Live On Febuary 20th 8pm uk time thats 3pm usa/canada 3 pm eastern time.
With a old friend of radio circles paul mann we review his book and the subject of mental health abuse.
The Psychopath, an unrelenting self absorbed murderer, recognisable in those so often portrayed on the big screen. Hollywood and mainstream media are together involved in mass deception on many levels. On hearing the word “Psychopath” we immediately consider the usual suspects – Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy, Shipman etc. Yet Psychopaths come in many forms and more importantly kill on many levels. The media proffer such acronyms as N.P.D = Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Or B.P.D = Borderline Personality Disorder, yet these titles are hiding a great truth. That truth being – these disorders when broken down are exact in there composition to that of psychopathic behaviour. Individuals with these “Disorders” kill innocent people in many ways, most noticeably through mental and emotional abuse. The fact is we’re surrounded by Psychopaths in all area’s of our lives.
From governmental rulers to the person next door, and even closer to home – a family member. In “Lucifers Legions” I expose through my experiences and the experiences of others the nature and rise of the psychopath, the reasons for there rapid increase and the greatest psychopath of all time, ending with constructive and successful ways to beat these destructive people.
Is there a person in your life that leaves you feeling drained, low, and full of self doubt?
If so, you could well be in the clutches of a psychopath!!!
Here are some good resources on Mental Health Abuse and physcopaths.
15,000 abused children let down by mental health services in Berkshire
Reports of child abuse at mental health unit over 40 years investigated
The Abuse of Psychiatry
Report Mental Health Abuse
How to Spot a Psychopath in the Crowd
Abuses in the uk mental health system.
From Gary Caine a prisoner in the mental health system in manchester
Unlocking Detention is a ‘virtual tour’ of the UK’s immigration detention estate – and of the impact of detention on communities across the UK. Each week, we ‘visit’ another of the UK’s detention centres and we hear from people who have been detained there (and who still are), volunteer visitors to that centre, NGOs and campaigners who are involved with challenging immigration detention, and the families, friends, neighbours and communities over whom detention casts its long shadows. The tour runs from 10 October to 18 December 2016.
The idea for Unlocking Detention came from the fact that many of the UK’s detention centres are geographically very remote and that the injustice of immigration detention was being kept hidden away – “out of sight, out of mind”.
People held in immigration detention are isolated and hard-to-reach. People may be held in a centre (in prison-like conditions) hundreds of miles from where they were living, and many miles from any city, with no public transport to get there to visit. The system is operated to isolate people – and detention as a policy issue is very remote from the minds of most members of the public and, until recently, from the minds of most of our elected representatives.
This means most people have no idea what immigration detention is, what it’s like, who is it for and why it’s such an outrage. For such a grave human rights issue, detention has been a remarkably hidden topic – over the last 20 years since the first detention centre opened, the detention estate has massively expanded and until relatively recently, with almost no public debate or political scrutiny.
Because of this lack of awareness, detention became accepted as a “normal”, integral part of the system of immigration administration and enforcement. Unlocking Detention seeks to change this – through the voices of those at risk of detention, those living with the scars of previous detention, communities damaged by detention, and all those seeking to change it. Although Unlocking Detention uses a geographical tour as a starting point, the project goes beyond the location and operation of detention centres, shining a light on all aspects of detention, and its place in the system of immigration control.
A history of problems in healthcare at Campsfield
Yet ever since Campsfield was opened, 23 years ago this month, there have been reports of healthcare shortcomings or failures. Bill MacKeith of the Campaign to Close Campsfield says: “Problems reported to us have included:
- poor care (detainees used to call the doctor ‘Dr Paracetamol’ because that was the extent of prescription on offer)
- lack of confidentiality (consultations not held in private)
- lack of access to prescribed hospital treatment
- withholding medicine for chronic conditions such as diabetes, HIV or pain (‘you can come and get it from the health centre when you need it – no you can’t have a supply to keep’)
- lack of continuity of care (for example, medical notes not following an individual, and not being sent on when they are moved). If the medical notes are not available, this means that treatment may in effect be denied.
Two young men have taken their own life while imprisoned in Campfield, an indictment of the health ‘care’ in itself: on 27 June 2005, Ramazan Kimluca, 18, a Kurdish asylum seeker, hanged himself, and on 2 August 2011 Ianos Dragutan, 31, from Moldova, hanged himself in a shower at Campsfield.
On 18 October 2013, Farid Pardiaz, who according to a psychiatric report was expressing a depressive episode at the time, set fire to B Block in Campsfield. His requests to see a doctor in the days leading up to his desperate act were refused.”There should be a fail-safe method of keeping out of detention people who fall into the ‘vulnerable’ groups proscribed under law and guidance. However, a Campsfield, the necessary assessment by a medical practitioner rarely takes place.
Even when a medical practitioner makes a clear assessment that a person should be released, and forwards this to the Home Office, the responsible Home Office Immigration Enforcement case worker rarely accepts it. This is especially true for torture victims.
Responsibility passes to the National Health Service
In 2012, visitors and campaigners heard that healthcare was going to be the responsibility of NHS England, not the Home Office, and that existing contracts between individual detention centres and private healthcare providers would be phased out. Visitors and campaigners hoped that, finally, the responsibilities laid out in law and guidance might be honoured a little better. Campsfield’s due date for the change was 2015.
There has been no improvement. What has happened since then is almost certainly worse than what happened before. Negligent practices have continued. Those responsible, NHS England, the commissioners, are also responsible for offender health and do not seem to appreciate that people held in Campsfield are not criminals, but people held for the administrative convenience of the Home Office. Detainees are routinely handcuffed when taken for medical appointments.
Campsfield has a ‘stakeholders’ meeting twice a year, convened by MITIE which runs the centre, to which several voluntary organisations are invited. Healthcare has been a standing item of complaint. Sometimes, only, a representative of NHS England attends, but the same representative has refused to meet local representatives and advocates separately.
The commercial contracts fail to address major health issues
The base line assessment of detainee needs for healthcare, the summary contract, and the KPIs of that contract are all far from what any detainee or any visitor would say were the main health needs of people in detention centres. There are indicators for obesity, learning difficulties, alcohol and drug cessation, but no timescale for getting torture victims or other vulnerable people swiftly medically assessed and given back their liberty; no performance indicator on access to existing medicine; on swift treatment when needed outside the detention centre, on not handcuffing detainees being taken to outside appointments; nothing about the medical records that often go missing, or on continuity of care; no reassessment requirement (even though it is widely accepted that continued detention is very bad for people’s mental health).