Police detain 11 year of girl with a neurological disability
Discussion
The Surveyor said:
Greendubber said:
So get off your high horse you total fist. ....
Genuinely laughed at that 
And despite having had 28 or so hours since first being asked how he would have dealt with it, the OP has still failed to come up with a suggestion of what he would have done, rather than what he wouldn't. And unless I've missed it, he hasn't said what his qualification/employment is that makes his opinion so valid.
And I'm not talking about his claim he studied psychology at degree level. That doesn't make him a psychologist...
rxe said:
XDA said:
Does this answer your questions?
"Ms H also attacked the force for refusing to let her see her daughter in the police cells. I asked police officers again and again to let me see her but they kept telling me that I wasn’t needed."
"Ms H, to call the police after her daughter ran away from her in Horsham town centre and refused to come back."
"Child H again became distressed while out with her mother and ran into a road. Ms H telephoned the police for assistance."
"She was arrested on suspicion of assaulting her mother"
"Child H ran away from her mother’s house and was found by police officers in Horsham town centre."
"Child H ran away from her mother in Horsham town centre."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/ip...
No blame on the mothers part. The same cannot be said of the police though...
Partially - the bits you are missing out about foster care certainly do answer some of the questions. If the child is in foster care, presumably the mother has been found incapable or unhelpful. So that explains why she wasn't allowed in. "Ms H also attacked the force for refusing to let her see her daughter in the police cells. I asked police officers again and again to let me see her but they kept telling me that I wasn’t needed."
"Ms H, to call the police after her daughter ran away from her in Horsham town centre and refused to come back."
"Child H again became distressed while out with her mother and ran into a road. Ms H telephoned the police for assistance."
"She was arrested on suspicion of assaulting her mother"
"Child H ran away from her mother’s house and was found by police officers in Horsham town centre."
"Child H ran away from her mother in Horsham town centre."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/ip...
No blame on the mothers part. The same cannot be said of the police though...
I'm slightly at a loss as to what everyone expects the plod to do. They're faced with a violent, self harming 11 year old. A cup of tea and a nice chat won't really cut it, and it appears reasoning won't cut it. Without restraints, how do you expect anyone to protect both the child and themselves?
In my area foster carers are generally not allowed to act as appropriate adults by the local authority who employs them, the local authority supplies appropriate adults however theres generally only one on duty so the wait for one to arrive at the police station can be a long one.
If it helps.
There is s new concordiat that juvenile prisoners will not be detained in a police station over night.
(This is where I start to giggle)
Councils, police forces and social services have signed uptown agreement where, unless they are a significant threat to public safety, social services will find suitable accommodation for them.
This has caused our local social services no end of problems.
Firstly, they weren't told.
Secondly, they don't have suitable accommodation.
This has removed the onus from police to house juveniles for the first time in the 23 years I've been doing this.
The impacts are on several fronts.
We will have to release juveniles we would normally keep in detention rooms. Some just won't come back.
We won't have so many problems getting appropriate adults. The key word when looking at this particular case is appropriate. The victim is never appropriate....
But a social worker taking to approved housing is. Not that there is a proliferation of either.
This agreement is 26 pages long. And the paper wasn't absorbent enough to be of any use.
There is s new concordiat that juvenile prisoners will not be detained in a police station over night.
(This is where I start to giggle)
Councils, police forces and social services have signed uptown agreement where, unless they are a significant threat to public safety, social services will find suitable accommodation for them.
This has caused our local social services no end of problems.
Firstly, they weren't told.
Secondly, they don't have suitable accommodation.
This has removed the onus from police to house juveniles for the first time in the 23 years I've been doing this.
The impacts are on several fronts.
We will have to release juveniles we would normally keep in detention rooms. Some just won't come back.
We won't have so many problems getting appropriate adults. The key word when looking at this particular case is appropriate. The victim is never appropriate....
But a social worker taking to approved housing is. Not that there is a proliferation of either.
This agreement is 26 pages long. And the paper wasn't absorbent enough to be of any use.
Dave, another bout of hilarity I see there. What a shambles. They don't have enough placements to take even PPO'd children so where they are going to house the unruly ones I don't know.
There is a massive gulf between a 10 year old child and a 17 year old "child". The pink and fluffies simply don't get this!
There is a massive gulf between a 10 year old child and a 17 year old "child". The pink and fluffies simply don't get this!
carreauchompeur said:
Dave, another bout of hilarity I see there. What a shambles. They don't have enough placements to take even PPO'd children so where they are going to house the unruly ones I don't know.
There is a massive gulf between a 10 year old child and a 17 year old "child". The pink and fluffies simply don't get this!
If it's anything like our local lot, they'll take the 'child' to a children's unit. When they get there they'll watch him/her walk out the door and report them 'missing' before they get to the end of the garden path. Responsibility for their welfare swiftly back with the Police. Shambolic There is a massive gulf between a 10 year old child and a 17 year old "child". The pink and fluffies simply don't get this!
davidball said:
singlecoil said:
The BBC feasted on this story on the lunchtime news. I should have realised then that David would be keen to make his views on the police known (as if they weren't well known enough already).
I am not surprised that one of the usual apologists for police misconduct has woken up.Or is your default position to assume there must have been?
One thing I've learnt is that it is very easy to think that you know what has happened and what should have happened based on limited information. It is then just as easy and very tempting to jump in with both feet. However it's also quite common to find that once you are properly appraised of the situation you realise that it's a lot more complicated than you first thought.
The best option is it avoid passing judgement on any situation where you only have limited information.
Elroy Blue said:
If it's anything like our local lot, they'll take the 'child' to a children's unit. When they get there they'll watch him/her walk out the door and report them 'missing' before they get to the end of the garden path. Responsibility for their welfare swiftly back with the Police. Shambolic
You missed out wait until 16.59hrs on Friday evening before reporting it and leaving for the weekend, even though its life and death and the 'misper' is now highly vulnerable, so vulnerable that they were allowed to leave unchallenged. Greendubber said:
You missed out wait until 16.59hrs on Friday evening before reporting it and leaving for the weekend, even though its life and death and the 'misper' is now highly vulnerable, so vulnerable that they were allowed to leave unchallenged.
Sad thing is people think we're exaggerating, without knowing this is a common occurrence. Elroy Blue said:
Sad thing is people think we're exaggerating, without knowing this is a common occurrence.
Yep, the average Joe has no idea how much time is spent mopping up after everyone else. I went to a misper a few years ago, sectioned patient asked to go outside the front of the hospital for a smoke, the garden (secure) at the rear wasnt good enough. I watched the CCTV and saw the staff member just let them walk off, no fuss, no following, no attempt to stop them.
We'd gone as an immediate due to how dangerous this person was to himself and the public, so dangerous he was taken into a public area with one member of staff who allowed him to walk off and waited 2 hours before phoning the police.
The amount of missing from care mispers we find at their houses is also amazing, so amazing the relevant authorities cant go and check for themselves and bring them back with no police assistance!
JonV8V said:
The only bit in the story I have concern over is the "60 hours without an appropriate adult". That feels too long for anyone.
Look a bit more carefully at the wording in that Grauniad story...http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/ip...
Grauniad said:
...the five separate occasions she came into contact with officers...
...Child H was detained for a cumulative total of over 60 hours...
...Child H was detained for a cumulative total of over 60 hours...
So she was not locked up for sixty hours in one go.
She was locked up on five occasions, for a total of 60hrs across the five occasions.
Now, I'm not pretending an average of 12hrs for each of those arrests is anything to cheer about. It really isn't. But it IS a VERY different, and far more easily understandable, situation.
"babysit patients"
this speaks volumes of the attitudinal responses being bounced around. if this is the view of first responders then i, for one, am glad to be getting out of health care.i see posts from what i presume are serving officers who purport to be informed but, in actuality, are merely expressing opinion which is subject to reporter bias, and not necessarily a tenable one.
this silo mentality is where it all really goes belly up. like it or not (and i suspect that the "like" is the salient point), MH care is part of police work - statute trumps opinion. there are faults and omissions on all sides but s
t happens. every day.
on the subject of Etoh? i assume that those commenting on MH services refusal to accept those with alcohol on board are fully aware of the cognitive and neurological effects of alcohol. particularly on the frontal lobe and limbic system ? no doubt those commentators will also be aware of the legal guidelines issued to assessors with regard to review of those individuals who may be alcohol impaired?
paul.
this speaks volumes of the attitudinal responses being bounced around. if this is the view of first responders then i, for one, am glad to be getting out of health care.i see posts from what i presume are serving officers who purport to be informed but, in actuality, are merely expressing opinion which is subject to reporter bias, and not necessarily a tenable one.
this silo mentality is where it all really goes belly up. like it or not (and i suspect that the "like" is the salient point), MH care is part of police work - statute trumps opinion. there are faults and omissions on all sides but s
t happens. every day. on the subject of Etoh? i assume that those commenting on MH services refusal to accept those with alcohol on board are fully aware of the cognitive and neurological effects of alcohol. particularly on the frontal lobe and limbic system ? no doubt those commentators will also be aware of the legal guidelines issued to assessors with regard to review of those individuals who may be alcohol impaired?
paul.
That's a nice sentiment.
But when the person you are taking for an assessment is already under a home care treatment order, is deteriorating, has failed to take meds and is known to the staff, it becomes a touch tiresome to be turned away.
Rarely, if ever have I taken someone for their first assessment or integration with the mental health system. So there is generally a history.
Pushing blame back onto officers as s136 gives them a power is disingenuous. From my point of view it isn't a police job as others will serve the patients better than me putting them in a cell. That is just my opinion though. And statute apparently trumps it.
But when the person you are taking for an assessment is already under a home care treatment order, is deteriorating, has failed to take meds and is known to the staff, it becomes a touch tiresome to be turned away.
Rarely, if ever have I taken someone for their first assessment or integration with the mental health system. So there is generally a history.
Pushing blame back onto officers as s136 gives them a power is disingenuous. From my point of view it isn't a police job as others will serve the patients better than me putting them in a cell. That is just my opinion though. And statute apparently trumps it.
Elroy Blue said:
Well, my frontal lobes are affected when there's six Officers to cover 500 square miles and four of them are dealing with Mental Patients because it's after 5pm and most of the MH Staff have gone home. The ones that remain are then 'too busy' to do their bloody job
Quite.paulmakin said:
"babysit patients"
this speaks volumes of the attitudinal responses being bounced around. if this is the view of first responders then i, for one, am glad to be getting out of health care.i see posts from what i presume are serving officers who purport to be informed but, in actuality, are merely expressing opinion which is subject to reporter bias, and not necessarily a tenable one.
this silo mentality is where it all really goes belly up. like it or not (and i suspect that the "like" is the salient point), MH care is part of police work - statute trumps opinion. there are faults and omissions on all sides but st happens. every day.
on the subject of Etoh? i assume that those commenting on MH services refusal to accept those with alcohol on board are fully aware of the cognitive and neurological effects of alcohol. particularly on the frontal lobe and limbic system ? no doubt those commentators will also be aware of the legal guidelines issued to assessors with regard to review of those individuals who may be alcohol impaired?
paul.
Have you an answer, Paul, to the police having to take responsibility for the care of those suffering from mental health problems for extended periods of time? You ask if police are fully aware of the effects of alcohol on the frontal lobe and limbic systems. Isn't that the problem though? The police cannot be expected to be expert on all the problems of the population.this speaks volumes of the attitudinal responses being bounced around. if this is the view of first responders then i, for one, am glad to be getting out of health care.i see posts from what i presume are serving officers who purport to be informed but, in actuality, are merely expressing opinion which is subject to reporter bias, and not necessarily a tenable one.
this silo mentality is where it all really goes belly up. like it or not (and i suspect that the "like" is the salient point), MH care is part of police work - statute trumps opinion. there are faults and omissions on all sides but s
t happens. every day. on the subject of Etoh? i assume that those commenting on MH services refusal to accept those with alcohol on board are fully aware of the cognitive and neurological effects of alcohol. particularly on the frontal lobe and limbic system ? no doubt those commentators will also be aware of the legal guidelines issued to assessors with regard to review of those individuals who may be alcohol impaired?
paul.
You suggest that mental health care is part of police work. That is a misleading statement. Initial responsibility for is a better way of putting it.
That mental health care is underfunded and understaffed is accepted, I assume, by all police officers. But then, the police are also underfunded and understaffed.
The solution is that the police should do what they are trained to do and the mental health services . . .
We all accept that is a dream too far at the moment. But not saying how bad everything is does not bring it to the public's attention. No doubt if you told it straight you'd get the same trolls and the police threads do, saying that you should get rid of the fat - shame PH can't get rid of the fat headed, eh - just allows those who are ignorant, or turn a blind eye to the dreadful state of mental health care and policing to spread their prejudices.
Join these posters in their moans.
As an aside, a son-in-law of mine looks after those who have problems being left to their own devices and works with them to assist the ones that can do much, and take care of those who can't, in a facsimile of a domestic situation. His lot takes them to garden centres, WHS and suchlike. The council, after sticking out for some time, has had to concede to the inevitable and privatise the function. So these will be more or less abandoned to the occasional visit for 20 minutes including travelling time. More problems for the police and more problems for your lot.
You are getting out of health care. My son-in-law will, in his own words, see the transition through. People are leaving the police service and mental health care. It is a scandal and one that deserves to be criticised.
Bring on the trolls.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff