|
|
. Political .
6 January 2009
Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Pearson
It is almost a year since I wrote my first letter to you. At that time I was more constantly affected by mind-altering drugs than I am now. The drugs then - the dopamine-blocking drugs which severely hamper my intellectual abilities - were most likely being delivered through our water supply. I had stopped receiving injections of antischizophrenic drugs in the long-lasting form (or in any form officially given) about a year before that, at the start of 2007. Nevertheless the fact that the drugs were (in January 2008) in our drinking water meant that I was under their influence all the time.
It is extraordinary and very difficult to give credence to, I know, that our water supply was contaminated every day with drugs. However it is a provable fact that the properties in our cul-de-sac avenue have been vacant (most of them) for months. The reason for this (although this is not a provable fact but by examining the underground pipework or interviewing the culprits) has been so that the water main serving the entire street could be contaminated.
Further definite evidence that something improper is carrying on lies in the failure of the Royal Mail Guaranteed Next Day Delivery service for letters I send: certainly letters I send to yourself. As this evidence is readily to hand I enclose yet again copies of foolish replies from Royal Mail Customer Services (seemingly from them). I also enclose copies of all the letters I have received on your letter paper. Some of these, as I have explained, raise doubts in my mind.
The origin of these problems lies in the 1980s and before. In November 1980 I was detained under the Mental Health Act 1959 following several appointments over the summer with a psychiatrist then working in the NHS, named Anthony Dew Armond. The excuse for the detention was agitated behaviour I exhibited, when I threw a portable radio at the patio window in my parents’ house (not causing any danger to persons however). The reason for my agitated behaviour was spiking with stimulant drugs (either amphetamine or almost as strong as amphetamine) which I had suffered in the summer and then a renewed assault of spiking just before the detention on Tuesday 11 November 1980 (over the weekend of 8-9 November 1980 and possibly over preceding days).
My presumption must be that the reason Royal Mail has not been delivering my post in the usual way is to prevent me communicating my complaints, and facts, to yourself as my MP who (as I understand it) is the one who must raise a demand for an Inquiry such as a Judicial Review. I say a Judicial Review because of the expansion of the original crime by which I was improperly detained, when the Mental Health Act Commission became involved in June 1984 in supplying a second-opinion doctor who negligently (or with criminal intent to conceal Armond’s crimes of the preceding five years or more) rubber-stamped Armond’s diagnosis without any proper examination (interview) of me at all.
It is, almost certainly, through the influence of the Mental Health Act Commission that workers within Royal Mail treat my post in an improper way, and some unit sends me ridiculous replies as if from Royal Mail Customer Services. I suggest this is evidence that the Mental Health Act Commission is striving to cover-up mistakes - criminal mistakes I would say - in the past, made by its agents (such as the second-opinion doctor in June 1984). I have learnt through my involvement with the mental healthcare system in Britain that the Mental Health Act Commission does not take its responsibilities seriously, to look after the interests of patients especially detained patients.
Lately I have been spiked with small dosages of drugs including unfortunately antischizophrenic drugs which (as I have explained previously) cause me to lose much capacity for independent thought and for logical thought requiring any complex degree of self-organisation. Almost certainly these spikings have not been out-and-out crimes but as with the foolish procedure of contaminating tapwater with drugs, I would point out that dosages taken in can vary over a very wide range. I do not doubt that the Mental Health Act Commission in authorising these procedures pulls the wool over the eyes of those it reports to, in saying that the drugs used are innocuous even if large dosages are taken. The difficulty lies in there being no-one independent of the clique of psychiatrists and the pharmaceuticals manufacturers to say exactly what dopamine-blocking drugs can do. I am such an independent person (but have no standing) and what I would say is that the effects of any dosage given vary enormously from person to person.
I myself seem to have a great sensitivity to dopamine-blocking drugs and suffer from the mildest of dosages. (On the other hand if the dosages I have been made to have over the years have been with partly the intention to subdue my complaints they may have been tailored deliberately in the high range but not from any medical necessity. Indeed it must be so since to supply the drugs through the water supply cannot be portrayed as a thing done out of medical necessity.) The point I make is that because the dosages I was made to have had the effect of suppressing any independent thinking, in that very fact I suffered immensely and this gives the reason for my strong endeavours to make complaint even when, because of the drugs affecting my brain, I could not present my complaints in a logical sequence. An example of the latter was the origin of my first letter to you: I had parked the motor caravan we then owned deliberately to obstruct the entrance to the railway-station car-park at Solihull one morning in June 2007. I make the point too that the failure of the police to take the usual course of action (also in the cases of my constant complaints to them and my dialling 999 for the emergency services when I am badly spiked, that is badly in my own assessment: the police ought to respond to these either by investigating the complaints or by prosecuting me for wasting police time) shows up the fact that someone in a position to give instructions - and my belief is that it is the Mental Health Act Commission - does not want the affair fully investigated, say by a Court.
Because it is such cost to me (in time, effort and money) to be constantly complaining as I have to when I am continually spiked (even though it is with semi-official blessing that I am spiked) I must urge you yet again to call for a proper legally foundationed Inquiry into the harassment I suffer still.
As I said in my last letter, I feel sure you will be eager to ensure I suffer no further intrusion and that the threat of drugging, either through spiking or through improper psychiatric treatment, is completely removed. I feel sure you will agree with my urgent request to you for an adequately constituted independent Inquiry into the unreasonable and most likely illegal compulsion of treatment on me in the past and into the present situation which has evolved out of those past instances of compulsion.
Yours truly
Colin Barrass-Brough
www.barrass-brough.org and www.barrass-brough.org.uk
PS. I enclose a copy of my latest letter to Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust and remind you of the promise in a letter signed Karen Jordan dated 23 July 2008 that the failure of the Trust to reply to your letter to them would be chased up.
9 January 2009
Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Pearson
I sent an email to you in the early hours of 2 January 2009. I give the text below together with your autoreply:
Interference with the mail
From: Colin Barrass-Brough (blue-chalk@hotmail.co.uk)
Sent: 02 January 2009 01:38:02
To: pearsoni@parliament.uk
Cc: blue-chalk@hotmail.co.uk
Antivirus scanning by Trend Micro Attachments: Page1.jpg (76.0 KB), Page2.jpg (90.5 KB), Page3.jpg (86.2 KB), Page4.jpg (46.3 KB), Page5.jpg (49.1 KB), Page6.jpg (26.3 KB)
Dear Mr Pearson
Since it seems very likely my letters through the postal mail are not reaching you I attach scans of a letter I intend to post tomorrow. It is possible there may be an attempt to pervert the course of justice by stealing the evidence I have that my postal mail is treated in an unusual way by workers within Royal Mail. Thank you for your attention.
Colin Barrass-Brough
Out of Office AutoReply: Interference with the mail
From: PEARSON, Ian (PEARSONI@parliament.uk)
Sent: 02 January 2009 01:38:10
To: Colin Barrass-Brough (blue-chalk@hotmail.co.uk)
I am out of the office until Monday 5 January and will respond to you on my return
The letter I attached (as images of scanned pages) I send again with this letter [presently on front page], since I have not received the response promised in the autoreply. Furthermore, having understood now more clearly the nature of the misuse I have suffered in recent years, I make the following points to you.
When I am given certain combinations of drugs I become very susceptible to ‘hypnotising advice’. I find I am then moved about almost like a zombie pursuing ends which would, without the drugs, be of no interest to me whatsoever. A recent example is to be found in my purchase of several different mobile phones (which I explained to myself as a help in evading the people who are behind the drugging and hypnotising, through having several different phones with more than one network, since it is a certainty that phonecalls I have made in the past have been diverted from the proper destination: this is a matter I have explained in a recent letter to police at Dudley North OCU addressing the letter to Dudley Police Station in New Street intending to send a copy to yourself which I am now enclosing [click here]).
Looking through the records I have kept since the start of the New Year I find that despite my intentions I seem to have sent copies of the letter I refer to to no one but Chief Supt Baldwin at Dudley Police Station. I have the Guaranteed Next Day receipt and have a definite recollection of handing the letter over at Kingswinford post office on Monday afternoon. I recall it the better because I was amazed to find Dudley Police Station (New Street Dudley DY1 1LZ according to the police website) could not be found on the post office computer verification system (which is why the address is shown as Validated=N on the receipt). The only similar address the clerk could find was the police station in New Street Upper Gornal.
I make these points because over the New Year period I was suffering confusion of mind which I believe the criminals hoped to portray as caused by alcohol. In fact it was caused by drugs I was spiked with (although not in these cases dopamine-blocking drugs: however these drugs in combination with dopamine-blocking drugs render me into the zombie-like very suggestible condition of mind I explained above).
I have also found a diary entry I made last Friday, 2 January 2009 [click here]. When I am given drugs of this type which make hypnotising me easier (especially when combined with dopamine-blocking drugs) they also affect my memory. I therefore have only a vague recollection of the facts mentioned in the diary entry. I do recall that affected by the drugs last Friday Dawn and I ended up at Stechford between Birmingham and Coventry, and on New Street station in Birmingham (before getting on a train taking us to Stechford) I asked a policeman what I should do if I had purchased a medicine - Pepto Bismol as you will see from the diary entry - which contained contamination with other drugs nothing to do with Pepto Bismol (I have since concluded that most likely someone had entered our home and contaminated the already opened Pepto Bismol).
I make the point too that observing Dawn in a similar zombie-like condition in 2005 (in the first year of our marriage, from which time she unfortunately became involved in the improper usage I have had to suffer certainly since my parents’ deaths, somewhat different from the inappropriate treatment I received while they were alive) from the same cause - that is drugs foisted without our foreknowledge or consent - I was appalled and still cannot understand how people (presumably medical people) can take advantage in such a way of individuals branded as mental patients.
When I was preparing a draft of this letter a couple of days ago (diverted since by deliberate interference, I have no doubt), I wrote the following:
My best guess is that the criminal or near criminal misuse of drugs has been in an endeavour to cover-up the mistakes made in the early 1980s when I was first treated under a diagnosis - a criminally flawed diagnosis - of schizophrenia (this a history I have explained to you several times in previous letters).
I now draw to your attention the diary entries I have written this morning (Friday 9 January 2009) which I append to this letter, and I repeat the last paragraphs of my recent letter: because it is such cost to me (in time, effort and money) to be constantly complaining as I have to when I am continually spiked (even though it is with semi-official blessing that I am spiked) I must urge you again to call for a proper legally foundationed Inquiry into the harassment I suffer.
As I have said before, I feel sure you will be eager to ensure I suffer no further intrusion and that the threat of drugging, either through spiking or through improper psychiatric treatment, is completely removed. I feel sure you will agree with my urgent request to you for an adequately constituted independent Inquiry into the unreasonable and most likely illegal compulsion of treatment on me in the past and into the present situation which has evolved out of those past instances of compulsion.
Yours truly
Colin Barrass-Brough
cc Shadow Home Secretary
10 January 2009
Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Pearson
I enclose a copy of a letter dated 30 November 2008 which I posted to you Guaranteed Next Day on 1 December 2008. According to a reply from Royal Mail Customer Services dated 6 January 2009 (replying to a letter I sent in enquiry on 15 December 2008, paying £4.60 for Guaranteed Next Day for that letter itself to RMCS as a previous letter I sent Recorded to them - at a cost of £1.08 - was ‘lost in the post’) there has been no signature on receipt and the letter is lost. You will agree that this state of affairs is unacceptable as well as being very unusual.
The truth of the matter is Royal Mail (or a sub-unit) have been given authorisation to treat my post in an exceptional way. To try to ensure that nonetheless my letters get delivered I have to pay ridiculous amounts including paying extra to try to ensure delivery to Royal Mail Customer Services themselves.
In my letter to you dated 6 November 2008 I said: ‘My interest centres on whether you have yourself given permission for my letters to be dealt with in an improper way. My best guess is that you were misadvised that I was mentally unsound and therefore did give such permission.’ I still do not know if you are personally responsible for the decision costing me so much in extra postage.
Yours truly
Colin Barrass-Brough
cc Minister with responsibility for Postal Affairs
cc Shadow Home Secretary
11 January 2009
Ian Pearson MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Pearson
At the end of December I received a letter signed as though from the Department of Health: in fact signed as though from an official who has written to me previously. I enclose a copy.
I also enclose a copy of my ‘letter of 8 December’ referred to in that letter. You will notice that there is very little connection between the letter purporting to be from the DoH and my letters which it seems to be replying to (my letter of 17 December 2008, which was addressed to yourself and copied to others, was centrally concerned with interference in my attempts to send information or communicate by varied means, including telephone and postal mail as well as the internet and the basis of this attempt to limit how much I can spread information mainly on the flaws in the mental health provision of the NHS). For example in my letters I made no reference to my concern over food I was purchasing: what I said was that I am spiked almost wherever I go in Britain, that is I am spiked in cafés. I made no reference to the Mental Health Act Commission, and as regards the Health Service Ombudsman I have already made a complaint there in a letter dated 4 September 2008 of which I sent a copy to yourself and now enclose another together with a copy of their reply.
The mention of the Ombudsman (without awareness evidently that I had already complained to the Ombudsman, or trying to persuade me to complain anew, in the hope that I was mentally confused: I refer you to what I said in my letter to you dated 9 January 2009, that over the New Year period I was suffering confusion of mind which I believe the criminals hoped to portray as caused by alcohol but which in fact was caused by drugs I was spiked with) and of DEFRA is strong evidence to me of the correctness of my assertion that it is the hope of elements within the Civil Service to ‘investigate’ my supposed mental health condition and find if at all possible that the mistakes of the past - leading to the waste of decades out of my life, including my unemployability, since 1982, in any position I might otherwise have been fit for - were not in fact mistakes. The hope has been to exonerate the Mental Health Act Commission from any culpability or negligence. The Mental Health Act Commission was the body having main responsibility for my mistaken treatment and originally became implicated in June 1984 when the Commission supplied a second-opinion doctor who was criminally negligent in his determination of a diagnosis, that is in going along with Armond’s original diagnosis.
In my letter to you dated 30 April 2008 I said this: I object to being given drugs which distort the functioning of my mind, especially as often they cause me to seem mentally ill and further to have the unpleasant experience a mentally ill person has. I should like the origin of these difficulties looked into and appropriate action taken, although my main priority is to put a stop to the drugging I suffer supposedly as part of an investigation of schizophrenia.
I stated eloquently in my letter of 17 December 2008 my urgent request to you to call for a proper legally constituted Inquiry into my case so that hopefully I may draw a line under the decades-long interference in my life, and perhaps even obtain reasonable compensation. I trust you can give me your help.
Yours truly
Colin Barrass-Brough
cc Andrew Lansley CBE MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Health
cc Dominic Grieve QC MP, Shadow Home Secretary