United Kingdom: ME Association news

They've had 20 years to get rid of him...and his 2019 article hadn't been well received, either.


Just been reading their "Community Guideline and Standards":

https://meassociation.org.uk/community-guideline-and-standards/

 

"4. Maintain a respectful tone, especially when discussing passionate or controversial issues."

Ironic.

 

From the current Mem & Arts:

Removal of a director by a General Meeting

25.
(a) A general meeting of the company may remove any director before the end of his or her period of office whatever the rest of these articles or any agreement between the company and the director may say.

(b) Removal can take place only by the company passing an ordinary resolution saying so. At least 28 days' notice must be given to the company and at least 21 days' notice to the membership. Once the company receives such notice it must immediately send a copy to the director concerned. He or she has a right to be heard at the general meeting. He or she also has the right to make a written statement of reasonable length. If the statement is received in time it must be circulated with the notice of the meeting. If it is not sent out, the member may require it to be read to the meeting.

Removal of a director by the Board of directors

26.
(a) If a director fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the Board of directors, the Board of directors may resolve if they see fit that he or she be removed from the Board of directors for good and sufficient reason. The director must be given at least 21 days' notice in writing of the resolution and that person has a right to be heard before a vote is taken.

(b) If two of the Board of directors propose a vote of no confidence in another director, he or she can be removed provided a simple majority of the Board agrees.

Termination of director’s appointment

27. A person ceases to be a director as soon as—
(a) that person ceases to be a director by virtue of any provision of the Companies Act 2006 or by the Charities Act 2006 or is prohibited from being a director by law;
(b) a bankruptcy order is made against that person;
(c) a composition is made with that person’s creditors generally in satisfaction of that person’s debts;
(d) a registered medical practitioner who is treating that person gives a written opinion to the company stating that that person has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a director and may remain so for more than three months;
(e) by reason of that person’s mental health, a court makes an order which wholly or partly prevents that person from personally exercising any powers or rights which that person would otherwise have;
(f) notification is received by the company from the director that the director is resigning from office, and such resignation has taken effect in accordance with its terms;
(g) he or she is removed from office;
(h) he or she brings the company into disrepute
(i) he or she is directly or indirectly involved in any contract with the company and fails to declare the nature of his or her interest to the company at the first meeting at which the contract is discussed or the first meeting after the director became interested in the contract​

Unclear whether "direct the directors to take. . .specified action" would cover removal from office.

Members’ reserve power
7.
7.1. The members may, by special resolution, direct the directors to take, or refrain from taking, specified action.​

 

850 signatures


https://twitter.com/user/status/1858937905215140087


Alexis
@alexis___me

I’ve sent this letter this evening but any new signatures overnight I’m going to resend it in the morning https://docs.google.com/document/d/10JWitoNxMafyi7KeSO4pjoIpM51PH3bf3z0CWUdYOUw/edit?usp=sharing… And after that I’ll send any more we get by the end of the week to them too.

 

Not right now. That would distract from the deeply serious issue of MEA unaccountability and it's refusal to reign in it's loose cannon Chair.

Notice no Comment from Charles Shepherd about Riley's disgraceful opinion pieces or his equally disgraceful pseudo apology.

That indicates tacit support for Neil Riley and his actions from Charles Shepherd.

The only response from the MEA has been to silence the ME community by closing the Comments on twitter and FB.

.

 

It isn't even an editorial.
Editorial is often used to voice a point of view on behalf of a publication.
It is not a place for an officer to voice a personal opinion.

 

He’s about to get put in his place, I hope.

 

By who? Who exactly is going to put Neil Riley in his place? Not the MEA, who just published Riley's insulting pseudo apology in which he doubled down on his original grotesque statements in his 'opinion piece' in which he disparaged, insulted and misinformed ME sufferers/the ME Community in total.

The Chair of the MEA doesn't get to write opinion pieces disparaging and mocking the patients and presuming to dispense damaging 'advice' based on his memory of his privileged experience of decades ago.

Full Stop.

And the MEA then closes the Comments to Riley's disgraceful pseudo apology!

This is by no means the first time the MEA has allowed it's charity officers to taunt the ME community. It's been going on for years/decades on it's Facebook page.

.

 

On the Sheffield Group’s Facebook posting on this topic I did use the phrase ‘GET-lite’ so I imagine others will have drawn the parallel too. Though Neil Riley is not advocating increasing activity in fixed increments as a treatment as envisaged by such as PACE, he is implying that activity and pushing through any resistance can lead to improvement in quality of life.

I understand that Riley had played a genuine role in defending our community against the harms of PACE, there is a parallel in his editorial to the ideas that a positive attitude and doing more may lead to some improvement. So I don’t think the phrase GET-lite is totally out of line.

 

Why is he publishing this now and what is the large treatment trial?

Is it GET-Lite with PROMS?

 

I've currently decided not to read it and give him my ear time, but leaving myself the option if I wish to at a later point - thanks to those who made that sacrifice in doing so in order to confirm the thrust.

As I haven't read it this is of course just me saying something unsubstantiated but it struck me, particularly once I realised half of it came from his 2019 article and read the thread on it where he actually commented [on here as part of that thread at the time] so was aware of the offence/issues and replied in a certain way, that he might well have written this statement 'in anticipation' ie wrote it alongside the article.

 

This is a very important question in the general as well as the specific - to the extent that I think it one day should be a thread in itself. I suspect there are some common things that we all need to discuss.

I remember, for example, reading the (very long) detail in the article on the link in the first post on the following thread, and finding some things that felt familiar to other things (not all ME) to different extents : BPSWatch website: "Querying what goes on at the British Psychological Society" | Science for ME

 

I think that it is this too potentially. Taking control of the narrative.

Or if you are going to go for other reasons - it is probably important for a strong list to be composed anyway to get the wording correct - then creating a straw man to pretend it was just 'everyone doesn't like your beliefs' or 'cos they were all over-sensitive' (which will go down well with bps-minded types, those who don't read things properly, many of those outside the ME sector potentially)

 

It is hard to believe that the person who wrote the following many years ago in 2014: MEA chairman Neil Riley unpicks a central thread in the PACE Trial | 26 February 2014 - The ME Association

Is the same individual who would choose the title 'Animals must move' - and I mean that in tone as much as anything. I don't know however as I just remember what must have been the 2019 article and thinking 'pah' about him (won't go into detail now) whether there is a story over that time or if it's just who he was working with/what was the issue at hand at different points on different things showing more or less of certain things.

 

I think it is important to remind of the other issues and problems. And as Jonathan mentioned the issues with certain projects not being well-managed/chosen and replies there etc.

 

I haven't cringed so much since I heard elderly family members trying to get the language right when talking about a person of colour, without the faintest inkling that their racial background was completely irrelevant to the anecdote anyway.

 

It’s a self-cancellation. They have lost the support of the people they claim to represent.