

**Adrian Kenton**

Four Jammy Biscuits Saved My Life Today

(How to NOT kill yourself)

© Adrian Kenton 2012

Sounding Off Publishing

Adrian Kenton asserts his right as sole author. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be copied, recorded, used or stored in a retrieval system, electronically or otherwise, without the author's explicit written permission. This publication is protected in the UK in accord with The License, Copyright and Patents Act of 1988; and internationally in accord with the Berne Convention and Council Directive 93/98/EEC – Oct 1993.

**Warning: this publication deals with issues and language some people may find offensive.**

****

****

**Four Jammy Biscuits Saved My Life Today**

(How to NOT kill yourself)

****

****

For Dad

With indescribable thanks for your support and inspiration and for keeping me sane to:

Gilly

Gary

Nick & Annie

Lita

Jen

John & Janet

Sam & David

Pam

Gerry

Frank

Ian

and D

in honour of the life of Gary

and the life of Steve

side 1 – bare fact

(this volume)

first bite : opening the packet

2nd bite : nutritional guidelines

3rd bite : anal retention

4th bite : shafted

5th bite : in the dark

6th bite : swimming in denial

7th bite : two-edged sword

8th bite : jammy fix

9th bite : shitting ourselves

10th bite : social denial

11th bite : political denial

12th bite : institutional denial

side 2 – bare soul

(the other volume )

13th bite : can biscuits really do this?

14th bite : what would I know?

15th bite : jaffa cake

16th bite : no man's land

17th bite : grand delusion

18th bite : fucked...

19th bite : do unto mothers

20th bite : death us did part

21st bite : y jibberney motch ibbannay

22nd bite : ...it's a hit

23rd bite : jam tartarus

24th bite : there's violence and violins

25th bite : the permissive sociopathy

26th bite : blood is thicker

27th bite : love shit

28th bite : evol si dog

29th bite : post-mortem (the third man)

30th bite  : take the biscuit

last bite : the...

"The spirit of a man can put up with his malady, but, as for a stricken spirit who can bear it?"

side 1 – bare fact

Is there anything good about mental illness? We're told not. It's all negative and negative is bad.

The End

**opening** **the packet**

__

Stood there, naked in my bathroom, ready for the final time to step into the clear warm water with a razor blade in my hand, I asked myself, "is there nothing left, nothing at all, that I want?" ... No ... Nothing, was the answer.

Em... ehh... that's weird... actually, there _was_ something else... ehh... I could eat a Jammie-dodger biscuit!

This was just one of many suicidal episodes. The worst, though. The desire saturated every fibre of me. I have experienced six different 'types' of suicidal feelings over countless episodes, following a complete breakdown in 1997. I learned to resist or evade suicide over the years, since. Sometimes it was dependant on the flimsiest, most haphazard of interventions. I promised myself never to act on any driving compulsion until all my established coping mechanisms – numerous, varied and bizarre – had been exhausted. Except the moments when I felt possessed. I was a passenger then.

On this occasion, I had tried everything. This world was far too cruel a place and I couldn't hack it. My tortured, exhausted mind and body wanted one thing – to die. Nothing else. Nothing now. Nothing for the future. Only to be free of pain. Enough is enough. Nothing momentous about it. No hesitation. No resignation. No heightened emotional state. Just the knowledge I couldn't take another second of this existence. And it would only take a few more for it to drain peacefully away.

___

Not killing yourself, when that is all you want in life, is a skill. Not many people are likely to discover this, but they should know about it, just in case.

Life has some inbuilt gear that seeks to continue against all odds. Why? When we're old, we don't feel old mentally, and we moralise about it, but never seriously contemplate the option of dying unless we're severely pressured or suffering. We never credit the topic of suicide with any validity, even when suffering is involved. But suicide is much more than simply wanting to be dead. There is a big difference. It has numerous faces.

When we watch animals guarding their territory, fighting or fleeing, we anthropomorphise to place their behaviour within our own terms of reference. It's pretty hard not to equate it with familiar human emotions like fear, but are they the same? Is there a difference between fear and survival reactions? Amongst mammals, birds and even amongst some insects we see reactions to danger. Survival strategies. Rarely do we encounter creatures that have no survival instinct. If they were simply to make up the numbers in a food chain, why don't fish simply saunter into a dolphin's mouth or a gannet's beak? Why put them to all the trouble? For centuries we misunderstood lemmings, whales and elephants. A bee will sting as a last resort, but does it know it will rip its insides out? An army of ants will electrocute themselves deliberately on a live cable, allowing the rest of their colony to walk over their charred bodies to bypass a train line that would momentarily kill the few hundred that happen to be on the rails as each train passes. Not as often as you'd think, actually, since the fused corpses short a red light signal to the traffic control. But this kind of mass suicide is rare in nature. A rat will chew its own leg off to escape a trap we're told. Human explorers too, apparently. What is it that makes life kick in under the most extreme pressure and what does it take to contemplate death as a choice?

A stray dog approaches, happily mooching its way around driveways and dustbins, cocking its leg, unconcerned. It gets closer; you hold out your hand with a treat, coax it gently, but its tail curls between its legs, it skirts around and darts past in a panicky wide birth, or it stops short and backs away slightly – more cautious of danger in its periphery while sidetracked by the unsolicited attention – a distant car door shuts and it jerks to one side as if the impact was an inch away. Straight away, you know how that dog has been treated. The dog's natural reaction could actually land it in more danger than it perceived it was in. How many times we've seen a panicked animal accidentally killed. The dog doesn't have to stay that way. It could isolate itself from its environment; or with someone's care and attention, it could once again acclimatise and regain a level of confidence and trust.

We hate to think of human beings being in such a state. We're so advanced as a species. Yet, if you have ever heard a genuine primal scream, you'll know it is not something replicable that can be engineered through meditation. We are not so far removed from a whelping distressed animal. There is a state beyond physical and mental familiarity. A state beyond the conscious choice of life or death. A state outside the tolerance of a fuse wire. And we all have it as instinctively as any other animate creature. You have it.

Trauma and distress in humans rarely shows as overtly. That's one of the scary things about it, but most of the problem of why mental trauma is so scary and devastating is because the environment we've created around it is negative, intolerant and hostile.

The problem seldom rests with those who are suffering mental illness. 'They're weak or unduly negative or defective; leave them for the experts, to deal with.' This is the public perception that has been perpetuated from Dickensian times and the mental health sector has done little to alter it, or their standards of care. Instead of everyday common knowledge, it's an elitist environment that many "experts" have been able to exploit and sometimes abuse; indulging their egos at vulnerable peoples' expense.

But the reality is, people suffering extreme mental distress are usually more positive than you or even they can imagine, even when they don't appear to be. They're inspirational if we only take the time to find out why. They can show us how to get through when the filthiest shit hits the fan. The dog was never in real danger until it reacted to what it perceived. But how do we cope with the crap that comes from within? Of course we're all shit-scared of it, it _is_ scary, but it shouldn't be. It is our hostility towards it that perpetuates and compounds the fear, more than the experience itself. Instead of levelling all the conditions upon the behaviour of the person who is suffering – almost to scapegoat them – we need a broader understanding of the positive and negative influences. These influences can turn out to be the complete opposite to some of the precepts we hear in clichéd responses from professionals, family and public alike. Perpetuating those clichés implicates us.

We have to counter these erroneous precepts to preserve any level of sanity without resorting to some delusional denial. As we'll see later, people suffering mental illness don't have the monopoly on that. But even if you're fortunate enough to develop skills in managing invasive mental illness, there are factors beyond your control and one of them might be your mind.

Don't assume that's necessarily a bad thing. The mind is more awesome than we could ever imagine. There are incalculable positive anomalies that can mean the difference between letting go and hanging on. And if you ever get to that stage, surprisingly, there might not even be much effort involved. The influences and differences between the two options, depending on circumstances, can be equally valid and have surprising and positive outcomes. You'd be amazed at your propensity for survival under the most intense pressure, even the overwhelming desire to end it all. We have not been educated about these options and influences; not told what these differences can be. Maybe because they don't always make sense. But we're missing out on an awful lot of pain relief. The desperate excruciating pain of a mother to give birth can last days and is often mentioned as the worst kind of pain. It isn't. There is an all-consuming pain that can make you deranged over years and years. It can paralyse and disable and disfigure you for good, if it remains unchecked. We need to understand what causes this pain, how it works and what makes it worse. Most importantly, how we might ease it. Whether that pain is from something real or imagined, it will not go away until we treat it as real. So, how do we get real?

Slavoj Zizek in his book 'Welcome to the desert of the real'[1] states "...the true choice apropos of historical traumas is not the one between remembering or forgetting them: traumas we are not ready or able to remember haunt us all the more forcefully. We should therefore accept the paradox that, in order to really forget an event, we must first summon up the strength to remember it properly. In order to account for this paradox, we should bear in mind that the opposite of _existence_ is not non-existence, but _insistence_ : that which does not exist continues to insist, striving for existence..." So rather than turn away, turning away from ourselves, it means opening ourselves up to closer scrutiny of our _pain_ and possibly a redefining, repositioning, or justification for it. This is not a new idea; but the concept that eating a few biscuits can alleviate suicidal compulsion must be. As soon as I discovered it, after my initial shock, I thought – 'people need to know about this.''

The only way to illustrate it, is if I attempt to take you through my painful journey. By trying to replicate all the contributing factors and symptoms, the anatomy of depression if you like, means you might get not only a sense, but a feeling of depression. In effect it could make for a depressing read, but it's about successfully getting through and that's the point. Don't worry, there will be respite. But if you're squeamish, look away now.

So, how do you describe the density of compulsion to end your life? The sheer weight of severe depression? The consuming agony? Let's cut the crap right away. What it isn't is this:

It isn't conditional on the personality, circumstances or level of tenacity and determination of an individual. It isn't because of a giving in or a giving up. It isn't down to a lack of backbone. It isn't due to a self-serving attention-seeking deficiency. It isn't being fed up, or being sick of a situation you feel powerless to get out of, or settling for something that's unfulfilling. It isn't being stuck in a valueless existence. Depression is very different to a prolonged miserable feeling. Many people can cope with that perfectly well. It can arise from those feelings, depending how desperate they become, but it can also be fairly unrelated to that, in some ways. It isn't just mental but overwhelmingly physical.

What it is is another world; another existence you never knew was there. It is part of you. A surreal part of your subconscious existence but nonetheless real, valid. As much as you'd like to deny it, it is as much a part of you as your need to shit. It is a language we find foreign, but one we all know. It is _why_ we get toilet humour and Radiohead, even if we turn up our noses at them. It's there in your gut. It's primal and can make you do things you'd never dream of. It can turn you into a monster or a freak, fill you with inhuman rage and panic, or render you defenceless, imprisoned as a battery hen. It can make your body feel like a drowned corpse bloated with filth, oozing filth from your pores, while at the same time absorbing all the filth, all the injustice, all the pain that is being dished out around the world; from the jolted senses of a child witnessing a violent act between its parents, to a loving parent or potential parent being deprived of their child; from the petrochemical contamination of every biochemical molecule, from all the crap that gets chucked into the sea, to a dead fish being thrown back because it exceeds the EU quota. You feel it all. All in one go. A neglected garden... a rotting window frame... a bus-full of aspiring city workers and students, sat on separate seats, not talking to each other, passing the waving brolly of a pensioner pushing their arthritic limbs to the max, but not max enough to catch it. A flickering florescent in a factory that's operated by a skeleton crew, covered in dust. A row of starlings shitting from a telephone cable. A ruche in the carpet, sticking out from the gripper-rod, stabs you in the heart. People laughing and dancing, holding and hugging, performing and receiving awards. And not receiving awards. A drunk staggers from a pub, lighting up. A bloke turns over the engine of his well preserved two-tone Corsair, first time. It punches a hole in your chest the size of a wrecking ball. A damp cracked slab with a weed poking out.

How do these things exhibit so much pain? How can you describe the pain of everything that exists, feeling all that in one body, at one time? Over-sensitive? Over-concerned? Unreasonably pre-occupied? You have no justifiable reason to feel all this. You try everything not to feel it, because you reason you must have a choice in it. Think again. Just try and think. Or try not to think. It's impossible. Argue what you like. It doesn't make it less dense, less consuming, less real. Less.

And when you've already faced most of the contributing factors in your life and all your imagined demons and there's no remaining justification for all this pain, you're convinced it's organic; it lurks in some dark recess of your bowels ready to consume you at will. Whose will? Not yours; it's not always a conscious thing or a consequence of over-deliberation. It emerges sometimes without provocation and erodes or gobbles up your will until it possesses you and inflicts its own. And there's nothing you can do. Fight as you might, you're a hostage. It may eventually go away and return, unexpectedly, to paralyse and cattle-prod you again until you're exhausted, spent, consumed. It comes and goes as it pleases. But it is so intrinsic, by then, you can't treat it like an enemy any more. I mean, it's got to be your own will, really... hasn't it?

That's what most people think. That's why they blame the people who suffer this. That's why it's inconceivable, to think you can do to yourself things that are worse than anything you could imagine in a horror or war movie.

Those who have suffered this know it, even if they can't describe it. They rarely have to explain to other sufferers. But to those who haven't experienced it, it is foreign to their rational sensibilities. Explain until you're blue in the face, they'll never get it. They can't possibly understand and that's a safeguard, in a way. But that lack of understanding on the part of family, carers, professional services and the general public impacts negatively on people who are vulnerable and suffering. That's no good for anyone.

So, this book is for all people, everyday people and professionals working in mental health and other services. It is for those who are in the dark and for anyone who is afraid of it. Because, it's the fear that perpetuates it and renders you paralysed when it hits. Some feel that it's not good to analyse everything, but it doesn't stop them suffering. If you have a choice and can get by in life, via distraction or denial (one of my best friends makes an excellent case for that), then good luck.

This book is _mostly_ for those who don't have a choice. All you know is that you don't know you'll never end up that way. And there are people who can take your choices from you. I didn't have a choice. There was a single thing I had to do... a single thing I wanted. My life, reduced to a single desire.

___

Jammy biscuit. Not quite the hearty breakfast of the condemned man but it was something. Why go while I still wanted something else? That didn't make sense. It would only delay proceedings by a couple of minutes.

So I did that.

What's good about that – a person deciding between taking his life and eating a biscuit? Think about it...

End life / Eat biscuit

So... what do you think?

What's good about it? Don't worry if you didn't get it, this time around, but it's only the _central_ point to this whole book. If you just read over it, give this question some thought before you continue. And if you're still not getting anything, don't worry. It is a difficult thing for anyone to get their head around. All I can ask, for now, is that you thought seriously about it.

But this was _my_ _life_.

The implications are profound in both negative and positive ways.

Ok. So, I thought, 'I'll go with the biscuit, then I'll get it over with.' I sat there thinking I'd at least enjoy them. It was like eating cardboard. Even _they'd_ let me down.

Three biscuits later I felt no different. Didn't expect to. Was in no doubt I was going to kill myself. Didn't feel the slightest compulsion to carry on eating, but I might as well force myself to finish the packet and go with a stuffed belly.

So, I chomped on the next one...

+/-

**nutritional** **guidelines**

_"My death waits like a beggar blind who sees the world with an unlit mind... throw in a dime for the passing time."_ – Jacques Brel[2]

Before I introduce myself, I should explain what this book is and why you'd benefit from taking the time to personally put yourself through it. I hate prefaces, hence the heading; never read them if I can avoid it, so, for those who want a brief idea of what you're in for, here's a stab at the crux.

This book will be a load of crap. That's precisely what it should be, because that is what it's about. Crap. Only, it's like a gigantic Titanic turd that you can't get rid of. Excruciating, yes, and it'll take ages to come out, but imagine your relief, when it finally gets broken up and slips its mooring. So, this book should be one of the hardest reads you've ever had to endure. It's not the relief of finishing the book I am referring to though. Your relief will be more personal to you than that.

If you object to the tone, already, this book is especially for you. If you don't have to take it in tiny bits, only slightly more digestible than Finnegan's Wake, then I've probably not done it justice. It should make you more uncomfortable than you've ever been. Not for effect, not to wrench at your heartstrings, nor purely to enrage your sensibilities, which it should do... because, I will attempt to stick purely to the facts of my experience.. but to alarm you regarding the way your security and wellbeing and everything you base that on is being systematically undermined. But bear in mind, it's only a book. You're only _reading_ about one person's limited experience and hopefully you'll never have to go through something similar, or this book again. It will help you put things in perspective when the going gets tough. But you will experience similar emotions to mine at some point in your life, or have opinions on these things, or you will know of someone who has, a relative or friend, so maybe you'll relate to some of this. If nothing else, it should help you assess your self-esteem. Be under no illusion though. I will be taking you to places people try to avoid at all costs. Places people didn't know exist and concepts that are the very toughest to get our heads around.

So... are you sitting uncomfortably? Then I'll begin.

The main reason I want to start a revolution in mental health... why it is needed?

In 2003 I asked members of a depression mutual support group – some of them long-term sufferers and very perceptive people – ' _Have you ever considered_ that there might be anything good about depression, anxiety, trauma and distress?' The looks I got ranged from 'are you being real?' to betrayal, to 'oh, god... don't make us go there,' to apoplexy. The most significant thing about their reactions was that this idea had never occurred to them. They had never been encouraged to explore this question by any professional in mental health. What about you? Have you ever asked yourself this? So, what do you think? What about the _experience_ , the horrendous process itself? Is it all just negative? And is everything 'negative' necessarily wrong or bad for us? If that is what we've assumed, what's the impact of that on our society? What are the consequences for the mental-health system and our options for coping with overwhelming distress?

For one thing... you didn't know that four Jammie-dodger biscuits could make the difference between life and death, did you? That four biscuits could actually save _your_ life.

This is an angry book, because there are things we should be far angrier about. Let's talk about anger and our problem with it. Some anger is good. It helps us do things that should already have been done. Some anger tells us something good about our sensibilities. We're already angry, as a nation, and we are going to get angrier because things are getting harder. It's not for nothing that a lyricist can get away with "hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way."[3] We tend not to get angry because we see it as less reasonable. We see images of poor people in poor countries that have nothing, getting angry but being unable to do anything about it, because the people they are angry against have guns. We get compared with these countries and it makes us feel like we're well off, even when things get tough and take us away from our families, or it takes our health off us, and yes some people struggle to get food. But we are in a country that has everything, not nothing. We are in a country that takes as much as it can off us, even though it has everything and a lot of people who have as much as they need or want. Those who have a lot taken off them tend to be the ones that have less. Some do not have much in the first place. Some are ok until their work and dignity are taken from them, or are hit with an injustice, or unnecessary bereavement and are ignored by those who have a lot and who cause it. We are right to be angry.

The main reason we do not get angry enough? We do not vent our anger because the people we are angry against have pens. And the people with pens are supposed to represent us, or are charged with our care, or some sort of service-provision, earning money from us to provide it. And because pens are mightier than swords, or guns, these pen wielders still deprive, abuse and kill people. It is a trend that has significantly increased the proliferation of mental illness in the form of stress and depression, to the tune of over a quarter of the population of the UK. It is, in itself, a mental illness; a 'throwaway' disease, but not the one that a quarter of the UK populace suffer as victims; it is far more widespread than that. They are victims to it, even though the resulting depression and stress is probably a sign of _healthy_ mentality. Someone you know has fallen victim to it. So, come on... it's time we got angry about this, because you could be next.

You will find two parts to this book. Volume one – 'bare fact' is my personal philosophies and my observations from meeting with and sometimes working alongside fellow sufferers, various mental health / voluntary groups and official support agencies. Volume two – 'bare soul' is my brutally frank journey through prolonged abuse, breakdown, depression, 'madness' and suicidal episodes. The idea is for you to compare the two extremes so you can decide for yourself the basis on which we should judge things and why the system, as it stands, needs to change.

Both 'sections' are likely to make me as many enemies as friends. Some who have known me as an upright, principled or moral person are likely to take a step back, aghast, and will probably just keep going. Even close friends who know many aspects of my personality, since I changed to who I am now, may get a shock or two. I take comfort from the fact that most people are perceptive enough to recognize what's genuinely there, underneath what we do to ourselves, or put ourselves through. If it helps, consider this book bordering schizophrenic, or having a split personality (not the same thing). It is effectively a bi-polar book. So, if you don't like one half, try the other, who knows, you might prefer it.

You will hear me use the term 'abuse' quite a lot. This isn't merely a tendency to express myself forcefully. I use the term to refer to commonly accepted forms of abuse – physical, sexual, psychological and emotional. But I also use it to call things what they should be called, when a more capable and healthy person, or a person in a position of authority, imposes their views on someone in a vulnerable position, affecting that person detrimentally. This applies individually and collectively. Sometimes it will refer to deliberate acts, sometimes to acts that effectively abuse, even if they're not intended to. Detachment is necessary for professional objectivity, to a degree, but there is a callous disregard in services, at all levels, that stretches far beyond that. I know how and why this happens. So, sometimes I'll address you in the second person. You only have to worry about this, if the cap fits.

In the early part of this millennium there has been a terrible realisation regarding the mental health of a nation. A realisation that something is terribly terribly wrong. With more media coverage of issues affecting, or direct experiences surrounding, mental health and reports of crime connected to people suffering mental illness, there is growing fear. Some of it is valid but most of it is needless and prejudicial. What's really frightening are the attitudes and practices of some authorities and agencies entrusted with mental health care.

Let me make this clear; most practitioners and clinicians I have met are upstanding, dedicated and want the best for patients. They are nothing short of wonderful and what a blessing that we have them. This is not the issue. What is a massive issue, is the way we approach mental health in general and some of the practices and attitudes encountered by many people seeking help when under mental distress. Quite often, this is the first line where blame and prejudice is evident. And it rarely moves on. This excuses any resulting misinformation and erroneous thinking and practices surrounding a patient. Most of the problems, though, arise from constraints imposed through the bureaucratic systems overseeing these services.

The 'mental illness' I refer to in this book will be trauma or stress related, depressive, compulsive illnesses or 'madness' – a term (we were told as a research group by the head of psychiatric services) "we must use, to be treated seriously by mental health authorities." There's almost an arrogance about it, because _they_ can't be mad, can they? My perspective is mostly experiential and in laymen terms. I hope, terms that will be clear enough for anyone to understand. But mental health is never as clear as the diagnoses medical authorities like to work within. There are common symptoms and responses to many experiences, yes. And on an academic scale, patients are never going to know as much as the ones who are charged with treating them, (unless they've made a point of studying their illness). But there are things the most gifted academics will never learn about depression and trauma, that sufferers know intimately. However, there are two basics precepts that we would want sufficient weight to be given to, from the outset; basic considerations affecting our treatment that, if neglected, could render even well intended help potentially abusive.

One is your individuality - the individual and unique history and factors contributing to your mentality, even if there are many things you hold in common with others. And that's the second point: we should be able to take comfort from the fact that there is nothing new under the sun; whatever you may encounter, someone will have been through it before you. Should be easier then, eh?

This is why it is so tragic that health authorities often end up putting people through a minefield as blind as a submarine without rudder and sonar. Actually, our sonar may be working fine, but we're told that it's not reliable and we have to get it fixed. So, we end up working blind instead of working out what that sonar is actually identifying. But that kind of help often requires long-term commitment and even when someone receives it, they can still end up in the dark at the end of it. Why? Because it's all guess-work by people who have not experienced it and all the established theories they work from are, well... theories. Obviously, over the years, some theories have become helpful, in the search for what may resolve some extreme experiences, but it is still a total lottery whether or not you will happen upon the thing that works for you. Even with long-term one-to-one psychotherapy there is rarely sufficient time to unearth all concerns that need attention, let alone address them. That is, unless you are able to pay for private sessions after the eighteen months maximum statutory allowance. I have known people in various stages of severe and prolonged illness who have come to mistrust their own sonar, _because of_ the interventions and influence of experts. They are then abandoned to cope with it alone. Yet, I have known people under heavy medication and suffering side-effects, or in the middle of traumatic and even psychotic episodes, whose reasoning has been fairly in tact.

What is unreasonable is that they are subject to the hasty assumptions of impatient and sometimes arrogant professionals, who prefer to pigeon-hole patients within convenient models that are more expedient and, dare I say, profitable to deal with. These ill-informed decisions are devastating in the short term and sadly, all too often irrevocably destructive in the long-term.

We do not empower by taking away or reducing a person's control. There are brief times when relinquishing control can be helpful and necessary for someone, but this should be consensual, not coercive (which seems to be assumed as the custodial right of mental health and social services). Despite all the rhetoric and papers regarding human and patient rights, laws and good practice; as soon as you reveal you are struggling with something mentally and need help; the likelihood is you will immediately lose some control, or rights. Some aspects of the mental health act effectively remove all your rights. But this also happens, practically and insidiously, in the most subtle and seemingly insignificant ways. It is no exaggeration to say that in some instances, your life, your future life from that point, can actually be in their hands. No wonder people are afraid of mental illness in this country. We are right to be so afraid. But it isn't the illness we should be afraid of.

It is not enough simply to say we are an advanced country, when training for people in professions caring for the most vulnerable does not prioritise general awareness of sensitive issues affecting their mentality. You probably don't believe this is the case. They'd get that right first, wouldn't they? After all this time and progress in health practices? This is not the priority in your care, though.

We know no one is immune from experiencing some form of mental 'illness' or distress. It can visit us out of the blue, triggered by something as simple as an accident, a bereavement, or illness. Everybody has some delusion and something wrong with them. It doesn't mean they are delusiuonal or that there's something necessarily wrong with them. They might be working perfectly. It is a good thing that we all have issues; it is very revealing, especially when we're able to put things into perspective with appropriate gravity and levity.

__

_Getting real_ is key. It tells us things about ourselves that are actually very useful to us. That is what mental illness actually _is_. It is often a step in the direction of getting real. Even if that step is a surreal experience or brings you to a complete halt. So, in a way, I make the case for it being regarded as _healthy_ mentality – not illness in the detrimental sense of being dysfunction, which most mental illness is presumed to be. Nothing new about that, but in fact we give very little time or credence to our experiences and what they actually give us. I hope that this book, if nothing else, helps us reassess that.

I, fortunately, had no choice but to find out what was good about my horrendous experiences. I had to let go of everything, after most of it had been stripped from me. So, I had to find out what my life actually amounted to, what it was worth with nothing to show for it and nothing to cling to.

But I stress, _this book is not a self-help book_. You won't find it full of wonderful suggestions. But I have had to throw in more than the cursory 'dime,' for the passing time and not many people get the chance to do that. We all need reasons, to truly live. What if all those reasons elude you, or escape you, or are blown to smithereens? How do you live, then? What for? Some people exist without them, amazingly. There are two kinds of living death I know of, but there is a vast difference between that and wanting to take your life. And some people do that.

For the majority of people who have to access the mental health system in the United Kingdom, or for those who endure in isolation, or without help – basically anyone suffering mental trauma or difficulties – the experience can be likened to Jaque Brel's awaiting demise, quoted at the outset. A beggar blind is effectively what we become. That's why people are so afraid of 'catching' a mental illness. Despite all the research and technological advancements and study in every theory of analysis and development of drugs, (which have their uses and limitations), twenty-first century treatments for mental health and our social perceptions of it, in practice and theory, amount to little more than the treatment meted out to beggars, or those who suffered mental disorders in Dickensian times. If you become mentally 'ill,' (a term you would rightly resent) the way you will currently be treated is as much a lottery as it was when mental health was in its primitive guinea-pig era. It will subject your precious personal life to limited assessments, limited resources, limited attention and an imbalanced power differential that prioritises the welfare of the total strangers charged with caring for you. Don't be too alarmed though, plenty of people have got through and there are some wonderful people to meet and – if you're lucky – invaluable things to gain from it.

So, everything you read here is from experience not mere conjecture, even if, to those who are learned in the field of mental health, they are self-evident and well documented behaviours and thought processes. I maintain this credits everyday people with strength that we generally are unaware is there for us, in our personal journeys. It is something we must accept and respect of each individual. This needs to be the core basis of mental-health treatment. Consequently, in order to champion the views of 'ordinary' people and for those individual views to be treated seriously, with equal credence and respect to what others conclude, I made a conscious determination not to seek any formal accreditation for my views, or to read about, or study such matters. Thus, my perspectives are original in the sense that they are completely pragmatic and not derived from any previous knowledge or study.

My epiphanies may not be entirely new. I think there is very little of anything that can be called new, or truly radical, any more. The Jammie-dodgers experience has to be a first, though, doesn't it? Wow. Something entirely unique happened to me that didn't happen to anyone else, throughout history. That's amazing, isn't it? New or not, my discovery of these insights are profound, to me, and the principles behind them fundamental to our common experiences and endurance of them. Timing and content may only be radical in the context of my mental journey, but this is the point. Whether they fly in the face of some mental health treatments and practices, or not, consider these experiences and perspectives, if for no other reason than they could widen your choices. I hope you will find that we hold many of them in common, if not philosophically, at least from a human and emotional standpoint.

I have tried to write these things according to their own terms and in a way that I feel adequately and honestly portrays them. As a creative writer, I was inspired by reading Edna O'Brien whose consummate expressions heavily influenced my artistic style, but you'll find very little of that in this book. I attempt to give my illness its full expression and voice. It does have its own language. That language is generally inconceivable to those who have not experienced severe breakdown, or overwhelming persistent and destructive depression. The evidence for this is so widespread. That is one reason why experience like this is invaluable, why we are so valuable to each other, no matter how diverse our experiences and views. Alas, I know, for most people who have inner knowledge on this subject, revisiting it can be all too traumatic. After some experiences you are never the same and thank goodness. Poetry is an awesome way of conveying some of these things, albeit inconclusively, or partially. So, I use this tool, in places, for you to draw your own interpretations.

At times you should spot some uncommon insight, but I am equally happy to speak as a total ignoramus on some matters, since that is mainly how people on the receiving end of mental health care are treated anyway. I stand for those who, despite colossal effort, miss the mark. I am skilled at missing the mark. Only the occasional bull's-eye, for me. I can usually work out where my throw went skew-whiff, where my follow through petered. My eye is definitely acutely _in_ , but I can never seem to master the bodily function sufficiently, to become a reigning champion. My throw, my swing, just wouldn't impress the pros. It is naturally unorthodox. Well, who wants to be an expert in everything? That's not what this book is promoting. I will not even attempt to be right in everything; I am sure more questions will be raised, than answered. I may even succumb to the occasional bull-shit, but there will always be some solid positive reason for any criticism I make. It will usually be driven by my experiencing, or witnessing, some form of abuse or ignorance or injustice.

Within these pages, if nothing else, is an indication of the consequences upon a male psyche, of being treated as described, whether you agree with it or not. It isn't a single concept, a model for every male, or even for me. My experience could easily have turned out a different way. But there will be prevalent factors that affect the majority of people.

When I first started to write this, it was enough just to get the experience and the language out, just for people to be able see what goes on inside, to get to know the beast that lies within all of us. We all have one. And we need to know it, or it will either abuse us, or worse, it may cause us to abuse others (not the predominant outcome many assume). _Knowing_ how it works and why, what it does to us, returns some of that power to us. It gives us choices, especially when we feel we don't have any.

So, I have not yet studied to be a clinical psychologist or psycho-therapist; and yes, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. The only thing stopping me qualifying as such is time, effort and me. Academic knowledge, eminence and experience in a profession never stopped serious abuses and damage. After all, if we all have to become accomplished mental-health experts to face life, then humankind are not very good adverts for it. We are very good adverts for choosing glaringly irresponsible wilful ignorance, in the face of compelling evidence. But even then, most of us still get through – even those who fall victim to the ignorance of others.

_That_ is what I have to champion; that which enables us to carry on despite overwhelming circumstances. That _is_ heroic. And it is in every one of us. So, now, I can't just blurt it all out and leave you to interpret it any way you choose. There are some points that are so subtle, fundamental, or profound; I must try to aim skilfully at them, at least, to do them and you justice. I am sure some readers will interpret things differently than what I intend, but hey... nobody's omniscient.

When people that work in the profession have heard the things I say, they have compared my views to the opinions of say R.D.Laing or Loren Mosher. Their work is well documented and I do not seek to emulate them, neither have I read them extensively, and I'm sure I must differ at some point, but I was delighted to have my perspectives compared with them. In fact, I was recently invited in on the steering group for National Soteria UK (founded by Mosher), on the basis of my views; but it generated some irritation on the part of one or two, (academics, a clinical psychologist and support workers), that I wanted to maintain my independence from any identification with a named organisation. This is not an arrogant stand in any assumed judgment or scepticism of that movement, or them, because I applaud it and respect them. I do think they are missing a point or two in the approach they are taking, but my stand is a principled one, and it may exclude me from some of the benefits, or inclusion, within such a group. It is an essential one that exposes the core of what lies behind the need for respect of personal identity, views and choices in mental health. This objective matches that of the general Soteria philosophy. More on this 'irritation' later and what my concerns are about current structured mental-health representative organisations. I have worked with some of them, but my observations are perceptive, valid and usually confirmed by experienced workers in those organisations.

The Soteria philosophy isn't about answers to everything and understanding, necessarily, as much as 'being with' a person through their ordeal. Letting them be and being there for them, with them. There have been numerous Soteria houses in various countries, where people have at least been made to feel part of the furniture, rather than isolated. This is a significant step in the right direction, but I think people want and need more and we shouldn't regard the necessaries as purely the auspices of medical practitioners. People don't know what they need when they're suffering that much. That lays the obligation and concern at our door, for a time, but how are we supposed to know? We're not all scientists and academics and as long as that is the premise for support or treatment, we're scuppered.

My point is this: we do not prepare ourselves for mental distress, illuminate the process before we encounter it, or make the passage through it more bearable – let alone get anything out of it. It is one of the biggest health concerns in this country, yet we approach it, and leave people to suffer it, as beggars blind. And the government's attitude towards it is to throw it a cursory dime. This is slowly undermining the underlying strength of an entire nation. And since other nations are determined to take a leaf out of our socio-economic book, the ramifications are potentially cataclysmic. We are already way too far down that road and may eventually be left with little option other than to fight our own corner, in isolation.

I had to do this.

This is such an indictment of our society and humanity, in this twenty-first century. This book should be good for helping us cope with that prospect, at least.

I hope this book and my concerns, emotions and experience of the darkest, most pitiable moments of the human condition, will make someone else's journey easier. I hope it will aid you to assess some of your own perceptions. I also hope it will focus like-minded people and those in positions of power and responsibility, to reassess social attitudes and approaches to mental-health. I hope it will add weight to all existing movements towards a more encompassing, sympathetic and empowering mental health system. I hope it will comfort some in distress, save some lives and make some worth living. Surely, we cannot continue treating each other like blind beggars?

___

What led me to breakdown and left me with ongoing Manic Depression and Post-Traumatic Stress? I had done nine relatively successful years of voluntary work as a motivating, optimistic supporter and tutor. I was held in high esteem, had a circle of friends spanning the globe, then in 1991 had the opportunity to take my work abroad. One decision changed all that. Not a regretful decision at the time, just a preferred alternative. Eight years on and there I stood at the end of my long and arduous road – my warm bath and razor blade. Every human and demon, past, present and potential, it seemed, had wrought its revenge, leaving me with nothing, not even me.

And I still have nothing. Actually, I did realise that we all have indescribable wealth you can't buy, lying just beneath the surface. But it's not free. It is the surface we dare not scratch. I didn't scratch it. It was stripped away from me, layer by layer, sinew by sinew, and when everybody else had finished, like a self-harmer I kept on going until I reached the marrow. Yet here I stand, now – no sparkling, spiritual revelation; no external panacea from self-help books or support agencies; no medically or chemically or complementary therapy-ly induced auras or epiphanies (though I have had a few epiphanies) – happier than I have ever been in my entire life.

All of this down to four little biscuits.

So, how do four biscuits save your life? Being stranded on a hostile mountainside or in a flood and just needing that little extra energy until you're rescued, or you can struggle to safety, ok; but to save you from the compulsion to take your life? ... No, it shocked me too. But isn't this positive news? Well, just try suggesting to a friend or relative who is talking someone out of suicide, that offering them a few biscuits might solve it – see what reaction you get. I'm not advocating that paramedics carry biscuits on standby, but this seemingly comical and dismissive suggestion is frightening to most people.

The magnitude of its potential is seriously epic.

We have various beliefs about what lies the other side of death. I prefer the version that we just cease to exist and then physically decay. So death, for me, as for Jaques Brel, "waits like a beggar blind who sees the world through an unlit mind." What relief. If you're brave enough to contemplate the subject of Suicide, though, what's in it for you?

Those lyrics of Jaques Brel are a leveller, whichever way you read them. Whether he's describing the nature of death or the eventuality we all face. All of our individual achievements, our values and status, will be reduced to what? The only thing we know is that we don't know. But we can make the crucial passing time more palatable. Look at it another way... if that is our eventuality – granted, not everyone thinks that it is, but those who believe in an afterlife tend to think our values now will impact on the quality of any future existence – does that mean what we do while we're here eventually amounts to the value we'd place on a blind beggar? That might depend on what value _we_ place on the life of a blind beggar, or the intrinsic value of a blind beggar. It's not just a philosophical question. You don't have to be a Hindu or Buddhist to appreciate the argument. It's a question you might have asked yourself when you've passed a beggar in the street. And "there by the grace of ... go I." It's a question you think you may never need to ask, but just for a moment, think of all the factors that could leave you in a situation like that. How would you want people to treat you and what environment would you hope existed for you then? Well, you'd never let yourself end up there would you? Course not.

But we seem to approach mental health without any source of enlightenment. That is why we need to examine our pre-conceptions and the stigmas and prejudices surrounding it. We don't invest anything near the amount of money or attention it deserves. If you were resisting death – even with the wonderful crisis intervention and home treatment initiatives that have come into existence recently – the help you'd be offered currently amounts to much less than a cursory dime for the passing time. In such pressured and critical times and under the current mental health system, you need to ask the question - 'how would I be treated and would I be valued as an individual? Would I be listened to? Would I be taken seriously or would I be treated like an imbecile?' Well, get ten thousand people, who have had to receive help for mental distress, in a football stadium and ask them if their wishes were respected, then see what the three-way split is.

If you'd have predicted – after I'd finished that third Jammie-Dodger – that it would take ten years for small changes to take place and even then I still would not be completely right, _but I would understand my illness and feel better_ , I would not have believed you. If you'd have said I would also find happiness and contentment and self-esteem and confidence and love my life and feel powerful... I'd have thought it was actually _you_ that was in cloud-cuckoo-land.

___

An awful lot led up to that fourth biscuit. I had no idea what would be in store for me, eating it. I still don't know quite what happened.

I certainly did not know that _that_ biscuit... that humble, cheap, mass-produced piece of synthetically sugary pulp... would end up being the very reason I would choose to stick around, despite the wreck, shit and pain I would still have to endure.

But, your predictions would have proved right. I have found all those things, despite coping with extremely destructive emotions and ongoing psychosomatic reactions. And when I decided to carry on, I certainly was not going to live just to exist, or just because it's my right, though that was an important realisation. I was going to really live. Find my life. Make life worth something and worth living. _My_ life.

Because, life isn't everything.

**\+ / -**

**anal** **retention**

** **

_"This book will be a load of crap – it's supposed to be. That's what it's about, crap. What else would you expect from the scum of the earth, a total shit?"_

Shit is a human right... tissue is an option. No, this isn't a flimsy shock-tactic. It is a metaphor for why we are so impaired when it comes to thinking about mental health issues. We make such a big deal just about the language. And yet every single person who has suffered severe depression will instantly identify with this statement. If there is one common denominator to depression, it would be the feeling that we are just worthless, we are just pieces of shit.

Most of this book was written during the time when I viewed myself as the above, so it should read like crap and make you feel crap. This is not to be self-indulgent but for you to see what a horror it is; what a struggle it is to climb out of. I hope we'll feel incensed, and use that to motivate and inspire us to have confidence in our spirit, our human spirit that can sustain our frail bodies through the most debilitating and demoralising experience. Not just to survive, which is a feat in itself, but to find the astonishing value of our self, our individuality, our life, especially when it feels, or is made to feel, valueless; especially when we feel like shit?

Our crap cannot be ignored. My point is this: every body does it, the Queen, Madonna, even Sir Cliff Richard. Sometimes we have tissue to hand, sometimes not. Why have we not got used to it? Some communities don't use tissue but they still bury it, so it's a fitting metaphor. We think nothing of spending billions, covering, flushing, disinfecting and processing it. Anyone who has had to care for someone with constipation, incontinence, flatulence, diarrhoea or food poisoning has usually had to get used to its smell and varying consistency. Everyone should have to care for someone in that way at some point in their life. No parent could be squeamish about it. In hospital they will analyse it to see how healthy you are, especially if you're suffering with any of the above. So why do we get so precious about it? The old adage – 'shit happens.' We accept that. Someone will usually be in its way.

So, we like things to be wrapped in pleasant packaging; we don't like the feeling that we're being patronised by someone who sees a need to undermine our sense of propriety or sensibilities, whether it is principles we've fought hard to establish in our lives, or academic evaluation. We value language and accuracy and often see extreme or crude use of it as idiosyncratic, a lack of control, or imbalance. We see good diction, well constructed argumentation and persuasion as of greater value somehow; as a reflection of a person's skill or depth of commitment. Is that right? If someone is careless in their use of language, or finds it a strain to conform, or even to assimilate their feelings or perspective, does that make their view less valid? Why? Is only effective and clear communication acceptable? Is that realistic, or is it just our downright laziness? Or is it to do with social standards and the way we evaluate a person's worth, or the respect we afford them? If we can accept that it takes the Bob Geldoffs of this world to bring about changes, it's pretty obvious it's not his money that speaks for him, as privileged as he now is. We will stick with this metaphor of shit during this section of the book, since it is a statement of intent. I am experimenting with your faculty for lateral thinking.

But surely I don't want to alienate my reader? Surely I could have found a more palatable way to introduce you to the astounding life-saving attributes of the humble Jammie-Dodger? I am not and never will be politically correct. I have no problem respecting the various ways people express themselves, except when it is manifestly and deliberately intimidating. I cannot ever respect oppression. It is the language of the worst kind of unnecessary and imposing weakness. Neither do I respect work that is purely sensationalistic. I mean, I'm a man who, until recently, believed that any use of foul language was wrong. Big deal, you say. I mean I was intolerant and judgmental about it. Self-righteous, really. Now, I see it as valid as any other form of human expression and part of our internal dialogue, without which we could not understand some of the basest aspects of human experience. Bully for you, you might say.

But it's a serious point, because non-tolerance of foul language is often an integral part of what constitutes 'good practice' and the politically correct policies of service providers' clinical governance. They can use it at home, in their fag break, with their children or anywhere else they choose, apart from the cauterised, sanitised environment of mental health care. Academia suggests emotive language is imbalance, as I stated. In health they may even take the same language they speak regularly from a service-user as indication of that. If this prohibition closes down communication form someone justifiably suffering, what of it?

So, the use of it within this book is crucial to exposing the true language of reality, of our real emotions and of my sense and experience of extreme situations. Emotion is not invalid. Denial of it, even in academic terms, is imbalance. It is something we all accept, even if we're watching some abuse or manipulation of it in something like _Pulp Fiction_. Steven Birkoff's wonderful mutation of the Shakespearean tongue woos and amuses theatre lovers and communicates with a politically aware youth today, in a way the original bard doesn't. I'm not for laziness and unimaginative use of 'profanity' in everyday speech, though it is more succinct and therapeutic at times. 'Profanity' is a necessary ingredient to get us as near as old Bill's incisive observances of human behaviour beneath the flesh. Unfortunately for us, "the quality of mercy..." _is_ strained and seems to be an alien concept to today's society. A pound of flesh isn't worth a drop in profit, today. Yet our sensibilities and values towards use of language in social care and mental health are truly Shakespearean. The consequences often barbaric. Even complaints about the most inhumane atrocities have to be drafted in well considered, measured language, when, to call someone a Twat is far closer to the truth and more honest. "Oooh you can't say that, it's denigrating women's anatomy." Dick. Well, profanity has its place and isn't good for everything, but even if you think I do talk a load of ignorant crap I know I'm not in a minority with these views. And if I do sound a little patronising at times, then I hope you'll look for the genuine indignation behind it. If you really want to understand where despair and trauma can take a person then surely accepting and understanding the language may entail some small ordeal. I would not be doing the subject justice without the sense of struggle. The writing alone entailed not a little discomfort. I could only cope with about twenty minutes at a time, so I'm sure you'll probably cope better than I have.

Anyway, yeah... I'm quite proud of my crap, sifting through it has made me want to live again. I wouldn't have my qualities without it. By all accounts I am regarded as a loving, unselfish, supportive, encouraging person, but I am not normal. Are you? How boring would life be? Psychiatrists still believe in normal, did you know? I could hardly believe it, when I found this out at a psychiatry training centre in 2006. But this is definitely not a self-justifying, self-glorifying book. I don't know if I will ever be proud of it or whether I will become a victim of it and loathe it. There is significant risk of backlash and rejection from family, but just to reassure them... we may differ on detail but these are my genuine reactions, if they are not yours. I bear no ill will or resentment towards my sister and wish we could be closer. It's a source of great pain to me that we're not and I know that's partly down to me, but we've all been running away for such a long time, ever since the first chance we got, to get out of the family turmoil and make space for ourselves. And I can't say I don't love them, even though we give each other the impression that we don't. We just have different lives and priorities. And they all have children. But what we ran from back then only exists in us now. We don't have to keep running. But it's harder to stand still and face the past and I don't expect that of them.

Some people will probably avoid me after reading this book. So, why write it? I must write it even if it degrades me. If it does so in the eyes of those who are ignorant of the (human) forces at work here, or those who are so weak and crass that they have to feed on the misery of others to gratify themselves, then so be it. Fill yer boots. I'm certainly no Martyr and I'm always a little suspicious of that; I don't think martyrdom is healthy but god love em. I'm not religious and hate when anyone tries to thrust idealism, religious or political, down my throat, but get me talking about mental health and I start to sound like Billy Graham on smack.

This book is not just about me though. It's about what happens to your emotions when they have been denied or twisted out of shape, then had to find a way of being expressed. No matter how we try and avoid or control we can't stop our body and mind doing this. No-one escapes this residual build-up. Transference is well documented and is a natural part of life. All of us transfer our insecurities onto others at some point. But we feel uncomfortable being self-analytical about the small things we do, let alone the things that frighten us. Well, right now we have the choice. We may not always be in the position to have that choice. There are people who have no choice but to try and find value in their life where there doesn't seem to be any – just to survive.

Following a talk I gave to an advocacy group, I was asked by one listener, "Is it people's reactions to you that you think has been detrimental to your ongoing recovery or your _perception_ of their reactions?" This sounded like a reasonable question, but this man had just heard a brief description of what had led to my suffering Bi-polar Disorder and Post-traumatic Stress – childhood sexual abuse, eleven years nightly torture by my psychotic mother and a five-year abusive marriage, breakdown, loss of everything including personality, health, self-esteem, will to live, possessions, family and friends, mental illness piled on top of it and no realistic way of functioning in a capitalistic society. My response to his comment did not entirely dismiss the possibility, but to ask a question like that revealed more about his insecurities than mine. It might be that he didn't want to consider that it could happen to him; or that the negative things he feels about his own matters could have some justification, or his coping strategies could actually be wrong and undermining him. When we have to contemplate that we're more susceptible than we'd like to be, and the messenger has no problem with self-analysis, weakness and insecurity, the easiest response is to shoot him. The problem is we leave self-analysis until something overwhelms us, then we can't do any. That's part of the transference that we all do, daily, whereas, if we did more self-analysis we'd be empowered. We'd be stronger because of our acceptance of reality, of honesty. But that entails a fight against the predominant fashion in other aspects of our lives.

Poor ex-mayor Ken Livingston was interviewed and sounded a bit lame for blaming the current youth knife-culture as a product of the Eighties generation. My first thought was 'do your maths Ken,' but he didn't get chance to finish his statement; he missed his sound-bite window. What he meant, I guess, was that the Eighties was influential for the "greed is good" culture we are swamped by now. Greed is only good if it realises it's full potential and keeps on applying pressure, otherwise its only half-greed and how successful will that make you? You're out of your job if you're half-motivated. Hence, life's hard and getting harder. So, why do we throw up our arms, but are not up in arms, when our kids are? Why shouldn't they learn from some eastern European and African youths that have grown up around everyday violence and are coming to take by force what they can from our softie-society? It's a war out there – we tell them that. And we make it that, since we made it legit in the eighties.

People working in services where they encounter horrible situations on a daily basis are sometimes fearful of addressing the subject matter. You'd think they'd be better equipped than anyone else, but all their training is academic, if they get _any_ practical training at all before they're thrown in the affray. They're not encouraged to assess themselves, before they assess total strangers. If you do not address what lies behind the visible and beyond proceedure, then how can you deliver productive care and avoid compounding someone's illness? Why should your clients cope with their illness _and_ your lack on top of it?

There are easy ways to approach this subject, but for now you need to know what it is like for those having to endure it. It is not a singular truth that I'm talking about. I'm always suspicious of promoters of absolute truths. But one of the inescapable truths is that you may unwittingly be part of a massive movement. We're close to fulfilling Peter Gabriel's apocalyptic vision when he wrote "grand parade of lifeless packages all ready to use."[4] In fact we are fulfilling it economically, politically and socially, on a global scale. It's not just the lambs that are lying down on Broadway, or Wall Street.

We are so anal about some life-choices that we call criminal. I applaud the old couple who live under London bridge, next to the heating ducts of a multi-million pound office complex I applaud that they get their heat for free, that they recycle far more than I do and their carbon footprint is probably nil. Watching the old man bathe in the Thames, to the consternation of the river police, gives me a sense of pride, of heritage and to get real about essentially what we're forcing each other to become – survivors. I applaud him because he is honest and human. I challenge anyone to be so honest. I don't know his mentality. But I know it is us that force him and countless people in old age to lose everything just to survive. We are more concerned with the cost of the wages of those river police and the time they take watching him bathe, than his plight. I always wonder how much cheaper it would actually be just to spend that money on housing and feeding him.

We've invested everything in the crap concept of capitalism and got so used to eating, sleeping and breathing its crap, it's impossible to keep it under control. It is now hitting the fan. There is a cure for it, that most will not want to accept. Some will not accept a need for a cure. Why? They see nothing wrong with it or themselves. They are the sickest individuals amongst us. The movement – illness – I am talking about I can only describe as _'social, political and institutional denial'_.

Individuals are very _very_ important and you figure as highly as anyone else in this movement. None of us are essentially sheep, but we rarely fight back when the negative impact touches us and our loved ones. Those who see themselves as strong are very happy with the divide. Wolves and sheep. Yet the wolves depend on sheep. That's why it is denial. To say it has to be this way is weak, inhumane and actually mentally unsound. Moving with the tide and accepting there is no alternative is also self-denial. What we deny ourselves in the process is colossal. In numerous ways we deny our very existence. We deny our power not only to change things but our power to govern the market as consumers, to vote with our feet. So we carry on not entirely regardless, as we watch the slow diminishing quality of life, our hopes and our health. Everything it seems is geared to diminish us. It seems irresistible and all avenues for resistance are ridiculed as unrealistic. But the effect engrosses us nonetheless and so our self-denial increases. Stopping it means interrupting the monstrous process dramatically.

As some athletes and supermodels modify their digestive system to perform their best or endure the longest without the interruption of necessary bodily functions; denying ourselves fundamental irresistible rights becomes part of the deal we make, or conditional impositions on inclusion or exclusion. We are increasingly dependent upon whatever constraints are placed upon language for those rights to be respected. Contract small-print, practice governance, political rhetoric, social and religious propriety and more subtle unwritten get-outs, side-stepping and prejudices are so much a fact of life, we hardly have the energy to bother with them. Our sweeping under the carpet of mental processes that infringe on what it takes for us to survive in this hostile climate is the equivalent of trying to hold in our shit.

The build up is the same, the stress is the same, the expectation is the same. Some say they thrive on it. They're usually the most anal of all. And who pays for their self-indulgence?

**\+ / -** ****

**shafted** ****

_"This life is a hospital in which every patient is possessed with a desire to change his bed."_ – Charles Baudelaire

We can all think of individuals or groups that changed their world - Jesus, Mohamed, Siddhartha Gautama, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, The Beatles (they were an individual once). Writer Edna O'Brien and poets Baudelaire, Anne Michaels, Pam Leeson and Chloe Poems changed mine – and visual poets, Andrei Tarkovsky, Bela Tarr, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Jean Luc Goddard, The Devine David. Pick your own.

They all have that extra something, privileged or not. A high value of honesty; keen understanding of human nature; a measure of genuine humility and not being afraid to buck the trend, is what makes them greater than their particular craft. We can have that too, but it's too much like hard work for some. So, collectively, we end up denying ourselves the very things they mostly stand for and, crucially, things that we agree on; things that motivate us; things that we'll sing along at the top of our voices to. Why do we deny ourselves these things? One word – fear.

**Frankenst-ine**

_We restrict horror_

_to_ _fantasy, so we can feel_

_disturbed_ _, safely_

_while_ _making lethal monsters_

_of_ _those around us_

_and_ _ourselves, then_

_never_ _want to face them._

Getting back to our defecating analogy: can you imagine not being able or not being _allowed_ to crap? What sicko would deprive someone of that? And it doesn't come out sculpted does it? I mean, it has to come out any way it can, right?

As a matter of fact, you are being robbed. You are being deprived of a basic and fundamental ingredient of your right to self-preservation; just as crucial as crapping. Who are you being robbed by? Well, by mostly everyone (though there are exceptions), even by those who are closest to you and quite probably by yourself. Yes, there are more documentaries and dramas in the media about social and health issues but the facts indicate that very little has changed in our attitudes, our perceptions and the stigma surrounding mental health.

This was the state of play according to a leaflet on Manic Depressive Illness or Bipolar Disorder –

_(Changing Minds – a five year national campaign by the Royal College of Psychiatrists 2003): Following a survey of the general public's attitudes to mental disorders, the campaign found; _

_- people with mental illness were seen as unpredictable and difficult to communicate with. _

_- people with schizophrenia, alcohol and drug addiction are seen as being 'dangerous' to others. _

_- people suffering from depression, eating disorders, alcoholism or drug addiction should "pull themselves together"._

Little has changed since, except people's awareness of just how close it is to them. Does that not strike you as a deplorable indictment of our 'enlightened' twenty-first century society? There are situations in life that would drive anyone to sheer mental anguish...you can think of your own examples of atrocities, war crimes, accidents, natural disasters, wilful neglect or assaults that show the extremes that other people's minds can be pushed to. We regard them as insane but they're not always. Whether they are or not; imagine you were the victim of one such situation, one that would stretch your ability to maintain sanity. If you haven't been beyond that point of control (I have) or indulged in mind altering drugs (I haven't other than prescribed medication), then you may not have much of an idea of the bizarre and diverse capabilities of your mind and how it can treat you. Maybe you'd rather not know. But what if one day, without provocation, you found yourself in circumstances where your own mind was turning against you. What if it made you act in uncharacteristic ways? Maybe you think you are too principled and far too strong to let that happen. That in itself is dangerous thinking and could leave you more susceptible to internal pressure than others.

So, just in case, I'll let you have a look at my mind; see what you think. It may save you a heap of trouble. As you do, I hope you'll get a glimpse of the various facets of a strong and determined mind that has previously been highly principled but been forced to vacillate between bizarre filth and glorious euphoria; has been lost, then found again; has changed beyond recognition but been _validated_ by it's history and formative experience; has been enslaved and yet freed (an ongoing conflict); a mind that has been tortured but reached relative peace and even happiness. "...am I part of the cure, or am I part of the disease, singing, _you_ – _are._ "[5]

On with our analogy: My father was a very happy, principled, quiet, hard-working man who was inoffensive, unassuming and liked by everyone who knew him. Just prior to retirement he endured the rapid onset of Alzheimer's and lost his ability to write or string a sentence together. His mind was sharp, though. One weekend he suddenly doubled-over in agony with constipation, or so we thought. Despite two visits to A&E and the application of countless laxatives and suppositories, he got no relief. He was ignored for eight hours at a time, because he would never show his pain in public and there was no visible contusion or broken bone to make his case look more urgent. Even though the first x-ray showed compaction he was rejected from hospital. You'd think hospital staff had never encountered anyone with communication problems. The consequence of this; he hadn't crapped for over 60 hours. I had to shock the sister in charge into action – "can you imagine one of your junior doctors having to do a whole week's work without being allowed to shit?" She decided I was just being abusive and attention-seeking, or implying she wasn't doing her job. Well, two out of three ain't bad.

On his third visit to hospital, after observing him vomiting faeces and being rushed in and admitted by a locum doctor, he hadn't passed anything for over 160 hours. They had to do an MRI scan and emergency exploratory operation. In fact, he nearly died before and during the operation, _because_ of the delay. By the time he'd got admitted to a ward, he wanted to die. The pain of impacted constipation alone is excruciating. I can still see him doubled-up on the floor in the corner of the hallway with the look of a tormented animal in his face, starring wildly at me, pleading for me to do something, wanting to run away or be put out of his misery; like this was worse than any hell he could have imagined. And my father, as you will find out, was no coward. Could you let anyone do that to someone you love? No animal deserves to be put through that indignity and agony, let alone a lovely, cheerful, harmless man. This wasn't professional incompetence – this was the consequence of NHS economic policy. Finally, the exploratory surgery revealed fairly advanced cancer of the colon. This previously fit, energetic and intelligent man had just started a well-earned retirement and overnight ended up losing half his colon, waking to a permanent colostomy and being given twelve months to live.

Emotional and psychological oppression, or denial, inflicts the same kind of agony but more intrusively, more insidiously and far more prolonged. Can you imagine denying yourself your need to crap? That is what we are doing psychologically, as a society. If your colon is compacted, eventually, you vomit crap. So, be patient if someone in anguish seems like they have verbal diarrhoea when disclosing something to you. And just on that point; if someone sounds like they're self-obsessed or indulgent, ask yourself this; if something was wrong with you and everybody else was ignoring or denying it and you didn't really want to share it with anyone but it continually threatened your quality of life, wouldn't you have to be a little self-indulgent? Would there be anything wrong with that? Would it be a good or bad thing? I mean who else would indulge you if not yourself? Ignorant and careless people do it all the time, to the point where they inflict themselves on others without a thought for the consequences or anyone's preferences.

But we do have a choice and a little self-indulgence is justified at the right time for us to protect and stand up for ourselves. When it comes to mental distress the tendency is to try and ignore it, presuming we are too weak if we can't. This is either due to the surrounding stigma, or it could actually be a _positive_ attempt not to burden anyone, but the effect is the problem gets compounded. We struggle on and hold it in. That takes strength and saps it from other necessities.

So, language and communication and thinking are affected; we've got to stop turning up our noses at it when it doesn't meet our expectations. Yes, we hate the look and smell of crap, it causes such reactions, so if someone 'lets one go,' we get embarrassed about it, call them disgusting, or laugh it off. I'm reminded of a character in a Kurt Vonnegut book; [6] an alien from an advanced civilisation comes to earth with good news about how cancer can be cured and wars stopped. The alien can only communicate by tap-dancing and farting. The small creature lands in a field, sees a farmhouse on fire and rushes to the house to raise the alarm, farting and tap dancing as loud as it can. The farmer is saved but so appalled at seeing the foul farting creature, he brains it with a golf club.

This happens all the time in society and on top of it we have blood-suckers like Jeremy Kyle and Trisha leeching careers out of it and bludgeoning members of society into exactly that kind of alien; at the same time solidifying the polarised prejudices of all the other lazy no-brainers. We applaud ignoramuses like Judge Judy, who swipes away respect for individuals and their ability to communicate, all for the sake of her self-aggrandising television persona. She wouldn't last two minutes in English Magistrates courts. And yet we love her and the way she crushes lives with a snap bang of her gavel. We call it _common_ sense! That's exactly what it is.

Even among G.P.s and psychotherapists there are various responses, from disinterest to knee-jerk reactions that are dangerous and intrusive. Our culture of stiff-upper-lip bravado doesn't welcome complaint but sees it as weakness. Well, here's an exercise for you... just try and see how long you can hold a turd in. Go on.

When it comes to emotional and mental distress, some people have been forced to do so, or do it by choice; sometimes for their entire lifetime. Can that be healthy? We don't generally believe that it isn't. The stiff upper lip panders to our pride because we find it easier not to broaden our minds, it feels safer to marginalise or ridicule when it comes to coping with what's happening around us. If it is outside of our understanding we feel like we're above it, judge it without fair trial and, hence, feel better about it, don't have to concern ourselves with it. So, we are immediately disadvantaged and unprotected. We hold our own shit in and expect others to do so, too. But it will out in the end, by one way or another – one end or the other – pure physics. Is that something to be proud of? It's often not the diagnosed mentally ill who talk shit and they have justifiable reason.

It's all gladiatorial angst-entertainment, but at least some presenters let dissenters disagree, even if they didn't encourage wider acceptance and understanding. So why not make space for negative things? I don't mean life should be one big Gerry Springer show, or that we should all have shrinks for things like whether or not we should re-decorate. But what kind of environment do we give to emotional and psychological extremes? Do they not deserve a legitimate and serious place in our public consciousness, without it feeding someone's ego, or amounting to a freak-show, or costing the rest of our working lives to pay for it?

Often we do not even bother to ask that question – 'is there anything _positive_ in negativity?' In other words, when we have negative experiences or emotions, is there anything positive actually happening? If you have a place to let crap out and you're free of it, what a relief! That's healthy. It's ok leaving it to Jack Dee, Jo Brand and Johnny Vegas to help us see the lighter side, but they're not always around when the tears come. Social and personal issues should be part of everyday education. The most likely source, today, would be magazines and soap operas, which I don't decry, depending on how even-handed their approach is. Actually, soaps have covered taboo topics fairly skilfully, depending on the perceptions and experiences of the writers. Inexperience shows too, though, and causes untold damage. I'd say watch out for the sensationalistic, but life in western culture seems to imitate art, not the other way around. And you don't have to let it all out in public, like me; it is embarrassing and demeaning enough to do so in private, even with someone who understands. But it _shouldn't_ be demeaning. That is the point! _That_ is symptomatic of the prevailing anally-retentive pop-psychology of the masses.

And for those of the older generations who think – 'God, we'd have a country full of self-obsessives and weaklings; how would people today cope with war or the blitz, like we had to?' ... due respect for that but it's a patronising comparison. People today _are_ coping with war and loss and bombardment of various kinds, including real bombing, _without_ the community spirit that existed and forged people to work together back then. Without family backing or _anybody_ on their side. Without medals or any official recognition, cooperation and camaraderie. If we were all plunged back into conflict the way previous generations were, do you think we would be any different?

Well, one thing might be better if we make it that way – we wouldn't let a government get away with being ignorant of the effects to families and individuals, letting them suffer in silence and just having to get on with their own nightmares. Sound familiar? I'm sure people would have wanted better support back then. It would have made our society much stronger. When wartime people meet with others that suffered similarly, isn't it _that common experience_ that bonds them? Yes there are things that some of us haven't experienced like rationing and no social security benefits, but don't tell me it made people better than people are today for not experiencing it. Maybe they shared more, maybe that's what was actually better. Or maybe they ended up ignored and dead on the street or imprisoned as criminals or driven to madness in mental assylums.

But people nowadays are equally fighting, for years on end, with everything they have, materially, mentally and physically. I'm not saying they are stronger; I'm saying circumstances differ but people are generally the same. If anything, we should have become more enlightened. We rightly applaud those who endured in the past, but the same stiff upper lip 'shoot deserters' mentality that treated traumatised people as weak, or worse, as traitors, is evident towards people that struggle mentally, today. Comparing how people cope with mental and emotional trauma, with wartime experiences is not always straight forward or productive. There are more similarities than differences, but the enemy is different. Assuming that wartime was tougher and people today are weaker doesn't get to the reality of what is worse about our society and what are the causes of so much depression.

When it comes to severe mental illness, we crap ourselves so much that it could affect us, mentally ill people become traitors to human kind. They've really let us down, what a burden. God forbid we catch it off them. People try their best to cope, but if their best doesn't work, what are they supposed to think? That they have failed? Stiff-upper-lip stops a person accepting a problem that gets increasingly bigger than them and only convinces them of their ineptitude. But they are not incapable. They are simply suppressed and often oppressed. Oppressed by fear more than anything else; not just their own, but the collective fear that manifests around them. If we fail to make room for people to express fear, it doesn't take that fear away. We actually disable and weaken our society and inhibit understanding.

Knowledge is power and we should be actively empowering each other. If we are not doing so, why not? We will fragment society if we fail to care for people's mental health, because we end up sustaining fractious, fear-driven, self-preserving siege-mentality under the banner of 'survival of the fittest,' which often sanctions actions that amount to or result in abuse.

Ignorance breeds a kind of pride. It is the same deceitful self-defeating pride of the generals who resolutely sent thousands of infantrymen to an unnecessary slaughter in the Somme. Denial. It is actually weakness. It is the same weakness that prominent politicians and terrorists pander to as expedient routes to their political aims, instead of exhausting every avenue for dialogue, or agreeing to disagree and treat each other as human beings. Neighbours like the Palestinians and Israelis, (just as with the Bosnians) who merely want to get on with their everyday lives, pay with the lives of their sons, daughters, mothers, fathers and friends. Obviously it's an age-old conflict but this ongoing stand-off in the middle-east is a prime example. Apart from the tit-for-tat ping-pong of missiles, bombings and imprisonments that have taken over from any principled stance; the root stems from self-righteous grievances that effectively honours and perpetuates the matriarchy of the self-defeating Hagar ( _her_ spirit, on both sides) _above_ any claimed honour for their _common_ father, Abraham. Did they learn nothing from his treatment of Lot when he wanted his own land? Of course it is their choice. Both Israelis and Palestinians can choose to perpetuate the Hagar prophesy. Or they can choose not to. Take a man and woman from opposing sides and put them on a deserted island for a few years and they'll probably have a family. We can choose to bless or curse.

How many conflicts do there have to be around the world before leaders learn the lessons? Have we not had enough with two world wars, the former Czechoslovakia, the Cold War, Northern Ireland and countless civil wars spanning the globe? And more are in the pipeline. It isn't that the lessons are not there – it's about will, abuse, usurpation, oppression and what they can get away with. That's what makes them weak, much weaker than they could choose to be. There are enough precedents for leaders to be mature about this and save lives. It's not enough to conveniently say things are more complex than that. It isn't more complex. There are many examples of this weakness and laziness in society, politics and institutions that we hold up as foundation-stones of a 'healthy' culture.

Yet, when it comes to mental-health, I now find myself asking you to try going 'over the top' into no-man's land with me; albeit vicariously. I went and came out of it, that's the difference. It's easy for me to pontificate about something I've never had to do and know little about; but when it comes to mental health issues, it's a different matter. Precedents are not as forthcoming and the ones that we hear about are consistently negative. This is something I know. In a similar way to wars, some people who struggle with inner conflicts prefer to dwell on the injustices and pain they've suffered; maybe that's when little or nothing is done, but there are enough survivors that could help us extract the good from the journey through mental illness. The problem is, they are stigmatised even by professionals in mental health care and most are simply unaware just how successful they are. That's what I'm trying to promote here. We must learn from the negative. That is positive and the only responsible thing to do in helping others.

Every responsible person with authority, who fails to do this or invest the time and effort, is effectively robbing us. It is irresponsible to continue ignoring why we have such stigma about mental health and where the health system is guilty of compounding this. We have not learned the lessons sufficiently and it is paid for with people's lives. This is totally unnecessary and avoidable.

But we're told it's too expensive to equip ourselves. This is a fallacy promoted by inept and self-seeking political policy makers, within and outside of the medical profession. We'd rather push billions at reforming other countries' regimes while reducing the care of our own, for a show of strength we can neither sustain or accommodate. So... who is shafting who?

****

**\+ / -**

****

**in** **the dark**

** ******

_"...I can tell by the way your back's to me, you're measuring pigments, stealing the contents of this light, and sure enough it begins to get dark – You explained visual time, how there's no weight without shadow – I understood it as a grammar of beauty, with its apex of loss."_

– Anne Michaels.[7]

Who would be best placed to guide people through the dark? Someone blind? A blind beggar? Mr Magoo!

You'd think he'd be the last person, but he seems to get away with everything. I know... he's a cartoon... and he is quite jammy. Though there's something we understand from his fumbling, I'd suggest there's an easier more skilful approach than us all becoming Waldos. We're reminded of subway bombings and underground train crashes, collapsed mines, shipping and airliner disasters, the smothering smoke of building-fires; and calm caring people caught up in it, cautiously fumbling their way ahead communicating back to those following them.

The alarming thing is, your passage through the health system when at your most vulnerable and sensitive could be as hair-raising as Waldo's experience, because most professional approaches are somewhat Mr Magoo. They are safe to those dispensing them, no matter what they put you through.

Even in the health and social services professions, most employees are completely unaware of the current changes in law regarding the rights of any patients in their care. From those who are aware of them, the knowledge rarely filters down to the people they are responsible for and those that have the task of hands-on care. Why is that?

Even more daunting a prospect is if you have no support and you find yourself in a situation where you feel powerless and incapable of making everyday decisions, or even worse, you exhibit symptoms that are deemed to be 'unacceptable' behaviour. You know, like swearing? Swearing, cursing, unacceptable? Come on, we've moved on from that, surely? We're a bit more enlightened than that, for crying out loud. Yeah? The only people who have legitimate reason to curse are the soused drunks in A&E on a Friday night. No one else could ever have any reasonable cause to swear at professionals. Not even if their child dies and a hospital carves them up and stores their parts to sell or use without any consultation with the parents or even an apology when they get caught. There is just no excuse for course language! These are the kind of people who will take control. We need to ask, why and how? What kind of decisions will be brought to bear on the respect for your rights and choices?

At present, you'll be faced with a system of controlled safety. Not the safety of you, the vulnerable and distressed. No, the priority will be safety of staff. After all, they have to do this job everyday and they have done no wrong. And presumably you have, or you are just ill and not thinking right, and if you don't object then you mustn't be that bothered about it. If you do, you must be even more dangerous and in the wrong. After all, they are paid to deliver your care and they are well, balanced, reasonable and sane. Some of them are respected professionals and have devoted years and much expense to studying and we couldn't do that. They have their own lives and problems and experience and they might even be the kind of people you'd like to invite around for tea. But they are not you and it is not their life they are dealing with. And they don't have to live it, just treat it for a limited time, whenever they see you. They can go home and forget about it, because they've done their best. Of course, you'll never forget. Hopefully, it'll be those who treat you with respect that you remember. Workers like that are the most precious people we have in services. Current regimes generally exploit their good nature whilst imposing unrealistic governance to cover bureaucrats' backs. Not only this, they are sometimes penalised because they're eager to learn how to implement progressive practices and are confident in the possibilities and principles embedded within them, if a little daunted. They often face the dilemma of working against their bureaucratic regime. Thank you, you fabulous devoted people.

Unfortunately, there will be people you remember who effectively kicked you when you were down. They won't know it. They should, after they've read this. I'd recommend services make a detailed list of every accusation in this book, highlight them, then look for the positive reasons behind them, then assess how dangerous they are, what they contribute to and how they must change.

If it helps, use the blind beggar analogy. Regardless of status, a severe mental health episode effectively reduces a person to the status of a blind beggar. Now, some support services would kick a blind beggar, or leave them to their own devices, just because they can get away with it. And if they don't happen to conform to stipulated practices, there's a good chance no-one will ever find out about it. Atrociously, millions of destructive demoralising spirit crushing decisions and attitudes betray, on a daily basis, those humble souls under their care, heroic souls that carry heavier troubles than anyone would care to endure.

Don't despair – we can do something about that, now, if we choose to.

There are three changes that I am aware of that are designed to place the patient – you – at the figurehead of decision-making regarding your health. Services are supposed to be bound by these developments and indeed some are cautiously moving in this direction, but there is an established culture of tokenism and tick-box sidestepping, as genuine implementation involves more flexibility and accountability on the part of service providers.

So, what are these developments that are so crucial to you, but not widely known? I'll try to summarise in my own inadequate way but stick with it, this is the boring bit. If you didn't already know this, you're among the vast majority. It should give you immediate power.

The three areas of impact on your health choices are as follows and these are crucial to why you need to consider the principles of this book. The following were being considered at the time of this writing. It will be interesting to see how they have developed, or not, by the time this book hits the shelves:

1) The White Paper – 'Our Health, Our Care, Our Say' is the benchmark that is supposed to hold all services and authorities _responsible_ for respecting the individual wishes and choices of their ['client'], in their practices. It places 'the customer' / 'client' (gawd innit awful) _first_ in consideration; listening to them; making it possible to access what those choices are and finding ways to implement them within their remit.

2) There is a law that was due to be passed in 2007 (don't know what it's called) regarding 'client's' rights in the event of non-verbal communication. As I understand it, this applies to different forms of dementia, through to some mentally distressing situations, e.g. panic, phobias, cyclical or pathological reactions, catatonia, paralysis, psychosis etc. In an emergency, where a client is not able to communicate clearly their choices or decisions, it necessitates some research on the part of services to determine what your choices would be, either through a close friend or family member, carer or neighbour, someone who knows at least some of your feelings and views. Preferably, someone designated in advance by you. Failing this, they have to assign an advocate who will represent you.

You can submit this information, as to who you wish to represent you, in an Advance Medical Directive – (these already exist for any number of preferences in your medical treatment) – a simple, legally binding statement that you can have in your medical notes and/or leave a copy with a person you trust, or your solicitor. It obliges services to consult with the person(s) of your choosing in decisions regarding your treatment, should you lose consciousness or be unable to communicate effectively. Good in principle, how about in practice? Some people fear tempting fate, but in such situations an advanced directive could be your only way of being respected; a necessary and good step in the right direction. It's a basic we should embrace. (I must remember to make one).

3) In the spirit of these developments and to assure the implementation of these laws and principles in structured practice that covers culpability of service providers, the health authorities have established initiatives like The National Service Framework, which obligates the involvement of things like 'Public and Patient Involvement,' consultation with 'expert patients and carers' and PALS (patient advice and liaison service). It obliges all health services to consult with service-users and carers in all aspects of the _design, training and practices of service-provision_ , even in appointing directors and employing staff. Or something like that.

I'm not going to give a technical explanation of this, but _in words_ it recognises the value of patients' and carers' views and experiences of health care. Consequently, there are so-called consultation processes and numerous committees that invite carers and past or present service users (everyday people) to influence their decisions. Lovely. Free tea and biscuits and you get to be outspoken, if you can get a word in. And when you say "Excuse me" – everybody, including the executive directors, wow, they shut up! Then you can choose to dribble on in your own little way, or actually get down to brass tacks and hold them to account, whatever takes your fancy. It's amazing. It truly is. They do us such favours! (If some officials are laughing along with my sarcasm, then they are the ones who probably rightly do not feel threatened by the confrontation – er sorry – consultation process, because they believe in it). The way this works out in practice is laughable, but sadly no laughing matter. Some executives and commissioners will still be laughing all the way to the bank because they can tick the boxes and get their own way and kudos for being ignorant in the process. And more money.

There we have it; three key initiatives that should really place you in the driving seat and work to respect your choices and expand them. Good luck. Hmm.

___

This being the case... why is the experience of treatment so one-sided? Is it just the patient that gets tunnel vision with no light at the end? What level of understanding does it take for a person's perspective to be taken seriously?

Blind beggars may actually develop perceptive skills that many of us hardly need to tap into. On the other hand, how could they possibly explain to sighted people what their mind's eye sees? It seems a foreign world to us. We could skim the surface by spending a day with our eyes shut or sit with a blind beggar. That would not employ a fraction of their skills and expertise, or understand anywhere near the depth and breadth of their perceptions. But would a blind beggar not be the best one to lead us through the darkest, blackest tunnel? And it is, after all, the same world that we occupy, especially if a conservatively estimated quarter of the population will end up down that tunnel at some point in their lives. The question becomes more pertinent when control is out of our hands. You will enter that tunnel in ignorance, blindly, but by the time you come out of it, _if_ you do, I guarantee you'll be an expert on the experience. Being informed beforehand should minimise your struggle, but who ever enters depression with foreknowledge and hope of an easier way through? Who tells you how it's going to be? It invariably never happens even for the third of mental health practitioners that end up in mental wards afterwards. Then their eyes open. This book should at least help you with your expectations.

Many professionals see putting the past behind you as the way forward. But if all your past was dominated and misdirected, would dismissing it make you happy about who you are now? Would ignoring it help you find any value in yourself, or help you value your life up to this point? Take the recent situation of Natascha Kampusch, who was confined to a cellar for eight years; of course she wants to move away from that experience and start living, but do we just tell her those eight years were actually nothing, not living, valueless? How can that be? Did she not accomplish anything in that time, in all those passing hours? It would be heartless to assume that she didn't. It would be unrealistic. I'm sure she would have enormous difficulty in accepting anything good from the experience and we should legitimately be incensed about such a situation, but what does she make out of it, otherwise? And more importantly what does it make out of her? I do not know her or what she is going through now. I dread to think what some 'experts' might have told her, after her ordeal. In this country, NLP and CBT would be thrown at her – (Neuro-Linguistic Programming; Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) – before more expensive psychotherapy. They are useful for diversion, delusion and avoidance; they deal only with the present in expedient terms, but they're useless at dismantling the psychological millstone of past experience. She may need diversion and avoidance for a period and even as long-term coping mechanisms, so they cannot be totally dismissed. It's more likely she had the best of help available where she is and sad to say the public awareness of her ordeal would have guaranteed that. But in the UK, these two flimsy approaches are being hammered as the way to go in service provision, because they are cheaper to implement. I'm sure there are some good counsellors but most of the ones I meet or hear about fancy themselves as have-a-go psychologists, or psychotherapists, without committing to the same methods, education, experience or attention span. Beware of quick fixers and those who will tell you what your answers are.

A fraction of the time and energy spent on diversion, if set aside for reassuring and gently re-dressing the deeper issues through easy, non-confrontational, lateral methods, would accelerate recovery. But there is no set way to do this. When Natasha is able to assimilate that experience into whatever form of expression works for her, she must find where _her_ true value lies and the _value of that experience_ to herself, if not to others. This is key – she is valuable and some things that came to the fore in her experience and endurance are invaluable. Invaluable to us, actually. Interviews with Natasha, since then, show her to be a very capable and outwardly balanced person. This is astonishing and something is obviously working for her. But I hope this comes from an independent sense of worth in herself and not from any false 'superiority' or even false 'humility' from common religious or social paradigms.

Ask yourself if you could do what she did. Straight away you might think – 'Ah, well, I wouldn't.' You can't know that for sure. It would only take the right person, the right circumstances and the right buttons to be pressed. But even now I can feel your resistance to that idea. It is too depressing to contemplate and you think it denies something of your dignity. Believe me, your dignity will be of little use to you, if you ever get into such extreme circumstances. I'm not talking about the girl and cellar necessarily; it's our natural, proud _resistance to the prospect_ that leaves us dangerously exposed. But, whether you could or couldn't go through it, she _did._ That tells us something. How far would we go to preserve our life, or risk it, may be our initial thought. Some would assert they'd die fighting, right? Anyone that has dealt with stalkers or abduction will tell you that's short sighted. But if you're finding yourself trying to escape the cellar, stop yourself; you've got to get past that stage; you must accept the idea that you simply can't, before you can get to the place most people battling such trauma are in. Think of the feelings it generates in you and why you have those feelings. Now, what does that start to tell you about her? Give it as long as you like; you've got eight years. Maybe you've got your own psychological cellar. All she had, practically, was time. Yet in that kind of existence, you can only snatch at moments. What would your mind do with it? And what does that tell you about you? For a start, the fear will tell you something if it's only bewilderment and disorientation, but you'd eventually have to live beyond the fear. What then? You don't have to get too far down that road for it to start telling you something more. Is it telling you something _good_ or bad? Now add to that, your resistance and indignation. Does it do anything for you?

Or we move away from an experience like that; we start to pursue our new freedom and fill the rest of our life with all manner of wonderful things, never to return there, mentally, if we can help it. Does that resolve your crisis? Would it erase that episode of your life? Would it stop it bothering you? Or would it render it valueless? Even if it worked and you did find happiness, how would you feel whenever it reared its ugly head? Most people settle for that, but isn't there something more valuable that you can do with it? Don't you have a choice? It is significant that Natasha expresses some inner desire to return to some of the dynamics of her captivity.

But what do we make of such things that are so inevitable?

To those of you that might actually say 'snap out of it' or 'move on' to someone with depression; be aware, the only reason you'll get away with it and not get your block knocked completely off is probably because they're a nice person, or they've not got the energy, or not yet learned how to tell people where to draw the line or to FUCK OFF. Which is considered a negative, in mental health. It is so patronising to assume a person that has problems with confrontation is weak or ill. But we rarely challenge this perspective. We chant such clichés obsessively, to ourselves, without extending the effort to think about the problem, because to give it time and energy is painful and draining. Admittedly it is, but so is subconsciously dragging it behind us until we die. That kind of burden is so insidious, we never realise just how overbearing it is until it's lifted from us or pulls the rug from under our feet. Watch 'Magnolia.' We accept, in our careers or passions or even relationships, 'difficult' is worth doing. But we rarely afford ourselves that respect when it comes to mental distress. "You have to learn to live with it," but how, when you're effectively left to it?

The results of facing our past can be extremely positive, empowering and liberating. Even if you don't like some of the things you see. When you find out what some of the reasons are, you may find there's more room for compassion, that you've been too harsh on yourself, or that the reasons you wish to change are actually good; or maybe, that you don't actually need to change after all, that _you_ are far more than what you credited yourself as. Sometimes, if you do not allow the depth of attrition, you do not get to realise the causes, or find the level of motivation necessary to change longstanding problems.

I had completely detested myself over a lengthy period. Years. But I happened upon a stage-play that changed my entrenched self-disgust in the course of just over an hour!

The play was on at Manchester Royal Exchange Studio Theatre, entitled 'Replace Existing Harry'. From an imbued sense of pride and appreciation of the unflinching humanity of the work; the tragic yet gargantuan power of its humility; I found myself laughing and crying in applause of each nuance, without embarrassment, in full view of other audience members. I had gained some pride in my assessment of quality, as a writer, and I suddenly had pride in myself, as a receptive, humane respondent to the subject. I felt as valid as any other audience member and even a liberation that seemed to enthuse others to be more demonstrative in their responses, (theatre audiences are notoriously stuffy). Paradoxically, for the first time, I didn't feel conspicuous. I felt the play's honesty deserved an honest response. It was unavoidable for me, but the material seemed to draw it out of us all, like a psychological poultice. I noticed others starting to respond openly to her bare-bone humour, to the pathos, with laughter, with anger, tension and disquieting concern, as if my ease with the risky subject aided them to feel free in their responses. Most audience members became visibly, audibly responsive to the pits and heights of the piece.

'Harry' was written by a wonderful poet and playwright. I didn't have any idea who she was or what kind of person she would be, when I saw her abstract play. Directly after the play, though, I just knew I had to meet her and tell her what it did for me. When I did, I realised immediately we had been true life-long kindred spirits just moving in separate circles. I wish, I wish, I had an ounce of her humanity and tenacity and spirit and wisdom. She regards herself as a simplistic person. But she has a knack few other observers and writers have, that of reaching in to your most sacred, feared and painfully sensitive organs... displacing them, then massaging them and saying 'it's ok... you're really ok.'

After the play, stood at a urinal in the gents, I was included in a pensive conversation between two mates who, from the context, were also writers. Turning to me in some assumed spirit of camaraderie, one said – "Gawwwd, makes you feel inadequate, doesn't it?" An intended complement to the playwright. My response, considering the subject of the play and my newfound confidence was, " _what as_... a writer or a man?" He was a bigger bloke than me, but seemed to shrink in his own silent admission. His friend looked at him with a 'you walked right into that one' smile, then swiftly exited.

But it's morbid to look at horrific experiences, surely? Maybe I'm just self-obsessed to recommend this? If I hear one more psychiatrist tell us that depressed people are 'locked in negative thought' or someone infer that depressed people can only see the negative side, I'm going to fulfil their expectations. It's people like that who are actually inadequate to the task. It is they who are locked in negative thought and statements like that only drain hope away from those who put up a daily battle against feelings of inadequacy and fear. How can you hope of succeeding in taking on daily life, when you've got pontificating wankers like that telling you you're actually deficient as a human being? So, I have to say that _my_ answer is – it is supremely valuable to look into your fears and negatives as an equal part of what makes you _you_.

I believe we all have the answers inside of us, that they cannot adequately come from elsewhere and we just need the right receptive environment and whatever catalysts will release them. But it takes real courage to let go and allow yourself to just _be_. Especially since, with lack of in depth training, someone is likely to judge thoughts and feelings as intent.

Not surprisingly, it appears as mental illness when your thinking leads to 'uncharacteristic' behaviour. Some people, without mental illness on top, have very good reasons to suppress their natural inclinations. But have you thought – what seems not to be you, not like you... could actually be you. Not the 'you' everybody else expects you to be. The opposite can be the true you. Psychotic, cyclical or pathological behaviour is potentially in everyone. You can deny it if you like. Transference definitely is. So, we have to accept the fact that some behaviour, characteristic or not, may not actually be us and may be the illness of society, or individual circumstance and formative experience, or psychosomatic responses to conditioning. It may not be mental _illness_ that transforms a person into something beyond our, or their, usual perceptions. But if it is... is that an automatically bad thing? And whatever the case may be, shouldn't you have a choice what to do with it?

This is why I disagree with the basis of psychiatry, whatever they consider 'normal' to be, for an individual. To me it inhibits personal and spiritual progress, or change. It also opens up avenues for deliberate or unwitting abuse of power and encourages a dependency between the vulnerable sufferer and the sometimes egotistical psychiatrist. It's conditional upon the frailties and inadequacies of people who consider themselves to be superior, at least in understanding, if not philosophically. And some people have 'moved on' from thinking all people are essentially equal. More people highlight differences and rely on that for a sense of identity, than those that admit their similarities. Maybe we're all fighting just how little we feel. You can see it in a person's walk or sometimes in their choice of dog and the way they control them. Or their children. Why do we invariably think we are bigger than we are? The Tony Blairs and Mugabes of this world think they're so big. Are they? Even if they have changed the world that surrounds them in some way, is it really that germane to human existence in the larger scheme of things? They will argue it is, it forms history. So what? Do we really give a fuck about Julius Caesar or Dionysus? Hero to zero in no time. So why kick up all the fuss about it? If we all accepted how insignificant we are in the long run, maybe we'd treat each other better in the short run. Diversity doesn't make us unequal, certainly in value, as human beings. Back to the blind beggar.

Severe mental 'illness,' however, can be the _most_ useful tool in enabling us to cope with extreme situations, if we choose to learn from it. It can get us to where we need to be, or bring about changes that can turn our lives around. It can even help us find happiness and contentment. Unfortunately, we overload it with negative connotations because the experience of it can be so heart-rending and seemingly destructive (de-constructive would be a more accurate expression) and who needs that when we're frantically constructing our lives all the time?

It is at the very least an inconvenience for all but this comes from a hostile approach to the whole subject. Of course I'm talking about psychological issues not chemical imbalances. The sad thing is, because medicating is the first port of call, people are often led into chemical dependency and imbalance and left there, without any immediate opportunity to deal with increasingly taxing circumstances. Given the right support form the outset, a lot of extreme breakdowns can be prevented. The ones that have the most difficulty with this, are those whose personality prevents them accepting they have a problem until such time as it threatens everything they have around them. Maybe that's the cost of their change. I know I feel loss and I did lose everything, but my gains are immeasurable and essential.

We can view it all as negative, or look for the merits in reactions rather than compare with conventional expectations. We have a choice. It is not the lazy 'half-empty' or 'half-full-glass' cliché. The glass is always both, at the half-way point. But if you've had to subsist on the meagre means some mentally ill people have had to manage on, there's no way you'd call them negative. Nowadays, it takes a bomb explosion in the underground to generate empathy. It doesn't even get out of bed for a loved father and good neighbour who gets kicked to death outside his own house by a bunch of young wankers.

How many people, we can imagine, never gave time to their depression and loss. The half-full glass approach, for those who've lost their families and experienced trauma, is bollocks actually, the worst kind of lie we pacify ourselves with. We think glossing it over with medals and ceremonies and remembrances actually counts for anything? Not for a second, in comparison to what they lost. It is all about _legitimacy_ and when bereavements are unable to be justified, the questions never go away. In military circles, you see bereaved people reacting, on the surface, with more loyalty to the killers than to their loved ones. Usually because they see it that that is where their dead relative's heart was, so why should there be any complaint? Not just from them, from us. It's what they loved isn't it? Anything wrong with that? We also see people campaigning and setting up support groups against the impositions of violence, exposing glaring disloyalties from the organisations they so loved and making little impact; paying the highest price, yet being regarded as deserters and betrayers.

Some people who consider themselves positive thinkers limit how much material of a disturbing nature they allow into their lives. Fine. The culture of political correctness dismisses those who speak truly and painfully, in favour of comments that are couched in measured positive terms. In this culture, someone who blunders their way through a sentence, or a person who 'focuses' on injustices, obstacles and complaints, or just happens to cut the bullshit, or who simply isn't assertive and doesn't speak up... well, it's their own fault they're ignored, isn't it? Shouldn't they just go and get the education others took the trouble to acquire? Or shouldn't they learn to speak a little louder, or be less emotional, because caution and assertiveness have the monopoly on wisdom, of course. There are classes for it for goodness sake.

British culture is so hypocritical in this respect. In business and politics, we're expected to endure rudeness from those at the top. Abuse is a daily diet. For the underdog, you've got to watch your tongue, spin culture has infested all our dealings, but we relish the opportunity to back-bite, rake up dirt on someone, or gossip. 'Loose cannons' are not desirable. Everyone wants to employ compliant, quiet yes-men, to get things done without too much conflict. But who would make for the best actual outcome? What is commonly regarded as negative criticism can actually be a very advantageous tool. Ask any advertising or PR consultant. To make blanket judgments that all negative comments, or even disturbing material, is negative actually reflects a negative outlook, not a positive one.

_'Magnolia'_ – directed by P.T.Anderson, is not an easy film for many to sit through. It seems so negative for some. But it is painfully realistic and has a message that's intention is positive; at its climax of embroiling crises it turns to a song that states the characters' honest personal realisations – 'It's not going to stop... it's not going to stop... it's not going to stop, til you wise up.'[8] The film is about everyday people in their raw and most vulnerable state; how our entire lives can be distracted with any pursuit that's contrary to the serious and unpleasant issues we need to address, _until it's too late_ and we've lost out on what we really wanted all along. That's not cowardice; it's just normal people feeding themselves the bullshit that getting real means getting tough or giving in. And how can we judge them for feeling the way they feel and doing what they do? There is inordinate energy expended behind each character's supposition of strength which is actually weakness and exposition of weaknesses that are actually strengths. Entire lives sidetracked by bull-shit. As a consequence, most of the loss and regret is needless. "And the good book says... we may be done with the past, but the past may not be done with us, and so on and blah-blah..."

All too exhausting. And living a lie isn't? The consequences bite back. The whole world is geared to it and look at us. Now, we don't seriously want to contemplate just how much longer we'll be here as a species. The film is far too close to home, though we'd happily entertain Jack Nicholson rampaging through an asylum, or a man running riot with a chainsaw. Magnolia may get inside and disturb our comfort zone, but the power we can gain from it is immensely positive. Something so 'negative' and uncomfortable we call 'brutally' honest, actually inspires.

That is what some forms of 'mental illness' actually are – brutally honest and inspiring. And that's why this book focusses on _the obstacles and hindrances_ to better mental-health care, otherwise how will we turn around the "super-tanker" mentality that perpetuates inadequate and intrusive attitudes? This is based on reality, the things I have experienced or things my close personal friends have experienced; things I have heard from professionals, voluntary workers, carers, service-users and their families and friends. I wish it could all be 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang' or at least 'How to murder your wife' but while we debate semantics, people are genuinely suffering abuse. If we tap into our 'Oliver's and 'Magnolia's more, we'll do more about it.

I'm not advocating that we all become mentally ill, for what we could gain from it. I'm suggesting that looking at it might help us avoid it, make a journey through it easier, or even use this knowledge to improve our lives. But one thing is certain: we need to make society more open to the subject.

That didn't happen for me. I was left in a catatonic state in isolation even though some people could see me heading that way.

If people are going to take responsibility for decisions regarding their own health, we need to establish some parity between professionals and the public, to accept and validate the 'unqualified' perspectives of everyday people rather than dismiss or minimise them. In the long run, professionals need to be able to take on what service-users (another expression I hate) tell them, without prejudice. If the privileged want the accolade, don't they have to take the responsibility and consequences that go with it? Who else is going to change the culture of expediency and neglect? This is why the whole approach needs reassessing. Regimes built on relatively unchallenged egos and precepts create a false sense of security and work counter to reducing abuse of authority and disempowerment of the vulnerable. Unfortunately this is the situation in the majority of mental-health regimes. Good ones will protest they open themselves up for scrutiny from their peers and colleagues. There is sufficient concern amongst many health professionals working under those regimes, as well as from everyday people like me, to make a big enough noise about it, but who does? And where does it get them? Even if a particular regime is up for it, something invariably goes missing in the process. What this achieves is projecting a more convincing impression that things are progressive and sympathetic, whilst still leaving real issues unresolved. So much so, that people working in those services who have no experience of mental illness either wash their hands and leave it to other agencies, or when the buck is passed to them, hold their hands up, because their client may already have accessed another service, so surely they did something. No? The assumption is based on suspicion or trust in an incorrect assessment, rather than afford individual parity. It really must be the sufferer that is delusional and attention seeking.

As I mentioned, earlier, my upbringing was one bereft of privilege and further education, (not that it necessarily results in a negative impact on a person's abilities and future), but when I decided to campaign and share my experiences I was faced with the decision of how to be taken seriously. I challenge the implication that someone who has a qualification in some academic exercise should have more valid views on a subject than someone actually experiencing it. It's anathema to me that organisations insist on only using conventional language, bureaucratic, professional or 'acceptable' terms, to address something that is experienced outside of those terms. This is compounded when they seek professionally accredited monitoring, to justify the outcome or "evidence." There's something damaging and disengaged about that. Even some of the foremost mental health support organisations have sold out on this. The only place for honest expression is in documentaries and films, for dramatic impact.

The good thing in my case...? I'd say my breakdown and resulting illness has been the most significant influence in establishing my present quality of life and developing my personality. In fact, it is only since then, from the age of thirty-five, that I actually got a life of my own. That involved facing hard truths. I'm still facing them. Fortunately, I had a superb psycho-therapist who never told me what anything was, but helped me find alternative routes to some answers. The answers were always mine.

I know you're still waiting for the Jammie-dodger explanation, but we're still on the starters and main course. There's a lot to digest, first, to get the most from the Jammies. Sorry, you'll have to wait until supper. It doesn't help just to shove them on a plate for you. But think of this: if you were contemplating suicide, would you prefer to be offered a biscuit, or be sectioned?

I originally wanted this book to be a roller-coaster ride, to write as it came out so it would demonstrate the diversity of a mind that vacillates between glorious euphoria and tortuous condemnation. But I decided to arrange it in chapters that deal with subject matter, simply for the convenience of the reader who might wish to locate any useful information they've come across. So, the erratic feel of the book, the darkness and bewildered euphoria is somewhat compromised, but it is illustrated particularly in diary entries, in the second part of the book. What would have been good, is if I could publish the unedited sections that made no sense even to me, not simply ramblings but semblances of sentences that were aimed at making serious points I thought clear and profound at the time, but were lost in translation. It would demonstrate the cavity between intention and expression, but it entails too much tedious analysis.

I want to gently nudge you out of your comfort zone whilst you have light to shed on things, before you are wrenched out of it against your will. Or if you have been, already, to put on some night-vision goggles and take another look. I want you to feel like I have as much control of this as you do, or conversely that the amount of control being exerted is, at times, so overbearing that it is unreasonable, because in reality, it is. I mean, just imagine how many straws you would repeatedly grasp at if your life were hanging by a thread, by the root of some shrub on the edge of a precipice.

It isn't that hard to understand the desperation it takes to convey this message; especially when we insist in treating it as if it is a foreign language. But it is _your_ language, as much as it is mine. It is a _human_ language and hence, a global language. You won't recognise this language as yours or even accept aspects of it, if you've never been left in the dark for a lengthy period. That is why it is so shocking and frightening when you hear it from your own mind and body, for the first time. Not simply panic at the engrossing darkness, but darkness from within.

We're not 'going soft' if we acknowledge it. We wouldn't ignore persistent pain that's telling us something is seriously wrong and needs attention. But instead of learning this language and how it should protect us, we let it fester for years, while it eats away at us. If eminently experienced and dedicated professionals who have made it their life's work cannot possibly understand parts of this language, then what chance do we have? We must listen to ourselves because we might end up being the only person we have left. And there are some things that cannot adequately be expressed outside of experience.

If this book doesn't reflect what it's like to live with the constant internal battle and insecurities of depression, then I _will_ have failed. When I sent a portion of this book to a friend who is also a writer, her comment was that she felt like she was losing the will to live. I couldn't have been more delighted.

So, this book is only supposed to scare because of how scary the things are that we are doing to ourselves. Hopefully, it should dispel some of the fear of being taken by surprise by any similar behaviour you encounter – yours or anyone else's.

Since when did illness automatically negate a person's opinions and experience? Yet this is the way people have been treated for years, when ill, by people who cannot see in the dark. They'd probably place themselves in the light at the end of the tunnel, beckoning you out. But they cannot enter and walk out with you. I recently told a support worker that nothing in life meant anything to me any more. She said she understood. If she understood, she'd be feeling it. Sufferers generally accept that no one has all the answers and they don't always expect complete understanding. But there are more than enough of us about to make it easier for anyone to find sufficient answers to any taxing experience. Experience is irreplaceable. But people are still not readily directed to _existing_ avenues of help that are available. This is deplorable in this age of communication and symptomatic of a far wider and enveloping problem that the sanest person needs to address. For their own sake and for their loved ones.

Left to wander in the dark, you end up going around in circles, not just treading in your own shit but other people's, too, until you can hardly walk at all, in the end.

**\+ / -**

****

**swimming** **in denial**

** ******

_"... my idea of neurotic is spending too much time trying to correct a wrong. When I feel that I'm doing that, then I snap out of it."_ – Gene Wilder.

You've got to be comfortable with being regarded as mad or being neurotic even to contemplate that. It's like a propelling pencil telling a wooden pencil, "don't let the bastards grind you down." It's reasonable, but it panders to those who would dismiss your problems and blame you. But there is some sense in Wilder's tongue in cheek. Allowing yourself to be, or to do, something you can't get completely right can be an antidote to neurosis, if you can manage to snap out of it. It depends on where you put the sense-stress. But it hits on a human trait central to the difference between self-awareness and self-obsession. It is something that has to be learned, as much as self-esteem and self-importance.

Are we so preoccupied with writing our lives in permanent ink, because most lives are written in invisible ink? I am with Slavoj Zizek, we should be searching for the "missing ink."[9] In search for our existence, we immerse ourselves in fantasy and write mostly in red ink. When that runs out we use blood. We try and save a little so we can escape the 'reality' around us, as often as we can. I'm not objecting to this, because the implication is we recognise another reality. We can use it.

Leo Bloom (Wilder) the accountant in _The Producers_ panics more over Max Bialystock touching his blue blanket than the financial and moral bankruptcy of backing a musical production about Hitler. When he attempts a viewpoint Max shoots him down; "SHUT UP! I'M HAVING A RHETORICAL CONVERSATION." That's precisely the dynamic mental health practice recreates.

There are easier ways of opening those doors and walking through. Fear is key to denial. Not only the general public, friends and relatives, but health professionals are afraid of what will come out when they tug those handles. As long as there is fear, there'll always be skilled predators that can manipulate you, or you'll be manipulated by it yourself. But the mental health sector _generates_ this __ fear, not reassurance. Fearful things need not be fearsome. If we are afraid paying it some attention will expose some weakness in us, then if we turn the tables and recognise the strength that's expended behind that fear, surely it will reveal hidden strength and boost self-confidence. Wilder's madcap inanity was pure genious, using his intelligence and utmost confidence in delivery to capitalise on his observation of human weakness. And we love him for it. But people who are naturally like that in everyday life cannot do that and are not so well regarded.

Working to improve the social perception of mental-health would establish a better foundation and quality of help available. Instead of being paralysed by fear, or stigmatised as weak, you would be helped to acquire a balanced and well-informed view, or find significant validity for why you may feel the way you do, _before_ things get so out of hand. You would be given credit for your endurance and effective support. It should be available, naturally, from those who are close to you, as well as professional and voluntary support services. But as long as the fear is perpetuated we're doomed.

I contend that the majority of people suffering depression are not actually _mentally_ ill. Most reactions, even some extreme ones, are perfectly natural physiological, or psychosomatic responses to events that are extremely taxing. It's just that we keep telling people they're not well because we don't understand what's happening and we don't want to end up where they are. In fact, I don't object to being regarded as ill. It is obviously my mentality that makes me feel ill and react in unusual ways; but it is the stigma and ignorance of others, that keeps reminding me that I'm useless to society. As long as television dramas keep convincing people that we're likely to kick off without notice, or suddenly freeze and assume the foetal position, the fear and stigma mounts.

Even if that is tackled and employers find ways to include us in their work force, it's pretty difficult to explain why, occasionally, we might just go blank and forget the simplest things, go shaky, start dropping things, or drop our work rate from fifty mph down to five. It'd be quite tough on other employees, if you had a job where you could just be sent home at a moment's notice and be able to come back when you're feeling better. Only because it would appear that there's nothing wrong with you. You need flue symptoms, or a collapse, or a migraine, or repetitive strain injury, for that to be acceptable. For it to happen once a week or fortnightly would start raising suspicion. So, that makes it tough for employers to seriously consider anyone with depression.

But there are laws against discriminating on a mental health basis, now. I didn't know until after working with mental health professionals for three years. The looks I've had when I've had to respond whether I regard myself as disabled or not! It's like I am insulting _really_ disabled people. And part of me still has difficulty in answering that question.

As long as we repeat certain talismanic clichés we think we'll be spared; or as long as we don't listen to mentally ill people, or people with depression, then we can choose a life of blissful ignorance, because that's easier; that's palatable and better for us. You think? That's like mollycoddling a child, telling it that they're so precious we will never let anyone nasty near them and when they come home from school crying their eyes out, because someone called them a name, we're all over them instead of saying – 'this is the real world love, but you're stronger than that.' Or we tell them that they are a weakling; that they have to become more abusive than the culprit, to survive, and _that_ makes them stronger. Is that so?

Well, test yourself: consider each of the following statements, individually. What's your initial response? Do you believe them, or disagree? And how do you feel about them? Go over them quickly to see how many you agree with.

· Negative feelings are bad.

· People who put up with abuse are weak.

· To be cured, depressed people need to change.

· Depressed people just dwell on negatives too much.

· Depressed or abused people are unreasonable.

· You have to love yourself to be loved.

· You have to love yourself to give love in return.

· Suicide is cowardly or selfish.

· Suicide is the easy way out.

· Attempted suicides are just a call for help.

· Someone who feels suicidal is weak.

· Depression is being self-pitying or self-absorbed.

· Sufferers care more for themselves than for others.

· Self abuse and harming is always bad for a person.

· Self abuse and harming shows mental imbalance.

· Abused people always become abusers.

· Abused people can turn in the blink of an eye.

· Abused people are immoral and have no self-control.

· Depressed people expect people to work around them.

· Depression is self-inflicted or self-perpetuated.

· Depression is a lazy, dependant person's disease.

· Mentally ill people are a burden on society.

Did you find yourself agreeing with all of them, a few, or none? If you agreed with some, can you think of any exceptions to the rule? Could what you've observed actually be something different to this?

You may find some examples of people who are like that, but if there are examples contrary to those assumptions, then, why do we perpetuate the myth, believe the lie? More importantly, if they are lies how should we portray, treat and evaluate those people? The disgusting thing is, this kind of denial isn't just confined to 'Trisha' shows; unfortunately, the same denial exists within the mental-health system. If it's bad for them now, how would you be immune from it, if people had to make judgments about you?

_

Not only is mental-health the ragamuffin "Cinderella of the NHS," but it has a wicked step-mother and ugly sisters too. The terms "super tanker" and "Cinderella" are commonly used throughout the NHS to describe mental health as the poorest sector of health care that is far too set in its course to turn around quickly. In fact, it suffers from the most horrendous case of denial, based on myopic treatment strategies and precepts that are fundamentally counter-productive, even abusive. If you're a genuine carer in the mental health system, you can't be harmed by reading on, but egotists and know-alls beware. I'd hope we'd all end up shouting this together from the rooftops, but I'm sceptical that I won't be dismissed as a crank by those who can't be arsed changing their work methods.

Most are overburdened, but some are just too lazy to question the underlying basis and effects of depression, trauma and abuse, transferring their personal experience, or using conflicting training to simply deliver whatever they've read or been told, not what is personal to the sufferer. There are many 'old school' practitioners who think their experience counts for more than all the developing training that becomes available. They never challenge themselves, they're respected for being abusive. If some of the above preconceptions constitute the basis for training and education on the subject, would they be willing to overturn their training foundation? Or just carry on as it's always been done? Consequently, clients are robbed, development suffers and recovery prolonged. This is how practice sustains its own poverty.

If you cannot recognise or admit to similar emotional responses in yourself that are in your clients (admittedly, not tested to the same extreme), then your assumption will be that you are superior to the people you are treating, that there's something defective or deficient in them. This isn't always deliberate. If that's true of you, why are you in this work? Because you gain power from it? Plenty do. Some may feel their academic knowledge will protect them from these illnesses. Do you accept you could carry as much delusion as the person you treat? No one would accept that from me but they'd get a shock if they had to undergo an assessment. Just because something is deemed by many to be acceptable doesn't make it any less potentially delusional. This is probably why a high proportion of mental hospital staff return as patients. I mention it because this dynamic of superiority is endemic in practice. Training theories leave supporters generally ill equipped to deal with the realities they face. A group of budding social workers on the last day of their three year university course told me they had never received any training on mental health issues, much less been supported by first-hand accounts. The very thought. So, how does this residual fear transfer through patient care?

It translates into subtle abuse. Some not so subtle. Insensitivity, or even well-intended remarks, can be like prodding a tender bruise or an open wound. The reason I use the word abuse, is because authorities asking the most vulnerable to put their trust in them bear a greater responsibility than a trusted friend who admits they don't have a clue. But, _psychologically_ , creating that dynamic of superiority and dependency, even of knowledge, _keeps_ them in an oppressed condition. Apart from isolating them further, it can replicate the dynamics that sent them there in the first place and indirectly reinforce the actions of their abusers. I have seen these attitudes in every training scenarios, with every level of expert I have come into contact with. Too much theorising can leave people up their own veritable black hole, foraging through a titanic of an academic stool that leaves them emotionally constipated and out of touch with anything going on outside of their own sphincter. Those who are convinced they've seen the light, academically or philosophically, and believe they have _the_ answer that must work for everyone, only promote tunnel vision and not a tunnel that always has a light at the end.

Even amongst a good number of well motivated mental-health professionals the _'us and them'_ dynamic is manifest in their scepticism and mistrust of patients. You might say some of that is on our part; our problem, our mistrust, our prejudice; maybe you hear a lot of this from service-users, directed at professionals, sometimes quite heatedly. More often than not, though, it is because a genuine cause gets constantly minimised and the anger behind it can't be balanced, can it? This is why is it so difficult to form adult partnerships in tackling any issue around a person's mental health. You have to start from the standpoint of superiority and inferiority. You cannot have a colourful personality or be funny or intelligent, unless you're known for it on telly and have come out as 'a depressive' in a documentary.

Conversations about you go on in front of you, like you must no longer care, your feelings are dead anyway and it's far too complex for you to work out what they're talking about, naturally. It is _they_ who make more out of your situation than is balanced and factual, based on their own fears and prejudices. This isn't paranoia. It is human ignorance and people in jobs they shouldn't be in, from top to bottom, consultant to receptionist. But the authorities are not the ones in the vulnerable situation, having _us_ make decisions that will affect _their_ immediate and long-term future. It must come down to training and education.

The professionals who imbue me with confidence that this doesn't happen with them, are by far in the minority. It's a shock and a relief, when you meet them.

The stress on a family member or friend who takes on the role of carer is immense, since they have less choice in changing their circumstances. Where would we be without them? How much work and money the NHS are saved through the efforts of people who usually end up on their knees from this stress. The help that is available usually exploits a carer's sense of pride, politeness, responsibility and kindness. All too often they're left to cope with everything that, on the surface, they think they're ok to take on. They rarely seek medical help when they become stressed out or depressed, because they think it will impact on the quality of care of their dependent.

If you think it's stronger to deny yourself the 'luxury' of feeling depressed in order to carry on, you may feel you have little choice, but the stress will take those choices off you in the end. Guilt, anger and frustration can consume and you could start to alienate others who want to help and possibly even abuse the one you care for. Not deliberately, (though some do), but because the pride, dedication and concern mentioned above, all good qualities, often stand in the way of being honest about limitations. We criticise ourselves for not being as effective or not wanting to carry on; judging our emotions and motives, instead of crediting ourselves with having reached our limit. The cold harsh truth is, if you died, someone else would have to step in anyway. Services are so stretched, now, that they will find any excuse to ignore the support that is needed, but this is counter-productive in the long term. Support agencies should realise that if people were supported from the outset, in small ways, then they'd be more self-sufficient in the long term. Carers (including unofficial carers) should be able to make residual support conditional on what they are able to offer. But it means dropping some of that stiff-upper-lip that probably constitutes a significant part of their ongoing motivation. It feels humiliating to give in, but why? Stop that.

The most disgusting thing is, because of the government's unwritten policy of making disadvantaged, disabled, aging or debilitated people fight for their rights, or support of any kind... it's unlikely that you'd be offered that help before you're on your knees. They will let you get to that state. Just look at how many people have had their lives snatched from them, consumed with caring for someone else. That prospect is a major stumbling block to some family members today, who are faced with almost impossible situations, where responsibility becomes focused on one person rather than spread between the whole family. Who says a carer shouldn't have a life of their own? Who made that judgment? They would make better carers, if they could maintain some space for themselves.

So, why is it so unrealistic and too costly to give greater support to willing carers? Because we let commercial greed, profiteers and fat-cats dictate to us how expensive our lives and services should be. Then there's the kind of medical expert (not the superb, humble, dedicated professionals benefiting our lives today) who likes their ego pampered, likes the prominence, or worse, can't get it unless they endorse some drug by being creative with research data; or they adamantly maintain their own bigotry when challenged, just to keep their position and kudos; or they study for some certificate in order to establish their own private regime that abuses loop-holes and get-out clauses, because they see a market of 'weak people' they can exploit, who won't be able to hold them to account for the consequences. They are scum. This mentality pervades high NHS bureaucrats and employment support services.

___

During the time I was helping care for my dad, I experienced pathological reactions to a situation that left me suicidal again. I had to insist the doctor refer me to the community mental health team, nearby. He wouldn't have if it was up to him.

About a year before this I had distributed a leaflet regarding my voluntary work as a campaigner on mental-health issues. I gave one to the CMHT (Community Mental Health Team) and to a voluntary mental-health information service based in the same building. Later on, I had a query about how to obtain my mental-health records that I had been told I had to request in writing from the manager, (this wasn't true). Simple request. But no, they would first have to assess me. When I went for the assessment, I could see in their faces they didn't know what to make of me. Like, you can't have a mental-health problem and be a campaigner, a writer, a volunteer and an artist. The look the receptionist gave the manager said, 'he's here again' – (despite there being months between my previous visits; a man working in the same building for Making Space had been helping me regarding caring for dad) – like I'm a sociopath or I'm drawn to that place for some reason. Now, that might be paranoia, but it certainly wasn't mine. I didn't expect to see the manager, or request it; the cagey receptionist didn't have the information, fair enough, but her body-language was like I'd mentioned a secret code word that meant only the manager could deal with this one. The manager very kindly took me into a private room _with another person present_ because they hadn't yet "assessed the risk." Risk? To answer a simple query? I didn't look dangerous or into drugs or liable to kick off. They'd had plenty of dealings with me, previously. I was friendly towards them and I hadn't demanded a response. As I was leaving, I asked her if they always answered queries in twos, nowadays, and the manager explained as above, then quipped – "you know, good cop, bad cop" (smile). Service with a smile. I had the presence of mind not to. I'll come back to this.

I feel like I'm teaching my granny to suck eggs here, but I'm forced to, because the mental health system is churning out countless mops and buckets and leaving communities to rally together to bail out a country that is going under, when the first thing to do is to plug the bloody leaks. Talk about shutting the gate when the horse has bolted – I'm not the only one who sees it. It doesn't take an expert to see that an attempt to involve the wider community and voluntary sector, to establish new networks of support without secure financial backing, is planning on thin air. The NHS cannot keep highly qualified personnel, most of them leaving because of being asked to compromise basic standards of patient care; they cannot fill their places, so what are we getting? How, then, will the trend towards privatisation and reliance on community services be sustained? Strategists play with the health of the entire nation, but you can't take them to court for intentional GBH.

We've effectively got a government of decorators papering over the cracks. Cracks that are now chasms. So, for how long can we tolerate it? 'Papering over the cracks' 'after the horse has bolted.' That is what current political policy amounts to; the weakest fall prey to their targets. The rhetoric is there, the glossy bloody pamphlets are there, the regulations are there... but the practice rarely surfaces unless someone knows the law and their rights and kicks up enough of a fuss to get someone to do what is basically required. Government departments and health authorities have to be canny as criminals to maintain this façade. It is the worst kind of cowardly, predatory abuse.

Around August 2006, my best friend's mother was hospitalised following a massive stroke. She recovered mentally but lost the use of her left side and couldn't stand. She had initial physio-therapy which was short-lived, as they had to prioritise patients that responded more readily. I am sure there are some good people working there, but whenever the so called support staff – the hospital social worker, care staff, physio-therapist and doctor in charge of her care – held 'family conferences' to give her family members opportunity to make their views known, they totally ignored them. Such was the lack of genuine regard for their wishes, family members had to repeat themselves and pin them down to be heard. There was only one agenda entering and leaving that room, to discharge her. It's worse than if they didn't hold the conferences in the first place. My friend had the presence of mind and integrity to be honest with them, to their faces, about their policy and attitudes and how this would impact on his mother's care. Because of his outspoken-ness, they bi-passed his rights as her main carer, her next of kin and the one to whom she had given power of attorney.

They resorted to pressure tactics. His mother displayed great dignity and pride in that she never wanted to be a burden on anyone, so, the person responsible for obtaining her consent to be moved would approach her while her family were absent. This wasn't to move her bed to another ward. This was to get her consent to go into a nursing home, contrary to her stated desire to be cared for by her family. The family were already urgently formulating realistic plans to care for her at home, (despite their own disabilities and ongoing illnesses), and they had already discussed this with her, but the hospital staff had other plans.

My friend received a telephone call on a Friday evening, five minutes before the administration offices would be closing for the weekend. The purpose of their phone call was to _tell_ him (not ask him) that an appointment had been made for him to see the consultant (who had not been present at any of the family 'conferences') the coming Monday. It was to help make a critical decision about his mother's continued care. He told the telephonist, explicitly, that he already had appointments for Monday and would definitely not be able to make it, but he could meet anytime from the Tuesday onwards. That Sunday, around seven pm, he heard a note being dropped though his front door. He immediately rose to pick it up, since it was unusual to receive post at that time. Within the few seconds it took for him to walk the four metres from his seat to the door and to open it to see who was there, the person delivering the letter had rushed from the garden, got into a car and was already half way down the road. On opening the letter, he was greeted by confirmation that the meeting for Monday was going ahead and that it would be good if he "as the principle carer" could be there.

What was so urgent that it couldn't wait a few days? When he visited his mother over the weekend, there was no such urgency in her condition, or from the nursing staff. A few days later he met with the consultant. No apology. The excuse given for the note delivery was that it was their "kind and concerned way of removing any doubt about him receiving confirmation of the meeting, rather than relying on postal delivery." What would you call use of such tactics upon people in vulnerable and intensely stressed circumstances? This action is not reprehensible. They are only 'doing their job.' The patient's and carer's rights, wishes and support were not priority. Nor, it seems, was good practice. Only the hospital bed and balance sheet. With all the 'consultation' in the world – they had no choices. Not one.

On 11th October 2006, he woke at his usual time to take his mum's dog for a fifteen-minute stroll. Eventually he received a call at eleven-thirty. That morning his mum had suffered another stroke at around five am. Her son was only informed _six and a half hours after the stroke they regarded as potentially critical_. He rushed to the hospital, only to be ushered into a room and told that she had died while he was on his way.

And these people can't be expected to know the emotional and psychological repercussions, upon patients and family members who are not able to say farewell to a loved one on their deathbed? An experienced nurse who specialised in care of elderly patients told me plenty of people die without their family being there, without good reason.

Meat is all his mum was to them.

Despite all the regulations and systems and policies and clinical governance and ethics... the hospital will get away with that behaviour. It was obviously an established practice. Just imagine how many instances there must be where they get away with the bullying tactics on compliant trusting people and shift them off their books. Imagine the impact on those patients. _What kind of people act in that way?_ Callous bastards, that's who. I hope whoever is responsible (all those present should be responsible) has to die alone. No excuses. Weak, cowardly, predatory abuse.

But there are more subtle erosions of people's rights going on every day, some of them quite reasonable, when it comes to mental health crises. It doesn't make them any less a violation of human rights. So, again, why are we supporting a government that puts money before people's lives – plain as the nose on your face – puts the cart before the horse; doesn't bolt the door after all the horses have bolted; makes you ill and will drop you when at your weakest. They will do it to their own, so they'll do it to you. And do you know what we will do? Vote them in, then sit back and let them do it to us.

The greater evil is the complacency and blame game.

We have to start getting angry to get something done and get mental health into the public arena. Bob and Bono get more of an audience with politicians than all the charities put together and even they aren't enough.

As long as a democratic country looks nice n sparkly with its amazing technology and a bewildering number of departments and addresses and telephone lines and web sites that offer help for every condition under the sun, then the government can say they are doing more than ever. Very rarely does that translate into real care. It seems more money is available for promoting and publishing information than there is for hands-on help. Many companies have caught on to this, cashing in on training, training, training, info, info, info. As long as they don't have to actually _do_ anything. So the paper looks better, thicker, covers the cracks better. Bigger cracks – thicker paper. And they can double up their effort, without having to face anyone, by offering information on the web. Because everybody who needs care has a computer, naturally.

Politicians are more intriguing, more credible, the more they can pull the wool over people's eyes, the better they are at papering over the cracks. It makes for riveting hospital drama scripts. And if someone can craftily bring down the time a pensioner has been waiting in a waiting room – on paper – to below a target of say four hours; and doesn't have to report that the same person then waits for another eight hours in a flimsy gown, as a health and safety hazard on a trolley in a cold draughty corridor and dies from rapid onset pneumonia and dehydration; then that's the person for the job!

So we have turned our political culture into a society of pen-pushing conmen. That's why we need to have this revolution, this counter-movement. And if you find that I'm just ignorant of what is really being achieved behind closed doors in mental health treatment, then that's part of the problem – behind closed doors – the system is far too hush hush. No wonder people are in the dark as to what to expect and where they can turn to find someone they can trust. I regularly speak with professionals and sufferers alike, (who are usually unaware of who I am and what I am doing) and without any provocation, invariably they solicit tale after tale of neglect, abuse of authority and patronising dismissal.

I mean, when you've received mental health treatment, or psycho-services, you're not even told afterwards what they recorded, diagnosed, or thought about your illness. You're not prepared for any consequences to your daily life, or informed whether that information will be logged, stored, used by whom, or if it's made available to any other authority, or the police. Since I wrote this, the government axed a national NHS computing network centre that cost millions in development and installation. And didn't work. But it doesn't stop them now logging all medical details for central filing. No more confidentiality and open to all hackers. You're not even told where you can go if you have a complaint, let alone to challenge their decisions. People are playing with people's lives and there is hardly any recourse to those who suffer malpractice. Perhaps that is what we should be diagnosed with – "yeah, I've got malpractice." Which translates as, 'I've got enough of a brain and energy to challenge those that think they're unchallengeable.' It's time we stopped whispering and started shouting. They don't like it up 'em Mr Mannering.

___

I cannot recommend highly enough, the value of mixing with people who have similarly suffered, as an initial and significant step towards recovery. Family carers can be sceptical and fearful of this and sometimes inhibit the progress of the one they're concerned for. One traumatised young man from Burnley (where there is a psychiatric facility) was transferred to a ward in Bradford, a different county, miles away from anyone he knew. His mother was telling me how badly his isolation was affecting him. I could tell from the things she mentioned, with all her protectiveness and utter despair, she didn't have the slightest idea how his mind was working or what he needed. She might be shocked if she knew. She entrusted him to professionals who might not understand or be able to do that much about his isolation. That's if he disclosed his feelings. When I suggested some people I happen to know in that city, amazing inspiring and gentle people, would be willing to visit him, she physically shuddered and looked at me as if I intended to harm him. That kind of closed futile attempt to control is understandable, but really can be deadly. Carers need to expand horizons and suspend their personal preferences and beliefs for the sake of sufferers, but they generally constrict. Albeit unwittingly, it is a harmful power differential and transference of insecurity.

Who knows what quality, negative or positive, might alter the mind state that holds back a sufferer's progress? Many former sufferers are discerning in ways non-sufferers cannot possibly understand. And they are rarely passive or pessimistic. Amongst the wide variety of survivors there are plenty who know the common feelings, or who can facilitate another sufferer's own discovery.

But, even amongst those who have lived the trauma there are some who are not necessarily good for a person's recovery. They may well have good intentions and have valuable experience in supporting people suffering with difficult issues, but they may also unwittingly compound a person's problems. How? Some can reinforce their own illness and prejudices in the name of empathy. Empathy is the first essential ingredient in aiding recovery and some volunteers are superb at providing this, but some never get any further than this step and instead of helping more vulnerable ones understand and gain control over their illness, they increase their dependency upon support and association with the group they attend.

When I started on this campaign, I leafleted lots of organisations to see who would be interested in listening to what I have to say. I've had good responses from many organisations, but I'm sure my message, no matter how gently and skilfully given, will be far too abrasive for any individual who winces at having their expertise and achievements challenged. At a networking seminar, I met a woman who helps run a women's' domestic violence group and asked her if she knew anyone who would be interested in helping set up a local survivor's support group. She didn't even consider the question objectively. I asked her what she does if she gets approached by men that have suffered abuse. She said she refers them on, but didn't look even slightly interested in why I asked, or offering to refer me on. I asked is there a support group for men locally – no. So, I said that I wasn't looking to set up a gender-specific group, that I think they can be counter-productive in certain ways, not decrying the undoubted support that is given by gender-specific groups. She looked at me so suspiciously, like I must only be interested in meeting vulnerable women, to get off with them, or get some control, or want to bring dangerous men into contact with vulnerable women, or something. I get the feeling this is a common suspicion in women's groups. But how helpful is that really? Protective I hear you say, but is it? She wasn't even curious about what I thought might be counter-productive about gender-specific groups that assign attributes and issues to specific gender that are actually not determined by gender.

There is sufficient reason to be concerned about the ratio of women to men that make up the numbers of voluntary and statutory care and support workers. I'd put a conservative estimate at about 80% to 20% in favour of women. It's ok to say women have had to fight tooth and nail for the development and recognition of their rights, over the years, and have pioneered the way for people to address all sorts of issues. Many are wonderful supporters, but I have to ask how objective some of them are, if they tend to gender-ise non-gender-specific issues. How healthy can it be, to women who are frightened of men, to completely blank and sidestep the issue of what the different sexes have to offer each other? This is the prejudicial and unhealthy root behind feminism, which seems to ignore some of the historical dynamics in heterosexual relationships in favour of selective agendas. I'd go as far as to ask what proportion of influence from women affects the employment of women over men in the NHS, since, if there is not a gender issue, surely we would see a proportionate representation of male carers. Maybe I am making an issue of this, but with such known social prejudices from the career-minded female of the species, more than the male, is it unreasonable to assume that 'sisters are doing it for themselves?'

What I am talking about is a more subtle insemination than an overt movement and possibly unconnected to closet feminism. But the effects of this subtlety are not subtle at all. The boldest example I've seen, of this 'inalienable right of women as sufferers and carers' syndrome, was the recorded debate 'Town Bloody Hall' at New York Town Hall, with Germaine Greer and Norman Mailer, amongst other "Glittering Literati" and the best minds on the subject of feminism, in 1971. All parties on the panel came out of it with dignity and demonstrated some equality amongst them, in stature if not intellect. But most of the audience, men and women, seemed to be more determined to exhibit their lazy-minded differences, rather than contribute to a serious debate, which is what Mailer as chair tried to steer them towards. Unsuccessfully. I would go as far to say that these subliminal issues affect mental health and support groups that employ, predominantly, women. This needs to be addressed by any organisation that wants to operate non-prejudicial approaches.

You see, what I would like to understand is this: it's ok to support and have feelings in common with people whose lives have been affected by someone who is clearly dangerous, but if you're afraid of a normal bloke who's had just as hard a time and probably has something in common, and your response is not even to give consideration to a reasonable request, let alone be challenged; how can you be helping others? If that is the behaviour you pass on as a facilitator and mentor, how dangerous an influence is it on another person's perspective? Though you can offer a degree of fellow feeling, you could be robbing people of proper balanced perspective. Worse; you could reinforce reactions that are pathological, or turn insecurities pathological by imposing your pathology. Where there is lack of humility there will be a fall and the sad thing is, the ones who are proud and bigoted are not usually the ones that hit the deck. It could be devastating to trusting 'disciples'.

Some who have lacked a feeling of belonging, or respect in relationships, previously; and who suddenly find themselves with some authority, trust and responsibility among others who are suffering humiliation, especially newcomers; can often feel exalted. That's natural. But, if they then develop a dependency on the attention, appreciation and respect they suddenly command from those humble people, it becomes easier to indulge that sense of prominence. It can take an awful lot of moral fibre not to succumb to that kind of easy ego-boost. Some sadly have no intention of keeping both feet grounded and woe betides anyone who criticises them. If they feel threatened by someone's intelligence, being challenged, or even an inquisitive nature – verbally, by implication, or even subconsciously – there's little to stop them deliberately keeping someone humble in their place by demeaning them. Even when that problem doesn't arise as a deliberate act, there are those who are very possessive and precious about what they've achieved and how long they've been supporting people, but to the point where, if someone new comes along and is eager to help, they can be held back simply through a lack of sharing, or empowering, for fear they might become more popular, or help just as much as the founder or 'leader.' So, the abuse dynamic continues. Those who are compliant can also perpetuate the same dynamic from the opposite standpoint. I have seen this with very experienced facilitators and not a few 'qualified' mental-health workers. I've also seen it with close colleagues, in organisations I have wanted to support and promote, but had to back away from.

There is nothing wrong with pride of achievement, until it becomes a purely personal agenda and any helpful initiatives that could facilitate progress are dismissed. I've seen this in professional advocacy agencies. Incidentally, mainly controlled by women. It can take martyrdom and control-freakery, paranoia and possessiveness, to set up some of these organisations and keep them afloat, but it begs the question; if you have information that can help and you know someone somewhere is suffering without it, why wouldn't you want to share it?

This happens organisationally amongst the plethora of health support groups and charities vying for grants, awards and funding. They don't seem to want to cooperate with each other and that's without the personality conflicts on top of it. A lot of this is people protecting their own positions, but they do jump ship when their position is at risk. On an individual basis that's understandable, but this protective insecure climate interrupts delivery and quality of service to those who are in desperate straits. As I meet more and more people from around the country who are working in mental health and want to improve it, I find it astonishing that there are so many prominent, practiced, intelligent, dynamic and motivated people who basically agree and want the same thing, but they never band together to make it happen. It is beyond me why these people will not cooperate to become the tour-de-force they could be.

So, the plan to become more dependent on the voluntary sector is a 'quick-sand' policy, as long as government health and social services are determined to preserve their budgets by it, instead of investing in it.

That will exacerbate the problem of allocation. Already, there are those who fall through the net because services prioritise resources towards more extreme cases, maybe those who are deemed a danger to themselves, or to others, and need hospitalisation. They are priorities, sure. I'm not talking about those who will always need hands-on support. Concerned neighbours, friends and relatives might bring it to someone's attention and it is right that we feel a collective responsibility to help people who cannot get by, on their own. But there is legitimate concern over a dependency culture that some sufferers take advantage of, for a cushier life. Some fairly capable people make it very visible, what they want, when they drop out of society and let themselves go. There is nothing to say they would lead any different a life without the support they get. They will have accessed those services legitimately and will be encouraged to progress to where they're less of a burden on those services, but have it too cushy to put in the little effort required. They effectively take service-provision away from the more needy.

But genuinely desperate people are usually _less_ visible regarding their needs. Those who have _private_ episodes of self harming, putting themselves in dangerous situations, suffering invasive abuse or suicidal feelings, may seem on the surface to cope with life and thus get ignored. When there are indicators that something is terribly wrong in that person's life and they never kick up a fuss, or they trust professionals to know what's best for them, or feel they do not deserve help or, more accurately, they look normal and sound reasonable... eventually, when they can no longer deny their problems and seek help, they are _more_ likely to be dismissed, in the minds of professionals who are pressured into prioritising resources.

Because, for years, I was never diagnosed as bi-polar, or been hospitalised when I've been experiencing mania and shut myself away for fear of what I might do to myself, or let someone else do to me; when I regard my own home as my hospital, even binding and confining myself to bed; when I've sexually abused myself to justify my torment, or given myself physical pain as an antidote to mania; when I've been smashing my body against a wall in the middle of the night, screaming for someone to chop my limbs off and smash my head in with a sledge hammer; when I've had a panic attack and rushed home realising I've said something to someone that no normal person would dream of saying, or moved towards some action that is bordering on sociopathic, or I've been hypo-manic (when I haven't realised I wasn't well) and I've just managed to reign myself in; or I have just withdrawn from taking my life, because I fancied a Jammie Dodger, and all the ups and downs in between – I'm not regarded as a bona fide depressive!

No one sees these things (rare occurrences, nowadays, but no less intense), they just see a bloke who looks 'normal' and is a friendly, pleasant chap, who sometimes makes a bit of sense when he has something to say, but is a bit strange, or outspoken, or not the most diplomatic communicator. That's is what you see with most people suffering depression. Keeping the horror from others becomes a skill, especially with partners, children and extended family. All the people I know who suffer with depression are the most reasonable people I have ever met. This is partly because they are honest with themselves; not self-indulgent, but self-critical to the most frustrating degree. That's where their reasonableness falls short, if anywhere. They have had to fight harder than most to find the reasons why they are affected in certain ways, in order to be able to live with themselves.

Someone who is self-centred and expects everyone else to work around them, without even questioning the way they are, is very different to someone who is so afraid of what is happening to them and doesn't like it.

But I object to the indulged new generation of teenage loudmouthed money-stealing, drinking, drug-taking, knife-wielding designer-wear cry-babies, who get all the help and support they need, even _holidays_ (what's one of them?) and they still think it's their ordained right to threaten and publicly humiliate their foster parent, or carer, or trash public facilities for everyone else, when they don't get their own way. If you fit this bill, I'm not belittling your experiences but for fucks sake, stop using it as a crutch for abuse. Maybe you have had plenty of crap to handle, but let's get real about this: the majority of people suffering real torments, old and young, don't take their shit out on anyone else. Abuse is never strength, so get real instead of making yourself look like total wankers.

___

Back to my assessment, when I'd felt suicidal and had to insist my G.P. refer me to the mental health team:

_( 2005)I have no help; I manage really well without medication, but I'm told by the mental health team manager, there's nothing for me except strangers on the end of a telephone line, who are willing to talk but unable to act, (this is for the times when I'm not capable of using the telephone); and I happen to be more fortunate than others, since I have friends who I can do that with (who I never bother at those times); or I can go back to see my doctor (who is clueless about my condition and even less interested). She may as well have just patted me on the head and gently ushered me out of the building saying, 'you're doing well, you're not as ill as the rest of the people we treat,' when some of them are probably doped up all day and a whole ward-full of them looked after by two nurses. It seems I should do the same; go and get my disinterested G.P. to dope me up for a while until I get over it. They'd be happy with that, if they could forget about me and I didn't have to bother them again. I went in to that assessment desperate and came out of it feeling like a piece of waste that had just been dumped on land-fill, even more isolated and humiliated than before I'd turned to them._

_The upshot was, I must be delusional about my condition and make it sound worse than it actually is, because I have educated myself about it; and maybe, you know, maybe I am imagining things from books that I've read. Yeah, that'll be it. That wasn't said but the eyes have it. You're not supposed to educate yourself about your own illness! And that would be all the books I hadn't read, because I hadn't made a study of it. So am I paranoid or not? If only they could make their fuckin minds up. _

_My suicidal feelings and pathological issues can't be that bad because if they were, I would be stalking and propositioning women – (wanted to proposition, not stalk. I helped a friend deal with a stalker and it was awful. He was a weak, immature, oppressive prick) – I wanted to when I walked out of there, as I did whenever I left the psychotherapy unit after each session, a couple of years since. This was one of my pathological responses to feeling valueless, especially when I'd opened myself up to, or been rejected by, women. The assessor had no knowledge of that. According to her I should be cutting myself; I should be an alcoholic, or drug abuser, taking it out on everyone else and forcing them to function around my dependency and the personality that goes with it; I should be out of it on medication and have a C.P.N. and others coming to help me do simple tasks and taking an interest in how I'm doing and what I want to talk about. I should have all that if I'm really ill._

_Oh, yeah... I could go and wait in A &E for nine hours, though fuck knows how I'd get there, because I'd not need an ambulance. Oh, and did you know... people who are really, I mean, really depressed CAN'T DRIVE! "Oh, you drive?" she said, as if that concluded their assessment. Of course, it makes me a complete fraud – 'why are we even assessing someone who can drive a vehicle?' was the clear inference. So, the times when I can't even make a cuppa, when everything is slow motion and I can't actually get the coffee granules in the cup, let alone drive... I should be like that all the time? Oh, and because I am "very articulate" maybe I should be able to work "...some kind of full-time job" would take my mind off it and I wouldn't have the poverty and be a tax burden and wasting their resources, or have all this time on my hands, is the tone of her voice._

_But I'm just being negative. They were thoughtful enough to make me a cup of coffee, while I waited, and amused me in reception with jokes about the first layer of dust having already settled on me and I was amenable and I laughed politely, like I've got nothing better I could be getting on with, like killing myself. And why do people turn to drugs and crime again?_

_In the end all they could offer was to print off a list of telephone numbers I already had, somewhere, to carry with me at all times just in case I have a sudden – UGH! – suicidal attack and I don't happen to be phobic about telephones, or I just happen to have one with me at the time that runs on thin air, rather than credit. That's even if having the numbers actually translated into hands on help. This was the reality. _

_I manage miraculously, but when I'm in extreme danger, close to, or experiencing psychosis – it's like the feather that lands on the shoulder of a man clinging to a cliff by a root that's about to dislodge and all I need is that featherlike support, from below, and I'll do the rest of the hanging on myself, but no – there is no support. It seems I must join the everlasting queue of those who face suicide alone. I shouldn't be such a bother, such an attention seeker. I should actually just get a little bit better grip than I've actually got, because the one I've got evidently isn't good enough. So, I go home and shut my door and stuff my face with tortilla chips and chocolate biscuits until I feel sick. That's to stop me desperately trying to find someone who wants me to comfort them, through sex, because it's the only thing I seem to be any good at; or just to use me, for me to feel that I have some use; or to be filthy, to validate their wild lust, or substantiate what a worthless piece of shit I really am. _

__

Rejection from trained and trusted carers, who _should_ be more aware of the consequences of rejection, is tantamount to saying, 'get back in that crappy alley where you were abused, where you've always belonged, and stop fuckin whinging.'

___

People don't like facing themselves – their real self – they're discouraged from doing so; they like to think they can be better than their self-estimation, to be good at something and not have to constantly be reminded of their blemishes; to use any decoy that serves to 'protect' their self-image. Who gives us this problem in the first place? Who keeps telling us we're not ok, that a part of our life is ugly, that we're just not right? Who keeps telling us that we can be perfect, or we can be right in every way? Only delusional, crass, manipulative marketing strategists who prey on insecurities and conform us into demographics; or intolerant perfectionists.

I'm all for dreaming and trying to be better at something, or improving your life, but not at the expense of others, or yourself, or to perpetuate some suppressive, restrictive life-style. And not for some ideological paradigm, religious or otherwise, that prevents you from accepting reality – specifically, the reality of who and what you are, at any given stage of your development and experience as an individual – just so you can 'fit in' or be deemed 'acceptable.' How many films have covered this topic? That's because we recognise it is such a big problem.

Discovery, on the other hand, is wonderful isn't it? People are always discovering where they made mistakes and learning from it. That's growing. That's having a healthy mind. That's true beauty. Acknowledging our various facets. That's maturity, not constantly justifying everything that we do wrong. Those that are convinced they're blameless and beyond criticism – the bees' knees – they're the most delusional and _really are mentally ill_. But it is a tough thing to face yourself.

So, how do you react when you are criticised, or you find a blemish in some way? And what if it won't go away? I used to aspire to being a perfectionist, it is useful for some things, but it is much more realistic and actually life-enhancing to be an imperfectionist; to celebrate imperfection and see beauty in it. When I accepted that, amongst my family, friends, work colleagues, in relationships and especially in myself, life became so much easier and relaxed, actually healthier and above all, realistic.

Like my dad when he came out of the operating theatre crapping through a hole in his side; like anyone who has gone through a stroke or horrendous accident; or anyone who has lost the object of their love, motivation and purpose for living... there are things we have no choice but to face, or give up, or distract ourselves from. Whatever we choose, those things will not go away... it really comes down to what we make of them. And I don't mean the cliché "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." As one experienced ward nurse who suffers severe depression stated – "I don't want to be bloody stronger, I just want to be well."

**Catching up**

__

_Past is dead _

_and_ _gone, some people say_

_move_ _on;_

_but_ _where do they move to, and why move if it has already _

_ gone?_

__

_And where does it go to , or does it_

_go_ _too?_

__

_"It's no use... living in it" but_

_" what goes around..." _

_goes_ _around and around_

_they_ _reminisce._

__

_We catch up , or does it? _

_We come and go, but it comes_

_to_ _stay out all night,_

_in_ _all day _

_an_ _itinerant_

_child_ _dragging behind_

_ us_

__

_all_ _the bags we stashed away_

_where_ _no one could see, not even_

_me_ _._

_..._

__

_"SURPRISE - SURPRISE!" _

_Suddenly it's there,_

_plonks_ _itself down before you,_

_unwrapping_ _itself._

__

_What a present _

_the_ _past makes._

Even though I thought I was a really nice bloke and had hundreds of friends who loved me... I don't think I really faced myself and my past until I was forced to. In fact it was only by the kind act of a friend that I found out what the core of my problems was.

I never became an alcoholic, though I've been close to turning. I have never done drugs, but I understand what can make people turn to them. But I have been both catatonic and uncontrollably foetal in sheer agony and fear. My life changed, radically, through a total and utter breakdown and loss of everything, and I mean everything, not just materially, but family, friends, marriage, business, home, possessions, health, sanity, self-esteem, will to live, abilities, capacities and a few other things. I was repeatedly rejected by trusted 'friends' I turned to for help, even though I was known and respected for my love and support of them. I have a healthier judgement of their attitudes and influences, now, but they're still caught up in the same self-righteous, self-serving delusion.

When you see no need to change, how can you? There's nothing practically quite so ugly and malevolent as self-righteousness.

I've also experienced sudden consummate euphoria deplete of drugs or any external influence like music, or happiness from a relationship, or meditation. No, unfortunately, I haven't got the secret for that one, you'd have to ask my therapist for that but I'm not sure she'd know. More on that later.

I've had to learn how to repeatedly 'survive' or 'evade' suicide. Counsellors and psychiatrists may think they know how you can do this, but if they've never gone there themselves it is mere conjecture. Surviving is an individual thing, according to your spiritual, physical, emotional and psychological make-up. Not many would recommend my way of surviving, sometimes involving self-abuse; so I can see the positive value in things like self-harming. The idea is gaining wider acceptance but far too slowly.

Two of my very close friends didn't evade it; friends I'd known for years before I knew I was ill and before they did. Two friends who knew each other, as well as I knew them, though we rarely socialised as a group. Two friends who committed suicide within a fortnight of each other. No collusion. Totally unconnected. Two people who were fun to be around, open, non-judgmental and caring. Two people who supported others suffering mental illness.

One of them did it about four miles down the motorway from me – no warning, no indication from the last time we sat and talked two weeks previous, no intervening communication between us – at the very moment I was walking uncontrollably towards an approach on the same motorway, to throw myself under a heavy goods vehicle. That still spooks me.

Now, just ten years on, my life is happy. Not many well people can say that and some of them might begrudge it me. Yep, I mean happy and relatively stable, despite managing ongoing manic depression (or bi-polar disorder) and post-traumatic stress without medication. It is tough, but it is sustainable independently and I have to maintain survival strategies to protect that. From the authorities if necessary.

Not just a life begun _again_ – I mean, it was a resurrection – but a life full of understanding about when, why and how my life _really_ began; how important every formative year of it was, because it never seemed to be mine, or the first thirty-five years of it seemed wasted. Now, my life is my own. Analysing it has taken years and it has been the hardest most frightening thing I've ever done. It involved accepting things that I used to condemn myself for; my sexuality, after questioning all aspects of it, even issues surrounding gender; taking possession of my emotions and the reasons for them, so that my depression is no longer that dark mysterious monster, even if it still envelops and smothers me; no longer letting my absent abusers batter me; balancing my inadequacies, qualities and talents and the daily conflict between them; accepting the legitimacy of my illness whilst fighting stigma, self-criticism and debilitating influences, internal and external, _getting real_ about it, in order to live with it.

I have reduced the all-consuming monster to a Jack Russell that occasionally nips at my heels.

It is a far from perfect life, living in abject poverty, which I do not advocate – but it is better than it has ever been, irrespective of money. I have had to fight for my happiness, though, against what others think I should have done; against their precious principles and even against the conventional standards and thinking of many mental health professionals. But if I had succumbed to their influences I would have been worse off. At the end of it all, people are not going to be stood at the foot of your grave weeping over how they gave you no help, or a bum steer.

But you know what? If I hadn't been through what I did, and to a certain extent alone, I certainly would never have ended up here. I very nearly didn't. _If it hadn't got so drastic, maybe I wouldn't have changed_. Now that is frightening.

___

I am not a political activist and have no political affiliations but while I'm here I have a campaign for us to change our immediate environment, culture and attitudes towards our mental health and the power within ourselves to recover from extreme experiences.

You can change that world. It is your world, as much as anyone else's. No one can tell you how to live your life. Beware those who insist you be anything other than yourself, or that _that_ is not good enough (unless you're a practicing paedophile, in which case, shoot yourself now). Individuals have changed our world, it is possible. It should be easier if we band together.

Some say Hitler is an individual who changed the world. But Hitler couldn't change the world on his own, the way Ghandi or Jesus did. He would have been powerless if the right people refused him. But look at him as an example of the power of conformity. He was a genius of sorts. We tend to look up to that, don't we? "Oh yeah, Hitler... amazing!" Some people did and still do. Was he a master of deception? Not really. Anyway, you find me a British politician who isn't today. Were Germans that pure Arian race, or was that delusion? So, how did he manage to get a whole nation to behave so inhumanely? Were his cohorts fearless? Absolutely not, they were full of fear. Consider the kind of heinous actions some of them were capable of; did that make them stronger? What motivating factors do you think would have moved them to commit such atrocities? I imagine; in order to cope with that evil and combat it, exponents, opponents and victims alike would have to educate themselves in evil, acclimatise to it, tap that area of their psyche in order to survive, or to excel in it, so as not to be subject to those who were prepared to go further. Where did Sonderkommandos store all their emotions? You imagine Goering, Himmler and Mengeller, as well as every foot soldier, were not constantly watching their backs? Fear and greed were the predominant factors operating there. Or maybe it was a feeling of powerlessness and passivity amongst the general populace? That's how the stuff of nightmares become reality.

The whole world fell victim to Hitler's machinations, because many in positions of responsibility and power refused to educate themselves about how horrendous that fear was, how it could stretch its cankerous fingers into the hearts and minds of everyone living who chose to go with the flow, listened to religious and political bigwigs and ignored the cries of the insignificant and powerless. It's well documented that some of these 'weaklings' were stronger than Hitler and his lackeys. Germans as well as Jews. People who would not conform to execute their 'patriotic duty,' but retained their respect for life and other human beings. People whose almost imperceptible calls bucked the trends and predominant thinking... and fell on deaf ears. People who put their lives on the line to differ and suffered incarceration and stigma. They threatened that regime and ultimately conquered it. They may not have had less fear than anyone else, but they had more humanity.

Unbelievable that those things happened, some would say. But the culture for it to happen again is rife, because we have not applied our historical knowledge to protect ourselves from those who study and employ the same tactics. Politicians are only the septic carbuncle-heads of any democracy, though. And so, we see the employment of right-wing strategies in the UK, with the voter led along by the leash and threat of the cattle-prod. Our immune systems will not cope with the endemic rot. In the end you either cauterise or disinfect. What's it to be?

We should never desist in educating ourselves about the Holocaust and other genocides and what motivated such weakness. The current British government would have us in similar enclaves and ghettos, fending for oursleves. That evil became almost insurmountable across Europe and the far East, but what did it ultimately achieve? And where are its protagonists, today? That's why Nazi Germany is such a fitting example, not only for false democracy, but for our attitudes towards mental health. Fear and greed is still feeding on weak people with weak minds, who are not mature enough to see that abuse, power and oppression have nothing worthwhile to offer and are ultimately self-defeating.

We are denying ourselves some fundamental and basic human rights, not due to oppressive regimes or lack of social mobility or wealth, but due to the fact that we have been lying to ourselves and accepting, rewarding liars within our communities. More importantly we deceive ourselves into accepting this is healthy. If the all-singing all-dancing democratic system employs strategies that perpetuate crimes against humanity, in commerce and public services, then we are on a runaway train that few will even see the need to stop. We know this is happening, yet who is prepared to pull the emergency chord? We recognise the sentiments and will sing along in unison to The Beatles, or whoever you prefer, so if we agree so much with their message, what is stopping us getting what we want and need? Why, as a population that _employs_ our leaders, do we feel and act like we are so powerless?

There are plenty of things that are way too big for us to face alone in this world; your self and your basic human right to soundness of mind and proper health care should not be amongst them, especially when at your most vulnerable.

___

But there is a more insidious weakness, fear and selfishness going on under our own noses. It is equivalent to the cancer that is the ongoing movement into fear and greed that will turn western society (and as a result the rest of the globe who are following) to turn on itself. This book won't stop that. You are seeing it before your very eyes, not just on the news; you will let yourself be titillated by it in soap operas; you will watch the most horrendous examples of it in films and let it entertain you in theatre and the music industry; you can bear to watch extreme expressions of it in 'Reservoir Dogs' and news footage, almost every night, as long as it isn't real or it isn't touching you. The capacity we have to amuse ourselves with horror is astonishing, but what about the things that are lying under your skin?

I'm not talking about chopping someone's ear off or quartering Mel Gibson until he's blue in the face. I'm talking about the subtle things. What is the most frightening thing about you, the things you would be capable or incapable of in extreme situations? Would you want to know? I think most of us know the answer to that, but is that because we automatically assume the answer will be negative?

We know that one in four people will suffer with depression at any given time. Will you be the one in four? We are intensifying the chances of it happening.

A good indication of how well you would cope is indicated in how flexible you are, how judgmental you are and how you respond to reality or truth, about you, your family and most importantly truth about things that promote fear; things you want to steer clear from, because, that is the way fear works. There are three sides to every story.

When trials and traumas contort our thinking to incredible degrees, the threshold between sanity and insanity can be a hair's-breadth. Sanity can look like insanity to those who go with the flow, because the current trends in western society are insane.

This is why I champion the weaknesses of people, because it is part of us all and when we strengthen the weak we strengthen ourselves. And while we make it easier to get real about ourselves, we need to hold culpable those who through delusional ambition are determined to rob us of it. They should be dragged out of Parliament by the hair, but if we only turned around the things I mention in this chapter and stopped walking away from ourselves, it'd be a massive step in the right direction. Never under-estimate the power of small steps.

The current extent of social, political and institutional denial means, for everyone now, it is sink or swim. But swim in what?

Neurosis anyone? Or shall we just stop correcting the wrongs?

+/-

**two** **-edged sword**

_"Society is always engaged in a vast conspiracy to preserve itself - at the expense of the demands of each new generation."_ – John Haynes Holmes

John Holmes' observation, above, may reflect the anxiety that constantly pitches adulthood against youth and that intensifies with the increasing longevity of successive generations, but it isn't the demands of each new generation that pays for preservation. Preservation now stands held to ransom by the demands of younger generations, as unflinchingly as if we were living in Cambodia under Pol Pot. You can dismiss this idea as exaggeration but when you consider the knock-on burden of allowing irresponsible childish adults and youths what they want, what they really really want and what they want right now – namely, loads of beer, drugs and holidays, expensive laptops and computer games, consoles, designer fashion, make-up, singing/dancing lessons, flashy cars, recording a CD, burger n chips, knives and a zig-azig-ahhh (it's everyone's basic right) – and how this attracts immigrants from places where they cannot have this life-style – the pressure has never been greater on practitioners to provide care.

The idea that you will be put in the driving seat for your health matters is wonderful, but when you are held responsible instead of practitioners, when your choices differ, how prepared do you need to be? Will health professionals take on that responsibility or relinquish it? How much of a partnership can you currently depend upon? So... where does the reality of commerce, private treatment, the constraints of NHS governance and the expanding trend in Foundation Trusts and their ever increasing circles of bureaucracy, pseudo 'consultations' and ever decreasing circles of research, quality of care and training, leave us?

Some experts don't like to be subsidiary to your preferences, or diminished in the equation of who decides what is best for the patient. Of course, they are not diminished; they just have to respect your choice. It stands out a mile when practitioners operate in this way, but in many instances this is not being done in the simplest of situations. More than adapting policies to provide 'evidence' of more targeted care, services reduce care to minimise potential risks to themselves and culpability within the new framework.

"Responsibility of care" is the phrase that you'll hear when your human rights are being eroded or denied.

Even given the whole system of care at your disposal and every professional at your fingertips with money as no object – would you want sole responsibility for determining your health care? How would you choose what you would like, let alone need? So this idea about us directing our care, if it is a genuine movement in sharing of power and authority, will call for a mutually respectful partnership, but how will that be genuine if we are uneducated about our choices? Can we be lazy and have that choice? Practitioners are thus put under additional pressure to become diplomatic educators. And some won't bother. That's their new get-out clause, with no redress to themselves. It's a deflection policy within some care organisations now. People are already dying needlessly... no, let's call it what it is... _being murdered,_ for the sake of pre-meditated financially driven medical strategies.

Who then is prepared to wield the two-edged sword of responsibility in this age of 'irresponsibility of care?'

If this is the culture our children will inherit, how will succeeding generations take on the task? It highlights the urgency of establishing now what we wish for our old age and for our children's futures. It's no longer viable to expect current government to prioritise this. We've seen their true colours. We are seeing before our very eyes, the demise of education, of statutory services, of the health service, of social care, of industry, of the voluntary sector and not just the amputation of these services but of the principles that founded them. We are in danger not just of undermining future generations' capabilities, but polarising them into predators and victims under siege, inhibiting their imagination, potential and resolve. It's a runaway train. All those that agree, say 'Aye,' but for one to apply the brakes, everyone has to.

We only have one generation, if we are lucky, to turn this trend around, because today's youth don't have our memory of how things used to be and in half a generation, we might be past telling them. The whole bureaucratic system needs an overhaul and there are capable people out there. But if we continue teaching people how to be deceitful, we're doomed. That's if the planet doesn't get us first. It's alarming, the trends away from science and technology, in favour of performing arts, financial services and the legal profession. Is there no other future? Successive governments have created a disincentive for people to look to social and health services for a career. Yet the indication from the media is that anyone who is talentless but different or outrageous enough can be the next big thing. And before each new big thing has had chance to fart, they're shoved out by the next big thing and so mediocrity's mass market catering to the lowest common denominator becomes the preferred achievable aspiration with least effort required.

This is a betrayal of what youths have at their disposal and their intuitions. Education through to work experience has become a disabling, demoralising process, leaving the most passionate burdened with crippling debt and disenchantment. That is why our current political regime is full of self-serving traitors, for not preserving what previous generations fought hard for. Current politicians are not the anxious adults but play-actors that indulge the laziness of the ransoming youth. They _are_ the ransoming youth. It was hard to conceive of a worse government than New Labour, but no party can argue for votes on policy any more, since we've seen what turn-coats they all are. Cameron's proclamation of 'The Big Society' is no taciturn betrayal of everything Thatcher fought to identify the Conservative Party by. It is a mealy-mouthed diversion tactic, pure rhetoric to hoodwink a disenfranchised populace. Now, it's a cat and mouse game. They've found the limit on how far they can push the public, so now it's about how to get the punches in below the belt, undetected. And when they are detected, how to retreat and formulate your next attack. This is how punch-drunk we are in the UK. We _expect_ them to behave this way. _Not_ to serve us. The vast majority of people are now so frantically preoccupied with survival, they have no energy left to go through the protracted legal process of holding government to account.

When we think how hard people have fought for the rights we have in this country and replacement of some of its arcane laws, all that collective and individual effort and expense – that counts for nothing, now. The well motivated and dogged voluntary sector is so consumed by funding and government cut-backs, many new initiatives are short-lived and long-standing ones are downsizing. The government seems to have better things to spend our money on, like lavish arse-licking internal awards ceremonies for Mandelson, than helping those who help people out of the shit. They wear tuxedos and tiaras but don't wipe their arses when they go to the loo. Shits who treat people like shits to better themselves are lower than dung-beetles in my view.

People have been getting things done for years for free without government money. How come? Imagine what could be done if the government were officially made subservient to voluntary organisations? Or if those organisations could be confident government funds prioritised them as much as any other outlet.

There is a fear of placing confidence in laymen and most people who have invested time, money and effort to acquire expertise are visibly niggled by the idea they can be challenged by untrained people. But those objections are immature in-so-far as they are inhibited by lack of imagination and usually lack of experience. It's the people who are not constrained by conformity that usually have the most advantageous ideas. People who are not motivated by commercial considerations go that step further for the good of others, especially if they've had to learn the skills and benefits of frugality. But who is prepared to take the risks? I think many a tax-payer would prefer to invest in those kind of organisations, to see things getting done for their money.

I've seen the tragic results when the vast majority of voluntary input gets misdirected and wasted. Year on year we've had a culture of increasing costs, preservation of unnecessary self-serving positions and projects that recycle the increasing budgets internally. People that do this are the biggest burden to the tax payer, bigger leeches than anyone who legitimately benefits from the welfare state, because this practice is endemic to all civil servant departments and bureaucracies pressuring front line support and emergency services.

Yet, in mental health, when officials listened to the advice they got more cheaply, or for free, from volunteer service-users and patients, and adjusted their practices, the results were staggering. Because, those on the receiving end of services have something irreplaceable to contribute.

___

If someone lost a leg and was discriminated against in hospital, or by their G.P. or in the workplace, we would be up in arms. We wouldn't call them stupid if they wanted to carry on working, or say their judgment must be impaired all of a sudden, that they must now be a different person. We wouldn't think twice about supporting that person when they struggled with their emotions. If they expressed a desire to climb Mount Everest, or just to play football, we wouldn't call them mad, we'd cheer them on. We'd call them heroic.

Conditions such as Alzheimer's, Asperger's and Downs Syndrome are readily acknowledged, you can see them... the problem of depression is widely known about, but people who suffer it look too 'normal.' These people – as with people suffering other mental inflictions – are not defective humans; they are not deficient in relation to _any_ other human being. They are simply restricted in their capacities, but those restrictions free up other rare qualities of understanding. I watched a documentary on Alzheimer's and the soul-destroying agony of the husband and daughter of a woman who could no longer communicate or even use a fork. The daughter took her mum for a walk in the park and, sitting on a bench, let go how she wants and needs her mother back, to share her life and get advice and comfort and that her mum is no longer the same woman. Seeing her distress, the only comfort her mother could offer was repeated kisses on her cheek, either out of natural empathy, or to actually communicate "I'm still here and I wish I could be that person," we can only guess. I'd venture she wouldn't do that with just anyone, nor if she wasn't fully understanding the moment. When someone you love is like that, the non-verbal body-language is the only communication you have to attune to. There needs to be more readiness and time for this, in services, but it is often used to excuse neglect and minimise care. All the more disgraceful then, that services predominantly use stigma and laziness to ignore those with mental illness who are lucid and expressive, let alone those less forthcoming. I have just been dropped by a support service, because I am too intelligent. Despite a history of mental health work experience, my supporter and no doubt her manager conveniently mistake my mis-firing PTSD mental-blocks for "lack of confidence" and she shrugs as if it is such an easy problem to solve and everybody will abide by any reasonable request, if I only make it properly and strongly enough. And as for effort on my part, it is assumed I have not already gone to great lengths only then to be ignored – it is not that I am dealing with evasive people. It is me that is the problem, being too lazy. And now, because my supporters are leaving me I have to consider the stress of whether criticising their quality of support is going to get me or them anywhere even though they are supposed to be led by the service users and are open to improvements.

How many creative and scientific geniuses, public servants and capable professionals have struggled with mental difficulties? We need to stop making a freak show of mental health issues and let people see how it affects _all of us_ directly and indirectly. We need to make it publicly acceptable, de-stigmatised and accessible to all generations. Instead of mental health being the Cinderella of health services, it should be at the forefront of our fight against the demise of society, since everyone who falls foul of the demise will end up suffering extreme mental anguish and more likely depressive illness. Then find themselves ignored or railroaded. Mental illness is not commensurate only with poor circumstances. For those tax-payers who resent the welfare system; just wait until your work is taken from you and you're left with debt or negative equity, prolonged unemployment and low self esteem from the patronising and punitive loops the DWP will put you through. Money is not the security it once was and the more you lose, if we have invested more of our energies in it, the greater the mental anguish when it's gone. It's wise to be critical of how we value money and what we do with it in comparison to other life factors, but if you do that, you're likely to accumulate less of it. So what?

It's about the human spirit, your spirit, and what it feeds on and what can erode it. It seems only under cataclysmic circumstances does it reveal our truer nature. Things we may have suppressed to pursue other values. Even if we are intent on that pursuit, it's prudent to at least consider in advance what could await us in the event of a personal catastrophe and that means taking stock of what we feed our spirit with now. What influences resonate with us and inform our aspirations and why? What will nourish a fatigued, stricken mentality when it wants to shut down and who knows how to do it? This knowledge isn't readily available after the fact, let alone in advance.

It is acceptable to struggle mentally under extreme situations, they have become everyday occurrences, and if you're one of the many that end up not coping, you'll automatically be regarded as damaged. You will not be encouraged to see what positive things your anxieties and mental anguish says about you, because they're incompatible with a callous culture.

The best answers you probably already have within you. You just do not know they are there and the problem is it is more difficult to access them with a distressed mind. So, some of this will depend upon you, and some will depend on who you can turn to in those circumstances. That shouldn't be so daunting if we had the right climate. For now, you're better wielding a machete in public to be prioritised any help. To avoid that and cut the crap, it's better we find out how to wield the two-edged sword. If health services want us to take our own battle as seriously, we'll need to be able to slice through the overgrown bullshit and gradually make our way through the jungle of service-provision. Give yourself time, even if no-one else wants to. This implement is a hefty bugger and you'll only be able to handle a little at a time.

___

My path was a complete mystery tour, no pathfinders for me. Despite that, my development may give you some confidence in the kind of things you might be able to access for yourself. You may have more avenues to go down. Or it may demonstrate how sensibilities can gradually return, despite a prolonged dive into complete darkness and mental paralysis.

I commenced the writing of this book (1999) in isolated circumstances after my breakdown in 1997. Five years later I decided I'd rather suffer the vacillating mood swings and stifling self-deprecation than simply exist in a constant stupor from the medication. I hadn't been living for those five years and that was enough time taken out of my life. So, when my GP was on holiday and I couldn't renew my prescription, I decided to weather the storm and take myself off it. I wouldn't recommend anyone does this without supervision. Still encountering suicidal episodes, I progressively learned to manage my illness. It called for more acute daily self-monitoring and adjustment of my behaviour and mentality. I needed to understand what was happening to me, in the smallest ways, to manage fluctuating influences. I needed daily and long-term reasons to stay alive and cope with the shit. I needed to allow the facets of my personality, so contrary to who I was before, to emerge.

I also needed to be in an area more aesthetically conducive to my recovery where I could simply walk. One by one, the public footpaths where I lived got closed off and this had a definite siege effect on me. My move to the countryside, combined with the development of my writing and the latter sessions of psychotherapy, led me to many epiphanies. Since then, I started to share my experiences with other sufferers and all kinds of mental health organisations. In all of this there was no clear plan or direction and it could all have just as easily gone the other way. That's why we need to establish clear non-intrusive support options led by people with experience of the process and dynamics.

The terms 'service user,' 'client,' 'consumer' and equivalent business terms anodise and diminish the role of the person who is suffering. There's a bit more dignity in 'sufferer' or 'survivor,' which still sounds a bit gung-ho. These terms draw the line between professional and contributor. We are people. Maybe if we erase any terminology, it would force us to address and treat each other simply as people.

'Service-user involvement' is welcomed by some authorities, but whether it is properly valued or not is still to be manifest. This form of involvement has seen many ebbs and flows over the years. Always for the same reasons – lack of genuine belief and people putting money where their mouths are. There are some key roles that service-users can occupy in helping others with mental distress. This has not yet been explored to its potential. This is, after all, a directive of the National Service Framework. It has been exploited in the negative sense, as many a tick box will indicate. But tick boxes are all we have to show for it and what do tick-boxes tell you?

All we are currently able to do, in training, is try and get people to open their eyes a little wider. The down-side of this is that service-users are 'indulged' in training scenarios as a break with convention or the daily drudgery, but it quickly becomes evident that none of us are there to do each other any favours, or because we've got nothing better to do with our time. We have an impact on some trainees, but it's clear most regard us as a gimmick, surplus to their training experience. We are not yet fully accepted as pieces of the overall jigsaw. Because they probably deal with people in much worse states than we are, they probably think we're mild cases or not quite genuine, otherwise how could we do what we do? We are all pieces of the jigsaw, even the pieces that do not seem to fit. Views that seem at times to be inconclusive, imperfect, unsubstantiated, or erroneous, still contribute perspective and contrast to any subject. But we have the one thing practitioners rarely, if ever, have – the experience. If some individuals don't see the validity of service-user involvement, they simply should not be employed in that field. We are why they have their job. We are the missing pieces to the jigsaw.

There needs to be an immediate, detailed review of how volunteers doing this work are supported financially. The benefits system offers little incentive; it is far too complex, accusative and inflexible. If service-users can balance the affects to their illness with doing this tough work, they should not be penalised or put under pressure by being subjected to repeated complex bureaucratic scrutiny. They should be rewarded for contributing in addition to the support they already have. They are ill.

Government policy is myopic on helping people work whilst ill. incentives such as the twelve months tax credit for self-employed people, generally landed them in the shit when they were not been able to secure enough profitable work, but they were off the unemployment books. How many businesses make sufficient profit in their first year? The safety net of benefits thus disintegrated and the red-tape process inevitably dragging its heels, forces the self-employed to reconsider whether to work or not. The immense pressure is conducive to relapse not recovery.

There is a real self-esteem issue with poverty and the government condones commercial practices that consign more people to it. Ok, you may think we wouldn't have the luxury of a welfare state in other countries, what would we do then? Well, look at what they do – they die or turn to crime just to meet basic needs. There is no incentive for ill people to work in this country. That's a fact. That's why the benefits agency has to spend who knows how much employing teams of snoops to catch the odd person defrauding the system. "We have made it far too comfortable for people to live on benefits," Cameron and his cronies chirp. I challenge all of them to subsist on £60/week, then we might all get some work done for our taxes. It calls for miraculous management of finances and I suspect many people just spiral into debt, then deal with it through the courts. People in general would not believe the compromises people on the poverty line have to make on a daily basis. The 'poverty line,' by the way, gets assessed at an artificial rate covering what would be supposedly the minimal a person needs to live on. It never gets compared to what the welfare state affords those on it or the cost of living.

When I needed those Jammie-dodgers, I had just enough money left to my name (33p) to buy a packet. No exaggeration. At that precise moment the value of my life amounted to 33p. For many in disaster areas it's less than that.

Debt is predatory in this country and more expensive for someone poor borrowing a little than it is for someone with millions borrowing millions. Hence the poor are hounded and financially penalised more than anyone that actually doesn't need to borrow but does. To this day I have a physical aversion to dealing with debt and have to seek outside help. This compounds the self-esteem and stress issues that arise from only being able to function a certain amount of time, or unconventional hours that are sympathetic to my illness, but unsympathetic to employers requirements. That's why I don't work for anyone. And if you think writing is not work, try it. The work is hard enough but ten years unpaid?

Good luck to those who are incapacitated and can still get work; but the majority of people enduring long term sickness that are probably more able to be active are penalised the most. They are the ones that could boost their esteem more effectively, with much less adjustment for themselves and employers. When I wrote this, those receiving income support for long term illness were only able to earn £5 per week without it affecting benefits. Those who were receiving incapacity benefit for not being available for work were able to earn £80 per week. How cock-eyed is that? It's derisory, demeaning and discriminatory. Many of them start unpaid voluntary work, because it places less pressure on them to work while they are ill, or to compromise their well being by the work they can manage. This might be therapeutic, but in the long term it is demoralising and undermines self-esteem when their work is undervalued.

Most employees who suffer illness of any kind can have paid sick-leave. They are not expected to work when they have a flue virus, but someone who has a terminal brain tumour, with months left to live, is. This isn't exaggeration; there are numerous examples. The government needs to adjust current arrangements, so that it is easier to look at flexible working arrangements without the sick being financially, physically and mentally penalised, or committing to work beyond their capabilities. This is regarded as unreliability as far as employers are concerned, so sufferers are less likely to be able to commit to set working hours. Employers need a more flexible practical incentive. It is not ethical to allow people to work unaided when they are ill. People receiving state benefits, that want to work whilst ill should be able to earn a rate that is an incentive for them, above their supported income. People would work more and keep their positions for longer, employers would have easier flexibility and the government would benefit from a mutually supportive partnership?

I suggested the following, to the minister of health, the department of work and pensions, shadow cabinet members and the office of the PM. If a person is willing to work whilst ill, they should be able to look at any job that matches their personal situation, whether that job is well paid or not, (more likely the latter). The ceiling on earnings before benefits are affected needs to be raised across the board, to an amount that provides a realistic incentive, (I'd suggest at least £90/wk from 2011 onwards). Then when sufferers earnings exceed that rate, the government should take a minimal percentage from their _additional_ earnings (above the £90 allowance - say 30%) that leaves them with a tangible amount on top of their benefits. The rate the government receives from those earnings would then subsidise their individual benefits until such a time as their work rate and earnings increase and their benefits are neutralised. In this way the sufferer doesn't have to compromise their health or worry about fluctuating circumstances and they would be motivated to work more. Employers could consider flexible, adjustable working arrangements, employing numerous part-time / standby employees without burdening costs to themselves.

It could make a one-size-fits-all arrangement for everyone in receipt of benefits. They needn't be ill. The government would not have to penalise the vulnerable. It would encourage people to be forthcoming and reduce the costs of the bureaucracy and benefit-fraud detectives. It would more easily accommodate relapses without stigmatising or discriminating. It would actively encourage and reward repeated efforts. Most of all, they would be effectively helping people on the road to quicker recovery, greater self-esteem and increased opportunity to work their way off benefits, reducing the tax burden in the process.

This suggestion has been repeatedly ignored for more punitive, stigmatising strategies..

The results coming from service-user input in health need to be more in the public consciousness. But there is a danger of it becoming health care on the cheap and I am vehemently against this. Of all sectors you would expect the health sector to ensure ill contributors were adequately rewarded and motivated, but exploitation is the current trend. It is unjust to expect training input from unpaid service-users, when trained professionals are receiving substantial salaries to be present. I'm not suggesting they be equivalent, but most of those professionals just wouldn't be present if they were not being paid handsomely. There is something invaluable about someone who is ill opening up and sharing difficult things, let alone the value of that knowledge and experience. It is just disgraceful that the only financial reflection of that is in cheap hand-outs for travel expenses. Sometimes not even that. This from departments with budgets in the millions. Monetary reward for this taxing work, at present, amounts to less than that token 'dime' thrown in for our 'passing time.'

In 2006 one Care Trust did an extensive consultation to change the mental-health hospital system across a whole region. Their strategy to reduce the number of people admitted to hospital and reduce fifteen locations to three purpose-built facilities across the county, stipulated a higher dependency on community and voluntary organisations. But what about the growing problem of enormous under-funding in the voluntary sector? In the area where I live, a cafe that, over a number of years, successfully employed only volunteers with mental illnesses, won an award then collapsed a year later for the want of a one-thousand pounds contribution. Many voluntary and statutory services are cutting back or hitting the wall. So how are the health services going to sustain this strategy? The simple matter of fact is, the strategists don't really give a shit about anything but their kudos and contracts.

Major organisations providing care, such as hospitals and police authorities, still do not have basic knowledge or training on mental health issues across their general staff. Progress in this is either imperceptibly slow or none-existent. Police officers are more likely to treat people with excellent dignity and consideration than social services, because they are used to dealing with extreme social situations on a daily basis, rather than pontificating over the morals of a situation. Maybe because they don't have the man-power to process the amount of people that would end up in prison or hospital, in contrast to social services who think nothing of committing or omitting people simply if they're angry, so _they_ don't have to deal with them. It really does come down to that.

There is little parity between members of the public and official authorities. This is one of the loudest noises coming from both sides, medical and non-medical. Engagement is problematic. I think there is a role for experienced service-users in bridging the communication gap. This is one area of help where experience of mental issues would provide a choice that doesn't currently exist to front line services.

It seems we are content to shove mental health into the corner and let 'experts' or those who have developed the stomach for it deal with it. This is not good for you. There is an immense network of information on mental health and services, a glut actually. But I challenge you to find one pamphlet on the subject, with all the other paraphernalia in a GP's waiting room. Why can't we get information from the surgery waiting room? If there was one thing we could do to reduce stigma immediately, it would be by getting non-prejudicial and positive information about different forms of mental illness on the display boards and leaflet shelves of G.P. surgeries. Not hidden away in files. Even the curious might be pleasantly surprised to read more about how people are affected. But more is needed. Not many are going to be impressed or change their minds if they have to wade through a load of cold, expert professional jargon and scientific analysis. Mental health has to leave the wards and white gown environment, into everyday life, in factual, non-superficial, inspiring accounts.

In all crises now, the first port of call is the G.P. or Crisis-Intervention Home Treatment Team, or emergency services. People may think they have to wait until the doctor's surgery is open, rather than subject their personal terror to the uncontrolled lottery of emergency services. Some G.P.s are still sceptical about the role of homeopathic or holistic treatments, as supplemental options alongside 'orthodox' treatment, much less of the broader options, to encourage a person suffering with mental difficulties to seek support from those who have had similar experiences. This can be down to personal pride, fear, embarrassing lack of knowledge, or an over-inflated estimation of their expertise. Much of it is due to their time constraints and the incentives offered for the type of work they choose to be involved with. They rarely have the freedom to constantly update their knowledge, many using the internet in their consultation rooms. It is difficult for new approaches to be readily embraced and promoted, even if they did have the time to implement changes. Options may be broadened on paper but narrowed in practice. All of this contributes to a dissipation of confidence, greater fear of culpability and hence a reductive process blunting the two-edged sword.

So, my understanding of the mental health system is being refined with more involvement and I hold my hands up to some ignorance. Nevertheless, what this does provide is incite into where the majority of people might stand, who have NOT been involved with services, or found the support that's out there. I didn't find any, when I was at my worst. It's only through _working_ in this field that my knowledge of different options increased and what I found was a lot of talk and no action. If you were in a seriously low condition, would you be aware of all the help available? You think your G.P. would tell you? Think again. If I had not recovered sufficiently to stand up and say something, I'd still be in the same darkness as before.

Suppose the kind of knowledge that balances out the inequality between professionals and service users was integrated, it may only reach the few who come into contact with support agencies. That's usually when it is too late, when they have already undergone the hell of some seriously devastating experience. Some professionals champion service-user involvement, but even with their input, acceptance is slow to disseminate. It really is 'the new rock n roll' in health and many don't like the racket the upstart boat rockers are making. They think we think we know it all and some service users will make that point strongly, but the reality is we know different things. We have experienced the detrimental aspects of some practices. We know enough to say that some practices are unacceptable. The patients are revolting.

But it's not always their fault that they are revolting. Without a revolution such as this, sufferers will continue to endure revolting conditions, and yet we blame _them_ for that. Who of us could ever picture ourselves so out of control? We attach that state of dysfunction to the mentality of those who are ill, when, far too often it is ineffective medication, misdiagnosis and negligent care strategies.

I'd prefer to be able to talk positively, as Steven Fry can, of the efforts of these skilled practitioners. But every time someone shares with me their account of treatment, or I do another workshop with health workers, the same old story of prejudice, poor treatment, ignorance and denial of basic human rights raises its ugly head. That tells me that the problem is endemic and far more than just an institutionalised problem. It is easier for institutions if we conform, but we're telling them we're not having it. And the only way to be heard is to shout. No wonder there is more fear, scepticism and stigma, when we encounter this prejudice even amongst progressive professionals. After all, how will these patrons maintain their strict, rigid rules and retain control through this revolution? But there is a more insidious dynamic.

There are lots of people in longstanding jobs, who shouldn't have been there in the first place. Now, we have to tell them they've been doing it wrong, all this time. But if they can discredit or diminish what service-users are telling them, they don't need to change. They're content to treat patients as lab rats, putting them through the maze of this and that medication and never expanding their options to find other ways out.

Service-users (and those who fall through the net) expend inordinate amounts of energy just surviving from day to day; those who have the motivation and determination to take on the conventions of institutionalised professionals should be applauded. They should be backed at every turn, as the vanguard of current human rights campaigning in this country, because it is a _public_ health matter. Service-user involvement deserves some of the public money that health authorities are the custodians of, _as part of non-medical options_ in health-care. Because the health system doesn't possess or deliver _all_ the options available for recovery.

___

Remember, the law is changing and will place you in the driving seat as to choice of treatment. If you have no means of getting to grips with this two-edged sword, now, and you end up with less choice due to the perceived diminished responsibility of service providers, what will happen when your choice differs with professional advice? Maybe that will be the litmus test of a good practitioner. But will it still allow you the option to take them to court if it goes pear-shaped, or if there is evidence of neglect or malpractice? Be assured that their lawyers will already be doing their sums and making readjustments to their governance. They're already getting away with multiple murders on the grounds of diminished culpability.

So, who will teach you how to wield this sword regarding choice? Will they set up public training, or publicise every practice and side-effect? There is a growing demand for literature and information and it is welcome, but how and when will you avail yourself of it... when something happens to you? What if you're not in a position to comprehend your choices then? I'm not saying we cannot trust professionals, they usually want your recovery, but it is _your_ health, _your_ life, not theirs. You should have your say.

When it comes to mental health, currently none of the dynamics are in your favour. There are noises for massive change, but these changes are only massive _because_ of antiquated, ineffective and restrictive practices, Dickensian in outlook and long overdue their MOT. You may not get combat training from the health services. The fact that most service-user led practitioner training is optional and voluntary, not mandatory, tells me that the executives and experts in charge really don't know what they've got, how crucial it is and how to use it. The possibility that more treatments are farmed out to private services opens up greater potential for unscrupulous practitioners that would dilute treatment to inflate profits or develop unnecessary client dependency.

If current and long-standing practices are not influenced by those who have _experienced_ the conflicting elements, and adjusted accordingly, who will offer you effective choices? You'll need to know your enemies and your allies, or even how to turn some of those enemies into allies. And what if your greatest opponent turns out to be you? Who will wield the sword for you? Do you think those without the experience of your illness know how to?

There are those who celebrate 'madness' or 'mad-pride' and you can see this highlighted in some documentaries, but although I welcome and advocate diversity, this is not what I am promoting here. That is still somewhat separatist, but I am talking about our collective and common approach to our own rights and views that result in inflicting pain upon ourselves. Even amongst the service-users who are influencing service developments, there are those who cannot see and have never asked themselves the question: how useful or how beneficial has my illness been to me? What are the intrinsic and long-term advantages gained _only through the experience_ of mental illness and extreme distress? We can't blame them for that, but shouldn't we give some serious consideration to the question?

I had no choice. I needed answers to these questions. I needed reasons to continue to exist and every answer that people wanted to give me and every avenue I pursued to find a meaning brought me reasons to not bother. What sword can cut through that? The sword is your own mind. It has to be. You can cut it, but the undergrowth, jungle, mire of the mental health system is geared to hindering not aiding your search for those skills. The pen is still mightier than the sword.

Death will always be waiting there, that "beggar blind who sees the world through an unlit mind"; there are so many perspectives that can open up our choices regarding mental health and our "passing time," it deserves far more investment than a cursory "dime" or to be held to ransom by the modern trend of irresponsibility.

I can feel a rally coming on – all those in favour say 'Aye.'

**\+ / -**

**jammy** **fix**

** **

To attempt to understand my desire for death, I tried to think up a formula, an equation, to simply extrapolate the elements of the four Jammie-dodger episode. If anyone is in doubt about what's going through the mind of a suicidal person, it may be akin to these elements. Of course, individuals will substitute their own variables, but, as I stood naked, ready to take the plunge and empty my arteries into fluid, this is what it meant to me...

time = excruciating pain;

blood = disease + filth;

warm water = embracing arms;

razor blade = end of time;

desire = nothing (a long black tunnel of oblivion)

...instead, I ate the fourth biscuit. Fourth biscuit = ?

+/-

**shitting** **ourselves**

** **

**an** **ill wind**

****

_"There is an ill wind blowing, Watson..."_

– A. Conan-Doyle

In ancient Mesopotamia, Canaanites were required to offer up their children to the god Molech. People in Thailand and other poor countries – some of them Western – are doing the same to the god Mammon, albeit unwillingly by most accounts, and we've known about this for some time. Brits and Americans would never dream of doing that. We use scented quilted tissues to wipe our arses. And that means we're soft, eh? Or sophisticated. We have evolved beyond primal urges by good breading. I mean, what would you have to cauterise to do that with your own children? You'd have to be sick, wouldn't you? Maybe you don't believe me, or you do but don't want to face it. What's the point? What's the alternative? Run with it, for now, because it _is_ affecting you and your children.

The ill wind that's been blowing across the UK since the eighties has intensified to the point where we should be wearing oxygen masks. Its suffocating fumes are unabated and its fog mind-altering. It will ultimately lead us all to sacrifice the lives of our own children, if we don't seek an antidote to the persistent infection of the sickest amongst us. Yet the sickest are the role-models we surrender them to.

The stifling air being forced down our lungs, as inexorably as Chernobyl's invisible fog claimed its children through cancer, is a protracted downward trend that constitutes one of the biggest single contributors to mental illness. It _is_ a mental illness and it is epidemic. You can catch this mental illness. It is air-borne. It infiltrates every corner of society and we are now starting to reap its whirlwind. Its whirlwind will devastate as dramatically as the hurricanes over Haiti. It is fanned by those who have the most power and may give them almost anything they want in the short term – more than they could possibly want or need in several lifetimes – but it will ultimately kill, their future generations. Already, we're wondering if those that are alive now will have a future. Equally, it might just ruin them or their families in a slow luxurious death, or make them an instant target, or by some sudden twist of fortune to contemplate suicide for the first time, (some of their children are already doing this), because there can be no other life for them. They will not change because they see no wrong in it. They are mentally unsound and impose their actions on everyone else, but are convinced they are immune. They've not quite convinced everyone else, but no matter, theirs is the power and the glory, amen. Which is why mental illness is on the increase.

And what do they want all this money, these belongings, this land, this power, for? What for? To be stronger? To be different, better than others? To show that they have the power, expand their friendships, gain respect? Stand out from the crowd? Gather similarly-minded people around them to protect each other? Wear similar clothes and join clubs, go on red-carpet marches to look down on everyone who is inferior? Have gullible unimaginative people gawk up at them as their idols? This isn't my indignation, it's a serious question. What are they doing with it all once they've got it? Building new universities to disseminate it, new armies to impose it, new hospitals to deal with the casualties?

They too could join the ranks of mental rejects at the click of a couple of fingers, simply when their denial ceases to function. The writing is on the Wall Street billboards; we were all so nearly in the same shit and people are now frantically trying to avoid the inevitable repercussions. But not trying anywhere near hard enough. The very infrastructure mourns the loss of millions of contributors, that is all they are, whilst the ones with billions to spare vacuum up the change from the holes in their pockets. Political leaders can impose this deadly virus on their own people and other nations, then go home and face family members over the dinner table. How does that work? Because they are deluded into thinking what they do is in the interests of 'the country' if not its residents. Or they're just plain selfish. The carbuncle raises its head. Reconstituting human prejudices and deceit inseminates government, society and commerce. It is effectively prejudice against oneself. A mental illness. It is so _cial, political and institutional denial._

That's why those that have come through a level of mental illness and seen the light are our best saviours, because they've seen the unreliable side of the staple principles we base our lives on. They have experienced the appalling state it can leave us in and the counter-productive attitudes and treatments that then strips them of the little power they have left. That's why mental illness is actually honest. It obtusely warns us of things that are wrong; wrong with our situation, wrong with the way we're treating each other, or ourselves; especially things that we have ignored and that are unseen. Like the dog mentioned in the opening chapter. Mental illness stops us ignoring ourselves.

Acceptance of realities we have little control over is a fact of life. Acceptance of personal realities and the consequences of how we're treated is a matter of capacity and eventually choice. It is often for good principles that we neglect the things we have a measure of control over until things develop beyond our control. Not that control is the sole objective. But there is a difference between rigorous self-preservation and not investing in what is needed to prepare us to deal with the most taxing issues. We only acknowledge that after superhumanly attempting to hold on to something that was impossible to hold on to in the first place. Neglect, denial, or fear pushes us to that point; then the control passes to someone else and the nightmare intensifies, because our feelings and wishes become secondary to carers' and care services' inhibitions. The only safeguard then is if we're numb or past caring.

The causes of various forms of depression, anxiety and stress, are well documented and have a source that is common to all people. But ask anyone who has not suffered an episode of mental illness what would happen to them if they did, they won't be able to tell you. Even if they're able to research it; contemplating the outcome with the restrictive options available and few positive outcomes to go off compounds the fear.

People who acknowledge they are mentally ill have no choice but to learn to endure despite their restrictive capacities. But 'healthy' people who see nothing wrong with their thinking, or who justify unsound thinking, are insensitive as to its effect on themselves and others. It isn't deliberate evil but someone else will suffer their sanity. So, what? They do not have mental problems.

If you don't speak up, or defend yourself, you're weak. When you can deliberately impose your opinion without listening, that's assertive and desirable. After you've qualified for assertive you can do the advanced course at 'callous' (which derives obviously from 'callus').

Callus: take _weak_ spot and apply generously thick hard skin until sensitivity is diminished. This makes you stronger.

Stereotypical precepts of strength and weakness don't always fit, yet most people prefer them. Mature, considerate, people know this.

+/-

**_Social denial_** __

There are good boxers and clever ones. The clever ones know the Rickys and Amirs of this world have a lot to learn from the Henrys and the Muhameds. When the bell tolls it's the last man standing that counts – though it staggers the imagination how people survive who can't punch their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone above their weight. You can get by forever punch-drunk if you can roll with them, but who wants to watch a boxer hitting a punch bag?

Aggressive commercial tactics incessantly push us onto the ropes, in the UK, but we let them. It'd be much healthier to let stuff out in some easy legitimate process than reach a hiatus and suddenly have to snap into action. Or throw in the towel. Foreign cultures kind of admire and are astounded at what they think is proudly called 'British reserve,' if they're not perplexed by it. But there is an inherent evil to this inaction; it isn't simply passivity. Just think of all the phone numbers we have for all sorts of complaints, but try getting through, then try get any sense. Try complaining that someone has stolen your wheelie-bin, or that drunks are keeping you awake all night. See how far you get. Or if your dying husband has suffered three heart-attacks in one night and is in agony. Being reasonable and respectful might just interrupt someone's Eastenders, for ten minutes, but complain bitterly and you instantly engage the company get-out clause. This isn't unique to this country, but we win handsdown in bullshit. We all know how skilled companies are at dodging issues, looking the part but deflecting obligations. The people who are promoted are those that are skilled at side-stepping, not implementing. Complaining is looked down upon in our culture, unless your on 'Trisha,' or 'Grumpy Old ...' the prerequisites to being indulged by the audience being _grumpy_ and _old_ ; two more get-out clauses. We see people complain legitimately in unison for things like a speed bump, on roads where there have already been numerous child fatalities, only to be ignored for years. Deaths only make a _more persuasive_ case for reform, not an open and shut one. If current trends in our economy lead to any kind of uprising, the government will want it to be against the 'underclass' rather than the other way around. If this was France, there'd be a general strike, at least. They beheaded aristocracy for less. But that's not the British way. We prefer martyrdom and its intrinsic oppression, hopelessness, disbelief and increased depression. We prefer to hold it all in, because we're strong. 'We can do it, we can do it.' And we do until we are numb to the sucker-punch. What's the point in defending – there'll be another one along soon and we see them coming.

As we saw in a previous chapter, if you hold crap in long enough, in the end it'll spill in a way you least expect. The slippery characters that cause it are usually not the ones that cop for the fall-out. They have no intention to keep it in; no compulsion about letting it out for their instant self-gratification and woe betides anyone who stands in their way. They're unconcerned about what is actually healthy for them and less concerned about anyone else, so 'look out because I want it all and I want it now and if _you've_ got it, then don't think I'm gonna let that stand in my way.' And if you can stab someone in the back while you're at it, even better. That's seen as clever. Mandelson accepting his award from the man he just shopped for doing exactly the same thing he was doing is seen as a very clever man. Because he got in there first. Well done Mandy.

Most people are not like that and have no aspirations to be that way. Whether they profess to be religious, moral, proud, or not, most people have a measure of decency. Or they just want to feed their families. Contrast all this with the way government treats the amount of individual kindness and dedication that goes into charitable causes, like the Royal National Lifeboat Institute, the Citizens Advice Bureau, numerous care lines, rescue services and hospices that help dignify a person's most critical moments. They slog away day-in day-out, year-in year-out, without Sir Bob or Bono organising a gig. If you survive long enough you might get a slap on the back; but I wonder how many people would become politicians if it meant they had to do what those volunteers do; if they were sold down the river without a paddle, appealing to the National Lottery and Pudsey to keep them afloat.

The mental illness I'm talking about, in society, politics and institutions, is far more insidious than cancer and doesn't show itself without some subcutaneous scrutiny. What enables it to take hold and grow? Someone once said "the only thing it takes for evil to grow is for a few good [people] to stand by and do nothing." Why would good people do that? Why have they done so in the past?

**David or Goliath?**

The problem is we have substituted what we regard as strength and weakness. That's why the world grows weaker, not stronger – thinking it is getting stronger by getting tougher.

We've seen every form of suppression and oppression used as the expedient way to control varying political, religious and social environments. A show of strength. Control-freakery is what made the world and if you don't have it, you're prey. Some people really are that mercenary and Neanderthal. The Alamo, Little Bighorn, Saigon... these still loom large in the American social psyche and since they contributed late but conclusively to WWII, they still have a point to prove to themselves in Helmand. For Ho Chi Minh Trail, read Korengal Valley. Osama was so difficult to look for in the wrong location, Obama received a standing ovation for his murder, without the war-crime trial Sadam got. No questions asked.

Capitalism is seen as an alternative non-violent method of coercion. Funny how it never seems to work in conflicts. Like violence never had anything to do with money, right? Money is used to inflict the worst violence, but as long as we can call it accounting or trade, it doesn't count. It seems, whoever is prepared to go the furthest will prevail. When all of the UK has been sold out to foreign companies, we'll see how far they'll be prepared to take it. Those who have sold us into slavery, if not already big hitters in these companies, will already have their boltholes and buddies. And why should politics, commerce and our social environment work any other way? I'm hoping you're objecting 'well, I don't operate that way.' Don't object to me. But we employ these people. The level of blind loyalty based on inept., ill-informed comparisons with other countries, enables the abuse of a system that has every advantage at its disposal to support people.

What about _victims_? Victims of terrorism; political kidnapping; child prostitution; human trafficking; genocide; poverty; murder or forced imprisonment of family members who choose a partner outside of their culture; dowry killings; entire countries held to ransom by sanctions on matters that are not necessarily about outright oppression, like AIDS in Africa and the Roman Catholic prohibition on birth control? Do those oppressed by these things not have any power, something powerful within them? Look at the pathetic image of an African refugee clutching their emaciated child, oblivious to the swarm of flies in and out of every orifice – just waiting to die. Have they no potential for contributing something valuable in life? They are our unsung heroes, reminding us of our inhumanity.

Even when we care we feel powerless. And there's so much need, where do you start? So, we just have to get real about the world being such a cruel place and there always being someone who's ready to shaft us, don't we? We just have to toughen up, then. Or do you find that insulting? Is this what we are allowing ourselves to be reduced to? Is this the only realistic form of education and governance? Has enlightenment made us too soft?

There are stringent measures in schools, for spotting symptoms of mental illness in youths, but the structure for doing so is so paranoid and constrictive, it creates more cases, unnecessarily, and effectively stigmatises before people have been able to work through an issue. It can isolate them and demean them in the process, so someone who struggles has to become more skilled at covering up, or camouflaging inner feelings of abnormality to appear confident, to blend in. And to avoid being singled out by this process.

Self-assertion mutates into wilful ignorance, arrogance, intimidation or bullying; low-self esteem too, or it masquerades into over-studiousness, avoidance or adoption of alternative associations away from school, without much of a foundation of understanding behind those choices. All of these surfaces can be misconstrued.

Apart from expanding a range of lateral non-intrusive approaches; what we should be doing from school age, instead of singling some pupils out, is educating all children about this subject generally, using their language and the interests they are passionate about, to dispel the stigmas and prejudices. It isn't enough to tackle it in history and specialist social studies from textbooks and set examples. They need to see it in operation around them, in _their_ daily lives, without some pre-empted conclusions or 'outcomes' set in a curriculum. They need to see how events can impact on their mentality, how it can change for better or worse and how different perspectives can have positive references. They need to be taught by everyday people who have experienced the extremes and understand them, not from inexperienced well people who don't. And we need to make it easier for them to speak about these things, routinely, in a respectful, easy, enjoyable environment. Anyone who takes issue with this concept leaves themselves and others at a serious disadvantage that can only incubate prejudice and abuse. It would include instead of current strategies that effectively exclude making it suddenly a goliath task for a sufferer to surmount.

I know it sounds idealistic, but the ideas I'm going to spout off about aren't superhuman, they're only qualities that every one of us has. That's the point. We say 'they are different' to us instead of 'what common aspect of our humanity does this highlight?' Even the most heinous individual has some of these qualities. It's our human nature, not some hocus-pocus theory or highfaluting philosophy. You might say all this power-play and criminal intent in the world is also part of our human spirit. But it flies in the face of what most people feel and what we all know we could have and mostly feel a sense of injustice about; that we should have a more equitable world, but greediness doesn't reward this spirit, or allow us to create the climate that would. The criminals and greedy capitalists know this. It is a constant pressure to deny our better judgments and feelings, the things that are most precious about us and life around us. Capitalism is asserted as the only realism.

The real I'm talking about in getting real, is not in terms of a single reality, a single truth, but a fundamental existential state that we can conceive of at any moment, that changes with the ebb and flow of countless influences and perspectives. Things that affect our energies and power, individually and collectively, sometimes in surprising ways, given a chance. The reality of our sensibilities and mentality, beyond only what we want to make of it, and how it affects our potential to enhance life or to waste it. It's quite often outside of ourselves or off the track of where we're trying to head or where we think we are and it's too demoralising for us to really contemplate until it slaps us in the face and says, 'what do you think you're playing at?'"The bells of our senses can cost us our pride / can toll out the boundaries that level our lives / can slash like the sunlight through shadows and cracks / our nakedness calling our nakedness back."[10]

People generally appreciate stability and it challenges their comfort zone to work in flexible, mutually supportive ways that allow for diversity. Whatever concepts enable that stability we hate to change. How can any job, relationship or work give satisfaction and security, if its value and existence can be transient and unpredictable? How would that support our sense of worth? This is the reality against which we pitch our dreams. So, determination is seen as the greatest quality to mould reality into what a person wants. And we can get away with that most of the time. No one is going to thrust the life you want in your lap, so you have to go out and get it. Or you can resign yourself to the fickle finger of fate, or consult your horoscopes, like Reagan, or leave it to God's hands to justify a life of hardship, or to win the 2008 F1 championship. God will not be on someone else's side if he's on yours, He cannot serve two masters, so that'll always work out well for you. Or he might just teach you a valuable lesson. You can bet your life on it... each way.

Determination is an amazing quality and has helped people reach beyond their expectations, when everything else is seemingly against what they strive for. I'm all for it, but it can also blind you and let you down. 'Blind ambition.' Is that real strength? If we all put the blinkers on and just strove ahead with what we wanted in life, regardless, then we'd all achieve something, but what would it really amount to? The idea of reality being anything other than what you want (the reality for most people), or for it to include some of your worst fears, can grind down the most ardent determination to dust, seeping away your time and effort with seemingly little or nothing to show for it. For us all to be successful in capitalist terms, at any level, it seems we all have to have the same mind on it. The biggest problem with capitalism is that it determines, to a large degree, a value on what people do with their lives. Not intrinsically, but practically and psychologically. The fact our chances of living without it are so slim, essentially, is a denial of humanity.

It has to be said; many rich people are keenly aware of the inequities in this world and contribute much towards charitable causes that tackle it. There is a lot of wonderful work being done through their wealth and generosity. It is easy to say this in a rich capitalist society, but think about it... who is creating and sustaining the harsh financial climate? When all the countries in the world aspire to and achieve the level of capitalist development we see in New York, London, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Sydney, Shanghai and Dubai, what is it that they're are striving for? Bigger buildings for a growing crowded populace? Do we really want to take a leaf out of Japan's book, where we all end up having to wear masks in public? You might think that's preposterous, but capitalism never knows when to stop. It's a difficult argument when it comes down to feeding families, but what about the cost of the means? The striving, the pursuit, takes precedence and becomes desperation.

Some may see it differently. Some see the capitalist system as a way to extend themselves beyond who they thought they could ever be and the theory is that everyone should be able to take advantage of that. There are enough Lewis Hamiltons around to prove that, but the theory isn't sound, since how many F1 champions can there be at any one time – two dozen? Multi grand-prix winner Rubens Barrichello is almost regarded a loser. 'So what,' someone will say – 'the greater the challenge, the greater the achievement.' But our decisions and dedication may only be a tiny factor in the outcome, what else are we going to pin our hopes on? And when you've achieved it, what then? Many a satellite at the apex of their craft with all their accolades have described it as unfulfilling. The glitz and grandeur pales into insignificance when it fails to fulfil personal emotional needs. It's like investing in aerodynamics at the cost of safety features, to get to the destination faster.

This is an age-old problem and you can't completely overturn the process that has governed world development for centuries. It seems everybody wants to blame someone else and not really have to trust in themselves. The world is such a cruel place. No – the world is made cruel by people. It can just as well be made into something else and to say it's impossible is to deny the human nature we suppress and oppress. I'm not saying don't develop and don't have capitalism, or personal ambition. But sickening recent trends threaten our existence; the lack of perspective, at the smallest level; the ignorance and wilful disregard. We've come to see it as an acceptable way to operate. As long as we don't have to look at the repercussions, we keep the blinkers on. And there are those that take the Italian approach to the 'Great Race', tearing the mirrors off because "what is behind me is not my concern." What's behind usually catches up and devastates people like that when they see just how little they've moved on. Or their 'progress' deludes them into thinking their materialism has moved them a million miles away from who and what they used to be. What are they trying to run away from? Some turn around quite astonished at what they've been able to achieve. Have they really gone that far?

Most people are connected to someone mature in outlook, but is it worthwhile? We need to make it worthwhile?

The standard everyone wants in life is to be free to make personal choices, to be respected as an individual and to be loved. It's not a lot to ask. Capitalism can facilitate a few of those, but they're are not dependent upon it; if we assume they are, we usually end up misled, with unfulfilled expectations, or we feel insulted if people value us only by the money we've accumulated. Being respected and admired for being rich generates as much suspicion as it does gratification. That's not the basis on which we form personal relationships, so where do governments get off basing international relationships on it? And aren't we supposed to be progressive world citizens? Isn't that the twenty-first century thing to be? It seems the twenty-first century thing to be is racist, nationalistic and defensively paranoid. Basing stability on money is easier than basing it on interpersonal relationships and who can argue that it isn't as reliable? But the rewards of materialism and power can be taken from us in an instant. What are we left with then, if we haven't got perspective and haven't prepared ourselves for the downside? This is the reality that's governed and exploited by market forces, but we don't invest the same effort and skill in our options for surviving when things go pear-shaped. Life will forever throw spanners in the works yet we bind our stability to the market, the global market and nothing but the market. Few highly intelligent world economists and leaders have made provision for when our commercial stability is critically threatened. If they care little that their own people lose their homes and businesses and less about how people are treated in other lands, what kind of reality are we investing our energies in? We are surfing in shark infested waters.

This is how the illness takes hold. The ones who fall prey are left feeling unable to fend for themselves (even if they've got plenty to fend for themselves with) then suddenly start committing suicide, because they blinded themselves to the reality from the beginning. The sitting-pretty wealthy are hardly going to feel good about any implementation of a more equitable model of commerce; much less give up an inch of their financial stability to aid those they perceive as having not worked as hard. When the critical threat started to creep in, opposition parties were lambasted for suggesting such a thing, then 'quelle surprise' Bordon Grown as Chancellor announced that our feel-good Xmas would be paid for by those who earn over £100,000 per annum in the next few years. The pendulum swung to 45% in the opposite direction. All it did was boost the foreign property market.

Dragon entrepreneurs boast about working sixteen-hour days, seven days a week, like none of their employees on a pittance do. Because they love what they do. If they could do it starting with nothing, everybody should. So if everyone is going to do that, what is going to happen to their staff, presumably they'll all advance from it, then the next batch appears. Turn-over. Surely if we all do that, we all become millionaires and there's no such thing as slavery or unemployment – that's the way the theory works isn't it? Where are all these jobs then? I worked sixteen-hour days and more for six months without let-up on a friend's project. I loved doing it and had something to show for my hard work, but it wasn't for a single penny. In capitalist terms, I'm a mug. Commercially, no one would be able to budget for what I did, but because it was from the heart it is worthless. If it came down to money, the effort I put into that project just wouldn't have happened. For the work to be worth something, I'd have to be businesslike. But not all people are like that, or good at business. It's easy to say, get good, do a course, but that's like saying all of us can be good at the same thing, or anything we put our efforts into. That's just not true and it denies how the process itself affects people.

So, the things people do outside of capitalist ventures is valued less or a less valid part of our socio-political system. Practically, it's not treated as intrinsic to our political system, when in reality they are inter-dependant. It might save the government billions, as in the case of family carers and ill people who carefully manage their illness without support. But it doesn't _make_ the government money in taxes, so it is invalid. And the government wants tax-payers to be up in arms about people claiming flimsy amounts of benefits, even when they pull their guts out and take abuse to support their communities in the only way they can. This is the mindless level of social denial and hypocrisy.

We are in denial if we think human arrogance will allow us to continue against nature. When it all goes wrong, which it will, our commercial, political and personal ambitions, the things we put all our energies into – even our families – will count for nothing against the reality. That's not hard to foresee. Twenty years ago, it was. We're outraged at the appalling abuse of Baby P and the incredulous neglect by experts who saw the evidence of it seventy-eight times and did nothing. Good people stood by and did nothing. The expert politicians and captains of commerce are doing the same with us. We have to call to account those who condone practices, financial or practical, that carelessly severs billions of grandchildren from their futures. We have to call them what they are. Criminals. World leaders have been in denial, for decades. Blaire only has to smile a lot and preface every sentence with 'look' as if the world beyond his grin is like a stupid child to even think of questioning his judgment. They won't believe the end of the world until it is upon them because it means removing their heads from their arses and mathematical equations. The best thing that could happen is if it all goes and we all have to start doing stuff for nothing. Who would be the strongest then? We have a choice. Even if we start now, the odds are heavily stacked against us keeping what we've got. It's unthinkable to some for us to return to horse and cart. They'd rather crash and burn. We get the future we choose.

Where does your mentality come into this and on what side of the divide might you fall? You will be forced to choose, eventually, or you can just wait and blame someone else. We will all face the reality, one way or another. The social/political institution is Goliath, but we've already seen, it only takes Davidic effort to knock it flat. It is not strong. This is about your personal mentality, your rights and your immediate future. How can we prepare for it, in advance when we don't even redress our ongoing practices? Will you have enough time and will you be able to make your own choice? Most people will probably answer a resounding 'no.' It's a hard bullet for anyone to bite, because it will mean a drastic interruption to routine. The disruption is coming anyway. Or is oppression more expedient? Some would point to the beneficial things domination achieved. Public toilets. Only because our imaginations never stretch to what could have been achieved without it. We're bound by the same ideological denial – that slavery to capitalism is freedom.

**spaghetti** **or lasagne**

Reality obviously means different things to different people, but without considering numerous accounts, motivations and lateral influences, determining the truth for one individual is often too much trouble for them, when they can take a common view and stick to it. That isn't the whole reality for them and on top of that is the potential for unexplored influences to change their reality. It's staggering how many people never actively explore this potential. Some academics expend their whole working life to study one aspect of one subject in the hope of discovery, to shed a little more light on it and if they're lucky they're remembered for even one small discovery. Someone else, equally dedicated and informed will disagree, if it isn't irrefutable. Reality is rarely quantifiable. So, getting real about ourselves can be painstaking and will only ever get us part-way there, in the end. That doesn't diminish the value of it though. It is a matter of choice and belief. The consequences are more often than not, not. Or you can choose to be always right, or ignorant, or oblivious if you have enough to help you spend the rest of your life in uninterrupted escapism.

Reality, then, is not always desirable. That's why we never spend a fraction on it of the money we throw willy-nilly at diversion. Life would be so boring, eh? Only if we assume it would be more painful and less fulfilling. It shouldn't be. Fact is stranger than fiction. If surface and marketing and public opinion and confusion makes it easier for us to be bigoted, to follow the tram-lines with others for an easier life, to be a Bay City Roller, mistaking that for reality or forging a reality out of it, or a sense of belonging, or equal esteem, it works to a limited degree. Many get by on that. It is this sense of a commonplace reality, actually a _generality_ that we depend on to some degree. The reality beyond can be pretty scary, but it's always ready to intrude; not preparing ourselves for it, or living a life of unchallenged security, deprives us of other qualities to our life.

As much as that commonplace reality is useful and feels safe and can bind us, it is the prime tool for exploiters and manipulators. Especially those who divide to conquer. This is what restricts our political process, in the UK. Bigots can run the country, if there are enough of them about. It's a numbers game. That may be the everyday reality for most, but it is not the reality of individual hearts and minds; so a system, a politic, a social concept always throws up exceptions. And those exceptions can be within your own family. It's only the acknowledgement of those exceptions and humane treatment of them that leads to a more mature, secure and strengthened society. But only if we fight as hard for inclusion as many do for exclusivity. (Paedophiles and seventeen year-olds that beat pensioners black and purple are an exception to this, of course. They should be dropped off in the Antarctic together). Western democracies boast about upholding our right to conscience, lifestyle, belief and personally accepting the consequences of those choices and we do take a lot for granted that other countries are right to be envious of. But it predominantly works now on the precept of 'the devil looks after his own' when we know he doesn't really give a fuck.

But to govern such diversity by humane values would mean relinquishing some level of control and that takes greater strength and ingenuity. You have to be bigger, think bigger, to do that, but if governments relinquish control, plenty of unscrupulous people are lined up and just waiting to inflict some chaos and abuse of freedom, so you need something else to maintain order and control. The current trend for British Government, to combine nanny-state policies with offloading responsibility on to the public illustrates this. Erosion of civil liberties and intrusion of personal privacy it has taken us the last half-century to establish are a real cause for concern, since there seems to be no let-up and no redress. But, if it is amoral and unpopular to browbeat people and deprive them of their rights, or to throw everybody in jail for not voting and paying their ever increasing bills and taxes, then you need another form of subjugation. The idea is not to hamstring the populace entirely, but to funnel all their efforts into an altogether more conforming energy that keeps the stumbling beast on its feet. And if you don't like that, you can go find another country that suits you.

Admittedly there is no-one knocking down my front door to press-gang me into servitude, so what am I banging on about. I'm talking about mental health, more specifically, mental manipulation – the psychological process that governs the direction the whole nation (including its drop-outs) is travelling in and where it ultimately leaves us. I'm not the first to comment directly about the mental state of government and my rant will be the flimsiest, most facetious of analogies; political analysis is not my job (but who doesn't do it?) and it calls for more respect and appreciation of historical facts and pressures. So, no in depth analysis – the objective is to mirror how we generalise and why. This is healthy if we take on the process and we generally do, in pubs, restaurants, markets, factories and launderettes all over the land. It constitutes the overall body-politic that we measure our society by. But it is not reality.

We know reality is layered. The apparent reality that we face everyday; a consciousness of the reality behind, or around, how everyday events turn out; realities we cannot possibly know and our personal and internal reality. For the more honest, it's spaghetti rather than lasagne. But we prefer lasagne generally. Spaghetti, too messy. So, the way we acclimatise to everyday events, continuously compromising, sacrificing what we know is opposite to it, or what we know is within us, this is what I mean by social denial, usually based on some inflexibility, or intolerance of the composite reality. In a way, the trend towards selfishness has helped us open up to our own rights more, but it shouldn't be left to individual efforts to attain them. Yet, no one can face our individual reality for us; they can help, but the thought of facing it alone still shits us up. Denial is much easier. Some say reality denies you that luxury, but that assumes reality is beyond anyone's grasp, that we have no measure of self-direction.

I have my moments and I could be as polemic as Mailer for a more sensationalistic read and to write my name larger. But I haven't got God and the whole weight of Moses legacy on my side, as familiar as I am with both. It's the _ideas_ in my statements that I want you to focus on, whether you see them as fair or not, real or not; contrast and compare, because the realities are different for you than they are for me. This suggests that there is no common ground, no common language and understanding to reality.

So, what if we generalise in order to compare its effect on you, on your awareness and sensibilities and what you regard as reality? To explore how and why we stigmatise. It's an experiment with your responses to predominant pop-psychology and its main contributing factors, the conflict between trends and your wider level of awareness; in order for you to compare what you regard as reality and all the exceptions you realise make up your individual reality. Like a mean-gauge, it might show us some inhibitions we have, what level of positive qualities are being suppressed, oppressed, or actually reaffirmed – and how and why. It might influence changes you want to look out for, or at least stimulate your thinking on a personal matter that bothers you. It might not answer the problem of why a gang of youths decide to carry on kicking once they've knocked a person to the ground; or why arse-holes want to throw bricks at responding emergency services; or why a mother wants to strap explosives to herself and let rip in a busy public place where there are other mothers and children. It might. But it will more likely alert you to some of the pressures that you identify within you – ones that we usually don't want to face, or didn't know were there – and at least blow the whistle on a number of ways we are increasingly being shafted. So, tap into your sense of humour, your knowledge, even your outrage and disagreement and why you disagree... and how you would convince me of valid reasons for your views. And hopefully accept some inkling of truth in mine. Try and be more honest than purely your logical, political or philosophical conclusions. What you differ with will probably reveal the most, but try and think outside the reasons why you agree with some of them, too.

****

**down** **on blondes**

OK. What if we illustrate it with one pre-eminent prejudice in society; the age-old _sexism:_ are men and women equal? When you think of the heartbreaking history of this argument in relation to the reality of personal relationships, the conclusions are not difficult to arrive at. Interdependency and cohabiting seem to amount to nothing in the sexism argument, yet the argument is predominantly based on it. Models of submission and dominance, dependents and independents can be found in both camps throughout history. And for every perspective and quality a man might exhibit, you could find a woman with the same, and vice-versa. Admittedly it is easier to be more open about this post Eddie Izzard. In Dickensian times, the measures taken by some women to exhibit this stretched to pipe-smoking and sitting with their legs wide open; though, you wouldn't consider that feminism if Nancy is anything to go by. (Seems to work for twenty-first century lesbians on Canal Street, who oppose bi-sexuality). That was all way _before_ woman realised she didn't have to become a man, look like one, sound like one, dress like one, or even wish to equal one; and man didn't have to suffer the all-pervasive acknowledgement that he was effectively shit if there wasn't a good woman behind him. I'm not disregarding the oppression that really needed tackling in the Victorian era and we're gratefully pretty much there now, on that topic. It makes my point about denial, though. What a colossal waste of energy, since man has forever to live down or up to the fact he came from a woman and was dependent on one from birth – he has yet a long way to go towards equality. I mean, surely no woman or man nowadays looks back through history and contends that all that was actually male superiority or strength, do they? I am not in denial about that. Sad that some still haven't moved on, but it's still a stimulating struggle that says much about all of us, so, fair play.

I believe the mainstream perceptions have evolved in this way: Caveman (who sympathy was always lost on, anyway) naturally had more calluses before woman (never pre-fixed by cave), developed kind detergents, arose earlier than the man, nicked his hunting tools and left him to the confines of the cave to do the dishes and try on her skins in secret. Of course New Caveman would never inhabit her skin, as he has much less natural burdens and hormones to justify any mental illness on his account. Hence woman, no matter how callous her action, cannot be mentally ill; it just isn't part of her make-up. Shhh... it is prejudicial to mention that. Gay man is more emotional, uses moisturiser and is thus closer to woman even if he has no feminine trait (that's not patronising, it's matronising and that's perfectly fine) and its ok for him to put on her clothes. Gay woman (who sometimes wears man's clothes all the time and can by choice, with some reductions and additions, make herself look slightly more manly) may appeal to some feminine gay women, but mostly appeals to butch feminists who want a male-oriented female race without sperm-dependent conception. Feminine gay women tend to be the best looking women in the world; women men can only be intimidated and humiliated by, or be secretly lusting friends with, which they can chat about openly because there is absolutely no hope of any romance. They can have a family together, if they get on well enough and the woman wants sperm-dependent conception through the most 'natural' process; but being lovers or a couple is always totally out of the question. Bisexual women are everywhere enlightened, the stuff every man is obliged to dream of, and by their nature are fighting the good fight for equality. Bisexual man is doubly untrustworthy. Straight man is just sad, inhibited and in denial, but becomes disingenuous and a little creepy if he moisturises. Unless he is a body-builder hunk, or he is naturally or unnaturally bald. Or on telly. Johnny Depp using moisturiser is a given, but Hugh Jackman? That kind of ruins women's perceptions of just what a man is supposed to be. Why can't man just make up his mind, like woman? The resulting equality is quite disturbing for feminists. Gay man is in another world, since he no longer needs women except for make-up tips, to share bitchy gossip, or to be his mother, but at least he has tapped into his feminine side, even if he doesn't have one, and he is stereotypically obliged to be as insecure as his narcissism can allow (both are commensurate), which makes him at least in equal need of hugs as women, without any suspicion of ulterior motive. He can cover this up with bitchiness. And women can accept that as more honest because it's more like them. For the more traditional alpha amoeba of the species, for and by whom the laws, including those of reproductive nature, were made – and those who like a good wild fuck – this is also upsetting because why should they change the laws of a lifetime? Accepting that these are now prejudicial precepts is universally mandatory, unless your religion says you have to pretend to be righteous alpha males and dominate your own flesh and blood women, even if you want to bugger other men and women behind closed doors. Of course, women can be anything and everything and can get fifty successive orgasms a day using a vibrator down their jeans; but a heterosexual male who likes dick but doesn't want to be buggered or to be a woman, only to wear her clothes for sheer pleasure every now and then, is totally invalid. He is a fake who plays at life without trying. This is true even if he prefers that she wears the dress – (she will wear things that make her feel sexy, for herself, but will take offence if it does something for him because he should be interested in her, not what she's wearing) – but he feels that isn't quite the same as putting them on, somehow. She knows this, but she never has to contend with getting lambasted in the street for looking like a clown in his jeans and jumper. For him to wear women's clothes in secret, without a wig and make-up – drops somewhere between sad and perverted; this is magnified if he does it in public, unless he pretends to be gay, does it for a bet, for charity, or with his mates at a stag party, or running a marathon. He must overdo the slap like a clown unless he can achieve 'convincing.' Then, quite a few women might like the latter to be their sister. But the former doesn't fit in anywhere. Someone might pity that... or he could become a celebrity comedian. Apparently, Eddie Izzard's fans have complained about his lack of transvestitism, lately. They get his jokes, but have never got his point. Other than the foregoing applications, no one can know exactly where they are with unquantifiable gender-bending experimentation. If it's a genuine need, it is worthy only of suspicion. What the closet or unconvincing cross-dresser would really do if he was serious is have gender re-assignment and hormone treatment.

Gender reassignment is very acceptable to us, we watch documentaries about it and we're very curious when we see someone in the street or a club. We will link them and take them dancing down Canal Street, through all the cheers and hypocritical jeers and sneers, (because they're bound to hang out there, aren't they? And let's face it, they need as many friends as they can get, so any freind will do, eh?) They're very brave and deserve our respect and public applause, unless of course they happen to be your relative or spouse. Feminists would be delighted, surely, to have another convert.

That is unless they are a genuine blonde. Genuine blondes are an affront to their own kind and often get castigated for letting the side down, by being liked, distracting, somehow attracting more attention even when they're not as perfectly beautiful as women with other hair colour have to be, having more fun, driving badly, being clumsy and airheads, being a natural threat to anyone's husband or partner. And what's worse, they don't have to try to be anything else to get away with all that. Their credentials are unquestioned. Some women join them to have all those advantages by dying their hair, but run the risk of double castigation for selling out their roots.

Who is left for us to discriminate against? Let's see... single heterosexual Caucasian male, why not? Especially if he likes walking in parks. He dare not even respond to children in distress, let alone engage them in conversation, for fear of raising suspicion and panic. A friendly young man that works at a Tesco checkout was asking a coy little girl, yesterday, what kind of day she had at school. Did she do any sums? Did she read? What's her favourite book. Her father couldn't pack fast enough. As with any single male, the first consideration is whether or not they are a pervert, because there's no credible reason for being single and male. Some women's rights still need redressing in familial law but it's usually the woman that gets the benefit of most doubt. Ginger hair prejudice has been tackled, thanks to TV presenters and a sly philanderer from that fictitious London suburb of no football, where new east-end freaks are told at birth, hating Milwall is definitely NOT in the subtext. That's progress.

So... equality... we're getting there.

Except, curiously, in statutory and voluntary mental health services, where staffing scales tip in favour of women about eighty-twenty. How healthy can that be?

Are you getting there? Are you outraged yet? Do you at least disagree with some of this? Good, well, at least we're tapping into something... we're working at the stigma. If you agree with all this, then you have more to worry about than I do.

+/-

**_Political denial_**

_ _****

**what** **was that, Sooty?**

If you are afraid of all this non-conformity and it's not good for your _politics, or business,_ what you can do is corner a commercial empire to compel people to do your will and herd them into hospitals and prisons if they don't. Much better keep them out of prisons if you can, because you have to pay them for stealing from you. And you have to pay them more than you pay those who you make ill and dysfunctional. If you make them ill they can get by on much less and are unable to kick up as much fuss. If you can keep them out of hospital and sedate them in their own homes, they will be even less of a drain on your resources. You might have to come to terms with paying some of their bills but believe me, that's much better than having to educate, train, equip and pay professionals to care for them _and_ pay their bills.

Lets focus on the UK, because it's the recent trends within my lifetime that are having an increased impact on mental health here. We all know the UK government currently has a more collective-mental-state than it has ever had before, a club-card, a language, a disagreement to agree but god forbid work together for the common good. You can often hear it in the 'Mansion of Uncommons' and sometimes in the 'Palace of Lordy-Lords.' Well, let it all out, it's healthy isn't it? I'm targeting government first because we rightly look to it for protection; for it to implement the things we feel are fair for society and the things that support our lives. That's what we pay it for. They're supposed to be more responsible than those who have no moral imperative to protect us and would fleece the populace. Common people could not make the same decisions, supposedly.

I know I am biting off far more than I can chew, here, because I know these are complex problems, but don't tell me that, because what that really means, in spin, is you have as much a clue as I do, but I have obviously not wasted a fraction of the energy and money you've invested in it, so I don't have the right to be anywhere near as frustrated by it and I don't have the job of sifting the bare facts piling up on my desk day after day. (It's taken me five months to write this bloody chapter, without an advance, if you don't mind). But it is obvious to any observer, something is drastically wrong and we are being duped into thinking there are no alternative solutions. Everyone thinks about these things, has opinions and is affected by them mentally. Why shouldn't it be my right too? We have to place events in to perspective.

If Mugabe, for example, had accepted the reality of relinquishing power earlier (while I pen this, he is signing the power-sharing agreement), thousands of people would not be facing the protracted reality of their loss and he wouldn't be facing more imbedded hatred towards him. He generated that when he chose to cling on like an old myopic bigot, instead of taking his retirement, while he could. Mind you, his face is his misfortune, how could you retire, even in exile, with a face like that? Because he is black and wears white he can't be a little Hitler. Even with the moustache! Ok, he couldn't give less of a shit about the people he's killed, or the living, but his massacring didn't even boost his economic status. How stupid. What a stupid man. (As I pen this edit, he is usurping the power-sharing agreement, surprise, surprise).

At least we're not in Zimbabwe, eh? People make this kind of comparison, as if we should be grateful and count ourselves lucky we haven't got such blatantly callous oppression in the UK. Yeah, we should be very proud. A comparison like that is like getting out of your seat over a 7–0 victory in an England v East Timor friendly. When you look at the hard-fought freedoms we have at our disposal in the West; what has turned our society and particularly politics and commerce so callous, so inflexible and inhumane, makes it more heinous than living in Zimbabwe or Somalia.

Those who are in positions of wealth and power have the greatest challenge on their hands, because they are told by all and sundry they are successful. The 'success' rarely has to stand up to scrutiny. Some wealthy entrepreneurs may well have humane working practices; that's up for debate; but what about highly paid executives? Those official terms and positions allow for the same degree of separation from the consequences of their decisions and those affected by them. We know we need a change and better regulations from government, but look at the example politicians set. Mugabe makes no qualms about his position and people know he's a sicko and the weakest excuse of a man that has ever existed. It's easier in a way if you know your enemy. I find the more insidious hoodwinking tactics of some 'democratically elected' politicians more reprehensible. They start off by representing us and sometimes even fight a few of our individual battles, but the worm turns the moment their career becomes less dependent on doing so. The proverbial idealism cannot possibly survive the hostility of higher office. Why is that? So, how do we expect them to behave?

You've got to be tougher, not just to stand up to competing countries and be prepared to go to war to 'defend' Her Magesty's Sovereignty (it is Her Magesty's Government, not ours), but against your own people, if what you think is best for them is what you think is worse for you. Men can get away with this because they're all stupid and bastards and never gave birth to a child. They cannot ever possibly have the same degree of love and hate. As much as I think mothers should have more of a say in wartime, to do this when you're a woman, you have to become an Iron Lady, which, of course, every man admires. And because you are a universal woman, you're able to approve Gorbachev his conversion from communism to capitalism and Reagan his doing business with this former "empire of evil" – ending their tittle-tattling Cold War; silly boys, playing with their TMDs (Toys of Mass destruction) "put them away, or share." Well, the walls came tumbling down and she was the tea lady, so, got to give her that one. How indebted Gorby and Reagan must have felt.

Then you might, as mother superior, realise for every human being what is their ultimate hope and purpose in life (and devise endless varieties of television programs showing them how to do it, themselves) – buy a house. Then society will forever be indebted to you and you have carte-blanche to do with it whatever you like. Even destroy it and deny it. 'Yes, my children, you are free from the constraints of society; go forth and multiply and buy your own home, but don't form a society, oh no; that's the way to liberation from poverty. Yes all you poor piggies... I will liberate you and if you cannot afford it, then go see the wolves, they'll give you all the bricks you need and they won't blow them down. They'll just buy them back for less or confiscate them in a temporary credit crunch. And your banker will huff and puff on my door saying – 'you sent us these people who had no money, can you ask their neighbours for it, because we have to go to court to get blood from a stone and you don't.' So, buy buy buy, little piggies, you'll be richer and we'll all be richer. At least until you have to pay for your meals-on-wheels and having your incontinence pad changed by total strangers with it. And remember, there is no longer any such thing as society, so stop complaining. "...Hayek's powerful _Road to Serfdom_ , dedicated to 'the socialists of all parties,'" Thatcher's claimed inspiration. "Such books not only provided crisp, clear analytical arguments against socialism... ...they also _gave us the feeling_ that the other side simply could not win in the end. _That is a vital feeling in politics; it eradicates past defeats_ and builds future victories _._ It left a permanent mark on my own political character..." [11] [Italics ours].

Yeah, fuck the whole picture. Delusion – intrinsic to politics. I don't know much about Hayek, but other admirers tell us his perspective looked way beyond any political partisan nose; much less advocate that society is a spuriousness foundation for human interaction. That was Thatcher's personal mutation for her political agenda; from which she emerged – Skarfe's Frankensteinean portrait, repugnant even to her own.

But fear not, the thing to do when you're politically losing it and you don't have a society or a party is, of course, rally them behind a war. It is a punt with your reputation when you've nothing left to lose. (Blaire didn't learn that painful lesson). So, you have to fight tooth and even precious nail to sacrifice the lives of people you don't know and care less about, to maintain the sovereignty of a couple of barren rocks off Argentina, even though a bigger deterrent would be to buy our British Bully Beef elsewhere. Wouldn't it be cheaper to play a footy match for them? What's it to be - an excruciating penalty shoot-out or kill some people? Let's see, "people of The Falklands – how many brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers shall we lose for this, or do you fancy a move? We could be rolling in bully beef for years." I'm sure they were never asked. Then you have to justify the loss, then over-compensate the loss of pride with a charade of racist pomp and ceremony that will infiltrate every footy match between the Argy-bargies and Barmy Army ad-infinitum. Just as it does with the 'Krouts.' You have also got to assuage the outrage of the families that paid for it, or just let the footy fans of peacetime generations do this for you with peacetime generation footy fans of other countries after every match. They'll do this for free because they overheard something in a history lesson or at a pub, that something bad happened, once. Even though we won 225 goals (lives) to 652. Life is far cheaper. This is naturally why Maradonna's 'hand of god,' made him a deity and Beckham's bending golden foot later told them we're all atheists over here. Falkland war? What Falklands war? Oh, we don't talk about that now. And don't for pity's sake compensate soldiers' families in your profit and loss; they're only paid to live by the sword, not die by it. Three years after writing this, in the BBC documentary of 2011 entitled 'My Resignation,' the then Foreign Office Minister of 1981/82 Richard Luce confessed; as soon as news of the conflict broke, his mother tried to telephone him. Answering her tenth attempt, he was told she had the perfect solution – "ask them to play England in a football match and whoever wins, wins the Falkland Isles." No... leave the footy for peacetime; we cannot possibly be seen playing footy with the enemy. Who ever heard of such a thing? True, men played their part in all this, but thank fuck we've got a woman to pin it on. Women didn't understand footy in those days, poor things, but Maggie understood the offside rule, and that's all you need to know about defence. Home or away, any enemy just "could not win" against Maggie "in the end. _That is a vital feeling in politics_." The benchmark for most politicians, since.

So, equality. Don't fuck with Maggie even if you're Arthur Scargill and his band of big brawny miners – she's mad and there's no fury like a woman scorned. Maggie Dismay. What a legacy you left the world. Wow. Unimaginative, unloved women the world over will do well by you, but they'll never get what they want. There's some debate about your death and a lasting memorial, but don't worry, Hitler and Saddam won't get memorial statues, but they'll never be forgotten. You had a responsibility to care for children and the poor who couldn't afford to buy houses, but you made money the _only_ consideration in what makes the world turn, you unfit mother. Look at the monsters you bred. William Wilberforce and Nye Bevan would be scrambling their way out of the graves if they were not concreted over.

Carol might be Thatcher's only saving grace. She might be the saving grace for millions who feel doomed to turn into their mothers, (great as many of them are). I wonder if that stems more from her dad or from rebelling against her mum to some extent. Seems she's worked it out for herself, but what a refreshing contrast. That's true power for you, right there.

No wonder Bordon Grown wanted to meet Maggie – no greater endorsement could she have than that of the Labour Party Premier. I think she would see it the other way around. No bigger fan could she have than the man who fucked Britain up the arse like no one else, repeatedly and unrepentantly. As I write this, the government have just bailed out the fat-cat banks and financial sector with five-hundred-billion pounds of non-existent money, borrowed from who knows where, presumably abroad, on the tax-payers' behalf. This is to ensure that the fat-cat bankers don't collapse from the way they've shafted the public over the past decade and to ensure there is still enough money to pay those who got us into this mess further bonuses to get us out of it, otherwise they'll take their money and expertise abroad, if they haven't already. As I revise this, the picture is so perplexing and escalated even Vince Cable won't take it on. But in the credit crunch, let's say you were fortunate enough to have saved £250,000 over your entire working life The government said it would be ok for corporate fat-cats to take four fifths of that to save the economy. If you're no good at maths, that's £200,000 leaving you with £50,000. Overnight, that means, forty of your working years would be paying not for your retirement and care but for an already rich banker to buy a third palatial holiday home in a tax-haven. Quite right, too. We can't have bankers speculating with their own money, now, can we? And now the government have part-nationalised the banks, which they don't want to control naturally, they can earn even bigger bonuses for the tax-payer. We should all be in for a tax-haven holiday home, but no one is asking detailed pertinent questions about its use, when we'll get it back and how. And no one is answering even the pacifying questions that make it on to the news. All they can think to ask is – "Mr Brown, are you and Mr Darling still friends?" Who gives a fuck? It would not surprise me if we find down the line that it's the very same fat cats that are _lending_ the government this money from heir offshore bank accounts, and earning exhorbitant interest from it.

The taxpayer has no choice in this; not even parliament is consulted until after the fact. If this rip-off government have anything to do with it, they'll conveniently forget about it when the rates and stealth taxes go up; there will be no mention of what use that money has been put to, much less reduce the cost to the public. "We, the public..." says one reporter "...could actually make a profit from this recession!" Ooh, goody. But people are advised, "if you're planning to move, don't; if you're planning to expand your business, hold back." One report showed a whole street of upper-middle-class repossessed and unsold residences – empty houses – but not one specific interview with a person who has lost their work, home and savings. The financiers and government have taken their cocks out of each other's arses and shoved them down our throats. And they'll make us swallow it. They are psychopathic financial-fascists and they will never be satiated. They are the sickest mentally diseased scum and they want to inseminate us with their sickness so we support their agendas.

We are increasingly dependent on imports for everything because what we used to be able to export has moved abroad where it's valued. And now we're economically shitting ourselves over the Chinese. The most valuable thing we export now is spin. And the Chinese want to learn this spin as their populace stretches out to capitalise on their intelligence. How else is the biggest capitalist economy going to get away without implementing genuine reforms? So psychopathy and spin have never been in such demand. It's a boom industry. Everything has to keep going up and up and up before the bang culture of capitalism goes bust. Oops. The clever-clogs obviously saw it coming, but they're professionals in greed and professionals push it to the max if they can get away with it. How can you tell where the max is unless you break it? Then if you manage to find it, do everything you can to keep hold of it; even if the mugs you ripped off in the first place can't pay. That's what government sleeps with them for isn't it? Government is capitalists bitch and does their dirty work. Being mildly successful might not keep you off your knees. So how can British politicians complain about human rights with integrity? Treading very carefully there, we notice.

I'm watching David Cameron change, in front of my eyes, from a friendly new face who rides his bike to work (good on yer mate, balk the congestion charge, like to see you do that when you're PM), to a popular and seemingly singularly sellable leader of the opposition, to a pretender to the throne of PM, to a potential PM in waiting. Now this is a well-trodden course and no doubt anyone's confidence would grow, naturally (even if he has no different policies to offer). But immediately the polls suggest he is a credible successor to Brown, his body-language is different (you get a better picture with the sound off), visibly strutting like cock of the roost, puffing his chest out and cock-a-doodle-dooing in front of everyone, as if we're all in awe of him. He shares poll position in the media and that's no mean feat next to Brown, Bush, Obama and Hamilton. I watch him crowing to his pen at the party conference with the reincarnated William Hague (glad to be back in the job) propping one shoulder and the aspiring George Osborne enviously biding his time, soaking up the atmosphere and thinking how it should be him stood up there, how differently he'll put things when it's his keynote speech, after he ousts Cameron. And the whole stage setting of conference with all his cronies around him, like the messiah telling parables to a crowd gathered on a hillside, and I look at all the faces with their collective compromise and individual tongue-bitten scepticisms, all set to fulfil one goal, not policy, not overturning corruption, not transparency and reducing waste of resources, not one of their hypocritically stated objectives, just one... that of office.

Office at any cost, any rhetoric that can persuade voters. Fuck content, real concerns and genuine intention; just talk the talk, crow it with the sternest face you can muster, like old leaders used to, show you're made of the same stuff. Fuck the fact you're no different - show you're a fighter, a fighter for justice, for the British way. Show that you're prepared to go the whole hog, to occupy the place _above_ your peers, to lead them. To the exception of them, knowing that this is the moment, _your_ moment, that they're all gathered in that one space to do one thing. To lick your arse. To do _your_ bidding. Because if they don't do that right now, they don't stand a hope in fucking hell.

Then I thought of Hitler.

In reviewing this, I just heard the news today about the death of David's six-year-old son. I genuinely hope David and his family come to cope with that. It's one of those things we expect people to never come to terms with and that's a good thing. Good how? Well, why should we come to terms with something like that? It's moments like that and those kind of feelings that we must tap into, to inform our sensibilities about all the political issues that we take on and whom we trust to pursue them. What it highlights is just how much people have in common and only the denial of this is what turns the world into such a callous place. I'm sure most parents know, far more than I ever could, making a safer future for children and making sure we can face our families goes way beyond defending them.

There is no indication, as yet, that the political Leopards have any intention of changing their spots. The Camerons and Obamas of this world still expect to drop bombs on other people's disabled children. And as I review this draft – Cameron is killing two birds with one stone, carrying his gun-toters around with him while he spouts peace? We kind of expected it from Brown and Bush.

The only saving grace of employing a democratic dictator, in contrast to a Nazi, is that the leader may not be in power as long. And since, in Britain, a minority buys that power, the leader has to pander to the lowest common denominator amongst that minority to have a hope. Who is leading who? It really begs the question just how far these tossers would get in a more representative political system. A society that has to spy on each other so much as is done in Britain really cannot proudly call itself enlightened, or fulfilling its duty of care, or a land of freedom, or a rich nation. It is only twenty years ago the Stasi were tapping peoples phones and following them in East Berlin. The disease of politics is that they're all far too busy comparing each others' dicks in the urinals and crowing about it, to work to any common goal, or for the common good.

This is the kind of country Great Britain is, because the only thing that talks is money and peoples' lives, work, families, health and futures don't figure in the books. Where does that leave us? Make no bones about it, this is the mentality and sole aim of ardent capitalists. They do not even have the savvy to keep alive the ones who feed the beast; they care as much as their recorded queuing message, "your custom is important to us." If the fodder dries up in the UK there's a whole world of suckers being born every minute.

Politicians are not supposed to be seen to feed people to the beast, so if a policy is unpopular you have to take the Blears Witch approach. Tell the public what they have told you they want, even when they didn't. Marginalise all those that disagree to make them look like a minority, because those who think outside the box will only ever be a niche voting market. Market all those who don't want to think anymore and tell them they don't have to think; that's what they pay you for. Then you can form popular opinion into whatever you think will work for you. Those who think for themselves will be less likely to go to war for you or put up with you but you have the majority. They want a broader market, a wider range of aspirations that are more challenging for you to provide. Why should you do that? Pop-psychology is essential to politics, as it is to mass retail; everyone has to have a minimum thirty-inch inside leg or you're an inconvenience and don't deserve food shelter and clothing. You'll have to fend for yourself. You're surplus to requirement. Yes, we apparently told Hazel Blears __ we want identification cards – she insisted on Question Time, looking into mid-air as if that was a given and she shouldn't have to remind us how stupid we really are. She doesn't credit us the intelligence to determine between hard-nosed and hard-faced. What a pitiable excuse of humanity, if that attitude is an example of whom we seek to care for us. She obviously sees herself as the next Tempered-Steel Lady. It's symptomatic. She's just a product of the seeds that have been sown since government officials became celebrities and sailed off with capitalist dictators, Russian oligarchs and Hull PCT, in their pea-green super-yacht, using some of the underclass as crew and leaving the rest in their wake, to die on trolleys in the draughty corridors of power. Government targets. The poor and sick are the government targets. New Labour? Hard Labour. What a rotten diseased-to-the-core Thatcherite dinosaur. All they have between them now is different logos.

It will degenerate into sink or swim with the most desperate invading each others' homes for scraps, in total dog-eat-dog anarchy. That's what our government has been teaching us to do, for the past twenty years, and now we know only too painfully how close we are to that prospect. Frankly, we'd rather die than do that. Keep an eye on the suicide rates. Just apocalyptic sensationalism. We're cleverer than that aren't we? Has anybody checked, yet?

So, the disease takes hold and we either catch this disease or settle for the depression. We delude ourselves into thinking we have a choice in the matter. Or, you can just ignore all this, deny it and carry on with your job until you lose it and the roof over your head. The strongest swimmers are already feeling that sinking sensation and when they're exhausted, the drowning sensation of depression will be a welcome relief. They'll start attacking their own perceived failure, then, instead of the failure of the establishment, so what chance do paddlers have?

Some who are considered to be mentally ill have already learned how to survive people attacking them and attacking themselves.

Spin doesn't have to be convincing or sincere; as long as it fits legislation it still works. Brazen as Mugabe - people no longer bother trying to cling to a moral high-ground. That's the job of political rhetoric and publicity. Ever since the Tate Gallery walls were splurged with elephant dung, bullshit became an accepted art form; it's cool and anyone who hasn't got it, like a straight-talking future king who happens to have the mind to speak out of turn, is ridiculed for it. We all recognize the disease and hate it with equal passion when it's directed at us; so a cure is not out of the question – just how we tackle it, how real people want to get and how valuable it is to us, is.

The world turned long before humans turned to mammon, (some over-inflated egotist will speculate for us, now, how far back currency goes) and may have to again. We like to think of time and progress in a linear direction when it has been proved to be swings and roundabouts. So, in times of crisis, sell off the public parks and woodlands; take everyone's houses off them, leave them empty then rape the remaining greenbelt sites to boost the construction industry with 'affordable' housing developments they can then sell franchises on for companies to inflate the rental valuation to cover ever increasing maintenance contracts that expand through neglect, mismanagement and embezzlement. Oh, and by the way, you still have the right to buy your home. 'Return to go. Go directly to go. Do not pass go. Do not pick up £200.'

It has all become some macabre reality TV. And we love that. We know it is a puppet show and we are no longer in any doubt as to who has got their hand up who's jacksy? The Mansion of Uncommons is the theatre of ventriloquism, complete with behind the scenes arm-bending tactics, bribes for greater screen-time and more prominent roles, prima-donna demands and career sabotage, upstaging the lead, pulling focus. And the critique terminology targets not actions but "performance." The electorate remain as mute as a hushed live audience, only to respond with the prompt card, then canned for editing; or circumvented by lazy script-writers that denude pip-squeek protest into Sooty and Sweep, with only the creative licence of the craftiest re-writers to manipulate the squeek into what they choose, which can bear absolutely no correlation to what the puppets said. "What was that Sooty? You want to pay more for fuel, power and amenities and another forty pounds a week out of your wages on top of taxes just to enter the city in your vehicle... Yeeeeesss? ... And can I raise the cost of not putting on more trains and buses, because you're earning far too much and don't know what to spend it on? And what's that? Take a few years retirement off everyone and throw them on the street if they're ill and penniless? Well, I think that's a very good idea, Sooty! Yes, the boys and girls like that very much – don't you boys and girls?"

I do not believe all politicians and all commercial executives are psychopaths. I just believe that for them to handle the things they are expected to handle pushes them towards that end, since the mental and sometimes practical processes they have to employ to maintain control are psychopathic. Their work requires them to deal with 'demographics,' 'consumer markets' and 'public opinion' in a de-sensitized (dehumanised) way. How else could they carry on occupying untenable positions? And when they actually have to face some of the negative impact of their policies they have to de-sensitise even more, otherwise they'd have to answer for their actions, or lose control and go mad. They cannot do that, so, "must be able to handle pressure" is a prerequisite and the _maximum_ the general public can process, even if it kills them, is the optimum working strategy. Time, they say, waits for no man, so we cannot slow down and if we're pinning all our success on the industrial and technical revolutions, we've got to go faster and faster and faster, or be left behind.

So, to be successful... de-sensitise, de-humanise. This is mentally sound. It isn't about empowering the working class, as Prescott would have us believe; it's about empowering the government to stay in business class, even if that means returning most of the working class to the underclass they're so up in arms about. Prescott, a Sun reporter and a BBC politics show host advocated a witch hunt of all the people who have such an easy life on benefit. It is sickening how many want to jump on the bandwagon, just as self-righteously as they did in attacking Jade Baddy, for being what she was paid good money to be. At least Jade paid her way, eh?

Let those millionaire pundit wankers who get paid for sitting on their arses and thinking and speaking though them, queue up in the job-centre and see what underpaid work they'd be willing to take on. Let them encounter the patronising, belittling process and compete with illegal immigrants' agencies and the over-qualified students repaying their loans. No, what makes perfect sense is to pop more people into unemployment, to compete for fewer jobs whilst kicking them all off the welfare state. Brilliant! "We've got to get intolerant of them" said the pseudo-socio-fascist tabloid puppeteer, nodding the pundits' heads... "What's that Sooty? ... Yes, they have been very naughty, thieving, lazy-arsed, sponging, little life-of-Riley bastards; haven't you boys and girls?" They want tax-payers to be up in arms about the robbing little bastards who "just don't want to get out of bed" when the highest paid people in the country are paid precisely for doing as little as they can get away with. Who wouldn't get out of bed to wear the best clothes, be driven around to awards ceremonies and opening facilities and to sit on their arse in palaces and Gordon fucking Ramsey's and to pontificate on television shows. And they call that work! It's really tough to be a guest on the One Show and Strictly Come Dancing. " _Three hours_ in make-up." Aw, you troupers, it's a hard life, bless.

The poor and the mentally ill have learned how to get by on nothing and the value of it. Drop-outs could be society's best bet.

+/-

**_Institutional denial_**

It is amazing that the whole history of human relationships has been largely based on trust – even the financial system is based on trusting reliable forecasters and promises on pieces of paper. Trust, honesty, consideration and respect used to be what made us want to do business with each other and get to know one another – make each other feel on top of the world. Is that denial? When trust is betrayed we all hate it. But the current level of distrust of the electorate towards politicians, businesses and the nigh-on police/nanny state is at an unprecedented high and escalating by the day. That level of mistrust is quite healthy, so what does that tell us?

It's regarded as unsophisticated, boring and down right naïve to be honest nowadays. The welfare rights system works on this assumption. Those who stand accused on hearsay don't even get the benefit of the justice rapists and murderers get, namely 'innocent before proven guilty.' It's the prerogative of the maligned to scrape together some proof of their innocence, after being hung drawn and quartered on the flimsiest pretext by some mini-megalomaniac – (and if you think that's an exaggerated analogy, just try put yourself through the process) – whose job preservation is based on the inflexible agenda of reducing dependency on the system. In many personal relationships, those with the best intentions and determination to cling on to their honesty and integrity are often treated with suspicion and disbelieved, as a matter of course, by a partner who feels less secure or lacks the imagination to stretch beyond their own preconceptions. Our expedient culture encourages funnel vision. All of us have known this feeling. It's insulting and infuriating and the biggest incentive to become dishonest, or openly callous – somehow that's easier to trust.

These are classic abuse symptoms. We expect to be abused.

Little Hitlers? Fear not; very soon, now, trust will be eradicated. Nothing will be left to trust. Our guardians of good health are spending over a million to make it compulsory for chip shop owners to use specially manufactured salt shakers; because the thick obese public eat chips everyday and are having far too much salt on them. So the shakers will have less holes. And, presumably, they will be accompanied with detailed instructions on how many shakes are to be used at which optimum angle. And if someone asks for more, the flashing lights will start, armed police will suddenly spring on the scene with bellows of "STEP AWAY FROM THE SALT SHAKER" And Mr Bumble will tower over the ungrateful self-indulgent rebel and cart him off to the workhouse by his ear. Their homes will be searched, all salt derivatives confiscated and their windows marked 'SALINATOR.' Salt use will go underground into speak-easy salt cellars and all the confiscated stock will go to Social Services latest splurge to treat all people with learning difficulties like slugs. They don't want them to choke on their macaroni cheese, so they take their forty-years parental-carers to court. Too much salt? Rape their parents and stick em in care. People will dehydrate in chippie queues and chippie workers will seek damages for RSI. There will be a proliferation of non-professional chip-makers, the drains will be clogged with waste fat and, because we all used to go to the chippie every day, the home-chip-making revolution will spark blitzes no amount of wet tea towels can quell. The melting ice-caps will be replaced by lardbergs that will make the UK look like a fish in a deep-fat fryer, but more bureaucrats and inspectors will make the government look better on paper. What a marvel! Who came up with that idea? I'd like to clean their toilet for them for a year in gratitude. Wow! To have someone with such initiative working in our food standards agency and in government. Why can't I get paid for ideas like that, I've got loads of them?

Of all the coffee outlets in the UK, only one (arguably the most popular and successful enough to represent the American Dream) uses a particular machine that they contend requires them to keep a tap running constantly. The waste runs into millions of litres per day. The solution to this, according to the water management company executive (not supplier, the water does not belong to them), is not to fine the coffee company and get them to change their practice, no – "we are obviously not charging enough; we need to increase the [generic] rate we charge for water, to deter such wastage." The man who gets the job isn't the one who thinks they're not as cut-throat as other energy companies, it's the man who thinks they're lagging behind. Well, my water company helped me through my time of destitution and illness by halving my bills and buying me a washing machine. Those officiators have no idea who I am, but I literally cry in appreciation for what they did. Bless them for not jumping on the creditor band-wagon. What a credit they are to the capitalist model, unlike some bankers I can mention. "Hey bud," said the spiv puppet in the mac, "wanna buy a bottle of air?" We're already doing that with all sorts of 'services.'

Not content to spy into peoples' emails and listen in on private telephone calls (because we're all potential terrorists), local councils have now been given permission to employ 'accredited people,' since the police have got better things to do than walk the streets. It's a legitimised vigilantism with fines instead of truncheons. Hit them where it hurts, in the pocket and below the belt. These accredited people have no professional training but have the power to confiscate things from you in the street and ask for your personal details. These accredited people may be security firms who have once run nightclub door services (including drugs) or car-park and clamping services. They may only be in the job for a few weeks. Evidence of this kind of little-Hitlerism was seen when a grandmother was walking her grandchild in a buggy. The child dropped a crisp packet and two crisps fell out. The grandmother returned the packet to the child and nudged the two crisps to the wall, so people wouldn't tread them in. The next passing dog or bird would make quick work of them, but in full view of two newly 'accredited people' she was liable for intimidation, public humiliation and a fine for littering. These accredited people were only doing their jobs, they are employed as 'accredited' little-Hitlers; it's not the power they get their kicks from, honest. Interviewed on regional news, they quip, 'it's better than hanging around on street corners,' but it never occurs to them that all they have to do to make the council a killing is hang around every street corner that has become a pub, office or bus stop public ashtray.

This doesn't stop at uneducated, poorly trained power-hungry pedestrians. A teacher – shock, horror, have you ever heard of this, in your life? – kissed a seventeen year-old adult by mutual consent. The seventeen-year-old probably skipped home and, for the first un-cool time in his life, downloaded an Abba track and danced around in his bedroom. But that's not the way he reacted when his parents dragged him out of court to the awaiting press. No, he was soooooo naive, he didn't realise that was abuse!!! And, yes, you guessed it, it has ruined, _ruined_ his life ever since. You can tell by the way he whimpers it out to camera, trying in vain to generate the crocodile tears, as is now obligatory on telly. No, did he not know? It just isn't on for teachers to fall for any one of the thousands of consenting adults that they spend three quarters of every waking day with, not unless they move to somewhere they're not known. It's _abuse_ to be so open in front of people who know you. You know what abuse is, don't you? It's Fred West; it's being held in a cellar or cupboard for years; it's being passed around your parents and their friends to be used like a rag doll. Get with the program lad – get on to 'Abuse Victims R Us.' It's worth a packet.

But the courts are well used to this and, of course, we can rely on judges for a balanced appraisal. Yes, the repulsive teacher is now _officially_ a _sex offender_ and, thank God above, will never ever work with children again. Aren't we relieved? Aren't we so glad to have such educated people and critical due process to ascertain where to draw the line? Doesn't that really show true deference to everyone who has been sexually abused?

Whoever was allowed to get away with making that judgment is a disgrace and betrayer of everyone who has ever suffered abuse. They dilute the emotional and psychological consequences real abuse victims suffer and our outrage towards it. They increase the opportunity for people to be dismissive of real abuse and for victims to be ignored; "well, everything is abuse nowadays, isn't it?" Irresponsible, self-righteous, limelight-seeking arse-holes. This is the insidious pseudo-morality incubated in the clammy crotch of hypocrites who will financially shaft us, no matter how much we scream out, until isolation is the only credible option. They relish this power and the respect it credits them.

The surreal economic aspirations of western society has led to little awareness and value of that, rather a disregarding wastefulness and lust for selfish abandon. The current _average_ spent on a wedding ceremony and reception stands at £20,000. And if you can't keep up, sell your souls to the wolves and pay them back with your marriage over time. That amount could set someone with nothing up in business for life, even in the UK. The banks keep sending me leaflets for loans in the same statement envelope that shows I don't qualify for one because I'm destitute. It's pantomime, with the audience shouting "he's behind you." With marriages set to diminish and divorces set to increase, more people than ever are having to re-focus the energy they previously spent on family to their individual entity and are generally clueless as to how to go about it. No matter what their past, the way they're generally regarded socially, politically and institutionally, makes them feel like a pariah. Now, that I'm good for.

This attention on personal identity is good for society. It is good to empower that spirit within families too. This is actually reality, as every parent knows even in very conservative religious societies such as the Arab states. Individuality doesn't have to conflict with traditional and familial standards. If The Almighty, who could presumably have wiped us out and started all over again, didn't make us automatons and doesn't need to force anyone to worship him the way some people say; if they have to personally choose to be devoted to him and those who do so are superior to those who don't, shouldn't that be enough for those who do? If it's good enough for their God, not to coerce, shouldn't it be good enough for them?

When you project how the ideology of Hitler or the Stasi would have got on, once they conquered the world, it would become unmanageable and generate resentment and rebellion, anyway. So why draw the line at your country, your religion or your family? Why draw the line at all, when you are going to have to face personal choice and the limits and consequences of those choices anyway?

Look at the devotion and efforts of all those parents who work to afford their children the opportunities to do better than they were able to. That's why people say their children are their life and few things can be as important. But should it be that way, to the exclusion of parents personal ambitions? Is that really strengthening society? Certainly strength of sacrifice; but it's a lame way to operate our society, when we judge its strength purely on its level of sacrifice – increasing the level of sacrifice generation upon generation – where will that lead us? That's WWI battle tactics. Lemming instinct. If this is the legacy for each successive generation, more will be sacrificed for less accomplishment. Life gets cheaper by the day.

We haven't got all the time in the world, now, so we'll push for more expedient political solutions, the way a psychiatrist might only have twenty minutes to assess a new patient to decide what will govern the next few years of his life – maybe the rest of it. We're not so quick to turn around causes of global warming or invest in non-fossil fuels. No one wants the answers when numerous committees and enquiries deliberate over decades. In the end we'll be reduced to ringing daytime television magazine shows for our ten-second sound bite solutions.

I've searched my soul on the subject of capitalism and can't say I can totally condemn it, looking at some of the benefits we have through it. Many people are still very happy to run businesses in a modest way, to earn a decent living and a little more, a few luxuries. But the mentality behind capitalism has changed since the eighties and so has the political map. It's now seen, in some quarters of society, that you're not that successful if you're only a millionaire. You're the poor relatives in the club. We don't have the luxury of a political empire anymore, so we have to work on our individual business empires. That's good isn't it? So, more millionaires please. Everybody wants to be one now and everybody should get off their lazy idealistic arses, answer fifteen questions on the show with a nod and a wink and a tickly cough, or see the dragons, and become one (everyone, that is, except those who work for them, ahem).

The Dragons and Alan Sugars of this world do it, so can we. We just have to be like them. So now we have little Apprentice clones who end up probably more ruthless than their mentors. "Fools and their money are easily parted," is the principle that made Sir Alan – producing crap computers and crap hi-fi for a mass market of people easily attracted like Magpies to thin Aluminium and flashing coloured lights. Quality and pride in service are no longer pre-requisite. Churn out the garbage, some mug will buy it. Thus was ordained the dawn of fools, education and employment followed when the market no longer demanded a skill-base. How better to make more millionaires, than to fix their education to diluted aspirations of a broader market? Dilute the market. So, best way is to fool people – yeah, the cutest puppy will sell this, not cute enough for camera, put more white eyeliner around its eyes and that baby just isn't blushing enough. So cute; can I get my newborn on TV? TV. TV. TV. It's not for the baby, it's for me.

Molech.

That summarizes the mentality of pure capitalism, but it's not even to pander to personal wealth. Powerful companies used to exist to pay the shareholder, but they now exist to feed themselves at every expense. It isn't the shareholders' dividends that it is judged by but its corporate profile and balance sheet. Everything else is expendable for the company. So what?, history is built on corpses. Where would the great empires be without them? The Taj Mahal the Pyramids, the Acropolis, Rome, St Petersburg, none of these places would exist. It's just grown kids comparing their penises in the urinals. Slave labour is still the currency of wealth. Any foreign diplomat will tell you that. If everyone has to have that level of ambition to succeed, what about those who fall victim to the process of burn out? As powerful as these role-models are what kind of potential for failure are we setting the bar at?

And what if we are not as ambitious? We want to benefit from the same advancements and facilities. We admit we don't have the same vision, power and incentive, so we'll pay dearly for those who do. We don't want responsibility for all that. We just want to do our own thing. So let the power go to the best cheats and liars, then kick up a fuss when they let us down, yeah, makes sense, but oh, no, they've covered themselves for that in their business plan. And since we're so googly-eyed at their audacity and the fetishism of celebrity, the consumer (consumed) will actually pay more for those that can publicly piss on their chips with impunity. Well, they've been on telly.

We've made property ownership a fundamental of human existence, the basis for 'progress,' until some development, or travellers, a new flight path, or bypass, or poor school report, or job-loss necessitates selling with negative equity, or a repossession. Yet the vast majority of people never own land or property. These people have the dignity and enthusiasm to share. How does that fit in with the capitalist ideal of not sharing anything without payment? What if nothing belonged to anyone, which would instantly make everything ours. So, when we receive something from someone without paying for it, we're grateful. Grateful, because? Because one of us is subjugated in the transaction, because it belonged to them and now it's ours? If things didn't belong to them or us, it wouldn't negate the generosity and gratitude in giving and receiving. We'd all be dignified by it. Unrealistic, you say? But millions of people do this every day. Volunteers are rarely if ever motivated by financial considerations. They are not obligated. They obligate themselves. Doesn't that say more about a person? And the gift?

Notably, charity shops in the UK, have been remodelled by interior designers and constrained to selling only goods with popular appeal. The result, homogenised environments with prices for easily acquired used goods inflated above what some of the retailers of similar goods charge for new. Charity shop patrons used to prefer a good rummage and the potential for an unusual bargain. Now, people that are happy to give and people that are happy to take have to fit a demographic. The prices non-negotiable! Even charities have less give and take.

Previous generations worked together __ to benefit society as a whole and achieved some great and wonderful things like the NHS and welfare state etc. These are still seen as the envy of the world – ask Obama or any prospective immigrant. The NHS certainly is an exhibit of dedication and amazing advancement amongst its practitioners and researchers. What a wonderful thing to be proud of and what wonderful devoted and caring people, on the whole. Yet, this scourge of mental derangement inseminating politics, capitalism and bureaucracy is disintegrating even something as monumental and enviable as this. All that struggle, sweat and toil. To say such a _wealthy_ country has progressed to getting old people and children out of working and dying in workhouses without any possessions, where they eat gruel in the mornings – is that something to be proud of? Ask pensioners what they eat for breakfast, since their pensions have been squandered away by investment bankers and government speculators. No-one knows where we're heading anymore.

The incredulous thing is, these decision-makers have a sense of history and they're generally intelligent people. It has taken the virtual collapse of financial empires for politicians to even talk about reeling bankers in. They'd have to get out of bed with them to do that, so don't hold your breath Sooty. Soon, non-tax payers will be publicly burned on stakes alongside Vince Cable while the governments and oil moguls fist-fuck and gang-rape the consumer, to build bigger cities to fill with more people to fist-fuck and gang-rape. Children for Molech – mulch mulch.

**PCPCTs**

__

_Health services_ in the UK may be free for all but they are infected by the sickening application of capitalistic values and the Blears Witch model _._ Its bureaucratic system is the most wasteful scourge in this country. It is so sick that it has haemorrhaged skilled clinicians due to lack of basic standards. So, a significant part of the NHS is now operated by people from other cultures climbing the career ladder on their way to somewhere else, getting paid to train, to work not for the NHS but for this or that agency. The turn-over is so high, no one knows who or what they're getting any more. They are no less skilled, it seems, but they are dispensable and less likely to balk against the prevailing trends of PCT (primary care trust) bureaucratic bludgeoning. It's hardly going to be a problem, since the PC PCTs expect compromise compromise compromise, but don't know the meaning of the word. If you're less than PC and differ with the PCT, you'll find yourself shutting up and putting up, being gagged, or simply resigned.

An Eastern doctor training in psychiatry and working as Senior House Officer in an A&E department, when helping an English person not to commit suicide, doesn't need to worry about whether their dialect is actually intelligible; or whether their beliefs, traditional values and judgments will conflict with psychological processes inherent with a more permissive society. But by all indicators, except the delivery point, they fit the equality bill, tick the inclusive box for the PCT. Anyone who would _object_ to explaining to a Pakistani or Indian doctor why they have an abusive but compulsive sexual relationship with their step-father or step-mother, or that they might be gay, or may want to cut themselves, or cannot stop compulsively gambling, or stealing, or shopping, or eating... or drinking, or complains that they just cannot decipher the psychiatrist's whispering responses... is branded racist. Health care bureaucracy has become the worst kind of political institute. It is a political process and more disgustingly, a capitalist-led political organisation playing directly with people's lives.

Each individual PCT has to justify its existence, so, they push their pens to produce as much full-gloss-pamphleted and plasma-screened justification for their existence as possible... more quantifiable justification than practitioners can produce of the results of their patient care. This is not on. So, now the PCT needs to use more money to justify collating the evidence (that is evidence-based practice, incalculable in practice) to justify that the practitioners jobs are as justifiable as theirs. It creates more work, more jobs for the boys, more money, more readable results; so that's good isn't it? Because they can look good and the government can look good at spending public money, even though people are dying of MRSA for lack of basic-wage earning cleaners. Or an acute patient can die for being discharged early without consultation and dumped on their own doorstep without any aftercare, but the department productivity sheet shows a bed freed up and filled more rapidly. This is just one true account out of many.

Every PCT will duplicate their records with 'independent' in-house evaluations, departmental assessments and conference paraphernalia. Every correspondence I receive from them comes in triplicate – all in separate envelopes in the same delivery. That's two totally unnecessary hectares of forest for every hectare they strip, just for me. How generous, but please, I got the message the first time. The PCTs have become the 'art critics' of public health; no longer content with enhancing our appreciation of health care, supporting and informing us of developments and innovations to expand our choices - health care just could not exist without them. They and the reports say so. Clinicians skills have to be harnessed to fit what is good for the public – sorry – for public spending. They have to be told how, why and when to fit in, by the PCTs, because they're too busy doing medicky things to be politicians and conform to what the government, in their infinite cabinet wisdom, dictates is good for the public and what they tell us we told them we want, in all the consultations the PCTs railroaded. The health system has to become minimalist – less is more. Less functionality for more money. And cubist – tick-box.

Meanwhile, back in PCT city, rub hands, more jobs for the boys. More jobs have to be more competitive, so it gets dispersed amongst new sub-administrations and sub-contracts. A little-hitler will decide they can govern their department better if they go independent and pile more work and training on their existing staff, with its individual bureaucracy, equipment, overheads, tenders and exorbitant charges. The best news in Health in 2010 was the proposed abolition of PCTs despite there being no credible sustainable alternative.

Nobody has stuck the knife in yet, but private firms stand by, drooling over the blood-money.

**Bin Ladens can retire**

With most people working in commerce this number-crunching mentality is unintentional; they are just doing a job, following orders, maintaining company policy, or trying to stay ahead of the next person who wants their job. This is the generic administrative model. If that means using cattle-prods instead of dogs to herd the sheep into the pen, then so be it. It worked on German Nazis and Jewish Zonder commandos. Function and result is the primary objective, not how we treat each other as human beings. As much as we might not be mere numbers or cattle to them, the business and political strategists force politicians and businesses to treat us as such. Most people don't want to be that way and it's not popular to treat workers that way either. When that's the case we buy from companies in places where they couldn't give less of a shit about people, so it's not us doing it.

The government will deny to the hilt the sending of prisoners to Abu Grave and Guantanamo Bay, for torture, but it is good business to buy all our goods from companies that beat workers, rob them of their wages, feed their newborns melamine in their milk, cause millions of premature deaths, as well as contaminate the atmosphere and water sources and strip the forests. I personally want to hug every rural Chinese parent who has lost their son or daughter on the altar of the Chinese capitalist machine. Someone will say "yes, but they have a better life than they would stuck in the country growing rice" as if there is no other comparison to make. And do they?

The Chinese populace are far more sophisticated than we give them credit for. In 1999 I met a twenty-three year-old Chinese student from Manchester University. Her day job was _designing_ aircraft wings for British Aerospace. She was on release being sponsored to do that for the company, but also sponsored by her country, so she could take her experience back there and teach them how to do it. Crafty these Chinese. The only reason the Chinese have not taken over the world already is that they don't need to. They have everything right there in China. Let the world come to them. And it has. The sad thing is that if they aspire only to assimilate life as we know it in the west, they're in for a rude awakening. OK, why shouldn't they have all the conveniences western societies have and be able to support their families? But that isn't the issue. It's easy to seize on that as a principle and totally ignore the injustices and poor practices that are being employed by those with financial clout. It also presupposes families are coping here. Then you have the same determination towards greed and the same delusion of superiority. This is the extent to which current capitalistic practice impacts on human endeavour and imagination. Everything is far too big to deal with, when all we have to do is be human. Be humane. I wonder what is the actual _human_ toll in acquiring so many rich benefactors to industry? The Chinese publicly espouse the words of Confucius, Lao Tsi and Siddhartha Gautama, for the moral ideologies backing their exploitation, without a single reflection on whether or not it washes. That is not the important thing.

In the UK, they will now be extolling the success we had at the China Olympics, rather than what a hypocritical colossal failure and compromise it entailed to compete in those games. I wouldn't deny the athletes their medals or achievements but if they really wanted to have an impact on what the Olympics is supposed to represent, they'd have pulled out en masse. But it's now success at almost any cost (as much as if the athletes _were_ all on drugs). In fact they calculated the amount of investment made into sports support and facilities related to the Olympic effort and how many medals were achieved. Each medal won exceeded one million pounds sterling. Those athletes became millionaires overnight! Taking that standard and projecting the potential for more medals and increased success, year on year, gold medals will actually de-value. That calculation, of course, does not include the value of the houses, the livelihoods and the lives that the beaten, ransacked and uncompensated Chinese neighbours lost in the building of the 'Bird's Nest' car parks. A nest that lined the pockets of artist, humanist and political provocateur Ai Weiwei - until he pulled out of the project.

Of course, the athletes didn't. They had more choice than those residents. How proud, to represent their countries. Who needs colonialism?

If any did decline, presumably, they're traitors not heroes. Integrity is the cost of looking good in a sham. But no... blame the Chinese for suppression of protests for human liberty and cheating us out of a real fireworks display. And keep flashing the brass. If our Olympic committee had known about this credit crunch, they'd not have gone for 2012, they say. Since their initial bid, the administrative budget of over five-mill only increased by 1000%. No worries there, then. The facilities will be the latest and the best, there's no doubt. Reputations are at stake. The new facilities they're building should be suitable for reuse by the community and be able to pay for themselves over the next ten Olympics. So, the primary consideration for continuing with this new outcrop of Millennium Domes is the temporary employment; the feel-good factor we so need during this recession. And saving face. Who else will want 2012 at such short notice? At least we can minimise the financial burden by employing graduate students and illegal immigrants as labourers. That's multi-culturally inclusive.

The role of Trade Unions, occupational therapy and employment-based social initiatives used to give employees confidence that their employer was interested in the welfare of the people who made them rich. Loyalty towards firms like that was fiercely defended by those workers. Their quality of family life was directly related to the success of their firm or industry. Now, that's not good for the budgets, for business, for healthy bank balances, for the investors and shareholders who sit on their cosy arses watching the exploitation and colossal injustices their company executives connive to inflict. They are not a sponging underclass. Fear is the prime employment motivator, now. But don't blame them whatever you do. They'll fuck off elsewhere with their investments. We are being done the greatest favour to slave for them, since without them we'd all be poor and unproductive. We can't all grow our own tomatoes can we? They'd be the wrong shape and shade. The idea is as preposterous as a Prince growing GM crops. Without them we wouldn't be able to keep the underclass in the life to which they've become accustomed. But woe-betide us if we actually make share-holders, investors and multi-national executives responsible for their practices and knock on effect to consumers. It would just put prices and costs up further wouldn't it? There is no such thing as over-trading, so, we all end up minced into this conforming mass.

But that is good for powerful people who run the world. It is subjugation by the pen instead of the sword. And they are nothing short of psychopathic in their funnel vision.

Terrorists were hunted down, after we watched people throw themselves out of the World Trade Centre hundreds of feet up. They left them no choice. But some people felt the same way during the 1930s Wall Street Crash. Why is it we do not hold to account the type of people who have caused this recent global devastation? Where the defrauder? Where the embezzler? A few have been pushed to those lengths here, but current mentality towards sustaining capitalist fat-cats is far more predatory and widespread than suicide bombers and terrorists crashing aeroplanes. The predators are no less intent on herding lemmings over the cliff. The lack of transparency and lack of consultation with the tax-payer says, 'we can take any amount of your money off you at any time without asking or explaining. What are you going to do about it?'' And the question they will ask across the Cabinet table is not, 'how can we best represent the interests of the electorate?' but 'how can we make the most out of this and make it sound like it's in the interests of the electorate?' A cunning capitalist never offers, or asks, a fair price. They remain undaunted. The world's big-wigs drool over the spoils and Bin-Ladens everywhere can retire.

This is one reason why I hate money; can't stand the stuff and all those electronic numbers, as gratifying as they look on a balance sheet. But for an entire planet to be run by bits of paper and electronic numbers and those papers and electronic figures to preclude someone from the right to food, clothing and shelter is such an indictment of our humanity and a much worse indictment of countries that effectively have everything. That's why it is sick. It is nothing short of delusional mental illness. It is financial fascism. Why not just stamp our foreheads, chain us to the machine and mince us to sludge when we're finished?

Because, no matter what regime we are in, or situation we're forced into, we have choice. We fight for that freedom of choice whenever it comes under attack. We uphold it. So, an American President _can_ choose if he wants to do something that countless married American men are doing week-in, week-out, to risk his impeachment. An African dictator _can_ choose to relinquish control later, rather than sooner, just to take a few hundred thousand lives with him before he goes. Then change his mind when no one does anything and oppress for a bit longer. A person undergoing torture can choose whether or not to divulge information or be killed or commit suicide or endure twenty-six years solitary confinement until hope comes out of the blue, or not as the case may be.

You can't always be moral about the decisions that are made when people are pushed to extremes. But we run our governments that way. It may not feel that way in the UK when our economy hits the biggest recession since the eighties and the governor of the Bank of England only has to announce his detailed crisis analysis to the television-watching public as – "It's going to get a bit grim." Right then, that's all we need to know but just in case we didn't take it in, the news reporters repeat it in triplicate, very very slowly, in case our English education doesn't stretch to it. It's big news – "according the Governor of the Bank of England, today; the economy is going to get a bit grim; our financial correspondent, Robert Peston is here with us now." "Yes Sophie, in the worrrrrrds ... _OF_ ... the ... _GOVERNOR_ ... of the Bank of England; 'It's ... going ... to... _get_ ... aaaaaaaa ... bit ... _grim_. Ahhhhh... here's how he put it to us... iiiiiiin... theee... _press_ conference." CUT TO: Mervyn King – dramatic pause, photo snaps: " _It's going to get a bit grim._ " "So, Robert, what did Mr King mean by 'a bit grim,' did he elaborate?" "Nope... Misterrrrrrr _KING..._ said thaaaaaat... he wasntpreparedtostipulate aaaaaaaaat... this... _time_." __

The cows will keep chewing the cud, as one fine friend put it to me. _Also in the news today_ : Tracy, who doesn't want to look like shit when she goes out, daily injects herself with an illegal untested drug she doesn't know the constituents of, because it turns her whole body brown. CUT TO: Tracey - "Oh, I can't go out of the house without my tan!" Even if her kisses taste like a mixture of nicotine and carotene; 'Nicarotine Pigmentus Slapitallovium' it would be called if Labattoir Garnier got hold of it. For an appearance in the tabloid media, she's ready to set our prejudices about bottle-blondes back decades. If Paris Hilton ate her own shit to maintain her tan, girls all over Britain would copy. Cattle to the slaughter, as long as it's televised. It's a matter of scientific record, even cows with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy aren't thick enough to eat their own shit.

But what is actually happening is an abuse. The almost indefatigable patience, long-suffering trust and restraint of people in the UK, who want the best for their families and the wider world in general, is often seen as passivity. Because this form of exploitation is legitimised, guns are no longer needed; we've evolved beyond that stage. As stated at the outset, when people are pushed beyond reason, eventually a snap is in the offing, so... to subdue any potential for rebellion, the best tactic is to bulldoze every bastion of justice, sap them of hope, fight and money and drive everyone who has a healthy mind into the same psychosis, or depression. Then change your mental health act (that most of them campaigned against) to marginalise them further so you can strip them of their remaining rights and legally drug them.

I'm going to be accused of naivety here but fuck it. Does the monetary system work? I suspect someone is shooting the credit crunch blockbuster as we speak – Will Smith playing Obama waiting for the latest Wall Street figures on his international arms trades to pay for his free-health bill and bellowing in slow-mo when the books don't balance – NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Capitalism doesn't work. The capitalism model is used to divide services for more competitive rates for consumers, but as Vince Robin Hood Cable rightly said "capitalism kills competition, where it can." We're funnelled into believing there's no alternative; but most people have debts, even the privileged few who probably never need to borrow or earn money for the rest of their lives. Third world countries, who have nothing, owe us more than they can ever earn to pay us back, so we have no alternative than to wipe their slate clean. The First World has mountainous debts even though we have every advantage and we are regarded as the richest nations. Money doesn't make the world go round, debt does. So, who are the creditors? And why are we prepared to allow them to hold humanity and our childrens' futures to ransom with electronic numbers and paper. How sick is that? And now the European Economic Community – specifically the Euro-zone is slowly drowning for trying to keep the north-south divide from smothering its head. It's up to its neck in it.

What will you expect the government to do for you, when it doesn't want to invest in your future or treating your resulting depression? Grind, plunge, funnel.

Terminally sick western 'democracies' export this mentality as the panacea for global and economic cohesion and hold up Europe, the division of the USSR, post-war Germany, Japan and China, as prime evidence. Are they good examples? Is it really curing the ills of the populace, making for better lives? Has it reduced war, crime and imbedded bigotry? The democratic countries are paragons of virtue leading the way in peace and prosperity for all aren't they? Isn't that the theory?

But political capitalist-based decisions have the same effect on their own populace; starving the most vulnerable, robbing people of their homes and relationships, literally making them susceptible to depression and siege mentality, isolation and self-preservation. In a crisis, don't expect those who have the most to lose one penny, let those worst off pay for it. 'Yeah, here's my shirt... what? How much to fuck my wife and daughter without a condom? Here, I'll throw my arse in as well. And my children, how many would you like? And would you like an award with that? – "What was that Sooty? We couldn't get a worse bunch of shits than New Labour if we dissolved parliament with a vote of no confidence? Why not let Cameron crow cock-a-doodle-doo, he'll solve the crisis equipping other countries better than he equips his own military, whilst throttling businesses, education and services for his own people? Well, I think that's a very good idea, don't you boys and girls?" Dicks in urinals. Fiddling while Rome burns. The fist-fuck orgy of their lives. Go on, stick it up, harder harder – gag me and tell me I'm just your worthless slut-puppet, it's only what I deserve. And now Callous Cameron wants to throw our mothers, aunties and grandmas out on the street for not hammering it into the heads of their teenagers, no – you can't bloody have what everybody else wants and what the government says you should be aspiring to.

No matter what my invective, I admit, money seems to be the key gelling factor in people's interactions; it is a leveller to some artificial degree. But is that the only basis on which we can interact? When you think of its influence in getting people who hate each other to think seriously about cooperating for gain, it's powerful. But fercryinoutloud is there not enough evidence that people are happier when they interact without financial constraints and incentives, simply because they care about each other?

We still applaud that don't we? So why let politicians deny it? Does it really have to take something of the magnitude of a Japan, Haiti, Pakistan and Louisiana type crisis for people to get the message about what they are trusting in?

**a** **Titian, a Titian, we all fall down**

__

_Art_ is the safest investment, they say, so when the bottom has fallen out of the economy, trade in art will perversely increase. The sale of Damian Hurst's stuffed shark for eight and a half million, during the credit crunch when the government cannot even help struggling people to heat their homes, says – "fuck you lot, fuck the poor – you have no life anyway, miserable minnows, you're all beneath me because I have the balls and I have the power and I can do this." Hurst probably approves, it's not his fault. Penises in urinals. And of course, people like Hurst are deluded into thinking their work is genius by virtue of the figures they can demand. So, Hurst's work is far more successful than some unknown painting that lies in some drawer or dark cellar. This is what art has become. If you're not business-minded you cannot possibly be a legitimate artist, nowadays, the Arts Council bulletins read. Don't get me wrong, art is priceless; our world is richer for it and it is potent for influencing our perceptions. You cannot buy the creative process, (although Hurst does). I appreciate the value in preserving even modern history and rarities. But no art is actually that esoteric, that elitist in nature, that it deserves that value, as rare or historic as it might be. So, you get into an argument then about how much art should fetch – is it worth more than the most expensive mansion or a jumbo jet? Are two Titians worth more to the country than the cost of making two Hollywood blockbusters, or a fifth of the 2012 Olympic admin bill? Of course they are and some people will campaign vigorously for it. And how many lives could that money save? Well, you can't think that way. There's no return in that.

The problem lies not in what value we give it, but that we do so in monetary terms as if money ever had anything to do with the value of art. You don't need to be an artist to know that. I wonder what treasure still lies buried in some Nazi hidden vault or sodden trench. I wonder how many lives it would buy now, in comparison with how many it cost to lose it. How much money was fed back into the German war effort from the art they confiscated and who bought it? Did it buy any lives and how many did it sell? What price obscenity? What indeed, is the threshold for obscenity? Obscenity is by definition outrageously exorbitant, its value enhanced when it costs human lives. But you don't need Nazis for that. What would be the value of the number of artworks plastering the royal palaces or stacked in their archives? A royal wedding will tax the poor struggling public 900% of what that family are willing to cough up for it in this recession. But no-one will question it or why they couldn't sell one painting to fund it themselves. Apart from the millions in revenue it will generate in mugs and sycophantic live television coverage, turning the unknown extended family members into reality TV stars; and people crowding the flagging streets, stepping over the hundreds that have no idea where their next meal is coming from, just to gawk at the spectacle – 'ooh is her dress a bit plain, or is it me? Look how handsome they are and he rescues people in Wales' - while their money haemorrhages out of the coffers and some child and some mother they know dies for being denied medication they could have in another post-code – 'ooooh nearly 2000 at the ceremony and reception! I wonder what they'll be eating / wearing... where are the Beckhams? Imagine the gifts. And how come no Brown and Blaire on the list?!" And that's just the A-list. But we couldn't do without them, "they generate so much in tourism and for charities and patronise the arts," where would the country be without them? Like everyone who visits a historical site in the UK expects to trip over at least one Royal. The occasional artist may be commissioned by the royal family, but if they are such patrons, why can't the biggest single government-appointed supporter of art in this country, the Arts Council, keep their funding? Art is set to become more elitist for the chosen few who can afford it. Better and safer than investing in common people. But we're back to what constitutes real strength and weakness – beauty and ugliness. People have forgotten how good-looking evil is.

There is a place for art at all levels but there is an equally insidious disease infiltrating art and media that threatens to undermine our values in life and value of life, apart from the devaluing of it commercially. It is all subjective and there is a great diversity of art in this country, but I maintain that most crafted and natural artists will subscribe to the view that the prevalence of mediocrity in art, and the running of the arts, contributes to a general watering down of critical social awareness and quality. Art that doesn't encourage out-of-the-box thinking, but concentrates on the box itself, the crate it came in.

Partly to blame is the process of turning art into business, to the point where the business is the object. There's nothing wrong with selling art. Warhol and Emin used art to balk against snobbery in art, only to end up snobs in the sense that it makes no difference if it's a rough sketch or a cast bird on a pole that anyone could have done; it doesn't have to have any identifiable characteristics of the artist's hand; as long as it's got their name on it. It's the name that makes the money, not the art. I'm not against Emin or Warhol; I'm all for a widely varied and stimulating world with some natural inequality. But elitism, in any form, is delusional. Other people will always make more money with art, doing nothing, than the artist did in making it. You know there are people who will cast your penis in bronze for you? What I'd like to do is get a hundred made and plant them on some beach. Thank fuck Banksy doesn't work primarily for commission, but one of his midnight murals just tripled a house's market value. I have a far more controversial, provocative installation that would illustrate the commercial, Emperor's New Suit aspect of art, if the Tate was interested. One every artist would equally despise and envy. One that would become the most renown piece of art ever. One that would outrage everyone with its audacity. It is especially designed for the Turner Prize and would only work as the prime exhibit at Tate Modern, taking up the entire public space, exclusively. And no one would know it's there. You'll have to take my word for that.

But every person has some form or appreciation of art in them. All expressions of art are universal in that way. Art can be uninhibited and transcend all human boundaries, so, why do we have this awareness and appreciation for art, but not for life? If art is worth more when it keeps up with the Dow Joneses, and art mirrors life, just as the global investment market is as fictional as the price mounted upon art but dictates the real market, thus our real lives are held hostage to keeping up with artificially created values. So, our priority has to be, ignore real life and prop up the flailing market confidence, hoist an artificial value on it and keep an eye on the trends we're told via the media and bold headliners. Life and business are index-linked. Their true intrinsic value is overlooked both ways. Life mirrors art.

**valium** **of the masses**

If religion was the "Opium of the masses," then _media news_ is definitely turning into its Valium. If it ever makes the news, the entire critical analysis of this book will be 'sexed up' under the banners; "POLITICIANS AND COMMERCIAL EXECUTIVES – PSYCHOPATHIC!!!" and "FALKLANDERS SHOULD HAVE MOVED OR PLAYED FOOTBALL!" I expect to be lambasted as an ill-informed scare-monger, but no one would flinch a muscle at those headlines. 'Tell us something we don't already know' would be the unuttered response. The press used to hold honour and credibility for being able not just to bring us hidden details behind events, but to influence and even change those events. Now it does it by handing someone a Molotov cocktail. The press used to be the prime tool for holding people in government and commerce accountable. Now, the culture of spin and use of the media is so overtaken by blah-de-blahs, it's all about whose the glibbest, whose got a new brand of blah-de-blah. The press undermines its own credibility by becoming a mere mouthpiece for trendsetters, bamboozled by them.

Even the elder-statesmen programmes of the BBC, including some documentary makers, have 'bought into' this culture to a degree that's alarming, so that the news is no longer the priority but the creative language, the targeted responses, the idiosyncrasies and celebrity of individual presenters. All of this de-sensitises, in the long-run, so that we also become passive to the realities behind the dialogue, bludgeoned by yet another pile of dead bodies and yet another air disaster and yet another patronisingly infantile point-scoring skirmish – "The IRA are dead," you know, dead, without a single consideration for the embedded potential of another uprising and the litter of family members' corpses a glib cajoling brouhaha like that could generate. Fucking leech. Well, he should be satisfied now they've started up again, eh? But, oh, for the heady days of outrage and drama. 9/11 peaked their lust and now they have to sex-up less significant events to turn a crisis into a drama for the fix. It's a disease of the industry, but we buy it, constantly indulging our own flailing egotistical dependency on the sad facade of image and media and judging books without glimpsing beyond the cover blurb.

Important documents affecting those who would put their lives on the line for us are not inaccurate and scare-mongering but "sexed-up." Wow! Isn't that trendy, isn't that cool? The wanker who introduced it into the English language, in perpetuity now, will be quick to tell anyone who is ordering drinks at the bar. It will be the pinnacle of his career – "hey, you remember 'sexed-up'? that was... ... yeah." And in a discontented stupor, later... "HEY... I ORIGINATED SEXED-UP YEAH, that was ME! What the fuck did you ever do?" Children are no longer enticed or manipulated into sickeningly dreadful and spirit-breaking, ultimately suicidal sexual abuse. No, we're saved the affront; they're now "groomed," presumably with an ornate soft horsehair brush – mmmm, so soft. A North Korean dictator and Iranian premier will share the same fate as Saddam even if they only seek the capacity to make "WMD"s which are presumably the same pointy multi-Hiroshima/Nagasaki WMDs that democracies are allowed. Exceptions will be made for China and Russia because they already had them and China will take over the world soon, so best be bezzies with them now, however they treat their own populace and neighbours that disagree with them. WMDs don't cost us the earth and never will; they'll never be used, not even by the Americans, it's all penises in urinals. They trip off the tongue as easy as lollipops. Just as the "Credit Crunch" is actually a candy bar that you can pay for on tic. And you will have to soon, with all the businesses that have hit the wall and livelihoods ruined and people reduced to begging off the state or resorting to shooting their family and then torching their home while they're in it. I mean there could be no other life could there?

Reality is not currency. Got to keep the world turning on confidence and confidence relies on image and the oral tradition of speculation. So does world politics it seems. Image is everything, so even 'Global Warming' ruins our short-term expectations and investment in the next season's bikini-wear, more than it ruins the earth. It runs so hot and cold we can't bank on it and summers are even more disappointing. Entire countries have gone bust, but keep on erecting buildings and playing golf and 'who wants to be a millionaire' – "ooh, you must be the only one who hasn't seen Mama-Mia. It's just the feel-good antidote for these depressing times." Ditch the green – we now need another coal industry. A post-modernist dream; Black is the new black.

The media would have us believe there is hope. Yes, it is not science that has proved the potential saviour of the planet, or carbonless hydrogen-fuel development, or any results from countless arguments at any one of the famed summits. No, it is media-coverage of Obama's showboating rhetoric to the Berlin populace. Yes, according to the new messiah, we have half a chance to redress this illness. I don't share his optimism as much as his conviction. Any politician would look foolish not to acknowledge the problems we face, but the press prefer to concentrate more on _his highlighting_ of the US shortcomings more than the US shortcomings, so that's ok. The idea of saving the planet might be bullshit, but you better believe _that_ is NO way for the world President to get sufficient votes. I mean look at his predecessor. Jesus. Presumably, the bunkered gun-toting variety of Americans – who believe that the second coming (amendment) of Obama upon Bin-Laden will lead to salvation from all terrorism – will broker peace for the entire planet. Or else. So, they either need him to be a president that wants to appease them and considers them more convivial than the peace-keepers serving in Iraq, or he just has to like guns.

When commerce hits the fan what other currency do you have? How could we possibly be expected to exist without guns? How do you deal with megalomaniacs when you want their money and resources? Of, course there never was any other way to broker the Iraqi peace that exists now, just as taking Mugabe out of the picture will naturally necessitate American invasion. Gun-toters, don't despair; you can always sign up for Afghanistan, we're all building up our ground forces. The world needs you more than ever, you've got your way and if you kill enough women and children, you too can achieve a Nobel Peace Prize to hang alongside your thanksgiving decorations. Plenty more where they came from, you've got the whole non-Christian Arab countries to decorate your tree with. Osama's urn is probably on a Whitehouse mantle piece in the cellar with a big global map behind, highlighting Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Beijing, Moscow, Cuba, Venezuela, Svalbard and Baffin Bay. Funny how all the black tea in Mexico doesn't break down barriers though, eh?

Militants and military people, the world over, glorify their profession. Although many who have served on a front line see the futility and stupidity of war, the brutality of it and the innocent human toll; it still fosters a false sense of pride amongst those who revel in their expertise to take life or to save it, to hold the power and control. The hunter's instinct. As if that's what makes them a man and if you're gonna have anything to do with them and their family, your respect will depend on how hard you can punch. They're bullies, legitimised by the armed services even in non-combatant roles. When you can bark your orders and people jump, you can have all your own way. It's easy to be respected within such a closed institution, after passing an exam, or you're in line for automatic promotion. And then you can expect it when you get home. The British MOD have been in the news for prejudice against homosexuality and bullying people into suicide, (just the weak ones mind, it's their own fault they're not battle-fit), and as long as they can issue PC statements they'll get away with it. Well, if you can't hack it in the barracks, how will you go on under torture? So, we need to turn people into Pit-bulls with bites much worse than their barks, as long as they can drop it the instant they get back into their civvies.

Just a word of appreciation, though. Those who are expected to forge peaceful relationships in the crucible of Iraq and Afghanistan face the impossible, daily. The human qualities displayed by those trained killers are a testament to the power of restraint under the severest pressure and antagonism. Army-life has obviously had to get more sophisticated taking on the role of liberators of enemies, where uniforms have been done away with and identification of friend or foe and shifting positions comes down to the initiative of a nineteen-year-old carrying instant death in his arms. They seem to retain their humanity whilst they're asked to do a certain job. But look at the consequences to them once their work is finished. We're being asked to put our hope for humanity in the hands of these relatively young and inexperienced men. Any such hope is as precarious as the position the soldiers are placed in – one civilian getting a little too close with something a little too bulky under their garments and those who have got used to smiling and shaking hands could all be dead in seconds. Along with what they've achieved. Anyone would have to stretch their mentality to get friends and brothers out of panicked life-threatening situations. It takes something else to deal with those situations you have little control over. You can't disrespect that.

That kind of loyalty doesn't seem to stretch to the brass in or out of combats. But it is glorified to everyone under the banner of nationalism, no matter what state your government is in, or the reasons they put you and your families in that situation to start with. We have media to thank for our awareness. But it isn't the top brass we seek to lynch, when we watch the endless coffin processions. Every one of the soldiers that signed up for kill or die is a hero, regardless, and we get to see their photo. They are so precious to us, dead. But we do not see the faces of those they killed.

If anyone is in doubt, show primary school kids repeating in their cute little voices how grateful they are our country was saved by these people. What we are teaching them is propaganda, a total absence of critical awareness.. On Armistice Day, remember all the heroes who fought, but include the innocent civilians who didn't and lost their family members, or got raped and robbed. See what the little impressionable blighters have to say then, you might get a shock.

But wouldn't that be a good thing? We all know war is sheer unadulterated madness. Propaganda is manipulative delusion adding insult to injury. This is the reality. We should use this education to motivate how we can avoid war, but why should war ever cease to exist, when it can always be a first resort for settling differences? How come we've found other ways to deal with domestic problems, peacefully, but not internationally? Nationalism, that's how. No wonder people are perplexed when they see, in the same news programme, multi-cultural political correctness and defence of immigration policies, British 'Foreign-nationals' and ethnic diversity, dignitaries of opposing countries shaking hands but civilian buildings in the same country reduced to rubble with children's' corpses strewn across a street.

Nuclear is a lame deterrent, so, groom your children for killing or dying, you're going to need them again and again and again. More propaganda please, Molech stokes his furnace. Funnel funnel funnel. If people reluctantly went to war for the two Bs who they hated, they'll gladly offer their lives to Obama to route the Taliban? He's a good talker and by the time you read this he will have talked a few hundred more lives into coffins, before talking and paying money to the Taliban for a power-share deal in a reformed half-democratic Afghanistan. We don't see anyone having a go at the neo-Nazi movement in France, or mobs lynching Gerry Adams. We're grateful they wised up and so many innocent lives were spared, aren't we? Obama was uncharacteristically cautious in his election victory address, but according to all the critical, objective, experienced news-readers... "America changed overnight!" Their deluded thirst for drama outweighing any self-preserving credibility.

Dumb-down and sensationalise media is a major contributor to our mental subjugation and illness. Substance is not important. Even in legal circles, an obvious innocent can be convicted and blatant criminal acquitted on mere rhetoric, or trial by media. Some documentaries get away with more scare-mongering than objective research, as long as the presenter's eyes have that star-lens twinkle, an open collar, a conservative jersey we can trust and that authoritative bold headline tone. Slave labour, genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass starvation and invasion are the elixir of media rhetoric. Anything short of it, like reality, just isn't good telly. And good telly is everything, since everybody veges out in front of one. Crucial follow up will get a cursory glance until the next action-packed, quick-draw mobile phone footage comes in. DROP EVERYTHING! Ross and Brand have dropped their balls, then taken them in. We see through it, yet go and check if there's more about it on the net, or switch over to see how long they can pad it out; another soap.

Not a word anyone says in soap washes. The general rule in writing soap is – whatever the truth, exhaust every alternative before you have to spill any beans. And as we established, life imitates art. Similarly, the media keeps us informed as to who is who and doing what, before they do it. And we keep up online or in the papers to stay one up on our sad mates, before we watch it. We _want_ to be told the ending, now. And the media will tell us who is the most successful, high profile people, so we can follow them.

An arc-light shines, occasionally, in this day-for-night; we're treated to a glimpse of the hopeful faces of impressionable children gathered in Liverpool centre, all gazing at _La Princess_ in excitement and wonder; all those intelligent little faces reminding us what present and future our predatory, self-seeking culture is leaving them. If any.

What's such a pity is that the arts and media __ sectors have set the best examples of how richly our lives are enhanced by diversity. They are always at the forefront. How grateful we should be for this awareness they give us. And yes, it's easy to say that is due to capitalistic progression, but if you researched how much effort, determination and time goes into art and media projects, it is a wonder anyone makes any money from it. For all the box-office smashes and famed arts sales there are millions of projects that make losses. But we still get to see how good it is when people of different cultures get together and we have so many global influences in our everyday society. Our fascination with other cultures and history is so easily accommodated and widely researched, nowadays. We're blessed when we embrace it. What positive influence news programmes could have, if they invested in reality, instead of opium and Valium.

**down** **with the hood**

As I edit this a year after I wrote it, I can hardly believe I started this section as I did in the next paragraph – such is the change in ethnic hostility because of job losses, cut-backs and the effect of immigration during the credit crunch. Also, the meaning of my subtitle has gained new significance; originally chosen as a general reflection of how neighbourhoods have been systematically remoulded by political manoeuvrings and the patronising language adopted by those who see their role as 'facilitating' the development of ethnic and social 'inclusion.' Like there is a pre-existing strata of custodians of moral excellence that other ethnic communities have to live up to, before they can have a stake. Like the use of colloquialisms somehow hoodwinks ethnic minorities in to a sense of recognition, progress, inclusion. Sound appalling? See how you feel by the end of the section.

As a direct result of our media awareness, _racism_ is rightly on the political downturn, in the UK. Positive discrimination and political correctness gone overboard is making for a more inclusive society by force, but is it doing a lot to integrate?

Well, we all know the answer to that is, pick your area. Yes it is creating opportunities for all across the UK, but a lot of community initiatives seem to add up to individual or ethnic justification and very little mutual appreciation and cross-over. It's not enough to get the odd Sheikh, Muslim, Christian and Atheist around the same table on a daytime television magazine show, gleefully expounding what a wonderful country to have such freedoms. Nice though that is to see. Music has never been constrained by tight cultural definitions. While it always benefits from musicians' and listeners' immense respect for all its varied roots, it doesn't depend on it, for it to speak to us all. It is universal. We can accept this without question, so why have such a problem with integration? We like to think we're above the animal kingdom, right to self-determination, freedom of thought and intelligence etc. but when it comes to cultural differences, we don't even act like difference species of dog. We don't even sniff each other's arses unless there's money in it.

Because of political correctness, many ethnic promotional events in the UK seem to be exclusive rather than multi-ethnic, much less involve any of the traditional indigenous population. That's 'white' to laymen but we're scared to say that, it's prejudicial but 'black' is fine for all non-whites. If you're so precious about it, we could do away with the chessboard, but we'll then be back to lights, darks and shades. We could use the graphite scale – "didn't you hear? She's a 3H and he's a 4B!" Michael Jackson will be a Typex. The nearest thing you'll get to an English cultural event is a farmers' market, May Day with Morris dancers (they're such a quintessential part of our heritage), or Saint Georges Day when English people that are not BNP or EDL are brave enough to fly the flag when there's no international footy on.

Growing ethnic groups need self-contained communities where they can be at ease with their prevailing ethos and lifestyles and I think that's enriching, if we all get on while respecting the laws of whatever country we happen to be in. But it so often seems to lead to exclusivity and we regularly see people up in arms with the cry of 'prejudice' or 'discrimination' when the smallest thing doesn't go their way. Not always regarding injustice. There is also massive disregard for UK law, by immigrants and 'foreign nationals.' We need a level playing field for all and that means no discrimination. The term 'positive discrimination' is positively discriminatory and indicates a substructure of discrimination in whatever institution employs it. Just as 'foreign national' is a discriminatory term. Have we not got sufficient diversity in this country to stop calling people by some cultural difference? They're either nationals and citizens, or they're not. All campaigning to bring about acknowledgement and cultural respect goes through the same pendulum-swing and rarely does the momentum settle. You get what you want, then you push it as far as you can, not to join the mainstream with everyone else on an equal footing... to _become_ the mainstream and marginalise those who used to be mainstream and marginalised you.

I was really impressed listening to an Afro-Caribbean rapper, at a Greenroom Theatre event called 'Speakeasy.' His stuff was powerful and poetic, inspiring and above the norm. (The proceedings were sullied by an eighteen year-old female poet who got up afterwards, spouting venom and outrage at the slave-labour trade we the audience were apparently perpetuating. She must have been studying it at six-form college. _She's_ certainly never seen it and probably none of her parents did. She didn't say anything a fifteen year old Icelandic couldn't have thrown together, looking at a text-book sketch of a slave boat, head to toe with bodies. But she's hailed amongst Manchester's finest anti-racism poets because she said it when most had moved on. The problem is, she was told she was good, too early, by people still grinding axes that never got laid into white flesh, perpetuating something long-gone on the basis anyone playing the same stuck record is 'blood.' Poets are supposed to write something they know, something personal, give us another angle, or take us somewhere we haven't been). But it was refreshing, listening to this crafted young rapper, addressing racism; he actually made a good case, aiming his arrows at our common human sensibilities and hypocrisies. It's difficult to be thought-provoking on a subject that's been flogged to death. His aim was sharp and intuitive until he shot himself in the foot by asserting, as many scientists do, that all whites originated from a pitch-black caste of deepest Africa. Not 'Black' as in non-whites, which is true, of course. Genetics, geographical history and archaeology might still have something to say about this assumption, but it doesn't stop many scientists believing, so why should it stop him? That aside, it's his argument that doesn't hold water; that we are inferior to our ancestry and owe them a debt of gratitude. If he's right, the greatest ever black protagonist, Michael Jackson, has been a traitor to the cause all these years. So we haven't been evolving then? Make your mind up. By this rapper's reckoning, and now the historian David Starkey's, it should be anaemic Caucasians and Goths being pulled up by the police, protesting – 'it's because I is black, innit?' If we're all 'blood' then why the fuss?

I get on great with many members of the Indian and Pakistani communities in my area, they've lived here longer than I have and most of them are British, which makes no difference to me. But the consequences of me asking a lanky fifteen year old why he kept staring at me every day he passed me, over a few months period, was suddenly being confronted by four British-Pakistani dudes and their Pit-bull, at my front door, threatening to burn my house down with me in it. He told them I had threatened him – lying little six-foot shit-stirrer – the first thing out of their mouths is that I must be racist! Now _that's_ racism. Young Muslims speed past my house in their Subaru Imprezzas, or suped-up, florescent under-bellied, Honda Civics and Corsas, with their boom-boxes rattling the walls. I see younger ones eyeing and chatting up white girls, hiding their alcohol and drugs in a corner of secluded wasteland in case their parents find out. I know some will feel driven to those measures by restrictive religious and familial standards and, to be honest, who hasn't done that kind of thing? But these young dudes assume the arrogance of racial and religious superiority and racist attitudes backed by the racism card, while secretly envying the western life-styles they're 'deprived' of. Get into scrapes that fly in the face of their principles and laws, or the slightest _perceived_ level of grievance and they're up in arms en masse, spouting murder and burning effigies in the cause of non-discrimination.

It must be said the majority of young Muslims have sterling family values and give off a sense of unease and humility in engaging with the general public – which I think they get more from their traditional community than the western environment. Some over-compensate and assert themselves shamelessly, which is understandable. But some have adopted the druggie dick-head Caucasian culture, too. I think _they_ think they need to compete, whereas any reasonable non-prejudicial onlooker thinks 'why would you want to?' I don't support the prejudicial concept that when someone Caucasian says "they" as a generic phrase they mean prejudicially all 'foreigners' or an entire ethnicity. It is lazy and does happen, admittedly. This is a two way street, of course, but who is the quicker to jump on it? That kind of mentality sidesteps individual circumstance to support its own prejudice, like the common practice of a mob of Pakistanis suddenly accumulating around a traffic collision to bear false witness for a Pakistani driver they don't know, and intimidate a Caucasian driver, regardless of the evidence of blame.

Since I was threatened, I've had no further trouble. We pass each other in the street and I get looks like they've marked my card. They assume I couldn't get to them, politically, through their parents and local Imam; or that I couldn't go to press and cause a stink; or that I don't know racists and extremely violent people who beat up other ethnic people, for kicks. I've known criminals who would do me a favour, if I asked them to. It's not difficult to start a tit-for-tat race-war. Why don't I? Because I choose not to be a weak-willed petty-minded racist git like the parties I'm talking about. They assume I haven't got friends of different ethnologies? They assume their experience is disassociated from that of other communities and western culture. They haven't a clue that I campaign for human rights. For their rights.

Pakistani women would be interesting candidates to debate freedom of choice. They endure much more than we give them credit for, but they're not all oppressed, in the West. Some choose tradition and some independence, but they usually have to move to where they're not known for an independent life. And then they have to run the gauntlet of cultural disapproval from perfect strangers of their own race or even family members. Their men don't. We've all heard stories of alienation and sometimes victimisation from family. Many of them are naturally beautiful and I'd love a Pakistani partner, but I no longer believe in marriage and I imagine we'd get stick from all quarters, where I live, even if we did marry. Ten miles down the road, no-one would bat an eyelid if she was a porn queen or prostitute,.

The more traditional older generations really have a struggle on their hands with younger ones adopting western standards and it must be heart-wrenching for them. Fundamentalists can obviously manipulate this fear and the fear of not obeying their god. So, get the tools out, Religion, Racism, Nationalism and Patriotism are great for that. But western families and youths get through life pretty well, whatever personal choices they make. Independence, by definition, flies in the face of tradition, but it doesn't necessarily disrespect it. It will always unearth intolerance in any culture. People who feel forced into doing something are more likely to hate it, than those who have a choice. The best anyone can hope for is to be given sufficient knowledge and experience for it to be an informed one. People always exercise their personal choice as soon as it is free from oppression anyway. Isn't that more honest than oppressing or ostracising?

Campaigning for the right to be different is good for all of us. Whilst positive discrimination discriminates in someone's favour, though, someone else is being positively discriminated against. That isn't equality. "So what?" you say "shouldn't it be our turn, for a change?" Yeah, that's moving forward. I genuinely hope Obama's presidency doesn't turn out to be merely a poke in the eye for racists and that they'll join the rest of the real world, in celebrating getting that long held handicap out of the way. Manchester's 'finest anti-racism poet,' at this very moment, (the time of Obama's election and Hamilton's world championship win) will be penning her tribute to how Barak and Lewis 'revolutionised the world' in just two days. But as Mailer tried to tell feminists in 1971, it takes a lot more than gaining the high ground in a debate to bring equality. The struggle has been fought for centuries and just look what happened with the end of Apartheid. It takes getting real.

Well, something really had to be done about it, sure, and the guidelines we have now in the UK are pretty good, over all. Racism was our heritage and there are still a lot of died-in-the-wool imperialists about. Positive discrimination positively engrains this chessboard mentality and encourages all ethnic communities to think in those terms. Many countries are way behind in this respect, but it is still debatable whether or not the UK could handle a black PM. Some people won't be satisfied until Austria has one. As long as he's tackling the opposition and scoring goals, it matters not a jot what race your football team player is – you'll be out of your seat, carrying him on your shoulders singing his name on high, without a significant, _pro-active_ multicultural commitment to _demonstrating_ equality and integration in real terms.

Just look at the evolution of our tastes in music and who that depended upon. Cab Calloway, Nat King Cole, Chuck Berry, Satchmo, Ravi Shankar, Ella Fitzgerald, Jackson, Snoop Dog, Dizzee Rascal – why can we suspend prejudice in this field, but not elsewhere? Stupidity is fashionable and cool in the UK, though, and some blame recent music influences. Crass ignorance has been marginalised for so long, leading to personal traumas, fights, robberies and stabbings, everyone is paranoid to speak out against it. It has its own unofficial movement and its pandered to for our entertainment, which naturally encourages the use of it off screen. It's prejudicial to be stupidist, not stupidest.

Foremost protagonists blamed for this are Rap and Hip-Hop artists who became the most vociferous of the 'underclass' and stuck to their guns to show there's more bling in turning to music than crime. These are not stupid people. It isn't merely the 'stupid' market they've cornered. Maybe they flag up the forces that cause stupidity or are caused by it. That's wise, not stupid. But the stupid amongst the listeners look to the bling. The patronising BBC showed they were prepared to get 'down with the hood' when Jeremy Paxman (with stiff-upper lip 'what's-it-coming-to' smirk) interviewed Dizzy Rascal on Obama's victory and it was the artist that was honest enough to not rise to the bait of having a political stance on it, leaving Paxman for the first time dumbfounded. But in sharing their experience, many rappers had to make the stabbings, gangs and shootings look cool in their lyrics and videos not to look stupid. Muscles, hot 'bitches' and Tatts. The same weakness cons admit they have to resort to in clink. This was their life after all and why should you not talk about your life. Is anyone actually listening? If some wear their stab and shot wounds as medals of honour, they'll never extricate themselves from perpetuating youth violence. We've learned nothing since West-Side Story but busting the moves.

I've had enough contact with serious criminals to know they're much, much more than all that and kids are capable of seeing through that, so what is it that we have to indulge stupidity? Laziness? You can't make good music through laziness. It shows. But watch teen-age Korean body-poppers and break-dancers and tell me they're stupid. They're breaking boundaries. Wonder what they'd say about carrying weapons. It's like some of the kids in this country have seen footage on Cambodia and some African civil wars, or some romanticised documentary on gangland New York, and think they're missing out. Or is that now the way to bling? If it's harder and harder to follow your aspirations, no wonder youths who have little hope and less developed ability, but who aspire to being the next Fitty Cents or The Streets, think they have to resort to knives and they have to be cool about it – make them a fashion accessory, get some history if they want street cred. They think Winehouse and Doherty just fell out of bed into all that talent and lifestyle. We all like stupidity in its place but these young dudes who can calculate just how far they can manipulate services and the police; who can't add up but can quote the law and their rights... no, they're just thick and stupid? Everyone knows you can only earn respect, the minute you demand it, you lost it and you're sad, but hey – it's all penises in urinals now. Earning respect is too much trouble for some, when they can knife it?

Where did they learn that from? That's not an ethnic thing and it didn't start with rappers and hip-hop-hip-dibba-hibberty-hoppers. Thank goodness a lot just settle for sex and babies and hang around street corners just going "nt nt nt nt nt." At least, even with a group of Pakistani youths that are openly racist you get a better quality of discussion than most adult pub conversations. What? Raped Somalis and dispersed Inuit only come over to the UK because they think it's 'Booze-Britannia' don't they? 'Shameless' is a human rights documentary isn't it?

We even dumb-down our education system for our kids and moolah, but lots of the younger generation have dropped the racism crap, so, who is perpetuating this? If it isn't the government and it isn't the schools and newer generations, who is it? "Well, they're coming over here and taking our jobs!" Are they? Or is it greedy British companies, who don't give a shit where you're from as long as you'll work for fuck all, _giving_ them your jobs? Capitalism is such a supporter of society, see? Such a level playing field; such a respecter of law and community. People naturally want to feed their families and any threat to that has profound effects. But you won't find companies like Tesco and Sainsbury's heavily penalised by the government, for franchising unscrupulous slave labour traffickers and illegal immigrants. No, they're an equal-opportunities employer competing with China and Walmart; what do we expect?

Racism and commercialism feasts off stupidity. Despite the fact that most individuals on their own can have serious, intelligent conversations and intentions, group activity invariably leads to all sorts of serious stupidity. Surely wherever and whoever we are, we are just human beings with more in common than that which divides and we should be respected for the contribution we make to the whole society that surrounds us? I can't subscribe to the view that appealing to people who want to act stupidly is pissing in the wind. Even if I feel that will be the outcome. It's not a pride thing, as if I'm never stupid or I'm any better. It's just not a good enough excuse, because the reality is we're all more than that and given the chance we are willing to bear responsibility. As long as people keep telling us we're not, we might as well surrender to anything without complaint.

Some people say if you complain in their country you get shot in the head. I think that's more honest. You might be getting shot in the head by someone who is as desperate as you and you know where you stand. In the UK complaining is a protracted reductive water-torture by people that have far more than what you need or even what they've promised to deliver.

I'm finishing this off during the August riots of 2011. The fracas has momentarily dissipated from people turning out on the street to take advantage of a criminal gang's out-of-hours trolly dash. Because it's covered by the news media 24-7, it's every bystander's chance to get their fifteen seconds of fame. Why not, every media savvy politician and moralist is. People are still trying to work out why this happened and what can be done about it. It's a media free-for-all.

What we've seen is, politicians get their way by using words. Words, words, words... Words. Words words words words words words words. Words. Words are all they trade in. Rhetoric and semantics is all that counts and all you're gonna get. Leaders hoodwink to get what they want and gain votes, even when, as soon as they've got what they wanted and gained the votes, they immediately change the words. They really don't have to deliver anything at all, as long as the words give the right impression. As for anyone else, it doesn't matter how many words they use, or how they use the words – put them in writing, in petitions delivered by hand, through rallies and protests marches, shared worldwide in blogs, emails and networking, in ink, in paint, in blood, flown across the sky on the tail of a bi-plane with a scantily clad wing-walker. monocycled across a tightrope, or chained to a statue, doused in petrol and set alight with the reader. No more Emmeline Pankhursts. No more Emily Davisons. The more words you use, the more they are ignored; the stronger they get, the closer organisations get to their zero-tolerance. No matter how much your words mean, they mean nothing. Whether in a face to face interview, or if you're woken during the fifth of Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons' by a human being on the other end of the line, they are so pushed for time, as soon as you utter a syllable, they may as well bawl over you, "MLUUUUUURHH - MLURRRRRRMMHH -PHWLUHHHHH - PHWLUHHHHH - PHWLUHHHH, WHAT YA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?" And hang up. But no... your words are craftily, artfully dismissed, minimised, deflected, misconstrued, diverted, anything, as long as you don't get what you want. Not just denied by outright dictators but by the very people who are paid to sustain the impression they are there precisely to help you; to listen, to process your concerns, so that they result in the very thing that you want. They are mystic alchemists, who, with a wave of magic wand, turn your words to gold.

While _you_ possess them, they are worthless.

The same commercial and political policies have taught us that using action before words gets you much further. Wars are entered into without public consensus. Even when voters _are_ out on the streets protesting. Most bills are increased without negotiation. Services reduced, safety issues ignored, lives lost unnecessarily, or even wilfully slaughtered. They are the ones in cahoots, orchestrating the 'us and them,' the 'haves and have-nots.' So... whether their words precede or follow, or where there are no words at all, the 'haves' behaviour has massive impact by action or inaction, without recourse. Whereas the have-nots words mean nothing, cannot be defended and there are always consequences for the use of them, or the ignoring of them. Members of the have-nots, taking action into their own hands without any warning or dialogue, are called by top politicians and moralistic band-wagon jumpers – 'mobs', 'yobs,' 'scum,' 'thugs.' It matters not who these people actually are, what their occupations and ages are. It matters not what the actual video footage and arrests record. Those professing intelligence wilfully ignore the intelligence in preference for targeting a "broken society" of "sick" youths and irresponsible parents.

David Starkey went further, to suggest the text-speak used during the riots indicated genuine racial integration. Further than this – whites actually turning black. Language thus becoming the ticket to club-membership. Still the blacks' fault, then.

But this applies to the wider moral majority too, as shown above. The emotive premature prejudicial language forges disparate people together in a band of brothers, ready to wage war without dialogue, without evidence or consultation, or respectful confrontation, without legal precedent or even logical concern regarding the increased cost on their own taxes. All is sacrificed in this kangaroo court of hysteria and illogic (meaning sick logic), to egg on the most heinous atrocities by the highest level of the haves, upon a dystopia of their own making. But who wants to be counted as one of the have-nots? Who wants to be collared by the mob, like Saint Peter in the courtyard of the Sanhedrin?

Innocent mothers and grandmothers with babes in arms and numerous innocent children should suddenly be turned out on to the same street at night. The same street they're told their offspring should not have been out on at night. No questions asked. There is no injustice too cruel for such scum, No place in the Big Society for them. It's a total shock that youths have been employed by criminals and formed gangs! That they're running about at night unsupervised by family members, if they have any. One loan voice of reason rang out into the terse air, after her thirteen years old son, who had never been in trouble before, was sentenced to nine months and permanent neighbourly vitriol for fancying a free bottle of wine. Sheltering him from the hounding paparazzi, she declared – "HE'S NOT JESUS FUCKIN CHRIST!" If some have no fathers present, find the parent, grab the parent and make them be a parent is the 'logical' reasoning of the body politic. Their parental abuse doesn't matter, step-parent issues don't matter and severe drug abuse doesn't matter. Out on their arses broken people and broken families and broke people should go; and with them the very people saving them from complete isolation and the tax-payer the costs of caring for them. But woe betides them (namely baton or bullet) if they then misbehave on that street. The street they shouldn't be on after dark.

They are targeted simply to give the one-sided rhetoric teeth, regardless of what immorality it manifests. The government, councils, commerce, silent social care and voluntary services, army, police and general public are all for it, so it must be right. Words are unnecessary. So, it's ok when a fifteen-strong police cordon set upon three cyclists without any words exchanged; not even a wink when a police-officer complains that his equipment is substandard because his baton broke on someone's bones. It's ok for the government to hack into emails and telephone messages despite numerous newspaper reporters serving jail sentences and even the Mighty Murdock being hunted down for the same crime. What next? A ban on wearing a hood, apparently. Two monarchs engaged the 'sick' youths and increased their charity activity funds for them. London's mayor chatted with them. The PM? He talked with riot police, congratulated a few magistrates that went beyond the law and a few councils that threatened innocent tenants, crowed the crow at a few African dictators and went back on holiday. He neeeeeds his holiday, he protested.

Action before words. Words without forethought or genuine intent. Complaint without response. Crime without punishment. It's fine! But only for some. There are more overtly evil, protracted and determined atrocities on weaker people going on. Bloodcurdling, but not a batted eyelid. Every semblance of dialogue thus undermined, is it any wonder communication ends up out on a one-way street with traffic and everything else hurtling in both directions? If the answer is canons and bullets, what's the difference with any dictatorship anywhere else in the world? And what do the moral majority expect the reply will be? They don't even think about the cost, or when it's their turn. And this crosses all ethnicities.

Reason is surplus to requirement. The propaganda, whether PC or un-PC, positively or negatively discriminate, is simply another form of substance abuse.

**murder** **mystery tour**

__

_Nationalism and patriotism_ are related divisive cancers; tools for mental subjugation. Patriotism is easy for Americans who stand and do their mandatory salute and pledge allegiance at every kind of public assembly; as it is for four year old Roman Catholic primary school pupils on a poor council estate in Manchester, standing in front of a Priest they don't know who is in full regalia – robes, sceptre, sash and fishy hat – conducting morning worship in Latin, before their cornflakes have settled. Parents don't simply stand by and watch that kind of invasion of their child's mind and spirit, they prefer it. Up to Molech they get marched each day to get buggered behind closed doors, before they're surrendered to the flames. You'd think parents must know, but they don't mind not knowing. No questions asked. How could you know until it's too late? It could hardly be the parents' fault. But as long as it's not physical, mind-fucks are fine on children.

It is a little more difficult for a stranded, wounded American soldier who gets nursed and fed by a poor Vietnamese family, while all their neighbours and relatives are getting napalmed by his mates a mile up the jungle path. As long as Tom Cruise and his mates do it justice in a film, then that one's atoned for. Many a soldier in Afghanistan would probably attest to that, too. Can you be a patriot and nationalistic without being racist? Soldiers have to have it drilled into them not to be. They can only call them names at home on manoeuvres, at training camps and detention centres. For the civilian, it seems it's contingent on how good you feel about your country and its leaders, your fear of being vilified by bigots and simply when the limit on ethnic inclusion is exceeded. It's far easier to be patriotic and nationalistic when your government can validate an attack on an ethnic minority. If not, you've got to watch your 'p's and 'q's.

The majority of people, I think, would accept it's a fallacy to assume because you're born in one part of the earth, you automatically have to be identified with and owe allegiance to that community; or you have some stake-ownership of its environment. It doesn't count if you're born in transit, does it? We consider that a human right because that is our home and if we cannot depend on our home, or defend it, or belong there, where can we belong? I can understand a sense of community, belonging, family, land-ownership and benefiting from supervision of services and law etc. It's fundamental to a sense of identity and dependency from birth. But the reality is that lands, rulers and civilisations change. So, is that a reliable way of thinking? Does it actually pan out? How about those who seek to emigrate due to troubles or for better prospects? Those whose parents are from a different land to theirs? We call it 'duel-nationality' (even when both parents were from different countries to where you were born). It is useless when there is a War in Bosnia and Rwanda, but great if you want to play football for a different national team.

The 'United States' of America has been setting trends for us for a while now, but it can hardly be called 'united' or a single community, or an indigenous population. Few nations have a broader, more diverse population and some people who live there view the States as their home. Others of the same genetic heritage, who have never lived where their parents lived, view those places as their true homeland. But just take the indigenous population or 'pure Americans,' whatever they are; how does that nationality thing pan-out from state to state? It's fine to cheer on 'good old boys' away at war – they're probably saving each others' lives and hence sons and daughters of every persuasion – or people who saved lives during the twin towers disaster; or emergency services and hospital workers; or musicians; or heroes in film. But where was that cheer and unison when the levees broke in Louisiana? If a plane decided it wanted to crash suddenly into Parliament or the highest towers of Canary Warf, initially you'd hear a shout of British cheers go up that would send a tsunami across New Zealand. Then we would be faced with our collective responsibility to get off our arses, but it would end up with us lazily choosing the next less successful lying cunts in line, that might get us back to business as usual. Or worse, we'd become as paranoid as the Americans and boycott premiership football matches to take back possession from the Arabs and Russians. Multiculturalism is great for footie even if the next Wayne Rooney is a Taliban sniper.

The idealism and realism of the global economy has turned into Frankenstein's monster. It generates conflict on the basis of imposing global commercial acceptance against prevalent socio-political trends, where the cost is cultural disintegration through integration. It necessitates racism and nationalism as soon as money ceases to be the tie that binds. If it wasn't for the money we wouldn't have cultural diversity. Traditional Muslims in Marrakech can get along doing business within Europe and with global traders of all backgrounds and beliefs. Something of an acceptance is already established on this monetary basis. If cultural divisions can be suspended for financial transactions, why not on any other basis?

But hang on... countless times we see people without money and of diverse ethnicities getting along. What are they doing wrong?

Many Brits are buying properties abroad to get the hell out of here, whilst Russians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Arab statesmen, Spanish speaking communities and Jewish business people are all cashing in on British and American multiculturalism. There is a flotilla of reasons; personal gain, ego fulfilment; technical, industrial and financial exploitation; political influence; religious proselytising, up to aspirations of global domination. Can't we all just swap nations for a bit, until we're homesick?

The Jews have mastered this globalism concept, not by nationalism (geo-political state) nor by racism or cultural and religious ideology, but by perpetuating the stigma of global anti-Semitism, in the same way people use the racism card. It's pretty hard for modern day New York Jews to associate themselves with the Holocaust; "What? This happened to our grandmothers and grandfathers and we are all affected. We should NEVER forget! Some Palestinians still think we have no right to exist." Now, where have I heard that before? The conglomeration of fanatics, moderates, agnostics, atheists of virtually every nationality in the world, only needs the slightest genome of Jewish-ness in their lineage to belong to their truly global community. Some still consider it their automatic right to scream persecution with everything that doesn't go their way, perpetuating the holocaust, superimposing it upon innocent survivors no matter what little loyalty they have to the cause. It's equal to a young contemporary Manchester poet contending we strung her up in a boat like a sardine, and shipped her across to be born in the place where she now has every advantage that, incidentally, not just her parents fought for. "Lest we forget." Notably, some concentration camp survivors speak out against those who are too quick to accuse people of anti-Semitism. The alarming thing is, fascism still exists in a different form and already has world domination. Plenty of anti-Semites and Jews unite in perpetuating that. It's just who vies for the top spot now, but its casualties far outweigh anything Hitler achieved.

It's not all bad. Just look at what multi-culturalism has done for our appreciation of humanity. The skills, imagination, generosity and art of different cultures. British culture is enriched by this seeming dilution of identity. We could learn much from the general way Muslims and other eastern and European cultures care for each other. Some of their values and traditions or their commitment to each other, socially, are stronger, even if non-compromise also generates brutal intolerances. Contrasting this, British broadmindedness (when we allow ourselves to be) without the constraints of similar ideologies speaks volumes for our backbone and acceptance of diversity and personal freedom. It appears weaker but is actually born of an idealist philosophy that cuts through the dissipation of identity through assimilation and multi-culturalism. It makes a very thin skin for some, but for those who are genuine, it is fought for. This exists in all cultures and exhibits a more mature outlook.

Personal attachment within the fragmented institution of 'family' and diluted heritage makes it less comfortable for Brits to sustain racist and nationalistic safe ground. Shouldn't this be a good thing? Shouldn't it indicate what is possible on a global scale? It would do if it wasn't for the unfortunate hypocrisy of nationalism, which people prefer to sharing their environment, when generic, indigenous ancestry is belittled. Across this chessboard delusion, nationalism is the thin skin that feeds fear and mistrust. It is the prime tool governments use in manipulating people to be racist when it suits. Not for cultural preservation. For political and financial exploitation.

Currently, there is an argument that longevity is a threat to the welfare state and employment. The retirement age is being raised. Whereas France has a lower retirement age, higher pensions, spends more on health and has higher longevity. Someone somewhere in sheepish Britain is pulling the wool over our eyes. In every sector, cut backs are to hit the poorest, because Rip-off Britain charges more for everyday goods and services whilst delivering the least they can get away with. The cost of living is amongst the highest in Europe and that means The World.

The MOD even shafts the soldiers out in the field and their families. Everyone is so reluctant to let war get in the way of good business. No one minimises the human or financial cost of war and freedom, or decries the devotion and sacrifice of all those who died in its name. Life simply gets cheaper, to accommodate the cost. But we glorify the heroics and justify the outcomes more than we question the decisions that place those lives at risk. It isn't a soldier's place, or ours, to question why we adopt a totalitarian moral superiority. And what does it say about America's first amendment, when people were in fear of a knock on the door by the CIA or FBI for criticising W.Bush, when he dictated to another country who should rule it. Bringing people democracy requires imperialistic dictatorship and moral totalitarianism. Why didn't thousands of Americans make Bush throw them in jail or set up another McCarthy witch-hunt? Patriotism dictates and what it dictates is that we believe our heroes are somehow better than heroes of other countries. The concept of 'country' may turn out to count for very little if we don't turn around global warming and capitalist greed, yet its saviour we are told is international trade, foreign investment and multi-culturalism. They operate without a world view.

So, what's this loyalty, this patriotism, based on?

Is it community? Until there's a war, do you think people of the same race or nationality automatically and genuinely feel the same empathy and camaraderie for each other? It rears its ugly head at football matches; someone could have pummelled a person's head in, one minute, then end up meeting on holiday and become best friends. They wouldn't know. English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish are worst enemies on the terraces, but on holiday abroad we're all neighbours. Goalposts shifted. One of my friends who lived in a wealthy area in a large detached house was lying on a beach in the Seychelles when a shadow covered his face; the conversation went something like this: "Em... can I help you?" "Do you not recognize me?" "I'm terribly sorry, should I?" "Well, we've been living next door to each other for the past eight years, Bob."

We all fall for this idea of brotherhood and feel a false sense of security from it; as if our particular town depends on our personal identity and notoriety for its existence. Well, there is some argument for that, in that towns do get shaped by individual personalities. More often from out-of-towners though. And all sorts of people come running to funerals, especially since there's now a fair chance of getting on telly if it's a soldier or stabbed teenager. But it isn't 'our town' and never will be. Just as 'your country' will never be your country. Your town exists to feed off you, not to feed you. It will shit on you and shaft you as soon as blink. _But..._ if you manage to do something to bring notoriety to it, like write a book, oooooh... just watch them come running and bandy your name around like they know you, when they've never met you and care even less. Or just murder someone, that'll get them a mention. And someone will include it in a tour.

You may possess rights and build walls around it and exploit it as you will, but the soil in Britain will never belong to the royal family, or the National Trust, try as you might, you won't be able to keep it, or take it with you, even when you're alive. You can become part of the ground, but you cannot defend it against fall-out from Chernobyl, or freak floods, or bee parasites, or foot and mouth, or other invasions. We are temporary managers and now, to save our physical land, we're having to help each other in places we never thought we'd ever set foot, just to try and reverse the knock-on damage of deluded commercial policies.

If you get into trouble abroad you may appeal to the relevant Embassy that represents your homeland. Whether or not they will help you will likely have to fit in around international relations and political considerations, but at least you won't be alone in court, eh?

You cannot ignore the global euphoria surrounding Obama's appointment. Think of all that positive collective motivation for a better world. Nationalism and patriotism forces people (even Obama) to disengage from this, thinking it is in our interest, our self-preservation. He could have started reforming on his own doorstep, with Mexico, but the Spanish language is so prominent in the USA as well as South American countries, the fear of take-over is high in the collective consciousness.

We polarise pockets of bigotry, because we campaign and legislate for people's rights to differ, but do not attach sufficient responsibilities to positive accomplishments in integration, contingent upon regard for personal choice. Caucasian Brits are all fruits of assimilation to some degree, but we sustain this chessboard mentality while white Brits don't get to use 'prejudice' or 'discrimination' cards. I do resent racist attitudes, from any quarter, and I can see why people get so upset by it. I detest violence, racism, fascism and evangelised fanaticism – the very things nationalism and patriotism feed. It is the sign of weak-willed, narrow-minded, unimaginative and just plain dishonest sense of superiority. Having more or less, how does that make someone superior to another? If you want to dismiss that as unrealistic ideology, how does that strengthen society? It's deluded. Dicks in urinals and apparently size is all that counts.

As long as the American Dream is going to be imposed on the four corners of the globe, including China, North Korea, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Darfur, Iran, Israel and The League of Arab States, then a radical diversion to the historical American mentality will surely be called for. People have been assassinated for representing the public too conscientiously. As different as their ambitions may be, all countries employ the same methods. I certainly hope Obama justifies the fear that was evident in Bush's and Brown's eyes when they spat out their congratulations to him. It certainly doesn't look that way. It will depend upon how much he is deluded by the American Dream.

The positive thing about human nature is that there is a universal internal language amongst those who have experienced similar situations. This operates between total strangers from the most disparate and divided communities across the globe. We readily acknowledge this in everyday life. People of similar skills, soldiers, botanists, people who have lost children, people who sail boats, prisoners, people who have had children – think how many that is; why isn't that the biggest influence in how we treat each other? The people who treat each other this way are the MAJORITY! If we tapped into and rewarded our existing common humanity and interdependency, we'd stand a chance of achieving a global community. Isn't that still the goal? What need of nationalism and patriotism, then?

**the** **underclass don't count**

The discriminatory _British class system_ has seen many good developments through the success (and partially through celebrity) of so-called working class people. It still exists because we still use those terms. There is a pride to it. It is said we love a tryer and the 'underdog' in the UK. But we hate losers. There is no place for losers in the class system. Being physically disabled but mentally sound doesn't make anyone a loser but, somehow, suffering ongoing mental difficulties of any kind whilst able-bodied is equitable with being a sponging thieving druggie shit-bag. That's if you're not a clever actor, celebrity or key government advisor. Tax payers are being badgered into believing that no-one has legitimate reason not to work. Even if you've outlived a twelve month prognosis due to a malignant brain tumour. Even if you, like Paul Micklelburgh, have successfully endured one of the world's longest kidney dialysis treatments, cancer, pneumonia, spontaneous internal bleeding, brittle bones, a twisted bowel, agonising joint pains from renal treatment, four failed kidney donations, no less than fourteen heart attacks in five years – his last one he puts down to the demeaning stress imposed by DWP policies to dismiss him – and you've managed to not commit suicide. Because you did miraculously better than expected, there is suddenly no reason you cannot work and you're chucked off the benefits that alleviated the stress that would have killed you. Even if an appeal says the doctor only followed orders and made generic 'mistakes,' you're subjected to the stress of appeal that could kill you. And no-one's to blame. Tough shit. Paul has been placed on the 'work-related activity group' of ESA. Good luck in your appeal, Paul, you'll need it. Karen Sherlock, a long time disability campaigner wasn't that fortunate. Every fucking person living should be banging down the doors of ATOS and the DWP, dragging the sick bastards out by the scruff of the neck. If you work for them, where's your fucking consciences? "Oh well, we do a lot of good for a lot of people." So does the Pope and the Queen, apparently.

But what incentive is there for employers to consider employing someone with an illness? What reassurance is there, that the work ill people want to do will accommodate their illness and not exacerbate it, or that they won't be placed under more pressure? There is no provision for this. There are reports on good practice and you can have a tribunal for discrimination. But the broader issues are not thoroughly worked through, as long as the government can cut public dependency on welfare. It doesn't matter if a person is fighting their mind and emotions daily with all their power; it will count for shit, especially if they're not the type to hit the bottle, or drugs, or kick off in public. They can't be that ill and the government expects them to snap out of it; they've got to bail out more bankers and multi-billion retailers, since that's the only people they'll get work from. Tax payers are being forced to indulge callous disregard for the vulnerable, whether they agree with it or not. Funnel funnel funnel. Show a few isolated cases of proven benefit fraud to promote the idea that everyone is shafting the system. Whatever you do, don't show legitimate cases of severely disabled people who have been totally undermined and victimised by government and institutional policy. Deny their benefits first and drag them through the humiliating mire of appeal tribunals and make em beg, the lazy bastards. If they don't because they're too trusting, too ill or too proud, then it'll save a few more hundred thou' for the bankers. Don't call it the lowest form of victimisation, call it 'a periodic review to assure that the person receives their full entitlement.'

The poverty line, before the energy bills soared, was set at a hundred and fifty pounds per week. I want to see a documentary featuring The Blears Witch attempting to exist on this and having to attend the humiliating medicals, work interviews, telephoning Belfast to ask why her money and rent went missing due to an administrative error, and deal with creditors and rent offices and doing her shopping. These are the kind of people she fed her lifestyle off, the patronising cow. I would encourage all those that are homeless to invite themselves to politicians' lunch and dinner engagements, to simply sit down and start helping themselves, or enter any town hall canteen at lunchtime. That's the easiest trade off to keep them from taking their machetes out on the street with them, since it became compulsory for someone with depression to carry one at all times.

It isn't the amount spent on methadone for heroin addicts, or social services transport and facilities overheads, or the wages and expenses of benefit fraud investigators (what's that – four or five investigators to one fraudster over maybe three years?) costing the tax-payer twelve billion per year. No... it's those sponging ill people who "don't want to get out of bed in the morning." Don't show us any ill people that cannot go to bed and actually spend their time industriously in support of their families, as carers, or volunteers; don't show the consequences to them physically, from exerting themselves to the degree they can, in work they're never paid to do. Don't tell us the actual percentage of fraudsters and the amount the investigations have cost against what they have defrauded – too much bother, just tar everyone with the same brush and put it on their tab. We'll vote for it.

So, we call someone a loser based on a shallow cursory glance at a particular state they find themselves in, or if they have a propensity for uncalculated comments to attempt to feel included where they are not wanted, or their dependency on a particular thing, or worse – their financial status, or their lack of contribution to society. Yet many ill and vulnerable people contribute invaluable support to society. We will applaud a road sweeper, and that Chinese CEO that Prescott was so fond of, for cleaning toilets. A road sweeper can be the biggest shit-stirring half-hearted skiving sociopathic zenophobe, but he's contributing to society so he can hold his head up. The CEO could have done so well by underpaying staff and mistreating them, undercutting other long-standing contracts and putting them out of work, who knows, it's not important. Didn't he do well? A road sweeper in a crisis may be a life-saver, but at a party he's only a road-sweeper – even in the mythological east-end square, where equality _is_ the subtext and every entity has to claw tooth and nail (A-list celebrities included) through the morass of life's extremes, to perpetuate their artificially ballsy working class status. It takes successful millionaire actors to convey the spunky struggling downtrodden. But whatever the road-sweeper is (even if an A-list celebrity at a party), whatever class, however genuine or not, he may be a dad and he certainly is a son, a neighbour and a passer-by, but so what, they're ten-a-penny.

Some who consider themselves winners say, 'I don't suffer fools gladly.' And we all know if you want to do something well, you get skilled and informed people around you. But who isn't a fool at some point? Who doesn't do foolish things? How many people do we respect for a particular expertise, yet dismiss their petty immaturity, rudeness or downright ignorance? Being at the pinnacle of some career or achievement never stopped someone being a fool. Some are revered as leaders. On the other hand, imagine all the fools that have enhanced our lives, in entertainment, in relationships, in youth and old age. How many idiots make us laugh and we love it, even if they do not amount to much else in our estimations. Narcissistic, alcoholic misanthropes can be amusing and even loved, but if they are known actorrrrrs or musicians, even if their real lives are a mess, they've made it. Not that they've been lucky; they've turned it into an art form, or they must have bloody good reasons for being the shit-heads they are and good on them for putting two fingers up to the establishment. You have to be on telly to do that. So... how do you want to be treated when you're a fool? Someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly just hasn't woken up to life, for me. They prefer to surround their bubble with people who won't pop it. It's self-recommendation and we all know how valuable that is. It betrays deluded self-importance. Plenty of people have lightened up on this score – until they get picked for reality TV.

Self-importance is valuable but using it to sustain exclusivity comes before a fall. Evaluations change all-round after one of them. And maybe associations. Yet exclusivity is held up as everyone's common right, in this country. When it's an illegal French-Algerian road sweeper that picks you up out of the gutter and does something none of your friends and family did, what will your class distinction, racist, nationalistic, patriotic, moral, religious high ground, count for, then?

**self** **preservation society**

_Traditions_ and _cultural standards_ are the most formative in our lives. They're so hard to escape and we're told this happens within our first seven most vulnerable dependent years. But what if the predominant common standards and thinking are not the reality we feel within? That goes for people of any culture and sexuality. Rarely do we acknowledge those disparities and anomalies within their social context. This is compounded when a person's individual choice, or simply their good nature, exposes insecurity or hypocrisy in others, or questions something that they pledge their loyalty to politically, or as a matter of faith. It's a quirk of fate where a person ends up being born and the predominant culture they are surrounded by, not a given, so why do we insist that the system of our origin has to be the right one?

We all need identity, true. But what we base that on is an unreality of us. We're tied to our preconditioning as if it makes up the real us, the whole us. When we mix we usually find other sides to us we're either shocked or delighted by, whether other people celebrate it, or they castigate us for it. We can be a true honest person without finding it, but not the full potential we have inside us. It is this ability to expand and develop that gets tamped down and breeds dissolution and fear, unless it is supported for a pre-determined cause. Even then you run the risk of potential dissidence. It's more comfortable to marginalise people with wider perspectives and deny our own instincts, if that is the cost of belonging. Back to the chess-board, because grey areas can be difficult and painful.

You can be isolated even when you do belong. Many partners and siblings can attest to this, because even the people that love us may not want us to be ourselves. We like to think we're so accommodating in the West and some view that as degradation. Some families, that hardly see each other will meet every Christmas and it's almost a badge of honour to use the occasion to shout and bawl their age-old differences and bitter resentments. And some don't get together. It isn't unity, as much as desperate clinging onto something they feel they fundamentally should be able to rely on, an automatic right. If flesh and blood don't care, what have they got left? Well, what have they got left? The badge of honour seems preferable in comparison.

A good example of this kind of clinging on within a family and coming to terms with reality, was a documentary about three brothers. One had an inner battle with his physiology and later became transgender; another later realised he was gay; and the last one, who was adopted, had part of his brain removed as a child and suffered a constant mental battle within and with his resulting dependency on medication. The latter decided to search for his birth mother and found her, just in time to see her laid out at her funeral. He discovered he was the grandson of Orson Wells and Rita Hayworth. The acceptance of perfect strangers with differing backgrounds in awkward circumstances provided a fascinating insight into genuine love, the desire to belong and the role of family, despite being tested almost to destruction. There are many examples that show the power of love to unite former enemies. But we need to equally legitimise the fact that for some, none of this works. This is not uncommon and they need a broader sense of belonging within our society, rather than alienation because of difference. We've had to address the issues of prejudice in the UK, but we need to understand the mentality that alienates people in general, as well as the symptoms. We'd probably find enemies have more in common than they're willing to feel good about. But they could feel good about them. It's the same between parents and children. Who hasn't fought for their independence? Watch 'Fish Tank.'

Well, it could be said that the views being expressed here are from someone who feels quite happy not belonging and has very little appreciation of the role of family. True, but my happiness is more a necessary construct, than preference, genuine as it is.

What is a person suppose to do, feel, when those natural instincts and feelings have been shredded by those who are supposed to be closest? And what about those whose family have absolutely no interest in them, simply because they've drifted? It's one thing to uphold a fundamental cultural precept, but it is another thing, altogether, to inflexibly maintain it as the only acceptable standard. Hence "for a balanced upbringing all children need a father and a mother." Do they, really? So what does that turn those who didn't and couldn't into and what neglect does that highlight in us? How about all those adopted kids and those who were orphaned, or evacuated in wartime, or refugees? Think of all those pitiful emaciated babies, or the state of children's care homes in Rumania and Turkey (the European Union has chosen to ignore for years). Now, tell me you don't want a welfare state.

I am aware of family roles and envy them to some degree and there are inherent dangers to non-conformity too. Not that those dangers take precedence to the point of losing personal choice. I think most people will be able to see some measure of liberation in my mental and emotional self-sufficiency, if that is what I have gained. It feels like that is what it is and I don't see myself as someone who doesn't need affirmation or emotional ties. I have friends who have proved closer than family. I am not a natural loaner, but from suffering crushing loneliness in the past, I rarely feel loneliness, now. It may sound frightening to some that I do not depend on a relationship for my emotional fulfilment. I have all but exhausted three of the four Greek loves and I have been _in_ love. I am still up for honest love, but I wouldn't depend upon it, when it comes. You say, oh, that'll change. I know all those dynamics and the effects on a big heart, but don't impose your insecurities and dishonesty on me. I would only go for a woman that didn't depend on my love. Some think that's unromantic. But it is transcendent when someone you know doesn't need you doesn't want to be without you. You still share hearts.

Greyness comes to us all, but usually far too late. It's only too late because we are way too slow on the up-take and we see youth as the future. Maybe that's why we make it too hard on ourselves – it has taken us so long to acquire any amount of self-sufficiency and understanding, we want to hang on to it for as long as possible, it'll be gone all too soon, so why should we pass it on. What relevance will we have then?

We observe Chinese respect for their elderly and ancestors, watch their grandparents doing Thai Chi in the publc parks. But Lao Tsi is quoted as saying "Ruling a nation is power..." and many wise ancient Chinese proverbs we've always regarded as serene are actually quite aggressive. That's good if you want power, but I'd guess most grey-heads would disagree with this tenet. I think the aspiration to rule a nation is actually weakness, unless your in favour of empowering others, to relinquish your power. Someone said "being leader of the opposition is a position with the greatest responsibilities and least power." No wonder they turn into megalomaniac automatons. Greyness is actually the only reality, it forces reality upon us. Passing that on, in pro-active ways, showing it is only skin deep after all, should influence our youth to treat older ones with more respect. We're all young in mind.

We're only just seeing the development of this after long years of sickening ageism in the UK. We've woken up to the potential in older people to continue working, only as recourse to the burden of taxes spent on care and welfare. And mostly because they've been stripped and have little to show for their dedication over the years. If we're intent to strip our welfare state, too, instead of reinforcing it, what lesson and future hope does that inculcate into our youth? Greyness kind of relaxes over some of the things we get out of our tree about, but it can also become petty-minded and interfering. It can start kicking up a fuss after years of keeping it zipped. That's another thing we deny at our peril, along with our bodily functions, not only the fuss but the reasons for keeping it zipped. It's a great example to see the elderly and infirmed on street protests, but who is pushing them to it?

All families have had to face crises of personal choice and difference; feuding national factions have ultimately had to accept their differences, so it's not an alien concept. The question really is how much more time and energy we waste on not doing so. We cannot afford to be polarised or self-indulgently complacent, if we are to achieve a climate of mutual respect. This has to start with politicians, instead of seeking to capitalise on others' misfortune to amass power. We have to think bigger, broader than traditional and historical perspectives and our personal beliefs.

**do** **as I say or I'll kill you**

One fictional world saviour penned, "I can't get behind the gods who are more vengeful, angry and dangerous if you don't believe in them... if all these gods are omniscient and omni-present, what's the problem... why can't they all just get along? And what about the men who say 'do what I do; believe in what I say for your own good... or I'LL KILL YOU!'"[12]

This desire to transcend beyond the human condition and think the thoughts of someone above us, leads as much to inhumane treatment of each other as it does the more amenable qualities, like true humility, kindness and respect. _R eligion, _by definition beyond human, promotes and condones any deemed inhumane act and comes before everything, even though each religion seems to base its judgment on our treatment of each other, during our fleshly existence.

The most progressive religions seem hostile to the idea of live and let live, or they're seen as diluted, wishy-washy, adulterated, disingenuous. But our choice of religion is as much a lottery, based on how moral or traditional our parents were, where we happened to have been born and into which community. More accurately, it will depend upon the level of tolerance of its leaders. And it has often been imposed by invaders, crusaders and commercial migrants. The majority of people have access to the history of religion in all its varied and complex paradigms, its bloody oppression and political development. I am respectful of genuine devotion to humane principles when they do not impose bigotry upon others for self-righteous reasons. But those principles sure disappear quickly when we scratch beneath the surface into privately-held beliefs and the views of people who cannot accept some aspects of what they're expected to follow. Of course, hypocrisy and ignorance abound when lazy-minded people decide it's better to let someone tell them what to believe, or search for knowledge is actively discouraged.

But what about those who genuinely inform themselves, yet find some ideas incompatible with their feelings?

The weakest in my opinion are those that seek out 'knowledge' to justify mistreatment. And those that knowingly use lack of knowledge to excuse it. I listened to an interview between a respected political broadcaster for BBC radio and a prominent Muslim leader. The leader said with such insistent nonchalance, as if we're all accepting and pre-disposed to this 'truth,' that "Muslims are oppressed in this country." Well, he has his right to that view but I challenge him to show me all these oppressed and marginalised Muslims. Anywhere in the UK – show me how oppressed they are. Yet this claim remained completely unchallenged by the BBC broadcaster, since it was a politically sensitive time to be controversial towards the Muslim community. And his interviewee didn't know that?

So, was that a true expression of what faces Muslims in this country? Was that constructive? Was it a valid point that helped us to get real about interaction and integration? Was that conducive to acknowledging the true opportunities facing all UK communities? Or was it likely to reinforce polarised factions? I thought we had a law against that now. I'm not against him saying it. I'm against him getting away with it, unchallenged. I'm against the broadcaster exacerbating the prejudice, more than the Muslim speaker. His complacent, cosseting air of superiority was as crass as the crude propaganda his silence condoned.

The reality is, whatever your religious views or personal loyalties or depth of integrity, even people you know and trust will differ. More than this, even those you share your faith with will not _always_ be there for you. And don't we all face god alone, ultimately? Isn't that how it works? I don't know any religion where we'll be judged en-masse. That goes for Christians, too. And if Christians don't believe they will be let down by God or Jesus at some point, then they need to take a much closer look at that good book.

Intolerance is reinforced by religion. So-called moderate 'Christians' all over the world, who believe all mankind everywhere owe their salvation to Jesus, are even intolerant of each other, in international and civil wars and their everyday judgments.

The problems that are faced by other cultures are generally similar, if not compounded by our 'progressive' society. I respect how difficult the down-sides can be to cope with – the struggle between moderates, traditionalists and fundamentalists – and I see many wonderful qualities to most of them. I am delighted I have such diversity on my doorstep and I'd like there to be more of an exchange, if it didn't have to mean compromise on both sides. This, rather than acceptance, is what we tell ourselves relationships are about. It was edifying to hear that the first Mosque in the UK existed as long ago as the nineteenth century. And that it was built by a Jew. In the summer, I hate being woken at all hours of the night, by drunks and kids in the street, bawling their conversations with no consideration even for their own privacy. And why not, if their parents don't give a shit where they are? When I visit a Muslim country, I actually look forward to being woken at all hours by the ascending Tannoyed prayers from near and distant minarets. They rise in small increments of pitch, as they escalate beyond the stratosphere to the threshold of the third heaven.

There is something equally re-affirming, beautiful and dreadful about that sound. It is supposed to be awesome and fearsome, as if Allah is peering down and about to engulf us, but to Muslims he already is. It doesn't fill me with dread of almighty god, angels, demons, or the power of this earth to swallow us up in an instant. It fills me with dread of the capabilities man has adopted to represent god or become gods over others.

And even if I don't believe as they do, I can appreciate the history and traditions and collective power of all that individual devotion and reverence. The same principles they have for their devotion will be similar principles Japanese people had in worshipping Hirohito; or why pagans believe in the dark and light of Mother Earth. My landlord is Pakistani Muslim and one of the nicest, honest blokes I've ever known. But to hear those calls ascending in my neighbourhood would seem oppressive, somehow. I have no idea how they feel, hearing the local church bells. I can appreciate, some Muslims living in the same town must long to hear those empowering sounds ascending to the clouds. So, I acknowledge some sufferance on their behalf; I'd prefer to think of it as sensitivity.

It is these aspects of respect that I think bond people in understanding, without us having to endorse each other's chosen way of life. I'd rather not call it compromise, it sounds like a weakness when it isn't. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to hear those prayers ascend publicly, at least once in the year though? People need to experience these things in small measure to appreciate them. It is the small kindnesses and considerations that people remember and appreciate in life.

I am no longer religious and yes, I might shit myself if I face my creator because I'm a rogue; but I can do so with integrity, as my complete self, in all honesty as a good person. And if I choose to be condemned to eternal damnation... that's my choice isn't it, as long as I'm not harming anyone else?

Maybe God is bigger than that. I am sure he is much bigger than that for other people.

**full** **English v continental**

I'm not against someone loving the land where they were born. But what is it that you love? Why is it that most people love the _country_ they were born and raised in? Is it the geographical country? Your government? Your religion? Or is it the way people treat you and the lovely environment you enjoy? Is it comfort? Is it lazy-mindedness? Familiarity? Even where things are bad people tend to feel like that and wish they could change things. I can wax lyrical over all the things I adore about the UK. The majestic mountains, refreshing green hills and valleys, streams, moors, nooks and crannies; the varied landscapes of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England; the rich diversity of culture, education, history, art; its progressive media taking us to every corner of the world. We take so much for granted, but how amazing that people got off their arses and gave us this. And it does feel like home, when I return from abroad. But it's mostly my familiarity with the language and the environment.

My history is not one I want to be closely tied with and it's not being in close proximity to family; it isn't to do with my relationships, my friendships are far afield, so I don't need to be here to sustain them, though I'd see more of them, sure. You could say this isn't typical for most people and those things are the very basis of their emotional ties to a location. But you can travel abroad for a brief holiday and find a place where you feel you could belong. Look how many people are living over here, far away from people and homeland they love.

There is a strong Eastern European contingency where I live. You only have to think of the negatives, wars, organised crime, trafficking and prostitution etc. These people have astonishing empowering experiences to share on these issues. But look at the difference between say young Russian women and British. The stereotypes of poor little oppressed women, living in hovels with their parents and grand parents, drinking litres of Vodka at a time fly out of the window. They're highly intelligent, well educated and have amazing work ethics and experience. They're often stunningly beautiful without titanic ego-fuelled expectations and can hold down a serious philosophical conversation, in a club on a Saturday night, without being compelled to show their tits and arse, throw up, or kick holes out of their abusive boyfriend's attacker in the middle of Peter Street, Manchester, at three am in the morning. Russian woman are sick of chauvinists. How much in common these women have with any abused women in this country and Arab, Pakistani, Indian women. I'm heartened to hear some British women actively associate with them rather than the tits n arse brigade. Sad, though, to see some Russian women catching the Paris Hilton disease, because they think or have been told that is what is most appealing to western men, or what will realise their modelling aspirations. Bad advice, girls. Unless you want to meet the shallow egotistical dickheads you're trying to get away from.

Their artists, writers and musicians are refined and have produced some of the most stirring work in existence. Their social struggles have much in common with ours. I resent the term integration. It presupposes we are incapable of accepting different perspectives than ours that don't conflict with human rights. Those who can't accept differences, from any background, need to see how lazy-minded and weak that is. How detrimental and unrealistic it is. They should be sent abroad on life-experience exchanges. Schools have tried to address diversity, more than in previous generations, but there is still a drive for segregated schools. Raise the racism card folks.

How can we blame them when someone drunk leaving a city centre club at three am on a Sunday morning will give someone of a different race a good kicking for fun, go and buy a kebab from someone of the same nationality, won't give a shit what race the taxi driver is so long as they get home, (though, the driver has to endure a load of verbal for their fare) and no matter what the origin of their drug supplier, will sit watching telly with them? It takes much more than business transactions to respect diversity. But it has to be mutually earned. So, what are we giving to respect, if we don't respect our own culture?

The major inner cities seem to cope better with diversity; you cannot walk any street without seeing it, which is great. There's a whole history of it. But you don't even have to travel a mile outside of any city to find strong excluding ethnic communities, or ingrained in-bred homophobic attitudes. This is what we seem to be clinging on to as if it's the only kind of stability and identity we are left with. It has turned the Union Jack into a joke and an object of aggression. But it isn't stability. It's latent anarchy. Survival. We're all under siege. Why do we prefer this to the prospect of a cohesive multi-ethnic community? Because we're convinced that our identity depends upon national and patriotic exclusivity. Fascism with another face. White or black, fascism is alive and kicking in the UK. Despite all the documented knowledge we have of the Nazi era, we have learned nothing. It is selective ignorance.

Personal and national security is at a premium, but when I travel on a train or bus or plane, I think, 'we're all total strangers here and no-one speaks to each other, but if this vehicle crashed, you might save my life, or I might save yours and when it's all over we and our families would be singing each others' praises.' People are naturally afraid of chaos but that's what we generate, because money is the only common value that governs. Money is the main determining factor people have for migrating in the first place. If we wanted them to stay where they were, why didn't we pay them to do so, invest in their local development?

If we preserved what once made this country great, like the arts, manufacturing industry, health and care services, history and heritage, there could still be things to be proud of. But they're all decaying or being sold off. And what used to be based on broadmindedness, quality of delivery and helpfulness is now inhibited by insecurity, suspicion and self-preserving paranoia. If we _rewarded_ and promoted the good and common aspirations of all cultures and positive exchanges here and abroad, couldn't we feel better about our entire planet without leaving it to David Attenborough, Michael Palin and Bruce Parry to fly the flag? That's just naïve, some will say, but positive interaction happens in small ways everyday and everywhere irrespective of race. We are well capable of letting people be who they want to be and live together without losing our identity. It's only self-seeking liars and power-hungry fear-mongers, that don't want it.

So how come oppressors get to have their way at everyone else's expense? If it's so easy to let bigots have their way, why don't we have a stab at giving ourselves a chance?

Almost everywhere I go, now, in conversations with all my friends and contacts, even with people I don't know, they are quick to say how much they hate this country. How sick of being ripped off they are. And that's people who were previously ok living in rip-off Britain. It doesn't matter where you're from or where you are – nobody but nobody likes being ripped off. Many who have emigrated say they'd never return even if things improved. There have been numerous media assertions that the credit crunch has persuaded many Britons to holiday at home in the UK, where it's cheaper! They've obviously never holidayed in the UK before and don't bother to research their news. This is a beautiful country but tourism is part of the same rip-off culture. They must think 'put everything up so no one can afford it except the rich, then the rich will be the only ones left (who all have properties abroad anyway). And we'll import the poorer people to run services. Nah, that'd never work.

I despair when I go abroad and find more British people living there and resorts tainted by the Brit culture. Plastic fast food menus outside Greek and Spanish restaurants? Ugh! I'm embarrassed about it, though I'm more concerned about what measures those traders are having to stoop to, to accommodate us. If many Brits feel that, and those traders find it irksome, then why do the people travel to Britain to establish their own cultures surrounded by the environment they clearly hate? Easy... one – money; two – they know they can keep their cultural identity. In Britain, we _don't_ hold art, culture, community or education in high esteem, because we sell it to the highest or lowest bidder. No wonder other cultures feel they need to fight tooth and nail against this degeneration. But through positive discrimination, they get more accolades and attention than projects by white Brits that have less cultural depth and generally less to say.

Do not despair – a culturally challenged racist Brit bigot will soon be appearing in a cafe near you. They are relocating abroad by the budget jet-load, because they cannot stand the rate of immigration. They prefer a full-British breakfast island amongst one of the cultures they're escaping from. It's not their own, they're escaping. As long as they can flash the cash and don't have to check their change and can still get their full English on the continent. The best we can hope for is that it affects the mortality rate and the continent doesn't become incontinent.

**stem** **cell of a stag**

Those who care more will always be at the mercy of those who care less.

_Dominance and subjection_ is seen as a natural dynamic, but it's governed by education and personal choice. In all aspects of social, political and institutional denial, we have to use the things at our disposal to overturn this precept. It becomes intransigent when legitimised by institutions.

Most abusers do it simply because they can. Just that. And because they can, they push it and push it and push it to breaking point. So, as a society, we tolerate the most abysmal bullying, either in the deluded self-confidence that we're pulling our weight and upping our game, or martyring ourselves for our children, or holding some moral high ground, or we determinedly join the abusers and see how far we can push our own interests. "If you can't beat em..."

And you can't beat em.

We all know it takes far more strength to endure abuse than to inflict it. Those who fall victim to abuse can gain confidence from this principle, but what does it say about abusers? It is disgraceful that victims are portrayed as weak. Most people who endure abuse don't want to have to be that strong, but we make it doubly difficult for them to be anything but superhuman, because the constraints upon services and staffing doesn't allow for easier, gentler, interactive options that show them how they can understand and appreciate the power they have within. Many services actually exploit that lack of power.

Strength, true strength, actually turns this dynamic on its head. True strength empowers those who are deemed weaker at cost to itself. True strength has the power and determination and patience to find the best way to do that. It stands up to any erosion of that. Parents know this.

Criminals know the legal prerogative is tipped in their favour, rather than for their victims. Why is it taking so long to tackle this? Well, all you need is a riot then to ask people if they want capital punishment and hanging brought back and you have your answer. Strength or weakness? Ignorant people must keep the pendulum swinging, it seems. And we don't have the time to educate them because we just cannot stop; we cannot interrupt holidays, or Coronation Street, or the Olympics, or wars. We cannot possibly take money away from any of our normal routines, to deal with a crisis. We know this, on a national and international scale.

True strength doesn't have to impose itself. True strength isn't dictatorship and it doesn't have to hide itself behind a guise, as western democracy does. We can turn the tables; but to do so, we have to stop employing and rewarding liars, cheats and psychopaths. As long as politicians keep telling us this type of person is our best hope, the best example of how we can preserve our self-interests, by this façade (that's one thing we're not even in denial about, anymore), we don't have to contemplate a more effective way. Even when it's cost-effective.

Next time you're in a bustling city, take a look at the crowd. When you're at a vantage point, look at each individual. How tiny we are in reality. Seemingly insignificant and fragile. Yet each one is forging their way in life, trying to make their life a little easier for themselves or their family, with their own emotions, plights and hopes. We all have immense individual power, to endure, to love, to support, to influence, to survive, to care, to take initiative, responsibility, create, design, contribute. We all do it and we enjoy doing it. Even the most ardent criminal will do that in measure – even Mugabe, Kim Jong-il and Gadaffi, (latter two can't now, gone, done and dusted), whilst having to constantly watch their backs. But what about people who have suffered the ultimate loss and still do it? Shouldn't they be our inspiration? A little girl who chooses not to have treatment for her Leukaemia, (I can hear her parents being vilified as we speak) aware of the time she has left to make of her life what she can; it is tragic and shocks us to our core. And the teenage American soldier who committed suicide, rather than be forced into combat, and wrote in his farewell letter – "they're asking me to kill women and children, mum, and I just can't do it." Shouldn't he be our hero? Well? Yet, we glorify those who make decisions to take the lives of younger children than these.

The point is _all our lives are that precarious_. Most of us don't ask for much out of it.

I watched 'Pride of Britain,' the awards showcase for unknowns that have done heroic deeds, and saw Brown sitting next to Kevin Spacey and Michael Caine all with their diplomatic smiles. Of course it's a staged environment down to the music and choreography. Believe it or not, the celebrities presenting the awards have real lives behind all the privileges and the most genuine and crafted artists usually have their feet planted firmly on terra firma. But as each heroic individual came up to collect their award the smiles were wiped from the notaries faces. I could see the envy in the eyes of each one, in awe of the bravery of these ordinary little girls and boys; (save Trisha Goddard who gives the impression she fostered and mentored them all). No acting required, making some celebs feel just a little fake.

We call these heroes 'extra-ordinary' to distinguish them from the rest of everyday people when they've found themselves in extraordinary situations. But they don't claim to be any different to others and the tragedy is I don't think they are. I say tragedy because there are millions of people who equally sacrifice their lives. We have to wait for some extraordinary situation to call people heroic, then we falsely attach ourselves to this sense of pride as if these previously unknowns are part of us, one of ours, like we were involved in their rearing, of the same womb, associated with their success because we have the same nationality.

It's a real admiration, but the association is as shallow as if we're visiting Jaipur and someone discovers we are English – "Oh, yes... Engliss...Michael Caine, very fine man – "you are only to be blowing off the bloody doors!'" Yes, it is great that we have such acts of heroism to celebrate, but there are people like this all over the world and the people who keep their country going, doing menial tasks day-in day-out, also dealing with all sorts of difficulties that are direct results of poor government and injustice. The people who say "Ahh, Michaeel Caine, very fine man" get no thanks, no acclaim, no notoriety, are never singled out;. They make our countries great because they don't let cut-backs and lack of support stop them just being human. Again, people do this from necessity and generous spirit around the globe; we are forced to do it when there _is_ money for support. Then I watch Brown get up and I want to ask him – 'how the fuck do you have the nerve to stand up and speak, when you're the one that exploits and pressures and extracts all that resilience and makes it necessary for these people to find alternative means to support people they care for. What would you ever do for nothing?' Fuckin leech.

I mean – imagine how much government and health officials spend on offices, equipment and stationery to make themselves look good, in comparison to how much they'd actually need if it was simply what was practical for fulfilling a task. Just compare the inflated costs of stationery and equipment to businesses alone, in contrast to some retail equivalents. I thought wholesale was supposed to be less expensive? Then add that up for every corporation and calculate how much is wasted. It is so much easier to spend someone else's money. Maybe corporations are the spongers. Compare this with, say, the supplies a soldier needs in the field, like a decent armoured vehicle; or what a Matron needs to run a clean ward; or the level of patient care that would at least be adequate. Look at the privileges at the disposal of a member of parliament to, say, the limits imposed on police budgets; or the wages of any emergency services personnel. Dustbin men have had to take a pay cut in order for school dinner ladies to get their no doubt deserved pay rise. Something's cock-eyed?

It's the do-more-for-less culture, as long as it's not MPs' and company executives budgets. I can give you numerous examples of this but you probably have plenty of your own. The government has a prime role in establishing the values we think are fair, to create a fair working practice and moral environment for all. But they have abused that authority and privilege. They should have some privileges for doing a tough job, but their egos and celebrity outgrow the interests of the electorate. The ship is sinking, but the band plays on. They turn the process of politics into personal pursuit of ego and career above all. It's been getting more and more cock-eyed, year on year, to the point where they now talk about a compete overhaul of the political process to regain the trust of the electorate. Not for very long, I noticed. The panicky rhetoric will turn out to be more crow. We've never had greater cause and motivation for a revolution, but the people in real power, the bank moguls and multi-national execs, are not keen for things to change. They had it too good and too cushy manipulating the weak for years. A cut in their profits will throw the whole economy, because they can't think beyond the current balance sheet, to a modified global economy, when they nearly lost it all, as it is. Like power-drunk Cambodia war vets, they prefer the rush of their Russian Roulette games, using captives lives, because we don't exercise our collective influence on the world market as consumers and vote with our feet. And a revolution won't occur unless we move our feet or someone announces it _will_ be televised.

It is "Rip-off Britain," "Take the piss Britain," "Piss in the wind Britain," where a rise in oil prices and recession actually means – 'quick, we can rip people off more whilst we have the excuse. And so, we keep on feeding the sacred mad cow with our children and their future.

This is a land that will not pay compensation and apologise for taking people's lives through neglect, or change practices after expensive legal battles. It tells doctors there is no gagging order but chokes them with out of court settlements. It is a country where a company can continue repeatedly risking people's lives using the same equipment in full knowledge of uncovered design flaws. It's a land that will house its soldiers' children in damp mouldy homes. A land that – depending on the post-code for the bit your home is stood on – will not pay for life-saving treatment that actually prevents critical illness for millions, but will pay highly to blanket-cover most of the population with a low-risk drug that most of them will never need, except those who have the very rare case of a non-life-threatening disease. It's a land where you can be slapped on the wrist for deliberately riding your bicycle on a pavement, shouting to unsuspecting pedestrians "GET OUT OF THE WAY, I'M NOT MOVING!" killing someone's daughter who didn't react quickly enough. It's a land where your basic human rights can be totally ignored if you happen to be suffering some extreme mental difficulty. It's a land that will see it's elderly unable to turn on their heating. (I'm only forty-six and sat here in thick socks with a hot water bottle to save on fuel; my hands are fuckin freezing and I don't feel the cold easily, I dread to think who is sat there dead and yet undiscovered). It's a land that will make pensioners penniless and leave them sitting in their own shit, while Fat-Cats line their offshore bank accounts with more zeros than they'll ever need, made by over-billing people who are far too trusting and have good morals about paying their way. At the same time as OPEC's leader decides to build his brand new high-rise Arab city from the proceeds of hoisting the oil prices; British Petroleum announces 160 Billion shared between its shareholders during the same quarter that saw British energy prices rise by over 45%.

Psychopaths abound, but they're not paranoid schizophrenics wielding machetes in the street. More people will turn to greater crimes but who started the trend? If it is already apparent within legal organisations, where can you turn to? When you are denied legal aid for a civil case because you cannot afford representation, yet some multi-millionaire can claim it for his; how do you preserve your rights when they're not the same?

The press will apprise us of the increasing danger of mentally ill people, since everyone who gets caught committing a crime are encouraged to plead diminished responsibility and a history of depression, or psychiatric treatment, as a matter of course. But there will be no official justification for this increase in mentally ill spongers and thieves.

It has become a legitimate route to fame and fortune, for some; you can watch the new stars on 'Britain's toughest village.' Forthcoming documentaries will include, 'We created our own town, through incest,' and 'I head-butt and rob pensioners because I had stem-cell treatment from a Stag and now I'm a millionaire from suing the NHS.' But what we really want to see is him being battered with walking sticks and pissed on by a gang of pensioners emptying their colostomy bags. Or being strapped to a chair in a care home lounge for his six-year sentence. No, let them clean up the streets in high visibility jackets, so every self-righteous so-n-so can feel better about the society they sat back and created from their arm-chairs. Something has got to give. And it will.

People want it to change and many work for this change in any way they can, usually for nothing and often against the popular avenues for what is regarded as success in their field. They actually take on the bureaucratic regime that hinders them and some succeed for a while, until the system kicks or burns them out. Many skilled professionals have given up on trying to cure the system from within. Government officials will bemoan any reduction in their artificially over-bloated bureaucracy and march against it, masquerading as part of front-line services, as if they're part of the jobless masses. Not the causers. And we'll fall for it. This, while councils sit on millions that they've invested abroad.

One council authority's homelessness department let slip to me that it built up three million in its account. This, while they dithered _for five years_ over what they should do for those who didn't know where their next meal was coming from and were sleeping in doorways every one of those one-thousand-eight-hundred and twenty-five cold fraught nights. Casualties do not figure in the accounts unless they're occupying NHS beds. The accountant will get a rise. Sterling job.

Capitalist democracies have bought into militant and criminal expediency and are exporting it just as much as its supposed enlightened and superior methods of governing. Britain trades on its crass façade, its famed brave face, because that's the only thing you can do when you know it's all slipping away from you.

It's unrealistic to think of doing away with commerce or capitalism. It has its use and I think we should celebrate the good things it achieves, the things it contributes to; yes, promote those things and give businesses incentives to benefit the community. Empower and reward the people that do things for nothing because they'll do it far better than politicians. They know this.. But those kind of incentives will get no big-society government backing.

I'm not at odds with people becoming rich; there will always be disparity, but anyone who sits on millions while someone cannot feed, clothe and shelter themselves is inhuman. The basis for doing business is set in stone. Headstone.

**survival** **of the unfittest**

But to me this capitalistic dependency flies in the face of everyday __ humanity. It dehumanises. Many interactions are delegated to machines, because no one wants the job of communicating for fear of being held responsible for the outcome, to dispense disappointment or obligate themselves. It facilitates irresponsibility and deliberate _miscommunication_ as a strategy for deflecting any action. Nobody wants you to contact them, even when machines are employed to handle it. For most services and even businesses it is hardly possible to speak with a human being when picking up a telephone and the machines are employed not to do that job, but to waste as much time as they can get away with, earning from doing nothing.

Kind and inspirational people, in general, want to inspire each other, even if that is only by being the best mother or father they can be, even when they think that is beyond them. Everyone aspires to being good at something, doing something valuable. I'm heartened by the man who lives next to a meadow and collects moths, breeding them to repopulate their habitat; such delicate work taken on simply because he had noticed they were dangerously near extinction. And the woman who decided to have a sheep sanctuary where they could be rescued from slaughter and live out their lives in peace while supplying wool for her new weaving and knitting fashion business. Wonderful people. The least ambitious people generally want to get along and do something that others will respect and appreciate. Why is that? Why is that so intrinsic and yet so far away from how capitalism works? Well, the world will never be a meritocracy, but that's a bit of a cop-out when we are more acutely educated and aware of the lives of the humblest people around the globe and their importance to the ecology of our planet. Instead of actively supporting ambitions and expanding people's capabilities, capitalism is a meat market with the rich feeding off the poor. Use em up for as little as possible and get rid. Consumerism.

There's no excuse for ignorance, even if we never leave the comfort of our armchair, like the fictitious Keith who the directors drafted in to give the east-end of suburban Brigadoon something beyond gossip to worry about. A hint of culture and its accessibility. The earth has suddenly shrunk to the size of his lounge, but it allows us to see easily where people have roamed and places that man has hitherto never encountered, where blue birds (rare hummingbirds) do hover over his shoulder without fear. Google earth got there first but didn't bother to tell anyone. Paradoxically, places like that are even harder to find, in the real world. All of this entertainment enriches our lives and has much more far-reaching influence. In one evening you can travel to the most inaccessible atols in the middle of the pacific or the Arctic Ocean, thinking, surely this must be a no-man's-land, but find live webcams and 360 degrees photos, not only of the environment, but of the technical equipment on the bridges of ships, weather stations and sub-oceanic tunnels. We cannot escape ourselves.

So, when we hear about someone like Nelson Mandela who has been rotting in dark dismal isolation for twenty-six years, the recognition and respect is instantaneous. He emerges justifiably into the lime-light and becomes an inspiration to all, but the world is full of insignificant little old ladies, arched over with pain and grief that are easily equal to Nelson Mandela in achievement. It is the value we place on them that prevents them hitting the headlines. Even Nelson Mandela would readily acknowledge that. I suspect he must wonder at all that he might have achieved if he wasn't incarcerated, notwithstanding the things he learned and what resulted from that experience. It illustrates exactly the amount of energy we waste, the potential that exists if we didn't have to indulge all the takers that seek to abuse our patience and sap our potential. Of course, capitalism is supposed to facilitate it, is it not? Well, just look what happens to that potential when people contemplate joining the work force. You apply for a one-in-a-million chance of stacking trolleys at ASDA and the application form wants to know all the previous jobs you've held, any qualifications, have you ever had a CRB check, been arrested (not have you committed a crime), do you know the rudimentary difference between quantum and meta-physics, ever worn mismatched socks, a cardboard Trilby with illuminated daisy stuck out the top, or planned global domination by chemical warfare?

Most people don't want to be Nelson Mandela, naturally, but I'm sure many of today's youths would be shocked at some of the positions their grannies and great grannies held in our recent history. When people have confidence, they achieve more. The apathy we have around us is somewhat a construct of oppression, hopelessness and powerlessness. It makes no difference if the debt still increases – good enough for the government is good enough for me – if people are still playing golf, having restaurant meals, having lavish weddings, smoking, drinking, clubbing, doing drugs... well they're obviously not being squeezed enough, are they? And everything that someone has is fair game to capitalists and the government. So, people turn to false hopes, guns, money, alcohol, drugs, bullying, defined relationships. And so we first set ourselves up for hurt, then increasingly isolate ourselves from each other not to be hurt, or usurped, or let down, or betrayed and shut our doors on each other. Rip-off Britain makes it difficult, without a recession, to work for a roof over your head, food, clothing and transport. I suspect no other rich country makes this so tough. While our energies are absorbed in doing this, however, we're less likely to achieve our potential and thus remain consumer fodder. It's a matter of fact, millionaires pay less for everything. And sometimes nothing.

If Western Europe wants to capitalise on the disadvantages of poorer countries joining the EU, without investing money into their countries' infrastructures and economies... why should we complain about the mass influx of immigrants?

It's time for the shafters of the world to unite. Yes as many as four bank moguls in the UK will have to let their heads be hunted for other aggregate work, relenting as innocents within law how they're going miss the people they worked with. Boohoo. They were only doing their jobs and pretty good jobs at that. At least they'll have other jobs to go to. Presumably in China, if not in Europe where they've probably already got their money. Well, don't worry; if Mandelson can make it back, anyone can – he's a fighter, not a quitter and everyone knows he punches below the belt. 'Hoohoo. That's the way to do it!'

You don't have to be such a big-hitter. This delusional mentality filters down, right through to the shop floor that we 're forced to encounter daily. If you cannot balance your budgets, fine people for the slightest inconvenience. Take their taxes, simplify your services tan fine them for creating the exceptions that expose your incompetence. You can get an apprenticeship in stealth tactics. Yes, if Vatman and Robbing (Brown & Mandelson) can't make the pubic a profit from this loss, no-one can. The dynamic duo were still upping the ante to feather their own nests, cover their own arses and leave us in the shit. Cameron's rabbit-in-the-headlights inheritance is everyone's inheritance and don't they keep reminding us? The Chancellor and Business Secretary are more like Centaur and Cyclops, too distracted fighting over who gets to protect the Golden Fleece, to prevent Jason Murdoch and his crew slipping off with it. Sky is not the limit. Takers will always take and take and take and givers will always give out and give out until they give in and stop giving.

As a consequence, the government have to be as suspicious of their taxpayers as they are of illegal immigrants. More than they are of tax evaders. The only security they divert resources into is surveillance. Big Brother policing and political vote-mongering, abuse of the data protection act. National security is making everyone paranoid. And the abusing civil 'servants' say "fuck the law, let's do it to them, then let them take us to court if they've got the guts or the money." So... tell me again, what was all that kafuffle in Europe about, last century?

It isn't immoral for one fat cat, who has more than anything he could ever need, to get a raise that would keep a hundred needy people in food and shelter and a little bit of charity shop clothing for a year, or for a Member of Parliament to have a Chelsea penthouse and daily restaurant meals on the tax payer. But it is immoral for pensioners and ill people to lose their homes and to be sponging 'millions' off the tax-payer for their daily best-buy beans on toast (if they're prepared to cook with more than one gas ring). Have you checked recently how much of your tax is spent on what? It would be an interesting comparison between the annual total of ministers and councillors privileges and expenses and the total output of the welfare state? The new home guard are now the consumer programs and ombudsmen that alert us to the fascist attacks within our ranks.

Am I fixated by this fascism analogy? Consider this: the Nazi's catalogued and profited from everything they stripped from the Jews – they numbered it, down to the last hair of their head and shirt off their back. They tattooed their number on their skin. Their victims were not people but numbers. Fodder for the fire. Capitalism and consumerism does exactly that to every individual now living.

Successive governments expand their rhetoric on 'responsibility of care' to address mental health concerns along with extolling the rights of patients, ('clients' and 'service-users'), without properly informing the general public of those rights. If they did, service-providers would be at an immediate disadvantage. So, you will only hear about your rights if you are invited to seminars for health and support services professionals. Other than this, it will be up to you to research your rights, or they may tell you if you or an advocate apply pressure, or it may come out during a suicide inquest. The service providers condescend to have 'consultations' and invite a handful of carers and service users over for tea, only after they have already ratified their decisions. Health officials have legitimised the ignoring of the consultation process by getting as few people as possible to attend and vote, then spend thousands to get universities to evaluate and report with a document they can file and forget. It would be more respectful of the public and waste less of their money to not bother them in the first place, to actually just be open about their dictatorship and say, "fuck off... who the fuck are you?"

But they love the rhetoric and gloss, it's a pre-eminent job requirement, not a paper-thin skin underwritten by egotists in governing roles, pontificating big new career-enhancing ideas beyond their experience; not a clamour for identity and status in a competitive, corner-cutting, personnel-cropping survival-of-the-unfittest contest, overshadowed by threats of NHS privatisation. 'Foundation Status,' to you and me, which amounts to some departments metamorphosing into self-sustained services, purchased internally by the PCTs. And this model can now be applied across the board.

Genuine congratulations to Cornwall NHS, though, for beach-bum therapy. More please.

Benefits Agency policies actively exclude the most vulnerable from getting the support they deserve. To pay for their benefits, unemployed people who apply for hundreds of jobs but never get employed are going to be spending all the time they're supposed to be available to look for employment, working alongside petty criminals doing community service, in menial jobs farmed out to them by whatever little Hitler sits at the end of the line they happen to queue in.

A Mental Health Act condones the sectioning of people on the flimsiest pretext. Social Services have their own laws and will do that to you even if your diagnosis doesn't qualify as a mental illness, just as long as someone else can shoulder the budget and take the responsibility. It has been suggested that anti-social monitoring will find new ways to take the government's 'Big Brother' obsession well beyond the range of cameras and satellites right into our bloodstream (apart from imposed sedation), in the form of identity chips. Good idea for unrepentant paedophiles, though, and teachers, I mean sex offenders, who like to kiss consenting adults they've taught.

****

**a** **true story: to D a 21 st century 1st world Nelson Mandela**

Lets say you have an accident and lose half your body functions; you sustain severe brain damage (but not enough for you to be oblivious to what's going on) and have to relearn how to talk, shave, walk (if you can) and discover who the hell you are. Well, the health service's "responsibility of care" might fork out for a short while for you to recoup enough to do some of those things. Then, when you're just about progressing from nightmare to a semi-functional, semi-stable reality, in this strange place full of strangers, nowhere near your home and family, the health budget will be rescinded and they will find that their responsibility of care has been fulfilled. You have brain damage, not mental illness.

The ball is now batted to social services. You are the ball. So, off to a residential home you go because that is all social services can afford. No physiotherapy, no nursing or intensive support, but you can smoke outside, if you can get out there, and you can have a television and radio. Resources don't stretch to you having any privacy, so, you have to share all your ablutions and indignities in a room with a complete stranger, amongst all these new complete strangers, in a place even farther away from your family and your local authority, which can now wash its hands of you. Nobody wants to wash your hands or cut your nails and who are they anyway? Your long-term memory recovers sufficiently to remind you, you used to be a different person, so what the fuck happened to you? Naturally, you can't stand this prison cell, but you overhear someone say they have no legal responsibility to lock you in, so in the middle of the night, (when there's no one around that can drag you back), you trash the crap you've been lumbered with and make your bid for freedom. Of course, since the physiotherapy stopped helping you to your feet, you have to piss in the street from your chair, using your one good hand. This is indecent exposure. And so the cycle of escape, recapture, sectioning, being banged up in a police cell, eventual release and becoming an increasingly ungrateful burden on your hosts ensues.

Eventually, because you are regularly exposing yourself, you're now considered a danger to yourself and others, they lock you away in a secure mental ward and take your cigarettes off you. If you behave yourself like an unquestioning child, after a few months, maybe years, they might let you out into the twenty-four foot by twenty-four foot, high-walled, plain courtyard, for a little fresh air and to walk around in circles, since you are a circular peg in a square hole. You cannot smoke. It's in the hospital grounds. By now, this whole process has stretched over five years and you live to stare up at a piece of sky between blinded windows. You can self-harm but you mustn't be suicidal. That's why you cannot have a lethal weapon like a radio, television, tie or shoelaces, but don't despair because they will let your nails grow to three inches and your hair grow long enough for you to hang yourself, if gouging your throat and wrists doesn't work. You have no reason to feel suicidal. You have no right to be angry against all these professionals and expert strangers who are prepared to hold you illegally to fulfil their 'duty of care,' or your new neighbours, who want a piece of you. So, you fight silently with yourself, decaying tooth and curly nail, to not vent this to anyone, because you know you don't belong there. You'd rather disappear and live in a tent in the middle of nowhere than be such a burden.

Don't give up though, because they have consulted all parties and done psychiatric assessments and they agree you don't belong there. Your reactions are circumstantial, not mental, but if you kick off you'll never get out. The only policy of integrity, protest and resentment you can adopt is silence. At last... everybody else can relax.

Relief of all relief – an angel of mercy! One of your siblings, with experience in caring, is willing to uproot from a different part of the same country to care for you at home, if the council will supply a suitable accommodation near your family. Sorry... computer says no. The council cannot provide a home because your relative comes from outside their jurisdiction. It matters not where you hale from.

Ah! No matter! The place you originally woke up in and became accustomed to and got to know the staff and progressed rapidly at tells the present regime they never had a problem with you and would have you back immediately. And there's a limited place available! What's more... it's cheaper than the care you've been receiving since the ball was ping-ponged from the PCT to social services to another PCT! Woopeeee!

Sorry... computer says no. Local social services still don't have to cough up the budget for that, so they won't. The ball will have to be batted to the PCT who cut the funding in the first place. Robinson Crusoe confined to a wheelchair without cigarettes, television or even a radio – you will stay for another few years, while each successive PCT drops the ball and another picks it up.

_With kind permission – a testament to the spirit of D._ __

___

Yes, its national paranoia everyone. Every man for himself, because we're all just numbers. Better play the numbers game than end up a splinter in a splinter-group, don't make waves, mind your 'p's and 'q's, don't kick up a fuss, don't bite the hand that feeds, don't let it all out, think inside the box, tick the box, fit the bill, what do points make...?

**superiority** **complex**

We _mentally segregate_ people determined by their health. How disgusting is that? There is currently no equality amongst those regarded as 'mentally ill' and people who are undiagnosed (normal people), or with those caring for them. Yes, there have been some improvements in treatment and care of people with chronic mental illness, (or those people who have very visible symptoms, so they get help because they cannot be left the way they are; more so if they are a danger to themselves or to others), but it is more than simply neglect and stigma that leads people from manageable distress to crisis and extreme trauma. Depression rivals other illnesses for 'the most common' spot, yet most sufferers are isolated and regarded as a waste product, amongst our society. They are defective. If an assumption of superiority and disassociation is evident in those treating mentally ill people, how will they ever get the care they need, or a place in society where they are accepted? How can you build self-esteem in someone you see as inferior? And where does that place anyone when something hits them badly? If dog-eat-dog, is the only equity we've decided upon, how will we get on when we cannot cope, or if we choose that's not the way for us?

Due to the proliferation of depression the debate is getting louder. There is an arena for change and research into new ways to support people in crisis, but it is being squandered, because it means spending more money on top of already costly counter-productive practices. Not that it has been neglected for decades and needs a complete re-evaluation of those services. Not only to accommodate alternative supplementary options. Current regimes are restrictive, wasteful, self-serving, unimaginative and some who are charged with implementing new recommendations are politically manipulative. So, very little happens apart from co-opting and ignoring the comments of service-users and carers – especially those that are not of the compliant variety. Carers are generally more corroborative and hence, critical service-users are dispensable to the decision-making process. Priorities of carers is seen as the priority of service-users, when it blatantly isn't, but it still ticks the box. Disagreement is seen as dissent, maverick, emotive... anything but worthy of exploration. Services are thus inclusive even when service users are excluded.

Clinicians who genuinely see the need for rapid and radical changes feel there are far too many constraints upon them. Even _they_ get discriminated against and marginalised within their institution, unless they zip it and cooperate. By discriminating on a health basis and _not prioritising_ the development and support of the mental-health system, effectively turning a blind eye to our own social stigmas in this country, _we stultify the intrinsic potential in every individual_ for a strong functioning society. 'But read the glossy pamphlets, read them, look at all this trouble we've gone to... we did ask and this is what you told us.' The Blears Witch approach.

Good parents help their children to make informed choices. Practitioners have adopted this approach in most health practice, now – so, why not in mental health? We're back to that challenge: like with care of the elderly, the mental health system lends itself to the dynamic of abuse – the vulnerable at the mercy of those who have the power – it's the challenge of what we regard as strength and weakness. Kicking up a fuss is not seen as a fight for right. For life, even. For authorities to loosen their parental grip and seek ways to bolster the ailing power that more vulnerable people have is too labour intensive. Less control is uncomfortable for service providers; it means an element of uncertainty, of flexibility, of fear, of risk. They have to respect your choice and move out of their comfort zone to provide what you choose and that's only if they're up for it, within the current bureaucratic constraints and targets. But that would mean experimenting with all the options that could be open to you and how many people can they afford to do that with? And what if _you_ get it wrong? Any parent knows only too well, they cannot control all the choices their children make. At some time, part of growing and maturing, for parents and children, means making our own mistakes and learning, even if it's the hard way. It really shouldn't have to be that hard on us when it comes to our mental health. And sometimes parents are wrong, but good parents are still there for their children. If mental health services want the authority, they must demonstrate that they wield it in a way that nurtures the individual needs, mentality and capacities of the patient.

At least, through gradual reform in this country, the attitudes I've mentioned previously – racism, prejudice, class distinction – are acknowledged officially as detrimental. But corruption and exploitation of privilege _in government and commerce_ undermines this _._ We are rich in diversity, intelligence and experience, more than enough to make life easier on us, but the institutions we're supposed to trust are taught first governance, then the art of deflection and subterfuge. We lack any robust recourse to self-serving bullshit and what it generates.

Humble experience is paramount in redressing this. It takes long-term commitment and re-evaluation of what we hold precious in life. It means reassessing what we value in ourselves.

Some people don't want that. They love putting selfish ambition first, thriving on pressure and stress. It might be the only way to boost or supplement their ego, or relationship problems, or to feed their craving for money and success. It could be they see it as the only reliable way to get the life-quality they want, or the legacy they want to leave the children they see precious little of. Or simply one-upmanship; Peter Mandelson disease. So, what will they do when it fails them? Well, it can't fail them, they'll never give in; self-determination to the exclusion of all others and all morals will see them through. Delusion, basically.

If they have social, political and institutional denial confirming them as sane as any other, all the better. They're the majority. The richest man in the world must have been totally bonkers when he said, "Money has absolutely nothing to do with happiness – perhaps unhappiness." Living humanely and empowering each other is considered detrimental to commerce, in contrast to predatory strategies. It's delusional. The abusive predator is the one that reaps reward and high esteem. That's why we condone the latter and marginalise the former.

I like to be busy, a workaholic when my brain and body will allow me. I am ambitious about my work, but with post-traumatic stress I'm instantly out of the running. I run a mile, because I just cannot hack it. And I don't believe in it. You can't do that. Somebody has got to pay for that luxury. Not that I have a legitimate illness which throws my mind into psychosomatic shut-down and self-protection. I'm not even sure I could take the pressure of stacking trolleys at ASDA. "What!. You fucking whimp! You need your arse kicking into gear." I can hear the majority crowd pressing in on me. "Well, I'd stack trolleys at ASDA for my children!" Yeah, so would I – would you do it just for yourself? Why, what for, survival? Would politicians do it? Would they sacrifice their second homes, to save the tax-payer, to supplement their income, to stop the people-trafficking and illegal immigration they're so up in arms about? Would they make multi-million/billion profit-making companies and their shareholders culpable for poor practices and employing bad decision-makers, those who unfairly overburden the consumer for unreasonable profits? Not when the going gets tough or even when they cause the financial hardship? Not on your Nelly.

It's only the tough that get going then. But what if you're not tough, what if you're all out of tough and your get up and go has got up and gone? What if stacking trolleys just doesn't assuage the toss-up you have about why you're living at all? What if it compounds your nagging conviction that you're actually worth nothing? "Well, you just can't be like that in life." No ... Now we're getting to the crux of the matter. No-one can be like that. No one wants to contemplate that the life of one person can be so cheap, because we can all then be treated like that. So, we try and convince ourselves, against our better nature, that the person whose life is ebbing away in such drudgery is valued. Doing what? Stacking trolleys? Stacking trolleys isn't worthwhile, it's _the reasons behind_ why they're reduced to doing it. The kind of people who are forced into having to do these menial jobs are often skilled and qualified for other professions. More power to them, but who contends this is actually good? Why can people who don't need any more money protest that, for their own benefit, but we can't protest it's wrong for us and anyone else?

Push and push and push and grind and grind and grind us all to compost for profit. That'll make us stronger. Fuck your depression and post-traumatic thingy and what it can teach us. Fuck the reasons you have for surviving and enduring. Fuck having a future, that's a luxury for cattle. But no – this work will give you self-esteem and help cure you, help you move on, stop you being stuck in the past. You think?

Fat Cats set the trend for current obesity levels. And everything we have in life, the smallest thing to everything we hold dear, everything permanent, transient, substantial and ethereal, everything worth anything, is what they want us to pay for it.

****

**deny** **this**

Well, I won't be frightening you out of your skin with tales of fleeing the family home after watching my relatives being battered to death or raped or shot; I won't be climbing out of a shell crater with one leg and half my face blown off; I won't be talking about having my teeth kicked in by a couple of bouncers or by coppers in a police cell; I won't be talking about having to subsist on crickets and scorpions while I take weeks to find water, or a place to camp where the same military and political atrocities won't happen again; showing you the extended stomach of my disease ridden starving child; climbing the anchor chain of a merchant ship or stowing away in a container among dying bodies, just to escape a war zone; surviving with a new identity in a strange land, knowing I'll never be able to see my family again, because I will either be hunted by criminals, shot, tortured or imprisoned; I won't be telling you about fleeing from being murdered by my own parent because I didn't marry a good Muslim man who'd been arranged for me; or telling you the mounting debt that I'm in because my arranged Pakistani wife used the British divorce laws to fleece me, once she got her citizenship. Nothing quite as dramatic but just as insidious, invasive and... frighteningly... closer to home.

So, what's the solution? Well, you should have a grasp of the symptoms I've already outlined – _deny_ our natural instincts; _deny_ the value of people's everyday experience and making it readily available as part of our everyday social education; _deny_ that this pressured socio-political climate is hostile to positive mental well-being; _deny_ that we are all being minced down the funnel of least resistance against our better judgments and human nature, just so that budget and target reports and individual Curriculum Vitae and the bank balances of callous people look more impressive; _deny_ that we see it as plain as if they were Max Headroom when they lie to us; _deny_ that we moan about it and just hang our heads and carry on trudging the long line of fettered, swollen ankles; _deny_ we have the antidote right here in our hands and hearts and just carry on staring at each other to see who'll be the next one to drop, if the universe doesn't spew us out first. "You could be the next one to die, you could be the next one to kill"[13] is no longer a group of people huddled together in a concentration camp. We don't want to see this. We cannot accept this is the case, just as they couldn't back then. We're just good, innocent people minding our own business. There's no cause for mass revolt. That's too extreme. The governments have seen to that, minimising every legitimate form we have to do so.

No... the revolution will _not_ be televised because, despite the fervour for it in other oppressive regimes, there will be no revolution in the UK. People have no stomach for it. The odd revolt, maybe. But even if we do descend on Parliament and Downing Street and fill the capital's streets, the passive carnival spirit will prevail until we will all return home and gape at how insignificant our collective outcry really was. Just what a brief slot it had in the national news and we didn't even see our own face on telly. Then we'll shut our doors, turn over to The Apprentice and grind our machetes in preparation for the ASDA shopping trolley job queue.

_Deny_ this is a crime against humanity.

Suicide. Homicide. Global Genocide. The propagators will never be tried in The Hague. The grim reaper is sharpening his blade and his Global-warming cloak hangs over our heads. Capitalism continues to fly in the face of it. That's what you get when you employ psychopaths? No wonder we are shitting ourselves.

Britain and the United States lead the way in legitimising shafting your own populace. No wonder they do nothing about Mugabe. Remember, the pen is mightier than the sword. If the financial market legitimises this hostility under the banner of self-preservation, are we prepared to change our values?

I believe it is realistic to accept there is more to humanity. It is a testament to our spirit that we have endured. We have to practically restore and reaffirm our belief in that spirit, our common humanity, our mutual dependency and responsibility and value. We have to reward it, make it easier for us all to tap into, especially in extreme situations, and give more incentives to people to develop and share those qualities.

**I sphincter, therefore I am....**

Take a good long look at me, then. I'm a broken man with a mind that attacks me as much as it supports me; a wretch, a no-one who has contributed little to this world. Not martyr, nor antagonist nor navel-gazer. Just a simple insignificant human being, as hypocritical and imperfect as anyone, who cannot get everything right and is not willing to give my soul for a cause; one who compulsively put myself down and repeatedly wanted to snuff myself out.

This is the entire point. Being able to survive this.

I have a sense, as we all do, of the nobility of human nature. In its most limited selfish state. In its most humiliated state. A nobility. It is in every human being, without exception. Even in those betraying it for power, fame and domination. Shitting on their integrity. Shitting on each other – shitting on every corner of our beautiful planet and denying it, defying it, though the stench reeks in our nostrils and the stains are plain for all to see. What did they do to deserve this position? What did we do to deserve it, is the question? This is what we are doing to nobility, to dignity. If this is what I've been able to scratch together from my limited experience, what's the extent of the real everyday effects of denial?

___

Oh, crap, just look at this! I'm looking at an on-line advertisement for a special edition of the complete series of 'Man From Uncle.' I'm not a particular fan of MFU but look at it. How could anyone resist? The shiny sturdy chrome case oozes quality. FORTY-ONE DVDs with the MFU logo on! Each three-disc set colour coordinated in radioactive health and safety yellow, danger and classified red, trustworthy eye-spy blue and reassuring global green. Each set with its matching fold-out DVD case, with the MFU logo on! Not just the series but extra material too! Secret documents and campaigns. Directors commentaries. And behind behind-the-scenes scenes! Deleted scenes that were too cover-up to air! Even a 'Woman from Uncle' episode! Four matching bound outer cases to protect the disc cases! An operator's manual includes you in the MFU team! And just look at the size of that matching, two-inch thick, glossy illustrated volume on everything, _everything,_ that went into the series. All with the MFU logo on! The craftsmanship! It's a work of art! The nostalgia! Over two _hundred_ hours of viewing and reading. Sweet sheer tap-dancing delusion. It's guaranteed to make you feel eight years old again, each time you look at it. The MFU identity card has a guilt globe on it to prove I'm a man of the world! It might even get me through the diplomatic boarding gate.

And I can get all this for just two pieces of paper with the queen's mug on.

But how can I have it without capitalism? Oh, well... I'll have to deny myself that, while I chew on my 29p hotdogs that have been reformed off some warehouse floor, made by illegal immigrants living fifteen to a room and employed by the biggest retailer in the world to work sixty-hour weeks for the price of this set. I don't have to be able to afford it to buy it, though.

___

I haven't really wanted much or cost much. I live shockingly frugally. I got to the point where I didn't need any medical support, hardly any medication and had come to terms with all my shit. I erased my debts got a good credit rating and kept myself solvent. I developed an overwhelming physical allergy condition due to not being able to afford to heat my house. Incurable, said two ENT specialists and two GPs. I am choking or drowning on one and a half litres of mucus per day. I needed to relocate, they said, somewhere warmer and minimise to keep your place hypoallergenic, where there is direct sea air and little flora and fauna. How could I do that?

So, I sought help.

Two years daily slog through murky shark-infested waters, left to deal with everything on my own despite the fact I qualify for help, despite deliberate selective misrepresentation of my symptoms, I sit here in my flat, my window open onto the sea, entering this paragraph feeling repeatedly suicidal again resisting throwing myself out of the window and now seriously contemplating going to ask local druggies where I can get my hands on a clean gun. Not just for myself. Suicidal because my mind won't stop attacking me, telling me what a waste of space I am and this life has nothing to offer me. None of my passions are worth it. Nature isn't worth it. People are not worth it. This book and what it could do isn't worth it. Life is pointless.

What made me regress by over ten years? Eleven different statutory and voluntary 'care' and 'benefits' agencies. "Male – walks n talks – computer says no" is basically the line. Even legal solicitors cannot budge them. Job Centre Plus say 'yes' to advanced rent help, require a "tenancy agreement" in their form, (not a pre-tenancy-determination), which you can only get after paying the advanced rent. So I get one. "You've already paid the advanced rent – sorry, computer say no." shafted to the tune of £425. Community Care Grant should keep me out of care or hospital, as stress and mental anguish doing it all alone is destroying me, and includes moving costs. I should have two professional movers. Without support forthcoming it nearly literally kills me and my best friend through sheer exhaustion, (and in a seventy miles per hour motorway accident returning the hire vehicle, hitting the central reservation and crossing three lanes of rush-hour traffic without being broadsided). 'Give us all your medical details including abuse history, bank sort code and account number and we'll pay you direct nine days from receipt of your claim. We have helped you fill it out properly, we will send it internally today, it'll take two weeks to get to the processors.' Five weeks later after moving – "Local office hasn't received it, sorry, computer say no." Can I telephone processing office?" "Sorry computer say no." CAB let me use telephone. "Processing office not received it – computer say no." Original office that helped me fill it out; man says he'll check but pretty sure won't find it. If he does he'll ring me back that day (Friday). No ring back all following week. Second attempt – "sorry it's lost, no idea why, where, who, not our fault. Sorry, you'll have to start all over again. Oh, you've already moved. Claim for moving costs? Sorry, computer say no." Shafted another £800. They 'lost' internally all my confidential medical and bank details, but no-one is at fault. They have no responsibility of security and care. You cannot sue them. Housing benefit for new flat, no problem, sort it in a day. And it is. Paid to me two weeks in arrears. What they really meant was paid before two weeks in arrears was due, so paid legitimately one week in arrears then two weeks and fourth week late, after rent due. Shafted another £100 that won't show up until tenancy ends. If it ends. But I'll never find that money. This when I have exhausted my finances and have now been put over the bank agreed overdraft which means they'll sting me not just for the £20 per month agreed fee, but whatever they want to charge per day on top, and for unfulfilled direct debits, rent could be missed and I could lose the flat it nearly cost my life to secure.

All these agencies getting paid massive amounts of money to make people sicker through crafty, skilful misinformation and premeditated diversion tactics. Not realising what they are amassing against themselves in health costs and potential trouble ahead. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I now have seven illnesses, am on the verge of losing it or being sectioned and on six different medications, one to counteract another thinning my bones, it is that powerful a drug. Including, once again, anti-depressants. I feel like the last ten years of constant battle have been lost and I am not only suicidal but homicidal. No one will make an assessment of how much more it cost to ignore me, when all it needed was a care coordinator I was entitled to, to secure a flat and arrange minimal change in finances and just have the place clinically cleaned and made hypoallergenic. Too lazy to make those kind of calculations but these people are employed supposedly to save the tax-payer money. They really are the most expensive imbeciles.

Fuck frugality and modesty, that's no fun. Follow the economists and merchant bankers' example. Buy your way out of poverty and get bailed out. 'Liquidity and demand, liquidity and demand' – funnel funnel funnel push push push mince mince mince grind grind grind, is the only language these rapists know, because they just _cannot_ be satiated. More is less. More consumerism; more deforestation; more demand on fossil fuels; more floods; more extinct species; more competition for more bigger cogs in the machine of commerce; that's what makes the world go around, more more more, with less less less. We might as well put Jeremy Clarkson at the wheel – I detected his customary air of sardonic distain when he said, after being asked if he was for conservation, "The planet is more than capable of taking care of itself." I agree - but Jeremy would rather crash and burn spectacularly into a wall, strapped in a Recaro bucket, than live to be a drivelling ninety-year old, trundling his way through longevity in his little Rascal scooter. "Do you wanna go faster? ... I CAN'T HEAR YOU..."

Even Jeremy might be a more responsible parent than his TV persona allows. But, in capitalistic terms, the way to win is to try avoid having to use reverse. For survival, would it be such a sacrifice to return to the past?

Some might dismiss my proscenium denouncements and miss the point that this auto-biography is not about me, but so what? I could succumb to the very appealing prospect of becoming psychopathic and join the line of arse-holes, because if you're not dishing it, you're in it. And if push comes to shove and I can't escape, I could join the sedated masses, because if you really can't beat them, social, political and institutional denial is the thing, this year. Denial is the thing this year.

By 2012, I'm finally in a hypoallergenic apartment; my rhinitis manageable with steroids and sea air enabling me to breathe normally outdoors. I'm awaiting another round of psychotherapy because I cannot shake the feeling that all life is pointless. I mention this to my clinical psychologist and she starts with "If you feel your life is..." "No, no, no..." I say, "I didn't say ' _my_ life.' There's quite a big difference" It's important because it affects motivation for anything, anything at all. Good or bad. I have few worries other than that; an ideal existence, some would say. But I'm prepared and expecting to lose everything, to go back to homelessness and be a bum on the streets until I die. Each day I spend an hour staring at the crashing relentless waves a few meters away, envious of the disengaged fuck-you sea but also realising it's a metaphor – the fact we are hemmed in, under the constant assault that sends people out of their comfort to do mainly things they detest, day in day out and the ever bombarding pressures that make that more and more difficult to do. I am expecting another war, any day now. The next grenade that will turn my world back to chaos. I realise, despite my relief and the best circumstances I've ever had in my life – I'm living in constant dread that I cannot switch off. I tell myself – no one is going to do anything today, so relax, enjoy it. But how do I know? It is a manufactured dread.

It is exhausting trying to hold on to anything you have now. Fewer people today would ask if it really is this bad or is it only my perceptions. Everyone seems to be feeling the pain. Most of my friends are expecting the same assault and diminution of their basic staples for existing. One summed it up this way; "Even aside from the bigger picture of it all... often, facing the worst of the worst is a way of letting go. And letting go is sometimes the way to ease pain. Optimism cannot do this."

It strikes me, the only healthy way to survive is to fuck it all and become insane. That is the insanity opposite to the sanity this world is made up of. It isn't a new survival tactic.

"Of course, they're all stark raving mad, you know."[14]

According to George Burns shitting it's the only thing you have to look forward to when you're old, but I suspect he meant if you still retain any self-determination over it. Affluence doesn't stop effluence? It can wipe it away and blame someone else, in smear campaigns, send it underground, make a room smell better, make us feel cleaner with velvety soft tissue. But deny it to the hilt, no one will be able ignore it when it hits the fan.

Those who have already been in it cope better. Deny that, at your peril. We can never deny the actions of our sphincter, it's about time we validated our shit and made it work for us. _I sphincter_ , therefore I am.

_____

__

So, er... how's your diagnosis of what constitutes mental wellbeing coming on?[i]

**\+ / -**

****

Whether the foregoing was bare fact reality or personal perception, whether you agreed or disagreed, whether it is reasonable or not – all these external factors constitute part of the ongoing daily battle over why I'd wish to exist in this environment.

External influences persist without consent. Those we can do something about and those we are powerless against, necessitating denial and siege mentality as a survival strategy, or even a natural psychosomatic conditioning, as intrinsic as the air we breathe and the chemical constituents of our bodies. As Zizek stated – "the opposite of _existence_ is not non-existence, but _insistence_." That's only _half_ the battle.

What about when things are pushed beyond reason? When, in addition to this, internal pressures we wished didn't exist suddenly _insist_ and our power of self-restraint fails us? When every known and unknown impulse tears open the flesh to reveal an inner monster and our very soul _insists_ on baring itself?

And how did four simple biscuits combat all of this?

Side two – 'bare soul' – will attempt to show you.

****

****

****

****

* * *

[1] (Verso London, New York 2002)

# [2] 'La Mort' - La Valse a Mille Temps © Jaques Brel 1958

[3] 'Time' – Dark Side Of The Moon; ©Pink Floyd 1973

[4] Album 'The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway' – Genesis (1974).

[5] 'Clocks' – album 'A rush of blood to the head;' Coldplay (2002)

4 'Sirens Of Titan' © Kurt Vonnegut 1959; Millennium (1999).

[7] (The day of Jack Chambers – Anne Michaels: The weight of Oranges (1986). The Coach House Press, Canada.

[8] 'Wise Up' – Magnolia Soundtrack © Aimee Mann 1996

[9] (Welcome to the desert of the real – Slavoj Zizek; Verso, London , New York 2002)

[10] 'Scott Four' – Scott Walker; Fontana Distribution 1969

[11] (Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years, New York: Harper Collins, 1993, pp. 12-13).

[12] 'I can't get behind that' – William Shatner; from album 'Has Been' Shout! Factory 2007

[13] 'Circle Dances' – Robin Graham

[14] ref: Peter Butterworth's final words in 'Carry On Up The Khaiber'

* * *

Cover design / artwork, biscuit headings & signage: © Adrian Kenton

('Jammie Dodgers' is a registered trade mark).
