Grooming a nation.
Last night I thought about attempting a coherent, well structured satanic shrinks piece but I can't be arsed. I've been engaging on and off with NHS services for 20 years. I talk about incest and am questioned about my sexual fantasies and relationships regardless of how old I am. Before he left the Psychiatrist who gave me the Persistent Delusional Disorder diagnosis 3 years ago said he wasn't as confident in it as he was but because I said cannabis use made by memories clearer, easier to manage he wouldn't change the diagnosis. I asked him if there was lots of research about cannabis and DID and if there was had he read it, he shrugged, looked away. He said he if was true there was no way I could of gotten out which helped me understand how I got out, they just cant see me.. His English was good but his accent is strong, like me I guess and sometimes I wan't sure if he wasn't answering a question because he didn't know what I was saying or because he just wasn't answering. He refused to engage with me academically on any level or explain his diagnosis in any detail.
I went into sessions with him and others knowing I was going to walk out again feeling suicidal because I know nothing happens without paper work. I've thinking about medical negligence as an avenue I might look into. I never wanted to cause problems for the NHS before. There is no getting beyond that some especially front line NHS staff have saved my life and others, restored my faith in humanity and a whole shit load more over many, many years but maybe is it wasn't for some of the decisions of the mental health professionals maybe they wouldn't of had to deal with so much. They were always so vulnerable. A couple of sickos on any ward, any shift or whatever anywhere could get away with whatever they wanted, assaulting or talking their way out of any problems.
The first few words of statement for Speaking Out.
Hospitals healing, corridors, bleach smell close up and in the background stinks, bright entrails, 'Suicides' on packed wards, choking noise waking up others, I had to quieten them, had seen others do the same job before me
How can talk about such stuff without any signs of distress? Because it and stuff like it happened quite a lot over many years. It was a game Savile played a lot convincing a child that another child had been murdered, then presenting the supposedly dead child, 'alive and well' later, being all nice and affectionate. During the 80's his heavies were mostly porters, often from dodgy backgrounds. They would take the piss out of him behind his back and make efforts to do the things he told them not to, sometimes to me. From early 90's there were more wealthy young men, professionals from respectable backgrounds and there was a lot more filming. Constant bargaining and favour systems going on all the time by everyone.
There was accidental deaths and boat trips to Islands. Isle of Man. Angelsey?
This of course is just a couple of examples of what I'm writing about for the statement which of course represents only a few examples of what I have in my head.
As much as I acknowledge the validity of arguments about the need for survivors who can communicate on the subject of extreme abuse in a way that suits the commonly adhered to models of language, authenticity and taste I'm old enough and ugly enough not to be drawn into them too much. Victims experience other peoples needs and wants as being more important than their own. The victim's needs and wants, right down to their right to live are not secondary they are not even recognised. They are of no consequence to anyone directly involved or otherwise. It's a common grooming technique used to get children and adults to start entertaining the idea that the best thing to do in some situations of abuse is to go along with it. To draw attention to it or to challenge something so much bigger and stronger than yourself can it would only make matters worse.
This is what grooming is, gently and apparently rationally taking someone down a path they had no intention of going down. It also involves some flattery telling a child they are clever, pretty or suggesting that as survivors activists or whatever we are some how privileged in our understanding of how rape and child abuse functions in our societies and in our minds.
Not that I think everyone who suggests consideration for the public's sensibilities need to be taken into consideration when addressing extreme organised abuse is willingly involved plot to discredit survivors and victims. And even if they are, the very fact that they are engaged in what they are doing means that they have no idea what or who they are talking about. I just wish there was a little respect for the fact that while some people are labeling Savile's sexuality and categorising on his type of deviancy, some of us are trying to articulate what he actually did who he did it with.
Lots to be getting on with then.
I went into sessions with him and others knowing I was going to walk out again feeling suicidal because I know nothing happens without paper work. I've thinking about medical negligence as an avenue I might look into. I never wanted to cause problems for the NHS before. There is no getting beyond that some especially front line NHS staff have saved my life and others, restored my faith in humanity and a whole shit load more over many, many years but maybe is it wasn't for some of the decisions of the mental health professionals maybe they wouldn't of had to deal with so much. They were always so vulnerable. A couple of sickos on any ward, any shift or whatever anywhere could get away with whatever they wanted, assaulting or talking their way out of any problems.
The first few words of statement for Speaking Out.
Hospitals healing, corridors, bleach smell close up and in the background stinks, bright entrails, 'Suicides' on packed wards, choking noise waking up others, I had to quieten them, had seen others do the same job before me
How can talk about such stuff without any signs of distress? Because it and stuff like it happened quite a lot over many years. It was a game Savile played a lot convincing a child that another child had been murdered, then presenting the supposedly dead child, 'alive and well' later, being all nice and affectionate. During the 80's his heavies were mostly porters, often from dodgy backgrounds. They would take the piss out of him behind his back and make efforts to do the things he told them not to, sometimes to me. From early 90's there were more wealthy young men, professionals from respectable backgrounds and there was a lot more filming. Constant bargaining and favour systems going on all the time by everyone.
There was accidental deaths and boat trips to Islands. Isle of Man. Angelsey?
This of course is just a couple of examples of what I'm writing about for the statement which of course represents only a few examples of what I have in my head.
As much as I acknowledge the validity of arguments about the need for survivors who can communicate on the subject of extreme abuse in a way that suits the commonly adhered to models of language, authenticity and taste I'm old enough and ugly enough not to be drawn into them too much. Victims experience other peoples needs and wants as being more important than their own. The victim's needs and wants, right down to their right to live are not secondary they are not even recognised. They are of no consequence to anyone directly involved or otherwise. It's a common grooming technique used to get children and adults to start entertaining the idea that the best thing to do in some situations of abuse is to go along with it. To draw attention to it or to challenge something so much bigger and stronger than yourself can it would only make matters worse.
This is what grooming is, gently and apparently rationally taking someone down a path they had no intention of going down. It also involves some flattery telling a child they are clever, pretty or suggesting that as survivors activists or whatever we are some how privileged in our understanding of how rape and child abuse functions in our societies and in our minds.
Not that I think everyone who suggests consideration for the public's sensibilities need to be taken into consideration when addressing extreme organised abuse is willingly involved plot to discredit survivors and victims. And even if they are, the very fact that they are engaged in what they are doing means that they have no idea what or who they are talking about. I just wish there was a little respect for the fact that while some people are labeling Savile's sexuality and categorising on his type of deviancy, some of us are trying to articulate what he actually did who he did it with.
Lots to be getting on with then.
