Monthly Archives: July 2012

Rebuttal: “This exploitation of suicidal people is a new low for campaigners against welfare reform”

Standard

In an insane world, how do you assess whether what you are being told is mentally healthy?

A fascinating analysis on the politics of death by suicide appeared in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, penned by  Brendan O’Neill. He alleges that ‘anti-reformers’, as he describes them, are exploiting the suicidal for political purposes:

“The idea that there are vast swathes of people out there who not only can’t survive without welfare but who might kill themselves if their welfare is taken away, speaks to the highly patronising nature of modern left-wing campaigning. These campaigners approach working-class and less well-off communities through the politics of pity rather than the politics of solidarity, and consequently have a tendency to view “the poor” as vulnerable, at risk, irrational, on the cusp of suicide, and in constant need of care and largesse from the do-gooding state. Poorer communities would be far better off fighting against such Victorian-style pity-politics than against Cameron’s welfare reforms.”

The underlying assumptions made by the author are what make this post so interesting from a mental health perspective. For example:

  1. Those who oppose the coalition government’s Welfare Reforms are described thus: “Earlier this year, reform-allergic campaigners sought to circumvent democracy and public debate by pleading with the House of Lords to strike down Cameron’s allegedly wicked reforms.”
  2. These ‘reform-allergic ‘campaigners are guilty of the following: “To exploit such psychologically disturbed behaviour for political ends – and to say that David Cameron is somehow responsible for such a grisly suicide – is politics of the most depraved variety.”
  3. The reform-allergic are blame-worthy of the ‘sin ‘of: “Having failed to make inroads with the living, breathing public, and to convince them of the political argument against welfare reform, campaigners have opted to turn terribly unfortunate suicides into the political equivalent of a ventriloquist’s dummy, using them to mouth the words: “Your welfare reforms killed me!” Alienated from the living, they’re hooking up with the dead”
  4. The author alleges the following: “It is because they lack any serious arguments against welfare reform, and so must plumb for hard emotionalism instead, and also lack any constituency of grassroots support, any backing from ordinary people, and so must try to raise an army of dead people instead.”
  5. And finally, the author accuses those anti-reformers of politics of the most depraved variety: “The exploitation of people who clearly have serious mental-health issues is shocking even by the standards of modern-day campaigners against any kind of welfare reform. So Calum’s List gives the example of a “desperate man” in Wandsworth, London, who, worried about his housing benefit, lined up three kitchen knives and fatally stabbed himself in the heart. But this is not a rational response to economic hardship; it is not a rational response to having your benefits cut. It is the act of someone in a fevered, unstable state of mind.”

According to O’Neill,  poor beleaguered David Cameron is being assailed by depraved anti-reformers with no constituency support from the living, breathing public and who, it is claimed, lack any serious arguments against welfare reform and must therefore resort to ‘hard emotionalism’. These are interesting assumptions indeed and well worth closer examination.

From my perspective, as a recipient of the current welfare system, these so-called anti-reformers are actually very pro-reform. They are pro-reform of the banking system. They are pro-reform of unlawful media influence over national politics. These depraved people point out that the abuse rate of MP’s expenses runs at a much higher rate than that of, for example, the abuse of welfare benefits for the disabled and ill. The allegation that these pro-reformers have no constituency support needs to be set alongside the fact that these welfare reforms are being implemented by a coalition government with far less support than those who oppose them. The reforms – like the dismantling of the NHS into private hands – were not presented to the British public so they could vote on it, so it becomes nonsensical to claim that the government does have such support. If it were to claim such a mandate for itself, it would have to call a general election so ordinary people did have the opportunity to express their opinion. Given current opinion polls for David Cameron’s party, there seems to be clearer evidence of considerable non-support for what is going on. The rise of both lawful and unlawful protests from various social groups, including those who have not taken industrial action for many years, suggests that the general public have far more objections that are presently being acknowledged, let alone heeded.

If we give the allegation of ‘the politics of hard emotionalism’ any credibility, then it is fair to wonder what kind of political viewpoint is being expressed here. The politics of callous disregard for the distress of others perhaps? If these so-called anti-reformers are emotional, then we might reasonably assume that the author regards his opinion as being devoid of emotion. He clearly disapproves of what he describes as the ‘politics of pity’ but a person who is not in touch with his emotional intelligence is unlikely to be able to distinguish between pity, compassion and empathy. From my perspective, any government that pursues policies which drive the poor towards suicide, whilst  claiming that suicide is an irrational response,  suggests that the economic policies of arrogance are at work. It allows indulgence in callous disregard for the right to a life worth living by all whilst assuming that right to be self-evident only for those who happen to be ‘rich’. It carries the stench of unrepentant fascism. This becomes much more apparent if the subject is turned on its head.

Supposing, for example, a general election tomorrow produced a majority government intent upon reforming the banking, tax and economic systems, which are now demonstrably corrupted in their function to favour the elite few at the expense of the general population, in favour of a system that worked the benefit of everyone. I wonder how rational and emotionless the author would feel then. My guess is that any resultant emotion would emerge within the enraged and highly aggressive spectrum of human expression. There might be the odd one or two who would contemplate suicide, but I can easily imagine far more among assailed elite who would resort to further criminal behaviour in order to ‘protect their interests’, prompted by their own personal and emotional irrationality. After all, who exactly needs to ‘own’ all this ‘money’ to such an excess that the needs of others are arrogantly dismissed. What is this placing of personal ego-requirements above the lives of other? It hardly sounds like mentally healthy social behaviour especially if, were this excess removed for the benefit of the whole, we might expect their already criminal behaviour to deteriorate further.

There is already clear evidence of irrational thinking emanating from our present government when we consider their behaviour at present during this LIBOR crisis. Somehow, unlawful and illegal wrongdoing by the public elite is considered far less urgent to our society than the savage cuts to welfare that actually being implemented. From a mole’s eye view, it might be reasonable to assume that David Cameron is in favour of criminal behaviour amongst his own, given that his approach seems to want to do as little as possible about it unless pressured to do so. This problem is vexing a large part of our national community and is probably contributing to the levels of disobedience from the ‘younger’ Tory MP’s with regards to the party whip. As an apologist for David Cameron, I wonder how the author views the notion that, in a mentally healthy society, there is one law applicable to everyone including the elite and that this present dual system of one law for the rich and another for the poor presently in operation is a sympton of dangerous mental illness. I thought the Tory Party believed in Law and Order – is Cameron’s government an example of how this works? If it is, I am deeply unimpressed.

For the record, I would be very interested in exploring new ways of structuring our society. Perhaps genuine job creation with realistic salaries might go much further in resolving the problems of national economic and welfare budgets than the callous and cruel methods of enforced poverty being applied at present. Perhaps an education system that encouraged intelligence, innovation and free thinking amongst its students could produce graduates from all levels of society capable of producing collective social wealth for all, as opposed to the sausage factory solutions for the poor currently being suggested by the privately-educated coalition. Perhaps a redistribution of wealth from the top to the whole might enable all of us to work our way out of the problems we find ourselves in. But I’d be surprised if Mr. O’Neill would engage in such discussions, let alone consider paying me whilst I did so. That he is, presumably, paid to peddle these apparently fatuous and callous ideas, whilst portraying me as welfare benefit scrounger, do far more to contribute to our social problems than to resolve them. His voice is heard in a national paper whilst mine is subject to active censorship.

Under these circumstances, the chance of my developing suicidal thinking leading to action when the next round of cuts arrives at my door is fairly high, despite the tremendous personal support I have received from my local community. I have a history of such thinking and, to my eye, it has a perfectly rational basis. As an intelligent, competent woman of later middle age, the chances of my finding work that would utilise my abilities and pay me a living salary are remote in the extreme in the present economic climate created by David Cameron’s coalition. To be forced to search for demoralising, devaluing and underpaid work will have a severely detrimental effect on my mental health. I am likely to conclude that my country sees no value in me other than as a kind of slave to either a profiteering employer or long-term recipient of the rapidly vanishing welfare state subject to cruel rules in order to receive rapidly diminishing ‘benefits’. I see no value to me in either of those options and if I am forced along either route, the likely result is my deciding to remove myself from society on a permanent basis. There is no joy to be had in living on these terms and I firmly decline to collude with it. Death is one way of registering my dissent. Writing this is another.

Whatever else Calum’s List might be, should I find myself successfully acting on my suicidal thinking, someone might at least notice and record it, which is more than Brendan O’Neill’s reality would do. In his expressed opinion, I am clearly not worth the effort of that which, in my humble opinion, says far more about him than it ever could about me.

Advertisements

Meanderings of a concerned Medicine Woman: Hard to know what to believe!

Standard

When I was imprisoned and in solitary confinement living a punishing regime, there was a moment when I really thought I had gone mad. It happened when I was finally being handed the Prison Service Order that governed such units and read, in black and white, all those things I had spent months arguing with them about. In fact, it went beyond what I had argued and made it very clear that there was to be no argument about it – some of the orders were mandatory… but they weren’t being done where I was. The place had a high record of suicide attempts amongst the women, some of which were successful.

I am experiencing the same thing again. I really do wonder about my sanity at the moment which, in mental health terms, is an indicator of it. Insane people think they are fine – it’s one of the symptoms. Yet the things I am seeing, especially on Twitter, suggests that there is so much psy-ops and other misinformation in circulation that, even for a thoughtful woman, it is hard to know what to believe in order to continue to retain my sanity.

For example:

This story about a man called Roger Hayes. It claims he was arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison all within a single day. I’ve had a poke about and this is only reported on the link I’ve posted. Any other posts link back to it. If the story is true, why hasn’t it turned up on other conspiracy sites?

Have a look at the man? RationalWiki is scathing in its assessment of him and pretty much concludes that the man is insane. Yet when I read the man’s own words, he doesn’t sound that way. He sounds like a man trying to figure some kind of lawful way out of the mess we find ourselves in. But I must be missing something because he’s associated with a form of political right-wingery that is an anathema to me.  The man has definitely made himself a nuisance in the eyes of the law but he fights with law too.

The reason I look so closely is I can see a resemblance in myself. RationalWiki could take a good pop at my kind of woo too, if it wanted. They wouldn’t be the first. I’m trying to find a lawful way out of the mess too but I use the International Declaration on Human Rights because it is a woman’s law, written after the last outbreak of collective human insanity and designed, in my humble opinion, as the reminder of how sane people behave towards one another. I’m associated with political left-wingery and I’ve certainly made enough of a nuisance of myself to attract an on-line twitter mod. They are concerned about the comments I make about peoples’ sanity.

If this story of arrest and imprisonment through a secret court without representation has any basis in fact, then I have reason to become concerned. I also have enough experience to know that there may be some because I’ve been subject to similar behaviour towards me in the past.

But then again, it could all be a right-wing distraction.

I have to watch – real or not – because if it is real, it violates the Law I recognise and if it is not, then its psy-ops and I want to see what those bastards are up to. And if it’s both, then it doesn’t surprise me that it only links back to a single source…. but I get very lost down this rabbit hole.

I’m grateful to Veterans Today for bringing me back to a rabbit hole I can understand and is written by an experienced professional. The weighing of facts and ability to get to the Truth is what matters to me because this is how I stay sane. What Michael Shrimpton has to say about the London Olympics does not surprise me at all, especially given the gigantic outing of proven corruption going on within the British elite. If practical plans are being put in place ahead of time, then something that required a million body-bags must be part of some forward planning. Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine at work. An abomination to distract the people from the Truth – again.

In keeping with Shrimpton’s use of unconnected information as independent confirmation, there’s a link to another fragment of my infomation gestalt: the report of a new kind of deadly attack by poison. It leads me to the Drake / Wilcock stories of mass arrests imminent. I’m glad David Wilcock has taken the power of his mind back but those being targeted for this new poisoning seem to be his contacts. One story verifies the other and Wilcock’s report was posted prior to Veterans Today. When information is verified in this way, we have to consider the veracity of what else is being said. Veterans Today have already independently verified most of their story and the rest is sharing information carefully on a #MostLikelyToBeTrue basis. Wilcock verifies his stuff too and takes a healthy backstep when it comes to making any firm predictions. In fact, he reports that Drake is doing the same thing.

I can live with the idea of choosing to believe in mass arrests because I don’t want to live in a world without them but we have to be careful how we believe. If we exclude our own actions from the process, the energy collapses into this vision of corruption that some people seem to have in mind for us. In that kind of society, Roger Yates really is in prison just as described and at some point in the not-so-distant future I can expect a knock on my own door again. No, thank you – there are much better things for me to do than live through all that again. I’ve been there, done that – this time you’re going to have to kill me, if you can.

I choose to believe that this planet is populated by good people too. We are everywhere but we are not ‘legion’, instead we are eccentric in our own way. We are different yet, when push comes to shove, we find ourselves agreeing on what is important, each in our own unique way. So I listen to the #VoicesOfThePeople and notice when a nice fat synchroncity independently verifies the evolutionary message (check the number of follows this tweep has in the second picture).

Although @an0nyc would probably be horrified by what I am about to say, it needs saying nevertheless. I see Jesus in this. He talks about stuff said in private being shouted from the rooftops and he had a lot to say about those who didn’t help the least of their brethren. Funny how I don’t hear much about that part of his Teachings from all these rich so-called Christians claiming to be the children of god. I have a very dark warning for you that I can, in no way whatsoever, verify as Truth, but I could see how it might me for some people I’ve had the misfortune of experiencing the worst of. The only way to the Truth is through Love – the gateway of the Heart.

There are another couple of nuggets here too. The psychopathic brain actually manifests the activity of the occupant. This sounds awfully close to the description of St John the Divine’s revelatory beast, where one of the heads is wounded ‘beyond recovery’ according to my Bible. There’s also this. Towards the end of the article, Laura considers the idea of psychopathy as an evolutionary ‘tool’ that is now past its use-by date.

When I wind up talking to Jesus (I am not Christian, I am Shaman and Iesua is my first Otherworld Teacher) I know I am talking to sanity. The concerns I have for my society are confirmed by my second Otherworld Teacher – Hypatia of Alexandria, who died during a similar outbreak of collective insanity in a particularly grisly fashion. This is also sanity in a world seeking to evolve in any way it can. The idea of collective human rights is sanity but the Declaration itself missed one vital Human Right – the Right to be Different. Yates is different. So am I.

I believe I am an aging eccentric exercising my social duty in a time so dangerous that I am so close to believing that someone is going to do a ‘Roger Yates’ with me that I’ve actually written about it – created what I hope is a good-enough insurance policy, if it stays up on the web. Search Yates on #Gibiru and there is surprisingly little substance for research – almost as though the web had been vacuumed. I still don’t know enough to form an educated opinion.

The best I can do at the moment, when everything is so confused; where tempting ‘news’ is mined with Trojans for the unwary; where my tweets are live-monitored (which must mean there’s a team of mods somewhere) and ‘vanished’ if I am speaking an inconvenient truth, is to carry on and see where it leads me. The emerging Truths of our society are grim and dangerous. The only way I know how to proceed is to trust people who trust the same kind of Truth as I do. The lines in the sand started to be drawn clearly in Britain during the banking crises and the scandals of News Corp. They continued to be drawn, time and time again, as every new insanity emerged; dismantling the NHS; the merciless and brutal attacks upon the disabled, poor and the young; are ongoing as I write. The British Government presently does not appear to recognise any law to apply to itself. Any rules that are enforced are met with grudging non-acceptance and evasions of social responsibility so breathtakingly criminal it can become hard to believe this is anything other than barefaced fascism on an international scale. It is as ordered, purposeful, malevolent and murderous as it has ever was and it is no longer able to disguise its true nature. They violate every Article in the International Declaration of Human Rights.

So – when I post this, I move up into a Schrodinger Paradox where, depending upon whose button I’ve been pressing on Twitter, arrests are about to occur except I’m not sure if it’s them or me. People are calling for the arrest of bankers but appear to be getting instant justice meted out to one man, in violation of International, European and national Human Rights Declarations, while our Chipping Norton Set lower the house prices of the village.

I really don’t know what to believe, but my #God and #Goddess appear to be involved (no-one else could have fixed that follow list at 9999) – so I’m going to have to trust that if I keep going, stuff will start falling in the way it is supposed to for us, whatever happens to me. I’m hoping it won’t be much because my cat is pregnant and I have some ideas for transforming my village that I’d like to pursue. These are good and tolerant people who have been neglected but they polish up real well and deserve better than what some seem to have planned for them. That’s my #RedemptionPlan – we can watch to see how far along the road I get with it, provided we’re not forced into distraction by another brick from the Shock Doctrine.

In a few hours, we will have a full moon in Capricorn. This is a moon of manifestation. Whatever began two weeks ago has now swelled to full bloom which will last for another 36 hours or so. This period falls over the July Fourth holiday in the USA. If what was hatched has the intent to control manifestation for personal power using the old methods alone, they are about to make some very serious mistakes because the astrological energies involved do not support it. The power to control manifestation has shifted in favour of those who use it for the benefit of all, in whatever capacity they choose to exercise their power. My information is verified by Carl Boudreau and Terrence McKenna’s TimeWave.

Whatever occurs has to happen to each one of us on our own terms and however you choose to come, you’ll walk straight into the face of whatever fears are controlling you. Veterans Today seems to appreciate what’s going on because they’ve been  taught how to look at these things strategically. The same is true for the security services; the police; prison officers; all those women and men who believe in the honourable purpose of their chosen profession. As a shaman, I want to be able to say ‘How can the community help you?’ but I want to know who I am talking to first.

There is only one way to find out. I have to shape-shift my @Five_Dee account – it’s something I do when I think an account is comprised and if I can’t talk about mental health and insanity problems anymore using that handle, then it’s time to move on. I’ll tweet my new handle when it’s set up – see if my mods come along and don’t like some of my new stuff.

Letter to my MP

Standard

 

 

 

Dear Dave,

 

May I first apologise for my rather messy initial presentation of my case regarding the censorship of my tweets by Twitter. I suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which can affect how I present in the first instance. It helps when those asked to resolve the problem, including your good self, can factor this in before coming to any final conclusion about whether my complaint has validity.

 

As you are undoubtedly aware, many vulnerable people in our society are now suffering extreme hardship as the result of apparent wrong-doing persons of power. When I am subject to such treatment or am required to witness this occurring to others prevented from defending themselves, my PTSD is triggered especially when there is clear evidence yet nothing seems to be being done to stop it. So the personal trigger that resulted in my being twitter censored probably begins here at the beginning of June 2012:

 

“The rage that leads to suicidal thinking/behaviour was triggered again by this story published yesterday. As an example of the social disparities in my country, it really cannot be improved upon. The gap between rich and poor is so stark and the fatuous complacency of the rich so obvious that someone either has to be totally disconnected from reality or an active part of the problem not to be able to see it. Britain is not the only country where this is occurring – it is happening on a global level – and I am now angry enough to be calling a spade a fucking shovel. What is occurring is a crime against humanity inflicted by those who have no humanity and anyone who suggests that this is ‘normal’ and change unnecessary can be regarded as an accessory. I ought to know exactly what a crime is because I am a criminal.”

Extract from “These are not suicides – this is Murder-by-Proxy”

 

This caused my initial upset but as the month of June progressed, it was clear that matters were deteriorating.  During the month, I continued to comment on what I was seeing:

 

“As more people begin to wake up to the severity of the situation we find ourselves in, our ‘leaders’’ behaviour becomes more irrational and, probably, less legal by the minute. This is not occurring in one country alone – this is a global problem. Some countries are beginning to address it – Iceland and Japan are good examples. But my country, the United Kingdom, has yet to catch up and our citizens are dying, losing their homes and being deprived of the means to support themselves by a coalition government with no lawful mandate to do the things it has already done, let alone those things it apparently plans to do. If you doubt what I am saying, then it may be time for you to do your own research rather than simply introject what you are being told. I am not the only person who sees this problem.”

Extract from: “I have this thing about censorship”

 

By this time, I was being censored by Twitter. At the same time, the UK government was being subject to wider public scrutiny of its behaviour and it really wasn’t doing very well at all when measured by ethical or moral behavioural standards.

The UK Home Secretary is found to be in contempt of court. The most senior government official with responsibility for the ‘home’ is found to have broken faith with the country’s courts, yet the implications of this ‘disgrace’ have evaporated in the light of other events.

Members of the UK Government now appear to have lied or intentionally misled the government-appointed Leveson Inquiry concerning their level of collusion with a privately-owned media company. This media company’s employees are being formally charged with criminal offences up to and including perverting the course of justice. The evidence being presented to the Leveson Inquiry suggests that members of our government actively participated in what was going on here. Nevertheless, even this scandal was eclipsed by the criminal behaviour of the UK Banking system.

 

These are extremely serious allegations of wrong-doing in public office and other high places. In every instance, innocent people have suffered abuse, invasion of privacy and experienced loss as a result. The impact of these savage cuts to welfare benefits is now being recognised as having a potentially lethal impact upon claimants. It must be remembered that these cuts are being forced upon the British public by members of government whose behavioural standards in measures of legality, honesty and ethics are already under public and judicial question. It is therefore both reasonable and understandable for that public to start raising very serious questions about the ability of the government to behave in a lawful manner and their competence to carry out their public duties. This is what I was I was questioning. In addition, I was offering potential professional and practical solutions based upon publicly-available evidence.

 

That my twitter account is now subject to monitoring and censorship implies that, as a member of the public qualified to give an opinion on issues of mental health in matters of public responsibility, I do not appear to be free to make these points anymore. As far as I am aware, my points have validity.  By raising the matter with you personally at this stage, I am choosing to use formal and lawful procedures in order to establish the facts. By placing the matter in the public domain, anyone interested in the subject can watch to see how it is handled by those whose responsibility it is to act.

 

“When faced with cruelty inflicted by the State upon its citizens, individuals face an ethical dilemma – to act or to bystand. When we bystand in the face of systemic abuses, we collude with them. When we collude, our actions indicate our ‘agreement’ with the abuse regardless of what we might say. We become a part of the problem rather than contributing to the solution. This is the individuals’ dilemma and only the individual can resolve it, for better or worse. Nevertheless, when our own internal ethical system fails in the face of government-organised abuses upon the vulnerable and impoverished, we become accessories to crimes against humanity. We become criminals ourselves.”

Extract: “Ethics, Politics, People and Crime”

 

As my MP, you have an elected responsibility to act in the best interests of all your constituents. As your constituent, I believe that the censoring of my tweets by Twitter violates the following Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:

 

ARTICLE 10

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
  2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

ARTICLE 11

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
  2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

 

ARTICLE 13

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

 

ARTICLE 14

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

 

I appreciate that there are those who dislike this Human Rights law. They are free to hold their opinions but they are not free to act on those opinions under the Convention:-

 

ARTICLE 13

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

 

ARTICLE 17

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction on any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

 

If the UK Government has determined that it needs to derogate its responsibilities under this Convention, which has resulted in restrictions being placed upon my freedom of expression, has it complied with the requirements set down within it for this purpose:

 

ARTICLE 15

  1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.
  2. No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.
  3. Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.

 

Has the European Convention on Human Rights ceased to operate within the UK? If so, when did this occur and when was the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe informed on the matter?

 

If the Convention continues to operate, why are my tweets being censored? To the best of my knowledge, what I am saying is legal, decent, honest and truthful. Those I am commenting upon do not seem to be able to make the same claim, so why am I being prevented from exercising my Right to Free Expression? Am I being subject to unlawful censorship? If I am, by what authority has this been done and what, if anything, is being done about it?

 

I look forward to your response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Email to my MP: Appendix 2

Standard

I’m going to repost the second to last screengrab from Appendix 1 – there is something you need to see with your own eyes.

If you check my tweets, they look like this now, but they looked a little different at the time:-

That is a remarkably synchronous #glitch – so was the other #glitch telling me exactly which subject they didn’t want me talking about. I went back to my account to check and that is the tweet that has been censored. The tweet was an experienced and professional Mental Health opinion of some – whom I did not name – in public life.

Twitter also seems to have changed it’s mind about my #TweetName as the latest screengrab shows.

 

Whilst I have no screenshot to confirm this the only other tweet in this exchange that was ‘tagged’ by the change in my name was this one.

My response to their objection can be found here.

No doubt this is going to be an ongoing issue between Twitter and myself, so it ought to be relatively easy to find out what is going on if we all agree that this is important and I am not making a fuss about nothing. In my opinion, the first question that needs asking is  ‘Am I endangering the public by making these statements?’

My intention is to speak up for the endangered caused by the misuse of Law up to and including criminal activities in very high places. The diagnosis I am making is extremely serious and I believe society as a whole is endangered. If I am being censored, I want to know its because something Lawful is being done about the situation. If it isn’t, I intend to become the biggest pain-in-the-arse you have ever met.

There are people who will confirm that I do this very well. There are even some who love me for doing this. I am grateful to all of them. But – Houston, we have a problem. A country that is run by haters hating – a crime against humanity at all levels – is outside the Law. There are effective remedies for this.

Are they being used?

Email to my MP: Appendix 1

Standard

Please remember that with a twitter-feed, you begin at the bottom and work up.

The same is true if you ever really want to effect healthy and lasting change.

Please read the tweets first, because there is something you need to see with your own eyes.

 

You’ll have to go to Appendix 2 for that information.