I sent the following Email this morning before I received the Home Office reply to my letter of last week which was published along with others in this web journal on Thursday, 3rd August 2006. Then there followed a news conference by the Home Secretary John Reid broadcast on BBC News24 which featured a question by a journalist regarding radicalision and extremism asking why haven't we heard what the government was doing about these issues in the community.
I cannot overstress the importance of these three communications which fell in the order described and presented below one, two, three this morning. These are most certainly interrelated and of the utmost importance where terrorism is concerned. Furthermore, the reply from Simon Watkins at the Home Office regarding my letter to the Home Secretary John Reid reinforces in spades the characterisation made by this Home Secretary before the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee that the Home Office is "dysfunctional" and "unfit for purpose." Mr Watkins' letter provides explicit proof of that and reveals the extreme extent of the corruption which exists at the Home Office which has been described extensively but not comprehensively in the media.
First, here's the Email I sent to BBC News24 about radicalisation in the community:
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: "How to Rechannel Muslim Radicalism into the Democratic Process"
Date: Friday 11 August 2006 10:16
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk
Words to this effect were made by an interviewee just a moment ago as a method of approach to removing the growing terrorist threat in Britain.
I've spent the last eight years bringing a gross abuse of power from the use of surveillance technology to the attention of everyone in authority from the ground level up to and including the Cabinet and the Prime Minister.
It has not been stopped and went on all night and this morning as usual.
I am not someone who would be radicalised, but if my experience as a non-Muslim cannot bring about a proper democratic resolution of what is the total abrogation of democracy itself, serious questions exist as to what anyone especially Muslims might be able to do to prevent the radicalisation of the young and consequent increase in terrorism.
Until the problem of abuse of power is addressed at the ground level by those on top, there will be no hope in rechannelling potential radicals into constructive democratic means to resolve grievances.
There has been no effective effort made to stop the extreme abuse of power to which I've been subjected for eight years 24/7. If that cannot be done and has not been done in all of this time despite everyone being fully informed, terrorism will only get worse in my estimation just as violence itself increases in this environment when the standard is criminal behaviour by the government.
*****End of the Email*****
Second, here's the letter I received in today's post after I sent the above Email:
The above letter from Simon Watkin once again denies the validity of my experience without any investigation or knowledge of surveillance technology as it exists today. It is an attempt to cover up the reality of my experience during the past eight years 24/7 by attacking me, what I report and noting that what I report is based upon "feelings rather than on indisputable evidence." Mr Simon is trying to hide and deny extensive abuses of power which have been carried out for eight years 24/7 by this government. I want to comment on his letter publicly.
He claims that my reports of what I experience are based upon beliefs. He goes on to tell me that I need to ask myself if these reports are "based upon thoughts and beliefs or upon facts." Then he goes on to describe some of my concerns pertaining to surveillance, hearing voices, radar imaging, ultrasound and whether or not they are "based on feelings rather than on indisputable evidence. He jumps around in the use of his words moving from belief to feelings as opposed to "indisputable facts."
I am well grounded in epistemology having read philosophy at Columbia University as an undergraduate. Included in that study were books such as Knowledge and Belief edited by A Phillips Griffiths as part of the Oxford Readings in Philosophy series and Meaning and Knowledge: Systematic Readings in Epistemology edited by Ernest Nagel and Richard B Brandt. I want to point out that inductive reasoning is better known as the scientific method. This is the process of building up to a general hypothesis from from many observations. I also want to point out that nothing can be "known" with certainty but only the negation of something is a certainty. This was drilled in by a physics professor of mine once. One can only theorise about an occurrence.
One cannot "know" that gravity actually exists for example. No matter how many times a penny is tossed into the air, we do not "know" that it will come down. We believe that it will come done and postulate a theorem to this effect. However, someday that penny might go up, and then we would have to revise our theorem. So far gravity as a theory holds in all practical cases so we falsely call it knowledge when it is only belief. I do not believe that Simon Watkin has entered into any meaningful discussion about knowlege and belief in his letter.
He's using language to support the position he wants to maintain by claiming that beliefs and feelings are something less than indisuptable facts. It is an indisputable fact that based upon keen and repeated observations the world held for thousands of years that the earth was the centre of the universe with all else revolving around it. This was knowledge, until Copernicus and Galileo came along. Does Simon Watkin claim the earth is flat based upon indisputable evidence? I hope not. At one time everyone thought this true. He would have done better to ask questions instead of pretending to "know" answers about the validity of my experience and observations.
I've been an analyst all my life. In fact, I was an intelligence analyst at the age of 19 starting out in 1962 at Headquarters of the USAF Security Service following six months of training. I was given a top job that was only usually given to people of experience who had served overseas. I took over the work of a GS9, a woman who had been there for some time. I was earning a whopping $1,100 a year and took over the work of a woman who was earning $9,000 a year which was a small fortune in 1962. Although administered by the USAF, its Security Service was under the operational control of NSA. A GS11 civilian ran my office, and there were other civilians who worked there. It's fairly obvious that those of us doing our military service obligation were a source of cheap labour for the US government, and as it turned out, sometimes we made meaningful contributions.
I took over this work and redid everything developing my own method of analysis which proved to be accurate and successful. All the other analysts in my secton adopted my methodology. I was written up for this and have the performance report to prove it. I also made a significant intelligence recovery as a result of my method which could not have been detected otherwise. This was something everyone else who was doing this work in other places in the world had missed for months. The reporting they did was inaccurate during this period. I was doing final analysis and reporting along with others whose reports went to NSA and GCHQ. This was the purpose of my job: to make certain that all was done accurately and consistently. I caught a problem which then got everyone else on the right track.
I've carried on with this ability to analyse properly and accurately all my life with significant achievements along the way which unlike working in intelligence have been covered in the media and by professional organisations. I've done the same kind of documentation, record keeping and reporting for all these eight years concerning the 24/7 surveillance abuse of power to which I've been subjected. However, surveillance by its very nature is supposed to be undetected by the target, but not so in this instance. I was told what was going on and have been told from the very beginning by those involved because they were neighbours and members of the general public whom I knew and recognised when they spoke.
I've met others in the process of this surveillance activity and seen still more of them in public places which enabled me to identify them due to the arguments being carried out. There is no secret or mystery about who is involved. There are no mysterious "they" at all here although there are unknown people from time to time who participate with the known. This then identifies them too.
Radar imaging was deduced by me from all the activity being carried out by this large number of people commencing in August 1998 including the extensive movement of this very heavy equipment around on the floor above and its heavy, large tripod which I had seen delivered. These people had no restraints whatsoever and carried on in loud voices about all that was happening around the clock, day after day. I could easily hear acoustically what was being said and by whom. I knew these people. It was very easy for me to deduce what technology was being used from the loud shouting of the adults and especially the children involved in surveillance technology harassment.
Infrared imaging technology will not reveal the opening of the eyelids as does radar imagining technology. A visiting child in the flat above participating in the surveillance technology driven harassment shouted on one occasion c January 1999 late at night "He opened his eyes" just after I did so. I was in a pitch black room with no light whatsoever so no camera of any kind could have possibly been in use. That young boy who shouted this was the same child whom I had reported in May 1998 as being subjected to extensive child abuse being carried out against him.
He was now being taught criminal activity with surveillance technology by his mother who was clearly present because she had to restrain the child when he went to the door of the flat above to shout out into the Walkway what had happened. He had learned this from the teenager who lived in the flat above who would shout out into the Walkway about my activity. This same teenager carried on with extensive harassment by stomping on the floor of the flat above in the middle of the night to wake me. This radar imaging technology was used as a weapon to determine where I was, what I was doing and whether I was asleep or not so that any rest or sleep could be disturbed. There was much laughter all around about what they were doing.
In the autumn of 1998 in two of my letters to the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner I noted that I would go blind. This is what occurred when cataracts were diagnosed two years later.
I learned about ultrasound because someone made a statement about its use against me which reinforced the strange popping sounds which I was hearing although I did not know their source. A month long police raid from mid-December 1999 to mid-January 2000 was carried out agaisnt the premises 24/7 when they sought to remove me from my home or so they claimed to be doing. They were trying to determine my presence inside my flat in order to remove me by force or so they were stating by listening to any noise which was made. At one point a male pointed out the cracking sound from the plastic of my computer monitor. He was told to ignore it since it was ultrasound photography. I was told what was being done although the guy who said it did not believe I could hear him.
I then concluded that the focal point of the ultrasound waves caused plastic or some similar material where the focus occurred to "pop." I had been documenting these noises not knowing their source. I was doing this by that time for everything unusual. From then on I was able to tell when and where ultrasound photography was taking place, and it all fit together logically. Ultrasound is used to break up kidney stones, gall stones and, yes, you guessed it, the solidification of the aqueous fluid in the lens of the eye during cataract surgery when this condition has progressed to this state. Recent research has indicated that ultrasound is potentially dangerous and should not be used except under medical advice.
Voices can be heard either acoustically through normal molecular sound wave propagation or electronically by means of electromagnetic radiation wave propagation. The latter is quite common these days and has been well known since the late 1970s. The US Army acknowledges its existence and calls it Voice-to-Skull (V2K). I've dealt with this elsewhere in this web journal. For the first two and one-half years of the serveillance technology abuse against me, those carrying this out had no compunction about talking loudly about all that was happening. They did not care reflecting an absence of a duty to care. Actually, I think it was intentiona as part of their harassment campaign. Each day and night from the flat above and below, outside my front window and from my front door to the Walkway inside the building, scores of not hundreds of people over time were involved all talking loudly about everything and shouting back and forth for many hours on end.
Every night large groups of people would assemble outside my front window collecting on the various benches and stone walls out there. I could hear everything they were saying and wrote it all down. In addition, they occupied automobiles which were adjacent to my front window all night long, and I could hear what was being said throughout the night. Those above and below would shout back and forth between the balconies above and below my front window. I was kept fully informed about all that was going on by all of these people.
Frequent meetings were also held in the flats below and above me about this surveillance activity. All that I wrote was closely monitored with the use of TEMPEST which intercepted the emissions from the desktop and notebook computer screens including the latter's LCD screen. During one meeting, a key person in the flat below laughed at a typo that I had made while typing giving away the fact that they were carrying out surveillance during the meeting. She then apologised for having pointed out what I had done thus making it absolutely certain what was being done.
On another occasion I covered the notebook screen with a colour transparency thus changing its frequency which could not longer be intercepted and read by TEMPEST. This created such an uproar resuting in calling out the technician to repair what they thought was their own equipment failure that it was absolutely certain what they were doing. The technician realised what I had done and simply retuned the TEMPEST technology to the new frequency and explained to them what had happened and what to do about it. I heard all of this. On another occasion after one of the many meetings, a male left refusing to participate shouting outside in the road "You're spying on him" as his reason for refusing to participate.
After two and one-half years of this, Lt Harry Bird and Colonel Vine arrived c February 2001 with their most sophisticated surveillance technology. The first thing they started using was the electromagnetic radiation transmission of their voices. This occurred while I was taking a bath, but I could hear them clearly. I knew this was not acoustic molecular wave propagation of sound. I did not know what it was precisely, but I did know that I could also hear their voices underwater. They were trying to spook me by the reading of biographical information nonstop.
Over time I was to learn the what and who about what was going on. Lt Harry Bird was such a braggart and blowhard that he and those with him made it possible for me to hear what was going on. I could even hear the people talking to him. Once when I was taking notes about what Colonel Vine was saying which they could read with TEMPEST, he ordered Lt Harry Bird to "turn that down" so I would not be able to hear him. His voice disappeared. There is no doubt that sound (voices) can be transmitted electronically over distances where one could not possibly hear someone from normal acoustical sound propagation.
They track me wherever I go and use the electronic sound transmission to constantly abuse me and comment upon all that I am doing. When out in the open well away from where I could hear anyone normally such as crossing the playing field in Holland Park, I could still hear Lt Harry Bird and others plainly as if they were standing next to me. This has gone on for all these years 24/7, and there is no doubt about who is talking, what is being said as it relates frequently to my activity and how the sound is being transmitted.
The mother of the abused children whose child abuse I report in May 1998 has been present using the surveillance technology in all its forms for all these eight years 24/7 thus providing continuity but more importantly a steady source of information about everything due to the fact that she is mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed. There is the real mental health problem that people like Simon Watkin refuse to recognise including those who are supposed to be able to address these kinds of problems. In this case mental illness and emotional disturbance are being exploited in the most reprehensible way possible by the government itself.
"You might find it helpful to sit down with someone you trust" writes Simon Watkin in his third paragraph. There is a massive dirty tricks campaign being carried out by Lt Harry Bird and others with him in which they make every attempt to interfere in all that I do especially by broadcasting false allegations and negative characterisations to anyone whom I might contact.
When I was seeking medical assistance for my diminishing vision in November 2001, he and others talked with my optometrist whose voice I recognised alarming her with their false allegations. They do this under the guise of questioning someone about my behaviour. In this instance the reply they got was "Always a gentlemen" which is consistent with all my behaviour. They do this no matter where I go or with whom I am dealing. It is impossible for me not to deal with this matter objectively with any privacy until the surveillance activity is stopped. I have document all of this activity as it occurred since they intended that I hear what was going on.
Even before Lt Harry Bird and Colonel Vine arrived during the initial two and one-half year period, there was the disposition to blame and attack the victim by those in professional capacities whom I did contact with regard to this problem. When I found out that they were not listening to the description of what was common everyday harassment using surveillance technology, I just went away. Some of this is documented on my web site, and I have commented on it here elsewhere in this web journal as well.
There is one particular sequence of events that is most important in this regard. There has been a consistent effort to drive my into psychiatric care with the use of surveillance technology as a harassment weapon then denying the reality of what is being done as Simon Watkin is trying to do in his letter here. This is a consistent pattern of events which has persisted throughout all these years.
Thus, it was no surprise that the month long police seige stopped the day I went to visit a psychiatrist at the St Charles Hospital in mid-January 2000. I had received a letter about a visit to the premises which I switched to their premises due to the surveillance. I attended this meeting reluctantly under the advice of a solicitor who said to just explain the cause of the situation and what was happening. I also wanted to identify those from the NHS who were continuously present here on an almost daily basis in conjunction with the use of the surveillance technology.
On my first visit with a psychiatrist, I learned that there was no interest in what I had to say. There was only a push to get me to move from my home with money offered. This was consistent with all the harassment efforts and police action up to that point. It was also an unlawful and possibly criminal act on the part of the psychiaatrist who was playing a part in trying to unlawfully evict me from my home. When I refused, he became threatening indicating that if I did not cooperate, the matter would be turned over to the Magistrate's court. Since I had done nothing and was the victim of this incredible surveilance technology driven harassment, I was completely bewildered about what was happening. I was being subjected to an inquisition without any charges beeing made. He said that he wanted me to see another psychiatrist, and I agreed since I had not identified the key one who had been extensively present around my home with the surveillance technology.
The second visit two weeks later at the end of January 2000 revealed the real reason I was being summoned under the pretext of mental illness. Richard Evans MD displayed my letter to the Prime Minister which I had sent the previous September 1999. It was in the folder he had on his desk with my name on it. He offered no diagnosis but insisted that I take medication. I agreed in order to get the mediation as evidence. In reality I was being subjected to false mental health claims due to my letter to the Prime Minister about the failuree to address the child abuse and the surveillance which was being used against me.
I did not return to see Richard Evens MD but filed a complaint against him and his colleague instead for professional misconduct. After that I was to hear a lot from him as he participated in the surveillance technology harassment extensively. There is a great deal of detail about this and his direct involvement. On one night all three of these NHS personell (the two psychiatrists and the psychiatric nurse) were in the flat below and/or out on its balcony below my front window.
They were participating in the surveillance technology abuse against along with a large crowd of people outside under my front window on the benches and wherever. I knew the voices of all three of them and recognised their presence. In fact, I believe that they had the radar imaging monitor on the balcony below my front window facing out so that the crowd out front could see me inside my home. This as a common occurrence from the use and abuse of the surveillance technology so it wwas not surprising to me that they should be present.
It was very fortunate that I attended those two meetings at St Charles Hospital since it gave me the opportunity to meet and then subsequently be able to recognise these people when they showed up as part of those using and abusing the surveillance technology. There is much, much more to detail about them,but this will have to suffice for now. The problem is how can anyone trust the NHS to maintain privacy and confidentiality when the NHS comes into the community and puts someone like me on display with the use of surveillance technology for all who are gathered out front and anyone who happens by as frequently occurred. How can Simon Watkin question ss he does the useage of the surveillance technology in the first place when I have been put on public display for all and sundry to watch over an extended period of time?
I am not reporting any "distress" about myself to others since that has all disappeared. I have known from the beginning who was involved, what was being done and how it was being carried out. There is no distress when there is knowledge such as this. It is not belief. I know what is happening and who is involved. There is no need for me to distinguish "facts" from "thoughts" as Simon Watkin suggests. He's making an assumption and attacking the victim for being wrong which echoes the very same thing those who are pulling off the abuse try to get away with.
Simon Watkin is interested in covering up eight years of torture carried out with the use of surveillance technology since its revelation would have devastating consequences beyond all comprehension for this government and the Home Office. Simon Watkin is not interested in asking any questions to determine what facts I might have to support what I report. He doesn't want to know. As it turns out, I have hard evidence to prove my contentions about this activity, but he is not interested in asking about this. He wants to assume that no such evidence exists and does so in his letter which becomes the document of record about this matter as far as officialdom is concerned.
He dwells upon radar imaging as a cause for the cataracts trying to dismiss this as a causative factor. It would be devastating for this government to admit that it used radar imaging for years in the hands of the general public who failed completely with regard to any duty of care with regard to its usage. In fact, there was a deliberate abuse of the radar imaging to do as much damage as possible. This has all been documented minute-by-minute 24/7 for all these years.
As it happened, I began to have my eyes examined by an optometrist in September 1998 just after the radar imagining technology was installed. The whole process of the decline in my vision which had been solid for years began occurring and was tracked in decline by periodic examinations. There is a whole pattern of events which point to the radar imaging as the cause of the cataracts which took only just over two years to develop to the point of diagnosis by the Western Eye Hospital. There was more than just the cataracts which were caused by the radar imaging abuse. There was the lymph oedema which started immediately with its installation in August 1998. I went to see my GP about this immediately since it was so bad. And, there was also the diplopia (double vision) for which I was being treated by the Western Eye Hospital at the time of the installation of the radar imagining in August 1998.
Cataracts were just one of numerous simultaneous personal injuries which occurred with the implementation of the radar imaging surveillance technology and its abuse by the general public. Simon Watkin is not asking to be fully informed. He is not demonstrating any due care and diligence which such correspondence as I sent would require. Instead, he is dismissing outright the abuse which this government has sanctioned and carried out for eight long years 24/7 and blaming the victim to escape accountability and responsibility. He is making it all the worse for the government since so many people know all about everything that has been going on thanks to the fact that Lt Harry Bird in his demented egomania has shown off the surveillance technology to everyone and anyone allowing many to use it.
Simon Watkin demonstrates his ignorance deliberate or not while distorting what I wrote in that he claims I maintain "that those cataracts were caused by "radar imaging surveillance technology" or "brainwave monitoring surveillance . . . by satellite". First and foremost, monitoring electromagnetic radiation cannot cause anything. It's just receiving the signals. In the second place, the brainwave monitoring and feedback surveillance technology was not brought into use (February 2001) until after the cataracts were diagnosed (December 2001). There is an argument which can be made that the latter feedback portion of the brainwave surveillance technology (hearing, etc) could have contributed to the cataracts worsening. But, these were diagnosed before this technology was in use, and I have only attributed them to radar imaging which was installed in August 1998.
Simon Watkin wants to paint a picture which does not exist. He wants to dismiss what I describe. He is cherry picking negatives in order to be dismissive. At the very least he is not careful in what he reads, or at the worst he is deliberately linking together two separate surveillance technologies claiming that I am asserting them as causative factors with respect to the cataracts which developed from sound, solid eyes coincident with the use of the radar imaging device and so documented by medical examinations due to the extraordinarily rapid decline in my vision over a two year period commencing with the use of the radar imaging technology. The cataract development had nothing to do with the brainwave monitoring and feedback surveillance technology, but Simon Watkin wants to put a piece of paper in the files which makes this claim about me when there will be no one who will actually read what I've written and instead take what he's written as accurate.
Simon Watkin chooses to ignore the fact that electromagnetic radiation is well known for causing cataracts. The radar frequency/wave length range is especially dangerous as all the radiation warning signs around radar installations and radar on aircraft will attest. These warning signs are put up around radar for a very good reason, yet this government saw fit to subject me to continuous radar imagining technology through the floor from the flat above 24/7 for years including the time following when cataracts were diagnosed. There is a very good reason for this government to hide what has happened, and this is just one of them.
There is a massive effort here to hide the truth and blame the victim using mental health as a reason. The fact that this is done in this manner from different Home Secretary to different Home Secretary indicates a malaise in the Home Office which is far from being rooted out. Charles Clarke lost his job because of his neglect with regard to addressing the problem of foreign prisoners being released without deportation processing. I sent this letter to John Reid in an envelope marked "Personal and Confidential" so that he would note its contents himself. I have no indication in this reply that he ordered this letter to be sent. The reply only notes my letter "addressed to the Home Secretary." It sounds like it was snatched pre-emptorily by Simon Watkin to hide gross criminal misconduct.
It doesn't matter whether he was informed about it or not given the content of the reply. In either case it is prima facie evidence of neglect and deliberate disregard of extensive criminal activity being carred out by the government for which the Home Office and the Home Secretary are ultimately responsible. It is my "belief" at this point that John Reid will not continue as Home Secretary and will depart in very much the same way as did Charles Clarke.
Further, Simon Watkin should consider his position since he is either totally incompetent or subversively abusive of someone who is reporting extensive criminal activity and abuse of power by the government to him. Simon Watkin would do well to recognise that a charge of abuse of power must be tried in the courts and cannot be dismissed. His conduct is now criminal with two such letters sent to me about this matter when hundreds of people know the truth about what has happened during all these years.
Simon Watkin ends his letter with a reference to a web site called Paranoid Thoughts. Let's analyse paranoia for a moment as a pathological condition. It involves three aspect:
1. Persecution Complex
2. Delusions of Grandeur
3. The Need for Power and Controll Over Others
A persecution complex indicates that a person has a "complex" in that s/he feels s/he is being persecuted and imagines persecution in the acts and words of others. I do not have complex about persecution. I am being persecuted which I have documented as thoroughly as is humanly possible.
I do not have any delusions of grandeur since I have achieved significantly in the past and have been recognised publicly for those achievements. I stand on accomplishments which are a matter of fact in the real world that provide me with self confidence and satisfaction of a job well done that benefitted many people.
I do not have the need nor have I ever sought for power and control over others. I've just sought to maintain standards and merely reported significant problems to those in authority so that they can carry out whatever objective investigation is necessary to ensure that standards are maintained.
None of the above characteristics of a paranoid personality fit me. However, they do fit those who are carrying out the surveillance technology abuse completely and comprehensively. It could very well be that this extends to those who allow this activity to be carried out knowing full well exactly what is being done. The question remains, then, whether or not Simon Watkin's personality actually fits these characteristics of a paranoid personality.
To attack someone who reports a well known problem as Simon Watkin has done calls into question his motives and whether or not he is projecting something inside himself onto another who is the target for scapegoat psychology in order to deflect attention from himself and his inability to cope with the reality that I reported. Is Simon Watkin unable to address this problem properly as he should, and is he defensively hiding his own inadequacies and fears?
Thirdly, here is what the Home Secretary, John Reid, said when asked about radicalisation and extremism in the community with regard to terrorism. The questioner noted that much was said about surveillance information concerning the targets activities, but he then queried as to why nothing was ever noted about radicalisation and extremism.
The Home Secretary did not answer the question.
First, he pointed out that government ministers and others including his predecessor (Charles Clarke) have gone out into the community and were slated to go through the country visiting communities especially noting Muslim communities this summer adding that those plans were made before this action against terrorists.
Second, he also noted the 12-point plan by the Prime Minister which came to life after 7/7 last year of which nine points have been acted upon, two decided against and one is still outstanding. He did not say what these were.
Third, he said explicitly "Where it is required we have taken the necessary action to identify or deport those who are not working in a sense of bringing together and fostering a common cause in this country but are trying to set up hatreds between the communities. I note, for instance, that 36 foreign nationals have been excluded since last August on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour, and five cases are at the moment under consideration for deportation on new grounds.
He summarised his comments above to the effect that they were engaged in the community and seeking to remove those who are undesirable adding "we are quite actively engaged."
I do not believe that the Home Secretary actually answered the question. To the extent that he did it was inadequate or revealed the inadequacy of what was being done to address radicalisation and extremism in the community. Apparently, nothing started until 7/7 except for race riots in the past. There has been the noted prosecution of the BNP thanks to a BBC documentary. Where was the police and Home Office in this one? Nowhere, evidently, since it was the media who brought to their attention the radicalisation from the BNP which occurred that was prosecutable.
The words of the Home Secretary for me are so much fluff. However, I am alarmed about his third point where he indicates that those who are not "bringing together and fostering a common cause" and are foreign nationals could be subject to deportation if they are setting up hatred. This is frightening because it only seeks out foreigners and identifies those as suspects who are not part of the common cause.
That common cause could be ignorance and bigotry in the community. While he goes on to say that where "they are trying to set up hatreds" will earn them a possibility of deportation, this is something which involves ascribing an emotion of hatred incitement to someone that can be done by those who hate themselves against others whom they want to get tossed out just because the don't like them. This could apply to me for reporting antisocial and criminal behaviour.
Once again there is this discrimination against foreigners which the courts have declared as unlawful already. The bigger and more important question concerns how will British citizens who act this way be treated? He did not answer this all important part of the question, and merely emphasised Draconian measures against foreign nationals. There has to be one law equally applied to all people residing in the UK and applied in such a manner as to be seen to be as fair and just by everyone. This the Home Secretary has not addressed in his answer to this question.
Conclusions
Thus, I come to my point about all three of these bits of communication today:
What about the abuse of power which the government itself carries out in the community over an extended period of years that significantly contributes to the radicalisation and extremism in the community?
What happens when a letter to the Home Secretary marked "Personal and Confidential" has a reply sent out that is abusive in the extreme itself reflecting ignorance of the facts of a situation in which the Home Office has been involved for many years?