Showing posts sorted by relevance for query bob. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query bob. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, August 25, 2008

Mental Health : The Strange Tale Of Scuffles And Pirates

Of Parrots And Pirates


A strange tale occurs lately on the UKSurvivors forum - the home of the marginalised in UK Mental Health survivory. We had a look at various posts after a blogger named Bob claimed he was accused of being a serial rapist accompanied by a cartoon. We suspected Kakatoo the UserWatch cartoonist of being involved - especially as parrots are involved ...





The cartoon :



The Text :


"Complaints are coming in that drugged parrots in South Yardley have against their will been tattooed by a bandana-ed man known as Pirate Bob ...

"Pucy Green" one of the parrots said :

"Bob gave us all drink and when we woke up Bob had tatooed our bibs - we think he took advantage of us for self promotion and some of us are having our anuses checked too because we think date rape drugs were used on us "

"Yellow Feather" said :

"I have been itching badly at my rear end and I vaguely recall Bob screaming orgasmically :

"I am having some COCK-in-too"

"He told us he was seeking to create worldwide Parroty but now we have Bob's Bibs and aching anuses ..."

The RSPCA commented : " Parrots should not be tatooed or date raped"

Police in South Yardley have gone to Shard End Pool where there is said to be an small island chain and secret drugs hideout.

They have issued a warning to all parrots in the Bham area:

"If you get Bibbed by Bob you might get Knobbed too - report it to us ".


Bob wrote in a subsequent post : "I LIKE IT



Bob's Post


We have no idea what the rest of the scuffle is about but we want to ask Bob why he can reverse the sense of the truth in his posts so quickly about alleged parrot-rape ? . "I like it" in our book means "I like it" .....

We agree accusations of serial parrot rape are shocking and so terrible we too are heaving , but no they are not on par with human rape Bob, which unfortunately you've implied and for someone who can write as well you can, that has to be for effect doesn't it?

.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Alistair's Budget Belter For Mental Health Users

Cartoon By Kakatoo Roving UserWatch Toonist


Alistair Darling today as Chancellor of the Exchequer showed the New Labours trend toward joining and upholding the corporate mind-set . Gone are the days of championing those who are weaker and inadequate now its all about making them work (BBC report) . Perhaps turning them back into a "Working Class " New Labour helped to disinvent .. The Raid On Welfare as we might call it has been on the cards for some time because the growing population of older people in the UK coupled with the lack of productive base for jobs that the previous working class in the UK had as its province has created conditions in which to support more welfare demands would have meant more taxation and therefore a loss in the middle class vote for New Labour ..

To avoid this swing New Labour are going to redistribute wealth from welfare into corporate classes and new third sector businesses.. Its new socio economic territory for the UK ..

Pathways to Work a Sainsbury's Centre For Mental Health pushed model and a Govt (US. copied) welfare to work plan and its various contractors have been readied to take on getting Incapacity Benefit claimants back to work ...

"After April 2010 all long term IB claimants will have work capacity interviews " Says Alistair..

It should be interesting but very sad to see what fallout this is going to create with long term mental health Users many of which feel it might be kinder to start up a UK Dignitas...At least death caused and hastened by poisonous UK policy would then become a open issue as opposed to the way it will be socially concealed in suicides and bad health, and more tragic circles of stressed out madness amongst the long term mentally ill .....

Links : Pathways To Work

University Of York

Nick Robinson's BBC Blog On IB

Silvis Rivers Guardian Comment


Bob Grove

Bob Grove joined the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health at King’s College London in March 2003 to lead the Employment Programme, which advises government and local authorities on policy implementation. Previously he worked at the Institute for Applied Health and Social Policy and before that in the non-profit sector, developing many different types of work scheme including supported employment agencies, social enterprises, social firms and vocational training.

His recent work includes writing employment guidance on the implementation of the Government’s Learning Disability Strategy and the National Service Framework for Mental Health – both commissioned by the Department of Health. He is currently on secondment to the Department of Health, working on the Incapacity Benefit Reform Pilots.

He has written widely on disability and employment issues. Recent books include A Framework for Supported Employment (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2001), Working Towards Recovery (IAHSP, 2002) and Hidden Skills, Hidden Talents (IAHSP, 2003), New Thinking about Mental Health and Employment (Radcliffe Publishing 2005).

Contact Details

Tel: 020 7827 8398

Email: bob.grove@scmh.org.uk

© 2008 The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, 134-138 Borough High Street, London SE1 1LB | tel: 020 7827 8300



Thursday, July 17, 2008

The Mental Health Great Pyramid At Three Geezers



Mental Health Archeology By Indiana UserWatch


We love gods and goddesses in the Mental Health Arena because they create religions and chants and things ..

Occasionally there might be ritual cake involved too and we know some get very big slices . Yes they are priests ..

Yet the pyramid builders of influence and "reform" always appear to be doing well out of the careers and constant ways they attract money to schemes and groups whose aim it is to centralise power upwards in the name of Service Users .....NSUN the stop-go stop-go National Service Users Network cobbled together by a few top-downsters were granted 750k in all in 2007 for use over a few years and there's bugger all to show for it . I

In now 18+ months of existence in their July 2008 edition of their newsletter they say on page one of the resignation of two top NSUN members :

"We regret to announce the departure of Chandra Fowler as Network Coordinator and Chris Wright as a member of the Management Committee. We would like to thank both Chris and Chandra for their contribution towards the development of NSUN and wish them both well in the future. "

The three people pyramidised above , Jan Wallcraft , Andrew McCulloch (EX Dept Of Health Civil Servant - Ex CEO of Sainsbury's Centre For Mental Health, and current CEO Of Mental Health foundation) and David Crepaz Keay, have been and are associated across years to mental health charities or agencies and we wonder what good have their actions and use of money created with all these attempts to create corrals of top professionalised Users to influence and lead the rest - who we are not sure need leading at all .

Users might however need themselves as more healthy, and Patient Choice to deliver more of that ....

All three though are sure to have created some good but what was it ? Anyone know or want to volunteer more information - we'll publish it - with examination and critique of course . We know that all are associated with the marketing of mental health "Anti-stigma" as a chant with which to attract Service Users who do not have much hope in their lives ..

We've argued that the "anti-stigma" approach that has been developed in the UK has been linked and strongly skewed into the policy of getting mental health Users back to work and off benefits . Jan worked in the Sainsbury Centre For Mental Health which Dr Bob Grove (adviser on Pathways To Work) seconds out from to the Dept Of Work and Pensions . NIMHE (100 +milions cost over 5 years) of which Jan Wallcraft was an "Expert Fellow", was advised by her , and they created entry level jobs mainly for Ex Service Users , many with academic backgrounds and a degree of fitness that meant they could work . Jan can work . This section of people however were not representative of all Service Users at all. They vanguarded nothing but their own circles .....

More recently we carried a story with cheek on UserWatch about Jan's Wishcraft and we reported her saying of her resignation from a Research Group associated into Gov't :

"We feel it has become untenable to work in the current climate of "top down" non transparent decision making which we feel has been so damaging to power sharing , partnership and effective involvment "

But what does Jan say in the latest NSUN July 2008 newsletter after she had been to a MH conference in Toronto :

"One piece of work common to WPA (World Psychiatric Association) and INTAR (International Network Towards Alternatives and Recovery (http://intar.org/) is 'trialogue', which was developed in Germany and taken up in a number of other countries. A mental health trialogue brings together mental health practitioners, service users, and families/carers, in an arena which is kept neutral, i.e. not on hospital grounds but in an accessible community venue, where people can talk freely and openly about mental health, in a way that can be personal, political, philosophical and practical.

There are criticisms by some service users who have been involved with German trialogue, that it tends to rule out the most critical service users, but it does seem to be a format which might benefit us in England to deepen people's understanding of each other's issues and break down polarised thinking, stigma and ignorance "

Where Jan Wallcraft really stands is shown at the end of that text . Namely she may be prepared to rule out the most critical voices in order to buy into a trialogue in the UK .. The voices with the most power of critical integrity come from the margins though in our experience Jan ... Anything else becomes "Top-Down" Jan ..

Jan also says :

(INTAR ) " It brought together survivors and mental health activists with professional backgrounds who are critical of the biomedical model of mental health and are trying to change things in practical ways. "

So there we are out we come again with more top-downsters who create the collusive allure that pyramidicity of influence is the best way forwards. What the fucking hell is wrong with arguing for straight forward patient recovery budgets for all long term MH Users to keep people well and out of crisis rotational admissions . Lets all create our own real Well-th-spaces that way .

This is where NSUN and David Crepaz Keay , Jan Wallcraft and Andy McCulloch have gone really wrong in not getting to grips with that . Patient Power is not on the agenda properly with them . Patient Choices of recovery treatments (post crisis) are not on their agenda - or the Govt's really . Andrew McCulloch advocates wide use of Computerised Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ...Yeah ....We know, ofcourse, good empathically skilled people cost money to help heal others and they would be first choice for many patients if they existed. CBT though is superficial, useful for a few but lacks realistic longitudinality - and lacks inside its model the interior tolerance of emotional intelligence and emotional damage .

Rituals happen to create publically viewed spells of better mental health promises sometimes and the big Anti Stigma push will be out to create more flag waving - Blue Peter badges, a walk by the Queen etc but the reality for many Users is misery without proper supports and that voice is moaning all the time without much of a hearing as to its unmet need . Kinda makes Patient Choice (and recovery and management budgets to match) not so much as the radical agenda but the only real one that fits people equally ..

David Crepaz Keay was the CEO of Mental Health Media in 2004-5 and left in that year to go to Mental Health Foundation . Andrew McCulloch had ran both Mental Health Media and SCMH and then ran Mental Health Foundation . So what User empowerment have they supported that has created equal access to choices of recovery supports . Have they banged on that drum or is it the Anti Stgma work-driven charity and govt skewed policy that more lately just happens to have netted £18 millions for several charities including Mental Health Foundation ?


We think a great pyramid of geezers has been created, and continued ..


Friday, July 11, 2008

Sainsbury's Centre For Mental Health and The Next Steps For Corporo Rogue-gress


A Bad Kakatoon As Usual By Kakatoo


UserWatch Rip-orts



The Health Service Journal has just published Angela Greatley's new spiel (below) regarding what's next after nearly 10 years of the 1999 National Framework which she thinks has seen acheivements largely influenced by Sainsbury Centre For Mental Health .

We observe at UserWatch that "Beyond the Water Towers" (taken from the book SCMH promotes echoing the "bad" old asylum's appearances) is in fact the newly built re-institutionalising Corporo-Towers which SCMH helped to institute .. And , we'll come to that a bit more later below .

From the very beginning the SCMH with its push to drive people back to work through "Pathways To Work" led by Dr Bob Groves, a SCMH employee seconded into the Dept of Work and pensions, has had a post-victorian system delivery work agenda (not a Patient Choice agenda). It has done this alongside its charity colleagues like Mental Health Foundation (run by Andrew McCulloch previous ex-CEO of SCMH) and Mental Health Media (which Angela Greatley is a Trustee of) , Mind and Rethink who are all selling to Govt that "Stigma" by society and employers is one of the main problem areas. We do not believe this . We think discriminatory services are the real problem and SCMH has been forced to see many mental health Users have been re-asylumed into prisons .. Well done SCMH for your influence..

The MH charities all of course push this "stigma" line and its very well funded and they are expanding their influence and reach into communities on the back of this with lottery money .. One of their ex crew a previous CEO of Rethink Cliff Prior works for part of the Big Lottery .

Mind however after a major push of some 5000 surveys in 2007 turned out only 300 + service Users living mainly in sink areas who they say complained of "stigma"....Rethink lately has gone very quiet about its 25000 stigma examining survey which it was supposed to report back to the public about this April ....

The problems is the Charities need a line to push and they do not favour "Patient Choice" because of its greater inherent power shift back to the patient. SCMH and all the other Charities have pushed the notion of the "User Voice" ...Its been the cheaper system driven way of actually depriving people of their voice away from instituting real choice .. This will never be squared but it will be played with because already with Direct Payments (a method of funding some Service Users) and even we think with the so called Individual Budgets evolution, the gatekeepering of these will be constantly narrowed .. There will be no real "Patient Choice" for many - but more suffering and being pushed by financially lean services into new forms of marghinalisation ..

We see Social Inclusion as a fraud why ? Because the idea of SCMH with its Dept of Heasth baby NIMHE which it purchased the cradle website for and the Dept of Health lost the records for grew into a kind of cosly bureacracy for the more middle class corporo-aping Users...These self circlers many of which were actually kind people just used money up shifting around information inside meetings and diverting potential growth of "Patient Choice" into the more corporately acceptable "User Voice" .....

Lord Dickie Layard (London School of Economics) when he did give his first endorsing speech in 2005 at SCMH about the need for therapies for Users - something pushed by SCMH, chose CBT : The anti emotional non-inner world self-suppressive cogntive fix ...Botic-psychology.... Who owns the patient's mind - the patient ? NO . Its the orthodoxy of the system deliverers and cheap fixes pushed by a supermarket charity post victorian approach .. Adminsitered by the superficial poor solution bringing professional class of nearly all of the practitioners in mental health .. The good few are rare - they are there, we know some so we'll insert that too before we are biffed by friends ...

Social Inclusion trumpteted by SCMH and Charities is more like Social Pinned-clusion . Some Users actually have badges made by Trusts to reward them with status and belonging as well as a whole new raft of User-groups but hardly any are seeking more autonomy and true self management . They are pinned . Like special butterflies they colourfully dot NHS websites now and the few in house magazines that Trusts always produce . Some of this is deliberately rigged too with recruited ex-Users and even PR firms are involved - this is the case in Birmingham .

In Birmingham and Solhull Mental Health Trust they underpin for £6000 a year a cluster of centralised roups that are dependent on the rent of their premises being paid for by the Trust . Local wider approaches and support is far less if at all, and User "autonomy" is still managed in the shadows by the Trust . "Mainsteaming" though is seen as all and the sensible bridges for progress do not exist but the pinned-clusion is not an answer either . So what is ? Critics that we are do we have any answers ?

Yes we do ..

Again its wider and widened Patient Choice. Pinned clusion happens because patients are not helped properly and have no power to bring training to them (Grants) which they purchase and control - paranoia and social exposure fear are important to factor into making progress not "Get to college for training" ....The NIMHE-ites could achieve that in more black and white performance mode - many were ex-uni types (a few we know and drink tea with) and they know their views were favoured as were ex-Users "voicing " for others in Trusts and meetings based on their own "expert experience" ..

One of UserWatch's collegeaues observed one ex User, now working for a Mental Health Trust (we'll never forget it ) saying of other Users in parrot fashion of a well know Trust top jerk "Get them out of their comfort zones" ... What a limited view that was given so happily and it was generalised upon to the approval in a main meeting with managers listening to what they need to hear .....

So will we get beyond the new Corporo Towers Angela ? NO .... Mental Health cleaner concentration camp experience tells us the guards are wearing more informal and coloured clothes and the Trustees have increased and are wearing new shiny badges like kids and the new strait-jacket is let the charities and Services do your marketed "stigma" thinking for you while a Patient Choice culture never really takes off ....Sad isnt it Angela ... ?


Below From The Health Service Journal

"Angela Greatley on a new vision for mental health"

  • Published: 11 July 2008 09:00
  • Author: Angela Greatley
  • More by this Author
  • Last Updated: 11 July 2008 09:00


"Next year, the first of the government's national service frameworks will come to an end. The adult mental health framework was published in 1999 as a 10-year plan for improving services and setting out what patients could expect from them.

"The question many are now asking is: what next? Many of the services the framework promised are now in place, thanks in part to the extra funding that has come into the NHS since 2000 and the targets contained in the NHS plan that year for crisis resolution, assertive outreach and early intervention teams. Other elements of the framework, notably in primary care, have fallen short of expectations.

Nonetheless, the conclusion of the framework's 10-year life provides an important opportunity to review what has been achieved and set out the direction for the next decade. Unless we do, the risk is that the sense of urgency and purpose the document created will dissipate and we will simply drift without a clear sense of long-term, strategic direction.

"The aim should be to demonstrate that mental health matters to all of us and that the role of public services is to support those who experience mental ill-health"

In addressing this question, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health has worked with partners in other mental health charities, the NHS Confederation and ADASS to set out what a new vision for mental health beyond 2009 would look like. The outcome is the discussion paper A New Vision for Mental Health.

Improving lives

The document notes that people with severe and enduring mental health problems now have access to better services than they did in 1999, but that their lives continue to be constrained by communities that still do not accept them as equal citizens and by services that do not do enough to give them the same opportunities in life as everyone else.

Mental health is still seen as a minority issue, something to be avoided and ignored rather than an inevitable fact of human life.

Our starting point for the next decade, then, is to look beyond what we have achieved in building better services and to focus on helping people build better lives for themselves.

From promoting better mental health in schools and workplaces to giving people with severe and enduring mental health problems control of their own care and support (as Lord Darzi's next stage review has begun to iterate), the aim should be to demonstrate that mental health matters to all of us and that the role of public services (all public services) is to support those who experience mental ill-health to live the lives they want to live.

Universal concern

In other words, we need a new national framework, not another national service framework, for mental health. Central to this framework is leadership across government, with a Cabinet-level champion for all aspects of mental health and well-being.

Mental health is so important to all of us, as individuals and as a society, that it needs a voice where national policy gets made. It must no longer be an afterthought of government policy, stuck out on the margins of health and social care. It is so fundamental to the human condition that no policy discussion - about the NHS, law and order, welfare reform or education, for example - should take place without it.

For more on the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, see www.scmh.org.uk

To read the discussion paper, visit www.newvisionformentalhealth.org.uk

  • Author: Angela Greatley.Angela Greatley is chief executive of the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.

Friday, October 06, 2006

"Stakeholder Involvement ? Or Fakeholder Involvement ?

Userwatch has received an email dated 6th October 2006 , to Catherine Underwood :

Head of Commissioning and Contracting Adults of Working Age
Adults and Communities Directorate
Birmingham City Council
Louisa Ryland House
44 Newhall Street
Birmingham
B3 3PL
Tel: 0121 464 5121


The email below puts forward a number of important views and questions the apparent lack of Section 11 (Health And Social Care Act) 2001) consultation in Birmingham UK on certain parts of the Mental Health Day Care Services ..

The original email was copied in to Netter Carder a Director at the Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health Trust , To Sue Turner's (CEO) secretary and to the Statutory Forum for Patient & Public Involvement and others ... :


"Dear Catherine



I believe part of the Adult MH Day Care services is adrift of appropriate Sect 11 consultations. I am very concerned that the MH Services co-admined by Social Care and yet under the service provision via section 31 agreement with Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health Trust - appear to be chaotically adrift of openly announced Section 11 consultations.

Was the statutory PPI ever involved in being told what Section 11 arrangements were put into place at The Hawksley MH Day Centre ?

The Albert Rd Day MH Centre for instance appears to have had its services varied almost by stealth over some time ; subtracting an activitiy here , and an activity there ...Making it less attractive .

Reducing Service Users numbers and dependency on it . A self fulfilling service prophesy of under-use apparently .

The current broad brush approach for 2006 - 2011 "Commissioning Strategy For Adults Of Working Age " would also appear to be , I am sad to say , democratically perverse.

It has every sign of becoming a substitute for individual Mental Health Day Care Centre Section 11 consultations sensitised to local context and Service Users at specific Day Centres.

The rush to "socially include" and "mainstream" and create a "clubhouse" modernising services is poorly thought out and ideological.

Arising partly from Dr Bob Groves (et al) work involving the Sainsbury's Centre For Mental Health " Pathways to Work" with its initial limits of application placed on those on Incapacity Benefit for up to two years , and with some initial age cut off's involved - we now see a massive overapplication of its theme justified by the "Social Inclusion Unit" and major pushes to shrink down the budget for Mental Health still further ..

Sensitivity of application over these "social inclusion" processes and careful thought has been lost Catherine , in a dash to force national policy onto everyone and bypass the check and balance of what Service Users want individually . Evidence in Birmingham of Service Users wishes is flawed because it hardly exists . Please demonstrate where your MH Day Careservices have carried out properly announced Section 11 consultations involving the PPI monitors on the following locations : Hawkesley Centre , Albert Rd Day Centre , and Main Street Centre .

Fitter users and younger ones may well wish to work . But there are other Users who are being cornered by the false modernisation drive which does not involve better supports and treatments ..Some users are lumped in to the drive to "socially include" and frankly are not fit enough and feel intimidated by the whole process and rarely are their direct voices audited. If you have any evidence of audit then please do share it with the PPI .

My position is very clear : apply social inclusion where people want it , are fit enough , and are actively engaged in that and preserve the asylum value of MH Day Centres because long terms Users need them . "Recovery" is not possible for some . Being permanently different is actually their reality .. Seeing that , is the job made possible by individual Centres following the Section 11 law and recording patients voices properly .

I dont think this is happening properly .

Finally I tried to get a place at the Sapphire Suite (a consultation event on 27th Sept 2006 ) and was told it was fully booked by your Secretary Kath Cunningham . I have now been sent a letter by someone who was there which deeply questions how many Service Users were in presence if at all any.




Regards


" ....

Monday, February 05, 2007

The Unaccountable Face Of Mental Health Charities ? And Other News

UserWatch Birmingham UK reports also to the USA :

Mr Des Curley describing himself "a concerned citizen" is prepared to protest SEE "PLEDGEBANK" Sign Ups So far HERE outside the Charity Commission for a day regarding their alleged unaccountability and the unaccountability of some of the mental health charities whom they are supposed to view and partly regulate for "Openess" and "Public Confidence"..

Mr Curley's arguments with some mental health charities and their heads have never been properly investigated he claims and some of his evidence that UserWatch is aware of has not been viewed properly.

His allegations are that an ex charity head has been involved in creating several dubious websites the most recent of which he alleges contained pictures of pornography and references to drug taking .

The issue appears to be that Mr Curley claims he can prove that the charity head concerned in 2006 altered the "registrant's domain status" (record of the ownership of the named website) after Mr Curley had discovered the content of the site.

Mr Curley claims the content remained the same but the ownership of the site was put under someone else's name . Mr Curley claims there were several sites attributable to the one charity head ..

Mr Curley has never been offered an interview by the Charity Commission to demonstrate how he obtained his evidence and what credibility can be attached to it after proper view.

Mr Curley's stories surrounding this charity saga are on another seperate website Here

On other matters the mental health charities particularly Sainsburys Centre For Mental Health has rather biasedly applauded the roll out of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy.

UserWatch regards CBT to have limited and superficial applications . CBT regards "thought" as being able to control "affect" (emotions). Whilst that is partly true, criticisms are growing in the therapeutic community that it leaves out empathic skill and longer term healing of feelings and there is no amount of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy which will use "thought" to heal broken and damaged feelings of trauma and extremely bad childhood developments - rather deep grief from those damages needs to be "worked through". Yet the NHS has been turning into a cheap one size fits all option .. A sovietising supermarket model.

The caring-asylum deeper-care approach that might have been a truer modernisation of mental health by giving way to CBT drives to get people back to work, has embedded within it an old "workhouse" style approach. The stigma concealed within it is :

"your feelings do not count - get to work "...

Immediacy of a required functionality dominates .

Userwatch supports Patient Choice, patient pace and "Treatment first". Its a more logical approach and anything else is a waste of resources by ill fitting patients with therapies that are likely to be anti-feeling and anti-healing and will cause a emotional rebound effects in time .

The mental health charities that have soapily agreed and skated about with Govt CBT drives, anti-asylum approaches, and little patient choice combined with work-for-all NIMHE drives may well be surprised to learn that a large petition is a-building on the Prime Ministers own website .

This petition late last night was 1900 strong, today at the time of reporting it is 2400 strong. It is supported by doctors and mental health service users and staff .. Where were the charities? Long time buck-passing soapily, no doubt ..


Sainsbury's Centre For Mental Health also needs close scrutiny. It registered the UK. Dept of Health NIMHE (National Intitute For Mental Health Education) and was recorded as the domain owner of the NIMHE name ! Mr Curley discovered that . Userwatch has seen the proof.

SCMH clearly has very close connections with the Govt. One of its employees specialising on Work and MH disability matters Dr Bob Groves seconds in to the DWP. An ex head of SCMH , Andrew McCulloch was a senior civil servant working for the DoH and is now the head of Mental Health Foundation which is trying to use other mental charities to form a National User Network .

This cross organisational partly Govt-spectral development is not to be welcomed because "Patient Choice" and locality power of MH patient-development is partly undermined by the charities who soak up large funds and create lost opportunites at local levels for smaller patient groups to launch themselves. MH Consumers and groups of MH patients when given purchasing power will make choices that do not need top down costly bureacracies claiming representation over them.

The mental health "Users Voice " in this regard has become the political plaything of the NHS, Govt, and the mental health charities . Everyone wants their piece of the career user-action..

The mental health charity sector need a serious transparency overhaul . Who they represent needs to be scrutinised and the sooner the better ..



Reference Material From SCMH below :

We Need To Talk

The case for psychological therapy on the NHS

Anna Bird

31 October 2006

ISBN13: 978 1 903645 91 8

FREE


We Need To Talk examines the provision of psychological therapies. The report argues that evidence-based talking therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy are as important for the nation’s health as any cancer drug or surgical procedure. Evidence shows that they can help millions of people in the UK who experience common and severe mental health problems.

The report calls on the Government to provide psychological therapy through the NHS in line with NICE guidance. It also says that the NHS should introduce waiting time measures for access to mental health treatments.

We Need To Talk is a collaboration between five mental health organisations: Mental Health Foundation, Mind, Rethink, The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, Young Minds and published by the Mental Health Foundation.

Download We Need to Talk PDF (1,070 KB)

.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Mental Health PathQuake Hits Sainsbury Centre For Mental Health

Sainsbury Centre For Mental Health
PathQuakes Over The Highcroft Hill


Oh dear , Purple Bunny and the NHS-Betics above have discovered a terrible Sainsbury Centre For Mental Health Pathquake over the hill .......Oh dear ... Strangely enough this was discovered at the same time as the Commons Public Account Committee noted that the Prime Providers of : "Pathways To Work" (strongly influenced by SCMH and Dr Bob Grove who worked for SCMH ) had pretty much blown £760 Million and actually done worse than the Jobcentres !! .

See 13th Sept 2010 Report From the Independent

Mental Health Users for whom Pathways To Work was also designed, were hardly helped at all and often "parked" . Why ? Because most were not fit enough anyway and demanded a lot of support that was often impractical in an economy that simply does not fit to magical thinking but certainly creates a lot of socially unsupported sinking ..

Many Mental Health Users were caught inside Labours 10 years of ideology paradoxes . There was no legal Patient Choice mechanisms added to special training help at an in-reach level. In other words training was instead "mainstreamed" (and unsuitable) rather than piloted in special ways inside the NHS contexts to help long term vulnerability . Who for instance could now learn how to operate digital skills online or offline since Trusts dumbed down on everything and overcontrolled everything or pushed it out via "social inclusion" ethos ... Gone was safe sanctuary, and the concept of aided growth inside a mental health community of vulnerability ....Oh apart from User-involvement which partly spawned a divisive class of elites that often sold their fellows out ...

SCMH and others just pushed anti-asylum ethos and pro "social inclusion" ethos in a real world struggling to create real work for many others who were fitter anyway ...

Therefore in mental health, economic context, and suitability for adaptation to real work was ignored by the planners and thinkers and NHS civil servants . Savings though were searched for in Day Services . They still are being targeted across the country and in Birmingham so we hear (tell us more) . The "elephant in the room" were the paradoxes of left wing and prayer over real care .. The paradoxes of no real work , no inreach training where it counts - inside the mental health community where personal growth might have been more possible to adapt people into launch capability - but of course Labour made sure no legal rights of Patient Choice existed either .... Users were bureau-job-fodder.

From the INDY :

" A flagship £760m programme to reduce the number of people on incapacity benefits only had "limited effect" and was not well implemented says a critical report published today.

The Pathways to Work programme contracted work to private providers who "seriously underperformed" and had lower success rates than Jobcentre Plus, the Commons Public Accounts Committee found. Between 2005 and 2009 the number of people on incapacity benefits reduced by just 125,000 and the committee said it could not be clear how many of these were due to the Pathways project."

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Mental Health: Sainsbury Name Withdrawn At Mental Health Centre

.


Users On Benefits Have You Got £500

To Attend A Conference To Plan

Mental Health Users Futures In November ?

(read on)

Although the Sainsbury Centre For Mental Health on July 21st altered its name (deleting "Sainsbury" off it) its networking culture remains the same, and its been a powerful mono-driver (not a market and serious choice driver) in mental health planning, and some people attribute the one-size-fits-all Cognitive Behaviour Therapy "Layard" (14th Sept 2005 SCMH speech) thrust to it.

What is clear is in 2001 - 2 it founded the National Institute For Mental Health In England (NIMHE) and aided the then new NIMHE (cost £100 + million by 2009 ) mental health bureaucracy drawn mainly from University Educated Middle Classes that shaped it towards identifying "recovery" as getting mentally ill people back into work. That aim was its cornerstone and it over-rode patient choice of recovery treatments as a User-priority - instead everyone in mental health circles was treated to the User-involvement bureaucratization of patient-hood and the belief that "user-involvement" was the entry level strategy for working . All it proved was that fitter mental health Users got jobs with NIMHE and NHS Trust networks that supported NIMHE and its aims .

SCMH "Pathways to Work" designs and thrusts though have not created the new Jerusalem inside a neconomy that broadly supported middle class tertiary sector aspirations and social-engineering economies but not export driven business and manufacturing . These are very areas where economic and social recovery was needed for 20 years until the big sub prime debt wake up for the UK and others occured . SCMH promoted itself as experts in mental health, but was not expert into seeing into the open illusion that drove the growth of the middle classes in an unreal way across a UK economy and into record debt .

The National Mental Health Development Unit (NHMDU) shadowed itself into place as NIMHE was got rid of in 2009 .. On April 1st 2010 NMHDU bulletined :


"Promoting Recovery-focused services : The NMHDU has agreed a project-led partnership with the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (SCMH), supported by the NHS Confederation, to promote and support recovery-focused organisations and services. The work builds on the recent SCMH programme, Making Recovery a Reality, and the clear support for recovery approaches in New Horizons. The project will pilot recovery-focused organisational development across selected local NHS sites (still to be determined) and will demonstrate and evaluate outcomes for providers and commissioners. Further information will be available on our website shortly."

SCMH's own bulletin below shows only that its still about in a different name after July 21st 2010 with an extra three years of Gatsby Foundation Grant (Sainsbury Trustees) until it finds its new funding - no doubt the lottery . All the other charities like MIND and Rethink (close associates of SCMH) use that route and one wonders whether there is serious lottery audit for grant effectiveness on corporate charities this size .

"From this month, Sainsbury Centre will be changing its name to Centre for Mental Health, it was announced today.

The name change will take effect from 21 July. It follows the approval by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation for the Centre's plans to sustain its work beyond the conclusion of the core grant it received each year between 1985 and 2010.

Joint chief executive Dr Bob Grove said: "As we develop our work and find new funding sources for the future, we are changing our name. But our work, our values and our approach will stay the same. As Centre for Mental Health, we have a clear mission to improve the life chances of people with mental health problems in the UK, building on the 25 years of work we have done and looking ahead to the many challenges we still face."


Later this year in November 2010 the large SCMH network and other people planners that failed to bring about real Patient Choice in mental health for 13 years of Labour rule will meet to decide everyone else's future in mental health for next 20 years .

The vision is still "work is recovery" and "personalisation" (not legal rights of Patient Choice) is the watered and socially controlled way forwards . They may have got rid of the the asylums and the Water Towers - but frankly these people are not producing any idea of sanctuary for serious difference of mind which does not fit the work-recovery and exposed "communitised" ways forwards . Users are still institutionalised by the planning classes so long as Patient Choice of recovery treatments does not exist

UserWatch has heard from many Users about how pushed around they are, by these social engineering ideas of them being "included" and "recovered" and how pressured some feel especially in the new contexts of changes to Disability Living Allowances , Employment Support Allowance and media "Hate the benefit claimant" headlines. Its even reached the Guardian (the Social Engineering Daily) now, so we hear - who are using MIND as the voice of charity concern even though MIND (along with Rethink) was busily over-shaping work-as-recovery under the Labour Government.

Will the mighty of the the SCMH network and DOH feel any of this sympathetically ? Of course not .. They are rubber ducks in a sea of class and charities and money which flows and flows and has grown because of the lottery .




Sunday, February 10, 2008

The Social Spaghettification Model Of Mental Health In The UK And Locally


THE MYSTIFIED MENTAL HEALTH HOLE MODEL Feb 2008


Spaghetti Politics


By UserWatch



The UK wide social and political forces acting on mental health economies and locally to Birmingham and Solihull are almost totally driven now by a welfare benefit purge across the whole spectrum of mental health by the Govt ...We note the US connections too - they've been talked about in the UK and are influential in being pretty mean to human beings

(See BBC Wisconsin & Tory Story )



Locally new constituency groups (in Birmingham called Community Interest Groups CIGs) are springing up to examine how to get the unhealthy "workless" back to work ... The signals have been clear for years though to mental health Service Users who know that the bureaucratic power of the NHS is actually anti-patient in mental health at the point of REAL recovery choices . In others words if you are a mental health patient you cannot really choose and shape the recovery environment (post crisis) you need for better mental health - the NHS alongside other agencies crushes that. Often quite cleverly by labelling Users and gatekeepering them outside of treatment regimes . So how some Users recover on the ladder and gradual-rung approach is already undermined UserWatch observes. (See too the Taxpayers Alliance story about the lethal NHS)

Service Users in Birmingham UK have approached UserWatch to tell us the "Social Inclusion" treatment and recovery work in the local Birmingham And Solihull Mental Health Trust is just "too work and training orientated"....Its a big turn off for people with core problems of just surviving who they are .. But the "fitter" (mainly staff and a few Users too ) are driving the agenda rather than looking at it as a more recovery-by-degree laden agenda in terms of application. We wonder if terms like "Fascism of the fit" might be adopted in mental health circles ?

The lost opportunities for REAL patient choice (which equates to careful growth under the control of the User) can be traced to the way the costly US inspired NIMHE (100 million by 2008 end) and the mental health charities shaped the mental health environment for themselves and their own pet views via numerous advisory groups into the highest reaches of the Govt . The Dept of Work and Pensions (DWP) created their own workarseing welcomed spin, courtesy of the Sainsbury Centre For Mental Health (SCMH) under Dr Bob Groves and others like Helen Lockett who espoused work-externalisation of day services in the NHS services for Users.

A politically calculated attention grabbing substitute of "stigma flag waving" was also (from 2003 onwards) put in the way of patient's vision and has misued their "Voices" more generally as the influential work dominating policy influenced by the few dominated the many, and an SCMH connected mental health charity named Mental Health Media led in that .. Angela Greatley the CEO of SCMH was heavily involved in that too as a Trustee of Mental Health Media ...Their ideology is still being spun out as choices of treatment in mental health lags and a new work push is being played out and employers will be targeted ...And of course naughty people who use the term "Nutters"....

False User-voice mechanisms across the UK to play to the audience have also been put into place by NHS Trusts and others and those "Voices" have often been compromised by cherry picking the most useful malleable Users and paying them to become NHS managed bureaucrats, rather too directly ...In Birmingham it is rife .

The NEW Labour mental health Service User thus is assailed by great forceful holes around them made up of diversionary (from Patient Choice) bureaucratic enrichment.

Selective and selected service-bureau-ex-Users now rule the roosts across the UK . This makes a nonsense of equable social inclusion. Its retrograde - its back to the days of the staff "ward favourites" - played out in another way . "Modernised" ..

Trusts dominate the agenda with ritualistic good performance image-play and support a few groups here and there in their local various provinces.. Selective Inclusion though like this still means "NO Choice" - No help in some localities and in Birmingham and Solihull the Trust orientate around the creation of some Users Groups that have implied a whole new section of new bureau staff ... Oh right ...A bit more bureaucracy ...More lost opportunity for an economy of real patient CHOICE and locality cash-underpinned groups.

We know of one User led group that was very sustaining but hit funding problems and though it catered for a lot of Users per week the local Trust has left it to husk and blow away ..

"The Trust is actually in competition effectively with independent (Service) User led groups in Birmingham" Said one Service User to UserWatch.

"But we have always know this for years - it favours its own inward looking elites "

Says another accusingly ...

" It likes control in Birmingham - it cannot let go " Added another when a UserWatch local correspondent spoke to them ..

The solution of truly democratising mental health has probably disappeared under NEW Labour who want to make everyone regardless of degree of capacity into a "Freudian" worker

(see our last story on David Freud here with cartoon) now in macro conditions that hardly favour that. Yet many Users are still bereft of lives of choices of treatments, supports and power and better creativity ...

It has been kept that way by corporate service delivery and the massively crushing politics of the Dept Of Health rather than breaking the NHS chaining monopoly with Patient CHOICE ...

It could have been exemplified in "Therapy Choices" with a mixed skilled base of private and public being driven to quality by Patient Choice ..If only some had the money NIMHE used up without much audit of what value it had really produced

It could have happened in social inclusion terms if medium to long term Users had been given the right to use earmarked 2 - 3 year sustainable grants to form local groups in their local community centres which they could have run and then re-applied for mental health specific funding.....But all this "Clubhousing type talk" by the authorities in 2006 in Birmingham has replaced by "We are in control" from the local bureaucracies in health and social care...

They could not even be bothered to inform Users properly about the use of Direct Payments (a local authority grant based method to purchase selective services by Users) and Birmingham UK has disgracefully low figures of 1.8 per 100,000 of mental health Service Users using that empowering method ..

The mental health charities are also guilty of stoking the anti choices situation up with advice and carefully timed system delivery therapy logics (one size fits all CBT ) that have favoured themselves in the eyes of the Govt embedded as they are within the new creation of an increasingly "Charitised Welfare State"

Who remains at the bottom after several years of false promises by New Labour ? The Patient without recovery treatment choices whose "voice" should have been measured by a culture of recovery treatments guided by themselves through their own purchasing power - not by the creation of a new class of Service Users who have diverted power and NHS money into new bureau-career structures ..

UserWatch has no objection to Independent User Organisations who are accountable first and foremost to the democracy not to the NHS bureacracy which has a vested interest in creating more of itself at the default expense of the patient. But New Labour set the tone ..

Users Voices have to become their own, through their own owned choices of recovery treatments through purchasing powers....Otherwise in the great noodles voices and mystification surrounding the mental health economy, the forces over-archingly governing the Users miss the point, and destroy the coherency of User needs and experience, making it into a tangled spaghetti politics that tears medium to longer term Service Users apart ...

Divide and rule sauce anyone ? - On your social spaghetti experiences ? Or do you just want to be sick ?........We hear there is talk though in Birmingham now of large petition guns a-forming to combat the cowboy ways of the new Spaghetti Services with their zero hoops some Users are disappearing in ...


Linking Stories

(See also Richard Blundell Paper here )

(See A4E ref Palestinian Story Connection here)


Sunday, June 29, 2008

Mental Health Individual Budgets - Blood From The State Stone ? And NALM

Copyright 2008



UserWatch has learned from sources at NALM the National Association of Links Members which is the renamed organisation that was previously the National Patient and Public Involvement Members organisation - that £20 million is to be earmarked for Individual Budget pilots so says Lord Darzi, to be applied to conditions where disabled people needing continuing NHS care will be able to create their condition management choices through purchase .

Labour of course have typically laboured the point of Patient Choice (health purchasing power for patients) across years . This minor push for Individualised Budgets is actually more consumer driven in thinking in appearances, but Labour do like bureaucracy and central planning , not exactly like "old labour" but more like, lets keep the new corporate bureau classes happy and system delivery under their new corporo-class control ..

In mental health the State is oppressive still massaging the voice of Users with uneeded middle ranks of new bureacracy mediating the User Voices. Its a closed off affair in Trusts with their budgets for the manipulation of the Users-Voice. This half-way system was put in the place of "Patient Choice"- trumpeted by the "experts" who were self appointed in and around the MH charities and NIMHE .. So did Darzi choose to use MH to pilot these small ripples of change ? No he didnt excatly specify ... As the pop song goes "Its a mystery - its a mystery"

Here's the text italicised below put out by NALM, though the information originated with the Health Service Journal -

Do PLEASE note the anti-GP-power , anti-local stance by Labour who want GP's to be more under the control of Foundation Trusts ! Labour, we add , has to be thrown out of power because system delivery twisted up in false and bought off appearances of patient democracy is now more important with them, and they are attacking the GP-Patient relationship too much with the new heavy tanks of Corporo-bureacracy and central planning - its strange to see bad liberalism and sovietism mixed together with deformed hybrid market economics isnt it ?

We would rather eat maggot soup than be around Labour's overcontrolled mess ..


(Text Below Originating From The Health Service Journal )

"The NHS constitution will be published alongside Lord Darzi's report on Monday [30th June 2008]. The constitution will be put out to consultation.

The government is hoping the next stage review will be seen as the successor to the 2000 NHS Plan.

Health secretary Alan Johnson has said the review will be "the most important development in the history of the NHS".

Lord Darzi will announce integrated care pilots. There are expected to be 15, testing a variety of models. However, more complex ones - for instance allowing foundation trusts to provide GP services - are likely to require primary legislation.

Primary care trusts will be told to come up with a plan for their provider arms by the autumn.

HSJ understands recommendations on boosting public involvement in PCTs will be included, following debates during the review of various models, such as foundation trust-style membership.

Acute providers will see a firm commitment to introducing normative pricing in payment by results. The tariff paid would reflect the most efficient rather than the average cost for some treatments.

Lord Darzi's report is expected to announce "pension passports" allowing NHS staff who transfer to social enterprises to keep their NHS pensions.

Lord Darzi is expected to announce the introduction of individual budgets for patients. It is understood there will be £20m available for pilot schemes allowing patients with long-term conditions such as MS or who require NHS continuing care to shop around for their treatments. "



BELOW Extracts from NALM Newsletter June (sorry in advance about the formating it was taken out of a pdf doc )


National Association of
LINks Members
Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care
Members' Newsletter ☼ June 2008


Building the National Association!

Members across the country have done a massive amount of work to get the new LINks
system running. In many areas new structures have been established and a start made
to begin the task of monitoring and influencing what happens in our local NHS and
social care sectors. The task of rebuilding the capacity to monitor services after the
Government’s second abolition of health care monitoring organisations in five years is
an immense one. NALM has been in the vanguard of demanding that a major
government priority across the country must be high level support for the development
of effective monitoring, inspecting and reporting on health services for patients and
users of social care services.

NALM is busy recruiting across the country and aims to recruit 1000 individual
members by the end of 2008. We are well known for effectively lobbying for
significant improvements to the legislation that established LINks and we are becoming
a driver in the development of the LINKs locally and as a national and regional force.
We have developed a high profile with Ministers, the Department of Health, amongst
parliamentarians, local government, with the Healthcare Commission and many other
national and local bodies. In addition to promoting the development of new effective
community organisations, we are producing information and developing proposals on a
range of health and social care issues, the first of which will be about cancer services
and pandemic flu. We now have a formal legal structure, which should serve us well.
All this has been achieved on a very small budget and with the active and dynamic
support of members across the country. Steering Committee members are working
tirelessly to build the National Association.

Urgent Action: Many private providers are exempted from monitoring by
LINks. These include services contracted before April 1st 2008 by NHS Trust
or PCTs. Please ask your MP to write to the Secretary of State for Health to
request the production of additional Directions from the Department of
Health, to bring all contracts for health and social care within the scope of
LINks.

National Steering Group: North West: John Amos, Audrey Meacock.
North East: Patricia Bottrill, Trevor Gauntlett. East Midlands: Hali Qureshi, Iris
Parker Smith. Yorkshire & Humberside: Ray Crorken, Ruth Marsden.
South West: Bob Maggs, Elli Pang. South East: William Hatton, Len Roberts.
East of England: Anthony Darwood. London: Michael English, Malcolm Alexander

2
The Annual Health Check
The Healthcare Commission (HCC) are committed to obtaining as much data as
possible from LINks members, former Forum members and anyone who has
direct experience of health services (hospitals and PCTs) over the past year.
NALM has agreed to encourage our members to participate in the process. The
HCC are also developing a way to capture experiences (both positive and
negative) from health services users and community/user groups using personal
commentaries. The forms (containing personal commentaries) will be sent to
HCC analysts who will then extract information and give it a data quality and
weighting score. The information will then be fed into the HCC assessment
process and applied to one or more of the core standards.

Urgent Action: Have you information about the effectiveness of services
provided by a local NHS Trust, Foundation Trust or PCT that you have not
yet provided to the Healthcare Commission? Do you know of any patient,
user, carer or voluntary sector group that has something to say about access
to or the quality of health services? If so please send this information to the
Healthcare Commission Head Office or to the Regional Office (shown at the
end of the Newsletter).

HCC, (Head Office), Finsbury Tower, 103 Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8TG
020 7448 9200

Monitoring the national picture

To the annoyance of a few local authorities NALM has been gathering
information about their commissioning of Hosts, how they have spent their
money and their progress with fulfilling their statutory obligations. We have
asked every local authority to supply basic information about their progress and
although most have been very happy to supply information, some have claimed
that our expectation that they meet their statutory obligations under the
Freedom of Information Act is too onerous. All of the data that we collect is
being compiled into a report that will be presented to our members, local
authorities, Ministers and the Health Select Committee. We have also offered
to meet with any local authority across the country that wishes to discuss the
development of Hosts and LINks.

Criticisms of NALM. A former Forum member expressed concern that the NALM
has no mandate to act on behalf of LINks and expressed surprise that we are
seeking information about development of LINKs in his area. In the absence of
any national liaison body from April 1st, we believed it was innovative and
wise to set up a co-ordinating body. Had we not done so it might have taken
years for LINks to do what we have done in a few weeks. We are not
attempting to act on behalf of LINks and have no mandate to do so. We are a
body of those LINks members who choose to join us. Early in 2009 when LINks

3
have been established across the country we will hold a national members
meeting and elections will be held amongst all our members.
Our ambition is to support the continuity of PPI, to encourage people to join
LINks, support and advise potential LINks members and provide a vehicle to
influence and advise government in relation to how the new system could be
best supported and services developed. The pace of development is very slow
in some parts of the country and without pressure, some LAs might take a very
long time to get the local LINk going. There is also some very poor practice
across the country, e.g. transitional LINks dominated by PCTs and a failure to
ensure transitional monitoring of health and social care services. Our pressure
and support for local members is making a real difference.
The Audit Commission’s Role in the Creation of LINks
Steve Bundred the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission has the duty to investigate
the effectiveness of the process for creation of Local Involvement Networks (LINks) in
England and has been asked to publish a table of local authority compliance during the
quarter April –June 2008 in the following areas:

1) Date of appointment of “host” organisations, i.e. when the contract passed the
seal of the local authority.
2) Date “host” certifies to the local authority that the LINk has been created.
3) When appropriate, date that the transitional LINk (means of carrying out LINk
duties) was brought into existence by local authority (acting as transitional
host).
4) Details of activities carried out by local authorities through the transitional
LINk, where this has been established to comply with the legislation.

What can LINKs members Enter and View? Major
Loophole in LINks visiting rights in Foundation Trusts.

In addition to adult social care and health services provided directly by the NHS
and Local Authorities, LINks members can "enter and view" publicly funded
services provided by the private sector, but only those for whom contracts
were signed post 1st April 2008. Services contracted between Foundation
Trusts and the private sector are beyond the scrutiny of LINks members. The
position has been clarified by Health Minister Ann Keen:

4
Ann Keen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Health Services), Department of
Health; Brentford & Isleworth, Labour)
On 1 April 2008 we issued Directions to organisations commissioning health and
social care services. Under these Directions those organisations must ensure
that new contracts with independent providers allow for authorised
representatives of local involvement networks (LINks) to enter and view, and
observe the carrying on of activities in, premises which are owned or controlled
by the independent provider. The Directions do not apply to NHS Foundation
Trusts.

Urgent Action: Please ask your MP to write to Stephen Hay the Chief
Operating Officer of Monitor requesting that all Foundation Trusts are
obliged to agree to provide LINk members full access to their services for
the purpose of entering, viewing, monitoring and reporting of the quality of
those services.
Stephen Hay, Monitor
4 Matthew Parker Street
London
SW1H 9NP
Stephen.Hay@monitor-nhsft.gov.uk & michael.moruzzi@monitor-nhsft.gov.uk
Some other parliamentary answers

• Monitoring funding for Hosts and LINks: “The level of local authority
contribution to the LINks is a matter for individual councils. Area based
Grant is a non-ring fenced general grant and as such there are no
requirements for local authorities to report separately on how the grant
is utilized”. (John Healey MP Department of Communities and Local
Government

• Funding of LINks: “We have no plans to review the funding allocations
of LINks”.” (Ann Keen MP, Department of Health)
• Indemnity: There are no central arrangements to provide indemnity for
those involved in local involvement networks. This is a matter to be
determined locally”. (Ann Keen MP, Department of Health)
• Expenses for LINk Members: “It is for each LINk to determine its own
policy regarding payment and reimbursement, including the payment of
allowances and expenses. We have reminded LINks and the host
organisations, that the Department’s Reward and Recognition: The
principles and practice of service user payment and reimbursement in
health and social care document provide a useful guide on these
matters”. (Ann Keen MP, Department of Health)

5
• Independence: “LINks will be independent and will have the power to
develop their own priorities and agendas. They will need to develop
relationships with a number of stakeholders to fulfil their statutory
role”. (Ann Keen MP, Department of Health)
• Regional and National Networks: “In certain circumstances LINks may
want to work in partnership to monitor services provided, for example,
cancer networks, mental health services or ambulance trusts, across
more than one local authority boundary. LINks may also wish to work
together in regional groups, or even nationally to share experiences and
findings. There is nothing to prevent LINks using some of their funding to
establish local, regional and national networks if they wish”. (Ann Keen
MP, Department of Health)
Who are the independent providers?

How is a LINk to know (a) which private providers there are on its patch (b)
when their contracts date from and therefore whether they are accessible
to LINk scrutiny?

NALM Vice Chair, Ruth Marsden sent an FOI to the Department of Health asking
for a list of contractors for each NHS and social care body and discovered the
Government doesn’t know. She received the following reply:
Thank you for your email June 4, 2008, requesting, under the Freedom of
Information Act, a list of independent sector providers in England.
The Department does not hold centrally a list of all independent sector (IS)
providers operating in England. Nor does it hold centrally a list of IS providers
providing services to the NHS through local arrangements.

David Winks
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health
freedomofinformation@dh.gsi.gov.uk

We are now writing to all Strategic Health Authorities with a similar request.

No Residential Requirement for Membership of LINks
Misunderstanding about a ‘residential qualification’ for membership of LINks
have been clarified by the Department of Health and the Centre for Public
Scrutiny, which is one of the partners of the National Centre for Involvement
and responsible for production of the guides produced for LINks members:
http://tinyurl.com/5uxtft
Any person can join any LINk in England. This includes people from Scotland,
Ireland and Wales, who can join LINks in England and may wish to do so if they
are receiving care from an English health or social care service. A LINk may
6
decide in its governance arrangements to bar someone from outside its area
from joining, but our advice is that this would probably be unlawful.
However, the big problem is that a hospital group or other Trusts, which covers
a number of local authorities, e.g. the South London and Maudsley Trust in
London, is likely to be monitored by the LINk in which the headquarters of the
organisation falls. This will effectively exclude patients from all the other
boroughs where services are provided by the Trust and prevent proper
discussion by users and the public about service quality. Advice, support,
resources and guidance are badly needed to remedy this huge weakness in
LINks.
A Culture of Secrecy? LINk refused information about
contract with Host
A LINk member who made a Freedom of Information Request(B222 190) to his
local authority requesting information on payments in relation to the contract
for provision of services to the LINK by the Host got the following shocking
reply:
“Unfortunately, the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure
under Section 43 (Commercial Interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 because:
• Disclosure of this information would commercially disadvantage the Host
should they decide to tender for the position of host for any of the other
available contracts in the region.
• Disclosure would unfairly benefit other companies tendering for similar
projects.
• Disclosure would detrimentally affect other authorities who have yet to
complete their tender exercise for a LINK host as the market would be
distorted.
This is a qualified exemption. This means that we have had to apply a public
interest test and balance the public interest in withholding the information
against the public interest in making it available. After careful deliberation,
the balance has been in favour of withholding the information.”
A complaint is being made to the Local Authority and the Information
Commissioner.
7
"Towards a strategy to support volunteering in health
and social Care”
This draft volunteering strategy for health and social care was launched by the
Department of Health in June 2008 and attempts to articulate the key actions
needed to address obstacles to developing a new vision for volunteering in
health and social care. The consultation runs until 30 September 2008 and the
final strategy is expected in early 2009. There are a number of workshops as
shown below: http://tinyurl.com/6fhnvg Gateway number: 9841
Workshop Dates:
East Midlands – To be confirmed
South West – 2nd September 2008
London – 3rd September 2008
North West – 8th September 2008
Yorkshire and Humberside – 11th September 2008
North East – 12th September 2008
South East – 16th September 2008
West Midlands – 23rd September 2008
Eastern Region – 29th September 2008
Bookings forms and contacts for workshops will be available on D of H website
What NALM seeks to do
On April 1st we began building a national, user-led, organisation of LINks
members as well as supporting and advising members during the transition to
LINKs. We are committed to highly effective, inclusive local community
involvement and accountability in health and social care services. We must
make LINks work.
8
The aims of NALM are to:
1. Provide a national voice for LINKs’ members;
2. Promote public involvement that leads to real change and the ability to
influence key decisions about how care services are planned and run;
3. Promote the capacity and effectiveness of LINks’ members to monitor
and influence services at a local, regional and national level and to give
people a genuine voice in their health and social care services;
4. Support the capacity of communities to be involved and engage
in consultations about changes to services, influence key decisions about
health and social services and hold those services to account;
5. Support the involvement of people whose voices are not currently being
heard;
6. Promote open and transparent communication between communities
across the country and the health service;
7. Promote accountability in the NHS and social care to patients and the
public
Our approach is to:
Harness the expertise and knowledge of all those people who have the skills
and knowledge to monitor their local NHS and social care services by creating
effective local LINks:
• Actively encourage the involvement of all local people who are not
currently involved yet have an interest in improving health & social care
• Lobby for adequate funding of LINKs to support outreach and community
development activities
• Build a regional and national infrastructure, fully-funded, to monitor and
develop specialist, mental health, ambulance and paediatric services
• Work with voluntary sectors organisations which specialise in particular
health conditions to improve the effectiveness of local monitoring and
service development
• Be diligent in ensuring that the voices of all local patients and users are
heard loud and clear in the NHS and in social care.
• Put LINk members in touch with each other

Action NOW! Get involved, join the LINk, join NALM, collaborate in the
selection of the Host in your area and make sure that a competent host is
selected, that the Host is accountable to members of the LINks and that the
new LINks have the resources and support they need to be effective
9
Health Select Committee:
Please write to the Chair of the HSC or your own MP asking the Committee to
collect evidence and produce a report on the effectiveness of transitional
arrangements for the monitoring of health and social care since abolition of
Patients’ Forums, and the adequacy of the resources, support and monitoring
for the LINk system. The Committee can call Health Ministers and any other
organisations to give oral and written evidence.
• Rt Hon Kevin Barron (Chairman), Rother Valley, barronk@parliament.uk
• Charlotte Atkins, Staffordshire Moorlands, ATKINSC@parliament.uk,
• Peter Bone, Wellingborough, bonep@parliament.uk
• Jim Dowd, Lewisham West, Jimdowd.newlabour@care4free.net,
• Sandra Gidley, Romsey, Gidleys@parliament.uk
• Stephen Hesford, Wirral West, hesfords@parliament.uk
• Dr Doug Naysmith, Bristol North West, naysmithd@parliament.uk
• Lee Scott, Ilford North, scottle@parliament.uk
• Dr Howard Stoate , Dartford, stoateh@parliament.uk
• Robert Syms, Poole, edwardsn@parliament.uk
• Dr Richard Taylor, Wyre Forest, pricemah@parliament.uk
Regional Offices of the Healthcare Commission
Bristol, Dominions House, Lime Kiln Close, Stoke Gifford, Bristol, BS34 8SR
0207 448 8158
Leeds, Kernel House, Killingbeck Drive, Killingbeck, Leeds, LS14 6UF
0207 448 8179
Manchester, 5th Floor, Peter House, Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 5AX
0207 448 9100
Nottingham, Maid Marian House, 56 Hounds Gate, Nottingham, NG1 6BE
0207 448 8188
Solihull, 1st Floor, 1 Friarsgate, 1011 Stratford Road, Solihull, B90 4AG
0207 448 9200
Contacting NALM
Malcolm Alexander – Chair - 0208 809 6552/07817505193
Ruth Marsden – Vice Chair – 01482 849 980/ 07807519933
10
Steering Group Members of NALM:
Region Name Address Email
EAST
MIDLANDS
Iris Parker-
Smith
55 Hillsway
Crescent,
Mansfield
NG18 5DR
Mrs Hali
Qureshi
27 Lucknow
Drive,
Mapperley
Park,
NOTTINGHAM
NG3 5EU
hali.qureshi@btopenworld.com
EAST OF
ENGLAND
Anthony
Darwood
14 Bramerton
Lodge,
Bramerton,
NOWICH NR14
7EQ
anthony.darwood@btopenworld.com
HUMBERSIDE
&
YORKSHIRE
Ray
Crorken
2 Elder Close,
BATLEY
WF17 0DD
ray.crorken@aol.com
Ruth
Marsden
The Hollies,
George St,
COTTINGHAM
HU16 5QP
ruth@myford.karoo.co.uk
LONDON Malcolm
Alexander
30 Portland
Rise,
N4 2PP
maiexa49@aol.com
Michael
English
12 Denny
Crescent,
Kennington,
SE11 4UY
NORTH EAST Patricia
Bottrill
25 Carolyn
Crescent,
WHITLEY BAY,
Tyne & Wear
NE26 3ED
davepatbottie@btinternet.com
Trevor
Gauntlett
133 Donvale
Road,
Donwell,
WASHINGTON
NE37 1DW
NORTH WEST John Amos 15 Carr Hall
Gardens,
BARROWFORD
johnamos15@yahoo.co.uk
11
NELSON.
BB9 6PU
Audrey
Meacock
20 Kelsall
Close, Oxton,
Prenton,
WIRRAL
CH43 2LD.
rob_audreymeacock@btinternet.com
SOUTH EAST William
Hatton
40 Wilmington
Close,
HASSOCKS.
BN6 8QB
billhatton@btinternet.com
Len
Roberts
Ridlands
Farmhouse,
Ridlands Lane,
OXTED.
RH8 0SS
roberts@ridlands.demon.co.uk
SOUTH WEST Eleonore
Pang
10 Yonder
Street,
OTTERY ST
MARY, Exeter.
EX11 1HD
elli@ellipang.wanadoo.co.uk
Bob Maggs 6 Dublin
Crescent
Henleaze
Bristol
BS9 4NA