It was agreed that the most comfortable forum for this discussion would be in small groups. Groups met for 45 minutes and then shared their thoughts with the larger meeting.

The points raised by the groups:

• An important part of this discussion focused on the term 'recovery' and what is meant by it. It was emphasised that recovery is a human phenomena experienced by many different people in many different contexts, not just those in the mental health system. It was suggested that recovery from mental health difficulties also invariably means 'recovery' from being in the mental health system. It was acknowledged that people with mental health problems can have their basic human rights abused.
• There was a consensus that everybody's experience of recovery is different and some people talked about a "recovery process". (i.e. 'working-through' a problem, for which there may not necessarily be an end point/being 'recovered'.)
• For some people the term 'recovery' did not make sense as it is linked to the medical model and to the notion that one can recover from mental distress created by social problems. Alternatively some felt that the term 'recovery' offered hope and is a term that can be used to help educate the public about mental health.
• There was strong support for the proposal that if mental health services reacted differently to people in distress and offered alternative treatments, quicker recovery is possible. It was felt that within mental health services, expressing distress and/or strong emotions (which can be part of a healing process and which is a part of life) is pathologised as a symptom of mental illness. Additionally it was highlighted that 'recovery' is not celebrated or researched enough and that there is no 'model of recovery' in psychiatry.
• There seemed to be a consensus that services over-emphasised the use/need of medication for recovery.
• Some suggestions were made for how to offer different forms of support to people in distress, such as intensive support when a person is in a crisis. For example, The Bradford Home Treatment Team, does not label people in its care and users are also involved in supporting others. The group felt that when a person is in distress they need a safe place to go where they won't be coerced and where they can trust people.
• Positive experiences of 'psychosis' were also shared. Some people within the group felt that psychosis can be a creative process.
• Some members of the CMHF felt that access to psychological therapy could be a helpful part of the recovery process, yet this could often be difficult.
• Some mental health workers in the group discussed their frustration and the difficulties they face when trying to introduce new ways of working within the prevailing medical model ethos of the mental health services.
• Members of the group raised concerns about the recent questionnaire distributed by MIND. Mainly there was a question about the validity of a quantitative survey, using 'tick-boxes' to equate experiences of mental health. As there was a varied response to this concern it was felt that individual members of the group could contact MIND rather than sending a letter on behalf of the CMHF.

Finally it was brought to the group's attention that often there were new-comers who were unaware of the aims of the group and of what was done during meetings. We felt it would be nice to welcome them and provide them with some written material.