Category: Ethics


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.

Advertisements

“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.

(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!

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?

I’m really annoyed.  I can’t show that in a post.  This is the nearest I can get –

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I can’t understand the broadcast, except I can hear them talking about the one from Istanbul which was cut.  The presenter is fighting tears.  He looks very upset.  I wish I understood what they are saying.  He looks like a decent person.

Hello, decent person, I hope you are OK.

The logo in the top left of the screen is a pair of spectacles and bellow it, in Cyrillics, something which looks like bHT.  It’s 4.23 pm Bulgarian time.

Display it, move it down and take it off, replace it when challenged so I look like an idiot, then take it off again.  No explanation.  Katie and the Forbidden Male Principle Post, published an hour and a half ago, is now nowhere to be found on this board.  Ignore, reposition, delete, treat as if dead or non-existent, except for electronic and psychological stalking – to a victim of serious church stalking and corruption, so serious it has landed her in a mental hospital.  It is satanic and demonic contempt of human life.  These people who run this board are not acting like responsible Christians, even if that is what they claim to be.

Should we accept his apostleship?  If ex-Communist officials are rejected in Bulgaria for diplomacy?  I don’t know what to make of this anymore.  Is an ex-killer a suitable leader and teacher in any context, no matter how much they seem to have changed?  Won’t the past warp their leadership and anything built on it?  What would have happened to the forgiven insurrectionist on the cross if he had lived?  Would forgiveness have meant he could function in society as if he had never killed?  I accept Paul, he is part of my fabric. Should it be uneasy though?  I believe, so I say, in redemption, even of killers, but emotionally it is hard at the moment.  I’ve never lived in a country before where ex-killers of Christians are walking free and in government.  It feels horrible, to me.  Paul.  Ex-killer of Christians.  Foundational Christian teacher.  Teacher of those he once persecuted.  If this were a case of child abuse, it wouldn’t be allowed.  OMG, I’m in trouble with this one.  Did Christianity and the church lose the plot, recognising and building on Paul, or what?  And if the mainstream, Gnostic-rejecting (so it still claims) can use the methods it now does, why does it claim still that Gnosticism is heresy?  And stalking and murder are closely related crimes in effect. . .

The title is now in quotation marks whereas before it was not, and therefore connotes something different .  Quotation marks in this post are appropriate because they surround the name of the original post, otherwise it would have been 2 sets of quotation marks.

Although I republished it several times to show it with the most recent changes because some categories move quickly, like Politics, Christianity and Human Rights, this latest and, probably, most important, amendment has not been acknowledged.  I think “Christianity” acknowledged the first few changes to publishing times, but the change to the actual title remains unacknowledged when I had expected the position and the title changes to be shown, especially after I rescheduled publishing of the post to a later time.  As it now stands in the display, it is a misrepresentation, in both title and positioning – in Christianity, Politics and Human Rights for certain, whereas some of the smaller and, arguably, more “peripheral” groups have recognised the changes.

I think this conveys a message, especially when I think some of the posts that appeared afterwards might have been written in response to mine, but I obviously have no proof of this, and decisive statements should not be made or actions taken without proof. 

For your information, the post to which reference is made is that immediately preceding this one.

When I started this corrective post I thought of it as both a gentle tease and a serious point, and a third thing which I have now forgotten.  I decided not to make it comical in presentation, but have deliberately allowed some ambiguity which, in view of my opening statements, might appear merely to be grammatical oversights, the correction of which has been ommited in error and unconsciously.  I am conscious of the ambiguities and believe that they serve a purpose in this communication.  Other perceived errors, however, must be attributed to tiredness and lack of recent, sustained practice in precision, or to stylistics, or to the possibility that, in some areas, I might be incompetent anyway.

Thank you for your patience and kind attention.

A while ago I tagged one of my posts “possession” and decided to reread it this morning since my statistics say it is getting read a lot.  The heavy metal man with headscarf post.

I searched my tag to see what was under it, partly because I realised I had meant demon possession and that possession on its own was a bit ambiguous.  It could include possession of drugs, and does if you search the tag.

I found a post that I like and agree with for what it says about writing with an agenda and use of allegory to impose an agenda leading to a sort of possession. I think it’s meant to be humorous but I’m not sure.

http://ariellekbosworth.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/some-blogskeeping-and-reading-as-telepathy/

I think any communication which tries to control its recipient is abusive.  The writer of the post says that is what allegory is used for.  So what about everything I’ve learned about the use of parables by Jesus, and illustrations and object lessons?  Do I know what I’m talking about when I say I agree with this, or do I just like to hear myself postulate?

I’d be interested in feedback on this.  Both me and the post I’ve given the link for!

I have few clear ideas about anything at the moment.  I was going to say ‘anymore’, but decided against it.

I don’t know how I feel about the death penalty on principle.  I know how I have felt about individual cases.  I was so upset about one a few years ago that I kicked in the glass in my kitchen door.  I was upset because the news agencies were there just reporting it and not doing anything they were talking about.  It was a Christian woman in the US.  I can’t remember more than that now.

I just read that Julian Assange could face the death penalty or Guantanamo if extradited to Sweden.  The term that was used was ‘ilegal rendition’.  I assume that is something they can do to a non-US citizen.  One writer said how can this happen if he is not a US citizen.  Can it, I don’t know.  I don’t know what ‘illegal rendition’ means.

At a significant point for me Wikileaks released something which led me to do a search as to who had died in Afghanistan/Iraq, and I discovered many namesakes from my own sphere of awareness.  Some of them I felt to be close namesakes, but now I can’t remember and that might just have been my imagination, living too much in the world of the media.  I don’t think so though.

I absolutely loathed Hillary Clinton at one point. I don’t feel so strongly now, possibly because things might be smoothing out as I never said anything about it.

It seemed obvious to me a while ago that she has had something to do with my old Bible College lecturer and longtime heroine, Jean Darnall, unless there are a lot of American ladies who act like that.  But the likeness came to light for me at what seemed like a really significant point in what I was communicating. 

I feel ludicrous.  I feel as if I am meddling in things which are really way beyond me and none of my business.  I certainly feel that, every time i post something like this, I start to dig myself up all over again when perhaps I should rest and let myself heal.

I heard Hillary Clinton roundly condemn Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  I also believe I know she has been involved and informed about me, from things she has said and at times that she has said them.

As a Christian I have to say, God knows there is something really wrong here.  I’m frightened.

I’ve heard both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama using psychic find and extinguish buzz words on me.  I am absolutely sure I can say that with confidence.  But I’m a nobody.  I don’t know what they are doing or why, I know they are doing it, I want to believe well of them, they are world leaders, after all.  I want to believe they are well-intentioned towards me, but they haven’t made proper contact with me.

What do I sound like, I sound really crazy.  I’m a bit ungrounded at the moment, I’m not getting any TV and my internet connection won’t support video.  I just felt I had to say something, for what it might be worth.  No one seems to think it is worth anything (pity, pity, moan, moan) and I really dread that one day I’m going to write something like this and find myself back in hospital.  I dread it now.  No one is coming forward to stop it, and I feel the wheels are in motion to dispossess me of my home and maybe put me back in hospital.  That is another reason I feel ungrounded.

I can’t see how anything I say can help Julian Assange.  I felt as if I had to say something, but I don’t know why or who I’m doing it for or what I’m trying to achieve.

When the 9/11 bombings took place I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I wasn’t in New York, I was in an internet cafe, gambling on horse races online.  I was so watchful over myself at the time that I didn’t process or respond very well to what was unfolding.  I commented to someone in a chatroom or on a game site that I thought it could be a wake up call to the West and to America over our godlessness and materialism and building temples to mammon.  That was what I felt at the time.  I felt there was something of the fightback of emasculated power in the decision to rebuild the World Trade Center as big as, if not bigger than, before.  I did feel there was a lesson that needed to be learned and accepted by the west about cathedrals to money.  But what do I know, I’m quite ignorant about many things, including Islam’s own temples to money, if they have them.  I assumed the motive behind the attacks was to strike at materialism and, if it was, I thought i could see how, given their philosophy, that kind of attack would be justified in their eyes.  Without justifying the attack, I thought it would be better to learn a lesson from the reason for it than to go in seeking revenge.  Does that make me sick?  I thought relations might improve if the lesson were accepted, but maybe that is crazy thinking, I think now it might have been.  I think now that Islam hates us, regardless of what we do.  I thought it might be open to reason and to resolving international relationships and some sort of coming together.  Maybe I have become as reactionary as the warmongers if I decide I was wrong about that and that they hate us because they want to hate us, full stop.  And that there is no question of something needing to be learned and any ground given in how we live.  Terrorists, after all, are not to be negotiated with or recognised in any way, and certainly not in any changes to our own lifestyles.  That is what we are taught.  My heart says that can’t be right.  People are people and if we respond to a good point in the right way, even if the way it is made is wrong, that should create hope, shouldn’t it?  But I don’t know the Koran.  Kensington Temple presents it one way, liberal Muslim’s present it another, apparently these books are always open to interpretation, they tell us.  Who do we decide we are going to believe and why?  Is true Islam committed to hating us and destroying us?  If so, why don’t the liberal Muslims say so?  Maybe it’s an argument about what is true Islam.  I feel I should know, it must surely be accessible.

My fear is that while we try to go with liberal Islam and give people claiming to be liberal Muslims power in government and in churches, even, as it now is, I fear we might not detect people coming under a cloak of friendship but who might actually be using their positions for subversive and dangerous purposes.  If the worst of Islam is to be safeguarded against, how wise is it to open key positions to possible covert infiltration of extremism where privileged information with regard to the bodies traditionally hated by Islam might be passed to people who can do real harm?  Personally I am absolutely convinced it is a risk we shouldn’t be taking.  I’m sorry.  I know that won’t go down well with some people.  But when I hear that churches are taking Muslims onto their staff, my alarm bells start ringing.  Islam is anti any other God or prophet.  So is Christianity.  By definition, true Islam and true Christianity can’t work together.  And neither of them can honestly work with humanism, as humanism can’t honestly work with religion.  So what are we playing at?  Is anyone actually thinking about it? We claim to be trying to do the impossible.  When it comes right down to the practicalities, will it turn out to be just lip service?  And if it does, then what?  When we all realise that and see it, if we haven’t already, how will our attempts at multiculturalism fare?  I don’t know the answer to that.  I feel I’m wrong even to question it, that I’m just stupid and ignorant and people are basically too good not to make it work, even in the face of disillusionment.  But if things are not only different but also opposing and evangelically militant in opposition . . . Do we have to spend our whole lives living in a dialectic?  Is that really what life is supposed to be about?  I’ve wasted my life, I’m too old for dialectic, but I wish I wasn’t, because I think it sounds exciting.

They work me over so much that I can’t handle the things in my life that I need to handle.  I’m sorry, but they are complete bastards, and that includes Tommy Boyd.

I just listened to Robert Elms on BBC Radio London.  For some reason I got it in my head that I liked him, because I used to read his column in one of the free secretarial handouts on the underground – 9 to 5, or Ms London, or something. He looks nice, doesn’t he?  I really need to learn and become fully convinced, that that is just a selling image, his public image, his persona.

I heard it suggested recently, anout a month or two ago, that John Pantry was giving them training on how to handle things in the studio, psychic/spiritual manifestations, whatever you want to call them, and personal feelings, perhaps.  They are just working a formula and being as personally provocative as they can be.  Seductive lure, provocation, intimidation and monstrous, targeted disrespect combined.

Tommy has a post up on his blog, mrtommyboyd.wordpress.com (link at the bottom of my page), called ‘who killed Jo Yeates?…’ in which he states he has known 3 people who were murdered.  I can’t take it anymore, I’ve got to go public.

I read it, and understood that exactly the same things had happened to him as are now happening to me, except that his were, as I said to him in my reply to his post which I never expected to be used because he never posts my replies, direct hits while mine were only hits by psychological and mental association, albeit a constant stream of them.  He never posts my replies or acknowledges them directly in any way.  He is either afraid or cruel.

Straight after Robert Elms a news reader came on, doing her best ‘I’m not bovvered’, chavvy estuary act.  That is how Tommy’s wife Jayne spoke to me when I went to their house once.  The first time I went they both told me I was very brave, and I sat in one of their cars with Tommy for about half an hour.  Looking back, he seemed fairly desperate for a response, he asked me if the answer was yes or no, and I said no because he touched my knee with his and I thought it was sexual.  I felt comfortable with him on the drive back to the train station, so comfortable I didn’t even need to break the silence except to ask a couple of questions that occured to me.

People will try to make me think, as i do, that this is wrong, but if I generalise they will just ignore it.  They might ignore this as well.  You can safely do that with someone who is labelled as mentally ill.  If in their own outraged state they lose control of their emotions and feelings because of the policy to ignore and refuse to engage with all legally recognised forms of communication, they will get put back in a mental hospital.

As far as Tommy is concerned, I am hurting myself here, and it might be irretrievable. Shortly after the time his wife did her estuary accent on me, telling me I had 15 minutes to leave the property or she would call the police, but when I gave up after 10 minutes because I didn’t want the confrontation the police were already coming to the property as I walked away, so she had probably already called them before she spoke to me (to me that is lying and deeply offensive, especially when you know someone has a mental health diagnosis.  Lying should be illegal, it is a contemptuous act of violence towards vulnerable people), Tommy came on his programme saying that ‘Estuary is the way forward’.  Either people picked it up and ran with it to hurt him or something, or he was deliberately giving instructions as to how to best get under my skin.  The weather forecasts seem to have been shaped in the same way as well, human traits and emotions being attributed to the weather, and it seems to be a way of making the weather the bearer of the speaker’s own feelings.

The last Doctor Who I watched, Doctor Who looked and acted a lot like Tommy and he is, as he used to say, ‘all over the place’, and the girl looked a lot like Allison Ferns, who used to co-host a radio programme with him.  But they were also using me a lot, the massive crack in my bedroom wall in Bulgaria, the layout of my street in London, and other things.

So today, having been totally offended by listening to the way Robert Elms was working things, I then had to have my senses offended by – let’s call her a woman – who came on talking heavy Estuary, as they all do, are they acting or is it the employers’ policy to choose only women who speak that way? – and she read the news, and here I am isolated, on my own, no family or flatmates, people above me tapping every morning so suffering from the psychological violence of that, having this offensive accent coming at me because of all its associations for me that I have written about above, so that in itself is also an act of grossly indecent psychological violence, and I might want to lose it.  I might want to start screaming and shouting in anger and outrage and desperation, at which point they slip in a news article about landlords being given powers to deal with ‘neighbours from hell’.

These people, these broadcasters, they are the people from hell.  They are criminals.  Some of the police are also criminals, before they descend on me.  They don’t care, they are debased and debasing animals. 

I wrote something in one of my posts that, just because I might even make a gesture under extreme provocation and when everything else has been ignored, it doesn’t make me dangerous.  Something was registering on my dashboard yesterday as a search that had brought someone to my blog, the search terms were ‘under extreme provocation, everything is dangerous’.  I was going to write something but decided not to, but instead to do my own search which was ‘Nothing is dangerous under extreme provocation except the person doing the provoking’.  This is particularly true when they are also calling that person crazy or letting the system call them crazy.  A person can only take so much.  They know this and they use it.  That is evil.  That is disgusting and that is evil.  The person can hit back and be legally penalised, or they can be ritually subjected to this harassment and humiliation over and over until they think they need to conform and see sense, or commit suicide.  If they committed suicide, all of these people would be glad about it.  The church would say that’s what happens when people are rebellious and that the suicide itself is the final act of rebellion.  I don’t care what they say in public these days, the fact they are doing what they are doing to me says they really don’t care at all.

At the time that it appeared to me that people in the secular news were getting help (they mentioned something to that effect) Premier themselves, John Pantry or someone on his programme, said John was or had been away because he was training other broadcasters.  This was either true or, in the circumstances, a very sick and vile joke.  I can’t access the words I need because I have swallowed so much false sweetness from these people.

They are arguing with each other using stuff about me.  They are using different language to make observations about me, I think.  Like this morning someone said that the toilet was 3 floors down.  I answered a competition run by Cindy Kent at the beginning of their broadcasting, and the phone box was 3 floors down.  It also didin’t ring when someone called.  So I had to wait and hear the area before I ran down to check the phone, the stairs weren’t lit, the light bulbs had gone, and Cindy said, ‘well, if we have to wait, you can wait’.  I knew she knew who I was.  I knew she had got something from churches I had been involved with.

I am really angry.  I have to listen to this.  This stuff the hospital says doesn’t happen.  I have to listen to them doing stuff on me, covertly, or using language and intonation that makes me hear it that way, and listen to the presenters being under pressure when dealing with some of the things caller say, whether the callers are straight or not.  I think sometimes they are, but it sounds as if sometimes they are not.  I have to listen to the war of words and the war of adverts, all the time feeling as if I am being held hostage by the whole charade.  They shouldn’t be using a media platform like this, any of them.  If a church media platform believes it needs to do something like this and grab at me until I feel hysterical and go out with a verbal gunshot, what is wrong with them that they can’t deal with things in the prescribed, legal way?  They are abusing their platform and abusing their listeners, some of us far more than others, some of us conscious of it and others not.  It’s torture.  It’s illegal.  Every time I switch on I see and hear them using my identity, and have a war theatre constantly thrown in my face.

Everybody knows.  Every one of you scummy fuckers that’s involved, you know!  You pipe and peep and roar and snipe and won’t talk to me directly, and you know why I don’t talk to you, because you would manipulate me into validating what you are doing, and it’s wrong.  Goddamnit, you all damn well know!!!  You know what you are doing and what others are doing.  Why don’t you do something???  Why don’t you commit yourselves legally?  Every politician I’ve ever mentioned, every church leader, every broadcaster, every organisation.  Do you know what?  You stink!  And so do I, but it’s your diarrhoea that’s been thrown at me.  You are horrible, hateful cowards hiding your atrocities behind a call to reason and compromise.  You are hateful.  You couldn’t do any of this otherwise, and you couldn’t let it be done.  Every one of you, you are calling on me to change or respond before you stop your illegalities and blind eye turning.

If there is a God (you would turn my certainty against me), you people need dealing with.  I know what you are doing to me, and on that basis I can safely say that you must have a fair few suicides on your consciences, if conscience is a term you have any time for.  I can’t speak to anyone, you work me over so much.  And you put it into my community so that, wherever I go, people are near rioting outside where I live.  That is without anything from me to provoke it.  David Cameron, stuff your doe eyes at your kids and your head held high walks while you look as if you want to crumble and do a runner. Fuck it, fuck it all.  Fucking do what you’re fucking paid for and fucking help me, you fucking rich, toffeenosed prat!!!  Stop cavorting in chambers with what you get off my fucking blog, either trying to seduce me out of hiding or just get away with what you are doing.  You might think you have better things to do, but I don’t.  You are using my own words to communicate with each other, if not with me.  That, in itself, means you owe me.  Because you know.  Because you are one of the people doing it.  Reference my No, No, No post and your use of it the very next time you were in chambers, as Mr Speaker likes to put it 5 minutes before you come on every Wednesday.  I should not have to appeal to you.  No one should expect me to, even if I myself don’t like the stance that I have taken.  I believe what you are doing to me must be criminal.  While you do nothing except try and look in control, you are at least an accessory to the crime.  Until you make proper contact with me you will continue to be that.  All of you involved in this are colluding to commit a massive, international crime against one person.

The Illuminati also has psychics among its members.  I’ve been thinking that might be responsible for the computer and browser shutdowns every time I strike a clear direction.  Like just now, as well.  But that was more obvious in my writing.  It could be Christians as well though.  Dave Rose commented on the content of an email I was writing to my vicar’s bishop before I had even sent it, and either he or Rick Easter passed judgment on an email I sent to Michael Mish, also before I sent it.  I told him I thought he should set up a community or something like that, and he said he had been thinking of it.  I was listening to a recording of Cindy kent at the time, and she mentioned something about setting up a community.  But I had intended to say that to Michael anyway, at least half an hour before I heard her say it.  I was not sure whether to say it or not after that.  I decided I should, that just because someone else had mentioned what I was thinking of for someone else, it was no reason why iIshould not say it.  Dave Rose or Rick Easter, whichever one of them it was, made an accusing remark about excellence.  To me this is obvious.  It is me it is happening to.  It’s not happening to the mental health people, but they at least pretend they believe they have the right to come in and insist it isn’t happening to me either.  I’ve decided they are dishonest.  No one is as innocent and honestly implacable as they make out to be.  They must think I was born yesterday.  All the silence except for the harassment and the shock and awe broadcasts.  That’s what is doing me in.  I AM ready to crumble and give in and see sense and accept that what they have done is right.  I am absolutely convinced that what I say they are doing, if I’m right, has been absolutely the right thing to do.  I hope that someone else will see that that is the problem (I can’t even say that with conviction) and take them to task.

I Followed a Search

One of the searches that brought someone to my blog was ‘Monarch slave that’s been woken up’.  I thought at first it was about the Queen, and today I decided to follow the search myself and see if it was real, because I doubted it.

I discovered it is about a mind control programme, Monarch Mind Control.  I tried to watch one of the videos on YouTube that it returned, but my connection is bad and keeps cutting out.  I got to the end of one interview between a woman called Brice Taylor and a man who is a former special agent and was in charge of the FBI in Los Angeles.

It also returned something about the Illuminati.  I received what claimed to be Illuminati literature and invitations, which contained a statement that they have ways of dealing with people who oppose them.  I intend to follow this search myself later and offer it now for your own information and research.

I find it hard looking at things like this, because I approach it with scepticism.  If I myself am a victim, I am sceptical about myself, as well as angry with everyone else.  That’s where my paralysis comes from and why my anger feels so toxic.  I believe I never needed to be a victim.  So it makes me sceptical about the claims of others who do not claim any responsibility in what happened to them or how they co-operated with it.  I find myself doubting the veracity of the interviews and the level of credulity expressed and what looks to a well-taught Christian eye like an attempt to extricate yourself from blame and responsibility for your own actions.  That is my Pentecostal upbringing that I believe and my former pastors continue to hold as paramount for understanding and action, unless I misinterpret them.

If I AM a victim, even if at the hands of agencies other than government agencies, there have been times when I really felt I had no choice but to do the things that were being suggested to me.  The interviewee talks about drug programmes and psychiatric assessments for updating and reinforcement, and hypnotic techniques.  It started with her father, she said, who ,when she was small , knelt in front of her and told her he had lost control of her because big things were happening and he was sorry, I think she said, because he couldn’t help her.

She was programmed to have a photographic memory.  She talked about light and sound programming, food and sleep deprivation, I think electric shocks as well.  She was used to have sex with people, including former presidents, sometimes if not always for purposes of blackmail.  The link at the end of this post will take you to a lot of similar material.

Maybe I shouldn’t be sceptical.  Maybe we didn’t have as much choice in it as I have been taught I always have, and therefore responsibility.  Who can you go to if you don’t co-operate if you are under threat, constantly bombarded and can’t think, and everyone at least pretends they don’t believe you or that it is your own fault if it is true.? Jesus might be the answer.  But he isn’t the answer on the terms of those who say he is and refuse to approach you to offer help if you don’t accept those terms.  Even if you have offended them.

I need to do some more research.  Even then I won’t know what to make of it wthout appropriate help.  And some people, especially talk radio people (does anyone bother with them?  I wish we wouldn’t) come down really heavily and scathingly on people who say things like this, dismissing it as conspiracy theories and making out it’s lunacy.  I wonder about their honesty.  It’s where the buzzwords come in.  I’m never prepared for them and the blatancy of it is always shocking, it is all pervasive and dislocates your mind, it is that deliberate and violent.  The buzzwords are deliberate.  Even if that is the only thing I can say with certainty and accuracy.  I don’t find them funny.  There was something else in the search that says that Monarch Mind Control is used to programme people for social violence.  I feel silly and that I should just lighten up and deal with situations as they arise and stop seeing connections where they don’t exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_c7JTADT_k

There is a passage in the Old Testament I have been worried about for some time now, and my unease with it and my gut rejection of it as basic, primitive and misogynistic has grown.

I can’t remember where it is, but I hope church leader readers will know the part I’m talking about.  I think it might be Leviticus or one of the first 5 books.

It says if a woman is attacked or raped and she cries out for help it isn’t her fault, but if she doesn’t cry out for help it is.  Something like that.  I might be remembering it too black and white.  I can’t find it quickly because I can’t remember the wording.

I don’t think there is any provision for if she is being threatened in any other way and is afraid to shout for help.  If she is afraid to shout for help is it still her fault, and does the fact that she might also be afraid for her own life or someone else’s so doesn’t scream mean the man is not to blame for his actions?  If she feels too threatened or confused to scream or register objection outside of the situation, does that mean the man has not committed an offence?

Also, it seems to be allowing a provision that the woman might have ‘brought it on herself’ or that she deserves it in some way.  If there is that provision, people who think that of her or who want an excuse to not get involved would ignore her and judge her even if she did scream.

I might need to look it up to get a better understanding of the passage.  However, when it comes to the way people act and react and judge and reason I’ve got it right.

Edit note: I just found it and read it.  It’s Deuteronomy 22.  If it’s in a field only the man dies because there was no one to hear her scream.  If it’s in the city and she doesn’t scream, they both die because she should have screamed.  That is if she is married or engaged.  So according to the law the man should get it both ways.

Should I assume that rape and violent threat didn’t go together in those days as they do now?  Should I assume that, because of the death penalty, if the woman had screamed the man would have tried to escape?  Should I assume that these good, law-abiding people would always have obeyed the law to intervene and put a man like this to death?  The prophets are always telling them that they tolerate things they shouldn’t.  Would they have turned a blind eye like people do today?  Yes, they would, at least sometimes.  The existence of law has never been a guarantee that people are going to obey it and that wrongdoers will always be punished.  And the Bible recognises that there is lawbreaking among leaders as well, and that they also act corruptly and irresponsibly.

Sometimes Bible teachers teach this kind of passage as if the existence of the laws meant they were always kept without question.  That is bad teaching and poor understanding because it is just not true.

If she isn’t married or engaged, and a similar situation is discovered, the man has to pay the woman’s father for the offence and marry her.  They say in rape a woman’s feelings are mixed. This might seem like a monstrous rationalisation, but I wonder if this is a provision to help her deal with these feelings?  For the man it is a punishment for the offence and maybe an opportunity for expiation.  Hmm.  There is no mention of what should happen if the situation is not discovered.  I suppose it assumes consent from the woman.  At least if it isn’t discovered no one can do anything about it.  So it’s probably just a practical observation.

Joan of Arc

I don’t really know anything about Joan of Arc. except what I read in a George Bernard Shaw play.  She turned up to fight for France or something, and rescued the dauphin (French prince?)  The church condemned her because she heard voices and had her burnt or something, then later decided she was a saint and canonised her.  That’s how the church says sorry and tries to deal with its guilt.  Not much good to Joan, they killed her.  And they haven’t learned from the mistake and her canonisation means nothing, because these days in the same circumstances they put people in a mental hospital.  Grubby people.  Nasty, slimy and creepy.

I was just trying to make sense of why John Pantry this morning started with a reference to Joan of Arc (I think it’s her feast day or something) then followed it up with a subliminal ‘schitz’ reference.  I could tell from his voice he was going somewhere treacherous and that it would be best not to listen to him.  He seems to be trying to act in a woman’s identity.

I feel guilty because how I’ve been taught it is.  I’m writing because of how it actually is.  I think they’ve siezed my books and other personal things that I had in storage in a church.  I feel guilty about saying this because I think I should see it is having taken my things into safekeeping for me.  I was told they had got rid of them though.  No one told me they still had them.  I just thought it became obvious when I heard what they were saying.  I felt ill.  Since then it appears that both Christian and non-Christian media have had acess to my things, because I mentioned a piece of writing I had done that might make people think I was violent, and a day or two later Steve Allen on LBC was saying that it looked more like someone saying ‘every time I say something that is true someone comes at me with a belt’.  If this is true, it isn’t right, is it?  It’s hostage taking and kidnap, even though it feels so much like love I should be grateful for.

I also had a blank book among my things, a big thick one for writing in.  I still have the recording where I think that Anna Raeburn made reference to that.  I’m frightened because I feel as if it’s right and I shouldn’t be opposing it.  I’m very frightened.  If they have worked together on this no one will be for me.  No one that matters to me.  John blips so sweetly he has to be right, doesn’t he?  It makes me feel I’ve wrecked everything myself and I have no right to object, maybe even no right to live.

Is heavy shepherding right?  I’ve used the term.  It might be out of date and out of use now.

I’m listening about 6-8 minutes behind.  John just said quite forcefully that he was going to keep going on.  My stomach hurts, I’m upset and I feel sick.  I feel I am the one that is treacherous.  I really do.  I can’t defend myself against anything, even the face to face stalking I get so openly in Bulgaria.  I’ve never felt such despair and the need to give in to what I have so far maintained is obviously wrong.  I feel I am more wrong than the ‘obvious wrong’ which is actually right, that is being done to me, and I need the ‘wrongdoers’ to help and restore me.  Please someone tell me they are wrong and help me.

My connection to Premier has been terminated, and my post which was showing in the tag search is now no longer showing, even though my Colin Dye (2) post has more tags than this one.  Someone is constantly taking a decision to disempower me.

His name is Esteban.

I watched the recording last night of last week’s sermon by Kristian Lythe.  I had forgotten his name, I’ve not seen or heard of him for ages.  But Kristian mentioned him in his sermon, he had made a traffic lights illustration.  He was saying something about red lights, among other things.  I don’t know how much of the sermon I would need to talk about to have you understand.  It can be found at http://www.kt.org/media. (note: please don’t be distracted by the shouting and his insistence on having the word of the Lord or anything else you see and hear.  If any of it is true [how much of it can be?] it is still not the point).

I don’t know how they get hold of information like this about people in my life, but it particularly concerns me that they have sufficient information about this man, Dr Gallo, to use a lookalike of him. Maybe my concern and the way I am handling it are stupid, selfish, treacherous and ungrateful.  I was assuming that they had the information through having had direct communication with Dr Gallo, but that might not be true.   But if it is true, although personally and emotionally I would like to come out and patch things up, I really think there is cause for concern here.  They had told me to leave the church.  I haven’t been there for over a decade.

What are they doing with something like this, it is none of their business, and neither Dr Gallo nor anyone else has ever brought this connection up with me. I’ve known for ages they do the same things with close family and past friends and acquaintances.  As I have said before, I do feel love and I do feel loyalty, but this is stalking, in a way the psychiatric team has told me doesn’t happen, or at least, isn’t happening to me, and they have partly based their diagnosis on my insistence that it does and is.

My Christian response is my biggest felt response, but also I need to keep identification with others in the psychiatric patient community (excuse terminology, maybe I should talk more in terms of mathematical sets, for which being a part of one doesn’t necessarily imply relationship)  and recognise that this is stalking, it is a step, or more like several steps, too far in ruling a church and church discipline and discipleship, I need to employ the term ‘heavy shepherding’ because people recognise it, and recognise myself that this is what is happening in this situation.

They and other churches I’ve been involved with have been challenged many, many times by me about this, in emails, through my blog, and emails are not answered and no conversation entered into through my blog.  David Shearman’s church bounces my emails back to me, whether I have mentioned his name or not in the address or body of my email (I no longer send them and have assigned any responses to ones I do send to the spam folder) saying david.shearman@christian-centre.org is not a valid email address.  If this is supposed to be heart talk for please come home, then I am sorry, and it is probably my loss.  That email address used to be valid, I don’t know if it is only me that gets that kind of response, or used to until I stopped emailing.

I’m very, very sorry, but this is awful.  I feel awful for handling it this way.  I’m not even fully convinced that they are wrong to do this anymore, and that is one of the reasons I need feedback and help from people in whom I have expressed trust who might be more convinced than I am.  I am too emotionally caught up to fight, and the way my readers distance me, on the whole, makes that worse. These people know who they are, and some of them know I love them because I believe they are the sort of people who would want to help and not cause injury.

I might be mistaken in my assessment, in fact at the moment I would like to cause injury myself and have obviously felt that way for ages.  I don’t think in a situation like this that makes me nuts or dangerous, even if under extreme provocation and in distress I even employ gestures to demonstrate how I feel when everything else is ignored.  When I was a kid ‘I’ll kill you’ meant ‘you have gone too far’, not ‘you’d better take steps to separate yourself from me and protect yourself’.  It might be crass and it might not be used in the kindest of relationships, but that is still the way it is for plenty of people who are not considered to be in need of incarceration.  I had it said to me plenty of times.  I’ve never thought of considering that anyone who said it should be locked up.  But maybe I should, on hindsight.  It is emotional thuggery if nothing else.

Ps I have heard Christian leaders involved in this say ‘prove it’.  In something like this that is neither honorable nor Christian.  Robb Thompson was one of them.  He might have been talking about something else.

Tommy, I really do believe this is something that needs to be dealt with, not only for my sake, but for that of others as well.  You have taught me well on that and I’m grateful (even if I don’t always feel I like you very much).  It is as close as a church can get to kidnap.  I know even this gesture towards you rather than coming to you directly is enough to break trust.  I feel that and it feels irrevocable. Partly I feel I’m disempowering myself in any way I could relate to you, and I believe you also need me to be empowered in any relationship we might have, as I need it myself.  So maybe this is just useless empty gesture time again.  I am implicating you, but I’m implicating you to try to empower you, if you think that is something I’m capable of.

What I was saying in my happy new year post.

About people saying ‘out’ on the news.

I was just watching BBC World News, a programme called ‘The Business Report’, or something like that.  5.30 pm UK time.

What happened?  Well, without going into the significance of it all, this man came on talking about the eurozone, and all of a sudden, for the first time since my post, although it is their policy to do this (it’s a distracting policy, and whoever it is aimed at, no one should have to deal with it, and everyone does) Tanya Beckett was saying ‘out’ in that almost vomiting, violent, aggressive and angry way they do, the man was in immeidately afterwards and he did a deliberate ‘camp’, Tanya Beckett said ‘back’ in the same way they say ‘out’ (they always do this too, and to me it is a body part reference (I’ve had exposure to therapy and to schools of psychology, and my college lecturer was particularly into Jung, I suggest you read some and then you might recognise more than you possibly do at the moment).  They make lots of body part references.  Sometimes they are only discernible because of the surreptitious tones and body language that accompany them.  I suppose you would have to be me to understand what I do.  At the end he went back into a camp queen face, and he shook his head from side to side in the same way that Bulgarians do for yes.

OK, now I feel like queen bitch and traitor to someone who might need anonymity in order to offer help.  That’s that one messed up, just like the others I’ve messed up.  I just find the outs and the backs and the psychological violence and aggression so offensive and outrageous and impossible to cope with I don’t care what they are trying to offer.  It’s almost like force.  Work you over then make you an offer and you’re supposed to have their hand off.  I think that’s called hardsell.  I was going to say ‘heavy salesmanship’, but realised I was mixing up my thinking with the term ‘heavy shepherding’.  That’s a different context.

So sorry guys if you are trying to help.  I’m not going to have your hand off, I’m going to say what you’re doing, because that’s what I do.  I think your assumption with the hardsell is that I and others need to be able to depend on you, rather than you depending on and trusting us.  The chase, the hardsell, the headhunting – whatever it is – the trickery, is that more like it?  I don’t know.  It’s all about you being the saviours in the starring roles.  So a person says please help, and your idea of helping is to media stalk them to gather information about them and about what is happening to them, and keep using it to call people who need to respond.  Or what?  Or you don’t help them.  Fucking stupid crap shit.  You don’t want to walk it through, walk with someone through the pain and hardship.  You just want it to be part of your media career.  Someone needs your love and friendship.  You make your stalking appear as if that is what you are offering.

I know about the media and its informative role.  Recently there was something in a trailer about ‘how do reporters feel about some of the things they have to photograph?’

While I see the necessity to inform, I was thinking a little before that, that to stand in front of people in distress with a camera, who look at the camera nonplussed as if they are looking to it for assistance, and then wondering what it’s all about, and then looking downright skeptical about your role and stance, and turning away in disgust, disappointment and confusion – back to their famine conditions, or similar extremity – to me it seems indecent.  I’m assuming if people were doing practical things to help and not just filming, they wouldn’t be getting those kinds of reactions.  It does seem, on the face of it, grossly indecent and insensitive to me.  Or a child whose face opens up in receptiveness to love and is met with something so hard that their face and their eyes close down.

I was reading in Ephesians yesterday.  I got to the part where it said that it is shameful even to speak of the things they do in secret.  I think I picked up the impression somewhere that it was talking about sexual practices,  probably from the fact that I thought about it in the context of the expression ‘in the privacy of your own home’.  But yesterday I saw it differently.

Things done in secret.  Subliminals.  It’s shameful even to speak of them.  For two reasons I can think of.

1.  They mix it so you will feel ashamed if you say anything.  A bit like these Bulgarian thugs, in fact.   And they go silent to leave you to deal with what they have done in the same way.  And when you start to think or relax or receive, they start to knock.  They feel it, and they start knocking.  These people are punitive.  They take the worst thing you have said in response to their own abuse, say it back at you in a tone approaching your own voice, and then say hallelujah, laughing and mocking, apparently.  Is this demonic mockery or is it supposed to be some sort of Christian discipline and correction here?  From men who have just been extremely invasive and abusive?  I think it’s more likely to be a way men break down women to make them obedient slaves for sex trafficking.

I want to cry to my friends for help, but my friends are my stalkers.  Oh my God!  And they stand by indifferent and impassive, watching it happen, letting it happen, saying ‘come’, and making the kinds of appeals which make them look pretty and attractive.  Nothing devastating for them.  Nothing harrowing and horrifying and terrifying, leaving them looking and feeling totally and irrevocably ravaged.  Just a lovely, deeply attractive and winsome, sweet and gentle grief, the sort of thing that comes from a mental understanding, if it can be called that, but nothing really experiential, and it is probably dispensed with in bed with their partners, or maybe even earlier at the dinner table, in the daily disciplines of family life or friendship, if they are observed.  They are making sport of my life and sanity.

That’s only one.  I’ve just had an outbreak of stupidity, verbal violence, banging, accusations and hallelujahs from the men in the rooms near me.  These fucking sick dogs.  God knows what they’re here for.  I wonder if they have ever physically raped a woman?  Apparently a lot of people come to this country for sex.  This is a degraded and degrading place, for all it’s natural beauty.  I asked to be moved last might to a place where I could sleep, at 1.30 in the morning, without this happening to me.  But it has got worse.  Are these mafia people?  I think they might be.  It happened to me at the Vitosha Park Hotel as well.

So here I am again, I can’t think.  Another Bulgarian stalking, computer-hacking media coup?  It happens all the time.  How many mafia people are involved in the media?  I don’t know.  The doctor’s daughter on the bus warned me they control everything.  I’m frightened now.  Now they are quiet.  What might happen in the night?  Oh God, help me!  No one is trustworthy here, and especially not police agencies.  If you want to help, get me out of here.  Now.  With proper legal commitment, and without using the mental health act.  Or they just might kill me.  I’ve been too scared today to go out and eat.  Not only of humiliation, but of possible physical violence, since they are violent in every other way, sometimes even physically as I already know.  Maybe not much different from England.  Metaphorically speaking, of course.  May God judge the politicians of my country for allowing this to happen to me, both here and at home.

Ephesians says have nothing to do with these acts of darkness, but rather expose them, and that light exposes.  And it does, if you don’t lock everyone up who shines the light.  But the Bible says that people love darkness more than light, and won’t come to it, because their deeds are evil, and they fear exposure.  Look what they did to Jeremiah.  I don’t think all the prophets got that treatment.  People did kill prophets, but I thought the culture respected their place.  Kings consulted the prophets and asked if there was any word from the LORD.  And their words were respected and things happened.  If there was a word from the LORD it happened, in judgment and healing.  Now people say ‘are you hearing voices’, and lock you up and make you take drugs, the legalised abuse, not to mention the illegal abuse.

I posted my first version of this prematurely but deliberately, because I was really afraid of what might happen to me here.  I switched on CNN when my computer crashed as I was trying to finish it, and a man in glasses fired off several obvious references to what I had said in my post, then turned a straight and rigid back and walked with it.  That’s the kind of violence I’m talking about.  And it is turned to look like caring, but they are just stealing spiritual energy, and when they get that, job done, as far as they are concerned.  No help materialises.  It’s illusory and seductive, and deliberately so on both counts.  What’s the message, ‘wait right there?’  Are they fucking joking?  Wait, and wait, and wait, for how many years now?  It’s indecent.  ‘Tis a puzzlement (The King And I).  It’s lies, it has to be lies, or why don’t they do something really constructive and life-changing for the people they are tapping?  Hmm?

Hey Cinders – answers on a postcard, please!  Oh my golly gosh lol.  Happy hearts are grateful hearts, happy hearts are grateful for everything.  We’re walking in the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.  Everything’s sunny, we’re grateful for everything, the only thing that could possibly ever be wrong is our attitude, if we complain about things.  I think I was a target for that song, wasn’t I?  Cindy girl, Reverend Gravitas Cindy Kent?  Taunter, teaser and stalker.  Please talk about it, I’m so sure it is something people will want to know about.  Especially since you have tried to keep it hidden.  Now that IS worrying.  I think so.  Sorry, I don’t think I can get your programme here.  It’s specific to UK DAB.  At the very least, your policy was, as was many others’, ‘she has to respond to the performance or she doesn’t get it’ (the help).  Were you just stalking by reference to the things you ‘legitimately’ knew, or were you involved in the computer hacking and phone tapping as well?  Like Dave Rose (he is/was, isn’t/wasn’t he?) and others?

The violence and people’s indifference has got to me.  I wasn’t planning on any of this last stuff.  But ‘killing my darlings’ – is that responsible when your darlings have already been seen by hackers?  This guilt I feel that I don’t abandon the writing and seek the people out.  The stalkers and tormenters.  That would be validating the crime.  Validating the people who don’t want to be punished for their crime by responding to them as if their authority is legitimate.  I will be seen in a worse light for publishing than you will be because of anything I’ve written.  I’ll just be seen as a sick, raging, revengeful woman.  They think they know you and adore you.  And the timid squeak turned to something more devastating to me along the way.

Yeah, like, out with the old, and in with the new.  And I really mean that ‘out’.  Just listen how hard I say it, and how quickly I get it into my post.  I think I’m following some bad modelling, it’s what comes of watching too many news type programmes.

Actually, in this context, I don’t mean it at all.  It’s just a time to ritualise hope and good intentions, and little more than a superstitious observation. Very handy though, for some people.

I think of this in the context of what the apostle Paul said in Galatians when he said he feared for them, because they observed special days and times and seasons.  That’s my first reference point.

Then I remember that, in the Old Testament, there were laws for observing different times, if not instructions to do so.  I think it’s probably instructions, but I won’t be dogmatic, because I haven’t read it recently, that part.

Was one of them wrong and, if not, what changed in between times?  And why do we go with the old Jewish festivals instead of taking notice of Paul?

I don’t understand and, if you say you do, why should I believe you?

OK.  I started off in that way because I just read a comment on TB’s blog about sarcasm.  I didn’t want to say any of that about New Year, because right at this moment I really don’t care.  I do care, in that I am not participating in the happiness and I think I’ve just been stubborn and hurt myself.

I was thinking in the shower (as one does), though I have been registering it for a long time, that the most painful part for me of being where I am at the moment is that I think it is all my fault.  I’ve done this to myself.  No one has done it to me.  That’s what I’m thinking.  Rightly or wrongly. On the deepest level, and believing everything I have been taught about personal responsibility, whatever anyone else has done to me . . .

People hit you when you’re down, have you noticed?  That’s why I always try to close everything perfectly, because if I don’t people, including Christians, take advantage of it. They work off what they see here but never see fit to make contact. From Christians it’s worse, because they are the ones who taught me to repent when I’m wrong, and make restitution where possible.  Yet they don’t.  But they keep going for my head.  They just keep talking about it and making observations which ought to lead them to repentance, but in terms of the people they hurt and harm, how many of us do they look out and say something which would at least show willing?  I wonder if they have got as far as putting up physical barricades at their studio doors yet?  Nah, no way.  They don’t need to.  They’ve got the police moving at their beck and call.

I was going to say that these days you have to get past reception first, or was that just something they put me through but don’t do to everyone else?

I was also thinking, before what I thought in the shower, that I want to do what is right.  But also that I have tried, legally, to go by what I believe to be ‘the book’, but it is those in power and authority which have refused to respond to that on the same terms the rest of us, the uninitiated into grace and favour options, have to.  Grace and favour = come on, we’ll deal with it, we don’t have to tell everyone, it’s just our little secret, you’re good, you’re part of the answer?  Rather than dealing openly in the ways provided by the law (which might indeed be open to interpretation, but surely not that much?)  I’ve heard people say the practice of law is an art.  I thought if there are clear rules and regulations it ought to be nearer to an applied science?  People saying it’s an art and open to interpretation has pulled the rug from under my feet when it comes to having the confidence to try to move forward.

They appeal to me with such emotion it makes me feel I know I would not be harmed in any way if I went back to London, and I’m a bad person not to go.  But if that is the case (sorry, but here I go again), why can’t they make a formal commitment to that?

I feel like a cornered animal, or a felon.  Their ability to pull the mental health act on me is always held on to and continually thrown in my face.  How can I do what is right when the people I need to trust are acting in such a perverted way and a way so subversive of the proper process of law?  Is surrender on a point of law legal itself if the people who would be handling it are not acting with full legal compliance and openness and regard for human rights themselves?  In spite of the fact that they hold office and seem to be asking me to come home (or is that just the way the news makes it look?) would I be acting legally myself if I acted on the legally uncommitted emotions of those to whom, because of their office, disobedience is shameful?  I’ve gone almost as far as I can, to the point of almost exhausting the internal options open to me.  I have big reservations about the European Court of Human Rights.  I don’t know how much these people work hand in glove.  I know that not many appeals from the UK are successful, if what I heard on the news is true.  I suppose it must be.

Thinking in those terms, just this moment I’ve had a new thought: does the European Court of Human Rights ‘lose’ people’s files?  It seems to me that, in some cases, they must know well ahead of a person approaching them that that person’s human rights are being breached, and yet if they don’t move to help even before they are formally approached by the people who lack confidence anyway, including confidence in them, what kind of a body does that really make them?  How can I approach a body which I have every reason to believe has looked on for ages and not intervened?  These awful, dishonest, self-seeking, self-protecting traitors, if that is what they have done?  If that is what they do the whole system is an embarrassment to everyone, and especially to those who need it.

I’m assuming there is openness and honesty behind closed doors between the heads of state.  That’s what this meandering is based on. 

Joan Ruddock, my MP, knows.  I’ve asked her senior case worker, if not Joan directly, if I can have a copy of the correspondence which has gone between Joan and my housing association at my request, if that is permissible.  It was at that point they chose to terminate the correspondence between me and them.  That request received no acknowledgement whatsoever, nor has any email I have sent them since.  If I don’t explicitly engage them they won’t engage, and having tried to engage them on whether or not I am allowed copies of the emails between my housing association and themselves, they have refused or failed to respond.  That was about 2 months ago.  Don’t you assume enough of a sufficient working relationship between yourself and your MP to expect that if you forward any obviously distressed emails you have sent to your housing association, even without comment because they are sent in the heat of fighting for yourself, that your MP should respond?  That was what I expected.  I know they have a lot of work to do (people I approach keep telling me that), but I am part of that workload, in some cases I am part of that workload by law, yet they turn to me and say they are busy, or refuse to follow through as they should and as they promised?  And then, in the case of my housing association, they send me an email just before Christmas, having refused to answer the questions and provide the information which might make me feel more secure about going back to live in one of their properties, asking me if I have informed the Housing Benefit people that I am not living in the flat at the moment.  But thinking about it, while the housing association recognises my tenancy . . . no, maybe that’s a loophole.  Maybe I’m not entitled to keep receiving housing benefit.  But the housing association took over everything to do with my housing benefit years ago, without even consulting me.  That’s a nice one to pull out of the hat when you ask them if they have kept proper records of your tenancy and of the accusations made that landed you in hospital and of who made them.  When you say you think it might be illegal if they haven’t kept those kinds of records, being empowered to make the kinds of decisions they do about people without proper consultation.  My housing officer’s boss wrote back to me and said I had been told “numerous times” that the association now considered the matter closed and they are not prepared to talk about it.  That can’t be legal.  That’s not providing a good home, that’s presiding over a prison, an extension of the mental health system right in your ‘home’, they say they have no obligation to get involved, but they get involved, over my head and without telling me, when they want me put away.  It’s actually in my psychiatric notes that, following the accusations from the workmen, I was put in hospital so they would have space to do their work.

That’s another thing, for years I was asking for my notes and being promised them, and I seem to remember but am not sure that some of those promises were made at the prompting of a solicitor.  Repeatedly promised but never given.  All the right forms filled and submitted, no response.  How many years did it take before I got them, I can’t remember.  Maybe enough time for them to be able to try and kid me that it was ‘a long time ago’ and the matter is closed.  Presiding psychiatrist one Doctor Gallo, who on transfering me at my request to another psychiatrist described me as ‘this very difficult patient’.  Dr Gallo, ‘yes, we’ll give them to you, yes, we’ll give them to you’ and no matter how many times I asked and made fresh applications, I never got them.  Why it was suddenly so easy when I asked for them again in the middle of last year, I have no idea.  Dr Gallo, psychiatrist thug from the Ladywell Unit, Lewisham Hospital.  It’s funny, one of Colin Dye’s platform team looks just like him.

So back to what I wanted to say.  I need to make some practical decisions.  I want to move, here in Bulgaria.  But if I do, whether I rent or buy, I’m not sure, I have been given no legal assurance, that if I take something on I will be free to fulfil the contract or to make the necessary repayments.  I can’t believe they would do this, but there is a possibility that someone would want to imprison me or otherwise detain me, and I would end up defaulting on a financial commitment.  So I don’t feel free to make one.  But I also don’t feel safe to go home, given that requested information is being withheld and I am being spoken to and neglected in such ways by my housing association, the police, my MP, solicitors won’t get involved, and in spite of emails sent to the mental health team, one of them asking my present psychiatrist to respond, I have heard nothing.  Nothing, nada, zilch.  They must know what that is doing to me and I’m wondering what they are trying to do to me.  Yes, do to me.  I was going to say achieve, but that would have been just trying to avoid the appearance of what they like to call ‘paranoid ideation’.  If I’ve sent them emails and asked for a response, I should get one.  And I mean a response, not an excuse for an assessment and a decision that it is time to move in.

My uncle says Christmas is the same as any other day.  When things aren’t as you would like them to be, this is a perspective you need to keep hold of. Because of my church and family background, I believe Christmas is special.  I feel as if I am betraying myself and Christmas by writing this.  That if I made the right approaches to the right people, my Christmas could be redeemed.  But even if that were to happen once, this year, there are other Christmasses to come where I might not be so fortunate.  So the point is, you always need to make your own decisions and not run round looking for rescue remedies, even at Christmas.  The celebration of Christmas is an exterior thing.  But I still wish I was doing it and had done it in the past, and I still want my friends and family, and still feel ashamed that I haven’t invested in them and that, consequently, I will never know and experience, and neither will they, the kind of relationships we might have had.  Blah, blah, blah, whatever, whatever.  They threw my mother at me yesterday.  These media rapists.

This is a crisis time for many people, including people ‘with mental health problems’.  A lot of suicides occur at this time of year.

That isn’t because of the time of year.  It’s because of the way it is sold to us and the expectations and ideals we are taught to have of it.  It’s the way it is marketed by people who want to make money out of it and those who help them to advertise. Some people’s minds have already been so raped that it’s more than they can cope with, so they go into crisis, or commit suicide.  I think staying away from the television and radio might be the best thing for most of us at this time of year.  Truth and reality are within us, not on the tv and radio.  They are selling an illusion and a lie, and most of them know it.  It’s all about materialism and trade.  Hear me, please – that is ALL it is.

I just watched some Bulgarian television.

Within a few minutes they said something about Stara Zagora and pissed.  Just right for anglichanka ears.

I experience speech like music these days.  Especially if I don’t understand the language.  It’s quite nice and relaxing.  And if they pull a trick like that, it backfires on them, because I am not distracted by what comes afterwards, out of their mouths, because I can’t understand it anyway and it can’t dazzle or influence me.  So I can continue to watch and think my own thoughts and make my own observations, mistaken or otherwise.

Here are some thoughts and observations from this morning, mistaken or otherwise:

It was a live breakfast programme, a bit like the ones we have in the UK.  The setting is like an expensive city house.  There was a cookery slot.  The fare was economical.

My thought was that they are trying to tell Bulgarians that they are poor, when actually they are rich, in everything that matters, as long as they don’t develop a serious case of built up city-itis.  In this programme it looked a lot like the city-house surroundings were the important thing (and the unrealisable  aspiration of many, as it has been in Western Europe), and meagre fare was a price you had to pay to reach that ideal.  Or maybe villagers aren’t the target audience anyway, in which case I’m a poisonous cow.  No sorry, forget that, there is an ideal and a philosophy being pushed here, whatever the target audience is.  It is designed to be influential.  Otherwise why bother?

There is no security in this, only a continual grasping.

While people have land, they are rich beyond compare.  The people they call poor here, they are the ones who really are rich, and that is not a statement I am making for sentimental appeal.

The people they call poor, the village people, most of them have their own land around their houses.  That is wealth.   We hear about the landed gentry (or used to, have we moved on?)  But what about the landed poor?  The landed poor are richer, in real terms, than the housed rich.  They can grow what they like.  For meat eaters (which I am not) they can rear what they like.  They need never be hungry.  If those with more give to those with less, it evens out.  And also people can exchange things with each other, both goods and services, without money, and without price.  That endures when economies crash.

Without the language I’m a bit ignorant.  I don’t really know what ideology people are trying to sell and push for.

I know I’ve been in many hotels here which appear to have more staff than guests.  The Bible talks about ‘to-ing and fro-ing across the earth’.  Someone has sold us the lie that peace and contentment and security and being settled and established are boring.

I’m going to buy a house here, unless someone decides to stop me.  It’s going to be in a village.  It’s going to have land.  The wherewithal to create my own wealth.  I hope that, in the future, this country does not start bulldozing villages to make way for cities.  The villages are the foundation.  Good, real, organic life is in the villages.  Life, farming, community, shared skills and the opportunities to learn.  Kill the villages, get the youth of the villages wanting something else and despising what they have there so they want to move out, get the older people with life experience undervaluing themselves and their history and what they have to pass on, dismantle these communities, self-perpetuating, self-sustaining, with real wherewithal, make the economy dependent on something else, a selling idea, more manufacturing-based, more handing over money based, and it will eventually be disastrous for the economy.  Just as it has been for the west.

Back to the land.  It’s good.  It’s progressive, not regressive.  It’s not compensatory, it’s the healthy reality we should never have abandoned.  Test all things.  Hold fast to that which is good. 

The failure of a bad and illusory idea is not the failure of humanity.  It is not a shame for people to abandon a lie and embrace the truth.  That’s what the Bible calls repentance. The lie is ‘you can’t stop progress, you can’t turn back the clock’.  

Whether the lie is working for them materially or not, if it’s a lie, and it is working for them, materially is the only way it DOES work for them.  For the ones at the top, they are envied and despised and a cause of false shame to many who are struggling.  Maybe we can’t blame them, if they are working as honestly as they know how.  It’s what they have been sold too.

I heard a programme on Radio 4 this week, ‘In Our Time’, by Melvyn Bragg.  They were discussing the Industrial Revolution.  I hardly went to school in my teens, so if ideas were discussed (I don’t remember hearing them being discussed out of class time) it’s not something I would have felt able to be part of.  But I can remember standing in a dinner queue one day feeling really upset and isolated, because I was standing there believing with absolute conviction that the Industrial Revolution had been a bad thing, and I really wanted other people to see that and to be able to do something about it, but I thought I might be a bit of an oddity, and I didn’t know how to talk about it anyway, even if I thought there might be people who might agree with me.  I think I felt overwhelmed with differentness.

The fact is, I’m 50 now.  Most of my life is past, unless I live to be over 100.  That is a real grief to me.  What could have been and what could have been achieved?  My past feels like a blank, and my future unrealisable.  I already feel as if it is all over.  What could have been achieved should have been achieved by now.  Maybe I’m just being ageist against myself.

Edit note 10.36 am Bulgarian time.

I was apalled when I re-read this post at my own self-centredness and self-consciousness.  I was thinking about this last night, how people tell you you are self-centred or too self-consciousness, as if it is an accusation and they are pointing out a failing.  I was also thinking maybe they don’t mean it to come across that way, maybe they mean to teach.  I thought that if you want to teach with something like that, you need to dislocate the thinking.  I thought that usualy people put the emphasis in the wrong place, they talk about self-centredness instead of self-centredness, and self-consciousness instead of self-consciousness. The part that is stressed should be the part you are questioning.  It’s not the consciousness and the centredness that should be in question, but the focus of the consciousness and centredness.  If the person trying to address this in another emphsised the word ‘self’ in the communication, the other person might start asking, ‘why, what other kind of consciousness and centredness is there?’, and that is a question which enables teaching to take place.

I’m talking about redeeming my Christmas.  What about everyone else’s?

Anyway, I started this edit note because I used a tag today that was new to me, Rape of a Nation.  I looked to see if there was anything else tagged that way, and I found this film.  I feel and believe it is dealing with and showing some of the consequences of thigs I have meanderingly thought about and painfully tried to express out of my own ignorance and stupidity in my post.  So here’s the link.  If it doesn’t show as a link, in my browser you can right click on it and it says ‘go to link’.  My link buttons remain disabled.

It’s a short journalism film about how the diamond trade operates in the Congo.

http://www.mediastorm.com/publication/rape-of-a-nation

 

Coded Communication

The reason I disagree with this, from people with power and authority towards people who have been through the mental health system, is that my experience of the mental health system is that they insist it doesn’t happen, and if you say it does it is evidence of mental illness.

My experience of the people who use this form of communication is that they do so in order to be able to insist that you respond on their terms and they get involved on their own terms, otherwise they won’t even acknowledge the communication.  They will stand by and look on silently and impassively as they order you to be taken away.

Their assumed right to do this also assumes that they know everything they need to know to make a decision about a person.  Erm . . . that would make them God, then?

I’m in a dilemma over this.  I’m sure that most of them believe that what they are doing is right.  But I would like to e able to say that the reason I feel so strongly against it is that I have fallen prey of evil people who have perverted its use, but those people would not accept that description and assessment of themselves, and neither would most ‘decent, upstanding people’ accept it of them.

I do feel love, I do feel loyalty, I believe very much in obedience to authority.  I think I do, anyway.  So when I don’t respond to this, I believe it says something bad about me, and I think that is how they see it too.

Am I a person being abused, or am I just a rebel who needs to learn to respect those in authority? If I go to the people I rebel against in tears, will they heal me?  I certainly seem to be making life very hard for myself.  That is the position they take.

The problem is, for me and other survivors of the mental health system, the government validates and upholds the system which says believing we are being communicated with in this way is evidence of mental illness.

So what is the definition of mental illness? Is it, for someone like me, that I want to do what I want to do on my own terms, not on the terms of those who use their form of communication to be able to opt out of committment to a response from the person which is other than they want?  To me, it looks that way.

I thought that living in a democracy meant you could do anything you want to, within the law, on your own terms unless, discounting assault, someone with authority stops you with good reason and in an acceptable way, which, to me in a situation like this, would be with the personal commitment of being explicit about what you are saying, about who you are saying it to, and about what you want, so that everyone watching and listening, including the person themselves, knows what you have said and who you have said it to.

I feel I could just go walking up to these people, at the moment, and find myself embraced and accepted.  That makes me feel that I should drop my insistence that people in authority should not communicate with those without power and authority in code, whatever the communication.  I think they would say it is about testing the heart.  When I started writing this I was ready to maintain that it is an attempt to control a person inappropriately rather than to control a situation and recognise the person’s rights to their own terms of action and understanding. I wonder what kind of Britain it is that would be put at risk by recognising these rights and not acting against them.

I believe that no one in authority who upholds the mental health system has a right to use this form of communication with someone who knows that if there response is considered unacceptable they could well end up back in hospital.  I also wish to maintain that they have no right to take an individual out of that group and try and make them feel secure enough to leave the others behind. if they can do it for one, they can do it for all.  I believe the way to do that for this kind of situation is to make it clear that the mental health practitioners are wrong in their assertions and actions towards people who believe they are being communicated with using any kind of code.

Coded communication I am aware of and that I know others are aware of embraces things like parable, metaphor, storytelling, drama – seeds planted that go for the heart and conscience and which bypass the process of logic.  I heard on Premier Radio that it was C S Lewis who said that was the function of his stories, and Premier Radio accepted the validity and desirability of that without question.

My own life experience, and that of many others, I have to assume,  is that that is not something we have been brought up with with any awareness or security or understanding. That being the case, it is wrong to invalidate us and superimpose it on us at will.

I think that, in most situations, employing means to move the will through the heart bypassing the mind is assuming far too much power.  It assumes too much personal purity and knowledge.

I’m Sue Barnett.  I’m trying to survive the mental health system threat, and until people insisted on knowing everything about me, I was a survivor of sexual and other forms of abuse.  I was satisfied that, as a Christian, the new had come and the old had gone, and that there were some things I didn’t need to talk about.   Because other people were not, and were not prepared to say that to me or to tell me what it was they were concerned about, I have been made a victim of the mental health system and of everyone who is happy to have that fear as a form of control over me because it makes their job easier.  I have been made a victim by people in authority who have used this extreme form of force and invalidation to compensate for their own cowardice, anger and unwillingness to be open without taking control.

The truth is, however I feel, the life I could have known will now never exist.  For them, knowing that I have been a victim of sexual abuse makes them believe they need to take another look and try to restore the relationship, maybe try to help me and so expiate their guilty feelings.  Some want to work even harder to cover what they have done, and so present as believing they need to be even more insistent on the form of communication they are using which will not cover the person who responds to it in the eyes of the mental health system, if the communicators don’t find the response acceptable.  They can invest it with whatever tone or expression of love, authority, disapproval, anger, cajoling, humour, twitting, triumph, positive disengagement they want to, the form of communication is still as compromising to its recipient.

If they want me to go home, the right way to communicate that is to tell me so openly and formally, either giving reasons or saying that they can’t, and to tell me what kind of provision will be made for me if I do what they ask me and what else they want to happen and don’t want to happen, in terms of – well, not knowing whether or not they want to arrest me is one of my greatest anxieties.  Will anyone meet me at the airport and, if so, who and for what purpose?  How will I know them, and that they are who they say they are and want what they say they want?

With good reason I am afraid of force and of violence and of being taken into any kind of detention when no one has told me to expect it.  Making people live with that has to be wrong, in most cases, if not all.  They tell us that if we treat them with respect we will be respected.  Hm. A very easy equation to make, and also one which they don’t impose that often on themselves in any kind of requirement to be the first to show respect in a relationship which has broken down.

Christmas is here.  I feel as if I have deprived myself.  But I believe that other people have been watching my actions with cynicism they have attributed to me.  They seem to think I have done some hard and necessary things just because it is Christmas and I want to have a good one, so they are treating my actions and communications with cynicism and not even acknowledging them.  To me, that makes them the problem, because I don’t work that way.  I would not seek resolution of serious issues involving other people with an eye to having it out of the way by Christmas.  I recently contacted the police complaints department for an update on a complaint they have allowed to lapse for several months without communication.  That was a week ago.  In spite of the seriousness and distressing nature of what is involved, I have still received no reply, and I really believe, given the way they have handled all other communication I have made on this matter, that they have decided I can wait until after Christmas because if I thought I should be able to get it out of the way before then they are going to teach me I can’t do things at my own convenience.  I didn’t even think of Christmas.  I did what I knew I had to do at the time.  If this is the approach they are taking towards me, it is their cynicism, not mine, and is completely contemptuous.  There might be another reason but, if there is, they are not exactly showing any human concern.  I haven’t even had an acknowledgement of the email I sent them, let alone an update.  This must be wrong, especially when I first started trying to deal with it back in March 2009 and they have failed to deliver in terms of the way they said they were going to handle it, even after many attempts to get a clarification.  I’m wondering why I am being held hostage in this way and why I, as the person who made the report and has later complained about the way it has been handled from start to finish in the way they have treated me, am being made to feel as if I don’t matter.  It appears to me that they MUST be trying to hide something.  If they are waiting for me to be prepared to deal with it in the way they think I should be, that is awfully patronising and shows incompetence rather than anything else.  I’ve made the report.  I’ve made the complaint.  I am being ignored on one hand and being put under pressure on the other while they wait for – what?  Perfection in the way I go about things and the way I express my feelings over the situation before they will allow any resolution or progress or closure?  These people, whose officers have been exposed for rape and other misdemeanours?  They think they have a right to hold me, someone who went to them voluntarily, hostage?

You daren’t say too much against these people.  They have ways of making you pay.  Violence, neglect, incarceration under the mental health act, leaving you to deal with abuse and vigilantism in the neighbourhood.  Would they take out a contract on my life?  Would they physically have me killed?  I really don’t know.

Edit note: 11.36 am Bulgarian time:

This post didn’t appear under it’s assigned categories and tags for several minutes.  I thought it wasn’t going to, so I contacted WordPress to ask why.

When I finished (perhaps this is what is commonly called ‘paranoia’, but I don’t think so, though I am in the city centre, more or less), a police car came past with its siren wailing.  It stopped and started and stopped and started, sort, long, it felt deliberately timed and mocking, angry, harassing and threatening.

Now I’m angry.  MY anger is not acceptable, so I am also afraid.  In the light of everything that has happened this year – should I just laugh at myself and stop being so precious and pretentious?  It looks as if I am being targeted for deliberate harassment.  If the action is deliberate, harassment might not be their motivation, it is just the quickest interpretation people arrive at. But whatever the motivation, if it IS deliberate, it is experienced as harassment and contempt and provocation, and knowing that might be what they want, I am angry, and sick with fear because of that possibility.  Because when that happens, it is normal, and right, to want to confront the human beings responsible.  But if I did I would come off worst.  That is how people become mentally ill.  Not being allowed to confront what is wrong with what is right, and having to pretend compliance where it is absolutely wrong, in the face of authorities and powerful organisations and individuals who pretend they are not doing what they most obviously and certainly seem to be doing.  I’m afraid, because they might be using this kind of activity towards me to get me to reveal my identity and whereabouts.  Even though my landlord, I think, has to give them that information anyway.  I’m afraid because, when I think I am wrong, I feel it deeply, and they make me feel that way all the time.  I’m afraid because my normal mode is love and respect, and they seem to enjoy invalidating that, or misappropriating it.  I feel stupid.  I think that is what they want me to feel.  Back off and watch a woman being abused and wait until she cries for help, realising how right they really are and acknowledging how wrong she really is.

Um . . .

I just saw this and completely disagreed with the position adopted.  I left a comment to that effect.

Read

One of my concerns with this is, is the person writing an innocent user, or an interested party adopting a persona for hardsell, putdowns and bullying? Or it might be a challenge to WordPress, a non-explicit appeal to the consciences of the operators.  I don’t know, but I disagreed with the ostensible position anyway.

The one where Bulgarian men had been giving me a hard time?  Well, straight after WordPress Freshly Pressed a post called ‘Words That Make Your Resume Suck’, by Crone And Bear It.

I’m not sure whose support is allowing them to get away with this.

I’ve also had problems logging into my aol account with Opera.  AOL features a number of news stories on its homepage. After several attempts to log in I was taken back to the home page which flashed a story for a few moments, headlined ‘no turkeys here’, then it disappeared and the original set of stories came back.

Is narrowcasting in this way hateful and angry, or is that just a projection of my own feelings every time it hits me?  It’s an invasion of privacy in the life of someone who has not chosen a public profession.  I think the only reason some people deride the idea of boundaries is so that they can cross them with impunity, leaving targets of particular persuasions about openness and honesty etc feeling too embarrassed to challenge and expose them.

I expect my blog to be closed down soon.  If it is I will lose all my material.  If you read WordPress Terms and Conditions you will see they can close down a blog without notice and without obligation.

BBC World News

Do you know that if you are in the UK, you aren’t allowed to watch it?  It is available for live streaming on the internet and on cable channels abroad, but if you are detected on the internet to be in the UK, you can’t watch it.  You are physically barred and a message comes up saying you’re not allowed to watch.  This is a British broadcast of World News, it says.  But in the UK you can’t watch it.  I hope people are going to ask why, I think they should.

I have UK connection through an unlock VPN provider.  That’s how I know.  I use it to watch and download UK tv.  It’s legal.  I hope it stays that way.

David Edes is on BBC World News, weekday mornings.

I’m trying to write in spite of the fact that my hysteria would have me not do so and in spite of the fact that my hysteria blocks my access to the way I want to write and even makes me write in a way I don’t want to.

I’m hysterical because the way they target me psychologically and linguistically leaves me feeling I have been touched in my private parts.  It was a man, dark skinned guy doing the sport, and all the time he was doing it he was eyeballing ‘the camera’, with a sort of stupid, vacant look on his face, but also quite intent.

He started off saying ‘we’, in that significant way they do, and later in his presentation he came back to saying something like I heard a week or so ago, ‘now, I want to talk to you about this‘.  It was said in the tone you would adopt if you were telling someone off, that was the scenario they set up.  It was as if they were talking to a naughty dog.  It was demeaning, dehumanising and very distressing.  But they keep going, as if they haven’t done anything wrong.  Maybe it was one man coming to the aid of another, because David Edes was visibly upset.  But if they do it by treating a woman that way then these men are completely indecent and evil and not fit to be unleashed on anyone.  I wouldn’t want to be married to them, and if I had children I wouldn’t want these men anywhere near them.

And there they were, molesting secretively and moving on as if they had done nothing wrong.  And I’m sitting there watching and becoming more and more physically distressed because it was tantamount to an indecent touch.  Although I feel it, I continue to watch, trying to come to terms with what they have just done, and also open and interested to see where they go next.  But watching them and listening to them, I do myself a disservice.

But this sort of thing happens any time I begin to recover.  This machine is disgusting, degrading and murderous.  They have gathered all the information about me that they can and use it to try and present themselves as people who want to help me and who understand, but when you begin to think independently of them and repossess your own life, they attack you in this way.  If they are not allowed to be the helpers and the benefactors, they will just as happily turn round and assault you in this way.

It makes me feel as if I am wrong and that, as a woman, I should respond to these men on their terms and that it is unreasonable of me not to do so.  It makes me feel they have a right to molest me in this way if they don’t get what they want.  These career people shaping the way we see the world are acting like the scum of the earth.

I feel like a bad woman, because I object to be treated this way.  I believe this is how they want me to feel, or they would not adopt that tone.

Or maybe they don’t care how I feel, they just want their own embarrassment to stop.  So they go for me in that way and feel helped, but I feel so worked over I’m too distressed even to leave my home.  A sexual touch opens people up. It’s like linguistic hit and run rape.  And knowing all my electronic communication, even before it is released, is being watched by govenrment, media and church people makes it even worse.  They are there watching, and do nothing.  Then they turn and try toi make you think they are the people supporting your life because they don’t stop your benefits.  But you never know when they are going to, and if I was properly compensated for what they have done to me I might never need to make a decision ever again that was money based, I believe I am entitled to that much compensation.  I could live the life of Reilly, and that would be wonderful

Is this kind of thing what David Shearman was referring to when he said ages ago that it is molestation?  If so, I agree with him on that.

Yesterday the BBC New Channel put together an account of a teenage asylum seeker who said she had a torch shone into her face once an hour during the night to make sure she hadn’t harmed herself (common sense says there are times to leave people alone to sleep, and this happened to me in hospital as well.  And if a person is ill, they need sleep?  No further comment), with a sign saying ‘Welcome to Crane’, an asylum seekers’ unit and also the name of the secondary school I went to and where I was repeatedly molested by a male teacher who has now died, and this story was immediately followed up by a story about a teacher charged with sexual molestation of a pupil in school.

I think the people upstairs must be watching television or listening to the radio or something.  I believe the media here is stalking me as well, and as I typed that bit, which is obviously a part of me that I need to possess if I’m to have any chance of recovering my life, the man started to shout out.  maybe the same man that pitched up and shouted aggressively outside my flat on my first or second day here.  This happens repeatedly.  I have nothing to relate to anyone with, the onslaught of violence, aggression and molestation is so continuous.  It’s as if they are saying, ‘don’t touch that, that’s mine’, every time I begin to engage with my own life and experiences.  It’s not theirs, it’s not yours, it’s mine.  It is mine.  It’s my life and history my mind is beginning to engage with every time someone touches me in this way.

All of you, whoever you are engaged in doing this, UK and anywhere else, you are indecent, murderous bastards, and I hope you are made to pay.  You are going to pay.  There are other voices than mine in agreement, and I hope they read this and act.  And I hope the media stops using my life to shape its material, whether news or entertainment or lifestyle or whatever.  Because these people are the criminals and the space invaders, not me.  Are they too stupid, so morally and ethically far gone, they can’t even see that?

I’ve just had a memory blank on the results of my search on media stalking, but when I did a search on media harassment, almost everything that comes tagged in that way is complaining about harassment of and attacks on media people and organisations.

There is very little categorised under this heading which addresses what I thought should obviously be addressed by this section, the harassment of people and groups outside of the media by the media.  What I did find was written by a dedicated law firm which, when I left a comment months ago, didn’t post it or contact me as I had asked.

I had a phone conversation this morning.  It went the way of all phone conversations.  It started off OK, but towards the end of the conversation the woman lowered the tone of her voice from what had felt open and friendly to something else, and I had to quickly regather myself because I censor myself from expressing my disturbance over that kind of thing.  I have to be upbeat on the phone, and can’t get into conversations, normally, objecting to a turn the conversation has taken.  For one thing, people are listening.  It would be humiliating and embarassing.

Think of it.  I get on the phone hoping and praying and doing everything I can to make sure a conversation goes well and the way I want it to, because the alternative is to feel humiliated and embarassed in front of the people who are monitoring my call.  This is a ludicrous mindset to have to be in.  I can’t cope with problems in a conversation because of what my stalkers will think and do with it.  I pick up the phone and dial, assuring myself that I am in control and it is going to be OK, and when it isn’t I’m not ready to cope with it.  I got off the phone today and thought it had been a psychological hold-up.  Maybe it was or wasn’t, but the stalking element leaves me feeling paralysed.  It’s like being held down while people rape you.

I realised to day that part of the reason I get angry with the ‘shmooziness’  of some news readers etc is that they are shmoozy because they are happy about stuff relating to me that they have no right of access to anyway.  Their very happiness and, for me as the target, unhidden use of what they know and their assumption that it is OK, makes me angry.  It happens even, and maybe especially, with people I think seem nice.  David Edes, Tim Willcox, Tommy Boyd, Hew Edwards.  There are women, I can’t remember their names.  They appear to be taking pleasure in me, and I am still out here, unable to breathe, trying to live my life on the terms I have a right to, and they have no right to what they have.

This actually makes me lose my sympathy with the cause of free speech and freedom of the press.  I’m seeing the stories about limitations on the media in other countries and thinking it might not be such a bad thing.  The rulers rule and the amoral ‘free press’ causes unrest, or at least stokes it.  That’s not good.  I believe we need a free press, but their irresponsibility and in some cases criminality (some things that are designated crimes are rightly so designated) might actually be undermining their necessary and legitimate continuance.  And other countries look to the example set by the west, and however bad things might be, they don’t want the alternative bad they see with us.

This is not my cause.  My cause is to try and salvage my own life.

I watched some Bulgarian TV last night.  I switched on to a comedy show where someone was dressed up as an orthodox priest, and within seconds he was gesturing as if to suggest women’s breasts, he said something about a baby, he said something which sounded like Sklave, and stuck 2 fingers up at the camera.

I can’t cope.  I’m frightened, these men look terrifying to me.  And you’re telling some awful stories about crimes that take place in some Eastern European countries, like the one about people being killed for their organs you came out with yesterday.  I’ve never heard you say that the same thing happens in the west, but I think common sense says it must do?  UK media, church, and politicians, you have done this to me.  How are you going to put it right?  People that look like me and people I know are flashed on news programmes all the time.  It used to be my immediate neighbours in London.  Now it is my neighbours and landlords and transport providers and supermarket staff in Bulgaria.  Do you think I want anything to do with you?  Do you think I should trust you?

Laura Koensberg (not sure of spelling).  Now there is a piece of work.  She and people like her are dangerous.  All they care about is what they think is their right to their own workspace.

It’s not just a rant, it’s what I really think and feel, most of the time.  Every time I say something against someone I feel sympathy for them and end up thinking I shouldn’t say it.  But I have a right to be wrong.  If she cares she can contact me, or sue me.  But it’s a big ‘if’, isn’t it?

Why don’t I check things properly?  Julian Assange is a computer hacker.  Hacking computers is a crime, and should be whoever does it.  Even the state.  It’s reduced us to the level of wrestling in mud.  FGS.

It’s complicated for me.  The writing of this post is a little distracted by the fact that I have a Napster automix playing, but I don’t want to turn it off.

I’ve been asking the people I have been looking to for support to contact me properly and legally for ages.  They don’t.  I don’t know how many of them are involved in computer hacking themselves.  I don’t know how much ‘support’ I have mistakenly believed I am receiving from the fruits of said hacking.

We need to get back to principle. Argument from principle, not pinning people to the wall with the results of our hacking (which I don’t do, and wouldn’t if I could).

Especially while we have forums like this for open communication.  If we argue from principle, and we do it openly, people will be forced to take notice.  Anything else is deeply abusive and irresponsible, even and especially from government agencies.

I think if we argue from principle things are going to come out anyway.  It is urgent and imperative that we do so, keep at it and do not give up.  If these buggers don’t listen, there is something wrong with them.  And that is something they need to hear and that we need to understand and be confident in asserting.

I still identify a lot with Julian Assange.  He looks as emotionally vulnerable as me.  what is happening on a spiritual level is weird.  Every time I get a hold on a new thought and want to run with it, one of my neighbours says something loudly.  I don’t think it is just in my head.  I think it must happen to other people as well.

For me, I know and feel I am in deep trouble, within myself, if not in any other way.  It is these phenomena which are keeping me so emotionally raw.  Just when you think you have your own head space, someone invades it.  Their right to speak is not the issue.  The repeated timing of it is, it is freaky and debilitating.

I think they are doing to Julian Assange what they are doing to me.  I hope he isn’t aware of me as some people are, and deliberately reflecting me back at myself, as some people do.  That WOULD be stupid, if I have fallen for that.  If he is in as much emotional trouble as he seems to be, I feel for him.

Some really cute songs in this mix.  Specifically generated for Christmas.  I get obsessed and deprive myself of music, and that is bad for me.  It makes me feel at odds with everybody and that I can’t do what I am being asked to do. Listening to this is making me wish I had done what people have been asking me to do and then I might have had a decent Christmas.

I want to go home.  To London.  I’m frightened and embarrassed.  I feel that leaving was dishonorable.  Please note, I said I feel. The fact that I am verbalising a feeling does not mean that I am saying it is right and appropriate.  In a climate like this, you feel to the point of believing you know, that all kinds of things are right or wrong.  ‘Knowing’ beyond a doubt that the guilt you feel is entrirely right and appropriate is no indication that it is right at all.  But it is indistinguishable from the real thing.  Even legality can’t be the measure of what is appropriate or not, when people bend and construct the law to suit themselves.

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.