Millburn isn't helping with Though Police enquiries
John Allman | 11.11.2002 11:37
The British Heath Secretary is stonewalling Parliamentary enquiries about a secret, non-consensual psychological experiment that has gone badly awry. One victim was quoted in an earlier article nicknaming the experiment's perpetrators 'The Thought Police' and 'The Mengele Clinic'.
Documentary evidence to substantiate the following report is available by fax to serious enquirers.
The British Secretary of State at the Department of Health, The Rt Hon Alan Millburn MP, has failed repeatedly to respond to legitimate enquiries raised in writing by the Member of Parliament who represents one of the victims of a secret government psychological experiment involving the use of newly developed information technology that is capable of monitoring the victims' thoughts. The victims of the secret experiment need information in order to start legal actions, including making a judicial review application that would challenge the legality of the multi-disciplinary experiment, which uses the services of staff from more than one government department, including the Health Department.
Details of the secret operation, in relation to which the numerous enquiries have failed to elicit any response whatosever from the Health Secretary, were published on 9 September this year at the UK Independent Media Center website (UK.IndyMedia.org) under the headline: 'Thought. Police' victims denied information.
See:
http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=40396&group=webcast
A series of letters has been sent by Phil Willis MP (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Lib Dem) to Mr Millburn and to the Home Secretary, David Blunkett. The first letter from Mr Willis to Mr Millburn was dated 18 July 2002. The most recent letter from Mr Willis to Mr Millburn was sent on 1 Novermber 2002. Although the Home Office did send a brief reply to one letter, albeit this reply failed to address the specific issues of concern, Mr Millburn has not responded at all to any of the numerous letters, emails or telephone messages that he has been sent on the subject of the secret experiment.
The experiment concerning which Mr Millburn is "stonewalling" uses advanced information technology the very existence of which is classified under the Official Secrets Act. The reason given deniably by government sources for the technology used and also for the experiment itself both being classified as official secrets is that the technology also has potential military applications. However, Mr Willis's constituent believes that the real reasons for the continuing secrecy are to spare the blushes of politicians who are rightly embarrassed at the fiasco into which the Thought Police experiment quickly deteriorated, and because of doubts in hindsight concerning the legality of the operation, leading to the use of official secrecy to deny access to a legal remedy for the victims.
The abuse of the Official Secrets Acts to deny a legal remedy to those whose human rights have been violated by those "acting in an official capacity" places the UK in flagrant breach of its international treaty obligations by virtue of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
With one of the letters to Mr Millburn was enclosed a list of twenty-three separate legal and ethical objections to the Thought Police experiment, including the objection based upon ECHR Article 13. Also enclosed were excepts from the House of Lords judgments given in the landmark case Attorney-General v DeKeyers' Royal Hotel [1920], which established that it is illegal for ministers to try to do differently using the Royal Prerogative anything that statute law expressly enables to be done only in a specific manner. The DeKeyser case provides the foundation of another of the twenty-three legal and ethical objections that cannot be raised in a judicial application until information is released to the victims of the experiment.
Mr Millburn has been sent a copy of the earlier IndyMedia report at his Private Office and has been asked specifically and directly either to admit or to deny that the report is true. He has failed completely to respond to all enquiries, even when challenged directly to deny the earlier report (if he can). Mr Millburn has also been invited, in writing, to sue the author of the earlier report for libel, if he denies that the account given is factual. Although the earlier article does not name Mr Millburn personally, the early report clearly implies extremely reprehensible misconduct on the part of the Health Secretary.
© copyright John Allman 2002
The British Secretary of State at the Department of Health, The Rt Hon Alan Millburn MP, has failed repeatedly to respond to legitimate enquiries raised in writing by the Member of Parliament who represents one of the victims of a secret government psychological experiment involving the use of newly developed information technology that is capable of monitoring the victims' thoughts. The victims of the secret experiment need information in order to start legal actions, including making a judicial review application that would challenge the legality of the multi-disciplinary experiment, which uses the services of staff from more than one government department, including the Health Department.
Details of the secret operation, in relation to which the numerous enquiries have failed to elicit any response whatosever from the Health Secretary, were published on 9 September this year at the UK Independent Media Center website (UK.IndyMedia.org) under the headline: 'Thought. Police' victims denied information.
See:
http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=40396&group=webcast A series of letters has been sent by Phil Willis MP (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Lib Dem) to Mr Millburn and to the Home Secretary, David Blunkett. The first letter from Mr Willis to Mr Millburn was dated 18 July 2002. The most recent letter from Mr Willis to Mr Millburn was sent on 1 Novermber 2002. Although the Home Office did send a brief reply to one letter, albeit this reply failed to address the specific issues of concern, Mr Millburn has not responded at all to any of the numerous letters, emails or telephone messages that he has been sent on the subject of the secret experiment.
The experiment concerning which Mr Millburn is "stonewalling" uses advanced information technology the very existence of which is classified under the Official Secrets Act. The reason given deniably by government sources for the technology used and also for the experiment itself both being classified as official secrets is that the technology also has potential military applications. However, Mr Willis's constituent believes that the real reasons for the continuing secrecy are to spare the blushes of politicians who are rightly embarrassed at the fiasco into which the Thought Police experiment quickly deteriorated, and because of doubts in hindsight concerning the legality of the operation, leading to the use of official secrecy to deny access to a legal remedy for the victims.
The abuse of the Official Secrets Acts to deny a legal remedy to those whose human rights have been violated by those "acting in an official capacity" places the UK in flagrant breach of its international treaty obligations by virtue of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
With one of the letters to Mr Millburn was enclosed a list of twenty-three separate legal and ethical objections to the Thought Police experiment, including the objection based upon ECHR Article 13. Also enclosed were excepts from the House of Lords judgments given in the landmark case Attorney-General v DeKeyers' Royal Hotel [1920], which established that it is illegal for ministers to try to do differently using the Royal Prerogative anything that statute law expressly enables to be done only in a specific manner. The DeKeyser case provides the foundation of another of the twenty-three legal and ethical objections that cannot be raised in a judicial application until information is released to the victims of the experiment.
Mr Millburn has been sent a copy of the earlier IndyMedia report at his Private Office and has been asked specifically and directly either to admit or to deny that the report is true. He has failed completely to respond to all enquiries, even when challenged directly to deny the earlier report (if he can). Mr Millburn has also been invited, in writing, to sue the author of the earlier report for libel, if he denies that the account given is factual. Although the earlier article does not name Mr Millburn personally, the early report clearly implies extremely reprehensible misconduct on the part of the Health Secretary.
© copyright John Allman 2002
John Allman
e-mail:
info@slavery.org.uk
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Back again "John"?
11.11.2002 15:26
Sybil
Reply to Sybil
11.11.2002 16:33
Actually, I propositioned The Guardian as early as mid-2001 saying simply that I had a story about a most unusual human rights abuse perpetrated by the UK government, would they like to write the story. That is ALL I said in what I believe was my very first email to any newspaper, yet the reply was equally short: that Alan Travis (who doesn't know me from Adam) did not think that such a story "would make a piece for the Guardian".
Since when has the Guardian not been interested in running stories about the British government abusing human rights?
If you actually take the trouble to read what I have written, it should be fairly obvious that the mass media aren't going to be ALLOWED to publish the underlying story, and why.
My story isn't derived from anything on the web. I therefore cannot offer corroboration from materials ablready published on the web. As for my having sources in libraries, that really is rather a daft question, if I may say so.
Why don't you take me up on the offer I made in the first sentence of today's posting? I quote: "Documentary evidence to substantiate the following report is available by fax to serious enquirers."
You've got my phone number, my home address and two email addresses for me. What more does anybody need, who is serious about finding out whether I'm perhaps ON something (or, perhaps, ought to be), or genuinely ONTO something?
John Allman (author of the article)
e-mail:
john_W_allman@hotmail.com
Oops!
11.11.2002 18:56
John Allman (the author)
e-mail:
john_W_allman@hotmail.com