Raise 40 mph limit for HGV’s to 45 mph (on a trail basis)

The 40 mph limit for goods vehicles is outdated – They have air-brakes now and with disc brakes using ABS, EBS and some have engine brakes and retarders.

There is also an environmental issue here as you are not quite able to achieve top gear at 40 mph. Raising it to 45 mph would save fuel and reduce the frustration of the following car drivers as their speedo's would read 50 mph.

It would also stop/ reduce the crazy overtaking manoeuvres.

Why is this idea important?

The 40 mph limit for goods vehicles is outdated – They have air-brakes now and with disc brakes using ABS, EBS and some have engine brakes and retarders.

There is also an environmental issue here as you are not quite able to achieve top gear at 40 mph. Raising it to 45 mph would save fuel and reduce the frustration of the following car drivers as their speedo's would read 50 mph.

It would also stop/ reduce the crazy overtaking manoeuvres.

Protect “confidential” medical records from the authorities

I am calling for medical confidentiality to be respected and for the practice of allowing the police and CPS access to a person's medical records to be stopped and indeed made illegal and a ban on using a person's medical history or records in criminal proceedings.

Currently, in certain circumstances the police can obtain a warrant to get a copy of a person's supposedly confidential medical records, including mental health records.

Sometimes, the clinical staff responsible for protecting the records will not even require a warrant, but will provide the records on the basis of a request from the police or CPS.

Why should the authorities be able to look at and use your "confidential" medical records against you, when questioning or prosecuting you?

I'm particularly concerned that if someone has a mental health problem,  the fact that medical records are not confidential will put people off seeking help and sharing their thoughts and feelings with a therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist, because they might worry that these probably quite strange thoughts could be used against them in the future. If they don't seek help, their condition will probably get worse and they might become a danger to themselves or others.

The thoughts and feelings expressed in therapy may be no more weird than those that most people have from time to time, but if the person becomes a suspect in an investigation in the future, the fact that they have shared their thoughts in therapy means that they can then be used against them by the police, or as "evidence" or to make them out to be some sort of wierdo and turn the jury against them in court.

If a person is fortunate enough to be able to pay for private therapy, the notes from this will not be available to the authorities, mainly because they will not know that you had therapy or who you saw, but if you are poor and have to accept therapy on the NHS, the authorities will see this from your GP's records and then go fishing in your mental health records for anything they think will help their case.

I think it's disgusting that we don't protect medical confidentiality so that people can seek help without worrying that it might cause problems for them in the future, but currently the NHS and the Government regards your records as their property to do with what they wish.

Why is this idea important?

I am calling for medical confidentiality to be respected and for the practice of allowing the police and CPS access to a person's medical records to be stopped and indeed made illegal and a ban on using a person's medical history or records in criminal proceedings.

Currently, in certain circumstances the police can obtain a warrant to get a copy of a person's supposedly confidential medical records, including mental health records.

Sometimes, the clinical staff responsible for protecting the records will not even require a warrant, but will provide the records on the basis of a request from the police or CPS.

Why should the authorities be able to look at and use your "confidential" medical records against you, when questioning or prosecuting you?

I'm particularly concerned that if someone has a mental health problem,  the fact that medical records are not confidential will put people off seeking help and sharing their thoughts and feelings with a therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist, because they might worry that these probably quite strange thoughts could be used against them in the future. If they don't seek help, their condition will probably get worse and they might become a danger to themselves or others.

The thoughts and feelings expressed in therapy may be no more weird than those that most people have from time to time, but if the person becomes a suspect in an investigation in the future, the fact that they have shared their thoughts in therapy means that they can then be used against them by the police, or as "evidence" or to make them out to be some sort of wierdo and turn the jury against them in court.

If a person is fortunate enough to be able to pay for private therapy, the notes from this will not be available to the authorities, mainly because they will not know that you had therapy or who you saw, but if you are poor and have to accept therapy on the NHS, the authorities will see this from your GP's records and then go fishing in your mental health records for anything they think will help their case.

I think it's disgusting that we don't protect medical confidentiality so that people can seek help without worrying that it might cause problems for them in the future, but currently the NHS and the Government regards your records as their property to do with what they wish.

Rethink invisable straight jackets – CTO

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Why is this idea important?

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Reform of the Juries Act 1974

To give the background:

I am the the Technical Manager for Medical Devices at a major UK firm supplying surgical gloves to the NHS.  I am a member of the Royal Society of Medicine and The Royal Society of Chemistry.  I am an acknowledged United Kingdom expert on medical device legislation and have lectured on the subject at the request of the Malaysian government.  I have assissted the HSE in writing critical safety documentation and regularly give advice to both the Health Service and Industrial safety equipment users that, if incorrect, could endanger their lives.

I also suffer from bipolar depression and therefore I am not considered to be mentally capable of serving on a jury.

My condition is fully controlled by the medication I take and I am entrusted with life or death situations in other spheres.  However, the blanket banning of all people being treated for a mental condition as part of the juries act 1974 means that I cannot do my civic duty in this regard.  i strongly object to this degree of disenfranchisement and feel the act should be reformed.

This argument applies equally not to a minority of the mentally unwell but to a majority.

Thank you.

Why is this idea important?

To give the background:

I am the the Technical Manager for Medical Devices at a major UK firm supplying surgical gloves to the NHS.  I am a member of the Royal Society of Medicine and The Royal Society of Chemistry.  I am an acknowledged United Kingdom expert on medical device legislation and have lectured on the subject at the request of the Malaysian government.  I have assissted the HSE in writing critical safety documentation and regularly give advice to both the Health Service and Industrial safety equipment users that, if incorrect, could endanger their lives.

I also suffer from bipolar depression and therefore I am not considered to be mentally capable of serving on a jury.

My condition is fully controlled by the medication I take and I am entrusted with life or death situations in other spheres.  However, the blanket banning of all people being treated for a mental condition as part of the juries act 1974 means that I cannot do my civic duty in this regard.  i strongly object to this degree of disenfranchisement and feel the act should be reformed.

This argument applies equally not to a minority of the mentally unwell but to a majority.

Thank you.

Fixated Threat Assessment Centre – Scrap! This presents terror to us all!


The UK government has established a secretive new police unit a la George Orwell with the powers to detain anyone for any length of time without any due process.  The shadowy unit called the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was covertly established in 2006.  The unit includes the services of police psychiatrists.  Why?  For one very good reason, and one reason only: psychiatrists operate above the law.  They can detain ANYONE AT ANY TIME AND FOR NO MORE REASON THAN THEIR STATED OPINION THAT THE PERSON MAY BE A DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR TO OTHERS.

Once forcibly detained by a psychiatrist a person can be legally locked away forever and subjected to despicable ‘treatments’ such as psychotropic drug regimes, lobotomies and electric shocking of the brain.  They are not entitled to a trial of any sort, they need face no criminal charges.

A person incarcerated by a psychiatrist has no rights whatsoever.  Even Stalin had to produce his prisoners in court eventually.  The miserable occupants of Guantanamo retain the certainty that one day the will face justice, or at least that they will have their day in court’ the occupants of psychiatric prisons have no such comfort.  It is a thin line that separates a rule of law democracy from a totalitarian dictatorship.  The FTAC crosses that line.  For many years our individual freedoms have been incrementally cut away.  The FTAC rips the flesh off freedom and lays bare the bones of repression for all decent and honest people to see.  The FTAC represents nothing less than the repeal of Habeas Corpus with its right of trial and its protection from arbitrary state detention.

A Writ of Habeas Corpus orders that a prisoner is to be brought before a court so that the court can then determine whether that person is serving a lawful sentence or should be released from custody.  The prisoner, or someone acting on behalf of the prisoner if he/she is being held incommunicado can petition the court or an individual judge for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The justification for the extreme powers of FTAC is of course terrorism.  Experience show that the powers of the FTAC will be quickly exercised in a far wider sphere than even the most sceptical imagine.  Once a law is enacted the very fact of its existence gives it respectability and thus acceptability.

For years society casually turned a blind eye to the total lack of Human Rights for anyone labelled ‘mentally ill’, never dreaming that the definition might one day be widened sufficiently to cover not only themselves, but everyone who may for any reason be deemed a threat by those in authority.

In the twenty-first century mental illness is presumed to be the normal circumstance and sanity deemed to  exist only after ‘treatment’ by a psychiatrist.  We live in a nightmare world that is starting to exceed the imaginings of even George Orwell.

 

Why is this idea important?


The UK government has established a secretive new police unit a la George Orwell with the powers to detain anyone for any length of time without any due process.  The shadowy unit called the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was covertly established in 2006.  The unit includes the services of police psychiatrists.  Why?  For one very good reason, and one reason only: psychiatrists operate above the law.  They can detain ANYONE AT ANY TIME AND FOR NO MORE REASON THAN THEIR STATED OPINION THAT THE PERSON MAY BE A DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR TO OTHERS.

Once forcibly detained by a psychiatrist a person can be legally locked away forever and subjected to despicable ‘treatments’ such as psychotropic drug regimes, lobotomies and electric shocking of the brain.  They are not entitled to a trial of any sort, they need face no criminal charges.

A person incarcerated by a psychiatrist has no rights whatsoever.  Even Stalin had to produce his prisoners in court eventually.  The miserable occupants of Guantanamo retain the certainty that one day the will face justice, or at least that they will have their day in court’ the occupants of psychiatric prisons have no such comfort.  It is a thin line that separates a rule of law democracy from a totalitarian dictatorship.  The FTAC crosses that line.  For many years our individual freedoms have been incrementally cut away.  The FTAC rips the flesh off freedom and lays bare the bones of repression for all decent and honest people to see.  The FTAC represents nothing less than the repeal of Habeas Corpus with its right of trial and its protection from arbitrary state detention.

A Writ of Habeas Corpus orders that a prisoner is to be brought before a court so that the court can then determine whether that person is serving a lawful sentence or should be released from custody.  The prisoner, or someone acting on behalf of the prisoner if he/she is being held incommunicado can petition the court or an individual judge for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The justification for the extreme powers of FTAC is of course terrorism.  Experience show that the powers of the FTAC will be quickly exercised in a far wider sphere than even the most sceptical imagine.  Once a law is enacted the very fact of its existence gives it respectability and thus acceptability.

For years society casually turned a blind eye to the total lack of Human Rights for anyone labelled ‘mentally ill’, never dreaming that the definition might one day be widened sufficiently to cover not only themselves, but everyone who may for any reason be deemed a threat by those in authority.

In the twenty-first century mental illness is presumed to be the normal circumstance and sanity deemed to  exist only after ‘treatment’ by a psychiatrist.  We live in a nightmare world that is starting to exceed the imaginings of even George Orwell.

 

What’s the point in Law if you can’t get it upheld.

This is a call for a review basically.

 

One of the biggest problems I have found with Legal Aid is how it leaves you having to do everything yourself.  15 minutes with a lawyer and that's about it.  The Citizens Advice Bureas are also not up to scratch either.  Due to a massive lack of resources.

Legal Aid is vital to every citizen, yet the poor reliably get dumped to the bottom.  Even though the poor are often caught in the most violent and lawless places.

The idea is to make sure everyone gets Legal Aid.  By re-enforcing the existing system.  So that's review, revoke where required, and add some new bits.

Why is this idea important?

This is a call for a review basically.

 

One of the biggest problems I have found with Legal Aid is how it leaves you having to do everything yourself.  15 minutes with a lawyer and that's about it.  The Citizens Advice Bureas are also not up to scratch either.  Due to a massive lack of resources.

Legal Aid is vital to every citizen, yet the poor reliably get dumped to the bottom.  Even though the poor are often caught in the most violent and lawless places.

The idea is to make sure everyone gets Legal Aid.  By re-enforcing the existing system.  So that's review, revoke where required, and add some new bits.

Why the NHS has greater “powers” than the police to search

I suggest an urgent review of the MHA 2007.  As a mental health patient you may have less rights than a criminal. The distinction between a community Hospital and a jail should be fundamental.  Once that becomes blurred the whole basis for therapy crumbles (Linklater m. 2001) The power to stop and search law abiding vulnerable people and give medication without consent raises deep concens that violate human and civil rights for those who have already lost their liberty/freedom – the inequality between physical and mental health care within the NHS is clear.  Though there is much evidence of excellent mental health care, to balance this there are many flaws, examples of rigid rules, overly oppressive environments that promote dependency in a contolling and custodial culture. stark power imbalances and routine practices  that include cto's, physical and chemical restraints, exclusion and seclusion may succeed in escalating rather than reducing distress.  That this can be termed as "treatment in their best interest" beggars belief. The NHS may increasingly be challenged by once powerless resilient people, due to out dated patriarchal approaches and overcoming adversity.  Requesting medical records and redressing the balance  maybe paramount for all our sakes. 1:4 of us may experience mental health difficulties.  Hostile environments within and outside the institution may increase health and safety risks for all and hinder therapeutic relationships, trust and recovery.

Guidelines/policy/procedures may benefit from robust srcutiny and clear transparent independent audits to ensure vulnerable law abiding patients/citizens/staff are safeguarded/protected from unintentional institutional abuse.

Why is this idea important?

I suggest an urgent review of the MHA 2007.  As a mental health patient you may have less rights than a criminal. The distinction between a community Hospital and a jail should be fundamental.  Once that becomes blurred the whole basis for therapy crumbles (Linklater m. 2001) The power to stop and search law abiding vulnerable people and give medication without consent raises deep concens that violate human and civil rights for those who have already lost their liberty/freedom – the inequality between physical and mental health care within the NHS is clear.  Though there is much evidence of excellent mental health care, to balance this there are many flaws, examples of rigid rules, overly oppressive environments that promote dependency in a contolling and custodial culture. stark power imbalances and routine practices  that include cto's, physical and chemical restraints, exclusion and seclusion may succeed in escalating rather than reducing distress.  That this can be termed as "treatment in their best interest" beggars belief. The NHS may increasingly be challenged by once powerless resilient people, due to out dated patriarchal approaches and overcoming adversity.  Requesting medical records and redressing the balance  maybe paramount for all our sakes. 1:4 of us may experience mental health difficulties.  Hostile environments within and outside the institution may increase health and safety risks for all and hinder therapeutic relationships, trust and recovery.

Guidelines/policy/procedures may benefit from robust srcutiny and clear transparent independent audits to ensure vulnerable law abiding patients/citizens/staff are safeguarded/protected from unintentional institutional abuse.

Abolish Leucotomy/Lobotomy Operations in the UK

Leucotomy/Lobotomy Operations have been outlawed in much of Europe and few have been performed in the UK since 1999.  There is no scientific basis for their continuation; they are barbaric and an embarrassment to the medical profession and have been rebranded as NSMD Neurosurgery for Mental Disorder.  The operation involves the destruction of healthy brain tissue to address such mental distress as depression, anxiety and more recently and of great concern, obsessive compulsive disorder.  I would like to see the operation outlawed in the Uk, giving greater preference to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, the only talking therapy with empirical research to prove its efficacy.  MIND, the Mental Health Charity, have been campaigning for some years for leucotomy/lobotomy operations to be outlawed. 

Why is this idea important?

Leucotomy/Lobotomy Operations have been outlawed in much of Europe and few have been performed in the UK since 1999.  There is no scientific basis for their continuation; they are barbaric and an embarrassment to the medical profession and have been rebranded as NSMD Neurosurgery for Mental Disorder.  The operation involves the destruction of healthy brain tissue to address such mental distress as depression, anxiety and more recently and of great concern, obsessive compulsive disorder.  I would like to see the operation outlawed in the Uk, giving greater preference to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, the only talking therapy with empirical research to prove its efficacy.  MIND, the Mental Health Charity, have been campaigning for some years for leucotomy/lobotomy operations to be outlawed. 

Ban The Stereotype!!! There is a serious side to this.

As a rock'n'roll male of the species I have long hair and ear-rings.  I used to wear a suit when I worked for the banks as well.  They recognised the 'student' and 'arty-farty' factor, and how relevant it was to custom.

Many don't though, and the bullying can get pretty bad.

Your appearance is tied to who you are as a person.  It's part of your personality, and everything to do with that.  And linked to your mental health as well.  Bully someone for long enough over something as petty as fashion and you will harm them.

And if they're downtrodden will they be able to show any of the genius they once had?  It's unlikely, as they'll be too afraid to even think straight.

Why is this idea important?

As a rock'n'roll male of the species I have long hair and ear-rings.  I used to wear a suit when I worked for the banks as well.  They recognised the 'student' and 'arty-farty' factor, and how relevant it was to custom.

Many don't though, and the bullying can get pretty bad.

Your appearance is tied to who you are as a person.  It's part of your personality, and everything to do with that.  And linked to your mental health as well.  Bully someone for long enough over something as petty as fashion and you will harm them.

And if they're downtrodden will they be able to show any of the genius they once had?  It's unlikely, as they'll be too afraid to even think straight.

administration of medicine without requiring consent – urgent

Side effects mental health treatment take for granted are inhumane; the dose that gives these hyperawful effects is administrated without requiring the patients permission.

Permission should always be required; patients' opinions of their medication should be respectfully acknowledged and requests for lesser dosage should be obeyed without exception.

Minds will take preventative measures to outdo critical physical health, adverse onsets of debilitating mental states, and can and do include accident preventions.

In the mind, dimensions are 'yesterday and censured memory-banks', and also 'tomorrow and possibility'; when critical eruption of reason and emotions are within possibility the brain recognises a logic having emergency measures and initiates supreme proxy; homes each ration enough secure ID.  

Why is this idea important?

Side effects mental health treatment take for granted are inhumane; the dose that gives these hyperawful effects is administrated without requiring the patients permission.

Permission should always be required; patients' opinions of their medication should be respectfully acknowledged and requests for lesser dosage should be obeyed without exception.

Minds will take preventative measures to outdo critical physical health, adverse onsets of debilitating mental states, and can and do include accident preventions.

In the mind, dimensions are 'yesterday and censured memory-banks', and also 'tomorrow and possibility'; when critical eruption of reason and emotions are within possibility the brain recognises a logic having emergency measures and initiates supreme proxy; homes each ration enough secure ID.  

repeal cto’s review mha 2007 consider civil/human rights/freedoms

section 17 of the mental health act already exists – it cannot compel patients within the commuity to take medication against their will, however cto's can,  controlling civil freedom, choice, autonomy too often information is not forthcoming, transparent or easily understood.   – it could be argued cto' s are coersive and could present as an increased risk to patients and professionals if used routinely

Why is this idea important?

section 17 of the mental health act already exists – it cannot compel patients within the commuity to take medication against their will, however cto's can,  controlling civil freedom, choice, autonomy too often information is not forthcoming, transparent or easily understood.   – it could be argued cto' s are coersive and could present as an increased risk to patients and professionals if used routinely

Remove reversing alarms from vehicles

The current requirement to have all vehicles larger than a car sound a shrill alarm when reversing is unnecessary.

It is the driver's responsibility to make sure it is safe to proceed at all times. The current status quo shifts this and is used to intimidate visually impaired and other people out of the driver's way. If the driver cannot see it is clear he or she should enlist the help of a colleague and/or use side mirrors and proceed with more caution.

If nothing else at least the volume could be reduced. If a vehicle is in danger of hitting someone, they must be reasonably close. It cannot be necessary to have the alarms heard 500m away. And a person who is severely visually and hearing impaired will be in danger from traffic no matter what excessive noise is made.

Why is this idea important?

The current requirement to have all vehicles larger than a car sound a shrill alarm when reversing is unnecessary.

It is the driver's responsibility to make sure it is safe to proceed at all times. The current status quo shifts this and is used to intimidate visually impaired and other people out of the driver's way. If the driver cannot see it is clear he or she should enlist the help of a colleague and/or use side mirrors and proceed with more caution.

If nothing else at least the volume could be reduced. If a vehicle is in danger of hitting someone, they must be reasonably close. It cannot be necessary to have the alarms heard 500m away. And a person who is severely visually and hearing impaired will be in danger from traffic no matter what excessive noise is made.

The Mental Health Act: consider repealing most powers of coercion

Nick Clegg promised that the government would "repeal" all of "the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit people's freedom".  Many of us rejoiced prematurely, wrongly anticipating the imminent repeal of the illiberal powers contained in the hated Mental Health Act.  The Act confers powers that most of the public don't seem to realise are present in the Act, to impose unwanted mental health services on ordinary people who aren't a danger to anybody, and who communicate, with full mental capacity, clear advance directives refusing all mental health services.  
 
Will the government please initiate a consultation of mental health service users, past and present, including all those who have ever been sectioned, and those who are only compliant with unwanted treatment because they have been threatened with being sectioned if they do not comply?  Will he promise that the repeal of Mental Health Act's powers of coercion will not be ruled out from the outset of this consultation?

Why is this idea important?

Nick Clegg promised that the government would "repeal" all of "the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit people's freedom".  Many of us rejoiced prematurely, wrongly anticipating the imminent repeal of the illiberal powers contained in the hated Mental Health Act.  The Act confers powers that most of the public don't seem to realise are present in the Act, to impose unwanted mental health services on ordinary people who aren't a danger to anybody, and who communicate, with full mental capacity, clear advance directives refusing all mental health services.  
 
Will the government please initiate a consultation of mental health service users, past and present, including all those who have ever been sectioned, and those who are only compliant with unwanted treatment because they have been threatened with being sectioned if they do not comply?  Will he promise that the repeal of Mental Health Act's powers of coercion will not be ruled out from the outset of this consultation?

Mental Health, and False Allegations by Staff.

I blogged this and wrote to my MP Gavin Barwell but even so.  I'll list it here.  The Female Panic thing with men, and the off-side rule.

 

The letter is as follows:

 

Dear Gavin Barwell,

There are 2 parts to this.   Reform stuff, and also a personal request:

More feedback for Mental Health Reforms:

Women & Mental Health.  This is also men as well.

Basically, in our society, women and men should be treated equally.
But when Ill and upset this one can get a bit weird.  And if run badly
it DEFINITELY makes the situation worse, and can cause further mental
and emotional injury. Here's the problem.

When a man is angry and upset he may well look firey and scary.  The
joys of normal anger, before you take into account any Mental Illness.
It's just how it is, as sometimes life can be nasty. And it's something
women have to accept if they are to work with us.

However what I have found, reliably, is that women see us as wild
animals in need of control.  Rather than injured men in need of
assistance, understanding, and empathy.  And then out comes the riot
squad for a man who can barely stand who got angry and upset as the
women were too busy panicking over nothing to help him.  And possibly
gossiping, which is highly unprofessional.

This shouldn't be happening.  Yet these women are panicking.  It is
that bad at times.  And here-in lies the problem. You're angry, upset,
can't get a straight answer, and then when you've sustained injury The
Police then treat you like a criminal.  In your own resource center,
where you're supposed to get help.  And you've just spoken to duty.
Who are supposed to be there to help you.  You did nothing, yet you
were guilty by 'gossip'.

Part of being male is testosterone.  It's what makes us hairy and
loving of real ale.  But when upset we look scary.  These women either
have no understanding of this, or do not want to understand. And this
is why 'same-sex treatment' may well be the way out.  Avoid this lack
of understanding completely.

Much as men generally aren't that great at girlie things, women
reliably do not understand us either.  Venus, Mars, and the off-side
rule.  Some stuff is 'man-stuff'.  So the solution I'm thinking is
thus.

Male shrinks and nurses for male patients.  Female shrinks and nurses
for female patients.  It's so incredibly offensive to be accused of
being violent as you look scary and have not touched anyone.
Especially when already in distress and trying to get help.

It really cuts deep, and will obviously make your current state of
distress worse.  And it should not be happening if all you need to do
is have a bluster and get it out.  Like with Counseling this is normal
man-stuff.  And can be considered shouting therapy as well.  Yet girls
just don't get it.  Or don't want to be near it.

The analogy I use for race and mental health is really very simple.
There is a reliable trend that has shown up in Police work that makes a
lot of sense.  If little Mrs Gupta has been mugged PC Singh is much
more likely to get a decent response from her, then PC Angus of the
firey red hair and acccent. When you are injured you fall back to
family.  Race is relevant here.  Hence why PC Singh gets somewhere, and
PC Angus makes the tea.  It does work.

My observations also show that gender is relevant here as well.  Women
seem to assume all men are violent thugs far too often.  And this lack
of understanding can cause a lot of harm.  Offense, distress, and also
the with-holding of treatment based on this panic.  It is panic, but it
is harmful.

Sadly this stereotype is based around street violence, and how it is
mostly men.  I hate that stereotype, but even I know it is real enough.
 But the 'innocent until proven guilty' bit seems to be reliably
ignored in mental health.  And that does harm male patients a lot more.
 We're locked up and sedated on opinion so much, and so much of that is
based on gossip.

Gossip which can continue due to a very unreliable complaints system.

I'll also add here how if a lass is ill and jumpy the last thing she
needs is 'raging bull Dave' doing some shouting therapy next door.
Accident or not it could well harm her.

Personal Request:

Could I also request that you write to the Purley Resource Centre and
advise them that I need treating there due to it being a safe location.
 I am flee'ing drug culture, due to what it's reliably tried to do to
me.  And Purley is about as drug free as it gets.  I can't do New Addo
due to the years of abuse up there, and a high BNP Presence.

Croydon Tamworth Road is a Drug & Drink Gang patch I avoid, and
needless to say Westways is deepest darkest 'rough part of' West
Croydon.  Which is also Druggy Territory in my experience.  It was Drug
Culture that wrecked my life ( specifically Girl Gangs as well ), not
the drugs themselves.  Hence why I stay away from patches.

And this is why I chose Purley.  It's very relevant to my case.  For me
rock'n'roll is just a fashion so…  Your assistance would be greatly
appreciated.

The gender thing is important.   Basically it's well known that men and
women don't always 'get' each other.  In psychiatry this seems to be
part of the mistake I'm having to try to survive.  This deeply
offensive inaccuracy, and how it is endemic in my case.

And last I heard you only jailed criminals after trial, and
over-sedation was definitely a bit of a no-no as well.

Many thanks for your time,

Yours sincerely,

Christian


Christian Wilcox,

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Why is this idea important?

I blogged this and wrote to my MP Gavin Barwell but even so.  I'll list it here.  The Female Panic thing with men, and the off-side rule.

 

The letter is as follows:

 

Dear Gavin Barwell,

There are 2 parts to this.   Reform stuff, and also a personal request:

More feedback for Mental Health Reforms:

Women & Mental Health.  This is also men as well.

Basically, in our society, women and men should be treated equally.
But when Ill and upset this one can get a bit weird.  And if run badly
it DEFINITELY makes the situation worse, and can cause further mental
and emotional injury. Here's the problem.

When a man is angry and upset he may well look firey and scary.  The
joys of normal anger, before you take into account any Mental Illness.
It's just how it is, as sometimes life can be nasty. And it's something
women have to accept if they are to work with us.

However what I have found, reliably, is that women see us as wild
animals in need of control.  Rather than injured men in need of
assistance, understanding, and empathy.  And then out comes the riot
squad for a man who can barely stand who got angry and upset as the
women were too busy panicking over nothing to help him.  And possibly
gossiping, which is highly unprofessional.

This shouldn't be happening.  Yet these women are panicking.  It is
that bad at times.  And here-in lies the problem. You're angry, upset,
can't get a straight answer, and then when you've sustained injury The
Police then treat you like a criminal.  In your own resource center,
where you're supposed to get help.  And you've just spoken to duty.
Who are supposed to be there to help you.  You did nothing, yet you
were guilty by 'gossip'.

Part of being male is testosterone.  It's what makes us hairy and
loving of real ale.  But when upset we look scary.  These women either
have no understanding of this, or do not want to understand. And this
is why 'same-sex treatment' may well be the way out.  Avoid this lack
of understanding completely.

Much as men generally aren't that great at girlie things, women
reliably do not understand us either.  Venus, Mars, and the off-side
rule.  Some stuff is 'man-stuff'.  So the solution I'm thinking is
thus.

Male shrinks and nurses for male patients.  Female shrinks and nurses
for female patients.  It's so incredibly offensive to be accused of
being violent as you look scary and have not touched anyone.
Especially when already in distress and trying to get help.

It really cuts deep, and will obviously make your current state of
distress worse.  And it should not be happening if all you need to do
is have a bluster and get it out.  Like with Counseling this is normal
man-stuff.  And can be considered shouting therapy as well.  Yet girls
just don't get it.  Or don't want to be near it.

The analogy I use for race and mental health is really very simple.
There is a reliable trend that has shown up in Police work that makes a
lot of sense.  If little Mrs Gupta has been mugged PC Singh is much
more likely to get a decent response from her, then PC Angus of the
firey red hair and acccent. When you are injured you fall back to
family.  Race is relevant here.  Hence why PC Singh gets somewhere, and
PC Angus makes the tea.  It does work.

My observations also show that gender is relevant here as well.  Women
seem to assume all men are violent thugs far too often.  And this lack
of understanding can cause a lot of harm.  Offense, distress, and also
the with-holding of treatment based on this panic.  It is panic, but it
is harmful.

Sadly this stereotype is based around street violence, and how it is
mostly men.  I hate that stereotype, but even I know it is real enough.
 But the 'innocent until proven guilty' bit seems to be reliably
ignored in mental health.  And that does harm male patients a lot more.
 We're locked up and sedated on opinion so much, and so much of that is
based on gossip.

Gossip which can continue due to a very unreliable complaints system.

I'll also add here how if a lass is ill and jumpy the last thing she
needs is 'raging bull Dave' doing some shouting therapy next door.
Accident or not it could well harm her.

Personal Request:

Could I also request that you write to the Purley Resource Centre and
advise them that I need treating there due to it being a safe location.
 I am flee'ing drug culture, due to what it's reliably tried to do to
me.  And Purley is about as drug free as it gets.  I can't do New Addo
due to the years of abuse up there, and a high BNP Presence.

Croydon Tamworth Road is a Drug & Drink Gang patch I avoid, and
needless to say Westways is deepest darkest 'rough part of' West
Croydon.  Which is also Druggy Territory in my experience.  It was Drug
Culture that wrecked my life ( specifically Girl Gangs as well ), not
the drugs themselves.  Hence why I stay away from patches.

And this is why I chose Purley.  It's very relevant to my case.  For me
rock'n'roll is just a fashion so…  Your assistance would be greatly
appreciated.

The gender thing is important.   Basically it's well known that men and
women don't always 'get' each other.  In psychiatry this seems to be
part of the mistake I'm having to try to survive.  This deeply
offensive inaccuracy, and how it is endemic in my case.

And last I heard you only jailed criminals after trial, and
over-sedation was definitely a bit of a no-no as well.

Many thanks for your time,

Yours sincerely,

Christian


Christian Wilcox,

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Reform of the Mental Health Laws

To provide better protection for those who have been diagnosed with a Mental Health Illness and have committed an offence. By protection I mean treatment, care and civil liberties.

Service Users (Patients) who have committed offences and are detained under the Mental Health Act need to be dealt with fairer. The existing system is the Asylum system in disguise. There is no clear understanding as to whether people are detained by a penal system or a medical treatment system. Very often both are applied. Many patients are held in secure units for long periods of time when they are well. Care in the community hasnt been fully achieved and Doctors and medical teams have enormous powers over patients whilst they are under section.

Other aspects of Mental Health Law need to be addressed such as the power of recall for non-compliant patients. On top of the huge costs for running secure hospitals there are further administrative costs incurred for Tribunals, managers meetings and legal aid.

The public need to be educated further about mental illness.  

Why is this idea important?

To provide better protection for those who have been diagnosed with a Mental Health Illness and have committed an offence. By protection I mean treatment, care and civil liberties.

Service Users (Patients) who have committed offences and are detained under the Mental Health Act need to be dealt with fairer. The existing system is the Asylum system in disguise. There is no clear understanding as to whether people are detained by a penal system or a medical treatment system. Very often both are applied. Many patients are held in secure units for long periods of time when they are well. Care in the community hasnt been fully achieved and Doctors and medical teams have enormous powers over patients whilst they are under section.

Other aspects of Mental Health Law need to be addressed such as the power of recall for non-compliant patients. On top of the huge costs for running secure hospitals there are further administrative costs incurred for Tribunals, managers meetings and legal aid.

The public need to be educated further about mental illness.  

GIVE US LAW ABIDING CITIZENS BACK OUR GUNS!

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Why is this idea important?

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Legalise Cannabis cultivation for Medical/Personal use & introduce a growing Lisence, similar to a fishing lisence

I will keep my idea simple, as all the other messages/ideas, have pointed out the obvious points to semi-legalising the natural drug that is "cannabis" :

 

1.WHY SHOULD THE UK GOVERNMENT REVOLT THE LAW & ALLOW US TO GROW CANNABIS AT HOME

 

The FACT is thousands of people in the UK are already growing Cannabis for their own use, some for personal use/pleasure, others for medical help / health benefits. The Hydroponic & Seed company's are popping up all over the place at the moment, and this is helping with our economy. The problem is, and really think about this…. IT IS ILLEGAL in the UK TO GROW A SEED! , yes a seed, that mother nature put on this earth for us all to enjoy the fruits.  This its self is so WRONG!. but i have not come on here to grumble and moan, so i will get to my idea!…

2.  MY SUGGESTION TO OUR GOVERNMENT

What i suggest, is we relax the law on cultivation of cannabis, and allow a person, to rightly grow up to a certain amount of plants say(4 to 8) for our own use. To regulate this, and generate some income to the government at the same time, I suggest we incorporate a Liscence sceme, where if you wanted to grow cannabis in your own home, you would have to purchase, this liscence or apply for this  licence as you would a firearm.

This could then be regulated with spot visits, by the police or an agency that is put into place, similar / on the same lines as the environment agency and fishing liscening scheme. to ensure people are not growing over the limit(s).

 

3. WHY THIS WOULD WORK?

I Believe this would work, as the government could regulate, the people that are growing cannabis, just as they do with people that own firearms. 

Most people who are growing at the moment, are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and enjoy the pleasures of growing a plant from seed, just as you would growing tomatoes or chilli's, and enjoying the health benefits / calming / pleasure from thier hard work :-). The problem at the moment is this is illegal, and they could face upto 14 years in Prison! yes sad but true, prison for growing a seed?.

I should state at this point, I know way condone organised criminals growing 100's / 1000's of plants for financial gain, The laws should stick, or be upped greatly for criminals involved in the commercial cultivation of cannabis. This brings me to my next pointer:

 

3. IF THE UK GOVERNMENT DOES NOTHING?

I strongly believe that cannabis smoking is on the rise, this means, that thier is a huge demand for the drug, which in turn is increasing the organised criminals to produce more of the drug, and sell it on our streets for extortionate prices. Often cut with dangerous particles like glass, to make it weigh more, increasing the criminals UN TAXED profits.  This will only get worse! unless the government step in, with a system to allow users to produce or buy  thier own supply, or have designated outlets to buy it, like in other countries i.e Holland. I wont go into this, as its already been more than cover's in other topics.

 

5.CONCLUSION

 

I think the PRO's far way the cons of legalising cannabis under a liscenced scheme for personal / medical growers. This would free up resources, police and courts,  and generate some income to the government to help with our national deficit / debt. Slow down the criminals / drug dealers dramaticly, as the smoker could grow his own, without having to come in contact with the dealers / organised thugs!. saftley in thier own home/greenhouse. We should be looking forward and ahead, not back and behind, lets be honest here, cannabis has NEVER EVER! killed anybody… and i think its MEDICAL uses need to be looked into very very carefully, this is an amazing plant that mother nature has given us.

ABOUT ME

My personal story is i use cannabis for my health with anxiety / panic attacks / depression, and started using the drug after a breakdown, it has helped me a lot, more than any anti-depressents could ever do! to the fact that i no longer suffer like i did for years. and I am now back in work, and leading a normal life, I only smoke once a week believe it or not 🙂 thats all i need to make me feel able to face the week ahead with a smile. 

I am not highly educated, so i appoligise now for my poor wording, and awful spelling lol…

 

Thanks for taking the time reading this, 

if you have anything to add please do

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I will keep my idea simple, as all the other messages/ideas, have pointed out the obvious points to semi-legalising the natural drug that is "cannabis" :

 

1.WHY SHOULD THE UK GOVERNMENT REVOLT THE LAW & ALLOW US TO GROW CANNABIS AT HOME

 

The FACT is thousands of people in the UK are already growing Cannabis for their own use, some for personal use/pleasure, others for medical help / health benefits. The Hydroponic & Seed company's are popping up all over the place at the moment, and this is helping with our economy. The problem is, and really think about this…. IT IS ILLEGAL in the UK TO GROW A SEED! , yes a seed, that mother nature put on this earth for us all to enjoy the fruits.  This its self is so WRONG!. but i have not come on here to grumble and moan, so i will get to my idea!…

2.  MY SUGGESTION TO OUR GOVERNMENT

What i suggest, is we relax the law on cultivation of cannabis, and allow a person, to rightly grow up to a certain amount of plants say(4 to 8) for our own use. To regulate this, and generate some income to the government at the same time, I suggest we incorporate a Liscence sceme, where if you wanted to grow cannabis in your own home, you would have to purchase, this liscence or apply for this  licence as you would a firearm.

This could then be regulated with spot visits, by the police or an agency that is put into place, similar / on the same lines as the environment agency and fishing liscening scheme. to ensure people are not growing over the limit(s).

 

3. WHY THIS WOULD WORK?

I Believe this would work, as the government could regulate, the people that are growing cannabis, just as they do with people that own firearms. 

Most people who are growing at the moment, are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and enjoy the pleasures of growing a plant from seed, just as you would growing tomatoes or chilli's, and enjoying the health benefits / calming / pleasure from thier hard work :-). The problem at the moment is this is illegal, and they could face upto 14 years in Prison! yes sad but true, prison for growing a seed?.

I should state at this point, I know way condone organised criminals growing 100's / 1000's of plants for financial gain, The laws should stick, or be upped greatly for criminals involved in the commercial cultivation of cannabis. This brings me to my next pointer:

 

3. IF THE UK GOVERNMENT DOES NOTHING?

I strongly believe that cannabis smoking is on the rise, this means, that thier is a huge demand for the drug, which in turn is increasing the organised criminals to produce more of the drug, and sell it on our streets for extortionate prices. Often cut with dangerous particles like glass, to make it weigh more, increasing the criminals UN TAXED profits.  This will only get worse! unless the government step in, with a system to allow users to produce or buy  thier own supply, or have designated outlets to buy it, like in other countries i.e Holland. I wont go into this, as its already been more than cover's in other topics.

 

5.CONCLUSION

 

I think the PRO's far way the cons of legalising cannabis under a liscenced scheme for personal / medical growers. This would free up resources, police and courts,  and generate some income to the government to help with our national deficit / debt. Slow down the criminals / drug dealers dramaticly, as the smoker could grow his own, without having to come in contact with the dealers / organised thugs!. saftley in thier own home/greenhouse. We should be looking forward and ahead, not back and behind, lets be honest here, cannabis has NEVER EVER! killed anybody… and i think its MEDICAL uses need to be looked into very very carefully, this is an amazing plant that mother nature has given us.

ABOUT ME

My personal story is i use cannabis for my health with anxiety / panic attacks / depression, and started using the drug after a breakdown, it has helped me a lot, more than any anti-depressents could ever do! to the fact that i no longer suffer like i did for years. and I am now back in work, and leading a normal life, I only smoke once a week believe it or not 🙂 thats all i need to make me feel able to face the week ahead with a smile. 

I am not highly educated, so i appoligise now for my poor wording, and awful spelling lol…

 

Thanks for taking the time reading this, 

if you have anything to add please do

 

 

Stop DWP medical assessments. Trust our doctors to know best!

I have had my medical conditions for over ten years but when I claimed Employment support allowance (ESA) I had to undergo a medical with ATOS, a private company. I already receive Disability living allowance and have done for several years.

Paying a private comapny to assess claimants medical conditions is a waste of money and unnecessary. A claimant's doctor, psychiatrist or consultant is considered competent emough to prescribe dangerous medications, so why are they not trusted to tick a few boxes for the DWP?

The amount of money wasted is not the only issue. The number of appeals for disability related benefits has risen sharply. Many of the appeals consist of the assessing doctors either making mistakes or not recording the claimant's medical details correctly. Removing this private company from undertaking these assessments would alleviate a lot of stress for disabled people and especially for people with mental health problems.

Many disabilities can be hidden and only a doctor who knows you can assess you fairly. The DWP's actions make it feel as if they consider every person who applies a liar. If their own doctors support the claim then surely that should be enough?

The medical assessment should also be valid for all health and disability related benfits. At present a person would need to be assessed separately for each benefit which doubles the cost.

Why is this idea important?

I have had my medical conditions for over ten years but when I claimed Employment support allowance (ESA) I had to undergo a medical with ATOS, a private company. I already receive Disability living allowance and have done for several years.

Paying a private comapny to assess claimants medical conditions is a waste of money and unnecessary. A claimant's doctor, psychiatrist or consultant is considered competent emough to prescribe dangerous medications, so why are they not trusted to tick a few boxes for the DWP?

The amount of money wasted is not the only issue. The number of appeals for disability related benefits has risen sharply. Many of the appeals consist of the assessing doctors either making mistakes or not recording the claimant's medical details correctly. Removing this private company from undertaking these assessments would alleviate a lot of stress for disabled people and especially for people with mental health problems.

Many disabilities can be hidden and only a doctor who knows you can assess you fairly. The DWP's actions make it feel as if they consider every person who applies a liar. If their own doctors support the claim then surely that should be enough?

The medical assessment should also be valid for all health and disability related benfits. At present a person would need to be assessed separately for each benefit which doubles the cost.

Make it unlawful for the authorities to detain anyone under the Mental Health Act based on the testimonies of relatives or employers

There can now be no doubt that radical changes to the Mental Health Act are long overdue in the UK.

The clause in the Mental Health Act which currently stipulates that someone detained under Section 4 can only be discharged with the agreement of a spouse or family member must be urgently reviewed.  Many single people are the victims of hate crimes perpetuated by their own relatives that can extend over an entire lifetime, and more should be done to protect individuals from the damaging effects of sibling envy, not to mention the clinical effects of munchausen syndrome by proxy, or the corrupting influences of politicised welfare.  The causes of misdiagnosis can be highly complex these days and the referral process still maintains many of the features of the old Victorian asylum system, which relies heavily on the collaboration of spouses or family members to effectively strip someone of their basic human rights.

David Mitchell, a novelist who obviously has some insight into the problems associated with inverted projection or familial hate crime, satirized the sadistic power play that can poison family relations when the state plays a strategic hand in things.  In his 2005 novel, Timothy Cavendish is an independent publisher who turns to his rich financier brother for help when he is pursued by a gang of ruthless money lenders.  To all intents and purposes, his brother appears a paragon of virtue and kindness when he arranges for him to take a short holiday at a secret, undisclosed retreat.  However, it is only when Cavendish finds the accommodation a little too institutionalised for his liking that he discovers that his brother has, in fact, craftily had him admitted to a private residual care home all along (it was set in the 1980s, after all!).   Of course, Mitchell's fictional character eventually manages to escape with hilarious results.  But the wider issue of sibling hate crime nevertheless remains one of those inconvenient truths that is rarely even acknowledged by clinical psychiatrists workingin the field even today.

Of course, families often merely allow themselves to become the dupes of institutionalised processes, which are designed to marginalise and reduce the benefits status of those who have either fallen victim to discriminative practice in the workplace, or whose non-conformist approach to life may well have led them to become self-employed freelancers and therefore free from the usual lifestyle constraints imposed on public sector workers.   Meanwhile, others may have had such sublime independence forced on them by successive governments owing to the the long-term effects of short-term contracting or intermittent spells of unemployment.  This is precisely why families should not be awarded any formal powers of attorney which allow them to interfere or meddle in the lives of individuals whom they happen to be related to by birth.  What would have happened to Able, after all, if Cain had simply been able to ring up his local mental health unit and slyly express concerns about his brother's ability to cope with the responsibility of running his father's olive farm?  Just think, the whole course of Judao-Christian mythology might have been intrinsically altered beyond recognition.

 

 

      

 

Why is this idea important?

There can now be no doubt that radical changes to the Mental Health Act are long overdue in the UK.

The clause in the Mental Health Act which currently stipulates that someone detained under Section 4 can only be discharged with the agreement of a spouse or family member must be urgently reviewed.  Many single people are the victims of hate crimes perpetuated by their own relatives that can extend over an entire lifetime, and more should be done to protect individuals from the damaging effects of sibling envy, not to mention the clinical effects of munchausen syndrome by proxy, or the corrupting influences of politicised welfare.  The causes of misdiagnosis can be highly complex these days and the referral process still maintains many of the features of the old Victorian asylum system, which relies heavily on the collaboration of spouses or family members to effectively strip someone of their basic human rights.

David Mitchell, a novelist who obviously has some insight into the problems associated with inverted projection or familial hate crime, satirized the sadistic power play that can poison family relations when the state plays a strategic hand in things.  In his 2005 novel, Timothy Cavendish is an independent publisher who turns to his rich financier brother for help when he is pursued by a gang of ruthless money lenders.  To all intents and purposes, his brother appears a paragon of virtue and kindness when he arranges for him to take a short holiday at a secret, undisclosed retreat.  However, it is only when Cavendish finds the accommodation a little too institutionalised for his liking that he discovers that his brother has, in fact, craftily had him admitted to a private residual care home all along (it was set in the 1980s, after all!).   Of course, Mitchell's fictional character eventually manages to escape with hilarious results.  But the wider issue of sibling hate crime nevertheless remains one of those inconvenient truths that is rarely even acknowledged by clinical psychiatrists workingin the field even today.

Of course, families often merely allow themselves to become the dupes of institutionalised processes, which are designed to marginalise and reduce the benefits status of those who have either fallen victim to discriminative practice in the workplace, or whose non-conformist approach to life may well have led them to become self-employed freelancers and therefore free from the usual lifestyle constraints imposed on public sector workers.   Meanwhile, others may have had such sublime independence forced on them by successive governments owing to the the long-term effects of short-term contracting or intermittent spells of unemployment.  This is precisely why families should not be awarded any formal powers of attorney which allow them to interfere or meddle in the lives of individuals whom they happen to be related to by birth.  What would have happened to Able, after all, if Cain had simply been able to ring up his local mental health unit and slyly express concerns about his brother's ability to cope with the responsibility of running his father's olive farm?  Just think, the whole course of Judao-Christian mythology might have been intrinsically altered beyond recognition.

 

 

      

 

stop indescriminate drugging of distressed people by mental health workers

i have recently come of  depixol after nearly 30 years of being drugged and behaving as a 'good' quiet, helpless voiceless mental patient. i suffered a severe reaction even after a slow reduction over 15 months. the mental health team knew of my distress but refused the help i so desperatley needed. i went through a profoundly disturbing and frightening week after asking to see a counsellor. i explained to a c.p.n. how i was fluctuating frighteningly between the real world and the psychotic one. i was determined not to be remedicated but needed to talk through the process i now recognise as spiritual emergence. help was denied and because i had a heated few words on the phone with various mental health people they arrived a week later armed with the drug briefcase (two of them) i refused them entry. the only help offered was a list of workshops for me to attend in the future. they inadvertantly shot themselves in the foot tiough because i found the strength to come through this and had they actually bothered to come and see me the week before they would have found evidence to support putting me back on the living death drugs!!! i am calling for the indescriminate use of anti psychotics and the enforced drugging of so called 'mental patients' to be stopped. the losers if this was implemented would be the drug companies whose interests are best served by the medical model of psychiatry.

Why is this idea important?

i have recently come of  depixol after nearly 30 years of being drugged and behaving as a 'good' quiet, helpless voiceless mental patient. i suffered a severe reaction even after a slow reduction over 15 months. the mental health team knew of my distress but refused the help i so desperatley needed. i went through a profoundly disturbing and frightening week after asking to see a counsellor. i explained to a c.p.n. how i was fluctuating frighteningly between the real world and the psychotic one. i was determined not to be remedicated but needed to talk through the process i now recognise as spiritual emergence. help was denied and because i had a heated few words on the phone with various mental health people they arrived a week later armed with the drug briefcase (two of them) i refused them entry. the only help offered was a list of workshops for me to attend in the future. they inadvertantly shot themselves in the foot tiough because i found the strength to come through this and had they actually bothered to come and see me the week before they would have found evidence to support putting me back on the living death drugs!!! i am calling for the indescriminate use of anti psychotics and the enforced drugging of so called 'mental patients' to be stopped. the losers if this was implemented would be the drug companies whose interests are best served by the medical model of psychiatry.

End the Mental Health “penal” system

End the use of NHS Mental Health Services as a penal system for criminals. Ill health is not the same as bad behaviour" and cannot be cured by Cognitive Behavioural Therapies. A crime against another person is exactly that – a crime.

Why is this idea important?

End the use of NHS Mental Health Services as a penal system for criminals. Ill health is not the same as bad behaviour" and cannot be cured by Cognitive Behavioural Therapies. A crime against another person is exactly that – a crime.

Not sure if this went in first time so… Complaints in NHS Psychiatry.

Why  is it so hard?  You need a body to, in some cases, physically pull bad staff off of their victims.  The problem is that if a shrink makes a false allegation the compalints process is long and extremely unreliable.  And being treated for the wrong illness is extremely painful.

Obviously if the pain and stress stay on you will not recover, and that is the problem really.  That benefits bill is huge, and a lot of it will be bad medicine.  It's all fine and dandy saying 'that was ages ago', but what if they had got better and returned to work ages ago?

Cheaper, more humane, and luverley.

 

Instead we have a true nightmare, with many service users living an utter hell.  Myself included.  i am delusional, and should be ignored at all times apparently.  It's never been safe to do that.  And this shrink and her rolling on of bad work, reliably backed up by people who flat refused to check the facts and the quality of her work,  is part of the problem.

Since when were Shrinks bullet-proof?  Indeed.

 

The problem is they flat refuse to also uphold the Disablity Discrimnation Act around here as well.  If you are mentally ill and male you have no rights at all.  Especially if a female staff member complains.  You're guilty on accusation at that point.

Fix it.

 

This does lead into how you will need a Federal Style Police Force, as local cannot be blindly trusted.  My problems are local only, it's that bad.  I feel like I'm being held hostage, as people just won't check teh evidence.

Why is this idea important?

Why  is it so hard?  You need a body to, in some cases, physically pull bad staff off of their victims.  The problem is that if a shrink makes a false allegation the compalints process is long and extremely unreliable.  And being treated for the wrong illness is extremely painful.

Obviously if the pain and stress stay on you will not recover, and that is the problem really.  That benefits bill is huge, and a lot of it will be bad medicine.  It's all fine and dandy saying 'that was ages ago', but what if they had got better and returned to work ages ago?

Cheaper, more humane, and luverley.

 

Instead we have a true nightmare, with many service users living an utter hell.  Myself included.  i am delusional, and should be ignored at all times apparently.  It's never been safe to do that.  And this shrink and her rolling on of bad work, reliably backed up by people who flat refused to check the facts and the quality of her work,  is part of the problem.

Since when were Shrinks bullet-proof?  Indeed.

 

The problem is they flat refuse to also uphold the Disablity Discrimnation Act around here as well.  If you are mentally ill and male you have no rights at all.  Especially if a female staff member complains.  You're guilty on accusation at that point.

Fix it.

 

This does lead into how you will need a Federal Style Police Force, as local cannot be blindly trusted.  My problems are local only, it's that bad.  I feel like I'm being held hostage, as people just won't check teh evidence.