| Comment | It is indeed.
It's aggravating to me because, as you suggest, okay if it's going to be supported (including financially!) and considered a meaningful, legitimate pathway but I think what's *more likely* is it's a bit of fobbing.
Folk might not remember but a few years ago there was a thing of 'man-sheds', basically like the above story. It was about how men's mental health could be helped by essentially gardening. My old boss, a psychiatrist, told me he was at a funding meeting once where someone had applied for money to meaningfully, systematically assess the benefits of these man-shed/caves. The board went 'look, we're fobbing people off with them now. Either they work and we don't need a big study to tell us that, or they don't and we should shut up about that'.
Stories like this *are* nice, and I'm pleased for the man, but they shouldn't be mistaken for evidence or as something an underfunded system can fob you off with. |
|---|