Rough sleeper gives birth to twins outside wealthiest Cambridge college

Dear oh dear!
This is what happens when a poster or posters who dislike another poster will pick them up on anything no matter what it is and go on and on and on!
So, let’s get it straight,
In the past, if it came to the attention of experts who then diagnosed mental health problems that person was sent to an
institution/clinic/ units for possible treatment.......this continued well into 1950’s 1960’s and probably longer.The length of time they spent there varied from short spells to life in some cases.This is true, in fact my uncle worked at one throughout the 50’s, Menston near Ilkley in Yorkshire.
Google it, there must be something on there.
Other posters have also written of ones they used to know.
Children and adults were only taken to experts/doctors if their families couldn’t manage them at home, which is why so many ended up there.
Mental health issues nowadays are more varied and just more common ( because it isn’t a stigma anymore to say so)Anyone suffering say from depression,in the past, as long as they weren’t harming themselves, and were coping or appearing to cope would have stayed at home, although well off families sometimes did pay for care in one.
The institutions like Menston, had their own farm and gardens and encouraged sports like cricket and football for the male inmates.
Can a few posters calm down now, have another sherry and try and maintain the peace and goodwill of Christmas.

A couple of psychiatrists I knew lived in at the hospitals, there were staff houses in the grounds.

Exactly growstuff

All it needed was for LG to come on and say "yes, it was a bit over the top but I was trying to say ..." but no, not only does she keep on arguing but when she sees there is no argument - she is wrong - the troops are rallied and they start throwing in things that have nothing to do with the point in question and then attacking me personally.

Can I just repeat; LG was wrong! I know she can't admit it but she was. I know the gang will keep having a go but she was.

Does it matter? Yes. You cannot have a constructive discussion based on something that simply isn't true.

You can't admit that your nitpicking is obscuring some important discussions.

Gracesgran, we are getting somewhere. My point was people were talking about drug abuse and mental health and linking it with capacity, in these cases they would have to go through the CoP.

Just a point why would you need to get PoA if your mother has already got it, I don't rally understand this bit.

It seems from your experience they would. However, this is not always the case but maybe the case in other situations than ours - or not.

If I get a PoA it will be my PoA and my children will be my attorneys; nothing to do with my mother and her PoA. It is a good idea to get it in place before you need it.

It does not need to be registered immediately although it can be and then it is active and you can also write into it that it is only to be used when you lack capacity.

I will almost certainly activate it straight away and not put the bit about capacity in as it can make things extra difficult. My daughter is an attorney for Mum with me and both of them are attorney's for their dad so they know what they may and may not do and know they would only be involved if I asked or was incapacitated. The rights all belong to the person with the PoA and the responsibility to the attorneys.

Gracegran, signing off, can't be bothered anymore, you just don't seem to understand.

If you had not tried to use these "important discussions" to battle on LGs behalf Jane10, as you did, they would have a) gone on separately and b) probably ended LGs attempts to square a circle.

The whole thread would have just gone on with both your "important discussion" and the other discussions that are going on but merely without people trying to prove that "Anyone with diagnosed mental health issues used to be housed in institutions ..." All it would have taken is for you and others, particularly LG to say that that was over the top and simply not true. That is all I have ever said. You and others have been determined to prove an untruth was correct.

But then I don't suppose a single one of you, although you cannot possibly believe "Anyone with diagnosed mental health issues used to be housed in institutions ..." has the guts to admit that was wrong. Those with a contemptible lack of courage do tend to work in groups I find.

I'm not sure who doesn't understand Bob.

I agreed with your first bit with caveats for what I don't know and, it appears neither do you and then I answered your question, in detail which I certainly didn't need to do.

I was just thinking how crazy it's all become.
In 1961 my mother was sectioned ( the first time) for 28 days with what now is called Postpartum Psychosis.
Now we have my friend who lives in sheltered housing where a new resident has moved in and residents are seriously frightened of this man because of his very aggressive behaviour. Residents have complained but are told that he has schizophrenia and forgets to take his meds.
No one is on duty at night to protect these vulnerable residents.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

It's not at all pathetic. There's a huge difference between writing "anyone" and "some". It's even more pathetic to deny that something was written which (at best) caused a misunderstanding and for people to defend it.

Since when have you been given the role of judging the quality of people's posts Chewbacca? Your comment was intended to denigrate. If you wish to become a GN monitor, maybe you'd like to start on some of the posts which are nothing more than gossip and sneering.

Chewbacca has as much right as anyone to comment on what's been said. Her post was perfectly coherent and sensible.

So does GracesGran have a right to comment, without somebody being extremely rude to her.

Exactly. Chewbacca was moaning about someone elses comment. She can hardly expect to have no one moan at her in response, can she?

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

My post was not rude growstuff. You may not agree with me, or my opinion, as is your right. But it was not rude.

It was not rude.

In fact it said that Gracesgran always made points worth listening to but that this was not one of them.

I agree, the thread went wildly off piste.

The young woman may not have mental health problems at all.

Usually not always if anyone wishes to be pedantic.

Chewbacca is the one of the least offensive posters .

GracesGranMK3.seems to me to be more than capable of holding her own & has in fact told us many times that she cares not a jot for what others may think of her opinions & comments!

Keep going, girls! How I would love for us all to sit down in a room and have a chat. I'm sure we would be quite surprised if we met face to face.

Apologies to any male posters. I don't know why I assume everyone is female unless their name indicates male. Men are welcome to sit down in a room with us of course!

Its probably too late to go back to the point made by a poster a few pages back, about the transfer of responsibility from the NHS to Social Services/Local Authorities during the period the long stay hospitals were being closed.
Those of us working in local authorities were clear at the time, the responsibility became ours, without the necessary funding. The same goes for dementia patients. Why aren't they funded by the NHS but by LA's who have had their funding devastated never mind increased to cover these patients/service users.

I accept this isn't quite the remit of the OP but its relevance is to funding. The babies at the centre of this thread will currently be receiving a high level of care from the NHS. Tiny, premature babies will always be well cared for in hospital. We don't know about their parents, thankfully it seems there is some kind of injunction in place to prevent the papers speculating further about them. It's possible the l.a. has made the children subject of some kind of interim order in the family courts which includes a ban on publicity . I do hope so. It may be seen as draconian by some but this family and the babies need some privacy, as do the professionals involved who will be attempting to assess their needs.

How many here have been patients in mental hospitals? I have twice. The asylums , where there were locked wards in one part of the building.

When it was closed in the 90’s and care in the community took its place the council’s gave several council houses on
council estates for people who needed care in the community, four men moved into one, it overlooked a childrens playground, parents were fearful.

When I was a patient, not in a lock up ward, I saw people begging to be readmitted because they were institutionalised.

I live in a very quiet , small Cul de sac , bungalows for the elderly and disabled, next door is an alcoholic , she has caused distress to other residents, I hsve only spoken to her once , she knocked my front door, poured out lie after lie.

There is a drive to hsve her moved, I refused to be part of it.
the only place she could be moved to is a block of flats with
alcoholics and drug addicts, she is in her sixties, cut out of her
family.

So easy to sit at a keyboard and say what should be done.

I'm just hoping that after a good nights sleep everyone has woken up realising that nothing happened to ""Anyone with diagnosed mental health issues" as a matter of course, and they did not all get sent to institutions. This was the only thing I said was untrue and I still feel it is not worth basing a discussion on. Would that the person who said it had had the grace, early on to agree that it was a gross exaggeration and could not be seen as a truth.

Yes these places existed and yes they did some good and I am sure some people felt their careers in them were worthwhile but we are now where we are and have to work from that. We are not about to go backwards and it is rarely worth even trying to do that.

In 1983 that the government of Margaret Thatcher adopted a new policy of care after the Audit Commission published a report called 'Making a Reality of Community Care' which outlined the advantages of domiciled care. This was not new - since the 1950s various governments had been attracted to the policy of community care. Thatcher was attracted to it as it's general aim was a more cost-effective way of helping people with mental health problems and physical disabilities, by caring for them in their own homes. It also had the effect of removing them from impersonal, often Victorian, institutions.

Although we may now see the flaws in "care in the community" it does flag up the fact that we must always look at how we use the money invested in our services. Taking large amounts out for the sake of reducing taxes is unlikely to give you a better service although there is an outside chance that it may. Equally putting extra money into a failing service may well not improve that.

After the war, when many of our services were started or vastly improved people did not have the same expectations to be treated on an individual basis but times have changed. Other countries, who originally borrowed from parts of our benefits system and health care system have the same issues but are looking at very different ways to change. Some while ago I read about changes to the care system in Holland. Groups of carers were given a budget and plenty of autonomy. They could decide if they spent more money on time with Mrs X in the first week because it would save money in the long run, etc. They did this by talking to and asking, where possible, what the patient wanted to achieve. The groups were small enough to work in a cooperative manner. People wanted to work in them because true relationships were formed.

If we look at our services some may not need, or it may not be possible to have continuously growing budgets. Some may need that because of the growth in what can be treated etc. Some of the best projects may come from seed corning a local social enterprise. People can help themselves if they are helped to do so. One of the worst effects of blanket austerity is that the government did not seem to understand the social wealth they had built up in libraries, youth clubs, mother and baby groups, etc.

Change does not have to be a bad thing but if it is only to save money it may well be. The first step, it seems to me, is to look at just what we are already investing and how we can better use that.

It's so sad that many things little and big have closed. Small projects which survived on goodwill, cups of tea and a dose of common sense and big projects like Sure Start.

It is cruel to deny people a " leg up" and also economically makes no sense at all.

It is inkycog. However, there are movements to do something about it. I think it was at the beginning of this thread I put on a couple of links. One was about projects that had been run in this country and one was the USA. In each case costs were low but they changed communities or enabled communities to change themselves.

What I think we must be careful not to do is think we have to roll out the same project everywhere, just because it works somewhere. Yes, tell people about them but let them be adapted for their needs.

What amazed me is just how many services become involved with some families and how much money is spent achieving absolutely nothing. Often for the behaviours, in some of the worst cases, to be repeated again in the next generation. Poverty is not just about money in the bank, although it is that. It is about poverty of housing, of education, of parenting, of expectation.

It also shocked me to find that some of the workers in these services have an 80/20 balance. 80% on paperwork, etc., and 20% on contact with the service user - who, of course, is not a "service user" but a person.