Anyone else had these same experiences? Professional mentioned in letter and details enclosed in this post.

I have published this letter with the professionals name on below. However, I had to block out certain details for legal reasons. I may get into trouble for putting their name on here. I am certainly not concerned whether the author of this document doesn’t want the information published on here. I was labelled a criminal as a youngster and that ruined my life long term. I cannot be the only person involved in these kinds of circumstances. There has to have been more labelled by this professional and condemned to a life of miserable experiences.

In 2006, before I even met this professional, I had a psychiatrist from the secure unit which I ended up being sent into after I was convicted of a variety of offences in 2007. I am sure that I was set up because at the time none of this internal information was given to my parents. I read the report that they were sent at that time after diagnosis confirmation. There was no mention of risk or anti social personality disorder. I do not know for sure but there may have been some financial incentive for this particular professional to get me sent to a secure unit and labelled a risk. I also know that this same professional was involved in local adoption panels at the same time my son was recommended for adoption. There is a vast amount of money in both of these systems. I cannot be the only person that has had this professional involved in their case and had similar written about them behind closed doors. Please share this post and encourage anyone that has been in similar circumstances involving this professional. 

img_0666

2 thoughts on “Anyone else had these same experiences? Professional mentioned in letter and details enclosed in this post.

  1. This Brugha person …

    “I am sure that I was set up because at the time none of this internal information was given to my parents.”

    I didn’t think this would be the case. Not many parents want to know that their child has a Dangerously Severe Personality Disorder [as this used to be called in the law].

    That report was not to be seen by anyone except the GP and the Adult Mental Health Care team. I know the latter can be leaky especially when it comes to safeguarding or claimed safeguarding.

    Yes. You were targeted. Unfairly.

    “I read the report that they were sent at that time after diagnosis confirmation.”

    Good. The more you know… different reports do different things.

    “There was no mention of risk or anti social personality disorder.”

    Yes. Because it dealt with your Autistic and learning disability issues.

    “I do not know for sure but there may have been some financial incentive for this particular professional to get me sent to a secure unit and labelled a risk.”

    Will we get a full declaration of interests from and on this person? Or something like it? And any organisations/fellowships they have had in the 2000s and in the present? [especially in the university context].

    “I also know that this same professional was involved in local adoption panels at the same time my son was recommended for adoption.”

    This is really frightening and disturbing. I would not trust such a person on an adoption panel; especially if they had some influence or significant influence.

    “There is a vast amount of money in both of these systems.”

    On the order of a few hundred millions or even billions?

    “I cannot be the only person that has had this professional involved in their case and had similar written about them behind closed doors.”

    No, you wouldn’t be. I believe there were a few people at the Brandon or outside of the Brandon. These are all on probabilities here.

    And that you and these others have been “condemned to a life of miserable experiences”.

    Prof/Dr B does seem to have a knowledge of dual diagnosis issues and doesn’t act beyond his remit when it comes to forensic psychiatry.

    Did Dr B learn anything more significant which would have shifted the course and pace of the case?

    And leaving a person alone as you were left alone and isolating and gaslighting her – that is so wrong – without proper advice or advocacy …

    Like

    1. My concern with what Em is describing is having experienced something not entirely dissimilar myself, albeit in rather less trying circumstances. In my case it’s the tendency to hand out inappropriate EUPD (a.k.a. borderline) diagnoses without actually properly assessing patients for motives which seem to be somewhat suspect, or at least more opaque than they should be.

      In my case I’ve managed to have the diagnosis overturned as it is demonstrably incorrect but it took a *lot* of effort to do so and the hospital seems to have an interest in concealing its origin, with other clinicians remarking that the circumstances were unusually unclear and me being provided with incorrect information when I complained about it. My persistence at least got a possible albeit approximate date out of them compared to their original response which seemed intended to just throw me off the scent, but that said, given that they’d already attempted to obfuscate its origin, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is simply a more plausible-looking but still incorrect diagnosis [edit: that should read “more plausible…explanation” and *not* diagnosis: apologies for that, I was tired!]. As it is, I still haven’t been given the name of the person responsible (I won’t say “doctor” because I wonder if it was someone with the appropriate medical qualification) and the hospital still refuses to remove it from other diagnoses in spite of finally admitting it was in error.

      The relevance to Em’s case is that I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that there seems to be some parallels between them. We’ve both been repeatedly mischaracterised and misrepresented and it’s stuff like this, giving it an official-looking seal of approval, that allows a whole stack of lies to be constructed, one on top of the other.

      An example of the improper distortion of the facts to probably knowingly (given this guy’s position) imply something untrue is the statement, “she clearly also has marked antisocial behaviour”. I’ve known Em for quite a while now and while she has “issues”, I wouldn’t describe any of them as coming close to antisocial behaviour. It is perhaps the case that such a misinterpretation may be made if somebody is under extreme duress at the time, but a person of this doctor’s experience would know perfectly well that a situational response does not make a diagnosis and that the guidelines say it should be consistent regardless of the situation a patient is coping with. Which it is not.

      I find it very sinister altogether, both the seemingly deliberate dishonesty of the letter and that it is also calling for “suitable specialist placement, which is secure”, i.e. an ATU, which are rightly the focus of a developing scandal. I suspect this letter details how the scandal in question has occurred.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.