• Police find second hand on beach. A gruesome discovery on an Scottish east coast beach reminds me of the need for a universal DNA database.

• Who killed tenant organiser Bruce Bailey in June 1989? This gruesome discovery on a Scottich beach also reminds me of the discovery of the reverse body parts where the head and hands are missing to prevent identification. It is a murder that I believe resulted from a mob hit based upon mistaken identity.

1. Police find second hand on beach. On the east coast of Scotland two children found the gruesome remains on a beach of an apparent gangland slaying: the head of a woman in a plastic bag. The question that comes to my mind involves a universal DNA database to be able to identify such remains so that the police can begin immediate inquiries into all associated with the life of this dead person. Without such a universal database for identification purposes, learning the identity of this woman could be time consuming or even futile. Such an apparent murder needs as much information as fast as is possible to protect the public and track those who would apparently murder and dispose of a body like this.

BBC News Wednesday, 2 April 2008 11:32 UK

Police find second hand on beach

Further forensic examinations will be carried out at the beach

A second hand has been discovered by officers searching a beach where a woman's head was found in a bag.

Two young sisters found the head while playing on Arbroath beach in Angus on Tuesday morning.

The discovery sparked a police search which led to the discovery of the first hand about 50 yards away.

Tayside Police revealed on Wednesday that a second hand had been found on the Seagate beachfront. A search of the area is due to resume after high tide.

. . .

However, Det Ch Insp McMillan said it could be several days before they had the test results which could shed further light on the inquiry.

The woman does not match the records of any local missing person and Tayside Police are liaising with every other UK force to try to identify her.

Police find second hand on beach

2. Who killed tenant organiser Bruce Bailey in June 1989?. I believe Bruce Bailey was killed by mistake in a murder intended for me. All of the pieces fit together. The great tragedy of this murder of an innocent bystander who happened to look like me and lived a short distance away was due, I believe, to the failures of those in responsible positions of government in the years leading up to this murder.

They failed to do their jobs properly thus allowing a reputed Mafioso landlord to flourish by dominating and controlling the community just as has been happening in North Kensington for the past decade. He sought to kill anyone who addressed his crimes that put the public at risk from safety and health hazards. He tried to reach out and kill me but failed. In the end he killed an innocent person but was still pursuing me as I saw later.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: "Police find second hand on beach" There needs to be a DNA database to be able to identify everyone which can serve to help protect the public by quick and certain identification..
Date: Wednesday 02 April 2008 16:25
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk

The horror of children finding a head in a plastic bag is unimaginable. This will stay with them all their lives.

It appears very much as if the parts that were found, head and two hands, might very well have been removed to stop identification.

While these might be more useful for identification, this really continues the argument for a national DNA database for everyone to be used only for identification purposes. It is important to identify the person involved so that any crime and criminals can be ascertained and sought as quickly as possible.

Once upon a time in June 1989 the remains of Bruce Bailey were found in the Bronx on Garrison Avenue. He was cut up in two large plastic bags with his head and hands missing. According to the newspaper, his wife was able to identify the remains by means of a mole or similar mark on his leg.

This is a case where DNA would have served a useful purpose. It was difficult to identify the remaining parts of his body with the head and hands removed to say nothing about how horrible it must have been for his wife.

I remember this quite well because Bruce Bailey was killed by mistake. I believe that I was supposed to be the victim of this gangland style slaying. He lived just down the street from where I did and looked just like me. Several people said so. I also spotted the guy stalking me later whom I believed was responsible for his death.

He was well known for working with impoverished tenants in New York City and was often seen in the Landlord and Tenant Court in Manhattan where I was also involved in proceedings against a reputed Mafia landlord.

One day as I approached the Clerk of the Court's desk, the woman said she thought I was Bruce Bailey. His leaflets for the Columbia Tenant's Union were placed around the public area of the Clerk's office.

At the time he disappeared and was later found murdered, a woman with whom I worked said that when she saw his picture on TV, she thought it was me at first.

He was so well known and respected for his decades of tenant work in Manhattan that a special service was held at the Cathedral of St John the Divine the Anglican/Episcopal cathedral near Columbia University at 112th Street and Amesterdam Avenue. His Columbia Tenants Union was not associated with Columbia University in any way. He was known at the Cathedral because his two children attended school there. His memorial service was well attended and featured some very well known people.

Just as an indication of how important he was considered, there was a special service for Jim Henson, creator of the Muppets, held at the Cathedral of St John the Divine following his untimely and tragic death as well.

The shock of these kinds of brutal murders where body parts turn up as occurred in this instance brings to light once again the need for identification based upon a universal DNA database. It would help to deter crime if those who carry out these gangland appearing murders understood that nothing they can do will disguise the identity of the person they murder.

It is extremely important for the police to identify a body and then launch a complete investigation as quickly as possible. Without a universal DNA database this process can take a long time. Where would one begin to search for dental records or what if there is no match for fingerprints?

There is a further aspect to the tragic death of Bruce Bailey who left a wife and two children which involves the failure of those in government to properly do their job when it comes to housing and landlord/tenant problems. Had that been done in my situation when I addressed problems for several years in a building where I lived on the upper eastside of Manhattan during the 1980s, Bruce Bailey would be alive today.

He was killed by the failure of those in positions of responsibility in government at its various City and State departments as well as the courts and elected officials. Had the problems I addressed been handled properly, the sequence of events which took place that led those who tried to kill me to instead murder Bruce Bailey by mistake would never have occurred.

Which leads me to the issue of my addressing serious problems so that the safety and health of the public are protected and preserved which I have been doing in North Kensington for over a decade. The steps taken against me to limit and eliminate my activity and my life by those connected with tenant management and various parts of the government including elected officials are once again a reflection of the same failures which have clearly led to the murder of innocent people in my past experience.

There needs to be a way to address such failures when they occur in order to get a job done properly so that the criminals do not dominate and control an environment as has been occurring in North Kensington for the past decade which has resulted in putting other people's lives at risk. It's quite easy to do a proper job. It takes an extreme effort and significant resources to fake it.

Perhaps a universal DNA database for identification purposes will help eliminate body parts turning up in various locations especially where children might find them.

• Personal NHS budgets considered. Proposals are now being developed to involve patients with chronic/wasting diseases to obtain "control" over treatment decision making following after pilot projects now in place for the elderly and disabled to "control" their social care decisions.

• Seems to be a way to limit expenditure. Having experienced tenant management which was predicated on the same principle of "control" over expenditures, I believe that this process allows for budget reductions while shifting responsibility and accountability away from government. Serious abuses of power have been the result from tenant management to the detriment of tenants and residents. What are the implications for NHS health care? In my experience the NHS health care and tenant management abuses are related and intertwined.

• Government is in touch - Smith. A Health Minister says the government is out of touch with the basic realities of the working family. The politically motivated Home Secretary pounces on national television to make a verbal counterclaim that the government is in touch. No evidence or facts here just a battle of words and beliefs bandied about at the highest level like know nothing adolescents.

• With what is the government in touch? The government is truly out of touch if it cannot use surveillance technology 24/7 for almost a decade and get it right. The problem is that the government is deliberately out of touch supporting voters instead of standards thereby pandering to the criminals and antisocial types. Way to go Home Secretary.

1. Personal NHS budgets considered. While rolling out choice for hospital care, this Labour government is considering budget "control" for patients who have chronic/wasting diseases. Is this the best way to carry out health care, or is there a hidden agenda under the surface which will emerge after all the buzzwords like "freedom" and "choice" are used to gain acceptance?

BBC News Sunday, 30 March 2008 03:44 UK

Personal NHS budgets considered

The government believes that patient choice improves quality

Patients with acute conditions like multiple sclerosis and diabetes could get control of their own NHS budgets to buy treatment, the government has said.

The Department of Health confirmed it was considering the plan, aimed at long-term sufferers in England.

A DoH statement insisted patients would not be given cash, and that no money would leave the NHS under the scheme.

Health Secretary Alan Johnson said: "We want choice for everyone within a world-class NHS."

'Driver of quality'

The government is already piloting schemes across the country to allow elderly and disabled people to control the way care budgets are spent.

Personal NHS budgets considered

2. Seems to be a way to limit expenditure. Any attempt by this Labour government to shift accountability and responsibility for decisions is a cause for alarm. There is now a proposal to shift chronic disease treatment decisions to the patient. I believe that the reality of this policy proposal is to limit costs for chronic disease treatment and shift accountability for such limiting decisions to the patient.

As can be seen in the above BBC News article, this Labour government is already running pilot schemes for "elderly and disabled people to control the way care budgets are spent." This raising big questions with me as regards to how these decisions are actually being made and what are the budget amounts? My direct experience with tenant management in Kensington & Chelsea during the past 12 years where such budget "control" was passed along to tenant management with inadequate budgets has led to unfortunate consequences.

Worst of all is the shifting of responsibility and accountability from the competent, educated, trained and experienced professional to those who have none of these and haven't a clue about what to do. Tenant management in Kensington & Chelsea is a prime example of this occurring resulting in the criminal taking over along with an abuse of power that beggar's believe with abuse from surveillance technology carried out on an indefinite basis against me for raising issues pertaining to serious problems, criminal and antisocial behaviour. I comment on this further in my Email to BBC News 24 about this matter a copy of which is provided below.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: Personal Health Budgets: "seems to be a way to limit expenditure," said your presenter (Maxine Mawhinney?) in so many words. That's exactly it.
Date: Sunday 30 March 2008 11:40
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk

Reeta Chakrabarti then made the statement which the government uses to "con" everyone into acceptance: it will provide choice to patients with chronic diseases.

If the budget is limited and capped, that choice will be meaningless. The money will not be available, and the decision to limit treatment to the less expensive and perhaps less effective treatments will be shifted to the patient thus obliterating the foundation of the NHS.

The government is trying to reduce expenditures on the long term, expensive chronic diseases by sugar coating the means to cut funding.

It will also stop dissent because individuals will not have the impact of a collective voice when a similar cut occurs at the institutional level.

I believe that the administration costs of individual budgets and care especially in light of "choice" will be prohibitively high further adding to the mistake. Resources will shift further from patient care to administration.

How will it be administered? By computer system? Who will be doing the administrative work? Look at the government's track record with respect to administration in all of its aspects. What happened at the Home Office? What is happening at Terminal 5? This kind of failure is an endemic disease in the UK.

The government comes up with ideas like this to cut expenditures by stealth under the gloss of "individual choice" then imposes it without regard to how it will work thereby shifting responsibility and accountability for the decisions to limit.

The government does not have to do the work and demands that the NHS management do the impossible followed by everyone complaining about the failures in the NHS. Middle management gets caught in the middle.

Individual budgets will also facilitate the kind of abuse which is being carried out against me and limit responsibility and accountability.

Individual budgets can be determined by people other than the patient in instances of dementia or falsely claimed dementia and mental illness.

When the NHS rolls out into the community using surveillance technology for remote diagnosis, control and surreptitious medication outside a hospital environment over many years as has occurred to me for a decade, that cost can be buried under individual care for trumped up chronic illnesses that are manufactured without the patient having any input or "choice" whatsoever into what is being done.

Also, surveillance technology abuse can create chronic illnesses, and individual budgets then relate to the abused person only further denying responsibility and accounting. Look for an increase in surveillance technology abuse with a high participation of the NHS in such abuse along with its personal injuries being managed under limited, personal budgets. Nice one that.

This government reflects the essence of deceit incarnate and cannot be trusted. Whatever happened to the concept of economies of scale the NHS was meant to provide that individual budgets destroy?

Now, you can see why Gordon Brown was a failure as Chancellor.

Naturally, this could be a back door entry to an individual insurance scheme administered by the NHS which would operate with lowered budget limits currently unheard of that would deprive patients of care especially free for all at the point of entry.

This could also be euthanasia by the back door which I am experiencing directly as well through the abuse from the [lethal use of] surveillance technology which is also a means to attack negative criticism and dissent as is happening at this moment while I write.

Why is it that we do not see straightforward patient care delivered by the NHS consistent with its current structure? Do individual budgets mean that patients can choose GPs at random and go directly to hospital consultants bypassing GPs? Will GPs be eliminated or significantly reduced? Is the government trying to take away the money it gave to GPs?

This government is actually destroying the NHS as it is currently structured.

Look what happened with tenant management in Kensington & Chelsea:

I want to point out the reality of tenant management in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. Tenant management was formed in 1995 for the Lancaster West Estate (EMB) and then borough wide in 1996 [Tenant Management Organisation (TMO)]. It became a tool for under management, suppression of dissent and escaping Council responsibility and accountability.

Tenant management was a means whereby budgets could be limited under the guise that the tenants then had to make the difficult choice of selecting which essential projects had to be done weighing scarce resources against such decisions as roof repairs, waste disposal facilities or boiler replacement. All of these could not be done, and the "tenants" had to make the choices.

A responsible government management would have had to do all of them as top priority issues of safety and health. Tenant management shifted responsibility away from the Council and compromised safety and health.

If you think about it, this is much like the decision to target inflation (a "budgetary constraint") for the Bank of England then falsely claiming that the Bank of England is "independent" and free to meet that target.

What really happened with respect to tenant management at the Lancaster West Estate was the construction of 38 business units at a cost of over £1 million taking several years to accomplish including draining time and attention away from residential management priorities. The tenants and residents safety and health were put at risk.

Instead of addressing waste disposal or the delayed boiler replacement after the roof repair (which turned out to be like Terminal 5), those in power opted for their own corrupt self interest and built the 38 business units in the Lancaster West Estate disregarding the 900 residential units' needs that comprise 9% of the 10,000 social housing units in Kensington & Chelsea.

Meanwhile, the central heating system failed with it being left on throughout the summer with extreme damaging effects in the heat waves of early August 2003 and June of 2005 while the 38 business units were being constructed during these years and my correspondence ignored until I contacted BBC London in June 2005.

I was subjected to surveillance technology abuse throughout all of this. Surveillance technology was not used to identify the problems so that they could be solved. Surveillance technology was used to destroy the documentation and reporting of these problems.

Waste disposal facilities remain inadequate. Lately, it has come to light that there was vote rigging in the election of directors to the TMO. Tenant management had nothing to do with managing the properties on behalf of the tenants and residents. It was a means by which those who obtained power began abusing that power. I have a great deal to describe about this in specific terms with evidence.

This is what will happen with the so-called NHS individual budgets and why this government seeks to alter the NHS structure to escape responsibility and accountability while leaving the decision making process to the patient, an illusionary process at best, where no resources are provided.

This will result in those with chronic diseases being forced to choose between death and death. Which death by budget constrained medication will you choose?

What was that about the French health system?

3. Government is in touch - Smith. The government is in touch. No, it's not in touch. Like arguing about the existence of God in Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries. The government is only in touch with its power and how to abuse it, and you plebes can just lump it. We know how to deal with your kind says the Home Secretary. We've got surveillance technology waiting for you. This is the reality of her message. You spout the party line or else.

BBC News24 Sunday, 30 March 2008 11:40 UK

Government is in touch - Smith

The home secretary said it was important to listen to the people Jacqui Smith

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has dismissed claims by a fellow minister that the government is out of touch.

Health Minister Ivan Lewis said that, after 11 years in power, Labour was often "silent on the daily realities".

Ms Smith told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show that she disagreed, though it was "fundamentally important that we listen to the British people".

She also defended the extension to 42 days of the length of time for which terror suspects can be held.

Government is in touch - Smith

4. With what is the government in touch?. What this government has actually done is to take the vigilante mob to a higher plane with the most sophisticated technology ever known at their disposal for a decade. It's not a question of not listening, but the government only hears what it wants to hear ignoring the truth. Listening to the mob and bully gang will not generate truth. When the government carries out unlawful activities surreptitiously, it has to deny what it is doing, but many people know otherwise.

All the Home Secretary replies here to a critical comment from a Health Minister trying to maintain the image that the government is in touch when it is the Home Office that is most out of touch and deliberately so. Anyone who uses totally invasive surveillance technology for a decade and doesn't know what is happening is out of touch. Anyone who uses totally invasive surveillance technology for a decade and keeps it going indefinitely is not performing a legitimate function. Anyone who uses surveillance technology for a decade in a most abusive manner is trying to create a reality that does not exist.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: "Government is in touch - Smith" With a decade of totally invasive surveillance technology abuse carried out against me, she should know. The question is with what is the government in touch?
Date: Sunday 30 March 2008 14:25
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk

This is a magnificent statement from the Home Secretary when one considers that this government has been intricately involved in the totally invasive surveillance technology used against me 24/7 for almost a decade.

The real question concerns exactly what does this government consider being in touch means?

In my direct experience for a decade this government has supported and sustained the criminal in the community by providing these antisocial personalities with the use of surveillance technology to carry out extensive antisocial and criminal behaviour particularly with respect to hiding their crimes and stopping the person who would report them.

Jacqui Smith says that the government needs to listen. That is a joke. I've been communicating the facts and truth to the government by every means possible for the better part of a decade, and no one but no has listened. I have a very long laundry list of such communication attempts including in person that were disregarded completely.

Not only have I been disregarded, but I have been and continue to be subject to attacks to discredit what I report. The problem is not in failing to listen but in failing to stop obvious and well known behaviour that is clearly outside the law and unacceptable by any standard in a civilised, democratic society.

The abuse by surveillance technology 24/7 for almost a decade carried out on a declared "indefinite" basis makes a mockery of all that this government and especially the Home Secretary and Secretary for Justice are supposed to represent and maintain. It destroys the foundation of law enforcement and the legal justice system which is made completely irrelevant by such abuse from surveillance technology.

This government is most definitely out of touch because it cannot get a grasp on reality in the community despite the extensive use of totally invasive surveillance technology for all these years. This government wants to believe what it has created for itself in order to support image management and is all too eager to accept whatever will help that process while disregarding the reality which actually exists in the community.

Antisocial behaviour and crime have become the standards in this community in my direct experience for more than a decade because the criminal has come to dominate and control the environment by abusing surveillance technology.

• Mafia king on the straight and narrow. Henry Hill is back on the streets in his old neighbourhood after 30 years in the witness protection programme. What does it all mean?

• Reality TV, Surveillance and Organised Crime. Tenant management is worse than organised crime. How else has nearly a decade of 24/7 surveillance technology abuse been sustained?

1. Mafia king on the straight and narrow. . There's no such thing. Although Goodfellas told it like it was, the film still glorified the violence especially for those who revel in such things. What is interesting about Henry Hill concerns the fact that he was at the centre of it all and turned them all in. That's what happens in the criminal mobs. The least likely one will betray the others to save his/her own skin. Who will it be here? Lt Harry Bird, BS or someone else?

BBC News Saturday, 29 March 2008, 00:07 GMT

Mafia king on the straight and narrow

Hill can now revisit old stomping grounds without fear of retribution Henry Hill's story

GoodFellas was the definitive mafia film - and it is the story of one man, Henry Hill, one of the only survivors of a ruthless gang of robbers and killers.

Hill walked the streets of New York as a king - an associate of the Lucchese crime family. He stole big, he spent big and took vast quantities of drugs.

Then he got caught and spent 30 years in the witness protection programme, telling the police all they needed to know to put his mafia bosses behind bars.

"I couldn't walk around this neighbourhood ten years ago," he says standing, smoking outside Junior's diner in Long Island City. "There'd be bullets flying all over the place."

Mafia king on the straight and narrow

2. Reality TV, Surveillance and Organised Crime. In the Email below I very briefly compare and contrast my experience in a tenant managed environment currently with that of a reputed Mafia owned and operated residential building during the 1980s on Manhattan's upper eastside. Tenant management is worse than organised crime because it is the government, supported and sustained by the government, has the ability to use surveillance technology to attack human activity and destroy life and worst of all wipes out the ability to address these problems legally and properly in the legal justice system as has occurred. Therefore, I write about what is happening exercising my freedom of expression as best I can.

There are a couple events from my 1980s experience which are relevant here that I left out of the Email below. Antisocial behaviour which led to the death of an 18-year-old youth when he was clubbed with a baseball bat on a New Year's Day at an arcade that was not supposed to be an arcade in one of the building's built and owned by this reputed Mafioso landlord. It's the same kind of antisocial behaviour permitted here in this environment 20 years later by tenant management that can easily lead to a similar murder. These events are not unfamiliar in the UK today.

The reputed Mafia landlord who built and owned the building in which I lived in the 1980s with all its false documentation created to skim rent and gain a tax abatement created a situation where the building was almost blown up. I believe that he tried to do just that and failed to cover up the reality of what he had done. He changed the fuel oil to the boiler to a natural gas source. The boiler was so designed to be able to take either fuel. But, he did not set the mixture correctly so that it burned with incomplete combustion with the smell of natural gas prevalent continuously inside and outside all around the building.

One Saturday night there was a huge explosion that shook the building. Those of us at home went out onto the street to see the damage that had been done; windows were smashed including some huge one's in a nearby high rise and manhole covers were blown out of the street some under parked automobiles. Fortunately, no one was injured. The fire department next door (engine and ladder companies) rolled out their equipment into the street and taped it all off. I believe that the accumulated natural gas from the building's boiler had finally been set off by something underground.

Within days the smell of natural gas returned to the building and outside all around the building. I called in the gas utility, Con Edison, who shut down the boiler and gas supply locking the latter when he found the incomplete combustion in the boiler. There was supposed to be a key in a glass case for emergency access to the boiler room next to the boiler room door or instructions where to find it. There were neither. The Con Edison employee was just about to get the fire department next door to smash open the boiler room door when the porter walked into the building and ran to get the key.

The gas was not turned on again until the boiler's settings were adjusted properly. Not long after that the landlord replaced the boiler without a permit, signs or certified plumber doing so. He tried to hide the evidence about what really happened. These examples of this kind of undermanagement that put the lives of people at risk go on and on for this particular landlord. I've found the same to be true for tenant management. It's a deliberate disregard in each instance. The reason why I address problems is to make certain that people's safety and health are protected as much as possible.

The great problem with this tenant managed environment is that the local criminals are allowed to use surveillance technology to destroy my collection of information and its reporting as best they can. This has gone on and on nonstop for almost the last decade 24/7. My efforts to address this activity in the legal justice system seven years ago this month were destroy by this abuse from these same people using the surveillance technology. For this reason tenant management is far worse than organised crime because it is the government doing this while they are supposed to be maintaining fundamental standards and preventing everything that has been happening to me.

"Henry Hill" and all this comrade thugs are alive and well in North Kensington a short distance from the BBC who turns a blind eye to it all.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: Watching reality TV 24/7 365/6 is a possibility, e.g., Big Brother, Celeb Big Brother. Goodfellas (actually Wiseguys) and celebrating organised crime.
Date: Saturday 29 March 2008 13:10
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk, e24@bbc.co.uk

I found your reporting and comments on these aspects of "entertainment" interesting. Here's why.

1. Reality TV

"Are reality shows killing TV?" Response: "They are likely to keep going along the lines as before but will change to disguise itself in the future."

In the meantime reality TV in its many manifestations is fascinating to people like crowds attracted to an accident. Have you ever seen a mindless crowd standing silently around an accident victim laying injured in the street? It's a sickening sight to see.

The great problem with reality TV like Big Brother is that it creates the disposition and exploits the psychological problem of people regarding the invasion of privacy and demented need to watch what another human being does all the time no matter what it is. Reality TV is a comment about the viewer. Why would anyone want to watch such drivel?

Reality TV is helping to create the surveillance society by establishing a standard that it is OK to observe people in their private lives 24/7.

I have been subjected to surveillance technology abuse 24/7 for almost a decade in the hands of those whom I reported for child abuse in early May 1998. In their revenge and retaliation against me they managed to get surveillance technology installed in mid-August 1998 which was put at their disposal.

Since that time hundreds of people have participated in watching me inside my own home continuously. This has included all those living around me and many others from the general public. "It's better than TV" was a comment at one point. All that is needed are some fabricated allegations and a sadistic disposition from those in positions of authority to allow surveillance technology to be used like this by those who were reported for crimes.

This continuous monitoring has consisted of abuse carried out second-by-second around the clock, 365/6 days a year for almost ten years against everything that I do no matter what it is. This reflects the essence of sadism on the part of all involved in this continuous abuse that has no other objective other than to derive pleasure from inflicting pain on others while completely dominating and controlling the life of another living being.

You will see that Big Brother reality TV also caters to this aspect of the base side of the human character as surfaces in the news from time to time.

Even the television programme House with Hugh Laurie has included the process whereby medical staff break into patients' homes to determine the truth. If people want to work for the fictional character Gregory House, they have to do this on his orders. A recent line by the hospital's administrator had her asking him "Have you even ever read an ethical guideline?"

Spying and criminal acts are thereby justified by the end which they serve. It is all too easy to pervert this process where the end justifies the means so that people manufacture false allegations to justify brutal and unlawful means. In House we are meant to consider the ethics of the outrageous acts that he carries out, but in Big Brother reality TV there is no such consideration.

What is missing: television's coverage of the reality of reality TV.

2. Goodfellas, Henry Hill and all glorified crime

I am quite concerned about what people take away from the organised crime films including Goodfellas and believe that there is as much an element of celebration of the criminal as there is horror of the brutality and destructive character that is depicted whether fiction or based upon fact.

It you've lived in an organised crime environment like New York, you will begin to appreciate the horror and destructiveness and repudiate any such celebration. Organised crime dominates and controls New York and just about every other major city in the US. No one can escape the impact of organised crime in New York or elsewhere. Thugs abound and are free to act as they please.

Thuggery permeates every aspect of life. Organised crime muscles in on everything legitimate and rule by means of fear because they simply kill people who oppose them as an example, and everyone else goes along.

There have been the sensational murders in the various restaurants. One was initially out in the open at the Columbus Day celebration in Columbus Circle with its famous retaliation at Umberto's Clam House. But, the local restaurants feature in mob hits too. People disappear, and no one sees anything. One of the top bosses was killed outside Spark's Steak House on the pavement.

These are the ones that make the news, but anyone in business who refuses to do what the mob tells them, e.g., take the ubiquitous mob controlled rubbish collection, disappears for good. Anyone owning a restaurant has to accept certain products from mob controlled businesses at a higher cost.

When they've collected or are making a lot of money, they turn to property and develop residential buildings in the community which are then subjected to substandard management and maintenance. No one dares complain. Organised crime owns the community no matter where that might be. Here's my direct experience on Manhattan's upper eastside in the 1980s.

I lived in a reputedly Mafioso owned building for about six years and found out that there were multiple layers of skimming from the rent that occurred. The documents filed with the City of New York were false along with flats rented to friends to re-rent unlawfully. The management was deliberately deficient and crime was high. The point was to turnover tenants to increase the rent to destabilise and destroy anyone or any group who chose to try to address the problems. This was explicitly forbidden by law, but organised crime could care less.

I contacted many organistions in government and elected officials at the City, State and Federal level. I pursued complaints through government departments. I had the local Crime Prevention Detective meet with the tenants. Later the Community Patrol Officer Programme (CPOP) was involved and checked the building daily. There were several attempts made against my life (window shot out; tried to run me down with a truck; tracked for pick up off the street) where the final one resulted in the gangland murder of someone who looked exactly like me.

I even went through the local courts (Landlord and Tenant Court and the Civil Court of the City of New York) and tried to get the problem into Federal court all to no avail. I had been defrauded of $6,000 [in two years] and was entitled to collected triple liability damages due to the fraud ($18,000) but was never able to do so [despite extensive efforts].

The New York City government lied about the law and fought me. My appeal to New York State was upheld. The head of the law firm representing the landlord got an "ex parte" order against me by lying. I took it upwards into appeal and got it stayed. I subsequently met with a Justice in his chambers and exposed this law firm head as a liar which resulted in his being instructed "no more 'ex parte' orders." He couldn't be trusted. The lower court judge overturned his own order.

Everything changed with respect to getting help and assistance during the 1980s. It was all made more difficult and people in positions of authority were stopped from doing what they had done before. The New York City Housing Department was so corrupt that it was taken over by New York State, but the same employees were brought along so that nothing really changed. The guy in charge of the Harassment Unit who had a spectacular reputation was caught on film by the FBI taking bribes from landlords to fix harassment cases.

The great problem with the organised crime films is that they do not portray the total impact of organised crime on every aspect and every person in the community no matter where it is. There is too much of celebration and sympathy toward organised crime which thrives on fear, intimidation and killing at the drop of a hat.

3. Big Brother reality TV is spawning organised crime in the community in the UK

My experience for the past decade in the Lancaster West Estate near the BBC in North Kensington has been far worse than my six years of living in an organised crime run building on Manhattan's upper eastside for six years in the 1980s where this reputed Mafioso went from one to twelve residential buildings which he constructed and owned in the community between 1980 and 1990.

It is worse now in London because it is the government who supports the criminals in this environment by giving them surveillance technology to silence anyone like me who would dare report serious problems. The result is that antisocial behaviour and crime continue and increase.

Those using the surveillance technology can observe everything that I do and attack me and what I report which has resulted in sustaining their surveillance based abuse for almost a decade.

This also sustains a corrupt tenant management in Kensington & Chelsea. By keeping me isolated, alienated and subjected to continuous abuse, tenant management preserves a false image that does not exist with respect to solving problems.

Recently, it came out that Board Directors of the TMO were elected by fraudulent voting. Two of those involved were on a disciplinary panel judging the person(s) who brought the fraudulent voting to light. Two directors including the one who exposed the voting fraud were dismissed as directors and TMO members.

This is a corrupt organisation trying to sustain its image by fraudulent voting of directors and wiping out those who bring the matter to light. This is exactly my experience from the last decade of tenant management. The criminals are cultivated who are only too willing to carry out crimes and attack those who report crimes, antisocial behaviour and management problems.

This is far, far worse than the organised crime that I experienced directly in New York in the 1980s because it is the government who has turned to the methods of organised crime only using surveillance technology as a lethal weapon to both protect itself and kill.

If people want to keep their jobs in the various government departments, they must behave in a criminal manner just like on "House" and go out into the community to totally invade a person's privacy and carry out unlawful and criminal acts that will destroy human activity and life.

4. This is the real impact of Big Brother and organised crime films on the community

There are those who are only too wiling to carry out unlawful and antisocial behaviour thereby creating that standard in the community.

This is what has happened which I've documented for the past decade.

What you are not considering when you review and report on reality TV and organised crime films and their film festivals on TV is the fact that there is a fundamental pandering to the basest of human characteristics which lead to this becoming the standard in the community.

This is not speculation. It has actually occurred in my direct experience for the past decade.

• London Fire Brigade's well lit presence. A London Fire Brigade truck arrived under my kitchen window this evening responding to an apparent emergency call.

1. London Fire Brigade's well lit presence. Well lit with side safety lighting the London Fire Brigade (also illuminated on the side of the truck) arrives for an apparent emergency call. Apparently, this was not too serious since they departed a few minutes later.

They have been abuse by Lt Harry Bird and BS in the past who feel no compunction against calling the London Fire Brigade as part of their continuous abuse to "Get him out" harassment. When someone is removed unwillingly by force from their home, a whole contingent of emergency services are required involving the police, ambulance services and Fire Brigade. Lt Harry Bird have called these individually to "get him out" in the past including the London Fire Brigade who had to tell him to stop until he was really ready to remove me from my home by physical force.

Many members of these emergency services have been exasperated by such false emergency calls in the past and expressed their anger upon arrival. During a Fire Brigade strike in the past, Lt Harry Bird called out the police with an emergency call involving me. He was told to stop such calls during the Fire Brigade strike because police services were stretched. He could not see this for himself which was quite obvious to everyone else except BS who supports this abuse of the emergency having called the police thousands of time herself for almost a decade.

I do not know why this apparent emergency call was made to the Fire Brigade, but it does reveal the continuous need for this emergency service which is critically important in protecting the lives of people. It's a shame that people like Lt Harry Bird and BS have such a general disregard for the public's safety that they have called the emergency services for no reason whatsoever throughout all these years thousands and thousands of times. They shout continuously "We've got to get him out" and "stop him" along with many variations on this theme when I am doing nothing except documenting and reporting what they and others do.

They exploit such emergency responses and often indicate that this is part of their abusive activity carried out with the lethal use of the surveillance technology.

• Raid on street in crime crackdown. After one year of surveillance, 600 police officers raided a North London street with other raids throughout the country.

1. Raid on street in crime crackdown. If one year of surveillance can turn out 600 police officers to take over one street in North London, I'm expecting 6,000 police officers to arrive here after ten years of surveillance this summer. There is no doubt that the surveillance technology use against me 24/7 for a decade is so important and collects so much valuable information that it cannot be stopped since it is so productive. I fully expected a direct proportion of officers responding to the ultimate raid as occurred here today when some 600 officers turned out after a year long surveillance effort.

Or, could it be that these surveillance types are so grossly incompetent that everyone is trying to hide that fact? This abuse of power is something spectacular to see. Here these people know they are carrying out surveillance against someone who is totally innocent. Well, I report criminal and antisocial behaviour. They don't want me to do that. Why is it then that so many police officers are involved in a crackdown on a whole North London street to stop crime while these people keep it going? Where are the wires getting crossed? Or, is it that corruption flourishes better and is sustained more easily in North Kensington just like the Isle of Jersey?

BBC NewsThursday, 27 March 2008, 18:58 GMT

Raid on street in crime crackdown

• Point-by-point: Question time. The focus of attention from the loyal oppostion's leader David Cameron was economic. In an oft repeated reply to a broadside from the Prime Minister about his "arithmetic," David Cameron did his sums for us out loud noting that one Prime Minister plus one Chancellor creates economic problems.

• I am continuously amazed that the Prime Minister. In the frenzy of defensive riposte Prime Minister Gordon Brown makes an important misstatement of fact about 1980s' tax rates during PMQ's which requires a public correction and apology from him.

1. Point-by-point: Question time. Although this recount of the important points from Prime Minister's Questions today does not specifically note the "sums" provided by David Cameron it was repeated in news broadcasts on BBC News24 as late as midnight. The dominance of the economic agenda is clearly seen here.

I also question Prime Minister Gordon Brown's assertion that interest rates were at 18% in the early 1990s during that period's painful squeeze. As can be seen in this chart, interest rates peaked at 15% in 1990. They were 17% in 1980. They have never been at 18% as measured by the Bank of England's base lending rate. Those interest rates in the market can be higher to which Gordon Brown might very well be referring. When talking about interest rates, it's necessary to specify which interest rate is being described.

As can also be seen in this chart, the Tories took over at a time when inflation was running away and had to be controlled. Interest rates had moved up to 14% when the Tories came into office and went up another 3% before coming down again during the 1980s. That inflationary management process using monetary policy control with respect to aggregates led to the initial rise in interest rates before they began their overall decline.

What can further be seen, however, is that overall there was a decline in interest rates consistent with inflation to a point in 1995 where the Bank of England interest rate base was at 5%. The second uptick during the Tory government occurred conincident with the government's trying to control sterling's exchange rate after joining the ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism) in October 1990 which came undone in 1992, but interest rates had been falling up to this point in the early 1990s. These were two difficult recessionary periods reflecting the transistion from to old order to the new that the Tory government brought into existence during its 18 years in government.

BBC News Wednesday, 26 March 2008, 13:07 GMT

Point-by-point: Question time

• Brown criticised over embryo bill.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien speaks out against embryonic research. This will do a great deal of good for humans. It only uses the cow's egg "shell" with all the DNA removed as a medium in which to grow human DNA. It is not a hybrid.

• Neurological research is the real and immediate threat.
This is where the real malignant research is located impacting humans in the most extreme negative way with the development of surveillance technology. Why is there such outcry about this medical and scientific research?

• US lawmaker demands Tibet inquiry.
Nancy Pelosi visits the Dalai Lama in Northern India as part of a preplanned trip supporting him and calling for human rights advocacy against Chinese abuses.

• Will Nancy Pelosi demand similar inquiry for the US?.
But, why is it that Nancy Pelosi as the third person in line for the presidency in the event of a tragedy has not addressed the same kind of suppressive abuses carried out by the US government when she can effect such an inquiry in Congress?

1. Brown criticised over embryo bill. Why criticise this scientific process when only a cow's egg externals are used to provide a growing means for human embryos? It is beneficial to humans and causes no damage to living people.

BBC News Friday, 21 March 2008, 12:49 GMT

Brown criticised over embryo bill

• Rubbish on floor by front door. Why don't people put the small bags down the rubbish chutes?

1. Rubbish on floor by front door. People do not even put small bags down the rubbish chutes as is noted here near the front door. Why is that? There is a recycle Orange Bag on top slightly to the right. The Council passes these out without charge. Instead of using them for recyclables, this one is used for nonrecyclable rubbish. With crude oil prices hitting $111 per barrel this past week this kind of waste cannot go on for very long.

The recycle Orange Bag programme is an excellent one where these Orange Bags are distributed free to to be filled with recyclables and left outside flat doors on Saturday morning for pickup. Under normal usage passing these out free cannot last due to cost, but not using them for recyclables is unconscionable in terms of the need to recycle to save resources which here ignores that and adds to the cost of the recycling programme. The free society in every respect is coming to an end, and here is a key reason why.

All the tenants have to pay for those who put their rubbish on the floor since the cleaners come around and have to spend the time to put this rubbish down the chutes. This is a serious problem because their is quite an accumulation of rubbish during the night. It also feeds the vermin. I suspect that the actual cost in terms of extra employee resources required to put this rubbish down the chutes for others day and night is quite significant.

The cost for doing so is added to everyone's rent in the form of a service charge for contract cleaning. My cost for such service starting 7th April 2008 will be £3.60 per week. That's £187 per year part of which pays for someone else to pick up this rubbish that some dump on the floor. If I address this problem it is to reduce the cost to all tenants for this added burden with respect to contract cleaners as well as address the safety and health problem that leaving rubbish on the floor like this creates.

Believe it or not this is another thing about which those using the surveillance technology attack me while I photograph and report this problem as occurred today. It reflects the indiscriminate need on their part to attack for attack's sake. They are not concerned with the content of what I am doing, but they attack whatever I do no matter what it is in order to create a negative image. This helps sustain this antisocial behaviour of dumping rubbish on the floor like this because those using the surveillance technology support and sustain those who dump rubbish like this.

When the Council dumps the Orange Bags on the ground overnight outside on Saturdays to Sunday mornings until they are picked up due to a lack of recycle Blue Bins, this also contributes to the sense that it is OK to dump rubbish on the ground or floor. Someone will come along and eventually collect it and/or put it down the rubbish chute even if it stays there overnight feeding vermin and spreading microbes. I am also attacked for filming this process of dumping the Orange Bags on the ground overnight by those using the surveillance technology since it also serves their objective of creating a distorted, misrepresented and negative image about me.

Further, those using the surveillance technology dump their rubbish in this manner and want to continue to do so without someone noting what they are doing and reporting it. That is another small but not insignificant reason to use the surveillance technology against me. It fits into their overall pattern of harassment against me trying to characterise my addressing such problems as somehow wrong. This is why I make this information available to the general public in order to communicate to all in the least expensive manner possible this characteristic to expose the kind of personality who wishes to sustain and support antisocial behaviour no matter what it is.

This may sound like petty activity on their part, but it fits into a larger pattern of constant abuse where everything I do is attacked no matter what it is. For them it is significant. They have no restraint or control and respond with an attack against everything. For me it is significant to address the cost implications of this antisocial behaviour along with its safety and health hazards especially in a world where infections like MRSA which are most difficult to treat and, therefore, common now in the community are spread by such exposures of and contact with rubbish like this. Of course, vermin spread diseases too.

Those using the surveillance technology are about as far removed from responsibility as it is possible to get, yet they try to paint a different picture hoping no one will actually take a close look at what they are saying and doing. They seek to dominate and control by a constant barrage of bullying abuse and this is just one part of that overall activity. Meanwhile, people's lives are put at a higher risk for which they pay a higher cost. Ain't freedom grand?

• TMO Chair cheerleader letter received 03.03.2008. A couple days after receiving the "official" notification for the TMO Emergency General Meeting to be held on Tuesday, 18.03.2008, I received this rah, rah chanting letter from the TMO Chair.

• Suspended TMO director responds to the charges. He addressed board election rigging and the rigging of the elections for directors which apparently put him into the bad graces of the power elite among the TMO Board of Directors so that they pulled out the figurative knives which he addresses by a rebuttal letter sent out to the TMO members at the eleventh hour.

1. TMO Chair cheerleader letter received 03.03.2008. On Monday, 3rd March 2008, I received a letter from the Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) Chair, Juilet Rawlings, in support of the dismissal of the two directors from the board and their dismissal as members of the TMO. I did not like receiving this letter. Its mere receipt had the appearance of a gang of bullies trying to thump this pair into oblivion. The letter read like that too. The have really rolled out the heavy weights to stomp on these two TMO directors including the Leader of the Council as I noted yesterday. The letter with only a date of February 2008 (no day was included) consists of a series of one sentence paragraphs as follows:

"Let's get on with the job" it opens in bold face type. What job is that I asked myself thinking about what I've experienced for the past 12 years as discussed in this web journal and my web site.

"Your TMO has a lot to get on with in the next year or two." I continued to read this as I note that my balcony has been in a state of disrepair since the first week of June 1998 almost ten years ago. Oh, there was something done in October 2006, but that was never completed. The 84 tiles were not put back onto the balcony floor although it was covered in concrete over a sealant base. What exactly is this TMO to get on with in the next year or two? I do not consider this to be "my" TMO. Is this a con?

"We have to improve the service to tenants and leaseholders, while at the same time meeting tough financial targets." I haven't noted that the TMO has done much in the past 12 years except send out glossy magazines and brochures about Fun Days and, "gee whiz," just how great "they" were doing. Then they post a £200,000 deficit at the end of their last fiscal year.

"The TMO needs everyone pulling on the same end of the rope." Which end of the rope is that? Is that the end where everyone has found surveillance technology abuse carried out against one person for daring to report child abuse and tenant management failures?

"But we're being distracted because two of our board members refuse to abide by the Board's majority decisions." I am interested in finding out what those miscreants have done to incur this wrath from the other board members. What precisely have they done in not abiding by the "majority decisions?" Why have they refused to be a part of the bully mob that uses surveillance technology as a weapon 24/7 against someone it does not like for almost a decade? What is the distraction, and why are they being distracted?

"They have refused to undergo a Criminal Records check to verify they don't have a criminal past. This is important because Board members have contact with vulnerable people, including the elderly." Oh, really? Does the TMO Chair mean that such contact involving 24/7 surveillance technology abuse of the most extreme kind causing grievous bodily harm while attempting murder is not really contact, and that it is OK to make a person vulnerable with the use of surveillance technology in order to carry out sadistic abuse? Elderly, huh? This has been done to me during the past decade from the ages of 55 to 65, and everyone is still going to strong with the most extreme abuse. Has the Criminal Records check agreed to by board members stopped this kind of behaviour?

"The pair have been suspended from the Board but frankly while this carries on the Board can't do its work properly." Is this blackmail? Is the TMO Chair telling the tenants and residents of the 10,000 social housing units in Kensington & Chelsea that the Board of Directors is refusing to work and carry on as it has done before until the matter is settled in their favour? I don't see any difference. The surveillance technology abuse continues and nothing is getting done about the serious antisocial problems I keep addressing. Is the TMO Chair and the TMO Board of Directors threatening to continue to do nothing and spend more money with no effect as they have been doing for years? Are they using antisocial behaviour as a weapon to sustain their power?

"That's why there is an Extraordinary General Meeting." In a letter dated 13th February 2008 included with a mailing whose cover letter by the Company Secretary does not have a date which I received on 1st March 2008 (just two days before receiving this letter from the TMO Chair) there is the statement "Supporters of Mr and Mr have called an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to question their expulsion." This statement was signed by 19 members of the TMO Board of Directors including its Chair. The fact that TMO Board Chair claims that no work can be done properly by the Board is a red herring. Those suspended have every right to challenge their suspension in this manner, and the TMO Board of Directors through its Chair cannot misconstrue and blackmail people into submitting to their wishes in this correspondence as is being done.

The rest of the letter continues in one-line sentences like a pep rally chant repeating the same thing over and over which is called psychic driving (emphasis and capitals not added):

"We are asking members to vote YES to four resolutions outlined in voting papers sent by the independent Electoral Reform Society."

"19 of 21 members of the Board support the resolutions. The two that don't are the two that are suspended."

"Please ensure you vote either by postal ballot or at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 18 March."

"Please support the Board by voting YES."

"Your vote and your voice is vital. Please don't waste them."

"Say"

"YES"

"And support your TMO Board."

"Say"

"YES"

"To the four resolutions on the EGM voting paper."

I kid you not. This is exactly how the letter from the TMO Board Chair ended with this ranting rah, rah chant for voting for the Board and its four resolutions to dump these two directors. There was nothing of substance in this letter to convince me about what they had done. All it said was that 19 board members had ganged up on these other two and suspended them. Don't waste your vote. Support the Board. This is not really "your" Board although 14 are elected by TMO members and the other five are Councillors appointed by the Council. These people are out for themselves.

This sounds like a cheerleader chant at a sports game yelling for their team. The way I've entered it above is exactly the way it appeared in the letter. There is no closing or signature to the letter. Just this repetitive chant. Who wants this lot as a Board of Directors for 10,000 social housing units in Kensington & Chelsea? Where is the responsibility displayed in this letter that is essentially blackmail and changing nonsense? I think the whole lot should be disbanded with the Council taking over the management of its social housing stock once again.

This sounds like Lt Harry Bird and BS who continuously engage in nonsense abuse and psychic driving with false allegations 24/7. They have been commenting continuously while I have writtenthe above.

2. Suspended TMO director responds to the charges. After everyone went after these two suspended directors pending the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on Tuesday next, 18th March 2008, including the initial alarm bell from the Company Secretary received 6th February 2008 and the official mailing received almost a month later on 1st March 2008 followed by the TMO Chair's cheerleader chant of a letter received 3rd March 2008 and than the Leader of the Council's letter received 14th March 2008, there finally arrived a letter by one of those suspended directors forwarded by means of a cover letter from the TMO Company Secretary which was received by me on Saturday, 15th March 2008, This was an eye opener. No wonder they delayed it.

The letter from this so-called miscreant director was dated 7th March 2008. It should have been forwarded immediately but was not. It's arrival is only three days before the EGM while everyone else (except the Leader of the Council) got in their punches a couple weeks before this. What about those of us who are denied participation by being subjected to surveillance technology abuse 24/7 for almost a decade who have to vote by post and must send in our votes in time to get them counted?

1. This so-called miscreant uncovered and had proof of vote rigging for the TMO Board of Directors. No wonder they want to get rid of him. No wonder they want to maintain their own power and control. They cannot have someone in their midst who would insist upon proper voting standards so that director elections were fair and represented the real will of the TMO members instead of the power and control of the few who count the votes. I believe that what he uncovered is criminal and that those involved should be sacked forthwith. They cannot be trusted to uphold the trust and confidence placed in them by the TMO members, can they?

There were apparently two kinds of voting "irregularities." One involved internal board voting and the other voting for directors. With respect to the latter, this suspended director was part of an audit concerning this most serious of allegations. They were brought to the attention of an MP, and those who were interviewed for these "irregularities" were the TMO Chair, its Chief Executive, the Company Secretary and himself. As a result the TMO board elections are outsourced to the Electoral Reform Service (ERS) and are no longer run in house. Who can say how long this was occurring or what the board might look like had there been fair and honest elections of directors?

The other point regarding elections or voting within the board itself are somewhat complicated and seem to involve a convoluted system of addressing this problem. He said that he had proof that the TMO cheat at elections to a group. He had evidence. Although there was an enquiry, he was not included. The determination in his absence was made that only mistakes occurred not any wrong doing. Apparently, somewhere along the line he was given a final warning without any preceding warnings.

This director goes on to say that he was advised by the Chair to appeal the final warning. There was to be a "special disciplinary appeals panel" set up in which, he says, he was supposed to "have some input into its composition." The TMO Chair also admitted to him, he says, "that when she issued the warning she did not really know what she was doing as their was no due process."

The appeal process went ahead, he describes, with the panel including "at least two board members who were involved in the cheating allegations." He did not attend this panel appeal hearing and was found guilty. I think his absence was a mistake, but evidently he judged this panel to be a kangaroo court especially since at least two of its members were alleged voting cheaters. Who could have confidence in anything like that?

Apparently, there were four other miscreants who had received final warnings. He writes that all four were named although only two offences were noted. These were a sexual offence and a racial remark. The other two offences for the other two people were not disclosed he says. It sounds very much like there are some serious problems at the TMO.

After this first most critical point, this suspended director goes on to address the other allegations against him in nine further points:

2. Discussing confidential TMO business outside Board Meetings.

I maintain that there can be no confidentiality about TMO proceedings of any kind since this is not a competitive enterprise and its supposed objective is to serve the best interest of the social housing tenants and residents along with the community. There is no justification for hiding anything.

3. Compromising the TMO and the impartiality of those working for it.

4. Undertaking actions to bring the company into disrepute.

5. Voting against a board resolution and encouraging others to do likewise contrary to collective responsibility.

6. Continuing to refuse to do a CRB [Criminal Records Bureau] check.

He replies: "This is not true." "I have not refused to do a CRB check." "I have just not done one yet." He goes on to cite instances where several staff have come forward to describe that they have not been checked. He says that this has come from "people who regularly come into contact and enter the homes of vulnerable residents."

7. Failing to treat Board members with respect acting in an intimidating and domineering and aggressive fashion and expressing adverse views as to the competence of some Board members.

He replies "but as to the competence of some Board Members is being questioned I would have to say the incompetence and arrogance of some of the elected board members beggars belief."

8. Bullying staff of the TMO and undermining their authority.

He claims to have a letter of apology from one such witness against him who evidently falsely claimed to have been "threatened and intimated." This letter resulted from a complaint he made about this false allegation.

9. Acting contrary to the interests of the TMO at meetings of the Senior Citizens Forum in September and October and not treating TMO officers with respect.

He claims that this is "so untrue as to be outrageous." He states that he intends these allegations are to be investigated by the Council.

10. Acting in a threatening and intimidating manner towards a number of elderly or vulnerable residents, particularly when seeking votes on Board elections in June.

He says that this is "again completely outrageous." While running against four other candidates, he received more than twice the votes of his nearest opponent. He states that "bullying and intimidation" are no way to win votes. And, he goes to state "I certainly have the confidence that the TMO members have trust n me and will always support me. They know that I support them."

In his concluding remarks he states "I feel that when mistakes are made and things go wrong a veil of secrecy is not the answer." He concludes with ". . . now we have a proper elections process I am in no doubt that we will not have to rely on spin and statistics."

All of this will have to be worked out in Tuesday night's TMO EGM, but information has been scarce with regard to facts. If members are to vote meaningfully on the issues raised, they must be fully informed at the earliest possible date. This has not occurred. TMO appears to be quite mismanaged and subject to maladministration which puts into question its existence as an ongoing organisation.