What the Government’s strategy of implementation by force produces – fear, and worse

by Julia Evans on December 1, 2012

Hello,

I wrote this in 2009, and the analysis (see list of contents below) of what is happening holds good.  I particularly recommend the sections which examine Willem Buiter’s analysis of the Government’s strategy: Sections 11.4 & 11.5 and maybe elsewhere.  This is how this top-down power works.

Nothing much has happened since 2009 except the HPC/HCPC has morphed into the CHRE/PSA which is and will produce exactly the same effects.

I welcome comments – just type them in at the bottom of the post.

Julia

Opposing the Section 60 Order which will make psychology a function of the state – as it was in Soviet Russia. by Julia Evans on April 16, 2009 or here

CONTENTS

Background

1.0 Credentials

2.0 Four areas of Govermental legislative activity in the area of human psychic distress.

2.1 The Health Professions Order 2001

2.2 NICE clinical guidelines

2.3 Skills for Health

2.4 Happiness Factories (IAPT)

3.0 that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House

3.1 Issues of public policy – the role of the Government

3.10 What is the task of a Government?

3.101 Is the production of health and well-being a proper area for legislation?

3.102 Government promoting well-being, health or choice?

3.013 Well-being is a fortunate by-product. It cannot be produced to Government Order.

3.104 Government hoodwinks by offering to safeguard wellbeing.

3.11 What is the evidence that this legislation is needed?

3.12 The use of fear in drawing up this legislation

3.13 The murderer, Dr Shipman, is the single example.

4.0 Issues of public policy – the objective of HPO2001

4.1 The context for the Government’s use of wellbeing

4.11 ‘Measure smiles, not just GDP: British least happy in Europe’

4.12 The problems with safeguarding

4.13 The Government’s basic mistake is to assume that efficiency in the pursuit of health and wellbeing is unambiguous.

4.14 There is no certain relation between government action and the production of wellbeing.

4.15 What are the limits to the Government’s ability to increase subjective well-being?

5.0 Method of legislating

5.01 As the House of Commons has been dominated by one party, legislation is unchallenged and has become oppressive

5.1 Use of Privy Council

5.2 The empty knowledge behind the enforcing system.

5.3 A further example of Empty Knowledge

5.4 From Physics: Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

5.5 Consequences of the use of Empty Knowledge

5.51 The use of the One Knowledge criminalises – a non-health example

5.52 The One Knowledge as used in HPC fitness-to-practice courts on an Occupational Therapist, a Paramedic and a Psychotherapist

5.53 How many psychologists are aware of their fate: being tried under the Privy  Council procedures?

5.54 The cost of employing these people, witnesses and lawyers does not count.

5.55 The One Knowledge eliminates any form of relationship

5.551 Practices do not use the One Knowledge

5.552 A practitioner pictured totally enmeshed in the Government’s commands

5.553 Example of applying industrial job definition techniques to a relationship

5.554 The use of fear in the implementation of HPO2001

5.555 The practitioner controls the use of knowledge (a savoir-faire or knowing-what-to-do) within a relationship of trust and care

5.556 The practitioner is responsible for their praxis (knowing-how-to-do) and its use within their practice.

5.56 The limits to the use of the One Knowledge

5.6 There is no independent third party evaluation by human networks or professional associations (bps). Thus the Government’s application of the One Knowledge goes unchallenged.

5.61 The One Solution proposed by the Government in HPO2001, disconnects as it outlaws relationships

5.62 The One Solution as predicted by the One Knowledge is invalid

5.63 A case study from the Financial Sector applied to CHRE which shows the results to a practice of destroying external accountability and connections.

5.64 Because connections and a third party view are eliminated, the One Knowledge is blind

5.641 External scrutiny & professionalisation

5,65 The exclusion of the psychologist’s third party, the bps, has already begun

5.66 The reduction of psycho-practice to Management

5.67 Mutuality is excluded. Where is meaning?

5.68 The One Knowledge isolates. Psycho-practice is based on connection

5.69 The One Knowledge is a lure and deceives

5.70 The One Knowledge does not support difference in either the Practitioner or the Sufferer

5.8 HPO2001 is based on contiguity and not a causal relationship

6.0 The One Knowledge and Con-sultations

6.1 Evidence that con-sultations and citizen’s juries (listening events) have been rigged

6.2 How the HPC achieves total compliance to the One Knowledge

6.3 Other examples of HPC con-sultation processes

6.31 Objections to the legislation are not actioned

6.32 The One Knowledge drives the HPC’s consultancy agenda

7.0 The One Knowledge and the negative portrayal of anyone who opposes

7.1 Examples of how the media is being used to support the negative image of psycho-practitioners

7.1 Examples of this abuse of power from elsewhere

8.0 The One Knowledge and complaints

8.1 How the One Knowledge treats dissenting submissions to con-sultations

8.2 Con-sultations are not to verify the legislation: they are manipulations to paint the Government as electable.

8.3 Examples from bps of how these manipulative processes are being played out.

9.0 A practice relies on the psycho-practitioner’s individual judgement. Each sufferer is a unique human being. The One Knowledge does not recognise the uncertainty endemic in a human being’s freedom to act.

9.1 Principles are derived from the Government’s One Knowledge rather than the practice of psychology. This is forced from the top downwards rather than integrated from the bottom up.

9.2 This emphasis on group standards is the antithesis of the way many psychopractitioners work

9.3 NICE on evidence-based practice and clinical judgement

10.0 that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives: parties who are affected

by a regulation (this Order), particularly when the issue raised relates to the

practicability of the proposal or unintended consequence

10. 01 A probable future scenario if HPO2001 controls all psycho-practitioners.

10.1 The HPC takes away responsibility from the practitioner and gives it to a system

10.2 The difference between managing certainty and uncertainty (example from finance)

11.0 How the Government paints future provision in the Media.

11.1 A practitioner’s viewpoint – a pointer to the future? CBT approach is seen as the norm, while we know that it is not at all suitable for everyone and that it can cause great distress in some clients

11.2 How this imaginary future is sold by the Government

11.4 Some reality being shone into the Government’s position: This ideology is fundamentally totalitarian, although the uniform of the familiar military dictator has been replaced by the tweed jacket and business suit of the expert and the technocrat, and the secret policeman has given way to the psychiatrist and behavioural therapist.

11.5 The Government’s vision is built on false assumptions: The picture of 10,000 hastily trained cognitive-behavioural therapists let loose on the British public is a frightening one – like 10.000 semi-skilled plumbers taking charge of brain surgery in the UK. It’s a politically popular gimmick because (a) it is a lot cheaper than letting the mentally ill be treated by properly qualified professionals, and (b) it involves large numbers and motion – the illusion of decisive action

11.6 The Government’s advisor justifies the expense of implementing HPO2001. The assumption: Respect is produced by an enforced code?

11.7 The institutionalisation of therapy and therapists is based on exacerbating a climate of fear and uncertainty.

11.8 The independence of the Health Professions Council from the Government

11.9 An example of the protection of patient safety using current legislation

11.10 Reasons given by the bps for the introduction of statutory processes for use with those seeking psycho-practitioners’ help

11.13 The House of Lords’ Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee states this Order gives rise to issues of public policy

11.12 The British Psychological Society states this Order is not fit for purpose

12.0 What is the shadow side of this Government-controlled and Government protected market?

13.0 Ethics and this legislation – comments borrowed from the financial crash