The Mental Health Heist .

heist PxlO40-H_400x400

Two years ago a cross party Mental Taskforce reported on the future policy of our mental health services,

‘There has been a transformation in mental health over the last 50 years. Advances in care, the development of anti-psychotic and mood stabilising drugs’

This report’s recommendations were predictable, as in 2013 NHS bosses had allowed the world’s largest pharmaceutical company’s lobbying company to draft the report shaping our future health policy.

At the time at least 62 Tory MPs had financial connections with pharmaceutical companies by then the UK’s third largest industry .

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/mental-health-big-pharma-big-profits-big-danger/

So the maximum amount of ‘customers’ had to be harvested and held captive for as long as possible .

The ‘advances in care

did not exist as attested  from even the perfunctory inspections of the CQC.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/what-is-happening-in-662600-a-year-mental-hospitals-cqc-reports-2011-2016/

Here is the history of psychiatry to date and how it is now an industry of harvestors

https://dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/mental-illness-or-social-sickness/

So millions were poured into  building  private mental hospitals and ‘community living schemes’ bought up by private companies like the Priory and Cygnet themselves acquired by USA multinationals in multl million pound deals.

All from public NHS funds.

UK’s health and social care industry was ripe for exploitation.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/us-acadia-group-pay-1-28bn-for-the-priory-group-mental-health-feeds-venture-capital-profit/

More NHS public mental wards were closed .

NHS/LA continuing healthcare and support at home removed.

Any new admissions of autistic and learning disabled were only made to private ATUs.

Priory and Cygnet UHS/Acadia bought up most of community/supported living schemes mental patients might eventually be released to.

NHS Health and Social Care Trusts acted as outsourcers referring to monopoly, multinational services who were then given contracts lasting years from local Clinical Care Commissioning Groups via NHS England.

There need be no competition or tender as Priory/Cygnet were the only ‘specialised providers’.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 had been drafted to allow such vulturing of the NHS by NHS England.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/nhs-vultured-by-the-health-and-social-care-act-2012-part-1/

The plan was simple, create cash cows for life by a mental ‘disorder’ label.

Treat with antidepressants , anti psychotics and mood enhancers via institution or community treatment orders enforced by MHA section and/or MCA in secret inquisitorial courts and tribunals.

All in breach of patients’ human rights and MHA as, as there was no measure of outcomes they could not be ‘treatment’, or in an incapacitated’s ‘best interests’.

Studies showing adverse effects both physical and mental particularly long term, far out weighed any perceived benefits.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/the-myth-of-the-chemical-cure-and-the-serotonindompamine-imbalance/

So the Mental Health Taskforces ‘transformation’ consisted of labelling, medication and removal to private hospitals, where corporate owners were given no incentive to cure as they then lost their customer.

And with no Medicare Insurance check , the spend was limitless paid out by a supposedly ‘cash strapped’ NHS.

At best a person was taken off section and put on a Community Treatment Order or ,as is increasingly the case, as the infrastructure is now in place , forced to live in community residential.

So from cradle to grave , the deemed ‘mentally disordered’ could produce ever increasing income for private hospitals, pharmaceutical and residential care.

And despite the number of signatures and petitions, inadequate/ damning CQC reports, campaigns , TV exposures, even deaths no one could help these captive consumers.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/the-bipolar-cashcows-release-this-8-year-cygnet-bipolar-inpatient/

The system is honed by self regulation, no investigation of deaths, less Coroners, even narrative verdicts, no jury for DOLs deaths and no legal representation.

And relentless harvesting and pathwaying of customers from police stations, schools, workplaces, universities, GPs and community groups.

With increased legal powers given to the police to remove to a forced MHA ‘assessment’ via s136 MHA.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2017/12/08/s-135-mha-17-removal-for-treatment-private-mentals-ultimate-harvesting-tool/

And ever vaguer justifications for a ‘disorder’ diagnosis, medication and removal – suicide prevention, anxiety, mixed conduct,self neglect or even those at risk .

No regulation or check on assessment , diagnosis or treatment and total reliance on experts employed by companies who profit from their diagnosis.

All backed and enforced by state authority with the NHS and local authorities given millions and legislation in MHA. MCA and Care Act to ‘safeguard’ the public.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/how-will-433-million-carers-act-implementation-money-be-spent/

Coroners issued five formal notices over the past five years, for care failures after deaths of patients in the care of the Priory Group’s hospitals.

US Acadia, bought the Priory Group for 1.28 bn two years ago and now owns nearly half of all mental services in England.

Joey Jacobs its CEO received 8,241,847 dollars in salary, bonus and stock in 2015.

On Monday Dispatches went under cover to reveal NHS ‘treatment’ in a low to medium secure Priory hospital, costing at least £950 per day per patient far more than public NHS.

Despite the extra millions poured into ever longer detainment and transport all over the country to private hospitals, Dispatches in it’s advertising of its programme maintained the lack of funds NHS lie stating dramatically,

In the grip of a funding crisis and with the number of mental beds plummeting the NHS is placing thousands of patients in private hospitals’.

http://www.bradfordzone.co.uk/undercover-inside-the-priory-channel-4-dispatches-channel-4-19-february-800pm/

38 Comments

  1. Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “The plan was simple, create cash cows for life by a mental ‘disorder’ label.

    Treat with antidepressants , anti psychotics and mood enhancers via institution or community treatment orders enforced by MHA section and/or MCA in secret inquisitorial courts and tribunals.

    All in breach of patients’ human rights and MHA as, as there was no measure of outcomes they could not be ‘treatment’, or in an incapacitated’s ‘best interests’.

    Studies showing adverse effects both physical and mental particularly long term, far out weighed any perceived benefits.”

    “And ever vaguer justifications for a ‘disorder’ diagnosis, medication and removal – suicide prevention, anxiety, mixed conduct,self neglect or even those at risk .

    No regulation or check on assessment , diagnosis or treatment and total reliance on experts employed by companies who profit from their diagnosis.

    All backed and enforced by state authority with the NHS and local authorities given millions and legislation in MHA. MCA and Care Act to ‘safeguard’ the public.”

    Reply

  2. Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘Reform of the DOLS inquiry’ (call for evidence from 9/2/18 to 2/3/18)

    Organisation
    Joint Committee on Human Rights
    Description
    Extract from website: “The Committee is issuing an open call for evidence from interested parties and would welcome written submissions by Friday 2 March on: (1) Whether the Law Commission’s proposals for Liberty Protection Safeguards strike the correct balance between adequate protection for human rights with the need for a scheme which is less bureaucratic and onerous than the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards; (2) Whether the Government should proceed to implement the proposals for Liberty Protection Safeguards as a matter of urgency; (3) Whether a definition of deprivation of liberty for care and treatment should be debated by Parliament and set out in statute. Submissions should be no more than 1500 words.”

    Reply

  3. I think we are getting places with this draconian Government, Family Courts/LA’s and other corruptors. Has anyone read about this ‘Acid Test’ by Charles J in regards to unworkable MCA 2005 DOLs? Well, if the Law Commission’s Findings, Lady Hale’s findings in Cheshire West and Charles J positive proposals is enacted immediately or in the spring, WE WILL BE BETTER OFF and our Family Justice System will be Fair and Just for once. It contains the {1} Liberty Protection Safeguards {replacing the MCA 2005 DOLS. {2} The mandatory Participation of P {3} Family to represent P {not the inept OS- to save costs and Family knows P BEST}. {4} Court Visitor. {5} IMCAs {6} Family Involvement (7} A Care Plan that is least restrictive to P’s Best Interests and many more humane, workable more pragmatic guidelines to help reform Family Law. This is 10 Test Cases Judgement

    Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCOP 59

    Case Numbers and initials of P: 12482534 (NRA) 12685425 (HR)
    12700041 (ML)
    12699640 (MJW)
    12683102 (VS)
    12701735 (EJG)
    11781450 (MT)
    12701764 (DPW)
    12699703 (NR)
    1270184T (LM)
    IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION
    (Sitting in Open Court)

    25/09/2015
    B e f o r e :
    MR JUSTICE CHARLES
    ____________________

    IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005

    RE: NRA, HR, ML, MJW, VS, EJG, MT, DPW, NR and LM

    I will post link when I get it sorted. Thanks all xx

    Reply

    1. It contains the {1} Liberty Protection Safeguards {replacing the MCA 2005 DOLS.

      There appears little difference between LPS s and DOLs, other than a misleading change of name, as LPs are not protecting a person’s liberty but removing it with a court’s validation..

      {2} The mandatory Participation of P

      As a prerequisite to a LPS process, P will have already been deemed ‘incapable’ of making the decision, which led to the need for a LPS, and P must already have communication difficulties, and under MCA a shared decision should have already been attempted before rendering P ‘incapable’ of making it, and also P’s known wishes past or present taken into consideration, therefore, the fact P has been deemed ‘incapable’, makes the need for P’s participation superfluous and makes no difference to the existing MCA law and DOL process.

      {3} Family to represent P {not the inept OS- to save costs and Family knows P BEST}

      Family representation I assume by a funded lawyer, can make no difference as the family have no rights in the decision making process, only to consultation. .

      Court Visitor.

      Again he/she has no rights in the decision making process under the MCA and at best will only valid the process in hand has been tick boxed procedurally.

      {5} IMCAs {6} Family Involvement again they have no rights to take part in the decision making process and merely let P know what that process will be and the procedure of its validation.

      (7} A Care Plan that is least restrictive to P’s Best Interests

      This is already the law in the MCA, so makes no difference, as it has been shown to have made no difference by the need for the use of DOLS, now LSs, and their ever greater extension to restrict P’s liberty.

      The Service Provider and those commissioning the service provision, the LA and the NHS via CCGs, decide what is in P’s ‘best interests’, and therefore what will be ‘ the least restrictive option’, although this is then rubber stamped by a court.

      As it is the service provider who decides the options available, and the CA via Lady Hale last year in the case of Re M I blogged, will not interfere in funding decisions, and any restrictive practice can be spun to a service funding issue,often lack of staff as in Re M, no matter how much the provider is paid.

      So this whole expensive Law Commission Process and the new, costly, many played SL process, will make no difference to the fate of a P except to justify ever more restrictions on his liberty, by even more bureaucracy and process.

      Thank you for your comment and all this very useful information I very much appreciate it.
      Best Wishes, Finola

      Reply

      1. Finola, {1} The LPS not the same as the MCA 2005 DOLs.

        Read this ” The Liberty Protection Safeguards take both of these factors into account and provide safeguards for vulnerable adults who need it without unnecessary assessment duplications from health and social care professionals.

        The proposed Liberty Protection Safeguards would apply in all settings whereas the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) regime only applies to registered care homes and hospitals.

        Anyone who lives outside of these settings such as their own home or supported living would need an order from the Court of Protection to be deprived of their liberty.

        Second, the Liberty Protection Safeguards would apply to anyone over the age of 16. This would bring it in line with other aspects of the Mental Capacity Act which apply to anyone over the age of 16. The current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards only apply to people aged 18 or over. A statutory authority to deprive a person of their liberty temporarily would replace the current Urgent Authorisation and would only be permitted in truly urgent situations and sudden emergencies.
        ——————————————————————————————————–
        {2} The mandatory Participation of P- Have a read KT & Ors [2018] by Charles J. He states in P 160 , he states “[A paragraph accepting responsibilities for the COP and its Rules]

        The appropriate defendant(s) to any challenge would depend on the precise grounds pleaded by a claimant.

        But if a challenge were brought which complains solely about the actions of the Court vis-à-vis Article 5, it would require to be considered whether other public authorities, including the local authority which is detaining P, should be joined as defendant in the proceedings. The Secretary of State for Justice acknowledges his obligations in respect of the Court of Protection (as set out in the preceding paragraph) but is not able to comment further on the appropriate defendant to a hypothetical claim”.

        Again NRA and Ors, in P: 214, He state “Whether P must be a party and further or alternatively have legal representation and further or alternatively independent representation.

        In accordance and agreement with both paragraph 93 of the judgment of Black LJ and the approach taken by the ECtHR of looking at the practical consequences of what occurred Article 5 does not require that the opportunity referred to in, for example, Winterwerp must be provided by a right to be a party.

        The issue is whether the fact that P was not a party and its consequences (which include the effects of the alternative process adopted) mean that the minimum procedural safeguards were not in place.

        If they said my son has capacity, he has to come to court and answer questions to satisfy me and the Court
        ——————————————————————————————————–
        {3} Family to represent P {not the inept OS- to save costs and Family knows P BEST}. See P: 214 in NRA and Ors “Whether P must be a party and further or alternatively have legal representation and further or alternatively independent representation.

        In accordance and agreement with both paragraph 93 of the judgment of Black LJ and the approach taken by the ECtHR of looking at the practical consequences of what occurred Article 5 does not require that the opportunity referred to in, for example, Winterwerp must be provided by a right to be a party. The issue is whether the fact that P was not a party and its consequences (which include the effects of the alternative process adopted) mean that the minimum procedural safeguards were not in place.

        Again in KT and Ors in Pgs: 24 and 34, He states

        “When there is no family member or friend who can act as a Rule 3A representative the other three potential options are a direction to an applicant authority (rather than a visitor) to provide a report under s. 49 of the MCA or the appointment of either a litigation friend or an accredited legal representative for P.

        {34} I have therefore concluded, in line with my earlier approach and those of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, that periodic reviews by the COP with the benefit of information provided by a visitor meets the procedural requirements.

        In comparison to the appointment of a family member or friend as a Rule 3A representative. it can be said to have advantages because of the independence and expertise of the visitor but disadvantages because of the absence of a more regular review on the ground by someone who knows P and wants to promote their best interests.

        I will represent my son as I know him best and it cost no one anything.
        ——————————————————————————————————–
        {4} Court Visitor, IMCA and A Care Plan that is least restrictive to P’s Best Interests; Paragraph: 269 on NRA and Ors should answer these quite efficently. Charles J [25.09.15]

        He states: “I also agree that questions, or a mechanism for addressing the following issues, would be likely to further assist in clearly demonstrating whether the care package is the least restrictive available option and one that can be approved without a hearing:
        i) if the proposed placement is planned and has not yet taken place, there should be an explanation of whether or not a transition plan has been produced, a provision to append the transition plan and an explanation as to how the placement will be reviewed, particularly in the context of responding to P’s reaction to his or her new placement. This would inform the timing of a review by the court,

        ii) if P is already living at the placement in respect of which a welfare order is sought the following information should be provided, namely the date P moved there, where he or she lived before, why the move took place, and how the move was working

        iii) any recent change or planned change in the care package and the reasons for it should be provided,

        iv) there should be a specific requirement to explain why the identified sedation or restraint are or may be used, and why they are the least restrictive measures to deal with the relevant issues,

        v) there should be a question about the tenancy agreement (if there is one) and who has the authority or needs to apply for the authority to sign it on P’s behalf,

        vi) there should be a specific question as to why it is thought the case is not controversial and can be dealt with on the papers,

        vii) there should be a question directed to participation of family and friends over the years and the nature of the care and support they have provided and their approach to issues relating to its provision in the past and so whether and the reasons why it is thought that family or friends have provided and will provide balanced support for P in his or her best interests,

        viii) there should be a question that requires the reasons why family and friends support the care package to be set out,

        ix) there should be a question directed to the willingness of a family member or friend to be a litigation friend or a Rule 3A representative and their ability to keep the care package under review,

        x) there should be questions directed to the suitability of family members or friends for such appointment that direct the author of the answers to particularise the answers by reference to the history of P’s care, and
        xi) there should be a question on what options have been considered and why the care package advanced has been chosen as the appropriate one.

        I believe that you should read these 2 Judgements and Charles J’s profound findings/recomemdations after the Law Commission Consultation {that we took part in} and once the unlawful DOLs were discovered DOLs applications increased ten-fold suddenly in the CoP.

        My son is one {as well as perhaps MB}of the ‘Hundred of Thousands of disabled people being unlawfully Deprived of their Liberty”. That is under the unworkable MCA 2005 DOLs. We also did partake recently in Parliament’s “Call for Evidence” {deadline in this Friday 02.03.18} on these accurate Findings and Changes may take place as a “Matter of Urgency” or in the Spring.

        Do you not admire this or are you saying that nothing is going to come out of this?

        If you give me your e mail address, I will send you all the Judgements and approiate materials pertaining to tis possible “Breaktrough for Justice”
        Thanks
        Dandy

    1. Mr Justice Charles was the presiding judge in my son’s case in the CoP 2006 – 2014, 2014 to the present day (judgment on Bailii HH Judge Parry). Charles’ judgments are in the public domain, but not on Bailii. All I can say is that not one of Charles’ recommendations has been brought to apply to my son. In fact the opposite

      Reply

      1. Well, with the Law Commission’s recommendations {Hundreds of thousand of disabled people are being Deprived of their Liberty in care home etc..} Charles J HAS to act now coz, DOLs Applications have increased ten-fold by the abusive LA’s and they wanna save MONEY now. So,WE will have to represent our loved ones and that is a PLUS. P Must participate too.

  4. Dandy, My son (P) did participate in the proceedings on 4 August 2017.

    He was present all day in the open court in Cardiff.

    If you go on to the Court of Protection Hub you will find the final judgment of 16 October there MB and Surrey County Council. Much good did it do him.

    Finola, all you write is absolutely correct, as usual.

    Martin now has capacity proven in court on the basis of evidence given to the court – in direct contravention of the MCA.

    If you go on to 39 Essex Street’s January newsletter, and read Alex Ruck Keene’s comments on Martin’s case, you will see what a *******************! the law(?) is

    Reply

  5. Right! Finola and Shirley, I have read what both of you say and you both contradict what I write especially Finola but, I am open to debate.

    Firstly, Shirley, in my opinion and experience, you son lacks capacity full stop.

    You or no one do not state whether you were involved in the proceedings and whether your son chooses to see you and come home. I am of the opinion that his Carers/LA is influencing him and making decisions for him. And why no one challenged the Court’s decision. Important questions for you are
    ” Why was your son in the LA’s care and not living with you? and How often did you see your son during assessment time, where was the assessments carried out? and Who was his RPR?, Was the case contentious?, Your son was present in Court but, was he questioned by your Barrister in order to satisfy everyone that he does have such capacity?, Were you a danger to your son?”

    Alex does ask vital questions in his article and your son may well be a victim to unlawful DOLs. The very same things happened in my son’s case “Collusion and Abuse of Powers”.

    The failings in this case is the reason for the need for Family Law to be reformed in line with Family Human Rights
    Dan x

    Reply

    1. Dan MARTIN HAS CAPACITY HE HAS ALWAYS HAD CAPACITY but the CoP (the OS of course) always stated categorically that he did not.

      This was of course illegal. The case was not challenged because Martin’s barrister agreed totally with the barrister for the LA.

      Martin now has to challenge the decision himself (with or without litigation capacity)

      My only role in the recent proceedings was as a named interested party under the S21A challenge to DOLS, which was issued in March 2017, but never considered “on The papers” by her.

      Yes, of course Martin was the victim of unlawful dols, for many years, and is due compensation under Article 5. It was, of course, the LA’s barrister who was adamant that Martin was now excluded from the safeguards of DOLS. What a mess

      Reply

      1. Shirley, Sorry I got the capacity issue the other way round.

        If he does have capacity then the Court has no jurisdiction. And if he lacks capacity to litigate, you can apply to be his RPR as you are his Mom and you know him best. Harrowing fact is, whatever the bloody Judge decides to do, everyone “has to agree” and that is where you come in. What I have learnt is that these CoP Judges overrides every Legislation and creates their own. Same for the dumb into-overdrive OS.

        Let them now apply for DOLs and oppose it 100%. He must be able to decide for himself what he wants.

        My son was not involved and the inept OS delivered “Hearsay” evidence and the prejudicial Judge accepted it all. My son has never told us “he does not want to see us”. They wrote that. To prove that, my other son who lives overseas found where he is hidden and went there and P was indeed glad to see his brother after 4 years on no contact and he did come home once “encouraged” {Cheshire West} while, his solicitor and SW mislead and say “P does not want to see his dad/brother nor return home”. He’s not allowed to speak to anyone “truly independent” and is constantly monitored. Before my other son went back to USA, he was not allowed to see him this Christmas while, last year, he was able to do so behind their backs. He is not allowed to speak to anyone independent and if he does, he is saying “I am not allowed to have contact with my dad/brother”. He has finally surrendered to the regime.

        You are right, Family Law is a total MESS. Have you written to Parliament about your thoughts on the “Rights to Freedom, MCA DOLs, Liberty Protection Safeguards and Least Restrictions”? Here is the LINK http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Special:Link/http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/news-parliament-2017/right-freedom-safety-tor-17-19/

        You never know what effect it may have. I have encouraged many many people and I will continue to partake in Consultations { Law Commission’s, Parliament’s Call for evidence and No Rights ignored and No Voice Unheard, to name a few}.
        Huggs
        Dan x

    2. Dan, this is not family law and these are not family courts.

      This is the Court of Protection law created by the MCA, the first time in history a court has been created and it is a creature of statue controlled exclusively by that statue the MCA and has no powers other than that given to it under that Act.

      It is also, as far as I am aware, the only such Act in the world, certainly the only such in Europe.

      Before the MCA the High Court, Wardship, Guardianship, Powers of Attorney, Professional discretion and LA statutory rights, protected our vulnerable adequately, there was no need or public pressure for such beyond draconian legislation.

      Which allows the state to remove any citizen’s decision by application by LA/NHS with effectively no safeguards.

      It can therefore allow any medication, treatment and care, now increasingly for profit and not in a person’s best interests.

      It is interesting to note Alex Ruck describes COP as ‘essentially inquisitorial’, as there is nothing in the MCA to that effect only the procedure the court has decided to adopt.

      The MCA allows the state to remove a citizen’s most basic decisions, and make them a legal non person ie incompetant before the law without giving the citizen any rights except through a state official.

      Millions already have suffered this fate and Hundreds of thousands are held captive and the numbers increase each year.

      The reason is not protection, but ever more profitable corporate ‘care’, as evidenced from the huge profits and investments by venture capital multinational service providers, and the increasing number of deaths of those subject to DOLs, now not entitled to a jury at their inquests.

      The changes proposed to DOLs do not address the fundamental illegality of them ;

      The overriding law in s1 MCA is not being applied by courts or agencies, that is, that a capacity assessment should only be in respect to a ‘specific’ decision, at the time it needs to be made, in a person’s best interests and capacity to make that decision must be presumed, it is for the person asserting incapacity to prove this not the person subject to an assessment, and also to prove the prerequisites of assessment and in addition that capacity has been maximised .

      Yet no matter how many times Shirley or I scream this it is ignored .

      It is the illegality of so many detentions, that must be addressed and why this is happening, not to merely restrct liberty further on the lie of safeguarding liberty with even more state collusion.

      What it does show is that all are behind successive government policies to encage as many citizens as possible for profit from them out of public funds.
      .

      Reply

      1. Finola, Whatever. but, with your experiences/beliefs and thoughts, writing them on here does not give Parliament any chance to hear them. Do you agree? Their “Call for Evidence” from the Public on “Rights to Freedom MCA DOLs and LPS enacted” is about to end tomorrow. Are gonna write in? Here is the LINK
        http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Special:Link/http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/news-parliament-2017/right-freedom-safety-tor-17-19/.
        Dan

      2. With all due respect the system would not be as it is if they did not wish it to continue as it is. They know exactly what the position is.

        It is successive governments that have put it in place. If they did not know it would not be like this and they would be in dereliction of their duty. Me telling them will make no difference. They already know.

        In the past I have fed into consultations hear my voice, written on LB site, written to Norman Lamb .

        They do not want to know what they already do.

      3. Have been into your link and all I could comment on relates to the consultation on DOLs

        ie Whether the Law Commission’s proposals for Liberty Protection Safeguards strike the correct balance between adequate protection for human rights with the need for a scheme which is less bureaucratic and onerous than the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
        Whether the Government should proceed to implement the proposals for Liberty Protection Safeguards as a matter of urgency

        Not on the illegality of the use of the MCA of incapacity, that makes a person subject to DOLs which is the real issue.

        Whether a definition of deprivation of liberty for care and treatment should be debated by Parliament and set out in statute

  6. Click to access Mental-Capacity-Report-January-2018-Compendium-Screen-Friendly.pdf

    We suggest that this could have been a legitimate avenue of exploration in this case.

    There are cases in which it is only after a period of time in which a care package has been imposed on P via the MCA (in respect of a non-compliant diabetic for example), that P is able to make capacitous decisions.

    Once P has regained capacity to make decisions about care (and makes the unwise decision to refuse all care), P’s health declines and P again loses the capacity to make decisions about care.

    We suggest that the court must have power in a case of that nature to put in place a regime that kicks in once P loses capacity, and we have had – unreported – experience of the court making ‘contingent’ declarations/decisions to cater for sufficiently foreseeable circumstances’.

    How does this comply with the requirement of the MCA that the decision, I assume here to stop taking medication must also be ‘time specific’ when the time has not yet happened and might never happen.

    The MCA was purportedly drafted to enable, instead it now encages millions, and even a person’s future medication can’t be decided on by that person. The restrictions and control by the state worsen under COP /MCA, for control of care, profit and protection from accountability under s4.5 MCA

    Reply

  7. DOLs statistics and Deaths under DOLs

    The Chief Coroner published his Fourth Annual Report (for 2016-2017) to the Lord Chancellor on 30 November 2017. We only report on those aspects that relate to DOLs.

    The report notes that (i) 241,211 deaths were reported to coroners in 2016, the highest figure to date. This is an increase of 4,805 (2%) from 2015. (ii) The number of cases that required investigation and inquest in 2016 was 40,504, an increase from the previous year. (iii) The average time of all cases from death to inquest completed had fallen from the previous year and was now 18 weeks.

    It was noted that the number of DoLS cases will have affected these statistics (readers may recall that the previous Chief Coroner had issued guidance which stated that if a person died while ‘DOL’d’ under the statutory scheme, they had died in state detention and there was therefore a duty to report the death to the Coroner and for the Coroner to investigate the death).

    The DOLs effect was thought to be particularly acute because there has been a 58% increase in reported DOLS cases from the 7,183 cases in 2015 to 11,376 reported in 2016. DOLs cases accounted for over 11,300 inquests in 2016. Investigating such a high number of DOLs cases has brought the average time for an inquest to be completed down as (i) a post-mortem examination will rarely be required in such cases and (ii) the inquests should normally be completed within a week.

    The DOLs effect will not be seen in the 2017 – 2018 statistics as a result of the Policing and Crime Act 2017.

    People subject to authorisations under DoLS will no longer be considered to be ‘otherwise in state detention’ for the purposes of Section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and coroners will no longer be under a duty to investigate a death solely because a DoLS authorisation was in place: see the revised guidance here. We will see what impact that has upon the numbers of inquests.

    Reply

  8. I have approached the Committee with Martin’s case= waiting to see what happens. Been promised an e mail still waiting for an answer. Waiting for Alex Ruck Keene to bring is remarks re Martin to the Committee ha ha bloody ha.

    Reply

      1. Dan Dont give up – thats what the bastards want.

        Dont let what Finola and I write get you down, its not meant to do that, just make clear the horrific reality of the MCA.

        Charles in his judgment (in the public domain) stated that I was “disingenuous” couldn’t answer a question with a yes of no” “inflexible” etc. He also put a penal notice on me that stated (also in the public domain) “SB is forbidden from discouraging MB” “SB is forbidden from criticising to MB” “SB is forbidden from telling MB”………….This is a penal notice put on me by the Vice President of the Court of Protection. I obeyed it implicitly, to protect Martin. So keep on fighting.

        By the way, I considered the ECHR but just didnt have the energy to take it on – all my respect for you for doing so. Hope I dont sound patronising!

      2. Whatever Charles J said and did to you, is the past.

        Same things were done to me by a iron-fisted Judge in the CoP but, after the Law Commission and DoH “competent” Consultation, Charles being the incumbent has to recollect and act. Once the findings were published {unlawful DOLs}, Applications increased ten-fold in the CoP. It was a “slap on the face on both the LA and CoP since they give the LA’s immunities to “Abuse their Powers” .

        What is total disgrace is the ECHR, they are NOT being the powerful body that they portray as far as championing Human Rights breaches. They also fobbed me off and gave no proper reason while, stating “Your Application was competent”.

        These are issues that makes me believe that only if we had a Free Press, they would act properly but, even they are gagged.

        Everyone has their own opinion and I respect that. I will fight on non-stop for Justice and oneday.. just oneday.. it may happen. Huggs xx

  9. Finola and Dan When you have time read 39 Essex Street’s March newsletter, and let me have your comments, especially about what Baker writes.

    Reply

    1. I have put a link into the January one with Keene’s reference to Martin. As always its smoke, mirrors and ossification and makes no sense. All is twisted to what they need for expediency’s sake. The biggy is capacity which is being applied illegally to give COP jurisdiction . The Act has to go and revert back to old law as there was no need for it except to make profit from our most vulnerable. Will look. Best Wishes and keep warm, Finola

      Reply

  10. If we could revert back Martin would have a diagnosis of Lennox Gastaut syndrome epilepsy, a medical care plan with protocols for his various seizures, and if things went wrong we would try and sort them out. Not a lawyer in sight. But lots of cooperation with the doctors (hopefully). But as soon as someone has to pay for his care we are caught up in continuing health care, which he does not get now, needs to go back to Court – which Court – the Care Act????????. My boiler broke down with the cold – its a condensing one, and the pipe froze. Back to the old gas fire and a fan heater for 24 hours, now all OK. Lots of people were helpful- unlike the world of the MCA

    Reply

    1. You have, as always hit the nail on the head, continuing NHS healthcare is part of the MCA control cabal. You can’t get it for autistics/epileptics living in a family home, but as soon as they are placed in for profit residential they are assessed for tens of thousands a year. Again lawyers do not want to know, as they are all prescribed for the MCA care enforcement policy. Martin’s problem is not capacity or mental disorders, but as you say needs watching medically, but this is something they do not do, as it costs to much profit with its time, expertise individual care, things they do not want to know about in their commercially aware over managed factory care. Hope you get the support he needs, the NHS is /has been destroyed really needs change of government. Read my post on how NHS continuing care are totally ignoring a patients human rights when not providing medical health care at home, not that they provide it in residential, just the huge funds spent on mental medication and tick box nurse once a week if lucky. We have a condenser but have been so far lucky all these cold years. Glad you have warmth and help. Best Wishes for a cold weekend Finola

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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