Frightening story in the mail today

Are you talking about social services or social security?

Social services, though for the elderly getting what hey are entitled from my the Social security pot to and rarely get for the fear they are relying on charity...that is equally sad.

Could you give us the link to the story, please?

Is this what you are referring to Suzanne? click here

That's the one I read. If this is the case then legal powers are being misused.

Read these stories of how the secret courts imprison the elderly in care homes against their will - and weep
By CHRISTOPHER BOOKER
PUBLISHED: 01:10, 14 March 2014 | UPDATED: 01:21, 14 March 2014

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580636/Read-stories-secret-courts-imprison-elderly-care-homes-against-weep.html#ixzz2vwi9ZTRY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Hope this works for those who asked

Oops someone much cleverer than me has already done it.

I would love to know how these people came to the attention of the social services in the first place.

There must have been concerns for them for the services to have been called in, surely.

It makes worrying reading, and certainly many care homes are far from perfect.

But then again, some families provide appalling care.

Social Service's first priority is to the client and not to the family. I would want to know why the families in these cases were not considered adequate initially.

I get the feeling there is far more to these cases than we are seeing.

If this
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580636/Read-stories-secret-courts-imprison-elderly-care-homes-against-weep.html

is the story,
It sounds to me like yet another of the DMs speculative and usually un-verifiable news stories.
No social services department or health service employee who has felt the need to take action over allegations of financial abuse can break confidentiality on what has really gone on.

These allegations are very easy to make.

It appears that "loving family members" are the main perpetrators of financial abuse of relatives and this is often the reason their relatives are removed from their care. (To do this against a persons agreement a lack of mental capacity has to be established.) Which is where the "Court of protection" comes in and it is dependent of social care.

This is often the point at which the deprived family members cry foul play. Social services has stolen our parent.

There are two sides to every situation like this. A fact that the DM seems to forget when filling their column inches. Write a good conspiracy theory but do not worry too much about looking at all the actual facts of the case.

Do have read of this link.
www.communitycare.co.uk/2007/08/29/financial-abuse-of-elderly-people/#.UyMedIWBmkww

This Alzheimers society link looks at the workings of the mental capacity Act.

www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=354

Much the same in 'protecting children' then. Tit for tat, but in my 37 years of working along side Social services AND having suspicions about relatives, I know who I would rather look after my affairs.... The main difference being When Social Services are accused of conspiring it seems they can't possibly be lying and even when incompetent, often shielded by their 'Court of Protection' while when relatives are in the wrong they have no place to hide.

I never thought I would have the displeasure of being I their wrong side. To see the low tricks they get up to much like a spoiled child if they don't get their own way. Only they have bully boys to make sure they do.

NelliemoserOther papers, like the Independent and Observer, have had articles expressing concern about the powers of Social Services, particularly their use of the Court of Protection, whose work was covered by secrecy until the last few months. These articles have been published over the last six months and used, mainly, the same cases and the Neary case was very well publicised at the time.

This article cannot be dismissed as Daily Mail 'Writing a good conspiracy theory but not worry too much about looking at all the actual facts of the case'. In fact, if anything they are running the article well after publicity by newspapers of greater probity have already been effective in precipitating change that was, probably, on its way anyway.

My own experience of SS is of a refusal to carry out assessments as required, carrying out a hospital to home transfer without visiting client while in hospital or making any visit to the home or making any attempt to find out if the home was suitable and accessible for the person to be discharged (it wasn't), failing to provide a physically disabled patient with any aids to mobility at home on hospital discharge, failing to foresee that two people both suffering from severe dementia could not safely be left alone at home with carers calling in three times a day for half an hour.

They only took action when I made a formal complaint. They were then fortunate that the only action left to them by then was to find a care home with places immediately available suitable for a married couple. The speed and efficiency which they managed to do that was quite remarkable (the couple were self-funding).

It must be true if it's in the daily Mail, and of course not exaggerated , embellished or taken out of context, and will of course have a balenced view...

susie it's in a number of newspapers and also on the internet

Also part of a Liberty campaign, I think.

Yes, let's have a bit less of the DM-bashing - it does get tiresome sometimes.