Disclaimer: The post titled “On State Surveillance” does not intend to attack government bodies. This post is based on lived experience, and it raises serious concerns in the public interest about human rights violations.

This post is part of a civic testimony documenting concerns over surveillance and institutional suppression. It constitutes protected speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and relevant international law.

This content does not promote hatred, violence, or discrimination. Any interpretation to the contrary is a misrepresentation of its intent and content. It forms part of a documented record of lived experience and systemic obstruction.

---

Summary

My previous post documented my concerns regarding the digital suppression and censorship of my campaign content by, I believe the UK Home Office. This post discusses the possible state surveillance that I think I am under by either the police or the Home Office.  Since my campaign ended on October 31st due to what I believe was digital suppression and censorship, I have become deeply concerned that my phone may be subject to unauthorised tracking or “pinging.”

This post also explains that for reasons of personal safety, I am drawing this blog to a close for now, until this censorship and state surveillance that I suspect is happening has subsided. I don’t feel safe continuing to publish online content under these conditions.

Containment

I have been spending most of my time up in Northumberland. I love it up there and I feel safer there. Being in Northumberland provides me with physical distance from North Yorkshire, the location where I have experienced harm and abuse related to Ampleforth Surgery, North Yorkshire County Council, Tees, Esk and Wear Valley Trust (TEWV,) and potentially North Yorkshire police, (as I think the local police may be involved in the digital suppression of my campaign.)

When I am away from North Yorkshire, I am better able to keep myself safe. I filmed all of my campaign videos from locations in Northumberland. Occasionally I choose other locations to go to, and I have made it public that I spend a lot of time away. I travel lawfully and peacefully on trains or coaches to these places, and I conduct myself lawfully and peacefully when staying in Airbnbs. No homeowners or agencies have complained to me about misbehaviour. I am a peaceful citizen.

Obstruction of Movement

I made plans to travel for a week to Pembroke, South Wales, after my campaign ended on October 31st, 2025. I had booked a coach to leave Leeds at 9.00am on Sunday, 2nd November. On the Saturday 1st November, I called a local taxi firm in Malton, who I have been using for years and who have never denied me a fare before. I asked them if they could collect me at 7.00am to take me to Malton bus station so I could board a bus to Leeds.

The firm told me that they had ‘no availability’ to take me to Leeds ‘and could not take me.’ I found it strange that they were fully booked at 7.00am on a Sunday. 7.00am on Sunday is not a busy time of the week. I found a taxi company in Leeds, whom I booked a fare with. It was scheduled for them to collect me at 7.45am on Sunday. However, on Saturday morning, they phoned me to say they ‘could not take me.’

I don’t know for sure, but I think it is possible that these two denied fares were due to either the police or state agents calling them to tell them not to take me anywhere. It just seemed too random for two firms to deny me fares at that time of day.

No authority currently has any safeguarding orders over me. I am free to travel where I wish. If anyone did tell these taxi firms not to take me to Leeds, then it would constitute possible safeguarding abuse. It also constitutes containment and obstruction. As a result of these denied taxi fares, I had to rebook a train ticket, which was expensive and took me an extra twelve hours of travel.

Human Rights Act –

Article 5: Right to Liberty

If an authority instructed these taxi firms to refuse service to me for travel to Leeds, it could potentially contravene Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees the Right to Liberty and Security. This article protects individuals from arbitrary detention or restrictions in movement.

It guarantees that no one can prevent an individual from moving freely without lawful justification. Any restrictions imposed must be proportionate, lawful, and necessary, such as those enacted for public safety or legal proceedings. Restrictions like travel bans, surveillance-based limitations, or coercive monitoring could potentially breach Article 5 if they are not legally justified.

Surveillance – ‘Ping’.

I’m not 100% sure, but I believe it’s possible that the Home Office or the police are using “Ping” to monitor my whereabouts. A ping is a digital signal your phone sends out to connect with nearby cell towers. This signal happens automatically.

Every time your phone pings a tower, it leaves a traceable record of your location. These pings allow mobile networks to monitor your movements across various locations.

Law enforcement and surveillance systems utilise this data to observe individuals. They typically access phone location data through formal legal requests to network providers.

Agencies require warrants or court orders under laws like the Investigatory Powers Act. When a person poses an immediate threat, there are emergency exceptions that allow authorities to access data without prior authorisation. However, unapproved or unofficial access, particularly without a warrant, may be illegal and constitute a serious invasion of privacy.

Police requests for this access to data must be logged and auditable, identify the person and device, and provide justification (such as a legitimate criminal investigation or national security). Under UK law, lawful interception is permitted only with proper legal authority or with oversight from regulatory bodies.

The Human Rights Act, Article 8:

The Right to Private Life

Article 8: Human Rights Act – Right to Privacy.

If the police or state authorities have no warrant or legal basis for accessing this data, tracking my movements and my phone violates Article 8 of the Human Rights Act: The Right to a Private Life. Article 8 states that:

‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime’[i]

The right to a private life incorporates the privacy of one’s identity, psychological integrity and one’s communications. This incorporates data and digital presence.

If a provider shared data without logging the request or outside legal channels, it may constitute unlawful surveillance. In summary, unauthorised surveillance, metadata tracking, or suppression of digital testimony – especially if it targets protected speech – may constitute a breach of Article 8.

I am not posing a threat to national security or public safety. Nor am I causing disorder or crime. Therefore, if this surveillance is taking place, it may constitute unlawful surveillance. It is definitley a violation of my human right to privacy.

Reflection

I cannot know for sure if these allegations of state surveillance are true, but I think they are. I also think that authorities are possibly monitoring me via CCTV and facial recognition when I travel through hubs like Leeds, York and Newcastle. The reason that I think they are doing this, is not for concern for my safety, but to contain and watch me due to the controversy of my campaign.

This is not an accusation. However, after my recent trip to Wales, I have reason to believe it could be happening. If it is happening, it would represent a serious violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act—the right to privacy, liberty and freedom of movement. This action follows my recent concerns about the digital suppression of my campaign content, a potential violation of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression).

While I have little control over the algorithmic suppression of my campaign content, I do have some control over who can monitor my phone. For that reason, I will now be leaving my mobile phone at home to prevent any possible tracking and surveillance of my movements.

An Act of Protection

I do not intend to cause distress or alarm by leaving my phone at home. It is simply a measure to protect my fundamental right to privacy. I am moving about lawfully and peacefully, and there is no warrant or safeguarding order over me that could necessitate a reason to track my movements.

I also shared this intention publicly on social media: on X, TikTok and You Tube on 10th November, 2025 so that, if my phone stops pinging at cell towers, this is the documented reason.

Coupled with the violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, the right to freedom of expression (which has happened with the digital suppression of my testimony), this potential unlawful state surveillance is a serious impingement of my human rights.

I am therefore calling on the UN special rapporteur on Human Rights to review these patterns.

Final Blog Post

I am terrified by this possible state surveillance. I am frightened for my life and for my safety. My system has gone into a state of ‘freeze’. I have decided to therefore draw this blog to a close for now. I plan to turn my attention to memoir and novel writing: more private creative pursuits, which do not expose me to attack or surveillance by the state.

My Facial Pain will remain live indefinitely. I hope that this website will continue to be a source of information and a resource for readers.

I would like to thank all of the readers who have visited My Facial Pain. Whilst it has not found the reach I had hoped for, for a site that is so detailed, I have been delighted with the steady flow of visitors, so thank you for visiting.

This blog has been a labour of love. It is a body of work that I am deeply proud of. The posts cover such a wide range of topics. I have poured hours of thought and work into creating them. I therefore hope that they will continue to reach as many readers as possible!

It’s a sad note to end on – Silenced by the state and punished for speaking out. This is the reality of the world we live in. Systems do what they have to do to protect their reputations. Even at the expense of a genuine patient in urgent need of help.

It’s tragic, but I trust that you understand why I am having to pull back. It’s for my safety.

Thank you for your support.

Love Felicia X

Footnotes

[i] Human Rights Act, 1998, Article 8, Schedule 1, part 1, www.legislation.gov.uk

Photo Credits: Mike Van Schoonderwart, Marcelo Chagas, Stefan Coders, Imjimmyqian, WdToro, KindelMedia, Pixabay, Brett Sayles and Mart Production on Pexels.