Edited from ‘Tortured by the State’
In August 2017, being a writer, and in a fortunate position to be able to take time out from my teaching career and focus on my writing, I rented a small house in an idyllic location in rural Scotland for the duration of six months. Two weeks prior to leaving, I overheard the neighbours arguing over whether they should call the police and tell them I might be terrorist. It was a ridiculous argument, one which was most likely fuelled by alcohol, and I did not pay any serious attention to it – not until two weeks later when I noticed that I was being followed.
The reason my neighbour made this malicious phone call was not out of any serious concern that I may be some kind of Taliban-turban lover – far from it. This was vengeance, drunken vengeance, and part of an ongoing petty feud. Indeed, far from being an Islamic terrorist, I’m not even Islamic. Now, I would have thought that a fundamental prerequisite to being an Islamic terrorist is that a person is Islamic. As I have discovered, being brown is enough to label you as Muslim, even if you are not. Considering that I have few Muslim friends, have never even been to a mosque (but have been to countless churches and cathedrals), have never read the Koran (but have read the Bible), and – as I said – am not even Muslim, it is a complete mystery how the counter-terrorism squad who turned up in that summer drew the conclusion that I’m a terrorist. As anyone who knows me will tell you, extremism of any kind whatsoever does not interest me – rather it repulses me. In fact, to get an insight to my pacifist values all you have to do is read any one of the seven novels or three plays which I’ve had published.
Unable to detect that the complainant was acting maliciously, this counter-terrorism squad arrived, overzealous and paranoid, assuming the worst. They never bothered finding out that I’m an English teacher, that I’m a writer, and that I’m not actually Muslim. It always felt to me that the colour of skin was the most significant factor in their decision-making. Suddenly I was being followed everywhere; people were being moved away from me, undercover police were all over me and soon helicopters would arrive, along with the police dogs.
Since Sir William Macpherson conducted his inquiry into the Metropolitan Police in 1999, labelling them as “Institutionally Racist”, officers now undergo training in Cultural Diversity. It would appear to me that such training is inadequate. After more than six years of intense surveillance, with all my movements monitored, all my communications intercepted, these counter-terrorism officers, apparently, still cannot work out my ethnicity and my spiritual beliefs. One only needs to look at my name to understand that I come from a Sikh background, not Muslim – there is a considerable difference. There is no great detective work required here. Consider also the following: When they initially arrived, I was in a relationship with a Jewish woman. This fact, again, was deemed inconsequential. As I said, I can only assume that much of their decision-making was based on the colour of my skin. They have yet to understand that being brown does not make you Muslim.
As the decision-making process of these officers has never been explained to me, I don’t actually know the rationale for placing me under surveillance. Despite all the well-intentioned literature from the College of Policing instructing police officers to explain and account for their decision-making process, no one has bothered to offer me any kind of explanation whatsoever. I can only conclude that had the decision-makers been honest, unbiased, impartial, and had they based their decisions on objective, factual evidence, rather than race, then I wouldn’t be writing this book. Why the decision-making process has never been made known to me, has also never been explained to me. And why I have never been given the opportunity to respond to their concerns, whatever these concerns are, is a complete mystery to me.
The folly of these counter-terrorism officers becomes more apparent when you consider that I spend my days in a language school, teaching English. On the one hand, I have been deemed a threat to security, so much so that outside my home undercover police are permanently stationed, along with ambulances, police cars, police dogs, etc. However, on the other hand, I spend all day in a school teaching. The contradiction is not only stark, surely it is contradictory and wholly illogical. In fact, it’s just plain ridiculous.
You may wonder how I know that I am under surveillance, and how I know that outside my home there are police cars, ambulances and police dogs. It is because they let me know. Ever since they arrived, in August 2017, they have never hidden this “surveillance”, rather, they have ensured I am well aware of their presence.
The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest I’m a criminal, let alone a terrorist, to them, was wholly inconsequential. This was just a minor inconvenience which they would attempt to overcome by, remarkably, creating the evidence themselves. Within six weeks of them arriving, they began fabricating evidence.
What l have learnt about this counter-terrorism squad is that they operate outside of the confines of the law. They are able to hide behind ‘national security’ to ensure their operations remain unknown, and such operations, as I discovered, are completely illegal. For years, they have been attempting to fabricate evidence in order to imprison me on false charges of terrorism – Me? An English teacher… A lefty socialist… A vegan… A pacifist… A published author… A novelist… A man who enjoys a pint and loves Monty Python… Whose favourite bands include Led Zeppelin and Oasis… And a man who’s not even Muslim… An Islamic terrorist? And all of this in the ‘national interest’ to protect ‘national security’?
It was the Panel on the Daniel Morgan Inquiry which in 2021 labelled the Metropolitan Police as “Institutionally Corrupt” and from my experience, unfortunately, I would have to wholeheartedly agree. I’ve actually lost count of the number of officers I have seen attempting to fabricate evidence. To this special counter-terrorism squad, and those officers from The Metropolitan Police who partake in such illegal activities, there appear to be no moral or ethical concerns about lying under oath and misleading a court of law by presenting falsified evidence. They are not troubled by the fact that perjury is a crime, as is perverting the course of justice. Not only that, but the tacit nature of those officers involved in this unlawful “surveillance” and the refusal or unwillingness of anyone to speak out, suggests that there is indeed a culture of corruption within this section of the law.
Within months, the harassment began in earnest, which escalated into intimidation and threats. I have had to endure sleep deprivation, helicopters, sirens, police dogs, 24-7 surveillance; I’ve had police vehicles driven at me, I’ve been called names, every time I go out they use police vehicles and, bizarrely, ambulances. I even received a death threat once. The gate to where I was staying was violently kicked in one occasion… And so much more. Into a fifth year of supposedly “covert surveillance”, I still live with a permanent police presence outside my home and I am followed absolutely everywhere I go. How do I know? As I said, they ensure that I know.
The obvious question is: Why are they doing this? Why don’t they just talk to me? After all, they obviously don’t think I’m that dangerous as I spend all day in a classroom. The idea, therefore, that I’m a threat to national security is illogical. In fact, this whole “surveillance” is littered with numerous contradictions. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to ask what terrorist behaviour have they witnessed during over four seven years of intense surveillance? What is it, exactly, that makes them suspect I’m a terrorist? Shouldn’t they at the very least tell me? After all, that is their job – to explain their decision-making process and to give the public an opportunity to respond. Is that not the humane, the decent, the honest thing to do?
The balance between democratic freedoms and authoritarian principles is a fine line indeed. Just as the balance between Human Rights and ensuring secrecy to protect national security, is also a fine line. When that line is breached, in a democratic country, there must be safeguards to ensure that rights of citizens are not infringed. As I have learnt, any corrupt police officer can hide behind the claim of “national security” even when there is no basis to it. The intelligence services operate outside of the law, with few (if any) checks or balances. Ironically, the democracy they seek to defend, they themselves undermine with their secrecy, their lack of accountability and lack of transparency.
I must watch what I write, as if they do not like what I write then it may result in some kind of repercussion, such as being woken at night, or having this very document deleted from my computer, or they may get one of the undercover Metropolitan Police officers currently outside my home to make some kind of threat, or they might get one of the neighbours to threaten me, or they may make the police dog bark (which also lives outside my home), or possibly, tomorrow as I drive to work, they might get a police vehicle (either marked or unmarked) or an ambulance to drive at me at high speed. All of these tactics, and so many more, you’ll be surprised to learn are used by The Metropolitan Police. I’ve experienced them first hand.
I would not blame you for not believing me. If I were you, I would probably not believe me. Besides, no one else actually believes me – neither family nor friends. Consequently, since August 2017, I’ve been living in isolation as no one believes that the police could actually be that incompetent, racist and corrupt to place me under surveillance for a day, let alone for over four years. Yet, everything I relate here is true.
You may choose to believe these officers, after all, there are many of them, and only one of me. But before you listen to them, and before you make your judgement, just make sure you know who they are. Go through their history with a fine comb and find out all about them; find out about their previous cases and what else they have been involved in. Find out who, exactly, they are. Examine them thoroughly and meticulously, as they have done to me. Once you have done so and you are satisfied of their character then, by all means, make your judgement.
So many questions need to be answered, least of all, why are they doing this? Why are they going to so much trouble for an English teacher and a writer? What stops them from doing their job honestly and talking to me, which is only common-sense? Why are they so scared of the truth coming out?