Harvesting of the Disabled for Profit

A2013-09-20-15_36_14Parents of special educational needs children including those labelled autistic be warned this may be your fate.

The state are creating and labelling children as having a learning disability rather than a difficulty.

The renamed label is intellectual disability

See the latest number here.

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/schools-struggle-as-autism-diagnoses-rise-25-per-cent/

There are several databases used to share information illegally under Data Protection Act and s8 HRA to harvest children including future criminals.

http://databasemasterclass.blogspot.co.uk/

A learning (intellectual) ‘disability‘ is an impairment of mind, permanent, innate and evidenced by a low IQ  and is now  on the rise in the UK look at the statistics

http://chrishatton.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-disappeared.html?spref=tw.

Whereas a learning ‘difficulty‘ is not inate, and  can be because  a child is autistic ( learns differently), a late developer,  has poor teaching/assessment or taught in a second language,  such a child will have at least an average IQ. .

So if your child is a late developer autistic, has inadequate teaching he labelled and doomed to be a cash cow for life.

Unless he is part of the labelling state cabal.

Or in private education as they do not have the EHC system.

Education, Health, and Care Statements replaced Special Educational Needs statements last year.

Education, Health and Care statements unlike SEN, require social services to monitor your child’s ‘welfare’.

A school protection officer/ social worker will now be part of your life.

And,  your  child’s name secretly notified to  MASH- Multi Agency, Safeguarding Hub

Invasive IT Databases are being provided by CAPITA at 2016 see link.

In breach of HRA and Data Protection, to target families at risk in schools without their permission or even knowledge.

Click to access capita_one_-_product_brochure_-_one_analytics_-_apr16.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/working-together-to-safeguard-children-multi-agency-safeguarding-hubs

Your child will be in this system and by it watched covertly by every  agent of the state.

Read here the law and databases used to target the ‘disabled’ and their families by all agents of the state.

http://databasemasterclass.blogspot.co.uk/

And, despite the inherent difficulties of coping with an autistic./ different child.

Any bruise, scratch, dirt, swear  word, behaviour issue, sexualised behaviour, weight loss/gain,  head lice, old /inappropriate/clothing, emotional problem, parents relationship, lateness, rearrangement of meeting, attitude,comments, will be noted.

But you will be unaware you are under their microscope.

And have no right of reply or correction of their databases.

You will be impressed everyone  is taking such an interest.

Ignorant of why, your child really is, so ‘special’.

In June 2016 the government announced millions would be given to provide early intervention before crisis point.

This means those merely ‘at risk’ will also be targeted ie the poor, or those with relatives with special needs.

Education ‘pathways‘ are  used to harvest as many as possible to private eventually venture capital education and care .

As it is highly profitable- £200,000 a year financed by NHS (health), LA ( social),  D of E ( education )

.http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/acorn-care-acquires-pathway-care-9102370

All areas have similar Pathways as shown here for Nottingham

http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/DMS/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=bSSB5VpG8vooSzX00hg%2FyPEcYUVxHpzqPrPXMJfEF%2BxGVODFeCYDfw%3D%3D&rUzwRPf%2BZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3D%3D=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2FLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3D%3D&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&kCx1AnS9%2FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2BAJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5olA%3D%3D=NHdURQburHA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D

This intelligence gathering can be used to enforce any medication, therapy, schooling, or silence your complaints, via care proceeding or threat of them.

And serves as a file of historic ‘concerns’ of parental abuse/neglect/capacity, and/or future, Court of Protection LA evidence, that it is in your 18+ child’s ‘best interests’ to  be removed to community living for life, and your access limited and/or excluded.

Under EHC statements, your child can no longer attend a day school at 16, nor use overnight respite facilities.

His education, continues, by ad hoc, unaccountable, ‘independent’ living skills education packages

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/education-health-and-care-statements-emperors-clothes/

Consisting of agency workers,  escorting him to ad hoc skills facilities, overseen by a package boss.

Who, unknown to you are briefed on ‘your family’s file’ and will continue to monitor your child’s ‘welfare’.

Their goal,  is ‘independent’, away from home living and  is likely, to result, in a cash bonus, or, at least, more lucrative education packages from the LA.

‘Education’ will discuss leaving Mummy and Daddy, with your child.

Regardless of the effect or yours or his wishes.

And, you may not be told.

At 18, all services are funded by Adult Services.

Due to government cuts, these services are limited to assessment for state residential care for life- independent/ supported/community living,

A new private industry being bought up by monopoly venture capital US companies like Cygnet who own CAMBIAN with over 160 home sites.

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/5854661/Adult+social+care+funding+2014+state+of+the+nation+report/e32866fa-d512-4e77-9961-8861d2d93238.

This states,

‘The MODEL OF CARE, is increasingly one, which promotes INDEPENDENCE, and MANAGERS RISK.’ ( Code for ‘community’/supported living). 

Pressure, will be placed on the LA, to transfer adult funding to central government funding, which is only available, for residential Provision.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/independent-living-disabled-penned-for-profit/

The LA’s standard  adult support plan criteria eludes to this in a question the Adult Social Worker must complete;

Does the plan promote independence including identifying goals that could result in reducing paid support within an agreed period ?

Your child because of his learning difficulty will be treated as a ‘child in need’ under s17 Childrens  Act.

Children in need meetings will be held  with the education package, and, safeguarding issues  raised,- hygiene, clothing, food, parenting, medical and dental attendance, physical, sexual emotional  abuse,  and, placed in social services core assessments.

As, the LA funding can only decide, it is in your child’s ‘best interests’, to live away from you, and, your access limited, little in your favour, will be recorded.

No matter, how unfairly skewed against you, even if factually incorrect, it appears impossible, to change these assessments, and, relay  the correct information to professionals, and agencies.

The difficultly posed by your child’s disability, or, the inadequacy of support will not be considered.

The LA commission the services, and, it is liable, if inadequate.

Your ability to safeguard, parent, clean your home, and not neglect your child, will be judged, as if your child, were not disabled.

And, any possible concerns, re cleanliness/safeguarding/emotional abuse, real, or contrived,

Will be reported back, by support workers.

Whilst, your child’s disability, will not be considered, in assessing your parental capacity.

It will be, grossly exaggerated, by the LA in  their assessments of him,

To enable the maximum to be claimed from public funds to be paid to private  independent/community living providers.

The worse your child’s behave becomes or is made to appear, the greater the income  the independent/supported living provider  can claim.

This also is used as evidence you are unable to cope, and it is  in his ‘best interests’ he to be removed.

If you do get support, it will not be charged to help you, other than engage with your child.

But, support will be charged, to assess your capability, as a parent, and, whether you have a safe, clean, adequate home environment.

But you again, will be unaware of this. https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/gathering-evidence-from-social-https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/gathering-evidence-from-social-care/

Regular meeting s behind your back, will be held, between the social services, education, and, agency worker provider, who  have ‘your file’.

Your family, and child, will be whatever, they, in secret, decide.

Any information, you provide to workers/professionals, about your child, that does not fit the cabal’s purpose, of abuse, and neglect, safeguarding concerns will be ignored.

Support workers, on zero hour, minimum wage contracts, will be briefed, on the questions, to ask, and, matters to look out for.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/i-smell-a-rat/

Your family GP, will also  be part of the canal, and, despite confidentiality restrictions, both, your child’s medical records, and yours, will be shared.

Anything, that points to present or future parental physical, or mental incapacity, will be used to show, it is in your child’s ‘best interests’, to be removed to ‘independent’ living.

Any existent, or non-existent health, or mental concerns will be notified to your GP, by education, or, any agency, or social worker. https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/my-complaint-and-unaccountable-services/

To possibly gain support, as a carer, or, any respite, cleaning   etc, you will have to undergo a Carer’s assessment.

This is used to probe, every aspect of your physical and mental ‘wellbeing’.

But, the LA are not under a duty, to provide support, and, have no funds to do so.

And, will only consider it, if the affect on a carer’s wellbeing, is ‘severe’, which would then make a carer, unfit, and/or a risk to their chargee. https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/carers-act-2014-care-to-ensnare/

‘Concerns’, from support/education workers, are relayed to social services.

And sought expressly, by leading questioning.

And covertly, by tricks and grooming.

You will consider them all your friends, until without notice they disappear.

They will not raise their concerns with you.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/education-report-a-red-mark-the-size-of-a-fist/

These ‘concerns’, will be placed in court statements,to prevent you representing your child in court as you are cast as abuser/neglector there is a conflict of interests between you and your child.,

And, show, it is in his ‘best interests’, to be removed from you and your contact limited.

You will only discover, their ‘concerns’, on reading your social worker’s  court statement, in support of s48 Mental Capacity Act Interim application to the Court of Protection.

Your child will be forced, if necessary, by a court order, to undergo a psychological assessment, paid for by the LA.

This will assess, any deemed emotional abuse your child is subjected to at home, and a blanket, illegal capacity test.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/standard-capacity-assessments-stephen-hawking-would-fail-without-his-box/

This will state, that due to your child’s ‘intellectual disability’, he is, and has always been, unable to make any decisions.

It is now assumed that children subject to a SEN now EHC statement will be incapable under MCA and conferences for SEN families give presentations to that effect on Transition ie 16-18, see here

Click to access Transition%20seminar%20FINAL%20(2).pdf

Your child has now been made, the perfect commodity for life, for the multibillion pound, unaccountable, independent living industry.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-mental-capacity-act-in-practice-emancipated-or-insentient/

Where he is safely behind the closed doors of the state where abuse  or even death is not investigated.

Your GP, will  look for signs of neglect, weight loss, bed sores, skin conditions, abuse, and self -harm.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/a-voice-crying-in-the-wilderness/

If you proffer other causes, this may be evidence of fabricated disorder/ Munchausen.

Your GP, will be instructed by the Court of Protection, to do a  physical examination of your child, under s49 MCA, whether necessary, or not, and, any other assessments.

And, regardless of the distress, it causes.

His letter of instruction, will state, that the LA have concerns, and, that you have denied access, to your child, weather proved, or not.

Once the Court, becomes involved, any support workers, will become overt assessors.

All care agencies, and day centres, are funded by the LA, and therefore, controlled by them.

And as, ‘independent’ away from home living, is now the LA’s, only policy, for adult social care, all feed into it.

Despite, his EU, United Nations Rights not, to have the state remove his right to make decisions,http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=279

Here is an OFSTED report in 2016 showing the shambles SEN is in there.

Click to access Joint_local_area_SEND_inspection_in_Surrey.pdf

You, and your child are flies in a sealed LA web.

The government’s Transforming Care document proposes early intervention for the autistic and learning disabled who evidence ‘challenging behaviour  and contains the following statistics;.

There are an estimated 1.2 million people in England, of which 286,000 are children and young people under the age of 18, with a learning disability (Emerson et al. 2012).

This means that roughly 20 people in every thousand have a learning disability (2-3% of the general population). The majority live their lives without support from specialist learning disability services – for instance, of the roughly 1 million adults with a learning disability, it is estimated that 189,000 (21%) (Emerson et al. 2012) are known to learning disability services.

There are an estimated 700,000 people with autism in England (Brugha et al. 2012) of which 125,000 are children and young people under the age of 18 (Baird et al. 2006).

This means that roughly 11 people in every thousand have autism (1.1% of the general population). It is estimated that 44%-52% of people with autism also have a learning disability (Emerson et al. 2010).

Those who display behaviour that challenges Challenging behaviours are generally understood to be exhibited by 10-15% of adults with learning disabilities known to services (approx. 22-34,000 people), whilst often peaking between the ages of 20-49 (Emerson et al. 2001).

A further 40,000 of children under the age of 18 are believed to display challenging behaviour (Emerson et al 2014).

As set out in Challenging Behaviour: A Unified Approach (Royal College of Psychiatrists, et al, 2007, p.14) challenging behaviour is behaviour

of such an intensity, frequency or duration as to threaten the quality of life and/or the physical safety of the individual or others and is likely to lead to responses that are restrictive, aversive or result in exclusion”.

Determined to harvest your child.spider-net-g8i1

The Mental Capacity Act in practice -emancipated or insentient?

feguard

untitled

8 years ago, the Mental Capacity Act was, supposedly implemented to provide a  ’ legal’ framework, to empower, and emancipate,   the incapables’ ‘decision making’.

But has it?

No. See House of Lords Select Committee report.

The Local Authority strategy, to remove all suspected ‘incapables’ to private for profit state care, increased rapidly, after 2007.

Studies show, these removals   were at first,  often illegal, without reference to the Court  of Protection. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2012/10/30/where-social-workers-are-going-wrong-on-the-mental-capacity-act/

Whereas, now the Court rubber stamps  removal.

As analysed in previous posts, it is functionally, very difficult, to legally comply with s1 of the Act, and, empower the vulnerable.

And this has not happened, as the Act is being used to remove all decisions from the vulnerable and their parents.

From this, we can only  conclude, the real reason for the Act,  was to enforce  private profit institutional  ‘care’ for life away from family and effectively any real community.

Such care, would have huge benefits, for  the government, and LAs.

The LA, gets the old, disabled, and vulnerable off their books, eradicating the need for adult care.

Social workers, are used as enforcers, and then, replaced by care managers, who merely oversee private provision they have commissioned and would be liable for if inadequate.

LA budgets, do not then, have to be used on continuing   home support.

Private profit care, benefits the government,   as,  public money,  available, to the disabled and their families, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970, can instead be used by venture capitalists, and businesses, to make profit, from social care,  fuelling  economic growth.

LA budget cuts, purporting to reduce the UK deficit, actually increase it, by payment of huge sums to private care providers .

The market for such care, is  ever extended, now to those which learning disabilities, and behavioural problems, to maximise the potential consumer base.

Capacity/ability to make a decision is assessed routinely, and covertly.

The Care Act 2014, implemented last month, dilutes ‘capacity’, to ’substantial difficulty’ in being involved in decisions.

As   assessments   are   routine, they are  based on age, or label, and  therefore MCA illegal, but who, or, how, could anyone complain?

This approach is highly discriminatory, and, marginalises, and stigmatises   certain groups of people, by questioning their ‘decisions’, and, removing their right to make them.

The state can then enforce any care, and medication, they want.

For those living in residential care, rather than for emancipation, the MCA  is being used, to justify tick- boxed regulation, and unchecked, perfunctory at best, standards of ‘care’, and, defend practioners.

The Supreme Court   decision Cheshire West   [2014] UKSC 19, graphically illustrated, how functionally unworkable the   MCA is, in relation to the many deprivation of liberties, that take place daily, in private care.

And caused   a bureaucratic nightmare, which will do nothing to empower the vulnerable, but simply increases the box ticking of already overburdened, understaffed, underpaid care workers.

It has been translated operationally, to a Review of the Care Provision annually of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards with a Relevant Registered Person, who is generally not a family member but similar to an IMCA trained and appointed by a charity, but paid for by the state and the Adult Services. Most Care Providers have computer software to deal with the matter as part of their ‘best interests’ check list.

As,   with deprivation of liberties, any attempt to actually apply the Act, to the myriad of individual daily decisions, in residential care, as is required by the Act, would also be functionally impossible, particularly, in our, all for profit, zero hour care factories.

Usefully, the court practice is to remove a person’s capacity to make all future decisions, despite this being illegal under the MCA.

This assessment, to add weight to it will often be by a psychologist, pursuant to section 48 MCA.

But can be anyone.

And a s48 MCA application is granted to the LA on merely showing they suspect a person incapable.

The standard assessment order will decide, if a person has the capacity to litigate, make decisions as to where he lives, the care he receives, and the contact he has with members of his family

These are not decision specific,   and, other than for LA funding, often, need not be made, so  illegal under the MCA.

As mentioned in the post, ‘Standard Capacity Assessments Stephen Hawing would fail’, the standard LA assessment, is also apparently illegal.

And, does nothing to maximise capacity, other than tick a box on ease, comfort of circumstances, and, appears not to   encourage joint decision making.

We have no figures of how many, if any, pass the capacity test.

If an assessor, were to find a person   capable, he is proving his pay master LA, who suspected incapacity, and, applied to court, wrong.

The standard Record of Assessment,   will also certify, that a person, is unlikely to regain capacity, condemning him, to never, being allowed to make a decision again.

Providing  care providers, with a blanket incapacity assessment for all future decisions, again illegal.

Worse still, capacity, appears to be being equated with sentience.

As shown in Cheshire West judgement.

Where the court of appeal, and minority of the Supreme Court, held that a person can only be deprived of his liberty, if he has the capacity to understand and object to his situation, ie be aware of it.

Even Lady Hale eluded to ‘incapacity’, being equal to unawareness, by her words

An unconscious or sleeping person may not know that he has been locked in a cell, but he has still been deprived of his liberty.

A mentally disordered person who has been kept in a cupboard under the stairs (a not uncommon occurrence in days gone by) may not appreciate that there is any alternative way to live, but he has still been deprived of his liberty’.

Care workers are encouraged to believe, these very vulnerable scared lonely people with communication issues are actually incapable of any awareness or feeling.

As a support worker, horrifyingly  remarked to me ,

‘Would Issy know what was happening, if 5 strangers removed her from home ?’

The state is now allowed by the subversion  of the MCA, to create  the perfect commodities.

And,  the perfect   victims.insentient

 

Law on Capacity, ‘To Assess or not to assess, that is the question’.

Royal-Mail-Stamps-RSC-HamletThe Mental Capacity Act was, supposedly, passed to empower  the vulnerable, to make their own decisions.

A ‘capacity’ assessment , must therefore,  be a measure of   last resort , as it removes a person’s autonomy in respect to a particular decision.

And, in any event, should only be  undertaken, as and when a decision, ‘needs to be made’.

This is the law as provided by the Act which states

A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success

If a person can with help, make a specific decision,he will not be incapable of making it.

And a capacity assessment and removal of that decision from him will be illegal.

so how does fit in with the latest court ruling 2019, of ‘fluctuating    capacity’, being sufficient to remove all decisions from the incapacitated under MCA ?

iT IS ILLEGAL as not authorised by MCA, which states that capacity must be maximised at time of assessment

The Act also provides that prior to an assessment everything  practicable  must be done to enable a person to make the decision himself.

This requires, that the person proposing to assess, knows as much about the assessee as possible, to know how  a person’s capacity can be maximised.

So basic capacity facilitators, such as the assessee’s ease, a familiar environment, no illness, or distress ,should be ensured and the assessor should  not be a stranger.

And, the decision if possible, be made jointly with the suspected incapable, before the dynamic is changed, by a formal capacity assessment, which by its nature removes the incapable from the decision making process.

The Act shows the importance of protecting a person’s autonomy as it is made the first overarching principle of the Act;

‘A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity’

In addition, the MCA Code of Practice states in para 4.4 provides,

An assessment of a person’s capacity must be based on their ability to make a specific decision at the time it needs to be made, and not their ability to make decisions in general

Yet everyone now breaches this law by declaring people ‘incapable’.

So the first thing to be established is what decision,

Does it appear a person has lost the capacity to make?

And what is the evidence of this?

If a person has all his life, decided, what to eat, where to live, and who to see.

And is still doing this, then, he is not having difficulty making these decisions.

So why then, need his capacity be questioned, in respect to these decisions, as it is now, daily by Local Authorities, particularly, if he has a learning disability, or is autistic ?

The Act also states, there must be evidence of a difficulty making a decision, at the time the decision needs to be made ?

Again, Local Authorities, do not appear to need to explain,  why they have decided a decision ‘needs be made’,  at a particular time, other than to fund services  at 18, and/or, due to exaggerated/non existent safeguarding concerns.

Any presumption of incapacity, before a test, is illegal, and, ipso facto excludes, a person from the decision making process, and prevents the steps  legally needed to maximise capacity.

Without these the test is unfair, illegal..

And the empowering nature of the act subverted.

Its raison d’etra ,thwarted.

Merely because a particular decision is unwise, or other, than one, the assessor would have made, or makes care easier, does not make a person incapable of making it.

And the incapacity, must be directly linked/ connected  to an ‘impairment of mind’.

If a person, has already been making, the same decisions all his life, and, there is no new impairment, for example he is autistic, or learning disabled from birth , then, why would he suddenly, be unable to make these decisions ?

And, how could they be due to an impairment, he had had when he was making them .

If, indeed, autism can be classed as such an  ‘impairment’.

And, it must be remembered, that just because a person is unable, or unwilling, to make a decision,this does not mean, they are not capable of making it.

Hamlet was not incapable.

The reality is, that the mental health system is awash with people, who are assessed as ‘incapable’, for no other reason than they  are labelled with one of the 375 mental disorders now available.

And most do not even engage with their assessment, and their assessment is generally an illegal blanket ‘incapable’ of any decision assessment for life.

‘Independent Living’ –Disabled Penned for Profit

 

6ZFTC0V

If you asked anyone, where, they most wanted to live, and where, they would feel the safest, and happiest.

All would reply, if they could, within the bosom of their family.

This is why, a Private Members Bill, was put forward by Alf Morris, a Labour MP.

And despite opposition, by both Labour, and, a new Conservative government, became, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970.

It was the only, such Act in Europe, and, was heralded, the Magna Carta of the disabled.

The Act, placed a duty on Local Authorities, and NHS, to provide, in modern money, up to £164,000 per annum, for the social, and medical care, of the disabled.

If, a Local Authority, did not provide sufficient respite, house adaptations, medical equipment, care etc, parents/disabled, could  sue them,to pay for these  services.

This allowed, the disabled, to live, where they had always lived, with the friends, and family, they had known, and who had known them, since birth.

It also, prevented inadequate, unaccountable monopoly services.

Allowing families, and disabled, to obtain independent support, that fitted theirs, and the disabled’s needs.

The disabled could remain seen in the community, not, as they are now, herded in lines by chatting care workers.

Sadly, if parents found it impossible to cope, as they grew older, then, they could set up a trust fund, to pay state funds, to an independent provider, of their own choice, to care for their loved one.

But, 30 years on, under Tony Blair, the embryo of ‘Independent Living ’, was conceived, in academic publications.

Research, projected the figures, of older parents, who would be unable to cope, the disabled’s EU Right to ‘Independence’, was high jacked.

Housing away from their families became a priority for charities, LAs, and government.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QY9Qp6JNL8UC&pg=PA1935&lpg=PA1935&dq=JAYNE+KNIGHT+AUTISM+MENCAP&source=bl&ots=O1ozxTtVYB&sig=2RYrzI_ELah1vdl0W6RCvTFGiYM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEof2XjJbOAhUIIsAKHfumASQQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=JAYNE%20KNIGHT%20AUTISM%20MENCAP&f=false

All disabled charities, MENCAP, SCOPE, NAS, sang in unison, that ‘most disabled’ wanted independence, and, had a right to it,

Independence’, was perfunctorily construed, as  living away from parents, in  their ‘own’ home, regardless of  how many lived in this ‘home’, and, 24 hour supervision.

And, all a disabled person’s decisions, being made by the care provider.

This has been  renamed recently to ‘community living’.

A huge, profitable, largely unaccountable market, was there,  for the taking.

In 2010/11, the largest component of local authority expenditure on residential services for people with learning disabilities was on residential care placements (£ 1.55 billion), followed by supported and other accommodation (£483 million) and nursing care (£75 million). Supporting People expenditure in 2010/11 was £149 million.

(Source: People with Learning Disabilities in England 2011

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mental-health-and-learning-disabilities-statistics-monthly-report-final-feb-2015-and-provisional-mar-2015

 

 

The disabled were a goldmine, waiting to be mined.

Providers of independent living, could, not only claim, the huge amounts of money, made available from the government, under The Chronically Sick and Disabled Act, but also, the disabled’s state benefits, Disability Living Allowance, Mobility, Housing and Council tax Benefits, and Independent Living Fund.

And, better still, whilst the Local Authorities, again, on the back of cost cutting, did not provide specialist disabled care, the independent providers, were still allowed, to claim for such care, under the Act, on the basis, of the need, and severity, of each individual’s disability.

This gave a huge profit margin, at the disabled’s expense, as they received basic, non-specific care.

Worse still, the worse the disabled’s needs were made, the more, that could be claimed.

This was not a recipe for care, but persecution.

With enforcement by the Court of Protection, under the Mental Capacity Act,

‘Independent’ Living,  is now, effectively, the only option provided by Local Authorities, to a disabled adult.

in 2010/11, the largest component of local authority expenditure was on private, commissioned by LA, often enforced residential care placements (1.55 billion) for people with learning disabilities, followed by supported and other accommodation (83 million), and nursing care (75 million).

Supporting People expenditure in 2010/11 was 149 million.

(Source: People with Learning Disabilities in England 2011

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mental-health-and-learning-disabilities-statistics-monthly-report-final-feb-2015-and-provisional-mar-2015

Yet, see the map above, for the statistics of those still living with parents at 35, and not independently.

The Daily Mail lead on 5/11/16 that 25% of adults live with parents.

Yet our most vulnerable, who need their family most, are removed at 18, to 24 hour surveillance, not independence.

All overnight respite, and, day centre provision has been closed, on the excuse of cost cutting.

As services for disabled adults, are diversified, into this highly lucrative, ‘independent’ living industry.

The ‘Right’ to live ‘independently’ the only independence being forceful removal from family is the only ‘right’ promoted

https://rightsinreality.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/talk-to-housing-and-support-alliance-independent-living-conference/

Who would want a right to be encaged, all  choice removed, and forcefully medicated ?

Disability charities, have found it a godsend, as a much needed, reliable source, of permanent income.

And, international venture capitalists, pension funds, are investing in this new profitable sector.

Parents, wishing to keep their beloved, disabled children at home, have found it, effectively impossible.

They can no longer sue for the support; they are entitled to under the Chronically Sick and Disabled.

As, if they could afford the lawyers, and took the risk, of the Local Authority’s legal bill, the Authority would show, they were providing such support, through this independent living provision.

The Local Authorities, are ruthlessly enforcing such provision, by enforcement under the Mental Capacity Act, accusing loving parents, of incapacity, abuse, and neglect.

These parents are, not only, refused adequate support, and respite, but accessed covertly, as if they were, parenting a normal child.

All in breach of theirs, and their child’s human rights, Equality Act,  as discriminatory, and the Autism Act 2009 guidelines.

All disabled, now, effectively, belong to the state.

A state, that allows them no choice, and, no independence.

The disabled’s life, in  independent living provision, is prescribed, controlled, watched, risk assessed, and, most of all, commercially aware.

No longer are they protected, and happy, in the bosom of their family.

They are unseen, at the mercy, of any itinerant, poorly paid zero hour carer.

And with no escape.

They cannot return home.

They are only allowed out to prescribed venues, heavily guarded.

Families contact is controlled, and often, cut out completely.

The disabled become an audit statistic,  relied upon, to pay  owners, managers, venture capitalists, and shareholders.

We do not even have figures, of the number of disabled encaged.

And this is called ‘valueing’ people.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/250877/5086.pdf

And, there is little, if any accountability, for the providers’ extortionately expensive services, or, the misery, and death, the disabled suffer in such provision.

We can only guess at it, from reports, that three learning disabled, die  needlessly a day.

Disability charities have removed the disabled, and their family’s voices, and replaced them by meaningless propaganda, sound bites, self-preservation, and slick websites, as they put their own recycled profit interests, above their beneficiaries.

Tiny Tim, would not now, be allowed to remain in the bosom of his family, because he is worth too much.

ACC187-1024x710