• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Apology - Craig Alexander, 20/02/1970

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Apology - Craig Alexander, 20/02/1970

    I'm writing this to offer both apology and explanation to the assembled masses of CUK. Some people here have had personalised apologies from me already: my email address is craig dot alexander squiggly-at-sign menelaus hyphen consulting dot com if anyone wants to flame me or send me their comments which they do not wish to place in public. You're equally welcome to PM me.

    In addition this post is written to demonstrate that I am accepting the consequences of my actions. I hope that this goes some of the way to balancing the tabloid feeding frenzy.

    On reading this I would ask that you not consider this to be my trying to use weasel-words to avoid the consequences of my actions: I'd hope that my pleading guilty at the first opportunity in advance of sentencing 9 October 2009 would demonstrate to the assembled masses here my intent.

    As there are a number of sub-topics within this, I’ll answer these one at a time.

    The question of psychiatric illness first, I've been (relatively) well since late summer 2007: this is as a consequence of the 300mg of venlafaxine I take daily and regular attendance at the Maudsley. I am fit enough that I'm working. It might also be noted that since June 2007 when I started taking medication, the dose has increased from 75mg to 300mg. There are a number of diagnoses at the present time, ranging from sociopathy, through the various psychiatric diagnoses over time which have included borderline personality disorder. The current diagnoses include PTSD (which has been diagnosed on five occasions now, from 1994 to date), major depressive disorder and the next "best guess" of the psychiatric community includes atypical Aspergers syndrome which I am under test for presently. For those who would contend that my condition is "incurable" - a number of consultant psychiatrists would disagree with you.

    The article that appeared in the Daily Mail (and was picked up as a thread for a column filler amongst other newspapers) I have not read. From what I understand they are based on the adage: "never let the facts get in the way of a story".

    I further assume that the Daily Mail failed to report that two consultant psychiatrists, one service charity, the probation service, defence and even the CPS (prosecution barrister) took many steps in their presentation to the judge to prevent my receipt of a custodial sentence? No? Didn't think so.

    Turning now to the question of Mark Cox and his self-inflicted (through punching his own locker) injury, I did not manipulate the site of the injury - the "assault" was that I supported his hand (taking care not to touch the obviously swollen area) gently in the palm of mine and recognising that it was likely broken, sent him with a member of the TA unit in question to the nearest A&E unit to be treated. There is precisely zero corroboration of Mark Coxes' statement - the doctor who treated him at the hospital (King Georges Hospital, Ilford) specifically contradicts his version of events.

    Now to the impersonation of a medical practitioner. In 2006 I was becoming heartily sickened by the industry I was working in (banking) and had taken the UKCAT (clinical aptitude test – which I passed with a sufficiently high score) and applied to a number of medical schools for graduate entry to the medical degree programme using my qualifications to date and medical experience from my time in the Army Medical Services as the basis of applications to GKT, Barts and the London, Toms and Southampton. MoD Police had access to this via UCAS and confirmed this.

    At the same time I started seeing "Helen". I had presented my email with the title "Dr." as a joke from my hotmail account (which is no longer used, having become a volume spam recipient) and this caused two-and-two to be put together and five to be arrived at supported by statements from me.

    This joke "Dr." Title was related to her having used it also and I am happy to provide evidence of this to anyone interested: independent counsel opinion suggests that this evidence is stronger than any used to bounce me into pleading guilty.

    I fell head-over-heels for "Helen" and failed to do anything whatsoever to disavow her of the notion that I was a doctor: this lead to the nonsensical incidents of which there has been much comment.

    That I did nothing to correct this misinterpretation that Georgina arrived at and indeed supported it is a fact for which I remain heartily remorseful.

    When advised of a job in her TA unit I met with her CO who I told that I was not GMC-registered but was working towards being registered – a thoroughly factual statement. I further wrote to him in January 2007 to confirm this. He took advice on this basis and confirmed to me in email via the adjutant that he was satisfied.

    With regards to my conduct in this acting role, I did nothing invasive and applied a test of ultra-caution to the medicals performed and advice given. I referred people to their own GP if anyone asked me a question that I could not answer from my own knowledge base which equated to around 95% of cases.

    None of the facts around my non-treatment of soldiers (other than asking them to leave areas of potential risk or to take advice from their own treatment teams) were presented to MoD Police at the time by my legal representatives (despite their having them) as they took the approach that they should rely on what the MoD could prove.

    Foolishly, I retain a great deal of affection for the armed forces. Indeed, not only do I have a great deal of affection for the armed forces, I retain a great deal of affection for "Helen" – so much so that I have subsequently described her to friends (including romantic partners) as the “one that got away”.

    I do know that this means that some people might feel disenfranchised: that is not the intent by any stretch of the imagination, it simply serves to demonstrate the strength of my (wholly non-reciprocated) feelings for her.

    To give some indication of my strength of feelings for this individual, let us hypothetically say that I were to arrive at a (fantastical) state in which I was in a relationship with (say) Scarlett Johansson: SJ could and would be dumped in favour of "Helen" in a heartbeat.

    On the basis of this, you might therefore be questioning why I chose to plead guilty, and this is a reasonable question: the reason for the guilty plea was to reduce the pain felt by MoD as a corporate and specifically "Helen" as a consequence of this being dragged through the courts for years as it could so easily have been. This affection is also the reason that I have not – thus far - pursued either Mark Cox or "Helen" through the courts under the banner of private prosecution or asking CPS to do so, despite being advised to do so by many.

    There has been advice offered to go pell-mell after my accusers in the courts and in the media: my own father has suggested that he might have wished me to plead not guilty to see senior officers being accused in the dock by defence team to answer their questions of why I was allowed to do what I did: irrespective, none of that would have changed any outcome and the decision to plead guilty may be seen by many for what it was: a damage control exercise. I believed in the fight, as did my legal team, but I considered the risks to be too high.

    That the judge (and "Helen") suggested or implied that my risk management work is sub-standard without evidence is deeply insulting. My personal reputation being besmirched I can tolerate - my professional reputation, however, I will not. One example of why I wouldn't accept that is that - prior to the "credit crunch" - there were eleven sub-prime / specialist lenders in the UK mortgage market. There's now one - the one for whom I redesigned and rebuilt their credit risk functionality from the ground-up in advance of the "credit crunch" having seen it coming in 2004 / 5.

    I have no desire to wash the dirty laundry of my marriage to "Helen" in public: that she may wish to demean herself by doing so is absolutely a matter for her. Thus, I have not "struck back" - nor will I.

    Turning now to Chasing the Aurora and the questions of costs and monies raised for this via CUK members. It is important to note that no-one made a donation directly to me for this expedition and that all donations were made to the charities in question via the website justgiving.com. As I said at the time the costs of the expedition were paid entirely from my own earnings and nothing else.

    The expedition equipment is in my storage cupboard at home where it remains to this day. I am insulted by the suggestion – by anyone – that Chasing the Aurora was a hoax or an attention-seeking exercise when it was most certainly not. For the benefit of those interested, I will happily provide a photograph of myself with the equipment: equally, if anyone’s going north (or south) and wants it – they’re welcome to it, subject to a suitably sized donation to Combat Stress.

    I hope that this goes some way to offering apology and explanation. I'd also point you to my measured memory and it's relative performance, e.g., that I remember things from years ago with exceptional detail. For example, if you look at the story of Mark Cox, above, I remember who was in the room, where they were standing, what they were doing - everything.

    As I noted at the top of this, please feel free to email or PM me for further clarity if this is necessary.

    Thank you for your welcome back to CUK.

    Menelaus
    Last edited by Menelaus; 18 March 2010, 23:15. Reason: Edited to change the nature of email address

    #2
    Living with a woman who trained as a psychiatric nurse gives me a slightly more ‘enlightened’ attitude to mental illness than some others, so I’m not so fast to judge Menelaus. Some of his actions were clearly wrong, but that doesn’t necessarily make him an evil individual. People with mental illness often do things that they know, in a moment of clarity, are very wrong. Psychopaths basically have no conscience, but many other mentally ill people do have a real and painful conscience which torments them in their more lucid moments. No, I wouldn’t hire him for a contract or contribute money to his adventures, knowing what I know now, but I feel he should be allowed to enjoy the social banter of CUK just like anyone else; that banter and social fun might actually contribute to helping him get over or control his illness, which is surely better for everyone than to ostracise him and thereby push him to do things he might later regret.
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    Comment


      #3
      I, however, do.

      I treat all here with even handedness on this forum.

      I'm not that way in real life.

      Do not search me out at the Spring Bash as a FOAD often offends.
      "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
      - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
        Living with a woman who trained as a psychiatric nurse gives me a slightly more ‘enlightened’ attitude to mental illness than some others, so I’m not so fast to judge Menelaus. Some of his actions were clearly wrong, but that doesn’t necessarily make him an evil individual. People with mental illness often do things that they know, in a moment of clarity, are very wrong. Psychopaths basically have no conscience, but many other mentally ill people do have a real and painful conscience which torments them in their more lucid moments. No, I wouldn’t hire him for a contract or contribute money to his adventures, knowing what I know now, but I feel he should be allowed to enjoy the social banter of CUK just like anyone else; that banter and social fun might actually contribute to helping him get over or control his illness, which is surely better for everyone than to ostracise him and thereby push him to do things he might later regret.
        He will take a bit of ribbing, thats for sure.

        I wonder if he could take that
        (\__/)
        (>'.'<)
        ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

        Comment


          #5
          Sorry Craig, not buying it.

          Harmless posting or harmless posting whilst being subtly manipulative?

          I suspect you may be a danger to others and as your ex mentioned you use fora like this to seek out victims, that could also be true.
          Me, me, me...

          Comment


            #6
            Fair do's Menelaus. I shall refrain from further hostilities for the present and wish you a speedy recovery.........whatever form that might take.
            “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by cojak View Post
              Do not search me out at the Spring Bash as a FOAD often offends.
              who? me?
              And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Cliphead View Post
                Sorry Craig, not buying it.
                Good. I'm not selling it.

                Originally posted by Cliphead View Post
                Harmless posting or harmless posting whilst being subtly manipulative?
                I think that you're assigning motives (not to mention intelligence) that aren't there.

                Originally posted by Cliphead View Post
                I suspect you may be a danger to others and as your ex mentioned you use fora like this to seek out victims, that could also be true.
                As for my ex - given that she's even less of a psychiatrist than I am, I'd suggest that taking her psychological insight into someone that she's had no contact with whatsoever since August 2007 might be a mistake.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
                  He will take a bit of ribbing, thats for sure.

                  I wonder if he could take that
                  I took a great deal of ribbing whilst a guest of HMP and have taken it since: it's an interesting exercise, it certainly demonstrates who ones' friends are.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I think he can take it because he clearly feels no guilt.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X