1. This proposal to split the Home Office does not address the problem of the malaise which afflicts its activity. It reflects the need to "do something" that is illusionary and permits those in power to both obscure the real source of the problem further while making itself look acceptable. The Home Office like the civil service everywhere has been politicised by this government. This creates a conflict situation where people are caught in the middle not knowing what they should be doing because fundamental standards are different from the way they are expected to act. Abused organisations respond like abused individuals: their functioning changes in one way or another due to an internal conflict.
In the case of the Home Office the first change on the road to recovery is a change in government. Ministers of state across the board need to be changed completely before any other changes can be expected to be meaningful. At some point in time this Labour government will be gone. At that time, I believe, the truth will come rolling out from the civil service everywhere about what has really happened while this Labour government has been in power. This is what this Labour government continues to try to prevent by sustaining its power through abusive and manipulative means.
Below I discuss briefly an interview on BBC News24 with a criminologist Marian Fitzgerald who provided some very clear and precise commentary and analysis about the Home Office and its functioning. She is currently associated with the University of Kent Crime and Justice Centre. She worked in the Home Office's research area during the late 1980s and early 1990s while Margaret Thatchter and John Major were Prime Ministers. She expressed amazement that the Home Office civil service at that time consisted of people of exceptional ability, integrity and independence. However, she went on to describe that his changed with David Blunkett when there was a wholesale move of personnel at the top out of positions with new personnel brought it.
This appears to me as if more amenable people were put into key positions who would do the government's bidding. This has been my experience with the extreme abuse of surveillance technology against me now for eight years and five months 24/7. I cannot believe that any such thing would have occurred under a civil service run by those with exceptional ability, integrity and independence. This Labour government has debased the government and its civil service to such a degree that extensive crimes are knowingly carried out as I have directly experienced.
This raises a fundamental conflict inside an organisation which has manifested itself in other areas of the Home Office. People stop functioning. They don't work. They don't do a job. Depression sets in. Energy is spent hiding and covering up for image management instead of getting the job done. People do not know what to do and do not do anything. They are frozen out of fear of doing the wrong thing, and thus they do the wrong thing through inaction. This is exactly what has happened in my situation, and why it has been going on 24/7 for eight years and five months. The real truth has yet to come out except here as I continue to write about reality.
Then John Reid comes along taking over from Charles Clarke to clean up this "dysfunctional" organisation which is "not fit for purpose" only to discover that, supposedly, he was not told about the 27,000 files which have been shunted aside and not put on the police database to track those convicted of crimes oversease. His answer is not to address the malaise but to reorganise the Home Office to make it look like this is the problem and make it look like he is addressing it with this solution. Most likely this will make the problem worse. The ship is still sinking, and no one is patching the hole below the waterline. I am still subjected to the lethal abuse of surveillance technology 24/7, and no one is stopping it.
Some Home Office this has been who takes on the role of the classic abuser by blaming the victim as has been done by Simon Watkin who "appears" to be one of those brought into David Blunkett's office who now carries on as part of a team whose role is to address community security problems. "In 2001 [Simon Watkin] established the Home Office's Hi-Tech Crime Team assessing the impact of new technologies upon law enforcement capabilities." It was in 2001 that David Blunkett took over as Home Secretary from Jack Straw. In February of 2001 Lt Harry Bird and Colonel Vine arrived with the most sophisticated surveillance technology ever known to human civilisation. Also present were two Metropolitan police officer, Paul Winston and Mike, who participated in this activity. It was an experiment, and I was its nonconsenting human guinea pig a victim of violence in the extreme from these people and others.
It was correspondence from Simon Watkin on two different occasions (2nd March 2005 and 8th August 2006) who wrote to me quite abusive letters blaming me as the victim for what I has reporting to the Home Office among others. A year ago in January 2006 Simon Watkin was "a Home Office official working with the covert investigation policy team and the crime reduction and community safety group." Now that all ties in with what has been done to me since the beginning of 2001 six years ago. It is my belief that Simon Watkin is knowingly along with many others carrying out this criminal activity against me and blaming me with the false allegations of a mental illness in order to discredit my accurate reporting of what I am experiencing 24/7. This the same false allegation I get continuously from those using the surveillance technology.
The photo above shows Simon Watkin and the Earl of Northesk at an FIPR/PI (Foundation for Information Policy Research and Privacy International) public meeting on 22nd October 2003. I wonder if FIPR and PI have any idea about what is really happening and that they are irrelevant with respect to this government's actual activity. This is quite a cynical manipulation of these organisations and the public by those in government who know that such surveillance technology to which I am being subjected is the future.
This is why I am stating that the Home Office suffers from an internal conflict at its top which makes it the dysfunctional organisation so characterised by John Reid. Now that he has learned a bit about what has been happening there he makes a proposal which will permit the illusion of doing something while covering up the real problem thus permitting the abuse to continue which, I believe, this government hopes will enable them to ultimately buy more time to wipe me out in some way that lets them off the hook. This applies to all those who have been victims of this experimentation process revolving around new technologies for covert investigations with respect to crime reduction and community safety.
The great problem is that after eight years and five months of 24/7 surveillance carried out in this manner there has been an increase in antisocial behaviour and crime and most certainly a decrease in community security. It's not that this experiment failed. It's that this experiment has backfired in such a devastating manner that it has done the opposite of what was intended by the behaviour of those involved from the ground surrounding my flat to the top of government including the Prime Minister. This should have been quite easy to deduce given the character of those who were actually carrying out the activity on the ground.
BBC News Sunday, 21 January 2007, 14:17 GMT
Home Office split 'within months'
 Gordon Brown, left, with John Reid and Lord Falconer |
The Home Office could be split into two separate departments "within months", government sources have told the BBC.
Home Secretary John Reid has suggested a split to create one justice ministry and one focusing on public protection.
Constitutional Affairs Secretary Lord Falconer said "the time might well have come" for a split, and former home secretary Jack Straw backed the idea.
But William Hague, for the Tories, called the plan "a pretty serious admission of failure" by John Reid.
And another former Labour home secretary, David Blunkett, told ITV that if the split happened there would only be two powerful figures in Cabinet - the prime minister and the chancellor - and that would not be good for balanced government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6283991.stm
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Marian Fitzgerald Interview Oustanding
Date: Sunday 21 January 2007 13:28
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk, J.C.Lee@ukc.ac.uk
Also FAO of Marian Fitzgerald at the University of Kent Crime and Justice Centre (Please Forward. Thanks)
This was a marvellous interview that got at the core of the problems relating to the Home Office.
It rang true with my direct experience over the last ten years and has explained the contrast I've found between the Tory government and this Labour government.
On occasion I wrote to John Major about important problems and received excellent replies from civil servants in various departments that were most informative and helpful.
The opposite occurred once the Labour government took over. It was obvious to me that the responses to my complaints especially the Employment Service under David Blunkett were politicised and not based upon solid information and standards which one would expect. I was disappointed to get these kinds of replies.
I saw this also with the respect to the Home Office when David Blunkett took over there in May 2001 which has been especially evident in recent years.
My experience with being subjected to totally invasive and completely abusive surveillance technology 24/7 since August 1998 in the hands of the general public and supported by those in positions of governmental authority was prima facie evidence for me of the politicisation of the civil service of the worst kind.
Marian Fitzgerald's very articulate and precise expression of this transition part of which she has seen in its "before" state first hand reflects an analysis that is quite correct which I can support with my own personal experience of being on the receiving end of fundamental corruption and abuse of power using surveillance technology as a means to destroy anyone who dares to dissent.
It is especially pernicious when the very people I have reported for violent crimes are the ones given access to and operational control over the surveillance technology for all these eight years and five months to cover up their crimes then and now while discrediting all that I do in by every possible means. This destroys what the Home Office is all about in this democracy and turns it into a part of a tyranical government without standards except those of the arbitrary use and abuse of power.
This kind of activity can render any organisation dysfunctional because a large percentage of people will naturally resist such behaviour and will consciously or unconsciously sabotage it. It leads to a state of depression and reduced functioning capacity in an organisation that is so abused in such a way that goes against people's sense of fairness and justice.
Fundamentally, it creates an organisational conflict situation which is the same that occurs inside human beings when they are confronted with a compulsion to act in a way that is contrary to fundamental standards which the human unconscious maintain. In an organisational context it becomes a "collective" unconscious rebellion or shutdown resulting from a conflict.
*****End of the Email*****
The Independent Monday, 22nd January 2007
Reid plans to cut Home Office into justice and security departments
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
A plan to split the beleaguered Home Office into two departments covering national security and justice could allow Labour to answer its critics by giving greater emphasis to civil liberties.
John Reid will tell cabinet colleagues that his crisis-hit department cannot cope in its present form with the increasing demands from terrorism, migration, crime and the criminal justice system. It follows a review after he said parts of the Home Office were "not fit for purpose".
In a concession to Labour's critics, the Home Secretary has accepted that the Government's record on civil liberties has been overshadowed by its tough approach on terrorism and crime, which has provoked accusations that it is relying on the "politics of fear".
He thinks that a more balanced picture of Labour's actions would emerge if one cabinet minister were responsible for security and another for justice. He hopes it would also reduce the bitter clashes between ministers and judges.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2175037.ece