Nowmedical. Matthew Gray at Camden Council AND London Borough of Redbridge becomes gender neutral non binary to write his housing review.

British Labour Party politician and the leader of Camden London Borough Council since May 2017 Georgia Gould  has ignored all emails put to her.

Matthew Gray at Camden Council AND London Borough of Redbridge calls sexual exploitation “extreme case” and ignore the “extreme case” evidence from medical professionals. Matthew Gray sends shoddy irrational Stage 2 review on the 56th day at 5 pm. The review looked as though it took him 56 minutes to write. Whilst writing his stage 2 review Matthew Gray cherry picks at the evidence and makes sweeping statements in his review that is signed off On Executive Director of Supporting people in Camden's letter headed paper, Shaun Flook Head of Housing Needs pictured.

Gray, states Camden Councils Policy procedure and then he overrides it with his own non-medical qualified personal opinion.

Matthew Gray states “since the review process commenced you have also sent pictures that you state are evidence of previous self-harming episodes, details of my job description, an article from the Daily Mail related to the recent suicide of Keith Flint, an email related to the ‘Hippocratic oath”, and a copy of your tenancy agreement”. However, he also fails to acknowledge the picture attached of the vulnerable woman with a black eye (below) after being forced to engage in Prostitution. Matthew Gray also ignores two articles sent to him on Now medical regarding Islington Council actively looking for alternatives to Now medical.

Throughout the review, Gray acknowledges “ I do bear in mind that you have a disability as per the remits of the Equality Act. Your ability to carry out daily activities is affected substantially by your ill health and this has been the case for some years, though it’s clear that there are times when you function better than others. You have a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Therefore, in making this decision, I have had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination towards those with a protected characteristic and to the need to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between those with and without a protected characteristic”. Matthew has “due regard” and then completely ignores the disability when concluding his findings.

Mr Gray states “In asking myself the statutory question, I have considered the effect of your disability, from your perspective, on your experience in your current home. I have considered your home from the perspective of your disability, before answering the reasonable preference question, related to whether you have a ‘housing need’”.

How is Matthew Gray able to consider the disability of the client from her perspective? Matthew Gray does not have a disability as per the remits of the Equality Act. He is not denied the ability to carry out daily activities that are affected substantially by his non- ill health and has not been subjected to these issues for some years. Matthew Gray does not have a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Matthew Gray made it up as he went along. 

Mathew Gray is fully incapable of considering any of those issues from the clients perspective. Mr Gray is a layperson. Mr Gray is male. Mr Gray cant have any idea what the client has been through (sexual violence, forced prostitution) as it is/was not him going through her situations. 

Mr Gray does not have the clients vulnerability. He is not female, and he does not have the combined mental health illnesses the Client has. He does not have her extensive trauma history and has never been placed in her situation, nor has he lived in her body. Mr Gray is not an “expert” on the vulnerable client, and he is not an “expert” on the clients' psychology as he is not the client. Mr Gray was overly ambitious with his alleged considerations of a violently, sexually abused young woman.

Mr Gary’s job as a Housing Needs Reviews Caseworker for Housing Support Services and Supporting People London Borough of Camden states “To be considered for this vacancy the successful candidate will possess the ability to come to fair, reasoned and evidence-based judgments and communicate these clearly and logically. You will have an in-depth knowledge of the Homeless Reduction Act amendments to the Housing Act 1996, particularly parts 6 and 7 relating to amending legislation and regulations, coupled with an understanding of government guidance and related guidance and legislation. You will be an excellent communicator (both verbal and written) who possess the ability to communicate effectively and tactfully with a wide range of customers and colleagues at different seniority levels.”

It is no wonder Camden Council are advertising his post. Matthew Gray has appeared to apply the theory “do as much wrong as possible” for. Matthew Gray has ignored all evidence of vulnerability and risks of completed suicide in the medical evidence supplied to him and has sentenced the vulnerable female to a poor outcome with the advice of 

Dr Wilson. Mr Gray also failed to acknowledge the compensation Shaun Flook (pictured) already tried to compensate the client for the complete shambles they’ve made.

NowMedical’s Dr Wilson came up with an opinion which is arguably objectionable, particularly in the light of the fact that he did not examine the patient, consider the full medical records or even talk to the client's medical advisers.

Nowmedical (Dr Keens) Quacks routinely ignore Academic and Scientific research (Evidence cited)

British Labour Party politician and the leader of Camden London Borough Council since May 2017 Georgia Gould has ignored all emails put to her. Camden Councils Shaun Flook, Head of Housing Needs (pictured).

A hate crime “Legal Definition of Hate Crime. Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic. Eg Disability.” 

Director of Supporting people in Camden, Martin Pratt  should perhaps do as his job suggests, support!

NowMedical willfully and routinely carries out acts of discrimination in their housing reviews. They also routinely violate Academic, Scientific and Medical research when concluding their findings in their £30 assessments.

Camden Councils Mike Cooke, Shaun Flook (pictured), Damien Dwyer and Martin Pratt, Executive Director of Supporting People Camden (pictured), ignore phone calls and emails put to them regarding Now medical routinely ignoring Academic and Scientific research when assisting their Council (Camden Council) with medical reports.

In 2017 Richard Dummett at Camden Council wrote a housing review on a vulnerable individual.

It has since been exposed Richard Dummett has no understanding of mental health. He wrote a review that relied heavily on the advice of Camden’s in-house medical advisor Neil Steadman. The medical officer Neil Steadmans notes said “ Tenant Claims of being unable to “establish healthy boundaries” with Landlord — I’m unclear what exactly this means… She reports how this has had a detrimental effect on her recovery, caused emotional distress, and caused her health to deteriorate. However, over this time she has continued to manage to work in media, and contribute to online news and blogs”. Mr Steadman was not only displaying institutional incompetence his remarks on mental health were unfounded, uneducated, biased and based on a prejudicial attitude in contravention of the single equality act 2010 (illegal). — None of Neil Steadman’s opinions draws upon medical evidence or medical findings, however, despite facts Richard Dummett was allowed to write his review.

Camden Councils Richard Dummett concluded in his review that bad housing, unsuitable and unstable housing can’t cause anxiety and panic attacks.

One of the Country’s top psychiatrist refuted Dummett statement and said “There is widely published evidence-based research that unequivocally proves the adverse impacts of poor quality housing. It also shows that the persistence of bad housing problems is predictive of worse mental health. Considering the vulnerability of the patient and the complexity of her mental health illnesses, she is more susceptible to these adverse effects”. 

In August 2017 Nowmedicals Dr Eskander did a paper-based desk assessment for Camden Council’s Daisy Akinlade on the same applicant as Neil Steadman had previously done.

Dr Eskander adjudicated that the patient does not have a severe and enduring mental illness. However, the patients leading psychiatrist disagreed with the NowMedical report and their opinion. The leading psychiatrist stated that the patient suffered from several severe and enduring mental illnesses as diagnosed in the ICD-10 and the mental health act 1983. The leading psychiatrist felt that it was paramount importance to accept this for the patient to move forward with the appropriate care and support level. The leading psychiatrist stated this should not be an issue of dispute.

The assessment further provided by Dr Eskander at Now medical was also of the opinion that “medication was the first-line type of antidepressant and nothing above and beyond what is commonly prescribed for someone with depression and anxiety”.

The leading Psychiatrist for the patient refuted this claim by Now medical and stated that medication is only part of the biopsychosocial approach to managing the patient's multiple psychological difficulties and severe and enduring mental illnesses.

The patients leading psychiatrist draws on scientific evidence which clearly states that individuals with the health disorders akin to those his patient has that medication is not the first nor the main line of treatment and as such the dose of the prescribed antidepressant not it being the first line, should be used to judge the severity and enduring nature of her illnesses and as a result, she was deprived her entitlement for an inclusion into the social housing register.

A year later, In October 2018 Nowmedicals Dr Wilson wrote another desk-based ‘independent assessment’ on the same patient for Camden Councils, Sandra Bent and Christopher Williams. Now medicals Dr Wilson concluded that the patient has “a significant history of psychiatric conditions that warrant treatment and that are disabling”.

The patients leading psychiatrist was “clinically, medically, and psychiatrically relieved and satisfied that Now medical had moved away from rejecting the evidence that she does suffer from a severe and enduring mental illness (as per Dr Eskander's report) to accepting it (as per Dr Wilson's report)

Despite this, the patients leading psychiatrist noted that Now medical ‘experts’ consistently refused to accept the adverse impact of unstable, insecure accommodation in general on the mental health and illnesses, despite the breadth of scientific research to support how it can adversely impact on individuals suffering from the mental illnesses akin to those as the patient.

Dr Wilson acknowledged “ the applicant has lived in various locations throughout her adult life and at times been homeless”. The leading psychiatrist felt that the acceptance by Dr Wilson of the facts of her previous suffering, significant vulnerability and the unstable accommodation she had throughout the years, is in his opinion a clear indication of her entitlement for high eligibility, especially at the stage of her life when for the first time she has been offered a treatment programme for a major factor in her emotional vulnerability, which carries a risk of completed suicide.

Self-proclaimed expert at Now medical, Dr Keen wrote “for medical priority to apply under LBS allocation policy, there needs to be a serious impact of the current housing. The impact must be serious, an ordinary adverse impact does not apply. I don’t think this threshold is met in this case., so medical priority does not apply”. Dr Keen considered completed suicide to be a minor medical issue.

The leading psychiatrist refuted Dr Keen's findings. He stated, In my opinion, the patient has been a vulnerable person for most of her life and remains so for the foreseeable future, even after treatment is completed. This vulnerability coupled with multiple comorbid mental illnesses and risks put her as a high priority as any adverse factor will have an “amplified” psychological and behavioural serious impact with increased risks of self-harm and completed suicidality.

The leading psychiatrist for the patient further stated that such risks are well documented and studied as an association with the mental illnesses and the diagnoses she has and were accepted by Now medical Dr Wilson- Dr Keen's colleague.

The leading psychiatrist also wrote in his report to Christopher Williams at Camden Council who cited the factor that lack or a limited number of housing is a reason to dismiss the patient of her housing needs. The leading psychiatrist wrote “ Limited or lack of housing facilities available is independent of eligibility or depriving her of the points she is entitled to”.

One of the other reasons for refusal for housing needs is the chronicity of her illness, Now medicals Dr Wilson states “rehousing was unlikely to improve the applicant's condition. The condition is chronic and has been present for many years regardless of the type or location, on this basis I do not think medical priority occurs- Dr Wilson”.

The leading psychiatrist refuted this claim. The leading psychiatrist states “To say that her illness is chronic is not disputed but to use the nature of the illness to deprive her of the chances of recovery that in itself needed to be aided by having stable accommodation, that she has not had for many years. He continued she is currently having a positive attitude to treatment, hence her chances of recovery are more and better once stable accommodation is provided”. 

The leading psychiatrist's opinion was “not giving her suitable accommodation on the grounds of chronicity is like sentencing her to the poor outcome and halting any chances of her to improve and regain her life and function properly. The lack of stability and uncertainty of having a suitable accommodation is a perpetuating factor that impedes the chances of recovery and in her situation in particular — accessing treatment”.

In his report the leading psychiatrist of the patient thought that a narrow definition of medical illness that focuses on physical ability with little attention to long-lasting psychological disability was applied in accessing the case, “There is no evidence provided indicating that the applicant’s current property cannot be improved or adapted to meet her needs at a reasonable cost- Dr Wilson, Now medical”. The patient's psychiatrist also concluded that little attention was applied to accessing vulnerability factors in her condition.

When writing the stage two review, Camden Councils Cherry Cabey whose facebook page says she is “working hard for god”, ignored, dismissed and failed to acknowledge the leading psychiatrist's third report that was emailed to her and Shaun Flook.

Cherry Cabey ignored more evidence including a separate letter saying treatment had been stopped until the patient was in a safe home away from potential dangers, dangers that include forced prostitution. Cherry Cabey relied on using Dr Keen and Paula Harris (Camden Councils, Occupational therapist) to rubbish one of the Country's top psychiatrists.

It has been questioned if the English language was Cherry Cabeys first language because she failed to understand vital comments in the psychiatrist's report about risk evaluation. The leading psychiatrist says there were no discrepancies in his reports as one refers to the risk on the time of assessment and the high risk overall for the conditions the patient has.

All vulnerabilities were ignored again and the patient is still at risk of forced prostitution, (human trafficking).

It’ is up to the reader to draw upon their make it up as they go along conclusions, but to the author, it looks as though this is nothing other than a Hate Crime by Camden Council and the Now medical Cowboys. However, with the evidence presented it is clear that Now medical are failing to assist Councils with medical honesty and integrity, and therefore failing to safeguard some of the Countries most vulnerable individuals.

Nowmedical enable Camden Council to Blame victims of Sexual Exploitation

British Labour Party politician and the leader of Camden London Borough Council since May 2017 Georgia Gould has ignored all emails put to her, as has Kier Starmer.

Vulnerable women who are at risk of sexual exploitation (trafficking and forced prostitution) need protecting not blaming. Drinker, Head of Housing Shaun Flook (pictured) took vulnerable individuals off the housing list and lead "exceptional circumstances" panel decisions even though he had no mental health knowledge / expertise. His twitter page also demonstrates that he has no understanding of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. Shaun Flook also "manages" Old Owens Cricket Club.

Camden Council fails to acknowledge that their negligence and inability to safeguard a homeless woman back in 2014 lead to the demise of her mental health and nearly her death. Overseen by Director of Supporting People in Camden, Martin Pratt (pictured) and signed off on his letter headed paper.

In 2014 they placed an emotionally, psychologically and physically vulnerable adult in a property with an unsuitable landlady which subsequently lead to the young woman relapsing falling into prostitution and attempting suicide.
Camden Council fails to acknowledge that the vulnerable women who are still at risk of sexual exploitation in her home, needs protecting not blaming.

Camden Council made one woman feel violated and persecuted after she read their housing review of her.

Camden Council’s Christopher Williams (Allocations) and Shaun Flook (Head of Housing Needs, pictured above) ignored vital evidence in the patient's psychiatrist report when stating a vulnerable adult is not entitled to medical points despite having several severe and enduring mental illnesses.

Williams and Flook (pictured) also failed to acknowledge she is and remains highly vulnerable to sexual exploitation in her current address.

Extracts are taken from her psychiatrist medical report.
Evidence of current accommodation having a serious effect on her health Sexual vulnerability: There is an extensive history of her being vulnerable to sexual exploitation from others. She is emotionally vulnerable and is at risk of exploitation by others in abusive relationships and sexual assaults.

The current accommodation being of a known address to drug dealers and “pimps” put her at serious risks not only to her mental health but also to her physical health and wellbeing. She continues to present as extremely vulnerable and at constant risks of being attacked, intimidated or coerced into activities that put her life at risk. She described “living in a constant fear” of someone coming into her flat, with the ease of its accessibility, and its address is known. The constant fear of this happening had led to an “avoidance behaviour” of her spending most of the day time in a different location with a friend “V”, seeking shelter and feelings of safety. She assured me during this assessment that this friend “V” is ready and willing to testify for those facts and effects of the seriousness of the impact of her current accommodation on her health and how that friend witnessed it.

On the balance of probabilities, considering her presentation, insight, progress made over the last few months and risks of deterioration or her safety, I support her application to join the housing register.

The “tenant- private landlord “ relationships she had throughout the years (as highlighted above) appear to have been most problematic. These “tenant- private landlord “ relationships varied between being insecure, unsafe and psychologically unhealthy or conducive towards her recovery. As such, these patterns of relationships have only served to “ open unhealed wounds”, recapitulate early life experiences (as young as six) and emotional responses to various abusing figures and encounters, hence complicating her sense of insecurity, lack of trust, anxiety and fear, leading to a significant delay in her psychological well-being and recovery.

Camden Council used a psychiatrist at NowMedical to help advise them. The assessment provided by the psychiatric adviser from Now Medical concluded there was no evidence that the applicants current housing circumstances were impacting seriously on her health and well-being and so a medical award was not merited.

Christopher Williams and Shaun Flook (pictured) rejected/ignored the above evidence from the applicant's psychiatrist when concluding their review. They wrote, “Drug dealers and pimps gaining access to your flat without you providing access appear somewhat unlikely, barring there being an issue with the intercom system which would gain them access to the communal areas and not to the flat itself. If this is the case that the intercom system is not operational this would need to be reported to ensure the safety of all residents of the building….. you should have moved away”

The above statement by the Camden Council Officers is factually incorrect as anyone can gain access to the vulnerable women’s building via the tradesman entrance. This discovery is further evidence that Camden is not capable of basic fact-checking and are incapable of looking at all of the evidence when assessing vulnerability and priority need. They did not consider she was vulnerable to exploitation entering/leaving the property. They also failed to acknowledge that once someone gained access to the inside of the building, one knock on her flat door and it’s lights out. They also failed to acknowledge she has no finances, capital, credit to rent and they ignore the fact that she has previously been exploited by private landlords which included a private landlord via their private lettings.

The Psychiatric Adviser at NowMedical was of the view that there was not sufficient evidence, despite 35 pages plus of evidence submitted that her current accommodation had a significant negative impact on her medical condition.

Further alarm bells rang when it was discovered that Dr James Wilson of NowMedical had not been a practising psychiatrist since 2012. Nor did he examine the applicant, whereas the expert psychiatrist had carried out several.

Camden Council relied on Dr Wilson’s paper-based assessment that had signally failed to engage with the great majority of the reasoning and conclusions carefully expressed by the applicant's psychiatrist in both his reports to dismiss the applicant's psychiatrist’s conclusions.
DR KEEN of Now medical said “the applicant already resides in accommodation with access to normal facilities. Suitable medical and support services exist in the current location. For medical priority to apply under LBC Allocation Policy there needs to be a serious impact of the current housing. The impact must be serious; an ordinary adverse impact does not apply. I don’t think this threshold is met in this case, so medical priority doesn’t apply”.

There is also no indication Camden Council took seriously the psychiatrist’s concerns about suicide or the essence of her EUPD.
In this case, the applicant's medical adviser who has written academic peer-reviewed journals is both more qualified to advise on the applicant’s condition and demonstrates a greater understanding of the applicant than the NowMedical cowboy. More credence should have been given to the applicant's psychiatrist and his views.

How can someone with several severe and enduring mental health illnesses who is physically vulnerable in their own home not have their mental health impacted as a result of their living arrangements?
Dr Keen and his NowMedical cowboys often come up with opinions which are arguably objectionable, particularly in the light of the fact that they do not examine the patient, consider their full medical records or even talk to their medical advisers. However, in this case, Dr Wilson failed to assist Camden in safeguarding a vulnerable female.

Camden Council and Now medical fail to acknowledge that nobody asks to be raped or sexually exploited, and it’s never the victim’s fault. It doesn’t matter what you wear, where you went, who you went with, or what you took, whether it was drugs or alcohol.

Nobody who’s the victim of sexual violence, rape, or sexual exploitation is ever to blame for the crime committed on them and any defence NowMedical’s Dr Keen & Dr Wilson, Christopher Williams & Shaun Flook at Camden Council use when writing their housing review on those lines is reprehensible.

NowMedical's paper written opinion by Dr Noha Eskander MBChB MRC Psych

Imagine you have an illness, and your specialists agree your home life is causing your health to deteriorate. Your GP and your specialist agree you would benefit from moving, but your local authority landlord refuses based on the opinion of another GP who claims to have read some of the paperwork but never met you. 

Councils around the Country including Camden use this company for a reason….. To refuse as many people as possible and deny them of their truth. A lot of the cases online were referred to Court whereby the judge appears to have gone against Now Medicals findings. 

Below is a copy of a medical report by NowMedical, who narrowed down numerous medical files to the below paragraph, and Now Medical helped Camden Councils Daisy Akinlade decide on someone's future. 

The medical person Dr Noha Eskander (pictured) a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist wrote the report on the young lady who is in her thirties on behalf of NowMedical. NowMedical states in the letter Dr Eskander has NOT REVIEWED the applicant’s medical records and has not examined the applicant.  Pictured Dr. Noha Eskander. Dr Noha Eskander states the applicant has been abstinent for a significant period, however, addiction therapists will say the applicant was early recovery!!

The Issues Are:

ALCOHOL AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCE MISUSE

The applicant is female in her 30's with a difficult history involving many sexual assaults. She has now been abstinent from illicit drugs and excessive alcohol drinking for a significant period. She is not under the care of secondary mental health services; I note she was reviewed once with a decision to follow up once final time to monitor her response to antidepressants. Her prescribed medication is considered an ordinary dose of the first-line type of anti-depressant ie nothing above and beyond what is commonly prescribed for depression and or anxiety. I note that her risks are deemed low apart from being vulnerable to exploitative relationships; a risk which one may face either being homeless or not if she impulsively gets involved with the wrong type of relationships. 

Given the information supplied, I do not consider her to suffer from severe and enduring mental illness. I have been unable to find evidence that her current housing circumstances have a serious impact on her health and well-being. Having has due regard to LBC housing policy, medical priority does not apply.

This report has been prepared at the request of the London Borough of Camden. The author of the report, Dr. Eskander, is a medical practitioner who is employed by NowMedical Limited, and whose medical qualifications are listed at the end of the report. The report is intended to provide an expert, objective and independent assessment of the medical information submitted in support of an application for housing, to assist the housing organization in making its decision concerning the application. The opinions expressed represent the author’s true and complete professional opinion, based on the information submitted. 

The advice follows consideration of the information listed in the report. Save as is disclosed in the information listed above, Dr Eskander has NOT reviewed the applicant’s medical records and has not examined the applicant.

NowMedical 55 South Parade London W4 5LH

tel: 020 8742 8713 fax: 020 8742 8714 email: HYPERLINK "mailto:advice@nowmedical.co.uk" advice@nowmedical.co.uk website: www.nowmedical.co.uk

Their website says they charge 30 pounds for a medical report. They also provide prompt, professional advice to assist when medical and psychiatric issues are involved in part VII homeless - vulnerability cases. They also provide a report with reasons within one working day. My question is what sort of Cowboy Doctor will work for a company for thirty pounds a report? Thirty Pounds? If I was Camden Council I'd be asking for my money back!!! 

It remains unclear what notes were used by Dr Eskander to write this report and why the problem was noted by DR ESKANDER as only being named as ALCOHOL AND ILLICIT SUBSTANCE MISUSE! It is also unclear what file Homeless Prevention Manager Jane Mullholland gave to NowMedical to review especially as now Medical state Dr Eskander has not reviewed the applicants' medical details.

 Dr Eskander does not refer to academic findings regarding Borderline Personality and PTSD there are symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and engaging in 'survival sex'  (another form of self-harm, for an already sexually abused women) among homeless women. Something Dr Noha Eskander would have known if she was a competent psychiatrist. 

Also Among the more prominent mental health concerns for a homeless adult woman is the increased rate of borderline personality disorder. So, therefore, no recovery available to someone already suffering from the illness if made homeless equally no recovery for someone not in a safe and stable home.

However, Dr Eskander contradicts herself because she also refers to the difficult and traumatic past of the applicant- something she does not think makes someone vulnerable if homeless. Dr Noha Eskander states the application has been abstinent for a significant period, however, addiction therapists will say the applicant was early recovery!!

Despite being provided with numerous amounts of evidence by the applicants private therapist and other medical professional DR Eskander reduces the notes of the medical condition to Alcohol and Illicit substance abuse (this is not a true and/or fair reflection of the medical evidence that was submitted), she does not refer to the PTSD or Borderline Personality Traits or the dangers of the traits..... Daisy went gung-ho on that one..... and Daisy does not have one medical qualification.

Dr Eskander also says that the applicant is on first-line medication. NOWHERE in the records does it say that the medication will hold and manage the applicant's mental health issues if increased. Something Now Medicals Dr Eskander should have known if she is a competent psychiatrist. 

Eskander also fails to acknowledge that it is very difficult to prescribe an addict medication, especially when there are risks to the patient becoming addicted to them.

Eskander states that vulnerability is deemed low except to exploitive relationships which apparently according to DR Eskander one may face either homeless or if she impulsively gets involved with the wrong type of relationship. Once again Eskander ignores the vulnerabilities and dangers of women with borderline personality traits and PTSD if made homeless. 

Eskander ignored any Academic research to conclude her findings. She also failed to acknowledge that the applicant could become a victim of deeply exploitative relationships off the back of homelessness. 

Dr Eskander failed to take into consideration the Borderline Personality Traits, PTSD as well as very early recovery stressors, and the potential dangers of someone living with them daily.

What the Barrister Says “The background to the young lady’s housing difficulties is lengthy and I shall not repeat it in full here. The Young Lady is a vulnerable woman. She suffers from several medical conditions including PTSD, anxiety and panic attacks, recurring urinary infections, and has a history of alcohol dependence and drug misuse as well as eating disorders. She has been the victim of multiple sexual assaults and abuse as both a child and an adult. She has managed to abstain from alcohol and drug misuse for several years now.”