PLEASE PRESS F5 A FEW TIMES TO BE CERTAIN YOU ARE BEING SERVED WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THIS URL.

AUTHOR's BACKGROUND: OPPOSITION TO THE MHAct. THE STORY// KEYWORDS, to aspects of background//REFERENCES// Defamation by solicitors//The Samaritans Completed 15.45, 15.3.10 and though minor line editing issues and typos need correcting this piece will not now be changed in substance again, but is here for your lawyer's to read. Those named here or if you think your name is implied. Don't contact me except through them. I will not be removing anything that in anyway leaves me being defamed. If you are working with a screen reader and want to skip the javascript coding for the served Google ads please click here.. .. I AM CLEARED OF CRIME by the Crown Court.// UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER// CLINICAL TRIALS (Scroll down if this link does not work) .. If no ad or solid block, denoting no ad. has been sold by Google, appears in the space above, please report the error to the publisher and managerof this site. Everything on this site is subject to the UK Independent Press Complaints' Commission. Commentary about those systemic problems I discovered as others abused my life. By background I am a journalist, editor and science writer. I now run, for some of my time, an international bimonthly magazine called, Science, People & Politics (ISSN 1751-598X), and have an excellent international editorial advisory board. I am an opponent of the UK Mental Health Act, which inculcates attitudes which destroyed my life in 2004. Not until the end of 2006 was there an opportunity to wrench the wrong into the public, and that was not my then main motivation for making the issues public. I did all I could under the circumstances that others in ignorance and by ignoring resolution procedures foisted onto me to avoid the situation of making public what ought to have been resolvable in private. The essence of the story was, as ever, stupidity and the abuse of power and status, lies and denials. And the prejudice and belittlement by othes of me determined to write me off as mentally ill and a poor little thing in need of rest and relaxation. Bad, bad move. I was not. And I am not. As far as I can tell my crime was that I dared to view myself as the equal of other human beings. That is, when I queried if crime might have been committed against me I was viewed as mentally ill. I cannot be certain because no doctor has bothered to tell me one thing about their thinking and its basis. Not even Dr M Balraj. Whose lies to the contrary should get her struck the off. What was the difference in perception you had in mind? Does it mean we had a difference in political opinion? For example? I had said nothing to make you think I experienced the world in any way other than you do. Because you did not tell me one word, and I asked you nicely and politely and respectfully. The way HB Group Practice dared to put a third party report in my medical notes with that person's name and without my consent. How dare you do something so stupid and so dangerous? You should have written to me and said a friend of yours has rung to express her concern on your behalf. If you had as a practice not lied through silence, not sought to entrap me and not been totally incompetent then no such call by that friend of mine would have been needed. What you were doing had not one thing to do with medicine. The immoral and defamatory behaviour toward me of solicitors from 2004 to 2008. On 17.9.08 Bradford Crown Court cleared me on appeal of harrasment without violence of a secretary of West Yorkshire Police. I was discharged from bankruptcy on the anniversary of bankruptcy and without restriction orders or undertakings against me, and this leaves the way clear LEGALLY for me to seek an annulment of the bankruptcy order. That is my intent. I view the bankruprtcy as a total insult to myself. Every single care and forethought I had taken undermined by lies and silence. Neither the charges nor my defence would have existed had I not been a journalist and editor since 1980. Though when this mess started in 2004 I was not being a journalist or editor (nor was I then a member of the NUJ, though I had been before moving to the US, because one can be a journalist without being a member of the NUJ) and did not think I would need to write about this situation for myself. But bankruptcy and the questions from the official receiver and the lack of interest in my plight among my own profession is why I am now writing this myself. I have sent a copy of the notification of my acquittal to the Northern Organiser of the NUJ. At no stage have I said to any solicitor that I have committed a crime. This is because I have not. There is no other shoe to drop. If anyone tries to make you think there is please tell me so that I may sue for slander. If anyone tells you I am lying and have mental illness and thinks thye have proof please tell me. It will be very useful information for a lawsuit. I suppose I can sue for slander in small claims court? Others, not I, were committing crime. Before trial Phillip Morris, of Smithson, Hinds, Morris in Leeds sought to make me accept via a deal with the prosecution what would have imposed restrictions on my behaviour and would have suggested my actions were crime. I refused. He also set up a meeting that would have made everyone's life a lot pleasanter but his efforts were undermined by Mr Jonathan Lloyd-Jones. I resent the way that Julie Birchill in Halifax, mid 2004 and paid by my taxes over my life (there are arrangements between the US and UK that mean one does not escape tax by living and working, as I did for a little over six years, in the US), simply did not bother to show up at the Police Station on 20.6.04 when she was the duty solicitor. I have never met her, but she was the duty solicitor. She should just have pinned a medal on the civil-liberty abusing bastards from Halifax Police Station who picked me up as I walked home from a dinner party, walking, because I was over the limit for driving, but walking sedately at the side of the road down a road where I had had a cottage for 10 years. It gives me no pleasure to write things that are rude about the police. If she had turned up then maybe a misunderstanding could have been resolved. I was not weaving in the road. I was threatening and harming no one. I had threatened and harmed no one. I had not been wasting police time, and I had tried to follow their advise. I was in no danger. I had wrested myself from somebody who without cause was seeking to prevent me from leaving. He had no right to do so. So why am I being made to suffer with my life turned to wasted public garbage? It was my right to remove myself from someone trying physically to prevent me leaving. . I had no idea what cowardly slanderers were saying behind my back. The police then sought to hide their wrong doing by calling me mentally ill and confused in their custody record (which I wrote for and without advise and because I was furious at the way they had behaved) and without telling me. I was not even slightly confused. And when they started with their abuse they did not provoke any response from me that was in anyway physical. Nor was I rude to them,. Though others attacked me (end of May, admitted to in email - I was too shocked to say anything to anyone and was not hurt physically) and thought they had a right to physically restrain me (20.6.04). You did not. I had not hurt or attacked you. I had not threatened to hurt or attack you. How dare you behave and imply that I ahd or would? You, not me, belong belong in prison. You are vigilantes and ignorant. I was open to apology. Assuming there must be some reason I did not know about. I tried to talk with you. For how many years have we sat and drank and talked and laughed together? What was your problem? I had no axe to grind against any of you. I had said nothing wrong about any of you. Not one single aspect of your lives had Idamaged in any way. From March/April Michael Worboys, full professor at CHSTM, University of Manchester and Judith Stansfield a solicitor who had never done anything to make me think she was other than my friend and solicitor (both) with whom I was at University and whom I recall once gained a first in a paper on jurisprudence, just as I once gained a first in a paper on symmetry, had already begun the defamation and were undermining my efforts to put matters right with them in a low key way within the law and decency. You (Prof. Worboys and Ms Stansfield) played a part in 2004 in precipitating bankruptcy and you are both thieves in my mind. I had shown both of you nothing but respect. Ever. That idiocy was in parallel to what I did not at the time realise was medical idiocy. Not only did the police abuse my civil liberty on 20.6.04 without cause and with impunity whilst others treated me as a pathetic joke, and I am not, they then also left me to go home in the early hours of the morning, alone, when their own record says I was confused and sufficiently mentally ill as to justify arrest under the mental health act. I was not, but I was distressed by police behaviour. I think the medical profession, those named here, behaved toward me with active malice and nastiness, and I had never shown them anything but respect to their faces or in conversation about their decisions. I think they are wholly incompetent in the field of mental health and are a danger. The medics destroyed my access to health care with their wilful ignorance backed by this immoral act of empowerment for condescending control freaks who have no respect for law or their fellow human beings. And to cover their worthless backs they made up what they wanted. Other solicitors who then behaved incomprehensibly and in a sexist, ageist, chauvenistic parternalistic way were in 2005 Christopher Haddock (Halifax), Phillip Morris and Phillip Goldberg (Lester Morrill in Leeds). Each assumed guilt in me from the beginning. How dare you? Have you ever wondered what kind of conversation we would have had if you had told me why you thought I was guilty and talked with me about why I was saying I was not and spoken with me as though I were, actually, not guilty? Nor did I ever say that I was guilty. Ever. In exhaustion over 2006-07 I came near to changing my plea. I did not want to. But I was miserable and utterly exhausted and penniless and the way others had treated me for the past three years -- as a piece of sh** -- was making me think, well if I am not guilty why are they treating me like this? I might as well (meaning must be) guilty. I was not guilty. I never once denied any of the acts (between 2004 and 2006) to the police, in Court or to solicitors, that the police were interpreting as crime in 2006. I knew it was not crime, nor meant to be crime. I also knew it was not the betrayal of a source. I needed a solicitor to help me say to the police what needed to be said in view of the words that Ms Stanfield said to me in mid April 2004 and in view of other things. I have no idea why she would deny the conversation, nor her words and the meaning of her letter to me. But I ought not to have done. In view of her words I ought only to have needed to do what I did and go to the police. Her denial of those words made me look deluded and as if the idiotic, prejudice-driven ignorant and deaf medics were correct in speculating that I was deluded. A question is not a delusion. My questions were not unreasonable. They were not accusations. Medical reponse was beyond unreasonable. They had a presupposition and they intended to hammer their round peg into a square hole even if it killed me. As it could. What criminals or accident had not achieved in March 2004 they could achieve under cover of lies (perjury?) in law. Given my friendship of decades and my professional relationship with Ms Stansfield and her firm of what was Linnells and is now Blake Lathorn since 1982 it ought to have been a straightforward matter for her to have helped me say to the police what needed saying. And friendship and business are not incompatible. It turned out to be unprovoked and unreasonable slap in the face after slap in the face for me by Ms Stansfield. Then I needed a solicitor to defend myself in Court. He just walked away at the last minute. I had not admitted guilt. I did not dismiss him. I was not being difficult. He was being deaf. I was trying to make sure he knew what he needed to know to defend me. That was the difficult part. And as for the CPS charges, of which I am rightly acquitted, there was no evidence that needed to be kept from the Court as far as I was concerned. Yet it is for the medical profession for whom my deep disgust is reserved. I have no desire to see the diagnosing and prescribing authority of licensed doctors weakened, it would be a recipe for disaster, but they owe their patients respect and explanation. They had not one iota for me. But taking their power away will only end up giving it to others with less competence than they to wield that power. But that ought not to give them a carte blanche, and whilst this act is on the statute books they ought to oppose every single effort to try to deprive a human being of freedom on medical grounds. Wreckless engangerment is not a medical problem. The MHAct means that we have undermined medicine as well as law. Susan Bradbury, a psychiatrist and psychologist from York, for example, wrote in 2007-2008 that I had said "I had done it". I did not. She was paraphrasing. She made a mockery of me and of my solicitor, then Phillip Morris. What I am now going to write is not gratuitous offensiveness. It was not me ever who was doing the despising or trying to twist out of responsibility for my acts and words. It is a report by a qualified journalist and editor of considerable experience writing for a legitimate publishing outlet about a matter of legitimate public interest where a public interest defence applies. I am not writing from a position of ignorance (see my CV) but I have no medical knowledge. I do not need medical knowledge to know I have a right to say no and that I had none of the symptoms I have since learned others were saying I had. This is not a populist, anti-the-medical-profession rant, nor am I seeking to build a power base for journalists. But I am being one. I am writing of the appalling, deliberate, knowing and culpable incompetence in practice by a doctor (several doctors) with respect to myself, of police abuse, academic wrong doing and a solicitor's wrong doing. I am not setting myself in oppostion to them having read a few Wiki entries. I am saying they were flat out incompetent so we never reached a stage where they had said anything to which it would seem I was setting myself in opposition. I have tried to reach Mr Morris to beg him not to use this woman - Susan Bradbury - on any other client of his. Was she deliberately seeking to pervert the course of justice. The hurt is because I sat and looked at her with total respect and tried to be totally honest with her. Given her findings in my case she is a real danger to the wellbeing of defendants. Susan Bradbury and David Hargreaves and all the others I met from 2004 when I ought not to have met any of them epitomise the attitude that makes a presupposition and then discounts all which counters the presupposition and which actively seeks not to have its presuppositions challenged. Both nearly had me serving a sentence for the rest of my life when I had committed no crime and being drugged against my will for illnesses I do not have and when, if I had committed the crime but had not been said (wrongly) to be mentally ill, the sentence would have been a maximum of six months. It is as if they had chosen to punish me for the acts and ommissions of others. I think there was deliberate malice on their part and from the beginning and those I met in the beginning whom I did not know. With that malice, or whatever it was, and with their silence the medical profession destroyed my life and my family and did it so slowly and slyly with lies and lies and half truths that I did not realise what they were doing. Mr Morris was present at my request throughout my consultation with Susan Bradbury at the end of 2007. My right and my choice and not an excuse for her not to do her job. And I strongly advise all defendants who are asked to see a psychiatrist to have their defence solicitor present. But could defence solicitors please apply their legal training to what they hear. The rest of my life was at stake and all that had gone before and she (and Hargeaves) damaged my life and the opportunity I was creating knowingly and deliberately by having Mr Morris present when getting a history of symptoms from the beginning of the medical mistakes in March 2004 on the table and because I knew it was relevant to my defence. In the end no such history emerged. I was there and following her lead. The last thing she said when we had about one minute to go was, "have you anything else to say?" What sort of a question is that from a psychiatrist? I ask it as a journalist occasionally, but from a psychiatrist? Did you do any hormone tests, any blood work? Anything? No. Did you conduct even one physical test? No. Did you ask if I sleep well? Yes, I do. Did you ask if I was taking any drugs prescription or otherwise? No. Did you ask if I drink (yes) or smoke (no) or have any illness (no)? Did you ask if I enjoyed my childhood and teenage years? No, you did not, but I did enjoy them. They were "rich" years - see my CV. You fastened on one comment about a row and used that for your own nasty projections. You need an analyst. Did you ask what I do for a living or anything about my life and background? No. Did you ask about interactions with other psychiatrists? No. Did you ask my consent to see my medical notes? No. Did you have those notes without my consent? How dare you? Did you speak with other doctors without my consent? You should be struck off. Did you ask even one diagnostic question? No. None of you did. In 2004 you created a fantasy and have used it to destroy my life. You need to go back to the beginnning and to say - we were wrong. There should be no suggestion anywhere on this woman's record of any kind of delusion ever. Did any of you give me your diagnoses? No. Dr Balraj and her vague talk about a psychosis which was not explained in any shape or form is the closest anyone got. There was not one thing I had told her that anyone could say was a delusion. And she certainly did not suggest whatever she was thinking about ought in any way to impact my life. I asked the questions. She did not answer. Her notes are a self serving lie and she asked not one thing about any other member of my family. Your notes are a dangerous lie and tantamount to wreckless endangerment. I see and hear nothing that you do not see and hear -- unless you are colour blind. Like Susan Bradbury she asked not one single diagnostic question. Did any of you say what the symptoms were? No. Did you ask my dominant world view? It is science in the modern sense. That was guiding the history research I was doing as a post graduate student at The University of Manchester. As it had guided all of my previous professional life. I got my solicitor there with Susan Brdabury because I had at last realised what totally bloody lying, judgmental arrogant assholes the whole psychiatric profession is in this country. But I was not trying to trap you. I was trying to give you a safe environment in which to actually do your job. I think Susan Bradbury is and was taking me, the legal services commission and Phillip Morris for a ride. I think she would have put the judge himself in contempt of his own Court if he had ordered me to give him the report she had written when I offered him the chance to order me to give him the report. He asked did I have the report with me - at the point when I ended up having to defend myself. And he said he had no right to ask for it. So I thought, perhaps I, then, have no right to give him the report. But this is his Court, so if he orders me in open Court to give him the report I will. And before trial I had a copy of it with me. As, when he asked, I told him. Fortunately, since I did not want to be in contempt of Court he refused my invitation to order me to give him the report. This is not a game. These people speak English, and very well indeed. No molecule nor atom of my being was in contempt of Court, because that way madness lies. I have no doubt of that and it sends a chill through my being. I said, for the record, yes, I had undertaken those acts which the police thought were crime and which started in 2004 and which the CPS was testing. In Court the wrong policeman gave evidence against me. I have never ever denied those acts, because they were acts it was my responsibility to take and which no one could undertake on my behalf, and I have no reason at all to doubt the police report nor that of those who were alleging harrassment without violence. I have no idea at all who changed the custody record on one occasion in 2005 or 2006 when the police in Halifax were deriding and abusing my professionalism and civil liberty. The changed custody record was seen by Mr Campbell. I think that Susan Bradbury needs kicking off the gravy train of being an expert witness. But I think David Hargeaves and Paul Sclare and David Burley also need to be hauled before the GMC. I think the report by Susan Bradbury was by a lazy, incompetent thinker and lousy reporter and that reports such as that she submitted to Mr Morris destroy people and that she intended to destroy me and in doing so was covering for the wrong doing by others in her profession against me from 2004. But David Hargeaves is also a fantasizing, incompetent reporter. If my interpretation is wrong about malice -- and I hope it is -- then the Courts need now to be deeply, deeply worried about the quality of psychiatric reports they are receiving. In fact we all need to be seriously worried. Either Hargreaves is malicious and in contempt of Court, or he ought to be struck off. Bradbury is simply incompetent. There is now and has never been in me any mental illness. You have no proof to the contrary. I do wonder if I have experienced PTSD as a result of 2004 to 2006. I will accept that that is possible. Past tense. But on 6.3.04 there was no mental illness of any kind. And I will not let you reclassify grief and the anxious distress that accompanied one very specific event - the suicide by another person in the early 1990s - be relabelled as mental illness. Though that may well be what was used to destroy my life. Speculation about generalised anxiety disorder then in the early 1990s by a fully qualified psychiatrist to whom my primary care physician referred me after a very distressing incident, and because another psychiatrist paid by me suggested that that was what ought to happen. That was in the past. It had no relevance to the present. It ought to have had not one tiny aspect of relevance to 2004 or any part of my life, nor ought it to have empowered the rape-minded thugs of 2009. And I certainly think I ought to have had a right to tell the "responsible adult" who was there only because some nasty deriding weevil changed the custody record (seen by Mr Campbell), and who was not needed, to get stuffed. Did you get paid for overriding what the doctor had said? Prison. You belong in prison. I did get rid of the responsible adult, but in my own way and with respect for her, which the police had not shown. PUBLISHER'S STANCE ON PRINCIPLE. OPINION. I oppose in total the British Mental Health Act and its susceptibility to vigilantes, manipulation, ignorance and those seeking profit and control from forcing medicine on people, or to censor and belittle and control others. I oppose the way it creates self fulfilling prophecies. The irony is that, not in negativity, before March 2004 I had taken a life enhancing decision to leave where I was and move toward a new life which I was deeply happy about. I was not running away from anything. I had no need to run away from anything. Not until after the action of Dr P Sclare on 28.6.04 - action which rode roughshod over my professionlism and my humanity, just as WYP ignored those aspects of me after the lying intervention of Dr M Balraj, who lied in her notes and knew not one thing about me through her own wilful, prejudiced ignorance - had I ever had any insight into what it is like to conclude that suicide is a rational choice. These people are no different from mob rule. I have many, many times in person away from the Samaritans offered and provided genuine confidentiality (though I have been a Samaritan) and throughout my adult life provided real and practical emotional support to the suicidal. At the time of Dr. P Sclare's behaviour I did not at that time know on what grounds I had been arrested. No one told me. Not then on 28.6.04, nor on 20.6.04. The 28.6.04 is fixed in my mind by the parking fine I got from the Aberdeen local council. On the second occasion (28.6.04) the CPS could have tried wasting police time. I would have pleaded not guilty, but I also knew by then the medics were a useless shower. What sort of Fascist country am I living in? Prior to the immoral and deeply professionlly incompetent intervention of Dr P Sclare and his cowardly subsequent judgmental nastiness I had never wanted to kill myself. I didd not afterwards. But I saw why innocent people do. He also belongs in prison for his behaviour given the speculation in his mind and which none of these idiots told me. Had they done so we would have clarified how they were wrong. These medical actions and those of their apologists were all totally knowing and deliberate. That is crime. Do not kid yourself that we are as a country trying to be nice to the actual or allegedly mentally ill with the MHAct. We are not. We have, as far as I can tell, totally messed up psychiatry. We are seeking to create a sub species of human beings who may not say no and who must do as they are told by an ignorant "elite". We are creating a bogey man and setting a terrifying precedent. You ask how many mentally ill commit crime? Well how many with blood group O commit crime? We are nor preventing murderous acts, because murder is not a symptom of mental illness nor caused by mental illness. Not all killing is murder. Nor are we helping public health. Mental distress and even severe psychiatric conditions are not commincable nor infectious (these are medical terms). And symptoms must be carefully probed and the patient treated as though they are The MHAct is populist bulls*** and hands a dangerous instrument to those who want to be judges and police without signing on the dotted line. Human beings are not management projects. In 2002 I was leaving journalism in a planned way for sensible reasons. In March 2004 I thought the transition via transfer from M.Phil. to doctoral studies at The University of Manchester, where I was registered (see references - link above - and CV) was being completed in a normal way. I had committed no moral turpitude. My fees were up to date. I had given as much that I could as well as gratefully accepting the support and inclusion that had been offered. I had enjoyed making a short presentation about my first year work to the Ph.D seminar at the end off December and people had been kind. But that year at the end of January 2004 crime against me (possibly minor) and then others calling me mentally ill for reporting crime in a low key way (great way to keep down the crime figures) and abusing that I had been a journalist (Dellow Inspt. at Halifax Police Station in mid 2004 and others) and in a manner that made me look like a liar and fantasist in and from March/April 2004, destroyed and wasted what my life was about. I do not know exactly when I realised that what I was experiencing from 2004 was a legitimate subject of journalism. Of the publishing rather than not publishing variety. I think not until writing my press release of 9.11.06 about bankruptcy, which bankruptcy I tried hard to avoid. I owed nothing that was not listed on the debtor's petition to anyone, no family member. Any suggestion to the contrary is wilful and dishonest behaviour by the accuser wilfully misleading the Court. British Gas, for example, took my electricity bill out of my name and put it in the name of my landlord and then denied all my efforts to put it back in my name. They took my landlord to Court when he had not used the fuel and denied my efforts to get them to put the bill back in my name. I could not pay the bill if it was not in my name. If that very, very nasty company has sought any Court orders against me they have deceived the Court. If someone took advantage of that situation to offload onto me the wrong of British Gas I will not accept that. You should have taken it out on those who were doing the wrong -- British Gas -- not me. I was in contact with B.Gas re this subject by post and by fax and by telephone (the Official Receiver let me have back all my records) throughout the time they were trying to make my landlord pay for what he had not used. Though at the time I did not know that that was what B.Gas was doing because at first no one told me. Did some vigilante junior decide to take over the function of the Court? I do not know. I am only now trying to clarify that side of the idiocy of 2006. Then, though, I walked into Court looked for the bailiffs, made sure everyone knew what I looked like and where I lived and what my telephone number was and is. I also rang the bailiffs, gave them my telephone number, and told them where I was and told them if they warned me when they were coming I would make sure I was in. I had offered no collateral prebankruptcy to anyone. I had tried to sell things. I had very little to sell. No-one, before bankruptcy, from which I am discharged without restriction orders or undertakings against me, had made gifts of money to me to enable my business to survive. Without March/April 2004 and those named here and their behaviour in 2004/05 there would have been no bankruptcy. Well - who knows? But not in this obscene, life destroying way. Actually -- no. There would have been no bankruptcy. And causing my bankruptcy -- which is what those named here did - and calling me mentally ill when I am not, and damaging my earning ability damages you. Not me. In business terms there is a distinct difference in my conduct between my situation before I sold my final liquidatable asset in mid 2005 and afterwards. Between March 2004 and mid 2005 non of the expenditure (except what the police advised me to spend which made sense). From early 2006 the balance of my action shifted from predominantly pro-active to mainly reactive, though I was still being partially proactive in sensible ways. I had no means of knowing, as I prepared my debtor's petition for bankruptcy at the end of 2006, that the police would go ahead with charges against me. Those charges had nothing at all to do with the bankruptcy. I have been acquitted of those charges, which were charges of harassment without violence of a secretary of West Yorkshire Police and of actions she alleges stretched back to before it was first suggested, in a wholly criminally libellous manner by Police (not the individual officer - it is unacceptable to make such acts the responsibility of junior officers), in the presence of Christopher Haddock, solicitor, that I had been criminally harassing her and those others who answered her phone, which was supposed to belong to her boss, who was the person whom, wholly legitimately and with non trivial cause and about a non routine policing matter, I was trying to reach. I had done nothing careless or stupid to bring danger on myself. I have never been anything other than an ordinary jobbing journalist and edit0r and author, and from 2002-2005 I was trying to change careers. I have never, as Ian Dellow asked me, been a paid police or security force informant, and have no desire to start now. In the first half of 2004 I was moving foward under the momentum of my choices and decisions until February 2004, and after June 2004 I was trying to find out what the wrong of March to July 2004 was about and to put it right, but making spending decisions I would never have made had I known that those professionals whom I had trusted intended to behave with the same incompetence they had suddenly started to show in March 2004. Michael Worboys had not yet pushed me to screaming despair and Dr Julie Anderson had not yet called the security guards to throw me physically out of where I had every right to be. I was waiting for the police. My caar - a hire car - was not where I had left it and I did not realise it had been towed. My work was good. I had said only good things about the University and its staff in public and next to nothing that was negative in private. What was negative was, as far as I knew, my hang up not them. Oh and in 2006 I gave Mr Haddock the copy I signed on Police instructions of the criminally libellous allegations which Mr Haddock made no effort to stop and did not advise me not to sign. The piece of paper acknowledges I had seen the allegations made, which were not those presented to the CPS (neither were correct, not the ones Mr Haddock let me sign, because I do not have the programming skills for malicious telecommunications), but he then later refused to let me have back the copy of what I had signed, even though it was mine, refused to take my calls and set about getting me prosecuted for harassing him as I sought to reclaim my property. He said, via the staff he used to prevent me speaking with him, that he needed what he had for a legal aid claim, even though I had not signed any legal aid paperwork, but thought, because he told me he would have no trouble getting legal aid, that he was getting legal aid. Yet he was telling the Court in 2005 there was no merit in my case that would deserve legal aid. Whilst telling me my case was so complicated that it would get legal aid. My current assumption is that local Halifax defence solicitors live in the midlde ages. The option in 2007 of seeking full time work post bankruptcy on staff was, in effect, denied to me because of these charges brought at the end of 2006, charges that existed only because of events in 2004. but I did make some efforts outside my usual areas of work and telling the recruiter the situation. My employers/someone commissioning me would have had no way to know whether the Court would find me guilty at a critical time in a book publishing contract, and I made sure the only publisher who approached me for a competitive book outline for a childrens' book (New Holland) on an unrelated subject knew of the problem posed by the CPS. This situation existed only because the MHAct and the attitudes it inculcates cuts corners and causes crashes of every kind. In February 2004 I was quietly minding my own business and thought I had resolved all possible money problems. I had moved for a temporary stay at their invitation to be the guest of my family and my furniture was in short term storage. They also were moving, so in February I spent a lot of time on the road whilst also looking to my future. And I was looking for "space" between two phases of my life. I had worked hard to get ahead of my game and was expecting to pick up the pieces of my academic work in late February/Early March. 2004 from March/April destroyed that because I could not anticipate the sustained lies, obfuscation and arrogance I was to encounter. I was totally happy with the University, the department and its staff. No reservations. Not then. My trepidation, which was real, was about how I fitted. It wa a private reseravtion of no public import and was not a reservation about them professionally nor about their personal conduct, but about how I fitted in. Top of the Page. Go to rules for journalists. Keywords and internal navigation links to be added here. Medical practice, Bankruptcy UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER, Samaritans. Rule one for journalists (and with the colloquial proviso of "do not try this at home"): Keep honest and innocent sources for legitimate news stories where a public interest defence applies out of prison. I could select many now wholly safe and, if need be, anonymised and insightful examples, such that they could not be identified, and from my personal professional experience in relationship to published, sought (though not won) and won and paid for work. I could do this off the cuff and on the hoof. Rule two: do not loose honest sources their jobs, livelihood or standing. Rule three: do not be afraid to report what is wrong and unfair if a public interest defence can be applied. It might or might not be criminal or susceptible to easy correction. Rule four: do your best to get a comment on what is and will be reported. Rule five: remember when working as a journalist you are not an expert in anything but being a journalist, and you are not the police nor the one to whom responsibility is owed. Rule six: assume cock up not conspiracy. Rule seven: it is deeply, deeply unlikely a journalist will ever come across a story that can or should be obtained only by subterfuge. If you think you have you are probably not doing your job and have not yet tried making a phone call and telling the subject your are writing or would like to write a story about them or their action, because it is in the public interest. You ought to have learned this lesson very, very early in your career (I never fell into that trap) and to feel embarrassed by your then urge to that action and lack of competence if you chose subterfuge needlessly, which it probably was. Rule eight: Do not invade privacy (what looks likely to come to Court or results in death is probably not private, but check) without massive overwhelming need, or without warning. Bankruptcy. That medical incompetence, which might or might not have been manipulated and might or might not in parts have been criminal, played a significant part in my bankruptcy and my despair, my fear and my misery and isolation. Not because they ought to have recognised mental illness in me and did not do so, but because they thought they had recognised mental illness of profound and serious nature and did not tell me what they were thinking, whilst showing no interest at all in the symptoms I wanted to tell them. And so the real problem was never dealt with. On 6th March 2004 when my nightmare started I had a life I loved. I was on the cusp of moving to a highly productive phase of my life, pulling together all the things I had learned and accomplished in my life. I felt ill that lunchtime and asked to be taken to hospital. Feeling ill is not mental illness. And the distinction between mental and other forms of illness needs to be removed. My stepfather at my request took me, and my sister turned up in a panic. My sister knew I had been concerned about one possible intrusion to my office. My symptoms were not psychosomatic. I did not need and had not asked for any outside interference - until the end of January 2004 when I first called the police about an intrusion to my home. No one had yet spoken, as they later did that spring and summer about national security, D-Notices (denied by saying I had said what I had not said. It was said, and almost immediatly I asked why.) or security forces (partially denied, but said). I did not say these first, though I did wonder if there might be one national security issue. This was a totally sensible concern on my part not some fantasy and delusion. And police business and no business at all of the medics. I have news for you: You do not rule the Universe, nor the country. As for Ms Stansfield, who has now left Blake Lapthorn, and her partner (Mr Lloyd-Jones): In meeting me there would be intangible gain to me and only loss of time for him and for me (an equitable loss, because though our work - his and mine - merits different pay our time is of equal value, each and every person), so, given how long I was a client in a low level way, and my conviction that to be effective this meeting needs not to go to the solicitors' regulatory authority, would it not make sense to meet me? I might be wrong. The issue might need to go to the SRA, but if it does not need to do so it could unfairly tarnish a reputation in a way that me, telling a truth or truthes in a private meeting, cannot damage and which might elicit truthes from him he did not know he knew and lead to a closer approximation of the overall truth. And published correction and apology from one or other or both of us. I am grateful that the firm has offered to remain as executors of my Will and to do so for free. I have offered that we tape the exchange I want to have. Non of what I have said on his answering machine is what I want to say. I would be willing to leave that tape with them. The MHAct provides no protection or empowerment of any kind for the patient or the individual caught in its foul embrace. Mental Health solicitors are at the mercy of loose, lazy and, in my case, lying notes, or notes that have never been discussed with the supposed patient. Dr Balraj wasted my time. It was not me wasting hers, but her wasting mine, and I was showing her respect. Mental health solicitors are at the mercy of ignorance in the field which is hidden by medical embarassment, as far as I can tell, at what they do not know and the need others have that they know what they do not know and, given this Act, are never likely to find out. In addition it is impossible for me to describe the mindless stupidity and derision of me I encountered in 2004 at Todmorden Police Station. Is it a medical norm not to tell someone you think has a major psychiatric condition that that is what you think? Is it a norm to say you have told the patient when you have told them sod all of any value. Because if so these norms need to change asap. Do you want to know a current obscene and ignorant medical mindset? Watch the Channel 4 documentary in which one so-called doctor from psychiatry said, if I thought someone had paranoid schizophrenia I would kick the door in. You criminal pieces of asshole, judgemental s***. You belong in prison for intimidatory behaviour irrespective of any such diagnosis. And since you got your diagnosis of me wrong I would think you are probably wrong about everyone else. My life was, at the time, about selling my home, moving to where I would have access to a wider choice of steady work that I am competent to do -- full or part time -- and writing my conversion report from M.Phil. to doctoral studies at the University of Manchester where I was a research student at the Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine (and it still is about the latter, and will be for as long as I live). It was all positive and sensible and good. I was not doing a taught MSc and so was not going to lectures. Most of those lectures would have been a waste of my time given the type of post graduate degree (research is about creating new knowledge and insight) I was registered for and where I was registered and the depth of reading accessible via the range of seminars available and the guiding tutorials led by my research supervisor. This was not corner cutting. This was perfectly sensible use of my time and skill and ability. I was looking to them to turn me into a professional historian. I think they were doing pretty well until we were so rudely interrupted. They could not have known of events in Halifax from me prior to 16.3.04. I was in need of no extra time than had been agreed to do what I was doing. So who wanted to prevent me living my life as I had chosen to live it, which was not in a way abusive of others. Do not blame me for the need of others to externalise their own hang ups and blame me for their discomfort. The research degree was a good move on my part and it was giving me valuable insight from the inside into being a post graduate and into academia. It was insight perfectly complementary to those insights I had gained as a journalist, editor, author, researcher and writing in support of PR. When I started this website in May 2005 I did not think I would need to be writing what is on this url. And I still think the original problem on 6.3.04 was, most probably, as banal as spiked food or drink by some unknown non medical and non professional third party on that morning. Unless there was some other additional exposure which mixed badly with alcohol, but in a way that did not become immediately physiologically apparent. And there was the reality of one intrusion of which I am certain to my home at the end of January 2004 and another in the spring. And only a few acts of gaslighting can make a usually rational person irrational. Normal theft is annoying. But one lives with it. Gaslighting is when there are meaningless intrusions. Intrusions that have the hallmarks of being by adults not children. That is trespass, not harassment. They are different and have different causes. Getting the two mixed up is bad news. The wrong against me was furthered -- as far as I know unconnected -- on 16.3.04 by unspecified slander at CHSTM, University of Manchester, where I was a part time post graduate research student undertaking research complementary to my then and future possible careers. One motive for what happened at CHSTM could have been to undermine my professional life and to exclude me from the job market given the degree I was then working toward and my professional background. One motive for what put me in hospital could have been attempted murder. It might also have been negligent "attempted" manslaughter if such a thing exists. The local medics were terrifyingly incompetent and immoral. Most especially Helen Alcock and David Burley and Graham Smith-Moorhouse and Dr M Balraj. Of these David Burley takes the biscuit. I think it is possible that their actions could look as though they were covering for their own irresponsible earlier prescribing of someone else - and I had made clear many times to my family that I thought the prescribing needed to be reviewed by a psychiatrist -- and that they used incorrect diagnosis as a weapon knowing there was a significant discrepancy between my educational background and that of all my immediate family. An aside in green: Constructive dismissal, which is what refusal to explain accusation and allow defence amounts to, is tantamount to blackmail. It holds a sword or Damocles over the head of the innocent and gives nasty little slanderers a get out clause for cowardly accusations by second-rate power building sh**s and which are accusations the asses are not willing to make openly so that they can be challenged. I have just realised this (27.1.2010). In my case I had a witness to what was said, not to what the slander was, but to the fact that a slander - that for some unspecified reason I was not getting on with staff and that CHSTM would facilitate my transfer to another University - existed. And if spoken of and discussed specifically with me, the person concerned, it would not have been a slander. My trepidation was slight and hardly spoken. I was in 2005 (and still am) still in shock from the betrayals and abuse of me by those professionals whom I had wrongly respected in 2004 and before. I do not mind mistakes. I mind the ignoring of the low key systems in place to resolve what ought to be low key issues. I was not a sad little stressed, overwrought, uptight, insecure student, but an adult journalist and editor who was a victim of crime and separately of medical incompetence. Non of those in the department struck me as anything other than competent able adults taking difficult degrees. And if I had been mentally ill how dare you act with such obscene condescension? The crime I reported at the end for January 2004? A minor intrusion to my home at the end of January 2004. The one and only previous report I made of crime against me in Yorkshire resulted in the police recovering my property. Plus something that some little weevil had put in my bag (and my bank records and my fingerprints mean it was pretty clear what some little weevil had done). I do hope you caught and prosecuted the thieves. As GMP did some years later. At the time of the intrusion to my home at the end of January 2004 I had not then had the experiences of 6.3.04. And though worried there might have been an intrusion to my office I accepted it was probably me who was wrong. As evidenced by the fact that I did not then go to the Police. As for secure units: Let me tell you about these gilded cages of obscenity to which people are sent by the obscene MHAct. No one ought to ever have sent me anywhere near one, and I genuinely think it was malice and slander and a fascist, sexist and ageist mindset that led Paul Sclare to behave in the unprofessional way he did. The price of existence: accept these drugs or be forced by rape-minded bastards to take what you have said no to. These places destroy people. They are not places of healing. Women serving years and years for what, had they had a decent defence solicitor and the self respect to say no that act was not crime they would not have been. Or if they had said yes it was crime the sentence would have cost them three months of their lives. If you turn the light out at night to go to sleep in these places someone will wake you up every hour by switching the light on or turning it up. The light never gets dim enough. You rapidly become as sleep deprived as any torture victim. I do not want to condone crime, but neither do I want to torture those who have committed crime. I asked a friend to bring in some eye shades and ear plugs from an airline pack. I guess that is why drugs are forced into people against their will. Or, if you are no longer serving a sentence, the person walking round the same area as you, and where you are deprived of freedom and human dignity for no crime, tells you they have committed murder - or thinks they have -- and your deprivation of life and freedom is the same as theirs. Or let me give you the example of the woman towered over by two tall cops. She elbowed them away and she was prosecuted for assaulting a police officer. She was about four foot nothing. At least she thinks she was/is being prosecuted for assaulting a police officer. She was stuck in a no mans' land when I last saw her. Unsure what kind of solicitor she needed or had and miles from her home. This made her fractious in a way that anyone with emotional competence would have understood. She had a degree from Oxford, but she was scared and bewildered. She had been hit on the head - hard - not by the police - I am not sure when, subjected to sustained racial abuse and her chosen adult faith expression and needs were not understood or respected (I tried to grasp the principles, but I am pretty sure I have missed something of profound conceptual difference), but she was being prosecuted. Her family relationships were destroyed. The State has done her considerable wrong. Does anyone give a damn? If not we are a sick society. She met no compassion or patience or respect or understanding from the "nursing" staff. And this all strated with March April 2004. Medics, police, a solicitor and an academic. The solicitor (Ms Stansfiled) asked me if I were speaking and writing to her as a solicitor and I said, yes. I had not said anything of tremendous moment in my letter to her. I was unsure what I needed from her but thought I needed to ask her to think again about her advice re the property I had just sold. Out of the blue she then said her firm had no one dealing with national security, criminal law or litigation and to find a firm which did. She would not tell me why, said she did not want me to see a psychiatrist (why would she have thought I would?) said I had mentioned national security first, refused to tell me when or how and then even denied her own words. When I thought there were inexplicable intrusions to my home and office I certainly thought I ought to say there could be a problem and that is what she and I discussed over dinner. Though not in full. She knew nothing at all from me of those I had met in my professional life, but not acting in my professional capacity, from MI6. And that is not a delusion. It is simply that someone with my CV might have met people in that profession. With her lies and unexplained advice she played a huge part in the worthless life destroying useless garbage for the next six years in which I was hampered at every step by her sh**, her lies, police derision and medical incompetence and the totally unprofessional conduct by Professor M Worboys and Dr Julie Anderson. And there was not one single piece of scholarship or other work connected with my research put on paper by me after 16.3.04 - the date when Professor Michael Worboys separately rode rough shod over every encouragement he had given me for 18 months just as the local medics were about to trash my life with lies and lies and lies. As for the unspecified slander at CHSTM: I kept trying to keep my scholarship alive and to get an explanation. It did not actually cross my mind that there would not be explanation. This was a written contractual arrangement, underpinned by the exchange of money and topped up be clear verbal agreements among adults who knew exactly what they were doing. So did someone make him doubt me? When I wrote to him after the meeting to tell him of the experience at hospital was what I wrote misinterpreted? He did not immediately try to cover his wrong doing of 16.3.04 by using what I had told him against me. Or was someone, even before 6.3.04 speculating dangerously that I was mentally ill? Did someone call him after 6.3.04 and befor 16.3.04? Then you should have told me why. It would have been so simple for Professor Worboys (CHSTM) to have said this is the specific issue -- not a vague comment about not getting on with staff (I thought I was doing fine) when I had every reason to think everything was fine. Then his rubbish about security forces being on my case. But his most damaging commentw as his offer to facilitate my transfer to another University. We were not talking casually. This was a formal agreed meeting with him, me and my research supervisor (not my personal tutor). I had told them in advance my agenda. At every step of my student life I had told them what it seemed to me they would reasonably have wanted to know. Which is very little in detail. Professor Worboys of CHSTM behaved badly. What was your agenda? It was not me your student. I had tremendous admiration for your work and that of your predecessor. I had paid for one year at Manchester and was wanting to discuss: whether one could apply to research bodies and only ask for funding for two of the three years. You knew this in general but not specifics. I wanted to know what they would need to know beyond the transfer report from M.Phil to Ph.D; what the product was they would expect to see for different types of grant; how the grant application for academic research (one of the grants I had located was not of the three year kind) ought to be different from those you had signed off on in the area of the public understanding of science; and how a book might interact with a Ph.D and the University's view of original research and copyright and publishing priorities. You ought to have been able to dispose of all this in half an hour or less. Instead you opened the whole thing with an attack on me and had no sense to see how that undermined every single thing I had done and was doing and which you had encouraged. I ended up saying ok fine I will just do the M.Phil. But almost immediately I realised that was not an option because I had for some time been conceptualising a Ph.D thesis - as you knew full well. This ought to be a private issue. If I had had my way it would have been. But you are the head of a significant department in one of the country' leading Universities and you screwed up in the way you disdained me. So much for some of the origins of bankruptcy. The other part was because of GRUMPY'S MILL, Todmorden - 2005. The abuse which then intervened in 2005, which was outrageous, unprovoked and unprofessional, was by my office landlord in Todmorden at Grumpy's Mill. It scuppered the recovery I had then started to make and after discussion with my business bank manager at Nat West in Leeds and after 5 months of being deeply unwell and traumatised by the medical and police abuse of myself throughout 2004 - what a joke I was to the police, what a pile of s*** I was to the medics, how resentful Dr Burley was at every question I asked, how determined not to hear one thing I told him and how determined not to have an exchange. But that applies also to Dr Balraj and Dr Alcock. They were like sulking schoolchildren - I can only see this in retrospect. Then I simply was bewildered by the way adult professionals were behaving. In mid 2004 I realised that my plans and investment were totally screwed by Michael Worboys and CHSTM, but still did not let go because I knew also there ought to be redress in law and that it ought to be simple, and I paid for a solicitor in the second half of 2004 but realised we were again on a hiding to nothing because he simply syphoned all into a medical jurisdiction, and that was not the porblem. My solicitor framed the whole in the context of me V. the University of Manchester. I was hoping that a solicitor would help resolve not foster conflict. By then my only relationship with Blake Lapthorn was that they were executors of my Will. But given the frame set I withdrew my legal action in 2004 because there was no way in hell I had the money to fight the University of Manchester. Nor did I think there ought to be any need for me to be fighting them. They owed me explanation and apology. So again I tried to get Michael Worboys to tell me why he was willing to facilitate my transfer to another University. His silence was terrifyingly undermining of my job prospects and of my good name. Let me repeat: I could afford to do what I was doing and I was well able. My only problem was that the behaviour of Michael Worboys made me look dishonest and incompetent, and I am not those things. I did not spend on lawyers because I was rolling in wealth, but because I was not and I needed to protect what little I had. For me bankruptcy ought to have been a path toward earning again, as well as by law undoing the massive damage that had been done to me by lies and silence and derision. Criminal charges made that difficult. But I did try to tell the Official Receiver, then Mr David Henry, all about all these things. I want every step 100 per cent clear of the path to temporary penury. Though I am discharged from bankruptcy, until it is annulled, as the lack of restriction orders and undertakings makes possible, I am bankrupt. My trustee was the Official Receiver. I think the bankruptcy is an offence against me and all I was trying to do and had put into action in 2002 and was doing sensibly. Nor was I recklessly running down capital in 2003. I was enjoying my life within the means I had and my then modest ambition, knowing my health and how my options were changing, the insurance I carried etc... I had spotted a problem long, long in advance. Actually in 1999, and by 2001 realised I needed to act before it became an insoluble problem and that I needed to act whilst I had what was to me significant capital and whilst I had the time to accomplish what was my capability to accomplish. Nor do people make themselves bankrupt. Once the Court has accepted your petition for bankruptcy and has made the Order the Official Receiver wants to know about all your expenditure. That is when they learn if they should be bringing criminal charges against you. They may speak to whomever they wish and speak to you about what your reasons at the time were. They do not always return records but they did allow me to have all mine back -- I showed them all financial and medical records and told them my view. In my case the OR wanted to know about all expenditure from the beginning of 2004. What went before was well, well within my capability to have recouped, even without an additional degree, but only, after the fall of 2002, by selling my house. I had no idea what lying, manipulating nasty obfuscating deriding immoral and destroying bastards I was dealing with. I had no idea how they disdained me. And I have no idea why. One comes at the OR's questions from a reconstruction of the past that is the backdrop to the decisions you made and the knowledge set within which you were then making decisions (not the projections and belittlements of others) and which is known to you and you only and which third parties always get wrong. In front of the Official Receiver is every bank statement, every receipt and your tax returns. Their expertise is to see in numbers and accounts in a lot of depth what others cannot see. They know what you spent money on and when and whether what you spent is consistent with your story, your professional background and your tax returns. They know what went before. They may do as they please. Numbers tell them whether your story is plausible in ways that the general public does not know (I guess that is why many white collar trials sometimes no longer have a jury -- is that still the case?). It is possible that deep misunderstandings about the nature of limited companies and bankruptcy and the language used is actually what misleads people. None of this was a game to me. None of it was based on anyone thinking of me as decent, honest and competent nor of others assuming I was not guilty. I made that assumption of them. I assumed that they must have had a reason for their behaviour. I was wrong. If I had been having grandiluquent business thoughts I would have made very different business decisions. My motive in 2004 after Ms Stansfield's words were warning and protection. The precipitating action by me in my relationship with my office landlord in 2005, and which played a significant part in the loss of my final liquidatable asset, was that I asked my office landlord if he had been spraying paint (meaning industrial paint), and I invited him to work with me to resolve a problem, possibly impacting both of us. This was to me a wholly innocuous question, just as at the beginning of 2004 it had been a wholly innocuous question when I had asked him to push my post under the door of my office space. This annoyed him, and he told me I was rubbish. Out of the blue and in direct response to this simple request he looked at me and said rudely and aggressively, "You are rubbish." He used a large brush to sweep rubbish at me and to push me away. Physically making me move backwards to avoid him, the brush and the rubbish. More than once. I had done nothing other than ask him if he would push my post under the door of my work space. He was speaking to a human being. One he knew next to nothing about, who paid him rent, paid her electricity bill, sought his consent to make changes in the space rented from him and accepted him as he was without criticism. I had made one simple request of him and was someone who was having a wholly professional relationship with him. He could have said no politely. He did not. He made no apology in words, nor by silent obvious effort to put matters right. In fact his nastiness persisted He could see that he was leaving my telephone bill where it could be walked over and lost. This was early 2004, non of the subsequent events had yet happened. So I set up a Post Office Box against my office address as the physical address one is obliged to have in the UK. He really is a very rude ass. But I did not then doubt his honesty or decency and had no reason to anticipate his immoral attitude of 2005. And it was immoral and lawless. Only he and one other person had the number of the combination lock to my office. BT knew of my circumstances for its billing arrangements. I do not know where the landlord kept the combination number. He needed it to come in and to read the electricity meters which were in my office space so that he could give us our bills which, presumably, were all in his name. This seemingly personal issue, in view of what I write below, matters. It relates to the question asked by the Official Receiver. It also matters because I am saying I had no reason at all to doubt for one second that my office space was safe and secure. A routine courtesy to customers. So there was no need for any of the idiotic things said by people in minor positions of authority in 2004. But once said I ought to have met courtesy not derision. They are the things that quite clearly set off the spiral to bankruptcy and which are traceable. I say my question about paint spraying was the precipitating action in 2005 but that is what I am assuming, because there was no other reason by me for him to ask me to leave my office space. But he came to throw me out as soon as I asked about spraying paint. But not to save or help me because he then moved others in. One of whom had no sense of smell. I was told. I told others. I drew attention to the fact that in the circumstances that might be a problem This matters because of the rest of this story. I had just in mid 2005 moved from one space he rented out to me to another in the same location, which had twice the space. This was an exercise that I had every reason to think would lead to a significant cut in all my costs. Instead it cost me time, money and uncertainty and like the control freak, lying bastards in 2004 once again undermined the plans I had made. And the reason I am telling this story is so that it is 100 per cent clear which actions contributed to bankruptcy and why I am discharged without restriction orders or undertakings against me, which is an issue of considerable significance to those with whom I do business and who are colleagues. It also matters to me because I would really like to know what I am supposed to have done wrong. The story would not be published as it is were this not a response to the Official Receiver's question about how I spent money. How I spent was legitimately, thoughtfully, knowingly, with no huge unrealistic ambition, and in fear and bewilderment at the unreasonable and irrational behaviour of others, in response to fear and abuse and derisions from medics and the police, and assuming the innocence of others. There is no way I am going to have this wrong, which I did not commit, dumped at my door nor called mental illness when it is not and was not and never was. My office landlord's attitude in mid 2005 undermined the plans I had made as I hauled my sick ass off the floor after May 2005 after fine month. Literally off the floor. His attitude in 2005 cost me months I could not afford. If I had had clue one of how he would behave I would have stayed in the office space I already had, which is where I built my first website. I would have managed somehow with the new circumstances of my office life and thought of another plan. His action cost me time and money and intellectual effort and uncertainty and prevented me spending time as I needed to. I asked him about paint spraying because I had at the beginning of 2004 signed for a paint delivery on his behalf. Before moving at the end of 2005 from his premises altogether, and since the end of 2001 until mid 2005 (bank statement narrow down the date of change), I had an office space above his work space and had smelled no fumes and so thought nothing of the fact that I had signed for the paint. And there was an artist working downstairs. Not that I was signing for an artist's paint. When in mid 2005 I asked him if he had been spraying paint I was uncertain as to whether what I smelled came from his space or from the large factory across the road which used paint and other chemicals. I had some time before moved the paint I had used myself to improve my office into the boot of my car. He had said I could paint the space. So this ought to have been viewed as an innocuous inquiry on my part, and one easy to resolve. Though I did not find him easy to get on with I had never had any professional problem with him at all. Were it not for the subsequent bankruptcy and need to identify the many causes there is no way on Earth I would be publishing on line what I am publishing. But I will not let him off the hook of his responsibility nor let events of 2005 cast doubt on me as majority shareholder in the company which is an asset owned, until its value exceeds the bankruptcy amount, in effect by the creditors on my debtor's petition. And the Official Receiver, Mr David Henry, told me explicitly not to transfer ownership of my website to the company owning the title I founded. He also said (though he has since moved) that he was thinking of making websites assets in bankruptcy. His successor via Halifax County Court disclaimed interest in the website. Before I go on let me explain my office landlord behaved lawlessly. I consulted a solicitor. The lawyer won me time, and I could have stayed on, he said, but I decided to use his advice, which I paid for, to win me time, because, given my office landlord's attitude, I could not be certain that he would not simply dump my things on the pavement, and I had a responsibility to my customers. I also had one to my fellow tenants, which I fulfilled. They thought I was a joke. Though I realised at the time that he had turned by his actions what were, because of what I had set up, very strong chances of avoiding bankruptcy into very slim ones, I was still hopeful and with cause. Oh and volatile, odourless organic compounds could have caused the symptoms the s*** medical asses were not willing to hear. So my effort to work with my office landlord made sense. I had been a quiet and respectful tenant and often was not in the office, but working in a coffee shop, because I like being around people, or working from my home. Though I did, if on deadline, work through the night sometimes. My office landlord's actions were egregiously offensive, and, as I say, lawless. The needless distress (Mr/Dr Green/Brown), he used all these names in his formal interactions with me, and the uncertainty his actions caused in responding to me by asking me to leave and the manner in which he did undermined the plans I had made, given that the sheer criminal stupidity I experienced in 2004, for my final, modest liquidatable asset. I wondered each night how one might kill ones self in a way that would not make a mess. I did not want to. I did not try. Such a thought had never before mid 2004 and the intervention of Dr Sclare crossed my mind. The medical profession and their sick, nasty apologists deride, belittle and harass those they think are delusional in a way that I think is tantamount to attempted murder -- pushing to suicide. They take away someone's ownership of their own life. I am not arguing for withdrawing help where it is needed. I am arguing for a profound rethink built around the idea that all may say no, but still have access to health care they know they need without having to fear medical blackmail. In mid 2005 I had spoken with my accountant and asked for his view and discussed with my bank how I would use the asset (I had no idea how the likes of Ian Dellow were behind my back offloading their garbage onto me). I had some work on the books for the mid to second half of the year, which I told the bank of, and other work in the offing. I took, again, the insurance steps I needed to take, learned of the insurance limitations in my then circumstances given the numbers of people doing many different things who were by now working or storing things in the same building, and I made my working environment pleasant and conducive to work and began looking for a much smaller and cheaper space to live and where I would have had no travel costs, which would have alone saved nearly £100 per month plus annual costs on car upkeep, MOTs, etc... In 2003 I was badly stung - given my income - by car repair bills. I need a car to work effectively. Given that I now had enough space to keep all of my books and work material safe I would, without his actions, have had money to do some travel and bring in money. After his action instead of looking for a small place to live I looked for a reasonably priced flat in Tod. where I ccould consolidate my work and home. That would have been a viable second choice. And I am presuming the Council had given the building a fire safety certificate, given how many people were in the building, and were working or storing things there and how old the building was. Certainly when the Council environmental health department of Calderdale Council told me to buy smoke and carbon monoxide detectors for my office space in mid 2005 I did so. And I passed them on when I left to fellow tenants who did not have one. The smoke detector went off once when there was no smoke or fire and no heater turned on. I was not working on a story. I was living my life. I rang the environmental officer at the Council to ask for clarification, and he said that probably meant it was the type of detector that detects particulates. I tried to talk to my office landlord. The environmental officer at The Council told me there are two broad classes of fire detector. I assume that the presence of particulates of certain kinds would impact how a fire would spread, and again I wanted to work with my landlord. I was not trying to catch him out. Again, my efforts and sensible investment was undermined. I scrambled at the end of 2005 to pursue contracts. As a science writer not as a journalist. Only to find that work was then also moving away from science writers to scientists. I am not complaining about that. It was well nigh inevitable given how much noise science writers have made about the need for scientists to be able to write about science. It was yet another thing I had anticipated. I had not yet in 2005 processed 2004 and interactions with CHSTM. My research supervisor was there on 16.3.04 when the vague allegation against me was made and the insulting destructive offer made without reason to facilitate my move to another University. The non specificity of the allegation in the context meant it could have been anyone, but Dr Jankovic and my research supervisor. I was at CHSTM as a part time research student until mid 2005 though with matters held in suspense from March 2004 because of the immorality of transferring me to a "medical jurisdiction" such that their wrong doing was being covered. How could Prof. Worboys (CHSTM) not have known how damaging to my job prospects he was being at that meeting of 16.3.04? HE SUGGESTED A MEETING WITH UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION, AND I AGREED. THERE WAS NO REASON FOR ME OR HIM NOT TO. THAT MEETING COULD SO EASILY HAVE RESOLVED EVERYTHING. The cost of all of the lies and abuse was to tear me apart psychologically. Well that was how 2006 started, after the medical abuse and lies and silence by Michael Worboys of 2004 and 2005. It ended in bankruptcy. As for the medics in march - May 2004: to think I had once looked up to Graham Smith- Moorhouse when I worked behind the bar at The Ridge when I was in sixth form, and he, occasionally, did so also, though then practising medicine -- at clay pigeon shoots. I was offered a place to read medicine at the University of Liverpool (well it was either there or St George's - I know the offer was made), but missed the grades. Not because I was stupid or incompetent or was stressed but for many, many reasons. I was more than happy with the degree I took instead. It was a positive, active choice. I guess he must have been in major, class ridden snob mode. Like Hargreaves asking if I had finished my research degree at Manchester -- seeking a yes/no answer that by being a yes no answer covered, whether he knew it or not, for the silence and wrong doing toward me by U of Manch. and for his own profession. It is fine for lawyers to ask yes no questions, Not for you. Your job is medicine not some half baked application of legal methods to medicine. And your contempt of me takes my breath away. In 2004 and 2005 I tried to change surgery -- no joy. I tried with the PCT and PLS but received contradictory and unclear answers. Would lawyers please understand the medics operate on preconceived ideas in this field. Maybe you could elicit symtom yourself? When I asked in mid 2005 to early autumn my office landlord said he had indeed been spraying paint but not for a week. By the way I found him because he was advertising in a booklet put out by the local Arts Festival in Hebden Bridge. FYI Calder Valley constituency layout: Ripponden, Tod. Hebden, Mytholmroyd - the river and constituency diverge through to Sowerby (Bridge - Halifax constituency - there is another Sowerby on one on the hills) and a bunch of other places half way up hills and round a bend in the river. The river bypasses Halifax, which is on a hill top. Anyway my landlord said yes he had been spraying paint but not, he said, for a week. OK, I thought, but there is still something. Which is what the Council also said when they had a look round my office. In addition there was an intermittent gas smell which I could smell in my new office space. I know medicine is not a science. I know doctors must make judgement calls. I know they may find themselves making a last ditch effort to save life with a chancy procedure. I know they often operate in a no-mans' land. I know they make wrong choices and are sorry for that, and I know that in retrospect that may look like it was wrong doing when it was not. I do not understand wilful ignorance and hiding behind old wives' tales. I do not understand the way they treated me in 2004 and 2005 or 2007 and 2008, nor why I should be left paying the price of their incompetence and prejudice and ignorance and sheer nastiness. But still I ought to have been able to escape bankruptcy. My office landlord did not tell me of the intermittent gas leak before I moved and before he said I could clean and decorate the new space. But the intermittent smell was, apparently, well known by him and others. The gas smell was outside and near a factory using chemicals. I had spoken with staff at the factory and someone who got out of a large car and who looked vaguely managerial. One staff member said he could smell nothing but that he found the smell inside the workplace overbearing sometimes (so maybe you ought to go to the local surgery and tell them what chemicals the plant is using). I am not saying they are dangerous. I do not know. I am saying they existed. And I sat in Halifax Magistrates' Court on the press bench in 2006 whilst someone was found guilty of an offence near to the factory, and I wondered. The person found guilty was adamant he was innocent. And before you bite my head off, you try getting through to the editor of The Courier, even when you have checked your press credentials are up to date. I was looking for a tip fee. Not lineage. In addition journalists need to be in Court on a routine basis and not knowing in advance which cases to cover, and arraignments at which names and addresses are given are useful. And when did the Magistrates' Court in Tod. Town Hall get closed down? And I have the letter that affirms that I am cleared of crime. But back to me: The managerial looking person said yes he had smelled gas and more than once and yes they did have spills, but yes they did keep an HS&E accident record book. He did actually tell me what the chemical was called but I did not have a notebook with me. I rang the HS&E. I had smelled these chemicals from 2002 as I walked along the pavement outside the plant and from my car to my office but had not smelled them inside my old office space and do not think I was smelling them at the new space which was much closer to the plant. But by 2005 - probably the second half - I was wondering if there were odourless volatile organic compounds reaching my work space. When I noted separately the gas smell in my new office space I called the Gas Board -- the emergency number. They brought equipment of various kinds and detected nothing, but, I repeat, it was not only me who had smelled the intermittent leak --- or smell??? A byproduct of something?. Like a catalytic converter? Remember this is 2005. Everything might have been fixed -- that is, corrected and resolved. I had spoken with people from the factory. I wrote a letter to the editor of the Todmorden News, but I am assuming they did not publish the letter. Perhaps their reporters spoke with different people than I did. They did not speak with me. And I contacted various ward counsellors and the Council and HS&E. Having failed to give me warning, and then allowing me to spend time and money on decorating and cleaning a new office space I was renting from him, knowing, as he did but I did not, of this gas smell problem, my office landlord chose to throw me out. That was wrong. And if the gas problem had been resolved, even had it not, it would have been nice had I been able to benefit instead of spoken to like a piece of dirt and given summary warning to get out when others were moved in, and they benefited from all my hard work cleaning and painting. And I am now asking if it were not gas was there some chemical reaction causing some kind of chemical with odour. This situation came about because I had asked him to work with me to resolve the problem, having asked the Council for advise. Their advise was to not tell my landlord, which was breathtakingly irresponsible of them. I warned all my fellow tenants once I knew of the problem of the intermittent gas smell. None of them wanted to know. One of them called me mad. Just as Mr Lloyd-Jones called me a mad woman, having cancelled the meeting he had agreed to and as was arranged by Mr Morris in 2007 as a means of resolving the rubbish from Ms Stansfield in 2004, which I knew damn well was relevant to my defence against charges brought against me in 2006 (and I was acquitted in 2008, but, though I know it was the right decision, I do not know how and why). My aim in wanting to speak with Mr Lloyd-Jones was to protect what I then thought was a friendship and what was a long term modest professional relationship of respect and competence on their part (and mine) and to prevent an injustice to myself and, possibly, to Judith Stansfield and them. I knew there was/must be some very simple misunderstanding. He belonged/s to something called the ADR Group. I rang one of his colleagues and asked him to persuade him to talk to me. No joy. Not that any of the solicitors would allow themselves to hear what they were being told, and I was not swearing at them -- not at first. Mr Goldberg started out by telling me I was guilty and without explanation. Your accusation killed something again in me. If, whilst you are still a defence solicitor, you take on the role of judge in your capacity as defence you may as well do away with the Court system altogether. No matter how guilty your client looks your job is to do all in your power to prove them not guity or to find the mitigating circumstances. That is how problems of significance are identified. There was not one damn thing to stop you dumping this problem on the judge's desk in Court. It does not matter what I said which was your self justification. You are and were a s***. You assumed guilt and never gave yourself chance to know who I, your client, was. In other words you did not assume all are equal before the law. You assumed I was trying to take what was not mine or that I was exaggerating for reasons of self importance or that accusations were incontrovertible facts. You are unable to hear the truth in emotion and that is not a virtue, nor does it help the justice nor law. Have you any idea how terrifying it is to be treated as a deluded lying guilty piece of s*** when you are decent, kind by inclination, were trying to do the right thing and are innocent. When you are justifiably terrified by some deep and profound betrayals, are bankrupt and with you life destroyed? To someone like me who was doing no wrong to anyone (which does not mean people necesssarily liked me) and suddenly finds herself being called a deluded bitch and having all she had worked for and aspired to accomplished and destroyed. I will not let you push me back to the "place" I had chosen to leave and have left. And having said I was guilty before I opened my mouth why did you not tell me why? I long ago learned not to swear and scream and shout, but I have to admit the hurt and betrayal since 2004 has set me back somewhat. Others in 2004 in Calder Valley on the Street said the rumour was I was going mad and others whom I had never met said in the spring of 2004 I was to report to the police station. I just thought they were loopy. As indeed they were. So let me explain: I am not mad. I am not mentally ill. I am not vindictive. I am not malicious and I am not a stirrer. I am a normally curious person. I am justifiably angry, and I want answers, apologies, explanations and compensation for my damaged reputation and all the other reputations, national and international, you defamed when you defamed mine. I found out that my office landlord's actions were lawless with respect to me by consulting a solicitor. The solicitor, whom I paid, and so the OR has seen the record, acted on my behalf. I invited my landlord to work with me. And it was a genuine invite because I had no desire to move from Todmorden. The work space was ideal given my budget. The location worked for me and my plans, and the Council advise about smoke detectors and CO monitors made sense. They said keep a log. I wanted to talk with my office landlord about that also. I was in the next space. Working with me could have been valuable. But I had to act and move despite my right to stay there because he had shown by his actions and behaviour that he had the mindset that would allow him to throw things lawlessly onto the Street. And I had source material to which I owed a serious duty. And which I had not told him of because it was none of his business. The solicitor was quite clear the landlord's act in respect to me and and notice to quit was lawless. I suggested my landlord consult his own solicitor. I was not threatening him. I simply wanted to work with him. My office landlord ignored everything. This behaviour by my office landlord went a long, long way to causing bankruptcy the next year. It cost valuable time and undermined efforts I had made to rescue my life (go to www.gavaghancommunications.com/ gcsoletrader.html), just as CHSTM of the University of Manchester and Ms Stansfield and her firm and local medics and police had, with their lies, derision and slander and denials and exclusions destroyed in 2004 my life's investment as well as defaming me. And to the Police I was the biggest joke they have ever seen. My guess also is that there was a desire to get me out of Tod. Why do I say this? Because when I went to an Estate Agent to get somewhere else to live given my office landlord's idiocy they viewed questions as an offence and called the police. About five turned up. FIVE. What the hell does HMIC think it is doing? When I asked why, the estate agent said, "Because you spoke". Well I certainly drew to their attention they were selling a house on a street with an intermittent gas leak outside a plant using chemicals but I am not certain those whose action to me was so offensive could have known this. And on the subject of chemicals then "cape Asbestos" (see asbestos story accessible from my home page about Acre Mill) ought to be enough for any Valley, so tell your doctor the chemicals being used, and if you take or took your masks off. When I bought a paint sprayer's mask I was viewed as an idiot. I tried to use police procedures to resolve matters but they blocked me. They were incompetent, prejudiced, grinning deriding s***s. Do you think I wanted to receive the calls I received in 2006 in the months before submitting a debtor's petition for bankruptcy? But the calls needed to be made. If you want to avoid learning about non-criminal, highly professional harassment in circumstances where you have no one to turn and they have the right then I suggest you avoid acquiring the creditors I acquired. I did not tell those who were behaving responsibly that they were harassing me. I told them there was no possibility in the circumstances of an IVA. But I did not tell them the circumstances. I told them this repeatedly. I told them from mid 2006 that bankruptcy looked to be on the cards. Post bankruptcy, of course, anything is possible. Though the local police et al made it as impossible and nasty and demeaning and life and decency destroying and as wasteful as they humanly could. In the autumn of 2006 I arranged to see my business bank manager at NatWest in Halifax, took all my bank statements in and dumped them on his desk, having earlier created a limited company to protect the intangible asset I had made coding from and asserting copyright from basic html, and I called the Court and made an appointment, and invited a friend to come with me to Court (I had the year before avoided this - until the intervention of the issues I refer to above). I did all of this by myself and without advise. In my case from 2004 I was calling the Police to make sure they knew they were screwing up badly and that they needed to hear what I had to tell them. That is I was not harassing anyone. I was not the liar and I was not the fantasist. I needed no medical fantasy to cover for anything academic because I was doing just fine. Did the medics stoke up fear in these women who answered the phone at the Police Station in the manner they misrepresented and misdiagnosed me with the intention of covering up their own ignorance and wrong doing and wrong diagnoses? Top of the Page. Had medics been waiting like vultures for any weakness that would allow them to attack? If not they might as well have been. They got it wrong, but this was not a simple error or mistake. Do they work by rote to an incorrect and damaging protocol? Now I actually really wonder if 6.3.04 might have been attempted murder for something someone thought I knew or was doing. I tried to ask this of the police. Yet another solicitor supposedly working for me decided he did not give a s*** about questions such as this. I am now serious about this question. So let me repeat. I am not a stirrer, that is not the cause of someone stealing from me or defaming me. I will tell someone if their standing is being diminished, but I will also say that I have done so to the person who has done the defaming (once) what I have done. And if I ring the police because you have done something that looks seriously criminal then I have told you. Also on the one occasion that I did, and as you know because I came and found you and told you to your face. My other fights are fairly open if I have them. By mid year medics had come up with all kinds of rubbish they did not bother to tell me. Things were written on packets handed me by nurses. Never explained. Never said to me. Never, ever. I gave the s*** back to David Burley. I was wrongly incarcerated as I waited for sentencing and having said I would appeal after the sentencing. Even though on 7.5.08 after sentencing and before acquittal I was obeying all the rules and being co- operative and productive in my work and exercising to the best of my ability, and obeying all the rules to the best of my ability, despite all this the worthless pieces of immoral, rape-minded, loathsome, ignorant sh**, lying through their teeth, acted like thugs and totally ignored my quiet and very clear no thanks. The worthless bastards on 7.5.08 burst into my room as I was lying quiety on my bed. Having committed no crime and even though I was obeying all the rules. Do you get some perverted sexual satisfaction from such behaviour? Then there was the nurse who knew how to inflict deep bruising (repeat -- and her favourite song was girls on girls). And had that bastard Hargreaves not come out with the rubbish he did I would have been at home waiting for appeal. Four of them. One of them a man burst in, even though law means that ought not to have happened. Voyeuristic bastards. And there has been no injunction on me since 17.9.08 when I was found not guilty of harassment without violence of someone I have never met and never wanted to be speaking with. The MHAct is destroying medicine. Samaritans. If you find yourself in this situation special consultant psychiatrists to the Samaritans (a UK organisation) may well tell The Samaritans not to take your calls if you call a lot. In fact that is exactly what they do do. I know, because I was a Samaritan. My intention with what I am writing here is not to violate callers' confidentiality but to protect their confidentiality. I became a Samaritan because I believed (and I do) in their aims and their way of working. It did not cross my mind the extent to which their (at that stage - our) own systems violate confidentiality, nor how much damage the systems can do. This was because I did not know of the obscenity of the MHAct and, as next of kin to anyone, have and would never do anything other than oppose deprivation of freedom on medical ground (and mental health is exactly the same as all other health). I chose to stop being a Samaritan because I was doing volunteer work somewhere else and was planning a career move. I had not violated caller confidentiality. I was not asked to leave. I took a leave of absence soon after 9/11 and left formally in, I think, 2002. I had every intention of rejoining at a future date. It had not at that stage crossed my mind that the orgnisation's own internal systems violate confidentiality. Had it done so I would not have called them on my own behalf with genuine need as I did in mid 2004 from the foyer of The Crucible theatre. After my experiences of 2004, and when rebuilding my life, and knowing I now had something important and valuable to tell the Samaritans internally and within their system and for discussion, I applied to rejoin. I had no doubt of my own competence, knew that having been a caller would not exclude me, and was, as I say, rebuilding my career and had just interviewed the President of The Royal Society. I respected my fellow Samaritans and knew they might be distressed but want to know what I would like to tell them. At interview I would have told them all I am actually writing here. Or at least that I had a year earlier been a caller. Having been a caller does not preclude one from being a Samaritan. To my distress and horror instead of an interview (and I had it in mind they might think at interview that not enough time had passed from the call it was my intent to tell them I had made and my reapplication) I received a mind numbingly offensive and rude response from the Samaritans in Halifax in 2005. I still have this response and it digusts me. Its implications are a total offence and are outright defamation. As does the subsequent offensive and objectionable lack of explanation in writing when I asked for explanation. I would have written to Samaritans HQ (still might), but after the nasty, nasty way in which MIND in Halifax (they were then in Halifax) treated me in 2004 when I sought their help at the end of 2004 and the way in which their HQ ignored my letter to their CEO I did not bother to follow up with Samaritan HQ. I would love to know what mindless gullible idiots think it is I had done in 2004 to make it acceptable for me -- a victim -- to be treated as a criminal. Well there was nothing. Are you afraid to tell me lest it betray your own criminality? I have since also been told that there is a note out with the Samaritans that if someone calls Helen calls them and say she used to be a Samaritan and tells a story of distress that mentions national security (and I was never using The Samaritans as an alternate route to communication with the Police, only in mid 2004 called because of my distress) then the Samaritans are not to take her call. I am not and have not been a Samaritan since 2001 and so know of no caller confidentiality to protect. Well that apparent instruction fits my profile -- as long as the caller has called only a few time and not after 2004. Did that "order" come from the psychiatrist or was it an internal effort to discredit me given the quite mind numbingly offensive letter which they sent to me in 2005. Take your anger to them, not to me. They, not I, have done the wrong. There was not one thing I had done that in anyway unfitted me to resume my duties and reapply, no violation of caller confidentiality and no incompetence, nor thought to undermine them. No secret little passing on of tittle tattle and gossip about them. No illness, no crime, nothing that would in any way have unfitted me, and if there had been then they could not have known so from me at the time of my application. Over and over again vigilantism and wrong assumptions. Or was it their consultant psychiatrist as early as mid 2004, before I told the reason for my distress -- a "crisis now years and years in the past -- who was seeking to protect the clinical trial of Paul Sclare? Whose actions and lack of actions were tantamount to criminal entrapment and medical negligence. Not one professional person gave me the benefit of the doubt ever nor showed me any respect in my dealings with them on this subject. No medic showed me compassion or respect, and I saw the true ugliness of this stinking Act and the nastiness it brings out in those who feel empowered by its obscenities of vigilantism and ignorance. I had nothing but respect for the medical profession. You all, those with whom I had interactions, speak superb English, so what was your problem? So here, for the record, are the things I would have liked to raise with my fellow Samaritans in decent privacy within their and (and what had been our system). And bear in mind I have never violated caller confidentiality, nor been accused of having done so and have never abused their system of reporting to the leader. Any suggestion to the contrary is defamatory and could easily be personally motivated. The consultant psychiatrists to the Samaritans have a power base to protect, but they are also in a very difficult position. Unlike the Samaritans it is possible the psychitarists could be prosecuted and it is possible that the Samaritans are, by their own system, inadvertently violating caller confidentiality. And if they are allowing anyone connected with the NHS to be a Samaritan -- and they are -- then the caller has, quite possibly, no privacy at all. The reason for the caller's distress could well be the mind numbing nastiness that accompanies the obscenity of the MHAct and it licensed thugs employed by the NHS in a medical capacity. I have no idea whether what I was told about how a person with my profile was not to be spoken to, if she called, is true. And I am not currently (14.3.10) a member of the Samaritan organisation. And since I was told a year or so aago this situation may have changed. The Samaritans need to know they are potentially being used by your consultants happy to seek to protect their power base. Those who call you are probably terrified to tell you the truth. Now be very clear: not one word about a caller has passed my lips outside the Samaritan organisation. Ever. But there is a problem in the way that they do business and which the callers need to know. The Samaritans tell a "leader" of the calls they have taken. I worked wholly within the system and never held back the broad outline of the call I had taken. I behaved trustingly. Now I am concerned as to whether there are other potentially defamatory mechansism beyond the level of leader. I know nothing about how the organisation works at the level of leader and above. This is an organisation I personally would like to see succeed but I take serious exception to what looks like an egregious breach of my confidence in 2004 and the rude and defamatory behaviour toward me by them in 2005. There was no reason why my application to rejoin was no longer appropriate, certainly none they could have known of, and now that I am aware of this seeming breach of my confidentiality I have to wonder what part that played in the manner in which my professionalism was viewed in 2005. Like I say, though I did not formally leave The Samaritans until the spring of 2002 I had done so via leave of absence not long after 9/11. The Samaritans write notes about some calls they take and these notes are read by the next shift. That is how it used to be. when I was a Samaritan I did not think anything of this. Because it would bever have crosssed my mind to abuse what I was reading. That was why when I was desperate myself in mid 2004 I had no qualms about calling them. I never once thought about how potentially damaging such notes could be to a caller nor how calls to The Samaritans can be used to damage a third party's reputation. What is said to The Samaritans may well not be true. I, personally, think the psychiatrists ought to be working on psychological means of weaning people from their need to ring the Samaritans. But not by coercion. And I think they ought to tell the Samaritans to work hard on their non judgemental, non interpretive agenda. I also think the psychiatrists are out of practice with patients and have a bad case of non clinical paranoia. I think that taking freedom for medical reasons creates dependency. Taking freedom for committing serious crime is fine. Medical help can be offered without the need for the Mental Health Act. If it is not the prison authorities can be prosecuted. But all medical interactions need to be consensual. And if someone says my life is over do not deny them. Mine is. The life that belonged to me and which I had earned and chosen and which I loved and which made me deeply happy was destroyed for me by otehrs in 2004. It is very hard to recreate a new life with nothing and when you had wound down the old life to enable a new life and there is a lot of slandering gossip and half truthes and nonsense swirling around your head and which people refuse to clarify with you and which you were fighting without realising. But if the psychiatrists tell the Samaritans do not take the call -- well that would be just dandy would it not? Your hatred and anger turned in on itself. Despite having called The Samaritans for myself four times in mid 2004 I was not told not to call on any of the occasions I called them. I strongly suspect they would not have been able to absorb and empathise with the hurt and anger they would have needed to allow themselves to hear. But if you have been banged up in a secure unit (SYNONYM FOR PRISON) and are drugged against your will (I spat the s*** out - quite rightly) you need to consider that the staff will probably note the numbers you call from your mobile phone and that that might be viewed as evidence of you needing to be locked up even longer. The information you are given along with your mobile phone makes clear the terms on which you have the privilege and that it must be handed in at night and that numbers dialled may not be deleted. So your choice is to bottle up your misery, or speak it and get banged up for longer if you are honest. Your only option is to pretend to be happy and grit your teeth and survive and accept you will be given no emotional or psychological support of any kind. And if you know you need the drugs and forget to take them then if you want you can explore injections with a doctor. Dr Balraj said she had explained the aetiology and genetics of psychosis to me. You are supposed to be a qualified consultant psychiatrist. You did no such thing. Which perceptual abnormality was it that in your view could be corrected by 5mg of olanzapine or 7.5mg. I declined. One cannot medicate reality away. What had I written or said that you thought was delusion? And if the other person denies it do not dare assume they are delusional. They might be lying or mistaken or misremember, or telling the truth. They might also be delusional, in which case they will have some insight into this, and do not need you undermining them by telling them their delusion, which they know is delusion, is actually real to them. Vis-a-vis olanzapine: what is the functional group of the compound? With which neurotranmsitter networks does it interact? How does it modify those networks and what are its side effects and how are they caused? What are the additional drugs you then prescribe as you turn them into your chemicl pet and experimental animals without the right to say no. At this stage I would like the neuro and biochemical pathways please. And I want it connected in specifics to the precise thing you think is a delusion. You say you know best and are helping? Fine. Explain yourself. Give warning of the side effects to be expected, and -- you lying pieces of s*** - do not trick people into your chemical and psychological prisons by telling them they will not need the drug for long. But when my father died my mother, and after she had worked flat out for three yeas to rescue our business, was given tryptophan - a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (repeat: selective, serotonin-reuptake inhibitor). These were prescribed for depression, and at certain doses they are anxiolytics. It was repeat prescribed, never monitored and never checked. And I am not suggesting people should be forced to take things if they are not taking them, but that they should be monitored so that someone with a degree in medicine (which, though based on science, is still an art) knows whether they are taking them. It would take very little to talk about drug affinities with receptors and threholds of effectiveness. Well Hebden Bridge Group Practice (which had outposts in Mytholmroyd and Luddenden Foot) was totally incompetent. They were irresponsible repeat prescribers. I do not know what they are like these days. Since 2005 I have been no where near them. They made clear I was to them a pathetic pile of lying sh** too ignorant to understand English. They made clear they were willing to abuse their diagnosing rights and in the nastiest way they could. I do not mind others disliking me, but I mind nasty cowardly power abusing and status abusing sh**s who took my trust and respect and money and liking and without provocation from me when I had done nothing wrong destroyed what my life was about. Saving no one. Helping no one. Five minutes of explanation is all that was needed. Me and my biophysics degree and my CV, my career and books mean nothing to my family. I am, as far as they are concerned, an air head. But I am not. Nor am I a doctor. For half an hour with open minds and the time spread so that it would not damage other patients and according to a timetable they set and said must be adhered to and with minds willing to hear they could have saved my life. This is important so that 2004 does not destroy the lives of the rest of my family as it did mine - and others, especially those who think I am an air head. There was no way I could protect my mother from the repeat and lazy prescribing of HB Group Practice. And I did try. There was no way in the beginning I thought there was a need to. I heard what she said about do not let me give them ect and made her view clear. She went to hospital willingly because she was ill and knew she felt ill. She now thinks it was exhaustion and grief. I now think she is probably right. Depending on the dose of the SSRI they might have been right in what they did, but they were irresponsible in not weening her of that and monitoring it. Then, though, she called the ambulance. Not me. I was not there at the time but was asking the doctor for advise about what I ought to do. They said there was nothing I or they could do. Well that was bulls***. If they had let me tell them what was going on they could have given me guidance in how I might behave. I was there to listen. But listening and hearing are active two way processes. Later I accepted the medication (the dose went up - does the drug cause depression in some people? - for depression) helped if she said so, and later my suggestion about monitoring simply won the response from my family of, mind your own business. If there were anyway other to rescue myself from the crap the medics heaped on me and so on other family members then I would do so. This is publicity I hate. And no matter what you think I have never encouraged anyone not to take medication. But I would not turn them away if they chose to stop. How you gave succour to the cowardly bastards at CHSTM in 2004 who had not the guts to say specifically what the problem was. People are now working on the genetics of the molecular biology of inherited illness with many genetic components. The manner that HB Group Practice behaved will give a lousy base to any studies. If there are any protocols seeking access to NHS patients diagnosed with mental illness they are flawed from the beginning. How much damage did those unmonitored repeat prescriptions from HB Group Practice cause to my mother and to others? Do not dare blame the family. They do not have a medical degree. What symptoms did it induce that would look to the under educated to be what they were not. That drug was taken off the market. Were people not taking it consistently or were there genuine problems with it? If they were not taking it consistently why were they not, and would their voice have been given credence, and would options other than coercion have been thought of? Let me take this opportunity to call for a full and thorough judicial inquiry covering the decades of the obscenity of this Act and its predecessors. I do not think the problem is that the medics did not know. I think in many cases they knew exactly how much damage they were doing and just did not give a damn. Others were probably crippled as doctors. They also have no idea of the concept of a null hypothesis, informed consent nor how to make that hypothesis specific. You do not need journalists and science writers for that. We have less idea than you. Do people not realise how ill informed and prejudiced psychiatry can be? I did not. It is in the middle ages. No matter how many imaging devices: it is in the middle ages. Is it because they do not realise that if one doctor makes a mistake in the beginning in the field of psychiatry subsequent psychiatrists do not go back to the beginning and ask ought that diagnosis to have existed in the first place? They build houses of cards. Those medics I met, each and everyone of them, including the last, who I genuinely trusted and liked and thought was hearing what I said and who seemed to be respecting patient confidentiality unlike his colleagues, at the last minute failed to have integrity and speculated beyond his data having failed to test what data he did have. My guess is that it was payback for me telling him I opposed forcible medication, and was him acting in defence of his colleagues. He said, "And we were getting on so well until you said that (about forcible medication)". In addition to thinking I never had schizophrenia (he is correct) this final doctor also thinks drugs would be of no help. Well obviously not - at least of the psychiatric variety - since there is nothing the matter with me of a psychiatric nature, and since he made no effort to check with me what proof I could offer him of what I was telling him the truth. The MHAct can be used to bypass law and create massive injustices. The psychiatrists make up whatever they want. Fantasies. It destroyed my life and damaged and hurt that off others. Do not blame me. Blame the MHAct and the prejudiced belittling it encourages. It is not worth the paper it is written on. I was told by a very, very credible source (for whom I would invoke source protection -- a complex subject -- and I think this might be the only case in my life where I might have had need to invoke this type of source protection) of a young person whose parent said that person was threatening the parent with a knife. This is nothing to do with me nor anyone I know. But the source is indeed credible and the subject is of sufficient importance that I have no qualms about using this means of trying to make public what it really might not be possible to make public in other ways. And I really ought to add that the source has one hell of a lot more protection than I alone can offer. That young person was whisked into the mental health system and committed suicide within it, destroyed by the hopelessness of life in that system and by the family's inability to get the young person out of the system. They tried. The young person suffered. The medics in the system did not help them. Its aim was control without trial of what they had no moral right to control. My comment is: why was that person not charged and given a chance to defend him/herself? If it transpired the person was mentally ill there would (sorry, I ought to have written there might have been) have been a defence. The parent might have misread an angry voice and fear and hurt and given the wrong meaning to the fact that the young person had at the time a knife in their hand. The parent might have been provocative of known weakness that could cause a physical problem. Like playing strobe lighting for an epileptic. If the parent had known of the epilepsy that could have unpleasant consequences for the parent, if it could be proven the strobe lighting had been played with deliberate harmful intent. In this hypothetical case which I am using to make a point, not as illustration of a specific case, might the diagnosis of epilepsy have been withheld? Even if it had been known, was there an overwhelming reason why that strobe lighting was right? In which case some mutual explanation is called for if there is to be justice. This is an imagined scenario not the specific detail of the real case I refer to, but it is a scenario that demonstrates how this Act can be abused and how naive we, the British people, have been. As far as I know I did not mention the thought about spiked food or drink to anyone but Dr Boston on 23.3.04 and did not mention it again until much later. I was quickly distracted by Dr Balraj, Judith Stansfield and Michael Worboys. I did not think of environmental exposure until later still. Did Dr Boston, without my consent, tell a third party of my question? If he did, he did not tell me he had done so or would do so and he should have done and asked my consent. I know now (but did not know then) that immediately and without my consent Dr Balraj spoke with Dr Burley. How dare you? I would not have thought that any of them had betrayed patient confidentiality without my consent or consultation and explanation to me had it not been for Dr Helen Alcock's egregious betrayal of patient confidentiality and of what no one had bothered to tell me. And anyway it made no sense at all. I looked at the person and said -- correctly -- but that is not true. I do not have late onset schizophrenia. I know this because I have non of the symptoms. Luckily an "expert" now agrees with me. Do you get more money if you can claim to have more mentally ill patients? Just curious. On 20.6.04 WYP were civil liberty abusing s***s, but if that bothered my defence solicitor she did not let it show. And it is possible that it was because I had wrenched myself free of someone to walk home that I was distressed. Test results the next day were negative for all usual drugs. I do not know if there were any prescription drugs in my system. There should have been none, because I had none. How much alcohol was in my system? I tried to get the police to do a blood test, but they would not. It was because I was over the limit for driving that I was walking home. Earlier there had been Dr Boston's incompetence. He did not ask me why I thought what I thought, ie specific PHYSICAL symptoms. He did not ask me if there had been any additional symptoms after 6.3.04 and before I went to see him. He did not say what delusional meant nor why anyone would think there was such potential. Doing so would have taken less than five minutes and within minutes I could have given him the specific proof he needed to know I was not delusional. If Dr Boston thought a lump had characteristics suggesting it was potentially malignant rather than benign he would, presumably, have said this lump might be malignant because of these characteristics. It is not certain that is what these characteristics mean but we are going to do some tests. If he had said to me the characteristics that to us look like delusion are x and y then I could have said, but no -- they are not delusion. What would you like me to show you as proof of this? Perfectly normal people end up in a bad episode of The Twilight Zone, being threatened with what they may not say no to, and the fear and stress hormones that may have led to distress in the first place mount and the medics re label the terror they have caused as paranoia and make matters worse. And everyone ends up misdiagnosed or diagnosed when there should be no diagnosis, and the drug companies laugh all the way to the exchequer. This is not medicine and it is not science. It is power freakery and actually not by the drug companies primarily, but enabled by the fact that they have money.. By the way: when I was wrongly incarcerated at Kemple View, before my acquittal, I wrote to the CEO in the US of the company manufacturing olanzapine to say that a European Court had concluded it was lawful to drug people against their will. Mr Fred Pearce, the deputy editor of the magazine I founded, located the address and I gave the letter to my mother and step father to post. Now I think I have been told by a credible source, whose name I do not recall, that this ruling also says that a Country has a right to make its own laws. One would need to take legal advice. The feeling ill of 6.3.04 extended after the visit to hospital, and got worse until, like (in the sense of simile, and not definition), a passing fever the illness passed. But it was unusual. Chill and uncontrollable muscular trembling among other things. I was taking no prescription drugs and non had been prescribed to me, despite the fact that I was about to get a letter telling me an appointment had been made for me with a psychiatrist. It never crossed my mind not to keep the appointment, nor the next one, nor not to write to her. She thanked me for my kind letter. It was. I never told her of the above and other physical symptoms because I was trying to follow her agenda, not realising it was a lying agenda nor that we would never get to physical symptoms. That physical sensation, accompanied by real dread, was not imagination or delusion anymore than it is imagination that I wear glasses. I did not then. I still have contact lenses but stopped wearing them in case any of the chemicals near my office were impregnating the lenses. Now I can't afford to buy them anymore. When I sold my house I had budgeted for a new second hand car and a trip to Italy. It had been 6 plus years since I had had a holiday - one where I did not need to think about work at any stage in the day. I ended up in the Yorkshire Dales, at The Devonshire Arms in May-- a real and deserved treat costing roughly what I had fully intended to spend in Italy. I had found a property in Nelson that would have suited my needs but had not committed to. I was again trying to clear space and re-adjust my thinking, given all the bizarre behaviour and wierd things said. I had still not grasped (and I still do not know what the problm was) what viscious, lying excluding bastards I was dealing with at CHSTM (via Michael Worboys, and he, not I, is the culpable one for the lack of specificity) and among the medics, nor that the University would renege on the dispute resolution and seek to hide the wrong doing of its head of department by hiding in the skirts of the MHAct and seeking to turn into a medical situation what was not medical. Let me tell you about being curled in a ball of misery in the corner of my kitchen and wondering why I was being treated by local medics and police and my supposed old friend as total worthless lying s*** and joke. Let me define denial and adverse reaction reporting for you; You are assholes. You belong in prison for the way you treated me. I sat in my car in Scotland and thought, yes, I ought to be dead. But I would not kill another human being, and how dare you think I would? I sat and listened to someone saying, well if he is not a paranoid schizophrenic why would he have killed someone? Are you saying murder is a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia? Then, since I have killed no one and have no desire to kill anyone I do not have paranoid schizophrenia, and how the hell did David Hargreaves, who is a first class ignoramus, come up with that until, that is, his idiocy was overturned? He said I thought I was a secret agent. No. I did not. I am not and have never wanted to be, and have never gossiped about that part of my life. I told him about the photograph I had of one (probably more than one) in Washington DC - taken innocently by a third party and given to me. Though the third party did not know what he was doing, I and those photographed did. And I am not able to leak to myself what I do not know to ask about so do not blame me. Not someone I knew when I was on the staff of New Scientist. A photograph I had never discussed with anyone. Not someone with whom I was at University. I keep telling people -- I really am not stupid. And since the person who took the photograph did not know what and who he was taking a photograph of he still has the negative. And unless the police in uniform at the rank at least of inspector and in a police station would like to speak with me with total respect and with a witness then that is where the negative stays. No one told me to make the tape of the hour I spent with David Hargreaves alone. They did not know that the tape was made (my mother gave it to my solicitor of the time), nor how it was made. It was made by me acting knowingly as a journalist in secret and in defence of myself in the face of wrong doing and garbage from police and lies and knowing I had a public interest defence and that the Court could take the tape and defending myself in the face of wrong doing and incompetence by medics and CHSTM and solicitors, and because there was no other way to get the story, which was and is a very, very important story, into the public domain, given what Ms Stansfield said and the letter she wrote. I was not pursuing a story of any kind until petitioning for bankruptcy showed me there was a way to make the Court aware of what I was trying to say and to which I swore on oath. None of this is fantasy and I do not for one minute think it would have been denied had the judge asked. Early in 2002, having no idea anything so bizarre could go wrong, I had decided to put my house on the market. I realised I did not have the means to accommodate the variations in income flow given where I was, my background and who I mainly worked for. I had a very good idea of what I did not know. Implementation of my decision in 2002 was delayed by a dispute about a fence height and whilst that was resolved and my neighbour sold his house. The dispute needed resolving before I passed on the "problem" to someone else. As with all such disputes much energy was wasted, but given my decision as to how I would pay for the change I was making in my life the issue needed to be resolved. The new fence height meant that when I sat in my room looking East I no longer had the pleasant view I had had since the late 90s when my neighbour lowered the fence height, presumably to improve his view to the West. Anyway the dispute was resolved wholly amicably from my perspective -- ie I had no hard feelings even though I lost and I thought the outlook from my house was less pleasing. I had no sense that my neighbour was worried, and he had anyway won and done so legitimately and according to the absolute letter of the lease. I had had to fight to be allowed to see the terms of the lease he was relying on, but once I saw them I conceded he was right. And I even paid for the solicitor's letter which acknowledges the content of what I had seen. That experience made me less willing to seek legal advice in 2003 when the need again arose and I was seeking to oppose a small building my new neighbour wanted to build. Again it would have spoiled - even more this time -- my outlook to the East when sitting in my living room. Though that was not the grounds on which I opposed the shed. I wrote to Calderdale. I do not think there actually was a planning application -- not sure. But the response from Calderdale was to send two totally different letters to myself and to my new neighbour. I know because I went to speak with my neighbour and we compared letters. It was a totally reasonable exchange between he and I. I sent one letter or email of protest to Calderdale about the discrepancy. I wanted them to know that by sending letters saying different things to neighbours they might have fostered distrust and a nasty situation between me and my neighbour. But after that I dropped the issue. The property was being sold legitimately and honestly against reality, which had been my aim all along. I view forcible incarceration in psychiatric hospitals, with or without medical need, and unless it is an alternate to a prison sentence, to be an obscenity no better than rape and assault. What those of standing had not destroyed with lies and slander and mindless incompetence between 2004 and 2006 the State set about destroying from 2007 to 2008. Deaf solicitors who would not grasp even the most basic tenets of law. In 2009 those who had the legal aid franchise that would have helped me would not say why they were not going to. If you said to someone I think potentially you have cancer do you not think that person has a right to know when you decide they actually have and how you reached that conclusion, and based on what? If they came to you as I did they have a reason. Or did you think I was a time waster? But billions are riding on their arrogance. Billions of corporation tax and salaries for the immoral who know they ought not to force drugs on others but do so anyway, telling the person assaulted -- me -- well we will loose our job if we don't. And you expect respect? You are the instrument of State sanctioned physical assault and are no better than a drug lord forcing his captive to become addicted to heroin. You are vindictive and no better than Nazis. You obscure decency and justice and cause fear where non should exist and are screwing up medicine. You refuse help to the genuinely mentally ill and have no idea of the complexity of genetic inheritance -- really -- nor of the factors that might have led to wrong diagnosis in the first place and in earlier generations. In fact it is just possible you are Lamarkian, not even preMendelian. Your intent was nothing but forcing drugs against consent. In the end in 2007 in desperation I rang my former therapist in the States, to whom my then psychiatrist, who I consulted when I was grieving two suicides, had referred me via my HMO at what was then the George Washington University Health Center in the early 1990s. I have the tax returns and old cancelled cheques (in the US banking not British banking sense). I did not view that as a secret. I did not view grief as mental illness. But as though I had broken a limb slipping in an emotional storm. And the limb had been mended. Did David Hargreaves even try to ring these people, whose names I had given to him? My only minor unusual worry, on top of the usual stress of moving house and the need for the sale to go through as a matter of urgency, over the Christmas of 2003-2004, was concern about an intrusion to my home at the end of January 2004 just as I was moving house, and what might have been one to my office the previous year. The office was behind two locks (and that was responsible action on my part given my customers), one of them a combination lock. I accepted those who, plausibly, said I was probably wrong in thinking there had been an intrusion. But it worried me. I asked my office landlord if he had put anything in my office. I spoke of this situation with friends and wrote a letter about it to Ms Stansfield at her office (but I was not asking her to do anything, and I voiced my uncertainty) but it ought to have been no big deal, and, as soon as I was certain at the end of January 2004 of an intrusion to my home - and not before - I went to the Police. I had not pestered them before. I actually was not expecting them to show up at all on that occasion because I was very, very aware it was possibly something minor and that I was moving, but I was concerned on the part of those who would be moving in. I had rung the non emergency number. I said, I am pretty sure, that I would understand if they did not turn up. I rang my conveyancing solicitor to ask her if I ought to tell those buying from me, and she said no. I was and am self employed, and I was then a part time research student (self funded with no tax deduction) at The University of Manchester working on my transfer report from part time M. Phil to doctoral studies. Many adults these days change careers at my then age, as I was doing. I sought to start with an M.Phil and asked at the interview about transfer to Ph.D and was told it was an option. I was accepted in roughly the May and spotted a funding opportunity with NESTA in July 2002 I think. Given that I was paart time it would have paid me a modest but badly needed salary. I had already decided to do my academic work part time, which was lucky because the terms of the grant application precluded a full time Ph.D student. In parallel I was talking with my then agent, who was based in New York (not the agent thanked in my book). The struggle we were having was that she did not think she would be able to sell a book that was a mixture of politics as well as science and people. But I kept the two streams of thought -- book and thesis -- running in parallel. And had I won the NESTA award for the database I wanted to build, drawing on the expertise that CHSTM and the University of Manchester had to offer, then my agent might well have been able to sell the book, because she would have had leverage. We applicants (myself as an individual and CHSTM) were shortlisted for the award, and I was interviewed, but we did not win -- I made the grant application apportioning a standard amount in my application to the University for overheads. I was unaware of any criticism of NESTA and was simply doing what I thought was normal. Having failed to win I concentrated on the academic work, with the book as backdrop. I was pretty sure, given how the research was going, that I might have something to tempt an agent by the time the research was complete. By January 2004 I had written just short of 20 000 words of academic thesis building (And in fact I had polished it hugely more than was seen by Jeff Hughes by the time things went wrong) and I had made a short presentation to the Ph.D seminar in the pevious December (2003). The 20, 000 words included footnotes and endnotes, and I was only two thirds of the way through my first year (which, being part time, could, at Manchester, be spread over either two or three years - I had chosen two years to make the plan affordable). The 90 000 words delivered as the thesis might or might not have included the words as then written. Having sold my house I had the means to do the degree, even if I did not win a research grant. I had by then conceptualised the shape of the whole (which was why I had spent so much times at archives and museums and in art galleries). I had, in addition, maybe 8 thousand words of chronology and annotations on the chronology. I had bibliographies and summations of papers and books. By year end (which would have been the summer of 2004) there would have been a transfer report of 30 000 words within which there would have been at least one full chapter and partial content for other chapters. I think it was chapter 4 I was concentrating on. The whole was pretty well conceptualised. There would have been also the strategy for the next four part time years as well as at least 10 000 words of chronology for my reference and, in addition, a non academic book outline plus more summaries of papers and tables of economic activity among the UK, Argentina and US (citing work already published by others) and a bibliography. The book plan was already partially on paper. And that is why on the afternoon of 20.6.04 I was driving around RAF Menworth Hill trying to get a sense of what it would have been like in 1962 -- I did have a number of reasons for choosing that year. At the centre of all this was the actual mathematical physics of Sydney Chapman and Lloyd Berker and the magnificent intellectual structure of the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958. I stand by my assertion that its like was never seen before and is never likely to be seen again. It astonishes me that people cannot see that and that anyone would think one has yet done anything other than scrape the surface of its meanings. Personlly I think the IGY of 1957-1958 was midwife to a Kuhnian revolution in geophysics and plate tectonics. Though that was not what my thesis was about. I am an experienced researcher and author and knew full well, as has happened in the past, that my thinking would, for a large project, change as my research and analysis progressed, and that I had reached the stage of needing to start pulling in the outer limits of my research. But in the end I might as well not have been experienced because, for any practical purposes, on 16.3.04 the University of Manchester undermined that in total. I did not want you to teach me how to do research. I wanted you to teach me how to be a professional historian. And that, actually, is what I was very happily and very effectively learning. But I was in my first part time year. I recall Clive Stafford-Smith telling me once how first year law students in the States have found themselves as the only public defender for someone on a capital charge. That was how it felt to me when CHSTM and Michael Worboys came up with their s***. I could not go back, but I could not go foward. I was seeking academic advise appropriately about research and publishing priorities and grant applications. My head of department and research supervisor had already signed off on grant applications in the arena of the public understanding of science and had encouraged me by saying they would sign off on AHRB and ESRC grant applications. I knew the odds against me and any applicant. I had asked. But I knew the applications themselves would be of value, and that as long as my relationship with CHSTM remained as good as I had every reason until March 2004 to think it was I knew I had made the right decisions. It really was not until 2005 that I realised that my relationship was destroyed, and that became clear as the tactics of constructive dismissal bit deeper and deeper into every interaction with Michael Worboys (CHSTM), driving him to more and more disdain and silence and me to impotent fury. This was not the school playground. He took cover to hide his wrong doing in what I told him privately -- and I said explicitly this is not a problem -- I am quite happy to seek to resolve this with the NHS and my doctors. I had then no reason to doubt the competence of local doctors. Michael Worboys, denied me without cause the means so crucial to making the living. Without his goodwill I was in a quagmire because I had burned bridges and what was meant to be 18 months of rich CV was now a waste of time. Not only of 18 months but of the years which had got me onto the course at Manchester. But one does not see these things at once, and other things were obfuscating the issues re CHSTM. My supervisor had invited me to do teaching with him in the 2004-2005 academic year. I was delighted and excited. I understood this to be a routine offer. I understood him and his methods very well and knew I would be able to learn from him. That is, I knew that teaching with him would, in fact, be him teaching me to do what I had told him I was interested in. I knew from the other, more advanced work in progress of Ph.D colleagues, that I was was well on track with my academic work. One student showed me the thanks she was going to put in her thesis. A courtesy for which I was deeply grateful, and her excellent work, which I read, was inspiring for me (the third French Republic and entomology). I attended and participated in nearly all the departmental seminars given by external speakers, and the Ph.D seminars and the historiography seminars led by my head of department and his predecessor. I participated in the tutorials led by my supervisor for his research students, of whom I was one. I had just discovered the history department's seminars and conferences and had started to go to these. Tourism on the River Plate was the first seminar I attended. And then an international conference, and I paid to attend thinking there might be a story, about genocide and Human Rights. I was getting to know the literature in my new chosen field. For example, from Minerva or ISIS, and was able to find my way around all John Ryland's colour-coded vastness. I took advantage of all the other types of research-support courses on offer. I was researching and reading and was guided by the papers that were examples of the historiographies the department head and his predecessor were introducing us to via those publications. This was all well within my competence, and I had not even one tiny doubt about my ability to do what I was doing. I was researching the evolution of the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958, and the impact on it of Sydney Chapman and Lloyd Berkner, and was setting the whole in the context of The Falkland Islands and Antarctica, and learning of the science of Berkner and Chapman, a mathematical physicist by training, and someone who conceptualised globally. It was delightful to read Chapman's notes from 1919, and his occasional thoughts about Einstein's thinking, a minor source on this, in Chapman's papers at Nuffield College, Oxford. I hope I have remembered the mariginalia correctly. Certainly he has some papers at Nuffield. Most of Chapman's papers are in Alaska. It spoke to me, as did his other work, of someone who was a superb mathematical physicist. Maths being a set of tools that can describe physical reality. Several different tools from, eg Newton to Einstein, can describe the same thing in different ways with differing levels of scale and complexity and physical parameters and be given different language as metaphor for observation, eg curved space and time dilation. I was not quite sure yet where the thesis was going (there was still another full year of basic research needed), but I knew I was not working on a great men theory of history and that the juncture of the history of the Antarctic and the IGY was infinitely more interesting and intriguing and complex than anyone had (has?) then yet reconstructed and analysed. Certainly there looked to me be more than one Ph.D thesis in that junction and the many other junctures with the IGY. Mine, as I say, was/would have been via Sydney Chapman and Lloyd Berkner and the impact of ordinary individuals on great endeavours. Spies, intelligence services, the Vatican's later settlement of the Beagle Channel dispute, the Trans Antarctic Expedition, emergence from World War and post war macro economics, namely major aerospace contracts in the late 40s with Argentina -- all were creating a fascinating picture and backdrop that would have made thesis footnotes and might have made the main content of a book. For someone transferring to and qualified to transfer from M.Phil to doctoral studies there was nothing wrong about this. Obviously as a student fresh to professional history research I was exploring a Marxist historiography, hence I looked in great detail at FCO records and was building a painstaking and very detailed chronology from many varied sources and was developing the arguments in support of my source selection and reviewing the source selection of others with whom I would be competing, and I was aware in rough terms of the work everyone else had done in the IGY field (which with modern databases and some well placed emails is not hard to do). I became aware (I did not know when registered at Manchester, as I was until 2005, though in effect, because of what I allege was unjust constructive dismissal, not after March 2004), of the FCO records also at The Brotherton at The University of Leeds. My world view of the global events was UK centric and focussed on the Anglo-US axis. I had just started to think about France because I thought that might help to dislodge the hermeneutic I was locked into. Such a shift might have led to an alternate dominant historiography, with greater or lesser ability to explore the full dimensions of the story. They might even have been complementary. The historiography I chose led me to LS Pressnell. A Cambridge Ph.D thesis led me to the ICJ (not in person, but in reading of published literature or case conclusions in international law as analysed in the literature) and earlier international legal rulings in the South Atlantic before the ICJ. Pressnell led me to the relationship in the late 30s between Argentina and the Bank of England. The Monroe doctrine and the aftermath of the end of the Spanish Empire were significant dimensions to the context. I ought to say the historiography I had, toward the end of my first part time year, fallen into, was Marxist. I have no idea where it would have ended up by the time I submitted the thesis. I was already exploring military archives. I was thinking about where, given then knowledge of science and technology and anticipated science and technology of the day, the military might have seen emerging global threats. That insight would have guided my research and the search terms and search methods I used in various archives. I was learning what it meant to have a truly global outlook, as the British government did in the 30s and 40s. I was beginning to discern some possible very long term thinking indeed from the pre Second World War years. It was so strange to realise there had been a time when the Second World War did not exist and no one had heard of the holocaust. The question I wanted to talk about down the pub (not for publication) was, what would have happened to South America had it not been for the Second World War and what did Peron talk to the Pope about and what was Winston Churchill doing in Argentina in 1940? I was sinking into this pre holocaust world, utterly amazed that it existed. And be sure the holocaust happened, and be sure it was aimed at the Jews, and be very, very sure no other group was treated in the same way even though other groups suffered. Be very clear this was evil incarnate. Some rift opened in a metaphysical world and evil itself entered. Perhaps it is because I am Catholic by background that I believe in Evil. This is not a word in my world view to attach as an adjective to human beings. What we do can be evil. So when I write evil I mean that Evil entered the world and manifested itself in the holocaust. Human agency tacked on other prejudices but this evil was aimed in total wholly at Jews and had a dimension beyond wrong and crime and power stuggles. This was not about a power struggle. The holocaust was Evil. It transcended national boundaries and political views and even the causes of war itself. It was an evil beyond even slavery and the kind of evil that sends people mad. These were all guide wires for research and crucial to understanding the impact of Chapman and Berkner on the IGY. There is one chain of events in what I think of as the mythology of the IGY which sets the event in a chain of events that began with the first International Polar Year. That was true. But there was a much larger more complex and dark history against which the IGY can be seen. I had not yet created that knowledge. That was what I was doing. I had found an example of what I thought might well be Chapman's war work (Second World War. He was a pacifist in WWI) at the National Archives, but it might have been another Chapman, and I knew which sources I wanted to explore to check that out. It might have come to nothing. The historiography, and the sweep of departmental seminars which started way back in earlier centuries, was only a tool for research and to enable me to interrogate the finding aids turned out as a result of research council grants, eg the ESRC. In other words I was a first year, post graduate history research student and was quite happy at being a first year history research student and did not think I knew more than I did. I said and meant I was trying to learn how to be a professional historian. I was almost embarrassed that I dared to think that was what I could be. But I also had a living to earn and had invested a lot in the transition (drawing down capital against a known appreciation, which meant that after 18 months, on 1.2.04, and after sale of my home, I was in exactly the same position as if I had not drawn down the capital, but ought to have had enhanced and more flexible employment prospects - which I did, and failure of the University's dispute resolution procedure was the problem there and the reason I was not confident in how I move forward), and I had the means for reducing debt significantly and recreating a capital base, which I had not had in 2002, and whilst protecting the savings plan I had for my future) and now needed to know how writing non academic history or selling various types of work to non academic outlets might impact my nascent academic aspirations and my investment. I was fully committed to the new direction because by the end of February I had paid off a significant debt which I would not have paid off if I had had any inkling of what was to come, and what came and within days was not within the ordinary scope of misfortune. Nor was it mental illness. But I did not know, at the end of February, what was to happen. I signed the cheque for more than £10, 000 and committed myself to my new direction only to have the ground cut from beneath me on 16.3.04 without any explanation. With any inkling of what would happen on 6th and 16th March I would not have signed so large a cheque. The medics simply got is wrong, but then they did worse. However that and my understanding was all to come in later months and years. In 2004 I went to talk to my head of department and research supervisor on 16.3.04 about simple routine matters.. That is where I still live. I have no reason to leave. No one should have tried to make me leave. But they did. They did so by constructive dismissal. Top THE STORY Author's background 2004: Head of CHSTM, Professor Michael Worboys, University of Manchester, reneged on university dispute resolution procedure. 2004: Mid April -- Oxford-based solicitor in a now major commercial law firm lies about advise re national security. 2004: Head of Chstm, University of Manchester says "Security forces are already on your case" -- refuses to explain. 2004: July - local police patrol inspector, Ian Dellow, talks of security D-Notice then lies to and about locally-based journalist (me.) Local Halifax and Hebden Bridge medical profession abuse psychiatric diagnoses and use shabby medical practice, lies and abuse of privacy Wrong diagnosis, seemingly made specifically, but, if so, never given, based on wilful ignorance, arrogance, derision and prejudice, despite my courtesy. RESULT: Massive distress to me, destroyed career and life and, in 2006: Bankruptcy, false charges against me, defamation. My life destroyed for no crime and no wrong doing: 2004 - 2009. All that had gone before wasted. But what I did know before being told more, probably was already in D-Notice territory, which is probably why I was in denial, and it was definately not such as would have enabled me to then have elicited what I was told and not even by accident. Which is why I tried to give District Judge Bennett the telephone number that would have helped him to sort things out. And I do not need protecting from the State by medics. I need to State to protect me from the medics. Inncidentally not only do I find "stirring" obnoxious I also do not like prying. Inspector Dellow also lied and said I, not he, had said this first and that he was speaking in response to something I had said. I had never once said what he said I had said. I saw Ian Dellow because that is who someone purporting to be CS McClean, then CS in Halifax, told me over the phone to see. As for the medics: You assumed I lived with my parents when I was actually staying their temporarily in March 2004 as I moved house. In other words I did not fit the profile. Did you assume my burned hand was self harm? It was a nasty but not very serious burn from an electric steamer. I was unused to electric steamers. I do not like them. Did you think her saying I had done some work for EUMETSAT was delusion? I have in mind the case study David Healey writes of about the woman who thought she worked for NASA (are you sure she didn't?). If an 18 year soldier fresh from Iraq, suffering from PTSD says he works for the CIA that is not necessarily a delusion that is suscepitible to rational argument, drugs or biological psychiatry. Certainly you are making total idiots out of yourself if you doubt for one second that my old friend and professional contact, Ms Cleggett, did work for NASA. Rid yourself of any delusion that I am any other than the person who wrote those two books and which you seem to wish to call my delusion. Top At hospital: Did you think my distress was --- paranoia? That is the garbage David Hargreaves came up with. Reportedly. HE DID NOT TELL ME. Why at the hospital in 2004 did they do no physical tests and ask me nothing about my life? Why were your first questions about self harm and why did you immediately call a psychiatrist? Why when I saw Dr Boston on 23.3.04 did he not ask me why I thought I might have had food or drink spiked? Why did he not ask me if I had raised my concern with the police (I had not) or whether anything else was going on in my life that might suggest what I was saying had credibility. Why did he not ask if there were any stress in my life and if anything has happened since I had been in hospital and that might have caused me psychological distress. Why did he not explore symptoms and alternate hypohtheses. Did he decide without telling me to refer me to a psychiatrist because of what I said, and if so what of the things I said had worried him? In hospital I tried to answer all the registrar psychiatrist's questions. I had no answer when he said if you will not tell us what is wrong how can we help you. Is he really licensed to practise medicine? I had hidden nothing from him. I was there to ask a doctor what was wrong. I told Ms Stansfield about my stay in the hospital. It was to give her context. I told her I thought it odd that there had been a sign in the hospital saying that power to emergency equipment would be switched off in the event of an emergency. It had no meaning to me other than something that identified for me when I had been at the hospital. But what I really wanted to do was to get her view about a low key matter which I have now told her senior partner about, if he ever listens to his answering machine. It was as if she found the genuine need I had for her for genuine issues to be annoying. Ms Stansfield might not have meant the words national security in the way I heard them, and that was why I sought clarification, especially when she underlined what she had said by sending me a letter on her firm's letter heading. In her letter she referred specifically to our conversation during which she had said, we have no one dealing with national security, criminal law or litigation and to find a large firm in Leeds or Manchester. During that conversation she said those words before me. But she then said I had mentioned national security first. In 2002 a major British research University had offered me a magnificent research and learning environment, and I was with pleasure and joy taking full advantage of all they offered their research students, an opportunity I had earned with my professional work and which the University then destroyed and wasted from March 2004. I had a practical, sensible, affordable goal in mind. Which viscious condescending bastard wanted to destroy my life? Re my relationship with CHSTM: One of my former colleagues at New Scientist had given me a complete set of New Scientists and its predecessor and I had passed these, with my former colleague's good wishes and full knowledge, to my supervisor for his research. My supervisor said he was grateful. I had wanted to give Vladimir Jankovic a copy of an interview I had done with Joseph Smagorinsky, but I had had to tape over that because I could not afford a new set of tapes (this was why I had gone back to University, to invest in an education that would have allowed me to iron out significant cash flow problems resulting from the uneven payment terms of different customers). I have already told my new bank that I do not do business with people who cannot pay, so I had no doubt my customers would pay. It just was not always clear when, and NatWest at one point changed the way it negotiated and processed my dollar cheques, which severely compromised my cash flow to the extent that I had to put into effect the plan I had formulated six months earlier, but slightly earlier than I had expected and, actually, had it not been for that change in handling my dollar cheques it is just possible I might not have had to put my plan into action. But unlikely. The nature of this precipitating event in the fall of 2002 in my financial life is not one I discussed with the Official Receiver, nor with anyone at all at the time or later until putting this on line either yesterday or the day before (10/11 January 2010). This was because I did not need to discuss the issue in order to get out of the situation, and because when NatWest in 2002 without solicitation looked into the issue they explained it was something that had happened at their foreign exchange desk and that it was because it was a facility I had not used for some time. What would have helped is if someone had explained to me before that date that because I had a lot of capital in my home I could have used some of it. I did not know of that factor in advance and so could not in early 2002 factor it into my planning. I found out from The Halifax. (I, at no stage, asked The Halifax for business advise). This action took the cash flow problem out of my life and substituted the stress of how quickly I would be able to sell my house. I was working on a cash flow projection in which my dollar cheques were cleared over a few days not weeks and the change scuppered me because I was not quick enough and did not have someone to thrash through some scenarios of escape with me. Not that is until I went to The Halifax, but then it was not business advice I asked for. I did not tell them my business situation. I never used them for business banking. The difficulty arose because it had been some time since I had last paid in a dollar cheque and so found myself facing a six week clearance rather than a three day negotiation. It can now happen in minutes/hours -- the full transfer and acceptance of payment between banks. To get the loan I needed to see me through the unexpected six weeks I had no choice but to put my house on the market as I made arrangements to take out capital. And once that was done the die was cast. So could banks please review if they have small customers who at any stage have signed paperwork allowing their dollar cheques to be cleared over three days. Please make sure you notify the customer by phone and/or in writing that you want to know if the customer still needs that facility. With me you did not. I had decided I was willing to sell my house, but I did think I might have found a way not to, and I was not counting on winning the £40 000 award from NESTA, which they had shortlisted myself and the Uni. of Manchester for interview about. When outgoing expenditure for business can vary significantly as against one's incoming cash flow, which also is unpredictable that means one calls on credit, and I had concluded that my age and situation and business and location was such that I could no longer do that. I really was a far from profligate spender. I made the decision well in advance of when it would become an acute problem. I researched job options, took out insurance against highly unlikely events etc etc... However the unexpected change in methods of negotiating my dollar cheques did force the pace in 2002. I had held off on placing the house on the market because of the fence height dispute. My aim being to sell the house against reality. Such problems are why I no longer had the tape of Joseph Smagorinsky. But I had told Dr Jankovic that he was welcome to my other tapes with pioneers of weather satellites, which I would have thought would have been invaluable to him and what I knew of his research about weather (he has since made a programme about weather and the military, but I do not think I knew that was where he was taking his research, and I was also separately analysing Naval ships' logs in support of my research at military archives looking at events in the South Atlantic in the run up to the IGY. Again this is all normal for what I was doing and totally relevant to the many branches of the IGY, which included: meteorology, the ionosphere, the aurora, solar terrestrial physics, oceanography, glaciology etc... I would have been quite willing to ask EUMETSAT, whose DG at the time was one of my referees, what I could share with Vladimir of my interviews with those I had interviewed. As far as I know it was only EUMETSAT's papers my contract, reviewed by what was Linnells (now Blake Lapthorn), stipulated that I might not show to a third party, and I never told Vladimir I had such papers - and I still do (legally). The Copyright Act does, however, also have some insight on the subject of tapes. I have shown the papers to no third party nor played the tapes to third parties. I discussed their content with no third party. I was and am quite able to work out for myself to a very large extent what they mean or to work out which questions to ask, and I had access to Eumetsat' experts if I needed further clarification. So I have no idea what I did wrong. Have you conned others into thinking you were blameless and the problem was me? You lying, manipulative bastards. There has not been one day from the end of 2004 to the end of 2009 when I have not wept with loss, fear and grief. I have had to mourn the loss of all my immediate family whilst they are still alive. I have had to mourn the loss of every single thing I loved. I am not exggerating for effect. Years ago now what trust existed for what we were was smashed to smithereens and the medical profession in its rush to lazy, corner-cutting judgementalism without explanation is the reason why. You took someone innately gentle and tolerant and you destroyed me. A policeman with legs twice the length of mine at 10 at night kicked my door in and put me in handcuffs and dragged me off to the police station. Do you find that funny? Then you are sick. What had he decided I was guilty of? What did he think I knew which I did not know? Before that he trapped my foot under the bathroom door as he tried to kick that in. I was unable to move my leg because that leg is weak. I tried. I warned him. The cuffs caused light abrasions which the police surgeon saw, but they were gone by morning. A police woman who said she had once been attacked made a mockery of me. That was the first time they saw my press card and only because they were going through my handbag which in those days was not where I usually kept it, and I have that card legitimately, and I will not let you recast me as stupid, unreasonable and whatever else your arrogance has decided to accuse me of. The dues are paid up and I just have not yet sent off a new photograph but will so as soon as I can. But it was abuse by Paul Sclare in Aberdeen in mid 2004 when I went to police because WYP would not listen after Ms Stansfield's words, not realising what an effective hatchet job had been done on me, that really destroyed my life. Eleanor Roosevelt was correct to say we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Fear is a terrible thing. It is real. It has physical consequences. It has nothing to do with paranoia. Is fear mental illness? I would say not but it has a real sensation of twisting below the ears that causes unhealthy laughter and tears. Making psychiatric institutions warm, and I never should have been in one for even one second and was there only because of your denial and your deafness, and providing good food does not make them anything other than prisons without privacy in which needless assault is legalised and often of people who are not in prison because they have committed a crime or could not live independently. Probably they spoke in a tone of voice their relatives did not like. Or some self righteous git needs a pet they could condescend to. Exposed to the subtle threat at all times that if they say no there is always ect. That was the poster above the beds in Aberdeen in 2004. You mindless, viscious, loathsome, second rate s***s. You utter worthless pieces of trash. I hope I have expressed myself clearly. My fear is not unreasonable. By the way the maximum NICHE dose of olanzapine is, I think, 20 mgs. I hid the s*** in my teeth but one deriding bitch thought I was a horse and wanted me to open my mouth. Injections forced against the will are an obscenity. You are Fascist s***s with the mindset of rapists. You have lost all power and influence over me. It does not matter what you do. I went back to Aberdeen to pick up my car and to ask Dr Sclare why he had behaved as he did -- via Aberdeen police. That is a whole other story. It was nearly a year later that I found out what had been on his mind. After police had brought charges against me of driving other than in accordance with a licence. His nurses helped me to load my car when I was in Aberdeen and not once did he tell me that I ought not to drive, nor even, actually, that he thought I was mentally ill. Which he did not tell me. I had gone and got my eyes tested after Dr Balraj's idiocy and lack of explanation, and I took my test results to give to Dr Burley who was scarily uninterested. I will not have you label the fear your methods and sustained derision, lies and belittlement caused be called mental illness. The charges were dropped and the licence returned to me without the need for me to see another psychiatrist. It would have been hard for Dr Sclare to give me his opinion because he made no efforts to discuss symptoms with me. I saw no defence solicitor and the mental health lawyers I met in Scotland were both tosspots and the second one was an arrogant asshole and scornful and explained not one friggin thing about why the hell I was there and how the bloody hell to get away from an abusive State. How dare you speak so bloody rudely to a client who is responsible for you getting paid? If Aberdeen police in mid 2004 thought my action was wasting their time they could have charged me with that and let me try to explain that what looked like irrational behaviour was because I had been left with no other means of communication. The Aberdeen police and the Scottish system is as bad as anything devised in Stalin's USSR. No defence solicitor, no charges. No defence allowed. Despite the fact that CHSTM chose to treat me badly and destroyed what I know my life was about, and they did, I would like to have it known that my head of department's Ph.D thesis was invaluable to me (science in the South Atlantic in the geopolitical context of the late nineteenth century to the late 1920s). I had already asked if I might be able to attend certain other undergraduate subject lectures at the University and been told yes. My own degree level maths and physics were at that stage some time in the past. I was going through the process a first year post graduate history research student goes through as they learn deeply what is meant by presentism in historical analysis and how it must be excluded from one's analysis and thinking and creation of a history. History is written from the past, not to justify a present strategic aim or wish. Oddly by instinct I had already known this. Knowing where Chapman's physics and maths ended up by going to some randomly selected undergraduate maths and physics lectures from particular courses my research suggested I ought to go to would have helped avoid presentism in my thesis. I would say I was creating a pointillist painting in my head as a framework for the thesis. My supervisor's insights were spot on for investigation, in particular of Lloyd Berkner. I genuinely think it would be dangerous to the quality of academic knowledge building had I sought to do what I was doing without the oversight and involvement of a major University like Manchester, and which was teaching history as well as offering research degrees. But my previous experience in researching and writing good histories is what made what I was learning totally comprehensible. But one cannot work on a thesis if one's head of department says one is not getting on with staff and offers to facilitate transfer to another University and the positive attitude held toward you by your head of department and supervisor suddenly changes without explanation and just as you are seeking their advice about research output priorities. Let me tell you how viciously poisoning it is to one's self respect when people say we have no belief in you or your integrity or your honesty but we will love you anyway. I do not want such love. I want your belief that I am not a liar and for you to give a damn that medics and police treated me like a lying criminal piece of sh**. Were you covering for your earlier repeat prescribing (not to me) without monitoring of the medication of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor - tryptophan -- a drug known to induce suicide and suicidal thoughts and now taken off the market? That was well well out of order. Well I have never tried to stop anyone taking any prescribed drug ever. What I have said I have said with consent on the record to doctors. I have never tried to gainsay your shi** in the psychiatric field -- other than ect. I did not realise how horrible the MHAct is. Perhaps I went into denial. Sometimes one needs someone to say, have you grasped the import of what you have been told? I missed the elephant in the room. I missed it totally. I did not need the Ph.D I was working toward for my status or to help me feel better about myself. I needed it for work. Nor was I working on what The Guardian and Manchester Evening News reported about alleged radiation poisoning associated with Rutherford's old lab. It is not me being grandiose to think that someone might have thought I had given who my supervisor was. That is not me trying to claim the glory of someone else. I actually do not want the glory. I had finished with journalism. Not in a snit. Not feeling a failure, because I was not. But having decided rationally that that was what I wanted to do. I knew nothing of this story, which was emerging in 2002, according to The Guardian writing in 2007, though a colleague has, since that story appeared, told me about how in, he thinks the mid 1990s, someone who he was interviewing demonstrated with a Geiger counter how much radiation there was in one particular location at The University of Manchester. This is an example in which I would have no choice but to employ source protection. That is, to be clear, my credible source and honourable source (and via my professional life I have many sources), is now nameless. All I know is that others belittling my life might make the police discount that it would not have been crazy for someone to think that in 2002-2003 I was working on something I was not working on, especially given my research supervisor was Dr Jeff Hughes and given his expertise and his thesis about radioisotopes and the radioisotope stories as a journalist I had reported on in Washington DC. Have CHSTM denied me -- I have my financial records? When I asked questions at seminars of external speakers I was not wearing glasses. COPUS (Royal Society) and The Wellcome Trust have Michael Worboy's signature on my grant applications in the areas of P.U.S. (Public Understanding of Science). And Professors Worboys and Pickstone must have realised that if I thought there was a problem I would have told them, because when I smelled a rat in an aspect of the way NESTA evaluated its grant disbursement I told them, not knowing that the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology had already dealt with the issue. And, since I have no reason to doubt, that as an Institution as a whole, the University of Manchester is reputable, I do not wish to libel them and so cast any aspersion on their testimony. I ended up calling archives where I had worked, terrified I had walked out with something, or not photocopied a source because I had picked up a spare one. Of course I had not. Did I? I cared about my work which you destroyed on 16.3.04. Does my worry seem stupid. Well it wasn't to me. Issues arising Top of the page The issues which I encountered as a result of the collision I experienced between the CJS and the MHAct and which are topics of legitimate journalism are: 1. Lack of any genuine informed consent in clinical trials for those allegedly or actually mentally ill -- Dr Paul Sclare given the existence of the MHAct. And Dr P Sclare would now seem to have added false accusation to his CV, unless it was someone else, and the wrong thinking invoked by the concept of mental capacity, which is a subjective concept ripe for abuse, and which is abused to silence those with whom one disagrees. Input Paul Sclare to a search engine. I allege and I attest he was to me in mid 2004 a bully (with action, words over the phone, lack of action, attempted entrapment and subsequent passive aggression), lazy, incompetent, and, probably, criminal. Police assume that psychiatrists know what they are doing in their medical practice. In my experience they do not. If they did there would be no ect and no forced drugging. 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. 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. That is a also a recipe for vigilantes. And the GMC helps by not having as a right that the patient is heard when making an allegation against a doctor. 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. This was the approach that WYP took and so now I am thinking about alternatives. They have devalued their own procedures. And why is Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary not involved in this process? 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. To destroy my life when I had done them no harm of any kind the medics, but others also, used, over and over and over again, the tactics of constructive dismissal, belittlement, lies, half truths and unexplained slander and the misery and fear those provoked in me. 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. Specifically by Professor Michael Worboys of CHSTM (from March 2004) and Dr Julie Anderson. Top of the page 8: Denial of defence and covering for police wrong doing (20.6.04) by use and abuse of medicine.; 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 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". THAT IS MARKET DISTORTION AND IT TOTALLY SCREWS UP COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND WITH IT THE TAX BASE FOR COMMON LIFE. 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 drug treatment for river blindness - as long as human beings have a right to say, no, I do not want that drug. 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. 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. 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. 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. Top of the page 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. 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? 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. Was Mr Morris in contempt of Court because I sure as bloody hell was not. 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 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. You deserve not one word of thanks from the Courts for your 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, not just vigilantes. THIS ACT IS, IN MY OPINION, AN OBSCENE EXAMPLE OF USING HUMAN BEINGS AS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL AND FUNDRAISER FOR THE TREASURY. I am cleared by a Crown Court the crime of harassing without violence a secretary for West Yorkshire Police. What went before was defamatory of me, and I face no other charges and there has been no suggestion of other charges since the finding of Not Guilty. And whilst I know I am not guilty I have zero idea how the judge was able to reach that conclusion. Well that is fine by me, and perhaps he could not explain without putting in the public domain what the public has no right to know. I am told by an expert I do not have the schizophrenia that the doctors, named above, were, without telling me, speculating I had. Helen Gavaghan Top of the page