Descent to bankruptcy and a medical night mare

Descent to bankruptcy and a medical nightmare

The causes of bankruptcy are also the obstacles to recovery, but I am slowly removing them.

On the subject of medical negligence I have sought legal help before and since the abuse of 2007 to 2008. The responses in 2009 and 2010 from lawyers were unsatisfactory. I am continueing to seek a lawyer away from the area and local interests.

DESCENT TO BANKRUPTCY 2004 to 2006 (discharged without restriction orders 8th November 2007, from bankruptcy order 362 of 2006, 8.11.06, Halifax County Court). That bankruptcy was caused by medical misdiagnosis in 2004, medical lies and gossip, wilful denial of medical wrong doing toward me then and later and the consequential damage to my earning ability and devasatation of my life, caused also by academic arrogance and refusal to see through a meeting of resolution that had been agreed (Professor Michael Worboys, CHSTM, University of Manchester, spring 2004) not to assign blame to anyone but to unravel a wrong situation (and by Dr Julie Anderson also of CHSTM who in July 2004 behaved like a thug for no reason). And by Aberdeen Police and Dr P Sclare. Professor Worboys acted as he did before I said or did anything that anyone could have taken offence at. He behaved as he did despite good and experienced work by me (given to John Pickstone, early work in progress) and despite my respect for him and his department and despite him having encouraged me academically and having signed off on grant applications. I had thought the days when the Ivory Tower destroyed human beings in wilful ignorance of life beyond the Tower were a thing of the past. I was wrong. He left me with no means to know how he would speak of me to third parties thus undermining job options and the work of the previous 18 months I had done within his department and at a time when I was at my most vulnerable as a job seeker if CHSTM turned their back on me. He made other slanderous accusations but withheld all I needed to allow me to defend myself. The bankruptcy was caused also by betrayal by Linnells, then of Oxford, now Blake Lapthorn, and one of their then solicitors (Judith Stansfield, who for two plus decades had behaved toward me as though she thought I was her friend and client and vice versa), caused by police abuse of me and derision of me in 2004 and use of the Mental Health Act to deny me a defence from accusations, caused also by Inspector Ian Dellow's dishonesty and disrepect in mid 2004 in Halifax Police Station, and in 2005, caused by a dishonest office Landlord in 2005 and caused by disjointed government between local and national goverment. The real culprits are still practicing medicine and they ought not to be. Only their sexim and prejudice explain a misdiagnosis that ought not in 2004 to have been possible. Caused by the legal profession in Britain which has become, in large chunks, nothing other than judgemental apologists in the service of a fifth column of medics seeking, whether they understand this or not, to turn Britain into a lawless medicocracy based on Fascist principles. The MHAct is Fascist horse manure for vigilantes acting way outside their competence witout any understanding that that is what they are doing.

On 5th March 2004 I had a life I loved and had earned. I was happy, confident and looking forward. I was minding my own business and taking nothing from anyone. I had begun to pay back debt incurred as I drew down capital against a known appreciating capital asset, a saleable asset with considerable equity in a modest way and which it had taken a working life to acquire. I was at a pivotal point for me and for my family in the future. Well this country destroyed that with its slandering backbiting, predominantly among medics. The medics had my respect. They pissed in my face.

I had hurt no one, stolen from no one, damaged no-one's life and done nothing to damage anyone's reputation or job propects. I did not compete for jobs by belittling and excluding the other and I had worked hard for all I had. And I can honestly say there was not even one human being whom I held a grudge against or whom I disliked. The situation has now changed because I have learned just what garbage so many viewed me as being. Then I thought the game was worth the candle. Now I do not. I now have a grudge against the medical profession, one which they earned.

Then I was, actually, a nice human being. I doubt I am now. Do I despise people now? I do not know. I have said I do, but perhaps it is the actions they have taken which I despise. Or perhaps I have simply disconnected from their determination to thrust their sick interpretations onto me as a huamn being. The idea of having to read and comment on the medica garbage and lies in the notes I have collected so that I can refute their leis and misreporting makes me want to be physically sick. Reader beware: this is not a Game. They are professioanls and there is no excuse for them not engaging in explanation and exchange and correcting their error.

By the end of March 2004 (correction I would guess June - hard to know I was too much shit for them to speak with) the medical profession with arrogance and lies (I have collected all their notes) had destroyed on paper who I was, playing on fears and prejudice and acting increasingly with deliberate wilful ignorance. They were wrong, stupid and nasty and privacy abusing shits. And in marked contrast to the psychiatrist and therapist whom I consulted in 1992 in Wasgington DC following two suicides by people whose pain I would have tried to alleviate - but only with their consent - if I had known of and understood that pain.

Seven years later in the same Valley - the Calder Valley - where I should not now be, but in my life in the future I had planned and had worked for - the medical profession has done not one thing to correct their wrong doing and they have lied to protect wrong diagnosis or been silent, obfuscating and disingenuous and deliberately making the worst possible interpretation of my words. The approach they took made me seem increasingly crazy when I am and was not. It damaged me in the eyes of others, and the medics by their behaviour tore my family apart. That is a total reality from my perspective. The passive aggression of silence was smack in the face after smack in the face. And I am in a cleft stick, having learned to know the medical profession in mid 2004 as the power abusing and co-ercive liars some of them actually are under the terms of the stinking Act of obscenity which is the MHAct. All because of one visit by me to hospital on 6th March 2004 when, among other things, it seems someone thought I was suicidal. I was not. I was ill - not having a mental breakdonw. This country has consistently via its medical profession in its treatment of me shown me since 2004 the total rationality of suicide. That is a terrible discovery.

What I was trying to say to the police, an act which others with true nastiness called crime, had nothing to do with this visit to hospital and was not an accusation of anyone.

I recall all I have done and said. I know when what I did and said was bizarre and I know it was because no one would let me tell them what reasonably I was telling them as they sought with trickery to make me see myself as mentally ill. I was and am a journalist and editor and I would be ashamed to have pissed on the intergrity of one of my colleagues as so many pissed on me without assuming my competence or good intent.

The medics were stunningly successful in their stupidity and utter nastiness because they lied to me and about me and gossiped with one another and police about me and without my consent. And their stupdity went unchallenged because of the separate wrong doing on 16th March 2004 of Professor Michael Worboys, head of the Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine at the University of Manchester and of Judith Stansfield of Blake Lapthorn (she has left) in mid April 2004.

Worboys in one meeting on 16.3.02 destroyed and wasted quite literally my investment of my life's savings and my life, and had his arrogant head to stuck in the Ivory Tower he did not know what he had done wrong and scuttled into the obscenity of the MHAct to justify himself in not telling me what was my right to know concerning what the slander against me was. Like every sexist condescending pig in history they called me obsessive and mentally ill rather than open their stupid ears and hear what I was trying to tell them. Their denial of me drove me to a place where they created the behaviour in bewilderment they needed to justify their refusal to explain slander. Rot in the bankrupt hell you created for me.

Judith Stansfield betrayed every aspect of both the professional and personal relationship she and I had had for decades. Her boss told me this week (Feb 124 2911) I had harassed her. I had not done anything other than answer the questions she wanted answering as my conveyancing solicitor. Not one foot had I put wrong. If they do your M and A god help you.

The only thing I needed to know from her was why she had given me the advise she did (ie what had I said and when and in what way had she heard me and why was she or one of her colleagues unable to help me given the long respectful interaction I had had with them - when they were Linnells in Oxford and as they became Blake Lapthorn. I had paid all my bills in full and never sought a discount and took very, very little of their time. And that is wholly proveable through their billing and my phone records, and the personal and professional never became entangled. The personal betrayal is of no public interest but the professional betrayal is and that is because of the bankruptcy. None of this was public before the bankruptcy. And I can assure you the professional betrayal was real and totally careless, but she acted as a partner of what is now Blake Lapthorn, and their senior partner (chairman) Jonathan Lloyd-Jones, from who I still occasionally successfuly extract nuggets of information but no legal advise, told me late last year that he had investigated the situation in 2004 when I had made no complaint and had no thought any complaint was needed or would be needed. He did not tell me and he canceled a meeting he had agreed in 2007 which my then solicitor Phillip Morros had arranged on my behalf. Did Phillip Morris think I had misled him? Then why did he not put that to me. Jonathan Lloyd-Jones is a fraud and a coward. He is passive aggressive and perhaps he is sexist. I have no idea why he did not keep the meeting he had agreed to nor why he investigated anything in 2004. Did he get involved because Michael Worboys contacted Judith Stansfield and told her he was worried about me? When did Worboiys do that? To cover for the fact he had canceled a meeting of resolution with me? How did he know she was my solicitor? How did he know I knew her? Well he is a fraud. And he too is passive aggressive and in his case totally inexcusably. And I am paying the price in every way for his needless ignorant arrogance.

And the solicitors' regulatory authority is mind numbingly stupid if it thinks those stitched up by witless medical pillocks under the coercive terms of the MHAct ought not to have a defence solicitor in Court.

It never crossed my mind in 2004 and 2005 these people would not in their professional capacity listen and explain, because I trusted totally their professionalism. I was wrong to have done so.

The only way to stop the medical profession doing to anyone else what they did to me is to take the Mental Health Act off the statute books. An eighteenth century Lord Mansfield is needed to rip its heart out prior to putting the Act out of its misery. It is a charter for social climbimg do gooders and I mean the phrase wholly perjoratively. There are not two classes of people: the vulnerable and non vulnerable. There is one class of people and at different times in our life any of us might be vulnerable for either physical or psychological reasons. All must at all time be allowed to say no. Live with your discomfort at the fact you cannot make others behave as you think they should. But no Act of parliament is needed. Law already exists.

I suggest those who find themselves consigned to a permament category labeled vulnerable should set up their own self help charities. Groups such as The Samaritans, of which I was an active member for three plus years before I chose to resign because of changes I was making in my life in 2000-2001, are not fit for purpose in the case of those called mentally ill. I found in 2005 that The Samaritans are judgmental and exclusionary. They do not explain their exclusionary judgmentalism (that was the case with Halifax Samaritans in 2005) and they betray confidence by making certain callers known to psychiatrists - at least they did when I was a Samaritan. However, not until I learned of the MHAct did I think that was a wrong thing to be doing. Now I know that psychiatrists are the very people abusing and belittling callers. Nor was MIND in Halifax decent and honourable in Halifax at the end of 2004. They have moved from where they were.

The Mental Health Act, with its desire to turn human beings into fodder and commodoties for job creation, is obscene. If it not obvious to you that with this Act you are not practising medicine you really are deluded. One can sue if the medical profession does not help someone mentally ill if the patient has accepted treatment without coercion. Alternates to drugs can be found. If the patient wants to stop taking drugs a psychiatrist needs to "hold their hand" as they experience the withdrawal and to be there to advise on taking the drugs again if necessary, giving advice on symptoms to expect and how long drugs take to take effect and what side effects to expect. They are totally qualified to hear and to create a strategy and to modify that and make course corrections as the patient seeks to stop taking drugs. They are qualified to undertsand when and in what way a symptom of illness might only be a symptom of drug withdrawal. We need to stop legislating in response to things going wrong but to look at the root of the legal system and to see which bit of what we already have has not worked. Hence Freedom of information, strong privacy law and access to policy custody records are among the good things the last Labour Government did. I have no idea at all how they came to perpetuate the legal obscenity of the Mental Health Acts or why all regulations are not reviewed by the treasury and revenue for assessment of their impact. Such a review would not prevent a political aim taking precedence.

But in the field of health no co-ercion. Listen, think and learn. If you are not an emergency doctor take no chances with informed consent. And for the sake of establishing principle and a body of thinking I think that no one -- now take this as establishing thoughts for the sake or thought -- needs protecting from themselves. A baby does not pick up a hot poker in order to hurt herself. Move the poker. Put up a fireguard. Learn baby talk.

Medics are supposed to have a degree in medicine not in thuggery and emotional blackmail. If suicide is not a crime in the UK (and for good reason it is not) then refusing treatment that might help is not a crime. A decent doctor or health team can build therapeutic relationships even if they are banned from forcing treatment on people, and prison hospitals can hold someone who is saying no to treatment if they are there for having committed crime or convicted - possibly wrongly. Other patients have no right to throw tantrums if one person says no to treatment. Being a prisoner does not make someone into another species and, actually, I thinks that all prisoners ought to have the vote. Society might well have had some culpability in them being prisoners.

As for those not convicted of crime who are deemed mentally ill, in their case one needs to get rid of the conviction of "do gooders" that they are better than a mysterious group of people who are "vulnerable". They exclude the so-called vulnerable and have cosy chats where they, in effect, gossip about the "vulnerable" and rip their privacy to shreds and then seek to control their lives. That is totally wrong. The vulnerable need to fight back. Create a parallel group to The Samaritans. Complain to the Charity Commission about do gooder excluders. If you need to employ a social worker to help you - fine. Learn some employment law. If the Charity Commission ignores you publish your complaint. Create your own charity and register it. Compete with the do gooder excluders for the charity dollar. If lawyers seek to stop you do it anyway and do it privately, but do it legally.

In the meantime if thugs, like the medical thugs who attacked me in 2008 attack you, oh medics, I will not shed a tear for you. How can I? You and this country dehumanised me from 2004, abused me, lied to me and about me. There are no human rights for those dehumanised by having their freedom of choice removed. Freedom of choice is your birthright.

I now have your medical notes and see what you made up. Pure and total fantasy. Seven years ago I loved life and did not write or think or feel with this depth of hatred. But the medics, police - oh so many - derided and belittled my professionlism and my decency and good intention and my kindness. I had all of those things. In normal not "saintly" measure. My selfishness was within totally normal bounds and usually a consequence of not having any money. It is as if the medics were offended by the very thought that I had a right to explanation. They gave none, else this mess would not exist.

I am not writing this piece for money but because I need to remind myself I am a human being and once had a life worth living and future to look forward to. And that once I was someone who had spent 20 plus professional years, achieving and accomplishing and learning and increasing my competence. Medical lies (and academic arrogance) destroyed that. I was not grandstanding and I did not say the things others with carelessness or wilful vindictiveness put in my mouth. And I have in mind Ian Dellow and David Hargreaves and one or two others. I did not say any of this in print until after submitting a debtor's petition for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy order (I am now discharged) made this legitimately public because in significan part these events and lies caused bankruptcy and because I will not let this derision and abuse of me go unacknowledged.

In March 2004 I had a family I loved, admired and boasted of and was defensive of. And I was writing a transfer report from M. Phil to Ph.D at the University of Manchester where I was a part time post graduate history of science research student. It is not only me whom the medics in their wilful arrogance have damaged. On 5th March 2004 because of my own care, forethought and strategy there was no chance what so ever of bankruptcy, despite the difficulties of the industry I was in. And I had my family and their well being very much in mind. We are and never have been even a tiny bit rich.

I was at the time also a journalist and editor and author (published in the latter case in Germany and New York). The medical profession destroyed my credibility without explanation to me but I did not know what they had done and tried to carry on with the credibility I knew I ought to have. That made matters worse because all I said and did was being viewed, as I can see as now, being a delusion. There was no delusion. I hate and despise the reaction to me of the medical profession with a pure and total hatred. And I fear them with cause. I fear their stinking lawless arrogance. They not I are and were the deluded.

I knew I had at least 20 years of working life ahead of me, was happy at the prospect and was looking forward to those years and earning money. As well as my books and journalism I had contributed the rocket and satellite section of a Children's Encyclopaedia. I wrote for British, French, US and international publications and outlets. But I knew I needed to make changes to defend my earning ability.

I still am a journalist and editor, though now running a magazine I founded myself in 2005. I founded the title as a means of having a tiny thing for demonstrating what I have done for a living (and prior to 2004 I was no where near bankruptcy). And I had no knowledge of the benefits system. No idea what was being said behind my back nor how others were drinking that in in long gullible gulps. Not one second of my existence since March 2004 has been worth existing through and I loath and despise the shite guts of any git who thought they were pandering to a poor little sick bitch and her delusion.

Had Calderdale Metrolpolitan Burrough Council given me then in 2005 the information they could have done as I picked myself up from the floor I might still have avoided bankruptcy but they did not. Perhaps on that I am wrong. Perhaps in 2005 I could not have claimed working tax credit or was not allowed any savings if I clainmed job seekers' allowance. And I accuse my then office landlord of dishonest and illegal behaviour toward me. He is called Mr/Dr Green. He legally used both these names with me. He said I might move to a larger office and that I might decorate it and then illegally sought to evict me without cause after I had spent time and money on the move. I got a lawyer and paid him. The official receiver returned to me all my bank records when 18 months later I faced bankruptcy caused by 2004 to 2006. So I can prove my rent was paid. That behaviour wasted my last capital asset. It is not the money spent against actuarial realies that does the damage but money not earned because of the damage passive aggressive slandering shits do and then refuse to explain.

Who the hell do you think you are to take the law into your own hands?

I now run the magazine with the intent of enhancing the value of a company in which I am the majority shareholder, to keep my skills alive and to prevent the medical profession seeking to further undermine my good name and standing, or others taking advantage of the garbage the medical profession with privacy abusing life destroying lies fed out to the world in nasty snivelling back biting belittling chunks of condescension from 2004, fed by old wives tales, ignorance and prejudice. And there was no need for any of this vituperation. No discussion with me as they destroyed my life. And from my words now it is perhaps hard for you to understand the respect with which I approached Dr M Balraj and all her colleagues. She made no effort at all to ask me about the meaning of anything I had said to her or which her registrar had reported to her. Just an effort to impose in ignorance. And she wrote notes stuffed with lies and misunderstanding and wishful thinking.

Dr M Balraj, then a psychiatrist in Halifax (and why was I sent an appointment to see a psychiatrist?), has written notes which are an outright lie. You said naught to me of aetiology and genetics. I do assure you I would have noticed (see Snippets of science and see http://www.gavaghancommunications.com/gcexpertise1.html). Did you gather third party reports which you did not contextualise or discuss with me. You utter life destroying fool if you did. For the record I accuse Dr Balraj of being a lying, privacy abusing bitch. I accuse Dr Balraj of being a supercilious, arrogant bitch. I showed her total courtesy and respect. Sod off. Sod the fuck off. Who the bloody hell do you think you are you overpaid arrogant bitch? You, Sclare and Hargreaves and Burley should be struck off the medical register and prosecuted for fraud, co-ercion, abuse and god knows what else. But I know full well I do not have the qualifications to do that via the General Medical Council so it ought to be done by law. It ought to be irrelevant what constitutes normal medical practice if that normal medical practice is lawless or discriminatory or based on disrespect, coercion and emotional blackmail and threats.

And I have an anecdote for you relevant to medical ethics. Recently I had a wisdom tooth extracted in an NHS hospital. The X-rays were fascinating. The explanation of what was to happen and whether or not it was recommended by the consultants was all anyone could wish. But then we came to clinical practice and the second consultant was busy injecting various noxious things and asking if various parts of my face were numb and debating with himself whether or not to administer more of whatever it was. And in the end I said, well you are the one with the degree in dentistry. I am sorry to do this to you but would you make the decision please. Now if it had been an operation I could have been asked to say whether in the event of an unexpected complication whilst under general anaesthetic I would be willing to cede the decision totally to the surgeon. Obviously there would have been a discussion about known risks.

The medical profession killed something in me with utter nastiness between 2004 and 2008 and they have earned my hatred. All they needed to have done is say this is specifically what we think and why, and in the ensuing exchange they would have learned easily and simply how and why they were wrong or right in the wrong way for the wrong reasons.

And I have come to think that the mess they created was possible only because of the arrogance and condescension the Mental Health Act inculcates in the medical profession.

Do you think I am in denial? There is no psychosis to deny. No symptom to be medicated or treatable chemically. No multiple peronality disorder nor character misalignment. Only stress, a wasted life because of this shite and Worboys and a legal profession that when it was needed was worse than The Cheshire Cat, and bankruptcy and the knowledge I cannot trust the medical profession and must fear them. The law has turned them into jack booted fascist thugs.

The medics gave cover, perhaps unknowingly, to Michael Worboys and to Judith Stansfield, then my solicitor of two decades standing.

There are a number of reasons why it is not crazy for me to have thought I might have had food or drink spiked (a question I asked on 23.3.04). And it is still by far the most plausible explanation for what put me in hospital that early afternoon. A medic who gave a shit might say otherwise, but it sure as hell was not mental illness. What are the reasons why it might have been "spiked" food or drink?

One: someone might be trying to make it seem I am something I am not. I have in mind in particular the person who stole my handbag 1999 or 2000, just as I was about to submit my first full draft of the History of Eumetsat, and who, before s/he discarded my handbag put something in a vial in my handbag. If you want that back ask West Yorkshire Police. I left it with them. They recovered the bag and they drew my attention to all the contents and asked if anything was missing. Their forensics and an examination of my bank account and medical record of the time, which was not yet a rigmarole of nonesense, ought to make clear whatever was in my bag belonged to you and not to me. Certainly I can promise you the forensics are on my side. And anyway I do not take illicit drugs (and the vial could have been innocuous) and never have done, though I have always suspected I might have inhaled a puff of cannabis at one party at University in 1978. It was the eyars before I strated smoking - and then stopped.

Two: Someone might have thought if drugs had killed me that someone might inherit money they, the killer, could get hold of. Long shot in my mind. And implausible. Three: Rather than having food or drink spiked I inhaled something odourless with delayed and/or cummulative action. This is not a fanciful option and could have been a real accident because of my then work situation and because of the symptoms the medics did not give a toss about. This in a cackhanded manner is what I was trying to convey to the solicitor who won me time when my office lanlord tried to throw me out.

Four: I thought at the time there might have been an intrusion to my home. I had no record of imagining such things. The only previous occasion I had contacted the police about such a thing my neighbour saw someone running away from my home and, later, the police recovered most of what had been stolen. It was summer. I had stepped inside and gone upstairs briefly without locking the back door because I thought the outlook onto the fields made my cottage safe. It was not, and my handbag and laptop computer were stolen.

Though I might have been wrong about earlier events I have no doubt that later in the spring of 2004 there was an instrusion to my home when the door was locked, because someone physically rearranged the furniture so that a door in my bedroom which would not close because the furniture impeded the door by a significant margin suddenly would close. There is no way I could have dismantled, moved and reassembled the bed in a fugue state. That was a deeply scary thing: to wonder why some unknown person was creeping around in my bedroom and moving things. Theft did not freak me out. That did.

Five: there were unusual reasons why it was not crazy of me to be concerned there might have been an intrusion (even if it was a stress induced fear rather than a reality) and to think I ought to tell the police. One significant one being the photocopied papers I had legitimately in my possession from a history I had written of the IGO, EUMETSAT. I was the first to write their history and had had unrestricted access to restricted documents and had been given permission to copy those I needed for my work. These quite definately and wholly proveably dealt with issues of real national security as they pertained to various nations. My work - pillocks. And, actually, some of them may not even yet be in the public domain. That was one of the things in the light of Judith Stansfield's words (see below) I thought I ought to tell the police, but which the medics unbeknownst to me, as well as witless idiots, were screwing my credibility to hell in their dimwitted lack of understanding of what is and is not defence. Again it is The Mental Health Act which seems to have softened brains.

So I have no idea how the medics came up with the conclusions it seems they did come up with.

I was happy. A bit scared and aprehensive and in desperate need of space and quiet to think after having sold my home. I had the offer of free accommodation for as long as I needed whilst making the transition from the Calder Valley to Manchester, and after internal debate had chosen to accept that. I was wholly solvent and had a modest, secure future because of my own care and foresight. I had a family I loved. I was embarking on a future I had worked toward for decades. I was, in other words, what most people would call normal. I still am.

After 1.4.04 (the dates of destruction being 6.3.04/16.3.04 and 1.4.04 I threw everything into screaming reversal and accepted that for six months I would have to pay rent. I still had no inkling, though, that I would not be given explanations of events in March 2004, and I still have been given no explanation, and without those explanations from M.Balraj, M. Worboys and J. Stansfield my life was screwed even though I had done nothing even remotely criminal nor to damage another life.

So I am broke, bankrupt, in fear with cause of an abusive medical profession, have badly damaged family relationships because of those medics and events in and from 2004 and lost in 2004 friends when I truly had done them no wrong and I have zero insight into why. My care of decades in resolving my emotional and psychological landscape is shot to hell with rivulets of fury and hatred.

And I blame in total the Mental Health Act and its emotionally sappy irrational stupid incompetent life destroying precepts and reasoning, with its underlying assumption of guilt and stupidity.

Also when the press writes of bankruptcy debt being written off it is not the person who is bankrupt who writes off debt. It is those to whom money is owed. In my case the debt of £30, 000 was owed to highly professional creditors with whom I had done business for many years (three decades at one branch in the case of my personal and work account). I write this in warning to the medical profession. I am not a victim of loan sharks or of heavy selling. I was the customer of professional creditors with highly competent legal departments.

Finally, Ian Dellow said to me in mid 2004 in the patrol inspector's office at Halifax Police Station, and when he was wearing uniform, that a D.Notice would apply. I tried very very very hard to find out what he was talking about and I tried to warn colleagues. Later I learned he had been saying I had alleged interference by another State. I had not done so. I had tried to tell him that Judith Stansfield had said to me in mid April 2004 that her firm had no one dealing with national security, criminal law or litigation and to find a firm that did. I wanted to tell WYP what they actually ought to know in light of those words from Ms Stansfield but I did not know Judith Stansfield was denying the conversation (I have my phone records - does she - she is not above the law). I do not know why she said that but I knew what I needed to say. Her firm had read and critiqued at my request my contract with EUMETSAT. I paid them. Not Ian Dellow and not Ms Stansfield would tell me what they meant. I have been an editor and journalist working at a national and international level and since 1980 when I graduated from the University of Leeds. In significant part I had done that work internationally. After my acquittal for the crime of harassment without violence of secretaries of WYP with whom I should never have come into contact I tried to get help from the Northern Office of the NUJ in order to resolve the matter of Ian Dellow. There was every reason to think it could have been related to my journalism. That help was not forthcoming.

I am a member in good standing of the UK National Union of Journalists. I have an up to date press card valid until the end of January 2013.
Helen Gavaghan, 18th January, 2011.