28/06/08 07:09 [Saturday]
Thursday and yesterday we went to London by Virgin trains on the route from Birmingham New Street I would without exception have used in my younger days (before I was ever drugged, or in the later 1970s when for perhaps two years, when I was living on my own in my own house, I avoided being drugged) instead of the Chiltern route promoted recently by the Authorities (this latter being cheaper but much slower). By ‘the Authorities’ in this case I mean those who determine what is said to me in nighttime hypnosis (or ‘advisory’ voicing related to hypnosis), and the reason we chose the better route (better given our circumstances, as it was better for me on my own in the 1970s and indeed as it must be better for almost any traveller, the Chiltern route being suitable really only for people travelling only part of the distance and not all the way from Birmingham to London) was that living in our own bungalow in Kingswinford it is extremely difficult for them to offer us this unwanted ‘nighttime advice’. The reasons things have not gone so well for us recently (for example causing us to waste money travelling twice to London when if we needed to go at all we needed to go only once; but because I was drugged quite severely during Thursday’s run I lost my focus this necessitating Friday’s repeat, and except that the drugging I suffered yesterday - Friday - was so little we might have needed to go again today) stem from the ‘nighttime advice’ I suffered when we slept away from home on recent occasions, at the Innkeepers Lodge Bessacarr and in a caravan in Skegness.
Things have been done in the past by ‘the Experiment’ which ordinarily would be illegal, and may have been illegal, although possibly legitimised retrospectively. To supply me fake websites which I have trusted as though they were genuine Microsoft websites I would expect to be illegal; and certainly Microsoft would have grounds for a civil action in that their name has been besmirched. Microsoft take a lot of trouble to ensure their software works with minimum flaws, and in doing this they are investing in Goodwill, that is people will trust Microsoft software (including extras supplied through genuine Microsoft websites) above other software on the basis of statistics which become widely known, that is the low statistics of failure of Microsoft software. In going to London to an address listed in a directory in Stourbridge library as an address for Microsoft (and also listed thus on 192.com via our Virgin Media internet connection) I was trying to ensure Microsoft are aware that false copies of their websites are supplied (as well as false copies of Microsoft discs - eg XP install CDs I have bought) in the hope this would stem the activities of ‘the Authorities’ and even bring The Experiment to an end. While what I suffer mainly from The Experiment is the drugging, nonetheless to have a true and proper internet connection, supplying true and proper and therefore trustworthy Microsoft sites, would be a boon.
Sometimes I fear that the object in drugging me - there is no indication those drugging me understand that it is what I would call criminal to do so, and certainly immoral (but that the dosages are now much lower - this however may be due more to my better practised techniques of evasion than from any new understanding of ethics the druggists may have come to) - is to still me, that is to deter me from publicising the abuses - as I say, on the face of it illegal and certainly criminal to use a word I think very appropriate - imposed in the past. A few weeks back I was thinking along these lines but putting the blame for the presumed intention to silence me regarding past abuse on ‘friends of Armond’. Now I think Armond was only a cog in a machine, and it is more or less the British Government - certainly the current Socialist Government kin to that of the 1970s who authorised ‘the Experiment’ in the first place - who are looking for such a way out. Apparently it is felt unacceptable to compel me in the way I was compelled in the past, and my fear is that recent scenarios engineered by The Experiment are hoped to produce behaviour from me - drugged but only mildly drugged. so that I can be said to be responsible for my choices - which will lead me one way or another into mental treatment possibly including hospitalisation and certainly including drugging which stills me.
With a mind this morning clear of the distortion of ‘nighttime advice’ I can see that it would be well to use this busy shopping day of Saturday to shop for a quantity of undrugged food. I can do this by selecting a store to shop at, randomly from a list, even without using a computer (now I have printed out the lists used by my computer prog to randomly choose a store).
28/06/08 09:18
Looking at the letters I have sent recently (looking at the Royal Mail website in fact - as presented via our untrustworthy Virgin Media internet connection - to see what it purports has happened to the deliveries), I can classify them into categories. Several of the letters have been sent as a consequence of drugging I suffered, to try to deter future drugging either by direct entreaty (eg to Whitbread as responsible for the PremierInn Wakefield City North) or by hoping to cause trouble and expense (eg to BT and to Royal Mail Customer Services the latter in respect of the jar of Robertson’s marmalade I returned for refund but which was lost - even though Premier Brands Foods Limited sent me £3.50 as though in recompense). Letters to Nominet and to 123-reg were motivated by distortions I have suffered in my internet connection (blameable almost certainly on Virgin Media in fact). Evidence that the letters to 123-reg do not reach their proper destination leads me to suppose that someone (‘the Authorities’) without the consent (or collusion) of 123-reg have been trying to get me to sign up with a hosting service more to their preference (such as Heart Internet, corrupted through and through to the ends of The Experiment, and owing me money which they show no morals in respect of at all). I can perhaps expect support therefore from 123-reg as someone (‘the Authorities’) has been trying to do them out of business (and similarly Microsoft, as explained above).
I don’t think Robertson’s gave their consent either, to the contamination of their products with drugs. Again, this assessment is based on failure to deliver my several attempted letters to them to the proper destination. I therefore anticipate support from Ranks Hovis McDougall (ultimate holding company for James Robertson & Sons Limited).
Rowse Honey I feel must be a small company easily leant on by the Government-backed ‘Authorities’, and going along with the consequences of the contamination of their products although probably initially not consulted.
28/06/08 09:38
Looking up a quotation I thought I half-remembered about a big lie being more easily perpetrated than a small lie, I find it comes not from an ordinary sort of Socialist but from Adolf Hitler: The broad mass of a nation ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. In other words if the State can get all sorts of falsifications put out by the Royal Mail, and through big companies like Virgin Media, and especially organisations conveying or purveying information, the man in the street may easily fall for it. A relic of the Wilson and Callaghan days of the 1970s indeed.
Showing posts with label Virgin Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Virgin Media. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)