NHS pours Billions into ‘mental’ profit, out of Area Placements and Asylum ‘Treatment’.


It is 7 years since Winterbourne aired, the head of the Care Quality Commission resigned, and Mencap published a report warning similar abuse could be going on elsewhere, calling for the closure of large institutions far away from patients’ families.

And the Government set a national ambition to eliminate ‘inappropriate’ out of area placements for adults ( not children? ) by 2020-21

So what has happened ?

Norman Lamb declared autistic/LD would no longer be admitted to NHS ATUs, omitting to add, this only applied to public NHS not private ones, being built as he spoke.

The British Medical Association has been forced to obtain out of area placement figures via FOIA.

Which show the number had in fact risen by 40% and continues to rise.
5,876 in 2016/17 up from 4,213 in 2014-15.

And the cost of such placements has risen from £108 million to £159 million.

3 years earlier, The Daily Mail’s FOIA figures revealed 22 mental health trusts spent £38.2million on out of area placements.


One patient from Somerset was sent over 587 miles to the Scottish Highlands, another two from Oxford over 532 miles to Inverness and Grampian, a Dorset patient was sent 323 miles to Darlington. and another sent from Leeds to Plymouth.


The affect of such journeys on mentally vulnerable people and being left captive with strangers, unable to see anyone familiar can only be imagined, but could only worsen their mental health.

When David Knight 29, killed himself after being sent 150 miles from home, the Coroner noted the out of area placement ‘very likely’ had a bearing on his death.

Why is this happening ?

We are told it is a shortage of beds, but is it just factory farming anywhere for profit, commercial awareness and ‘care pathways’ ?

Before our government ‘transformed’ mental health, people were inpatients for as brief a time as possible, as a last resort in a ward in their local hospital costing far less.

Now they are whisked off by police/ foundation trusts to local acute holding bays, and then on to anywhere no matter how far, to anyone available to receive their £13,000 a week NHS bounty.

If commercially enforced outsourcing of our most vulnerable all over the country to any available ‘facility’ is allowed, what does this say about their treatment ?

UHS owned Cygnet owners of CAMHS were given £300m for 11 new care model programmes to create care pathways for low and medium secure adult mental health services, Tier 4 child and adolescent mental health and eating disorder services.


Yet at the time some of their hospitals had been rated requiring improvement and their CAMHS services are worsening.


Here is the latest damning Buzzfeed investigation into Cygnet  but there is no UK media coverage.


We have a core of autistic/learning disabled people holed up and newly harvested to mental hospitals.

Any meltdown at home or in public, can and does result in a swift removal by the police under s136 MHA to a local holding bay and then onto wherever hospital is available for years.

According to an HSCIC census, there were 3,230 hospital in-patients with learning disabilities, autism and/ or challenging behaviour on 30 September 2014, with an average length of stay of 547 days and living an average 34.4km from home.

In 2013, equivalent figures were 3,250 in-patients , 542 days and 34.5km.

Despite the government providing local LAs with 136 million to repatriate these out of area ‘patients’ to ‘community living’ near their home, today the figure remains at just under 3000.


And we do not know the number of new admissions, but do know Cygnet have built new hospitals for the autistic and learning disabled .

And UHS/Cygnet own most of the local ‘community living’ where the LD/ASD are institutionalised for life.

The first big player in ‘specialised’ mental hospitals was St Andrew’s Healthcare, Northampton, formally The Northampton General Asylum, funded 90% by NHS, and given £45 million to build a 110 bed CAMHS pathway residential unit for those with behavioural issues, autism and learning disabilities .

It now has a 900 bed capacity and is marketed as a national ‘specialist’ service for practically everything -autism, learning disability , dementia, bipolar, anxiety, brain injury, psychosis from anywhere Scotland, Wales, Northern and Southern Ireland .


In 2012/13, St Andrews then Chief Executive Professor Philip Sugarman was paid £653,000, an increase of more than 18 % on his previous year’s pay.

The current Chief Executive, Gil Baldwin’s basic salary was £328,000 in 2016.

All this is despite unexplained deaths and criticism



Click to access st_andrews_summary_dec_2014_ms.pdf

The latest being a Dispatches documentary.


Yet St Andrews was awarded mental health hospital of 2016.


Paul Lelliott, the CQC’s deputy chief inspector of hospitals said
Away from the patient’s home, meaning people are isolated from their friends and families. In the 21st century, a hospital should never be considered ‘home’ for people with a mental health condition’

More than 50 years after the movement to close asylums and large institutions, we were concerned to find examples of outdated and sometimes institutionalised care,”

“We are particularly concerned about the high number of people in ‘locked rehabilitation wards’.

Yet this CQC report says nothing about the effectiveness of treatment, and outcomes for patients, merely going on to list waiting times to harvest for this ever greedy industry and a shortage of nurses.

Promoting the need to throw even more money at private mental to harvest and build new asylums.


Lelliott also added:
We were surprised at just how many of these wards there were and how many were locked.

We also had some concerns about the fact that they weren’t that discharge oriented, they weren’t actively enabling people to return back to their home environments.

Stays in such wards should be

“a step on the road back to a more independent life in the person’s home community”, and not a long-term treatment option’.

It appears private NHS mental lock patients in, more often than NHS trusts, allowing the maximum £13,000 a week to be claimed, fueling suspicions they hold on to some patients longer than necessary in order to maximise profits.

Mental health charity Mind report patients kept on locked rehabilitation wards are being denied their human rights.

The government has promised 1.3billion to ‘redesign’ mental health in waves .

The total budget of the programme across both waves is around 640 million, representing approximately 35 per cent of the Specialised Commissioning mental health budget (350 million for wave one).


Nearly a fifth of the total NHS budget is spent on mental, whilst 3.83 million non mental patients wait for NHS treatment and just 7% is spent on GPs.

It would appear, our Mental Health Taskforce’s real purpose is not to improve the lives of the behaviourally disabled and socially distressed, but to make as much profit from them as possible from our public money.

out of area mental

The Purpose of Baby P ? Care numbers double. Cuts . Perfect Conditions for Privatisation.

cam 567926b1c36188611b8b45d2

‘Who would have anticipated in 2007 that within ten years one of the safest child protection systems in the world, based on 40 years of learning and development, would have been churned up and undermined by politicians using the ammunition provided by the tabloid press whipping up public hostility and in the context of politically-chosen austerity?’

Professor Ray Jones , author of the ‘Story of Baby P Setting the Record Straight’

56 murders of toddlers occurred in 2007, but only Baby P’s was raised by David Cameron at Prime Minster’s question time.

This jettisoned Baby P from a small newspaper column to headlines for months.

And the Sun launched a Justice for Baby P campaign screaming ’social workers had blood on their hands’ until the nation bayed for blood.


Cameron declared it “completely unacceptable” that the inquiry be led by Haringey’s own director of children’s services.

Yet Child Protection is still self regulating and even serious case reviews are few.

Tony Blair had legislated safeguarding authorities remit was not to apportion blame, but to ensure agencies were working together and communicating.

And Conservatives had adopted a similar approach in their policy paper ‘No more blame game’


As a sop to accountability, Blair had created a statutorily accountable role for each Local Authority- the Director of Childrens Services.

This proved useful to Ed Balls who summarily dismissed Haringey’s Director, Sharon Shoesmith live on TV.

Pacifying the public and demoting any dismissal claim to procedural ensuring Haringey’s protection machinations were never aired in an adversarial forum.

But it cost the tax payer over a milllon .

There was no inquiry into Baby P’s death other than a serious case review limited by its no blame safeguarding remit.

No public inquest let alone inquiry.

Trial was by the media but not of the system, just its tools.

A ‘good’ rating in an OFSTED report just days before Baby P’s death was shredded by a 3 month OFSTED retainment policy, and replaced by a new ‘devastating’ report.

Nevres Kemal, a senior social worker had tried to blow the whistle for months before she eventually sent a letter, six months before Baby P’s death (and OFSTED’s ‘good’ report), to the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt and three other Ministers. alleging procedures were not being followed and Haringey was ‘out of control’.

Hewitt forwarded this to the Department of Education and Skills, who advised Kemal to write to the Commission for Social Care Inspection, to whom she’d already written to and copied into Hewitt’s letter.

Anyway, by the time of their reply, Haringey had obtained an injunction banning her from speaking out ,so she couldn’t have informed the Inspectorate anyway.


Only 7 years earlier Haringey had been publically investigated by Lord Laming , because of the torture and death of Victoria Climbe.

And systems had been put in place ‘to ensure such deaths never happened again’.

But judging from Baby P’s timeline things were now much worse.


The catalogue of missed opportunities began at his birth and escalated from minor infections to increasingly distressing injuries.

28 different social workers, doctors and police officers saw Baby P and he was taken to hospital nine times.

The last occasion just two days before his death, when doctors failed to spot he was paralysed as his back was broken because he was “quite miserable and crying” and it was not possible to make a “full examination”.

At 17-month-old he had suffered more than fifty injuries over the eight-month period his mother’s new boyfriend moved in , all under the watchful eyes of social workers, managers, GPs, hospitals, etc.

The legal department kept insisting there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the care threshold, yet 80% of care orders were obtained without any physical abuse.

And guidelines advised a court application on a second sign of physical injury.

This staggering inability by everyone to do their job , could surely not be down to just incompetence/communication, it appeared a modus not to look for, or acknowledge abuse.

As the decision had been made that Baby P’s mother should keep him.

She was even videoed as a shining example of ‘rehabilitation’ for social work training purposes .

If this decision were shown to be a mistake, managers would be open to criticism .

Exactly the same attitude had allowed the torture and death of Victoria Climbie by her approved foster carers, Lord Laming remarking;

This Inquiry saw too many examples of those in senior positions attempting to justify their work in terms of bureaucratic activity, rather than in outcomes for people.”

But his words had not been heeded.

Did things change under the new £200,000 a year Director of Childrens Services ?

Read here, how Haringey dealt with a complaint just 3 years later.

Revealed after a 22 month fight and crippling legal costs forced Judge Anthony Thornton’s judicial review to draw the “inescapable conclusion”, that the authority had illegally escalated its abuse inquiry to the highest possible level purely because the mother had the temerity to complain.

And had broken all guidelines by telling police, the family GP and their child’s school that the child, EF, was the suspected victim of serious abuse – without any supporting evidence.


Here are a few of the cases where Haringey has failed children that managed to get out;

The scandal of the removal of 7 children to care from the Nigerian Musa family




Department of Health figures show that over 20 years, the number of children in care has more than doubled.

In the year to March 31 1995, there were 5,800 “looked after” children of four years and under.

In 1998 there were 8,200

2010- 11,200,

2011 12,300

So the  sensationalism of Baby P had worked.

But has all the extra money spent on child protection improved outcomes for children ?

We have no evidence that it has, outcomes for those in care are known to be grim.

And, as  for those adopted there is little research.

Nor, do we know if it even reduced the number of children being seriously harmed or killed by their parents.


MHA amendments 2017. Removal for ‘Treatment’. Private Mental’s Ultimate Harvesting Tool.


An English man’s home is no longer his castle from Monday 11th December.

This historic bastion of common law refuge is weakened by Mental Health Act 2017 amendments.

As police can enter anyone’s home, be it tent or shed, and search for and remove an occupier to ‘a place of safety’ and provide any enforced ‘treatment’, if they suspect he is ‘ suffering from a mental disorder.

And he can then be detained interminably under the MHA or MCA .

This may seem beyond belief but it is terrifyingly true.

It gives the  Nanny State and private mental health services the ultimate power.

The Mental Health Act s135 allows such an ultimate, disproportionate interference with a person’s human rights- the removal of his legal competence ,

‘with a warrant’ obtained form a magistrate without notice,  if there

‘is reasonable cause to suspect that a person believed to be suffering from mental disorder’.

or ‘Is or has been, or is being, ill-treated, neglected

or kept otherwise than under proper control, in any place

or unable to care for himself is living alone ‘.



Police can however, enter any building,  if not a place where the person usually resides or any public building or indeed have the power in any public area- street, park, bus, train, school  Without a warrant.

under the amended s136 to detain a person for mental assessment as it states;

s136 (1) If a person appears to a constable to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons

(a) remove the person to a place of safety within the meaning of section 135, or

(b) if the person is already at a place of safety within the meaning of that section, keep the person at that place or remove the person to another place of safety.

So now, if a constable sees an adult or child behaving, as if they have a ‘mental disorder’ in a  public place, and ‘feels it necessary’ in their interests, or of those around them, the police can remove that person and detain him at a ‘place of safety’ for assessment.

Warrants to enter and remove from a person’s own house, are now easier to obtain, on the evidence of ‘an approved healthcare professional’ which is very widely defined under s 135 .

Section 135 – Warrant to search for and remove patients.

(1) If it appears to a justice of the peace, on information on oath laid by an approved mental health professional, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that a person believed to be suffering from mental disorder—

Note a ‘mental disorder’, we have 375 to choose from, need not actually be proved.

It  is enough, if ”an approved mental health professional’, a vague term, which I assume could be anyone- paid carer, nurse with ‘mental health training’, again an unknown quantity, merely ‘suspects’, and it ‘appears’ to the Justice that this is the case.

So, effectively anyone ( who has had any ‘training’ in the vague term of ‘mental health’)

On virtually nothing (what is a mental disorder ? These are conduct disorders as what else is being assessed. So are social conduct is being controlled, and can lose us our liberty and legal competency.  Who is trained sufficiently to suspect a person has one and how ?)

Can obtain a warrant, if it merely ‘appears’ to a single magistrate without a hearing,to enter anyone’s house and remove them, or a person living there, be they under or over 18, assess them, forcefully medicate them, and detain for as long as, now mainly private NHS mental services, want.

If the poor unsuspecting wretch tries to escape during any part of his encagement process, including from any place of safety hospital, he can be ‘retaken’ into custody under s138.


These powers also apply to children defined as under 18 and override parental decisions and control over their own childrens treatment and place of residence.

An order under the Mental Capacity Act from the Court of Protection or an emergency care order if under 18 had to be obtained first but not anymore.

Worse still, this is in a country where mental services and hospitals are monopolies, owned by venture capitalists and run for maximum profit like Cygnet, Cambian and Acadia .

The Home Office and Department of Health ran a year-long consultation in 2014, but strangely, some might say it was because the private provision infrastructure was not yet in place, the Bill did not receive Royal Assent until 2017.

But despite the seismic affect of this law, it has received no press or media coverage.

Here is an official summary of the changes and shows that the system in policing Triages set up throughout the country already operating s136 pathways.

Click to access mental-health-letter-s135-s136-changes.pdf

Many MPs and Lords made various amendments, but one by one these were either defeated or withdrawn, and few amendments were actually made to the House of Commons draft of 2014.

800 years after the Magna Carta, anyone, including a child can be picked up in the street or shops, imprisoned, assessed and medicated, if it appears to a police person he is suffering from a mental disorder and needs care or control.

Anyone can be removed from their  own home by force  on the say so of any mental health worker employed by private corporations paid £13,000 a week guaranteed public money to ‘stabalise’ and detain him indeterminably.

A very dangerous audacious law, without any very necessary safeguards, that the public won’t know about until it is too late.

And who will remove a person from their ‘place of safety’ where not even deaths are investigated ?

There are no checks on now mainly private mental services and no one can complain or it would appear escape from their hospitals and enforced medication.


Even if a person has been forced out of their home, once out for example in police custody they may be detained for MHA against their will under s136

There is no requirement (anymore) to ‘find’ the person in a place to which the public have access. It’s now just about where the power was used.


Comments on net june 2018

Is it just me or is it a reality that the number of s136’s has rapidly increased since the changes in the law….. and that some people are put onto s136 who really don’t need to be- they would happily have gone to A&E and, in fact, did, but where put on s136. Then there are the people who have no Mental illness (I know the police aren’t mental health experts but…) and yet are placed on s136. It feels like the increase is great…… any figures on this?

When and does s136 detainment even end ?

Hi, a recent dilemma came to my attention, and leads me to ask opinions has to when a S136 comes to an end. P is brought to hospital under S136, is assessed by 2 doctors and an AMHP and a joint medical recommendation for S2 completed. Before the AMHP makes the application P confesses they have taken a substantive overdose that requires urgent medical attention. P is transported to medical hospital under S136 and the standing S136 is extended by the consultant psychiatrist. I questioned the legality of this action, as it is my understanding under S136(2a) that the purpose is to remove to a place of safety where P can be assessed and that when a decision is made to detain P becomes liable to be detained and therefore should have been detained before removal to hospital. One challenge of my hypothesises was Jones: “the person can be detained for the purpose of being examined by a doctor and interviewed by an AMHP in order that suitable arrangements can be made for his treatment or care. It is therefore the case that the detention can continue after the assessment has been completed until such time, within the permitted period, that the necessary arrangements have been put in place. The authority to detain under this section ends immediately if the doctor’s assessment leads her to conclude that the person is not mentally disordered. “… Any thoughts about this?

Recent comment on 136 april 2019

I notice when the police started using s136 in police custody on people who had originally been arrested for an offence but who were due to be diverted under the MHA after being ‘sectioned’ that a large number of AMHPs were writing in to police forces or giving feedback that you can’t use s136 after the assessment because s136(2) makes it clear that the purpose of s136 itself is to remove ‘for assessment AND arrangements’.

It was interestigng to be patronised out of various discussions arising from this point when I gave a hypothetical situation that looked remarkably to this one, as evidence of why AMHPs would be screaming for s136 after assessment if the circumstances suited them to call for it — it’s nice to see this thread vindicating the point I made but it’s still interesting how legal answers to legal questions often change depending on whether the implication of the answer in some people’s professionals interests or not.

Sorry, folks – I’ll admit to being fairly furious about the overall situation and how my colleagues are drawn in to this and often blamed when it goes wrong.

It’s compromising public safety in my view as well and it can’t continue.


Media hides NHS rip off no mention of Cygnet billion £ ‘treatment’ out of area/no money as always.


Gillian Speke’s petition to get her grand daughter out of a Cygnet hospital has over 15,000 signatures and is blogged here


But the only media coverage she, or anyone trapped in Cygnet has had is shown here.


And this is deliberately spun to not mention Cygnet or any of the details of her granddaughters 8 year horrific over drugged treatment.

Nor the 4 million it cost the NHS.


And Gillian is described as a ‘Campaigner for treatment at home’, but ‘home’ is a euphemism for an in local area hospital .

Another lady, whose teenage daughter is hundreds of miles away in Cygnet Bury, due to her ‘self harm‘, Gillian, the News Reader and the Director of Mind Charity, all speak only  about the fact, that out of local area placements have a ‘detrimental affect on patients as they can’t see relatives as often and relatives worry about them.

No mention is made of Cygnet’s inadequate, interminable, over drugging ‘treatment’ and affect of enforced medication.

Or, of the £900 + a night minimum NHS payment with £13,000 a week for a secure ward.

Nor the unrecorded, not investigated deaths of their physically well. patients.


To which another recent death in Cygnet House, Derby can now be added by this comment made on the December 5, 2017

My sister Nina died after being given Clozapine within 4 months of being placed at Cygnet House Derby. My sister should not have been given this drug in the first place. The Drs didn’t even follow their own guidelines or any other for that matter (neglect) In fact they did not care about her or us Nina’s family or what they had done. They have got away with killing my sister.

Something needs to be done before someone else dies . Surely this is breaches all Human Right Laws?????’


Nor the many  complaints of inpatients and relatives.

The News item infers out of area placements are the only problem.

Yet family visits are supervised , regulated, and can be cancelled at any time and for ever, if deemed in a patient’s best interests.

And the new item tells us nothing about Cygnet’s ‘treatment’ except it is the ‘most appropriate’ .

And the Newsreader makes sure to add:

As ever its down to money’.

All promotes the government agenda of yet more cash for private mental, yet 200million is the latest cash strapped NHS donation.

Already some  LA funds and now a fifth of NHS total spend is on mental health services.

It does not mention that the Government has already  set a national ambition to eliminate ‘inappropriate’ out of area placements for adults inpatients by 2020-21

But figures obtained by BMA through FOIA show the numbers sent out of area in England have  in fact risen by 40% in the last two years

In 2016-17, 5,876 travelled out of their area for treatment compared with 4,213 in 2014-15.

The Liberal Democrats health spokesman, Norman Lamb was “horrified” by the figures, which he claimed exposed the government’s abject failure to tackle mental health injustices-


’ Out of placement’ issue is a continueing distraction and irrelevant to the inadequate, dangerous, for maximum profit service provision.

And in any event, why do patients need to be sent all over the country when ‘treatment’ appears similar for all ‘disorders’ – medication and containment.

Mental health services were provided much more safely and cost effectively within local hospitals before the advent of the private mental health bonanza .

Which heralded the building, harvesting and herding of captive customers all over England and now Wales .

It is this NHS bonanza and its ‘commercial awareness’, that has caused the out of area placement problem.

As the Health and Social Care Act 2012  allowed CCGs via NHS England to choose certain monopoly providers as ‘the only qualified provider’, and this forced  patients all over the country to providers like St Andrews , Acadia and Cygnet

As more local health trusts are put into Special Measures by CQC, ironically, the worse services will become, as privatisation of both the NHS Trust and their providers increase .

Norfolk and Suffolk Mental Health Trust was the first to be put into special measures last year.



Isle of Wight MHT placed in special measures


And many more .

Sheffield Health and Social Care is already private since converting in 2015 and appears the only mental health trust with no out of area placements.

‘In area placements’ and more cash will not stop the deaths of inpatients nor improve our mental health services.

But the public deception will continue until all is privatised and  maximum NHS funds siphoned off into private profit .

And this increases as more are harvested, medicated and detained.