Last year I reported extensively on the case of Steven Neary, a 20 year old autistic man. At the time, only Private Eye had taken any interest in Steven’s ‘case’ and a friend of his Father’s asked me if I would promote the case on this blog, given my interest in Court of Protection matters.  The main stream media, despite many approaches, were monumentally uninterested in Steven’s plight.

Steven’s plight was this: his Father had been overrun by a bad bout of genuine flu – you don’t suffer from ‘man-flu’ when you are a full time carer and single parent. He asked his local council if Steven could be given three days respite care to allow him to recover. They agreed.

This simple request turned into a nightmare for both Steven and his Father. The council declined to return Steven to his Father’s care. (Full story here, here and here).

The High Court today have ruled that they UNLAWFULLY DETAINED Steven and UNLAWFULLY deprived him of his LIBERTY for a full year.

That original blog post caused something of a sensation – 2,500 retweets around the world, and over 25,000 hits in the first 24 hours of publication. Parents of Autistic children world wide were appalled and campaigned to publicise the dangers inherent in new Deprivation of Liberty ‘Safeguards’ – which appeared to do nothing of the sort – but could result in a loving family being torn apart overnight.

The main stream media remained uninterested until the Super-injunction cases started to hit the media – suddenly the Court of Protection cases were of interest to them. Not that these were genuinely ‘super-injunctions’, but the fact that reporting was forbidden was an issue that could be run alongside their campaign to be allowed to report footballers sex lives.

A group of papers applied for, and received, permission to report on Steven Neary’s case – on the grounds that it had already received heavy publicity! Despite the fact that every one of those papers had been in contact with me, begging for an introduction to Steven’s Father, not one of them mentioned where the ‘extensive publicity’ had taken place. The Daily Mail, in particular, copied and pasted yards of material from old posts giving the history of the Court of Protection on this site. (Thanks for the tip-off Churnalism!)

If you are having trouble accessing the site, I can see from my stat counter, that every Tom, Dick and Media Hack, is trying to access the original story and background information.

Do they care about Steven? Not at all. Suddenly there is a ‘sexy’ story, and tomorrow the Canary Wharf ghouls will be all over it. I doubt that the indefatigable Sam Smith or Lucy Series, who have done so much to help Mark Neary fight his corner, will get so much as a mention. It will probably be presented as a ‘success’ due to media intervention. It isn’t. It is due to Mark, Sam and Lucy, who have fought on when no one was interested, with no financial support when Steven’s legal aid was removed, (on the grounds that at Christmas a judge had finally ordered him home! ) It is also due, in no small part to the Blogosphere, who tirelessly re tweeted this story until it reached the ends of the earth. Without that publicity, the main stream media would have been unable to get their application to report the case – assuming that they would even have been interested.

Hillingdon Council have released a disingenuous press release saying that:

“Cases such as Steven’s are hugely complex and we always have to carefully balance what we think is right for an individual with the wider issues such as the safety of the public”

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are specifically to protect the patient – not the public. We have criminal law and the Mental Health Act to protect the public. Despite the lengthy judgment from The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Jackson, Hillingdon Council seem still not to have grasped the salient legal point.

You cannot deprive someone of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act as they did Steven; merely on the pretext that you ‘think’ they might harm a member of the public in the future.

Hillingdon, however, had not given in yet. On the eve of the judgment, they issued a disgraceful press release that is best described in the final judgment:

On 20 May 2011, the eve of the hearing, Hillingdon circulated a three‐page media briefing note to most of the national media. The document was designed to counteract adverse publicity that Hillingdon has received, and against which it had not attempted to defend itself. Nonetheless, it is a sorry document, full of contentious and inaccurate information, and creating a particularly unfair and negative picture of Steven and his behaviour. I learned about the document by chance on the last day of the hearing, expressed dismay, and asked for an explanation. I am told that it was authorised by the Director of Social Care, the Head of Corporate Communications and the Borough Solicitor. It is now accepted “in hindsight” that an error of judgment was made in issuing the briefing note. That is indeed so, though again hindsight has nothing do with it. In addition, Hillingdon has unreservedly apologised to the court. That courtesy is appreciated, although an apology for the document is in truth not owed to the court but to Steven and his father.

I also note that Hillingdon has done its best to undo the situation by contacting every recipient informing them that I had directed that no part of it should be published in any circumstances. Again, I appreciate the intention behind this, but I should make clear that I gave no such direction. The only control that this court has exercised over reporting about Steven is in the form of the very minor restrictions on the reporting of the hearing itself, as referred to above. Other than that, the media will cover the story in whatever way it chooses, and no doubt it will continue to respect Steven’s need to be left in peace, as it has done since the hearing in February.

In plain English – Hillingdon were once again trying their best to ‘smear’ Steven as a danger to the public, and when pulled up by the judge, they responded by pretending that their press release had to be retracted ‘because the judge had ordered them not to publish it’.

Rarely has a Council been so roundly trounced by a High Court Judge.

He went on to say:

The use of DOL authorisations from April to December 2010 as a means of controlling Steven’s activities was not justified on the information available to Hillingdon. As a direct result of an incident when he had not been adequately supervised, he was deprived of activities that are important to him for weeks and in some cases months, and he was prevented from going on holiday.

Hillingdon’s approach was calculated to prevent proper scrutiny of the situation it had created. In the weeks after Steven’s admission, it successfully overbore Mr Neary’s opposition. It did not seriously listen to his objections and the suggestion that it might withdraw its support for Steven at home was always likely to have a chilling effect. Once Mr Neary’s resistance was tamed, the question of whether Steven was in the right place did not come under any balanced assessment.

Between April and July 2010 Hillingdon pursued two inconsistent agendas. The professionals were opposed to Steven returning home, whether or not a final decision had been taken. The agenda so far as Steven and Mr Neary were concerned was a return home under the transition plan. It was only when the transition plan was about to lead to an actual return home that the pursuit of two agendas became unfeasible and the true view of the professionals was disclosed. The records show that the professionals were at times uneasy about this lack of frankness, but it happened nonetheless.

Again, in plain English – Hillingdon had always intended that Steven went into long term care – it is far cheaper than supporting him at home. They neither owned up to that desire to Mr Neary, nor did they legitimately have the evidence they required to bring about that outcome by use of the DOLS safeguards.

Hillingdon acted illegally. They have been censured. Now Steven will be able to bring a claim for compensation for that lost year of his life through the good offices of his Father.  The Deprivation of Liberty ‘safeguards’ were badly thought out. They need to be properly scrutinised by parliament.

Paul Burstow, MP for Sutton and Cheam and Minister for Care Services, should be a worried man. Campaigners have been in touch with him for some time and been disappointed with lacklustre responses on these issues as well as frustrated by a perceived lack of interest. Now there are rumours that members of victims’ families are preparing to call vigorously for his sacking. Mr Burstow should take the opportunity to meet with some of the more sensible campaigners to see if he can propose a more inspiring solution sooner rather than later.

The judge had this to say of Mr Neary:

I want to thank Mr Neary for the quiet way in which he has presented his case. Several times, both during his evidence and when acting as advocate, he had the opportunity to vent grievances or launch an attack on Hillingdon in the presence of the media, but he did not do so. I am sure that this is because his focus has been on Steven from beginning to end. Mr Mark Neary is an unusual man and he can be proud of the way in which he has stood up for his son’s interests.

I could not agree more. Throughout all my dealings with Mark Neary, I have been impressed with his quiet determination and professionalism. He is not a lawyer, but he has mastered this difficult area of the law. He is not a public relations expert, but he has mastered the delicate task of dealing with the press. Nor is he a terrier, though his ability to sink his teeth into Hillingdon’s ankles and cling on for dear life might make you doubt that. Most of all, he is not a social worker, nor a trained carer, but he has, for 20 years, given Steven a quality of care, and of life, that far surpasses anything provided to Steven by the ‘care system’.

He is a remarkable individual, and I salute him.

Rosalind Figg
July 10, 2011 at 12:14

My mother was held in a care home by social services and after running
round in circles and trying to get answers and watching my mother suffering,
my sister and family and another relative (nurse) decided to take her out. Mum
(who had been diagnosed with moderate Altzeimers) would say to me when I
visited nearly every day “have you got the car outside, could you take me home
now”. I totally sympathise with anyone in the position of being unable to
decide what is happening to a relative or even friend – it is so painful to
have that person taken away and be made to suffer and not be able to help. And
(in our case) be made to pay around £2,000.00 a month for substandard care.
(Initially our understanding was for respite care after she had been
discharged from hospital, where she had fallen and broken her hip).

Once at my home mum immediately became alert and content, and I realised I
had done the right thing but 2 days later 4 policemen, a doctor and 2 social
service employees removed her back to the care home. I called the local paper
as it was happening and it became much publicised (google Betty Figg) for
story.

However after 8 weeks it was decided that she could come and live with me
and I had 20 months of looking after her, healing her wounds (mentally and
physically) and enjoying seeing her happily live her last few months in the
right place.

Possibly the media attention helped, a facebook campaign was also launched.
I have also been contacted by many people still in similar situations, and yet
still it goes on.

We are still dealing with solicitors and have discovered that false
accusations were made about me (proved wrong by Court of Protection) who I
have faith in. So keep trying and hopefully you will get your relative back as
did the Neary family.

Denny June 14, 2011 at 11:43

Fantastic news … great job by all those involved; especially Mr Neary … now
sue their asses off …. !!

Dick the Prick
June 12, 2011 at 18:53

Hurray!

Mr_Angry June 12,
2011 at 09:00

Social services are misusing the Mental Capacity Act (2005) to force the
elderly into care homes.

My father was taken into respite care by
Social Services in November
2010 and was
subsequently sent home with the wrong medications.
In
December 2010 he was placed
in respite care and was subsequently
admitted to hospital
with a fractured hip within a few days of entering the
care
home. An incident that has never been investigated. On being
discharged from hospital in February 2011 he
was returned to the same care
home following a mental
capacity assessment that deemed him to lack
capacity to
determine where he wished to live. He has remained in
the
care home ever since and has been placed on a Deprivation of
Liberty
Order and social services have banned both myself and my solicitor from having
access to him as they deem my protests and questions of their actions to be
‘aggressive’. Human rights seem to go out of the door when social services
enter your life.

Listen to the audio file on the above website and decide for yourself if he
lacks mental capacity to determine where he wishes to live.

Mr_Angry June
12, 2011 at 09:09

The web site link

http://whosebestinterest.blogspot.com/

Mary June 11, 2011 at 23:49

Congratulations. I have found myself in a mess with the Local Authority and
I could not understand why the referred my case to safeguarding (all inbred
with each other) pun intended, when they refused for years to help and I was
stressed out. In the end they reported me for refusing their help (not true of
course) I wondered at these halfwits actions until I read online that it is a
common occurrence across generations and is like the devil on earth.

Any suggestions as to how I can publicise my case if it goes against us? I
think we should put as many cases in the public as possible to shame these
control freaks.

Sam Smith June 10, 2011 at 12:23

I would not recommend sending unpleasant emails to people. However some
constructive requests to fix the legislation would be good.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are exceptionally poor law. They are
intended to stop people without mental capacity being detained except as
authorised.

However, in practise they are so poor that they work against the people
they are intended to help.

We now have two overlapping Mental Health laws in this country. The Mental
Health Act 1983 was introduced by Thatcher’s government. Under the MHA, if
someone appeals against detention they go to a tribunal. This is cheap and
there is legal aid. A solicitor does the work or the person can represent
themself. The practise is not to appoint litigation friends.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were introduced by Labour in the
Mental Health Act 2007, which amended the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Rather
than the many clear and careful pages of MHA 1983, the DoLS were bunged into a
schedule to the act.

Under the DoLS things are rather less clear or helpful than under the MHA.
Under the DoLS, theoretically the person or their representative can appeal to
the Court of Protection. There is legal aid. But there is a nasty sting in the
tail. The person detained is already deemed to lack capacity to decide where
to live. They are also invariably found to lack capacity to litigate. That is
to instruct solicitors to um … appeal. There is no clear appeals procedure
against a finding of litigation incapacity. So the only person who can start
the ball rolling is usually the representative. Unfortunately under Labour’s
DoLS the representative is appointed by the body that authorised the
deprivation. The body is perfectly at liberty to just pick someone who agrees
with them.

Technically, the representative and the body authorising the detention are
under a strict duty to help the detained person appeal. In practise they have
a lot of unfortunate discretion. For example Hillingdon did not appoint an
independent advocate for months and their ‘Best Interests Assessors’ did not
properly record Steven or Mark’s objections. That is their desire to um …
appeal.

In an old fashioned Mental Health Review Tribunal they do not appoint
litigation friends. The person can appeal in person. If they are mad or
incapable they tend to lose.

Aside from the many, many loopholes in the DoLS they are also very
expensive. The Court of Protection is a flavour of the High Court. Litigation
involves barristers as well as solicitors. The only good thing is that proper
High Court judges tend to be fair and kind. (This is not necessarily the case
with district judges). However the system is impenetrable to normal
people.

Only people with an interest in obscure law like Lucy Series or myself, or
a rare few lawyers who specialise (this does not pay well – legal aid for this
work is low) could ever possibly appeal. Put another way, what chance would
someone like Steven have had without someone like Mark?

So I would like everyone to email Burstow and politely raise these points.
I recognise some people feel strongly but please be polite and reasonable.

His public email address, published on his website is –
paul@paulburstow.org.uk

Brian Bradford
June 10, 2011 at 11:31

What the public want published is the names of Judges who make these Hyper
Injunctions known. They should be made public.

A further public interest would see the judges and the lawyers tried for
conspiracy.
When a lawyer embarks on a trail of collusion and known deceit
for his client they to should be prosecuted as a co conspirator.

Judges rarely have all the true facts placed before them, and unless both
sides are heard in an open court application lies will continue especially
from corporates protecting their image.

The judge in his wisdom should never hear any case or application for any
case in the first instance without all parties being present.

Lawyers are off the hook by saying ” I was acting on instructions from my
client, and I believed him. Liars abound and con the judiciary with ease.

And that is letting the judges off easily.

Single
Acts of Tyranny June 10, 2011 at
08:06

Excellent if long overdue result, well done all round.

Psychonaut99
June 10, 2011 at 06:21

I think some people might need to take a breath.

1. It’s not kidnapping.
2. It might be false imprisonment, conceivably,
but there won’t be a prosecution, anymore than there are prosecutions when the
police unlawfully arrest and detain someone. Unlawful at civil law does not
mean illegal at criminal law
3. Mark Neary cannot sue the council (as I am
sure he is already aware) because the council do not owe him a duty of care.
Steven can sue the council, possibly with Mr Neary as his next friend, or
possibly through representation by the official solicitor. The compo he might
obtain could be substantial, but it’s not going to be so much that Mr Neary
will be able to afford private care assistance for the rest of Steven’s life,
so Social Services are always going to be involved. Hopefully a somewhat
chastened and humbled social services, though as they probably STILL don’t
really think they did anything wrong, that possibly unlikely.
4. The
outcome of this case is not down to Anna Raccoon or to those of us who spread
the story or signed the petition. Get a grip. The outcome of this case is due
to the hard work and dedication of Mr Neary, with, one imagines, some impact
also coming from his legal team (before their funding got pulled) and Steven’s
legal team. The public support must have helped Mr Neary’s morale, and maybe
steered him towards some helpful advice, but that’s it. Mr Neary was fighting
this long before the blogosphere got enraged, and I somehow doubt that prior
to writing his judgment, Jackson J did a quick Google search and thought to
himself “Gosh. Lots of people on the internet are very cross, or at least,
marginally crosser than usual. I’d better rule that Steven was unlawfully
detained.”
5. No one will be sacked. Jackson J’s judgment makes it clear he
does not consider anyone individually to blame, so a sacking would probably be
unlawful. The head of social care should resign, of course, but he won’t. They
never do

This is a terrible, saddening case, in which the proper outcome has
eventually been achieved. In the longterm, one of the worst aspects is that
Hillingdon’s duplicity is likely to have ruined the relationship between the
Council and Mr Neary. This is a shame as that relationship is going to have to
continue for the rest of Steven’s life, whether anyone likes it or not. I hope
he’s able to put it behind him and start afresh. I’m not sure I would be able
to, but as this entire story seems to have demonstrated, Mark Neary is a
better man than most of us.

JuliaM June 10,
2011 at 06:39

“The outcome of this case is not down to Anna Raccoon or to those of
us who spread the story or signed the petition. Get a grip. “

I guess you didn’t read the comment from Mark Neary himself at June 9,
2011 at 18:52..? But hey, who is he to thank Anna for all her hard
work on his behalf, when you clearly know better?

Psychonaut99
June 10, 2011 at 06:52

Yep. Read that. Must have missed the bit where he said “Well done,
Anna. You won the case. Not me. Not my lawyers. Not Steven’s lawyers, who
the judge referred to in his judgment as putting forward the legal
arguments on my behalf. Nope, definitely not any of us. It was all you and
those who selflessly took 20 seconds out of their day to retweet the story
or sign the e-petition.” I’ll go back and read it again, in case I missed
it, but that seems unlikely because I read it carefully enough first time
to notice that he doesn’t actually thank Anna for her “hard work.”

I’m not having a go at Anna, but the commentor above who said the
outcome was “entirely” due to a blog post which then got retweeted is not
only being a bit silly, but rather unfairly withholding credit from the
people who actually won the case.

Gloria
Smudd June 10, 2011 at 07:57

OK. Replace ‘entirely’ with ‘in no small part’.

I am known to be a bit silly. I do not wish to withhold credit from
the people who actually won the case.

Kevin June 10, 2011 at 05:37

The woman who was behind all this – Linda Sanders, director of social care
at the London Borough of Hillingdon – can be reached at:

Phone: 01895 250 506
Email: linda.sanders@hillingdon.gov.uk

I’m sure she’d love to hear everybody’s views on how well she is doing her
job. Her picture is at http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/image/q/5/l_sanders.jpg –
Now you know what evil looks like.

JuliaM June 10,
2011 at 06:36

It looks very well-fed and well-padded, as always…

Matt
Wardman June 10, 2011 at 08:52

Personal vituperation is nearly always unhelpful, imo.

JuliaM June
11, 2011 at 07:09

But extraordinarily cathartic when you can’t actually get your hands on
the object of your loathing…

Matt
Wardman June 11, 2011 at
08:48

Fair enough

Hysteria June 10, 2011 at 04:18

interesting to see the Independent taking all the credit !

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-fathers-right-to-love-2295560.html

Anna
Raccoon June 10, 2011 at 05:31

They did grudgingly include this in a linked article…..

“Unsure of his rights or what to do next he turned to Facebook and began
an online campaign called “Get Steven Home”.

“I had no idea where it was going to go but the purpose was to find
somebody who had been through this,” he says. “It was a lifeline. I started
it on a Saturday and by the Wednesday there were 2,500 members.” A
handful of bloggers who specialise in mental capacity issues and
the Court of Protection also picked up on the story and began informing Mr
Neary of his rights. It was the kind of information that Hillingdon had
failed to provide him.”

Mr G has always thought of me as a ‘handful’ so he recognised the
description!

JuliaM June
10, 2011 at 06:30

Delphius June 9,
2011 at 23:00

I’m glad that this case has been resolved in the sensible way it has. The
judge presiding over the case has taken a refreshingly common sense approach,
sadly missing in other cases and areas of justice.

As the judgement is the council acted unlawfully, then whoever is
accountable at Hillingdon should be prosecuted. Maybe an email to Kier Starmer
at the CPS pointing out this unlawful activity is in order. After all its in
the public interest that corporations should be dissuaded from exploiting
vulnerable adults.

Daz Pearce June 9, 2011 at 22:39

Brilliantly done Anna and all who helped

A small win over the nanny state and completely echo Derek’s post – maybe
one or two people should now be charged with false imprisonment or
kidnapping?

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

Derek M June 9, 2011 at 21:41

A person has been unlawfully detained. This was not the action by a
council, but by individuals. These individuals should be put before a court to
answer for their crimes. It only needs one prosecution to make all these power
crazed thugs think again. Wouldn’t it be nice to see.

Gloria Smudd
June 9, 2011 at 21:27

My ears pricked up tonight on my drive home from work as I heard on Radio
4′s PM programme about the ruling. I knew, as we all know, where Steven’s case
was first championed and by whom and I was proud of Mme Raccoon and proud of
her nerve in writing the original piece which explained how it came to be that
Steven was never likely to return home to live with his dad, I particularly
applaud the fact that the ‘outcome’ of Steven’s case is entirely due to Mme
R’s original post and the re-tweeting thereof. Mme R has competently explained
how and why this has influenced both the ‘PRINT-MEEEDYA’ s keen interest in
the case and how this is reflected in the Judge’s comments. Good on yer,
everyone who re-tweeted (however one does that).

The
Travelling Toper June 9, 2011 at
21:04

Did a judge in 2011 really make reference to ‘Common Law’ and ‘The Magna
Carta.’
There may be hope for us yet.
I have a severely autistic
grandson and wish Mark & Steven a long and happy furure together.

Hysteria June 9, 2011 at 19:01

Awesome result…

mark neary June 9, 2011 at 18:52

Thank you so much Anna. You have been behind us from the start and I can’t
begin to say how much I value that. And thank you for publishing these
extracts of the judgment that reveal what was really happening last year. It
is such a relief today to see that the judge got it absolutely spot on and
that I wasn’t the “mad dad” that some people suggested. I’d love a review of
the deprivation of liberty safeguards – hopefully its all over for us now but
I’ve had so many people contact me who are in the same situation and something
has to be done to help their sons and daughters. Now Steven can look forward
to the holiday that was so cruely cancelled because of the DoL last year.

Matt
Wardman June 9, 2011 at 19:16

Mark – nice of you to drop in
.

Matt

Anna
Raccoon June 9, 2011 at 19:24

Hello Mark – you are everyone’s hero!

It’s been a long haul for you, but you have never wavered for a second,
and the Judge’s compliments were more than well deserved.

Pericles June 9, 2011 at 20:26

Exactly as Anna said, Mark, yours is an example to all :  your
perseverance and, in the face of incredible provocation, your dignity. 
I’d have taken an axe to them.

ΠΞ

2Mac June 9, 2011 at 21:04

Mark, I read about your troubles on Anna Raccoon and I heard you speak on
Radio5Live. As a parent the thought of someone taking away my children
causes a shudder. Your courage in the face of oppression and your dignity
have been an proud example of good parenting and your love for your
child.

I hope you do not mind some opinionated advice:

Now get yourself a really good solicitor (There are plenty who will be
Volunteering to Gain Publicity now you have already won a famous judgement
and SUE! the arse out of that Council) Get a stack of money, move somewhere
different and enjoy life with your child.

With money you will never be a victim of another public sector bully ever
again. This may also allow you to put in place provision for your Son’s care
when you are no longer able to provide care yourself.

InLikeFlint June 9, 2011 at 18:19

Anna, I think we should also salute you. Well done.

Woman on a
Raft June 9, 2011 at 18:30

Seconded

2Mac June 9, 2011 at 19:11

Round of Applause “For she’d be jolly good if she was a fellow”

Pericles
June 9, 2011 at 20:21

Motion carried, nem. con. ΠΞ

JuliaM June
10, 2011 at 06:29

So minuted.

ivan June 10, 2011 at 15:30

I think our landlady has been taking lessons from Sarah http://legendofbill.com/2011/01/01/barwench-tales-3/

Livewire June 9, 2011 at 17:56

Anna, it might be useful if one of your contacts could write a topic on
autism itself, either
a medical professional or a carer. I’ve seen a
Horizon prog on it, but that concentrated on the scientific research, with
only a brief description of the condition itself.
With more knowledge a
statement from one side claiming that “this person was considered a danger”
can be instantly tested; at the moment they can get away with the Blair ploy
with his Iraq claims “If you knew what I know….” in public statements.

Pericles June 9, 2011 at 20:19

Livewire, as so often, goes straight to the heart of the
matter ;  twice:

– the autistic have much to teach us about the simple and honest approach
to life ;  and

– the socialist establishment (virtually all the World’s governments,
particularly those of America and Europe) assume — quite correctly — an
ability to pull the wool over the eyes of their peoples.

ΠΞ

2Mac June 9, 2011 at 17:53

After all the bullshit you have put up with over the last year from a
certain defunct political party leadershit. It is times like this you must
surely feel your Blog really does make a difference sometimes. You helped
change a life for the better. Made a positive impact. You did good.

As for the Hillingdon CUNTcil I would just like to give a big “Fuck You” A
bunch of power crazed bastards who illegally decided to imprison a vulnerable
boy, exclude his family and act like some God over other peoples lives.

I listened to the Head of Social Services on Radio 5 today, what an utter
waffling public sector fuckwit. If the council want to save money stop wasting
millions in legal fees and compesation by acting like human beings and help
the people you are supposed to help instead of fucking up lives.

I hope sackings occur and careers are ruined. However I suspect they will
sack some lowely minion and carry on.

RAGE!

The Penguin June 9, 2011 at 17:50

Great result, Anna, shows the value of your blog. Hope the weasels get what
they deserve, but won’t hold my breath.

The
Penguin.

Sam Smith June 9, 2011 at 17:38

Indeed. Like that. Another way to help might be for people to drop Paul
Burstow a polite note expressing your views and the strength of your feelings.
(He is the Minister responsible for the Deprivation of Liberty
Safeguards).

His public email address, published on his website is –
paul@paulburstow.org.uk

JohnM de Melle
June 9, 2011 at 17:29

When writing letters to any ‘authority’ I allways end with……

“You, sir or madam, remain MY obedient servant,”

Perhaps if more people copied this ending then the message might ‘get
home’.

Dick
Puddlecote June 9, 2011 at 17:04

I’m with Chalcedon. This is false imprisonment no less, and jail time
should be on the table for someone at Hillingdon. And what was Burstow doing
sitting on his hands over this? Have you tried an FOI request to find out what
info he was being fed by Hillingdon, Anna?

Matt
Wardman June 9, 2011 at 17:01

Good news.

Chalcedon June 9, 2011 at 16:44

I was disgusted by the behaviour of Hillingdon council when you first
published on this case. I’m sick and tired of public sector officials just not
listening. Those responsible should not only be sacked, but jailed for
kidnapping and false imprisonment. as I recall you do go to jail for arranging
for these crimes to be perpetrated even if you didn’t egage in them directly.
The MSM never acknowledge bloggers. Since its your copyright, get a no win, no
fee lawyer to sue their asses off!

Michael June 9, 2011 at 18:53

+1 to all that, and well done Anna for publicising this in the first
place.

Sam Smith June 9, 2011 at 16:13

You know, what people could do now is drop polite emails to Mr Burstow
(link to his details in Anna’s article) expressing their views. I am sure that
if lots of people email him setting out their thoughts he will take it on
board. Perhaps people could link to this article. Also retweet?

fake June 9, 2011 at 16:09

I particularly liked the bit where 2 people where off sick just as they
were supposed to be giving evidence.

Gloria Smudd
June 9, 2011 at 19:39

So did I.

Jean
Lambert June 9, 2011 at 16:01

Is this just the tip of the iceberg? I am thrilled that Steven and Mark
have a chance for a real life together now – best wishes to them both.

john2g June 9, 2011 at 16:00

What a truly awful story! I am sorry that I did not read your original blog
on this subject.

The attitude of these “civil serpents” (one of my son’s apposite
malapropisms) is reminiscent of the BabyP story. I bet that they don’t do
blame either! Sacking some of them would be a start.

Mark Gullick June
9, 2011 at 15:40

I can’t believe I’m reading this post while blogging in a pub, and look up
to see the item on BBC rolling news. The tail is now wagging the dog. Well
done you for flagging this up to begin with. The way the genuinely
underprivileged are treated in this country should make many of our little
establishments hang their heads in shame.

JuliaM June 9,
2011 at 15:25

“…with the wider issues such as the safety of the public…”

They know JUST what they are doing when that slip that in. Doesn’t matter
what the rights and wrongs are, they know that little subliminal message will
sink home.

Anna
Raccoon June 9, 2011 at 15:33

That no doubt was the intention of the original press release, helpfully
provided to every national newspaper…….’judge rules that public cannot be
protected from dangerous man’ would have suited them down to the ground!
Except that there is no evidence that Steven is a danger to himself or
anyone else!

JuliaM June
10, 2011 at 06:29

Evidence? They don’t need evidence…

Dominic Alkins
June 9, 2011 at 15:24

It is such good news to read the court’s judgement. Hopefully now Steven
will now be able to enjoy his life is the safe and loving care of his
father.

The question now is what happens to the people at Hillingdon Council who
were involved in this case – from the so-called professionals to the
management. A judge has ruled that the council behaved UNLAWFULLY.

I have no doubt that, unfortunately, nothing will happen and these people
will carry on in their jobs unhindered.

A P45 would seem to me to be the mildest of the sanctions they should
face.

JuliaM June 9,
2011 at 15:35

“The question now is what happens to the people at Hillingdon
Council…”

You got it right the first time – nothing.

Anna
Raccoon June 9, 2011 at 15:37

Surely they will be taking ‘appropriate steps’ and looking to see if
‘lessons can be learned’?

Gloria
Smudd June 9, 2011 at 19:17

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Not only will ‘Lessons’ be learned but ‘Pathways’ will be re-routed,
‘Gateways’ will become manned by armed guards and ‘Preferred Journeys’
will be laid out between Armco.

And it takes a lot of meetings, brainstorming, paradigm-challenges,
consensuses, objectives, mission statements and pan-council directives
to achieve that.

Brian
June 9, 2011 at 23:00

All so that “a line can be drawn underneath” this affair and they
can “move on”.