Critically thinking, it is apparent that the Service Provider’s vocation is like a coin - it has two sides. On the one side, there is the belief that a Service Provider “just wants to help people” - a noble cause, one might say. But there is a flip side, a dark side of a vocation, that will manifest if they can't satisfy their heart and figure out how to help people like me. Which is to say, either you accept their help, on their terms, or you accept their insidious hatred - this is non-negotiable. All manner of microaggressions and gaslighting are wilfully executed to make not only your environment uncomfortable but your headspace too. Case in point, as my Social Worker, Mr Bleep’s clandestine cynical style of reporting of me for the past two years and his Boss’s, somewhat, blind support of him.
The structure of the following discourse between Mr Bleep’s Boss and I follows a tit-for-tat format. I anchor my complaint with four points that establish my feelings about opinions proffered by Mr Bleep in the Conditional Discharge Reports. Then follows his Boss’s analysis of my feelings. I then might provide my insights into his Boss’s analysis for you.
“The perception that I am an “overconfident man” was/is hyperbolic and spurious. As a mindful man, I was fully aware that, after ten years of incarceration, there would be a period of adjustment. Nevertheless, I made this clear to Mr Bleep in discourse and that I was looking forward to said period of adjustment as it represented the rebirth of my liberty. At no point did I embody a feeling of overconfidence and/or project overconfidence to anybody, be they Service Provider or Service User.”
“The Ministry of Justice requires the Conditional Discharge Reports to contain professional opinions and judgements based upon evidence either directly observed by the social or clinical supervisor or provided from others. During my conversations with Mr Bleep, he has taken on board how the wording of this statement could be perceived by others, and he acknowledges that he has utilised the incorrect wording to demonstrate his observation and professional opinion. Mr Bleep is unable to recall that you expressed any perceived difficulties of reintegrating into the community whilst you remained an inpatient, he does however recall that you had expressed you did not envisage any issues with returning to living in the community following many years detained in hospital.”
I don't fear “incorrect wording”, as much as I fear the motivation behind the incorrect wording. Incorrect wording can still be healthy if the motivation is honourable. Likewise, if the motivation is rotten then the words will be rotten. Mr Bleep was simply unnerved by the cut of my gib which led him to misconstrue my confidence as overconfidence. This leaves my sensitive soul wondering, why me? My confidence is not rooted in any arrogance, it is rooted in a fundamental love of self. A love cultivated by a loving imperfect family in my formative years. This, I believe, is what flummoxes Mr Bleep and the rest of the trolls. Which is to say, when compared to a lot of men I encountered while incarcerated, I am lucky. For it is, for some, a lack of love in their wonder years that bullies most Service Users out of self-esteem and an innate sense of confidence. This then manifests in classic overcompensation that compels said Service Users to defend their character by being abusively gobby or, worse, violent. At least that is the binary model for Service Users in the eyes of the Service Provider. As diplomatically eloquent as I am, gobby is how I’m seen.
When I asked Mr Bleep about this issue he said that this conjecture [regarding Mr Bleep’s perception that I believe that I am ‘superior to the majority’] was presented to him by staff at my Medium Secure Hospital. When I asked him why he hadn’t cited his sources he said “Oh Billy, you’re talking about three years ago, I can’t remember!” How is not citing your sources competent reporting? But what’s more, Mr Bleep, in any attempt to get to know me, never took the opportunity to ask me about my personal code of ethics. Had he done so he would know I adopt a “live-and-let-live” philosophy in social settings; an ethos that is totally incongruous with Mr Bleep’s speculation that I have a superiority complex. So the idea that I think I’m “superior to the majority” is spurious and fallacious.
I have spoken to Mr Bleep about ensuring his sources of information are cited within his reports and he has taken on board that he should have included this at the time of writing this report. Mr Bleep has also recognised that he should have used different wording to demonstrate your preferences in engaging with other patients both in hospital and in the community.
This statement is completely false. It was not my Psychologist’s judgement that I desist in sharing my Diary with female members of staff, it was my decision. Why? Because I could do without the proclivity towards hysteria being whipped up amongst staff at Bleep, where I currently reside, and Mr Bleep, my Social Supervisor, over language that can be found in any “15” rated film. Furthermore, it was not all female staff who were concerned about the graphic nature of my diary. In spite of my blanket embargo on female members of staff reading my Diary, I know of one female support worker, Ms Bleep, who was/is willing and ready to read my diary.
Mr Bleep reports that during your last appointment with him, this was discussed. Mr Bleep recalls that the decision was made by the staff team at Bleep Residency that female staff would not read your diary due to the graphic sexual nature of the diary. It is also our understanding that the psychologist did recommend that female staff should not be reading your diary.
On the first and second points she exhibited fair and strong leadership. However this third point belies her gullibility as she is led up the garden path by Mr Bleep and his lies. The chain of command mandates that she have belief in her staff but that mandate can blind and leave one susceptible to being mugged off. Here she demonstrates that she holds his reputation in a heavy-handed manner. There is no lightness of touch in her that enables ongoing critical thinking of Mr Bleep and his service.
This statement is yet more spurious conjecture that is completely unfounded. He does not know my son yet presumes to know how my son feels about reading books let alone books by his father. Had Mr Bleep sought to gather intelligence about my son, via me, he would know my son was a bookworm when last I saw him. Thus what he classifies as “implausible”, while not certain, is indeed plausible. This aspersion simply highlights the general acerbic tone of Mr Bleep’s reporting which is insidious, contemptuous and mean-spirited towards me.
This statement was written in conjunction with the statement in point 3, referring to your diary and Mr Bleep has stated that he should not have made assumptions about your son, however it is his opinion as an experienced social worker and social supervisor that many young people would not want to read their parents diary of this nature. Mr Bleep has acknowledged that you are wanting to share your experiences with your son in the future for you to provide him with your narrative of the situation and events that occurred.
The fact that he is “an experienced social worker and social supervisor” is rendered moot when he makes spurious assumptions. Making shit up about my son’s preferences only highlights Mr Bleep’s incompetence. It also means that she backs him on the basis that this is nothing more than an anomaly by Mr Bleep. Except he has waged a two year smear campaign of spiteful cynical interpretations of my character in these reports. This is indicative of a theme of Mr Bleep’s service. This is one of those fucked up paradoxes which sees me being handed the shitty end of the stick by the Mental Health system. On the one hand, she apparently tore him a new asshole but for incompetence, when push comes to shove, she still believes in the quality of his service. Which is to say, either she trusts Mr Bleep insidiously and implicitly, like a mother who spoils their child, allowing him to run amok, or she is complicit in Mr Bleep’s propaganda, in which case she is the wicked witch of the east, the quality of his service is the hill she is prepared to die on and her department is rotten to the core. I’m inclined to believe, even though Mr Bleep is older than me, that she has afforded him too much slack in, spiritually, raising a spoiled kid.
So in spite of her calling Mr Bleep out for said transgressions, she opens up an hitherto unknown mystifying escape hatch to reaffirm her loyalty to her employee. That’s her job you might say. I get that! The system falls down if she has no faith in her employees. It is the human condition to make mistakes and I’m not in my glass house throwing stones. I am a Service User only because of mistakes that I made. But there comes a point where mistakes stop being exceptions and start being the rule. Two years of incompetent reporting is that rule. It doesn’t just speak to the quality of his service but the character of the man. He lied, in perpetuity, in those Conditional Discharge Reports, I want no compassion for his persistent incompetence. I want him disciplined the way the Ministry of Justice has disciplined me.
Am I being overly sensitive? You bet I am! But that has more to do with my culturing over the course of my incarceration than my innate sensitivities and idiosyncrasies. The Mental Health service is an acutely sensitive ecosystem. Let me be real! The Mental Health service is a process of surreptitious oppression. Like the Pied Piper, it systematically coaxes and surreptitiously bullies the Service User to “dance to its tune” on the basis that the Service User, like me, is a wrong ’un! It elicits shame at will that spiritually immobilises and emasculates the Service User. It is a zombification that relieves the Service User of their critical thinking faculties if they’re not careful while cultivating a relationship of subjugation that renders the Service User codependent. Which is to say, Service Providers have a tendency to photosynthesise the self-doubt and insecurity of the Mental Health Service User into cultivating a codependent relationship. When that self-doubt and insecurity is replaced with self-confidence and assurance, as has been my proclivity, the Service Provider gets nervous and the relationship becomes even more brittle than it already is. This is how the Service Provider develops pernicious spite for the Service User.
By and large, she demonstrates sound leadership but her support for him seems perniciously blind in a certain respect. Mr Bleep literarily fucked me over in these Conditional Discharge Reports so, to my mind, his incompetence merits no defence. Given the circumstances, is it unreasonable to want her unequivocal support, even in her capacity as arbiter of my complaint? I have no knowledge of how long Mr Bleep and his Boss have worked together yet the likelihood is she knows a lot more about Mr Bleep than she does about me. But, as a Service User, I am often left feeling like I am enduring a systematic death by a thousand papercuts. So what Sectioning looks like is a procession of Service Providers taking pernicious potshots at your character in a test of patience and intestinal fortitude. For I have done more than my fair share of acquiescing to these trolls throughout my incarceration. Particularly when, much to my chagrin, I despaired because I couldn’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. It elicits an implosion that can make you a sitting duck if you can’t marshall your wits.
“For we have been socialised to respect fear more than our own needs for language and definition, and while we wait in silence for that final luxury of fearlessness, the weight of that silence will choke us.” ~ Audre Lorde.
I’m stubbornly spirited yet, at my core, the trauma of this eleven year incarceration has left the indelible stamp of sheepishness on my soul. Indeed, if I’m honest, I’m only stubbornly spirited because, not in spite of, the trauma of incarceration. For I have been defeated time and again by the surreptitiously cynical nature of every single Service Provider I have encountered. My shame is in a frequent state of trigger such that it is my default setting - I’m constantly on edge. My only respite has been that I have repressed said shame all my life that I walk around in a state of unconscious obliviousness. A childhood survival technique rooted in the trauma of my parent’s divorce but that’s for a future newsletter.
As always thanks for listening and I look forward to any comments you might have.
For someone on the outside looking in, the elements that help you feel justified in attacking the rude idiocy of bleep does come across hostile. Of course, with all the frustration you've experienced, it would be hard not to feel that way. I'm trying to track this and I know you need to go backwards to explain the situation to then give us the next person up the power triangle's opinion, but I'm struggling to keep it straight and have the important parts stand out and clue me in to what's different in this one. In my mind, you have a right to be frustrated and burdened with a chip on your shoulder, but for me as a listener, as I wanted to listen this time, I found it confusing and hard to track.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C0cLKMPISDh/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
If it comes across as hostile you’re probably not wrong. A decade of being spiritually/emotionally poked and prodded while incarcerated has left me jaded and, frankly, traumatised. So in order to get the chip off my shoulder, what you’re witnessing is a full-on detox. It might feel repetitive but that’s the therapy. At the same time it is a fly-on-the-wall docuseries highlighting the weird relationship between the technocratic Service Providers, like bleep and his boss, of an opaque collusive monolithic institution and the vulnerable humans, like me, that it is supposed to serve. Thanks for the feedback.