Spies Like Us : The True Powers of Forensic Psychiatry In British Hospitals

Preface

Ever clapped eyes on a medico-legal report ? It's not that likely you have . But here is one , of sorts . It must be explained now, that my own bias as the producer of this thread , is towards Human Rights , all 30 articles of them . There is I hope no personal paranoia in what follows , but I beleive the following facts need to be seen within a 'worst-case' scenario , in which Human Rights are being obliterated on purpose , in medico-legal way .

The following exposes those who may wish to abuse our Human Rights further , creating a carte-blanche to carry on doing so, with a view towards 'micro-control' of every single member of society, working within or without of the system itself.. We need to assume that the governors and law-makers in charge of the 'system' may at some time have at least slightly sociopathic tendencies , if not already . It should be remembered that the current atmosphere of surveillance culture prevails and may in the facts revealed here grow into dark clouds which truly do threaten us with a Nazi-style ultra-controlling state. A medico-nazi style nightmare , for all of us .

Introduction : The Powers The 'Psychs'

The area where medicine and law overlap , is being heavily exploited . This investigation will attempt to identify just what is being made possible , through the powers that the NHS have , and through the channels by which the NHS is being controlled . We will identify the other agencies being used to enforce these new powers , and how they all have a central controlling feature - psychiatry .
Through psychiatrists, some of the highest paid 'professionals' in the world of medicine , the entire population of the UK is now potentially subject to arbitrary arrest and detention , for indefinite periods . Why? Because if psychiatrists decide that you , no matter who you are , need their 'help , support and advice' , they can take you from wherever you are , and make sure that you receive it .

Abstract

"NOOOO !!" I hear you say , "IT CAN'T BE !!" as you are being dragged into an ambulance, by the police , en route to the 'funny farm' , for a little 'holiday'.
"OH YES ," says Churchill the British Bulldog , and "Yes We Can" says Obama too . But our investigation remains on British soil for now .

Forensic Psychiatry

From wiki

Forensic psychiatry is a sub-speciality of psychiatry and an auxiliar science of criminology. It encompasses the interface between law and psychiatry. A forensic psychiatrist provides services – such as determination of competency to stand trial – to a court of law to facilitate the adjudicative process.

The example put of the services an FP (Forensic Psychiatrist) provides , is but a tiny relevance to the true implications this profession can carry against people . For example , if a criminal claims to be insane rather than answer to his crime in prision , and the FPs agree , he is going to be spending some more time with the FPs , within the units they run . These have 3 categories - high secure , medium secure , and low-secure . One more step down is towards the Psychiatric Intensive Care Units (PICU s) which also are surrounded by high fences , and work closely with the Forensic departments , usually on the same sites .

Direct from Court , or through services known as 'prision inreach' , are not the only routes in to FP wards . People can be 'sectioned' (Mental Health Act) directly into Forensic Services from being 'free' citizens , or can be moved from PICU to Forensics , if it is deemed necessary .

A critical issue to those drawn into picu or forensics, is what is the route out ? Well to address this directly , there is no route out , unless the 'doctors' decide you can be discharged . You can appeal to a tribunal for your release , but those who decide on your case will be 3 : a psychiatrist , a magistrate , and a social worker .
At the tribunal you will be subject to a doctors report outlining why you are not to be released. Your solicitor will put to the tribunal why you should be released . This is the first area of common ground to be investigated . And this is the hardest aspect for those who wish to retain you indefinitely in some cases , to 'sew up' . The common ground is here : all 3 are paid and selected for their positions by the same common players : the social worker and the doctor are paid by the NHS and recruited through Primary Care Trusts , so if the Dept of Health can place these correctly , there is no way you can be released , by majority verdict . The loose cannon , is the magistrate , but who pays her? The Ministry of Justice . And who is also under the selection regulations of this Ministry? Forensic Psychiatrists ; therefore hemmed in you remain . And you already had to wait several months, for another tribunal, according to the laws . 'Medicine' enforced by law ; the medico-legal nightmare .
The ultimate common ground between Health Ministry and Justice Ministry is the cabinet office , chaired by the deputy prime minister . So God help you if you become a political prisoner in this way . Several fundamental Human Rights , just bit the dust .

The Forensic Psychiatrists

A medico-legal report , is not something you personally ever want to be subject to . The 'team' which produces this , are literally the new spies , with untold powers over the collation of many many records held on you , in combination with your medical files . If you happen to not be diagnosed with a mental disorder , these teams can arrange that you do become diagnosed . This is another tricky area to 'sew up' , however in these days of micro-control, it can now easily be arranged to prove that a study conducted on your behaviour reveals a condition which cannot be left to go untreated . Information which 3rd parties have provided on you is not available to you even by request of your records ; now you are left being questioned over factors you had no idea they were still holding against you . You argued with your wife during your previous marriage , your neighbours phoned with concerns you were beating her . Police overhead you shouting and recorded concerns for your mental health . They left when they heard your altercation had subsided, from outside your house. Now you must be detained without even knowing this because it is in the interests of both her safety and your own , and it is a matter of 'managing risk' to protect society ; you are potentially a violent offender , you must now remain in our custody . While we assess that 'fact'.

The Team ; (multi-agency aka stasi)

Now the 'team' have this information , and have carried out further surveillance and made you paranoid while doing so , you are to be sectioned . A doctor (GP) , a psychiatrist , and a social worker will accompany the police to your location , or the police will detain you on a section 136 for the interview They will peruse any files they wish before hand > you have a penchant for expensive kitchen knives, it seems from your list of receipts . You are asking , why is this happening? We cannot give out legal advice , but you may contact your solicitor , as long as the police phone the right one up in time .
While you are in 'hospital' , you will bcome familiar with the following terms : (HR view translations ascribed)

Service User (you) - The prisoner

Admission - Detention

Care - Control/subjection to medications/the hidden agenda

Service Provision - Enforcement

Observations (Obs) - Continual surveillance / seeking incriminating evidence

Illness - The disease you are assigned for life by psychiatric opinions and 'feelings'

Treatment - 'what happens' to people diagnosed 'mentally ill' under sections of the mental health act 1986/2007


While you are there , if you are questioning at all the fact you are there , the term 'lack of insight' will be assigned to your mentality. The same if you question the authority and qualifications of the enforcers to which you will be subject to 24/7

If you try to refuse treatment .care medication of any sort , , the term ' non-compliance' will apply to you . This will mean that you cannot be trusted, and will remain without hope of any discharge , becasue it will be 'felt' that you cannot be 'managed' correctly as a service user in the wider environment .

Last but not least , you will know and see this term in action - Control and Restraint (C&R) . Just so you realise there is no getting out of it . In 'de escaltion' you likely to be injected with a drug the effects of which last several days , or immediately 'put to sleep' . You will not be asked to read the label before using these pharmacuetical creations.

So at this point , how many of your 30 original human rights are left ? This may be a good question to answer in replies .

Yesterday I read a research paper (one of very few) investigating the subject of low-secure forensic wards . It analysed a selection of individual patients and collated their experiences as service users . I am running out of time but I will post the relevant links if people wish to read it .

In summary of this paper , I gleaned the pertinent facts . The study found group themes of
1 . Sense of vulnerability
2. Sense of powerlessness
3. An sense of interuption of life
4. A sense of meaninglessness

All the service users , or should i say prisoners , felt they had been 'taken away' and that their experience , in the hospital ward , under the governance of doctors, nurses , and health-care assistants , beleived that what was happening to them was in fact a punishment . Another over-riding theme was mistrust . Mistrust of everybody .

Equation of illness and punishment , is the world of medico-legal professionals like forensic psychiatrist , yet exactly the same processes and situation apply to those detained in a PICU , who have likely never committed any crime . It is really all about this
Managing Risk . If they can invent a feeling that you are a risk to others , or a risk to yourself , then the measures used against your rights and freedoms are viewed , self-righteously ,as Protecting Society or the primary goal of the NHS ; your CARE .That really is the crux of it . They really care about making sure you dont have access to your rights . Any of them .

Hope and pray you do not get subsumed into this system . If you do , request your medical records and any rights you do hold , like a solicitor , immediately . Remember there are 'mystery shoppers' going into this environment . To finish the thread , and provide further insight , I have brought from the study some factors which may please these people (from FPs to HCAs) who are making 'notes' on you , all day every day .It is up to you which 'frameworks' you use to understand the following , as per the preface/description of rights methodology .
Decide on and reply if you wish , which framework applies here >
Containment and Persecution vs Recovery and Respite
Consider in light of the above choice the security distinction between what the clinicians decide and the therapy that they provide .

Take note :

It is expected of service users , to

Integrate their experiences into their identity and ways of understanding the world
Develop an empowered identity of competance and agency
Recognise the 'problem'
Transform themselves to fit with new circumstances
Use MH services to aid 'transformation'
Reach out to others for support
Integrate their experiences and take part in interventions
Have beleif in their own sense of self-efficacy

It is expected of service users, not to

Deny or seal over their mental illness
Minimise actions or deny responsibility
Excuse or justify wrong actions or have ddenial issues
Be passive through the process


In view of the above , and other issues not here mentioned ,such as stigma connected to mental ill health and the professionally held view of psychosis being dangerous and 'other' from illness like depression ,
I will point out that when people are shamed , as they continually are by the constant 'knowing better' of professional and health care plus legal views and opinions of them , they suffer shame from denial of their rights (like seeing their families) . People who are shamed feel inferior , powerless, vulnerable to punishment , and unattractive . My last comment not addressed by any study available to us and likely as ignored as possible - what of the psycho-sexual health of service users . How , with all that is expected of these people alledged to SUFFER with mental health 'issues' are they ever going to escape ?

What is possible with this investigation's puposes in mind , is the ending of all human rights , all democracy , all justice , all freedom . 'Feelings' replace facts and evidence as soon as a system such has this has gripped you . It does not matter if you 'feel' that your notes are wrong . The door to the medico-nazi world of micro-control is now standing wide open

I hope you have enjoyed reading this and it serves to enrich the content of ATS .
Do use a search for related links , ie Ministry of Justice , Department of Health , Mental Health Act , MI5
Forensic Psychiatry /psychology / mental health particularly psychotic disorders .
Look up the psychotic condition , Delusional Disorder , and realise that this new disease is anyone's condition , applicable to anyone it should choose . All it needs is a 'host' psychiatrist or two , and you will NEVER get rid of its paracitism . One last fact , lest you forget , your medical records are held for 125 years . Stay friends with your GP .

zipmatt Aug 2011
(x15strawberry/mivvy)

When a person is highly psychotic they can get sectioned if they are a danger to them selves or others.... This is done obviously for the safety of the individual concerned and or the public.

The nature of psychosis means that the individual is often no longer able to make rational decisions therefore trained and qualified individuals need to make that decision for them. It isn't just one lone Dr that does the sectioning.

Are you saying that no-one should be sectioned?

reply to post by Versa


Are you choosing the framework > which applies?

reply to post by ZIPMATT

it is necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons, and such treatment cannot be provided unless they are detained under this Section

section 3 of the mental health act

Sectioning takes place in order to treat a person who is otherwise refusing treatment and shows clear signs of being a danger to themselves or others....

You didnt answer my question.... are you suggesting that a very psychotic person who is a danger to either themselves or others should not be treated?

reply to post by Versa


We do not have the luxury of being able to broadstate a case for or against sectioning . The case here is not against it , but identification of possible misuse of sectioning and general psychiatrtric services for nefarious reasons. Are you saying that sectioning cannot be used to incarcerate upon inculcations of a person being a danger to others? If so, what safeguards against this practise exist ?
In a court of law > firm evidence is required to incarcerate a person > evidence they have committed a crime.
In a psychiatric setting > what evidence is required that the person poses a danger to others, and how is this assessed and verified ? Can the 'evidence on which a person is detained be viewed by the person or those responsible for them for the purpose of validation?
In other words,
Are people who become subsumed by the mental health act really safe from those who enact these powers?

reply to post by ZIPMATT

Originally posted by ZIPMATT what safeguards against this practise exist ?

You already answered this question yourself in your initial post.....

Originally posted by ZIPMATT You can appeal to a tribunal for your release , but those who decide on your case will be 3 : a psychiatrist , a magistrate , and a social worker .
At the tribunal you will be subject to a doctors report outlining why you are not to be released. Your solicitor will put to the tribunal why you should be released .

Its also worth noting that there are more than 3 people attending the Tribunal, you will also have Mental Health Nurses and OT's attending and giving their reports. Also the professionals deciding on the case will not be the same as those that applied for the section in the first instance.

The referral to the tribunal is automatic and is completed at the same time as the section therefore every person that is sectioned has a tribunal.

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
what evidence is required that the person poses a danger to others, and how is this assessed and verified ?

It is assessed by a TEAM of TRAINED Mental Health PROFESSIONALS.... Either through observation or discussions with the patient. Either the patient has already harmed themselves or others and their words and or actions indicate a high likelihood of repeating these actions or their words or actions indicate that they intend to do so... Mental Health Nurses and other professionals are trained in observational skills and know what signs they are looking for.

A section can be rescinded at any point if it is shown that the person no longer presents a threat to themselves or others.

reply to post by Versa


would you agree that the abuse of psychiatric confinement is probably an easier way to have someone locked away than by framing in court?


in court, you should have a case, complete with evidence that typically extends beyond (expert) opinion, while any tribunal inevitably means your life and liberty are subject to vote by people who just don't need any material evidence to 'convict' you, which by default *has* to lower the threshold enormously, especially considering the relatively small pool they come from.

if the judicial system allows criminals like this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

to act freely for years, it's hard to imagine the full extent of abuse a psychiatric system is capable of. if they drug you of course you'll look crazy, so good luck convincing them that you aren't.

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by Versa

 

would you agree that the abuse of psychiatric confinement is probably an easier way to have someone locked away than by framing in court?

As it would require the complicity of almost an entire hospital full of staff. (nurses, support workers, OTs, Psychiatrists, Social workers, Psychologists etc) plus the outside tribunal members and your solicitor I don't agree no....

Originally posted by Long Lance

it's hard to imagine the full extent of abuse a psychiatric system is capable of. if they drug you of course you'll look crazy, so good luck convincing them that you aren't.

Which medication exactly would they be treating you with that made you 'look crazy' if you weren't? By that reasoning no-body would ever be released from section as their continued use of medication would make them 'look crazy'

Originally posted by Versa


As it would require the complicity of almost an entire hospital full of staff. (nurses, support workers, OTs, Psychiatrists, Social workers, Psychologists etc) plus the outside tribunal members and your solicitor I don't agree no....

fair enough, although i'd be surprised if the lower echelons will be able to do very much. all they could do is file a complaint, no?

Which medication exactly would they be treating you with that made you 'look crazy' if you weren't? By that reasoning no-body would ever be released from section as their continued use of medication would make them 'look crazy'

we are talking about foul play, aren't we? if you were unjustly detained anyway, they might as well drug you against the books.

Originally posted by Long Lance
fair enough, although i'd be surprised if the lower echelons will be able to do very much. all they could do is file a complaint, no?

Not exactly, every decision regarding a sectioned patient is done by a multi-disciplinary team. The decisions aren't made by one individual. If any member of the team (including support staff) had concerns then a review would be done and that would entail a large group of people including the client/patients own solicitor. Things have changed somewhat since One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest....

Originally posted by Long Lance
we are talking about foul play, aren't we? if you were unjustly detained anyway, they might as well drug you against the books.

Again, who are 'they'?

The nursing staff change 3x per day and a minimum of 2 staff check and dispense medication at all times so at least 2 members of staff on each shift every day would have to be aware of any drugs given and sign for them.

Drugs are counted in and out by a pharmacist and his staff (who dont work on the ward or often even in the hospital)

Originally posted by Versa
reply to post by ZIPMATT

 

Originally posted by ZIPMATT what safeguards against this practise exist ?

You already answered this question yourself in your initial post.....

Originally posted by ZIPMATT You can appeal to a tribunal for your release , but those who decide on your case will be 3 : a psychiatrist , a magistrate , and a social worker .
At the tribunal you will be subject to a doctors report outlining why you are not to be released. Your solicitor will put to the tribunal why you should be released .

Its also worth noting that there are more than 3 people attending the Tribunal, you will also have Mental Health Nurses and OT's attending and giving their reports. Also the professionals deciding on the case will not be the same as those that applied for the section in the first instance.

The referral to the tribunal is automatic and is completed at the same time as the section therefore every person that is sectioned has a tribunal.

Firstly ,thanks for your replies , and for including accurately worded information to work with .
In answer to your response , then if the tribunal is the only safeguard against false imprisonment which exists , then the system lacks balance . As you state other workers are present and are unlikely to detract from the decision of the 'team;, which is led by a consultant psychiatrist . The same senior psychiatrist is also responsible for a patient's entire duration of admission , and may make decisions without other team members and may produce reports which team memebers and tribunal may or may not be made aware of , without inclusion of the patient who should be entitled to the facts or evidence .
For a tribunal , which is a token gesture towards rights , allowed only every 6 months maximum , to guarantee reports/observations/evidence as factual information counting against a person's release would be an extremely costly exercise in itself . What is there in terms of real evidence , which a tribunal can certainly depend upon , firstly to state that a person is ill , and secondly to state that they should not be released?
At what point is a doctors report to a tribunal become confirmed to contain factual information? For example a person is described as having been hoarding weapons at home > at what point does he or she become guilty of this and how was this evidence gained and assessed? At which point does the tribunal decide that the person who claims an innocent reasoning is indeed innocent or not ?
A lot depends on these decisions.
Do people who really beleive in justice consider that bearing the burden of a person's continued imprisonment
is a task which would easily undertaken within the space of a couple of hours , and at most an afternoon?
In my opinion then a tribunal reamins a token gesture offering no kind of safeguard at all?
Medical opinion , and suspension of the evidence evaluation necessary in law , is allowed to over-rule actual justice and commonly held laws within these meetings > is that something you feel is ok?
A forensic psychiatrist especially can collate and miscollate a wealth of information against service-users with impunity and without oversight, while the service user is owner nor commander of nothing against this kind of assault. Some , if not all medical notes and records remain permanently unavailable. The user is not even trusted with a pen. Are we expected to trust in the piety and goodwill of psychiatrists implicitly and without question? How likely is it that the Care Quality Commission would intervene, even in multiple cases of gross injustice? Going by Winterbourne View these institutions are potentially a hole from which a person can never escape. Actual police operating within these institutions appear to be as rare as hen's teeth > leaving us with a state which can drug and enforce its way into anyone's life permanently. Does any other safeguard against false imprionment/ erroneous use of 'evidence' exist ?

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
what evidence is required that the person poses a danger to others, and how is this assessed and verified ?

It is assessed by a TEAM of TRAINED Mental Health PROFESSIONALS.... Either through observation or discussions with the patient. Either the patient has already harmed themselves or others and their words and or actions indicate a high likelihood of repeating these actions or their words or actions indicate that they intend to do so... Mental Health Nurses and other professionals are trained in observational skills and know what signs they are looking for.

A section can be rescinded at any point if it is shown that the person no longer presents a threat to themselves or others.



What is permissible in terms of observations? Actual spying on a person before during and after sectioning? While seeking incriminating evidence?
What is permissible in terms of harm? The person does not bother to tie their shoelaces? Others have 'felt' scared of the patient and this constitutes an indication of likelihood? Of perceived or imperceptible psychological harm?
What is permissible in terms of likelihood? Or indications? Does the person wish to extricate themselves from any further interventions? In the case of unknown Winterbourne victim, did he wish to run away? Was that person, with learning disabilities, violent in self defence? Were his words and actions perceived and recorded as agressive before during and after these attrocities? Did he wish to complain?

The terms you have used are in use , and indicate a very high likelihood of being available for professional misuse , as they stand . A maximal amount of medical or opinionated interpretation without defined boundaries is pre-loaded into a clearly defined medical protocol to be enforced against any service user.
What quantitve or qualitative assessment is applied in this decision and how is it overseen by who? Again we are down to the sole interpretations opinions and leadership of select psychiatrists , who prepare reports directly to undermine the service users chances within a tribunal.
Words like 'trained and professional' just push the doors even further open for abuses, and severe abuses at that.
Would the service user themselves be informed of exactly why their section is not being recinded? Would they everytime know why it was felt they may harm someone or themselves?

Originally posted by Versa

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by Versa

 

would you agree that the abuse of psychiatric confinement is probably an easier way to have someone locked away than by framing in court?

As it would require the complicity of almost an entire hospital full of staff. (nurses, support workers, OTs, Psychiatrists, Social workers, Psychologists etc) plus the outside tribunal members and your solicitor I don't agree no....

Complicity or ignorance of complicity between others is easily gained by those who both know and control the system within a hospital ward.

Being framed in Court requires far greater effort for anyone to acheive a sucessful detention. For example you need incriminating evidence. And that is only the beginning. Protection from liability for such an action is not necessarily easy to come by either. Neither of these can happen within a legitmated or supposedly open environment/
In hospital all that is needed is a general 'feeling' of mistrust diected towards a person. One team player can spread rumours or lies very simply, causing staff to close ranks voluntarily. So being framed in hospital environments is a piece of cake in comparison.

Ever since they 'improved' the mental health legislation their is no requirement to attend a court hearing - now they have Tribunals. In Scotland - at least - no-one yet has won heir tribunal hearing.

And no - you most certainly do NOT have to be in a severe psychotic state to be sectioned - not at all. You can be sectioned for being anxious, being vulnerable not keeping your house clean enough etc etc. This is not hearsay - this is experience.

The new 'improved' legislation also means the authorities can insist they come to your house twice a day (compulsory treatment orders) - every day - to supervise medication. Effectively house arrest. If you're not at home they can send out the police and have you sent to the institution. To the institution where there is NO therapy apart from drugs.

Psychiatry - apart from the docs who ought to know better - makes the point of not employing the brightest or the best - its quite deliberate.

Psychiatry prescribes lethal medications for non-fatal conditions. Some of their theories over the years have blown my socks off.

You do NOT require anti-terror legislation when you have the Mental Health Act. Someone can disapear for life - for no good reason.

reply to post by christina-66


thanks for this post its appreciated that validation of the situations being put here is what you have produced.
it cant be nice for people being in constant danger from these services because freedom is so very valuable.
psychiatry is very rarely exposed by the media however i beleive winterbourne view is a stark example as it was a low secure unit for adolecents with learning difficulties. video evidence revealed the screaming of the service users as they were beaten up and dragged about the floor > that is what is possible and i doubt very much it is an isolated one-off. they were as much forced to take drugs as any mental patient and that goes to show that the higher ups were guilty as hell too. no one reporting their injuries, though it is the nhs , covering up the things they were doing to children there , while the very care quality commission denied it was their job and police did not follow up any complaints either. was it then the same group represented in the police and the local council as in the cqc as in the service providers who carried out the abuse , to the brink of attrocity.
there are some seriously evil people walking this earth and they are allowed to carry on torturing innocent children while their types are attracted to these institutions for the purposes of abusing people. if the governemnt is serious at all about justice or actual health they need to regulate this system much better than they do. otherwise a service user will one day walk out with all the evidence he needs and take potentially millions in compensation. and save thousands of men women and children from the government molesters.. or was that a deluded dream i was having?

reply to post by ZIPMATT


do you honestly believe this is really all a mistake? if you had evidence, you'd still be thrown out of court and since you'd start out broke, you would be hard pressed to get anywhere. you could also die unexpectedly, but some will scoff at such paranoia. Naturally, all totalitarian regimes eagerly used mental hospitals to dump dissenters and other 'undesirables', so it's not a stretch of imagination to expect the rulers of today to crave that power and meticulously work towards its unrestricted use.

it's imho only a matter of time until people get snatched for raising doubts about things like global warming or the historic record, openly discussing immigration issues and other politically sensitive topics. after all there's a consensus on all these things, isn't there? if not yet, one could be summoned at any time, i believe.


i'll go out on a limb here and state that a frightening amount of people simply like the idea of removing others, even randomly if all else fails, or do you believe that the poster defending the impeccable tribunal decision as the basis of liberty or confinement & stigma really believes that it's all harmless and that it will stay that way, once mission creep set in? probably not, but if there's one thing to be learned today it's that creeping totalitarianism is in effect carried be a majority. not unanimously of course, but bit by bit and once the pieces fall together it's off to the camps. The madness of crowds and nations turn the entire subject into a farce, since it'd be more economic to evacuate the 'sane' (less affected?) than lock up the loons. of course as days go by i'm growing ever more uncertain in which category i'd personally belong....

/OT

reply to post by Long Lance


there is no mistaking a trap when a trap is set there . as far as i am aware , the use of governement agency positions to single out , trap and indefinitely detain individual people while forcing them to take drugs and suffer reports to be literally made up against them , by a group which the governemtn had or had not identified as operating within its jurisdiction carries a high high rate of compensation if the case was not immediately dismissed. there must exist presupposed motives ; ie child molestation by a multi agency molestation ring leads to long term mental health incarcerations and druggings of those who find out too much about it. there have been very extensive child molestation rings operating mainly through social services in the past > its not an unheard of example. its also a matter of national security

reply to post by ZIPMATT


Psychiatry and its abuses have been a concern of mine for a very very long time.

Psychiatry's targeting of children is appalling - the dishing out of these meds to developing bodies and minds doesn't bear thinking about. But...the targeting of children does appear to be waking up people who always thought 'doctors and lawyers are nice people'.

I do all that I can to speak out on the matter (in life not on the net).

I remain seriously concerned about adult treatment tho - the invasion of life, body and soul is just getting steadily worse.

No I do NOT think it's by accident at all. Psychiatrists know the damage they're doing to people. (Just listen to 'All in the Mind' BBC Radio 4 any time for verification of that) On average a long term psych patient dies 20 years earlier than the national average - howzat for saving on pensions!

The staff the hire tho' - oh dear oh dear.

A client of mine - a psychiatrist (I cannot for the life of me remember the man's name) wrote a book on psychiatry in the early 80's. It's been translated into 38 languages, revised three times and is STILL being used to train psychiatric nurses to this day. Anyhow - he told me his book was a load of bull. He said he had hopped on the chemical imbalance theories of the time (now of course they're attempting to explain this away genetically - howzat for no hope?). It was early in his career and he wanted to make an impression.

He then states 'it's the way people are treated that's the problem' and told me about a client he had at the time. A teenage girl of 16 who only got out of her room when her mother died. I'm talking about the girl's entire life. Prior to her becoming his patient - the girl's former psychiatrist considered that due to the girl's lack of social skills she ought to be diagnosed schizophrenic. Howzat for out and out stupidity? Or just plain laziness.

reply to post by ZIPMATT


Yep - agree 100%. One patient I knew was a peace studies expert based in Northern Ireland (he was Scottish) and claimed to be a political prisoner. He was under a 6 month section - appealed and won. This is before the Tribunals - when in front of a Judge very very occasionally some patients did win their case.

I believed the guy.

reply to post by christina-66


hey i am glad you are here then , i have some 15 years of concern about this too , after reading rd laings book , the politics of experience . i'd have gained an a level in social sciences (psychology) which i started after that but found myself generally disgusted by the subject and left the course. these days i find it more interesting, as i have seen the effect psychiatrist can have on people. an ex girfriend of mine volunteered herself into psychiatric services back in the 90s and she came out in an even worse state having been issued drugs and told to leave.
they dont seem to care much about people feeling suicidal and needing counselling , as the psychiatrist made clear to me when i complained to him about the treatment.

a friend of mine who runs an a and e wing had to recall mental health brigade when a young girl came in threatening to kill herself. they told him"she's fine" and to send her home. the same day she was rushed back in after having made an attempt at taking her own life.

so it is psychotic people they are really after , people are unlikely to be detained as a danger to themselves. is this a reasonable presumption to make in your opinion? the political prisoner - did he have a diagnosis yet?