How will £433 million Care Act Implementation money be spent ?


The government’s future Adult Social Care is only residential, in whatever guise, supported/ independent/ community living or care home.

Private institutionalisation.

Support in the family home, is not provided on the excuse of Local Authority budget cuts, to allow enforcement of government’s drive to  use the disabled as cash cows.

And servicing all the ‘disabled’ in unaccountable, secret provision behind the walls of the state has huge advantages.

Adult services workers need not be qualified social workers after the enforcement of a placement as ‘Care Managers’ then can take over and tickbox/oversee the only residential placements.

The model is simple; assessment, court enforcement and then private residential care with scant oversight by its commissioner for life..

A similar model is used for Children’s Services, through adoption, fostering, and care homes.

Such models transfer billions of public money into private business coffers, boosting the economy but at huge expense to the nation’s deficit.

And it  is certainly not cost cutting, as an average placement costs over £4,000 a week, much more for the autistic and ‘behaviourally difficult’.

If left at home with family carers are entitled to nothing except DWP £103 and £62.50 Carers Allowance.

Even if support by PIPs were given at £7.50 hourly care would not amount to such a sum.

Venture capital investors/multinationals who are buying up all  ‘care packages’  gain a secure,  source of increasing government income.

And a lucrative actual and future package commodities they can trade and make more ever efficient.

The vulnerable, are commodities in our main growth industry- public welfare.

And our government is determined to promote it.

But, civil liberties and human rights can get in the way.

As evidence, of ‘vulnerability’ , and risk  need to be obtained.

So the vulnerable are relentlessly sought by use of awareness campaigns- alzheimers, autism and mental health, and concern.

And, the definitions of Vulnerability, Neglect, and Safeguarding, are ever widened .

As many as possible must be harvested.

Assessments of  them, their home , and care, must be carried out, to provide the evidence needed, to process these potential commodities through the courts.

If they cannot be removed to state care by MHA section, or emergency protection order; these assessments must take place in their family home.

And, neither the vulnerable, nor, their family, must be made aware of the real purpose of the assessments, removal to state care.

Parliament, refuses to grant the state, statutory access to a citizen’s home.

So our government, is providing LAs, with £433 million, to implement the Carers Act.


This money, is to be used mainly on ‘assessment functions’ .


The decisions to be taken in safeguarding cases will have to be derived from assessment functions, not free-standing duties, that actually provide any alternative means to investigate or manage risk’.

But the state does not have any right, to enter a person’s home to assess it, or them, in the absence of strong evidence of abuse/neglect,.

And under the Carers Act carers assessments cannot be forced on a carer.

So Local Authorities must use their ‘assessment function’ to gain access to private homes.

The Care Act, puts LAs, under a duty to provide Carers Assessments, but does not put them under any duty to provide  support..

And, in practice, rarely, if ever, is any support given to a carer, after an assessment.

But LAs, have only managed to assess 50% of carers.

And, it would be interesting to find out, if this 50%, are still carers, after their assessment.

And, when  support is provided, the higher sealings are only £500-£1000 per year.

It would also be interesting to know, why our government, is spending millions, to  implement,  unnecessary, voluntary assessments for support, LAs, are not under a duty to provide, and, are not providing.

It is  important to note, that the Care Act, provides, that once a person is deemed ‘incapable’, only ‘approved’ support is funded.

Considering all this it would be difficult not  to  the real purpose of carers assessments   is  to find ’safeguarding/neglect and abuse issues.

And support workers, GPs, nurses, psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, person centred  planners, development workers, occupational therapists, or,anyone, involved in home support, are  briefed to do so.

See here, an account of how evidence can be created covertly by workers.

It appears ‘assessments’ are the means of obtaining lucrative commodities for private ‘care’ and our government is prepared to spend a fortune on them.

Training and employing spies, and enforcers, under the guise of ‘assessment’, ‘support’, and safeguarding, to ensure an ever growing  residential care industry, rather than  long term family support.

So how are carers or the vulnerable to survive, these expensive state  Care Inquisitions?

Safeguarding: An established process, not a civil liberties dilemma


Why is the Court of Protection Secret ?


Court of Protection lawyers,warn,that even with ‘watertight’ reporting restrictions, anonymity of those subject to proceedings cannot always be guaranteed.

They say that although transparency was important, ‘there is a price to be paid’.

But, is it in lawyers interests to say this, and what is this price?

And, more crucially, what is the price paid for secrecy, and, is secrecy necessary, and where does it leave accountability ?

See the  £3 billion haul COP had already amassed in 2009

Read the power to imprison loving sister for 7 weeks until released by court of appeal. This is COP 2017

Lord Falconer, creator of the Mental Capacity Act, proposed its hearings be in public.

But, after ‘consultations’ not including the media, with 27 respondents, 11 for public hearings and 10 against, the Court of Protection Rules 2007 closed the court.

Click to access Transparency-in-the-Court-of-Protection-Report.pdf

A Daily Mail campaign, scandals exposure and the  COP being  even more secretive than the care courts, forced a six month, court opt out ,media transparency pilot scheme .

From a fundamental perspective, as the right to privacy is personal, it is of concern that the state takes it upon themselves to exercise a citizen’s personal right.

Ignoring what they want or is really in their best interests.

As the MCA via the Court of Protection has made the state omnipotent .

It, can decide if a citizen wants to be processed in secret, along with all his other decisions.

Understandably, a person, might not  want their predicament, financial and family business publically known.

And this was the justification for secrecy in non-contentious, property and financial applications..

Bur, whilst, health and welfare applications under the old High Court’s inherent jurisdiction were rare; under the MCA, they have overtaken non contentious property applications,, with 438 welfare applications in 2013/14, and 413 property and finance, and 31 disputes over Deputyships.

Click to access Official_Solicitor_and_Public_Trustee_annual_report_2013_to_2014.pdf

But welfare applications, in contrast to the fait accompli property applications are highly contentious.

If they were not, the Local Authorities, and Health and Social Care Trusts, would not need to apply for them.

And, welfare applications, allow state agencies, to remove a person’s autonomy for life.

And,  to enforce all social and medical services, now in a private residential homes for life.

So effective, fair opposition from family members, and, the ‘incapable’ must be allowed.

Also, as these applications, are intrinsically oppositional, the inquisitorial nature of the Court of Protection, is wholly  inappropriate, and open to abuse.

As few, if any, fact finding hearing are held, so allegations of neglect/abuse need not be proved.

And  a huge disparity of equality  exists between the state and individual.

As the procedure, and law are complicated.

And, effectively, no legal aid is available to families, who are  forced to act as litigants in person, and, can even be threatened with the other parties costs.

Yet, they are the only independent voice, pitted, against three specialist barristers, the Official Solicitor appointed by the state to represent the incapable, the Local Authority and the Health and Social Care Trust .

The Court of Protection, itself, is underfunded, and clogged up.

And, at the same time the LIP, will be coping with the emotional horror of having no control over what happens to their loved one, and, caring for them.

And, dealing with endless assessments, and professional meetings.

So parents are faced with an impossible Herculean feat,  anything but fair., which calls for the utmost transparency of process, not the least.

Particularly, as the court system per se, allows scant accountability .

Despite all this, COP proceedings are deemed fair, and, Human Rights Act s 6 compliant.

The scandals, that gave rise to the pilot of the ‘opening up’ of COP, will still occur, but will now remain hidden.

Steven Neary’s plight ,was exceptional, as his detention and treatment was already in the public domain.

The gagged imprisoned granny, and daughter, will still be gagged and imprisoned, but in their presence.

And, Paula Rawnsley would still be gagged, to protect Thomas Rawnsley’s privacy, and future care



Thomas Rawnsley-A Deadly Legal Gag ?

Art 10(1) HRA 98 provides that,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority…”

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits  Congress from interfering with a citizen’s freedom of speech or petition.


I know in my heart if they had not gagged us again like that Thomas would be alive today as they wanted to go and get information over the next few days.

A week later Thomas was dead.

A secret trip by a senior, and in my view, vengeful local authority officer to the court resulted in me being gagged again.

I was unable to get to the people who could do something to help, and that cost Thomas his life.

It was under the pretext of being in his’ best interests’ that the application to silence me was made.

But it was because I criticised them for failing to look after my son properly and commissioning such appalling services’

Paula Rawnsley, mother of Thomas.

Anybody, can be gagged by the Court of Protection, if it is deemed to be in an incapacitated’s ‘best interests’.

So the Court of Protection found, a mother’s attempts, to gain help, for her dying son, was not in his ‘best interests’ .

Because, it would breach his right to privacy, and, as his services were being criticised, might affect future service provision.

So, Thomas, or, any ‘incapable’, is allowed, only one right that to right to personal privacy ?

Yet, they are not allowed a moment’s privacy, in their 24/7 surveillance living.

Nor, in any aspect of their life.

But, their own complaints and desperate cries for help are private, and must be protected , as must their abusive care provision?.

How could Paula repeating her son’s cries for help breach his privacy or not be in his ‘best interests ?

And how could a court, and all those paid and statutorily charged with protecting Thomas think that it was ?

So the secrecy of the Court of Protection is extended to anything the state thinks is in a deemed incapable’s ‘best interests’ with no possible legal challenge.

The Voice of Silence

From Great to Small
Its Empire grows
Silence knows
But dare not speak
Its evil flows
To such a peak
That, the faceless many are thrown in the pit
Where souls writhe
And gorge on spit.
But the voice of Silence slithers in the night
And the manacled hand gives up the fight.


Hillsborough-A Victory For Truth/Justice?

george-orwell-5The scripted media questions, proclaimed, Hillsborough’s jury’s verdict ,

a victory for justice’.

The parents, that

‘the state better watch out in the future, as the public can come after them’.

But, whilst it was a victory  for truth and to some extent the victims.

Why was it necessary, and, could the public do it again ?

And if they did, what justice is this, as what have our previously ‘exposed’ scandals resulted in ?

Baby Peter, was just another horrific murder covered in a small newspaper column, until raised in opposition by David Cameron in Parliament when it went viral for months.

The other 228 deaths of children known to social services,  were not mentioned.

Nor, the Social Services’ wholly inadequate serious case review system..

The Director of Herringay Childrens Services was conveniently wrongfully dismissed, at a cost of over a million to the tax payer.

And details of their Child Protection systems  were not publically scrutinised .

The result of the Baby P massive publicity and politicalisation  that even more children were taken into care to feed a billion pound foster/adoption industry.

Rorocketing from 32,000, to today’s 82, 000 per year.

But there is no research as to whether this huge public spend on lawyers, courts, experts and the human damage has aided child protection.

But we do know Rotherham BC blamed their Social Workers targeting of the neglect of under 4’s, under government’s indicatives, contributed to the 15,000 teenagers and children, who were groomed and raped over 15 years.

Showing the government’s control, of both the child protection services, and the police, largely caused this terrible scandal.

We then have to ask ourselves why after 15 years of covering up this horrendous abuse in not only Rotherham, but other parts of England, it was suddenly exposed.

As such failings were used by the government, as the excuse to put Doncaster and Rotheram into special measures, to further their pernicious privatisation.

Similarly, the Staffordshire scandal, revealed, only after a decade of campaigning, resulted in NHS rich pickings, privatisation

The Sally Clarke/ Angela Canning miscarriages of justice, again after over a decade of similar hidden miscarriages, almost, resulted in the total statutory state control of all criminal expert evidence.

The scandal of Millie Dowler’s hacked mobile, and press hacking revealed to similarly statutorily control of the press.

Despite hacking by state agents, and lawyers, being a known practice

Jimmy Saville, long dead, resulted in millions on Yewtree prosecutions of the famous, instilling fear into the powerful.

Let us not allow, the long, hard fought for Hillsborough victims’ vindication, to be similarly, used, as an excuse to dismantle, and, incidiously privatise our police force, starting with South Yorkshire.

Hillsborough’s huge establishment cover up, was orchestrated from the top, and, not by just one corrupt police authority.–WkFP4C0obb

And, an invented story, fed to the press

It started with an unsafe ground, the mistake of opening a gate, but was then covered up, not only by the police authority, but by lawyers, a coroner , and the establishment for 27 years.

Right to the end of the inquest ,lawyers were still being instructed, in an inquistorial system to effectively lie.

All acted in an assassins creed cabal, the truth was made irrelevant, and, any means was authorised to whitewash.

Corruption, within the state, and its agents, is now much worse than it was in 1989.

Connections, are far closer, more secrative, and even less unaccountable.

We have been living in the age of ‘leadership’,  ‘collaboration’ and common purpose for decades.

All fear for their jobs, and careers, and are subject to draconian, vague codes of conduct.

None can break ranks, and must follow ,regardless of the corruption, and horror they are part of.

There can be no autonomy within our systems.

The executive controls the courts, police and all arms of the state.

And soon all these will be owned by a privatised, monopoly cult outsourcers with huge PR and legal budgets,

Little will or can get out ,in the world of honed self preservation and commercial confidentiality

Private corporations, are not subject to Freedom of Information Requests, nor, with their power, even the law of our land.

But , can control our lives, and our money, with the overriding duty to put profit before all.

Let Hillsborough’s legacy, be used to reinstate the rule of law, freedom, democracy, justice, and truth, and, not to further remove it.