This is inspiring stuff; it's great to hear some optimism! SUG have done a really powerful thing here. Working in a (wonderful) voluntary sector mental health project I find it is easy at times to get quite despondant about the limitations of the systems we live in, seeing how they often work to create/maintain/worsen the distress they often purport to eradicate. What keeps me going is witnessing (most days!) the power of people coming together to critically acknowledge the status quo and, at the very 'least' enter into an open dialogue about how things could be different.
There is some energy here which is exactly what I hoped to find from this discussion list, thanks Paul.
Alison
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:12:18 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: UK CP statement in support of SUG
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> SUG - PM update (as requested)
>
> SUG asked the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown [GB]) three things:
>
> 1) Why had the Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency not, after
> four years, concluded its criminal investigation of GlaxoSmithKline?
> GB answer: can't comment on an ongoing criminal investigation blah blah blah
> (standard reply, SUG didn't expect much else, it was enough to see if GB
> could keep a straight face when explaining why the criminal investigation
> has so far taken 4 years).
>
> 2) Why were doctors not better informed about the dangers of SSRI before
> they prescribe them and better trained to scrutinise clinical drug data?
> GB answer: he will write to the British Medical Assocation and suggest SUG
> meet to talk with them about this
>
> 3) Will the government support SUG or help the group identify where support
> might be found (SUG has 10,000 personal testimonies of people who have been
> harmed by Seroxat and SUG have no resources to analyse those nor the
> resources to provide support to the people who have been harmed).
> GB didn't answer because he had to run off to the commons for a vote.
>
> Meeting lasted about 15mins and was on a bad day for the PM (criminal
> investigation into labour party funding had been announced that day). That
> aside, SUG came away with something - a letter of introduction to the BMA
> from the PM - the leverage of having had the PM consider SUG's concerns were
> serious enough to merit a meeting to discuss it, and the opportunity to keep
> a dialogue going with the PM's office opportuned by the meeting was
> interrupted and the third question was not answered.
>
> The CPUK statement of support was handed directly to the PM. SUG found it of
> considerable help for the meeting.
>
> In reaction to some recent discussion on press releases and influencing
> politicians. I don't think you have to be that industrious, patient or
> persistent to access the corridors of power or win the favour of
> politicians. Nor do I think you are apathetic if you don't gain such access
> or win such favour (you mostly just need a lot of cash and the right social
> connections - both of which, in our society, you are more likely to be born
> into, through social class, rather than be allowed to accumulate by merit
> alone). If you have neither cash nor connections, you just have to bulldoze
> you way in (which is what SUG have done) and just because that can often be
> rushed, crude and blunt doesn't necessarily make it any less effective.
>
> I do not consider there is anything particularly impressive about various
> psychologists finding ways of successfully lobbying our representatives in
> government, and I certainly don't look up to them in adoration nor feel any
> compulsion to ape them in any way because:
>
> 1)They piggy-back a ride on the backs of thousands upon thousands of social
> activists past and present who have held our governments, and the
> corporations they serve, accountable and restrained for generation upon
> generation. In doing so, they take the plaudits for themselves and mask the
> power of concerted social action.
>
> 2) They have their power and privilege - given to them through heterosexism,
> sexism, classism, racism, disabilism and so on (how else could Boris Johnson
> have made it into Westminster?) - re-storied into a personal triumph that
> comes from hard work, personal sacrifice, individual charisma and a
> messianic zeal.
>
> I am not impressed by Richard (the Lord) Layard, managing to catch the ear
> of a minister during afternoon tiffin in the House of Commons bar. I find
> more impressive the countless thousands of people engaged in active
> resistance on a daily basis that prevents the corporate world completely
> destroying the social fabric of our communities. We occasionally find those
> activists in the media glare when an act of resistance causes a thundering
> crash in a corporation but what we see less often is how that resistance is
> continuous, contagious and forever serves to impede the corporate world
> satisfying its greed. We less often see it because it is the stuff that
> exists between us, not within us. You can't make a celeb out of it, you
> can't give it a life time achievement award, you cannot capture it in a
> personal biography of any one of us because it can only be captured in the
> collective history of all of us ...
>
>
> We are the children who are bearing the social change brought by our
> ancestors. The next generation will have to carry the social change we will
> bear upon them, and bear upon them, we will... Social activists can look
> down and see they are being carried on the shoulders of giants. Corporations
> have to look out, because they know one day they are going to be trodden on.
>
>
> p
>
> Paul Duckett
> Division of Psychology and Social Change
> Manchester Metropolitan University
> England
> Phone +44 161 247 2552
> Fax +44 161 247 6364
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Suzanne Elliott
> Sent: 05 December 2007 11:21
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] UK CP statement in support of SUG
>
>
> I wonder whether Paul has any feedback about how SUG got on in their
> meeting with Gordon Brown?
>
> Suzanne
>
>
> Suzanne Elliott
>
> Clinical Psychologist
>
> Treatment & Recovery Services
>
> Swithland House (CTT East)
>
> London Rd
>
> Leicester
>
> LE2 2PL
>
> 0116 225 5600
>
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Annie Mitchell
> Sent: 03 December 2007 21:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: This Month's 'The Psychologist' - Layard and state security
>
> yes; the history of persuasion teaches us, doesn't it, that (at least in
> the west) new expert based approaches to psycho -social distress come
> and go as times and fashions change, and have roughly comparable levels
> of (in) effectiveness . There is no reason to think that CBT will be any
> different. But as you say penny, I too don't see changes in current
> government thinking happening any time soon, especially given our
> current pre-occupation in the west with standardisation and bureacratic
> control
>
> What remains disappointing is the lack so far of much realisation of
> community psychology's potential for contributing to a public health
> approach to psycho-social suffering, in the way that public health
> approaches have addressed some aspects of physical health suffering
> (contagious diseases in particular). What are the connections and
> inter-actions between fundamental/ causal processes and various malaises
> in western capitalist societies/ environments ( and our export of our
> economically and socially oppressive processes to other cultures)
> including selfish global capitalism, global warming, climate change,
> ecological damage, depression and anxiety, loneliness and reductions
> in social support and naturally occuring social buffering of distress,
> bullying, the hedonic treadmill, excessive consumption, obesity and
> social inequality - and how can a really social critical psychology
> could contribute to understanding and transforming those processes. At
> the moment we seem in danger ( are we?) of going back on all the
> socially progressive changes that the trade union movement and various
> human rights movements (including feminisms, disability rights, gay
> rights etc etc ) contributed to, and instead entering a world dominated
> by various aspects of fundamentalist thinking.
>
> In the face of social/ environmental stressors are we losing our
> resilience and capacity to act in solidarity and to be be creative/
> innovative/ exploratory and ( pace david Fryer) empathic and
> compassionate?
>
> The space to develop innovative alternative preventative actions
> informed by critical and really social psychology seems to be shrinking
> as (some of us) become ever more pre-occupied with mind numbing
> bureacracy and accounting ( quality management...), the seductions of
> amelioration (and in particular with increasing access to psychological
> therapies) alongside wrangles/ struggles with professional
> competitiveness and status ( fuelled by various processes including
> competitive tendering and Universities' domination by competititive
> accountancy based evaluations of research for RAE purposes and, within
> applied psychology (esp clinical) narrow medical model views of what
> consititues evidence based practice), while at the same ttime our
> promotion of expert based solutions ever further undermines community
> based naturally occuring processes of cameraderie, collective
> resistance, mutual listening, social support etc . Or, was it ever thus
> in psychology, and perhaps there are some indicators that psychology in
> britain is looking up ( out): eg the existence of this network, and of
> the new BPS social inclusion discussion list, our links with European
> community psychology, david's work and that of others on climate change
> with the BPS, and the change in emphasis from diagnostic models to
> formulation models in clinical psychology and 2 chapters on social
> inequalities approaches to formulation in the Dallos and Johnston book
> etc etc ?
>
> As others have said, I wonder though whether our current pre-occupation
> with Layard et al on this list is a distraction from perhaps more
> fundamental and disturbing issues ( including those that Karolyn raises
> in her letter re state security) ?
>
> Annie
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Penny Priest
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 03 December 2007 19:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: This Month's 'The Psychologist' - Layard and state security
>
> The next issue of Clinical Psychology Forum is a special issue featuring
> a
> lead article about the Doncaster pilot. Graham Turpin invited various
> people
> to respond to the main article. The Midlands Psychology Group responded
> with
> two articles, one which will appear alongside the Doncaster pilot
> article
> and one which will appear probably in the next issue. I can attach the
> articles to this list when they appear. There seems to be a steady
> trickle
> of people questioning Layard and the Increasing Access to Psychological
> Therapies experiment, but I think it is unlikely that this will lead to
> any
> great waves in the short term, but maybe I'm just too pessimistic.
> Penny
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Burton" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:34 AM
> Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] This Month's 'The Psychologist' - Layard and
> state security
>
>
> This email covers 2 things - the Layard CBT issue, and the
> torture/interrogation issue.
>
> 1) Layard
> List members might like to comment on the first news item in this
> month's
> 'Psychologist' magazine (the BPS monthly).
> http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/thepsychologist/extras/pages$/2007/mo
> re-funds-for-mental-health.cfm
> It mention's the new money and the emphasis on CBT. It interviews
> Graham
> Turpin (one of the BPS experts on the Improving Access to Psych
> therapies
> reference group). Turpin's main concern seems to be the usual craft
> union
> interest that, to quote - 'These new CBT therapists shouldn't threaten
> job
> prospects for psychologists'. He also gives a response to suggestion
> that
> this initiative is motivated by getting people back to work (there is no
> mention that the argument is actually that this isn't a problem, the
> problem is the idea of cutting benefits for those who are chroniclly
> sick).
> Although our press release http://www.compsy.org.uk/changing%20minds.pdf
> was sent to The Psychologist there is no mention of our critique of the
> whole approach.
> There is, however this letterfrom James Japp, Dunblane and list members
> might like to use this as a hook for a response:-
>
> Layard's folly
> Lord Layard is obviously a capable and well-meaning individual but does
> any psychologist, regardless of discipline, really believe that an
> average
> of 10 sessions of CBT is sufficient input as a strategy for returning
> those with a mental health condition on long-term incapacity benefit
> back
> into work? Lord Layard puts forward well-argued and perfectly valid
> points
> for CBT as a health solution to alleviate anxiety and depression in the
> sizable population who unfortunately suffer from a mental health
> condition. However, he then skips to CBT as a solution to long-term
> intransigent unemployment without any supporting evidence or logical
> rationale for the therapy itself. Counselling (CBT or any other form)
> can
> be excellent as an early intervention, particularly for job retention
> but
> what it is not is 'evidence-based practice' for long-term intransigent
> unemployment.Individuals fail to progress from incapacity benefit to
> employment for a whole host of practical reasons that cannot be
> moderated
> by counselling including: poor literacy skills, a low general skill
> base,
> contentedness with current position in life, low stamina levels, lack of
> opportunity, employer prejudice, a second disability, cultural attitude,
> being less well off working than on incapacity benefit, and inability to
> identify job sources to mention a few. Furthermore, a number of
> psychosocial issues not necessarily related to the mental health
> condition
> including: low confidence, poor social skills, socialised low
> expectations, or fear of failing may also need addressed.The long-term
> unemployed require holistic intervention with active support on a number
> of fronts and which is sustained long after employment has commenced.
> The
> actual mental health condition comes fairly low in the list of
> priorities;
> there are plenty of examples of individuals with chronic mental health
> problems holding down employment. CBT is not the solution to reducing
> the
> numbers on incapacity benefit, but holistic and supportive intervention
> that identifies and addresses all the needs of the individual can be,
> and
> if the patient buys into it, this may well include CBT.
> James Japp
> Dunblane
>
>
> 2) Psychologists and State security / torture / interrogation
>
> You can also see our letter on torture on the same page (723)
>
> Here it is for those who aren't members and therefore can't access -
>
> Psychologists and national security
>
> Karen Carr from the Defence Academy of the UK (Letters, October 2007)
> perhaps not surprisingly contends that 'psychology should be used in a
> controlled way to help with our very difficult security and defence
> problems'. But as the events we outline show, the control will not be by
> democratic institutions, nor by professional bodies, but by the
> institutions of state security themselves. Involvement in them implies
> the
> kind of Faustian pact in which the leadership of the APA has now been
> exposed. In that case it was the professional body itself that was
> corrupted, but the same pressures and processes will operate
> elsewhere.That is why psychologists should not be present in the
> military
> and in secret prisons - presence in these organisations legitimates
> their
> existence and they stand no chance of ameliorating their regimes. Of
> course, we do not know if psychologists are working in the secret
> services
> (we have to assume they are), but their practice there is not subject to
> the kind of democratic scrutiny that Karen calls for. Thus it lacks
> safeguards, the accountability being to unfettered State interests and
> not
> to the public interest that, however muted, is still present in, for
> example, the prison service and other criminal justice settings. Because
> our democracy is so conditional and flawed it cannot serve as the
> safeguard that substitutes for a self-imposed ethical practice,
> including
> refusal to engage in the undemocratic structures of institutional
> oppression that are the more secretive parts of the State's apparatus.
> Mark Burton
> Carolyn Kagan
> Manchester Metropolitan University
>
> Mark Burton
>
> ___________________________________
> 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]
Get closer to the jungle… I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!
___________________________________
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]
