Channel 4's 40 years after 1967 season....

Channel 4's season commemorating 40 years after the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 is nearly over.

So far we have had A Very British Sex Scandal. An excellent and very well done recounting of the sensational trial of Peter Wildeblood and Lord Montagu showing the impact that criminalisation had on gay life (people being wary of telling each other their names, burning their letters to each other so they wouldn't risk being incriminated against for example) in conjunction with reconstructions of hearings of the Wolfendon Committee.

The most poignant moment is during the trial where Peter Wildeblood admits to being a homosexual and starts to turn the tide of public attitudes leading to the setting up of the Wolfendon Committee which, ten years later led to decriminalisation (over 21 and in private - prosecutions actually went up after the 1967 Act).

I found How Gay Sex Changed the World to be incredibly old hat and tedious but with some interesting moments in the telling. Certainly didn't talk about the World though, which was a shame.

Most controversy attached to Clapham Junction. It's well worth watching but from the reaction and commentary I have seen appears to have been understood by very few people at all, with most people's reaction being "This doesn't represent gay life" as though the purpose of drama is to give a faithful representation of something - it isn't. Drama is there to give insights not representations; as though we all need showing what the gay life is really like; as though Romeo and Juliette is a faithful representation of what heterosexuality is like.

Put simply what Clapham Junction portrays (so far as I can tell) is how prejudices from a previous era are disrupting the lives of people today born into a world where there are Civil Partnerships, openly gay people in high ranking professions and so on.

Their lives are disrupted by the threat of violence - often through being in the worng place at the wrong time - the young gay man in murdered after using a toilet frequented by gay men but not doing anything himself and then getting chased into the common. No matter. He's not being bashed because of his having sex (he wasn't) but because the nexus of homophobia from when there weren't Civil Partnerships is ready and waiting as well as affecting the way people construct their relationships, through isolation, lack of role models and so on.

It is quite simply about the legacy of discirmination that still weighs heavily upon gay people and in some ways on all of us. To test this out would be very simple - have two men walk hand in hand throught he streets of most UK cities and I think it would be clear what the result would be.

Finally and most retro of all, the "discussion" programme chaired by David Aronovitch (whose writing I really like). This was utterly tedious, worthy and for the most part unwatchable garbage, starting off with the complete failure to understand the meaning of Clapham Junction but failed to achieve any sense of lift off or purpose with David Aronovitvh trying depsreately hard to be a hip with it heteresexual and completely at ease with the vacuous non-discussions around him - even descending at one point to talking as a cultural authority on account of his gay friends..... In the words of Sir Alan Sugar "What a load of old tut!", though I think Catherine Tate's Nan Taylor would have said it better.......

Hullo? Homosexuality still a criminal offence in around 90 countries of the world? Stonewall's recent report on the failure of schools to provide any kind of protection from homophobic bullying (which one of the commentators - no less than Mark Simpson - (who?) describes as being an expression of "homo-unease" which shouldn't worry us unduly....... I see, so that's all right then.

So two cheers for Channel 4 who have actually covered the bloody thing (shame on the BBC) and made an attempt and for two really good and challenging programmes, even though the utter lack of sophistication when reviewing the drama could have been ameliorated by a kind of interpretative 'key' to help well meaning heteresexuals (who were mercilessly parodied in Clapham Junciton by the way - deservedly so in my view) make any sense of it all.

Cash for honours....

Surprise surprise the CPS has abandoned any intention of a prosection (much to the chagrin of the Metropolitan Police who after several high profile cases have gone wrong - Burrell, Who wants to be a Millionnaire - were aching for something that would come somewhere near justifying more than a million quid being spent on such a hopeless case).

The people of London must be fortunate indeed to have so little real crime that they have a couple of millions to spend on various wild goose chases initiated in this case by the SNP, who may well have won the Scottish election as a result.

Of course there is a statistical correlation between being a donor and receiving an honour - this is well known under both parties - a case for reform not criminal sanction. I for one think that people who donate to political parties and other good causes should be eligible for honours (though not positions in Parliament) - provided all is out in the open. And there are numberous bodies that can investigate including the Electoral Commission itself.

(I've previously blogged on the need for an entirely elected Upper Chamber).

Anyway - it is clearly illegal for honours to be sold to the highest bidder, like on ebay and there's a strong case for an elected chamber to remove any such considerations in the case of becoming a member of the Upper Chamber. Similarly there's a case for more state funding of political arties, especially in the field of political education and policy work as well as things like a limit on spending and so on.

But if we don't have state funding we have funding by individuals and I think that to say that you can be given an honour up until the point where you make a donation is ludicrous.

Yes we need reform of party funding as well as of the House of Lords - but these are political issues and arguments and should not be driven by a politicised police force using leaks via the tabloid press and certainly seeking to prejudice the public in a way that would be unacceptable in any other investigation.

Richard Rorty has died

After Derrida in 2004 Richard Rorty died on June 8th 2007.

The wikipedia article on Rorty can be found here.

Obituaries from the Times, Guardian and one form Jurgen Habermas.

Hi most accessible book is easily Philosophy and Social Hope.

Back from various Conferences

Well have been back a few days now from the TUC LGBT Conference and the UNISON Labour Link Forum.

The TUC LGBT Conference is a two day event where each affiliated union can send a delegation to debate LGBT issues (would be surprising if they debated anything else).

Big issues this year included:

Census 2011 - the inclusion of sexual orientation. In my view the Conference passing a motion asking for gender identity as well when the main Trans organisation (Press for Change) is not supporting this may well lead to difficulties in the campaign i.e. ONS saying well it's all too difficult and complicated to deal with ahead of 2011.

Framework for Fairness - This was an emergency motion submitted by UNISON and UCU. Its focus was on guidance given on the impact of sexual orientation regulations, which states that it is perfectly legal for teachers to tell a student that same sex activity is sinful, as well as relating some of the concerns about the Discrimination Law Review Green Paper - A Framework for Fairness. This motion was selected to go to Congress.

The UNISON Labour Link Forum debated a number of motions including 'LGBT Equality - Finishing the Job'. I also managed to ask a question to the MEP Panel, explicitly about Poland and LGBT rights actross Eastern and Central Europe.

Gays cause flooding - again

Or so the Bishop of Carlisle seems to think according to news reports.

Apparently the floods are a sign of God's distress over the sexual orientation regulations. I don't want to appear to mock the Divine Will but this is all a bit odd and I have a few questions:

1. How on earth is flooding people's homes, leading to a small number of deaths, in any way an appropriate punishment when many of the victims are not gay and had no part in the sexual orientaiton regulations? (of course the distress caused by flooding is extreme but there actually is no law of nature that says you have to have mild and predicatble wheather all of the time, though the Western European climate usually is) Unless God is saying that indiscriminate collective punishment is morally acceptable - seems to me that Al-Qaeda is working to the same principle already.
2. What sin was Britain committing in 1953 when over 300 people lost their life, Civil Partnerships were approx 50 years away and homosexuality was still illegal?
3. Apparently Texas leads the US in fatalities from floods and yet they have banned same sex marriage and are very conservative - just what is it that Texas is getting wrong? Whatever it is they don't seem too eager to correct it.
   

This is all clearly ridiculous nonsense and exposes church folk to the charge of being silly and supersticious at the best. Makes the likes of Richard Dawkins look positively balanced and sane in comparison and just brings old fashioned theism into disrepute as a load of supersticious old hooey.

I will try to pass on this interesting and useful link to Wikipedia's entry under 'extreme weather' seems most inicdents are caused by cyclones and so on rather than a comunication of divine displeasure at this or that law being passed at the time.

Of course, globally, it's poverty that leads to higher death rates in the event of natural disasters. But I don't expect Bishops have any understanding of things like that.

Mental Health Bill completes Parliamentary stages

In the end 'ping pong' was rather limited, with the Lords agreeing to the Commons' amendments and the Government agreeing a few more (rather significant) amendments and the Commons agreeing to the Lords' amendments.

The Bill has therefore now fully completed its passage through Parliament and awaits Royal Assent so as to become law and doubtless will enter into force in a year or two's time.

The final stages saw a further clause agreed by the Government which includes as one of the fundamental principles:

"respect generally for diversity, including in particular, diversity of religion, culture and sexual orientation"

which in my view is by far preferable to the 'exclusions' previously proposed, which muddy the water to a considerable degree.

Further amendments included sensible amendments to the process for renewal of detentions as well as improvements to the criteria for Supervised Community Treatment.

The Bill, whatever critics may say, is now much improved - hence the reason for it passing with relative ease (in the end......). Campaigners and amendments from the opposition have improved the original proposals but much time was wasted by caricaturising the Bill and seeking to defeat it completely rather than engaging on sensible improvements which in the end have been acheived.

The sense one gains from reading a lot of the wildly exaggerated campaigning material is one of having marched your troops to the top of the hill and now marching them down again but without necessarily achieving any more for adopting an exagerated and at times misleading stance.

The links to the latest parliamentary debates are:

Lords
Commons

All of the debates can be viewed here.

In the words of Tony Blair in another context "That's that - The end"

Post Script to the Mental Health Bill

Although the Bill itself contains vast areas of work for the Government to get its teeth into there are still significant areas for all of us to work on. Here's a few:

• Dealing with unequal outcomes for people from BME communities. At the very least this will mean undertaking clear measures to promote race equality at local level, clear and consistent monitoring at all stages, the use of positive measures, community outreach and mental health promotion and consideration of the need for alternative service models (the DoH Delivering Race Equality is a start)
  
• putting equality at the heart of all mental health service provision, across all strands and in particular ensuring that the forthcoming Single Equality Act includes a clear requirement to promote equality across all strands of equality
  
• monitoring the use of Community Treatment Orders to ensure they are being used in a sensitive and benefical way and do not discriminate
  
• a lot more still to be done to counteract stigma and discrimination associated with mental ill-health

And finally, there is considerable scope for issues of concern to be addressed in the Code of Practice which is going to open for consultation - link here.

Gordon and Harriet

Harriet Harman elected on the 5th round, having been led by Alan Johnson until the final round.

Both Harriet and Gordon Brown's speeches were truly inspirational with particular references to housing (which is now a key priority for many people), civil liberties and improving the constitution and pledges on education and the NHS.

For the Party the Deputy Leader becomes the Party Chair, rather than a Prime Ministerial appointee - as a result would seem that someone else will become Deputy PM (Straw?) - we'll see.

News on the Labour Party website and on the BBC. The Labour Party website has the text of Gordon Brown's speech.

Well it's been an interesting few weeks of Deputy Leadership election, it's allowed party members to debate both policy and presentation. I was sad that Peter Hain didn't win as I thought he'd be an excellent deputy leader but Harriet Harman was my No 2 (no, really....). In any case she has grown in stature during the campaign and her speech today was simply fab.

Voting over ...

If you haven't voted yet - it's too late!

Voting has now closed (unless you're an MP). Result due on Sunday.

I am still hoping for Peter Hain to win, but of course the result is rather unpredictable and I note that Gordon Brown has been making rather free of late with his current job (though he may have better things in mind for him), what with offering the post to Paddy Ashdown. More on this later.

On a spearate note Gordon seems to be engaging in an interesting version of Fantasy (Shadow) Cabinet..... Of course in a few days' time he'll be doin' it for real

Links from Hansard

Here are some really good bits. Links taken from Theyworkforyou.com. This is a really good website that allows you to very simply email your MP, find out who you MP is and also Hansard on this site is laid out better than on Parliament's website.

Here is the debate including Chris Bryant's excellent speech moving his amendment on 'therapeutic benefit'.

Here is the entire debate - though it's quite brief - on exclusions (including sexual orientation etc) with excellent speeches by Chris Bryant and the Minister, Rosie Winterton.

Here is Rosie Winterton's informative speech in third reading summing up the whole bill, followed by some other contributions.

The voting lists can be seen on The Public Whip:

Vote on exclusions - govt majority of 86
Vote on imparied judgment - govt majority of 83 (Lynne Jones and Jeremy Corbyn voted with the opposition)
Third Reading - govt majority of 70

For access to all debates in Commons and Lords (well you may mish to be selective in your reading.....) you can access these by clicking on the bill's Parliament website. The Hansard record for the ping pong - if there is any may prove interesting.

Mental Health Bill (Tuesday)

Final day of the Commons stages.

As urged by the Mental Health Coalition, who have in fact proved surprisingly effective in gaining concessions on key areas from the Government during the Bill's passage, the Governemtn accepted a compromise proposed by Chris Bryant on treatability, eerlly similar to the way forward I suggested to the Government in my own correspondence.....

In the end the Bill passed its Third Reading with a majority of 70, which in the circumstances aint too bad, certainly shows there has been no significant rebellion by Labour MP's.

The debates from yesterday's debate can be seen here (on theyworkforyou.com) - you need to scroll down to 'Orders of the Day' and then click on 'next debate' and probably scroll past the full text of the amendments which are ....... long.

Report on the Bill from the BBC.

Mental Health Bill (Monday)

Two remaining days in the Commons for the Mental Health Bill and I am going to try and watch as much of today's proceedings as I can.

The Government have made significant concessions as indicated in an earlier post and in several cases these are about making explicit (on the face of the Bill as parliamentarians are wont to say....) what was already the case and helping to dispel some of the myths as well as legitimate fears people may have that the powers of the Bill were too far reaching.

More compromises may be in order to stave off a lenthy ping pong session, but some of the things the opposition is asking for are contrary to the policy of the democratically elected government and on those issues - provided there is a Commons majority behind them - the Lords should not persist in their opposition.

The latest press release from the Mental Health Alliance does give recognition to the Government for the changes the Government has introduced and seems more conciliatory in tone.

Update

The Government introduced new clauses on independent advocacy, as well as indicating support for specialist advocacy services for Black and Minority Ethnic service users, age appropriate services for people under 18, improvements to safeguards in relation to consent and improvements (campaigned for by UNISON and the newly formed Mental Health Coalition) to the proposed Community Treatment Orders to ensure that they are not misused so as to place restrictions on people's lifestyles.

The Government also responded to lobbying by the Mental Health Coalition on the Nearest Relative issue (the Bill already allows you to seek a change in the NR where the current NR is unsuitable, with a patient being able to identify any other person so long as they are suitable) the Government has clearly stated that the NR is not the Next of Kin, and recognised you can choose who your Next of Kin is, agreeing to strengthen guidance in this area in the Code of Practice.

The Government won all of its votes today with majorities varying between 59 and 66.

Tomorrow is the final day of debate in the Commons.

The Department of Health website has latest documents including helpful correspondence with and reports from the Joint Committe on Human Rights (otherwise known as the Liberal Democrats at prayer).

In particular you can see the Government's response to some of the Joint Committee's rather incoherent (though no doubt well meaning) arguments on some aspects of the Bill, for instance on the need for 'exclusions'. I must say I find Rosie Winterton's argument to be particularly robust and succinct when speaking on the proposal to exclude sexual orientation, religious and cultural beleifs from the definition of mental disorder:

[...] They are not recognised mental disorders. It would be legally redundant to exclude them from the definition of mental disorder for the purposes of the Act. Indeed to do so might appear to suggest, quite wrongly, that they were mental disorders for other purposes - which would be particularly inappropriate in the case of sexual orientation. Moreover, to include any exclusions which are of no legal effect risks them being misunderstood or misinterpreted to have a substantive effect, which they would not in fact, have.

Which I think is a good paraphrase of the case I made out against such exclusions in my submissions to the Government over the Bill - nice to see they listened......

French results - socialists do better than expected

Today is the last day of the French legislative election.

As the Presidential election was in 2 rounds, so also is the of the Assemblee Nationale, the final round being today.

Results are predicted to give Sarkosy a very substantial majority and there are fears that the Parti Socialiste will have one of its worst historic results.

More later as the results come in.

Some analysis ahead of the results here:

Sydney Morning Herald, BBC, The Australian, Washington Times

And if you can read French an excellent analysis (with historical comparisons) in Le Monde and as well as this article.

More comment when there are some early indications of the result. Already, however, it is clear that the result will not be good for the French socialists, who will have a real job to do to reinvent themselves after the election.

Results start to come in BBC, Guardian

It now seems the Parti Socialiste is doing quite well, having gained a number of seats in the Parliament, which allows it to be a substantial opposition to the Government.

There is though a general consensus that there needs to be a process of 'rebuilding' in the Parti Socialiste, though exactly what form that takes remains to be seen, with at least a risk of a period of bitter infighting between the followers of a handful of political heavyweights.

Final results are now in

See the BBC site for the full details of the composition of the Assemblee Nationale with 07 compared to 02.

It's a little difficult to work out what's going on as the French system means there are lots of small groupings along side thw two big parties.

It seems the socialists have gained around 40 seats. The communists have lost a number of seats and therefore lose their status as a 'party group' in the Assembly.

The right wing UMP lost approx 40 seats.

Lesson - the importance of expectation management (especially difficult in a two round election). As a consequence the party that lost the election feels like it has won it as the first round predicted a wipeout for the Left and the party that actually won it feels like it's lost it...... Well that's politics for you.

Govt moves on Mental Health Act - gives credit to UNISON

Press release here detailing Government amendments to the Mental Health Bill which represent significant movement and go a long way to meeting campaigners' legitimate concerns in a number of areas.

UNISON along with other trade unions are specifically mentioned as having made representations to the Government (on the issue of Supervised Community Treatment).


So far as I can tell, the Mental Health Alliance put up a statement welcoming these changes, then took it down again and then put one back up saying, amongst other things:

Our members will welcome the fact that the Government has begun to listen to and act upon the concerns of the people who live and work with the Mental Health Act. We hope that today’s changes mark the beginning of a new government approach to this issue that will lead to a genuine consensus before the Bill becomes law.

We believe that the Government and the Mental Health Alliance can still work together to deliver a new Act that is defensible and workable.

Is this the opening of a genuine era of co-operation breaking out? Given the Tories and Liberal Democrats have their minds seriously set on mauling the Government (of course that is the role of opposition parties, so I'm not criticising them for that) I harbour some doubts - we may be in for a very long ping pong.

The Mental Health Alliance is still wanting exclusions which are, in my view, patronising toward LGBT people and suggests that in some way being lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans is a mental illness. We all know this isn't the case, so the exclusion is unhelpful as it suggests the opposite.

Firstly being of one sexual orientation would never be able to meet the stringent tests contained in the Mental Health Act for compulsory admission, secondly because the law in Council of Europe countries on sexual orientation and gender identity is actually very clear and thirdly because UK legislation is explicit in recognising the legitimate existence of LGBT people (examples including Civil Partnerships, Gender Recognition, protection from discrimination in employment, goods and services and in the exercise of public functions - including acts under the Mental Health Act and finally the Bill contains 'fundamental principles' including non-discrimination and the least restrictive alternative.

Empty scaremongering versus equality

But at the same time some of the professional groupings in the Alliance (especially Psychiatrists) could do a lot more to promote services that are supportive to LGBT people and do more to challenge discriminatory attitudes that still abound in psychiatric practice.

No, not trying to lock you up for being gay but not really listening to you either, or not creating a safe environment for LGBT people (staff and clients) to be out or always seeing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity as the case of their mental distress, even when it has nothing to do with it.

Rather than joining in the scaremongering we should be demanding that as professionals in charge of NHS care we start to put our own house in order.

For the Government's pages on LGBT equality in the NHS (the Department of Health's Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Advisory Group) with some fantastic material the Government is producing on sexual orientation and gender identity.

There's some really great stuff there, but as we all know getting it put into practice when discriminatory attitudes go very deep is the real challenge. So in addition to all of the Government's other progress in dealing with discrimination, there is an urgent need to extend the equality duty to cover all strands of equality inlcuding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Bid to reverse same sex marriage in Massachusetts fails

News just in.

Lawmakers in Massachusetts have voted 45 to 151 to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment. It had already received votes in one session and needed votes in a second to be placed on the 2008 ballot (there only need to be 50 votes in favour in two sessions to allow the amendment to go to ballot). The next opportunity to place the question on the ballot will be 2012.

You can see the news here.

The bid to kill off the amendment was supported by the leaders of both Houses and the State Governor Deval Patrick.

Some really good pictures of the day here.

Single Equality Act proposals now out

These have just been made public by the Government.

The full proposals can be seen here and the press release is here.

The consultation will last until the 4th September 2007.

In addition the Government has published the proposals to add protection against discrimination in goods and services on the grounds of gender reassignment, by way of regulation under the European Communities Act.

Much of the reaction to the proposals is somewhat muted at the moment. TUC, Equal Opportunities Commission, Disability Rights Commission,

There are no clear proposals at this stage for an equality duty acorss all strands of equality or for harmonising provisionson harassment.

It will obviously be important to make sure there are forceful voices pushing the Government to use this once in a generation opportunity to actually deliver a lasting legacy, a step change in creating a more equal society, with the promise of real change.

Time to Vote!!

Labour's deputy leadership election is now in full swing.

If you are a member of the Labour Party (well duh....) or a member of a trade union and pay the political levy you have a vote (as well as members of Socialist Societies - including LGBT Labour) you will have the chance to vote. The elction is divided into three sections, each of which has a third of the final vote (MP's, MEP's; Party members; affiliated trade union members and socialist societies).

Please use your vote(s)!!

It is vital for ordinary people to be able to have a say and that is why the Labour Party is set up in the way it is, allowing millions to have a say in the elctions for Leader and Deputy Leader.

(I should say at this point that I would have wanted to have had an election for Leader - but not an artificially created one with a candidate who needed people to nominate him just to get him on the ballot (even if they had no inention of voting for him and didn't think he'd be any good as a Prime Minister) - what would have been the purpose of that?).

So now it's time to get voting!!

I am supporting Peter Hain (this may by now be a statement of the "bleedin' obvious" but it's good to let everyone know where you stand). I think he has fought a good campaign, has solid values and will be a real asset as a Deputy Leader in ensuring that we establish a genuinely progressive agenda that will sustain a progressive government over a fourth term.

He has a good basis of support from Trade Unions, a genuinely radical past (in the Anti-apartheid movement), good ministerial experience (notably in Northern Ireland), a clear commitment to equality and human rights (again his clear determination to bring in equality laws against stiff opposition in Northern Ireland) and a clear sense of direction as to how Labour can make a difference in government to ordinary working people.

If you are voting for another candidate please use your second preference vote for Peter Hain (the winner is unlikely to be elected on 1st preferences alone and the second preference only comes into play when your preferred candidate has been eliminated).

Remember:

1. Voting is by preference (1,2,3 etc) if you use a cross it won't count
2. You don't have to use all of your preferences - preferences are only used if your preferred candidate is eliminated
3. If you are using a union or socialist society vote remember to tick the declaration box to say you support the Labour Party and aren't a member of another party (or your vote won't count)
4. Vote by returning your ballot paper in the envelope provided or to the address on the ballot form (if you lose the envelope you can still vote.......) by the closing date.

If you want any more reasons to vote for Peter Hain you will find them aplenty on Lou's Blog or of course, Peter Hain's campaign site.

Campaigning on the Mental Health Bill

A good example of some of the exaggerations that are being put about concerning the Government's plans form the website for 'Black Information Link' with my comments added in parentheses.

"The Bill includes provision to:

- allow anyone to be detained and medicated against their will even if they will not benefit from treatment.

Not true. The law will broadly operate as now. To be detained to hospital you have to have a serious mental health problem which is not amendable to treatment by your GP, local community mental health and home treatment teams. An appropriate treatment will have to be available.

- allow anyone can be forcibly medicated against their will within their homes.

Absolutely not true. There is no provision for forcible treatment in people's homes unless in emergency situations. People who have been discharged from hospital under Supervised Community Treatment (a small number of people as opposed to "anyone") are amenable to being brought back to hospital if unwell and given medication.

- allow practitioners to restrict the lifestyle and behaviour of those anyone who has had contact with the services.

Not true, though the wording used by the Government in the legislation has led to some confusion and would benefit from being clarified. There are, though, no plans to restrict people's lifestyle and behaviour.

- Extend doctors powers to detain patients against their will to other professions

Not true. Only certain doctors will be able to detain (as now) under the Mental Health Act. The Bill will, however, allow other professionals (only if they meet cartain competencies) to be the responsible clinician, allowing them to renew detention (subject to certain safeguards). This will allow people to move away from the medical model of psychiatry where everyone has to be under the care of a Consultant Psychiatrist, but, if approriate (and perhaps with a degree of patient choice) have a nurse, Occupational Therapist or Psychologist as their responsible clinician.

I think it is really good that the Government has to justify any proposals in the field of mental health law and that there is the widest possible degree of involvement and criticism from community groups and, yes, in some areas the Government needs to reflect and seek ways of improving the legislation.

However it is most unfortunate that some campaigners (no doubt with the very best of intnetions) are proceeding by means of half truth and exaggeration to raise fear and anxiety around the proposed legislation, making sensible criticism and debate almost impossible and seeking to create long term mistrust of mental health services which can only be harmful in the long run.

Declaring for Hain

Labour's Deputy Leadership election is now well and truly under way.

Having given deep thought as to who to support and of course consulting others (especially Louise) I have finally reached a view and will be voting for Peter Hain.

It's quite difficult to choose from a field of 6 candidates where many have different things to offer.

In the end however it was a combination of Peter's anti-apartheid work in the past, his work in Northern Ireland - including the introduvtion of the sexual orientaiton regulations ahead of the rest of the UK that made the difference. His manifesto speaks of a positive renewal for the Labour Party including trade unions and affiliated organisations and the need to broaden Labour's appeal so we can rebuild a movement around progressive ideals.

Here is Peter Hain's website. The link to his "manifesto" can be found here.

There's also an excellent site for Trade Unions affiliated to the Labour Party with pages dedciated to the Deputy Leadership elections here.

Freedom of Assembly

Reports from Moscow of public disturbance and the arrest of two Western MP's and of Peter Tatchell when trying to hand in a request for a Pride March to take place.

This is in clear breach of clear rulings form the European Court of Human Rights on the freedom of assembly and expression, important given that Russia is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Coverage can be seen:

On the BBC, Times (UK), New York Times.

Mental Health Bill

There continue to be a build of press stories attacking the Government's Mental Health Bill.

Meanwhile, the Mental Health Alliance which is in some disarray as 5 key organisations (UNISON, Amicus-CPNA, RCN, BAOT/COT and the British Psychological Society) representing a number of disciplines (Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Psychologists...) and a large majority of mental health professionals have suspended their membership over (see also here for the full press release) the Mental Health Alliance's failure to represent the diversity of opinion of its membership - especially on the issue of renewals of detention where a non-medical professional is the lead clinician involved in a patient's care.

Of course there are always two ways of looking at everything. My own view, though, is that not everything in mental health should be built on the medical model and that many service users could do really well with a nurse, OT or psychologist in charge of their care. There are of course no guarantees, but the chance for service users to develop strong working relationships with their clinicians and inclusing disciplines where the focus can be less on medicaiton and more on social and psychological aspects has to be something we should be supporting in a modern mental health service.

Also the Observer has printed my letter in response to this story which is very much slanted towards the Mental Health Alliance slant on things, though the story (actually heart rending reading) really seems more in support of the Government's plans (they also included a correction stating that Scotland wouldn't be covered by the Bill). There has been so much misinformation in the media exaggerating the impact of the bill in a quite irresponsible way that many people have a completely unrealistic view of what the Government is proposing. I really do start to worry about the impact that all of the MHA's campaigns will be having on scaring people away from seeking help form mental health services which would be a great diservice to people who may need help from mental health services. We all have a responsibility in this area.

The text of the letter is as follows:

We all feel for mentally ill people not receiving the care they need ('Did my sick husband have to die in jail?', News, last week). But I am far from sure that the conclusions this article seeks to draw - that the new Mental Health Bill for England and Wales would inevitably make things worse - were justified by the story.

First, this tragedy occurred in Scotland under legislation which opponents of the government's plans for south of the border hold up as a better guarantee of patients' rights and want to replicate.

Second, the article seems to imply that people who breach their community treatment order in England and Wales will be committed to prison. If true, this would be deeply alarming, but it isn't. Patients who are unwell can only be brought back to hospital.

The mental health campaigners trying to stop the government's bill are actually trying to hold up powers that may in some cases be necessary in keeping people safe while they are unwell.

Craig Nelson
Nottingham

The legislation has now completed its committee stage. There are still a number of issues the Government has said it is considering and the next stages are Report and Third Reading and then ping pong to see how many changes are accepted by the Lords where the Tories and Liberal Democrats are working together on the bill.

Again, there are many areas where the Mental Health Alliance is acting in a well inentioned way and on several areas I support their point of view. They just need to gain a little more balance and realise that in the area of mental health a certain amount of moderation and aherence to accuracy should be observed.