FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Rough Sleepers sectioned under Mental Health Act
Rough Sleepers sectioned under Mental Health Act
Jump to: Newest in thread
Blizzard conditions with drifts of several feet in places has sent most scurrying for shelter...
But a small percentage of rough sleepers refused offers of accommodation, and as a result were rounded up and sectioned under the Mental Health Act last night.
Common sense prevailing or an infringement of civil rights? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Would anyone of sane mind refuse help in these adverse conditions I can't see any infringement of any rights tbh and if no other option available but to do it under mental health reasoning I'd say it was responsible to do it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"An abuse of the mental health act and human rights. Where was this? "
Urban areas here in Ireland. Seeing the conditions today I would have no doubt they wouldn't have survived the night. Would this affect your opinion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hopefully, they were known to the relevant authorities, or otherwise subject to rigorous assessment. If not it's an abuse of the Act and a very tidy fee for the doctor signing the paperwork. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"An abuse of the mental health act and human rights. Where was this? "
Sorry but that's utter nonsense.
If these people are putting their lives at risk due to being mentally unstable,then saving their lives by using a loophole is hardly an abuse of their human rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Tuff call, I can see both sides. I don't condone people's freedom of choice being taken away from them but, I think the circumstances and intention behind the action could be hugely mitigating. It would be inhumane to walk on by and let those people die. Unfortunate if that was the only way that it could be done but, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
We're talking slightly unethical practices to save vulnerable lives here not unethical crimes against humanity like chlorine gassing or cluster bombing civilians, although I am sure some will draw such comparisons at the horrific liberty that's been taken with their human rights.
Interesting question and I feel I need to know more  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"An abuse of the mental health act and human rights. Where was this?
Sorry but that's utter nonsense.
If these people are putting their lives at risk due to being mentally unstable,then saving their lives by using a loophole is hardly an abuse of their human rights."
But what if it’s not a mental health issue what if someone wanted to stay on the streets. I understand the safeguarding aspect but being subject to these powers creates a permanent record which is is subject to stigma.
I know one homeless person who has been on the streets for years by personal choice. He moves around to his hearts content.
It’s a slippery slope |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An abuse of the mental health act and human rights. Where was this? "
I feel a strongly worded letter coming on. Yours sincerely, Disgusted from over the rainbow  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"An abuse of the mental health act and human rights. Where was this?
I feel a strongly worded letter coming on. Yours sincerely, Disgusted from over the rainbow "
I’m not disgusted. Its an emotive issue in my line of work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An abuse of the mental health act and human rights. Where was this?
Urban areas here in Ireland. Seeing the conditions today I would have no doubt they wouldn't have survived the night. Would this affect your opinion?"
I just hope they continue to give them the help they need when the weather changes....the onus is now on the authorities to give them treatment once they have recognised they have a problem |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Don't know if it was right or not.
Imagine the outcry if they'd been left to die from hypothermia."
I think the action was probably prompted by the fact that this has indeed happened in the recent past. Each cold snap has resulted in deaths among the rough sleeping community. Conditions here last night were extreme. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution"
The authorities possibly wouldn't have had time to take an holistic approach. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution
The authorities possibly wouldn't have had time to take an holistic approach."
Possibly....but its no surprise that winter is cold! Its more a case of too much red tape in the way of commissioning exercises and lack of funding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution
The authorities possibly wouldn't have had time to take an holistic approach.
Possibly....but its no surprise that winter is cold! Its more a case of too much red tape in the way of commissioning exercises and lack of funding. "
No it's no surprise but current conditions are exceptional and at least action was taken to protect these people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I suspect there is a well established link between mental health issues and longterm rough sleepers.
Given the extreme weather and the very clear risk to life I feel that this was the right thing to do. But would hope it doesn't set a precedent and is very much a last resort in exceptional circumstances |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
True then as true now, a slippery slope
First they came for the homeless, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a homeless.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I suspect there is a well established link between mental health issues and longterm rough sleepers.
Given the extreme weather and the very clear risk to life I feel that this was the right thing to do. But would hope it doesn't set a precedent and is very much a last resort in exceptional circumstances "
Yep!
Given how difficult rightly so, it is to section anybody I would hope it remains a last resort too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I am 50/50 on this.
Common sense, as it is stupid to allow anyone to sleep rough on the streets.
But sanctioning someone for refusing shelter, is a bit of a draconian measure.
What happens to the person once they have been sectioned? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am 50/50 on this.
Common sense, as it is stupid to allow anyone to sleep rough on the streets.
But sanctioning someone for refusing shelter, is a bit of a draconian measure.
What happens to the person once they have been sectioned?"
Updated news reports are saying they will remain in the system and will be provided with psychiatric care. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have no knowledge of the mental health act so can't really have an opinion on whether or not what they did was right.
What really saddens me is the fact it takes the current weather conditions for the authorities to act and help rough sleepers. If it wasn't for the snowy conditions these people would be left to fend for themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I guess if they are deemed as not mentally capable of making rational decisions, then the authority needs to step in.
In this day and age we can't stand by and let them die of hypothermia surely? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I am 50/50 on this.
Common sense, as it is stupid to allow anyone to sleep rough on the streets.
But sanctioning someone for refusing shelter, is a bit of a draconian measure.
What happens to the person once they have been sectioned?
Updated news reports are saying they will remain in the system and will be provided with psychiatric care."
Thats good to know  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don’t know about other areas but in Harlow the council and a local homeless project have been working together this week and providing hotels etc for rough sleepers and the community is pulling together however there is still people out there living in tents through their choice, they’ve been offered accommodation, food and warmth yet they refused. Speaking from my point of view who has a roof over my head it’s very easy to say ‘why wouldn’t they take it?!’ But try putting yourself in their shoes and it’s probably a different outlook. Sometimes you can’t help anyone, you can give them all the help, guidance and support and they still don’t want it.
I don’t feel using the mental health act is the way to go because it’s their choice (if there is other help going on and they refused it), it’s their choice to be out in this weather. They may not have made the choice originally to become homeless but it’s their way of life now, just like travellers, I imagine some of those caravans (not these ones that are on a permanent base) are freezing cold with this weather but will anyone come along and help them out? They have a roof over their heads but the coldness will still be there (just using this as an example).
Geeky x
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Two thoughts here:
Mental health issues often are a causal factor in homelessness
If someone refuses an offer of help, and the authorities reasonably believe there is a serious risk of death, is there any other legislation they can use to save them from themselves?
i suspect not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe they wanted to die.  "
That opens up another can of worms doesn't it.
A family member of mine genuinely wanted to die. They had no physical illness but their mental ill health meant they wanted to. They were sectioned after another family member called an ambulance from the top of a high building. They're currently well and happy not to have died.
I'm not sure if we should allow physically fit people to die just because they want to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Since the psychiatric hospitals closed down, the has been a huge increase of mentally ill homelessness. The person's may not have the mental capacity to realise the dangers. In fact a homeless person in our area did die over the Christmas period when it was cold but obviously not as cold as now xxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Since the psychiatric hospitals closed down, the has been a huge increase of mentally ill homelessness. The person's may not have the mental capacity to realise the dangers. In fact a homeless person in our area did die over the Christmas period when it was cold but obviously not as cold as now xxx"
Good point. Maybe it will get some back into the system and help them to get back in their feet #fainthope |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have mixed feelings about this.
Many homeless have mental health issues and maybe we should be doing more to help them all year round rather than just when it's cold in winter.
I feel it's an abuse of power and the law albeit for the right motives. But usually if they are sectioned it is for their own safety so that seeming abuse of law may be no bad thing....and in the UK it is subject to review etc.
But ultimately if it saves a single life I think I could put aside my concerns about any theoretical or real abuse of the system if it prevents the unnecessary death of anyone.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vie RuthWoman
over a year ago
Just where the rainbow end.s . . |
A person needs to be assessed as lacking the capacity to make decisions before they can be sectioned A Dols would then need to be applied for because they are kept behind locked doors and are not free to come and go |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think the schools and churches and church halls should open for the homeless in these conditions. Sectioning them is ridiculous of course. The heating still has to be on despite being closed for school kids
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A person needs to be assessed as lacking the capacity to make decisions before they can be sectioned A Dols would then need to be applied for because they are kept behind locked doors and are not free to come and go"
If soneone is detained under the mental health act a dols isn't needed as the section covers it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think the schools and churches and church halls should open for the homeless in these conditions. Sectioning them is ridiculous of course. The heating still has to be on despite being closed for school kids
"
The church halls round here are opening up for rough sleepers at night.
I don't think sectioning someone who genuinely needs it is ridiculous if their health is at risk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution"
Exactly
Alot of shelters are 'dry'
No drugs or alcohol allowed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution
Exactly
Alot of shelters are 'dry'
No drugs or alcohol allowed"
So it's minus 4 and you have a person who is refusing to go to a shelter and will be sleeping outside. You go through the proper procedure in order for them to be sectioned in order to protect their well being and they have mental health issues. Or you take the holistic approach and send them on their way while you arrange to get them into rehab or to see a mental health specialist the following day.
I don't think anybody is saying "section all rough sleepers regardless of whether they meet the criteria" there aren't enough beds for a start. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution
Exactly
Alot of shelters are 'dry'
No drugs or alcohol allowed
So it's minus 4 and you have a person who is refusing to go to a shelter and will be sleeping outside. You go through the proper procedure in order for them to be sectioned in order to protect their well being and they have mental health issues. Or you take the holistic approach and send them on their way while you arrange to get them into rehab or to see a mental health specialist the following day.
I don't think anybody is saying "section all rough sleepers regardless of whether they meet the criteria" there aren't enough beds for a start."
I think people don't understand the concept behind sec 136 of the act.
It's there to bring those to a place of safety to be assessed essentially. Noones locked up and injected or put in a straight jacket.
They're looked after and allowed on their way if fit.
It's being used to protect people. Perhaps the angry brigade should support positive action to save people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution
Exactly
Alot of shelters are 'dry'
No drugs or alcohol allowed
So it's minus 4 and you have a person who is refusing to go to a shelter and will be sleeping outside. You go through the proper procedure in order for them to be sectioned in order to protect their well being and they have mental health issues. Or you take the holistic approach and send them on their way while you arrange to get them into rehab or to see a mental health specialist the following day.
I don't think anybody is saying "section all rough sleepers regardless of whether they meet the criteria" there aren't enough beds for a start.
I think people don't understand the concept behind sec 136 of the act.
It's there to bring those to a place of safety to be assessed essentially. Noones locked up and injected or put in a straight jacket.
They're looked after and allowed on their way if fit.
It's being used to protect people. Perhaps the angry brigade should support positive action to save people?"
Perhaps if people read the article in the paper (easily found by an internet search) they'd realise why it's being done and who for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People need to ask why these people didn't seek shelter.
Answer is that the shelters dont let them use drugs, which they feel is all they have and some people just do not feel safe (from others) in that kind of communal setting.
I think using the MHact is an abuse of power when a more holistic look at the issues would have been more appropriate than offering a one size fits all solution
Exactly
Alot of shelters are 'dry'
No drugs or alcohol allowed
So it's minus 4 and you have a person who is refusing to go to a shelter and will be sleeping outside. You go through the proper procedure in order for them to be sectioned in order to protect their well being and they have mental health issues. Or you take the holistic approach and send them on their way while you arrange to get them into rehab or to see a mental health specialist the following day.
I don't think anybody is saying "section all rough sleepers regardless of whether they meet the criteria" there aren't enough beds for a start."
In an ideal world, yes
But the 'proper procedures need time, money, manpower, facilities and a decent infrastructure in the first place.
And that when we AREN'T having the worst winter in years
What I meant was that some people will refuse help ( even if their lives are at risk) because they arent allowed drugs or alcohol in places of safety
As someone else said, for some drugs and alcohol is all they have in life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In these cold empty days have a Google and read of "Mental HealtH. Service. interventionS for. rougH SleeperS. toolS and guidance" it would appear this is covered by Law.
For me, if someone is told they will die of cold tonight if they don't get shelter, and they refuse help, they are basically saying the want to commit suicide which means they need mental health help. Some will die out there but at least some will be saved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"True then as true now, a slippery slope
First they came for the homeless, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a homeless.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemoller wrote that in relation to the disgusting actions of the Nazi's, its hardly the same thing given action has been taken (albeit with the concerns that have and will be raised about the means of this)essentially to protect people in potential risk to life..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Reading the article they didn’t use sectioning powers arbitrarily simply rounding people up who refused to come in. They used them on a case by case basis. So some people of a sound mind who accepted help such as food and blankets etc were left and those with identifiable mental health issues the powers were used.
I agree with that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Reading the article they didn’t use sectioning powers arbitrarily simply rounding people up who refused to come in. They used them on a case by case basis. So some people of a sound mind who accepted help such as food and blankets etc were left and those with identifiable mental health issues the powers were used.
I agree with that. "
Sounds more feasible. Part of assessing mental capacity is a person's ability to take care of themselves, so refusing all help in life threatening circumstances would call their mental capacity into question, although it's a fine line as for those with a terminally ill condition who decline medical intervention. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I wonder how many people have to die, before people think about the impact of a situation in terms of real life and real people, rather than in the context of what was decided in a warm dry court room by people who then went home to their warm dry homes?
Those who use human rights as a battering ram to drive home their point, need to look at what is being "done" to the people who are having their rights "infringed".
Because if it is saving them from death when they are incapable of making a clear decision, then human rights go out of the windows.
There are precedent set in law, but to try and Taylor situations to fit those precedence, is irresponsible at best, it's like sending someone to their death but at least their human rights weren't infringed.
Save lives first, without having both hands tied behind your back by clever people in wigs and gowns, sort the rest out after |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am 50/50 on this.
Common sense, as it is stupid to allow anyone to sleep rough on the streets.
But sanctioning someone for refusing shelter, is a bit of a draconian measure.
What happens to the person once they have been sectioned?
Updated news reports are saying they will remain in the system and will be provided with psychiatric care."
Do the actually need the care, could it be they have been on the streets so long they actually feel safe.
This is why I am not fully sold on this idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It sounds like a potential misuse of legislation but the important thing is that people get the care that's needed. I'd prefer that they were given the appropriate help that they need, so that they are able to discuss their perspective as well as to potentially have a flexible service delivered to them. Perhaps they were waiting for someone or didn't have enough time to understand how long they'd be in accommodation for, or whether anything they had on their possession would remain secure etc: they could possibly have issues that none of us would guess at.
Rather than sectioning them, it could also have been useful to have fall-back on the street heated shelter, for those who wouldn't relocate, in addition to nourishing hot food and drinks. That would probably be significantly cheaper than involving the medical and legal services needed, at a guess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olarfoxMan
over a year ago
North Cambs |
"A person needs to be assessed as lacking the capacity to make decisions before they can be sectioned A Dols would then need to be applied for because they are kept behind locked doors and are not free to come and go"
Actually that is not quite true. In order to be sectioned a person needs to be deemed either a risk to themselves or a risk to others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It sounds like a potential misuse of legislation but the important thing is that people get the care that's needed. I'd prefer that they were given the appropriate help that they need, so that they are able to discuss their perspective as well as to potentially have a flexible service delivered to them. Perhaps they were waiting for someone or didn't have enough time to understand how long they'd be in accommodation for, or whether anything they had on their possession would remain secure etc: they could possibly have issues that none of us would guess at.
Rather than sectioning them, it could also have been useful to have fall-back on the street heated shelter, for those who wouldn't relocate, in addition to nourishing hot food and drinks. That would probably be significantly cheaper than involving the medical and legal services needed, at a guess. "
They aren't just sectioning for the sake of it as far as I can see. If you or I had mental health issues that meant we were at risk of harm and after assessment it was deemed that we needed to be sectioned, we would be. Why should homeless people be treated differently? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olarfoxMan
over a year ago
North Cambs |
"It sounds like a potential misuse of legislation but the important thing is that people get the care that's needed. I'd prefer that they were given the appropriate help that they need, so that they are able to discuss their perspective as well as to potentially have a flexible service delivered to them. Perhaps they were waiting for someone or didn't have enough time to understand how long they'd be in accommodation for, or whether anything they had on their possession would remain secure etc: they could possibly have issues that none of us would guess at.
Rather than sectioning them, it could also have been useful to have fall-back on the street heated shelter, for those who wouldn't relocate, in addition to nourishing hot food and drinks. That would probably be significantly cheaper than involving the medical and legal services needed, at a guess.
They aren't just sectioning for the sake of it as far as I can see. If you or I had mental health issues that meant we were at risk of harm and after assessment it was deemed that we needed to be sectioned, we would be. Why should homeless people be treated differently?"
That is the question though - are they being assessed on the grounds of mental health, or simply in order to get them off the streets so that the authorities avoid the embarrassment of dealing with the fall out if too many rough sleepers die in these cold conditions?
People decide to climb mountains in all sorts of adverse conditions and in doing so take huge risks to their personal safety - why not section them?
Why not section anyone that takes a greater risk of personal endangerment that the average member of society?
Just playing devil's advocate really... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It’s being used appropriately and legally in the right case by case scenarios - as always. No story here bar the fact we are seeing rising numbers on the streets due to failing policy gaps. The SWEP (severe weather emergency protocol) shelters in London (where I’m based) are struggling massively and understaffed, under-resourced and coordinating the referrals via StreetLink has been painful due to the high numbers and lack of places. The need for bedding down eligibility in pick up is ridiculous (I won’t get started on that) but what worries me is the increasing presence these days of Home Office teams looking for a chance to use forcible removal and reconnection to many rough sleepers meaning numbers are refusing to accept the support for very real fears of being removed against their will and are risking their lives in this cold. Why we can’t have a guaranteed amnesty in times of severe weather and treat people as human first and foremost is beyond me. It’s shameful, and does not make me proud to British one bit.
Those volunteering time for unpaid overnight shifts to man emergency shelters again tonight and this weekend go some way to restoring my faith.
Been a tough day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It sounds like a potential misuse of legislation but the important thing is that people get the care that's needed. I'd prefer that they were given the appropriate help that they need, so that they are able to discuss their perspective as well as to potentially have a flexible service delivered to them. Perhaps they were waiting for someone or didn't have enough time to understand how long they'd be in accommodation for, or whether anything they had on their possession would remain secure etc: they could possibly have issues that none of us would guess at.
Rather than sectioning them, it could also have been useful to have fall-back on the street heated shelter, for those who wouldn't relocate, in addition to nourishing hot food and drinks. That would probably be significantly cheaper than involving the medical and legal services needed, at a guess.
They aren't just sectioning for the sake of it as far as I can see. If you or I had mental health issues that meant we were at risk of harm and after assessment it was deemed that we needed to be sectioned, we would be. Why should homeless people be treated differently?
That is the question though - are they being assessed on the grounds of mental health, or simply in order to get them off the streets so that the authorities avoid the embarrassment of dealing with the fall out if too many rough sleepers die in these cold conditions?
People decide to climb mountains in all sorts of adverse conditions and in doing so take huge risks to their personal safety - why not section them?
Why not section anyone that takes a greater risk of personal endangerment that the average member of society?
Just playing devil's advocate really..."
I've read the article in the paper, they're sectioning them for the right reasons in my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It sounds like a potential misuse of legislation but the important thing is that people get the care that's needed. I'd prefer that they were given the appropriate help that they need, so that they are able to discuss their perspective as well as to potentially have a flexible service delivered to them. Perhaps they were waiting for someone or didn't have enough time to understand how long they'd be in accommodation for, or whether anything they had on their possession would remain secure etc: they could possibly have issues that none of us would guess at.
Rather than sectioning them, it could also have been useful to have fall-back on the street heated shelter, for those who wouldn't relocate, in addition to nourishing hot food and drinks. That would probably be significantly cheaper than involving the medical and legal services needed, at a guess.
They aren't just sectioning for the sake of it as far as I can see. If you or I had mental health issues that meant we were at risk of harm and after assessment it was deemed that we needed to be sectioned, we would be. Why should homeless people be treated differently?
That is the question though - are they being assessed on the grounds of mental health, or simply in order to get them off the streets so that the authorities avoid the embarrassment of dealing with the fall out if too many rough sleepers die in these cold conditions?
People decide to climb mountains in all sorts of adverse conditions and in doing so take huge risks to their personal safety - why not section them?
Why not section anyone that takes a greater risk of personal endangerment that the average member of society?
Just playing devil's advocate really..."
It’s actually not that easy to section someone so I take your point but, I’d say it’s unlikely.
Getting the police to move rough sleepers on and out of borough (couple of streets that way please) during the snapshot individual local authority head counts of rough sleepers - well yes, that’s worth the cynicism as happens all the time.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olarfoxMan
over a year ago
North Cambs |
"It’s being used appropriately and legally in the right case by case scenarios - as always. No story here bar the fact we are seeing rising numbers on the streets due to failing policy gaps. The SWEP (severe weather emergency protocol) shelters in London (where I’m based) are struggling massively and understaffed, under-resourced and coordinating the referrals via StreetLink has been painful due to the high numbers and lack of places. The need for bedding down eligibility in pick up is ridiculous (I won’t get started on that) but what worries me is the increasing presence these days of Home Office teams looking for a chance to use forcible removal and reconnection to many rough sleepers meaning numbers are refusing to accept the support for very real fears of being removed against their will and are risking their lives in this cold. Why we can’t have a guaranteed amnesty in times of severe weather and treat people as human first and foremost is beyond me. It’s shameful, and does not make me proud to British one bit.
Those volunteering time for unpaid overnight shifts to man emergency shelters again tonight and this weekend go some way to restoring my faith.
Been a tough day."
All interesting information - thank you
Can I ask what you mean by 'forcible removal and reconnection'? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tonMessCouple
over a year ago
Slough Windsor ish |
I drove past the local mosque thisevening and they had signs up inviting the homeless in to spend the night, hot food and drinks available for free and a change of clothing.
There are good people out there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
All interesting information - thank you
Can I ask what you mean by 'forcible removal and reconnection'?"
It’s been an increasingly hostile environment in particular for those with no recourse, think EEA
nationals and issues for those with no status and immigration issues not covered by legal aid.
On December 14 2017 the High Court ruled unlawful the Home Office policy of detaining and administratively removing EEA nationals who sleep rough. People who previously had a removal decision served have to apply for withdrawal of the decision. And yet there are still instances being reported of targeting EEA nationals for rough sleeping and serving a decision for ceasing to exercise treaty rights. Identity documents confiscated etc. We are still having to refer Immigration Officers to legislation and the fact that refusal to answer questions or provide proof of status does not, of itself, constitute a reasonable suspicion that the person is an immigration offender - and report enforcement visits to Anti-Raids Network etc. or NELMA - and educate homelessness organisations that any joint work with the Home Office where they identify people who are rough sleeping to Home Office actually makes them complicit in implementing unlawful policy and could amount to offences of conspiracy to kidn*p or falsely imprison and data sharing lead to potential civil sanctions against the homelessness organisations.
For a while the Home Office has been working jointly (with StreetLink and others, some having contracts to assist the Home Office even to return identify and return rough sleepers to their home country) and the issue with shelters where suddenly you have a congregation of high number of rough sleepers is that it’s an attractive option for monitoring checks, and staffed often by volunteers with good intentions who may be unaware of the issue, and who argues with a HO enforcement officer when you don’t know better? Yes, a massive win in the High Court but, we aren’t there at implementation stage yet across the board and also many rough sleepers are unaware of the change and scared. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I drove past the local mosque thisevening and they had signs up inviting the homeless in to spend the night, hot food and drinks available for free and a change of clothing.
There are good people out there"
There really are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
