26/03/2012
FAO Jane IRELAND
 
Dear Jane
 
The professor states he is too busy but I have asked for any other recommendation.
 
Whilst on Jane can I ask something, during your investigation into Special Visitor reports is it possible for you to give some clarification into determining what are the risk assessment strategies that should be in place to guard against a false report being made or to be distrusted.
 
You see, I am totally and utterly unclear as to why the court seem to want so many reports that differ so wildly and then only to make a decision based on what might be termed as “vulnerability” which really has no bearing in capacity issue’s!
 
I don’t know whether you’ll quite understand what I am trying to get at here, but it seems to me that in reality where a person cannot be deemed as incapacitated and may seem “sat on the fence” so to speak why should that person be committed to an oppressive regime based on what in reality is vulnerability issue’s.
 
As long standing sufferers in this what we consider to be a corrupt environment where I personally am being judged, again without evidence to support, for what we believe are motives based around others greed, we feel the need to find some proper, pure sound thinking behind what is actually going on.
 
For example, how in reality should a decision about someone’s capacity be reached because from where we are sitting one can take issue with anything put forward i.e., Dr Donna Schelewa’s report and then widen the goalposts completely to suit your own agenda.
 
One can clearly see how the goal posts are being widened in the Judge’s order for another report and how the use of statements are used to pervert the view of those assessing the individual in favour of treading with caution to air on the side of caution and to commit that person in reality solely on vulnerability issue’s knowing full well their capacity under stage 2 of the Mental Capacity Act is not fulfilled and therefore qualified as having capacity!
 
It gets so complicated it does not seem fair at all, the reality is that the person becomes more vulnerable than ever as the court is off our own experience not protecting these people but only protecting themselves where accusations of theft, fraud, Mal administration and neglect are clearly being swept right under the carpet.
 
Sorry to tax your thoughts on this subject but we would like to gain some qualified constructive views in a sea of insecure process in which my mother’s life is being destroyed not to mention my own.
 
Mike
 
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 1:53 PM
Subject: RE: SPECIAL VISITOR
 

Thinking about it you could also approach Professor Gisli Gudjonsson.  He is a clinical forensic psychologist with a good background in capacity issues.  Here is his email.

 

Gudjonsson, Gisli (gisli.gudjonsson@kcl.ac.uk)

 

He is a very good psychologist.

 

I hope things work out ok.

 

All the best

 

Jane

 

From: Mike Clarke (rake.net) [mailto:mike@rake.net]
Sent: 25 March 2012 13:38
To: Jane Louise Ireland
Subject: Re: SPECIAL VISITOR

 

Thank you Jane

 

Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:35 AM

Subject: RE: SPECIAL VISITOR

 

Hi Mike

 

Not a problem.  I can recommend someone you can email but it will be distinct from a recommendation connected to the university.  We recommend as part of our court service and this is where the problem lies as our business plan is very clear now on only taking instructions and recommendations from solicitors.  This has purely been a result of payment problems outside of solicitors since the university have struggled to obtain funds in some instances and a solicitor can hold the funds prior to the assessment taking place.  So the university have now requested that we are only involved directly with advocates in terms of instruction to afford them some protection.

 

So this is the reason, it is purely an issue of business practicalities and reducing a risk for financial loss.  Universities are, essentiality, businesses and so they are quite tight on this issue and do not look at individual cases.

 

However, this is the email of a psychiatrist I would recommend – a Dr Caroline Mulligan.

 

Caroline.mulligan@merseycare.nhs.uk

 

Dr Mulligan is a very good psychiatrist and if she cannot assist she may be able to recommend someone else.

 

All the best

 

Jane

 

 

 

 

 

From: Mike Clarke (rake.net) [mailto:mike@rake.net]
Sent: 25 March 2012 11:28
To: Jane Louise Ireland
Subject: Re: SPECIAL VISITOR

 

Hi Jane

 

Thank you for responding so quickly and especially on a Sunday.

Your assistance is deeply appreciated and I hope that I have not encroached too much upon your day of rest.

 

Though obviously now I understand that you cannot take on privately funded clients and therefore I am not now requesting such, what I am asking is that, are you saying that you cannot recommend to me now whom might be suitable to approach as a forensic psychiatrist.

This is the bit I am not understanding! If your not taking us on as client why do we need a solicitor to ask you for a recommendation?

 

Surely it is within your remit to advise of a forensic psychiatrist whom is suitable without this request coming from a solicitor and if not can you possibly give a more in depth explanation?

 

The Scandal of special visitors that has been raised is leaving us highly suspicious in all avenues and conduct of the court of “so called” protection.

 

To be perfectly honest my mother and I are now in a position of absolute total distrust.

She has endured assessment after assessment at great expense to herself and then only to have such reports scorned and distrusted, its a complete farce all round of epic proportions.

 

We were feeling a slight sense of encouragement upon seeing your involvement in investigations in this matter and now are feeling again like we are hitting more brick walls

 

Mike

 

Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:09 AM

Subject: RE: SPECIAL VISITOR

 

Hi Mike

 

No problem.  I know it can be a bit confusing.

 

We only accept instructions from solicitors.  The university does not take on privately funded clients.  It is just part of our business plan.

 

I cannot be of any more assistance I am afraid other than that I have already indicated in my email.  If your advocate contacts me I can send on a CV of a psychiatrist with a forensic background.

 

Kind regards

 

Jane

 

From: Mike Clarke (rake.net) [mailto:mike@rake.net]
Sent: 25 March 2012 10:46
To: Jane Louise Ireland
Subject: Re: SPECIAL VISITOR

 

Dear Jane

 

I must of misunderstood your original email.

Please can you recommend the psychiatrist to me and will that one be clinical in neuropsychology on a forensic basis to complete the requirements that the Judge is searching for?

 

Mike

 

Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:35 PM

Subject: RE: SPECIAL VISITOR

 

Dear Mike

 

As indicated in my first email I do not complete capacity assessments.  This does not fall within my area of experience.  If your solicitor contacts me I can recommend a psychiatrist.

 

All the best

 

Jane

 

From: Mike Clarke (rake.net) [mailto:mike@rake.net]
Sent: 24 March 2012 16:41
To: Jane Louise Ireland
Subject: SPECIAL VISITOR

 

FAO John Hemming MP, Gordon Marsden MP, John Hemming MP’s Assistant Emily & Jane Ireland, Hugh Jones.

23/03/2012

 

Dear All

 

Judges order for SPECIAL VISITOR to be appointed;

arrived today click on the link below

 

 

We would request that in view of recent reports in the news of the scandal of special visitor problems that the above person named “Jane Ireland” be contacted to conduct a forensic assessment as she, we would possibly feel more comfortable with in view of her investigations into family court reviews of SPECIAL VISITOR reports.

Regards
Mike Clarke
31 Cherry Tree Rd,
Blackpool
FY4 4NS
Tel: 07523287267

Website; www.opg.me