Yesterday, the Financial Times has a couple of items about the economic implications of immigration (Migrants give boost to public finances [subscription required]). It makes for interesting reading. The main proposition is that immigration is broadly good for the economy.
However, drilling down into the report exposes several caveats. For a start, it only considers those immigrants that are here to work. It also correctly reports the downward pressure on wages that it has had at the bottom end. I leave it to others to argue the validity of the report.
The article concludes with one point that is particularly relevant to my case.
And there is evidence of at least one industry where foreign arrivals are taking the jobs of skilled local workers: the IT sector. British contractors have bemoaned the fact that Indian technology companies appear to be getting around immigration rules by using so-called intra-company transfers to bring in staff who undercut them on price.
“There is an argument, and quite a convincing one, that these Indian workers are displacing local people,” a government adviser said.
When ‘doctor’ Ferdinand Jonsson was arranging for me to be held prisoner under Section III of the mental health act he arranged for to collaborators, another doctor and a social worker, to agree with his claims. In the short interview I stated the complaint made in the quote above and was told it was not true. Nobody else was making that claim; it was just me. Furthermore, it wasn’t true.
Here is clear evidence that my claim is not unique and a ‘government adviser’ shows that my objection is warranted. Any proper investigation at the time of my imprisonment could have easily established that. This shows that my sectioning and my imprisonment were based on a falsehood.
Furthermore, I believe that political bias made an influence in the handling of my case. The public sector and particularly the NHS are saturated with Labour supporters. I think that the Labour government was the most corrupt and incompetent that Britain has ever seen. For being critical of Labour, I suffered severely.
Whenever I challenged any of the staff about being Labour supporters, their response was always, “You don’t know that. [I am]/[I could be] a Green Party supporter.” The consistency of the responses makes me think that they have been trained to say that. The Green Party is an interesting choice of alternative; that party are left-wing extremists. Although in most peoples minds anything ‘Green’ is supposed so have a positive, caring image; part of lie I suppose.
Once again the evidence supports me and shows ‘doctor’ Ferdinand Jonsson, Dr Robert Dolan, and the whole of East London NHS Foundation Trust wrong. Their diagnosis was a fraud and my imprisonment was politically motivated.
Faced with even more evidence will they admit their crime: no chance! I have no future no matter how much the evidence proves my case. It is up to me to achieve redress though my own means.
The shrinks will never deny that it is not necessarily unreasonable to suggest that Labour's policies may have damaged your local IT industry.
ReplyDeleteI think you've said that the shrinks were first alerted by a worker at a job centre. They have seized on the complaint that you made to the worker about Labour's policies and are pretending that you are "over valuing" this theory as being the explanation for the cause of your problems.
The worker "felt" she had to act. I think I recall reading that you may have uttered a few of the magic words at that meeting. The shrinks "felt" they had to act. They know that to inflict themselves upon a person is no small thing so they need to embellish their account of the situation.
When they can't credibly demonstrate that a person is psychotic they wheel out terms such as "over valuing", "fixated" and "obsessed". Often by the time they start using these terms they have the person locked up in a mental hospital. The person is naturally outraged that they are being detained, humiliated and possibly drugged. The shrinks then pretend that any expression of this outrage is evidence of over valuing, fixation and obsession.
The most charitable explanation of the behaviour of some of the health service ‘professionals’ is that they are try to avoid being held accountable. This sort of behaviour is endemic throughout the public sector worldwide. If there is any doubt in an issue they will act as if they worst case scenario has to be avoided. The implication that has on their victims is irrelevant so long as the careers of the decision makers remain secure.
ReplyDeleteThe Blackstone ratio states “It is better that ten guilty men escape than one innocent men suffer.” Those in the health service act as if the ratio was in reverse. They would rather any number of people suffer than they be held accountable for ever being wrong. Others have also held the belief that the ratio should be reversed such as Pol Pot.
My experiences have shown just how easy it is for someone to be held prisoner without trial; how difficult it is to regain ones freedom; and how impossible it is to get someone held to account for their behaviour.
The shrinks probably have nightmares about a person who murders or suicides and then it is said in the media that that person should have been "treated" by them. It happens occasionally and people who are affected by such a happening clamour for more "mental health care". The shrinks often sacrifice one or two of their number and then succeed in gaining more power than they had before. The world is a ratchet for these people, it only goes their way.
ReplyDeleteBut it's a crock of shit because over the years the shrinks themselves have created the setting, both in actuality and in the form of stories and ideas, for this type of hysteria to flourish. And they have been assisted by all types of special interest groups and individuals who are generally motivated so as to shift blame from themselves.
Just one example of this is the reliance upon psychiatry that devout Catholics very often exhibit. They will drive their sons and daughters crazy with their stupid religion and then have them diagnosed with a mental illness. They do this because they think it will save them from hell in the event that they kill themselves. They literally think of psychiatrists as being priests that will absolve the potential suicide. You and I know of course that there would be much more hope for the person if they could be reassured and consoled over the fact that their parents are crazy.
So that's just one small example of the kind of support that psychiatry has because they have cultivated it and because they take advantage of ordinary human stupidity where ever they see it. And it's not hard to find. In effect the shrinks are predators and panderers.
I know that if I had a magic wand and was able to ban coercive psychiatry in a blink that there would be absolute chaos. But this would be a situation that is only inevitable because of the wrongdoings that have been done over many years. So while it's true to say that there would be chaos it is not true say that what is being currently done is right. Compromises and concessions would have to made on both sides of the argument AT FIRST and over a period of time until such a time as coercive psychiatry was finally recognized by all sensible people for what it is and then disposed of.
A person such as you or I can feel over whelmed when we realize that we are up against not just the shrinks but against the dopey public as well. It can give the shrinks even more ammunition if we complain about the fact that the world at large acts in support of psychiatry. So we need to acknowledge that this is a real problem that we have. We also need to maintain that a very large number of people would not support the shrinks IF those people were fully informed.
Since neither you or I are in a position to attempt to inform sufficiently large numbers of people we need to focus on exposing the conduct of the shrinks as it applies to OUR particular cases. This means amongst other things that you don't spend too much time belabouring upon such things as FTAC or politics or Big Pharma and stuff like that. Mention them occasionally but try do do so in a way that makes a point that can communicate understanding as to how it applies specifically to your case.
I say that it is very possible that you can achieve a very satisfactory outcome for yourself. You will never slay the dragon, just as I will never possess the magic wand, but if you do it the right way you could gain sufficient credibility (along with cash) that you could assist other people that you could also come to care about. This would also give you the further satisfaction of destroying at least a small number of shrinks without giving the industry any more power.