This story on the BBC website highlights problems with mental health services for the over 65s. Mental health services are stretched at the best of times so it doesn't seem a surprise that older people are losing out. But even if mental health services were great and under subscribed, would people over 65 be referred to these services if they were needed? The report highlights that not necessarily, as one key reason why older people don't get the mental health support they needed is because of attitudes to older people.
I worked for a very short period of time in an old people's home. One of the residents would sit in the dining hall mournfully crying "Let me Die, Let me die" over and over again. Although everyone at the home were professional and caring they responded to this gentleman as if it was inevitable that he should feel like this and that there wasn't much that could be done for him. It was a shame and he was helped as far as was possible but I wasn't aware of any specialist mental health support. For some of the younger care assistants it seemed they thought that it was natural that you would want to die if you were his age.
I can only see things changing for the better though, as my parents generation who grew up in the 60s, reach their 60s they will be far more demanding of services and their rights. But will the younger generation have any more respect for older people?
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Equality Commission Chaos
The weekend has seen more revelations from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Guardian and Observer reported on new resignations, a threatened resignation from Bert Massie a key Commissioner, financial irregularities, poor value for money, allegations of a culture of bullying and even claims of discrimination.
The sad fact of the matter is that I am not surprised. I had the opportunity to work for the new Commission if I'd wanted it; my job at the Disability Rights Commission would have been transfered into the EHRC's policy and strategy directorate. (The Directorate formally headed by Patrick Diamond before he quit last week.) I chose to look for other jobs and successfully found one which allowed me to leave the DRC 3 weeks before it closed and the EHRC opened.
I chose to leave for a number of reasons. I had initially been in favour of a broad equality commission, and in some what of a minority. As more details of the new Commission were revealed or not revealed as was usually the case I began to worry. I was also not thrilled by the choice of Trevor Phillips as Chair. I had worked at the GLA when Phillips was an Assembly member and I did not want to renew my acquaintance with him again in a hurry. But beyond any concerns I might have about his style of leadership, I don't want to get into any trouble here but lets just say he has a direct style and likes lots of things to be run past him. I actually thought it was a mistake to appoint anyone as chair who was too famous or known for their own views on certain issues. I think a Chair of the EHRC needs to be able to represent all groups of people and champion the voices of those who seldom get heard.
The trouble with a Chair like Trevor Phillips is that a lot of people have heard of him and already have an opinion of him. Straight away a group of key stakeholders in the Commission are switched off and not interested because they don't like Trevor. The media have opinions too and are poised to rip into any problems at the Commission so they can either play the political correctness gone mad card or lay into Phillips. Then there is the issue of political alliances. With a clash between various political interests being played out over the Commission I am very worried that some problems will be blown out of all proportion in a spin war whilst others will be swept under the carpet.
I have a lot of friends who still work at the Commission and are desperately trying to make a real difference to people's lives. All this media attention over high level officials, and political spin totally detracts from the work they are doing and the genuine problems that they are facing whilst trying to get their work done. So I really hope that something positive can come out of the "chaos" right now and that these issues being reported in the papers aren't going to be used to railroad the Commission into a very difficult position for everyone including their Chair.
The sad fact of the matter is that I am not surprised. I had the opportunity to work for the new Commission if I'd wanted it; my job at the Disability Rights Commission would have been transfered into the EHRC's policy and strategy directorate. (The Directorate formally headed by Patrick Diamond before he quit last week.) I chose to look for other jobs and successfully found one which allowed me to leave the DRC 3 weeks before it closed and the EHRC opened.
I chose to leave for a number of reasons. I had initially been in favour of a broad equality commission, and in some what of a minority. As more details of the new Commission were revealed or not revealed as was usually the case I began to worry. I was also not thrilled by the choice of Trevor Phillips as Chair. I had worked at the GLA when Phillips was an Assembly member and I did not want to renew my acquaintance with him again in a hurry. But beyond any concerns I might have about his style of leadership, I don't want to get into any trouble here but lets just say he has a direct style and likes lots of things to be run past him. I actually thought it was a mistake to appoint anyone as chair who was too famous or known for their own views on certain issues. I think a Chair of the EHRC needs to be able to represent all groups of people and champion the voices of those who seldom get heard.
The trouble with a Chair like Trevor Phillips is that a lot of people have heard of him and already have an opinion of him. Straight away a group of key stakeholders in the Commission are switched off and not interested because they don't like Trevor. The media have opinions too and are poised to rip into any problems at the Commission so they can either play the political correctness gone mad card or lay into Phillips. Then there is the issue of political alliances. With a clash between various political interests being played out over the Commission I am very worried that some problems will be blown out of all proportion in a spin war whilst others will be swept under the carpet.
I have a lot of friends who still work at the Commission and are desperately trying to make a real difference to people's lives. All this media attention over high level officials, and political spin totally detracts from the work they are doing and the genuine problems that they are facing whilst trying to get their work done. So I really hope that something positive can come out of the "chaos" right now and that these issues being reported in the papers aren't going to be used to railroad the Commission into a very difficult position for everyone including their Chair.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Jargon busting
Now I could have run with the story about David - Del Boy - Jason telling a racist joke on live radio but I won't. I just think that these endless tales of "celebs" making inappropriate comments or telling inappropriate jokes can do more harm than good to race relations. The radio station in question is hardly popular and only a few people will have heard the actual joke. But now everyone has heard the joke and David Jason will become yet another martyr for the Daily Mail "UK poisoned by political correctness gone mad" campaign. Anyway I said I wsn't going to comment.
I did want to highlight this story about public sector jargon.
Jargon, the world of equality and diversity is full of it. Some would argue that E&D its self is just jargon for common sense and fairness. But there is a serious reason why the public sector should avoid using jargon.
Jargon irritates, confuses and alienates people, whether it is colleagues, customers or the general public. I remember going to a meeting with some training providers back in 1999 when I worked for the jobcentre. (Jobcentres don't have jargon more like a language of their own,) but this meeting was external and the presenter was asking for ideas. Every now and then she would say about an idea "We'll park that" or "It's been car parked." I didn't have a clue what she was on about. It made absolutely no sense to me and I kept looking over her shoulder to the window behind her where the car park was to see if there was something physically there that she was referring to! I caught on in the end.
So if I can be bamboozled by jargon how are older people, youngsters, people with learning disabilities and those who speak English as a second language going to fare?
I am sorry to say that this use of jargon has lead the LGA to produce a list of "banned words" that it does not want to see councils using. I don't like banning things generally unless they are going to cause someone serious mental, emotional or physical harm. So banning words just makes me cross. It's a silly response to a real problem.
Council's and all of the public sector should be encouraged to communicate honestly and as simply and effectively as possible. A clear, honest and creative communication does not need to hide behind jargon. I am sure the media and even the LGAs PR people have spun this "ban" to get publicity and create a hook for the story. So I think this is a worthy cause to stop jargon but banning words is a nonsense. I hate the phrase "blue sky thinking" with a passion but if I thought it was a banned phrase I would use it just to show how ridiculous the concept of banning words is! What's it going to be next? I'm not going to be allowed to think the phrase "level playing filed" when I am in a local government building?
Irony of ironies some of the jargon phrases remind me of doublespeak but Big Brother is banning their use!
I did want to highlight this story about public sector jargon.
Jargon, the world of equality and diversity is full of it. Some would argue that E&D its self is just jargon for common sense and fairness. But there is a serious reason why the public sector should avoid using jargon.
Jargon irritates, confuses and alienates people, whether it is colleagues, customers or the general public. I remember going to a meeting with some training providers back in 1999 when I worked for the jobcentre. (Jobcentres don't have jargon more like a language of their own,) but this meeting was external and the presenter was asking for ideas. Every now and then she would say about an idea "We'll park that" or "It's been car parked." I didn't have a clue what she was on about. It made absolutely no sense to me and I kept looking over her shoulder to the window behind her where the car park was to see if there was something physically there that she was referring to! I caught on in the end.
So if I can be bamboozled by jargon how are older people, youngsters, people with learning disabilities and those who speak English as a second language going to fare?
I am sorry to say that this use of jargon has lead the LGA to produce a list of "banned words" that it does not want to see councils using. I don't like banning things generally unless they are going to cause someone serious mental, emotional or physical harm. So banning words just makes me cross. It's a silly response to a real problem.
Council's and all of the public sector should be encouraged to communicate honestly and as simply and effectively as possible. A clear, honest and creative communication does not need to hide behind jargon. I am sure the media and even the LGAs PR people have spun this "ban" to get publicity and create a hook for the story. So I think this is a worthy cause to stop jargon but banning words is a nonsense. I hate the phrase "blue sky thinking" with a passion but if I thought it was a banned phrase I would use it just to show how ridiculous the concept of banning words is! What's it going to be next? I'm not going to be allowed to think the phrase "level playing filed" when I am in a local government building?
Irony of ironies some of the jargon phrases remind me of doublespeak but Big Brother is banning their use!
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
How many more lives will it take?
This BBC article outlines yet another report and condemnation of the dreadful discrimination, neglect and indifference experienced by people with learning disabilities in relation to health services. These issues aren't new. Speak to a good learning disability nurse or social worker (and there are many of them) and they will tell you that they have been trying to raise these issues for decades. Talk to any organisation of people with learning disabilities and they will tell you that they have been campaigning on these issues for decades.
People with learning disabilities face some of the most insidious forms of discrimination where society denies them a voice. The only way I can see that change will happen and make a difference is if we all begin to spend time with, listen to and involve people with learning disabilities in every day life. In their lives and society at large.
When I worked for the GLA I got Ken Livingstone, Peter Hendy (then Head of Buses, now Head of TfL) and leading Met Police officials to sit down and listen to and talk with people with learning difficulties and that was the only way to get the ball rolling and for the officials to take learning disability seriously. It worked while these conversations were happening, but they need to be sustained and they need to become common practice.
People with learning disabilities face some of the most insidious forms of discrimination where society denies them a voice. The only way I can see that change will happen and make a difference is if we all begin to spend time with, listen to and involve people with learning disabilities in every day life. In their lives and society at large.
When I worked for the GLA I got Ken Livingstone, Peter Hendy (then Head of Buses, now Head of TfL) and leading Met Police officials to sit down and listen to and talk with people with learning difficulties and that was the only way to get the ball rolling and for the officials to take learning disability seriously. It worked while these conversations were happening, but they need to be sustained and they need to become common practice.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Nicola Brewer to leave Equality Commission
The Equality and Human Rights Commission announced today that Nicola Brewer their CEO will be leaving - she is going to some new mysterious "opportunity."
It is no surprise to anyone who worked for the former Commissions or the EHRC as Nicola always said that she would only stay for 2 years. Still it means a very interesting opportunity for some aspiring CEO is about to be announced. Working with Trevor Phillips may put some off but maybe have others running to apply. Who knows???
It is no surprise to anyone who worked for the former Commissions or the EHRC as Nicola always said that she would only stay for 2 years. Still it means a very interesting opportunity for some aspiring CEO is about to be announced. Working with Trevor Phillips may put some off but maybe have others running to apply. Who knows???
Monday, 9 March 2009
Domestic violence in the news again
The Home Secretary Jackie Smith has launched a consultation on how to tackle violence against women in the home the BBC reported today. Nicky Campbell ran his daily phone in session on 5 Breakfast about a Mori poll which said that a sizable minority of people thought that sometimes it was ok for a man to hit a woman. Later in the day there were many criticisms of Jackie Smith's plans. I am too tired to go into it now but I would direct anyone reading to see my entry on Dangerous Love.
Friday, 6 March 2009
Inclusive, innovative learning
I had a fascinating and absorbing day today at Sheffield Hallam University in the Faculty of Wellbeing - in the Robert Winston Building. (It used to be the YMCA on Broomhall Road, which I have fond memories of after a Tensing weekend there in 1991)
I was there to discuss amongst other things the issue of reasonable adjustments for health students. The meeting was incredibly useful, absorbing and worthwhile. We all agreed that so much more would get done in life if we could just take some time to discuss ideas with each other, particularly difficult concepts like - when is reasonable unreasonable?
However I wanted to draw attention to how impressed I was with the facilities for learning there. The link above shows Professor Winston demonstrating some of the state of the art simulation tools they have. It was a breath of fresh air to be back in a learning environment like Sheffield Hallam. I felt rather jealous that I was going to have to go back to my desk in London on Monday. I'd rather be in a innovative and inclusive learning environment!
I was there to discuss amongst other things the issue of reasonable adjustments for health students. The meeting was incredibly useful, absorbing and worthwhile. We all agreed that so much more would get done in life if we could just take some time to discuss ideas with each other, particularly difficult concepts like - when is reasonable unreasonable?
However I wanted to draw attention to how impressed I was with the facilities for learning there. The link above shows Professor Winston demonstrating some of the state of the art simulation tools they have. It was a breath of fresh air to be back in a learning environment like Sheffield Hallam. I felt rather jealous that I was going to have to go back to my desk in London on Monday. I'd rather be in a innovative and inclusive learning environment!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
