Learning Disability Week – Hate Crime and Hate Language

I know I’m a bit late to Learning Disability Week – which runs from the 20th June for.. well, a week but it remains a campaign and a group I have a great attachment to coming from years working with adults with learning disabilities before I qualified as a social worker.

The ‘theme’ if it can be called that, is a new campaign, called Stand by Me,  which is being run by Mencap to challenge and hopefully phase out hate crime which is targeted towards people with learning disabilities.
Lady justice - close up

 

raphaelmarquez@flickr

Apart from, I hope, creating more of a stigma towards those who might seek out and target people with learning disabilities there is a focus on the ways in which crimes which are committed are dealt with by the police and the criminal justice system.

Mencap share some chilling but sadly unsurprising real life stories from people who have suffered from hate crime.

While accepting this is slightly different, I have had difficulties trying to pursue prosecutions for people who have dementia and who are the victims of crime and abusive situations due to the way that the systems are currently set up. I hope there is more attention paid to ways that these processes can be improved for everyone.

Hate crime is an offence which is committed against someone on the basis of their membership of a certain ‘group’ in society be that on by their race, class, disability, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity and good old Wikipedia, gives an alternate definition of ‘bias-motivated crime’.

To call something a crime indicates that (obviously) there is a criminal act that has been committed for example, a physical assault but I think the discrimination and the effect of actions of hate towards those who have learning disabilities have significant effects on the way our society perceives some members of our society.

For example, name-calling. Verbal and emotional bullying. Laughing and pointing. This might not count as a ‘crime’ but as long as it is acceptable, it may lead to criminal acts. Those who talk about criticism of the use of certain words being ‘PC correctness gone mad’ would do well to remember that with disrespectful thoughts come disrespectful words and disrespectful and flippant words lead to disrespectful thoughts.

The more we create divides between ‘us’ and ‘them’ the more vulnerable we are to dehumanising ‘them’ and it turns to just a step away from the acceptable or non-intervention in a ‘hate crime’.

So for me, it is a very important campaign but must not just be restricted to those who commit criminal offences against people with learning disabilities. It must also be targeted at those of us who use flippant and insulting language to describe people with learning disabilities.

Someone who describes their phone as being ‘retarded’ because it doesn’t work (yes, that’s a real life example from someone who should know a lot better), that’s the first step towards dehumanisation and degradation of people with learning disabilities and yes, I was accused of ‘political correctness gone mad’ when I challenged this but I maintain and always will that the connection between language and respect are inherent.

So targeting hate crime isn’t just about systems and criminal offences although that is absolutely essential to target. It is about the people around us, the words we use and the respect we afford to other human beings. When we treat people with disabilities as ‘different’ or ‘others’ and dismiss them and their needs, we allow hate crime to flourish.

Undercover Care : The abuse exposed – A Review of Panorama

I sat down to watch Panorama yesterday and the trailers and name of the programme were something of a giveaway so I wasn’t exactly unprepared for what was shown.

Panorama had been alerted to abuse within Winterbourne View near Bristol, which is a private hospital run by a company called Castlebeck for people with learning disabilities and autism and according to the description on their own website

..  is a purpose designed acute service, offering assessment and intervention and support for people with learning disabilities, complex needs and challenging behaviour.

It can also provide a service for those liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. It offers a stable, structured and therapeutic environment and the support of caring and dedicated staff.

Winterbourne View, which has 24 bedrooms, offers the chance for people to progress to more community-based living as part of their ongoing rehabilitation, at their own pace.

Winterbourne View charges an average of £3,500 per week for a place. I wonder how much is spent on staff costs and training.

Acting on the information from a former senior nurse there who had been whistleblowing, Panorama sent in an undercover support worker (journalist) and some hidden cameras. I knew I was prepared. I knew we were going to see abuse but nothing prepared me for the actual footage that I saw.

I try not to engage in hyperbole but what we saw was purely and simply torture of adults who have needs which make them more vulnerable.  Physical restraint was used as a punishment and some members of staff were deliberating provoking residents almost as if it were a sport and they were playing at bear baiting. It made for uncomfortable and emotional viewing.

I worked for many years in homes for adults with learning disabilities before I qualified as a support worker and the lack of humanity with with the residents in the hospital were treated was almost physically painful to watch. The programme showed a woman being given showers fully clothed and being dowsed with water outdoors on a cold, March day until she was shivering profusely. They showed her being pinned under a chair.

In one of the most troubling pieces of footage, a girl is shown as she had tried to jump out of the window and the staff mock her attempted suicide and taunt her to ‘try again’ and ‘make a better job of it’ saying things like ‘do you want me to open the window more’ and mockingly telling her she would make a ‘splat noise’. Even writing it out is difficult.

There were other things – comments made, pin downs and the use of martial arts techniques which are, unsurprisingly, wholly inappropriate and this footage was shown to a specialist psychologist with the Tizard Centre who would respond with the same gut horror that you didn’t need to be a psychologist to understand.

The footage really spoke for itself and I wondered about the position of the undercover journalist who stood by and watched some of the abuse occurring. There is an issue of ‘greater good’ versus ‘personal responsibility’ so the argument would be that the programme itself was able to prevent future harm coming to the residents by being transmitted but he admits that it was difficult for him.   He says here

I was watching on the sidelines, resisting putting a stop to this (abuse) and blowing my cover. Simone was staring at me as she lay on the floor, staring at the only person not abusing her.

I could not save Simone on that day. I had to resist my instinct to step in. I was there to gather the evidence that could help save others from a similar fate – and Simone herself from future abuse

Some of the more difficult responses came later in the programme as the CEO of Castlebeck was interviewed and of course expressed disgust and surprise at the levels of abuse in Winterbourne View. A company statement is published here and alongside all the usual guff is an acknowledgement that the whistleblowing policy was not adhered to when an initial complaint was made by a staff nurse on 11 October 2010. The footage was filmed between February and March 2011.

I was more furious by the response of the CQC. The whistleblower also contacted them, you see with the allegations of abuse. He contacted them three times.

Winterbourne View had last been inspected ‘two years ago’. Is that the kind of satisfactory inspection regime that we have, Mr Burstow? Oh, wait, it’s ok, because the statement from the CQC says Burstow has authorised a sample of 150 hospitals receive random unannounced inspections. Woah. Only 150? Only a random sample? Why just hospitals for people with learning disabilities? If random unannounced inspections are seen as necessary to prevent institutional abuse on such a wide scale, surely they should be the NORM for everyone who receives a service via a service inspected by the CQC.

No, you see, Burstow (and the Labour ministers before him) seem to think that self-regulation is the way to go. The way the man from the CQC squirmed as he insisted that the paperwork had been in order at Winterbourne View tells a tale all of its own.

And as for the staff, four have been arrested to be charged under s44 of the Mental Capacity Act which makes it an offence to ill-treat or wilfully neglect a person who lacks capacity.

It also begs the question – where were the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards? Were any of the residents detained under DoLs  – or the Mental Health Act for that matter (as the hospital was assigned as such to accept people detained) and if that was the case, shouldn’t there be additional checks. Would independent advocates provide a further check?

There are a lot of questions that remain and the main one is the way that institutional abuse can fester in a residential care setting. There are wonderful care homes and hospitals around. I see them and I worked in them and often the ethos trickles down from top to bottom. Staff who see other staff abuse residents can ‘join in’ to be accepted – it is a classic position of bullying and unfortunately sometimes people who enjoy this kind of power play are attracted to work in social care. There needs to be an environment that does not accept this and that stamps down on it immediately and that was the real failing of Castleview.

This was not about 4 rogue members of staff. This was about an environment that allowed them to abuse and for that the senior management up to the Chief Executive should be responsible. Where is the support and training for staff who have to work in stressful environments? Where was the supervision that would have stamped out some of the abuse.  That doesn’t excuse those who were responsible for mistreatment  but it draws interesting parallels with the sacking of Shoesmith.  Wouldn’t we be baying for the blood of the CEO of Castleview? Or perhaps because the abuse took place in a private setting there are different lines of responsibility.

I think we should look long and hard about how we, as a society, seek to push people on the peripheries of society, because of age, disability or capacity to the margins of society and people to provide care who are not regulated and not supervised.

When the regulator fails so substantially as to ignore someone who whistleblows explicitly, do we not see a problem the ‘system’ that is increasingly reliant on proactive ‘complaints’ to trigger assessments?

There is much to do and much that needs to be changed.

I wouldn’t say I enjoyed the programme, it upset me and it angered me but I think everyone involved in the sector should watch it.

It can be viewed here on the BBC iPlayer.

Disability, Language and Respect – Blogging Against Disablism Day

Blogging against Disablism Day is 1 May and it is an initiative that has been running for five years. Diary of a Goldfish is collating all the posts that reference this and I’d recommend reading through them.

I don’t identify myself as disabled. Yet. It is something that is always there in the background for all of us who might not be feel disabled at presence whether due to an illness or injury yet to come or through the experiences of a family member – a parent or a child.

My father identified himself as disabled and the disability movement was very important to him. He found a voice and he found unbelievable amounts of support from peer groups that he was involved with. He also battled with the institutional discrimination in ‘systems’ which were designed almost to make things as complicated as possible.

There is no ‘hierarchy of discrimination’ in my eyes or at least, let me qualify that by saying that there shouldn’t be but there is a sense that some of ‘more acceptable’ than others.

Look at the bullying of people who have learning disabilities for example. The differential in funding arrangements between those who are under and over 65 where being an older adult with a disability that may be ‘age related’ leads to a much more narrowly dispensed service – perhaps because voices are not heard as loudly and the differences in the protection from abuse that exist in the law (and in public attitudes) to abuse of adults who might need support of institutions to protect them and children. Would we allow some of the stories about abusive care environments to be brushed out of the media if children were involved rather than adults? I suspect not.

Anyone who says that discrimination doesn’t exist in services has never had experience of working in services and anyone who says discrimination doesn’t exist from professionals who should know a whole lot better probably hasn’t been able to sit in an office or a meeting and listened to some of the conversations that travel around and the language that is used.

So my minimal contribution to this day is going to be about the importance of language and respect to discrimination.

‘Political Correctness’ has a bad ‘reputation’ because we allow it to be hijacked by the right wing press and commentators and to allow others to determine what is offensive for us.

For discrimination to be challenged, language has to be challenged and not only by those who are affected by the conditions that are being ridiculed or minimised. By everyone.

Politically Correct? Let’s lose the ‘political’ and make changed language normal language. It happens with some words over time and words create perceptions. It might not seem like much to change from talking about someone being handicapped or disabled, having a mental disability to a learning disability – but it is about the people about whom terms are coined to take control of the ways in which they are referred to.

Recently I attended training about the move from using the words ‘vulnerable adult’ in terms of safeguarding to ‘adult at risk’. It emphasises the importance of not using adjectives to determine a persons worth or value. We don’t talk of ‘a schizophrenic man’ or ‘a demented woman’ so why would we refer to a ‘vulnerable’ adult?

Does that make me ‘too PC’? I’m sure I’ll be accused of such but think about the way in which adding the adjective to the description of the person qualifies the importance of the ‘disability’ as a part of that person’s identity. If we talk about a man with schizophrenia – the person comes first.  A woman with dementia – her personhood is highlighted before a condition which may affect her and equally ‘being vulnerable’ shouldn’t label a person before any other facts are known.

So my contribution to the day – think before you speak and challenge discrimination in language. In your office, in your home, in the street and in the press.

I am proud to be politically correct. I honestly think language makes a difference. It is about respect.

Eligibility, Birmingham and Cuts

Birmingham was the first English town without ...

Image via Wikipedia

While awaiting the details of the court judgement, there was an important ruling yesterday that Birmingham Council’s attempt to limit eligibility to social care services to those who have ‘critical’ care needs is unlawful.

Drawing out some of the definitions to what this actually means and could mean requires a look at the details of those who brought the case to court.

There were four defendents which the BBC explains include

a 65-year-old woman with severe learning difficulties who receives 24-hour care in a home paid for by the council

25-year-old man with a rare genetic disorder and severe learning disabilities who receives overnight respite care, also funded by the council

30-year-old deaf, autistic man with severe learning disabilities who is prone to self-harm. His specialist day care would also have gone under the plans

and

a 36-year-old woman with severe learning difficulties whose day care centre will close and who is also set to lose respite care

It’s useful to go back to the definitions of what ‘critical’ and ‘substantial’ needs are to understand fully the implications of councils moving the eligibility criteria from one stage to the next.

Critical needs exist where –

• life is, or will be, threatened; and/or
• significant health problems have developed or will develop; and/or
• there is, or will be, little or no choice and control over vital aspects of the immediate environment; and/or
• serious abuse or neglect has occurred or will occur; and/or
• there is, or will be, an inability to carry out vital personal care or domestic routines; and/or
• vital involvement in work, education or learning cannot or will not be sustained; and/or
• vital social support systems and relationships cannot or will not be sustained; and/or
• vital family and other social roles and responsibilities cannot or will not be undertaken

Whereas Substantial needs (those that Birmingham are stating they are no longer able to meet) exist where –

• there is, or will be, only partial choice and control over the immediate environment; and/or
• abuse or neglect has occurred or will occur; and/or
• there is, or will be, an inability to carry out the majority of personal care or domestic routines;
and/or
• involvement in many aspects of work, education or learning cannot or will not be sustained;
and/or
• the majority of social support systems and relationships cannot or will not be sustained; and/or
• the majority of family and other social roles and responsibilities cannot or will not be undertaken

A couple of things to be noted here. A differentiation is made between ‘abuse’ and ‘serious abuse’ so that one will be covered and the other won’t. What kind of ‘legal’ test would there be to determine when abuse counts as ‘serious’ or not? Can we see children in similar cirumstances being subject to a differentiation of level of care available depending on whether abuse is ‘serious’ or ‘not serious’? And who is doing the judging? Well, I can answer that last question. It is the social worker involved as I am asked as a matter of course to ‘band’ people according to these criteria.

The obvious glaring point is the lack of thought of any kind of preventative work that sticking so closely to the criteria will create. Where is the hope of creating those very creative personal budgets when only the very bare minimum of essential needs are being met.

I can’t claim anything other than relief that Birmingham case was challenged in court. These criteria and these levels of need look at people as lists of what they cannot do. That goes against everything that we know and the ways in which we practice by looking at strengths and looking at people as individuals. However, the reason the criteria were brought in in the first place was to end some of the ‘postcode lottery’ of care provisions and to bring consistency to who was offered what nationally. Of course, the problem remained that interpretations of these criteria vary so the consistency which is objected by ticking boxes (the only way the officials seem to know to apply it) depends, as mentioned previously on the social worker who is doing the ‘judging’.

Back to this case though, it was brought under the Disability Discrimination Act and hopefully the judgement will be available soon. Hopefully too, local authorities around the country will be leafing through it and realising that the wholesale and slapdash cuts that they are imposing are not legal.

As for the government of millionaires, none of them will be reliant on social care support from the council. They can buy in any support that they might potentially need and cannot understand the distress of those who are totally reliant on the availability of services.  They cannot understand the implication of their gung-ho ideological cuts and the thought of Cameron, Clegg and Osborne claiming ‘We’re all in this together’ sticks painfully in the throat.

Although I fully expect Birmingham to challenge this ruling, I hope that the case is held and that some of the trigger happy cutting is stopped and the very real effect of the cuts agenda is shouted out more loudly and more clearly – not just for those of us who are personally losing services but to raise our voices with those who cannot always shout so loudly.

That is what social justice is about and that is what social working is about.

Press, Perception and the Court of Protection

Having had to study the Mental Capacity Act in fairly great detail, I often have to turn to judgements made by the Court of Protection to extend my general legislative knowledge.

The Court of Protection has a number of functions that can get easily interwoven but generally, it makes judgements about issues of capacity.

It’s always interesting to me how the press report Court of Protection judgements as in general the court sits in private . It isn’t thought of very highly by the press – probably for the very reason that many of the cases take place behind closed doors – which is particularly unusual for a court in the UK. Indeed, it’s traditional journalistic byline seems to be ‘the-secretive-court-of-protection’.

There was a case this week which was heard which involved a pregnant woman with learning disabilities and a decision which was to be made as to whether she should be subjected to a sterilisation following the imminent birth of her child. It is very emotive and difficult as an ethical subject.

The Court decided, unusually, to open up the case to the media with the usual and understandable constraints of anonymising the parties.

What I found interesting was a comparison of reporting about the story before the case was heard and afterwards.

The Daily Mail is a case in point. On Tuesday Morning it published this piece.

They quote a spokesperson for Mencap

David Congdon, of disability charity Mencap, urged the court to ‘tread very carefully.’ He said: ‘It is a gross invasion of someone’s basic rights unless there are clear medical grounds and there do not appear to be in this case.

‘Using sterilisation as a form of contraception is totally unacceptable.

‘Years ago there were lots of cases like this but we hear of very few these days.’

Applications to sterilise women with learning difficulties can come from local authorities and do not require the backing of their families, he said.

‘The family’s position in these issues is not that great, because the person is an adult,’ he added.

‘They have to be consulted, but the application may have been made by social services.’

I can’t say I disagree with Congdon, it is a massive potential infringement of human rights to forcibly sterilise anyone but the weighting in the quote implies that the court disregards the family and it is a cunning and devious decision made by social services. Regardless of the fact that it is a medical procedure and any application would have to be made by the Trust employing the medics who would be responsible for carrying out the task.

The Telegraph use the same quote. As does the Independent which adds

Since the Independent’s battle to open up the Court of Protection, the paper has received numerous calls from people who allege that local authorities have been using the automatic secrecy governing the Court of Protection to severely restrict access to their loved ones. Because the hearings are largely held in private and no court listings are generally published earlier than the afternoon before hearings, it remains difficult to investigate and analyse such allegations.

You see, it’s easy to make one-sided complaints about a Court or a local authority when you only have a part of the story.

It’s easy to accuse ‘social services’ of being overbearing and evil when they are not able to construct any kind of counter-argument for the sake of the service users they represent. I say this having been involved personally in a case which could have been presented in a very one-sided way and would have been prime meat for the front cover of The Daily Mail – however the background of abuse within the family meant that what might have appeared to be callous actions had to be taken. We could never disclose that so would never have been able to defend ourselves.

But back to the secretive Court of Protection. The judgement or lack of it came yesterday as more information about the case was revealed.

It so happens that the woman’s mother was in favour of the sterilisation of her daughter. This is not a situation where the family have been side-lined by any means.

As the Mail put it yesterday

The woman, known only as Mrs P, broke down as she explained the drastic procedure was the only way to spare her 21-year-old daughter the heartache of having further children and being forced to give them up for adoption.

The daughter, known as P, already has one young son and is due to give birth to a girl today by caesarean section.

She was described as ‘sexually healthy and active’ but unable either to exercise restraint, or fully to comprehend the consequences of her behaviour.

Her mother told the Court of Protection that while her family would support these two children, they could not cope with any more.

She said: ‘I want the best for my daughter. We want to keep the children together as a family unit. But obviously we can’t keep on supporting more and more children.

Not really the evil social services taking action behind the backs of families that might have been implied the day earlier from the reporting.

It is an incredibly difficult decision to be made and as it happened, no decision and therefore no sterilisation order was made. The judge, ordered that at present there was no sufficient evidence to meet the criteria for such a drastic action under the Mental Capacity Act and while the best time to perform the sterilisation would have been at the time of the caesarean (which I believe was to take place this week), further hearings will happen over the next few months before a final decision can be made.

Clearly it is not a body that makes heartless and unconsidered judgements for the sake of it and loathe though I am to wander into the comment sections of Daily Mail stories, the difference between tone in the first story where the situation had been set up and has comments such as

‘All those in favor please show us your Nazi membership card as this is exactly what they did, So be very very carefull, many alive now do not understand the implications of what is potentialy a dangerous and devastating and far reaching precedent bought on by these council jobsworths. ‘

And

‘OMG, my blood is boiling reading this tragic story. What right do the council have to do this? How severe are this woman’s learning difficulties? Why not give her a contraceptive jab every 6 months, given at home if need be? Are social services and a representative of the secretive family court going to be present at the birth of the baby, whisk the baby away as soon as it is born and put up for adoption? If this is given the go ahead by the judge and forced sterilisation takes place, this is just the start. We will have crossed a line and the ‘Brave New World’ will begin. ‘

I know the Daily Mail comment section is not the place to look for rational argument and debate but we get a feel of the general perception that this is somehow a ‘council decision’.

After the information is shared in the second article, the tone of the comments change to

It’s sad but i have to agree with the mother. I think she has a very valid point. She will be looking after the children and it will break the WHOLE family’s heart should they have to give up any children for adoption. Also what happens if she falls pregnant every year till she can’t have any more children. The daughter clearly does not understand the situation because of her disability.

And

Unfortunately due to the Human Rights Act, this mother’s desperate plea will be ignored despite the emotional, psychological and physical turmoil this young girl will go through again and the stress and pain for her family. Very sad situation for everybody involved including the unborn baby.

Please don’t assume that I am ‘in favour’ of the sterilisation as a matter of course. I’m not but I do think the decision is absolutely taking place in the right arena where the considerations of P and her family need to be wholly taken into account under the law.

It’s just easy to see, in this case, how easy public perception and tone can be altered by reporting styles and language.

Inspections

The big news today seems to the publication of the annual performance assessments from the CQC (Care Quality Commission). The results can be read in two ways as is evident from the headlines resulting from this publication – from Community Care’s ‘Councils improve for the seventh year running in adult care’ headline to the Guardian’s ‘Nearly 4,000 adult services criticised over level of care provided’

The obvious conclusion being, things are still pretty awful but not as awful as they were..

Obviously there is a need for inspections and reports, otherwise we would be completely clueless about what is going on within services however I am far from alone in my lack of faith in the rating systems, certainly those that I have had most experience with in residential services.

Meanwhile, as services generally improve across the board, eight councils were particularly ‘named and shamed’ as they were told to improve services, namely

Bromley, Cornwall, Peterborough, Poole, Solihull, South Tyneside, Southwark, and Surrey and particularly, according to the Guardian, Peterborough and Poole, were designated as “poor” in terms of the dignity and respect shown to individuals dependent on their care.

All eight councils will be subject to further scrutiny by the CQC.

I, of course, checked my own council and the reports are positive, I’m glad to say, but that pretty much goes along with my experiences to be honest.  I think there are improvements to be made, particularly regarding commissioning of services which I think has some appalling gaps and the direct payments/individual budgets services which have been poor in take up or promotion to older people with  higher level care packages, but hopefully, the roll out of the personalisation agenda will increase these levels. These weren’t factors picked up through the inspection however.

The process of inspection is under the microscope for a number of reasons currently and there seems to be an increasing lack of faith in public sector inspection processes, from OFSTED and the quality of their inspections to the NHS rating system. Inspections should focus on qualitative more than quantitive data.

But although criticism is necessary to evaluate the outcomes for those people who are reliant on care services, if there has been a general improvement across the board, that should be welcomed.

On a more heartening matter, the IPC (International Paralympic Committee) ruled that athletes with intellectual difficulties (or learning disabilities as we would refer to them in the UK) have been re-included into the Paralympic Games. This is slightly old news as it broke last week but I missed it at the time and as an issue that I always felt strongly about, it comes as very welcome news.

I hope very much to be able to support these paralympic athletes when they come to London in 2012!

Protecting Adults

A quick comment about this story about a couple with learning disabilities who were awarded damages of £100,000 against Hounslow Council which was subsequently withdrawn from them following an appeal.

They had been victimised over a period of time by local ‘youths’ who had been using their home as some kind of ‘safe house’ in which to take drugs and store stolen property.

Judges ruled Hounslow Council was not negligent in failing to look after the couple, who have learning disabilities…

The judges said they had “every sympathy” for the family, but the council was not responsible.

It was a groundbreaking initial judgement made back in May 2008 because Hounslow were charged with not adequately protecting vulnerable adults.

A social worker had told police the vulnerable pair were being exploited, but was informed that no action could be taken unless the couple complained themselves.

The council employee had also called for the couple to be rehoused.

Lawyers for the couple argued the social worker should have realised they were in danger and had them moved.

Hounslow Council took their case to the Appeal Court which ruled the council had no duty of care to the couple.

Sir Anthony Clarke, who headed the appeal judges, said: “There is an important difference between a case where children assert that a duty of care is owed to them and a case like this where the claimants are adults living in the community, albeit vulnerable adults.”

This really sums up the difficulty with the Safeguarding Adults procedures as they are at present. Adults, however vulnerable or lacking of capacity, are treated by the law in exactly the same respect all adults are – namely being responsible for pressing charges and for giving evidence in court in order to bring any kind of prosecution.

I actually have sympathy for the social worker in this case because our hands are very much tied. ‘Having people moved’ is not a straightforward process – unless perhaps we are considering residential or more supported housing. I have had exactly a similar argument with an older adult where she was exploited in her home and we were asked to consider residential care. This is a woman who would by no means be considering any kind of residential care placement if it weren’t for the exploitation but because there were difficulties relating to taking the matter to court to deal with the perpetrator, we were left with the option of her having to move out of the home she had lived in comfortably for 20 years into a more supported setting, simply to make her safe.

It makes me angry that we have to remove people from homes when it is others that are creating the difficulties around them.

I can only hope that situations like this highlight and inform the current debate about needing new and more effective legal mechanisms to protect vulnerable adults in the community.