Tag Archive: Counselling


Old ‘Wives Tales

I spoke today to someone who turned out to have been a midwife before her present business.  I told her what had been happening to me in hospital, the forced treatments with PRN medication and the restraints, and I find this hard to believe since the practice is so widespread, but she told me that what happened to me is illegal, but that it happens all the time.  I don’t know if it is equally true for people on a Section 3 or not.  I know where this lady is, she will be there for the long term.

While we were talking I said to her that I had thought earlier, but had forgotten to put it in my post, that the question ‘can I help this person without putting them on drugs’ does not seem to be one of the questions on a psychiatrist’s check list.  I told her I was homeless and she asked me if I was in a hostel, I told her no, I had had problems at home but they had said the problems were just in my mind and had put me in hospital, and she seemed outraged.  I told her I thought I went too quickly and cynically to the political view of things, but she said she thought it was right, and when I said that they always said there is so much call for beds that they don’t keep people in unless they are really ill, she was skeptical about that as well.  In fact thinking about it, of course she should be.  I heard someone say that the psychiatrists are the front men for the drugs companies.  Of course this is right.  Jesus, help us.

She also said that the fact they have acronyms for things doesn’t make them legal.  But if all this really is illegal, how come they are getting away with it?  I can’t understand this.  She was adamant that it is political and not a health thing, and I said that I believed that as well, but that it was different hearing it from a professional.  Of course, though, many people in other branches of medicine have no time for psychiatry, but she said the practices are actually illegal, and this is a different professional perspective for me.  I hope she is right, because then there might be some hope of dealing with this.

While I am here I might as well say that no formal support or counselling is in place to help me deal with what happened yesterday with Kerry and the kicking.  They’ve basically said talk to us if you want to, but they know how I and some others feel about talking to them about anything and it seems to me there should be something solid and more formal with appointments in place.  I have had no support offered with this at all except informally, apart from the fact that a young student took the details of what had happened and said it was to my credit that I had handled it calmly and had come back to the staff.  But it was completely by chance that the woman who agreed to be a witness for me had been passing at all.  I don’t know what I would have done otherwise or how it would have been handled.  One of the other patients told me when I got back on the ward last night to be careful because she thought she was going to try and provoke me again.  No one has followed me up and asked how I am after it.  I think I am more alone in this than I should be.  I would have thought that in a situation like this other disciplines should have been involved as a matter of course.

Advertisements

Life at Macmillan Close

I am being trialed off my medication at the moment.  I have spoken to the psychiatrist just once in the 4 months I have been here, about two months ago, and he agreed to it.  I told him that I believed I was suffering from grief and trauma issues, not schizophrenia.  I was told by a nurse that if I started to deteriorate they would put me back on the medication.  However, I am still unsupported in grief and trauma issues.  It seems they are watching me without giving me any counselling support.

I’ve had an upsetting week this week, and thought a lot, and put in a complaint.  Since I have been here there has been shouting and swearing and door slamming, from the staff as well as the patients.  When I have complained about the door slamming I have been told that that is just communal living and some people slam doors.  The staff have acknowledged that they do it as well.  In my complaint I said that since we are here against our wishes without the normal choices of communal living I think it is a duty of care issue, not a communal issue.  I said that although the staff’s acknowledgement that they do it as well is disarming, it is still ill-discipline and unprofessional and there needs to be a rule about it, not tolerance.  If this is a place that sick people are supposed to get better a peaceful environment needs to be provided and maintained.  To know you can’t go to the staff about door slamming because they slam doors themselves, and just having to hope for the best, that it won’t happen, is highly detrimental to security of mind and the ability to rest.

Two days ago a member of staff came upstairs calling out my housemate’s name like an excited mate, and when she got to my room and asked me how I was I said I’m not asleep though I would like to be, and if I had been she would have woken me up.  She said sorry she didn’t do it on purpose, and it was 3pm.  I said this is a hospital and sometimes people want to rest and I am 18 months homeless and tired.  This morning I was between awake and asleep when a nurse entered my room.  She didn’t say anything, but when she went downstairs she slammed the door.  I don’t think that is an acceptable way to communicate that you think someone should be awake and out of bed, or maybe she didn’t even think.  I lay there for another hour or two trying to get my mind where I wanted it, then when I got up I thought it would have been better if I had done that in the first place, because I felt better.  But my attention kept darting nervously all over the place, like it would at repeated loud noises and shock.  I’m afraid they are going to want to say that is evidence I need to be back on the medication, rather than recognise that I have said I am dealing with trauma issues and am having to deal with fresh shock and trauma every day.

This afternoon I decided to go to bed and try and sleep a bit before trying to write this blog entry.  Within about five or ten minutes of me lying down ad beginning to feel as if I was pleasantly going to sleep, one of my flatmates started slamming the door downstairs, hard and repeatedly.  I felt a surge of anger and frustration go right up my back.  I lay and listened to what was going on outside, and thought it sounded more like a rough council estate than a hospital, with people shouting and music blaring out, and no one was doing anything about it.  Eventually I accepted the music and felt better about it, but I still thought it is more like a war zone than a hospital.  After a while the same nurse that said it is 3pm two days ago knocked on my door and I didn’t answer.  She came in and saw me with my hands up near my head as if i could be asleep, I felt as if I was in that zone, and she came in and insisted on a cheery ‘hello Susan’, as if insisting that I shouldn’t be asleep at that time.  I believe the recovery experts who say ‘listen to your body’.  It seems to me she has no respect for that, and she isn’t the only one.  These places cause trauma and mental illness, nervousness, fear, anger.  You feel as if you have to keep a lid on your anger and distress because it could well be met with medication, even if your feelings are  justified.  It’s like living with a load of chavs and rebellious teenagers, and that includes the staff.  If a traumatised person feels they need to sleep outside of what might be considered normal hours, they will eventually right themselves if they sleep when they want to during recover – won’t they??  I’m also menopausal.  Rest is good.  It’s natural.  A nurse insisting on making themselves heard by a resting person is bad, unless there is an emergency.

I thought this afternoon that the walls are so thin, people peck at each other in different ways, like chickens, and like chickens our beaks are cut off, by the fear of medication etc.  I get terrified when I show anger, because I know what people have done to me in the past, making notes and putting me back on sections and things.  I hope it is not the same here, but I don’t know.  I was traumatised when I was first taken into hospital, and doors slammed then and people, including staff, shouted and were abusive.  On an acute ward the excuse given was that there were a lot of ill people there.  Here it is not an acute ward and the excuse has been that some people slam doors, that’s life.  I do not feel that this is a place, for me as a traumatised person, to be, especially with the threat of medication constantly waving itself at me if I am not coping.  I am so tired and angry and afraid that I am in survival mode, doing only those things that are necessary to survival.  I’m not washing my clothes or showering.  I don’t go out much.  I have no friends here that I can just go round to their house for the day.  Effectively if I go out other than to shop I’m walking the streets, or having to think where I can go to spend money that I won’t feel too uncomfortable.  Going out already traumatised by your living space is not a good idea.  There are nurses who peer at me and make a big thing of registering the state of my room, like a silent criticism.  Sometimes they seem angry with me.  I have started thinking it is not a good idea to talk too much about things because they would either not understand or not care much.  I’ve started feeling that all they ‘understand’ about us is what they were taught on their psychiatric courses.  As I patient I feel objectified.  There is so much game playing.  I just want to sleep.  I feel as if I have been ousted from my room by the door slamming that happens when I go inside it, and hearing one of my housemates saying ‘ahem’ every time I move.  This particular housemate has been here a long time and she seems to be a bit of a pet with the staff.

People have been talking about the ‘Time to Change’ campaign.  I have thought of getting a tee shirt made saying ‘It is time to change, and realise that some people in mental hospitals have been accused of things that have never come to court’.  Sometimes the staff come on so bright and shiny and super-normal, it seems obvious to me they are trying to prove something about themselves in relation to the patients.  We couldn’t possibly have a heated argument about the rights and wrongs of psychiatry and psychiatric practice.  I realised yesterday evening that we are in the perfect place for a good snowball fight, instead of stressing about the weather.  No one made a move in that direction.  As I said, this afternoon it felt more like a rough council estate, or ghetto or enclave, than a hospital.  One of my housemate told me that te guys next door drink regularly on the premises and the staff know about it and don’t stop it.  If it was me I would get my drink confiscated.  At Christmas I had some non-alcoholic ginger wine and when a nurse saw it on the dressing table she tried to tell me I couldn’t have it because it was alcoholic.  I would love the occasional individual bottle of wine, to cook with and drink.  But I wouldn’t dare.

This is interesting.  It refreshes everything I know and fits about 80% of what I am experiencing here and have been for years.  From the psychiatric point of view, I particularly found the concept of ‘gaslighting’ interesting, and thought it was valuable to see it raised in this format, which lays claim to professional consideration.  It is about setting out to drive people crazy, saying things were never done and never happened.  Apparently it is a 1950s term.  If someone like me said it, I would just be called paranoid, and have been.

It’s a 10 page article, but it is a quick read with a lot of space.  It is overall a checklist.  I found it on a yahoo answer to a woman with OCD who was experiencing occult attacks, physically, leaving marks.  The person who answered her said that abuse can open the door to the demonic world, which I already knew and have heard in sermons and read in books.  This article doesn’t talk about the demonic, it is about abuse.

I undertook the search because of the things I have said happen in my apartment between me and my neighbours, and the fact that I was reading a blog this afternoon by a woman with OCD, and commenting on her blog made me think about doing a search on the connection between OCD and the occult and the paranormal.

I am sure it can be said the other way round with as much validity, that the occult can also lead to abuse.

I berate myself about my own obsession and inadequacies and evasion of my own responsibility to just go out and get on with my day, which I insist to myself would be easier to do if I did that from the beginning rather than reacting to them.  But this article says that one of the things an abuser will do is prevent their victim (it uses that language) from leaving the room during an argument, and it seems obvious this can also be done through psychological means, through deception, through threats and intimidation and inflicting trauma. and also that the space you can be prevented from leaving can be just as much a psychological space as a physical one.

Keeping people in a psychological space is used in selling and broadcasting, keeping a person’s attention, I suppose it is also appropriate to see certain kinds of cyber attack and interventionism the same way.  You are not allowed to act or think independently.  Threat can be involved.  I think it usually is, even if resolved into humour, but that is only my thought, I don’t have statistical evidence, but perhaps someone else does.

The search I put into Bing was ‘OCD occult paranormal’.  I found the answer which linked to this article just a few down on the first page.  Yahoo answers, or something like that.  Definitely Yahoo.

Being up to my eyeballs in it, I think this is a good read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Book-Burning Confession

I burned a book once, after my first time in hospital.  It was called ‘Love Is A Choice’, and as far as I was concerned it had caused all the trouble.  Now I think, just from the title, it might be possible to say I interpreted it selfishly, that I didn’t have to love if and where I didn’t want to, but on the other hand, that seemed to be part of the book’s premise, as it was a book on codependency.  I have wondered in recent years just how humane that particular emphasis in counselling actually is, and definitely whether or not it is compatible with Christianity, although I am coming back to seeing it as having a definite place in relationships.  I bought the book again off eBay.  As much to reacquaint myself with the offending document as anything else.  I think the problem with the way I handled it might have been that I took it and used it almost in defiance, having had it used so harshly against me, so I felt.

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.