tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1016904785776950121.post2108453555914201508..comments2023-11-03T09:43:13.487+00:00Comments on Chris Hatton's blog: How very dare you!Chris Hattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299821560069281510noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1016904785776950121.post-30226647607274707092016-06-09T11:53:24.751+01:002016-06-09T11:53:24.751+01:00This is really useful John, thank you. It's th...This is really useful John, thank you. It's the closest I've got to understanding why I received so much negative energy (repeatedly) especially from one or two people who I asked to explain further, but left me more confused than ever. So thank you, for your interpretation and analysis.<br /><br />I wasn't intending to conflate the two issues (and apologise for doing so), and I did ask Dan what exactly Mencap had been doing with regards to their commitment to the concordat. I agree with you that it was a pointless document, little more than an opportunity for 51 organisations to get some PR for their intention to do something, that then turned into doing very little. There has been a lot of 'calling for' since then, and little positive change. <br /><br />At the risk of doing the same damage, so I tread here carefully, I do think Mencap should be providing safe and indeed outstanding services. The fact they they aren't (always safe and have yet to be deemed outstanding), especially in a post WV-era, while calling on the government to do X, Y and Z does trouble me. The unsafe service, Drummond Court, remained unsafe on re-inspection six months later too with CQC inspectors witnessing distressed residents. <br /><br />The quality of Mencap services, and their actions as a signatory of the concordat, are related in my mind at least. The observation from Chris about there never being a right time to engage in these debates with Mencap, is spot on, as is the observation that they fail to support other campaigns - just yesterday they remained entirely silent as a parliamentary debate took place into failings of governance at Southern Health, an organisation that has had a Mencap appointed governor throughout the period in question. <br /><br />I'm glad we can all agree on the final point though, and I look forward to the launch of LD England next week. Thanks again and onwards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1016904785776950121.post-87257274907627625062016-06-08T14:48:22.023+01:002016-06-08T14:48:22.023+01:00Thanks very much for this John. I was stumbling in...Thanks very much for this John. I was stumbling into this late and feel pretty sure I didn't catch all the aspects of it. Even when it comes to an individual, let alone a large organisation involving thousands of people, on the whole I find talking about a motivation for a set of actions tricky. My motivations aren't always clear to myself, are sometimes mixed/contradictory, and I've done some catastrophic things in the name of my good intentions at the time (that don't look the same in retrospect). So I'm in a weak position to make statements about an organisational intention (if you can even talk about such a thing), although I suspect the campaigning communications more closely reflect a central/senior strategy/'intention' than what people working in Mencap services do on a daily basis, which I don't get to see. <br /><br />I agree with you that people with learning disabilities taking up the cudgels (so to speak...) gives me the most hope - which is also why I need to shut up! <br /><br />Chris Hattonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05299821560069281510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1016904785776950121.post-33545523319905983252016-06-08T14:36:02.653+01:002016-06-08T14:36:02.653+01:00Thank you for sharing this. Wonder how common this...Thank you for sharing this. Wonder how common this sort of practise is across big service provider charities.Chris Hattonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05299821560069281510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1016904785776950121.post-56221953542272363042016-06-08T10:52:11.322+01:002016-06-08T10:52:11.322+01:00While I agree with a substantial part of this blog...While I agree with a substantial part of this blog, I do think there is a specific point in the interview that generated the heat and escalation of argument that followed. I don't think it has been articulated in the fall out.<br /><br />In the interview, George offers a number of valid criticisms of Mencap. The problem I feel is that George conflates criticisms of Mencap's involvement in the concordat with their actions as a service provider. This creates an aspersion on Mencap motivations rather than holding them to account for their concordat involvement. This is where the heat is generated. <br /><br />The implication (intended or unintended) is that because they are crap at service provision, their involvement in the concordat must be in bad faith. <br /><br />Now Mencap, as you point out Chris, is a big professional organisation working in a tough environment. There are many factors involved in creating good service delivery which involves multiples agencies, funding streams etc. Mencap don't deliver services in a vacuum. If good intentions produced good services then we would live in a much better world. In reality it is difficult especially with the austerity being experienced by public bodies.<br /><br />Yet many people experience good service from Mencap and meet a lot of good, well-intention people within the organisation. They don't view it as an organisation of bad faith. That they felt defensive about the implication of that conflation is understandable from my perspective. Equally people are very protective of the Justice for LB campaign.<br /><br />I do feel that the prism of Southern Health needs to be handled with caution when it comes to other service providers. That a service is found to need improvement or inadequate by the CQC does not mean that this is as a result of bad faith. The key thing is what occurs to make improvements when services do drop below good standards for whatever reason. The lesson with Southern Health is the continued failure to make improvements and the lack of aggregation by the CQC until it exploded into the public arena through the Justice for LB campaign. Delivering services isn't easy and problems will occur because these are services run and delivered by people. Its the response to those problems that we should judge organisations on.<br /><br />My regret from this fallout is that there was a lost opportunity to challenge Mencap on the concordat itself. It is very much a non-action document that commits to more studies and information gathering but very little in the way of tangible objectives (Mark Brown's Cold Rage blog addresses this non-action very well). I don't see how anyone can look at the concordat and think it would lead to significant change. When your man from Mencap stated that they signed to hold people to account, exactly what were they holding account to? That everyone got tea and biscuits at the meetings? <br /><br />I think that it is fair to challenge Mencap on their expectations for the concordat. I also think it is fair to challenge Mencap on their service delivery especially when things go wrong. Its the conflation in this interview that is problematic and generated the heat and fallout afterwards. <br /><br />I wholeheartedly endorse your last point Chris. Mencap is a voice but its model is being challenged by LD people themselves. Without getting all Bob Dylan, the spectrum of disability rights has expanded significantly and that gives me hope amid the good intentions and non-action. Lost Transporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09602234059318486287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1016904785776950121.post-64197264419367704772016-06-07T07:27:47.472+01:002016-06-07T07:27:47.472+01:00Small point that echoes one of yours about conflic...Small point that echoes one of yours about conflict of interest- a few years back I was involved in a local campaign to keep open a specialist autism unit that was part of a mainstream school. I approached two local LD charities, one of which was Mencap, to ask for their support. Both refused, with Mencap citing funding by the local authority as the reason why it refused (both charities were funded by the local authority). The unit was eventually closed, and autism services for children in the area got worse. The charities are still in existence and still being funded by the LA though.web teamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14416961820986830423noreply@blogger.com