1. There is a call for mixed living environments with respect to social and economic classes involving social housing to avoid the problem of ghettoised environments with "no-hopers" locked into a perpetual syndrome of poverty, domestic strife, violence and crime. I couldn't agree more. In fact, that is why I report very serious problems so that they can be addressed by those in authority to do so. Instead, all the efforts that I have witnessed and experienced as a result of such reporting have all added up to resistance of the most profound kind to keep the environment a ghetto consisting of antisocial behaviour and domestic violence producing generation after generation of bullies and criminals. Here is a BBC News item about this call for mixed living environments and after it an Email with my response about an interview with Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, broadcast on BBC News24.
BBC News Tuesday, 20 February 2007, 17:15 GMT
Housing plan calls for better mix
 Social housing tenants are more likely to be unemployed |
Councils and housing associations should provide homes in areas where there are higher earners, a government-commissioned review says.
Professor John Hills also proposes spare land on council estates should be used to build private homes.
This would provide a better social mix - at the moment half of social housing is in the poorest 20% places, he said.
But he said ending security of tenure would be "very unhelpful" and tenants should be "incentivised" to move on,
The government has said there are "no plans" to end the role of social housing as a "safety net".
'Neighbourhood effects'
But it expects pressures on social housing to grow, with more single people needing homes and, as the gap between house prices and incomes grows, fewer tenants buying their own homes.
The type of council tenant has changed, the report found, with more likely to be on very low incomes, or not in work at all.
 |  It's healthy - in the way society works - for there to be a mix  Professor Hills |
People of working age in social housing were twice as likely to be unemployed than the average person - partly due to the "neighbourhood effects" of living in deprived areas, such as welfare dependency and the difficulty of moving house.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6377053.stm
---------- Forwarded Message ----------Subject: "What the appropriate form of support is" said Ruth Kelly hoping to provoke a national debate about social housing alternatives.
Date: Tuesday 20 February 2007 15:46
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk, Contactus@communities.gsi.gov.uk
BBC News24 and
The Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and
Minister for Women
Notting Hill Housing Trust . . . well, she's close by anyway, but she's not reporting it like it really is thanks to the government.
One thing Ruth Kelly is certain not to discuss will be the past eight and one-half years of surveillance driven torture carried out by the local tenant management vigilante mob fully supported by numerous departments and agencies of government.
This is led by the mother of the abused children whom I reported for child abuse in May 1998. She has two objectives from using the surveillance technology to get me out of my home: 1) to destroy my life by so doing; and 2) to obtain possession of this flat. Recently she has once again yelled as she has been doing for years: "It's my house." She doesn't even live here but remains in the proximity of my flat 24/7 as she has done for many years.
Ruth Kelly asked the question about those who were youths and others of working age as to why they are not working and improving themselves? She wanted to pull in the proper agencies or departments of government to solve other problems than a social housing problem.
In my situation and personal experience thanks to the government this person is "working" with surveillance technology to obtain social housing at the expense of my life because I reported this family's domestic violence and child abuse in May 1998 from her mother's flat below where four adults lived, two children visited frequently and one infant arrived at birth all in a one bedroom Council flat.
For well over the past five years the mother of the abused children who was not legally entitled to be living in her mother's flat below has been declaring that my flat is "her house" and demanding continuously that others including the police to "get him out" using surveillance technology to continuously fabricate allegations toward this objective. She has even been congratulated on obtaining the right to possesion of this flat when I am driven out by whatever criminal means its takes.
When this had not happened after many years, a woman said to her one day "We'll get you another flat." She refused. Even her partner said "We'll get another place." She rejected this too. She is totally obsessed with destroying me and is supported in doing so by the government sanctioned use of surveillance technology against me as a weapon. She never stops her abuse second-by-second 24/7 and has been at it since the surveillance technology was first installed in August 1998 and put at the disposal of the local tenants, residents and others to use as a weapon.
She has also uttered some unbelievable comments along the way such as the housing should be for the young. Get the old out of there. The ignorance, bigotry and hatred are astonishing and all the more so because no one does anything to stop it despite any number of witnesses including those in significant positions of authority.
How can Ruth Kelly come out today making these kinds of statements especially at the nearby Notthing Hill Housing Trust where she says that she has talked with tenants. Maybe she should talk with tenants in the Lancaster West Estate in North Kensington.
The government has actually been carrying out policy and action which are the complete opposite to what Ruth Kelly is talking today. What does Ruth Kelly propose to do about this situation? It would seem to me that a first step would be to stop this kind of abuse, but that is never done. Why?
Why hasn't this woman, the mother of the abused children, been spending the past eight and one-half years building her life in a constructive manner to enable herself to obtain housing and an independent life for herself, her children and her partner after I reported the child abuse to the Council's Chief Executive in May 1998?
Why has this whole system of government completely collapsed and run amok trying to destroy the life of the person who was attempting to address a most serious and life threatening problem of child abuse in the most rational and judicious manner possible?This woman, the mother of the abused children, is still apparently homeless and continues in this most obsessive manner to destroy human life (mine) while being totally fixated on obtaining this flat above her mother's flat for herself. She is clearly locked into the social housing syndrome in such an obsessive manner that she will destroy to obtain a Council flat for herself.
This is an extension of the social housing for life scenario. Here she is making every effort to create a vacancy in the flat above her mother's flat so that she can then have social housing for life herself. Where are the agencies and departments of government when it comes to helping this woman actually become a productive member of society? They have done the reverse.
Why has this government supported her extensive criminal activity so that her children grow up watching her as an example of government supported criminal and antisocial behaviour which they then adopt themselves by becoming antisocial bullies in the community too?
What has Ruth Kelly actually done about situations like this?
The government itself has created this catastrophe during the past eight and one-half years despite being fully informed about what has been happening?
What is Ruth Kelly going to do to stop this?
I can hardly wait until this gets into the national debate she wants to kick start.
How does she propose to address this problem of perpetual social housing where those who are carrying out antisocial and criminal activity are fully supported by the government in maintaining not only government dependency but are also creating the next generation of antisocial and criminal adults?
How naive and ill informed can any minister of state possibly be, and she is also minister for women? This is the government?
*****End of the Email*****2. What has always occurred with this government is the fact that MPs and the public are misled into accepting something based upon representations which are later not honoured. This was seen in the invasion of Iraq and representations about WMD. This was seen in election misrepresentations to get votes. In 1997 this Labour government misled the electorate with promises of age discrimination legislation that has never been forthcoming. Instead, it was left to the EU to bring in such legislation. The same happened with tuition fees in a national election promising to not bring them in. Now they exist. Deceit is a hallmark of this government whether it deceives the public or its elected representatives.
Here is an example of that once again with the use of the ID card database information. It was always to be expected that such power would be abused. Anybody who thought otherwise is a simpleton. The big problem is the fact that database errors will occur as noted below. This is only the start. I'm living proof that this government has no respect for promises, representations, policy or the law in the 24/7 surveillance technology torture activity which has been carried out against me for the past eight and one-half years since August 1998. All my privacy and confidentiality has been stripped away from me for all these years and made available to the general public. How much longer will this go on?
There is a mention below once again about the 'surveillance society' and the fact that no national debate has occurred about this state of affairs which has been my reality of existence for many years although this is not mentioned. The creep in that direction is noted with this example of the ID card database. This government is moving to eventually squash all dissent with the use of surveillance technology so that it can do whatever it wants to maintain power. "Games People Play" fit this government in many different types of games, but all have the same basic pattern of manipulative dishonesty. Do a careful study of the classic Games People Play by Eric Berne MD. It's worth understanding human behaviour to stop this dishonesty.
BBC News Tuesday, 20 February 2007, 15:23 GMT
ID fingerprints plan under fire
 The government plans a national identity register |
Opposition parties have expressed anger that all fingerprints collected for ID cards will be cross-checked against prints from 900,000 unsolved crimes.
No 10 insists it was always the plan to allow the checks, but the Tories and Lib Dems say they were not aware of it.
In an e-mail to 27,000 signatories to an anti-ID card petition, Tony Blair said the cards would help bring "those guilty of serious crimes" to justice.
The Conservatives and the Lib Dems both oppose plans for identity cards.
. . .
The PM's official spokesman said that it was always the government's intention that the police could get access to fingerprint data contained on the planned register.
Under the Identity Card Bill, first published in April 2004, approved authorities would be allowed access to "limited parts" of people's details on the register, with the person's consent, so they could check somebody's identity.
The bill also said that details could also be given without consent to police, intelligence agencies, customs and tax authorities and certain government departments for preventing and detecting serious crime, ensuring national security, investigating benefits fraud and protecting Britain's "economic well-being".
. . .
'Surveillance state'
Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "We were left clearly with the impression that the police simply wouldn't be able to go on fishing expeditions just with their own say so.
"What is so distressing about this latest justification from the prime minister is that he's changed his tune almost week by week in justifying ID cards.
"First it was to do with terrorism, then he dropped that one. Then it was to do with benefit fraud, then he dropped that one.
"The public will rightly feel extremely confused if the government can't make it's own mind why it wants to spend billions of taxpayers money on something which they can't be consistent about."
He said there had been a lack of debate about whether a "surveillance state" was wanted by the public.
For the Conservatives, shadow home office minister Damian Green said: "It flatly goes against all the undertakings the government gave Parliament during the course of the bill.
"Obviously it has huge implications for people's privacy if the authorities are going to be allowed to go on a fishing expedition through the files of innocent people.
"Everyone assumes that fingerprint technology is 100% accurate. And it just isn't, experience tells us that it's not infallible.
"With the vast number of crimes involved, it is guaranteed there are going to be miscarriages of justice if the government goes down this route."