-
Police incident or crime reference numbers
-
The police force involved
-
Confirmation of classification (targeted, political, hate-related, or routine)
-
Initial incident reports
-
CCTV stills or confirmation none exist
-
Forensic findings (forced entry, tools, prints)
-
Insurance claim references, if applicable
Until such documentation exists, the claim remains unauditable.
4) The asylum angle: don’t accuse—test incentives
This is not an accusation that Raja is “faking” persecution. That would be reckless.
But it is a fact that asylum claims rely on documented fear and risk. Public narratives of intimidation, if supported by official records, can form part of such cases.
That makes transparency essential.
If Raja wants global audiences to accept his persecution narrative, the solution is simple:
publish the verifiable paperwork.
If he refuses, the public is entitled to ask whether this is:
-
a genuine security issue,
-
a content strategy, or
-
a legal positioning exercise.
That question is about evidence, not ideology.
5) A direct, document-based challenge to Adil Raja
Major (R) Adil Raja — answer the following with documents:
-
What are the UK police reference numbers for each alleged threat or incident?
-
Which police forces handled them?
-
Were any incidents formally classified as targeted or political?
-
Do you accept the UK High Court’s defamation ruling and injunction?
-
If you dispute it, publish the judgment you rely on.
-
Name three allegations you have made that you can support with primary documents.
-
Distinguish what is firsthand, hearsay, and inference in those claims.
-
What internal records did you personally access during service, and when?
-
How do you legally respond to Pakistan’s extradition submission?
-
Will you submit your top viral claims to an independent fact-check audit?
-
Disclose all revenue streams tied to this content ecosystem.
-
Final question: if the paperwork clears you, why not publish it?
