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.
Thursday 29 May 2008
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.
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.
Friday 23 May 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday 21 May 2008
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.
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.
Monday 19 May 2008
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.
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.
Sunday 18 May 2008
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).
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).
Saturday 17 May 2008
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.
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.
Friday 16 May 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday 14 May 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday 13 May 2008
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.
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
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
Something is getting through
I have had a reply from Ian Pearson’s Constituency Office Manager, and I have in turned replied:
Dear [Constituency Office Manager]
Thank you for letting me know my publication to barrass-brough.blogspot.com is forwarded as it is supposed to be. I had had doubts as our IP address (via our Virgin Media internet connection) has recently been unaccountably altered. The reason for such a sudden flood of information from me (what you call emails as well as letters through the post, to Mr Pearson and others) is the recent cessation or certainly great reduction in the drugging I suffer from stilling drugs (chiefly antipsychotics). I trust Mr Pearson can help me obtain redress for what I have suffered from improper drug administration or what I call foisting.
Yours
Colin Barrass-Brough
Dear [Constituency Office Manager]
Thank you for letting me know my publication to barrass-brough.blogspot.com is forwarded as it is supposed to be. I had had doubts as our IP address (via our Virgin Media internet connection) has recently been unaccountably altered. The reason for such a sudden flood of information from me (what you call emails as well as letters through the post, to Mr Pearson and others) is the recent cessation or certainly great reduction in the drugging I suffer from stilling drugs (chiefly antipsychotics). I trust Mr Pearson can help me obtain redress for what I have suffered from improper drug administration or what I call foisting.
Yours
Colin Barrass-Brough
Sara Lee gateau
I have eaten some of a Sara Lee chocolate gateau bought yesterday at Sainsbury’s Merry Hill and now what I was thinking of as ‘stimulant’ effects - such as hot and sore eyes, and sore throat - seem more evident. I think most likely these effects have grown due to drugs in the gateau (otherwise they are somehow rearing up again from drugs taken in yesterday) but the main point is that my attention is drawn - powerfully, based on the degree of effects suffered over the years and hence feared for the future - to pondering whether there are drugs in the gateau, and more generally how I could live my life to be free of such risk. This means my mind is taken away from what it would be enjoying dwelling on - computer modelling of perceptual processes, or whatever - to have to ‘process’ for this problem foisted on me in continuance of what I have suffered in the past. And I have not contracted to engage in such use of my mind: I have all along been press-ganged. This is apart from actual reduction in the enjoyment I can get from my mind if I am given antidopamine drugs. Also, trying to combat these interferences - especially when, given antischizophrenic drugs, I could not plan out such an efficient means - has cost me money. For example the fine I am having to pay based on my leaving the motor caravan last June blocking the entrance to Solihull railway station car-park. I had hoped by taking that action to terminate the interference in my life - this was it basically - by bringing the facts out in open Court. It hasn’t quite turned out thus, for one thing because solicitors I consulted were pre-advised (by ‘the Authorities’) that I was not to be given impartial help. Rose, Williams declined to assist at all and John Spence of Silks (although not appearing on Silks’ books and one must conclude specially briefed by ‘the Authorities’ instead of being an entirely independent solicitor acting for me) offered to charge £1000 and gave no indication he would forward the matter in the terms I required (he started off by saying he would quibble over police evidence, not at all to the point required).
I conclude the only way to be more or less certain of taking in no drugs would be to drink natural water - from the river or collected on our own land - and eat only food produced ourselves.
I conclude the only way to be more or less certain of taking in no drugs would be to drink natural water - from the river or collected on our own land - and eat only food produced ourselves.
Sunday 11 May 2008
Exposition of abuse
10 May 2008
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Duncan Macmillan House
Porchester Road
Nottingham NG3 6AA
Dear Sirs
I am writing to complain formally that I did not receive adequate consultation and information when my wife was detained at Bassetlaw Hospital mental unit last December.
Also I wish to alert you to the fact that when I myself was detained at Bassetlaw Hospital in September 2005 (for a number of weeks) improper influence was brought to bear on my RMO Dr G. Somebody without adequate authority advised him - and others of the ‘team’ - of the urgent necessity for me to be medicated, which because of my detestation for the effect on the functioning of my mind of antidopamine drugs could only be achieved with a threat of force. I recall that at the time great care was taken that independent observers (other nurses) were present when compulsion was offered. I was grateful for this as it meant I would not suffer undue violence, but I do suggest it is in itself evidence that I was being treated in a special way. From my point of view it was a specially hurtful way as it meant I was subdued - and have remained for months since subdued - by antidopamine drugs. People there with practical experience - such as my named nurse - could see that I was not in need of such medication.
While I was in detention from September 2005 for a number of weeks my wife was also detained, and conveyed to be held at Sutton-in-Ashfield in another part of the county. At the beginning of 2006 I wrote to you complaining that she had not been discharged when I as nearest relative ordered it on 18 September 2005. You sent me your findings following this complaint in a letter dated 11 April 2006.
In the letter I originally sent to the Milbrook Unit at Sutton-in-Ashfield where my wife was held, in September 2005, I complained that I had not been informed, as nearest relative, of her detention. I had had trouble even finding the address of the Milbrook Unit to write to. In the reply I received from Lynne Murtagh (described as Modern Matron) no explanation was offered why I had not been informed. It was said that my wife’s rights had been explained to her on a number of occasions but she was confused. Around this time someone supplied me with a misleading document numbered Patient’s Information Leaflet 21 purporting to explain the rights and responsibilities of the nearest relative.
I attach a section copied from the Mental Health Act 1983 clearly stating that persons are not to be detained without consulting the nearest relative.
I regret I have to tell you that the same breach occurred last December when my wife was detained under section 4 (cases of emergency). When I telephoned Ward B2 at Bassetlaw Hospital to enquire if my wife was there the answer was I could not be told because of Data Protection legislation. This is ridiculous. It turned out my wife was there, persuaded to remain for a number of days following the 72 hours covered by the emergency detention. (I mention that in such cases the seeming consent of the detained patient is affected by drugs given as well as by sometimes the implied threat that compulsion can again be used to detain longer.)
I ask that you investigate the facts of this matter as soon as possible and provide a satisfactory response to this formal complaint.
Yours faithfully
Colin Barrass-Brough
¬¬¬
10 May 2008
Mental Health Act Commission
Maid Marian House
56 Hounds Gate
Nottingham NG1 6BG
Dear Sirs
I enclose for your information a complaint I am sending to Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust. As part of the question goes back to late 2005 when both my wife and I were in detention in Nottinghamshire, I am also sending you a copy of a letter purportedly from the Mental Health Act Commission regretting an error in advice given to me in a preceding letter also seemingly from the Mental Health Act Commission. The reason I am sending this is that it is unbelievable the Mental Health Act Commission would give such mistaken advice and I conclude the letters may have been false. I ask you to look into this question.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Colin Barrass-Brough
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Duncan Macmillan House
Porchester Road
Nottingham NG3 6AA
Dear Sirs
I am writing to complain formally that I did not receive adequate consultation and information when my wife was detained at Bassetlaw Hospital mental unit last December.
Also I wish to alert you to the fact that when I myself was detained at Bassetlaw Hospital in September 2005 (for a number of weeks) improper influence was brought to bear on my RMO Dr G. Somebody without adequate authority advised him - and others of the ‘team’ - of the urgent necessity for me to be medicated, which because of my detestation for the effect on the functioning of my mind of antidopamine drugs could only be achieved with a threat of force. I recall that at the time great care was taken that independent observers (other nurses) were present when compulsion was offered. I was grateful for this as it meant I would not suffer undue violence, but I do suggest it is in itself evidence that I was being treated in a special way. From my point of view it was a specially hurtful way as it meant I was subdued - and have remained for months since subdued - by antidopamine drugs. People there with practical experience - such as my named nurse - could see that I was not in need of such medication.
While I was in detention from September 2005 for a number of weeks my wife was also detained, and conveyed to be held at Sutton-in-Ashfield in another part of the county. At the beginning of 2006 I wrote to you complaining that she had not been discharged when I as nearest relative ordered it on 18 September 2005. You sent me your findings following this complaint in a letter dated 11 April 2006.
In the letter I originally sent to the Milbrook Unit at Sutton-in-Ashfield where my wife was held, in September 2005, I complained that I had not been informed, as nearest relative, of her detention. I had had trouble even finding the address of the Milbrook Unit to write to. In the reply I received from Lynne Murtagh (described as Modern Matron) no explanation was offered why I had not been informed. It was said that my wife’s rights had been explained to her on a number of occasions but she was confused. Around this time someone supplied me with a misleading document numbered Patient’s Information Leaflet 21 purporting to explain the rights and responsibilities of the nearest relative.
I attach a section copied from the Mental Health Act 1983 clearly stating that persons are not to be detained without consulting the nearest relative.
I regret I have to tell you that the same breach occurred last December when my wife was detained under section 4 (cases of emergency). When I telephoned Ward B2 at Bassetlaw Hospital to enquire if my wife was there the answer was I could not be told because of Data Protection legislation. This is ridiculous. It turned out my wife was there, persuaded to remain for a number of days following the 72 hours covered by the emergency detention. (I mention that in such cases the seeming consent of the detained patient is affected by drugs given as well as by sometimes the implied threat that compulsion can again be used to detain longer.)
I ask that you investigate the facts of this matter as soon as possible and provide a satisfactory response to this formal complaint.
Yours faithfully
Colin Barrass-Brough
¬¬¬
10 May 2008
Mental Health Act Commission
Maid Marian House
56 Hounds Gate
Nottingham NG1 6BG
Dear Sirs
I enclose for your information a complaint I am sending to Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust. As part of the question goes back to late 2005 when both my wife and I were in detention in Nottinghamshire, I am also sending you a copy of a letter purportedly from the Mental Health Act Commission regretting an error in advice given to me in a preceding letter also seemingly from the Mental Health Act Commission. The reason I am sending this is that it is unbelievable the Mental Health Act Commission would give such mistaken advice and I conclude the letters may have been false. I ask you to look into this question.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Colin Barrass-Brough
Miscreant perpetration of interference in Freewill (what my grandson calls Hard Words)
It is possible to imagine that the perpetrators of these interferences (even if made legal, possibly retrospectively, so they cannot be called crimes) against Dawn and myself honestly believe (or perhaps not precisely honestly but with the aid of double-think) the adage (quoted by Armond for sure) that anyone can develop schizophrenia: it is a thing, like Freewill, inherently unpredictable: given sufficient ‘stress’ people - the entire species - can develop schizophrenia, but some crack up easier than others. To state the fact plainly and without emotion (instead of ranting as usual about their idiocy and about their Sinfulness): their view is mistaken. State money is used to make life difficult for me, for example in the matter of renewing my website hosting package with 123-reg (who I am pleased to recommend far and above the arch-abettors Heart Internet who still have my money for nothing from last year, if not chicks for free). But as I said on a recent parallel occasion, we with indemnification against schizophrenia (in having adequately balanced synapses through the various sub-systems in the brain) weigh one thing against the other. It’s true I like to have my own website, but if to maintain it became too onerous (compared against other calls on my attention and efforts, in what accountancy calls the opportunity cost) I would give it up. Thankfully in our pluralistic economy there are a number of other suppliers of web hosting, and if it turns out that GX Networks (who now own 123-reg) are arch-abettors of the Heart Internet variety I can try elsewhere. (I think however they have been impostored through my miscreant foe interrupting communication with the True Website at 123-reg.co.uk.)
On the other hand this expenditure of State money on miscreants (plus otherwise out-of-work actors who the Civil Servants feel sorry for now the mines and Round Oak Steelworks have closed and whom I do not place in the miscreant class) makes life unusually onerous for me (speaking statistically) and I have to spend my own money in what should be unnecessary procedures including sending every letter I send either Recorded or Special.
Speaking of unpredictability: myself I don’t believe in Freewill as such, because I know everything in Creation (even miscreants) purposes aims for antecedent reasons. To suppose the future looks after the past is (to use the word again) mistaken: what governs the present - that is determination in the present - is forecasting of the future based on statistics from the past. The reason people (and animals) are unpredictable is complexity, based on large numbers, that is large numbers of brain cells and combinatorially explosive linkages between them. People who make errors are especially unpredictable and difficult to fathom (the miscreants again) but I think I am getting their measure (six feet or in former times a cubit, I suppose). People who make errors cannot easily be predicted even knowing their purposed aims (and these latter I am only just getting to grips with, variable and error-prone in themselves and including sub-features like making work for otherwise out-of-work actors). Give people antischizophrenic drugs and they become more predictable, that is they toe the line better; the reason is the complexity of their synaptic inter-linkages becomes much reduced.
Evidently the miscreants have insufficient understanding to see the immorality in this. Whether the State psychiatrists in the USSR who prescribed such drugs for dissidents thought in the same terms I do not know.
On the other hand this expenditure of State money on miscreants (plus otherwise out-of-work actors who the Civil Servants feel sorry for now the mines and Round Oak Steelworks have closed and whom I do not place in the miscreant class) makes life unusually onerous for me (speaking statistically) and I have to spend my own money in what should be unnecessary procedures including sending every letter I send either Recorded or Special.
Speaking of unpredictability: myself I don’t believe in Freewill as such, because I know everything in Creation (even miscreants) purposes aims for antecedent reasons. To suppose the future looks after the past is (to use the word again) mistaken: what governs the present - that is determination in the present - is forecasting of the future based on statistics from the past. The reason people (and animals) are unpredictable is complexity, based on large numbers, that is large numbers of brain cells and combinatorially explosive linkages between them. People who make errors are especially unpredictable and difficult to fathom (the miscreants again) but I think I am getting their measure (six feet or in former times a cubit, I suppose). People who make errors cannot easily be predicted even knowing their purposed aims (and these latter I am only just getting to grips with, variable and error-prone in themselves and including sub-features like making work for otherwise out-of-work actors). Give people antischizophrenic drugs and they become more predictable, that is they toe the line better; the reason is the complexity of their synaptic inter-linkages becomes much reduced.
Evidently the miscreants have insufficient understanding to see the immorality in this. Whether the State psychiatrists in the USSR who prescribed such drugs for dissidents thought in the same terms I do not know.
Those treated as mentally ill are in exactly the position of the witch-hunted in Mediaeval Britain
Irrespective of the origin of the allegation that I am mentally ill, and even irrespective whether I am mentally ill, the fact of the matter is that because I am being treated as mentally ill I am not being afforded the ordinary protection of the law. In Bristol police cells in September 2004 I was not granted access to a solicitor, and now those letters to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (about events in December 2007, fundamentally) and to the Drinking Water Inspectorate although delivered and signed for have been ignored for a number of weeks (thus far). Yesterday I sent third copies.
Saturday 10 May 2008
Reprint
28/04/08 05:22 [Monday]
I am pondering the possibility that the people at Bassetlaw genuinely felt they were there to ‘look after me’. Psychiatrists have weird ways of thinking, but Dr G seemed friendly enough even though it did not in the least occur to him that there was anything wrong with holding me in hospital, beyond the time ordinarily a patient would be held as he agreed - not admitting in any sense - I was being held when I asked him just before my discharge - on leave - in November 2005. In preparation for the discharge I was evidently subject to hypnotising questioning and urging.
Dr G, it was evident, did not know (and would not believe) that I genuinely had been drugged surreptitiously in the summer of 2005 preceding my detention. One of the first times I was drugged that summer - for the purpose of hypnotising me, I think, rather than drugged with antischizophrenic drugs (certainly not for any purpose they are usually given) - was in July 2005 when the premiss of the hypnosis was to invite me to call for an ambulance and go to hospital. The ambulance staff I remember very keenly queried whether I myself genuinely wanted to be taken to hospital. I said I did, and Dawn and I were taken to the Queen Alexandra Hospital in Redditch where I was seen by a psychiatrists called Laki to whom I explained the reason I had come was to waste his time because I was resentful of the way psychiatrists had treated me in the past. We were released late at night and wandered for hours - or what seemed like hours - round the dual carriageways of the New Town of Redditch, I being under the influence of some confusional drugs possibly including antischizophrenic agents. The thing is it was not a hole-in-the-corner affair. The ambulance man knew I was a special case because of the way he carefully asked me if I myself wanted to go to hospital. The police also watched out - although not as much as in more recent times - when we were wandering about Redditch around 2 am.
The diary entry from Tuesday 8 November 2005 [omitted here but quoted in the original version of April 2008 now in colinbrough.co.uk] indicates to me that people speaking to me when I was in a trance-like condition were asking me for evidence I was mentally ill and almost explicitly saying that I could choose to be ‘looked after’ at Bassetlaw for the rest of my days if I agreed to be stilled - and silenced - with antischizophrenic drugs. These people must have been nothing to do with the ordinary arrangements at Bassetlaw, and must be the people my named nurse said had given directions I should be medicated even though he - the nurse - could see no need for the medication. More recently Nottinghamshire police have been implicated in what must surely be an improper scheme to try to keep me in Nottinghamshire under the influence - backed with the easy possibility of compulsory detention - of Bassetlaw Hospital. The whole affair is unbelievable. Dr G himself said unbelievable things were done, including the bugging of phones. The people perpetrating these unusual procedures - surely needing special legislative sanction - must have put forward some good reason, in other words hiding what by my guess was their real motivation, to protect Armond and his co-perpetrators from earlier years. The reason they put forward, I presume, was that they were investigating schizophrenia, this being my best guess from the outset why I had been abused as I had, a guess I had relayed to various people at various times including via my website. If this reason had been officially accepted - eg by Nottinghamshire police - as seemingly it was, all sorts of interferences could be perpetrated for example with my attempts to communicate (a letter I wrote to Microsoft in the States was not delivered in September 2005, and my guess must be that it was stopped this side of the Atlantic). Lately it seems a fair assessment has been undertaken whether in fact I am lunatic, taking account of my allegation - which turns out to be true - that given antischizophrenic drugs plus hypnotic suggestion (potentiated with an opium-like drug) I do present symptoms as if of schizophrenia.
This must be it surely: official bodies like the police (certainly Nottinghamshire police) and most psychiatrists (like Dr G) have been told what can only be regarded as a complete falsehood by people who understand it is a falsehood, that is the official people have been told that I am genuinely schizophrenic and am ‘under investigation’ and to the degree my lunacy allows I am co-operating in the investigation. If I am allowed off medication - and into freedom - it is alleged I may become violent, abusive to Dawn, a danger to children and incompetent to look after myself to boot. The people making these allegations surely have the mens rea: they know that it is basically a load of tosh.
Hence my conclusion (close to certainty) is that what has been going on recently is indeed an investigation - not by a Board of Enquiry as such, but more a criminal investigation - including such questions as what I can be persuaded to do given various combinations of drugs and hypnosis, and latterly what I think of giving medication to Dawn for her supposed mental condition. Dawn is not lunatic, not in the way Caroline was (and is, I suppose). Dawn is shy and retiring, and the psychiatric services have treated her - to the extent they have treated her at all - improperly. In fact she does not need medical treatment, she needs guidance - for example, had I not come along, guidance into a nunnery. Even her friend the former chaplain at Bassetlaw did not give correct guidance, and the reason for this is that no one (it seems) has a clue about the ‘schizo’ mind and to be honest, no one is very interested. Those employed in the psychiatric services are almost all fools evidently, or in the lower reaches simply there as an available employment now the mines have shut down. (However some of these latter, regarding the job as merely an employment, make the best carers: for example my named nurse mentioned above. If they are in it merely as employment they do not stress too much, and do not stress overly the vital necessity for patients to ‘get better’.)
I am pondering the possibility that the people at Bassetlaw genuinely felt they were there to ‘look after me’. Psychiatrists have weird ways of thinking, but Dr G seemed friendly enough even though it did not in the least occur to him that there was anything wrong with holding me in hospital, beyond the time ordinarily a patient would be held as he agreed - not admitting in any sense - I was being held when I asked him just before my discharge - on leave - in November 2005. In preparation for the discharge I was evidently subject to hypnotising questioning and urging.
Dr G, it was evident, did not know (and would not believe) that I genuinely had been drugged surreptitiously in the summer of 2005 preceding my detention. One of the first times I was drugged that summer - for the purpose of hypnotising me, I think, rather than drugged with antischizophrenic drugs (certainly not for any purpose they are usually given) - was in July 2005 when the premiss of the hypnosis was to invite me to call for an ambulance and go to hospital. The ambulance staff I remember very keenly queried whether I myself genuinely wanted to be taken to hospital. I said I did, and Dawn and I were taken to the Queen Alexandra Hospital in Redditch where I was seen by a psychiatrists called Laki to whom I explained the reason I had come was to waste his time because I was resentful of the way psychiatrists had treated me in the past. We were released late at night and wandered for hours - or what seemed like hours - round the dual carriageways of the New Town of Redditch, I being under the influence of some confusional drugs possibly including antischizophrenic agents. The thing is it was not a hole-in-the-corner affair. The ambulance man knew I was a special case because of the way he carefully asked me if I myself wanted to go to hospital. The police also watched out - although not as much as in more recent times - when we were wandering about Redditch around 2 am.
The diary entry from Tuesday 8 November 2005 [omitted here but quoted in the original version of April 2008 now in colinbrough.co.uk] indicates to me that people speaking to me when I was in a trance-like condition were asking me for evidence I was mentally ill and almost explicitly saying that I could choose to be ‘looked after’ at Bassetlaw for the rest of my days if I agreed to be stilled - and silenced - with antischizophrenic drugs. These people must have been nothing to do with the ordinary arrangements at Bassetlaw, and must be the people my named nurse said had given directions I should be medicated even though he - the nurse - could see no need for the medication. More recently Nottinghamshire police have been implicated in what must surely be an improper scheme to try to keep me in Nottinghamshire under the influence - backed with the easy possibility of compulsory detention - of Bassetlaw Hospital. The whole affair is unbelievable. Dr G himself said unbelievable things were done, including the bugging of phones. The people perpetrating these unusual procedures - surely needing special legislative sanction - must have put forward some good reason, in other words hiding what by my guess was their real motivation, to protect Armond and his co-perpetrators from earlier years. The reason they put forward, I presume, was that they were investigating schizophrenia, this being my best guess from the outset why I had been abused as I had, a guess I had relayed to various people at various times including via my website. If this reason had been officially accepted - eg by Nottinghamshire police - as seemingly it was, all sorts of interferences could be perpetrated for example with my attempts to communicate (a letter I wrote to Microsoft in the States was not delivered in September 2005, and my guess must be that it was stopped this side of the Atlantic). Lately it seems a fair assessment has been undertaken whether in fact I am lunatic, taking account of my allegation - which turns out to be true - that given antischizophrenic drugs plus hypnotic suggestion (potentiated with an opium-like drug) I do present symptoms as if of schizophrenia.
This must be it surely: official bodies like the police (certainly Nottinghamshire police) and most psychiatrists (like Dr G) have been told what can only be regarded as a complete falsehood by people who understand it is a falsehood, that is the official people have been told that I am genuinely schizophrenic and am ‘under investigation’ and to the degree my lunacy allows I am co-operating in the investigation. If I am allowed off medication - and into freedom - it is alleged I may become violent, abusive to Dawn, a danger to children and incompetent to look after myself to boot. The people making these allegations surely have the mens rea: they know that it is basically a load of tosh.
Hence my conclusion (close to certainty) is that what has been going on recently is indeed an investigation - not by a Board of Enquiry as such, but more a criminal investigation - including such questions as what I can be persuaded to do given various combinations of drugs and hypnosis, and latterly what I think of giving medication to Dawn for her supposed mental condition. Dawn is not lunatic, not in the way Caroline was (and is, I suppose). Dawn is shy and retiring, and the psychiatric services have treated her - to the extent they have treated her at all - improperly. In fact she does not need medical treatment, she needs guidance - for example, had I not come along, guidance into a nunnery. Even her friend the former chaplain at Bassetlaw did not give correct guidance, and the reason for this is that no one (it seems) has a clue about the ‘schizo’ mind and to be honest, no one is very interested. Those employed in the psychiatric services are almost all fools evidently, or in the lower reaches simply there as an available employment now the mines have shut down. (However some of these latter, regarding the job as merely an employment, make the best carers: for example my named nurse mentioned above. If they are in it merely as employment they do not stress too much, and do not stress overly the vital necessity for patients to ‘get better’.)
Friday 9 May 2008
Preceding correspondence
30 April 2008
Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Pearson
I am writing you another letter now because my mind seems clearer of improper influence (from mind-altering drugs for example) than it has been in a long while. If it has seemed to you that I am mentally ill I can assure you I am not, although naturally you should retain an open mind as yet.
The difficulties I face stem from treatment over decades with antipsychotic drugs, but further to this an inadequate control over dosages (and introduction of improper adjunctory treatment, especially with stimulant drugs).
There are matters it is necessary to complain to the police about, not least among which is the improper diversion of phonecalls I made from home on our then Virgin Media line last June. I believe that some calls I made thinking I was speaking to the police were diverted and in fact I was not speaking to them. In one of these calls I requested that they look into the origin of my decades of treatment, which was back in 1980 when I was improperly (without my foreknowledge or consent) given amphetamine so that I presented a syndrome which a psychiatrist called Anthony Dew Armond treated as schizophrenia, detaining me in November 1980 under the 1959 Mental Health Act in fact. I have no documentation from that detention, and it is not impossible it was an illegal detention: but I do not know what documents I should have been served under the old Act. The response of those I took to be police (in June 2007) was to say it was too long ago to look into. However as it has led to such extended and severe consequences for me I think it should be looked into. Certainly the covert administration or supply of amphetamine was improper and presumably illegal.
Armond was my psychiatrist when I was detained three years later too, in March 1984, although originally it was a Dr R V Cope. I do not understand why she was removed and Armond substituted. After my release from hospital in the April (1984) Armond continued the arrangement of holding me on ‘long leave’, in fact until 26 July 1986. He required me to sleep one night in the hospital every few months so that I could be said to be resident there. I have read that this subterfuge was found in other cases to be an illegal means of insisting that patients who were not truly in-patients take medication. It is my view (in fact it is my certain knowledge) that I needed no such medication, and Armond may have had ulterior reasons for insisting.
For a number of years I was attending a Day Centre (at Armond’s insistence) but in the later 1980s I took on a course at Wolverhampton Poly. I agreed to continue medication from 1987 onwards for one thing because my father felt I would not do well without it. I lived with my parents till they died in 2003 and then felt able to discontinue the medication when I moved to Retford in Nottinghamshire.
In recent years I have, as in 1980, been covertly administered or supplied improper drugs. It is my belief the true reason has been to restrict my forthcoming about the matters referred to above, relating to the 1980s, but police and others (I believe) have been told what is going on is an investigation into schizophrenia using drugs of relevance to schizophrenia. The effect of this distortion is that police are less than ordinarily enthusiastic to assist me, although lately they seem to have been told something of the truth, that drugs given to me unknowing may affect my behaviour.
I object to being given drugs which distort the functioning of my mind, especially as often they cause me to seem mentally ill and further to have the unpleasant experience a mentally ill person has. If at all possible I should like the origin of these difficulties looked into and appropriate action taken, although my main priority is to put a stop to the drugging I suffer supposedly as part of an investigation of schizophrenia.
I trust you can give me your help.
Yours sincerely
Colin Barrass-Brough
Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Pearson
I am writing you another letter now because my mind seems clearer of improper influence (from mind-altering drugs for example) than it has been in a long while. If it has seemed to you that I am mentally ill I can assure you I am not, although naturally you should retain an open mind as yet.
The difficulties I face stem from treatment over decades with antipsychotic drugs, but further to this an inadequate control over dosages (and introduction of improper adjunctory treatment, especially with stimulant drugs).
There are matters it is necessary to complain to the police about, not least among which is the improper diversion of phonecalls I made from home on our then Virgin Media line last June. I believe that some calls I made thinking I was speaking to the police were diverted and in fact I was not speaking to them. In one of these calls I requested that they look into the origin of my decades of treatment, which was back in 1980 when I was improperly (without my foreknowledge or consent) given amphetamine so that I presented a syndrome which a psychiatrist called Anthony Dew Armond treated as schizophrenia, detaining me in November 1980 under the 1959 Mental Health Act in fact. I have no documentation from that detention, and it is not impossible it was an illegal detention: but I do not know what documents I should have been served under the old Act. The response of those I took to be police (in June 2007) was to say it was too long ago to look into. However as it has led to such extended and severe consequences for me I think it should be looked into. Certainly the covert administration or supply of amphetamine was improper and presumably illegal.
Armond was my psychiatrist when I was detained three years later too, in March 1984, although originally it was a Dr R V Cope. I do not understand why she was removed and Armond substituted. After my release from hospital in the April (1984) Armond continued the arrangement of holding me on ‘long leave’, in fact until 26 July 1986. He required me to sleep one night in the hospital every few months so that I could be said to be resident there. I have read that this subterfuge was found in other cases to be an illegal means of insisting that patients who were not truly in-patients take medication. It is my view (in fact it is my certain knowledge) that I needed no such medication, and Armond may have had ulterior reasons for insisting.
For a number of years I was attending a Day Centre (at Armond’s insistence) but in the later 1980s I took on a course at Wolverhampton Poly. I agreed to continue medication from 1987 onwards for one thing because my father felt I would not do well without it. I lived with my parents till they died in 2003 and then felt able to discontinue the medication when I moved to Retford in Nottinghamshire.
In recent years I have, as in 1980, been covertly administered or supplied improper drugs. It is my belief the true reason has been to restrict my forthcoming about the matters referred to above, relating to the 1980s, but police and others (I believe) have been told what is going on is an investigation into schizophrenia using drugs of relevance to schizophrenia. The effect of this distortion is that police are less than ordinarily enthusiastic to assist me, although lately they seem to have been told something of the truth, that drugs given to me unknowing may affect my behaviour.
I object to being given drugs which distort the functioning of my mind, especially as often they cause me to seem mentally ill and further to have the unpleasant experience a mentally ill person has. If at all possible I should like the origin of these difficulties looked into and appropriate action taken, although my main priority is to put a stop to the drugging I suffer supposedly as part of an investigation of schizophrenia.
I trust you can give me your help.
Yours sincerely
Colin Barrass-Brough
Thursday 8 May 2008
I regret extremely
This was done last weekend, I think, when like this morning I felt livid as an after-effect of abuse with antischizophrenic medication (this time perpetrated two days ago as a consequence of hypnosis on the 1337 train out of Wolverhampton for Birmingham).
1 May 2008
The Chief Constable
West Midlands Police
Lloyd House
Colmore Circus
Queensway
Birmingham B4 6NQ
Dear Chief Constable
I feel it is necessary to write to you as in the past I have been improperly treated for a mental illness, that is without proper controls on the dosages of drugs administered. I fear I may suffer a repeat of such improper treatment.
I have had occasion to complain about various matters to police over a number of months. It is my serious belief (amounting to near certainty) that some of my actions have been influenced by improper hypnotic suggestion, backed by drugs I have been given without my foreknowledge or consent. I regret the trouble caused by these actions some of which were less necessary than others, but as I say I point the finger squarely at those who have improperly given me hypnotic suggestion.
I trust the police to give me fair and impartial protection even in cases where I suffer unusual forms of harassment, such as improper administration of drugs and unwanted hypnotic suggestion.
Yours sincerely
Colin Barrass-Brough
1 May 2008
The Chief Constable
West Midlands Police
Lloyd House
Colmore Circus
Queensway
Birmingham B4 6NQ
Dear Chief Constable
I feel it is necessary to write to you as in the past I have been improperly treated for a mental illness, that is without proper controls on the dosages of drugs administered. I fear I may suffer a repeat of such improper treatment.
I have had occasion to complain about various matters to police over a number of months. It is my serious belief (amounting to near certainty) that some of my actions have been influenced by improper hypnotic suggestion, backed by drugs I have been given without my foreknowledge or consent. I regret the trouble caused by these actions some of which were less necessary than others, but as I say I point the finger squarely at those who have improperly given me hypnotic suggestion.
I trust the police to give me fair and impartial protection even in cases where I suffer unusual forms of harassment, such as improper administration of drugs and unwanted hypnotic suggestion.
Yours sincerely
Colin Barrass-Brough
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)