NK HQ | Joint Ventures | UK
UK
This summer, 2025, NK’s HQ will be established in Stockholm, Sweden. More about this here:
The page before you, meanwhile, is a working document, tracking what’s being developed in respect of specifically British-focused workstreams in the next quarter.
These workstreams will ultimately manifest themselves as joint ventures with NK’s HQ.
For more information, email us here:
Secrecy Plus: UK-based joint-venture workstreams
Introduction
This document describes, in two parts, how two parties — British security on the one hand and myself on the other — with an almost insurmountably difficult history might find a way of using their inevitable cultural dissonance (even profound disagreement, the one with the other) to create new solutions in respect of two specific security issues: two issues which perhaps elsewhere, where agreement could inevitably be easier, might not be generated.
The two parts in question are as follows:
Part One covers the structures, ways of working, historical doctrines and approaches; the ringfencing of what can be done in the proposed joint venture with UK agencies and, then again, what cannot be done; the consequent sovereign control by the nation-state authority involved over the reach of the suggested programme (here, not elsewhere); and finally, how all this affects the rights and duties of those who may become involved in a to-be-constituted Secrecy Plus joint venture in the UK.
Part Two provides the rationale, the history, the explanation, and the clarity behind why the UK’s Secrecy Plus joint venture, if ever established, must be established in the peculiarly specific way Part One describes.
Finally, it must also be clear that this specifically UK ideation of the joint venture structures is not in any way to be applied to any other, located in any other country.
Excepting the sensibilities to local and regional security praxis, everything else mentioned in Part Two, if recognised and accepted, will only serve to build trust for the NK-HQ/UK Secrecy Plus joint venture. In fact, that is the only reason it is being posted: to make apparent something which should never happened, and in its recognising can now be left behind.
Others will need their own particular approaches and sensibilities, but this Part Two should not be seen by potential investor/customers, wider afield, as relating to other countries, regions, sectors, organisations or individuals.
Part One | the web version | the pdf version
I am open to working with the UK in the framework I have lately been pushing, but only within the context of a relationship that involves a holding located in Sweden, designed to promote the establishment of joint ventures in different sectors, regions and interests.
The reasons why can be downloaded as a Part Two pdf, but this is a historical assessment and only needs to be reviewed by potential UK investor/customers, if and when they find it hard to understand why I make the proposals I make in the way I make them:
The Nio Kvinnor holding I intend to locate in Stockholm, Sweden, this summer is designed to be neither bought nor sold, ever (as per the Swedish corporation IKEA, in fact).
It can be invested into by others via the joint ventures it will be structured to set up with such others.
The security doctrines to be used for a specific joint venture would, then, always be laid down by the investor/customer in question: in the case which this document is occupied by, the UK and its well-understood and delivered security interests, doctrines, and philosophies.
This document has, therefore, been specifically designed with the interests of countries and nation-states like my homeland of the UK, where total surveillance is held in high regard, and no other alternatives – that is to say, for example, out-thinking the enemy as well as out-spying them – have to date been contemplated at all.
In fact, more accurately, have been proactively rejected:
5. The doctrines and philosophies used in one joint-venture workstream would not, a priori, influence those of other workstreams; they could, however, where utility was perceived by the parties potentially involved, inform and even cross-pollinate to the whole group at Nio Kvinnor project level.
6. A collaborative space behind the scenes could therefore grow up to the benefit of everyone, whatever their doctrines, allowing diverse approaches to be witnessed from afar without impacting the integrity of a certain way of delivering on nation-state security.
The first slide-deck re Nio Kvinnor, the holding project, and Secrecy Plus, the proposed joint-venture workstreams, can be found here:
It briefly defines the language originally employed to bring into being the ideas proposed, as well as outlining the organisation of the project: what, how, and why.
A glossary explaining some policies, processes and technologies which may be used during the lifetime of the project, Nio Kvinnor, in its different workstreams, Secrecy Plus B2B/Citizen | Secrecy Plus Security, etc, can, meanwhile, be found here:
If you'd like to contact me in respect of the holding, Nio Kvinnor, this is the email:
If you'd like to contact me in respect of the proposed joint-venture workstreams, Secrecy Plus, this is the email:
Part Two | the pdf version
Note: only download the pdf document of Part Two if you struggle to understand why I have made the proposals for UK collaboration that I have made. Otherwise, consider Part One on its own, and on the merits you may perceive.