Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear [Constituency Office Manager]
Thank you for your reply of 23 July 2008 to my letter to Mr Pearson of 19 July. Today (Monday 28 July 2008) I received your letter and one also dated 23 July 2008 (last Wednesday) signed by [an Office Administrator] promising a reply from Mr Pearson to my letter of 19 July.
When I wrote my letter of 19 July I was in a state of confusion and no doubt this explains why I do not myself have paper copies of the letter (another possibility is that my copies have been stolen since our home has been entered without permission recently, a matter I have complained about to West Midlands police). The reason for my state of confusion was that I had again suffered ingestion of drugs supplied by trickery: that is I was spiked. I think it most important that I be helped with this difficulty in my life, certainly by the police (and I urge Mr Pearson to use his influence with West Midlands Police) and by Mr Pearson directly.
You mention two separate issues I have raised but in fact there are several outstanding issues Mr Pearson is looking into on my behalf.
My confusion of 19 July led me to conflate two complaints I have raised about the British postal service. I thank Mr Pearson for the advice in his letter of 24 June 2008 but point out that writing to Royal Mail to find out if a letter sent First Class Recorded (or Special Guaranteed Next Day) has been delivered would entail foolish delay; besides which the statistics lead me to suppose any such letter to Royal Mail might well be lost in the post.
The more significant complaint I had hoped Mr Pearson would help me with was that the British postal service (that is, Royal Mail: whom it is not possible to sue in law, I believe) has been treating mail sent to me and from me in a special way, since the 1970s. There is good evidence one result of this in the 1970s was that cash sent to me by relatives went missing: that is, it was stolen. I have not heard from Mr Pearson’s office yet whether he can help with this difficulty I face.
I must say I find it unsurprising that Nottinghamshire Healthcare have not yet troubled to reply to Mr Pearson’s letter to them. You promise the matter will be chased.
Thinking more clearly now than when I suffer ingestion of unwanted drugs (as I had on 19 July) I see my letter to Mr Pearson of 10 May 2008 was received - despite no acknowledgment from his office (unless, as I enquired, the acknowledgment had been lost in the post) - as its result was that Mr Pearson wrote to Nottinghamshire Healthcare. My letter of Friday 9 May 2008 (sent Special Guaranteed Next Day delivery) has still not been acknowledged, although the Royal Mail website said it was delivered Tuesday 13 May (being posted on a Friday the guaranteed date shown on the receipt was Monday 12 May for delivery). This letter was the first in which I pointed out to Mr Pearson that counterfeits of Microsoft websites had been supplied via our Virgin Media internet connection.
I have gone to great lengths to inform Microsoft of this misuse (in the shape of Microsoft Business Solutions of Microsoft Campus - Thames Valley Park - Reading - Berks RG6 1WG: since I discovered, having to go to the trouble and expense of a personal visit to London to find out, that an address given for ‘Microsoft Limited’ in Kelly’s Industrial Directory is a mistake). If I do manage to get the information to Microsoft I think they will be most concerned at such a threat to the accountancy value of Goodwill in their business, apart from ordinary moral considerations of fair play. The enclosures with my letter of 19 July to Mr Pearson gave details of both the counterfeit websites and my endeavours to write to Microsoft. My most recent letter to Microsoft Business Solutions was posted 19 July 2008 alongside my letter to Mr Pearson (and on this occasion the post office clerk was able to validate the Microsoft postcode, a thing previous post office workers have never managed to do): I show a screenshot from the Royal Mail website purporting to show the delivery which I would call a joke were the question not so grave.
In my letter to Mr Pearson of 30 April 2008 I mentioned a matter I drew to the attention of the police, that is the diversion of phonecalls made in June 2007 using our then Virgin Media landline to the West Midlands police non-emergency number so that when I thought I was speaking to police I was not in fact. A reply dated 2 May promised matters raised in my letter would be taken up and a reply from Mr Pearson follow. I conclude the mention in your recent letter of a ‘response from the police’ (or rather, the absence of a response) is a reference to Mr Pearson’s pursuit of culprits interfering in 2007 with our Virgin Media phone connection. I do find it confusing though that you mention two separate issues I raise, when the difficulties intruded into my life cover many more issues than two.
The most significant difficulties I face, as I have striven to convey to Mr Pearson, derive as a result of the improper treatment - and in particular the drug treatment - I was made to have over a period of decades following a diagnosis erroneously made by a psychiatrist formerly working for the NHS in Dudley, called Anthony Dew Armond. The diagnosis he placed on me was of schizophrenia, and much of the ‘spiking’ I have had to suffer has involved auxiliary workers - presumably not knowing the harm they do - trying to get antischizophrenic drugs into me, a variant of the abhorrent but widespread practice of families of schizophrenic patients tricking the patients into taking food with drugs hidden in it. This practice is encouraged by some psychiatric workers. Myself I cannot understand how professionally trained carers can imagine that deceiving an already suspicious patient will have any good outcome. I daresay some would argue that underfunding of mental health provision results in staff making use of shortcut practices to get things done more easily. I read that in the United States difficult children are kept subdued with these same drugs, that is antipsychotics which block the neurotransmitter dopamine. Whether it is so in the case of children in Britain I do not know, but certainly from what I have seen myself staff in NHS psychiatric facilities are over-enthusiastic to use such drugs on adult patients. In cases of mistaken diagnosis such as my own the result of compulsory administration of dopamine-blocking drugs, unremittingly year after year, is complete waste of the patient’s time and even of his life. Some more thoughtful psychiatrists - again, from what I read it is mainly in the States - recommend drugs holidays for psychiatric patients every so often so that it can be seen if continuing administration of drugs is absolutely necessary.
But from my own point of view the help I would like from Mr Pearson is to instigate an investigation of the circumstances of my mis-diagnosis, involving Armond and any others who had complicity.
I thank you for your help and look forward to hearing from Mr Pearson soon.
Yours sincerely
Colin Barrass-Brough
Enc
barrass-brough.blogspot.com
anthonydewarmondlivesat36abittellroad.org.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment