The Mental Capacity Act, can make anyone, a prisoner of the state.


The Mental Capacity Act 2005 not only qualifies, as the most socially draconian Act in modern history but also created its own court.


To purportedly protect the rights of the vulnerable.

A surprisingly laudable reason for a government.

Particularly, with no media pressure,  scandals, petitions, or campaigns that  warranted any legislation, let alone such a monster of oppression.

Whilst now 8 years  on,  there is huge pressure, and  urgent need to protect our vulnerable from the State care deemed in their best interests by the MCA,—– a plethora of  scandals, Winterbourne, statistics that 3 learning disabled, die needlessly per day and concerned relatives, if not  excluded, resorting to spy cameras.

If this Act were about protection it is a catastrophic failure.

So, why was the cost and time of this Act, thought so necessary, it was pursued for years  and implemented subject to review, despite two years of House of Lords objections?

And why did its need ignore the fact that  the inherent High Court jurisdiction with already, Enduring  Powers of Attorneys, the doctrine of necessity and The Office of Public Guardian had already  adequately protected the vulnerable,  for centuries.

And still do in the rest of the world but the UK.

Far from protecting the vulnerable, the Act has served to encage them, and make them, far more vulnerable and more crucially a source of private profit.

So what were, the purported reasons for  the Act ?

Amazingly,  little.

Government concern, that due to the ‘unstructured’ nature of  protection, decisions vulnerable people could make for themselves were being  made by others.

And, if   a person became  incapable of making a decision,  others should be prevented from making this decisions without the vulnerable’s, considerable involvement.

The fact that today,  such an implausible respect for an individual’s autonomy, has through the subversive implementation of the Act resulted, in the total removal of a vulnerable person’s autonomy, sadly, reveals the government’s real agenda.

The very concerns, the government sought to remedy, are now given flesh, by the Act.

It  is being used, not only, not to involve vulnerable in decisions  concerning them, but it also, allows LAs/ care providers, to make all the vulnerable’s decisions for life.

Incapacity, is needed for the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection.

It is the gateway, to an individual’s  every future decision being made by the state.

Allowing a vulnerable adult, unlucky enough to need  ‘support DEEMED INCAPABLE.’to be made a captive consumer of any state care, without reprieve, escape or complaint.

A person’s worst nightmare.

Every decision made for you, by strangers, whose overriding interest is profit .

And, the MCA, WAS deliberately drafted, to allow potentially, anyone’s, decisions to be made for them.

As MCA provides, any state agent, care/support worker, social worker, nurse, GP, psychologist, counsellor, alzeimer friend, even neighbour, can assess whether an individual is ‘capable’ of making a decision.

If  A PERSON appears, to them, to be mentally ‘impaired’, as a result of a non exhaustive, all embracing list- learning disability, mental health problem, brain injury, dementia, alcohol or drug misuse, effects of treatment/medication or in fact any other illness or disability.

Not only is the list of ‘assessors’ effectively anyone,

the reasons for  ‘incapacity’ is limitless.

Already, psychiatry/mental health is farcically extensive the USA, having created  375 mental disorders, diagnosed on a symptoms based subjective basis.

How vague, and subjective are these extensive impairments ‘learning disability’, ‘any other illness’ and the ‘side effects of medication’ ?

The Act  has been drafted to allow anyone, who comes into contact with a member of the public,  to assess them as incapable of making decisions.

Beyond terrifying, and amazing is the  power, it gives the state and their informers.

The ability to remove anyone’s autonomy by stealth and deem them a non person.

See latest rulings from Mr Justice Charles on Deprivation of Liberty Orders

Worse than  Orwell’s ‘1984’ monitors.

The state ‘us’ is given the right to assess the ‘them’; without the ‘them’ even knowing,  and the ‘them’ are not even given the right to challenge the assessment.

And the courts, then remove all a person’s decision making rights, by illegal, blanket, general assessments, in a secret court.

The Act is not  protecting our ‘vulnerables’ rights but  removing them.

For NHS/LA private profit.

And, as the state decides, who is ‘vulnerable’  and it could be you.



  1. I agree with everything you say. It has all happened to Martin. Social Services actually over ruled my EPA, by fabricating a whole scenario. Martin has capacity, it was never questioned, now he is in a residential care home under a Court Order that states he does not have capacity in health welfare and contact with his mother, and he can only appeal if the OS acts for him. Every law and principle of a civilised country has been broken. We are powerless. I had a PENAL NOTICE put on me that I shouldn’t tell Martin that the psychiatric unit which they were going to section him into was no good. And I obeyed it


  2. Thank you Shirley for you comment.

    Hope you are as well, as possible.

    Thought I’d already approved this so sorry if there was a delay.

    How all this, was made law, without any public notification, or consent ,says a lot about our media and democracy.

    And, with the tacit approval, at best ,of all our disability, mental health, autism charities.

    The fact, it was for profit, by both labour and tory, also says, a lot about our politics

    And the fact it is being implemented illegally, both as to the capacity test and blanket decisions, says a lot about our courts, lawyers ,social services, and experts.

    And, is in breach of an EU directive we signed.

    And the fact, we can do nothing about it our rights, and more importantly the right to freedom, life, and choice of our children.

    Please email as and when you can .

    Thinking of you.
    Best Wishes, Finola


    1. Im glad you were able to put my reply on your blog – I have permission to publish from the judge, so it is good that it could be aired (long live freedom of speech) so thanks. Martin is home today with a carer who has been forbidden to talk to me about Martin!!!


      1. I’m glad Martin is home, but annoyed that the visit is accompanied by the state, and so prescribed, and no doubt anything you do, or say to the carer or Martin, could be used, as evidence to stop further visits.

        What power the state continually yield for their own purposes.

        This is the tyranny of the state, and the total disregard of s8 Human Rights Act right to privacy and family life, as it is not proportional intervention, and is certainly not de facto, in yours or Martin’s best interests, but the state will say it is, and they do not have to provide reasons.
        Once you have a child, or you are a person with any sort of what they deem ‘ disability’, as I said in the blog post, that person has his rights removed, as the family does, and you have to defer to experts and carers, who may have only met your child once, and know, absolutely nothing about them , and does not need to, except what they are told by the state, as this is all the state needs, and wants for their process.

        I have rang the GP on several occasions last summer, when Issy had what appeared to be a continuing tummy bug, only to have the two agency carers rush into Issy’s bedroom on arrival with the GP, AND, he then consulted with them first in the hall, before deigning to enter the lounge, and discuss her illness with me.

        More worrying, was the way all NAS carers agreed with their bosses, as did the CAMHS nurse, despite a year of symptom evidence and a previous faecal impaction, that Issy did not have such an impaction, and it was not cleared out, which was dangerous and made her violent, justifying assessment drugs etc,

        Luckily she refused to go back to her residential school, so we were able to have her examined by our GP, who diagnosed her impaction and we cleared it.

        This would not have happened in state care, hence the 3 dying per day and the 4 in 8 months deaths in St Andrews in2011.

        Any itinerant, zero hour carer, can now see, and have more power of our children than they, or we can.

  3. Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “So, why was the cost and time of this Act, thought so necessary, it was pursued for years, by two politically polar governments and implemented, despite two years of House of Lords objections?

    And, why did its need ignore the fact, that the inherent High Court jurisdiction, Enduring Powers of Attorneys, the doctrine of necessity and The Office of Public Guardian had already adequately protected the vulnerable, for centuries.

    And still do, except in the UK.

    Far from protecting the vulnerable, the Act has served to encage them, and make them, far more vulnerable.

    So what was, the purported reason for the Act ?

    Amazingly, little.

    A government concern, that due to the ‘unstructured’ nature of protection, decisions, vulnerable people could make for themselves, might be being made by others.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s