We need to ‘gird our loins’ and go to battle folks, I need your assistance on this one! Please retweet this post to anyone you think might pay attention, and kick into action those who you think will continue dozing. I know its easier to continue playing solitaire – but you could put your computer to better use this morning, trust me.

I shall explain.

A year ago, I wrote of a worrying case where Social Workers went to the High Court for permission to enter the home of a person of sound mind because ‘it was thought’ that possibly they were making decisions as a result of ‘undue influence’ by their son who lived with them. No one actually knew whether they were or not, but on the basis that they might be – such permission was granted. Fair enough, a judge had listened to the arguments from ‘a’ social worker – we are not allowed to know who – and a document was drawn up delineating what subjects the son was allowed to speak of to his parents in their own home…in particular, he should not discuss with his parents any arrangements for securing the family home. What happened to the home in which he and his parents lived was to be entirely a matter for the local authority to decide if and when they thought it should be sold…..presumably if and when the parents became vulnerable through mental incapacity.

Social Workers were outraged – why should they have to grovel before a judge and explain themselves before they could enter a home and decide the basis on which family relations should be conducted? The fact that they wanted to do so should be perfectly sufficient!  They lobbied hard to be given an automatic right of entry to any household they wished, irregardless of whether the occupants were vulnerable for any reason…in order to dole out health advice or dictate how individuals conducted their family affairs.

The Government agreed to consult on the matter. Raccoon readers were kind enough to make a magnificent response to the survey! The results of that consultation were published a few days ago. The Government were not minded to give that power to Social Workers:

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.

The Social Workers have thrown a hissy fit! We, the public, don’t understand! Nanny knows best! We have to be encouraged to eat our ‘five a day’, and Social Workers are the people to do it… no sooner was the Government’s conclusion to the survey announced than the Social Workers flounced into print:

A survey of social workers carried out by the College during the consultation had found overwhelming support for the power, with practitioners citing cases where they would have used it had it been available. Walker said:

“It seems that the weighting [the government has] given to individuals’ responses doesn’t reflect the evidence or the professional view.”

They are mobilising ‘the professional view’ to lobby the Government before the second reading on the 21st May of the Bill that would give them this power. This is becoming a battle of wills. Nobody is objecting to them going to court if they really believe that there is a specific problem in a specific household – but that is a world away from all Social Workers having the power to enter any house at any time and dictate how the occupants live! 

Remember that Social Workers do not have to be publicly named, nor do the local authority have to be publicly named – There have been 358 applications from Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and Bath & North East Somerset councils in the last 3 years alone demanding the right to take control of households, their finances and the welfare of the occupants. Just in one relatively small area!

Newcastle MP Paul Farrelly has written to the Lord Chancellor demanding to know why Stoke on Trent City Council has requested that some families be imprisoned for challenging orders governing the welfare of their loved ones. (No public record exists of Judge Cardinal’s ruling on Miss Maddocks and secrecy rules forbade anyone to name Stoke on Trent City Council who had requested that Miss Maddocks be imprisoned.  The social worker who gave evidence against her could not be named either.)

Kingswood MP Chris Skidmore said:

‘It cannot be right that local authorities and council bureaucrats should run roughshod over the lives of individuals and their families. At the centre of elderly care must be the concept that families and loved ones must have a right to care and look after the best interests of patients, whatever their condition’.”

I have spoken to John Hemmings MP on this matter, and he told me this morning, quoting yet another case:

‘Although the senior judiciary have now moved to stop secret imprisonments for contempt of court, it remains that we have a number of other secret prisoners where there is no public accountability as to why people have their liberty denied. I have passed the Rachel Pullen case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (RP v The United Kingdom). The key to this case is that as with many others in fact she does have capacity.  It is simply that the courts have ignored all the evidence that she has capacity and only taken into account the single expert that says she doesn’t. I have provided examples of a number of cases where the capacity assessment is plainly wrong.

In England we allow a single social worker to imprison someone by claiming that they don’t have capacity – and the Courts will accept this. That is basically wrong.’

They are misusing the power they have at present, a power that they argued was essential to protect the vulnerable, the young, the elderly, the mentally incapacitated. Now they seek to extend that power to all of us, at any time, under any circumstances, just because they think they should – and they don’t want a nosy judge overseeing how they use that power.

They don’t like the fact that the Government listened to the public in that consultation – they want our voices to be overruled. What do we know, ignoramuses that we are?

Lord Reid once said:

“English law goes to great lengths to protect a person of full age and capacity from interference with his personal liberty. We have too often seen freedom disappear in other countries not only by coups d’état but by gradual erosion: and often it is the first step that counts. So it would be unwise to make even minor concessions.”

Please help to reinforce the will of those in parliament who are listening, and will try to protect our freedom. Lord Howe will be introducing the ‘Care Bill’ into the House of Lords for its second reading on May 21st 2013. Make sure he doesn’t think the public’s response to the consultation was a ‘fluke’ – and drown out the voices of the professionals!

Its in your ‘best interests’. You can e-mail Lord Howe via this link. Tell him that you do want your voice to be heard!

Andrew Duffin
May 21, 2013 at 14:06

“the parents would have to move out of the property ”

ianal but my understanding is, they don’t have to move out, but if they
stay they must pay a true market rent otherwise the transfer will be deemed to
be purely for tax avoidance purposes and won’t be accepted.

A true market rent is of course usually beyond the means of the elderly and
impoverished former owners, so either they move out or some other strategy is
adopted.

That there are other strategies for avoiding death duty cannot be doubted –
nobody of real importance or wealth will pay it. Do you think Lady Toynbee’s
heirs, when the happy day of her departure finally dawns, will be troubled by
the taxman? Don’t be silly! Such things are only for little people.

Peter
Hofschröer May 21, 2013 at 06:09

I just sent this message to Lord Howe. I wonder if I will get an
answer….

Dear Lord Howe,

My 84 year-old, disabled mother is the victim of horrific abuse and
a
sustained campaign of harassment, which is now into its fifth year.
Her
abusers have forced entry to her house, changed the locks,
unlawfully
evicted her, stolen or disposed of all her belongings, including
those
of her late husband and then tried to fraudulenty sell her house.
She
was on holiday in Austria when this happened and has been
stranded
abroad now for over three years. It is her wish to be able to
return
home to live there in peace and safety for the remainder of her
days.

Sadly, this is unlikely, as her abusers remain at large and
have
threatened to kill her if she returns.

You might well be asking yourself who could be so sick to treat
a
defenceless great-grandmother in this way and why the authorities
are
letting them get away with it.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass has raised this case in the House
several
times now, including:

“The Hofschroer case has been on my desk for several years now. A
widow
in her 80s was dispossessed of her home in a way that implies
collusion
between certain family members and the Social Services. A son who
has
come to the rescue has been harried by the North Yorkshire police
(that
particularly dubious constabulary merits careful investigation) to
the
extent that he and his aged mother have been pursued through
an
Interpol warrant to their “refuge” in Austria.

“In my early Westminster days, almost 30 years ago, I could
actually
have placed a note on Mrs Thatcher’s message board and within 72
hours,
or sooner, I’d have been intercepted by the Lady, had an exchange
and
left knowing that the matter was resolved or that a minister had
been
delegated the task.

“Now the Home Office, in a Parliamentary answer, indicates that it
has
no power to intervene (even when it given evidence of police
corruption
and harassment). A face-to-face interview with a commissioner
from the
Police Complaints’ Board provides the excuse that since there is
also
Social Services connivance in the matter he cannot deal with that
side
of things. The Home Secretary cares so deeply she refuses to even
meet
me.”

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/proper-delegation-please-not-abdication/

Who else but social workers and police officers would be so sick as
to
treat an old lady in such a criminal fashion? And who else would
let
them get away with it other than the government?

I do hope this case causes you concern and that you will see to it
that
the power to commit crime without hindrance is taken away from
social
workers and police officers and that ministers are made to
restore the rule
of law to the once proud country of Britain.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Hofschröer

Google: “The Abuse of Grandma B”

Wigner’s Friend
May 20, 2013 at 16:28

Received this today:

Dear Wigner’s Friend,

Thank you for your email of 14 May to Earl Howe about proposals for a new
power of entry for social workers. I have been asked to reply.

The Government consulted on this issue between 11 July and 12 October 2012
. Full details of the responses received, key findings and conclusions can be
found on the Gov.UK website at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197739/Gov_Response_to_PoE.pdf

You will be pleased to note that the Government has decided not to proceed
with introducing legislation for a new power of entry. After considering the
reponses received to the consultation, the Government did not feel
respondents, even those in favour of such a power, made a compelling case for
it. The power of entry is therefore not included in the Government’s Care
Bill.

You may also be interested to know that the Government recently released a
policy statement on safeguarding, which can be accessed at the following
link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adult-safeguarding-statement-of-government-policy-10-may-2013

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Minister to give your views.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Tromans
Ministerial Correspondence and Public
Enquiries
Department of Health

Dave H May 15, 2013 at 19:08

Have you seen the Welsh equivalent? The one they’ve proposed also seems to
include children in its remit, so if you don’t bring up your children
according to the wishes of the state then someone might just decide to pay a
visit. It’ll become unsafe to educate your children at home, or live in a
caravan, and various other lifestyles lest officialdom decide they don’t
approve.

http://www.senedd.assemblywales.org/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=5664
for the details on that one.

Corvid May 15,
2013 at 15:58

An ex of mine had an elderly relative with Alzheimer’s. Social Services at
Bath & NorthEast Somerset insisted that the old lady be kept in the (very
expensive) retirement home that Social Services (hereafter the SS) had
themselves put her in temporarily – and my ex had to foot the entire bill.

This place was not geared up for Alzheimer’s care at all; the SS responded
by sending in one of their own to ‘assess’ the old girl – nevermind that that
the SS worker wasn’t qualified to carry out such an assessment. The old lady
believed the home to be a hotel in London that she and her mother were running
– she was that doolally. And of course, the finding was that the old biddy was
perfectly fine, sane, and had no sign of dementia.

Thing is, if SS were to admit that someone has Alzheimer’s, they are
obliged to pay for that person’s care. So they will lie.

My ex had to pay an expert consultant psychiatrist to confirm that the old
girl did have Alzheimer’s and get her moved to a cheaper – but specialist –
care home. Still at my ex’s expense, mind you. The old woman died before SS
could be made to pay for her care; in the meantime, my ex had accumulated huge
debts, had to sell her house and car to pay for the care of a second
cousin.

That is what we are also facing here – SS not only interfering, but also
seizing people’s assets, having them imprisoned, and all whilst ducking their
own responsibilities.

I have, accordingly, emailed Lord Howe.

DP May 14, 2013 at 22:52

Dear Mrs Raccoon

The problem today: too much time, too little to do.

Too many people on taxpayers’ money with time, resources and power to do
what they will.

We’ve swapped the Law of the Jungle for the Jungle of the Law. There’s so
much of it that those charged with enforcing it can make it up as they go
along and the ordinary taxpayer in the street won’t know otherwise.

All those benefiting from government largess are on the same side: we
cannot rely on one lot to police another, and the problem grows exponentially
as government grows as a proportion of GDP.

In just one tiny corner we have the problem of who can we turn to for
protection from the Court of Protection? The EU? And who will protect us from
them?

How do you solve the problem of the ever growing state?

DP

Edna Fletcher
May 15, 2013 at 10:46

Well here is yet another example of the growth today of powers of social
workers. No doubt many of us will be re-classified as lacking mental
capacity now on when we need care- to get our money and place us in
residential care when we have any assets:

“Social work evidence to carry greater weight with Court of Protection”
(Community Care Online – today).

Peter Thomson
May 14, 2013 at 19:34

Just sent a bracer to the noble Earl

charlotte May 14, 2013 at 19:31

Anna.
Why were social services involved with a family if they had
capacity, could it have been for another issue such as a physical disability?
Lots of people sign over their property to their children to avoid paying
death duty. I think that works if 7 years elapse when the last parent dies. I
believe a codicil can be added to say that the previous owners of the property
can live within the house for the remainder of their lives. In the event of
the parents needing care the property which some would see as their child’s
inheritance can’t be sold to fund a care home. I recent conversation with an
accountant I was told that property can be given to an offspring to avoid
death duty but the parents would have to move out of the property. Maybe he
Government have cottoned on to this arrangement.
I don’t know why social
workers are given so much power. From what I hear the average social worker is
very kind and concerned with the ‘case’ they are dealing with and then go
behind the clients back and makes all sorts of wild allegations. It seems that
this happens when they are challenged on their performance skills.
I will
email Lord Howe because if there is no transparency we have nothing.

carol42 May 14, 2013 at 18:23

I am absolutely determined to have nothing to do with any ‘services’ no
matter what. The whole system is out of control and I have no intention of
becoming one of its victims. Never found social workers useful in any field,
they are too afraid to tackle the really hard cases and too ready to bully and
intimidate decent prople for, often, spurious reasons.

JoBlow May 16, 2013 at 11:15

I agree with carol42. It will all end in tears.

Edna Fletcher
May 14, 2013 at 16:41

And the very latest lobbying call from Action on Elder Abuse who feel that
social workers and their ‘safeguarding’ pals have been wrongly ignored in the
Bill:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/adult-care-blog/2013/05/care-bill-offers-little-to-help-social-workers-combat-abuse-of-vulnerable-adults/

It get very worrying because when you call AEA to inform them of improper /
bad safeguarding work by local authority staff they say and do nothing to
‘upset the hand that feeds them’ and keeps them in jobs as part of the
burgeoning ‘safeguarding industry’. Must leave Britain growing old here is
something to fear..

Peter
Hofschröer May 21, 2013 at 20:28

Action on Elder Abuse certainly did not live up to their name when I
reported York Social Services to them for systematically abusing my now late
father and disabled mother, but at least they are not as bad as Age UK.

Here’s a story that might interest you:

http://grandmabarbara.wordpress.com/2-the-abuse-of-grandma-b/how-age-uk-abuses-the-elderly/

Caedmon’s
Cat May 14, 2013 at 13:35

Done! I feel so much better, too..

Paul May 14, 2013
at 12:34

Done it. E Mail sent. Thanks for your ever vigilance.

rabbitaway May 14, 2013 at 11:36

@Edna – exactly, I’ll wager the ‘front line’ don’t want this. Many ‘service
user’s’ are angry enough with social worker’s, or should I say Social
Services, and there will, I think be blood ! I wonder what Carer’s UK and MIND
and their like think about all this ?

Edna Fletcher
May 14, 2013 at 11:40

MIND have opposed this clause as disempowering and I have e-mailed Paul
Farmer CEO urging him to mount a counter response- possibly with the BASW as
this would give greater force.

rabbitaway
May 14, 2013 at 11:45

Fine – I’ll be joining in – when I’ve composed a short,sharp,shock
piece to send to whoever

Dioclese May 14,
2013 at 11:25

My personal experience of social workers is that they are seldom fit for
purpose…

Moor
Larkin May 14, 2013 at 17:05

We seem to be having endless Inquiries into Care Homes and my memory of
the Rochdale case was that the men involved were collecting many of the
girls from sheltered accommodation.

“OFSTED have launched an investigation. And that’s it. There are 65,000
children in care in the UK today – how many of them are perfectly safe?
These ‘homes’ are anything but. They’re either run on a shoestring by a
local authority or a private business, neither of whom want to devote cash
or attention to troubled children who need both. The people who work in them
aren’t able to enforce curfews or take a degree of parental responsibility.
And they are being run in our name, with our money, and are failing our
children. It’s a national scandal of appalling proportions which demands an
inquiry. There won’t be one, because people who need our help the most are
left to fend for themselves while politicians badger for inquiries into
their pet projects.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rochdale-grooming-gang-to-those-of-you-828599#ixzz2THeT48f6

Edna Fletcher
May 14, 2013 at 11:24

The recent unelected appointment of Jo Cleary, currently director of adult
services in Lambeth Council, as the Board chair of The College of Social Work
was deemed controversial; the College was described as subscribing to the
“North Korean model of democracy” (The Guardian newspaper 12th Feb 2013). So
what would you expect- they are not going to let democracy have its way when
the elected government choose to be democratic in its response to a public
consultation? After all it is the competent public who would be subject to
social work increased powers whilst the college promoted their members as a
profession..

Democracy in action at the college – it is only yet representative of a
tiny number of (out of about 85,000) social workers and has promoted corporate
registration where councils have enrolled their staff on a register whether
they themselves chose to. It competes with the British Association of Social
Work who have not supported the draconian clause which is the subject of
Anna’s piece. So we have two social work representative organisations in
conflict.

@ Moor Larkin- it is accepted by some social workers that they are now ‘the
soft police’. With their police colleagues they now control our lives- whether
we have committed a crime or not.

Moor
Larkin May 14, 2013 at 11:57

@ it is accepted by some social workers that they are now ‘the soft
police’. @

Softly Softly…… ah, those were the days………….

Moor Larkin May 20, 2013 at 16:31

@Edna Fletcher
@ it is accepted by some social workers that they are
now ‘the soft police’. @

Federation representatives also heard how the Home Secretary was
determined to end the situation where police officers are effectively
acting as ambulance drivers or social workers when they are called upon to
deal with those suffering from mental health problems. She said work is
being carried out with Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt to improve the medical
response to mental health could save up to 25 per cent of police officers’
time and vastly improve the treatment of those who need it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/theresa-may-life-should-mean-life-for-murdering-a-police-officer

rabbitaway May 14, 2013 at 11:16

Well Said Moor but there has to be a way of fighting back. We cannot rely
on gutsy stand up journalists as there do not appear to be any any moor ! WE
will have to wrestle back the power that these freaks have somehow managed to
acquire via the back door. Jimmy Savile, poor helpless souls waiting for the
knock at the door from Sam and Jez the local mental ‘health’ stassi, they’re
all the same to me and they are my people and I for one will fight til my last
breath for ALL of them ……

I feel better now ….. BIG SMILEY ALL !

Moor
Larkin May 14, 2013 at 11:26

@ stassi @

“set in East Berlin in 1984, before the dismantling of the Wall and
unification of Germany. The population lives in fear. Their every move and
word monitored by the Stasi, East Germany’s Secret Police, whose objective
is to know everything about everyone. The impact of such a strategy on
society is suffocating. There is little room for happiness and expression.
For the petty minded bureaucrats entrusted to enforce this policy, those in
the creative world of the arts are eyed particularly suspiciously. Such a
regime is also open to abuse. As they say, absolute power corrupts
absolutely. The Lives Of Others provides a graphic illustration of the pain
and suffering imposed on those forced to live under such a brutal, paranoid
administration. ”
http://www.talktalk.co.uk/entertainment/film/review/films/the-lives-of-others/1160

rabbitaway
May 14, 2013 at 11:43

@Moor – I recall reading about the sudden erection of the Wall !
Hundreds of Berliner’s waking up to find that, in some instances their
particular tenement was now in East/West Berlin. The Russians were craft
bastards, first the wire then the concrete and that was that for 25 years
plus. I’m not going off topic here – that piece of wire was ‘only the
start of it’ – lets get some wire cutters before it’s too late !

Moor Larkin May 14, 2013 at 12:00

The “Russians” were the first victims of Soviet State
Collectivism.
If going off topic means ignoring the lessons of human
history, then stray all you like…

Peter
Hofschröer May 21, 2013 at
20:34

Well, I was once interviewed by the Stasi for an offence I did commit.
They were gentlemen, did everything by the book and sent me packing with a
warning.

I was once interviewed by the Met for an offence I did not commit. I’ve
got the hospital report to prove it.

Moor Larkin May 21, 2013 at 23:08

I’m intrigued, what was the DDR offence bitte?…

Peter Hofschröer May 22, 2013 at 05:44

Smuggling.

Moor Larkin May 22, 2013 at 10:39

I wonder what might have happened if you had been a DDR citizen.
I
assume they confiscated “the goods”…..

Peter Hofschröer May 22, 2013 at 10:56

Yes. A shame really, as it was a nice collection of used NVA
uniforms and equipment. A year or two later, the Wall fell and they
couldn’t give the stuff away fast enough.

Moor Larkin May 22, 2013 at 11:11

Asking prices now seem solid, if unspectacular
http://www.ebay.com/itm/East-German-NVA-Officers-Shirt-AND-Pants-DDR-Warsaw-Pact-/181140897059?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a2cd6bd23

Andy May 14, 2013 at 11:13

Email sent.

One way to look at this is that the social workers want to have more power
with less responsibility. This is unlikely to turn out well for the people
they exercise the power upon.

Andy

Moor
Larkin May 14, 2013 at 10:42

Given the self-admitted role of Association of Chief Police Officers in the
Jimmy Savile media-induced public frenzy about endangered “children” of all
ages from 5 to 55, followed by the Metropolitan Police handing over their
responsibility for assembling “criminal evidence” to the NSPCC, I’m guessing
that whereas in the past forced police entry to people’s houses would be the
way in which social workers would gain entry to unwilling households, these
measures are promoted on the basis that the police in uniform need no longer
be involved, since the social services are the police and the police are the
social services.

It may not be a conspiracy but it is a very clear symbiotic
relationship.

rabbitaway May 14, 2013 at 10:26

@Anna – from your link to the Govt response firstly from a 95 year old
….

“New powers change nothing on the front line, but could make people more
scared to have contact with the system and to seek help when
needed.”
Individual [95]

Then these pertinent points :

23.
Most respondents felt there were only a few cases where the power
would be used. But some also pointed out that there is a risk that, in some
cases, the power could make matters worse for the individual. Several
respondents highlighted risk of abuse escalating as a result.
24.
Given
the small number of cases where people thought the power might be used,
however useful in those few cases, the consultation did not provide compelling
evidence that we could guarantee the power would do more good than harm.
People who expressed this view made the point that efforts should continue to
resolve the situation in other ways, without requiring a new power.

I like the first comments about ‘the front line’ and doing more ‘harm than
good’. It’s one thing to mess with liberty, but to mess with individual
liberty and make matters worse is, well, criminal I think !

Mike May 14, 2013 at 10:19

Dear Anna
Done it

Mike

Joe Public May 14, 2013 at 09:37

“In England we allow a single social worker to imprison someone by claiming
that they don’t have capacity ……”

OK let’s raise the stakes…………..

If that person is subsequently shown to have capacity, then the
incompetent Social Worker should be imprisoned instead.

JuliaM May 14,
2013 at 11:52

Oh, if we only had voting buttons for this comment!

Peter
Hofschröer May 21, 2013 at 20:31

If it were only mere incompetence that explains the behaviour of social
workers!

Do have a read of this one:

http://grandmabarbara.wordpress.com/2-the-abuse-of-grandma-b/mark-bednarski/