Posts by finolamoss

Solicitor qualified 1981.Weightmans, Liverpool. College of Law Chester Senior Lecturer 1981-89, Litigation, Evidence, Employment and Consumer, Conveyancing and Landlord and Tenant. Law Society examiner in above topics, Senior Lecturer Sheffield Hallam University 1993- 2012. Equity and Trusts, Land and Evidence. Commissioned writer for New Law Journal, Solicitors Journal and Expert Witness Institute Publications on Forced Adoption, Child Protection, Care and Care Court System, Experts in Criminal and Care Courts, Charity Law and State Power. Blog 2014- on autistic daughter Mental and Disability Care, Mental Health Act, Mental Capacity Act , Power of State. Born and bred in Liverpool. Married, 2 daughters 15, 18, One autistic, abused by the state, and a huge present, and future cash cow. Email

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’


But as a sop to accountability, Blair 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 coming 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 .

And, if this decision was a mistake, managers would open themselves up 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 were Haringey have failed children that managed to get out;

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.



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 under the 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 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’  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 ‘.


Without a warrant police can only enter a building,  if not a place where the person usually resides.

As s136,  gives police wider powers to detain a person for mental assessment and 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 feel it necessary in their interests, or, those around them, the police can remove that person and detain him at a place of safety for assessment.

It has also been made easier to obtain a warrant to enter a person’s home and remove such a person 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.

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.



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

Creation of Adoption/Fostering Industry- The Blair Years.



Adoption was once voluntary, reserved for unmarried mothers and Church Adoption agencies surviving on charitable donations and the support of religious founders.

Then the Adoption Act 1976 made Local Authorities responsible for all adoptions and allowed adoption to be forced if a parent was acting unreasonably .

A once private, voluntary, and very personal matter was now controlled by the State.

And has grown into a multi million pound Corporate industry with over 90% of adoptions forced to strangers.

As only those in the care system are available, the definition of ‘harm’ has been extended ever wider effectively now allowing the state to decide who can parent.

How could this have happened ?

Tony Blair knew there was a shortage of children to satisfy the ever increasing social need for family units.

And this basic need could be financially and socially exploited.

Within 2 years of his Premiership he set upon a personal mission as his father was adopted to transform adoption.

Vowing to increase the number to 40% of those in care by 2004/5.

So began the biggest shake-up of adoption for 25 years launched with military precision.

£66.5m was provided to English LAs.

Financial allowances for adoptive parents and a streamlined systems were introduced.

LA adoption scorecards with national targets were introduced.

Councils were put under a legal duty to consider adoption within just six months of a child entering care, be it on a voluntary or on an enforced basis.

Allowing little time for ‘rehabilitation’ back to their birth parents.

A national adoption register was created matching children with potential parents.

Adopters were given the right to an independent review if rejected.

They were no longer ‘automatically excluded from adoption on grounds of age, health or other factors, except in the case of certain criminal convictions”.

CAFCASS was created to represent the interests of children in court proceedings..

The then and continuing Chair of the British Adoption and Fostering Agency, whose purpose was to promote adoption and fostering was made the chief executive of CAFCASS.

Every child was represented in court by a CAFCASS guardian who assessed his welfare for the courts.

Such was our common law’s abhorrence to the alienation of a parent’s right to their own children, adoption without consent had not been introduced until 1976.

But under Blair’s Adoption and Children Act 2002 parents had no rights.

The Act placed a ‘child’s needs’ at the centre of the adoption process, aligning adoption law with the ‘welfare principle’ in the Children Act 1989, allowing the state to dispense with a parent’s consent whenever it thought it necessary in a child’s welfare.

This welfare was based on the expansive threshold criteria in Childrens Act 1989, further extended by a new welfare checklist in s 1, ACA 2002.

But this list didn’t mention a parent’s right to their own children under s 8 HRA, nor their relationship with younger children, as parents were deemed not to have any meaningful relationship  with their own children, particularly as those parents were cast as abusers and/or incapable.

This was despite expert evidence that any interference with the bonding process in a child’s early years could result in a serious development disorder resulting in highly disturbed and distinctive patterns of behaviour, which was increasingly being diagnosed in adopted children.

Nor was the affect of root cutting, adoption per se and adoption breakdown in the list.

In fact the loss of a parent’s right to his child and that child’s right to his natural family was barely debated in Parliament, despite our adoption laws already at that time resulting in more permanent removals in the world, except for the US and Portugal being the only other European country to allow adoption without consent.

This draconian approach to family welfare and disregard of parents’ rights was also in stark contrast to the European Court of Human Rights’ decisions.

Which made a clear distinction between taking a child into care, where the European courts were prepared to give domestic authorities a wide margin of appreciation and was not normally in breach of Art 8, P, C and S v The United Kingdom [2002] 35 EHRR 31, as
“a temporary measure to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permit”

And the removal of parental rights by adoption, which can only be justified in exceptional circumstances.

In 2006 1,300 babies aged between a week and a month were removed from their mothers for ever, a rise of 141% in a single year and the number adopted rose from 970 in 1996 to 2,120 .

By 2016 2,700 babies were removed each year.

Fees  paid per adoption in 2008 were:

£12,660 for an adoptive family approved by another LA

£19,889 for families from VAAs with an additional fee of £3,315 to cover post adoption services

London LAs and VAAs are also able to charge an additional 10% London weighting

And then, just before the end of Blair’s Premiership, along came Baby P.





UHS/ Cygnet Behavioural Health Industry grows despite its inadequacy.


In 2011 the CQC made a routine announced visit to an Alpha psychiatric hospital in Sheffield and spoke to staff and patients on all three wards.

And found it failed to comply with seven of the government’s standards of quality and safety.

By law providers must meet all standards, but there is no sanction, as at best, and very rarely will a hospital be put into special measures.

And as commercial contracts we have no details of the lengths and contractual terms of the contracts between the NHS and the hospital.

Alpha Hospitals (NW) Limited were given 14 days to produce plans to show how it intended to achieve compliance.

Three years later Cygnet was bought by USA’s Universal Health Services for £205 million.

Simons Stevens 10 years chief executive of UHS’s global division , after leaving  his job as Blair adviser on NHS public investment, is now chief executive of NHS England .

After UHS took over Cygnet bought all its three of Alpha’s Hospitals in Woking, Bury and Sheffield for 95 million.

But now 6 years on and billions of public NHS money later, ‘treatment’ appears even worse in the former Alpha Sheffield hospital.

So bad in fact, a Labour MP Louise Haigh wrote two months ago to the Health Secretary demanding an urgent meeting about care in Cygnet Sheffield.

The CQC had rated the hospital “inadequate” on safety.

Cygnet’s response being health and wellbeing of patients was its “absolute priority”.

The CQC inspected Sheffield 3 times in just 13 months, twice due to serious incidents.

The most recent inspection in July focused on the Haven ward, and identified a number of issues which caused the CQC to have “significant concern for the health and wellbeing of patients”.

Haigh mentioned to the House of Commons that a young woman was found by the inspectors to have MRSA with open wounds on a ward.

The CQC also found shortfalls in patient risk assessments, reporting of incidents and safeguarding procedures..

Haigh has since written to NHS England, Jeremy Hunt and Cygnet Healthcare over a “lack of learning” from incidents at the hospital

The Sheffield’s hospital’s latest CQC report of 17 th November is here

Comments of patients in Sheffield on the net are damning .

Maddie Colbrook -2 months ago

my brother got triggered because of all the blood stains on the walls you really need to sort that out of something bad will happen to him and I hate you for not listening to his period issues SORT IT OUT NOW OR I WILL BE SUEING YOU LOT

SL -a year ago

A lot of gossip with staff everyone knows everything about everyone. Not as professional as I would’ve hoped when it came to legal matters. No support given when it was needed.
Bullying from some staff members.
Doesn’t get cleaned as thoroughly as I would’ve thought with it being a hospital. Blood can remain on walls for months.
Over all pretty disappointed with the experience.

Despite all this in June, Cygnet  announced NHS England had confirmed Cygnet Health Care, as a partner in 3 out of the 11 new programmes commissioned for mental health services.

This was the second commission following a wave including Cygnet announced last year.

The 11 new care model programmes will be given a £300m commissioning budget.

Worth  £75 million to Cygnet.

To create new models of care for low and medium secure adult mental health services, Tier 4 child and adolescent mental health services and eating disorder services.

‘By creating new partnerships ( presumably with Health and Social Care Trusts) to explore new opportunities to improve care pathways for our service users.’

Cygnet continues to increase its empire, building new hospitals the latest in Coventry, a 56 bed specialist mental health service is to be opened by Debra K. Osteen, President of the Behavioural Health Division of UHS admissions in March 2017

Cygnet has its own events company and hosts work shops, conferences, award ceremonies, and training on all aspects of behavoural health, the new mental.

It has created its own world from awareness , detection, diagnoses and treatment.

700 attended its latest UK Yorkshire Regional Conference

It has its own annual National Service User Awards.

It intends to control all aspects of behaviour ‘disorders’.

How they are diagnosed , treated, even socially perceived.

Personality disorders, anorexia, anxiety, bipolar, psychosis, depression, PTSD, autism, learning disability, neurological injuries, even domestic violence.

But treatments appear similar- the most profitable, detainment and medication.
And all ages are harvested children via CAMHS and adults via AMHS

It’s PR and professional presentation is honed-

‘Cygnet Health Care has been providing a national network of high quality specialist mental health services for almost 30 years.
With a true focus on outcomes those who use or commission our services can be assured we are an experienced, service-user focused, provider of quality treatment, care and rehabilitation’.

But what are the comments and experiences of its service users ?

Cygnet Hospital Ealing



Christina Jacob  3 months ago

My relative went in as a voluntary patient in March.

By the end of the week they had them on a section 3 was giving them olanzapine injections. I told them the drug had been used in the past and didn’t suit.
Relative became really unwell was not taken care of sent to a god awful place came back months later.
I went to visit and they had had a meeting and put a safeguarding thing in place on me.
I am a woman in a wheelchair who has complained constantly about how my relative had been treated. This place could not organize a piss up in a brewery oh hang on the place is one big boozefest

Extremely poor level of patient care. Very unprofessional and incompetent staff including the managers. Vulnerable people with learning disabilities and those who self harm require a safe, therapeutic and positive setting to recover and receive treatment, and this is not the place!

Heather Maclatcy
A month ago
Cygnet I wouldn’t send anyone to this place is not compliant in my view with the mental health act or the code of practice ie restrictive practices form the hospital management down to day to day staffing and some of the practices as seen on hansa ward leaves a lot to be desired Like how some of the staff deal with patients when they are in distress ie restraint isn’t practices are like how you would treat prisoners in prison bending joints in the wrong way which is not at all acceptable, because it could lead people lifelong injury plenty of other ways in my opinion how to get someone to comply with instructions non-pain compliant techniques, lucky was not a issue with me I felt bad for other patients
And as well to get medical care at Cygnet leaves a lot to be desired I had to go Private for dental treatment because The RC would not grant leave to see specialist dentist is medical leave and these guys stretch the truth to the max like in mental health tribunals they lie through their teeth
You are CCG do not send your patients to this hospital under any circumstances
If you got a loved one in this hospital exercise your rights as nearest relative to get them discharge under the mental health act

And what  do Cygnet workers think ?

And here are stories of those trapped in hospitals.

And two of the many who have died in Cygnet ‘care’.

Jody -Bury Cygnet

Jonathan Chamberlian Ward Cygnet Stevenage

And here are Cygnet CQC ratings.

CQC CygnetDO2Bl6qWAAELizv











Occupational Stealth – Be wary of revealing mental health issues at work .


A review commissioned by our Prime Minister revealed 300,000 workers lose their jobs annually due to mental health.

But why are so many losing their jobs and what would be the effect of ridding the workplace of the mental health taboo?

Could it be an employer’s increased use of Occupational Health Services ?

70 years ago Clement Atlee set up a committee which concluded the Ministry of Health as a public independent body should be the provider for British Occupational Health Services.

But this was ignored, and today Occupation Health is a multi million pound private industry.

With the Department of Work and Pensions alone spending over £3,147 m on it annually.

The Committee’s wish was for the services to be completely independent of employers.

But they are still today paid for and commissioned by an employer, and such services owe their paramount duty to that employer, and this is confirmed in the Occupational Health Professionals’ Codes of Conduct.

Yet, there is clearly a conflict of interests between an employer’s interest to make profit and the health of his employees.

And such an employer’s control over Occupational Health destroys a patient employee’s right to medical confidentiality with the service.

But despite this, Dame Carol’s Black’s 2008 Review of the Health of Britain’s working population, put Occupational Health provision at the centre of the then Brown government announcing a

”new vision for the health of the working age population”,

” in which the relationship between health and work becomes universally recognised as integral to the prosperity and well-being of individuals, their families, workplaces and wider communities”.

But this review appeared to radically change the very nature of the occupational health service, from that of ensuring an employee’s duties did not adversely affect his health, to ensuring that his health did not adversely affect his duties.

And health concern, particularly mental due to its vagueness can be a useful, paternalistic tool of control of an employee.

As it allows management to silence whistle blowers, ensure collaboration, avoid constructive dismissal , and stress, discrimination and harassment( including sexual harassment )claims.

Line managers are encouraged to refer employees to occupational health, as soon as they have any concerns about their physical or mental ill health.

If an employee refuses a referral, he may be suspended in his own and the employer’s interests, and even disciplined for insubordination.

So effectively an employee can’t refuse an assessment.

Yet that assessment is paid for and remitted by his employer and therefore for his purposes, primarily at best to ensure health concerns are not and/ or will not interfere with an employee’s work duties.

But it can be used as a tool to control employment and to discover an employee’s health history and present issues, despite doctor patient confidentiality.

And worse still, an employer can refuse to allow an employee to see the whole ,or any part of an Occupational Health Assessment.

As whilst s. 2 (1) of the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988, gives an individual a right of access to any report relating to his physical or mental health, prepared by a medical practitioner, who is, or has been, responsible for his clinical care.

‘Clinical care’ is being, interpreted narrowly, so as not to include occupational health care, resulting in an employee having no right to access their occupational health assessment.

Further, section 7 (1) of part 3 of the Education (Teachers’ Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999 provides that,
‘ A person in relevant employment shall not continue in that employment if, he does not have the health and mental and physical capacity for that employment.

Section (2) (b) providing that when deciding this capacity, employers can consider information,

‘such has been furnished in confidence on the ground that it would not be in the best interests of the person concerned to see it’.

So any information, occupational health, line manager ,another employee or indeed any information on an employee’s health ‘furnished in confidence’ can be withheld from an employee in his best interests.

This is a beyond terrifying extension of employer paternalism which managers but few employees will be aware of.

This Regulation refers specifically to teachers including academics but similar regulations and/or contractual terms probably apply to most occupations.

Rights of access to assessments can be similarly refused under

The Data Protection Act 1998 Sch 8 part 3 para 3 (a),

‘where permitting access to the data subject would be likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of the data subject’ .

So employees can be assessed ,as unfit for their present duties, without ever knowing why, or being allowed sight of assessments, despite the devastating consequences on their present and future employability.

In addition, the excuse of confidentiality can be used by management in respect to other employees, making it impossible to ascertain targeting, and the fairness of the process.

And ‘fit notes’ give occupation health and line managers control over an employee’s ability to return to his former duties.

As rather than just certifying an employee is fit to return to work GPs are now required to certify, that he may be fit for work if certain stated concerns are addressed by his employer.

This change forces an employee’s GP to be part of the Occupational Health system, as this is the body responsible for recommending work related changes .

Thus imperceptibility eroding doctor patient confidentiality, and a GP’s ethical need to act in his patient’s best interests.

‘Fit notes’ replaced the old written GP sick notes in 2009 and are computerised statements so easily subsumed into an employee’s National Summary Care database, which embrace an individual’s complete health profile.

Despite opposition, the Coalition government rolled out this Data Base nationally, but surveys show most public do not even know of its existence, let alone its purpose .

And it has been rolled out to more agencies and professional services with pharmacies now gaining access .

Technically an employee’s express consent is required to access his medical records, including his summary care database record.

But consent may be expressly and/or impliedly provided for in a contract of employment, and a dismissal for unreasonably refusing consent can be fair Caplin v Howard Kennedy Solicitors AT 20/1/09.

It is likely, occupational health providers are able to access to the summary care record database.

As an independent academic study of the summary care system back in 2009, revealed that there was widespread confusion about the method of obtaining consent, and to whom such consent is extended, at present it extends vaguely to all specialists, who are providing care or treatment, which could extend to Occupational Health Care.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, provide evidence that NHS Connecting for Health , ( now NHS Digital managers of the system), changed a written assurance to patients that non clinical staff,” will not” have access to ”may not”, allowing non- clinical staff to gain access to the summary care record database.

An individual has a right to be ill, and a right to private consultation with his own chosen independent medical practitioner.

And a Human Right to Privacy.

Whilst an employer has a duty to ensure that an individual’s work does not adversely affect his health, which was why the Occupational Health Service was created, this should not  be subverted and then used against an employee.

Many people’s livelihood can be destroyed by the present use of Occupational Health as it can be made a tool of management to control workers present and future employability.

NHS Inpatient Mental Deaths up 50%. No investigations. Numbers unknown.

crying out

If our government really were concerned about our mental health, it would, at the very least, record the number of deaths of inpatients and investigate them.

Particularly as the number of detentions under the MHA has risen by 10% year-on-year since 2010/11.

But the number of deaths in NHS hospitals is unknown, not recorded, and rarely investigated.

No single body is responsible for recording children or adults inpatient deaths.

This crucial information is neither collated, analysed or made public .

And as most hospitals are owned by private corporations, Freedom of Information Notices are being refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

47% of child and adolescent mental health service providers refused to answer FOI requests because of their private status.

So we pay up to £13,000 a week, an average £900 a day per inpatient for public NHS ‘treatment’, provided by private corporations, but aren’t allowed to know how many healthy people die and why ?

New laws were introduced last year which remove those dying under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards of their  right to a jury in a Coroners Inquest under Art 5 Right to Life..

Latest statistics from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust show 140 patients suffered “unexpected deaths” in just 9 months last year .

There are no national figures to compare trusts, like for like, but the consultant used said ,
’’it did not appear that NSFT was an outlier ( out of line)in terms of high numbers of deaths or incidents.”

Panorama last year served FOI requests on 57 English mental health foundation trusts, increasing private companies like Sheffield Health and Social Care .

Only 33 responded

In 2012-13, they reported 2,067 ‘unexpected’ deaths.

By 2015-16 this had risen to 3,160.

Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust reported 113 ‘unexpected deaths’ within its mental health services in 2016/17 an increase of 76 from 2015/16,  over 100% increase in  just a  year.

The number of ‘unexpected’ deaths in St Andrews Healthcare is still unknown

3 years ago the government reported 1,200 people, 3 a day with a learning disability died every year within our NHS due to inadequate care.

A Liverpool MP asked Jeremy Hunt last year how many children and young people had died in NHS care from 2010 and he couldn’t answer.

Why are so many young and physically fit patients dying from mental health ‘treatment’?.

We have no answer.

As there is no system requiring any investigation, let alone an independent one,at best, deaths are being investigated by the owners of the institution where they die .

With no transparency of process and in breach of the basic rule of natural justice, that no man should be a judge in his own court.

The CQC and NHS England refused to investigate the 7 unexpected deaths in St Andrews Northampton in 2013/14 flagged up by the local Healthwatch

A 2016 study revealed that Southern Health NHS one of the largest NHS Trusts, has investigated only 13% of 1,454 of its ‘unexpected’ patient deaths since 2010.

Investigation rates being  particularly low for elderly patients with mental health problems (0.3 per cent) and for patients in general with a learning disability (1 per cent).

This was stated not to be an outlier.

So, we can therefore assume nationally, only 1 % of ‘unexpected’ deaths of learning disabled including the autistic, and 0.3 of the older patients are investigated.

All ‘unexpected’ deaths are supposed to be reported to a coroner so they can be investigated.

But official figures show that that of 1,115 cases recorded by the NHS, only a third, were reported to coroners over the last three years.

Norman Lamb blamed
’ Under funding of sometimes threadbare mental health services which are struggling to cope with rising demand for care’.

Yet a fifth of our total NHS budget is being spent on mental health , the CCGs budget being up by £342m, and an extra £1.4bn is allocated by this Parliament.

How can the present £13,000 a week and minimum £900 a day even be justified, let alone insufficient ?

And would venture capital be investing their cash, as they increasingly are, in ‘threadbare’ services ?

Last year the government ploughed £433 million into safeguarding the vulnerable in their family home or individual’s non state home.

With so many dying in state care, the vulnerable need to be safeguarded in state care, not removed to it,  as in such care deaths are not even recorded let alone investigated .