New Statutory body as an alternative to the NHS for mental health and hidden disability

And one more thing to add before I bail out to walk my dogs.

The centres should fundamentally be tasked not just to help the person that comes there negotiate the problems they encounter.  They should address the systemic problems they encounter that cause them....

One thing that would stop issues ia if ALL staff in All Buisnessea had to understand all disablitys but Bo they go on a crap awareness course where a man in ansuit twoks them what aswers to give Eto pass a one page test

This is the very reason why urgent amendments to the Autism Act 2009 must be made, with far greater enforcement powers (in a similar way to the health and safety laws) and with massively increased provision for police investigations and criminal prosecutions of senior management who are found not implementing the provisions correctly - only when we as autistic people have ever more draconian laws to protect our rights will we ever get anywhere - there is no point in having laws unless they are properly enforced and there also needs to be greater monitoring and supervision of senior management specially provided for in any amendments to the Autism Act 2009 

"No passaran" :-)

Thanks Alexa - I respect your 40 years of "being there in it" and thus your perspective on how the machine thinks as it were and yep I am with you a long way with pragmatism.

This is the same sort of pragmatism that I used in respect of the macro-economic argument I laid out earlier in this thread.  I'd argue that the real "blue sky thinking" is the treasury believing that they can afford not to fix it.

As I outlined the national debt is costing around £110 billion per year to pay the interest on.  Meanwhile according to calculations based on the NHS's own figures mental health conditions are costing the UK economy roughly £160 billion per year.

To use your Ford Fiesta analogy I'm not suggesting the government buy a brand-new Bentley.  The logic I'm employing here is that keeping the old Fiesta on the rd is currently costing £160 billion per year in breakdown recovery, people failing to get to work and emergency repairs.  Meanwhile putting a purpose built new vehicle on the rd would cost say £5 billion and save the treasury tens of billion in the long run.

That isn't throwing sticks in the air - it's a basic pragmatic return on investment.  The reason it doesn't get factored like that is because political economics can't deal with investing in loss over the realistic human time frames of its citizens.  Heaven forbid that a politician is an egg which ever end of it is cut off and whichever blooming hen laid it.  Real people and the country need a better service and that's a pragmatic reality.  (no offence intended with that last Gulliver's travel's reference to vegetarians and vegans.)

Thanks Alexa - I respect your 40 years of "being there in it" and thus your perspective on how the machine thinks as it were and yep I am with you a long way with pragmatism.

This is the same sort of pragmatism that I used in respect of the macro-economic argument I laid out earlier in this thread.  I'd argue that the real "blue sky thinking" is the treasury believing that they can afford not to fix it.

As I outlined the national debt is costing around £110 billion per year to pay the interest on.  Meanwhile according to calculations based on the NHS's own figures mental health conditions are costing the UK economy roughly £160 billion per year.

To use your Ford Fiesta analogy I'm not suggesting the government buy a brand-new Bentley.  The logic I'm employing here is that keeping the old Fiesta on the rd is currently costing £160 billion per year in breakdown recovery, people failing to get to work and emergency repairs.  Meanwhile putting a purpose built new vehicle on the rd would cost say £5 billion and save the treasury tens of billion in the long run.

That isn't throwing sticks in the air - it's a basic pragmatic return on investment.  The reason it doesn't get factored like that is because political economics can't deal with investing in loss over the realistic human time frames of its citizens.  Heaven forbid that a politician is an egg which ever end of it is cut off and whichever blooming hen laid it.  Real people and the country need a better service and that's a pragmatic reality.  (no offence intended with that last Gulliver's travel's reference to vegetarians and vegans.)