Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Sasha, Nov 23, 2018.
It's a very adequate explanation @DokaGirl . I appreciate entirely what you say here.
Thank you @Barry.
I am thinking of sending our local MPs ( N.Ireland) a few recent abstracts to illustrate the complexity of the research needed, with a brief summary. My aim is that by showing them the complexity, it makes the utterly simplistic CBT/GET look ridiculous.Very few MPs have a science background.
In the article, Steve writes
The link is to the MEAction UK Twitter post claiming that the application had been approved.
Imagine, a journalist that actually fact checks statements! I would believe I was dreaming, had it not been Mr Topple
That is worrying if the wrong information is being spread.
The MEA Facebook note shared here by @Russell Fleming states:
@Eagle, I believe you are Carol Monahan's constituent in touch with her. Can you shed any light on this?
Horribly worrying! Did Carol Monaghan report "that she had been successful with her application" or not?
Carol Monaghan was sitting towards the right end of the front row in the House of Commons this afternoon, Nicky Morgan on back row well behind PM.
Not relevant to debate I know but I was interested.
Have already written to my MP to say debate has been agreed so I really hope it has been.
Can’t see that MEA was likely to get it wrong.
Have just found this when looking for the announcement from last week.
Is there anyone around who can explain it a bit more? @Stewart
I believe this is a post by MEA from some years ago @Binkie4 it refers to John Bercow tabling an adjournment debate but as the current speaker of the house he wouldn’t be taking such actions which are reserved for backbench MPs. It also mentions DLA and “new” NICE guidelines so I’m assuming it’s from 2007/8.
Possibly it’s a question of interpretation of the parliamentary process where Steve Toople is going by the committee not yet having made any formal announcement. Whereas Carole Monaghan has likely shared this information based on informal assurances that she has no reason to disbelieve.
I’ve no idea whether the committee makes formal announcement of which topics have been accepted onto their list for debate or if the only formal confirmation is when the debate is actually announced in the parliamentary timetable (order of business)
Thank you @NelliePledge. I lost power .....rather dramatically....when a local substation blew up just after I sent my post. No WiFi, lights, power etc. Fire service needed to put out fire. Was unable to research further. But thank you for your explanation.
Oh blimey hope you got power back reasonably quickly and your fridge/freezer contents not ruined.
I came back on just before I sent my last post. Am not opening the freezer.....should be ok. Off for 2-3 hours.
The really alarming thing is that the underground substation is right outside one school and opposite another. 10 hours later and the pavement would have been full of children going to school.
It would be good to have this confusion cleared up. Hard to know who got the wrong end of the stick.
It seems to have been announced by Dr Shepherd after a Forward ME meeting. Minutes not yet released. Perhaps @Russell Fleming can confirm.
That's what is needed for all PwME .
I suspect @NelliePledge is probably correct on this, and that people close to Carol Monaghan (no 'e' on the end of Carol note @NelliePledge ) have likely been told this by her. I cannot imagine she would have said this without it being valid, even though it may not be written public knowledge yet.
Please accept my apologies for the delayed response. I am Carol Monaghan MP's constituent but limited in time in what I can do to communicate with the wider ME community as I am focusing on the important parliamentary ME/PACE trial issues with my MP amongst other matters. I was hoping that the charities, as they are set up for this, could take responsibility for accurate communication to the wider ME community and all other MP’s and this is again disappointing especially after all the issues in June with the parliamentary briefing document.
These statements by these two charities are wrong. My Member of Parliament, Carol Monaghan MP, has petitioned for a House of Commons Main Chamber debate in front of the Backbench Business Committee. It is in the list for debates and the debate is not currently scheduled or accepted for the House of Commons Main Chamber. The committee cannot give time for this as yet. The committee offered another Westminster Hall debate but this was rejected by her this time. This was advised in June and in the last committee in October. There have been two Westminster Hall debates previously in February on the ‘PACE trial and its effect on people with ME’ and in June for ‘ME Research and Treatments’.
There is a long list of other debates awaiting currently and it is unclear when it would be accepted and scheduled in the House of Commons Main Chamber. She is prepared to wait for the House of Commons Main Chamber rather than another smaller Westminster Hall debate as offered again which is the correct course of action. Due to the current political environment the debate is not scheduled with a date and time and therefore it cannot be said the House of Commons Main Chamber debate was accepted and successful at this point in time. The journalist from the Canary is also correct.
Therefore it is incorrect for #MEAction to state “Carol Monaghan MP has been successful with her application for a House of Commons Main Chamber debate on ME as she announced during a Forward ME Group meeting yesterday”. It is also incorrect for the ME Association to state "Carol Monaghan MP reported that she had been successful with her application for a full chamber debate on ME/CFS in the House of Commons.”
Thank you for the clarification, @Eagle, it is very much appreciated.
Separate names with a comma.