Telly Watching.

David Edes is, to me, apart from seeming like a very nice person, a combination of two people.  He looks like, exactly like, a mental health solicitor I had (he actually got my last section rescinded, for which I am obviously grateful) who, when I said I did things on the internet, asked me how I had access to it, and I told him I had a computer at home, and he said either, ‘YOU’VE got a computer?’ or ‘What are YOU doing with a computer?’, but it meant the same thing, and I was so shocked I couldn’t express how angry and appalled I felt.  It appeared that his assumption was that I shouldn’t have one. 

David Edes’ name is, apart from the final ‘s’, the same as a mental health solicitor I approached in Greenwich when I was taken into hospital under a section (it might have been the same one the other solicitor got rescinded).  I phoned him from the hospital ward and, knowing that I had not been satisfied with the way I had been treated by the other company, asked him if we could have an initial conversation, following which I would decide if I wanted him to handle my situation.  He said he wasn’t prepared to approach it that way, that he didn’t have time, or something like that, and I think I said something about didn’t I have a right to an initial conversation based on which I could make my decision, and he said look, I don’t think I want to handle it anyway, and I just thought that was so discriminatory.  While I know that David Edes on BBC World News is neither of these people, because of the resemblance, which in the context of all the other resemblances etc is obviously deliberate, I can’t help reacting to him as if he was.  I’m sorry for David, if he knows nothing about this.  He seems to be genuinely nice.  But so did these people.  maybe they didn’t expect someone on benefits on a section in hospital to have enough about them to at least try to insist on their rights. Maybe they didn’t see me as having those rights, because I was on benefits.  The right I wanted, in the second situation, was the right to see if I had enough confidence in my relationship with a prospective solicitor handling my tribunal, and other associated matters.  But for the associated matters you have to look elsewhere anyway.  The ones I have spoken to have said they can only handle the tribunal, not question the diagnosis itself.  I’ve had so many solicitors refuse to get involved I’ve given up trying.

More later.  I’ll edit this later and add more.  I want to go out though, so I’m going to, and stop desperately and hysterically hanging on to my computer and what I can do with it, which does not reliably feel like much at the moment as it keeps crashing.