- Call for prison bugging inquiry. Law makers and legal professionals let the thin edge of the wedge in and now face the abuse for power and control by the government. This has nothing to do with national security as I've experienced directly for almost a decade.
- Email to Chief Surveillance Commissioner. Surveillance technology abuse in the UK has gone far beyond anyone's comprehension or ability to deal effectively with such abuse.
1. Call for prison bugging inquiry.
BBC News Saturday, 9 February 2008, 13:58 GMT
Call for prison bugging inquiry
 An inquiry is under way into claims of bugging at Woodhill Prison |
The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have called for an inquiry into allegations that hundreds of lawyers are bugged on prison visits.
The Daily Telegraph, quoting an unnamed source, said conversations between prisoners and their lawyers were routinely being recorded across the UK.
The Ministry of Justice said monitoring was a police matter.
An inquiry is under way into earlier claims that a Labour MP's visits to Woodhill prison were secretly recorded.
Counter-terrorism officers are said to have secretly recorded MP Sadiq Khan's conversations with a constituent - terrorist suspect Babar Ahmad - in the Buckinghamshire prison in 2005 and 2006.
His case sparked controversy because it was suggested it may have been in breach of the Wilson Doctrine which bars the bugging of MPs.
Call for prison bugging inquiry
2. Email to Chief Surveillance Commissioner. Surveillance technology abuse in the UK has gone far beyond anyone's comprehension or ability to deal effectively with such abuse. And a copy of an enclosed Email to Geoffrey Robertson QC following interview comments on BBC News24.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Surveillance technology abuse in the UK has gone far beyond anyone's comprehension or ability to deal effectively with such abuse
Date: Saturday 09 February 2008 16:47
From: Gary D Chance
To: oscmailbox@osc.gsi.gov.uk
The Rt Hon Sir Christopher Rose
Chief Surveillance Commissioner
Office of Surveillance Commissioners
PO Box 29105,
London, SW1V 1ZU
Dear Sir Christopher
The massive and continuous use of surveillance technology used against me for almost a decade 24/7 prevents me from addressing this matter in any formal way.
The surveillance technology has been used to destroy any such redress of a grievance which is briefly described below.
The bugging of an MP as is currently an issue is only a very small development in the overall abuse of surveillance technology which I've experienced directly for almost a decade.
This makes your job moot and meaningless.
Yours sincerely
Gary D Chance
enclosure
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: The Geoffrey Robertson QC interview was extraordinarily outstanding but there remains an all important element missing
Date: Saturday 09 February 2008 16:07
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk, g.robertson@doughtystreet.co.uk
When I first heard this interview, I was attracted to two key points that he made. I waited, however, to hear the interview again to get what was said as correct as possible. Unfortunately, the second airing of this interview was edited and thus omitted these two key points. That is quite significant when you stop to think about it.
Mr Robertson made two key points which struck me with regard to my direct experience:
1. In 2000 politicians and senior local police officers where given the authority for carrying out surveillance. This was contrasted against exclusive supervision by a High Court judge which was also consistent with judicial oversight that occurs in the US (however suspect that might be in certain situations).
I submit that this was done to cover what had already been happening with regard to surveillance technology which coincided with my being so targeted 24/7 from mid-August 1998 onwards in what has turned out to be an indefinite surveillance activity with far reaching implications.
2. Mr Robertson also mentioned the likes of a Guantanamo in locations in the UK where this process of indefinite incarceration outside the law would occur. I wanted to especially listen to this again to hear exactly what he said. I'll have to rely on this general representation of what he said and stand corrected if I've gotten it wrong.
The point I want to make as I have been making for many years reflects the abuse of power which has occurred with respect to surveillance technology that has come to light with eavesdropping on privileged lawyer/client or MP/constituent communications reflecting a two tier standard system for various parts of the population.
When it affects MPs and lawyers, it gets blown into a national scandal. When it impacts people like me, it gets buried. Thus, people like me are victimised first since those carrying out the abuse can feel comfortable in getting away with it. As long as lawyers, MPs or others of similar status are not affected, no one will do anything.
Geoffrey Robertson has confirmed for me with respect to my experience what I've understood all along: the decision making process for serveillance technology usage has, essentially, rested with the local level and, hence, resulted in extreme abuses which have not had the benefit of judicial oversight.
However, I must admit that I have heard some discussion on and off during these surveillance years that judges and legal professionals have been involved in this continuous surveillance technology abuse carried out against me.
If so, I have never had the benefit of any such legal redress for my grievances with regard to this matter, and my March 2001 "in person" application processing in the High Court for protection from harassment was destroyed by those carrying out the surveillance technology. I had suffered grievous bodily harm up to that point from the abuse of surveillance technology against me. That's why it went into the High Court.
There was and is no way that I could possibly take this matter to anyone in the legal profession since I have no privacy and confidentiality whatsoever no matter where I am located. This is the nature of this most sophisticated of all surveillance technologies.
It amounts to what I have called the Portable Concentration Camp and has been carried out by those connected or formerly connected with the US Marines, Colonel Vine and Lt Harry Bird.
This whole operation of false imprisonment, torture interrogation, medical experimentation and surveillance technology R&D has been and is currently being carried out completely outside the democratic rule of law in this country violating its sovereignty to such a degree that the sovereignty of the UK can be considered to have shifted to the White House.
It's not that Geoffrey Robertson is off base with respect to his speculation of Guantanamo like organisations established in this country or on a nearby off-shore island, he is actually behind in his assessment speculation because he fails to recognise the reality that such an activity is and has been carried out in this country by agents of a foreign power for at least the past seven years in my direct experience since February 2001 seven months prior to 9/11.
The problem of surveillance technology abuse is far more widespread than anyone cares to admit or cares to believe when people like me report it. This has only come to the surface because an MP was bugged when talking with a constituent in prison. The person revealing this information is suspect since he himself is being prosecuted, but he has revealed what only amounts to the proverbial tip of the huge iceberg below the water.
The sad aspect of this situation in this country is that this only came to light because an MP was involved. Now, there is further consternation that hundreds of lawyers might also have been subjected to such surveillance.
If, as a general rule, there was equality in this country which does not exist in fact, this would have never reached the point of being such a serious problem for law makers and the legal profession. But, sadly such inequality has revealed that the surveillance issue is a far, far worse problem than it might have otherwise been had the issue been taken seriously when I began to raise it publicly in September 2000.
What Tony Blair did was devolve surveillance decision making to the local level where politicisation could take place without the knowledge or responsibility of senior government ministers and, of course, the general public. I've understood what this really meant when this issue was being debated originally. I am glad to see Geoffrey Robertson describing what happened and when this occurred.
I want to point out that the government has also tried to amend the Mental Health Act along the same lines which would mean local control and the ability to abuse it for political reasons. In fact, anyone like me who tells it like it is will be labelled with a mental health problem in an effort to silence those like me who seek to tell the truth about this kind of surveillance technology and its abuse.
There was great resistance against what the government wanted to do with the Mental Health Act, and it still has not succeeded in getting passed. However, there was no such resistance against the changes in the surveillance administration which were enacted and implemented so that local control could engage in its abuses especially those for political objectives such as maintaining power.
I can cite chapter and verse for this in my environment as I have experienced it for the past decade. At some point, however, all the truth will emerge about this whole problem in this country revolving around surveillance abuses. I just hope it is not too late to do something about it.
*****End of the Email*****