Skip to main content

Mandy's Magic again

In a response underlining this little recognised issue. My mate Mandy puts some historical clothes on my last posting that’s worth posting on the face of PPlog. Here it is:

So to the the main plot: I think your posting has relevance to the story I was sent in regards to The Norwich 'Mind' Day Centre being closed down. As in you have a mental health trust whose view on support seems to revolve around a 'Recovery Model'. Take me back a few years to my involvement in NIMHE and I remember attending some session on same thing. I ask now, what I asked at that session, "Whose recovery model is it"? I didn't believe it had any input from service users then..and was basically a government initiative that was being steamrollered out as the best thing since 'Prozac'.

I guess the only difference between then and now was that then I strongly voiced my dissent and wasn't told that I had to keep schtum.

And the relevance is that on the one hand you have a MH service saying that it's view of service delivery is around a recovery model that most service users have had no say in and on the other you have a leading MH charity closing down a day centre, that most service users have had no say in....so that Norfolk service users (as many others across the country) have zilch choices whilst both NHS and charity services are being dismantled around them.

Locally, we have 'Mind' running recovery sessions for 'Rethink' carers' group. I don't like to get caught up in conspiracy theories but see alot of coersion (bed hopping) going on. None of it for the benefit of service users.

But it's alright isn't it? because most service users are oblivious to what is being done in their name ...until it is too late... and who gives a monkey's about the mentally ill anyway?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...
Post a Comment
Read more

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...
2 comments
Read more

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.
Post a Comment
Read more