1. Secretary of State for Health Patricia Hewitt announces government policy for rolling out the NHS into the community. Has my experience during the last eight plus years 24/7 been the R&D base for this total intrusion of privacy to carry out social control and engineering reflecting the politisation of the NHS? There are more votes in supporting the antisocial and criminal elements who seek to attack me for reporting their behaviour than in supporting fundamental standards and the democratic rule of law essential to a civilised society.
BBC News Tuesday, 19 September 2006, 10:10 GMT 11:10 UK
NHS hospital structure 'outdated'
 |  Staff are due to take part in the first national strike in 18 years  |
Ms Hewitt's speechThe traditional model of hospital care needs to be changed to provide the best care, the health secretary says.
Patricia Hewitt said the district general hospital model, providing a wide range of care under one roof, was not right for the 21st Century.
Last week new NHS boss David Nicholson said emergency care was to be centralised in fewer hospitals.
But Ms Hewitt said the redesigned NHS would retain the values of the old health service in a speech in London.
There is growing unease about the potential closure of hospitals after Mr Nicholson, the chief executive of the NHS, said there would be about 60 reviews of hospitals, in his first interview since taking up the post at the beginning of September.
Government policy includes shifting care away from hospitals into community settings and placing greater emphasis on the private sector.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5357190.stm
I listened to the speech by Ms Hewitt this morning broadcast by BBC News24 and prepared the following Email as a result:
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: FAO Patricia Hewitt: How Can Cuts Around the Nation Be Justified While Excessive Costs For Surveillance Medical Experimentation Exist?
Date: Tuesday 19 September 2006 15:46
From: Gary D Chance
To: haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk, news24@bbc.co.uk
FAO
The Rt Honourable Patricia Hewitt
Secretary of State for Health
Dear Ms Hewitt
1. Does your plans for sending the NHS into the community include participating in surveillance in which NHS professionals engage in abuse, medical experimentation, surreptitious medication outside a hospital environment against a nonconsenting human guinea pig in the manner that has been carried out against me for the past eight years and one month 24/7?
2. Is this abuse by local NHS professionals what you mean by decentralisation?
3. How can you justify cutting costs anywhere when a massive amount of money has been spent carrying out this extensive activity against me in the community by a significant number of NHS professionals over a period of at least seven years 24/7 while this government has been in power and has been fully informed at all levels of this abuse including yourself in a former capacity?
This environment has one Labour MP, Karen Buck, and three Labour Councillors. [In my direct experience this activity represents the politisation of the NHS against those who report the facts and truth about situations which this government and its elected Labour Party politicians seek to repress especially in their efforts to get re-elected.]
The extreme of this activity started after I sent a letter about this abuse to the Prime Minister by fax and post on 23rd September 1999 concerning child abuse which I reported and the failures to adddress it properly by several departments of government. Instead, I was subjected to extensive stalking and harassment by those for whom I had reported for the child abuse and others using surveillance technology as a weapon which started in August 1998. Please see a copy of my letter the Prime Minister here:
Letter to the Prime Minister which commenced with:
"This comes to your office for three reasons:
"1. To provide insight into pending child abuse legislation regarding protection for those who blow the whistle on child abusers from an actual situation which is life threatening;
"2. To address one of the most incredible experiences of total invasion of privacy in order to make it known so that it can be dealt with properly and swiftly both to alleviate the current invasion and provide impetus for legislation to ensure public protection; and
"3. To address the failure of local government administration with regard to complete administrative failures to both provide adequate public services and law enforcement."
Within a couple months I was besieged by NHS professionals and the police in an extensive siege attempt to gain access to the premises. Every effort has been made to force me out of my home including such a verbal request from an NHS psychiatrist. Please see the following letters from me to and about those NHS professionals and their professional misconduct, unlawful and criminal behaviour:
8th January 2000 Letter to the Mental Health Team Administrator.
During a 2nd February 2000 interview, Dr Richard Evans displayed my letter to the Prime Minister (noted above) in a medical file he had at St Charles Hospital as the reason for the attempted accesses to gain entry to my home and the reason why he sought to interview me.
After my letters above to those at St Charles Hospital, these and other NHS professionals dramatically increased their presence and participation in the surveillance activity being carried out against me as part of the stalking and harassing mob including inciting that mob and dictating a statement of complaint to be filed by someone which was totally false. Every effort has been made to stop all my human activity with full NHS medical personnel participation and expertise. The ultimate result of this activity will be death unless it is stopped.
Is this how you propose to spend the NHS funds in the future?
This activity whose objective has been to do as much harm as possible continues as of this writing amid continuous threats to kill including "you will die first" before this activity is stopped.
Yours sincerely
Gary D Chance
*****End of the Email*****
2. The psychology of spying goes back to Carly Fiorina and the 2002 proxy fight with Walter Hewlett over the aqcuisition of Compaq. Did those responsible for carrying out this activity increasingly push the edge over the years until they got results? Outside directors did not have inside phone lines. How does one investigate for leaks from the Board with outside directors? Where does one draw the line? It's OK to spy on employees in the office, but it is not OK to spy on outside directors personal activity carried out in conjunction with the business. How about the landlord? Is it OK to spy upon the tenant who lives in his building that he owns? What about the emanager of the landlord's property? Can the manager spy on the landlord's tenants? Where does it stop? What are the deciding factors? How are the lines drawn?
Mercury News Tuesday, 19th September 2006
Inquiries date to ex-chair Fiorina
By Pete Carey, Dean Takahashi, and Therese Poletti
Hewlett-Packard collected phone information on its then-chief executive Carly Fiorina in 2005 during an investigation of leaks to the media that Fiorina herself launched, according to a source familiar with the investigation.
. . .
The company's practice of investigating company leaks started in earnest under Fiorina, according to sources familiar with the matter. Fiorina became more concerned about the leaks in 2002 during the company's bruising battle between her and dissident former board member Walter Hewlett, over whether the company should acquire Compaq Computer. Because the deal required shareholder approval by proxy vote, the two fought for votes.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/15554159.htm
Mercury News Tuessday, 19th September 2006
Two more people asked to testify before Congress in HP investigation
HP'S Chairman and Outside Lawyer Larry Sonsini Indicate They Will Testify
By Pete Carey
Two more witnesses, including one of Hewlett-Packard's security managers, have been invited by the House Committee on Energy Commerce to testify about HP's use of deception to obtain the private phone records of board members, employees and reporters.
The committee sent a letter of invitation Monday to Anthony Gentilucci, a top HP security person on an investigation intended to identify leaks to the media about business conducted at board meetings.
Also invited to testify is Joe Depante, operator of a Florida investigations firm, Action Research Group. That company was one of several outside contractors HP retained that may have obtained the phone records.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/15556755.htm
When Carly Fiorina nee Sneed dropped out of UCLA Law School after one semester, she returned to Stanford. Ann Baskins apparently lived at Casa Italiana where Fiorina spent considerable time with her future husband Todd Bartlem who lived there. (Peter Burrows, Backfire, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2003, p 38.) There may or may not be an interesting early connection here between Fiorina and Baskins who were both later to play key roles at Hewlett-Packard.
Questions come to my mind about any continuity role Ann Baskins might have played in her legal capacity at Hewlett-Packard by providing a thread between Carly Fiorina's days and the more recent investigations. How much of a key role did Ann Baskins play in the investigations through these years? I wonder whether Carly Fiorina will be brought into the limelight in this situation at some point if the depth of the investigatory abuse occurred under her watch too? Ann Baskins was Hewlett-Packard's Chief Counsel during the proxy battle. Peter Burrows makes reference to a "Stanford Mafia" on page 215 while noting her role and the enmity which existed between the two sides in the proxy battle. He noted a characterisation made about Fiorina at that time as having ". . . lackeys willing to say anything or even break the law to do her bidding."