for dental treatment. I did not expect there would be any reliable, or indeed safe, prospect of my pursuing health treatments by access to NHS services in the UK; i.e., in view of my particular vulnerability to exigencies of treatment within that organisation. Hence, I was dependent on pursuing private options for healthcare, and the most affordable such options were likely to be those in the Far East.

I saw that China would be the most likely safe jurisdiction in which to pursue interventionist dental treatment, in view of its particular independence from affiliated Western corporate interests (a feature that could not be relied upon for instance in Sri Lanka, in view of its legacy of colonial influence). However, I was unable to apply for a Chinese visa at that time as I had only a single blank page remaining in my passport. For this amongst other reasons I returned to the UK at the end of July 2023, remaining there until the end of November, during which month I successfully renewed my passport.

The following account includes a particularly detailed account of events between December 2023 and July 2024, in order to highlight the extent to which an increasingly desperate imperative to end my life, on behalf of affiliated Western corporate and state interests, was to pursue me even in my efforts to obtain safe medical treatment in jurisdictions such as Sri Lanka. It is not an exhaustive account of the attempts on my life I experienced while travelling in the Far East, but it uses several examples in order to highlight the degree of penetration of affiliated Western interests within these remote jurisdictions, and the determination with which they were prepared to exert corrupt influence in the region in order to achieve the urgent goal of my elimination. The examples referred to relate to my access to dental treatment in Sri Lanka during April and May 2024. However, those attempts on my life proved unsuccessful, and only encouraged me to leave Sri Lanka with the intention of travelling to China, to seek safer treatment options.

This account then goes on to give details of my arrangement for a return flight booking from Ho Chi Minh City to Shanghai at the end of May 2024, and how evidence of the corrupt handling of that booking by the booking agent (as US company) leads one to infer the existence of a plot to sabotage one of the flights involved in it – a Chinese-owned flight from Ho Chi Minh City to Xiamen scheduled for 08/06/2024 – that is, to bring down that flight, with the sole purpose of my assassination as a single passenger on it. If the inference is a valid one, it implies this alleged desperate plot would have envisaged, as collateral damage, the prospective loss of the remaining 200 or so (mainly Chinese) passengers and crew on board the flight. This account gives details of my efforts to alert the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs during July 2024 of compelling circumstantial evidence of the existence of such a plot to sabotage that Xiamen Airlines flight on its route to China, with the prospect that China might then see fit to conduct its own systems-level investigation of the allegation.

i. My first Chinese visa application

I spent the first two weeks of December 2023 in Athens, from where I then travelled back to Ho Chi Minh City arriving on 15 December on a 30-day tourist visa. On 29 December I completed an online application form for a Chinese tourist visa, and thereafter on 2 January I attended the Chinese Visa Application Service office in Ho Chi Minh to submit the application in person. I had not prepared any of the required supporting documents – return flight ticket, proof of hotel bookings, and detailed tour itinerary – in advance of my visit as the task was onerous to me (I am not in the habit of making such predetermined plans for my travel and generally consider it an essential security precaution to avoid doing so). The visa application cannot be submitted in the absence of the supporting documents, and so it was fortunate that there happened to be in attendance a Vietnamese agent offering an impromptu service in generating the said documents on my behalf, with essentially counterfeit details, for a fee of VND 500,000 (around £15). This I gladly paid and was then able to submit my application the same day. The visa was then granted on 4 January and I was able to collect it the following day. The same day I booked a genuine one-way flexible ticket with the agent Mytrip from Ho Chi Minh to Beijing with China Southern Airlines, leaving on 13 January. On the date of that flight I booked a return ticket from Beijing to Ho Chi Minh for 9 February, also through Mytrip, together with a “Cancellation Guarantee” for an additional £13.

On arriving in Beijing, I realised that I was quite unprepared for the trip, and had underestimated the communication difficulties I would have in view of the difficulty in obtaining a local SIM card at short notice. This along with China’s restrictions upon internet access made it impossible for me to make ready use of online translation facilities, or to source affordable accommodation for the duration of the visa period. The freezing weather only exaggerated these difficulties, and so I decided to abort the trip after three days and returned to Ho Chi Minh, at the same time cancelling my earlier-booked return flight dated 09/02/2024, which was refundable by voucher under the cancellation guarantee.

ii. My second trip to Sri Lanka – 29 January-10 May 2024

Under Vietnam’s “visa-free” arrangement I was limited to a stay of 15 days in the country, and so on 29 January I took a flight to Sri Lanka via Kuala Lumpur (as a repetition of my travel there in January 2023). Thereafter, through a series of visa extensions, I remained in Sri Lanka until 10 May, travelling on that date back to Ho Chi Minh City on a 30-day tourist visa.

I had found a place of relative local sanctuary from organised attempts on my life in the town of Aluthgama – where I had also spent a large portion of my time during my previous visit. However, generally speaking, I have found that in each of the jurisdictions of Vietnam and Sri Lanka I must remain continually vigilant against the pursuit of those attempts on my life due to the penetration of British and affiliated Western corporate interests within each of these respective jurisdictions. Since my first trip to Vietnam in 2022, these attempts on my life have been too numerous to describe in detail here, since to try to do so in the absence of evidence that is readily communicable and accessible would defy anyone’s belief.

While it has been usually feasible for me to avoid attempts on my life within either jurisdiction, for instance by maintaining the policy of varying my habits of consumption in order to frustrate the ‘just-in-time’ logistics of organised attempts to poison me; and by frequently changing my telephone number and refraining from the use of GPS location facilities in order to resist efforts to track my location, these policies are essentially ineffective in the case that I must rely upon access to medical resources within either of these two jurisdictions.

In the case of one’s need to access medical services, it is usually impossible to avoid making predetermined arrangements. In my case the making of such arrangements places me at the mercy of the corrupt manipulation of those services directly – their being compelled into compliance with organised attempts on my life by overt pressure and inducement from affiliated Western (and especially, British Medical) interests. My need to access medical services is therefore the condition under which I am most vulnerable to the perpetration of organised attempts on my life; and as my ultimate need to access those services is unavoidable, it is somewhat inevitable that those tasked with the imperative of my elimination, having failed in all previous attempts to poison me, should exploit this remaining opportunity as their best chance of success.

iii. My access to dental treatment while in Sri Lanka

While I found it generally safe to access non-interventionist, diagnostic medical services in Sri Lanka, that security could not be expected to apply in the case of interventionist dental treatment. As I remained in Sri Lanka for a period of four months, during this period I developed problems with the molars on each side of my upper jaw which required tooth extractions on each side.

My first access to a dentist in Colombo was conducted relatively safely as I was able to locate a dentist in the Dehiwala area without making any online search or pre-arranged appointment. I arrived at the dentist’s surgery on 30 April without prior notice and the dentist successfully extracted a molar from my left upper-jaw. The dentist however was unwilling to extract the molar from my right upper-jaw on the same occasion, as this would have meant that I would be unable to eat for a period of several days. Following the treatment, the dentist gave me a prescription for antibiotics and analgesics which I then cashed at the nearest pharmacy, located on Galle Road, Dehiwala, less than 500m south from the dentist’s surgery. While I cashed the prescription, I also purchased an amount of a multivitamin product called “Megavit” that I had purchased on several previous occasions at different locations in Sri Lanka. I did not consume any of these vitamins until some 10 days later, when, after swallowing a single tablet, I experienced a decisive gastric toxic reaction, which I was able to reverse by swiftly vacating the contents of my stomach. I have retained the remaining Megavit tablets in my possession so that they may be submitted for toxicological analysis.

It appears therefore (should analysis eventually confirm the presence of lethal toxicity in the Megavit tablets) that not only were my daily movements in Sri Lanka under constant surveillance by clandestine agents tasked with my elimination, but that in addition, the period of time I had spent at the dentist’s surgery was sufficient delay for those agents to prepare the pharmacist(s) local to the area with a supply of this toxic product masked as a standard health product, in anticipation of the likelihood (based upon my previous similar purchases) that I should make such a purchase of this particular product on my expected attendance, immediately following my dental treatment, at the nearby pharmacist.

Following the successful tooth extraction on 30 April, I waited until the following week before attempting to arrange the extraction from my right upper-jaw. For obvious reasons, I felt that I could not safely attend the same dentist, and so I travelled once more from Aluthgama to Colombo on 7 May in an attempt to locate a different small private dentist (I wished to avoid large established practices, or those attached to hospitals). This was not a simple task as many practitioners do not work during the middle part of the day, and it involved me travelling on several local buses, and walking a distance of 4-5 km before I finally came across a small dental practice that was open and willing to provide treatment. I located the dentist on the High Level Road (A4) in the Nugegoda area of Colombo after walking several kilometres westward along that road. The dentist was female, as was her assistant.

Adjacent to the tooth requiring extraction was another tooth which needed a filling to be replaced. The dentist agreed to conduct both treatments, first replacing the filling, then extracting the adjacent molar. Following the treatment, I offered to pay by Visa card, to which the dentist declined stating that she did not possess a “machine” to process card payments. I paid in cash. The dentist wrote a prescription for antibiotics and pain-killers, written on a paper note, not as a formal prescription bearing any identifying details of the dentist or her practice (as the previous dentist had done). I do not know the name of the practice or the dentist herself as these were not apparent from the premises – there was merely a makeshift, portable sign outside declaring it spartanly as a “Dentist”.

During the following 48 hours I experienced symptoms characteristic of exposure to heavy metal poisoning. These symptoms were familiar to me because I had experienced this relatively crude form of poisoning on several occasions in the years following 2010. The symptoms were relatively mild compared to my earlier experiences, but were persistent over 48 hours and showed no sign of relenting. The symptoms were most characteristic of exposure to lead poisoning (headache, confusion, loss of appetite, sluggish metabolism, marked fluid retention, joint & muscle pain); but were anyway unmistakable as some form of heavy metal poisoning.

In view of what appeared to be the slow delivery of the poison, I began to suspect that the replacement filling was the source of the toxicity, and so I then took urgent steps on 9 May to locate an alternative dentist with a view to removing the filling entirely and replacing it once again. This I managed to do by travelling to Ambalangoda, Sri Lanka (in the opposite direction to Colombo from my location in Aluthgama). The symptoms of lead poisoning then improved fairly rapidly, seemingly confirming my suspicion that the first replacement filling had been the source of the toxin. I have potential corroborating evidence of this attempt at poisoning in the form of finger-nail clippings saved on two separate occasions post-exposure, once on 11 May, and thereafter again on 24 May.

These experiences in Sri Lanka clearly exemplify that it is the degree of advance notice of my attendance at a particular location, together with the fact (as seems evidently to be the case) that my movements are continually under close supervision, that facilitates the rapid ‘just in time’ organisation of these astonishing attempts on my life.

iv. My second application for a Chinese visa, and the controversial servicing of my air ticket from Ho Chi Minh City to Shanghai by the ticket agent Mytrip.com⁴

On 10 May, the day following the successful filling replacement, I decided it was time for me to urgently leave Sri Lanka, and so I booked an Air Asia flight back to Ho Chi Minh departing Colombo that same night, arriving in Ho Chi Minh 8.05am on 11 May, again via connection in Kuala Lumpur. Once again I booked the ticket through Mytrip, as I was able to use the agent’s voucher from my earlier cancelled flight in part payment for the ticket.

I anticipated that there may still be problems with the rushed replacement filling in my back tooth, and as I was wary of the evident intensification in attempts on my life through the corruption of dental services in Sri Lanka continuing to pursue my available treatment options in Vietnam, I resolved to once more apply for a Chinese visa, as a perceived safer alternative for the treatment.

I completed the online visa application form on 20 May and attended the office the following day with the printed form, but again without the required supporting documents, anticipating that I would be able to make use once more of the impromptu service provided by the Vietnamese agent, just as I had done on 2 January. The agent however was absent on this occasion, which meant that I was unable to submit a completed application on 21 May. I could obtain no information from anyone present about the agent’s current availability. I resolved to return the next day with the intention of producing overnight a return flight booking to Shanghai, hotel reservations, and tour itinerary in support of my visa application.

On 21 May I booked a return flight ticket from Ho Chi Minh City to Shanghai, once more using the agent Mytrip, with outbound and return dates for the flights of 8 June and 7 July 2024 respectively, booked with Xiamen Airlines (re: item 01 of the associated folio: Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf). I also made hotel reservations (with options to cancel), payable on arrival, for the 30-day duration of the visa, and scripted a perfectly imaginary tour itinerary for the trip. I noticed that the online form I had completed contained an error, which could not now be amended, and so I completed a fresh application form dated 21 May, re-printed the new form, and attended the visa office once again to submit the application on 22 May.

On this second attendance I noticed that the Vietnamese agent was now present, and providing his regular service to applicants. I regretted having attended when he was absent as I would have preferred to delay making any genuine flight reservation until some date much closer to my intended departure, rather than permit the 18-day interval which now loomed between the date of my purchase and the scheduled departure date. Nevertheless, I submitted my application on 22 May together with my own ‘genuine’ supporting documents. I was then given the date of 30 May to return to collect my passport and visa.

I had taken the precaution of purchasing a “Flexible Ticket” with Mytrip, for the price of $259.69, so that following my receipt of the visa on 30 May I had the option of bringing forward the dates of my flights. During the booking process, as a feature of the flexible ticket option, there appeared a ‘pop-up’ window which stated that the booking was eligible for both changes and refunds (there was however no “Cancellation Guarantee” offered during the process, as there had been with my previous booking with Mytrip). The flexible ticket option cost approximately $38 more than the standard ticket option, and permitted changes to the scheduled flight dates (with the same airline) while incurring no additional airline fees except for the difference in ticket price for the rescheduled flights. On Mytrip’s website, under Products and Services: What does the Flexible ticket Service mean?, it states:

“A Flexible (rebookable) Ticket allows you to change your flight tickets no matter what the airline's rules are. If the price of the new ticket is higher you only pay the difference.” (my emphasis)

That is to say, the flexible ticket arrangement is a service made available by Mytrip itself, independently of the airline. Therefore, the ticket price of prospective rescheduled flights can only refer to prices offered by Mytrip itself – i.e., those commonly displayed on its website.

On 30 May I searched Mytrip's website for alternative flights with Xiamen Airlines with outbound and return dates of 3 June and 2 July respectively. There were numerous different combinations of flights with the airline on those dates, many of which were available for a flexible ticket price of under $290 (i.e., involving a maximum price difference to that of my original booking of around $30). Simultaneously with this search, I made three attempts through Mytrip’s online chat facility to request the changes to my scheduled flights.

My first attempt to use the chat facility was aborted arbitrarily by the chat agent before any change was agreed. During my second attempt (made between 06.09-07.11 BST on 30 May), I specified to the agent the details of my requested change in my schedule to those shown in the screenshot made from my concurrent search of Mytrip’s website (re: item 02 of the folio: Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf). As displayed in the screenshot, there were 5 seats available in my requested flights at the time involving a price difference to my original ticket price of $8.55. After specifying these details of my request, the second chat was also then arbitrarily closed by the agent before the change was agreed. I made a third attempt to use the chat facility, but after repeated unreasonable delays by the agent, with no indication of any agreement of my request, I ended the chat myself after 42 minutes in frustration.

As a result of these requests using the chat facility, I received a series of 3 emails from support.us.mytrip.com (re: item 03 of the folio: Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf) in which the agent declared that my requested flights were not available (although they clearly were, along with numerous other Xiamen Airlines flights at a comparable price), while offering changes to my flights which would have incurred additional charges for the difference in ticket price of between $248.92 and $330.29. These responses were clearly not in line with the terms of the flexible ticket arrangement (after all, had I purchased both the original and rescheduled tickets separately without the flexible option, I could have done so for the combined price of approximately $222 + $227 = $449; while with the flexible option, Mytrip was asking me to pay a minimum combined price of $259.69 + $248.92 = $508.61, for a single flexible ticket with amendments).

v. My decision to cancel the booking and request a refund

Mytrip’s responses to my requests for a change in my flight dates were clearly irregular and an abrogation of the terms of its Flexible Ticket agreement. It seemed as though I was being arbitrarily compelled by Mytrip to stick to the dates in my original schedule; i.e., in spite of my possession of a flexible ticket and my desire to change that schedule.

During my searches of Mytrip’s website on 30 May for alternative flights, I had searched for flight combinations with outbound departures on all dates between 2 & 7 June (the requested return dates were 30 days hence in each case), and generally found there to be a preponderance of flight combinations with Xiamen Airlines on all those dates with prices comparable to those of my original booking. Having made my repeated requests on 30 May and having been denied a change in my schedule in accordance with the terms of the flexibility arrangement, on 31 May I repeated my searches of the previous day. In stark contrast with those of 30 May, searches conducted on 31 May now showed an almost complete absence of alternative flights with Xiamen Airlines with departure dates of 2, 3, 4, & 6 June – only those of 5 & 7 June showed availability of flights with Xiamen.

Items 06-11 in the folio Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf show the results of searches made on 31 May for outbound departure dates of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 June (the pdf print process has unfortunately removed the names of the airlines from the flight entries in these files – only the airlines’ logos remain as identification – refer to item 02 in the folio for an image of the Xiamen Airlines’ logo). Item 12 in the folio shows the results of a search made on 31 May for the departure date of 8 June (that of my original booking) for comparison.

The preponderance of available flights with Xiamen Airlines shown in the saved research results for departure dates of 5, 7, & 8 June had likewise been a dominant characteristic of the searches I made for departure dates of 2, 3, 4, & 6 June, when I first made those searches on 30 May. My repeat searches made on 31 May, as shown in the copies included in the folio, reflect a significant change in the availability of Xiamen Airlines flights for those four dates – this change having followed within 24 hours of my request on 30 May for a change in my scheduled flights. It was unthinkable that the predominance of available flights with Xiamen Airlines shown in my searches made on 30 May for each of the dates 2, 3, 4, & 6 June (the earlier of these being the most desirable for my intended change) had suddenly transformed overnight so that by 31 May there were no flights whatsoever showing as available with Xiamen Airlines on any of those four dates. The transformation meant of course that I was then disabled from further attempts to pursue the change in my outbound schedule to that of 3 June, as I had attempted, and been unreasonably denied, when I used Mytrip’s chat facility on 30 May.

Before making and recording those repeat searches, I had on 30 May telephoned Mytrip’s Customer Service number (on US number: +17864058511), and again on 31 May, to enquire about a refund for the original cost of my booking, explaining that the reason for my request was Mytrip’s refusal to honour the terms of its flexibility agreement.⁵ The response to my calls was that my ticket was “non-refundable”, with advice referring me to take up my request with the airline. This involved the call handler communicating to me the airline booking reference for my flights, which does not appear on my ticket. In response to my personal details, she first quoted to me the letters: “KG7EUI” as the airline reference for the booking. However, she then corrected these details with an alternative reference: “PGKPWH”, without explaining the initial ‘incorrect’ reference. I had recorded this call and a copy of the call recording was supplied to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs by email attachment sent to it on 13/07/2024. I understand that this ambiguity over the existence of two distinct booking references in relation to my single booking with Xiamen Airlines is an item of key significance in the evidence received by the MFA.

It was the second reference: “PGKPWH” that I gave to the airline when I phoned its Customer Services on 1 June (on US number: +1855789557) and which did correspond to my booking. The response to my enquiry with the airline was predictably that, as the booking had not been made directly with the airline, that any refund request could only be handled by the agent itself. The progress of my refund request, as well as Mytrip’s handling of my original request for changes in my schedule, are expressed in greater detail in my subsequent complaint sent to Mytrip by email on 16/06/2024 (re: pp.1-4 of item 13 of Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf).

In the absence of an agreement from either Mytrip or the airline to refund the cost of my ticket, and feeling that I could not trust in the safety of the prospective flight on 8 June booked 18 days in advance of its schedule, I decided to cancel the booking anyway on 3 June, using Mytrip’s chat facility. The cancellation was confirmed by Mytrip in an email of that date (re: item 05 of Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf). For overriding security reasons I then made alternative arrangements to travel overland from Ho Chi Minh to China, crossing the border to China from northeastern Vietnam on 06/06/2024.

I received two responses from Mytrip to my complaint email sent on 16/06/2024 (re: pp.4-5 of item 13 in Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf) – the first its auto-response email requesting my consent for Mytrip to process my personal data, failing which Mytrip would have deleted my complaint email; followed by its written response of 17 June, the active content of which is a blank restatement of its previous responses by phone and by email to my requests for a refund – that the airline’s rules make passengers ineligible for a refund in the case of [voluntary] cancellation. As already pointed out in my complaint this statement is simply untrue with reference to s.3.5.3 of Mytrip’s Terms & Conditions in combination with s.1.2.10.1.1 of Xiamen Airline’s Terms & Conditions; but anyway the response misses the point of my complaint entirely (as expressed in its final paragraph on p.4 of item 13) that Mytrip had failed to provide me with a flexible ticket in the terms in which its publicity defines that agreement, and hence that the goods as described in the booking process had not been received by myself.

Following my receipt of Mytrip’s written response I was enabled to open a dispute with my bank for recovery of the funds. Although I have received no further response from Mytrip to my complaint, my bank acknowledged the disputed payment on 18/06/2024 and subsequently proceeded to make a chargeback request to Mytrip for the full amount of my original purchase. After a further 47 days, on 04/08/2024 I received a refund from my bank for the amount of £204.72 (the full amount of my original purchase), but without further comment from Mytrip.

vi. In Summary

The account of events detailed under subsections i, iv, & v above reveals what must appear as compelling circumstantial evidence that a series of measures were imposed arbitrarily between 21 May and 3 June 2024 (the date I finally cancelled my flight schedule with the booking agent Mytrip) that sought to enforce my early booking for a specific flight schedule, as well as to enforce my subsequent commitment to that original schedule without any reasonable option of amending it (by Mytrip’s abrogation of the terms of its own Flexible Ticket agreement). These enforcements were imposed against my strong inclination to preserve a degree of indeterminacy in my flight arrangements that was essential to my personal security and survival policy – one that has previously played a significant and indispensable part in my having survived a series of organised attempts on my life over a period of 15 years.

The signs of these efforts to arbitrarily enforce a fixed flight schedule upon me are evidenced by four behaviours, all of which conspired towards the same end:

1. An arrangement that the Vietnamese agent at the Chinese Visa Application Service office in Ho Chi Minh City, who regularly provided an impromptu service for visa applicants in generating false supporting travel documents, should be absent from the office on 21 May – the date I was expected to attend to submit my second visa application, thus compelling me to make a genuine flight booking for my trip to China much earlier in advance of that travel than I would normally have permitted myself according to my personal survival policy. It was not clear to me on 21 May that I should expect the agent to be in regular attendance at the visa office; i.e., until I returned there on 22 May to find him present, but by which time I was already committed to my flight schedule (re: subsection i, and subsection iv above).
2. I spent 5 hours on the morning of 30 May in making repeated requests to Mytrip to reschedule my flights from the original departure date of the 8 June to that of 3 June, and despite there being multiple flight combinations available with Xiamen Airlines to enable that change in accordance with the terms of Mytrip’s Flexible Ticket arrangement, Mytrip refused to honour that agreement and sought to discourage the change by imposing arbitrary and extortionate additional fees of a kind that were specifically excluded under the Flexible Ticket agreement (re: subsection iv above).
3. In response to my enquiries with Mytrip between 30 May and 3 June in attempts to cancel my booking and request a refund, Mytrip declared my ticket to be “non-refundable”. This response contradicted an assurance given during the booking process itself that declared the ticket to be eligible for changes and refunds. It also contradicted s.3.5.3 of Mytrip’s Terms & Conditions in combination with s.1.2.10.1.1 of Xiamen Airline’s Terms & Conditions, which provide for refunds in the case of voluntary cancellations subject to an appropriate airline fee (re: subsection v above).
4. Following my attempts on 30 May to reschedule my flights as described in (b) above, in subsequent searches for available flights between Ho Chi Minh City and Shanghai made using Mytrip’s online flight booking facility on 31 May, there suddenly and inexplicably appeared to be no available flights with Xiamen Airlines between those cities on any of the dates of 2, 3, 4 & 6 June 2024, despite there being a preponderance of flights with Xiamen Airlines available on the adjacent dates of 5, 7, & 8 June, and despite my searches of the previous day having shown a similar availability on each of the earlier dates (re: subsection v above).

In conclusion, there is simply too much coincidence in this series of irregularities – in their timing; in the degree of their oddity; and in the effect towards which they conspired, for one to avoid the conclusion that they were driven by a unified purpose. The fact that to top-off these four listed irregularities, my Xiamen Airlines booking was divided between two alternative booking reference numbers (re: subsection v, p.110 above), is a positive indication of possible malfeasance with respect to the integrity of the passenger flight manifest for the flight in question. In accordance with the inference that the unified purpose behind these irregularities was to cause the loss of the flight as a desperate means of eliminating myself as a single passenger, to avoid raising any possible suspicion over my identity as a passenger in signalling a motive for deliberately causing the loss of the flight, it would be essential that my name be removed from the passenger flight manifest post-embarkation – it is suggested that the double booking reference was a device to enable that subterfuge while maintaining a consistent tally of passengers between the original flight manifest and its replacement post-embarkation.

A corresponding account of events to that in sections i, iv, & v above is also found within the copy of my email to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent to its press office email address on 04/07/2024, and in the subsequent letter of correction sent to it on 08/07/2024 (re: items 14 & 15 of the associated folio of evidence: Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf). These items do not represent the totality of my communications with the MFA, and do not include a copy of the audio evidence submitted to it on 13/07/2024, as referred to on p.110 above.

While it is acknowledged that the evidence supplied to the MFA is, according to the nature of my involvement, exclusively circumstantial, I anticipate it to be sufficiently compelling to those such as the People’s Republic of China, who might consider themselves injured parties in the matter, to warrant their efforts at deeper systems-level investigation of the issues raised by it. Nevertheless, I should point out that I have received no reply from the MFA in acknowledgment of any of my submissions made to it. For this reason, my remarks regarding the potential significance of these submissions to the PRC, or its possible actions in response to them, are wholly speculative.

27 January 2026

back to top ^

Footnotes:

1. I am aware that polonium-210 is a highly radioactive source of low-penetration alpha radiation, which is dangerous if inhaled or ingested. Alpha radiation will not penetrate most materials, e.g. skin or paper; and as polonium-210 emits no significant gamma radiation, this makes it easily transportable. The effects experienced after tasting a few drops of the water (a-d were experienced immediately or shortly after) were:
   • a) An immediate ‘hit’ or ‘buzz’ from the oral presence.
   • b) A feeling of being hot and flushed, with severe vasodilation.
   • c) Acute liver pain.
   • d) Several isolated tiny dark-red spots appearing very quickly on my skin in the wrist area, then disappearing over a period of several days.
   • e) Developing general sickness over the subsequent 12 hour period, which became negligible after a further 24 hours.

   Obviously, I did not receive a fatal dose, and was able to eliminate the toxicity by eating lots of fresh foods, water, vitamins, kelp (iodine), and fish oils, soon after the general sickness developed. I did go to A&E shortly after consumption, with acute liver pain, but before the general sickness developed, so the symptoms weren’t very apparent, and again, as related below, the doctor refused to take my claims of being poisoned seriously, and refused to make any tests, having been alerted by my online summary health record of my previous supervision by mental health services, following my self-referral in 2007 (see p.48 of my report). I had not at that point formed the suspicion of radiotoxicity, and only reached this conclusion after subsequently researching the subject. Before these events, I had already decided to leave the country, to avoid this series of attempts on my life, and my visit to the hospital came a few hours before I boarded a plane, so there was no subsequent follow-up visit to the hospital or my GP. The general sickness had already developed by this time, but fortunately it was not so severe to prevent my travelling. I recovered shortly after while abroad by my own efforts. [See: Guilmette, R., Why -210Po?, Health Physics News, Vol. XXXV number2, Feb. 2007: http://somr.info/lib/polonium_210_story.pdf.] [back]

2. There is an audio recording available of my conversation with PC Burgess on 13/03/2015. It is worth noting that within a few weeks of this meeting between PC Burgess and myself I learned that my neighbour, who I believe was in his late 30s or early 40s, had passed away suddenly; however, I have no detailed information regarding the cause or the circumstances of his death. [back]
3. See the section: Whole Spine MRI made at the Royal London Hospital (September 2015) in the C-Spine MRI Scan (July 2020) page; or pp.72-82 of my report – the negligence of RLH’s Neurology Dept. is discussed on pp.73-74 & 79 in that section of the report; the cause and progress of my complaint to SLaM is discussed in detail on pp.80-81. [back]
4. The supporting documentary items referenced in this and subsequent subsections are available to download in the form of a PDF folio, with the filename: Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf (34MB). The folio comprises 15 individual documents, being a combination of travel documents, email correspondence, and printed copies of saved flight searches using Mytrip’s online flight booking facility. [back]
5. Please note that within the email correspondence included in the associated folio Mytrip_Xiamen_PRC_folio.pdf, references are made to my telephone calls to Mytrip’s and Xiamen Airlines’ Customer Service numbers that are inaccurate with respect to the dates of the calls. Page 3 para.1 of my complaint to Mytrip of 16/06/2024 (item 13 in the folio) and page 3 paras. 3 & 4 of my email to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 04/07/2024 (item 14) each refer to the dates of my calls to Mytrip as ‘1 & 2 June’, while my email to the MFA refers to the date of my call to the airline as ‘2 June’. The correct dates of my calls to Mytrip are 30 & 31 May, as represented here, and to the airline, that of 1 June. These inaccuracies were corrected in the case of the MFA in my subsequent letter sent to it by email attachment on 08/07/2024 (re: item 15 in the folio). [back]

• BRIEF

  • In Brief..
  • Contact Us
  • A Sitemap

• REPORT

  • SOMR – MRI Evidence
  • 2nd MRI Head Scan
  • C-Spine MRI Scan (July 2020)
  • Concealed Devices
  • Further Evidence
  • Full MRI Scan Downloads
  • Technological Imperatives
  • Complaint to the GMC
  • Complaint to GSTT NHS
  • Attempts on My Life
  • Complaints to Metpolice & IPCC
  • Political Asylum Applications
  • A Miscarriage of Civil Justice
  • Applications to ECtHR
  • Swedish Asylum Applications

• RFR

  • RFR: Research Papers
  • RFR: Effects on Wildlife

• XCETERA

  • The Limits of Rationality
  • Radical Affinity & Variant Proportion in Natural Numbers
  • Mind: Before & Beyond Computation
  • Digital's Hidden Corruption
  • Is Artificial Intelligence a Fallacy?
  • Integers & Proportion
  • Intuitive Periodicity in Numerical & Temporal Sequence
  • Quantum Elevations [pdf]
  • Somatic Inscription (growing up with numbers)
  • Dawkins' Memetics – A Biological Assault on the Cultural
  • Randomness, Non-Randomness, & Structural Selectivity