 |
 |
Excellent points Mark. Would particularly want to agree that an attention grabbing headline is essential. I'm more than happy for my name/title to be added, and more than happy to forward a final statement to a couple of tame journos I know who might want to pick up for radio. M Mark Rapley, Professor of Clinical Psychology and Programme Director - Doctoral Degree in Clinical Psychology, School of Psychology, University of East London, London, E15 4LZ, U.K. Tel: +44 (0)208 223 6392 (Direct) Tel: +44 (0)208 223 4567 (Messages) Tel: +44 (0)7951 908409 (Mobile) -----Original Message----- From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Burton Sent: 15 October 2007 12:18 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've been had? Excellent stuff everyone! What about an opt in for those who want their names on it - with deadline say close of tomorrow Tuesday (that way it might make Wednesday Guardian - society day). I suggest on this occasion we use our various titles. However I think we should add the phrase 'on behalf of the UK Community Psychology Network - or members of the UK Community Psychology Network. the opt out could still apply - I'd suggest the dame deadline for anyone to decide they don't want to be asociated with it. Unless there are more than 10 people I'd arbitrarily suggest that is sufficient to say we use the name of the (unconstituted) network. David's draft is fine but I'd suggest amending as follows. The usual form for press releases is to have a short statement no longer than what David wrote and preferably much shorter, with a 'notes for editors' section below that allows the various points of context to be made. It should say 'for immediate release' and it is best to fax to news desks rather than rely on email. Julie Bird offered some help with wording and if you can help David with any redrafting to make it really attention grabbing for busy news editors that would be great. We need to 'appoint' someone to coordinate this now. I suggest David F if he's willing. Mark > Hello to everyone who has contributed to this discussion Thank you for > putting the statement together David. I'm not sure about the name > thing, and as usual, could be pursuaded either way. But as far as my > own involvement is concerned, I absolutely want my name to be > included. Best wishes Penny > > -- > Message sent with Supanet E-mail > > -----Original Message----- > From: Annie Mitchell <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] The CBT announcement - who is going > to tell them they've been had? > >> The trouble is we've been down the named person route before and >> seems to have less authority than a collective statement . We do go >> round in circles on this one. >> >> >> >> How about an opt out option: ; if no-one on the list in next 48 hours >> objects to a collective press statement message going out along the >> lines we have been discussing then let's do it; if some do object, >> than let's do it wit= h given names? >> >> >> >> I am happy for my name to be put to it: it may not completely and >> accurately express my exact views but whatever does go out as long as >> it's something along the lines so far discussed I'll be prepared to >> stand by it. >> >> >> >> Annie=20 >> >> >> >> Annie Mitchell >> >> >> >> Clinical Director, >> >> Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, >> >> School of Applied Psychosocial Studies, >> >> Faculty of Health and Social Work, >> >> University of Plymouth, >> >> Peninsula Allied Health Collaboration, >> >> Derriford Road, >> >> Plymouth, >> >> Devon >> >> PL6 8BH >> >> >> >> >> >> Phone Programme Administrators: >> Jane Murch, Emma Hellingsworth >> >> 01752 233786 >> >> >> >> Please note I work 3 days per week: >> >> usually Monday, Tuesday & either Wednesday or Thursday. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Rapley >> Sent: 15 October 2007 12:08 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've >> been had? >> >> >> >> Hi all >> >> Fascinating (and hugely encouraging!) discussion. I'm all for >> seconding Annie's suggestion about boldness, though perhaps one way >> round the representativeness issue would be for all of those who wish >> to do so to formally indicate thier wish to have their names on a >> release? Mark >> >> >> >> >> >> Mark Rapley, >> Professor of Clinical Psychology and Programme Director - Doctoral >> Degree in Clinical Psychology, School of Psychology, >> University of East London, >> London, E15 4LZ, >> U.K. >> >> Tel: +44 (0)208 223 6392 (Direct)=20 >> Tel: +44 (0)208 223 4567 (Messages) >> Tel: +44 (0)7951 908409 (Mobile) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Annie Mitchell >> Sent: 15 October 2007 12:03 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've >> been had? >> >> I agree with sending out sooner rather than later , and on behalf of >> the UK community psychology network - let's be collective and bold. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Annie Mitchell >> >> >> >> Clinical Director, >> >> Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, >> >> School of Applied Psychosocial Studies, >> >> Faculty of Health and Social Work, >> >> University of Plymouth, >> >> Peninsula Allied Health Collaboration, >> >> Derriford Road, >> >> Plymouth, >> >> Devon >> >> PL6 8BH >> >> >> >> >> >> Phone Programme Administrators: >> Jane Murch, Emma Hellingsworth >> >> 01752 233786 >> >> >> >> Please note I work 3 days per week: >> >> usually Monday, Tuesday & either Wednesday or Thursday. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Diamond Bob >> Sent: 15 October 2007 11:08 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've >> been had? >> >> >> >> I'd like to see a press release out sooner than later to counter the >> recent announcements and would be happy to work with others on it. >> Something along the lines that David and Mark have summarised is very >> helpful. Keeping the message simple also seems a good approach. I'd >> like to see something like, mental health problems (I don't like >> these terms but if we don't use them I'm not sure the media will >> understand what we're getting at) are predominantly social issues and >> not individual. This would also open up some of the related issues >> that are both individual and medicalised in Alan Johnson, Health >> Secretary's statement such as, "psychological therapies have proved >> to be as effective as drugs in tackling these common mental health >> problems...choice of treatment...completely cured". We can always go >> in to more detail such as, the limited effects of medication and >> inconsistencies in psychological therapies once the debate is raised. >> As Annie has pointed out the announcement refers to "psychological >> therapies to provide better support for people with mental health >> problems..." and not just CBT, although the NICE guidance is then >> trotted out and this is replete with CBT. I also agree with Annie >> about including references about other approaches to addressing >> health matters, such as improved, safer living environments where >> people are more able to meet with one another, eg, Carolyn Kagan. >> >> >> >> On a practical note, I know we go around and around about who can say >> what on behalf of whom. Would it cause too many problems for us to >> release a statement saying on behalf of the UK community psychology >> network? If it does create problems, may be we could address them >> later? >> >> >> >> Bob Diamond >> >> =09 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Annie Mitchell >> Sent: 15 October 2007 09:55 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] The CBT announcement - who is going >> to tell them they've been had? >> >> >> >> Thanks for doing this David. >> >> >> >> 1) technically the new money is for increasing access to >> psychological therapies ( at primary care level) , ( of which CBT is >> currently the most favoured). >> >> 2) the money is for adults of working age and the concerns arose >> through acknowledgement of the increasing economic cost of people >> with depression claiming incapacity benefit and being economically >> unproductive. We might want to raise a concert about whether at some >> point in the future, people off work with depression/ anxiety who >> choose not to go down the therapy route ( or indeed don't " get >> better" ), might have their IB reduced >> >> 3) I agree with others that as well as being critical we need to be >> making positive/ constructive statements. could we end with some >> words about what sort of social change ( reducing social >> inequalities?) we'd be looking for, and commending the recent PSA >> ,announced at the same time as the psychological therapies money, on >> promoting social inclusion ( ie the socially progressive PSA 16 >> Agreement >> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/9/pbr_csr07_psa16.pdf) >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Annie >> >> >> >> >> >> Annie Mitchell >> >> >> >> Clinical Director, >> >> Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, >> >> School of Applied Psychosocial Studies, >> >> Faculty of Health and Social Work, >> >> University of Plymouth, >> >> Peninsula Allied Health Collaboration, >> >> Derriford Road, >> >> Plymouth, >> >> Devon >> >> PL6 8BH >> >> >> >> >> >> Phone Programme Administrators: >> Jane Murch, Emma Hellingsworth >> >> 01752 233786 >> >> >> >> Please note I work 3 days per week: >> >> usually Monday, Tuesday & either Wednesday or Thursday. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Fryer >> Sent: 14 October 2007 21:55 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've >> been had? >> >> =09 >> >> Dear Mark and All, >> >> >> >> Re "this is a helpful statement of the issues and it would be a good >> outline for a statement . . . we do need a reasonably simple message" >> >> >> >> Here is a simple, perhaps overly crude, draft made by amalgamating >> some of the points made which seem relevant and slightly developing >> some of them. Please feel free to edit / add / critique/ knock it >> into shape and develop it. How much we support the points made >> depends in part on how long we will permit it to become? It is >> already perhaps too long >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Draft: CBT: a community psychological perspective >> >> >> >> The government has recently announced £170m is to be made available >> by 2010 to increase the availability of CBT. However, the scale of >> socially caused distress is so vast and growing so rapidly that it is >> impossible to 'treat it better' by training enough individuals to >> treat all the other individuals in distress one at a time with >> therapeutic techniques such as CBT. But even if we could train enough >> CBT practitioners, there is little reason to think that the one to >> one talking treatments by professionals are more than marginally >> effective in the hands of some practitioners for some people. Indeed >> classic community psychology research suggests that untrained >> volunteers are usually more effective than professionals in >> delivering help through talking and listening. CBT is overrated as a >> treatment, is impossible to apply in many situations and its >> effectiveness is exaggerated. Even if CBT were effective, it is >> ideologically objectionable because it individualises social >> problems, draws attention away from the more important social >> economic and material causes of distress and positions individual >> cognitive dysfunction as both the cause of the person's problem and >> the locus for intervention. It is thus another form of victim >> blaming: it is bad enough to be depressed because you have been >> unemployed or to be anxious because you are subjected to regular >> domestic violence without being told your depression or anxiety are >> caused by your own dysfunctional cognitions and having to undergo >> irrelevant therapeutic rituals on top of societal oppression. Even if >> CBT were not ideologically objectionable and if it were successful, >> if those successfully treated had to go back into the psychologically >> toxic contexts which had made them distressed in the first place, to >> which many or most will have no alternative, they will soon become >> distressed again. Even if they did not go back into those >> psychological toxic contexts, there would be an epidemic of newly >> damaged people coming on stream due others being subjected to the >> ignored social causes of distress. CBT is comprehensively problematic >> and primary prevention the only way to make a substantial difference >> with regard to socially, economically and materially caused distress. >> That primary prevention must involve social not cognitive change. >> >> =09 >> >> >> >> If we agreed a statement I am not sure who it could be claimed to be >> made collectively by: clearly we can not make it on behalf of the >> members of this list (well over a hundred of us?) without some way to >> ensure list members are in agreement. >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of Mark >> Burton >> Sent: Sun 14/10/2007 18:26 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've >> been had? >> >> Thanks - this is a helpful statement of the issues and it would be a >> good outline for a statement. >> The debate in the other posts has been interesting, but we do need a >> reasonably simple message. >> >> Mark >> >> >> > Four list members have already indicated an interest in a UKCP >> statement >> > contesting the recent bout of CBT-itis. To try to clarify the >> arguments >> > emerging, when the emails are distilled it seems to me that the >> following >> > are the key community critical psychological points made so far: >> > >> > * CBT is overrated >> > * CBT is ineffective >> > * CBT is impossible to apply in many situations >> > * CBT individualises social problems >> > * CBT distracts attention away from the pressing socio-economic >> > causes >> of >> > trouble >> > >> > I think the following points, maybe implied, are worth making >> explicitly: >> > >> > The scale of socially caused distress is so vast and growing so >> rapidly >> > that it is impossible to treat it better by training indviduals to >> treat >> > others one at a time: primary prevention is the only way. But even >> > if >> we >> > could train enough 'treaters' (which we cannot) and even if their >> > treatment were effective (which it isn't) and even if it were not >> > ideologically objectionable as a form of victim blaming (which it >> > is) >> and >> > even if those successfully treated did not go back into the >> > psychologically toxic causal nexuses which had made them distressed >> > in >> the >> > first place (which they will mostly have no alternative to doing), >> there >> > would be a tsunami of newly distressed people coming on stream due >> > to >> the >> > unprevented social causes of distress. >> > >> > David >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of >> > David >> Fryer >> > Sent: Sun 14/10/2007 13:49 >> > To: [log in to unmask] >> > Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them >> > they've >> been >> > had? >> > >> > >> > I agree that a brief accessible community critical critique of the >> > CBT bandwagon is required and am willing to put some work into >> > that. >> > >> > David >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of Mark >> Burton >> > Sent: Sun 14/10/2007 11:08 >> > To: [log in to unmask] >> > Subject: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've >> > been had? >> > >> > >> > >> > The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've been had? >> > >> > So far there has been silence form community/critical/really social >> > psychologists about the governments announcement of £170m by 2010 >> > for >> CBT. >> > >> > I propose a press release from the CPUK network making something >> > like >> the >> > following key points: >> > >> > CBT is overrated, its supposed effectiveness being based on the >> > flawed >> RCT >> > strategy that under-researches other less treatments less capable >> > of reduction to a manual, uses short term timeframes, ignores those >> > who >> don't >> > improve, uses a restricted sample, excluding complex 'cases'. When >> > a broader methodology is used, (e.g. as in Seligman's Consumer >> > Reports >> study >> > of treatments in practice see >> > http://horan.asu.edu/cpy702readings/seligman/seligman.html ) the >> evidence >> > for specific treament modalities disappears - the key factors seem >> > to >> be >> > treatment duration and competence of the therapist. This is >> > probably >> not >> > to say CBT has no place, but the claims for it are inflated. >> > >> > We all know that CBT is ineffective and impossible to apply in many >> > of >> the >> > situations that trouble Layard - multiple deprivation and >> > associated problems of everyday life (see the work of the W >> > Midlands critical psychology group on this). >> > >> > An approach that individualises social problems and treats the >> casualties >> > does nothing to deal with the underlying causes in our profoundly >> unwell >> > social system. >> > >> > The problem is I'm not particularly expert in this area so would >> > need others to contribute, work up the statement. We could also >> > link it to some of the work in the Birmingham /York statements. >> > >> > Quite a good article in Saturday's Guardian: >> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2190258,00.html >> > >> > See also >> > http://www.dcu.ie/health4life/conferences/2007/resources/Health4Lif >> > e2007_Keynote_Paul_Verhaeghe.pdf >> > for the talk referenced in the Guardian article. >> > >> > ___________________________________ >> > 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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML >> > For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah >> > Pratt >> on >> > [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask] >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland >> > by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential >> > Information may >> be >> > contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated >> > in >> this >> > message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such >> > person), >> you >> > may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any >> action >> > taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and >> > may >> be >> > unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly >> notify >> > the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your >> > employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this >> > kind. >> > >> > ___________________________________ 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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any >> > problems >> or >> > queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >> > [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask] >> > >> > >> > -- >> > The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland >> > by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential >> > Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the >> > addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of >> > the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver >> > this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken >> > in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, >> > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by >> > reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do >> > not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. >> > >> > >> > ___________________________________ >> > 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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML >> > For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah >> > Pratt >> on >> > [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML >> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask] >> >> ********************************************************************* >> * >> >> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they >> >> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify >> the system security manager ([log in to unmask]).Any views or >> opinions presented are solely those of the sender and do not >> necessarily represent those of Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, >> unless otherwise specifically stated. >> >> ********************************************************************* >> * >> >> >> >> -- >> >> The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by >> charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may >> be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated >> in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such >> person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone >> and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is >> prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this >> message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise >> immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email >> for messages of this kind. >> >> ___________________________________ 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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any >> problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any >> problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any >> problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any >> problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any >> problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML >> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask] >> >> > > > http://www.Tpad.com - "The New Way to Make and Receive Cheap/Free > Calls" > > ___________________________________ > 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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML > For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt > on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]