This is a copy of my e mail exchanges with PCX as a result of submitting my June blog (see below). these are posted here without comment - come to your own conclusions.
I sent you my June blog on 22nd. Did you receive it?
I did - it is on my to do list. I have been off work with a chest infection so am still catching up - not my usual efficient self at the moment.
Please bear with me
I have some issues with your blog. The whole tone is very negative, and not very helpful just to look back and criticise an organisation that no longer exists. If a person reads that they may be put off volunteering for life.
Also you start the whole blog with
Their concerted drive appeared to have had some success. But by April 2004 - within six months of the estimated start of that drive for the recruitment of volunteers for PPI forums -
Who are they?
And this only tells one side of the story - ie CPPIH were under tremendous pressure from the Department of Health to increase forum member numbers, without the support structures yet in place.
Worse, organisations like CPPIH that use and rely on (and indeed exploit) volunteers are not in any practicable sense answerable for their incompetence and maltreatment of volunteers because they are Quangos.
- What evidence do you have that CPPIH exploited and maltreated volunteers? I worked at CPPIH and gave my time to train and support volunteers all the way along. You need to claify an accusatory statement like that. What do you mean by exploit exactly?
There was for example, a forum member here (not I) who tried to point out that a chair of a local forum should not be a member because she was barred from membership by the statutory regulations. That whistleblower was pilloried and compelled to resign with much damage to his self esteem and reputation.
Again this appears to be an unfounded accusation, who was the member 'pilloried' by? and compelled to resign by whom? As I mentioned before I don't find your tone helpful. Perhaps you could rewrite this months blog looking more forward not back...have you had any dealings with your new LINk yet, that kind of thing?
I can't say I'm surprised at your response to the blog. However, I'll address your points.
1. I suppose it depends on your perspective as to whether or not the blog is perceived as negative. Having worked for CPPIH you are bound to have a leaning that way. However, my paragraph 4 states what the objective is: to learn from mistakes made. CPPIH were always in denial about their incompetence in some areas (obviously not in the area you worked) and, in my experience, there are a great many forum members for whom the text of the blog will chime assonantly and will agree that we must learn from these mistakes if LINks are to be successful.
2. Who `they` are becomes clear within the first two paragraphs - it's a reasonably well known technique to get the reader to think fully about what they're reading.
3. CPPIH, because it was a QUANGO could not be held to account - see my correspondence with the Committee on Standards in Public Life on ppeyes. All channels of accountability were also blocked in respect of CPPIH because no complaints could even be heard by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The reason for that is that volunteers were classed as `personnel.` We just have to learn from that!
4. The evidence is all in my Dossier on ppeyes and I have referenced some of the main sources in my last sentence. I compiled this Dossier of evidence because I was threatened with court action by CPPIH at one stage and their lawyers had my original website closed down - I'm aware you have staff member who can verify that by direct experience.
I do recognise that CPPIH was under a lot of pressure to get things done and this is evident in some of their propaganda - making some claims that were just not true. I really don't think we should be looking back for the sake of it but we do need to learn the lessons of recent history and not bury the facts.
Our common objectives now should be to work together to make as much of a success of LINks as we can. So far we've been going in the right direction. Let's continue that by expressing our varied points of view without censoring them - the opinions of service users have equal importance to the opinions of health professionals, civil servants and politicians.
In the interests of learning from the past, equality, and the Nolan principles of honesty, openness and transparency, please publish the blog as it is and let it be openly challenged.
I am sorry but after consultation with colleagues I am unable to publish this particular blog as it stands. Please feel free to submit an alternative.
Daisy Hayden (02.07.08.)
Shame about that - it seems CPPIH is not dead after all.
Please take me off the blog list.
Please remove my blogs from PCX.