thanks Mark excellent links. So great to read what you are doing in Manchester. Here in Devon some of us are involved in the Transition Town movement.

Working with others re climate change surely should  be now our top priority  . It links with everything community psychology is about: challenging power and vested interests re consumerism and capitalism, bottom up political action, reducing social inequalities internationally as well as nationally, linking local l with global concerns;  community well-being and resilience with sustainability etc etc; not to mention leaving a world behind so  our grandchildren can live.  It is very disappointing how behind the times both academic and applied psychology is on this topic; I know there was a recent special issue in the Psychologist recently with a few good articles ( none very radical though) but for example almost every issue now of BMJ has climate change/ public health in there somewhere.

I know David Fryer was involved in what he called a "high level" BPS event planning re climate change which didn't happen for some reason ( unexplained) .

Now - if I were less of a luddite I guess this is the moment when I should turn to the new technology Grant has initiated for us,  as there are at least 2 different topics budding off here: save our NHS ( can Sustainable Communities Act help etc etc); climate change action ( what could/shuld community psycholgists do etc etc).

Annie


________________________________________
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Burton [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 09 April 2009 23:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] thanks Annie   Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30 APRIL

Thanks Annie
Good to see you are ative onclimate change - despite my recent attempts ther has been almost zero interest from the list on this and related topics.
Anyway I'm quite busy on a couple of inititiatives
http://greendealmanchester.wordpress.com/  includes my latest analysis of th 'crisis'
http://www.calltorealaction.wordpress.com/

Mark



> further to my email below , here attached for those who want to know more,
> or who want to alert others, the Local Works guide to the Sustainable
> Communitities Act.
>
> Annie
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Annie Mitchell
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 09 April 2009 22:31
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30
> APRIL
>
> I wonder whether actions under the umbrella of the new Sustainable
> Communitites Act may be medium/ long term helpful re NHS ( and potentially
> in other socially progressive ways too).
>
> This Act is being described ( by some) as the biggest constitutional
> change in UK for decades.
>
> I have been exploring it because our local climate change organisations
> in Devon are very hopeful that it may assist with democratic grass roots
> bottom up change towards dealing with/ mitigating the effects of climate
> change and peak oil. I haven't fully got my head around it but I;ll do my
> best to explain as I understand it - and would be keen to have comments
> from others - eg Mark -( I know you are active re climate change/
> chaos) ? - who know more than me:
>
> The general idea is that the Act enables local authorities ( they can to
> chose whether to opt in) to receive, consider and put forward for national
> consideration, locally prioritised suggestions from local individuals or
> organisations about changes in central government legislation that would,
> if enacted, help build more sustainable communitities ie enhance ,
> social, economic and environmental functioning . These local suggestions
> will then go to a panel at central level, who will decide on national
> priorities. Central government has a duty to reach agreement on how to
> take ( some of) these forward; with a published action plan on which
> central government may be held to account by the electorate. The new bit
> here is the duty to reach agreement, so this is ( in theory anyway) not
> just another empty consultative process. It's ( intended to be) about
> medium and long term change from the bottom up.
>
> The trick will be to suggest, in solidarity with others, suggestions that
> can make a positive difference through legislative changes. there are
> many many pitfalls ( eg will local grass roots suggestions simply tend to
> promote the interests of the haves versus the have-nots?) but this is an
> important Act, which we need to get our collective heads around.. This
> will be an annual process; the first wave is happening now.
>
> Find out more from Local Works, the campaigning organisation who have been
> behind the Act, on http://www.localworks.org/
>
> Happy spring time, all ( at least, to all in UK - happy times to others
> elsewhere) .
>
> Annie
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frederic Stansfield
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 09 April 2009 17:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30
> APRIL
>
> I am not sure how to go forward on this.
>
> Let's start by thinking how the NHS was originally set up. It wasn't
> totally a top down nationalised industry run from Whitehall. In fact, much
> of it was under the control of local government. Westminster ran centrally
> some parts of the NHS where national strategic management was necessary
> or, as in the case of teaching hospitals, thought to be necessary. County
> Councils ran services that needed to be provided over a fairly wide area
> such as the Ambulance Service. But many local services, such as local
> hospitals and the management of GPs, where run by District Councils, under
> the powerful guidance of a doctor who held the position of Medical Health
> Officer. The situation was rather more complicated because of varying
> council repsonsibilities, e.g. many larger towns and cities were unitary
> County Boroughs. But you will get the idea. The NHS was not a separate
> bureaucracy, but an integral part of British democracyin which
> responsibility for each part of the service was devolved to the lowest
> practical level (the European principle of "Subsiduarity"). And there were
> professional advisers to the decision-makers with sufficient power to stop
> elected members doing silly things through ignorance.
>
> The trouble was that professionals didn't like to be accountable
> (accountability is always uncomfortable!). The Tories used this to split
> of the NHS into indirectly appointed authorities in the 1974
> re-organisation of local Government. Ever since, we have seen
> accountability destroyed bit by bit, for instance by replacement of local
> suthority nomination of Health Authority members by Westminster patronage,
> and then the whole charade of private enterprise tendering. The result is
> the badly managed, over-centralised, unfit for purpose, poor value for
> money, shambles that we have today. And the professional doctors etc. who
> didn't like oversight by amateurs now find they have got much much worse.
>
> Come back to the current discussion. We are being encouraged to
> contribute to a consultation process on improving market processes within
> the NHS. But the idea of an NHS, inherently a public service, being
> submitted to market forces is inherently flawed. The whole mess is beyond
> reform. It needs to be swept away, as after World War 2 (although with
> less compromise to professional interests) and replaced by a structure
> which, as between 1948 and 1974 but with improvements, devolves
> responsibilty for health services to directly elected representatives at
> the lowest possible level, supported by Medical Officers of Health
> combining the role of professional adviser and chief adminstrator.
>
> In the case of Community Psychology, it is difficult to see why services
> should not be provided and administered in electoral units smaller than
> the current English District Authorities. Clinical Psychology may not be
> devolvable to quite such an extent, but all the same it could be locally
> run in the vast majority of cases.
>
> If this seems silly, ask yourself why the United Kingdom's National Health
> Service is, I believe, the third largest employer in the world (after
> Indian Railways and the Chinese Army) when the United Kingdom is nothing
> like the third largest country. Surely the answer is that other countries
> think it is a bad way to run a health service (most other Western
> countries use insurance based services with saftey nets). But will a
> Whitehall led consultation take such a glaringly obvious point on board?
> You know the answer, don't you.
>
> If we want UK health services brought back under democratic control,
> wherever possible under local government, the fundamental question is what
> actions will be effective towards this end. Is responding to a
> consultation process that will only act on answers already sharing the
> bueaucrats' mistaken values such an action?
>
> Frederic Stansfield
>
> --- On Thu, 9/4/09, CRAIG NEWNES <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
From: CRAIG NEWNES <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30
> APRIL
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, 9 April, 2009, 1:23 AM
>
> What a lovely idea "choice" is - for marketeers
> Craig
>
> --- On Thu, 9/4/09, Wendy Franks <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
From: Wendy Franks <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30
> APRIL
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, 9 April, 2009, 12:15 AM
>
> Hello all,
>
> I'm not sure how exactly how to fit it into this argument, but I'm going
> to throw something in anyway, and hope someone who knows more about it
> (...Mark? Carolyn? others?) can help me out with the details.
>
> I'm learning a bit about Boundary Critique at the moment, and am hoping to
> find it useful in developing some coherence for myself around
> participatory research. I wonder if it is helpful in this argument too.
> As far as I can reasonably simplify it (always tricky to simplify
> something complex that you're in the early stages of grasping, so sorry
> about this), Boundary Critique enables us to take a critical position on
> where/how/with whom we draw the boundaries around an object of discussion,
> interest, study, etc. In a way, it reminds me a bit of quantum uncertainty
> in physics (of which I also have a very, very tentative grasp!) - in that
> - the way in which you choose to measure a phenomenon (as a wave or
> particle for example) has an impact on the measurement you get. In this
> case, we can make choices about whether we look at the NHS as though it is
> a market, and make certain judgements and claims about it on that basis.
> Another of many options is that we can also look at it as if it is a
> service (shock, horror!) that is, as John Cromby expressed it, something
> that is there to care for, heal and if we could so imagine, even nurture
> us.
>
> Each way of addressing the issue at hand is likely to produce different
> conclusions. Of the things that I find appealing about Boundary Critique
> (as described by Midgley, 2000, in 'Systemic Intervention'), is the
> recognition of the role of ethics and values in informing the judgements
> we make.
>
> I think my point might be something like this:
> Of course we can look at everything we do as if it is in some way driven
> by a market and all the stuff that gets exchanged in that market as
> commodoties.
> Or we can choose to conceptualise all of those things in different terms,
> and make different judgements about them informed by other frameworks.
>
> I think I'll leave it there for now. I'm only half way through Midgley's
> book, it's getting late, and I might get a bit unstuck!
>
> Of course, it would be great for me if someone with a better understanding
> could suggest how Boundary Critique could help with this argument. Always
> good to have an idea of how theory works in practice.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wendy
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 8/4/09, John McGowan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
From: John McGowan <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30
> APRIL
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, 8 April, 2009, 9:58 PM
>
>
> I clearly did an absolutely rubbish job of trying say what I was trying to
> say
> about markets. The gist of it was that marketisation of the NHS might not
> be a
> completely unalloyed evil and that "resisting it absolutly" might be
> going a bit far. I realise this view might be a tough sell in this crowd
> but
> it's worth go.
>
> Penny Priest came closest to what I was meaning I think when she said
> mentioned
> market corrections. I've been wondering lately if markets (as opposed to
> The
> Market) are quite as bad as I thought they were in say 1985. For starters
> we're all part of them. Every time we by or choose somethine we're part
> of a process of compiling collective judgements on commodities or services
> or
> innovations. This goes from which which care we drive, coffe we drink ISP
> hosting the community psych website or whatever. Some things flourish and
> other
> things don't make the cut and often the way that gets decided is by a
> bunch
> of collective judgements saying one thing is more suitable than another.
> You may
> not always think we get it right (my wife would rather we used hot air
> balloons
> instead of planes) but a lot of the time we do. All of these activities
> are
> basically are markets choosing one thing over another and there is quite a
> bit
> of literature on the conditions needed for them to function well or badly.
>
> One of the features of the NHS is that it has adopted certain market
> principles
> but is less engaged with others. If two groups are tendering for a service
> it is
> possible to choose one group over another on the basis that they're
> cheaper
> but the two basically selling the same thing: whats recommended by NICE.
> We get
> the cost control side but not the innovation that would happen in a real
> business.
>
> The reason for using IAPT as an example (other than the special feeling
> help
> for it on this list) is that I think it is worth appropriating commercial
> language to point out that one way of looking at it is as a very poor
> business
> model. In some ways its like if Lord Layard took over my local shop.
> Implausibile and not entirley reassuring given his record bu who knows
> where
> this recession might lead. You can imagine how his plan would look.
>
> "We have good professional evidence that bread is a versatile product and
> will be very popular therfore that's what I will sell. My advisors in the
> baking industry assure me that the trials they've conducted will translate
> into consumer demand".
>
> At this point I'd be inclinded to toddle along and ask a few obvious
> questions:
> Q: Don't you think it might be worth selling other products? What about
> milk or cheese?
> A: As and when the evidence becomes available we will consider stocking
> other
> things, but my baking advisers point out dairy products have been sold for
> years
> without RCT evidence of consumer appeal.
>
> Q:You don't think this bread thing is a passing fancy then? Surely there
> is
> evidence for other things
> A: The bulk of the evidence is mainly there for bread so that's the way
> we're going.
>
> Q: I at least fancy a few lentils or maybe some baked beans.
> A: I am convinded that "third-wave" breads such as wholemeal and
> multigrain can address consumer demand in these areas.
>
>
> I could (and I'm sure you could) go on and on but I think that joke has
> gone too far already. In this situation I could do one of two things. One
> would
> be to go and get evidence for the saleability of beans, chocolate, Cillit
> Bang,
> Sepcial Brew or whatever else I fancied. this would probably take a few
> years.
> The other (which ould take 5 minutes) would be to go to the shop down the
> road
> along with most of the other people in my neighbourhood and watch Lord L's
> shop close after a few days.
>
> My point is really that in the NHS its difficult to go to the IAPT service
> down
> the road beacuse there isn't one. If there was (and I'd be happy to take
> tenders for 173 million from users of this list) it might just turn out to
> be
> better.
>
> Its always been difficult to get this sort of market aggregation of
> judgements
> in the NHS. Darzi's proposals might actually lead to some kind effect of
> collective judgement around some aspects of GP services (i.e. the surgery
> with
> rude staff and a crappy appointment system may have to shape up). Making
> such
> judgements around competing variations on something like IAPT would need a
> lot
> of thought. I'm not for a moment trying to contend that this is an ideal
> solution but in the face of the NICE guidelines I'm wondering if we need
> more not less of this.
>
> Happy Easter
>
> John
>
>
> ________________________________________________ Dr John McGowan,
> Year/Academic
> Director, Centre for Applied Social and Psychological Development,
> Canterbury
> Christchurch University, Salomons Broomhill Road Southborough Tunbridge
> Wells
> Kent TN3 0TG +44 (0)1892 507778 [log in to unmask]
> www.salomonscaspd.org.uk www.canterbury.ac.uk
>
> ________________________________
>
>
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of CRAIG
> NEWNES
> Sent: Wed 08/04/2009 4:53 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30
> APRIL
>
>
> Anyone with responsibility for budgets in the NHS will recognize this red
> herring before you can say, " THE NHS exists to subsidize Big Pharma and
> its PSY acolytes." For almost 20 years I defended a psy-budget against the
> so-called overspend on GP drug budgets. In 2006 the drug budget in
> Shropshire
> was ?5M in the red so the budget managers were told to, yet again, cut
> posts to
> pay the bill. The NHS is already a marketplace. Thank goodness that the
> IAPT
> scheme will enable all these unemployed NHS staff to go to CBT therapists
> and -
> er - get jobs as cleaners or whatever.
> Craig
>
> --- On Wed, 8/4/09, John Cromby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
From: John Cromby <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS -
> BY 30 APRIL
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, 8 April, 2009, 4:40 PM
>
>
> Our health needs and social care needs have been thoroughly
> distorted by
> top-down policy imperatives and so-called 'evidence based
> practice',
> and
> consistently subordinated to budgetary constraints that prioritise
> the
> fighting
> of neo-colonial wars. Meanwhile, on the home front the 'war on
> terror'
> legitimates extensive and growing government spending on
> technologies to
> monitor
> and control us rather than care for, heal or - dare I even say it
> - nurture
> us.
> Legitimate challenges to this insane situation, this situation
> structured by
> an
> insane rationality, are increasingly portrayed as 'extremist'.
> And,
> consonant with its own rational insanity, the reproduction of this
> exploitative
> social order is to be achieved by any means that those in power
> imagine that
> they can get away with. As of today, it seems that this can even
> include
> telling
> lies about and excusing the death of a bystander caught up in last
> week's
> anti-G20 demonstrations in London: Ian Tomlinson, who was beaten
> and pushed to
> the floor by the police, without provocation, just minutes before
> he died of a
> heart attack.
>
> In this rationally insane situation, insane solutions to
> manufactured problems
> can gain a superficial appeal. Marketisation of the NHS or social
> care is just
> such an insane solution. We should resist it absolutely.
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
> John McGowan wrote:
> > This is extremely interesting. Thank you so much for sending it
> to the
> list.
> > I've been thinking recently however that perhaps an increase in
> certain kinds marketisation might actually be a helpful in the
> NHS. In some
> way
> markets (i.e. aggregating the people's decisions about alternative
> business
> models) could potentially provide an alternative to the rigidity
> of the NICE
> guidelines. The Dazi review tries to create a market of sorts
> through,
> nominally
> at least, prioritising choice.
> > IAPT is potentially quite a good example of where markets
> might
> actually
> help. I can't help feeling that if there was 173 million quid
> available
> and
> the question of improving return to (and retention within) work
> was put out to
> tender some very innovative proposals (including some from members
> of this
> list)
> might have come back. Perhaps they might even have produced better
> results
> than
> the plan we've got!
> > John McGowan
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of
> Wendy
> Franks
> > Sent: Tue 07/04/2009 9:23 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS -
> BY 30
> APRIL
> >
> >
> > Hello all,
> > In case you are not already receiving these emails, here's an
> opportunity to voice your objections. All the best, Wendy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
From NHS Support Federation, a founder organisation of
> Keep Our NHS
> Public
> > NHS services are now to be provided by a wide range of
> organisations all
> competing within a market. The new Co-operation and Competition
> Panel
> <http://www.ccpanel.org.uk/> for NHS-funded services is to help
> deliver
> the supposed benefits of competition. It will investigate
> potential breaches
> of
> the Principles and Rules
> <http://www.ccpanel.org.uk/content/Principle-and-rules-for-Cooperation-and-Competition.pdf>
> as defined by the Department of Health. It will also advise the
> Department of
> Health and the foundation trust regulator Monitor. The
> Co-operation and
> Competition Panel is a misnomer as its remit is weighted so
> heavily in favour
> of
> promoting competition, whilst neglecting the considerable benefits
> of
> cooperation.
> >
> > We need your help to respond forcefully to the Panel's
> current
> consultation and to lobby MPs. Please write a letter objecting to
> the
> imposition
> of competition and commercial values on the NHS and raising the
> crucial
> questions listed below. Send your letter to the Co-operation and
> Competition
> Panel at the address below and a copy to your MP.
> >
> > Send to: Interim Guidelines Consultation,
> Cooperation and Competition
> Panel, 1 Horse Guards Road, London, SW1A 2HQ or email
> [log in to unmask] Respond by 30 April.
> >
> > Points to make:
> >
> > 1. Will the panel ensure that the alternative of a
> publicly led service
> is included in consultations about future tenders? 2. Is
> the duplication of
> services to produce choice a good use of resources which
> constitutes economic
> efficiency, especially given that the benefits of competition in
> healthcare
> are
> unproven (indeed Minster of State Ben Bradshaw said that the "mix
> of
> competition and co-operation in the NHS is a unique model in the
> world")?
> 3. Will the tendering process be fair and
> transparent, with no discrimination
> against NHS organisations in favour of either commercial or
> voluntary bodies
> or
> social enterprises? 4. Will the public be consulted on an
> ongoing basis about
> local tenders e.g. via local involvement networks (LINks)? 5.
> Will the panel
> foster co-operation not only between commissioners and providers,
> but between
> providers, a hope expressed by Richard Taylor MP in a debate in
> Parliament on
> 24
> February?
> >
> >
> > It is vital to protect and promote a publicly led NHS
> which has an ethos
> which is truly patient-centred. We must insist to the Panel that
> our
> objections
> to the notion of a health service based on a competitive market
> are widely
> shared. With your help we must ensure that our views are not
> ignored.
> >
> > You can see the consultation paper
> <http://www.ccpanel.org.uk/content/consultation-paper.pdf> , the
> four
> guidance documents which are the subject of the consultation, and
> the response
> template at
> http://www.ccpanel.org.uk/reports-and-guidance/guidance-documents.html.
> >
> >
> > Please send us copies of your letters or emails. Thanks
> for your help.
> > NHS Support Federation
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The
> discussion
> list
> for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change
> your details
> visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For
> any
> problems
> or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology
> in the
> UK.
> > To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
> > For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant
> Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
>
> -- ********************************************************
> John Cromby
> Department of Human Sciences
> Loughborough University
> Loughborough, Leics
> LE11 3TU England
> Tel: 01509 223000
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Personal webpage: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/
> Co-Editor, "Subjectivity": www.palgrave-journals.com/sub
> ********************************************************
>
> ___________________________________
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in
> the UK.
> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant
> Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
>
> ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list
> for
> community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details
> visit
> the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For
> any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
>
> ___________________________________
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
>
>
>
> ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list
> for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your
> details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any
> problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
>
> ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list
> for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your
> details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any
> problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
>
> ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list
> for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your
> details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any
> problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
>
> ___________________________________
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
>
> ___________________________________
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask])
> ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])

___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])