Mental Health Act

Dateline: Late 1980s, Washington DC.

During a small early morning breakfast meeting with a handful of colleagues and Senator John Glenn I asked, "What is meant by bipartisan in politics?" This, as I knew, is a topic on which theses are written. The question was in my mind a few years later as I took the minitrain beneath the Capitol and watched Sentor Bob Dole climb on with his staff. It was at the back of my mind when a friend took me with him to the annual Democrats versus Republicans baseball game. These were people with a serious attention to the rule book and they spent a lot of time in huddles if a ball did not behave as anticipated.

Now I know what the phrase ought to mean. It should be the promotion of human dignity without diminishing that of anyone else - and my human dignity, my professionalism, my aspiration, my work and scholarship, my authorship, the integrity of my intent, my journalism and my dignity and everything about me was trampled into the ground by this country from 2004. There has not been one word or act of acknowledgement nor apology for the wrong done. Worse than that - the medics locally made me out to be a mentally ill deluded criminal bitch and clutched their wrong to save their lives and jobs and fucked mine and my life and family to hell, creating a record of garbage to save their necks and to hell with me as a human being. The medics had significant help from lying, slandering immoral ignorant shits.

The profanity on this page is not for effect. It is an expression of distress at the obscenity of the MHAct which enabled the destruction of my life in 2004. The profanity tells a truth I can tell no other way. The words are not written with forthought and planned. They are my fury at the corner cutting, privacy abusing condescending lying and slandering bastards who chose to sit back and let my life be destroyed to cover their own petty wrong doing.

The specific lying, immoral criminal shits I have in mind are:

1. Ms J. Stansfield of what was Linnells in Oxford and which became Blake Lapthorn and with which I did business from 1982, giving them a good name quietly and discretely as and when I could. In a conversation in mid April 2004, a conversation instigated by me via a letter to her as a solicitor for what I thought was a low key issue, she said in a subsequent conversation without prompting from me that her firm had no one dealing with national security, criminal law or litigation. She then said I had mentioned national security first, but refused to tell me when. She wrote to me obliquely on her firm's letter heading reinforcing her then advise as a solicitor that I find a large local firm in Leeds or Manchester to help me but would not tell me why she had spoken of national security. At the time of her words there were many connections I did not make. But one is that in 2003 I told her of a possible intrusion to my office. I had no record of imagining such things. On that occasion in the faall of 2003 we were speaking wholly as friends over dinner when I was staying with her in Oxford, where I was doing some research at Nuffield College. I accepted I might be wrong and deliberately did not go to the police. I was worried but I asked for no intrusion into my life until I chose to go to the police at the end of January 2004. Myself and Ms Stansfield had never, as far as I know, had any confusion about our profesional and non professional role in one another's lives. I have never claimed to be anything other than I am.

Following Ms Stansfield's words I did not seek a large firm in Manchester or Leeds because in 2004 there was no reason why I needed a solicitor having anything to do with criminal law, litigation or national security. And others seeking to project their shit onto me is not acceptable. But in view of Ms Stansfiled's word there were legitimate issues it was my responsibility as a journalist, editor and author (significant proof of this exists) to raise with a police officer of some seniority. It was then that I discovered that locally I was viewed as a jumped up twit.

Ms Stansfield gave these people enormous comfort. She was a slandering life destroying bitch because she then denied her own words and made me look deluded. The consequences of her denial of our conversation and her refusal to be open to clarification of her meaning and mine - which given our professional relationship was a reasonable request of mine - did me enormous damage.

Her firm has since offered in writing to act without cost as my executors. They have written my Will through the changing circumstances of my life since I first wrote one in, roughly, 1983. They are acting now wholly with my consent and at my wish. They were paid for all their services to me through my bank account with NatWest and at reasonable rates, which qaccount I opened in 1976 and held continuously at the same branch until 2006. Blake Lapthorn owes me one hell of a lot more than what they have offered. The firm was called Linnells, and those who did business with me until 2002 will know them as such.

2. The Local medical profession, some of whom, for example Dr David Burley and Dr Balraj and others, ought to be struck off for egregious clinical incompetence and clinical negligence, lack of compassion and basic human respect. I showed them total respect. Do not blame me if they fuck your life to shit as well as they did mine. I tried to fight but one cannot fight when you are being lied to and do not know what you are fighting. And when you do not see why there is any need to fight rather than talk, but clearly there is some kind of problem because others are coming up with unexplained garbage that has nothing to do with what you are saying but some fantasy of their own, such as the mindless idiocy of David Hargreaves saying that I thought I was a secret agent. No. Wrong, and the tape exists to prove that. Was it your intent to seek to undermine my relationship with those I had done business?

3. Professor Michael Worboys, director, CHSTM, a liar, thief and charlatan, passing on slander of me from his staff without telling me who or what was said despite the significant consequence he was suggesting and then telling me later the security forces were already on my case and assuming he could just walk away from the rude and defamatory things he said to me on 16.3.04. It did not cross my mind that the issue was not an easy one to resolve. I had a deep repsct for his work. I was writing a transfer report from M.Phil to Ph.D at a major international University not a friggin sixth form essay. None of this was public prior to the need to submit a debtor's petition for bankruptcy (case 362 of 2006, 8.11.06).

4. Dr Julie Anderson, arrogant and ignorant, who behaved in July 2004 like a vigilante thug and not as an academic and, as far as I know, exceeded her authority. My contact with Prof. Worboys in 2005 makes clear I was then still a member of the University.

5. Inspector Ian Dellow who, in mid 2004, told me that a D-Notice would apply and would not tell me what to. He and a bunch of shit, nasty petty minded bastards thought my fear and distress was a real joke. I, as a journalist, author and editor, and have had significant contact with the military in my professional capacity and on both sides of the Atlantic. You bastards (WYP) and medics. None of those who were my sources are in need of any protection from me.

Did you all enjoy fucking my life to wasted shit and hiding in the grubby skirts of the MHAct and the incompetence of local medics fed on old wives takes and shit?

I think that without the MHAct and the nasty belittling attitudes it inculcates that the destruction of 2004 would not have been possible. Have I just fallen into a backwater of ignorance or do the brain dead abuse this Act in other parts of the UK? And fellow journalists - how would you feel? No way to defend yourself without betrayal? Which I did not do, but not trying to speak to the police in light of Ms Stansfield's words would have been.

I would love to see a bipartisan approach in the UK (I am a UK citizen) to the full repeal of the MHAct, and without any provisos. This Act is a con perpetrated by medics to build their power base. It is not about medicine. It is about control fraekery and condescension and disempowerment. It iss a money grubbing pile of shit.

There is never a reason to section anyone medically and those who think there is need sectioning themselves --- for real --- so that they learn first hand exactly what impact it has on a human being. How easy it would be to section people for speaking out of turn or refusing to stop smoking. Or to call anyone mentally ill and to drive them mad by not saying why you think that and to destroy their lives as you did mine.

It is not something I have ever done to anyone nor been a party to. I have gone out of my way to be there to allay anxiety even when I was not noticed. Not always, but in small ways I have tried. I have taken calls without complaint at unsocial hours. I have stood up to the medical profession to say no that person may not have ect. I dare say people wanted things from me I could not at the time give but that does not mean I deserved to be treated like a deluded criminal bitch or naughty child. And I have not refused to take calls of distressed people. I once walked past someone who was crying in the Street because I did not know what to do. And I have insisted on living and my right to live and work where I will, which others might have seen as me abandoning them. But why screw my life up? And that is what you did by official channels in 2004, and used the passive aggression of silence to make bloody sure you finished the job off. Or did sick pieces of manipulative shit take advantage of your love and lack of knowledge to say it was necessary to behave as you did. If the latter is true I want those criminal pieces of shit in prison.

But if you are being hassled beyond what you think is reasonable and you have told that person, though your request that they not contact you might well be deeply unreasonable, then tell the Police. If it is criminal harassment it is irrelevant whether they are mentally ill or not. Your allegation if honest is not a crime. I think Paul Sclare and his lies of silence are a crime, and I think the police talking shit about a D_Notice and making out is was me is also a crime. I think the police refusing to treat me courteously and with respect once I told them of the words to me of Judith Stansfield, Ian Dellow and Mick Worboys and what that led to me trying to say were verging on criminality and need to find out if they were. I think if any piece of prying shit sought to take over and by pass me, justifying their shit on the gounds that I was being called mentally ill that they are criminal shits. One hell of a lot of people were and are gullible morons in the face of police and medical shit.

In 2004 I had nothing but respect for the medical profession and for those who slandered me, lied to me and attacked me or sought to physically constrain me. I had treated them with nothing but respect. I only found out that something nasty among them was going on behind my back when I started to write for records in the second half of 2004. I did not know what was and was not diagnosis. I had no idea why I was being treated as shit. I went and asked my GP for help and advise and clarification. He -- Dr David Burley - said no. No explanation. Nothing. Total refusal. That worthless piece of shit presumably thought his shit colleagues had told me their views. Well the grinning pieces of second rate asshole shit had not done so. I wrote for notes because I was angry and hurt by the profound disrespect for me as a human being and as a professional woman. And because none of the bastards I sought help from had explained one damned thing.

I am now a journalist (have been a journalist since 1980), author, website creator and manager and editor. But the MHAct and its foul silence and lies and condescension and the delight it seemed to give so many to call me mentally ill without telling me that was the basis they were operating on drove me to bankruptcy and destroyed all that my life was about. It is impossible to tell you how much damage to me you did, those of you among my friends who in 2004 told me without any justification to fuck off and not to contact you. I wish I had never in my life encountered you. And I never used to use this type of language a in a routine way and certainly not for print.

I write not very good poetry, most of which I have lost and certainly I have lost all the trust and poetry in my soul, and I create pretty good art illustrations of exploratory concepts in science and technology. See my profile in the NUJ freelance directory, accessible from my home page and see http://www.gavaghancommunications.com/gcexpertise1.html. I can move quickly for a news story and have done many times. I have covered breaking news reading straight to page at the last minute and written many features. I have that competence still despite the abuse since 2004.

When my medical nightmare started on 6.3.04 I was not acting as a journalist but as a patient. I had no idea why I felt like serious shit, which was why I asked to be taken to hospital. I could feel myself fading in and out of consiousness you assholes. What the fuck did you think was going on. Why the bloody hell is that mental illness? In fact I did not think I would ever again be writing about anything for public print or for publication (well other than a thesis and a book if possible), which is what this website is, in which there was any likelihood of clear and presant danger for me or for anyone. Nothing about any of the issues at this url, on the url myresearch.html or previous.html was public until after I had to submit a debtor's petition for bankruptcy (case 362 of 2006, Halifax County Court, 8.11.06).

I have over the years drawn very little on the NHS. I have never ever once wanted to kill myself, but I learned in 2004 it was a rational choice. That despair emerged as fury from me a year later when talking to a friend by whom I felt deeply hurt, not realising that she also was motivated by this shit Act of obscenity and was working on the assumption I was a lying deluded bitch who had suddenly lost the plot. Why assume I, not others, was the liar? Why assume I was such worthless trash that no one would commit crime against me, even though they had proveably done so in the past. Or was I past my sell by date in your life, and you, like others, had not the guts to tell me, leaving me thinking I had a friend I did not have?

In your interactions with officialdom you (who acted via my GP in mid 2005) did exactly the right thing. Thank you. They did not do the right thing. The medics abused my privacy and yours.

On 6.3.04 I was happy and well and thought I had solved all my money problems in a very small and modest way. I had no secret deep illness, no terrible trauma or betrayal that I knew of. I had worries and stresses but, with one exception, they were not outside norms, and I was dealing with them sensibly. But I felt ill enough to ask to be taken to hospital, and was more ill immediately afterwards. Not mentally ill.

So I really do not know whether I have run into lousy medicine or into an a medical norm for those whom medics think are deluded. If the latter then it is wrong and in all cases. If I was deluded not telling me when you have concluded I am deluded and why and what you think is the specific delusion is or how it manifests itself is of no help to me nor to medicine. If psychosis is another word for delusion you should have told me. Yes I might deny that what you thought was delusion was delusion, and may well be able to prove it. We would have had something to talk about and could explore why you think what I am saying is a delusion and what proof I might have that it isn't or is not what it seems. If you thought I experienced manic episodes you could have told me. I do not and did not but that was what Dr David Burley was googling when I asked him for explanation. Yes I can write 10 000 words fit for publication working round the clock over 60 hours (with time out for sleep, and I have done - after a short period of research). That is not a manic episode. That is my business not yours. Though you have fucked that business to hell and destroyed it. And do not fucking dare take work in progress and treat that as the final product.

You - oh medics and doctors - never once said to me we/I think you have schizophrenia and are experiencing aural and or visual hallucinations, or - we think you have delusional disorder or a mental illness, such as bipolar disorder, which has a component that can distort interpretive ability of external realities (that would screw my job to hell would it not -- had some shit said that to Worboys - you viscious bastards -- oh hang on -- you have screwed my life to wasted impecunious garbage have you not? Whoever the hell you are.) But that is what you were destroying my life with without ever once allowing yourself to realise you could be wrong. Well an expert has formally disagreed with you. But the expert has also compromised his own expertise. How many thousands? How many bloody thousands have been misdiagnosed and was the misdiagnosis because of this Act and/or medical methods? It is your job to write that book. Not mine. So how come no medical journalist with a degree in medicine and qualifications at some stage in their career in psychiatry has rung me up and asked to see the notes and asked me to tell them this story? Do you need my consent to say I will accept if you think the notes or what I say would also have led you astray. Fine. You have it. I would accept if, after I tell you my story, you also think I am deluded, but it would be nice were you to tell me why, then we might find out what the delusion is indicative of, and actually whether you also are wrong -- and unless delusions means something I do not know, then you are wrong. I am copying proof of who I am to solicitors, by the way. None of what I have said so far in public is a delusion and I cannot diagnose myself (and no longer am asking for diagnosis save in as far as I can use it to sue the shit out of those who got this all wrong if their act was wilful wrong). This is journalism and you have no damn right to interfere with it save by formal injunction for formal grounds and via a letter from a solicitor petitioning in civil law, because there is nothing criminal about what I am writing and I am not the one in the wrong. So here are a few journalistic questions: Is it normal not to tell the patient what you think is a delusion of/or a psychosis. Are you totally nuts? Is it normal to withhold diagnosis from the patient? Is it usual to refuse to accept their denial might be true. If it is a norm the practice must stop. The medical profession must open themselves to correction and dialogue. They need to not shoehorn all they do not understand into one portmanteau diagnosis of convenience.

When I asked on 23rd March if I could have been exposed to spiked food or drink Dr Boston said it was too late to test. So how could you use that for diagnosis? I dropped that thought after you said that. Or did you use other things later like my reaction to Judith Stansfield's (a solicitor) words which she then denied having said and would not explain to me why she had given me the advise nor how it related to anything I had said to her.

Had you said what you meant we could have homed in on the thing you thought was a delusion. I am not today experiencing a repeat episode (6.3.10) of anything. This is one single episode of fury at having had my life fucked to hell and being made to look like a deluded criminal bitch when I am not and was not. But I was ill. You had no right to call that a psychotic episode and then to label me with any kind of chronic mental illness without serious exchange and discussion that could have shown you were wrong, as you are and were. What have your pathetic lurid imaginations grasped to brighten your lives.

By not giving specifics to me in 2004 you made your diagnosing impossible for yourselves, destroyed my sense of self and made your diagnosis unassailable when it is not and ought not to be. You refused me any redress. I cannot do that in my job. I cannot screw lives to hell with impunity. I have not done so. You did. Those named above and they are quite able to act on their own behalf and do not need third parties messing things up for them. You also denied yourselves even the chance of being right. Unless they had been waiting like vultures for me to do anything they did not understand so that they could jump on me in their pre Lemarkian idiocy and call me mentally ill. I did not think so at the time. But now I sure as hell would enter a fair comment defence for this statement.

And how your treated me like sick pathetic lying crimial shit. Fun for you was it? What the hell had I done to make you pieces of lying game playing ass hole shit hate me so much?

The quality and apposite nature of my job applications and work bids in 2004 and 2005 (the latter, at the end of 2005, was an application to the Royal Society and was of high quality with a polite explanation of why I did not win the bid) proves (I knew damn well I had made the right move in going back to University), I would contend, that I was not after 6.3.04 running down capital wilfully or playing at trying to bring in money. Nor was I before, as I discuss at the url http://www.gavaghancommunications.com/previous.html. I was (and am) a serious contender submitting real bids for real work for realistic prices, whilst knowing Michael Worboys, my head of department in 2004/05 had probably just fucked to hell any good word I was owed and which might have come my way for a NASA bid I was then making (and submitted). I knew damned well he had just thrown away two years of my life in sheer slandering lying nastiness and had wasted the choice I had made in how I spent my life's investment. Actually it was my whole life he was participating in fucking to hell.

Luckily some of my student peers thought better of me than he did. He sure took the heart out of me for that bid, but I still submitted it. Well most of 2004, actually, and all subsequent life was screwed to hell by Worboys and his crap and Judith Stansfield of Blake Lapthorn (formerly Linnells in Oxford) and her totally needless denial of her words and by the local medics and by Paul Sclare (who I would never have met had not Judith Stansfield from Blake Lapthorn not said what she said and then denied what she said and WYP tretaed me as a moron in view of her words -- you worthless bitch to expose me to such shit for the want of one tiny shred of truth, and until the day I die my hatred for Sclare and his subsequent arrogant nasty manner of responding to me when I approached him courteously in the fall of 2004 for explanation of his abusive behaviour in June/July will suffuse my being. You piece of judgemenatal shit. And I do not want to hear any words on your behalf about you are not a piece of shit and how you help the downtrodden. You are an incompetent diagnostician. Totally bloody arrogant and incomepetent. You were a criminal nasty vindictive, ignorant piece of shit in your behaviour toward me. And no matter what you were told that is totally unacceptable in someone of your standing with your responsibility to behave the way you did. I will not let you seek to look good by seeking to heal the distress your arrogant excluding laziness caused in the first place. None of you. If you set thugs onto patients to drug patients against their will you are a piece of shit. I would not have minded a mistake. If you thought I was so ill why the bloody hell not tell me what you were doing and why? Why the immediate assumption I was the lying deluded bitch? How easy it is for you apologists of this obscene act to defend your thuggery by claiming your victim is a danger to self or others, and how easy it is for you to make up whatever you want. Well two can play at that shit game.

Try it now and I will sue your shit guts for friggin garters.

I was also in touch with journalists who were friends. I was not trying to sell them this story. I was relating to them as my friends. Except for one. In the case of Mr Tim Bishop. Mr Bishop holds a senior managerial position in the BBC. He is a very good friend and it was the shit about D-Notices and Stansfield and Worboys and their crap I was trying to warn him about. And I have a profound respect for the quality of his jouranlism, which I have discussed with him many times. It is very good indeed. But I was not able to make much sense to them because I had no fucking idea what was going on. Since no one was telling me, despite the fact I was asking.

I was happy on 6.3.04 at the thought I would not be writing any more journalism. And my journalism has never been strewn with swear words and has usually been very well presented. Take two editors and they will create for publication something different in consulation with the journalist. I had worked very hard to move in a new direction in my life. No one but me was paying for this change. Not the State, not my family, not a grant. Me. Out of my life's work, and it was a sensible business decision for me as a sole trader with the resources I had and one which I undertook in a fiscally responsible way. I had reached the stage in this transition where I was preparing a transfer report from M.Phil. to Ph.D, part time, and I knew from the work of second and third year student colleagues and from completed theses that I was well on track.

But ten days after the medical nightmare began on 6.3.04 a second unexpected nightmare opened for me on the academic front. It led to a bad case of resonance, shattering a nice looking bridge because of an unexpected frequency. At the time it never crossed my mind there was a connection. I do not know now that there was, but the medics gave CHSTM a get out clause for the immoral behaviour of Michael Worboys. I walked innocently into a brick wall erected by Professor Michael Worboys, director of the Centre for the History of Science Technology and Medicine on 16.3.04 . The Official Receiver has seen my bank records and a colleague who gives a shit and has not viewed me as an irritation who thinks she is more important than others has had contact on my behalf with Professor Worboys. In other words none of the above is a delusion. The final nail in the coffin was garbage being spoken and about national security (what did I say that made you say what you did say, was it because when we spoke as friends I had said there might have been an intrusion to my office?) and a D-Notice, which I never said, nor did I say anything about "interference" by another State. It was Ian Dellow who asked if I was a security force informant or paid police informant and then said I had claimed things I had not. I am neither. It was him who said a D-Notice would apply but would not tell me what he was talking about. It was him who said I had made allegations I had not made. I did not realise that he and David Burley were making a fool of me. You utter worthless shits. To behave like that to someone who has had significant contacts in or connected with the military during her professional life? I suppose you believed I not Judith Stansfield or Michael Worboys was the liar.

After 16.3.04 (a separate abuse of power through denial, slander and exclusion which ought to have been easy to correct) I suspected I might need to regear and return to journalism in part, but I did not think this deeply for another couple of months, because I thought Professor Worboys would behave reasonably and as a head of department and an academic and explain to me the many damaging things he had said to me. He did not. He left me reeling watching my whole life's aspiration and work being fucked to hell just at the moment I thought I was getting on so well - and that really is how it was. Did someone tell you I had misrespresented myself? Never. And any underreporting of my competence was not deliberate. I applied for a job as a news editor, was short listed, interviewed and took a test. It never crossed my mind to mention other events in my life and I doubt I would have mentioned much even had I been offered the job. Oh and this also was a real job and for an editor who had in the past employed me - there are quite a lot of them. And the test was a doddle and I understand why the candidate who got the job got the job. I do not think for a second relaying the medical garbage would have impacted whether I got the job or not.

The minute I, in innocence some time after 16.3.04, told my head of department of having gone to hospital he wanted me to see the University stress counsellor. I had no desire to do so and there was no need. I was, I thought, dealing sensibly with my GP about what I thought was a weird one-off event he would help me to unravel. But my GP was on a mission that had fuck all to do with medicine. I did not until 22nd March wonder whether I could have had food or drink spiked. I am still only asking. But then later Professor Worboys cancelled meetings and froze me out and wanted me to see the University doctor. Does it sound as though he did that because he cared in any way for me? No - he did not. He did that because he did not want to tell me what had been said in slander about me which had led him to say he would facilitate my moving to another University. This was his ticket off the hook he had put himself on. He was well out of line and he caused massive distress by hiding what was his shit not mine in the false medical get out clause I unwittingly gave him.

The medics in the Calder Valley through Dr David Burley were so damned arrogant and uncaring. I had no means to know they would dream up without telling me that I had some major psychiatric illness.

Which a year later I discovered MIGHT have been what had gone on, but now have a report saying I do not have what they thought -- schizophrenia. Though that report also fails to go back to the beginning and ask if there should ever have been a diagnosis.involving psychiatry.

And it sure as hell never crossed my mind that if they thought I ought not to drive that they would tell me. These worthless pieces of shit thought I had schizophrenia in a major debilitating form (they must have got their degree at the University of Micky Mouse) and Dr P Sclare's nurses (he had sat and watched my misery and tears on 20.6.04 without any discussion before he abused his power and fucked me over without telling me what he was doing and why. Then he pissed off for the weekend leaving me wondering what the fuck was going on) helped me load my car for driving down major motorways and not one doctor said you ought not to drive. Well luckily I can drive and can drive well. At least as well as 80 per cent of those I know. Since the road was the same to me as it had always been (I have three points on my licence for doing 37 in an 30 zone in 2003 and paid my £60 fine and mended my ways) it never crossed my mind not to drive. The result of their lying sneaking shit in the end cost me thousands of pounds I could not afford and made me look like a criminal piece of shit who did not care about others (what these arrogant shits, who are not of value to society within this stinking act, could earn in a few months, but it took me a whole fucking life - and no house - to have in the bank) just as Michael Worboys was screwing to hell the intellectual investment of a life time at a time when it was too late for me to go back, and in doing so fucking to hell the earning potential I had been developing. Sexist, chauvenist pieces of fuck-witted deaf idiocy who screwed a professional woman's life to shit in their brain-dead fucking idiocy and destroyed my trust, my liking, my respect and the gentleness in my bieng. It makes total sense that juries no longer have a part in financial trials.

It is totally wrong for the State to mug someone for their driving licence without explanation, need or wrong doing by the person simply living their life. And if the person rings up and ask before giving it back, as I did, then you ought to tell them why. This was not an act in defence of public safety. I actually have asked a barrister who has sat on Mental Health Tribunals the question -- if I had schizophrenia (which I do not) was I supposed to not drive. He said, "I do not know". It was not a question I could ask at the time because I did not know it needed asking but the medical shits were writing notes to make it look like I not they were the criminal shit -- and crime is knowingly taking from another person what you have no right and no need to take, and those bastards took every bloody thing from me in total incompetence with lies feeding the old wives tales of those who have never studied a tiny iota of science beyond the age of 13. I was thinking that science was getting above itself. Now I agree totally with the need to ring fence the science budget. People who cannot be bothered to study even the basics of science fucked my life to hell.

And when you sent me my licence back you should have told me why. I sold my car because of you shits and lost thouands (a few but all I had) and then had to buy another.

Imagine you have a car that breaks down because it has a hard to pin down fault and you are trying to get this mended and others assume they will use allegations of mental ill health to get you off the road. Great way to save the environment and fuck a life to hell - sarcasm. This sound and fury is because I am still in denial that so many viewed me as such a piece of shit to tell brain dead nasty lies to and about, and in shock at how many people I thought really liked me viewed me as crap in their lives and wanted rid of me.

I wrote the first official history of the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (Eumetsat - 2001) and Something New Under the Sun, Satellites and the Beginning of the Space Age (Copernicus, New York, November 1997) and contributed the application satellite section to a Childrens' Encyclopaedia of Space, published in 1999. Among quite a lot of other things.

I do have a right to know if you thought I was deluded and what specifically you thought the delusion was. It is not your job to prevent a police investigation nor to save me from charges of wasting police time or anything else. I neither need nor want you as a defence solicitor. Not you and not your friggin responsible adults. You arrogant shits. You might be called on in defence, but you are not defence. You might be the problem. No way will I let you unload your clincical negligence and deliberate incomptence on me. And if it was my question I asked why were you treating me as mentally ill even though I dropped the question and did not raise it with the police? Not until after June 20th. And the only reason I asked then was because I had nothing else to go on.

I was not mentally ill. I was not deluded. I did not hear voices and see things that were not there. What I might have experienced that ld me to feel physically ill and ask to be taken to hospital on 6..3.04 I would have discussed in privacy but you did not give a shit. You were off on your own dimwitted path. You were too eager to foist a chronic mental illness on me rather than consider whether there had been a single event that had sod all to do with mental illness. I was not criminal, and have been cleared of crime by the Crown Court. I had made no false allegations against anyone. But I have been left with nothing. I genuinely have had to live in fear of Fascist lying second rate viscious nasty minded shits. Like the trash who enjoy the experiment when you give another human being a shock and enjoy watching the hurt it causes, as those giving the shock sit watching the poor sod who is wondering what the hell is going on.

But the way to solve this medical problem is not in my view to share the authority with nurses and social workers. The NHS I encountered has become a cesspit of privacy abuse and lazy reliance on notes that can kill. Which nurses and social workers ought to have no access to without the patient's consent - and only then in a limited way. And sure as hell not the Police. Unless the patient says so. The psychiatrists need to come out fighting, remembering what they are trained to do. Patients all need to insist on their questions being answered. It is their lives not the doctor's which is at stake.

Psychiatrists need to be reminded they are physicians who ought (can) in an emergency pick up a scalpel. They need reminding that the brain is part of a physiological system. They need to be locked in a cage and given an injection of their own shit drugs against their will so they know what it feels like to be dehumanised and excluded by assholes. Then they might have some psychological insight. At least oncologists have learned to tell their patients the treatment will hurt, and why it is needed.

The psycchiatrists ought to be given time to explore diagnoses in total privacy, if the patient is willing, and not to have to share their views and unfolding thinking with anyone other than the patient. What the hell were you doing with the hour I spent with you Dr Balraj? What the bloody hell were you doing? And who did you tell without my consent before you told me and who the fuck did you tell in addition to me you confidence betraying bitch. What a waste of the respect I had for you.

Psychiatry is not emergency medicine and emergency medicine ought not to think of psychiatry ever when a patient turns up in distress, as I did. And not for a psychiatric condition. If an emergency room thinks there is a psychiatric dimension suggest the patient on discharge goes to their GP or calls someone. I was not alone. You had no right to shunt me to psychiatrist without a single blood test, or question about my professional life, or cross checking with me the detail of my then personal circumstances, or how I came to burn my hand. You were sexist, ageist, prejudiced, life-destroying ignorant bastards in the manner you behaved toward me at Halifax (UK) A and E on 6.3.04. You covered for yourselves and later your colleagues behaved like second-rate private eyes in a B-Movie rather than tell me what you were thinking and why and relating it to what they thought was a symptom and things I had said or done. You cause pain and anger and destroy life and cause fear with threats and abuse and then call that a symptom rather than the justified response to your life destroying shit. I am not in denial and exhibiting a symptom. I am telling you you were wrong, and your protected you wrongness by not telling me what you thought specifically and what you thought was a symptom. I speak English and had spoken with you with respect and you asked not one intelligable question. I wonder what you would have diagnosed if you had said: I am going to assume this patient has no chronic mental illness and I have no presupposition or hypothetical diagnosis in mind. If you had explored physical symptoms with me without you preconception that the words I was using meant what you had prediagnosed rather than what I was trying to tell you.

By not telling me the basis of your thinking I could not challenge you or explain how you were wrong.. You did this to yourselves. Not me. Did you get Juidth Stansfield to participate in setting me up with her shit about national security so that she could deny it, and then you had a made up symptom to make me look like a deluded lying bitch when I am not and was not? You belong in prison.

Before I was at last acquitted by the Crown Court of crime I ended up in a prison hospital -- there was no need for me to be in any kind of hospital. The nutritional value of the food in the place where I was wrongly imprisoned within Partnership in Care prior to my acquittal, and wholly because of how I was treated, responded to and ignored in 2004, and where I was treated as too stupid to know my own name and without any right to say no to chemical thuggery by bastards with the mind set of rapists -- and do not kid yourself that that is not what you are doing -- was then Weightwatcher perfect and well cooked - if one knows the Weightwatcher principles, which I did and do, but there is no incentive to life or aspiration. Privacy is abused. These people at Partnership in Care had not simply been imprisoned temporarily for crime (serving sometimes long, long after any sensible tariff). We had been deprived of all human dignity by society and the medical profession. That kills something. And you are surprised when people cut themselves or try to choke themselves? Have you any idea what viscious ignorant damage you have done? With your silence and manipulation and forcing on them what they say no to? Prison at least treats one as a human being. Unless one is abused chemically there as well.

If one is sentenced for crime then do not pretend you are in hospital primarily. But do not assume an act others say is crime was crime. Never, ever, ever let a defence solicitor tell you you are guilty. If you are deprived of freedom after being found guilty of crime then you are in prison, even if the choice has been made to send you to hospital. And one does not need a law to be sent to prison hospital rather than to prison. If you are deprived of freedom after being found guilty of crime you have done something wrong. You are not there for corporal punishment through physical or chemical thuggery, but to stop you abusing others. And others being annoyed by you is not necessarily criminal abuse by you. If you are not guilty and have been wrongly convicted you need a defence lawyer and a sympathiser to be an advocate on your behalf. Mental illness, no more than unbearable pain, is not a defence. If you eventually accept you are deprived of freedom for committing crime you understand and acknowledge then you can fight for a prisoner's rights and for rehabilitation and treat the staff, medical or not, as the arms of the prison service they are.

Which does not have to be a bad thing. Have you read swear words from me. If you knew me as I was before those named on this site destroyed my life in March and April 2004 you would know just how much damage the medical profession did. I have no respect for anyone who would defend their actions and behaviour toward me or seek to silence me. I have no interest in anyone seeking to make light of what I am reporting here.

If you are in a psychiatric unit having served beyond the maximum term you would have served had you not been labelled mentally ill then I would like to know, please. If you are there having been arrested but not charged then I would like to know, and if your family have put you there I want to know.

Does it matter how good the food is in such a situation? Well we are your experimental animals refused the right to say no to drugs and the answer from me is no. And some of the people who had committed (I had not and was cleared on appeal) crime were vulnerable - really vulnerable. As I was, because of the medics. I do not like others pilfering from me and spiking food or exposing one to something, which is quite possibly what happened, but whilst I want those who committed crime to pay, especially those who with lies and denials well nigh drove me "mad", and preferably go to prison for their lies and theft of my life and money I do not want them treated as I was treated. How are prisoners transported in England's green and pleasant land? How was I transported? Shackled like cattle in a tiny closed constrained cages. You sick nasty vindictive pathetic bastards. And I mean that irrespective of whether someone is mentally ill or not.

I know some prisoners are violent. I am not and never have been. I abhor violence and the way others physically attacked me and sought to physically constrain me in 2004 when I had done them no harm and made no threat to them physically or verbally.

What are the isssues that I discovered?
1. Lack of any genuine informed consent in clinical trials for those allegedly or actually mentally ill. If one may not say, no, then one cannot say, yes. The MHAct makes a mockery of adverse reaction reporting. I have in mind Dr P Sclare (see link from home page), who would now seem to have added false accusation to his CV. And I saw true arrogance and lack of compassion among quite a lot of his staff.

Police assume that psychiatrists know what they are doing in their medical practice. In my experience they do not.

I am asking if the following are criminal. It is verging on an accusation and may yet become an accusation. I accuse of clinical ignorance and arrogance and incompetence and lack of compassion manifested in different wilfully ignorant and incompetent ways:

Dr David Adams (July 2004 - York). Utterly, utterly, utterly nasty and arrogant and totally without compassion or moral responsibility. Did you think your words over the phone to me late on the Friday night without explanation or arrangement to meet in person were a diagnosis, or was it a game to you, your worthless piec of sh**. You walked past me in your "ward" as though you could not see me after I had given you my CV. Did you think that was a joke? I was trying to give you some common basis to open communication.

Dr Paul Sclare -- dangerously incompetent with, at that time, an arrogant, ignorant staff. It did not cross his mind to explain his abusive shit. His notes about what I knew are bullshit, and this is because I am not a mindreader and do not think anyone is and because I had no means to anticipate what he said he was going to do. You also are a piece of shit who belongs in prison. I am writing in hurt and anger when I say you are a piece of shit, but I am professionally serious when I say it is possible you need a defence solicitor.

Dr Banymandhub -- clinically immoral and incompetent, unless nurses make up whatever the hell they want.

Dr Susan Bradbury -- clinically incompetent. In fact terrifyingly incompetent, who ought for the incompetence of her report on me to be stripped of her right to practice medicine.

Dr M Balraj - an egregious liar in her notes and to me.

Dr David Hargreaves - medically and clinically incompetent and a danger to society - a true and real danger to society. Did you contact my doctors in the US? I gave you their names. Did they need my consent? Well why did you not ask me so that I could decide for the record and the Court whether or not I would give that consent. In one case I would not have done because she had said she could not come to the UK to testify. The doctor-patient relationship is a two way relationship.

Dr C Wilson - clinically immoral with the breathtaking arrogance to assume he has any moral or any kind of right in human decency to deny me the right to say no. Well I said no and I said it my way. You cannot be a good doctor or cure anyone of anything with that attitude. I have a friend who asks what part of the word no do you not understand. Well I am asking you: what part of the word no do you not understand?

Dr Q Lodhi (I might be wrong). No I am not. He also was clinically incompetent. He simply ignored my request that he tell me what he meant and was talking about.

If these people had known what they were doing I would have faced no wrong criminal charges. If they knew what they were doing there would be no ect and no forced drugging. I understand the instinct to be a doctor and they showed me they do not have it.

In practice a sectioned patient or one who could be sectioned has no real practical right to say no to drugs or ect, and so they cannot say yes. That is what undermines psychiatric medicine. It creates chemical responses that can kill.

It leaves one open to others seeking to control sensible behaviour if they do not like or understand it. Or perhaps they knew something I did not. Then they should have told me.

a: The words, "in the interest of the patient" are words that drafters of legislation ought to be ashamed to have written. The words are ripe for abuse, and, knowingly or not, protect the inappropriate power base of medicine. It ought to go without saying that doctors are each acting in the best interest of the patient. If something goes wrong then their defence is that they are doctors not God. By seeking to codify that concept the drafters of legislation run the danger that they are pre-empting genuine clinical negligence suites. For example not telling the patient what you think and why so that you can find out if your are wrong and not destroy that person's life -- as you did mine -- or telling them in circumstances or in a way that no one in their right mind would think was diagnosis, and hanging up rather than explaining and allowing yourself to hear what could prove you wrong. Leaving your patient isolated alone and bewildered and afraid --- softening them up, I guess, for your obscene forcing of your shit into them whether they need it ir not.

You do not do medical assessments because you do not know how to behave as doctors.

There is nothing to stop you refusing your obscene powers and becoming a GP or a surgeon.

b: The huge and anti-democratic and anti-competitive market distortion caused by the purchasing power of this Act forcing habituating and nasty drugs on people who say no. The UK is not the only country that allows this obscenity.

2: The potential for corporal punishment with chemical thuggery, because of the forced medication allowed under the Mental Health Act.

3: The question of possible criminality on the part of Dr M. Balraj (who is undoubtedly a liar in her notes and to me), of Dr David Burley and Dr Paul Sclare.

4: The question of whether the doctors used/use their knowledge of GMC practice to cover their own prejudice and medical incompetence.

5. The very strong likelihood that Dr David Hargreaves ought to be prosecuted for contempt of Court, or struck off for mind numbing incompetence.

5a: Police use of cautions and local prejudices and civil liberty abuse by medics to cover their own wrong doing. The damage that the incorrect diagnoses of the past can do to current, previous and future generations is terrifying. The manner in which the IPoliceCC gives (gave me) no explanation of how they investigated my complaint. They asked me no questions and their seeming assumption is that a complaint in itself is vexatious. Their forms are not designed for investigation but for closing down investigation. This was the approach that WYP also took and so now I am thinking about alternatives. They have devalued their own procedures. And why is Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) not involved in this process?

5b. The fact that total idiots seem to think mental illness is communicable. It is not. US officials should have tried talking to the center for disease control before drawing up immigration forms. You are making idiots of yourself and your scientists and medical profession.

5c. Devalueing nursing and social work, especially the potential the latter has to promote empowerment.

6. Abuse of the law and of medicine to control those disapproved of, or to cover for wrong doing by those with status, or authority in society, or to cover for what ought to have been no more than minor error or misunderstanding.

6a. The wrong doing at the very least of Ms J Stansfield.

7: The manner in which a major international University - The University of Manchester - undermined scholarship (mine) and, effectively, breached its contract and relationship of trust, taking money and ignoring its own responsibility to me and its procedures to cover wrong doing against me by its staff. Skulking and hiding in the grubby skirts of the MHAct, and not having to say what the slander aimed at me had been. Specifically by Professor Michael Worboys of CHSTM (from March 2004) and Dr Julie Anderson and doing so under cover of the abusive, nasty MHAct. The Act allows condecsending gits and manipulators to destroy lives, as they did mine, when there was nothing wrong with me of an innate psychiatric nature. I do not think one can cause clinical depression, but I do think one can cause ptsd and an innate susceptibility to depression uncovered by extreme though normal anxiety might be a manifestation of ptsd. Whilst an immaginative mind might experience clinical anxiety unsusceptible to immediate personal control following trauma. When my medical nightmare started I had experienced no trauma, and I did not have separation anxiety, and non of what I experienced had anything to do with the content of DSMIV or ICD10. And I have not got clue one how anyone managed to dream up the symptoms of delusional querulans, nor how one could think an experienced editor and journalist wanting to speak with a senior police officer could possibly be a mental illness. Sexist, chauvenist assholes.

8: Denial of defence and covering for police (legal and academic) wrong doing (20.6.04) by use and abuse of medicine. See www.gavaghancomunications.com/myresearch.html;

9: Generation of profit by profoundly immoral means, namely forced medication of people: serving beyond their term for minor crime; or wrongly imprisoned; or wrongly diagnosed, which is easy, given the parlous state of British psychiatric practice that I encountered; or habituated by forced drugging against their will; or both, or rightly imprisoned but wrongly diagnosed, or stashed by their relatives, and all denied by law the right to say no because of the arbitrariness of the concepts of "harm to self and others" and of "in the patients own best interests". And that is not a concept unique to the left of politics. Obliterating the guaranteed profit generated by this Act might just lead to improved competitive practice, government lobbying and drug treatment for river blindness - as long as human beings have a right to say, no, I do not want that drug. As well as genuine improved understanding of the brain. The 1990s were the decade of the brain. Did anyone who knew of the provisions of the MHActs engage their brains?

10: A medical system set up to deny patients a voice at the GMC. That is protection of a power base, not protection of medicine, nor of the medical profession.

11: Abuse of GMC guidelines to violate the privacy and rights of those alleged to be or actually mentally ill - Dr Helen Alcock abusing my privacy with astonishing arrogance and condescension, reporting to a third party what no doctor had bothered to tell me they thought, and which made no sense as being true because no one had told me and because I knew quite well I had no symptom even remotely indicative of what she was telling the third party.

12: The mistaken assumption that mental illness excuses criminal behaviour by or against those allegedly or actually mentally ill.

13: The nature of routine psychiatric diagnostic practice in the UK and whether those routine practices are profoundly flawed and shaped to build and protect a power base rather than to provide medical service.

13a. The danger of definitive binding, non confidential diagnosis of a kind that makes the patient vulnerable to practice they may not refuse, particularly when a field goes through development.

14: Police denied the option of charging and seeing the CPS try cases because the Mental Health Act is used to suborn and bypass due process in criminal law by different groups. Another recipe for vigilantes.

15: Denial of recompense to those whose lives the system destroys, as the medics within it did mine. How hard would it have been to say: we think you have what we call delusional disorder/schizophrenia/bipolar disorder and this is what you have said and done that we think is a symptom. Don't suppose it could be true could it, and not a symptom?

16: A medical profession with no understanding of due process in law, stealing by intent or ignorance from law those powers that it has taken centuries of human development for us to develop.

17: Solicitors who use their knowledge of law and regulation (in the case of the MHAct a legislative empowerment of lawlessness) to undermine legitimate complaints, or to make what ought to be soluble into bitter disputes, and who hide their wrong doing and disdain and condescension of and toward their clients behind medical incompetence. How dare a solicitor think they have a right to see the medical notes of those who complain about them? How many people get no defence because of changes in legal aid? As for the medical record: if the complaint has validity then the medical record is irrelevant. If it does not have validity then if the solicitor brings a case in law against the complainer, the complainer might need their medical record for their defence. Which, in turn, could uncover the wrong doing by others (the medics), or a lack of knowledge that needs addressing, or to the solicitor's clear vindication. Eventually one might find justice not injustice. But short cuts are not the answer.

17a: And how dare a solicitor walk away on the eve of trial having taken legal aid for months, leaving that client alone to defend herself before a district judge. My brain was physically in danger but I turned up. You knew beyond a shadow of doubt how afraid I was. Did you think that if I was guilty I deserved to be physically abused and to be frightened or without defence? Well I have never thought that about anyone. Where were you? How dare you take a case against your better judgement? Mr Phillip Morris from Smithson Hinds Morris in Leeds -- he did not want to hear what I was telling him, and neither did Phillip Goldberg nor Christopher Haddock. That is immoral. Clients have a right to know what you are doing and why. You seem such a nice and decent person, Mr Morris. Well if Thomas Moore could turn up when clients were tortured I do think you could at least go to the magistrates' Court in Huddersfield.

18: The apparent fact that psychiatrists do not in the UK go back to first base and ask whether any diagnosis of mental ill health ought in the first place to have existed, and if one was valid was the diagnosis even remotely correct.

20: Retrofitting medical notes to cover for earlier errors and uncertainty (which might still be correct and insightful if the uncertainty is left on the record and not passed to other doctors) and wrong doing, and to try to discredit patients, using medicine and medical labels as a weapon.

21. The fact that in 2006, when I was working on a commissioned piece of work, psychiatrist, Marc Laruelle, who was then moving from Columbia University to head GSK's imaging unit in London, told me on the record, knowing he was speaking with a journalist, and for publication, that in developing countries first generation anti-psychotics are better than nothing. I hope I am recalling correctly what he said. I am not certain that that is what he thought. I do not know what he thinks now, and I did not use what he told me in the story I wrote at the time, and which I pulled from the commissioning editor. Science, People & Politics then published the story. I do not know how matters have moved on since then, but an informed medical opinion told to me at the time, in writing, but not for attribution nor for publication (but needs must when the devil drives, and the devil is not driving), that what the magazine then published was very clear. And when I was wrongly imprisoned for what I would never do as a human being I was threatened by utter bastards at Kemple View with first generation psychotics if I did not stop my passive resistance. I did not stop my resistance. I changed tack but still kept as much as possible of their garbage out of my system. You deserve not one word of thanks from the Courts for your barbarity. I burn with hatred in every fibre of my being for your worthless obscene barbarity.

22: Those steeped in the foul provisions of the Act think nothing of assaulting those in their "care". All forced medication ought to be viewed as criminal, and the medical profession and their apologists need by law to be stripped of their sheer mindless immoral right to authorise others being assaulted in the name of medicine for "their own good". That is a recipe for Nazis, gauleiters, the greedy, the self righteous. It has no compassion and no decency.

THIS ACT IS, IN MY OPINION, AN OBSCENE EXAMPLE OF USING HUMAN BEINGS AS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL AND GUARANTEED FUNDRAISER FOR THE TREASURY.

Top of the Page Base of the page