Giving Potential Victims a Voice!
Blimey! You folk have really pi**ed off the authoritarian voice of social services. Congratulations – it does my heart good to see what a difference your voices made.
I was aware before that helping you make your voice heard in a matter that may affect each and every one of you in the future had been an unpopular move, and there had been much hissing and booing in the social services boondocks as a result – I hadn’t realised until today that they had taken the matter so much to heart….
Let me recap. Last October I discovered that Social Workers had run a survey (that no one else knew about, naturally!) asking how many social workers would welcome the ‘power of entry’ to every home in the land – not just the homes of those with diminished mental capacity. Every home. To ‘give you health advice’. – “Put that crisp down now!”
Unsurprisingly, when you ask a group of people attracted to a job where they hold control over other people’s lives – they voted overwhelmingly to be given such a power. You don’t say!
Regrettably for them, we now have a government which clutches to its bosom the entrails of a belief in Libertarian principles. Not many, it’s true. But just sufficient to allow them to at least ‘ask’ the general public what they thought of the idea. In theory. They just didn’t tell anyone they were doing so, so the general public had no idea that they had a voice on the matter, still less that such a power was proposed. When this came to my attention, there was just seven days left in which to respond to the ‘consultation’.
I asked you to respond to the questionnaire, and retweet the post to anyone you thought might also be interested in responding. This you did in gratifying numbers.
Come May 2013, and the results of the consultation were known. The government was not minded to give social workers such a power, in particular:
We believe it is highly significant that members of the public were far more strongly against the proposal compared to health and social care professionals […] it is clear that some people perceive themselves at greater risk of unwarranted intervention by social workers than of abuse in their home.
Wahay! Loud cheers in Raccoon Towers!
However, today, quite the most offensive piece of authoritarian manipulation has come to light. My attention has been drawn to this ‘fisking’ of the views of the general public.
‘Elder Abuse’ has taken the trouble of ‘analysing’ the responses from the general public – that means you! They have listed the reasons why your views should not have been allowed to sway the government. They pose the question “did these people put forward cogent, reasoned arguments that were to the point and relevant to the questioned asked” and they have come to the conclusion that the answer is “No”.
They have taken the trouble of publishing many of your responses to the consultation:
And great delight in pointing out that some of you had made minor spelling errors…
At least one of you had made reference to ‘Nazi’s’.
At least one of you had made reference to social workers taking children into care through the ‘secret’ family courts.
They are deeply offended that the response (116) quoted by the Health Minister was not quoted in full, which would have included the phrase “Stalin used article 58 of Lenin’s Criminal Code to justify his Stasi’s invasion of people homes”.
For the above reasons they have concluded that:
and therefore your views should not have been given weight….
They have applied no such analysis to the views of the original social workers who wanted these powers. They could have been riddled with spelling mistakes, and made reference to Eugenics for all we know!
It is probably a tad late to respond to garyfitzgerald@elderabuse.org.uk who is responsible for this disgraceful disparaging of the views of the general public – but it is not too late to answer Mithran Samuel at Community Care who poses the disingenuous question “Did anti-social worker sentiment scupper powers of entry in adult protection cases” without disclosing that such a power already exists – what social workers were asking for now was to have the power without the oversight of the courts – an automatic right of entry.
Perhaps Mithran Samuel has ‘misunderstood what was proposed’?
Get over there and tell him what you think – perhaps by oversight, the site appears to be hosting negative comments for once…..
Go on – NOW!
and re-tweet if you would be so kind.
August 17, 2013 at 22:13Thank you for the latest alert, Anna. I’ve added my polite tuppence-worth
to the Community Care site (it’s presently “awaiting moderation”).According to that site’s reporting, I was at fault for not divulging my age
when responding to the original consultation document: “the public voices that
shouted loudest in the consultation response do not appear to be those of
older … people who may be affected by such a power”. What is that conclusion
based on? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recollect that one had to state one’s
age when submitting a response?After all we’ve learned of late about unwarranted state intrusion into our
private lives, it surely behoves us to speak up whenever we get the
opportunity. And I confess that, without someone like yourself keeping a
finger on the pulse, I could be missing some of those opportunities!
August 17, 2013 at 19:50My aim is to die without ever coming to the attention of the SS, in fact I
think if the whole lot vanished tomorrow we would be no worse off, maybe even
better.
August 17, 2013 at 11:16It’s the old foot in the door approach. First, it’ll be the “elderly” and
the “vunerable”. Next, the remit is expanded to include entry to look for
signs of tobacco or alcohol use in the presence of “children*”, later perhaps,
to monitor our diets and check on the allowed reading materials available in
the home. Anarchist’s cookbook anyone?People will be detailed for not having working smoke alarms, and not
storing so-called dangerous substances out of harms way (“Look, you can’t have
that sharp knife in the kitchen drawer. It has to be in a child-proof cabinet
out of reach.”) My son tells me that you aren’t allowed to take your baby out
of the local maternity hospital unless you can show that your car has the
approved baby seats fitted. I suppose next we will have to have our houses
inspected by these interfering <> to make sure that we all live in
accordance with their over-reaching H&S mania.* the definition of children also being expanded to encompass everyone up
to the age of about 25. Which will probably be about right the way the current
young generation are being infantalised.- August 17, 2013 at 11:18
ed. the carat signs did hold “expletive deleted”. I suppose one day I’ll
work out the semiotics of this site.Edited by Anna: Semiotics? Is that like html or summit?
August 17, 2013 at 14:19I presume you mean “Semantics”????
August 17, 2013 at
14:54Oh whoops! I didn’t mean to make fun of someone’s spelling – I was
poking fun at myself for not having a clue what it meant! Apologies
Corevalue.
August 17, 2013 at 15:46Off the top of my head Corevalue is right, Semiotics being the
science of signs/icons/symbols…something like that anyways. There is no
doubt a website devoted to it and its pornography…Rule 36 applies as
ever.- August 17, 2013 at
20:28 Na… Sorry, it was meant more of a question than a correction.
My Latin (It IS latin…. or… ?) is about as good as my 14thC Mandarin,
so I am NOT about to throw stones.
August 17, 2013 at 09:43Here’s my ha’pennyworth, currently ‘awaiting moderation’:
Working from first principles, it is simply bizarre that anyone should
claim a right to enter anyone else’s house without judicial oversight or in
the absence of some emergency – someone trapped in a house fire, for example,
and even there you do so at your own legal risk. I was going to quote here
Pitt’s dictum that “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the
forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow
through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of
England cannot enter.” That’s the point.No doubt the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, door-to-door
encyclopaedia salesmen, anti-racism campaigners, lesbian birdwatchers, and all
the rest of the various prod-noses and interlopers of the modern state would
like to come into my house, and can come up with sad stories about Uncle Tom
Cobleigh who was proselytized to by an evangelical to justify their
interference. No. We start from first principles and stand by them.In any case, when one reads of the manifest failures of social services –
the absurd Marietta Higgs and her weird ‘anal dilation test’, ‘ritual satanic
abuse’, and the sad litany of murdered children – Victoria Climbié (the worst
child abuse injuries the pathologist had ever seen), Baby P (a broken back was
overlooked), and Daniel Pelka (described as a living skeleton or a Belsen
victim) – one can’t help thinking that giving yet more powers to such
unreformed incompetents would simply increase the scale and scope of disasters
that they would be able to inflict.
August 17, 2013 at 09:29Dunstan….’The only thing that matters is what the legislation
allows’…..Time and time again, in recent years, laws are stretched to include
people who have tried to deal with situations and found themselves arrested.
The triumphant scalliwags have called the police and told fibs about what
happened. A policewoman recently put a ‘spit hood’ on a perfectly respectable
woman, who had lost her temper, due to lies told to police about her by
parents of children sounding a car horn persistently……she had asked the
parents to put a stop to it. Spit Hood only to be used in specific circs. The
policewoman had not studied her rules properly. The woman was publicly
humiliated. So social workers could be enabled to enter a house on suspicion
based on stereotypical assumptions . At one case conference someone tried to
finger the step father for the pregnancy of an underage school girl. We all
knew that she had been pulled into a car by a group of youths who had left
school and were hanging about in the next term time. She was deeply disturbed,
but the end result OK . We all concentrated on getting her to mother her baby
well. She had just lost her mum due to a fast moving cancer too. Now a happy
lady in her thirties. What would be the outcome if stereotypical assumption
followed up by an uninvited visit from clipboarded social workers? No thank
you.
August 17, 2013 at 09:26I note that highly unusually my posts wwere not deleted by ‘Community
Care’s’ Samuel Mithram, as has always been the case before. That they have
allowed the ‘discordant view’ has puzzled me, until I realised that ‘gary’ who
was posting to argue the case to ignore the consultation responses was likely
no other than Gary Fitzgerald of Action on Elder Abuse. So my cynicism is that
all of us who wanted to show them that we are not without proper views on
these proposed ‘powers of entry’ may well have been used to ‘gain greater
familiarity with the enemy’. It may help Gary to put forward more warped
arguments…From my experience of the seccret SS, (and I do not apologise for this
acronym after all a judge used the word Stalinist in one case), the conspiracy
theiry should never be discounted in the times when many public servants are
merely self promoting careerists without morality to take personal
responsibility.
August 17, 2013 at 08:19So Anna, what is the Liverpool Care Pathway, if it isn’t state sponsored
“elder abuse”… Whatever the fuck that is s’posed to mean?I have a friend whose father was a victim of the Nicholson bloke in North
Staffordshire… Went in for an “assessment” came out in a box, he was riddled
with C Dif., nothing to do with these oh so responsible dudes… Nothing at
all.I hate communists/communitarians, in the 1980′s they realised that nobody
was ever going to vote for them, so they applied for jobs inside the
government institutions, and like Clostridium difficile itself, it has eaten
away at the very structure of our civilisation. It is difficult to see how we
can overcome it.Never mind… At least we now know that the children are really important…
Think of the children!- August 17, 2013 at 09:27
“like Clostridium difficile itself, it has eaten away at the very
structure of our civilisation. It is difficult to see how we can overcome
it.”A memorable phrase Ma’am, perfect!
-
August 17, 2013 at 10:44 I’m a cross-dresser Anna!
- August 17, 2013 at
11:09
-
August 17, 2013 at 06:57 XX Get over there and tell him what you think XX
Hmm Tempting…… But I feel, if I said what I think, I may get arrested.
And if THAT is not a comentary on “this day and age”, what IS?
August 16, 2013 at 19:44I stuck in my 2p, see if it gets past moderation.
It can be summarised as the fact that we don’t trust them because they hide
behind a veil of secrecy and if they want to improve matters, we need to be
trusted with explanations and evidence. Then we might understand the question
that we so clearly do not at present.
August 16, 2013 at 17:00Some comments have now appeared on Mr Samuel’s blog post.
The comment from ‘Peter’ concerning his father held hostage for three years
by a cynical and manipulative ‘carer’ has received several responses asking
him what he was doing for those years. His replies (all well composed and
correctly spelled, which suggests a fair degree of intelligence) claim that he
visited his father every day, and his father’s face lit up when he saw Peter,
but he did not speak to his father because he was denied access by the
‘carer’. In other comments, Peter shows a good working knowledge of the law as
it applies to social work.why would a reasonably intelligent man visit his father every day for three
years, wave to him through the window, but not attempt to talk to him? For
three years?Something about Peter’s comments do not add up. One wonders if someone is
being a little less than honest.
August 16, 2013 at 16:25Threw in my 2pw, this comment is awaiting moderation on his site:
Correct me if I am wrong*
Social Worker do indeed have the power to enter homes already:
1. By
asking nicely, or
2. By applying for that power to do so.
The former
should generally be sufficient. Where this is insufficient then they can rely
on the latter.What the consultation was asking about was whether Social Workers need not
bother with the latter i.e should Social Workers have an automatic right of
entry into a home?It matters not one whit how this is dressed up: My home is MY home; I want
to enjoy my dotage with my wife after the kids have left without the fear that
the system in place in 20 years from now has the right to send “Social
Workers” (in 20 years the same function may have a different name) into my
home without the Courts having any oversight.Perhaps the resistance to these proposals stems from the fear of the “thin
end of the wedge”; that autonomous, unaccountable groups can clandestinely
make decisions about how I should be conducting my affairs within my home and
come into my house to force me to make those changes. St Augustine had a
similar idea when he decreed that the Original Sin was sex – the Church then
had power over couples in their beds – granted an oversimplification but the
fundamentals prevail, even today.If you say that I don’t understand the issues, then you are only further
making my case in my mind. I am capable of understanding – I also recognise
the longer term implications to individuals and society. My home would no
longer be mine – if a social worker has powers of entry WITHOUT oversight by
the judiciary. Why should I not resist this?The issues that matter to me are the ones I raise here; if you don’t think
they matter, again, you make my case for me.The AEA article doesn’t seem to have said much about the views of the
original social workers, nor mocked their stance/grammar/nomenclature, I
wonder, if in light of this, you feel that their view is balanced or
unbalanced?*http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/253.html
- August 16, 2013 at 18:11
In case they decide to remove differing opinion “Gary” responded (by
calmly explaining that a JP is enough oversight):I will have to correct you. Social Workers do not have the power to enter
someone’s home in the circumstances being addressed by these proposals. Nor
was the consultation about an automatic right of a social worker to have
access, it also asked about safeguards such as the need for a warrant from a
circuit judge.There is a reasonable concern about the thin end of the wedge, and that
does indeed need to be addressed. But the answer cannot be to throw the baby
out with the bath water and ignore the needs of vulnerable people who are
being imprisoned by abusers.If a Social Worker had power of entry without oversight by the judiciary
we should all be concerned and resist it. But that is not what is being
proposed. A social Workers suspicions would not be enough, they would have
to convince a JP. They would have to have tried every other reasonable means
first, and they would have to demonstrate that the situation would not be
made worse by such access. And they could only enter accompanied by a police
officer.My reply:
Thank you for the correction Gary.
Social workers DO have the power to enter people’s homes, against their
will, provided they are granted permission from a Judge (I believe an
experienced Judge too).A Justice of the Peace lacks such experience. There have been cases
historically where Social Services (yes, it would be unfair and inflammatory
to shorten this to the SS) have torn families apart because they don’t fit
into the mold set by Social Services. The most chilling story I am aware of
is that of Steven Neary
https://www.facebook.com/groups/134345726596848/It took a judge to sort that mess out.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/neary-judgment-09062011.pdfThe principles at stake here are about oversight by an experienced judge
BEFORE families are torn apart; to ensure that a Social Services department
must absolutely be held accountable for their actions and sufficient
experience wielded to skewer embellished cases that an inexperienced JP may
pass through. Authority must go hand in hand with Responsibility: checks and
balances that protect those you have authority over is essential. One
without the other creates a most unequal society.Doubtless a great deal of good intent lies behind the AEA article,
supporting Social workers cases. The intent behind the original consultation
was to create a legislative framework to minimise delays in court. The
intent behind the Offside rule was to prevent Goal-hanging – the result was
the Offside Trap.Currently the legislation grants me some protections in the form an
experienced judge looking over the case against me (a case I might know
nothing about so may not be able to refute) before the Social Services can
enter my home without my consent.What is being put forward is a dilution of MY protection.
Social Services have the right to enter homes already. They have to do so
with the scrutiny of experience, why dilute that experience?
-
August 16, 2013 at 13:58 I think Chris Retros conclusions may well be near to what is going on.
There seems an odd gap for somewhat younger pop persons to be mugged in this
way. As I remarked before. There are those out there who think they can go
after these funds when the person is dead and cheat charities out of
legitimate proceeds. Then the attitude that some very oldies have enjoyed lots
of money long enough, will soon be dead soon anyway, so grab it while you can.
I don’t think my post on the link Anna provided has been accepted either.
Never mind.
August 16, 2013 at 14:08@Mizz Mildred
But the money isn’t going to the “government”. The
government have no money to pay the care homes but they are compelled to pay
for the care of the elderly in those care homes, so they are taking the
money off people as you say, but it is only because they cannot afford to
keep the promises they have made of “cradle to grave” socialism.I suspect the care homes are cranking up the fees in just the same way
that DSS rental arrangements allow landlords to rack up the local rents of
flats etc. and in the past Company cars allowed garages to ratchet up the
costs of car servicing. There is a racket going on but I think the
governments have made themselves into the patsy, rather than being the
villain of the piece.
- August 16, 2013 at 13:57
There’s a huge logic breakdown here:
http://www.elderabuse.org.uk/Mainpages/Aboutus/aboutus_campaigns.htmlIn one line it says,
The majority of older victims of abuse live in
their own homes, with a lesser number living in care homes or in
hospital.
but then it says,
40% of safeguarding referrals are about
people living in their own home??
which means 60% – THE MAJORITY – are living in care homes or in
hospital
??These people are either liars, or stupid, or just stupid liars.
August 16, 2013 at 13:09Just checked – my comment has been kicked out; how about yours?
Don’t you just love these guardians of free speech?
I have little doubt Mithran Samuel will proclaim himself a believer in free
speech, but…Dang! I must try to control my cynicism!
-
August 16, 2013 at 13:21 Mine disappeared last night, but reappeared this morning with two other
‘opposing comments’.I did reply to Peter in the same vein as others here but with more
‘research type’ comments, as he is cleary not someone who conducts research,
(ones educatiuon and training can come in useful other than in employment),
but these are ‘off site’ so I guess they wanted to ‘shout down’ the non
Community Care/ Pro Social Work Powers views publicly for their readers to
gloat. But I may be wrong..- August 16, 2013 at 22:26
And I have to eat my own words. My comment did disappear, but has since
been exposed to public view. Perhaps I may have been too hasty in my
judgement, and have to admit that we are all judging Peter on the basis of
very limited information.
August
16, 2013 at 12:45Have left a comment under that article – in case it isn’t allowed here it
is:What a strangely authoritarian world we’re in! Social workers already have
the power to apply to the court for permission to enter a home where there are
concerns about safeguarding – whether adults or children. That is how we know
about the very small number of cases where serious ‘elder abuse’ has
occurred.What is being demanded here is the power to walk into anyone’s home, for
any reason that the social worker decides and “intervene”. Now I appreciate
that most social workers are good, kind people who only have the interests of
the “client” at heart but the evidence I have seen from nearly 20 years as a
local councillor and from too many court cases involving vulnerable adults
suggests that social workers are not all saintly Mother Theresa types.It is quite simply wrong to grant this power to social workers because the
evidence of current social work behaviour tells us that the power will be
abused.
– See more at: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/adult-care-blog/2013/08/minister-urged-to-rethink-rejection-of-safeguarding-power-of-entry-for-social-workers/#comment-2650- August 17, 2013 at 21:21
There is only one minor point in your post with which I would take issue:
“saintly Mother Theresa”. I don’t think she was as saintly as portrayed.
August 16, 2013 at 12:44The ultimate aims of this – and. in reality, other things such as the Jimmy
Savile asset-stripping exercise and create the precedent to pursue other
elderly individuals – is completely transparent.
In a bankrupt society
(fiscally as well as morally) the job of ‘the new recruits’ (degree-toting
simpletons) is to ensure the State (and Agents of the State – courts,
solicitors, police, social services etc) has direct access to the assets of
those old enough to still have any. Like the prevention of, for instance,
Jimmy Savile’s estate being divided up between several genuine charities of
his own choice and instead being given to some wanton scum, more wanton scum
(Solicitors like Liz Dux) and the state, or Stuart Hall’s assets meeting the
same fate – the aim is to prevent the assets (houses etc) going to families or
trusts that don’t already exist and into the bankrupt system instead.
This
particular Gravy Train will only be moving for 20/30 years or so anyway – most
people are mortgaged up to the hilt, so much so they will never actually own
their property and are caught in the hamster wheel of consumerism. Which means
it is important to plunder what is out there ASAP.- August 16, 2013 at 12:52
Crikey – that hadn’t occurred to me Chris – good point!
- August 16, 2013 at 13:01
Follow the money………….
Anchor is a not-for-profit organisation, but its annual report shows it
made a ‘surplus’ of £15.6 million last year. When Money Mail asked it why
it fails to feed this back to hospitalised customers, it said the funds
are ‘re-invested to maintain the high standards of our care homes and to
build more’. Many providers, such as Bupa, which runs 300 care homes, have
no official fee policy on hospitalisation, but will make exceptions on a
case-by-case basis. However, the reduction is often small. For example,
Four Seasons Health Care, which runs 500 care homes, reduces fees by just
20 per cent — and only after six weeks. Barchester Healthcare, which runs
220 homes, charges the full amount as standard. ‘Staffing levels and
running expenses of their home remain the same during hospitalisation, and
therefore fees still need to be paid to cover these costs,’ it says. Care
experts say frail, elderly people will continue to be ripped off until a
set of industry guidelines is drawn up.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2144870/Care-home-providers-pocket-millions-continue-charge-sick-residents-700-week-hospital.htmlIt seems to me that if only the local councils had done their job
properly thirty of forty years ago, they would have had quite a
money-spinner on their hands nowadays.
- August 16, 2013 at 12:56
They’re already doing that with QE and low interest rates. Checked how
much your savings are earning, recently? 0.5% gross, with inflation running
at 3.5%?You’re being slowly robbed.
August 16, 2013 at 14:33And we are all on benefits…whether it’s working tax credits, child
benefits, housing benefit, council tax benefit…it seems we are all on
benefits now. To what end? To ensure that we are dependent upon the
state?
August 16, 2013 at 18:06Not all of us Suspicious. Not me, until January when I gets me state
pension!- August 17, 2013 at
11:11 charlotte
I am not particularly dependent on the state (unlike parents). But
if the NHS was not free, with even my meds costing nothing now and
with free travel withn a certain zoning? I am not sure there is not a
form of dependency we do not acknowledge.Admittedly, unlike my friends and contempories I do not think
abolishing free travel for the younger pensioner is wrong, most that I
know have enough resources but are just tight fisted, (we were luckier
than the younger generation of today). But then why do I pay taxes for
those with ‘their noses in the trough’ to take advantage of my hard
earned dosh? I unlike my contempories do resort to private medical
consultations- because then only can I choose the most competent
clinician from proper research.But most are not like me and are state dependent wether through
design, wanting to keep their assests for numbers of yearly, sometimes
long haul trips, or because they genuinely have to make difficult or
unpleasant choices about necessary expenditure. This does allow the
state to gain more control over our lives in modern times.Many very much older vulnerable people also have found the state
can take control not just of their lives but hard earned resources. So
we are in a double bind with social services intrusions- they will
spend our money for us unless we put a stop to this form of abuse, no
worse than the ones they keep wanting to protect us from. Let them
into your home at your own peril.
-
August 16, 2013 at 12:18 Also, I had to add my own tuppence-worth to Peter complaining about a
“carer” corralling his father for 3 years; it seems obvious that in that time,
Peter had made no contact with his own father, and it makes me wonder why
Peter regrets it now.Maybe I am getting too cynical….
- August 16, 2013 at 12:22
@ Peter complaining about a “carer” corralling his father for 3 years
@“dad” not “mum”…….
[blush] My mistake… [/blush]- August 16, 2013 at 12:49
Hehehehehehe. I am glad I am not the only one…..
-
August 16, 2013 at 12:11 I have become inherently suspicious of anything that has the word
“community” in its title; it invariably turns out to mean “nannying
fussbucket”.BTW, I suspect JuliaM is right; having visited the site, there are only
three responses active.
August 16, 2013 at 12:32I have just visited the site and left a comment. It is “awaiting
moderation” .. so I will wait and see …… hmm
August 19, 2013 at 12:21Ditto. I was careful not to swear, mind.
- August 16, 2013 at 12:05
It illustrates that “public opinion” is only useful to any Authority when
it supports their proposal.
Thumbs Up!I was reading the third comment and found it utterly baffling. Some bloke
is saying his mother was “bled dry” by a carer over three years. He says
access by the Soasch could have saved her [him?]……. What the heck was HE doing
for thoses three years? Didn’t he ever visit his mum? People really need to
take a look at themselves instead of endlessly thinking there is some magic
State solution to their woes and sadnesses.
August
16, 2013 at 12:23“What the heck was HE doing for thoses three years? Didn’t he ever
visit his mum?”What?!? That’s the job of the State!
- August 16, 2013 at 12:53
I have just left a comment replying to ‘Peter’, politely asking him what
he was doing for the three years his father was “locked in a backroom having
his bank account bled dry…”. I confidently expect the comment to be
removed.
August 16, 2013 at 11:52A stupid argument is a stupid argument.
According to your previous article:
“This is about having the right to
forcibly enter your home even though they have no reason to believe that you
are mentally ill, the victim of violence, the victim of fraud, the victim of
domestic violence, that there is a child at risk there, or any of the other
above categories. They don’t want to have to show evidence to a judge, they
want to be able to act on instinct alone.”According to the Elder Abuse pdf:
“This briefing paper considers a power
of access for confidential interview where a Third Party is denying contact
with an adult who is reasonably believed to be experiencing abuse.”
It
further states:
“The amendment would authorise a power of access for
confidential interview where:
• there is reasonable cause to suspect a
person is at risk of abuse or neglect;
• access is not available through
any other means;
• ‘reasonable cause’ is tested via application to a
justice of the peace; and
• exercising the power will not result in the
person being at greater risk of abuse or neglect”It would appear that your understanding of the proposed legislation is
different to that of Elder Abuse. I suspect you have exaggerated what this
legislation will do. Is it the case that the legislation will give “‘power of
entry’ to every home in the land – not just the homes of those with diminished
mental capacity. Every home. To ‘give you health advice’”? I venture to say
that it will not.-
August 16, 2013 at 12:23 Duncan Disorderly, Anna is not completely off the mark, even when she
uses satire as example.It will give power of entry to anyresidence of an aged elder not lacking
mental capacity because social worker wishes to believe, or does believe,
that the elder is being influenced, (they use the terms unduly influenced /
coerced but they mean influenced- as social worker interpretations of
serious harm are inconsistent), by someone e.g. by their adult children to
give them money / transfer the house etc. or is being subject to abuse /
neglect. The notion is that people are stopped from accessing the elder so
their needs to be a solution to remedy. Very few are so isolated that thy
never see doctor, nurse, neighbour or make any other visits outside the
home, so are out of view completely, without privacy of a telephone they can
access when alone..The power does allow for social work interpretations of not abnormal
child parent relationships, which may be normal to the family.The legal case that Anna wrote about is pertinent. A son, who appeared to
be shown to have a negative relationship with the father, but not mother,
was deemed to hold undue influence when apparently dicussing the transfer of
their property to him. It would not have been in the local authority’s
interests for this to occur because they use it as collateral for payment of
care services they decide you need- e.g. care homes.I can assure from personal experience social services/ local authority
staff do frequently ignore the relevant laws to do what they want and social
workers do harm incapacitiated adults, and also have the potential too to
harm / distress capacitated ones through unwarranted interventions, through
the undue coercion / control they themselves exert- not all which is lawful.They do ignore consent issues with adults.
In child protecton they have started to take away obese children from
their parents as they see this as a form of child abuse. Not everyone would
agree; obesity in our times is a problem of poor eating hbits in often food
insecure homes.
Giving powers to enter the homes of capacitated people on
mere suspicion (this is all that is needed, despite what Action on Elder
Abuse try to say), is likely to give social workers determined to take
control to start intefereing more broadly- under the guise of risks to /
safeguarding of the elder.All is not as it appears to you who have no first hand experience. I
would not want social workers to ‘save me’. I want to know how to save
myself if I still have the marbles to do so.- August 16, 2013 at 12:24
At the moment, they have to have due cause, or at least sufficient cause
to satisfy a High Court, if they want to interfere in the lives of those who
are fully competent. They resent this:“However, we do not believe leaving such cases to be resolved on a
case-by-case basis using the Court’s inherent jurisdiction is a satisfactory
solution. Resorting to the courts in every instance could increase the
caseload of courts, result in differing outcomes, be expensive for local
authorities and is likely to be extremely disempowering for individuals.If we establish that a proportionate and effective legislative solution
could help resolve this issue, it would not be necessary to rely on case law
to settle the matter.”
Yes – they do want an ‘automatic’ right
of entry – they do not want to have to resort to the courts to explain
why.They don’t want to have to show evidence to a judge, they want to be able
to act on instinct alone.- August 16, 2013 at 12:38
The Elder Abuse document states that with the new legislation, they
must show reasonable cause to a JP. I realise this is not the same as
making a case to the High Court, but it is still a check nonetheless. Or
is Elder Abuse wrong.- August 16, 2013 at 12:43
Social worker can and do seriously embellish to make up ‘a reasonable
cause’ to gain powers they seek.No JP will challenge this I can assure you. Even the Court of
Protection is being told to take more notice of social workers evidence,
yet there are cases showing they did not give correct ‘evidence’ to
begin with.- August 16, 2013 at 12:51
Perhaps a good compromise might be that this is allowed for
non-familial “caring”.
I could accept that. After all, if the
family don’t care, why should I?- August 16, 2013 at 12:55
Excellent point.
- August
17, 2013 at 22:17 Given the time stamp, I know you weren’t replying to my
post!
- August 16, 2013 at
12:54 I’ll grant you that now the amendment makes reference to application
to a JP – that wasn’t the original case – but as Edna has already said,
a JP is not the same as an experienced family court judge.- August 16, 2013 at
13:32 How did you come by the belief that social workers will be able to
barge into somebodies home to give them health advice? What is it
about the legislation (i.e. real legislation, not the cartoon version)
you do not agree with?- August 16, 2013 at 13:44
The original consultation document gave as a ‘for instance’ that
social workers might want to give health advice, but be prevented
from doing so by not having access to the home. Unfortunately, the
government have now removed the original consultation
document…hugely inconvenient for me right now!
What don’t I agree
with about the legislation?
How long have you got? Social workers
already have sweeping powers of entry to deal with the mentally
incapacitated and children. That is as it should be. There will only
be very rare incidents where some is mentally capable,
and require health or any other advice, but be
prevented from accessing it by a family member or private carer
outside of the legislation that already covers carers.
What is it
that social workers object to in having to argue their case before a
judge in such rare cases?
The ability to misuse such a far
reaching power – and most powers are misused sooner or later – far
outweighs the inconvenience to a rare and difficult case proposed by
a social worker.
August 16, 2013 at 14:24Here’s another aside to the ‘issue’ IF social workers OR
WHOEVER are granted this free access, they or the agencies who
may/may not be utilised at some point in the future (as more SS
are being out sourced) will require MORE FUNDS, more grossly
exaggerated policies drawn up by grossly overpaid middle higher
management and doubtless more input from the likes of the Age
concern etc etc. Help lines will be set up and before you know it
we will have another cottage industry of specially created
guardians of the abused. I am exaggerating aren’t I ? After all,
these incidents are supposed to be so rare that they hardly
warrant special new powers I would have thought. Why do I have
that horrible feeling that the incidents will increase
dramatically and before you know it, more ‘victims’ who cannot and
DO NOT WANT to either speak or be spoken for will be used and
abused by all and sundry …..
Phrew, I feel better now !- August 16, 2013 at 16:22
When you allow for the fact that an anonymous letter from
1998 containing the immortal prose
[Savile said] “I’ve been
for a run – now for some bum”
has been held up by the CPS and
the premier police force of the UK as a sign that a
whistleblower was ignored, then you know that all these
high-falutin’ organisations are staffed by utter nitwits
anyway.- August 16, 2013 at 16:23
@rabbitaway
@ grossly exaggerated policies drawn up by
grossly overpaid middle higher management @When you allow for the fact that an anonymous letter from
1998 containing the immortal prose
[Savile said] “I’ve been
for a run – now for some bum”
has been held up by the CPS and
the premier police force of the UK as a sign that a
whistleblower was ignored, then you know that all these
high-falutin’ organisations are staffed by utter nitwits
anyway.
August 16, 2013 at 15:22I well remember the debates around the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act when it was being introduced over a
decade ago. We heard a variety of ministers saying “it is not the
intention of this act to allow….”It was not their intention for councils to use RIPA powers to
send private detectives to photograph people putting recyclables
into their landfill bin. But it doesn’t matter what some minister
intends, the only thing that matters is what the legislation
allows. If you only intend to use a power rarely, then cases
should be put before a competent court. If you think that’s too
onerous then you’re not invoking the power rarely.- August 16, 2013 at 15:36
- August 17, 2013 at
12:48 Anna I’ve found the consultation document, but unsure if this
was exactly what was on the now obsolete DH website, as I cannot
recall now a there was a site where comments went directly onto
the site itself, but I do remember the questions listed in this
document:EF
- August 16,
2013 at 11:21 “…Mithran Samuel at Community Care …”
Aha! A long-neglected rich seam of asshattery, that one (http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/right-wing-bloggers-oooh-scary.html).
Thanks for reminding me about them…And yes, as soon as Mithran realises what’s happening, the comments will be
pulled, I’ve no doubt.
{ 62 comments }