The Answer To Everything Is 'More Taxpayer Money'...

so why not try a different tack?

Back in late 2025, when Keir Starmer’s grip on the Labour party was loosening and Reform UK was still in its pomp, the then health secretary, Wes Streeting, commissioned what the government called its “Independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism”.

Probably the only useful thing he could have done if it really IS independent, of course…

Here, it seemed, was not just an inquiry into England’s ever-extending waiting lists for the diagnosis of mental illness and neurodevelopmental conditions, and the dire lack of support for people who experience one or both of them. The review would also dovetail with two other huge issues: mounting claims of “overdiagnosis”, which Streeting had appeared to partly endorse, and the government’s drive for the reform of so-called welfare.

And no doubt it had orders to  reject those claims, and it followed them.

Last Friday saw the publication of the 600-page final report Fonagy had co-authored with Gillian Baird – a specialist in paediatric neurodisability – and the psychiatrist Simon Wessely. And, as so often happens with such inquiries, its interpretation suggested the media’s equivalent of a Rorschach blot. One of the Guardian’s headlines was “No ‘snowflakes’: mental health review says today’s youth have it harder and harms are real”. The Mail, by contrast, yelled out a rather different message – “Rush to diagnose ADHD and autism can damage children” – while the Telegraph went for “ADHD surge fuelled by benefits, report warns”.

When he appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme, Fonagy said that Streeting had been “completely wrong” to agree with suggestions of the common overdiagnosis of mental health disorders. When it comes to autism and ADHD, he and his colleagues’ report says that “if present trends continue we are clearly entering a phase in which the balance of risks is changing, from previous merited concerns with under-recognition and underdiagnosis towards an increased risk of misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis”. But it also insists that right now, “we cannot conclude that overdiagnosis is occurring at scale”, and points out that any data that might settle this festering argument “largely do not exist”. This is not the kind of stuff that suits a world that craves simple binaries and polarised shouting, but it speaks an undeniable truth.

And what suggestions did it make? 

For the most part, in fact, it is hard to disagree with what the review points out. But among its conclusions lies one troubling proposal – that provision for both mental illness and so-called neurodivergence can and should often be led by observations of need rather than formal diagnosis

Whose need? 

The review, by contrast, is altogether more calm and evidence-based: for a bundle of reasons, it says that overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis may well be a future risk, but we can guard against those dangers by more closely regulating private diagnostic clinics (which are often partly NHS-funded) and stop them advertising their services. These are proposals that many autism and ADHD insiders agree with.

Of course it would be private clinics at fault, and not the sainted NHS… 

By way of lessening an increasingly frightening crisis that is partly centred on pitifully long waits for formal diagnoses that can easily be ignored, it suggests moving towards a more “needs-based” approach, which echoes the government’s plans for special needs education.

But without sufficient money, “needs-based” help is likely to amount to very little at all.

There will never be ‘sufficient money’, its an impossibility.

Meanwhile, the Department for Work and Pensions still has a culture built around crackdowns and pushing people into work. Councils repeatedly fail to meet their responsibilities for the care and education of neurodivergent people. And, in the absence of properly funded change, both they and people suffering mental illness only stand even a faint chance of pushing their way through an almost impossible mess of bureaucracy and obstruction if they have pieces of paper confirming that their condition – or conditions – are real and true.

Because if you have a piece of paper issued by the government or its agents, that cures all, right? Shall we ask the men in frocks?

Unstoppable Force Prepares To Meet Immovable Object

Women working at a major NHS Trust say they feel 'intimidated' after its leaders told trans staff they can still use women's toilets and facilities. In spite of clear guidance on single sex spaces which came into force on Wednesday, the Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (MPFT), which serves 1.7 million people and employs over 10,500 staff, said there would 'no immediate changes' to its policies.

Well, why not? They know full well that so many institutions and politicians have been captured by this vile perverted cult that there will be few real consequences for open defiance.And there will be challenges, JK Rowling's offered assistance guareantees it.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)'s new code of practice, which reinforces the landmark Supreme Court ruling that sex in equality law means biological sex not gender identity, rules that organisations must provide single sex spaces reflecting that.It says that only providing mixed sex facilities could amount to direct or indirect discrimination against women or lead to unlawful harassment.

And when they lose at a tribunal, who pays? The poor old taxpayer! 

The trust told staff it is awaiting further guidance from NHS England.

Well, that's something the Health Minister can put on his to=do list. 

In its email to staff, the Trust said: 'We understand this may be a difficult and anxiety-provoking time for our trans, non-binary and gender-diverse colleagues, service users and communities, and we want to reassure you that we stand by you and remain committed to being an inclusive organisation.'

Committed is what you should be...to a mental health institution. 

The Answer’s In Your Own Hands…

Police spending on kennels and veterinary bills in England and Wales has more than tripled since the XL bully ban came into force, with some forces recording an almost 500% spending increase since the new law was enacted in 2024.

There's a simple answer, and it’s ‘when you rock up to an attack, shoot the mutts then and there!’ You don’t need a live dog to determine the breed, a dead one will do just fine.

West Mercia police reported the biggest increase, with annual costs rising from £92,383 in 2022-23 to £715,349 in 2025-26, a 674% increase.

Wales again? What is it with that place? 

John Campion, the Conservative police and crime commissioner for the area, said: “Policing is already stretched, and rising costs and growing demand are pushing resources to the limit. The added burden, created by the government and public, of paying for kennelling illegal dogs places even more pressure on already tight budgets.“Kennelling is essential for public safety, but without proper government support these costs risk impacting frontline services.”

No, what’s essential for public safety is the removal of the danger, and that can just as easily be in a garbage bag as in a dog van. It should be already be SOP for any incident where a person or pet has been killed by these things.

Patrick O’Hara, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) tactical lead on dangerous dogs, said he had “not known this type of demand in my 26 years’ service”. “Our kennelling needs have gone up by about one-third since the ban came into force and the demand isn’t slowing down so we’re having to really concentrate on threat, harm and risk,” he told the BBC. “In the short term I think we will continue to see dog attacks as these dogs start to come of age and reach maturity. So I think it’s going to probably get worse before it gets better.”

Or maybe you’ll only have to shoot one or two to get the rest of owners to comply? 

“It does seem like the dogs being kennelled are the dogs which are more dangerous, but it is obviously the case that they’re stuck in kennels and we don’t want that from a dog welfare perspective, and it’s also something that’s sad from an owner perspective,” said Benedict Treloar, co-founder of the Campaign for Evidence-Based Regulation of Dangerous Dogs (CEBRDD).

Why is the welfare of mutts that have killed people and pets even a factor in your deliberations? There are other agebcies to worry about that:

The RSPCA, which did not support the XL bully ban, wants to see compulsory recording of dog bite incidents to help understand the scale of the problem and its causes, with a greater focus on education and prevention, rather than seizing animals.

Yes, they really are suggesting that killer animals be left with the useless owners. Another reason not to give them any money, as if one was needed.