-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Valerie Eliot Smith charity complaint
- Thread starter Amw66
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mea valerie eliot smith
Ash
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I haven’t read the full post yet but I’ve read both the emails at issue.
The first makes an assertion that VES has demonstrated self-interest at the expense of others in regard to her blog. Specifically because she is strongly critical of the finished document, NICE guidance. This person assumes that VES puts the blame for this on ME advocates involved in the process.
VES may have criticisms of ME advocates involved in the process but she doesn’t say that in the paragraph of the blog this person presents. Perhaps they read the criticism as being necessarily implied. They might be right. But they do not pause to request clarity or confirmation of this, before making their accusation.
It was a very stressful time for everyone with ME and those working on advocacy. Everyone came to different conclusions on the reality of the political terrain we found ourselves in and how to best address this. The levels of equanimity or otherwise with which we faced this depended on many factors including how directly impacted we would be by the outcome or how closely involved v excluded with decision making we all were. A lot at stake for everyone. A balance of showing appreciation for the NICE committee members and expressing deep disappointment and frustration with the position in which we find ourselves still.
With ME advocacy decisions on where to placate or compromise and where to take a stand or reject the offer are not taken in a transparent or democratic way. They are taken by charity leaders who generally are not open to influence. These leaders face much criticism some of which is or is taken to be personal.
Maybe maybe this person facing much stress assumed that not being happy with the outcome of NICE process meant blaming people who sat on the committee. Maybe they assumed this because they themselves are accustomed to being criticised for poor outcomes in projects that they run. I can understand that in seeing a negative response to the NICE outcome they felt defensive on their own or others behalf. Maybe members of NICE committee did feel like they were or would be blamed if the guidance wasn’t well received. So maybe this person was originally just being protective or feeling genuinely hurt.
However that second email is unmistakably hostile. So much so it is a little surprising that they seem unaware of the incongruity of lecturing someone on diplomacy within such a distinctly undiplomatic communication.
The first makes an assertion that VES has demonstrated self-interest at the expense of others in regard to her blog. Specifically because she is strongly critical of the finished document, NICE guidance. This person assumes that VES puts the blame for this on ME advocates involved in the process.
VES may have criticisms of ME advocates involved in the process but she doesn’t say that in the paragraph of the blog this person presents. Perhaps they read the criticism as being necessarily implied. They might be right. But they do not pause to request clarity or confirmation of this, before making their accusation.
It was a very stressful time for everyone with ME and those working on advocacy. Everyone came to different conclusions on the reality of the political terrain we found ourselves in and how to best address this. The levels of equanimity or otherwise with which we faced this depended on many factors including how directly impacted we would be by the outcome or how closely involved v excluded with decision making we all were. A lot at stake for everyone. A balance of showing appreciation for the NICE committee members and expressing deep disappointment and frustration with the position in which we find ourselves still.
With ME advocacy decisions on where to placate or compromise and where to take a stand or reject the offer are not taken in a transparent or democratic way. They are taken by charity leaders who generally are not open to influence. These leaders face much criticism some of which is or is taken to be personal.
Maybe maybe this person facing much stress assumed that not being happy with the outcome of NICE process meant blaming people who sat on the committee. Maybe they assumed this because they themselves are accustomed to being criticised for poor outcomes in projects that they run. I can understand that in seeing a negative response to the NICE outcome they felt defensive on their own or others behalf. Maybe members of NICE committee did feel like they were or would be blamed if the guidance wasn’t well received. So maybe this person was originally just being protective or feeling genuinely hurt.
However that second email is unmistakably hostile. So much so it is a little surprising that they seem unaware of the incongruity of lecturing someone on diplomacy within such a distinctly undiplomatic communication.
I don't always agree with everything Valerie Eliot Smith says in her blog, but I'm sure it comes from an intention to be helpful, and I would defend her right to say what she likes on her blog. She makes it clear she is not speaking for anyone but herself, and her comment that the guideline is 'rubbish' when taken in context was simply a frankly expressed and understandable disappointment that the patients and other good people on the guideline committee were not in a position to get all we would want this time.
It seems to me that the person she refers to as AB was remarkably patronising and insulting, particularly in that second email. I think 'mansplaining' is a good way of describing it. I'm not surprised she complained to the charity. It's not the way I would expect a representative of a patient organisation to behave, particularly as it seems to be in the context where the person was clearly speaking in their role as a rep of the organisation, not just giving a personal view.
It seems to me that the person she refers to as AB was remarkably patronising and insulting, particularly in that second email. I think 'mansplaining' is a good way of describing it. I'm not surprised she complained to the charity. It's not the way I would expect a representative of a patient organisation to behave, particularly as it seems to be in the context where the person was clearly speaking in their role as a rep of the organisation, not just giving a personal view.
Ash
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I think the emailer is confused as to generally understood meaning of “diplomatic”. Their initial email was not,on any level “diplomatic”. Quite the opposite. Perplexing that this description should occur.
I think it possible that what they meant/felt was that they had been less rude, resentful, petulant or insulting than their own sense of righteous indignation lead them to believe they were entitled to express at that point. If this was the case, then they certainly didn’t hold back on the second attempt. Oh my word, they did not.
I think it possible that what they meant/felt was that they had been less rude, resentful, petulant or insulting than their own sense of righteous indignation lead them to believe they were entitled to express at that point. If this was the case, then they certainly didn’t hold back on the second attempt. Oh my word, they did not.
Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I agree, whoever this is, they seem to think they know the right way to communicate - and they demonstrate a complete failure on that count. There is also some sort of assumption of being in a position to criticise public commentary in the ME field. It sounds like a bit of a newbie to me! But then I might be wrong.
Ariel
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Completely inappropriate, unprofessional, and frankly bizarre communications.
The invocation of How To Win Friends and Influence People is truly beyond parody. Is this someone who is actually in a position of responsibility in crafting a strategy to help ME patients? Help.
The invocation of How To Win Friends and Influence People is truly beyond parody. Is this someone who is actually in a position of responsibility in crafting a strategy to help ME patients? Help.
Ash
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I know right?
I was imagining this person enraging everyone that they encounter.
Possibly solely responsible for all these threats we hear so much about? But of course that is not the kind of danger they would pose.
When they say you don’t win people over with shouting but with diplomacy, yet they don’t quite follow this logic through, in practice, perhaps it’s more of the case that they perceive a situation where;
‘There are some people that may be subject to criticism, you are one. So I have.’
‘There are some people that may not be subject to criticism, I am one. So shush.’
And if so I think it rather likely that they consider the BPSers and Co best placed in the latter category. Subjects for whom one must preserve one’s most seductive whisper.
I was imagining this person enraging everyone that they encounter.
Possibly solely responsible for all these threats we hear so much about? But of course that is not the kind of danger they would pose.
When they say you don’t win people over with shouting but with diplomacy, yet they don’t quite follow this logic through, in practice, perhaps it’s more of the case that they perceive a situation where;
‘There are some people that may be subject to criticism, you are one. So I have.’
‘There are some people that may not be subject to criticism, I am one. So shush.’
And if so I think it rather likely that they consider the BPSers and Co best placed in the latter category. Subjects for whom one must preserve one’s most seductive whisper.
Last edited:
I think the email writer is within his rights to express his disagreement with and upset at Valerie's blog. I think in some ways I agree with him although I also agree with Valerie's blog on some points. However, he could have done a much better job at expressing himself! The tone of the emails are not professional, it sounds as though he is having an emotional conversation with somebody he knows well. It's as though it's from someone not used to writing emails who's forgotten that he's writing in a professional role and that emails last forever! He could also do with taking some tips from the parable of the wind and the sun. That said, an independent investigation seems fitting to me, I'm not sure it warrants an external investigation. I can't see that Mr AB, whomever he is, should be dismissed from post purely on the basis of these emails. But I hope that the charity takes note of where his skills and weaknesses lie and puts checks in place.
Sly Saint
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
from the second email
You might care to read that very old book “How to win friends and influence people“.
I have a 1964 publication of that book but I think it was written in 1938. It is written entirely from a mans perspective and directed at men.
With regards to women, he talks about giving them flowers, complementing them on what they are wearing etc, keeping your wife happy.
In the Nine ways to change people without giving offence or arousing resentment he cites the following example where a friend of his first said to one of his secretaries "That's a pretty dress you are wearing this morning, and you are a very attractive woman", followed by "Now don't get stuck up, I just said that to make you feel good. From now on, I wish you would be more careful with your punctuation".
He goes on to say " his method was probably a bit obvious but the psychology was superb. It is always easier to listen to unpleasaant things after we have heard some praise of our good points".
You might care to read that very old book “How to win friends and influence people“.
I have a 1964 publication of that book but I think it was written in 1938. It is written entirely from a mans perspective and directed at men.
With regards to women, he talks about giving them flowers, complementing them on what they are wearing etc, keeping your wife happy.
In the Nine ways to change people without giving offence or arousing resentment he cites the following example where a friend of his first said to one of his secretaries "That's a pretty dress you are wearing this morning, and you are a very attractive woman", followed by "Now don't get stuck up, I just said that to make you feel good. From now on, I wish you would be more careful with your punctuation".
He goes on to say " his method was probably a bit obvious but the psychology was superb. It is always easier to listen to unpleasaant things after we have heard some praise of our good points".
Surely, surely no man however old and old fashioned these days would think it was appropriate to recommend that book to a professional woman. Or to anyone.
Unbelievable!
adambeyoncelowe
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The initials look familiar.
Personally, I wasn't offended by Valerie's blog. I am happy with the guideline in the context of what was achievable but I also know there's a lot I, too, would've liked to be in there. Perfect is always better than alright.
I think this person probably thought they were sticking up for a colleague, but they went about it the wrong way. I'm also unsurprised the CC did nothing about it--it's not against the rules to be rude. But it won't win you any friends, certainly.
Personally, I wasn't offended by Valerie's blog. I am happy with the guideline in the context of what was achievable but I also know there's a lot I, too, would've liked to be in there. Perfect is always better than alright.
I think this person probably thought they were sticking up for a colleague, but they went about it the wrong way. I'm also unsurprised the CC did nothing about it--it's not against the rules to be rude. But it won't win you any friends, certainly.
Keela Too
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I assumed the initials were simply the first 2 letters of the alphabet, rather than actual initials of an individual?
I agree with this, but I think it's more serious than just 'going about it the wrong way'. I think it demonstrates an attitude to women that is insulting and completely unacceptable. I think it's a serious problem that an ME organisation thought they didn't need to do anything about the person who sent it. It's completely unprofessional.
I worry that the person involved may be doing the same to others he disagrees with. We had the problem last year with the MEA getting it badly wrong with their choice of a patron, I don't want to see more of this complete lack of sensitivity to pwME in an organisation that is supposed to be working on our behalf.
TiredSam
Committee Member
From VES's "Debt of Gratitude" blog, referring to AB's first email:
AB, after sending his first email to VES, finds himself publicly labelled as "someone who was extremely angry and upset" and who expresses themselves "in the strongest possible terms". He probably felt that that was an unfair characterisation of his first email, and also didn't appreciate VES running off to her blog to publicly shame him with emotive and divisive language. This is exactly the kind of blogging behaviour he had been complaining about, so nothing could have been more guaranteed to escalate the situation. Perhaps calling her blog "A Debt of Gratitude and public shaming and reckoning with someone who's just pissed me off" would have been a more accurate title for VES's blog.
AB's second email wasn't his finest hour, the menacing tone of "you'll know about it", the reference to the book (I read it about 30 years ago, it's fairly crap and I certainly would never quote it or even mention it) and the fable. I don't see why it's sexist though, there's no reason to think AB wouldn't have written the same thing to a man. AB makes no reference to VES's gender or any gender specific remarks. When I was part of a start-up in the late 1990s we were all angry young men and used to regularly get on our high horses and write such obnoxious twaddle to each other all the time.
It looks like VES is determined to continue this spat in public, but I don't know what purpose it serves. A couple of high conflict individuals rubbing each other up the wrong way, I've got better things to spend my attention and energy on.
AB, after sending his first email to VES, finds himself publicly labelled as "someone who was extremely angry and upset" and who expresses themselves "in the strongest possible terms". He probably felt that that was an unfair characterisation of his first email, and also didn't appreciate VES running off to her blog to publicly shame him with emotive and divisive language. This is exactly the kind of blogging behaviour he had been complaining about, so nothing could have been more guaranteed to escalate the situation. Perhaps calling her blog "A Debt of Gratitude and public shaming and reckoning with someone who's just pissed me off" would have been a more accurate title for VES's blog.
AB's second email wasn't his finest hour, the menacing tone of "you'll know about it", the reference to the book (I read it about 30 years ago, it's fairly crap and I certainly would never quote it or even mention it) and the fable. I don't see why it's sexist though, there's no reason to think AB wouldn't have written the same thing to a man. AB makes no reference to VES's gender or any gender specific remarks. When I was part of a start-up in the late 1990s we were all angry young men and used to regularly get on our high horses and write such obnoxious twaddle to each other all the time.
It looks like VES is determined to continue this spat in public, but I don't know what purpose it serves. A couple of high conflict individuals rubbing each other up the wrong way, I've got better things to spend my attention and energy on.
I hadn't seen her previous blog where she complained about the first email, but I think recommending that book is sexist. Just look at the quote Sly Saint quoted.
The point I was trying to make was that AB was writing from a position in an ME organisation, presumably as a fairly senior employee or a trustee. VES was not. I think AB therefore has a responsibility to act professionally in communications on behalf of that organisation, however justified he might feel in his criticism of a personal blog. I don't want senior people in organisations working on behalf of patients acting that way.
The point I was trying to make was that AB was writing from a position in an ME organisation, presumably as a fairly senior employee or a trustee. VES was not. I think AB therefore has a responsibility to act professionally in communications on behalf of that organisation, however justified he might feel in his criticism of a personal blog. I don't want senior people in organisations working on behalf of patients acting that way.
adambeyoncelowe
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I agree that it shows all those things, too. And personally, I think the charity probably should do (and maybe has done) something about it internally. But I don't think they are likely to make it public if they do/have done, as it would only draw more attention to themselves.
I also think the Charity Commission was unlikely to act on it because it doesn't look like anything illegal or against the CC rules, rather than just unpleasant and unprofessional. I agree that it looks sexist, but proving it to a degree that's actionable is another matter.
For example, Mr AB could just say he was referring to the title to make a point about how to win friends, rather than making a specific reference to the outdated comments in the book itself.