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

OUR courts used our HRA to create DOLs in England only, this allowed all decisions to be removed from anyone assessed incapable illegally ,as must relate to specific decisions needed to be made at a specific time in a person’s best interests not general . These were then stopped from appeal fromm those ordering DOLs in the local County Courts which could be controlled. DOLs have now by MAY in the MHA review been converted to Liberty Safeguards , allowing the CCGs/LA commissions to assess those incapable for life and effectively allow their commissioned service providers to make all decisions for life without court oversight.
So executive have complete control over harvesting the incapable they deem for profit within their commissioned for profit homes. Such is the strategic gerrymandering of courts, executive of our law out of our Human Rights which are then destroyed for life.

finolamoss

policy-process-procedure-red-dice-company-rules-practices-words-three-to-illustrate-organization-s-regulations-41368615

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…

View original post 469 more words

8 Comments

  1. Why can you not advance your case on its merits without having a sneaky pop at LGBT people?

    The facile idea that minority rights are less important if the minority is small, has no basis in logic and paves the way for a voting majority – even a slim one – to dictate terms to and persecute a minority.

    We saw this in Greece and Chile, and are currently seeing it in Turkey, Myanmar, Brazil, Russia and other places. In fact if you can manipulate electoral systems as in the US you don’t even need a majority.

    We say an injury to one is an injury to all, and we mean it.

    This is very shoddy work and detracts from the thrust of the argument which could very well stand alone.

    Reply

    1. The reason for the comment on gay marriage, was to illustrate the huge debate in Parliament and legalisation of it despite it potentially affecting far less people, than the actual encaging for life against the will of those affected and their families of far more people under DOLs

      This horror of DOLs and the removal of all rights is for life, not just whom they wish to marry, is not even mentioned in media yet alone debated in parliament.

      Those under DOLs have no rights or hope of a decision for life and this has been created by courts and a parliament that promotes the protentional decision to marry the same sex be allowed. This is very unequal in a society and gov that promotes so vehemently equality.

      This is the valid point I am making It is not in anyway a diminution of LGBT community AND THEIR rights BUT a comparison and illustration of basic inequality shown in the law between the LGBT group and the deemed’ incapable’ under the MCA.

      I support all individual rights including LGBT, but some should not be favoured over others, particularly, when those others under DOLs are losing all rights for life, not just whom they can marry.

      Reply

      1. That’s the nature of representative politics and commercial media. ‘Rights’ are only granted by entities with the wherewithal to withhold them, and only then when they do not interfere with the prevailling mode of production. Like the identities of those who desire them, rights are commodities that must trade on the market at different values relative to the exchange values of things.

        The alienation of needs and abilities under capitalism distorts human values beyond recognition, as the market negates both morality and utility.

        We don’t expect freedom or equality from political representation or capitalist economics, so why perpetuate these anomalies in the context of a social justice campaign? All it does is alienate some potential supporters. No one likes being exposed to ridicule – even if they’re used to it.

  2. You are a Shining Light – a Beacon in a darkening world – and all your time and love and Total commitment shines through in abundance and I can only salute & thank you. I cherish our liberty/freedom of speech democracy, weakened though it be.

    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