Mostly due to demands on my time from a longstanding social justice/expert witness matter, I find myself not quite in the frame of mind to maintain regular blog entries, it appears. However, if you'd like to read some of my views, why don't you check out my public posts here: https://www.facebook.com/barbara.schaefer.984
- send me a messaga and we may be able to connect that way. Thank you.
​

BBC2 HORIZON last week offered a programme ("Why did I go mad?") that shows 3 survivors on their journeys and successful paths beyond medicating. Best watched: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08pltgy
​

Shared on change.org on the petition by a young woman determined to get help for her homeless brother who is an addict: "... agree with your demand for a new paradigm of mental health care. The MHA (and statutory services in general mostly) does nothing to aid recovery. However, I would just like to add: There is almost an element of cunning wisdom sneaking in where it says someone cannot be sectionned (and thus treated against their will) for being an addict. They'd be in there forever... In other words: It seems to be an existential truth that the addict has to be ready... and attempts to get them there (to being ready) have to be cunning, patient and 'ready to jump in' when the time is right ."
​

sually I look forward to BBC Radio 4's All In The MInd. This week, I was left a bit concerned about their recommendation to 'speak with your GP' when experiencing mental health issues. While I agree with the qualifier that it would be best if one knew the GP well (who does though these days?) and  the suggestion to describe feelings rather than theorise about them seems good, I would advise to speak with the GP only if absolutely necessary, and to take a friend to the appointment. My advice would be: Look for self help information, such as from MIND, RETHINK and these self help modules:
 http://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/resources/consumers.cfm
and speak with 2 different friends about your feelings first, if possible. Of course, don't do anything to put yourself or anyone else at risk. Keep as calm as you can: Help is out there. Many libraries have a shelf 'books on prescription' on mental health - and you don't need a prescription for those! IF you decide to speak with your GP, you may end up being prescribed medication as most, in my experience do not have the time or skill to listen deeply. Think carefully about taking it and do research the side effects and risk of dependency. Doctors may not talk about before starting you on meds. In the words of one expert-by-experience, Dr. Eleanor Longden, Mental Health is about "what happened to you? - rather than 'what is wrong with you?" So the help needed may not be medical.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission was in the news (on BBC Radio 4) tonight, saying that disabled people continue to be disadvantaged despite the Disability Disrimination Act... Whether you are facing an assessment, an appeal or are not sure how best to present the complex situation of one of your clients: You need an independently minded, highly experienced and deep-thinking expert who will find a way to credibly present the person's rights and interests. Send us an enquiry...

From personal and professional experience, it seems to me, it is not just that legal aid is practically not available when needed - including eceptional legal aid: - someone I know well was assessed over the phone in 5 minutes by a person who sounded like she was hardly out of her teens and - refused. It is also, the way formally available tools such as e.g. Judicial Review are advertised - on government web sites, hiding more information than providing, and certainly not inviting or facilitating. Any phone lines given are usually occupied.. and don't even the fonts used look forbidding? I may already have quoted the retired solicitor-husband of an acquaintance of mine: "Justice is practically only available for those who can pay for it." In England.

A few weeks ago, on BBC Radio 4, I heard Prof. Jay say (from memory) one of the deeper systemic changes that would have to be a lesson from the Abuse Scandals the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse is looking at was, would have to be that "all that disbelieving people with a mental capacity issue has to go'. The shocking implication, of course, being that disbelieving vulnerable potential or alleged victims is still wide-spread part of the culture in services. Having seen more than one example where this is not done with blatant disregard but with skilled sophistication, dressing up an inquiry so that nothing that comes out will hurt Management, I believe with skill, conscience and ethical clarity these issues can now be addressed by independent professionals. 

A couple of weeks ago,  a radio 4 programme described the situation in home care for the elderly as that - neglect and it did not do it tentatively. The facts of serious abuse cases, care companies failing is only the tip of the ice berg, and not all difficulties are du to shortfall in funding. oreviewing a Care Home, as I did for a time as part of my role as a social worker, it shows if the Care Home owner thinks of their residents as a means of making money first - rather than his role to facilitate their life in dignity. And such impressions can be read against current guidelines, policies and - for what they are worth CQC standards. If the practise falls short of those standards, then that will have to be reported - before a resident comes  or even just feels less than comfortable. Thus far, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has been a yard stick, to. However, even when that might not apply any longer, conscientous and detailed inspections/reviews and reports can protect standards. - Suffering in silence is never an option, in my view. I am available to assist.

The BBC Radio 4 programme recently dedicated 2 editions to the issue of appreciation of Judges - the type they apparently do not feel, the reason why there are so of them. I felt there was untypically more description than analysis in the programme. While Joshua Rosenberg stated that the appointment of p/t Judges - less experienced - can be a creating an issue of less quality as the are less experienced, on the reasons why there were so few applications for, if I remember correctly, almost 25% vacancies for High Court Judges, there seemed little clarity. Repeatedly, it was mentioned that there had been some pension cuts... Is that the whole picture, I wonder. Maybe I lack the imagination, but it seems difficult to comprehend that at a quite nice senior level of appointment this would be such an important point - unless the legal profession has so thoroughly been diverted to put commercial profit over - securing justice? With my little experience in civil proceedings over the last 5 years, I can't help wondering whether a missing link is not to be found in a speech by Mr Mostyn, a Judge in Family Court, a few years ago and published on the ministry of justice web site: He said "It is not the Judges' job to follow their preferences but to apply the Law." Ouch. Had I, as a lay person, not experienced how it can happen that a lesser experienced Judge may come to set aside complex and tiresome evidence to follow his 'preferences', I would have thought that quote simply left-wing propaganda. However, I think Mr Mostyn's implicit analysis points to a deeper issue. It seems to me the introduction of the HRA indeed creates a climate where Judges' decisions have to be accountable to principles of law over their - undoubtedly educated - opinion. That, from the inside, may feel as 'not being appreciated'''. If there is some truth in this thought, and I hope I am wrong, then it may take more than a new round of appointments to secure quality of Justice. It may take education of yet another generation of lawyers in order for them not only to live the principle of accountability (versus closing ranks?), but also to appreciate the widely and internationally recognised principles of Human Rights to be respected for what they are: Safeguards - and that includes full appreciation for policies introduced since the HRA such as No Secrets Act, Disability Discrimination Act and similar - intended, it seems to me, to truly embed the principles behind Human Rights in the British society, as a democratic society.
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bristol-speech-08-12-14-edited.pdf

As part of the CPD programme mentioned, I also had the chance to speak with a Mental Health in-patient who was said by staff who had known him for years not to have "any insight" in his condition they called schizophrenia. On one occasion, within less than one hour, he told me how he had arrived with his family as small boy in the UK one cold February. His parents had had high hopes coming to this country. So he felt unable to thell them that he was bullied at school, began to retreat into himself and started to 'always feel different.' No insight? This turned out to be the first of many similar observations.  Dr Eleanor Longden: "The question should not be: What is wrong with you?' - but: What happened to you?"