1. They are arguing about this Mental Health Bill, and, fortunately, the House of Lords has defeated this on the current language for incarcerating people who have never committed a offence based upon someone's judgement that they are a threat. This means that someone will be predicting the future behaviour of another who has never exhibited any past behaviour that would warrant application of the law. Under the proposed law someone in a position of authority driven by a vigilante mob could incarcerate someone as a threat simply because a group of people are screaming and yelling abuse.
My great concern with respect to this Mental Health Bill as proposed is that it could be used to incarcerate someone like me who has never done anything except incur the wrath of a seriously dysfunctional family group who have a history of violence including child abuse which I appropriately reported. This law can be abused in situations like this. Fortunately, the House of Lords is not accepting it as written and seeks to make changes. The law is a blunt instrument which allows anyone to be banged up based upon an opinion about the future then incapacitated in the community with forced medication for those who have been previously incarcerated.
In my situation surveillance technology in the hands of the general public has been used 24/7 for eight and one-half years to create mental illness. It has failed completely thereby proving conclusively that there is no mental health problem. Anyone who was suffering from a mental impairment or emotional disturbance would have been provoked long ago into something which these people could then attack. Anyone who survives such torture carried out 24/7 for eight and one-half years has a strong character and foundation. This, of course, aggravates Lt Harry Bird, BS and all the others to intensify their activity hoping to kill if they cannot destroy a person mentally. This Mental Health Bill, if enacted as it is, would give those involved the means to act outside the normal judicial procedures and make their false allegations stick as had occurred so far in the past with the likes of Richard Evans MD.
There is also the totally repugnant activity of carrying out such extremely abusive acts against someone (me) while calling them (me) "potty" and "psychotic" continuously 24/7 which is merely revenge and retaliation for being reported for violent behaviour. If these negative characterisations were true, this verbally violent abuse would constitute a risk to the public. They are then trying to deliberately provoke a person whom they falsely characterise as mentally ill and emotional disturbed. Their action belies their words. If their words were really true, they would not have to carry out extremely belligerent bullying 24/7 trying to "prove" their point. By doing so they admit by their actions that their words are false revealing themselves as the worst kind of bully.
My personal take on all of this debate about this law is that it is a joke because I have already been incarcerated and medicated 24/7 by the use of this surveillance technology brought to these shores by Lt Harry Bird and Colonel Vine six years ago. By their own admission in 2001 they are breaking every law in the books and that applies to the the current Mental Health Act. A person cannot be medicated outside a hospital on an involuntary basis, but that has been carried out for many, many years with the intention to debilitate and incapacitate in order to make the false allegations against me appear accurate. This is done on top of the deliberately induced chronic sleep deprivation from the use of this surveillance technology in order to create a circular feedback syndrome to maximise the impact of these destructive activities. They are being allowed to carry on with this activity knowingly and intentionally by those in authority who participate.
It's a rather sad situation when the government itself carries out policy that is intended to create mental illness when there are so many people in need of help, and the resources are not available. The massive amount of resources wasted on the unlawful and criminal acts against me all these years by NHS mental health professionals and others mocks these efforts to address problems which have occurred because the treatment was wrong as in the case of Michael Stone as described below. If they cannot get it right with a history of serious problems, how can they possibly get it right with the use of surveillance technology against someone who never does or has done anything?
In my situation these NHS mental professionals cannot get it right especially when they are confronted and work directly with seriously disturbed and mentally ill people. Instead of recognising the problems which are right in front of them and obvious, they are supporting and sustaining the acting out of psychopathic behaviour in the community by those who are violent to others including children, a threat to themselves and all the while carrying out extensive and lethally violent abuse against me 24/7 with the use of surveillance technology for eight and one-half years.
BBC News Monday, 19 February 2007, 18:15 GMT
Ministers lose mental health vote
 Enforced treatments could be 'highly invasive', peers heard |
The government has suffered a defeat in the House of Lords over plans to detain mental health patients who have not committed an offence.
The Mental Health Bill would allow people with severe personality disorders to be confined if judged a threat to themselves or others.
>Peers voted that a mental disorder should not be diagnosed on grounds of sexuality, beliefs or bad conduct.
. . .
Conservative Earl Howe told peers: "It [the bill] allows individuals who have committed no crime to be detained and committed under compulsion and subjected to treatments that are highly invasive."
He added that it was essential to "set the parameters of acceptable behaviour on the part of health professionals".
Patients who were coerced felt "dreadful trauma and deep humiliation", Earl Howe said.
. . .
At the moment people cannot be detained against their will - even if they are a danger to themselves or others - if that detention and treatment could not be shown to benefit their condition.
The government wants to change those rules so people could be detained and treated if medical treatment, which is appropriate to the patient's mental disorder "and all other circumstances of their case", is available.
Also controversial is the plan to bring in supervised community treatment, which aims to ensure patients comply with their treatment once they are discharged from hospital.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6374547.stm
BBC News Tuesday, 28 November 2006, 21:55 GMT
'No tabloid laws' on mental care
 Lord Bragg said the bill needed "serious amendments" |
Ministers have been warned not to create laws "dictated by the tabloid press", in a debate on proposals to toughen up mental health legislation.
Health minister Lord Warner told the House of Lords the aim of the Mental Health Bill was to protect both the public, and patients, from harm.
Between 55 and 60 murders a year are committed by mentally ill patients.
But proposals were criticised as disappointing, "rooted in stereotype" and "unfit for purpose".
Lord Warner told peers, during the second reading of the Mental Health Bill, that it would introduce new safeguards for people who were deprived of their liberty in their own best interests.
Human rights
"We also need to bring our legislation fully into line with the European Convention on Human Rights," he said.
. . .
 |  There's a growing culture of alarm in this country but we cannot tolerate witch-hunts.  Lord Bragg |
The bill would update the existing 23-year-old Mental Health Act.
Changes include a new test to ensure mentally ill people get the appropriate treatment, to replace the current "treatability test".
Currently patients can be sectioned, but only if their condition is treatable - under the new law compulsory therapy would be allowed if appropriate treatment is available.
Amendments 'needed'And it would see supervised treatment in the community, designed to ensure patients who had received compulsory treatment in hospital, continued to take medication
But Labour peer Lord Bragg, president of the mental health charity Mind, said the bill needed "serious amendments".
. . .
A desire to change the law was largely driven by Michael Stone's 1998 conviction for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell.
Stone was regarded as a dangerous psychopath and it has been assumed he was not held under mental health powers because his condition was considered untreatable.
However, an inquiry found he was receiving treatment - but was not given the correct care.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6193840.stm
2. Some 30 years ago Jerry Mander published his book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (paperback edition published by Quill, New York, 1978.). One of the interesting articles quoted at that time was "There Is a Bias in Television Journalism. It is not Against Any Particular Party or Point of view -- It is a Bias Against Understanding." by John Birt in TV Guide, 9th August 1975. This appears to be the same John Birt who went on to become the Director General of the BBC. Television is inherently destructive to everyone young and old.
Jerry Mander makes these key summary points at the end of his book:
(Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, Quill, New York, 1978, p. 348-50.)
BBC News Monday, 19 February 2007, 12:49 GMT
Teachers back TV viewing concerns
 Children should be playing rather than watching television, says report |
Teachers have backed concerns about the negative impact of TV on children.
John Bangs of the National Union of Teachers says children can arrive in school "tired and exhausted" from watching too much television.
This follows a report by psychologist Dr Aric Sigman listing 15 health problems that previous studies have attributed to excessive TV viewing.
The report warns that television could contribute to childhood obesity, eyesight problems and hormonal changes.
Dr Sigman warns that access to television should be limited - and that toddlers should not watch any at all.