SAKU'S CASE

Saku aged 72, was kidnapped by social workers from her house in the UK where she was being looked after by her daughter. She was very happy  with her life and she was very healthy both mentally and physically, except for a badly arthritic hip and  knees.
A nurse suddenly broke into their house  without any warning or clue, and carried her off.  She was then just kept by social workers and abused  until they could take over her house and money and murder her.  They told her that they were taking her for her house and money, and will never let her go.   As they can just lie to do anything they want to people they did anything they wanted to her. Keeping people by threats, beating them up, putting off help agencies, covering up the ill-treatment, abusive medical treatment, causing life changing injuries, preventing anyone from helping them, taking their money and properties are  some   of the services that these social workers are offering. They kept her and murdered   her.   Saku had been caused brain damage and severe TD, leaving  her tongue hanging  out due to the abusive medical treatment.

SOME OF THE SOCIAL WORKERS' DOCTORS MAY NOT BE SO GOOD

The Unliftable Bow 🏹

They are keeping people in the mental health system by lying.  Both staff and doctors told us that they will make up false reports on us and they will go to court and lie. This gives a wide road to do anything they want to anyone who enters their world. 

They remove the children or heirs by making false reports and displace them. Then all they have to do is to strip the victim of their relatives, say that they can't look after the victim's money and take this over. One needs to prosecute the social workers who do this. As my case is strong it should be easy to remove whatever they say against me.   My mother was very well, but distressed. She was able to remove the false reports that were preventing me from taking her.

My mother had been discharged from section  2, but a few days after I took her home they applied to the court, the RCJ. It seems that they are doing this process to a lot of people who look after their elderly relatives. They put these  nice people who sacrifice their lives to look after their parents under these extreme and over the top  measures. As they purposely don't give a chance to get solicitors and don't give them legal aid to have freedom, they are able to waste their victims money. It is  an abusive and unkind social worker practice to displace a person and force them to sell their house or to incur large debts to pay legal fees just to obtain freedom for their parents.  However,  I was able to prevent the displacement on my own at the RCJ, (Royal Courts of Justice in Central London).  I had no solicitors,  but they had to let me go to look after my mother without any interference by social workers. There were about ten social workers at court, but I was on my own and had no friends and relatives at the hearing. As the social workers were surprised and angry that I was able to take my mother home they made up more false reports, they had no right to keep her.  I had removed the first lot of false reports. So I was dealing with many more false reports and they got my mother put back into detention.  There was still nothing wrong with her. She was extremely mentally well. However they forced her on psychiatric drugs, caused brain damage and made her into a spastic like person with her tongue hanging out and jerky limbs. She looked like she was being electricuted due to spasms through her body. They had also dehydrated her to the extent of causing kidney damage and bursting bowels. She had wads of skin falling off her hands and many open red sores due to the abuse at the care home.  I had to remove the false reports that they continued to make on me which robs me of my time and money and is distressing. The staff actually told me that they just make up false reports on people and lie at court. So I have everything on tape. There is no speculation about this it is totally factual and is what they are doing. If anyone needs to investigate this please ask me for the evidence. They use invisible straight jackets to keep people under control.

I think that the government should find a less destructive and kinder way of people management and mental health treatment,  such as letting people look after their own families and giving them help only if they ask for help. They should be unremovable from their families.

by Vidhya Thillai  BSc(Hons). MSc. PgDL, BVC

COMMENTS

SAKUSCASE@GMAIL.COM

If  you need any help please see:

FASWO.ORG 

THIS MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM IS A DISASTER 

THE ABUSIVE MENTAL HEALTH AND DOLS SYSTEM DIAGRAM EXPLAINED

I needed to explain my diagram of the abusive mental health and DOLS system being used in the UK.  It is enough to make the earth shake and to bring the sky down.

There is a problem with criminal gangs in the social services who work in networks and are exploiting people to take their money and properties. It appears that their ethos includes making their victims poorer. When  I say “victim”, I am referring to the person who has been taken and detained against their will  by social workers, who refer to them as their “client”. If I don’t say anything other victims like my mother and their families will wonder what is going on. So, they need to report these abuses if they notice any problems.  They are making false allegations against  some of the nicest people who care for their elderly or disabled relatives and they are putting the victim  into their system where they  may subject them to a harsh and cruel mistreatment which usually ends in the premature death of the victims.  As well as taking the elderly and mentally incapacitated, they make false allegations against the carers who are usually immediate family such as spouses, sons or daughters. It is a fast and vicious system with the purpose of  taking  over people’s assets.  They like to prey on the weakest in society. They cut to the very heart of our families, our reason for living, the very people we love  and our lives on earth. It removes the deep and special love that we get from family. They like to use the mystification surrounding mental health to exploit us. They grab the victims away from their relatives by force.  These days they use more advanced methods such as psychology (being mental health specialists) to get what they want and to cover up the abuse. It does look as if they have studied the effectiveness of lies. They use a lot of treachery to prise the relatives who are usually close immediate family away from their victim by making false allegations against them and may subject them to courts and other extremely stressful and upsetting situations which may drive them into depression and other forms of mental  and physical health problems. Such a result is purely intended by these mental health workers.  It may drive the close relatives into jail or suicide, just because they wanted to look after their disabled or elderly relative and enjoy their company.  In this abusive system the patients  very likely  themselves feel like suicide. This method of deliberately causing depression is made worse by the use of CTOs (Community Treatment Orders)  as there may not be enough safeguards against the abusive application of this control on people. Patients and their relatives who come into contact with the mental health system may feel an invisible  straight jacket of lies and threats.  It seems as if whatever  good the mental health system including DOLS was instituted  to do, is being used the wrong way round. The wheels are being turned the wrong way and it is being used for a negative result.  They do use very harsh tactics on these very vulnerable next of kin who are so heavily criticised with false allegations that they may end up  in the mental health system themselves.   It appears to be very easy for the perpetrators  of this abuse to cover up their tracks so that most people will not be able to detect that there is something wrong because everything is covered up, smoke screened, by normal social worker activities which are being performed in an abusive way and false reports which put off anyone who tries to investigate.  One has to talk to the victims  themselves and their close relatives.  Once the relatives are removed, they are able to do anything they like with the victims and they are wide open to being robbed, physically abused and murdered because there is no one to make the complaints for them.  The complaints system and other safeguards are not working.  They are heavily put off by the mental health workers. They have ways  of switching off the methods of complaint. 

One must be able to differentiate between normal social worker behaviour and the extremely -abusive behaviour that these workers  are practicing. Normal social workers are supposed to be helpful people who will put you into care  if you ask and make sure that you are being well cared for. It should be a matter of personal choice as to whether you want to go into care, but bent social workers are overcoming this requirement by  various methods. They give benefits  to pay for care home fees or for home care which is all free under the NHS and other care grants for those who cannot look after themselves and need the physical assistance. They will not force you to sell your house and will not ask you to pay them or the care homes anything because  fees and expenses are all covered by the grants.  If you suffer from abuse at the care home, they  are supposed to safeguard you.  However, exploitative  social workers are in a perfect job to find out a person’s private information and  are very aggressive in the way in which they take people and keep them. They may be  like wild animals after prey. There is an obvious difference. They do it just to take their victims money for their own pockets or for fees paid to them by the care homes for recruiting residents and they are very aggressive in the way they operate. They keep enquirers away by acting as if their victim belongs to them and hold them very firmly between their jaws, like a dog with a bone. They will growl menacingly at whoever enquires and scare the enquirer away. It depends who is asking about a detainee as they have to be very determined and brave to get anywhere in their enquiries. Non-professional enquirers, friends and relatives may be worried about the laws around the Mental Health Act which can be off putting if you do not know what you are doing. They also find mental health mystifying and may not be able to deal with the technicalities around mental illnesses. They can put enquirers into the system or into jail because their workers  fabricate mental illnesses. It  is best to obtain  an independent  second psychiatrist’s opinion that does not include the false social worker reports if one wants to know about a person’s actual mental health. It helps if there is no input from social workers and other mental health worker or their doctors and anyone else in their system. One of the social workers methods is to feed the second opinion doctors with false information such as putting words in the victim’s mouth, saying things that they never said or claiming things that the victim never did. They also like to fake behaviour which is difficult to deal with unless one carries a body cam with them and ask the second opinion doctor to watch hours of video.  

As the care fees are all paid for by the government these social workers  are able to keep whatever they  take from their victims for themselves and this may include what they can take from the victims’ houses.  This abuse is not unknown and even some doctors are involved. It appears to be nationwide and many care workers appear to know about this system. A famous doctor who practised this type of abuse is Dr Harold Shipman.

I had never come into contact with the mental health system before 2007 when a nurse kidnapped my mother who had  never been  in this system, the mental health system in which sectioning is used. If my mother ever became ill, I would have engaged an appropriate consultant doctor  for her. However, she was not, mentally ill, she had never been sectioned, she was  full of life, well and happy.  It is I who would know whether she was mentally ill or not. A nurse is obviously unable to tell and a psychiatrist would need my input. The psychiatrist just gives them a capacity test and has to converse directly with the potential patient. If my mother had been mentally ill, I would have been able to get her a decent private hospital, kindly staff and any other help that she needed. To use  a drug, she would have stayed at home to acclimatise and would not have had to have her liberty denied.  It just takes a  few days in detention under the Mental Health Act for the doctors who treat people under section to cause brain damage which they are doing to victims. When they are under the Mental Health Act or DOLS it is very unlikely that a victim would survive and they do what they can to degrade their physical health. They are likely to never improve due to the methods they use and also due to the abuse especially when the social workers and others in the system are corrupt. The government spends a lot of money in detaining people under the Mental Health Act and DOLS.  The government also pay for solicitors and all of the other activities that are involved in detaining people and they could save a lot if they just leave these victims to their relatives or to whoever the victims chose to look after them.  Therefore, if bent social workers and care homes are using this to just keep people it must be costing a lot of money, especially if they are being kept against their will and   want to go home. Court costs and lawyers may be very high. In addition to this the social workers create an expense for the close relatives, and will try to ruin their lives and their finances.

It is horrifying that the laws used in social care and social worker activities are able to unlock the front door to your house and allow them to break in whenever they want, they unlock the locks on your money and property and they unlock the ownership of your relatives by you so that you lose the family relationship and control that you have over that relationship. They can walk off with your relative as if they were taking property. They especially take children and the elderly but also take others saying that they are mentally ill.  In regard to these bent social workers words like good faith and trust do not exist. Social Care and the mental health system are a perfect place for crooks to exploit  these people. The magic key is they just lie to overcome these laws and safeguards. There are usually exceptions to any  protective rule  and these workers are claiming the exceptions to these rules to be able to do whatever they like to a person.  If one thinks that there are courts and solicitors, these may be corrupt or heavily misled by the social workers.

Many elderly people suffer with dementia and it is extremely worrying that there is no right to an automatic autopsy for these people, and they can be murdered without it being questioned. It is worrying that the mental health workers can just fabricate behaviour and claim that a person has schizophrenia and/or dementia and obtain medical reports with these false diagnoses. There is no chemical test for schizophrenia and symptoms are being easily fabricated. It is very easy for anyone to claim that a person has schizophrenia. The social workers fabricate false behaviour and give these to psychiatrists who make a diagnosis based on these false social worker reports. Not everyone  has decent  relatives who could  help to get the  victim home alive, and some of them are exploitative and may be extremely abusive themselves, egged on by abusive social workers which we experienced ourselves.

The criteria for keeping a person detained under the Mental Capacity or Mental Health Acts.

In 2005 the Mental Capacity Act was introduced. This  allowed them to detain  people who have no capacity on DOLS. Then in  2007 the introduction of the new Mental Health Act (MHA)  increased the opportunities  to put a victim into detention under these Acts. As a result the statistics show that the hospitals and care homes  filled up quite quickly and they became overcrowded. It was like showing a red flag to a charging bull. One of the reasons may be because they increased the types of workers who have the power to detain people and widened the definition of mental illness. It may be that these workers were very keen to exercise their new powers to detain people, as human beings are tempted  to do   and were practicing it on anyone they could. There were many changes to the 1983 Act, but now a new bill is being discussed to deal with some of the issues in  the 2005 and 2007 Acts.  These Acts did not have anything to do with the current government, but I hope that Kier Starmer, being a lawyer and previous DPP could help to put things right.

CAPACITY- what does mental capacity mean.

The victims are people who are deemed to have  no mental capacity.  The relatives who look after them are also victimised.  They like to take the mentally incapacitated such as brain damaged or mentally subnormal, people with severe dementia, those who may be suffering from mental illnesses, those who are recovering from accidents and brain injuries, and those having other reasons to claim mental incapacity.  They also take children who are all deemed to have no capacity (due to their age). It covers people who cannot think for one’s self, but it covers different levels of this disability.   Removing them from their families is easy because these victims are considered to basically be “things” (like pets) which can be stolen and others can do what they want with them.  They can be owned. Whoever owns them can also do whatever they want with their victim’s money and property. There may be solicitors, but there is likely to be no one to check how their money is being spent and they can do whatever they want with a victim’s money and property.  There is also abuse by  solicitors and others who can claim tens of thousands from the victims it is not easy to prevent it or of checking whether their claim is true, if there is  no family to check. They are in the practice of creating false debts and selling their victims houses.  These social workers  take the victims  in and remove the immediate family.  People in the mental health system can undo all documents that one can make to protect oneself.  They undo everything through  the Court Of Protection which deals with people who have no capacity, such as Wills, LPAs Powers of Attorney and other documents.   

If we are going to be owned by someone most of us hope that we can be owned by our own families who we trust and who love us. There should be no contest. Children should be able to choose who they live with and who owns them. The elderly should be able to write down who they want to look after them and where they want to live and trust that their wishes will be honoured.  Solicitors should be able to honour the victim’s  wishes whatever situation they may be  in . They can even remove your ownership of your assets if you are in a coma for a short while before regaining your mental capacity.  It should be considered an extreme abuse not to honour a person’s wishes when they lack capacity, but quite often there may be no one to fight the victims cause  and protect them.

How the psychiatric  diagnoses are being made.

One of the most frightening things about these 2005 and 2007 Acts is that they have widened the kinds of workers who can put a person into detention who they call AMHPs which includes social workers. It is also terrifying that they can break in on the basis of a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and put the relative in jail if they do not open the door. They do not even have to visit and knock on the door as there is likely to be no evidence that they ever tried to visit. They can just sit in their office and write a false report saying that they tried to meet the victim on the CTO but they did not answer the door.  If  a relative  is involved they can be put in prison for preventing treatment. As there will be no evidence abusive social workers or other AMHPs can just lie. It is terrible that they are able to be so abusive to people who have mental health problems. But these workers are incarcerating people who have never had any problems based on their false reports and they can take anyone. They have many excuses to tell anyone who takes part in a detention.    They are just taking people who do not have anything to do with these mental health services and pretend that they were on a CTO  or supervised treatment. Victims may not have anything to do with these services and they just want to take their house. The AMHPs  just have to cover themselves by false reports and can get past the psychiatrists. So,  they can rob anyone if they want to whether the victim  has anything to do with mental health  or not.  I think that it is extremely unsafe to let any of these workers come near a person’s house or residence. If one has actually been put on a CTO, it can be removed by applying to the Mental Health Tribunal.  The application of these CTOs is by a patient’s choice.  Another problem being caused by bent workers is the ability to apply to court behind a person’s back and without their knowledge claiming that a victim is mentally ill. They class them as having no capacity and proceed with a one-sided hearing to take over their properties and assets. 

Social workers and AMHPs  target their victim and all they have to do to put them on section, and obtain a false diagnosis is to write a false twisted and distorted report making their victim sound mentally ill. One would have known that the doctors who work for them would know that the victim is not ill, but often they are busy and do not even bother to give them a proper capacity test or check their mental health. They need to actually talk to and assess the victims. The social workers in addition use psychiatrists who are  bent and are quite happy to make a false medical report for these social workers.  All they have to do to make a doctor treat the victim is to insist strongly that they need treatment, so they are just put on drugs even if they do not need them.  Therefore, these false reports by the social workers are extremely damaging and may be hard to lift as there is an opposite medical opinion to anything an independent psychiatrist may make.  Unfortunately, they take the false social worker reports seriously and therefore the victims may be lumbered with these reports which could lead to their victim’s permanent incarceration and  death. These reports are given to the mental health forums and courts which may dig  the victims and their relatives deeper into problems. Doing this makes it easy for the social workers to not have to show any reports they make to the victim and relatives who they can then rob very easily. They have some cheeky tricks such as telling the judge that it may upset the victim  if they are able to see the medical report. Under the normal rules they have to disclose if asked, but under special rules they are not always  disclosing  to the  subject of the report. Even  the lawyers, victim and relative will not know what is in these reports. Such a practice would render a hearing that does not disclose information unfair under Article 6 ECHR.

Using psychology

They take extreme measures so that when the case is examined the records tell a very misleading story as one would wonder why the extreme measures were being used. It is lying by using excessive measures that would only be used under certain circumstances. This misleads the reader into thinking that there was a good reason for it and therefore reading the records may not always precipitate the truth.   This system to rob people is all well worked out. However, it may be possible to find out who the victims were from the reports.  They are also using a lot of psychology to make the victims sound mentally ill or mentally incapacitated and the carers of their victims sound like very bad people. This crime is being committed by the social workers, their nurses and even doctors in the mental health system who have a knowledge of psychology and use it as a tool to achieve their goals. They use a lot of mind control and other methods to make people cooperate. They divert any questions being asked. For example, they can prevent help being given to the elderly or other victims by claiming that the relative is a very bad person. That is, they just lie to everyone.   Victims have no chance when they enter social worker care. 

The people who look after their disabled relatives are very nice people. They  are mostly simple people who are not ready for the type of abuse of treacherous  false allegations and it is enough to make a person faint, throw up or have a nervous breakdown themselves.  The social workers  will lie vigorously at hearings and sometimes it is difficult to bring the truth out. They like to use the civil courts first  where the decisions are made on a balance of probabilities and the social workers just have to go on for the balance to fall against the relative.  The social workers training includes learning  many professional methods of being believed. Therefore one’s evidence needs to be good. However, this is a situation in which it may be difficult to use forensic evidence.  We are dealing with people who have  professional methods when practicing their normal work, which they are using against the people that they are supposed to be protecting.  It may not even be easy to obtain freedom from the false allegations through solicitors. 

The social workers do influence the solicitors  a lot and this influence may be money driven as the public bodies such as the Official Solicitors and the OPG tend  to favour certain firms. In respect of the solicitors that work in the mental health system and have to attend tribunals which take place in the hospitals and care homes they may not be ready for the manipulation by the social workers and their nurses and doctors.

Solicitors are not using the legal principle of innocent before being proved guilty and are claiming conflicts of interest before anything has been proved against the relative. Therefore the social workers  are able to remove a victim from their  relative saying that the relative has been abusing the victim in some way so that the victim is punished by having their liberty denied due to being forced   to stay in an awful care home and the relative is made to feel upset due to the false allegations.  If the solicitors do their full job which is to ask the carer relative about  what happened and sort the problem out, the victim would be free to go home. However, these solicitors who work for mental health services are not doing this.  The social workers give them a totally different story and persuade them not to listen to the victim and their relative. 

There is a lot of paranoia about mental health.  They are claiming that many quality consultant psychiatrists are moving abroad due to wanting better pay and conditions.    However, people need this expert help if they are ill.  One usually has a breakdown and they are taken to hospital where they will have some drugs to overcome the problem.  Or they can see the GP if they are feeling ill and they may be referred to a psychiatrist and will get some drugs or therapy  as for any other illness. There is no stigma by this method and no stigma in taking psychiatric drugs. These drugs are often used for recreational purposes.  Some of them may even have side effects such as LSD which causes hallucinations. The drugs are not an absolute science or cure and many have damaging side effects. If you do not actually need any drugs to remain mentally aware and alert it is not right to be forced to take them as the damage caused may be permanent. They do sometimes overdose the drugs to deliberately cause Tardive Dyskinesia (TD) which is poisoning of  the nervous system, causing a   neurological movement disorder. It is  usually caused by long‑term use of antipsychotic or dopamine‑blocking medications. The key feature is uncontrollable, repetitive movements. There are many symptoms including tongue sticking out, facial movements, chewing their tongue, constantly moving limbs, jerky limbs and many very upsetting symptoms that will make you cry when you see it. It reduces life expectancy and is a criminal abuse, and is being used to cause death.  All the time the victim will be aware of themselves and embarrassed because they cannot control these involuntary movements.  This method makes a person look mentally ill and they just have to  overdose the drugs to achieve this.  It is an extreme torture being used by these  mental health services.

The social workers are taking liberties with people

The doors into a person’s life have been thrown wide open and any stranger can interfere with your life. Control is being lifted away from the family for many and is being put into the hands of social workers and their coworkers.  These Acts are being used by mental health workers and others in care homes and hospitals  where they are applied daily.  The Mental Capacity Act 2005 has indicated how matters are to be decided for people who have no mental capacity, to be able to make certain levels of decisions for oneself. Thankfully  the Act gives a wide definition for estimating capacity, no matter what disorder or disability you are suffering from.  And whether you have capacity despite these disorders or disabilities has to be tested, which  is best done by a psychiatrist. In addition, a lack of capacity may be temporary.  If it is decided that a person has no capacity to make a particular decision about themselves, any decisions which need to be made about them require the application of the principle of “Best Interests”.   It means that  a decision maker must take into account what is known that a mentally incapacitated person  wants by asking close relatives and people who know them well and from clues such as  documents, letters and other sources.  The Best Interests decision is then supposed to be applied taking everything into account.  However social workers are extremely abusive and are ignoring this law to be able to do whatever they like. Essentially, they are kidnappers if they ignore the rules around mental capacity and do what they want to a person before they have a doctor’s  opinion. They ignore the rules, they don’t care what the victim ever wanted, but they will just do whatever they want to achieve their own goals. One cannot trust them and they have little  integrity. Usually, the victims have plenty of capacity, but the social workers ignore this when they want to detain a person and they also employ bent doctors as the exploitation may have a lucrative purpose.  So, this ability of the social workers and others to do whatever they want to a person presents a problem. E.g.  with mental health they will take them over  and say that if a person was thinking properly, they  will want to be treated, even if it  is not a decision that would have been made by the victim.  They may have other health conditions. The victim may know that the treatment won’t help them etc. For instance, if they have already tried certain drugs which were found to be harmful to them or if they suffer from severe side effects. However,  this ability for the social workers to override  the victim’s point of view with their point of view may be extremely detrimental to the victim. They have been removing people’s liberty,   selling people’s houses, or removing their relatives or money by using the Best Interests  principle.

Keeping a person detained on DOLS depends on their mental capacity. If you don’t have capacity  anyone can do whatever they want to you and they may not comply with any wishes you have or follow the guidelines in the Mental Capacity Act for making decisions about a person such as where you live and who looks after you. In this case practice and theory are two totally different entities. In the past we used to rely heavily on our close relatives in such situations  and hope that they will do their best for us.  The social workers  care homes and others involved  do whatever they want. If you have mental capacity the Court Of Protection  which is used to make important decisions for someone who has no mental capacity,   will be out of jurisdiction. They should  not obtain orders there for you and you can go home if you want to. As one can see I have plenty of capacity and so did my mother and so any decisions made in the Court Of Protection will be void. They will be totally invalid and cannot be used.  The social workers are in the practice of applying to this court without the victim’s knowledge. They tell the judge that this person lacks capacity, and ask for money or property. They do not even have to let you attend the hearing or even tell you about it and what is being decided on your behalf.  They can do whatever they like to you, without your knowledge.  There is no way of making them adhere to your wishes and can do anything they want to. They can even use someone else’s records or use false LPAs and other documents as you will never know about it.  What helps us most in these situations is to  have close relatives to  protect us. Therefore, displacing relatives is an important  practice for these workers.  This abuse is actually being practiced on people.

If a victim is being detained on DOLS an RPR (Relevant Persons Representative) is chosen from close relatives. The RPR  can apply to court  because the  RPR gets the legal aid  and can do what the mentally incapacitated person wants.  If  relatives have been removed  through the court there may  be no one to sue them for abusing you. When a person is on  DOLS  they claim to give the mentally incapacitated victims an RPR, usually a social worker,  to replace one’s close relative who knows everything about  you. The point is they are not as good as one’s own relative. So, when you cannot talk and are completely helpless you get one of these workers a total stranger, who will just come and stare at you,  if they visit at all  and do whatever the social worker wants them to do.  If you are supposed not to have capacity and cannot talk, you will need your close relative to be with you as they will understand what you are trying to say and any signs or unofficial sign language that you make.  The RPRs may only visit a few times a year and  do not even bother to talk to the close relative and find out what your problems may be.  If the victim cannot communicate with people they do not know and  just wants to go home or if she/he  was being  physically  abused and assaulted by the staff, the RPR would never know about it. It is very unlikely that the care staff would report any abuse they have committed  themselves  and they are likely to deny any responsibility. The social worker methods include preventing access to one’s close relative which they can do under any excuse they want to use. If the victim wants their relative  to be allowed  to visit daily  there is no way that the victim   would be able to ask the RPR about it.  If the RPR is a total stranger and the encroaching practice appears to favour professional RPRs, it leaves the victim in a dilemma because if they have the ability to complain at all to this person one never knows whether they will help, or encourage the staff to bash them up some more for snitching. This is the normal culture in the care homes. Such victims are basically lumps of meat who can be beaten up and no one would know about it.  As the staff are at risk of being blamed it is not likely that they would say anything. These people will not care.   There are many possibly thousands    of cases where detainees have been financially exploited or physically abused by these social workers, care homes and their staff.  They do not even provide legal aid funded solicitors for the displaced relative. As there is no way of policing these staff including RPRs they should not be removing relatives at all through the  court or otherwise. The relatives and others  should always be able to enter the care facility and visit the resident.      

To decide whether a person  has mental capacity and have the ability to make decisions for oneself  a psychiatrist will give some simple tests to check awareness. One has to be practically brain dead to fail these tests. It does not matter whether they are mentally ill or not or suffering from dementia, if they can pass the tests, they should not be able to detain a person against their will at all under DOLS.  What matters more is that the victim has capacity and if so, they can ask to go home. If they do not have capacity they can rely on any documents, friends and relatives as to what they would have done  if they had capacity. Usually, the LPA and advance statements are supposed to be used to decide what a person would have wanted if they had capacity, but this important facility is being abused by social workers and others in the care and mental health system by using “Best Interests” under s4 MCA2005, which is an avenue for  imposing their own wishes on a person. One used to ask the closest relatives or trusted friends  in the past but now social workers and others have a way into a victim’s personal wishes.  They cheat a lot to keep a person and they will falsely claim that a victim has no capacity.  If it has been decided that a person has no capacity for specific decisions  there are a list of officials who can act as Best Interests Assessors(BIA) to obtain certain levels of decisions, but this is an avenue for creating more chaos. These people would not be needed if you nominate your close relatives or friends to help you, but they are supposed to stick to your choices in your advance statements, LPAs, and other documents. One can state on these documents who you want to make any decisions for you.  So, any decision making outside what you want should be less possible  once you lose capacity, (that is you cannot think for yourself, talk or communicate even with assistance). Many people who they victimise do not actually lack capacity and they are either not tested or the tests are not being done properly.  However, one can see that if you have an accident and are suffering from brain injuries you may fall into this category, which may be temporary.  There are reports of people being financially ripped off during periods of temporary mental incapacity.

Unlike DOLS  detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 (now includes the 2007 Act) usually requires a psychiatrist to discharge you and often the staff will tell them whether to keep a person detained or not. The people who can now detain you or discharge you have been widened to include other workers. In addition,  your relative(NR), Mental Health Tribunal or Hospital Managers hearings can let you go if the RC (psychiatrist) does not.  Whereas before 2007 only social workers (Approved Social Worker) could make a formal application for the  detention of a person under the Mental Health Act, the AMHPs can now be social workers, nurses, occupational therapists and psychologists can detain you. The AMHPs just have to fabricate a false report making their victim sound mentally  ill to put them in detention and is one reason that victims are being detained for years and years. I think that it is better if only psychiatrists have the power to detain people.  If your relative has been removed under section 29 or displaced at the Court of Protection any complaints they make could  be ignored and the displaced relative is also abused. I think that it is best not to displace  relatives at all as they are extremely important for the survival of the patients and are a good deterrent to prevent  patients from being abused. They are even more important if the detained person cannot talk for themselves. The relatives have many functions in preventing abuse and making complaints for the victims. It also makes the solicitors have to listen to them and take their requests seriously.   In fact, removing relatives  is usually done by fabricating statements and lying at court. It is a popular,  extremely easy and fast method that social workers are using to abuse people, and/or  rob them.

The use of polygraphs  and the lack of help for the relatives.

In such situations the  close relatives are extremely important for the victims and are the most important people on earth who help them to survive.  They may be  the whole world to these victims. They would normally be the victim’s litigation friend  when the victim has no capacity.  They would normally be able to instruct the victim’s solicitors.   The social workers are preventing the relative helping the victim (mentally incapacitated person) by making false reports on them and preventing the free solicitors who are given to the victims from helping the relative. The solicitors for the victims always have automatic/non means tested legal aid to protect the victim’s Article 5 rights. However, they are being prevented from helping the victims fully because the social workers block the way out and they block the advantage of the free legal aid.   All they have to do to remove the relative is to make false allegations against the relative. They are not even being allowed a presumption of innocence. Solicitors  who work in the mental health system are not practicing this principle.  It is extremely important for these relatives to be able to talk to and sort out the problem with the victim’s solicitors on an ongoing basis because if they do so there will be no further legal costs and the victims may be able to go home immediately.  The social workers expect the relative to engage solicitors for themselves. Therefore, there will be two sets of solicitors, one for the victim and one for the relative. There will also be a third set who act for the social workers. They do insist to solicitors very strongly not to help the relative and to maintain the principle of conflicts of interest even if nothing has been proved against the relative.   Even solicitors may find it hard to deal with this situation in which the reports are all fabricated, so that they will not know who to trust.   The solicitors may be put off all the way through the system by the social workers and the others who work with them.   The ordinary legal aid is arranged in a manner that families who own their own houses are prevented from having legal aid if the equity is more than £100,000.  This prevents many relatives from having legal aid

.  Even if they have to pay their  own legal expenses for their defence, their  solicitors may not help fully because of what is said to them by the social workers or what is relayed to them through the victim’s solicitors to  prejudice them against the relative. The false reports may also  be off putting.  The people detaining a victim will shake their heads and use other methods of putting off the relative’s  solicitors.

Some of the methods being used by social workers include making a false paper trail  of events. Eg they will say that they had to keep a person detained when they were put into the mental health system even if  there was no reason for detention, they put them in tougher wards or  hospitals when there was no reason to do so. They will prevent the tribunals and solicitors helping by claiming that a particular investigation had already been done and not to worry about it. They may tell them not to trust the relative so that the actual case is not revealed. If they put them in tougher hospitals, it will make it look as if a victim needed to be there. They may not actually have to lie because they just have to say that they had to put the victim into a mental health hospital even though the victim may not be suitable  for a psychiatric hospital. just keeping a person when they are told to let them go may give the appearance that a victim was so ill that they needed to be in a psychiatric hospital.

They are automatically  displacing the relatives in court either under section 29 or through DOLS and other procedures. It is extremely important to have legal aid when social workers are involved in the case at any point as their cases are often  mostly based on false reports and corrupt methods. It is likely that most of the relatives of their victims who they want to rob or be bad to  are displaced.  

The social workers are displacing the relatives which  then prevents  them from being able to help the victims properly and the vulnerable victims are denied their Article 5 and  8 rights. Relatives who have not been displaced can ask anyone on the list of AMPHs which in addition includes the care home managers to discharge them.  DOLS was supposed to be removable by the relatives simply asking to take them   or the victim asking to go home. In addition, the relatives can be RPRs if they have not been displaced. However, where there is a case against the relative one may need a forum to discuss the case and also to enable  the victim to be able to ask people who are independent of the care home and social workers, that they want to go home.  The victims may often not be given a chance to express their wishes or to be taken seriously even if they can communicate.  For DOLS there were no care home tribunals to do this in which a victim and their relatives can take part. A court application needs to be made to the Court of Protection, and it needs barristers  to argue the case. There is also  a time gap of about 5 weeks or more to be heard unless one can pay the high costs for an urgent hearing.  Therefore, the victim remains detained and robbed because they may have no relatives to help them. They have to endure an extremely frightening situation in the care homes in which they may have to suffer daily fear from assaults and abuse from the staff who are being shielded from prosecution by the social workers.  They often prevent access to the relative leaving them free to abuse these elderly victims.  Therefore, no one will even know that they are being abused. It is like putting the elderly victim in prison and the victim can be  excessively punished both mentally or physically even though they have done nothing wrong.

The social workers try to reduce the chances of the victim going free and will try to put them in a position of conflict of interest to prevent the victim from getting family help. They are not using a presumption of innocence which means that they do not have to prove that the relative is guilty of anything at court  before they are treated as having any conflict of interest. However, it is difficult to argue with the solicitors who take mental health cases.  One would expect the free solicitors to help the victim’s relatives as well, (it is  negligent not to do so), but they are not doing so.  The social workers emphasise to them that they must not talk to the relative which leaves the victim with no one who knows them very well, understands what they are saying  and who knows all of the circumstances to be able to help them. The relative who would normally be the victim’s litigation friend (who hires and instructs the solicitors) is not allowed to give them that family  help and the social workers get the victim’s solicitors to work for the social workers. The social workers create a one-sided case in which all the legal help from the local authority and from the victim’s solicitor is piled up on the side of the social workers case and there is no one to argue the victim’s actual case. They often do not bother to find out what the victim’s or the relative’s case is, even to assess Best Interestss, for which they need to look at whatever the victim has written or said in the past when making a decision of what to do for the victim.  These two are often on the same side, wanting the same outcome, in which case they should have the same solicitors. The victim’s case is made out to be the social workers case and the victim who has their own case is effectively gagged. The victim is left with absolutely no voice. The relative has to pay for their own defence as well as for the victim’s freedom.   Even if the relative gets their own lawyers these lawyers may still be influenced very strongly by the social workers and victim’s solicitors.  Often solicitors for  the relative  is a very simple way out and they may not even have to go through a hearing. If a person wants to go home that is all discussed with the victim’s solicitors. Therefore, solicitors for the victims not talking to displaced relatives is causing a lot of problems and it needs to be mandatory that they deal with the whole case and not just half of it. It would be negligent and cheating the victims excessively.  They should be doing the whole job and not be avoiding getting the relative clear of allegations.  If the victim is under DOLS they are deemed to not have capacity and their LPAs become locked so that they are obliged  to do what the victim wants. They can also use the advance statements to decide  this. If the LPA  is locked, they will remove the LPA and/or Attorneys at court as most  legal documents that you may rely on if you are dead or mentally incapacitated can be undone at court. Therefore, whatever you have done to protect yourself and your family may be undone at court. It is a steep and serious measure to do this, but when they are after money, they will just undo the LPA’s automatically and rip these documents up as if they are just paper.  

These hearings may be very expensive, costing many thousands and they may have bent judges, and other problems. They do cheat a lot at these court proceedings.  In addition, the social workers will make it appear as if the relative has done something really terrible and that it could only have been dealt with  in court as they try to inflate the situation.  They will try to avoid telling the victim why they are not allowing their relative to look after them.  They make sure not to tell them what the problem is. However, if they knew what the problem is and say that they want their relative  to look after them they should be allowed to just have what they want. Often there is no problem between the two. The social workers just set up situations and bring false blame or criticism when the relative has done absolutely nothing wrong. 

The social workers like to wedge themselves into  the very private and special relationship between parents and their offspring. They silence the victim  by saying that they have no capacity so their point of view is not put forward.  It is likely that they are very happy with their children, spouse or others. However, they pile all the lawyers on the side of the social workers so that no one knows what the parent wants or whatever they say is mixed up or obscured as nothing is explained properly to them, but they will usually come, by  making false allegations, when the victim is unable to say anything. The victim will be totally oblivious of what they are doing to their offspring and will not be able to protect them.  The social workers are then able to get between that relationship and say, for example,  that they are prosecuting the spouse, son or daughter  on behalf of the parent/victim. So, they do whatever they want to the son, daughter or others even friends that are close to the mentally incapacitated victim  They will claim that these people have been abusing the mentally incapacitated person.  They fabricate some kind of abuse such as financial, or physical including neglect and displace the victim’s most precious relatives even if their relative is innocent or the victim  does not care about whatever their children/spouse or others  have done. These allegations are often not defended properly at court and the relative’s lawyer, if the relative can afford one, will often not meet such allegations to deal with them as the social workers may try to avoid making allegations.  Making allegations that the relative is abusing the victim is a treacherous abuse of the vulnerable. And are often cliff edge and vicious allegations. 

These issues usually just take a minute to solve and is totally free if the victim could talk and fully knows what the issue is about.  Methods of removing the relatives and heirs include fabricating false facts that fit cases that have already been decided. For example, fitting the behaviour of a son or daughter to the character of Nick Cotton in East Enders to justify the displacement. However, if the victim is not able to take part it may cost many  thousands to sort out, because the social workers will fabricate anything they want.  They can fake physical abuse as they use false witnesses claiming that the relative was abusive to the parent.  It is unlikely that any real evidence is used.  There won’t be any videos showing any actual abuse being committed. There is likely to be no delving into the social workers evidence to find out if any of it is true. They also for example, use some allegations  such as not buying toiletries as financial abuse or not allowing Celexane which is an anticoagulant (but is not suitable for everyone)  as medical/physical  abuse. That the victim had soiled themselves is often used whether it is true or not, as a method of  removing them from home and just keeping them for years.   Though there  are good defences for these allegations they are still being used and could show that the relative has been set up.  There are now many cases where allegations like these are being used and those people are currently in jail/mental health system or dead. It is even possible that these accused relatives die due to the vicious and vile treatment of them by the social workers.   They have methods of changing a person’s character by misdescribing them. They may  make them sound as if they are violent people who are verbally aggressive and extremely dangerous, and that will put off anyone who has to deal with them. Essentially it is a way of killing people without even touching them.   Social workers and others will encourage people to say whatever they want about these relatives. They will feel very upset that they have been falsely accused of hurting their parent, relative or friend but are actually totally innocent. One needs plenty of relatives who know the victim to attend the court hearings which will prevent them from even starting on these schemes of using false reports to set up their victims. It would help if they are able to assist  the relative by getting good lawyers for them.  It is extremely terrible for both the victim and an accused relative if you do not have any other friends and relatives. Some of the allegations are repeated in other cases and the victims and relatives should go free.  There is a list of cases since 2015 but the OPG was using this scam from many years earlier.

These are methods  being used by the OPG (who are the body that looks after mentally incapacitated  people and their LPAs) and the Court Of Protection, by OPG workers but also by some lawyers. The OPG workers and social workers or any others will fabricate false twisted reports  which may be difficult to unravel and get to the truth. These reports may be so distorted   that the defence lawyers may be misled. One may have to take great pains to decipher what they are saying and disprove them.  There is often no help for the relative  or actual help for the victim. The victim’s money and assets are  taken over and sometimes the relative’s money and assets are also grabbed. They may cheat a lot with the court process and cut a lot of corners. One should not take the result of these  cases too seriously. It is all verry efficient daylight robbery.   This has been enough to displace the relative and put the relative in prison/mental health system.  There are people who may be in prison currently  who have been put there on this basis, so I hope that they can all go free.  A big clue that these relatives have been set up is the use of the above  excuses. This is a vile and vicious crime.

These social workers manipulate the system with ease as the laws may be difficult to explain to lay people and it leaves the victims feeling helpless. Being mental health workers, they use a lot of psychology to make people believe them and they hide their victims  behind the activities they normally do to legitimate patients. But what they do is extremely terrible, disproportionate  and unbelievable. It is unbelievable that they have no stops and that they are able to ignore courts, tribunals and other hearings. The problem is even steeper because this is the mental health system and they are silencing people by false claims of mental illness of victims and relatives. They are not listening and they have a list of excuses to enable them  not to listen to   these forums and to ignore human rights.

The victims and their carer relatives have to suffer severe treachery of being set up for crimes and being falsely accused. The result may be that some relatives  end up in prison, some in the mental health system, some committing suicide and others ending up not being able to get jobs or being targeted by crooks and scammers etcetera due to   stigma. It all leads to more unnecessary expense for the government.  We need to be able to use polygraphs to overcome these false allegations, but often they use tricks to get around even this facility.  The polygraphs are not always allowed at court, but they will help to overcome the extreme distress and suffering that false allegations are causing. I am sure that they will help to reduce the incidence of these problems. One has to be careful with evidence as the social workers and their associates will lie about the hearings, about the evidence, and even dodge the polygraph evidence. They also lie about the outcome of these.  They cover up excessively and even tamper with court transcripts.

Once they have got rid of close relatives, the social workers can do anything they like because no one is going to know. If they claim that a victim  has no capacity, they don’t usually attend court and even if they do it is unlikely that they will understand what is going on at the hearings.  They can submit forged documents to the court; they can get false witnesses to attend who then lie and do whatever is necessary to achieve their goals. The care staff do admit to doing this    As they are able to do whatever they like at these hearings. It is possible to use witnesses who claim to be close relatives and ask for the victim’s money, for instance to inherit it.   There is no possibility of  victim or actual close relative  knowing about any court hearings regarding them  because they are not sending  the  court orders or communications.

Cliff edge allegations and treachery

These social workers and associated workers such as nurses and care staff who are using this system do make cliff edge allegations. They just have to make an allegation however minor and the victim  loses their relative or their money and property based on these minor allegations against their relative. One has to put up with treacherous false allegations whenever one of their workers enter your house or you enter their care home. The  OPG like to use not buying toiletries and  accounts to claim that the relative/attorney has taken money from the victim’s account  if they are not supposed to take it or they have done something wrong.   On the basis of such minor faults, they will remove the attorney leaving the victim’s money and property free to put with solicitors even if the victim does not care about anything their attorney does  because they have given them legal consent . As they are their trusted relative, son, or daughter etc and they have that love and family relationship the victim may have consented  to these Attorneys doing anything they like.  The victim  trusts them to help them when they lose capacity and  they have been chosen by the victim they should be left alone as the donor wishes and give the donor  respect on that basis. They have the victim’s legal consent to do whatever they like and after that the social workers should not be questioning them. . These matters are all private between the victim and their close relative and is how people manage from day to day when they are looking after disabled and elderly relatives. These are not business arrangements, they are just informal arrangements within the family and the social workers and associates  choose these kinds of issues because they are difficult to prove. The victim may have licensed their relative  to do anything that they want because they are an extension of themselves (the donor or victim).  The attorney should be locked as the attorney and should be unremovable once a donor has lost capacity.  The OPG and social workers like to exploit this situation once a person has no capacity and cannot answer back to save the relative who is looking after them.   Once the relative  has been removed the social workers  can present the solicitors with false bills, use trusts, claim an indemnity, claim gifts and have other methods of using up the victim’s money. Once they lose capacity, the LPA does not become locked as it is supposed to because  they apply to court to remove the document or the Attorneys.  The same with the Health and Welfare, they claim some sort of minor abuse such as elderly person wetting their bed  to be able to remove the victim themselves from the relative. The victim is then severely punished for wetting their bed and the relative is punished for allowing it to happen, when the social workers  could have given them homecare. They don’t have to show any evidence and these matters are hard to prove, but when it is done at court and is being claimed by a social worker or nurses  such extremely minor allegation becomes much heavier and an illusion is created.   It is possible that they do not bother with home care because the elderly person did not actually wet their bed and the social worker reports were fabricated so that they can keep the victim. One may think there is a problem if the victim and bed were badly soiled and stinking and they were living in bad conditions  All these criticisms can for instance be cured by giving the victim home help or home care. There is an option of paying the family carer to stay at home and look after a very disabled relative.   One may think that they show proof of such allegations but often none are used because nothing was wrong.  Therefore, there  is unlikely to be any photographs or  other real evidence and there is no examination of the false claims for the relative’s defence to find out whether the allegations are true. If they are claiming that, for instance,  a victim was dehydrated starving and showing a lack of care, there will not be any evidence from photos, blood tests medical tests or anything else.    They manipulate the situation so that the accused party does not have a chance to  disprove anything and the accusers can just lie on their reports.  They have the skill of writing their reports in vague terms and it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what the accused party has done. They make it difficult to disprove these statements as they just angle the report in such a way that they have done something really terrible.  They cheat and take shortcuts in legal procedure. The OPG sometimes untruthfully  tell the judge that they have investigated (even if they have not) and that there was something wrong, and then solicitors who are working for the victims do not even bother to investigate whether the relative is telling the truth. They avoid doing the whole job as an independent party,  which is to investigate and to allow the relative to look after the victim if they are innocent. It is a waste of funds to not give the relative free solicitors or to not allow the sharing of solicitors with the victim.  Therefore, the victim may never have their own case heard, which may be completely different to the social worker’s case.  The victim may be in hospital and they do not have a chance to say anything about these false allegations. They are very likely to be extremely upset if they knew what was being said against their relative and they are the very people that the victim wants to be looking after them and protecting them from the world.  It is likely that the victim who would be the main witness would not be able to do anything about this.  So, they lose their dearest relative.   If the victim had capacity and could talk such allegations should take less than ten minutes to sort out with their free solicitors. If they are able to talk the social workers and other staff may get around the situation by not divulging to the victim, their relative and other staff  what they are planning and what allegations  they  are going to make.  They even stage situations by for  example,  wetting the bed with water and tampering with medical evidence. It is difficult to obtain evidence for smells. One needs photos, videos and medical evidence to disprove some allegations and the degree to which they are talking about. They may say that they have witnesses but these witnesses just lie.  These excuses may result in the loss of the victim by the relative and vice versa and it may get to the position that the relative and victim never see each other again.  A nurse could achieve this situation very quickly by making false allegations about the relative, the family is torn apart and the victims most precious person in the world is lost for good. That is a bad sentence and the care home staff are doing this all the time to vulnerable people.

The Court Of Protection and the OPG

The Court of Protection hears cases for people who are deemed to  have no mental capacity to make important decisions for themselves.  The OPG is a government body  which uses  the Court of Protection for its cases when there are any issues with a person’s health and welfare or finances, or other issues with their LPAs. So, the social workers  bolster up the cases by separating the victim from their relative straight away and by using two sets of solicitors and their barristers for each of them. There may also be OPG staff, their solicitors and barristers and in addition to them there will be solicitors and barristers for the local authority. They will try to increase costs and take up a lot of court time. Doing this creates the illusion that  there was an in-depth hearing in which important issues were examined.  In addition, there are solicitors who may have nothing to do with the case who gatecrash and pretend that they are on the case.  They may just want to ask for money from the judge to order the victim or their relative to pay false bills which may be large sums of money (tens of thousands GBP). No one will know who they are and they won’t have anything to do with any of the  parties. They just make false bills and ask the judge to  make the victims pay them. As the victims have no say  and  are deemed to have no capacity, often they do not attend the hearing and cannot say if there is anything strange being said or done. The lawyers hired for the victims  appear to only work for the social workers and do not care anything for the victim and their actual case. Everything gets lost in the confusion they cause. This is how chaotic these hearings can be.  The local authority and the OPG are in the habit of setting up hearings like these.  They may tamper with evidence, not allow evidence to be presented and tamper with the court transcripts. In addition, it may be very expensive to apply for appeals.  There may be piles of reports possibly reaching many feet of files, containing  statements, evidence and other documents which had been used in the previous hearings to look through.   They purposely like to put a lot of paperwork into court for the original hearings. People such as a mentally incapacitated victim and their relative (being vulnerable victims)  may end up having to pay a lot of costs and are possibly bankrupted.  Though costs for health and welfare cases are free but they may use some ways to overcome this. There is a problem for the mentally incapacitated victims because they may still have capacity, but the assessor may lie about their state of capacity and what they want.  The DOLS assessments are often made by the IMCA (Independent Mental Capacity Advocates) who work for the local authorities.  The court may also send psychiatrists to assess capacity.  You may have capacity and want to go home but will be sitting in hospital and have no way of knowing what is being decided for you at court. You may not even know that you are the subject of a court hearing. They are also cheating a lot by not allowing the relatives to be with the victim when they are questioning them about their wishes or anything else. This means that they can just lie at court and to everyone else. The problem for them is that the MCA2005 is based on a person’s choice but they are being forced into the care homes.   They are being forced into care, their money is being taken over because they are deemed to have no capacity and they lose their right to life.   If they have close relatives, they are removed by social workers making minor allegations about them.  Though  they are given free solicitors who have automatic legal aid they may  not be any help to the victim or their relative because they are piled up against the victim and their relative. Making an allegation against the relative prevents them from being the litigation friend and from being able to instruct the victim’s solicitors.  They do not use a presumption of innocence and the solicitors for the victim do not talk to the client (i.e. the victim) or their relative as it does not matter to these solicitors, even if the victim is saying that they desperately want to go home and the relative wants to look after them. The MCA 2005 requires that the victim has their wishes and it does not even matter if they are making an unwise  decision.  The victim and their relative  will have essentially no one to argue their case at court because the solicitors appear to work for the social workers or OPG and there is no interest at all in the victim’s actual case.  There should be a presumption of innocence in which case the victim’s solicitors can make sure that the victim gets their wishes and a lot of time and money is saved because this kind of problem just takes a few minutes to deal with by the free solicitors talking to the victim and the relative.  If the allegation  is minor or the relative is completely innocent the victim’s solicitor can free them. In addition, whatever the relative may have done if the victim does not want to take any action against the relative, they can still go  home with their relative.  Otherwise, if the victim cannot talk or communicate and they have no documents, advance statements or LPA saying what they want, the only way that a victim can avoid incarceration is for the relative to have their own solicitors who they have to pay for if they are not eligible for legal aid.  The relative may have to pay for their own solicitors and barristers. This could even mean obtaining a second mortgage to engage more lawyers. This is so terrible when all matters could be dealt with by the victim’s solicitors in a  few minutes.  

There is also a problem when dealing with social workers as the judges may find it difficult to trust the victims relative and may be nervous of issuing any orders making the social workers stay away from them. Teasing the judges into making them feel nervous is the main method that they use.   This is a problem because though the social workers may leave people alone when they are asked to, they just have to claim possible neglect to  take a victim. They don’t have to show any evidence for this as they can just say that they were “concerned”.   Having decent witnesses and referees for oneself  and other friends and relatives attending court may help the judges make positive decisions.

One must be aware that social workers think that they have a “right to lie” and it is difficult for them to see the unfairness to other parties of using such tactics.  In this US case, Hardwick v Vreeken (2017),  social workers managed to keep two little girls in care, away from their mother for many years and were asking for immunity from prosecution for lying.  They thought it was alright for them to fabricate evidence and to make false reports against the parent.  But they have no immunity from prosecution for doing any of this. They do not really understand the need for fairness in court hearings and that the respondents need to be given an equal footing in the forums including courts, which is the first rule of court hearings.   They do not understand that lying is a sin especially in these situations where a person’s life depends on what they say.  They do treat the detention and abuse  of people as a game and they enjoy using whatever tactics they can to keep their victims away from their families.  This case underlines the behaviour and attitude of social workers in general and their practices are extant.  Their victims are mere toys and the legal routes do not work. 

There are problems in allowing social workers to interfere with a person’s medical treatment and it appears to be routine for them to cause brain damage to their victims.  These social workers try to  traumatise elderly  victims and  cause them to die more quickly.   They are in fact purposely causing  brain damage to achieve a lack of mental capacity  in their victims which  enables  them to assimilate  a person’s money or to just be abusive.  Overdosing with psychiatric drugs, traumatising  or causing falls and head injuries are methods that they are using. The statistics show that  disproportionately higher percentages of black children are taken into care by social workers than one would expect in regard to the general black population in the UK.  In addition, proportionally  more of the black and Asian  children who are put into social worker care   are being caused brain damage compared to  white children.

The  2021 census estimates  the racial mix in the whole of the  UK is about 3.7%  black, 8.6% Asian the rest from other minorities compared to  about 83% white natives. The native Brits are usually very  nice compared to how people are in some other countries where the differences may not be colour or race, but other factors such as  language, culture or religion. Some of my black friends said that people are much nicer here than in their own countries.  Most of the coloured people here were recruited for jobs to make the country wealthier and some came here as refugees (many of whom are running successful businesses and are job creators). It is not doubted that there are still some xenophobic attitudes in the work place and state  institutions such as the social services and  NHS. The Human Rights Act 1998, helps with discrimination, Art14  ECHR, our right not to be discriminated against and the 2010 Equalities Act.

                                                                                               .

THE ABUSIVE MENTAL HEALTH AND DOLS SYSTEM DIAGRAM EXPLAINED (continued)

FORCED OPERATIONS AND FORCED TREATMENT

These Acts also allow for forced operations such as sterilization, brain surgery, amputations which are all horrifying things to be done to a person under the law.  One has to rely on getting decent doctors and solicitors which may not always be the situation. Usually, a close relative can agree or not on a mentally incapacitated person’s behalf. The attitude may be different if your relative is displaced.  It may not always be possible to stop these from being done. Urgent injunctions are expensive, may take up to a few days and they could do the damage before you can stop them through the court.  There are ways that these situations can be manipulated by the staff, such as saying, if you don’t allow this drug we can sue you for preventing treatment. This situation is very detrimental because they are removing LPAs on the basis that the Attorney does not want their Donor  to have a particular potentially damaging treatment. This  is very bad as they are effectively removing the Donor’s power of choice over their own bodies and lives.

It is very easy for people to become victims of abusive workers such as nurses and social workers who can cause you a lot of trouble if they feel like doing so and interfere with your family rights and choices.   The social workers like to cause trouble for people whenever they can and may ask you to apply to court to be able to apply one’s own power of choice. Then one would have to pay for doctors opinions, solicitors and barristers and have to fight the social workers for every whim of theirs to cause you trouble and to make you waste your money. You may have to remortgage your house or get loans which may take many years to pay.  However, it is all fun for the social workers. There are many  cases such as those where parents went through a long court ordeal due to social workers who wanted to interfere with family rights and right of choice for the treatment of their child, using “best interest” decisions. They  were not allowed to have their wishes in regard to the choice of treatment for their family. We should have the right to choose the treatment and the doctors who we want to engage as this current system is interfering too much with our personal rights and freedoms regarding our own families. If we want to use an experimental treatment that may work, we should be able to do that without being hindered. They do not really understand the spiritual side of these matters. So a total stranger can interfere with you if and whenever they feel like being abusive. There is too much interference by the state through their abusive workers.   Can you see how extremely detrimental they are being, and these are people who we can live in perfect happiness without. 

There are many abuses around general health care such as purposely causing medical injury. They also do not diagnose or bother with people who have mental health problems or merely because you are female, and doctors just claim  that the person is a hypochondriac, or it’s all in the mind.  You need to obtain second opinions if you do not agree with the diagnosis. Therefore it is extremely important for your close relatives to not be displaceable especially if you are elderly, a child or otherwise incapacitated. They should not be removed from anyone. Another problem for these people is that there may be no one from the family to check whether the victim is being financially abused.  The relatives  also need free solicitors who can respond quickly to emergencies as well as to remove the detention. 

One of the problems is the fact that there  is no independent  insurance for medical negligence by the health system in the UK.  One needs insurance to investigate your case by a strictly independent  person to the health services  and to pay for second opinions.  They get around it by using no win no fee solicitors, but this is subject to a test and it is not suitable for people who are being detained  under the mental health system. These solicitors tend to stay away from such people who are detained.     One of the problems for people who are detained under the mental health system is that they are detained on the basis of a lack of capacity and therefore cannot make any claims unless they have been discharged especially if their close relatives have been displaced.    It would assist greatly if  independent  medical negligence insurance is available for anyone who has suffered medical damage while in social worker care.  This may lead the solicitor to investigate the cases properly  and sue the workers and doctors who are  causing  the abuse.  Quite often it will also help to get the victims free of the detention.  

DEALING WITH SOCIAL WORKERS

The “Right to lie case” was a case in which social workers were  asking for the right to lie at court. They were keeping children for years by lying about their parents.  They are using this abuse in abundance in the UK as  they do feel that lying is alright. This is the state of their profession.   

The problem is the social workers are just lying to remove people from their families. It is like falling off a log for a social worker to remove a victim’s  family. It is all done in a moment. If you have to talk to a social worker, it is best to have someone with you to witness for you.  Or if you have some other way of keeping proof of what is said and done at meetings with social workers it is best to use these methods as the consequences  are that you may lose your family. All they have to do for proof is to ask their witnesses to lie at court and it is difficult to overcome anything that they set up.  You may suffer from shock when they go to court and claim on their statements that you were shouting, swearing, and being disruptive and badly behaved at their meetings. They are “not cooperating”, “not listening” and we could not “engage” with them. They can also create this impression by subtle techniques.  I think that many people who have had anything to do with social workers will recognise this. It is difficult to disprove statements like this and it may be one of the factors which are taken into account at courts and tribunals. They will lie about everything and do whatever they can   to win.  The method of using affidavits do not work unless any false statements are properly  investigated. It is not only these documents but any statements  given to the court should be investigated properly.  The spiritual power of merely taking an oath may not be effective for everyone. 

We take a lot of things by trust but these workers turn everything around and it seems to be a game with them  to do the opposite to how one  would expect their behaviour to be. The method that they use is quite mind blowing and it is not within anyone’s knowledge. So it is often very difficult to explain that they are doing things in such an abusive and unkind way.   In addition, the lawyers may believe them and use court room tactics and skill to outsmart whatever defences are  submitted, thinking that what they are doing is alright because they trust the social workers. One may need to use the new ways of proving the truth.

The “get-em-for-some-et” attitude - One of their games is to try to accuse people of crimes and set them up which includes writing false reports to facilitate this.  They will also fabricate court rulings and decisions.  For instance, they try to accuse  people of  benefits fraud and  say that they  are claiming illegally. One of their favourite ploys is to  allow a relative to take their victim home and then tell the police that the relative has run off with  the victim from the care home or hospital illegally.  Thus, they try to get the victim and their relative involved with the police. This is added trauma for an elderly person who may be in a wheelchair.  One would need to have a few people with you when taking a victim home which will put the social workers off  from doing anything to you.  If you have already managed to get the victim home the police may try to break in and a bunch of them, five or more will attend, which is very over-the-top  for an elderly person and the carer relative. The social workers and their co-workers will try to blame the relative for everything and they may try to make the relative sound like a badly behaved youth from a council estate.  There are some cases where they used this tactic such as Betty Fig whose case was in the newspapers. They may  try to  mess up their   character profile.  They like to either say that the relative has done something fraudulent, broken the law or accuse them of doing something to their own relative.

Pouncing behaviour – Social workers are using extreme and over-the-top, excessive  methods. They like to set people up and then “pounce” to perform their activities.  So, they are using methods that are used to catch criminals or to raid businesses and are applying these methods on the disabled and elderly and the relatives  who look after them. They are using search and seize orders. They are not using the normal methods of visiting a person which is by making an appointment and visiting peacefully because it does not look so bad and it does not convey the  appearance  that the  resident has done something terrible if they don’t give any wild  reasons. With this method they don’t have to say anything to convey that false  impression.   As they are not allowed  to enter a person’s house unless the residents allow it,  they apply for an order to enter  the property. They just have to claim that they have “concerns” about the elderly person and that they need access. It is all so simple if you are a social worker.  The false reason  given   to the magistrate is to  find out whether the elderly person is neglected, even if they know that there is nothing wrong. It is extremely funny in one sense. Thus, they  are taking houses by breaking in and kidnapping the resident. The victim and their carer if they have one is left shaking and not being able to say anything due to their state of shock at this rough and sudden violent assault.  However, there are many other scenarios which they are using to achieve their goals.   They should not be  watching a person’s house and then breaking in at the right time.  They should be asking the relative’s permission and leaving the victims alone. There are some reports of social workers using this method to enter a person’s house. Instead of suddenly breaking in, they need to discuss the problem and give the potential victims the solutions for their concerns, such as  giving them home help or home care.  In addition, they are not just breaking in to take a person. They go into all of the rooms looking through your private belongings even to reading one’s  mail and  other documents.   

Us nice people who look after our elderly and disabled parents or disabled relatives are being subjected to severe abuses.  They will make false accusatory reports on the carers of their  victims and  if there is a  carer who is   a close relative these precious people are being  removed as if they are abusers. They cannot claim mistake.  They use the practice of turning things around and make any allegations about them into their allegations against the victim or their relative. For instance, they will accuse the relative of neglect or physical abuse and then purposely severely neglect and physically abuse  the victim themselves.   The victim can simply say that the relative is not guilty of doing anything bad to them and that they do not want to pursue any action  against their relative, (usually son, daughter or spouse), Social workers  may have to   wait until the victim is unable to talk or communicate, or is dead to try this tactic. Therefore  the   victim is not able to  save their relatives from allegations like these. They also like to use fabricated letters or documents when the victim is unable to verify these.  As the hearings are likely to be one sided there may be no one to object if the social workers are cheating. Therefore,  their claims  may be all heard at court and they are all easily granted. If the close relative who would normally have been the litigation friend or the executor  has been removed the facilities that would normally have been available to the victims are not available.  One may think that anything done at court can be investigated because there are court transcripts.  However this is not the case as these are being adulterated. Often the value of money and assets that are being stolen from many victims would be in the hundreds of thousands.  This claim is not something that cannot be proved. One may think that there are solicitors, but they may not be 100% honest. 

They like to isolate their victims and keep relatives away. They like to impose a threatening look like a dog with a bone, they don’t even have to growl. Shooing people away from their victim is the main way they are doing this. They close all the ways out. These are people who work in the mental health system and are using psychology to get away with what they do.  If they want to kill someone they will make them sound very bad and likely to cause trouble, e.g.  a sex abuser, violent or something else that would make people turn their faces away.  It puts people off from helping their victim.  They use some court room tactics and will often cheat in regard to the court rules for fairness.  If a victim or their relatives try to deny one of their allegations, they will cock their heads to one side as if to indicate that the relative is lying and that they are very angry.  They also sing the victim’s defences to mock them and make them sound untrue. We cannot always deal with this level of resistance and all we want to do is to get the victim back home. They will also remove anyone wanting to help by talking to them as if they are children which evoke feelings of being in school and being told off by the teacher.  Therefore, if they tell them that their victim or close relative is not cooperating it may automatically cause the enquirer to cooperate with the social worker as they do not want to be doing anything wrong.

They may block the way out by not listening to the forums which tell them to let a victim go home.  If the tribunal, court or Hospital Managers  say that a person is discharged or have a delayed discharge  the social workers are supposed  facilitate this.  However, they are ignoring the decisions of these forums and are holding on to their victim. They will simply say “tribunal, what’s that?”  This is usually being achieved by claiming that the victim has become ill again and it is not safe to let them go. Or they may claim that the relative is not doing something,  not cooperating or not listening. They will try their best to make a victim's relative also sound mentally ill by the way they word their statements.  It is extremely unusual for offspring of people who are actually mentally ill to suffer from mental illnesses themselves and if they are claiming this one will know that they are cheating.   In that way they might be able to hold the victim for good.  They will not even allow a transfer of hospital or care home to get the victim away from the abusive staff. There may be no relief  from abusive social workers and their doctors.  

One may think that there are agencies and charities who deal with mental health but the social workers and their staff will lie to them vigorously claiming that their victim is very ill or that the relative has done something very bad or is badly behaved and to stay away.  Ordinary people who work in these agencies are not ready for the kind of tactics that are being used by social workers.   Therefore, they may be worried about helping.  Help agencies include  safeguarding, police if the victim  has been assaulted or are in urgent danger, CQC,  PALS, Age UK, MIND, Rethink, Citizens Advice, CCHR. Civil Legal Advice and others. The local authorities are involved with the safeguarding team and with independent mental health or mental capacity advocates.  They usually use people with social worker qualifications, but they may be involved in the abuse themselves and not do anything if you ask them for help.  They commission advocates IMHAs(for Mental Health Act detainees),  IMCAs (for DOLs detainees)  and ICAA (independent Care Act Advocates - who were introduced in 2015). The ICAA’s help with arranging after care, benefits, or doing other things to assist patients or care home residents). There is so much help available but it does not work when social workers are involved especially as they are at the end of the complaints system and if they are running these scams it is very easy to prevent their victim from getting any help.  As I have said they behave like a dog with a bone when they intend to exploit or abuse a person.  There may be a pile of false reports and other problems which any help agencies may have to navigate. A main method is to tease people and make them nervous.   Being able to ask  people who know you and are not displaced may be the best way to deal with these issues.  

There is also a problem with asking them not to come to your house if you want them to stay away and leave you alone. The judges may feel that it is unsafe or  are caused to be nervous by the social workers to make an order to keep them away. It is difficult to get relief from this invasion of privacy because if they have decided to harass you that is what they are going to do. They are doing this even if the victim does not want them to visit or to come anywhere near them. Social workers and their associates can be very pushy.  They try to get access to check whether the victim looks neglected, but often neither the relative or the victim want them to visit.  They use this method of falsely claiming neglect if they want to take the victim. They only have to make a few false notes and remove a victim from their house and family and it is so easy. They do not have to show any evidence and they usually won’t have visual evidence. They rely on simply lying. This means that they can simply fabricate and claim bad smells, untidy, dirty etc even if there is nothing wrong.   Even though they are not supposed to harass people and stay away  if they are asked to, they are still able to tease the judges who may be made to feel worried if they have to make an order for them to stay away. 

Sometimes the harassment when the victim has been discharged and at home may be quite extreme, such as telling the police that they have “concerns” about the victim as to whether the carer relative is looking after them. It sets victims  up for further trouble.  This is   upsetting if this is a fake “concern” and the victims do not want the social workers  anywhere near them. They find it a good method of teasing vulnerable people and is harassing. Allowing the victim to have free homecare is the normal method of dealing with the “lack of care” concerns. However, the bent social workers do not offer this which should be a sign that there is something wrong with the social workers involved.  Sometimes they make false complaints to  other agencies.  They could even make false medical reports on a victim  and ask the relatives to give it to the GP. There is a problem for the social workers   if one’s family GP does not know that their victim was sectioned or put in a care home without consent.      

They try to strip the victim of everyone who enquires or has anything to do with them. They then strip the victim of their moneys and property.  However, getting to that point in the social workers plan  may be extremely upsetting for the relative and their elderly or mentally incapacitated victim. Social workers use working practices and these may be over the top, preventing fairness and liberty to the vulnerable victim. They use these practices as a method of abusing  their victims. These exercises may persuade people that the social workers  must know what they are doing, but they often do not and can be extremely harmful.

In addition to blocking  the way out through help from relatives, they are also not listening to courts and tribunals.  If a tribunal examines a case and decides to let the victim be discharged, the social workers  are preventing the results of fair hearings, thus removing our article 5, 6 and 8  rights.  They have no respect for these hearings if they do not go their way and will cheat as much as possible to  block the discharge by for instance saying that the relative is not listening or not cooperating even if these issues may have been already dealt with at the hearing.  All issues should be presented to these hearings and they should not be bringing new issues to prevent a discharge. As these hearings may take hours, days or months and have many costs and a lot of work for claimants’ parties, the social workers will just ignore them. I think that the tribunal  decisions should be mandatory because abusive social workers are using whatever way they can to ignore a decision to discharge. They even lie to the solicitors and the solicitors may believe them. There is a problem with solicitors because at the end of the hearings recommending discharge, they are not doing the whole job of making sure that the victim is able to leave the care home, arrive at home and be happily settled.  The solicitors may be very susceptible to manipulation by social workers nurses and psychiatrists because   they don’t know enough about the mental illnesses and it is easy to mystify them.  In addition, there is some respect for the “professionals”  in the case.  So, the social workers are able to keep the victim  following a discharge recommendation. The tribunals should be making sure that the patients are able to leave the premises while they are attending otherwise the staff may use some excuse to continue to detain them.    It is possible that these abusive staff can rile a person up into a frenzy and tell the solicitor that the victim has had a relapse which is a common excuse being used. For instance, they could try to remove the tips of their fingers or tell them that they cannot go home when they have been told they can.   They use many excuses not to let a victim go.  These include that there is something wrong with the relative such as not listening, not cooperating not doing something that they fabricate.  They use  piggy-in-the-middle methods (a school yard game used by bullies) to prevent the relative from taking them home. They will be “impossible” with people.

A solicitor should not just disappear once a tribunal recommendation has been made and really need to help the client overcome whatever problem is preventing their  client from going home.  They are not doing this part of the job and it appears to be something that the social workers are influencing them about.  I am going on about this because it is a problem that many people have to put up with and in the end the victim suffers. The consequences are that the victim   may have to endure more physical abuse, unsafe drugs, neglect and abuse at the care home and are therefore in danger.  I think that more money should be given for second opinions as the social workers and their nurses do not care about rights. They seem to enjoy their stance of power in this situation and like to toy with their victims and keep them for as long as they like. Therefore, the victims are never allowed to leave and if they do, they are likely to be put back claiming relapse or anything else. They just have to lie about this and no real safeguards are provided to prevent it.   In addition, it is obvious that they are cheating which they do in many ways. The fact that they can put them back into detention almost immediately and call them a “revolving door” patient to justify detaining them for good is all win win for them.  One method may be to misinterpret the decisions in regard to wording and the spirit of these decisions. The decisions need to be made clearer and more definite, and not allow the social workers to get involved with patients to be able to harass them at all.

Their idea may be to make the victim and relative have to spend as much of their money  as possible, in which case one would have to apply to court and spend another £6000 or more to obtain a discharge through the court after which they are able to make the same excuses and put the victim back into detention. They have bent doctors who are happy to help or the doctors are being strongly manipulated.   Even trying to use enforcement through the police may not work as this is mental health and the social workers  are able to make many excuses.   Quite often a victim is kept for years and years if they don’t have many relatives to force them to let a victim go and one may  have  to wait for the person   who is  blocking the discharge to leave.

THE MENTAL HEALTH  NURSES

The mental health nurses are well versed in methods of robbing elderly people. This actually applies to all types of nurses, but the opportunities are more available in mental health. They know how to do this through the courts and have social  workers involved with them to assist their plans. They are the actual displacement experts  in the system and are used to displacing families.   To be cuckooed means to be displaced. They use the old practices of changing wills, removing valuables from houses and grooming their victims to give them  gifts  and other items. It is all exploitative self-enrichment behaviour.  It is an old practice of nurses to marry rich elderly men and displace their children. They also have the advantage of knowing how to murder  their victims without being found out.  It is often nurses who behave like busy bodies and like to interfere with one’s choice or choices for one’s family who they are looking after.  So these people like to get between  the  relationships and then persuade doctors and social workers to do whatever they want.

If you are in the mental health system and under supervision you may be under the care of a “care manager”, who may be a nurse or a social worker.   These can be menacing and oppressive workers who you may find threatening. They are usually for people who want to live in the community and are recovering from a mental breakdown, need to be on drugs and feel nervous about managing  on their own.  They are not meant to be menacing and they are really not meant for people who have relatives who are looking after them as having these workers should be by choice.  The supervisory orders such as CTOs are placed by doctors or even tribunals and can be removed by tribunals or doctors.   If you are under such orders, you should be eligible for a free solicitor who is paid by automatic legal aid. 

ENTERING A PERSON’S HOUSE AND OTHER WAYS PEOPLE ARE TAKEN

The elderly mentally incapacitated and disabled are falling victim to some very aggressive social workers who are taking people without the consent or permission of the relatives and victims.

Victims  are subjected to some rough handling and are basically being treated like lumps of meat. Social workers are using some sneaky methods.  They will try to take people in by just finding out who the relatives are and asking them whether they think that their victim would like more help such as home help and then they will take an excessive measure by putting  the victim on section or DOLS  claiming  that the relative thought that the victim  needs more help to look after themselves and they will write up the reports saying that the victim is unable to look after themselves. The relative may not know that the social workers, nurse or colleagues  intend to put the victim into care based on their answer. One needs to be worried about what  relatives may do without intending to harm you and thinking that they are helping you.  They also often snowball a situation. For instance, just asking for help with delivering groceries could be snowballed into can’t look after their house, wetting their bed, self-neglected, forgetful, confused.  It is all  aggressive taking of people. They just have to make false reports.  Many different methods and techniques are being used. The issues may be subtle and is an interference with an elderly person’s rights and freedoms which will be very stressful and upsetting to the elderly who want to continue and don’t want to be cleared  out  forced into incontinence wear and terminated.  They may want to continue an independent lifestyle.  The harassment by social workers and associated staff such as nurses should leave these  matters to the elderly person and family.   They should instead  be solving the problems by giving home help or home care and other alternatives which may be available. In fact, they should not be teasing people and making them nervous into thinking that they may be better off in a care home. You  should be free to do whatever you feel like doing as there are many alternatives available for the elderly and if you want to continue as you are that is what you should be able to do.   One should be aware and alerted to social workers and associated workers such as nurses who may try to tease you or your relatives. As the facilities are available and it is easy to ask for them yourself, the social workers who tease are likely to be up to no good.   If you are so ill that you may need to be in a care home, a doctor should be able to tell you this and assess you for free care.   These activities are normal social worker activities and their  crime is hidden within these so that it is difficult to explain the difference to some people.  They like to tease people and make them feel that it is very risky to leave an elderly person to decide for themselves. I don’t think that not being able to care for one’s self should be the only excuse to put a person in a care home as it is quite possible for them to live at home and die there if that is what they want. Some elderly people who had Covid-19 were taken home by relatives and looked after at home during their last days. There is no excuse for forcing people to stay in care homes or hospital if what you want is to go home and spend your last days with relatives. Being put in a care home by force is like being put in a coffin and having the lid screwed down when there is still a lot of life left in you. It means total doom for many people.  Statistics show that many people recover from operations or illness more quickly when returned to their own homes and is what is recommended  by doctors, including geriatric doctors.  Statistics indicate that 35 to 50% of people who are forced to go to care homes die in their first year. However, some of these may be there due to physical forcing and rough handling by social workers.  It is very easy to disguise their victims amongst the people who are genuinely very ill and may be too mentally  incapacitated to care, or want to be cared for in a nursing home.

Bent social workers are sneakily taking the money and assets you have saved by ignoring the fact that all costs are covered by the NHS  grant.  It covers free care at home or in a care home.  They apply to court and take whatever you have saved by saying  that it is for care home fees which you do not owe because the stay at the care home  was given for free. It is a heartless exploitation and a method of self-enrichment  being used by social workers, nurses and others in the care industry. It is  fraud.

Many of the people I have known who live abroad have enjoyed independent life styles well into their nineties and are more likely to thrive if they are not subjected to the interference of the nanny state. It appears that as soon as you start claiming your pension, they like to  look for the opportunity to clear you away dustpan and brush style to a care home.

These social workers  are using a well-known system among some general hospitals. They will try to persuade suitable victims to go to a care home following treatment for various conditions and operations.  The hospital was  putting  them on temporary DOLS which means that they consider the victim to have no capacity. In such a case they may ask the social workers to take them or if relatives object they may apply to court and may not even bother to ask the elderly person what they want.    The local authority may be involved. The local authorities send IMCAs (Independent Mental Capacity Advocates) and they may try to groom their victim against the relative quite vigorously and try to persuade them to go to a care home.  If an elderly person (a potential victim)   has an  arrangement with close relatives,  just wants to spend the rest of their  life with relatives,   these IMCAs still may not take no for an answer and go away.  It may be difficult and extremely exasperating for the elderly to fend them  off. They may be frail and it will be physically draining and exhausting for them.   So, something is going on with some of the elderly at the hospitals who may be recovering from  physical  illnesses and operations. A frail elderly person may feel so upset and agitated, weakened  and afraid because they  bully, do  not listen and leave her/him  alone. Whereas previously hospital staff would just ask a person what they want, these people are now claiming a lack of capacity and are doing whatever they want to victims even though they may be asking to go home and obviously have relatives who want them. As they have made the system bureaucratic  and are using capacity as an excuse to claim that a person does not know what he/she  wants,  it makes matters far more unsafe for people in this situation.  They should have been talking to the closest  relatives  about it but are not doing this in practice.  These social workers  may be quite harassing and won’t take no for an answer. It is aggressive harassment and  they are using various tricks to remove the relative.  Therefore they  are forcing people into care homes if they can and I have heard that the social workers and others involved get paid for recruiting people as the care homes profit from having their beds filled.  Friends told me  that they were being harassed to put their  parents in care homes. They just fabricate false reports about their carer  relatives. It appears that they may have to find enough victims who fit the profile which is usually  elderly people who are living alone, or a son or daughter looking after an elderly, frail or dementia suffering parent. It is quite likely that they are also after their houses and savings. When they make the houses available the social workers  sell them off quickly. 

They also  like to arrange a situation which would give them an excuse to break into a person’s  house as it causes a shock. As there is no warning the house may need a 5-minute tidy. However they will claim bad conditions, even if one’s house is neat and spotless. They may set off the thinking that they would not have taken the victim unless “conditions” were terrible. They just have to lie. They like to surprise and then exaggerate conditions in the property to make their residence  sound uninhabitable. I have heard of this happening, which is why I know that this is how they are carrying out these  extreme and abusive methods. They make sure that the relative or their victim does not find out what excuse they have used to  enable them to   detain their victim because if they were being fair, they would have  given the victim home care and/or  home help to deal with any such situation. It seems to be one of  the scenarios that they use, that the victim who may be elderly is so mentally ill, or suffering from dementia  and is self-neglected, that they “had to” call the police to break in. There is absolutely no reason not to send a person home on the  lack of care grounds these days due to the amount of support that is available.    They cheat with the rules and requirements when they take a victim. They also don’t let them wash at the hospital so that they start looking neglected. They force them into incontinence wear  even if the victim is not incontinent  which may cause them to develop sores so that they can tick their boxes. Many people have said that their relatives become more disabled, sickly  and  frail when they are being looked after by social workers.  They have no enjoyment in life, nothing to look to and their future is dismal. Much of the work of social workers  is to boil down  rules and requirements  to a matter of ticking boxes, which  then legalises whatever they want to do to a person. In  fact, there is not much one can do once the victim is behind “enemy lines” and they may begin to groom the elderly victim against the relative.

When taking a victim, they may  wait outside for the best moment such as when there is no one to answer the door and then  break-in. It is pouncing or ambushing. To obtain a warrant they  lie to the magistrates.   They just have to claim  that they have a  legitimate excuse for breaking into a property to claim  that they  are “rescuing” their victim.   They used to use battering rams, but can silently enter your house just by drilling the locks. This is extremely frightening  because it is silent and they can enter  in the middle of the night. Many of the people involved  may have been misled as to what was going on as the nurses and social workers just  lie to them and everyone believes them. They aim to cause confusion. Claiming that a victim is mentally ill is an effective method of covering up anything that their victim may be saying and prevents the victim’s  evidence from being taken seriously.  It leaves the way open for  the social workers to cheat.     Quite often the shock of the sudden break in would be enough to cause a stroke or a heart attack if the victim is elderly.   It is known that the elderly victims often die possibly because they are also already frail and the shock makes it worse.  In addition, they may be shocked at their carer, usually, son, daughter or spouse being plastered by allegations. They don’t listen if the  victim  is saying that there is nothing wrong or that their close relative or carer did nothing wrong. The social workers will make outrageous allegations which increases the state of shock in both the victim and their carer. To take the victim out of their house like that would be enough to kill them. They will then fabricate documents and accuse the relative of the many abuses that they can fabricate.  This is the farcical nature of how they are committing these crimes. 

The use of the excessive measures makes it look like there was a need to use those measures. They act out a scenario for taking a mentally ill person having a breakdown or an elderly person who is dying of self-neglect. They just have to fabricate a few reports, for instance,  as if their victim is dying of neglect, but there will be nothing wrong with their victim. They just have to act and use the extreme measures that are used for serious cases so that the records show that their victim was neglected and/or physically abused and they had to take him/her from their residence.  One may think that they will not be able to get away with this crime, but they do. No one will even know that a person has been kidnapped from their house. Passers-by will only see an ambulance and after that they may claim that the victim has passed away.  They have companies which clear out accommodation, auction the goods and houses  So, it is all a very efficient process hidden in what normally happens around the elderly. 

They will try to take over the victim by obtaining guardianship as soon as they can, possibly within a week. If they have to  displace relatives it may take longer and the involvement of relatives can delay the process a lot or stop them altogether.   The guardianship applications can be made almost immediately a victim is taken in and they are able to take over the victim’s money and assets.  If they have relatives these can be displaced easily by claiming they are not looking after the victim, are exploiting them, or  mismanaging their finances. All they need to do is to lie and they do not need to show any evidence. Therefore, the victims, their houses and assets can be cleared away quite quickly and it is possible to erase the victim’s  existence. Mental health law manuals point the way to achieve these stages by using s29(displacement for treatment)  and s7(guardianship),  Mental Health Act 1983. If they are using DOLS under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, that is based purely on a lack of capacity. They use s4 and s5 MCA.  That is if a person is shown to lack capacity someone can make a decision for them that is in their “Best Interests”. And under s5 the decision maker must choose “the least restrictive option”.  These sections are abused and just anyone can make best interests decisions for a person when it would normally be the close relative who does this. The least restrictive option is often not made and the victims of the social workers abusive system are  detained despite there being better options for them.  Additionally,  it is very likely that their victims actually have mental capacity, but are not being given decent assessments or it is obvious and they just lie about their victims  state of capacity.      Section 16 MCA  is used to override  a relative’s wish to look after the victim,  though it is not considered a proper displacement. 

They like to justify taking them out of the care of their close relative which they do by accusing the relative who was looking after them  and their fabrication of the reports may be graphic, but really all done in twisted  wording using  false facts.  As the answer to any care issue is to give them home care, there is no need to keep anyone detained at all.  Even if you are able to disprove false statements at hearings  social  workers like to repeat the false allegations even though they had been  removed and there is no deterrent or reprisal for these workers for making these reports, or  repeating what had already been disproved. The solicitors never offer a way of prosecuting the authors.   

The victim is severely punished by being detained and the relative is  punished by not being able to retrieve  the victim easily.   The social workers put them in hospital, in the psychiatric ward and purposely neglect them there. They may not even give them food and water to make them dehydrated  and force them to wear incontinence wear even if they are not incontinent. They ask the victims to wet their incontinence wear instead of taking  them to the WC so that they develop  sores.  So if the victim dies, they could say that he/she was  neglected at home and blame the  relative. It is such an evil abuse.   They do not care if their victims suffer from actual  neglect i.e. criminal neglect  at the care homes.

The victims and relatives are being silenced by various methods but they are not being allowed to state their actual case at hearings. They will use excuses such as they are mentally ill and therefore have no capacity. However, any claim of a lack of capacity needs to be based on mental capacity tests made by psychiatrists and it is best to have  these done privately so that they have nothing to do with the social workers who do manipulate the doctors very easily. They use this excuse to prevent them from making statements, or even attending hearings.  They should be allowed to make their own statements, use polygraphs and be treated as if they are very well people for any hearings.

People with brain injuries- These are another group of people who may be forced to take psychiatric drugs under section. These  people may be fairly young and have never had any mental ill health in their lives.  However, they have suffered accidents and therefore are put on psychiatric drugs. It is very enticing for social workers to victimise these people as they may have a lot of  money from compensation and from having well paid jobs before their injuries.  The social workers will try to relieve them of their money as soon as they can. 

Section 29  and Guardianship  section 7 MHA 1983

It is normally the close relatives who protect a person from the world.  Removing relatives by using section 29,  so that they can take over  the victim’s assets, appears to be their routine. They like to take  “ownership” of their victim so they can asset strip them.  When used under the Mental Health Act it is a temporary displacement  to allow forced treatment (treatment without consent) and simply  dissolves when a patient is discharged.  One of the many problems with the nearest relative role is that your relatives can not be NR if they are not UK residents. Therefore, if they have come from abroad to rescue you, they are unlikely to be given the nearest relative role. 

The Nearest Relative (NR) is a legal role under the Mental Health Act 1983 which allows a close relative to remove a victim from detention or put them into detention on section if they want to. They can apply to take the victim home, but it is easily blocked and the social workers  can prevent the NR  from taking the victim.  When the abusive social workers are involved, this is almost always prevented. One needs  to engage a solicitor who are free for the victim. If the psychiatrist is not letting the victim  go you can apply to a MHRT tribunal,  but discharge may be difficult if the social workers have made a pile of false reports which can put off both the solicitors and the tribunal judges.  The tribunal panel will consist of a solicitor or barrister as the judge, a consultant psychiatrist  and normally  a social worker or a psychologist as specialist lay members.  

The social workers make an urgent application to court to remove the relative by obtaining a section 29 order. These applications are applied for and heard within a few days. The section 29 is a temporary displacement which allows the social worker to essentially take ownership  of the victim and to decide matters for them.  The social worker  may force treatment straight away even if the victim is  not mentally ill as they just have to ask the doctor to treat them. As such  the social worker may be a horrendous insensitive beast who is out of control.  They can cause a lot of permanent physical damage to the victim.  Section 3 forced treatment when there is no capacity to consent allows them to overdose the drugs and cause brain damage and other drug injuries.  If the social worker is NR they can force other treatment such as operations. One may suddenly find a part of oneself  missing.  A common abuse used in the UK and the US  is that they  can and do move their victims  anywhere they want to without telling the relative and hide  victims in another care home. If one tries to find their relative the care home may not even tell them that the victim is with them saying that they have to maintain the privacy of the victim.  So they will not tell you if the victim is with them. These are real horrors that are happening. They routinely  also apply for a guardianship order which then allows them to remove any control or help given by the relative over the victim’s financial affairs and therefore taking over money and property can be very fast. They could possibly achieve this within a week of taking them. If you have a decent NR and other relatives the social workers can be stopped by talking to the consultant  psychiatrist or by obtaining a second opinion and applying to court. It helps if a number of friends and relatives attend court and ask for a discharge because the social workers are likely to make false reports on one  relative applying on their own.

There is now some relief from the strict rules of hierarchy in s26 MHA 1983 in regard to who can be NR.  The victim is now allowed to choose who acts as NR,  now  called a Nominated Person under  new legislation.  This gives a lot of relief as some relatives can be unhelpful or abusive.  

Guardianship orders harbour a vast opportunity for abuse. These  can be obtained under  section 7 and then section 8 is used to keep control over a person in the community, away from the detention in hospital.  A guardian is appointed, usually a social worker. (but it can be a friend or relative).  The role of NR or guardian has crept towards only social workers taking these roles in the legislation.  Often abusive  social workers  take over money and property and the victims  have to obey whatever rules they want to impose, such as a requirement  to live  at a particular address, allowing access to mental health workers, attending hospital, etc.  Guardianship can be imposed  by the recommendation of  two doctors.  The guardianship is removable at any time by the  doctor in charge of the detention, usually the consultant psychiatrist, called the RC (Responsible Clinician), courts, tribunals  and  Hospital Managers. It can also be removed by the NR by giving notice to the RC. The RC may then refer the matter to a tribunal if he/she disagrees.   It is frightening that under the 2007 Act  the RC does not have to be the consultant psychiatrist, but can be a social worker, psychologist, or a mental health nurse.  These people can insist on visiting at your residence and ask you to do other things that you do not want to do.  In practice they can be very frightening, thug like and aggressive. Though the rules say that the guardianship is time limited to 6 months, they often continually renew these and the guardianship may be indefinite.  It is very easy to impose these orders as they just have to claim that their victim is a danger to themselves or others on their own whim and without any actual proof. 

The use of treacherous relatives. 

These activities awaken bad  ideas in the minds of some relatives who may want to exploit the situation. The status quo and family politics may be upset. 

They may entice relatives by offering them the  victim’s money and promising them that they can take it all over if they do not take the victim home. They could tell them not to talk to the victims or their close relatives as they like to isolate the victims. They could also get the relatives to lie at court.

They may scape goat the victims.  That is, they will pile all their own wrongs onto the victim and this is how some of the victims are treated. They  start blaming the victim for everything, for the very reason that  they may be  mentally ill and vulnerable. This is how they may be treated by the relatives. 

One of the problems is that if the victim is put under the Mental Health Act, the NR    may not be liked by the victim, but this role is fairly rigid, based on a hierarchy listed in s26 and the victim may have to apply to court if they want to displace them and choose someone else.  However, this may be difficult in practice if one is being kept in detention and it is only if the solicitor allows it.  It appears that this role is being changed in the review of these laws and one will be able to have their choice of who takes the role  of NR    (now Nominated Person). The role of NR is basically ineffective anyway because when these abusive social workers are involved, they would apply to displace them automatically especially if your NR wants to obtain a discharge for you. This then locks a person in and you have no choice and no one with any clout from your family to help you and protect you. 

 It is possible for very uncaring relatives to visit, see the victim crying because they have been beaten up by the staff and begging to go home, but the relative   goes away claiming that the victim was crying and therefore must be mentally ill. Shallow people like that are put off merely because the  victim is sitting in a psychiatric ward.

There is a lot of abuse around mental health that continues long after a victim is discharged. In this situation where they are crooks who go after money  or just want to be cruel, the social workers or other AMHPs may tell relatives that they can put a victim back on section or on DOLS if they feel like it and this is being used as a sickening threat on the victims.  Some relatives may be so evil that they would do something like this and this practice could result in the eventual effective slavery of the victim if the victim is ever discharged.

In addition, these social workers know a lot of bad people probably other kinds of crooks and they do hand over their victims and close relatives to be dealt with by their friends. They can do whatever they like with them such as making false bills for them, telling the judge that they are mentally ill and obtain  court orders to make them pay.  They probably turn them into indentured slaves and make them suffer other kinds of abuse. The social workers or their nurses may tell police and others  not to take the victims  seriously if they complain. 

One reason why they may not care is the ability to use this system to “erase” people. They cover up all the reports on victims and treat them as if they had never existed. They may be changing  records.  Usually no one enquires about these people in the mental health system.   There may be nothing to show that their victim ever existed.  There may be no news reports because the cases which go through the Court of Protection are often covered by gagging orders which purport to protect the mentally incapacitated victims.  However, it is easy enough to kill their victims whenever they feel like it. Sometimes it may not even need a doctor’s certificate as they can use the back of a car dump them in  the river method.  Therefore, it is so important not to allow the care homes to prevent access to friends and relatives. One is forced to place a lot of trust in these social workers and their associates. It is best to just not remove them from the care of relatives or to displace wanted relatives.

ONE-SIDED HEARINGS

One of the major problems is the social  workers and solicitors can  apply for one sided hearings. If you have a relative, they can displace them  or do other things to you without your or your relative’s knowledge. They use this  method of claiming that the victim has no capacity so that they can deal with your life by getting decisions made at court without you knowing about it. Therefore, they ask the  judge to make decisions regarding  your money and assets and where you live.   Even if you have a free solicitor they can be instructed or advised by the social workers. Even if you  actually have plenty of capacity,  they can just use this ploy to achieve their goals. Some bent or misled doctors are claiming no capacity when the victim has plenty of capacity.   They don’t actually tell the victim what they are going to do and are able to take over their money and sell their houses.  Once they have a person sitting in hospital on section or DOLS the way is clear for them to do this. Even if there are solicitors purporting to be acting for you they may  not come to see you or converse with you, even to introduce themselves and they will go to court and do whatever they like, even though they are supposed to tell you what they are doing. The social workers may be briefing them rather than one’s own side. You may  not know about it and often neither will your relative. The court is supposed   to send you communications about any hearings, but this may not always be done and the close relatives may not know what they are doing.  However, there is actually no need to give anyone any warning about what is being done at court (by breaking the rules)  and you do not need to be in  detention. They seem to be doing this to the relatives who are free.  They just have to claim to the court that the relative  is detained or in the system, or just not responding. Being social workers, nurses or solicitors the judges may believe them.  There are also bent judges who take part in these methods

The LPAs

One usually makes an LPA (Lasting Power of Attorney) to protect one’s wishes and who makes decisions for you if you ever lose capacity.  So, if you lose capacity the LPA  comes into operation and the only people who should be able to  make best interest decisions are your Attorneys depending on the extent of the role that you want them to undertake. You can choose more than one Attorney.  This should  override other people who may want to make decisions for you such as nurses, doctors, social workers, solicitors, other people and public bodies etc. It would be implied that urgent life-saving treatment is  allowed. The LPAs are used to be able to make decisions about your finances and assets, and about your care. They are useful when dealing with banks and benefits, and other matters which you may need a Power of Attorney for.    Therefore, the social workers would want to cancel these LPAs as soon as they can.  If they want to rob you all they have to do is to cancel these and take over the right to spend it for  you by transferring  these rights to solicitors.  They are removing these documents which contain your own wishes on how to run your life if you do not have mental capacity.  The OPG (Office of the Public Guardian) protect the use of these documents and to remove them they just have to lie about the Attorneys and say that they are not behaving as they are supposed to.  There must be some way of preventing your Attorneys being removed or anyone interfering with your wishes once you lose capacity. 

There is a big problem because  anyone wanting to cause you trouble can just tell the OPG that they have “concerns” (without anything more)  about how your Attorney is using your finances or dealing with your health and welfare. They just harass people by making a complaint about the Attorney.  For instance, a  nurse or social worker  who wants to take over a person’s money or just be malicious can tell the OPG that they have concerns about the way  an Attorney is behaving and there are investigators in the OPG who will help these complainants.  They are using unfair ploys, tactics which include the use of standards that are only meant for commercial enterprises which hold LPAs that are not meant to be used on  the family. Attorneys appointed from   family members should be  judged by a much different standard which keeps in mind that they are the most important people in the world for the  Donor  and the Donor would not want anyone to find fault with them and what would the Donor  do without them. We would not want someone else’s wishes interfering with and overriding our choice of Attorney and their decision making.  The Attorneys chosen from family members may also have a personal interest in the prosperity of the Donor.  As they are usually  also the heirs, they are  likely to make better decisions about  their expenditure and management. They should be treated and judged as lay-Attorneys (as opposed to a professional or stranger who has that role) and should therefore be judged with less strictness than an Attorney who is working in a professional capacity. The Donor  (who is often the parent) would not care what they do and has probably consented or licenced them to do anything they like,  as long as they are in charge of  their health or welfare or their finances without any harassment of them. These are people who know their offspring/relatives  very well and have chosen them for a good reason.  It is a matter of love, family feelings and loyalty. The victims/Donors   would not want anyone to interfere with them whatever they are accused of and consent is given for whatever they need to do by the Donor.   However there are many corrupt  workers in the OPG  who are making false statements on behalf of the social worker or other complainants.  They fabricate false accounts, they accuse the Attorneys of not allowing unsafe  treatments and whatever else they can think of.  There were many complaints to the OPG  and the Court of Protection about these hearings.  So they are removing the most important people for the victim’s/Donor’s survival  and care, as well as their  finances. It is such a hate filled abuse.  The relatives who are usually sons and daughters, and are usually sources of pride for their parents, are put into jail for doing things that they are not guilty of. The only person who has the right to say how their money is spent or to consent to a particular treatment is the person who made the LPA, that is the Donor.(the victim or mentally incapacitated person). They may claim that the victim’s relative or Attorney is  contravening their authority, making it sound as if the OPG has authority over the victim’s/Donor’s   money and assets. but one’s money belongs to the Donor   and they are the only people who can decide how their own money is spent.  The OPG like to mislead people into thinking that the authority is with the OPG or the court  and the Attorney is contravening it in some way.    One must trust that the Donor  knew what they were doing when they chose their Attorneys and the powers that the Donor  gave them which is conferred by whatever they wrote in their LPAs. A social worker should not be able to come along and say that there is something wrong with the way that the Attorney(relative) is doing the job that the Donor  (victim) asked them to do. The Donors  are the only people with authority  and this authority is given to their Attorneys by the Donor. It is only they who can decide whether they want to take any action against a person who is accused of cheating them.  However, the Attorneys are the people who can sue for any abuse to the Donor  and is added motivation by social workers and others in the mental health services including care homes, to remove the Attorneys or LPAs. This is extremely frustrating to the Donors   and is an extreme abuse of them by the social workers.  Though the false decisions may only be printed in law reports they may be damaging to the victims. They are not including the defences given by the defendant and are not considering these in making the court  decisions.  It appears that the only people they trust are the social workers and the OPG workers but these people  do just lie.  These cases are sometimes decided by bent judges who may have to change the law around the application of LPAs so that the social workers can win. Often gagging orders are used to prevent the press from reporting these cases saying that they need to protect the mentally incapacitated victims and their families.

BLOCKING THE WAYS OUT OF THE DETENTION

The social workers have many ways of blocking a person from being discharged and your case from being heard.  They have many ways of preventing  the prosecution of their workers for physical and mental abuse.

Their  team  may appoint a “care manager”  for you which you do not even know about. or they may appoint themselves and this person may follow you about and cause trouble for you. When they do this without it being recommended by a tribunal it is really another fetter on your rights and freedoms.  They just have to pretend that they have something to do with the victim. They are in the practice of pretending that a normal healthy person is under their care  and can convey a false impression  by using “supervision” and CTOs  that the victim is  a problem  patient who is  obliged to take their medication.  In addition, they only do that to people that the doctors  do not trust to take their drugs themselves. This may affect people who are not required to take any drugs, but are just victims who have been taken by social workers  to abuse or to take their money.  Using CTOs allows them something called “Access” to visit them in their residence. This is an unsafe  order when used by crooks and people who want to exploit their authority which is conferred to them by the state.    It is an extreme requirement to have to be bound to take the medication. Therefore they are assimilating people who have nothing wrong with them and are claiming that they are mental health patients who may never have been mentally ill and are  not even aware of the mental health system. I know that this sounds funny but is a deadly abuse and is what they are doing. 

They may prevent any safeguarding complaints and tell people that any assaults or ill-treatment have already been dealt with and forget the matter.  They could encourage staff to hurt the victims.  Blocking safeguarding is a terrible abuse of the system.  At court they may claim that your evidence has already been dealt with when it has not been dealt with. They may decide matters on your behalf  that you do not want.  They could put you back into detention if you are discharged or if they find out that you are not actually  a patient or in their system and let you go. As there is no continuity and the consultant may be unaware  it could be difficult to prove that you had never been one of their patients  and are very well.  

There are a number of ways to obtain freedom from the Mental Health Act or from DOLS.  The normal methods of obtaining freedom from the Mental Health Act 1983 include asking the treating consultant  psychiatrist or the Nearest Relative    (NR) who can apply for a discharge. If the patient is being detained because of mental ill health it should be the psychiatrist who can discharge.   It does appear now that any AMHP  can detain a person  and the role of doctor and any other  worker such as nurses and social workers are becoming blurred allowing people who are not actually doctors to detain  a patient.  

The court allegations and other documents become difficult to understand when the  title RC(Responsible Clinician) is used.  People will not know whether the documents are talking about a medical  doctor or   AMPHs.  In regard to discharge, a  person can only be discharged by a psychiatrist, the Mental Health Tribunal or  a Hospital Managers Hearing.  However, these other workers have a strong influence over the doctors and do recommend discharge or just keeping the patients.  They have a massive amount of control over the victims and they are keeping them just to be difficult.  Honesty within these services is a problem. 

It is very unlikely that there would be such numbers of people who have the kind of illness that requires forced treatment under the Mental Health Act and this oversupply of people who can detain a person is fuelling a lot of paranoia in those who work for these services. There is also the high risk of harassment by these workers for the sake and delight of being abusive.  Therefore these laws are just an avenue for mass wanton abuse caused by the imbalance of powers between these workers and the public.  There has been no thought about the lives they are wasting by stopping a person mid track in whatever they are doing.  One may be taking ALevels,  doing a degree  or starting a new career, but these people can ruin everything just for the sake of it. It is less likely that a victim would get a decent job if they have been in the mental health system. It is also likely if a person is in this system that they would have their children and babies removed from them, perhaps permanently.   The excuse they use is that they are worried about their victim causing “harm”. But it is not possible to second guess such a question and there are non-intrusive ways to check. The taking of excessive measures is a major complaint.

Section 26 (MHA1983) lists a hierarchy of relatives who can be NR. (The NR is only relevant for the  Mental Health Act and not DOLS). In addition, they may change the name to “Nominated Person” which allows the patient to choose who they want to give these powers to). The NR’s power is mainly to discharge a detainee, but this is often  blocked by social workers who apply to court to remove the relative, that is, displace them. To obtain a section 29 order the social worker is allowed to claim that the NR    does not want the detainee treated, even if the detainee is perfectly well.  So this is another lock by which they can keep a person. It makes one’s relatives ability to protect you ineffective.   One needs to obtain a second medical opinion and they may not allow you to take a victim out of the hospital to see a doctor and so one will need enough funds to engage a private second opinion consultant and pay them to visit the hospital or care home. However, when they are using this system the social workers or others involved will prevent the NR taking the victim. In addition, if your only relative is a non-UK resident, they cannot be the NR.  They need to have residents status. If they prevent the NR from taking the victim one would have to apply to court or to a forum. It may be better to apply directly to court to avoid the false reports made for the other forums, such as the Hospital Managers Hearings or Mental Health Review Tribunals (MHRT) which are held in hospitals and care homes. It may be possible  to sue for perjury especially when it is done for court.   They can investigate and  examine the case.   The social workers will prevent  the doctors and other forums from discharging a victim by lying and giving them false reports. The more you apply to these forums the false reports are likely to increase and pile up. One may have to ask for these false reports to be investigated. Such investigations may take many weeks of hearings and witness cross-examination. However,  the authors of these reports are not being reprimanded or prosecuted.  One really needs a lot of money to deal with all the requirements for disproving these reports as one may be lumbered with the false statements that are being made.   The victim is then stranded in a care home with their liberty denied and basically has to spend time in misery as a prisoner with the risk of assaults,  ill-treatment and damaging drugs or even surgery, being forced on them.  There is also a problem with using polygraphs due to the way these can be used and it may  need a specialist in the use of polygraphs in court  to work for the accused party.   However, I think that it would be much quicker to use these and save a lot of time, trouble  and suffering from the  highly damaging effects of the false allegations.   It will also allow the right people (the crooks in the system) to be prosecuted.   . 

Once a relative has been displaced the social workers usually  replace the actual relative with themselves and  take over that designation  and facilities.  They become the “owners” of these victims, forcing them to remain in care, access to the victim’s  money is in social worker hands as well as suggesting   forced  drugs, and treatments.     Displacing the actual relative allows social workers to block access to the free solicitors and other facilities which the  relatives have.  They will complicate matters by claiming that there is a conflict of interest and are not  allowing a presumption of innocence. Matters would be far more efficient and dealt with more quickly if the victim and their relatives are allowed to use the same solicitor even if they have been displaced. This would mean that the relative can speak to the victim’s solicitor  easily and it is in the solicitor’s duty of care to their client to deal with the case fully and achieve the goal which the victim is after.  Otherwise the victim’s solicitor would be negligent.   Therefore, the victim is being denied their right to liberty and family life by this method because the social workers make false allegations against the relative.    The relative  can usually instruct the free solicitors on behalf of the victim and  is normally the litigation friend for court purposes. In addition, the social workers and staff may lie about the victim and their behaviour so that they can claim that their victim is not a safe person  as they pose a risk and danger to themselves and  others. When they use this excuse, they are usually talking about someone who is in a drunken kind of state or not within one’s senses such as a dementia sufferer rather than someone who is likely to stab a person.   They can say anything they like and the victim is completely at their mercy.  A relative  (if not  displaced)   would normally act on behalf of the mentally incapacitated victim.  So when they put this most important person in a situation  of conflict of interest by displacing them  the victim is being denied their right to liberty and family life.   The logic that the social workers are using is that they need to remove the NR  to do whatever they want to the victim and therefore they make the false reports and remove the relative. This  allows them to claim that there is a conflict of interest with the victim and so they must not use the same solicitor. In addition to this being unfair they are not even allowing the chance for the relative to clear up the  case before it has been decided that there is any actual conflict of interest at all.  Therefore the solicitors who get the automatic legal aid should deal with the whole case on behalf of the victim,  which means making the relative free of any allegations so that they can take the  victim home. The method is in conflict with the victim’s right to liberty and the only way for the victim to go home is for the allegations against the relative to be cleared.  The SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) have guidelines which recommend that only one solicitor should be acting for both parties if they want the same outcome of the case at hand.  

The social workers think that it is alright to block access to solicitors for the relative by fabricating something against the relative and claiming a conflict of interest. But allowing the use of the same solicitor will remove this blockage. If they are not eligible for means tested legal aid,  a displaced  relative has to engage their own solicitors and pay them to explain their case  to the victim’s solicitor.  Anyone with more equity in their house than £100,000 will not be eligible for legal aid, so they do victimise the people who are in this situation and have no cash to pay solicitors for themselves.  It is possible that this method is being used where ever social workers are involved.

Solicitors for the victim  are specialised in mental   law and are paid by free non means tested legal aid. They can help the victim with many issues regarding  care and treatment including  abuse.  They are supposed to give regard to  your human rights and can obtain a discharge from detention through the doctors and social workers, but even if a doctor is saying that a victim is well and can go home the social workers may be motivated to hold onto the victims for other reasons.   The hospital forums can be used to overcome  their issues.

As I have  said above, social workers and the doctors who work for them often present false reports to these forums and cheat a lot with the rules for fair hearings. The courts may be fairer, but are expensive if the free solicitors cannot be used. Obeying  court orders is mandatory, therefore the social workers are less likely to hang on to the victim if an order to discharge is made, but they do often ignore even court orders. They ignore the court order and may even alter them if printing these to other forums.  One cannot trust anything which is in their hands. 

Therefore, these bent workers  temporarily displace the victims NR and other relatives if they want to take their victim home claiming that their request is unreasonable even if they have medical reports saying that the victim is very well and has mental capacity and therefore should not be keeping them for a moment more. They prevent a presumption of innocence and introduce a conflict of interest. Access to the free solicitors is thus blocked. Often the solicitors who work in this field of law may be young and have less experience.  They may not be ready for the level of cheating by the bent mental health workers and care homes. They could even  cut the relatives contact with them off completely and not respond to issues such as ill-treatment  and abuse if the relative has been displaced.

As far as the solicitor’s job is concerned, they should be doing what the victim asks and if they are asking to go home, they should be talking to the relative and finding out what the case is about which they are not always doing. They should be talking to the relatives profusely if they are to do their job properly.   This is also imperative when the victim cannot talk or finds difficulty and needs the relative who normally looks after them to help.  Therefore, the relative should be allowed to talk to the victim’s solicitor freely and discuss the case. Normally it may  be negligent of the victim’s solicitor not to help the victim fully. It is  really a terrible  abuse of the victim if they don’t and could be on a higher  scale of negligence if the victim suffers badly from the lack of help due to physical abuse especially if they have cut off their relative. 

The social workers block the way by telling the solicitors that the relative is “bad, bad, bad,” the case has already been looked at and don’t even bother to talk to him/her, and in addition to keep strictly to the conflicted interest rules.  The victim’s case may be totally different to the fictitious  case given to them by the social workers.  Who is going to know what the victim’s case is if they are not allowed to converse freely with the solicitors ……. no one. The social workers tell the solicitors off if they talk to the displaced relative at all which leaves the victim without any legal help unless there are other relatives who are able to talk to the solicitors. Therefore, these solicitors can screw up the victim and their close beloved relative and send them right up the creek. Unhelpful solicitors for the victim may be putting a  nail in their coffin.

Removing a relative  is very bad for the victim  especially if they cannot talk and have a different case. Quite  often the victim and whatever they say is  ignored by the solicitors if the doctors or social workers tell them that the victim is mentally ill and to not take them seriously.     Unfortunately, the solicitors don’t always understand the way mental illnesses work or that they can make a person mentally ill just by keeping them detained and can be lied to even if the second opinion doctors say that the victim needs to go home. They don’t actually understand the depth and medical knowledge in those opinions.  They may not understand that continued treatment on the psychiatric drugs could lead to further medical damage and is extremely detrimental to the victim if they have been told not to give them  these drugs. They are likely to trust the social workers and care home staffs verdict about the diagnosis even if the independent  second opinion doctors  are giving a different opinion. They are likely to take the social worker and care home excuses for any assaults and injuries seriously when they are far from the truth and the victim remains in extreme danger if the solicitors  do nothing to help them.   The doctor who is keeping them in detention can  override these court, tribunal and managers hearing decisions and keep the victim. They can claim that the victim has had a relapse and make other excuses for not letting them go.  This means that independent second opinions made by the victim’s party are extremely important and may be required more  frequently. It is very important that the second opinion doctor is found and engaged by the family or the victim’s party as it is possible for the treating doctors to engage their own second opinion doctors who may bias the opinion to support the treating consultant. Additionally, the false social worker reports and false medical reports may put the solicitors  off helping to obtain a discharge.

 The second opinion doctors may be a major expense for relatives to bear as they may charge over £1000 to visit a victim in a care home or hospital. They often have to visit the victims in the care home so that the care home can cheat and give these doctors their false reports and their own verbal opinions of the patients, therefore making these opinions not fully independent. The social workers and their colleagues may put them in a position in which more than one second opinion is needed, perhaps many.  It is something that the solicitors should be arranging  but   they  only  get a small allowance for this, therefore  the solicitors are not obtaining second opinions necessary to deal with the methods that  social workers, their care homes and their doctors  are using to just keep people. 

If there are no other relatives to help the displaced relative will have to engage their own solicitors.  The government may not have been aware that there is no legal aid for displaced relatives and these social workers are pursuing people who own their own houses.  If the equity in one’s house is more than £100,000 one is not eligible for means tested legal aid even if you are   on Universal Credit.   This appeared to be the position in regard to ordinary legal aid and can be assessed by the court. Denying legal aid for the relative is a way of denying Article 5 human rights to the victim as they may have to be stuck in detention for good.  They do remove the relatives using section 29 to prevent the victims from getting any help.  This means that displaced relatives have to pay their own legal fees to help the victim to obtain a discharge and could mean getting a mortgage.  It is one of the mean practices of these social workers to ruin people financially for them to be able to get the victim free.  The victim  does not get any benefit from their  free legal aid (non means tested or automatic legal aid) which is given to prevent an unfair detention.  The social workers will remove the relatives immediately. If the solicitor is ignoring you, it may be difficult to obtain a discharge for the victim. 

IMHA (Independent Mental Health Advocates) may be helpful to some extent, but they are not ready or knowledgeable enough to deal with  every situation including the false reports. They are not solicitors and may not be confident enough to help in the way that a solicitor can.  The social workers and doctors fear the solicitors more and they have a better breadth of knowledge and more understanding of the legal situations.   Often a displaced NR    relative may have to  apply to court to obtain a discharge and any compensation if they are eligible which the solicitors are more likely to be able to help with. 

The system  prevents other investigations being done by different types of solicitors who are not for mental health, but whose investigation could lead to the patient being discharged.  They may prevent access to the care home  for the victim to meet new solicitors. They also may not give medical records and other documents about the victim’s case. One of the problems with changing the solicitors is that the social workers will lie to them spout the victim’s case, thus creating a lack of continuity.  If the victim has been assaulted and/or ill-treated they will prevent the police taking the complaint further as everything is dealt with by the social workers. Second opinions are an important part of the court and tribunal process.  They will also lie to second opinion doctors and give them false reports. The staff will just lie about a victim’s behaviour and what the victims say. They put words in their mouth which may then enter the second opinion doctors report.  They also  prevent them from leaving the hospital or care homes to get the second opinions done in a more private environment where only the patient is observed and there is no input from the staff. 

There are many other methods being used to make freedom unobtainable for these victims. For example, they put the case on a higher level of seriousness. If the victim has not had anything to do with mental health services, they can make their reports sound as if they have always been a patient.  They could make it sound as if they are suffering from dementia very badly so that they do not pass the requirement of not being a danger to themselves or others.  They could give the false impression that the victim is dangerous, aggressive or violent. Often for the Court of Protection, they will fabricate a false diagnosis  so that it  sounds as if the victim has no capacity and that they can take over their money and property.  Often, they will make the relative sound disruptive to keep them out of the hearing, so that they do not know what is being done and said in their absence and not let them state their case.    These are all extremely unfair tactics.  Preventing access to justice and ignoring court rules, excluding the relative from a hearing and cutting them off from all knowledge about what is being done at court in regard to the victim who may be their parents, children  or spouses  are all methods currently being used. 

IGNORING HUMAN RIGHTS.

Ignoring a person’s human rights is a major way of preventing discharge and freedom from detention and continued detention.  The main human rights under the ECHR that are claimed by people who are detained are (Article 8)   their right to home and family life and privacy, and (Article 5) their right to liberty. The victims are being denied going home to live with their families, they are being denied their right to privacy when their friends and family visit and friends and relatives may be denied access to visit the detainee. Both the victims and their family are being denied these rights. In addition, they have no Article 3 rights, as these victims are often subjected to torture or inhuman treatment.  The victims  may be physically and mentally abused during their detention and anytime they have a connection to these social workers as they are being subjected to abuse even when they are discharged. There is likely to be no means of preventing the abuse to themselves by mental health workers and care staff.  In addition, if they are just being detained  for good and murdered when the services  feel like killing them by whatever method, for example with drugs or  merely  keeping them detained, the victims also have no right to life (Article 2).The UK has no capital punishment, but they are using these methods which covertly kill the victims.  In regard to Article 4  being trafficked and/or kept as a slave and earning profits for the care home and social workers. They are actively being put into care homes by force, but do not want to be there. If they have relatives or people who want to look after them, they should not be kept. One could say that being prevented from going home and being forced to sit in the care home earning money for the care home  is forced labour.  As they may not be able to talk or communicate, they should not be kept if close relatives want to take them, whatever the social workers feel about it.  If they want to go home and look after themselves, they should be assisted as much as possible.

One of the frightening problems of the hearings they have for people who have no capacity is the use of one-sided hearings. These courts especially the Court of Protection can do anything they want to you and they will claim it was all done at  court and is therefore legitimate. But it may not have been done legitimately.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        It is likely that  they ignored   Article 5 or 6 rights and no fair  hearing, as the victim’s solicitors just do whatever the social workers tell them to do. If there are relatives who want the victim back, there may not have  been  a  fair hearing if the  relative did not have access to funding under s21A MCA 2005 which is given to the victim.  The  relatives are not being allowed to share this and prove that they have done nothing wrong or  should not be displaced.  In addition, normal means tested legal aid is being prevented based on the equity you own in your house. This should all be free as the victims lose their houses and life savings as well as their liberty and their relatives  if their relatives have no access to free legal aid or if the reports are heavily fabricated. Quite often the victims may never see their relatives again as they can prevent access to visit them at the care home.   Though  solicitors may purport to act for the victim, they are not helping the relatives which they are supposed to do as these decisions for  DOLS  are based on what the victim wants.  They ignore all plea by the victim to go home and displace the relatives often based on false reports.  Really false reports by the social workers and other AMHPs are keeping people imprisoned and there may be nothing that the relatives can do about it as they are preventing any help for the relatives against these reports. One of the problems is that the social workers keep the detention going by telling the new staff and new social workers to never let them go so they continue from one to the other and any progress that has been made towards discharge is lost in the handover. 

THE PROBLEM WITH THE SOLICITORS  

What we really need are solicitors who will just do what we hire  them to do.  In addition to what I have said above the solicitors are not always doing the whole job that they are being asked to do and are being too strongly influenced by the doctors and the social workers.  To work in the field of mental health and offer legal aid  they need accreditation for mental health work.  I am told by solicitors that this means that solicitors who specialise in human rights might not take these cases.  The law society also say that the solicitors who are provided for the patients  have a right to decide matters  for the patients. They said that the only way around this is to sue for negligence if they make mistakes.   These solicitors for the patients normally write off the patients and may not take what the patient says seriously, thinking that they are mentally ill. Therefore, it is extremely important that they are able to talk to the close relative. This means that if the relative knows that there are problems for the victim  the solicitor may not understand it and it may be difficult for relatives especially if they have been displaced to tell them that there is a problem in their decision making. 

It may not be known that it is very easy to displace the relative of a victim. All the social workers need to say is that they want to put the victim in a care home and  perhaps fabricate a report, usually about wet pants. No evidence needs to be shown and there is usually no medical evidence and they just ignore any defence or pleas by the victim to let them go home. Because the surrounding situation of being in court  makes it look really serious and their method of creating this illusion is to say   “if it was not serious why else would they do this?” In addition, they try to bolster up these cases and there may be many lawyers and others in court so that it looks  like it is a serious case. .Usually it is not serious and people do wet their pants even if they are in care homes, but it appears that the social workers have made it illegal to do this at home. Apparently they are not allowed to wet their incontinence wear   at home. They just manufacture allegations to put people into detention.  It is likely that the victims are not being allowed to have homecare and the multitude of facilities  that the government make available to  care for them at home.  This is the normal solution for wet pants but they make many excuses to avoid giving their victims home care. However the manner in which they write their statements either exaggerate and imply, or are outright lies. One of the clues about the social workers is that they do not care at all about these victims and they are being allowed to be seriously neglected at the care homes.  To displace under section 29, they just have to claim that the relative does not want the victim treated even if the victim is very mentally well and does not need any “treatment”. They are using these methods on many people to forcibly remove the family.

One of the many horrors is that these free solicitors who work for the patients may not take the relatives seriously. They will impose the rules for conflicts of interest for the relative and then not talk to the relative at all before there has been a chance for the relative to prove or disprove any allegations, and show that there is no actual conflict of interest, or to discuss the case with the solicitor. Discussing the case is a vital  step that some solicitors are missing out. As they are being engaged to obtain freedom for the victim, they need to do this properly and extensively so that the victim can have their freedom. The relative needs that gap between proof of innocence or guilt to help the victim and to remove false allegations. The problem may not only be freedom but also ill-treatment as messages to solicitors may go unanswered. Therefore, the solicitors need to be open to talking to the patient’s relative freely even if they have been displaced.  They appear to be doing whatever the social worker/care manager or consultant  asks them to do.  They are hired to attend tribunals, Hospital Managers Hearings and courts. Advocates such as IMHAs (Independent Mental Health Advocate)  or IMCAs (Independent Mental Capacity Advocate) and ICAAs (Independent Care Act Advocates), are available and  may be suggested. Not everyone knows that these people exist and a lot more should be done by the hospital and care homes where they detain people to inform of their availability, what they can do and how to contact them.  But these advocates have their limitations. The solicitors are supposed to be much better, they are a bit more like a power tool and are more able to fend off abusive social workers, doctors and nurses. They are able to  sue abusive professionals and therefore get more respect from  them.  But these solicitors are able to make decisions for the patient.  Even if they are able to obtain a second opinion it appears to be up  to them to  believe it.  For instance, if a tribunal had asked them to send the victim home they should be helping with any preparations for that and making sure that the patient actually leaves the care home and is settled at home. These abusive social workers never let their victims leave even if it is by the direction of the Tribunal or Managers Hearing. These forums have no meaning for them. They can make any excuse to just keep them. They often use “relapse” as an excuse, which means that the solicitor would have  to obtain a new second opinion.

One of the problems for the solicitors is that they may not understand mental health and the staff just have to rile up the victim and make them extremely upset to make the victim appear to be having a breakdown. They use the abuse of goading the victim into a negative response and say that it is due to mental illness.  As can be seen with the video of the screaming  dog the victim may  just need love and kindness and their own familiar environment and family to be better. Most solicitors may find it difficult to understand this point. If they have removed the right of a close relative to be able to just say that the victim is   upset and will be alright if they are not in that environment, the victim may be stuck in detention for a long time and suffer from the consequences of being further detained.   They  do not need more drugs and so if a consultant second opinion psychiatrist  is saying that the victim just needs to go home that is exactly what they need. The second opinion doctor would  know whether it is at all possible for a person to ever suffer from a “relapse” if the victim was never actually mentally ill. The social workers do try to fabricate behaviour and illnesses to  keep people. Separating  the victim from their relative and not talking to the relative also does not help because the relative is more likely to know whether the victim is merely upset due to abuse or suffering from a mental illness. It is like cutting off a person’s arms and legs as the relative is often vital for the incapacitated or elderly victim. In addition, they understand and know the particular victim very well and are a source of continuity and support when dealing with the strangers of the mental health system.  These people do not know the victim and often they are dealt with by the practice  for the masses rather than for the individual patient. 

In general, one can write off looking at a victim’s actual mental health once they are detained in this system because of the high level of cheating, confusion and abuse.  Perhaps only the close relative would know whether there are any problems with that victim and especially whether it is so terrible that they need to be detained. The clinical medical team and mental health workers  in general do mess the solicitors about and often try to fool them with a lot of technical jargon and lies. They separate the victim from their relative by displacing them using  s29 or DOLS and then tell them that they need their own solicitors if they want to communicate with the victim’s  solicitor. Displacing the detained person’s relative makes  their free solicitor useless.  This is useful for abusive social workers because it saves on free legal aid for the victim and could put the relative into financial difficulty even to the point of remortgaging their property and it may all be done with the intention of ruining them financially.  

It is best to hire one’s own solicitor  as these are often the only people who can help both the relative and the victim.  They are the only solicitors with any effectiveness in obtaining a discharge when the system is abusive. However, they may  deter the  displaced relative’s solicitor by any means or could tell them that the victim’s solicitor is dealing with the problems and generally not cooperate with this second solicitor who the relative may have to pay for.    They may claim that the victim is very ill and it is all best left to the  victim’s solicitor who can easily be manipulated and lied to.  The situation with legal aid for mental health solicitors is that the displaced relative’s solicitors cannot give legal aid if the equity in their house is more than £100,000 even if you are claiming Universal Credit. That is if you are paying a mortgage, but the percentage of the house you own is worth more than £100,000. One of the advantages to the social workers of displacing the relative is that legal aid may not be available to them and they are not allowed to share the victim’s non-means tested legal aid as litigation friend. (The litigation friend is normally a close relative who one trusts if you have no capacity to instruct a solicitor when you cannot do so for yourself).

There appears to be some corruption around  solicitors who take Court of Protection cases and these solicitors deal with the mentally incapacitated people’s money and assets and also their health and welfare such as where they are going to live.  There is usually no one to check up on them  therefore they are free to cheat as they remove the relatives from the mentally incapacitated victims.  Solicitors (from a large law firm) who deal with DOLS cases told me that they do not really care about the physical abuse to  the elderly sufferers of dementia  and they just put them in the care homes and kill them as soon as they can. They do not even get proper medical opinions to diagnose them.   They are doing this deliberately.  It is a deliberate practice.  I could not believe it because I have never heard of that being done anywhere and it should not be happening in the UK.  The staff may also keep the victim upset and depressed by being unkind,  so that they will want to die. Some elderly people may not have any awareness and are waiting to die, but many of their victims  may still have lives to live and enjoy  and want to be given a chance to live as long as they have life.   They may still have plenty of life in them even if they are unable to talk or are disabled and they need to be allowed to live.  So, it is important to ensure that they have their choices in life. For many people it is the best time in life,  with little pressures and  is when they can do whatever they want to  It may be a person’s most productive period. However, harassment by social workers is a terrible worry and may make them ill and increase the rate of aging.  The social workers and some nurses need to be told not to harass the elderly as it upsets them terribly  and makes them feel helpless. They do not really understand that people have different rates of decline and they should be allowed to decide what they want by themselves. 

Benefits for care at home

People do not want to take the blame if anything happens to that elderly person. A method of taking them off relatives is to tease the relatives and make them worried that they won’t be able to look after them well enough. There is certainly a problem if they can break in or carry off your elderly relative and bring charges of neglect against you if the person you care for wets his/her pants even once.  Or they can do this even if they haven’t wet their pants and they just want to take them.  They are putting people under this kind of pressure, fear and anxiety.  They will tell the next of kin  that they are the “professionals” and why not give their elderly relative to them.  However, if you want to look after yourself or  have relatives who want to care for you, that has always been possible. Your relatives can care for you for free and may also be eligible to  receive about £4333 a year  in Carers Allowance, but this is just pocket money.  They give more in Attendance Allowance to your relative if you are on state pension.  There are also many tax reliefs, allowances, discounts and benefits if they  want  to continue a career and look after a disabled or elderly relative at the same time.  The person being cared for may be eligible for free homecare, (carers come to your house and help you until you get stronger and healthier, or they can continue to help indefinitely). They also have  grants for adaptations and other items.   In addition, if you have special needs and pass an assessment the council will pay the carer  up to about £31,200 a year for looking after you full-time as a  live in carer.  Not many people are being told about these benefits and the full-time live-in care benefit  was   not being given to family members. As this is far less costly to the government  than the all needs NHS grant for free care home fees, it will cost the government far less to just pay relatives for giving you full-time care. Quotes that I have seen for care home fees being paid by the government are about £80,000 a year per person and therefore they will save a lot by paying a decent wage  to your relative and allowing you to live at home with your family.  The social workers and solicitors are not telling people about these benefits. They are supposed to make the benefit applications for you as part of their service, but are not always doing so. If they want to keep a victim, they just keep them and will not give them a chance to go home even if your case has been heard and the tribunal or court  have said that you can go home.

One of the problems is the need for the use of barristers at court. The solicitors may be bent and may mislead the barristers into not checking a situation, say the investigations have already been done, which results in a case not being dealt with properly and not all the facts may be known to the barristers. The reports may all be false as these have to be checked and verified by the solicitors and barristers.  However,  they are engaged and instructed by the solicitors and it is easy to mislead them.  Another problem is that the hourly rates of solicitors and barristers is quite high and one will have to pay for the investigations unless the client is eligible for legal aid.

Rogue solicitors:

There should be no doubt that there are people who may actually be solicitors or just pose as  solicitors who are exploiting the elderly and those who are deemed to have no capacity.  They may be associated with the OPG or  social workers who can tell them of the cases going to court. They may have no contract or agreement to work for you or your relative. They can just turn up at court without being invited and fool everyone that they are involved in the case. There are many scenarios that they can use.  It may not even be known to the law firm that they are using the firm’s name. As there are good opportunities within the mental capacity world, they are able to rob the vulnerable victims with ease.  There are some problems with the mental capacity legislation. They can use the facility of indemnity(s7 MCA 2005) to say that they have given some services  for their victim and claim this at court. There are unlikely to be any witnesses and therefore they can claim any amount they wish such as tens of thousands which are paid to law firms by clients  for carrying out work for them. It is a perfect method of robbing a person’s life savings and houses. There should be a cap on money that can be claimed by indemnity. It is a facility available for care homes and social workers to buy goods and services for a mentally incapacitated client, such as hair dressing, chiropody etc.  It is really for small amounts of money. I think that these items can be paid by the grants that are given to people who are on DOLS and there is no excuse to ask for any money directly from the DOLS  or mentally incapacitated patients.  In addition, any court hearings for people who are on DOLS is covered by s21A which is automatic legal aid and therefore there should be no legal fees payable as everything is covered.  Section 7 MCA 2005 allows for the payment of necessities, but I think that it should be abolished and a contract (agreement)  regarding payment should be made with the contractor and the next of kin (who would normally be the litigation friend) or from  the person who is looking after the patient. There is usually no one to make the complaints for these people because the relatives have either been displaced  or   they are not aware or do not understand what the solicitors and social workers are up to.  One has to rely on the honesty of the social worker.  So, they just have to write off their victims as having no capacity which they do by lying. In addition to this they usually also remove a person’s money and property and put this in the hands of solicitors who they call deputies. These deputies then spend a person’s money and make financial decisions for the mentally incapacitated person. One wonders what kind of expenses they can have if they are lying in bed doing nothing.   There should not be any expenditure because everything should be paid by the grants.  The government provide an NHS grant and they are also eligible for s117 MHA 1983 aftercare if they had been treated on section.  Many elderly people are first put on   section  3 for forced treatment and may  then be put on DOLS.   However, if they still have mental capacity they can claim s117 MHA or the NHS grant for aftercare in a care home or at home.   The councils also give free care for recovery from operations and other illnesses. 

The other lawyers in the court may not know why they were there and why they were asking for money.    When a person is mentally incapacitated  the victim is wide open to abuse at the courts.  Social workers are notorious for making false cases so that they can take money from their  victims.  Quite often they do it just to victimise people. They may even have to sell their houses to pay for anything not covered by legal aid. 

PRACTICES USED IN THE CARE HOMES

 The care homes best interest decision and staff making these decisions

The social workers and other workers involved in these evil practices  are dangerous people. They do whatever they can to keep their victims detained. They may have been committing these crimes  for many years, but their system may have increased more recently.  They fake mental illnesses for people. Popular illnesses they choose are schizophrenia or  dementia  because no autopsy is required if you have these illnesses, so not making automatic autopsies is one way of  saving money.  They are able to  kill the victims whenever they want. These illnesses usually affect the elderly but younger people may also suffer to the extent that they need medication.  These are also illnesses which are very easy to fake by anyone who wants to and there is also a lot of abuse in regard to treatment.  They pursue victims and make false reports on them deliberately making them sound mentally ill and give these to psychiatrists to, get a psychiatric opinion. Therefore they can just ask for anyone’s house by saying that the owner is mentally ill and cannot look after their affairs. The requests to the courts may not be based on the victims actual ability to look after themselves and sometimes the social workers  do not even need to obtain a medical report.  It helps them to murder their victims eventually. They do not care if their victims die as they could cause death as soon as these people  are taken into their system due to their roughness and the shock caused. It depends if anyone is looking out for  them. They don’t really care about physically abusing them as the people who they know well may have been prevented access to visit them or to talk to them, and there may be no one to ask for help from. This was a terrible problem for my mother as the staff  would punish her and tell her off for communicating with me when I was allowed to visit and my mother has said on video that she was being physically assaulted  if she showed any interest in me. Asking the staff may be futile and unsafe as they are usually the abusers and if the victim complains the victim gets punished further.  Even after the victims are dead, they may make fake wills, LPAs and other documents. It is an unrelenting system and could not be much worse.

They provoke the relatives. The close relatives, if they have them are probably removed through the court and usually, they accuse them of abusing the victim, their mums or dads or others they care for. To remove the relatives,  they need to accuse them of neglect, physical abuse or financial abuse. To be able to do this all they have  to do is to lie  to everyone and lie at court. It is so frighteningly easy. It is very unlikely that they will accuse a person of these crimes directly and it is helpful to them that their victim (their client) does not know that their relative is being accused. Mild allegations don’t attract much defence, but they will make these sound much worse when they want to remove the relatives.  By the time the victim finds out that their relative is being accused of something and that is why they cannot go home, it may be too late because the social workers will claim that their victim has no capacity and therefore cannot defend their relative.   The easiest way to remove allegations  against the relative for abusing the victim is to tell the victim that they are doing this so that the victim can say whether they are happy with their relative or not and whether they want their relative to be accused of anything.  By removing the relative they can then abuse the vulnerable victim as much as they like. As the decisions  are usually made on the basis of a balance of probabilities  the social workers  just have to prove a probability rather than criminality, but they sometimes bring charges immediately.   They do not have to show any “real” evidence or forensic evidence.  They prove on the balance  of probabilities by witnesses and care home staff will threaten the victims and relatives that they will lie at court. They are so indifferent.  Lying at court is a routine practice. As they can say anything they want to about you it is very nerve wracking to enter one of these care homes to visit the victims, ones nearest and dearest.  Usually, a social worker giving false testimony at court is sufficient to remove a relative and we are therefore subjected to the unkind whims and personal desires of social workers. Both the doctors  and the staff at the care home said that they just lie and make up false reports on both the victim and the relatives which was witnessed by myself and others  and is on a recording.  They like to fabricate  bad behaviour and other criticisms to make the victims spouse,  son or daughter, or other relatives  sound as if they were badly behaved and prevent access to visit the victim.  The whole process is terribly upsetting for both the victim and their relatives.  Sometimes they claim that these close relatives are also mentally ill and it is very easy then to go to court without the relative’s knowledge and do things to them at court. The social workers may pass them over to other types of crooks and they will ask them for money which they may be able to claim behind the victims or their relative’s back and without their knowledge at court and therefore they can obtain court orders for example to be paid fake bills. As you will not know that they are committing this abuse you will not have any solicitors to deal with it.  If the court contacts you and you are at a care home you are unlikely to be told anything about such hearings or court orders against you. They may also have them killed or  have them put into detention and set them up for crimes to put them in prison. The false bills are often claimed after a victim dies and is paid from their estate.  All manner of abuses are being committed against the victims especially after they die.  Using fake wills or LPAs is one of these abuses. They normally just type up something saying that they don’t want their son or daughter . It may be possible to forge signatures and handwriting and it is especially easy to get away with this because the victim would have been stripped of their relatives by that time and there will be no one to make any complaint.  

The victim may be asking to  go home and live with their relatives. However, this may be prevented by claiming that the victim is too mentally ill or for other reasons.   If relatives ask the social workers why a person is being detained they will say that it is because they are mentally ill, but if the doctors and others who would know that a victim is quite mentally well or not have to be detained, the social workers and their team will claim it is because the social workers  don’t want the carer relative to look after them. They may also give  the solicitors in to claiming mental ill health of the victim false reports about the relative.  They do find whatever excuse they can to tell the various people who can help

and they will do this with much vigour and determination.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

One of the most frightening things they do out of the many is to persuade the doctors that their victim is mentally ill and that the doctor should administer treatment immediately. They will claim behaviour and use persuasive language. Bent psychiatrists are making false psychiatric reports on these people and also maybe on their family and friends.  One of the favourite claims that they fabricate for the courts is to say that their victim is suffering from schizophrenia which is easy to fake. One really needs to obtain  independent second opinions if  one disagrees with their diagnoses.

They will talk to you as if your parent or relative  is a stranger and you don’t know what is happening in their lives.  The staff may try to show off their familiarity with the victim as if they have taken the relative’s place.  Sometimes they will show off such as making the victim open his/her mouth or do other things to make the relative feel offended.  There is a problem of  grooming the vulnerable victim to reject their relatives.

Preventing a fair hearing is  also a method  used by a social worker or other mental health workers. They put   tribunals and courts off the relative by claiming bad behaviour which then may cause the judges to prevent them from taking part fully in the hearing even when they are a party. People’s  full rights are not being allowed at the hearings and therefore the decisions are made without the parties having their rights to a fully  fair hearing.   A nurse, social worker or others may influence a tribunal to not listen to the relative. They may claim that they are not well behaved or there is some other problem and this would give the impression that the relative is disruptive or will cause some other trouble. Therefore, the relative may be prevented from taking part in the hearing even if they are very well behaved and have never  done anything wrong.  This means that the victim may continue to be detained because they don’t have their relative to look after them.

The false reports are well crafted and may be packed with false and misleading statements which are extremely defamatory.  They often use vague statements and it could be difficult to disprove these. Even though it could take a few moments to accuse someone of serious matters it may take many hours or days of hearings and many witnesses to disprove these. In our case we had to undergo 11 whole days of Tribunal hearings to disprove false social worker reports.  One should consider the many thousands of tax payers’ money being wasted on these court and tribunal hearings. It is all terribly distressing for the people who are being accused who are usually the simple people who spend their lives caring for relatives.  They make it a bad idea to look after ones loved ones because of the treachery they have to put up with from social workers and their associates. 

ILL-TREATMENT AND ABUSE

Ill-treatment is common in the mental health, DOLS and care  system. Failure of the complaints system,   lack of staff and the power imbalance between the staff and the victims  that is suffered when a person is legally detained are blamed. The Care Quality Commission highlights many forms of abuse. These include physical abuse and neglect.  Some of the abuses mentioned include, excessive force, deliberately causing pain to make victims obey,  mechanical and other restraint, excessive use of drugs including  the use of tranquilisers, sedatives antidepressants and antipsychotics. It is well known that these drugs may be very damaging for the elderly especially if they are given excessive doses. 

Neglect – this is the most common form of abuse and it may be surprising that neglect often occurs in care homes. This includes not giving food and fluids and not feeding them if they need assistance. Leaving them in soiled clothing or bedding and not giving them baths or help with dental care. Medical neglect includes ignoring pressure sores, not calling the doctor if they are ill and not giving the necessary medication or giving them too much.

The victims are often subjected to physical abuse such as hitting and slapping, pushing and shaking, using chemical and physical restraints. Psychological abuse includes verbal abuse, humiliation and isolation. They prevent the victims from seeing family and friends and prevent  them from visiting. They also use isolation from other residents. These activities appear to be purely for the enjoyment of the staff.   If staff think that the care home is allowing any of these practices, they should report them to the CQC and to the police. The CQC also say that there is a problem with some care homes who use rigid rules such as making people all get up at the same time in the mornings and be forced to sit all day in a communal lounge.

Goading, teasing and provocation ….

It is upsetting to think that the staff do goad and tease the elderly in their care. They will hurt them physically to make them respond and put up their defences. They may tell them upsetting things about themselves, their relatives and visitors.  These people often cannot talk or explain anything to anyone.  So if the staff have been hurting them intentionally or not there is no way of their victim telling them that they are being physically hurt.  Perhaps all they can do is to defend themselves when staff come near such as pushing staff away, throwing things at them, or scratching them if they come too close and try to handle them. These elderly people may have been the most gentle of people all of their lives and being described in negative terms such as uncooperative, aggressive or  combative and difficult to manage, are not nice and will be inaccurate in terms of their normal personality.  They are allowed to defend themselves when people are trying to hurt them. Usually, they will be stuck in bed and have nowhere to run.  It is an obvious sign of physical abuse of the victim if such descriptions are in any reports.  It is even worse for them as the reports cannot be defended and corrected. Therefore, these reports are going on that persons record and may be  there after they die.

They also tease the relatives and try to make them angry to see what they will do. They like to see whether the relative gets angry or violent.  Staff may have been  told by social workers that they will be protected from any complaints allows staff to do what they like.  Preventing access whenever they want is one of the things that would make them angry. Or abusing the victim in front of the relative usually upsets them.

The care homes for the elderly are usually places which also  take paying residents. However, the walls and décor belies what may be going on with the staff.  They sometimes threaten the victims and their family that they can put the victim in a harsher care home if they complain.  There are harsh psychiatric facilities  where tzars are used.  It is very easy to kill the victim by claiming that he/she  became violent if they are in one of those places.  The use of  the “had to” excuse. This person did something and we “had to kill them, use a tzar  or take some other excessive action.  They do easily disguise a person’s personality and behaviour by putting them in a harsher care home so that it gives the false impression that their victim is mentally disturbed and violent. They can easily murder a person in such a place and it is possible that no one will care about the victims if they die.   From news reports it  is known that sometimes they do not give the bodies back to relatives especially if they are covered with injuries and bruises.

Murder.  At the time that my mother died in 2019 they were not allowing autopsies, which reduces the  risk of a care home being accused of murder if they want to terminate a person’s life. The way is wide open. If relatives had made a fuss about this, I am sure that they would have had to check the cause of her death. They use many methods and it is easier if the relatives have been displaced.  The opportunity of  not requiring   autopsies if a person is suffering from dementia or schizophrenia, is tempting for social workers and associated workers such as care homes.  As it is very easy to make a false diagnosis of these illnesses the industry is open to being able to kill anyone they want.   

 Starvation is also being used as a method of making a victim appear ill. People seeing them will see that the victim is getting thinner which  conveys  a false impression that they are actually ill and near an imminent death.  Severe dehydration due to a lack of  water will cause internal organ damage and internal bleeding. It  will eventually kill the victim within a few days. However, if they want to kill someone there are many other methods. They can say anything to cover up their abuse. Being in a hospital or care home will put off further enquiry as people are very  likely to  take the staffs word as true. 

They use many methods to bring about a victim’s death without being noticed or blamed.  For instance, they are in the practice of leaving windows open to cause pneumonia or just to die from the cold. My mother suffered from pneumonia a few times at the care home  when she had not suffered from any flu  or infections when she was at home.  At the care home where she stayed, I would find  her shivering in her room when the weather was cold. One Christmas when the snow was about a foot deep outside, I found the heating off in her room and the windows wide open.  She caught pneumonia.   There is no doubt that this was done on purpose. There were a number of other incidents in which they had tried to cause death. If I had not been visiting daily, she would have died from the many attempts

Just keeping people even if they are asking all the time to go home is terribly abusive. Once a victim is in the clutches of social workers or the care homes there is not much one can do because they use methods such as grooming  and they also try to make the victim  become mentally ill.  Just telling police that the victim is being detained under the Mental Health Act or DOLS may be enough to make them leave the complaint alone.

There has been some review of the rights of relatives to visit their loved ones in care homes under Article 8 ECHR. However, it looks like the people who took part in those discussions, probably social workers, have left the gates wide open for further abuse in  these awful places.  This covers all care homes where one may pay to place their relatives in.   They are removing the close relatives through the court which leaves the staff free to abuse the victims as there will be no one to protect them. Therefore, when they are deemed to have no capacity and the relatives have been displaced there is no one to protect them. Any complaints that are made by displaced relatives are being ignored.   There is no one who would make the complaints to safeguarding or to the police, or to engage solicitors who could help them.  The police ask for video evidence of the abuses being committed  as the use of  CCTV  in the care homes  is not mandatory there will be no evidence of the activities of the staff. It has been found that the use of CCTV is extremely useful and many of these have caught staff assaulting residents, or residents abusing other residents, including  some residents being killed.   A person’s relatives should at least be able to use covert cameras where abuse is detected, especially where the victim cannot talk.  The excuses given are for example, the care homes do not want their staff being watched and they want to maintain the victim’s privacy. I think it should be left to the relatives if they want to use these cameras which will often catch a lot of abuse of these vulnerable people. One of the methods that care homes are using to disguise their staffs abuse is to blame the relative, which is even more reason to be able to obtain the video evidence as they are also setting up the relative for prosecution.  The routine is that the staff assault and batter the victim and  then accuse their relatives of assault and battery, which gives them an excuse to prevent access. To deflect any blame from themselves the staff and social workers claim that the victim self-harmed.  This excuse cuts the victim off from getting any help and the victim is  further abused and assaulted.

The social workers and care homes sometimes coerce  staff to ill-treat patients and to abuse visiting relatives.  They may also coerce immigrants to abuse the victims, who may not understand what is allowed or not in the UK. They are known to coerce foreign care home staff by for instance threatening to remove their work permits. They may also be offering  them benefits or better jobs as the social workers have a vast network.

GROOMING THE VICTIMS

Once a person is behind “enemy” lines there is not much you can do. They can do anything they like to a person and it is up to any visitors to make the complaints and to rescue the victims. 

They use any way they can to strip their victim of their family and the care homes are happy to do this both for the social workers and also for their own profit.  They often assign a special carer who looks like the victim’s son or daughter or anyone who normally cares for them. Often, they will copy the relative’s behaviour and use the special terms of endearment that the relative uses. They may even  hug and kiss the victim and do things that the close relative does and most people find it extremely offensive. One of their foul abuses is  denying access to the victim’s relative which is very cruel to both the victim and their relative and prevents them from having their Article 8 rights (the right to home and family life and privacy). This is likely to also cause the elderly person to “fade”. Fading has been stated in medical books as a method of making a person die more quickly by preventing access to their close  relatives. This makes a person feel unloved and unwanted. Having no hope of leaving their incarcerated state and wondering why they have been abandoned. It is likely they will also have to suffer abusive staff.  Care homes can be the loneliest   places and the victims may also have to deal with care staff who hurt or abuse them and they are unable to fend these people off. They are open to the risk of anyone entering their room at any time they want and hurting them.   This is not nice for the last years of a person’s life. Preventing access to relatives and friends should be strictly forbidden. 

They also use some brain washing methods. The hallucinatory drugs which are given to these victims assist greatly in this enterprise. They will play tapes or have a number of things they say to criticise the victim’s relatives and put the victim off  them.   They may threaten them or physically hurt them and assault them if they ask for their own relative and ask to see them.  They may say things such as, your son   does not love you, if he does, he would  visit you. But the sons and daughters and other close relatives are denied access if they try to visit and the victim is never told about their attempts to visit.  They will try to make the victim feel like they have been abandoned.   They usually deny access to the relative. This  prevents  the victim’s reliance on their relatives and to look for affection from the staff. They are using other methods such as being cold to them and leaving them out of treats etc until they are happy to obey. These are dog training methods. They might ask them if they still love their relative and not give them the treats if they say they  want their relative.  They  also use physical abuse such as pinching and other kinds of assaults. Then they ask the  elderly victim if they still want their relative to visit them. The physical abuse may be the hardest to withstand and they could ask them to sign documents when they are under these circumstances. There is no speculation that these methods are being used.   

They hope that the victim will eventually forget their close relative. They also ask the victim to give them gifts, to sign cheques for them and to make donations. They could make new LPAs or wills and other documents.   The victims are made to be so disorientated and so confused that they could agree to anything. Though their victim may be at the care home under DOLS which means that they are deemed to have  no capacity to agree to anything they could claim that during that period he/she had momentary capacity.

They do also try to put the friends or relatives off visiting by turning them away at the door and telling these visitors that the victim does not want to see them or do not like them and do not want them to visit them again. Using methods like this may put some visitors off visiting them ever again. They really  need to be allowed to see the victim even if they may be sleeping during visiting hours as it may be just a brief chance to see that person such as if they are visiting from abroad. They need to always be allowed to see the victim and the victim needs to actually tell them what the problem is themselves. They  need to see the victim, make sure that they are still alive and well and happy. They need to know that they are not starving, they are not suffering from injuries and bruises and are being well maintained and healthy.  They need to be seen by someone who knows them, identify them and can see that they are still alive. One must remember that one may be dealing with crooks who use many underhand methods.  They  also  prevent access to professionals such as solicitors. Therefore, it is so unsafe to leave a person in the full care of these care homes or with social workers and it is so bad to remove the relative which is usually done by fabricating faults and false allegations against the relative. These people are so wide open to false criticism and blame. One has to take one’s life in their own hands if they have to visit a relative at a care home as there is a high risk that the relative will be abused.  

There is no real reason to deny access to visitors even if the staff  are fabricating allegations and claim that it affects the victim’s safety.  One has to count the number of times that a relative has endangered a victim to the extent that they have to deny access.  There is actually no need at all to do this because they can put staff in the room to make sure that the victim is safe. If the victim is asking to be alone with their relative or is telling the staff to go away, they should not remain in the room.  We are supposed to be given Art 8 rights (the right to home and family life and privacy) So they should not even be sitting in the room or have the door open.  There should be some video evidence that the visitor is behaving in a manner that would endanger anyone to the extent that preventing access is the only way they can manage the problem. There is actually no situation or very few, in which  a person would be sufficiently  endangered by relatives who visit them.  The use of cameras and the police if there is immediate danger should help.  One should be able to use body cams or hidden cameras if staff are being so abusive.  The visitors need to be allowed to have proof against any allegation that the care  home or anyone may make. At the moment any member of staff can deny access whenever they want to.  This may happen in normal care homes where they take paying residents who can change the care home or take the resident home whenever they want to. However, if they are on DOLS  the care home or social workers  may put up some resistance to any change of residence and any social workers involved can put off other care homes from taking them, so there is a problem when a person is on DOLS and the social worker is involved with the resident.  I think that the care home should pay compensation for preventing access or for remaining in the room, denying article 8 rights when close family or friends  visit.

They may also talk as if the relative does not know the victim or anything about them, despite the two being extremely close and the relative  normally looks after the victim. They will talk as if the son, daughter  or other relative or close friend  is a total stranger to them.   This  may be upsetting to both the relative and the victim.  They like to express their right of ownership in this manner.   

These problems are well known and the issues of grooming and the persuasion by social workers asking elderly residents  to sign cheques or other documents   do sometimes get to court. There is some evidence in the Mental Health Act 1983 that such issues have been noticed.  One must always remember that the Act says that the care home is in a position of conflict of interest with the resident. This means that it has been accepted that their interests conflict and this situation should be adhered to when dealing with a person’s case. It should not be surprising if they cover up any abuse.

Giving the relative access to free solicitors so that any false excuses for denying access are found out and the compensation should be a high amount due to the fear caused of possible  physical assaults to the visitor and the danger to the visitor’s reputation or even to their careers and jobs when the care homes want to play games such as these  or set the visitors  up for charges.  The compensation must be much greater if there are no cameras or any  quick way to disprove  false allegations.  

LACK OF SAFEGUARDING

If one sees a person being abused in a care home, or have a strong suspicion that something is wrong, one can normally contact safeguarding.  A person has the right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect. In care situations it is the legal duty of the providers to ensure that residents who are vulnerable due to age, illness or disability are not mistreated by staff or professional visitors. It is highly unlikely that they would be at risk from friends and relatives. In addition they need to use cameras  if they think that a person is at risk from visitors. One must remember that a victim is open to risk from staff at all times night and day every day especially if their liberty is denied. The temptation for staff to be abusive is therefore very high as they can cover up and do whatever  they want to the residents. The residents are often prevented from making complaints by threatening to do something worse to them or even threatening to do something to their close family members or others who visit.  Therefore, one has to put one’s self in danger when they are visiting some of these care homes especially if the patients are there under court or hospital orders.  The main safeguarding team is with social services from the local authority. As the end of the complaints system is the council who may be contacted by both police and other agencies and charities who are involved with complaints about abuse, these social workers do whatever they like with the victims.   The CQC (Care Quality Commission) are supposed to help, but they often rely on the council safeguarding team to carry out the investigations.   They can shut down a care home but often these staff can also be manipulated for instance the staff and social workers can claim that the relative is very bad and/or that the victim is self-abusing. No evidence needs to be shown for any of their excuses and often the enquirer goes away.  The police should be told if the victim suffered a physical assault as the abuser should be stopped and prosecuted. Even minor cuts and bruises are sufficient to charge an abuser and often the care staff can be deliberately and excessively rough with the victim.  Merely blaming any visitors at that time in question should not be sufficient to end the enquiry. Self-abuse is another excuse they are using to cover-up any abuse to the victim and then this abuse can continue as much as they like because no one is going to care. It is an extremely terrifying  situation to be in if you are an elderly person who may not be able to talk very much (or in fact even if you can talk)  and the only way of having any evidence is to use hidden cameras. It is therefore vital that the relatives are able to visit and if relatives have been removed through the court which increases the victim’s vulnerability, displacement of relatives should be a forbidden practice.  The care home managers are also listed as the people to complain to but often they would want to cover up the problem due to fears of damaging their business and wanting to keep and protect their staff.  Therefore, the care homes have a lot of self-interest and a massive conflict of interest with their residents which has been recognised in the legislation.  When the social workers are involved with the abuse, they will try to put the police off investigating further.

Safeguarding is a coordinated effort between several bodies. It is terrible that this method of complaint is being blocked by social workers who  actively block all the ways of complaint.  Solicitors are usually the best people to ask for help, but it may not be possible to engage them when one needs them mainly due to the relatively small numbers who are available in this area of law and the type of complaint that they have to deal with. It may be possible to use the free advocacy services: IMCAs,  IMHAs or ICAAs who are not lawyers, but may be able to help you depending on their individual knowledge  and experience. One of the problems with these people is that they may be strongly influenced by the social workers especially  if there is no support from family members. Often the social workers will make false allegations against the close relatives and victims to put them off  getting help. 

There is therefore a problem with obtaining help for victims who are being ill-treated.  The social workers and associated workers such as nurses may be involved with decision making in regard to complaints about physical abuse.  They either do not bother to investigate or claim to have investigated and often come to a conclusion of insufficient evidence and the complaint gets dowsed out  by any means including  making a finding of “unsubstantiated”.  They are doing this despite  photographic  and video evidence.  Therefore “unsubstantiated” or no evidence  is what will be shown on the records despite the fact that the staff would be liable for charges of physical assault or neglect.  It is an extremely terrible problem that these workers just do not care if someone is being physically or mentally abused.  As video and photographic evidence is necessary for court and is what the police recommend, the use of hidden cameras is a must to stop care home abusers. It is also a good deterrent. The use of CCTV may be a good deterrent to prevent further abuse and to reduce  the incidents of visitors and relatives being victimised by the staff.   However, they appear to prefer not to allow the use of cameras and to attribute any assaults and injuries to the victim’s  relatives and visitors.   This then gives them an excuse to prevent access to allow the relatives to visit the victim on the grounds that they are a danger to the victim even if the victim lives for their son, daughter or other beloved person’s visits.  Preventing access then brings on an early death of the elderly  victim due to “fading“ and also due to further physical and mental abuse.  Having the unfettered ability to beat up their victims is a win  situation for them. For example,  just forcing them to stay in an uncomfortable position which may be extremely painful for them. Giving  them drugs that they don’t need  or overdosing on harmful drugs allows them to kill their victim when they want and take over their money. They may  be able to take hundreds of thousands from a  single victim. 

THE SCANDAL – the selling of houses for the personal  profit of the social workers and their associates. 

One needs to know that the theft  from individual victims will run to many hundreds  of thousands.  Their main ploy is to set up the victim against their relative. That is the social worker claims that the relative has committed abuses against the victim and the social worker sues the relative on behalf of the victim. This should be the other way around as the relative who would normally be one’s litigation friend should be able to protect you against the world, but removing someone who should be your arms and legs and makes complaints for you  when you are too disabled or have no capacity is the method that  social workers are using to exploit their victims. This allows the victim to be beaten up by anyone as the way is left wide open for this to happen when the person who is protecting the victim  is removed, or if you have no one to protect you from abuse by the care services.    It is also terribly frightening that they are causing brain damage deliberately so that they can use the Court of Protection and follow the procedures for people who have no capacity. 

Government estimates claim that about 40,000 houses are sold each year  by the elderly to pay for care at a care home.  In addition,  if you cannot care for yourself and you pass the assessments you will be eligible for the free NHS care grant or funding.  One would also be eligible for this and s117 MHA 1983 for free after care if you have been treated on section. If you are getting the grants, you will not have to sell your house as these grants or  funding provide 100% cover for care. In addition, if you are being detained by law you do not have to pay for care  e.g.; if you are on DOLS  or under the Mental Health Act.  The crooks in the system are claiming money from the detained victims by lying about the situation and saying that it is for care fees when there is nothing to pay.  When you are detained in a care home against your will the state pays the care fees therefore there is nothing to pay. But even though your bill is zero the bent  social workers will claim that you have to pay care fees and therefore they can sell your house. The profit from the sale of your house is then stolen by the social workers.  As the benefits system is complex, they manage to fool a lot of people. They also use bent solicitors who it is difficult to argue with, unless you are able to engage solicitors who understand  this area of law.

Normally when you are elderly you will have your relatives to help you and protect you against the world. If someone robs you or hurt you one would normally have your close relatives and friends to help you to overcome any problems. However, these social workers are removing  their victim by claiming that he/she  is mentally ill and that the close relative is abusing the victim. Therefore,  because you have dementia or are mentally incapacitated, they may make false allegations  against the close relative, usually son, daughter or spouse. They will not allow the victim to say anything or not even let them know what they are doing. If someone is making an allegation against your close relative on your behalf you can normally get them off the hook by saying that you do not want to sue them or there is nothing wrong.  The whole problem is solved in a minute and will not need any court hearings.   However,  they are removing these people without whom you cannot survive.  They just have to make serious treacherous allegations against them. Using this tactic  allows them to remove inheritances.

The social workers are stealing people’s properties. There is no doubt about that and the money goes into their own pockets.   They use some tactics, such as kidnapping their victim, forcing them to live under deprivation of liberty conditions via  a DOLS order or the Mental Health Act 1983 and by taking over their rights to their property and other assets saying the victim has no capacity and therefore we will  look after their money for them and spend it as we wish.   This is usually by removing LPAs or by using guardianship orders.  They have no actual rights to keep any of your assets and it should all go to your family after you die if you are placed in detention in the mental health system.  In fact, they should not be able to remove anything from your care these days because care fees are all included in the detention for free.   There should be no reason to take any money from you. It is you who has any authority   to spend  your money as you like and no one should be able to remove this right.  If you have family or advocates on your LPAs, it is only you who have the right to tell them how to spend it and it is only you who has the right to approve or disapprove about the way it is being spent.  In addition, social workers cannot legally take your house or sell it while you are being detained.  If that is being done to you  it is likely to be  illegal.   Unfortunately, they can do anything to you through the courts if you have no capacity and social workers sometimes just lie about a person’s capacity and use bent doctors for medical reports. By using this method, they can do anything to you and make any decision about the use of your money through  the court. 

There are only very limited circumstances in which a local authority can claim a claw back or deferred payment from your estate or when you leave care.   That  only when you want to live in a care home but have no real care needs and your assets are worth more than the disregard currently of  £23,250   Therefore anything more than this is used to pay for care fees and the council  sell your house for you. 

However, the need to pay for any care fees at all is really an illusion these days and there are also many options in which no payment is necessary because care is 100% free. In addition, they cannot sell your house if your family are still living in it.  Your house is completely disregarded  and there is no claw back if a “protected relative” resides there as their main residence. Spouses, civil partners, relatives over the age of 60, disabled relatives or dependent children (under 18) are protected parties.   If you really need care your needs can be assessed for you by a multidisciplinary health team. The NHS grant can be accessed by asking your GP, district nurse, social worker or the IBC (Integrated Care Board).I have mentioned details about free care at home above (“Benefits for care at home”). If you have care at home they cannot take your house.  The NHS care grant is non-means tested and totally free as well as s117 MHA 1983 aftercare.  There is no means test for these benefits and home care is free.  However, if you only qualify for council social care, that is you need a little help with self-care you will be means tested and they will include the cost of your house in the assessment .Details of this  “ council social care” which is not that much different from the requirements for obtaining the NHS continuing care grant, is given in the 2014 Care Act. 

It appears that the free NHS  continuing health care (CHC) grant and the council social care are two parallel systems and it is best to first check whether you qualify for the NHS grant (CHC).  These are two different routes to obtain care in a care home.  As people are not being told that they may be more suitable for the NHS grant they may be missing out and running the risk of losing their house.  Bent social workers may claim that their client has had council social care and therefore their victim had to sell their house when this is not true and they received the NHS grant but  the social workers can then  take the profits from the house sale for themselves.     

This benefits system is complex and complicated. It is very easy for social workers to steal your house.  They do this deliberately and take their victim’s money.   Quite often they will use bent solicitors and it may be difficult even for non-specialist solicitors to understand what they are doing. They do their best to fox and fool many people. One needs to engage solicitors who specialise in this area of law.  Even the court documents they submit are designed  to fool the reader and they find it easy to get matters through court.  It is important to know that they are actually stealing houses and it is not being done by mistake. 

New developments in these laws since 2019  

The care homes are mostly run by private owners who cater for the public and accommodate anyone who wants to be admitted.  It should depend on whatever makes you happy and your personal choices for your life.  The social workers are also using these care homes and usually the standards  of care can be quite high.  However, it is more likely that care standards are much higher and of a better quality at home. As I am an immunologist this is something that I am well aware of.  There is definitely a higher quality of life for most people if they live at home with the family and this is recognised and recommended by doctors. The standards of hygiene may be higher at home because of, among other things,  the lower risk of cross infection, hygienic food and the availability of  your carer relatives  when you need them, the social life and being able to do what you want when you want to. Accidents are actually much less likely when a person is living at home with family as the care home staff are not always available when you need them.  Often the number of staff available may not be enough for the care home which results in residents being kept sitting all day perhaps prevented from getting up by methods of restraint such as special chairs or due to their disability. Some people manage with visiting or live in carers (who can be totally free due to government support).  The councils also give a home  improvement grant (the disable facilities grant). One can get about £30,000 + in England  to deal with an elderly person’s disabilities and could help to fund things such as a granny flat/conservatory  or outhouse/bungalo.  This  may help people who want to get their relatives out of detention.

However, if your care needs are too high and difficult for the carer relative to manage one can get  totally free care at a care home or nursing home. One of the advantages of DOLS is that it is free and normally your relative can remove it if they want to. The detained person can remove it and go home if they want to, just by asking, but in practice that is not so easy as you may be ignored. Standards may be reduced when they take people who are being detained on DOLS by social workers.  There is a change in attitude by the staff and managers if a person is under deprivation of liberty and even more so if  their relatives have been displaced. Anyone who removes a relative by displacement must be aware that the elderly person is being left open to more risks and dangers than they would have had if the relative had not been displaced. I think that displacing relatives is only a practice by abusive exploitative social workers and is totally unnecessary except for opening the way for the elderly person to be robbed and ill-treated. It is possible to resolve any criticism against a relative that they want to displace. It is really the social worker method of taking the elderly persons money and assets. They appear not to understand that the relative is the elderly person’s flesh and blood and that will always be the case. To the social workers they are just a lump of meat or thing who they can do what they want with as they do not always perceive them as having any feelings or rights.  They really should not be displacing any relatives and there is no reason for having this facility.

.    

Normally the relatives can remove the resident  if they are not happy with the care home.  They can sue the care home for any problems such as accidents and injuries.  However, this may not be possible if a person is on DOLS  and the resident is under the care of a social worker.  They are supposed to  remove a person from danger if they are being ill-treated, but it appears that often they are not doing anything to save the elderly person.  If a person is on DOLS they may also have an RPR (Relevant Persons Representative). The RPR has the ability to obtain automatic legal aid and apply to the court on behalf of people who are deemed not to have capacity.  They have the ability to obtain a discharge for the detained person.  The RPR  was usually a relative but they are being replaced by social workers or IMHAs who are strangers to the elderly resident. One of the problems with non family RPRs is that  if the detained person can not talk it may be very difficult for them to understand what they are trying to say if anything. In addition, if they have injuries due to abusive staff, they will not be able to ask for help. Often it may be difficult for  a stranger to understand them. It is also a problem if they merely ask the staff whether the victim has been alright because it is unlikely they will even know about it or that member of staff may be the abuser.  Removing relatives by displacement, not letting them be the RPR   and not letting them visit are  extremely  bad ideas. The practice seems to be creeping towards using social workers  as RPR instead of family.  

The care homes are autonomous and make their own rules and policies. However, these rules should not impact on the rights of a detained person or any residents. The also have guidelines but they usually ignore these and find excuses to get around them.  They should know that a resident’s family has priority rights to them and if they want anything done for the resident  or even to visit them, they should not be prevented. But they are not always recognising this principle or the human right in Article 8 ECHR, a right to home and family life, and privacy, which includes a right to visit your relative and to do so in privacy.

The care homes have their own rules and policies and when a person is on DOLS they allow the staff to make “best interest” decisions for them. Therefore, they may do whatever they want and are overriding anything the resident has asked for on their  LPAs.  Not much respect is being given to a person’s wishes or to their family.  They are ripping up these LPAs and are removing all the protection that an elderly person can have in place.  If they have asked for particular people to be their attorneys these should be fixed and unremovable if they have no capacity as the social workers are placing themselves in that special position.  It is a violation of a person’s wishes and trust.  

I have already described the problems above in regard to safeguarding, ill-treatment and grooming.  One may not know that the resident  may be groomed to cut the relatives out of their lives and to steal from them. 

As I have described previously the care staff are being allowed to do whatever they like to certain residents.  They are asking them for money and gifts, they may not be following guidelines for these residents especially if there is no one to make the complaints  on their behalf. They may be rude to the resident and their family.  They  like to exert their power over the people in their care and choose who can visit a resident and who cannot.  If a resident is not already on DOLS they can be put on DOLS if the care home wants to do that. They can displace relatives if they want to.  They can even put the relatives  on section.    Under the DOLS care home system there are no forums to apply for a removal of the DOLs order, and one may have to apply to the Court of Protection if you want a relative to be  released from the order and take them home.  One has to engage their own solicitors if they need any help as these are not provided for free to displaced relatives. 

When they want to take over a person’s money and assets, or to simply be unkind, they will try to remove the relatives by whatever method they can.  One of these methods is to accuse the relative  of something such as interfering with a victim’s care, being violent or aggressive, or some other bad behaviour.  They can think up whatever they want to because they do not have to show any evidence. Some staff  told me that they just go to court and lie or are subtle but determined to cause trouble for their victims. Therefore, they are using bent witnesses  at court and they simply  lie.   Care staff like to show off their authority by threatening  that they can fabricate anything they like and do anything they like to the victim.   They are using these methods in ordinary care homes where you may have put your parents, and you are more vulnerable if it is only, you that visits or if there are no other family members.

They can simply prevent access, by for instance, saying that the resident  (mother, father, grandparent etc) does not want to see you. Their victim may not even know that you have been turned away at the door, but they will be eagerly  awaiting your visit. They are left with the worry and stress of not knowing why you did not turn up.  Other excuses include that they are sleeping, they are having a bath, they are changing  incontinence wear,  they are having their lunch or dinner. Decent care homes will work around these problems and let you visit anyway.  The staff  usually think that they can prevent access by making a “best interest” decision on the resident’s behalf especially if they are  being detained on a DOLS.  They may have even  removed you by displacement so that the best interest decision can be made by carers and even by young people on work experience. So, they are removing the caring relative who likes to visit their resident and are allowing any staff, just anyone, to decide whether you can visit your own relative. They find it very amusing to prevent access. Elderly people often suffer from fading and die more quickly if they are prevented from having visits from relatives and it is an extremely serious life or death abuse.   Important decisions are being made by care homes who may even allow  a nurse or  care assistant to make a decision to do anything they like to the victim and override anything you tell them. For instance, if the detained person is vegetarian, they will make a decision to give them meat. These  practices of ignoring the close  relative  appears to be fairly common. It is as if they have taken ownership of your relative and you have no rights in regard to them. If you are not a displaced relative it would be easier to have the care home changed due to your dissatisfaction with the care home and to make complaints about the staffs’ behaviour.  Or it is possible to prosecute the staff for any abuse to you and to the detained person. 

It is also very unsafe for a person  to visit in one of these care homes. It is best to take people with you if the staff are causing problems. If their plan is to take over your relative and to take over their assets, they will not  even let you know what they are doing to your close relative. If they displace a relative you will not know how their victim’s money is being spent.  You will not know if the victim is being illtreated, you will not know what is happening in your  mum’s, dad’s or other elderly relative’s  life and whether they are still alive. Sometimes they will cut people off entirely and not even allow contact by phone or videophone such as WhatsApp or Skype, just because they have people within their power and it is amusing for them.  Sometimes they change the care home and may hide your relative from you.  They are not even informing a relative about the move before it happens and are not telling you  where their  victim is. 

Therefore, the care home can apply to court to displace you from your nearest and dearest and all they have to do is to make false statements to the court. As there are no free solicitors if you cannot pass the means test you may not have solicitors if you cannot afford to hire any.  In addition, they tend to go for people who have high value properties and it is less likely that they will pass the means test.  The care home will have social worker and local authority support and will be able to brief the solicitors hired for their victim if  they are  entitled to free solicitors and if they have dementia or are deemed to have no capacity they can have free solicitors. So to displace you all the care home staff have to do is to fabricate something and set you up, such as claiming that you have hurt your relative in some way or are too dangerous for them. therefore, they can remove you.  They sometimes set people up, make false allegations  and call the police as if you have done something terrible. The whole scenario may convey a false impression, especially if they say in their reports  that they “had to” call the police even if you have done absolutely nothing wrong.   One really needs to use body cams when visiting relatives and if your relative has been physically abused they will need hidden cameras. The care homes often do not like cameras being used and they will refuse to use CCTV so that there is no proof of anything such as your actual behaviour as they like to fake the behaviour of the visitors or the residents.  If they find any hidden cameras they may assault or abuse the victim.    They will try to claim that you were swearing, shouting, badly behaved, physically or verbally abusing their  staff or their victim.  They claim  anything they can think of to make you sound bad so that they can prevent access.  It should be mandatory to show video evidence if they want to displace a person or prevent access.  They should not be able to restrict  access on the whim of the staff and need to take it to court before they can prevent access at all.  They should not be able to just throw you out and tell you that you cannot visit. Quite often they can have a care assistant in the room if they think that you may cause a problem but if the resident wants the privacy with you, they should respect their wishes even if they’re deemed to have dementia or a mental illness. They should show actual evidence such as videos rather than what they currently do which is to lie on their reports. There may be ways of overcoming even video evidence, but such methods may be extreme and some methods are used by the lawyers. However,  police ask for video evidence.  Otherwise they just have to ask a group of people to lie and this unkind act will cut off your close family, your flesh and blood who you love deeply and care about  for good. You may never see your nearest and dearest again.  They do not even care if the victim is crying and asking to see you every day  and obviously wants to go home.

They can even section you.     It is all very easy to fake their case and may not be easy to disprove.  They can  keep you imprisoned  if they want to even if you are just visiting a relative, but that depends on the type of care home. Most dementia care homes have tough male care assistants due to the needs of male dementia sufferers. This may sound extreme, but these care homes have no problems getting GPs to say whatever cause of death the staff tell them as they are dealing with many deaths of the elderly residents. Therefore there is a problem of lawlessness and a lack of the need to follow any guide lines regarding relatives visiting rights. One really should not be made to fear when you want to visit your relative, but staff can scare people a lot.  I have heard about cases where they do not even offer seats for the visitors causing them to have to sit on the floor, or making people wait outside the care home in the cold for hours.

The Covid-19 crisis highlighted the amount of control these care homes have about whether or not they allow relatives in to visit elderly residents  and people could see that they were making their own rules in regard to a dying relative.  However, they should have been shown the research and educated on how to deal with such a situation. The care home managers obviously needed  more guidance.   They seem to not really be able to understand that they are looking after people who are not their own flesh and blood and the actual spiritual owners of these people are their relatives and not them. They were unable to understand that it is possible for people to have some contact with an elderly person by using ways of maintaining the quarantine but allowing the contact, such as seeing them through a glass window or using  PPE.  The importance of the relatives in a person’s life, someone who may cause an improvement in health is completely ignored.

In addition, they like to prevent access and cut off the relationship between the victim and the relative which may be gradual. They like to make it “unsafe” for a relative to visit and they will put them in fear of their own lives.  They will make up rules such as saying that they can only visit on specific days of the week and at specific times which may not fit with your day if you have to work. It is all serious abuse of the victim and their relative. Decent care homes normally allow visiting from at least 9am to 9pm.    They may sit in the room to make it look as if you are a terrible person who may be violent when you visit and try to put you off seeing your relative that way. They like to sit in the room and make notes. The problem is they don’t tell the truth on their notes and will lie about your behaviour. It is extremely uncomfortable for both you and the victim if they are doing this. Body cams are a life saver in this situation.  Quite often the victim will be weaned off the relative by punishing them physically or mentally if they are happy to see the relative or want them to visit.  The victim/resident may be threatened if they are asking for their relative. They may be threatened with further physical abuse or abuse to their relative.

There is actually no reason  for a care home to prevent access to see your own relative and there should be a strict rule to allow relatives to visit their people if they are in a care home without exception.   I don’t know that there is any real instance when a person is so bad that they need a denial of access to relatives in a care home.   I don’t know what the excuses are but they should not prevent access at all. If a person who is drunk and unruly enters, they could ask them to leave, but that should not prevent them from visiting again and it should not be for more than a day.  They should not be preventing access by making a person uncomfortable to visit or by making them feel threatened.  These methods of cutting off access or limiting rights are all used by these care homes as a source of fun for the staff and social workers. As no one is going to do anything to the staff who practice these  abusive behaviours because the social workers and managers protect them, it is all amusing for them. 

Reasons given for preventing access include:

Health and safety such as quarantine and the general frailty of  the resident; Inconvenient timing of the visit; choices made by the resident on their LPA; relatives causing the resident distress; the behaviour of the visitor which may be aggressive or disruptive.

The cracks and displacement in this case arises from the unfettered application of any excuse that the care home can fabricate about a relative wishing to visit a detained person in a care home. We all depend on a person’s honesty, but there is none in this world of care homes or social workers.  The cracks in the system relate to the need to include words such as “except” or “unless” in the laws. This allows the abusers to use these excepted conditions and lie as a method of proving that they can use the excuse for prevention of access or anything else that they are not normally allowed to do.  This leaves a situation of anarchy within the care home world.   The victim is then left without anyone especially if there is no free solicitor to help the relative. The allegation requiring a prevention of visiting rights include causing the resident distress or  behaviour which may be aggressive or disruptive.  How many people are genuinely  (not fabricated), aggressive or disruptive, or cause the resident distress.  It is not likely that more than one or two  people if any, in the entire UK   fall into that category per year.  It is very unusual to enter a care home if you want to behave like that.  If you do not like your relative one normally does not visit them at all.  So, they need some real evidence that they have been so badly behaved that their human right of home and family life is removed.  One needs to take others with them if there are abusive staff who are setting people up.  If you enter these care homes and find many bruises on the resident, the staff are likely to take photos and then claim that these bruises and injuries were caused by the visitor. One has to visit your nearest and dearest amid these extremely treacherous staff.   It is not unusual to collect many unproven false allegations. if you make complaints about the injuries on the resident the safeguarding team may claim that it was done by the resident themselves, or by the visitor. They will try not to  blame themselves or the care home and they will say that the claim is unsubstantiated.  This situation is so unthinkable because it means that the victim continues to be physically assaulted and they continue to call it self-abuse. It is even worse if the victim cannot talk.  They will not put the abuser in jeopardy even if you know who caused the injuries.

One must look at the abuse of the elderly even by people in general who might trouble them and tell them that they are getting old and that they cannot do this and that. They may be accused of not being able to remember anything or that they are going mad. They may be teased, bullied,  harassed or threatened by  relatives that they will have to put them in a care home which might give the elderly person chills.  Threats like that makes all the lights in their head go out. It is not nice.  In care homes  they have no rights, no right to life, they suffer torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. They are slaves being kept against their will and are forced to sit all day earning money for the care home. There is no right to liberty and fair hearings due to prevention of legal help, biased and undefended hearings and the use of false and fabricated evidence. There is no presumption of innocence and bent judges. They practice punishment without a trial. Article 8 rights are abused, no privacy, no family life, the houses are being removed by ignoring legal rights and private correspondence is watched. Articles 9,10 and 11 are affected by the mental health system. No Art 13, no effective remedies and Art 14, a lot of discrimination mostly by claiming that a person is mentally ill or their age to prevent freedom. No right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions or to protect ones property. They do have a death penalty as they are killing people in the care homes when they feel like it. All other rights are affected by the detention. Basically a detainee should be there by choice and with the consent of the close relative. But this is not being practiced.

Displacement and Cracks

Many elderly people are being put into care on DOLS  (under the Mental Capacity Act 2005) each year and the numbers are shocking. The social workers are extremely pushy and may be determined to put a person in a care home even if they do not want to go, or they do not actually lack capacity. It appears to be just useful for them to put people in care homes and legally deprive their liberty.  It is likely that social workers and others in this system  receive extra pay or some other benefit for placing  people into care. One must be prepared to be locked up if you are past a certain age or you have no capacity.  The local councils maintain data about the age of residents in their area who may apply for free bus passes and other benefits.   In addition of the numbers that are  being locked up in England and Wales statistics by the Ministry of Justice say that about 40,000 to 45,000,  applications are made yearly to the COP (Court  of Protection)  and the number is rising.  And of this, about 8000 to 9000 applications each year are to challenge a DOLS order. That is, they are disputed by the relatives who do not want their nearest and dearest  to live in care. These people are being torn out of the arms of their loving relatives.  Many applications, 55% to 60%  are for Property and Financial Affairs, to remove relatives from managing the victim’s  assets.  They are cancelling the victims LPAs, ignoring these and putting their money in the hands of solicitors.  They are removing any Attorneys by making false reports on  these people who are chosen by the Donor  and are removing the Donors life savings, and properties etc, which is all being done by fraudulent means and is therefore grand theft. They just set up their victims and lie at court.   Some are personal welfare issues  which include  where a person lives, health care decisions and contact with relatives.   Contact issues usually means restricting access or removing visiting rights completely.  These cases are usually on the grounds that the relative or visitor is misbehaving in some way.   If an order is made which removes the right of a relative to take their elderly or mentally incapacitated person home it is not considered a proper displacement of the relative, but it has that effect.  It is certain that the social workers are very pushy and will try to persuade elderly people to commit suicide and seek an assisted  death. This  seems to be the drift of the current laws and practices. They just need to make the victim  depressed and continued  physical and verbal abuse can achieve that. It may be enough for the victim to  not want to continue living.  This is just one of the methods being used to cause an early death, which may help to free up their house for sale. It appears that popular sci-fi is coming true and the social worker thinking is moving towards terminating a person’s existence when they reach a certain age. 

There are many excuses that can be used legitimately, but they should not prevent a friend or relative  who is the only person the elder has in their life  from visiting them. (But all of this also applies to younger people in care). They should not be preventing access  to anyone who the elderly person relies on to be able to survive. They help the elderly person wanting to go on living and they may be  living for every moment they have with them. The problem is that though there are a long list of reasons that the care home can use, the staff just have to lie to be able to use them. Therefore, it is very bad to displace a relative.   Displacement is an extra step they take to distance people from each other.  Some cases have highlighted a person’s need for love against  state care, which the social workers think is better, and the unkind and arbitrary manner in which “best interest” decisions are being made.  They like to refer to themselves as the “professionals” and that they know how to look after a person better than any relative, but leave out a much more  important quality in life which is a person’s spiritual need.  It seems that clever words and arguments are winning against a person’s spiritual needs and humanity. They mis the point that  we are dealing with human beings and not toys or robots.  

There have been some new laws regarding visiting rights for people in care homes. The cracks in the system are the need for the people who write the laws to include exceptions to the general rule. If we are just looking after our relatives at home, we can do whatever we like and there will be no exceptions.  When care homes or social workers are cheating, they will lie to be able to use whatever exception there is to a general rule and these people will fall through all the points where the problem can be stopped to prevent a harsh result.

In regard to visiting rights there was a move forward after the COVID19 pandemic.  and Anne’s law came into force  in Scotland on the 31 March 2026,    but it has not been applied in England.  This allows a person to visit their close relative  whenever they want to even if the resident is in quarantine  if they are designated the  “Essential Care Supporter”. There have also been some positive changes  under  regulation 9A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. However, matters seem to be sliding back into total control of who visits residents and when they visit to the care home.  Unfortunately care homes like to get in the way and limit access and rights to their residents often by lying about the visitor and preventing access.  There also seems to have been an increase in bureaucracy. And they like to set up various bodies which do not know you or your relative and who get in the way  of your right to visit your nearest and dearest or to discharge them and  take them home. They are still distancing both your relative and your right to visit them.  The original  idea of DOLS  was to keep a person who has severe dementia or lack of mental capacity detained, but to allow unfettered access to your relatives and friends. And if that relative wants to take you home they should be able to do that by asking the care home manager. In addition, if the detained person wants to go home, they should be able to do that and they should be assisted in receiving care at home.  They definitely should not be restricting access, for example,  to 2 days a week for specific time windows,  which is like keeping a person in prison.  The optimum level of control should be that these care homes should be allowing wide visiting hours and any friend or relative should be able to visit at any time they wish and as many times as they wish in a day.  The staff should not be interfering with visits, sitting in the room  or restricting anything.  In addition, they should be allowing anyone who wants to see a resident in to see them.  People need to know if a resident is happy and are not being ill-treated or being physically or mentally abused. I have given some details about the abuse suffered by people in care homes, both financial and physical abuse above. It is extremely important and a life saving measure to not allow  limitations on access.

The figures above are from the Ministry of Justice, but there are other sources which have not been included. No official number exists regarding   contact restrictions which are routinely imposed without tribunal oversight. These findings appear in: Court of Protection judgments, CQC inspection reports and Parliamentary debates on replacing DOLS with Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS).  Though  family‑separation data is missing, 332,455 DOLS applications were made in England in 2023–24. The 2024–25 figures are similar, with hundreds of thousands of applications.  Many DOLS authorisations include conditions restricting contact, movement, or visitors. A  large proportion of DOLS cases occur in care homes. Many of these involve disputes with relatives; and social workers often impose contact restrictions as part of “Best Interests” decisions. From this it is reasonable to infer  that thousands of people each year experience some form of restricted family access. What is known about family separation under DOLS  is  that, while not counted numerically, multiple government reviews acknowledge: DOLS is being used inappropriately, including to manage “family conflict”. Local authorities often delay or obstruct discharge, even when families are willing to care.

By Vidhya Thillai

BSc(Hons), MSc, PgDL, BVC

10/9/26

.