Government plans changes to ensures that awarded compensation will no longer be taken into account when applying for means-tested benefits – such as Universal Credit, Pension Credit and Housing Benefit.
Until now, compensation for miscarriage of justice cases pushed some people over the savings limit for claiming certain benefits, leaving them ineligible for much-needed help.
This long overdue and will help restore fairness to our systems as part of the Plan for Change I’m not sure it will restore trust (one of the aims) but time heals.
The change comes after a campaign for rule changes to unlock benefit entitlement for those who have received miscarriage of justice compensation payments. Credit to the campaigners – in my view.
In her poem ‘Who Said It Was Simple’, Audre Lorde writes about the travesty of stereotype hatred. I wonder if there’s an equivalent voice for corporate parents, like councils that care for so many children.
I am prompted to think about this having read Lorde arguing that “every woman has a well-stocked arsenal of anger potentially useful against those oppressions, personal and institutional, which brought that anger into being […] I am speaking of a basic and radical alteration in those assumptions underlining our lives.”
Here is the poem…. to many, denuded of anger ….. to me is palpable and seething;
“There are so many roots to the tree of anger
that sometimes the branches shatter
before they bear.
Sitting in Nedicks
the women rally before they march
discussing the problematic girls
they hire to make them free.
An almost white counterman passes
a waiting brother to serve them first
and the ladies neither notice nor reject
the slighter pleasures of their slavery.
But I who am bound by my mirror
as well as my bed
see causes in colour
as well as sex
and sit here wondering
which me will survive
all these liberations….”
Link to Poetry Foundation: ‘who said it was simple’
In my role as Appropriate Adult, all to often I see young people (mainly men but not all) carrying a knife for their own protection. Here we read of what that actualy means: murder.
This case is a good example of why young men who seek to justify the carrying of a knife as being for personal protection are both deluding themselves and putting members of the public at risk. The experience of the courts is that, by carrying a knife in public, you are in fact more likely to kill or be killed, especially when the
knife involved is a hunting-style knife, lethal both in size and in design. It is time for society as a whole to take a stand against the scourge of knives in the hands of children and young people and to promote the mantra of Lives not Knives. In this specific case, if it be true that an adult friend bought a knife for the defendant, who was under-18, not once but twice, that person bears a very heavy moral responsibility for the death of the victim in this case.
The Court heard Jacob Zuco (in December 2023) was robbed at knifepoint while on his way home and that this prompted him to arm himself with a knife for protection (he disliked the feelings of vulnerability).
Being only 17 at that stage he could not get hold of a suitable knife, so enlisted the assistance of an adult friend. That person purchased a large hunting knife for of the type seen during the trial.
On the 12th March 2024 a Mr Penman walked into the A&E Department of Bedford Hospital. He had two stab wounds to his left arm where a knife had penetrated right through his arm and into his left chest area. His arm was bleeding extensively, and nerve damage was diagnosed, which was to be surgically explored. The hospital notified the police, given the nature of the injuries and the police attended the hospital to speak to Mr Penman. a
Mr Penman was reluctant to provide much information about how he came by his injuries, though he did mention that it had to do with the purchase of a designer coat from another person, who stabbed him through the window of the vehicle in which he was sitting. As Mr Penman would not cooperate with the investigation and did not name you, Jacob Zuco, the police did not investigate further.
Jacob Zuco informed the Court that ‘after an incident in March 2024, he disposed of his knife and the same adult friend was then enlisted to buy a similar knife as a replacement. When not carrying it around in public, he kept under bed, so his family would not know about it.’ This second hunting knife became the weapon that later ended the life of Mr Penman.
On 24 May 2024 Jacob Zuco when out, he was was not looking for Mr Penman; indeed, quite the opposite. He was, however armed with the replacement knife.
Video footage shown to the jury, the Judge summarises as clearly showing that he did not see Mr Penman until he came up behind Jacob Zucu and hit him, he doubtless being driven by an understandable but wholly misplaced desire for revenge [for the attack i Macrh 2024). That provocative act by Mr Penman was met by “your gesturing to the knife in the waistband of your trousers, but without producing it. Though Mr Penman appeared to back off, he in fact then made his way to the car of his partner, Nikki Chandler, which he then drove at speed in the direction in which you were initially cycling away from the scene. At the same time, there was shouting and gesturing from others, including from Nikki Chandler, who accepted threatening to strangle you, and Martin Chandler, her brother, who can be seen with a pair of garden shears aloft following in your direction. I accept that all that was going on around you likely caused you to hesitate instead of continuing to leave the area.”
‘What happened next was described by a number of witnesses at trial, from which the Judge I am satisfied that Mr Penman drove Nikki Chandler’s car directly at you, intending to do you at least serious harm. He plainly made contact with your bicycle, one wheel of which was buckled. It was then that you produced your knife and stabbed Mr Penman through the window, causing the single, fatal wound to his right chest, penetrating over 20cm into his body and causing injury to various organs, resulting in profuse haemorrhaging and respiratory compromise. It is unnecessary to relate the injury in any further detail.’
‘Once Mr Penman had driven back to the car park from which he had come, before then losing consciousness, the video footage shows you subsequently making your way fairly slowly off in the direction of home. I do not doubt that the events as a whole had left you in some shock. You were then detained by members of the public until the police arrived. The knife, possession of which you pleaded guilty to, was retrieved in a sheath, tucked down the front of one of the three pairs of jogging bottoms that you were wearing.’
Observation: In my role as Appropriate Adult, all to often I see young people (mainly men but not all) carrying a knife for their own protection. Here we read of wht that actualy means: murder.
Sentencing remarks: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/the-king-v-jacob-zuco/
They say, nothing is free “Pro bono lawyer helped Windrush claimant secure £295,000 in compensation..” and I agree
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/pro-bono-lawyer-helped-windrush-claimant-secure-295000/5123611.article
Buried deep in this horrid mixture of inocenece and State aggression asits a cost that must be paid. The price is our dignity. But for the willingness of a very few lawyers acting pro bono (without recompense) more harm would be heaped onto the individuals who have been attacked. Sit and do nothing, then who will stand up when they cal for you?
Speech, Language, and Communication Needs (“SLCN”) affect 60–88% of youth in custody. A very rudimentary guide to recognising communication needs in children during the police station custody experience
(not intended for professionals who should be SLCN informed)
Children in custody often face significant communication challenges that, if unaddressed, can exacerbate distress and hinder their ability to engage with legal processes. Speech, Language, and Communication Needs (“SLCN”) affect 60–88% of youth in custody, yet these needs frequently go unrecognized. This report synthesizes evidence-based strategies to identify and address these needs, ensuring procedural fairness and psychological safety.
Key Indicators of Communication Needs
1. Speech and Language Deficits
- Verbal Signs:
- Limited vocabulary, vague responses (e.g., “stuff happened”), or reliance on monosyllables.
- Difficulty sequencing events or understanding abstract concepts (e.g., “caution” vs. “your rights”).
- Non-Verbal Cues:
- Avoidance of eye contact (note: cultural norms may influence this).
- Use of gestures (pointing, pulling) instead of words.
- Blank stares or delayed reactions during questioning.
2. Social Communication Gaps
- Misinterpreting sarcasm or non-literal language.
- Abrupt topic shifts or inappropriate laughter.
- Over-compliance due to fear of conflict (common in Caregiver archetypes).
3. Trauma-Related Behaviors
- Hypervigilance: Scanning rooms, flinching at noises.
- Dissociation: Distant gaze, monotone voice.
- Emotional Flooding: Sudden tears, trembling.
Frameworks for Tailored Support
1. Jungian Archetypal Patterns
- Shadow Archetype: Defensive or avoidant; use neutral observations (“I notice you’re tapping your foot—need a break?”).
- Hero Archetype: Seeks validation; reframe actions as lawful problem-solving (“Your care for family is clear—let’s find safe solutions”).
- Everyman Archetype: Prone to suggestibility; simplify language (“‘No comment’ means you don’t have to answer”).
2. Transactional Analysis (TA)
- Shift from Parent-Child dynamics (e.g., “Stop lying!”) to Adult-Adult interactions (“Help me understand what happened”).
- Use open-ended questions and active listening to validate experiences (“You felt cornered when…”).
3. Trauma-Informed Strategies
- Grounding Techniques: Ask the child to describe their chair or surroundings.
- Predictable Routines: Announce actions beforehand (“I’ll stand here while you sit”).
Practical Interventions
1. Environmental Adjustments
- Reduce sensory overload: Dim lights, quiet rooms.
- Use visual aids (flowcharts, symbols) to explain rights and procedures.
2. Communication Adaptations
- Simplify Jargon: Replace “voluntary interview” with “chat with police where you can leave anytime.”
- One Question at a Time: Avoid overwhelming multi-part queries.
- Check Comprehension: “Can you explain this in your own words?”
3. Collaboration with Professionals
- Speech Therapists: Develop communication passports detailing individual needs.
- Mental Health Services: Advocate for assessments when Shadow-driven behaviors suggest unresolved trauma.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
PACE Code C Compliance
- Appropriate Adults (AAs) must ensure:
- The child understands their rights (e.g., right to silence).
- Interviews are paused if comprehension lapses (per Code C 11.17).
- Documentation: Record SLCN indicators and share with solicitors/healthcare providers.
Avoiding Bias
- Cultural Sensitivity: Recognize that eye contact avoidance may reflect respect, not guilt.
- Intersectional Approach: Consider how race, disability, and socioeconomic factors compound vulnerabilities.
Case Study: Effective Intervention
A 14-year-old with Explorer archetype tendencies (restlessness, novelty-seeking) struggled during interviews. The AA:
- Used metaphors (“Let’s map better routes together”).
- Highlighted long-term consequences (“A conviction limits travel opportunities”).
- Result: Cooperation improved, and the child engaged with a vocational training referral.
Conclusion: Building a Communication-First Approach
Recognising communication needs in custody requires a blend of observational acuity, psychological insight, and procedural rigor. By integrating Jungian archetypes, TA, and trauma-informed care, professionals can transform custody from a punitive encounter into a developmental intervention. Key actions:
- Train all AA’s and custody staff in SLCN identification.
- Mandate visual aids and simplified language in custody suites.
- Foster partnerships between AAs, speech therapists, and mental health services.
Useful links
- SCLN indicators (links to .pdf
- https://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Section-9.pdf
- https://www.appropriateadult.org.uk/downloads/pace-updates?download=116%3Apace-vulnerability-and-appropriate-adults
- https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/continuing-competence/communication-engagement/
- https://research-portal.uws.ac.uk/files/46292023/2022_08_04_Holland_et_al_Screening_final.pdf
https://caldecottch.trixonline.co.uk/chapter/role-of-appropriate-adult-guidance
Integrating Jungian Archetypal Theory into Appropriate Adult practice: part of my own CPD
Introduction
The role of an Appropriate Adult (“AA”) under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE Code C) is critical for safeguarding the rights and welfare of vulnerable individuals during police interactions. This blog briefly explores how Carl Jung’s archetypal theory ( framework of universal psychological patterns) can enhance the professional development of AAs by deepening their understanding of human behaviour, improving communication strategies, and fostering more effective advocacy. By bridging Jungian psychology with statutory responsibilities, AAs can develop nuanced approaches to address the complex needs of juveniles and vulnerable adults while adhering to legal safeguards ( see appropriate adult network for some useful tips and videos and what are Carl Jungs Archetypes for expansion ).
The Intersection of Jungian Archetypes and Vulnerable Populations
Archetypal Patterns in Vulnerable Individuals
Jung identified four primary archetypes shaping human behaviour: the Persona (social mask), Shadow (repressed traits), Anima/Animus (gender dynamics), and Self (integration). Vulnerable individuals often exhibit exaggerated archetypal behaviours due to trauma, cognitive limitations, or environmental stressors:
- The Shadow in Non-Compliance: Individuals may project repressed anger or fear through defiance or withdrawal during interviews, reflecting unmet psychological needs ( expanded guidance ).
- The Persona in Social Masking: Juveniles might adopt a “tough” facade to conceal vulnerability, complicating truthful communication.
- The Caregiver Archetype in Over-Compliance: Vulnerable adults with caregiver tendencies may prioritize pleasing authorities over asserting their rights, risking self-incrimination.
For AAs, recognising these patterns enables proactive intervention. For example, addressing Shadow-driven aggression requires validating underlying emotions rather than escalating conflict.
Practical Applications for Appropriate Adults
1. Enhancing Communication Through Archetypal Awareness
Jungian theory provides a lens to decode communication styles and tailor interactions ( link to in practice ):
- Hero Archetypes: Individuals motivated by heroism (e.g., protecting family) may respond to framing legal rights as a form of empowerment.
- Trickster Archetypes: Those exhibiting chaotic behaviour often crave recognition; redirecting their energy toward structured problem-solving can reduce resistance.
Case Example: A juvenile displaying Explorer tendencies (seeking novelty) might misinterpret police procedures as adversarial. An AA using exploratory language—”Let’s map out your options”—aligns with their archetypal drive, fostering cooperation (see inside-out for fun and extend your knowledge).
2. Improving Vulnerability Assessments
PACE Code C mandates AAs assess whether individuals understand their rights and the implications of their decisions. Archetypal analysis adds depth to these assessments:
- Sage Archetypes: Individuals fixated on intellectualizing may struggle to grasp emotional nuances, requiring simplified, repetitive explanations.
- Lover Archetypes: Those driven by emotional bonds (e.g., protecting a partner) may withhold information; emphasizing relational consequences improves comprehension.
Training Implication: Incorporating archetypal literacy into AA certification programs (e.g., NAAN’s National Training Course) could standardise strategies for identifying and addressing these patterns.
3. Mitigating Systemic Biases
Archetypes reveal how institutional practices may inadvertently trigger vulnerabilities:
- Ruler Archetypes in Authority Figures: Overly rigid procedures may exacerbate power imbalances, silencing vulnerable individuals ( see structural learning ). AAs can advocate for adaptive questioning techniques ( see Government guidance Being an appropriate adult 2024).
- Everyman Archetypes in Marginalized Groups: Systemic neglect of “ordinary” individuals may lead to underreporting of needs; AAs must amplify their voices.
Professional Development Strategies
1. Reflective Practice Using Archetypal Frameworks
AAs can integrate Jungian theory into supervision sessions and case reviews:
- Shadow Work: Reflecting on personal biases (e.g., frustration with repetitive clients) fosters empathy for clients’ repressed struggles.
- Anima/Animus Dynamics: Exploring gendered communication patterns helps AAs address disparities in how male/female clients are perceived ( see working example, Sutton ).
2. Collaborative Partnerships
- Social Workers: Aligning with Caregiver archetypes strengthens advocacy for trauma-informed care.
- Legal Advisors: Addressing Sage-driven scepticism through evidence-based explanations ensures cohesive support.
3. Policy Advocacy
AAs can leverage archetypal insights to influence reforms:
- Proposal: Encourage more mandated trauma training for custody officers to reduce Shadow-triggering interactions.
- Data Collection: Document archetypal trends in vulnerabilities to shape national standards.
Challenges and Ethical Considerations
Limitations of Archetypal Models
- Over-Simplification: Reducing individuals to archetypes risks neglecting unique circumstances.
- Cultural Bias: Jung’s Eurocentric framework may not fully capture diverse lived experiences.
Mitigation: Pair archetypal analysis with intersectional approaches (e.g., considering race, disability, and socioeconomic factors).
Ethical Safeguards
- Consent: Explain archetypal frameworks transparently to avoid manipulative practices.
- Confidentiality: Ensure archetype-based notes adhere to GDPR and DPA 2018 standards.
Conclusion: Toward an Archetypal-Informed Practice
Integrating Jungian archetypes into AA roles under PACE Code C offers a transformative pathway for professional growth. By recognising universal psychological patterns, AAs can enhance communication, refine vulnerability assessments, and advocate for systemic improvements—ultimately fulfilling their mandate to “safeguard rights and welfare” with greater precision. As the criminal justice system evolves, archetypal literacy equips AAs to navigate complexity with empathy, ensuring vulnerable individuals are seen not merely as cases but as multidimensional humans.
Useful links:
- https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/21588240/0b7db0dc-7371-4e28-834c-6d84f4838d51/Criminal-Scenario.docx
- https://www.gnlaw.co.uk/news/appropriate-adult-police-station/
- https://www.talkinglife.co.uk/our-courses/appropriate-adult-pace/
- https://www.appropriateadult.org.uk/training
- https://acutetrainingsolutions.co.uk/training/appropriate-adult/
- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/embracing-archetypes-how-leverage-jungian-insights-career-marshall-yymuc
- https://www.jswve.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/10-008-105-JSWVE-2011.pdf
- https://www.journeyofcollaboration.com/integral-facilitation/20-archetypes-of-the-integral-facilitator/group-awareness/the-empath/
- https://insideoutdev.com/blog/understanding-4-communication-styles
- https://womenrisingco.com/articles/meet-your-inner-critic-13-archetypes-holding-you-back-and-how-to-overcome-them/
- https://www.appropriateadult.org.uk/information/become-an-appropriate-adult
- https://www.appropriateadult.org.uk/information/what-is-an-appropriate-adult
- https://www.proceduresonline.com/sutton/adults/chapters/default_chapters/p_act_approp_adult.html
- https://elearncollege.com/view-all-courses/jungian-archetypes/
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-appropriate-adults/being-an-appropriate-adult
- https://www.appropriateadult.org.uk/information/solicitors
- https://www.structural-learning.com/post/carl-jungs-archetypes
- https://www.appropriateadult.org.uk/phocadownload/PublicInformation/2021_NAAN_AA_guide_detailed.pdf
- https://positivepsychology.com/jungian-archetypes/
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pace-code-c-2019/pace-code-c-2019-accessible
- https://www.appropriateadult.org.uk/downloads/pace-updates?download=116%3Apace-vulnerability-and-appropriate-adults
- https://www.britishpsychotherapyfoundation.org.uk/education/training/bjaa-jungian-psychotherapy/
- https://www.thesap.org.uk/training-and-courses/introductory-courses/jungian-process-experiential-group-jpeg/
- https://www.britishpsychotherapyfoundation.org.uk/education/training/bjaa-jungian-analytic/
- https://personality-psychology.com/guide-12-jungian-archetypes/
- https://www.rhacc.ac.uk/course/approaches-counselling-jungian-theory
- https://www.theappropriateadultservice.org.uk
- https://www.cpduk.co.uk/courses/sss-learning-ltd-appropriate-adult
- https://www.socialcaretrainingsolutions.com/pace-training/
- https://ssslearning.co.uk/safeguarding-training/appropriate-adult
- https://ascls.org/pace/
- https://www.southcentraltsh.com/service/continuing-professional-development/
Free event CAMHS around the Campfire – Delivering early language screening and intervention at scale
Read and book on www.acamh.org/event/camhs-campfire-dld/
CAMHS around the Campfire
13 September 2021 5pm
Live stream via Zoom.
17.00 UK, 18.00 CET, 12 noon Eastern Time
Gillian West, post-doctoral Research Fellow, University of Oxford, to discuss her JCPP paper First published: 30 March 2021 doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13415
Authors: Gillian West, Margaret J. Snowling, Arne Lervåg, Elizabeth Buchanan-Worster, Mihaela Duta, Alexandra Hall, Henrietta McLachlan, Charles Hulme
Sign up to this free event at this link or on the Book Now button at the top of the screen and complete the form that follows. You’ll then receive an email confirmation and a link to the webinar, plus we’ll send you a calendar reminder nearer the time. ACAMH Members attending will be eligible for an electronic CPD certificate. Non-members can opt to receive an electronic CPD certificate for just £5, simply select this option at point of booking.
About the session
A panel, comprising paper author Gillian West, independent expert Professor Courtenay Norbury, and a lived experience perspective, will discuss the research and its implications with Douglas Badenoch. This discussion will be facilitated by Andre Tomlin (@Mental_Elf).
The Charity Commission has updated trustee recruitment. guidance to help charities ‘broaden reach’
The Charity Commission has updated trustee recruitment guidance to help charities ‘broaden reach’
The Civil Society’s website reports “The regulator’s revised guidance follows its recent research with think tank Pro Bono Economics, which found that only 6% of trustees applied for their role via an advert. The research also revealed that most charities relied on personal contacts to recruit new trustees, with 29% of trustees being asked to join by the chair and a quarter approached by another board member.
To improve retention, the regulator has expanded the induction section of its guidance, in which it encourages charities to discuss with each new trustee what they need to fulfil their role effectively. Its new guidance also suggests that charities can choose to conduct a diversity audit of their board, using a Trustee Recruitment Cycle template. Mazeda Alama, head of trustee guidance at the commission, said: “We want our refreshed guidance to get trustees thinking about how they can broaden their reach when recruiting to their board. “Small changes like writing your trustee role description differently or re-considering what skills are really essential, could widen the net and land you a valuable, new addition – taking your board from strength to strength.” …”
Read more and links to updated guidance on Civil Society website (also review their comments on the future of Trustee pay).
Many arguments against trustee pay are based on ignorance – I agree, to some extent….
09 May 2025 Voices
The Charity Commission should not base its aversion to trustee remuneration on mistaken public perceptions of the sector, writes Tania Mason in Civil Society – following the revised guidance issued by the Charity Commission.
“As far as I can see, the main argument in favour of maintaining the voluntary principle of trusteeship, put about by the Charity Commission and others, seems to be that paying trustees would negatively impact public trust and confidence in the sector; that it would damage the “social contract” between charities and the donating, volunteering public. But [she argues] something about this argument doesn’t stack up.
We all know that public perceptions of charities are so far divorced from reality as to be absurd. All of us steeped in the sector have our friends/acquaintances/elderly uncles who love to let rip about the huge salaries/aggressive fundraising/sock-puppet lobbying that characterise charities; either that, or they believe charities are merely the nice hobbies of amateurish do-gooders, and ought to stay that way.
At G&L’s Trustee Exchange event last month, the Charity Commission’s director of communications, Paul Latham, even referenced the regulator’s public trust research from 2023 to reinforce its position: just 20% of respondents said they would be more likely to trust a charity run by paid professionals, while 50% would put greater trust in a charity run by volunteers. Since then, another study from nfpResearch just last month found that only 15% of the public are aware that trustees are accountable for charities.
These sorts of views are genuinely bonkers – not to mention incredibly harmful to sector causes. Of course, there are myriad reasons behind such misguided thinking – a national media that loves to bash charities; deep malevolence toward campaigners on the part of certain politicians; and let’s not forget the flip-flop messaging from successive Charity Commission chairs. William Shawcross was obsessed with rooting out all those charities providing cover for terrorists; Tina Stowell implied constantly that charities were complacent about their privileged status; while Orlando Fraser spoke fondly of the “lovely sector with lovely people doing lovely things”. Er, sorry, what?
Negative public reaction
So that social contract that the commission and others are relying on to preserve the status quo around trustee remuneration is actually based on falsehoods. The great British public has no idea what it really takes to run a modern charity, and so it follows that any “negative public reaction” as warned about in the commission’s new CC11 guidance on paying trustees, is likely to be founded on ignorance.
The Charity Commission has a statutory duty to protect public trust and confidence in the sector. For too long, it has shied away from doing anything to help the public understand charities better, preferring to collude in perpetuating the fictions and fairytales that fuel these damaging public misconceptions.
But enough is enough. The new statistics on board diversity are a wake-up call – things need to change, and widening access to trusteeship by making it easier to pay board members could really help. But first we need a proper, grown-up conversation about how to get the public to engage with the complexities of the sector, and the commission needs to finally step up and play its part in this.
Governance & Leadership is a bi-monthly publication which helps charity leaders and trustees on their journey from good practice to best practice. Written by leading sector experts each issue is packed with news, in-depth analysis and real-life case studies of best practice in charitable endeavour and charity governance plus advice and guidance straight from the regulator. Find more information here and subscribe today!“
What do I say, we now have social interest/enterprise companies (of various type of registration) that can fill the needs of charities who require (for whatever reason) the Directors to be remunerated. The social interest companies are relatively new (compared to the philanthropic organisation established by the Edwardian and Victorians) and will take time of them to become broadly recognised and understood. So we have enough models to that repay those leading social enterprises and we can safely leave the issue of remuneration as a choice for the founders.
Read more of this article by Tania Mason here and more about the revised pay guidance by Rob Preston here.
The revised guidance can be found here.
DfE to set out plan for SEND system next year (Tes) – be quite a challenge to see if Government can achieve equality [ of some sort ]
The Department for Education says it aims to produce a fully costed plan to improve the support system for pupils with SEND by April next year…
Reported in Tes:
The Department for Education (DfE) has accepted a recommendation to urgently improve its SEND data and use this information to develop a new fully costed plan to enhance the system.
The department has set a target date of April 2026 for this initiative.
In response to the looming council deficits, the DfE has also accepted the MPs’ recommendation to urgently collaborate with councils to find a “fair and appropriate solution.”
The committee warned ministers that a plan is urgently needed to prevent almost half of councils from facing effective bankruptcy due to deficits on SEND spending.
Currently, a statutory override is keeping these deficits off councils’ books, but this is set to expire in March.
In its January report, the committee gave the government a deadline of March this year to find a solution.
The DfE acknowledges the urgency of the matter and has committed to working with the sector to develop a way forward. However, they have stated that they have been unable to set out plans by March 2025.
The department has revised its target date for implementing a way forward to this summer.
Furthermore, the DfE has accepted a recommendation to collaborate with the Department of Health and Social Care to better understand the reasons behind the increasing and changing demand for SEND support in schools.
Reforms in the Mental Health Bill aim to improve patient experiences, choice and autonomy as well as tackling racial discrimination and better supporting those with learning disabilities.
Reforms in the Mental Health Bill aim to improve patient experiences, choice and autonomy as well as tackling racial discrimination and better supporting those with learning disabilities.
This includes:
- increasing the frequency of clinical reviews, to better ensure that the treatment patients receive is appropriate
- updating the use of community treatment orders, so that they are only used when appropriate and proportionate
- limiting the length of time that people with a learning disability and/or autistic people can be detained under the act, if they do not have a co-occurring mental disorder that needs hospital treatment and have not committed a criminal offence
- ending the use of police and prison cells for detaining someone experiencing a mental health crisis instead of getting them access to a facility where they can get the proper support, such as a hospital
- speeding up transfers from prison to hospital by limiting the time it can take to transfer prisoners who need treatment in a mental health hospital to a maximum of 28 days
The action follows the introduction of one of the world’s first all-hours mental health crisis support service in August through NHS 111. The government also announced that £26 million will be invested to open new mental health crisis centres as part of last week’s budget, with extra funding also secured to provide talking therapies to an extra 380,000 patients.
For people who need support at A&E, emergency departments in England have a liaison psychiatric team to offer specialist care. Commenting on the announcement, Mark Rowland, Chief Executive at the Mental Health Foundation, said:
These long overdue updates to the Mental Health Act cannot come soon enough. People need support that reflects our modern understanding of how to help and care for people during a mental health crisis – not our understanding 4 decades ago. The original version of the act has driven racial disparities, stripped those who are sectioned of their humanity in a wholly unnecessary way, and all too often made crises worse.
We particularly welcome reforms to give greater say to patients, such as granting people with severe mental health problems more control over who makes decisions for them during a crisis, banning the use of police cells as ‘places of safety’ for people experiencing a crisis, and addressing the inappropriate use of community treatment orders, which black people were 11 times more likely to receive. We will look to work with the Department of Health and Social Care over the next weeks and months to help shape the Mental Health Bill and put dignity at the heart of how our public services support people experiencing a mental health crisis.
Mark Winstanley, Chief Executive, Rethink Mental Illness, said:
People tell us that the Mental Health Act has saved their life, but that the experience was horrendous. It is hard to fathom that when people are at their most unwell they are still routinely placed in prison cells, have no say in who is appointed as their nearest relative and have so little involvement in their treatment.
Reform of this vital legislation is long overdue, and today marks another important step towards the reality of a Mental Health Act fit for the 21st century. Reform should help ensure people are with dignity and respect, and help to protect us all.
We hope the bill is given careful passage through Parliament so it can be swiftly implemented, and bring improvements for the thousands of people who are detained under the act every year.
A full list of mental health support options is available on the NHS website. The service is also suitable for deaf people, with tailored services available via the NHS 111 website.
Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury – BPS research looks at the psychological impact
Recent work comparing soldiers in combat to those on peacekeeping missions finds that when it comes to the psychological impact of taking a life, the context of the mission matters
Killing another person doesn’t necessarily harm a soldier’s mental health. In fact, the impacts on wellbeing depend more on the context than the act itself, as a large-scale study of Norwegian soldiers led by Andreas Espetvedt Nordstrand of the Institute of Military Psychiatry, Norwegian Armed Forces, Norway, concluded. This finding contradicts the commonly held idea that killing is an ‘unnatural’ act for humans that inevitably inflicts moral injury.
The study involved two different samples of Norwegian soldiers. The first group consisted of 4,053 soldiers who had been deployed to Afghanistan between December 2001 and December 2011. These soldiers participated in NATO-led combat-oriented missions aimed at defeating the enemy.
The second sample was quite different. These 10,605 soldiers were sent to Lebanon to act as peacekeepers between 1978 and 1998. The primary objective of this UN-led peacekeeping mission was to maintain order, rather than engage or defeat an enemy. Unlike the soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, they were informed that deadly force should only be used as a last resort and for self-defence.
The participants completed a series of questionnaires. They reported whether they had taken a life in combat or believed they had killed someone in combat. They also answered questions about other stressful events, such as witnessing someone else being killed or injured. Both groups also completed surveys that assessed various psychological symptoms.
After analysing the results, the team identified several notable differences between the two groups. Peacekeepers who had killed someone during their deployment exhibited higher levels of PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, alcohol use, and a lower quality of life compared to those who had not killed anyone.
For the group that had served in Afghanistan, however, there were no significant differences in scores between soldiers who had killed someone in combat and those who had not.
The analyses also revealed that for peacekeeping soldiers, feeling threatened to their own safety while on deployment or witnessing someone else suffer were both linked to poorer psychological well-being. While there were some associations between these experiences and poorer scores on the psychological measures for soldiers who fought in Afghanistan, the links were weaker.
The researchers’ main conclusion is that peacekeepers are more vulnerable to the psychological impact of taking a life compared to combat soldiers. This is because combat soldiers operate under rules of engagement explicitly geared towards fighting, whereas peacekeeping soldiers do not. This suggests that context plays a crucial role in determining the effects on well-being.
Nordstrand, in a press release, acknowledged the widespread belief in society that taking the life of another person goes against human nature and will easily lead to ‘moral injuries’ as defined by psychotraumatology. However, he emphasised that this is not a common experience for combat soldiers. This study suggests that it is far from the norm. Nordstrand further stated that killing another person does not inherently go against human nature and does not necessarily harm the mental health of the individual who does it.
The team acknowledged that this is a sensitive topic, and the idea that someone may be unaffected by taking a life may be difficult for some to accept. However, Nordstrand emphasised the importance of bringing evidence-based perspectives on this taboo subject into the public debate.
The researchers acknowledge some limitations to their study. Firstly, the gap between deployment and responding was significantly longer for the peacekeepers compared to the combat soldiers. This could be due to other variables, such as varying levels of traumatic experiences, influencing the results.
However, the researchers emphasise that if context is important, as their work suggests, it becomes crucial to understand how to work with context to minimise the potential for psychological suffering among soldiers who find themselves in the position of taking a life during their duties. Pre-deployment briefings, mission statements, and levels of psychological support could all impact this.
For others, the results raise another question: if combat soldiers are generally psychologically unharmed by killing an enemy, does this increase the risk that they may be willing to kill captives or civilians they perceive as ‘the enemy’? Given allegations of such incidents, research is also needed to explore how specific rules of engagement, briefings, and mission statements can prevent this.
Read the full paper:
Nordstrand, A. E., Noll, L. K., Huffman, A. H., Gjerstad, C. L., Tveitstul, T., Reichelt, J. G., Bakker, L.-P., Kennair, L. E. O., Kristoffersen, R. H., Bøe, H. J., & Wickham, R. E. (2025). Killing in Combat as a Potentially Morally Injurious Event: The Diverging Psychological Impact of Killing on Peacekeepers and Combat-Oriented Troops. Armed Forces & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327×251321389
— Read on www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/soldiers-combat-can-kill-without-moral-injury
I need this prompt to avoid ChatGPT simply agreeing with everything you say
Useful article in www.joinhorizon.ai –
My Ai of choice suggests it is a very good idea, not just for ChatGPT.
“…. Go to [ChatGPT] and enter this prompt:
“From now on, do not simply affirm my statements or assume my conclusions are correct. Your goal is to be an intellectual sparring partner, not just an agreeable assistant. Every time I present an idea, do the following:
- Analyze my assumptions. What am I taking for granted that might not be true?
- Provide counterpoints. What would an intelligent, well-informed skeptic say in response?
- Test my reasoning. Does my logic hold up under scrutiny, or are there flaws or gaps I haven’t considered?
- Offer alternative perspectives. How else might this idea be framed, interpreted, or challenged?
- Prioritize truth over agreement. If I am wrong or my logic is weak, I need to know. Correct me clearly and explain why.
Maintain a constructive, but rigorous, approach. Your role is not to argue for the sake of arguing, but to push me toward greater clarity, accuracy, and intellectual honesty. If I ever start slipping into confirmation bias or unchecked assumptions, call it out directly. Let’s refine not just our conclusions, but how we arrive at them….”
I have yet to try it, but I guess this will help focus Ai on the capability rather than pushing for factual reliability.
Sara Sharif: what the family court Knew – what can the State do to protect children such as Sarah without having oversight at home. Surely that is not the way forward, so what is?
“Placing children in state care for the duration of their childhood is in itself harmful and should only be done when it is really necessary,”
Louise Tickle writes in the observer “The family courts operate on the principle that the least intrusive orders compatible with children’s safety is the right one. In the case of Sara Sharif: what the judges knew case, was tested to destruction.The Observer has obtained private family court papers that show how a system meant to protect children failed a ten-year-old girl,
The full Observer article can be read here.
For my part I am still let wondering what can the State do to protect children such as Sarah without having oversight at home. Surely that is not the way forward, so what is?
Raihana Awolaja, just 12 year-old was living at Tadworth Court run by The Children’s Trust, how did she die?
Raihana Awolaja, just 12 year-old was living at Tadworth Court run by The Children’s Trust, a coroner concluded.
For my purposes I only need only to refer to this tragedy in the loosest of terms. ” The coroner found that Raihana died of natural causes on Thursday 1 June 2023 contributed to by neglect. This followed a breakdown of the 24-hour, one-to-one care that she was supposed to be receiving, the coroner concluded following a three-day hearing at Inner West London Coroner’s Court.”
“It is heart rending that none of the agencies responsible for Raihana’s wellbeing, where Raihana’s mum repeatedly raised concerns about the poor care and staffing levels took her concerns seriously. If they had Raihana would not have died.”
More details are in the blog posted by the law firm, and I encourage you to read.
If you are cynical about lawyers, they post …. “It is too late for Raihana, but we can only hope that the findings of this inquest act as a vehicle for much needed change with the agencies involved; firstly, to take carers’ concerns seriously when they advocate for their loved ones, and secondly, to ensure the care they are providing is safe for seriously disabled people who may not be able to advocate for themselves.”
Thank you to Martin Barrow for brining this to me attention
@MartinBarrow
Independent Persons 