31
Oct
10

A small dilemma…..

As you may or may not know, last year there was a bit of….well…I was going to say
“debate” but I can’t really say that considering that the people the debate was mainly
between – Stephen Ralph and supporters on one side and me and Ciaran Farrell on the
other – ended up in me being chucked off MEAUK resulting in no debate at all.
Mr. Farrell had already been expelled, probably for the heinous crime of being
doggedly awkward and using a lot of words in the process. However the expulsion
of John Sayer from MEAUK merely for defending the right of Mr. Farrell to express
his views on matters and my uploading of those views to YouTube was, in my view,
utterly irrational and immature and, if anything, worse than my expulsion.

All this stemmed from the YouTube series I recorded on the NICE judicial review and
two parts in particular, twelve and thirteen, in which Mr. Farrell criticised the tactics that
were used by “Margaret Williams” aka Kate Stewart. Point being that a few months later
I was sent some text from an anonymous source, out of the blue, more or less saying
“I thought I’d send this to you….”.

What I was sent was a series of messages from a message board/forum in which a poster
called “flopsy” wrote a defence of Margaret Williams. Believe it or not, I had no problem
with another view being put (the whole point of the YouTube series was to air views) but
the messages mainly included vitriol aimed at unnamed individuals, although you didn’t
have to be Sherlock to deduce who those unnamed individuals were.

The posts also contained some allegations, some oblique and some not so, about the
unnamed individuals. The allegations ranged from the debatable to the downright
scurrilous and untrue. One of the individuals whose identity was hinted at by “flopsy”,
after some reflection, took the decision to write an email to “flopsy” about these posts
in order to politely correct the damaging misconceptions made in the posts.

This resulted in a phone call from a DC at Paddington Green to the home of the emailer
saying that they had received a complaint. The emailer explained the situation to the DC
whereupon the DC advised the emailer not to be in contact with “flopsy” *but* that he
(the DC) would get in contact with “flopsy” again and tell them, essentially, that they
were wasting police time.

In the end, the individual that received the call from the Met police also received a
letter saying that the case was closed. This was no doubt because the Police had no
evidence to warrant any form of investigation into the matter.

The heavy-handedness of calling the police was, it appeared to me, tantamount
to bullying.

It was using a law enforcement agency to stamp on a matter that barely registered on
any scale whatsoever – since when has a mere difference of opinion meant that the
very high security Paddington Green police station should have its resources used to
intervene in such trivial matters, resulting in a stupefyingly embarrassing wastage of
police time?

Subsequently I have been told by others that “flopsy” has resorted to unusual measures
in the past to get their way in other situations. *If* that is the case, it is not necessarily
unrealistic to imagine similar measures being taken against me or indeed anyone who
may comment on this.

If that were to occur, dare I suggest it would be an unwise move on the complainant’s part?

What Mr. Farrell said in parts twelve and thirteen of the YouTube NICE series was not
to everyone’s taste – hey, not everybody agrees with everybody else all of the time –
but for “flopsy” to resort to the tactics which they did instead of rationally and maturely
discussing the matter with those unnamed individuals smacked to me of a heightened
sense of drama mixed with cowardice, duplicity and untrustworthiness, hence a wish to
attend a demonstration on Monday in Whitehall to further underline the lack of physiological
research into ME but fearing that irrationality on the part of the organiser – “flopsy” –
may result in unwarranted and trumped-up allegations being presented to a PC.

Critics of Mr. Farrell’s criticism of Ms. Stewart have been quick to portray that criticism
as an uncalled-for and cowardly attack. Bear in mind that Ciaran, and myself for that
matter, have been to many ME-based events over the years and so have been perfectly
open to face-to-face discussion of any disagreement over Mr. Farrell’s piece on
Ms. Stewart’s involvement and my recording and subsequent uploading of it to YouTube;
there has been more than enough chances to tackle me or him in the nearly
one-and-a-half years since release. In contrast to the public exposure that me and
Mr. Farrell regularly undergo (as it were!), the criticism from “flopsy” was made under a
pseudonym on a board that neither of us were subscribed to.

As a result, I would argue that the posts from “flopsy” were uncalled-for and cowardly.
I will not call it an “attack” because that word has been severely overused in this
ridiculously irrational saga.

In the ten months since “flopsy” posted the messages, “flopsy” has not contacted me
at any point in any way to discuss the YouTube clips despite a public, open invitation
from me to discuss the matter. Given the recent history of postings from “flopsy”,
it would not surprise me if they continued to defame me, probably with the use of a
pseudonym, in ways the author would believe I have no access to.

Curiously enough by “flopsy” avoiding the issue, I believe it has made things more
difficult for that person. I am now aware of people (who I shall not name) who were
previously friendly with “flopsy” but now avoid the person because of the can of worms
that has been opened up. I was one of those people who was previously friendly with
“flopsy” and I feel surprised, disappointed and subsequently mistrustful of that person.
In fact if “flopsy” had contacted me to discuss their concerns over the YouTube clips,
I may well have not felt the need to post this.

I would also bet that a number of these people are also doubtful over their attendance on
Monday due to the seemingly unpredictable nature of “flopsy”. Demonstrations about the
lack of proper research into ME always result in very few people attending. If I don’t attend
– or can’t, if “flopsy” decides to use a sledgehammer to crack a proverbial – that would
possibly leave *very* few people. “Flopsy” may well have become a liability.

The overreaction by “flopsy”, Mr. Ralph and one or two others to Mr. Farrell’s to the
important issues raised by Mr. Farrell is manna from heaven for the likes of Professor
Simon Wessely, in my opinion. It gives him and his so-called “school” more than enough
behavioural material to keep him in employment.

Ideally, I would like to turn up on Monday without the threat of a complaint to the
Met police being made by the organiser. As I have done with many demonstrations
throughout the years in the capacity of attendee and, on a couple of occasions,
organiser, my presence would come with it the guarantee of good behaviour.

It would be a shame for some much needed support to be spurned.

Advertisements

0 Responses to “A small dilemma…..”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: