Mental distress: time to change?

I watched the above advert tonight, it’s debut,showing as part of the campaign, Time to Change, which is about challenging the stigma and discrimination attached to mental distress. A couple of adverts previously was the utterly sick making and vile one on benefit fraud, which increases distress and anxiety for people but the significance and irony was probably lost on the schedulers.

The campaign has laudable demands, such as educating people about mental distress, tackling discrimination, community projects and challenging the myths/stereotypes. It has famous celebs talking about their experiences of mental distress. Again, all laudable…… But why do I feel so cynical about this? The advert is all glossy, expensive and slick… what, exactly, does it say? Silent expressive looks as a potential employer shuffles your file to the bottom of the pile, misunderstandings and stigma about mental distress rendering the person silent. All true but there was nothing hard hitting or punchy that rammed the message home about the utter shite people who experience mental distress have to go through. It’s an art-house extravaganza with moody lighting and trendy imagery (nowt wrong with that mind….).

Also, the main organisers are MIND, Rethink, and Mental Health Media. The aims include a 5% positive shift in public perception in mental distress and to achieve a 5% reduction in discrimination by 2012. Pretty ambitious. Current and past users of the mental health system are supposedly central to the campaign where they are candid about their experiences (I empathised with ‘Andy’ his experiences of the minefield that is known applying for jobs with a mental health history and the rigmarole you go through). But are users central to the decision making, autonomy, and organisation or are they just there to supply the stories?

Laudable initiatives and demands but this campaign scratches the surface and doesn’t strike at the heart of stigma and oppression. It is fine and dandy to argue for programmes revolving around activity and exercise but what about campaigning for cheap sports facilities, fighting against the ever decreasing green spaces and against closures such as of swimming pools….? And with discrimination and unfair treatment in the workplace what about putting real political pressure on employers to create supportive less pressurised and stressed work environments, flexible working hours, time out when you feel distressed, tightening up the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and educating the whole work place on mental distress.

And real choices when it comes to deciding what support you want/need as opposed to being offered medication and/or being chucked on a 6 mths (if you’re lucky) waiting list for therapy (and the limited choice being CBT)…

And with the current political landscape that is predicated in attacking the poor in this society especially with the draconian legislation on welfare reform that will only increase mental distress when you force people into work under the threat of sanctions. Now that’s worth one hell of a broad based campaign!

Again, a laudable campaign but it lacks real activism and political demands.

Stockwell: controversially uncontroversial

The outcome of the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest late last year was an utter travesty and an injustice. And now we have the docudrama from ITV1, Stockwell, which follows that critical day of the 22nd July 2005.

There’s the preamble about the failed London bombings the previous day, the hunt for the bombers and the emphasis on Hussain Osman (‘Nettle tip). The pressure and tension on the cops to find the bombers, combined with public fear. In the background in the beginning and the end is the judge’s summing up from health and safety trial.

The programme went through the critical day of the 22nd July from the various briefings with John MacDowall and SO 19 Trojan 84 (‘might be required to use unusual tactics’).Again, the script came from the health and safety trial. Surveillance teams outside Scotia Road, with ‘Ken’ taking a piss while Jean Charles de Menezes leaves the multiple occupancy flat. The incompetency, no visible chain of command, technological failures, and no positive ID, which exposed a gigantic botched operation where an innocent man was shot and killed.

The programme displayed a formulaic approach. Dialogue is based on transcripts from a trial which makes watching very flat and the cops were portrayed sympathetically (dialogue based on their evidence and the veracity has since been thrown into doubt) but at the same time cops who couldn’t/wouldn’t think for themselves and desperate for orders from the chain of command.

It was haunting watching the final journey Jean Charles took without knowing anything that there was massive activity and surveillance determining his fate.

Towards the end you got the dramatic tension, radio silence where Cressida Dick is waiting anxiously while firearms teams vault over ticket barriers, racing down the escalators, and the surveillance team already on the tube. The slo-mo style where frantic firearms teams were heard shouting, ‘armed police’ (well, the inquest jury didn’t believe that was shouted!), running onto the tube where a calm Jean Charles de Menezes was sitting.

He was shot 9 times in the head, 7 bullets entering his head. The officers used 9mm 124 grain hollow point bullets (dum-dum bullets). At the end we see Sir Ian Blair peddle the lies about Jean Charles de Menezes at the press conference after the man’s death.

Politically, this docudrama paints a picture of incompetency and human error. A mere accident, a lawful killing. The cops under enormous pressure are sympathetically drawn yet don’t think beyondt heir orders. The top brass are depicted as standing around at New Scotland Yard. Technological faults, no positive identification, breakdown in communication. Why couldn’t there have been reenactments of people actually giving evidence, along with the legal proceedings and then juxtaposing it with the ongoing narrative of the 22nd.

It’s an uncontroversial programme that looks no deeper than at police incompetence and breakdown of command. No exploration of the cops attitudes such as their readiness to make assumptions, racism, poor briefings, ‘shoot to kill’, lies, and cover-ups …add all that and there could have been a more controversial potent mix that gave a much more honest and political account about why an innocent man was shot dead.

The establishment can sleep easy as regards to Stockwell.

Workers’ rights: some good news…..

Well, the bosses are not pleased…and in my books that is a positive result. Why the sudden despair and indignation?

Workers from HM Revenue and Customs brought a groundbreaking case that argued the right to paid holidays while on long-term sick.

The trade union, PCS, argued that the HMRC was in breach of the EU’s Working Time Directive. They originally took it to the Court of Appeal where they lost:

In April 2005, the UK’s Court of Appeal decreed that workers absent on long-term sick leave could not claim holidays or holiday pay for the time they were absent from work, nor could they expect compensation for lost holiday if they left their job before returning to work.

The case was then taken to the the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which ruled in favour of the workers. The ruling states:

A worker does not lose his right to paid annual leave which he has been unable to exercise because of sickness. He must be compensated for his annual leave not taken. Lawyers said that the law lords were likely to overturn the Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling in light of today’s guidance from the ECJ.

 But as you might have guessed the employers aren’t impressed and see it as a ‘severe blow to business’….

This is a real blow to firms trying to keep jobs alive during the recession. Businesses themselves also suffer when staff take sick leave, and we had hoped that a compromise could have been achieved over unused holiday time.

When the workers win a striking victory around pay and conditions it’s a ‘blow to business’ yet bosses only too happy to shaft workers. And employers should think long and hard about why people go off sick especially in regards to the increase in stress related illnesses, along with changing work-place environments and attitudes.

Well done HM Revenue and Customs workers and the PCS union.

Coroners and Justice Bill

The Coroners and Justice Bill was published on 15th January. The inquest system is utterly archaic and it needs dramatic changes; such as making sure there’s consistency of approach in England and Wales, tackling time delays in the inquest system (it is shocking how long people have to wait to find out how a loved one died!), providing better information to bereaved people, record and monitor inquest findings, and that action is taken regarding recommendations.

But……NL are trying to bring back ‘secret inquests’ which they originally ditched from the Counter Terrorism Bill.  So it seems that they went to resurrect proposals of allowing inquests of ‘national security’ to be held in private. And it’s these situations where you want as much transparency, accountability and democracy…instead of state secrecy.

Like I said, the inquest system is problematic,  inconsistent and unjust. Deaths in police custody or prison, the coroner is under a legal obligation to investigate fully in a presence of a jury. Not so if you die in a psychiatric hospital. Coroners can decide themselves what is to be investigated or not. Around 340 people died in 2007 while under a section of the Mental Health Act (and some aren’t even reported).

Over the years I have known of people who have died in the psychiatric system while on a section. Some were investigated. There have been  inquests (and that’s an uphill struggle for grief stricken people). There was an inquest into the death of a  friend of mine who died while in the psychiatric system but that was just one cover-up. No proper investigation, just going along with the formalities. She never got justice and countless people who die in the psychiatric system don’t either.

In saying that, there is some good news, a recent landmark judgement (Savage (Respondent) v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Appellant) where the House of Lords declared that health authorities have a duty of care to people sectioned under the Mental Health Act:

Summary

• Mentally ill patients like prisoners are a particularly vulnerable group, deserving of protection.
• They present a heightened risk of suicide, against which the Health Authority needs to put in place measures to minimise such risks.
• A failure to do so could result in a breach of Art 2 of the ECHR.

If someone dies in the ‘care of the state’ including compulsorily detained in the psychiatric system then surely it has to be properly investigated?

Gaza: a criticism of the critics

To be even-handed between oppressor and the oppressed, between the expropriator and the dispossessed is always to take the side of the former against the latter. Oppression and expropriation usually involve violence, particularly in the context of colonialism.

The principle of self defence is something that is in both international law with regard to nation states: a state is allowed to fight against the invasion of its territory for instance. It is installed domestic law: if I pick up a knife and stab someone who is trying to kill me with an axe I commit no offence.

The reason for this principle and the reason that it represents justice is that you should not be required to suffer injury that someone else is deliberately inflicting on you. From the other point of view there is an answer to those who wish to avoid force being used in self-defence against them: do not use violence yourself in the first place.

Most mainstream or bourgeois commentators would have little problem with the principle of self-defence as it is written into international or domestic law. Where they will go flaky is with the idea that people oppressed by colonialism or imperialism should be able to resist the violence that is visited upon them.

In practice of course principles such as self-defence are not applied evenly: nation states allied with the West are given huge leeway to do what they like in keeping the world safe for imperialism and the corporate interest. Examples would be Nigeria and Colombia. Often of course “self -defence” is extended to cover acts of simple thuggery such as the operation of death squads in Colombia.

On the other hand when the oppressed fight back a harder stance is taken. In Gaza, the colonialist’s can launch terror attacks on civilians: civilians who cannot find refuge in shelters nor by flight to safe areas. On the other hand any strike back is condemned out of hand.

Ah but we do not say that! We condemn both Israel and Hamas for being reactionary and using violence!

Various liberal lefties come out with this. This sounds reasonable but is not. Israel, or any oppressor does not need to use any violence. It would  be left in peace if it submitted to any kind of just settlement: but of course it cannot do this for a variety of reasons that can be summed up in its continued commitment to the Zionist project. To be fair of course Israel has been used by the puppet masters in Washington DC down the decades as a threat to the Arab regimes. Zionism creates the regional instability that cause the Saudi rulers in particular to cling to the apron strings of the US. It is difficult to gauge how far a fair minded liberal government would be allowed to go in getting a fair settlement that allowed the Palestinians to live freely and equally with Israelis.

The Palestinians whether in Gaza, the West Bank or in exile do not have this option. Giving up resistance will be taken as a sign weakness, a green light for further expropriation and immiseration.

Looked at in terms of the political dynamics the same conclusion is reached. Many people may in good faith adopt a position of condemning both sides equally. However remember that the imperialists will latch onto anything as an excuse to impose their rule. Witness the noise about the rights of women in Afghanistan and the silence about the rights of women in Iraq. For example sexism and homophobia are social problems that need to be addressed politically.They are not something that should be used as a cover for the violent  expropriation involved in imperialist subjugation.

If you do not understand this you will always find that the criticism of imperialism fades away while the criticism of those resisting imperialism is amplified.

Convention of the Left conference – 24th January 2009

The Convention of the Left is holding a recall conference on the 24th January in Manchester.

Following the success of the Convention in Manchester, this conference will discuss the current crisis of capitalism and develop our ideas for action in response to it. We have been clear all along that the wealth exists in society to pay for our essential needs – and now the way the Governments of the UK, EU and US have found this money at the drop of a hat proves what we have been saying. The poor should not be punished for the crisis of capitalism. We must provide the alternative.

You can see more information and register here.

I am planning to go and will hopefully see comrades there.

Oh, so that’s how it goes…!!

Ok, I was intending to write about how the economy is well up, to put it bluntly, a certain creek without a paddle. And now with Brown announcing a second unconditional banking bail-out. Woe is us!

But I ended up being distracted by this website (I need the frivolity and the humour…badly) and I recall visiting it a couple of years ago. Blimey, I am not the only person who has misheard lyrics.

Poor Alanis Morissette. I always liked Jagged Little Pill and the angsty, You Oughta Know. Radio stations surgically removed the bit: ‘when you fuck her.’ to something totally inaudible. But what the hell has a cross-eyed bear got to do with it?

Well, it seems many people think she is singing, ‘It’s not fair to deny me of the cross-eyed bear that you gave to me’.

When in actual fact she is singing, ‘It’s not fair to deny me of the cross I bear that you gave to me’

It seems that many people discover they have the lyrics wrong when they are singing along with others in the car…. and find out when they go off at a complete tangent. Such as finding out that Smokey Robinson was singing, ‘I Second That Emotion’ as opposed to, ‘Second Hand Emotion’.

Though sometimes the misheard lyrics are far more entertaining than the actual lyrics. Poor Robert Palmer….he may well have believed, ‘You’re  Addicted to Love’ …and not, ‘You’re a Dick in a Glove’…..

But strangely I happened on Smash Mouth’s Walkin’ on the Sun (which I liked) where the misheard lyrics go, ‘You need to be there when your baby’s old enough to be laid’….

Now I too believed that was being song as well and always thought it worryingly jarred with the rest of the lyrics … Well, I possibly shoulda checked what was being sung.

‘You need to be there when your baby’s old enough to relate’….

Oops! Oh well….

And was Jimi Hendrix singing about kissing the guy or kissing the sky on Purple Haze…………

More on the Welfare Reform Bill

The new Welfare Reform Bill was only introduced on the 14th of this month. The second reading will be on the 27th January. The third reading and report stage may take place at the end of February.

It demonstrates NL’s utter desperation to get this draconian Bill through Parliament. The Bill includes abolishing income support, workfare, further conditionality and sanctions aimed at loan parents and disabled people, and privatisation/corporatisation of the benefits system.

What is the rush? Is it about making various ‘savings’ and/or showing that NL are ‘getting tough’ on dole scroungers as there’s an election looming in about a year’s time?

If you want to voice your opposition to this nasty pernicious Bill write to your MP, for starters. I will. I am sure my NL drone MP will be voting for it but I will expressing and registering my disgust if he does!!

The politics of the workhouse is on its way!

Behind the Gaza crisis

As a former member of the ISG, British section of the FI (Fourth International) I still read International Viewpoint on a regular basis as it is an invaluable resource on international politics and struggles. There’s a very interesting interview with Gilbert Achcar about the current crisis in Gaza. And, below, is part of his analysis about Israel’s ongoing strategy towards Gaza:

So if Israel gets into a second fiasco even against Hamas which is quite weaker than Hezbollah, then this will be seen necessarily as a major disaster, worse than the 2006 one for Israel. Not to mention, and this is the second point, the petty consideration. If the ruling coalition in Israel comes out from the present war with another fiasco, its parties won’t even need to go to elections. Netanyahu would stand to smash them completely and they know that. So they cannot afford a fiasco for these two reasons combined and this is what makes the situation very, very worrying. They might develop the syndrome of the wounded beast, getting more ferocious than they are already. The level of Israeli atrocity is increasing war after war. The 33-Day War in 2006 was already the most brutal aggression in the long history of Israeli wars, the most brutal utilization of power by Israel, carpet-bombing whole regions of Lebanon, civilian areas.

The pretext then as now is that fighters are hiding among the population. This is the most hypocritical argument: what do they want them to do, to regroup in some wasteland with signposts saying ‘Bomb us here’? This is preposterous. The truth is that Israel is trying to crush mass political parties, which are armed, of course, but they have to be armed because they are permanently under threat. These are armed popular movements. Most of their armed members are not professional fighters living in barracks. When you take all these aspects of the problem into consideration, there are very, very serious grounds for the mounting, increasing worries that are expressed by international humanitarian agencies.

A lot of people now sense that the population of Gaza is really under threat of massive extermination. This is not the usual kind of exaggeration, it is a sober assessment when you face such a level of violence and brutality, day after day, with more and more so-called accidents in which concentrations of civilians are targeted with mass-murder as a result. The only alternative to a fiasco for Israel is to push forward its ground offensive in the populated areas. The worst-case scenario becomes therefore quite possible, and that would mean thousands and thousands of people killed, not to mention the maimed and wounded, and that is absolutely frightening.

Another really great online resource is Marxsite (and thanks for advertising my pix from last week’s Gaza demo comrades!)

Gilbert Achcar is one of the signatures to this letter in Friday’s Guardian.

RIP Tony Hart

I always preferred watching Tony Hart’s Take Hart as opposed to the sticky back plastic creations of Blue Peter. There was always something imaginative and creative about Take Hart and, previously, Vision On. Hart also showed the processes of his creations. He believed that art should be accessible to all kids.

And as a kid growing up in the ’70s I enjoyed his programmes and marvelled in the way he could create exciting and imaginative compositions. There was also something anarchic about it as well especially with his plasticine sidekick, Morph. There was something playful and exploratory about his art, there was no ‘airs and graces’… no rigidity about what is art. Just get down and do it, be practical and use any medium.

After his show, I would experiement with various mediums and conjure up many creations though I never had the courage to send in one of my pictures to the Take Hart gallery. My only regret.

So RIP Tony Hart, your programmes captivated and mesmerised me as kid, made art accessible and inspired me to draw, and be creative, which has still remained with me today.

Oh, like the youtube video especially the drawings of Che Guevara. You don’t get that on telly anymore!