30th March 1994 Dr N Renshaw
235 Felixstowe Road
Ipswich
IP3 9BN

Dear Dr Renshaw

Re: Mr Frederick Whiting - 27. 07. 64
37c Constitution Hill, Ipswich
ADMITTED: 09. 03. 94 SELF DISCHARGE: 14 or 17. 03. 94 (Orig. Doc. had 14 crossed out and replaced with 17)
Consultant: Dr E Kupersmitt
Diagnosis Alcohol Intoxification / ? Psychosis
The above named was admitted on 09. 03. 94 on a Section 2 following a DV by Dr Kupersmitt (Please see Dr Kupersmitt's letter dated 22. 03. 94). He reported that he had smashed a window at Suffolk College because he was angry that one particular lecturer was not coming in for lectures on time, he had consumed some alcohol prior to this. He also said that he wanted to be arrested to draw attention to the local Education Department and an MP.

He was born in Gravesend in 1964 both parents are alive and have remarried after they separated when the patient was six. He reported that he did not get on well with his parents and did not have much contact with them.

He went to six different schools as his Father had to move around, he stated that he was bullied at school and he reported that he sat his GCSE's and got four good pass grades but was refused the opportunity to do his ' A ' levels.

After leaving school he worked with Builders and Engineers and at the same time did private research in Biological Science, West European History, English Language and Literature and British and North American Sociology. He spent some time in Thailand with his Father who was a lecturer in a Polytechnic. He has no significant past medical history. He smokes ten to twelve cigarettes a day and consumes 4-5 pints of beer per week and occasionally spirits. He has abused Cannabis occasionally and also Heroin, Cocaine LSD and amphetamines. His hobbies were sports, reading and listening to music.

On admission he was casually dressed with poor self hygiene. He had relevant conversation with big words, (and described his mood as medium ), there were no auditory hallucinations but there were some paranoid ideas about people. There was no suicidal ideation and he lacked insight into his condition. His physical examination was unremarkable and he was treated with Chlorpromazine and Procyclidine on a prn basis.

He settled down well on the Ward and his section was rescinded on 16.03.94 . The following day he insisted on taking his own discharge against medical advice. He stated that he had exams in June and his mood was fine. He appeared perplexed but not suicidal, there were no problems with sleep or appetite. He had no delusions or hallucinations but he felt that at times people dropped hints about him. He was orientated in time, person and place. He denied the abuse of drugs since 1984. Although he was persuaded to stay for a fortnight for observation, he insisted on taking his own discharge against medical advice and he was discharged on 17. 03. 94 and we shall see him in the out patient clinic in due course.

Yours Sincerely
Dr C Ratnarajah
Registrar to Dr E Kupersmitt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- (to the Editor continued)

I think the truth is that he (Mr Evans) found himself a little overwhelmed by the profusion of ancillary material which I had been and am in the process of engendering as a counter to the attack on my good name and reputation which this report represents. If you can spare me another few minutes I hope to convince you that the material is certainly newsworthy and provides a much more substantial basis to substantiate the allegation that those responsible for assessing Mitchell’s condition had certainly in this case deliberately and cynically created bald lies as official medical record(s) and that it was precisely such practise that led to his inadvisable release. A copy of the report was given to me by a new head of the psychiatric unit following my receipt of this one (below) from an official at the college with whom I am not acquainted as part of an attempt to substantiate that I had not been accused of anything of the sort that Dr Hall professes I have, his opinion remaining the basis for my exclusion from further education despite all the government’s promises and the real or imagined concerns of the MP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your Ref
Suffolk College
Rope Walk lpswich Suffolk
United Kingdom IP4 1LT
Our Ref DNH/VM

Date 7 June 1994

Telephone (0473) 255885
Fax (0473) 230054
Principal
Derek Mortimer OBE BSc MEd

Vice Principal
David Hall MSc PhD ARCS DIC FinstP
Vice Principal
Professor Dave Muller BEd PhD 0.Psychol FBF~S FRSA
PERSONAL

Dear Mr Whiting

I understand that you were constrained to St Clements Hospital under a Section of the Mental Health Act following an act of violence against the property of a member of staff of this College.I understand also that part of the reason of the constraint was a number of letters alleged to have been written by you and containing implied threats against other members of the College Staff.

In the circumstances, in order to protect staff, have option but to bar you from all College premises henceforth. You should be aware that the effect of this statement is that should you nevertheless enter College premises or lands you will be in law a trespasser and will be dealt with appropriately.

You will of course be welcome to apply to join a course at some time in the future when you can provide medical evidence that you are no longer considered a potential threat to others. Until that evidence has been provided no application from you will be approved.

Yours sincerely

Dr DN Hall
VICE PRINCIPAL (RESOURCE)
Copied to: Head of CCPU
Faculty and Unit Administrators
Academic Registrar
Assistant Registrar (Admissions)
Site Officer
Site Services Superintendent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will of course note that I have been told that I must prove my innocence in the face of unsubstantiated accusations despite something like 700 years legal tradition to effect that the burden of proof is on the accuser ; as to the allegations that the Police gave him such and such a reason for this constraint I cannot comment as they have consistently refused to discuss anything whatsoever with me including : the whereabouts of sundry items of personal property ; a prized family heirloom in particular ; the conduct of my legal aid Solicitor and the nature of charges of which I have been found guilty, which was something of a formality in view of the fact that I was unable to get a not guilty plea entered on my behalf but that is another story which is obviously nothing to do with the fact that I had been making noises about this at the College where the lecturer Father of another possible suspect for the Burglary in question which happened to be at my Father’s home and the place I had been living for a year, happens to have an influential job and suffice it to say that it isn’t in the least bit likely that this is the real or at least among one of possibly several plausible explanations for one’s exclusion from the premises. As for the suggestion that breaking a few pounds worth of windows as arguably no more than a practical joke was an unacceptably serious let me point out as I have done in the Life History section on my C.V. that in the years prior to this event there had been the victim of several incidents including : the robbery of £6) from the flat by a known party who was neglected for any attention ; a serious assault with a deadly weapon ; another serious assault with a deadly weapon ; another robbery by a known (drug crazed prostitute) party (of an electric sewing machine)from another flat where I had lived to quote a few more examples of things which had been deliberately overlooked (the second serious assault with a knife was prosecuted but not in the manner I requested) and of other such incidents there was at least a mugging or two that I didn't bother to report (of which, again there are more details in my C.V. Life History

Regarding the former document , firstly : the date given as my DoB is incorrect I was not born on 27 / 07 / 64 ; secondly the dates given as those of the detention are in fact also incorrect, the document makes no mention anywhere of the fact that I refused to stay at the hospital, returned home within minutes of being admitted and was not returned by the Constabulary for almost a week by which time, amongst other things, my Landlord had refused to co-operate with them in their efforts to gain entrance to my home. I was then subjected to something like ten days confinement and did not return home until approximately the 28th I believe, during which time I was threatened with six months arbitrary strait jacketed solitary confinement for refusing to undress and display my nether regions to one member of staff there by the name of John Morton : these little clerical errors (especially over the dating of the detention which was quite obviously made up for some reason) must surely betray to such a learned professional analytic mind as your own that the document was drawn up under a conspiratorial air in which some senior figure directed a clerk of some sort to record certain fictions which he or she guiltily lacked the nerve to carry out effectively.

Let us take the first paragraph : I did not report that I had smashed a window at the Suffolk College, it should have been imparted by the senior Police Officer on the morning of the 9th that I had broken a window, but it was in the neighbourhood of Norwich Road and a full stop should have been inserted after that remark not a comma. There are three other specific statements in the first paragraph : that I consumed some alcohol prior to becoming angry ; that I wanted to be arrested in order to draw attention to the local Education Department ; that I wished to be arrested in order to draw attention to an MP. The casual reader would be likely to interpret this as a reference to either a Military Policeman or a Member of Parliament, do you not agree ?

Should anyone ever smash windows with the intention of drawing attention to apparently unconnected third parties one would indeed obviously be likely to question their state of mind would one not ? My version of what occurred on the morning of March the 9th 1994 is as follows.

I had been doing one or two jobs of refurbishing the state of the grounds of the house in which my flat is located the previous evening for which I receive the use of it’s garage : you understand that those involved in any such endeavour tend not to resemble well groomed young reporters I am sure. I had been reflecting upon the fact that the previous year I had resigned from a College course because I was not getting my work marked or returned to me and was being refused the necessary information, amongst other things that I required in order to make an application for a University place and was also thinking quite angrily about the fact that I believed that this might have been as a result of the son of a senior lecturer knowing more about a burglary for which I think I was convicted , than I actually knew myself, and that the Police had routinely ignored representations I had made since at least 1986 to that effect, and in other related matters: at present I have official complaints proceeding against the, one hesitates to say gentleman, the person whom last represented me in Court, which was in mid 1985 ; against the Police with the newly revamped Police Complaints Authority ; and against the staff of St Clement’s of course.

I had recently witnessed that three Negro men who mugged me were not convicted despite incontrovertible evidence, on some technicality, (of which I have not been kept informed and is part of the substance of my complaining. This involved the employment of a number of solicitors and judicial figures at monstrous expense and had therefore reasoned that a similar display of petty vandalism such as happened to those items of mine which were not stolen during the attack would be likely to evoke such legal aid assistance subsequent to the formality of being charged with criminal damage : I feel sure that you must agree that this is a perfectly logical train of thought and had consumed only a modest nip of brandy to nerve myself to the task after deciding on that course of action.

If I may return briefly from that point in time at which I first saw this report to, the morning of the 9th of March, it may serve to make matters clearer with regard to so much in the remainder of the report which is so clearly the reverse of anything I had mentioned in passing (especially with regard to the remarks about personal hygiene) to the persons whom I would adduce had put it together . At no time did I make any serious comment to the psychiatric personnel beyond the statement that I was there against my every wish and that the consequences were likely to be disingenuous to say the least. It is common knowledge locally that I spent several years on the streets after leaving school and I therefore have a familiarity with not only the world of drug abuse, but that of prostitution and all sorts of things.

I had been signed in by the arresting Officer and checked my belongings into the desk Sergeant’s locker and so forth and had a brief word with the duty Solicitor who advised me that they were only able to detain me for so long without making charges and so on when the balding Officer who was apparently in charge of the Station asked me to speak to a social worker and a Police Surgeon . At that point I had no serious suspicion that he might be trying to put over what he was/is because the thought is just so utterly risible, ludicrous beyond belief. I have had and do have reputation for many arguably questionable things and during the quarter of a century that I have lived in the town have made the acquaintanceship of thousands of people, probably tens of thousands of people most of whom would probably remember me as a shabbily dressed urchin who was curiously well spoken for someone of that appearance from a third rate maisonette on Chantry Estate : this tends to stem from the fact that my father was the boss of Chantry Library in the late sixties amongst other things and that I, as most of My Father’s side of the family are quite literate and well spoken if you like. All sorts of people, the humble and the proud, the great and the lowly, the witless and the wise, no-one had ever accused me of being less than thoroughly of a ‘ mens sana in corpore sano ‘ to borrow a Latin phrase.

I was flattered at first and sought briefly to recount why I had perpetrated the dastardly act of breaking a few quidsworth of someones’ windows to the Police Surgeon whose name I did not learn but was distinctive by his youth and pristine clean shaven appearance. The two did indeed make a stark contrast for the single immediate striking distinctive feature of the Social Worker was her disgusting smell which in a tiny windowless subterranean boxroom was simply foul . The second was the fact that she could scarcely speak English which is obviously why she could not understand a single thing that was being said and has presented this incredible garbled first paragraph in which this is all too palpable. I mean, this is making sense to you isn’t it ? You do understand what I am saying ? It may help to mollify your no doubt law abiding nature if I tell you that since 1980 I had been robbed of £60 in my home by an known party (unprosecuted) ; had my wrist fractured in a road rage incident by some two dozen heavyweight Negroes (unprosecuted) ; and had a pair of shoes confiscated by the Police besides numerous other incidents in which I was an aggrieved party including that of my having been beaten and mugged of a watch and fifty pounds in 1991 out of which matter someone has as I say has made a rather expensive charade of apparently pretending to prosecute.

Regarding paragraph two : again the first sentence is common knowledge the second obviously less so, but suffice it so say that there are always perfectly good reasons for anyone not to wish to discuss matters that might be of some social importance with persons who cannot even remember what the date is.

As for paragraph three I have only to say that it is not the case that I have made any statement as such to any of the persons involved in compiling this report other than to the effect that I was not willing to accept any treatment, and that which I did was under the express threat of six months sedated and strait jacketed solitary confinement which I swore would incur a nemesis. The remainder has been cajoled out of some poor ancillary nurse in view of the lack of any noticeable symptoms of any mental malaise and consists of nothing more than idle gossip and hearsay. I didn’t have four ‘good’ O levels I had four ‘bad’ or average O levels and that just goes to show.

In paragraph four the basic dissembling intent of the document all too evident from it’s general appearance is revealed . It wasn’t the Psychiatrist who couldn’t speak English "conversation with big words " and desperately needed a bath "poor self hygiene" but the "paranoid person" who lacked "auditory hallucinations " or "suicidal ’’ inclinations, there is no such word as "ideation.’’ The same person whose conversation was yet "relevant." So whoever wrote the document is saying at this point that something is supposed to be wrong with this person who in the final analysis, only has "paranoid ideas about people" The only trouble is that the same person for some reason failed to remember what they were !

In paragraph five the document is drawn to a close with a string of mystifying statements : I was probably still at large by the 16th and was certainly ‘under arrest’ for several days beyond that date ; when I was returned I was perplexed, by the thought that anyone would want to prejudice their professional reputations by acting in any other manner than to dismiss the ridiculous suggestion that my behaviour was anything other than logical or predictable. My mood was not fine. far from it, I did not have any exams that June, I did not settle down well and constantly protested my innocence and I have not desisted from so doing, I did not eat anything for several days and eventually again did so under duress, that’s just the bits of gossip that are back to front.

Before proceeding further I should like you to confirm that with the best will in the world that I could not have been "persuaded to stay " for a fortnight "under observation" between the 9th and the 17th of the month. Again it is said that I was not deluded or suicidal and was "orientated in time person and place," in short in five paragraphs we find a description of someone who has failed to exhibit all these symptoms of psychosis, but according to the author is nonetheless paranoid and feels that people drop hints about him. These, without any further mention of such hints or as to what the subject was paranoid about, as you probably are aware are what is known as unsubstantiated accusations : the invitation to the outpatient’s clinic was ignored.

Not wanting to bore your well meaning journalistic aspirations with any comment about how stupid you might be likely to look if were to surface insensitively that you have been giving the MP and the powers that be all this publicity about how responsibly they have been looking into peoples’ concerns whilst others’ futures, and their loved ones lie buried but it is in fact the case that you claim to be keeping people informed about these serious social issues. The amount of letters I have written on this matter has run into hundreds already : the last public watchdog body that I spoke to failed to disagree that the report was incompetent and duplicitous and said despite the fact that I had been onto a new head of the Psychiatric department at St Clements within weeks of receiving the letter from Dr Hall of the Suffolk College that it could do nothing because I had not done anything within a year of these matters coming to light. Many of the letters on my list had been written by the time the public investigation was undertaken and I consider it dishonest of them not to have included such material, which was known of, in any appraisal of the allegation that standards at St Clements were unacceptably low and to have the record set straight by having the allegations dismissed as inaccurate. David Long Chief Executive of the Local Area Health Authority continues to describe the report including the fitting of a fortnight into eight days as "a factual report of the Consultant's clinical opinion." The same Consultant Kupersmitt mentioned in this report : whilst I cannot remember the precise dates of my degrading incarceration at this minute I can certainly remember that someone had seen fit to bathe her in the interim.

On October the 2nd, 2000 a new Human Rights Act came into force in the UK : the Home Secretary Jack Straw said of the new Act 'it will bring justice home.' As an ex Labour party member my views on the subject were privately canvassed some two years ago. My response to the question,'Do you think that a new Act would be a good idea ?' Was, 'So long as it is printed on soft paper to thereby endow it with a usefulness that it would obviously otherwise lack.'

Yours Sincerely

This is a copy of a letter (partly reworked) to the Editor of the Newspaper in my home town and it concerns the fact that I'm really not amused about those who have wasted resources constructing a Human Rights Act when The UK Police can do exactly as they like : especially in view of the ongoing situation partly outlined by the letter. Anyone who considers that there are any meaningful restraints imposed on these 'Gentlemen,' (who aren't law abiding without 30 Grand a year each of the nation's wealth) by the civil authorities, have been hoodwinked by the administration or are incredibly naive.

     see also The MP and his Mental Health.