The organisational management structure for tenant management reveals the activity which is being carried out as I touched upon in yesterday's brief outline. There has been a consistent pattern of image management for a decade in my direct experience with every attempt made to cover up problems including attempting to destroy the life of the person (me) who reports them. The brutality of this was manifested in 1998 with the installation of the surveillance technology against me in mid-August followed a month later by a reply to my correspondence to the Chief Executive of the RBK&C where I was told that they were not doing anything, referring me to the people who were the source of the problem with complaints about them and telling me to go see a psychiatrist. This was top down repression consistent with the establishment in my estimation of an organisational structure intended to evade accountability and responsibility. My balcony had been destroy by an outside destructive effort which was supposed to be a repair. The repair was not effected in accordance with a subsequent agreement based upon further inspection, and, instead, surveillance technology was installed which was accessed and used by tenant management to carry out extensive unlawful and criminal harassment in an every escalating manner throughout these years. This was extreme brutality trying to force me to submit to the arbitrary and capricious use of power during a time when it was necessary for me to maintain low stress levels and take care of life threatening and crippling medical problems which were under care at local hospital clinics. This activity further aggravated existing medical conditions immediately with the installation of the surveillance technology in mid-August that made it necessary for me to seek further medical assistance from my GP. The destruction of my balcony represented deliberate vandalism carried out by tenant management in early June 1998 which was sustained by a failure to repair now for over 7.5 years and exists as of this writing. Tenant management has considered itself above the law and capable of doing anything it wanted without any restraint. This was confirmed by the response from the Chief Executive of the RBK&C in that letter dated 15th September 1998 which can be viewed at: http://garydchance.com//myPictures/RBKC980915IQ.JPG (zoom +/- as required). My response to this letter can be seen in the archives on 18th September 1998. This sets the standard for vandalism that the young see and carry out on their own. When people complain about vandalism, they do not complain about the institutionalised vandalism carried out by tenant management to punish people who complain. They only attack the kids who are reacting in a way that they have learned from example which they see being carried out by adults when they dislike something or somebody. What is created is a repressive environment where those who complain are punished so that those in power can keep that power along with their criminal activity. The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBK&C) set up two separate tenant management entities for the Lancaster West Estate. Each had a separate contract with the RBK&C. This split responsibility and accountability so that there was no recourse against either of these organisations and the RBK&C refused to accept responsibility and accountability as can be seen in my correspondence received as noted above. The RBK&C set up the following organisations: 1. The Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) for the entire borough for all government residential units. This organisation then entered into the tenancy agreements with tenants. 2. However, in the case of the Lancaster West Estate with its some 900 residential units and thousands of occupants the RBK&C entered into a separate and parallel contract for tenant management with the Lancaster West Estate Management Board (EMB). This created a conflict situation where the TMO had legal responsibility and accountability but no power to get anything done. The EMB had no legal responsibility and accountability by contract with the tenants but had the power to do everything with regard to the actual management of the Estate. A former chair of the EMB, Lucy Daniels, sent me a letter telling me that they had nothing do to with the TMO describing the fact that they had a contract with the RBK&C to manage the estate. I did not have any legal oontract with the EMB. What did happen, however, as Ms Daniels described, was that two TMO employees were seconded to the EMB. These were the Estate Officer and the Area Manager. They had no power because all decisions were made by the EMB. This was gloss to deflect criticism of this untenable maladministration. The Chief Executive of the RBK&C through Mr Quinn confirmed this in his letter of 15th September 1998. I had no legal recourse. The TMO with whom I had a contract was an emasculated organisation thanks to the RBK&C's contract with the EMB. The EMB could do what it liked without any legal restraint. Thus, they became a vigilante organisation and carried our unlawful and criminal acts against me including the destruction of my balcony and failure to repair it and by using the surveillance technology to destroy my complaints and the legal proceedings which I finally instituted in March 2001. Using the surveillance technology enabled them to know everything I was doing in advance. If that was not bad enough, the TMO then created the Lancaster West Residents' Association to do things which it was legally constrained from doing as explained in a letter from the TMO when it created this third tenant management organisation. Keith Miles of Verity Close notoriety became the Chair of the Lancaster West Residents' Associate after a brief stint as Chair of the EMB replacing Lucy Daniels there for a short period. Now there were two vigilante organisations above and outside the law carrying out management activities at the Lancaster West Estate. The legal responsibility and acountabilty waters were thoroughly muddied. It was impossible to determine any legal accountability and responsibility with what amounted to four organisations involved including the RBK&C itself who has been busy trying to escape legal responsibility and accountability by creating the TMO and EMB. The TMO then goes and creates the Lancaster West Residents' Association for the same reason. Tenant management is out of control and in the hands of the mob. I am then subjected to extreme unlawful and criminal stalking and harassment carried out by tenants who want to cover up their antisocial and criminal behaviour using the surveillance technolgoy as a weapon to help them do this. Remember this is tenant management. A complete smoke screen is created to obscure the involvement and association of anyone who carries out this activity against me which I witness continuously. Meanwhile, "tenant management" promises the mother of the abused children (reported in May 1998) my flat when she succeeds in getting me out of my home by some means. She has been a totally dedicated user of the surveillance technology since mid-August 1998. She has maintained that my home is her "house" for years demanding repeatedly to "get him out" while manufacturing allegations with the use of the surveillance technology. She has noted all that I was doing in advance to be able to attack beforehand such as the process of writing this summary today. It is continuous, nonstop 24/7 vigilante mob rule. "Stop him," echoes from these people as I write. Tenant management is a vigilante gang of criminal bullies that tries to create a facade of respectability while its local and imported thugs carry out extensive crimes. In simple terms this is organised crime carried out by the government against a person who reports the problems so that that they can be properly addressed. Instead, every effort is made to destroy that person (me) reporting the problems to preserve the facade of respectability since I have fully documented the extensive evidence about all that has gone on during the past decade. The critical point in all of this is that tenant management creates and sets a standard of antisocial and criminal behaviour which is not lost on anyone especially the young. They learn to be cynical of authority at a very early age and realise that authority is fundamentally corrupt with those who have power maintaining that power based upon brutally repressive acts carried out against anyone who would dare tell the truth about what is happening. Everyone especially the young realise that they either have to submit or be treated quite brutally. This leads to their reacting in antisocial ways which eventually results in criminal behaviour. They cannot respect authority beause authority is not respectable in reality. The facade does not count. Then everyone wonders why violent crime persists along with antisocial behaviour. The answer is quite obvious isn't it? It is created by example from the government itself. Local elections are due on 4th May 2006. Every effort is being made to clamp down on me to stop my communicating the truth about this maladministration which has persisted for years in the run up to this election. People are afraid of losing their power. But, then that's what democracy is all about, right? Regime change with the ballot. I reported the child abuse from an adjacent flat as it escalated further and further until a young boy was being seriously choked for threatening to "tell." The same violent abuse has been carried out against me since May 1998 when I reported the child abuse to protect the life of the children involved. The people carrying out this life threatening violent abuse against me are the same people who did the same to the children. They are still trying to keep me from "telling." This violently repressive environment has been enabled by tenant management. The standard of the violent criminal persists as a result dominating and controlling this environment and impacting the lives of thousands directly while creating a threat of crime and antisocial behaviour in the rest of the borough, throughout London and this country. It's not surprising to me that some of the would be terrorists came from this area, and that Abu Hamza used to live in nearby Shepherd's Bush. With all this expenditure of resources on the innocent like me it's no wonder that the real threats go undetected. Those who would report problems are being taken out with a double negative effect on society: (1) crimes and antisocial behaviour are covered up and allowed to flourish with government support; and (2) the example set by those in authority incites others to behave likewise and pushes the extreme fanatic into terrorism and toward the likes of an Abu Hamza. Last October a police officer was stabbed close by while on routine bike patrol. There in a nutshell is the failure of respect for authority which tenant management has created.