Our staff can study with you the most effective and efficient manufacturing solutions in terms of cost and reliability, even before beginning development of your products.
No compromise on quality.Deliverables that reliably meet commitments in terms of the delivery schedule and the product's target price.
Every detail is taken into consideration and our global vision of processes ensures: Consistency, efficiency and cost reduction. All our product development proposals are package deals, no billing surprises. We always work with our customers in complete transparency.
Automated, controlled, tested production. Functional deliverables.
Introduction of new technologies (INT).


text:
Lower Manhattan (Manhattan, NY)
Mark Peikin - New york, New York
By Brian Kantor
(Fip Realty)
The Jack Brewer Foundation The Jack Brewer Foundation strives to "Empower From Within" through our various self-sustaining initiatives and programs, offering educational opportunities and economic development in partnership with underprivileged people around the world. Learn more about our missio... 08/29/2012
Tallest Building in NYC | One World Trade Center
By Mitchell J Hall, Lic Associate RE Broker - Manhattan & Brooklyn
(Compass)
Last month, President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama visited One World Trade to take a private tour to see the progress of construction. It was their first visit since the 10th anniversary of 9/11. They were welcomed on Flag Day, June 14, by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, New Jerse... 07/13/2012
Office Space - Herald Square, NYC
By Alexander Bederak, Commercial Real Estate Advisor New York
(G.E. Grace & Companynyc office space,manhattan office space)
Office Space - Herald Square, NYC No, it's not Times Square, but it is an intersection on Broadway that New York visitors might want to put on their checklist. Herald Square is on the intersection of Broadway and 34th Street but the views are not limited there – in fact, the Empire State Buildin... 12/19/2011
Office Space - Lower West Side, NYC
Office Space - Lower West Side, NYC The Lower West Side is now known as Tribeca.The name Tribeca stands for "Triangle Below Canal Street".Tribeca encompasses the area south of Canal Street, between Broadway and West Street, continuing south to Chambers Street.The once dominant industrial base va... 12/19/2011
Office Space - Midtown South, NYC
Office Space - Midtown South, NYC Mid-South is one of the more popular tourist locations in Midtown Manhattan. Here, throngs of tourists mingle with busy office-workers; berms and track shoes are seen as often as ironed dress pants and leather shoes. Mid-South has the honor of harboring the most... 12/19/2011
Market Report: Since 9/11 Lower Manhattan Comes Roaring Back!
9/11 - New York's Real Estate Market A Decade Later I will always remember those innocent lives lost and all the heroes who sacrificed their lives to save others and the brave men and woman in the military. This blog is a market report about the Rebirth of Lower Manhattan and New York's Comeback ... 09/07/2011

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
© Mike Szpot
Who Are You Calling Crazy?
Gary Greenberg On How We Define Mental Illness — And How It Defines Us
By Zander Sherman • July 2016
In August 2010, at the age of twenty-seven, my brother began showing psychotic symptoms: Buildings seemed taller. The ground appeared to undulate beneath his feet. Joshua had always been exceptionally healthy — a high-school track-and-field star who had recently completed a sixty-eight-day wilderness-survival course. He had been elected president of his college's student union and dreamed of becoming a musician like our father. Now he heard voices in his head.
I had just turned twenty-four and didn't know anyone with a serious mental illness; there was no history of it in my family. My knowledge of schizophrenia was limited to how it was presented in movies and the occasional story in The New York Times. I found myself in the middle of a nightmare scenario in which I was trying to help my brother while also preventing him from attacking our father. (Joshua was convinced that our father was hypnotizing him, and the only way to break the spell was to kill the hypnotist.)
A few months into Joshua's illness, I happened to speak with psychotherapist Gary Greenberg. I was working on a story about the anarchist John Zerzan and his friendship with Ted Kaczynski, the domestic terrorist known as the Unabomber. Greenberg was something of an expert on Kaczynski, having traded letters with him and written about their correspondence for McSweeney's in 1999. As the conversation shifted to Kaczynski's schizophrenia diagnosis, I made a note to talk to Greenberg about my brother someday.
When we had that second conversation, in December 2014, I learned more about mental illness in four minutes than I had in the four years since my brother had begun to show symptoms. Greenberg spoke carefully, even elegantly, often going back to make sure he hadn't lost me. He seemed both wise and averse to thinking of himself that way as he helped me understand mental illness and the challenges of discussing it.
In his writing Greenberg reveals the powerful political and economic forces behind psychiatry, as well as the effect the profession has on the way research is conducted, policy is drafted, and legal cases are tried. In the case of Kaczynski, for example, Greenberg believes the legal-defense team sought a diagnosis of schizophrenia to help their client avoid the death penalty, despite the fact that Kaczynski did not fit the criteria. Greenberg argues that, unlike most medical diagnoses, psychiatric disorders do not have a clearly defined basis in biology. Instead of making objective findings rooted in observed psychological conditions, the diagnostician must listen to the patient's account of his or her symptoms and decide which mental-illness category they best fit. The categories, in turn, are only assemblages of symptoms, their boundaries based on observation or tradition and therefore arbitrary, no matter how carefully rendered. Psychiatrists know this, Greenberg says, but when it comes time to explain diagnoses to patients and to the public — notably in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, sometimes called the "bible" of psychiatry — they insist that the diseases are as verifiable as cancer or diabetes. This insistence often leads patients to feel defined by their psychiatric labels.
Greenberg received his undergraduate degree from Swarthmore College in 1979 and his master's from Southern Connecticut State University in 1983. He opened his first private practice in New London, Connecticut, the following year and earned his doctoral degree from Saybrook University in 1992. He has authored four books, including Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Modern Disease and The Book of Woe, about the process of revising the fifth edition of the DSM. He is a contributing editor for Harper's and has written for The New Yorker and The New York Times, among other publications.
I spoke with Greenberg by phone several times earlier this year. He was at his farm in Scotland, Connecticut, where he lives with his wife and teenage son. When I called, he would often be busy feeding livestock or retooling some old farm machinery. Once, I interrupted him while he was blaring Grateful Dead songs and de-icing his windows.
Some of Greenberg's critics have suggested that he is "anti-psychiatry," a charge Greenberg dismisses. Although as a psychotherapist he cannot prescribe medications, as psychiatrists do, he says he is not against medicating patients. And he acknowledges evidence of a biological basis for disorders like schizophrenia. But he is calling for more introspection from psychiatrists about ideas they take for granted. After all, Greenberg suggests, psychiatry makes a point of analyzing us — isn't it time we analyzed it?
Sherman: What is mental illness?
Greenberg: I don't know that the question can be answered. Maybe when I was younger I thought it could be. Maybe I even thought I knew the answer myself. But at this point I'm not sure the question is worth spending time on. You have to make so many huge assumptions about human nature, the nature of consciousness, and the nature of illness that I think you become wrong before you even begin. I don't mean to insult anyone who would try. I attempt to answer it myself every time somebody comes into my office to talk about what is bothering them.
Sherman: What assumptions about human nature are being made?
Greenberg: The main assumption is that we can understand the kind of suffering we call "mental illness" as some problem or pathology in the brain. And that notion is increasingly taken for granted. We have come to think of ourselves in mechanistic terms. We believe our thoughts and personalities are the product of neurotransmitters.
Sherman: Why is that a problem?
Greenberg: Because it's making a philosophical and possibly even religious claim about the nature of consciousness that ultimately can't be verified. The reason I recoil from the idea that our subjective suffering is "mental illness" is because I believe we become the people we think we are. The more we hear that "the brain does this and the brain does that," the more we think of ourselves as a product of brain chemistry, and that has profound implications for human agency.
At a more practical level, the idea that our subjective suffering is caused by mental illness has not yielded much fruit. Psychiatry simply hasn't proven to be the best way to understand psychic travail — at least, not yet. Even with a disorder like schizophrenia, which looks the most like a true disease, we don't understand the mechanism the way we do with the majority of other medical conditions. Mental illness is a function of consciousness, and consciousness is something we see through a glass darkly. We simply are not prepared to understand it with the same certainty that we are prepared to understand, say, liver disease. It's possible that by thinking of schizophrenia and depression as illnesses, we are going down the wrong path entirely.
Although I don't believe consciousness can be reduced to the brain, the brain is a necessary condition of consciousness. That means we have to pay attention to it. If I think a patient would do well to consult with a psychiatrist or physician about the possibility of medication, I might recommend it. But I also think we are indebted to history — and not just familial history, but cultural history, political history, and economic history — for our understanding of ourselves. Comprehending the way we're situated in the world helps us to comprehend suffering, come to terms with it, and maybe relieve it.
Let's say I'm talking to a young person who is struggling to figure out what to do with his life. I might talk about how that dilemma has changed over the last twenty-five to thirty years. I might let him know that the question didn't always create as much anxiety as it does now. Success today requires a narrower set of skills and talents and temperaments. It's gotten harder to establish yourself in a career. So his anxiety is not caused just by his nervous system being on overdrive. It reflects a changing reality in which we all have to work harder than the next person to have a satisfying, meaningful, comfortable life. And if you're failing to do that, it isn't necessarily because you're feckless. It may be because your skills and talents aren't useful anymore. The classic case of this is the young man who struggles to get through college. Fifty years ago he might not have gone to college, because he could have gotten a well-paying factory job straight out of high school. Those jobs are disappearing.
Sherman: Where do you draw the line between mental health and mental illness?
Greenberg: Health and illness are on a spectrum. How you get from one to the other is dependent in part on whatever might be happening in your head, but also on the world in which you're living. There are plenty of people whose anxieties or odd beliefs do not impair their functioning, often due to their high position in the world. They're insulated by class or wealth from the consequences of their dispositions, and they don't experience the stresses that less-privileged people do.
Sherman: Does that mean that someone from a wealthy family who has schizophrenia wouldn't be diagnosed as mentally ill?
Greenberg: Someone from a wealthy family can certainly be diagnosed as mentally ill, but everything from that point on could be entirely different than it is for a poor person. There are recent studies showing that the social status of people diagnosed with schizophrenia does affect how well they do. If someone has an intact, caring social network, then that person is more likely to get better. A person from a wealthy family may have the money to spend a year and a half at Sheppard Pratt or another long-term treatment hospital. The old-fashioned asylums have been closed, but beneath the radar there are still places where it is possible for someone with a severe mental illness to live sheltered from the world for as long as necessary. Meanwhile prisons have become the new mental hospitals for the nonwealthy.
Clearly it doesn't always work this way, but, all other factors being equal, people who have more resources are better able to avail themselves of treatment.
Sherman: I think about that when I'm sending e-mails or making phone calls on my brother's behalf. I can navigate the bureaucracy pretty well and champion my brother's cause. Is that the kind of resource you're talking about?
Greenberg: Yes, and if you were truly wealthy, you could pay the twenty or thirty thousand dollars a month it takes to place him in a top-notch institution.
Sherman: You say that mental illness is hard to define, but is it possible that part of it is defined for us in our DNA?
Greenberg: There's a strong indication of some kind of genetic component to mental illness. People who tend toward anxiety often have parents who tended toward anxiety. It's the same with mood disorders and psychotic disorders. When hereditary predisposition has been examined scientifically, what's shown up is that particular illnesses, such as schizophrenia or depression, are not genetic, but their symptoms may be. There are genes or groups of genes that appear to be common in people who suffer from, say, delusions or anxiety.
Sherman: Can our upbringing determine our receptiveness to mental illness?
Greenberg: It's an interesting question. I would broaden the concept of "upbringing" to include forces beyond just the family. If Freud had come along at a different time and hadn't been so interested in the nuclear family, he might have widened his scope. That's one of the real shortcomings of all the dynamic therapies, which focus on a client's childhood, relationships, and feelings. The dynamic therapies are very articulate and accurate about the bourgeois family and its effect on us, but they aren't good at understanding the larger forces such as culture, society, politics, and power relations, all of which shape the family as well as the individual.
Sherman: How could the dynamic therapies better explore and understand those forces?
Greenberg: Take the example I gave of the young man who is distraught because his talents and skills and education aren't suited to the modern world. Now, maybe he's got Oedipal problems, too. Maybe he has some kind of internal conflict about surpassing his father. I certainly wouldn't rule that out. But even under those circumstances, we still have to look at the effect of broad changes in our society.
Here's a different example: Somebody comes in who works in a defense plant making nuclear weapons, and she's feeling depressed and anxious. Therapy wouldn't typically delve into the moral quandary of spending her days making weapons of mass destruction, but maybe it should.
I don't believe I'm the only person stretching these boundaries. Most therapists do it at one point or another. But it isn't recommended in the books, and it's certainly not found in Freud or any of the dynamic therapies that I'm familiar with.
Sherman: Your most recent book, The Book of Woe, is about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. What is the DSM?
Greenberg: The DSM is a book in which mental disorders are named and defined, and it's used by all mental-health professionals to diagnose patients.
Sherman: Are there people who profit from the creation of new disorders?
Greenberg: Of course. In a capitalist system every disease creates a market. As soon as you allow medicine to become a commodity — and I don't mean medicine as in drugs; I mean the whole business of healthcare — you create incentives for people to convince others that they are sick and that medicine has the cure. The ones who profit from this are obviously the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and providers, which includes me.
Defining disorders in the DSM is one of the ways mental-health professionals exercise power. The main point of the DSM is to create and reinforce authority. Much, if not all, of what we do could be done without it. There's no reason you should have to have a diagnosis in order to be treated with a psychiatric drug. If the patient says, "I'm anxious," we like to think it matters whether the anxiety is a result of depression or an anxiety disorder, but, in fact, the drugs treat the symptoms, not the illness.
In some ways psychiatry is already being practiced in this fashion. I know psychiatrists who prescribe a drug or treatment based on their belief that it will help the patient and then write down a diagnosis to fit. Maybe some think this diagnosis is what's driving the patient's illness, but it doesn't make a difference.
Sherman: In The Book of Woe you talk about the need to find labels for our suffering. "Give a name to suffering," you write, "and suddenly it bears the trace of the human. It becomes part of our story. It is redeemed."
Greenberg: It gives us great comfort to be able to name things. In the Bible God tells Adam and Eve to name the creatures in the Garden of Eden. What that myth might represent is the need to bring order to chaos. So when you're confronted with something as difficult and inexplicable as depression or schizophrenia, naming it could help you feel better.
The danger, however, is that a name can become a simplistic means of understanding the self. If a person identifies him- or herself as bipolar long enough, the term becomes a crutch. When people come to me and say, "I have ADHD," I ask, "What does that mean to you?" Then I'll follow up with "How is it valuable to see yourself that way? And how is it limiting you?" There's nothing wrong with having the label, so long as it doesn't encourage a superficial understanding of yourself. If your answer to the question "Who am I?" is "I'm bipolar" or "I have major depression," that forecloses other forms of self-identity.
The reason I recoil from the idea that our subjective suffering is "mental illness" is because I believe we become the people we think we are. The more we hear that "the brain does this and the brain does that," the more we think of ourselves as a product of brain chemistry, and that has profound implications for human agency.
Sherman: Isn't it useful for researchers gathering data to have a name for the disorder they're studying?
Greenberg: One legitimate reason to define disorders is to ensure that, for example, when different people write about schizophrenia, by and large they're all writing about the same phenomenon. Even if the way we define it is just some construct that doesn't have any scientific basis, it allows us to identify the set of symptoms we are talking about. In the prescientific era, everybody agreed that something called "black bile" caused people to be melancholy. It turned out it didn't exist, but that doesn't mean the observations made about melancholy back then weren't valuable. Of course, once you start assuming a construct is real, you're going down the wrong road.
It's becoming more apparent that different pathologies can lead to the same symptoms. The brain has many ways of making people delusional, for example. So those DSM categories are becoming less useful to researchers. The major funder of psychiatric research in this country, the National Institute of Mental Health [nimh], has more or less abandoned the DSM. The nimh is no longer requiring or even encouraging researchers to specify a DSM category as the subject of their research. Rather, it's looking for researchers to focus on narrow domains of consciousness, such as fear or arousal.
Sherman: I've heard you speak about an "anthropology of mental illness." What do you mean by that?
Greenberg: Like an anthropologist studying another culture, a therapist might try to isolate, observe, and describe a phenomenon with as few preconceptions as possible. There are philosophical debates about whether we can eliminate preconceptions entirely, but ideally we should try just to describe the thing as it actually occurs, which in this case means really listening to people.
Sherman: How does this differ from the process used by the authors of the DSM?
Greenberg: Take a diagnosis like major depressive disorder. The DSM lists nine symptoms for it, but you have to have only five of them to qualify for the diagnosis, which tells you right away that it's bad science. It's possible for two people to each have five of the nine symptoms but to have only one symptom in common, yet we presume both people are suffering from something called "depression."
For schizophrenia the diagnostic criteria are tighter, but still there's a leap being made from the observation that "a group of people are suffering in this way" to the assumption that they're all suffering from the same anomaly in the brain.
Sherman: The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard recently discovered a "schizophrenia gene." What do you make of that?
Greenberg: If you look at the fine print, you'll see that what they found is this gene increases your chance of developing schizophrenia by 25 percent. For the general population the chance of schizophrenia is, what, 1 percent?
Sherman: Less than 1 percent.
Greenberg: Let's round up to 1 percent. That means 1.25 percent of the people who have this gene develop schizophrenia. What does that prove?
Psychiatrists have done a decent job of organizing suffering into categories, but I think they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of those categories. They are much closer to the tentative categories of the social sciences than they are to medical diagnoses.
Sherman: How did you come to write Manufacturing Depression?
Greenberg: I started my therapy practice in 1983, and around 1990 clients started showing up to my office with diagnoses of depression and prescriptions they'd received from psychiatrists or family doctors for Prozac. My first thought was: I didn't realize there were so many people with depression. Maybe I had missed something.
Watching the trend unfold and gather strength and become a juggernaut was disturbing to me. A lot of critics thought it was bad for so many people to be taking antidepressants, but that's not what bothered me; I have no problem with people taking drugs to feel better. My concern was that, in order to get a prescription, you had to have an illness, and a diagnosis like depression shapes people's understanding of themselves.
We get our idea of what kind of people we should be from our social surroundings. We can see this clearly in the shift that occurred during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, when people in the Western world started to emphasize the importance of individual liberty. They believed that each person should be free to, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, "pursue happiness." And that understanding is still with us today. It comes to us from our parents, our political and religious leaders, our culture, and, increasingly, the providers of consumer goods that might help us find happiness. All of those sources have the power to shape our sense of self.
The flip side to the pursuit of happiness is the belief that, if you aren't fulfilled or happy, you have failed in some respect. And if you turn to a drug to make you happy, then you are still failing by not being self-reliant, which is another trait our culture values highly. But there is one situation in which you can rely without guilt on an agent outside yourself: when you are sick. Illness grants relief from the injunction to achieve happiness on your own.
A drug company can't just sell Prozac as a product that will make you feel better — let alone change your personality (even though that is pretty much what it does) — because that would violate our ideal of who we are supposed to be. But if you can persuade people that their malaise is an illness, a biochemical imbalance no different in some respects from diabetes, then you can also persuade them to take drugs for it without violating that tenet of self-reliance. This has profound implications, not only for how we understand our suffering, but also for how we understand what it means to be human. The medical industry is using its power to shape us into not only consumers of drugs but also people who think of consciousness as a function of brain chemistry.
Now, I don't think drug-company executives or doctors are gleefully rubbing their hands as they turn us into pill-popping zombies. Most are genuinely trying their best to relieve suffering. But they are shaped by the same historical forces as the rest of us. We're all sailing our ships on the same currents, some of us on yachts and some of us clinging to scraps of flotsam.
Sherman: So the pharmaceutical companies are telling us depression is a disease.
Greenberg: Yes. The pharmaceutical industry — and, to some extent, the medical industry — says it's an imbalance of neurotransmitters, similar to not having enough insulin in your system. If you're depressed, they say, you don't have enough serotonin, and they sell you a drug that's going to release more serotonin. This theory has been discredited, but doctors still present it to patients to make them more comfortable with the idea of taking antidepressants.
Sherman: Should medication be a last resort?
Greenberg: I wouldn't put it that way. I would say that taking medication is something you need to do with your eyes open, recognizing that if the drugs make you feel better, you may want to keep taking them. And then you'll be left to wonder whether it's you or the drugs speaking. You're introducing another variable into your understanding of what's going on inside you. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a decision to take lightly.
© Matt Kollasch
Sherman: In Manufacturing Depression you write about your own diagnosis of clinical depression — a diagnosis you sought in order to participate in a drug trial in 2007. What did that experience do for you?
Greenberg: Participating in that trial changed my understanding of the way a diagnosis works psychologically on the patient. When somebody in a position of authority tells you that what's going on inside your mind is caused by an illness, you end up thinking it might be true.
Sherman: What was your motivation for participating in the trial?
Greenberg: My motivation was to write about it. Clinical trials had helped shape the idea of depression as a biological disease: When a trial offers proof that the drug works, it also seems to prove that the diagnosis was correct in the first place. In other words, if you feel better after taking the drug, then you were sick to begin with. In the back of my mind was the thought that clinical trials for antidepressants were at best troubled and at worst rigged.
Sherman: What do you mean "rigged"?
Greenberg: News had come out that antidepressants had not really shown much of an advantage over placebos in clinical trials, and the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] doesn't approve a drug unless it shows an advantage over a placebo. As it turned out, in more than half the clinical trials conducted for the new generation of antidepressants — mostly the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, such as Celexa and Prozac — the placebo did better than the drug. My feeling was that these results didn't necessarily mean that the drugs had no effect. It was hard for me to imagine that you could change your serotonin metabolism and not experience a change in consciousness.
Sherman: So how was the process rigged?
Greenberg: All a pharmaceutical company has to do to win approval is show that its drug outperforms the placebo in two independent trials, and there's no limit on how many trials the company can run. If you test enough, you can eventually squeak out two narrow victories. So there is little incentive to design a methodology that determines what a new drug actually does. The trial is done not to investigate the effects of the drug but to create a rationale for bringing the drug to market, so it can then be prescribed for all sorts of maladies. This is exactly what happened with the SSRIs.
There is some evidence that what SSRIs do is change people's personalities — make them more resilient, less sensitive to rejection, more confident, et cetera. But that's the last thing the drug companies wanted to prove. How could you market that product to a society allergic to the idea of altering consciousness with drugs? If you look at antidepressant ads, many go out of their way to assure you that the drug is treating an illness, not changing who you are. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Obviously this is a system that's looking to be gamed. So I wanted to get into the game and see how it actually worked.
Sherman: Did you fake your depression?
Greenberg: No. What happened is that I tried to join a trial for mild depression, which they were calling "minor depression" at the time. I didn't have to lie, because the criteria for minor depression were so loose. You had to experience a period of two weeks or more in which you were feeling low or sad and have one other symptom of depression from the list of nine in the DSM. This was in 2007. George W. Bush had been president for six years. Everyone I knew was minorly depressed. [Laughs.] So I went to be tested, thinking I would probably qualify. The funny part is, they told me I didn't have minor depression; I had major depression. Instead of that trial, I ended up going into another, for omega-3 fatty acids as a treatment for major depressive disorder.
Sherman: After you published an article about your experience, many people accused you of faking your way into the trial.
Greenberg: When I debated psychiatrists on the radio, that was the first thing they would say. It isn't true, of course. What's interesting to me is that, if I had faked my way into the trial, there would have been no way for the researchers to know it. The whole system of diagnosis depends on self-reporting. If depression really is a disease like diabetes, then you shouldn't be able to fake having it.
Sherman: Tell me about your experience of the drug trial.
Greenberg: What surprised me was that, during the course of the trial, I started to feel better. I began to think maybe there really was an illness called depression, and I had it. It was a disconcerting experience.
At the end of the trial, the doctor who was treating me told me I was a "good responder," and that in return for my participation I would receive a year's worth of omega-3 supplements. She seemed sure they were working. But I had held back the last dose and sent it away to a lab to be tested. It turned out that I was on the placebo.
Sherman: Your first published article was about your correspondence with Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber. Can you talk about how that correspondence started and what you learned from it?
Greenberg: My involvement with the Unabomber was in part an attempt to make a name for myself by writing about someone famous, but I also thought an injustice had been done at his trial. It might sound odd to talk about injustice when it comes to a convicted murderer like Kaczynski, but my sense was that psychiatrists had misused their power, saying that he was schizophrenic when that was clearly not the case. There may be other disorders Kaczynski had or has, but I am sure he is not schizophrenic and never has been.
The only reason his lawyers were interested in portraying him that way was that it made him less likely to be executed. They did this even though Kaczynski repeatedly told them he did not want to be labeled as mentally ill merely to save his life; he would rather have been dead than diagnosed. So the members of his defense team were driven by political opposition to the death penalty rather than by their client's wishes.
Sherman: What are the official criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia?
Greenberg: You have to have two of five symptoms: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior, and "affective flattening" — a lack of emotion. The symptoms have to persist for at least six months, and you can have one month in which they fluctuate. You also can't be suffering from another disorder or from substance abuse.
Kaczynski didn't meet the criteria, and the psychiatric report is relatively transparent about that fact. But psychiatrists have always been free to diagnose a disorder even if the patient doesn't meet the criteria. It's part of clinical judgment. In Kaczynski's case the defense suggested he had a delusion that technology was controlling all of us. One of the features of schizophrenia, especially paranoid schizophrenia, is the tendency to see the world as an organized place where everything is connected. When an airplane flew overhead, Kaczynski took it personally — not because he believed the CIA was spying on him, which is your classic paranoid-schizophrenic delusion, but because it represented the intrusion of technology into his life. And that's what allowed the psychiatrist for the defense to diagnose Kaczynski with paranoid schizophrenia, even though few people would deny that technology is an intrusive factor in our lives.
What happened to Kaczynski is an example of how we sometimes try to grapple with a philosophical problem by using medical categories. He wrote a manifesto in which he raised philosophical questions: What is nature? Is technology inherently evil? Kaczynski's team of psychiatrists and lawyers placed those difficult questions into a medical framework because they wanted to save his life, but by doing so they took away any need to consider the answers. Kaczynski's being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia is just a particularly heinous example of something that happens all the time in the field of psychiatry.
Sherman: Could you cite another example?
Greenberg: Take that German copilot who intentionally flew a commercial airliner into the Alps. Everybody wanted to blame it on depression or mental illness instead of considering that he might have had a motive. Another example is actor Robin Williams. After his suicide, talk shows had experts on to discuss his depression, but it turned out he'd also had dementia related to Parkinson's disease. So it was more complicated. We use psychiatric labels to jump to conclusions.
Sherman: What would be a better way of handling it?
Greenberg: We need to think about these things in a more comprehensive, less medicalized way. It's too easy just to say, "Oh, he had a disease. If only he had gotten treatment." It's much more frightening to think that someone might wake up one day so pissed off at the world that he's going to fly his airplane into the ground.
Sherman: Some people who were reviled during their time as delusional became revered later on — for example, the biblical prophets Jonah and Ezekiel. What accounts for such a change in perspective?
Greenberg: They were proven right. In the case of Ezekiel, he was warning the children of Israel about their impending destruction, and the next thing you know, they were exiled to Babylon. The problem is, when you're confronted by someone who sounds crazy, you don't know whether to believe that person. I think one of the reasons we call such people "crazy" is because we don't want them to be right.
Sherman: How do you distinguish between someone who just sounds crazy — say, Donald Trump — and a paranoid schizophrenic who imagines there's a vast, secret conspiracy against him?
Greenberg: I'm not sure it's useful to think of Donald Trump as crazy. Many have said he has narcissistic personality disorder, but psychiatric diagnoses can distract us from much more troubling realities. The reality of Donald Trump is much more disquieting than a diagnosis of mental illness would suggest. He's a menace, an amoral clown, a mean, power-hungry bully — and apparently a perfect fit for these times. He doesn't even sound crazy to me. He sounds like a horrible human being. His rise in the polls begs for all sorts of analysis — historical, sociological, economic, political. But not psychiatric.
Getting back to your question of how we can distinguish between someone who only seems crazy and someone who really is: In a way that's exactly the question the psychiatrist in the Kaczynski case was up against. And the answer is, you use the DSM. But instead of doing that, we should be looking at why that question is being asked in the first place. Usually it's because there's a treatment decision that needs to be made, or there's a legal mess that needs to be unraveled, and you want some authoritative clarification of whether or not this person is just different or really crazy.
Sherman: My brother's psychosis was triggered by recreational drug use: he smoked a lot of pot. How big of a role do recreational drugs play in triggering mental illness?
Greenberg: The research on the connection between cannabis and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders shows a correlation, but it's ambiguous as to causality: we don't know whether people who are predisposed to psychotic illnesses are more likely to smoke a lot of weed, or whether smoking too much weed increases the risk of psychosis.
We need better drug education in this country. Virtually none of what we tell children about drugs is useful. We create an allure around drugs by making such a big deal about them, and then we tell kids, "Don't do drugs." It's looking for trouble.
I think drug use is like driving: it's something you have to learn how to do, and if you don't learn how to do it right, you're probably going to get hurt or hurt somebody else. You wouldn't let a sixteen-year-old get behind the wheel of a car without proper instruction. It doesn't make any sense to do that with drugs either. Recognize that kids are likely to "drive," and tell them about the hazards.
Sherman: Are we moving too slowly to legalize marijuana?
Greenberg: I think all drugs should be immediately decriminalized. A regulatory scheme should be put into place not unlike what we have for tobacco and alcohol.
As near as I can make out, the war on drugs has done nothing to alleviate the problem of drug abuse. Instead it's created mass incarceration. The harm it's caused to the African American population in this country — and, to a lesser extent, the Latino population and the poor — is a crime against humanity. And it's in part due to the war on drugs that we can't talk to kids about drugs in more-helpful ways.
Sherman: In a recent issue of The New Yorker journalist Michael Pollan writes about an organization called MAPS, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which advances the use of psychedelics and marijuana in the treatment of both physical and mental illnesses. You've also written favorably about your own experiences with psychedelics. Are they good for us?
Greenberg: Before LSD was made illegal, research found strong evidence that using it and psilocybin and, to some extent, mescaline as adjuncts to psychotherapy was helpful. A study of psilocybin out of Johns Hopkins reports that — big surprise — if you give people drugs that open up their minds, it changes their lives. To me that's a pretty obvious conclusion.
As for using them to treat specific mental disorders, I'm skeptical, if only because I'm skeptical of the idea of mental disorders. MAPS is using psychedelics to treat ailments that are the most amenable to them, because that's the best way to get the drugs back into use for clinicians. It's gaming the system the way every pharmaceutical company does. But MAPS is a chartered nonprofit, so I'd rather have it gaming the system than one of the pharmaceutical giants. And once psychedelics are actually approved, there will be off-label uses for them. In other words, even if they are approved for terminal cancer or PTSD, you won't have to have these illnesses to get them.
In the long run we should no more look to Ecstasy or LSD or psilocybin as a cure for mental disorders than we should look to Prozac, because mental disorders don't exist the way that diseases that respond to drugs exist.
Freud said that psychoanalysis is a "cure through love," and I think that is essentially correct. The love is conveyed not so much in the content as in the form: the rapt attention of someone who cares enough to interrogate you. The love stows away in the conversation.
Sherman: The physician and author Jeffrey Lieberman has called you a writer of "anti-psychiatrist screeds." How do you answer the accusation that you are attacking the psychiatric profession?
Greenberg: I don't. Psychiatry is an embattled profession. It has been for its entire existence. At this point there are those who feel that anybody who criticizes it is attacking it.
Some smart people — people who have done much more research than I have — have described in responsible and articulate ways what's wrong with psychiatry. But psychiatrists in positions of authority don't listen to these critiques. This refusal prevents them from improving their own profession.
Sherman: Who are some prominent critics of psychiatry?
Greenberg: In the 1960s there were people like Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist who claimed that mental illnesses were really just the problems of living, and although those were important to address, it wasn't really helpful or honest to treat them as medical illnesses; and philosopher Michel Foucault, who said that calling people "mentally ill" was just an excuse to discipline them for being different; and sociologist Erving Goffman, who had a whole theory of how social stigma caused people to be classified as mentally ill. None of these critics denied the possibility that there was such a thing as mental illness, but they were more interested in what we could know about, such as how a particular form of suffering is a way of living, or how people suffer due to the workings of power in society. They thought it was more fruitful to look at it this way than through these fabricated categories in the DSM.
The critic I agree with the most is one not many people have heard of: Peter Sedgwick. He argued that all categories of illness depended on the workings of society. To call anything an illness was not so much to identify it as a biochemical problem as to give the patient access to resources. Drugs that alter consciousness are a resource you're legally allowed to get only if you're declared ill. And other resources — compassion, understanding, accommodation, support — are more freely given when the person who is suffering has a disease.
Sherman: You advocate a "self-doubting" psychiatry that goes back to its Freudian roots. Could you elaborate?
Greenberg: One of the problems with psychiatry is that it doesn't have an internal check on its power. The Freudian idea of countertransference — that, as an analyst, you have to consider your own prejudices and neuroses when treating other people — acknowledged that the analyst's perspective was flawed and reminded us to be careful when mucking around with other people's minds. Countertransference wasn't the best safeguard, but it was better than nothing. As psychiatry has evolved away from psychoanalysis, it's also moved away from this built-in check. Now, when a psychiatrist tells a patient, "You have a chemical imbalance, and this drug is going to treat that," there's no recognition of fallibility.
Sherman: How would that recognition help the profession?
Greenberg: It would encourage psychiatrists to be more humble; to say to the patient, "I really don't know exactly why you're suffering, but my experience tells me that this drug may help." Critics of this approach underestimate how many patients would be fine with it.
Sherman: In your most recent book, Scotland, you write, "Community is a response to the prolonged emergency of being alive." What role does community play in mental illness, and what role could it play in the future?
Greenberg: It's probably too simplistic to say that one reason we have so many mental disorders is that our communities are fragmented, but in a way it's true. We're isolated from each other and from any transcendent sense of goodness and how we should live. This creates great stress for many people. The political polarization in our society today is another source of stress for many. Conservatives and progressives have radically different ideas about how our communities should be. Nobody's going to win. We've lost track of the fact that we're in this together.
Sherman: You have advocated for the creation of communities for mentally ill people. What would that look like?
Greenberg: Let's just say that, by some unfortunate accident, this whole business of a chemical imbalance is true for some people. It has to be possible. Everything else can go wrong with us — why not that? So let's say we can identify who those people are, which we can't yet. The next question is: What do we do with them?
The impetus behind the asylums of the nineteenth century — at least, some of them — was to provide a safe place for the mentally ill to live out their lives. It didn't work. There was abuse. There was warehousing. People were committed who didn't belong there. There was little attempt to help patients get better. There were all sorts of terrible problems. But I don't see a problem with the basic idea that the mentally ill should have someplace to go and someone to take care of them.
Sherman: What do you worry about the most for the future of psychiatry?
Greenberg: I worry that psychiatrists will remain entrenched and continue to insist that they know things they don't. The biggest problem psychiatry faces is finding a way to admit what it doesn't know without torpedoing the profession. The arguments over revising the DSM, which I chronicled in The Book of Woe, were a sign of a profession scrambling to maintain its authority in the face of the obvious weakness of its claims.
Sherman: Psychologist James Hillman critiqued mainstream psychology for being too literal. Do you agree?
Greenberg: Hillman lived through the rise of psychopharmacology and was disturbed by the way that approach to mental suffering eclipsed the transcendent aspects of the self. To focus on brain chemistry was, in his view, to turn away from what makes us human. In the book he coauthored with Michael Ventura, We've Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy — And the World's Getting Worse, he argued that the mental-health professions had taken a wrong turn when they'd become a branch of medicine.
Sherman: Hillman also felt that therapy's preoccupation with feelings led to a decline in political engagement.
Greenberg: I agree that's a problem, but I'm not sure there's a solution. Almost by definition, therapy must focus on the individual, and that focus is bound to contribute to the hyperindividualism in our society. What I think therapists can do is ask how the larger social dynamics affect the client. We therapists are always choosing which to attend to out of the hundreds of cues a client gives: words, images, stories, gestures, body language, and so on. I think if you studied which cues therapists choose to focus on, you'd find that social factors are low on the list. That's why we have feminist therapy: because the idea that you would attend to sexism as a factor in a mental disorder was so novel it gave rise to its own discipline. It's important to introduce social questions into the therapeutic conversation as often as possible.
Sherman: Hillman said, "The world is in a terrible, sad state, but all we're concerned with is trying to get our selves in order." What's a better reaction, do you think, to the "sad state" of world affairs?
Greenberg: I really have no idea. I once went to New York City to see Laurie Anderson perform Homeland, her evisceration of post-9/11 American culture, Wall Street, and the Iraq War. Afterward I walked into the Manhattan evening, where everything her show had been about was apparent, and I wondered why we weren't all just heaving trash cans through shop windows. I guess there will come a point when enough of us will find the conditions of our existence intolerable, and then we will do something. Why it hasn't happened yet, I don't know.
As critical as I am of my own profession, I don't think we can hang this one on psychotherapy. It is not an inherently pacifying force. It can even be an empowering force on an individual level. But in a culture as dedicated as ours is to distraction and disavowal, I don't think we stand a chance of making the changes we need.
Sherman: What are your goals as a psychotherapist?
Greenberg: I want to help people face who they are and figure out what to do about it. This shouldn't be complicated, but there's a lot that gets in the way. We are at least as good at evading ourselves as we are at finding ourselves.
Sherman: Do you see, or have you seen, a therapist yourself?
Greenberg: I've been in and out of therapy a number of times, and I've always found it to be valuable. Even when it didn't seem to help all that much, I still learned something about myself. I will keep the specifics private. There is something sacred about the therapy space, and part of that sacredness hinges on the privacy of it.
I also no longer write about my clients. Using their stories, no matter how well-intentioned I am, is a violation of their trust. And if I disguise them sufficiently — meaning to the extent that they won't recognize themselves — then it's fiction, and I'm lying to the reader. Even for a careful writer, it's almost impossible to convey what actually happens in therapy. The New York Times runs a feature called "Couch," in which therapists and patients alike write about their experiences in therapy. Reading it almost always makes me cringe, in part because the authors so often seem to be presenting a trivial personal insight as some kind of universal life lesson. The really valuable part of therapy isn't what you learn about the effects of what your parents did to you, your conflict with your boss, or your broken heart. Freud said that psychoanalysis is a "cure through love," and I think that is essentially correct. The love is conveyed not so much in the content as in the form: the rapt attention of someone who cares enough to interrogate you. The love stows away in the conversation. Most therapy stories simply don't do justice to that phenomenon.
People come to therapy because their life circumstances have somehow disrupted the story they tell themselves about who they are. But even then the healing isn't only about the new story we fashion. It's about the intimacy.
Zander Sherman
Zander Sherman's interview with psychotherapist Gary Greenberg was interesting enough, but the paragraph that caught my attention was Greenberg's clinical assessment of Donald Trump. That Trump is "a menace, an amoral clown, a mean, power-hungry bully" is exactly the way I see him. If a Trump presidency does come to pass, I'm afraid many more clients may be seeking Greenberg's services.
T.M. Johnson Monroe, Washington
I agree wholeheartedly with Gary Greenberg that the psychiatric community over-categorizes patients into a multitude of diagnoses. My favorite from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is "oppositional defiant disorder," for rebellious children and teenagers.
Many years ago my daughter stayed home from school one day near the end of her senior year because of "senioritis," a diagnosis not found in the DSM. For the excuse note, my wife, a psychotherapist, wrote, "Karin missed school yesterday because of a serious case of dysphoria and malaise of the spirit." The note was accepted with no questions asked. Amazingly my daughter recovered without being prescribed a pharmaceutical.
Richard Graefe North Kingstown, Rhode Island
As someone recently diagnosed with bipolar disorder, I appreciated Gary Greenberg's take on psychiatry. Medication released me from exhausting mood swings, but I miss the highs and, yes, even the voices and visions that enhanced my creativity.
I've been told that I'm calmer and that it's good to be stable, but it's hard to give up the euphoria, even when suicidal ideation is sure to follow. I went undiagnosed for decades and managed a successful career, but the cost of keeping it together was high. I've grieved the loss of my old self, and I'm trying to live in a world that seems dull and muted by comparison.
As excellent as it is, your magazine seems to be mired in a rut lately, and I was planning to let my subscription lapse. But the July 2016 issue woke me up, specifically Zander Sherman's interview with Gary Greenberg ["Who Are You Calling Crazy?"] and the Dog-Eared Page conversation between James Hillman and Michael Ventura ["We've Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy — And the World's Getting Worse"]. Both explored what we mean by "mental health," and how counterproductive the field of psychiatry has been. Now it has been taken over by accredited professionals looking to further their careers and expand the profits of Big Pharma at the expense of their patients. Such a system does not want people to get back on their feet, mentally or otherwise. It bombards us with drugs and creates a sense of helplessness and disconnection.
Shelley Isom San Cristobal, New Mexico
When Gary Greenberg suggests taking into consideration the patient's physical and social environments along with his or her mental health, he's basically describing what social workers do. Unfortunately, he never gives credit to the profession, which is the largest provider of mental-health services in the United States.
Lloyd Kaufman Des Moines, Iowa
The only redeeming quality Gary Greenberg seems to have is that he listens to the Grateful Dead. Otherwise he is dishonest and dogmatic, the very qualities he ascribes to the psychiatric community. He makes no reference to the latest research, which uses brain-scan technology to settle the question of whether there is a biological origin for depression. There is. The question of whether SSRIs are an effective treatment for depression has also been settled. They are.
I am not a doctor, but I have been surrounded by mental illness my entire life — especially in prison, where I now live. Here is my advice to anyone suffering from mental illness: Go see a doctor. If you are prescribed medication, take it exactly as prescribed. That is your best shot at getting well and living a healthy life.
Nick H. Beram Las Animas, Colorado
Gary Greenberg says, "The more we hear that 'the brain does this and the brain does that,' the more we think of ourselves as a product of brain chemistry." But we are a product of our brain chemistry. Where else can the self come from? The iCloud? The soul?
The reverse is also true. To a certain extent, our brain chemistry is a product of our behavior. For instance, my craving for alcohol disappeared a couple of years after I quit drinking.
Greenberg also states that the medical industry wants to promote the idea that consciousness is a "function of brain chemistry," but I don't think the concept of consciousness is something drug companies bother to explore.
Burt Raabe Peoria, Illinois
Gary Greenberg responds:
As a psychotherapist who has struggled with depression myself, I wish that Nick H. Beram's rosy picture of mental-illness treatment were accurate. Although it's true that some people benefit greatly from psychiatric medications, many (and, for some diagnoses, most) who go to their doctors and take their drugs faithfully do not improve — and some find their health worsens. I read this as evidence that psychological suffering is not the result of identifiable biological mechanisms gone wrong. Or, if it is, we are still a long way from knowing what those mechanisms are.
I am skeptical of the likelihood (and desirability) of obtaining this knowledge. I do not know the future, but I do know the past. The mental-health industry's past is loaded with certainties that have eventually fallen to the immense complexity of our psychology — and, on the way to history's dustbin, have inflicted great damage. To understand how hubris and hope combine to put us in thrall to bad ideas, we need only recall the winner of the 1949 Nobel Prize for medicine: Egas Moniz, the inventor of the frontal lobotomy.
Gary Greenberg nailed it by recommending that psychiatrists examine the familial, political, cultural, and economic histories of anyone undergoing psychotherapy; by acknowledging that therapy is easier to attain for those with means than it is for the poor and the ever-shrinking middle class; and by reminding us that the poor experience more stress.
His assertion that "there will come a point when enough of us will find the conditions of our existence intolerable, and then we will do something" surprised me. This is a common refrain, but no one has found a way to do it — even in this age of information technology. I agree with Greenberg's statement: "In a culture as dedicated as ours is to distractions and disavowal, I don't think we stand a chance of making the changes we need."
Saundra J. Raynor Olympia, Washington
In the July 2016 issue Gary Greenberg described how isolated and fragmented communities give rise to anxiety ["Who Are You Calling Crazy?" interview by Zander Sherman]. I thought of my experience, which proves his point in reverse. As an American living in New Zealand, I am struck by how supportive my suburban community is — and how healthy people are as a result. Just after I gave birth, midwives came to our home to check on me and the baby, a volunteer organization (as well as friends and neighbors) brought us meals, and a lactation consultant paid a complimentary house call. I found affordable classes available for new parents, and I was offered free or at-cost vaccines for my baby. None of these services are need-based, but they are provided because New Zealand society recognizes that all new parents need support.
Liz Covington Wellington
As a family-practice doctor who sees many types of mental anguish, I read Zander Sherman's interview with Gary Greenberg with interest ["Who Are You Calling Crazy?" July 2016]. I always try to investigate my patients' personal histories, usually finding sources of stress that contribute to their symptoms, and I often refer them to social workers as part of a treatment plan. My sixteen years working in a psychiatric hospital convinced me that daily contact with sane, empathetic people is the most important factor in a patient's recovery. (Actually this is what all of us need to remain healthy.) But on release from the hospital, people with mental problems often associate mainly with others who are struggling to remain sane, and therefore they tend to exhibit symptoms once again.
S.R. Heilman, MD Austin, Texas
The Unified Conspiracy Theory
By Matthew Meade
They Were
Essays, Memoirs, and True Stories
By Shozan Jack Haubner
By Wayne Harrison
Elegy For Phil
By Dina Ben-Lev


text:
'Final Fantasy Type-0 HD' Devs Come To Campus For College Lecture Tour
Asma M
Key members of the Final Fantasy Type-0 HD Tokyo development team, Yusuke Naora and Kazuyuki Ikumori, are scheduled to deliver on-campus lectures at the University of Southern California (USC) and Southern Methodist University (SMU) this spring. Final Fantasy publisher Square Enix has announced in a recent press release that they are working in partnership with both colleges to bring these special seminars stateside.
The first lecture will be conducted by Yusuke Naora, the art director for Final Fantasy Type-0 HD and Final Fantasy XV, on February 26 at SMU's Guildhall campus in Plano, Texas. Director Hajime Tabata noted on the Square Enix blog that Naora began working at Square Enix in 1993. He also noted that Naora has multiple Final Fantasy titles under his belt, including Final Fantasy VI, which he praised as a "personal favorite" of his. As such, his talk will focus on the visuals of the Final Fantasy series.
Kazuyuki Ikumori, General Manager and Chief Creative Director of Visual Works, is presenting the campus tour's second lecture on March 12 at USC in Los Angeles. He will speak on the creative process behind the CG movies of Square Enix games. Tabata further explained the Visual Works division in his blog post.
Visual Works is the internal studio branch of Square Enix that makes all of our CG movies, including those for Western titles like Tomb Raider and Deus Ex. They are also heavily involved in FINAL FANTASY TYPE-0 HD.
Via press release, Tabata also assured aspiring game developers the talks are not intended to be a one-way dissemination of knowledge.
We're excited to take the opportunity to speak to students in game development programs that will shape the future of our industry… We believe that it will be stimulating for us to learn from the students' experience as well.
In addition to the opportunity to learn from and interact with the esteemed lecturers, future students may want to consider attending one or both of these lectures as part of a spring break college tour. The Final Fantasy devs will be speaking at two of the most renowned game design schools in the United States. USC is currently ranked as the top video game design school by The Princeton Review. The graduate program at SMU's Guildhall is ranked third on the same list.
For those who cannot make it out to Plano or Los Angeles, the lectures will be made available on the Square Enix Presents Twitch Channel.


text:
Agenda item.
Taproom SE10, Unit 2 River Gardens Walk, London SE10 0FZ
Meeting of Licensing Sub-Committee B, Thursday, 30th August, 2018 6.30 pm (Item 6.)
Application for a premises licence
Decision:
In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee considered and had due regard to the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the statutory Guidance issued under S.182 of that Licencing Act 2003. In discharging its functions, the Sub-Committee did so with a view to promoting the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.
Having considered all of the evidence put before it the Sub-Committee resolved to grant a new Premises Licence for the internal area of the premises only in respect of the Taproom SE10, Unit 2 River Gardens Walk, London SE10 0FZ.
The Sub-Committee excluded the external area of the premises, as applied for, for the supply and consumption of alcohol, from the premises licence.
Hours for licensable activities: -
Supply of alcohol, for consumption on and off the premises shall be
11am – 1am the next day
The Premises Licence is granted subject to the conditions as are consistent with the Operating Schedule and the conditions volunteered by the applicant and the conditions agreed with the police, as follows:
1. A CCTV recording system shall be installed that is compliant with, and capable of, capturing an image of evidential standards.
2. All CCTV recordings shall be maintained for a minimum of thirty-one (31) days with date/time stamping. Cameras shall be installed so as to cover both internal and external areas of the premises. At least one camera shall cover ingress/egress points and at least one other camera shall cover the alcohol service area.
3. The CCTV system shall display on any recording the correct time and date of the recording.
4. The CCTV shall continuously record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises.
5. Notices shall be displayed advising that CCTV is in operation.
6. Staff shall be fully trained in the operation of the CCTV system and there shall be at least one member of staff on duty during trading hours who is able to provide copies of CCTV recordings to the Police and authorised officers of the Local Authority. Such copies shall, in any event, be provided within 48 hours.
7. All staff shall be instructed to record in an incident book/register all incidents of crime and disorder occurring at the premises and details of any occasion when the police are called. These records shall include the time and date of any incident and the identities of staff members involved. The incident book/register shall be made available for inspection by Police and authorised officers of the Local Authority upon demand.
8. There shall be no open vessels of alcohol permitted beyond the licensed boundary of the premises
9. There shall be no deliveries or waste/recycling collections between 23:00 hours and 07:00 hours the following day.
10. Notices shall be provided to remind persons leaving the premises to do so in a quiet and orderly manner, to minimise disturbance to local residents.
11. The Challenge 25/Think 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises. All customers who appear under the age of 25 of age shall be challenged to prove that they are over 18 years if age when attempting to purchase alcohol. Acceptable forms of ID include a photo driving licence, passport, or Home Office approved identity card baring the holographic 'PASS' mark. If the person seeking alcohol is unable to produce an acceptable form of identification, no sale or supply of alcohol shall be made to or for that person.
12. All staff shall be trained in the law about the sale of alcohol. Such training shall include challenging every individual who appears to be under 25 years of age and to refuse service where individuals cannot produce acceptable means of identification, acceptable forms of ID and using the refusals register. Such training (including any refresher training) shall be logged and provided not less than every twelve months. The training log shall be made available for inspection by Police and authorised persons upon demand.
13. A refusals register shall be kept at the premises, and made immediately available on request to the police or an authorised person. The refusals log is to be inspected on a monthly basis by the DPS and noted in the register, and a record made of any actions that appear to be needed to protect young people from harm. The register must record all refused sales of alcohol and include the following:
a) the identity of the member of staff who refused the sale
b) the date and time of the refusal
c) the alcohol requested and reason for refusal
d) description of the person refused alcohol.
The refusals register shall be made available for inspection by Police and authorised persons.
14. The following posters shall be displayed conspicuously on the premises in customer facing areas:
a) 'Think 25' – to advise potential purchasers that suitable proof of age shall be required for all purchasers who appear to be under 25.
b) 'It's a Crime!' – intended to warn adults not to purchase alcohol for persons under 18 years of age.
The Sub-Committee also imposed the following conditions which the Applicant had agreed with the police:
15. All sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be sold in sealed containers only.
16. A Duty Manager's Log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to any Police Officer, Police Community Safety Officer, or Authorised Local Authority Officer. The Log shall record the following:
a) All crimes reported to the venue
b) All ejections of patrons
c) Any complaints received
d) Any incidents of disorder
e) All seizures of drugs or offensive weapons
f) Any faults in the CCTV system
g) Any refusal of the sale of alcohol
h) Any visit by a relevant authority
i) Any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service
17. Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting the public to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the premises and the area quietly.
18. A direct contact telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times when the premises is open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents in the vicinity.
The Premises Licence is granted subject to the Mandatory conditions for sale of alcohol as set out in the Licensing Act 2003 as amended by the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2010 and Order 2014.
In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee considered :–
All written representations, from Responsible Authorities and Interested Parties, the Royal Borough of Greenwich's Statement of Licensing Policy, including paragraph 1.6, Statutory Guidance under section 182 Licensing Act 2003, including paragraphs 14.57 and 14.58 in respect of planning permission.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Yeomans the applicant and director of Taproom SE10 Ltd. Mr Yeomans submitted that he runs 3 Taprooms currently, that the new business would be selling drinks and pizzas. Mr Yeomans informed the Sub-Committee that the lease for the premises was contingent upon the grant of a premises licence, there would be a responsible use of the outside area, and that the business would not be commercially viable without a premises licence for the outside area.
Mr Yeomans submitted that the new Taproom will create a community environment and he was not intending to run a happy hour type of service, and he has experience of operating in residential areas, all of the other Taprooms are within residential areas and have outdoor areas with tables and chairs.
In respect of representations regarding lack of planning permission for the outside area, Mr Yeomans stated he was under the impression that the Landlord had already obtained such planning consent and but he would apply for planning permission, if necessary.
In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee had due regard to the written representations from the police and the police concerns regarding the use and capacity of the external area and its proper management and concerns for the level of nuisance and disturbance to residents "due to large crowds drinking late into the night". The Sub-Committee duly noted the Police concerns regarding public safety and patrons spilling out onto the public path and problems that were likely to arise from overcrowding.
Pc Balestrini, for the police, informed the Sub-Committee that he had been able to speak with Mr Yeomans earlier in the day and the proposed police conditions, except for condition number 5, on page 114 of the Agenda, had been agreed. The Sub-Committee noted that the police sought a condition that the external area be closed to patrons at 10pm.
The Sub-Committee then heard on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. The Sub-Committee was informed that the proposal does not have planning permission and that no application for planning consent has been received. The local Planning Authority had concerns regarding public nuisance and public safety. There would be noise from the proposed use of the external area, and from deliveries and servicing of the premises. The amenity of residential accommodation and occupiers would be significantly impacted including by noise from the external. The local Planning authority also had concerns regarding the scale of the proposed external area use, as it abutted the Thames Cycle Path, residents would have to cross the cycle path to pass the premises, and planning permission for Lovell's Wharf requires the maintenance of a 4 metres vehicular access for emergency vehicles which would not be available if the premises licence was granted.
The Sub-Committee received submissions on behalf of Environmental Health and noted the conditions sought regarding disturbance to residents from noise nuisance and that the external area be closed to patrons at 9pm.
The Sub-Committee received submissions from Councillor Scott-McDonald on behalf of residents who had made representations against the Application. There were concerns regarding protection of children from harm and the children's play area which was just 5 metres from the premises and the litter and adult conversations that very young children would be exposed to. The highly residential nature of the vicinity was also a major concern, with residential accommodation being above and around the premises, only just metres away from the premises including on the ground floor. There were concerns regarding public nuisance, litter and discarded drinking vessels being left on the public areas and the public footpath. The premises should not be compared to other Taprooms where the external areas were significantly smaller. There was a very real concern about the disturbance and noise from the premises and reflected by 46 residents writing in to object.
The Sub-Committee had due regard to the submissions made by Ms. Dana Pavel, Mr Bowles, Mr Zorun Almuli who further explained the concerns of the residents and echoed and amplified the representations made by Councillor Scott-McDonald.
Mr Freeman made submissions in support of the application and that it would bring in much needed investment to the locality and add to the vibrancy of the area. Mr Freeman stated that there may be noise from the external area however, party boats regularly pass the vicinity on the Thames, from which music and noise could be heard.
The Sub-Committee was of the view that the noise and public nuisance from the external area would be significant. The extent of the external area and the numbers of people that could be attending, up to 200, would have significant impact on public nuisance and disturbance to residents. The Sub-Committee was of the view that the close proximity of the children's play area would be impacted upon by the use of the external area and the objective of prevention of harm to children was strongly engaged. The Sub-Committee also considered the impact on the immediate public area, the cycle path and the footpath , and where would up to 200 patrons move to upon the external area being closed, if the application was granted, given the internal dimensions of the premises. The Sub-Committee also had concerns resulting from overcrowding, littering on the cycle path and footpath, and potential for anti-social behaviour, and crime and disorder.
In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee disregarded commercial considerations and the absence of planning permission, and determined the application to give effect to the licensing objectives.
If the applicant or those making representations are aggrieved by the Council's decision, they have the right to appeal to the Magistrates Court. Such an appeal must be submitted to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the date from when the appeal period is deemed to have started, which will be stated in the cover email or letter to the Notice of Decision.
Applicant: Nicholas Yeomans
Emma Yeomans
Making representation: Councillor Denise Scott-Mcdonald (representing 18 local residents), PC Giles Balestrini (Police licensing), Jane Devine (Planning Enforcement), Ibrahim Elias (Environmental Protection Officer), Mr Ian Leroni, Ms Dana Patel and Mr Zoran Alumuli and Mr Freeman (in Support)
The Sub Committee considered an application by Nicholas Yeomans, from from Hopstuff Brewery for the grant of a premises licence in relation to Taproom SE10, Unit 2 River Gardens Walk, London SE10 0FZ
The Chair welcomed all parties and ensured that introductions were made, all papers had been received and that all parties were aware of their right to be represented.
The Licensing Officer gave an illustrated introduction to the report and confirmed there were no amendments.
The Sub-Committee was addressed by the applicant who confirmed the existence of 3 Taprooms located in Royal Arsenal, Deptford and Ashford in Kent. That they served hopstuff brewery products and local wines and spirits. He added the lease was contingent on the granting of a licence and
the unit alone was not a viable if the outside area was not included in the licensable activities.
The applicant advised the Sub-Committee on the details of the application and confirmed he had met with residents and explained the operations. That it would not be a "happy hour" establishment and customers would be from the local community itself.
In response to questions, the applicant confirmed that his other establishments were similar to the premises for the proposed licence. That the Deptford Taproom was directly underneath residential properties with the other 2 surrounded by residential properties. He added that the outside areas for all the Taproom were of the same design and that offering food was the important part of the business bringing in 60-70% of the revenue.
The Sub-Committee was addressed by PC Giles Balestrini who was representing the Police Licensing Team. He confirmed the Police had agreed conditions with the applicant apart from condition 5 which was not workable.
The Sub-Committee was address Jane Devine from Planning Enforcement who confirmed the matters raised in her written representation were mainly planning related issues however, she felt it was necessary to make the Sub-committee aware of the issues surrounding the external area. She advised that the external area still required planning permission and planning had not had the chance to consider the proposal for the large area requested. She highlighted the planning condition for Lovell's Wharf requiring a 4-metre vehicular passage to be maintained in addition to the cycle path for emergency vehicles.
In response the points raised, the applicant stated there was enough space for emergency vehicles and the public pathway was also available.
The Sub-Committee was addressed by Ibraheem Elias from Environmental Health who confirmed he was making representation based on the public nuisance due to noise and odour as this was they had received complaints for similar establishments across the borough. He requested that the conditions on his written representation be added to the licence including the closure of the outside area by 9pm to enable the local residents to have respite during the night time period.
In response to the points raised, the applicant stated that they had already agreed to a Police condition to close the outside area by 10pm and were not willing to go down to 9pm. He added that they would ensure that residents were not disturbed outside of operating hours as all seating would be removed, which would roughly take 10 minutes. He also highlighted the agreed That they would promote the licensing objectives by actively managing the music levels
The Sub-Committee was addressed by Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald who was speaking on behalf of 18 local resident that had made representation on the application. She read out a statement that had been written and agreed by 46 residents who felt the Taproom was not an appropriate addition to the community and would have a negative impact on people's lives.
Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald summarised the primary case made by the public authorities and the written representations submitted by the residents highlighting the possible obstruction of the river path-public highway. She concluded that the residents were not anti-business however they felt that granting the application would cause a number of problems and quoted paragraph 2.18 of the council licensing policy which states the licensing authority's approach should be one of prevention.
With the agreement of all parties, the residents handed out pictures of the surrounding area including the children's play area nearby.
In response to the points raised, the applicant stated he understood the residents' concerns and felt he had mitigated the issues.
The Sub-Committee received further addresses from local resident in objection to the application who reiterated the previous points raised.
The Sub-Committee was addressed by a resident speaking in support of the application who stated that the vacant unit was in desperate need of the kind of business being applied for adding that this would create jobs in the local area. He described Hopstuff Brewery as local independent business that should be celebrated. He highlighted that other local licensed premises had 10pm restrictions on outside areas and stated the same should be agreed for the Taproom. He continued by stating that noise was an issue of living in a major city and that Taproom Greenwich would be a well-run premises that would add to the neighbourhood.
All parties, with the exception of the Legal Advisor and the Corporate Governance Officer, withdrew to allow the Sub-Committee to deliberate at 8.11pm. All parties returned at 8.37pm.
The Chair informed those present of the decision of the Sub-Committee, andstated that the full details would be given in the formal decision notice.
Supporting documents:
Taproom SE10, Unit 2, 20 River Gardens Walk, London SE10 0FZ, item 6. PDF 390 KB
Appendix A, item 6. PDF 12 MB
Appendix B, item 6. PDF 241 KB
Appendix C, item 6. PDF 8 MB


text:
Writing on This Day in HistoryAlexis2019-09-16T09:35:04-05:00
Writing on This Day in History
Length: 1-year
Age/Grade: 7th – 10th Grades
View a sample of Writing on This Day in History
Welcome to Our Writing on This Day in History homeschool course.
Getting Started with Our Writing on This Day in History Homeschool Course
Writing On This Day in History is a fun homeschool history course that combines writing with history. Each day of the year will feature multiple prompts for your students to choose from that will require historical research and encourage students to make history real by answering questions about their own thoughts and opinions about what they have learned.
Content-type: Text-based writing prompts
Lessons on SchoolhouseTeachers.com.
Go to Class Lessons and download the lesson plan and the writing prompts for the dates you need. Follow the instructions each day on the lesson plans and mark them off when completed.
Course Outline for Our Writing on This Day in History Homeschool Course
Our Writing on This Day in History homeschool course includes writing prompts for every day of the year related to this day in history events.
Daily history-related writing prompts.
Writing on This Day in History Homeschool Course Sample
On this day in A.D. 404 the last gladiatorial match was fought in the Roman Coliseum. Research the Roman Coliseum and find out what it was used for, why the gladiatorial matches stopped, and what it is like today.
On this day in A.D. 439, the Theodosian Code went into effect. What was this code of law like? How does it compare to today's law in your country? What was unique about it in Emperor Theodosius II's day?
On this day in 1449, Lorenzo de Medici was born in Florence. What is he known for? How was he involved in the Renaissance? What were his strengths and weaknesses? Do you think you would've liked him?
On this day in 1735, Paul Revere was born. You know him for his famous ride, but what did he do for a living? How else was he involved in the American Revolution? What are some of his personal characteristics you would like to emulate–or not?
On this day in 1892, the first immigrants arrived at Ellis Island. Find out why this island is so famous, how long it was in operation, and why it was closed down. Do you have any relatives who came to America through here?
On this day in 1492, the Reconquista in Spain was concluded. What is the Reconquista and how did the victory of this day get Columbus to the New World?
On this day in 1839, French photographer Louis Daguerre took the first photograph of the moon. Find out more about Louis Daguerre. In his honor, go out and take pictures. Pick your favorite picture and write about it.
On this day in 1935, the Lindbergh baby kidnapping trial began. Why was this such big news at the time? Learn more about Lindbergh and what this kidnapping meant to America. Whose kidnapping today might be comparable to this? Why?
On this day in 1945, citizens of Japanese, Italian, and German descent were released from internment camps in the U.S. Find out why they had been there and how this affected the people of that era. How would you feel if you had been one of those interred in the camps?
On this day in 1521, Martin Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X. What do you know about Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation? Why did the pope excommunicate him? What were the results?
On this day in 1892, J.R.R. Tolkien was born. Where was he born, and what is his full name? If you have never read any of his books, start with the Hobbit and see how you like them! Be sure to write a book review on it when you're finished!
On this day in 1924, King Tutankhamen's tomb was uncovered. Learn about King Tut and the man who uncovered his tomb. Why was it so special? Would you like to go see it? What would it have been like to have been there on the day his sarcophagus was opened?
On this day in 1959, Alaska became the 49th state. Would you like to visit Alaska? Would you like to live there? Learn about the state and record your results.
On this day in 1785, children's author Jakob Grimm was born. Read some of his work and find out more about him.
On this day in 1809, Louis Braille was born. He developed a system of reading for the blind. What was used before this? How did his invention revolutionize the world for blind people? What would it be like to be blind? Try walking around your house blindfolded with a parent who can make sure you don't run into anything dangerous and record your experiences. (DO NOT walk anywhere that is unsafe, like close to stairs or the oven.)
On this day in 1896, Utah became the 45th state. Find out more about Utah. How was it founded? What kept it from entering the United States earlier? Would you like to visit there?
On this day in 1813, Sir Isaac Pittman, the British publisher who invented shorthand, was born. What is shorthand? What was it used for, and why do we not use it much anymore?
On this day in 1066, King Edward the Confessor died. Who succeeded him, what happened to him, and what happened to England afterward?
On this day in 1589, Catherine de Medici died. Who was she and what did she do? What was her life like? Do you think you would've liked to be her?
On this day in 1825, Andre Dumas had his first duel. Who was he, and what is he known for? Would you have liked to have been one of his musketeers? Do you think they lived such a romantic life as he suggested?
On this day in 1943, George Washington Carver died at age 81. What successes did he have in his life? What is he known for? Find out some of the many uses of a peanut. What were peanuts used for before Carver? Write a poem about a peanut butter sandwich.
On this day in 926, Good King Wenceslaus was murdered. Read the song about this Christian king. What good did he do for his people? Why was he killed? What about him would you like to emulate in your own life?
On this day in 1759, George Washington married Martha Custis. What do you know about their marriage? What kind of person was she? Find out about Martha and her children. What happened to them?
On this day in 1854, Sherlock Holmes was "born." Choose a few stories about him and write summaries.
On this day in 1878, American poet Carl Sandburg was born. Why did he win a Pulitzer Prize? Read some of his poetry and write one or two of your own poems.
On this day in 1610, Galileo Galilei discovered the four moons of Jupiter. What else did he discover? Why did the Catholic church of the time force him to renounce his works? What would you have done if you had been Galileo?
On this day in 1867, Mark Twain began his "Grand Tour" of Europe. What was he doing, and why? What book did he write after this? Write a witty description of one of your family's trips.
On this day in 1924, George Gershwin completed Rhapsody in Blue. What else did he write? Listen to some of his compositions, and write how they make you feel or what you think about when you hear them.
On this day in 1927, transatlantic telephone service began between New York and London. What led up to this, and how did it change the world? Compare and contrast these changes with the changes begun by the Internet.
On this day in 1999, President Bill Clinton went on trial before the Senate. Why was he on trial? What do you think should have happened? Write about a person, whether real or imaginary, whom you think would be a good president. What qualities would he/she have?
More About This Writing on This Day in History Homeschool Course
Who was Lorenzo de Medici, and would you have liked him? What was the Reconquista, and what effect did it have on Columbus' discovery of the New World? These are only two of the hundreds of questions that will be a part of this continuing homeschool history course.
Would you like to tell others about this Writing on This Day in History homeschool class?
Carla EarleyCrystal Calhoun2019-08-09T10:51:55-05:00
Carla Earley
Raised as an only child of a very dedicated teacher, Carla Earley learned the joys of...
All History Classes
250 Years of Exploration, Settlement, and Reformation: World History
ABC With Me
Age of Revolution
America in the 1800s
American History for Beginners
American History: From Columbus to 1914 with Socratic Discussion
American History in Picture Books
American History: Post-Civil War through WWI
American History: Pre-Civil War to Reconstruction
Ancient History: Babylonian Life and Mythology
Ancient History for Elementary
Ancient World History
Asia: Its People and History
Before the Renaissance: Middle School World History
Bold Explorers
Drive Thru History: American History
Drive Thru History: Ancient History
Early American Civilizations
Experiencing History: Creation to Reformation
Fashions in History
Figures in History
Getting Started with American History for Kindergarten
Great Leaders in History
Hands-On Notebooking: The United States
Hard Times and Hope
History Around the World
History of Air Travel
History of Ancient Civilizations
History of Holidays in America
Kingdoms of the World: Fifteenth to Eighteenth Century: World History
Lapbooking Through the Ages
Leaders of History
Life of Abraham Lincoln
Medieval to the Renaissance: Elementary History
Medieval to the Renaissance: High School History
Middle Ages History
Modern History for Elementary
Native American History: An Introduction
People and Places of World War II
Renaissance History
Renaissance to World War II History
They Lived for God
Understanding Ancient History
Understanding Modern History
United States History: Exploration to the Present Day
US and Modern World History
Women Through History
World History: Exploration and Colonization
Middle School Language Arts Classes
American Folklore
Analyzing, Understanding, and Exploring Literature
Benjamin Franklin Writing Method
Classics-Based Writing
Crafting Fiction
Creating Dynamic Characters
Creative Composition
Daily Puzzlers
Daily Writing
Discovering Poetic Elements
Ditch the Desk
Elementary Writing with Structure
Essay Writing 101
Everyday Copywork
Experiencing Epics and Poetry
Exploring Creative Writing
Exploring Literature
Exploring Poetry with Notebooking
Fundamental Elements of Literature and Composition
Into the Elements
Introducing the Many Faces of Poetry
Lapbooking
Literature Kits
Navigating the World of Research
Opening the Door to Poetry
Paint with Your Words
Paragraphs, Poetry, and Prose: Elementary Writing
Research Skills 7th Grade
Schoolhouse Spelling
Sparking the Noggin: Creative Writing with Pictures
Words and What to Do with Them
Writing: Advertising Copy
Writing: Compare and Contrast


text:
Home > Resources > Latest News & Press Releases > Recruitment and careers > Strengthening the sales team
Strengthening the sales team
Category: Recruitment and careers
Two industry professionals appointed to cover UK-wide sales development
Flood and pollution prevention specialists, Detectronic, have strengthened their existing sales team with the appointment of two industry professionals.
Graham Miles joins the business as Sales Engineer covering the South of England while Oliver Harrison moves from heading up the company's field service team to Sales Engineer for the North of England.
Oliver will primarily focus on supporting and developing new and existing business and Graham, who has more than 30 years industry experience, will divide his time delivering business development for both Detectronic and Detectronic MEICA.
Graham began his career with the MOD as a research scientist and then went on to work in the aerospace industry as a design engineer. It was in this role that he developed a density sensor for aviation fuel which is still fitted to all Boeing and Airbus aircraft today as part of the fuel management system.
Graham then moved into the oil and gas industry where he delivered numerous MEICA projects and headed up flow metering maintenance and service contracts for a number of global petrochemical clients
Commenting on the appointments, Dave Walker, commercial director for Detectronic said: "Both Graham and Oliver bring an unrivalled amount of experience, skills and knowledge to the table which will enhance our continued focus on business development and customer service across the UK.
"The recent launch of our modular flow and quality monitoring system – The ORAKEL – also opens up numerous sales opportunities for Graham and Oliver to explore since the system has many potential applications for a wide range of industries and companies."


Featuring the narrowest body in its class, the Atik 420 is one of the lightest cameras as well. But don___t think there was a compromise regarding cooling performance or stability. The cooler module has been engineered for low power use, making your field sessions last longer. Also, the desiccant port is now easily accessible from the exterior.


The way to make certain you have the best website marketing technique will be to examine most of the instruments that are available for your use. You might find that your benefits could be truly boosted by introducing techniques to your strategy. A great deal of brands wrongly ignore PPC, feeling that search engine marketing could be the way that is only and easiest. But as professional SEO providers have previously confirmed – implementing equally can actually boost your result significantly.
Developing the final word internet-marketing technique is about mixing together the right ingredients. In case you leave out the wrong ones, you're going to be left with something which is boring and boring. There comes a time when you need up a little, which can be your SEO tactic. Pay-per- advertising can perform wonders when included correctly. You can test achieving this on your own or working together with a seo-company in Los Angeles that gives PPC management companies.
Why adding PPC is such a fantastic strategy meanwhile, let's critique.
Searchengineoptimization is an excellent long-term expense. For this reason SEO are oftentimes compared to leasing and obtaining. SEO is similar to getting real-estate, in the impression that it is owned by you eternally, while PPC is booking for a while. So long as own the ad-space when you stop paying.
It is possible to accelerate and develop your exposure in a short span of time, by adding PPC for your method. The moment you buy ads, it increases right away. SEO takes a tad longer, consequently it's a way that is great to supplement the lack of presence initially.
Think of it settled ad effects and like this – if you're able to dominate both search, your traffic increases considerably.
Choosing the right keywords is critical for both techniques. By combining the tools employed for SEO and PPC, you'll have use of more knowledge, which could allow you to eliminate those who execute poorly and maintain. This is a great crack that'll enable you to optimize your method that is general, potentially gaining you a greater conversion fee.
Look closely at the ads that are doing remarkably well. Utilize the keywords in these advertisements to optimize material and your website. For instance, it is possible to place the greatest converting keywords inside meta descriptions, page information and subject tickets. PPC produces quick effects, which means you can study of the finest keywords rather quickly. Utilize this to your benefit through the use of that knowledge to enhance your SEO.
It's difficult from speaking down about your company to keep the naysayers. Nevertheless when this happens, you should reply easily. SEO to struggle the poor press and oneway is to use PPC advertisements. You have to own the SERPs, and also this may be the only way you're able to. Information the talk using material and your ads, so that people will see your threads rather than the publicity that is bad. This could take a short amount of time, but together with the aid of SEO services that are professional, you'll be able to ensure it's done properly.
You're previously submitting material on social networking, why not boost media ads that are interpersonal being used by it? Myspace, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram all have ads you can purchase, so don't limit yourself to locate engines only. In reality, combining everything together would definitely supply your marketing-strategy that is web an important increase.
Positioning everything together effortlessly can be done with qualified SEO solutions, consequently contemplate obtaining a real expert on your own team to improve your efforts!