Tech Nation UK abuse candidates, violate GDPR and E-commerce Regulations and provide libel instead of endorsements in IT, openly admitting to corruption. Sign the community letter to stop them.
Tech Nation, a private company with 80% Government funding, poses to be an endorsing body for Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) Visa in the UK, however it has got no personnel with professional qualifications to match the task of ensuring fair assessment of applications and cultural development of the UK — its title was granted to it by David Cameron to please a very specific circle of people who posses venture capital and influence.
This closed circle is able, with direct aid of Tech Nation who CONTROL the visa endorsement process, to enjoy "special treatment" consisting of receiving insight into confidential ideas supplied to Tech Nation by applicants, and blocking those people who will be able to either compete with them, or in any other way present obstacles for their enrichment. Tech Nation Visa is an illegitimate enterprise that must be brought to an end.
Moreover, a regulated profession, in a reference to Council Directive 89/48/EEC is defined in Art 1d, as
a professional activity, in so far as the taking up or pursuit of such activity or one of its modes of pursuit in a Member State is subject, directly or indirectly by virtue of laws, regulations or administrative provisions, to the possession of a diploma, in particular:
- pursuit of an activity under a , in so far as the use of such a title is reserved to the holders of a diploma governed by laws, regulations or administrative provisions.
The activity of providing endorsement in IT, is conducted by BCS, The Chartered Institute For IT, who have the right "to hold and to supervise examinations and to award certificates, diplomas, prizes, bursaries or scholarships either alone or jointly with other educational or professional bodies", therefore the of an endorsing body, must only be held by a member of regulated profession, such as Chartered IT Professional, or other charter such as Royal Charter in case of BCS. The presence of the administrative provision of the Royal Charter itself indirectly makes the title of an endorsing body subject to additional regulations such as being a member of a regulated profession. The purpose of this is to promote and maintain a high standard in the professional field concerned (IT Engineering) and to ensure that members respect the rules and professional conduct which it prescribes. This makes a lot of sense when such important job as endorsing IT professionals for a visa is the service provided by a private company.
I followed the Home Office Guidelines document regarding the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) requirements to complete an application form with various questions on the online portal called younoodle. After an online submission on July the 5th and sending off of a physical copy to the Home Office, Tech Nation, acting as an endorsing body in the UK, received his application, which was confirmed by an email from the Home Office.
As a Senior Software Engineer, I was provided with a fast track option for the decision to be made within 18 working days. Out of the two options, the Exceptional Talent and Exceptional Promise, I chose the promise route, which is described as:
"Applicants who choose to apply under the Exceptional Promise criteria are likely to be earlier in their career, and therefore have yet to establish a track record in innovation." (p. 35)
I submitted the following documentation as outlined in the guidelines (pp 37-38, quoted below in exact words used in the Home Office guidance).
For my chosen criteria, 1) How do I demonstrate that I have a proven track record of innovation in the digital technology sector as a director / founder of a digital technology sector company or an employee working in a new digital field or concept?, I submitted the following evidence:
I did not directly submit any evidence for the Key criteria 2 (2) How do I demonstrate that I have been recognised for my work outside of my immediate occupation that contributed to the advancement of the sector?), as the end of page 38 states OR, and that the general tone of the guidance asked to meet only one key criteria.
Additionally, in my answer to the question of "why you demonstrate the potential to become a leader in the field of digital technology", I answered with evidence of my commitment creating free Open Source software which was proven by a number of tools that I created myself. They indirectly proved that I contributed to the advancement of the sector due to the fact that free software is available to everyone. However, because I was just starting my full-time job as Open Source contributor at the time, and focused on actual implementation of packages, I did not get to receive recognition of my work yet, therefore I didn't apply with the criterion 2 and I had the right not to do it.
I demonstrate the potential to become a world leader in the field of digital technology because by the age of 25 I held a Senior Software Developer role, and quit it to start my own business. Throughout the last two years, I have worked consistently on building my own infrastructure in form of NPM packages, which will help me to produce more software. The tools that I have created cover a large span of the possible requirements for software engineering, including:
|My own testing framework, Zoroaster, which supports the context-testing feature to separate the test setup and teardown routines from the actual test logic. I have tested all my packages with zoroaster and using it became part of every development lifecycle.|
|A tool to bootstrap new NPM packages, MNP, which also allows to create scoped packages and manage packages within different github organisations. Each new package can be created in a matter of seconds, and with a standard modern Node.js software structure.|
|Domain management CLI tool, Expensive, to register and maintain domains via the namecheap.com API. It simplifies the process of acquiring domains and setting their DNS details. Because there's also a programmatic API, it can be incorporated into other packages, for example to automatically register new domains for packages created with MNP.|
|A documentation pre-processor, Documentary, to compile markdown README files from multiple files. It has greatly improved the documentation side of all my packages, and allowed me to quickly embed examples and their output, generate tables of contents, document methods and types, and include tables.|
These are the main tools that I will be using in my future daily work, and I believe that they demonstrate my commitment to creating high-quality, well-documented and tested software and bringing it to the market very quickly. I always have many ideas and I seek to implement them in the best possible way. As the next steps to building my portfolio, I will create a CI tool, and test case tracking software. Finally, I am communicative and an expert in my field and always willing to give advice.
I submitted the following pieces of evidence using examples from the guidance:
- (2) A letter from the Chief Operations Manager stating how the software that I built for the business, and infrastructure around it were used on daily basis by other employees (You led the growth of a company or product, as evidenced by a letter from a co-founder, p. 40)
- (2) A diagram, p1 of the components in such infrastructure, including the parser of database schema files, SQL-code generator, the database class that allowed to query the database from Node.JS programming language, the database server that handled HTTP queries for manipulation of the database, the web app deployed on the cloud service with additional Access control security measures, the database testing library for advanced quality assurance purposes, and the front-end UI system that run on the web app for campaign managers.
- (2) Clippings, p2 of thorough documentation of the above packages (lines of code or similar evidence of your choice).
- (3) Evidence of attending Google Academy for 2-day Progressive-Web-Apps course, and a design for a system of push-notifications delivered to users when new software packages are released.
- (3) Visualisation of how versionings of my 66 NPM packages increased through the year prior to the application, and my explanation of how in that year, I switched to the latest standard of language, started to use testing and documentation frameworks, and streamlined the management of software by keeping it under different GitHub organisations and NPM scopes.
Furthermore, I attached the Certificate of Incorporation of my software development company, Art Deco™. Finally, I included the link to my GitHub profile which hosted all my open source work, but placed in in a field to "LinkedIn" profile, because I didn't have LinkedIn and because there was no other place to put it.
Article 8 of the E-Commerce directive, ratified as The EC Regulations 2002 in the UK, states:
1. Member States shall ensure that the use of commercial communications which are part of, or constitute, an information society service provided by a member of a regulated profession is permitted subject to compliance with the professional rules regarding, in particular, the independence, dignity and honour of the profession, professional secrecy and fairness towards clients and other members of the profession.
The website on which Tech Nation publish information which constitutes commercial communication, (since it advertises it as an endorsing body, so that customers can decide whether or not to pay £456 to such service provider), said: In all cases, Tech Nation experts will establish whether you meet the necessary criteria to be endorsed for Exceptional Talent or for Exceptional Promise.
This information is incorrect, since experts do not work for Tech Nation. The identity of these experts is unknown, and Tech Nation illegally used the "Tech Nation experts" in a sentence, leading people to believe that Tech Nation is a professional endorsing body whereas it's not the case. This is confirmed by the fact that Tech Nation only hires 1 developer, whereas the rest of the 40+ of the people working for the company are managers, designers or do other work not related to technology or IT systems at all. Moreover, the Tech Nation Visa implies Tech Nation's affiliation with technology, or that it is somehow a respected professional body since the visa is called by its name. Tech Nation did not demonstrate compliance with professional rules and regulations, such as partnership with BCS and having BCS monitor its experts to ensure the independence, dignity and honour of the profession, to use its name as a promotional material for their endorsement services for the Exceptional Talent visa.
Additionally, other Endorsing Bodies, e.g., Royal Society, who call the visa by the proper name Research and Innovation Talent Visa, provide the following disclaimer:
Experts assigned to assess your application will be asked if there are any conflicts of interest and, if these exist, another expert will be asked to comment instead.
Tech Nation has not provided any information of that kind on their website, which highlights the fact that experts are not independent and would not be asked for the possibility of conflict of interest.
Besides, one of the Tech Nation directors, Ms Wendy Tan White, is the former co-founder and CEO of the Moonfruit DIY website builder. In my application, I specified that I want to create a website builder myself, therefore there is a direct conflict of interest, not just in an isolated case when an expert from the panel could have one, but when Tech Nation as a whole presents a huge conflict of interest between itself, and everyone applying to it, due to its nature, purpose (creating favourable conditions), and its board of directors, most of whom are venture capitalists who would not want anyone to disrupt their system set up to benefit each other. Tech Nation then uses the visa as a loophole in the UK's immigration to help them. This is an exact definition of corruption by the EU commission: Corruption takes many forms, such as bribery, trading in influence, abuse of functions, but can also hide behind nepotism, conflicts of interest, or revolving doors between the public and the private sectors. Wendy Tan is registered at EF, another corrupt "accelerator" that receives visas from Tech Nation for free to anyone they want to exploit and control with their capital.
Furthermore, there are other reports on the internet which outline the same problems that applicants had in dealing with Tech Nation:
Such evidence proves that Tech Nation has specific methodology in how to reject candidates without giving proper and justified reasoning. Just as myself, the candidate experienced emotional pain and distress because the letters of recommendation are very important part of the process, and for young people it might be hard to find the right people. We work really hard at trying to figure out who could vouch for us, whereas Tech Nation deliberately and methodologically destroys our efforts and dreams.
Therefore, I ask to pronounce Tech Nation guilty of false advertisement, and the breach of Article 8 of the E-commerce directive. Tech Nation is not a professional endorsing body, such as BCS and should have never advertised as one, before proper conditions were met for them to ensure dignity, honour and independence of the profession.
Article 10 of the E-Commerce directive ratified as 9, paragraph 2:
(2) Unless parties who are not consumers have agreed otherwise, a service provider shall indicate which relevant codes of conduct he subscribes to and give information on how those codes can be consulted electronically.
Article 17 of the E-Commerce directive encourages the implementation of out-of-court disputes:
1. Member States shall ensure that, in the event of disagreement between an information society service provider and the recipient of the service, their legislation does not hamper the use of out-of-court schemes, available under national law, for dispute settlement, including appropriate electronic means.
When I notified the Home Office of the breach of statutory duty by Tech Nation in performance of their contract, the Home Office forwarded my email to Tech Nation, who rejected my claims. I them contacted the ICO, who was ought to protect my data protection rights (as explained below) who however refused me my right for data protection. In the light of the above, the special status of Tech Nation as an endorsing body and lack of any authorities that control their business, hampers the implementation of the E-commerce directive for out-of-court disputes, because I was literally impossible to do that. Therefore, I claim that a special organisation or department must be appointed to oversee Tech Nation and their experts' decisions to ensure compliance with Article 17 of the Directive.
Upon entering into contract with Tech Nation, my personal data was transmitted to them as part of the process. GDPR established data protection as fundamental right, and an endorsing body of the UK must know that. To meet the lawfulness principe of the GDPR, established in Article 6, it must be one of the following:
It could be argued that Tech Nation required my personal data to process it in order to comply with its contractual obligations to the Home Office, therefore it's not based solely on my consent.
However, Article 9 establishes special categories of personal data, amongst which: ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs. Such data must not be processed, unless the consent is given. My personal statement contained a reference to the Ayn Rand book, Atlas Shrugged, which goes:
Ayn Rand is a creator of Objectivism, a philosophical system described as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute". Additionally, Tech Nation received information about my country of origin, which is totally unnecessary for the purposes of establishing my professional fitness to be a leader in IT sector. It allowed Tech Nation discriminate against me and refuse my application solely on the basis of where I come from due the political situation, especially considering that Tech Nation enjoys such autonomy. The meaning of this is that the processing of my personal data was done only with my consent, and not any other reason.
My consent for processing of personal data was based on the information outlined in the guidance document. Each single answer to every question, is my personal data, which has been confirmed by the Home Office:
Therefore, to constitute lawful processing, Tech Nation had to follow the specific purposes to which I gave my consent. It did not.
The first decision that I received from Tech Nation, contained the following statements:
- The application relies on letters of recommendation from four individuals in the same company, making objective assessment of the application difficult.
- There is also little evidence to support that the applicant is a world leading talent; Even Tech Nation's guidance clearly distinguishes between the two:
On the other hand, I passed my chosen key criteria.
I ask to find Tech Nation guilty of violating GDPR by not ensuring that the processing of my personal data was done legally with my consent, that is, in accordance with my eligibility criteria: You must specify on the Tech Nation (Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent)) application form if you are applying as an Exceptional Talent or Exceptional Promise candidate. (page 35).
Secondly, I applied for the review process via the Home Office. The review that I received contained the following statements:
Tech Nation can argue that the guidance leaves the room for them to make any decision that they want (Tech City UK experts will establish whether you meet the necessary criteria to be endorsed for Exceptional Talent or Exceptional Promise. This is not determined solely by objective criteria.), however what the guidance says is the following:
If the eligibility criteria are satisfied, Tech City UK’s independent panel of experts will determine whether, overall, they consider that you should be endorsed. (p 36)This means that they are only allowed to apply their judgement after fair and independent assessment of each criteria, which was not the case, since it is said that I need to have shown evidence for criteria that I didn't choose (which is my personal data).
The review document does not look like an expert opinion. It provides zero facts, and I know that it was written by a manager whom I met when I came to Tech Nation office to ask them why they allowed errors in the initial decision. The manager then asked for my name, again in breach of GDPR, and discriminated against me.
Moreover, in November, I sent a Data Subject Reuqest to Tech Nation. It was ignored which is illegal. Finally, I tried to resolve the issue out-of-court by contacting Home Office AND ICO and pointing out to the violations described above, however both organisations dismissed my claims. In the light of the above claims, I ask to pronounce Tech Nation guilty of rude and intentional GDPR violations. They clearly think that they are above the law and fear no consequences.
Article 13 lists the information that has to be provided to the data subject, some of it including:
Furthermore, the e-commerce directive Article 5, requires information to be PERMANENTLY ACCESSIBLE:
The only piece of information that I received in a permanent manner, is the link to the terms and conditions at the bottom of the Home Office receipt.
Despite that, the page did not provide any information required by the GDPR. It only said: Which other organisations may have access to your personal information? A number of organisations from the private, public and charity sectors are either contracted by, or subject to agreement with, the Home Office, examples include, ... to support the visa process – we may use contractors to take payments. In December, I contacted the Data Protection Officer at the Home Office. They replied that We consider Tech Nation to be joint controller for the purposes of GDPR.. Therefore, Tech Nation is a data CONTROLLER which implies high responsibilities to the level of data protection, and the fact that it does not even provide essential information to customers, means that their data protection license has to be stripped and I have to be compensated.
Also, the ICO guidance regarding non-essential cookies states: Enabling a non-essential cookie without the user taking positive action before it is set on their device does not represent valid consent. Analytics cookies are not 'strictly necessary' and so require user consent.. Today, there are numerous technologies that allow to NOT set cookies, prior to receiving consent, and users must press the button to install them. Before that, no cookies are set. An endorsing body of the UK in technology, does not even know anything about the GDPR and its core principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency, which is confirmed by the fact how they violate ICO recommendations on their website:
Although I'm not suing Tech Nation for violating my cookie consent right for personal data protection privacy, this fact proves that Tech Nation is an organisation very distant from technology and IT law, with no respect to FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT for data protection (recital 1 of the GDPR).
Every single sentence written in the review by Tech Nation is a lie. It does not provide any factual information, does not name any of the so-frameworks that I am accused of using. There is no information regarding my testing or documentation frameworks to balance out the negative information. The guidelines defined a promise as someone young, in the beginning of their career, with exceptional skills and achievements. None of my achievements of education in AI and Security (including a distinction in Masters) a diploma in Hypnotherapy, Senior Software Engineering role and the setting up of my company were mentioned anywhere although I presented them in the evidence. 66 NPM packages are called non-track record, which is confirmed otherwise by the community. Tech Nation intentionally published malicious falsehood to damage my reputation. I suffered professional abuse since I had to explain to my friends and family, that an "endorsing body" in the UK is not a professional endorsing body at all. I seek monetary compensation for distress and damage to the reputation.
In particular, I want Tech Nation to give evidence regarding existing Node.JS software that does following things:
The fact that Tech Nation says these things means that it wasn't an expert doing the review, but the Senior Program Manager, Ms Lindy Pyrah, who does not have Computer Science education or any higher education according to data published online, and whom I met in Tech Nation office, where she assumed patronising tone, and started to tell me that people have done amazing things, assuming that I didn't do amazing things. Then she held grudge against me for raising the issues with her, and abused her authority to deny me the visa. This is in breach of GDPR since had no right to access my personal data, even more she, as the Senior Program Manager, should never had asked me for my name, twice, during the conversation, to remember me and write an unlawful review. What happened is nothing less than intentional data breach by a program manager, who has no knowledge of IT systems and was put in charge of Visas program only with the only purpose to prevent fair and transparent endorsement process, and must be punished accordingly.
Tech Nation must show in the guidance where it says that I have to have a community profile outside of my immediate employment and / or participate in the conferences, if I had chosen the key criterion 1 (innovations) and not key criterion 2 (community profile which is described in the guidance using all the examples that Tech Nation used against me). They must prove that I have to have this "profile" in order to pass qualifying criteria such as continuous learning as stated in their review (The applicant needs to have a stronger profile ... in order to meet the qualifying criteria).
Tech Nation stated that my referees are not world leaders. They must prove that a CTO of an AI company with more than 3 published booked on software engineering, an author of a testing framework, and participant in multiple conferences, is not in the position to give me recommendation. This also applies to a serial entrepreneur with a number of successful businesses in Fin Tech. The letters of recommendation are vital part of the process, and Tech Nation first said that they came from people from the same company, which is against law as it breaks the fairness and transparency principle of the GDPR, and then in one sentence dismissed them, their achievements, and damaged their reputation as well which is double-libel. Along with the lies about my software not being innovative, this proves that Tech Nation purposefully used malicious falsehood to deceive the Home Office about me as a Senior Software Engineering professional, and damage my reputation to not give an endorsement.
Additionally, when I complained to the Home Office about unethical practices at Tech Nation, Tech Nation returned an explanation.
This is false because a) ignoring the link to GitHub profile is not , and b)the review was returned to me as some text typed in a Word processor, with the body of the review in bold italic and without any technical information regarding software and evidence. There is not a single example that mentions real technology. Whereas the first form used tick boxes, was provided on the official blank, and was processed via the ETADMIN@HOMEOFFICE.co.uk email (at the bottom of the page), can be said to be official, the review in no way can be said to be a expert opinion like Tech Nation lied. It was definitely written by somebody without any knowledge of computer systems, does not use the real criteria, and was not processed via the Home Office email. Tech Nation intentionally has written derogatory review to portray me in the worst light possible and hurt my feelings as a creative person expressing himself via his software. Their statements about the use of frameworks is almost equal to accusing me of plagiarism and they must be held responsible for that.
Additionally, the response contained the following sentence:
Words our and independent do not go together. Our, in Ms Lindy Pyrah's sense means, my own, with me as the expert and is a slip of the tongue. Tech Nation must invite the expert that was writing such review to court proceedings, who will explain his/her statements and answer to the real industry expert who will be invited to court by us. More still, Tech Nation must show evidence of administrative documentation that records sending data to such expert and consultation against their "conflict of interest" in the process according to Article 30: Records of Processing activities of the GDPR. There is no doubt they will fabricate such evidence, therefore I ask to only accept evidence that was sent via the Home Office's etadmin email used for transmission of the initial decision, in an environment where such email can be accessed in court with Computer Experts proving legitimacy of the process (e.g., to prevent DNS records tampering/fake browser usage). Because the Home Office is a joint Data Processing Controller, they also share the same responsibilities in processing of personal data, and must maintain the records.
Tech Nation has not fulfilled its contract in providing me a professional recommendation of my software engineering work, and violated their contract for which I paid a lot of money (£456). Then they tell me that I have to submit new application, acting as an authority, and not as a public company which receives money for an information society service that they provide. Moreover, Tech Nation is in no position to tell me what I decisions I should make in life, and their suggestion that I should explore alternative visa routes is nothing less than outright bullying, because they know that I have no means of protecting my consumer rights which so far has been true, as the Home Office, ICO, DCMS, and even Lord Ashton of Hyde have all ignored me trying to get my rights protected.
Tech Nation in full knowledge abused their position and used such statements as more evidence that what he is doing is innovative to oppress and intimidate me, after I paid £456 pounds for their service. A professional endorsing body would not use language like that, but instead give real examples of existing technology when claiming that mine is not innovative. Tech Nation are cruel liars and not a professional endorsing body, and I want to be compensated £1.000.000 for libel, the breaking of the GDPR and the E-Commerce directives with full intentionality, cruelty and conviction that their action will not be punished because they are a corrupt organisation that protects interests of venture capitalists and Government members affiliated with them. Moreover, I should have got the visa for the work that I have shown and there was no reason otherwise. If I stayed in the UK, then I would have reached my 10 year period required to apply for permanent citizenship, but Tech Nation broke that streak and devalued all investments of my family into my education. If I knew what Tech Nation was, I would have been more careful in keeping of my job, or would have found another one, instead of relying on Tech Nation as an endorsing body, to provide me with a professional review of my work required for the visa.
Instead, Tech Nation are giving visas to anyone who applies to accelerator programs such as EF, because I applied to EF without knowing that they work together with Tech Nation at exploiting the visa scheme. During the interview, I asked the person about the visa, and they said "WE usually give it for 3 years" which proves that Tech Nation gives out a visa to anyone who applies to EF, without proper assessment of their application. Even if the person who received a visa for their participation in the accelerator, drops out after 14 weeks, which is 1/4 of a year, they can keep the visa until the end of the 3 year period, and apply for residency. This is unfair to everyone who does not enjoy such privilege. Moreover, Tech Nation's saying that I should explore other options, and me wanting and being able to run a business in the UK, proves that Tech Nation wanted me to apply to an accelerator program so I was forced to sell shares in my company to venture capitalists interests of whom Tech Nation protects. Tech Nation uses its position over the Exceptional Talent visa in the most corrupt way, rather than provides professional endorsements for work in the IT.
The fact that Tech Nation lied to the Home Office, and damaged my reputation, sabotaged my further applications to the Home Office and the ability to enter the UK in future. In September, I applied for a visitor visa, to see my partner and collect some of my clothes. I received a rejection with the following explanations:
Of course after I spend 10 years in the UK and come back home, I will be unemployed and with no income. I also showed that I have enough funds for the visit, however for some reason the clerk is not satisfied that the money is mine. How can I even prove that the money is mine, if I kept them as cash at home, and deposited when I needed to use them? Finally, my girlfriend did write the invitation letter, and added her proof of ID. It is true that I didn't provide the letter from the accommodation service allowing me to stay with her and it is my fault. It was never the requirement to show that I'm in a relationship with the person, she might even have been my friend which is always fine.
All I wanted was to see my partner for a week after all the stress that we experienced in dealing with Tech Nation. The Home Office clerk used everything against me to bar me from entering the UK, which was not even in the eligibility requirements (e.g., it says "your partner’s name, date of birth, and passport number" which was all there in my application, even the guide says that I SHOULD NOT SEND photographs, so what other means have I got to prove our relationship? How can I prove that the money I put on my account is mine? It's ridiculous.). There wasn't a requirement to be employed, or to attach proof of spendings. With the help of Tech Nation, I was kicked out of the country where I spent most of my adult life and wasn't ever allowed to come back for my clothes. Tech Nation's libel ruined my whole life and the ability to run a successful and useful business in the UK.
Finally, my family was particularly distressed about the decision. They don't understand technology, or the level of professionalism that I posses. It is difficult to explain to them what programs I make, or what they are used for (e.g., context testing is a concept relevant only to IT professionals). I needed a proper endorsement for my family to understand that I'm really good at what I do. Instead, Tech Nation caused damage to my reputation and caused distress and tension in relationships. For example, my sister kept saying that I should not have left my permanent job, or that I should find a new job. It is hard for her to understand the mission that I have for Art Deco and the fact that I build software of outstanding quality, both in implementation, testing and documentation. I entered into contract with Tech Nation hoping that my achievements would be recognised. Instead, I suffered abuse from an "endorsing body" in the UK and I seek maximum compensation for that.
Ms Pyrah issued the following statement, in her pseudo-expert review:
First of all, as an applicant to the Promise route, I have shown my education, work experience and commitment to free and quality Open Source software. I presented 5 pieces of software and said "these are the main tools that will help me to create more outstanding software". This was my Promise which any real expert would have recognised as such.
To achieve this aim, I applied my professional specialisation in Computer Science acquired as a result of hard work at 2 British Universities — the fact that was ignored by Tech Nation. My education consists of AI and Computer Security, 2 areas programs for which Tech Nation itself runs. Yet, there is no mention of my education. This fact highlights that the personnel of Tech Nation or its panel of experts have no respect for the UK or its values. 2 British citizens who wrote me recommendations and who also posses the highest skills and qualifications both in IT and business, were compared to nothing. Tech Nation does not serve the country and has no appreciation for hard work and dedication to profession.
Finally, the Home Office guidance said:
The infrastructure I built for Amigo, as well as such systems as MNP (my new package) that allow to create new packages quickly, and publish them on GitHub in automated manner, demonstrated exactly that, but the requirement from the Home Office never came up in the decisions. In a year, I increased my package count to 184, publishing hundreds of new releases and producing as many A4 pages of changelogs. Every piece of work is documented in these changelogs, and they prove that I have done real work, whereas none of the Tech Nation visa holders will ever be able to do that, and I challenge Tech Nation to prove otherwise in order for their statements to be hold true.
I didn't just exploit the stack, I created entirely new set of tools, called NodeTools which is a software development stack itself that covers every requirement for software engineering. I was saying precisely those things in my personal statement, only for a manager without any education to lie about me to the Home Office, and use the incorrect criterion in breach of the GDPR to prevent me from getting the visa. She said that I must have the community profile, but the community profile means nothing compared to the real value of tools that I contributed to the community. It was none of her business when I was to build a profile, if I needed some time to create a new stack, so that only put together I could present it to the world, that was my right and I was doing my job. Tech Nation's job was to evaluate my programming and leadership skills, and instead, it degraded my quality work, innovative ideas and passion for programming, in order to protect the status quo of the capitalists it represents, and satisfy the strive for power of a manager who has got no friends and takes it out on applicants.
Article 4 of the E-commerce directive precludes any additional authorisation for taking up and pursuing of the activities of an information society service provider.
1. Member States shall ensure that the taking up and pursuit of the activity of an information society service provider may not be made subject to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect.
While in the UK, I set up a business and registered a trademark. I was doing necessary work required for acquiring future contracts and pursuing the business activity. I needed the visa to be able to continue to do that in the UK. Now, the endorsement in itself cannot be considered an authorisation, because it is the requirement for the visa and people with a UK passport don't need to contact Tech Nation. However still, the actions by Tech Nation cannot be considered anything else than acting as an authorisation authority: their job was to provide a fair, legal and independent evaluation of my professional work in fields of Software Engineering and Quality Assurance. Tech Nation not just breached the contract by not doing their job and lying in the review, they prevented me from running the company on purpose which is in breach of the Directive. Only in a number of cases an enforcement authority may take measures, according to the Regulations:
Tech Nation is not an enforcement authority, but even if they were they are not allowed to take measures against my company preventing me from pursuing the activity of an information society service provider. The does NOT mean protection of venture capital investors who have a chair on Tech Nation's board, and their contacts.
Recital 63 states: in any case, the development of the information society is to ensure that Community citizens can have access to the cultural European heritage provided in the digital environment. Art Deco is the most prominent European movement and constitutes a vital part of European heritage. The presence of a software company, whose philosophy reflects all humanist values of such movement, especially when implemented in modern, secure and quality software, is the most European thing to happen in 2018. Tech Nation does not have any values for either software development, Intellectual Property, or culture of Great Britain. They confirm themselves, that they only run programs for venture-capital backed businesses and provide them with direct link to "key decision makers in Government". Tech Nation is a disgrace to European values and should be punished with by the fullest extend of the law.