Recovery In The Bin Statement Against Racism


Recovery In The Bin stand against racism and acknowledge it is pervasive throughout culture and the systems we are subject to. We acknowledge white privilege and the duty for those with it to recognise and strive to remove it and to challenge the culture of Whiteness. We support an intersectional understanding of how each of us may have privileges and oppressions. We oppose anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and the State-led policies of hostility toward migrants and asylum seekers. Learning to negotiate with each other respectfully and with humanity is an ongoing process that at times is difficult but to which we should all be committed. We also demand professionals acknowledge the presence of institutional racism and workers who collude with this at an individual and/or collective level are contributing negatively to the mental health of Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) service users. Professionals should join us in learning and changing – to listen to and to give platforms to BAME Service Users, and marginalised groups who are not even visible to services or excluded by hostile environments. We draw particular attention to the appalling higher risk of violent and abusive treatment faced by people of African-Caribbean and African heritage. It is massively under-acknowledged that racism contributes to mental distress and illness; we must recognise and work to change that.

RITB With The T

We wanted to add some specific detail to our previous Statement of Support in respect of the intense activity around the Gender Recognition Act Consultation that is creating upsetting misinformation. You can fill in the consultation with advice here. We oppose Transphobia (definition on wiki) which can be described as ‘any oppression that arises from people being trans, or perceived as trans or as not conforming to gender norms. And the structural oppression of transgender people by cispatriarchal society, and prejudicial and/or ignorant attitudes, narratives and actions which contribute to those structures of oppression’.

Screenshot 2018-10-14 23.22.12

We recommend this great post by Rosie Swayne. And we thank activists for their permission to print here the text of a leaflet which was handed out at an ‘L with the T’ solidarity demonstration recently that deals with common misperceptions. A PDF can be downloaded here > TERF rhetoric vs reality

TERF Rhetoric vs Reality
Content warnings: transphobia, mention of sexual assault, rape, suicide, mental health problems, conversion therapy, medical gatekeeping.

TERF rhetoric
Children are being given irreversible medical transition before they are old enough to know that they’re really trans.

Research confirms that children who assert a transgender identity know their gender as reliably as their cisgender peers of the same age. The effect of hormone blockers is reversible, while the effects of unchecked puberty are much harder to reverse if necessary. Transition-related surgeries are not performed on children.

TERF rhetoric
[Cisgender] women are at danger of being harassed or assaulted in bathrooms if trans women are allowed to use them.

Trans people just want to be able to use the bathroom in safety, like anyone else. There are no documented cases of this having led to harassment or assault of cis women. On the other hand, trans people frequently feel, and are, unsafe in the bathroom of their birth assignment.

TERF rhetoric
Trans women uphold stereotyped notions of femininity defined by patriarchy.

Trans women’s style of presentation is as diverse as that of cis women, if not moreso. This is despite the fact that they face even more pressure to conform to stereotypes, in particular by doctors who often continue to enforce discredited gatekeeping standards requiring such conformity before allowing access to medical care.

TERF rhetoric
[Cisgender] female biological reality is a defining aspect of women’s experience of oppression.

Women’s oppression takes many different forms for different groups of women. For example, lesbian and bisexual women face particular forms of misogyny, flavoured by homophobia, that straight women may not, while lesbians may be less likely to encounter other manifestations which usually take place in the context of relationships with men. In the same way, trans women’s experience of misogynistic oppression is different in some ways to that of cis women, but those experiences are no less oppressive and no less female.

TERF rhetoric
People who claim to be trans should instead be encouraged to accept their birth gender.

“Conversion therapy” on trans people is as abusive and ineffective as it is on LGB people.

TERF rhetoric
Trans women are men who are “trying to infiltrate women’s spaces”.

Trans women are women.

TERF rhetoric
[Cisgender] lesbians are being pressured to sleep with trans women, or shamed if they do not.

The vast majority of trans women want nothing to do with people who don’t consider them women; so the idea that they would want to pressure anti-trans cisgender lesbians to sleep with them is somewhat absurd. There is some discourse around the implications of cisgender people excluding transgender people of their preferred genders from their potential dating pools on the grounds of their transness, but this does not amount to anyone being pressured to sleep with people they don’t want to.

TERF rhetoric
Emphasis on detransition.

Less than 1% of people who have undergone transition choose to “detransition”. Often, those who do are responding to societal prejudice rather than rejecting their transitioned gender. Statistics about “surgical regrets” are also frequently cited in bad faith in this context. Many of these statistics include people who express dismay relating to complications or poor outcomes, as well as post-surgical depression – both of which are common problems following procedures of all kinds – and may or may not have any second thoughts at all about having undergone surgery. Likewise, even in rare cases where a patient might regret having opted for a procedure, this should not be taken to imply regret for having transitioned or a desire to detransition.

TERF rhetoric
Transition does not improve mental health or rates of suicide and self-harm.

Untreated gender dysphoria (due to delays or refusals of treatment), unnecessary and intrusive questioning/tests, prejudicial attitudes by service providers, and restrictive treatment pathways, all contribute to minority stress which is detrimental to the mental health and wellbeing of trans people. []
An article published in the July 2016 edition of The Lancet offers significant evidence that the “distress and impairment, considered essential characteristics of mental disorders” among trans people primarily arises in response to the discrimination, stigma, lack of acceptance, and abuse they face on a regular basis. []

TERF rhetoric
Transition surgeries are “mutilation”.

This is a transphobic insult masquerading as an argument.
“Mutilation” is used here merely as a way to express disgust about trans people’s bodies; it is irrelevant to the actual purpose and merits of surgeries, which are effective and often lifesaving treatments.

TERF rhetoric
Gender is purely a social construct. Or Gender is defined by genitals.

Traditionally feminism understands both that biology does not determine how we experience the world AND that our biology does contribute to our shared experiences as women. There is no contradiction here for transgender women.

Open Letter To The Organisers, Partners And Delegates Of The Global Ministerial Mental Health Summit #GlobalMHSummit #theworldneeds

UK govt naughty MH

Open Letter to the Organisers, Partners and Delegates of the Global Ministerial Mental Health Summit, London
9th and 10th October, 2018

The UK government is hosting a Global Ministerial Mental Health Summit in London on the 9th and 10th of October, 2018. The Summit aims to “build momentum on global mental health issues such as early intervention, public health, research, tackling stigma, and promoting access to evidence-based services.” The event is set to culminate with a “global declaration committing to political leadership on mental health.” The Summit will also see the launch of the Lancet Commission into the links between mental health and sustainable development.

We the undersigned are concerned about the way in which this event has been organised and about the UK positioning itself as a ‘global leader’ in mental health for the following reasons:

  1. The organisation and planning for this event has been a closely guarded secret. Even the full list of countries participating was not released beforehand, which made any possibility of advocacy by civil society organisations in those countries impossible. Significantly, there has been little or no involvement of organisations led by mental health service users, survivors and persons with psychosocial disabilities in the thinking, planning and design of this event. While a few networks were approached to provide ‘experts by experiences’ to attend panels on themes already decided on, there has been no meaningful consultation or involvement of user-led and disabled people’s organisations not already signed up to the ‘Movement for Global Mental Health’ agenda or funding to enable a wide range of representatives to attend. This is in open violation of Article 4 of the UN-Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which obligates signatories to closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities through their representative organisations in decision-making around issues that directly concern persons with disabilities.
  2. The UK’s positioning as the leader in the global effort to tackle mental health needs is highly problematic for a variety of reasons. In 2016, an inquiry by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found that austerity policies introduced by the UK government had met “the threshold of grave or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities.” The Committee found high levels of poverty as a direct result of welfare and benefit cuts, social isolation, reduced standards of living, segregation in schools of children, lack of support for independent living and a host of other violations. The situation has had a direct impact on people’s mental health with rates of suicide attempts doubling and widespread destitution.
  3. In the concluding observations on the initial report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Committee raised particular concerns about the insufficient incorporation and uneven implementation of the CRPD across all policy areas and levels within all regions, devolved governments and territories under its jurisdiction and/or control, and about existing laws, regulations and practices that discriminate against persons with disabilities.
  4. In the UK, there is a particular situation of discrimination within mental health services that affect its black and minority ethnic communities and migrants from ex-colonial countries and the global south diaspora. Decades of evidence show that they face consistent discriminatory treatment within UK’s mental health services, including high levels of misdiagnosis, compulsory treatment, over-medication, community treatment orders and culturally inappropriate treatment. The inquiry into the death of David Bennett, an African Caribbean man in the care of the state, found the NHS to be institutionally racist. Yet, the UK government has set out to lead the globe in creating inclusive and just societies while continuing to perpetuate a ‘hostile environment’ not only in its health and social care services but in other areas that impact on people’s mental health such as immigration, policing, employment, welfare and so on.
  5. The Summit is set to announce the global launch of the anti-stigma programme, Time to Change, with programmes planned in India, Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya. Millions of pounds have already been spent on this campaign which claims to have made a positive impact on mental health stigma, while evidence also shows that there has been no improvement in knowledge or behaviour among the general public, nor in user reports of discrimination by mental health professionals. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in its concluding remarks, raised particular concerns about perceptions in society in the UK that stigmatize persons with disabilities as living a life of less value than that of others. It also pointed out that existing anti-discrimination legislation in the UK does not provide comprehensive or appropriate protection, particularly against multiple and intersectional discrimination. Given this scenario, it is objectionable that the UK government continues to fund a programme that aims to address stigma while carrying on with the most stigmatising and discriminatory policies that affect persons with psycho-social disabilities.
  6. UK has already taken the lead in exporting the failed paradigm of biomedical psychiatry globally through the ‘Movement for Global Mental Health’. The failure of social contact based anti-stigma programmes to attain any change in structural discrimination and inequalities has not deterred the UK government from supporting the export of another high-cost, low impact programme, with funding from the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Office, to the global south. This model of ‘North leading the South’ recreates colonial ‘missions of education,’ significantly impacting on the development of locally relevant, rights-based discourses rooted in the wisdom of CRPD and led by persons with psychosocial disabilities in the global south.
  7. Many professionals in the field of mental health both in the global south and in the global north have cautioned against the application and scale up of western models of mental health care worldwide. User/survivor groups in the global south have already objected to importing failed western models of mental health care into their countries and called for full CRPD compliance that will enable full and effective participation of service users, survivors and persons with psychosocial disabilities in all aspects of life. This is significant at a time when the Mental Health Act is under review in England and there has been consistent resistance to moving towards CRPD compliant legislation.

Given this scenario, it is hypocritical that the UK government is taking the lead in creating a global declaration on political leadership in mental health. As with the Global Disability Summit this government recently staged, we are seeing an intolerant government posing as the upholder of the rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities. The organisation of the Summit is in opposition to the spirit and terms of the CRPD.

We ask the participants and delegates of this Summit to:

  1. Reflect upon the issues brought forward in this letter, including existing structural and multiple discrimination against persons with psychosocial disabilities in the UK by its government
  2. Demand a clarification from the UK government on its position on the CRPD and the measures it is taking to uphold the CRPD within its own laws and policies
  3. Ask the UK government to desist from operating in imperial ways that export failed models and methods to the rest of the world which negatively impact on local innovations and ways of working
  4. Campaign to ensure that any declaration created at the Summit is put forward for wide consultation and ratification by the diverse range of user-led and disabled people’s organisations worldwide
  5. Insist that if the UK government wishes to promote mental health in the global south, it must:
    1. Lead by example by changing its domestic laws, policies and practice that currently threaten the lives of mental health service users and survivors in the UK, including its economic and welfare policies that have widened inequalities, made life intolerable for thousands of disabled people and contributed to their deaths.
    2. Acknowledge the knowledge existing within user-led and disabled people’s groups about what works best as well as provide support for user-led services, advocacy and research
    3. Examine its own foreign policies in order to lessen north-south disparities in health standards and its own ethical standards in exporting western mental health systems
    4. Support local, inclusive innovations in the south to address social and structural determinants of health rather than take over leadership
    5. Enable local people to develop services that are for the benefit of the people concerned as subjects rather than objects of development and sustainable without dependence on or interference from rich countries in the West.
  6. Engage with independent civil society groups and not conform to the wishes of the UK government.


  1. National Survivor User Network, England
  2. Recovery in the Bin
  3. Mental Health Resistance Network, UK
  4. Linda Burnip on behalf of Disabled People Against Cuts, UK
  5. North East Mad Studies Collective, England
  6. Transforming Communities for Inclusion – Asia Pacific (TCI-Asia Pacific)
  7. Bapu Trust for Research on Mind and Discourse, India
  8. SODIS (Sociedad y Discapacidad), Peru
  9. North East Together (NEt), England
  10. North East Together (NEt), service user and carer network, UK
  11. NTW Service User and Carer Network, England
  12. Steve Nash, Co-Chair ReCoCo: Recovery College Collective, England
  13. Center for the Human Rights of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (CHRUSP), USA
  14. Akiko Hart, Hearing Voices Network, England
  15. Akriti Mehta, User-researcher, King’s College London, UK
  16. Alan Robinson, Artist, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  17. Alexandra Reisig, Student (Global Mental Health), UK
  18. Alfred Gillham, ISPS UK
  19. Alisdair Cameron, Launchpad: by and for mental health service users, UK
  20. Alison Faulkner, Survivor researcher, UK
  21. Alvaro Jimenez, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
  22. Andrea Liliana Cortés, Independent activist in human rights and psychosocial disabilities, Colombia
  23. Asmae Doukani, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
  24. Brenda A. LeFrançois, Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
  25. Caitlin Walker, Cambridge University, UK
  26. Carolyn  Asher, Service  user of mental health services, UK
  27. Catherine Campbell, Professor of social psychology, London School of Economics, UK
  28. Che Rosebert, Director – interim external communications, Association of Clinical Psychologists UK
  29. Cheryl Prax, Psychiatric survivor, Speak Out Against Psychiatry (SOAP)
  30. China Mills, Lecturer, University of Sheffield, UK
  31. Chris Hansen, International Peer Support, USA
  32. Claudio Maino, Université Paris Descartes, France 
  33. Corinne Squire, Professor of social sciences, University of East London, UK
  34. Cristian Montenegro, PhD candidate, London School of Economics, UK
  35. David Harper, Reader and programme director for the professional doctorate in clinical psychology, University of East London, UK
  36. David Orr, Senior lecturer in social work, University of Sussex, UK
  37. Derek Summerfield, Honorary senior clinical lecturer, IoPPN, King’s College London, UK
  38. Diana Rose, Professor, King’s College London, UK
  39. Dominic Makuvachuma, Co-ordinator, Reigniting the Space Project, England
  40. Doreen Joseph, Service user, advocate/researcher/lecturer/writer, UK
  41. Dorothy Gould, Researcher, trainer and consultant with lived experience of mental distress, UK
  42. Duncan Double, Consultant psychiatrist, Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, England
  43. Eamonn Flynn, ISPS UK
  44. Elaine Flores, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
  45. Eleni Chambers, Survivor Researcher, UK
  46. Emma Ormerod, Survivor Researcher, UK
  47. Erica Burman, Professor of education, University of Manchester, UK
  48. Erick Fabris, Psychiatric survivor; Researcher for the Mad Canada Shadow Report, Canada
  49. Ewen Speed, Senior lecturer in medical sociology, Director of research, School of Health & Human Sciences, University of Essex
  50. Farhad Dalal, Psychotherapist, group analyst, and organizational consultant
  51. Fiona Little, MH sufferer, violated for years, UK
  52. Francisco Ortega, Professor of collective health, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  53. Frank Keating, Professor of social work & mental health, Royal Holloway University of London, UK
  54. Giles Tinsley, Hearing Voices Network England
  55. Glenn Townsend, Service user of mental health services, UK
  56. Hari Sewell, Independent consultant and author, UK
  57. Helen Spandler, Professor of mental health, University of Central Lancashire; Editor, Asylum magazine, UK
  58. Ian Parker, Emeritus Professor of Management, University of Leicester, UK
  59. Iain Brown, Tortured sufferer at the hands of MH team, UK
  60. Ilma Molnar, London, UK
  61. Janaka Jayawickrama, PhD, Associate professor in community wellbeing, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK
  62. Jane Gilbert, Consultant clinical psychologist, UK
  63. Janice Cambri, Founder, Psychosocial Disability-Inclusive Philippines (PDIP), Philippines
  64. Jacqui Narvaez-Jimenez, Carer bullied by the MH team, UK
  65. Jasna Russo, Survivor researcher, Germany
  66. Jayasree Kalathil, Survivor Research, UK
  67. Jen Kilyon, ISPS UK
  68. Jenifer Dylan, Service user involvement facilitator, Camden and Islington Foundation Trust
  69. Jhilmil Breckenridge, Editor, Mad in Asia; Founder, Bhor Foundation, India
  70. Karen Machin, Researcher, UK
  71. Kate Swaffer, Chair, CEO and Co-ordinator of Dementia Alliance International
  72. Katherine Runswick-Cole, Professor of education, University of Sheffield, UK
  73. Lavanya Seshasayee, Psychiatric survivor; Founder, Global Women’s Recovery Movement, Bangalore, India
  74. Leah Ashe, Victim of psychiatry
  75. Leo McIntyre, Chairperson, Balance Aotearoa, New Zealand
  76. Liam Kirk, Member of the service user group of Brent, Wandsworth and Westminster Mind, UK
  77. Lisa Cosgrove, Professor of counselling and school psychology, College of Education and Human Development, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA
  78. Liz Brosnan, Survivor researcher
  79. Luciana Caliman, Professor of psychology, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil
  80. Lucy Costa, Deputy executive director, Empowerment Council: A Voice for the Clients of CAMH, Toronto, Canada
  81. Margaret Turner, Secretary, Soteria Network UK
  82. Margerita Reygan, Mother/Carer of mental health service survivor, UK
  83. Mari Yamamoto, User of psychiatry, Japan
  84. María Isabel Canton Rodriguez, Rompiendo la Etiqueta, Nicaragua
  85. Mark Allan, HVN England and North East Mad Studies Collective, England
  86. Melissa Raven, Postdoctoral fellow, Critical and Ethical Mental Health research group (CEMH), University of Adelaide, Australia
  87. Michael Ashman, Survivor of psychiatry, UK
  88. Michael Njenga, Executive Director, Users and Survivors of Psychiatry in Kenya, Kenya
  89. Mick McKeown, University of Central Lancashire, UK
  90. Mohan Rao, Professor (retired), Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
  91. Neil Caton, ISPS UK
  92. Nev Jones PhD, University of South Florida, USA
  93. Nikolas Rose, Professor of sociology, King’s College London, UK
  94. Norha Vera, King’s College London, UK
  95. Paola Debellis Alvarez, Universidad de la Republica, Uruguay; CCC PhD-Forum, Geneva, Switzerland
  96. Patrick Bracken, Consultant psychiatrist, Co Cork, Ireland
  97. Paula Peters, Bromley DPAC (Disabled People Against Cuts), England
  98. Peter Beresford, Mental health service user/survivor, Shaping Our Lives, UK
  99. Peter Coleman, A family carer for son currently subject to restriction, UK
  100. Phil Ruthen, Survivors Poetry, UK
  101. Philip Thomas, Writer; Formerly consultant psychiatrist and academic, UK
  102. Raúl Silva, Doctoral student, UCL Belgium/Ecuador
  103. Reima Ana Maglajlic, Senior lecturer in social work, University of Sussex
  104. Reshma Valliappan, The Red Door, India
  105. Roy Moodley, Associate professor and director of Centre for Counselling & Psychotherapy, University of Toronto, Canada
  106. Ruth Silverleaf, User-researcher, Kings College London, UK
  107. Sami Timimi, Consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, England
  108. Sarah Carr, Acting Chair, National Survivor User Network, England
  109. Sarah Yiannoullou, National Survivor User Network, Managing Director
  110. Sebastian Lawson-Thorp, UK
  111. Shireen Gaur, Clinical psychologist and psychotherapist, UK
  112. Sofía Bowen, PhD candidate, King’s College London, UK 
  113. Stan Papoulias, Assistant director, Service User Research Enterprise, Kings College London, UK
  114. Stephen Jeffreys, Someone with lived experience, UK
  115. Sue Bott, Deputy chief executive, Disability Rights UK
  116. Suman Fernando, Retired psychiatrist, writer and campaigner, UK
  117. Sumeet Jain, Senior lecturer in social work, The University of Edinburgh, UK
  118. Susan Wolfe, Social historian, UK
  119. Sushrut Jadhav, Consultant psychiatrist and clinical senior lecturer in cross-cultural psychiatry, University College London, UK
  120. Teisi Tamming, Estonia
  121. Tish Marrable, Senior lecturer in social work, University of Sussex, UK
  122. Tracey Lazard: CEO: on behalf of Inclusion London
  123. Will Hall, Host, Madness Radio; PhD candidate, Maastricht University School of Mental Health and Neuroscience, Netherlands
  124. Zsófia Szlamka, Youth activist, Hungary

If you would like to add your support to the letter please email

Who Would Jesus Sanction?

Screenshot 2018-10-04 23.24.22

Recovery in the Bin has no religious affiliation but we feel an article by Bernadette Meaden (@BernaMeaden) is well worth bringing to people’s attention.

We came across this writing when it was shared in discussion about a tweet by Rob McDowall, Chair of Welfare Scotland (@robmcd85). Rob had received a shocking message from a person insisting the New Testament supports the DWP leaving people to starve, quoting 2 Thessalonians 3:10 ‘He who does not work neither shall he eat”. This was in response to Steve Topple’s article on a lady supported by Welfare Scotland who the DWP left ‘so starved she got an illness usually seen in concentration camps’.

Needless to say the selected quote does not support the interpretation this person gave it but the encounter highlights that there are always people who will seek to justify neglecting the poor, whether they turn to the Bible or economic myths like the ‘trickle down’ theory.

We hope this superb article by Bernadette Meaden will help provide a riposte to anyone mistakenly seeking to use the New Testament to justify mistreating those of us who are poor and subject to callous social policies-

How IDS measures up to Catholic Social Teaching
By Bernadette Meaden (Originally published by Ekklesia)

As Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith probably has more influence over the lives of the least fortunate members of society than any other person in the country. His decisions have a life-changing impact on poor, sick, and disabled people: the section of society that has least power and influence.

The DWP has the largest budget of all government departments and is a prime target for spending cuts. As a percentage of GDP, however, welfare spending is now much lower than it was in the 1980’s so the welfare ‘burden’ is not out of control.

As the man responsible for implementing cuts and reforms to welfare, Mr Duncan Smith is obviously dedicated to his job, turning down the post of Justice Secretary in the latest Cabinet reshuffle. Unusually for a member of the Cabinet, he is known for his religious beliefs, and even more unusually, for his Catholicism. This is interesting because through its social teaching, developed over more than a century through various Papal Encyclicals and other documents, the Catholic Church has had much to say on the issues Mr Duncan Smith is wrestling with every day. So it seems reasonable to look at how the Secretary of State’s policies compare with Catholic Social Teaching (CST).

CST really began in 1891 with Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on Capital and Labour. It was an attempt by the Church to avert the violent social upheaval it feared would be the result of widespread poverty and the gross exploitation of workers. Although written to avert a revolution, its tone and ideas would be seen as extremely radical in today’s globalised, corporate world. This is how Pope Leo described conditions in his day:

“By degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labour and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the labouring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.”

The Church promoted the dignity of labour, but recognised that having a job was not a blessing if it failed to pay what it considered a fair wage, one that allowed a man(sic) to maintain himself and his dependents in decency. Perhaps the modern equivalent would be the Living Wage.

As his own response to today’s problems, Duncan Smith established the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), which has been influential on Conservative party policy. Many of the CSJ’s leading lights are known for their Christian beliefs and the think tank places a heavy emphasis on work as the route out of poverty. It pays much less attention to the plight of the working poor, and has said little about the fact that more than half of children living in poverty are in working households, and that growing numbers of working families depend on benefits to make ends meet.

Mr Duncan Smith has carried his belief in the primacy of work from the CSJ to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Most of the DWP’s spending goes on state pensions and benefits for working people on low incomes. Out-of-work benefits and benefits for disabled people are a small percentage of the welfare budget, but they have arguably attracted a disproportionate amount of attention. Indeed
the DWP has been criticised for a less than careful use of statistics and language, portraying benefit claimants as workshy scroungers.

Sanctions (having benefits cut or suspended) have been introduced for those who do not fulfill the increasingly onerous conditions placed upon out of work claimants, and even sick and disabled people are now subject to these sanctions.

In 2010/11, 10,300 sanctions were applied to sick and disabled people on Employment Support Allowance.

Christian advocates of this tough approach often quote St Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “If any man will not work neither let him eat.”, but Catholic Social Teaching specifically refutes this. In Quadragesimo Anno, written in 1931 as the world suffered the effects of the Stock Market crash, Pope Pius XI stated “we must not pass over the unwarranted and unmerited appeal made by some to the Apostle when he said ‘If any man will not work neither let him eat.’ For the Apostle is passing judgment on those who are unwilling to work, although they can and ought to, and he admonishes us that we ought diligently to use our time and energies of body, and mind and not be a burden to others when we can provide for ourselves. But the Apostle in no wise teaches that labour is the sole title to a living or an income.

“To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is labouring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice”.
(Quadragesimo Anno para 57/58)

This principle promoted by the Church, that everybody, simply by virtue of being human, and irrespective of work, has a right to a decent life, would appear to be a completely alien concept to Duncan Smith, the DWP and the CSJ. As sick and disabled people and the unemployed face increasing hardship, and feel increasingly stigmatised and pressured, his department really does seem to be wielding a sledgehammer to crack a rather fragile nut.

Another group of people that have attracted much adverse attention are Housing Benefit claimants, with David Cameron in his Conference speech portraying this as a lifestyle choice by people who won’t work but expect to get their own home at the taxpayers’ expense. This is completely at odds with the fact that over 90 per cent of new Housing Benefit claimants are working, but the DWP never seeks to correct this misconception.

Quadragesimo Anno gave an analysis of the imbalance of economic and political power which could have come straight from the Occupy movement. Speaking of a “despotic economic dictatorship” it says:

“This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will.

“This concentration of power and might, the characteristic mark, as it were, of contemporary economic life, is the fruit that the unlimited freedom of struggle among competitors has of its own nature produced, and which lets only the strongest survive; and this is often the same as saying, those who fight the most violently, those who give least heed to their conscience.”

To restore social justice under such conditions is a herculean task, but Mr Duncan Smith seems to be confident that he is the person for the job, and Universal Credit, his great project, will be the way to do it. This will be his legacy, and his reputation will rest on it. It is intended to simplify the benefits system and ‘make work pay’.

But under Universal Credit, it is claimed that many more disabled people will be pushed into poverty.

There are some very disturbing features about the treatment of disabled people under Universal Credit. For instance, “A disabled person who uses a manual wheelchair and can self-propel this 50 metres will be treated as non-disabled and will no longer qualify for any extra support under Universal Credit”.

Of course it is important not to write disabled people off as incapable, but to ignore the difficulties and extra expense they face in trying to live with their disability is callous.

Chris Edwards, an economist and senior research associate at the University of East Anglia, has published “The Austerity War and the impoverishment of disabled people”, in which he finds that ‘over four years to 2015 the poorest 20 per cent of the 2.7 million households receiving disability benefits will lose 16 per cent of their cash income plus benefits-in-kind. This percentage loss is four times as big as the loss for the richest 20 per cent of households’.

Concern about this has led to the foundation of The Hardest Hit, a coalition of disabled people, their families and supporters, calling on the government, and particularly Mr. Duncan Smith, to reconsider their plans.

Despite everything the government says, all the figures suggest they really are balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, and Mr Duncan Smith is at the forefront of this approach. He seems to spend much of his considerable energy and intelligence on judging and trying to alter the behaviour of the poor, whilst maintaining, in the face of all the evidence, that the last thing the poor need is more money

Unlike the Church’s condemnation of a ‘despotic economic dictatorship’, one rarely hears anyone from the government questioning the morals or behaviour of the rich.

Perhaps this is the crucial difference between Mr Duncan Smith’s approach, and that of Catholic Social Teaching. The Church recognises that to achieve social justice, one must first establish economic justice, whereas the Secretary of State appears to reject this basic principle.

To be fair, many devout Catholics, perhaps the majority, are largely unaware of the thrust of the Church’s Social Teaching. If this is the case with Mr. Duncan Smith, one can hope that at some point he will take a moment to pause and consider his policies in the light of that teaching.

‘Choice’ and wrong turns in the world of private therapy

therapist tinder

Note: Many people cannot afford private therapy or are not able to successfully claim PIP. We understand this as does the author. If however you are in this position of having an income or a PIP award this offers some very useful experiences and lessons. For advice on Benefits see these resources Here

I am not a user of NHS mental health services but I choose to be a client seeing a private therapist on an open-ended basis. I have no private health insurance cover. I live in a housing association flat on an estate with its share of anti-social behaviour and police attendances. Until this new financial year my income as a single adult was low enough to qualify for Working Tax Credits. I am employed by the NHS and believe in care available to all regardless of wealth. I value my GP surgery immensely and their endless care provided without complaint. I don’t seek transformational change through private therapy but ‘life support.’

Due to the scarcity of long-term therapy on the NHS there are more people with enduring mental health issues finding we need to look to the private sector. I must admit that in 2012 I did receive a year’s psychological therapy from a psychologist in the local Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) before being discharged back to my GP, no doubt to the relief of that service which had ‘held’ me for ten years. I have since been re-referred to the CMHT during crises where the practitioners triaging the referral have been astonished to meet someone who has received individual therapy from their psychological services. I have been discharged immediately after these ‘assessments’, told to use the tools that I was given in that therapy. I am seen as having used up all of my chances with mental health services and can be turned away as a time waster. I have exhausted what psychology input used to be available but is now a rarity.

Unfortunately, some problems still remain even though I had this one year’s therapy six years ago that should have converted me into a person who would never be distressed again. In 2014 I was granted some ‘top up’ sessions before being discharged and told that I wouldn’t be seen by the CMHT in future while I still had the ‘same presentation.’ I wasn’t able to explain to the mental health services then or now that the clumsy and final way in which I had been discharged exacerbated my difficulties, resulting in a sense of failure and tarnished ending.

With over seven years’ experience of seeking and receiving private therapy support I can share what I have learned here in case you also find you are abandoned by the NHS but don’t feel ready to go it alone yet. I appreciate that there will be many readers with counselling qualifications and years of practice who will find my account lacking. This will be subjective writing but that reflects how each unique individual will react differently to therapy and needs to find the right match of therapist. No therapist will be perfect, but where a therapist is open to thinking about walking in your shoes then there is potential.

I am conscious that for so many people private therapy is out of reach financially. The lowest price I ever paid for a therapy session was £40. I currently pay £90 a session but, as I will later explain, this experience has provided the best value. I receive Personal Independence Payment (PIP) which mostly covers the session fee. However, my first PIP claim has ended and I wait with trepidation as to whether I will be awarded PIP again. Though I am receiving weekly specialist psychology support, the DWP tend to only recognise medical evidence provided by an NHS service. I was turned down for PIP the first time I applied even though I provided a letter from a private counsellor who called herself a psychotherapist. The Atos report repeatedly stated that I received no specialist input. When I complained that most questions in the assessment were about what NHS services I accessed and not how my disability affected me, the written Atos response was that the DWP used secondary services as an indicator of severity. In practice, the DWP decision maker favours NHS or Atos evidence over that of a private psychologist even when that practitioner also does NHS work. If I lose PIP then my therapy will be at risk but I would still prioritise this investment over other living expenses.

Therapist Tinder

There are several online facilities to find a private therapist especially the BACP website and the Counselling Directory. Counsellors and therapists will pay to be included on these sites and can indicate the areas of counselling they deal with. I feel sceptical about the wide choice on the Counselling Directory where some, apparently newly qualified, counsellors will indicate they deal with all of the 93 categories listed. I doubt that a counsellor would have an interest in areas as diverse as Autism, Abortion, HIV, Personality Disorders, hearing voices and gambling. Since I object to my diagnosis of ‘borderline personality disorder’ I could make sure the therapist didn’t have an interest in this area by excluding that option, but then I may miss a practitioner who was critical of the label too. No therapist is likely to go public with a critical view of current mental health practice and so one profile is much like another. These bland profiles may say how the counsellor wants to help you to live a fuller life and will provide a safe space. There are photos of the practitioners, making the site feel like the therapists’ equivalent of Tinder.

There are some definite warning signs to look out for in profiles. I avoid therapists who are clearly looking to supervise trainees rather than troublesome clients and boast of their skills. A psychotherapist who comes up in my postcode search on the Counselling Directory describes himself as one of the leading psychotherapists in the field with a national and international reputation. He has written books on the erotic transference and countertransference within the therapeutic relationship, suggesting erotic feelings and fantasies can bring about transformation. Where a professional has a research interest or psychoanalytic focus then it is advisable to steer clear since they are likely to see you through their filter. I have negative experiences of therapeutic communities so would discount a therapist prepared to say he had worked in these places which would mean he had facilitated group cannibalism.

The fees of therapists may be another deciding factor. My experience is that psychologists charge a lot more than counsellors and psychotherapists, even outside London. A few years ago I worked close to a psychology practice where fees started at £130 for an associate psychologist. An assessment report by one of their psychologists would cost several hundred pounds. The average session fee for a counsellor or psychotherapist is usually £50-£60 though some offer sliding scale which may take it down to £40. There are charities such as local Mind associations where they offer free or subsidised counselling. Some employers provide an Employee Assistance Scheme though my experience is that these are call centres where any counselling offered amounts to six phone calls with someone who only gives their first name.

Most psychotherapists and counsellors operate a 50 minute hour. I have resented paying £1 for every minute and so £3 may go on a long pause or £10 on a pointless interpretation which I didn’t recognise. Given the high cost it is important that you find a therapist who allows you to direct the time and doesn’t impose a particular model on you that doesn’t make sense. I used to end sessions sooner than 50 minutes as I would worry so much about causing the therapist to overrun, though they kept looking at the clock so this was probably unnecessary. It has felt as though I was toxic and could only be handled carefully within the allowed slot before ceasing to exist once time was up.

With counsellors registered with the BACP you may want to look at whether they have worked to gain accreditation or senior accreditation. A person centred counsellor can be as skilled and able to deal with complicated issues as a psychotherapist. It can feel as though a psychotherapist’s training, with years of costly self-analysis, leads to them becoming less authentic as they are able to objectify and distance clients. There is a professional mystique around psychoanalysis and psychotherapy which now seems outdated. Don’t be afraid to ask the therapist about their qualifications and experiences. If they are defensive about this question then look for the door.

Therapy approaches (whether you like them or not)

I don’t wish to generalise, but my experience of therapists is that their style and demeanour is influenced by their training and treatment modality. The therapist appears to believe entirely in their single modality. I find CBT therapists dogmatic in their promotion of CBT with an insistence on it being evidence based, making sure they give you ‘homework’ and that you do not look to them for support. Last year I made an appointment to see a CBT practising psychologist willing to offer five sessions of CBT before we reviewed progress. The first thing she said to me was: ‘this is a business arrangement’. She made me justify why I wanted therapy again when I had tried other therapies in the past which obviously hadn’t worked. When I voiced my sense of rejection by local services she said that they wouldn’t be able to see me as: “they only have capacity to see those who are in the severe and enduring mental illness group which isn’t you.” I didn’t go back to her as why would I want to pay someone who made me feel as bad as NHS services did at the time of discharging me.

I had tried CBT before privately for around six sessions. The psychologist again acted as though she didn’t really want to see me. She challenged me during the assessment when I asked if she was only at the clinic on Fridays. The relationship ended since I emailed her after I collapsed due to bleeding out from a self-harm injury on the way to A&E. When we met after this trauma, she said that she wasn’t there for support, this was time limited therapy and asked why I had contacted her about the incident. I felt very dismissed and distressed by this response after an episode where I had to be revived by paramedics since I had gone into medical shock. The attitude of CBT therapists is that they want you to cope on your own, which is a great aim but ignores the realities of people’s lives which may involve poverty, loneliness, trauma and loss.

Bad therapy

My worst and most extended spell of therapy was with a psychoanalytic therapist for 18 months. When I ended with NHS psychology services I did ask my CMHT psychologist if he could make any recommendations. He told me not to use Increased Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) as they were only trained to a certain level and would not be used to seeing someone who had been through as much as I had been. At first he refused to make any suggestion because he felt this was my wanting him to provide for me after we ended. Eventually he did suggest two names (one being the therapist who writes books on erotic transference already mentioned) who also did sessions for the CMHT. I did opt to see the therapist without the interest in erotic transference knowing that as a self-identifying asexual I wouldn’t appreciate that imposed focus. His website was inoffensive though there were no real selling points or personality there. On reflection I chose him in order to keep some connection with the CMHT and the psychologist who I had liked working with. I remember when we first spoke on the phone and this new psychotherapist said that he did have ‘vacancies’ and gave me an address for his ‘consulting rooms’. He practised at his home though we never called it that. Everything was impersonal, robotic and guarded. He once came to the door on crutches and wouldn’t say what had happened to incapacitate him.

The psychotherapist’s fee was £50 a session which I had to pay in arrears once a month. I was not allowed to pay him any sooner or later than a week after he handed me the slip of paper. The ‘invoice’ said ‘for professional services’ and he signed his initials along with the dates of the sessions. I then would take a cheque to him the following week which he received in silence. I was earning around £16,000 a year and wanted to pay him weekly to help with my budgeting. However, any mention of a change in payment arrangement was refuted and analysed; his theory was that I needed to hold onto the payment for him as this was similar to my unwillingness to contain my emotions. It was another ‘boundary’ in the relationship which I had to keep or face heavy discussion. I was not allowed to email him except about practical meeting arrangements. If I missed a session, no matter how much notice I gave or how ill I was, then I would have to pay for it. This is in line with other therapists I have seen where even giving many months’ notice of cancellation meant I still had to pay at least half ie £25 in order to keep open my ‘slot.’

The relationship with the psychotherapist was rocky though he told me to give it no less than a year. If I emailed him saying I wanted to end he would ask me to come to the next session to discuss it. I wasn’t able to end as it still would have felt like a rejection and treatment failure, mirroring the botched ending with the CMHT. I felt beholden to his clever but empty interpretations, for instance whether eating sandwiches as a child meant that I avoided them now or was my mother not breast feeding me a cause of my eating distress. I felt too passive at times to say the obvious ie ‘what rubbish.’ We kept returning to the relationship and what was happening in the room even when my mind was elsewhere since not all of my feelings were about him. It is hard to feel much about a therapist who is deliberately a blank page. He found everything I said ‘fascinating’ while offering no warmth, humanity or ability to be real in return. Therapy felt like an intellectual exercise and not a therapist acting as a witness or helping me deal with expressed difficulties.

It was clear that the psychotherapist always had to be in control. When I decided to apply for a lay position on a committee of the UKCP he saw this as a direct attack on him. I felt that he would welcome my interest in user involvement but he felt that I was going for a job with his regulatory body to gain power over him. When I asked if I could start his first session of the day ten minutes early in order to catch a bus to work he said he needed a week to think about the ramifications.

After paying the psychotherapist over £3,300 he terminated the therapy due to my self-harm. He had given me an ultimatum, in effect a contract not to self-harm. When I challenged how this would help he said I was ‘playing games’. He only reacted to the self-harm when I had let him know I had been to A&E. It felt as though he was safeguarding his reputation rather than thinking about what happened to me once I was completely unsupported. He told me that if I felt I couldn’t stop self-harming then I should go back to the NHS, which was the same CMHT he worked for. Unsurprisingly the CMHT rejected the referral and expected me to go back to seeing him or another therapist who I should find in an instant.

It can be possible to be trapped in a therapy relationship like this and I imagine it to resemble domestic abuse in some ways. You hope for change in yourself and for the therapist to actually like you. You keep going back only to get the same cold, controlling treatment again. Paying so much to a therapist who stopped seeing me since I was distressed enough to self harm felt abusive.

Still not found what I am looking for

Needless to say, there have been many other therapists I have seen who felt unsatisfactory. I have often had to wait in the rain for my time to knock on the door of the therapist, as arriving even two minutes early was breaking a boundary and forbidden anyway since they had no waiting room. At times I wondered why I was paying £50 to a therapist with a house which must cost close to a million pounds when I was going back to a flat with neighbour problems. I have seen two well meaning counsellors who, while lovely, just seemed to agree with me as their way of validating everything. This agreement then entrenched my sadness and led to a sense of going round in circles. One of the counsellors said things that felt trite or weird, like describing us as ‘the dynamic duo’ as a way of compensating for the fact that no-one else, including the GP, was interested.

I have tried the only NHS therapy available to everyone through IAPT. This experience, while free, felt rushed since the therapist kept saying: “you know we only have six sessions.” Ten minutes of each session was spent filling out a self-assessment questionnaire for my anxiety and depression scores. This exercise was about her outcomes monitoring and had no therapeutic purpose. I gave up after the first session since I knew that my scores were unlikely to improve within such an irritating and imposed format.

A good match

I do now see a psychologist who treats me as a fellow human being. There can be misunderstandings, as in any relationship, but we discuss and repair. She is relaxed about me emailing which is important to me given my anxiety means I sometimes have to communicate in that moment. While she does have vast secondary care experience of working with clients with a label of BPD she views the underlying complex trauma and understands the prevailing discrimination. I prefer the way that she can draw on many different therapeutic approaches rather than deciding we must do DBT, MBT, Stepps etc because that is what is in a NICE guideline for BPD. I don’t see her as part of the PD industry, another expert who will get me to mentalise even though we can never truly know what someone else is thinking about us. I like that I don’t know much about her personally, though I guess we are not far apart in age. She is intelligent but not over intellectual and I can talk to her about the most intimate or embarrassing problem without shame. Most of all I see how she really wants to help and see me free of mental torment, while avoiding any rescue attempt when I do sometimes self-harm. I see her in a clinic where she hires a room so have somewhere to wait if I want to stay out of the rain and cold weather before an appointment. She puts up with me being gloomy at times without demanding I think more positively as she hears the life circumstances that make this challenging. I can take everyday issues to her such as work obligations and family relationships, looking for new perspectives and coping strategies.

I have spent tens of thousands of pounds getting to this point, too much to just put down to bad experience. At best I helped the psychotherapist I saw for 18 months pay for holidays for his secret family when he took the whole of August off. But I also think that all of the misses make me appreciate my current therapeutic relationship more, I feel grateful that there is someone who ‘gets’ me and that I can still benefit from therapy. As my therapist she listens and learns from me, whereas the analytic profession will search for unseen and hidden meanings which would cost me more money but answer nothing. It feels interactive and equal, a gift of therapy and not another missed connection.
I would always want long-term therapy to be available on the NHS. In the new real world though I am using what is available to survive, stay in work, gain insights, practise self-compassion and acceptance of what can’t be changed.
This isn’t an advertisement for private therapy as I know it will continue to come down to affordability for most people. If you want CBT then don’t pay a penny to a private therapist but go to IAPT along with perhaps buying self-help books. Private therapy can though lead to a special relationship but this is far from automatic. So much choice in the private sector and personal vulnerabilities can certainly lead you down wrong paths.

Note: PIP is awarded on functional descriptors about how your condition/difficulty/impairment AFFECTS you. Saying on a form ‘I need PIP to Pay for Therapy’ will get you zero points, you must phrase all answers in the form of how you are affected and with reference to the legal descriptors, see Advice Links

Ruth Davidson, Mental Health And Tory Policy

Screen Shot 2018-09-26 at 18.44.41

Thank you to Irene Sutcliffe @hotsexmadrigal and James Loxley @oldnorthroad for permission to repost their article here:

On 16 September, the Sunday Times published an interview with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson. The piece was both about Davidson’s private and public lives (the two can’t really be separated, not in her line of work): her pregnancy and the importance to her and her partner of starting a family, her political career to date, and her desire not to be Prime Minister (despite strong rumours to the contrary). The interview was trying to be a refreshing take on a Conservative politician – as the interviewer points out, on the surface, Davidson is hardly your archetypal Tory, ‘…a working-class, winningly informal, cheerfully profane 39-year-old lesbian former kick boxer…’. The piece even begins with Ruth dancing for the photographer, apparently unembarrassed. She is portrayed as frank, amusing and charming. She has an autobiography coming out, called ‘Yes She Can’, and a lengthy extract from this book, which deals with her breakdown aged 17, is printed at the end of the interview.

It should only be a good thing when well-known figures, especially those in positions of political power, are candid about their mental health issues, for several reasons. Firstly, and perhaps most obviously, it shows that the black dog strikes indiscriminately – sure, Davidson is a lesbian from a working-class background, but she is also an educated cisgendered white woman who can’t fairly be called working-class these days. Secondly, it demonstrates that mental health difficulties needn’t be a barrier to doing such a demanding job. And thirdly, such people are actually in a position to change the way the state provides for those with mental illness – which it does woefully badly at the moment. Woefully badly. We cannot emphasise this point enough. English NHS services are laughably understaffed (for example, when one of us was under section in a psychiatric unit in a hospital with 6+ wards, there was ONE doctor covering the whole hospital outside of 9-5 Monday to Friday hours). Waiting lists for NHS therapy are horrifically long, and even private therapists are stretched. The postcode lottery is a huge factor in terms of what is available to those suffering with mental health problems. While the NHS in Scotland is devolved (in fact, it has always been separate) and hasn’t had to cope with a drive towards marketisation, years of real terms cuts to the Scottish government’s budget and increasing demand mean that there is still huge pressure on resources, and services are certainly not where they should be. The recent allocation of additional resource to mental health care in the Scottish budget is a very welcome step, but will not go far towards solving the problems. Stories of people not getting the care they need will continue to proliferate.

The interview proved points 1 and 2 pretty well, and there’s not much need to go into those here. But let’s take point 3. As an MSP, the leader of the second largest party at Holyrood and an aspirant to the position of First Minister (if not, as she claimed in her interview, that of Prime Minister), Davidson has a prominent platform from which to advocate for significant improvements in this system and – just as importantly – to will the means required to make such improvements happen. One of the most crucial things that mental health services require for improvement is, essentially, a huge injection of cash. But we also need meaningful changes in the way the state – and society – view mental illness in all its various forms: not as the fault of the individual, but as a difficult and unfair thing that could befall anyone. It’s also not the responsibility of the individual alone to recover from their unwellness: it’s society’s duty to help everyone, and to make necessary adaptations for those with mental health problems so that they can operate within society and not on its fringes.

So, what does Davidson have to say about all this? Here is the extract in full, with our commentary:

I went to university at 17 years old. If I’d known then that knowledge was not the same as intelligence and confidence no substitute for ability, I might not have struggled so much. But another event crashed into my world. A boy from my home village committed suicide. I’m not a psychologist and I don’t know why his death affected me as much as it did, but I went into a total tailspin.

I started hurting myself: punching walls, cutting my stomach and arms with blades or broken glass, drinking far, far too much and becoming belligerent and angry, pushing people away. I was punishing myself and hating myself for it at the same time.

So Ruth really was unwell, for whatever reasons – biological, psychological, social, whatever. She showed her interviewer the scars on her arms: One of us, too, has these scars. We know the urge to self-harm, to drink to make the noise in your head shut up, and an awful lot about existing as a ball of sheer anger. Despite the political and personal gulf between ourselves and Ruth, we share that in common. And it resonates.

At 18, I was diagnosed with clinical depression and put on antidepressants. I was frightened, confused and worried that I might be going mad — that this was what a mental breakdown was. After starting medication, I had desperate, dark, terrible dreams that were so vivid, I couldn’t tell what was real. I became anxious and paranoid. I started having suicidal thoughts. Every time I went back to the university health centre with a fresh set of injuries, the doctor on duty just doubled my dose and things got worse.

In the end, I was on the maximum dosage allowed and became so scared of sleep that, in my second year, I spent a whole term living nocturnally. I stayed up through the night and only went to bed once my flatmates had left for lectures. As an arts student with very little structured time — we were in charge of our own required reading and making sure essays were handed in — nobody much noticed or cared if classes were missed.

Here’s the thing. Antidepressants can cause mad, adverse side-effects that do often diminish with time. They can be really horrible. We ourselves, and plenty of people we know, have suffered side-effects that range from the unpleasant to the truly horrible, and we have all had the experience of waiting and wondering if things will improve. We feel really bad for Ruth in this situation. Because it’s horrible, obviously. No-one wants to suffer this way. The problem here is that Ruth doesn’t seem to have been tried on any other types of antidepressant when whatever she was put on was having adverse effects, and doesn’t say whether or not she was offered any therapy. Really, those are the issues here, not antidepressants in themselves. It is easy to stay stuck on meds that don’t work for you if you’re depressed and not really in a place to argue with doctors. What might really have helped Ruth here is psychiatric monitoring, and pathways into therapy. Essentially, providing both those things boils down to money.

But then, things get tricky.

Intellectually, I know that drug therapy helps millions and that in a different time, or with a GP who knew me, instead of the revolving door of a university health centre, I could have received treatment that helped me get better, instead of making things worse: the manufacturer of the drug I was on has since paid out millions following class-action lawsuits after evidence of increased suicidal behaviour in adolescents.

Davidson doesn’t say which drug she was taking, but there have indeed been concerns about the risk of increased suicidal behaviour among young people taking SSRIs, and lawsuits have indeed been settled by manufacturers. Some drugs are no longer prescribed for children and young people because of such concerns, and practitioners are much more alert to the dangers. Serious side effects of this sort were and remain rare, however, and it doesn’t help anybody for a senior politician to make statements that could prove unnecessarily alarming.

But the key point here is actually not one Davidson meant to make. The experience she describes is of being prescribed a drug and then not receiving the consistent help and support she needed when it didn’t work for her. That is what happens to far too many people suffering mental ill health in this country. And it happens precisely because overstretched health care providers are not able to give people the time and attention they need, because the resources aren’t there to pay for them. So we come back to money, and the problem for Davidson here is that she has consistently supported the austerity policies of a UK Tory government since 2010 which have led to so much increased pressure on health services and devolved government budgets. And when the Scottish government increased income tax on the well off in order to address some of the budgetary shortfall, who led the charge against it? Why, of course, it was Ruth Davidson. She’s happy to will the end of better mental health care, but totally opposed to willing the means.

There’s only one way that Davidson can escape the implications of her statement, and that again comes down to what she can will – or thinks she can, at least.

I had mocked the leaflets I was given on the diagnosis — NHS instructions to do light activity, like housework or clearing out my cupboards. But eventually I made a decision to will myself better. I resolved to build a structure to my days and weeks, to set short- and medium-term goals, to engage in purposeful activity that had a measurable outcome, to take regular exercise, moderate my drinking, go back to church and be kinder to myself.

This is where the wheels really start to fall off in an alarming way. Firstly, you simply cannot will yourself better from depression. Fact is, Davidson structuring her days was a very good idea and probably took immense strength of character, but she did not will herself better. That is something we’re told to do when we’re unwell, which we can’t do, or fail to do, and end up beating ourselves up when going for a run or doing meditation or being somehow more mindful doesn’t work. This is where dogmatic Conservative ideology rides in to rescue Ruth from the real lesson of her story. Now she can assert that YOU have to get better ON YOUR OWN and it comes FROM YOU. Yes, there’s an element of truth to that, but it’s also, as we’ve said, something we do in collaboration and something for which we are collectively responsible as a society.

Most importantly to me, I threw away my pills and promised myself that, whatever happened, no matter if I slipped back, I would never take them again.

I couldn’t go back to a place where I didn’t know what was real and what wasn’t, where my emotions were hollowed out but my anxieties heightened.

Well, obviously those particular meds weren’t working for her. I think we’ve established that. But this is just the sort of ‘get on with it yourself with no support’ attitude that Tories standardly resort to and take pride in. It’s also worth noting that her diagnosis was depression. Thing is, not all mental health problems are the same. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and psychosis – these are things for which drug therapy is usually the norm, and inpatient stays are often necessary. Ruth’s bootstraps approach certainly wouldn’t do the trick here. All this, what’s more, in a society where both work and welfare are being re-engineered in ways that increase the chances of people – especially those without privilege or capital of any kind – getting ill.

And this inevitably colours her somewhat solipsistic account of where things are at now:

More than 20 years later, the ways in which we understand and respond to mental-health issues are unrecognisable from what they once were. The stigma is much reduced, and depression is something that far more people feel able to talk about. There’s a long way to go, but it helps when more people in more fields open up — when sports stars, royalty and business leaders say publicly that they have a condition they manage, and can demonstrate that it doesn’t stop them achieving.

I am still frightened of going back to the psychological place I once inhabited. When I have periods of heightened anxiety, or I can feel the weight of the black blanket start to descend, I go back to what I know works for me: structure, exercise, forward momentum, measurable outcomes.

Well, yes, openness is important, and great to see. But this is much too rosy a picture. Twenty years on, we don’t actually understand all that much more about the workings of the brain than we did. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is still an evolving document, and there is a huge debate underway about the usefulness of any diagnoses in mental health. We’re also not sure stigma is reduced – the fact we talk about it is one thing, but when we’re told to talk to someone about our mental health – who exactly do we talk to? Many Community Mental Health Teams are now not taking patients unless they have attempted to commit suicide already. That’s the criteria for getting help in some places – try and off yourself. And again, this is down to an already-underfunded mental health system in England being gutted by the Tory government to which Davidson offers her unwavering support. So it’s great that she has her techniques to stave off depression and they work for her, but the idea of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and getting on with it when you are unwell is simply laughable. The vast majority of people involved in mental health care know this. While Davidson and her supporters comfort themselves with their self-affirming story of self-reliance, out in the real world more people will die.

The UK Government Has Been Killing Disabled People, A New Government Must Stop This And Make Things Right

Screenshot 2018-09-25 16.45.40

Ok, I wrote this a couple of weeks ago while thinking about the roundtable meeting with John McDonnell and saved it away, I think it needs putting out there now, because clearly even people supposedly aware of what is going on seem to not understand what it is like to be a target of government hostility. This is what a future new government needs to do to make things right and respect disabled people’s rights and lives and to move forward.

1. People have a form of trauma from their dealing with the DWP and contractors over the last decade, we are survivors of state sponsored abuse, that needs recognising and help given.

2. To that end there needs to be a formal state led process of truth and reconciliation and part of that will entail key senior command people face trial, thousands of lives have been taken here and that trauma cannot be dealt with without redress, forgiveness can only happen after an oppressor accepts what they have done and that it was wrong. There is no place for sanctions in a social security safety net. It should also be noted that professional bodies (General Medical Council, Nursing & Midwifery Council & Health and Care Professions Council) have sought to protect their members from complaints and remedying their institutional bias needs to be part of this process. The Coroner System also needs to be changed so the threshold of determining suicide and causes is no longer to a criminal standard and that coroners warnings to government about lethal effects of policy have statutory force and cannot be hidden or dismissed. As for Corporate Charities or Disability Rights UK, when push came to shove, they mostly failed us. If they want to share in this way forward they have to re-orient how they represent the people they supposedly are constituted to help.

3. Long term the DWP is so institutionally dysfunctional it has no future in a civilised society, we need a new Ministry combining Social Security and Social Care closely allied to Health (if not also Health) DHSS, imagine such a thing! And firmly rooted in human rights and the social model. So not Universal Credit.

4. More directly about the future, there needs to be a transition plan so that the Friday morning when Labour walk into Downing Street, civil servants and government lawyers are tasked with ending the contracts with Atos, Capita & Maximus. On this we are happy to provide testimony to show all three are catastrophically in breach of their contacts and deserve no exit clause payments, in fact they deserve prosecutions. The assessments need to be paused, interim payments continued and an emergency process in place to deal with ongoing claims and new claims while new legislation is debated and passed, ideally seeing NHS professionals and the claimants own support network co-produce an assessed support plan that is the gateway to benefits. The era of the fear of the brown envelope must end immediately.