Day 2: Twelve Days of Christmas #LBBill

Over the Twelve Days of Christmas we’ll send you an email each day asking for your thoughts, comments or feedback. We will focus on one element of the proposed #LBBill, or our journey together so far, each day.

We understand some of you may not wish to receive the daily Twelve Days of Christmas emails, that’s ok, you can unsubscribe at the bottom of this email, and don’t worry you’ll still remain a supporter of the LB Bill and get occasional updates.
It’s the second day of Christmas today and so we’re moving onto the detail of the #LBBill and Clause 1, which is all about starting with a clear principle. We have a 90 second audio introduction to Clause 1 with easy-read images:

As it stands Clause 1 tells Local Authorities and NHS bodies they have to think about the need for disabled people to be fully included in their community, in everything they do. The duty on the state bodies is to have ‘due regard’ to this principle. This is the approach adopted in the public sector equality duty (Equality Act 2010 Section 149) which has made a real impact in the courts. What we’re not sure about is whether it has made as much impact on the ground in terms of practice? Also, whether this principle is clear enough?

Since we published the first #LBBill draft, some people have said that the Bill should start with the words of Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, which is headed ‘Living independently and being included in the community’. We think that seems like a good idea – do you?

You can let us know what you think on twitter, on facebook, by email, or direct on the Feedback area of the LBBill website here. We’ll be back tomorrow with Clause 2.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Day 2: Twelve Days of Christmas #LBBill

  1. Dear #LBBill

    Thanks for the emails – I’m only just catching up on my emails so I’d just like to add a comment.

    Clause 1

    ‘Living independently and being included in the community’

    I think that whether this applies to the person depends upon the situation – so I feel it is a bit too specific. On an individual basis, taking our situation as an example. Karen (my daughter who had learning difficulties) was taken from me (using the MCA with no assessment) without any prior discussion with me or the social worker’s colleagues in a very complicated situation (which would be better explained in person). Karen was placed in firstly in respite care and eventually into independent living. She did take part in the community where she was placed (about 15 miles away) but not in the community she was taken from which included me, her closest friends and people who had known her since she was a baby. When she took part in the community it was social services choices and she was heavily suprevised. So this situation answers the criteria contained in clause 1 even though it was far from ideal.

    From our perspective I feel the important part of the bill is that the decision to move someone should not be done without full discussion with/permission from the person, the family and other social workers and if this is disputed to get a decision in law. I felt Mark put this well in his first pinned post when the Facebook page was set up.

    Karen died of breast cancer last year and so the bill will not benefit her directly but I feel that it would have prevented what happened from taking place and I hope and believe it will benefit othe people with LD and their families….

    Here are some pictures of her – she was a lovely person and I’ll always miss her….

    Best wishes to all involved with #LBBIll for a Happy (and successful) New Year

    Margaret

    Margaret Tyson

    mob: 07776 181180

    tel: 01663 762766

    web: http://www.margarettyson.org

    Like

    • Dear Margaret,

      Please read my post on the definition of capacity in the MCA,, in my blog post on the subject by googling finolamoss.

      We are in the same position with our 18 year old autistic daughter, who we love very much, and have seen destroyed for profit by the state.

      At present capacity is being illegally used by the LA to remove all autistics from their families and communities..

      But the definition of capacity, and the means by which it is decided, are completely loaded in favour of removal of capacity from those who have it, so that anything can be done with them by the state, ie enforced drugs, drug trials, and profit from their care.

      The Act was deliberately drafted so this could happen.

      This definition therefore, needs changing, as to not include the autistic.

      Please email me, if you want on finolamoss@gmail.com

      You, as we, and our daughters, have no rights, no help, and our children are being used as cash and pharma cows, and this is beyond barbaric, and must end.

      Like

  2. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/257/25706.htm, If you go into this website you will see, that in Hansard we already have charities, who argued for Art 19 subvertion, and this produced the very misery, and enforced, away from family independent living to make profit for the providers, we have today.

    Art 14 right was then used as the excuse, and appears to be being used again by the Bill.

    We do not want our loved ones removed by such obvious excuses, they will never be truely independent, and most will never be in anyway independent, particularly in independent living, with no choice, all movements prescribed, and 2 to 1 supervision by itinerant, zero hour workers, 24/7.

    With day trips to certain policed community centers, and for the lucky ones a shopping moll.

    This Art 14 was how the whole con for profit ,was sold by the very people, who were to profit from it ,in the first place.

    Like

  3. Clause 1, is to start with Art 14, and the words, ‘ Living independently and being included in the community’

    So the subversion of Art 14, that created the independent away from family, for profit industry, is relevant to the use of that Art 14, as shown in the Hansard link.

    These words, used to describe the right of the disabled, as will be given clause 1, as mentioned in my previous post, could be satisfied, by the deemed disabled, having a right, not to independence, and the full use of their community, but as now interpreted, by the present LA, and promoted by government legislation, to be placed in independent, away from family housing, with token, supervised access, to pre designated outings in the community, ie effectively, no independence of movement, place of abode, or association, and 24 hour surveillance.,

    Like

  4. It’s Liz Ellis here (I don’t have my own WP account, sorry!).

    The clause about living independently and being included in the community is a good one, but I think it is really important to be precise about ‘community’. As Margaret mentioned, being 15 miles away is very different from being in your ‘home turf’ so to speak. Some of the worst cases of exploitation and abuse of people with learning difficulties have been in ‘community’ settings and even a few miles makes a huge difference about how supported someone is. Steven Hoskin springs to mind. Removed from his home area and placed in the ‘community’, Steven’s murder was entirely preventable.

    ‘Community inclusion’ sounds lovely but the reality can be very different, so I would urge the clause to make some distinction around being in a community local to one’s kith and kin where ever possible.

    Like

  5. I think that somewhere in all of this, we need the statement that the care that supports independent community living must be ‘appropriate, adequate and safe’. It might lessen the likelihood of LAs trying to do this on the cheap.
    I do agree that disabled people must have the right to live in their own communities and not one selected by the LA. I believe that, as it stands, if someone is sent to another LA to live under the supported living principles, then the new LA must bear the costs. This must be a minefield!
    I also feel that LAs must have an eye to better community accessibility for people with disabilities and that this should not just be for those with physical difficulties. This might include more dedicated times at leisure centres for people with LD/ASD, relaxed theatre performances, public awareness programmes etc.

    Like

  6. Perhaps Clause 1 can define an agreed meaning on the word Community? It means different things to different people (as seen from the previous posts). Otherwise it can be another word like Choice and Control that are easy to say but not simple to have or to achieve. I don’t think we can underestimate how hard and complex it is to be independent and to be part of a community.

    Like

    • Katie, good point about agreeing a definition of community, but fear that it will prove almost impossible beyond maybe the immediate geographical area where a person, their family and extended connections live at the time.

      The ‘at the time’ could be important given the degree that people have to be mobile for work purposes and in some areas like London, for accommodation purposes.

      Like

  7. ‘Community’ definitions distract from the main important issue , that has arisen, due to the LA ‘independent living’ only policy.

    To enable this, in the past two years,Community centres for the disabled generally are not now funded by LA, nor are community projects therefore no longer exist.

    They are replaced by removal of all disabled, to encagement, and any community engagement, then organised ad hoc, by the living providers.

    If the disabled are to have any choice, these community centres etc need reinstating.

    Because they no longer exist, it also puts more pressure on parents, so that it can be shown they cannot cope, and as they are no longer available, it is also easier to prove to the court, it is in their ‘best interests’, under the MCA, that the disabled, are removed from their family.

    So this fundamental issue, that disabled should be allowed facilities in the community, to enable him to live at home with family, should be provided by LA, and LB BILL should state that.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s