Some potential areas of common ground were discussed. These included:

• Opposition to a simplistic ‘medical model’ of distress
• A need to have a more social and political understanding of distress (eg the role of things like poverty and oppression)
• A dissatisfaction with the way current mental health services are organised and delivered and a wish to make things different (eg promoting more consensual services and other options including self help)
• The need to challenge discrimination against people with mental health problems
• The need to change public attitudes
• Keeping a focus on real people’s lives, not just being abstract
• A wish to challenge us-and-them thinking among both professionals and service users/survivors

However, there was no agreed ‘manifesto’ and it seemed possible that there were areas of potential disagreement or differences of emphasis between members. One suggestion made was that the group might develop an identity and approach over the course of several meetings. The proposal was that we should not hold up the momentum with too much ‘navel-gazing’ at the start though there was an agreement to return to these issues over the course of the meetings. Thoughts about how to structure the group and how potential power differences (eg between professionals and users) might be addressed were also a concern and were issues to which we agreed to return over time.

A number of possible aims of the group were suggested. There was discussion about the extent to which the group should be involved in various forms of action and, if so, what kinds of action. One idea was that the group should have space both for thought and discussion but also action and it was hoped that this would evolve over time. Another proposal was that, if nothing else, the group might draft a brief press release about the topic under discussion. Some members indicated a willingness to cultivate current contacts in the media to get critical ideas across. There was discussion about the organisation of the group and some members offered to give help with mailings etc. This would be very welcome and we agreed to return to this at future meetings.

· The discussion began with noting that discussions in the large group meant that some people

did not wish to or get a chance to speak and Jan Holloway suggested that there was maybe a need for some informal time in the meetings and/or discussions in smaller groups. It was proposed that a smaller group discussion would take place towards the end of the meeting to discuss the statement on compulsory treatment.

· The group agreed for a need to respect differences; partly by ensuring that only one person would speak at one time. This was not to silence conflict -- there were likely to be differences of opinion but that these differences should be respected.

· The issue of confidentiality was discussed. We may need to ensure that if discussing the group outside, members’ names should be kept confidential. However, it was suggested that as a focus of the group was to campaign, we might well need to repeat discussions outside the group. If people say things they would not like to be shared outside perhaps they could note this in the meeting.

· The use of language in the group was discussed, and that due to people coming from a range of positions, individuals should make clear what they mean by those terms, eg 'illness'. This led to a discussion on the diversity of the group and the need to respect each other’s views. It was suggested that a useful topic for a later meeting might be the use of language within mental health systems.

· The need to avoid making assumptions about others in the group was highlighted. This led to a discussion about the need to work collectively, to be reflective as we participate in the group, and to be aware that we might be making assumptions.

http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/criticalmentalhealth.htm