|
View My Stats |
|
|
04/04/09 06:59 [Saturday]
I’ll bung this here (done earlier) as it is such good stuff, now April has followed March and what preceded March:
04/04/09 05:09
The latest version of my Visual field prog I have which I have marked as a Working version is dated Wed 04-Feb-09. There is an amended version dated Wed 18-Feb-09 which I seem to have been working on when I stopped off on Northampton railway station on my way home from London (and was hypnotised at Northampton) which I have labelled as developed from a version of 02-Feb-09 saying the version of 04-Feb-09 was not available to me that day (being on another computer, left at home evidently).
The prog now uses a Parameters file to determine the values for some variables which I found it expedient to be able to alter without re-compiling the prog. The Parameters textfile for 04-Feb-09 is as follows:
nlines=2
dParam=0.001
defaultinputfile=“Scan for use in OCR (2).bmp”
PlotGraphsOnly=True
QuickFix=True
DebugImages=True
NO_MSGBOX=True
NO_PLOTS=False
The basic problem I have been working on the past twelve months or more is clarifying the image of a scanned document so that character recognition can have as good a chance as may be to work accurately. One problem I had had without this pre-processing was characters running together due to over-inking or something equivalent to over-inking (that is, too dark a region in the image - possibly because of shadow or equivalent - causing characters to appear to run together). I have tried various techniques but the simplest theoretically and giving good results in practice I have found has been to lighten the image in regions where there is high local blackdensity. Blackdensity is a measure of how dark a neighbourhood is in the scan, but it is computed according to a more complex formula than (say) average local greyscale. The formula for computing blackdensity at a point gives more weight to dark pixels immediately adjacent: in fact the weighting declines according to
exp ( - d . x 2 )
for a dark pixel at a distance x from the point in question. The parameter d is a value related to the scale of meaningful regions in the scan, in other words to the grainsize. For the case of text one anticipates there will arise from processing a number of natural values for a measure of grainsize (and d is a measure of grainsize): in other words corresponding (1) to black lines comprising characters, (2) to the scale of each character and (3, 4 etc) to the scale of blocks which separate out naturally such as words and (at a larger grainsize) paragraphs - certainly as English text is conventionally presented.
To find a natural value for (as I sometimes call it) dParam (or more than one, corresponding to the scales of grainsize mentioned) takes a lot of processing. By totalling dParam over all pixels in the scan one can obtain a measure of the clustering present in the image. A uniform sea of greyscale has no clustering, whereas a field showing up a number of black dots has clustering corresponding to each black dot being one cluster (and varying according to how close-by to each other the black dots are, forming what one would ordinarily think of as clusters that is clusters of dots). Printed text has a relatively high clustermeasure because of the two-tone nature of printing black on white and the fact that characters are printed with whitespace between them.
The following image shows four fields of clustered black dots and graphs resulting from plotting the clustermeasure versus dParam for each case.
Clustermeasure is given by
c = ∑i ∑j bj . exp [ - d .( x i – x j ) 2 ]
where bj is the inverse greyscale for pixel j (in other words higher values represent blacker pixels). (The term ∑j bj . exp [ - d .( x i – x j ) 2 ] represents the blackdensity at the location of pixel i as explained above.)
Close to the origin the graphs show as straight lines. For ‘small’ values of d clustermeasure approximates to
c = ∑i ∑j bj . { 1 – d . ( x i – x j ) 2 }
where the only i, j pairings considered need be within-cluster pairings. For between-cluster i, j pairings the terms ∑j bj . exp [ - d .( x i – x j ) 2 will make only a negligible contribution.
Thus for small values of d the graph of c vs d will be a straight line of gradient
- ∑i ∑j bj . ( x i – x j ) 2
If dParam has been set at a reasonable value adding another cluster will have an effect little dependent on the clusters already present (because only intra-cluster contributions to the clustermeasure are non-negligible): the effect will be to add a term
∑i ∑j bj . exp [ - d .( x i – x j ) 2 ]
to the clustermeasure where the i, j pairings here are within the new cluster only. In other words adding a new cluster simply adds to the overall clustermeasure the clustermeasure of the new cluster as a separate object.
It is worth remembering that this additive simplicity depends on the intra-cluster distances being much less than the inter-cluster distances, and indeed this is inherent in what we mean by clustering; the basis on which exp ( - d . x 2 ) is a good choice as a foundation for measuring clustering is exposed.
It is also a good choice for measuring similarity between fields of clusters (eg between printed words). In this case a parallel formula may be used for similaritymeasure:
s = ∑i ∑j bj . exp [ - d .( x i – x j ) 2 ]
where in this case pixel i is in one field of clusters and pixel j in the other. In this case adding a new cluster to the fields being compared for similarity (an additional character at the end of a printed word, say) will simply add to the overall similaritymeasure the similaritymeasure between the two versions (i and j) of the new cluster, with only negligible dependence on the clusters already present. To compare two greyscale fields for similarity, if the fields can be broken down into individual features (that is independently clustered sub-parts) the similarity computation is made easier and comprises merely adding up the similaritymeasures of the features considered separately. The perceptual systems embodied in neural structures in animals clearly make use of this truth about the real world as animals know it: that it breaks down in a natural way into independent sub-parts. This is the reason processing for the real world using discrete neural components (instead of continuously varying analogue responders) is such a success (as judged by non-discontinuation by evolutionary selection).
16/04/09 05:12 [Thursday]
Dawn and I have both had tummy upset, and last night I became sleepy under the influence of drugs but was unable to determine whence I had ingested them (although the range of possibilities was restricted to things eaten or drunk here in our present hotel room in Dublin 2, which we chose as closer to the centre of Dublin than the PremierInn). Since eating a cucumber sandwich say twenty minutes ago my eyes have become tired, and I have very little doubt the drugs - last night and now this morning - came in that, and most likely in the butter or possibly the bread I used. The bread had seemed OK in Britain (bought on Monday at Asda after the Tesco bread bought Easter Day turned out to contain drugs) so my best guess is that the butter bought by Dawn on arrival here in Dublin Tuesday is the culprit. Bus drivers in Dublin recognise us - we obtained a free ride yesterday, and it is inescapably the case that the drivers must have been shown our photograph (even though the implication seemingly is that many many people go along with us being foisted drugs) - so the shop assistants most likely do too, and will know to provide us specially drugged foods (or presumably in cases where we ourselves choose off the shelf, to intercept other purchasers who might offer to buy contaminated foods, recognising that they are innocent purchasers and are not us). I can’t believe that these drugged foods are available freely to any purchaser, because even though the effects from the drugs are not life threatening nor really very bad, innocent purchasers would be caused tummy upset. It was a different matter on our first trip to Dublin when Dawn was laid up for more than twenty-four hours with diarrhoea, and I still believe most likely coffee served to her at the Gateway Restaurant in Holyhead contained the causative drugs. There was then a serious endeavour to stop us travelling freely to Ireland, or stop us wanting to be in Ireland, and the way things are presenting themselves it seems not unlikely the reason was that my internet publication and communication is not susceptible to British Government interference (much) when we are in Ireland. I am becoming convinced that from January to the end of March my websites, updated from Britain, were not updating properly or were not available properly. Dawn’s sister who was in Canada a lot of that time has said from what she could see from Canada my websites had not updated since January.
On 05-Feb-09 I had discovered an interesting blog - ‘one to watch’ as I have called it in my diary records - that is ashutoshchemist.blogspot.com. I emailed the author pointing him to my own websites. Also that day (or rather the preceding evening, 04-Feb-09) I sent out a number of emails about the mental healthcare system in Britain, and also about free speech (because, now I recall, I was suspicious at that time that my websites were not freely available as they should be).
I find a note I made of email addresses of members of Dawn’s family saying (of some of them, and presumably the days following my interest in sending out these emails I was made confused by drugs so sent out no more) Emailed 090204 23h20 re barrass-brough.org.uk being blocked.
In March we were encouraged (through hypnotising ‘advice’) to make our first visit to Ireland (which I had had in mind to do for some months now), and arrangements were put in hand to get us detained in mental wards here (in my case it was an illegal detention, as I am hoping to show to the Tribunal I am to have automatically under the Irish system of care for those detained by compulsion, which is a much better system than the British).
You can’t get away from the fact that someone in a senior position in the British Government machine has been intent on hiding the facts about the way I have been treated under the mental healthcare provision in Britain, but the thing is they must be either as thick as they come (finding employment under the Socialists as Armond did in times past) or absolutely desperate. My conclusion is that when the truth is out Civil Servants in most elevated positions will get their come-uppance. All I can say further is that I regret Socialist governments waste public money employing such people, as they waste public money in so many ways.
21 January 2009 - A draft letter to my GP
Dear Dr --
I am writing this letter in the hope of exposing the detriment being spiked with dopamine-blocking drugs does me. I have been spiked again today with such drugs - most likely in pastry mix bought at Asda Merry Hill yesterday [I have since concluded this was a mistaken guess - note added 25/01/09 06:42] - and the effect is to delay what I had in hand, which essentially was in pursuit of stopping this spiking I continue to suffer. A great deal of my time and energy are devoted lately to trying to stop the spiking: in effect this is time taken from me for which I am receiving no payment and which indeed is a cost to me (for example because I send so many letters to try to convince people who may be able to help that they should help). My MP Ian Pearson should help me but the cost to me in trying to recruit his help is increased in various ways and unusual ways. For example because what I send through the post has been interfered with - that is delayed or lost in what must be a deliberate campaign, this provable by the ridiculous signatures supplied by Royal Mail Customer Services as supposed evidence of delivery - and because despite explicit requests in my latest letter I have had no definite acknowledgment from Ian Pearson’s office of receipt of my letters, I cannot be sure that my requests to him for help have reached him properly. I would have thought that the police should help me put a stop to the interferences placed in the way of my stopping the spiking, and indeed pursue the seeming criminals responsible for the spiking. The reason they do not must be that those directing the spiking are in a position of influence (presumably within the Civil Service and presumably allied to the Mental Health Act Commission). It must be so since the spiking I suffer is so widespread: that is so many places we buy food - including all cafés we go to hereabouts - have been alerted to supply us drugged foods.
My attempts to communicate complaints about the spiking have been interfered with in other ways than by corrupting the proper treatment my mail should receive from the British Post Office. Attempts have been made to influence the website hosts I use in a similar way, that is to make difficult or stop entirely my publishing the facts through my websites. I cannot feel sure - especially when my capacity to assess evidence is debilitated (as it is now this evening) by the dopamine-blocking drugs - whether my websites are freely available to the public as they should be. The visitor statistics altered noticeably at the turn of the year, so that it is evident that in 2008 the websites were not available freely as they should have been. It is entirely possible that the altered visitor statistics represent merely a change in the efficiency of the distortions introduced into what I have to go on to assess the truth. That is, whether the ‘man in the street’ can read what I write on my websites, freely as should be, I do not know, given the evidence that in the past there has been successful blocking of what I write. This is the ‘man in the street’ who I suspect would find the treatment I receive given such interferences as delays and complete blocking of my post and of my internet communication as well as the ‘treatment’ of being spiked continually with drugs which I by no means consent to and which do me great detriment and hurt: would find them to be astonishing and to be condemned, and would find it extremely surprising if told this harassment is seemingly within the law.
The summary of what it is that hurts me so in these drugs I am given without my foreknowledge or consent amounts to this, that they reduce my rate of participation in life (in a somewhat parallel way to being in a continuous sedation, and moreover being taken advantage of while sedated by people who in the past may have got away with pretending they had my best interests at heart). I cannot achieve what I want to achieve anywhere near so effortlessly and quickly, and sometimes (in the past when dosages were higher) I have achieved nothing because I have lost heart or forgotten what it was I had to do because of the delay.
Apart from this the direct effect on my awareness of what is around me and of what is going on in the world is a great cost to me, in loss of enjoyment of the senses and of interesting cogitation and planning for future engagement with the world (not necessarily the world of Society). When I was so terribly affected by dopamine-blocking that I could not write computer programs at all - that is ideas for what to do with computers which were becoming ever more powerful and cheaper for what they were capable of were completely absent from my head, even though in earlier years I had had a great interest and had been full of ideas for what at the best times now returns available as an immensely enjoyable hobby - it was a great loss to me. It was a loss too in financial terms, because I could have earned a large salary from something I greatly enjoyed doing, and might have come up with some application which I could have turned into a profit-making solution for commercial use. This evening I have been attempting to write a program to prepare my recent diary for my [British-hosted] website, and the slowness of my progress and the related fact that I have become bogged down and almost lost sight of the importance originally of getting my message onto the website (the main purpose lately being as I say to expose what it is I lose from being spiked continually, in the hope that those permitting the drugging will have a change of heart) have been caused by the drugs affecting me (and affecting Dawn too, who has had to go to bed early).
It is a self-amplifying loss of detailed awareness of the world, involving reduced enjoyment of the senses as well as - part and parcel - reduced interest and a reduced desire to engage in activities. I am left open to those wishing - presumably to validate what has been compelled on me in the past - to continue the pretence that these drugs do me no hurt and cause me little inconvenience, who can state their case even if it is a foolish case and seem to have the status to be believed and to persuade those who should take action against such criminality to hold off.
I am pleased that the dosage affecting me this evening must be low and that there can be little admixed stimulant raising my anger to counterproductive levels and causing me to rush so that I do not explain myself as I might. I am not pleased that the drugging I suffer continues though, and find it astonishing (as I indicated) that such advantage-taking is permitted in a supposedly civilised country.
Letter to Ian Pearson dated 1 January 2009
1 January 2009
Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Pearson
Although I am still foisted drugs from time to time which in blocking dopamine block my capability for logical thinking, still since I am clear of such drugs for long periods at a time now I have worked out better the reasons why drugs have been imposed on me or given to me by trickery in such an unusual way over recent years. As you know from my previous letters, this unusual compulsion of drugs on me has occurred following the deaths of my parents in 2003, up to which date I was constrained to live with them and accept their powerful urging that I should continue the medication I was given following an erroneous diagnosis of schizophrenia decades before. Their urging was based on mistaken advice and it was not at all disinterested advice, especially when the origin of the advice was the man Armond before he retired (you will recall he was my NHS psychiatrist for many years). Shortly after he retired a woman I met via the internet came to play a large part in my life, and it is my belief coming close to certainty that she was employed by associates of Armond to continue urging the medication on me, ready for the period after my parents’ deaths.
I make the point that I could not unravel these questions myself if I were suffering dopamine-blocking through drugging, and could not present the facts coherently as I am able to now in this letter. It is my belief amounting to certainty that the reason I have been made to have dopamine-blocking medication was to prevent me sorting out these questions and making complaint about the criminal origin of the waste of decades out of my life. I point out that to get drugs into me through the unusual means of constant spiking the dosages could be made much higher than should be, and it comes close to being a certain fact that this was the criminal intention of those behind the drugging. There is support for this in the facts about dosages I was given when I was receiving official ‘depot’ injections: the dosages were higher than the manufacturers’ recommended maximum.
The criminal origin of the drugging I suffered initially by official prescription lay in the late 1970s. In November just gone I took a statement in to Bilston Street police station in Wolverhampton to explain - and report the crime involved - how the treatment I was made to have as if for schizophrenia started. As it gives a concise explanation I reproduce it here:
6 November 2008
Statement for the police by Colin Barrass-Brough
of [address omitted] Kingswinford
In 1980 and then again in 1983 I was surreptitiously administered dosages of amphetamine large enough, taking account also of the fact I was consuming the drugged food or drink day after day, to render an amphetamine psychosis. The first period of months this occurred the upshot was agitated behaviour I displayed on the morning of Thursday 11 November 1980 which led to my detention under the Mental Health Act 1959. I was taken away to Barnsley Hall Hospital in Worcestershire (since demolished) the major basis of the decision being a diagnosis which had been made by Anthony Dew Armond. He had been my NHS psychiatrist over the summer since my mother persuaded me to consult our family GP, Dr Edwin, and Edwin had put me in touch with the psychiatric services.
It is my belief that my parents and Armond were aware that the diagnosis was false, and that there was some unusual reason why I was subjected to treatment as if for schizophrenia. The false diagnosis has led to more than two decades I have suffered of inappropriate administration of antischizophrenic drugs with very few periods of freedom from it. This inappropriate use of drugs has interfered with my thought processes so much that I have not been in employment. Apart from loss of employment income I have had an empty existence and in the earlier days an existence filled with depression and anxiety. The depression and anxiety resulted as side-effects of surreptitious administration of reserpine, an old drug used in the treatment of schizophrenia. The official treatment was by long-acting depot injection, and reserpine cannot be given in that form. I know I was given reserpine because I had read about the side-effects and gained a good understanding over the years, of the effects different drugs had on me. I consulted a number of books on drugs.
It seems to me very likely that Armond with others thought up this ill-conceived scheme but did not realise what the loss to me over the decades might be. My parents were mis-advised in going along with it. My parents are dead but there are people still living who will know more than I what was done in the scheme (that is people besides the criminals). For example the Sister in charge of the day centre I was made to attend at Barnsley Hall in the mid-1980s will know that the unusual procedure was followed of keeping locked the door to the room where coffee could be made. The reason this was done was to discourage me from taking too much coffee spiked with reserpine.
My friend [name omitted] (I was on friendly terms with him for a number of years from the early 1970s) will know that something unusual was done, but probably will not have understood the reason for what appeared to him to be mental illness I displayed from around 1981. This strange behaviour I displayed, in which I sat and said nothing, was in fact a result of the stilling action on my brain of antischizophrenic drugs which I should not have been given. As a result of my having nothing of interest to say our friendship came to an end.
Although these events occurred two decades ago they need to be investigated because the consequential loss to me, in any pleasure in life as well as in employment income, has been so great.
Of course facts about criminal events from years ago cannot be convincingly presented without calling witnesses, and without some adequate legal representation I cannot hope to make progress along those lines. The Mental Health Act Commission in June 1984 supplied a second-opinion doctor who rubber-stamped Armond’s diagnosis after speaking barely a word to me to form his assessment, showing criminal negligence which I have learnt is not unknown among employees working for the Mental Health Act Commission; thereafter I was made with legally enforceable compulsion to continue the medication until I almost resigned myself to a lifetime of continuing death-in-life as regards the intellect. The implication of the Mental Health Act Commission means that I have to contend with a portion of the Civil Service bent on covering-up mistakes - criminal mistakes - committed in the past.
On the other hand the methods available within the Civil Service, which those wishing to hide facts and discourage me from presenting my complaints and if possible discountenance me, leave evidence themselves which, while being so outrageous that they might not be believed, nevertheless if I can bring evidence forward of the truth of the outrageous methods it is very clear proof.
I therefore draw to your attention, as I have in previous letters which presumably were not correctly delivered, the intrusion by Royal Mail (or workers within Royal Mail doing the bidding of directors within the Civil Service and hence not themselves feeling responsible and hence believing they are committing no crime) of obstacles in the way of my communication of facts. What I mean is that even though I pay for Special Guaranteed Next Day Delivery - and I find I have to pay almost every time nowadays as otherwise I cannot feel at all certain of delivery - the service provided me is sub-standard and virtually a joke.
I show some screenshots relating to recent letters I have posted to yourself at the House of Commons:
I feel sure that presented with these facts you will be eager to ensure I suffer no further intrusion into the lives of myself and my wife and that the threat of drugging, either through spiking or through improper psychiatric treatment, is completely removed. I feel sure also that you will agree with my previous strong request to you for an adequately constituted independent Inquiry into the unreasonable and most likely illegal compulsion of treatment on me in the past.
Yours truly
Colin Barrass-Brough
Diary Entries
31/12/08 05:08 [Wednesday]
I add some further explanation to the diary entry I wrote yesterday, which is appended below. I have physical evidence of the way Royal Mail, or someone standing in for Royal Mail, have treated my post in an unusual way. I have letters on letter paper headed Royal Mail with foolish images of supposed signatures, these letters sent to me in reply to queries I sent to
Royal Mail Customer Services
Plymouth PL9 7YB
following advice from my MP Ian Pearson what I should do to obtain proof of delivery of items I sent by Recorded Delivery or Guaranteed Next Day Delivery. It seems not unlikely that an attempt might be made to steal this evidence. The reason is that unless these seeming replies from Royal Mail were specially authorised, and the unusual treatment given to my post by Royal Mail or workers within Royal Mail was specially authorised, then the law was broken in interfering with the mail. The law was broken (unless there was special authorisation) in a thorough-going way, in that many items I have sent Guaranteed Next Day (costing at least £4.60 each item and more if it is over-weight) have not been delivered as they should have been, this evidenced by the failure of Royal Mail Customer Services to provide the proper signature proofs. Moreover my attempts to expose this illegal treatment of my mail, by writing with evidence to my MP Ian Pearson and to other MPs, may also have been interfered with, if these letters to MPs have been ‘lost in the post’ or held up somewhere in the postal system (or even at the House of Commons perhaps over the Christmas break). I suspect it may be so because my earlier letters to MPs received polite replies (including one from the office of the Shadow Home Secretary) but lately my letters to MPs have received no replies.
I took my evidence (in the form of the supposed letters from Royal Mail Customer Services showing foolish supposed signature proofs of delivery) to Bilston Street police station in Wolverhampton sometime in mid November. The policeman I spoke to treated the matter lightly and advised me to go to the local Wolverhampton postal delivery office. However since then the crime (as it seems to be) has escalated, in that I have spent more money fruitlessly on Guaranteed Next Day Delivery items which seem not to have been properly delivered, and as I say it seems my letters exposing the crime have themselves been held up in considerable number.
Because of the serious and escalating nature of this crime it strikes me as a possibility there might be an attempt to steal or destroy my evidence, and present what I say as lunatic ramblings (because in the past I have been treated under the Mental Health Act).
I understand it is more difficult to give credence to what I said in yesterday’s diary entry about hypnotising voices, but nevertheless I believe there is an attempt involving many people (and almost certainly involving Civil Servants) to discredit my evidence and to continue the pretence that I am mentally ill. It is of great significance to me because many years of my life have been wasted by imposed drug treatment based on a mistaken diagnosis of schizophrenia, the drugs interfering with my thinking to such a degree that I have not been in employment since 1982.
The evidence consisting of scans of the letters supposedly from Royal Mail Customer Services, and of a letter signed ‘Private Secretary to Dominic Grieve (Shadow Home Secretary)’ which is almost certainly a forgery, should be found [here].
Yesterday’s diary entry:
30/12/08 19:52 [Tuesday]
I have a suspicion that there may be an attempt to steal, or destroy, evidence I have relating to improper treatment of my outward-bound post by Royal Mail and to hypnotising words spoken to me while I have been in a drugged sleep, the latter particularly over the summer months of 2008. The purpose of the hypnotising words was to make me appear mentally ill so that either I myself came to believe I was, and voluntarily went into a mental ward, or I came to seem detainable to persons authorised and willing to sign to say so (or to the police, should I become sufficiently agitated affected by a combination of drugs, hypnotic-style suggestion spoken to me at night while I was in a drugged sleep, and anger over my past mistaken treatment under the Mental Health Act). The evidence I have consists of documents seeming to come from Royal Mail Customer Services (on their letter paper and responding to enquiries I made as to the fate of items I sent Guaranteed Next Day Delivery) but showing foolish images as supposed signatures on receipt by the addressee; and computer audio files which most likely some of them contain recordings of the hypnotising words (although I have not myself listened to them).
I have in recent weeks been posting files of information to all Conservative MPs (in alphabetical order). I have sent one file to all of them (the Political page of my website, printed out, plus to about half of them an Annexe) and am now part-way through sending a second file to bring them up-to-date with my letter-writing campaign (letter-writing not only to Ian Pearson my own MP but also to others, explaining the history of my mistaken treatment under the NHS psychiatric provision). It seems to me that the evidence which is included showing the fraudulent images as if from Royal Mail Customer Services is worrying to the Civil Servants who authorised the fraud, and it is not impossible the files containing this evidence have been delayed in some mail-room at the House of Commons. It is not impossible an attempt by shady parties - semi-authorised (for example said in some way to be part of the special treatment I have been receiving as a psychiatric patient) - may be made to enter our home and steal evidence.
I fear treatment with antischizophrenic drugs, on the basis of the waste of decades out of my life up to recent years from improper compulsion of them on me. I therefore set down here - in case doctors should seek to detain me improperly to allow the evidence alluded to to be stolen with greater ease - that any doctors who sign to detain me under these circumstances are very likely to face charges in the future of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
31/12/08 14:00
(Continuation from handwritten notes here omitted.) It is a virtual certainty that the budget for ‘The Experiment’ cannot encompass renting the entire street where we live for long. I am heartened to have noticed in the past month or two ‘agents’ who seem better clued-up, for example on mobile phones and computer equipment, than the previous agents who were attuned to the Mental Health Act Commission. I have to repeat that those employed in mental healthcare - and here I am thinking of the Civil Servants, for example those associated with the Mental Health Act Commission - are, on my experience, of a much lower standard than the average Government employee (the average including cleaners and domestic staff). Therefore I am hopeful that with the failure of the Mental Health Act Commission to portray me as mentally ill will come its demise, and a reformation of treatment for mentally ill people in this country.
It is certainly the case that the Mental Health Act Commission employed an actress in 2005 to speak as if she was Dawn, on the phone to me when Dawn and I were detained separately. It seems from what Dawn says that they employed an actor to speak as if he were me to Dawn on the phone. They have employed an actress in recent weeks to speak to me on the phone - and almost certainly it was the actress also who spoke to Dawn - as if she were Dawn’s daughter in Harworth. The Mental Health Act Commission has been responsible for making a forgery of a letter as if from a secretary to the Shadow Home Secretary.
If the seeming Microsoft Vista install DVD I bought from Selfridges in the Bull Ring in Birmingham which in fact fails does have a genuine Microsoft hologram (I cannot be certain what the hologram is like exactly) then whether anyone in the Mental Health Act Commission could procure such as a forgery, or whether (as I have been presuming) Microsoft gave consent, I cannot be sure. I do not believe anyone in the Government or in the higher ranks of the Civil Service with the possible exception of the Mental Health Act Commission (if it has any high ranks) would entertain the procurement of such a forgery. Most likely the DVD although false has the endorsement of Microsoft. I suppose it is open to me therefore to write to Microsoft in enquiry and mention the severe unpleasantness I have suffered from drugs given without my foreknowledge or consent in recent days which if they did give endorsement is partly of their making.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘NOW HEAR THIS’
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘The Same Continued’
|
I WAS BORN AT A VERY EARLY AGE IN LUTON BEDS. IT HAS ALL BEEN DOWNHILL SINCE THEN. IT’S EASIER TO GO DOWNHILL. SO WHAT ARE MY LIKES AND DISLIKES? I LIKE MY WIFE AND DISLIKE CABBAGE. OTHERWISE YOU SHOULD ASSUME THIS SITE IS IN PROCESS OF BEING BUILT. NOW BECAUSE AS I KNOW FROM MY OWN INVESTIGATIONS PEOPLE FIND THESE PAGES THROUGH SEARCH ENGINES, I SHOULD ADD SOME KEYWORDS. HERE GOES: SCHIZOPHRENIA ONLY JOKING INTELLIGENT THINKING INTELLIGENT COMPUTERS INTELLIGENT HUMANITY. |
