Thursday 10 October 2013

On World Mental Health Day




Last year on World Mental Health Day, nearly a year after my mother's death, I wrote a letter of protest to the Deans at Plymouth University which was also a request for help.


In my letter, called "On World Mental Health Day", I asked for a professional opinion of what the likely effects on a person's mental health would be if they:

1. were in a whistle blowing situation
    and
2. were about to suffer a bereavement
    and
3. were approached with multiple offers of help based on the first two situations by someone who then    suddenly never spoke to them again and started an extensive smear campaign about them instead without ever explaining why.

That's because that's exactly what happened to me, through my contact with one of their Senior Mental Health Lecturers, one Richard Byng who with his wife, bounced into our lives when I was in the UK two years ago because my mum was dying.  They were absolutely adamant that they were there "to help".

I've never seen anyone blow as hot and cold as Melanie and Richard Byng.  I've also never met any adults less able to take responsability for their own actions. I've met four year olds who could take more responsibility.

This Senior Mental Health Lecturer and his wife, having enthusiastically persuaded us to "let them help", were then even more enthusiastic in smearing a whole family far and wide, even to the extent of trashing their own stated position on a political platform of 'dangerous' pseudo education, all to avoid simply saying "we're sorry we bit off more than we could chew, and made a bit of a mess in your life at such an awful time for you".

My letter to the Deans was both a protest, and a request for help, because it seemed clear to me that the discovery that someone with a Senior post in mental health was prepared to actively victimise people he's just persuaded to accept his "help" should be concerning, and I hoped that the Dean's concern for the honest reputation of the University might put him in a position to bring the situation back into the realms of sanity.

I was told by the Dean that nothing could be done about any of that information unless I made a formal complaint.  But I couldn't really do that because Richard's behaviour didn't really effect anyone at the University, it was just that, right around the same time they was using his mental health credentials to give himself and his wife a platform in the national press, she was also busy smearing my mental health around the place and on Twitter.


That's how come that skeptics, with their hatred of Steiner Schools, can't acknowledge the actual result of a school having had to admit through Human Rights process to the notorious unchecked bullying that they still go on about, but having to actually hide it instead, because very few skeptics have the independence of thought (courage of their own convictions) to admit that their "mates" screwed up there and to insist on defending the principles of evidence-base which the settlement represents.

(I suppose an upside of this is that I've seen right through the claim of "evidence-based skepticism" that often only means, "whatever my mate tells me to say", and that's going to come in useful as the volume goes up.)

Had I made such an official complaint, I would have been told that this was nothing to do with his job as Senior Mental Health Lecturer, and in fact the person who was supposed to tell me how to make a complaint never did, but in actual fact the Dean did do something with the information anyway, and that something came back to me as that I'd tried to lose Richard Byng his job.

It may not matter to Plymouth University if someone takes a fat salary for knowing and caring about mental health, but allows themselves to knowingly behave in ways likely to damage the mental health of others "outside" work, but to me that seems wrong.

Call me old fashioned but I think that what Richard Byng does in his private life should reflect his professional ethics.

But you know what? Maybe it actually does, because on the anniversary of that letter, Richard Byng is to be congratulated on having recently been promoted to Clinical Associate Professor in Primary Care (his main area of research being in primary care mental health).

Clearly being a mental-health ruining personal shit is no barrier to success in the field, which must be such a comfort to all those with mental health problems. Happy Days.

11 comments:

  1. I just googled the bloke and he's not Prof of Mental Health but Prof of Primary Care Research. Are you saying you weren't trying to get him sacked? If not, what were you trying to do?

    "using his mental health credentials to give himself and his wife a platform in the national press"

    Your picture doesn't back up this accusation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment Abi.

      Abi said "I just googled the bloke and he's not Prof of Mental Health but Prof of Primary Care Research".

      I accept that his title is Professor in Primary Care and have amended it accordingly but his focus in Primary Care is mental health.

      Abi said "Are you saying you weren't trying to get him sacked? If not, what were you trying to do?"

      "I wrote a letter of protest ... which was also a request for help". First paragraph.

      Had I made an official complaint I would have been told that it was nothing to do with his job as Senior Mental Health Lecturer as his actions did not take place in the course of his work i.e, there was clearly never any possibility to have any effect on his employment only to draw attention to his actions by way of protest and there is always the possibility that someone will take responsibility or try and help. Some people don't like injustice and victimisation.

      Abi said ""using his mental health credentials to give himself and his wife a platform in the national press" Your picture doesn't back up this accusation".

      Yes it does in fact. The credentials he chose to cite in the paper were "medical academic" and his primary area of medical academic research was and is ... mental health. Now he's an associate professor developing primary care with a focus on ...mental health.
      His particular interest is primary care mental health with specific areas of expertise and interest in
      Shared care for long term mental illness
      Content of consultations for mental illness
      Treatment of depression and
      Offender health care

      Delete
  2. Why does none of this surprise me. Berate the whistle blower, promote to persecutor. What a wonderful way to run our world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The extent of the boys-club (including the Msogynists) is absolutely unbelievable, but more than that it's unacceptable and unnecessary, except in as much as for those "in the club" who like to promote themselves: for them it's crucial.

      Personally I'd much rather not be publishing on this issue, my interests are broad as you can see from my vids, my films, and my interactions, and on this subject I've already done a lot of the work that Mr Steiner UK tells journalists can't be done, but he is trying to rubbish all that work among a stinking pit of post-cult sectarianism and it's simply wrong for someone to publicly pretend to be helping kids and actually be trashing them.

      Perhaps I'm just old fashioned but I actually prefer an out and out bastard to someone who's pretending to care but is fake.

      Delete
  3. Abi, I have not visited my own blog for a couple of days - I have been very busy, so I've just seen your further comment. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear on this actual blog post that I will not publish ad hominem comments. As you claim to have looked at other posts, you will have seen my policy there very clearly though, so it seems you may have just popped in for a bit of a troll.

    There is no value in calling people names. Neither any value in trying to make out I don't publish comments since your first one is right up there.

    If you are willing to try and rephrase your comment to leave out the personal insults, smears and stigma labelling and engage with the actual issues, in a respectful fashion, I will be willing to read it again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ad hominem is "a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument".

      There are no ad hominems in my comments. I have not used any irrelevant or even relevant fact about you as an excuse to reject your argument. I reject your argument because you don't give evidence for it. What I assume you object to is that I have told you how you come across AS A RESULT of what you have written here. You might not like it but it is not an ad hominem.

      Obviously you have no response about your lack of evidence so you hide behind an allegation about what I've written as an excuse not to publish it and let other people judge it for themselves.

      Gotcha.

      Delete
    2. Abi

      Here are some further definitions of "ad hominem",

      "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument". from Dictionary.com

      "An argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack". from About.com grammar

      "1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
      2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made" from Merriam Webster

      and further information from the definition you cite yourself:

      "First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

      Person A makes claim X.
      Person B makes an attack on person A.
      Therefore A's claim is false."

      This is exactly what your comment did, repeating itself quite a few times - which is why I did not publish it. All the capitals in the world in your comment cannot hide that you are merely talking about how I come across "to you". The other commenter for example does not appear to agree with you i.e. it's simply a negative personal opinion of me - QED.

      I've published this one, however, and have one question for you about your pretence that I didn't publish the last one due to not wanting to provide evidence for what what I'm saying.

      You took issue with my assertion in the above post that Richard Byng is a mental health professional, using those credentials to achieve a platform in a national paper on pseudo-science with his wife who was indulging in mental health stigmatising and smearing on Twitter. I showed you that in fact he was and is such a Mental Health Professional, I demonstrated that he and his wife were on that public platform, and I showed you the tweet from his wife, which you can see was around the same time.

      That is what I asserted, and I have presented the evidence for it. You then veered off into ad hominem and are now pretending that you didn't, and saying that I didn't provide the evidence which I clearly did. You cannot disprove that either by attacking me with ad hominem, by trying to excuse or minimise the behaviour, or by saying it was only one tweet, as I only presented one.

      Whether you agree or disagree with what she did, is another matter entirely, but your opinion of me personally is none of my business, neither does it have any bearing on the facts of this matter. Sending me insults that you know I won't publish and then saying "oh look she won't provide evidence" is a transparent game. So is pretending to have read more that I've written which, in any case, if you had you would know that this is certainly not the only stigmatising words or actions by this person towards me.

      So, now please tell me what evidence I haven't provided to back up my actual original assertion, and/or go and gotcha-troll someone else.

      Delete
  4. I'm afraid that just saying I did something isn't an argument any more than just saying Richard Byng did something is an argument.

    To make a case that I am guilty of ad homming you, you need to cite the sentence that you see as an attack on your character and explain exactly how I have used this to reject your argument. As I have not attacked your character and have only pointed to your lack of evidence to reject your argument, I am confident that you are unable to do this.

    I am not going to repeat the perfectly civil reasoning I offered for why your assertion that he was "using his mental health credentials to give himself and his wife a platform in the national press" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That is the least serious of the allegations you make against this man.

    How about these:

    "smearing a whole family far and wide", "actively victimise people he's just persuaded to accept his "help"" "takes a fat salary for knowing and caring about mental health, but allows themselves to knowingly behave in ways likely to damage the mental health of others"

    There is absolutely nothing in your article to back up any of this. If, for example, he is really smearing your family far and wide then provide the links to or screenshots of his blog, his website, his columns in online journals, his tweets, his emails or anywhere at all where he is doing what you claim he is doing.

    If you prove unable to show even one example, then it seems you are smearing him - and I note you haven't specified what you are hoping to achieve by it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I'm afraid that just saying I did something isn't an argument any more than just saying Richard Byng did something is an argument."

    No I agree, it's not an argument, they're both just facts.

    "you need to cite the sentence that you see as an attack on your character"

    No, I don't, you need (want) me to do that to make your tolling worthwhile. I don't publish ad homs, as I’ve said before, and it's up to commenters to make sure their comments don't include any.

    "As I have not attacked your character"

    That is what an ad hom is

    "and have only pointed to your lack of evidence to reject your argument"

    That is a bare-faced lie, which I can only "prove" by publishing your ad hominems, which I've already said I don't do.

    Tell you what though, if enough people write to me going "oh we all think you're pretending that that Abi person wrote ad hominems so you don't have to publish her "perfectly civil reasoning"", then I'll let you know and you can publish the comment somewhere else, ok?

    "I am not going to repeat the perfectly civil reasoning I offered"

    I answered your point about him being a mental health professional - the rest of your 'reasoning' simply tried to minimise the importance of what he did (using your personal insults towards me as the excuse for why it doesn't really matter), without giving any evidence that it wasn't true.

    And if you're not prepared to repeat what you claim is "civil reasoning" without ad homs, goodbye.

    The facts indicate that he was doing all those things. The evidence for how extensive the victimisation and smearing (which don’t seem to bother you at all) has been and continues to be is all over all those blog posts you've just dismissed with further ad homs.

    "provide the links to or screenshots of his blog, his website, his columns in online journals, his tweets, his emails or anywhere at all where he is doing what you claim he is doing".


    If you can read, you will see that this article relates to something I wrote last year, about something that happened the year before. Your quotes make it sound as though I am saying he is doing this now, while lecturing me on being accurate, but that's trolling for you, isn't it.

    Richard and Melanie Byng did do this, it's just a fact. And do you know what else is a fact? They're not even denying it, so what makes anonymous"Abi", who's had a google profile for about 5 minutes, think that they even care who knows about it?

    It seems rather fashionable among the self-labelling "evidence-based" to be the opposite of what they claim on the sly, trash whoever they like, and then to get someone else, some grunt-troll, to go and keep the lid on it if people don't just take it lying down rather than daring to actually address it, which isn't dodgy at all is it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. And .... "it seems you are smearing him"

    I guess we'll find out, if Richard or Melanie ever find a voice. I haven't blocked any avenue of communication with either of them, so they are free to object.

    I completely agree that it would be absolutely disgusting to "smear" someone by making something like this up; but then again that's only because it's such a really really horrible thing to actually do. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't know that it actually did happen.

    Just because you personally don't give a shit about people treating others so viciously, in contempt even of their own responsible professional positions, doesn't mean that other people won't find it abhorrent,

    And not everybody who gets beaten up and told to fuck of, will just do as they are told. What a shocker eh?

    And ooops, oh look, here is that example again of them using his mental health credentials to get into the paper while she also indulges in some mental health stigmatising on twitter!

    "you haven't specified what you are hoping to achieve".

    I'm simply documenting an action I took a year ago to protest about scandalously unethical behaviour and to ask for help to try and prevent the inevitable distortions that have occurred as a result of it. The purpose of documenting it is so that it is recorded.

    I think Abi, that you're absolutely determined to troll me until you get some sort of 'rise'. You’ve enthusiastically given your own negative personal opinion of me AS your reason why the (actually quite shocking) evidence presented above is of no consequence. Now you say you didn't and apparently expect me to engage on that basis. But there's little point not publishing ad homs if I'm going to be trolled into spending my valuable time analysing them anyway is there? So I give you fair notice that I won't be doing that again.

    I can't stop you sending me comments, but unless you engage with the evidence that is presented here, without attempting to minimise the disgusting practise of mental health smearing and stigmatising on the flimsy excuse that you haven't heard of any particular phrase personally, or for any other manipulative, ad hom, or irrelevant reason of trollification, I'm not going to feel obliged to publish or answer them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Update: 15/7/2016

    Abi of course, as suspected at the time, was none other than uber-troll and proxy Maria Machlaghlan in one of her many sock-puppet guises.

    I had blocked her, only because she was so aggressive to me from the outset - and "Abi" was her way of invading my boundary and breaking through that block, to have another go at me, presumably out of blind and misplaced faith in Melanie and Richard Byng.

    Maria needs to understand I will report her for using aliases when blocked though and I have the documentary evidence that Abi was her so hopefully she will bear that in mind.

    Re her point about not having any evidence for my allegations - they all turned out to be 100% on the nail except that Richard Byng was much more actively involved than we could possibly have imagined given the ethical demands of his professional position and I don't believe that anyone subject to covert targeting and cyber stalking like that wouldn't want it brought into the open.

    Having to even say that just highlights the opportunist fakery of some supposed progressive thinkers - what kind of genuine humanist would ever need to practise covert harassment and stalking?

    ReplyDelete