1. A woman was convicted and sentenced to prison today for stalking and harassing a psychiatrist fabricating evidence of rape against him for which he had to stand trial. The same kind of criminal activity has been carried out against me for the past eight years and five months 24/7, but the difference is that those carrying out the stalking and harassment have surveillance technology to fabricate evidence and destroy any effort on my part to address this matter. A police spokesman commenting on this imprisonment of the woman described below stated that the message was loud and clear from the Metropolitan Police who would not tolerate this kind of criminal behaviour. I laughed. The police have been a part of this activity against me for many years.
BBC News Friday, 19 January 2007, 14:50 GMT
Woman jailed for stalking doctor
 Maria Marchese hounded Dr Jan Falkowski for three years |
A woman who was found guilty of threatening a doctor with texts, e-mails and phone messages has been jailed for nine years.
Maria Marchese, 45, hounded Dr Jan Falkowski, 45, and his fiancee Deborah Pemberton for three years.
The doctor even had to stand trial for rape after Marchese fabricated evidence and made a false accusation.
Marchese, of Bow, east London, sent death threats to Ms Pemberton saying she would be killed if they married.
The couple eventually called off the wedding, scheduled for September 2003, and separated.
I think it's very unfortunate the way things went, but I'm very glad now that finally she's been given a long sentence which she deserves 
Outside Southwark Crown Court, Dr Falkowski said he was pleased with the verdict and now felt he could finally move on and rebuild his life.
"It's been a catastrophic effect and it's made a massive impact on my life over the last three or four years," he said, standing beside his new partner, Bethan Ansell.
"I'm very glad finally to have the sentencing out of the way, so I can put it all behind me.
"I think in the end, the result and the sentence today sort of vindicate the fact that I was always innocent.
"I think it's very unfortunate the way things went, but I'm very glad now that finally she's been given a long sentence which she deserves."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6277969.stm
As it turned out today, I happen to have had some correspondence with the police about this matter which I am publishing below since this is an incredulous situation where the police have been participating in the criminal activity against me. Thus, this matter is prolonged until such time as something can be made to stick against me. Since there is nothing, this has gone on for eight years and five months 24/7. I also sent a copy of my first Email reply to the NSPCC (National Society for the Prewention of Cruelty to Children) because this involves stalking and harassment by those whom I reported for domestic and publiv violence including child abuse.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Fwd: Re: Home visit [Refused Due to Total Loss of Privacy and Confidentiality from the Abuse of Surveillance Technology]
Date: Friday 19 January 2007 13:07
From: Gary D Chance
To: campaigns@nspcc.org.uk
Dear Campaigns
It just so happened that I finished this Email to the police this morning and got your 19th February 2006 [sic] issue of "facingforwards" just after I sent it.
As a quick response to the problems surrounding child abuse and subsequent antisocial and criminal behaviour which results, I wanted to send a copy of this Email to you.
The gaps in the present system are profound indeed. Here is one of them that has been going on for well over eight years.
The problem of the child abuse syndrome passed on from generation to generation will never be addressed properly as long as the abuse from the child abusers to which I've been subjected for reporting their child abuse continues as I describe below.
Yours sincerely
Gary D Chance
enclosure
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: Home visit [Refused Due to Total Loss of Privacy and Confidentiality from the Abuse of Surveillance Technology]
Date: Friday 19 January 2007 12:42
From: Gary D Chance
To: [Police Officer]@met.police.uk, commissioner@met.police.uk
PC [Police Officer]
Metropolitan Police
Notting Barns PBO
Safer Neighbourhood
Notting Hill Police Station
Ladbroke Grove
London W11
Dear PC {Police Officer]
Thank you for your Email today a copy of which is below.
Forgive me if this sounds a bit strong, but under the circumstances I must make everything explicitly clear. Further, do not take this personally or as anything negative against the police overall. It is the result of a long history of abuse, eavesdropping, stalking, harassment and surveillance carried out by those in the flat below and others.
I have no trust or confidence in tenant management since they have leaked confidential information repeatedly throughout my years of residency here and most recently that lack of trust and confidence has been reinforced. They are responsible for ensuring that they conduct themselves with a duty of care and most especially enforce the conditions explicitly stated in the tenancy agreement which they have not done.
I grew up in a police home with my father actively engaged in many aspects of police work in numerous positions after his retirement from the Navy. I have always had respect for the police, always reported problems appropriately, worked closely with the police for years in a serious situation and have never had any problems with the police until I moved into the Lancaster West Estate in May 1996. While I might have problems with and complaints against individuals in the police, I do not allow this to characterise my attitude overall with respect to the police. I believe in the complaint process as one which allows organisations and their people to improve.
Under no circumstances will a home visit be permitted at any time as long as the surveillance activity continues which has been going on for eight years and five months 24/7 since mid-August 1998 in the hands of those associated with the flat below, other tenants and residents and the general public. The police have been present extensively for years working directly with these people carrying out extensive unlawful and criminal acts, and your name along with references to an "Inspector" have been used frequently as being present with those carrying out the surveillance technology abuse.
I view this activity by the police as unlawful, criminal and one sided as well as unfair and unjust on the part of the police inconsistent with the fundamental standards of law enforcement which I have experienced throughtout my life and have complained about it extensively to successive Police Commissioners since October 1998. The seriousness of the abuse and the length of time this has been carried out requires that I limit all abuse as much as possible in order to mitigate further personal injuries and damages to myself.
Your request in this matter for a home visit [occurs] against the background of the continuous abuse I receive from those carrying out the surveillance technology. Lt Harry Bird and [BS], the daughter of the tenant in the flat below, continously engage in unlawful and criminal demands for others to interfere in my life and its activity because it relates to my reporting of antisocial and criminal activity by them and others. This also includes a nonstop flow of false allegations of every kind including numerous unlawful and criminal acts which preclude me from permitting any such further interference in my activity and life until this matter of their extensive unlawful and criminal abuse of the surveillance technology is stopped and properly adjudicated. Your request is one such demand.
In September 1997 I permitted a home visit by a police officer because I had contacted the police since I had evidence with respect to vandalism. I was refused a requested meeting at the police station while a demand for a home visit was maintained by the police. Those in the flat below especially [BS] spent a considerable amount of time on their balcony below especially after my emergency call to the police the month before in August 1997 for a road rage incident where I saw a weapon pulled from a vehicle. It turned out that [Partner of BS], [BS]'s partner, was a key participant in this road rage violence. The police arrived in a couple minutes and spent considerable time talking with him outside. [BS] had been sitting on the balcony below my front window the entire time and heard all that I did with respect to calling the police. They were thus quite aware of the fact that I would call the police in such circumstances and made every effort to stalk my activity. They have had an obsession with knowing all that I do.
Although I was most reluctant to have the police enter my home in September 1997 for this reason, I did accede to what was really a demand by the police to come to my home refusing to see me at the police station since the evidence was somewhat important, I thought. I did not want to talk about anything else since I did not want those below to hear this conversation. This was one of the key reasons I did not bring up the problem of the child abuse which was taking place in the flat below [although] I wanted to ask the police about the best way to deal with this situation. As it turned out, the child abuse escalated with [Partner of BS] choking [the young boy] several times which finally resulted in my sending a fax to the Chief Executive of the Council on 5th May 1998. After which the Grenfell Tower Social Services contacted me, and the Social Services then contacted the police for intervention which I assisted at their request.
For this I was blamed entirely by those in the flat below with both [Mother of BS] and her daughter [BS] making public declarations of revenge and retaliation out front amid a large number of tenants and others on Monday and Wednesday, 11th and 13th May 1998. They escalated their stalking and harassment from that point onwards which I brought to the attention of the Council's Chief Executive and the police. However, surveillance technology was installed in the flat above in mid-August 1998 which was made available to all these people, and it grew in its use against me as a weapon for stalking and harassment. This also included children participants and most specifically a teenager from the flat above and [the young boy] a frequent visitor to the flat below. Gatherings of numerous people in the flat above occurred for the purposes of carrying out stalking and harassment with the use of this surveillance technology. On one occasion I witnessed and counted ten such people departing from the flat above including one who was so drunk that he had to be helped down the stairs.
This whole activity escalated and increased with regard to more and more surveillance technology installed and the increased participation by the police as well as the NHS. This was all based upon false allegations generated by the use of the surveillance technology in the hands and at the disposal of these people for whom I had reported antisocial and criminal behaviour. This occurred conincident with and subsequent to my 23rd September 1999 faxed and posted letter to the Prime Minister a copy of which can be seen on my web site. This included others who were associated with a rape and attempted murder I reported in August 1996 and those above who were part of a large number of people who wanted to drive and park their motorbikes on the Estate out front. They all sought to get rid of me in any way they could by the use of the surveillance technology with the compliance and support of the police, tenant management, the NHS and other government organisations and agencies based upon false allegations.
Because I had sustained a serous personal injury, cataracts diagnosed in December 2000 at the Western Eye Hospital after over two years from September 1998 of medical examinations tracking the deterioration of my eyes which resulted from the use of the surveillance technology in the flat above, I sought to protect myself by initiating proceedings in the High Court under the Protection From Harassment Act of 1997 in March 2001. This was destroyed by the arrival of Lt Harry Bird and Colonel Vine in February 2001 with their more sophisticated surveillance technology that has continued to this day with the full participation and operational control by [BS]. I had initiated my lawsuit against those associated with the flat below, the EMB, the TMO and the Council since all were responsible and active participants in the stalking and harassment being carried out against me. All these organisations and others not specially named at that time have failed in a duty of care to carry out their responsibilities despite the full knowledge of this activity against me as presented to the High Court and addressed in two hearings in March 2001.
The result has been a continuation of the attempted destruction of my life and its activity by every means possible for eight years and five months since mid-August 1998 by means of the abuse of power using surveillance technology as a lethal weapon. When this surveillance technology was installed in mid-August 1998, this shut down everything and froze everyone's position at that time. There was certainly no way that I could have a private and confidential conversation or visit with anyone in my home. Since I could not resolve this problem with correspondence to the local police in August 1998, I began sending letters to the Police Commissioner. In two of the these seven letters I sent between October 1998 and January 1999, I noted that I could go blind which did occur with the onset of cataracts from the use of the surveillance technology. The type of imaging technology used is well noted for causing such a personal injury.
Toward the end of 1998 I was contacted by the local police officer in regard to my correspondence who once again demanded a home visit. A phone message was left on my answering machine. Because of the surveillance technology in the hands or at the disposal of those above and below my flat, I returned the call from a pay phone on Bramley Road. Once again there was a refusal to see me at the police station and a demand to come to my home which I refused. Although it might seem strange that I felt I could not even make a private and confidential telephone call inside my home, I had experienced such abuse of the surveillance technology that I knew I could not. On one occasion BT's Nuisance Call department phoned me since I was also getting these nuisance calls and was working with BT to track the source. After I talked with them, the woman in the flat above whom I believe to have been [Tenant in Flat Above] its tenant ran to the balcony above my front window and shouted to either [BS] or [Mother of BS] on the balcony below my front window "It's all right. It was just BT."
They had no compunction about letting me know they were listening to my phone calls, and this was a most important private and confidential call as well since I suspected them of engaging in the nuisance calls. They were doing this to intimidate me as part of the stalking and harassment activity which was interfering in my efforts to address the problem properly at its source. Therefore, I had no choice but to reject any demand by the police for a home visit. They did take my complaints into consideration and visited those in the flat above but the results were nil. Such is my experience with the police that their investigations are inadequate and clumsy to such an extent that they make the situation far worse which then results in their direct participation with those who are perpetrating unlawful and criminal acts as has now occurred all these years.
I will continue to correspond to the Police Commissioner including a copy of this Email since I have experienced and witnessed extensive police corruption throughout these years. I look for the police to take care of these matters themselves to ensure that they can carry out proper law enforcement. I have expected and seen organisational changes occur which I would normally anticipate as having a beneficial result with respect to stopping the unlawful and criminal acts being carried out against me with the use of the surveillance technology. This has not occurred. I do not know the extent of involvement if any by anyone whom I do not directly recognise. Therefore, this matter must continue to be communicated to the Police Commissioner in order that appropriate actions can be taken to make certain that proper law enforcement is being carried out in this environment.
I am quite shocked that under these circumstances you have requested a home visit. I have said this before and will say it again: I cannot have any private and confidential conversation or communication of any kind with anyone that is not fully known to Lt Harry Bird and [BS] who are both complainants and perpetrators of extensive unlawful and criminal acts. They will abuse such surveillance technology information for their own corrupt self interest and will communicate the information to everyone as they have done all these years.
Your communication this morning has been most upsetting and disruptive under these circumstances to the extent that it makes me question your motivation or that of [The Inspector]. I have serious problems about the representations made to me by the police and tenant management and the obvious failures of both which I continue to witness and experience directly. I do not accept the fact that you cannot come onto this property because you have said it is "private." This is not private property. This is government property and, therefore, the police have every right and responsibility to enter it at any time to address problems which I have brought to your attention with respect to antisocial behaviour. It is my belief that tenant management wishes to maintain its prerogative and management hegemony to the exclusion of the police. I have experienced instances in the past were tenant management has sought to coverup and hide serious problems for its own image management objectives. This has included serious crimes. I have no trust or confidence in dealing with tenant management for this reason as it is fundamentally flawed by a series of conflicting management organisations. The police are tainted by this as well leaving them in an ambiguous position with respect to law enforcement and their duties.
While I was writing this Email, I have been subjected to extensive abuse from Lt Harry Bird, [BS] and others commenting continuously on its content thus further reinforcing the points I made above. I cannot communicate anything in privacy and confidentiality to anyone and no one can expect any privacy or confidentiality in anything communicated to me. My life's activity has, therefore, been destroyed for eight years and five months so far since mid-August 1998 and continues as of this writing.
However, this will not stop me from collecting and dissemination evidence as is appropriate so that unlawful and criminal activity can be properly addressed by those in authority to do so. I have a moral responsibility to do so and will never abrogate that. I also have a legal responsibility to communicate unlawful and criminal acts which I experience and witness. And, there is a further responsibility on my behalf to make certain by such documentation and reporting that I mitigate the personal injuries and damages being done to me which also continue as of this writing.
If you have anything to say of any importance which you do not mind the whole world knowing about thanks to the surveillance technology abuse, then communicate this to me by Email. Otherwise, do not communicate anything and do not attempt to gain entry to the premises for such general communications. There will be no privacy and confidentiality from what you might be doing in good faith to do your best to carry out law enforcement as it should be done. This will result in whatever you have to communicate being spread around to everyone in this environment most especially to those whom you might seek to address with regard to police matters. In other words, your police activity is being compromised by Lt Harry Bird, [BS] and others using surveillance technology for their own corrupt self interest which results in the promulgation and increase of antisocial and criminal activity in this environment. The police have been abused for all these years.
You will have to understand that [BS], her mother [Mother of BS], and others associated with the flat below are playing both ends against the middle. She seeks a power position with respect to the tenants and residents in this environment as well as with those in authority and has sought to fabricate allegations in order to manipulate everyone toward her own agenda objectives. Since the police intervention on the evening of Friday, 8th May 1998, for the child abuse, they have sought the same [intervention] for me by any means they could fake. I knew what I was in for when I reported the child abuse, and it has turned out to be correct. In order to attain and maintain this power position locally, [BS] has to have the surveillance technology at her disposal and under her operational control 24/7 so that she can tell everyone all about what is happening as well as protect herself from the validity of the reports I make. Your visit to the premises would feed this in that she would know all that was said and could boast and communicate to everyone what happened or distort it as she wanted. It is also the objective of Lt Harry Bird, [BS] and others to obtain any kind of police intervention no matter what it might me. They would distort any such visit to suit their objectives to others, and you would be clueless about what these people were actually doing while I would be allowed to hear it as part of the abuse being carried out against me. Again, the abuse of the police by these people has been extraordinary.
Up to this point the police have been a major contributing factor to the increase in antisocial and criminal behaviour in this environment by participating in and sustaining the surveillance technology abuse against me. I would like to see that changed, and toward this end I will continue my well documented and evidence based reporting as well as I can under the extremely destructive circumstances in which I find myself from the abuse of surveillance technology in the hands of and under the operational control of those whom I have reported for their domestic and public violence as well as child abuse the results of which has manifested itself once again recently. Their sustained and continuous disruption of my life and all its activity from this abuse of surveillance technology has prevented full reporting of the problem I brought to the attention of the police which started on 1st December involving the child [the young boy]'s verbal abuse outside in public areas. This verbal public abuse exactly duplicated that abuse carried out by Lt Harry Bird, [BS], her mother [Mother of BS] and others for many years. My reporting of the child abuse in early May 1998 has resulted in that child abuse continuing with the child now an antisocial bully like the adults around him. And, for the first time over Christmas there was a clear drug abuse problem taking place in the flat below which I communicated to the police.
Everything that has been done was the complete opposite of what was needed, and the result has been the perpetuation and increase of antisocial, unlawful and criminal activity in this environment which will not change until the source of the problem is addressed. That source involves those using the surveillance technology and those associated with the flat below. Having used totally invasive surveillance technology for eight years and five months 24/7 since mid-August 1998 until now without any resolution means only one thing: it has been abused for the unlawful and criminal purposes that have so far failed. It is time to stop this abuse of power by addressing its source.
More importantly it is time to stop victimising me.
Yours sincerely
Gary D Chance
cc Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner
On Friday 19 January 2007 09:09, you wrote:
> Mr Chance,>
> Is there any time next week I can visit you. It is nothing of great
> importance but my boss [The Inspector] wants me to explain to you who the
> best people to email as [Previous Inspector] is no longer on this borough and the
> Commissioner does not have the capacity to review every email he gets. It
> would also give me a chance to pass on any info that you may need from us.
>
> Thanks
>
> [Police Officer]
>
> MetSec Code - Restricted - Personal
>
> [Police Officer] PC XXXXXX
> Notting Barns Ward PBO
> Safer Neighbourhood
> Notting Hill Police Station
> * Phone: XXXXX XXX XXXX
> * Metphone: XXXXXX
> * E-mail: [Police Officer]@met.police.uk
> MetWave XXXXXX
> **********************************************************************
> It is the policy of the MPS that:
>
> MPS personnel (or agents working on behalf of the MPS) must not use
> MPS systems to author, transmit or store documents such as electronic mail
> (e-mail) messages or attachments:
>
> * containing racist, homophobic, sexist, defamatory, offensive,
> illegal or otherwise inappropriate material;
>
> * containing material requiring a protective marking higher than
> RESTRICTED, (and not higher than NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED across
> the internet) without the use of approved encryption;
>
> * containing personal data for use other than in accordance with
> the notification(s) under the Data Protection Act, 1998 of the
> system(s) from which the data originates.
>
> * This Email message has been scanned for viruses and contents.
>
> **********************************************************************
The police officer replied to my above Email. Here's my further response to his comments which are included at the end of this Email response:
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Fwd: RE: Home visit [Refused Due to Total Loss of Privacy and Confidentiality from the Abuse of Surveillance Technology]
Date: Friday 19 January 2007 15:50
From: Gary D Chance
To: [Police Officer]@met.police.uk, commissioner@met.police.uk
PC [Police Officer]
Metropolitan Police
Notting Barns PBO
Safer Neighbourhood
Notting Hill Police Station
Ladbroke Grove
London W11
Dear PC [Police Officer]
1. No police officer has ever asked to visit the premises since the end of 1998 when I refused due to the surveillance technology abuse except for an instance when Inspector ************** before Inspector *************** made such a request if my memory serves me right on behalf of an officer. This was not possible at that time as I explained then, but the sending along of information was not denied by her and certainly no effort was made to control it.
2. No police officer in any position at any time during this extended period has ever told me to not send information to them. A Sergeant near the beginning of this asked me not to send correspondence to the Commissioner because it only gets sent to them. I found this request inappropriate and offensive. The reasons you cite are incomprehensible under the circumstances.
3. With the advent of the sophisticated surveillance technology that began with the arrival of Lt Harry Bird and Colonel Vine which they installed and commenced using in February 2001 I am completely tracked and monitored regardless of location thus precluding any private and confidential communication anywhere at any time.
4. I have put an excellent example of this surveillance abuse carried out wherever I am located on my web site when I was visiting my optometrist. This is only one example of a continuous attempt to interfere and destroy all my activity no matter what it is, where I am located or what I am doing. The objective is to do as much harm as possible through damage and creating or aggravating personal injuries.
5. The surveillance technology introduced by Lt Harry Bird and Colonel Vine was used to monitor my legal case preparation in various libraries including the Supreme Court library at the High Court as well as both hearings which were held there in March 2001.
6. This enabled them to sabotage my legal processing with very intense abuse carried about by many people surrounding my flat at various times or wherever I was located trying to carry on with this legal right.
7. They will do the same to any such dealings I have with anyone most especially including the police.
8. You cannot be responsible for the surveillance technology abuse being carried out nor can you be expected to be in a position to do anything about it. This must come from those in the police in a much higher position, and I address the core of this overall problem to the Commissioner as is necessary in this circumstance.
9. I complain to the police about these problems for the police to carry out their own independent investigation without any involvement from me which would compromise the police due to the surveillance technology abuse. Lt Harry Bird claims this was done by someone from Hammersmith, yet his and [BS]'s extensive criminal activity continues unabated 24/7.
10. It is most important for the police to have as much information as possible even if that cannot be acted upon immediately. Such "intelligence" is critically important to all aspects of police work in the community to be able to ultimately solve problems fully and properly.
11. In many cases the police often ask for information from the public to assist them without demanding that the person even come forward providing means for that information to be given anonymously.
12. When I called the police about the rape and attempted murder which occurred under my kitchen window in August 1996 that I witnessed directly, they did not arrive. Had they done so when I called, this crime would never have occurred. I sent a fax to the Commissioner and Notting Hill Police Station commander with details of this serious crime. Superintendent Valentine called me on the phone and sent me a thank you letter, but no officer ever asked to come by and visit me. In fact, Superintendent Valentine told me in writing that he was sending the beat officer to talk with tenant management.
13. You must learn fully about the surveillance technology abuse being carried out against me with particular attention to the capability of this technology itself. If you do not fully undersand its full capacity, you will be at a loss to understand what is happening. You must develop this information yourself.
14. The crimes being committed in this environment have at their core the unlawful and criminal abuse of surveillance technology which goes on 24/7. There is nothing I can add by a personal visit to what I can send by Email. The investigation of this rests with an independent investigation by the police.
15. Perhaps the extreme seriousness of the surveillance technology abuse has escaped your comprehension. It is a matter only the police can handle. I cannot help except report it's ongoing activity.
16. Lt Harry Bird, [BS] and others attempt to create a conflict situation between others which is something I have tried to avoid by going to the source of the problem.
17. However, you leave me no other choice but to investigate the option of filing a complaint against the police perhaps through the IPCC something I have long avoided. Under the circumstances this is a near impossible thing to do because of the surveillance technology abuse intended to destroy any such redress of a grievance.
Yours sincerely
Gary D Chance
cc Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: RE: Home visit [Refused Due to Total Loss of Privacy and
Confidentiality from the Abuse of Surveillance Technology]
Date: Friday 19 January 2007 13:45
From: [Police Officer]@met.police.uk
To: [Gary D Chance]
Mr Chance
Thank you for your email and I am sorry that you do not wish police to visit you. It was in part to address the numerous allegations that you continually report to myself by email. As such matters are reffered to others I must be seen to do my job as a Safer Neighbourhoods Officer and address them. I know when I spoke to you on the phone last year you were happy just to email me and for me not to reply. However the matter has been raised that if you complain to police you would wish to talk to an officer face to face about such matters. If you wish there is the option that you could meet me at Notting Hill Police Station.
If, however, you do not wish any contact with police in any format I would ask that you stop reporting issues via email to the police as everytime you email senior officers they look to me to resolve the problem. Obviously in these circumstances I cannot.
Thank you for your honesty and time
[Police Officer]
MetSec Code - Restricted - Personal
[Police Officer] PC XXXXXX
Notting Barns Ward PBO
Safer Neighbourhood
Notting Hill Police Station
* Phone: 0208 721 3004
* Metphone: 773004
* E-mail: [Police Officer]@met.police.uk
MetWave 559703
**********************************************************************
It is the policy of the MPS that:
MPS personnel (or agents working on behalf of the MPS) must not use
MPS systems to author, transmit or store documents such as electronic mail
(e-mail) messages or attachments:
* containing racist, homophobic, sexist, defamatory, offensive,
illegal or otherwise inappropriate material;
* containing material requiring a protective marking higher than
RESTRICTED, (and not higher than NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED across
the internet) without the use of approved encryption;
* containing personal data for use other than in accordance with
the notification(s) under the Data Protection Act, 1998 of the
system(s) from which the data originates.
* This Email message has been scanned for viruses and contents.
**********************************************************************
*****End of the Email*****