The End

This blog has been running for over a year and apart from exposing and embarassing SABP's executives as incompentent and dishonest , the quackademics from SCMH as corrupt manipulative idiots and the statutory bodies and structures which are supposed to monitor SABP on behalf of patients and the public as totally useless we havent really modified anyones behavior.

So, its time to move on.

Not sure if people just want the blog left here or deleted , e-mail your preferences here slamback@gmail.com

This ending reminds me a bit of that scene in War of the Worlds where the aliens are all dead and people survey the destruction around them and start to think about rebuilding their world and the narrator cuts in to say "It wasnt any human weapon that destroyed the menace but the small things of nature" .....in this case though the aliens simply wandered off to leave the earthlings to fuck things up for themselves.....again.

Smash the Glass Ceilings, Ignore the Official Stone Walls

Jonathan Naess is a manic depressive, very successful legal partner with city firm Nabarro-Wells and Co and founder of new MH recovery model iniative 'Stand to Reason'. Jonathan was recently described by the Guardian's MH correspondent David Brindle as 'Mental Health's Voice of Reason'.

Jonathan hopes his organisation Stand to Reason will address workplace stigma and discrimination and smash the glass ceilings that he believes workers with MH issues face. In the Guardian article and on his website Mr Naess explained how he equated Stand to Reason with Stonewall, the political pressure group that campaigned for gay equal rights for 14 years and then in 2003 , after many of its political aims had been achieved , became a registered charity and adopted a less political and more educational role.

I entered into correspondence with Mr Naess because the Guardian article presented him as a maverick independent service user activist when in fact he has very close links to the system. This type of misrepresentation has now become very common in MH circles , for some reason the well connected feel they need to dupe people and underhandedly network outcomes rather than explain their case and take other peoples points of view on board.

Because of the comparison to ' Stonewall ' he made , its there on the Stand to Reason website too, I questioned Jonathan about the way the officially favoured and relentlessly pushed recovery model was creating a new form of 'stigma and discrimination' for MH services users who could not conform to it. Rather than being abstract I pointed to a specific example involving the South London & Maudsley NHS Trust, my local Trust and one Mr Naess has been officially involved with for some time.

Mr Naess responded in the regal ' We' You should be able to pick up the gist of the exchange and problem here.


Jonathan,

With respect, you have long been involved with SLAM , you are a Research Associate at the Institute of Psychiatry and you are professionally involved with the Institute/SLAM's Professor Graham Thornicroft an expert in 'stigma and discrimination' so the problem with your' we ' is that you do not appear to be independent enough from the establishment, as Stonewall orginally was, to effectively challenge it when the discrimination and/or inequality arises from its actions.

Off ward, SLAM makes no effort to ensure the basic financial security of service users who do not conveniently fit into its officially favoured recovery model .

( There is no MH specific benefits advice or support in certain boroughs within the SLAM catchment area)

For those who can recover SLAM funds training and employment projects and even plans 'recovery' orientated art exhibitions with initiatives like yours ( Stand to Reason is planning to partner a recovery arts event with SLAM) so it isnt as if the institution lacks the money to provide equality of service , it simply restricts its concerns about financial security and its relationship with the mental health and well-being of its service users to the world of work and thereby makes a conscious decision to really stigmatise and discriminate.

Stonewall did not just campaign on behalf of employed gay people Jonathan!

As for feedback, this is not feedback, it is criticism , as to date, with Stand to Reason you have simply replicated the top down decision making of institutions like SLAM as in addition to trying to sidestep the discrimination and inequality of service perpetuated by SLAM because your project enjoys some type of favoured status there is no participatory capacity designed in to the Stand to Reason website to allow ordinary service users to engage in anything but private e-mail exchange with you or talk to or contact each other ( on the site ) to discuss the aims and objectives you have set out on their behalf.

I'm sorry but you appear to have simply rotated the Stand to Reason iniative around yourself and attempted to re-create the work environment and meetings culture you are familiar with in the city to ensure you remain within your comfort zone : power breakfasts, evening events and round table meetings completely ignoring the fact that the internet is a participatory not top down medium and that very many MH service users are not as mobile, confident enough around other people or even as able to get up in the morning as you are. Many also find the meetings culture toxic.

How do you relate to them Jonathan?

Regards

Des Curley

My message bounced back. Mr Naess is broadcasting but not receiving. Whats new?

Softools Contract FOIA Update

Received this communication from Paul Mitchell , the Surrey & Borders Partnership MHS Trusts Corporate Spin Doctor the other day. There seems to be a flurry of (un)official activity behind the scenes re. Softtools-gate so perhaps I'll be legally forced to apologise for telling the truth . Who knows...

Mr Riseborough and Mr Mitchell are very well paid public officials so read the footer of the communication to gain a better idea of the lengths these corporate types will go to pull the wool over peoples eyes.


Paul Mitchell
date Jun 15, 2007 4:34 PM
subject Complaint and FOI request

Stanley Riseborough is not in his office today, but has asked me to make sure you are sent the following:



Re: Complaint and FOI request

In my email to you of 11th May I said that I would come back to you with the outcome of the next stage of the process by today. Unfortunately, this will not be completed until the end of next week. I will therefore contact you on Monday, 25th June 2007. Please accept my apologies for the delay.


Yours sincerely


Stanley Riseborough

Director of Nursing and Service User Involvement


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender and delete it immediately.

Any information, statements or opinions contained in this message (including any attachments) are given by the author. They are not given on behalf of the Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust unless subsequently confirmed by an individual, other than the author, who is authorised to represent Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust.