Help, please.
Can any of you learned folks out there clarify whether detention under section 3 of eh mental health act includes Paedophiles? or not. I loked but can’t quite make sense of it.

see excerpt below.

Section 3 is similar to section 2, only the detention is for treatment and may be for a duration of up to 6 months, although this can be extended.

Grounds:

patient suffers from a mental disorder
he Mental Health Act 2007 has change the definition of Mental Disorders covered by the Mental Health Act
now defined as “any disorder or disability of the mind”
simplified definition now applies to all sections of the Act
four forms of mental disorder (mental illness, mental impairment, severe mental impairment and psychopathic disorder) have disappeared
potentially means some people previously excluded are now included e.g. there may be some people with an acquired brain injury who were not covered by the term “mental impairment or severe mental impairment” who could now benefit from the protections of the Act
there are two exemptions specifically referred to:
Learning Disability
a person with learning disability may be only detained if that disability is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct. This does not, of course, preclude the use of compulsion for people who have another form of mental disorder (such as a mental illness) in addition to their learning disability
applies to all those sections that relate to longer-term compulsory treatment or care for a mental disorder (in particular section 3, section 7 (Guardianship), section 17A (Supervised Community Treatment) and forensic sections under Part 3 of the Act)
Dependence on alcohol or drugs
refers only to dependence and does not exclude the effects of substances, such as intoxication, psychosis and delirium
note that the previous exemptions for “promiscuity or other immoral act” have not been included in the amendments made by the 2007 Mental Health Act
means that persons diagnosed with paedophilia can be detained in hospital by virtue of that alone

AND

it is necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons, and such treatment cannot be provided unless they are detained under this Section.

I’m sending the Sun readers round your house institution as I type.

can’t quite make sense of it

It makes sense to me.

thank you sooooooooo much. No there’s a planning app for a “residential institution” for the “mentally impaired” near me just gone in, which looks lovely, but when you see who’s the supervising consultant, and their speciality is supervising the very worst types of offenders, and you dig a little deeper online where they are touting for trade, before being approved or CQC reg’d, they talk about taking mainly people

detained under the Mental Health Act particularly Section 37, 37/41, and 3 with forensic histories

and I’m trying to make sure we’re not getting the wool pulled over our eyes here. The owner of the property is as dodgy as they come, he’d sell his soul for sixpence, he’s always got some scam in hand or other, but he’s one of the dangerous ones because he’s terribly charming and reasonable, until its too late, and has a marvellous way of avoinding the truth about anything that doesn’t suit him. Been bankrupt at least once before. Not a popular chap with anyone thats had any sort of dealings with him.

so ernie are you saying it Does include Paedophiles?

Nimby is as nimby does. 🙂

Oh goody, you’re already sharpening your pitchforks and preparing the torches.

Look, never mind the kiddy fiddling aspect; any institution of that kind near your property will kill the value of your home, rightly or wrongly, assuming you’re a home-owner.

Fight it tooth and nail.

And next time, just ask properly, without the cloak and dagger routine.

so ernie are you saying it Does include Paedophiles?

That’s how I see it. “Persons diagnosed with paedophilia can be detained in hospital” under the mental health act. I can’t see anything in the wording which leads me to think otherwise.

But I’m not a psychiatrist, lawyer, or paedophile. And sometimes I can be a bit dopey and my english isn’t very good – so don’t take my word for it. I’m just saying that it seems clear to me.

thanks ernie,I thought so too.

Look, never mind the kiddy fiddling aspect; any institution of that kind near your property will kill the value of your home, rightly or wrongly, assuming you’re a home-owner.

Fight it tooth and nail.

Where are they going to go if everyone thinks like that though?

Ap and Grum
We live in a remote rural setting. I have a 14 year old daughter. She has just last week started walking past this property to catch the bus to town on her own as we try to sensibly increase her independance levels. Please excuse me wishing to at least know the worst case scenario.
Residential home for the mentally and physically handicapped, not going to do the property value any favours, but there you go, we’ve all got to make room for one another on this crowded little island, and there but for the good grace of god go I or mine.
Paedophiles and violent sex offenders are another matter.

Grum – honestly? I wouldn’t care, so long as it was far, far away from my hard, earned property. Windfarms? Yes, no worries. Sub-stations? Slightly less welcome, but hey. Nuclear waste site? No thanks. Institution for dangerous psychiatric patients? On yer bike.

Yes, it’s nimbyism, but much as I love all God’s creatures, my house is worth little enough (surrounded as it is by industrial enterprises of one sort or another) and something like that ^^^ would just be the end of my little family’s chance at getting on a bit. Why not build it out in the countryside somewhere…. Oh wait….

thanks User-removed, i think..

Many years ago a planning application was put in for the house bang opposite me to made into a residential home for the mentally ill (sort of halfway house back into the community) My neighbour, an elderly lady who kept lodgers – all girls, and who I normally got on with extremely well, started up a petition to oppose the planning permission.

I refused to sign it on the basis that firstly, I didn’t believe for a minute that they would allow dangerous people to live there, and secondly, because I accepted that the residential home had to be somewhere.

My neighbour was horrified when I refused to sign it and claimed that if any of her “girls” (her lodgers) were raped, it would be my fault 🙂

The planning permission was given the go ahead and the residents of the home have proved to be absolutely model citizens over many years – they are certainly better than some of the lo-lifes that stay in the bed and breakfast “hotel” next door to them. And no one would have any idea that it is a residential home for the mentally ill.

That’s good to hear. And yes i could certainly see how it would be better than a doss house for job dodgers. But i need to know the truth of what this character potentially has in mind to be able to assess what we are looking at.

I know it’s not the best option but…what about selling yer house before it’s built and moving?

too late once a planning app is in. Has to be disclosed.
I guess a planning app for an institute for sex offenders is going to put some folks off, though i could be wrong of course.
Kind of reluctant to move form the home four generations of my family have built and grown up in too.

Move house? I think you should….you’d then have even more to fear and moan about with only prejudices to justify it.

Oh and did it occur to you that by the time this place is open your daughter will probably be close to 16 or over?

Do you really think its going to be full of predatory paedophiles who are going to be let out unsupervised to ravish the neighbours?

Far more likely it will have other mentally ill offenders under close supervision

It’s threads like this that make me think I’m reading the Daily Mail rather than Singletrack!

I guess a planning app for an institute for sex offenders is going to put some folks off

I thought you said “residential institution for the mentally impaired” ? It’s now become “an institute for sex offenders” ?

BTW with regards to your original question, I’m fairly sure that anyone held under the mental health act isn’t placed in a residential home, but instead in a secure unit which involves going through several locked doors. Well that’s my experience anyway.

So if the planning app is for a residential home then I can’t see why it would be holding anyone held under the mental health act section 3, paedophile or not.

I think people under section can be placed in community hostels but not dangerous or violent folk.

Seems strange to hold someone against their will in a community hostel – why don’t they just walk out ?

I’ve only ever known a couple of people that were sectioned and both were held in a secure unit, to do otherwise would have been pointless.

Locked door? i ain’t certain tho.

Maybe this?

Section 117 (after-care arrangements)

This section applies to people who have been detained under the Mental Health Act under Sections 3, 37, 37/41, 47 and 48. This means that the care team has a duty to make arrangements for a person’s continuing support and care in the community.

jesus christ it’s all gone a bit brass eye today.

look at that photograph. now look again, there’s a care home for people with mental health issues, and its stacked full of paedos!

why is it that we can’t talk about the british isles any more without the word ‘paedoph’ in front of it?

hmmmmm

Why not build it out in the countryside somewhere…. Oh wait….

You can b****r off with that idea!

We’ve enough inbred, shotgun toting landowners, and associated knuckle draggers out here already.

Topped up with a liberal sprinkling of egomaniac welfare to work company owners, lawyers, consultants and other assorted ne’er do wells.

Don’t you think we have enough to cope with and deserve a break? 😀

Locked door? i ain’t certain tho.

IIRC the last time I visited someone who had been sectioned it involved a fairly complex arrangement of going through locked doors. I also once changed all the locks (upgrade) in a mental hospital, the secure unit which held people who had been sectioned definitely had locks. And worryingly it also still had patients in it as I changed the locks…..with my chisels and other pointy tools 🙂

You started off with section 3, then casually threw in section 37 and 37/41 patients (hospital orders and home office restrictions). What kind of unit is he wanting to open? He’ll really have to have his act together in order to satisfy the CQC requirements. Also, I would presume the prospective residents would be thoroughly assessed and deemed appropriate to be housed in this kind of setting prior to being allowed to do so, and with regards to anyone held under 37/41, would have to satisfy stringent home office restrictions. I’ve worked with this type of client group for a long time, both in forensic units and acute. Section 3 is for treatment of mental illness, for up to 6 months, then a further 6 and yearly after that, not necessarily for people with a forensic history – thats where section 37, etc, is generally used. Sadly, having a unit like this close to your property may well put people off buying your house, but as far as safety issues are concerned, If it’s run and staffed by people who know what they’re doing, there shouldnt be a problem.

ernie – there are various levels of security I think

ernie – there are various levels of security I think

Fair enough. I must’ve visited a proper nutter.

Simple answer to the original question is of course “paedophiles” can be sectioned under the MHA in the same way that “mountain bikers”, “shop lifters”, “vicars” and “judges” could also be sectioned under the mental health act if they had a mental illness that required compulsory admission to hospital for treatment.
The mental health act doesn’t discriminate on the grounds of previous criminal convictions.
I think you are asking the wrong question somehow.

As per docrobster’s reply – people can’t be detained under the MHA purely because they are a paedophile – paedophilia is not a mental illness.
Secondly – ‘residential institution’ – sounds more like a care/nursing home type of set up. In which case, they cannot accept people detained under the act – it has to be a hospital setting with special approval.

FYI

Paedophile doth not = ‘kiddie fiddler’, despite what the great unwashed’ media asserts.

No law against being a paedophile, which makes media claims that someone is a ‘convicted paedophile’ about as informative as calling someone a ‘convicted driver’.

Paedophile only means an adult that finds children sexually attractive. It doesn’t mean they actively DO anyone about such feelings.

How do we know all this? Because of the case of the school caretaker who admitted to finding young boys sexually attractive and was sacked for saying so. The courts ruled he was entitled to his beliefs and he had been sacked unfairly.

Of course exactly what ‘children’ means is a whole new topic. People under 21 as per the law in some countries? Under 14 as per other countries? Under 18 as per international guidelines? Under 16 as per UK? How about pre-pubescent individuals as defined by mother nature. Hardly ‘unnatural’ to find someone capable of breeding that mother nature has design to be sexually attractive to the opposite sex sexually attractive.

Northernhammer – People under section can, and regularly are, housed in ‘care/nursing home types of set up’, including section 37/41 patients. (The ’41’ part of this section indicates home office restrictions, which is what I presume you mean by ‘special approval’.

as a manager of such a home i could clear up lots of questions asked in this thread…

but the attitude already showed towards people suffering from mental health problems and who have spent their time in prisons/forensic units serving their sentence for whatever violent/sexual crime they committed under the influence of a mental health problem puts me off doing so.

i’d feel more threatened walking through a town centre at pub closing time than i do sitting in a room with the clients i support.

what i will clarify is that it is possible to have section 3 patients as well as the forensic patients (sections 37, 41 etc) all in the same house in the community… they wouldn’t be there if they hadn’t been assessed as safe to be given such an opportunity, the level of support from community teams is pretty intense for such patients and this is in addition to the support given by the staff working in the home.

the owner of the property wont necessarily be the manager, i’d expect the manager to be a qualified RMN with forensic experience in such an instance. not only will it be up to a qualified manager/RMN to assess the clients but the hospital referring the clients will have a duty to only refer when they are as certain as they can be that the client is ready for the move, hospitals dont take this lightly, trust me!

as for locked doors, the homes i manage… well the only locks are on the residents bedrooms for privacy, and the front door to stop the public coming in uninvited.

And it’s also true, as far as I am aware, that they can shoot laser beams out of their eyes, and in the winter, they turn into swallows.

There used to be a ‘paedophile’ test someone on the net, but I’ll be buggered if I can find it. It showed fully clothed young people of both sexes in a variety of outfits and poses (none overtly sexual and therefore not breaking any laws). Viewers had to tick which ones they ‘fancied’. And as you’ve probably guessed the youngest looking ones were actual adults whereas the adult looking ones were under 16, proving most viewers to be ‘paedophiles’ (in the great unwashed media sense).

And there are lots of them about, just question any groups of 15 year olds (either sex) and see how many date over 18s!

dont be silly b’mitch, its only broadmoor patients who can do that, hence the big brick wall around the site! fences dont stop lazers but bricks do 😆

on a serious note… at least the ones under a mental health section recieve an intense level of support in the community, mrsconsequence works with some horrifically violent offenders in prison and half of them are already on a day release type thing where they go out during the day and return to the prison in the evenings… the risk to your kids doesn’t only come from people with psychiatric difficulties!

The other thing that should be mentioned is this: The vast majority of criminally disordered offenders that I’ve worked with over the years have commited their index offences with either members of their own families or people already known to them. Yes, there are predatory paedophiles, etc, that will target strangers, but more often than not, it’s been relatives, etc. Also agree with phil regarding feeling safer at work than I do in town at closing time.