We're on the last straight and close to the finish!

Has it all gone quiet at Beds in the Orchard?  Not really, there's just a lot going on in the background.

The past week or so has been busy for the Beds in the Orchard team, but mainly in preparing for Christmas rather than campaigning for beds.  The Christmas trees are up, the lights are shining and the presents mostly wrapped.  Of course the main present that we want is the return of the beds to women.

So, is this going to happen?

Yes and sooner than The Harbour opening.  This is a big change from a couple of weeks ago when the Trust looked into whether they could swing the beds back and reported that it wasn't possible.  Now the information is that the CCG has said that they need to be returned to female before The Harbour opens and they are working hard for that to happen.

This is good news and there has been a lot of excitement among the team because someone from LCFT said that it would be by Christmas, but as usual there is a difference between the message via the official route and the information given to someone involved with the Campaign by other LCFT staff.

One person had a member of LCFT on speakerphone so they and their friend heard that person tell them both that the beds would definitely be open by Christmas.  The Official line from LCFT via our spokesperson is that its only a Maybe by Christmas as there are a lot of things that need doing and that the person from LCFT hadn't said it was for definite.

So who is right?
Two people heard the man from LCFT say it was for definite.  The same man has said via the official line that they didn't say it was for definite.  We think there's a bit of ass covering going on there to be honest.  One person getting the wrong end of the stick, fine, but two.  Big. Fat. HMMMMMMM. So while we agree that no one misheard what they were told over the phone, it just wasn't true and shouldn't have been said.


However this is not the important stuff! 


The important thing is that they are actually trying to reopen the beds to women by Christmas.  They can't guarantee it as it will take a lot for this to happen and sometimes these things just aren't possible.

So via our OFFICIAL LINE.

1. They are trying to close down the beds to men in order to reopen them to women. 
2. They have people who are in private beds at the moment at its important to get them back into Trust Beds.
3. They are looking into ways to reduce male admissions.
4. They have managed a small reduction at the Orchard to free up a bed.
5. They are doing what they can but can't guarantee it, so hopes should not be got up.

This smells of success!
BUT While it looks like we're going to be successful, we're not going to have any grand announcements until we have them back for sure and we know they won't be returned to men as soon as we turn our backs.

A lot of work has gone into this campaign. Some people have joined in close to the end and their input has been great, but this has been a long slog since October when we first heard about the closure.  Its taken hard work, time, lots of investigation, FOI requests, lots of legal advice and communication with the press.  We're bloody proud of what we've achieved, but there's no way that we're going to announce a victory before we've actually won for real.

So as we are down to the last bit of the whole campaign, we are going to hand over the keys to Philippa, the campaign spokesperson and founder along with Lisa and Roz, the managers and bloody scary women to deal with the Trust, so we can get on with enjoying Christmas and not get over excited before we actually get the beds back.

They'll keep you all updated, Officially updated and hopefully the news will be good and soon.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL!

Communications with the Trust Part 3 or 4, we've lost count.

The Beds in the Orchard team has been having a well deserved weekend off the campaign to regroup, drink mulled wine and do a bit of Christmas shopping. We can confirm that Christmas shopping is way more tiring and stressful than campaigning for women.  However, since mulled wine has been involved, its not all bad.

So on to next week...

Our spokesperson has heard back from the Trust and we are expecting to receive a report from them tomorrow along with the notes from our meeting last Monday.

Last Thursday, Keith Dibble held a meeting of managerial and clinical staff to discuss everything that has happened so far and their report will cover their position about the closure and actions since.


So we're a bit "wait and see" now.  We'll let you know what happens tomorrow.

With all due regards.

Today I met with representatives from the Trust, including Keith Dibble, Deputy Network Director.  This is a brief overview.

We focused mainly on the legality of the closure and how the closure of male beds for financial reasons had caused an unmanageable demand that resulted in the loss of 11 female beds across the county, 8 of which were at The Orchard in Lancaster.

We believe that the women of North Lancashire are the victims of cost cutting measures that artificially caused a shortage of male inpatient beds and we will not be moved from that position.

Both sides have taken legal advice.  The Trust has been advised that it has acted legally.  The campaign has been advised that this is indirect sexual discrimination and is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.

We have not seen any documentation regarding the due regard to the Equality Act that the Trust should have undertaken with regards to the closure.  We asked that it be supplied to us by the end of today as if it exists, it should be readily available.

We have not received any such documentation.

We have advised that the campaign will continue.  A full report of the meeting will be posted to the blog tomorrow.

Communications with Lancashire Care Trust,

My name is Philippa and I'm the spokesperson for the Beds in the Orchard campaign.  I believe I'm referred to by some of our other campaigners as one of the "Suited and Booted".  My role has been to liaise with the Trust, the press and other groups interested in supporting us.

This week I've had two communications from the Trust.

Firstly, I have had confirmation that our FOI requests are being collated and should be with us at the start of next week.  The plan is that I will then meet with the trust along with two other campaigners.  I will publish the details when I have them.

The second communication is one from Keith Dibble, the Interim Deputy Network Director for Inpatient CBU in response to a letter of complaint.

The contents of that letter are broadly along the same lines as their communications with our MPs and in his radio interview at the start of November where the specific issues are not addressed, however this is to be expected.  I will not be transcribing the letter onto the blog as it does not contain any new information and we have already made our position clear in previous posts as to why we are unsatisfied with the response so far.

I am more than happy to provide a scanned electronic copy of the letter to anyone who wishes to see it in full.

In the interim period between my original email to the Trust, my colleague and I have been taking advice in a number of areas with regards to this change and how it was made, however we have decided to suspend taking forward these more formal routes of action until after the meeting with the Trust has taken place.

After discussion with campaigners, however, we will be pressing ahead with organising direct action, and promoting the petition, particularly now that we have the backing of LUSU.

The information the campaign was given in regards to the original intentions of the Trust came from their management level.  I remain inclined to believe the words of those who have much to loose and little to gain from sharing that information, rather than generalised statements from an organisation that is unwilling to address specific issues.

I will report back via the blog after our meeting has taken place.

Philippa

Can you prove WHY you believe not? Asks one of our supporters.

This email arrived from one of our supporters.  For context, the statement "We believe not" was given by Keith Dibble in a radio interview when asked if he believed that closing the ward to women was harmful.

Dear Beds in the Orchard.

"We believe not".  What a statement.  It is a phrase which in itself cannot be easily challenged.  How can you say to a person or a corporation "You're not being truthful when you state 'you believe not'?"  You cannot justifiably say that without evidence as you cannot get into people's minds.  Evidence of a person's thinking / belief is generally obtained by witnessing their actions.  Nevertheless, statements of belief can be used as a smokescreen and a very useful corporate conscience protection device.

The question therefore is not "Do you really believe not?" Rather the question should be, "If you believe not, then WHY do you believe not."

For belief, no evidence is necessary.  But for a health authority, evidence is essential, to confirm or reject whether or not any particular action is acceptable.

So, Beds in the Orchard, you need to obtain directly from the Trust management the answer to "Why do you believe not?"

If the corporation has a clear conscience they will answer this willingly and without delay.  They won't make you work for the answer.  After all, it seems clear from the blog that while you are all passionate about the subject matter and angry with the actions of the trust, you appear to be approaching the issue from the viewpoint of genuine concern and dismay, not just to cause trouble.

If the Trust action was based on empirical evidence then I wonder why things needed to go this far.  I also believe that offering this evidence up front would have saved so much unnecessary work and unnecessary angst on both sides of the divide.

Conversely, if it acted on the assumptions, or worse, on the belief that they may simply just get a few letters of complaint, that could be shrugged off, then shame on them.

Their shame is the unnecessary distress upon the people who use their services and their friends, families and carers.  These people are the women of Lancaster and the men of Burnley for whom a residential facility was prematurely closed down without adequate alternative provision for care being set up ahead of need and available when required.

 If the latter is correct, then one would say that both groups have been abused.

Yours sincerely.