A message to Warden McPhail of Radley 2009
This message was first put on utube in November 2009 as Warden “Aberdeen Angus” McPhail refused to speak to me about Revd David Coulton, the homosexual pedophile chaplain who groomed me from
January 1979 until November/December 1982 at St Peter’s College, Radley .
I reported Coulton and “Doctor” Deenesh Khoosal to the police on March 26 2007 as both of them are
a danger to the public and particularly children. The police “investigation” was a joke.
Aberdeen Angus sent me one irrelevant and evasive email in response to a basic request for information
and then put the phone down on me when I tried to speak to him.
When I put up a blog about “Dodgy Dave”, McPhail immediately telephoned him to say that there was a
“nasty” blog about him on the internet. Dodgy Dave immediately rang me to find out what was going on
and assured me that Warden Dennis Silk would have invited me to Radley to talk to me and find out out
what was going on.
Please decide for yourselves whether it is me who is nasty:
Some of the 2009 comments posted by the Radley inmates on utube constitute criminal offences under
the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
These Acts relate to messages which are “grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing” and those.
“conveying a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the
recipient.” Section 23 may be used as an alternative to prosecution for hate crimes.
As I have explained to Jock Mullard at the Radleian Society, the “senior management” are well aware that
my social tutor, John “Dinky” Doulton, “Dodgy Dave” and “Doctor” Deenesh Khoosal bullied and abused
me into a suicide attempt in my study in G Social on the evening of 6/11/82.
It is utterly unacceptable that McPhail and his former minion “Old Stinker” Reekes both slandered me to the students and encouraged them in the most evil examples of misogyny, hated of homosexuals and repulsive wanking comments that I have heard since I left Radley.
An Email Response from Mark Williams -Thomas
Mark Williams-Thomas MA, Pg Dip, TV Presenter & Criminologist
According to the school speakers website:
“Mark has dyslexia and left school with very few qualification having found school work particular difficult.” (sic)
Mark states on his website that during his ”police service, he specialised in child protection and major crime and he is renowned throughout the UK’s police forces as well as the national media for his expertise in these areas.”
As I explained in my open letter to Mark on 12/12/2012, I have a First in English: research and textual analysis are a passion.
I was one of the first two Learning Support Assistants at the University of Satan working with a chap who had been “diagnosed” as dyslexic.
Whilst I am impeccibly politically correct, Mark’s response to my open letter is illustrative of the problems that I have dealing with incompetent Police Defectives with learning difficulties who found their school work “particular difficult”:
Hi
I have ready almost all the attachments – a couple i could not open.
I think your comment about not engaging with victim of living paedophiles on Twitter is entirely wrong. I spend everyday talking to and helping people who are victims of abuse – both at the hands of Savile and living ones. I spent a lot of time giving them support. It is only me and sadly I cannot help everyone.
I am at odds what to suggest for you – it is clear having read the TVP letter that they have looked into your complaint and feel that they have investigated it thoroughly.
What I cant see if what specifically you allege offenders have done ?
I note the Dr was arrested and interviewed and that it was not proceed with – has anyone else ever made a complaint against him?
To understand properly why don’t you list alongside each person exactly what you allege they have done- this is then much easier to read.
All the best
An Open Letter to Mr Williams Thomas
Dear Mr Williams Thomas,
Thank you for your excellent work exposing the repulsive Jimmy Saville although you do not appear to wish to engage with the victims of living pedophiles on twitter.
I have personally been engaged in a thirty year battle for justice after being groomed for abuse whilst an inmate at Radley College by the Revd David Coulton, the Chaplain of Radley College (and later Eton) .
Joan Bakewell wrote of the following scene from the BBC documentary Public School (1980) that Coulton was an “actor who seemed to be played by Alan Bennett”:.
Here he is:
The “ministry of buggery” and other emotional abuse started in January 1979
It continued until I was referred for counselling in the Warneford “Hospital” on 15/11/82 and was assaulted by “Doctor Deenesh Khoosal”, a sub-literate foreign homosexual child molester.
I described this experience to Viv Wilson of Bitterne CID in early 2008 and my CID Witness Statement may be read on my blog.
I reported “Gay Dave” and “Doctor” Deenesh Khoosal in March 2007 as it is in the public interest not to have pedophiles and child molester in positions of responsibility.
Some of the local police treated me so badly that it was months before I was able to make this statement. DCI Kath Barnes bullied me into a local resolution of police harassment of me after they had insulted me by claiming that I am a “vulnerable witness”.
She was the Hampshire police spokeswoman in the case of the suicide of Sarah Clark; same people, same complaints:
So it it took months to recover enough to make a statement:
Following this statement internal medical notes were found in the Warneford which corroborate the account I gave 25 years later.
After bullying by Kev Parsons of TVP who claimed that “nothing happened in the Warneford” and that a CD of scanned documents was an electronic copy of my statement, I obtained the medical notes and protested strongly that there is a written record of assault.
Legally, handling the genitals of a minor without consent from the parents or, in this case, consent from the school in loco parentis is an assault and it is legally recognised that this can lead to pychological/psychiatric injury. Equally Khoosal would have to prove that fondling my genitals was medically necessary.
That was just one aspect of his multiple offences against me.
Sargeant Angie Murray came down from the Oxford Child abuse unit with a colleague and I informed her that Khoosal is a homosexual. She arrested him on September 4th 2008 but admitted that she was too incompetent (or just lazy) to actually read his notes and let him find his own notes about my genitals.
Following this pathetic episode, Murray told me that Khoosal is “very eminent and very well protected” and therefore the police were not going to do anything. She added that she did not believe him when he said that he did not remember me. In a later conversation she harrassed me and said that she had examined the medical records – a blatant lie – and found them “perfectly normal”.
I therefore asked the medical blogger, “Dr No” of “Bad Medicine” to comment on these notes from a doctors perspective ( Murray was too ignorant and lacking in insight to realise that she is not qualified to comment on these records)
Dr Sinclair concludes his |Medical Commentary that Khoosal’s notes show:
(1) Misdiagnosis, followed by an inappropriate management plan that ignored the real
presenting complaint
(2) A sudden jarring genital examination at the start of a psychiatric OPA entry
(3) An excessive focus on masturbatory activity and management, given the
presenting complaint
Not only this, but a suicide diary found in the notes gives concrete evidence of psychiatric injury from horrific bullying and sexual assault of a child. There was no sign of mental illness when I came into contact with this predator.
After further protests, I had a meeting with DCIs Paul Gration and Michelle Dillon of Thames Valley Police at St Aldates Police station on May 19th 2011 I attach the agenda I set and Gration’s stupid, dishonest ignorant responses.
I pointed out during this meeting that, in law, any unconsented touching is assault and it is legally recognised that it can lead to psychiatric/psychological injury. I also pointed out that it is extremely serious to make false allegations of mental illness against a sane minor.
The adults responsible for my welfare as a “vulnerable”, “upset”, “pretty” , seventeen year old drove me into a suicide attempt in my study on 6/11/82 and more than thirty years later I still fighting to clear my name and achieve my basic human rights.
The two dishonest child molesters Coulton and Khoosal tried to take away my life and planned career before it had even begun and I have no sympathy for them or the lazy bent coppers at Thames Valley.
The GMC have used the police inaction and lies about the lack of evidence to do nothing and the police have used the GMCs inaction as an excuse. Cutting some of these useless, corrupt lazy bullies would save money and be a public service.
The IPCC have a copy of the CD of scanned documents as does the Warden of Radley, various lawyers & people in the media. None of them have done anything with the documentation.
The journalist Deborah Orr has commented that it is a “terrible case”, Jane Fae that it is “appalling “, Julie Bindel and Peter Tatchell that it is “shocking“.
Here is Khoosal who, like Jimmy Saville, claims to spend all his time working for the community :
Since I write from Southampton where I took my First in English twenty years after these disgusting child molesters offended against me, I’d like to leave you with some Shakespeare to think about.
I hope the relevance does not need explaining:
Henry Vth The Hanging of Bardolph
I await your comments with eager anticipation,
Best Regards
Kate Middleton
A Medical Commentary on Khoosal’s notes
CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL REPORT
by Dr No of Bad Medicine
Patient’s Name: Kate Middleton (formerly Guy John Napier Middleton)
Date of Birth: 02 September 1965
Report requested by: Kate Middleton
Comments on the referral by Dr Thorne (GP) to Dr Kenyon (Consultant Psychiatrist) in November 1982, and subsequent management by Dr Khoosal (Registrar to Dr Kenyon.
I make these comments as a doctor of nearly 30 years standing, and with experience of both General Practice and psychiatry. The comments relate mainly to observations on the notes, in relation to normal customs and practices, and should not be read as the expert opinion of a consultant psychiatrist.
Note: As I am writing now, and not at the time when the events took place, I have throughout referred to the patient as Kate, and used female pronouns etc except where I have quoted directly from the contemporaneous notes, where I have stuck with the original wording.
Background: In 1982, Kate (at that time known as Guy John Napier Middleton) was a 17 year old student studying for A levels at Radley College, a boarding public school near Oxford.
She was troubled by a certainty, present for many years, that she was in fact a female in a male body.
She approached her GP, Dr Thorne, for assistance and was subsequently referred to a local psychiatrist (Dr Kenyon).
1. The Original Referral Letter (Dr Thorne to Dr Kenyon, dated 15th Nov 82) This is a typical referral letter of its time. Although somewhat unfocused, it does appear to identify the reason for referral as a combination of “identity crisis” and self-harm, and asks for “advice and help” – a standard “please see and advise” referral letter.
The lack of focus (in defining the reason for the referral or the nature of the help requested) is a typical and indeed intended characteristic of such referral letters (the GP is simply saying there is a problem, and it needs specialist help, and does not wish to tie down the specialist’s hands).
Given the nature of the reason for referral (and the fact the GP would have been in a position to know/had access to developmental records etc), it is perhaps unfortunate that no mention is made of the patients physical findings (eg male external genitalia/secondary sexual characteristics etc).
2. Medical Notes from initial OPA with Dr Khoosal at the Warneford on 17th Nov 82 The notes are of typical length (four pages) and follow a typical format for such an assessment. Notable features: (a) The reason given for referral is given as “cross dressing”. Although cross dressing is mentioned in the referral letter, it does not appear to be the primary reason for referral (see above). (b) The content under “P.C.” – which is actually the “H.P.C” (“History of Presenting Complaint) is long and rambling.
This however is not unusual in psychiatric interviews, when the doctor conducting the interview starts by asking the patient questions and writes down the answers verbatim. There is perhaps a slight leaning towards sexual conduct (what the patient has done) rather than sexual identity (what the patient thinks). “Being in the wrong body” – which is in fact the “real” presenting complaint/reason for referral is mentioned once, in the first line, but not followed any further.
(c) “At Present” (top of page two): starts by going back to the “identity crisis (“living a lie”) but the rapidly moves on to behaviour (cross-dressing), although an interest in “people who have had a sex change” and the fact that the patient “wants a sex change” are mentioned.
This section ends with a list of the patient’s expectations of the referral (which is good practice): “- wanted to talk to specialist – to talk to specialist to advise about what he could do
(a) whether he could be arrested for cross-dressing
(b) whether he is going mad
(c) to help him with his confusion
(d) irresponsible to have sex change at present wants to live as a woman for 1 year b/4 sex change”.
This section is important – it gives the clearest account there is of what the patient wanted from the referral (specialist advice about his wish to have a sex change); it also strongly indicates the patient has looked into the matter (the reference to others who have had sex changes; awareness of the “real-life” test (living as a woman for a year).
(d) Family Hx, Family Psychiatric Hx and Personal Hx – all unremarkable.
(e) Psychosexual Hx: perhaps a little intrusive given this is a first interview, but not totally unreasonable given the reason for referral. Given the patient was only seventeen, this questioning would need to be conducted with the utmost sensitivity; a more experienced doctor might prefer to build up some rapport before asking about such intimate details. Apart from anything else, asking too early and too brashly might compromise the veracity of the answers.
If one adds the fact that the interviewing doctor was in fact quite junior (only four years post qualification), then this section takes on a different light. Most doctors find asking about such intimate personal details difficult in their early careers – we need to learn how to handle our own embarrassment.
In this light, the fact that such questions were asked at first interview suggests either a remarkable degree of history-taking skill and maturity on the part of the doctor involved – or a brash charging-in by an over-confident, inexperienced doctor lacking insight into their own ability or what was appropriate in such settings.
(f) Personality: starts as expected (describes the patient’s “normal” (background, underlying) personality; “not shy” – although later it adds “not extrovert at present”) but then becomes what would normally come under a separate heading (eg Substance (mis-)use) ie tobacco/alcohol/street drug use.
(g) Physical Health: A bit scanty. Also no reference to prescribed meds/allergies. (h) Mental State Examination (MSE): Appearance and Behaviour: The word “pretty” jars. It somehow incorporates a sexual dimension almost to the extent of telling us about the interviewers own reaction to what he sees before him. If, as has been suggested, the interviewing doctor was gay, then the use of what amounts to “pretty boy” takes on a whole new raft of potential meanings/implications.
The mention of “good rapport” is common, but is here a little surprising – one would expect, given the content of the interview, a 17 year old student to be considerably embarrassed, with attendant effects on rapport .
It is also at odds with the patient’s subsequent account of the interview. Speech: odd there is no mention of pitch and character Thoughts: unremarkable given the presentation Mood: normally this is subdivided into “subjective” (how the patients says they feel) and “objective” (how they appear to the interviewing doctor).
That said, this section clearly says the patient is not depressed, anxious (or suicidal) ie there is no affective disorder (technically suicidality (as in suicidal ideation etc) comes under “Thoughts” but it can appear here as a relation to mood). Abnormal beliefs/perceptions: none – ie no apparent psychotic symptoms. Cognition and Insight: unremarkable. Taken together, these findings say in effect there is no evidence of mental illness.
(i) Impression: “Impression” is a common heading here (I use it myself) which says in effect: this is what it looks like, but I can’t be 100% sure” In more cut and dried specialties this heading would often be “Diagnosis” eg Dx #NOF (Diagnosis: fractured neck of femur). It is the summary of the doctor’s assessment – and so a very important entry.
The lack of a “firm” psychiatric diagnosis here (identity crisis isn’t really a diagnosis – all the more so given the patient is a teenager, and “identity crisis” is part and parcel of being a teenager) confirms the MSE findings. Even if the interviewing doctor was inexperienced in the field (as by his account he was), something a bit more specific to this particular patient – eg something that included the sexual identity dimension – might have been more focused and so helpful. Be that as it may, the “Impression” (ie “Identity crisis”) confirms that the interviewing doctors has established that, so far as he is concerned, the patient does not have a mental illness (there is no affective or psychotic disorder).
That the raises the obvious question: why is the patient here? Do they even need to be in a psychiatric clinic if they don’t have a psychiatric problem? In most cases, the answer should be a clear “No”.
Nobody benefits from getting the “psychiatric label” when they don’t have a psychiatric problem. It is quite reasonable to see someone once, assess them, conclude there is no psychiatric problem and discharge them.
That would be very reasonable if the patient was a teenager with an typical teenage identity crisis. “Learning” to be a psychiatric patient is the last thing they need. But this patient was not a “typical teenage identity crisis”.
It was a very particular, deep seated and longstanding certainty that she was a female in a male body; and moreover the patient had specific expectations of the referral (noted and recorded by the interviewing doctor) eg specialist advice about sex change operations.
(j) Seen by FEK (ie seen by the consultant): This is common practice for a junior doctor. That said, the consultant’s contribution seems a little out of sync with the presentation (only covers career ambitions/family interactions).
(k) Plan: This is makes little sense given the presentation and the patient’s expectations (and appears to have been influenced by the consultant input i.e. the focus on family).
Some might say it amounted to unwarranted (given the lack of a psychiatric diagnosis) and inappropriate meddling by psychiatrists. What the patient wanted was specialist advice and/or referral; what the patient got was an offer of a non-specific psychotherapy assessment with interim OPD support with a relatively inexperienced junior doctor.
In effect what has happened here is a misdiagnosis, followed by inappropriate over involvement, and an associated failure to define and implement a management plan that would have been appropriate given the patient’s presenting complaint.
3. 18 Nov 82: Brief entry in notes by Dr Khoosal (d/w AS etc): unremarkable (Dr Hawton was considered to have experience in “sexual matters”).
4. Clinic letter dated 18 Nov 82 by Dr Khoosal following 17 Nov appt: a fairly typical post initial assessment interview letter that broadly follows what is in the medical notes. In places it is a bit “funky” e.g. clothes are called “garb” – but then this was Oxford in 1982… It includes detail not in the notes (this is common – you recall something while dictating the letter which didn’t make it into the notes).
The “diagnosis” (“ My impression…”) is the same as that given in the medical notes but the letter adds a note on aetiology which would “undoubtedly involve the distance of his parents, his over identification with his mother, the cold distant father whom he has always hated, he says”.
This may have been influenced by Dr Kenyon; be that as it may, it specifically excludes any reference to sexual identity.
The next paragraph recommends a “long-term psychotherapeutic approach” to help him stand up to his father and “explore the problems he has in his identification regarding his body image” before adding “We agree with him that it is not the right time for him to decide whether he is male of female” – a remark which shows a deep disconnect from the patient’s own reality with the added twist of the opening “We agree with him…”. The remainder of the letter discuss referral options, and that in the meantime the patient will be seen regularly to provide support and counselling “on a focal basis”.
5. Referral letter to Dr Hawton by Dr Khoosal dated 18 Nov 82: an unremarkable referral letter apart from (a) a remark by Dr Khoosal that he is “not sure how to approach someone with these difficulties” and would welcome guidance and (b) a hint, in a undated handwritten note at the bottom of the letter under “Discussed with Dr Hawton” of a diagnosis (“sounds like early transsexual”).
6. File Note: OP interview with Rev D S Coulton (Radley Chaplain) by Derek Manger dated 17/25 Nov 82: This interview appears to have happened on 17 Nov, when the Rev Coulton accompanied the patient to the Warneford. The note is typed (maybe dictated on 17th, typed up/signed off on 25 Nov?).
Who Derek Manger is, and why this note was made, is unclear. It appears to have been seen and initialled by both Dr Khoosal and Kenyon, which suggests it “travelled” through the system as a “report” (it is common practice to initial reports once seen and read).
7. Note by Dr Khoosal 25 Nov 82: a somewhat bizarre entry. Although no follow up detail was included in the 17 Nov notes, presumably an appt was arranged for the 25 Nov. The 25 Nov itself does not start with the context (e.g. OPA Warneford) which would be normal practice. However, it seems likely that this entry refers to an OPA at the Warneford.
The entry starts with “Physical Exam” which is an examination for secondary sexual characteristics followed by an examination of the external genitalia, which are said to be normal (a “tick” in a physical exam means examined, present, normal – often carries the same meaning as NAD – “nothing abnormal detected”).
Opening with the physical exam is highly unusual. The medical habit of taking a history and then doing an exam almost invariably carries through to the way the notes are written up. It cannot be over-emphasised how deeply ingrained these medical habits are. The fact the order is reversed in this note makes it exceptional.
One possible reason for the reversal might be that the examining doctor was in some way not his normal medical self at the time of carrying out the exam/writing up the notes, and that this disrupted his normal habit. There is an off “three dash” entry to the right of the physical exam notes: – Parents and Aunt – masturbates – identity that don’t really fit in at all, followed by a brief account of “Problems at School”.
Next there is the heading “Impression” under which is written: “*** appears keen to talk on topic of transsexualism only. but easily distracted to other areas of problems for him.” – not really what you would expect under “Impression” (it should be a summary e.g. “still depressed, but less suicidal and sleeping better”), followed by a six point list that includes “advised to STOP masturbating for the present” (whether STOP is capitalised is unclear – it is certainly in larger letters) and along with a raft of advice about avoiding confrontation and concentrating on relaxation and – at number
(5) “Reassured about physical exam – nil of note” – which seems a little odd – why the need to record that this “reassurance” was given? Was it even appropriate for a psychiatrist to be examining and pronouncing on such matters? There then follows a two point action plan (write to Dr Storr/See again on 3 Dec). This entry is in reality dominated by an external genital examination by a psychiatrist (itself unusual), a reference to “masturbates” and advice to stop, maybe even STOP masturbation. The normal method and order of note taking has been disrupted. The entry is not signed (although the writing appears to be Dr Khoosal’s). No clinic letter followed the appointment. All in all, there is a sense that the doctor involved is not acting entirely normally at the time of writing this entry.
8. 1 Dec 82 – Khoosal to Storr – referral letter Unremarkable if rather brief (possibly because it follows a phone referral) referral letter. It says Dr Hawton has effectively rejected the referral on waiting list grounds. It contains typical junior doctor grovelling to the great consultant – Dr Khoosal says he has no personal experience, but that Dr Storr has “written and spoken extensively on this very topic”.
9. 3 Dec 82 – letter from Thorne to patient’s mother, “prepping” her about what’s been happening Unremarkable letter. It does note that the problem seems to be “deep seated and serious” and that he is “ not at all sure one can regard this as a passing phase” – the meanings of which are self-evident (and are reinforced by the fact he made the referral in the first place).
10. 3 Dec 82 – OPA with Khoosal A rather disorganised entry. It does however document that the patient alluded to the fact she might harm herself. It is surprising no further exploration or assessment of this risk was undertaken. Reference is again made to masturbation, for reasons that are entirely not clear. The management plan, such as it is, appears more like homework than a medical management plan, including requirements to “write essays” on family members, as well as “record masturbatory fantasies” – a somewhat intrusive and inappropriate requirement given the patient’s presenting complaint.
11. 6 Dec 82 – letter from Khoosal to Storr – additional referral material This letter “updates” Dr Khoosal’s original referral. Nothing particularly remarkable, except for the omission of the masturbation content evident in the 3/12/82 clinic notes. He notes will be happy to continue counselling, but not to undertake psychotherapy, all depending on the outcome of Dr Storr’s assessment.
12. 7 Dec 82 – Seen(? – context is not given) by Storr Disorganised, confused and very difficult to read in places entry in the notes. Concludes (the Delta triangle sign is used to indicate diagnosis): “This mildly psychopathic young man has been “acting out” to order to get expelled from Radley” and notes that he is not suicidal, and not suitable for long term psychotherapy (which is on the face of it consistent with the “diagnosis ”, even if the diagnosis seems to have been plucked out of thin air).
13. 7 Dec 82 – letter from Storr to Thorne following OPA (although he doesn’t actually say he saw the patient)
This letter starts with a somewhat judgemental assessment of the patient’s “histrionic behaviour”, designed to achieve expulsion from Radley.
It also suggests that the patient is “not actively suicidal” and that he should be sent to Geneva (i.e. his parents), and notes that long-term psychotherapy is unlikely to help (this point is in fact covered twice in the letter), though he might need some “support and guidance”.
There are references to the patients expectations (guidance rather than prolonged investigation). Dr Storr appears to have seen the patient to assess whether psychotherapy would be helpful. He makes it clear he thinks the answer in no, and discharges the patient back to Dr Kenyon.
14. 8 Dec 82 – file note by Khoosal following phone call from Radley.
Records a “major explosion” the proceeding Monday: swallowed 6 x 30mg diazepam; dressing in female clothing; GP called, didn’t want patient admitted; patient taken off by uncle; culminating in expulsion from Radley. Concludes with discharge from the Warneford (with option to reassess if returns to Oxford)
15. 15 Dec 82 – letter – Thorne to father. Hopes that things are going well; will forward notes (to Geneva) if required with patient’s consent; recommends seeing Dr Khoosal again “at some time”.
16. 19 Jan 83 – OPA with Khoosal – patient seen alone and then with parents (or parents seen alone?) This OPA presumably made use of the “open door” to see Dr Khoosal again (there is no evidence that this is a re-referral by Dr Thorne). A relatively brief note (2/3 page in all).
Notes patient has been low in mood; covers the patients recent activities and future plans. Mentions masturbation again: “cannot masturbate about being man himself” and notes that “he is still convinced that he is in the wrong body” and he is “reviewing(?) sex change ops in his mind”.
Parents seen and told to avoid confrontation, and treat patient as an adult. No medical management plan is recorded. No follow-up plan recorded.
17. 19 Jan 83 – letter from Khoosal to Thorne following OPA Standard follow up letter with some unhelpful content:
(1) the patient is said to have “ensured that he was expelled from Radley” which carries with it the unsubstantiated suggestion that the patient was indulging in manipulative behaviour
(2) psychoanalysis is recommended for support during the A level period. This suggests a lack of familiarity with psychoanalysis. It is rarely “supportive” and is often very hard work in the early stages – not exactly conducive to getting on with A level studies. It is also completely at odds with Dr Storr’s assessment of the likely value of psychotherapy in this case
(3) the prognosis is said to be “pretty pessimistic” (whatever that means by way of outcome). It is also unclear what diagnosis has such a “pessimistic” prognosis
(4) there is a jarring reference to the father sparing the rod and spoiling the child – when by all accounts exactly the opposite was true The letter in addition appears to discharge the patient, with an option to self re-refer if so wished.
Summary of most striking/salient points
(1) Misdiagnosis, followed by an inappropriate management plan that ignored the real presenting complaint
(2) A sudden jarring genital examination at the start of a psychiatric OPA entry
(3) An excessive focus on masturbatory activity and management, given the presenting complaint
Emails from Julie Bindel
7/7/2011
Hello Kate
I have read the [CID] witness statement and find it shocking.
Is the case against this bastard still live?
What was your experience of Russell Read?
How do you think I may be able to help?
Best, Julie
30/10/2012
Thanks Kate
I will call you as soon as I have some free time, best, Julie x
Julie has the best attitude of all the journalists who I have contacted so far but unfortunately I suspect is very busy
