Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

[existentialist]

I know that it's not a panacea, I know it was never designed to be a one-size-fits-all, and I know that it was primarily designed to be used alongside some form of pharmaceutical therapy, not as a standalone.

The most dangerous thing about CBT - and I should say that, done well, for a particular range of issues, CBT can be amazing - is the rather slavish assumption made by non-practitioners who assume that because it claims measurable outcomes, it must therefore be the best thing all round.

People make the mistake of equating "measurable" with "guaranteed", and a tendency can develop to assume that someone who doesn't make progress in CBT (only because CBT happens to measure that progress) is somehow not trying hard enough/doesn't have their heart in it.

I tend to regard CBT approaches as a quite useful way of getting a certain kind of client (often the "overthinkers") out from under their symptoms, and functioning well enough to engage in a more in-depth therapeutic approach. Where I think CBT falls down in never really going back to the underlying stuff to see why the problem occurred in the first place, and it's not unusual to see patients/clients treated with CBT coming back for, effectively, a bit of a "top up".

 

[Contrarian]

Hi, just wanted to thank everyone for contributing their thoughts to this post. I've noticed a few psy-professionals tweeting about this thread on Twitter and I'm hoping it will gain even more attention.

Here is an open letter from the Mental Health Resistance Network (mentalhealthresistancenetwork@gmail.com). I'm not linked to them, but thought it might be a useful template for anyone to use if you want to express some of your worries to any services you use to find out their position on co-location of IAPT in job centres.



MARCH ON STREATHAM JOB CENTRE – FRIDAY 26TH JUNE, 1.30 pm

MEETING POINT: STREATHAM MEMORIAL GARDENS, STREATHAM HIGH ROAD/ STREATHAM COMMON NORTH, LONDON SW16

STREATHAM JOB CENTRE PLUS: CROWN HOUSE, STATION APPROACH, LONDON SW16 6HW


* A pilot project to bring CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) into Job Centres starts at Streatham Job Centre Plus in June 2015.

* In the same month, Lambeth “Living Well Hub” for Community Mental Health Services is due to open in the same building.

*Mental Health Resistance Network is unhappy with these developments which are part of the government’s brutal “back to work” agenda.

*Mental Health Resistance Network has called a demonstration which will march on Streatham Job Centre on Friday 26th June.

*Mental Health Resistance Network is circulating an open letter to relevant individuals, charities and professional organisations stating our position and asking them to join us in our condemnation for these developments.


Mental Health Resistance Network is organising a demonstration to take place at Streatham Job Centre Plus on Friday 26th June 2015, protesting against the opening there of Lambeth’s principal community mental health centre (“Living Well Network Hub”) the following Monday.


Streatham Job Centre also, from June 2015, hosts the first pilot of the DWP’s scheme to provide psychological therapies – specifically Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) – at Job Centres for people suspected of having mental health problems. This is the first of ten pilot schemes in advance of a national project planned to begin in January 2016.


We are calling on you/ your organisation to state your position on these issues, and we hope join us in our condemnation of these developments.


As mental health service users, we are extremely unhappy with these developments. We deplore the government’s brutal “back to work” agenda, which is a front for cutting disabled welfare benefits for the most vulnerable. Mental health service users are understandably terrified of Job Centres and the threat of losing their benefits through Sanctions, or degrading and unfit-for-purpose Work Capability Assessments. With the main point of access to Community Mental Health services in Lambeth on the 3rd floor of a Job Centre, many of us will feel too frightened to ask for the help and services we need, and lose contact with services altogether.

Mental health service users are already reporting higher levels of fear, anxiety and anguish as a result of the increasingly difficult welfare benefits system, which is linked to an increasing rate of suicides. This situation will be exacerbated by the new developments.


We should not be put under pressure to look for work unless we feel capable. The competitive, profit-driven and exploitative nature of the modern workplace is not suitable for people whose mental health is fragile. But the location of the Network Hub at Streatham Job Centre put us under such pressure if we try to use mental health services.


Experts agree that CBT does not work for everyone; that psychological therapies are ineffective if they are forced on people; and that they need to take place in safe, unthreatening environments. We do not think making people have CBT at Job Centres will make anyone magically “fit for work.” We are concerned that people will be Sanctioned (i.e. have their benefits stopped) if they do not co-operate with this “therapy” either out of principle or because they are not well enough. “BACK TO WORK THERAPY” IS NO THERAPY AT ALL!


Additionally, we are concerned that this amounts to an extension of the coercive powers of the 1983 Mental Health Act amended 2007. Whereas at present people can only be forced into “treatment” under in-patient Sections of this Act or by Community Treatment Orders, making welfare benefits and by extension housing conditional on agreeing to psychological treatment broadens the principle of compulsion.


We condemn the involvement of IAPT in this attempt to make people undergo “therapy” at Job Centres, which we believe goes against professional ethics. We are also unhappy that psychiatrists, occupational therapists, nurses, social workers and other mental health professionals are also expected to work at Streatham Job Centre, again compromising their professional ethics, and we call on individual staff and collective agencies representing them to publicly oppose this development.


For more information contact:

mentalhealthresistancenetwork@gmail.com

 

[Contrarian]

The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) have released a statement about therapy in job centres:

http://www.bacp.co.uk/media/index.php?newsId=3742
Counselling & Psychotherapy: the Importance of Choice
17th June, 2015
Over the last week or so there have been several media reports about the use of therapy in job centres. A number of our members, and other mental health professionals, have raised their concerns about these reports.

Andrew Reeves, Chair of BACP, responds:

“At BACP, we oppose the mandatory use of psychological therapies in the delivery of workfare programmes that link unemployment to psychological deficit. Ethically, counselling and psychotherapy shouldn’t be imposed upon anyone, but must remain a choice which is freely entered into - we wouldn’t support anything else. Benefit claimants shouldn’t be expected to have therapy under the threat of their benefits being stopped - it is unethical and potentially harmful.

“There are, of course, people out of work experiencing mental health difficulties who would benefit from psychological intervention. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that nearly half of all people claiming disability benefit are doing so because they have a mental illness rather than a physical condition. These individuals should be offered the choice of receiving psychological support to help them make effective change or enhance their wellbeing.

“Counselling and psychotherapy are services sought by clients to help them resolve emotional, psychological and relationship issues. These services are offered within a context of confidentiality and clear ethical boundaries using evidence-based interventions to foster long-term recovery, increased resilience and wellbeing. Practising counsellors and psychotherapists should have appropriate training, work to an ethical framework, be supported through supervision and be committed to high standards of practice.”

 

[existentialist]

Spot on, BACP.

 

[PhobosandDeimos]

.
Obviously the dwp's standard 'Do this or starve' abuse means that there is no *Consent* for any of this.

The IAPT are using 'people' who are not regulated by the gmc, nmc or even the hpc -
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/269935/response/664396/attach/html/2/FoI 2137 reply.pdf.html

This is not 'therapy', it is 'Information Retrieval' - http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/silo/files/data-set-v15.pdf
The only part of words like CONsent and CONfidential that these unqualified, unregulated, pseudoscience, 'information rapist' quacks understand is the first syllable. (yes, I have been there... and none of those nhs sickos are in prison yet.. yet)

Can the BACP do anything, anything at all, that it says on their tin?-
http://www.babcp.com/files/About/BABCP-Standards-of-Conduct-Performance-and-Ethics.pdf

I'll just suggest that people search for things like... Human Rights - Right to a Private Life ... Fraud Act .... Blackmail ... Computer Misuse Act.... Data Protection Act (Section 10).... Misconduct in Public Office ... Vulnerable Adult Abuse ...
I could go on.. and on
.

There's more info on what free porn the iapt is supplying to the NHS Jimmy Savile Fan Club here - Tho from what I've seen so far it will also include very detailed, untruthful accounts of all of their 'sessions' too.
http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/data/
.

 

[Contrarian]

The British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC) have also now released a statement about therapy in job centres:

Forcing people to have therapy is highly unethical
"Recent weeks have seen a growing chorus of concern and disapproval over a government proposal to locate psychological therapy services in job centres.

At the heart of this concern, lies a belief that the government is effectively rebranding unemployment as a psychological disorder and a fear that unemployed people will be forced to have therapy.

An open letter by the Mental Health Resistance Network states that Streatham Job Centre will shortly host the first pilot of a DWP scheme to provide psychological therapies at Job Centres for people suspected of having mental health problems.

From the point of view of the British Psychoanalytic Council, patient autonomy is one of the fundamental cornerstones of treatment and mandating people to have psychotherapy and counselling is unethical.

The last time we heard similar concerns being raised – July last year – we wrote to then Care Minister Norman Lamb MP. He wrote back, reassuring us that patients would never receive mandated therapy.

There has, of course, been an election since then and July last year seems like a very long time ago. We also note that the 2015 Conservative manifesto stated that claimants who “refuse a recommended treatment” could have their benefits reduced.

We will therefore be writing to the new government immediately to seek clarity and reassurance on these matters and will report back once we have received a reply."

Helen Morgan, Chair Elect of the British Psychoanalytic Council & Gary Fereday, Chief Executive of the British Psychoanalytic Council.

Date:
Saturday, 20 June, 2015 - 17:24

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Done properly I wouldnt have a problem with mental health support in job centres and some other places. This isnt about doing things properly, though the good potential could be useful cover. This is just scumfuckery of a kind we are too familiar with.

Those responsible would also benefit from mental health for their sociopathic social darwinism.

 

[existentialist]

.
Obviously the dwp's standard 'Do this or starve' abuse means that there is no *Consent* for any of this.

The IAPT are using 'people' who are not regulated by the gmc, nmc or even the hpc -
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/269935/response/664396/attach/html/2/FoI 2137 reply.pdf.html

To be fair, counsellors accredited by BACP (or any of the other professional bodies) are not regulated by any of those - we successfully fought off an attempt to put us under HPC regulation because a lot of the terms and conditions we'd have had to sign up to were completely alien to counselling ethics.

This is not 'therapy', it is 'Information Retrieval' - http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/silo/files/data-set-v15.pdf
The only part of words like CONsent and CONfidential that these unqualified, unregulated, pseudoscience, 'information rapist' quacks understand is the first syllable. (yes, I have been there... and none of those nhs sickos are in prison yet.. yet)

Which quacks are we talking about here? IAPT?

Can the BACP do anything, anything at all, that it says on their tin?-
http://www.babcp.com/files/About/BABCP-Standards-of-Conduct-Performance-and-Ethics.pdf

That's the BABCP code of ethics - BACP's is here: http://www.bacp.co.uk/ethical_framework/

Safe to say, though, that there isn't a reputable professional body in the country which would approve of its members working with people who had been forced to be there.

There's more info on what free porn the iapt is supplying to the NHS Jimmy Savile Fan Club here - Tho from what I've seen so far it will also include very detailed, untruthful accounts of all of their 'sessions' too.
http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/data/
.

Certainly, if even a tenth of the data they talk about collecting were to be shared, even though from my reading of the Data Standard, it should only be within the NHS, then there is scope for quite a lot of material to be floating around.

Should this nightmare come to pass, it's worth noting that the IAPT guidelines do mention - in passing - that it is the patient's right to refuse to allow their information to be shared. It would be interesting to see what DWP made of a claimant attending their mandatory therapy, but refusing to permit data to be shared.

I suspect that, if this idea does go through, there will be quite a few court cases to test the limits of confidentiality, and that - ultimately - the claimant's right to confidentiality reigns supreme. This will be something the big professional counselling bodies will be watching very carefully, because any undermining of a client's right to confidentiality has significant ramifications for the profession.

 

[CH1]

As a matter of interest http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/silo/files/data-set-v15.pdf as cited above is partly related to "outcome payments".

Last time I came across this was when DWP (or Department of Employment as it then was) switched job training schemes to "outcome related funding".

The effect of this was to construct a vast monitoring bureaucracy and turn job training into a much quicker shallower process where people got slotted into jobs - and the training body then claimed their fee whether or not that was appropriate.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As a matter of interest http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/silo/files/data-set-v15.pdf as cited above is partly related to "outcome payments".

Last time I came across this was when DWP (or Department of Employment as it then was) switched job training schemes to "outcome related funding".

The effect of this was to construct a vast monitoring bureaucracy and turn job training into a much quicker shallower process where people got slotted into jobs - and the training body then claimed their fee whether or not that was appropriate.

Would that be "outcome payments"/"outcome-related funding", AKA "payment by results"?
The National Audit Office just published a damning audit of "payment by results" programmes, pointing out how companies tend to play the system as above.

 

[CH1]

Would that be "outcome payments"/"outcome-related funding", AKA "payment by results"?
The National Audit Office just published a damning audit of "payment by results" programmes, pointing out how companies tend to play the system as above.

Dunno - but the Training for Work programme in the 1990s had auditors checking out the results. At that time a "start" got £400 (taking someone on the programme) and a job got £4,000 - and they still had to be working in that job 6 months later I think.

I guess there might be a similar system for CBT.
£100 for a referral, £1000 for a positive outcome sort of thing.

Since they seem to be denying there is a direct link between therapy and job seeking the positive outcomes would be tentative - and how do they account for relapse. Maybe they don't - people just go round the system several times?

 

[PhobosandDeimos]

To be fair, counsellors accredited by BACP (or any of the other professional bodies) are not regulated by any of those - we successfully fought off an attempt to put us under HPC regulation because a lot of the terms and conditions we'd have had to sign up to were completely alien to counselling ethics.

Do you mean something like the HPC doesn't really like people who promote pseudoscience quackery like homeopaty or emdr?

Which quacks are we talking about here? IAPT?

The IAPT and the quacks that they are using to fraudulently steal peoples Private Lives for publication on internet based nhs records systems where it is all freely available and instantly accessible to a large proportion of their own workforce and many other public organisations.. Like the police, local councils, chc, ombudsman, universities, researchers.....
Go on, try telling me that isn't happening...

Safe to say, though, that there isn't a reputable professional body in the country which would approve of its members working with people who had been forced to be there.

Hot air blowing and crocodile tears.
Doctor and Nurse groups whine about their Atos/WCA criminal frauds... and do nothing (willful neglect of their public duty).

Certainly, if even a tenth of the data they talk about collecting were to be shared, even though from my reading of the Data Standard, it should only be within the NHS, then there is scope for quite a lot of material to be floating around.

Confidential -
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/confidential
Human Rights Act 1998 (Right to a Private Life)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
Misconduct in Public Office - (up to life in prison)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/
Fraud Act 2006 -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents
Data Protection Act - Section 10
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents
The Computer Misuse Act –
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents
Maybe the Mental Capacity Act - Ill Treatment or Neglect
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/section/44

If they try forcing those ******* on me I'll be calling the police.

Should this nightmare come to pass, it's worth noting that the IAPT guidelines do mention - in passing - that it is the patient's right to refuse to allow their information to be shared. It would be interesting to see what DWP made of a claimant attending their mandatory therapy, but refusing to permit data to be shared.

They'll just lie about putting a block on the information they have stolen. nhs criminals have already done that to me.

I suspect that, if this idea does go through, there will be quite a few court cases to test the limits of confidentiality, and that - ultimately - the claimant's right to confidentiality reigns supreme. This will be something the big professional counselling bodies will be watching very carefully, because any undermining of a client's right to confidentiality has significant ramifications for the profession.

The ony thing new about this is the dwp bit. the nhs has been using fake 'therapy' to steal and publish peoples private lives for years... (free porn for the Jimmy Savile Fan Club)
"court cases" LOL... try finding a lawyer willing to do anything but ambulance chase for insurance cash.
And so far the 'police' here certainly don't want to have to give up their free porn.

Data Protection Act - Exemptions -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/36
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/29
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/35
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/32

Don't forget to say 'Hi' for youTube

 

[Contrarian]

The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) have also now released a statement about therapy in job centres:
http://www.ukcp.org.uk/news/people-must-not-be-forced-into-therapy

People must not be forced into therapy
UKCP is concerned about recent reports in the media on the use of psychological therapies in job centres.

Entering counselling or psychotherapy because you fear your benefits will be cut is not what therapy is about. To link either being unemployed, poor or disabled with a psychological deficit is inappropriate, unethical and deeply concerning to our profession. Therapists involved in such work may wish to bear the ethical dimensions in mind.

Should people who are depressed or have other mental health issues be offered the chance of therapy? Of course they should – and as wide a range of approaches as possible. Should they be coerced into therapy in order to cut the welfare bill? No, they should not.

People seek therapy to help them resolve emotional and relational difficulties not because they are being forced into it because they are on benefits.

We understand that some people may benefit from being offered therapy whether they are employed or out of work. But imposing it in this way is a badly thought out approach. UKCP urges the government to rethink.

 

[Contrarian]

From p. 28 of Tory manifesto
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf

 

[equationgirl]

Do you mean something like the HPC doesn't really like people who promote pseudoscience quackery like homeopaty or emdr?


The IAPT and the quacks that they are using to fraudulently steal peoples Private Lives for publication on internet based nhs records systems where it is all freely available and instantly accessible to a large proportion of their own workforce and many other public organisations.. Like the police, local councils, chc, ombudsman, universities, researchers.....
Go on, try telling me that isn't happening...


Hot air blowing and crocodile tears.
Doctor and Nurse groups whine about their Atos/WCA criminal frauds... and do nothing (willful neglect of their public duty).


Confidential -
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/confidential
Human Rights Act 1998 (Right to a Private Life)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
Misconduct in Public Office - (up to life in prison)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/
Fraud Act 2006 -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents
Data Protection Act - Section 10
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents
The Computer Misuse Act –
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents
Maybe the Mental Capacity Act - Ill Treatment or Neglect
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/section/44

If they try forcing those ******* on me I'll be calling the police.


They'll just lie about putting a block on the information they have stolen. nhs criminals have already done that to me.


The ony thing new about this is the dwp bit. the nhs has been using fake 'therapy' to steal and publish peoples private lives for years... (free porn for the Jimmy Savile Fan Club)
"court cases" LOL... try finding a lawyer willing to do anything but ambulance chase for insurance cash.
And so far the 'police' here certainly don't want to have to give up their free porn.

Data Protection Act - Exemptions -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/36
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/29
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/35
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/32

Don't forget to say 'Hi' for youTube

Please provide evidence for your allegations. They are currently unsubstantiated.

 

[tufty79]

pseudoscience quackery like.. emdr?

Really?

 

[CH1]

From p. 28 of Tory manifesto
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf

Thank you for posting this - incredibly I hadn't read the Tory manifesto - just relying on the comentary from Andrew Neil etc.
I am intrigued by the "roll-out" of Fit for Work http://fitforwork.org/about/
Any ideas who that affects and what it does. I note that in England it is run by a private company whereas in Scotland it will be a government agency.

 

[existentialist]

The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) have also now released a statement about therapy in job centres:
http://www.ukcp.org.uk/news/people-must-not-be-forced-into-therapy

People must not be forced into therapy
UKCP is concerned about recent reports in the media on the use of psychological therapies in job centres.

Entering counselling or psychotherapy because you fear your benefits will be cut is not what therapy is about. To link either being unemployed, poor or disabled with a psychological deficit is inappropriate, unethical and deeply concerning to our profession. Therapists involved in such work may wish to bear the ethical dimensions in mind.

Should people who are depressed or have other mental health issues be offered the chance of therapy? Of course they should – and as wide a range of approaches as possible. Should they be coerced into therapy in order to cut the welfare bill? No, they should not.

People seek therapy to help them resolve emotional and relational difficulties not because they are being forced into it because they are on benefits.

We understand that some people may benefit from being offered therapy whether they are employed or out of work. But imposing it in this way is a badly thought out approach. UKCP urges the government to rethink.

That's pretty much every professional counselling body on public record as being completely opposed to this plan.

How could the Government even contemplate going ahead with it, when the representatives of those who surely must know best have all made it clear it's wrong?

Of course, they will anyway.

 

[PhobosandDeimos]

.
equationgirl - "Please provide evidence for your allegations. They are currently unsubstantiated."

I already posted a link to the OED definition of the word "confidential"

I already posted links to some offences.

I already posted a link to what the iapt is up to - http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/data/
Aiding or Abetting – Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 –
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/94/crossheading/as-to-abettors-in-misdemeanors
Serious Crime Act 2007 – Part 2 – Encouraging or Assisting Crime –
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2

I would NOT recommend that 'therapy' victims watch this video!!
When I found it I collapsed and threw up -
http://www.salestorquevideos.co.uk/civica/Cardiff_Connected_Care/Connected_Care.html
P.A.R.I.S -- Perverts Are Reading It Secretly

http://www.stonegroup.co.uk/why-sto...and-vale-health-board-go-flexible-with-stone/
"deployed the PARIS Electronic Patient Record system to over 4000 staff"
That's about 30% of their entire workforce.
(passwords on post-it notes and written on the bottom of laptops)

Loads more "evidence", including all the criminal abuse I recorded / scanned, and links. But all of that is not free porn for forum trolls.

------------------------------------------------

tufty79 - "Really?"

Yes REALLY. - https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/emdr-and-acupuncture-selling-non-specific-effects/

Or are you going to try telling me that wiggling your finger at people, magically, makes memories move around their brains.
lol

------------------------------------------------

Contrarian - "If they refuse a recommended treatment, we will review whether their benefits should be reduced"

Fraud Act 2006 - Section 4 - Fraud by abuse of position
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/4

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b)dishonestly abuses that position, and

(c)intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

-

Conspiracy to Defraud –
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/conspiracy_to_defraud_(common_law)/

Abuse of Vulnerable Adults –
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...s_to_protect_vulnerable_adults_from_abuse.pdf

Theft Act 1968 – Section 21 – Blackmail
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21

Witness Intimidation –
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/51

Misconduct in Public Office -
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

etc etc

 

[existentialist]

Er, most of that has only the most tangential relevance to counselling, or confidentiality for that matter.

How about, instead of posting vague and dark allusions about...well, I'm not exactly sure what, you cut to the chase and tell us what the agenda here is? Because I for one don't want to spend ages reading lists of links in order to try and divine which, of various possibilities, are the issues you're bashing.

Assuming it's not off-topic for this thread. If it is, start a new thread - that way, the mods' job is a bit easier should they (as I suspect they might) end up having to bin it.

 

[mauvais]

That's a link-infested broadside about nothing in particular.

However, EMDR basically is wiggling a finger about. Noone really seems to understand it. It also seems to work. My OH has had repeated success with it on PTSD patients. Despite appearances, it's nothing like homeopathy. Compare and contrast NICE guidelines for a start.

 

[equationgirl]

PhobosandDeimos a dictionary definition for a word does not provide evidence to support your allegations. Neither does posting a bucketload of links to various pieces of legislation -these set out a framework under which crimes may fall but they do not prove a specific crime has taken place.

Please read the FAQ section and understand what defamation is. Please do not post defamatory allegations which may get this website shut down, if someone decides to get lawyers involved. So don't.

Start a new thread by all means but be aware that it may get binned if you can't prove your allegations.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Spot on, BACP.

A measured and considered response.

 

[existentialist]

That's a link-infested broadside about nothing in particular.

However, EMDR basically is wiggling a finger about. Noone really seems to understand it. It also seems to work. My OH has had repeated success with it on PTSD patients. Despite appearances, it's nothing like homeopathy. Compare and contrast NICE guidelines for a start.

I believe there may even have been randomised controlled trials done on EMDR, though a quick search doesn't yield anything obvious.

 

[PhobosandDeimos]

existentialist - "Er, most of that has only the most tangential relevance to counselling, or confidentiality for that matter."

Using fake 'therapy' to steal peoples private lives and make them freely available to god knows how many thousands of jimmy saviles biggest fans without peoples knowledge or any consent, and despite every objection when they accidently find out is... "only the most tangential relevance to counselling, or confidentiality for that matter"????

Unbelievable, sorry, are your learning difficulties really that bad?
To point out the obvious the title of this thread is 'Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres'. I guess that there must be some reason that you want public sector crime covered up? You said that you work in a GP's surgery? :/

-----------

mauvais -
"EMDR.... It also seems to work."
Sorry but no. For ptsd emdr is combined with 'Trauma Focusing' (which can work in some cases). And that is where the 'Positive' comes from.
All pretty fraudulent for emdr. It's like a homeopath putting an asprin in a glass of water then trying to claim that homeopathy cures headaches.

Speaking of which... NICE only just stopped recommending homeopathy. Did it really take those politically motivated semi-scientitians this long to find out what atoms and molecules are? ....
tho it is nice to see that NICE have finally stopped believing that water 'remembers' osama bin laden and dinosaur poo.

What is it that NICE believes now? Oh yes, if I wiggle my finger at someone I can give them brain damage. If I flick them off can I give them ptsd?
Does NICE also still believe that back rubs for 'whatever ails yer' aren't "Bogus" and that a needle up your chakra is still better than being randomly poked with a toothpick?

-----------

equationgirl - "a dictionary definition for a word does not provide evidence to support your allegations. Neither does posting a bucketload of links to various pieces of legislation -these set out a framework under which crimes may fall but they do not prove a specific crime has taken place."

So your just deliberately ignoring the links to what the iapt and the local nhs (video) are up to. Plus the manifesto quote.
Which bit of the word 'evidence' do you fail to understand?
denial denial denial... standard public sector ******.

"Please do not post defamatory allegations" -
standard public sector intimidation.

"if you can't prove your allegations"
I already have. For any human who can read.

"bucketload of links to various pieces of legislation"
As well as for the evidence that you are ignoring those links are there to, hopefully, help other victims of those sick vile criminal abuser mates of yours who might be looking at this forum to try and get some help before they starve to death. Deny that too.

I saw your comment here - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...road-development.322188/page-59#post-13967676
"That's discrimination according to the equality act 2010 iirc."
And all your 'missing the point' DPA / Copyright ahem 'Advice' -
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/atos-medicals-questions-answers-and-support.287181/page-177
Is hypocrite another word that you don't understand?

-----------

Again unbelievable. Where are the people on this thread who claimed that they were 'professionals'?? Have they done anything at all about all of the crime and abuse, with evidence, that I have reported to them?? Is it just blind-eye turners and forum thugs here? All gone wilfully neglectful over there.

 

[existentialist]

tl;dr snipped

You still haven't actually told us what your beef is, and I think that the window of opportunity has passed - given your attitude, I seem to have stopped giving a shit.

So if you could stop hijacking the thread, I'm sure I won't be the only person who will appreciate it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Unbelievable, sorry, are your learning difficulties really that bad?
To point out the obvious the title of this thread is 'Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres'. I guess that there must be some reason that you want public sector crime covered up? You said that you work in a GP's surgery? :/

You two-bob dog-fucker.
You haven't got the nous to win an argument, so you snidely attribute "learning difficulties" to one of the people you're arguing with. You really are a worthless piece of shit.

 

[Libertad]

You two-bob dog-fucker.
You haven't got the nous to win an argument, so you snidely attribute "learning difficulties" to one of the people you're arguing with. You really are a worthless piece of shit.

Please send me that pdf of handy everyday insults as I seem to have lost my copy.

 

[existentialist]

You two-bob dog-fucker.
You haven't got the nous to win an argument, so you snidely attribute "learning difficulties" to one of the people you're arguing with. You really are a worthless piece of shit.

If he was hoping to play into some insecurity of mine about learning difficulties, he missed the target badly

I think that phobosetc is clearly very angry about something, but to the point where it's simply impossible to articulate his/her feelings - it's coming out as some kind of inchoate torrent of unfocused rage, that he's tried to stitch together with a bunch of links.

I hesitate to suggest it, but this "are you an IDIOT? I post all these links to stuff and you won't spend 2 hours READING IT?" stuff smacks rather too much of conspiraloon thinking. I wonder if he'd consider putting together a 2 hour video rant on YouTube to accompany these posts?

 

[existentialist]

(the irony is that, from the look of it, we're probably all pretty much on the same side of the argument as phoboswotsit...)