She received compensation because she took her case to tribunal and they found in her favour. An article about anti- semitism in the HR department towards Williams doesn’t in any way support your beliefs on Williams, on which I have no particular opinion.
I would like to reply to your post re Judy Williams. This is an extremely important issue as it is an example of how a mental health professional can exploit an extremely vulnerable person in order to promote their own agenda.
This is an issue about which I have considerable bitter personal experience. For too long my concerns have been dismissed as deluded, however with thousands of Qanon, Pizzagate and other SRA conspiraloons marching and protesting all around the world and with exploited vulnerable people being used as assets by these sinister networks the time has come to expose this hideous pantomime for what it is.
Re Judy Williams and Pamela Edwards the timeline is as follows:
Judy Williams fosters Pamela Edwards when Pamela is a vulnerable child who has suffered multiple serious childhood traumas and extreme childhood neglect. Pamela Edwards also has a learning disability and had been diagnosed with autism and schizophrenia. The extreme childhood neglect has been documented by social services. It is difficult to imagine a more vulnerable foster child.
By 1999 Judy Williams is no longer Pamela’s foster mother but is her full-time carer. At some point in 1999 Williams comes to believe that Pamela has been, up until that point, misdiagnosed and that the correct diagnosis for her is in fact multiple personality disorder / dissociative identity disorder.
By 2000 Judy Williams is working with the Clinic for Dissociative Studies as a psychotherapist but also developing care packages for people with dissociative identity disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder) and other dissociative disorders. At this time she is still a full-time carer for Pamela Edwards.
By March 2003 Judy Williams and Pamela Edwards are taking part in a documentary film Being Pamela, which endorses the controversial diagnosis of MPD/DID.
The Official Solicitor, who represents those who cannot represent themselves, argued that Pamela lacked the capacity to give permission to take part in filming and that it amounted to a breach of privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. St Helen's Council, which provides carers for Pamela Edwards, also expressed serious concerns.
As an aside, my concerns relate to the dual roles performed by Judy Williams in relation to Pamela Edwards. In my understanding, and the understanding of most rational, ethical persons, it is not ethical or appropriate for a mental health professional to act as a foster-parent and carer for an extremely vulnerable person whilst at the same time working for an organisation that provides an expensive care package for that same vulnerable person. This situation is unethical and an example of a serious conflict of interests, especially given the significant finances involved, the dual roles, the controversial diagnosis of DID and the long history of serious abuses against vulnerable persons by mental health professionals involved in promoting SRA conspiracy theories and the associated diagnoses of MPD/DID.
back to the timeline…..
The concerns of the council and the Official Solicitor were set aside by Mr Justice Mumby who, without giving his reasons, gave greater weight to freedom of expression.
The programme was eventually finished and broadcast and depicted the day to day delivery of Pamela Edwards’s care package which was delivered by Judy Williams’s and a team from the Clinic for Dissociative Studies at the then cost of £500,000 per year. Judy Williams and Pamela Edwards appeared on camera throughout and Valerie Sinason, the founder and then director of the Clinic for Dissociative Studies is referred to as “Valerie” but does not appear in the film.
While the film reported uncritically about the diagnosis of DID some viewers and reviewers in the mainstream press expressed concerns about whether Pamela was getting better or worse as a result of the care package. The relationship between Pamela and Judy Williams seems highly dysfunctional to me and Pamela seems to have taken on some of the more belligerent and controlling elements of Williams’s character in the form of an “alter”.
At some point (the Manchester Evening News does not specify a time) Judy Williams was accused of acting inappropriately to a vulnerable adult known as ‘P’.
She was accused of unnecessarily giving the woman medicine, inappropriately restraining her and using inappropriate language to colleagues. Ms Williams from Chorlton, is not employed to care for P but has known her for more than 20 years and says she considers her to be ‘like a daughter’.
Was this woman “P” Pamela Edwards? Given that Pamela was Williams’s foster child and then, upon adulthood, Williams became her full-time carer this seems highly likely.
On 29th December 2010 The Manchester Evening News reported that Judy Williams has “won” an £80,000 settlement after she was suspended for 2 years then sacked from her post at the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital. From the MEN article:
"Child psychotherapist Judy Williams was suspended for two years then sacked from Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital.
She was reinstated 18 months later, but has been on leave for six months after hospital bosses failed to find a position for her.
They have now apologised, on the eve of an employment tribunal, and paid £50,000 compensation and £30,000 back pay.”
Of course, just because Hospital paid the settlement it does not mean that they accept that they are in the wrong or that the concerns against Judy Williams are without merit. The settlement was paid on the eve of the tribunal, as so often happens.
I would invite you to watch this video about multiple personality disorder in which at 7.45 approx Richard Kluft of the ISSTD commented about a $2 million settlement in a case of psychiatric malpractice resulting in a vulnerable patient being brainwashed into believing she had multiple personality disorder “Settlement is not an admission of guilt. Settling is a way of ending a process in a way that’s agreeable to the various parties”.
If Kluft is making this claim about his peers and associates at the ISSTD and similar organisation that promote conspiracies about SRA and DID can it not be equally true for St Helen’s Health Authority in relation to their settlement with Judy Williams?
evidential links
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1491414/Being-Pamela...-and-Sandra-Susan-Andrew-and-Margaret.html
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/80k-and-an-apology-for-sacked-therapist-905993
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140516215533/withinmind.co.uk/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20140516215533/withinmind.co.uk/