Defining Gaslighting

My mum, a staunch unionist, always taught me about social responsibility. She would always call out injustice wherever she saw it. She inspired me to do the same.  This ongoing discussion will not help the college, but if it holds an organisation to account then it's a really important conversation to have. I can't turn a blind eye to this (I mean I seriously wish that I could). . . the cost to our industry is too high.

Over the past couple of years lots of people's eyes have been opened to the fact that certain people in the public eye are culpable of gaslighting. I did a poll the other day on twitter asking people if they felt that gaslighting had increased since we've had a PM that literally does nothing else.  A stark percentage believed that his lack of integrity had trickled down through the cracks of society.

For those that aren't sure what gaslighting means, to gaslight is to make people question their own reality. So when Johnson says one thing and then denies it in the next interview, we're all left wondering if we'd imagined the first statement.

In my first blog about all of the Trinity debacle I was clear that I felt that their response to our initial complaint was rather. . . well. . . gaslit. They actually didn't address any of our concerns at all, simply telling me that the report was the report and we just had to suck it up really. To be clear they didn't write those exact words. . . but that was definitely my takeaway. 

I find gaslighting fascinating - take even their initial response, all of my senior faculty had read that report, and we all had input on the corrections, we had all come to the same conclusion that our main assessor's input was missing, yet when faced with a corporate response taking zero accountability, you instinctively have to take a step back and question your own reality. The massive difference here though is that my faculty, the students. . . a LOT of people had heard the same things at the same time. This wasn't one person's word against another. 

Anyway - today they've issued a statement designed to shut down the unofficial social media campaign that would have the potential to damage their reputation. . . and they've disappointingly gone for gaslighting one more time.

So let's just deal with facts shall we . . . here goes

1) Trinity failing to process our pre-validation assessment within a reasonable time frame did massively contribute to our closing. We've been clear all along that they weren't solely responsible. It's no secret that we had announced last year that we were closing. . .so clearly our position was always precarious this year. Suddenly having access to the potential of student funding though was a game changer for us and would have allowed us to be sustainable and indeed viable for the foreseeable future. So both of those facts can just sit side by side comfortably.

2) Even in their statement they've got their facts wrong. . . the company that has named itself as a regulated awarding organisation are now stating that they only watched one in person show. They came to 2. . . maybe it was just a typo eh, but you'd expect a bit more rigour in a statement defending their integrity*

*UPDATED to add that they've now issued a correction notice about this, but when I say a correction notice, it's actually not, they just now say that they watched 2 shows, they've just tried to make it all casual and normal.

2) They say that their work is scrutinised, they spend a long time telling us about their great reputation. It was a 9 page report and we had 6 pages of corrections. Make your own conclusion.

3) We would have been OK with the decision to pause the validation process IF that decision was based on facts taken from the main assessor. The report focussed on dance, it didn't mention our singing or acting at all, other than in the show report for Hair, which states that we had "demonstrated standards of singing, acting and dance required by the diploma"

4) They state that our report had been 'unavoidably delayed' - which is true as I had received our original recommendations back in March, yet the report (with different recommendations) was presented in July.

5) They state that they're working within the "published guidelines". Firstly I'd love to see those as we haven't been able to find them anywhere, but also every college is so different. eg they might have made a recommendation that we had a new building, in which case it would have taken us years to be validated, so validation is a piece of string issue. The difference here is that we were TOLD by the assessors on the day that we could be optimistic to be validated by July. Our main assessor had worked for Trinity for 17 years as their main assessor, he wasn't some rookie prone to error. In my meeting with them, they chastised this assessor for speaking out of turn, noting it as a point of learning. You conclude whatever you like, as we are not able to contact our main assessor. He's not able to speak to us. We did reach out to him, only to be told that he no longer worked for the organisation and therefore couldn't comment. 

6) They've refuted in the "strongest terms possible" our claims about them falsifying parts of that report. Who would be so dumb to suggest that without tangible proof? Not us, though interesting that they've now popped out in the public domain that they've watched a "sample" of online shows. 

7) Finally this statement "Further, we wish to make clear that we will not tolerate any personal attacks being made against Trinity’s staff and assessors and any questioning of their integrity in their professional work." Now that's very clever isn't it? That leads the reader by the hand inferring that personal threats have been made to assessors. To my knowledge, not one threat has been made to anybody.  More than that I'd be mortified if it had - that's not the way to hold an organisation up for accountability. A social media shout-out requesting accountability is not threatening behaviour.  Let me go further - I DO question the integrity of the person that wrote the report that we received, and I DO question the integrity of an organisation attempting to gaslight their way out of an issue. I DO NOT question the integrity of John Gardyne, our main assessor, we don't question the integrity of Catherine Dulin who came to assess Hair and took time to speak to us after the performance, and we DON'T question the integrity of Brenda Barratt-Glassman who was our second assessor. I DO find it a shame though THEY weren't so loyal to their assessors in a zoom meeting when they mentioned that one of them hadn't been able to understand a system that we were trialling at Trinity's request.  Note how I would NEVER sell one of those brilliant assessors down the Swanee. In fact - it strikes me that we're standing up for the integrity of the assessors by wanting to see the original report. We believe that report to have been an accurate representation of our course.

To conclude, we are also a charity. . . but I'll save you the gaslighting PR job, as I'd rather just deal with facts.

The "Holey" Trinity

I'm aware that I'm posting a lot about Trinity. I'm aware that it could be perceived to be sour grapes, or bitterness even that something just didn't go the way that I would have liked to. Here's the thing though, only ONE validating organisation holds the strings to DaDa awards. When the government took away the PCDL in 2019 they replaced it with the Advanced Learner Loan, and once again in our vocational training industry the only courses approved for the ALL is. . you guessed it, the Trinity Diploma.

So to summarise, if you choose to train in a vocational college, one that has not gone the degree route to funding, literally the only pathway to student funding is via the Trinity Diploma. So Trinity College London, a registered charity worth millions is the main gatekeeper to literally thousands of pounds worth of student funding. The ALL alone is worth £22k/Student. 

Little wonder then that my little college with its unique 2 year accelerated learning programme was elated when they caught up with the modern world and agreed to validate accelerated learning courses such as ours. Suddenly we had the POTENTIAL for our students to receive funding. 

Now if you've read my last blog you'll know that our pre-validation assessment process went massively array after the pre-validation assessment visit had happened, indeed even after I'd been in the zoom with our main assessor talking through our recommendations. Now I should state for the record, our main assessor had worked at Trinity for 17 years, indeed he had been a team leader for them, so not an underling learning the ropes on our assessment. This was someone that was an essential cog in their validating machine. Over the past few years, I'd had several conversations with him and he really knew his stuff. 

This assessor - actually he deserves more than anonymity, this assessor called John Gardyne really took time to understand our unique little course. He asked pertinent questions, and he took an interest in the staff, students and the course. When observing classes he was clearly engaged. When informally discussing his findings with us at the end of the visit he was clearly enthused. He had completely won us all over.

We were genuinely worried and upset when we kept receiving his out-of-office reply saying that he was on medical leave. In fact, I even wrote to him a few times whilst chasing the bloody report to say that I just hoped that he was OK. 

So when I had to sit in a zoom with 2 people that had never visited the college, and I heard one of them in particular clearly gaslighting me - starting the zoom with "if you want my advice you shouldn't bother going for validation" I KNEW in that instant that John's original report was not included in the work of fiction that they presented to us even though they had stated that it was (cue the dramatic music)

Let me give examples:

The report stated that (and forgive me for not directly quoting, but you'll get the picture in a moment) that our timetable was busy with no private study time (let's not forget here that private study time is actually a money-saving device used by colleges), and our students must be tired and potentially prone to more injuries. Swiftly followed by their account of chatting with our students where the assessors asked them if they were tired and our students said . . . no. The recommendation? We should undertake a year's study to find out if our students were tired. and more prone to injuries.  We've been running for 14 years with no major injuries. We have an amazing physio within the faculty that is fiercely proactive in injury prevention. The nature of our course means that in reality, our students are less likely to be injured. . scientific fact. They had also noted in their report that our students had felt heard, so why the hell were they asking us to waste time on this study? Our students meet with all 4 of the senior faculty at the end of every term for 1:1 tutorials, they speak to staff all the time AND we undertook anonymous surveys twice a year in case students wanted to let us know something that they weren't comfortable with telling us face to face.  We hold regular debriefing discussions after every production. Name me another college that spoke and listened to its students as much.

Or how about this:

They noted that the course was different, and not everybody was suited to an accelerated learning programme (like no sh*t Sherlock), so they recommended that we spent a year looking at our audition process to check that we're taking in the right people!! We've been running for 14 years, in the same report they'd correctly noted that we had the amazingly low dropout rate of just 3%, whilst they incorrectly stated that a "high percentage of students had secured agent recommendation". I say incorrectly as literally every single one of them had secured representation. I'd say that the evidence was actually already in their report, why did we need to look at anything??

Those are just 2 examples of many. From stating that we held Q&As with our graduates (which literally has never happened other than Ambassador Afternoon which is an informal sharing). . . have you seen the amazing people that come to work with our students? No disrespect to our ambassadors but our guest list includes people like Imelda Staunton, Stephanie J Block, Mike Jibson, Alison Steadman, Hadley Fraser, David Eldridge, Mike Leigh, Jenna Russell, Rosie Craig, so a host of other inaccuracies the report that we received was not of our course.

They spoke about our original film musical J - a film that won countless film festival awards - a contemporary retelling of the Don Juan story set in a non-binary world, but claimed that it was a story about a degenerative pop star? Now I'm not kidding when I say that I haven't a clue where they picked that storyline up from - as I was one of the writers of the film and there is NO mention of a pop star lifestyle at all.

If this wasn't so tragic it would be bloody hilarious as this faux report instantly blocked off all access to student funding. We can prove that they lied about watching other shows online - yet their lies have cost us our last lifeline.

I am 100% confident that they didn't have John's report - a report that I had already been talked through.

I am 100% confident that they cobbled together the report when we eventually complained that the process had taken 4 months longer than we had originally been told.

I am 100% confident that their first response to our complaint was to gaslight us into submission

I am 100% confident that we will be vindicated. . . .but that it's too late to save The MTA

But that should not stop us from fighting to make Trinity accountable. They've mistreated us, and my hunch is that they mistreated John too - and I'm happy to fight for the truth

Deja Vu

Last year when I wrote about our 2021 closing announcement, I blogged about an inevitable conclusion to a cut in government funding, Brexit, and a global pandemic. I wrote about feeling that I'd been desperately trying to steer an out-of-control juggernaut, but I simply couldn't stop it from driving off the road. Then after we had been "saved" I noted how much easier it had been to steer us back to the main road with so many people helping me to hold the wheel.

I was sad last year but I had managed to process a lot of my grief by the time the closing announcement had been made. The "save" came out of the blue, and to be honest it took me a few months to get back into the swing of things. However, by the time we started our new academic year in Oct 2021 I'd recalibrated myself and dared to look forward to what might be achieved. When Trinity announced their criteria change things took a really up-beat turn as finally there was a path to a more certain future.

For those that weren't aware of last year's closure we announced that we were done for, the graduates and students campaigned for us to be 'saved', and a few benefactors made themselves known to us offering to fund the shortfall to get us through the year, and a crowdfunding campaign raised awareness for the college as well as funds. 

To be clear we literally only agreed to continue the college as we were sure (after due diligence) that we had secured £250K - the amount that we had stated that we needed to run for a full year. If we had been in any doubt at all that the people & organisations that had reached out to us offering help were not able to fulfil that obligation we would not have continued. Whilst we hadn't wanted it to end, we were at a good place to finish. We had money in the bank to ensure that it was a good ending. It was a "peaceful" end with as much integrity as we could muster. 

I felt physically sick when we were suddenly told that some of that income was not going to be realised.  To say that I was blindsided was an understatement, to say that I had feelings about the fact that this revelation had not been made sooner would also be an understatement. Circumstances change of course, but a simple communication around that fact would have bought us time to regroup or budget differently. 

However, all was not lost. . . there was still hope as we were in the middle of our Trinity validation process. Getting validated would open up a whole new funding stream which would finally allow our students to have financial help from the government. Step forward Trinity. . . 

The Trinity validation process started off exceptionally well, we'd applied within weeks of the criteria change, the pre-validation visit was booked in nice and early, the glowing verbal report on the day and the talk around how optimistic we could be about being fully validated by July gave me a renewed energy and focus. Our applications were back up to pre-pandemic levels and, we were beginning to curate a brilliant cohort due to start training with us in Oct 2022. The students in training were storming it day after day with our class of 2022 one by one securing agent representation. I had a zoom meeting with the 2 Trinity assessors in early March when they told me their recommendations and helped me to think about how we could implement them easily (as the recommendations were all around the paperwork stuff). I made the changes by the next day and was told to expect the report the w/c 14th March. On March 15th I was told there was a slight delay because covid had struck and the person needing to check the report was off work. When I chased the report a week later I was sadly informed by an out-of-office email that our main assessor was now off ill too. As the days turned to weeks and into months and the assessor was still off I contacted Trinity to ask if somebody else could look at the report as it was all but finished. 

I won't bore with you the details of the sorry saga but the report finally arrived 4 months later, or as I like to count it . . . 15 emails later. 15 emails chasing the report, finding out along the way that crucial information had not been shared (as our main assessor was off sick and they didn't have access to the numerous emails exchanges which included links to videos, submissions of recommendations) and re-sharing them with the relevant Trinity department. 

Eventually, I had a meeting booked for 4pm on 12th July to go through the report. On asking to see the report prior to the meeting I was sent it at 3pm on 12th July! Once again I'm going to skip through details here. . . but trust me when I say that they're all horrific as the bottom line was - we were attempting to be validated for the Trinity Level 6 Diploma in Musical Theatre, with the majority of our students going to elect to major in acting - yet the report barely had anything in it about singing and acting - it was pretty much all about the dance, plus I should add littered with inaccuracies and contradictions, to be precise 6 pages of inaccuracies . . . and the report was only 9 pages long.  Whilst classroom observations had been written up about our dance classes, it appears that there were no observations about the classes that our main assessor had observed on his own and no reference at all to the earlier recommendations that I had been told back in March, and no reference to all those changes having been implemented. 

Here's another thought that I'd just like to leave here too for people assessing/validating looking at screen work or archived recordings of shows for quality control. Some links on certain platforms trigger an email notification to the person who controls that account. So "if" you click, oh I don't know (plucks figure from mid air) 6 links within an hour, and then the analytics show that you watched 100% of one show yet the next link was opened within 5 mins, and so on, it raises suspicions with the people that have paid for your time and the people that are relying on your diligence.  Anyway. . . 

We immediately complained to Trinity complete with some compelling evidence around our suspicions of them not having access to our main assessor's notes, eventually, they got back to us only for them to try and dilute the complaint down to a don't be bitter it didn't work out for you kind of response. They kindly suggested that we simply waited for them to complete the report, after all, fact-checking was part of their due diligence. I strangely didn't think that 6 pages of corrections and inaccuracies were evidence of due diligence, so now we have to wait as we embark on stages 2 and 3 of the Trinity complaints procedure, as an independent arbiter considers our case. With each stage taking 30 days that meant that the last lifeline had also disappeared. . . once again at a bitterly late hour. 

Right now our focus is on helping our first years (and the newbies if they want it) to find new places to train, and on getting the class of 2022 through the finishing line and onto graduation.

People who have worked with me for years know how fastidious I am about paying people and companies promptly so both the showcase and the graduation were already paid for before the horrors of the past few weeks unravelled - so the college community will have some "closure" 

Finding myself for the 2nd time in 13 months speaking to my students  & my graduates having to say that we were closing (again) was truly horrible.  Like last year though what struck me was the kindness. One of our main priorities now is obviously our 6 first years - who were almost instantaneously invited to join the graduating year for their showcase. So that's what we'll do. The final showcase will now feature our 15 graduates and our 6 first years. Once again the "community" of the college will win with kindness.

It was an extraordinary 14 years for a tiny college. We helped to change the narrative around mental health and mental illness, we proved that an accelerated learning course was possible, we kick-started 207 careers, 100% of our students graduated having secured an independent agent, we were the first Musical Theatre college to do a 50/50 stage/screen split, we remain the only college to have been named as The Stage "School of the Year" twice, we always attempted to put student (and staff) welfare first, we actively supported new writing and new writers throughout our history, and we've called out every bit of bullsh*t that we've encountered along the way.  I now proudly label myself a disruptor, albeit an accidental one.

As a member of the Board said to me this week - I started the college to be the antithesis of the establishment, I kept calling out for regulation, I was adamant that results should lead to funding, and I was eventually brought down by a regulatory body who were the gatekeepers to the funding stream. . . isn't it ironic? To add to the irony, regular readers of this blog know how much I despair with people that don't reply to emails in a timely fashion. . . another bitter irony to add to the pile.

As for me. . . I need to process the last few weeks, most definitely work through the anger & disappointment I feel about how we ended up finishing, and then think about what comes next.  

Time for a rethink

 As the Tory leadership battle continues this weekend saw both Truss and Sunak throwing the spotlight onto education. As with all their Tory-pleasing soundbites both had come up with what many people perceived to be radical ideas.

Now at the moment, I consider myself to be stranded in some political wasteland. Previously I considered myself a 'moderate' Labour supporter with a touch of Liberalism thrown in for good measure, yet more recently I, like many others, seem to be searching around for a party that truly does 'fit' with what I believe. The only thing that I'm 100% confident of is that I'm 0% Tory.  A party notoriously out for themselves, supporting the rich whilst so many in the UK go without just doesn't sit well with me at all - call me old-fashioned.  So nobody could be more surprised than me when I suddenly started to take a positive interest in what Truss and Sunak were saying over the weekend.

Truss went all in for nothing with plans to completely overhaul the education system in the UK, with the headline-grabbing soundbite of changing Higher Education's academic year. She suggested stopping the Summer rush of waiting for the exam results and then claiming places, and changing it to a "we know our results. . . give us a place" sort of system. 

The fact of the matter is that we've been stuck in an archaic educational system for decades. Sure it's been tweaked within an inch of its life over the years, out went O Levels, in came GCSEs, exams and continuous assessment scrape by together as unharmonious bedfellows, as we remain adamant that a 3-hour memory test is still the best way to ascertain who's academic. Of course, the result of the current system is a societal model that labels people as intelligent or not at 16 years. It places untold pressure on our teens to achieve success at a time that is already really hard - adolescence. The system doesn't take the "whole person" into consideration - so those teens battling illness, trauma, and basic demographic issues are issued an helpful label before they've had a chance to work out who they really are.

Then thanks to Tony Blair's vision of a world where 50% of young people went to university (university being perceived as the only successful route into the workplace), we're now left with the systemic issue of what about the rest? The role of vocational training has been diminished, with funding (or lack of) quickly following, apprenticeships are forever changing but never for the better, BTECs (once deemed for the academically less gifted) have decreased in real-world value. 

So I think that Truss is onto something with her 'shake it all up approach', except of course, as with every Truss soundbite, there appears to be no real substance or plan behind the headline.

Meanwhile, Sunak has gone for the easy target of limiting the degrees that don't lead to economic growth or to put it more bluntly, let's get rid of arts and the humanities. For some bizarre reason, the Tories love the idea of vandalising the arts in the UK, failing to fully recognise it seems that the arts are all around them, and if it wasn't for the arts their worlds would be much sadder. It's like they don't correlate that the opera, ballet, theatre, and the tv that they watch have all evolved from years of training, vocational training that is.

However, I do believe that Sunak is onto something too. Off the top of my head, I could name a number of universities that are currently offering performing arts degrees that are not fit for purpose. I can name the universities that went from offering one or two brilliant performing arts courses to offering a portfolio of performing arts courses. . . most of which were not and are not fit for purpose. It's the basic law of economics and supply and demand. Performing arts courses are hugely oversubscribed, predominantly because unlike more academic studies you can't keep cramming students into a lecture theatre, so the courses are restricted by the numbers that they can teach at one time. So the demand is huge but the opportunities are small. Step forward opportunistic universities looking to create other revenue streams.

In theory, this is great right? More courses = more opportunities, however in reality this does not play out. We're seeing courses that are claiming to get people industry-ready offering ridiculous contact hours of just 12-16 week. Absolutely impossible to build up a skillset within that timeframe. So the courses focus on private study or peer devised modules, so the students "think" that they're training, but in reality, they're simply mucking about with their friends.

On some of these courses, the staff are woefully unqualified to teach their subject, yet they're attempting to teach the next generation how to enter an industry that they have no first-hand knowledge of. I mean it's bonkers, yet they're all still oversubscribed. Such is the legacy and myth around a university education, parents would rather their children go to study at an ill-equipped university than wait for a place at a college that can truly deliver the goods because they believe that the very mention of the "degree" will get their child a job.

As I note every single time, a university can knock out a quick box-ticking degree course in no time at all, that course, regardless of how inadequate it is, will automatically be eligible for a government funding stream. Sunak is right to want to audit some of those courses. I would like to think that the money that they'd save on the "not fit for purpose" courses would be instantly rerouted into all the amazing courses out there that truly deliver results. I'd also love to think that Sunak would expand his thinking and actually place some value on vocational training - however, I realise that this would truly be the Christmas miracle that we've been waiting years for.

Whoever wins the leadership race there is so much work to do in education, and I guess the only thing that we can all be sure of - is that neither of them will put in that work

As always the comments are open and I'd love to hear what you think

Timeline of a mental health crisis

 Having ranted several times this week over what I perceive to be the hypocrisy of Equity suddenly launching a mental health charter, I've chosen to timeline the events that led me to this annoyance.

So Equity's charter was launched after the publication of this paper published in the Guardian:  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/12/performing-arts-depression-equity-covid-job-insecurity However it seems to me that the review that has prompted them into action has failed to address the number of people that enter our industry that are predisposed to mental illness but this is surely a key component to understanding the complexities of mental health issues within our industry.

We all have mental health - but the fight around breaking down the stigma around mental illness has been completely hijacked and sidelined by the media's reporting of mental health and well-being and stops us once again from dealing with the real issues.  

Back in 2014, I started speaking publicly about the fact that having a clinician doing the counselling at The MTA had led us to discover that seemingly a large percentage of our students had some underlying mental illness. I questioned whether we were just "unlucky" in our cohorts, or whether this was a trend replicated in other colleges. Nobody would engage in this conversation other than to tell me that I was being stupid.  Around the same time, a survey on the other side of the world discovered that 1 in 3 of our industry were predisposed to a mental illness, much higher than the 1 in 4 of civvy street. On discovering that fact I actively started campaigning to try and get more colleges to address the issue, as it felt more than coincidental that this tiny college in North London had the same findings as a survey in a country on the other side of the world. The common factor must be our industry.

In 2016 we attempted to have a conference of drama colleges to speak to colleagues to find out if their experiences were the same as ours and to attempt to put in a plan of action to address the issue. As is documented the meeting was poorly attended, but with the people that did bother to turn up it was brutally obvious that the issue extended far beyond The MTA, it's just that The MTA were naming it, and attempting to deal with it differently. It should be noted that 2 Equity reps were in attendance at that conference and both heard the same stories as I did that day. . . go figure.

When I muted the idea of a charter as a result of that meeting I was told by an Equity rep that my approach was wrong, that Equity could not get behind such a campaign because the remit was too large. When I attempted to put a case against this, I was told that I was too difficult to work with and therefore they would not have anything else to do with the campaign.

In July 2016 we launched the #time4change mental health charter - attempting to educate people on what mental illness really was. I literally begged Equity and Spotlight to get involved in this campaign and both refused. I asked them to distribute the charter out to its members (which would have cost them nothing), and both refused. At the time Equity were adamant that they were about to deal with the issue with their Arts Mind website (which launched some time that same year - but which also clearly served a different purpose). It was around a year later that Equity eventually sent something out to its members about the charter. A low-key aside in one of their newsletters.

In 2014 it was clear that our industry was seeing an increase (or finally recognising perhaps) in the number of people that entered our industry with an underlying mental illness. Seeing those numbers rising year on year I blogged at the start of the pandemic that the mental illness epidemic that already existed in the UK was going to explode after the lockdowns. People who would usually keep busy to stop themselves from focussing on their minds were suddenly left in silence and alone. 

Over on The MTA's Instagram, we've done a series of interviews with students that were diagnosed with a mental illness at college. All of them say the same - the symptoms were there from an early age but doctors refused to believe that they were ill. In other words, there are countless adolescents being dismissed with "growing pains" who could be getting early intervention help with mental illnesses. An intervention that could have prevented a later in life crisis.

Our industry is the ultimate escape route for many - it's a place to find your 'tribe', like-minded people that are attempting to fit in. Lots are running away from difficult pasts, but I've come to believe that lots are also running away from difficult 'mental states'. Anxiety and depression are rife, but are these created by the industry, or were they already loaded into people's DNA before this career was even an option?

We've come to almost celebrate a declaration of anxiety as opposed to encouraging people to seek medical help in order to make their lives more manageable. People who are already fighting an undiagnosed mental illness will be low on resilience to deal with all the other stuff that our industry throws at us - and yes this includes appalling treatment towards freelancers, stress over pay, working conditions and all the other things in the new survey.

My reason for ranting is that I don't want to wait a decade until all the HR stuff has been dealt with for people to discover that there's still a mental health crisis in our industry. I've already witnessed too many times how devasting a mental health crisis can be. Our NHS is simply not equipped to deal with a crisis (as strange as that sounds). I've documented before how I've seen somebody have to get arrested in a bid to get the right mental health care as they were considered not ill enough to be taken into hospital, but clearly not well enough to function successfully in society.  Or what about the ED sufferers, considered not 'thin' enough to access the services that they truly need?

We shouldn't pathologise regular hardships, but nor should we minimise ill health just because society's stigma has stopped us from recognising early symptoms.

In 2019 I (ironically) was asked to give a keynote speech at Equity's ArtsMind Symposium. I sat and listened when people made the exact same discoveries that I had been campaigning about years earlier. I spoke about finding out that BAPAM had published a paper about the mental health crisis in our industry. A study that had concluded that best practices for drama colleges should include a clinician-led service around pastoral care.  I had noted in my speech that I found it odd that The MTA had never been approached as a case study in this review given that we had been running a clinician-led service since we started.  I'll note here though that it's now 3 years since that speech and we are still the only college to have a clinician-led service!

Equity, Spotlight, the Federation of Drama Schools are all working within their own little echo chambers, afraid to open up the discussions to the outsiders that could be perceived to be disrupters waiting to smash down those gates that they all keep so well. I believe that The MTA has paid quite a high price by me unwittingly being one of those disrupters. 

So forgive me when I rant - but it's been 8 years now of shouting about the same things, and STILL nothing is being done about it. If Equity had gotten behind our campaign years ago we might now have one of the most robust industries around. 

There are several organisations trying to change the narrative, but that noise shouldn't come from "us", it should come from the organisations that actually have the authority to make a change, not from the people on the outside constantly banging on the door of the establishment.