Letter to my MP

Dear Dave,

May I first apologise for my rather messy initial presentation of my case regarding the censorship of my tweets by Twitter. I suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which can affect how I present in the first instance. It helps when those asked to resolve the problem, including your good self, can factor this in before coming to any final conclusion about whether my complaint has validity.

As you are undoubtedly aware, many vulnerable people in our society are now suffering extreme hardship as the result of apparent wrong-doing persons of power. When I am subject to such treatment or am required to witness this occurring to others prevented from defending themselves, my PTSD is triggered especially when there is clear evidence yet nothing seems to be being done to stop it. So the personal trigger that resulted in my being twitter censored probably begins here at the beginning of June 2012:

“The rage that leads to suicidal thinking/behaviour was triggered again by this story published yesterday. As an example of the social disparities in my country, it really cannot be improved upon. The gap between rich and poor is so stark and the fatuous complacency of the rich so obvious that someone either has to be totally disconnected from reality or an active part of the problem not to be able to see it. Britain is not the only country where this is occurring – it is happening on a global level – and I am now angry enough to be calling a spade a fucking shovel. What is occurring is a crime against humanity inflicted by those who have no humanity and anyone who suggests that this is ‘normal’ and change unnecessary can be regarded as an accessory. I ought to know exactly what a crime is because I am a criminal.”

Extract from “These are not suicides – this is Murder-by-Proxy”

This caused my initial upset but as the month of June progressed, it was clear that matters were deteriorating. During the month, I continued to comment on what I was seeing:

“As more people begin to wake up to the severity of the situation we find ourselves in, our ‘leaders’’ behaviour becomes more irrational and, probably, less legal by the minute. This is not occurring in one country alone – this is a global problem. Some countries are beginning to address it – Iceland and Japan are good examples. But my country, the United Kingdom, has yet to catch up and our citizens are dying, losing their homes and being deprived of the means to support themselves by a coalition government with no lawful mandate to do the things it has already done, let alone those things it apparently plans to do. If you doubt what I am saying, then it may be time for you to do your own research rather than simply introject what you are being told. I am not the only person who sees this problem.”

Extract from: “I have this thing about censorship”

By this time, I was being censored by Twitter. At the same time, the UK government was being subject to wider public scrutiny of its behaviour and it really wasn’t doing very well at all when measured by ethical or moral behavioural standards.

The UK Home Secretary is found to be in contempt of court. The most senior government official with responsibility for the ‘home’ is found to have broken faith with the country’s courts, yet the implications of this ‘disgrace’ have evaporated in the light of other events.

Members of the UK Government now appear to have lied or intentionally misled the government-appointed Leveson Inquiry concerning their level of collusion with a privately-owned media company. This media company’s employees are being formally charged with criminal offences up to and including perverting the course of justice. The evidence being presented to the Leveson Inquiry suggests that members of our government actively participated in what was going on here. Nevertheless, even this scandal was eclipsed by the criminal behaviour of the UK Banking system.

These are extremely serious allegations of wrong-doing in public office and other high places. In every instance, innocent people have suffered abuse, invasion of privacy and experienced loss as a result. The impact of these savage cuts to welfare benefits is now being recognised as having a potentially lethal impact upon claimants. It must be remembered that these cuts are being forced upon the British public by members of government whose behavioural standards in measures of legality, honesty and ethics are already under public and judicial question. It is therefore both reasonable and understandable for that public to start raising very serious questions about the ability of the government to behave in a lawful manner and their competence to carry out their public duties. This is what I was I was questioning. In addition, I was offering potential professional and practical solutions based upon publicly-available evidence.

That my twitter account is now subject to monitoring and censorship implies that, as a member of the public qualified to give an opinion on issues of mental health in matters of public responsibility, I do not appear to be free to make these points anymore. As far as I am aware, my points have validity. By raising the matter with you personally at this stage, I am choosing to use formal and lawful procedures in order to establish the facts. By placing the matter in the public domain, anyone interested in the subject can watch to see how it is handled by those whose responsibility it is to act.

“When faced with cruelty inflicted by the State upon its citizens, individuals face an ethical dilemma – to act or to bystand. When we bystand in the face of systemic abuses, we collude with them. When we collude, our actions indicate our ‘agreement’ with the abuse regardless of what we might say. We become a part of the problem rather than contributing to the solution. This is the individuals’ dilemma and only the individual can resolve it, for better or worse. Nevertheless, when our own internal ethical system fails in the face of government-organised abuses upon the vulnerable and impoverished, we become accessories to crimes against humanity. We become criminals ourselves.”

Extract: “Ethics, Politics, People and Crime”

As my MP, you have an elected responsibility to act in the best interests of all your constituents. As your constituent, I believe that the censoring of my tweets by Twitter violates the following Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:

ARTICLE 10

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

ARTICLE 11

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

ARTICLE 13

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

ARTICLE 14

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

I appreciate that there are those who dislike this Human Rights law. They are free to hold their opinions but they are not free to act on those opinions under the Convention:-

ARTICLE 13

ARTICLE 17

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction on any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

If the UK Government has determined that it needs to derogate its responsibilities under this Convention, which has resulted in restrictions being placed upon my freedom of expression, has it complied with the requirements set down within it for this purpose:

ARTICLE 15

In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.
No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.
Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.

Has the European Convention on Human Rights ceased to operate within the UK? If so, when did this occur and when was the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe informed on the matter?

If the Convention continues to operate, why are my tweets being censored? To the best of my knowledge, what I am saying is legal, decent, honest and truthful. Those I am commenting upon do not seem to be able to make the same claim, so why am I being prevented from exercising my Right to Free Expression? Am I being subject to unlawful censorship? If I am, by what authority has this been done and what, if anything, is being done about it?

I look forward to your response.