To destroy a person's privacy is the same as destroying that person's life. There is nothing profound or new about this statement. It's just necessary to remind the world about what is being done now with the most sophisticated surveillance technology ever known which totally invades everything to do with human existence and activity no matter what it might be. It is difficult to imagine anything beyond this development except refinements. Everyone also has to understand what it means to be constantly observed second-by-second 24/7 for years by a large group of people while being subjected to continuous abuse.
It's interesting to note in this context that when Germaine Jackson left the Celebrity Big Brother house Sunday night (yes, sadly, I watched this one because of the racist bullying that had occurred for the reactions of the last few), he noted the experience of waking up in the morning knowing that he was being watched. Those who lasted to the end were only there for 26 days. The reality of this surveillance technology abuse is that it has been going on for eight years and five months 24/7 in my experience. I am woken repeatedly throughout the night to the sound of verbal abuse. There is never any time when I am not so abused around the clock. That's the reality of the future unless everyone starts now to do something about this most gross abuse that is far beyond the imagination of anything George Orwell conceived.
The following is a brief recap of some antisocial activity over the weekend and last night's continuous abuse:
1. John Reid should know that there are more serious problems to emerge from the Home Office. He's been well aware of what has been happening to me since he was Health Secretary. I personally directed correspondence to him at that time and have done so again after he became Home Secretary which was answered in the most abusive way possible by Simon Watkin. This constitutes a coverup the worst of all possible actions in the worst way by personally attacking the person making the complaint.
However, he has made no effort to make this public and even worse stop it. He knows of this extraordinary abuse of power which has been going on for years, and now as Home Secretary with the ability to stop this extensive unlawful and criminal activity that continues as of this writing 24/7, he makes no effort to effectively address it. John Reid claims "What the people want is to change the Home Office" as opposed to changing Home Office ministers. What I want is for the Home Office to stop its extensive criminal activity carried out against me 24/7 for years revealing a criminal organisation run by those who are members of organised crime rather than a legitimate government.
Imagine a secretary of state saying this after the Labour Party has been in government for nearly ten years especially when ministers were notified about the sex offenders register problems three years ago. This is an overall government problem not specific to the Home Office which is noted by my correspondence to John Reid while he shuffled around various departments of government as the man in charge and ultimately the one responsible. The real question that must be answered concerns what is going on overall with this government? The responsibility actually accrues to Tony Blair as my extensive correspondence reveals for the extraordinary criminal activity carried out against me 24/7 for eight years and five months so far. It's still happening.
How is it possible for an objective to destroy human activity and life be allowed to be carried out 24/7 with the lethal use of surveillance technology that has nothing to do with a ligitimate investigation for eight years and five months involving hundreds of people without being stopped? Blaming the victim only confirms the intention of the violence against me carried out by psycopathic, sadistic bullies. Mirror, mirron on the wall who's the biggest bully of all?
BBC News Monday, 29 January 2007, 08:04 GMT
I expect more problems, says Reid
 Mr Reid said reforming the Home Office is not "a mission impossible" |
Writing in the Guardian, Mr Reid said "being home secretary is my biggest challenge" and he would not resign.
"If you renovate a house you start by taking the wallpaper off, it is then you discover more problems," he said.
And Mr Reid said he should be judged not on the challenges he faced, but by his response to them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6308641.stm
The Guardian Monday, 29th January 2007
Reid: worst is yet to come - but I won't quit
Will Woodward, chief political correspondent
· Home secretary expects to uncover more failings
· Judge me on my response, he says in Guardian article
 |
 John Reid says being home secretary is his biggest challenge. Photograph: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images |
John Reid admits today that the Home Office will continue to be undermined by new crises and embarrassments before he is able to bring the department under control.
After another weekend of woe for the home secretary - including claims that ministers did nothing to tighten a loophole allowing sex offenders to escape monitoring in the community - Mr Reid concedes he is contending with both inherited and new failings discovered by his reforms, and others found by the media.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2001029,00.html
2. I sent the following Email to BBC News24 after John Reid made some comments which were broadcast as part of an on air report.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: What's Wrong With John Reid? He's saying those doing the work have a difficult job while it's the Home Office who keeps information from them.
Date: Monday 29 January 2007 15:32
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk
He describes the problems which arise with former prisoners and immigrants claiming that these people want to get away from those charged with the responsibility of maintaining control procedures to insure public safety.
He says that these people have a difficult job to do, yet it is the Home Office who is keeping the information from these people preventing them from doing their job.
Where were the 27,000 records kept that were not entered on the police database?
Why weren't foreign prisoners not processed properly for possible deportation when they were released from prison?
While sex offenders cannot be tracked due to address problems, who establishes the rules and regulations to be followed in obtaining and maintaining contact information?
Who failed to retain the passports of those convicted serious offenders who were to be kept in the UK?
And in contrast:
Why is it that a totally innocent person is incarcerated with and tortured by the use of surveillance technology for eight years and five months 24/7?
John Reid is trying to be a slippery eel making statements that do not address the problems which are facing the Home Office. He's shifting responsibility to those who are trying to do a job without having the information available to them thanks to the Home Office itself.
Then, somehow the Home Office knowingly allows rogue surveillance activity to be carried out for years 24/7 by vigilantes who operate on the presumption of guilt completely undermining and destroying the function of the pollice, the judicial system and the democratic rule of law.
Ask John Reid about this last one.
How can the Home Office fail in both directions at once: letting the convicted run free without proper controls after prison release while imprisoning and torturing with surveillance technology an innocent person totally outside the law for many years?
And, remember, the surveillance technology is under the operational control of those whom I have reported for violent crimes who have vowed revenge and retaliation and try to cover up their original and ongoing criminal activity.
*****End of the Email*****
3. And then there is the reply from the Audit Commission to my complaint which I sent Friday last about its Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) inspection of July 2006. There is a privacy warning at its end below, but that is meaningless in this environment where I am subjected to coninuous 24/7 surveillance where those using this technology can read all that I receive and write as a reply. There is no privacy and confidentiality. They began talking about this immediately and continued while I wrote the reply.
Nothing can be sent to me in confidence for it will be read and communicated to those who have a vested interest in attacking what I document and report while they seek to defend themselves against my complaints. That's not such a bad thing if the problems were addressed, but they are not. Instead, I am the object of attack and abuse in order to discredit what I document and report. That's why I use hard evidence the gathering of which is also continuously attacked. Since I have no privacy, and this has already been communicated to everyone, I make it available here for all to read.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Fwd: Re: Concerns re. Kensington and Chelsea TMO
Date: Monday 29 January 2007 16:46
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk
I am struck by this Email reply to a complaint I made last Friday (a copy was sent to you) to the Audit Commission about its July 2006 inspection of the Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (TMO).
I see it is an attempt to fob off my complaint for a spurious reason as I state below. To me it reflects the government trying to find ways to get out of addressing serious complaints rather than actually undertaking them based upon their content and substance.
I do not believe that the Audit Commision is carrying out its function with respect to auditing the use and abuse of taxpayer's money.
You can see a copy of my original complaint at http://garydchance.bravejournal.com/archive/01/26/2007
Yours sincerely
Gary D Chance
enclosure
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: Concerns re. Kensington and Chelsea TMO
Date: Monday 29 January 2007 16:04
From: Gary D Chance
To: "James Holbrook" <***************@audit-commission.gov.uk>
Dear Mr Holbrook
You inspected the TMO this past July.
I am a member of the TMO.
My tenancy agreement is with the TMO.
The TMO has two people seconded to the Lancaster West Estate for management purposes: the Area Manager and the Estate Officer. There may be other Estate Officers for other portions of the Lancaster West Estate. They each have Email addresses for the KCTMO.
It is to their attention that I have brought my concerns and complaints along with others in the TMO and/or its board members.
Management activity for the Lancaster West Estate is a confused mess with regard to the activity roles of the Lancaster West Estate Management Board (EMB) and the Lancaster West Estate Tenant and Resident's Association (TRA) who are separate organisations created by the Council and TMO respectively.
These organisations (EMB and TRA) share board members and are interlocking thereby creating, in effect, the same organisation. They share the same date, time and place for their respective AGMs. There is no distinguishable difference between them in terms of management personnel or function.
I do not believe that the TMO is an ALMO for this and other reasons.
Is the TMO a housing association? If so, why are you inspecting and auditing their activity?
What is it that you are actually inspecting and auditing?
Whose money are you tracking and spending on yourselves?
What do you mean about addressing the problems of bureaucracy which heads your web site as an objective?
Perhaps you might like to describe precisely what you mean without fobbing me off on the basis of a complaint about a housing association when I am complaining about your inspection failures with regard to the TMO's failures and gross mismanagement that has and continues to put the lives of the tenants and residents at risk from safety and health abuses among other serious problems reflecting said gross mismanagement.
Be explicit with examples about what you mean as I've done.
You most certainly have not read and evaluated the information I've provided, and it appears to me that you are looking for a means to dismiss this complaint rather than address its substance and have come up with a spurious reason for doing so.
Yours sincerely
Gary D Chance
On Monday 29 January 2007 15:29, you wrote:
> Dear Mr Chance,
>
> Thank you for your email of 26 January and today, regarding Kensington &
> Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation.
>
> The Audit Commission's complaints procedure cannot consider complaints
> about the policies and decisions of a housing association. These can
> only be dealt with by the respective authority.
>
> I have also contacted the inspection team responsible for Kensington &
> Chelsea TMO who will consider the issues you have raised and will assess
> if there is any action that can be taken within their powers. I have
> also attached a leaflet from the Housing Corporation, who may be able to
> assist in the matters you raise with regards to how the TMO has dealt
> with your concerns.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> James Holbrook
>
>
> James Holbrook
> Complaint Unit Administrator
> Chief Executive's Office
>
> Audit Commission
> Westward House
> Lime Kiln Close
> Stoke Gifford
> Bristol
> BS34 8SR
> Tel: XXXX XXX XXXX
> Fax: XXXX XXX XXXX
> Email: **********@audit-commission.gov.uk
>
>
> *********************************************************************
>
> This email (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely for the
> recipient. Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
> permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy all copies
> and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure
> medium as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear
> this in mind when deciding whether to send information by e-mail. Postal
> addresses for the Audit Commission are available from
> http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk
>
> The Audit Commission reserves the right to monitor, record and retain any
> incoming and outgoing emails for security reasons and for monitoring
> internal compliance with the Audit Commission policy on use. Email
> monitoring and/or blocking software may be used. No contracts can be
> entered into on our behalf by email. Any views or opinions expressed are
> solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
> Audit Commission.
>
> The Audit Commission checks all mails and attachments for known viruses;
> however, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk.
>
> Please consider the environment: think before you print
*****End of the Email*****