But the players get a lot of money - I understand the player in question has earned £30m over the last couple of years. Part of the deal is promoting the sport. Of course there has to be a sensitivity to mental illness and tennis needs to look at what it can do to mitigate the issues as far as possible.
Press conferences are less important than any individual player's mental health.
Absolute scum.
It's part of her job/contract - why should she be exempt if other players aren't. Has she communicated effectively with the tennis authorities regarding this?
I don't care if she's communicated effectively.
If she's said she's not doing interviews due to her mental health issues and has communicated just that, then that should be enough.
What if people weren't telling the truth?
Then it's sad that anyone would falsely use mental health as an excuse, but you can't ignore it just because there's a chance someone may be lying.
Not saying to ignore it obviously but as with physical health just for it to be evidenced. It doesn't seem an unreasonable request.
You obviously don't get how hard it is to prove/disprove. It can take weeks or months of sessions with a counselor or psychologist to receive an official diagnosis.
I do realise and she has said she has an ongoing issue with social anxiety/depression. If you were trying to get time off work with depression you would need to provide a certificate.
Guidelines have to be followed surely?
Or you would jack the job in
Yes because quitting your profession is going to help anxiety or depression.
She says she’s suffering. That’s all anyone needs to know. Quite why this fires up Piers Morgan to go on the attack, I’ll never know.
women of colour who talk about mental health seem to have this effect on people like piers. I wonder why...
Not a fan of Piers in general, but I do agree with some things he says. 2 does not represent a series and he has criticised other people than the 2 in question.
Women of colour threaten him, there's a clear pattern. He's so fragile he literally damaged his own career to go after a woman of colour because she rejected him.
But the players get a lot of money - I understand the player in question has earned £30m over the last couple of years. Part of the deal is promoting the sport. Of course there has to be a sensitivity to mental illness and tennis needs to look at what it can do to mitigate the issues as far as possible.
How do you put a price on mental health though? This player earns x amount so they are obliged to do pressers, but this player only earns y so they are not?
And that's not even looking at the morals/ethics of such a route, which needless to say shut the whole concept down.
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
"one of the world’s best athletes would literally rather quit a grand slam tournament than have to talk to the press. Rather than scrutinising what that says about her, it might be worth asking what that says about us."
"one of the world’s best athletes would literally rather quit a grand slam tournament than have to talk to the press. Rather than scrutinising what that says about her, it might be worth asking what that says about us."
I recall Johanna Konta challenging a reporter about their questions/comments. But one of the world's best athletes has quit a tournament but the others haven't, or haven't yet. It will be interesting to see how this develops and how other athletes react. Is it part and parcel of the highly pressured/highly rewarded sector? Will other players say they shouldn't have to face difficult questions because someone else doesn't, irrespective or having a MH condition or not?
An MP has recently stepped away for a period of time due to suffering PTSD. Obviously we don't know the circumstances; is there something that needs to be done to protect people in such positions or is it that (depending on the circumstances) maybe the person is not ideally suited for the role?
It is human behaviour not to like being challenged and called to answer but there is often a fine between it being unacceptable and it being unfortunately downright unpleasant but necessary e.g. certain political situations. Did Martin Bashir/the BBC try to avoid scrutiny over the Diana situation, did Keith Vaz and Margaret Moran fairly avoid scrutiny over their actions?
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
But the players get a lot of money - I understand the player in question has earned £30m over the last couple of years. Part of the deal is promoting the sport. Of course there has to be a sensitivity to mental illness and tennis needs to look at what it can do to mitigate the issues as far as possible.
How do you put a price on mental health though? This player earns x amount so they are obliged to do pressers, but this player only earns y so they are not?
And that's not even looking at the morals/ethics of such a route, which needless to say shut the whole concept down.
In one sense you can't, but I do think when somebody is earning £30m in just over a year in a career that revolves around fans/viewers engagement, there have to be associated requirements. In the same way that Premier League managers are expected to give interviews. It goes with the territory surely. In the same way a sales person who may have anxiety about speaking to clients is going to have issues. I do know a real case of an accountant that got depressed when the tax year came around which posed specific issues.
That isn't to say, they shouldn't look at the way questions are asked and whether improvements can be made to help the individual.
But the players get a lot of money - I understand the player in question has earned £30m over the last couple of years. Part of the deal is promoting the sport. Of course there has to be a sensitivity to mental illness and tennis needs to look at what it can do to mitigate the issues as far as possible.
How do you put a price on mental health though? This player earns x amount so they are obliged to do pressers, but this player only earns y so they are not?
And that's not even looking at the morals/ethics of such a route, which needless to say shut the whole concept down.
In one sense you can't, but I do think when somebody is earning £30m in just over a year in a career that revolves around fans/viewers engagement, there have to be associated requirements. In the same way that Premier League managers are expected to give interviews. It goes with the territory surely. In the same way a sales person who may have anxiety about speaking to clients is going to have issues. I do know a real case of an accountant that got depressed when the tax year came around which posed specific issues.
That isn't to say, they shouldn't look at the way questions are asked and whether improvements can be made to help the individual.
I don't think it's the same though. Sponsorship and promotions can be done through social media and photoshoots which are a completely different thing to having to face questions after a potentially gruelling physical match.
It's perfectly possible to be okay with one not the other.
I suppose that is for the sport and sponsors to decide rather than you or me, but I am not against them trying to.
I think there's definitely something that needs to be done. While I am sympathetic to her, I am still very aware that sponsors and organisers etc do have certain expectations and obligations to keep as well and her unilateral decision to just announce she just wasn't going to do questions was a bit heavy handed and perhaps naive.
They did handle it badly but she didn't give them much to work with in terms of compromise or even discussion.
I think clubs can be fined/sanctioned if the manager doesn't speak under league rules. I would assume that whilst this was the case when Fergie decided not to talk to the BBC specifically, those requirements have now been tightened as a result as it doesn't seem to have been repeated by other managers. Also, he was still undertaking interviews with other channels he didn't have a grievance with.
Elite sport has so much money in it because it is an entertainment service that has fans. Part of that in all sports are the media commitments. If the post match tennis questioning is too aggressive or intimidating, I think it is valid the relevant authorities look at it. But the personalities of the participants are always going to be part of the overall product and the sports themselves will always be conscious of that.
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter the number it is the consequences of those that are doing it that does matter. And it is on the rise. And yes, some a claiming things that aren't true to avoid justice
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter the number it is the consequences of those that are doing it that does matter. And it is on the rise. And yes, some a claiming things that aren't true to avoid justice
Citation needed.
so because one person might have faked it the assumption is everyone’s faking it? Not buying that argument I’m afraid.
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter the number it is the consequences of those that are doing it that does matter. And it is on the rise. And yes, some a claiming things that aren't true to avoid justice
Maybe, maybe not - I'd like to see a source on the numbers for sure. And even if it is/was true - it doesn't matter. Not really. It's much more important to recognise the number of genuine cases and focus on getting people the help they really do need rather than questioning if they deserve it or not.
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter the number it is the consequences of those that are doing it that does matter. And it is on the rise. And yes, some a claiming things that aren't true to avoid justice
Citation needed.
so because one person might have faked it the assumption is everyone’s faking it? Not buying that argument I’m afraid.
No one said anything about 'everyone' faking it, so it is just not [possible if you are going to misquote what others say. Some people claim it, some people fake it to avoid scrutiny and/or justice; whether you believe it or not. Maybe we could save court and prison costs and everyone can claim they can't face trial - is that what you want?
I take it you don't have any enforcement experience?
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter the number it is the consequences of those that are doing it that does matter. And it is on the rise. And yes, some a claiming things that aren't true to avoid justice
Maybe, maybe not - I'd like to see a source on the numbers for sure. And even if it is/was true - it doesn't matter. Not really. It's much more important to recognise the number of genuine cases and focus on getting people the help they really do need rather than questioning if they deserve it or not.
Not questioning if anyone deserves help or not just if anyone is using it (with a genuine condition or not) to evade consequences
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter the number it is the consequences of those that are doing it that does matter. And it is on the rise. And yes, some a claiming things that aren't true to avoid justice
Citation needed.
so because one person might have faked it the assumption is everyone’s faking it? Not buying that argument I’m afraid.
No one said anything about 'everyone' faking it, so it is just not [possible if you are going to misquote what others say. Some people claim it, some people fake it to avoid scrutiny and/or justice; whether you believe it or not. Maybe we could save court and prison costs and everyone can claim they can't face trial - is that what you want?
I take it you don't have any enforcement experience?
You are aware that literally noone ever has ever not actually faced a legal trial due simply claiming mental health problems right?
It HAS been used in some legal defences but that's exactly when such claims are given expert evaluation.
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter the number it is the consequences of those that are doing it that does matter. And it is on the rise. And yes, some a claiming things that aren't true to avoid justice
Citation needed.
so because one person might have faked it the assumption is everyone’s faking it? Not buying that argument I’m afraid.
No one said anything about 'everyone' faking it, so it is just not [possible if you are going to misquote what others say. Some people claim it, some people fake it to avoid scrutiny and/or justice; whether you believe it or not. Maybe we could save court and prison costs and everyone can claim they can't face trial - is that what you want?
I take it you don't have any enforcement experience?
You claim I don’t have any enforcement experience but you claim people don’t ever face trial because of mental health problems, so I’m going to assume you have even less experience than I do, because that claim is complete rubbish.
Still waiting on any evidence to back up your claim it’s on the rise, by the way.
Naomi Osaka is a very successful female tennis player on the court which has made her multi millions every year, from advertising and prize money in the last 3 or 4 years.
She is also an introverted person who suffers with anxiety and depression off the court.
A compromise should have been reached whereby her coach or a good friend could be at the press conference with her. Total lack of understanding by the Grand slams and French open organisers.
Comments
But then he was a middle aged white man 🙄
And that's not even looking at the morals/ethics of such a route, which needless to say shut the whole concept down.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
"one of the world’s best athletes would literally rather quit a grand slam tournament than have to talk to the press. Rather than scrutinising what that says about her, it might be worth asking what that says about us."
An MP has recently stepped away for a period of time due to suffering PTSD. Obviously we don't know the circumstances; is there something that needs to be done to protect people in such positions or is it that (depending on the circumstances) maybe the person is not ideally suited for the role?
It is human behaviour not to like being challenged and called to answer but there is often a fine between it being unacceptable and it being unfortunately downright unpleasant but necessary e.g. certain political situations. Did Martin Bashir/the BBC try to avoid scrutiny over the Diana situation, did Keith Vaz and Margaret Moran fairly avoid scrutiny over their actions?
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
That isn't to say, they shouldn't look at the way questions are asked and whether improvements can be made to help the individual.
It's perfectly possible to be okay with one not the other.
They did handle it badly but she didn't give them much to work with in terms of compromise or even discussion.
But he still didn’t do them for the Beeb, always sent someone else out.
Don’t ever remember him getting any grief over it.
Elite sport has so much money in it because it is an entertainment service that has fans. Part of that in all sports are the media commitments. If the post match tennis questioning is too aggressive or intimidating, I think it is valid the relevant authorities look at it. But the personalities of the participants are always going to be part of the overall product and the sports themselves will always be conscious of that.
so because one person might have faked it the assumption is everyone’s faking it? Not buying that argument I’m afraid.
I take it you don't have any enforcement experience?
It HAS been used in some legal defences but that's exactly when such claims are given expert evaluation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/57319108
She is also an introverted person who suffers with anxiety and depression off the court.
A compromise should have been reached whereby her coach or a good friend could be at the press conference with her.
Total lack of understanding by the Grand slams and French open organisers.