Skip to main content

Last Post Sequel

Friday 28th we had the last workshop of our Joint Strategy user group. Part of this workshop was scheduled to establish the group’s terms of reference for our personalisation monitoring functions. The facilitator was Peter DeOude, Membership and Inclusion Manager at the Coalition.

Bouyed by Laurie’s letter and the statements in it (see last post) I’d printed it out and showed it to a couple of the group members early on. They seemed somewhat cool at my enthusiasm, commenting it didn’t change anything WE were doing.

I tried, when Peter asked for any introductory questions, to bring Laurie’s letter to the attention of the group but before I could get very far I was stopped by Peter. I sensed this was when I made mention of ‘mental health.’ I sensed, too, that I was being singled out for gagging - as other group members were allowed to speak at length about their issues. A little later I tried to bring the letter to Peter’s attention by passing it to him. He pushed it one side and ignored it. I decided to wait for the afternoon session which was set for specific attention to terms of reference.

In the afternoon we were split into small working groups. In our small group of four I explained the letter and it’s implications. I was very very saddened to hear the hostility expressed by these disabled people, service users, to mental health being included in our functions and I was ashamed at their insularity. “We have been the Cinderellas of services for years and years and we deserve to have special attention for just physical and sensory disability” was one cry.

Dismayed and disheartened I’m afraid I attended the group reporting session seething with anger. My group reported we had done little work because of me and invited me to explain. I began to do so but as soon as I mentioned ‘mental health’ I was told to shut up by Peter De Oude - verging on skilled dismissal of free speech. I could feel the hostility of most of the group. I told them I could not be complicit with their attitudes and quit the Strategy.

This ‘Joint Strategy for People with Physical and Sensory Impairments’ is being held up as a flag waver for Norfolk. Laurie says in his letter below: “...this is nationally a groundbreaking piece of work.” My opinion is that it is a shameful piece of anachronistic prejudice.

I remain a member of the Coalition and continue to work with the Focus Group for Personal Health Plans/Budgets and communications with Norfolk LINk. Mr DeOude and I have crossed swords before - over tokenism that time. I will keep a close and wary eye on him!

Addendum

The Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People has, just before the general election, published its “Disabled People’s Manifesto 2010 - Equality for Norfolk.” it says:


  • The DDA came in 15 years ago. Nevertheless, disabled people still face discrimination in employment, education, transport, access and more.“



  • ”We want a national campaign to raise awareness about mental health.“



  • ”One in four people are affected by mental health problems. They are too often the victims of stereotypical assumptions, social exclusion, discrimination and even unjustified imprisonment.“



  • By ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities the UK has formally agreed to implement almost all the demands...”


HMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.






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...