A thread from @maddoggie2 that I have copied and pasted
1/

We must never define severity or authenticity of distress/illness by ability to be in employment, have prof or academic qualifications.
People can be very sick & long term and do all the above.

2/ Those who are long term unemployed are not more serious, it's just that circumstances have resulted in study or employment not having been viable
By @maddoggie2

3/Where the difference in privilege does matter, is with SU positions in research, on committees.

Survivors with prof/academic qualifications should not take places away from SUs without.

They should be offered an additional place for SUs with prof/academic qualifications.

4/I worry about preference for SU places being offered to those with prof/academic qualifications in place of SUs without.

We must ensure both are there
By @maddoggie2

5/ Obviously where there is lack of experience of DWP, shit living or working conditions, grassroots activism, there is in my view a responsibility on prof/academic survivors to consult with and bring in those who do have the experience they do not. By @maddoggie2

6/ I do however struggle with high profile profs being referred to as SUs on the basis of a single appt or no use of NHS services, and there needs to be recognition that there can be major differences in experience because of social status and what is accessible
By @maddoggie2

7/ The position of an early retired CEO with a golden pension using services and becoming a champion is not going to be the same as someone in social housing on the margins for half their life
By @maddoggie2

8/ With this example I'm also thinking of profs who have been SUs whose work +prestige is in recovery work where they equate their lives with v different lives, ie IMROC profs talking about graded returns to work after paid sick leave 2pple who will never have that by @maddoggie2