The voice of reason

[Mr_Angry]

As I can no long post on a previous thread I will do so here.

I agree with the moderator everyone has a point of view and as long as it complies with the terms of this site they should be allowed to speak.

The rights to free speech and protest, along with the right to form and join associations or groups, are found in Articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act.

The right to liberty is found in Article 5 and the right to privacy is found in Article 8.

The Human Rights Act 1998 states 'It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.' http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6

I disagree with the moderator my case is not complex it is simple. My father is seeking the information that he is entitled to see, He is seeking copies of documents that form an essential part of the duty of care owed to him by SS. He is asking for his right to free speech so that his views may be considered. He is seeking compliance with the fundamental principles of the Mental Health Act 2007 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/12/section/8

If SS, CH etc were willing to provide this information that has been asked for over the course of nearly six months and prove one way or another that my father lacked mental capacity to determine where he wishes to live then I would not be Mr_Angry.
To date they have not provided this information instead my requests go unanswered or I am deemed 'aggressive' and banned from seeing my father. Under such circumstances it is unlikely that I would have any positive message to write on here. I hope I soon can and wish to do so as do many others on this site who have shown an interest in my posts. There are a lot of Mr Angry, Miss/Mrs Angry out there asking questions but faced with badly constructed legislation often misunderstood or ignored by the bodies that claim to act in their relatives 'best interest' It may be a long time before we all hear positive news.

I am pleased that my posts on this site have stimuluted debate and hope people remain free to post here as the alternative would be to take my views to a wider audience to generate even greater interest in a topic that lacks media coverage.

 

[Jancis]

I hope my posts have not contributed to your previous thread being closed Mr Angry. Now I feel as if I dare not comment further or this one will be closed too!

 

[Mr_Angry]

Then it would be an odd form of censorship. I always thought the Alzheimers Society wanted to make people aware of the issues.

 

[Marianne]

I fought for justice for my dad for five years, then I had a breakdown which I suppose is the body saying you have done enough. When my problems first started I was given a bit of advice and that was to hire a Tannoy and use it on the Town Hall steps. I laughed at the time but I do wish now I had taken that advice.

The PCT, SS, and every agency I came across all had the same primary interest and that was to protect the manager of the care home no matter what, the manager that covered up abuse, who advised carers to block my dad's door using furniture to stop him from leaving his room. After my dad died I sat reading through the care notes and my visits in the mornings when the carers were telling me my dad was asleep because of having a bad night was the time when she was giving him antipsychotic medication to heavily sedate him. This medication had never been prescribed.

The PCT promised an investigation using senior medical investigator and a pharmaceutical expert, it never happened. I went to the police spoke with CID who promised to get to the bottom of it, he asked me to give him a ring a couple of days later which I did he said he had never heard of me or my dad.

The CEO PCT visited me to say she had arranged an investigation and had a policeman to carry this out. This policeman was sent to intimidate me, he told me the number of my car, and was making it known what they are capable of, it was scary stuff. He made a mistake he wrote to me saying the home had never given my dad Haloperidol the only time he had this drug was while in hospital by the dates given were wrong as he was in the home during this time.
I wrote to the PCT CEO asking who had prescribed it for the dates her policeman had given.. She contacted my GP and his collegues, my GP told me she had made several calls about me but he would not say more. I wrote to her asking what she wanted to know about me and copied it to each and every PCT board member and my gutless MP.
The manager of the home is still the manager of the home and the CEO PCT is still the CEO but has just received her gong from the Queen for her work at the PCT. Justice!

 

[cragmaid]

Mr Angry, the reasons for the previous thread being closed were made clear as are the terms and conditions under which this site is run.
Now, with regard to your Dad's ongoing situation, are non-family visitors permitted to spend time with your Dad, I mean a Solicitor, or a Clergyman or similar? If they are, then have you asked them to intercede with the Social Services on Dad's/your behalf? I cannot believe that the Home could turn away a legal representative of your father or his spiritual advisor. Have you spoken with the local media and your MP?
I'm going to now say something that will, no doubt, annoy you. If you are communicating with the CH, SS and others in the same manner as you fashion your posts here, then you are going to be consistantly referred to as agressive. You will have to learn to box more cleverly as the powers that be need to see you behaving "acceptably to their standards". They are the ones holding the cards just now as you have seen, your present path gains no ground. I think you need to practice a different strategy if you are to gain any postive results.
As the old saying says..softly softly catchee monkey. Maureen.

 

[Bob S]

Mr Angry is certainly assertive, but I would not describe him as aggressive. Unfortunately SS, PCT and care home staff will use this tack if faced with someone who has done their homework and knows the law and procedures. It is a common ploy to deflect attention from their own failures and one that the PCT that I was dealing with tried to use against me. They were forced to back peddle and had to apologise as they were totally wrong. But they know that some people will back down in the face of being labelled in such a way.

 

[Ann_sis]

I find it beyond belief that a CH can ban a relative from seeing a family member. I was threatened by the CH but never banned as if I had been I would be on the steps with Marianne as I am sure others would as well.

In my case I thought the problem was just a bad CH and a private matter I did not want to reveal to the public. That is the card SS like to hold perhaps if I had been more determined I would have gone to the press.

A ban is bound to make someone angry but SS, CH don't see this. Mr Angry's case is drawing a lot of interest amongst my friends and on here perhaps he should go public if SS are unwilling to talk. How can SS claim to be acting in his fathers best interest when he is not allowed to see his son.

Shameful they should do the right thing.

 

[scared daughter]

Oh my godness Mr Angry, I haven't seen your other post, but I am VERY shocked a CH can stop you from seeing your father. A wee whole back my mum suffered a huge incident where she became aggresive and accused me of trying to put her in a home.

she became physicaly aggressive and ranted at her CPN abut me. I was very shocked when the CPN took in what was being said and believed it 100% she even reaccused me of it.

Then mum went into hpspital and on an emergency brain scan it showed "vascular events" when my mum became as confrontational, aggressive and accusing to the nurses in hospital they expected me to see it was mums condition - so I can easily see how situations can arise which can leave you feeling wrongly accused and pretty angry about it =o(

I hope ou can get some back up on this, it is a very distressing situation for you and your dad xxx

 

[BeckHux]

I have to agree that I also don't think Mr Angry is agressive - just asserting his father's rights. I am challenging the Local Authority legally on a number of breaches of the National Assistance Act - I don't doubt that soon I will be labelled as being 'difficult'. If difficult means I help my father get the care to which he is legally obliged then good.

There are too many people in positions of authority who either don't know or ignore the rights of vulnerable people. Unless assertive relatives challenge them more of those people will be deprived of their rights.

 

[TinaT]

I vowed never to post on TP again but I do check on friends and some posts and just cannot refrain from posting the following as it directly relates to why I do not post on Talking Point.

The statement from one poster on this thread:

I]Mr Angry, the reasons for the previous thread being closed were made clear as are the terms and conditions under which this site is run.[/I]

.....is the very reason I do not want to post on TP again. Rules and regulations are stretched by those in charge on this site to suit their own opinions. It used to be that offensive posts were removed from a thread but the tread itself was not closed....'A day in the Life of'..... being one thread which benefitted from such a wise decision.

The offensive ofensive post on Mr Angry's thread was not removed, but the thread closed instead! What kind of moderating is this? Fair to the thread starter who is obviously in a great deal of pain and upset? Fair to those who have not written offensively?

Let's all have only sweetness and light and minor irritation posted on this site when the reality is we are dealing with a disease which brings out anger and despair, let alone isolation and lonliness when dealing with authorities which rightly or wrongly give another mighty shove to push someone over the edge.

Well done TP! You have used a mighty elbow to push another thread out of the loop.

TinaT

 

[cragmaid]

Tina, a thread which descends into a slanging match becomes no help to anyone. This way a new thread has been opened and the original problem re-adressed. In this case it is to try to help Mr Angry get back to being with his dad. I did not say that Mr Angry is agressive, merely that his posts could be perceived as agressive as witnessed by the response of the CH and SS. It seems perfectly obvious that the CH& SS think that they have the upper hand in this dispute and that if Mr Angry wishes to gain visiting rights, a new tactic must be found.

 

[Tender Face]

My resolution to a very serious complaint (about my mother’s treatment in hospital) came soon after my mother died. I wanted to be able to tell her before she took her last breath – even if she couldn’t understand, ‘Mum, I fought for you and won. It won’t happen to anyone else .... or not in that place, or at the hands of that person ......’ I trust she knows. When I recognise others going through torment of battling some ‘system’ or other, it takes me back to a time and place I would rather not remember .... I can only will them on and wish them courage to keep persevering. Some people back then told me to ‘calm down’. I personally found it patronising. How could I NOT ‘shout up’ – metaphorically at least - right there and then - for this vulnerable little dot (who happened to be my mother) who had her ‘rights’ violated?

I have no real insight into battling ‘SS’ and have not contributed to Mr Angry’s threads previously, but perhaps should have done so just to offer encouragement.

I confess to being a little bewildered by some responses he has had but trust the moderating team are acting on knowing more than I do and have made their decisions accordingly!!!!????? I hope Hazel (Skye) will forgive me if I slightly misquote something I recall her posting (no direct relevance to this situation) which stuck in my mind from some time back on TP: “We are not here to judge, but to support, even if the decision made was not what others would have made.” It was a phrase stuck very much in my mind when I had been going through my own ‘tantrums’ and some heavy ethical decisions and was richly supported by TP, where members understood my need to ‘vent’ and never challenged me what truths I was telling or not. It was the truth as far as I perceived it.

I fear (Maureen) it was the closed thread which was likely to degenerate into a complete ‘slanging match’ which forced it to be closed? I am guessing – as apparently - there was no violation of any T&Cs by anyone? But some posts still don’t sit comfortably with me and I am surprised they remain in public view, to be honest – I have known much less ‘slander/libel’ of another member be quickly wiped??? I digress ... I am trying to get back to support .....

Mr Angry, I have done a pretty good impression myself in the past of Little Miss Angry/Obnoxious/Hateful ... hold my hands up and admit it ... fortunately affected members of this forum at the time showed me forgiveness and accepted my apologies when it overran to TP. But at least TP was a ‘safe’ place to vent when I couldn’t climb out of hell – or helped me smile through gritted teeth at times when dealing with professionals in the ‘reality’ of that hell ..... and I hope it still is now .... much is said about the need for the ‘light-hearted escapism’ which the forum can offer as support. I hope there are enough of us have it in our hearts to keep supporting those who need support in much more ‘complex’ (if I dare use that word? – or should it be demanding?) ways – including allowing them to simply ‘vent’ if they need to.

Mr Angry, I am sorry I don’t have the knowledge or experience to help you as constructively as perhaps others can, but I do wish you well. Please take care of yourself. The stress – as Marianne has pointed out and I myself can testify – knocks the stuffing out of the most courageous hearts sometimes – without you realising until the aftermath.

I trust those members – especially those who have posted for the first time on TP - in response to Mr Angry find, too, their own support on the forum for whatever motivation and concerns brought them to TP and whatever issues and concerns have been raised for them in relation to their own experiences of dementia/dementia care.

Karen, x

 

[Bob S]

Tina, a thread which descends into a slanging match becomes no help to anyone. This way a new thread has been opened and the original problem re-adressed.

Had the thread descended into a slanging match? I think not and the decision to close it was not one of the better ones. One poster had joined and was posting in a manner which suggested an ulterior motive and this poster could have been dealt with in a suitable way without closing the thread.

It is clear Mr. Angry was seeking help for the appalling situation he has found himself in and I hope this thread can achieve that, but Mr Angry should not have needed to start a new thread.

 

[DozyDoris]

There are two sides to a story, the best example was Margaret's Family joining the forum to give the other side of their story. The only difference here is that the person who posted the comments on Mr-Angry's thread either could not or would not show more information about their involvement. I guess there's a thin line between a lively debate and a slanging match but I don't think anything in the thread was offensive. It's all lost it's way a bit now to anyone who didn't see the first threads initial point....

 

[JPG1]

Mr Angry,

I’ve found it difficult to comment on your new thread for fear of it too being closed, as Jancis also felt. But I have to comment, because if I don't, I will not be acting 'in the best interests' of anyone who may have dementia and who may need their relatives to handle things on their behalf and in the best interests of dementia care.

If we are indeed all entitled to express a view, provided it does not contravene the rules of the forum (quote: e.g. by being personally abusive), I will say what I have wanted to say, in the belief that I am not contravening rule. I don’t want to go back over old territory, because your current thread is now open to constructive contribution. I don’t feel there were reasons given for the closure of your previous thread. It was closed for moderation; that’s all we know.

There was no slanging match that I can see – but, as mentioned by another poster here, a couple of posts sit uncomfortably still for all to read. And this is where I am about to call up my human right, because it is personal to me. A fairly innocuous post of mine was apparently deemed to be ‘harsh’ and ‘unhelpful’ and so was eventually deleted by me, after it was rendered meaningless and redundant in moderation. And yet, a post that calls into question your own integrity, Mr A, is allowed to stand without question. Yes, I’ve had a few sleepless nights since then, for more reasons than you will ever know!

It’s been suggested that you should strive to be seen to behave acceptably according to ‘the standards of the powers that be’ (my slight paraphrasing there). That concept scares the living daylights out of me. According to their standards? That would require me to have accepted the shabby, unacceptable, desperately miserable sub-standards of my own SS/LA/care provider/care home/staff from top to bottom. I will never be able to do that. I would not be able to lower my standards to theirs.

It would also have required me not to challenge anything at all, unless I could do that with a smile on my face and cap-in-hand, just like many of our ancestors no doubt had to do when required to grovel. No matter how reasonable I have been in my own demeanour, the behaviour of the professionals I’m involved with must be called into question. It was only after I obtained the full records/SS file/medical records/hospital records/care home notes etc that I discovered the degree of duplicity that caused so much trouble for my own relative and for me, and that I since have had to deal with, very seriously. It also has allowed me to see the extent of the legal advice that the professionals in question sought – all paid for by the tax payer – in order to assist them to maintain their position.

The director of the mental health team instructed his staff to re-write the records and to make sure they’re ‘watertight’. (The file notes as sent to me contained details of that exact communication.) It would take a forensic examination of their whole computer system to allow anyone to know exactly what has been re-written, but I’ve got a pretty good estimation.

When it comes to lies: I have a file full of lies. Created and sent back and forth, between health and social care professionals. Do I have evidence for saying that? Yes. The untruths told relate to the wilful distortion of facts; the creating of scenarios that never happened; conversations and correspondence with family members who have never ever been consulted, spoken to or written to; fabricated assurances that certain procedures required by law were followed when they were not; the ignoring of medical requests that were not carried through but which would have been massively constructive, if only they had been acted upon – and so on.

Does all that sound like the responsible and reasonable behaviour of professionals? No.

I will never be able to respect them as professionals.

I thought I’d had a bad week last week – but then, more post arrived this morning. It now transpires that the solicitor who has been ‘dealing’ – on behalf of those who are responsible for the files full of revelations, all connected with local authority care, with mental health care of older people team care, with care home care, with dementia care etc – claims that he has only ‘just become aware’ of things that I had asked him about (and those who appointed him) and that I had been assured were ‘all above board’ 6 months ago now. His three line letter ends by telling me that it would not be appropriate for him to take matters further on behalf of ......... I gave him that opportunity 6 months ago. But still ..... and, as a result, he now has lost my respect too; my respect for him as a professional is gone for ever. As is my respect for his profession.

So, Mr A, I may just fully understand where you are now, and why you too need support.

But I’m afraid there will always be people who will not be able to comprehend what it is like to have to go through the torture some of us are subjected to. All because we care about our relatives with dementia, and those without dementia too. All because of the incompetence of some of the professionals charged with providing good dementia care. Some are fortunate enough to have a fairly comfortable path, through the care system. There are many forum members here who have never come into contact with the SS, or with the care home systems. They may not be dealing with those who have almost perfected the ‘art’ of covering all traces of their misdemeanours.

I wish you well, Mr A, and I wish your father well.

PS. With my apologies for a long and boring post, as may be the perception of some - if they read this far, that is.

 

[cragmaid]

JPG1, I get so angry when I read of yet another failure by the legal profession to keep paying customers, for that's what we are, clients is just another word for it, fully aware of the state of play in an enquiry. If they would tell you when you sought advice that:- their work load is too big, or it's outside their field of experience, you would seek help elsewhere, but no they string you along until you could scream.

When I suggested that Mr Angry changed tactics I was not saying give up and don't fight, but what I was saying ( and am saying very clearly) being perceived asagressive or shouty wasn't getting him anywhere, and was merely continuing to antagonise the very people he needed to get working with him, not against him, so a better way has to be found and if that has to involve play acting to get the job done, so be it. That is not his fault, it is the fault of the system we are forced to submit to, where the "professionals" make and change the rules willy- nilly.
I wondered, and because I have no legal background this would need checking out, if this is not a case under the Habeas Corpus Law and if it wasn't more important to re-unite Mr Angry with his Dad quickly, I would have thought a suitable law firm might wish to try it.

and if it wasn't more important to re-unite Mr Angry with his Dad quickly

This has to remain the priority though, all other issues are important in their own right, but this is number one.

 

[Nessa456]

If I told most of the staff at my Father's care home what I really thought of their ignorant attitude I'd no doubt be banned from there myself.

But with the way I currently feel towards my father and visiting the home that would be a bonus for me. I'm just avoiding the place full stop. If they need anything for him they can send me an invoice first as I'm sick of trying to extract a receipt from them. Their administration system is useless! They once managed to shred a £2,000 cheque for his fees!

I fail to see how they can legally prevent you from removing your father from this home though if you are his main advocate/representative.

Under what capacity of the law can they prevent it?

 

[KatherineW]

I have been following this thread and felt it important to make a couple of points.

Firstly, I thought it may be helpful to clarify that there are several reasons why posts may be edited or threads closed on Talking Point. For example, this may happen:

• when there has been a clear contravention of forum Terms and Conditions

• in order to maintain members’ privacy, or the privacy of other people that members may have posted about

• for legal reasons

• in the course of responding to an enquiry or complaint that the Society has received.

Whilst we try to be open with members about the reasons for the majority of moderating decisions that are taken, there will always be times when posts and threads are moderated for reasons that cannot be shared on the forum.

All of the above is why we have this rule in place:

3.9 Alzheimer's Society may from time to time edit or remove posts that are contrary to these terms and conditions or not constructive to the overall purpose and mission of Alzheimer's Society.

(see Talking Point T&Cs)

Secondly, there are a few posts in this thread which cross the line in relation to the following rule, and I would ask that members please bear this in mind before posting on the public forum:

4.5 Posts discussing moderator actions are not permitted on this forum. Members who wish to take issue with any decision made by a moderator should either contact the moderating team or the Talking Point Manager privately. Posts discussing moderators' decisions on Talking Point will be removed without notice, and may result in further moderator action.

(see Talking Point T&Cs)

I have not edited any content from this thread at this point, and nor has it been closed. It will however be subject to moderation, if discussion continues in a way that is not constructive to the main aims of this forum, including discussion of moderating decisions.

 

[Bob S]

Katherine,

I hope you don't mind a slight thread hijack and me asking you the rationale behind the decision not to allow public discussion of moderating decisions? I note that questions can be asked "behind closed doors" but that does leave processes open to allegations of a lack of openness in the way business is conducted here.

 

[KatherineW]

Hi Bob

There are many instances when it is simply not appropriate for moderators to explain on the public forum why a particular decision has been taken.

Whilst forum members may at times have concerns about moderating decisions on Talking Point, they will not generally be in possession of all the facts surrounding those decisions.

That being the case, it’s more helpful for questions or concerns about moderator decisions to be raised away from the public forum.

I hope this explains the rationale behind this rule more clearly. You are welcome to contact me by email if you have any further questions or comments in relation to this.

Kind regards,