Saturday 23 June 2012

The Scales of Justice


Chapter 12
The Scales of Justice

I have been a friend of this woman for the best part of 20 years. Over these 20 years we have remained firm friends and she worked for my company in the USA (San Jose) on many occasions and subsequently as a representative in Hong Kong and Singapore.
I have read this doctor’s report (or should that be doctored) and although I am no psychiatrist I find many of the comments regarding this woman’s supposed personality disorder very difficult to take in. The assessment is based mainly on medical records which on reading them I can see that they are highly inaccurate. I note one incident was supposed to have happened in the UK when in fact she was in America as her passport confirms. If she was in the UK at that time I was never aware she had the ability to travel independently at the speed of light. 
I am well aware that she had had childhood problems she had never denied them, more importantly I  know this woman as a caring intelligent adult. We all do things in your teens and early twenties that in hindsight were not the best decisions we ever made. Those who have sailed through life and never did anything wrong or made a bad decision are to me people who frankly have never experienced much of a life.
I know her as a strong and determined woman with a mind of her own. This doctor appears to use history to determine how she is now. I feel that his conclusions are entirely wrong and without firm base. This woman had faced her previous problems face on; she did not hide the pain this caused her. It was a struggle for her and her determination to put her past behind her was obvious to all who know her. It was a fight she won.
In recent years she has been a great help to me. I have suffered many medical and personal problems. She looked after me when I had a heart attack. She gave me support when my sister suffered and eventually died with cancer.
When I read this assessment I feel he is taking small parts of her life and blowing them out of all proportion. There is constant reference to negative little incidents. It is as if he could find nothing substantial and concentrated on the small insignificant stuff with a view to making them appear important.
He cherry picked items from medical records that really never show how a person lives. When one visits a GP it is because there is something wrong. What of the intervening periods when one does not visit the doctor? Are we to assume that the problems exist ad infinitum between visits?
What I see in the assessment is nothing more that a list of items without substance. Even the conclusion lacks substance. If this assessment is indicative of a ‘personality disorder’ then I would say there is an extremely high probability that the general public could be diagnosed with the same complaint. We do not all live in a sterile bubble as this doctor appears to imagine, as if in a world devoid of problems and emotion. We do not all consider our fellow man/woman to live perfect lives. We do not consider that a person’s past will automatically predict their future. Change happens for many reasons.
Am I the same person I was when I was twenty or thirty years old, no I am not and I am very glad about that. If I followed the criteria laid out in this report that my past controlled my present and future then I would have learned nothing over the intervening years. What I did then changed me in many ways. Ways in which I suspect this doctor will never be able to imagine.
I actually find his methods not only suspect as to why he holds them but also to be dangerous. His view of this woman’s condition appears to be based on nothing more than book learning. He has taken incidents that occur naturally in the life of anyone and attaches to these some kind of Psycho Babble condition. I ask what exactly a Personality Disorder is?. Who decides the criteria, is there a recognised scientific series of tests, does one have a blood test that shows one has this disorder. No, it is merely an opinion preached by someone who subscribes to a particular set of values that they decide is the way we should all live. There is great suspicion in the questions he was asked by the local authority. They were asked in a way that directly pointed to the conclusion the local authority required. It was very much of “this is the diagnosis we want if you want to be paid and get more work of the same from us”  It appears very much of a mercenary transaction. Remember “I go where the money is”. Does one have to look further than this to reach a conclusion.
The next question has to be, who gave this doctors profession the right to be the keeper and director of ones moral values? The answer is simple, they did. They took it upon themselves to club together as a profession and set out on a mission to prove their view of life is all there is. I am not one given much to expletives but here I must succumb, Bullshit.
One criticism laid at this woman’s feet, is that she complains to and about authority, he looks at this as part of a disorder. Now since when did that attribute become a disorder? It may have been considered to be such if one complained in Nazi Germany or under Stalin’s reign of terror. They had their own way of eliminating the dissenter much similar to how this local authority acts. If one is not allowed to question and complain about authority when they make mistakes we venture into the realms of Mr Orwell’s 1984. I was aware that in many ways it was a warning but never thought that it would become to be used as an instruction manual.
The report itself has a very worrying aspect to it. Not only does it pigeon hole this individual but because of its eventual use by social services it condemns this perfectly good mother to virtually a lifetime of damnation and eternal purgatory. They use it against her in a way to deny her the opportunity to be a mother to her own child. Remember this child was born with an incurable genetic condition and is being denied a mothers love.
Despite the fact that two other reports gave a contradictory view of the mother and frankly both contained an element of human understanding and compassion, these were totally ignored by the social services and the local authority. If one goes back to a previous chapter one finds the comment to the maternal grandmother “we have plenty of people who will adopt her” (the child). Now we see this case travelling full circle.
If this damning report is pushed forward as the truth and the other two are buried one has to start asking why? To me the answer is very simple. The social workers and the local authority made mistakes at the beginning by blaming the mother for the child’s problems. They did not wait or take time to investigate to find the real reason for the baby’s problems. The crux lies firmly there, had they tried to find cause rather than attribute blame without evidence the outcome could have been entirely different. However, rather than admit they made a mistake they would much rather destroy a mother and her child.
During this whole tragedy not one person from the social services or the local authority has had the courage to stand forward and admit mistakes had been made. In this I include elected officials who were informed of the lies and insidious deceit perpetrated by employees of the local authority. What does this tell us about those with responsibility of overseeing the local authority’s conduct. That they basically don’t care what happens as long as they can keep their position in the hierarchy of power. Let no one rock the political boat. They have denied any liability by not taking the evidence they were given, investigating it and laying it before those accused. They have been party to the abuse of power given to them by the people and to the ultimate and unforgivable abuse of a small defenceless baby with an incurable condition. They have denied this child the opportunity of experiencing a life bathed in the light of her mothers love. For that they must stand accused before the Figure of Justice, be it in this world, which I doubt or in the next. Only their conscience will decide if the scales of Justice will keep their balance.
Looking at this from another angle one cannot escape the dominance of the effect money has on this type of case. In a recent viewing of a local authority’s web presence there was a comment made that the expected number of children to be taken into care over the coming year was 8750 and they would require foster care. There is no point in anyone looking for this, as soon as they realised people could read the comment it was removed. So let’s look at this figure as an estimate. On average a foster carer receives approximately £400 per week per child, therefore £400 x 8750 = £3,500,000 per week or £182,000,000 per year all paid for from public taxes. Now one begins to see why this system exists. It is a gravy train for all involved. This figure above does not include solicitor, barrister, expert witness and court fees, nor does it include the wages paid to the social workers. When one takes all this into consideration it becomes not as many try to tell us, a social service, but a thriving commercial enterprise based on the destruction of families and their children in the United Kingdom.

Friday 8 June 2012

Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes


Chapter 11

Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes

The case illustrated in this book has in many ways been decided on the opinion of one man, a psychiatrist. I use the word opinion, as there is basically no factual medical evidence based on clinical tests that can be associated with his opinion. Therefore it is nothing more than an opinion devoid of clinical fact, it is not a diagnosis.
The result is based on the propaganda of self interest, in this case money, hence the comment “I go where the money is” in Chapter 9. The opinion offers only garbled and incomplete evidence in the very loosest of form. The opinion avoids logical argument and seeks to influence its victim by the mere repetition of catchwords and phrases.
This opinion was based on history, much of which is inaccurate and open to more than one avenue of interpretation. Needless to say the avenue chosen was the one that suited the local authority’s paymasters.
The use of history, especially history where its veracity is in doubt, provides answers that are neither logical nor moral. By taking that course one becomes encumbered by history when the path taken should be to look to the future based on the present. Too many seek to find fault in the past and apply their findings to the present. They do this in their desire to influence others to accept that this is the way life will be in the future, any one who looks at life in this way brings a sense of stagnation to the present. They themselves have their minds locked in the past; they have closed their mind to progress, to change and show a sense of bitterness towards others with the ability to change and progress.
They decree that the past predicts the future. The future is as yet unwritten and as such must be approached with a totally open mind. To do otherwise is to deny that there is such a thing as life changing events. Events that direct one away from the past and from becoming a slave to the restriction of historical thought.
Throughout the local authority expected this mother to behave as predictably as a pre-programmed machine. She was expected to cease to have any thoughts, judgment or will of here own. In this scenario Big Brother is no longer a TV programme but has become a reality worthy of its Orwellian origins. 1984 had ceased to be a novel and began to be used by the local authority as an instruction manual.
The way the local authority act when confronted with logical argument is the change their method of attack. This happens constantly when their thoughts are challenged and proven to be wrong.
Here we have a mother who has demonstrated a cohesiveness and common purpose in being constant in her approach. Mentally and physically she has always put her daughter’s interest before her own. There has been no deviation from her actions and desires as there has been in the approach taken by the local authority.

One must ask why the local authority act in the manner they do. Are they afraid to admit that they are capable of making mistakes? Is this constant changing of direction a reaction to the fact that they have committed too heavy a reliance on their own inward looking criteria? Are they guided by the sole purpose of their existence to the fact that they operate within a system that they themselves know to be corrupt?
Is there a much more simple explanation? That to them it is all just a game where they hold the rule book and that they cannot see beyond that. That they have become so entrenched with winning that they don’t care who they destroy in the process.
In this approach they are protected by the system. The fact that all court hearings are held behind closed doors gives an indication to the machinations that occur. Were openness and honestly to prevail then the constant changing of the goal posts would be seen for what it is. There is too much reliance on this secrecy that tends to show that the local authority have really nothing factual to work with. They know that with the court process being secret they cannot be challenged in the same way as they would be in open court. This gives them the opportunity to direct the judge to allow perjury knowing they will never be prosecuted.
Is there any government service, local or national that can come before the Bar of Justice and claim that it exemplifies moral right? My answer is no. They gave up the moral ground when they decided to follow the path they now take. They became puppets to the system, to the corruption and to their scheming and evil trade in the destruction of the family.
So the real question remains

Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes