The political history of England in twelve volumes, volume I to 1066, by Thomas Hodgkin, p 326. Longmans, Green and Co. New Impression made 1931, date of first publication unclear from this impression, but internal evidence suggests post 1904, unless that evidence is relevant only to the bibliography and that bibliography differs from the first edition. Quote added by HG 22.1.11.
_______________________________________________

CROWN COURT, MY ACQUITTAL on 17th September 2008. Thank you. For being there, and for being courageous enough to tell me what is and was the truth.

A STORY OF MERCANTILISM, PREJUDICE AND SEXIST CONDESCENSION RUN AMUCK.

AMUCK, not amok!
The acquittal was followed by wrong doing against me by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and a second rate, incompetent so-called local government ombudsman investigator who could not abstract a paper bag, let alone understand a complaint as made. (17.3.11 - These words of opprobrium are words I wish I had not written, but they have been made public and so cannot be withdrawn without denying defence to Mr Russell. I wish I had not written them. Not because I think they are wrong and/or because they do not have a public interest defence, but because they betray my personal hurt which ought to be a private matter. Was that what was wanted? Oddly the private part of myself does not and did not think the words I have written. But they actually could well be true.

Had others written the story my hurt and betrayal would have been filtered. Opinion would have been sought from those legitimately named by me in a matter to which a public interest defence applies. I am a bona fide journalist, editor and publisher with a press card valid until the end of January 2013. I would willingly cede the press card and my current self employed status for a job with the right pay and conditions. Does that count as advertising, and if so is it contrary to regulations? Very probably, and I have noted how abusively restrictive regulations, having nothing to do with the underlying kernel of just legislation, are applied to suit personal wishes. Perfect for mounting a vendetta, especially when based on lies and ignorance.

The LGO investigator's approach leaves the way open for me to take legal action. That is not now and never was my intent with respect to CMBC, nor anyone whom they employ with whom, to date, I have come into contact. I will not be pushed in that direction.

CMBC has written to me following my complaint to the LGO (I received the letter sometime in December 2010) to say that the investigator from the LGO - he said he was called John Russell - has concluded there was no maladministration by the Coucil.

I HAD MADE NO ACCUSATION OF MALADMINISTRATION. I DID NOT THINK THERE WAS MALADMINISTRATION.

I had and do make an allegation of gross incompetence by CMBC in the manner they as a Council dealt with me in 2008, a gross incompetence which cost me dear following wrongful imprisonment, and which was insensitive and obnoxious. I have come to think the gross incompetence is because National Government is asking Local Government to do something it is not equipped to do and ought not to be equipped to do. But I had no political or journalistic agenda when I initiated my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The consequences in my specific case, but others will have experienced other equally unfair consequences, are that what should have been a discrete recovery from the wrong done to me (2004 - 2008), which was a recovery respectful of me from the wrong accusations and vindictiveness - and vindictively is how our justice system works in the manner it treats those whom others accuse, and because we have forgotten the qualifier "alleged", - was made nasty and dirty. If you want to know the full cost to myself and my humanity you would have to ask Jonathan Lloyd-Jones from the firm of solicitors Blake Lapthorn with which in a small way I had until 2004 done business for two decade when the nightmare into which my complaint to the LGO fits began. I wonder if I am the only female client or professional author/editor whom his firm has sought to blacken through exclusion and silence and without explanation when that human being, like me, has done and thought nothing but good about the firm, and had sought also to speak well of them?

And for the record, I had also spoken well of the learning and ability of the local medical profession (I cannot believe how wrong I was to have done so). And of my colleagues, and of people generally, including police. Any "fights" I had had, and until well into the obfuscating nightmare began in 2004 of being attacked (if it wasn't attack why not tell me, and what was it? I was speaking on the phone. I had my back to the "attacker" so did not know who it was. I was totally open to having my understanding clarified) and arrested and ignored as a lying fool, had been without swear words, with very little contact and wholly in the open. Well the latter continues. But in self defence, not by preference.

My nightmare began with medical idiocy in 2004, and only by going back to the beginning can the wrong be put right, as it must and should be put right. But those who could have helped in 2004 and 2005 did not. Instead me showed me their hatred for me, or else their disrespect for the time that is mine, and did so by exclusion, slander, rudeness, derision, false accusations and by wilfully withholding any information they could have given me in a timely way and which would have helped me prevent my life being destroyed.

The legal framework which enabled the abuse is the stupidity of the UK MHAct. The Act is intrinsically a civil liberty abusing pile of Fascist shit written in prejudice, by prejudice and to satisfy ignorance and prejudice.

Prison hospitals, which is where, though not guilty (acquitted), I was in 2008 because of medical willfully negligent stupidity in 2004, are prisons, and I was there in 2008 as a sentence handed out by District Judge Bennett at Huddersfield Magistrates' Court for crime - not committed -- not for the good of my health -- and after a travesty of a trial, and because of a report by lying, utterly idiotic medics and, as it happens, not having the illness I was purported to have by a very dangerously incompetent doctor called David Hargreaves. You may not discriminate against me, nor destroy my life with impunity because of the wrong done to me by idiots with axes to grind. Yet that is what you have done. How you must have been driven by a hatred I had no idea I inspired in so many.

David Hargreaves should be struck off the medical register and/or prosecuted for contempt of Court. As should every psychiatrist it has been my misfortune to encounter in the UK since 2004. They behave like lemmings. Be in no doubt it would be comparatively easy to destroy anyone with the MHAct.

Over and over again the assumption I was guilty let others destroy yet more of my life with this obscene life and mind and soul destroying obscenity. Worse a million times than being wrongly imprisoned without this vicious nasty act of betrayal of every single thing which constitutes the doctor patient relationship. It is an act for fools, the gullible, greedy, sycophantic and self righteous bastards who get their sense of self worth from seeking to control how others live their lives. It allows wrong diagnosis and diagnosis where none should exist to kill as surely as a bullet. and have no doubt that is wheat was done to me. And no one gave a shit.

By mischaracterising my complaint of 2009/2010 about CMBC (which fits within this medico legal saga of nastiness)to the Local Government Ombudsman Mr Russell did not investigate my complaint. If he did he sought no evidence from me, and did not ask me for my story, nor question me as to my story, and did not seek evidence in support of what I was saying, but only for evidence and comment from me of what the Council was saying. I had one courteous exchange with Mr Russell. I had no thought of castigating nor doing any harm to CMBC. They are the reason I got an education, so why would I wish CMBC harm? I knew there must be a misunderstanding, but did not know what or where. I had made no accusation against any individual, nor identifiable individual at CMBC, and that was because I had no individual in mind as the object of the complaint I made. And I have made no false allegation or slanderous allegation against anyone since this situation, into which my complaint fits, began in March 2004.

But the MHAct, and the co-ercive practises and condescending paternalism it clothes itself in, damage and undermine law, decency, fairness and justice in this country.

Soon after the courteous exchange with Mr Russell, in the fall of 2010, I received a summation of a complaint which was not my complaint. This public account constitutes my complaint about Mr Russell. I will waste no more time on a body that investigates what it wants, not what the complainer complains about.

The local press around the country ought to be on the streets looking for similar stories. Ask who is summoned for non payment of rates, and how they received their summons, and ask how they came to be in arrears. Investigate whether they ought to be classed as being in arrears. Do not assume guilt. Ask if they did indeed receive the summons. Do not believe what is written in notes by Councils and medics without putting their content to the person about whom those notes are written. We as press are not LGO nor IPCC investigators. And the LGO and IPCC could help mediate mutual understanding - actually, though the police and Councils will probably not want that because they, in my experience, want to have villains to accuse (whther real villain or not), or mentally ill to exclude and deride or control, not citizens whom they respect.

Is it only CMBC and Halifax Magistrates' Court which do not keep a copy on record of the summons? Neither of these bodies sees that lack on their part as wrong - and it is they doing the wrong. That is how totally screwed up and lawless the system and its thinking is becoming, and that is what the LGO ought to give a shit about.

I have asked how many summons are sent out by CMBC in each batch and I simply do not believe there are that many dishonest people within this administrative region. So what are the problems?

I am accusing Mr Russell of acting incompetently in his investigation of my complaint. I protest that he was wrong and defamatory to find my distress (real for real reasons) to be abusive of him. It was not. I have heard no more about this. Mr Russell had zero insight into the tension inherent in the situation, though he probably does now. What he heard was my rage at the mindless, lying medical abuse and medical and academic destruction and wasting of my life from 2004, and the cowardly disappearance of my solicitors of two decades, all of which had made it necessary for me to take the steps I took in seeking to speak with the police about what they had a right to know, and I had a responsibility to tell them. Would one short courteous exchange as among equals have killed you? Or was I supposed to live my life looking over my shoulder, waiting for ever more stupid things to be said? I had no idea that utterly stupid medics were passing out horse manure. Why assume they not I was right and/or telling the truth? Why destroy my credibility and life and do nothing to put your wrongs right?

Since 2004 I have been treated locally by a number of medics, police (not at first) and officials like a lying, deluded fantasizing idiot or mentally ill. Enough to make anyone sick. They protected their wrongness by feeding out their horse manure to third parties without my consent, egregiously abusing my privacy and so destroying my life. Solicitors need to say to clients: the medics think you are deluded. Are you, or is it them? To discuss that point clearly the medics would need to make explicit what they thought was the delusion, and do so to the client/their patient and the solicitor. This allows all concerned to be talking about the same thing with a common agreed definition. The solicitor needs to know they work for their client not the medics, and may not have cosy behind the back chats about their client without reporting back to the client. As was done to me in a profoundly damaging and disrespectful and mindless and sexist way. I am not deluded, but by saying I was (and not telling me) the medics played a massive part in 2004 in driving me to the bankruptcy I encountered at the end of 2006, and they, not I, ought to pay in full for that bankruptcy, and all the damage it has done in negating my life. Instead it is my life not theirs screwed to stinking shit, not one second of which has been worth having since the nasty, lying arrogant shits got their nasty greedy hand on what does not belong to them - my life. These words of rage? Well, I was totally polite and respectful to them until they showed me I was to them shite to be abused. Take your diagnoses of second rate shit and shove them. I dare you to tell me the basis of your thinking, and to allow me to question you. Because I want to show you for the arrogant, ignorant shits you life destroying prejudiced idiots are with your ducking stool mentality of dim witted ignorance.

As medics you put words in my mouth I did not say, as did police (specifically Inspector Ian Dellow). What do I have to do to get through to the powers running this country just how dangerous and bad that is? How easy it is to screw a human life to the wasted garbage you screwed mine to by calling someone deluded. I am damned sure a male journalist in this country would not have been treated as such a fool. Or are there examples to the contrary? Being a lawyers gives you no right to libels and slander, as you did me. And being a doctors gives you no right to judge. As you did. You showed me what dirt I was in your eyes when you knew nothing of me. How you showed your truly nasty, nasty side in destroying my life when I was doing none of you no harm. My place in the Sun did not mean I denigrated and belittled yours. I did not. But this country stole mine in mindless ignorant snobbery. You deny the destruction? You are deluded. The destruction of all that was mine was total. And in you mean vicious nastiness whenever you are shown wrong you find a way to deny me the explanations and apologies I am due.

In 2009, as another example, I raised a complaint of harassment of myself by PC Fant, and did so with the IPCC. Her action was harassment. In my home. The IPCC concluded there was no harassment but basically pulled their view out of thin air and did not speak with me, or ask me why I said there was, nor what evidence I had. They formed a preconceived conclusions. They said the officer was doing his job. So, presumably, they did not speak to the officer. The officer is a she. She overstepped the mark, and I stopped her. The officer had no job to do with respect to me other than on my behalf, which means against those committing crime against me. That, as far as I am concerned, means Grampian NHS via Paul Sclare and every medic who has lied and sought since 2004 to classify and/or treat me as a deluded moron who cannot understand English. One of Dr Sclare's nurses was then in 2004 brother to Dr Wild, then a local doctor. How dare you think yourselves better than me and entitled to destroy my life with impunity? You have no such right. Co-incidence, or yet more manipulative privacy abuse of me? I have told Paul Sclare, from a position of expertise, that I think he is collecting flawed data.

Do not blame me for fools protect their reputation and place in the Sun by calling me mentally ill in a delusional way when I am not. They never told me that was their view, nor what they thought the delusion was, and so they never allowed themselves to learn - as they are and were - wrong. I had to surmise, guess and weevil information out of these grinning prejudiced ignorant second-rate shits. Now all I need are lawyers not too sycophantic and grovelling in the face of medical shit. My normal language does not include these swear words.

Did I encounter a diagnostic and clinical norm if someone is thought to be mentally ill? Please, please let that not be the case. If I did then you and they are dingbats. Making a courteous argument has not helped me to convey how wrongly and disrespectfully they behaved.

I think that solicitors being paid by law out of the compensation won in a negligence suit is a very good idea. I think the solicitors' costs should be reviewed by a judge in Civil Court and the injured party's compensation protected within the overall settlement. I agree that there should in English Civil law be no punitive damages. And I think we need to introduce the concept of class action, and that that is the best way to compensate those whose lives have been destroyed by the use and abuse of the MHAct. It is possible that Stockholm Syndrome, or lack of appropriate vocabulary, or fear of reprisals within medical lies and fit ups will make those abused by the MHAct and its supporters think they ought not to be party to such an action. Fine. Let the State speak on their behalf, and place the compensation money in trust for them.

Providing the CPS is working effectively there is no need for punitive damages in civil law. As far as I know civil and criminal law deal with different issues. So if Paul Sclare ought to have told me his diagnosis and not to drive by law then you have a criminl case against him. I ought to have a civil case against him, but for different reasons.

It is possible the pharmaceutical industry has all kinds of cases against him and his colleagues, and for that reason I oppose private criminal prosecutions. Civil cases could bring to light evidence of value to the CPS.

But manipulating the law is not what I or my colleagues are about. And it sure as hell is not what I, as an editor, am about.

The IPCC were oblivious to the fact that PC Fant, whose fingerprints I obtained legitimately and with her knowledge, is a woman and not a man. So you might want to talk to the Police Federation. Correspondence from the IPCC received 11.12.10 suggests I contact the IPCC internal investigations so that the IPCC case worker who mistook a woman for a man can be investigated. I will not do so. I suggest the IPCC case worker (who, deliberately, I am not naming, because I do not want to prejudice any ongoing investigations that have nothing to do with me) who does not know the difference between a man and a woman, ought to report himself to his internal investigation's department and not leave that to me. And be very certain there is no mental illness in me. So how did that canard begin, and why?

Because I felt physically ill and asked to be taken to hospital on 6.3.04? No physical tests were done, no medical history sought from me. No questions asked about physical symptoms, even though I tried to say. No interest was shown in any part of my personal, or academic, or professional, or medical life, or living arrangements. The medics made up out of thin air (hearing not what was said, but what they thought fit their case, and asking me NO questions, and seeking no clarification with me of third party report - I found out some of what was going on when I started writing for medical notes) exactly what they needed to fit a stereotype created, it seems, from wilful ignorance and disrespect of me. Was it because subsequently I asked if I might have experienced spiked food or drink? Asking a reasonable question is not psychotic. Because I knew that somehow a misunderstanding existed between me and the medics I was trying to relate to with respect, even as they mobilised to respond to me as a deluded pile of shit, but without telling me.

It seems that if someone is female and middle aged, is distressed and goes to hospital then the British medical default setting is to assume endogenous mental illness and not to inquire about other physical symptoms or life style/professional issues. And I know that even had I been mentally ill with endogenous psychosis then mental illness is not the reason for crime. Criminality is the reason for crime, and whether or not the person is mentally ill is irrelevant, unless illness - physical or mental, which exist on a continuum - is a defence against prosecution and/or conviction and/or incarceration. But pre-empting that evaluation with the MHAct simply creates injustice. And mental illness is no more relevant here than other forms of illness.

Is it this country's intent to section every diabetic who buys a chocolate bar knowing the impact of that chocolate on them?

PC Fant should be asked why she has not brought to the attention of Grampian NHS the consequences of them making false allegations against me (and not telling me) and of wasting police time. Don't bloody try that again. I tried to warn Grampian NHS. And my intention was all along a rational desire to do the right thing in a discrete way, respectful of my own rightful privacy and that of others.

On what grounds, Sir - and this is addressed to District Judge Bennett - did you conclude I had acted outside the law, and how did you reach that conclusion? It led to State abuse of me from 2008 because of the garbage the medics from 6.3.04 gossiped about exclusionary of me. They excluded me. Not I them. I was not trying to muscle in on someone else's act. Both police and medics were, from 2004, were unutterably abusive toward me as a citizen of this country, when I was not wasting their time, nor seeking to harm anyone, but trying to do the right thing.

Well the country via academics, medics and police successfully turned my life to wasted garbage. Did police decide I was a lesser human being than those who, by their arrogance, were abusing and belittling me? That is not a paranoid fantasy of mine, but is a documented fact.

And since this country views pharmaceuticals as important to its economic (and humanitarian) base, which, professionally, I knew very well and empathise with, that is a serious wrong by Grampian NHS and Paul Sclare and all the other psychiatric lemmings. Would an isolated endogenous psychotic episode be accompanied by physical muscular symptoms in major muscle groups? What constitutes a psychotic episode, which neurotransmitter networks are triggered, and how might those networks be trigggered in a "mentally" healthy human being? What is the difference between an external hallucination and an internally generated, vivid waking dream of dread without visualisation? Why assume psychosis? On the basis of no knowledge of me and my life, and when the genetics of psychiatry is so very unpredictable. No human being has the right to try to make someone see themselves through any eyes but their own eyes. I have no right to force you to see anyone as others see them.

But there are observable realities and possibilities. How might an odourless volatile organic compound, to which one has been intermittently and unknowingly exposed, impact an individual? I have in mind carbon monoxide, or something vaguely similar? And medics pick from the record what they want in order to substantiate a pet theory. Take your nasty prurient, prying eyes out of any note written about me and what I have said unless you have my consent and check with me first whether those notes are accurate. The medical horse manure I have read that they wrote from March 2004 belongs in the incinerator.

What if someone is an imaginative person who sees metaphors in pavement cracks? That is a gift, not mental illness.

As a matter of principle I will refuse any company doctor the right to see the records of mindless uncorrected horse manure created by medics locally and lemming-like psychiatrists taking, uncritically, every piece of prejudiced ancient stupidity they could, and assuming I had said things I had not said, and I taped one bastard who put words in my mouth I did not say.

Playing on fears and ignorance: their own as well as those looking up to them, of whom in 2004 I was one. But the nasty stinking heart of this act of obscenity is that once they have dreamed up this shit one may not trust that the shites will not decide on a whim of ignorance, or the false report of pillocks and belittlers to screw your life to further hell in a psychiatric shit hole where you have not the basic freedom of a citizen. How many, you bastards? How many live screwed to wasted shit? Stop looking for genetic links when you have made those up yourself, not as diagnosis, but to rewrite history to get yourselves off the hook of your own clinical negligence and prejudice.

The IPCC might also like to ask why the wrong policeman gave evidence against me in Court on 22.1.08. Am I the only one who thinks this actually matters - do we want the State to be overthrown? Or am I not a citizen of the State? Ask also why I was arrested as I walked home from a dinner party on 20 June 2004 when I had committed no crime. No allegation was made. No charged prefered, but had there been I would have had a chance to defend myself. By using the MHAct I was denied any chance of defence. I am not arguing against arrest on reasonable suspicion or against investigation of behaviour that might seem to be crime, though it would be nice were the police to tell the arrested and their solicitor what the individual is being arrested on suspicion of and what the suspicious behaviour was. Was it my separate efforts to speak to police? Had the word gone out? So why not tell me?

I was causing no nuisance or obstruction. Be very clear, I had (and have) commmitted no crime, and though justifiably distressed by abusive behaviour I was not behaving in a way symptomatic of mental illness, nor acting to waste police time, but I had a month earlier been the victim of an attack, which I did not provoke and did not report and did not think of as crime because of who the attacker was, and because it was too hard for me to accept what she had done to me. It devastated me emotionally, but did not physically hurt me. Ask also what the piece of paper was which I signed which a policeman gave me in the spring of 2006 and which I gave to Christopher Haddock - solicitor. What legally did the policeman think that paper constituted? I had admitted no crime - only that I had taken the actions I have always said I had taken. I have been in contact with HMIC on this subject, and my investigation is ongoing, though hampered by the thought of District Judge Bennett. Not that there is any Court imposition by him or others on me. Nor do I need one to behave with the adult decency I have behaved all of my life. Unfortunately I do not know how to proceed, and I am not sure what my aim is now. To have my good name back in full I think. To no longer exist in this world of distorted images.

That policeman is the one who ought to have given evidence against me. The fact that he did not deprived me of defence. His fingerprints are on whatever I signed and gave to Christopher Haddock. I admitted the actions not the crime. There was no crime. The crime would have been silence. That piece of paper belongs to me, and I sought to get it back from Christopher Haddock, itemised and recorded. He refused, and his secretary claimed Mr Haddock needed the paper for legal aid. Be in no doubt that I am telling the truth about this. I set off to get documents back, but then realised I would have no record of all of them, nor opportunity to check them, and agree they were all there, and so I turned back, and then Mr Haddock had them all dumped on the lawn of a third party without that third party's consent or asking/telling me.

Mr Haddock then sought to get me prosecuted. There is no difference what so ever in my actions and intent with respect to all of those whom West Yorkshire Police considered - wrongly (acquittal 2008) - I was harassing. And for the record, and with respect to his honour Judge Scott, - if he had found me guilty he would have been wrong. I knew nothing of these women, and was never seeking to contact them. I was not acting as a journalist but because I had been a journalist, and I had something that reasonably their boss had a right to know given what various people were saying to me. The fact that they denied or changed their words ought not to have led to the assumption I was lying.

But this is a sexist valley - and the sexism I encountered was from both men and women (and I allege sexism by Ms J Stansfield, solicitor). And its only response to what it does not understand would seem to be to silence and exclude by calling an individual mentally ill. It took so little time to do that to me when I was not, and to destroy my life and family in total, and the tactic was needless, stupid, viscious, condescending, mean minded and wrong. The medics had help.

The fact that the women I did not harass answered the phone did not diminish the rightful need I had to contact the person whose phone it was. I had tried from 2004 to make the contact I knew needed to be made. The policeman whose phone I was seeking to reach (Mr McClean) could have prevented any distress to those women (and in my opinion should have done, and not by treating me as a fool and incomptent).

Civilians ought not to be answering a policeman's or a police woman's phone, nor transcribing their messages. That does not mean there is not work for civilians in the police service. And a uniformed police man (Inspector Ian Dellow - mid 2004 - Halifax Police Station) sure as hell should not be telling a journalist and editor a D-Notice would apply but not saying what to whilst telling third parties the journalist - me - has made allegation she has not made.

By the way, is it normal for me to have two different numbers on my theory and practical driving certificates? Because I do, as I also tried to tell the police.

If I could have got a solicitor to help me I would not have needed to make those calls, and I did try to get a solicitor to help me AFTER mid April 2004 and words said to me, not by me, at the time by Judith Stansfield then of Blake Lapthorn, formerly Linnells of Oxford - in the previous 20 years I had done business with this firm quietly and respectfully in a small and low key way. I had never sought discounts from them and our interaction was minimal and professional. It seems I wasted my time, money and respect on them, and they showed they had had none for me.

But back in the spring of 2006, at no stage did the policeman, who gave me the paper I gave to Mr Haddock, ask me anything other than had I taken the actions I was purported by him to have taken. I had. I said I had. My actions were not crime - quite the opposite - and I did not admit to crime and was not asked if I had admitted to crime. I was not asked if I elected for trial. I would have said yes. Get your crb check done and sue the shit in civil court out of the police and the Home Office and any idiot who denies you a job or the option to volunteer because of these utterly offensive crb checks if you know you were not admitting to crime and were not committing crime, and have been convicted of no crime. No better than vigilantes. Arrest without charge, or cause, and visits to hospital, placed on crb checks? That was Aberdeen police. What exactly do you think you are doing? Reverting to the Middle Ages? I would rather have law and a police force and Courts and oversight, not restrictive regulation from the solicitors' regulatory authority, and not cautions replacing magistrates. But not with the viscious, deriding nastiness I encountered from medics and the University of Manchester in 2004 to 2005. The police are not trained to judge, and are not fit to judge. They ought not to be subjected to public pressure

But we victims have no redress in law because legal aid is being cut. So the State gets to trample jack booted where it wants. Victim support is no damn use without lawyers who get paid for their work.

Had it not been for the medical profession and Michael Worboys from CHSTM, who did incalculable damage to me needlessly, and with lies and obfuscation in 2004, none of the situation I took to the LGO 2009/2010 would have existed. How many other lives has this nasty Act screwed to the garbage that it screwed my life to?

On a second occasion in 2004, without cause, someone I had known and trusted for years, sought to physically restrain me from leaving his home (no I had attacked and threatened no one - I had no reason to do so and no wish to do so. I have never even for a split second in my life wanted to attack or hurt anyone) - 20th June 2004 - are you the reason the police arrested me without cause that I know of after I had left? I had hurt, attacked and threatened no one. Not physically and not verbally. And you implied I was a threat as you sought to physically restrain me. How bloody dare you? How the bloody hell dare you, and who the bloody hell do you friggin well think you are? Do you think you live in the Wild West? Where the hell did you all get your sense of entitlement to my life from? Get your sodding hands off it. I was the one striving to leave. Why? I hope they throw the friggin book at you. If that was your attitude, why did you invite me to dinner? I had not been angling for an invite. You went out of your way to invite me. Why not speak with me afterwards? I tried to speak with you. Once. Once and only once.

That evening I had hurt no one, and I had attacked no one, nor threatend to do so, nor said one rude and offensive word to anyone at dinner. I had no negative views of any kind of the people I was with. I have said words I would never in a million years have thought, and I hate the guts of the lying medical profession, and abusive police, and the cowardly judgemental solicitors who assumed guilt, and derided me.

Having freed myself from the so-called friend who sought to prevent me leaving his home in 2004 - this is still all relevant context to my complaint to the LGO - by physical constraint I was walking sedately and safely at the side of a oad I knew very well. I had left my car at the pub some miles way. I was going home on foot. So on what grounds did the police arrest me? Julie Birchill - solicitor - made zero effort to find out as far as I can see from the records I applied for. Or is she so derelict in morality that she thinks those accused of mental illness may be abused by the police and their civil liberty trashed?

And there was no mention to me of charging (which was not done) me, nor explanation of why I was arrested and then turned out in the middle of the night in the middle of Halifax. If Ms Birchill got any explanation she did not tell me and so she probably has the wrong end of the stick, force fed garbage by fantasizing medics and others trashing my reputation. Why do solicitors drink in the garbage from medics without testing the origin and basis of what the medics say, and with the so-called patient not the friggin fantasizing medic.

The custody record also says that Ms Stansfield hung up on Ms Birchill. I had given Ms Burchill Ms Stanfield's name and home telephone number. We all have a right to our good name. Ms Stansfield denied me mine. And I think defence solicitors ought always to turn up and speak in person with their client. Ms Burchill did not speak with me in person, but by phone.

And perhaps the IPCC could also ask why WYP from March 2004, as commanded from Halifax, treated someone of my background and good name and professional standing and sense of normal civic and journalistic responsibility like a lying, deluded fool. Then tell me. I had not put a foot wrong with police or society. Did you think you were doing me a favour by calling me mentally ill? You were not. You were projecting your own shit onto me and screwing my life to wasted garbage for no reason. At the same time that Michael Worboys of CHSTM was also doing so.

And ask what nasty little backbiting, self protecting, back stabbing networks led to Aberdeen Police arresting me as I left Boots in Aberdeen on 28.6.04 - after paying my bill. My credit card details were with the hotel where I was staying and they probably did not get paid for one small item (a packet of Worcester Sauce crisps by Seabrooks) they should have been paid for because of police and medical behaviour (unwarranted). I did not steal those crisps, but the police and medical behaviour before I received my bill meant the crisps were not paid for. But the hotel did take payment from my credit card for the rest of the bill and did return my belongings. Yet more abuse of myself by Grampian NHS. I had gone to Aberdeen police because of how WYP were reacting to me and given Ms Stansfield's word and those of Professor Worboys about the security forces being on my case. There is nothing I did or said to provoke those words from M. Worboys of CHSTM.

I, early July 2004, walked out on Paul Sclare et al as soon as I could. But I still carry the scars and he does not give a shit. He is like one of those bastards who kick where the bruising will not be seen. No amount of drugs or re-education will make me see the world as civil liberty abusing drugging shits like him and his supporters see the world. Had he spoken with me courteously and as an adult with a brain that might have been different. But he did not.

I walked out on the medical bastards, without their consent - my life, not theirs, and took a train back to England, leaving my car at the hospital until I could get back to pick it up, and I walked out after 8 days of no explanation for their civil liberty abusing, arrogant, privacy-abusing prurient sh**. And it is just as well the shits did not try to feed me any of their shit drugs.

I sure learned how prejudiced belittling pillocks with a grudge interact with ignorant medics to apply Taylorism in medicine.

By what sodding immoral right did you behave as you did to a citizen of this country? I had planned to visit the Combined Operation Museum in Scotland as part of my academic research, which I was still hoping to rescue if I could get an explanation from my head of department as to why his attitude had changed prior to 16.3.04, when it had changed and why he offered to transfer me to another University. Had some passing comment made in private been blown up out of all proportion by a trouble causer?

Of much greater significance, though, is the question of how Paul Sclare got grant money - you are friggin dangerous as a diagnostician and clinically profoundly negligent -- criminally so, I would think. How many lives have you screwed to shite? How many lives turned into a pantomine for your immoral salaries?

I kept my personal life out of the public gaze from 2004 to the end of 2006, even though reporting these events would have had a public interest defence. My aim was quiet and mutually respectful resolution. The least hurtful option for all concerned. My record and history is of a discrete life. I rang Paul Sclare in the autumn of 2004 for explanation. That was then he was inexcusably rude and offensive. Profoundly bad mannered. Was he even then seeking grant money? I was a patient, even though I ought not to have been, and he treated me like shit. His behaviour was arrogant and offensive. Were the police feeding you shit, or are you just a shit and greedy and dishonest? You did not hear this kind of language from me when you met me. I was still inclined to think well and courteously of you. But I am writing it now with conviction. But then you and your profession of lying, arrogant, game playing, psychologically incompetent profession of dimwitted sexist pillocks with the outloook and mindset of rapists and blackmailers (you force on those who say no) had not yet destroyed my life. Who the bloody hell do you think you are? What lies do you tell about how tough your job is to justify getting the powers of coercion you have? You do not need those powers. You do not need them. You do not need the temptation of them. Have you no confidence in your degree?

Both when I was wrongly detained in hospital and when I rang for explanation you were rude. Did you think my words to Ian Gibson MP on the phone were time wasting delusion? If so why did you not tell me and ask me to explain? Because you thought a few forced drugs and threat of ECT if refused would mean no converstation was needed?

Medical and police behaviour on 28th June 2004 is when they effectively destroyed all my life had been for. My hatred and despising of those actions is total. But Professor Michael Worboys of CHSTM and Judith Stansfield (with whom I had been at University and who until April 2004 had always treated me as though I were her friend and her client) from Linnells in Oxford, which became Blake Lapthorn, were already "helping" them with their own separate half truthes contrary to every single understanding of the relationship of decency and quiet professional respect I thought I had with these people, whose lives I never intruded into, whose good name I had not undermined and whose professionalism I spoke well of and felt deep respect for. And I did not turn away Ms Stanfield when she came to my homes in Washington DC and then in Yorkshire, or in London. Nor did I try to undermine and conrtol them by jumping at opportunities to call them mentally ill, knowing full well they were not, or not telling them others said they were.

How was I to know or guess they viewed me as a rag doll without a brain or will of my own, and as a second class citizen who could not be spoken with as an equal?

How the hell could any of these people, then or later, have convinced themselves that I thought I was a secret agent? You brain dead mindless medical arrogant fools. And my profession -- thanks a lot, guys. Hope you never do or aspire a Ph.D, have medical fools view your words about your Ph.D thesis ideas as claims of being a secret agent, whilst the police ignore what as a journalist you try to tell them because of the sources you need to protect because of medical fools fed by local ignorance and old wives tales and pre-Lemarkian, pre Mendelian horse manure. Or then find later that when you try to tell this to the medics they simply decide to hear words you have not said. And they are clinically dangerous and did and have done huge and massive damage to me and ignored that I went to them for real clinical reasons in March 2004 which were not psychotic delusion, and which they cannot know because what I tried to tell them they did not and would not hear.

On no occasion had I committed crime. NOR WAS I MENTALLY ILL. To arrest anyone under the MHAct is a dehumanising obscenity which denies defence and makes a nonsense of medicine. Ask always on what grounds you would have been arrested if someone had not accused you of mental illness. Ask if someone thinks you are delusional and ask them to be specific about what they think is the delusion. If you dispute medical views strive to be heard. Make your solicitor explain to you what they are doing on your behalf and why. You do not need a lecture, but if they say we want to get you out of here, tell them if you want to know specifically why you were there in the first place. A well placed query with your consent from a solicitor could save a lot of trouble. By using the MHAct police and medics can protect themselves whilst destroying your life. Solicitors let them get away with this.

See if you can find a lawyer free from prejudice and with a brain and morality then kick the legal shit out of these assholes who assume your guilt and destroy your good name. Thousands of years striving for equality and then this garbage of the MHAct ends up on the statute books. Horse manure empowering fools who think they have a right to control lives which do not belong to them. Get it through your heads, I do not have the symptoms you want me to have to justify your disapproval of me. This is your stupidity and your ignorance, and could non psychiarists keep their diagnostic idiocy to themselves. Though I have no doubt the psychiatrists have screwed up in my case they at least have highly schooled intellects that mean they are accountable for their negligence.

If a custody record says you could not understand what was said but you know quite well you did understand, what then is one supposed to do? Ill health impacting the brain might be a defence, but not if the MHAct has preempted charges. The MHAct is a recipe for State abuse and abuse and control by the unqualified.

Perhaps the IPCC could also ask why WYPolice kicked my door in, even though I had let them in downstairs and despite it being 10 at night and the fact I was opening the door to them at the time, having checked by phone with the police switchboard that they were who they said they were and then after checking through the peephole in the door (through which I was talking with them) when they were shouting to be let in. I was opening the door because they were indeed uniformed police. There was no excuse at all for kicking my door in even had I been guilty, and they very nearly did me harm given that I was at the time opening the door to them. I was not wasting police time. I saw no reason to tell this information about police kicking in the door to any defence solicitors. It would have clouded their thinking, which to me seemed already to be muddled.

What kind of record of shite to you circulate on the Police National Computer and in the NHS cess pit of privacy abuse as you seek to protect your wrong doing by labelling me and others as I and they ought not to be labelled? You have destroyed a decent human being (me) with lies and manipulation. Get it through your stupid heads I do not need to be protected from the knowledge I am deluded because I am not deluded.

I rue the day I returned to the UK and to the Calder Valley. I had many memories of joy in both the Country and the Calder Valley (my birthplace and where I grew up) but this stinking obscenity of the MHAct and the attitudes it inculcates and the actions of those named here drained every drop of joy out of my life. And I had done nothing wrong. I was trying to do the right thing and from a professional basis not from drug induced delusion.

If I do not speak out every sexist and prejudiced idiot in the world can walk all over anyone without consent when ever they want. That is not a world I want to live in and those words are not an assertion of suicidal intent. They are warning. You may not take my life and equality. Take your condesenscion and choke on it.

These should have been the most productive and best earning (earning in every way, emotionally, financially and in contribution to my world of what was mine to give, not what others wanted to take from me or deny me the right to give for their own status) years of my life. I did not encounter what the insurance industry calls an Act of God, but rather wilful ignorance and lies and exclusion which rode rough shod over decent clinical practice, my courtesy - and then I was courteous - and over lawful, discrete and private and respectful procedures for resolving disputes where there was not a public interest issue at stake necessitating abuse of privacy.

For the record, I spat all your garbage out and you may shove it you know where. Do not kid yourselves you have ever done good or had good intent with your forced sh*e and this Act of obscenity. It is not needed.

With this Act and compulsory treatment orders and the slippery slope of "we know what is best for you" and "we know what is happening in your head and do not need you to tell us", you are destroying medicine, law and the possibility of decent therapeutic relationships and advances in psychiatry. You are living in cloud cuckoo land. In addition no matter what genes you find you may stuff your CTOs.

In addition the IPCC might tell me what they did with tapes friends of mine sent to them at my request in 2005 (these people were friends and that is not a delusion on my part - but I am quite prepared to believe that the medical bullshit and police lies and the fear and need those things caused in me have led them to think other of me now, tapes which were indicative of my distress because of the way medics and West Yorkshire Police were responding to me. I had no idea what nasty attitudes this fool of an Act inculates in idiots. Why that attitude exists is irrelevant.

The Crown Court's acquittal was of charges of harassment without violence arising from this situation in 2004 and the charges were brought at the end of 2006. District Judge Bennett dismissed another set and the CPS dropped others. Again - thank you. For this destruction of my life when I had done no wrong and was trying to do right I blame the medics and police in Halifax and the Calder Valley - but most of all the medics - from 2004 to 2006, and all those who so pathetically and with such prejudice and derision and pettiness were in need of making me into and interacting with me as the baddy or sick in their minds. I blame the medics in total for the thousands and thousands of pounds their prejudice and derision of me wasted of this country's money and the severe damage they did to me as a human being and to my life and to my family. Do they give a shit? Manifestly not. It really did not seem to matter a damn if damaging drugs of shite were fed needlessly to me because of their silence to me. That was wrong whether or not I was guilty or mentally ill. I am neither. And telling someone there is nothing to worry about when there is, is stupid.

Did the medics instruct the primary care trust to be unco-operative with my effort at resolution in 2005 - 2006? As a result of my dealings with the local PCT I am delighted they are being abolished. Scrap the solicitors' regulatory authority also and you will have made my day. I do not oppose a public sector, but I do oppose a public sector when its raison d'etre is control over what it knowns nothing of.

According to Phillip Morris if some fool of an expert witness decides you are mentally incompetent you are not entitled to a defence. The rudeness is richly deserved both by the expert witness (Susan Bradbury - whom I think was subborning the power of the Court, and I have twice told this to the Court by fax and to the General Medical Council by post) and Phillip Morris, who took legal aid money and then walked away leaving me to defend myself. Not my choice, nor wish. Not the right or decent or humane thing to do. Prior to that Phillip Goldberg had said on the basis of no knowledge at all of me, or the situation, that I was guilty. I tried to talk to him and to understand why he thought what he did so that we could talk about it. How do you think that made me feel? Do solicitors get any instruction in emotional competence or in communication? Do they learn to examine their assumptions? Who had appointed you my judge, Mr Goldberg? You were being paid to be a defence solicitor. You asked no question from a position of assuming innocence.

During my wrongful imprisonment before my acquittal (I had to wait 14 months for trial before a district judge - free, not conducive to earning a living nor to psychological well being - was that the aim - to destroy my mental well being and my good name in the eyes of others, for crime I had not comitted? How unutterably criminally despicable if that was an aim or known likely outcome - actually vindictive nastiness not justice if I had committed a crime), or if they knew me to be vulnerable and acted to aggravate that vulnerability. For the record and for the information of Mr Russell: I worked at my work full time during my wrongful imprisonment and published all my work as soon as possible after my acquittal. And kept CMBC fully informed.

I am not talking of inadvertent wrong doing by people who cannot read and who have not been taught how to examine propositions.

That is a large part of the context within which my complaint about CMBC needed to be heard. And the essence of my complaint to the LGO is that CMBC did not at any time say, Ms Gavaghan, were you to take the action you are proposing and telling us about for life following your appeal we would take the view no matter what HMRC is saying that you are creating a second business. My thinking in prison hospital was that given the different time scales for payment cleaning or ironing might bring money in (and earnings are not the same as income) and help me get back on my feet as I tried to insert myself back into editorial work in a profitable manner, and that is what my full time work was and is, and it had been profitable (see www.gavaghancommunications.com/gcexpertise1.html) with real profit, or into something that would benefit from that experience.

I have just today (adding this sentence 3.3.11 been on a VAT HMRC course and learned that my intent to merge all earnings as a sole trader into one revenue stream is what one must do if registered for VAT and that it is possible to register for VAT when making a loss and to do so voluntarily, even if you are below the turnover threshold for when you must register. The threshold is decided on a twelve month rolling basis, so the moment a month pushes you into a situation in which the previous 12 months takes you over the threshold then you must register for VAT. But, as I write, you can register voluntarily before reaching the threshold. You can select among: cash accounting, standard accounting and flat rate accounting. I have decided on cash accounting.

IE revenue in vat is one stream, business deductions on a tax return are one stream. No double accounting allowed.

So I was not crazy, but actually thinking straight -- and this is not a recipe for keeping the insolvent afloat. Because two or three customers for cleaning coupled with my own full time work, which latter is what justified my claim for working tax credit, would have brought me to break even allowing me to rescue my professional life or to acquire more customers for cleaning/ironing. I had realised by then I would be given no moral support nor respect from my own profession, but was viewed as a joke. And that was how I was thinking - how to earn money. I actually told this to CMBC. I have no idea whether the strategy can work now but CMBC's behaviour has scuppered that option and I have no idea what the judge - Judge Kennington or Kenningham from Leeds - thought was going on, but I could not make the VAT argument to him because I was not then registered for VAT and so did not know it existed. (Typos in this paragraph corrected 5.3.11) I challenged CMBC and they quashed Court charges re rates, but I do not know why. My view was that I failed to see why I should aid and abet them in committing a felony.

When CMBC said you may not cross subsidise businesses (I had one soletradership) and we view cleaning as a second business (I have no service company) I knew that they were wrong no matter what regulation says and no matter what they were saying. I argued to the judge it was my responsibility to take what work I could within my sole tradership to pay my bills. But earnings do not equate with income as, surely, he knew?

So I suppose this is why jury trials and so called white collar crime do not mix well in some situations. But they ought always to mix well in supposedly criminal matters. But we do need a national legal service free at the point of delivery and provided by solicitors/barristers who can trust they will be paid for their work. I have met some deeply rude and obnoxious solicitors in the UK criminal justice system, but I can see they are badly treated and I know they should be paid. The NHS needs to cut its cloth. And an NLS might help them do that fairly. An NLS might also reduce the need for medical help in some cases.

Re CMBC: I was not and had made no move to start a second business and had no plans to do so. I intended to generate as much money as possible from work having no conflict of interest. Why would I have thought such intent were frowned on? I had no knowledge until it was too late that regulations existed governing housing benefit in such a situation. They prevent people getting away from housing benefit by confusing earnings with income and assuming loss is a failing business. It might be. But the regulations I encountered deny life support and undermine recovery.

CMBC had no right what so ever to turn my soletradership into two businesses without prior discussion with me. My business is my business not theirs. My tax return reflects my interpretation of what I was doing and not that of CMBC. They, not I, created through unjustifiable silence evidence to suit themselves. Sue them. Not me. They behaved as they did without insight or knowledge of my actions - their fault - not mine - but knowing what those actions were because I told them, and without sensitivity to circumstances. They wasted my efforts at recovery from State abuse. Was that deliberate or accident?

I spent three months working and planning in prison hospital - whilst dodging the sick, arrogant, bullying and co-ercive thugs working in those places within the legitimacy of the obscenity of the MHAct (They have no insight into their dehumanising behaviour and the problem is that these were people whom it would be easy to like were it not for the obscenity of the task they think they are entitled to do, and were it not for the innate prejudiced thinking they would seem to live by) - according to what I had told CMBC, which, had they told me when they could of the view they might take, I would not have done. There were other things I could have done more usefully. There is a problem that CTOs and the MHAct turn human beings into guinea pigs. That is the road to hell.

The vindictive nastiness of thrusting someone into the public eye as their only means of self defence is sick, and it is not my sickness. I stayed silent publicly for three years (2004 - 2006), at first courteously seeking private clarification and redress and explanation, but growing increasingly desperate in a hall of distorting mirrors.

Nor at any stage did CMBC tell me to go to the Job Centre, as they claim. That truly would have been incompetence by them given my physical location, which they knew. Though had they told me that they might view what I was telling them as a second business and think of loss as profit I might well have gone to the job centre following my appeal. They did tell me to go to a Mental Health Tribunal. I heard that as the person being kind and I ignored her advise because I had no doubt that such tribunals are no better than medieval witch hunts, and I already had the advice of two solicitors and barrister. If someone has deprived you of your birthright you do not need medics or social workers, you need robust lawyers.

In addition WTC is not the same as Job Seeker's allowance (I have never opposed anyone claiming job seekers' allowance nor working tax credit). I think the right to housing benefit ought to be related to real income as determined by HMRC, providing the individual is taking what work they can - and I tried hard to get work that would have got me away from the State. I had, in fact, no agenda other than escaping the clutches of the State and from within the then known constraints enclosing me.

CMBC were undermining in total the purpose of WT Credit, at least they did in 2008 in my case. Mr Russell made no effort at investigation from me save to ask me for commentary from me on his misreported hearsay, at least that is what it would seem is the conclusion to be drawn from his letter to me. I refused his presumably inadvertent invitation to be tricked into levelling false accusation.

CMBC's CEO appointee was worse and oblivious to what the complaint actually was. She wanted to construct a complaint that would lead to her being right. My guess is that the CPS would never employ her. My guess is that all were seeking to try to silence my justifiable criticism of them by labelling me as mentally ill and trying to steer me to a forum where they might throw stones unapposed.

Over and over again I told her (the CEO's appointee) I did not start a second business, do not ask questions as though I had. Rather CMBC decided to make the things I did within my self employed soletradership into two businesses. I asked one officer if he had ever seen a self employed, self assessment tax return. He said no. I am happy to provide to any Court the name and telephone number of this officer and confirm that I had sent him a copy of my 2009 tax return. I was fully co-operative at all times with CMBC. I quite see why HMRC does not make all tax return templates available because of changing tax regimes, but .....but

And the CEO's appointee was totally oblivious to any aspect of the concept of a leading question and to how profoundly immoral and just plain wrong such questions are and how the very last thing they do is elicit truth. They lead to the answer the questioner wants to be true or has convinced themselves is true, not to the truth. I think CMBC indulges in total in speculative post priori thinking applied a priori without consultation and do not give information in advance. It is as if they fear the information will be used to pull a fast one.

The time table was: mid 2008 clear indicaton by me to CMBC by phone of my intent. They knew my situation and they knew my professional background. Efforts (real and genuine and actually achievable, though probably not allowed) to sell that service (ironing) to the prison hospital staff. I was thinking of minimum wage with a deduction for their overheads.

By the way, I canvassed both prison staff and prisoners about the idea of a national legal service and all those asked said it was a good idea (both criminal and civil law, but a strong private sector would be needed). 17.9 (September).08 - acquittal by the Crown Court. Oct. 18th 2008 offer of a one off, short term job in line with that intent and those actions. 21st October I undertook the first piece of work. Oct 22nd, once the money was in the bank, I told CMBC. I might actually have told them on 21st. They asked me to get my employer to fill in a form, and I said I was not being employed but was submitting invoices in a self employed capacity. Have rubber gloves - will travel.

By treating those who are self employed and claiming working tax credit (for which one must work a full work week) as though they are on job seekers' allowance and not working a full week I have come to realise they are destroying what could be viable, pushing up unemployment and keeping the housing benefit bill high. I am not making a political statement. I know the economy builds on the backs whom those it calls shirkers. I simply think that they discourage honest entrepreneurship, flexibility in changing circumstances and portmanteau careers and push people to use credit. I would love to use only my professional skills for what I am trained for by experience and education but that is not how life is at the moment. I will not lift a finger on behalf of CMBC housing benefit if they are made redundant. I have no desire for people to loose their jobs and I think redundancy and job insecurity are the great scourge of our time. But jobs need to be evaluated to see whether they are being created immorally or unsustainably. It might simply be that we are creating the wrong jobs.

I did not want CMBC's business advise nor their protection. I needed neither. I wanted what I pay for: information they had about regulations pertaining to housing benefit and a priori not when it was too late, which, because of the abuse of myself through 2007 - and it was abuse - belonged to me to enable me to make a decision about my business. It was not my job to ferret all that out. That would be like employing an accountant then doing your own accounts when you have no accountancy qualifications. It was CMBCs job, not mine and not that of the Citizens' Advice Bureau.

All of this hurts physically. There is a kind of laughter which contains no humour. It is caused when a country and those whom you trusted piss in your face as a piece of garbage.

You - CMBC, in addition, wilfully excluded me in December 2008 from meetings about my business on the grounds, you told me a couple of weeks ago in early December 2010, that you thought how you chose to divide my business was not my business even though the decisions you had made in October 2008 and were making impacted the viability of my business and negated my ability to plan. It is as if CMBC was seeking to push me out of business of any kind when there was at that time a very good chance as a soletrader I could escape the "benefit trap" I was then in because witless medical pillocks and Michael Worboys (CHSTM - University of Manchester) had made my employability as a job seeker less than plausible and for no reaon but their own mindless selfish and arrogant stupidity.

What was the problem -- the Court failed to imprison me on the grounds I was not guilty, so you thought you would do it anyway - without the trifling inconvenience of a trial?

As a Council you have not understood that being told the law is right means you applied it correctly or fairly, or indeed that a particular law ought to exist, or is consonant with the greater mass of law. And CMBC was very unfair. And I also think this regulation is wrong and, knowingly or otherwise, defends a status quo and class divisions and works against social mobility and mobility in pursuit of work and against development and growth through life. Protectionism always self implodes.

A sole trader is not a group of companies and not a PLC. Did they tell the judge I would or was or might be subsidising a company? I was not. I was exerting every intellectual muscle I had via copied emails into trying to convey the importance of the company of which I am a director being dormant with respect to HMRC and active with respect to Companies House, where it is acquiring capital. That is how the company will reach a stage when it can trade. In the meantime what I publish is intended to generate income for me.

And I am curious why the British Library does not assign ISSNs to blogs - not that I yet have blog that is in any way serial. But one could form a bloggers' co-operative.

Mr Russell writes there is no evidence of injustice to me by CMBC. CMBC does not administer justice. It truly has no competence to do so. And I do not for a moment think they are claiming such a right. But they were unfair - AND INCOMPETENT and cost themselves money.

How quick my little world was in March/April 2004 to tear me and my reputation and my life to wasted shreds and/or to play to what they thought was delusion. Like the nasty psychology experiment in which participants are invited to apply electric shocks to fellow human beings - and do so. Not under fear of torture themself, but just for the hell of it.

You did not tell me the meeting about my business was being held in December 2008. Were you trying to punish me for a wrong I had not done because you are too nasty and stupid to understand I had done no wrong? Or just not thinking, or were you badly advised?

By December 2008 I thought the decision had already been made, and you had anyway acted accordingly whilst I argued vigorously you were wrong, and given your words did not cross subsidise from what you not I termed to be two businesses, but I did perform the work - wholly in my self employed capacity - I had agreed to do. That work really did have the potential to help me to make up for all the harm the State and its employees had done to me.

You did not tell me the result of the meeting nor that it was being held. You not I turned a business able to reduce loss and move to profitability into two businesses: one of which was your false reporting to central government of false profit - not something I did because I told HMRC everything - but CMBC created false reporting by making it seem that it needed less from central government than it did need (that helps no one, least of all the Calder Valley), and one business which stagnated for lack of essential and modest reinvestment of earnings into future profit generation.

The business with false profit was unsustainable alone. Five hours cleaning a fortnight is not enough work time to justify claiming working tax credit. And regulation prevented advertising for more. By splitting things as they did with no knowledge of what my customer base had been and where and what expenditure was esential for that customer base the business starved of essentials for repositioning the customer base stagnated and was able to pump less through the economy than it could justifiably have done before reaching a stage where the working tax credit claim had become subsidy for future growth, rather than current, non stagnating survival. In other words, there is a point at which a Working Tax Credit claim, if it continued to be made, would no longer be working tax credit but would be public investment in growth. And so the claim would have to cease and be otherwise accounted for.

Once again to the outside world I was being made to look dishonest when I was not being dishonest. Together the work I did made up my scant 2010 tax return. Its scantness was not my fault. CMBC was the straw which broke the camel's back. Does anyone give a shit? No. Welcome to your own world of nastiness. Irony alert: Hope it was fun for your screwing my life and family to shite for no reason, and that is what this country did in 2004 to 2005 with its lies, derision and canceled meetings (both public and private sector). And then like nasty little shits tried to hide their wrong doing. I was dealing with adults not with scared children.

I had every reason, because of my 2007 tax return, to think that CMBC viewed all activity bringing in money as one business. Now I know I dare not lift a finger outside my work because at any time CMBC will dump whatever it wants, and might slice the cake dishonestly in a way that creates false debt. Any small personal "power base" I had the Calder Valley and in my life (and it was well nigh non existent in the Calder Valley), Blake Lapthorn, Michael Worboys and the medical profession cut away at. On purpose? Or thoughtlessly? I have never abused my modest power base. And I had done nothing to hurt or deride or belittle any of your personal or professional lives.

I would never have done anything so stupid as split the business as CMBC did. I have one set of fixed overheads. I am one person. I have one set of hours I can work. I bill from one address. I have credit (and pre bankruptcy 2006 and pre 2002 had credit) limited by throughput of money in my bank account and my known earning ability. I am now wholly self employed, though for a very small amount of my time I am the finance director of a small limited company. In that capacity I receive no income and act rarely. The company does not trade. What work I do for the company is self interest as a shareholder or provided as a service and, with the exception of those things only an officer of the company can do, I am working in my self employed capacity. The company receives no subsidy from me, nor from my sole tradership.

In my line of work conflict of interest does not split along the lines of blue and white collar work. How the hell could I guess that was your policy? But post priori that is what you told me was your policy. Or did you deliberately want to drive me specifically out of business? Why? What harm had I done you? Or to anyone? Do not blame me for a screwed up system or for the lies of medics and - I mention this now in this piece for the first time - of Inspector Ian Dellow (summer 2004). See Descent to bankruptcy.

That circumstances hurt someone or they think the circumstances did does not mean that a particular human being is criminal or must be hurt in recompense. And try to understand this: I am the one whom the system and many hurt and then tried to blame me for its wrong doing. But the circumstances need to be changed for the future. And if there was negilgent damage then that must by recompensed. I am damn sure there was one hell of a lot of negligence done to me by medics (and solicitors), and abuse from medics and solicitors - probably some of it criminal - as they sought to cover with power abuse for diagnosis and misdiagnosis where there should have been no diagnosis. They gave me no chance to be magnaminous without condesenscion and with respect of them, Which is what I then would by instinct have been. Not now. Now they have shown they viewed me as shite when I am not and was not. And if this country has killed my instinct to non condescending magnanimity it has committed a massive crime.

When I told you (CMBC) of my intent in mid 2008 they did not tell me of the regulation nor how they might apply it. It is not an obvious regulation (came into effect October 2006) - at least not to me - that one could anticipate that any honest government would have passed. And most people do not have lawyers on tap, nor examine statutatory instruments every day, nor even know S.I.s exist. It seems to me CMBC you mugged the State, but that the State entrapped you. This was not a game and if you had other intent you behaved with cruelty. See you in Court.

If one pushes everying to indirect tax then there is no freedom of choice and one might as well be a member of an ant colony.

And in the fall of 2008 why did you not tell me of your complaints' procedure or of the fact I could go to a tribunal? And by the time I knew I could go to a tribunal, what the hell did you tell the judge? Only after the tribunal did I learn of the complaints' procedure. It seems, as I have discovered, no Court record of proceedings is kept after 6 months. Time to retrain stenographers, unless you simply want to flush the State and lawfulness down the drain.

If your view was you wanted to protect low paid blue collar jobs from someone like me with a degree and post grad research experience at a major international universities (Leeds as an undergrad and then Manchester for post graduate work), decades of professional experience on both sides of the Atlantic and a published historian of the history of technology and science and their policy (New York and Germany), but who the State had abused and disrespected and made no apology to (and I am owed an apology - especially from Christopher Haddock and Judith Stansfield and Julie Birchill who did not even come and talk to me at the police station - solicitors - for their behaviour toward me in 2004 and 2005.I also accuse CMBC of playing a large and significant part in my bankruptcy because of the information withheld from me in 2005. How much savings was one at that time allowed to have in the bank when claiming working tax credit or an associated benefit? (And benefit ought to be renamed as allowance, not benefit - there is no benefit in being underpaid, or out of work, or incapacitated) I sold my last capital asset to survive without benefits only to encounter a dishonest office landlord (Dr/Mr Green Brown - Grumpy's Mill, Todmorden). I was at the time also the victim of a dishonest and manipulating and lying policeman - Inspector Ian Dellow. Could I at thate time have legitimately claimed Job Seekers' allowance? I ended up with a bankruptcy at the end of 2006 from which I am correctly discharged without restriction orders or undertakings against me. And I have come to realise the self employed and sole traders and jobless in a difficult market are viewed as fodder for the public sector not as coequal members of a mutual society, at least I now realise I was so treated. Much easier to sling mud at them/us and call us shirkers in screaming brain dead headlines that give journalism a lousy name.

Few of the jobless are jobless by choice. I am not an expert on housing benefit. I had never had to claim it before. That was your job. I was fully able to run my friggin business and my life but not when you chose to misapply regulations exclusionary of me and having given me no warning and then lie through silence to the Court about your culpability. Taking my thinking time and space for work in that way destroys creative work or decision making. I needed the information you are and were paid to give me, and not about things that have nothing to do with you. So far the only thing you have told me is that if one moves out of a house, housing benefit stops. Even I with my female brain, which you seem to think is a pea brain, can work that out. These matters are not simply a personal rant. And I am writing them only because the rest of the press has ignored the wrong doing I am correctly reporting. And the harm done to me can easily be done to others.

Should the General Medical Council be reading I am frightened that I am correct on the medical front. They had done the damage by April/May 2004, but I did not realise the damage was done. There is no excuse for their behaviour, nor for how wrong they were, nor for the manner in whch they related clinically to me. There is no excuse in 2004 for the wrong they did.

The fear is not of the medics, despite their wrongful accrual of powers they have no moral right to, but of the fact they are manipulable, gullible, are liars and seem to have no insight into the damage they are doing to medicine and to their fellow human beings and to law, decency and democracy. Compulsory Treatment Orders? Nazi, Schmartzy. Any gratitude or respect I had for this country and this Valley is dead.

Mostly finalised by 11.2.11. Proof reading and splitting to separate urls for search engine convenience, from 14.05.2012.