The World of PC Madness

Indeed, showing how little Mrs Baker understood about the situation. I watched that program, it was about carers and two of the worst care agencies in the country, not social workers.

Then again, the program was a pretty good demonstration of what comes of running everything for profit.

 

Fair response.

I'll agree there are good and bad social workers, that has been proved much too often...in both cases.

The enforcer, Ill point out in my statement...I did use the word usually...I was though unaware of the police being there soley for the protection of the person...seems thats not the case when they are there for gas boards and balliffs. Why dont they take the enforcer for that too if its a proved threat that works and will help serve the warrant, but I digress.

I would no more imply the daughters family are a threat to her mother than I would the care home is crappy without evidence to the contrary.

It brings one thing to mind though...if the person was implied to be in so much mental health danger or family bad care that there was a danger to her life or health...why where there no medical folk on the scene? A doctor, even a mental health nurse, who after all is the ultimate professional? Or even an ambulance to transport her back to the care home?

She still deserves better.

 

Ah, well it is my understanding that under Section 3 of the mental health act you require a GP and an ASW (social worker) present in order to take someone into care with the force of law.

True enough, but without knowing the circumstances we can't really tell whether that 'better' is the care home or the care of her family.

 

Stefan

While I agree being a front line social worker is shit, and whole heartedly agree with your point of

I think this case is over the top, the woman removed her mother because she believed her "living" conditons were harmful to her - I can sympathise with that I had 2 similar instances with my father and I would not have won with -in this case hospital staff, if I was not still capable of using "command presence" to basically intimidate.

I am also extemly concerned over the warrant, I am sure this would be issued by a none sitting Magistrate, (which used to be a fluf job, there was even a standard "verbal" to use)

but even a full warrent currently issued -for example those issued by Magistrate Courts would be found wanting if properly and dispassionately examined, the classic error is that the applicant is required in Law to "have made all reasonable efforts to resolve the matter before recourse to law"- and that means more than a couple of letters or a phone call.

I am an extremist and believe that civilians obtaining warrents that are dubious incorrect or false should face 28days for contempt and loose the right to persue their warrent, if finacially motivated.

As to the "enforcer" it stays in the car unless or until such time as it is needed - however destressed the daughter was I find it difficult to believe in these circumstances she would harm her mother, it is counter intuitive you don't harm some-one you rescue. Had the situation deteriorated, for example a threat had been made then it might have had to be used, but no threat was made- how do I know that -the daughter was not arrested.

The "enforcer" was intimidatory which is something that seems to be all too common. In the days of the good old oak trunchen young P.C.s used to get a bollicking if they were seen with the strap showing, it was regarded as unnecessary and intimidatory
"we all know you got one "sonny" so put it away" was the usual serial sargeants shout and if the station sargeant saw it the red pen might be deployed- now that's an intimidating weapon.

~Steve

 

Indeed, my parents have both wound up in similar situations, though generally it wound up with a shocked junior social worker arguing with two people who have been in the job for almost 40 years each and have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. That said, my point was simply that we haven't seen the data on either side, we don't know what was happening.

Right, this is where it gets a bit complicated, in order to take someone into care you need the nearest relative to agree to it, now in this case we can only assume it is the daughter (unless there is another family member involved in which case that is an entirely different aspect of the case). In order to take someone into care without the nearest relatives permission under section 29 you can appoint an 'acting nearest relative' (other relative, person the client lives with or an ASW) but in order to do this you would have to show that the objections of the daughter were unreasonable.

Put simply, this isn't a case of a social worker deciding to drag someone away and using the police to kick their door down, there is quite a lengthy process to reach this stage.

I agree, but we don't know if this was incorrect.

Ah, but they didn't use the enforcer now did they. In fact all we know is that the police were present and the enforcer was with them, as usual under such circumstances. In fact it is clear that the social workers visited the house to talk to the daughter before a warrant was even granted. Upon returning with the police they made it clear that they would use the battering ram if necessary, it wasn't necessary and so they didn't.

Incidentally, nobody suggested the daughter threatened anyone, however the social services had already established that the home was not suitable, keeping someone in unsuitable conditions is neglet.

I agree, to be honest these 'services' shouldn't be intimidating the people they are meant to be serving. I am not saying that this was the right way to do things or that it is acceptable, simply that we have less than half the story, so before jumping on people and coming up with knee-jerk reactions we need to establish what has actually happened and determine an appropriate response. The problem is that as with most of these cases people will probably start jumping up and down, demanding someone be sacked or some other pointless measure be taken without actually having a clue what went on and this is the danger of sensationalist journalism. It makes things worse in the long run.

 

As always though your last statement is true.

We dont know. But again my problem is with the method more than the case itself, which probably makes me sound like a barrack room lawyer but I am seriously worried about the rights of the individual in this country.

 

I think that all in all the Mental Health Act is a pretty good compromise between the rights of the individual and their needs, don't forget that it is there for the protection of the mentally ill. Social Workers have to jump through hoops to get people the care they need, this kind of thing is the very final course of action.

The thing I really hate is that we never see headlines like 'social worker returns to work less than a week after a stroke to ensure her clients get the care they need' or 'social worker gets home at 10PM Christmas eve after making sure a pensioner can spend her last Christmas with her family.'

 

What you too have a B.S. degree, I've got a D-phil in Latreen rumour too.

~Steve

 

You wont, but you wont see it in most industries either.

None of the cariing or uniformed disciplines, including teachers etc should expect that.
At the end of the day, we dont have to work were we work or in the industry we work in.
Health and social workers like anyone else are no different in that respect. And why should they be, but again gettin off topic.

If wanting praise or thanks is a pre requisite for career hunting then that person is in the wrong job, country and planet.

 

Stefan

Problem is we (Urqh You and me) have involved ourselves in a "Schroeder's cat" style of argument, we don't know what going on in the bag.

And as Urqh has said your last statement (paragraph) is true.

I am aware of persons sectioned under the Mental Health Act in my day it was a Section 60 and required 2 doctors to sign off on it. I would be of the view (but as you said I cannot know) that the warrant was an expedient warrant obtained from a sitting magistrate without huge amounts of evidence and paperwork to support it as this takes time, the daughter could not object because as far as I am aware magistrates do not conduct interviews over the phone and it is unlikely that the daughter would have come down to see the magistrate to put her point of view. My other points on warrants were my usual ramblings. There are concerns about the validity and accuracy of information used in obtaining warrants, the recent Liverpool incident is an example; however the majority of these concerns are with regard to financial matters. You may not be aware that the majority of warrants for distrait are handled by a central issuing office somewhere down Shropshire way which is not accessible justice.

My concerns are if the "enforcer" was in the area van (where it should be) no -one would be aware of it, even the press, hence my weird and convoluted point about the good old days. Incidentally of the three parties involved who tipped off the press?

Again we don’t know what was said but if the social workers said that, that would be in itself is a step too far. Would it be acceptable if the ARV turned up, which is in effect a standard police car, that the social workers shout “we’ve got an armed response team surrender or else.”

.

I suggested that was the only circumstance that door busting was acceptable.
The use of force or threat of force is acceptable by anyone Police Officer or civilian if there is a perceived imminent danger or harm, otherwise it is unlawful for anyone including the police to use force, it is in simple terms a breach of the peace. Keeping some-one is unsuitable conditions is not imminent danger or harm unless there is real evidence that the person is being held against their will- i.e. false imprisonment, ergo threaten to or breaking in the door goes beyond reasonable force. I am sure this could have been resolved at a far lower threat level, possibly by involving, friends other relatives or trusted locals.

As Urqh said a locksmith could drill out the lock and gain access with minimal damage to property or threat to the Dennison’s, we are after all talking about a disabled old lady and a middle aged woman, it’s not a crack den.

I reckon you Urqh and myself all joking apart, are of remarkably similar views with regard to the value of social workers unfortunately the f**** *p merchants in social work in law enforcement and education even politicians are the ones society remembers as you said the media does not report the people who often work holidays or go the extra mile to help a client, student or victim.

~Steve

 

Steve, do you do cell visits?

Do you have a business card?

 

Crap! :headbonk:

I forgot to mention did anyone see Panorama on Monday night? It was about Health & Safety going nuts on some issues, if you missed it you got a couple of days to catch it on line.

Link UK only
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jzjzp/Panorama_May_Contain_Nuts/

 

I'll get to you as soon as I've dug myself out of my own hell hole.

Steve

 

Richard

I thought Panorama is on late on News 24 on Ch80 sometime during the weekend with hand wavey ba#1ards

Steve

 

I'm watching it on line right now.

 

And thats another thing...those hand wavey buggers....how do we know they aint having a go at us...

I have been known to turn sound off and just look at em...me and son once spent an hour in fits as the guy interpreted a politics program...I'm sure they couldnt have been saying what he was describing..

 

2 short asides have you ever seen signing for obese it is 1)funny and 2) very un P.C.

2) I once watched a World at War about Arnham and there was an M5A1 tank driving across the Bailly Bridge and I did warn even shout at the Hand wavey bugger but she didn't hear me.

Steve

 

What has Quentin Letts and I got in common? We both have certs that we can climb a ladder.

Yes I can clime a ladder and change a light bulb, go stick that up your jumper.

Up shot of Panorama was this, H&S is going over board on the grounds to cover there backsides from people who would take who ever to court. The over protective attitude is a running joke these days.

 

See Stefan, its the thin end of the wedge....

I woke up this morning to find this across the road....

Apparantly number 73 had ignored the library fines for nearly a year...

 

That is so fake!

Come on!

We all know it came off the back of a cornflakes box or should I say some good 500 boxes.

I can see the glue stains from here and as for the paint job.