So many posts to be written today – I must do them in order of importance. This one is important.

I am indebted to my faithful reader who drew my attention to the original case. Once again I have been tardy in not following it up. She has jogged my attention on a matter of supreme importance.

Back in April 2012, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that it still held the ancient power of parens patriae.

Read my original post if you do not fully understand what this means.  In a supremely simplified nutshell, whilst few would argue with the idea that the State can and should act of behalf of those who are incompetent to take care of themselves, this case reaffirmed that the State could ask the Judiciary for power to act in the ‘best interests’ of those who were fully competent to make decisions for themselves. It was a decision which appalled me at the time. To put it another way – if social workers did not approve of your lifestyle, they could ask for the power to enter your home and reorganise it to suit their idea of how you should be living.

Whilst we were all distracted by the news that an ageing pop star could possibly have traded cigarettes and sweets for kisses, cuddles and more with under age girls in the care of the State by virtue of their willingness to do so, or that the BBC could have been so negligent as to not run a documentary airing those claims when nobody possessed any provable evidence that there was any truth in the claims; Social Services, armed with that original court case have been busy lining up astounding new powers for themselves. They are powers that should alarm every one of us. 

The Department of Health is concerned that fully competent adults, who are not suffering from any mental incapacity, may not be asking for help on health matters. They want the power to forcibly burst through your front door and give you that advice. Or ‘make your voice heard’ as they put it. Do you really fancy a Social Worker standing over you at bed time reminding you to put on a condom before engaging in sex?

Unfortunately, so concerned are they that ‘your voice should be heard’ that they are closing their consultation on their proposed new powers in exactly seven days. After which they have no interest in ‘your voice being heard’!

They are basing the need for this new power on the fact that 66% of the sort of people who respond to vague questionnaires published on the Department of Health’s web site 3 years ago, thought that Social Workers should be able to burst through your front door if they wished to harangue you on their latest fashionable cause.

Fancy a Social Worker standing over you as you light your fifteenth cigarette that day? Or fry up that pan of chips? Go ahead, ignore this post…

Alternatively, act fast, act now, answer their blasted questionnaire. Otherwise they will proudly tell the government that some magical number of Social Workers who responded to this obscure ‘consultation’ think that yes, Social Workers should have power of entry to your home based on some gut instinct that perhaps you are not living the approved lifestyle of their choice.

Smokers, drinkers, all those who eat what they fancy, the world will be their oyster if they get this power. There are more than enough people who have right of entry to your home already.

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.

There is already an ocean of legislation to protect the vulnerable, that is not what this is about.  There is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Fraud Act 2006, the Mental Health Act 1983, the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and health and safety at work legislation.

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.

Please, for your own sake, answer the survey, persuade everyone you know to answer the survey. Don’t let the only voices being heard be those of the Social Workers.

You have exactly seven days to make your voice heard…

Ravi Dass October 7, 2012 at 14:04

Granted that physically disabled people need care support, but it does not
mean that such people who are fully mentally able should have policing powers
given to social services to do what they like in terms of enforcing their
thoughts and living ideas on them. Please do not insult us old age disabled
people by suggesting these social workers are either more intelligent or more
able to judge how we should live and function. The powers being given to them
to enter our houses at will is appalling and insulting to our intelligence.The
police already have such powers where they feel or have information that their
help is needed by such people. We certainly do not need another enforcing
agency to try to act as ‘big brother’.

Hysteria October 7, 2012 at 00:54

” We are not looking to over-ride the choices of people with capacity who
make decisions professionals may disagree with – this is about circumstances
where the ability to make a choice is believed to be restricted by the
behaviour of another person.”

I know we can have a pretty jaundiced view on the power of the state. But
the above text is from the document. It says to me that the grounds for entry
are not that YOU like to eat ice cream and chocolate – but that a third person
may be preventing you from eating broccoli. Has another person got a right to
damage an individual by refusing to educate, care for etc?

Edna Fletcher
October 7, 2012 at 09:04

The relevant bit Hysteria is ” choice is believed to be restricted ” and
that this applies to those who have their marbles to be able to decide
whether being given brocolli instead of ice cream and chocolate is an abuse
to them. Belief is about what the social worker / local authority
appartachick will on thie vies and gut feelings decide for you although you
are well able to decide for yourself.

I think most of us who are not mentally inacpacitated do not want to be
interfered with, in terms of our relationships with others, unless we
ourselves speak out for help- which clearly if capacitated we could do.

Even in the legal case Anna cited and wrote so well about it was clear
that the mother’s wishes were over ridden because she was felt to be ‘unduly
influenced’ in the relationship with her son. How many of us can hand on
heart say we are not at times unduly so influenced? Most of us shrug it off
as a normal part of life unless we are feeling stressed or harmed by it-
then we might speak to someone we trust to get help- not necessarily a local
authority .representative.

Edna Fletcher
October 7, 2012 at 09:35

Another thought- if a mentally capacitated individual can be unduly
influenced by another- that other may well turn out to be a social worker
/ or someone in authority who decides to influence you to accept not
giving you brocolli is an abuse of power. As Orwell wrote ‘from man to
pigs and pigs to man’- what is the difference in the end?

Keith
October 6, 2012 at 23:41

Afterthought. If you don’t approve of me putting your article on my blog,
then email me and I will remove it very rapidly, pronto or whatever.

Keith
October 6, 2012 at 23:38

I found your article very impressive, so much so that I would like to put
an abridged version on my local webpage. Of course I will remind my readers to
come to this page, via a link of course, when they have read the short version
on my page.

If you want to read the rest of the site then click the tabs at the very
top then you can see that I an genuine. The page probably wont be of much
interest to you because its just local news for the locals! I felt that your
post needs as much support as it can get, especially now that there is only 6
days left to stick our oar in!

I have taken the liberty to put it on my webpage just here:
http://earlshilton.org.uk/blog/?page_id=673
This might not
work!

My national (?) blog is:
http://earlshilton.org.uk/wp
but I haven’t updated it for
a while.

m.barnes October 6, 2012 at 19:22

Done. I am reminded of a line from the song ‘neighbourhood’ by Space:
‘they’d better come prepared cos they won’t take us alive’…..

That’s my
business October 6, 2012 at 17:46

I’m a semi-feral Glaswegian and offer my sympathies to anyone who tries to
enter my home by force to dictate how I should live.

Backwoodsman
October 7, 2012 at 12:02

Thats my boy – try sticking in the garden a full size Roe deer steel
sillouete target , liberally shot up and clearly visible from the gate.

alan October 6, 2012 at 14:33

To add insult to injustice. The Department of Heath dietary guidelines are
_NOT_ based on, or supported by, science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4
Google Tech
Talks – Gary Taubes – Why we get fat.

Rosemary October 6, 2012 at 09:16

This practice must be halted in its tracks.

grotblik October 5, 2012 at 21:17

My response:

Question 1: Do you agree that there is a gap in the proposed legislative
framework for people with mental capacity, which this power would address?

No. The removal of the Legislature as a check or balance against misuse of
authority should not be undermined by allowing a “short-cut”.

Question 2: What are your views on the proposal that there should be a new
power of entry, enabling the local authority to speak to someone with mental
capacity who they think could be at risk of abuse and neglect, if a third
party prevents them from doing so?

If the third party is, say,their solicitor then I can see why the proposed
legilsation is being requested. There are already powers of entry and these
should be used with the correct checks and balances. The actions of the Local
Authorities should be open to scrutiny and this proposed legilation would
allow harrassment of individuals whose lifestyle is contrary to those whose
moral compass points in another direction without the defense of the courts
being made available to the individual.

Question 3 (for care and support professionals working in adult
safeguarding): How many times in the last 12 months, have you been aware of a
situation where, had this power existed, it would have been appropriate to use
it? What were the circumstances?

This is not a consultation question – the presence of this question
demonstrates that this is only a consultation of those in the industry – not
the common man.

Question 4: What safeguards would we need to ensure local authorities use
such a power effectively and appropriately?
For example, would the
following provide adequate safeguards?
• A warrant would be applied for
from a Circuit Judge (e.g. a nominated
judge of the Court of
Protection).

No – one man one vote – no open decision making process – too much
oportunity for personal bias.

• The local authority would present the court with evidence of the
need
for the warrant.

Still not enough – what safeguards are there that ALL the evidence is
presented – the scrutiny of the evidence would remain with just the local
authority and what checks and balances would there be to ensure the evidence
presented has not been tampered with by unscrupulous interested parties
(property developers and other vested interests).

• The local authority would ensure that there is a process by which
the
occupiers of the premises understand that they can complain
about
the way in which a power has been used. The local authority
would
have to verbally inform the affected persons how they might
access
that process

Insufficient – especially if the Local Authoruty have ANY control over the
process or the process is carried out my by anyone who is unaccountable for
their actions.

Question 5: Do you have any other comments?

The way this is being approached smacks of trying to introduce a piece of
legislation which can deny an individual the right to enjoy their home without
granting them the protection of the Law. removal of the Judiciary from the
process will allow social engineering on a Local Authority level by harrassing
individuals through this process. The nature of all legislation granting
powers to organisations is that those powers are later amended and extended
but rarely retracted or removed so a step away from openly denying an
individual the right to enjoy their own home without scrutiny is one I fear. I
could not ever accept that this is a free country if I felt my house was not
my castle. Why should you deny that right to others.

The premise of this entire process is that this is a jolly good idea
because the Local Authority will not make mistakes. I see no accountability
for:

Individuals within the organisation who commit fraud or make
mistakes.
Organisations who have systematically flawed processes (this has
happened before in other circumstances)
those who “tweak” their
interpretation of the legislation.

I also do not see the process for redress where the system goes wrong.

Bill
Sticker October 5, 2012 at 21:05

Re a previous post; could this be the downside of being part of ‘a
nation of addicts‘?

Because a few needy sorts cannot control themselves, the rest of us must be
subject to control?

Whoops, is that my cynicism? Wondered where it had got to.

Andrew Duffin
October 5, 2012 at 09:31

Done, responded, sent.

Bastards.

Mudplugger October 4, 2012 at 20:58

Done.

Ancient + Tattered
Airman October 4, 2012 at 21:43

Thank you for the suggestion, Meissen Bison but I’m afraid I’m no further
forward as I do have Adobe Reader installed.

Ted Treen
October 5, 2012 at 13:02

Right-click on the link, and select “Save Target as…”

That should do it – even with Internet Explorer…

Herbie October 5, 2012 at 13:35

Right-click the link and select “Save Target As”. save it to your
desktop and then open the .pdf file.

Ancient + Tattered
Airman October 4, 2012 at 19:21

Unfortunately the link will not open for me. I keep getting ” Internet
Explorer cannot display the webpage “. Any advice please?

The Meissen
Bison October 4, 2012 at 20:43

The link is to a .pdf so you will need to have Adobe Reader installed on
your machine to be able to open and read it. This is available as a free
download if you don’t have it.

If you do have it then please wait for omeone cleverer than me to come
along…

The questionnaire is akin to one that asked asked children if they should
like more icecream.

Single Acts of
Tyranny October 5, 2012 at 06:31

Alternatively try a different browser (like say Chrome) or update your
existing one.

JuliaM October 4,
2012 at 17:35

Done!

Lerxst October 4, 2012 at 15:06

Reading this I couldn’t help thinking of David Friedman’s “The Machinery of
Freedom”, and a certain poem therein:

This man 1 never saw before
At 3 A.M. breaks down the door
To tell me
my aspirin is LSD.
“It says right there on the bottle,
Acetylsalicylic
Acid.”
I tell you doctor, honestly,
It seems like someone’s after
me.

I don’t think fighting is what I’m made for
But this lottery ticket I
never paid for
Sold by a pusher known as Sam
Has won me a ticket to
Vietnam,
A twelve months, expenses paid, tropical vacation
With a
funeral, free, from a grateful nation.
But the doctor says I need
therapy
For thinking someone is after me.

And then there are things I just can’t ignore
Like the little man in our
bedroom door
Says we’ll be in jail by the end of the night
Unless we
turn over and do it right.
Doctor, Doctor, come and see
There’s really
someone after me.

Then he asks, as he rips off the sheet,
For our marriage license and tax
receipt;
Says “you need a license to shoot at a duck
How come you think
that it’s free to . . .”
Who so blind as will not see;
The state, the
state, is after me.

Demetrius October
4, 2012 at 14:22

Oh dear, given my thingies will I be able to persuade all of them them to
form an orderly queue?

Dave October 4, 2012 at 14:21

Consultation questionnaire answered. Posted on FB.

Elena ‘andcart
October 4, 2012 at 14:06

So is this about giving The Social Services the right to protect people who
might need protecting, but don’t actually want to be protected? Is there not
already some sort of legislation available to deal with these situations,
presuming that The Social Services have some sort of evidence to present to a
Court? Have they not already got enough to do protecting people who do want to
be protected, but often aren’t? Who dreamed this one up?
I would laugh if
they turned up at my house. So would they drag me out kicking and
screaming?
Sorry for not taking this seriously. But my mind boggles. Will
they kick down the door? And then what would they do with me? The real problem
here could be that the louder I laughed or screamed, the more convinced they
would be that I was actually mad.

Tatty October 4, 2012 at 13:21

Oh, looka this…

“19.Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of
inhuman and degrading treatment) impose positive obligations on the state to
take measures to protect citizens which this proposal would support.

Wait, what ? The HRA was enacted to ensure the protection of citizens
from the actions of public authorities and government. If they now…all of
a sudden because it suits them… propose that the HRA be implemented in such a
way that it’s power may be used to ensure the protection of citizens from
each other then that’s going to open Pandora’s Box. Ooops…

There’ll be a veritable shitstorm of claims and counter-claims of citizens
abusing each other’s Human Rights. Utter chaos will ensue for the legal
system.

They really aren’t being very careful about what they wish for. If this
gets through though then Let The Games Begin…

Jax October 5, 2012 at 00:17

There’s a little-known exception in the “right to private and family
life” within the EHRA – which is that State officials or their agents may,
if they choose, disregard the restrictions of this section of the Act if
their actions are deemed to be in the interests of “health” or “national
security.” Which pretty much gives them the red light to interfere in
individuals’ “private and family life” for any trumped-up reason that they
like. There are few things in life which, with a bit of mental gymnastics,
can’t one way or another be linked to either “health” or “national
security.” Like all EU (and, increasingly, UK) legislation, the EHRA is a
wolf in sheep’s clothing, appearing to be for the protection of its citizens
when in fact its real purpose is to increase the power of themselves or
their own agents to do precisely as they please. So, this proposal will
serve to make it even easier for them to do what the EHRA already allows
them to do, without all that bothersome checking by those pesky courts.
Disgraceful.

Tatty October 5, 2012 at 09:01

Oh yes, Jax, there are exceptions to every single one.

My point being that if the HRA can used by ordinairy citizens
against each other we’re going to be looking at the EUCHR constantly
being bombarded with complaints such as: my neighbour looked over the
fence and breached my Right To Privacy & Family Life, a kid on a
skateboard nearly knocked me on my arse and breached my Right To Life,
them bitches gossiping on Facebook about me have breached my Right To A
Fair Trial and can you just imagine the numbers of teenagers asked to
bring down their laundry claiming their Right To Freedom From Slavery
& Forced Labour must be upheld ? .

Fookin ‘ell….the whole system could ‘splode.

I can’t wait.

davemcwish October 4, 2012 at 12:09

The issue I have is with paragraph 14 (and the Human rights b******T
paragraphs) in particular:-

“this is about circumstances where the ability to make a choice is believed
to be restricted by the behaviour of another person”

Believed is completely subjective and in going to a Judge for an order I’d
bet that they would defer to the expertise of Social Work professionals and it
would become a rubber stanping exercise.

GildasTheMonk
October 4, 2012 at 12:01

A battle cry! A rallying call! Huzzah!

Furor Teutonicus
October 4, 2012 at 10:51

From reading the PDF, it appears to me, and I am sure it will appear to a
lot of people, that the questions are only relevant to those working in the
“care” or “social work” field.

In fact the whole thing looks like an exam paper of some sort, for those
taking “social work degrees”, or something.

Could not be possibly so thought out, to put “the Proles” off answering,
COULD it now?

Anna
Raccoon October 4, 2012 at 10:52

My thoughts exactly Furor, they definitely don’t want to hear from those
like yourself who can think for themselves….

Shall we disappoint them?

Robert the Biker
October 4, 2012 at 10:23

Been there, Done that. Is there to be no end to the hectoring and nannying?
Of course, I don’t expect that these proposed powers would be applied to Sam
Scrote and his staffie, or am I being cynical here.

yjbhjnbski
October 5, 2012 at 13:57

Conjugate,contact GB .bollox.