• Dave circulated information he had received from Sara Stanton who was interested in making a film about people’s views of compulsory treatment. There was discussion and generally people felt they wanted more information abut the purpose of the film. The issue of intellectual property rights was also raised and the involvement of professionals. The group generally felt that if the filming took place it should be separate from ordinary CMHF meetings. It was agreed that Dave should invite Sara to come and talk to the group about the film.

• A member of the group had been to an event called ‘Changing Cultures’ at the LVSC on Holloway Road. They described it as arty in the morning and more cerebral in the afternoon.
• People had attended the Critical psychiatry conference. There had been discussion about the limits of the medical model and personal accounts/testimonies by users/survivors, which made an interesting comparison with the more academic presentations. A workshop on risk had seemed somewhat unsound because it had suggested that the public were perhaps justified in their fears of people with mental health problems.
• On the 28^th May there is a Maudsley debate on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
• On the 7^th June there is an event at the Institute of Psychiatry entitled ‘How can philosophy help to understand the mind in psychosis?’
• On the 10^th June there is a Virtual Users Conference.
• On the 22^nd June there is a Mental Health Alliance Conference – information accessible through Mind’s website.

Hermione introduced some research she is doing at University College. She passed information around about her findings so far based on interviews with people. A number of issues were discussed:

• Use of the term "agency"
• The applicability of the study to people with mental health problems other than psychosis
• People’s experience of the usefulness of services may vary over time.
• Blocks (e.g. lack of understanding of recovery by professionals, family, etc.) as well as aids to recovery were seen to be important.
• The meaning of ‘recovery’
• Professional often being negative about the chances of recovery.
• ‘Working out where you stand’

• being selective about being open with services/colleagues to avoid them knowing
• deceitfulness of services

• ‘How mad was I really’

• revolved around issues of ‘fear’ (internal and external threats)
• experiences from past life (e.g. abuse)
• madness as a spark for creativity
• different length of time it took to understand experiences
• by understanding/articulating experience there is the risk that it will be ‘taken over’ by experts/professionals

Hermione stressed it was only a small sample she had interviewed but it does link with other qualitative studies on the same subject and Mind’s study on recovery which involved 900 people. It may provide the basis for more research in the future and be useful to challenge the ‘white noise’ theory of psychosis. Hermione intends to write it up and may publish it and/or present at the Mind Conference.

Dave asked people to contact him with suggestions for a date.

• Dave introduced a paper he had written after the first meeting of the CMHF outlining it’s aims, structure etc.
• There was discussion about membership. In the beginning it had been about 50/50 user/survivors and professionals though it appeared there were less professionals involved now. It was stressed that the group was open to anyone interested in mental health issues and in broad agreement with the group’s aims.
• It was suggested the group should be more politically active against the mental health system.
• There was acknowledgment of ‘ally’ professionals working in the system and it was important to build networks and partnerships – not an ‘them and us’ scenario. The group could then be a model of how services and user/survivors could work together.
• It was felt that the openness/looseness of the group allowed constructive disagreement and discussion as well as sharing ideas about the way forward.
• One person spoke of how they believed they had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice by the system. Suggestions of support were offered to them (including writing it all down). This led to a wider discussion of how the group can be used to support/help individuals in similar situations. It was agreed that Mind’s legal advice services and/or Scott Moncrieff Solicitors (experts in mental health law) could be invited to the group to discuss legal issues. This might also be an opportunity to discuss individual cases as well as general issues.
• The importance of the CMHF using the media to get stories out about the mental health issues was mentioned.
• A suggestion was made about a CMHF writer’s circle, building links with Open Mind and truing to get a regular ‘day in the life’ type column.
• The issues of the group’s structure was briefly discussed (e.g. groups dealing with management, political action, creative work etc.). Also issues of chairing meetings. However there was no time to discuss this so it was agreed to set time aside at the next meeting but also to invite someone to talk about employment issues as originally planed.