Wow! Thank you so much for this article. Much as it amused me, it also scared me to the core. I recently read an evaluation report of the use of MHFA in “supporting people working with the Prevent agenda.” The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 contains a duty on specified authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.” This is known as the Prevent duty. There is much going on in the UK about the link between “mental illness” and “radicalisation” (the link itself is not clear, does radicalisation cause mental illness or does mental illness cause radicallisation – the mind boggles). And this section (among many) from the report seemed especially problematic: “I would never as a Police Officer explain to a supervisor I needed guidance on how to investigate a crime, because the first question they would ask is ‘what sort of crime?’ If you know the type of crime i.e. Fraud, the supervisor can signpost you to the Fraud Team.” “I have been in multi-agency meeting where a delegate suggests there is a mental health problem, the mental health practitioner correctly asks what sort of mental health problem to which the delegate had to admit they did not know, other than it was a mental health problem!” The MHFA course is supposed to be helping the concerned person identify the correct mental health problem just as they would be able to correctly identify the type of crime. More than that, it is the juxtaposition of “crime” and “mental health problem” that spoke volumes to me.