About 45 people crammed into a room designed for 30 and discussed the need for a critical mental health group. A number of influences on the setting up of the group were discussed including the Critical Psychiatry Group, the need for a broad-based critical perspective on mental health generally (and, specifically, responding to the Mental Health Act White Paper) and the need to develop networks between professionals, users and survivors of psychiatric services, academics, relatives and friends of service users.

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.

Several potential topics for future discussion were noted including:

• The notion of ‘mental health’ – what does it mean? Is it helpful? What alternatives might there be?
• The implications of the White Paper Reforming the Mental Health Act
• Developing a more critical perspective in the media (eg to address ‘gene for schizophrenia’ stories)
• The emphasis placed on medication (and drug companies) in mental health
• The aims of the user/survivor movement
• Criticising services and developing positive alternatives (including self help)
• Challenging structural discrimination (eg insurance companies and mortgages and the Human Rights Act which allows detention of those of ‘unsound mind’)
• The notions of ‘risk’ and ‘personality disorder’

There was a whipround at the meeting which raised £25.98. £15.00 was needed for the hire of the room, leaving £10.98 over which is to be put towards the hire of the room for the next meeting. There was agreement to look for a bigger room elsewhere however, on investigation, it turned out that there was a bigger room at the YMCA so the next meeting will be at the same venue but in the Lower Club Lounge (the creche).

It was agreed that, at the next meeting, we would focus on the issue of compulsory treatment. Mike Crawford and Rufus May offered to give brief talks leading into group discussion.