Month: February 2014

On ‘Midsomer Murders’ and the scuppering of public health initiatives

I was amused to read a pice in The Independent yesterday relating to this article in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. A group of researchers in Edinburgh, concerned about the unrealistic depiction of murder in television drama, have compared the frequency and method of murders and the characteristics of the perpetrators in all episodes of MM from 1997-2011 (as I shall henceforth refer to it) with data relating to real murders in Lothian & Borders from 2006-11. Here, then, is my summary:

(A caveat: I love MM and, to be honest, this blog post is a bit self-indulgent.)

A very robust methodology, involving watching around 80 episodes of MM in order to ascertain the characteristics o the act, the murderer and the victim was employed. In MM, there were 217 murders, carried out by 105 people. In Lothian, 55 murderers carried out 53 murders. In Lothian, 89% of murderers were male, significantly higher than the 57% who were male in MM. In MM murderers were much more likely to be white British (hardly surprising, given the demographics of the cast – until 2012, it was almost entirely white, and only in the last eighteen months or so have the murderers hailed from outside this green and pleasant land) and there was much less evidence of mental disorder (11% compared to 47% in the (Lothian sample). Victims of murder in Lothian were also significantly younger than in MM (35 vs 52). 

So. How do the means of murder stack up against each other? In Lothian, 58% of people are killed using a kitchen knife. in MM, that drops to 5%. It seems that the residents of Midsomer much prefer more inventive methods, including poisoning, drowning, fire and the classic ‘blunt instrument’.

So what do the authors conclude? Well, they seem genuinely worried about the impact of crime dramas on the public perception of risk. Most people, it seems, are murdered using kitchen knives, but you wouldn’t get that impression if you were to watch MM. perhaps that means that viewers will not understand the reality of the prospect of murder and that they may not take adequate precautions, such as storing knives securely.

I always like research which references popular culture, but I confess to being a bit puzzled by this. To my mind, public perceptions of violence are more likely to be coloured by televised and print news, which is often very good at scaremongering. Despite being an MM devotee, I can’t say I have ever found myself actively considering whether I would be drowned in a barrel of whisky or unsuspectingly ingest ground glass, or, indeed, find strychnine in a biscuit tin. Part of the reason I like MM is that it requires little thought and is essentially, light relief, although probably not quite as light as Morecambe & Wise (or whatever the 21st century equivalent might be). And MM is hardly unusual in its choice of bizarre murder methods. All the great detectives spend most of their time solving planned murders – Poirot, Holmes, Columbo; even Jonathan Creek. They all involve a degree of ingenuity (as the authors of tis study quite rightly say, who wants to watch a stabbing with a kitchen knife every episode for all eternity?) and showmanship. But they are fiction, and the whole point of fiction is that it is decidedly not real life. So whilst I understand the authors’ concerns, I confess that I do not entirely share them, and that I shall continue to enjoy MM, and Poirot, and Holmes (but, I hasten to add, not Columbo) entirely unhindered.

On learning in learning disability

As part of the requirements of qualification as a clinical psychologist, you have to do a number of clinical placements. In the UK, one of those must be a six-month stint in learning disability.

I came into clinical training through a fairly unusual route, which meant that I had very different experience from that of many of my colleagues. One of those differences was LD – I had never worked in LD services, although I had worked with people who had some cognitive impairment. The criteria for LD are that you have an IQ (a controversial topic in itself) of 70 or less, that there is some difficulty in functioning, be that in academic settings or otherwise, and that the difficulties are not the result of illness or a head injury; i.e. that they have been present from a very early age. (In the US, the term ‘learning disability’ is often taken to mean something like dyslexia or dyspraxia. In the UK we refer to these as ‘learning difficulties’. It is not an easy distinction to remember, and even clinicians get the two muddled from time to time.) I was, it is fair to say, going in with little prior knowledge or experience.

Four months in, I think I’m starting to get a handle on working with this group of people. I am in a team which works with those with a learning disability and mental health problems. Not until I began to work in this area did I fully start to appreciate how marginalised some of the people I see are. I have long known that being perceived as having mental health problems can result in stigma and barriers and social isolation and I knew that having an LD was likely to do the same, but the interface of the two can sometimes vastly magnify the difficulties. This isn’t because of the LD itself, nor as a result of the mental health problem – it is purely the result of the way society treats those who are different and of the way that some vulnerable people are exploited. I use the term ‘vulnerable’ carefully – not everyone with an LD or an MH problem is vulnerable and many people with neither of those labels are vulnerable. But in the Venn diagram of such things, there is bound to be some overlap.

One of the things I like about my profession is that, despite having spent a good few years working across a range of services, I regularly get angry. Not with the people I see professionally, but with the people around them. The fact I can get angry about the accommodation in which someone lives or the staff with whom they have to deal or the neighbours who make their lives difficult means I still care as much as I did when I chose this as my career and that I still believe that change is possible. To my mind, it’s when you stop getting angry that you should re-think the way you earn your living, because that anger signifies a passion for your work. I think most people come into this kind of work wanting to change things (whatever those things may be). The focus might shift over time, in the way that most revolutionary aims change over the course of years, but as long as the will and the belief is there, you can make a positive impact on the lives of the people who come and see you. Virtually everyone who I have met who works in LD still has a desire to change things for the better. Sometimes that’s change which is recognised: those esteemed colleagues who write reports for the Department of Health and inform policy; more often, it’s the people who do their jobs, day in, day out, trying to help people in distress make their lives better. It can probably feel like you’re constantly pushing for the small victories, but as anyone in mental health will tell you, the small victories are necessary if you’re ever to snatch the big ones.

So what have I taken from this, aside from a better understanding of the impact that disability can have? Well, I’ve learned that even in an environment where NHS services are becoming more protocol-driven, there is still room for flexibility in service provision; indeed, you cannot run an LD service which is not flexible. I have learned that it is possible to get away from the language of psychology and psychiatry (a language I have always avoided, given that, like most specialist languages, it is designed to exclude those who don’t understand it) and make our ideas accessible to everyone. I have learned that writing reports is made far more fun when you use 100 words and fifteen pictures. I have learned that working in LD requires a particular skill set, but that like all skill sets, it can be learned.

And I have been reminded of something too. I have always said that my job is one of great privilege. Strangers come into my consulting room and they tell me about their pain and their distress and their fears. They show me their vulnerability, a vulnerability that is sometimes so raw that you marvel at their resources. I have often been amazed at the strength and grit of the people that I see; speechless at the difficulties that have encountered and which have threatened to overcome them, but which they have not allowed to do so. Factor in the added stress of physical disability and cognitive impairment, as well as the adverse experiences that can result, and I have been reminded of the strength of human spirit, the resilience that many of us have (but which we perhaps don’t know we have). And again, I marvel. And I think that with enough time and will, perhaps we will see the day when those with disabilities, of whichever variety, will cease to be marginalised and will be seen in the way the rest of us like to be seen: as human, with our foibles and neuroses, but with more binding us together than setting us apart.

This post is also due to appear at joereddington.com