Prev: Gizzard the lizzard's great SkoolsWatch flop
Next: Windows7 newsgroups
From: |-|ercules on 28 Jan 2010 20:14
"kreed" <kenreed1999(a)gmail.com> wrote ..
On Jan 29, 10:26 am, "|-|ercules" <h...(a)r.c> wrote:
> They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs,
> and release them 1 month later.
>
> SPOILER
> ,


Australia

Didnt they do this to some woman solicitor who was arrested over some
petty matter, and dared to tell them she was a solicitor, knew her
rights and didn't consent to an interview ? Saw it on Lateline last
year.

Despite video evidence etc, the cops involved (as usual) were just let
off. Just said that they believed she was mental because she refused
an interview and used that as justification for their illegal actions
and abuse.


-----------------------------------------


I don't think the police have drugs they can use, (although we were gassed a few times in prison which put
us all to sleep in 30 seconds).

The problem is you get detained by the mental health act because it's a police issue, and the mental staff watch
you and wait for the "uncooperative" moment.

Now when I go in I see them scanning me for what mode of treatment to give me, and put on a big smile and
shake hands, ask for a coffee, then atleast you don't get raped by them.

Herc

From: geoff on 28 Jan 2010 20:34
|-|ercules wrote:

> Now when I go in I see them scanning me for what mode of treatment to
> give me, and put on a big smile and shake hands, ask for a coffee, then
> atleast you don't get raped by
> them.

MAybe if you tried looking cuter ?

geoff


From: Asazel on 28 Jan 2010 20:48
On a slightly related topic,

Look for this reference :

David L. Rosenhan, "On Being Sane in Insane Places," Science, Vol. 179 (Jan.
1973), 250-258.

As an experiment a group of (normal) volunteers were asked to go to
psychiatric hospitals, and report fairly benign symptoms, such as hearing a
voice saying "Thud" or "empty".

All were admitted. After this, the volunteers had been instructed to cease
any reports of symptoms and "just behave normally."

All were hospitalized. All but 1 got a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The
longest stay in hospital was 52 days and the shortest stay was 7 days. None
of the patients were "detected" as actually being a sham, or faking their
initial symptom.

During their stay in hospital, almost everything the volunteers did was
interpreted as abnormal. One like to pass time by drawing, and this was
reported in his hospital file as "obsessive". If they walked around, this
was interpreted as restlessness and if they sat down this was interpreted as
vegetative, or lack of motivation. If they spoke it was interpreted as an
inability to remain silent, but if they were silent it was said to be an
inability to speak.

The conclusion of the study (and several follow-up studies) is that
psychiatrists can detect insane people. But then again, ordinary people
(mostly) can detect insane people. For the most part it's pretty easy to
observe that someone is insane. But psychiatrists cannot detect sane people,
and that's the scary part. It means they can prove insanity but they cannot
disprove it.

Once the diagnosis of insanity is made (whether rightly or wrongly) it's
darn near impossible to have it removed or disproven. When a person who has
been given the label of insanity argues that they are not insane, it's far
too easy to dismiss the argument as just more evidence of their insanity.
The person becomes stuck in a vicious cycle. The only way to break the cycle
is for the person to agree with whatever the psychiatrist might say,
including statements such as "You are insane." Nothing else will work.

I think that's the point the OP is trying to make.





From: |-|ercules on 28 Jan 2010 21:40
"Asazel" <asazel(a)thegroup.com> wrote
> On a slightly related topic,
>
> Look for this reference :
>
> David L. Rosenhan, "On Being Sane in Insane Places," Science, Vol. 179 (Jan.
> 1973), 250-258.
>
> As an experiment a group of (normal) volunteers were asked to go to
> psychiatric hospitals, and report fairly benign symptoms, such as hearing a
> voice saying "Thud" or "empty".
>
> All were admitted. After this, the volunteers had been instructed to cease
> any reports of symptoms and "just behave normally."
>
> All were hospitalized. All but 1 got a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The
> longest stay in hospital was 52 days and the shortest stay was 7 days. None
> of the patients were "detected" as actually being a sham, or faking their
> initial symptom.
>
> During their stay in hospital, almost everything the volunteers did was
> interpreted as abnormal. One like to pass time by drawing, and this was
> reported in his hospital file as "obsessive". If they walked around, this
> was interpreted as restlessness and if they sat down this was interpreted as
> vegetative, or lack of motivation. If they spoke it was interpreted as an
> inability to remain silent, but if they were silent it was said to be an
> inability to speak.
>
> The conclusion of the study (and several follow-up studies) is that
> psychiatrists can detect insane people. But then again, ordinary people
> (mostly) can detect insane people. For the most part it's pretty easy to
> observe that someone is insane. But psychiatrists cannot detect sane people,
> and that's the scary part. It means they can prove insanity but they cannot
> disprove it.
>
> Once the diagnosis of insanity is made (whether rightly or wrongly) it's
> darn near impossible to have it removed or disproven. When a person who has
> been given the label of insanity argues that they are not insane, it's far
> too easy to dismiss the argument as just more evidence of their insanity.
> The person becomes stuck in a vicious cycle. The only way to break the cycle
> is for the person to agree with whatever the psychiatrist might say,
> including statements such as "You are insane." Nothing else will work.
>
> I think that's the point the OP is trying to make.



That's classic, I often say they need normal people as controls and to make their diagnosis
without reading the previous report first.

I wrote this this morning for my defamation case against police.



I don't see the reason behind the overkill in the way the government has treated me the last decade,
especially considering a supreme court judge at my tribunal hearing was told I had no symptoms, that
I was grandiose. A Centerlink psychologist said there is no way I am paranoid schizophrenic because
I don't come across as paranoid at all, and he's worked with many patients and I am nothing like them.
Both the police and the mental health system play chinese whispers. Someone makes a complaint so
they write a report. They pass the report to the next department and they rewrite it and add to it. They
pass it to the next department and they add some more. After 10 years I have an inch thick psychological
report based on no symptoms, now no psychiatrist would ever clear me of being ill for having such a profile.

With my name on police records for being a mental patient, all it takes is a complaint and I am taken to the
back door of a mental ward and they use the 28 day hold without charge mental health act. I have been locked
up and acuphased several times for trivial deeds that police cannot charge me with. It started for parking my
campervan at a beach carpark. Then again for being at my exgirlfriends back yard, a place I lived for 3 years
previously, being contantly verbally abused by my sister and father and telling them to shut up and walking away,
yelling at my neighbours for verbally abusing me, missing a pyschiatrist's appointment, and for writing a love letter.

The psychiatrists don't see that it's their report getting me locked up, they just see that I've been institutionalised
so many times I must need constant treatment. When I was taken away from the beach carpark the police insisted
I go to hospital to check my migraine. I didn't know what was happening but the manager kept telling me
to drink some valium. I kept saying no and asking why do I need to drink valium. He made a hand gesture and 5 nurses
dragged me to the floor, stripped me naked and injected me, and put me in a room with a mat on the floor.
Two years later the same thing happened, the police removed me from my ex girlfriends house and took me
to the hospital to check my blistered feet. I was sitting down, they said I had to stay the night and a nurse tried
to grab my arm and I moved my arm away. 5 nurses pulled me off my chair to the floor, stripped me and acuphased me again.
Acuphase gives you the mentality of a 5 year old for a week. They pinned me to the floor so hard I had a limp
for 2 weeks. They said it was for being uncooperative. In what country do they pull people off the street for no crime,
pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs, and release them 1 month later?



Herc
From: Asazel on 28 Jan 2010 22:14
Herc, it's pretty clear that you have been subjected to some scary,
degrading, demoralizing, treatment and you've been in and out of the
psychiatric profession's washing machine more often than any man should.
Equally so, the legal system most likely has put you through their washing
machine.

I have no doubt that if ever a proper analysis were made of your experiences
it would show numerous errors and injustices.

You need to make a decision about how to proceed. Broadly speaking, you have
2 choices. You can proceed with defamation and whatever other legal means
might apply. Or you can shake your head, say thank god it's over, and vow
never to get sucked into those washing machines again.

I think the first option above will not bring relief or a feeling of justice
being done; it will throw you right back into the machinery that has already
harmed you so much. It will cost you time and money and deny you the time
and money you need to heal. You will exit the process even more traumatized
than you are now.

I know that's a bitter pill to swallow and it means that the lies said about
you will never be corrected, and the injustices will never be set right.
Rightly so. I would feel the same and I would yearn for "my day in court."
But your day in court will probably never come, and even if it does it will
be some minor technical point of law that gives you scant comfort.

If your reputation is tarnished, the most effective way to prove you're
actually a good person .. is to be a good person and let people see it. This
will go much further toward restoring your reputation than a sheet of paper
from a court saying "Ooops, Herc was innocent after all.".

The sad part is, nobody will go home and tell their family all about the guy
they who had a bit of paper saying he'd been treated unfairly. But they will
go home and tell their family about the guy they met who was really doing
something goood for the word despite how it had treated him in the past.

Decide which of those two guys you'd rather be.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Gizzard the lizzard's great SkoolsWatch flop
Next: Windows7 newsgroups