Tagged: Line crossed
September 26, 2016 at 11:37 am #81993
I do believe that I have adequately explained the use of negligence, fraud and slander by the staff of the Ariel Castro memorial above. I have however struggled with the manner in which large numbers of what are termed ‘snow jobs’ are not being identified and acted upon by the relevant authorities. I did make an attempt to define what is meant by ‘snow jobs’ above, but think I missed the mark. However, there was a line in the above mentioned report which has really struck me today.
First let me cover what I found out about “notifiable incidents” and the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist. I will go through this line by line to attempt to deconstruct what was and was not found in the Targeted Review of EDs. This is listed as Section 8 of the document.
The Chief Psychiatrist must be notified as a matter of priority, of any notifiable incident and associated issue that may reflect on the standards of mental health care in WA.
As a matter of priority in the same sense as the mandatory reporting to the CCC. As soon as one “suspects on reasonable grounds” in other words. And this is not limited to Mental Health facilities, but any part of other health care which may reflect on MH care in the State.
During the period of this study, the relevant OD was “Matters to be reported to the Chief Psychiatrist”(OD 0242/09). Notifiable incidents include, but are not limited to death, aggression and assault, alleged sexual assault and absconding of any forensic or involuntary patient.
The OD refers to Operational Directives issued by the OCP. This one had been in place since 2009 and so relates to the case at hand. It should also be noted that there is a conflation here. One would assume that reporting of deaths for instance is not only for “forensic or involuntary patients” but that anyone who is deemed as being under the care of Mental Health Services. For example had I died in the locked ward, this would be a “notifiable incident” despite the fact I was being held hostage after being kidnapped and did not have the status of “forensic or involuntary patient”. Thus aggression and assaults, alleged sexual assault applies to all persons, including voluntary patients and those on Form 1 referral.
Notifiable incidents form a separate section in this report due to the fact that this Review was partially motivated by an increased number of notifiable incidents which occurred in the ED and were reported to the Chief Psychiatrist.
I have my suspicions.
The management of the notifiable incidents reported to the Chief Psychiatrist was examined in the clinical review. Clinical records were also examined to identify patients who had a notifiable incident during their presentation in the ED but were not reported to the Chief Psychiatrist.
Note that this is a one way street? Documents are examined to identify patients who had a notifiable incident during their presentation? I had a notifiable incident but it certainly wouldnt have been documented. Therefore this method of accepting as fact one side of a story is totally fallacious. This is the enabling of ‘baiting’ to achieve outcomes, and allowing what may be considered fraudulent documents to conceal. Nothing new there, police do it all the time (see for example tonights Australian Story of a Dr who hung himself in prison 9 days after being convicted based on a police ‘verbal’). Thus the need to ensure that any “patient” is disadvantaged as much as possible when it comes to being able to document or record any events which they are subjected to. (no pen/pencil, no phone, no cameras in locked ward) All that exists is what one person who has reason to see matters in a certain way. Community Nurse lies on Statutory Declaration, I contest and have first hand witnesses, don’t ask any questions and accept the fraud. Simple, it’s a rigged game.
Clinical records were reviewed to how these notifiable incidents are recorded in the patient clinical record and the strategies implemented in the ED to minimise the risk of further notifiable incidents occurring whilst the patient remained in the ED.
Of course if the “notifiable incidents” weren’t reported? The report claims that they identified a number of incidents which weren’t reported as a result of the clinical record review. Were any still missed? We may never know.
Questionairres of ED staff were also used as part of the review. One which is of particular interest is
Question a: Is chemical restraint used in the ED?
Question b: If chemical restraint is used, how often would this occur?
There is no national definition of chemical restraint and therefore for this interview question what is considered ‘chemical restraint’ was left up to the interpretation of the clinical staff being interviewed.
All responders indicated that chemical restraint is used within the ED when required.
And this is worthy of deep consideration because this is where the Doctors knee drops and cracks the skull of the patient. The is no National definition of chemical restraint. And it is left up to the Doctor to decide what a chemical restraint consists of. There is however a protection for the patient, the fact that in order to use a chemical restraint a “notifiable incident” must have occurred, and been reported to the OCP These are matters which reflect on the standard of mental health care and are required to be reported.
There are some responses to the questionairre which I feel demonstrate how ED staff feel about the use of ‘chemical restraints”.
‘Yes especially with intoxicated/ medically compromised patients presenting with significant risk factors to themselves and/or others along with a gross impairment in judgement.’
‘Yes. But not happy with using it due to potential complications.’
‘Every day. Can sometimes be many times a day with numerous patients.’
‘We get runs of it. Sometimes none in a week other times more.’
‘On one occasion police were present in the resuscitation bay and tazered one patient that attempted to attack a security guard. Physical restraint is much preferred over chemical restraint as it is considered to be a safer option.’
‘Less than monthly, probably a few times each year.’
So staff see complications with it, and the use it would appear from one comment is nothing like the number of “notifiable incidents” being reported. How can this be?
The answer lies in these documents I have, and my experience at the ED Dept with Dr “i’m the boss around here”. Doctors are committing acts of fraud by putting down what are patients being chemically restrained as PRN. This gives the impression that the patient willingly consented to the ‘chemical restraint’ and they are in no position to document or record the fact that they were restrained (in some instances for simply saying “no”) and then injected with said “chemical restraint”. The matter no longer requires reporting as a “notifiable incident” and there is no longer any need to fabricate grounds for it’s use. Ie a faux assault/aggression.
And, given that their is no National standard as to what constitutes a “chemical restraint”? Large amounts of stupefying/intoxicating drugs along with large doses of tranquilizers? The “patient” now meets the grounds of the Mental Health Act solely on the fact that the illness has been injected into them and made to appear consensual.
This of course means that none of these snow jobs would ever show up on any review of documents. Patient consented to PRN and was unconcious for 15 days as a result. Seems a little disoriented and will require further ‘treatment’.
Little wonder the police find this an effective method of concealing their corruption.
Okay, it’s possible to do it, but that doesn’t mean it is being done.
My experience demonstrates that even if one has the proof of this occurring, the authorities will simply not act, and give anyone with evil intent a second bite. What better place than an ED?
Snow jobs, perfectly lawful as a result of “no national standard” and the ability to drug someone under the guise of a “notifiable incident” which is never reported.
Once over this hurdle then the brain damage can begin in earnest.
There is no protection, and the only reason I wasn’t snowed was as a result of another Doctor noticing what they were up to, and pocketed himself a corrupt Doctor who is the boss around there.
No National Standard as to what constitutes a “chemical restraint”? That is carte blanche to kill people.
The “chemical restraint” IS the illness. And this is being done with full knowledge that they are harming people, with no known method of healing them after. Simply keep increasing the drugs to continue to restrain, and maintain the fraud that it is ‘medicine’. Still, they’re getting away with it, and from what I have read of this report, no one is ever going to notice. Cant see where you don’t look.
Edit: I guess in the end, and after 5 years, it’s good to know how they are doing it, and that it is effective. Certainly opens up a world of opportunity, and enables a situation where drugging any inconvenient truth into a stupor to ensure that no action will be taken, and that any further complaints can easily be silenced once all human and civil rights have been removed by applying the legal status of “mental patient” to any citizen with a ‘verbal’, let the drugging begin. Hey, lets do it on masse? We could even do some experiments with other potential chemical restraints? Zyklon B anyone?September 28, 2016 at 9:49 am #82024
“Justice Ann Bampton ruled Walsh was suffering from a schizophrenic episode when he attacked his father, and believed that he was not on drugs at the time.”
Wouldn’t we know from a simple blood test at the time he was taken into custody?
Couple of ways of viewing that. Pot, mushrooms, Ischaea (sp?), and then when the ‘timer’ was set a brief stay in a locked ward and, you guessed it, anti-psychotics (which we are informed he failed to continue). Now with family conspiring to have him ‘take his meds’? They believe in the ‘illness’ because they can see a change in their son as a result of taking mind altering substances?
“The court heard his schizophrenia was undiagnosed at the time of the offence, but he was detained in a psychiatric facility after his arrest.”
How come? He was in a locked ward here and being ‘treated’ right? Or was that tranquilized? Ah well, it didn’t show up in the blood test, or xrays, or …… hey wait, what’s this illness again?
Tragic all round, but I do wish there was more discussion about the contribution of the ‘mental health system’ which even his mother feels has failed him. Was this stint in the locked ward with anti psychotics a contributing factor? A turning point? The ‘angels’ turned to ‘demons’? Guess I will never know.
September 29, 2016 at 7:02 pm #82076
- This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by boans.
5 years ago today I was asleep in my bed, wife ensuring that everything was ready for the kidnapping. Mental health services walk into your life and it is destroyed totally. And these people claim they are of benefit to our community?
I went through an item on the 7 30 Report and took some notes about the above case of Cy Walsh. I believe the court needed to suppress witness statements until they could get their story straight. Presented to the public as it was being revealed would have also show where the problems for this young man started. No, not with his taking of illicit drugs, but when the backbiting began. Sad to say that it would appear that his mother and father have been working closely with MHS and set in motion something the have difficulty understanding. Al Humazah.
I may type up the notes I have taken and make some comment later but the claim by the Court was that he has “undiagnosed schizophrenia”. And yet 14 months before was “involuntarily detained” and diagnosed with “drug induced schizophrenia and was prescribed anti psychotic medications”.
‘drug induced schizophrenia and was prescribed drugs which induce schizophrenia’ would possibly be the correct way of starting the cycle. This part of his journey of course needs to be acknowledged, but not presented as what it really is. In much the same way as the drugs which induced the ‘illness’ which required my kidnapping and deprivation of liberty needs to be disappeared so the gaslighting can begin.
BACKSTABBING IS NOT ILLNESS. DRUGS ARE NOT MEDICINE.August 21, 2018 at 11:01 am #162869August 21, 2018 at 11:37 pm #162874uprisingParticipant
boans!!!August 28, 2018 at 7:16 am #163195
So there I was walking through the evening markets with my bag of fresh donuts, listening to the music. All of a sudden I am being approached by two very large dogs with ‘saddles’ on. These saddles tell me that they are both Psychiatric Assistance Dogs, one of them with his L plates (learner). Now this one was ready to tear other dogs to shreds. And by the looks of them they were a cross between a Great Dane and a Ridgeback. So I sit and watch and ponder the matter.
When I get home a quick google takes me to a website with some information about the benefits of having a Psychiatric Assistance Dog (and hey I cant say I disagree, ive had a number of pets over the years) and then there’s some pics of cute puppies, and a ‘patient’ with her little pug all snuggled up on a nice leather couch in a very nice home. Call me suspicious but she looked more like a model pretending very badly to be a ‘patient’ in a place that wasnt hers but …..
So the cute puppies didnt match with the image I got down at the markets, so a little further googling and I found this pic of a ‘patient’ being introduced to his new Psychiatric Assistance Dog
Insert image from Abu Ghraib here. Forgot how to insert images in page grrr
Whats the chances of ‘capos’ doing this?
August 31, 2018 at 4:54 am #163396
- This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by boans. Reason: Image didnt show
Thought I’d post some here, as a means of wrapping up some loose ends.
As is always the case matters are never clear cut, and when trying to avoid the long arm of the law people will lie, deceive, and if necessary commit the ultimate act.
Point being, a man has a few drinks and then knowing he is over the limit jumps into his car and kills three children in an accident. But he was a good man and was only a little over the limit. Point being that he had crossed the line and the courts taking all matters into account should punish him accordingly. This will not suit the family of those lost, but justice is seen to be served.
What about the situation where he calls in a favour from a friend to try and escape any punishment though? Just loose that bit of paper and I can claim innocence. Then there is only you and me who know the line was crossed.
So yeah, I was only tortured for a short period of time. Just a little kidnap. But the line was crossed, and people who had a duty, did not perform that duty in order to see that justice could not be served. How ugly they look in the light of day.
Point being that the examination of whether the line was crossed is a different part of the process to what should be done to rectify the wrong. It is one thing to remove oneself from emotions when examining facts and evidence, and another when it comes to restitution. Does the person struggling to feed their children suffer the same pain as a wealthy individual if they receive a speeding fine? They both crossed the same line though.
I’ve heard this argument put regarding people who have been sexually assaulted that some suffer less than others, and in some instances I think it shows a lack of empathy on the part of the judge. But minus any real understanding of what it was like? So can emotions be removed from my situation when it can be seen as just a little torture and kidnapping?
I think part of the answer lies in foresight. This was an accident waiting to happen, and the Community Nurse knowing this threw a match onto petrol. Sokay, I’m from the burns unit and we can sort it out later. No, they were serious matters and those who acted to conceal them had no right, and knew it.
God is most gracious, most merciful. So show them mercy, but do so based on the level of evil they have demonstrated by their actions. It somehow seems wrong for me to now be paying a psychologist who has experience with torture victims to try and unravel the final parts of this puzzle, and another violation of the Convention against the use of Torture but when did that count anyway. But I guess, like the assault victim I was asking for it. If I could even have a lawyer to assist in obtaining my share of the property I may not still be homeless as a result of these criminals. Of course I can’t because when I present them with the facts, and they then ring the Law Centre and receive the slander arranged there, they run. Can’t blame them when the crimes are being committed by such important people. And it would have been OBVIOUS to them.
So what is “reasonable” is what suits our political elite, and explains much about the inequalities in our society. Why would anyone stand up for human rights when they profit from the lack of them? Get a mental health referral for that lol.
I’ve had this song in my head for a few days now. Politically incorrect and all that but on ya Mr Lennon.
Edit: I hope to have time to cover the Convention to show the number of violations that have occurred and by whom. Just as a means of demonstrating the rather “bad faith” manner in which these matters have been dealt with.
August 31, 2018 at 9:37 am #163432
- This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by boans.
So there I am standing out the front of the hospital when out walks a psychiatrist struggling with two archive boxes of files and her handbag. So I ask “would you like some help?”. “Oh, yes please” came the reply. So I went over and kicked her legs out from under her, and she crashed to the ground, at which point I wrenched her handbag from her shoulder. Now at this point you gotta be thinking thats not very nice Boans, but the story doesn’t end there.
At this point she screamed for help, and two security guards came out and chased me off into the bushes. I hid there and watched as they returned to her and got her onto her feet and put the archive boxes into her car. I took a small fee from her purse (people don’t help for free these days,ask any mental health professional), kept the mobile phone in case she required any help around the house with painting or home improvements (can of petrol and a match at the ready) so she has my number, and then returned the remains to lost property. So in the scheme of things, and like psychiatry she got the help she needed, just not in the manner she thought. What’s the complaint?
Reasonable? Well, I though it was and I’m the one helping so talk to the Chief Psychiatrist, he will explain. Sheesh some people, ya do all ya can to help, even put you self at risk and all they do is complain. What’s the world coming toSeptember 1, 2018 at 10:13 pm #163553
I post the link to wiki on the Convention against the use of torture.
I’m going to short circuit something here which I have discussed ad nausium above.
The Form 1 ‘verbal’. No doubt that the deliberate act of causing an “acute stress reaction” via spiking and police was torture. See the definition of Article 1. I am of the belief that the term “extreme” has been amended and removed. Still no defense and I invite arguments to the contrary.
Point being that we could discuss the content of the Form 1 but this is absolutely unnecessary. Information obtained through the use of torture is not admissible in a court of law. So with my allegation of kidnapping your defense is??? There is none.
No emergency provisions.
No superior authority.
Witnesses threatened and intimidated.
Fraudulent documents circulated.
Numerous attempts to harm.
Want to argue about whether being spiked and subjected to serious threat of harm at the hands of police does not do psychological harm? We gunna spike you with LSD and do one of those mock executions on you to see how you feel about that with a posteriori knowledge. The assault on my psychological well being, I believe, even fits the definition of “extreme”. But hey, if we dont look, we won’t see and
Just a little kidnapping and torture. Like the shoplifter it doesn’t stop there.
Note that law enforcement and public officials involved in incarcerating citizens should be well trained in what constitutes torture etc. Don’t tell me he didn’t know, lest an admission of negligence becomes obvious.
September 2, 2018 at 4:17 am #163557
- This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by boans.
One Article of the convention was met. Parties must promptly investigate allegations of torture. Beyond that not a single item has been adhered to. Yep, we figured out it was torture and now we are going to fuking destroy the victim. And even where that has failed still no means of having the matter examined. Human Rights Commission informs me that they do not investigate allegations of torture. They refer to Ombudsman who cannot investigate allegations of torture for numerous reasons. So the whole Convention is a farce. They haven’t even established a mechanism that is effective. The Committee that is supposed to be established doesn’t exist, or at least as far as I know it doesn’t, and believe me I’ve looked.
No word on the conflict of interest either.
Might be things happening that I’m not aware of though. I did send a letter to a politician regarding these matters, and included a copy of the Convention for him just in case, like police not having the Criminal Code, they didn’t have access to one. Throw it in the bin with your signed copy, you didn’t have any intention of standing by that agreement.
This has gone from being filthy to something so rotten. I’m told that these matters regarding corruption can take time to resolve. You’ve had 7 years. Hide it until it goes away is what it looks like. Honourable?
So somehow the fact that my kidnappers were clean and tidy makes it different. Like arguing that yeah it was rape but the aftershave was expensive.
Luckily everyone is sooooo afraid of y’all that they wouldn’t dare assist me, not those in other States, or even the international community. Facts are there for all to see. But like the rape victim I get it that its not something you want to look at. I should just shut up and get on with my life. What life? Your colleague fuking destroyed me remember? And like the Chief Psychiatrist recognising his “error” do nothing to put it right.
I guess the State having a mechanism for torturing could be viewed as a good thing, as long as it was limited to certain classes of people. Maybe they know where the Committee is or something.
The Convention is worthless and they have demonstrated why this is the case.September 2, 2018 at 1:28 pm #163585
Or in my case, leaving home in the back of a divi van.
So a number of people, including staffers at pollies offices and lawyers inform me that doctors can arrange to have patients spiked. No details mind you, for example wheres the list of drugs they can spike with, and how much. And can they authorise this post hoc? Because mine was done without the involvement of a doctor (GP) and was signed off on many hours after it was done. And are the public aware of this power that doctors have been given by the State?
I think I have shown that I would not speak to this mental health professional under normal circumstances. I said as much when I was introduced to him by police. Get out of my house and I’ve got nothing to say to you. His glance towards the senior constable might have been a prompt to break my leg or something because I need this guy to open his mouth to put words in it. Coercion? And inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction? No. The law does not sanction the spiking of citizens, which I was at the time the offense occurred.
Highly likely police have been suckered as the ONLY reason they could have to suspect on reasonable grounds that I was a patient was the lie told by the Community Nurse. I accept the s.68e that was set up by my wife, how could they know it had been planted for them. Stooges.
I can’t imagine what police might have done to coerce me into opening my mouth so I could be verballed, but they don’t have a good track record when it comes to dealing with mental patients. See the video in thread “The Doctor will see you now” for example.
Nah, no doubt in my mind that the use of torture invalidates the Form 1. And the more you dig the deeper it goes. The line between coercion and torture is crossed by the criminal offense, which is a real worry for citizens. Bad enough that verballing is being enabled by the State, but they can even torture to get the opportunity to verbal, and then anything they do is covered by the loophole in the Convention. Just need a few unethical doctors and we have a whole range of things that can be done to get you to ‘confess’. No, they wouldn’t do that. By the response from the lawyer at the Law Centre, they are doing just that.
Painters and Dockers. Was a union that operated like the mafia. Mental health are not going to keep their good reputation via ethical conduct, it looks like the only means they have is …..
Should work actually when you think about it.September 7, 2018 at 9:19 pm #163841
Often spoken of, but what does it actually mean? Some even call it a right.
The ‘planning’ meeting between my wife and the psych. This could be the only place she obtained the information about my ‘history’ with the Ariel Castro Memorial.
More important though, the documents provided to the Law Centre. They made a request specifically for documents relating to the 30th Sept 2011, nothing more. And yet the fraudulent set they received contained other documents that had been dug out of old archived files and had the sole purpose of slandering me and misleading lawyers. Is this a breach of confidentiality? Surely the lawyers would know this. I had not given them the right to look into my whole medical history, I had merely asked for assistance with events on the stated date.
This ties in with recent events where the government has set up a huge database of patients histories, accessible by all doctors. If you don’t contact them and ‘opt out’, a record is created for you. I heard a civil rights lawyer use the analogy of giving every tradesman in the country the keys to your home in case they ever needed to do some work at your property. They did try to rush it through and catch most of the population off guard but a moritorium has been placed on it until better safeguards can be put in place.
I’m sure those with mental health histories wouldn’t necessarily want that known by people who will maintain your right to confidentiality in the manner which mine was.
Might be interesting to have a look at who was opting out and who was going to be left not knowing their records were being accessed by anyone in a hospital or clinic or ….. anyone really lol. Got a feeling it might have been rich, well educated people opting out and our indigenous population and poor people having their records created without knowledge. I know, I’m too skeptical.
Might look into this ‘right’ to confidentiality a little more if I get time.September 8, 2018 at 6:56 am #163869
20 years before a decision? Should save some time that they lay the liability for State agents acting in a criminal manner with the State. Should have been obvious but they did manage to hold it up for a little while. Obstruction yer Honor lol.
Still, if a copper can’t go and smash someones face in coz he doesn’t like their attitude what have we got, fukn anarchy.
“It never happened”. Statement by the psychologist after being threatened by persons unknown to obtain information from me. Good news bad news, it happened alright, I have the emails to prove it ya yellow bellied gutless cunt. See page 754 of the DSM for confirmation of the diagnosis.
Being a bit unfair there maybe. Least I can pass on your referral as we now know who is doing snow jobs for police. But the option was there in our express agreement for you to get out without gathering information for people you would know were committing serious offenses. That was made clear to you from the start. Ethics, look it up on wiki Doc. And your face when I listed out who else had the documents waaahahahaha nearly as good as the Community Nurse and his “Oh God”.
Don’t shoot the messenger officer but I got some bad news on the document thing, you might be being watched I’m afraid.September 10, 2018 at 1:16 pm #163998LametamorParticipant
At the session of the UN Human Rights Council, High Commissioner Zeid Ra’adAl Hussein again called for the exclusion of psychiatric coercion, as an absolutely unacceptable violation of human rights.. This proposal must be supported! I suggest You appeal thither and support the resolution. Here are the addresses you need to contact:
[email protected] [email protected] Telephone +41 22 917 9220
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
52 rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland.
Everyone, in whom the soul and mind lives is to support it today!December 28, 2018 at 3:33 am #171214The_catParticipant
Wow this thread, where did everyone go ???
- The forum ‘Community’ is closed to new topics and replies.