1. Surrounding the recent police raid against suspected terrorists, five of the nine arrested have been charged and are being arraigned in London today. Three were released and one remains in custody. Against the background of the Home Secretary seeking a longer detention period of 90 days for terrorist suspects, the Archbishop of York characterised such lengthy detention without charge as tantamount to a police state. One of the three who was recently released characterised the action as constituting a police state for Muslims. At the end of the following article which can be read in full at its URL below, I've provided an Email sent this morning to BBC News24 about this issue of a police state in the UK which I claim has existed for years and threatens everyone including Muslims.

BBC News Friday, 9 February 2007, 13:24 GMT

Man charged with plotting kidnap

The accused were taken by police escort to London

A man has been charged with plotting to kidnap and kill a UK soldier, following last week's anti-terror raids.

Parviz Khan, 36, is accused of devising the plot between 1 November last year and his arrest on 31 January.

He also faces charges, along with four others, of supplying equipment and funding for a terrorist act.

The five men, who were arrested during a police operation in Birmingham, will appear before City of Westminster magistrates in London shortly.

. . .

On Thursday, Abu Bakr, one of those released without charge, spoke out over his arrest.

Mr Bakr, who works in the Maktabah bookshop, targeted in the raids, told BBC News the UK was "a police state for Muslims".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6344967.stm

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: "There's always a risk when carrying out these operatons of arresting an innocent person"
Date: Friday 09 February 2007 14:03
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk

There's no fault with this commentary as these five charged alleged terrorists arrive in London, but the logic of it is not applied consistently.

Consider:

When carrying out surveillance technology, there is always a risk that the innocent will be brought under surveillance.

If there is no result from the surveillance because someone is innocent, the surveillance is therefore continued indefinitely until something is found (or fabricated) or the demise of the target results. Those using the surveillance cannot be seen to be wrong, and they have the power to abuse surveillance in the extreme.

The difference between the two is that the arrest and interrogation process follows explicit rules which are carefully monitored by the justice system (for the most part), but this does not occur when surveillance is used despite the law, rules, regulations and policy. It is apparently in local and/or ever changing hands with respect to oversight responsibility.

When the latter surveillance technology abuse occurs, this is a police state without any doubt. There is no careful monitoring to ensure that rules and regulations are followed. I can attest to eight and one-half years of nonstop 24/7 surveillance torture activity which continues as of this writing. The police have fully participated for years.

Surveillance is kept secret. That means it is wide open for abuse, and the target can do nothing about it.

When fabrications are identified by observer witnesses, or I prove it myself, this is only a momentary setback to the surveillance technology abuse which then goes forward to grind down the target eventually by either succeeding in a fabrication or killing off the target.

That was also an excellent interview with Moazzam Begg on HARDTalk last night. He pointed out that the police have used lethal force, e.g., the de Meneses murder. I want to attest to the fact that the use of the surveillance technology against me has been done with lethal intent and caused grievous bodilly harm in the process. So far it is just attempted murder.

The excessive hype used against me as violent, dangerous, threat etc along with false allegations of horrendously violent crimes for many years nonstop 24/7 is the kind of hype which is intended to cause an overreaction by someone or to justify a deliberate murder which could be misrepresented as self defence. It certainly creates a false atmosphere of fear based upon this smear.

No one should be subjected to this for many, many years 24/7, but that is exactly what my experience has been. Much that the police do is to create fear in the community in order to serve the personal perversions of the officers involved who have sadistic personalities and seek power for themselves. Such activities are an attempt to suppress the community with police power and its abuse hoping to intimidate others. Arresting too many creates this effect too.

This is police state UK which is alive, well and flourishing not very far from the BBC including death squads using surveillance technology to kill.p>

Why aren't you reporting this?

*****End of the Email*****

2. Thumping bass music and other noise nuisances from the flat below and false allegations by those using the surveillance technology.

Fri Feb 9 15:37:39 GMT 2007: The thumping bass music is coming loudly from below. This has followed on after a bar grate clanking, long, long furniture scrape and two very loud hit/thuds which vibrated the living room and its floor. "What happened," asked Lt Harry Bird. "I don't know," replied BS. "Councillor," said Lt Harry Bird. It sounds like whoever is doing this feels that this sampling of the extraordinary nuisance harassment behaviour is all right and accepted by those in authority this Friday afternoon. It certainly reflects defiance. I've just finished the above. Monitoring the writing and sending of this Email was closely followed this morning by Lt Harry Bird and BS.

Fri Feb 9 15:44:29 GMT 2007: "Watch him," said Lt Harry Bird. BS made a verbal noise.

Fri Feb 9 16:20:09 GMT 2007: Thumping bass music coming once again from below. Lt Harry Bird making yelling noises left front window direction. This is usually indicative of a dispute. Most of these are performances giving them a platform from which to maintain continuous abuse. Nothing ever happens as a result, and Lt Harry Bird and BS continue.

Fri Feb 9 16:30:22 GMT 2007: "Inevitable," said Lt Harry Bird a couple minutes ago. By this I take him to mean that there will be an inevitable result from his constant torture from the surveillance technology. Thumping bass music is off again. This comes on for short periods like this so that nothing can be done about it. When it starts, I can hear it despite using headsets. It interferes with whatever I am doing. I use infrared headsets for all my listening activity. There is no TV, radio, music, etc sound in the room except the incidental noise from my movement activity and/or verbal note taking recorded on the video and audio recorders. These recording devices also pickup the excessive noises from below like the music when excessive as it starts and stops.

I highly recommend infrared headsets to anyone who enjoys their music and wants to turn it up from time to time. It also brings in voice from TV or films clearly. Several people can also use the same transmitter when each have the same type of headset. Although I haven't tried it, different transmitter frequencies might enable different people to listen to different sources of sound. I like these headsets because whatever sound can be heard throughout the room can also be heard into the next room depending upon how the transmitter is setup for line-of-sight infrared transmission. Lt Harry Bird and BS are trying to make claims that I am the source of these disturbances, but I can prove the contrary. Naturally, such false allegations might be only harassment carried out by them to wind me up.

Fri Feb 9 17:08:54 GMT 2007: Thumping bass music comes on again from below following a door slam there. "Good God Almighty," yells BS from the kitchen window direction protesting my noting this disruption and disturbance as if I should endure more abuse in addition to hers. This reveals the use of the surveillance technology which is continuous with these kinds of abusive comments connected with what I am doing. The thumping bass music stopped here after a very brief "thumping."

3. First thing this morning I re-wrote yesterday's intro to item number 2 as an Email to BBC News24 and the NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) dealing with latest devastating child abuse scandal where the child was returned to the parents after her and her brother had been removed into care. The BBC News Home Editor later published an analysis of this describing the situation in comparison with the death of Victoria Climbie as disclosed by the enquiry surrounding her death seven years ago. Mark Easton concludes that it was an error of judgement in a process which seeks to return the child to the parents if at all possible. Its legacy might very well be that the decisions will lean to putting children into care. Both decisions have their risks.

My point is that the system is still so flawed by incompetent people and those who are deliberately perverse that these decisions will be flawed until the calibre of professionals and their activity is elevated to some acceptable level of standard. I maintain this position in light of the fact as I explain in my Email below that not only was this violent and dysfunctional family group given access to surveillance technology to cover up their child abuse by attacking me, but this continues as of this writing with the mother of the abused children making verbal noises as I write. The most serious of the abused children has been a participant in this criminal harassment using the surveillance technology for the past eight plus years. This use of this surveillance technology as a weapon in the hands of the child abusers reflects an ongoing effort to hide the facts and truth of this situation to protect those who have made a complete mess of this child abuse protection.

First, the intro to the article by Mark Eastman (read the remainder at the URL link provided); and second my earlier Email about this subject. Meanwhile, as I prepare this entry, Lt Harry Bird and most especially BS are making obvious efforts to deny the truth and change history which they keep alive by their actions and will not allow change for the better into something constructive. They are perpetuating their vicious violent and quite malicious destructiveness with the use of the surveillance technology permitting me to hear their activity. This is the real problem which must be addressed in those who are obviously violent in word and deed as these two have been publicly before witnesses for years. Worst of all the use of the surveillance technology prevents me from properly addressing this problem except by publishing this activity in this web journal and communicating as I do by Email.

BBC News Friday, 9 February 2007, 17:13 GMT

Lessons of child cruelty case

The torture of the little girl in this case defies comprehension. But we still seek some kind of explanation, someone to blame, some lessons we can learn.

The girl's parents admitted three counts of child cruelty

Inevitably comparisons have been drawn between the plight of Child B and Victoria Climbie, whose appalling maltreatment and ghastly death prompted a complete rethink on the way we look after vulnerable children in this country.

There are echoes of the Climbie case, the most disturbing being that, just as with eight-year-old Victoria, the little four-year-old girl in Westminster wasn't taken aside and asked what she wanted.

No-one took her or her brother somewhere safe and private to find out how they felt about being returned to their parents.

If we are serious about putting the welfare of the child at the centre of our child protection system then this would seem to be a significant failing and there are obvious lessons to be learned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6347745.stm

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: The latest child abuse failure scandal
Date: Friday 09 February 2007 08:20
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk, campaigns@nspcc.org.uk

The system fails again and again because the people are either perverse or not any good. Here's risk assessment right in front of the professional's eyes, and they allow an unacceptable risk to occur. One does not need to have the ability to enter a premises to assess risk without the suspicion of a crime as is being proposed for paedophiles. Here's child abuse right in front of everyone's eyes whose risk is ignored leading to horrendous abuse.

These people (Westminster Council) lack the basic intelligence, or they are psychologically demented to avoid putting this handicapped child back with abusive parents. The result was horrible abuse that could have had quite tragic consequences. It only took seven weeks to brutalise this small child in a very extreme manner.

Professionals just have not come to grasp the real character of the violent abuser and how that person(s) will abuse in the extreme continuously. Once abuse is revealed, it must be dealt with on this basis. Feeding the abusive character only makes it worse.

Child abusers hide what they do. I've seen that during the past decade. They are incorrigible when it comes to doing or saying anything that will help protect them from others finding out about their child abuse. They will intimidate the abused child to such a degree that the child will never speak about it out of intense fear.

That happened in the Mary Flora Bell case and in the other most recently revealed child abuse involving foster parents who had some 280 children in their care for decades. It was only after two of the abused girls were adults that they came forward. What about all the others? Mary Flora Bell did not reveal her horrendous abuse until after her mother died. Before that she had moved near her mother after being released from prison reflecting this strange magnetism of the abused for the abuser.

I live in a situation where surveillance technology was put at the disposal of a violently dysfunctional family group who abused children to be used against me after I reported the child abuse. This reflects three generations of such abuse from those associated with the flat below including relatives who are attracted as violent types to violent types. This is the norm for violent personalities.

The mother of the most abused child and daughter of the tenant in the flat below was living with her mother along with her partner which was a violent relationship. After I reported the child abuse, she had to move out since this was unlawful in a Council flat. She was homeless but remained in orbit around my flat above her mother's continuously using surveillance technology to have me removed by any means possible which goes on as of this writing still. She claimed and continues to claim possession of my flat and has done so for many years. There has been much discussion about this.

This is part of her intense dependency upon her abusive mother to live either with her or next to her while her son is raised in this violently abusive family unit using surveillance technology to perpetuate their violence and further hide the child abuse.

Unconsciously, this is intensely destructive behaviour carried out by the abused daughter against the abusive mother under the guise of helping while reflecting the daughter's repressed intense rage and hatred against her mother expressed against me instead as the convenient object of abuse for the moment.

On the surface the violence being carried out against me is actually hiding the real violence of revenge and retaliation being carried out by the abused daughter against her abusive mother. The kind of abuse the daughter received was and is reflected in the abuse which she has exhibited against her son which I have witnessed for the past almost eleven years. This child was abused in the extreme by four adults including mother and daughter and their respective partners before I reported it.

Subsequently, the child abuse and violence has been supported and enhanced by allowing this same violence to be carried out against me in order to cover up the child abuse. Naturally, when an abused child sees that the adult parent has such power to abuse an adult like myself who reported the child abuse to protect the children, there never will be any information from the children that will be honest and accurate. This is more than an incredible failure in the system in my situation.

Instead, these children will be silenced by the fear from intimidation. Then, like the parents and relatives surrounding them, they will learn to lie making false allegations against those whom the group hates. Group hatred and its violence against others becomes a substitute for recognising and addressing the real source of the violence which comes from within the family group itself and is repressed. Thus, such violence is perpetuated from generation to generation internally and out into the community against others.

In my situation the abused child of nine years ago has emerged as an anti-social bullying teenager thanks to the nurturing and conditioning provided by those in society who are charged with changing the direction of violent family groups or removing the child to a safe haven. In this case an unsafe haven was created by the authorities wasting time and valuable resources attacking the innocent person who reported the problem while the violent abusers hide their criminal activity further by acting out their violence against a scapegoat. In the process the community is destroyed as has happened here.

This perpetuates the problems and keeps everyone employed. It works in the perverted self interest of the violent personality and those who are supposed to be addressing these kinds of problems. They are not bothered with actually solving this situation because they do not live here and are not impacted by it directly.

By deliberately getting it wrong especially by means of the abuse from surveillance technology those in a professional capacity create a test tube environment for studying violence which only perpetuates that violence to the point where it cannot be changed when it could have been changed had proper action been taken when I reported the child abuse in the first place in May 1998.

The Westminster Council in the centre of London denied in your interviews and comments in reports that this case had parallel points to the Victoria Climbie death. However, a director of the Victoria Climbie Foundation found similar points as did others interviewed by yourselves between this little girl's abuse and that of Victoria Climbie who was tortured to death seven years ago. He stated that some of the findings of the enquiry into her death were not implemented by this Council.

Professionals failed to recognise a broken arm and bruises all over when she was treated medically as signs of abuse after having been returned to the abusive parents. The child had actually been taken away from the parents but returned after an evaluation when the parents were expecting a third child.

It is interesting to note at this point that the daughter of the tenant in the flat below and mother of the abused child (these are the three generations) has given birth to yet another child while carrying out operational control of the surveillance technology used against me in recent years.

When I described in my notes that she has been obsessively present with the surveillance technology 24/7 for all these years since May 1998, she replied "except for a day and a half when I gave birth." The surveillance technology enables me to hear what is being said by these people. That is one of the key ways they abuse me continously.

What kind of evaluation can there be about this situation which refuses to recognise the neglect of the welfare of children because the mother is totally obsessed with using surveillance technology against me 24/7 and does nothing else? How does anyone expect that these children will grow up to be anything other than abusive adults? How can such neglect be allowed to occur when it is observed by numerous people continuously?

In this current case of child abuse the other two children who were not abused were boys and not girls. It's interesting that child abuse in a family like this is selective in picking on one child out of three which helps silence prevail. Even in a small family group there is an attempt to isolate and alienate the one "chosen" for abuse in order to help hide that abuse.

The surveillance technology being used against me as a weapon seeks to do the same thing on a larger scale. Also, in this family group of my experience, there was one child who was picked on and abused to the exclusion of another where both were boys. I've always wondered why the other, older boy was not so abused, yet he witnessed all that was taking place. This helps them hide the real abuse that was and is taking place.

A main mistake that was found was the fact that those working with the parents did not interview the little girl apart from the parents to try to discover the truth. One of your interviewee commentators noted that even when children do not speak, often those who are well trained can recognise the nonverbal communication.

It beggars belief that such a family would be given surveillance technology to carry out abuse against me after I reported the child abuse taking place in the flat below. It further beggars belief that the mother of the abused children (there was an infant involved too in mid-199 would exploit other young people and adults with the help of her relatives to carry out extensive criminal abuse with the use of the surveillance technology against me and be supported for eight and one-half years in that process by the authorities who should and do know better.

It is difficult for me to see how anyone can expect the problem of child abuse and its creation of subsequent violent generations to be solved so that these people are instead redirected toward healthy, normal and productive lives.

In this case of my direct experience the reverse has occurred: not just failure but institutionalised ritual abuse perpetuated indefinitely. Totally invasive surveillance technology has been used for eight and one-half years (so far) without getting it right. That is not failure. That is deliberate destruction which impacts the entire community in a most negative way..

*****End of the Email*****

Fri Feb 9 20:17:29 GMT 2007: "No, he's sick," said a female including the sound of children's voices departing from nearby along with the tell tale sound of a bouncing ball while I was in the bathroom a moment ago. This is the false allegation that these people described above have been using for all these years to cover up the accurate reporting of their activity. They are trying to discredit what I document and report by attacking me personally with this verbal abuse. In this case I heard it acoustically while in the bathroom. More usually I here it electronically and continuously from Lt Harry Bird, BS and others using the surveillance technology. This is one of the key methods that the child abusers use to hide the child abuse by attacking the one who reported it personally. They cannot deal with the issues because the facts are well known and substantiated.

Fri Feb 9 20:22:55 GMT 2007: BS screeching away from the kitchen window direction with "Bloody hell, he's come." She throws out this false allegation to deflect attention away from themselves toward me which usually works as a smokescreen. No one has the slighttest idea whether this is true or not. It is used almost every time I use the bathroom for normal human biological waste elimination. She reinforces it with "I know" often but cannot produce any evidence. The point in making this false allegation frequently is to carry out torture abuse of chronic masturbation which does not exist. How is anybody supposed to know what is actually happening? Lt Harry Bird and BS completely dominate and control the surveillance technology 24/7 while those in the flats above and below carry on with noise making activities that they then attribute to me with this false allegation. Children have participated in this during all these years which has been going on for well over eight years 24/7 and is coordinated by the use of the surveillance technology. This is why BS clings to it 24/7 in order to fabricate allegations although she has been witnessed and noted as faking it by observers with her in the past, and I have proven it false as I did this past week.

Fri Feb 9 20:28:05 GMT 2007: "He's paying for it," said a male in response to the above paragraph from the kitchen window direction most likely Lt Harry Bird. Paying for what and in what way? Does he mean that I am being punished by torture with the surveillance technology indefinitely for having reported the child abuse in order to protect the children involved? Am I being punished to intimidate me to stop my reporting the truth in the same way the children are being intimidated by the use of physical abuse and the threat of violence? Is he relying on a presumption of guilt in order to carry out torture punishment for his false allegations? Does this reflect the vigilante character at work with the surveillance technology watching all that I am doing in order to comment upon it so that I will "know" what they are doing? This verbal abuse is part of the sadists continuing effort to crush human life by claiming complete control over a living being. This reflects the aspiration of the no-hopers to omnipotence reflecting the "religion of the psychical cripple" as described by Erich Fromm. This verbal abuse is part of the physical abuse carried out with the use of this surveillance technology.

Lt Harry Bird acknowledges that he is carrying out punishment with the use of surveillance technology. This has been quite obvious from the personal injuries and an endless stream of verbal invective intended to compound the personal injures and prevent the medical intervention from being effective. This has gone on 24/7 for years accompanied by explicit verbal threats and abuse. One case in point involves my recovery from the cataract surgery which took about five to six weeks on each eye separately during the summer of 2003. Other examples involve the healing process following biopsy surgeries. Every effort was made to prevent and sabotage the recovery process. The actual cataract surgical procedure was attacked while I was on the operating table under local anesthetic where the risk of movment on my part could cause serious damage to the surgical procedure and success of the delicate surgery.