Social & Health Care
Information
Services

'Your Choice' Advocacy & Counselling
Information, Self Help, Counselling, Psycho-Social Therapies, Advocacy, Health & Social Care Research,
Health & Social Theory, Education, Training & Consultancy

Promoting a positive attitude towards psychological and emotional health, mental health and personal welbeing. -  Improve understanding and attitudes between service users, professionals , communities, media and government. -

[ Home Page ] Counselling Rooms ] Forums & Bloggs ] Emergency ] Search ] Feedback ] Service Issues ] Service Directory ] Contents ] VisitWeb Magazine ]

Select:
About Us
Health & Social Care
Survival Guides
Radical Perspectives
Radical Action
Perspectives
Creative Techniques
Student Rag
Organisation News
Health & Social News
Information
Publications
Community Resources
Web Links
Under Development
Feedback News

Terry Couchman

Terry  Couchman
Email Me

 

Also here:


Quick Links:
(New window)

Forums Log-in
Member Forums
Student Forum
The Blog Space
Bulletin Boards
Counselling Rooms
Chat Space
Service Issues
Fun Pages
Frequently Asked
Guest Book
Comments
Download
Video Player

Cheap Domain Names
Cheap Hosting

You will be guided to appropriate  Links  ,highlighted in ' Blue ',
or  Yellow ' in the text. Other suggested links will be highlighted in '
 Green '.

Desktop Tools

Terry Couchman's Profile
Terry Couchman's Facebook Profile
Create your badge

The Home of Radical Health & Social Care
Updates:   Newsflash - Headlines - Human Rights -
Disability Rights - Current Features Videos - Entertainment - Dealing With AbusePsychMinded - Recession - Classified

Magazine:
Page 1
Page 2

Page 3
HEADLINERS

Risk Assessment

Go to Headline Stories

Go to Front Page
Stories

 

Please note that the presence of adverts does not constitute a recommendation.
   If you are unhappy with any particular advert, please notify me: Terry@visitweb.org


EDITORIAL: Hypnosis can help!
Self Suggestion, or
Self-hypnosis. This is a very useful Site with lots of free Guidence: 'Hypnosis Downloads'

Cheap Domain Names and
Hosting

Quick Links:
(New window)

Forums Log-in
Member Forums
Student Forum
The Blog Space
Bulletin Boards
Counselling Rooms
Chat Space
FUN PAGES

Download
Video Player


 

 

We interrupt our normal programs in order to bring you important Local News, concerning 'your' local communities. These issues 'will' affect you, sooner rather than later.

Some services, provided to make your community safe, secure & caring, are effectively being reduced in funding & staffing; in the name of 'improvements'. Executives Managers can not acknowledge this, even if they want to. They are effectively gagged.

We are in a time of financial crisis. This will affect services and increased the pressures upon existing staff. There was already some urgency, because of needed improvements in services within rural areas and towns. They are many years behind the cities.

There is an impact upon the health and welfare of vulnerable residents of your community. More people are becoming distressed daily. It is a further burden in their lives. For this reason, we are going to focus 'locally' on these urgent Community Care matters, over the next few weeks.

We will be concentrating on the Wiltshire Service areas for now, as this is where our Community Projects are currently operating, but these problems will also affects other Counties and other Local Community & Health Authorities.

We intend to set up a regional Website over the next few weeks. For now please check out the Headlines below. (To understand our 'critical perspective', please follow this link: The Basis for Criticism).

The following accounts are some of the more urgent issues recently identified. There are so many examples that it will take months to get them all fully recorded and logged onto the website.

Below are some of the current Headlines for issues that I have researched over years, but which our network members, and others they are in contact with, now directly and regularly experience locally, but not exclusively, in Wiltshire.

Our basic assertion is, that Health & Social Care Institutions now effectively Assess in order to 'Exclude' people, rather than Assess to 'Include' people, as is required by the Disability Act and the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities This has a status as Law, along with UN & EC Human Rights.

This tendency is rarely because of an intention to deprive people of the help and support that they urgently need. Most professionals are committed, ethically and personally, to providing a full and fair service to anyone in need.

It is the current inefficient and ineffective use of many of these resources and the lack of recognition of the consequences of failing to help at an early stage, that we challenge.

© Terry Couchman, May 18th 2009

PLEASE NOTE:                                                                   

It is important to understand that the people we are referring to (without names) are aware of the issues being raised in this way and we have their enthusiastic permission to publicise these issues. The reason they are not named is primarily because it is not necessary to do so. News media could name people if they wished, assuming these individual's wished to tell their stories and have them published in that way.

As an editor, I tend not to encourage people to include their names, but I am happy to do so, if this is clearly what they wish. The reason for reluctance to encourage this personal exposure, is because the potential disadvantages of doing so often outweigh the potential benefits.

I know this as a researcher and as a result of my direct experiences in campaigning to get these kinds of issues resolved. I am also informed as a result of working as a professional in the Health & Social Care field. People can get ostracised for being challenging of the services.

Using people's names adds credibility to the accounts and may enable good professionals to focus on the individual's needs more sharply. Adding their names gives them the eventual, deserved, credit for helping to raise awareness of these more general issues, for the benefit of all.

Unfortunately, giving out vulnerable and distressed people's names can also make them targets for criticism, humiliation, manipulation and abuse. As those of us who are 'survivors' know, you have to be pretty robust to stand up for your rights, & speak out publically, even within professional institutions.

Persistent rejection, being passed over to others, hearing excuses for not being offered help, frequent assumptions that you are not in genuine distress and the antagonistic reaction to your legitimate anger, all poorly prepare people for coping with making effective complaints. It is often an intimidating and often unrewarding experience. This is why we are there.

This Website was originally developed to help people who experienced Prejudice, Abuse and Mental Ill Health, to overcome their difficulties for themselves. This initiative is the outcome of long term operational research, professional practice and support of a number of small, local Community Support Networks.

In the process, we have come across so many examples of serious failures of duty, prejudice and general shortfalls, that I have been forced to take a more critical line on our website. Most neglect, failures and abuses are hidden, slowly simmering and developing into more serious problems. Only the 'newsworthy' outcomes usually get the public attention.

In over 30 years of direct experience in these areas, I have never experienced more disturbing examples of increasing injustice and 'deterioration' in the Rights of people in Poverty. Victims of persistent, low level abuse and culpable neglect, are invariably dismissed, by professionals, as 'someone else's responsibility'.

This attitude is contrary to all professional ethics and the Human Rights obligations, established in Law and encapsulated under the 'Mind the Gap' principles. There are complex systems of expensive support services which have become almost impossible for ordinary, especially distressed people to access, for their early intervention, benefit & support. A sad failure of Social Work & Health Care.

HEADLINES:   For News on Abuse, Human Rights & Entitlements: Current Features
'No Secrets', 'No Shame no Blame' and the protection of 'Whistle Blowing'.

Hi, My Name is Terry Couchman and I sometimes include my personal experiences, in order to illustrate some problem or other. I have written in more detail, else where, about the social experiment I have been undertaking over the last half century. It is only in the last 30 years that it has been more formalised as 'Operational Research'. It is only in the last 5 years that I have again gotten down to some serious academic writing and also, some more 'popular' forms of writing (at Service User's requests).

Basically, this experiment involved continuing to work as a 'front line' Professional (Returning from being a Team Leader & Service Manager) and engaging with the Community as an 'empowered' Service User. No personal experience was excluded from this experiment and it has sometimes been quite dangerous (for myself) at times. These are all valid outcomes of the experiment, which are gradually being drafted into (hopefully) interesting and challenging reflections on the experiences.

My remit has been to remain as 'ordinary' as possible and experience the same experiences as my colleagues and my professional clients. This did not mean I could not continue to play a positive role, as a full member of the teams I worked in, but sometimes did produce conflicts and misunderstanding, but these don't have to be negative. I had already gained very early experience of the problems that Team Leaders and Line Managers experienced, in attempting to provide an adequate service, often in very difficult circumstances.

This early engagement in management and the relationship it provided with executive managers, allowed me insight into some of the best practices and some of the worst. I filtered out the best, of course, but recorded the worst also. I learned early and I learned quick. I had to. As someone in my 20's the experience of management responsibility was sometimes quite intimidating, especially as I took this very seriously. Working from a 'radical' standpoint, you are always under close scrutiny, even from 'friends' and encouraging managers.

I see these management experience as an equally valid part of the experiment and I was fortunate enough to have senior managers who were very open to my (and others) idealistic initiative and allowed me to formalise and promote these under their expert advice and guidance. Some of these early community service and therapeutic social care developments, generated such professional antagonism, one almost had to resort to subterfuge. Fear of natural community change was as great then as it is now. Fear of Risk is key to the insights gained. Thankfully, we were able (collectively and individually) to establish Community Care as the appropriate 'social work' practice for the future.

Then, just as now, the big issues are news worthy and people can make a name for themselves (and often do) by the more dramatic disclosures. These are valid of course, assuming everything possible was done, professionally and institutionally, to resolve the problem. We should always highlight the big failing, which have had disastrous effects upon peoples lives, whenever we become aware of them. My interests was in the smaller failing, the ones that, like Chinese torture, dig away at the resolve of professionals, service users and communities alike. These undermine the quality and accessibility to services and help.

Beyond that, the 'experiment' was quite simple. It was to observe, record, comment and theorise, on the challenging circumstances I found, within the professions, within the communities in which I lived, within the small community projects I supported and even within my personal life. Nothing is sacred. Each of these circumstances acted as the 'reference group' for the other. Like so many social experiments, one has to be careful not to be seduced by powerful groups (including our own professions), or over react to emotional trauma's. These influences have to be engaged and professionally dealt with in Holistic, Human ways, but 'filtered' in the Research process and its findings.

Now, normally I do not include my 'professional' roles (and the conflict within these roles) in the stories that are described on some of these pages. The reasons for this are a bit complicated, but basically I feel this can tend to 'subvert' the opinions and perspectives of the the Service Users of our Professional & Community Services. These perspectives are fundamental to my research, they give me the 'external' overview of the accessibility and responsiveness of the institutions we fund and the professional and other community services we seek to provide. I occasionally act as an Advocate, in particular instances, but I usually encourage 'self advocacy, with informed choice'.

Ok, that said, I recently became a 'Service User' in a number of profound ways which, if I did not have the resolve and insight into institutions, or the 'social' entrepreneurial spirit that I have, would have completely overwhelmed me and produced very serious, permanent mental and physical health problems. I became the victim of some of the more incompetent, abusive and neglectful aspects of the institutions I have been studying. Until recently, I have maintained the same polite approach to advocacy for myself, that I had for the people I support. I must now make a stand.

Historical personal perspectives and experiences, adjusted through 'reflection' and recovery from traumas, are legitimate forms of material for Research. Such experiences are legitimate, provided we are able to see the events in the wider perspective. This is only possible and such experiments can only be safely and effectively conducted, in the context of stable reference groups. These groups (for myself) include Service User Volunteers, Project Clients, Professional Colleagues I have worked with and good Friends who understand the purpose of the experiment.

Basically, the formal experiment is now over. I have collected enough evidence, and I am being provided with so much more, that I have just enough time to write up the conclusions and concentrate upon my own personal and social 'recovery'. I would not have chosen the extreme nature of the recent experiences, as part of the original experiment. I was very aware of the suffering that others had experienced from these prolonged experiences, but they are now some of the most valid experience I have ever had. The research is now complete. Lets get on with the changes; 'In our terms'.

My own continuing story will be uploaded soon. For legal reasons, the latest experiences are a bit technical at present but, as is usual with this website, it will evolve as my friendly critics reflect upon the material. I again apologise for the largely 'logical' and sometimes 'intellectual' character of the material. Academically, this can not be avoided, it must follow scientific protocols. As promised, the more 'entertaining' and 'emotional' reflections on our collective experience, will be presented as 'Headliners', over the next few months. As I get published elsewhere, I will keep you informed.

My mild dyslexia is currently 'agitated' by these recent, distressing experiences and there is still a tendency to leave conceptual gaps, which I know can somewhat confound you at times. I am still re-reading, listening to criticisms and re-writing the material as quickly as I can. I also have a good friend who is beginning to see the pattern and providing useful 'external' reflection. I feel that it is important that it is here though, even in its inadequate form.

People have suffered enough and we have to take every opportunity to reduce that suffering. All we can do, at present, is open up a few more people's minds and give permission and legitimisation, to those who's minds remain open. Social advancement is often a case of two steps forward one step back. We are those steps forward. The good news, for me, is that my poor health, which was largely work stress related (institutional in form, not form client work) has now been largely overcome.

This confirms, to my own and others satisfaction, that the poor health was due to inappropriate institutional practices which I have been observing in colleagues and challenging as an issue. As I have said. No experience need be wasted and all experiences can be turned to the benefit of all concerned, including those who generate the unacceptable stresses, provided no permanent damage has been done. This is now my further intention.                          © Terry Couchman, June 12th 2009

'Health and Safety', at work, play and just going about your business.
Highlighting The Psychological & Emotional Components of Health & Safety

Like so often, in so many circumstances, there are many misunderstandings of issue like those of Health & Safety. In Civil Law, we all have entitlements and obligations to help ensure our own and other people's health and safety. We usually understand the entitlements to a reasonable degree, unless we are vulnerable for some reason of health, or social circumstances. There are, however, some areas where we just do not appreciate these entitlements fully and people can then suffer serious consequences, which no amount of financial compensation can correct.

The costs to ourselves and others (through taxes), for these 'failures of duty' of various kinds, are quite considerable. These costs are not just in terms of processing and payment of compensation claims they generate (which are directly, or indirectly paid by us all, in some form). The costs also arise out of the wide range of disabilities created and the subsequent absences from work. These have to be compensated for, in terms of expensive support and therapeutic services, along with the cost of man hours lost. We should all become more aware of these causes of distress, the wider effects and the consequences for us all.

In a more enlightened and ideal world, it should be enough that someone is unnecessarily suffering, for us to take some action to stop it. We see so many instances of distress and disability on our TV's and this is often focused upon the extreme events, often in other parts of the world. We may feel powerless to help, except through charity. Some of these effects are natural, some due to neglect, some due to the consequence of deliberate human actions. The smaller, local failings, errors and abuses, which persistently put people in danger, seems minor by comparison.

People who are physically, emotionally and psychologically injured, as the result of any neglect of these duties, are often no less affected by otherwise avoidable risks, in their particular and defining circumstances. Whether it is a failure of duty to recognise and appropriately manage a risks, or to intervene in any dangerous situations or behaviour, and whether or not this is the work situation, or as part of public & civil duty, we have both entitlements and obligations which are often inseparable. Work situations are the primary environment where the more repetitive stresses occur.

These entitlements and obligations are also encompassed, in most instances, by the Conventions on Human Rights. They are certainly explicit legal requirements in all employment and professional activities, although badly understood and implemented at times. Health and Safety legislation, where it is in place, in any country, encompasses 'any' form of injury, or potential risk to injury, by whatever means, which could be avoided by good risk management practices. These do not have to be complicated, they are often just good commons sense, a quality that is missing at times.

The idea is not to eliminate risk, this would make life impossible; it is to manage it in any reasonable way, which reduces and avoids injury of any kind. The idea of chopping down healthy chestnut trees, because of the risk of conkers falling on peoples heads and injuring them, is ridiculous and risky in itself. The practice of pruning or loping trees, so that branches are less at risk of breaking in storms is very sensible. The idea of chopping down trees in order to eliminate the costs of pruning them every now and then, is more an issue for you to take up with local authorities and councillors, balancing civic amenity against the costs. There is almost always a cost of some kind.

What are Manageable Risks?:

I hope this sets the scene for a more intelligent consideration of risk management and the appropriateness of a particular response to risks. Firstly, though, we have to recognise what a manageable risk is and this is where some people have a problem. There are still significant numbers of cases of plain physical injury, which are the result of poor judgment and neglectful practices. Often, these failures have been known and reported prior to an injury and not adequately addressed, or even dismissed as trivial. Sometimes the risks have been identified elsewhere but not adequately communicated and managed. Sometimes they are managed but ignored by individuals.

Sometimes, however, they are novel, or newly identified risks, in a constantly changing and demanding world of commerce, industry and increasingly demanding employment and professional practices. Sometimes the changes introduced are because of risks that were identified in older work practices. Sometimes these changes are in order to save money; become more efficient; provide improved services; or simply to impress. Whatever reason for change, it is a general rule that any change, even when for the purpose of reducing risks, will often give rise to other risks, some of which can be qualitatively and materially more serious in Health & Safety terms and in other important respects.

Science and technology have thrown up these kinds of problems and we are still failing to promptly see many new risks, because of our excitement in having a new technology to play with. Typical examples are the risks of electrocution, radiation risks, and the risks associated with pollution of various kinds. To some degree, we accept these risks, as we do work stress, when the rewards are high, as with executive salaries and bonus schemes, etc. Even in these areas, there are limits to the balance of risk against benefits. It is the old fashioned risks which are more often neglected, or become exaggerated through modernised versions of bad work practices. Work stress comes in three broad forms:

  1. Stress and other psychological, and even physical risks, resulting from the 'challenge' of the work we do. This is sharp in our focus and we have a measure of control of the stress we experience and risks we take. Like the GP, we balance the benefits obtained against the risks encountered (side effects); skilfully adjusting our approach and exposure, according to the 'managed' risks we encounter. This kind of stress is 'healthy', when it is balanced in this way. Like hang gliding, rock climbing and scuba diving, as long as we have developed the skills to manage the risks, we can reasonable safely enjoy the challenge. Taking risks, in this way, is actually beneficial and allows for novelty, research and development. It is essential that we do not stifle such risks and associated benefits.

  2. Another broad kind of stress risks are associated with the environment and conditions of work. These have some of the character of the first category. Some of the risks may have a 'challenge' quality and get the adrenalin flowing. At the same time, there will be unforeseen, ignore, or badly assessed risks, associated with physical conditions like: lighting; temperature; dampness; obstacles; insecure, faulty and badly maintained environment, equipment and safe(ty)-guards; inadequate use of protective clothing and sensory equipment (including glasses), etc. Included here are sensory, mental and emotional stresses, poorly accounted for. These risks must now take account of 'all' disabilities, which now benefits everyone. The stresses we have no control over are dangerous.

  3. The other kind of stress, and other kinds of psychological, emotional and physical risks, are qualitatively different. We may not initially be aware of them, they have been around for millennium. They are pernicious, insidious, manipulative, punitive, or the result of serious, repetitively neglectful practices. They are cumulative through their repetition and have physical health effects, as well as psychological, perceptual and emotional consequences. Bullying & prejudiced behaviour and attitudes; inappropriate, neglectful and unskilled management styles are central to these kinds of risks. Racism, Sexism, Ageism, Mentalism, Intellectualism and other stark forms of prejudices, are typical components of these insidious risks and have known, serious health consequences.

Because of the character of these stress risks, it is managers who are in the prime position to observe the cause and effects, but colleagues also play an important role in identifying and stopping the procedures and behaviours which generate these risks. 'Cause and Effect' associations are crucial in identifying and rectifying these risks. These forms of risk have the highest level of 'denial', 'projection' (blaming) and punitive responses to complaints. It is the area of risk which involves the greatest ignorance, with prejudiced, negligent and abusive attitudes.

Their primary characteristics are: They are never 'positively challenging', in the way described above; The individual has little power in challenging, managing, or avoiding the psychological, emotional or physiological risks involved, or their consequences; They are so well established in the popular psyche, they have a strong tendency to be incorporated into inappropriate management styles; They are argue, by those with inadequate social & managerial skills, as justified and 'necessary,' in order to maintain adequate managerial and social control.

These have the same characteristic of classic forms of Bullying: They operate upon the disproportionate and inappropriate exercise of any form of 'power'; They are manifestations of the Bullies own insecurities.

These behaviours and associated risks, are wholly unacceptable in Law, but are most often ignored and justified by inadequate & poorly skilled managers. The excuses used are inexcusable, being justifications offered by those unable to see the consequences of their own inappropriate actions. They are the active psychological domain of the abusive individual. Put downs, Public Humiliation, Mind Games (Intellectual Games'

They are contradictory

Risk Management can become Risk Aversion (leading to stagnation):
Micro management is the consequence of policies and guidelines which over focus us on avoiding the known risks. Unfortunately, this has the consequence of blinkering the perspectives of managers, employees and professional practitioners, away from the other risks which have been developing in the background; including those which are the consequence of the micro-management of risks itself. This is both a problem for the identification and management of risks in the workplace, in the wider environment and in undertaking any professional roles within our employment.

These problems have arisen because of the constant justification, on all sides, of failures to address avoidable risks. By all sides taking the position that 'it is not my fault', there is increasing tendency to tie down responsibilities in the minutiae of detail, apparently eliminating the need for intelligent and considered observation and anticipation. This practice in dangerous in itself. It causes people to assume the risks are covered and consequently leads to the tendency for people to litigate. It, in fact, often increases and broadens the risks we encounter, without prior intelligent knowledge and protection against them. It is the processes of 'dumbing down' and 'regression to the mean'.

The simple fact is, the obligations on each of us are to recognise a risk when we encounter it and take immediate steps to reduce &/or manage the risks. This may be as simple as removing a physical, or intellectual obstacle and pointing out the 'error' to the person who is responsible for the risky placement of an obstacle, or 'obscuring' a risk. These risks can be direct 'gross' physical, repetitive 'physical' strain, or repetitive 'psychological and emotional' strain. The legislation & guidelines are clear on this. It relates to physical, psychological and emotional injury and overlaps with other employment legislation and Human Rights legislation, which address all these areas. There are no holes, only ignorance.

Denial of risks that are recognisable and easily rectified, is not unusual. Institutions can become so dependent upon 'showing' they are 'risk focused' that they spend inordinate amounts of time recording incidents and repeatedly training staff. In doing so, they often miss the point of risk management. Risk management is to do with individual alertness and their skills in recognising the nature of potential and actual risks. It requires immediate action to reduce unnecessary risk; acknowledging the potential disadvantages against benefits; reporting incidents that led to potential, or actual injury; assessment of any future & residual risks; resolution of the future potential for recurrence of risk; appraisal of other consequences, including the new risks (generated by our intervention) and the review of outcomes, from actions taken.

It is not unusual for managers, employees and professionals, to insist they have been adequately trained in the important areas of health and safety, while at the same time missing the whole point of any policy, or Health & Safety training. In effect, they seek to limit their risks to the potential danger that they may be seen to be lacking in managing real risks. Sometimes it becomes a paperwork exercise, where great emphasis is placed of process while people ignore the 'actual' dangers and unhealthy practices surrounding them and even some of those perpetrated by them.

The argument is that 'there has to be a paper trail'. This is true, of course, 'after the event'. That is no consolation for avoidable injury at the 'prior to an actual, avoidable risky situation, or event'. Such attitudes are the result of lazy, or belligerent thinking, or both. There are no excuses and the behaviour is demonstrably incompetent. Unfortunately, the dishonesty, displacement of responsibility and the delaying tactics used to defuse and disable any reasonable stand for safe working practices, means that complainants either fear taking any action, or become exhausted and give up.

Risk Management is about Intelligent Foresight:
It is not enough to put a band aide on a fortuitous 'minor' injury, it is an obligation to ensure that any practices which might result in similar injuries should be adjusted. This has been problematic, because people tend to be defensive of their errors and as a consequence can be disabling of other people's attempts to highlight what may have been an 'obscured' (or covered up) risk. It is for this reason that legislation has been put in place which protect those who report risks, or wish to lay grievances which result from the failure to adequately address the risks identified.

It is not unusual for managers to identify your failings, including those partially generated by their inappropriate policy & management practices, to justify their own risky actions, or inactions. You are likely to have failings and these may need addressing, they are not, however, adequate excuses for justifying, or hiding their own failings of duty. It is this feature that makes people fearful of reporting risks and also reluctant to take grievances. Individual employees and small groups can also have this belligerent influence in covering up serious risks and facts relating to particular injuries. It is of course, very unfair. Unfortunately, proving such behaviour is often problematic. People can be quite abusive and clever.

If you are suffering persistent, low level physical, emotional, or psychological injury, due to the failure to recognise risks, or the failure to acknowledge the existence of risk and progressive injury, it is essential that you report these instances, as soon as you are aware of them. Sometimes it will not be immediately apparent that there is an injury. Repetitive strain injuries are now commonly recognised, but they can still be difficult to prove in individual circumstances. In the case of psychological and emotional injuries this can be even more difficult, especially since the very effects can disable your perceptions and can be dismissed as due to sudden onset of a personal weaknesses (abusive in itself).

There may even be physical ill health as a consequence. There are many conditions that are the consequence of stress and many others (including cancer) which are aggravated by unusual levels of intolerable and unmanaged stress risks. If you find yourself unable to challenge, or control, what are felt to be clear psychological and emotional risks and stresses, which are clearly 'disabling' you, this can have permanent physical health consequences and long term psychological effects. Even the strongest of us are susceptible and in our determination we are often 'more' susceptible.

If there are symptoms that you feel are generated by experienced risks, or actual, identifiable ill health of any kind; It is important that you report the symptoms to your Manager, GP and Occupational Health, etc. Put this in writing, providing dates times and effects of the behaviours, stresses and risks you identified. In doing so, make it clear that your experiences of risk are 'disabling' and are the result of others inappropriate behaviour, institutionalised practices, prejudices, identified by any means. If any subsequent reference is made to you 'competence', note this also. As a response to disclosed concerns of stress and risks, this kind of action is clearly abusive.

Remember, it is not unusual for the risk management processes to become distorted into the selfish purpose of protecting those who may fail in their duty of care, rather than protecting people from actual risks. Collect evident that supports this and communicate with trusted colleagues and good friends, to ensure you are clear in your assessments, particularly is you find yourself under critical scrutiny for daring to complain. Whenever possible, and as soon as you are 'aware' of the evidence, record the details of actions, comments and dates and times of the incidents.

As each issue is clarified and evidence recorded, you have to then choose between presenting these as informal complaints, presenting them as a formal grievance, or contacting your Union Representative, or solicitor. This will depend upon the how secure you feel with the established policy and process for dealing with such matters.  It will also depend how supported you feel in communicating the risks you have encountered and the 'quality' of response you have received so far. Delays n response can be for two reasons: The hope the problem will go away if neglected long enough or, the fear that you have a very good argument and there is a need to be 'cautious' & legalistic in response.

Both forms of delay are inappropriate and contribute to the same kinds of risks you are reporting. These delays should be challenged and incorporated into you complaint, or grievance. Believe it or not, 2 weeks between stages of any process, is a pretty good legal guideline. Keep supplying factual outcomes at every stage, including the consequences of the delays in dealing with a reported risk, or complaint concerning the effects of neglected resolution of unacceptable risks encountered and consequences experienced. Two weeks between reports and enquiries is a good standard. The procedure established in policy are often the 'minimum' requirements, you are entitled to 'enhance' these.

You will have to demonstrate how 'reactions' to your reports 'disabled' your attempts to minimise those risks for yourself. Reporting and repeatedly reporting the on-going effects is one essential way of doing this. There may be attempts, through deliberate delays and provocative investigative processes, to undermine your attempts to get risks addressed. There will often be attempts to reduce your credibility. Under these disabling circumstances you will make mistakes and it is important to acknowledge them and show how they resulted for the inappropriate use of intimidating, or insensitive investigative 'processes' and other abuses of power, to bring about these failures. It can be a dirty process.

In Summary:
To summaries; stay calm and polite, as much as you can. Record details of dates times, behaviours, comments, actions and inactions, which you  feel contributed to the risks you (and others) have encountered. Wherever possible, discuss the problems with trusted colleagues, but recognise they may be fearful of the consequences to themselves. Talk with your GP and Occupational Health, about any symptoms you are experiencing. Talk with friends outside the organisation. Try and choose someone who is skilled in these matters. Talk to a Union Rep, to Citizens Advice. Get as many people into the picture that you can. Stick with the issues and demonstrate fairness but firmness.

Also be aware, that those investigating the risks and grievances may simply be under pressure from those who determine their roles in turn. These inhibitions to the process may be due to other Managers, the Legal Department, the following inappropriately drafted policies and procedure, institutional prejudices, incompetence's and inappropriate practices, inefficiencies and ignorance, else where in the organisation. If you are experiencing disabling, stressful problems, you can bet your life (as your may be doing in these circumstances) that other people are also, including some managers and people in Human resources.

Finally, remember that the risks and stresses that you have reasonable control over and can in some measure enjoy, as part of your work, are quite different to those risks and stresses that you have little control over. Where you have inadequate support, professional supervision or other mechanisms for reducing, or managing the risks, these are completely unacceptable. In addition; if your attempts to address these risks & stresses are dealt with in ways that are punitive, or abusive (including 'head games'), these should be included in the reports and subsequent  complaints you make. Lay a good, evidenced based paper trail.

These 'risk' factors overlap with issues of abuse and prejudice at work and are covered by further Employment Law. Make your stand, even if you have to use 'constructive dismissal', or 'unfair dismissal', as your escape routes, in order to protect yourself. Get legal advice. Search for someone with the skills to do an effective job.                           © Terry Couchman, June 12th 2009

Prejudice, Neglect & Abuse Causes Serious Mental Ill Health.                           

World Health Organisation (UN) identified, nearly 30 years ago, that these problems are greater in the Advanced World than they are in the Developing and Under Developed World. The episodes of Serious Mental Ill Health are more frequent, more enduring and more disabling in Western Cultures than in any other Cultures. All the evidence now,  is that this problem is getting worse and is affecting a larger proportion of the young and the elderly ("Mental ill health epidemic"). Mental Health has social causes and is a becoming a serious social problem.

Institutions have been negligent and incompetent at dealing with the underlying causes and the effective recovery, from serious mental ill health. Many of the misunderstood causes and inadequate 'quick fix' resolutions, have been passed on to the rest of us. We have tended to trust intellectually biased 'expert' opinions, assuming genetic pre-dispositions. The result is a highly prejudiced public perspective on all Mental Ill Health, Stigmatisation and low expectations of recovery, even from relatively minor difficulties, which become compounded by lack of early relief. This leads to much misdiagnosis.

Modern Health & Social Care Services are barely able to meet the critical demands, leaving the early 'social' stages almost totally neglected. Social Policy, which now prioritises those in 'greatest need', has had the predictable result of drawing resources away from prevention. It also neglects the earlier stages of social, psychological and emotional distress and the manifestations of ill health, which invariable affect adult life at all stages, often quite seriously.

In effect, Institutions are actually part of the problem, perpetuating 'unsafe' mental health practices, as we will show, by providing evidence. In Wiltshire Services we can quote the cases observed and experienced.

For a more in-depth explanations on this 'Mental Health' topic, please follow the: LINK

Towards a better Institutional, Professional and Media Understanding:

We have tended to become increasingly reliant upon 'experts' to make decisions for us and to take necessary actions to solve personal and social problems, along with legal & economic problems. Life has become quite complicated and often appears, or feels to be beyond our knowledge and understanding at times. This complicated institutional system of 'experts' has largely arisen because of the 'commercialisation' of our lives. The Industrialisation and commercialisation of our daily activities, and the means of sustaining ourselves in particular, has directly caused, or encouraged, the dispersal of our normal family and community networks of support. It has  'created' dependency. It will take positive support and education, to undo this level of dependency.

The health & welfare services were an an attempt to rectify the shortfall in support and to compensate for the more complex demands, caused by the revolution in working and living practices. Recognising the dependency this had created, the Community Care initiatives of the 1970's and the Community Care & Health Services Act, sought to redress this imbalance and help people live more independently. The idea was to support individuals, communities and family carer's, in looking after their needs directly, or else with the kind of help 'they' choose. It is a wonderful idea, and where it has been implemented well, it has been very successfully, although typically it is still under resourced.

There are a few professional and other interested parties, who are resistant to this Community Care progression and the gradual return of choice and control to the people affected. Some sabotaged the process, some are highly prejudiced towards it, others are just confounded and disempowered. Aggravating all this; Managerial Incompetence, Risk Aversion, Bad Ass Attitudes and 'Dumbing Down' practices. Wilshire & Somerset Mental Health Services (both Health & Social Care) often fail in their duty of care to Patients & Clients and in protecting Staff from the unacceptable pressures of reduced staffing levels and wasted resources. This affects the reliability and quality of service and is seriously affecting the health of staff and service users alike

For a more in-depth explanations for the reasons why Community Care fails to live up to expectations: LINK

County Wide 'Service Users Conference', Resources through 'Your Choice' (Wiltshire).
We are planning to support a Health & Social Care, Service User's Conference for the Wiltshire area. There are so many issues that are common to people with any kind of impairment, disability or social problem. The opportunities to get help are becoming more scarce and it is often necessary to wait until problems have reached quite a critical state, before they are taken seriously enough to get any real help. There is also a distinct lack of the choice which was promised. Many people we talk to are frustrated, overwhelmed, disillusioned and stressed.

Many Professionals are almost as frustrated as the Service Users. Their hands are often tied to dealing with only those difficulties that have reached a critical state. There is little attention paid to early intervention, or properly helping people to help themselves. When there are attempts to do this it is often dependent upon the individual Professionals and Agencies in a particular patch. This is fine, but there is often no consistency and the service can become reduced, or change, at quite short notice. There are not enough resources to go round, largely because of how they are used. By providing help late, the problems are often greater and more difficult to resolve.

The biggest resource we have is that which we share among ourselves. Unlike in the inner cities, the problem of linking up and cooperating in organising our own self help, is hindered by the distances involved within Rural areas. The problems this creates is severely underestimated by the Authorities. If there is anything inhibiting our opportunities for travelling and getting access to the normal resources of the community, this is also a restriction on the support we can obtain for ourselves. Making this all happen requires imagination and some creativity. Unfortunately at also requires energy, much of which has been exhausted from beating our heads against the walls to the institution.

After years of frustration and making do, with one failed promise after another, it is small wonder that some people are disillusioned and loose the motivation necessary to improve their situation. Only someone who has been there can fully understand this. Whatever our original problem; be it physical, psychological, social, or caring for someone with a disabling problem, the most disabling experience that we face is the sense of psychological, emotional and social isolation. Thankfully, some of us have overcome this level of disablement and are looking to take the concept of 'Community Care' to its next logical level. This has been done before and I was part of this.

We are now inviting people, who feel that they have ever have been disadvantaged by any kind of problem, to meet together and identify a programme for positively raising public awareness of 'disability', in all the forms that it can take. We also invite existing voluntary organisations and charities, who have people with specific disabilities, to join us, irrespective of age and disability. Most importantly, we will wish to include those who do not identify themselves as 'disabled', in the terms that professional's often identify this.

If you are interested in being part of this Reference Group, or become involved in organising the Conference, Please Call me on 07727618540 (Daytime), 01225 775275 (Evening & Weekends), 01225 691140 (Message Service), or  Email me at: terry@visitweb.org. We are also interested in anyone else willing to help set up the facilities for the Conference, or help with providing transport, etc. Companies in Wiltshire are being approached to see if they are willing to provide the venues and facilities for the conference. There have been some good initial responses. No disability group is excluded, nor individual who feels they are 'disabled', or 'disadvantaged' in any way.

For a more in-depth explanations and outline arrangement for organising for the Conferences: LINK being developed.

The Chicken 'Pecking Order' Syndrome:
Background Story: A Farmer, with limited resources and keen interest to maximise his production, keeps his chickens (and other animals) 'cooped up' in pens and sheds, with just enough food and space to do what is required of them. This keeps most of them plump and tender, but vulnerable. In these situations, scientists observed that chickens tended to peck the chicken next to them more frequently, or, if they did have opportunity to move, they pecked the chicken more dishevelled and distressed than themselves; The one with least feathers often died after a distressed, shortened life.

This behaviour was much more exaggerated than the 'quick peck and flurry' of one chicken protecting its opportunity to greedily grab at a morsel of food. It was 'pathological' behaviour, resulting from distress. That same, pathological behaviour, in a more sophisticated form, is often exhibited by abusers and aggressive displays of all kinds, including the behaviour of some more bullying and neglectful managers and a few practitioners within institutions. It is very powerful, abusive behaviour and usually 'blinkers' the abuser and 'gags' the abused. The behaviour is so ingrained it is often seen as 'normal'. (Or, as a colleague once said - "Like Mushrooms - Keep them in the dark and feed them bull****").

If anyone needed a simple explanation for the prejudice, neglect & abuses of children, frail elderly, vulnerable adults, people with physical, sensory and learning disabilities, the socially & culturally isolated and other stigmatised groups, this simple model of 'social behaviour under distress' would explain most of these. It also explains the intimidating behaviour of managers and the institutions' tendency to 'gag' the distressed professionals, who recognise these practices and failures. Staff have the stark choice. Attempt to meet ethical obligations, at the possible expense of their jobs & health, or 'put their head down & follow policy'.

There are, of course, pathologically abusive and neglectful people. Most though, are poorly experienced, isolated and variously distressed. The tendency for professional's failure to identify impending crises, or to intervene supportively at an early stage, is because they are instructed not to. This is almost entirely due to the defensive, self protecting nature of Managers and Institutions that they work for. Each are 'somewhat' intimidated by the level above. They are tacitly required to disregarded inadequate provision, unreasonable administrative demands, pass on the pressures & distress, keep quiet, and act like there is no problem.

At the end of this Pecking Order, Services Users, who feel things are getting beyond them, but are not yet 'Victims', can not understand why they are not getting the support and choices, promised in the glossy leaflets and on websites. If they become angry, they are 'difficult' and 'unreasonable' customers. Wiltshire Mental Health & Community Services, for all the new initiatives and restructuring, fail to identify these deteriorating cases, which represent a significant proportion of vulnerable people, of all ages. Front line workers, Family Carers & Clients get the bulk of the 'heavy pecking' and scant proportion of the available grain.

Eventually a person's Health is affected; not by normal life and work stresses, but by the distress of increased 'pecking' demands; overwhelming workload and reduced support. Another form to fill, another excuse, another put down; then the situation is critical enough to "meet an institution's criteria" and professionals have to act. According to popular professional theories, the problem is now a 'weakness' of the individual. So the rest of us can pretend it is nothing to do with us. If something goes seriously wrong (and it does more times than recognised) it is the client, carers, or a single professional failing. We ticked the boxes, right?

Managers of services need to think again. The failures and complaints are too frequent but are reduce to quiet murmurings, out of 'fear' from being treated as the problem. Respect has been lost and  service shortfalls fail to be recorded, as required. The Professional's are too busy 'policing the resources' to meet the needs of customers earlier. The institutions are part of the problem and are abusive in their neglect to understand people's distress and in not helping them to help themselves. People are not stupid. They mostly know what they should be entitled to, but have difficulty getting out of this institutional 'chicken coupe'.

For a more in-depth explanations on the 'Pecking Order' topic please follow this: LINK

Copy Cat Failures:
Copy cat reorganisations of Services and Institutions usually fail to resolve the problems that they have been experiencing and had hoped to rectify. The problems continue and often worsen, in spite of attempting to 'model' on best practices found else where, and despite 'appearing' to follow new Government Guidelines, produced as a result of repeated failures in services and the resulting 'Judicial Reviews'. The Good Practices proposed now were actually successfully tested by professionals like myself 20-30 years ago. They are sometimes managed effectively but are often totally misunderstood.

The reasons for these constant failures are explainable and are actually quite simple to understand. Changing and renaming the 'structure' and 'processes' does not alter underlying attitudes. More often, the changes are undertaken on duplicitous basis, saving money being a key feature. Professional Staff usually resent and become distressed at these changes, which often impact upon the established good practices as well as the bad. Often very effective teams are dispersed and have to rebuild. It is actually the bit in the middle that requires attention and reorganising. There is too much 'control'.

Any Institution that fails to bring staff along with the changes and fails to gain their confidence, runs the risk of 'alienating' them. Even attempts to retrain staff, without adequate understanding of underlying principles (not the words) of Good Practice and Managing Change, actually makes things worse. The argument that 'all our professionals are adequately trained', has been used as an excuse for not proceeding with User complaints further. Like the idea of 'I have years of experience', training can help produce effective & adaptive skills and insight, or produce habitual, well rehearsed and rationalised  incompetence.

Training, of itself, does not change attitudes, remove prejudices, or ensure the acquisition of appropriate skill and insight. It can lead to convincing mimicry, the right signals given and raised expectations, without the real competence to follow through. This kind of problem has been identified within Wiltshire Health Care, Social Care, Housing and Community Policing Services. The assessment processes are being used to 'exclude' people, not to enable 'social inclusion', as was legally intended. Assessments of people's needs and risks are effectively undertaken on the basis of the resources available. The real level of need and risk is missed and early interventions & support are neglected. to produce more serious problems later.

For a more in-depth explanations on this topic of 'Copy Cat Failures follow this: LINK

The More Technical, Professional Arguments (Bare with us):

Society, especially in the form of its institutions, seems only able to cope with social problems in intellectually manageable 'bits', where there is incontrovertible evidence and demonstrated professional credibility. Because of the underlying 'bullying' character of our culture, Professionals are made to feel 'isolated', if they do not 'tow the line' and go with the prevailing, fashionable, 'institutional' views. The services are fragmented with large gaps. The overall picture is rarely seen by Line Managers of specific services. They are too focussed on their own 'butts', sorry 'bits'.

When professionals do try to operate ethically and thereby appear to risk 'being seen to be wrong'; by taking a more 'critical', person focused, human perspective; following service users underlying wishes, they are often chastised by managers. It can also raise the professional anxieties of colleagues. This then sets the expectations for all professionals. ‘Don’t rock the boat’. There appears to be severe difficulty in managers critically interpreting any evidence disclosed to them and greater difficulty in understanding the 'natural' consequences of allowing the perpetration of even low levels of psychological abuse and neglect.

As a professional, I have seen increasing levels of serious physical and mental health problems of professional staff and care workers, due to the inadequate support of staff at the 'front end' of services. My own experience is in the Somerset and Wiltshire areas. I have no reason to believe this is not the case in other geographical areas, where professional's express similar concerns. I have direct experience within the services and as a researcher, from outside the services. A current research project is to obtain comparative statistical information, and to correlate existing research, on the level of 'early retirement on health grounds' and absenteeism from work, on health grounds. I will let you know my finding. Don't hold your breath though.

For a more in-depth explanations on how our Health, Social Care & Policing Institutions fail, follow this: LINK

So, where are things at now - concerning Abuse, Neglect & Bullying:
Domestic violence towards children and women has been more successfully addressed in recent years. It has provided some relief, of course, but much physical and serious psychological & emotional abuse still remains, undiscovered for years. Abuse towards men is grossly underestimated and very poorly addressed, including its effects upon their children. The Psychological and Emotional abuse is treated as 'Low Priority' by Social Services who, in spite of their obligation to assess, assert that supportive intervention is not their priority - FACT. Why? The abused argue that it is the psychological effects that are worst.

Racism & Sexual Discrimination are particular forms of abuse. Its most obvious forms have been challenged and the Law now protects the most public forms of abuse. There still remains subtle prejudice and substantial institutional prejudice, especially towards those who are 'less credible witnesses' to it; expressing themselves with anger, exhibiting mental ill health, or with limited insight. There is scant insight by mangers and professional, of the significant personal, family and social impact of these 'small, incremental failures' and the cumulative, poisonous effects upon people's psychological & emotional security and stability. I see it - clients feel it - what is happening here?

There has been some success for the more 'vocal' and those who generate the most public sympathy (news worthy). Others, who are less vocal and generate less 'sympathy', continue to suffer prejudice, discrimination and actual abuse, in all areas of social experience, including their dealings with institutions. Institutions are prejudiced against the less vocally competent and the less 'sympathetic' presentations of abuse. Political correctness is often used as a weak excuse and sometimes in abusive forms. I have been involved in trying to get people supported, who normally fall through gaps in Wiltshire's 'Safety Net'. Comment like 'well, what do you expect from social housing', are not unusual from professional's & managers and belays an underlying prejudice.

For in-depth explanations on Abuse, Neglect & Bullying, Surviving Abuse and Institutional Neglect, please follow the: LINK

Local Stories that are on-going and will be available soon:
To understand our 'critical perspective', please follow this link:
The Basis for Criticism

Wilshire Services for Children with Disabilities:
The community services to our Children, who happen to have disabilities, are so poor that they are seen (by some of our clients) as more disabling than the child's physical condition. The opportunities to live a normal life with normal expectations, with access and opportunities to a normal activities, does not extend much beyond access to school, libraries and disabled activities. This affects their expectations, social access & inclusion, and their general physical & mental health.

Although the health service support is described as excellent and well organised; Teenage expectations are almost completely neglected, in terms of the Community Support. This has distressing effect upon them, at this important period of already stressful transition. Many teenagers with disability want access and transport mobility to 'normal' amenities. They hate having to relying upon volunteers, friends, parents and siblings. This causes stress within families. We can all understand why!

The Mobility Allowance, which can be so beneficial to the independent mobility of an Adult who can drive, has limited value for young teenage people with a disability, especially in Rural Counties. Even towns the size of Trowbridge have very poor facilities for young people. To get access to the common

The support services are so underfunded, to the extent that funds available for 'Social Inclusion' (a special Government Initiative) are said to be have been almost exhausted. Remember, also, that we are at the beginning of the financial year. If we compare the relatively good Direct Care Services and Direct Payment options to Adults with Disabilities and the Frail Elderly (where there is still need of improvements), Children appear to get as little as 20% of comparable support. Staffing of these services is also very low by adult service comparisons, which themselves are actually 'reducing', in real and relative terms.

Drop Kerbs:
There is a real problem for some people, just to get around on the local streets in Trowbridge. This is a problem that affects everybody at some time, but people with physical disability and sight problems in particular. A young teenage girl has had real difficulties with crossing some of the roads on the Longfield Housing Estate. She has to get about with the use of a wheelchair and is restricted to what is, for her, an island of houses on Longfield Road. Her Mother requested the Council to install 'Drop Kerbs' to help her and others to safely get about.

Drop Kerbs are essential for helping people with disabilities to safely cross roads. They are not only designed to provide a gentle slope for wheelchairs and pushchairs, they also act as guided pathways for elderly people and people who have sight problems. Mum did have some initial success with getting this work done, but this task was never completed, because funds ran out before they got to her patch. The area surrounding her home, a housing block enclosed by Brown Street & Longfield Road, was therefore neglected for years.

An access slope on the Tesco side of Brown Street was already in place, as part of the Tesco's development agreement, but this is useless as there are no other Drop Kerbs opposite the Tesco slope, or anywhere else on her 'island'. The young lady involved, and her family, feel that this access problem affects other people also, including those with many disabilities, those who are elderly and parents using push chairs. She feels that there is not enough attention paid to the difficulties that people experience. She suggests that Local Councillors and Council staff should be required to try using a wheelchair for a day.

This young person had one serious incident with her electric wheelchair, when it overturned. She has since lost confidence in using it on the street. This now seriously inhibits her 'independence' and restricts her safe access to Tesco shopping and to the Town Centre. It seems a little ironic that the two people who pointed out the lack of access and got an initial response, actually failed to get the Drop Kerbs installed in their part of the Estate. She resents being dependent upon others to do the simplest things for herself, some of which any young woman would expect. This puts a strain on all her relationships.

We hope that this will now be sorted, in this new financial year and the new, 'One Council' arrangement. These two people are not convinced. It is a 4 year wait for them, so far, and the slopes were not there for others before that. In 2008 the United Nations produced an Internationally agreed Treaty, which has the status of Law in the UK. It clarifies the duties of National Governments and Local Authorities to ensure the basic Human Rights of People with Disabilities. It is not discretionary and the responsibilities are not avoidable, as some inexperienced legal advisers tend to suggest. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention

Disability Rights:
This young lady is concerned not just for herself, but for all the others who are affected by the inadequate access and use of the community facilities, including access to trains, buses, shops and clubs, etc. She has the same expectations for life as any other teenager of her age and has become very distressed and frustrated at the slow rate at which things are changing. It is affecting her health. She feels that there are too many excuses for 'not doing things'. She is right, our research suggests that this is the normal situation for young people with disabilities, in our area and it is not adequate for adults with disabilities either.

Our Local Authorities have a 'Policy' to restrict services to what is a now a 'crisis' service. In effect, you have to wait until things get so bad that there are immediate risks to a person, before any real service is provided. Too often she has been told that there is no money left, or the manager can not agree to increasing the support, because of restrictions of finances. I fact, they are even neglecting to record that there is a real need for support, so the shortfall in services is never really recognised and improved.

This is not just a Wiltshire problem. Various Local Authorities use the same excuses and make the same mistakes in understanding Human Rights for people with disabilities of all kinds. They will often quote the fact that other Authorities use the same excuses, and restrict support on the same basis. This does not make any one of them correct. These Authorities rely upon the fact that few will complain and that the Law allows for restricted provision of services. In fact, it does not. It only allows for reasonable delays and reasonable limits to provide less costly arrangements.

Here we are clearly talking about persistent absence of adaptations, long delays and poor, 'disabling' services, for many people who often do no automatically show up on the Local Authority's disability radar. According to our reliable sources, more time is spent by professionals (more than 50%) ascertain whether someone meets (or does not meet) their criteria, than on actually providing direct help. This is on top of the costs of providing the buildings, computers, managers and administrative support,' not' to do a more effective job.

Professionals are rarely, wholly at fault here. The Policy and instructions they are required to follow, are similar to those which have produced such poor services in other sectors of Community Care and Social Work. We tend to hear abut them when a child, or older person dies in distressing circumstances. We do not hear about all these cases, and by comparison, the disabling effect of people being effectively 'trapped' in their own little worlds, is often of little interest, by comparison. Sadly more silent problems affect people adversely for the rest of their lives and cost the community greatly, because of the small failures in the early days.

Wilshire Strategies for Community Care need is often 'Wait till it gets worse' and call again:
To understand our 'critical perspective', please follow this link: The Basis for Criticism

The strategy, which is designed to keep community care cost down, while meeting the needs of people 'in most serious distress', effectively means that the person with any serious problems (along with their families), have to wait until their difficulties are so great that they are clearly at risk. They must reach a point where the Authorities would be seen as negligent, not to get involved. New plans hope to improve the situation but there are not enough 'available' resources; the processes are time consuming.

Because the various 'disabilities' are fragmented and are dealt with by 'specialist', contracted-in to provide a specific services (all restricted by the rules of 'Substantial & Critical' need), many people with multiple problems are passed from pillar to post. The delays often mean that the person's difficulties get worse and are further exacerbated by the distress of trying to get help. There seems to be no main focus where the more complex problems can be effectively dealt with. These cases are very complex, but are dealt with on the same basis as a need for a raised toilet seat.

What could have been quite simple, inexpensive resolutions that would have kept the person independent and relieved of distress, become more compounded disabilities, which are then costly and create longer term dependencies. Where is the joined up thinking and the seamless services that were promised? Where is the evidence of improved access to early prevention and entitlements to choice, that were promised through the Convention on Human Rights, Disability Rights and the UK Law? Well, we have to keep asking, assuming we knew, or were told, what we can ask for in the first place.

Fear of criticism is still the biggest constraint in getting these failures recorded (as required) and rectified. This fear of being seen to 'complain', filters down from the the very top, to the bottom, affecting professionals and service users. It is only when things go seriously wrong and someone sues, or speaks out to the media, that there is any real response. Sadly, the same underlying mistakes continue to be made, fear persists and the same problems re-surface later. The problems are inherent in the system. The principle of 'no shame no blame' is supposed to underlie professional and institutional practice. Who is listening?

Wilshire Policing Services & Justice System:
Did you now that there is a modern system of 'Summary Justice', supposedly an improvement on Judge Jefferies? Did you know that the allegedly guilty and the vulnerable and gullible; (including those with learning difficulties and mental health problems) are being energetically encouraged, by Police and even the person's own Defence Solicitor, to plead guilty to charges for crimes they have been accused of, even if they argued and can show they were not directly implicated.

This is particularly unjust in the case of crimes which the person had previously insisted & demonstrated they did not commit and even where they had credible witnesses to the effect that they had not and could not, commit the crime. The argument is that the Magistrate, Court, Judge, or potential Jury, is likely to see them as guilty and they would not be 'credible' in their own defence (police & solicitors often unlawfully use the person's previous history as pressure for pleading guilty). I can understand the intention but the resulting, progressive injustice is very worrying. There are few inducements to encourage 'a true defence'.

The accused are told that, by pleading guilty they will get a less harsh sentence than if they plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty, justly or not. To make this worse, witnesses for the defence, in giving neutral witness statements to the police, are sometimes (if not often) ''tied in as 'witnesses for the prosecution', thereby disabling them to act as witnesses on behalf of a person's defence. Attempts to get this rectified are delayed and effectively 'disqualify' the defence witness.

In my community network support role I have seen this kind of conduct and even found myself 'disabled' as a witness in this way, on 3 distinct occasions. In all these cases I had credible evidence of the developing miscarriage of justice, including my presence at the time of alleged offenses. In all cases there was a level of learning difficulty and serous mental health problems. In all cases they were accepted as guilty, in spite of attempts to intervene in defence. Defence solicitors defended their own actions and resisted any appeal. This arrangement contravenes the most basic Convention on Human Rights.; Don't antagonise the police!

Wilshire Wheel Clamping & Towing Policy (Complete Story):
You are probably aware of the new wave of wheel clamping & Towing episodes, affecting people who park for even for briefest periods (sometimes seconds and with the person next to the car). This practice has particular impact on people with low incomes, confused and distracted by distress, frailty, or disability. The companies involved provide inadequate notices & allow 'no' leeway of error. The practice is clearly punitive, rather than being used to discourage illegal parking & punish serious perpetrators.

There is another semi-legal 'scam' that affects disabled & distressed people with low incomes in particular. There is a vehicle recovery and recycling company (currently un-named for legal reasons), contracted by Police in Wiltshire, and based in Devizes. They are contracted to collect and store cars that are abandoned, fail legal requirements or, more particularly, are recovered from stolen. In the case of stolen cars, these are recovered & stored for forensic investigation & evidence, at the police request.

Wiltshire Police and Wiltshire Council (you) pay for this service to be provided and you, once more pay for it when you, or your insurance company, wish to collect the stolen (or accident damaged) car. This arrangement is loosely based upon Government Guidelines, to reduce the cost to the public purse, but the person's entitlement to have these charges waved, or recovered is not disclosed, or adequately enabled. Those who are least aware of their rights receive disadvantaged, prejudicial treatment.

Again, this has the most punitive effect on those with the least income and is effectively 'prejudicial', unfair and disabling to the quality of life of people who 'need' a car for rural living, access to work, & hospital, etc.. People on low incomes are likely to only have 3rd Party, Fire & Theft insurance policies on the road. Sometimes these stolen cars were in their gardens driveways, awaiting repairs. The excuses used for this injustice are usually even more 'prejudicial' in content and indicative of more general, underlying institutional prejudices towards the poor and less attractively disabled.

To make matters worse, when people do go to collect their cars, the Contractor invariably advises that the car is 'unfit' for removal, even when it is being towed, or in fact, legally drivable. This means that the contractor gets their Police, or Wiltshire Council fee, the storage charges for the duration of impounding (for the purpose of forensic investigation), sellable parts from breaking the car, plus a significant scrap value of the car. It is a scam and is not Transparent accounting, compounded by Police negligence is recognising the problem. The whole arrangement is abusive of peoples rights and is blatantly unjust.

The use of some Scrap Dealers for receiving stolen vehicles, with inadequate documentations and lack of adequate proof of identity of the person 'scrapping', is vey serious. This means that there is a good chance your stolen car will not be found, having been scrapped before its time. Further more, these apparently small cases of 'petty deceit' and injustice, have a tendency to 'grow', as do the resentful reactions of those who are disadvantaged. We all pay a price of injustice in the end.

These injustices are nearly always judged upon the value of an item stolen, rather than the practical and economic benefit to the original owner. These are just further, clear case of social bias, ones that will require copious time to challenge & rectify, because there is no basic, institutional will to ensure equitable, unbiased justice. Human Rights are again suppressed.

Professional Issues that are on-going:
To understand our critical perspective, please follow this link: The Basis for Criticism

Social Work, as a socially supportive professions, is suffering an indignant demise:
Over a year ago, on this web site, I proposed that Social Work is in serious crisis. Well, I now have to report that, to all intent and purpose, it will no longer be 'Social Work' as we know it (within Wiltshire and possibly other shire Counties). The pressure is on and the Title has almost completely incorporated into the roles of 'Community Policing' and 'Budgetary Control'. The opportunities and the professional will, to utilise the skills of Social Workers to intervene to avert crises, has been severely constrained. The next service reorganisation will see the role reduced further; to one of crisis management & service 'claw back'.

The hidden agenda is to reduce professional commitment, implement cheaper & less accountable care options and increase 'control's. I can not pretend that the public image of social work has ever been particularly positive, except in the eyes of those relative few, who eventually manage to qualify for the 'positive' help they requested. Even that role is increasingly, competently undertaken by committed Social Care, Support Workers and Occupational Therapists. The image and confidence in the profession has never been lower and the more committed Social Workers are increasingly disillusioned in the limited roles they are assigned. They dare not speak out publicly. Each of the specialist skills are being sequestrated by other professional groups.

It is small wonder that the media focuses on the failures in community care. There are too few examples of demonstrable success these days. While the other Social Care professions are measured in terms of the 'quality' of their work, Social Work is measure in terms of the statistics. New generations of Social Workers are unlikely to have insight into the original, positive objectives of the profession, except during their training. I wonder how long it will be until even this is lost. The 'Theory' of social work, such as it is, now bares little relation to the realities of social work practice. I see little evidence of Social Workers publically speaking up against the current 'disabling' trends. Sadly, credibility is so low, I am not sure we would be trusted anyway.

Social Worker integrity is being further undermined and eroded, by increasingly micro managed, disabling services. Service Manager's 'fear' allowing professionals the opportunity to take appropriate professional decisions which are in keeping with ethical obligations. Identifying 'needs' cost money, managers clearly feel that this must be curtailed and the 'system' protected from being seen to be negligent and incompetent in the process. Meeting people's needs adequately overruns the 'time boundaries' imposed and increases the length of waiting lists. These are the artificial criteria being used to measure social work effectiveness. In this incompetent process, we are reducing quality, reliability, choice and effectiveness of the services.

It is the underpaid and under resourced 'Health & Social Care workers' who are 'enabling' disadvantaged members of the community to 'survive'. I can no longer see my way to defend the current, newly evolving role of 'Social Work'. Social Worker's are increasing shoehorned into the role of 'disqualifying' people from obtaining a service. Getting access to practical social work is almost impossible and those Social Workers that are still able to provide, or assign 'enabling' services, are being increasingly (though subtly) overridden in their assessments, essentially for financial reasons. I can no longer defend this position. It entirely conflicts with ethical obligations and contravenes basic, legally incorporated 'Human Rights'. It is actually disabling people.

Social Work interventions, which were originally geared towards the early prevention of crises, are almost absent now and have been progressively reducing for years, 'written out of existence' by divisive local Policy'. People who are trying to get this help early on, already know this.  Because people who seek early help do not 'qualify' for more than the assessment (which they do not always get), they have very limited grounds for complaint. They meet a brick wall, or are referred to the voluntary sector, Citizens Advice and other Charities, who are often unprepared for the referrals and certainly under resourced for the increasing demands that they can now expect. The few professionals left put themselves on the line in trying to maintain ethical standards.

I recently heard a Child Protection Officer describe their role as a 'third and forth tier services'. Health services personnel only speak of two. I am strain to envisage what the lower 2 or 3 tiers of Social Work & Child protection services are. There are no substantial foundations and the tower itself is tilting at a dangerous angle. Like Pisa, it is becoming a spectacle. The same kinds of 'its not my job' arguments can be heard in many specialist social work and health care teams. Many who have spoken out against these artificial boundaries and of the displacement of duty, have been censured, whole teams of highly effective, but vocal professionals have been run down, disbanded and units closed.

It is also common for health care and social work teams to pass responsibility back and forth between themselves. This is because each profession is competing for funds and attempting to reduce their overwhelming workloads,  This leaves vulnerable service users and their carers, heads spinning. This then, eventually creates the crises which 'qualifies' them for professional attention. Unfortunately, unavoidable damage is done in the process and greater, longer term 'dependencies' are created. Most of this could be excused, due to lack of resources, if it were not for the fact that a lot of this time and restricted resources are tied up in the process of 'disqualifying' people from help, in dealing with the admin and paperwork which is necessary for doing this.

Each rationalisation of services leaves the community with less resources and poorer quality services, which have become even less well integrated with each other, at surprising increasing costs. As a Researcher, as a Community Care practitioner as a Professional Social Worker and in my own right as a Citizen, I have, (until recently and from time to time) sought services for those that I support in the community and also for myself and my family. I always take the approach as 'an ordinary member of the community', not disclosing, or calling upon, any of my professional roles, my District & Town Counsellor status (while these were in operation), and without initially disclosing my specialist knowledge of Rights & Legal Entitlements.

The comprehensive experience has usually been that of sympathetic dismissive, displacing, disempowering and often distressing rejection of almost all 'substantial' requests. Sometimes the rejection has also been quite 'aggressive' if I persist in attempts to get the person's needs addressed. This approach has been tested in engaging Second Tier 'involved' Mental Health, Third Tier Child Protection, Ground Floor Policing Services, Basement and Ground Level Housing, Legal, Social Security and Employment services. Unless the person I am referring is in imminent risk of danger, the response has been not only been ineffectual, but actively disabling and compounding of the person's problems.

By institutional neglect and jaundiced judgments, we are creating the more complex 'social crises' that we later feel justified to attend to, often quite inappropriately and frequently ineffectually.

Once upon a time, those of us undertaking Social Work had hoped that this profession would achieve independent practitioner standard, much like GP's, senior Nurses, paramedical and complementary practitioners  have achieved. The health services professionals are equally restricted by the resources available, but are less ready to allow this to interfere with their Code of Ethics. Even here, especially in the Mental Health sector, Community Team Social Workers and Nurses are being assigned what can only be described as 'policing' & 'Emergency' type roles and powers. The focus, therefore, is increasingly upon 'restrictive', rather than 'enabling' interventions. Social Work was supposed to be the 'thread' that patched these services together.

The Ethics of Professional Social Work is now severely compromised, on a daily basis. It is small wonder that the profession's credibility and public confidence is so low. Some how, institutional managers and the General Social Care Council (many of who are failed or burnt out professionals), have progressively brought Social Work into disrepute. The social work profession 'as we knew it' had hardly achieved any respected professional standing, before its embarrassingly dishonourable and painfully slow, early death. Sadly, no one appears to be trying to resuscitate it. This is because there is so little left, of any integrity, that is worth saving. It is also in the interests of some institutional bodies to see its self inflicted demise and Community Care along with it.

Basically, the Title of Social Work has been usurped by the community engineers of BASW; The Big-Brother, Association of (Institutionalised) Social Work). Their purpose was always to serve self interest. From my engagement with the General Social Care Council, over the last 5 years, it is clear that the interests of the professions 'status' takes precedence over the interests of adequate support and protection of clients. You will have noticed the the existence of GSCC, the Professional Regulating body for Social Work, has made no significant difference to the security, or wellbeing of clients, 'even if you knew nothing of its existence'. It is time to develop a new profession for the proper support of our citizens and communities, the proper management of risk and earlier, positive intervention into potential family and community crises.

This is Social Works last stand. The profession now glories in riding in as the Cavalry, like Custer, having preserved their strength on the sidelines, while watched the locals fight to survive and become depleted, before putting on a good show', only to fail to save anyone and suffer the consequences of all who procrastinate and leave things too late; - extinction. We need to look for a new 'Title'. The original one has been stolen and has become tarnished. I look forward to the advance of Social Care and Community Care in their own right, with a Title earned, like other true, enduring and advancing professions, by demonstration of its Ethics and independence of professional integrity. For the time being, I retain the last stand for the fundamental principles of being a 'Social Worker' without the Title. The pay is poor but principles are strong.

Come on all Social Care Professionals, everywhere, Show what you are made of. There is even room for some good 'social work' professionals. You are the people undertaking true, socially therapeutic 'social work'. Regain the Copyright of general practice, which integrates social care and community work, providing the foundations for good, effective and empowering social work. I have decided to stop encouraging the best of the Social & Community Care professionals to advance careers, through becoming 'Institutional' Social Workers. I now recommend that we advance our professional practices and build up a new, professionally independent 'social work' profession. Independent that is, of the 'Agents of State', that institutional social work has become.

Just one other important point for Social Workers (and other professionals) who are experiencing increased levels of anger, aggression, and reduced cooperation from clients (or patients), families, carers, neighbours and voluntary organisations. I certainly meet these difficulties on a weekly basis and the frustrations and anger are increasing, along with a corresponding reduction in aspirations and hope. This is very worrying.

Some of this aggression is due to the personality of the individuals concerned and we have learned to live with this. Much of it is now directly related to the frustration and distress caused by incompetence and poor insight of  your predecessors and colleagues, within your own and other professions and services. It is important to identify which is the case. Some of the anger is wholly justified and understandable. This energy needs to be given direction and positive effect. We ethically have to help this process.

To understand our critical perspective, please follow this link: The Basis for Criticism

For a brief explanation of the purpose of this WebSite, please follow this: LINK

Contact Information:                                           Hit counterHit Counter

Please feel free to contact myself on any Health & Social Care issue, Personal, therapeutic, or counselling matter.
The level of confidentiality and/or disclosure will be restricted to your choice.

Postal address:
25 Orchard Court, Orchard Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire - BA14 7AW
Email: terry.couchman@visitweb.org

For More Information Contact: Your Choice - Phoenix Support Services

Tel: +44 (0)1225 775275 -Messages: +44 (0)1225 691140 (Message Service), or +44 (0)7727618540 (Text and Urgent Contact)
FAX:
+44-7006-087-626 - Internet Email: terry.couchman@visitweb.org

Electronic mail
General Information:........... terry@visitweb.org
Sales:............................... sales@visitweb.org
Customer Support:............. customer.support@visitweb.org
Webmaster: Send mail to webmaster@visitweb.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1972 - 2007  Terry Couchman, Your Choice - Phoenix Support Services - Last modified: 04-Jul-2009