The UK Government’s ethnic or practice cleansing of talking therapies: a response to CHRE/PSA consultation

by Julia Evans on July 10, 2012

 

Response to CHRE/PSA Consultation: Accreditation standards for organisations that hold voluntary registers for health and social care occupations: 17 April 2012 to 10 July 2012

Addressed to: Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9SP. (CHRE are about to be renamed the Professional Standards Authority or PSA)

This reply was sent to  accreditation@chre.org.uk

 

From:  Julia Evans, Flat 1, 32 Nevern Square, Earl’s Court, London SW5 9PE, Reply sent from: je@lacanianworks.net

 

10th July 2012

 

Julia Evans’ response to CHRE Consultation: Accreditation standards for organisations that hold voluntary registers for health and social care occupations: 17 April 2012 to 10 July 2012

 

Warning:  This response will be widely distributed within Parliament, as is my usual practice.

 

CONTENTS

 

Introduction

PART A

The CHRE/PSA is built on delusion not need

Regulatory capture and the CHRE

The CHRE as the key provider to the Government’s Protection Racket

PART B

A selection of texts from Julia Evans’ archives at LacanianWorks.net

Julia Evans’ initial reaction to this CON-sultation

References to CHRE in LacanianWorks.net texts

References to the ‘Famous Five’ otherwise known as the New Savoy Partnership

House of Lords’ Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

Health Professions Order 2001 (HPO 2001)

 

Introduction

 

I am startled by this CON-sultation, as CHRE exists within the Government’s delusional system of control rather than emerging from a defined need.  So the CON-sultation on whether what is currently in place is satisfactory is non-existent.  Thus the CHRE has no firm foundations.  Its function is built in the Government’s cloud cuckoo land enforced with Privy Council power.

 

Of course, accreditation standards are of utmost importance to all those who are prepared to give up any sign of ethical practice based in relationships of trust and care in exchange for Government favours, influcnce and first crack at the major financial share of the Government’s contracted out mental health clinics or Happiness Factories (IAPT).   In the war, they were called collaborators.  These people will promise anything, including providing safe, risk-free treatments, in order to retain preferred supplier status.

 

There follows some of the reasons why this CON-sultation is a camouflage of what has already been decided.

 

The CHRE/PSA is built on delusion not need

 

As outlined by Parliament’s Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee in 2009/ 2010 (See section 4 of Reply to CON-sultation: Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS White Paper July 2010 or here written by Julia Evans on October 9, 2010) when the Merits Committee examined the case for the Government’s capture of the psychologists, they discovered that there has been no establishment that sufficient cases of practitioners harming their subjects exist under the arrangements in existence for about 100 years, to justify the Government rushing in ‘to safeguard the health and wellbeing’ (HPO2001) with a police force, you the CHRE, with powers under the Privy Council that is separate from primary legislation.  The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee also discovered that there had been no impact analysis of the Government’s protection racket into the provision of treatments within the area the Government defines as mental ill-health or Dis-being.  The question ‘Who benefits?’ has not been asked.  Probably because far from benefitting the recipients of any treatments from practitioners, it is you, the CHRE/PSA and your accredited organisations who benefit with wonderfully secure job opportunities. There has also been no CON-sultation with the minimum of 550 training organisations found by the Department of Health’s 2005 scoping project report.  (Department of Health Report: Interim Report to Department of Health on Initial Mapping Project for Psychotherapy & Counselling by Sally Aldridge & James Pollard BACP / UKCP Project Co-ordinators[i]) Though Ros Meade, the civil servant then dealing with this matter, told us at the meeting to discuss this report, that it was irrelevant as the matter had already been sewn up.  How right she was!

 

 

But no matter –

 

The Government has indicated that it considers itself above the law by ordering the CHRE to replace the HPC as their enforcement agency of choice.

 

See especially Sadeian power, the UK Government……… & CON-sultations by Julia Evans on February 3, 2012 or here in the list of references below.

 

Regulatory capture and the CHRE

 

In the week from Monday 2nd July 2012, the arrangement between Mr Bob Diamond of Barclays Bank and a Senior Official within the Financial Services Authority became public.  The technical term for this is regulatory capture.

 

The big difference between the way the financial sector operates and the way the CHRE operates in the field of Mental Ill-Health and Dis-being, is that regulatory capture is already in place between the CHRE and the New Savoy Partnership.  They have already met to sew up the provision of Government- authorised practitioners into the Government-protected market in the provision of treatments into the Government’s Mental Health Services. These meetings are confidential, not announced publicly, the minutes are not available, and this current CON-sultation is the cover-up.  It legitimates the Government’s intrusion and control of care provided to those with Government (NICE) symptoms of human distress and suffering.

 

See especially: Collaborators win: Putting the State Wellbeing Strategy to work….. by Julia Evans on February 8, 2011or available here  from the list of references which follow.

 

The CHRE as the key guarantor of the Government’s Protection Racket

 

The Government by its actions asserts that it is able to protect users of their high-risk mental health industry by legislating, see for example Health Professionals Order 2001 (HPO 2001) and further, that it is able to reduce the risk of being treated by one of their registered practitioners in a talking therapy within a relationships to risk-free.  The Government offers a certainty that their supported interventions will work. Of course, this is the whole raison d’être of the CHRE/PSA. I have argued endlessly that a Government which aims to produce safeguarding or protection, is operating perversely.  It assumes that a complete knowledge is possible and that if you control against this knowledge as truth, you will safeguard as did the Inquisition from hell, the Third Reich from non-Aryans, and so on.  The Government believes this position so ardently that it commands you to do this forced-choice, tick-box CON-sultation.  The questions do not allow you to bring this perverse framework into question.

 

It, of course, does not work.  The Nursing and Midwifery Council, since it has been governed by the CHRE, now fails.  You cannot regulate practices based within relationships of trust by the top-down imposition of rules and regulations based within the certainty of the ONE right knowledge.  Any organisation complying with the CHRE’s systematic regulation is bound to fail.

 

Today programme: Radio 4:  Tuesday 3rd July: available here

0731
The Nursing and Midwifery Council is letting down patients and there are failings at every level, according to a report by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. Harry Cayton, the author of the report, and Jackie Smith, head of the National Midwifery Council, debate the issue.

 

The Government’s protection racket relies on ‘scientific’ evaluation procedures.  No-one, wishing to partaking of Government largesse, challenges this as their practices register on these ‘scientific’ procedures. Practices based within relationships do not register in this systematic evaluation.

 

[An excellent starting point for understanding evaluation as governance is the following text: Why is the Ideology of Evaluation Pernicious? by Jean-Claude Maleval on April 14, 2010  or here ]

 

The CHRE powers of prosecution to eliminate undesirables who do not fit the ONE standard.

 

Prosecutions (Fitness to practice cases) are a disgrace as you, CHRE/PSA base it in judging whether someone complies with your written standards. If they are outside your centrally defined and controlled rules, then they are automatically branded a charlatan and worse.  This method of ejection and exclusion of those you judge as substandard is neo-fascist.  You reinvent the medieval stocks.

 

Tens of thousands of practitioners know not to criminally physically, sexually, or financially abuse those who consult them.  And yet you, the CHRE, persist in supporting the myth that danger lurks behind every practice room door.  Why?  Is this really the way to support yourselves parasitically in a nice secure job persecuting practitioners who work within the sharp end of human difficulties?

 

If you consult here:   English context of Autism in relation to medical and other political formulations  or here,   you will find what actually happens when Government authorised, CHRE, agents enter its politically driven clinic or protection racket.

 

The government’s clinic is voracious.  It wipes out practices which have been in use for decades, if not centuries, within the NHS and its contracted-out services.

 

The CHRE/PSA is central to this practice-cleansing (think ethnic-cleansing – it is the same mechanism) which is in place.

 

In lieu, of a detailed, considered text, there follows a selection of that which I have written over the years.

 

A)  Initial reaction to this CON-sultation

Dated: 18th April 2012

 

For your participation: The CHRE CON-sults

 

Thank you, as ever, to my informant – a member of regx2 group.

 

If you search LacanianWorks.net (I am off-line), for CHRE and the ‘Famous Five’, you will find a great deal of the back history. Basically, they are after control of the ‘talking therapies’ practices, training, discipline, and much else so that they can guarantee that your practice is safe.

 

Reasons for you to write:

1) The current arrangements work satisfactorily and there is no evidence, the 3 reports are of course non-existent (this is against EU Law but don’t let that worry you because it does not worry the Government), that this is not working.

2) All evidence that the talking therapists are murderers, rapists, and abusive is in the delusional fantasy-life of Parliament who have put this in place, this Government’s ministers and their civil servant advisers.  There is no evidence that, legislation or regulation beyond criminal legislation, is needed. And it gives politicians the glow of being IN CONTROL.

3) There is no evidence that a change in registration procedures will not produce more abusive practice not less. Indeed, I predict that this welter of registration procedures will make it easier to camouflage malicious intent.  And the Government, and other interested parties, have no evidence with which to contradict me.

4)  Registration with the CHRE will automatically make those courtiers and collaborators, the Famous Five, the Government’s preferred supplier of Government (NICE) defined cures to those who the Government (NICE again) define as sufficiently lacking in wellbeing (The Government’s legal term for happiness – see HPO2001) to warrant correction.  But you get a nice, steady income in return for your collaboration and support of the Government’s (as defined by Lord Donaldson when he was Chief Medical Officer) high-risk Health Industry.

5)  Of course, there is conflict and competition and envy and probably, for all I know, hate, between the Government-devised bodies for registration: HPC, CHRE, NICE, Skills for Health, and so on. When they were originally set up the CHRE was supposed to control the HPC and both answer directly into the Privy Council so are not subject to common law. This means that now the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee (if you are having difficulties with the plot, put it in LW’s search engine at the top of the right hand column) has stopped the Government working directly through the HPC, the HPC and CHRE are fighting for market share – their jobs depend on it.  There is no tactic too low to which they will descend in order to secure their job security and future employment.

6)  Beware the term voluntary registration!  If the ‘Famous Five’ sign up then registration will ensure that the market in the provision of care to those without the correct amount of happiness or wellbeing as defined by the Government, will be given to registrants within the ‘Famous Five’.  The rest of us will be locked out.

7)  By the way, all this costs money. The Government thinks that registration fees will foot the bill – and what evidence do they have for this?

 

So first, the Government discards a system of training, registration and guarantee of practice which has been in place for centuries on no evidence. Next, they invent their own system which they control with top-down Privy Council, power. Then, they make those who volunteer to be their victims pay for it!

 

And have you heard, at least one politician, whisper (Emperor’s New Clothes) that the system is bare or naked?  Oh no!  They are too busy pretending, in their new clothes, to be the Protectors of those who they define as deficient in Wellbeing or Happiness and much else.

 

The full text is available here: For your participation: The CHRE CON-sults or here

 

B)  References to CHRE/PSA in LacanianWorks.net texts

 

“It feels like a train crash happening in slow motion…”: One of Tesco’s top 10 shareholders. by Julia Evans on April 4, 2012 or here

Simplification is necessary in research. But it has limitations in providing a grand theory of everything. by Julia Evans on March 3, 2012 or here

It is now officially evidence-based: NHS will have to ration further treatments… by Julia Evans on February 27, 2012 or here

Sadeian power, the UK Government……… & CON-sultations by Julia Evans on February 3, 2012 or here

‘Meno’, Montaigne and the ‘Docta Ignorantia’: Some thoughts and comments on the weak symbolic in the 21st century by Bruce Scott on January 21, 2012 or here

This pace of moral decision-making poses insuperable challenges to several ways of thinking about right and wrong…. Giles Fraser by Julia Evans on January 20, 2012 or here

Trust no one with your money [or health] is the tragic legacy of the crisis by Julia Evans on January 18, 2012 or here

Getting off on old jouissance: Turning away from negative capability. by Bruce Scott on November 12, 2011 or here

The collation of information on Government action continues… by Julia Evans on September 29, 2011 or here

Government action closes existing facilities so contracted-out services can be used (& controlled): case 1 by Julia Evans on September 29, 2011 or here

So who is in bed with whom (part 1)? & further on the Government’s CON-sultation mechanisms by Bruce Scott on September 28, 2011 or here

It seems as though the HPC has died and been reincarnated into the PSA (formerly CHRE), a bit like when Doctor Who dies and comes back in a different form. by Bruce Scott on September 22, 2011 or here

How Government Action goes wrong…. ‘The report says the department pushed ahead without undertaking basic project approval checks, taking decisions before testing the ideas for feasibility.’ by Julia Evans on September 20, 2011 or here

Laing was rattling the cage of an establishment with vested interests who did not like to be questioned or held to account. by Julia Evans on September 6, 2011 or here

Sadeian power in use: By having its hand on Asia’s water tap, China is therefore acquiring tremendous leverage over its neighbours’ behaviour… by Julia Evans on August 31, 2011 or here

An historical look at treatments for human conditions of mental distress – are the same parameters still driving treatments? by Julia Evans on August 24, 2011or here

About regx2 & principles for action by Julia Evans on August 13, 2011 or here

The two laws, limits and position: a new post by Julia Evans on July 10, 2011 or here

Registration and Regulation – an attempt at an update and the Government’s Happiness/Wellbeing Factories reappear by Julia Evans on May 19, 2011 or here

Same old, same old at the HPC: HPC council meeting Thursday 31st March 2011 by Bruce Scott on March 31, 2011 or here

Battle positions : Health and Social Care Bill January 19, 2011 by Julia Evans on February 1, 2011 or here

Book Review :A review of Irving Kirsch, The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth.  by Richard House on February 28, 2010. Available here

 

C)  References to the ‘Famous Five’ otherwise known as the New Savoy Partnership in LacanianWorks:

 

Sadeian power, the UK Government……… & CON-sultations by Julia Evans on February 3, 2012.  See point ix.  Available here

This pace of moral decision-making poses insuperable challenges to several ways of thinking about right and wrong…. Giles Fraser by Julia Evans on January 20, 2012 or available here

Collaborators win: Putting the State Wellbeing Strategy to work….. by Julia Evans on February 8, 2011or available here

Battle positions : Health and Social Care Bill January 19, 2011 by Julia Evans on February 1, 2011 or available here

Psychotherapy is imposed: Psycho-analysis© works: Psychoanalysis operates by Julia Evans on December 15, 2010 or available here

An explanation of Jacques Lacan’s use of cartels in organisational structure by Julia Evans on November 1, 1997 or available here

 

D)  References to the House of Lords’ Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

 

Sadeian power, the UK Government……… & CON-sultations by Julia Evans on February 3, 2012 or here

How Government Action goes wrong…. ‘The report says the department pushed ahead without undertaking basic project approval checks, taking decisions before testing the ideas for feasibility.’ by Julia Evans on September 20, 2011 or here

About regx2 & principles for action by Julia Evans on August 13, 2011 or here

Comments on the HPC’s declaration of aims – 31st March, 2011 by Julia Evans on April 11, 2011 or here

Battle positions : Health and Social Care Bill January 19, 2011 by Julia Evans on February 1, 2011 or here

Psychotherapy is imposed: Psycho-analysis© works: Psychoanalysis operates by Julia Evans on December 15, 2010 or here

Reply to CON-sultation: Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS White Paper July 2010 by Julia Evans on October 9, 2010 or here

Wellbeing & Happiness as used by the UK Government by Julia Evans on May 7, 2007 or here

 

E)  References to the Health Professions Order 2001 (HPO 2001)

 

List available here

 

For your participation: The CHRE CON-sults by Julia Evans on April 18, 2012 or here

Research which aims to understand and prevent adverse effects of psychological therapies – yes, really  by Julia Evans on March 8, 2012 or here

Simplification is necessary in research. But it has limitations in providing a grand theory of everything. by Julia Evans on March 3, 2012 or here:

Sadeian power, the UK Government……… & CON-sultations by Julia Evans on February 3, 2012 or here

This pace of moral decision-making poses insuperable challenges to several ways of thinking about right and wrong…. Giles Fraser by Julia Evans on January 20, 2012 or here

About regx2 & principles for action by Julia Evans on August 13, 2011 or here

Battle positions : Health and Social Care Bill January 19, 2011  by Julia Evans on February 1, 2011 or here

Psychotherapy is imposed: Psycho-analysis© works: Psychoanalysis operates by Julia Evans on December 15, 2010  or here

Reply to CON-sultation: Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS White Paper July 2010 by Julia Evans on October 9, 2010  or here

Wellbeing & Happiness as used by the UK Government by Julia Evans on May 7, 2007  or here

 

F) Subsequent response from the CHRE

 

Comment:  Thank you to all who responded and sent in your views of the CHRE/PSA accreditation standards – 400 is a good number.

From:             Christine Braithwaite <Christine.Braithwaite@chre.org.uk>

Subject:         RE: Response to the CHRE accreditation standards consultation

Date: 20 July 2012 14:42:12 GMT+01:00

Dear Ms Evans

Thank you for your response.  We have had had over 400 responses and will be analysing these over the next few weeks.

Kind regards

Christine

Christine Braithwaite, 
Director of Standards & Policy
Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, 
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, 
London, 
SW1W 9SP, Tel: 
020 7389 8039 or 
07730 624 184, 
christine.braithwaite@chre.org.uk

My response was sent as follows:

From: Julia Evans [mailto:je@lacanianworks.net]

Sent: 10 July 2012 21:19

To: accreditation

Subject: Response to the CHRE accreditation consultation

For the attention of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9SP. :  accreditation@chre.org.uk … it continues as above….

G.  Circulation list within both Houses of Parliament

This response has been sent to the following:

Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP – Julia Evans’ constituency MP

Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP , Secretary of State for Health

Mr Paul Burstow MP, Minister of State for Health (Care Services)

Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Health

Baroness Thornton, Shadow Minister for Health, Health Spokesperson – the House of Lords

Lord Beecham, Shadow Health Spokesperson, House of Lords

Lord Carlile of Berriew, Former Lib-Dem Spokesperson & member of the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill

House of Commons Select Committee on Health

Government Members

Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell  (Chair)

Mr Andrew George MP (Lib Dem)

Dr Daniel Poulter (& Member of Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group)

Mr Chris Skidmore MP

Mr David Tredinnick MP

Dr Sarah Wollaston MP

Opposition members

Ms Rosie Cooper MP

Ms Barbara Keeley MP

Mr Grahame M Morris MP (& Member of Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group)

Mr Virendra Sharma MP

Ms Valerie Vaz MP

Member of the Constitution Committee

Baroness Falkner of Margravine  Lib Dem

Former member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

Viscount Eccles  Conservative

Title:  Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group

Purpose:  To inform parliamentarians about all aspects of mental health

Chair:  Mr Charles Walker  MP  Conservative

Vice-Chair: Ms Alison Seabeck MP, Labour

& Ms Nicky Morgan MP Conservative

Secretary: Baroness Murphy of Aldgate, Crossbench

Sir Peter Bottomley MP – Conservative

Mr Chris Heaton-Harris MP – Conservative

Mr Damian Hinds MP – Conservative

Mr Guy Opperman MP – Conservative

Mr James Morris MP – Conservative

Ms Penny Mordaunt MP – Conservative

Ms Jo Swinson MP – Lib Dem

Mr David Wright MP – Labour

Ms Kerry McCarthy MP – Labour

Mr Mike Gapes MP – Labour/Co-operative

Mr Alun Michael MP – Labour/Co-operative

Mr Jim Dobbin MP – Labour/Co-operative

Dame Anne Begg – Labour

Mr Russell Brown MP – Labour

Mr Jon Cruddas – Labour

Mr Hywel Williams – Plaid Cymru



[i] Report available here