Bipolar disorder & housing.

satankidneypie

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Fashion [able], maybe sunnyone is referring to current thinking !

Historically the wealthy and A listers used to go into a clinic with exhaustion. These last several years its Bipolar.

It's the current in-word for substance abuse led difficulties. The current view that substance use is associated with the development of bipolar disorder for some individuals for the genetically vulnerable.

I'm not suggesting that's the case for any posters here, but that's my view on why the media has shifted from exhaustion to bipolar.

To clarify my friend has no substance abuse problems, infact NEVER has.

Richie-from-the-Boro

the_devil_made_me_do_it wrote: »

What does it matter whether you have sent a member a pm?

Why did I have reason to mention I'd sent a personal message to satankidneypie?

When you are deep in a hole stop digging

- please stop, read your own #24 - you said "" As the OP said, his friend has been diagnosed by a Professor. Not sure how this makes the diagnosis rubbish or fashionable ""

- please stop, read your own #34 - you said "" I had pm'd the OP to offer reassurance as they were relatively new to the forum & I felt their thread was being treated unfairly in some cases ""

- please stop, read my #36 "" I have never sent a PM to anyone in my life and I've never read any sent to me ""

jetta_wales

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

When you are deep in a hole stop digging

- please stop, read your own #24 - you said "" As the OP said, his friend has been diagnosed by a Professor. Not sure how this makes the diagnosis rubbish or fashionable ""

- please stop, read your own #34 - you said "" I had pm'd the OP to offer reassurance as they were relatively new to the forum & I felt their thread was being treated unfairly in some cases ""

- please stop, read my #36 "" I have never sent a PM to anyone in my life and I've never read any sent to me ""

Not for the first time in this thread you're misunderstanding the post while trying to ridicule it. It was an explanation that the mention of the persons diagnosis being made by a professor was something that had been discussed by pm not in the posts on the thread thus you said it hadn't been mentioned by the OP. It was nothing to do with suggestion of any pm's to or from you.

Richie-from-the-Boro

satankidneypie wrote: »

To clarify my friend has no substance abuse problems, infact NEVER has.

Thank you for your input my friend, I never for a moment suggested that anyone outside clinicians, the media, and A list clebs were using Bipolar as a pseudonym for substance abuse.

In fact I precisely said said in #41 "" I'm not suggesting that's the case for any posters here ""

Savvy_Sue

The first response from a housing worker to a request for a [STRIKE]flat[/STRIKE] house [sorry I meant to type house in the first place!] for a single person is likely to be a 'no'. That doesn't mean it's the final response: there are always ways of appealing / arguing the need for a house. If it's another 'no' tomorrow, ask how to appeal that decision: what evidence should be submitted? If the 'professionals' haven't yet written in support of the need for a house rather than a flat, they'll need to do that: what with all the irrelevancies in the thread I'm not sure if written evidence has been submitted, or whether the OP has only got as far as 'my friend's SW / MH worker says ...'

Richie-from-the-Boro

jetta_wales wrote: »

Not for the first time in this thread you're misunderstanding the post while trying to ridicule it. It was an explanation that the mention of the persons diagnosis being made by a professor was something that had been discussed by pm not in the posts on the thread thus you said it hadn't been mentioned by the OP. It was nothing to do with suggestion of any pm's to or from you.

Never had or made a PM .. .. .. ever

read the threads Jetta / #24 / #34 / #36

You amongst others are firing from the lip, read the threads, work out who said what and the timeline for goodness sake.

No one would have known (1) it was a professor or (2) it came from a private message if ' the devil made me do it ' had not made it public.

Goodness me !

jetta_wales

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Never had or made a PM .. .. .. ever

read the threads Jetta / #24 / #34 / #36

You amongst others are firing from the lip, read the threads, work out who said what and the timeline for goodness sake.

No one would have known (1) it was a professor or (2) it came from a private message if ' the devil made me do it ' had not made it public.

Goodness me !

Which is what they were explaining!

And I have read the whole thread thanks.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

The first response from a housing worker to a request for a flat for a single person is likely to be a 'no'. That doesn't mean it's the final response: there are always ways of appealing / arguing the need for a house. If it's another 'no' tomorrow, ask how to appeal that decision: what evidence should be submitted? If the 'professionals' haven't yet written in support of the need for a house rather than a flat, they'll need to do that: what with all the irrelevancies in the thread I'm not sure if written evidence has been submitted, or whether the OP has only got as far as 'my friend's SW / MH worker says ...'

The O/P has a ' night requirement ' [ care worker - entitlement ] to two bedrooms, the law / HA's and LA's already have procedures in place as I'm sure you know Sue.

Richie-from-the-Boro

jetta_wales wrote: »

Which is what they were explaining!

And I have read the whole thread thanks.

Elucidate - what they were explaining, I may have missed a nuance or three.

Savvy_Sue

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

The O/P has a ' night requirement ' [ care worker - entitlement ] to two bedrooms, the law / HA's and LA's already have procedures in place as I'm sure you know Sue.

sorry, I mis-typed my original post. I'll go back and edit it ...

to be clear: my understanding is that the OP's friend needs a house not a flat. A single person would not normally be entitled to a house, but would automatically only be given details of flats. However, if suitable EVIDENCE from professionals is submitted, then the default position (flats only, no houses) may be changed. Clearly the default position of 'single person, one bedroom only' has already been changed because of a medical need: what is not clear is whether appropriate evidence of the need for a house rather than a flat has been submitted.

Since it's a while since I worked for a HA, I do not know exactly how the systems work now. What I do know is that there will be a procedure for submitting evidence, and then a procedure for appealing / complaining. And there's always the MP, but being sure that the right evidence has been submitted first is always a good plan.

And if somewhere in this thread the OP has said that the SW / MH worker / doctor has written and the need for a house rather than a flat is still being ignored, I apologise, but it's a bit hard to follow what with all the accusations and counter accusations flying around.