Nobby, what IS it with UK social services?Follow

It's not an everyday occurrence, but in most of these cases, the evidence is often dotted around different areas. Rarely do we see children admitted to ERs with multiple cigarette-burns, for example.

But by triangulating data from Nurses seeing recurrent injuries, social workers recording suspicious behaviour ("yes we knew you were coming to check on our 2-year old but she's gone out playing with friends" was one this week) and teachers reporting frequent unexplained bruising, we've found a number of parents systematically torturing and/or sexually abusing small children.

And Smash - most Schizophrenics deemed 'high risk', after being medicated and symptom-free in a secure environment beg not to be released where they know they will harm others and/or themselves. I personally have no problem with precautionary detention where the risk of serious harm is near-certain and the individual concerned is vulnerable.

most Schizophrenics deemed 'high risk', after being medicated and symptom-free in a secure environment beg not to be released where they know they will harm others and/or themselves.

Due respect to your education and vocation, that's simply not true.

Oh wait, after being medicated and institutionalized against their will?

Yes, I imagine they come to discover that they do love Big Brother at that point.

Edited, Jan 8th 2008 6:23pm by Smasharoo

You're at risk of a gbaji-esque demonstration of infantile ignorance on the subject here pilgrim.

It's not an easy subject

Yes, it is.

[b]
and whether the issue is protective custody for children at risk from parents/carers, or the dangerously mentally ill, gbaji & Smash's statements avoid the reality of entirely avoidable tragedies being allowed to happen in the name of some limp-wristed idealistic 'human rights' or 'small gubberment' *************

I'm not avoiding it at all. What you're avoiding is the undeniable fact that it is impossible not to act punitively against people who *will not harm anyone* in the name of protecting people from "avoidable tragedies". You're not avoiding them. You're replacing them with state mandated tragedies of innocent people being punished based on the label chosen for them

That's not ok. That's what totalitarian states do. I understand people will die because we don't pro actively lock up people we consider dangerous. I'm not pretending it's not the case or avoiding it at all. I'm stating that it's a price worth paying for freedom, just as allowing people to say abortion doctors should be killed is a price worth paying for free speech even though it may, and has, led to just that happening.

I think you'd agree that it's rare that schizophrenics suddenly explode in psychotic bouts of lethal violence without any precursor of violent behaviour that *would be against the law and grounds for taking action". This idea that the mentally ill who have disorders prone to violent ideation are ticking time bombs who just suddenly kill people is absurd as you well know. You may be willing to trade the rights of a group of people you'll never be part of for your safety, but I'm not.

Very similar here.

Initial detention is usually 48 to 72 hours - enough time to sort out the chemical imbalances. At that stage, once free of the psychosis and lucid, (hardly 'institutionalised) most ask to be kept in an environment where their demons can be held at bay. I've heard many screaming their fears of carrying out the appalling instructions they hear when in crisis.

Smash - if you've dealt 1st hand with people raging against voices in their head, you'll know that concepts of free will and self-determination are negated by pathology; not by any state/medical intervention or principles that apply to people in control of themselves.

Mom...dad...don't fight...it makes me sad.

Nexa

For the cohort I'm referring to; Just. Statistically. True.

I enjoy trading opinions and political perspectives with you, but on this one, facts is facts.

Recess. All rise.

eta - links to a little light reading

Edited, Jan 8th 2008 6:58pm by Nobby

I share those views in general terms, but as with most issues, I believe there are exceptions.

This is one where sufferers and victims alike are campaigning for preventive restraint under the circumstances I've described.

Pretty much, but there were dozens of previous actions and signs that also went ignored.

There usually are.

Pretty much, but there were dozens of previous actions and signs that also went ignored.

There usually are.

Exactly.

This would be why it's not required to pro actively restrain people when there aren't prior acts.

That said, yes, there's a 'slippery slope' about arresting people who criticise anti-terrorism measures, and the risks you point out are very real. I just happen to think the probability in these cases is too high to risk.

I think we'd probably agree on risk assessment. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the ethics of the state acting on that assessment in a way that would be punitive in any other circumstance.

Hah! (I do bite my thumb at you sir)

Really? Here I thought you didn't bite your thumb at me, but that you did bite your thumb.

Revisionist *******. You'll be doing that tired old Richard 3rd as Hitler thing any second now, I just know it.