Psychos

Channel 4 Slated for its Choice of Programme Title

Survivors and User/Survivor Groups across the UK in 1999 slated Channel 4 for its use of the name Psychos and its poster advertising campaign used to promote the six-part drama series. The drama was set in a psychiatric hospital which has a very deprived catchment area Glasgow's Easterhouse.

Complaints Made

Greater London Action for Disability received a reply to their complaint which said that we misunderstood the intention, "psychos did not refer to patients, but was a professional shorthand for doctors and nurses".

Campaigner Annabel Jessup poses for the Press

Users were mystified because they had never heard doctors and nurses calling each other psychos. As were the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Nursing. "The title itself is appalling and stigmatising and the College deeply regrets the choice" said the RCP.

Many users were hardly able to believe their eyes when the programme title was announced. It clearly stereotyped all users of acute care as being potential and actual psycho killers, when user/survivors know full well that most patients are peaceful, non-offenders and they have often been victim of great tragedy such as rape, child abuse or other crime. Programme four was serendipitously shown at the same time as Hitchcock's Psycho.
The original poster campaign contained the words Psychos – drama that will blow your mind alongside an image of the Douglas Henshall character Dr Nash pulling a particularly crazed face. This was taken from a shower scene in the programme. Hmmm, shower scenes?

An investigation by the Big Issue seemed to reveal that the Commissioning Editor – Gub Neale, inventive as ever, had made up this story of professional shorthand to justify Channel 4's action. (Mr Neale was responsible for the highly true-to-life series Cracker, when he was at Granada.)
Leading campaigner Annabel Jessel attempted to get onto Channel 4's Right to Reply and while they were amenable at first, a decision from up high among Channel 4's echelons was that Ms Jessel should in fact have no right to reply.

Small demonstration outside Channel 4's offices on 27th April 1999

Channel 4 pulls out of Debate

Not to worry, BBC Radio 4 invited both Ms Jessel and a Channel 4 spokesperson to debate the matter on the April 27th edition of You and Yours. Channel 4 agreed but then decided to pull out of the debate shortly before the live programme was scheduled.

Petition of 300 signatures handed in to Channel 4

The BBC was reportedly furious, that Channel 4 has cynically "killed the story" by agreeing and then failing to appear. Reportedly this is an old trick – " They're a broadcaster – they know what they're doing" said one BBC insider.

Annabel Jessel from the user group Positive Breakdown and other survivors lobbied Channel 4's offices on the same day and handed in a petition with over 300 signatures.
Users noted that after the complaints were made, the poster campaign was toned down. Gone was the crazed face from the shower, replaced by a picture of Douglas Henshall looking normal.

The programme itself has received mixed responses. While the Scottish Association for Mental Health has called it "insensitive, tacky and factually inaccurate" some users feel there are some positive aspects. For one thing it does show what crisis does exist in Inner City mental health services and another it portrays the leading character, psychiatrist Dr Nash as being a user/survivor himself – demonstrating that mental distress can be experienced by anyone and that mental health professionals are subject to particularly high risk.

For a long while Users and others were waiting with interest for judgements from the Advertising Standards Authority, and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The main aim was to prevent a broadcaster ever doing this again

So What was the Outcome?

Despite continuing complaints the Advertising Standards Authority were unmoved and chose to see nothing offensive about the title. This proved yet again that self-regulation is no regulation.

Amazingly the Broadcasting Standards Commission made a judgement upholding the complaints. So was this a victory for user/survivors? Perhaps. But we could not help notice that a strong complainant was none other than the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Insiders felt that what they really objected to was the storyline - because one doctor stabs another on a psychiatric ward.

And the Commissioner who deals with mental health complaints just happens to be Dame Fiona Caldicott - past president of the Royal College. Hence survivors ended up by feeling we had been used by the Royal College for their own advancement. So what else is new?