The records in question were provided to me, Mr Adrian Chetwynd, at my request after I had belatedly been informed by the social services that they had previously recommended that I be sectioned into a mental institution. Until then I had not been made aware that such defamation of my good character had been carried out and recorded in secret.
The records display the very obvious bias in favour of the Jewish lobby of Lincoln, and that fact alone is very useful evidence for my research about who, why, and what controls British society; but I cannot take the risk of having this vitriolic report sitting in the archives waiting to be used as evidence against my good character and reputation in any future police inquiry, public inquiry or Judicial trial.
Therefore it has to be contested out of court now where it is much quicker and far less expensive to both defend and judge by methodically cross examining the claims and accusations contained within the so called medical records which were allegedly produced by the Peter Hodgkinson Centre (PHC), which is a mental health institution located in the UK city of Lincoln.
I have scanned the paper copies of the report which were sent to me without copyrights by post, and I have converted them into a 24-page PDF so all references to page numbers will be to the PDF file page number and not to the numbers showing at the bottom of the pages, which do not run consecutive to the end.
The cross examination will focus on 10 main exhibits of information, followed with a summary and conclusion at the end of the findings.
Exhibit 1: “anti-Semitic”
Contained within the records are numerous mentions of the phrase “anti-Semitic”.
The phrase “anti-Semitic” is a very common method of defence that Jewish people use to defend themselves from bad publicity if they have done something wrong, just as the Muslims can use the word Islamaphobia to protect themselves if they do something wrong.
I am classed as a white person and if I did something wrong I would be wasting my time if I was to label my critics as being “anti-white” in an attempt to enjoy the same privileges as a Jewish man who can accuse his critics of being “anti-Semitic”.
But the reality is even more absurd because very few Jewish people are actually Semites whilst a lot of Muslims are Semites, such as many Arabs and Palestinians, but because they follow the religion of Islam they are not permitted to use the “anti- Semitic trump card”.
Literally speaking, anyone who criticises the deeds or actions of the paedophile Jimmy Savile, President Barak Obama or Prime Minister David Cameron is in theory being “anti-Semitic” because all three of those people are Jewish people!
Exhibit 2: “Delusions/ delusional”
There are several references to the above words throughout the records.
I don’t claim to be a psychiatrist but since all my so-called “delusions” are centred on the exact same subject, then surely they should be described as being “selective delusions” because I am pretty sure that any normal victim of a real mental health delusional problem would have many different subjects in which to be deluded about depending on just how deluded they really were!
I would rather describe my so-called “delusions” as beliefs/opinions that are not commonly agreed with, but that does not mean to say that I am deluded, even if my opinions on my specialised subject were incorrect.
But the fact that so many people quoted in the records commented that they believe I have delusions (beliefs/opinions) means that they do not agree with my opinions on those subjects … And nothing more.
Or do they but dare not admit to it? … Had I worked for the local council then I would have been sacked a long time ago according to my brother, who works for the council and who once feared for his own job just because he was my brother!
But of all the things that I am supposed to have said, none of the people mentioned in the records questioned me personally about those so-called delusions (beliefs/opinions) specifically, and nor has Hayley Gowland, who apparently generated most of the so called evidence contained within the records. Furthermore, whenever Hayley Gowland asked me to tell her about my Jewish beliefs in general, I always declined her invitation.
Exhibit 3: “Lack of insight”
Dictionary definition of insight:
- the capacity to gain an accurate and deep understanding of someone or something
- Psychiatry: awareness by a mentally ill person that their mental experiences are not based in external reality
So I wonder, do all of the people involved, which include Hayley Gowland, that accused me of “lacking insight” know for what reason they accused me of “lacking insight”?
The Psychiatric version of the meaning relies on the accused to be mentally ill for it to apply, and since the whole point of the promised assessment was to discover whether or not I was mentally ill surely throws most of the opinions quoted in the records into the trash bin because most of those that quoted my so-called lack of insight didn’t even have time to know me and I behaved intelligently during the interviews.
Was it just because they did not agree with my opinions about the Jews?
Or was it because they didn’t want to believe that I realise just how difficult it is for a critical thinker to attempt to educate less enlightened people that nearly all of the manmade bad happenings in the world stem from the power of those who create their usurious debt money?
In this situation I just see it as a pathetic personal insult against an intelligent man who is simply trying to protect his children and fellow people from the undisputed evils of our world, of which there are far too numerous to mention in this cross examination of these so-called medical records
Exhibit 4: “Anger”
Anger is a very normal human reaction to pain, be it physical or emotional pain.
I rarely suffer from physical pain but I am regularly forced to suffer emotional pain, and probably the worst emotional pain that I have ever experienced in my whole life was when the semi-illiterate Jewess by the name of Sharon Petfield, illegally abused her powers as a social worker to prevent me from seeing my two young boys by means of issuing a very serious threat (illegal blackmail) to my wife simply because I had publicised, via the internet, a few home truths about her fellow Jews.
Yes I got angry — very, very angry — and if I was incapable of getting angry about such a horrible experience then I would have a very good reason to volunteer myself to the mental health services as being a self-confessed “useless feeble nut case”!
Coming up close behind Sharon Petfield with her ability to make me feel emotionally angry is my wife Lorraine who, incidentally, was one of Hayley Gowland’s most prolific sources of insider information in the social services quest to have me sectioned into a mental institution. I have many other allegations against my wife, but they are far too numerous to mention in this cross examination.
Exhibit 5: Censorship of the records
The following text displayed in the documents admits that there are other records missing from these records: “This note is an annotation of another record”.
Most of the records provided appear to be in electronic format with the exception of the PDF pages 20 and 21 which appear to be scanned copies of covered up documents. Also Dr Browne’s electronic statement on page 15 appears to be an electronic copy of another electronic statement because of the gaps that appear in almost free flowing sentences.
If the records were honest then why would they need to be censored in the first place? What was someone trying to hide?
Exhibit 6: “Strong unreasonable beliefs occurring in non-psychotic disorders only (current)” [ref PDF page 6]
Item Score: 1 — “Holds illogical or unreasonable belief(s) but has insight into their lack of logic or reasonableness and can challenge them most of time and they have only a minor impact on the individual’s life.”
I was rated at just a 1 which quotes “has insight” and surprisingly not rated as a 4 which quotes; “little or no insight”.
Handing me a score of 4 would fit the rest of the vitriolic records perfectly so why did I only score a “1” in this section?
Was it per chance because this section describes the symptoms as being “non-psychotic” which I presume would mean that Dr Browne would not have had the excuse to prescribe me his “anti-psychotic drugs” in order to change my brain functions?
My opinions about Jewish issues have never yet been challenged by anyone so what right have these people to say such a thing about my beliefs?
Exhibit 7: “Problems with relationships (current)” [ref PDF page 4]
Item Score: 2 — “Definite problem in making or sustaining supportive relationships; patient complains and/or problems are evident to others.”
- This accusation was not raised with me at the interviews so I had no opportunity to discredit it.
- Just because I have deliberately rejected former friends who became traitors to my business and/or family does not mean that I am unable to find new friends whenever I want to.
- The first person that I know of that reported me as being mentally ill (supposedly) was the man who destroyed my first batch of Jewish research records. After that he attempted to commit industrial espionage against my business, and the year before he had attempted to sell me his father’s company (which since failed) by showing me false accounts. This is just one example of my so called “friends” which I have been forced to reject over the past two years.
- Many people compliment me about my very friendly nature and I often start conversations with strangers who accept my friendly nature with ease.
- I am the sales manager of my installation business and I find that all of my customers are very friendly with me which suggests that they like my social nature.
- Regarding my marriage relationship: It was a great mistake of mine to attempt to live with a person who is intellectually speaking “living on a different planet to mine”, but I was taken in by her extreme jealousy which I assumed would make her faithful to me forever. I did not take the plunge to marry her until after our second child had been born, and I married her mainly for the sake of our children.
- Contrary to what onlookers may believe it was my wife who “wore the trousers” in our home, and because of that everything had to be done her way or else a “riot” would occur!
- I actually contemplated seeking help as a domestic violence victim but I decided not to for the sake of the children. Her violence was not physical but emotional.
- Our children are what gives my wife so much power and control over me now, and if we didn’t have any then I would keep as far away from her as possible.
- She currently revels in keeping secrets from me about what is going on behind my back, even if those secrets are detrimental to the economic survival of our parted family unit or my business.
- It was not my decision the end our relationship it was hers, and I left my marital home to avoid the pain that I was experiencing from her emotional form of domestic violence.
Exhibit 8: “Sources of information available for this assessment” [ref PDF page 13]
- There were allegedly only two sources of information which were used to prepare the medical assessment, with one being me, Adrian D Chetwynd, talking face to face with Dr Browne and his safe guarding team, and the other being Hayley Gowland who arranged the assessment. This fact alone is enough to make the accusations against me null and void, simply because the instigator (attempting prosecutor) of the situation is also the prime source of the information (informant) and also the main beneficiary if she had gained the result she had hoped for which was that I be sectioned into a mental institution.
- Dr Browne and his safe guarding team asked me very few questions so where did they get their information from?
- Neither Dr Browne nor his safe guarding team had pointed out any of their issues about my so-called delusions (beliefs/opinions) which were apparently provided by Hayley Gowland in the main.
- Neither Dr Browne nor his safe guarding team gave me any opportunity to defend my opinions of their opinions, which they had deliberately kept as a secret from me.
- Contrary to what the report implies, I said very little about Jewish issues during the interviews; and whenever Hayley Gowland had previously asked me to tell her about my views I declined to comment.
- Of the few Jewish issues that I have passed onto Hayley Gowland personally, she has yet to challenge me in an attempt to prove me wrong.
- The majority of Haley Gowland’s information to pursue her vendetta against me therefore came from third party sources.
Exhibit 9: The Nicole Parmenter comments
H/V with Gareth Price ACM –
Adrian had two colleagues present with him during visit.
Adrian initially closed in conversation — giving one syllable answers — reported good sleep, appetite. Stated he had spent time with his children which he enjoyed. Adrian then went on to voice paranoid thoughts about politics and the internet stating ‘they’ have access to everything — spoke about having a visit from ‘channel panel’ — reports not wanting to see them again as ‘they’ have got to him. Voiced paranoid thoughts about the children’s social worker — reporting that she has been ‘making up vindictive stories about him’ — time and reassurances given to ventilate thoughts and feelings.
No insight evident — doesn’t believe he is mentally unwell — doesn’t believe there is a need for him to see MH [mental health] services — reluctantly agreed to further input.
“Adrian then went on to voice paranoid thoughts about politics”
So Nicole believes that she is an expert on politics does she? Really? If ever she wants to come and see me to display her knowledge then I will be more than happy to prove just how ignorant she is about politics!
“Paranoid thoughts about […] the internet stating ‘they’ have access to everything”.
Nicole’s ignorance on this subject is beyond belief! …No more comment required.
“Spoke about having a visit from ‘channel panel’ — reports not wanting to see them again as ‘they’ have got to him”
Nicole needs to buy a hearing aid because I was talking about a particular member of the channel panel who I had made a special request to come and see me again, and that was because he used to be very interested in what I had to say.
But when he eventually turned up he was a different man to what he once was because he was now displaying his new found talents of “cultural Marxism”.
I did not say that the channel panel had got to me what I said was that “they” (meaning the Jewish lobby) had got to him!
He did however tip me off that the authorities knew where I had been to on holiday which I had taken shortly before he came to see me, not that I needed the tip off anyway!
The holiday in question was a historical tour arranged by the Historian Mr David Irving, who had previously been made bankrupt and homeless by the Jewish lobby. Years before he was imprisoned at the bequest of the Jewish lobby for daring to question (16 years previously) the existence of some gas chambers in Poland.
I first met David in a hotel lobby in Peterborough whilst he was on a book selling tour around the country. The evening went very well and there was no opposition to it whatsoever from any pro-Jewish protesters, but what was so amazing to me was that the particular meeting I attended was the only meeting where the Jewish protesters did not show up.
Soon after that, when I arrived in Poland to meet David and his friends, he warned me to expect some hassle from the pro-Jewish lobby as had happened before on all of his other previous historical tours. Guess what? I enjoyed the only Jew-hassle free tour that David Irving had ever experienced in his historic tours of Poland!
Note: As a matter of fact I have never stopped communicating with the channel panel as it keeps “the authorities” informed that I am still a nice guy who “wouldn’t hurt a flea”!
“Voiced paranoid thoughts about the children’s social worker — reporting that she has been ‘making up vindictive stories about him’.”
This one is a “no brainer”, but the point here is that Nicole never questioned me about the subject so that I could have the opportunity show her the piles of evidence to back up my claim.
“No insight evident”
What a two-faced fool Nicole is to insult a man like me with those words of which she very likely does not understand the meaning of anyway.
“Doesn’t believe he is mentally unwell”
Or in other words: Nicole was making the point that I had been found guilty of being mentally ill by her team before the results of a test, that never took place, were revealed!
Exhibit 10: Hayley Gowland promised an honest medical assessment but instead delivered a fake counselling course
Haley Gowland assured me that the “psychiatric assessment” which she wanted to arrange would be a quick and fair assessment, and at no point in time did she ever infer that she was setting me up for a course of so-called mental health counselling just to make me look like a fool who thought he had mental health problems.
Here is the evidence [emphasis mine]:
I will forward you the minutes from today’s meeting in due course. However, in general terms there were no issues identified with any of the children’s health needs. In educational terms, Izzy and Joseph have applied themselves well this term so far………… Blah. Blah. Blah………
I appreciate your consideration to a psychiatric assessment. I am not in a position to authorise the terms and conditions you are requesting in relation to the assessment although I am willing to support you where appropriate. I have tried ringing you this afternoon to discuss this issue over the phone although it appears you are unavailable. I have spoken to the community mental health team as it appears your GP Dr Kumar is due to be off work for some time. I have had a chat with a manager called Gareth Price who has proposed that he and a psychiatrist called Dr Brown visit you next Tuesday at 12.15pm. I have discussed your terms and conditions with Gareth who said confirmed that Dr Brown is not Jewish and is “very laid back”. The purpose of the visit would be to “have a chat” with you about the concerns I am raising. Gareth said it is fine for you to have the visit videoed by an independent eye witness. He has also asked me to ask you where you would prefer such a visit to take place – it’s up to you. What are your thoughts on this proposal? Is there anything else I can do to support you with this?
It is hoped you feel able to work with me. You are always in your rights to share information with any other parties, including seeking your own independent legal advice.
And here’s my reply, sent the following day:
From: Adrian Chetwynd [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 September 2013 13:46
To: Hayley Gowland
Cc: [email protected]; ‘Lorraine Chetwynd’; Adrian Chetwynd; [email protected]
Subject: RE: response Mrs B Gowland
As your behaviour appears to be negatively impacting on my children and in particular William I am prepared to be interviewed at 12.15pm on Tuesday 17/09/13 at my Haddington premises by Dr Brown and Mr Price is welcome to be present. However I will refuse them access to my depot if they are accompanied by anyone else and I have now decided to have two of my own eyewitnesses present instead of just one.
I look forward to proving to Dr Brown what personality and talents it takes to make a perseverant businessman who has a very large customer base of business customers who appreciate what I am and what I do for them.
Thank you for making it so clear to all observers that your organisation has a problem with me understanding the “Jewish problem” that affects everyone including innocent Jewish people. You are acting a part in the afore mentioned problem whether you are aware of it or not.
Mr Adrian D Chetwynd
The above emails are evidence that Adrian Chetwynd only agreed to a psychiatric assessment, but Hayley Gowland told the people at the following CIN [Child in Need] meeting a different story which is recorded below:
Extracts from the CIN meeting report of 31/10/2013
Note: To the best of my knowledge neither my wife nor I attended this meeting, and it was the previous CIN meeting which was attended by my wife and daughter which forced my daughter to cry about the fear that she might have her daddy taken away from her.
Client Name: Miss Isabelle Chetwynd
Client No: 641186
Social Worker: Hayley Gowland (present)
Lorraine (Mrs Chetwynd — not present) believes Adrian has mental health problems and says he gets angry when others do not agree with his believes [Hayley’s misspelling]. Lorraine says William [Adrian’s son] is behaving similarly than [correct word: to] Adrian and that he says comments praising Hitler and also things that are derogatory about Jewish people. Lorraine feels unable to stand up to Adrian.
Adrian (accused — not present) does not believe that his behaviour has a negative impact on the children warranting social care involvement. Adrian believes the reason for social care involvement is a political agenda due to comments he has posted on Internet websites that he believes are things the government would like to keep secret. Adrian see’s [Hayley truly can’t spell] social care as the enemy.
Adrian’s view’s are anti-sematic [spelling, again] in nature and this appears to have influenced William in that he is also making comments that are derogatory about Jewish people.
Views of the child/young person? [William][Emphasis mine]
William says he does not want or need a social worker. He says he loves his dad more than anyone in the world.
Additional information / Update from people attending meeting. (Consideration must be given to whether this is meeting the child / young person’s needs)
Client No: 641186
HG (Hayley Gowland — present) feels attempts to prevent contact between Adrian and the children would have a deep negative emotional impact on the children, particularly William who idolises his dad. However, Adrian lacks in sight [spelling, again] to how his behaviour is impacting on the children. Adrian has been working with mental health workers over several weeks although has said that he is “having a laugh with them” at HG’s expense. JM and MT believe this means he is not fully engaging.
MT (Maria Turner — school nurse — present) raised concern that the children are still having contact with Adrian as she believes that the children are suffering emotional harm whilst in Adrian’s care. MT would like the case escalating to child protection as Joseph and William are deteriorating in school, William is saying things that a[re] derogatory about Jewish people, Lorraine has not been picking the phone up over the last few weeks and so may be disengaging, Adrian is not fully engaging with mental health professionals.
My Statement of Response
The above comments clearly show that Hayley Gowland had deliberately misinformed the attendees of the meeting to make them believe that I, Adrian Chetwynd, had volunteered myself for mental health counselling which I did not.
I offered myself to what I expected would be a professional and unbiased psychiatric assessment and nothing more.
I, Adrian Chetwynd, did not receive a professional and unbiased psychiatric assessment and nor was I intended to, which was proven by Dr Browne’s failure to properly cross examine his client with any abundance of psychiatric questions, and Dr Browne did not make any written notes at either of the two meetings which he attended.
My pleas for the report of the so-called unbiased psychiatric assessment were insistently refused:
On 23/09/13 Gereth Price records my plea for the report (Ref PDF p16). The plea was also reiterated by Nicole Parmenter on 02/10/13 (Ref PDF p18) and on 04/10/13 (Ref PDF p19).
The people who interviewed me appear to have arrived to see me with a pre-programmed opinion of me.
Only one of the interviewers claimed to be a qualified psychiatrist.
They all speak in the records about matters which I did not divulge to them.
They all speak in the records with a biased opinion of my opinions, without my knowledge and without having given me an opportunity to attempt to prove my opinions.
They all relied on evidence which has not been questioned as to its validity to be truthful, and some of it was provided by my wife who I would swear on oath has a tendency to tells lies compulsively to benefit her own selfish needs. My wife also has her own motives to want to have me sectioned.
My wife is extremely biased in favour of the Jews and she possesses a very severe hatred of German people (racist hatred).
Hayley Gowland clearly demonstrates that she is pro-Jewish and dare not question any negative facts about Jews but instead only promotes any pro-Jewish propaganda as though it is always honest and true, even on the occasions when it obviously isn’t.
Hayley Gowland is so obsessed about her pro-Jewish stance that she fails to notice her often contradictory and outright false statements which she has put into writing for me to record. (Thanks Hayley!)
The evidence speaks for itself: The records are an affront to honest decency.
They are a false account of Mr Adrian Chetwynd’s actual state of mental health They are biased in favour of the Jewish lobby. They are defamatory against the good reputation of Adrian Chetwynd.
They most likely provide sufficient evidence for a Judge and jury to find the Peter Hodgkinson Centre guilty of numerous offences, including defamation of a person’s good character.