Cameron criticises terror effort

Mr Cameron addresses journalists in Westminster

Conservative leader David Cameron has said the government is not doing enough to fight Islamist extremism in the UK.

He criticised a funding freeze planned for the Home Office, and said intercept evidence should be allowed in courts.

And he called for tougher action to deport "preachers of hate" and enforce existing anti-terror laws.

ut deputy prime minister John Prescott said the comments were "almost beyond belief" and "undermined unity" at a time "when we should all stand united".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4791459.stm

I believe that David Cameron is correct in his critical comments about this government noted in the above article. It's unfortunate and alarming that the Deputy Prime Minister has chosen to attack him personally for not being "on message" when it is the role of the Leader of the Loyal Opposition to speak freely in a democratic society.

I just happen to recognise that Mr Cameron's cortical comment is quite tame and does not even begin to touch upon the real problem of this Labour government's failure to address the problem's surrounding terrorism. Mr Cameron is not going to stick his neck out and say what I can say about the fact that this government carries out policies off violence, 24/7 torture interrogation, surveillance R&D and medical experimentation against an innocent person which has been going on for eight years 24/7.

David Cameron is going to stay on safe, tame ground for his critical analysis of what the government has not been doing. While I address acts of commission, he only addresses acts of omission. For this he is lambasted in the extreme by the Deputy Prime Minster John Prescott. The point in doing this is to intimidate Mr Cameron into silence.

It's not that he might start talking about the extreme abuses of power this government has carried out for eight long years in his neighbourhood (he lives in nearby Notting Hill; this is Notting Dale). I believe it's just part of this government's way of talking and attacking with such extreme language that they hope to make people afraid to speak their minds.

This government lambasts here with a slander that claims David Cameron is disloyal when, in fact, he is actually being more loyal than most in trying to get the government to address problems which have increased the terrorist threat in this country.

The same applies to me. I have been making my information public so that this government and those in it will take proper action to stop deliberately destructive activity which is a direct contributor to extremism and terrorism in the community. For this I am subjected to the most extreme abuse imaginable ("almost beyond belief" as John Prescott says above about David Cameron's statements) including vicious attacks about mental health problems from the ground level up to a recent response from the Home Office when I sent the Home Secretary a letter dated 3rd August 2006. My reply to these vicious attacks from the Home Office are described in my web journal entry of 9th August 2006.

The following is an Email that I sent to BBC News24 today about the extremism and terrorism which exists inside the UK government which I address in the web journal:

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: We Must First Extract the Extremism and Terrorism Within the UK Government
Date: Tuesday 15 August 2006 12:30
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk

Before the problem from extremism and terrorism from any source be it Muslim or otherwise [can be addressed], the gross abuse of power, extremism and terrorism must first be removed from inside the UK government.

No society that carries out eight years of surveillance technology driven torture 24/7 can posssibly take the high moral ground holding up those "cherished standards and values" of a civilised society and expect that extremist and fanatical elements will not imitate the methods which the UK government uses itself.

The government must set an example in action and not say 'do as I say not as I do'.

*****End of the Email*****

After I wrote the above Email, I wrote the following letter to Dame Stella Rimington, former Director General of the Security Service (MI5) since I had just finished her superb book At Risk (Vintage Crime/Random House, London and New York 2004/5) this morning. It is a superb and extremely enjoyable read that I highly recommend.

Gary D Chance
Tuesday, 15th August 2006

Dame Stella Rimington
c/o Hutchinson
The Random Group Limited
20 Vauxhall Bridge Road
London SW1V 2SA

Dear Dame Stella

I’ve just finished reading At Risk and found it both extraordinary and a thoroughly enjoyable read. Those carrying out the 24/7 surveillance for eight years as of this writing read it right along with me although I do not think that they enjoyed it as much. I kept saying “We’Well let’s see what MI5 is doing” each time I returned to it.

Your characterisations and overall plot were superb from my experience and guess from an understanding of the variations in the human character. I was especially intrigued by your “fictional” descriptions and characterisations of Special Branch including the possibility of working both sides of the street. My experience with what I take to be Special Branch operating here with the surveillance technology has been astounding in their flaunting of the law and continuous criminal behaviour. One wonders just how corrupt the police can get?

In describing Morrison you stated “He was a jobsworth, a man whose entire life had become a bullying, nit-picking course of least resistance.” (P 93) And, later your alter ego Liz thought “It was only her instinct that suggest that he might be in the pay of Eastman . . .” (p 212) That gets at the essence with that least resistance being a process of no decisions while playing others off each other forever including condoning witnessed bribery attempts by those using surveillance.

Way back when in your Woman’s Hour interview, you described your efforts in Germany as trying everything possible to get the IRA terrorists arrested by the German police. The great problem with this is that those who do not discriminate and are unable to judge properly will use every dirty trick they can to achieve their objective including the arrest of the innocent target. This is where that behaviour goes awry domestically in the UK by foreign agents.

There is another abuse which is taken to the extreme. You were describing the process of collecting information “. . . that they were doing what every agent has done since time immemorial–padding their reports to make it look like they were worth their salaries.” (p 302) I recall Colonel Vine instructing Lt Harry Bird to “puff it up” and on another occasion to steal what I was writing about them because it was good. It is my belief which I will want to verify that they take what I write about them and include it in their reports about me as general comments. The facts do not fit me, but they do fit those with the surveillance technology. In their case they take the “padding” to the extreme of fabrications made extensively and often.

Then there was the point where your character Liz said to Mackay “If this case ends up with an arrest, and we’ve broken the law, the defence lawyer’ll have a field day. This is the UK we’re in, not Islamabad, OK?” (p 205) That was brilliant, and I read it out loud to make sure those using the surveillance technology got it. There was a worried reaction and an expression of concern from them as expected. Ultimately, though, they say, as was said this morning, “He can’t prove it.” The very sad thing about my situation is that the sovereignty of this country has been usurped by US government agents/contractors. Lt Harry Bird said a couple days ago “I’m a diplomat.” He has referred to the US Embassy frequently in the past. If you want to get a bead on his character, think about an extreme example of a Jonathan Kent Idema imprisoned in Kabul for carrying out his own imprisonment and torture activity to locate Osama bin Laden. You are going to have to recognise that the UK is now no different from Islamabad or anywhere like it. At the very beginning shortly after his arrival five years ago, Lt Harry Bird said “We’re breaking every law in the books.” They know exactly what they are doing and have proceeded accordingly.

It has been doubly fascinating to read At Risk against the background of this most recent terrorist attack threat while the aircraft mass bombing plot was revealed which was addressed by the intelligence, security services and police with extensive efforts and tight airline security. But, for me, this once again drives home the fact that my experience during the past eight years has been a major contributor to the rise of terrorism because the UK government sets the standard of violent criminal behaviour indiscriminately against an innocent person 24/7 with hundreds of people involved knowing that it is all fabricated and everything is predicated on false allegations. This provides an example for the extremist and fanatic to follow including a justification for behaving the same way. At the beginning of Open Secret you said that if this country resorts to the methods of the terrorists, the war is lost before it has begun. It was lost in 1998 in my direct experience as a surveillance target which started in August 1998 not for the purpose of investigation but to destroy the life of a human being officially by the government.

Attached are two letters which I’ve received recently from MI5 and the Home Office following my correspondence to them. This is not the way to solve problems like the one I’ve experienced for eight years. The Home Office looks more like its running the KGB each day. As you said when you visited the KGB: it was they who were now learning democracy where they act on behalf of the Russian people instead of against them. What is now happening in the UK, is that the government is acting against its people instead of on their behalf. If you want to see my comments about this correspondence and my original letters, please look at my web journal for 1st, 3rd, 9th and 11th of August 2006.

I hope that there will be a film made of your book. It reads like it would be a perfect film if it remains true to what you wrote. In any case it was a stupendous read. It is a shame that you are no longer at MI5 for the balance you brought in. I would like to think that this is continuing, but if my experience is any indication, the balance is shifting away from democracy to a totalitarian state. Although my direct experience with the surveillance technology is not general public knowledge, everything that this government has done reflects a path toward its wide usage on the population as a whole.

Yours sincerely

GDC

*****End of the Letter*****

There is more to be said about this tremendously well written and splendid book, but the points made above are enough. There is an issue with respect to human rights which she brings out in the context of questioning, and the problem that human rights lawyers can create. However, there is the problem of the abuse of power when those operating in a secret organisation where there are only internal checks to offset those who would act outside the law especially with the abuse of human rights as I've been experiencing for eight years 24/7.

There is the problem of oversight,responsibility and accountability. There has to be a concerted effort to assess the full range of intelligence, security and law enforcement organisationally. I am beginning to think that all of this activity should be consolidated. There is a merging now of domestic and foreign intelligence which needs one organisation to manage the overall intelligence and security activity. This has grown and is quite obvious in this novel with the conflicts which arise between Security Service (MI5) and Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) with respect to sharing the information and carrying out the overall job which needs to be done.

Special Branch is a big problem because of necessity it is tied to police for criminal law enforcement investigation and prosecution. Somehow, this too must be centralised into the same single organisation so that the abuses which occur as I've experienced and are present in this novel can be avoided. The problems which exist today cut across all security, intelligence and police departments. There needs to be a central organisation for control and information sharing purposes. The great problem with this is penetration. A single organisation penetrated in any manner will yield valuable information on a larger scale than might otherwise occur in separate organisations.

There has to be a balance between the need to centralise, the need to ensure the integrity of the information and the need to protect the public against abuse. As it stands now, there is no real protection against abuse which will certainly grow as more and more people are recruited into these activities. Standards will slip, and the more marginally qualified will be recruited out of necessity. The problems which result from this slippage in quality could ultimately be catastrophic. In my direct experience those who have surveillance responsibility constitute the greatest risk possible to the security of the UK by the impact of their abuse of power.

The great value of Stella Rimington's novel is, as noted by its title At Risk, that it depicts the various services as they exist with the clashes of personalities and cross currents which one can only assume she has experienced directly in trying to get her job done effectively to protect the nation. There is a need to concentration on overall organisation and management which she did at the Security Service (MI5). There needs to be a overall body of some sort to put this all together in the best interest of the UK and a resulting single departement of goverment.

It would seem to me that a Constitutional Monarch such as exists in the UK would be an ideal form of government to insure that the security of the state is maintained while preserving and protecting democratic standards and values. The consolidation of security, intelligence and law enforcement with regard to state security can be accomplished through one department of government accountable by oversight from Parliament with ministers and a secretry of state in the Cabinet. The competition between different departments of government (Foreign and Home Office) and within a single department of government (Home Office) needs to be eliminated. Too much is lost when these organisatons are part of huge, separate departements of government with competing interests.

The great problem is that this organisational creation must come from outside and be carried out in such a way that it gets accomplished in the best interest of the country. It can come from the Monarchy in conjunction with Parliament. It cannot be left to the government who has singularly failed by politicising intelligence, security and law enforcement in the UK which I have experienced directly. This must be halted by a group of people formed to put together a separate department of government for these elements of now separate and split activities.

The threat to this country is too great and will get worse. The existing structure will ensure that a catastrophe will happen at some point. It is only a matter of time. Intelligence, security and law enforcement as I've experienced directly is out of control. It cannot continue unless a totalitarian state is desired by those who govern. The state-of-the-art of surveillance technology can, if used properly, make this country secure and crime free to a degree never known in the past. However, it can also enslave the population in a manner beyond anything that George Orwell might have imagined.

The choice remains to this generation who are now senior enough with enough experience to ensure that proper management and organisation can be developed consistent with the threat and the sophistication of surveillance technology. David Cameron is just nibbling at the edges of the problem. He is heading in the right dirction. Calls for "unity" now are merely means of suppressing the real problems inside this government by attacking those who would get at the malaise and difficulties which have been the result of this government's move toward power at the expense of anyone who does not acquiesce. It is time for the Monarch to work with Parliament to bring about a solid democracy in this country and ensure its security without destroying democracy which this government would seek to do as I have experienced for eight years 24/7.