| I support all the efforts to get Alan Johnston released and deplore the fact of his kidnapping and imprisonment in Gaza. The events of the past two days in Gaza are of great concern. However, I want to compare and contrast his imprisonment by terrorists in Gaza with the US/UK government sponsored and run imprisonment, torture interrogation, medical experimentation and lethal use the surveillance technology for R&D purposes. I do not believe that there is any difference except that I have been subjected to torture 24/7 since August 1998 by a large group of local vigilante criminals and imprisoned indefinitely since February 2001 by surveillance technology from which there is no escape. This constitutes almost nine years of 24/7 abuse by these governments, but no one does or says anything about it. Instead, I am abused in the extreme for accurately reporting what is happening by all those involved who want to deny their and other's extensive criminal behaviour including the media who commit the crime of silence. Which is the worst: to be tortured to death by the US/UK governments or held captive in Gaza? |
- Law Lords rule that Human Rights Act applies to British foreign detention. I have strong concerns about the fact that the Human Rights Act of 1998 is not obeyed in the UK and especially by those in government.
- UK tenants fear arbitrary eviction for complaints. It seems beyond belief that in London such arbitrary use of power can be permitted to landlords to evict anyone without any reason being given.
- Elderly people's lives worsen. I am subjected to intense abuse by those who think that they can get away with "murder" against an individual of my age (a young 64) especially when they want to move into my home if they can get me removed based upon their fabrications.
- Sex crime drug treatments planned. It never ceases to amaze me that the what is announced for those who have been convicted of sex offences is nothing compared to what is being done against me when I have never done anything in my life.
- The Feral Beasties bark back. It's the truth of the situation and activity that matters not its image or its representation.
1. The Law Lords have ruled that those in British custody anywhere in the world are protected by the Human Rights Act of 1998 which became effective in this country in October 2000. While I think that this is a laudatory decision, I have strong reservations about the fact that the Human Rights Act of 1998 is not obeyed in the UK and especially by those in government. It was pointed out this morning by Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, that the invasion of Iraq occurred based upon the false reports of the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). When these were found to not exist, the government, i.e., Tony Blair, then switched to base justification of the Iraq invasion on preservation of human rights. However, human rights were not so extended to Iraqi's detained in British custody in Iraq. The Law Lords have now done so.
There is an overall failure by those in the UK whether they be part of the military or civilian government and elsewhere to recognise and maintain the protections provided by the Human Rights Act of 1998. In other words they are not obeying the law which must be enforced by the courts as has occurred here. the failure to obey the Human Rights Act of 1998 inside the UK and by the government itself as I have directly experienced for many, many years is quite extraordinary. This is especially true with those who are using surveillance technology who think that they can get away with such human rights abuses.
Lt Harry Bird repeats frequently "He can't prove it" which I have noted here recently as justification for carrying out this unlawful and criminal activity with surveillance technology. This is the standard of the vigilante who takes the law into his/her own hands and refuses to act responsibly as is required in a democracy for all to respect the agreed upon standards as express in law. It means that those associated with the government, law enforcement, justice and other departments of government can do as they please as long as the victim of their unlawful and criminal acts cannot prove that this is the case.
There needs to be an overall recognition of the law by those in government where its support must originate to sustain standards of proper behaviour as an example for the general public to emulate. Yesterday, Tony Blair accused the media of undermining standards in his "Feral Beast" speech about the media yesterday: "The result was that the media was increasingly "and to a dangerous degree" driven by "impact" which was, in turn, "unravelling standards, driving them down," he said."
I maintain that it is the government who destroys standards and have been making this point for years by describing the behaviour of those in government who carry out unlawful and criminal acts as well as those in positions of authority up to and including the Prime Minister who knowingly allow this to take place without taking effective action to stop it. It is indeed ironic that Tony Blair switched to human rights justifications when WMD were not found in Iraq after the invasion. It is even more pathetic that this government is the perpetrator of human rights abuses inside the UK as well as by the British military in Iraq. Everywhere human rights abuses must be stopped and the law responsibly respected by everyone especially those in government connected with jusice, law enforcement, health care and administration.
BBC NewsWednesday, 13 June 2007, 09:55 GMT 10:55 UK
Rights law applies to Mousa case
 Baha Mousa was among the group of men abused by Cpl Payne |
The Law Lords have ruled that UK human rights laws can apply to civilians who die in British custody in Iraq.
They have upheld part of an appeal by relatives of Baha Mousa, who died while he was in British army custody in Basra in 2003.
The judgement could lead to an independent public inquiry.
But appeals in the cases of five other Iraqi civilians, who were shot in the streets of Basra while Britain was the occupying power there, were dismissed.
'Breakthrough'
Lawyers for the five said they would now take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
All six deaths happened while the UK was an occupying power under international law. The UK returned power to the Iraqi government in 2004.
Rights law applies to Mousa case
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Human Rights Lords' Ruling: can't we hear from some other organisations besides Liberty?
Date: Wednesday 13 June 2007 10:24
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk, newswatch@bbc.co.uk
We get too much from Liberty. There were other human rights organisations involved in this ruling besides Liberty. Why can't we hear from them?
This is a very important ruling in that the human rights law applies to those in custody of the British military regardless of location in the world. In this case there was a death.
I have a big problem with Liberty in that it is a human rights organisation that seeks publicity rather than evaluate the seriousness and merits of a situation based upon full information. Here's another instance where Liberty is in the public limelight while serious human rights abuses continue in similar circumstances inside this country.
I received communication from Liberty after sending an Email to Shami Chakrabarti which explicitly stated that their criteria for evaluating human rights issues was based upon high profile and public cases which provide them with publicity.
I would like to see other organisations involved in this and other human rights situations given the same opportunity for public exposure which you allow Liberty to hog almost completely in your broadcasts.
It is important to recognise the abuses which deny human rights by the use of surveillance technology which are carried out in this country as I have experienced directly for many years.
Such surveillance technology has been used for false imprisonment based upon a presumption of guilt, indefinite and continuous torture interrogation, surveillance technology R&D and medical experimentation all of which are outside the law. I have been subject to this punishment 24/7 for many years without any legal procedures having been undertaken.
I have directly experienced continuous and indefinite nonstop violations of every article save one of the Human Rights Act of 1998 for a total of eight years and ten months 24/7. The entire period of this abuse has not been covered by the Human Rights Act of 1998 in this country which did not come into effect until October 2000.
However, I did cite the Human Rights Act of 1998 as being violated in my litigation which I commenced in the High Court in March 2001. That legal processing was destroyed by the abuse to which I was subjected from the surveillance technology.
I believe it is important for everyone to seriously consider all the information available with regard to surveillance technology abused in such a manner for an indefinite period of time which extends over many years because this undermines and destroys all democratic institutions and the democratic rule of law.
While it is gratifying to see that the Lords ruled in favour of the Human Rights Act this morning, this ruling is actually peripheral in reality to the problem which exists threatening democracy itself that the Human Rights Act of 1998 was intended to protect.
Surely you can gain a broad base of input from various human rights organisations so that they can also flourish in an environment where human rights are critically important for the preservation of democracy itself, yet the real threat remains generally unknown.
*****End of the Email*****
2. The power of the landlord over the tenant in the UK makes this country look like a developing country dictatorship. It seems beyond belief that in London such arbitrary use of power can be permitted to landlords to evict anyone without any reason being given. I wonder how this affront to justice could possibly have been allowed to be sustained in the UK?
To create such a fear of loss of home in people because they seek to obtain inhabitable premises is something that would only be permitted in a tyranny where the landlords of a country have the wealth to sustain government and law makers. This situation offends the fundamental sense of decency and justice which any so-called civilised country should provide as protection and rights in its body of laws. One might even examine the potential for human rights abuse here.
A. The following paragraph is taken from a booklet entitled Tenants' Rights provided by the New York State Department of Law in 1985 (Third Edition) distributed by the New York State Attorney General's office:
"Retaliation: Landlords are prohibited from harassing or retaliating against tenants who exercise their rights. For example landlords may not seek to evict tenants solely because tenants (a) make good faith complaints to a government agency about violations of any health or safety laws; or (b) take good faith actions to protect rights under their lease; or (c) participate in tenants' organisations. Tenants may collect damages from landlords who violate this law, which applies to all rentals except owner occupied dwellings with fewer than four units. (Real Property Law Section 223-b.)" (p 9.)
This was over 20 years ago and was part of a long list of recognised tenants' rights some of which include Warranty of Habitability, Landlord's Duty of Repair, Eviction, Tenants' Organisations, Right of Privacy, Safety, Entrance Door Locks and Intercoms, Smoke Detectors and Window Guards. These are just some of the topics briefly covered in this small brochure which was issued over 20 years ago. Such a standard of tenants' rights which were publicly displayed and enforced in New York State with even more stringent laws in New York City makes such a problem regarding tenants' rights in London and the UK in 2007 incomprehensible.
B. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development also published a similar brochure in 1983 which contained the following statements:
"City and State laws outline basic services and standards that must be maintained by all owners of residential property. An owner must provide premises that are fit to live in and free of danger to life, health or safety of tenants. This is called the "warranty of habitability" and is part of every rental agreement." (p 1.) . . . "Tenants have the legal right to organize, and to meet on the premises, without interference from the landlord." (p 6.)
These problems created by landlords to interfere with the legitimate complaint process were recognised decades ago as something which needed to be provided to tenants as part of their protection so that people can live decently and function well in society. Having a situation where one's home is unsuitable or where the tenant is subjected to extensive harassment for complaining and addressing important and significant problems goes against every standard that a democratic society would want to provide for its people. To fail to do this in housing is unconscionable, and one wonders that such a situation could exist in the UK.
C. The following comes from information provided by the New York Neighbourhood Anti Arson Center over two decades ago:
"Tenants in NYC have been victims of innumerable tactics employed by unscrupulous landlords seeking to empty apartments or buildings in order to sell, rent or convert them for bigger profits. Harassment for this purpose can take many forms. It can be a gradual reduction of services over time, consistent lack of repairs, verbal threats, physical assault or other actions intended to force tenants to move out of their apartments."
D. The following comes from the form for harassment complaints provided by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) providing the definition in law for harassment as it existed over twenty years ago:
"The Rent Law and Regulations; Rent Stabilization Code; ETPA and Chapter 403 of the Laws of 1983 define Harassment, in substance, as any course of conduct or action, including but not limited to the interruption or decrease of essential services, which interferes with a tenant in the use of his/her housing accommodation, with intent to cause such tenant to vacate his/her apartment or to waive his/her rights under the rent laws. Retaliation is defined as the removal or attempted removal of the tenant from his/her apartment because such tenant has taken or proposes to take action authorized or required by law."
"There must be a continuing course of conduct, as distinguished from an isolated incident, such as the breakdown of the boiler or elevator. There must be wilfull interruption in services and objective supporting evidence that such conduct is intended to or has resulted in causing tenants to move from their apartments."
It is quite extraordinary that the UK is a developing world backwater when it comes to protecting the rights of people in their homes so that they are protected from landlords who seek to undermanage and evict anyone who complains about undermanagement as occurs as described in the article below. Unscrupulous landlords will try everything and anything such as bringing in thugs to harass and allow nuisance neighbours to persist in their activity in the hopes of getting a complaining tenant to vacate the premises. This becomes even more extraordinary and complicated with serous legal implications in an environment such as this with tenant management. I have had significant experience in dealing with a corrupt landlord which is why I have the above noted information.
When will the UK catch up with the rest of the world to provide tenants' rights so that the lives of people can be protected in their own homes, and no one is denied the ability to fully function as is their human right as a full member of society? Taking advantage of the elderly while subjecting them to such fear as described below should be considered criminal and might very well be taken as such under the UK's Protection From Harassment Act of 1997. However, the UK needs a complete set of laws which address tenants' rights and responsibilities along with the landlords' as well as a separate housing court system to deal with this body of law. The latter has been proposed not long ago as I have noted in my reading.
BBC News
Eviction fear looms over tenants
 Tenants fear losing their home |
Many thousands of tenants are putting up with dilapidated housing because they fear being evicted if they complain, a charity has said.
Citizens Advice said some landlords are routinely evicting tenants for simply complaining about poor conditions.
"Retaliatory eviction" as it is known is legal as landlords do not have to give reason for wanting a tenant out.
The charity called for landlords to be stopped from evicting tenants who have asked them to make home improvements.
3. I am 64 and do not consider myself to be elderly, but I am subjected to intense abuse by those who think that they can get away with "murder" against an individual of my age especially when they want to move into my home if they can get me removed based upon their fabrications. These are people who use surveillance technology against me and feel free to do so because they are allowed to get away with extensive crimes.
He's old and he's going to die sometime they think and say, so they feel justified in doing anything to destroy life because no one will believe "him," and they can get away with it once my life is destroyed. That's when they can say anything they like, and I won't be around to refute them. They most especially do not like the fact that I reported their child abuse some nine years ago or continue to report their criminal activity all these years along with their's and other's antisocial behaviour which creates safety and health risks for everyone in this environment.
These are the people who care nothing for anyone else but themselves, and they attack me continuously 24/7 hoping that I will collapse at some point when they can then claim to have been right all along. The most serious problem rests with those who know exactly what is occurring and allow it to continue. Lt Harry Bird just said "He has to be restrained." He uses this as a justification for his surreptitious medication which just wiped me out for an hour that was administered outside the law without my consent and outside a hospital environment. And, then he yells "Potty as hell" when I write about this.
He and BS make false allegations continuously in order to carry this out and deny me my right to life and human activity. They make every effort to destroy the freedom of thought and expression. They seek to dominate and control completely with the use of the surveillance technology and have been allowed do so for the past almost nine years 24/7. There's the source of the problem. I report it, and no one does anything to stop it. However, there is a massive effort to legitimately address the human rights of Iraqis subjected to British military abuse in Iraq while similar abuse is ignored in London.
BBC News Wednesday, 13 June 2007, 11:17 GMT 12:17 UK
Elderly people's lives 'worsen'
 The number of elderly people in the UK is set to rise |
More than one-fifth of elderly people feel they are living in poverty, a Help the Aged survey has suggested.
Of 1,095 adults questioned, 28% said their quality of life had got worse in the last 12 months, while 93% said their lives had not improved.
The charity said the findings were "outrageous" and called for a clear commitment to end pensioner poverty.
Around half of over 65-year-olds fail to claim the benefits they are entitled to, the survey also found.
Help the Aged said that its report, Spotlight on older people in the UK, brought to light issues faced by vulnerable older people, including poverty, neglect and ageism.
Elderly people's lives 'worsen'
4. Today the Home Secretary, John Reid, announced the government's considered legislative proposals for addressing the problem of sex offenders in the community. It never ceases to amaze me that the what is announced for those who have been convicted of sex offences is nothing compared to what is being done against me when I have never done anything in my life.
There will be a voluntary programme of medication which seeks to reduce the inclination to engage in sexual activity. In other words this medication will seek to incapacitate and debilitate. While this is voluntary for those who have been identified and processed by law enforcement and the legal justice system as sex offenders, this is being carried out against me without any such legal processing surreptitiously on a non-voluntary basis and out of a hospital environment. That is, it is out of control and in the hands of the vigilantes who wish to incapacitate for reasons of their own rather than legitimately determined medication administered properly.
Parents will be able to ask the police for information about those who might be working with or in some way associating with their children to find out if that person has a history of sexual offences against children. This information cannot be passed along by those who receive the information without incurring an offence under the proposed law. I am subjected to a whole range of false allegations by those whom I reported for their child abuse. One of these has been "paedophile" in the past but not so much recently. This allegation is complete nonsense, yet it is allowed to be repeated publicly along with the abuse of surveillance technology against me. Lt Harry Bird just said "Danger" while I wrote this by way of justifying his abuse with the surveillance technology which I just described.
This is vigilante determination that has no foundation in fact, law or justice. It is used to cover up his and BS' own violence and threat which he and BS constitute to others of which they have a known history. They use this to smokescreen their own threat while trying to incite others by this use of fear mongering. If this propose law with respect to sex offenders is supposed to make it an offence to divulge this information, then it should apply in situations like these all the more where people fake allegations for the purpose of creating fear to incite others to violent behaviour similar to which they carry out themselves.
It is amazing that this government stands up before the nation today in the House of Commons to announce proposed legislation which doesn't even begin to match the reality of what this government is actually doing. There was a refusal to provide the community with sexual offenders names and addresses like Megan's Law requires in the US since this drive paedophiles underground and increases sexual offences against children because the offenders become elusive and untracked by the authorities from whom they hide.
Here's a situation where a family group was and is engaged in domestic violence and child abuse although not child sexual abuse as far as I know that I reported over nine years ago. However, their violence against me derives from an extremely repressed sexual character that seeks to do the same to me (they treat others as they were treated as children while growing up) while engaging in extreme provocation hoping to produce a violent response from me.
Since I am not a violent person at all, this has failed completely. Since I understand the character of the sexual repression they exhibit and try to impose on me, I can analyse and deal with the situation effectively. That does not stop them from manufacturing false allegations of violence against me thinking that the use of surveillance technology will enable them to get away with these false allegations. Nor does it stop them from continuously making a whole list false allegations attacking all human activity using the surveillance technology as a weapon.
I seriously wonder about a government which allows this kind of vigilante behaviour to continue for almost nine years with the 24/7 use of surveillance technology in the hands of the child abusers and violent personalities while it is trying to address the problem of child sexual abuse. Such child sexual abuse is not far removed from the verbal and physical abuse against children that I have witness here, and I seriously wonder if child sexual abuse is not behind the behaviour which I experience continuously. The need to attack and destroy sexual activity in such a vehement and obsessive manner reveals to me an adult who might very well have been sexually abused as a child now seeking revenge and retaliation against that repressed abuse by acting it out on other people.
This government is way, way off the track in effectively dealing with the sexual offender if is supports and sustains this kind of activity in the community which I've been experiencing for almost nine years from the 24/7 use of surveillance technology. It is simply not known what this government really means and intends to do in the community if it so blatantly allows this activity to continue against me while talking what amounts to the opposite in the House of Commons.
What it seeks to avoid in its proposed legislation is exactly what is it carrying out in reality with a vigilante mob composed of child abusers and violent people hiding that child abuse and violence as they carry it out while deflecting attention from themselves and toward the person who reported their child abuse. They are using the method of very public false allegations which are repeated continuously that this law proposes to make an offence. Why is it that the police participate in this activity, know all that happens and yet do nothing to stop it? Are they really that dumb or just criminals?
BBC News Wednesday, 13 June 2007, 14:57 GMT 15:57 UK
Sex crime drug treatments planned
 |  Parents could be able to request information about paedophiles  |
Home Secretary Plans to offer more drug treatments to child sex offenders to try to stop them committing further crimes have been announced by the Home Office.
The treatment involving libido-reducing drugs or anti-depressants would be taken on a voluntary basis.
Parents will also be able to ask for checks on whether new partners or people dealing with their children are known sex offenders.
It would be an offence to disclose the information to others.
5. Wed Jun 13 19:38:32 BST 2007: thumping bass music starts from below coming into the living room.
5. The Feral Beasties bark back. Only the truth matters. Failing to do a good cleaning job means that the bacteria will grow. There is no one with a big club who will come along thumping saying 'You did wrong there. Do better.' No, the bacteria will grow and some of them might cause illness. It's the truth of the situation and activity that matters not its image or its representation. Is it clean or is it not? The truth will rest with the presence of the bacteria, vermin or whatever which will feed or not on the cleaned area depending upon how well the job was done. Will the real Feral Beastie please stand up?
BBC News Wednesday, 13 June 2007, 12:40 GMT 13:40 UK
Press reaction: Blair on the media
 The Independent hits back on its front page |
Tony Blair predicted his speech criticising the media would not get a good reception from the press - and he was right.
The prime minister gets some credit in Wednesday morning's newspapers for his point about the voracious appetite of the 24-hour news media.
But the general tone of the coverage - across broadsheets and tabloids - is critical.
There is particular anger about Mr Blair's suggestion that statutory regulation may be needed - and widespread incredulity that he should be complaining about media manipulation, even if he accepted part of the blame.
"Labour cannot hail 9/11 as a 'good day to bury bad news' and then accuse the media of manipulation," says the Sun in an editorial.
It concludes: "Politicians who complain about the media are like sailors who moan about the weather. We can dish it out and we can take it. But what worries us about the PM's speech was his threat to shackle the media.
"It should worry everyone who believes true democracy cannot exist without a free press."
Kevin Maguire, writing in the Daily Mirror, says: "Tony Blair took Britain to war in Iraq on a lie, blocked an arms bribery inquiry and was addicted to spin. No more sour lectures, thank you, Prime Minister"