The new Gold Rush- Enforced Residential Care. How it happens. Part 1


Does anyone really believe successive governments care about protecting children and the mentally disabled?

Do they really believe they are worried about our mental health, our NHS and us not being burdened with our parents care ?

If so, why do welfare/mental services continue to deteriorate and how will even more public money help ?

No, such state propaganda is a PR smokescreen and fund raising device to disguise the real purpose- the provision of monopoly privatised, enforced, unaccountable for maximum profit ‘services’.

Allowing the siphoning off of as much public money as possible to their mainly foreign owners.

These multinationals and venture capitalists know, that only in the UK can they find guaranteed and increasing public income, and the opportunity to make huge profits from cheap itinerant ‘care’ of captive drugged consumers with little accountability as the LA/HSC commissioners also employ the providers overseeers.

Such Goldrushes will ultimately apply to most public services.

Lets deal with how the’ mentally vulnerable gold’ is mined.

Those at risk of being ‘incapable’ are targeted by a £433 million army of local safeguarders.

The mental, physical health and wellbeing of family love, reduced to ‘unpaid care’, is assessed by Carer Assessments.

And confidential conversations with GPs, social workers, support groups, neighbours are shared with any relevant party and entered on a Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub Data Base.

Agencies and any ‘support’ will be charged to secretly find ‘safeguarding issues’.

This agenda of information gathering is ruthlessly pursued and increasingly such professionals/ carers are employed on an itinerant, performance package basis by the company providing residential services.

So a conflict of interests exists between their ‘support’ and their continued employment and bonuses.

Because of this’ Arbeit macht frei ‘modus, you will know nothing of the real purpose of the state’s ‘support’ until the Court come knocking on your door with a s 48 MCA application to remove your loved one the next day.

The LA/HSCT’s legal department have been sent the safeguarding issues- unhygienic, disorganised house, insufficient/inappropriate clothing, food, bedding, slipping hazards, derogatory comments, mentally unstable, unfit carers spun and placed, out of context, in social worker and GP statements, all to show your loved one is ‘incapable’, abused and at risk.

A s48 application must be issued out of the  High Court of Protection in London so the LA will have already applied there ex parte in secret without any challenge .

Under the auspices of this High Court of Protection Order, all matters can now be dealt with by the local County Court.

Parents/spouse/child will be beyond shock at such a lynching and systemically unable to correct or reply to any allegation. And without a clue as to how to stop the removal of their loved one the next day.

Even if living on state benefits, they cannot get legal aid. And if they could afford advice who would they trust, and what is their status as abusers in a court protecting their loved one ?

The person you know and love is already owned by the State and you cast as his abuser.

Family will not be allowed to represent their son/daughter/spouse/mother/father.

Even if that relative has signed a Lasting Power of Attorney saying they can or they are their public guardian, as there is now a conflict of interests between parent and child, husband and wife.

Their voice is a state Official Solicitor appointed by the Court who they have never met.

Social services may offer ‘support’ to enable you to go to court but now you know it can’t be trusted .

The Nightmare has only just begun.




The Bournewood stitch up and the precarious legal nature of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.


In an age of  gay marriage affecting 1.6% of the population, transgender toilets and a vague Supreme Court pronouncement on wheel chairs on buses, our Local Authorities  encage over a million and increasing.

Before the Court of Protection was created, you had to be convicted of a crime, or be so mentally unstable you were sectioned to lose your liberty.

Now, it is increasingly being removed from anyone deemed ‘incapable’ under a vague MCA test for life and not  as a punishment or for treatment .

And worse still all aspects of their existence controlled.

So what law gives a court such God like power ?

s 4A Mental Capacity Act states;

This Act does not authorise any person (“D”) to deprive any other person (“P”) of his liberty.

But that is subject to the following provisions of this section, and section 4B.
D may deprive P of his liberty if, by doing so,

D is giving effect to a relevant decision of the court [or Protection] … D may deprive P of his liberty if the deprivation is authorised by Schedule A1 (hospital and care home residents: deprivation of liberty)

If it is not to give effect to a court of protection decision nothing in the MCA allows deprivation of a person’s liberty, even where they lack capacity unless it is necessary to provide life-sustaining treatment or to prevent a serious deterioration in their condition and this is the only practical way in the circumstances. See s4 B.

So there we have it if the Court of Protection  decides it is in your ‘best interests’ you lose every decision for life.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards came into force in 2009 in the 2007 Mental Health Act, as an addition in Schedule A1 to the 2005 Mental Capacity Act.

Created on the excuse of the incompatibility between English Common law, (not the MCA/MHA), and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( right to liberty) revealed by HL v UK the ‘Bournewood’ case.

The creation of DOLs enabled a procedure, whereby those who lacked ‘capacity’ under the MCA could, if in their ‘best interests’, be lawfully detained in a hospital or care home with every decision made for them, medication, who they see, where they go, when they wash.

HL v UK held England’s common law detention on the grounds of ‘necessity’ was incompatible with Article 5 of ECHR

This autistic gentleman HL could not be detained under MHA 1983 as he was autistic and as non verbal deemed ‘incapable’ of being able to consent to treatment.

Neither could he be detained under the MCA as incapable, as this was not in force in 2004.

So the Bournewood Gap , as it is known , HL’s legal loophole was remedied by the MHA 2007, defining autism and learning disability as mental disorders, and  the use of the MCA to assess an autistic  /LD as  ‘incapable’ and detainment in their ‘best interests’.

So, it would appear HL v UK gave the UK government the excuse to watertight its legislation to remove the liberty of the ‘incapable’ if in their ‘best interests’ thus avoiding any ECHR challenge on lawfulness.

Article 5 litigation in the ECHR does not appear to inquire into the reasonableness and merits of the process by which liberty is removed, only that it is ’ lawful’..

Dols were then extended extensively by the  Supreme Court Cheshire decision to most areas of a person’s care making it practically impossible for LAS/CCGS to cope with the increased applications to COP paving the way for the executive replacement of COP and the introduction of Liberty Safeguards. A clever s surreptitious collusion between courts and government to provide the for profit care industry with total control over their service users.HLW

Deprivation of Liberty over 0.45% of Citizens, success rate increased 380% since 2013/14. 24% from 2016 to 17.


Adult Protection Departments appear to be using  the excuse of ‘safeguarding’ to facilitate ever more efficient/profitable ‘care’.

Remember  DOLs’ horrific effect, removal of any objection as to when, or what you eat, who you see, where you live, when you go out and where and even when you wash and how.

Forced medication and encagement usually as for profit for life.

Once you are deemed MCA ‘incapable’, all that is needed by a private provider to do all of these is a rubber stamped DOL.

195,840 DOLS applications were received by councils from care providers in 2015-16.

The highest number recorded since DOLS were introduced in 2009, representing 454 DOLS per 100,000 adults in England.

They then increased by 24% from 2016 to 17 see here



As by current care providers, they may not include new removals by the Court of Protection.

So these may need to be added.

We need statistics for the actual number of those in state ‘care’ subject to DOLS per se.

The statistics show large variations between regions .

The North East had almost three times as many (900 per 100,000) compared to London (319).

The remaining regions between 400 and 500 applications per 100,000 adults in 2015-16.

105,055 successful applications were reported in 2015-16, compared to 62,645 in 2014-15.

An increase of 68%, following a 380 % increase in successful applications between 2013-14, and 2014-15 (from 13,040 in 2013-14).

Of the 105,055 applications in 2015-16, 76,530 (73 per cent) were granted and 28,530 (27 per cent)  not granted.

The ones that  were not granted, are likely to be due to the fact that legally the facet of care was not a deprivation of a person’s liberty.

The North East has the highest rate with 665 applications per 100,000 residents.

This is more than two and a half times the next highest region, the South West (258).

The other eight regions display some variation, with the South East having the lowest rate of 179 per 100,000 residents..

Although the proportion granted was relatively consistent across most regions, only 44 per cent were granted in the South West, whereas 86 per cent were granted in the North East and London.

Councils are unable to cope with the number of applications and backlogs have resulted in some urgent applications, not being signed off for seven months, rather than the seven days required by law.

Official figures released last week by NHS Digital revealed the DOLS case backlog hit 101,750 in April 2016, up from 75,000 the previous year.

Local Authorities have resorted to the use of desktop assessments, to grant deprivation of liberty orders in a bid to clear a backlog of more than 100,000 referrals.

And DOLS trainer and a best interests assessors raised concerns that desktop assessments risked losing a key check and balance in the process.

A class action in May 2017 by LAs to force government to fund DOLs system was dismissed.

So, an unworkable MCA system, confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Cheshire Case, means thousands and increasing are being held captive and forcefully medicated illegally.

So much for Magna Carta, the Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Civil Rights.

The Cheshire Supreme Court decision removes  the liberty of the disabled in the guise of protecting it, stating ;

‘Human rights have a universal character and physical liberty is the same for everyone, regardless of their disabilities. What would be a deprivation of liberty for a non-disabled person is also a deprivation for a disabled person.’