invisible woman
WHEN PERSONAL BECOMES CRIMINAL
MINISTERIAL INSULT
Yesterday, I insulted a minister.
Calvin Bailey MP, Calvin Bailey MBE MP, Minister for Veterans and People, was posting on LinkedIn warmly about equality and his commitment to tackling discrimination. “You have no idea what you are talking about,” I replied.
Then came the visitors: his personal assistant and a small crowd from the veterans’ world appeared among my LinkedIn profile views. So, for everyone who came to inspect the troublesome woman — and everyone else wondering what prompted that comment — let me tell you the story.
I have no particular quarrel with Mr Bailey’s past as a cadet or his work for veterans. I am not the Veteran. I am the "People". My concern is with the ministerial letters, bearing his name, I received in response to my complaints to the MoD. Those letters sit at the far end of a chain that began with my private relationship, passed through somebody else’s personal conflict and, I believe, somebody else’s desire for revenge, before acquiring the authority of the British state and be supported by the British state for the last 2 years.
Why did I challenge Mr Bailey? Because his name appears on two ministerial answers which illustrate precisely how accountability disappears.
In the first, dated 18 August, I asked what the Ministry had done to apply its conduct standards to its own personnel after a discriminatory rumour about me reached their operational environment. The answer was that I was not employed by the Ministry, so its policy did not apply to me. Consider the logic: a civilian asks whether an institution has enforced standards governing its staff, and the institution replies "no", because that the civilian is not a member of staff. My employment status cannot explain how the Ministry supervised theirs. The response moved the eligibility test onto the person complaining and left the conduct complained of unexamined.
The second, dated 11 September, acknowledged a question about the administrative (mis)handling of two separate complaints, then declined further engagement because related judicial review proceedings existed. It did not even explain if these complaints had any relationship with the question before the court (spoiler - it did not). But if even, it did, asking a court to examine an underlying decision does not answer who received a complaint, where it was allocated, whether anyone considered it or why no competent owner was identified.
The Ministry effectively answered “Why have you not dealt with these complaints?” with “Because you have gone to court over the underlying dispute.” It supplied no explanation of why the administrative questions could not be examined separately. The existence of an accountability process became the reason for withholding another form of accountability.
Most likely Mr Bailey never read the submissions. Perhaps officials prepared the replies and rubber stamped his electronic signature. I cannot know. But these answers went out under his ministerial authority. Before publicly celebrating his commitment to equality, he might examine what his Department is saying in his name to a civilian asking it to uphold those very standards.
We are currently living through season three. I am already preparing for seasons four and five.
By the final episode, I hope somebody may be leaving in handcuffs. Because we now have a long chain of individuals, including knighted Admirals and Generals, who rubber stamped decisions, which I now challenge as illegal and, some of them, as criminal.
The uncomfortable question is whether that will be someone responsible for the crimes I allege — or the woman who kept asking how any of this was allowed to happen.
That is a prediction, not a verdict. But the documents already give us a plot worth following.
In this article, I will take you through the chain: how a relationship became a story about a woman; how that story traveled between military institutions; how a British commanding officer gave it operational force; and how the resulting account reached civilian police and ministers as an apparently respectable security matter.
This is how I believe a personal vendetta became a crime against me — and how the institutions at the end of the chain became entangled in what happened at its beginning.
THE WEEK TO REMEMBER
Let's explore some straight forward chronology.
Eight days. A declared relationship, an intelligence interview, a corrected visitor record, an exclusion, an invitation for "a friendly beer" — and a carefully drafted ambiguous British communication which Spain would cite in its security proceedings as an established fact.
16 JUNE: DECLARATION OF RELATIONSHIP
Laureano, my former partner, A Spanish commander serving at MARCOM nased at Northwood HQ, formally notified his Spanish chain of command, Admiral Jose Enrique Delgado Roig, that we are in official relationship and he asked what administrative steps were required to regularise it. Yes, we are not living in the Middle Ages, when a Master has to approve the relationship of a Serf, or request the right of the first night. But in this case, the Master had to initiate and complete the security reassessment for Laureano's HPS - a security clearance for an officer, where the changes in personal circumstances had to be re-assessed.
This should have been an ordinary personnel question.
My existence was hardly concealed: earlier that month, NATO conference paperwork for Laureano's visit to Oeiras NATO base, where the top secret STRIKENATO conference was supposed to take place, had already identified me as his partner.
The original 16 June email is not among the documents available to me. That email has dissapeared from Laureano's Hotmail box altogether with many other emails about the same subject on 28 June 2025, when his private email address as well as Whatsapp account had been hacked.
But the notification actually worked, it triggered the formal interview by Spanish counter-intelligence.
18 JUNE: “RUSSIAN ORIGIN”
Two CIFAS officers arrived from Spain and interviewed Laureano at Northwood. According to his account, the discussion concerned two alleged security breaches, one involving my attendance at the MARCOM Christmas event on 12 December 2024.
His surviving handwritten notes include:
“Ni administrativo / Ni disciplinario → Entrevista.”
Neither administrative nor disciplinary: an interview.
They also contain:
“origen Ruso!!??”
Russian origin.
I had prepared documents to help establish the facts: copies of my British and Polish passports, my CV and professional information. I delivered them to Laureano before the meeting.
I was not in the interview room. His notes and subsequent accounts are the sources for what was discussed there. My own position was straightforward: if there was a genuine concern about me, here was information with which to check it.
After that meeting I have actually met both CIFAS officers. We chatted for about 20 minutes. I was very happy that this meeting has taken place as I understood that it was an administrative reaction to my former's partner request in order to update his security clearance before the NATO conference, where we were travelling together next week.
I did not know that it was not. The objective of CIFAS officers was to supply the British counterparts with information, which would criminalise me and force my ex-partner to split up with me.
19 JUNE: THE SCHRÖDINGER'S VISITOR RECORD
According to Laureano’s account in his emails on 19 and 20 June 2025 to Admiral Delgado and CIFAS officers, one of the allegations presented to him during the meeting on 18 June was that the initial search had failed to locate his sponsorship of my December visit to NATO Christmas event. He has promptly and duly presented to CIFAS officers a copy of my visitor's badge and apparently when the search was repeated using a different combination of his names, the record was found.
The allegation of unauthorised entry had an obvious factual answer: I had attended as a properly sponsored guest.
That day, Laureano wrote to Delgado and his aid, David Fernández-Portal, seeking written confirmation of the position and asking for action concerning the hostility towards us.
But something else happened on 19 June.
According to the same British pleadings at High Court, on or around that dau, Northwood’s Commanding Officer, Mr Towers, was informed (allegedly by the same CIFAS officers) of security concerns and investigative activity and directed that Laureano’s access should be withdrawn.
A corrected visitor record and a new British restriction were now travelling through the story at the same time.
20 JUNE: CONCERNS BECOME ENFORCEABLE MEASURE
Laureano was summoned to a meeting with Rear Admiral Raptis, Flight Lieutenant Jackson and Lieutenant Colonel Noval. They were not British officers, they all served at MARCOM. In his email to CIFAS that afternoon, he described being told he represented a security risk, ordered to collect his belongings under escort and required to leave Northwood. He was not provided with any paperwork or explanation.
He challenged the measure and supplied again the evidence of my authorised December attendance.
The British account confirms the withdrawal of his pass. It also records a separate step:
“A note was made that Ms White should not be permitted escorted entry to the Northwood site.”
There it is: an instruction against me.
I had no current pass to surrender. No pending application was being refused. My former's partner's request to create any administrative status he supplied on 16 June still has no documentary proof of processing. I did not have any independent application for access to Northwood on my own either. Nevertheless, my identity had acquired an operational restriction.
This is where my question becomes specifically British: what information justified adding me personally to the measures concerning Laureano?
So far we try to establish it in High Court through Judicial Review proceedings. Yes, the MoD keeps it secret.
21 JUNE: FRIENDLY BEER INVITATION
It was Saturday. And that day many remarkable events happened. A telephone call from Fernández-Portal warning Laureano that he was in “big trouble” was one of them.
It then describes repeated calls from Delgado, culminating in an invitation to meet for a “friendly beer” the following day at The Three Crowns in Bushey.
This was "curiousier and curiousier" as Lewis Carroll put it.
By Friday, the relationship was a security problem. By Saturday, the admiral wanted to discuss it over a drink. Personally, over a "friendly beer".
Between Laureano and Delgado was 4 ranks difference. This was like getting an invite from the King for a cup of tea in private chambers, whilst you are working in the kitchen preparing sandwiches.
22 JUNE: ADMIRAL'S DEMANDS
On Sunday, 22 June, Admiral Delgado met Laureano Pastor at the Three Crowns pub in Bushey. The conversation began with beer, children—and a surprisingly persistent interest in whether I was pregnant. Apparently my womb was the security concern of the day.
“She’s pregnant?”
Pastor explained that we were trying to have a child and undergoing treatment.
“But she’s not pregnant yet, right?”
Then another question:
“But you just told me one is on the way?”
These were intimate questions about our plans for a family. The conversation then moved to our relationship—and to whether it should have existed at all.
Delgado introduced his purpose:
“I just wanted to give you my personal support and as your superior. But things are as they are.”
Personal support and military authority arrived in the same sentence. What followed made that combination increasingly uncomfortable.
“Last time we spoke, you told me it had been a huge mistake. You even told me you were getting along better with your wife. What happened after that?”
Pastor disputed that account. Delgado returned to it:
“But your relationship with her had improved.”
Pastor corrected him again: “The divorce was still going ahead.”
Delgado persisted:
“Didn’t you tell me it had been a terrible mistake?”
Pastor’s answer was clear. We had resumed our relationship. We had a life project. We were planning to have a child.
Only then did the conversation turn explicitly to the restriction.
“On Monday they’ll formally notify me of the denial of your access to the base.”
Pastor asked why.
“Security.”
What kind of security concern?
“I don’t know. It’s the British’ decision.”
Here was the first extraordinary contrast. The admiral could question the state of Pastor’s marriage, his relationship with the wife, whose name he could not remember, revisit whether our relationship was a “terrible mistake” and establish whether I was pregnant. But when asked to explain the security grounds behind an imminent official restriction, his answer was that he did not know.
He referred Pastor to CIFAS, mentioned possible coordination with CNI and ACCI, and raised the possibility of consequences for his clearance or posting. When Pastor mentioned his forthcoming assignment in Oeiras, Delgado advised against going:
“You shouldn’t go. It makes no sense if you can’t access here.”
No explanation followed of why a restriction at Northwood necessarily prevented that assignment.
Pastor asked whether he might be sent back to Spain. When Delgado acknowledged the possibility, Pastor said that would help our fertility treatment.
Delgado’s response introduced another consequence:
“But I doubt you’d keep the salary from here.”
The transcript contains no explicit bargain requiring Pastor to end our relationship. It does, however, record a conversation in which questions about that relationship sit alongside warnings about access, posting and pay—with the supposed security grounds left unexplained.
Then I arrived.
And the woman whose relationship, pregnancy and family plans had been discussed became someone the admiral would not address.
“I’m having a personal conversation.”
Pastor replied: “This affects both of us.”
Delgado changed the description:
“We’re talking like two navy officers.”
Pastor answered: “She’s implicated.”
Delgado responded: “Then we’re done.”
That sequence deserves attention. Before I arrived, my private life was a legitimate subject for discussion between an admiral and his subordinate. Once I was present, my involvement became an objection to continuing.
I said:
“I would like to understand the situation.”
Delgado answered:
“I’m not talking to you. With respect.”
Later, he described me as a “third party.” Pastor again explained that the situation directly affected me.
The conversation also returned briefly to an alleged “security breach.” Pastor said it had already been clarified. The transcript records no explanation from Delgado of what remained unresolved or how it justified the measures under discussion.
Instead, the exchange repeatedly became an argument about whether Pastor was mocking him.
“Yes, you are. Bringing this lady.”
“She’s my partner,” Pastor replied.
By the end, the asymmetry was complete: I was sufficiently central to be discussed as a relationship, a prospective mother and a possible source of consequences for an officer’s career. I was apparently insufficiently entitled to ask what any of it meant.
Security was invoked. Intimate questions were pursued. A concrete security explanation never emerged.
22 JUNE: OUR DEMANDS
That same Sunday, we put our position in writing.
Pastor sent an email headed “Legal notices and SAR — URGENT”, attaching my four-page “Immediate Demand for Redress, Legal Notice, and Formal Information Requests.” Its recipients were Admiral Delgado; Captain David Fernández-Portal at MARCOM; the UK Ministry of Defence’s information-request mailbox; the Government Legal Department’s new-proceedings mailbox; the Spanish Ambassador’s office; and the Spanish Defence Attaché’s office.
Lambs were complaining to the wolves that they were not happy to be invited for their dinner as food.
The document was explicit. I alleged “unlawful discrimination and retaliation based on my perceived national origin and personal relationship.” I explained that we were undergoing fertility treatment and that the disruption threatened our family plans, housing and financial stability.
Under the heading “Our Demands,” we requested restoration of Pastor’s access; clarification of his posting, pay and accommodation; an explanation of any restriction against me; and a formal apology. We also demanded:
“Written assurance that retaliatory conduct will cease, and that our private relationship will not be used as grounds for any adverse administrative action.”
For my own position, the question was equally direct:
“Written confirmation that I, Janina White, am not subject to any access ban, blacklist, or exclusion from Northwood HQ — and, if such action was taken, full explanation and basis thereof.”
Alongside those demands, I requested my personal data, the applicable policies, records of British involvement, and communications between British, Spanish and NATO authorities concerning us.
This was already a complaint about discrimination, interference with private and family life, and the unexplained use of official authority. Those concerns were recorded on 22 June 2025, before the following day’s written communication acquired its subsequent significance.
I cannot say whether Towers personally saw this email, whether it reached him through his chain of command, or whether it was withheld from him. The correspondence does not establish that. What it does establish is that our notice was sent directly to both the Ministry of Defence and the Government Legal Department. The Ministry subsequently acknowledged the associated subject access request under reference DPR2025/40133. It was not answered until July 2026. when it was finally answered, the answer was short - we shall not tell you anything because National Security grounds.
23 JUNE: THE LETTER THAT CAME BACK AS AUTHORITY
In October 2026, I received a message from Pastor describing a letter that Group Captain Neil Towers had sent to Admiral Delgado on 23 June 2025. Pastor explained that the letter had been incorporated into his Spanish legal proceedings. I have his account of its contents; I do not yet have the letter itself. MoD has refused to show it to me. Yes, correct, National Security grounds.
According to that account, Towers considered Pastor a security risk and a threat to the site on the basis of information concerning his relationship with me, and withdrew his access on a precautionary basis. Yet the letter also expressly qualified the information: it was not fully verified, required further investigation, and implied no presumption of guilt or wrongdoing by Pastor.
Those qualifications are central. As Pastor put it:
“The letter does not set out the findings of a British investigation establishing any misconduct. It records a precautionary decision based on information that still required verification.”
Hold on. What's about me? But I was not important enough to be specifically explained. I was needed only as a context.
What happened next, in his account, changed its significance. In the Spanish proceedings, CNI presented the letter as though the British commander had independently investigated the matter and established that Pastor constituted a security risk. The Spanish Ministry of Defence then relied on the British withdrawal of access to justify its own action. And their action was drastic - strip Laureano off his HPS and send him back to Spain.
A provisional British measure became an apparent external validation of the Spanish case.
Pastor described the circularity directly:
“First, information is passed to the British commanding officer.”
His challenge concerns what followed: the resulting British decision was then invoked by the Spanish authorities as a reason why they, too, had to act.
The original source of the information remains unresolved. Pastor expressly distinguished his suspicions about what Towers had been told from what he could establish. But his description identifies the question that matters: how did information requiring verification return through the British chain as an authoritative justification for Spanish administrative action?
That is the transformation I am challenging. Information about our private relationship acquired operational force in Britain; the resulting restriction then returned to Spain bearing the authority of a British security decision. The doubts recorded in the letter appear, on Pastor’s account, to have carried considerably less weight than the restriction itself.
SPANISH RUMOR BECOMES BRITISH RESTRICTION
By October 2026, after the press coverage and the publication of the “Red Sparrow” narrative in September, the chain I had identified a year earlier was becoming more visible. Separate pieces were beginning to support parts of the same explanation: a sexualised, origin-based image of me had circulated in the Spanish military environment; information concerning our relationship had reached British command; British authority had then given that information practical consequences.
I reported it, without that evidence, which emerged later in 2026, exactly a year before - September 2025.
Here is the list of people and institutions I have reported these allegations at that time:
Of all those recipients, only Hertfordshire Police contacted me to take the criminal allegations forward. They opened a formal investigation, but subsequently assigned it to a trainee detective.
HERTS POLICE
The trainee detective was very nice and utimately she requested me to make a Witness statement. At that point I already saw the signs of Herts Police attempting to criminalise my actions round the incident of 26 Augus 2025. So I hesitated. I am a lawyer and I understand the threshold for criminal charges to be brought by the CPS, especially if the perpetrators are highly ranked military personnel.
In January 2026, I discontinued my participation in the criminal investigation under the practical, legal and personal strain of pursuing it. I did not withdraw my factual allegations.
Then in second half of 2026 further information did emerge. Yes, Review Wye and the Spanish press, bless them.
On 6 October 2026, I formally requested reopening of investigation 41/84346/25. I identified recordings, contemporaneous correspondence, official documents and new reporting concerning the sexualised “Red Sparrow” narrative. I offered a formal witness statement and an indexed evidence package. I also requested an independent assessment of the institutional conflict: could Hertfordshire investigate the whole chain, including its own receipt and use of the disputed information?
After a reminder, DS Simon Smith replied on 13 October. He offered a meeting to discuss the additional information and assess whether there was enough to reopen the investigation.
I was concerned that this would leave the matter in another informal preliminary conversation, without a recorded decision or clear accountability. To me, that risked becoming another route under the carpet.
On 14 October, I therefore asked for a clear procedural answer: reopen the investigation for formal evidential assessment, or provide a recorded refusal identifying the decision-maker, material considered, reasons and review route. I also requested a documented conflict assessment and safeguards governing the receipt, preservation and use of my sensitive evidence.
I remained expressly willing to cooperate.
As of 21 October, a week had passed without a substantive response to those questions. I chased again on 19 October. No reopening decision, reasoned refusal or answer to the requested safeguards had followed.
The problem is now larger than an unanswered crime report. The institution I am asking to investigate how the narrative acquired official authority is itself part of the narrative’s documented journey.
So, an apparent quick decision to open an investigation back in September 2025, imminent assignment to a detective whose professional experience was primarily within the scope of dealing with local garage burglaries, instant decision to close the investigation, when I asked for a break, and now almost a month of thinking what do...
THE LIST
A short letter can have a remarkably long institutional life.
The Towers’s letter of 23 June 2025 gave a British security rationale to action taken over his relationship with me—even while acknowledging that the underlying information required verification. Spanish authorities subsequently relied on that British communication.
The restrictions were already operating. The letter helped give them a portable justification: something another institution could cite, another official could repeat, and another department could defend.
What followed drew military commanders, security personnel, police officers, investigators, reviewers, government lawyers and ministers into the same expanding dispute. My allegation is that the cumulative effect was an institutional whitewashing exercise: the original decision acquired successive layers of protection while its factual foundation remained unanswered.
The list below identifies that wider chain. It includes decision-makers, operational personnel, complaint recipients, reviewers and representatives. Their involvement is not identical, and inclusion does not establish shared knowledge, motive or wrongdoing. These are people whose evidence may explain how the decision was made, transmitted, enforced, defended or left unexamined.
Command, NATO and the Original Complaints
The Government’s Legal Defence
Parliamentary Notice and Ministerial Closure
This is my potential witness list. Please look for your name — or your role. The questions concern what each person knew, what they checked, what they passed on and what they declined to examine.
So here we go. Red Sparrow - Grave mistake - Are you kidding me? - On a precautionary basis - Under investigation - Offender - National security grounds.
Courts.
Departments.
Taxpayers' money.
Sex.
Suicide.
Intimidation.
Humans do not change. Crowds attended the Epstein's island saw nothing, heard nothing.
"I have just received an email".
"I was not involved".
"I just accepted other person's judgement".
And this is why I return to Mr Bailey. His signature appears at the end of the ministerial chain. Clearly rubber stamped.
"I just rubber stamped?"
That is the context of my public question when he speaks publicly about equality.
Today's song - ¿Me estás vacilando, o qué?
Yesterday, I insulted a minister.
Calvin Bailey MP, Calvin Bailey MBE MP, Minister for Veterans and People, was posting on LinkedIn warmly about equality and his commitment to tackling discrimination. “You have no idea what you are talking about,” I replied.
Then came the visitors: his personal assistant and a small crowd from the veterans’ world appeared among my LinkedIn profile views. So, for everyone who came to inspect the troublesome woman — and everyone else wondering what prompted that comment — let me tell you the story.
I have no particular quarrel with Mr Bailey’s past as a cadet or his work for veterans. I am not the Veteran. I am the "People". My concern is with the ministerial letters, bearing his name, I received in response to my complaints to the MoD. Those letters sit at the far end of a chain that began with my private relationship, passed through somebody else’s personal conflict and, I believe, somebody else’s desire for revenge, before acquiring the authority of the British state and be supported by the British state for the last 2 years.
Why did I challenge Mr Bailey? Because his name appears on two ministerial answers which illustrate precisely how accountability disappears.
In the first, dated 18 August, I asked what the Ministry had done to apply its conduct standards to its own personnel after a discriminatory rumour about me reached their operational environment. The answer was that I was not employed by the Ministry, so its policy did not apply to me. Consider the logic: a civilian asks whether an institution has enforced standards governing its staff, and the institution replies "no", because that the civilian is not a member of staff. My employment status cannot explain how the Ministry supervised theirs. The response moved the eligibility test onto the person complaining and left the conduct complained of unexamined.
The second, dated 11 September, acknowledged a question about the administrative (mis)handling of two separate complaints, then declined further engagement because related judicial review proceedings existed. It did not even explain if these complaints had any relationship with the question before the court (spoiler - it did not). But if even, it did, asking a court to examine an underlying decision does not answer who received a complaint, where it was allocated, whether anyone considered it or why no competent owner was identified.
The Ministry effectively answered “Why have you not dealt with these complaints?” with “Because you have gone to court over the underlying dispute.” It supplied no explanation of why the administrative questions could not be examined separately. The existence of an accountability process became the reason for withholding another form of accountability.
Most likely Mr Bailey never read the submissions. Perhaps officials prepared the replies and rubber stamped his electronic signature. I cannot know. But these answers went out under his ministerial authority. Before publicly celebrating his commitment to equality, he might examine what his Department is saying in his name to a civilian asking it to uphold those very standards.
We are currently living through season three. I am already preparing for seasons four and five.
By the final episode, I hope somebody may be leaving in handcuffs. Because we now have a long chain of individuals, including knighted Admirals and Generals, who rubber stamped decisions, which I now challenge as illegal and, some of them, as criminal.
The uncomfortable question is whether that will be someone responsible for the crimes I allege — or the woman who kept asking how any of this was allowed to happen.
That is a prediction, not a verdict. But the documents already give us a plot worth following.
In this article, I will take you through the chain: how a relationship became a story about a woman; how that story traveled between military institutions; how a British commanding officer gave it operational force; and how the resulting account reached civilian police and ministers as an apparently respectable security matter.
This is how I believe a personal vendetta became a crime against me — and how the institutions at the end of the chain became entangled in what happened at its beginning.
THE WEEK TO REMEMBER
Let's explore some straight forward chronology.
Eight days. A declared relationship, an intelligence interview, a corrected visitor record, an exclusion, an invitation for "a friendly beer" — and a carefully drafted ambiguous British communication which Spain would cite in its security proceedings as an established fact.
16 JUNE: DECLARATION OF RELATIONSHIP
Laureano, my former partner, A Spanish commander serving at MARCOM nased at Northwood HQ, formally notified his Spanish chain of command, Admiral Jose Enrique Delgado Roig, that we are in official relationship and he asked what administrative steps were required to regularise it. Yes, we are not living in the Middle Ages, when a Master has to approve the relationship of a Serf, or request the right of the first night. But in this case, the Master had to initiate and complete the security reassessment for Laureano's HPS - a security clearance for an officer, where the changes in personal circumstances had to be re-assessed.
This should have been an ordinary personnel question.
My existence was hardly concealed: earlier that month, NATO conference paperwork for Laureano's visit to Oeiras NATO base, where the top secret STRIKENATO conference was supposed to take place, had already identified me as his partner.
The original 16 June email is not among the documents available to me. That email has dissapeared from Laureano's Hotmail box altogether with many other emails about the same subject on 28 June 2025, when his private email address as well as Whatsapp account had been hacked.
But the notification actually worked, it triggered the formal interview by Spanish counter-intelligence.
18 JUNE: “RUSSIAN ORIGIN”
Two CIFAS officers arrived from Spain and interviewed Laureano at Northwood. According to his account, the discussion concerned two alleged security breaches, one involving my attendance at the MARCOM Christmas event on 12 December 2024.
His surviving handwritten notes include:
“Ni administrativo / Ni disciplinario → Entrevista.”
Neither administrative nor disciplinary: an interview.
They also contain:
“origen Ruso!!??”
Russian origin.
I had prepared documents to help establish the facts: copies of my British and Polish passports, my CV and professional information. I delivered them to Laureano before the meeting.
I was not in the interview room. His notes and subsequent accounts are the sources for what was discussed there. My own position was straightforward: if there was a genuine concern about me, here was information with which to check it.
After that meeting I have actually met both CIFAS officers. We chatted for about 20 minutes. I was very happy that this meeting has taken place as I understood that it was an administrative reaction to my former's partner request in order to update his security clearance before the NATO conference, where we were travelling together next week.
I did not know that it was not. The objective of CIFAS officers was to supply the British counterparts with information, which would criminalise me and force my ex-partner to split up with me.
19 JUNE: THE SCHRÖDINGER'S VISITOR RECORD
According to Laureano’s account in his emails on 19 and 20 June 2025 to Admiral Delgado and CIFAS officers, one of the allegations presented to him during the meeting on 18 June was that the initial search had failed to locate his sponsorship of my December visit to NATO Christmas event. He has promptly and duly presented to CIFAS officers a copy of my visitor's badge and apparently when the search was repeated using a different combination of his names, the record was found.
The allegation of unauthorised entry had an obvious factual answer: I had attended as a properly sponsored guest.
That day, Laureano wrote to Delgado and his aid, David Fernández-Portal, seeking written confirmation of the position and asking for action concerning the hostility towards us.
But something else happened on 19 June.
According to the same British pleadings at High Court, on or around that dau, Northwood’s Commanding Officer, Mr Towers, was informed (allegedly by the same CIFAS officers) of security concerns and investigative activity and directed that Laureano’s access should be withdrawn.
A corrected visitor record and a new British restriction were now travelling through the story at the same time.
20 JUNE: CONCERNS BECOME ENFORCEABLE MEASURE
Laureano was summoned to a meeting with Rear Admiral Raptis, Flight Lieutenant Jackson and Lieutenant Colonel Noval. They were not British officers, they all served at MARCOM. In his email to CIFAS that afternoon, he described being told he represented a security risk, ordered to collect his belongings under escort and required to leave Northwood. He was not provided with any paperwork or explanation.
He challenged the measure and supplied again the evidence of my authorised December attendance.
The British account confirms the withdrawal of his pass. It also records a separate step:
“A note was made that Ms White should not be permitted escorted entry to the Northwood site.”
There it is: an instruction against me.
I had no current pass to surrender. No pending application was being refused. My former's partner's request to create any administrative status he supplied on 16 June still has no documentary proof of processing. I did not have any independent application for access to Northwood on my own either. Nevertheless, my identity had acquired an operational restriction.
This is where my question becomes specifically British: what information justified adding me personally to the measures concerning Laureano?
So far we try to establish it in High Court through Judicial Review proceedings. Yes, the MoD keeps it secret.
21 JUNE: FRIENDLY BEER INVITATION
It was Saturday. And that day many remarkable events happened. A telephone call from Fernández-Portal warning Laureano that he was in “big trouble” was one of them.
It then describes repeated calls from Delgado, culminating in an invitation to meet for a “friendly beer” the following day at The Three Crowns in Bushey.
This was "curiousier and curiousier" as Lewis Carroll put it.
By Friday, the relationship was a security problem. By Saturday, the admiral wanted to discuss it over a drink. Personally, over a "friendly beer".
Between Laureano and Delgado was 4 ranks difference. This was like getting an invite from the King for a cup of tea in private chambers, whilst you are working in the kitchen preparing sandwiches.
22 JUNE: ADMIRAL'S DEMANDS
On Sunday, 22 June, Admiral Delgado met Laureano Pastor at the Three Crowns pub in Bushey. The conversation began with beer, children—and a surprisingly persistent interest in whether I was pregnant. Apparently my womb was the security concern of the day.
“She’s pregnant?”
Pastor explained that we were trying to have a child and undergoing treatment.
“But she’s not pregnant yet, right?”
Then another question:
“But you just told me one is on the way?”
These were intimate questions about our plans for a family. The conversation then moved to our relationship—and to whether it should have existed at all.
Delgado introduced his purpose:
“I just wanted to give you my personal support and as your superior. But things are as they are.”
Personal support and military authority arrived in the same sentence. What followed made that combination increasingly uncomfortable.
“Last time we spoke, you told me it had been a huge mistake. You even told me you were getting along better with your wife. What happened after that?”
Pastor disputed that account. Delgado returned to it:
“But your relationship with her had improved.”
Pastor corrected him again: “The divorce was still going ahead.”
Delgado persisted:
“Didn’t you tell me it had been a terrible mistake?”
Pastor’s answer was clear. We had resumed our relationship. We had a life project. We were planning to have a child.
Only then did the conversation turn explicitly to the restriction.
“On Monday they’ll formally notify me of the denial of your access to the base.”
Pastor asked why.
“Security.”
What kind of security concern?
“I don’t know. It’s the British’ decision.”
Here was the first extraordinary contrast. The admiral could question the state of Pastor’s marriage, his relationship with the wife, whose name he could not remember, revisit whether our relationship was a “terrible mistake” and establish whether I was pregnant. But when asked to explain the security grounds behind an imminent official restriction, his answer was that he did not know.
He referred Pastor to CIFAS, mentioned possible coordination with CNI and ACCI, and raised the possibility of consequences for his clearance or posting. When Pastor mentioned his forthcoming assignment in Oeiras, Delgado advised against going:
“You shouldn’t go. It makes no sense if you can’t access here.”
No explanation followed of why a restriction at Northwood necessarily prevented that assignment.
Pastor asked whether he might be sent back to Spain. When Delgado acknowledged the possibility, Pastor said that would help our fertility treatment.
Delgado’s response introduced another consequence:
“But I doubt you’d keep the salary from here.”
The transcript contains no explicit bargain requiring Pastor to end our relationship. It does, however, record a conversation in which questions about that relationship sit alongside warnings about access, posting and pay—with the supposed security grounds left unexplained.
Then I arrived.
And the woman whose relationship, pregnancy and family plans had been discussed became someone the admiral would not address.
“I’m having a personal conversation.”
Pastor replied: “This affects both of us.”
Delgado changed the description:
“We’re talking like two navy officers.”
Pastor answered: “She’s implicated.”
Delgado responded: “Then we’re done.”
That sequence deserves attention. Before I arrived, my private life was a legitimate subject for discussion between an admiral and his subordinate. Once I was present, my involvement became an objection to continuing.
I said:
“I would like to understand the situation.”
Delgado answered:
“I’m not talking to you. With respect.”
Later, he described me as a “third party.” Pastor again explained that the situation directly affected me.
The conversation also returned briefly to an alleged “security breach.” Pastor said it had already been clarified. The transcript records no explanation from Delgado of what remained unresolved or how it justified the measures under discussion.
Instead, the exchange repeatedly became an argument about whether Pastor was mocking him.
“Yes, you are. Bringing this lady.”
“She’s my partner,” Pastor replied.
By the end, the asymmetry was complete: I was sufficiently central to be discussed as a relationship, a prospective mother and a possible source of consequences for an officer’s career. I was apparently insufficiently entitled to ask what any of it meant.
Security was invoked. Intimate questions were pursued. A concrete security explanation never emerged.
22 JUNE: OUR DEMANDS
That same Sunday, we put our position in writing.
Pastor sent an email headed “Legal notices and SAR — URGENT”, attaching my four-page “Immediate Demand for Redress, Legal Notice, and Formal Information Requests.” Its recipients were Admiral Delgado; Captain David Fernández-Portal at MARCOM; the UK Ministry of Defence’s information-request mailbox; the Government Legal Department’s new-proceedings mailbox; the Spanish Ambassador’s office; and the Spanish Defence Attaché’s office.
Lambs were complaining to the wolves that they were not happy to be invited for their dinner as food.
The document was explicit. I alleged “unlawful discrimination and retaliation based on my perceived national origin and personal relationship.” I explained that we were undergoing fertility treatment and that the disruption threatened our family plans, housing and financial stability.
Under the heading “Our Demands,” we requested restoration of Pastor’s access; clarification of his posting, pay and accommodation; an explanation of any restriction against me; and a formal apology. We also demanded:
“Written assurance that retaliatory conduct will cease, and that our private relationship will not be used as grounds for any adverse administrative action.”
For my own position, the question was equally direct:
“Written confirmation that I, Janina White, am not subject to any access ban, blacklist, or exclusion from Northwood HQ — and, if such action was taken, full explanation and basis thereof.”
Alongside those demands, I requested my personal data, the applicable policies, records of British involvement, and communications between British, Spanish and NATO authorities concerning us.
This was already a complaint about discrimination, interference with private and family life, and the unexplained use of official authority. Those concerns were recorded on 22 June 2025, before the following day’s written communication acquired its subsequent significance.
I cannot say whether Towers personally saw this email, whether it reached him through his chain of command, or whether it was withheld from him. The correspondence does not establish that. What it does establish is that our notice was sent directly to both the Ministry of Defence and the Government Legal Department. The Ministry subsequently acknowledged the associated subject access request under reference DPR2025/40133. It was not answered until July 2026. when it was finally answered, the answer was short - we shall not tell you anything because National Security grounds.
23 JUNE: THE LETTER THAT CAME BACK AS AUTHORITY
In October 2026, I received a message from Pastor describing a letter that Group Captain Neil Towers had sent to Admiral Delgado on 23 June 2025. Pastor explained that the letter had been incorporated into his Spanish legal proceedings. I have his account of its contents; I do not yet have the letter itself. MoD has refused to show it to me. Yes, correct, National Security grounds.
According to that account, Towers considered Pastor a security risk and a threat to the site on the basis of information concerning his relationship with me, and withdrew his access on a precautionary basis. Yet the letter also expressly qualified the information: it was not fully verified, required further investigation, and implied no presumption of guilt or wrongdoing by Pastor.
Those qualifications are central. As Pastor put it:
“The letter does not set out the findings of a British investigation establishing any misconduct. It records a precautionary decision based on information that still required verification.”
Hold on. What's about me? But I was not important enough to be specifically explained. I was needed only as a context.
What happened next, in his account, changed its significance. In the Spanish proceedings, CNI presented the letter as though the British commander had independently investigated the matter and established that Pastor constituted a security risk. The Spanish Ministry of Defence then relied on the British withdrawal of access to justify its own action. And their action was drastic - strip Laureano off his HPS and send him back to Spain.
A provisional British measure became an apparent external validation of the Spanish case.
Pastor described the circularity directly:
“First, information is passed to the British commanding officer.”
His challenge concerns what followed: the resulting British decision was then invoked by the Spanish authorities as a reason why they, too, had to act.
The original source of the information remains unresolved. Pastor expressly distinguished his suspicions about what Towers had been told from what he could establish. But his description identifies the question that matters: how did information requiring verification return through the British chain as an authoritative justification for Spanish administrative action?
That is the transformation I am challenging. Information about our private relationship acquired operational force in Britain; the resulting restriction then returned to Spain bearing the authority of a British security decision. The doubts recorded in the letter appear, on Pastor’s account, to have carried considerably less weight than the restriction itself.
SPANISH RUMOR BECOMES BRITISH RESTRICTION
By October 2026, after the press coverage and the publication of the “Red Sparrow” narrative in September, the chain I had identified a year earlier was becoming more visible. Separate pieces were beginning to support parts of the same explanation: a sexualised, origin-based image of me had circulated in the Spanish military environment; information concerning our relationship had reached British command; British authority had then given that information practical consequences.
I reported it, without that evidence, which emerged later in 2026, exactly a year before - September 2025.
Here is the list of people and institutions I have reported these allegations at that time:
- 5 September 2025 — Spanish Ministry of Defence, through its General Registry, information office and press office, for the Minister’s personal attention.
- 8 September — Hertfordshire OPCC Complaint Resolution Team, the complaints team within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
- 8 September — Ministry of Defence Police, Force Control, its operational control unit.
- 8 September — James Cartlidge MP, Member of Parliament, asked to help ensure a MoD Police investigation.
- 8 September — Mark Francois MP, Member of Parliament, included in the same request.
- 8 September — Reform UK, through its general party mailbox.
- 8 September — Defence Safety Authority, the defence safety oversight authority.
- 8 September — Siân Grzeszczyk, BFBS journalist.
- 8 September — UK Security Vetting, Cabinet Office, with a complaint concerning alleged misuse of authority by CO Towers and improper security classification.
- 15 September — Steve Adams, Hertfordshire Police, the police contact sent further allegations concerning Delgado and Towers.
- 15 September — MoD Police Crime Desk, the unit handling crime reports.
- 19 September — MoD FOI Internal Review Team, with a request for an internal review of its information response.
- 23 September — RAF Police Professional Standards Department, the unit responsible for professional standards complaints.
- 26 September — CSOC Secretariat, Ministry of Defence, together with the transcript of the Delgado meeting.
- 30 September — MoD Service Complaints and, again, CSOC Secretariat, as supporting evidence for a formal complaint concerning the Commanding Officer of Northwood Headquarters.
Of all those recipients, only Hertfordshire Police contacted me to take the criminal allegations forward. They opened a formal investigation, but subsequently assigned it to a trainee detective.
HERTS POLICE
The trainee detective was very nice and utimately she requested me to make a Witness statement. At that point I already saw the signs of Herts Police attempting to criminalise my actions round the incident of 26 Augus 2025. So I hesitated. I am a lawyer and I understand the threshold for criminal charges to be brought by the CPS, especially if the perpetrators are highly ranked military personnel.
In January 2026, I discontinued my participation in the criminal investigation under the practical, legal and personal strain of pursuing it. I did not withdraw my factual allegations.
Then in second half of 2026 further information did emerge. Yes, Review Wye and the Spanish press, bless them.
On 6 October 2026, I formally requested reopening of investigation 41/84346/25. I identified recordings, contemporaneous correspondence, official documents and new reporting concerning the sexualised “Red Sparrow” narrative. I offered a formal witness statement and an indexed evidence package. I also requested an independent assessment of the institutional conflict: could Hertfordshire investigate the whole chain, including its own receipt and use of the disputed information?
After a reminder, DS Simon Smith replied on 13 October. He offered a meeting to discuss the additional information and assess whether there was enough to reopen the investigation.
I was concerned that this would leave the matter in another informal preliminary conversation, without a recorded decision or clear accountability. To me, that risked becoming another route under the carpet.
On 14 October, I therefore asked for a clear procedural answer: reopen the investigation for formal evidential assessment, or provide a recorded refusal identifying the decision-maker, material considered, reasons and review route. I also requested a documented conflict assessment and safeguards governing the receipt, preservation and use of my sensitive evidence.
I remained expressly willing to cooperate.
As of 21 October, a week had passed without a substantive response to those questions. I chased again on 19 October. No reopening decision, reasoned refusal or answer to the requested safeguards had followed.
The problem is now larger than an unanswered crime report. The institution I am asking to investigate how the narrative acquired official authority is itself part of the narrative’s documented journey.
So, an apparent quick decision to open an investigation back in September 2025, imminent assignment to a detective whose professional experience was primarily within the scope of dealing with local garage burglaries, instant decision to close the investigation, when I asked for a break, and now almost a month of thinking what do...
THE LIST
A short letter can have a remarkably long institutional life.
The Towers’s letter of 23 June 2025 gave a British security rationale to action taken over his relationship with me—even while acknowledging that the underlying information required verification. Spanish authorities subsequently relied on that British communication.
The restrictions were already operating. The letter helped give them a portable justification: something another institution could cite, another official could repeat, and another department could defend.
What followed drew military commanders, security personnel, police officers, investigators, reviewers, government lawyers and ministers into the same expanding dispute. My allegation is that the cumulative effect was an institutional whitewashing exercise: the original decision acquired successive layers of protection while its factual foundation remained unanswered.
The list below identifies that wider chain. It includes decision-makers, operational personnel, complaint recipients, reviewers and representatives. Their involvement is not identical, and inclusion does not establish shared knowledge, motive or wrongdoing. These are people whose evidence may explain how the decision was made, transmitted, enforced, defended or left unexamined.
Command, NATO and the Original Complaints
- Admiral Michael “Mike” Utley — MARCOM commander and principal addressee of our 5 July 2025 complaint about systemic social exclusion, discrimination and procedural failures. Received my further escalation on 12 July.
- General Sir Jim Hockenhull — senior British commander identified in my requests for accountability and potential witness evidence. Correspondence dated 25 July 2025, headed “General Sir Jim Hockenhull — call for witness”, went through the MoD information-request channel. Personal receipt remains unconfirmed.
- Group Captain Neil Towers — Commanding Officer, Northwood HQ; responsible for the command decision at the centre of this dispute and the subsequent British communication described by Pastor.
- Admiral José Enrique Delgado Roig — recipient of Towers’s communication; participant in the recorded 22 June conversation; recipient of the 22 June legal notice and copied into the 5 July complaint.
- Commander Stanislas Frenzel, MARCOM Legal Adviser — received the July complaint. His 11 July response allocated access questions to British command and personnel matters to Spanish authorities. Received our challenge on 12 July.
- Captain David Fernández-Portal — recipient of the 22 June notice and copied into the 5 July complaint.
- Ricardo Noval — copied into the 5 July complaint; relevant to the Spanish security and access chronology.
- Carlos Cordón — copied into the 5 July complaint and addressed separately on 12 July concerning suspected interference with Pastor’s communications.
- Ben Lay — copied into the July complaint and escalation correspondence.
- Jan Möller — copied into the 5 July complaint.
- James Bergeron — copied into the 5 July complaint.
- Flight Lieutenant Dave Jackson — involved in the Northwood security chronology and copied into my 12 July escalation.
- Marco Matarrese, Christopher Smith and Christian Redondo-Revidiego — recipients of the 12 July request for technical oversight concerning suspected interference with communications.
- Laura Maglia, Registrar of the NATO Administrative Tribunal — received my 11 September enquiry about reporting alleged crimes by NATO officials; replied that the enquiry fell outside her office’s remit.
- Other personnel handling the MARCOM Records Centre, NATO security and subsequent complaint referrals — names not identified. Their relevance concerns receipt, allocation, onward transmission and the handling of the complaints.
- Northwood personnel who entered, authorised, maintained or amended the claimant-specific SISYS/VMS restriction — names not identified. Their evidence should establish the instructions, dates, wording and audit trail.
- The Visitor Centre receptionist who processed my details on 26 August 2025 — name not independently verified here. The system response became an operational refusal and referral to security personnel.
- The male RAF Police officer identified as “MO” in Review Wye — name not identified. Relevant to enforcement and the information communicated to Hertfordshire Police.
- The female RAF Police officer identified as “FO” in Review Wye, described in my account as the female Squadron Leader — name not identified. Her recorded awareness of “Russian spy” rumours is relevant to what information had reached the British operational environment.
- The author and any approving officer of the internal email dated 23 March 2026 describing my complaints as “increasingly vexatious” — names not identified. Whether this author was the same female officer must be established, not assumed.
- WO2 Watts — identified in the DSCC professional-standards correspondence.
- Flight Lieutenant Neil Cook — identified in the DSCC complaint-handling correspondence.
- Other investigators, supervisors and approving officers responsible for the original RAF Police complaint outcome — names not identified.
- Jonathan Rees KC — responsible for Review Wye, which corrected the finding about rumour awareness but upheld the complaint outcome.
- Kurt Murfin — subsequent RAF Police professional-standards contact concerning the further complaint.
- Alexander dos Santos KC — counsel identified in the SPCC’s defence of the subsequent judicial review.
- The Hertfordshire Police officers attending Northwood on 26 August 2025 — names not identified. They received the military briefing and acted on the resulting account.
- The Hertfordshire officer who telephoned Pastor on 27 August 2025 — name not identified. The recorded call raises a separate question about the source of information concerning his relationship with a woman of Russian origin.
- Personnel who created, classified, circulated or retained the related civilian police records — names not identified.
- Hertfordshire Professional Standards investigators and approving officers — names not identified. Relevant to how the subsequent complaint conclusions were reached.
- Keeley Smyley — responsible for the Hertfordshire OPCC review and subsequent explanations of its scope.
- Samantha Ferrary — involved in OPCC governance and information-handling correspondence.
- Steve Adams — recipient of the criminal-report package and allegations concerning Delgado and Towers on 15 September 2025.
- Ionela Galben — investigator in the criminal-report correspondence; communicated the January closure and possibility of reopening.
- Simon Smith — supervisory police contact who proposed a meeting on 13 October 2026 to assess the further information.
- Afzal Chowdhury — Head of Legal Services; involved in the overlapping data and civil-litigation correspondence, including maintenance of the national-security restriction.
- Anita Janes — Senior Solicitor subsequently identified as having conduct of the related civil claim.
- Information-rights personnel and decision-makers responsible for withholding the underlying police material — names not identified.
The Government’s Legal Defence
- Sumit Srivastava — dealt with the early civil applications and received correspondence concerning my criminal allegations.
- Laila Mirza — transmitted the November 2025 Summary Grounds of Resistance and related court correspondence.
- Vichithri Jayasinghe — conducted substantial judicial-review correspondence and objections to applications for additional material and directions.
- Fariha Aslam — senior GLD lawyer involved in the judicial-review and related correspondence.
- Sharon Tavengwa — conducted the Equality Act defence correspondence and successive applications for additional time.
Parliamentary Notice and Ministerial Closure
- James Cartlidge MP — received requests for intervention and scrutiny, including the criminal-report package of 8 September 2025. No substantive response was located in the correspondence searched.
- Mark Francois MP — received the same September package and a subsequent request. No substantive response was located in the correspondence searched.
- Louise Sandher-Jones MP — signed the replies of 9 March and 8 June 2026, invoking my ineligibility for Service Complaints and the existence of judicial review.
- Departmental officials who drafted, cleared and recommended those ministerial responses — names not identified.
- Calvin Bailey MBE MP — signed the replies of 18 August and 11 September 2026, maintaining the Department’s refusal to engage further or open another investigation into complaints it characterised as concerning “the same issue”.
This is my potential witness list. Please look for your name — or your role. The questions concern what each person knew, what they checked, what they passed on and what they declined to examine.
So here we go. Red Sparrow - Grave mistake - Are you kidding me? - On a precautionary basis - Under investigation - Offender - National security grounds.
Courts.
Departments.
Taxpayers' money.
Sex.
Suicide.
Intimidation.
Humans do not change. Crowds attended the Epstein's island saw nothing, heard nothing.
"I have just received an email".
"I was not involved".
"I just accepted other person's judgement".
And this is why I return to Mr Bailey. His signature appears at the end of the ministerial chain. Clearly rubber stamped.
"I just rubber stamped?"
That is the context of my public question when he speaks publicly about equality.
Today's song - ¿Me estás vacilando, o qué?
