Why Cambridge and mental health research are evidently not the best mix (And why I didn’t apply to Yale)

The local mental health trust (a bureaucratic mechanism whereby the government  rather than private or local interests provides health services), Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust has close links to the University of Cambridge as it states on their website

We are a University of Cambridge Teaching Trust and member of Cambridge University Health Partners, working together with the University of Cambridge Clinical School.

Cambridge is of course still the place where students are recruited to the intelligence services. In each college, a member of the intelligence services, more often than not in a tutorial capacity will act as a talent scout for the intelligence services, as Richard Tomlinson of the Secret Intelligence Service, stated in page 8 of his book, the big breach

Continuing on to my rooms, it felt flattering to have been approached. For it has been a discreet invitation to join the British Secret Intelligence Service, more commonly referred to by its old wartime name, MI6. Every Oxford and Cambridge college and leading British university has a ‘talent spotter’ like Pilchard, a don sympathetic to MI6 who looks out for suitable recruits. The majority of MI6 recruits come this way from the two most prestigious universities in Britain, though it is not foolproof – Philby, Maclean and Burgess were all recruited into MI6 the same way,

In ethical terms, there is an obvious conflict of interest. it is somewhat difficult to see how a institution of research and teaching where individuals who work or perform research on behalf of the psychiatric services and who work alongside or even as members of intelligence services on a daily basis, can ever be a place where decisions with regard to research and mental health are made in the interests of the individual rather than the state, given that the intelligence services have immunity from prosecution, especially when there is some scandal to conceal,

This situation applies to my college in particular, where student are not just spotted but invited in the hope or expectation that they might work for the intelligence services. Moreover, I have already outlined a situation whereby I was detained on the orders of the intelligence services and where I was asked to work for MI6 and not for the last time.

On a related note, I should wish to comment about the story today where psychiatrists diagnosed Trump as having a dangerous illness. Although one might hate Trump, providing such a diagnosis is entirely unethical and says more about the intentions of the people making it. Back in July, I specifically excluded Yale from any potential university application, because I was aware that they had such a policy to misdiagnose people, a conclusion which I reached based upon certain methods of communication which they use and which I can analyse thanks to my enhanced level of PR.

Furthermore, given my history with the intelligence services and given the fact that there is no doubt in all probability a similar arrangement at that university with such services as exists at Cambridge and given the UKUSA alliance, any application would be an entirely dubious prospect.

On another note, I have not as of yet talked about the scale of harassment in the college which contains innumerable documents as I am minded to do but it some ways it is irrelevant with regard to this post.

It is interesting to note that none of the papers are minded to comment upon this conflict of interest which given how obvious it is, is perhaps a comment upon the journals concerned. In the case of what might be described as the only reputable British journal, Private Eye, it would perhaps be asking too much to expect otherwise in that it is a rather small magazine which is published on a fortnightly basis which devotes much of its 52 pages to humour. Perhaps I have not looked hard enough but on the occasions when I have read it, I have only seen a very brief disparaging comment upon what was already known about the intelligence services. To be fair they do not seem to specialise in that area as the editor Ian Hislop indicate in the following article, although he contradicts himself by stating that in the first place as editor he doesn’t understand new media and technology but then criticises “bonkers websites” which, whilst it might well be a true assessment in terms of accuracy, is unfortunately true of private eye given his lack of understanding of technology, despite the centrality of that to many stories in the media, most notably those stories related to intelligence agencies.

Hislop, wearing a bashed-about business suit and troubled by a tie knot that’s attempting to travel around his neck, doesn’t do new media and technology. “I’m not the person you should ask to tell you what’s wrong with WhatsApp,” he says, helpfully.

In fact, Hislop blames technology for the rise of fake news – or rather he gives fake news some credit, as he is doing so well out of it. “I think technology has encouraged people to lose their faith in any sort of authority in news sources. People say, ‘Oh, Hillary Clinton murdered three people? I didn’t know that.’ The reason you didn’t know that is it isn’t true. It’s just on bonkers websites. Trump is the most blatant example, believing there’d been a terrorist incident in Sweden because he’d seen it on a Fox News report that had taken it from someone else. And he’s the US President!” 

This regrettable lack of expertise might be indicated by the fact that upon my visit to their offices in July 2014, whereupon they appeared to have already made their minds up without examining the emails and other evidence in relation the college (which I have not posted), it was plain to see that their computer facilities were insecure. As a consequence, given the potential for interception of anything I were to send or indeed anything anyone else had decided to send, it is reasonable to suggest that one cannot have confidence that it would be handled in an appropriate manner.

What I say in particular with regard to psychiatry and the existence of surveillance might be incorrect and I would like any flaws  to be pointed out. The fact is no professional anywhere has found any counterarguments presumably because there are none.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s