Skip to main content
Norfolk Discrimination - More Progress?

On 30th March I made a formal complaint to Norfolk County Council, Norfolk PCT and Gt Yarmouth and Waveney PCT about this issue. I have heard nothing at all from the latter two but yesterday (breaching the time limits in their complaints policy) I actually had something of a response from Norfolk CC. This reads:

Dear Mr. Cox

I have been asked to respond to your complaint concerning the lack of mental health content within the above strategy. I am happy to write to you formally or if you prefer,a conversation to explain the reasons behind the strategy.

Let me first reassure you, the strategy does not exclude people with mental health needs.My services work with many people who have a mental health diagnosis.

The aim of the strategy was to ensure people with physical and sensory loss had a process to be heard, have their say and help us plan and identify services that are needed for this group of people. Older people have a strategy as do people with learning difficulties, mental health and children.

The Local authority wanted to ensure all people with specific needs had a process to be able to get their own issues understood. Therefore if someone was Deaf or blind but also had another disability both strategies could be used to ensure multiple needs could be addressed.

I hope this explains the reasons behind the approach and look forward to your comments.

It is also reassuring to know that people are looking at this strategy and taking an interest.

Perhaps for future reference, the Local Authority could consider putting an explanation at the beginning of each strategy document to make its purpose more clear. I will make this suggestion at the next board meeting if you feel that would be helpful.

Yours sincerely

Paul Bowerbank.

County Manager ,Sensory Support Unit

Community services

Carrow House , level 5

301 Kings Street, Norwich

NR1 2TS

01603 224067

In a hurry, I read this quickly and made a quick reply:

Hello Mr Bowerbank.

At last a response! Thank you Mr Bowerbank.

I would like to have a formal statement and a copy of the mental health strategy please.

As an immediate reply to what you tell me I would have to say, as one directly involved with the NCODP activities, no one from there has given even a hint of equal strategies for the groups you mention.

I also have to say if you are creating silos as you describe, this is contrary to national strategies a and policies which all call for full integration - not segregation.

I look forward to hearing from you further on this matter.

Heddwch.

Mike Cox.

After reading Mr Bowerbank's mail carefully today, I sent him this e mail:

Hello again Mr Bowerbank.

Having been able read your e mail of yesterday more closely, I see you have said:

"Let me first reassure you, the strategy does not exclude people with mental health needs." (my emboldening).

My difficulty with that statement is that we, the NCODP group of service users who volunteered for the Joint Strategy, were all told , right at the outset, categorically by Bill Albert and Peter DeOude of NCODP, who were leading the Joint Strategy workshops, that mental health was NOT included in the scheme. This was later confirmed by Mark Harrison who is not only the Ceo of NCODP but also the Chair of the Joint Strategy Board for people with Physical and Sensory Disabilities from whence the Strategy came.

Can you please clarify the position.

Heddwch.

Mike Cox.

Comments

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...

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...

inappropriate!!!

I tried to respond to a Patient Citizen Exchange blog by Laura Greene today. I said: Hello Laura. Welcome - and my admiration? for you "single-handedly representing the entire health voluntary sector and 1000+ PCX membership..." My first question has to be: what is the composition of the Strategic Advisory Board? And my second question: what proportion of service users to professionals is there on that Board? There are indeed millions of impatient citizens out there. They are called Service Users (primarily because 'Patient" carries the labels 'One that has things done to her/him'; 'One that is subservient to the "We know what is best for you" approach'; 'One that is at the wrong end of an imbalance of power.' etc). The Americans prefer the term 'consumers', but whatever, we should avoid the term with the negative connotations. I was listening to the 5 Live debate this morning on the Strictly Come Dancing row about whether...