The purpose of this exercise is to create a thought experiment, which is a model much like the writings of John Le Carre. In this process we examine the possibility that:
It’s sort of a nice theory because it is taking a theory which we already know works, and extending it to a new regime by copying its success, but with different numbers. The problem is that these new models have been developed quite a bit, and they somehow don’t seem to fit the data: they make predictions for precision measurement, but so far none of the measurements give us any evidence that there is some substance to the process, or any other process we know.
Among modern forensic psychiatrists it is circumstantial evidence (it is not set in stone) that that recidivistic tendencies within patients remains the favourite theory regarding schizophrenia and psychotic offending behaviour. It is not the only theory out there; there are alternatives.
The alternative theories, for better or worse, are falling by the wayside, one by one. The field of forensic psychiatry believes it is making progress in psychiatry by ruling out some of the favourite ideas. These days there are very few adherents to the idea of schizophrenic insanity : but we don’t know yet. We have to keep it in mind as a possibility, and keep trying to move forward, because somebody else might have a better idea.
So we are exploring all of these different possibilities; we need some guidance. These are ideas basically inspired by the “known” fact that schizophrenia can’t be the whole story. There are so many possibilities, that we can’t simply go out and say, “Well, maybe this, maybe that, maybe something else” and eventually hope to hit the right answer. We need a little guidance. So guidance comes in the form of clues or puzzles in the existing data – in what we know. The most prominent example comes in the form of the question, “What are the parameters within schizophrenic psychosis that are attached to offending behaviour?”, and “Why are the two factors of symptoms of hallucinations, or voices; and the second factor of medication to counter these deemed so small in significance by the field of forensic psychiatry?”. To a lay-person the factor of voices might sound significant, but to a qualified specialist, as it turns out, it is comparatively small to the scales of other factors.
The following is extracted from a letter I wrote to a friend, December 2017.
Well, it is official that I have ASD (autistic spectrum disorder) and the psyche immediately wishes to ship me out to a specialist place. Sorry to tell you my latest vicissitude -– but that’s the way it goes.
Regarding my maths self-education. I am primarily a compsci network software engineer; secondly I like motors and capacitors; and thirdly study calculus and the history of maths – with history being what I am mostly interested in. I doubt I will ever get a life in the community, so talk about university exceeds the expectations of safely shopping at ASDA – which has been unattainable for me. I have come to accept your wisdom about psychiatry being about law, power, and control. Although I have learnt the hard way, I accept that they some of them, as individuals with individual motives, are not sincere in the way they present unreasonable arguments, and biasing of the facts. The nurses are simply naïve and gullible, and would wish me to disbelieve the way things are. It is a problem, but not one I can influence, affect, or change.
Before I continue, I must confess that I have a vested interest in a change in The Mental Health Act. Law is about predictable, fixed, and predetermined outcome; and without such a change I will be likely to be incarcerated another 20 years on top of the 6 years already done (as of 2018). Some people would wish this to be the case, but I hope to illustrate an example of the way things actually are, before leaving it to somebody else to measure how to make progress and implement changes within the law.
There are 4 over-riding principles of public opinion which need to be addressed.
Everyone needs to be sure that I won’t offend again.
I should rebuild my life to my benefit without risk to anyone else.
I should have treatment for my illness, and help to manage my behaviour.
I should receive continued supervision.
In the British Mental Health Act 1983 – at least, so I gather – was enshrined a principle of “the least restrictive practices”. The motive behind this was to assist me to rehabilitate myself within the community, or nearby to that.
So, the question remains : why are the public so much in danger by current practices? I put it to the reader that they are. I put it to you that dangerous people get released, safe people don’t, and a wider risk from an illness called schizophrenia is very prevalent among sufferers with a non-forensic history -– who seem to go off like a box of Roman candles.
I am aware that the public don’t have my level of experience of my own observations, which I hope the reader will be interested in, in order to receive information to make a viewpoint: hopefully a well-balanced one, instead of a guttural response – which is not always a viable way to understand risk, or a current danger.
It has taken me a number of medicated years to make my observations, so I hope to influence public opinion. One of my literary heroes is George Orwell: not because he wrote “1984”, but because he wrote “The road to Wigan Pier”, and “Coming up for air”. I suspect similar works to these influenced politics and social policy, which I am attempting to do now. Okay, so that is my confession out of the way.
Before we can continue, I must point out that an “idiot” according to the unpolitically-correct viewpoint of psychiatry in the 1950s, was that of a person who had a learning impairment. This is not the definition of the word “idiot” that William Shakespeare used. In Macbeth, “a tale told by an idiot” was “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
My experience of a certain type of patient matches Shakespeare’s description. My observation about them is that their memory is not in any way impaired, but that of a treated schizophrenic is missing bits –- at least, mine is. Stuff happened that I think happened, and in a way I know it did; but the sequence of events whilst living with a zone where time was continually re-writing itself I cannot tell. The Shakespearian idiot can reel off detail after detail of factual events. However, they are lacking in social awareness, or care about other people’s social appraisal. This is not necessarily the case within a schizophrenic –- who I am now going to call a normal person. The word “imbecile” is not relevant to anything here discussed; neither is the word “cretin”. So I shall not be using these words, but they were common parlance in the 1950s where a psychiatrist may have felt superior by categorising people into these groups. As far as I am concerned, a learning impairment is not what I am discussing.
So why did I call a schizophrenic a normal person? Well, I certainly did not say that schizophrenia is a normal illness. It isn’t. It is rare. It is denied to be a split within the mind by lay-people and professionals, who state as a fact that there is not any such thing as a split within the mind. I know otherwise. I suspect that within Ancient Rome (from what I have learnt according to the lectures of Professor Fagan, course number 340, with “The great Courses”), a split within the mind was known to be a phenomenon that people did not deny. I also suspect -– because of the proliferation of lunatic asylums in Victorian Britain –- that this phenomenon was very real to people then too.
I know that the core beliefs of forensic health care professionals are not in accordance with these older viewpoints; and I would like to pause here and pose a purely theoretical hypothesis, which is: what if we are wrong, and they were right? What if the reason why spontaneous acts of harm keep emerging today is because of social policy, but more importantly the sort of misinformation upon which present social policy is built? What then?
So, I think –- or at least, I hope -– I have caught the readers’ attention, and it is my endeavour to continue.
It is a widely held viewpoint that there is safety in numbers. Even Shakespeare said “a dog is obeyed in office” –- I believe that this may have been within King Lear.
A psychiatrist is an expert in the correct combinations of medications to be applied. Oh, but they are so much more than this. They are the last vestige of an older world with old-fashioned laws, where people had absolute powers to dictate the lives and futures of patients. If you have a complaint then speak to your psychiatrist. But what if my complaint was about the psychiatrist misappropriating a position of clinical influence? This is the hypothetical thought experiment I started off this article with. This is purely imaginary in the sense that novels about one spy-catcher discovering the Russian mole within the secret services are no more based upon truth than anything else. So, having said that, let us take the following scenarios.
A psychiatrist has presented an unreasonable argument by distorting facts, not about crimes that have been committed, but about clinical progress.
They all believe that they have super-wonderful qualities, which they adulate each other about, while a member of the public might worry that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
None of this is necessarily true, I hasten to add. I say it to draw an analogy between the industrialised scale of human rights abuses that have occurred historically within the 20th century within Great Britain, regarding child welfare; and how often the abused party had nobody to complain to except the abuser. Later, this was widely recognised to be an unacceptable state of affairs: and after this was known about, things changed in this regard. Authorities did emerge and children are now a lot safer. So, if the psychiatrist and psychologist are judge and jury, then who do I turn to if they do something wrong? More importantly, would they diagnose such a view as a paranoid symptom of psychosis and change my meds? Best keep my mouth shut then. Smile at them instead.
Okay, let’s bring it back. Why is a schizophrenic a normal person? Because you are not lung cancer if you get it. The schizophrenic might recover -- as I have done -- or might not -– like my sister. But in either case the real person might still recover within the broken machinery of a human mind; and to believe that stating that a split mind is an inference that the real person is not still buried somewhere in there, is not logical. Some people deny that the mind can be split, upon their belief that to hold such a viewpoint is to dehumanise the psychotic schizophrenic is some way. I do not share this view. One of my primary nurses once stated to me, “You are the schizophrenia”, as though a broken arm and a person are the same thing; and another good health care worker, told me that a thought which is a schizophrenic delusion is just like any other thought, or fantasy, he or anybody else who is a non- schizophrenic might have had. This viewpoint is so opposite to my experience, I cannot overstate that.
So, now I would like to point out the Shakespearian fool –- as in King Lear -– was the court jester, who was acting as though he had some type of a learning impediment. So a Shakespearian fool has a learning disability; and the modern word “foolish” has the same meaning as the Shakespearian word “idiotic”. Oh dear. I hate it when this happens. Now, if you pick either word, you might insult somebody, because nobody knows what these words means anymore. I shall use the Shakespearian versions, i.e. a Shakepearian fool has a learning impediment.
Now, a Shakespearian idiot is not at all slow (as would be implied by the modern interpretation of the word). They can be good at arithmetic, with good language skills, and talented at card games. However, they can be noticed by what I shall call “idiotic laughter”: which is contagious between idiots, and usually about something which non-idiots would not find particularly amusing; and this laughter is an irritant to non-idiot patients. The sort of laughter is distinct. It involves one idiot saying something, which precipitates another idiot to laugh, which in turn causes the original speaker to break forth in laughter even more; then another one joins in, until there is a cacophony of laughter usually about something very trivial.
The conversation between idiots usually descends to conversations about taking and acquiring illegal drugs, and crime: crime which is not particularly heinous in nature as far as their own relating of their personal experiences are concerned; but there is an endless stream of these incredible stories -– all true –- whenever a group of idiots gets talking. They sound quite scared of gangsters -– at least they seem to revere them. An idiot is not a gangster. Prior to (and even during Victorian times) idiots probably got themselves hanged; and prior to the 18th century, first-class lunatics (which I was) would have gotten themselves burned at the stake as heretics. Now, it is easy to blame this on religion, but Professor Hale, for The Great Courses, points out in his Exploring the Roots of Religion course, that druids and predecessors to Christianity were often practicing human sacrifice (as was then commonplace across the world within agrarian societies). I like to think that people stopped burning lunatics at the stake because of the doctrine of one of the major faiths, if not all of them.
A lunatic laughing is not a social experience. A lunatic will laugh at factors which the lunatic is receiving about events within a parallel Universe. Often these events can be hilariously funny. Have you ever laughed within a dream? I don’t remember most of my dreams, but when I am falling asleep at night my mind drifts, and during later rapid eye movement I am presented with a series or events with conclusions and a punch line: there is a designer to these films who apparently isn’t me, else I would have known the punch line in advance, and hence it would not have been as apparently funny.
Modern day forensic psychiatry relies upon the principle that lunatics and Shakespearian idiots are the same.
Now, an idiot can have god-like delusions about themselves being God, for instance, and hold these beliefs unquestionably and immutably. They can be paranoid, and the slightest hint of paranoia within themselves gets acted upon. Most of them end up in prison –- where they are not selected for the hospital system -– and then they are out again; then back in prison. If and when a psychiatrist gets hold of them they get treated well, and well looked after by nurses. By now they have a psychiatric record, and the system will eventually let them go. Why? Because they meet the criteria for treatment. Do I as a treated lunatic meet this criteria? The answer to that question is no: and this is what I would like to discuss.
In 1896, the Indiana general assembly passed a bill indicating that the Greek letter pi (a mathematical constant) was equal to 3.2. The Indiana senate postponed this bill indefinitely. Why was this proposed? Farm areas are often circular, so for taxation, deeds, and ownership, it is important to know the exact amount of area. So they were trying to standardise pi.
Modern psychiatry is regrettably internationalised and codified. This is a big mistake for public protection. It means that a psychiatrist is effectively behaving religiously – like some kind of a zealot of a faith –- with all answers to all questions written in this big internationalised book. If some relative of a sufferer tells a psychiatrist that the personality of their loved one has profoundly changed, this big internationalised book dictates that this is not the case, that there is no such thing as a split mind, that the Victorians and the ancients were all wrong because we have advanced and know so much more today about the field of forensic and non-forensic psychiatry –- so says the book. The book also dictates that if a scientist with a good brain and an enquiring mind makes such a claim as to disrespect the book, that this person should first gain qualifications about what the book says –- else is completely wrong. The book says, “don’t say idiot” (Shakespearian meaning), and, “don’t say lunatic”, because calling an idiot an idiot would be untherapeutic and cause offence; and the word, “lunacy”, is not to be used because it is now deemed incorrect and unscientific. The book dictates that a split within the mind is impossible; and the law we currently have is totally subordinate to this big internationalised book. Does this sound worrying?
Before I continue, let me just say that it is important is understand that nobody is perfect, authorities can be biased unintentionally, and the intent of an ineffective law is not akin to dastardly laws with mal-intent. But I would like to proceed with the ineffectiveness of the current state of play at public protection.
Also, I must point out that idiocy is not the same thing as a personality disorder; and these are unrelated to each other. I shall not be discussing personality disorders, as this is totally unrelated to a schizophrenic split within the mind, and schizophrenic psychosis.
An idiot often sounds like a phrase book for English when it is being learnt as a foreign language: “What are you doing?”, “Who are you phoning?”, “What type of T-shirt is that?”. An idiot has difficulties anticipating and solving immediate problems such as using the toilet before dinner time, knowing fine well that they will be locked in the dining room until the cutlery is counted in. An idiot is often desperate for the toilet at this moment; whereas a person with another type of diagnosis wouldn’t be. An idiot does not manage to get a surplus of stamps and envelopes, or their weekly supply of 20p coins for the telephone. Instead they know that they can impose their perceived normality of saying, “Have you got? Can I have? Can you change a five pound note?”.
We can classify patients into those who have a high rate of responsiveness to treatment, and those who don’t. The assumption being is that we can do a test to determine which condition a person has: and it personalises the care; because it may not be useful to give psychological treatment to patients who cannot use it in that way.
All the information that the doctors have gotten thus far can help to answer the following questions:
What is going to be the route of administration of treatment?
How often are we going to give this treatment?
How much treatment should we give, that won’t harm the patient?
Remission means after 5 years we can find no symptoms. This does not mean the symptoms aren’t there, as the symptoms may be hidden.
Cure means that there are no symptoms after 10 years.
“Control” means that symptoms are there, but are not growing.
The following is extracted from lecture 36 of Professor John R. Hale's Exploring the Roots of Religion, course number 3650, The Great Courses:
If you look through most archaeology textbooks, where do you find religion? Well, it's the last chapter, or almost the last chapter. It's considered to be something worked up to. It is considered to be something that's part of the complexities; but it is also considered to be as a result of the prime movers in human life: which are held to be subsistence systems -- kinship, and social systems; and economic systems -- that are held to be the real engines of a society. I want to go on record to say to you: I have come to believe that view is false. I believe that religion occupies a primary central place in human affairs; and the way I would like to convince you of that is by pointing out to you the number of cases we have seen where gigantic monuments in a civilisation are entirely devoted to a religious purpose; that the ingenuity of the scientists and engineers is devoted to the religion; and that these same techniques, and the same expenditure of time and wealth doesn't appear in the ordinary lives of the population.
Professor Hale continues:
Often, I find in modern social sciences texts, the relegation of religion to a tool of the elite. At places like Cahokia, we hear lectures on the subject of how the elite of Cahokia -- and we have to imagine this happening somehow consciously in a scheming sort of way -- develop rituals, develop a religious framework in which they will seem essential to the community; and the vast 90, 95, 99, percent of the population do the bidding of the elite because of this religious awe, and fear, and elaborate scenic effects that the elite have surrounded themselves with. I think that this is completely false. I think that societies generate a religious aura, and it is remarkable to me that the elite -- in many cases -- do not live in places more elaborate than the religious facade that they have allegedly created to sustain their own personal lifestyle of grandeur and pleasure.
Okay, so why did I include that beautiful chapter from my favourite lecturer of all time? Well, because it has -- or at least I think it has -– parallels with the Royal College of Psychiatry, in the sense that the human psyche apparently seems to have a built-in need to trust a quasi-religious expert: i.e. a qualified psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. When a defendant makes a plea, it is often after having received advice from a legal team; which is influenced by the sort of inferences which may be contained within psychiatric and psychological reports. If such a report concludes that culpability was present within a paranoid schizophrenic, then it would be unwise for a defendant to hope that the jury would be able genetically to override the built-in hardwiring of the way that their human psyche operates. People have an innate need to trust in a forensic psychiatrist, and thus I realise the enormity of the challenge I am up against presenting this writing to you.
Within psychiatry, the word “clinical” means, locked away within a prison-like institution where no patient can get his or her clinical decisions properly peer-reviewed.
Within animal testing, there are numerous bodies of regulatory control to ensure the animal is not suffering —- at least, not too much.
It is a fact that current social policy (i.e. the lack of distinction between idiocy and lunacy) is economically harmful to the economy of Great Britain. Not only does it cost millions, or the best part thereof, to, in effect, throw away the key; but the country loses my capabilities of wealth creation, or entrepreneurial qualities. How can I work if I am locked away for 23 and a half hours a day on a corridor with a television playing the music channel? The simple answer is that I am never expected to work or start a business ever -– and that is stigmatisation. I have a friend who is now in Egypt, and he is not allowed to return to Great Britain because he had a spate of insanity (causing harm) whilst he was studying here for his phd in chemistry. Now he has to live his life as a freeman but within Egypt. Maybe that is good for Egypt, but it is bad for the economic interests of Great Britain.
So, let’s go to a clinic and ask, “How much of a regime for a specific treatment should we have?”.
Now, I do wish to elaborate upon my experiences at length, and especially elaborate upon my experiences of the decisions and communications I have received from the multi-disciplinary team (MDT). By doing this, I hope to open up a dialogue, and two-way debate, which I believe has been absent from the type of unilateral and one-sided communication and instructions I have been receiving from the MDT -- sometimes contradictory in nature and sometimes at the exclusion of any response to counterevidence or a balanced viewpoint.
Before I debate central themes which I believe form the basis of the MDT's arguments, I wish to point out the way I have been treated in case conference reviews (CCRs), and ward rounds by the responsible clinician ; and in a way this has been reflected in the approach the psychology team have demonstrated within the Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (NTW Trust). By saying this now, I hope to be heard and viewed as some kind of an equal person, not on account of my past, but on account of my presentation and recovery.
Now, the word "presentation" is a relevant theme, because in December 5th 2017 ward round, the responsible clinician has cited my presentation in the September 2017 CCR, as one aspect of justification for the continued withholding of the unescorted ground leave which was taken off me in September 2017. Yet during the CCR of September I was given little opportunity to speak without her interrupting me. At one point during this CCR she even said, "I don't have time for this.". By herself interrupting me, the only way I could respond to any of her remarks was by stating, "This is my CCR. This is my forum of discussion", and I went on to respond deliberately to one of her points which she had made.
During this CCR the responsible clinician (RC), Dr. Barathy, said that comments I had cited about remarks which I had made to the psychologist showed a lack of awareness of the feelings of the psychologist, and that this was evidence of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). Later when I said that the MDT were stopping psychology she said, "There. That is no what we are saying at all. We are not stopping psychology. You have misunderstood this, and that is further evidence of your ASD.". I believe that both of these conclusions are specious, and show clinical bias. When I tried to clarify the issue by saying "Modify", the RC did not acknowledge my clarification and continued talking over me.
In response to the Dr. Barathy's remarks that I had demonstrated ASD by making unempathetic remarks to the psychologist, it would be helpful to know what remarks I claimed I had made. Well, in approximately March or April 2017 I told the psychologist, Dr Rose Jones, that I thought she was looking for docility from a patient, and that she had been stuck in an institution for so long that she had forgotten what ordinary conversation was like. Although I regret making those remarks now, the reason I regret making them is because they have come back to haunt me, not because the I have hurt the psychologist's feelings -- who has subsequently told me that she is professionally thick-skinned anyway. As I explained in the CCR, by having to argue my point against Dr Barathy, I must have felt under scrutiny and attack from Dr Jones, and responded verbally by behaving unkindly and being critical in some kind of a verbal retaliation. I never got the opportunity in the CCR to explain that after doing eye-movement desensitisation therapy (EMDR) with Dr Rose Jones, I feel, looking back on things now, that the professional-to-patient relationship had become untherapeutically akin to that of myself behaving childishly towards a parent-substitute, or someone whom I trusted; and being within that kind of a role I had unwisely attempted to blame the psychologist for my present problems and what I might have found wrong with the world.
Now, to go back to evidence of ASD and the way Dr Jones may also have demonstrated intolerance by over-riding and invalidating my point of view of any discussion of evidence about this; and how this, in a way, is a reflection of how this particular MDT within the NTW Trust have treated me, it must be said that Dr Jones hasn't interrupted me as much as Dr Barathy has, but she has interrupted me when I have been making evidence-based points about ASD. In late summer 2017, I asked Rose whether she could provide me with any concrete evidence of my ASD, to which she replied by saying, "Can you provide any concrete evidence of ASD?", to which I said, "Yes.", and began to reel off a list of evidence based points. She looked displeased and interrupted me, changing the subject. I suggest that if she had any misconceptions about ASD it would be impossible for myself to dissuade her, or shake the foundations of her misconceptions. The evidence-based points I was unable to continue with, because she wouldn't listen, I would like to demonstrate now. Those are :
Do other people have difficulties getting a word in edgeways with me because I sometimes continue talking irregardless of the other person, only aware of my own viewpoints at that particular moment?
Do other people often think or perceive myself as wanting war with them?
Do I try to force my opinion onto somebody else whilst being unaware that I am doing this?
Is my experience that other people sometimes flare up spontaneously at me, and I have no idea why that happened?
Was I isolated and a loner at school?
Do I misunderstand social cues in social settings. Do we have actual evidences instead of presumptions about this?
Do I apparently have little concept how somebody else might feel and respond in anticipation of myself saying something (outside of psychology sessions)?
Do I struggle with the concept of theory of mind, and do I not understand the difference between agents and objects?
In the CCR of September 2017 I cited an example of when I believed that I had recently utilised theory of mind automatically, innately, and spontaneously. I achieved the presentation of this evidence after Dr. Barathy had interrupted me numerous times, and after she had said "I don't have time for this.". In this CCR, Dr Barathy made the following statements to me:
You haven't interacted with issues presented to you.
You, perhaps, don't know whether you have interacted with these issues.
You think that you are right even when presented with evidence that you are wrong.
In this she was inferring that the concept of evidence was the conclusions that the MDT were stating, i.e. that I have ASD, rather than anything objective as evidence upon which such conclusions may be based. I would suggest that the concept of evidence here is somewhat addled: a conclusion may be based upon evidence, but a conclusion itself is not the evidence that this conclusion is based upon, else how would we know the difference between inventions and facts?
Now that I have talked in some detail about the MDT, I wish to address the themes of what they believe about the last 3 years of my care pathway. But before I do I would like to add a personal perspective on my life to supplement the kind of formulaic synopses which are contained in reports.
Well, my life has been a bit of an emotional rollercoaster ride, and in comparison to details I can remember from my earlier childhood, lots of things are a bit hazy and too turbulent to recollect accurately. My life began when I took antipsychotic medication for the first time. That was more than 5 years ago.
In a synopsis of my adult life, I went to York University at the age of 19, and managed to scrape together a degree in electronic engineering. Then I became anxious about the operation of the global economy, and especially the British economy. This went on for 10 years, when the hallucinations started and lasted 2 years. I developed some unhelpful ideas and delusions. I got admitted to hospital after behaving atrociously, and can't get out of hospital on account of these factors now. In hospital -- on the ward -- I study mathematics, history, and engineering. I also have been reading religious text, even though I am not of any faith. I just try to keep myself busy, and try to maintain regular contact with friends.
In my earlier childhood (prior to the age of 7 years), both my elder sister and myself had a wonderful time, and this is what I remember now. After my Dad left (because of an unhealthy marriage and his mental health problems) my mother did not cope at all well.
The RC overtly believes and has stated:
That index offence work has been attempted 3 times
That I have disagreed with the formulation of summer 2017 about my index offence.
My response to point 2 has been that prior to December 2017, I have not been given, nor have I had the opportunity to review this report, it only having been read out to me once by the psychologist in August 2017. Therefore I have not had the opportunity to substantially disagree with this. The doctor's evidence of my disagreement is missing. By Dr Rose Jones, my psychologist, asking me directly how much of the report I agreed with before I had had an opportunity to reflect upon this report, I was unable to provide a substantially considered answer to this question. Dr Jones later relied upon this, my immediate answer, as indelible evidence. I feel that this is unfair treatment, and not encompassing or understanding. It is almost as though Dr Jones seems to believe that I would be attempting to trick her by subsequently agreeing with most, if not all, of the report; when it was her who lead me into providing a premature answer to this question. I question whether I have been given any leeway to work with.
In response to point 1: that index offence work has been attempted 3 times. Well, when I moved to Cuthbert ward, I was told that the average length of stay was 2 to 4 years; and yet within 2.5 years we had successfully completed the index offence formulation. No treatment subsequent to this (more than 45 minutes) was attempted prior to the ASD assessment. In fact, Dr Rose Jones most categorically stated that index offence treatment will not work without this. I put it that this 45 minutes of unmodified treatment was not enough to inform anybody in a balanced way of what wasn't working on this basis of what hasn't worked. In my psychology sessions I talked about experimental outcome: how I must be given a chance for them to prove themselves right; that I wish to go into a tribunal with the knowledge that such a treatment has been attempted, whether successfully or otherwise. Rose said that it was unfair to me to (in my words), in effect, to expect a lame horse to jump a fence. She said it was like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (her words). So this is where they left me for more than 3 months, despite the RC (responsible clinician), Dr Barathy, having said that in the CCR of September that myself saying that they were stopping the psychology was autistic. They did stop the psychology for 3 months, during which time I was not permitted any unescorted ground leaves -- which I had had for 16 months prior without any problems or issues.
It is a fact that offence treatment does not come before a formulation about this. Jackie Harrison, a psychologist, did not attempt, after her initial report, to do the sort of formulation with me that Andrew Curran, a psychologist, unsuccessfully attempted to do, which Dr Rose Jones successfully -- and I repeat, successfully -- achieved.
In late 2014, I had a session with Jackie in which I did not wish to read her report (which was not Rose Jones' formulation of 2017) because I felt too afraid to do so, and felt a great sense of guilt about my offence. Because of this I was referred to Andrew Curran, a psychologist, to do 12 months of cognitive behavioural therapy work on emotional recognition and emotional regulation and resilience. The intention of myself doing this work was to prepare me emotionally for future work, and that this would count as necessary preparatory work prior to re-commencing that pertaining to the index offence. Therefore Dr Barathy's statement that one of the attempts by which they have attempted to do index offence work with me (with Jackie Harrison) has failed, is not the same as stating that Jackie has attempted any treatment subsequent to an offence formulation. Jackie's initial assessment (which I did read in spring 2017) was completed successfully in 2014. To count this as one of the reasons that index offence work has failed I think is over-critical and censorious. I requested to read this report in spring 2017, and did so. Therefore this was not a failure, but took 2 years extra time, as is permissible within my individualised care pathway. Subsequent to Jackie attempting to show me her initial report in late 2014, Jackie did not attempt any further offence related work with me (contrary to Dr Barathy's claim that she did) because Jackie had already referred me to Andrew for emotional resilience work. No warning was given to me in late 2014 about the potential consequences of myself not then reading Jackie's report, and how this might be construed much later, as some type of a failure.
In a CCR in summer of 2016, Andrew Curran explained in detail, how all of the work I had done so far, up until that point, including that of CBT emotional resilience does count towards index offence work, as far as the Ministry of Justice will view it. So I can deduce that at least one of the "failures" the RC has referred to out of "3 times", should not be counted as such (the case with Jackie Harrison), and this leaves 2 more cases to be discussed. Moving on to case 2, I will now address whether Andrew Curran has attempted index offence treatment with me, and the answer to that question is no. But he did attempt a formulation with me, and this was not successful -- hence it took a year later when this was achieved by Dr Rose Jones in autumn 2017. Now, I can answer questions about why I think this, Andrew Curran's attempt to make a formulation (not treatment) was unsuccessful, and in doing so, I would rely upon the following factors.
There was a linguistic miscommunication and a difference in language between us.
I was at this time more of a sceptic than a believer, and not being able to see the destination on a road-map I did not see what the end result would look like.
I felt the need to talk about factors, such as my childhood, that I felt were relevant to my mental state and development in the many years that form the build-up and lead into my index offence.
Whenever I did talk about my childhood, Andrew would give me positive feedback incorrectly. He would say that the session was a good one, yet we had not covered any relevant ground. I believed that the feedback I was receiving was a good thing, when it actually wasn't; and by using my psychologist as a sounding board I felt as though I had been able of off-load much unwanted baggage. As this made me feel better about things, I sought to repeat this in the next session.
By the time that Andrew explained, quite reasonably, that we had not covered any of the required ground, and that he had been wracking his brains about what approach to take with me, the decision to refer me for trauma therapy (which was EMDR) had been made. So 6 months after this referral, I actually received the most changing and beneficial psychological treatment I have had in my life; but it was an uphill struggle for myself, as a patient, to get anybody in a position of authority, to believe that I needed it in the first place. My experience now is that the RC does not listen credibly to me because she inculcates the view that 3 years (being the average of 2 and 4) is far too long, that it is all too late to undertake unmodified treatment for the SRA (sexual risk assessment), and that a prognosis without ASD is pointless, hopeless, and futile.
The final psychologist for myself to discuss in relation to actual treatment (subsequent to the formulation of autumn 2017) is Dr Rose Jones. As I have said, I have been given 45 minutes of unmodified SRA treatment within 6 years, and this is work Rose has undertaken with me. I don't believe that this is enough time to conclude that it won't work without ASD modification, and I suspect I am right about this, and should be supported in this conjecture. I question the efficacy of the authority whose care I am under and their decisions -- which I hasten to add she has previously castigated me for. Rose has previously accused me of, "disagreeing with her professional opinion".
I feel that the work I have undertaken with Rose has been beneficial as I have done quite the opposite than treat it as a "ticking box exercise". I gather that Rose has felt that the therapeutic relationship has broken down, as she:
Told me this in early summer 2017.
Called a special MDT meeting about me at this time.
Has told me that I am critical and attacking all the time, and that everything I say is not helpful and is unbeneficial.
In response to point 1, I have subsequent to this, taken the whole process far more formally and seriously. After receiving this criticism, I have received several positive feedbacks from Rose -- which seem to count for very little in terms of consideration.
In response to point 2, I don't know what was discussed, and I and wasn't invited to contribute. I was not able to attend this meeting, and had no representative there.
In response to point 3, I don't know what she is talking about; and as she walked out of the session at that point, in autumn 2017, I have had no opportunity to ask about this. No doubt it may be claimed that my incomprehension is due to ASD; or in other words, I am not necessarily equipped with the information to understand this.
In summary, when I put similar points of evidence as these to Dr. Barathy in ward rounds and CCRs, Dr. Barathy has responded by repeating the statements which she has previously made: namely that index offence work has been attempted 3 times, and that I have substantially disagreed with Rose Jones's findings. She also seems to think that I believe that I am well-reasoned, but that I am wrong about this -- perhaps as a consequence of my ASD.
My number’s up here. I am not going to get out. I can’t dig myself out of a hole. Rose Jones has produced a report I may not challenge or compete with; and what I am attempting to do here now: by writing this down, and publically communicating it, will become indelible nails in my coffin, in the sense that I am now here to reveal what I do disagree with, and this –- when I do arrive at the Asperger’s clinic, run by wonderful colleagues -– will become further evidence of how, due to my ASD, I am totally incapable of ever undertaking, or completing, the required work to attain a reduction in the level of security I live under. So here goes.
One might ask the question, “Why did I do it?”. Well, I wouldn’t have done it if the Universe wasn’t in peril, and that was the only way to save it. To understand is to forgive; but my plaintive claims have no resonance upon the authorities who are condemning me to a life-time of incarceration, whilst pretending to do the contrary.
What follows now is an expatiation of my psychotic delusions and hallucinations.
Let me introduce you to the white witch. The white witch is a super-consciousness –- as is the black witch -– and the white witch is more pure and wise than God. Now, the white witch’s ambition is to die, because she is being tortured by the black witch in hell: all of the best, and most good people, who have helped her throughout the eons she is in hell with, being controlled, and forced to hurt them again and again and again. Do you get the message? There is more to this Universe than meets the eye; and being special, I was connected to the super-consciousness when my white witch mother took control of my life-force, by a process called life-force touching.
By the end of 2011, bad things had happened: I had hypnotised millions of people to die, who were all watching me on a television network set up by the other white witch soldiers, called “angelman TV”. People were watching. People had died; and some people wanted revenge upon me for this. The thing that bothered me most of all was that my memory had been continually erased throughout my life –- and now I was amid the process of reclaiming lost memories.
As a white witch soldier, I recalled that I had been given instructions from the white witch; and sometimes those instructions had been to kill. But not witches -– the witch rules prohibited it.
3 million years ago, black hag arrived on this planet, from across the Universe, and cross-breed a species via genetic engineering. This species was humans: a cross between an alien and a gorilla.
13,000 years ago, the jedi died out. The jedi and the black witch were at war, but it was a war that the black witch was destined to win: because the real war, the war of information, was between the black witch and the white witch; whom only people with second sight could see and detect the presence of. The jedi had second sight, but so did the animal witches. I remembered a lot from then: the white witch showed me. I was after all connected to the superconsciousness.
At around 300,000 years ago black hag had returned. At this time, the animal witches were seen as leaders or arbiters within a society. They could also fly. The day black hag returned was very significant in terms of this planet’s life-force: it became imperfect, blackened in some way: and this was found to be significant and unacceptable. By looking into our planet’s life-force, all the animal witches could tell that something was wrong. Then black hag appeared, gradually at first: what one super-consciousness sees they all see: but the animal witches did not know that. They had never encountered this before. Ultimately, there was too many of black hag; who had now successfully identified every animal witch. They could no longer hide. They could not even pretend to be a normal human. Now, an animal witch is an individual who has access to their subconscious mind –- as do animals. An animal does not have a conscious mind in the sense that a human does, or in the sense that an animal witch does. A super-consciousness is a computing-like machine: what one pair of eyes sees all pairs of eyes see; though according to the witch rules, both the black witch and the white witch have to act “within deception” or “maintaining deception”: this means, pretending that witches are not real. I was always faulting the black witch on her observance of the witch rules: and this, my being a white witch soldier, was one aspect of control, the white witch could maintain over the black witch via celestial viewers. A celestial viewer was a person, a conscious person, who had been removed from physical reality, and now existed within the celestial sphere. They had access to celestial information: thoughts, emotions, matter, chemistry, molecules, electromagnetics. However, an angel created by God, had a conscious block, a mind, millions of times greater than a celestial viewer. A celestial viewer now occupied a body without limbs: this was part of Satan’s joke. An angel has limbs; angels can touch each other. Without limbs, in a worm-like body, they had little to occupy their concentration: and concentration was very important for the white witch, if, for 60 years they should sit on the wall. When a celestial viewer is on the wall, the body of the super-consciousness, which has replaced the person, is now a white witch (as can be seen by people with second sight). When the celestial viewer is off the wall, the body of the celestial viewer is now a black witch.
At each transition (movement to or from the wall) data, information, from the past is lost from one colour and gained by the other. For instance, when a celestial viewer returns to the wall, the white witch gains data about what the black witch has been doing; and vice versa. It is not productive for the white witch for a celestial viewer to remain non-permanently, or temporarily, on the wall: because then the black witch would subsequently gain data, when the viewer leaves the wall. The most powerful angels within the Universe had the most far-reaching future knowledge, because these were ones who were favoured most by God; and the angels whom the white witch trusted, would tell the white witch which celestial viewers would remain faithfully until their human body on Earth died.
Once, a jedi saw a white witch change into a black witch (who was subsequently killed) and this was a very dangerous event for the white witch, because it led to a mistrust of them everywhere. A jedi was born as an animal witch. The more that the jedi killed the black witch, the more that the interests of the black witch were served; because the humans’ fear of the jedi, and the fragmented state of society which resulted, prevented the white witch from getting on with the task in hand of assisting humans in developing technology, and improving the human gene pool (by bumping off bad people), with the help and advice of the angels whom she trusted the most. This era was called the white witch world. Ultimately, after 13,000 years ago, when the world became a black witch world, there were far too many black witches in the end, and they identified all the animal witches as infants, and the black witch would kill them, pretending that they had died in an accident, or via natural causes.
During the white witch era, people -- the humans -- did not wish for their second-sighted children to be taken by the jedi, to be trained as one. They much preferred for such children to be brought up by the white witch –- and this would happen. The celestial viewers generally referred to them as “good wizards”. The black witch was always trying to get the animal witches and the jedi to fight each other; but the life-force of the planet had ensured that the DNA of the gorilla was too strong for this event to have occurred.
Now we enter an epoch called the black witch world, which begins where the jedi have all died out, and so have the “good wizards” -- this was 13 thousand years ago. For the white witch, the black witch world is where the real war -– the war of information between the black witch and the white witch -– begins. When the life-force of the planet becomes too blackened, a critical tipping point is achieved, and the black witch begins slaughtering people, while fighting the white witch. It is called judgement day. At this time, as has occurred on a parallel branch of reality, the white witch takes control of my body (myself being a white witch soldier) and I would fly off up into the sky and perform moves from the Earth’s axis. It is a battle that the white witch cannot win: but one white witch can kill hundreds of black witches, because in comparison to the white witch, the black witch’s moves are lazy, slow, and clumsy. Judgement day provides much entertainment for some celestial viewers, who want to see it happen to alleviate the boredom of their own immortality. The only way they can die is by donating their conscious block to Satan –- who has become more large consciously than any other angel. Judgement day was due to happen in the year 2012, but a change of events happened, and a stop was put to that.
In the beginning, when the Universe was created, God made an over-sight. He granted freewill to his helpers, the angels, and allowed them to add modifications to the Universe at its point of creation. Satan’s machine began its inexorable consumption of the life-force within this Universe; but the angels –- God’s helpers –- were too busy having fun and making love to unite against this machine, until they were older, and it had become too powerful to be shut down. What was Satan doing with all this stolen life-force from the animal kingdom? Well, he was using it to power an alternative Universe, one made of light, made exclusively for the enjoyment and benefit of angels, called “New Jerusalem”. When the Universe later became a white hag Universe -— in March of the year 2011 -– all the celestial viewers everywhere were sitting on the wall (should they have a place on it). The white witch performed many witch ambushes designed to eradicate the people with weak DNA, who were of bad character, and who were friends of the black witch. Often such people’s life-force had been polluted by the black witch. The killer blow I performed was to grant the white witch permission to generate, design, and implement her own witch ambushes. The whole of the planet’s life-force turned white. This happened just as it was approaching the black tipping point.
Many branches of the Universe occurred; and many things happened on these parallel branches: too numerous to be described. But the fact remained, at least as far as I could perceive it, that time was being reset, and I was regaining memories from my past, and from the parallel branches –- which were being explored by the angels to generate data for their computations about what the life-force instinct told me to do in various scenarios. I initially underestimated the dangers of an illness which quickly grew out of control, by which time my priorities had changed from “Don’t commit any offence” to “Ensure the survival of life within this Universe, and do what is right for everybody, including celestial viewers”.
I include the excursion into the realm of paranoid schizophrenia to illustrate:
The context in which offending behaviour may occur is rational, though the information it is based upon is false. The offending behaviour appears irrational to the lay-person, but not the clinical forensic psychologist: who has a theory to say that thinking is rational, even though judgement is severely impaired. It is easier for both parties to believe that the schizophrenic ideation was that of a clear mind, and a sound mind: like criminality.
The formulation about my offending behaviour is divorced from the context of the stories I have outlined -– which formed the basis of my sense of self, and identity, at the time of my index offence. Forensic clinical psychology abhors stories about white witches and so forth, because this is not in the guidelines set forth by the Ministry of Justice, which are totally subordinate to the big internationalised book.
The authorities are scared to label anybody as insane, because that way this would open the door to any old idiot being given the green light to commit offences. As I am sure you are aware, anxieties about the impending end of the Universe due to a split within the mind, and an idiot jumping up and shouting, “The world is about to end”, is not really the same thing: although the wisdom of modern forensic psychology and psychiatry would say that it is.
To proceed with writing at this point is quite difficult, not because I don’t know what I want to say, but to do so in a productive manner is rather tough, when the views I am presenting are quite radical and different from the norm. I shudder to recall, how, in the prodromal phase of my illness (which lasted 15 years) I struggled to comprehend that I might be wrong about anything, and in many ways this was an extension of a survival mechanism I had learnt as a child. My mother, after my Dad left when I was of the age of six, changed from being attempting to be productive supportive care provider, into a monster who attempted to destroy my mind and emotional development by waging a campaign of delusional destructive war-fare upon myself and sister (who is on year older than me): whose mind, I hasten to add, did not recover.
During the years I have been in hospital (post 2012), one of the topics I have studied has been the policies and politics of Winston Churchill. I hope to emulate what I have learnt from some of his works, in the process of writing this now. I suppose that if I don’t look back, and keep on typing away, like a blind monkey hitting a keyboard, by some random quirk of fate, a genius masterpiece may emerge.
Okay. So far, I have been talking about the blurring of distinction between various categories of personality and character, with that of the mental health disorder of acute psychotic schizophrenia. Unrepresentative data occurs whence the sample of a wider population contains sub-elements, or sub-groups, which are wildly out of proportion with those same subgroups in the underlying population. Thus, as my hypothesis, I would like to posit that due to the advent, and wide-scale distribution of effective anti-psychotic medication in the developed world, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists over recent decades, have seen fewer and fewer cases of lunacy being an underlying cause of behaviour which is harmful to others, and so nowadays conflate social and interpersonal idiocy to match the same diagnosis as lunacy, because this has been the experience of the medical profession. For every lunatic who has committed serious harm, there are dozens of patients whom are interpersonal idiots whom have committed probably lesser harm.
I would like to posit that the experience of these clinical professionals, is not the same thing necessarily as an external reality, which may or may not exist with, or outside of the conscious awareness, of these professional forensic clinical psychiatrists and psychologists. It may seem that I am attacking the profession of psychiatry and psychology, and indeed I probably am, but it has been my experience that to bolster a scenario where the emperor has no clothes on, where nobody points this out, to be not a very responsible contribution to public debate, or developmental politics. I have seen scenarios time and again, of well-behaved people serving decades in these mentally decrepit establishments without being treated humanely or fairly in law, beyond expecting to be spoken to with compassion, and the right to complain about the food menu. I would like the reader to question whether is right, or economically viable, that people can disappear from the community, almost permanently, to be cloistered away from where the public at large can have any say over whether they can facilitate the return of such segregated and isolated people. This all happens upon the pretext that a harmful event has occurred in the past, without any concern or compassion given to the underlying motives, or even thoughts, occurring in the state of mind of the perpetrator. What I am saying is that the public are being sold a lie. They are told that due to mental health disorder that the perpetrator (now deemed a criminal) has to go to a hospital where they can receive treatment, and only be released after they are better. But these events don’t occur on anything like a realistic or developmental time-frame, or even linearly in my case. In reality, the supervision and socially controlling mechanisms which an ex-lunatic experiences, far, far, out-weighs those which any gangster would be likely to experience; and moreover, the professional authorities wilfully and blatantly attempt to separate psychosis from offending behaviour, thus treating the ex-lunatic as though they were of clear mind in the same way that a gangster or criminal would be. Then, the onus is about criminality as far as the law-men and law-women are concerned, thereby sending out a clear and socially naive and irresponsible message to all the non-forensic schizophrenics in the community that it is the person, not the illness that is dangerous. As in reality, the external truth can, and will, exist behind the backs, and conscious awareness, of the medical professionals, and law-people, social mayhem and madness ensue because (as a rare event, but still statistically probable due to the sheer number of events possible) people get hurt by psychotic schizophrenia as a dangerous illness: which is unhelpfully not treated by the mental health professionals, who seem to overtly believe that they know more, or have some special kind of insight into the human mind, due to their believing what they have read in a book. Previously, I cited evidence which outlined how a belief in an intermediary between our world and the spirit world, or similar of any religious thinking, is almost a basic human necessity, which may or may not be hard-wired into our genetic make-up. The evidence I cited was Professor Hale.
It is my observation that a psychiatrist purports to be an expert in some kind of a specialist insight into protecting society from wider harm. But I would like to postulate that due to an absence of evidence, this may be bunkum. In reality, the mental health professionals treat non-forensic patients as forensic ones at the moment at which some event occurs which should be deemed a crime if it occurred by any person of clear mind; and the forensic professionals don’t really believe that such harmful events can occur due to acute psychosis alone. They have read this in a book, and they believe what they have read, and this facet of human behaviour of believing the religious expert, who in turn probably believes other experts religiously, may be hardwired into the human genetic make-up. So, their response to this would probably be, and has been, “David is angry with a wider society for not intervening to detain and treat him before his index offence occurred.”. This is quite a shallow viewpoint to say in response to myself articulating myself quite clearly. It is as though the clinical forensic psychologist who wrote this in her report seems to believe that the only motivation for anything is anger. It is like something akin to saying, “Winston Churchill was very angry with Adolf Hitler for invading Poland.”, and this was his prime motivation in his socially responsible conduct,, and his shaping of the political sphere at the time. I suppose that being unfair and all-powerful, they would then go on to say, “David has grandiose ideas about comparing himself to Winston Churchill.”; the point I am making is that being all-powerful within the sphere of influence of how I may be condemned, this is the sort of remark they have not yet made, but would probably make. I have direct evidence of this, and may quote it, but I am reluctant to do so because I do not wish to turn a general political discussion into a debate about one individual case.
Dr. Steven Gimbel, who is an American Professor of Philosophy, states that as humans, “We may not be rational animals, but we certainly are rationalising animals. We suffer greatly from what sociologists call, ‘conformation bias’.” and he goes on to say that confirmation bias is when we hold a particular belief, we search out that which we believe supports the belief and explain away, or outright ignore, that which undermines rational belief in the proposition. It is my purpose to explain here that psychiatry and psychology are far removed from scientific scrutiny, and indeed criticism from the rest of the scientific fields. This is partly because, to become qualified at all in either psychiatry or forensic psychology, one needs to have spent many years, if not decades, upon religiously adhering to believing what one has read in a book. Another reason why psychiatry and psychology are far removed from scientific scrutiny is that the nature of the institutions within which people like myself are detained, are very closed prison-like places where not only does no information from the inside filter out to the outside world, but backwardly, little from wider scientific thinking arrives within these places because of the levels of security requirements, and policies which are put in place to protect staff and patients from troublesome patients. It seems like everybody within these places has exactly the same type of personality, says exactly the same things at the same times, and that highly creative temperaments are categorised as different in some way which requires, to them, a diagnosis to explain why individuality exists, and why people are not all exactly the same. The staff in these places are populated by people who seek and require a job for life. They seem very stable and settled in their yearly routine. They also seem to be quite family-orientated, whether they are parents or not.
What the forensic psychiatrists and psychologists would almost certainly deny, is that obedience to the hallucinations would make a recovered patient more likely to be obedient towards authority and supervision, if in the unlikely event that such a person could be approved by the psychologists to be released into the community. Again this is an example of confirmation bias. What they would almost certainly say, is that obedience to the hallucinations demonstrated poor problem solving skills, which need to be an addressed by undertaking psychology work in problem solving: at which time this perfunctory course will have radically changed the person to become set up and made for life. Another factor which they would refute is that after an index offence the recovered ex-lunatic would be in a better position to foresee and evaluate his or her illness, with the hindsight of knowing that something did indeed go very terribly and spectacularly wrong last time. In other words the person who has had the illness of schizophrenia would now have direct evidence that schizophrenia is a dangerous illness, because it is almost certainly the case that the health professional would not say this, and would probably expound the view that it is person with schizophrenia that makes the illness dangerous. The response of the health care professional towards such an idea might be to say something like, “Oh, so you’re saying you’re glad it happened?”, or something equally bent. This is an example of attacking a straw man, where the interlocutor broadens the claim made in one of the premises, and puts words in the original arguer’s mouth that the original arguer did not say. In doing this, the interlocutor has weakened the argument. Also, it is unlikely that such a patient could undertake the necessary psychology work which is focussed all around the person with schizophrenia becoming less dangerous, not the actual illness being a dangerous thing. It is most unjust the the public and society should not be able to reach into these institutions, and pull a patient away from such peoples’ misdirected clutches. I wrote a poem about something this called, gargoyles. Perhaps it is unwise to refer the reader to a poem, of all things; but then as I do think it is quite a good poem I shall include this link.
For an authority to be considered an authority, they should satisfy three criteria. A legitimate authority must:
Have material existence.
Be an expert in the field.
Be impartial, and not profit from my belief or ability to sway it.
Now, a psychiatrist most certainly does have material existence, and they believe themselves to be an expert in the field. But they do profit by getting paid far in excess of the national minimum wage. It is in their interests for the judge sitting in a tribunal to have far more in common with them, than with any patient whose tribunal it is. It is in their interests for the general public to believe that they, as psychiatrists, are immensely qualified: as this may justify a hefty pay package at the expense of the tax-paying public; and as far as their pursuit of science goes, all they really have time for, is to write a 30 page document for each of their patients repeating why, over and over again, this particular person is not fit for the community, whilst not acting upon any of the positive comments which are patronisingly made about this patient. They also seem to believe that the field of psychiatry knows a lot more about psychosis now than it did in the past. I would like to expound upon the possibility that perhaps the reason why the present day psychiatry believes that it knows a lot more than the older practitioners of the field is because of the fallacy of an appeal to novelty, whereby what is considered newest may also be arrogated to be the most improved version available. Contrary to this, is the intransigence of an an appeal to tradition, where we are all reluctant to remove a small unelected elite from a position of total control, and influence, upon the lives and well-being of patients, and a wider society, because we have pretty much always let psychiatrists rule the roost, whilst believing what they say.
I have come to believe that it is false that field of psychiatry knows more about psychosis now than it did in the past, because of reasons of the nature of details of a particular inductive argument. Inductive arguments are ones in which their conclusions do move beyond the premises, to give us rational belief about something we have not yet observed. That argument is basically that, before the advent of effective anti-psychotics that actually worked, the illness of schizophrenia was by and large untreatable and chronic. When the patient moved from a prodromal (or early warning phase) into full-blown insanity, by heck, was the wider society and public fully aware that the patient’s judgement was more than chronically impaired. Modern psychiatry believes this view to be false, and they can’t be persuaded otherwise, because they believe that they have a special insight, and are indeed trained to believe so. But reality, the external world, does not change; and the nature of an external phenomenon does not change neither. It is my purview that in the older times (and I am not primarily talking about Britain 1950s) the psychiatrist (or alienist – as they were then called), had a far broader range of experiences of meeting actual psychotic lunacy in a patient, and experiencing its then immutable effects. Since the invention of anti-psychotics, the experience of the health care professional has changed dramatically, and they speak now to people who tend to have something behaviourally and mentally wrong with themselves: be that impulsive decision-making as part of their personality, poor financial choices, lack of empathy with others and victims, self-adulating behaviour, grandiosity, histrionics, delusional self-ideation -– all outside of the impulsivity of experiencing ones mind and body being controlled by outside forces. As you can see, I am not a psychiatrist, and any so-called uneducated person can speak their language, look down their noses at people, and expect a judge to believe that they are not committing a fallacy of faulty authority. What makes someone an expert? Is their expertise general or specialist? Does this person have a requisite background to be an authority? This expert must also be objective or disinterested: they must not have a vested interest in my believing them one way or another. They should not stand to gain financially by such a process.
of the way psychiatrists behave towards patients, this in itself is a
deterrent for people in the community who have mental problems coming
forward to receive help. At least it was for me. Sadly, my
experiences of psychiatry and psychology after becoming sectioned
(pretty much permanently for the last six years) have confirmed what
I previously feared would be the case with how I would get treated.
I would like to elaborate upon these experiences now. As you may be
aware, when I started this article, I articulated that I had been
diagnosed with Asperger’s. At the time of writing this diagnosis
was immanent, so I hedged my bets that it would occur, and got the
prediction right. Since it is difficult to keep a patient detained
forever upon the grounds of a treatable schizophrenia, this newer
diagnosis can, and will, warrant possible grounds to facilitate such
that I will never be released into the community. Indeed, the
specialist who they brought in to do this job has said in his report,
that my, “inability to form relationships, his indifference to the
emotions of others, and his inability to reflect in any nuanced way
about his actions, and responsibility, all seem to have played a part
In response to myself telling Andrew Pope that my mother had been “very abusive”, and had periodically punished me for my father leaving, Andrew says, “There was no sense at at any point that David might have any sympathy for his mother’s difficulties, or any sense that he might have been a difficult child.”. I believe that Andrew Pope has demonstrated a lack of empathy with the victims of child abuse here. In reality my mother attacked me, confronted me, and chastised me for any type of small talk. She behaved in an uncommunicative and anti-social way almost effortlessly, as though this came naturally to her, and overtly appeared to attempt and succeeded in causing distress in myself and my elder sister with the express purpose of causing distress for the sake of causing distress in itself. Her behaviour was tantamount to psychological and emotional torture. I am reminded of stories about mental health professionals in the 20th century who believed that reports of child abuse were hysteria. My mother was, and still is, a very talented social manipulator. She seems to seek the people in the outside community to have sympathy upon her. Although the diagnosis of Münchhausen’s syndrome by proxy is usually associated with physical harm or poisoning, I suppose that if it were possible that psychological scars are more easy to achieve and cover up, then the mental health profession would be incapable of learning this, or modifying their viewpoint in any way. Their views are rigid and not nuanced in a reflective way.
Andrew Pope says, “If laundry or meal times were changed this would
stress David more than other patients.”. Yet this is not well-grounded.
At no times have meal times ever been changed in six years of my
hospital stay. As for changed laundry times -– and this is all
becoming rather petty now –- only I have ever requested that my slot
be changed to when I am not out on an allotment leave. I did also
request in a community meeting that patients, instead of using my slot,
use their own. I mean, this fellow Andrew Pope, being a so-called
expert in autism, does seem to receive a large amount of tax-payers’
emoluments for doing comparatively little. Andrew’s report goes
on. The gist of things is that I have a “complete lack of concern
So, moving on. The second assessment for autism was the “Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule”, known by its acronym “ADOS”. What they do during this test is behave in a discombobulated way, and then say that because I had to modify my interactions to bring the conversation back to a relevant topic, that the examiner had to “modify her behaviour throughout in order to maintain the interaction”.
“The examiner described a very distressing experience when her money was stolen on holiday. David listened but showed no empathy or interest, and immediately spoke about himself. There was no reciprocal conversation noted at all.”. But what they have omitted from this account is the inappropriate context in which she mentioned her lost holiday money, which she repeated later in the test. What they had actually done was given me some type of an intelligence test to perform with props and picture books. She asked me to perform a series of tasks, and then interrupted me by talking about her holiday experiences. I couldn’t care less, but that is not Aspergers though. That is called drawing a distinction between formal and informal. I did not wish, and do not wish, to have an informal relationship with that particular examiner. She often comes out with remarks such as “Eeey, did you read the story in the paper the other day. A baby’s first words were “Alexa” –- you know, that robot you talk to and can buy from google. How sad is that?”. Well, I don’t think that is sad. That is an important moment. Not sad at all. She has also expressed her opinion that all politicians (a most notable example of which is Winston Churchill), have some sort of a personality disorder in order to attain such positions. I disagree, and wish to keep our relationship very formal. So if she had her holiday money stolen, that is very tragic, but we were supposed to be here to perform some kind of an evidence-based test, not perform mind-tricks on each other. If humans can be trained to literally drop bombs in the military, then I suppose they can be trained to perform mind-games.
Some people in the public may believe that I can have a tribunal to get out of my detention. Yet the format of a tribunal is very formulaic. It is a court-room setting. I may not speak unless questioned, and then I may only answer the specific questions, not present a case of my own. It is in no way an example of the outside community having the ability to reach into an establishment and extract from there an erstwhile member of society. In fact, the mental health professionals can present their reports, but I am not allowed to present any case of my own. It is a myth to presume that I am permitted to do this. One might ask, why don’t you have a managers' hearing, and ask them to release you. The answer to that is that they are not granted the power and permission to make such a decision, and it is has been my experience that they are scared of undermining or over-riding the professional opinion of a consultant forensic psychiatrist.
So a circular argument is to say something like “David has Aspergers because he has Aspergers”. Why is that the case? Because he has been diagnosed with having Aspergers.
These days, the medical profession seem to believe that attributing offending behaviour to acute psychosis is a “cause and effect” reasoning error called, causal over-simplification. They do this by ignoring the details of the nature of the delusional Universe to which I was attached at the time of my offending behaviour. In actuality, the psychosis was a necessary condition for it. They contend that, if necessary, it was not sufficient, and there must have been other factors at play. This surely must differ drastically from the alienist of yester-year who experienced acute paranoid psychotic schizophrenia to be a condition of chronically impaired judgement. In fact, one psychologist said, “If there had been a policeman there in the room would you have continued with your offending behaviour?”. Well, that depends upon whether I would have believed that the policeman would have been there as part of the delusional Universe: which is that he would have been there in what I would have deemed at the time, “within deception”. It depends. Probably not, because I believed that everybody in the world was watching me on invisible cameras, and that was one motivation which allowed me to continue within the event chain of my offending behaviour (I had grown to be uninhibited and unreserved). Because I have said, “probably not”, the response of the clinical psychologist has been, “There. You knew what you were doing was wrong.”. But my dilemma at the time was to save the Universe by preventing its destruction by providing celestial viewers with the data, scene, and information they required. None of that was real. So to say that the other factors can be dealt with in isolation from this is to neglect a common cause. I knew that the reality I was within was not real, and I knew that neither was the victim. I knew that my behaviour was “within deception”: that it was scripted by angels, who were repeatedly resetting time to ensure that I would obey the life-force instinct. The psychologists call what I am doing now, “minimising”, or "externalising the role which my illness may have played", or failing to take responsibility by blaming the illness, and not myself. Is preventing the destruction of the Universe wrong when all you have to do is act nasty and tough within an angel scripted environment? Does one actor actually commit a crime when acting out a scene within a play? The medical authorities aren’t interested in these dilemmas because they are not part of the “domains” set by the British parliament, and communicated through the Ministry of Justice. But the external Universe won’t change in accordance with our laws, and disastrous circumstances will keep on emerging if the money is perpetually spent upon closing the gate after the horse has bolted, rather than adopting changed policies to ensure that society as a whole can be protected from similar incidents, without blaming and castigating the individual for having been ill. This is not only inhumane, but it is very costly. It is vastly inefficient in terms of the public expense. It is like the scenario where an electric pylon falls over. Instead of surveying all such similar pylons, they focus upon bolstering that one that fell down originally, over and over again. This is not logical, and is only the case because the medical professionals, who are the putative experts into the human mind, spend vast amounts of mental resources blaming, castigating, and judging, the individuals who happened to be so ill that they were not responsible at the time of their offence. Indeed, things could have been different. But I avoided seeking help because I was scared to do so, and because the voices told me that that would be suicide. Due to all my experiences, after two years of hallucinations, being non-grounded, I was suffering cognitive illusions: which are ways of thinking that convince us we are right when we are actually wrong. My social facts were out of kilter with what they had previously been, prior to the two years of hallucinations.
An ad hominem attack is where, instead of attacking the argument, we instead focus on attacking the arguer. In many ways I feel that this is the nature of a tribunal. I repeat that I am not allowed to present my own case, which is my prime motivation for presenting it to the wider public here in writing.
In relation as to whether or not there was an element of criminal culpability, you might say “Well, of course you’d say that: you stand to profit if it is true.”. That is correct; but there is a difference between not accepting a faulty authority who stands to gain, and rejecting an argument from a non-authority with a vested interest.
With regard to the potential misdiagnosis of autism which has been made about me, I am reminded of the words of Professor Hale who in Exploring the Roots of Religion says that in his opinion knowing exactly what you are looking for is a dangerous thing, because it makes you think that whatever you find you have discovered it. This scientific viewpoint was also shared by the late Professor Stephen Hawking, who said in his book A Brief History of Time, that in relation to a 1919 British expedition to West Africa, which showed that light was deflected by the sun, “Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science.”.
In the interests of selecting the best viewpoint -– to paraphrase Herodotus –- it is necessary that all views be heard.
In a tribunal in 2018, Dr. Barathy said that I don’t pick up on social cues, and that interventions need to be put in place because there has been no change of my views, and therefore I am not able to recognise my risk in the future, or recognise my autistic spectrum disorder, and this may lead to yet more external measures being put in place upon me. She said I externalise my role in my offence, and lack genuine remorse, and that all my remorse is superficial, in that I am only able to express that I never want it to happen again, and merely express regret about what the victim went through. Yet I spent years feeling so much remorse that I was beating myself up about it emotionally until a psychologist pointed out to me the difference between a cognitive analytical trap, and that of a snag. The gist of this was: the problem still remains, the past cannot be changed, it remains unaltered, and the process of beating-up on yourself does serve nobody, not least of all society, beneficial purpose. Indeed, it might become so problematic that it becomes a risk factor in itself. In fact, the viewpoint that I only superficially felt remorse was backed up by Nadia Burman -- who had been my primary nurse for about 18 months. She said that I would only express remorse in the context of doing so when prompted, and it was of the type such as “why did this event have to happen?”. Dr. Barathy referred to my limited progress. Yet I have in front of me a letter, dated 2016, which is signed by Nadia Burman, as an outcome for one of the twice-yearly review meetings which are held, in which Nadia states, “You are to continue looking at improving social interactions and understanding emotions in psychology work with Andrew Curran; you have made a lot of progress so far.”, and “It was decided that there is nothing outstanding for you to work towards prior to applying for unescorted leave.”. When this leave was taken from me after I had used in successfully for 16 months, I wrote to Dr. Barathy asking why. She said that they had more recently become aware of “further information relating to my offence” and she only revealed what this was in the tribunal. It was that the voices had told me that women were available in street -– effectively put their by angels –- if I would touch them without asking. I did not do this because the life-force instinct told me not to do so: i.e. it did not feel right at the time to do. And that is it. That is her additional grounds for which I pose a danger. Basically, because I drew a distinction in my mind, at that point of extreme psychosis, between this scenario and that of forcing a paid sex worker to whom I had gone to looking for consentual sex, that somehow this leads to “grievance thinking”, or “excessive sense of entitlement”. They have maintained these viewpoints by refusing to discuss life-force instinct, angel role play, or celestial viewers. They have also said that because I made this distinction in my mind then, therefore I must do so now. That is fallacious also. It lacks evidence, and has not been explored.
So prior to the tribunal, in one of the review meetings Dr. Barathy said to me (and I wrote this down) that:
The only world you have the prospect of changing is your own world.
The way in which you, and your life, is managed by authority will respond to the patient.
You haven’t addressed issues. You probably don’t even know whether you have addressed issues.
You don’t engage with issues.
You don’t listen. You believe that you know better than others.
You don’t recognise or accept that you might be wrong.
According to what you do now, there will be different consequences which will depend upon what you do.
You have shown one train of thought, which has not shifted when faced with evidence. You have not participated within normal discussion, or expressed normal opinions.
She also referred to my “developmental disorder”.
It is unlikely that I will have sufficient access to word processing and the internet in the future as a consequence of myself publishing this, to update this article; so I bid the world a farewell, and I am glad that some information got out of the black hole that is these restrictions that I live under.