18/08/08 07:07 [Monday]

I woke up about a quarter to five with no indication that I had suffered hypnotising words. I have been getting a number of things done, all connected with, or certainly originating from, my website, that is in the main getting more of the stuff back up (eg from the 1970s) which formerly was available to my readers online. However, the latest thing doing has been copying from a DVD archive (Archive C1) onto my Vaio - now the computer most in use at home - because in looking at the layout (paragraph spacing again) of my website diary as it was in 2005 and 2006 and recalling that when I wrote the first version of my Rich Text Editor in June 2006 - the risperidone then having declined in its effect on me for some reason to do with us being more in Kingswinford than in Bassetlaw (Nottinghamshire) - the only way I found to space paragraphs was to insert between paragraphs containing text, empty font-size 8 pt paragraphs, I was thinking back to how my website was when it started as an AOL Homepage in 2003 and then turned into colinbrough.co.uk sometime in 2004. Archive C1 comes from my days on AOL around 2004 when I used to visit Bristol and was on friendly terms with Caroline.
Reflections have been brought back by saying all that, and particularly in relation to 2006 when I think I misinterpreted the playing-up of Dawn’s son’s stomach problem (so that eventually he had an appendectomy at Bassetlaw Hospital). I believed the reason it was done was to obtain from me commentary on the psychological aspects of it, that is Dawn’s concern for the well-being of her son, or even over-concern to tell the truth. Since 1980 I have presumed (rather conceited possibly) that the Experimenters were wanting my ideas on the human mind. After all, this was one of my main interests in the 1970s, following on naturally from the flourishing of my introspective nature on emergence from adolescence.
On the other hand part of the attempts in 2004 to ‘run me down’ and, I suppose, cause me to lose confidence in myself (one part of it was to try to embarrass me in AOL chat-rooms regarding my sexual naiveté and also to disparage what I thought I knew about the mathematical theory of clustering, going so far as to put up in the chat-room an expert who researched such topics at university but who to my dismay would not explain to me his ideas or his own knowledge: I had thought I might learn, but ‘the Authorities’ as they were then turning into weren’t interested in helping mankind or the general level of scientific knowledge: what they were after was me in a mental ward to be kept under wraps since I was no longer in the control - or under the ‘guidance’ - of Barbara, and Caroline had proved too volatile a potential guide or controller); as I say one part of the disparagement was in the autumn of 2004 to let me know through online conversations that I understood next to nothing about conventional psychology. Again, I think I come out rather well: it is an advantage not to know the erroneous ideas of conventional ‘psychological theorists’, and certainly to entirely disregard conventional psychiatry. Therefore (this is my argument, what I am on about here): it was not the case that those running the show - those giving directives to the usual staff at Bassetlaw that I should be medicated when in the ordinary course of things everybody would have known I need not be - were interested in my ideas on the human mind. What they were after was to get me in the grips of treatment on a psychiatric ward. It is, I must say, difficult to maintain a cool understanding of what must be the case, when I develop great fear based on the wrongs perpetrated against me, wrongs which have included medicating me excessively with antischizophrenic drugs at the behest of people who had unethical reasons for insisting: reasons which I cannot but continue to believe were to do with covering-up the wrongs preceding, in a kind-of avalanche of error upon error which became (in my view) not error but immorality and probably criminality.
In 2004 when I was detained at Bassetlaw mental unit a student doctor quite happily showed me pictures of various forms of restraint - patients in Eastern Europe in metal cages, set against methods involving subduing with injected medication - and asked me which I should prefer in case at some future date I needed to be restrained. Psychiatrists are trained up to expect this sort of thing, that patients will need to be restrained. Readers will understand my view, which is that almost all schizophrenic patients would not be in any way aggressive but for being restrained (that is held in imprisonment) and being given restraining drugs which more often than not give rise to a rebound of resentment if they are ceased.
Thinking back with more detail: I could almost regard the approach to me when I was initially compelled to have an injection while in detention at the end of 2005 as an act of provocation. Whether the person or people who had given directions that I should be compelled had in mind the possibility that my immense fear might cause me to blow up in violent resistance I do not know, but there was an independent nurse standing by as an observer (and of course on hand to subdue me if I had become violent in my terror). Again, I can’t see any justification for the provision of heavy police when I used to visit police stations to complain in 2007. I would not regard that as provocation since I regard the system which is the police as a fair system, even if there are occasional rogue officers, but the people misleading the police to the effect that I might become violent possibly didn’t realise this. They misunderstand practically every aspect of my personality and my behaviour, I must say, yet (presumably) they are people trained in psychiatry in well-regarded positions (presumably working for the Mental Health Act Commission).
Furthermore, I still cannot find any justifiable reason for trying to bar my attempts to publish the facts through my website. This started in 2004 when I was thrown off AOL seemingly for spamming, by sending numerous emails trying to expose what I had suffered through ‘The Experiment’. More recently an attempt was made to interfere with my choice of website host company. My attempts to alert Microsoft to the substitution of their websites through our Virgin Media internet connection with counterfeits have been stymied because the Royal Mail has acted in a very odd manner.
Jedenfalls, these reflections originate as I say out of Archive C1, in which (I mention) McAfee Security (on free trial with the Vaio) has detected Potentially Unwanted Programs derived through AOL the presence of these programs explaining the failure of computers I have had from the Packard Bell EasyNote (October 2006) onwards. It is regrettable that Norton Internet Security has never satisfactorily resolved this problem, so I am pleased to recommend McAfee as far and away superior to the possibly more widespread Norton.

Recent letter to West Midlands Chief Constable

27 July 2008

The Chief Constable
West Midlands Police
Lloyd House
Colmore Circus
Queensway
Birmingham B4 6NQ

Dear Chief Constable

Because the post office clerk when I posted the following to you at the Merry Hill shopping centre yesterday (26 July) typed in the wrong postcode for the Special Delivery bar-code, I am sending another copy, as below:

I wrote to you on 7 July 2008 explaining that (almost certainly) our bungalow had been entered improperly about 26 June 2008 or 27 June 2008 when we were away (each of those dates) in London. The perpetrators had introduced contamination into bottles of water we had in stock causing us a most unpleasant ‘tummy bug’ problem on drinking some of the water, including diarrhoea. I requested you to ensure police investigated my complaint more vigorously than police have in the past. A letter I received from DI Magee saying he did not regard my request as a complaint appears genuinely to be in answer to my letter to you, and therefore I am writing this further letter to point out the difficulties I face which I believe the police ought to help counter.
There is a widescale organisation whose main purpose has entailed causing problems to myself (and my wife since I got married three years ago) the most severe of which are caused by drugs foisted on us (I use the term foisting). I do not believe the people foisting the drugs understand the hardship the drugs cause me: or certainly in the past they have not. Because of unwillingness of the police to investigate the improper measures this organisation takes I myself need to go to extraordinary lengths costing me money, time and effort, to try to defend myself (and my wife) mainly from ingestion of unwanted drugs. The difficulty I face is further increased by (as I mentioned) the wide scale of the influence of the organisation I am speaking of. (Also, of course, the fact that statements such as these might be interpreted by people without full knowledge - unless they investigate fully - as symptoms requiring treatment with antipsychotic drugs is not a help to me and in the past has created great fear in me, that is fear of being administered antipsychotic drugs these drugs having some of the worst effects any drugs do have on me.)
As an example of the difficulty I face additional to difficulties another person in Britain might face were he in a similar position to my own but the organisation foisting the drugs having less widespread power: I have tried to set up a website anthonydewarmondlivesat36abittellroad.org.uk and after working initially (for about one day) it is no longer accessible (when I last checked). The reason, I have absolutely no doubt, is influence brought to bear on the website hosting company I use - 123-reg.co.uk - by the organisation I am speaking of. It may be that the website has been barred for a reason which if I knew it I would agree with (possibly so as not to prejudice the minds of potential jurors if the man Armond is ever brought to justice) but as things stand I cannot be sure. If I were to pursue what on the face of it is the obvious course - asking 123-reg to rectify the matter - I would run up extra costs in money, time and effort, these costs unfairly thrust on me. And as I say, it might be that the reason for the interference with the usual procedures at 123-reg is a reason I would agree with anyway.
What I should be able to do - given that the police do not have resources or otherwise are unwilling to protect me from on the face of it illegal intrusions - is go to a solicitor and expect him to assist me in putting to rights this problem in my life. As I explained in my letter to you of 7 July, solicitors I have approached in the past (such as Rose, Williams & Partners of 2 Waterloo Road Wolverhampton) have not been willing to give me reasonable help because they have been told in advance (by representatives of the organisation I am speaking of) that I am mentally unsound and it would not be worth their while to take me on as a client.
To repeat briefly what I said in my letter of 1 May 2008: over a number of decades I was treated improperly for mental illness. The basis of my diagnosis (of schizophrenia) was behaviour which I had exhibited for which I was not myself responsible because I was affected by drugs I was given without my foreknowledge or consent. There has been evidence quite recently that these allegations I make are accurate. I must regard those perpetrating these crimes (as on the face of it they are) as wholly lacking in moral sense, to pursue this course knowing how difficult it will be for me to convince those who should help me (not only the police but my MP, and solicitors I might wish to engage) of the truth of such wild-sounding accusations.
With my letter of 7 July I annexed evidence that the Royal Mail has over decades been treating mail sent to me, and from me, in a special manner, and in the 1970s (in the 1970s certainly) this resulted in cash sent to me going missing.
In conclusion I repeat my request that police should be more vigorous in assisting me to put a stop to the interference in my life, especially that which involves the foisting on me of drugs to which I have a very unpleasant reaction.
Yours sincerely
Colin Barrass-Brough
barrass-brough.blogspot.com

10/08/08 18:51

I have been thinking along these lines: given that State-run organisations (such as local councils) and organisations which are nominally independent but have a history as Nationalised Industries (notoriously BT) are permitted to defraud me of money, or take money in what on the face of it is fraud, I conclude that I am - and Dawn also is now - a ward of the State and our money is not genuinely our own. This is somewhat frightening in that the State has such power, and it is wielded (as far as I now understand it) by the Mental Health Act Commission in its application to me and us. In the past the officials wielding the power have been permitted to carry on in the lackadaisical way I now understand is commonplace in mental healthcare in Britain, and have misunderstood practically every aspect of my behaviour. This explains things which have baffled me supremely in recent months: for example a comment from a fellow-traveller actor engaged (one of many on the train that day) by the Mental Health Act Authorities to play a part in trying to get me under official treatment (that has been ultimately the aim, it seems clear) which indicated the ‘thinkers’ trying to guess what I might do thought I might abscond to somewhere in the distant north on that occasion (or at least they felt it was not out of the question).
The situation has been complicated by concealing from me that this was the case: that I was a ward of the State and did not have complete control over my own life. Therefore I have wasted effort trying to prove (for example) that the supposed fine imposed in 2004 by Kidderminster Magistrates was a sham (no points being put on my driving licence in a case where they should have been). I do not know if the concealment was mainly for my supposed benefit (not to send me loony to think such interference was being perpetrated) or more to save the Government embarrassment (because it does seem ludicrous if such a large amount in resources is spent on ‘looking after’ me as a supposed mental patient who suffered misfortune from Armond’s perpetrations in the 1980s). I suspect it is the latter and this explains the endeavours to silence my publishing the facts, which entailed last autumn making national newspapers unavailable to me by phone from Nottinghamshire.
It has been hopeful for me since improperly detaining me under the Mental Health Act has been ruled out (seemingly), being replaced by just plain silly attempts to get me to report myself as ill on the basis (for example) that there were an inordinate number of cars driving round the roads of Kingswinford a month or two back. The silliness of these attempts shows up to me, and surely it must to others with sense - so long as my message is no longer being put a stop to by the Mental Health Act Commissionaire censors - that those running the mental healthcare system in Britain are unfit. I hope I can put a good construction on the continuance of the expenditure on what I will still call The Experiment, that is that the justification now is that so much is being learnt from the perpetrations of the Mental Health Act Commission and its associates, psychiatrists in the NHS.

Most recent letter to Ian Pearson MP

28 July 2008

Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Dear [Constituency Office Manager]

Thank you for your reply of 23 July 2008 to my letter to Mr Pearson of 19 July. Today (Monday 28 July 2008) I received your letter and one also dated 23 July 2008 (last Wednesday) signed by [an Office Administrator] promising a reply from Mr Pearson to my letter of 19 July.

When I wrote my letter of 19 July I was in a state of confusion and no doubt this explains why I do not myself have paper copies of the letter (another possibility is that my copies have been stolen since our home has been entered without permission recently, a matter I have complained about to West Midlands police). The reason for my state of confusion was that I had again suffered ingestion of drugs supplied by trickery: that is I was spiked. I think it most important that I be helped with this difficulty in my life, certainly by the police (and I urge Mr Pearson to use his influence with West Midlands Police) and by Mr Pearson directly.

You mention two separate issues I have raised but in fact there are several outstanding issues Mr Pearson is looking into on my behalf.

My confusion of 19 July led me to conflate two complaints I have raised about the British postal service. I thank Mr Pearson for the advice in his letter of 24 June 2008 but point out that writing to Royal Mail to find out if a letter sent First Class Recorded (or Special Guaranteed Next Day) has been delivered would entail foolish delay; besides which the statistics lead me to suppose any such letter to Royal Mail might well be lost in the post.

The more significant complaint I had hoped Mr Pearson would help me with was that the British postal service (that is, Royal Mail: whom it is not possible to sue in law, I believe) has been treating mail sent to me and from me in a special way, since the 1970s. There is good evidence one result of this in the 1970s was that cash sent to me by relatives went missing: that is, it was stolen. I have not heard from Mr Pearson’s office yet whether he can help with this difficulty I face.

I must say I find it unsurprising that Nottinghamshire Healthcare have not yet troubled to reply to Mr Pearson’s letter to them. You promise the matter will be chased.

Thinking more clearly now than when I suffer ingestion of unwanted drugs (as I had on 19 July) I see my letter to Mr Pearson of 10 May 2008 was received - despite no acknowledgment from his office (unless, as I enquired, the acknowledgment had been lost in the post) - as its result was that Mr Pearson wrote to Nottinghamshire Healthcare. My letter of Friday 9 May 2008 (sent Special Guaranteed Next Day delivery) has still not been acknowledged, although the Royal Mail website said it was delivered Tuesday 13 May (being posted on a Friday the guaranteed date shown on the receipt was Monday 12 May for delivery). This letter was the first in which I pointed out to Mr Pearson that counterfeits of Microsoft websites had been supplied via our Virgin Media internet connection.


I have gone to great lengths to inform Microsoft of this misuse (in the shape of Microsoft Business Solutions of Microsoft Campus - Thames Valley Park - Reading - Berks RG6 1WG: since I discovered, having to go to the trouble and expense of a personal visit to London to find out, that an address given for ‘Microsoft Limited’ in Kelly’s Industrial Directory is a mistake). If I do manage to get the information to Microsoft I think they will be most concerned at such a threat to the accountancy value of Goodwill in their business, apart from ordinary moral considerations of fair play. The enclosures with my letter of 19 July to Mr Pearson gave details of both the counterfeit websites and my endeavours to write to Microsoft. My most recent letter to Microsoft Business Solutions was posted 19 July 2008 alongside my letter to Mr Pearson (and on this occasion the post office clerk was able to validate the Microsoft postcode, a thing previous post office workers have never managed to do): I show a screenshot from the Royal Mail website purporting to show the delivery which I would call a joke were the question not so grave.

In my letter to Mr Pearson of 30 April 2008 I mentioned a matter I drew to the attention of the police, that is the diversion of phonecalls made in June 2007 using our then Virgin Media landline to the West Midlands police non-emergency number so that when I thought I was speaking to police I was not in fact. A reply dated 2 May promised matters raised in my letter would be taken up and a reply from Mr Pearson follow. I conclude the mention in your recent letter of a ‘response from the police’ (or rather, the absence of a response) is a reference to Mr Pearson’s pursuit of culprits interfering in 2007 with our Virgin Media phone connection. I do find it confusing though that you mention two separate issues I raise, when the difficulties intruded into my life cover many more issues than two.

The most significant difficulties I face, as I have striven to convey to Mr Pearson, derive as a result of the improper treatment - and in particular the drug treatment - I was made to have over a period of decades following a diagnosis erroneously made by a psychiatrist formerly working for the NHS in Dudley, called Anthony Dew Armond. The diagnosis he placed on me was of schizophrenia, and much of the ‘spiking’ I have had to suffer has involved auxiliary workers - presumably not knowing the harm they do - trying to get antischizophrenic drugs into me, a variant of the abhorrent but widespread practice of families of schizophrenic patients tricking the patients into taking food with drugs hidden in it. This practice is encouraged by some psychiatric workers. Myself I cannot understand how professionally trained carers can imagine that deceiving an already suspicious patient will have any good outcome. I daresay some would argue that underfunding of mental health provision results in staff making use of shortcut practices to get things done more easily. I read that in the United States difficult children are kept subdued with these same drugs, that is antipsychotics which block the neurotransmitter dopamine. Whether it is so in the case of children in Britain I do not know, but certainly from what I have seen myself staff in NHS psychiatric facilities are over-enthusiastic to use such drugs on adult patients. In cases of mistaken diagnosis such as my own the result of compulsory administration of dopamine-blocking drugs, unremittingly year after year, is complete waste of the patient’s time and even of his life. Some more thoughtful psychiatrists - again, from what I read it is mainly in the States - recommend drugs holidays for psychiatric patients every so often so that it can be seen if continuing administration of drugs is absolutely necessary.

But from my own point of view the help I would like from Mr Pearson is to instigate an investigation of the circumstances of my mis-diagnosis, involving Armond and any others who had complicity.

I thank you for your help and look forward to hearing from Mr Pearson soon.

Yours sincerely

Colin Barrass-Brough

Enc
barrass-brough.blogspot.com
anthonydewarmondlivesat36abittellroad.org.uk

17/07/08 04:46 [Thursday]

A condition I might describe as over-excitement now as I get going regarding my business for the day is almost certainly due to stimulant drugs still in my metabolism from yesterday, rather than due to any substances in the cup of coffee I drank getting on for an hour ago.

17/07/08 05:13

It strikes me that in the note I have inserted into yesterday’s diary as Thursday 17/07/08 03:18 I was too extravagant in my suppositions (made so by stimulant drugs which in the past hour or two have worn off more). All there is pretty firm evidence of is the capability to interfere by wireless with USB-connected peripherals, and possibly only through the USB ports at the rear of the DIXONSXP tower unit. I still find this hypothesis slightly more convincing than that Dawn and I were taken advantage of by hypnosis on returning home yesterday evening and the preceding evening.

Because I feel fairly certain the drugs affecting me now were not introduced by such advantage-taking on our return home yesterday evening but were in the milk earlier, and possibly at the time it was bought from Morrisons Wellington (Shropshire), it may be that the drugs I was objecting to yesterday (Wednesday) early morning were also not introduced on our return home Tuesday night but rather were in drinks or food we bought that day. The most sensible choice of villain to point the finger at, given what has happened in the past and the fact that the railways are more or less once again under State control, is the enterprising Pumpkin railway station buffet chain.

Although Morrisons is far and away superior to the likes of Tesco, if we only shop at Morrisons then when we are on our way to some perhaps remote destination it can be presumed well in advance that we are going to do our shopping at the Morrisons there. Hence some randomisation giving favour to Sainsbury’s or Asda (or Waitrose, Iceland or Spar, or even Lidl or Heron, but not under any circumstances Tesco) will be desirable.

What I have against Tesco is that the day I had my appointment with solicitors Rose, Williams & Partners of 2 Waterloo Road Wolverhampton to try to get the facts of the abuse done to me over twenty-five years put before Solihull Magistrates, Tesco sold me food or drink containing antischizophrenic drugs to still me and reduce my acuity.

Spawn of Satan I now number three:

(1) Armond
(2) Those running drugs factories
(3) Tesco.

17/07/08 06:37

However ‘psychological theorists’ like to dress it up to increase their seeming value as experts, confidence is feeling sure what to do, that is it is absence of doubt. The best way to theorise of it is in the terms I use, of processing capacity set against the processing requirement. If you can think clearly (and quickly) enough to know what to do in a given situation - a more, or less, demanding situation, that is demanding of ‘decision-making’ and in a loose sense ‘stressful’ - you feel confident. If you are uncertain and there is delay while you hum and hah and try to make up your mind, then that is unconfidence. It has little to do with surface appearance.

In respect of the latter too, I find that if people can see you know what you’re about and understand the ins and outs of it, and particularly if you can use that knowledge and understanding to help them (which is easy if it costs you next to nothing in distraction from what you are doing anyway), then even if you look a complete buffoon they like it and give you a high approval rating.

I think there’s something in the coffee. It may be caffeine.

17/07/08 06:54

The again rather Socialist idea that ‘psychological theorists’ seem to have, that anyone can do anything, is (as I think I have said before) mistaken. Most people however much they practised and read and otherwise garnered advice could not play tennis to the standard of say John McEnroe. The reason is McEnroe had certain components in him (still does I suppose although somewhat altered by time) - that is components in the physical universe, comprising not only things like muscle fibre but more significantly neurons and synapses in the relevant parts of his CNS (and particularly, large numbers of synapses, eg serving the retina), which on average people do not have. Such is confidence: to have large numbers of synapses serving that in which one’s confidence is well-founded (rather than brash and specious, like that suggested frequently by ‘psychological theorists’).

I must say it is a good Capitalist notion, that each component has a different - a complementary - part to play in division-of-labour arrangements. Some neurons are better suited to responding to light while others do better at causing muscles to contract. Some of them though towards the front are very flexible and can do all sorts of things, switchably (not at the same time but in a multiplexing mode).

Caffeine is good stuff.

15/07/08 09:14 [Tuesday]

10/07/08 04:33 [Thursday]

The structures of thought I am speaking of were maintained over a long period in the above cases and in similar cases, that is they were capable of being set aside for the purpose of leading a day-to-day life but were always ‘in the back’ of the mind and resumable in the more detailed form as occasion allowed. This was a prerequisite to sorting out such involved structures into the coherence (that is, having entire internal consistency within themselves) which made them acceptable on public presentation and indeed gives confidence they are ‘correct’ that is that, insofar as they are supposed to, they correspond with reality.

These structures of thought were embodied in neural structures in the brains of their creators of the type I have recently been mooting as depending on neural-loop style arrangements. This type of semi-permanent memory is used to set up internal models for such purposes as (in adolescence) answering examination questions and (in more practical life) maintaining an internal plan of one’s location as one moves about even in unknown territory. The arrangements which permit their maintenance depend on transmission across synapses of dopamine as I know because they are defeated in myself when I am given dopamine-blocking drugs. For example I completely lose my ability to maintain the internal plan of my geographical location at any time I am in less familiar territory.

Needless to say these neural structures are located in the frontal brain in man and come into use only from the time of adolescence. They are present in only a rudimentary form if at all in other animals (for example it is possible apes have them in rudimentary form). It seems to me that the functions called seriatim functions must correspond with those implemented using these structures of resumable semi-permanently remembered internally envisaged models of parts of the world (or as-if of parts of the world, in that the models can be used for abstract purposes such as in mathematics and chess when they are divorced from immediate connection with any structures in the physical universe, of tangible matter or time or space).

Experiments with rats trained in conventional mazes which were then converted to mazes of canals having to be swum convinced theoreticians who had previously hypothesised that learning a maze involved merely learning a sequence of muscular operations which got the animal from start to finish, that it was not so and that the rats in fact must have an internal model of spatial arrangements. Needless to say rats achieve this without a seriatim process.

An adult human being could learn a maze - walked or swum - much faster, the reason being he could set up an internal model ‘by an effort of will’, a model which (consisting of the type of neural structure spoken of above) could be discarded afterwards if no longer needed. Giving dopamine-blocking drugs would interfere with this ability, reducing the human to needing like the rat to practise sufficiently often over a sufficient period, to embody the knowledge of the maze in synapses which had permanently adapted to form a model of that specific maze.

Needless to say I strive my best to evade being given dopamine-blocking drugs because I dislike in the extreme having the ability taken from me to form such semi-permanent models of the world and its parts. I find it a matter for bitter regret that developers of these drugs, as well as those prescribing them in practice, have not taken sufficient care to determine adequately this effect they have. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone treated with these drugs will not suffer the debilitation I am speaking of. In practical terms the debilitation I have suffered of this nature over the years, given the unusual circumstances of the foisting on me of the drugs, has led to my not being employed in any capacity I would otherwise have been fit for and might have benefited from (as well as benefiting the economy). I regret the legal framework which permits such drugs to be compelled on people in disregard of their attempts to complain when they cannot understand (I myself have not until now) what the nature is of the debilitation they have to complain about. I regret any legal framework allowing people’s freedom to be taken from them without absolute need.

09/07/08 05:53 [Wednesday]

On Tuesday 20 May 2008 I was delving quite deeply into the origin of the Experiment towards the end of my first term as a student at Cambridge University, that is around the month November 1974. It has been my belief occasionally in the past two or three months that some sort of official enquiry is going on into the way - the criminal way, if the truth be found out - I have been treated in the course of the Experiment. Something I overheard on a bus or train from a fellow traveller supported this view: she suggested (by my way of interpreting what she said) that I should go along with being spoken to hypnotically so that I could say things in evidence more to the point (because about then - perhaps two months back - I was rambling rather in my outspoken remarks on buses, under the influence of the drugs then successfully thrust on me). It might be, of course - presuming firstly that what I overheard was anything to do with my situation at all, and not merely an ‘idea of reference’ blown up by the effect then of drugs on my brain - that she was an agent of the Authorities intent simply on tricking me one way or another into allowing hypnotising voices to reach my ears at night without combating it at all. That would be for the purposes of the present-day Experimenters and not for my benefit in the least. (I must say my constant fear when I make remarks such as these which sensible people might read and take - as one would, at face value - to be delusional, is that the sensible people will have the truth withheld from them - even MPs, who many of them will take little particular interest in the unpopular question of mental health - and therefore I shall not be protecting myself, as is my intention in spreading the truth about what has gone on, from future mis-treatment on the pretend basis that I am mentally ill.)

So I might be led to imagine that the ideas in my mind on Tuesday 20 May 2008 were a result of nighttime voicing inviting me to remember and present (on my website) evidence from the past of the way I was mis-treated. On the whole - re-reading what I said that day and preceding days - my conclusion is that the reason the origin of the Experiment in the 1970s was in my mind was that I was just recovering from another bout of being drugged, that is drugged in a way reminding me of the past and drawing forth reflections on the past as the ability to think returned as the drugs wore off.

Presumably the reason is similar this morning, why I am trying to tidy up loose ends as regards evidence I have been putting together from the 1970s. In recent days I have suffered drugging with the antidopamine drugs which bring back the past, bring it back more forcefully as the effect of the drugs recedes in their aftermath. The upshot of this is that I have added images showing letters from my parents, for example one from February 1975 which I have added after the diary entry at 20/05/08 11:40.

You are also invited to read excerpts from my recent diary [now at colinbrough.co.uk]. Astute readers will observe the effect on my thinking and way of expressing myself as drugs affecting me up to the weekend have worn off.

Wilson, Callaghan and Adolf Hitler

28/06/08 07:09 [Saturday]
Thursday and yesterday we went to London by Virgin trains on the route from Birmingham New Street I would without exception have used in my younger days (before I was ever drugged, or in the later 1970s when for perhaps two years, when I was living on my own in my own house, I avoided being drugged) instead of the Chiltern route promoted recently by the Authorities (this latter being cheaper but much slower). By ‘the Authorities’ in this case I mean those who determine what is said to me in nighttime hypnosis (or ‘advisory’ voicing related to hypnosis), and the reason we chose the better route (better given our circumstances, as it was better for me on my own in the 1970s and indeed as it must be better for almost any traveller, the Chiltern route being suitable really only for people travelling only part of the distance and not all the way from Birmingham to London) was that living in our own bungalow in Kingswinford it is extremely difficult for them to offer us this unwanted ‘nighttime advice’. The reasons things have not gone so well for us recently (for example causing us to waste money travelling twice to London when if we needed to go at all we needed to go only once; but because I was drugged quite severely during Thursday’s run I lost my focus this necessitating Friday’s repeat, and except that the drugging I suffered yesterday - Friday - was so little we might have needed to go again today) stem from the ‘nighttime advice’ I suffered when we slept away from home on recent occasions, at the Innkeepers Lodge Bessacarr and in a caravan in Skegness.
Things have been done in the past by ‘the Experiment’ which ordinarily would be illegal, and may have been illegal, although possibly legitimised retrospectively. To supply me fake websites which I have trusted as though they were genuine Microsoft websites I would expect to be illegal; and certainly Microsoft would have grounds for a civil action in that their name has been besmirched. Microsoft take a lot of trouble to ensure their software works with minimum flaws, and in doing this they are investing in Goodwill, that is people will trust Microsoft software (including extras supplied through genuine Microsoft websites) above other software on the basis of statistics which become widely known, that is the low statistics of failure of Microsoft software. In going to London to an address listed in a directory in Stourbridge library as an address for Microsoft (and also listed thus on 192.com via our Virgin Media internet connection) I was trying to ensure Microsoft are aware that false copies of their websites are supplied (as well as false copies of Microsoft discs - eg XP install CDs I have bought) in the hope this would stem the activities of ‘the Authorities’ and even bring The Experiment to an end. While what I suffer mainly from The Experiment is the drugging, nonetheless to have a true and proper internet connection, supplying true and proper and therefore trustworthy Microsoft sites, would be a boon.
Sometimes I fear that the object in drugging me - there is no indication those drugging me understand that it is what I would call criminal to do so, and certainly immoral (but that the dosages are now much lower - this however may be due more to my better practised techniques of evasion than from any new understanding of ethics the druggists may have come to) - is to still me, that is to deter me from publicising the abuses - as I say, on the face of it illegal and certainly criminal to use a word I think very appropriate - imposed in the past. A few weeks back I was thinking along these lines but putting the blame for the presumed intention to silence me regarding past abuse on ‘friends of Armond’. Now I think Armond was only a cog in a machine, and it is more or less the British Government - certainly the current Socialist Government kin to that of the 1970s who authorised ‘the Experiment’ in the first place - who are looking for such a way out. Apparently it is felt unacceptable to compel me in the way I was compelled in the past, and my fear is that recent scenarios engineered by The Experiment are hoped to produce behaviour from me - drugged but only mildly drugged. so that I can be said to be responsible for my choices - which will lead me one way or another into mental treatment possibly including hospitalisation and certainly including drugging which stills me.
With a mind this morning clear of the distortion of ‘nighttime advice’ I can see that it would be well to use this busy shopping day of Saturday to shop for a quantity of undrugged food. I can do this by selecting a store to shop at, randomly from a list, even without using a computer (now I have printed out the lists used by my computer prog to randomly choose a store).
28/06/08 09:18
Looking at the letters I have sent recently (looking at the Royal Mail website in fact - as presented via our untrustworthy Virgin Media internet connection - to see what it purports has happened to the deliveries), I can classify them into categories. Several of the letters have been sent as a consequence of drugging I suffered, to try to deter future drugging either by direct entreaty (eg to Whitbread as responsible for the PremierInn Wakefield City North) or by hoping to cause trouble and expense (eg to BT and to Royal Mail Customer Services the latter in respect of the jar of Robertson’s marmalade I returned for refund but which was lost - even though Premier Brands Foods Limited sent me £3.50 as though in recompense). Letters to Nominet and to 123-reg were motivated by distortions I have suffered in my internet connection (blameable almost certainly on Virgin Media in fact). Evidence that the letters to 123-reg do not reach their proper destination leads me to suppose that someone (‘the Authorities’) without the consent (or collusion) of 123-reg have been trying to get me to sign up with a hosting service more to their preference (such as Heart Internet, corrupted through and through to the ends of The Experiment, and owing me money which they show no morals in respect of at all). I can perhaps expect support therefore from 123-reg as someone (‘the Authorities’) has been trying to do them out of business (and similarly Microsoft, as explained above).
I don’t think Robertson’s gave their consent either, to the contamination of their products with drugs. Again, this assessment is based on failure to deliver my several attempted letters to them to the proper destination. I therefore anticipate support from Ranks Hovis McDougall (ultimate holding company for James Robertson & Sons Limited).
Rowse Honey I feel must be a small company easily leant on by the Government-backed ‘Authorities’, and going along with the consequences of the contamination of their products although probably initially not consulted.
28/06/08 09:38
Looking up a quotation I thought I half-remembered about a big lie being more easily perpetrated than a small lie, I find it comes not from an ordinary sort of Socialist but from Adolf Hitler: The broad mass of a nation ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. In other words if the State can get all sorts of falsifications put out by the Royal Mail, and through big companies like Virgin Media, and especially organisations conveying or purveying information, the man in the street may easily fall for it. A relic of the Wilson and Callaghan days of the 1970s indeed.

See Wordpress for reprints

I am spreading the word also on Wordpress: http://barrassbrough.wordpress.com/.
See here for some reprints.

Delayed posting from Friday 30-May-08

It seems to me then that the treatment I have been given, although unusual in being surreptitious and by virtue of that unevadable until recently, has been based on standard treatment in Britain for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. It must be that in recent years psychiatrists have genuinely taken me to be schizophrenic, although I find it difficult to believe Armond and his co-perpetrators in earlier years would arrive at the conclusion that I inevitably was schizophrenic merely on the basis of the schizoid personality which led me into all this when I went up to Cambridge in my student days. Presumably the conclusion was drawn that I was genuinely mentally ill, and the diagnosis of schizophrenia accepted, when I reported my suicide attempt at the start of 1986 (reported it then, that is). The extent to which Armond genuinely believed the diagnosis in 1986 I cannot tell.

The standard treatment for schizophrenia I find is left in the hands of people who think that what is important in life is to have money to spend on material things, and to a degree that it is a responsibility to work for money if one is capable. Such carers are not at all in tune with the things their patients would want and do if free (of debilitation from what I can agree is an illness given the context they find themselves in, but also from debilitation which in many cases I suspect is worse, from the treatment).

In my own case the law has been broken on more than one occasion, and, because I was regarded as mental, no one has taken much trouble to assist me in rectifying this (either in complaining effectively so as to deter a repeat, or in obtaining compensation). Advice I would certainly urge on those with ultimate responsibility would be to put in place procedures whereby the law must be strictly adhered to. (For example Dawn was detained beyond the time I as nearest relative ordered her release, and the procedure which Armond followed of insisting I sleep one night every few months in hospital was found to be illegal when tested in another case.)

The reason the law is not adhered to is that those treating the mentally ill feel they can do better than the law allows for their patients. Similarly they feel they can do better than manufacturers of the medication allow, by giving dosages in excess of the recommended maximum. As I have said before, they are fools beyond compare. Laws get debated extensively before being enacted and even should there be such a thing as a clever psychiatrist he is not going to do better than by following the law.

Hypnosis should be outlawed

Yesterday afternoon as we set off for Birmingham I noticed that drugs had got into us, presumably from our lunch-time sandwiches. With the sandwiches I had coffee (but Dawn I think had a cup of tea, but made with the same water of course).
It strikes me (furthermore) that discontinuing my website - certainly my main website, leaving perhaps my Blogger blog to expose my complaints - might be very positive towards ending the drugging. I don't feel entirely happy with this idea, though, and I can see no reason why I should feel unhappy about it unless I have been urged through hypnotising words to continue it. The only benefit I get from it lies in the pleasure I get at the idea people are interested in what I have to say, and the people who matter in this regard are not the people who override my objections to being drugged. How many genuine readers I have I cannot tell.
Reflecting on this, it seems not at all unlikely that I suffered hypnotising words in the nighttime while away from home at the weekend (in a hotel, in fact) and those words are having a continuing effect now, days later. I have in hand portable means of detecting voicing at night for such occasions. Furthering that project seems the best way I can spend time now, therefore.
Pursuing the hypothesis of hypnotising voices last weekend: it explains very well my predisposition to go to Birmingham (twice so far this week), and explains how the almost certain preparedness for us at the main post office there on Tuesday was arranged. Dawn bought a lottery ticket in there on that occasion, and I shall be interested to see the outcome of that (the draw was last night but we do not know the result yet for her ticket).
It explains my persuading myself since the weekend of the merits of my website and that I should take trouble to continue its maintenance (eg with my present hosts 123-reg despite the fact they seem to accept payment only by plastic). It casts doubt on the coffee granules I bought at Whittards (the ones I have just chucked).
To speak hypnotising words to me in the nighttime is, as I have said before, an unusual way of communicating. I understand that it has grown out of my preceding history, but I ask myself what the basis is on which The Experiment wishes to continue it. If I were left entirely free I should no doubt continue much as I was in 1978 and 1979, and more likely than not given the availability now of personal websites put up my diary as a blog. I have been hoping to put up my diaries from past years including the 1970s, in fact. The reason for wanting to continue the hypnotising words presumably now (whatever was formerly the case) is not merely so that the perpetrators can continue in employment. It is slightly uncertain whether I would do as I say, that is publish my diaries as a weblog, and my guess has to be that the present-day Experimenters wish to guide me in certain directions (including publishing what I have to say in a form accessible to them). Unfortunately hypnotising voicing also enables them to guide me to take drugs I do not want to take, and given what has happened in the past this possibility makes me very much less trustful. The weekend bash has cost me a jar of coffee thus far, and also consternation in processing on what to do about the Water Rate demand ....
As I say, it is the unusual nature of the 'communication' offered which causes me concern. People who freely agree with each other to do things enter into a form of contract, and the law on contract - tried and tested over centuries - is very helpful in understanding the nature of free agreements between people. To try to persuade others using persuasion techniques which psychological theorists have dreamt up in the past century is not the same thing at all, and formerly, evidence that persuasion techniques were of interest to The Experiment has caused me to prefer the hypothesis that we were being made use of for military purposes. (To be honest, most psychological theory as it is now is worthless, just as the associated 'work' which psychiatrists do is worthless and should be left to rich movie stars and the like to pay out for as they may pay out for personal astrologers, instead of State funds being wasted. Of course I know from experience that what is perpetrated by State-employed psychiatrists is worse than worthless: it is a danger to their patients.)
The first thing I did this morning on getting up was type up a handwritten note as I said yesterday I intended. I translated this to HTML and have just inserted it into the basic file [for my [then] website barrass-brough.org.uk] for May (this month). As soon as I returned - in doing that - to the work of preparing the website update I became 'yawnative' for which now read bored. The reason, now I see clearly, is that doing this website update is not something I myself have planned out to do, but rather has been suggested (perhaps foisted is too strong) to me by the nighttime voicers. Drugged as I have been in the past I have followed their suggestions - for one thing life was empty without having at least that to do - but now I understand clearly I have more of a choice in the matter. Having this choice, and thinking out the best choice to make, itself lays down the scheme or plan following which should give rise to pleasure apart from what actually gets done as a result of the activity planned out.
The Experimenters have whatever interests they have - in recent months, politics and economics. I have my interests: that is, what I would freely choose to spend time on: that is, most significantly, computer modelling of perceptual processes. Who is to say what is the best use of my time? One man I worked with at Dudley Council - a PhD in history, actually - disagreed with my suggestion the activities of Isaac Newton were of greater significance than say the perpetrations of Prime Ministers. He disagreed presumably because of his educational background and the things that in turn depended on. What I would say here is that I ought to be free to pursue my own lines of enquiry, to the extent the economics of the time allow (in other words at other times in history I might have needed to work in the counting-house for twelve hours each day, but not so in the present context).
I see now, also, the origin of the things going on in my mind as I have written my notes - or typed them on my handheld device - in going about since the weekend. Basically the comments I have made (my own comments at one remove from the commentary 'requested' by the Experimenters) have centred on the distraction from being explicit at too low a level, that is too close to physical reality, or certainly explicit thus too early. Keeping one's ideas in mind instead of on paper allows them to have a persistence which gives rise to better higher-level abstractions from them. That is, it gives rise (ultimately) to better summarisations and theories. This is why science has a brevity and power almost unknown in the arts and certainly unknown to ‘social science’.
Thus I see that a lot of the wasteful distraction from what I should have been doing, since the weekend, has derived not so much from drugs as from the nighttime voicing. The conclusion for politicians who may take an interest is that hypnosis without the preceding consent of the one hypnotised, in a clear undrugged condition of mind, should be outlawed.

From Monday 26 May 2008

Another part of the cost to us in being drugged is the waste of my time now trying to work these things out, the motivation being as I say to hope to avoid, or better avoid, in future such drugging, because we derive entirely disbenefit from it. Furthermore my time is wasted more than it would be by virtue of the fact my thinking is less efficient because of mind-altering drugs still in my metabolism this morning.

I have in the past had varying hypotheses why I - in particular - have suffered such drugging. One frequently cropping up has been that it was to assess the hurt to me from previous such drugging. I find this hypothesis again rearing up this morning, but dismiss it on the basis that I have had it over so many years that it cannot have been right then (because I - and now we - would not continue to suffer year after year for that purpose) so most likely is not right now.

Another major hypothesis was that it was to produce a simulacrum schizophrenia for research purposes, and I cannot so readily dismiss this same hypothesis now. What I myself suffered from the drugging yesterday - particularly in the thinking I was doing trying to sort out why we were delayed unnecessarily (as far as I could see) from the alterations to train timings due to Sunday engineering works - was very close to a condition of paranoia, and has been so but much worse in the past.

The third major hypothesis has been that the drugs were supposed to be an assistance to me because I was supposed to be schizophrenic and they were based on antischizophrenic medication (but with extras, presumably to try to counter ‘side-effects’). This hypothesis is one I have only quite recently entertained, because it seemed so ridiculous. It seemed ridiculous to imagine that psychiatrists presumably regarded as especially competent and presumably concerting together (that is, not just one of them making his own diagnosis) could make the mistaken diagnosis, and ridiculous to imagine the debilitating effect of the drug mixtures given could be missed and the view continue to be taken that the drugs were an assistance to me.

Therefore to convey the truth about the effect of the drugging - that it had entirely disbeneficial effects, for Dawn and for myself - I need to transmit this exposition (and presume it will be correctly understood) to those arranging for the drugs to be supplied. I have to say this is difficult firstly because I cannot be certain where the drugs were supplied. I cannot know how the authorisation has been given for the drugging. Those authorising the drugging - that is those writing the prescription and those organising for the railway coffee (it may well have been) to have drugs put in it - are remiss in not advising themselves adequately of the effects of the drugging, and further in causing me the frustration of needing to work out how best to transmit expositions such as this diary entry.

When I put this diary entry on my various websites it will reach a certain audience (including some MPs) but they may not have time to get to the truth of what I say and may have no particular interest in the subject of mental health. They may not cotton on to the degree of waste in my life - waste and horror for me over the years - so may not take the question sufficiently seriously. (On the other hand I am now kicking up such a fuss that I hope someone with influence may intervene.) Apart from this ‘broadcasting’ in the hope someone with influence may assist me - and really it should be my own MP - I think it might be well to send this exposition to the management of the Premier Inn chain (on the basis that the tea and coffee we drank in the Wakefield hotel may well have contained drugs) and to the management at Doncaster railway station.

We have been drugged on railway stations before (Doncaster in particular) and in hotel rooms before, and those arranging the drugging - who almost certainly read my websites if few others do - may simply be continuing established practices with only a lackadaisical notion why they are doing so. If mechanisms are in place allowing us to be drugged in these ways, ‘the Experimenters’ - to refer to them thus - having only vague ideas (almost certainly being trained in subjects related to psychiatry) may make use of the mechanisms without over-much reflection. I have to say this is wrong - in fact a disaster - that is (this is it basically) to allow antischizophrenic drugs to be prescribed so lackadaisically.

¬¬¬

There is quite an industry of people employed nowadays to ‘help out’. Such people as Social Workers (in Western countries like Britain) depend for their employment on people - some inhabitants of the country - being in a bad way. Moreover nowadays (for reasons which I would do well to think about) the work people do - when it is assessed for purposes of remuneration, or in academic circles reputation - is measured to a large degree by quantity. Scientists - and other academics, I presume - are judged according to the number of papers they publish. It is argued that the papers are scored (by assessors from the peer group) before publication so that counting them counts only worthy publishings. Readers may be aware what I think of this system as applied to psychiatric ‘scientists’, who form what I can call only a mutual admiration society comparable to the clique of theologians in mediaeval times.

Thus it is that with the motivation of wishing for continuing employment (and extending into ‘empire building’) employees of the State - and in particular, Social Workers and similar (possibly including psychiatrists although I would think they deceive themselves more and are less cynical) - feel they need to do ‘work’ in quantity. They need to have a large case-load and they need to take action in each case. Applied to my own ‘case’ this maybe is what leads to continuing use of the mechanisms for drugging me - including perhaps access to those who supply tea and coffee (or the water used) in hotel rooms.

This is an unfortunate state of affairs, as insufficient account is taken - in measuring the ‘work’ - of success or otherwise in achieving aims. Intervention by Social Workers sometimes (I myself do not know whether the statistic is around 50% of cases or is greater) makes matters worse not better. But this is not ordinarily measured. Only the quantity (the number of cases) is ordinarily measured. In extreme cases (such as death of a child) some effort may be made to gather more information on the ‘work’ done.

I have produced ideas in past months on the explanation for the irreversible growth of State intervention - ‘big government’ - and usually I would accept that nothing is to be done, and merely regret the facts. In my own ‘case’ though, because State intervention of this species has led me to suffer so badly, I have been motivated to strive to make an alteration, which comes down lately to publishing words in places they are put in the way of people with influence.

Closer Understanding

The night before this night just ended - that is, the night between Wednesday and Thursday - I got up in the middle of the night and flushed a lot of bread down the toilet, mainly Hovis bought a day or two previous from Sainsbury’s Merry Hill. I did this because I felt effects of drugs - a combination of stimulant and ASM [antischizophrenic medication] - and not understanding why I should continue to be drugged, was fearful - certainly suspicious - that the intention was to entrap me in continuing drugging such as I have suffered in the past. The way this has been perpetrated was to reduce my ability to think for myself, that is my ability to take into account longer range considerations in forming decisions what to do. Certain mixtures of stimulant and ASM have this effect on me, of reducing or zeroing my ability to take account of longer range considerations. It is the antischizophrenic component of the mixture which causes this problem, and with no stimulant admixed (or insufficient stimulant) I become very little active because I find little to motivate me. Under ordinary circumstances - that is, undrugged - the motivations I find for taking action relate exclusively to longer range considerations, that is longer term into the future. I know there are other motivations to be found - for example enjoyment of food - and when I have been on some combinations of drugs - notably in the early years of the new Millennium, that is from about the year 2000 on for a year or two - I have performed activities based on such motivations. Unfortunately I was nowhere near as happy under those circumstances, that is without my usual longer range motivations.
A further problem arising out of my particular history, from being given drugs which deprive me of longer range motivations, is that I become too subject to advice given by speaking to me when I am less than fully aware. (I have reason to believe such advice has been given when my awareness has been subdued - for example I have been heavily asleep, perhaps - by a drug like opium.) Because I have no genuine motivations arising within myself (that is, because the drugs I have been given when this has occurred have removed the motivation available from longer range considerations), when I am given stimulant drugs affecting me in the waking period (usually the daytime but sometimes I have been kept wakeful at night) which give me a feeling of drive which if not put into effect causes frustration (which can manifest in angry outbursts) and certainly distraction (in that the stimulant while in my metabolism puts me constantly on the look-out for action I might take), if I am given suggestion akin to hypnotic suggestion I act on that suggestion too readily.
Thus what has happened is that my ability to think for myself has been reduced near to zero with antischizophrenic drugs and then the actions I take have been too subject to the suggestion I have mentioned, akin to hypnotic suggestion. This suggestion has been used to persuade me to purchase foodstuffs which have been drugged, this leading to continuation in the entrapment I refer to. It has been more difficult to evade the entrapment when there have been fewer choices of places to shop for food: for example in the Harworth area of Nottinghamshire where we (my wife and I) had our park home and where we came close to settling permanently. Where we are living now in Kingswinford, there are so many easily accessible food stores that slight randomisation in our purchasing of food has a very beneficial effect in negativing any ‘hypnotic’ suggestion. The upshot is that those wishing to persuade me to continue to take in drugged foods and drinks find it impossible. Sometimes still when I do not see things as clearly as this morning I have fear of entrapment, for example through drugging of our water supply from South Staffs Water (which I am sure is a thing capable of being done and which has been done in months past).
The question why these people wish me to continue to take drugs of this nature - reducing near to zero my ability to think for myself - is one I find difficulty answering, and I suppose there must be complex factors arising out of my history. I was first given antischizophrenic drugs in the 1970s as part of a scheme to try to ‘treat’ the schizoid personality I had, which those giving the drugs seemingly felt was undesirable in itself (it is a widely held view that to be sociable is desirable) and probably felt might lead to schizophrenia with ‘positive’ symptoms which would be more widely agreed to be undesirable. Unfortunately they had insufficient understanding of the effects of the drugs given, as well as insufficient understanding of schizoid personality and of schizophrenia, and moreover they were very negligent in not assaying (at all, it seems to me, incredible though this may sound) the effects in practice of giving me the drugs surreptitiously.
The consequence of this sequence of drug administration - first surreptitiously, as I say, and in 1980, and subsequently, by compulsion (this leading through the effect on my ability to think for myself to continued acceptance by me of the abusive drugs) - was that I was under treatment with these drugs for almost twenty-five years.
In 2003 after my parents died I left the town where I had lived since the age of three and went to live in Retford in Nottinghamshire (although I have now returned to Kingswinford). Regrettably the people following the course of the treatment I had been receiving (successors to the original perpetrators from the time I was a student at Cambridge University) took the view that I needed to have antischizophrenic medication. I presume the reasons they had were not unethical reasons but rather were related to their mistaken way of understanding schizophrenia and its treatment. The sequence which followed from the time I started living in Retford was that in 2004 I was given powerful stimulant drugs which (in combination with antischizophrenic drugs given at the same time) caused me to behave in a confused and sometimes aggressive-seeming manner which resulted in the September in my arrest in Bristol and conveyance (under circumstances which I myself deplore extremely) back to Nottinghamshire and in fact to detention in Bassetlaw Hospital.
While in hospital there I met Dawn who is now my wife. The people following the course of my life and who had power (evidently) to order that I be given drugs, sometimes surreptitiously and sometimes by compulsion (when I was under a ‘section’ of the Mental Health Act improperly applied, in my view), seemingly felt that my choice of Dawn as a marriage partner was undesirable. Factors accidentally arising - for example the ‘talking-therapy’ treatment which had been applied around Easter of 2004 to a friend I had made on the internet (Caroline, who lived in Bristol) which had most unfortunate consequences for her and for me (again blameable on the mistaken way psychiatrists in Britain - including those promoting ‘talking-therapy’ treatments, evidently - have of understanding schizophrenia) - led now to a sort of panic in those following the course of my life (mistakenly believing I was schizophrenic and that they were gathering knowledge of the life of someone schizophrenic under treatment for schizophrenia in an ordinary British scheme of treatment). This is the best way I can find to explain events. In 2004 I had lost a lot of money online gambling, this resulting from the drugs I had been given (and possibly from ‘hypnotising’ advice in combination), and as I say Caroline had been caused a lot of heartache and general distress from the foolish treatment she had been subject to, so the perpetrators must have panicked, coming close to realising the error of their ways and (perhaps having the mens rea as I have suggested recently and surely having regret for the sequence resulting from their inadequate understanding) feeling they must brave things out and try to promote (or prove, as they may have presented it to themselves) the diagnosis I had of schizophrenia thus justifying the treatment I had been meted.
My fears change according to the mixtures of drugs I am given from time to time, but this morning I feel that surely what is going on now is not a further attempt to entrap me but rather an endeavour to obtain evidence, directly on the effects of drugs given to me surreptitiously (for example in recent days in bread) and further from what I say about events over the years, and from documents I produce (and publish on the internet) relating to what has happened over the years.

Includes cost to the economy

In the 1990s I had a number of pen-pals who I had got in contact with through the NSF (the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, by the old name it was then called). Possibly one of these, or possibly it was someone who came on TV with his story, explained what had happened to him: he had developed schizophrenia (according to doctors) and had been treated with antischizophrenic drugs. His mental organisation had become totally disrupted: whereas before he had been (I think) a Civil Servant, or anyway in some position needing ability to think clearly, afterwards he was totally incompetent. He himself believed the mental disorganisation was due to the illness, and presumably those treating him did.
I must be about the only person treated with such drugs for schizophrenia (or as if for schizophrenia) who already knew a good deal about the illness. I knew from the start that my mental disorganisation was nothing to do with symptomatology of schizophrenia, and in fact I knew the truth, that it was due to the drugs. How it comes that no one else has understood this I find difficult to unravel. Those testing the drugs seemingly don’t measure the right things, in measuring the effects. They don’t measure the effect on ‘mental organisation’: for example (to harp on again) Armond said that antischizophrenic drugs do not affect intelligence, so I think testers of these drugs must test the effect on IQ and conclude that the drugs don’t affect mental capacity because they don’t have a measurable effect on IQ.
The effect they have (on mental organisation) is as I have said comparable to the effect of lobotomoy. I saw a TV programme about a man in the United States who had had a brain injury destroying part of his prefrontal cortex. Whereas before he had been a high-powered legal executive, afterwards he could only hold down a job as a petrol-pump attendant. This is what happened to me given these drugs: beforehand I was highly regarded as a trainee accountant (for example at Round Oak Steelworks, and for a while at Dudley Council) but afterwards I was what I would call totally incompetent.
It may be - and I hope it is - that someone sensible recently, because of events, has cottoned on to these allegations I make about the effects of antischizophrenic drugs. If they have cottoned on and find a way of testing the truth of what I say (which, if I have been adequately observed, will already be well on the way to being done for my own case) they will discover it is true, and that giving these drugs incautiously results not only in horror for the treated individuals (which they naturally blame on their illness) but deprives the economy of useful workers.

Trespass

When I was a kid I had all sorts of ideas for gadgets, for example making use of transmission of information over a distance. I saw a TV programme about the invention of telegraph and - whether specifically suggested by the programme I can’t remember - afterwards made a telegraph of my own by winding a solenoid myself using ordinary low-voltage wire (probably supplied with a Philips Electronic Engineer kit I had) and arranging it to swing a needle to indicate dot or dash (or whatever) as in Morse code. Today I have been using my versatile intelligence (as I might call it) for practical purposes - security of our home - rather than (yesterday) writing intellectual (the word I use) or philosophical stuff. I mention the telegraph I made as a kid because nowadays wireless devices are easily affordable, and I am pleased with what I have achieved this morning along the lines of transmitting information from home to a handset I shall carry about with me when I am out and about.
Having achieved pretty competent security, my self-questioning asks the question, does anyone genuinely ever enter our home illicitly, or rather: have they in the past? On one occasion, in January 2007, we returned to the bungalow here in Kingswinford having been away in Nottinghamshire and there was slight damage in the bathroom. It seems very likely someone had entered, and at the time the only alternative I could envisage was that there had been a minor earth tremor. We called in the police but they simply took note, and took note (as we ourselves did not till later, and phoning the police found they had been aware of it) that the breakage of the bathroom window was the internal pane of the double-glazing (arguing the damage was indeed done from inside).
It seems not unlikely (for example because of the legal position that an Englishman’s home is his castle, which would require some special permission presumably in each case, for ‘illicit’ entry) that the advantage taken of us is more by way of (something like) drugging us into a heavy sleep and then walking in through open doors (to drug water stored in bottles in the kitchen, in January this year for example). The law might well regard that as little more serious than trespass.
I have to say the law is wrong and should be changed. The hurt in such a case lies in the drugging. Even being drugged with something like a ‘Mickey Finn’ (something almost certainly perpetratred on us) gives rise to headache in the hangover. And if it is used to further drug us, with drugs which are seriously offensive - say putting antischizophrenic drugs into bottles of water - the offence is severe. The hurt does not so much consist in physical ‘side-effects’ (like headache) as in the effect on one’s mind (certainly speaking for myself). Medical people are hopeless at measuring such hurt - consider for example Armond’s assertion that antischizophrenic drugs ‘do not affect the intelligence’ as though all mental capacity is measurable as ‘intelligence’ or its absence - and it is wrong to allow psychiatrists who are especially foolish medical people to prescribe mind-altering drugs with so little limitation or control on them.

I have concern

In the early 1980s - I think it was 1983 when I was easier subject to hypnosis, or interrogation in a truth-drugged condition as it may have been, because I was living with my parents (as against 1980 when I was living on my own in my own house) - I developed the notion that what was going on was an attempt to induce schizophrenia in a person with a schizoid personality (thought to be most likely a pre-schizophrenic personality) and find out about schizophrenia by ‘hypnotically’ - or using a truth-drug - getting inside his mind. This theory I had fell into abeyance when from 1984 for year after year and decade after decade my life was an empty non-life which I could not see would be of interest to any ‘investigators’. I am now mooting the same theory again.

I have no concern whether I am ‘genuinely’ schizophrenic, or if there is any sense in which the label could be applicable to me. All I am concerned with, in relation to schizophrenia and my own ‘case’, is that antischizophrenic drugs even if they have no noticeable ‘side-effects’ merely by their antidopamine action make my life miserable and empty. And they can be - and in the past have been - administered to me by compulsion. Furthermore no one admits any wrong has been done; still less am I offered compensation. I must go on fearing that such drugs may again - when things have settled into a lull - be introduced into our water supply. This inclines me to be unhelpful: the main reason in the past I have tried to ‘help out’ has been that I thought I might thereby save myself further or worse drugging (for example by explaining - or trying to, to psychiatric people evidently too dense to understand the first thing - the deleterious effects of antidopamine drugs).

In Spring 2006 when we were living in Dawn’s house in Worksop I was invited (through not overly subtle hints in phone conversations with people supposedly at NHS Direct) to maintain archives of stuff on my computers. Fair enough: I have more or less done this. My suspicion (in regard to the DIXONSXP desktop in particular) is that attempts are going to be made to steal this information. Surely even just the laws of copyright should protect me. Not that there is much to be kept secret: but in fact a lot of what I have spent time doing over the past two years (as against the preceding twenty-five when I did virtually nothing) was work created by The Experiment, which otherwise I would not have had to take time out to do and therefore I should have got more sensible stuff done. So while what I have stored up is not secret, it is of value to me as the product of time taken up perforce by the fact of The Experiment. In other words it should not be stolen but I should be paid for it, and certainly exempted from future drugging (one possibility of course being that I might be drugged into insensibility or some species of folly so that information could be copied or stolen outright, as the computer hard disc in August 2005 was stolen outright).

Sainsbury's gives rise to thinking

The following thoughts have followed as a consequence of what I observed in Sainsbury’s Birmingham city centre this afternoon, where we ended up shopping for food after initially going to Stourbridge (to get money from the building society) and then thinking we might go to Wolverhampton but that the wait for the bus would have been so long.

When we arrived at the Sainsbury’s in question a policeman was inside, and while from what I heard there was a supposed reason for him being there unrelated to us, my presumption close to certainty is that he was on duty because we might well turn up there. When I went to the soft drinks chill cabinet thinking to buy something like Red Bull, standing by was a seeming Sainsbury’s man with a trolley stacked with drinks of the sort I might ordinarily buy, that is stimulant drinks and Lucozade. The best theory I can find in explanation of this - especially given that the trolley was wheeled away as soon as I had left the area - was that the drinks in the chill cabinet (the ones at the front, perhaps) contained drugs and the trolley was to replace them with undrugged versions.

What I have reflected on this is that while what is being done bears a great resemblance to ‘the Experiment’ in 1980 and 1983-84 (including the contribution from BBC and other TV presenters, although we watch little nowadays), because of the context now - me living in my own home with a helpful wife instead of parents who were misadvised - much more effort has to be put in to distort the environment and to get drugs into me (particularly since I have sense to distrust the tapwater). This means that many more people from different walks of life are in the know - for example Sainsbury’s staff and managers, and police officers - and I think and hope this means that hole-in-the-corner abuse such as my detention on a mental ward in a remote district for months, or even harsh treatment in police cells for eighteen hours say, is unlikely to re-occur. On the presumption (a pretty certain presumption) that senior police officers are aware that I am - if I do not practise successful evasion - foisted foods containing mind-altering drugs, I think it is not so much a question of using techniques of mind-alteration (including the drugs) to get me by hook or by crook into a mental ward again, as to see whether I feel the help of mental doctors - or any doctors - would be any good, and in general how I react and what it is I fear.

The answer is plain: what I fear is treatment for mental illness (and in particular, drug treatment) and confinement under the jurisdiction of only medical people; and as regards the police, even though Nottinghamshire police behaved wrongly (presumably due to some misguided senior officer) and the Police Complaints Commission are dragging their feet, nonetheless I would much rather trust myself to police to be looked after than to mental doctors who as I have said before couldn’t pass the Eleven-Plus.

Here's one I did yesterday

The drugs affecting me earlier - probably a mixture of stimulant and ASM [antischizophrenic medication] - have worn off (which for one thing implies the pleasing fact that they did not derive from the bread which I can continue to eat with impunity: probably they derived from the remains of the Sara Lee gateau, as I suspected at one stage this afternoon as well as a day or two back of the gateau then) and my mind is almost as it was when I was in my late teens, certainly as regards activity level (or ‘activation level’) although I suppose I must admit I have more experiential memories so that the subject-matter thrown around in the activity is more varied, and likely more realistically founded.

Just as at that time as a teenager then, I ask myself - before doing anything much at all, including any writing - what point there is in it? The answer today is differently based from then, as regards writing, because I have a readership. Anyone with a blog can hope for readership, but in my particular case almost certainly a lot of what I put up is read by or on behalf of ‘the Authorities’. I put this forward as the explanation for my relative garrulousness in explaining matters such as I am here in these prefatory paragraphs, which would be different - perhaps non-existent - if I did not have in mind these readers for ‘the Authorities’.

A lot of what occurs to my mind to write, in fact, takes shape as though directed at the readers for ‘the Authorities’, and usually it is complaining about what I suffer, or explaining what it is the Authorities are doing that they shouldn’t be. I conclude that most likely such explanations and complaints aren’t understood although at times I have wondered if they are read at all.

Taking on the theory that from the time I was at Cambridge the Experimenters were intent on tracking through life a person thought liable to develop schizophrenia, and that in 1986 Armond (as one of the Experimenters, or employed by them) genuinely concluded I had developed schizophrenia - not entirely unexpected, as I say - and what has been happening since then is treatment of that supposed schizophrenia, using extraordinary methods including admixed heroin (not unheard of in cases of terminal disease in combination with something like chorpromazine, to give a kind of early death in life before actual death, but made happy - supposedly - by the heroin) and later admixed antidepressants and admixed stimulants (this last virtually unbelievable as countering - almost any scientist would have said so - the dopamine-blocking action of the antipsychotic leaving only side-effects of both drug types with zero benefit), with observation - that is, tracking - continuing.

Because, as I say, much of what I write to ‘the Authorities’ - formerly in letters to what was said to be Caroline’s address in Bristol but where a Water Rate bill I found was addressed to a Mr S Phillips if I remember right (because I was reminded of the actress Sian Phillips) and lately via my website - is not understood at all, I wonder what it’s all about. The conclusion must be - this supported by general evidence of the low intellectual quality of psychiatrists, not least of this being Armond’s failure to correct the mis-spelling of his own address in the Medical Directory I consulted (whether corrected since I do not know) - that the Experiment was a lackadaisical affair from the start and did not ever envisage gathering detailed information of the sort which might interest myself were I engaged in managing such a scheme. The failure of the Experimenters (Armond and others at the outset, I imagine) to take in much detail, let alone understand it, led to the error - quite common in psychiatric diagnosis in Britain, I should think - of giving me disatrously hurtful drugs and ignoring my complaints. I am hopeful that in the present phase more sensible people take cognisance and have ultimate control over the psychiatrists’ leashes (for one thing police officers must be quite aware of the sort of things perpetrated, and if my attempts to ‘publish’ are not stymied politicians too will become aware).

Hence my conclusion now (and, my mind clear of drugs, almost certainly this is the correct conclusion) is that my diagnosis of schizophrenia in 1986 on the evidence of my suicide attempt was a genuine diagnosis, so mistaken because Armond - and British psychiatrists generally - are fools. The treatment I have received in the twenty-odd years since has been based on standard British treatment for schizophrenia (but with the embellishments mentioned: admixed heroin, etc) and has resulted in my having a non-life thought to show typical symptomatology of schizophrenia (that is, British psychiatrists know so little they take the disastrous effects of the drug treatment as symptoms of the illness).

Goodness knows what will happen now but I presume I shall be freed.

¬¬¬

That’s how the ‘prefatory paragraphs’ have turned out, and backtracking, what they were supposed to preface was something to the effect that before I was writing to communicate to anyone - in my notes and diaries around 1972 - some of what I wrote (thinking particularly of notes on the computers I designed) was so complicated that after trying to explain them to my best friend I gave up ever hoping to explain such matters.

As regards what point there is in doing anything, I tend to agree with Sartre (at the end of the book Nausea) that to produce art objects is the way to go, because they are slightly less existent and being less existent in real-time have the hope of enduring forever (or a longish time, anyway: certainly longer than the statue of Ozymandias). With art objects I include scientific theories and mathematical (including computer) models.

What it is I have to worry about

What it is I have to worry about is based on these facts: in the past I have been physically compelled to be injected. The first time in November 1980 six or seven men held me while I was injected. The effect of that injection and of subsequent injections and orally administered medication was and has been to subdue my vigour in resisting what I do not want, that is antipsychotic medication. On the other hand I have never been so ‘vigorous’ as to offer physical resistance (except trying to escape and run away, if that can be called physical). Once I am in the routine of having such medication then - and, as I say, I know from experience that force can be used (it is allowed by law) to compel me - I cease to have vigour to resist or even to complain, depending on dosages. The worst scenario is if the dosage initially administered (when I am compelled) is low, so that I have less motivation to resist and complain even though I am then more capable and it would be better for me if I did so. This was what happened in 1987. If the dosage is then gradually stepped up, I become less and less able to make my case even while the effects of the medication are getting worse and worse. This is - has been - a sort of entrapment and I offer it as an explanation for my terror of any amount of antipsychotic drug.

Why have I been medicated?

The question arises - given that ASM [antischizophrenic medication] is by far and away the most significant factor in my life, and it is a factor motivating avoidance at almost any cost - why have I been given ASM and why am I now occasionally given ASM (as in the Christian coffee shop in Stourbridge yesterday)? I’m sure I have not been given it for the deliberate purpose of hurting me. Most likely recent psychiatrists presumed it was good for me. Armond may have had doubts and may have been able to swallow his doubts when I gave in in 1987 following improper suggestion potentiated with an opium-like drug, after which the dosage of ASM I imagine was stepped up. Indeed this seemed to Dr G in 2005 - presumably following that earlier procedure of Armond’s in 1987 - to be quite an acceptable mode of proceeding.

It is just about conceivable that latter-day ‘friends of Armond’ have cynically perpetuated his scheme of getting me stilled by ASM, in autumn 2005 giving improper directives to Dr G and others at Bassetlaw. This theory is one I have laid stress on when made paranoid by ASM in recent weeks. The presence of heavy police when I used to visit police stations to complain - last year, probably - tells me that someone had made an assertion that I was a danger when not medicated. Whoever it was must have made the assertion cynically, and while it could have been Bassetlaw psychiatrists (to excuse their treatment of me, otherwise unnecessarily vigorous) my thought is that it was whoever gave improper directives to those at Bassetlaw, in 2005.

Do people honestly not understand what's wrong?

I can’t tell how genuine are the enquiries what it is that’s bad about being given antischizophrenic drugs, in my own experience which is all I can speak of (plus Dawn’s I suppose to a degree). Sometimes the enquiries strike me as near to being cynical ways of getting round my objections, or perhaps objections put forward either on my behalf or on the behalf generally of patients subjected to such drugging, with the intention (this fear is in my mind this morning since the failure of any help from the Drinking Water Inspectorate, meaning I cannot know the circumstances of drugging our water supply and cannot be at all sanguine it will not resume) of continuing by hook or by crook to foist these drugs on me.

The thing is, what I have lately been complaining about I should have complained about before, but was stilled by the drugs given at the time. What I have suffered as a result of perpetrations I am now complaining about range over various types of negative experience including physical hurt, loss or waste of my money and waste of my time and effort. In Bristol police cells in September 2004 I was physically hurt, and while I did complain towards the beginning of 2005 I did not sufficiently pursue the complaint, and (naturally enough) nobody else looked out adequately for me (especially since it was an ‘official body’ sanctioning what it was I was complaining about - over-use of force by a security firm employed by some ‘health authority’ - and that official body or a related official body was the body which would have provided any support to look out for me: just like patients’ advocates for hospitalised mental patients, and even the solicitors patients are provided with, being part of the Mental Health system running the entire show).

I lose money (as one example) from the interference with the postal service, which means I cannot presume as the average citizen can that almost all his letters posted in the ordinary way will be delivered reasonably promptly. I need to pay to record the delivery, at least, so as to be sure the letter has in fact been delivered, and when.

Waste of my time and effort includes inefficient procedures I adopt when my mind is fuddled by drugs, sometimes (especially in the past) leading me to experience severe frustration because nothing I try delivers the required result in anything like the ordinarily acceptable way. And (baffling in the extreme to us non-psychiatrists) these frustrations have been deliberately engineered, presumably (this is all I can guess) to observe the ways I try to get round obstacles. A simple (but frequent) example of this is to be found in my attempts (and Dawn’s since she has joined with me) to use public payphones. It cannot be an ordinary average statistic that everyone who phones BT has to wait half an hour or more for an answer. Such frustrations get exaggerated through (1) fear that the consequences may include further suffering along the lines of detention and drugging; and (2) not having anything else in mind at the same time as an interesting and happy-making diversion (ie if the antischizophrenic drugs cause me at the time to have an almost completely empty mind).

All I can hope is that publicising the ridiculous way I have been treated will make it known and understood by a wide audience, and hope this will deter much in future of the same.

McVitie's eagerly awaited

I am awaiting a reply from McVitie’s (or rather, United Biscuits) to the following:

3 May 2008

McVitie’s
Consumer Services Department
PO Box 7249
Ashby-de-la-Zouch
Leicestershire LE65 2ZH

Dear Mrs Gittins

Thank you for your prompt letter of 2 May 2008. What you say is not correct in regard to the McCoy’s crisps. I returned several packs within the multipack wrapper. If you could trace this contaminated product and ascertain the truth, and take appropriate action I’d be most grateful.

I show the delivery to you which somebody signed for:


Yours sincerely

Colin Barrass-Brough