Archive for February, 2011


Final PS – is narrowcasting legal?  Very narrow casting?  Based on information you have collected through electronic communications about a person, or collected by some other means?  Read the paragraphs in bold.  Internet Explorer.  If it isn’t legal, what are they playing at, and how much can I sue them for?

Dear BBC World News – I have a right to watch the tv, especially the news, without being deliberately and specifically targetted by you or anyone else for spiritual and psychological attack.  God is going to break you and everyone else who attacks me.  That is His promise.  He does not tell lies.  Not like you and whoever you feel empowered by.

When I was a kid we were shown public information films at school, about the dangers of getting into a car with someone we didn’t know.  I seem to remember, although I might be mixing it up with instructions on traffic lights, that red is for danger.  I’ve also learned to associate it with aggression over the years, and I think that is a commonly held perception.

I was just watching Lyse Doucet(t?), and she was standing there in red, almost saying, ‘touch me if you dare’. After what I have seen and heard from her before, I felt helped by this perception.  She talks almost like someone with brain damage, in her attempts to sound casual, but I thought what I saw at the end of her live report revealed a very driving woman, not casual at all.  My question is, why the act?  And the smile at the end of her report on Libya was almost triumphant and self-satisfied.

I thought today, when I saw one of the female reporters, there they are, using things specific to me, continually, not just stuff that is part of the common culture and available choices which are ‘completely coincidental’ in their constant recurrence (they might be!  It’s called making fashionable choices, perhaps, but funnily enough, every ‘unfashionable’ choice I have made over the years has been quickly copied by the industry, like the teaming of colours.  Maybe it is what Jung would have called a product of the oversoul [is that the right figure of speech?], where the same different thing pops up at the same time in 2 different and unrelated places – but I think not).  That was a long bracket, I’d better start again.  When I saw one of the female reporters (jobbing actors) today, putting a face almost blank of expression up at the camera and vocally acting out feelings which, if real, come from somewhere right behind your midriff, and given the fact that they use so much of my stuff, I thought that was probably a very good explanation of why, when I encounter blankness and worse from other people, emotionally I fold from the stomach, and nothing I do can help me retrieve myself.  Because even when they see me fold, the blankness or worse remains, when I hope for sympathy and identification.  Maybe they don’t see it.  If they do, I obviously don’t know how, in my case, they interpret it.  Perhaps they think I am copying the people on the television and think I am above myself, when actually I believe the exact opposite is the case.

Strange, lady whatever her name is, Kate something, I thought she was Natasha Kaplinsky, I thought that was her name on ‘Would I Lie To You?’ the one with hair like Worzel Gummidge – talk about scrambling stereotypes and perceptions, as Simon Schama said the other day on Thursday’s Newsnight) has just (it was ‘just’ when I typed it at about 12.50 pm, half an hour ago – I separated this paragraph from its order and context so the post would read more easily) mentioned a ‘delusional’ character in “Black Swan”, and now she is copying my laugh, and all of my deepest emotional expressions (remember they are jobbing actors) like she and so many others copy the way I often used to say in delighted gratitude and desire to hold onto the relationship with the person I was speaking to, ‘thank you very much . . . thank you’ – that is me, it is very upsetting to hear them all doing it back at me).  These people are egomaniacal thieves.  They do it to each other as well.  I don’t know, maybe some of these people really are as empty-headed as the day they were born.  Maybe the flashes of intelligence and apparent conscience have only been born in them since reading blogs by people like me.

I’ve had enough of this post now.  They’re still criminals.  Civil disobedience is one thing, but stalking a vulnerable person is something else.  Remind me to talk about Ruby Wax’s latest money spinner.  On ‘Something For The Weekend’.  I don’t like what I see and hear there, something is amiss – in my opinion, which is obviously nowhere near as perfect as these people’s.

PS  The paragraph that starts “I thought today, when I saw one of the female reporters . . .’ was the beginning of this post going out of control.  This has happened in other posts as well.  Something seems to happen when I start typing, they place a few trigger words from my personal life or writing or telephone calls or desperation talk at the still plugged in headphones on Saturday, and it seems as if it is being used as a marker or something, then they verbally run off in this way, in exactly the same way which is hysterically replicated in my post from that point on.  Today I switched the sound off after about 5 minutes and tried to retrieve as much self-control as possible, but with neighbours banging at me when I shout at the man on the telly that he is not going to shout at me like that and to get off my telly it’s a bit difficult, and it does affect my self-control in writing and speaking.  It seems the only thing that is allowed from women around here by way of distress is high voiced hysteria.  Which I obviously felt touched by, or it wouldn’t be haunting me, but there is nothing I can do for them, and I didn’t bang at her while she was doing it.  Would I have left her screaming in pain and anger and desperation, unable to breathe and feeling as if I was dying, as she did me?  I don’t know.

Something else, while I think of it.  I recently had a new hard drive disk put into my computer.  When I did, the messages from Internet Explorer went back to the way I remembered them ages ago.  Ordinary, technically-couched information about crashes and unavailability of websites.  But after a few days I noticed that the messages I was getting about unavailable websites went back to what I had become used to and afraid of and angered by and felt assaulted by on my old disk.  The message I have started getting again for unavailable websites reads something like this:

‘Internet Explorer is unable to connect you to this website.  It appears that the website continues to have a problem’. 

‘It appears that x continues to have a problem’  is something I have come to associate with charismatic and housechurch groups.  It is the acceptable way, especially among counsellor and prayer ministry types, of rubbishing a person and being angry and resentful towards them because you feel inadequate about the fact that, in spite of all your efforts and everything you have been taught to apply, they are stubbornly refusing to be helped (that is what is meant, even if it isn’t said).  I’m getting this language all the time in messages about unavailable sites, from Internet Explorer.  I’m wondering if other people are getting the same message when they can’t connect to a website?  Until I had my new disk installed and started getting the old, normal language messages, I thought everyone was getting what I just said, but for the first few days with my new disk I was not.  I think it had also gone back to saying a straightforward ‘reconnect’ instead of saying ‘try to reconnect’ which comes with the other rubbish and makes me feel, apart from stalked, inappropriately emotionally grabbed at.  First they are stalking me then putting out these therapy-talk, church-talk, emotional appeal messages instead of just saying ‘reconnect’.  No wonder people think I have a stonger relationship with my computer than with people.  To me it seems this is abusive at every level.  I constantly feel shock, fear and anger.  And also feeling harassed and all the guilt that goes with the way I handle it, I’m in no fit state to go out.  They play on the guilt and make it as prominent in my thinking as they can.  I was just thinking I had had a completely clear run on this paragraph, no browser crashes, but as soon as I went back a line or two and inserted something about guilt, connecting my mind and emotions in my communication, my browser crashed again.

I’ve just switched BBC World News back on, and Peter Dobby, immediately after hillary Clinton’s speech which was in progress as I switched on and my reason for switching on, said ‘she spacically’ instead of ‘she’s basically’.  2.50pm UK time.  I black guy has just come on with the sport, doing the same ‘I’m hardly in control of what I am saying’ verbal incontinence/half brain damaged impression, saying in a taunting tone, ‘it won’t be enough to’ something about the wicket (wicked, wiki, Wicca, wikileaks?  He didn’t say cricket anyway, which was what we should have got.  Causing shock to me releases some sort of wave of energy in the studio.  They have a breath reaction to every mental movementof mine.  They do it on purpose.  That’s what I mean, and his contemptuous face.  That’s what I mean by mixing violence and subliminality and stalking and psycholinguistics.  They are damaging more people than me.  They must face everything the law can throw at them for this, it isn’t sweet, it isn’t kind, it isn’t cute, it is evil.  Peter Dobby has just come back on and the first thing he did was say a word as if clearing his throat, contemptuously.  I don’t care, Tommy Boyd, how much you say media presentation has changed, this is extremely rude, unprofessional and abusive.  he just said a word to sound like masturbation, and he has followed it up with the word robust (as in bust) talking about Hillary Clinton.  Peter Dobby is a savage dog.  Something changed in a rhythm somewhere.  As soon as I started the sentence calling him a dog he stopped talking over the broadcast of William Hague, and exactly now he has just started again.  They are hacking my computer.  They are indecent.  I am a dalek.  I will exterminate.  Let me at him, the bastard.  They break me down like this on purpose, and if I hide it and pretend it hasn’t happened, they use it against me at a later date. This is desperate.  Help me, someone.  Not through the mental health system, but properly, through getting these people by law for what they are doing.  Peter Dobby has backed off now.  He’s done his damage, nowhe can just go silent and let me get on with losing it and being terrified of what he is doing and the way he is using what he knows to be my fears against me.  I know they are looking at this, I can imagine their reactions, they are indecent, and like being with instincts, I want to hit back.  Ben whatever his name is was just acting out in his speech action his words that people don’t have control. Bulgarian people talk like that a lot.  I think UK media people started copying that shortly after I came here.  My browser has just started multiple crashing again, before it did I said that Lyse Doucett had just spat the word ‘question’, which I have said before they often and deliberately say like ‘quistion’ to sound like ‘Christian’, I said it about Robert Elms the other day.

With an absolute poker face they get my attention with something intimate, then adopt an intimate tone saying something which sounds instructional as if they have a right to do that.  So when people say that people on the television and radio are talking to them, I believe that, unless they are lying, in many cases they are probably right, and it isn’t a delusion out of mental illness.

All this, in spite of the fact that I have asked them and given them permission to contact me through proper channels. They still insist on using these methods.  They are trying to maintain a speech rhythm, for some reason.  They are not communicating straight, and therefore they are not communicating honestly. They are sly, manipulative, crafty and criminal.  These are bad and evil people and what they are doing to us is criminal.  In fact, with all the verbal power plays I’ve seen and heard from everyone recently, I’d say they are paranoid and in complete chaos and out of control, and telling me to sit or lie down in the corner as if I am a dog.  Perhaps the most evil thing about them is that, as it will obviously suit them to do so, they will deny all knowledge of me and of everything I have said.  I haven’t published this yet.  Peter Dobby has just said a word to sound like ‘sly’.  And I haven’t put it out yet.  I can’t mend what he and his do to me emotionally, because they are supposed to be trustworthy and I’ve been conned and it’s destroyed my life, but I would be satisfied if I could get them legally.  He just said, ‘now it’s time for the finance news’ as if he was saying ‘I love you’, then there was a pregnant pause, and he came back with a slightly derisive sounding tone and said ‘we’ll get that in a minute’.  He just said ‘most’ like ‘must’.  I could let him do this to me for hours unless I stop him.  He’s savage.  He just talked about looking at something critically when I amended something at the top of my post to ‘read the paragraphs in bold’, and he did the verbal incontinence thing with a completely straight face.  I don’t want them doing this.  It’s torment.  Many of them are playing the verbal incontinence game.  I know they break me down on purpose, at important times, so no one will take any notice of anything serious and important and relevant that I have to say, after reading the results and consequences of what they do to me.  Give up, Peter Dobby.  I’m not going to give you or do what you want.  Unless all you want is the kick of knowing you are having an effect on me.  He’s just done the harshly emphasised ‘ah’ and ‘out’ thing they always do, along with the ‘back’ stuff’ and other things.  There is nothing wrong with me, Mr Dobby.  I don’t need what you are doing.  Respond to what you have been given.  Or are you and people like the government working together even though you give the impression, more often than not, of being deeply critical and at war with each other?  Is it really cosy behind the scenes and off the air?  When did the Cobra Committee come into existence?  I never noticed it until shortly after I thought that Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria, looks a bit like ‘Cobra’ in Cyrillics.  That was some time ago in the last 15 months.

My serious point: why does Hillary Clinto need to talk rhetorically about serious abuses, instead of just abuses?  Is she rabble rousing?  What is the difference between an abuse and a serious abuse, and what is the difference in the way they are treated.  Watch your answer, bearing in mind that out of little acorns, great oaks grow.  David Cameron sounded as if he just said mental, and smiled a secret smile (5.40 pm).  With the same affected little verbal incontinence.  Did he say that?  Something about the communication wasn’t straight.  He sounds very urgent.  Maybe it is as affected and illigitimate as the assumed intimacy.  What about human rights abuses at home, Ed and David?

They are so melifluous, as smooth as oil, these people, whatever they are talking about.  It seems to me they are being so smooth about Libya as to be dismissive of its importance and complexity.  But maybe it should be smooth and easy, talking about first steps.  I think David just deliberately shot an ‘um’.  They deliberately shoot a lot of words.  Including the istruction to ‘utter complete rubbish’ which was dressed to look like a derisive jibe.  He’s just adopted an exalted tone.

I think this is the kind of thing people like Peter Dobby are trying to make me believe they are ‘helping’ me with and to do.  I was just thinking about God and David Cameron just said ‘listen to the man and his experience’ and George Osborne started sniggering then strted looking a bit sheepish or miserable.  That is the sort of thing I was talking about when I talk about psychic targeting and spiritualism.  I just thought he might be picking up on the thoughts of my upstairs neighbour, who has just started moving around again.  At which point Peter Dobby broke in and cut it of, just after I had said I was thinking about God, and he said something emphatically about hearing something on ‘this channel’, and channelling is a psychic activity, as they know I know.  I think they are exploiting this information with the help of some very skilled writers, if not actually engaging in the spiritual activity.  But maybe that isn’t it.  Maybe I am just one of a whole group which is being targetted in this way.  Some are hurt and offended, some are flattered, and some don’t care or are unaware.

Nik Gowing is on.  He went straight for the sympathy muscle, which for me is the most direct way to guilt and feelings of responsibility.  I’ve got the sound down.  Nothing to react to.  As soon as I turned the sound down I felt as if I should go and apologise to my upstairs neighbour.  That’s how I know he went for my sympathy muscle.

Look at the state of this post!  I’ve had several ‘comments’ I haven’t published, in exactly the same state, and all of them, I think, are or are posturing as very detailed sex shop adverts.  I would not be surprised if I am deliberately driven to replicate that if I insist on continuing to write and make observations about what they are doing and saying while the sound is on.  I switched on yesterday and heard a female presenter talking about ‘weird behaviour’, talking about Gaddafi.  That is hardly dispassionate and is provocative.  It is crudely biassed, and they must know better than that.  Is their training that inadequate these days?  I’m not sure we can trust our country’s image and communications with these people.  Or impressionable minds.  An impressionable mind is one that is not set and formed.  The more knowledge you have, the less impressionable you are likely to be.  I’m not sure if what I think I know has any value at all, but I know that most people will not be at all aware of things like psycholinguistics and related subjects.  I know I only know a bit and if I knew more I might not have so much reason to feel as if I might be being ridiculous.  But I think it matters, adversely, when a presenter in a news agency talks about ‘weird behaviour’ in such a sensitive situation.  People who talk exactly like this are running our mental hospitals.  It is little wonder that people who are already broken down and feel abused and assaulted by the system and its keepers sometimes turn to violence.  People outside of the mental health system are no different.  Politicians call it declaring war, or something like that.  They don’t do it one on one.  They get armies of people taught to see the forces as an opportunity to learn a skill and see the world to do and die for them. They would have us believe, for us.  I’m not coming.  War party, me no wanna go.

I keep seeing politicians crying into the camera, early in my time here in Bulgaria, when the police stopped me twice in two days from coming home.  That is a very strong sympathy muscle action.  I know they must have wanted to do me some good and help in some way.  I feel I should always trust and honour politicians like that, because they will always be right, their hearts will always be right, and at the very least mine is wrong if I don’t obey authority.  Surely a politician in tears is someone to be trusted, even if they are breaking all the rules about open and legally accountable communication?  The fact that they seemed to think it was necessary to communicate in that way has perhaps made me more afraid and stupid here in Bulgaria than I have needed to be.  Unless there is a real danger for me, and maybe because of me, for my country, here.  If so, why have they backed off, why isn’t my Embassy being responsive to me?  Do I yield here, and post it as is, as I want to?  No, I don’t.  Because if I yield they command from 2000 miles away using illegitimate intimacy, or they drag the game out just a little bit more, robbing me of any feelings of having tried to do the right thing and of self-worth that I have left.  The Consul’s name is Jon O’Shaughnessy.  For over a week now I have received no response from him or his team about anything I have said to them.  They have humiliated both themselves and me.  I went to them absolutely openly and legally with everything they needed to know, and they started coaxing me without committing to making me feel safe at the other end from the mental health authorities and others.  I’m afraid to come home. When I say that they emphasise that I am free, in the same coded way, but I reesnt the mode of communication and I am basically afraid of coercive arrest with intimidation at the airport on criminal or mental health grounds, even though I have tried to pursue things through both the police and the IPCC systems without response, over months.  I wish Hillary Clinton woiuld get off my screen.  She’s using the same stuff.  She’s dumbshowing in the same way.  I think she has made it clear that she knows Jean Darnall, or at least of her.  I thought it meant that Jean has relationship and input into US gvernment, but perhaps it doesn’t.  Mrs Clinton came out on several occasions that were important in my life and communication, looking the image of Jean in everything about her.  Her face, her walk, and everything.

As for me being a criminal, the police here have told me that I am not a wanted person here in Bulgaria, otherwise they would know, they said.  I asked them when I had to report my passport missing.  I’ve had no communication from the police at all, for months.  I try to avoid situations where people have involved them before, some of those situations the police have apologised to me for.

I’ve just had a thought.  Lyse Doucett.  I looked at the name and gradually made a connection between it and the song that goes, ‘tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies’.  ‘Douce’ is the French for ‘sweet’.  Is this supposed to be helpful?  Who are they treating as if they need to be held down and forced to tell the truth?  Isn’t this just dishonorable and underhand, whoever does it?  If this is the basis of power relationships, it’s madness.  It’s madness.  They’ve gone off into morality play and fairy tale land.  These people responsible for our lives and well being.  They don’t know how to do it straight.  It’s lunacy.  And they call the rest of us lunatics, or whatever else injurious they can beat us and injure us with.  If they have not lost touch with reality and if they are not bombarding us with unreality, what is the situation?  Is this how they call on a higher morality in a world where people are not legally obliged to help people or slippery if they are, and where lying is not a crime?  I think this is abusive.  I think they are psychologically doping us, and maybe that isn’t the motive, but it is still the outcome.  The word is not the reality unless the reality it represents is upheld by law.  You can’t forsake the reality and criminalise people for intolerance or harassment or whatever, or call them mentally ill for holding to the reality, and hold on to the power of the words that uphold the reality you have forsaken and despise in practice.  Not unless you are crazy, deceitful or trying to impose an agenda using the definitions of the reality you want to invalidate, and along with the reality, everyone who values it.

6.04 pm  Lyse Doucett has just hit me with a very forceful mention of Jeremy Bowen, then she mentioned it a second time, softening it and softening and twinkiling into it, which always makes me feel guilty for having found fault with it in the first place, and as I am feeling exposed and guilty, they go straight into a politically sensitive interview.  They do this all the time.  It is a spititual block or a spiritual tap, it probably has different intended functions at different times.  I had a teacher at school called Bowen.  Surely I don’t need to say more.  They are moralising at me. They have no right.

I just heard David Cameron’s speech repeated, and I thought he didn’t even care.  not really.  he was talking about not letting regimes attack their own people with military force, but in our country even the police, at demonstrations, without military aid, kill and seriously injure people.

I watched Hillary Clinton again as well.  I got the impression she was deliberately acting out a ‘street’ persona.  Really.  I was so convinced I was horrified at what I believed to be reality.  Why would she be deceiving us in that way?

Ben whatever his name is is on.  I was just wondering why the news presenters deliberately and routinely, while they are talking, look over momentarily to the side, as if trying to stop something that comes into their minds from breaking their focus about what they want to say.  If they say it is just so they won’t worry about whether or not they have turned the gas off, I won’t believe them. Lyse Doucett just did that.  While I was wondering about it light dawned and joy showed on Ben Brown’s face, and he flashed his eyes over to the side, as if communicating it had been picked up, and then he twisted his mouth, almost like an occult control on mine.  That is how I interpreted it.  Straight after Peter Dobby came on talking about ‘focus’, then he questioned Jeremy Bowen and said ‘what did he say?’, and the lift in his voice towards the end struck me as full of false innocence.  It’s almost like a pub chat, over Libya.  That is disgusting.  Why are they pitching to the pub?  Why are they trying to make me feel, as long as I watch them and listen to them, that I am either in a brothel or a pub?  The squawking voices are all wrong.  The deliberate squawk, they all do it.  They are going for our ability to think straight and independently.  It grates, and it makes people stupid.  I heard a few years ago, that the process of thinking involves your vocal cords and your tongue.  I believe this, and I believe our thinking processes are under attack.  While I was writing this, Peter Dobby twisted a word, deliberately, and markedly and deliberately sped up his speaking.

Is Peter Dobby a witch?  Which came first, Dobby the house elf in Harry Potter, or Peter Dobby the news reader?  And why the doubling up?  I am sure the mental connection is being used to full effect.  Tanya Beckett has got her ‘you naughty girl’ voice on.

I just looked at my aol email account, before 6pm.  On the ‘today’ section, they are running an article about error messages on computers, and are showing the ‘fatal error’ message.  They’ve been doing this sort of thing to me for years.  Is it supposed to be funny, or menacing, or what?  Are any of those considerations more important than or as important as the question, ‘should they be doing it at all?’?  If they know enough to stalk me with that, they also know I am and have been afraid for my safety, there is nothing funny about this, it could, conceivably, be a message to someone other than me, and for me psychologically it is an incitement to violence in retaliation (or at least to fall apart with impotent anger), and it might be a literal incitement and instruction to violence to someone else.  It could beI struggled for the word ‘impotently’, I couldn’t remember it, and as I was getting hold of it, Tanya Beckett’s eyes sort of widened and she suddenly went into a jerk forward on a word followed by a jerk back.  She followed it up with a chavvy accent (reminds me of ChavvyVicky, the psychiatric nurse in Croydon with cats that became a problem at the same time I said something problematic.  She was a character or caller on the Clive Bull Show on LBC.  That was also meant to offend, I believe.  I don’t know what I believe, they are so psychologically violent in their presentation.  After Tanya Beckett’s Chavvy act, she started doing ‘look, I’m a squeaky girl’ modulations with her voice, and I was thinking, ‘what are you on with, then I remembered i was looking at an actress, and admired her ‘as an actress’, and she looked triumphant, but she is supposed to be dealing truthfully and straight with fact.  But the jerking backwards and forwards, at that time.  There is definitely something going on there, occultically.  Lady blonde porcelain has gone back into her dominatrix act, and when I let a sound out of my own mouth to challenge what is happening, the people upstairs bang on my ceiling, even if all I do is let out a sung note.  This is in Plovdiv.  All of these people, media, neighbours, are savage and evil.  yes they are.  it is criminal.  They like to tell you people who say things like this are mentally ill and dangerous.  They like to run stories about people who kill their neighbours or their social workers or their nurses or anyone because they believe they are evil.  This is evil.  You have no right to do this, and you have no right to do it to me.  First you provoke people, then you punish them for reacting.  I’ve called Lady porcelain before.  As soon as I can remember her name, as soon as I see or hear it again, I’m going to call it again.  YOU ARE MURDEROUS, MANIPULATIVE, HATEFUL, SO AMBITIOUS YOU DON’T CARE WHO YOU DESTROY AND ABUSE, AND YOU ARE THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL, AND SUPPORT AND AFFIRM OR ALLOW FREE REIN TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.  YOU ARE THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL.  YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.  AND YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC’S PERCEPTION OF REALITY.  I just looked at Lyse.  She is obviously enjoying something very much.  I think they are deliberately tapping into my neighbours, and using us against each other.  I was taught at church there is no such ting as white witchcraft.  But this isn’t white.  This is obvious, psychologically violent, evil.  This is the blackest of black magic and satanism.  You have no right to be gunning for people like this.   They start coming down seconds after I start coming down.  It’s theft.

Hillary Clinton is continually having a go at me.  She is saying things about Gaddafi that I believe people say about me, about decency, isolating, taking money, etc.  The people upstairs keep getting off on my tv, and bang if I sing.  I just swtiched it off, and the man upstairs has gone for a pointed pee.  He has done that before.  I just shouted up to them, asking who is paying them.

If Hillary Clinton is having a go at me, or messing around with lumping people together linguistically and psychologically, she should be ashamed of herself.  I feel molested by what the man upstairs has just done.  Just as I do by his violent banging and their other invasiveness.  But if Hillary Clinton is messing with me, she should be ashamed of herself, if she loves her husband.  I was in hospital when he was in court.  I felt really sorry for him. I did my best to watch and listen to as much as I could, but in hospital it was difficult, people kept talking over it, they weren’t really interested.  But I was.  I really felt for him.  I’m afraid I can’t remember if I felt for the whole family or not.  I don’t know why I felt for him, or why I have felt for other national leaders in the past.  My first awareness of tragedy involving a national leader was when J F Kennedy was shot.  I was two days short of 3 years old.  If I don’t remember anything about it from earlier that day, I definitely remember watching and hearing about it on News at Ten on ITV.  People keep stealing my feelings from me now, about other people and about myself, but then I felt very grave and heavy about it.  I felt the same way for Richard Nixon as well.  I went to a prayer meeting at Talbot Street, I can’t have been more than 13, and everyone was thanking God, I seem to remember, that corruption had been exposed.  I feel like crying thinking about it, even now.  I wanted to pray for him, maybe for his family, but I didn’t.  I wanted to so much, but no one else was praying the same way.  I wanted to pray for Richard Nixon.  Almost like a child for a father.  I suppose I feel a bonding to him because of that even now.  I wonder if anything would have been different for him if I had prayed for him, out loud in the meeting?  I told one person, the person who drove me home afterwards.  I think I did, anyway.  Maybe I wasn’t specific about the situation.

In England, we have our own human rights atrocities. Gaddafi was saying today that his people love him, and some of them obviously do, they have made it clear.  But the people ‘interviewing’ him were talking to him as if he was a mental patient and they were rather contemptuous psychiatric staff.  If I had the strength of voice I would say, ‘not in my name’.  That is shameful.  How long have they been doing this to him?  How long, behind closed doors, after the embraces for the cameras?  Why should I listen to my own country’s propaganda any more than theirs? Would my country care about them, if it were not for the oil supply?  There are other countries they don’t care about, aren’t there? So if this isn’t about oil, what is it about?  I suppose it will be a committee decision, so there will be no clear answers and no definitive reason.

Advertisements

You’re An Embarrassment

You news people, you irresponsible, provocative bastards, you are an embarrassment to the public that relies on you.  Especially the vulnerable ones like me that you torture with your smug craftiness and lying hypocrisy until we feel we have to say the things you know but refuse to take responsibility for.  I wish I knew your name, you have a face that looks like an arse that needs smacking.  Ben Brown.  You people have been outraging people with your untruthfulness and linguistic trickery all day.

And since you are BBC World News, and without Unlock VPN we can’t get tv news from home, why don’t we hear more from home news?  And why can’t people in the UK watch what we do get?  So they can’t see the unbalanced, sickly crap?

And someone is deliberately crashing my computer, and that is an act of violence, and so was your smirking little sports girl, smirking over number ones and number twos.  That is completely molestation, and everything you do is incitement.  Why are you closing your poor little eyes, Mr News Presenter, as if you can’t cope with the world or anyone who wants to access you, and probably especially me, with the pointedness of your insults.  How dare you set your faces against anyone in your audience.  I’m not the person you are speaking to when you call a fellow reporter by name, so stop eyeballing the camera and shouting someone else’s name at the people watching you.  I’m not a dog.  You treat me like one.  You’re the dogs.  You are the dangerous, dishonest and violent ones.  You.  You’re scum.  You are filthy dogs and scum, both men and women.  Decent people hate you.  Decent people like me.  Ban Ki Moon talks about journalists being threatened with guns and knives.  I’m not surprised.  You play the innocents but you are anything but, with your illegitimate, illegal mind games.  you’re shooting words, one of them ‘witch’, and you’ve been talking about a sportsman smashing a tv set, and you smirk into the camera as you pelt me with your verbal needles and violence and incitement.  But you did all the last bit, about 2 minutes of it, off camera, and came back on looking all innocence.  Go to hell, all of you.  I join my voice with that of Gadaffi, even if I can’t spell his name.   You, the news, the politicians, have exploited him as much as you have me.  Then you try to make out you don’t understand why he is acting like a madman, if he is, it is only a western prejudice and convenience to say so.  What about the west and its war crimes, Mr Cameron?  Locking people up as mental patients without telling them why they are really there?  What about western media and its straightforward, criminal and smutty stalking?  You bastards, you are liars and hypocrites.  If you’re so keen on democracy, why can’t you allow others to choose a different form of government, without sabotaging and brainwashing them to think our way is better.  In practice, you people are the first to say it is not, because you reserve the right to be called the experts and to say the general populace does not understand.  And although we don’t have the death penalty here or openly recognise torture, you farm them out to other countries, and even practice them yourselves.  You have broken my heart today and every day you do this kind of thing.  You are so obviously, savagely, criminally, contemptuously dishonest, and you don’t care.  You spit in our faces.  You are liars, you are dogs, and I hate you.  Right now I could not hate you more.  What you’ve done and have been doing is monstrous, and so is what you have allowed.  This is just opportunistic attention shifting and another attempt to unite us against someone else you choose to call alien.  Why can’t you be decent?  Why can’t you make us a nation to be proud of?  Why do you lie and betray us?  Why do you make us want to turn our faces from you in shame?  Why do you let violent men rule over women who don’t even understand their language, so you can get on and do all this, and add your own forms of violence?  The world’s leaders, including those of the Middle East, should rise as one and condemn you.  I think most of us probably know you’re feeding us something disgusting.  Maybe in the UK news people are more voluble about saying so.  I am ashamed of you today, and I wish I didn’t know you.  I really mean that.  To me Gadaffi looks more bewildered than anything.  The photos you are putting out of him, he looks a lot like David Shearman.  You’ve done a lot of this.  i hate you for this, and your news and approach is not in my name.  I’m crying and I want to scream.  I have no one to grieve with over this, just as I had no one to grieve with when they killed Saddam Hussein, and before that when you first went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.  I wish so much that I did, and I wish it could be you.  And your shouting weather woman who shouts so provocatively then talks about things being quiet, she and the others who do what she does, newsreaders and all, are hateful devils full of contempt.  I think Peter Dobby just said we can get the BBC World news in America, and I think that isn’t true.  And he just said took in the Bulgarian way, for here, that they often do.  Why don’t you just take a knife and carve bits out of my heart with it?  It’s violent and indecent.

It’s 9.26 pm UK time, 11.26 here, and suddenly everything is sweetness and light, Royal family and classical music, and Libya doesn’t exist anymore.  It is completely disorientating.  What is going on here?  This is violent brainwashing, and disorientation. I’m not sure what Ghita, another presenter, has to do with the weather forecast.  This is witchcraft.

I’m afraid, really afraid, that my neighbours might hurt me.  They are getting as close as they can, hammering on my ceiling like that, so violently, so contemptuously, even when I’m asleep.  And commenting every time I cough or any other sound is heard to escape from my body.  Forgive me being so specific, but I need you to understand how this feels.  I also wish that, instead of just reading, you would act responsibly.  I know people read, it is in my statisitics, including the posts that are read and how many times.  Yet most of the time you don’t coment or do anything, and if you did you might penalise me by going to mental health people instead of dealing with the perpetrators. The churches I have mentioned refer to the material on my blog all the time, and do nothing.  So does everyone else, but the thing is, the church does, and not only does it stand back, it takes part in the stalking.  Someone did it back to Bruce Atkinson two Sunday nights ago.  I think from what I saw they began to get the message.  But no one showed any reaction to the incident that I was aware of, until after I watched my recording a week later, last Sunday afternoon, then in the evening Nottingham Christian Centre was all of a flutter, so I suppose they were hacking my computer to know that I had seen it finally, or they found out from somewhere.  I think I had seen it in time for the 2.30 pm service at Kensington Temple, because that is when I think I saw them react.

I told the estate agents I thought my neighbours were going to the media and taking money instead of going to the police, because of what I’m hearing from BBC World News, specifics about what is happening here and how I react.  I told them what is happening in the media and what has been happening for years, including my time here.  One of the presenters on the BBC World News was speaking really sweetly then escalated to loud and aggressive and driving, and as they did my neighbour from upstairs hammered on my ceiling, and when I shouted back he hammered again, and when I kept going he hammered again, and he won’t go to the police, although I’ve suggested he should, even if angrily, and the man on now, 5.38 pm UK time, is doing all the subtle word substitutions and talking about schitz.  These are evil savages, both those in the studio co-operating, and it is obviously knowingly, and those doing the driving and the cut offs behind them.

I’m afraid my neighbours might try to hurt me.  I’ve made it clear that I believe they are talking to the media and taking money.  I feel stupid, but I also feel afraid to go out.

I can’t contact my landlord, and I know the police and the British Embassy don’t respond.  I’ve done all that as well.  And the media – soft, purring, presumptuous, alternated with violent and aggressive, swine.

BBC World News have been clawing at me all afternoon.  Brainwashing with violence.  There was a programme made up of emails, I think, which did a role call of many significant names in my life, with no exceptions I was aware of, they were all significant, and they ended with my own name.  Weekend World.  I can’t contact my landlord.

Bloodhounds, newshounds, bassett hounds . . . can’t think of anymore at the moment.

Newshounds.  A term of affection and pride, I thought.  But a hound is a dog.  You can’t call people dogs.  You’ll get your face slapped.

However . . . actors use props.  Sometimes hidden like lucky charms.  I sometimes wonder where exactly the knife is hidden or who might be holding it and brandishing it in the background.  Yes, I do mean a real knife.  Brandished in real maniacal anger and hatred.  I’m really fed up of hearing these throat-rasping, savage, mocking idiots.

Even yesterday,  listening to BBC Radio London, I felt convinced, in fact it seemed obvious, that our media is in the hands of some sort of mafia organisation.  I suppose I should feel sorry for the people who go into it blindly.  For some of them, little more than children themselves, the things they do are so awful, I could almost feel they must be under some kind of threat.  Maybe blackmail or something, I don’t know.  Or maybe they are just that savage and ambitious.

I watched ‘Let’s Dance For Comic Relief’ just now, which was broadcast last Saturday evening on BBC1.  I’m afraid I don’t have the stomach to talk about it.  I watched it to see Ed Byrne, I think he’s great, really nice.  Or maybe I just have a teenagerish crush on him.

All these people playing the northern dominatrix, you know, they’re not really northerners or, if they are, they are deliberately portraying an offensive and demeaning caricature.  And look at Katie Price.  And JLS.  And everyone who acts the part of the airhead brigade.  It’s a complete betrayal.  Watch all these so-called ‘airheads’, wherever they pop up – football included.  These are hard-headed business people handling millions and billions.  There is no way they are like that.  Sometimes you see the truth break through, if you care to watch closely enough.  So why are they feeding us a constant diet of such trash?  There is no gift involved in this, no talent, just a complete, bullying deception which sometimes appears cute and funny but in reality, for the truly vulnerable and desperate, which I am trying to move away from being, it is anything but.  When I was a kid people used to say the devil looks after his own and talk about honour among thieves.  Both of those sayings are true, but only to a point.  These people know that.  And many of them have each other over a barrel, and some of us as well, if not all of us.  I’ve had enough of seeing my money go to support such people.

PS  What’s the name of that place?  Flossimouth?  I think so.  Listen to them.

I heard them say a few months ago that they had to maintain the moral high ground.  I suppose that is where the combination of dominatrix and honeymouth comes in.  They only sound harsh when they want you to hear them swearing at you or calling you a name.  And listen to the way they say ‘country’, the sexual intonation of it, and the way they talk about the toss.  That’s partly what I meant about BBC Radio london – it’s more like being in the Playboy club (where I have never been) than listening to something legitimate.  The  people on BBC World news are the same, including the  Asian woman who is doing the sports now, 7.49 am UK time.  She’s now talking strictly about throwing people out if they are responsible for anymore crowd trouble.  Forget, forget.  Sit ins sounding like the person they are sitting in for (Robert Elm’s sit in yesterday.  I was sure it was him pretending to be someone else).  Something bad is happening here.  Someone please help me and stop them, I can’t take it anymore.  They are demonic, and deliberately so.  And someone crashes my computer when I really begin to run with something.  I obviously know too much.  That’s good.  I’ve got the big dogs worried.  That is really exceelent news and very flattering.  I hope they come to know the Lord Jesus.  They are openly, for those who know, playing with a mix of lies and occultism.  I can feel its effect all the time.

On the news they have basically built themselves a new age grotto.  All the vibrant gem colours, the crystal balls (literally) for the weather, and watch the shoulder drops.  They started doing that after I watched a video of Michael Mish’s, with a young girl, in her teens, if that, doing the same thing.  I think they are using other coding as well.  the man John, that Nana was just talking to, was talking about Tripoli and it sounded as if he was using it for trickery.  And they are being as provocative as possible.  They are being sexually invasive with a mixture of words and tone and imediately following it up with a harsh and violent and contemptuous sounding bit of speech.  It’s so provocative, I feel as if I have two options.  I can speak the violence they deliberately try to provoke me into speaking, or they can just keep sticking their violent knives into my mind and I feel as if I can’t think or speak at all.  They delieberately make you angry, then they mock you with it.  mocking people they have already destroyed.  These are violent and real savages.  I have every sympathy with the leaders who are currentlysaying that the media are making their people drunk and that it is the BBC’s fault.  nana, before going to someone called Chris, just said ‘let’s git’, as in the constant reference to schizophrenia, and they keep saying, deliberately, on the news programmes, things in the same tone as the dominatrix figures in Strictly Come Dancing and The Weakest Link, and at the same time staring like an innocent doe into the camera.  Take these people down, God, get them off our screens.  They are raging bulls and bloodthirsty wolves.  Even if they have the ability to make me doubt my own perception of that.

Dear Nana and co, the ‘Our World’ and ‘our website’, which you want us to think is yours, the BBC’s, it is ours, and you are abusing it and us.  It’s ours.  One way or another, we pay you.  We don’t pay you to abuse us and perpetrate lies and abuse in our name.  You have access to it by our grace, not the other way round.

The weather girl just talked about unsettled weather as if she was a psychiatric nurse.  It isn’t just my mind.  it is my belief that the economy doesn’t suffer because of the weather, but because of the way the people who report it use it to attach negative messages to it.  If people don’t shop because of the weather, it’s because of the way they instruct us to think about it.  And it’s deliberate.  Go get ’em, kids.  They are openly and unashamedly gloating in their power.  Not just the weather reporters.  While I write, they adopt that tone.  and the person who comes on next switches to wrong foot you.  And it is my honest belief that these purer than pure looking and sounding bastards and bitches deliberately use innocent sounding replacements for swearing they either want us to hear or that they want to say but their job doesn’t allow them.  They are poisonous, and keith Green was right.  They would kill me if they could, and one day they might.  They have already gone quite close in what they have done to me over at least the last 15 years.  And believe me, I’d like to do the same to them.  I’d like to break them bone from bone.  Their false innocence is the most hateful defiance imaginable.  So go ahead, punks, if you want to arrest me and drug me for daring to say so, do so.

I don’t know why I watch it.  It’s an abusive construct.  It’s a complete con.  She just talked about Irish going bad then said bankers to sound like wankers.  I know what I’m talking about and so do some of my readers, I don’t need to be specific.  But Colin Dye’s wife is irish, whatever that has to do with it.  She also just affected, whether it was real or not, as if she was instructing someone to take me out.  It’s punitive.  They always do this.  It’s obviously to make me regret that I ever started writing, and to keep violently provoking me into needing to say something else when I want to stop, as long as I’m watching it and logging it.  These are our equivalent of Victorian ladies and gentlemen who used to visit asylums and laugh at the inmates, but they try to kid us that these days we are kinder and more humane.  Look at them.. hey are like nasty animals, control, control, control, and kill.  They are all doing it and they all know and they are doing it on purpose, and they are doing it to cover criminality and to deceive.  Listen to all the tongue, lashings.  It is criminal insolence.  I might be sick, but it is the criminals taunting and provoking that need taking out, not me.  They know it.  their tears are the tears of desperate guilt, and I am pitiless.  Then they eyeball the camera as if to engage you, then whip their eyes away.  That little cunt doing the news is a nasty little slut.  i think she knows she looks like Chrysta.  Savage little dominatrix.  They are deliberately inciting to violence and hatred, by all their behaviour.  it’s as if they are saying, ‘we’ve won, you’re finished, what are you going to do about it?’  In terms of child bearing, I am finished, and they are cruel.  The church always taught me that witches feel and hate prayer.  I know and can see and hear that this is obviously true.  Liars, liars, liars and criminals, violent, hateful, degraded and degrading criminals.  They are making me desperately hysterical.  That’s exactly what they want.  If they say anything else, it’s a lie.

They are only acting all sweetness and light.  Their kingdom is coming down, both personally and corporately.  I would like to see their masks torn off completely with the dead men’s bones behind them, before they drag me out anywhere and tear me to pieces with their guile.  God, let it happen, and let it happen quickly.  They keep taunting me with the possible loss of my freedom.  I can’t bear it.  These dogs have no right to this.  They never have had and never will have.  Nana is doing her ‘look at me, I’m a lovely, reasonable person’ act, to fool whoever she can, and to enable whoever she needs to, and disable others, like me.  They know I want to do them violence.  That’s what they aim for, that is their goal.  There is no better way to silence someone like me than to make them feel things they are frightened of because of the possible consequences of expressing them.  On Radio London yesterday they were talking about debt counselling, on the Danny Baker show, i think, or the one after it.  one of the guest said that people with mental health problems should never be forced to do anything.  Someone in the studio banged down loudly on a desk.  I believed it was to try to suppress the statement, because they have been pressuring me for ages and not being direct and open and legally committed in their approaches.  I believe they love it when i rant like this.  It makes me feel ashamed, insecure and humiliated.  Nana will keep beatific Miss Purity on as long as she can, but sometimes it slips.  Look into my eyes can’t you see they’re open wide, would I lie to you baby?  Well, yes, actually, otherwise you wouldn’t need the almost pantomime appearance.  I don’t want to be exposed to this crap, this act, this deception.  When I turn the news on, I want to listen to real news, not surreptitious targetting and attacks.  there’s something about purple.  They all wear pink and purple.  They are their colours of power (my browser got crashed again here).  I read an article online by Dr mercola who talked about the power of purple.  I know this fits in somewhere, but I don’t know how or where, if he gave it to them or if they stole it.  it could be either, they hack my computer.  Nana is insolent, she is facing off, look at her.  Jobbing actors and actresses, just like Norman Wsidom’s friend said on BBC London news, and the girl didn’t like it.  I like purple, I feel good in it.  Did do before they started using it, like everything else they know about me.  They play hide and seek.  They disappear at significant points.  Now you see me, now you don’t.  It’s all psychological trickery and taunting, like hanging, drawing and quartering.  Come on, Sue, open, open, open, open. Forget it,you vapid acting little darlin’, I’m done.  That is all you’re getting this morning.

3.11 pm UK time.  The man on the right of the 4 way split screen looks like Jacques Jacobs from Winning in Life and he just said swear for square, talking about Libya, and now he has gone from sounding like a munchkin on helium to a posh purr, and now he has stopped.  They make me look petty if I say anything.  I suppose the producer must have just called a break, because he said they were coming back.  It might have been scheduled or not, but you can’t believe anything they say anyway, they even alter their taps to erase the evidence. I know that from before. I’ve said that in the past as well.  I don’t think they should be forgiven for that.  Purring patronisation and indoctrination into western atheistic humanism.  They aren’t reporting, they are promoting an agenda, and most of their emails, which they mock me with when I start to write, are made up.  They love it when I scream hysterically and do everything they can to continue to sound pure in spite.

People say and do atrocious things, regularly, deliberately, knowingly, routinely, knowing they are wrong, then they do it again, because that’s what they do, but suddenly they don’t want it to have the effect that it does and they apologise, for someone’s hearing, if not for the hearing of the people they have offended.  Names and pack drill, I have the Robert Elms programme yesterday, and every day, in mind, at least on this occasion.  The cheek by jowl set up.  But it could be the rest of the media, or church, or politics.  All of those industries.  That is all they are.

The thing is, they have no intention of stopping permanently.  That is how their industry works, the most injurious, demeaning, subliminal, verbal assaults.  So sorry, but what does sorry mean?  Nothing, except that, this time, we want something and can’t afford to offend you, or someone else hearing what we are doing.  I feel sorry for him.  I think he probably means well.

I love you guys, but sorry means nothing if you don’t intend to change.  Stop what you do, as an act of policy stop it, please, or stop saying sorry when you do it and it happens not to fit what you want to achieve on that particular occasion or someone exposes it.

I hope we understand each other. Any quistions (sic), do let me know.

I’m Sue Barnett.  Now let squet (skit) the weather.

Loose paraphrase:  Which would you rather receive, a comment saying ‘great post!  check out my blog at (www.suebarnett.wordpress.com, in my case)’ or one saying ‘well said!  I know what you’re talking about because . . . and I think . . .’?

While the forum, if properly, fairly and legally run, is useful and sometimes feels helpful, I for one would rather not be nagged and patronised and treated like some sort of a great-niece or child or student in a classroom in this way.   As far as I am concerned, we comment the way we can at the time, and those of us who are sincere in our comments and appreciation might well be using that shorthand to say, ‘I am so impressed with what you have to say here, there is nothing I feel able to add, but I would appreciate you looking at my blog because I think yours is an opinion I would value’.

Some people, like me, sometimes read and blog in distress, or very focussed on their own thing and they are desperate to have someone else aware of and concerned about the things they are concerned about.  I don’t think we need to sanitise and make anodyne the way everyone should leave their comments, or that anyone should see it as an insult or somehow inadequate if a person says, ‘great post, please check out my blog’.  It might be all they are capable of at the time, and it might show more appreciation than launching into an opinion.

While I understand exactly what is being said and on the whole agree with it, there are times of desperation or recognition, for me, when I can’t say what I want without it being as short as possible and straight to the point.  I’m thinking, maybe pretentiously, of the difference between a diver, say, at their most polite and articulate, saying something like, ‘honey, would you mind getting the air cylinder out of the car?’ and a woman in intense labour pains screaming and swearing and snarling like a savage at her helper who insists on going by the book to shut up and give her the mask.  Something like that.  There are other situations of pain where the same would apply.  Or the difference between someone swimming yelling ‘hey, great to see you, come on in, let’s play ball’, and someone else in the water drowning doing their best while trying to snatch air to attract the attention of someone to help them.

Etiquette is for the adequate and sometimes even for the indifferent and self-absorbed, to get what they want with as little friction as possible.  Many people are inadequates who accept that about each other, and don’t want to be told they should emulate the adequate, bright, happy, switched on people in order for their contribution to be acceptable.

And while I’m thinking about it, someone said that most people live lives of quiet desperation.  But we have been taught in the past, if not now, to be completely hypocritical about that fact when applying for a job, for instance.  I can’t theorise on why that is at the moment, but if a person is desperate for a job, and also capable of doing it or of learning to, why should they be advised to rely on such self-negating and relationship-sabotaging dishonesty and subterfuge right from the beginning, and why should anyone be taught that it is not acceptable to show desperation if it exists?  I’ve never employed anyone, so I don’t know if employers are advised to despise desperation, or if the advice is based on the belief that, if someone sees you are desperate, they might take advantage of you, but it seems to me that no honest and honorable relationship can be based on an initial dishonesty of that kind.

It also occurs to me that the kind of comment WordPress is presenting as less desirable might be nothing more than the expression of an internalisation of that advice which allows for nothing more.  Keep it light, keep it casual, can easily translate to, ‘hey, that’s great, come and see mine!’  We need permission to become honest again, not instructions on how to become presentable and acceptable to other people in order to compensate for and not address the fact that experts in communication have told us to steer clear of some kinds of honesty.

So thank you for your advice, WordPress, and I hope this post might be in line with the kind of comments and responses you would like to see.  And please check out my blog at www.suebarnett.wordpress.com. Thank you for reading and for letting this pass the moderation procedure (which I personally find also inhibits and tampers with my ability to communicate as I would wish, sometimes.  If I’m not even sure I am going to get through the door or have my existence acknowledged or welcomed, why should I and how can I lay myself bare, as it were, in my response?  Often closed doors and rejection make desperate and battered people who can hardly hear you anyway, even with the impecceable (and expensive) etiquette of having a butler to hold the door wide open).

Oops, here we go!  Back to me.  If you go through a butler, you have probably had to go through other levelsof protocol as well, and how you handle them might determine whether or not you get as far as the butler.  In church I was taught that this procedure is a way of reveaing a person’s heart and whether or not ‘they are ready’ for access.  They never, to my memory, said anything or much about any inadequacies or unreadiness expressed by the person requiring such protocol.  Is it right that the person expected to go through it should be the only one expected to fit? In reality does it even work that way?  Some people want the challenge of the protocol because they want a process of validation or change.  I happen to believe that in some situations I am one of those people.  But if the people imposing or handling the protocol don’t respect that about me or even respect the protocol itself . . . .  protocol is a mutual thing, isn’t it, not just from the top down.  I’m sure it should be and that really that is how it should work.

Government Hanky-Panky

Maybe it’s time for me to stop being drawn on this, but this morning I heard (sorry, I get confused) William Hague or Iain Duncan-Smith (I think it was William Hague) say something about harassment of journalists in Libya.  He paused before saying ‘in Libya’, as if trying to emphasise the point that he was saying Libya, and nowhere else, maybe not the UK.

Being the self-centred person that I am, I thought he was saying that I am harassing journalists and I got a bit upset.  Then I thought, ‘wait a minute, he’s probably trying to draw a distinction between the journalists in Libya (about whom he doesn’t have a bad word to say), and some of the journalists here, in our minds’.  I thought of Julian Assange.

I know many people will have seen the video of him outside the court about a week or so ago (I haven’t seen anything more recent) with him so close to tears saying he hasn’t had the chance to put his side of the story and that there have been incitements to violence towards him and his staff.

I don’t know him, but tears are very powerful with me.  Some people say they are a form of manipulation.  Maybe those people have never known real desperation.  I was frightened of my tears for years, after reading in a counselling type book that they are a form of manipulation.  I realise that tears only express our feelings and not necessarily the truth about the beliefs we hold that make us cry, but they must be one of the most valid expressions of personal, heartfelt reality, and for that reason I for one cannot despise them or be dispassionate about them.  If we took more notice of tears we might be a less violent, bigoted, punitive, testosterone-and-spleen-driven and reactionary world.  I believe real tears always should be reconcilers or at least a gateway to reconciliation.  His tears touched me.  I don’t know if they were real or not.  But how desperate does a person have to show themselves to be in order to have the violation of their legal human rights redressed by those who should and who think they have the right to judge instead?

My own emotions are mangled.  I’m being shouted at and banged at every day, especially when I’m just lying on my bed trying to connect my life to its source and neither moving nor speaking, just enjoying the feeling of beginning to recover the connection between my mind and emotions, then it all starts.  And I do the same thing back sometimes, even if only eventually and not on the spot.  Early in the morning I am too shocked and don’t know how to handle myself.  I can not get dressed for days because the violence makes me feel I can’t cope with life.  And then I feel ashamed of my own reactions when I give it back.

All that to say, condoning computer-hacking from anyone, including the government, excluded, I wish I could help Julian Assange and I would if I could, and would do so in every way that I could if he or his representatives asked me to.  There is no way I would not be prepared to help, believing as I have that he tried to help me.  Isn’t it funny how the government always steps forward to try to get you to disconnect from ‘bad influences’ only after they themselves have been exposed?  If they had not been exposed, if the timing of the leaks had not made me feel supported, I wonder what they would now be saying and doing?

‘The Big Society’ manifesto and plan almost completely replicates some of the concerns I raised in a document on my computer, following years of official abuse and neglect, including from the police, which was addressed to the chief of police in Sussex but not sent.  Given everything else it is hard for me to believe that someone hasn’t lifted it straight from my computer.  I know some people will believe or try to make out this is lunatic, but others will not, they even comment and sometimes get uncomfortable if I log on to a parliamentary broadcast, which I watch from the beginning and delayed, at the time that I actually log on and start watching.  This happened one Friday at the reading of a Private Member’s Bill, and the discomfort was particularly pronounced.  I keep intending to find it and watch it again, because at the time I thought I understood the discomfort.

My browser has crashed a couple of times while typing this, always when I am getting into a release of full flow.  It must show in my typing.  I think that, among other things, my key strokes are being monitored by someone.  I obviously don’t know who or why. There are people I think of and think of course I’ll stop if it’s them and they want me to, but I go on in stubbornness and/or uncertainty.

I started the post to say that it seemed fairly clear to me that, whatever William Hague was trying to communicate with his statement this morning, what appeared to be the surface message didn’t appear to me to be his main concern, and I wish they wouldn’t go around making object lessons and drawing comparisons and contrasts from another country’s distress while trying to appear to have a single message and motive.

Julian Assange, I love you.  I am absolutely backing you up with my best intentions and my strongest hopes for your safety, if that is all I can do.  I can’t quite connect with your reality, as I said when I try to connect with my own people cry out and start banging, I don’t understand the dynamic, I usually go for the explanation that makes me feel guilty, and it’s happening now and it is so distressing, so excuse me if you find this inappropriate, but I feel as if my own entrails are being fed upon.  I believe I have heard you trying to communicate with me, and from you in your position I appreciate that so much.  But I don’t know, maybe you’re communicating with me and every rights aware individual, and I’m just bending it to myself.  I hope you will get someone to contact me if I can help or be of any use to you.  That’s how I feel, whether it is appropriate or not.  I feel as if my whole community is the idiot brigade, and they’ve all come out now.  I’ve got another person now who somehow thinks it helps and is cool to shout hallelujah at me.  Maybe I should respond with better grace and gratitude.  I don’t know why they are doing it or who has given them the idea.  They only did it after searching me out with 5 minutes of yelling and me yelling back in the end.  I feel really bad about this.  It’s obviously an affirmation and I’m being ungrateful.  I should be grateful.  It’s so good to hear.

He Was Right About One Thing Though . . .

. . . my old reader response teacher.

With a text, all you have is the text.

You can read something, especially from someone you think you know, and because you think, in your mind, that the person must be angry to say that, you can decide they are angry even if they are not. Because something makes you laugh, you can think the person is deliberately making a joke, and they might not be, it might be just the connections of your own mind.  Because you think a person doesn’t really mean what they have written, you can decide they are lying, sarcastic, ironic, and none of that might be true.

You can read, or even hear, strong and straightforward words, and think the person must be full of hate and anger, and that also might not be true.  You can read, ‘I love you’, and think it means something different from what it does.  You can think it’s sexual and it isn’t, you can think it’s a father fixation and it isn’t, you can think it’s a mature, clear minded, unemotional statement, and it isn’t.

You can’t even say the context makes it.  You create the context yourself by what you prioritise and what you decide isn’t that important.  Also, you don’t know when a person is censoring their own communication, or what they are leaving out or why.

You don’t know any of that stuff. Maybe you never will.  Not even face to face in the most longstanding and intimate of relationships.

They are so violent, they make me feel violent.  I know I speak for many.  Some people, as we know, act it out.  The full extent of my acting out is yelling, which is always misguided, because people continue without regard, and really I’m the only person that gets hurt.  I’m on my own and, because people involved professionally refuse to communicate with me constantly feeling not quite secure.  At least these people have their families, the partner or the gang they go around in.

But I’m glad I said what I said yesterday.  Now, if it wasn’t the case before, what they do will be more obvious to some people than it was.

I was just thinking, they use strings of names and references from my life and adopt a tone of entitlement to do it, as if they are doing it in co-operation with the people concerned, and that is where many of my guilt feelings come from when I don’t respond.

Today there was a little string – Mardi Fish – a tennis player, but also we say mardy in Nottingham to talk about people grizzling and crying and being miserable, and that was immediately followed up by the names Adams and Baddeley, two male teachers from my secondary school in Nottingham.

With some of the details they sometimes use, it appears that they are working in co-operation with people from my school life, whoever they are.  This little string was in the sports report.

When all this started for me the church, or at least Kensington Temple, was talking a lot about witchcraft, and I thought they meant me.  Maybe they didn’t, but I thought they did.  That’s why I was so upset, partly.  At the same time there was a tennis player called Goran Ivanisovich.  Sounds like ‘even he’s a witch’.  I heard a radio presenter say that much later, and I had thought it myself when I first heard it, in hospital, and it freaked me.

By the way, I’m still talking about BBC World News.  The time now is 11.08, UK time, which is the time people will need if they want to check this out, if they can get access to the tapes.

I don’t want to play this game with them and I don’t want to validate it.  I have been desperate enough myself.  There are others who are made even more desperate by it, if that is possible.

I saw a rcorded TV programme recently, it might have been in the “How Television Has Ruined Your life’ series on the BBC.  Whatever it was, the presenter was saying that the media uses shock tactics to keep people watching, because people are psychologically wired to give their attention to what appears to be a threat to their safety.

Charlie Wolf, when he was on Talksport, used to say he was pleased if people hated him because that meant they would keep listening. That is still how they do it, on a really wide scale.  But mixed with stalking, and obviously it becomes sinister and lethal, sometimes literally lethal.  They set out to sound violent or otherwise objectionable.  For me I find there is an element of not quite being able to believe what I am hearing or seeing, and a landing place of satisfaction is carefully avoided, so you can’t quite disengage.  Sometimes they make you feel as if you should and that they think you should, but I think it is a double bluff trick.

Just now as I was thinking clearly to write this, the presenter said he just wanted to take us back, almost in a hypnotherapy tone.  I can remember when this approach was first adopted and perpetrated.  There was a deliberate decision made, a few years ago, to adopt the language and intonation of therapy.

He just used ‘tweet’ as in Twitter, which I find always coincides with any fluency of thinking close to speech that I feel.  He just talked down from it to a stop.  Another dissonance, another contradiction.  I find it offensive. maybe it’s just me.  And I am sure there must be some sort of spiritualism involved for this to be happening.

Maybe it is just the violence of the shouting.  Now the presenter of the World Business Report is doing it.  It sounds obviously put on.

The news presenter before him – I think his name is Adam – was saying something about ‘you don’t have to be called Aron to work here, but it helps’, and he said it in such a way I thought and am sure he was referring to the time that I told Tommy Boyd, in his car, that I thought what he had said was arrogant.  He said he had a lot to be arrogant about.  Maybe we have a different understanding of the word, because i think it is a negative trait and he appeared not to.

Aron is back with the sports report, 11.45 am UK time.  He has just mentioned James Pearce.  My form teacher at the school I just mentioned in connection with the other names was called Clive Pearce.  I remember him to have been a very nice and kind person.  Straight after James pearce was mentioned Aron started talking in accented sympathetic and sad tones about people now being in danger of not qualifying.  The weather girl just appeared to stutter with the word ‘mock’.

But they keep going.  They make you feel stupid for saying it, or they look so hurt they make you feel guilty.

David Edes is on.  he was stressing for the first time that i have heard, that his programme is about opinion as well as news.  I thought he was getting at me.  At the same time they showed a report with footage about Guantanamo Bay, and the blocks didn’t look too bad and a staff member was saying conditions are much better, but there were blocks we couldn’t see for security reasons.

There must be something wrong in my head, or in the presentation, or something, because I was thinking it didn’t look too bad and Julian Assange might be OK there.  If I’m that broken down that I’m thinking that I think there must be a lot wrong on a lot of levels.  David Edes is sounding strict and disciplinarian.  I’m not sure who his tone is aimed at or what it is meant to achieve.

I am being psychologically attacked from every side.  Every time I do something different in my apartment, the woman upstairs shouts and they bang.  The whole situation, including with the media, is literally taking my oxygen and I can’t breathe and my chest hurts and I can’t cope.

On top of that, today I am watching Nik Gowing on ‘The Hub’ on BBC World News, and just as I began to get my breath, at exactly the moment, he banged on his desk.  He does this a lot, but until this incident I hadn’t seen him do it today.  His body language is very violent, so is his speech, and I believe it is deliberate, and has been as long as I have been aware of him, which is several months.  They all do it, Peter Dobby is at it now, and they have a laugh in their voices as they do it.

You don’t have to take my word for it.  If you don’t already watch them, I suggest you should start and see for yourselves.  Not just today, but consistently.  I hope you will.  It might help me if they know other people are watching this with intelligence and awareness.  I can’t take it.  I shouldn’t have to.  It’s deliberate, it’s evil, it’s mockery, and now they are coming on so jovial and stuff, you just want to hit them, don’t you?  Yes you do, it’s natural.  You don’t do it, either because you can’t or because you have self-control.  But you want to.  Because they are so violent and evil.

I want them dead.  They are playing the ‘bait and switch’ game.  I want them dead.  That’s how they want me to feel.  And they want me to say it, as I have, and they want my readers to think it is me that is dangerous, because I have a mental health diagnosis. At the very least they use that fear to keep me under control.

I’m afraid.  They are really hurting me.  I’m sure that is what they want.  They are having a laugh, and I can’t breathe and my chest hurts.

When I first started typing this, Nik Gowing’s voice took on a note of appeal.  It’s gone now.  I wonder if he was aware that I was typing this post?  Past experience tells me he probably was, and I hope he continues to expose himself, because he is really thuggish and evil.

 Edit note 6.07 pm UK time:

Someone said a little while ago to keep up with the dissonances.  I know it is deliberate.  The apparent stuttering is also deliberate.  Notice what the mistaken and half-finished words are, when it happens.

Tanya Beckett was on not long ago, doing the cat act, which has also been agreed.  She looks a lot like Jeni Barnett who is now on BBC Radio London and used to be on LBC 97.3 FM.  I’m sure Ms Beckett must know that.  On LBC they also have, or used to have, other people named the same as me and my neighbours in London.

But just before I started this note Peter Dobby said ‘are’ the same way as they did on ‘Strictly Come Dancing’, with the same emphasis and hesitation, and in the same way that Tommy Boyd used to say it on his programme when he said, ‘I can make you say ‘ah’, and he was talking about an energy point or Chakra point or something like that, just below the navel.  He (Peter Dobby) followed it up with, ‘no more protests’, as if he was giving an instruction or a rebuke, looking intently and almost querulously at the camera as if he is looking for someone and knowing, I believe, that what he has said is something associated with Tommy Boyd, and I believe he knows it is true for me.  He then said the name ‘Christian’ almost as if he was spitting it out in hatred and disdain.

As I started the last paragraph he said a different sentence with the same emphasised pause, then he immediately went into a rushing river of words. They do this a lot as well, and I believe deliberately, and because I know that I find it more dislocating than other people might, but they probably experience the same thing to a lesser degree.  I think they are affecting the charismatic/pentecostal activity of speaking in tongues, it’s a deliberate imitation.

They are also mixing my stuff together with sentences they insist on like, ‘the police have been told to go in and to use force’, and it’s making me think that that instruction has been given concerning me, because I have said in this blog, even today, that that has happened to me before.  It is completely covert to people who do not know, and they keep a poker face throughout.  It is very, very unkind and savage.  It is partly why I am having so many painful stress symptoms, apart from the harassment or at the very least insensitivity to other people’s privacy that I’m getting from my neighbours.  I’m obviously afraid – as you can see, I am feeling obliged to compromise my communication of what I believe I know.  It’s psycholinguistic torture – brainwashing and control, if you like.  I’m frightened.  If the Bulgarian police do come, I hope they are sympathetic and will help me on my terms.  I hope they haven’t been told to come in and use force.  I haven’t checked my email over the last few hours, but the last time I looked I still hadn’t had any answers to the emails I sent to the British Embassy and my housing association, which they asked me for.  They deliberately, I am sure, do everything they can to sound as if they are vomiting and gagging up, apart from everything else, and it is savage and insulting and deliberately provocative.  They put their faces up at the cameras and their whole attitude is saying, ‘what are you going to do about it?’  They follow one pattern of speech for about 10 seconds, then switch to another completely opposite.  They are the world’s rubbish and shouldn’t have any hand in the news or location work where there is unrest.  I can’t stop them, I wish I could.  I know it’s deliberate and so do others.  And people like Premier Radio make it worse, because they retaliate, that was what got me in the first place, taking their retaliation to the secular media onto myself and thinking it was aimed at me.  Was it?  I’m not sure.  But the secular media still has no excuse.

I’ve wondered about the way they are saying ‘Bahrain’, with the glottal stop.  Because David Cameron let fly at Ed Miliband with a glottal stop in Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday, and I’m thinking it might have been connected.   Ed replied or retaliated with, ‘the man (or the one) who made the tree’ and the tone was religious.  This happens a lot.  I heard a female MP during their broadcast recently say that this government doesn’t talk straight, it talks in code.  That wasn’t me, that was an MP.  But I believe she is right.

I think media people vocally affect pain as well, and so do people in Parliament.  To victims of their stalking who have real and legitimate pain, this is very offensive and provocative.  The croaky, cracking voices and everything.  It’s almost as if they feel it momentarily and deliberately seek to express it vocally because they like the fact that they feel it, it’s a feeling to be proud of.  It hurts me so much because I have been taken in by it for so long, and I think that gives them pleasure to know I understand that and they want to increase the pain I feel.  Their rushing, aggressive speech – OMG.  I really believe they are deliberately trying to make violent, harsh and coarse speech and speech patterns the acceptable thing.  Unless, as I said, I’m just privileged to have heard people like Michael Mish.  But I don’t think it is just that.  They also play with early cut-offs.  I’ve just remembered that because they have just played an advert that does exactly that, and I’ve noticed it before, it always cuts off early.  Cats are never cut off, any hint of refinement and culture is, if it seems genuine.  They go soft and intimate then immediately go into almost yelling things like ‘very disturbing’, like the sports reporter just did (6.50 pm UK time).  It’s psychological terrorism.  And it’s deliberate and criminal, whether it is the media, the politicians or the church.  It seems like a deliberately affected, constant ebb and flow of tone and content.  It’s a wall of words, and is intended to be a wall, and impenetrable.

They have been talking for a while, with a tone of significance, hesitation and almost derisive humour, about objects controlled by thought as well.  I repeat, all of this I am writing today are just a very few examples of what they do constantly.

Zeinab Bedawi is the same.  In fact, I might as well stop naming people (which is easy now I have swtiched off their provocation).  Zeinab Bedawi is the person on now, but they all do it.  I don’t think it is just tiredness and the pressure of the job, I think it is a deliberate stream of anger, hatred, contempt and defiance, even when it seems humorous, and the hope and assumption seems to be that if they all do it no one can challenge them.  For some of them at least it thinly veils fear.

Greg Dyke, the old director of the BBC until 2007, was on Newsnight last night.  In view of my last few posts, at least, please check out his embarrassed and guilty body language.

I get embarrassed about the time I waste or have stolen from me trying to deal with this, because the defiance continues and I think they love it.

But in some ways the worst thing is the Bulgarians.  For 14 months now, when I speak, every time my voice starts to become strong they start imposing their own voices.  Even in this block, it’s like a deliberate vocal struggle.  Apart from the man next door who banged sharply on my wall after only my 2nd day here, that’s what started it.  They yell first thing in the morning, and yell again in intimidating anger last thing at night, and comment at every sound they hear from my apartment, apart from which they are silent most of the time.  Do I yell back?  Yes, of course I do, I’m human and I get desperate, especially when it is so invasive.  That is when they descend into absolute silence, unless strength comes into my voice and then they ride it.  I wasn’t here under official communism, I still wonder if it was one of the torture techniques used.  Or if it is plain, gross stupidity and idiocy.

People like Colin Dye at Kensington Temple I detest, because he takes things like this and throws it back at me, with all the cut throat trickery he knows from his media experience.

I can’t stand it.  It’s like keep going at her until she shouts, then go silent unless you hear ‘that voice’, then ride it.  I feel really sick and I think they are going to try and arrest me under the mental health act.

Someone came this afternoon.  I didn’t answer the door, I was afraid.  I was typing as well.  I wasn’t expecting anyone, so I wasn’t legally obliged to answer the door.  They rang once and went away.  I was convinced it was the police.  Then I realised that I really didn’t have any idea who it was.  And if it had been someone who only spoke Bulgarian, whoever they were, and they were angry and forceful. . .   Most people would say that as a single woman in a situation like this it was probably best not to answer the door.  As it is I’m frightened that one of my neighbours will come out one day and hurt me.  But at the very least I am constantly embarrassed, and I was in pain as well.

I still believe everything I have said in the rest of this post.  And my chest still hurts.  And so does my stomach.  And I feel sick and afraid.  I know what I have had to deal with in the past, at least with my housing association.  Maybe also with the British Embassy.  I’m physically sick with the stress.  I’m not mentally ill.  Stress is not a mental illness, especially when dealing with something like this.

I went to Billa two days ago.  One of the workers there, a blonde man, came up and positioned himself beside me and started talking and yelling aggressively.  When I tried to complain to someone who was called who spoke English, and my voice developed strength and direction, the man started to shout over me again.  Not at me, but over me, as if he was calling out against me.  I’ve had that numerous times here.  There appears to be no point trying to challenge it.  I don’t think anyone wants to listen.  I think they would rather lock me away and make me take drugs for schizophrenia, than deal with other people’s behaviour towards me.  I’m frightened and I feel dishonest.  People, including my politicians, have postured as trying to help me, subliminally, and now I think they are turning the tables on me.  But because it has been coded and subliminal I can’t prove anything.  I almost feel as if this time I’m going to die or really lose my mind or something.  That something is going to be done to me which will destroy me.  I can’t do hospital, the nurses shout and hammer on doors, and I’m a vegan, and my stomach hurts.  I’m terrified and feel like passing out.  If they come at me with drugs, after all this, I swear I’ll go mad.  God help me, don’t let them hurt me.  Not anymore, please.  You are my only help.  If someone comes at me without You, they come at me with no ability to help.

One of the nurses on the ward, Simon, if he started getting tearful and upset, he would make a big, loud and inaccessible joke of it and talk about ‘filling up’, instead of stopping to examine his feelings and why he was feeling them.  I asked him about it once.  He fobbed it off, communicated something to the others then a little while later deliberately reimposed it in his conversation.  I’m scared to go back to that.  I feel as if my back is breaking.  Please don’t anyone make me go back to that.  And they don’t even cater for a vegan diet, at all.  But if they decide that’s what they want to do to me, they won’t care about that and will treat me as a nuisance.  I saw it with someone else.  They mocked her for what she called her ‘food allergies’, she had to buy food for herself, and if she felt ill and in pain, which was often, they bullied her, constantly and unashamedly complaining about her and telling her off.

At one point I seemed to be getting on well and normally with people on the ward, including one older lady, and Simon said quite openly, ‘we’ve got to get it back’, but he wasn’t talking to us, just for us, or me, to hear, so it seemed.  One day he did what I had never seen him do, he came and sat silently in the day room, where there was just me and this woman.  He sat at the table at the other end, apparently reading a newspaper, and he didn’t say hello or anything, and he sat there for ages, apparently listening to the conversation, but never contributing to it or doing or saying anything to be polite and acknowledge us.  I found it intimidating and upsetting and offensive, and when our relationship broke down he didn’t do it anymore.  He did it a couple of times at least.  His presence was so imposing without him acknowledging us or what he was doing that it made the conversation strained.

I once wanted some music on in the day room, I didn’t normally because it was Christian and I didn’t want to impose it on everyone else.  But I didn’t have my CD player, it had been taken for ‘electrical checking’ which was normal procedure, so I decided that, since everyone else played their music in there, I could play mine as well.  The girl with the food allergies came in and said she wanted to play something else, and when I said I wanted to listen to mine she found fault with it and said it wasn’t even good quality Christian music (that it could at least have been good Gospel music, but it was Vineyard style, or Noel Richards, which is not so loud in style, it’s in many ways more laid back and less ‘in your face’ and aggressive) and she started finding fault with Christianity and shouting and arguing.  A few minutes later she said to Simon that I was a control freak.  Simon said ‘tell me about it!’  I had never played my music in the day room until then, and she just wanted me to take it off.  But I didn’t see why I should have to.  It might have been a kind thing to do, or not, but I didn’t want to have to back down all the time and there was nowhere else I could play it.

What I am saying is, I don’t want to go back to that, and to the staff engaging in that kind of prejudice against me.  And as a vegan (which just means ‘strict vegetarian’, no animal products, there are plenty of other excellent options) I don’t want to be locked up in a hospital with no way to get what I need, which I would have to buy myself because they don’t cater for the diet, and it wouldn’t be cooked in meal form, because the cooker that used to be there was taken away for security reasons and they won’t do it for you.  That is no existence for someone you insist is ill and needs to be treated on your terms and not their own.

Yes, I over-react to things sometimes.  Yes, I make a mountain out of a molehill sometimes.  But not always.  And anyone else having to deal with the same pressures and treatment from officials they are dependent on might do exactly the same thing.  We are like animals under observation and naughty children to be dealt with accordingly, and behind those doors, particularly, they are very open about that and make no effort to hide their attitudes towards us.  That includes the psychiatrists themselves.  They will glower and tease and contradict, and if I became hysterically angry one of them would get angry at me for shouting and say he was going to have me arrested.

I know there are people in the media who will love using this against me.  That’s why my communication is messed up.  Basically no one acknowledges anything I say until I am pushed into crisis, then they descend on me in force and lock me up.  Not only what I say on this blog, but what I say in emails as well, even ones they have asked me for.  While I know that other people acknowledge what is happening and recognise it, as soon as I feel I have reason to be afraid I am going to get a police visit under the mental health act I forget all that and feel very isolated and afraid.  Suddenly my anger and certainty means nothing, because they can just invalidate it in the taking of my freedom.  They present later as not having wanted to do that and having needed to do it for my own safety (or that of others) so it makes me feel my anger and certainty are the problem.  The authorities certainly give the impression that they think so.  They call it paranoia.

People like to make a big thing out of saying you shouldn’t call people evil.  I don’t know if it hurts their feelings or not, but if it does that is all it does.  If they call people psychotic and dangerous, without proof and having got their facts wrong (but if we say so they call us liars and devious), the consequences for us are far worse.  So if we give it back, even believing it is true but embarrassed because we can just as easily, a few hours later, decide it isn’t true – if they can do what they do and we, I, do what I do, why should I be penalised for it, when no one really cares or acts on what I say anyway, while they can call me dangerous and psychotic and take away my freedom and abuse me behind closed doors?  If that is going to happen again, it isn’t right and it never has been.

I don’t want to go back to a situation where I am bullied and neglected by a social landlord when I’m also getting it from the community.  It freezes my thinking.  At least here, if I believed I was safe from these people in the UK, I could think a little bit.  Although I vent on here, my emotions and the pain in my mind are nowhere near as great as they are in London.  Maybe that is why I feel more physical pain.

If it was the police earlier, I still don’t know what they wanted and who sent them.  They might not have come to arrest me under the mental health act, and all of this fear and trauma might be unnecessary.  It has been caused by lack of appropriate official communication.  But maybe they think it is appropriate to keep me in the dark if they intend to arrest me, and just keep turning up and one day force entry.  Maybe they are afraid I will abscond and they want to keep the upper hand and the element of surprise and uncertainty.  That’s what they normally do.  No one is talking to me, just banging and shouting and commenting, and officially I don’t know what is happening.  I have been handled this way for years, and it contributes to the anger I bring to everything else.  I’m constantly nervous and afraid, and I bottle it up for so long until I’ve had enough and vent in anger.  People around me do it at me.  I shouldn’t be singled out as the problem.

My fear of police violence here is offset by my own shame that I am not able to understand their language and culture.  As always, I think all of this is my responsibility.  However bad people are to me, I think it is my fault for not understanding.  I feel that way with everyone.  And I think that if only I would acknowledge my own wrong doing then everything would be all right for me and none of this would happen.  That if I would recognise their official responsibilities and cut them some slack things would go better for me.  But I’ve tried that and been ignored, repeatedly, and now it feels as if they are saying, ‘just this one step further’ and I feel guilty, and at the same time I have been accused of things I have never done.  They have the ability to make me feel guilty for what I feel is my lack of response.  They lift things off my computer.  I really believe that.

Someone on The Daily Politics or Newsnight yesterday said that the Coalition is doing things with indecent haste, and I have heard people say that about them before.  In this case the man said that what should normally take 6 months is being passed in 11 weeks.  He put it down to the deficit crisis. But at the same time he called it ‘indecent haste’.  I wonder what the shortcuts and evasions are that are involved in such a truncation.  Indecent haste.  I’ve had that for years.  I do believe media people’s speech is deliberately aggressive and that that is why I am having trouble communicating.  The aggression is behind the hospital doors as well.  If I’m supposed to be ill I don’t want to be there, I want some peace and quiet and space to think, not drugs forced on me by people who do nothing to hide their fear and contempt, when all is said and done, and even before all is said and done.  Someone please listen to me and honour that.

I’ve just updated this, it is 5.15 am on Friday morning.  As soon as I pressed the update button there was a bang from upstairs, like a chair clattering or something.  At this time in the morning that might be reasonable. But it is the constant coincidence of this kind of thing, given everything else, which really terrifies me and freaks me out.  The psychiatrists call it ‘auditory hallucinations’.  I think they used to call it that as well when they would see me weighing up in my mind what I was experiencing and hearing with them compared with what I heard in church and read in the Bible.  Especially if the difference, and thinking the church was involved in what was happening to me, freaked me out, they would say that I seemed to be responding to ‘auditory hallucinations’.  I think on the whole I have to become more secure and smile when I feel afraid, instead of giving in to the fear.  I’m sure it would make life much easier, at least while I don’t have the TV or radio on.

https://suebarnett.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/i-followed-a-search/

This is a link to a post I wrote a while ago, about something called Monarch Mind Control.  I refer you to it to help you understand the rest of this post.  Included in that post is a link to an interview on Youtube between two very high profile people in America, one of whom was a special agent in charge of a police department.

The issue of Monarch Mind Control has come up for me again after watching the House of Commons broadcast yesterday. 

I have said before that I have been accused of paedophilia, although I am not a paedophile.  Yesterday Theresa May was talking about changes and appeals processes, and even before she got up to speak I was thinking that what had gone before seemed to be adopting a popularist stance.  I noticed that Nick Clegg was close to tears, and I noticed that, as in so many times in the past, David Cameron came in focusing and shutting everything out and down as much as he was able, and when I see that I find it frightening.  That the Prime Minister needs to focus in that way, in Parliament, before his electorate.  I feel that saying this could be to my harm and embarrassment, because it occurs to me in writing that he might have my safety and welfare in mind, at least in part.

Speaking of popularism, listening to Theresa May I believed she was doing the same thing, going for a projected popularist view.  The reason I say ‘projected’ is that I believe most of us are far more human and compassionate in our approach to this issue, especially those of us who have the slightest hint of understanding of the psychology of abuse, which should be most of us.  She presented herself as speaking for all right minded people, but as far as I am concerned she was appealing to the vigilante element of society, and her approach to the subject was in line with that.  She said that the judges who insisted that the human rights and privacy of people tagged and hated in this way were paramount were out of touch with the rest of us.  I, obviously, disagree.  She also said that the final decision in the appeals process on this issue was not for the courts, but for the police who, she said, were best placed to make this decision as being in touch.  That frightened me and I started thinking in terms of a police state.  Clearly I am speaking with heavy sarcasm and irony when I say that of course the police have always been squeaky clean and whiter than white and perfect models of humanity who have never harmed anyone and never acted with prejudice and never perverted the course of justice and never set anyone up or bullied anyone or consented to their bullying.  These are obviously the best people to handle such a sensitive issue (sarcasm and irony maintained).  I believe I have an idea of how long they were holding this accusation against me before I even knew about it, and how long they stood by, in spite of my complaints of harassment, and let people get on with it. That also goes for my housing association and the mental health authorities.

The issue of Monarch Mind Control came up for me again because there was something I didn’t understand about the presentation.  Then I remembered the interview in the post I have provided the link for, where the woman being interviewed said that, as far as she knew, it went back as far as her father.

I know, I am painfully aware, that this could be complete coincidence, but the dress she was wearing was identical in style and colours to a coat my father bought me when I was little. I can’t remember how old I actually was, but he died when I was 11.  He overdosed on sleeping tablets.  I don’t know if it was his intention to die, he didn’t say in his note, and he had done the same thing before and survived.

But Theresa May’s dress was almost identical.  And she was standing there adopting an almost vigilante attitude towards sex offenders, dripping with hate, contempt and loathing, it seemed to me, and saying how devious they are (they say the same about people they call mentally ill, it is or was part of the training for mental health professionals to view mental health patients as devious), downplaying if not completely invalidating the role of the courts over this issue, saying that parliament makes the laws, not the courts (but I say the courts uphold the law and no one is exempt from the law, including parliamentarians, as we have seen, thankfully, but if they are able to invalidate the courts, and cut us off, as Europeans, from the European Court of Human Rights, which they are saying they want to do [whether or not that is just a decoy talking point without teeth to distract from more important issues we are not talking about I don’t know, it’s one of the things they’ve always managed to talk about for years], how are they going to be held accountable?).  These lovely parliamentarians, calling groups devious and inciting hatred against them, you would think they had never done a devious thing in their lives, except me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

If the coat and the dress are not a coincidence but deliberate, why? I’ve already contacted people and asked to talk and not been acknowledged, so why would they want to do something like that?  They teamed it all up, as well, with talk about mental health.  It doesn’t matter what they are trying to say, when someone has already asked for assistance they shouldn’t be using those methods.  And if it was deliberate and they have known all along, then presumably it has been handed down to them over the years, and the government or whoever it was that had this knowledge that has been used in this way stood by and watched my father, with all his personal pain and inadequacy and lack of access to this kind of mass communication tool, insist that this was happening to him and being treated as mentally ill and in the end killing himself.  My dad.  My daddy, as I called him at the time and still think of him.  11 years old.  A younger brother and sister as well.  Whatever kind of person he was, it was wrong for something like this to be done to him and to me and to our family.  It is just as wrong for it to continue.  That is what I believe.  The one question I am afraid of is, ‘am I right?’  Am I right to believe this is wrong?  It might be good, kind governmental wisdom, and it might be better for me to go with it.  That is how I feel.

They were laughing a lot yesterday, which seemed to me completely inappropriate when handling such a serious and painful issue, but which also made me feel as if the arms of love and acceptance were being opened and offered to me, and a place of refuge, safety and protection and reconciliation.

I’m vulnerable to this kind of approach, at this particular point, because I had a bad experience in hospital last week when I was taken ill with severe stress related symptoms.  I was later contacted by the British Embassy and asked to confirm that I was OK, and I recounted the experience and everything involved in the stress that brought it on and asked for a reply, but I didn’t get one.  That was on Friday.  I want to say the Consul’s name, but people talk about discretion, and say if you are indiscrete and other people involved with you know that, they will not trust you.  I don’t know if, in my situation, discretion should be demanded of me or not.  What about me and my ability to trust?  But I don’t think officials should be subjected to vigilantism any more than anyone else should.  But this has gone so far, and I can’t afford legal representation, but I’m afraid if I mention his name on this forum anyway it might disqualify me for future help, either from the embassy’s own complaints procedure or from the law.  I don’t know what to do, because they themselves are acting illegally, it seems to me, and certainly if I don’t say his name the opportunity to move in on me again might be used.  It’s not a personal thing, I like him, at least to some extent, it’s about my own security in this situation.  I don’t know how to protect myself other than by naming him, but if I do that also might go against me, maybe even more long term.  I don’t know how it works.

On Monday (St Valentine’s Day) my housing association contacted me.  My housing association has often decided not to answer my emails and to set things in motion without consulting with me to have me apprehended under the mental health act.  The people who turn up unannounced often look appalled and apprehensive about me, and also are often very aggressive and insistent in their approach, and have even been violent and scathing, without me even knowing the specifics of why they are there.  So I replied to this person, my housing officer, Andy Minett at Hexagon Housing Association in Sydenham, made my position clear, reminded him of how he had handled things in the past and had often seen fit not to answer my emails but to go behind my back and over my head and not help effectively with community bullying and harassment, and I asked him not to resort to force or coersion but to inform me of his intentions because I believe I have a legal right to be informed.  I aksed him to clarify a few things, and as yet neither he nor anyone else from the housing association has contacted me.  Also, while I think of it, I have copied my emails on to the mental health team at Speedwell in Deptford, and they also do not acknowledge my emails, and I am afraid they are standing by and trying to force a crisis.  I asked for a response to one of them, through my CPN, from my psychiatrist, and although the CPN, Susan Farmer, said she had passed the email on to him, I have never received a response.

In this situation, and with these two most recent emails unacknowledged, on Tuesday evening someone rang my doorbell from downstairs and said what sounded like an Italianisation of my name.  I immediately thought it was the police and I was frightened, and I told him I spoke English and didn’t understand him, which was over all the truth, although not the issue for me at the time.  He said ‘OK’, and went, and I haven’t heard anything since.  But I was frightened and still am.  He came unannounced and unexpected, I didn’t know who had sent him or why, and I don’t think it should have happened that way.  I think that is really wrong. I’m afraid they might come back with instructions to arrest me under the mental health act.  But whose unprofessionalism and negligence is creating my fear and stress in the first place?  I think I could and can say ‘whose secrecy?’ and not be wrong in this case.

I’m tired now.  I might add more later, but right now if there was somewhere else I intended to go with this or something else I intended to say, I can’t remember.

Intermediate edit note: I’m recording Premier, and at the beginning John Pantry played a song called ‘Everything Was Done So You Would Come’, and he back announced it with tears in his voice.  He then moved on immediately to pray a prayer which sounded to me, in this context, as if he was instructing decision makers on how to pray and how to feel and how to view what they have done.  I obviously might be wrong, but it isn’t my opinion that I am, and if I am right I still think they are wrong to be doing this.  I still maintain it is stalking.  And I still maintain it is deceiving most of their audience.

BBC World News

It is 11.42 am here, 9.42 am in the UK

I was just watching BBC World News, and they were up to their usual tricks.  Squawking porcelain skinned blonde girl ending up with ‘that is how it is for some people’, and me thinking that’s what I said, but it is true for me and not for her, or at the very least it is true for the people I live among, while she has probably chosen to live among privileged people, if she has had that all her life or not. A very aggressive, angry cat indeed.  Interestingly enough, it was followed up by a very peaceful scene of a mother big cat (lion or something) suckling her cub, and I felt really angry and upset because of what seemed to me deliberate jarring and provocation.

The Indian girl who was doing the main report, just before Hardtalk, ended up with a story and adopted a strict, telling off, disciplinarian tone to say the decision had been taken in order to protect the crew, and she used exactly the same tone with a hard stare to say immediately afterwards, ‘This is BBC World News’.

I’m upset, OK?  Everyone knows that, they know there is good reason, and they carry on regardless, don’t change and do nothing to help.  So me, I change quickly, normally, if I believe I am wrong.  That is how my heart works.  It’s working that way now.  I’m not only afraid of reprisals for what I’m about to say, but I also feel like backing off from it because I believe I might be wrong to say it.

However, in light of the fact that these people don’t change and don’t operate that way, and in light of the fact that they keep patching this incitement and intimidation together, and in light of the fact that they have been using me and my family for years, knowing what is happening to us and the effect it has had on us as individuals and as a family, I am now saying that if they are trying to say that the decision to stalk us was taken to protect themselves (there was obviously some significance in the way she rounded this off), I am now saying, and I call on people to witness this, that I am now asking God to remove their protection. I personally find what they have done and are doing disgusting and disgraceful and very distressing, so does my sister, and my brother was somehow roped into a documentary interview following a murder inquiry in Nottingham and they keep using and abusing him as well (a comedian on one of the cookery programmes last weekend is just one example, either Something for the Weekend or Saturday Kitchen, it started off with sea urchins and ended up with this comedian doing my brother to a tee and going on like a moron, which my brother is not, he is just as traumatised by all this and other things as we all are).  I love my brother.  I just feel tears in my stomach when I think about him.  So personally I find it disgusting and disgraceful, as I have said, as well as still maintaining that it is completely illegal.  And I am praying for the removal of their protection, and believing God for it to happen in the Name of Jesus.

There you are, now they will call me fanatical and dangerous and increase the mental health angle attack.  Just keep watching, and wait and see.

PS I have to stop believing that, because these ladies appear in perfect make up, underneath it all they are lovely, reasonable people who just want to help.  They are not.  If they were they would use the right legal channels, and they don’t.

Dear Clyde Sandry

You can go off people, you know!

I’ve just listened to most of your sermon this Sunday, and you are using words you have somehow got from my recent communications with other people and off the back of them you are shouting at me.  “Dearth”, for instance, is one of those words, which I used in an email to someone whose spirituality would be abhorrent to you.

If I had really understood before what I believe I understand now, I could have resisted you awful, monstrous impressions of Christians years ago.

You are using my love against me, and are trying to force me for some reason to take a path, even though you have used the law against me, that does not resolve my situation through the proper application of the law which has become necessary through your own actions with regard to me.

David Shearman, since my mid teens, has treated me as a thing loathed and despised.  I knew no better than to keep trying to win his love and approval, hoping one day I would be impressive enough for him.  I used to think, at least 90%, that if I came to church driving a nice car and looking in control of my life, I might have a bit of a chance of something.

If these people have somehow been persuaded to pass my emails on to you and to treat me as you have historically treated me yourselves, then all of you, normally having no time for each other’s spirituality, have come together to force/control/exclude/invalidate me, and that, if it is true in any detail, is disgusting of all of you.

You know how much I long for a kind and loving touch.  You must do, you seem to have access to my communications.  I want to tell you, in your 1950’s attire and mimicking what you have heard of me on the phone in years gone by before you even start to speak (William Lee does the same thing), you are monstrous dogs and I hope I somehow manage to recover what is left of my life and to live without you.

You are complete moral cowards.  You throw reminders of my childhood at me that you seem to have gathered from my family somehow (how did you persuade them?), all the time knowing I just want to be contacted and spoken to normally and told what you want, but you either will not or dare not take that route, and keep piling the pressure on me until my health and confidence are breaking down.

Although I feel inclined to beg, given the material you have been using, I wish to completely disassociate myself from all the methods you are using to put pressure on me and force a response.  I can’t see why you need to hide in this way.

My only access to you is through legal means.  Yours is riddled with illegality.

If David Shearman’s sermon last Sunday was preached last Sunday, why does he say in it that he has been speaking to his father, who died two years ago?

I can’t fight you, you are too strong for me, both in number and in your ability to use years of love, hope and pain against me, in your apparent ability to persuade people to help you and believe they are being helped by you in putting me under your illegal authority (unless you are getting everything from hacking my computer), and in your stupid, bullish bullying.  If this is how you treat vulnerable and legally disenfranchised people when you are desperate (and it is, I know from past experience), I don’t want anything to do with you ever again, I want you to take your hands off me and everything to do with me, shut up and tell people what you have been doing to me and the fears you have been playing on.

You are gross and I hate you.  I don’t care who is impressed with you, I have been up close since my teens and I know better.   I want you to leave me alone and I want nothing else to do with you.  You are perverse in your harassment, and dishonest.  If you want me to change my mind on that then you have a bit of repenting and apologising to do, to me, with other people’s knowledge.

Although inwardly I am crying, and afraid to take such a stand towards people who have claimed to represent Jesus to me for so long and have claimed a right to acknowledgment of that fact, I will not change my mind and I will not come to you, crying or otherwise.  You are being deliberately provocative because you are too proud to be honest about your sin to a much younger woman that you have harmed.

All on my own, with my own squeaky little mouse voice, knowing how much you can still hurt and rape and provoke, deliberately, if I continue to listen to you (in the sense of hear your words over the internet), I say something I am not supposed to say and something which is completely against my nature to say to you, and that is, “go to hell, all of you”.  Your words are a complete molestation, posturing as intimate and discrete, there is nothing discrete about them, they are plain, criminal cowardice.  I hate what you are doing, you are making me ill.

If you want my help you can ask for it, otherwise I will never go back on anything I have said here, and if I do, I will be wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353989/WikiLeaks-Police-sex-files-Julian-Assange-leaked-online.html?ITO=1490

I don’t feel able to comment on my feelings about these revelations, if they are true.

However, this is obviously a tit for tat move by whoever it was that made it.  I am supposing that the leaks, authorised or not,  must have come from someone inside the police force.

The obvious problem with this, it seems to me, is that this is an official body leaking details of allegations against an individual, before they have even been proved or the man found guilty.

I watched a video clip on Saturday of Mr Assange speaking via video link to a conference in Australia, and he said that ‘we believe in transparent power, not transparent individuals’.

I don’t like that either/or approach these days.  It’s what is known as a false dichotomy, I think, or is at least along the same lines.  It’s the ‘you have a choice between 2 options’ line, and it is always used to force a decision, I think, and closes down a person’s thinking. A little bit of wry, naughty humour coming in while I am writing, I think the best way to deal with this if you are faced with it might sometimes be to choose the option you know the person presenting the choice doesn’t want you to choose, if they are not open to reason.  Then they have to deal with it, not you.   If they are not open to reason, why would you want to go with them anyway?  It’s manipulative and coercive, although the person presenting the option doesn’t always realise that, they think it is the way to do it, sometimes.  It’s main concern, I think, is the maintenance of a method or way of doing things, or power of some description.

But there are three alleged offenses here, two of them obvious and one of them not.  The two obvious ones are the leaks from both Wikileaks and the police.  the one which isn’t obvious because not provable is the sexual offenses allegations.

Out of these three, if all of them are true, how many of them actually stand as crimes right now without further investigation?

If interception of communications and computer hacking are held to be crimes, Wikileaks has obviously committed a crime right there.  But possibly the government can’t afford to be too strong on that one, because the government has a policy to use that.  I think they have used it with me, a private individual,  without my knowledge.  Because they suspected me of something or thought I might be some sort of a threat?  I don’t know.  They have never told me and have refused to talk about it, referring me to mental health agencies whenever I have asked how I can find out if it is happening (Joan Ruddock’s senior case worker).  I repeat, for saying I thought it might be happening and asking how I could find out, I was referred to mental health agencies and told they did not know how I could find out.  If the government wants to continue to hide this kind of thing, it isn’t going to major on the hacking itself as being a crime.  It will major on the security risks of the actual information leaked (which apparently, according to a news programme I watched yesterday, Mr Assange first presented to the government, who refused to talk to him, before he actually leaked the information.  I suppose they knew he was a computer hacker at that point, and they made no effort to have him arrested for that, so I suppose they do not see that as a crime or, if they do, it is one they are also committing and it would therefore be too embarrassing for them to have him accused of the same thing.  The leaks talk about Hillary Clinton, for example, getting passwords to the accounts of people in the UN).

I think computer hacking is a crime, whoever does it, and that both of these bodies, Wikileaks and the government, are guilty of the same crime, by their own admission and policy.  But they have ruled that out of the equation.  Instead, one could theorise, the pursuit of Mr Assange has been diverted to a pursuit over sexual allegations, in order to get him for everything else?  If there is a real security breach, why have they not acted sooner on that nderstanding, and if he has committed a crime over that, in any way, why have they not arrested him for that, and not just for the sex allegations?  Is it because English law does not consider he has committed a crime, and that is why extradition to Sweden, for questioning, in spite of his constant (so we are told) co-operation with the police over the sexual allegations, is being considered as a first step in enabling an illegal rendition to the USA where he might find himself either in Guantanamo or condemned to death?  This is what is being presented.  This whole process is being presented as illegal, by his lawyers.  If it is illegal the UK should not be supporting it, because in doing so we become an accessory to a crime.

The sex allegations, even if they are true, are complicated by some factors, and might not be able to be proved as rape.  If the accounts are true, it would appear there was obviously a relationship in the context of which it happened.  I think it is not possible to make an assessment and come to a conclusion about his motivation, if it happened.  It says she normally wanted him to wear a condom, and he didn’t, but when awake she allowed him to continue.  Not knowing myself how long it was after this that the allegation of rape was made, I can’t guess at why she made it.  But she allowed him to continue.  Maybe on hindsight she realised it had been rape and felt differently.  To my mind, if she was asleep when it happened, and it was in a way which she had made clear she didn’t want (unprotected) it seems obvious rape might be a reasonable thing to call it.  But at the moment, according to what I have read, that is under debate as the question of whether what happened while she was asleep counts as rape ‘has not been tested by the justice system’.  If it happened.  If it did I think possibly it should be judged as rape.  Swedish law says that sometimes it would be, but in this case it has been thrown out by judges and I don’t know why.  But personally (not with legal knowledge) I also think his intention and understanding of the relationship at the time should be taken into account.  But (if it happened) he knew she didn’t want unprotected sex (if I have read it right).  So he would have to be judged mentally incapable, it seems to me, if the allegations were upheld and they were not treated as rape.  I keep saying ‘if it happened’.  That is my personal point of ignorance. I don’t know if he has acknowledged anything.  Everything I am writing is based on an assumption that he has not agreed that any of this happened.  That might be where my argument falls completely to pieces, but it might not.

Out of the three things involved, the sexual allegations, the leaks made by Wikileaks and the leaks made by the police, if we dismiss the issue of computer hacking about which there appears to be no legal clarity acknowledged, it seems to me there is only one indisputable crime, the leaks made by the police about the allegations made against Mr Assange.  I find it so enormously monstrous I can hardly address it.  This has to be the dirty tricks department at its worst.

It seems to me it compromises the trial.  It seems to me it is a gross breach of Mr Assange’s human rights (and also those of the women who have brought the allegations), and it is gross professional misconduct.  I don’t have to like any of what I am saying or think that I personally have a right to say it for it to be true.  If it is true, whether or not I have a right to say it doesn’t alter that fact.  It is an attempt to short-circuit the process of law, and probably in this case something even worse.  Perhaps I can’t make a categorical statement because perhaps the law is not this clear.  Not being a lawyer I don’t know.  But I think this is a clear case of perverting the course of justice, from whoever was responsible within the Swedish police force for the decision to release this information.

As a victim of computer hacking, I can’t condone the methods used by Wikileaks.  This may appear simplistic, who decides what the ‘right hands’ are and on what basis, and what can you do when those hands become the wrong hands?  But that does not mean that the course of justice should be perverted in the way the organisation or its founder is dealt with.  People speak against Anarchy.  But this is Anarchy from the top down, against the people they govern.  It is something I have experienced personally for over a decade, to my own knowledge.  I’m a Christian.  We need help.  We are in trouble, and maybe we always have been.  Maybe it only seems so bad to me, now, because this is when I am alive and experiencing it.

In the Book of Ezra, when the people are brought back to God, a call goes out, ‘to the word, and to the testimony’.  I’m not sure – I’ve just become sure.  I think this is applicable here because, however much the law is subject to change, what we do now needs to be based on the law as it is now, not as we would like it to be, and what happened in the past should be judged on the laws that were applicable then, not now, with regards to monitoring people’s communications.  That is the position of the European Court of Human Rights Act.  To me that seems just and the only way to maintain order and accountability in the way things are dealt with.  I love my leaders (at least, they make me feel that way.  They make me feel they love me too).  It is hard for me to say I think they have run riot, but I do.  The recovery we need is not only financial.  I believe that, as a society, we are in serious trouble.

Final note:  I realised while tagging this that I have forgotten to take the Freedom of Information Act into account.  Everyone is emoting over this, including Hillary Clinton (you can be an emotional woman for the war but not against it?), but it seems possible to me, not having kept up with any of this, that the information contained in the leaks should have been available anyway under the Freedom of Information Act introduced by Tony Blair, but it wasn’t.  I’m not sure how the Freedom of Information Act works in relation to the Official Secrets Act and whether some of the ‘spade a spade’ brigade would be right in calling the Freedom of Information Act a Mickey Mouse thing anyway.  But if the information contained in the leaks should have been available and wasn’t, and if the government turned Mr Assange away anyway when he went to them with it, it is dishonest that these people, who definitely would have known he knew this before the leaks were made, should now be presenting theselvesas so much ‘up in arms’ about it.  That is downright hypocrisy (sorry, I’m getting angry).

Tony Blair was quoted as saying he wishes he had never introduced the Freedom of Information Act and that it was one of the worst things he ever did.  He is entitled to feel that and entitled to his opinion.  But his feelings and opinion do not make the Wikileaks revelations wrong if, under that act, the information should have been available. We can’t say, “Tony wishes he had never done it, so we can call the Wikileaks leaks a risk to security and get cross about it”, if the informations should have been available anyway.  Maybe it shouldn’t have been, ma ybe there are exceptions under the Official Secrets Act to the Freedom of Information Act’s applicability to this kind of information, but I don’t know and I haven’t heard it discussed.  But if there is no exception there is no case against Wikileaks or Mr Assange for this unless it is computer hacking and invasion of privacy, and those are much lesser charges.  And to be extradited for questioning, at least in this case of sex allegations, is being presented as illegal, and he is supposed to have co-operated freely all along anyway, so excuse me, can someone please tell me what this is all about????  He’s not Jesus and he might be completely unsavoury in so many ways, but why is this being done to this man???? (I’ll keep my swearing to myself on this occasion).  And who else would they do it to if they got away with doing it to him?  It’s called setting a precedent.  We can’t let it happen.  Wake up, everyone.  Reality calls.  Possibly a man’s life is at stake, illegally.  Does anyone care?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                  

This matters to me so much partly because the last set of leaks from Wikileaks came at a time which felt personally significant for me, and so I feel implicated in whatever happens to Mr Assange.  In his communications he has used some references which are very easy for me to apply personally, including one about saving the whales not being the issue, but the freedom of information involved in making the decision.  For me that is very close to home, because one of Michael Mish’s musicals is called “The Boy Who Talked to Whales”, and for me the whale was, more than anything else, about the freedom of the human spirit.  That was how I understood it.  I am not saying that was Michael Mish’s intention.  Michael is, among other things, an environmentalist.  He could actually be offended (though I don’t think so) that what for him is a serious environmental issue is being reduced (or expanded) in that way, without regard for the issue itself.

There were other touch points in his address to the conference in Australia as well.  So whether or not I have been manipulated into this by a form of stalking, I do feel responsible for what happens to him, because I have believed that, if he released the leaks at the time he did in order to help me, he did so understanding the risks he might be taking.  Believing that to be a possibility I cannot be silent.  I know that someone handling his communication reads my blog and I hope they will contact me.

“Glory to God!”

Colin Dye (for I think it was he) was going on this morning about treasure in earthern vessels and glory going to God and not to us.

Right.  First the way He talked about glory going to God.  It was down – “the glory goes to God and not to us”, and it leaves the hearers feeling awed or maybe even guilty “oh, we are such awful people, we must give more glory to God”.  The Bible says God beautifies and glorifies His church.  It should have been a joyful statement, not a dour one making everyone afraid of taking God’s glory.  God is glorified in our joy.  The Bible says that Jesus was anointed with joy above His fellows, because He loved righteousness and hated wickedness.  How does God get glory if we go around dark and full of foreboding and fear of not getting it right?

Second, I fail to see how God is glorified in the way they harass me anyway.  They follow everything I do on the internet and criticise it.  They criticise my isolation, they criticise me waiting for someone else to make a decisive move.

Stalking is wrong.  Hacking communications is wrong and completely counter freedom.  End of.  They even know the comments I leave on other blogs.  I only have to refer you to their body language and their shifty eyes.  They keep up a torrent of language, to what end and to what purpose, and with what motive?  To make you forget that what you believe is right?  And that what they have done is wrong?  I think so.

They talk about mercy, but they want it for themselves.  I want it for their victims first.  Which are many.

The Children of God, a group considered to be a cult, operated a principle called “heavenly deception”.  At the Christian Centre in my teens (over 30 years ago) I was told this was wrong and that they could be considered a cult partly because of that, let alone the sexual activity.  Yet these churches are now doing the same thing (except it is hardly deception, in a sense, anymore, at least, not to me because I know) and it is supposed to be OK.

Roberts Liardon is on tonight.  Poor man, what an unfortunate name.  Liar-don (some people won’t get it!)

David Wellington said this morning, “can we have the words please?”, which felt like he was asking for an apology to be given in words.  Who was he asking (except he obviously wasn’t, he was talking about the words for the songs)?  It felt as if he was asking me.  I feel as if I should apologise every time I write.  So here we are, in words, “I’m sorry”.  Now what?

“I’m sorry”.  For what?  For being so unkind and rebellious in my response to the beautiful way you portray the fact that you are sorry you have ruined my life and that you want to make amends?  Is that it?

Around the time I went to the police in 2009 David Cameron’s speech at the party conference portrayed my situation perfectly, and the song the conference used was, “Then I Saw Her Face, Now I’m A Believer”.   Ive wondered since then if he . . . this is where traditionally they can say you are deluded and psychotic.  Except I feel really treacherous, because I felt almost as if he saved my life, at that point.  But he didn’t.  It was a nice illusion, maybe for both of us.  They are not saving my life now in maintaining my benefits even though they know I have been out of the country for over a year.  They are just prolonging the agony when they should be dealing with the situation openly and head on.  I’m expected to be grateful, but you shouldn’t be grateful for what is wrong.  The continuance of my benefits while they reflect my own stuff back to me to say quite what, I am not sure, is evasion of something awful, and nothing else.

My writing is awful.  The way people come on at me with a torrent of words, using everything they know about me, almost searching for me as if in a seance, leaves me emotionally raped.  Either something spiritual really is happening in what they are doing, or they are acting it.  Both options are equally evil and cynical and hateful.  I’m not just talking about the church.  Read my other rants and you’ll get an idea of the people and organisations I’m on about.

Maybe all that has happened is my crazy speeding mind has slowed down because I’ve listened to people like Michael Mish, and I now find the torrent that others think is normal crazy and disturbing.  Whether it is or not I’m not sure.

In fact, not only crazy and disturbing, but used like a deliberate hammer or pick axe, to extract whatever ore they can find.  It’s a bit like a tongue loosener.

And the backsnaps (some people will understand).  I read about someone being tortured once by being forced to stand bolt uprught without moving, for hours.  The effect of the onslaught is like that.  Somehow you have to make a conscious effort to disconnect, except when you have screamed out all your hysterical rubbish and they are still going on and progressing it further, it is so hard.  And all the time they are doing it it is as if I’m not even there, even though all their remarks seemed to be aimed at me.

OK, another name call.  That happened to Katie Melua on Saturday Kitchen yesterday.  That’s all I’m saying, that it happened.  I’m not expressing a feeling about it.  I wouldn’t dare.

Yes, we should.  It is the only way to understand each other and live in peace with each other.  David Cameron is right.

But he is wrong about which language it should be.

The language should be mutual respect and respect for human rights, not the spoken language of your adopted country.  The problem arises if we let people in who are against our values in the first place.  What could happen then is that people learn our language (English, in our case) and subvert it to use it against us.  People who don’t speak our language coming in to the country are not our problem, but people who don’t share our values.

What are our values?  I don’t know!  Get any group of White Anglo Saxons together and you can have just as many culture clashes as you can with anyone else, even though we have been here for generations as the dominant group.  The loud mouths.  “It’s all the fault of the immigrants, coming into our country and stealing our jobs”.  If people have to make an enemy out of someone and unite against them, I have been taught that is possibly all they agree about, and some of those do it because they wouldn’t feel safe to disagree.   Correction, some of us, because we all do it sometimes.

But not speaking the language of the country should not be a problem, because there are ways around that.

Respect is the thing.  If we provide translations (or anything) but resent doing so, that communicates and damages relationships.  Or the people working with the translations, the officials and what have you who, for some reason, don’t really value different cultures but are doing a job because if they don’t they are financially penalised, if they can’t stand the people they serve or work with, how is that going to help anyone?  I know the answer is obvious and so does my reader.  “It isn’t”.

Translators are people who love language.  They problably love the culture that goes with it as well, otherwise they might not have got that far (I managed to take French to first year degree level myself, starting at the age of 9 or 10.  My best exam mark for it was an A at ‘O’ level, as it was before GCSEs.  My worst might have been an E at ‘A’ level.  I put it down to the increased literature element and my inconsistent attendance).

What if translators of English into other languages translated our literature for the non-English speaking people that live among us, and we also got their literature in translation?  This must be distress at its worst, because I know I’m talkiing garbage because I know that obviously happens, now I say so.  That’s what snakebite does for you, it has you all over the place!

But . . .  national identity doesn’t depend on us all speaking English, and you can’t blame the foreigners for the fact that there are many clashing value systems in our country, because that is true without them.

If we maintain respect there is no reason why we should push for integration.  People want to maintain their own identities, that is natural, especially in a strange place.  And why should it be seen as unhealthy if some of them never want to do anything else?  Saying that kind of thing about what someone wants makes them angry and miserable and promotes discrimination and prejudice.

We can keep the separate communities.  We can celebrate difference.  We can enable learning about each other within our own communities.  We don’t have to mix it, we can keep it separate, if that is easier, and let different communities be taught what they need to know by their own people and anyone else able to communicate with them that they accept.

Why, these days, should a non-English speaking child be thrust into an English taught school and therefore be at a disadvantage?  We can’t all learn another language, it doesn’t come naturally to some people.  Some people have problems with their own language, let alone someone else’s.  And there was plenty of illiteracy in England before mass immigration, so it isn’t fair to say we are being slowed down.  And why should the focus be language skills anyway?  What about other necessary skills?  There are some jobs you can do quite happily without needing to yap at everyone.  Some jobs might be better done that way.  Artisan type jobs, for example.

Let’s celebrate everything!  Different cultures, different gifts and skills.  It doesn’t have to be onerous and pedestrian, it can be a constant, joyous flux and flow.

People keep up trade links with their own countries anyway.  Why force people to integrate who can’t or don’t want to?  As long as we can establish and maintain respect between the communities there is nothing wrong with separateness where people want to be separate and coming together where they want that.  I’m thinking that education, at least in the first years, should be within the child’s own ethnic community, because that is where they will be happiest.  And what’s wrong with having further and higher education that way as well, all within our own country?  Why should we invade or insist on dragging out into the open the private place of someone else’s cultural identity?

It’s about choice.  Choice creates industry and jobs.  This is something there is both a need and a demand for.

I say, back to basics.  Back to reality.  Stop blaming people and trying to create jobs selling things people don’t need like food, for instance, with all kinds of subliminal messages attached (why else do you think we are obese and lazy?  But those who sell it and know the methods they use to sell it still turn round and blame us and say we are a burden on the tax payer.  Well, some tax payers are a burden on everyone!).  Start providing instead the things we actually need to make society work – people skills, philosophy, values, the arts, beauty, (shh erm – religion?)

Quack quack, said the silly duck, it’s time for another industrial revolution.

Hey, this is the 21st century! (I never thought I’d say that!)  David, what kind of leader says, “you must learn our language, or you can’t come here”?  Different isn’t bad, it’s different.  It’s an opportunity.

This is so outrageous I can hardly believe you mean it.  I watch the most serious things these days and find myself laughing as if it is a comedy, sometimes.  Does everyone end up saying, as they get older, “the world has gone mad”?  Because I did last night.

If we are going to say to people, “you can’t come here unless you learn our language”, what about the people here who already don’t speak it? Are we going to end up having an ethnic purge?  Shall I being the mental health system into this?  Yes, I think I might, because in many ways it is the same kind of thing.  Ethnic purge.  That is a real danger.  There are elements, including among those in power, who after stopping entry by others who can’t speak the language/don’t share our values, will next turn on those already living among us, and that wouldn’t be pretty at all.  David Cameron, you seriously need to rethink this.  You can’t make people conform at will without damaging relationships. There would also be a backlash from some people already here from countries from which some people were not allowed access.

By the way, when I talked about snakebite earlier – I had just watched the Andrew Marr Show before I wrote this and I first thought of that phrase after hearing William Hague talking.

I think among our human rights should be the right to be inadequate and incapable, if that is what our lives have done to us, without it bearing any kind of stigma at all.  I wonder if that is possible while the great god the tax payer gets invoked against everyone that is or feels that way?

This society stinks, it is so abusive.  But it is probably not that much different from many others.  Jesus said you can’t serve God and mammon.

He also pointed out that the Bible says in one of the Psalms that we are gods, and the scriptures cannot be broken.  I used to think that was sarcasm, but would the Jesus I have been taught about have been sarcastic about scripture?  No, He wouldn’t.  Is the Jesus I have been taught about the real Jesus?  Unquestionably!  Jesus defended the scripture that says we are gods.  He would not have been sarcastic about scripture.  And we can’t serve each other (God/gods) and money as well.

I apologise for my style, but I watch and listen to so much rubbish.  It seems to be all there is available.

I posted something with a similar title a few weeks ago, which I edited and expanded today and published under today’s date, and although it has appeared under some of its original tags it has not appeared under others, some of them major categories, so I’m posting this very changed and updated version for the categories in which it does not appear today, along with some extra ones which have occured to me while checking the others.

It looks as if these categories do not allow repeat posts, even if vastly updated and published on a different date.  I hope if this is the case it will be changed.

The updated post is as follows, and I have updated it in this way because I think rigorous thinking about this is essential.  Some people might not find it rigorous enough or might wish my rigour came down on the side of international security, and I respect that.

The Post

(Mr Assange) and his lawyers fear extradition which may result in him being transferred to the US and possibly subjected to the death penalty or sent to Guantanamo.

I want him to be OK.  I don’t want any harm to come to him.  I don’t want him extradited.  Even if he has done something wrong, in Britain we don’t have the death penalty anymore, and our news agencies have publicly opposed and criticised Guantanamo for ages, though I haven’t taken much notice of the government’s position so I don’t know what it is. 

Maybe I am just a gullible, emotional woman who doesn’t understand what is involved in regaining/maintaining national and international security, but I think a lot of people would agree with me that, even if he has done something wrong, we would prefer for it to be dealt with differently.  I hope no one is thinking that if he is taken out of the picture that Wikileaks will fall apart, because I think that would be lazy and unjust.

If we have been told the truth, it wouldn’t be fair to extradite him on the basis of the charges which have been brought against him.  We have been told that he has co-operated in every way with the authorities over the sex accusations made against him, right from the beginning.  If that is true I can’t see how exradition over those charges could be justfified, and if extradition is a real threat and not just an exaggerated fear, I think the people thinking of resorting to this should stop the pretence that it is because of the sex allegations over which he has co-operated for months, from the beginning, and make their intentions and the reasons for them clear and open.  Then they would be challengeable, by everyone, including public opinion.  If they are not spoken no one can challenge them and that, in the darkest sense of the word, would be ghastly and say something really awful about us, I believe.

So without knowing anything that could justify it and not feeling able or being willing to turn and go with an inkling that I could be wrong at such short notice, I would like to say that if this is happening, it is not in my name.  And for that I feel I might burn in hell.

Final Edit Note:

My comments are open, as I am sure other people’s are as well.  I didn’t address this sooner because I thought I had nothing significant to add to what I had already said, and although I sat down today and discovered in review that that was not true I obviously can’t know if that would have been the case earlier.  This feeling must be a tearing responsibility for any commentator and journalist in such serious issues as this.

I feel almost if this hasn’t already been raised effectively, and (big) if this IS raised effectively in this post, it might be too late to make a difference.

I’m sure that commenting on a blog is fine, to sway public opinion.  But to make change where it needs to be made official approaches and challenges need to be made, and the powers that be, at any time to date, to my awareness, would not recognise a blog and its comments as an official approach and would not accept blame for ignoring it, even if they are aware of it and agree with it personally.  And especially not if they do not agree.

It’s good to talk.  It’s good to blog.  It’s good to read and comment.  But for the content of social media to be officially recognised then proper legally recognised responses need to be made and actions taken.  Otherwise the sad, the very sad, truth is that we might as well not bother. With these kinds of issue you have to make the challenges proper legal ones, or in most cases they stay hidden and unacknowledged.

If you want to, feel free to use this post in any legal challenge you wish to make or question you need to put to lawyers, MPs (maybe especially, for future accountability) and anyone else over this issue.  I hope you do and that it is useful enough.  What am I doing here in Bulgaria? I’m writing myself into wanting to come myself!  I declare availability, if that isn’t being too impressed with myself.  If it is I won’t be taken up on it, and a good job too.

(Editorial Note:  Please read the updated and expanded version of this which is now on my front page.  I think it is more important than this one.  I wrote it because this one was not appearing in all the categories I assigned it to.)

And he and his lawyers fear extradition which may result in him being transferred to the US and possibly subjected to the death penalty or sent to Guantanamo.

I want him to be OK.  I don’t want any harm to come to him.  I don’t want him extradited.  Even if he has done something wrong, in Britain we don’t have the death penalty anymore, and our news agencies have publicly opposed and criticised Guantanamo for ages, though I haven’t taken much notice of the government’s position so I don’t know what it is. 

Maybe I am just a gullible, emotional woman who doesn’t understand what is involved in regaining/maintaining national and international security, but I think a lot of people would agree with me that, even if he has done something wrong, we would prefer for it to be dealt with differently.  I hope no one is thinking that if he is taken out of the picture that Wikileaks will fall apart, because I think that would be lazy and unjust.

If we have been told the truth, it wouldn’t be fair to extradite him on the basis of the charges which have been brought against him.  We have been told that he has co-operated in every way with the authorities over the sex accusations made against him, right from the beginning.  If that is true I can’t see how exradition over those charges could be justfified, and if extradition is a real threat and not just an exaggerated fear, I think the people thinking of resorting to this should stop the pretence that it is because of the sex allegations over which he has co-operated for months, from the beginning, and make their intentions and the reasons for them clear and open.  Then they would be challengeable, by everyone, including public opinion.  If they are not spoken no one can challenge them and that, in the darkest sense of the word, would be ghastly and say something really awful about us, I believe.

So without knowing anything that could justify it and not feeling able or being willing to turn and go with an inkling that I could be wrong at such short notice, I would like to say that if this is happening, it is not in my name.  And for that I feel I might burn in hell.

Pamela Stevenson On The One Show

Available until 7.30 pm tonight.  Get it quickly.  She is or has been a practising psychologist, and she has also been involved in what has been happening to me.  That makes it criminal as an artist an certainly as a psychologist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y4y8l/The_One_Show_27_01_2011/

I haven’t said anything for ages.  I’ve known since the last series of ‘Strictly Come Dancing’.  There is another psycholgist called Doctor Pam Spur (it might have 2 ‘r’s) who stood in for Tommy Boyd a couple of times, and she was talking about stuff like ‘walking the dog’ in the afternoon show, which could be taken as a sexual reference.  At the time the producer or whoever it was working with her was furious, I think he could see it wasn’t right for her to be doing that, on whatever level he understood it.  It was for BBC Southern Counties Radio.

Call me stupid if you like, but the reason I haven’t said anything about Pamela Stevenson is because I didn’t want to hurt her husband, Billy Connelly.  I’m a complete sucker for other people’s pain and it can keep me silent for ages.  I’ve seen his act on the tv a few times, I’ve heard him talk about his background, and there seems to be something really fragile about him.  I thought if I said anything about his wife it would hurt him, so I kept quiet.

She has been using Jean Darnall’s personality for ages, even while she was dancing.  There was a girl called Stevenson at a school I used to go to (I won’t identify her any further than that), and Pamela wears her hair in exactly the same way.  This girl was close friends with a teacher friend of mine who died a few years ago with a brain haemmorhage, and who has also been used by the media.  All of us were connected with the same drama group.

One of my concerns in this programme is that Pamela talks about authority going back to the GP in relation to the mental health system, and she said they were not trained to be able to make a diagnosis of mental illness.  But I believe that she herself has been involved with the stalking, and yet there she is wanting to make the right to diagnose mental illness an exclusive and specialised thing.  But she has abused her position.  But if ordinary practitioners are told that they are unable to work with this kind of thing adequately, if someone approaches them and says this is happening to them they are probably referred back to the mental health system and the GP has probably been told not to get involved.  That isolates the patient, if everyone else is being told to leave it to the professionals.

I apologise, I was tired ages ago of trusting that, if i tried to be discreet, someone would respect that and try and step in to help.  So now I am condemned, even if by no one other than myself, for my lack of discretion.  I like Billy Connelly – oh what rubbish, I’ve only ever seen him on the telly!

I’m sorry, I know it’s about Egypt and everything, but I was OK with Hew Edwards last night until he talked about a doctor at the end of his report and stared intently into the camera, and I felt he was trying to make a point or something.

And in the one o’clock news on BBC 1, it was either Tim Wilcox or Jeremy Bowen who stood coaxing into the camera saying that Egyptians were being told to ‘go home for the sake of the country’ – I think it was Egyptians, it must have been – and giving an eager and reassuring smile behind him was a lookalike of my old psychiatrist, the one who never believed anything I said when people accused me falsely, Dr Gallo.

The blonde girl on the programme seemed to be oozing disapproval. It was a combination of both her expression and her words. Maybe those close enough to me, if they look, will be able to see what I am talking about without me needing to explain it.

So it’s made me nervous again.  Is this deliberate, just to sabotage a new move with suggestions, or is the suggestion true about what they want to do to me?

I had a biology teacher in my grammar school called Margaret Bowen.  Nice lady.  I made her a tape once, with my first tape recorder, trying to convert her.  She wrote to me saying, among other things, that I could end up becoming bigoted.  I just called her a nice lady.  I meant it, I wasn’t being sarcastic.

Question: is a traumatised person mentally ill?  They are really pushing the mental health thing again at the moment, including in Parliament where they are talking about allocating more funds.  Especially for the young.  Which is where Miss Disapproving came in.  I assumed it was because of my post last night calling the Newsround kids ‘savage puppies’.  If they are not, then their scriptwriters are.

As for Egypt:  I wonder how much of the angry backlash and the raised expectations are due to the fact that they have been able and encouraged to do all their happy stuff into the cameras, maybe acting for the cameras, and talking their talk about it not being safe to go home now.  The cameras have been an encouragement, I have thought.

It has turned violent and ugly, but some ugly expressions were being made before it was officially acknowledged to be the case, and they seemed to be condoned and encouraged.  And now they have been parading with a hung efigy.

They think they have approval for this.  Big men for the cameras.

Can something like this produce something good?  If they can do this to Mubarak, what is to say they won’t do it to someone else?  Mob mentality.  The cameras were part of it and part of building it.  And now they talk over it in poetic tones.  Tones, it feels to me, that have been got through listening to me on the phone sometimes, like when I was reading down the phone.

Has their very presence built up the atmosphere and acted as an incitement to violence?

Edit Note:  I just went to check BBC News at One for yesterday, 2nd February, and it has been taken down already.  It is 4.14 am.  It is supposed to be on the website until 1pm the next day.  This happens often.  Too often.

Yesterday’s Newsround isn’t there either.

The Thing Is . . .

When someone goads someone with a mental health diagnosis, it is not only cruel, it is also an incitement to violence, and both are illegal and punishable by law.

Take note, you savage little puppies.

You want to take someone powerful down a peg or two, fine.  I dare you to try, if you have the guts, which you seem not to have, because you pick on me instead.  No wonder the kids are feral.

OK, the thing is, right, I agree wiv Tony Smiff. 

If the workers aren’t going to get a fair cut of the profits reflected in their wages so they can take full responsibility for their needs themselves, then companies should be made to pay by the government.  That is just normal human common sense.  A common sense of what is right.

This is my answer to Jeremy Paxman’s question about how do you determine what is morally right when they are already obeying the law, and Tony kept saying it, that the law needs to be changed.

The law is not written in stone.  It evolves.  It evolves either by force or by common consent.  Common consent is better (we all know what is morally acceptable in this kind of situation), but if interested parties and rulers won’t give easily, pressure has to be put on them to make them give.  That is my understanding of how every change in the law has come about.  When the law is seen as not reflecting a widely accepted sense of morality, and when people suffer as a result, eventually that law must be changed.  Come on, Jerry, me old mate, you know that, what are you trying to do?  I think he was just being mischievously provocative, and great respect to Tony Smith for holding his ground in the terms he was able to do so.

I felt a real sense of exhileration when I saw the protests.  I thought they had good energy and also a very powerful cross section of society represented.  I thought I would love to be there and be involved, then I excused myself on the grounds that it might be used to put me back in hospital, then I thought excusing myself was cowardly and I should be there.  Good for these people, more power to them.  Power to their cause, at the very least.  Hopefully they won’t need to protest in this way for too long before our leaders see sense.  But I thought that what was shown on film was absolutely great.

Hey, what happened to our new freedom to protest peacefully?  That woman they dragged out, the one who said it was disgraceful, did she actually do anything wrong?  I don’t mind our leaders holding on to power, but they need to remember they are exercising that power for us, all of us, not just the people who head up the producing and finance machine.  Bugger this, I’m going to argue like a woman because I am a woman, and you can call it emotional blackmail if you like, but how are things fair when the law allows such inequality that at one end people live the jetset lifestyle from the profits they make out of people who work for them and buy from them, one of whom, a few weeks ago, lost her daughter to swine flu because her age and health category were not catered for by the government to be vaccinated against it?

I fear this Baran guy represents a group which will ignore any conscience it has as long as it is allowed to.

Here is something I didn’t act on at the time, and perhaps that is now to my shame and makes my argument and stance a little less persuasive, but I can still remember how it felt emotionally at the time.

I have never been so well off financially as I have been over the last 14 years, since I started getting Income Support plus an additional allowance built in for severe disability, Disability Living Allowance and Housing Benefit for a flat which cost me about £350 per month, plus a Freedom Pass for travel on London Transport and many local bus networks nationally.  I sat down a few years ago, when I wanted to work out my tithe, when I tithed to the Church, and worked out that the whole package was worth about £13,000.  As I said, I have never been financially so well off.  It is probably worth a little less now as my Freedom Pass has lapsed and I pay for my own travel expenses.  I always felt guilty about having it anyway, as I did about all my benefits.  Funny how they can slap a label on you and refuse to take it off which means you qualify for benefits, then make you feel like a shirker with some fancy footwork.  This label and the power everyone is society can and does wield with it is one of the most distressing things in my life.

But one year early on, on and around budget day when they were talking about the plight of pensioners and insulting increases to their pensions, I wanted to approach the government (to which I remain thankful for this financial provision) and tell them that I didn’t need everything I was getting myself to live on and that, in view of the plight of pensioners at the time, I wanted to be able to give something back to the government for it to be given to the pensioners.  I wanted to find out if there was a mechanism for those kinds of voluntary donations to be used for those not so well-provided for.  I still don’t know if such a mechanism exists, and if it does I missed the opportunity to use it.

But my point is, that was me, on £13,000 a year, believing I was stuck for the rest of my life in rented accommodation in a basement flat that I wanted to make work because I and everyone around me had a right that it whould work, and I looked at someone less well off than me and wanted to give back a portion of my own benefits to help them.  But these people who cream off millions and billions don’t even acknowledge they have that in their hearts and argue for the ‘right’ to maintain the legality of the present financial status quo.

I am sure that people make charitiable donations, but that can’t be the security of the people who need that charity.  It has to be formal and legalised, something they are entitled to, not just something they should be grateful for.  I don’t understand economics or, at least, I have never been taught.  Would doing something like that lead to eventual fiancial ruin and insecurity for everyone? Or just redress the balance in a way which is obviously needed and, to the uninitiated into the mysteries of economics, like myself, looks like such an easy and obvious thing to do?

WAGblog: Dum Spiro Spero

"While I breathe, I hope"

Emerging From The Dark Night

Working through the Dark Night of the Soul to emerge as me.

The Elephant in the Room

Writing about my experiences with: depression, anxiety, OCD and Aspergers

The Sir Letters

A Tale of Love

The Seeker's Dungeon

Troubling the Surf with the Ocean

Seroquel Nation

Onward and upward...

We are all in this together

it's gonna be okay.

my last nerve

psychology | psychiatry | neuroscience | n stuff

A Philosopher's Blog

A Philosopher's View of the World...assuming it exists.