|
IMAGINE it is a criminal offence to refuse medication, that the law allows forced medication. You know you have been misdiagnosed, are no threat to self or others (we did not use this phrase for people with AIDS) but you have no right to say no. In the UK the Mental Health Act takes us half way there. It also upholds drug-company and private hospital profit by forced drugging. Medics I encountered want this power. That is bad for humanity, medicine and, in the end, for the pharmaceutical industry. Supporters argue that if a medic has said you are mentally ill you are not competent to say no. Wrong. Anyway the medic may be wrong and driven by prejudice and outmoded thinking. As they were with me when they misdiagnosed me. This Act gives power to anyone who disapproves of a legitimate choice you make if they can recast it or what you have said as mental illness. It denies you defence, or a basis for opposing police arrest, as it did me in 2004, when I had committed no crimes, was, in fact, a victim. Under this Act in 2008 I was subject to physical force and threats (there was no emergency) and told by one of the male nurses (identity protected legally) who assaulted me I would be injected with first-generation antipsychotics (a bad thing) if I did not change my passive resistance. I am a non-violent person and came to that view after a very short stint in the Officers' Training Corps during my first term at the University of Leeds. Of course I will defend myself proportionately from physical aggression, which might not be attack. I have never attacked (instigated and/or with intent to physically harm) anyone. I am now cleared on appeal by Bradford Crown Court of harrassment without violence. One is not cleared on technicalities. One is cleared. The wrong diagnosis in 2004 destroyed my life and covered for wrong doing against myself by those named here and in the linked page. The physical abuse in 2008 took place in facilities run by Partnership in care Ltd. Before I was cleared of crime. By starting to fight back and getting my CRB check at the end of 2005 before a wrong caution for what a Crown Court found me not guilty of (I am still fighting this wrong caution) I learned the police seek to control those they have arrested with the mental health act by putting on CRB checks the person has been taken to hospital
| |
|
X |
|
|
but having given the person no defence. I was justifiably angry with police, medics, a solicitor (Judith Stansfield and her boss, Jonathan Lloyd-Jones of what was Linnells and is now Blake Lapthorn) and Professor Michael Worboys from the University of Manchester. We are on the road to vigilante control by medicine.Defence solictors supinely let this happen. There is no second opinion under the MHAct. All the psychiatrist does is say if this diagnosis is correct this treatment is ok. The independent psychiatrist I consulted did not have the time nor income needed to peel away the errors of his colleagues, though he went a long way.
PREVIOUS POSTINGS: 1. 11.6.09. Police Service of Northern Ireland and Suzanne Breen. 18.6.09, 15.12, bst, PSNI Statement:"Police accept the decision of the Court. Nevertheless, the investigation into this atrocity remains active and ongoing. Police will continue to endeavour to use every possible legal means to access information which may assist their inquiries. All the victims of the Massereene attack, their families and the community expect and deserve nothing less." At this stage, no media interviews/facilities are planned. Should that change, the Press Office will notify media accordingly via our recorded newsline service 028 9070 0220.
Early Day Motions: Building political alliances. Find your MP, see their political stance.
Become a Hansard Scholar.
Need to campaign in support of the belief that not printing more money until after world population grows could aid beneficial wealth redistribution based on voluntary
demand.9.4.09.
Need to oppose integration of queries of UK NHS & Police Computers and to keep medical records private. Doing otherwise could lead to civil-liberty disaster.21.3.09. |
|
Xbr>
X
X
x
|
x
|
Publisher's campaign to remove the Mental Health Act from the UK Statute book and opposition to medicocracy. Only a lawyer to have authority to initiate application to a Court to control liberty. Medicine never justification. No forced medication. No exclusion of accredited journalists from Court. Lawyers to make the case against applications not in the CJS no matter how clear the need for a place of safety seems. Deprivation of freedom never irreversible. No social worker to control liberty. Maximum sentences for crime to have specified end dates set by a judge, guided by parliament, whether time is served in prison or hospital. Prisoners, ill or not, to earn reductions from sentence . No extension to sentence. Medics denied power to deprive people of freedom. Medical consent not needed for freedom. Alleged mental illness does not make someone criminal. Mental Health Act never to be used to for arrest. The Independent reports the price of the Mental Health Act. Science, People & Politics reports recent thinking about psychiatry and genetics. Manifesto ideas. The Lancet gives thumbs down to antipsychotics for alzheimers'. Proposed change to reporting mental health. Helen Gavaghan. |
26.5.09 - 1.6.09: Ad unit script by Google below, carried by gavaghancommunications since 23.10.08. Right click to view source code.
|
|
Solid blocks on pages carrying Google AdSense script means no Google ads are being served to the page, but their script is there. Google says they have blocked none of my urls. I do not carry free public service ads. I do not know what it means if Google script is in my file manager but no ad or solid block appears. It looks unprofessional. I have no control over that. I am happy to show no Google ads sold to a page and to view the space as a venue for my advertisers, according to the following terms. Current Google policy is that you can have 3 ad. units (possibly 4 separate ads per unit) per page. I will, until 5.4.10, carry one Google unit on a page on which I place their script. If I sell three ads I will replace their unit with mine. If I sell two or one ads on a page I will keep their unit. Once my advertiser asks me to remove the ad I have sold I will replace Google's script. Google sells against searches, keywords, placement and has flagged other plans. I decide where I put the script. They apportion part of their income to the carrying website. I sell against a title, and/or my placement agreed, if they want, with my advertiser. Advertisers have no control over editorial. I will try to undercut Google without cutting my profit. Google shows different ads against my site in different global locations at different times duing the same day. My aim, which no-one currently can guarantee via the Internet, is to sell to those who want the same ad. to appear in all global locations at the same time for all the time they pay. I am offering a low price for global exposure because I cannot control national policies nor censorship. I can create an ad saying what you want in basic html. I am preparing to invite someone to write about antitrust law in today's world. www.gavaghancommunications.com (accessible also on redirect from www.sciencepeopleandpolitics.com) began carrying Ads by Google 23.10.08 as proof of concept that this is a publishing site. I plan to carry Google script until 5/4/10. Helen Gavaghan. 30.4.09.
|
|
