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

Advertisements

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

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

Unfortunate Violence

Stephanie Bincliffe died two years ago as with Bethany she was fed through a hatch in a windowless cell for years until at 25 stone at 25 she died. So all continues this is standard illegal MHA treatment paid for by us and NHS at 13,000 a week. And more private hospitals are being built as it is a bonanza and UHS and its former executive now head of NHS England knows it is. We are destroying our most vulnerable to profit venture capital from our public funds tax free. The Death Review shows the scandal. All is in secret All are gagged. Care is exploitation and enforced. No learning disabled, autistic is safe. This is the face of the future of public services our money and we are and have let it happen.

Love, Belief and Balls

It’s been 10 days since the Rightful Lives exhibition opened and I’ve been reflecting a lot on the responses to the exhibition and whether I’m being ridiculously foolish in hoping it can have any impact. We know what we were trying to achieve by stressing the “Human” and “Rights” theme of the exhibition but does it actually change anything? We’ve tried from the start to not make any grand claims about the exhibition and have genuinely seen it as “doing our bit”. But there’s a part of me that feels that for all the people doing their bit, our bits are woefully inadequate.

Yesterday the Radio 4 programme, File on 4, ran a piece reviewing the Transforming Care scheme.  The programme started with Bethany singing her favourite song to her father down the telephone. It was the Bob Marley song, Three Little Birds. “Don’t worry. About a thing. Because every…

View original post 494 more words

X v Finland – Are we in trouble?

Please read It appears UK may be acting illegally per se in enforcing non voluntary mental treatment and is in any event by doing so is in breach of HRA.

Our present system gives total control to for profit private hospitals the use of which are increasing- PRIORY/CYGNET, to decide the most profitable treatment ,and that is to detain for as long as possible and enforce as many drugs as possible without regard to outcomes, patient or their family.

This must stop. it is also bleeding the NHS dry of public money- 20% of whole NHS budget, to make profit and injure.

Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in X v Finland (Application no. 34806/04; judgment of 3 July 2012) makes significant new law concerning the provision of mandatory psychiatric treatment. It is at best highly doubtful that the approach in the Mental Health Act 1983, where compulsory treatment flows from detention automatically and with limited distinct procedural and substantive safeguards, is consistent with Article 8 of the ECHR.

View original post 1,817 more words

#RightfulLives – all the court judgments upholding the human rights of autistic and / or learning disabled people

This post by Steve Broach, highlights the only, very few cases were actions for breach of a disabled’s human rights have been successful.

What must be remembered, is that under Liberty Safeguards, it is the executive, who will decide ie LA/NHS, if a person has capacity and MCA invoked and liberty removed and once this is established a disabled’s decisions as to contact, residence, and all care can be made by the Commissioning LA/NHS without regard to a court hearing let alone Human Rights.

Already, as seen by these cases, freestanding HR actions are rare and in practice almost impossible, as Legal AID is rare, and all bar one are for ‘proportional’ interference in a human right, so the chances  losing great, and with that the biggest disincentive -the payment of the huge bankrupting costs of the otherside’s lawyers, bankruptcy and homelessness of litigant.

It must also be remembered, that such actions mean the Courts must not, as they are not, be interpreting the MCA in accordance with the HRA, which they are obliged by law to do.

And as the House of Lords Review showed 3 years ago not applying the MCA as drafted as this provides that the wishes of an incapacitated must so far as possible be taken into consideration and capacity assessments must relate to a specific decision only when that decision needs to be made in an incapacitated’s best interests.
If, as already shown, COP is ignoring MCA and HRA, what hope is there for the disabled when the executive take over under LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS and how then can a freestanding HRA action be taken, as presumably an impossible action for judicial review of the executive decision must be brought first , lawyers found paid for and bankrupting costs risked.
So effectively, the disabled and their families human rights can effectively be ignored and are unenforceable, and under Liberty Safeguards, this is set to get much much worse as MCA and HRA are in  the total control of the executive.

rightsinreality

The #RightfulLives online exhibition launched today (24 September 2018). It is an incredible collection of the voices and views of autistic and / or learning disabled people and their families, grouped under the key Articles from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (.pdf). The ECHR is of course incorporated (given force in domestic law) by the Human Rights Act 1998. The courts are also increasingly interpreting the EHCR rights by reference to the other key international conventions, including here the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

I was struck by the following section of the intro to #RightfulLives – ‘The idea for the exhibition came about through a conversation about how the legal framework of the Human Rights Act seems to barely touch the lives of people with learning disabilities. Since then we have only been able to find three published successful court…

View original post 1,684 more words

Separate representation of a child – a thorny problem!

Remember, we now have effectively LA SW outsourced private, for profit, monopoly child protection services,. making huge profits, effectively unregulated, legally gaining their power by supposedly acting in the child’s best ‘welfare ‘ under much Blairite/Cameron amended Children Act, but as yet no voice of the child, as he is represented by a state appointed and paid guardian via CAFCASS again outsourced to private and a court rubber stamping for private profit decisions .

So here we have in this case rarely, the voice of the child for whom all this process and public money is being spent  and profit made.

Surely it must be listened to ? IF we really want child protection and not just the rubber stamping of people into for profit foster care and adoption and their harvesting by our state authorities and subversion of our laws and agencies ?  via Separate representation of a child – a thorny problem!