Skip to main content

I Said it when it Started and here it Goes.

Richard Latchman wrote at the end of his report in the Guardian of 20th May, 2011:

"These are real people, not pawns in some big business game of commercial chess."

HE SHOULD HAVE PUT IT AT THE BEGINNING because it is of paramount importance.

Mr Latchman's report was about the residential homes company Southern Cross and the fact it is in financial difficulties of a scale that is said to threaten its continued existence in business. There is another article in today's (25/05/11) Guardian Society at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/25/southern-cross-care-homes-in-balance but this is just about the financial aspects - the least of the issues.

Of paramount importance are those 'real people' caught up in a disaster waiting to happen. This human catastrophe in waiting was created by Margaret Thatcher and her government in the 1980s, perpetuated and refined by the Labour governments of Blair and Brown and sanctified by Messrs Cameron and Osborne and this Tory led Coalition. I, and all those involved in residential CARE said when it started it would turn out to be an inhumane policy.

And over the years, on a relatively small scale, it has proved to be so: a few residential (and I'm using this as a global term to include nursing homes) have been quietly closed down over the years because the private owners have gone out of business and indeed, a few have been closed down because they were abusing their residents - the 'real people' who are of paramount importance. In those cases the local authorities involved quietly rehomed (horrible word!) those real people who had been terrified of the events going on around them and, remembering that moving house is at the top of the cliff of the top ten social stressors, emotionally wrenched by the subsequent enforced move.

Those of us working (as service users or as professionals) in the CARE sector will tell you that some of these real people die as a direct result of the stresses engendered by moving into residential care, let alone from being made potentially homeless by profiteers.

This is on a different scale though and although I'm in no doubt they'll try, this scandal which, IMHO, amounts to the institutional abuse of those real people by exploiting their reduced circumstances for private profit, will not be able to be managed quietly.

Southern Cross is a huge corporation that owns hundreds of residential homes throughout the UK. If they do go out of business there will be thousands of those real and vulnerable people threatened with being thrown out of the place that has become their home.

In what is supposed to be a civilised society, why are we surrounded by sociopathic institutions and the sociopathic individuals that govern them. Financial gain from human distress and ill health is EVIL.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...
Post a Comment
Read more

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...
2 comments
Read more

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.
Post a Comment
Read more