Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[weepiper]

Lusty was using that piece to wind up 'Davey' on twatter a few weeks back.

it's amazing. Five paragraphs of that hoiking-up noise you make to work up a good mouthful as you gob on someone.

 

[8ball]

Look this is quite simple - ymu said that the author had defended himself from criticisms (presumably criticisms that it was an advocacy piece) by pointing out that it was simply a review piece, a review of the debates and positions from those professionally and academically concerned with the issue. Fine, i have no problem with that whatsoever, i merely pointed out that he appeared to only review one side of what he termed the debate, that his review is partial at best. You cannot do an adequate review of what you yourself term a debate by only reviewing the work of one side of that debate. I now have no idea - after reading his review piece if there is body of opinion that argues the opposite to those he talked to.

A different point: any discussion in the article that moves away from the specialists, any discussion of the people this effects and what they think and feel is framed in terms of mobs, in terms of ignorance and an attitude of leave it to us - which is precisely what lead to what happened in portsmouth and somerset a few years back.

I'm not sure which 'side' is which on this - the Telegraph article was more concerned with tone than content (implying their ides of the 'other side' of the debate was the side that abandons reason), but if the content is ropey (which it may well be), then isn't that the point of starting a debate, so it can be carried forward.

I thought the way a lot of people feel about abuse of this kind generally (if this is what you mean by the 'other side' was summed up quite succintly in this bit...

" Mccartan uses O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: the Radical Case in his teaching as "it shows how sex offenders justify themselves". Findlater says the notion that a seven-year-old can make an informed choice for consensual sex with an adult is "just preposterous. It is adults exploiting children." Goode says simply: "Children are not developmentally ready for adult sexuality," adding that it is "intrusive behaviour that violates the child's emerging self-identity" and can be similar in long-term impact to adults experiencing domestic violence or torture."

But I agree that in terms of space covered in the article there is more given to talk about the lack of research and consensus, and there's a good bit of anecdotal and speculative stuff.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

it's amazing. Five paragraphs of that hoiking-up noise you make to work up a good mouthful as you gob on someone.

Vile. Not the women of Paulsgrove.

 

[8ball]

David Aaronovitch in the Indie.

I think I've only seen him talk bollocks on the telly - is this par for the course for him?

 

[sihhi]

Yes and the newspaper did not apologise, the commenter did not apologise and it furthered in a very real way Blair's New Deal, the 'respect agenda', class-skewed parenting orders (but not jobs or money) for families:

A FULL WALLET DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE A SOFT HEAD

For some reason two beggars, Bill and Ben, have taken up residence on my high street. We've always had Big Issue sellers, but these two aren't doing anything. Nor are they alcoholics, as far as I can tell. They have all their limbs and they don't shout or mutter, or execute spectacular slumps on to the roadway. Bill is 30-ish and plump, with a blond pigtail, and Ben is in his early twenties, with his hair in short dreadlocks and his face set in a pleasant smile. And all morning long they sit in their allotted doorways and matter-of-factly request change or- if they spot a smoker- cigarettes. It's almost as though they were stallholders, selling the exercising of charitable impulses to passers-by. I rather resent them. The least one of them could do, if they really want my cash, is to contract some disfiguring illness. And, without going all Jack Straw about it, I can't see what they're doing there. Unemployment in the area is pretty low, and there are cards in lots of the shop windows looking for labour.
It could be that each of them is indeed suffering from some hidden affliction which forces them to beg, but my strong feeling is that they ought to be working. So if I've got any money to spare, then Bill and Ben are not getting it. Far better to give it to the Barnardos people, who - in their green tabards - have been laying mass siege to this area during the last three weeks. Bill and Ben would go mad over Gordon Brown. Yesterday the Chancellor strolled happily down the sunlit high street of the British economy, openly celebrating the achievement of the golden scenario: low inflation plus steady growth. As he did so, every school, hospital, local authority, public sector trade union leader and spending minister mentally declared this autumn to be one long flag day for their own good cause.
...
As it happens, the Chancellor's speech coincides with one of those cyclical debates that we have in Britain about poverty. Film crews and investigative journalists are jamming into the sink estates and failing schools of the nation, and sending us back terrible reports about how the excluded are getting on. Three weeks ago, for example, the BBC screened The Eyes of a Child, which took a series of terrible cases of deprivation, and then made the claim that "these children speak for five million others". The implication of the film was that some kind of massive redistribution was required, to bring those currently below the poverty line above it.
...
A bit extra would have helped, but there was never much danger of my family's being trapped in a cycle of blighted lives and low expectations. And that's because poverty is about far more than money. Although the definition of poverty is for a family to be living on less than half of average earnings, many of the children in The Eyes of a Child could have been in families earning more, and it would have made no difference. There were no dads, except criminal ones, and the mothers were sometimes feckless drug addicts whom you wouldn't have left in charge of a whippet, let alone 12 kids. Giving more money directly to the parents of these children would be simply to line the pockets of pushers, publicans and betting shops in Bradford and Leicester. I cannot have been the only one whose treacherous alter ego whispered "eugenics" into their mind's ear. Are the poor like that because they're poor? Or are they poor because they're like that?
I raise this because it's a reminder of the need to be clear about what public spending can do. Money targeted at schemes that aim to break the cycle of deprivation should be more of a priority than merely raising benefits, or ladling material support on to families that do not know how to cope.
...
I wouldn't, were I the Welsh Assembly, spend a penny more on agricultural subsidies or compensation to farmers who behave irrationally. Unless we take the conscious decision that we want theme-park farming in this country - as a sort of adjunct to the tourist industry - then money spent in this way will simply add to the problems of agriculture. Pay farmers to kill calves? What kind of madness is that? Nor would I just hand out large increases to everyone in the public sector. They don't all, as is often claimed, do a "fantastic job".

again and again:


BLAME THE RESIDENTS OF SIGHTHILL, NOT THEIR VICTIMS

Every now and again, almost like Victorians hunting the source of the Nile, we rediscover a part of our own country. Not on purpose, of course, but by highly publicised accident. These days it isn't an encounter between Dr Livingstone and Mr Stanley which focuses our attention on savage lands, but the murder of a Nigerian boy here, or a Kurdish immigrant there. Teams of reporters and politicians make tracks for the local vicars, no- good boyos and inspectors of police. What we have discovered, surely, is that asylum-seekers are not the problem. Sighthill is not a dump because of asylum-seekers and Burnley is not poor because of Pakistanis. Glasgow City Council may be wise to appoint a mediator to assist in reducing tensions in Sighthill, but the mediation that is needed is not between Scots and foreigners, but between the hopeless and the rest of us.

Sometimes when I write something like the above, a letter or an e-mail will arrive asking me whether, as an affluent journalist, I would be so bloody happy to have 1,200 asylum-seekers arrive in my area? This is always a misconceived question, because, first, the residents of Camden include far more asylum-seekers than that; and, second, it does nothing to challenge my real prejudices. I would far rather have 1,200 asylum-seekers than 1,200 residents of Sighthill. I could happily imagine a population exchange in which we swapped half a million Afghans, Kurds, Turks, Palestinians etc for every BNP voter, sending them off to the land of the Taliban. We would get all those women desperate for education, and they would get the violent, boastful boys and shell-suit hippos of Paulsgrove and Oldham, with their total resistance to the idea of being schooled.


This continued behaviour is at least as ugly as Burchill, several degrees worse than Suzanne Moore whose article included a throwaway stereotype (admittedly an unhelpful sexualised one) only about the body shape (not behaviour or habits) of a certain group of transsexuals, yet there's never been an apology or retraction.

The last sentence pretty clearly states women in Paulsgrove, Portsmouth are hippos (metaphor for fat - unable to control their diets- and lazy), BNP voters and resist all forms of education.

 

[weepiper]

what a cunt.

 

[butchersapron]

See also the sainted bell in the guardian at the same time:

 

[ymu]

Look this is quite simple - ymu said that the author had defended himself from criticisms (presumably criticisms that it was an advocacy piece) by pointing out that it was simply a review piece, a review of the debates and positions from those professionally and academically concerned with the issue. Fine, i have no problem with that whatsoever, i merely pointed out that he appeared to only review one side of what he termed the debate, that his review is partial at best. You cannot do an adequate review of what you yourself term a debate by only reviewing the work of one side of that debate. I now have no idea - after reading his review piece if there is body of opinion that argues the opposite to those he talked to.

A different point: any discussion in the article that moves away from the specialists, any discussion of the people this effects and what they think and feel is framed in terms of mobs, in terms of ignorance and an attitude of leave it to us - which is precisely what lead to what happened in portsmouth and somerset a few years back.

I think it was more poorly written than anything else. Like a cut'n'paste job without much linking argument. I think it did explore the issue from a variety of angles though and some stuff, eg Circles UK, is important and certainly at the forefront of thinking on how to deal with it.

It was poorly written though, for sure.

 

[articul8]

heir total resistance to the idea of being schooled.

ie. their incomprehensible failure to cough up school fees for a decent boarding school

 

[weepiper]

ie. their incomprehensible failure to cough up school fees for a decent boarding school

or their having figured out earlier than the rest of us that their life opportunities will be shite whether or not they go to school and learn to be good little employees

 

[DotCommunist]

aaronovitch has given me the mid afternoon rage.

 

[sihhi]

See also the sainted bell in the guardian at the same time:

I have a folder of pre-2003 stuff which I hunted to find Lezard stuff, it has a lot on the incidents and how the Guardian screwed up at the time.

The Guardian's article:

'Child abuser speaks out over mob fury: Vigilantes are driving offenders underground, warns Portsmouth paedophile on run for his life'

Children yesterday among the boarded-up doorways and paint slogans of the Paulsgrove estate, Portsmouth, where Victor Burnett used to live Photograph: Sean Smith

Victor Burnett is terrified. He does not expect sympathy for his predicament, nor forgiveness for his crimes. He does not expect people to understand why he was sexually attracted to boys as young as eleven - "I thought it was natural" - or how he managed to abuse so many without feeling the slightest remorse.
But as a serial paedophile, and the man at the centre of the "name and shame" furore in Portsmouth, he believes his voice must be heard before untold damage is done. In an interview with the Guardian, Burnett, 55, said the "mindless, stupid vigilantes" who had terrorised him out of his home were driving scores of paedophiles underground.

"When the police know where the offenders are there is some measure of control, but if they go underground, the authorities will never see or hear from them. Not until they offend again, that is. Paedophiles who disappear from one estate will turn up on another. To say the vigilantes are behaving like animals would be unfair to animals. What do they really hope to achieve? If they lynched me, what good would that do? This is the madness of the mob."

Burnett has been in hiding since last Friday, when the police escorted him out of his flat on the Paulsgrove estate, in north Portsmouth, hours before a demonstration which erupted into violence.
[The Guardian gets this wrong, he is removed after the demonstrations the previous night, early in the morning]

Since then, he has considered suicide. He believes he will be killed if the mob ever discovers his whereabouts.
"I've had death threat phone calls. One woman left a message saying 'I'm going to cut you up and give the bits to the kids . . . sex case, sex case, hang him, hang him'."
Although Burnett admits he was responsible for "terrible, terrible" abuses, he insists he has not reoffended since he was released from Maidstone prison six years ago and that, through extensive sexual therapy, he has "taught" himself not to be aroused by children.
Like many paedophiles, he was abused as a child. He was eight and the paedophile was a Franciscan monk who taught at his boarding school.
"I was a bit confused, but it didn't hurt and, to be honest, I ended up enjoying it. The relationship lasted for five years and I had sex with other boys as well, which also seemed natural. I thought it was quite normal. For me, it was always boys, never girls."
He added: "As I went through puberty and adolescence, my body changed but my taste in boys did not. I grew up, but my sexual preference stayed the same."
Burnett has spent 14 and a half years in jail for sex offences since he was 16, and admits he has abused up to 40 children, aged between 11 and 15. Electric shock treatment did not stop him from offending. "I also took a course of women's hormones. All that does is make your breasts grow and increase your sexual frustration.
"Nothing worked. At the time nobody could have have convinced me I was doing wrong. I thought, they are enjoying it and I am enjoying it, so how can that be wrong? I didn't think of the children as sex objects, I thought of them as friends. And if a child didn't want to have sex, I would stop. I wanted them to enjoy themselves, not have a bad experience."
Burnett says he did not find his victims by "hanging round parks, public toilets or public swimming pools". His modus operandi was, he concedes, in many ways worse. "All the children I was involved with were friends of people I knew. Getting to know a boy could take months, it could take years. If a boy didn't want to do have sex, I wouldn't force him. I wasn't violent, good God, no."
It took two and a half years of sex therapy with a psychiatrist at Maidstone prison in the early 1990s to make Burnett realise the harm he was doing. "She made me write down every sexual experience I had ever had, from the first to the last. I was made to remember horrible experiences that I had had as a child. Then she took me through all the things I had done to children. I began to realise the impact I had had on those kids. One still looks, but in the past I used to think, yes, I'd like to. But not now. I don't see children as sex objects. I see them as vulnerable children. After I had been shown the pain I had caused, I began to understand what I was doing was wrong. When I see children now I do not get aroused. I think how the hell could I put a kid through that again? Being a paedophile is not a weakness, it is part of you, it's always there. I have been teaching myself to go with older people. You have to programme yourself to say no. I will always be a gay man. But as far as the underage sex is concerned, I now know it's wrong. When the News of the World said I was on the verge of reoffending, they were talking rubbish. There have been no boys since I left prison. I have been clean."
Burnett has met two of his victims in recent years. One rang him and asked: "Do you remember me?"
"He said the word chimney, which is one I had taught him. He asked to meet me outside a pub in Middlesex. It was an emotional experience. I wondered if he would get violent, but he didn't. He said 'if you promise never to do it again, I will remain friends with you'. This man is still seeing a psychiatrist and is on medication. His wife doesn't know he came to see me. I don't know if she knows anything about me. I feel very, very guilty. I said to myself, 'look what you have done'."
Burnett thinks the News of the World should be prosecuted for inciting violence. He blames the newspaper for the suicide of two alleged paedophiles, and for ruining what chance he had of breaking away from the past.

The News of the World article (probably embellished but with the essential truth that the Guardian did not point out) in response to the Guardian's interview, interviewing instead a mother from Paulsgrove:

"Burnett told our boys he moved down from London when his marriage broke up and that he missed his kids. Now we know the truth I've been physically sick with thoughts of what he could have done." Former taxi driver Burnett, 55, who this week spoke out against our campaign in The Guardian, has spent 14 years in jail for sex offences. But when he moved to Paulsgrove local parents were kept in the dark about his past, leaving him free to forge new friendships with youngsters. Carole said: "After it came out he was a paedophile, one of my sons told me Burnett put on porn movie in front of them and showed them a sex toy. He told my eldest he was getting pictures of children from a friend and asked if he wanted some."

I remember searching at the time and not finding a single proper interview with a Paulsgrove resident in the Guardian until Dave Hill returned there to do an 'update' piece in 2001.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Posthumous or a typo?

wikipedia.

 

[el-ahrairah]

aaronovitch

 

[TruXta]

Urinovitch.

 

[DotCommunist]

I believe the phrase 'whey faced harridans' made its first appearance on here during that time

 

[Balbi]

Ah, halogen days.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

Life seemed so much simpler back then. The working class were low-brow scum and nice liberal commentators said so. These days you just don't know where you stand. Obviously, you're still scum...but in so many different multi-layered, interconnecting ways. In fact, you're scum piled on scum bubbling on top of a cauldron of steaming scum. Such are the joys of intersectionality combined with the new-style hyper-condescension wrought by self righteous adolescents who've gone straight from public schools, via Oxbridge to major media platforms.

 

[Favelado]

Reminds me of the comment pieces at the time. Was this ever 'apologised' for?

WHY I AM SO SCARED OF PAULSGROVE WOMAN: THERE ON TV WERE THE MUMS (NO DADS), SHOULDERS TATTOOED, FACES STUDDED. NEVER HAS THE SOCIAL DIVIDE SEEMED SO WIDE
That's Britain for you. Across the channel they got the French Revolution, liberte, egalite, fraternite (and a bit of head-chopping), and all we got were the Gordon Riots and mobs stoning Catholics. So when working-class women and their children take to Portsmouth's streets, it isn't in support of the NHS, or to demand better nurseries, but out of a desire to hang, burn or castrate some of their neighbours. This depressing failure of the proletariat to perform their historical task is slightly reminiscent of those days in 1968, when dockers and meat-porters marched - not for socialism or against the Vietnam war - but in support of Enoch Powell.
Watching Paulsgrove Woman at work over the last few days has re-emphasised for me how scared I am of a certain part of our society - as terrified, certainly, as ever the Victorian bourgeoisie were of the poor of Seven Dials. There on TV were the mums (no dads), faces studded, shoulders tattooed, too-small pink singlets worn over shell-suit bottoms, pallid faces under peroxided hair telling tales of a diet of hamburgers, cigarettes and pesticides.
And they'd taught their three-year-old kids (on whose behalf all this was supposedly being done) to chant slogans about hanging and killing. Paulsgrove Woman, I felt, was of an alien race to me. No wonder the BBC employed anthropologists with cut-glass accents to interpret these people for the sake of bemused viewers. Never has the social divide seemed so wide. And they were having fun. The glee with which two young women hurled telephonic abuse at a supposed offender put me in mind of the smiling faces you see in lynching photographs from the Old South. It's an evil pleasure, this - especially when there's very little interest in guaranteeing that the next victim is actually guilty of the (very general) offence with which they are charged. The sentiment exposed by one mother of three (where was her husband?) said it all. "I'd like to see 'em all castrated," she told the camera, "And I don't mean chemically." In other words, the enjoyment to be had from the offender's suffering was every bit as important as the objective of preventing reoffending. If not more. I was reminded of the scene in Zola's Germinal when the capitalist's genitals were ripped off by the mob.
Nevertheless the Paulsgrove phenomenon is interesting, if only because it involves one of the least listened to and inarticulate sections of society. I hear the atavistic hatred in the shrill voices, but I hear other things as well. Many of these women have cause to feel dumped on. Almost all paedophiles are men; a significant number of the women are single mothers, some of whom have been mistreated or abandoned by men. They're used to feeling like the bottom of the social heap. Yet here are blokes living among them whom even they can despise, and on behalf of the one thing that does belong to them: their children. A telling comment from one interview was that drug-dealing had now become part of the scenery in Paulsgrove, but that paedophilia never would be; they may have failed in every other way to protect their families, but not in this.
If the women of Paulsgrove have lumped together the guilty with the innocent, they have only behaved in the same way as, and using similar language to, that of the popular chat-shows and newspaper columnists. This is not a discriminating age, interested in the tedious adumbration of fact. And for one brief moment - emphasised by their involvement yesterday in "negotiations" - they have been empowered, even if only to smash windows, terrify neighbours and alarm the police. They have also, whether they know it or not, been shown an unusual degree of leniency by the law. Those leading the campaign, which has involved car-burnings, assaults and threats to the local MP, should, if possible, be prosecuted and punished. Pour decourager les autres, as they don't say in Paulsgrove.

Disgusting.

 

[sihhi]

Disgusting.

I still don't get - 12 years on - the pesticides remark.

Is it that women on council estates eat fruit with high pesticide content because organic is too expensive?
Or is it that they are so lazy and depressed they often engage in suicide attempts with pesticide?
Or some reference to drugs I don't understand?

There on TV were the mums (no dads), faces studded, shoulders tattooed, too-small pink singlets worn over shell-suit bottoms, pallid faces under peroxided hair telling tales of a diet of hamburgers, cigarettes and pesticides.

 

[Favelado]

I still don't get - 12 years on - the pesticides remark.

Is it that women on council estates eat fruit with high pesticide content because organic is too expensive?

I think it's this.

 

[sihhi]

I think it's this.

Yes, but that would suggest the women were eating massive amounts of non-organic fresh fruit and veg (the highest in pesticide content), and that would go against "a diet of hamburgers" since hamburgers don't contain pesticides - they might contain other chemicals but no pesticides.

 

[love detective]

you shouldn't expect bigotry to be rational sihhi

 

[DotCommunist]

shit like that makes you realise that the indy/graun/fabian set essentially view the w/c as some tameable but alien force. Like they overdosed on Matty Arnold and came out the other side

 

[weepiper]

They don't get a veg box delivered. The horror!

 

[equationgirl]

They don't get a veg box delivered. The horror!

Have you seen the price of veg boxes? There's no tatties in them due to the tattie crop shortage this year!

Colleague at work gets one every week.

 

[sihhi]

you shouldn't expect bigotry to be rational sihhi

Aaronovitch is against bigotry in all its forms. This was in 2002 when he was discussed as a replacement for the daily Radio 2 discussion and comment show (Jeremy Vine, fee-paying Epsom College along with his brother, got the job).

This is a clear difficulty for me - an opinionated columnist with a view about everything. As one newspaper put it: "Would the BBC let someone broadly aligned with Blairism be a key interviewer during elections and the euro referendum?" However, I never found that impartiality proved to be a problem when I worked at the BBC before. No one has no views. What you can sometimes get, when reading listeners' comments, is a slight generational difference.

Then there is the current prejudice that writers may not broadcast, nor broadcasters write. At least, not well. Sometimes this is true, but more often this is professional jealousy. On radio, at any rate, I think I am a decent broadcaster with an acceptable voice. And - on my day - I can be better than good. So when Matthew Bannister, the former BBC head of radio, writes in The Times that Young's "successor (has) the formidable challenge of replacing a true broadcasting institution", I feel I can do this. Not by ditching the Young format, but by evolving it.

So why won't it happen? Because I am too highbrow. I am a pointy-head. I cannot commune with the common weal. My natural habitat is the Oxford common room, the minimalist kitchen or the Tuscan farmhouse. This, at least, is how I interpret the words of a "Radio 2 insider" who said (with reference to me) that the station "must reach out to Hampshire, not just Hampstead". How else may we deconstruct this (as they say in Hampshire)? That I will ask the legal beagle about conveyancing only for homes worth over a million? Or the food expert about how to feed a dinner party of visiting Tibetan lamas?

I doubt that my little problem really is geographical, seeing that Hampstead is now apparently home to those famous highbrows Richard and Judy, Baby and Sporty Spice and Jamie Oliver. No, this isn't about where I live, but who I write for. It is about the tabloid-broadsheet divide, the division whose existence is hedged around by more pernicious snobbery, reverse snobbery and unthinking assumptions than just about anything else in Britain. You read a small paper, you have a small mind. You read a big paper, you are a bighead. You no longer need to open your mouth to be classified in Britain, you only have to sit on the train and read. Never mind that the banker next door has been watching the darts on BBC2.

Actually, that pointy-heads watch EastEnders is no longer a surprise. We are happy to have cultural critics witter on about Big Brother. But it's the implied insult to the others that is more reprehensible. What about the reverse phenomenon? Who are the millions who watch The Way We Live Now, Vanity Fair, Armadillo or Mr Micawber? Are they all opera critics, professors of Sanskrit and stage designers at experimental theatres? Who buys the books that win the prizes? Hampshire not Hampstead, that's who.

Note that his opinions weren't a problem at all in the BBC when he did work there in the 1990s.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

I still don't get - 12 years on - the pesticides remark.

Is it that women on council estates eat fruit with high pesticide content because organic is too expensive?
Or is it that they are so lazy and depressed they often engage in suicide attempts with pesticide?
Or some reference to drugs I don't understand?

There on TV were the mums (no dads), faces studded, shoulders tattooed, too-small pink singlets worn over shell-suit bottoms, pallid faces under peroxided hair telling tales of a diet of hamburgers, cigarettes and pesticides.

I think it's the organic thing, plus "hamburgers" has the dual purpose of demonstrating a reliance on fast food which offends against the more authentic and wholesome "sitting down to a family meal" and middle-class revulsion at American culture. I think 'cigarettes' speaks for itself while the tattoo-piercing-tawdry clothing-pallid complexion has an age old pedigree dating at least to the time some urbane roman consul stood on Hadrian's wall and wrote a scathing epistle to his good friend Biggus Dickus describing the depravities of the painted barbarian hordes. This piece exemplifies a condescending bourgeois trope which has been with us since the dawn of time.

 

[rekil]

Not exactly in a position to sneer at anyone's appearance is he?



Oxbridge opinionmonger man - 80's hair, wheezing unshaven faces pocked with booze broken capillaries, transmogrifying Manningchins, teenager clobber, zip busting bulging guts and manbags brimming with screeds and twattery.

 

[Blagsta]

I would've thought it is entirely appropriate to try to understand better the nature of what those instances might have in common, and how it relates (or doesn't) to normal adult sexuality

Problem is, that article doesn't look at the research which shows the massive damage caused by child sexual abuse. The depression, psychosis, personality disorder, substance misuse, self harm, suicide etc.