Forum menu
[b]Philconsequence/Barnsleymitch
[/b]Genuine query this. I'm an AMHP, and I suppose I'm wondering how somebody can be detained under s.2/3/37 into a residential provision, unless it has been defined as a hospital under s.34 MHA? In 10 years of ASW/AMHP practice I've never known this happen.
People can certainly be moved on [b]from[/b] hospital under a CTO, Guardianship or under the provision of s.41, but they can't [b]initially[/b] be detained to a setting [b]other[/b] than a hospital surely?
Apologies to all none MHA geeks who just read that.
northernhammer - perhaps a misunderstanding on my part - I had thought, from your first post, that you meant people on section couldnt be discharged or transferred to a residential setting, which of course they can, but yes you're right, first admission under section would be to a hospital setting or approved place of safety. Anyway, it looks like we're both wrong, and they should all be hung... 🙄
jumpupanddown - Member
Paedophiles should be hung..
That'll cause more damage to the kids, surely?
Surely this just boils down to the 'need' for such a facility in the location that OP is talking about. Rural location unlikely, larger population centre more likely. If the objections are sensible, everybody has the right to oppose a planning application.
To those in the mental health sector (workers, not residents), you have my admiration but arguments based on checks and balances that "should" be in place wouldn't convince me not to oppose such a planning application. Plenty of examples of things going wrong, which is almost a given when considering the lack of budget available for such care.
The point that philc makes of serious nutters on day release from prison is well made and shows that ignorance is bliss.
cb - Member
Plenty of examples of things going wrong
Really annoys me when people say things like that but don't provide any.
Where are they going to go if everyone thinks like that though?
Stoke-On-Trent?
Genuine query this. I'm an AMHP, and I suppose I'm wondering how somebody can be detained under s.2/3/37 into a residential provision, unless it has been defined as a hospital under s.34 MHA? In 10 years of ASW/AMHP practice I've never known this happen.People can certainly be moved on from hospital under a CTO, Guardianship or under the provision of s.41, but they can't initially be detained to a setting other than a hospital surely?
our chaps were all originally detained in prison, secure forensic hospitals like broadmoor or secure units.... so not detained under s.2/3/37 into a residential provision, but transferred to the residential provision under various provisions, often under a CTO as you say 🙂
CTO's are getting more common which is great, the provision to recall them back to hospital is handy, especially when the temptations of the community such as drugs and alcohol get involved!
arguments based on checks and balances that "should" be in place wouldn't convince me not to oppose such a planning application. Plenty of examples of things going wrong, which is almost a given when considering the lack of budget available for such care.
ahh yes, the media loves to use the words 'mental' and 'nutter' don't they, fortunately just because the press has an example of something going wrong, doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of other similar patients living successfully in the community, doing your gardening, volunteering in your local charity shops, pulling your pints etc.
Budget is definitely an issue, its health and social care after all! there are cases where the cheapest care provider 'wins' the patient... the other side of this is that as much as everyone in charge of the funding is trying to cut costs, they're now obsessed with checks and inspections to make sure they're getting what they pay for, so placement monitoring is more intense than when money was less of an issue.
as ever, i have more trouble managing the public's perception of our residents and the stigma, than i do effectively helping my residents work towards further independence in the community.
Lifer - it may annoy you but this is internet conversation - I'm not running for office, I don't ned to resort to stats to justify an opinion. OP was concerned that the value of his house would fall - it will. If I were him I'd oppose it for that reason alone. Quoting figures or at insinuating that large numbers of mental health patients are successfully active in the community doesn't change that.
cb - where is the residential institution of a comparable profile to the one proposed for the OP's neighbourhood closest to you?
Drillski - Although I can appreciate that you do not want such an institution at the end of your road (I think most people wouldnt want it if their honest) please listen to reason!
Your 14 year old daughter I wouldnt have thought would be of any interest to a Paedo, afterall she will nearly be a woman. Shouldnt you be more worried about spotty Tim at school having is wicked way with your daughter, getting her pregnant, and giving her an STD at the same time?
I dont quite see how people with mental health issues, in a secure/monitored environment are more of a risk than Joe Bloggs (Mr Pedo) walking down the street that hasnt been arrested as yet, or identified as a Pedo.
cb - Member
Lifer - it may annoy you but this is internet conversation - I'm not running for office, I don't ned to resort to stats to justify an opinion. OP was concerned that the value of his house would fall - it will. If I were him I'd oppose it for that reason alone. Quoting figures or at insinuating that large numbers of mental health patients are successfully active in the community doesn't change that.
Then why bring up something you can't back up when 'you would oppose it for that reason alone'? The world would be a lot better if people just said what they meant instead of trying to hide behind made up 'evidence'.
Drillski - the bottom line is that you or your family are no more at risk from these residents than they would be from a new neighbour moving in next door. I think you've seen the phrase 'mental health' and worked yerself into a bit of a frenzy. The odds are that these residents will simply be people who struggle to live at home unsupported as a consequence of their illness - it doesn't make them dangerous.
To the OP, as above, your 14 year old daughter is genuinely more at risk of abuse from a friend or member of your own family than a random paedophile.
Not saying this to be an arse but it's a fact.
Please let's not demonise everyone with mental health issues. I've done some work in a secure unit before and the people there were mainly a danger to themselves, not anyone else.
is not a mental illness
WROOONG!
The medical community often considers it to be a psychological disorder.
WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG
(i'm not even sure what i'm saying 'wrong' to, it just looked fun to type)
GOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNG
(I haven't even got a gong I just like onomatopoeia)
I haven't even got a gong
its perverts like you that need to be locked up! 😆
Not the same thing but we 'sucessfully' opposed planning permission to turn the shop downstairs into a takeaway. You can't oppose on the grounds that it'll devalue your property and you can only oppose on things that they cant quibble about. eg. if it was a prison you couldn't object on the grounds your house would be worth less becasue its near a prison, but you could onject to a building beign built in the first place and spoiling the view/countryside. And you couldn't claim "what if one of them escaped" as the answer would just be "we'll make sure the doors locked". It was quite bizzare what we could/couldn't onbject on, like the smell we couldnt complain about, but we could complain about the bin lorry having to use the car park more often or the shop being open for longer hours in general.
Not the same thing but we 'sucessfully' opposed planning permission to turn the shop downstairs into a takeaway.
A [i]paedophile[/i] takeaway?
Lifer - Membercb - Member
Plenty of examples of things going wrongReally annoys me when people say things like that but don't provide any.
Here's one - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-15749442 ]Shaun Tudor.[/url]
Thisisnotaspoon:
IIRC from our planning permission squabbles with the Peak Park Authority - there is no entitlement to a view. It has to block light entering an existing window.
OP you may like to enlist the help of your local Parish Council, whilst not a planning authority in their own right they can be a bloody nuisance when mobilised.
[s]OP you may like to enlist the help of [/s]your local Parish Council[s], whilst not a planning authority in their own right[/s] - they can be a bloody nuisance [s]when mobilised[/s]
FTFY 😉
Mr_C that link would suggest he was on section 17 ("day release") leave from a secure hospital, not already living in the community, if so then thats a different scenario..... people who are considered for refferal to places such as the places i manage have to have had 'day release' most days a week for months and months without any incident before i'll even consider going to assess them.
care to find some links to new stories of people who have sexually assaulted children that aren't on 'day release'... you know.. family members, priests, family friends, scout leaders etc? much more common so less likely to make the news 👿
EDIT - only going to end up in a bad mood if the thread continues in this direction, will leave you chaps to it.
I agree it's not a perfect example of what the OP is facing and that most cases of abuse are not committed by persons unknown to the victim, but the question was about things going wrong in the system. If someone who has admitted that if released they will offend again is then given a two hour unsupervised release (at school leaving time) then there surely has been a breakdown in the system somewhere - so it was just an example of possible failings.
The question was about 'plenty of examples' of things going wrong.
I can appreciate that you do not want such an institution at the end of your road (I think most people wouldnt want it if their honest)
I can't see why not. Most people wouldn't have a problem with a residential home for physically disabled people, so why should they have a problem with a residential home for people with mental health issues ffs ?
The house bang opposite me is a hostel for people with mental health issues and I'm not least bit bothered by that - why should I be ? Or why should anyone else for that matter ? People who suffer from depression, schizophrenia, dependency issues, or any other mental health problems, need to live somewhere, and I think it's taking the piss if some people insist that they don't live near them. No one has a right to demand who lives near them.
any institution of that kind near your property will kill the value of your home
so put all the institutions up north where property is cheap, so there is less to lose.
make sense, eh?