End the Promotion of Mental Health Discrimination

Create Third-sector Co-operatives.

Use local and national government to create true "cooperatives", using the principles of the "International Co-operative Alliance", (i.e. not "partnership agreements", which are quite different) which may bring together Heads and CEOs of local NHS Trusts, Social Services and community charities focussed on mental health and wellbeing. Such a cooperative would help generate new initiatives outside the limit of the NHS remit and funds.

These cooperatives should be guided by the "World Federation for Mental Health", part of the W.H.O. and UNESCO, an organisation which focusses both on health AND education (which is fundamental to reducing stigma).

A cooperative may bring together all issues of wellbeing such as physical and mental conditions. Mental Health must not be promoted at the expense of physical health or general wellbeing.

Why is this idea important?

Create Third-sector Co-operatives.

Use local and national government to create true "cooperatives", using the principles of the "International Co-operative Alliance", (i.e. not "partnership agreements", which are quite different) which may bring together Heads and CEOs of local NHS Trusts, Social Services and community charities focussed on mental health and wellbeing. Such a cooperative would help generate new initiatives outside the limit of the NHS remit and funds.

These cooperatives should be guided by the "World Federation for Mental Health", part of the W.H.O. and UNESCO, an organisation which focusses both on health AND education (which is fundamental to reducing stigma).

A cooperative may bring together all issues of wellbeing such as physical and mental conditions. Mental Health must not be promoted at the expense of physical health or general wellbeing.

Ban of semi automatic firearms and pistols

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

Why is this idea important?

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

Cut 95% of the red tape in the NHS (especially the Mental Health side).

I believe that we could cut 95% of the red tape in the NHS (especially in the Mental Health field) and provide a better service to more patients while reducing stress of front line staff and saving money.

So much of the paperwork, audits and computer inputting is not needed to give practical and psychological healp to the patient and is in fact a major distraction and hindrance to this aim.

By using IT systems intelligently and allways focussing on whether an action will benefit the patient or just sustain our own organisation we could be so much more efficient, effective and a better service.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that we could cut 95% of the red tape in the NHS (especially in the Mental Health field) and provide a better service to more patients while reducing stress of front line staff and saving money.

So much of the paperwork, audits and computer inputting is not needed to give practical and psychological healp to the patient and is in fact a major distraction and hindrance to this aim.

By using IT systems intelligently and allways focussing on whether an action will benefit the patient or just sustain our own organisation we could be so much more efficient, effective and a better service.

Prevent psychiatrists forcing harmful drugs on people.

The drugs that psychiatrists routinely force on people are deeply harmful drugs. I have taken at least a dozen of them. I have a terrible permanent disabling movement disorder, the inability to sit still. My mind is permanently damaged, the thoughts coming too fast or too slow. My fine coordination has been damaged, making writing awkward. Also some of my bodily functions have been damaged. The drugs dull the mind, prevent thought. They inhibit movement and we express ourselves with movement. They have a profound negative effect on a person. I have suffered unbearable pain, inner restlessness and the muscles feeling as if they are trying to move. I have been unable to walk properly because of abnormal muscle tone, in my case these effects weren't permanent. These drugs, called antipsychotics, can cause diabetes and osteoperosis and are toxic to the heart. Their effects are illness and mental illness. The forced use of them needs to stop.

Why is this idea important?

The drugs that psychiatrists routinely force on people are deeply harmful drugs. I have taken at least a dozen of them. I have a terrible permanent disabling movement disorder, the inability to sit still. My mind is permanently damaged, the thoughts coming too fast or too slow. My fine coordination has been damaged, making writing awkward. Also some of my bodily functions have been damaged. The drugs dull the mind, prevent thought. They inhibit movement and we express ourselves with movement. They have a profound negative effect on a person. I have suffered unbearable pain, inner restlessness and the muscles feeling as if they are trying to move. I have been unable to walk properly because of abnormal muscle tone, in my case these effects weren't permanent. These drugs, called antipsychotics, can cause diabetes and osteoperosis and are toxic to the heart. Their effects are illness and mental illness. The forced use of them needs to stop.

Emancipating People to Have A Say In Society

The 'Law'  that needs to be discarded is the one that ensures that ' you'  will continue to have jaundiced views on the social and moral rectitude of disabled claimants who cannot work. Our sole means of subsistence is via the grudging state benefits – one half of minimum subsistence at best! – which are under threat on your pretext of  'economising'.  

I refer to the Law that stipulates that no sitting MP shall have or have had direct experience of mental ill-health.  The ring of fear of disclosure – Stigma – that this creates, ensures that everyone with back-ground experience as to where people with mental health needs are coming from with our disabilities – anyone 'grounded' in our issues, is Banished from the forums of Parliament and gagged from putting the light of their experiences to good effect to inform the decisions which deeply affect our section of society, taken by you, but apt to be mis-construed by you because your decisions are taken oblivious of the nature of our experiences and perspectives!  

In case you do not quite see the drift of this,  the implementation of the Employment Support Allowance, which discards recognition of incapacity and any duty to meet commitments to the continuing care needs of incurably ill people – uninformed by our perspectives as claimants, goes nowhere near meeting the needs of disabled people from any perspective and is not fit for purpose.  It is not Of the people or By the people or For the people.  It is in our Faces as Anti-democratic as well as Anti-disability.  It is directed At us and is loaded with compulsions that most disabled people regard as harassment, since we have no hope of measuring up to the mis-construed expectations placed upon us.  I am prompted to respond:  NO COMPULSION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!  

Unsurprisingly, I among many do not take kindly to the course being set for us – that of Whipping Boy and Scape-goat for a society malaise of needing a victim to heap blame and execration upon.  Furthermore, I believe it is incumbent upon MPs to set their own Houses in order, because this is the source of the mis-directed, ill-advised compulsions being levelled at disabled people in general and the mentally ill in particular.  It is also the source of perpetuating stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory measures levelled against some of the most vulnerable people in our society.  

Why is this idea important?

The 'Law'  that needs to be discarded is the one that ensures that ' you'  will continue to have jaundiced views on the social and moral rectitude of disabled claimants who cannot work. Our sole means of subsistence is via the grudging state benefits – one half of minimum subsistence at best! – which are under threat on your pretext of  'economising'.  

I refer to the Law that stipulates that no sitting MP shall have or have had direct experience of mental ill-health.  The ring of fear of disclosure – Stigma – that this creates, ensures that everyone with back-ground experience as to where people with mental health needs are coming from with our disabilities – anyone 'grounded' in our issues, is Banished from the forums of Parliament and gagged from putting the light of their experiences to good effect to inform the decisions which deeply affect our section of society, taken by you, but apt to be mis-construed by you because your decisions are taken oblivious of the nature of our experiences and perspectives!  

In case you do not quite see the drift of this,  the implementation of the Employment Support Allowance, which discards recognition of incapacity and any duty to meet commitments to the continuing care needs of incurably ill people – uninformed by our perspectives as claimants, goes nowhere near meeting the needs of disabled people from any perspective and is not fit for purpose.  It is not Of the people or By the people or For the people.  It is in our Faces as Anti-democratic as well as Anti-disability.  It is directed At us and is loaded with compulsions that most disabled people regard as harassment, since we have no hope of measuring up to the mis-construed expectations placed upon us.  I am prompted to respond:  NO COMPULSION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!  

Unsurprisingly, I among many do not take kindly to the course being set for us – that of Whipping Boy and Scape-goat for a society malaise of needing a victim to heap blame and execration upon.  Furthermore, I believe it is incumbent upon MPs to set their own Houses in order, because this is the source of the mis-directed, ill-advised compulsions being levelled at disabled people in general and the mentally ill in particular.  It is also the source of perpetuating stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory measures levelled against some of the most vulnerable people in our society.  

Mental Health Law abuses Civil Liberty and Health Professionalism

Mental Health Law Barbarism

We often hear these days that somebody has been arrested under the Mental Health Act – it is an escape clause for the Police, who do not have to defend their position, for the result is often imprisonment without trial on a section 2 for at least two weeks. This is not the end of it however. If the innocent client expresses anger at being so detained, they will automatically be treated as mentally ill, forced to take drugs, and imprisoned for even longer until they are considered safe to release back into the community. Safe? Yes, the blame game has spread to the mostly sycophant Police State psychiatrist, who now protects him or herself rather than help the client back into the community – “as soon as possible” has become “as long as possible”.

I was arrested under the Mental Health Act by a Police officer on 7june2008. He took me to his local psychiatric hospital. I was given a bed to sleep on, but was shaken awake to be taken to a group of three people to be interviewed. I said to them that I had been woken from a deep sleep and wanted time to wake before an interview, so I departed back to my bed after just twenty seconds with them. To my surprise, I discovered later that I was sectioned by that group of three in my absence as follows: “Placed on S136 MHA for driving erratically. Reluctant to be interviewed but brief assessment reveals thought disorder, irritability, guarded manner suggestive of psychosis. Does not consent to hospitalisation which he needs for assessment.” A wholly prejudiced trio, who observed the letter of the inadequate dictatorial Law (they did actually see me – for 20 seconds!). I was imprisoned for two weeks because I did not wake up sufficiently for their interview at their convenience – who cared about me? I should have genuflected of course. This is not mental health assessment, but the first expression of barbarism.

Having got me onto a section 2 they then immediately proceeded to force tablets onto me – it turns out that section 2 is “assessment and treatment”. How can any engineer of the mind assess somebody impartially if that person is being treated with tablets at the same time? This is ridiculous – not only is the Law mixed up in principle, but the people who use it are also unprincipled. Section 3 is “treatment”. Doctors of Engineering are so qualified because they have learnt how to research and solve problems – these psychiatrist doctors are clearly not educated the same way – any complaint and you are drugged. I have heard that Stalin did the same many years ago.

I asked for a formal Mental Health Review Tribunal, which took place more than two weeks later at another hospital, but I was not allowed to speak. The Lawyer in charge (Tribunals are headed by a Lawyer not a Health Professional) said that, in Law, the Tribunal did not even need me there, though he did allow me to stay and watch the interview with a local psychiatrist (supporting his own trio of colleagues who had sectioned me elsewhere, but who did not turn up – so the evidence to the Tribunal was not even direct, but hearsay!!). I tried to comment on the way through, but the Lawyer in charge admonished me for doing so, and afterwards said that I would not be released from the section 2. My Legal Aid Lawyer was present merely to ensure that the Law was observed, and I had no Psychologist on my side to challenge what was being said (psychologists are better educated and taught how to evaluate behaviour, while psychiatrists merely experiment on people to see how they react to various drugs, especially in response to Police pressure). I was not allowed to see (let alone challenge) the Policeman who had initially arrested me, and he was not invited to the Tribunal either, so poorly is the Law constructed. I had to complain for myself, but clearly at risk of being ejected from the Tribunal! I later asked that the Tribunal should at least explain why I was not released, (I wrote to the Tribunal HQ) but that was refused. This is not justice, this is awful, for there are then no grounds for appeal.

The Law hides all of these people away from challenge. I am convicted with no chance to say anything appropriate in my defence, and perhaps not even to hear the evidence against me. Magna Carta? Parliament has done away with it. I want to see a Magistrate in future please, to allow challenge of the Health professional, as well as the Law.
 

Why is this idea important?

Mental Health Law Barbarism

We often hear these days that somebody has been arrested under the Mental Health Act – it is an escape clause for the Police, who do not have to defend their position, for the result is often imprisonment without trial on a section 2 for at least two weeks. This is not the end of it however. If the innocent client expresses anger at being so detained, they will automatically be treated as mentally ill, forced to take drugs, and imprisoned for even longer until they are considered safe to release back into the community. Safe? Yes, the blame game has spread to the mostly sycophant Police State psychiatrist, who now protects him or herself rather than help the client back into the community – “as soon as possible” has become “as long as possible”.

I was arrested under the Mental Health Act by a Police officer on 7june2008. He took me to his local psychiatric hospital. I was given a bed to sleep on, but was shaken awake to be taken to a group of three people to be interviewed. I said to them that I had been woken from a deep sleep and wanted time to wake before an interview, so I departed back to my bed after just twenty seconds with them. To my surprise, I discovered later that I was sectioned by that group of three in my absence as follows: “Placed on S136 MHA for driving erratically. Reluctant to be interviewed but brief assessment reveals thought disorder, irritability, guarded manner suggestive of psychosis. Does not consent to hospitalisation which he needs for assessment.” A wholly prejudiced trio, who observed the letter of the inadequate dictatorial Law (they did actually see me – for 20 seconds!). I was imprisoned for two weeks because I did not wake up sufficiently for their interview at their convenience – who cared about me? I should have genuflected of course. This is not mental health assessment, but the first expression of barbarism.

Having got me onto a section 2 they then immediately proceeded to force tablets onto me – it turns out that section 2 is “assessment and treatment”. How can any engineer of the mind assess somebody impartially if that person is being treated with tablets at the same time? This is ridiculous – not only is the Law mixed up in principle, but the people who use it are also unprincipled. Section 3 is “treatment”. Doctors of Engineering are so qualified because they have learnt how to research and solve problems – these psychiatrist doctors are clearly not educated the same way – any complaint and you are drugged. I have heard that Stalin did the same many years ago.

I asked for a formal Mental Health Review Tribunal, which took place more than two weeks later at another hospital, but I was not allowed to speak. The Lawyer in charge (Tribunals are headed by a Lawyer not a Health Professional) said that, in Law, the Tribunal did not even need me there, though he did allow me to stay and watch the interview with a local psychiatrist (supporting his own trio of colleagues who had sectioned me elsewhere, but who did not turn up – so the evidence to the Tribunal was not even direct, but hearsay!!). I tried to comment on the way through, but the Lawyer in charge admonished me for doing so, and afterwards said that I would not be released from the section 2. My Legal Aid Lawyer was present merely to ensure that the Law was observed, and I had no Psychologist on my side to challenge what was being said (psychologists are better educated and taught how to evaluate behaviour, while psychiatrists merely experiment on people to see how they react to various drugs, especially in response to Police pressure). I was not allowed to see (let alone challenge) the Policeman who had initially arrested me, and he was not invited to the Tribunal either, so poorly is the Law constructed. I had to complain for myself, but clearly at risk of being ejected from the Tribunal! I later asked that the Tribunal should at least explain why I was not released, (I wrote to the Tribunal HQ) but that was refused. This is not justice, this is awful, for there are then no grounds for appeal.

The Law hides all of these people away from challenge. I am convicted with no chance to say anything appropriate in my defence, and perhaps not even to hear the evidence against me. Magna Carta? Parliament has done away with it. I want to see a Magistrate in future please, to allow challenge of the Health professional, as well as the Law.
 

Repeal the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and in Scotland

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is a cause for concern in England & Wales and a Master of the Royal Courts has asked me to be a "protected party" under the Act when NOT A PATIENT as CTO was revoked.  The case has been stayed for 4 years causing a civil liberty issue.

It is not for a judge to decide capacity of a patient to plead in a civil or criminal case – ALL people are subject to the Access to Justice Act 1999 and therefore NO PERSON should be denied justice even on a capacity issue.   ALL people can communicate to some degree – some are slower than others and with the Disability Discrimination Act a person should not be discriminated against by a judge pulling a fast one on the ticket of capacity.

If Stephen Hawkins can manage to communicate to any degree so also should anyone who has a mental health capacity.  There is little or no need for this Act save where someone needs some to represent for them and that is not an issue of capacity.

Judges should have patients and with technology it is possible to get information in other formats such as large print, braile, languages and technology should be extended to using email and virtual methods – we are in the 21st century, judges should start behaving as if they are too.

The mental capacity act is abusing human rights of freedom of expression.

 

Why is this idea important?

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is a cause for concern in England & Wales and a Master of the Royal Courts has asked me to be a "protected party" under the Act when NOT A PATIENT as CTO was revoked.  The case has been stayed for 4 years causing a civil liberty issue.

It is not for a judge to decide capacity of a patient to plead in a civil or criminal case – ALL people are subject to the Access to Justice Act 1999 and therefore NO PERSON should be denied justice even on a capacity issue.   ALL people can communicate to some degree – some are slower than others and with the Disability Discrimination Act a person should not be discriminated against by a judge pulling a fast one on the ticket of capacity.

If Stephen Hawkins can manage to communicate to any degree so also should anyone who has a mental health capacity.  There is little or no need for this Act save where someone needs some to represent for them and that is not an issue of capacity.

Judges should have patients and with technology it is possible to get information in other formats such as large print, braile, languages and technology should be extended to using email and virtual methods – we are in the 21st century, judges should start behaving as if they are too.

The mental capacity act is abusing human rights of freedom of expression.

 

Warrant to section someone under Mental Health Legislation should be subject to human rights

Under current mental health legislation a warrant is issued by a justice of the peace, sheriff or judge without a person being party to or present when the document is signed.  The system thereby deprives a person of liberty for 72 hours or one month and is subject to APPEAL.  Currently the system is abused and people who may not have a mental instability or who may not have a severe mental disability are deprived of their liberty contrary to Human Rights legislation, deprived of their ability to speak freely before a judge/jp/sheriff and who may also have an invasion of their privacy by police putting in their front door.  All of this is not monitored or evaluated by human rights legislation and the statutory body regulating mental health is the mental welfare commission NOT human rights commission.  It should be prima facia a human rights issue and people with or without mental health disability should be brought before the JP/Sheriff/Judge or the JP/sheriff/judge should be brought to the person to be detained prior to actual detention.  Moreover, the police should not be able to arrange for a person to be sectioned by writing to an MHO/RMO where a criminal offence is being stated to have been committed – it is not for the police to decide mental health issues it is for the police to investigate and a criminal record number should always be given.  The system is open to abuse and for police officers to fail to do their duty to people who may or may not have mental health disability.

Why is this idea important?

Under current mental health legislation a warrant is issued by a justice of the peace, sheriff or judge without a person being party to or present when the document is signed.  The system thereby deprives a person of liberty for 72 hours or one month and is subject to APPEAL.  Currently the system is abused and people who may not have a mental instability or who may not have a severe mental disability are deprived of their liberty contrary to Human Rights legislation, deprived of their ability to speak freely before a judge/jp/sheriff and who may also have an invasion of their privacy by police putting in their front door.  All of this is not monitored or evaluated by human rights legislation and the statutory body regulating mental health is the mental welfare commission NOT human rights commission.  It should be prima facia a human rights issue and people with or without mental health disability should be brought before the JP/Sheriff/Judge or the JP/sheriff/judge should be brought to the person to be detained prior to actual detention.  Moreover, the police should not be able to arrange for a person to be sectioned by writing to an MHO/RMO where a criminal offence is being stated to have been committed – it is not for the police to decide mental health issues it is for the police to investigate and a criminal record number should always be given.  The system is open to abuse and for police officers to fail to do their duty to people who may or may not have mental health disability.

Right to Patient Choice in Mental Health Services

End the exclusion of all NHS mental health services from the Patient Choice agenda to ensure patients with mental health issues get an equal right to make choices about their treatment and care. 

Why is this idea important?

End the exclusion of all NHS mental health services from the Patient Choice agenda to ensure patients with mental health issues get an equal right to make choices about their treatment and care. 

Allow Mental Health Conditions To Be Used As A Legal / Criminal Defence

Make mental health an allowed defence in Court.

As somone with a mental health issue of Autism, my behaviour is strange, I can be seen to be harrassing or threatening, but that is part of my condition.

My legal team were not alloed to say that I did not understand, as I have this condition, the Police and the courts treat anyone withh a mental health condition like a normal person. They need educating on how people with mental health issues behave, working, and see things.

We are dont act in this way, and our mental health issues hould be taken in to account, as we see the world differently.

So allow mental health to be used as a defence, its against our human rights to now allow this.

Why is this idea important?

Make mental health an allowed defence in Court.

As somone with a mental health issue of Autism, my behaviour is strange, I can be seen to be harrassing or threatening, but that is part of my condition.

My legal team were not alloed to say that I did not understand, as I have this condition, the Police and the courts treat anyone withh a mental health condition like a normal person. They need educating on how people with mental health issues behave, working, and see things.

We are dont act in this way, and our mental health issues hould be taken in to account, as we see the world differently.

So allow mental health to be used as a defence, its against our human rights to now allow this.

Firearms Laws

I am a British Citizen, I am licensed in Australia to carry a firearm in the line of my Job as a Bodyguard and Cash-in-Transit officer. I would like the UK to fall in line with the rest of the world in regards to Bodyguard, Security officers, Police officers. I would also like all firearms laws from 1997 remove and instead of the citizens being punished for doing nothing wrong, the criminals are the ones that are punished. Since the 1997 Gun Laws the crime rate in the UK has not reduced it has in fact gone up.

Why is this idea important?

I am a British Citizen, I am licensed in Australia to carry a firearm in the line of my Job as a Bodyguard and Cash-in-Transit officer. I would like the UK to fall in line with the rest of the world in regards to Bodyguard, Security officers, Police officers. I would also like all firearms laws from 1997 remove and instead of the citizens being punished for doing nothing wrong, the criminals are the ones that are punished. Since the 1997 Gun Laws the crime rate in the UK has not reduced it has in fact gone up.