Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform?


5:08 pm - January 25th 2010

by Unity    


      Share on Tumblr

This morning’s guest post by Zarathustra, of the excellent Mental Nurse blog, flagged up the existence of a right-wing campaign group calling itself ‘Nurses for Reform’, and as Lib Con’s resident data hound that naturally prompted me to ask a very pertinant question:

Just exactly how many of the people behind ‘Nurses for Reform’ are actually nurses?

Is this actually a genuine organisation that can point to a significant level of support within the nursing profession or it is, like the Taxpayers’ Alliance, just another small, well funded, right-wing front organisation with a name carefully chosen to mislead the naive and unwary into taking it for something it almost certainly isn’t?

So who, exactly, are ‘Nurses for Reform’?

Well, their director and primary mouthpiece is Dr Helen Evans RGN and she is, indeed, a nurse with 20 years experience in the NHS under her belt and a PhD in health management from Brunel University. So she’s a doctor, but not in the medical sense of the term.

As for her organisation, it claims to be a ‘growing pan-European network of nurses dedicated to consumer-oriented reform of European healthcare systems’, although evidence of any links to like-minded nurses organisations or campaign groups are a bit thin on the ground.

The other noticeable feature of the NFR website is, with the exception of a page listing members of advisory board, the marked lack of reference to anyone other than Dr Helen Evans, who appears to be the site’s sole contributor, contact point and, for all anyone knows, chief cook and bottle-washer.

Not exactly a flying start then, but there is an advisory board, so maybe we’ll find a few more nurses there…

…or maybe not.

Let’s run down the list, starting with:

Stuart Browning

Browning runs a website called Free Market Cure, which is actively involved in the campaign against Obama’s healthcare reforms and ‘socalised’ medicine and is supported by the Moving Picture Institute. Browning is a film director and entrepreneur with an established reputation for knocking out free-market propaganda films.

Dr Eamonn Butler

Butler is the current director of the Adam Smith Institute and has degrees in Philosophy, Economics and Psychology, although I doubt very much that the latter indicates that he has any background on the clinical side.

Dr Tim Evans

Evans is perhaps best known to bloggers as one of the two big wheels in the Libertarian Alliance, along with Sean Gabb.

He’s also, just for the record, the Chief Executive of the Cobden Centre, a former President and Director General of the Centre for the New Europe and former Executive Director of Public Affairs at the Independent Healthcare Association.

Prior to that, in 1991-1992, he was the Chief Economic and Political Adviser to the Slovak Prime Minister – Dr. Jan Carnogursky – and was Head of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit. In the late 1980s he was the Assistant Director of the Foundation for Defence Studies and subsequently became a Senior Policy Consultant at the Adam Smith Institute.

When he’s not working with the Cobden Centre, he’s the Chairman of the Economic Policy Centre, Chairman of Global Health Futures Ltd, a Consultant Director and a Senior Fellow with the Adam Smith Institute.

Coincidentally, of course, his wife’s name is Helen… Helen Evans

Mmm, I’ve heard that name before somewhere?

Shane Frith

Frith is the director of right-wing think-tank Progressive Vision, which recently launched a group called ‘Progressive Conservatives’, chaired by Tory MEP Syed Kamall, as a new group for ‘classical liberals in the Conservative Party’. If anything it looks to be ‘brains’ behind the Hannanite wing of the Tory Party, particularly when pitching for a Singapore-style healthcare system and the break-up of the BBC.

According to Conservative Home, Frith has worked for both Tory MP’s in the UK and National Party MPs in native New Zealand and is a former chair of the International Young Democrat Union. His immediate predecessor in that role was Tory MP Andrew Rosindell.

Ruth Lea

Yes this is the Ruth Lea, economist and former head of policy at the Institute of Directors. You’ve seen her on the TV enough to know her shtick.

So far, we’re running a bit short of actual nurses but at least everyone on the advisory board, so far, has the kind of public profile that would make NFR look a bit ridiculous were it to try to conceal information about them.

That’s all about to change.

Robert LeFever

LeFever is billed simply as a ‘blogger’, although I can’t link to his blog at the moment because Google is putting up one of its ‘this site may be harmful to your computer’ messages against its search engire reference. That said, modesty appears not to LeFever’s strong suit as Google does provide this quotation from his blog:

“Dr Robert Lefever is a Darwin of our times, speaking a truth regardless of who it may upset; his insights and ideas will prove him to be a man way ahead of …”

Apparently, the missing words at the end of the quotation are “…his time in years to come. Anyone seeking The [sic] real promise of addiction recovery should work only with Dr Robert Lefever.”, which is just as well as no one could accuse him of being a man ahead of his own ego or promotional bullshit.

What NFR don’t see fit to mention is LeFever’s personal interest in a family-run private rehab clinic (PROMIS). Until fairly recently, Robert LeFever was usually described  in the media as the clinic’s director, although he’s no longer listed in the staff page, unlike his son, Robin LeFever, the clinic’s managing director.

Dr Robert LeFever was a GP before getting into the rehab business and while his son, Robin, lays claim to a BSc in Psychology on the clinic’s website, he’s not listed on either of the British Psychological Society’s professional registers – which cover chartered psychologists and a very limited number of psychotherapists – so one would hope that he sticks firmly to management and leave the treatment side of things to others.

In 1998, Robin told the BBC that he he’d been addicted to cannabis in an article that describes him as ‘running a marijuana rehabilitation centre’. Three years later he was billed, by Glasgow’s Sunday Mail, as a ‘Scots-born financial whizz-kid’ who’d led a ‘seedy double life’ as a drug addict in a feature article published under the headline, ‘Robin thought he was OK.. “heroin addicts didn’t wear suits and work in the city; THE INCREDIBLE RICHES TO RAGS STORY OF A PROFESSIONAL JUNKIE” [their capitals, not mine].

More recently Robert has cropped up in a few places with the claim that he too was once an addict – gambling, shopping and work, apparently – but he’s over all that now, save for his sole remaining addiction to maudlin political reminiscences, such as this  lengthy article, which appeared in a Libertarian Alliance publication, under their copyright, in 2003. According to Robert, life was just peachy as an NHS GP until the introduction of Harold Wilson’s ‘social contract’ in 1974, although the reference at the end to “my friend Tim Bell, Lady Thatcher’s PR guru” and the name check for Ayn Rand suggest that he’s not the most unbiased observer of those times.

Moving on, we have…

Robert McIndoe

According to NFR, McIndoe is a ‘British Nurse’ [Hooray! A nurse at Last!]

According to Spinprofiles, McIndoe’s real background is…

‘founder and Managing Director’ of a marketing agency called The Marketing House and an advisor for Nurse for Reform, a free market lobby group. According to his ‘LinkedIn’ profile, McIndoe is ‘Senior Business Consultant’ at Logica (December 2007 — Present); Owner, The Marketing House (February 2001 — Present); ‘Principal Consultant’ Capita Advisory Services (March 2006 — October 2007); ‘Communications Consultant’ NHS Connecting for Health (2005 — 2006); ‘Stakeholder Management & Communications Team Leader’ CSC (2004 — 2005).

According to the Marketing House his past appointments have included ‘senior public relations, communications and marketing roles for The Nuffield Trust, Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust, University College London Hospitals, The Royal Hospitals Trust and Hays DX.

…although he does have a nursing qualification (RNM), which makes him a registered mental nurse, even if his academic background is that of an MA in Fine Arts from the University of St Andrews, which he followed up with an MBA in Creativity, Marketing and Finance via that fine socialist invention, the Open University and an MA in Theatre & Performance Studies at Rose Bruford College.

As is apparent from his profile, his ideological views on the NHS haven’t stopped him screwing money out of it as marketing consultant but, looking on the bright side, at least Nurses for Reform has managed to justify the use of a plural despite having previously given the impression that we might be looking here at something that was actually ‘Nurse for Reform’.

That brings to the final name on the list:

Mr. John Wilden MRCP, FRCS

Wilden is a ‘leading neurosurgeon with a practice in Harley Street’ according to his profile at the Adam Smith Institute.

According to Grant Thornton, the London-based global network of independent accounting and consulting firms.

Global Healthcare Futures (GHF) is a UK company that is the brain child of John Wilden, a former specialist and consultant neurosurgeon. GHF is developing and promoting software products for “Time to Cure” and “Cost to Cure” Common Diseases based on the advances of molecular biology and other technologies which will underpin the fast looming world of curative global healthcare, thereby ushering in a new age of diminishing healthcare costs across the developed and developing world”.

Mmm… Global Healthcare Futures… I’ve heard that name before, somewhere?

Silly me, I forgot to include the citation…

Dr Tim Evans, Chairman of Global Health Futures

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting deja vu?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy ,Health ,Libertarians

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Heh. Thanks for doing all this legwork, Unity. I couldn’t do it myself as I was too busy rolling around on the floor laughing at NFR’s suggestion of creating consumer brands for nurses.

I forget where I saw it, but I think I remember somewhere on NFR’s site they make a comment about the “dozens of nurses” who are flocking to join NFR.

Wow, literally dozens!

I also note that NFR says its part of Pan European network. The website does have a link to a Swedish site from January 2008, except that that site doesn’t exist. And there’s a blogpost about Dr Evans going to Slovakia and thinking the health care system should be privatised. I can’t find any network though. There is, however, quite a bit on there about the US and Obama’s proposed health care ‘reforms’. Funny that.

I wondered about this when I first saw ‘nurses for reform’ around. Didn’t really look into it, but this is interesting information. Hopefully they’ll be a bit clearer in response.

Good stuff.

PS. Minor point: it’s ‘Rose Bruford College’

The site exists, but the link is incorrect.

What they’re trying to link to is the Stockholm Network, which appears to be be a support group for economists who’ve developed Stockholm syndrome after attending lectures on Hayek.

Curious, when did the number of supporters an organisation have determine if it is a genuine organisation or not?

Regardless of any organisations views or opinions on a topic, it would be a worrying trend if they have to reach a state-defined minimum number of members before being allowed to have opinions on a subject.

Great work Unity, nice to see the devil in the detail.

Curious, when did the number of supporters an organisation have determine if it is a genuine organisation or not?

When it adopts a name which conveys the impression that it speaks for a particular constituency.

You wouldn’t expect the National Farmer’s Union to represent the views of tool setters, would you?

Curious, when did the number of supporters an organisation have determine if it is a genuine organisation or not?

Not so much the numbers, more the type of people. As in, they’re calling themselves Nurses for Reform when they’re composed of two actual nurses (one of whom seems to be mostly working as a management consultant) and a load of policy wonks.

In others, it’s an astroturf organisation.

What always amuses me is that the right keep trying this kind of thing on even though, between the Trots and the Fascists, we pretty much wrote the book on spotting entryists and fake front operations.

11. Luis Enrique

great work.

(now if we can only get the MSM to ignore the New Economics Foundation on similar grounds)

Indeed it is an Astroturf group, in the fine tradition of bodies such as the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance – maybe it will be equally as transparent when it comes to telling who is backing it, and publishing its accounts.

Is it a bit like those “fake charities” that right-whingers are always moaning about?

Twats.

Yes indeed.

Only difference is the fake charity pressure groups are tax payer funded.

Great work Unity.

The deja vu extends way beyond the names and organisations in your OP, of course. And beyond even our own home-grown Taxpayers’ Alliance.

This sort of thing is straight out of the Republican/wing-nut playbook in America.

(note also strong links to Policy Exchange, which like the US Heritage Foundation isn’t so much a “think” tank as a “relentlessly push fabricated rightwing crap to dominate the media discourse” tank, albeit PE are so far much less successful than HF et al.)

Used to work in the drugs field, including treatment, Dr Robert LeFever was well known as a self-publicist frequently popping up in the media as rent-a-quote. His treatment is based on the ’12 Steps’, or ‘Minnesota Method’ as used by Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous. The majority of drug treatment services do not use this method nowadays and there used to be frustration that LeFever, who has some very odd ideas, was seen as spokesman for drug treatment.

As far as I am aware LeFever had no beef with the NHS when he ceased being a GP, he just wanted to get into private practice and add to his collection of fine old English bank notes. He has no qualifications relevant to drugs treatment,or the treatment of people of people with mental health problems (which he also does). One would usually expect a psychiatric, or psychological qualification to work in these fields.

His PROMIS treatment clinic closed in 2008. Testimonies from dissatisfied former patients and workers are scattered about the internet. It seems the principal concern of PROMIS was what is known in America as “the wallet biopsy”.

Great work Unity. There’s always some whataboutery when right wing hypocrisy is uncloaked but I think you are safe to let the above evidence speak for itself.

Anybody want to join my group “Leprechauns for Reform”? We’re a group of Leprechauns [1] who are pushing for a return to the Gold Standard. What with all the pots of gold tied up we think we’re on to a winner.

Anybody want to join?

[1] You don’t have to be a Leprechaun to join

Anyone needing Ruth Lea really is scrapping the bottom of the barrel. But it is straight out of the American right wing playbook. Fake Astroturf organisation that try to pretend that they are independent or neutral or whatever bullshit they are selling. Snake oil salesman the lot of them. And as you point out no nurses at all..

The fact that call me dave is listening to them , and not the thousands of real nurses shows that he is a liar when he says he likes the health service. The only thing he likes is the thought of flogging off all those hospitals at a fraction of their value to his corporate masters.

Can I just say I’ve just had the biggest laugh in ages after going back to the NFR blog. Today’s post from Dr Helen Evans includes the following quote.

In the world of blogging and tweeting Westminster reporters could no longer sweep the expenses scandal under the carpet or fail to expose questionable political characters such as Damien McBride. No, the mainstream and established media are under real pressure now.

Yes, Helen. Blogging and tweeting does indeed have a role in exposing questionable political characters.

Nice research and thanks for the heads up.

Unity,

Excellent stuff.

I have recently become interested in the numbers behind identities. Am I right in assuming that this group has around, what, 20 or so supporters? And perhaps enormous dosh?

Who knows how the money and the opinions might interact?

Tim & Helen Evans are both on the TaxpayersAlliance Academic Advisory Council.

You might also want to look at the current Private Eye, where I have a small spot on Nurses for Reform.
Also worth looking at “Doctors for Reform”, who are closer to the Tory centre than “Nurses for Reform”. I covered them here

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/85577

Solomon Hughes

Why can’t the tories tell the truth?

They are always lecturing Labour about the truth, but they should come out and tell the British public the truth. That they hate the National health service, and they won’t rest until they have destroyed it. They hate the idea of poor people getting health care, and any other service that should be paid for.

Tories like inequality because it makes them feel superior. That like it when some is suffering.

Richard,

Tim & Helen Evans are both on the TaxpayersAlliance Academic Advisory Council.

I wonder how many individual members the Taxpayers Alliance actually has and what sources of funding they have? I do wonder.

Solomon Hughes,

Go on.

Break the rules!

Lets see Private Eye on here, lest I think less than is reasonable about Ian Hislop.

Well, I do. The little pathetic establishmentarian….

Still buy it.

Have to agree with some of the comments here.

There’s something pathological and insidious about the way the Right on both sides of the Atlantic has to cloak itself in these Orwellian sounding names in order to sell the snake oil it offers as policies.

The Right just cannot be honest about itself. It knows how unpopular its true motives are. Hence the mad scramble to disguise its true intentions from the electorate via these bizarre sounding organisations.

Truly worrying.

My favourite one of these idiotic American groups is ‘concerned woman for America’ A nasty little Right wing bullshit organisation.

One of the things that should be understood about these groups is that it is part of a giant corporate welfare circuit. These people live off corporate welfare. Look at Sarah Palin.

what a beautiful cluster-fuck! it makes my cheeks glow

30. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

Nice work.

Just to keep the comedy going, back on NFR’s blog, Dr Helen Evans’ “thought” for the day is,

Is it true that No.10 cut back on the drink driving adds because of NFR?

Answers on a postcard marked, “No”.

Douglas Clark – the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance represents less than one tenth of one per cent of all taxpayers in the UK.

As for its funding, the organisation is rather reticent: they still haven’t produced up to date accounts. We do know that their office space has been donated, and it’s believed that the Midlands Industrial Council is one of their largest donors, but otherwise the transparency they demand of others is sadly lacking.

Oh, and their so-called charitable arm is now under investigation following a number of articles in the Guardian.

33. Mike Killingworth

As others have said, great work, Unity. Best post we’ve had here for ages – investigative journalism at its finest.

Alas it won’t work. The right-wing blogosphere will big these guys up to the point where all the papers (except the Grauniad, Independent and Mirror) get a quote from them every time they run a health story and then the TV stations will be bullied into doing likewise until, before you know where you are, one of the Evanses or even LeFever is on Question Time. That’s how things are done these days.

[16]

The majority of drug treatment services do not use this [12-step] method nowadays

Well, they did when I used them in 1997. When did they change and why?

Tim Fenton @ 32,

Cheers. Much as I suspected, but it’s good to have the evidence.

Mike @ 33,

Point. It is a bit beyond me why Liberal Conspiracy doesn’t publish press releases too. I’d quite like to see Unity on Question Time.

Sauce for the goose, etc….

Douglas:

Despite having a face best suited to radio, I’d quite like to see me on Question Time.

Last I heard, the standard appearance fee for the programme was £3,000. 🙂

@ 33

The majority of drug (and alcohol) treatment services have never been 12 Step programme orientated . But the terms used by AA & NA about drug (& alcohol) problems have come to dominate everyday vocabulary about drug & alcohol problems e.g. “addiction is a disease”, “recovering alcoholic”, etc. Any clinician in the NHS would never use the word “addiction” , they would say “this person has a drug dependency”.

The 12 Step programme was devised by two American doctors in the 1930s, it has a rigid ideology, which can cause problems. If you are not a theist it is fairly difficult to say one has “Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs”. It has been compared to a religious cult.

(BTW Martin Amis speaking about his friend Christopher Hitchens explained his conversion to neo-conservatism by saying :”Hitchens has to have an ideology. Till 1989 it was communism, in the ’90s it was AA, now it’s this”)

37. Mike Killingworth

[36] Where do I start with the factual errors?

One of the co-founders of AA was a stockbroker. The programme only has a “rigid ideology” to people – in or out of AA/NA – who want it to have.

I don’t understand the distinction you seek to make between “addiction” and “dependency”. Please explain.

If you think that either Amis or Hitchens know anything about anything, there’s probably not a lot of point in continuing this discussion.

This isn’t to be worried about because I expect that if any disatisfied nurses around the country do try to join ‘Nurses for Reform’ because they would like reform, then NFR will give them some information explaining just what the reform is they want as an organisation. Then the nurses can decide if that reform is something they want and are able to make a decision whether to join or not.

I don’t think NFR would just take in any nurses regardless of their views just to bolster their member base and then completly misrepresent those nurses.

Ohhh, hang on. My medication just wore off. I’m talking sh*t aren’t I?

OK. So we’re all agreed this is a non-representative pressure group in the libertarian-small government sphere. Good work by Unity sorting this out.

I presume that now Unity has shown this group is pretty irrelevant (if their major connections are to other, more successful, pressure groups – the Taxpayers Alliance and Liberatarian Alliance – then I don’t think this group is applying much pressure) we can rule them out of having much significance. At least unless they start to regularly meet with health spokesmen/leaders of a political party (for the non-pedants, once is not regularly). To clarify, this group appears irrelevant, and does not appear to speak for nurses as a whole (who are probably worked too hard to care about politics in the main), or indeed for many at all. Their claim to fame is one meeting with David Cameron. To continue to focus on them is to waste effort and to ignore the real enemy (if you are oppossed to a Conservative government), as clearly Mr Cameron has not declared any health policy based on Nurses for Reform materials. There is the wonderful phrase, ‘play the ball, not the man’; in this case I am concerned that there is a possibility of playing another man entirely, on a different pitch. Go after these groups by all means, but remember that the political benefits are minute.

40. Mike Killingworth

[39]

Clearly Mr Cameron has not declared any health policy based on Nurses for Reform materials

Yet. The economy (and therefore the tax base) has shrunk by one-third thanks to the Bankers’ Ramp. If we suppose that it grows at 3% a year from now on it will take fifteen years merely to restore it to its former size.

This means that our standard of living has to be reduced, as quickly as possible, to that found on the First World/Third World border – Portgual, say, or Mexico or the better-off parts of Russia.

This implies the end of the 1945 settlement, whether that be universal health-care or the idea that education, rather than cronyism, is the royal road to a better life. The incoming government after the election will need all the lobbying groups of the NFR type it can get.

Watchman, you are either extremely naive or a very subtle troll indeed.

Mike,

My interest here is trying to keep the sociallistically-inclined focussed on debating issues, as the tendency to try and hold up things like posters or pressure groups as ‘Tory policy’ seems to have crept up from sites like this to the Labour party campaign machine. This is bad for politics, as it means that they are neither debating the issues, nor making other parties debate them, and thus no-one has to think things through.

So I am not advocating any course here, just agreeing that Nurses for Reform seem rather irrelevant and of limited importance, and suggesting that the focus shift onto what to do about the financial short fall you identity (incidentally, are you sure about the third? It seems a bit extreme, since I haven’t noticed mass closures or layoffs).

42. Mike Killingworth

[41] The reason you haven’t noticed a 1931-style slump is because of the Government’s response to the crisis, ie. QE.

QE is now a busted flush (the markets won’t take any more) and now the piper must be paid. Cameron and Osbourne are wisely keeping their powder dry until after the poll – hence my “yet”.

A key issue for Cameron (or even Brown) in delivering the very very unpopular policies that will be needed to restore economic equilibrium within the paradigm of “the Anglo-American model of capitalism” during the next few years will be the identification and persecution of a scapegoat – the equivalent of the Trade Unions under Thatcherism.

This scapegoat will be all those who wish to sustain the 1945 settlement, and more particularly public sector workers and pensioners. The scapegoating will not come so directly from government as it did in the 1980s (think of the role of Bernard Ingham) as from elements of civil society, and in particular the media nexus of think-tanks, political blogs and old-fashioned newsprint.

The purpose of creating NFR is to create an atmosphere in which (in this case) nurses who prefer to work in the public sector are denounced to the point of harassment as unprofessional, unpatriotic and even quasi-criminal: as much a threat to decent people as the housebreaker is to the householder, and every bit as deserving of a crowbar to the cranium.

Watch for NFR to run articles on how much more respectful private patients are than NHS ones; & how they have greater care for their own health, for example. The allegation that the NHS itself causes poor health will be repeated ad nauseam (by a wilful misreading of the academic literature on iatrogenesis) until even NuLab politicos start to believe it. NFR will doubtless go on to accuse practitioners who remain within the NHS of abusing their professional responsibility. Finally it will produce voodoo polls showing that people “want” the NHS broken up and the “freedom” to pay for medical care at the time their health is worst.

43. plastickeith

@ monkey town
You are doing AA a great disservice by saying it has a rigid ideology and you have to be a theist to be happy as a member. I have found it to be one of the most liberal organisations I have ever belonged to, it has no official leaders or rules you have to obey just suggestions. God means whatever higher power is relevant for you and for about half the people I know their higher power is the other people in the group who have succeeded in giving up drinking.

I have nothing in common with Robert Lefever’s right wing views and lets be clear, AA has no political views on anything, its just drunks helping other drunks be sober.

Interesting post Unity. It looks like a bad and misleading name. I was wondering a similar thing myself whilst I was looking through the NHS = Nazi NFR post. I took a look at the NFR website and wondered just how many nurses believed in the NFR philosophy and if there’s any truth in your post then it looks like that’s not many at all.

Still seems to me that the ambitions of the NFR are based on solid reasoning but I could never see it gaining much support in the nursing community.

45. monkey town

@37

This is off topic. But anyhows. The difference between addiction & dependence is that addiction is a loaded word & fairly meaningless the word that can be applied to almost anything; addicted to shopping? addicted to sex? 12 Steps claims it can treat both. Try and get them treated on the NHS. On the other hand, someone dependent on alcohol, heroin or barbiturates has a physical dependence, whose withdrawal can lead to death. Same with sex & shopping is it?

If you have a drug/alcohol problem and cannot afford private care, treatment will be in the voluntary sector and under-funded. This means there will be a waiting list for treatment. It is far easier to go to an AA/NA meeting which is accessible within days. Of course you can disagree with their ideology, but see how long you last denying their tenets.12 Steps zealots (of which I suggest you are one) will say you are in “denial”.

Finally, frankly I’d rather not go into a drug/alcohol treatment programme that was partly devised by a stockbroker, but, hey, that’s just me……

46. Mike Killingworth

[45] MT, if I had £1 for every website out there knocking 12-step programmes I could probably buy a Premiership football club. Actually, I knock them myself when it comes to food and sex – the concept was designed for “total abstinence” régimes.

Like you, most of them prefer to go in for name-calling than facts. Actually, I don’t know how you could compare the efficacy of different treatment programmes – the problem of sample bias strikes me as insuperable.

With your usual regard for accuracy, you overlook the fact that the NHS buys beds in private detox clinics.

47. monkey town

@ 43 plastickeith

Yes they are very liberal. My best friend went to countless AA meetings, one was so liberal that some of them used to go to the pub over the road after the meeting.

He died in 2003 due to pancreatitis caused by alcohol dependence

@ 47

“Name calling” Jesus. Why then are most drug/alcohol treatment services in the UK NOT 12 Steps then ? Name calling is it?

There is now something called the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA) which evaluates treatment services, or “compare the efficacy of different treatment programmes” I worked with people who work there. 12 Step programmes do not figure highly in their estimation.

The NHS buys beds for DETOX for drugs and alcohol withdrawal, which has physical risks. This a short term process. It does not buy beds for REHAB, which is what AA/NA deals with, or are you not familiar with the concept of “community care” which has only been with us for 20 years?

And I don’t know the “facts”? If ignorance is bliss you must be in heaven.

This is my last post on the subject. If you think you are better informed, jog on…..

49. Mike Killingworth

[48] It is absolutely usual for alcoholics/addicts in long-term recovery to piss off non-alcoholic “experts” on the subject, so don’t take it personally. I myself pissed off the guy who runs the NHS treatment programme at one of the London teaching hospitals a mere ten days ago…

@ 49

Oh it looks like I’ll just have to come back One More Time….

I was a junkie BITD, which left me with the what Andrew Loog Oldham calls “the ultimate rock ‘n roll badge of honour, hepatitis C”

The knowledge I gained is how I got into work in drug services.

And guess what? Later in life I got an alcohol problem.

So don’t droan on to me about that old cliche that “alcoholics/addicts in long-term recovery to piss off non-alcoholic “experts” on the subject” cos I can piss higher up the wall than you son….

good luck with your “recovery”

jog on and taa rah

(Sunny D or what ever he’s called may feel the need to delete these posts)

51. Mike Killingworth

[50] I fully accept that any addict with Hep C can piss up the wall higher than me. And they all want to…


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6SFKiF

  2. James Mackenzie

    RT @libcon: Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6SFKiF

  3. Gareth Winchester

    RT @libcon Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6vkiTa by @Unity_MoT. Mostly not nurses, but RW ideologues #welovetheNHS

  4. Adam Bienkov

    RT @dnotice RT @libcon Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6vkiTa by @Unity_MoT. Mostly not nurses, but RW ideologues

  5. Chris Paul

    RT @AdamBienkov: RT @dnotice RT @libcon Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6vkiTa by @Unity_MoT. Mostly not nurses, bu …

  6. Caroline Ford

    RT @AdamBienkov: RT @dnotice RT @libcon Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6vkiTa by @Unity_MoT. Mostly not nurses, bu …

  7. Unity

    RT @libcon: Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6SFKiF

  8. asquith

    Because the only industries in our right-wing utopia will be manufactured outrage & manufactured controversy. http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs

  9. luciobuffone

    Liberal Conspiracy » ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6SFKiF The people influencing Cameron's plans for privatising the NHS.

  10. Adam Edvalson

    Liberal Conspiracy » Where are all the 'Nurses' for Reform? http://bit.ly/56uDkH

  11. Tweets that mention Liberal Conspiracy » Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? -- Topsy.com

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adam Bienkov, Liberal Conspiracy, Gareth Winchester, Caroline Ford, Chris Paul and others. Chris Paul said: RT @AdamBienkov: RT @dnotice RT @libcon Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6vkiTa by @Unity_MoT. Mostly not nurses, bu … […]

  12. antonvowl

    RT @libcon: Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6SFKiF

  13. John

    @Unity_MoT has been investigating "Armchair Nurses For Reaction" > RT @libcon: Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6SFKiF

  14. Martyn Deedes

    RT @antonvowl: RT @libcon: Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6SFKiF

  15. Malcolm Evison

    Liberal Conspiracy » Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/52HZqY

  16. Tip: if you want to be credible, avoid claiming the NHS is a Nazi/Communist plot

    […] (Head over to Liberal Conspiracy to find out exactly who might have been at that brainstorming session and how many nurses are in Nurses for Reform). […]

  17. Other TaxPayers Alli

    RT @libcon: Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6SFKiF < Excellent piece by @Unity_MoT on right-wing astroturf outfit

  18. MyDavidCameron

    RT @OtherTPA: RT @libcon: Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? http://bit.ly/6SFKiF < Excellent piece on right-wing astroturf outfit

  19. neilrfoster

    Nurses in the news so let's revisit Cameron's meetings with 'Nurses For Reform' & http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs & http://tinyurl.com/6bfgjsj

  20. neilrfoster

    .@paulwaugh It's about Cameron as much as Lansley. Don't forget 'Nurses For Reform' http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs & http://tinyurl.com/6bfgjsj

  21. neilrfoster

    @campbellclaret It's about Cameron as much as Lansley —> 'Nurses For Reform' http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs & http://tinyurl.com/6bfgjsj

  22. neilrfoster

    @hsjeditor It's about Cameron as much as Lansley. Don't forget 'Nurses For Reform' http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs & http://tinyurl.com/6bfgjsj

  23. neilrfoster

    @grahamemorris It's about Cameron as much as Lansley —> 'Nurses For Reform' http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs & http://tinyurl.com/6bfgjsj

  24. neilrfoster

    @TomBlenkinsop It's about Cameron as much as Lansley —> 'Nurses For Reform' http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs & http://tinyurl.com/6bfgjsj

  25. Jenny Chapman

    RT @neilrfoster: Nurses in the news so let's revisit Cameron's meetings with 'Nurses For Reform' & http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs & http://t

  26. neilrfoster

    @PhilWilsonMP It's about Cameron as much as Lansley —> 'Nurses For Reform' http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs & http://tinyurl.com/6bfgjsj

  27. neilrfoster

    @ACunninghamMP It's about Cameron as much as Lansley —> 'Nurses For Reform' http://tinyurl.com/ydlj4bs & http://tinyurl.com/6bfgjsj

  28. Bob Chewter

    Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wodmgOVN

  29. Bob Chewter

    @Dis_PPL_Protest @keepDLA Propaganda Warning http://t.co/wodmgOVN

  30. DPAC

    RT @bobchewie @Dis_PPL_Protest @keepDLA Propaganda Warning http://t.co/azH1bYsi

  31. Wes G

    Where are all the ‘Nurses’ for Reform? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/NDBOANQq via @libcon read, learn and pass on

  32. Anne

    RT @bobchewie @Dis_PPL_Protest @keepDLA Propaganda Warning http://t.co/azH1bYsi

  33. Linda Ward

    RT @bobchewie @Dis_PPL_Protest @keepDLA Propaganda Warning http://t.co/azH1bYsi

  34. PLEBpissedatgov

    RT @bobchewie @Dis_PPL_Protest @keepDLA Propaganda Warning http://t.co/azH1bYsi

  35. Judith Robinson

    RT @bobchewie @Dis_PPL_Protest @keepDLA Propaganda Warning http://t.co/azH1bYsi

  36. Linda Ward

    Far right in disguise NFR?
    http://t.co/yioXFq6p





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.