Bethany is back in the cell

Despite all the publicity and countless deaths and Stephenie Bincliffe and Thomas Rawnsley and huge media coverage of Bethany’s treatment. Bethany’s treatment gets worse because it is worth 13,000 a week to the private company giving it.

Whilst they own ATUs and Community Living and huge NHS money is paid for both, nothing will change , despite exposure and this is beyond shameful and illegal as this is not treatment under MHA as it is making the patient Bethany much much worse and is inhuman torture costing us the public a fortune to make private profit.

It Must Be Mum

Four days ago (27th October) Jeremy, Beth’s Dad, reported that she was back in seclusion – not the cell, in a two-room arrangement, but (crucially) with no hatch.  So, no way of talking to anyone other than shouting through a door.  So no way of hearing phone calls.  Screenshot 2018-10-31 at 17.05.50

It seems that passing her food involved some sort of distraction procedure you might expect to see in a zoo.

It transpired that despite making arrangements to move her from the cell, her care plan had not been updated: Screenshot 2018-10-31 at 17.01.17

And despite agreements by all that, communicating changes to Beth, should be very carefully managed… It wasn’t.  So, all in all, it appears that the change happened without the planning and communication required to make it a success.

Three days after Beth’s meltdown, and after three days of communicating through a door, Beth was back in the cell.  It seems her family were…

View original post 434 more words

Advertisements

Adult Treatment Units to ‘Community Living’ – Turf War for Billions ?

As the national newspapers reveal the horrors of ATUs as the exposure of Winterbourne did 7 years ago we must realise that removal from an ATU is to another institution ie community living in the area the patient originated from it is not going ‘home’. And increasingly this new institution termed ‘home’ is also owned by the ATU owner so the patient can and is being MHA sectioned back to the ATU at anytime so a phyric victory. Care is not changing it is still unaccountable and anyone- parents /friends can be excluded from this ‘home’ at anytime in MCA best interests. This is merely a manipulation not a solution and a turf war for billions. These patients never gain control of their care let alone their lives. They are saleable care packages for life.

finolamoss

Trade in people 1700s-1850s-1856-sketch-of-slave-sale-in-charleston-south-carolina-DC0TH0

I thought long and hard before writing this post, as I did not want it to appear to condone in any way, the atrocity of life and death in an Adult Treatment Unit.

Atrocities like the 7 year ‘treatment’ of 18 year old Stephanie Bincliffe in an Huntercombe ATU, paid £1761 a day to lock and drug her in a windowless cell.

And no one was held accountable when this fit young woman’s heart stopped after she ballooned to 25 stone.

http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2017/06/27/seven-days-of-action-poor-excuses-for-poor-care

Clearly, it is illegal and morally reprehensible to imprison and drug anyone, let alone the autistic and learning disabled, as this is not ‘treatment’, or, determinable, as required by the MHA.

But is the solution of ’community living’ any better ?

And why is it that the purpose of all campaigns is only ever to move the autistic and learning disabled to local ‘community living’ placements ?

Never back…

View original post 1,139 more words

Parents Rail Against Big Business Inside The Family Courts.

As millions are being made from tearing families apart and destroying lives nothing is being done except more greed and ease of removal of very lucrative commodities by courts LA outsourcers. Its our money, our children, our courts, our law we finance it all and private profits.

Researching Reform

Parents going through child protection proceedings inside the family courts have reacted angrily after an investigation revealed a huge spike in profits within the foster care sector. The findings come just as new research published, confirms that forced adoption of newborns has more than doubled, with no clear indication as to why so many babies are being removed.

According to The Sun, the foster care industry, which is valued at £1.7billion, has seen a sharp rise in foster care companies backed by large private equity funds sweeping up taxpayers’ cash. The report also mentions the latest stats on children taken into care, which show a 34% rise in the number of removals, to more than 10,000 children being placed in care, a record number for one single year.

The article in The Sun features families who have experienced child protection proceedings and who are also outraged by the findings. Some…

View original post 320 more words

Top Social Work Professor: Adoption Works For A Minority Of Children.

As gov funded research has already shown adopting families are often close to breakdown yet courts now for over 20 years have held this if possible is the most permanent option and therefore invariably in the ‘welfare’ of a child under the Children Act checklist, it is therefore the usual order of a care court. Yet the number of breakdowns is still deliberately unknown and the affect on a child of adoption is not researched . So adoption orders of courts are blind and cannot judge if in the child’s best future interest so should not be being made if other options like as often is the rehabilitation of the birth family. LAs are now effectively adoption outsources and courts rubber stamp. The adoption agencies are often private corporate and even were charitable the huge profits are recycled. Govs have encouraged this with continual increases in the public money paid per adoption now currently £27,000 per adoption and 54,000 if child/baby deemed ‘hard to place’ a wide ctogory most can be made to fit. So what is the purpose of this huge public spend that makes huge private profit ? Not the welfare of the child as I have said there is no evidence that it is a child’s best option, quite the reverse, but profit for the adoption industry.

Researching Reform

One of the authors of the UK’s Adoption Enquiry has told a BBC programme investigating forced adoptions, that adoption is not a suitable alternative for most children.

Anna Gupta, a professor of social work at Royal Holloway University and co-author of the Adoption Enquiry report also told BBC Sounds that while parents are able to challenge adoptions, the process is so expensive that in practice mounting a legal challenge to an adoption is not available to most families.

The programme aired on 18th October and covered a range of topics, including forced adoption.

The segment on forced adoption began with a call from a grandmother whose daughter had died, after her grandchildren were taken into care. The grandmother explained that her daughter had been a victim of domestic violence, but was aware of the need to step away from her partner and focus on rebuilding her life, which the grandmother…

View original post 1,076 more words

St Andrews Healthcare, Northampton, Acadia and Universal Health Services.

St Andrews quite rightly, is in the news again WITH the horrific treatment of autistic Bethany exposed by a now ( expensively) ungagged Dad, remember the documentary some time ago ?

Yet Cygnet Cambian Acadia are not.

Turf wars for billions ???. St Andrews is worth a fortune in future NHS income, but will this expose change the treatment given for 13,000 a week, if it is taken over by private venture capital likely part of the UHS empire- highly unlikely.

Like WINTERBOURNE view expose didn’t. it just resulted in its asset stripping for a cheap purchase at 33 million and sale now to UHS , but services the same not improved , and who is checking on abuse tonight?

Why is St Andrews being targeted?? rather than the treatment and care of our most vulnerable changed. Winterbourne 2 ?  Might be same modus.

finolamoss

he Chief Executive of St Andrews Healthcare earned £500,000 in the year up to March 2016 including a £99,000 bonus.

Despite the CQC rating St Andrews as ‘requiring improvement’in September 2016.

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/chief-executive-st-andrews-given-99000-bonus-last-year/management/article/1408564

How could the head of a charity justify such payment out of public funds..

His predecessor was paid £325,000, down from £375,000 because of complaints his was a charitable appointment.

But he still received a total of £653,000 for all his roles in 2012/13.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/charity-chiefs-653000-pay-reignites-row-8891812.html

95% of all funding for St Andrews is public NHS and as a registered charity it pays no tax.

45 million of NHS money was provided to build a 110 bed school at St Andrews in 2014.

This school now commands 20 million + per year tax free with an average of £200,000 + per ‘pupil’.

Social services requested my daughter be sectioned to St Andrews in 2013 refusing to acknowledge her…

View original post 1,424 more words

Social Services were like the SS of Nazi Germany

As over 76,000 now in care and increasing. LAs even courts are merely outsourcers for the multimillion pound adoption and fostering industry run for profit not care with poor outcomes and many children going missing yet billions spent and LAs bankrupted. Enforced for profit unseen child non protection.

suesspiciousminds

It won’t be the first time anyone in family cases has heard that comparison, but it is certainly the first time I’ve heard it from a Judge.

I’m very grateful to Ian from Forced Adoption for bringing this story to my attention. It arises from an appeal in Sheffield Crown Court from a criminal trial, where a father was convicted of harassing a school.

The conviction was upheld on appeal but the Judge was extremely sympathetic to the father and extremely critical of the social workers and social work that had put him in that position.

We don’t have a judgment in this case – you’d only really get a judgment in a criminal case if it was a criminal Court of Appeal decision, otherwise you just get judicial summing up and sentencing remarks, which are not generally published. I don’t know whether the Ministry of Justice will publish these…

View original post 766 more words

Liberty Safeguards- Executive usurps Court of Protection? Tail wags dog.

Liberty Safeguards will replace DOLs under new amendments to the MHA, these will allow the executive via their LA/NHS employees to decide who is capable of making any decision for life.

These employees are termed Approved Mental Health Act Practioners ,so encompass both Mental Health Act sectioning and Mental Capacity Assessment . Effectively allowing those sectioned under MHA, subject now to tribunals and reviews, to have all their decisions removed for life———— A huge state control and massive tool to harvest for the private care and pharma industries.

Already, it would appear that the LA, on removal of autistics/LD/suspected incapable from home, are using a similar modus via IMCAs in their COP s48 applications,
as the standard social worker application in support of such removals states as follows;

A detailed Mental Capacity Assessment with subject of the application will be undertaken in order to assess their ability to make decisions around their care and support and where they live. The LA will apply for an IMCA for this purpose ( yet Codes of Practice state these should only be used if no one else is available and only in an advisory role ). The IMCA will also carry out some in depth work with the subject of their understanding of their family life, their living options, who they would like to have contact with and their activities .

So it would appear in practice via the backdoor IMCAs are already doing the proposed new role AMHAPs job, although not their specified IMCA role.

Such is the mendacious use of Social Workers and the LAs total determination to commit the ASD/LD ETC into for profit care
So not much change with Liberty Safeguards just more bureaucratic flesh and huge extension of MHA powers, as these will in many cases replace sectioning- A terrifying visa for liberty, democracy but huge haul for the for profit care industry.

finolamoss

1984-poster-3 Liberty

Our government’s proposals to rename and extend Deprivation of Liberty Orders with Liberty Protection Safeguards and create Approved Mental Capacity Practitioners will as the government state;

ensure that the design of the new system fits with the conditions of the sector, taking into account the future direction of health and social care.

Shouldn’t the government ensure that  care is fit for purpose and not merely for’the conditions of the sector’ whose overriding motivation is to make profit ?

So government ‘fits the sector’, a for profit one, by allowing it to be autonomous, self regulating and enforce the MCA.

And outsourcing LAs and NHS CCGs are given the power to remove an individual’s legal competency via a paid MCP rather than a COP judge,  to harvest those from whom corporate profit is made without independent safeguards.

Smashing Art 12 (1) European Convention on Human Rights, Art 5 Right…

View original post 1,551 more words