tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33960805.post4523836048034472891..comments2023-10-30T02:03:47.513-07:00Comments on Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look: BPS: How to NOT Conduct a HearingCL Psychhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13990549972520745769noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33960805.post-74368342083781353432007-02-22T10:50:00.000-08:002007-02-22T10:50:00.000-08:00This is a comment made under another bloggers arti...This is a comment made under another bloggers article posted at<BR/>http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/02/20/the-uks-lisa-blakemore-brown-case/<BR/><BR/>That blogger has received much criticism in the comment section, and further comments appear to have been blocked. The comment intended for that blog is therefore posted here.<BR/><BR/>============<BR/><BR/>Dear All, <BR/> <BR/>I was interested to read this article. <BR/> <BR/>I wish to make a few points <BR/> <BR/>1. The transcript was read by me as well :) and I have the full copies as have many other people. The section published was not edited. <BR/> <BR/>2. The Human Rights Act 1998 is something has been enshrined into UK Law. As such Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is paramount. The US equivalent is the right to freedom of expression. <BR/> <BR/>3. Mental Illness should never be used for someone who is sane. Lisa Blakemore Brown is sane and there is no evidence of mental illness. The stigma of the shroud of mental illness is such that one's credibility is destroyed. Blakemore's GP states she is normal. She therefore cannot claim illness benefit yet the BPS state she has some undefined mental illness. Blakemore is outspoken, on occasion headstrong and extremely logical. Why on earth should a person like her be ostracised in this way. She is either mentally ill or not. There is no in between debate. <BR/> <BR/>4. The data discussed within the BPS hearing is Blakemore's data. As such and by her own request, she wished others to be there with her. She also asked for a public hearing. The BPS wrote to me stating that the hearing was held in private to protect Blakemore's privacy. I believe they had no reasons or argument as to why it should not be held in public. <BR/> <BR/>5. The evidence basis for this case is at best flimsy. It is based on a number of emails cut and pasted ( not even the originals) provided by on Penny Mellor. Penny of course was in a criminal court sometime ago - found guilty and accused of being a " dangerous eccentric" by the judge. I will allow the reader to lead to their own conclusions. <BR/> <BR/>For everyone's information - I do not for one minute believe that I as a sane doctor should have been subjected to a "discreet" inquiry by the General Medical Council's screeners. This was admitted in their memorandum. I am of course no one but a whistleblower with two reports under her belt for raising concerns about the mistreatment of the elderly population in this country. I am also the first person to have beaten our medical regulatory body in a civil case hearing when no less than 26 lawyers told me it was impossible. I am the one who read the law books and did it. <BR/> <BR/>I say this because most will find it interesting that the medical assessors from the GMC are also the assessors of the BPS. Those who are astute will understand the behavioural similarities. <BR/> <BR/>I will say this again - I do not appreciate the tone of the article above [on the other blog not here] which in general accepts the abuse of mental illness. People who have mental illness suffer enough without it being used as method of silencing those who will be controversial and outspoken. <BR/> <BR/>Regards<BR/> <BR/>Dr Rita Pal <BR/>Editor<BR/><A HREF="http://www.nhs-exposed.com " REL="nofollow">NHS Exposed</A><BR/>Voted in the top 50 UK Times best health websites<BR/>www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com