Given that I am expecting to be detained again at any time, I thought it prudent to see if I can arrange legal representation beforehand. So I am beginning to contact solicitors.
My previous solicitors have proved to be unreliable. The Mental Health sector seems too dominated by those with Labour sympathies. They also take the contents of the medical records as being the truth and will not consider that the details may be biased, or false. Once the FTAC gets mentioned then there seems to be an assumption of guilt.
Last night I emailed one well known firm enquiring if they would represent me. They have the required experience as they advertise the fact on their website which boasts about notable clients. I know that they have read the e-mail because I got a read receipt. I know that they have been to this blog as I can see their visit in the logs. However, they have chosen not to respond. I will give them the rest of the day before outing them.
Tomorrow, I will try another firm, but I expect the same response. This is the world I live in. A hostile government. Denied any means of earning a living. Denied political representation. Denied medical treatment. Denied legal representation. Why is this acceptable to all but a few?
I am at a loss as to what I can do. All I get from people is the platitude ‘stuff happens, live with it and move on’. The point is, I cannot move on; I am trapped in this nightmare without any means of escape. I have done nothing to warrant this. I am just a random drive-by victim.
All I ever wanted to do was to earn a living in peace.
UPDATE
The firm that I tried to contact was Bindmans.
To recap:
- I send an email at 21:30 on 3 February and received a delivery receipt.
- A read-receipt was received at 10:13 on 4 February from Linda McGivern [L.McGivern@bindmans.com]
- My server logs show a visit to this blog from someone at Bindmans at 10:24
- No response was received from them
- A reminder/request for explanation was sent at 15:37 which has generated no response.
On the home page of their website they use they boast “...ethical positioning and moral commitment of a standard civil liberties practice with the quality of the Magic Circle”. Maybe this should be subject to some qualification.
I am in desperate need of help; my complaint is sound and has ample supporting evidence. One can only speculate as to the reasons why a firm such as Bindmans would refuse to get involved. I expect this will happen with everyone else I try.
UPDATE II (06 Feb 10)
This morning I received a letter from Mr Paul Ridge of Bindmans Solicitors claiming that the reason why they cannot take on my case is because of capacity problems.
It doesn’t stop them from defending notorious murderers and rapists, self proclaimed seditionists, and the traitors, fraudsters and thieves in the Houses of Parliament.
However, an innocent victim of this government that has had his livelihood stolen, been refused help that he is legally entitled to and unlawfully imprisoned cannot get any help. Are they saying that it is fine to abduct someone and lock them in a mental hospital? Corruptly section them without any proper evidence? For doctors to subject someone to what is degrading treatment in anybody’s judgement and could be considered torture? To begin to forcibly drug someone after four months of doing nothing just so they can justify the continued imprisonment?
We have a country that treats fraudsters, thieves, rapists and murders better that those that are innocent and just want to work and produce a large net benefit to the country.
The "Move on" argument is a beauty isn't it? It's delivered by two types of people.
ReplyDeleteType 1 are those that are in the business of fucking people over and are themselves keen to move onto the next one.
Type 2 are the sheep who do not want to contemplate the fact that Type 1 people exist and have power.
One way of replying to this argument is to point out that there is a difference between a natural disaster and a malicious human act. Like the difference between a tsunamai and an act of genocide. A tsunamai you move on from, from genocide you don't.
If I'm expounding on this argument to a perpetrator, an enemy, I expound further so as to ridicule him. I suggest the possibly that my argument against him may in fact not be fair. Because it could be that he is in fact a mindless entity and hence no more culpable than a swarm of bees of a falling tree branch.
In that way I can suggest that he might be right. That maybe I should move on, but not before spraying him like I might a blowfly.
This sends these people absolutely ballistic. I've seen the blood drain from their faces and seen them shake.
OK, so Bindmans wrote back. Write them a letter thanking them along with a brief account of what happened with the employment agency, the cops and the shrinks. They already know about FTAC and politico-economic redundancies. Tell them you'll get back to them in a few weeks with another brief letter once you have studied your "medical" records. They will have time for you if you do some homework, study your records and prepare a concise rebuttal of those records.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter if they read this comment. They'll be glad you're getting good advice. ;)
They may well have capacity problems, the way the Police are going around criminalising anybody who overfills their bins/turns up at a demonstration. Rod is right. It is quite important that you appear sane.
ReplyDelete