• Speaking of vetting: are those who participate in tenant management vetted?

• What's to keep tenant management from becoming an organisation of or driven by people with a criminal history?

• How is it possible to put surveillance technology at the disposal of the child abusers for 8.75 years 24/7?

• How is is possible for those making a complaint to use surveillance technology against the person about whom they've made or appear to be making a complaint?

1. NHS staff working with children and vulnerable adults have not been vetted with criminal records checks because it "costs too much." I've been the victim of NHS health professionals for many years who have participated in the abuse of surveillance technology to do me great harm. At the same time they have supported the violent child abusers and have been witnesses to this violence including death threats. I have been made vulnerable by this use of this surveillance technology. These NHS health professionals have carried out this extensive abuse against me by supporting those who do in order to hide their own misconduct about which I complained.

It's an incredible situation where an organisation as massive as the NHS does not vet its personnel with regard to their criminal history at the very least. It's bad enough that those in the mental health profession can protect themselves by falsely creating mental health diagnoses against those who do complain, but far, far worse if these are people who have a history of abuse whether it be against children or adults. In this case by supporting the child abusers it appears that their siding with child abusers points to the possibility of their being child abusers themselves. In any case they are most definitely abusers of vulnerable adults made so by the surveillance technology as I have directly experienced.

In yesterday's web journal entry I dealt with the government's proposal to use NHS professionals and others as part of a "snoop" force to identify those who were likely to commit a violent crime in the future. How can any such report be relied upon if these people are violently disposed themselves? I also dealt with the Panorama programme's WiFi documentary with regard to electromagnetic radiation health hazard and went on to provide my previous night's diary/logs about my experience of the torture abuse from this surveillance technology with its immediate side effects.

I've had a whole series of adverse health impacts from the abuse of this surveillance technology about which NHS health professionals have been fully aware for many years since the last quarter of 1999 at the very least. At the very onset of the usage of the radar imaging surveillance technology from the flat above in August 1998, my right forearm and hand started swelling from lymph oedema. This was instantaneous with the surveillance technology Buse displaying the same results that were equivalent to the blood/brain breach from an immune system response I described once again in yesterday's web journal entry.

I went to see my GP promptly in early September 1998 about the explosion of the lymph oedema. I knew that there was nothing which could be done except address the source of the problem. This was confirmed by my visit indicating that only the effects of the lymph oedema could be addressed with physical therapy. A few months later I visied my GP a the end of the year once again about the impact of the surveillance technology abuse being carried out against me.

Instead, of addressing the source of the problem, I, the victim of the surveillance technology abuse, was attacked by these NHS health professionals at this time. They were doing nothing more than participating in the classic violent bully abuse syndrome where the victim is blamed. This has been going on ever since. And, these are the people who are supposed to be snooping for the police? The effect here has been to support the violent at the expense of the innocent which has resulted in the continuation of violence against children and a vulnerable adult made vulnerable by the surveillance technology. This is government policy that has already been in action for many years as I addressed in yesterday's web journal entry.

Here is a situation where the government is all one-sided supporting the professionals against the victims of their violent abuse. If the health professionals can cover themselves by falsely accusing someone of being a threat, they can then continue to perpetuate their own violent abuse while the innocent are slaughtered. There are no criminal records checks done on NHS health professionals before 2002 the article below indicates for one NHS trust organisation. This is a failing. The vetting process for Ian Huntley failed at that records checking level. He went on to kill two innocent, young girls. Victoria Climbie died from extreme child abuse because people in various agencies and departments of government failed to do their jobs.

How can the system be righted to function properly if those in the system are supported as being infallible without any checks and are permitted to harm others who have filed complaints about them? There is no means or method being established for a redress of these kinds of grievances that I have directly experienced. Instead, those in authority are made all powerful by the use of surveillance technology. That attracts the sadistic personalities who seek precisely that: omnipotence.

There is no balance here at all coming from this government in its proposals. It just keeps on continuing to favour those in professional capacities at the expense of the innocent while failures to check on the professionals themselves do not exist. When someone like Dr Shipman is reported, that report is ignored as occurred in his case where it was ultimately determined that he killed over 200 patients. How many people have Richard Evans MD and his professional colleagues killed?

BBC News Tuesday, 22 May 2007, 04:58 GMT 05:58 UK

NHS staff 'escape crime checks'

Less than a third of trusts admitted all their staff have been vetted

Criminal record checks have not been carried out on tens of thousands of NHS staff, including those working with children and vulnerable adults.

BBC Radio Five Live found 68% of health trusts in the UK do not routinely run checks on staff who began work before the Criminal Records Bureau was set up.

Some 90% of trusts responded to the survey, which came after a listener queried why she was not checked.

The government is yet to respond to the BBC's findings.

The listener - who has worked in the NHS for 16 years - contacted Five Live.

She is a child therapist and was worried that despite working in the health service for so long, she had never had a criminal record check.

The woman, whose identity has been protected by the BBC, challenged her local Primary Care Trust (PCT) about this and was told that none of the staff employed before 2002 had been checked.

The reason given was that the cost of doing so was too high.

NHS staff 'escape crime checks'

2. Tue May 22 17:57:15 BST 2007: thumping bass music starts from below. Look everybody! We're surveillance technology protected. We can do whatever we want. These are the bullies who want to keep everyone else at their level by interfering in everyone's life. These are the standards of tenant and Council management. This is what local control really means. This is also verified with a second audio recording as part of the continuous video recording that I make for the purposes of documenting all my activity with verbal notes. Thus, the audio recordings below have a backup on another media.

A. Tuesday, 22nd May 2007, at 17:57:41 to 17:58:48. Loud, thumping bass music from below in the living room.

B. Tuesday, 22nd May 2007, at 17:58:54 to 18:00:38. Loud thumping bass music from below from the living room into the hall, bathroom, front door and bedroom at 17:59:51; window sill. The music itself with voice, loud and blasting, can be heard coming in the bathroom window, front door and bedroom window.

The above blasting thumping bass and the music itself was turned off just after I recorded the above. They must have gotten in their jabs and shutdown to avoid detection. Hit and run noise nuisance blasting. As I prepare this, verbal sounds from Lt Harry Bird and BS indicate that this was a set up which another male indicated would be "sorted." Could it be that they are using deliberate noise nuisance abuse to create a problem which they then can blame on me somehow? "Wind him up!" It sounded like BS said. They have such a boring job that they must create some kind of diversion to keep themselves active.

Tue May 22 18:18:37 BST 2007: "Here we go," said a male as I uploaded the *.wav files to the web site. You see, these are the direct benefits of surveillance technology for the antisocial, misfit thugs.

Tue May 22 18:26:18 BST 2007: Siren arrives on the scene and cuts out. They have successfully wasted 30 minutes of my time.

3. Why does the Home Office piddle around with idiotic ideas like trying to predict violent offenders in the future putting that onus on the backs of front line professionals as discussed in yesterday's web journal when its disasters of gross mismanagement leave the known offenders off the records and out of anyone's ability to screen employment checks for these people who might be working with children or vulnerable adults. How can anyone be vetted if the data is not in the system?

The Home Office has just revealed that the number of serious offenders was some four times its original announced figure following a thorough review and having placed these records of Britons convicted abroad during a decade on the police computer records system. Why in the world does the Home Office waste its time doing such nonsensical things when it needs to spend time making certain that the basic job is done properly and well with fundamental management review and checks in place to ensure that these kinds of problems do not occur?

Why does the Home Office allow almost nine years of 24/7 surveillance technology to be carried out against one innocent person involving scores if not hundreds of people when it should be concentrating on the antisocial types and criminals who are manufacturing allegations to waste everyone's time and resources in their efforts to support their obsession with covering up their crimes by this abuse of surveillance technology? What is the Home Office actually doing with the taxpayer's money?

BBC News Tuesday, 22 May 2007, 16:40 GMT 17:40 UK

Crimes backlog four times worse

John Reid initially said 540 serious offences were missed

The number of serious offences committed by Britons abroad which the Home Office failed to record was four times higher than first thought.

Police Minister Tony McNulty said there were 2,198 sexual and serious offenders among 27,000 cases that had not been entered into police records.

Home Secretary John Reid said the figure was just 540 shortly after the backlog was exposed in January.

The Home Office said the new list was a "more thorough and comprehensive job".

Cases left in files

The new total includes 21 potentially dangerous offenders who were convicted mainly of murder or manslaughter.

The failure to add the 27,000 files relating to Britons convicted of crimes overseas raised fears dangerous people could be cleared to work with children and vulnerable adults in the UK.

Home Office civil servants failed to update the Police National Computer with details of crimes committed by Britons abroad over a 10-year-period.

Details of 27,529 cases were left in files. An inquiry earlier this year found the officials did not realise the significance of information sent by police forces from Europe and Turkey.

A further Home Office report, released on Tuesday, reveals 89 serious offenders were given clean histories by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) because their details had not been logged.

Crimes backlog four times worse

4. The other half of the split Home Office now the Ministry of Justice which was to start its existence has met with resistance from the judiciary who foresees a constitutional crisis with respect to their independence. The judiciary is a curious lot. They have been rendered superfluous by the use of the surveillance technology against me. All aspects of the judicial system including law enforcement as well as imprisonment have been subsumed under the surveillance technology abuse carried out against me for almost nine years 24/7. This has included lethal torture and medical experimentation.

The judiciary had the opportunity to address this problem in March 2001 but failed to do so and were scuppered by the abuse from this surveillance technology. They take exception with a reorganisation many years after this whole activity carried out against me started and is to be contained in the new Ministry of Justice under the Lord Chancellor whose position was supposed to have been abolished several years ago. The members of the judiciary are not addressing the most important problem that creates a constitutional crisis in this country which has been occurring for many years. I don't know where there heads are located (in the sand perhaps), but they certainly haven't been using them for many years.

It sounds like they cannot agree on the placement of the rearranged deck chairs while the ship of fools is sinking rapidly. Independence doesn't matter in a world where all the functions of the Ministry of Justice are carried out by those using surveillance technology.

BBC News Tuesday, 22 May 2007, 21:50 GMT 22:50 UK

Judges fail to back new ministry

Lord Phillips is concerned about the independence of the judiciary

Senior judges have refused to back government plans to set up the new Ministry of Justice, it has emerged.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told MPs it had proved impossible to reach a deal with ministers.

The judges fear their independence will be compromised as the Lord Chancellor takes responsibility for prisons and probation as well as courts.

However, the Lord Chancellor said judges and ministers were "extremely close" to reaching an agreement.

When asked by an all-party constitutional affairs select committee if ministers had a "constitutional crisis", he replied: "No, we have not. The point that has been reached is that parties are extremely close to an agreement.

"The discussions, as I understand it, still continue."

Judges fail to back new ministry