Court Of Protection Gagging Order

[kvalidir]

A 94 year old lady has effectively been gagged by the Court Of Protection from speaking to journalists as it is 'not in her best interests'. Despite sounding very lucid in her previous comments and having an independent social worker and a psychiatrist find that she is fully in possession of her faculties, the court has chosen to gag her this way at the behest of local social services who are seeking to intervene in her life against her wishes.
I personally find this terrifying. This is truly the stuff of nightmares, and will eventually potentially affect us all. How can we best combat such secretive measures which even if they were not designed originally to erode our freedoms appear to be being used to do so? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619263/Gagged-secret-courts-Spinster-94-banned-speaking-publicly-legal-battle-social-workers-judge-rules-shes-not-mentally-enough.html

[Jomlett]

To avoid reading the Mail... Elderly woman banned from talking to the press for life in court ruling | via @Telegraph http://fw.to/g42oS3F

[Zacs-Master]

On balance I prefer the Mail article. It's slightly more emotive but much more informative.
Anyway, yes, I find the ruling very disturbing.

[kvalidir]

Thank you Jomlett, I read all of the newspapers but just happened to see it in the Mail. Occasionally they do apparently report on something other than immigration and alleged benefit scroungers :)

[DrFilth]

bit by bit they take your freedom away



“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[KARL]

Sadly, this is (in its nature) not a unique case - I personally know of a current case where Social Services' involvement in the handling by a care home of an elderly couple is appalling. When one of the couple's children questioned the treatment of his parents Social Services were instrumental in separating him from his parents totally by banning him, then his wife and his children, from visiting the elderly couple at the care home. The couple were thus in effect isolated from observation by others than the care home and (theoretically) Social Services. The couple were legally deemed unfit to decide their own affairs (by a single paid for psychiatrist - no other assessment or authority involvement) and one of them was put on Valium. The husband died in the past fortnight, his wife was not at his funeral for unknown reasons.

[woofgang]

more to that than meets the eye. reading between the lines, the live in carer tried to use the lady to further some agenda of her own that would be assisted by publicity which the lady would front.

[kvalidir]

Well yes, it appears that the carers want to live with Miss G and she wants them to be there. The council, quite rightly, wanted to see that she was being properly cared for, not abused and that she wasn't being defrauded. This has been done by an independent review by a psychiatrist and an independent social worker, so why now are they attempting to make an old lady utterly helpless to obtain outside help by preventing her voicing her displeasure via the press. This is completely unjust imho.

[woofgang]

because the carer wanted to use the old lady for some kind of publicity agenda?

[kvalidir]

Well pardon me, but irrespective of the carer's wishes, I believe that every human being on the planet has the absolute right to voice their displeasure about their treatment publicly- that is what keeps us ALL safe- this takes away that protection. What the carer's agenda is or isn't is frankly unimportant, it is Miss G's rights which have been trampled on, she must feel utterly terrified, I know I would, and now her hands are tied completely, she has been rendered powerless to even complain to other people for help. How can anyone feel this is right?

[woofgang]

If what I believe has happened, happened the carer has been allowed to keep his/her job and the lady has been allowed to keep the carer she appears to be attached to. At the same time the carer has been prevented from using the lady to further his/her own political (small p) ends.

She can still complain to other people and ask for help, she can tell her neighbours, the police, age concern, amnesty international...you name it. She can talk to a solicitor if she feels like it.

[jno]

this calls for fine judgment, but if you accept the proposition that a council has a duty to act in the best interests of people, even protecting them against themselves if necessary, then that's what's happened here, and the court has backed it. The court has seen her, I haven't.

It seems they're concerned about her being exploited by her carer, which is a plausible enough notion; it's happened enough before, though more common problems seem to be neglect or theft. Exactly how the order would be enforced, I don't know.

[ladybirder]

I didn't realise the council can just walk into your life and take over. I shall be watching for them when my time comes.

[woofgang]

The council cannot. The Court of Protection can. I still think we don't have the whole story here (what a surprise)

[Brenden]

Does she own her own home? Has she no family? What i am asking is does she have monies and nobody to leave it to - makes her very vulnerable to all and sundry.