#is the nhs coming to an end

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Let the revenge games begin.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[periodt-blogs]

Is This The End Of The NHS Mental Health Service?

Hi guys, it's been a while since I last posted but I spent lots of time on this post because it is so important so make sure to read, like, comment, follow, share or whatever you can do, thank you #periodt #mentalhealth #personalblog #recovery

Table Of Contents Introduction Funding (or lack thereof) Problems faced by employees Stats Working Conditions Training/Expectations Private Practices Problems for those Needing the service Stats Those In The Service Waiting List Costs Conclusion Introduction Since the 5th of July, 1948, the UK has been blessed with free healthcare through the NHS, helping to provide critical treatment and…

[zykamiliah]

Because Naruto had to marry Hinata, Neji died as a cupid for them.

Because Naruto married Hinata, Kiba couldn't be with her and so he was remain single.

Because Naruto married Hinata, Sasuke couldn't be with him (well, publicly).

Because Sakura married Sasuke (the Uchiha crest if we're being honest), Sai had to marry Ino, and because of this Choji married Karui.

So you see now, how |\||-| is the cause of all narrative problems and plotholes.

The only ones that made sense was Shikamaru and Temari.

Probably the only unaffected by this whole Shakespearean disaster was Tenten.

[aerisfelidae]

Happy vent for once?

Man I got the faintest whiff of love, financial security and hope for the future and suddenly I'm upgrading my whole life?

It's really hard to put my finger on what exactly has changed because it doesn't seem like a lot actually has - like these friends aren't new friends, they've been here, and they've always tried to include me in stuff and be there for me

I've always been good at what I do, I've never faltered in thinking that, my organizational ability/level of demand hasn't significantly picked up tho

I'm still in debt even if my bank account is looking just a little less dire

But man I'm waking up in the mornings lately and like... Feeling like I wanna get out of bed

Feeling like cleaning my windows sounds like more fun than scrolling TikTok for hours

That I don't just live in a void, that I have things to live for, people to make plans with who actually like... Like me? and remind me that they like me? And show me that they like me?

Feeling like I have things to look forward to

I still wanna cry all the time but now it's crying remembering that I'm loved and remembering that my friends spent time with me and remembering that they maDE STUFF FOR ME and like

BRO??? I LOVE MY NERDS???

[afieldinengland]

and i still believe the political history of the world of the thick of it diverges from ours after the end of the series, i.e. that oliver reeder got the party back in power. sorry mary drake you don't stand a chance against the truly new political animal (dangerous, callous turncoat who learned at malcolm's feet and knows that to lack a spine only makes one flexible)

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

calling nhs 111 is great because in the first two minutes, youre told that you can do this online three times.

like buddy, i get it, ive tried 111 online and they tell me to call 999 immediately.

[flowerslut]

sometimes people will go back and like or reblog old 2014 naruto fics that I forgot even writing and I love that for y’all. like hell yeah enjoy fics from a time before kishimoto Did What He Did to those silly little war criminals….. live your life in ignorant bliss……. fanon over canon for life baby…..

[lycankeyy]

I hate how much ACNH leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Like it's Not as good of a game as WW. If it didn't have the DLC it wouldn't be as good as NL. We always want to return to NL because it's a better game but because we like HHD New Horizons feels like a more "complete experience" because at any point you can drop "New Leaf But Worse" gameplay and go to "Happy Home Designer But Better" gameplay. Plus there's way more customization options for pretty much Everything too, which makes it fun to play if you're into designing or dress-up in general

But it sucks because the people on your island do not feel like people. I rarely if ever have Chores to do because my villagers rarely ask me to do them. I like chores. I like feeling like my villagers have inner lives I'm not always around for when they tell me they had an argument with another villager or need to give someone something or accidentally bought two of the same outfit. I like when my villagers have preferred hobbies like fishing or bug-catching or fashion. In NH bonding with your villagers is like a boring quest line to get an exclusive item. They're just accessories for your island that you dress up. It's so annoying and I hate it but I keep returning to NH because it's like HHD but better. Hell on Earth. Anyway

[heavenknowsffs]

This one is gon be nsfw and personal

[llycaons]

I don't mind that the yin iron plot was kind of silly okay the boys hung out and had some shenanagins 🥰 I liked it

[lgbtlunaverse]

It seems the dash has been talking about the Lan Xichen - Nie Huaisang post-canon dynamics and it's gotten me thinking about how discussion around post-canon Lan Xichen's absolutely horrendous mental state often center around the question of "who is Lan Xichen angry at and who does he feel guilty about" which, at its worst, seperates into 2 camps where according to one side he feels guilty about not protecting jgy and hates the Nies and, on the other side he has completely flipped on jgy and despises him now while being filled with regret towards both nmj and nhs.

And I dislike both of these takes not just because it often feels like people projecting their own Blorbo opinions onto Lan Xichen which is never a fun time but also because that central question is flawed to begin with. It treats anger and guilt like opposing emotions that can't coexist or, if they do, have to compete until one wins and cancels the other out.

And that's not how that... works.

To be clear, the reason why Lan Xichen is so supremely fucked up at the end of the story is that he believes on some level he fucked over everyone in this situation. And, even more importantly, that even with hindsight he can't actually think of what he should have done instead. Every attempt to do better by one seems to involve fucking over the others even more because these people were in conflict with each other and choosing one would mean standing against another

And none of this would actually stop him from feeling angry at any of them. It's not "who is he angry at and who does he feel guilty about" it's: "he is angry at everyone and feels an immediate and bone deep guilt for daring to think badly of them."

Speaking from personal experience here, but feeling like you're not allowed to be angry at someone because you wronged them really doesn't stop the feeling, it just maks you feel like shit for feeling it. And this is all worsened by the fact that what he's in seclusion for is, at the end of the day, a moral question of what he, Lan Xichen, did wrong and every single emotion serves as further proof of the ways he's failed them.

Is he angry at Jin Guangyao, for killing his oldest friend, using Lan xichen's trust in him to do it, and then lying to him about it and countless other things for a decade when Lan Xichen thought of him as the person he trusted the most in the entire world? Yeah. That's a thing people get angry about! Except Jin Guangyao also saved his life and protected and helped him more times than he can count and never ever hurt him and can Lan Xichen say the same? No. He had to clean A-Yao's blood off Shouyue, he has to be haunted by the fact that if he just hadn't listened to Huaisang- hadn't been just like everyone else, in the end, and believed a lie about Jin Guangyao just to think the worst of him- then Jin Guangyao might still be alive.

Is he angry at Huaisang? For orchestrating the death of his best friend? For making him do it? For knowing what the real cause behind Nie Mingjue's death was and never telling him until he found out in the absolute worst way? Absolutely. But didn't Huaisang hide it from him for a reason? Wasn't it his clan's techniques and his personal faith in Jin Guangyao that cost Huaisang his brother? How dare he demand that Huaisang let him in on the secret of his brother's murderer when Lan Xichen is here wondering about how he should have protected that murderer better!

And I do even think he's angry at Nie Mingjue, sometimes I think it's pretty normal to be angry at your friend for kicking your other friend down the stairs and threatening to kill him, even when you know his mind is being poisoned. And years later the last thing he ever saw of Nie Mingjue was Nie Mingjue's thoughtless corpse coming to kill him before Jin Guangyao pushed him away and then proceeded to graphocally snap Jin Guangyao's neck in front of him. And if what he wants to do is protect Jin Guangyao, shouldn't he be mad at Mingjue? Didn't this whole mess start because Jin Guangyao was afraid Nie Mingjue was going to kill him?

Except holy shit, can you imagine? Lan Xichen feels like he personally has Nie Mingjue's blood on his hands. Your oldest friend is killed in front of you and you happily believe it's an accident for 11 years and now you think you have the right to be mad at him? You watched him get worse as he was being poisoned and attributed it to his illness and not to the techniques stolen from your library with the token you give his murderer. Does he think Nie Mingjue knew who he was in that moment and wanted to kill him? That he blamed Lan Xichen for his death? (For the record, I don't. I don't agree with most of what Lan Xichen thinks about himself, but I've been in a self-blame spiral and I know how it feels)

But what was he supposed to do then? Choose Mingjue's side and let A-Yao die? That's also unacceptable. But so is letting Jin Guangyao get away with it. Every single outcome is unacceptable. And really, if Jin Guangyao felt like he had to kill Nie Mingjue to save himself, when it was Lan Xichen who was supposed to keep the peace between them, isn't that another mark of his failure? That he couldn't protect Jin Guangyao well enough that he felt he had to do something so horrible?

But that's not an answer! He's supposed to know what he should have done different, and all he can come up with is "what you were already doing, but without failing this time" He can't pick a side because that means betrayal, but he's already tried not picking a side and it ended like this! There is no right answer, which can only leave him with the idea that he was simply doomed to hurt the people he loved from the start. No wonder the guy looks like shit when we see him post-canon. They put him in a real life trolley problem and gave him the lever as a souvenir.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

In 2017 I interviewed Bernadette Wren, then head of psychology at the Tavistock Gids clinic, and asked what effect puberty blocking drugs have on the adolescent brain. Looking highly uncomfortable, she replied that the evidence so far was only anecdotal but that the clinic would study its patients “well into their adult lives so that we can see”.

Even back then, before whistleblowers had exposed the rush to medically transition children, it was alarming to hear that heavy-duty GnRH agonists such as triptorelin — used to treat advanced prostate cancer and “chemically castrate” sex offenders — were being prescribed to arrest puberty in hundreds of children as young as 11.

Moreover, they were being used “off-label” before any clinical trials. And the long-term study Wren promised never materialised: Gids (the Gender Identity Development Service) routinely lost touch with patients, and the 44 it did follow reported little long-term mental health improvement.

This shocking chapter in medical history, where the ideological objectives of trans rights campaigners trumped the welfare of disturbed children, is coming to an end worldwide. The decision by NHS England effectively to ban the prescription of puberty blockers comes after the Cass review noted these drugs could “permanently disrupt” brain development, reduce bone density and lock children into a regime of cross-sex hormones requiring life-long patienthood.

NHS England unites with other national health services including those in Finland, France, Sweden and, most notably, the Netherlands — where the “Dutch protocol”, a regime of early blockers then hormones, was devised in 1998 — in pulling back from prescribing them.

Even in the United States, where a toxic combination of extreme activism and medical capitalism has pushed child gender medicine to grotesque extremes, with double mastectomies performed on 14-year-old girls, there is some retrenchment.

Leaks from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the body which formulates guidance on “trans healthcare”, reveal doctors perplexed at how they should explain to an 11-year-old child that drugs will render them infertile. Crucially, liberal media such as The New York Times are now reporting grave medical misgivings about child transition, once dismissed as a culture-war issue for the Republican right.

Yet the question remains: how was this ever allowed to happen? For years, puberty blockers were cheerily billed as a mere “pause button”. In 2014, Dr Polly Carmichael, the last head of Gids before the Cass review ordered its closure, went on CBBC in a show called I Am Leo, saying of blockers: “The good thing is, if you stop the injections, it’s like pressing ‘start’ and the body carries on developing as it would if you hadn’t started.”

The BBC permitted her to make this unevidenced claim to an impressionable audience of six to 12-year-olds. Imagine hearing this as a developing girl, freaked out by your new breasts and periods. No wonder Gids referrals subsequently rocketed.

Carmichael failed to mention that she did not know if pressing “restart” on puberty is always medically possible — it is not — and in fact, almost every child Gids put on blockers went on to irreversible cross-sex hormones.

After years in a Peter Pan state while their peers developed, they understandably felt there was no way back and forged on with treatment. Yet if allowed to experience natural puberty, almost 85 per cent of gender dysphoria cases resolve themselves.

Nor did Carmichael tell CBBC kids that the blockers-hormones combination, if taken early enough, not only results in sterility but kills the libido so that a young person will never experience an orgasm.

At the 2020 judicial review brought by a former Tavistock clinician and Keira Bell, the brave young detransitioner rushed onto hormones by Gids, judges expressed astonishment at Gids’s lack of an evidence base.

Reporting on this issue for seven years, I too have been struck by a complete clinical incuriosity. Not only was data not collected, but those who queried treatments or pressed for evidence faced angry condemnation. Perhaps activists knew what research might find because one long-term Finnish study, recently reported in the BMJ, destroyed the myth used to justify blockers: that a child will commit suicide if denied them.

The Finns found that “gender-affirming care” does not make a dysphoric child less suicidal. Rather, such children had the same suicide risk as others with severe psychiatric issues. In other words, changing bodies does not fix troubled minds.

Yet even after NHS England’s announcement, activists refuse to heed the now-overwhelming evidence. In its response, Stonewall persists with the myth that puberty blockers “give a young person extra time to evaluate their next steps”.

Many questions remain unanswered: will private clinics still be permitted to prescribe puberty blockers; and is Scotland’s Sandyford child gender clinic still determined to close its ears to all evidence? Plus, we have few details on how the NHS’s new “holistic” treatment for gender-questioning children will operate when it opens next month.

This repellent experiment — in which girls who like trucks or little boys who dress as princesses, and who invariably grow up to be gay, are corralled inexorably down a road towards life-changing treatments — belongs in the book of medical disgraces. As do the cheerleaders who raised money for Mermaids and those who persecuted whistleblowers or damned journalists asking questions as transphobic.

In 50 years, chemically freezing the puberty of healthy children with troubled minds will be regarded with the same horrified fascination as lobotomies — which, never forget, won the Portuguese neurologist Antonio Egas Moniz the 1949 Nobel prize.

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

{Article source (behind paywall)}

[archiveoftragedies]

In mdzs, when the public opinion started shifting and everyone turned on jgy it made me feel vindicated. Finally they're siding with me against the guy that keeps pissing me off. But that only lasted an instant. Slowly, progressively, I started going wait. Wait no hold on. Go back. I didn't mean it that way go back. Because they were saying about jgy the exact same bullshit they had been saying about wwx the entire novel. And suddenly it felt really off.

Then, during the flashbacks leading up to Nightless City, I kept thinking back on that thing wwx tells nhs in volume one, when nhs explains his family's solution to their haunted saber problem. "Well, that's hitting a bit close to the demonic cultivation path". Doesn't nhs refuse to swordfight as well? Is he even carrying a sword? How come he can get away with this (and wwx can't)?

Wwx and jgy have similar origins but were raised in different environments. They learned similar survival methods and tried to play by the rules up until they couldn't anymore. They had the two more prominent roles in winning the sunshot campaign, and yet everyone forgot about that the second they decided they were irredeemable. They met similar ends, fighting and protecting people they loved.

Nhs became the kind of person his brother would despise in trying to avenge him. He became like his brother's murderer. His survival method is also trying to make himself seem harmless, not with polite smiles or clever distractions but with tears. The only reason he didn't meet the same end as the other two is that he managed to stay out of the public's eye, and because his reputation was unstained from the beginning. Although I should note that he is Nie Mingjue's half-brother, which might hint at a more complicated heritage, more similar to that of the other two, than one would suspect at first glance. But whether that's the case or not, the point is that nobody would call nhs a bastard, and that means that people will overlook certain things he does that have condemned the other two to death.

That's what makes them such great narrative foils. In the end all three of them are cheating, but nhs had better cards to begin with.

[ukrfeminism]

Tens of thousands of sexual assaults and incidents have been reported in NHS-run mental health hospitals as a “national scandal” of sexual abuse of patients on psychiatric wards can be revealed. 

Almost 20,000 reports of sexual incidents in the last five years have been made in more than half of NHS mental health trusts, according to exclusive data uncovered in a joint investigation and podcast by The Independent and Sky News.

The shocking findings, triggered by one woman’s dramatic story of escape following a sexual assault in hospital revealed in a podcast, Patient 11, show NHS trusts are failing to report the majority of incidents to the police and are not meeting vital standards designed to protect the UK’s most vulnerable patients from sexual harm.

Throughout the 18-month investigation, multiple patients and their families spoke to The Independent about their stories of sexual assault and abuse while locked in mental health units.

Rivkah Grant, 34, was targeted by an NHS staff member and sexually abused, while Stephanie Tutty, 28, made similar allegations. Alexis Quinn, a former GB swimming star, alleged she was sexually assaulted twice – once when she was forced to sleep on a male ward and a second time on a mixed gender ward.

Dr Lade Smith, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, called the findings “horrendous”, while shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said it was a “wake-up call” for the government.

Among the key revelations were:

At least 19,899 sexual incidents were reported across more than 30 NHS trusts between 2019 and November 2023 – including staff assaults on patients and patients assaulting other patients

The figures suggest that just 982 – less than 5 per cent – of sexual incidents reported to hospitals were referred to the police over the same period

800 allegations of rape and serious assaults on women

Mixed sex wards, despite being banned a decade ago, are still in use across NHS mental health care with more than 500 reports of sexual assault since 2019

Just six out of 50 hospitals were able to prove they were meeting NHS standards aimed at protecting patients from sexual harm

Dr Smith told The Independent: “There is no place for sexual violence in society, which has a profound and long-lasting negative impact on people’s lives. Today’s horrendous findings show that there is still much to do to make sure that patients and staff in mental health trusts are protected from sexual harms at all times.

“It is deeply troubling to see that so many incidents in mental health settings go unreported.”

Mr Streeting said: “It will appal every decent person that these horrific crimes were committed against patients at their most vulnerable. The fact these have taken place in the NHS is chilling.

“Very serious questions must urgently be asked of hospital leaders, who have to explain why the vast majority of these incidents were kept from the police.

“The Conservatives promised to end mixed-sex wards in 2010, yet soaring numbers of patients are treated alongside patients of the opposite sex. Patients often find this humiliating and, as this investigation shows, it leaves women in particular vulnerable in hospital. 

“The government must treat this investigation as a wake-up call and act against the soaring number of mixed-sex wards in the NHS today.”

Dame Vera Baird, the former victims’ commissioner, said attacks by people who were supposed to care for the vulnerable were particularly troubling.

“The results of this investigation are a national scandal,” she said. “The [figures on assaults] from staff on patients are the height of concern because it may mean that there is insufficient scrutiny and insufficient vetting of people coming into hospitals. 

“These people are going to be let loose on the most vulnerable of people, whose testimony may not be believed when they say something.”

Sharon Brennan, from the patient charity National Voices, said the examples uncovered by The Independent were among the ”worst breaches of trust we have heard of”.

Our latest exposé comes as the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch prepares to launch a national inquiry into mental health care in England following a series of reports by The Independent over the past year.

Freedom of information figures show that patients are at risk from staff in numerous hospitals, with more than 300 incidents reported on patients over the five-year period.

Recalling her experience, Ms Grant told how she was sexually assaulted by an NHS staff member at Chase Farm Hospital in north London in 2016. Staff initially ignored her, she claimed.

She was then made to sleep in the same room the following night, she said, even though a complaint had been made to the trust and the staff member suspended. 

Ms Grant says her trauma was made worse when she was then moved to a mixed-sex ward, making her too scared to leave her room due to the male patients outside. 

“I have struggled with trauma since then and I’m scared of asking for help [from mental health services],” she said. “When I’m feeling bad, I don’t know where to turn to. You believe when you’re in a hospital, you should be safe. I’ve learned that there is no safety in mental health hospitals.”

Her attacker was convicted in June 2017 following a police investigation. North London Mental Health Partnership, which now runs Chase Farm Hospital, said it was “deeply sorry” for what had happened to Ms Grant and insisted the safety of its users was their top priority.

In another alleged case, Ms Tutty, a mother of two, told The Independent her harrowing story after seeking help from Essex mental health services having been raped in her youth. 

Instead of getting treatment, she claims she was subjected to five months of horrific sexual abuse by a staff member.

A year later she says she was traumatised again after being admitted to another Essex-run unit, where a security guard sent her sexually explicit text messages, seen by The Independent. The police later said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute in relation to the alleged sexual abuse. 

Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which is currently facing a public inquiry into 2,000 patient deaths, refused to respond to questions from The Independent when asked about the serious allegations.

Our investigation shows at least 500 sexual assaults and incidents have been recorded on mixed-sex wards or mixed-sex communal areas within trusts since 2019.

Ms Quinn, a former swimming star and teacher, was admitted to Littlebrook Hospital in Kent in 2013 after seeking support from mental health services following her brother’s death.

Within hours of her admission, she claims she was sexually assaulted by a male patient after being placed on an all-male ward. 

Ms Quinn immediately ran to tell staff who tried to send her back to the ward where her attacker remained, she claimed. Distressed and panicked, she was restrained and then placed in solitary confinement. 

Ms Quinn said: “You know, I blame the system for putting me in that situation, for not safeguarding me – this is a systemic problem. I thought it was just me, but it’s not just me, it’s thousands.”

The trust eventually apologised. However, within months she was placed in peril again in a mixed-sex ward, where she alleges she was the victim of a second assault.

Kent and Medway Partnership Trust, which runs the hospital, said it continues to offer its “sincerest apologies” for the “unacceptable behaviour” she experienced in its care, and that it was fully investigated and acted upon at the time.

As part of our investigation, The Independent and Sky News uncovered thousands of allegations of sexual incidents, ranging from abuse and rape to sexually inappropriate behaviour or language across more than 30 out of 52 NHS mental health trusts since 2019. The scale of the scandal is likely to be even worse as figures do not include private hospitals where hundreds of NHS patients are sent to each year. 

Among them was Nima Cass Hunt, who was groomed and abused in a Huntercombe Group hospital when she was 16. Her abuser, care worker Marcus Daniell, was jailed for 11 years in 2020 for his crimes. Ms Hunt warned that under-staffed mental health services are failing to protect patients. 

“Nobody at the hospital looked or listened to obvious signs,” she said. “There is something terribly wrong with the protocols that intend to keep patients in mental health hospitals safe when patients are still exposed to sexual abuse despite obvious signs, indicators and even disclosures.” Former owners of the hospital, Eli Investments, were approached for comment.

Melanie Leahy told The Independent that staff in Essex failed to investigate her son Matthew’s claims of rape while he was an inpatient in 2012 – he died just two days later.

“It makes me sick,” she said. “I believe this incident led to the loss of his life. I believe this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.” 

A report in 2019 by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found staff failed to take appropriate action in response to his allegations. The trust said in response it offers its condolences for Matthew’s death.

Meanwhile, in 2014, Gaia Pope, who was a victim of rape in her youth, reported sexual harassment while in a mixed-sex ward at Dorset NHS Hospital but staff failed to issue any safeguarding alerts. 

Her cousin, Marienna Pope-Weidemann, said: “I believe the failures [to address her concerns] directly contributed to her death later that year. They took absolutely no action and they discharged her 48 hours later without any [support].” 

Dorset Health Care chief executive Matthew Bryant said the trust acknowledges it should have done more to make sure Gaia felt safe in its care and ensure she felt her concerns were taken seriously.

In 2020, after the Care Quality Commission raised national concerns over sexual abuse in mental health services, the NHS set up guidelines under its “sexual safety collaboratives”. 

Despite the known risks, NHS trusts are not meeting their requirements of the standards to this day, with just six hospitals providing evidence they have met the collaboratives’ guidelines.

Gemma Byrne, Policy & Campaigns Manager at the charity Mind, said the investigation’s findings were “horrifying” and called for greater accountability for trusts who are failing to address such serious sexual safety incidents. 

Professor Charlie Brooker, one of the few academics in the UK who has examined the relationship between sexual assault and mental illness, told The Independent and Sky News there should be an inquiry into sexual safety in mental health wards.

He said: “It would be fascinating to see how many people came forward and wanted to give evidence. I won’t be at all surprised if it wasn’t several thousand.” 

Professor Brooker said a big factor in the development of mental illness is sexual trauma, adding: “What is happening to these vulnerable people, these vulnerable women, is retraumatisation which seems to be occurring in an environment where they're [meant] to safe. They end up worse than when they came in.” 

Eli Investments which owned Huntercombe Group said it was “saddened” by the allegations and regrets that the hospitals owned by the group failed to meet standards expected for high quality care.

NHS England said sexual assault would not be tolerated and said it was rolling out better reporting mechanisms and training for staff as part of its new NHS Sexual Safety Charter. 

It said all trusts will have to appoint a domestic violence and sexual assault lead. However, it did not specify how it would monitor and hold trusts to account who were failing to meet its new guidelines.

The Department of Health and Social Care said NHS organisations have a responsibility to protect both staff and patients.

If you need to seek support for anything sexual that happened to you without your consent you can call Rape Crisis on 0808 500 2222, 24 hours a day, every day of the week.

[cassolotl]

UK government planning to scrap a major disability benefit

I'm only just scraping by and the government are proposing to take away PIP (a disability benefit), which would be HALF of my income wiped out.

"Reforms to personal independence payments (PIP) could include stopping regular cash payments, and instead offering claimants one-off grants for things like home adaptations." -- "Disabled people face end to monthly benefits cash", BBC News, 29 April 2024

And:

"The plans, which will be consulted on over the coming months, also include proposals to “move away from a fixed cash benefit system”, meaning people with some conditions will no longer receive regular payments, but instead access to treatment if their condition does not involve extra costs." -- "People with depression or anxiety could lose sickness benefits, says UK minister", Guardian, 29 April 2024

That's what the NHS is supposed to be doing...

Genuinely absolutely terrifying.

Can anyone living in the UK join in with an (hopefully!) overwhelming cascade of unique emails to their MP opposing this? WriteToThem.com makes it very quick and easy.

They're proposing to replace it with one-off grants that the individual can apply for, which is absurd and horrifying, so feel free to point out how that won't work as well!

Here's what I'm writing, and do not just copy-paste my letter/email, because that makes it less legit. Do your own thing, even just one sentence telling your MP that you're opposed is enough if that's all you can manage. Whatever you want to say is what your MP needs to hear.

Dear [MP's name], Today I learned that the government plan to scrap PIP, and maybe replace it with something like a one-off grant application process, before the next election. ("Disabled people face end to monthly benefits cash", BBC News, 29 April 2024: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0ry09d50wo) PIP is about half of my income (about 44%). I don't spend it on occasional large purchases, I spend it on countless things that are more expensive for me than they are for other people. PIP is in place to acknowledge, as it says in the above article, that disabled people's lives are more expensive than non-disabled people's lives by hundreds of pounds per week. ("Previous research from Scope suggests households with at least one disabled adult or child face an estimated average extra cost of £975 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households." That's £225 per week, and the maximum amount of PIP you can get is £184.) So firstly, it could be argued that PIP doesn't even cover the additional expenses of the average disabled household. And next, the cost of implementing an alternative system would be worse for disabled people, totally unsuited to its purpose, and more expensive to run. Worse for disabled people: Currently PIP acknowledges that being disabled takes a lot more work to maintain a comparable standard of living, and as it's an amount of work that the claimant cannot sustainably do, they are given money so that they can pay someone else to do it. These costs are distributed across all living expenses, in addition to occasional one-off purchases of e.g. mobility aids. Having to apply for one-off payments for expenses would be more work on top of that, so if the disabled person isn't able to do it (which is very likely) they will either have to work less in their day jobs in order to spend more time applying for one-off grants, or they will have to also apply for one-off payments to pay someone to apply for more one-off payments. This is self-evidently a waste of energy and time, and totally impractical, as well as being counter to the entire point of disability benefits. It would also be extremely undignified for the disabled people, and arguably against human rights (right to private life and dignity), to have to justify each purchase to the government. Totally unsuited to its purpose: One off-grants are not suited to ongoing higher expenses such as having to buy more prepared food (e.g. carrot batons are more expensive than raw carrots and go off much more quickly). Does this policy assume that disabled people's PIP is only for things like wheelchairs and walking sticks? More expensive to run: The system for PIP applications is already fairly backlogged, in that my last application took over 6 months to complete. I was awarded PIP for 10 years. If every application for a one-off grant had to be accompanied by an application of a similar scale that wouldn't be workable, so presumably an initial PIP application like the current system's would still be required to qualify for the system in the first place, and then following that, numerous smaller applications for money (e.g. for taxis, pre-chopped veg, painkillers, specialist clothing, etc.) would be carried out per person per month. The disability benefits system would have to be scaled up significantly, and it would be much more expensive. It is far cheaper to give people a set amount of money based on their needs; it's the same money that you would be giving them in grants anyway, but without having to process each purchase/one-off application. I implore you to oppose this proposal. It is blatantly unworkable to the level of absurdity, but more importantly it is inhumane. I look forward to your reply detailing your stance. Many thanks in advance. Yours sincerely, [My name]

But, again, if you can't manage anything long or complicated like that, your best is good enough. Even if they're not all perfectly written and detailed, we want to bowl them over with sheer quantity of emails.

[tavina-writes]

I have been pondering the recent rash of "post canon NHS and LXC would never ever reconcile bc even if NHS wanted to have Er-ge back, LXC would never ever forgive him for [insert reason of choice here]" type of posts + the "do you think NHS thinks very hard about how much Da-ge would hate him for becoming [the way that he is now] by choosing to seek vengeance" type of posts, and I think fundamentally the reason these posts do not jive with me is that we have no indication, in the show or in the book that uh, NHS gives a shit about either of these things very much anymore?

The first type of post is predicated on the assumption that LXC's forgiveness or lack thereof some some sort of either extension of mercy (which NHS obviously does not deserve <- or so assumes the post) or some form of punishment (which is obviously the correct answer) but the last scene we get with NHS both in the book and the show make no indication that this is a thing he wants? Or cares about? Book NHS has *sauntered off* with his little hat trophy and Show NHS walks off screen after saying something along the lines of "What is my responsibility I won't shirk, what isn't my responsibility I won't care about." Now, arguably, show NHS is having a worse go of it emotionally, but shows no real inclination or interest in either apologies or making up and being friends again with LWJ, LXC, WWX, or other people. Book NHS seems pretty pleased with the outcome of the events as a whole?

The second type of post is predicated on the fact that NHS finds Da-ge's judgement a horrible burden to bear at this stage in the game, which! He might! But again especially in the book we get no indication that he has any fucks left to give about what Da-ge may or may not have wanted since Da-ge is dead. In both the show and the book, NHS went about revenge taking very specific and complicated actions with the desired result of JGY dying, but he certainly took the scenic route getting there, which, he didn't need to? As I've written about before, JGY didn't see him as a threat. If he wanted JGY dead he could've arranged to poison JGY's tea like, 10 years ago and had done with it instead of his complicated Rube Goldberg life ruining scheme. If he is still sickly anxious about how Da-ge might feel about the scheming and the trouble causing and the whole everything, that's certainly possible, but he must've decided it was worth it anyway regardless of that, and I don't know that it necessarily would've changed just because he got what he wanted at the end.

Overall, I think as a fandom we think a lot about like "will and should this relationship ever be repaired or similar to how it used to be?" and "does this character deserve/not deserve the forgiveness of people they've hurt or abandoned?" which can be interesting questions! I do feel like these are often taken as "is a character morally good (deserves to be forgiven) or morally bad (deserves to rot in hell forever never forgiven ever ever)" and based entirely on if Character is the meta writer's blorbo. Under this paradigm the concept of "Character did bad things to get exactly what they wanted and were happy about that and no relationships were ever repaired and the emotional detachment of people they used to care about no longer matters to them!" is uncomfortable.

It's just that for NHS I've increasingly come to the conclusion that canonically, I don't think NHS thinks he has anything to apologize for, nor is he super interested in being forgiven! He got what he wanted the way he wanted it to happen. Which is potentially supremely unsatisfying but I think is very sexy as a narrative concept.