Local News (Wiltshire) DVLA Cowboys get it wrong! Have you ever been unlawfully clamped? Following on from our story of the resident on the Longfield Estate in Trowbridge, who found her car clamped with an very official looking DVLA clamp and very serious clamp padlock and chain. On investigating the clamping, it looked official, with the large mandatory yellow sticker stuck to the window screen (after the fact, of course). The Sticker emblazoned this the warning that removing it, or the Clamp was illegal The reason given for the clamping was the fact that it had no road tax. The car was Sworn Off Road, quite correctly and parked on the 'designated' off-road parking area, adjacent to the road and in front of her house. It was, in fact, a Contractor, operating for a Bristol Vehicle Pound, who DVLA (and some of their dubious clamper contractors) have decided that any parking area in Trowbridge is 'owned by the council' and therefore 'deemed' to be part of the public highway. Well, we deem that it is not. Councils are our servants and are not there to 'manipulate' understandings to benefit other official agencies, even if the a belligerent minority 'pressures' them to act in their minority interests. We would have fought the case even if it was the Council, but the error is bigger. When Councils sold off their housing stock to Housing Associations, the 'off road parking' that accompanied the original housing moved into the control of the Housing Associations, anyone purchasing their home has right of access to these areas, but often no specific entitlement to a particular space. They are, to all intents and purpose, privately owned with shared access right of the residents and visitors. The same is true of Private and Housing Association, rented flats with 'off road' parking areas. These were (and often still are) designated as 'off road parking' and required in modern planning. The 'set back' parking areas, between the 'kerb slope' and the public pavement (the pavements are public highway'), or to the demarked areas to the side and rear of flats, are designated 'off road' parking areas. They are distinct from 'lay-by', or road marked type parking areas (which may, or may not be privately owned by landlords, or by some 'shared' private, 'public access' arrangement). The transfer of these 'highway amenities' to 'councils', from developers, is complicated and even then, whether some areas of this then constitutes 'the public highway' is disputable So, always dispute such cases. Institutions often take on too much power for themselves. In this case, we advised the person to contact the Housing Association who owned the 'Freehold' on the amenity space and get this confirmed with them (we had already checked in a similar case). We also advised them to give notice to the DVLA official (or their contractor - it was not clear) that the car had been unlawfully clamped, without notice or Just cause. Advising them not to remove the vehicle and to 'unclamp' the vehicle within 48 hours, or the clamp would be removed. Within hours of that notification they had complied with the request. Others on the estate and even some on the private parking areas of Flats in the locality, have not been so lucky. I have personally watched a Contractor remove 2 cars from a similar 'off road' parking area being removed, without written notification to the owners, or a sticker giving notice of this intention. I strongly advise people to make complaints and even take matters further if they can. it has to stop. Basically, ordinary people have the same rights to 'assert' their basic legal entitlements as any official institution has. The institution then has an obligation to consider this assertion before taking further action. Failure to adequately do so, or be seen to do so (even if they later are proven right in fact) is still a failure of their duty. These arrangements are by mutual understanding, constrained and directed by Law, not specifically and individually determined by Law. Notice is a Fair and Just exercise of the Law, in keeping with the public interest. This is undermined at all our expense eventually. Other, 'higher order' Laws often (if not usually) take precedence. A court can find any legally defined, or Policy prescribed action 'unlawful', if the appropriate procedure and process is not followed, or a decision is unjust in any way (say; by way of any form of demonstrable discrimination, or prejudice). These kinds of disempowering and overbearing actions are Punitive and Unjust. The create more conflict and distress than they relieve. They work counter the Law and Justice and are usually in breach of basic Human Rights, which now have power of Law and need only be 'asserted' to take effect. If it feels unjust then it probably is unjust - Speak up for yourselves. It is in the nature of some Neighbours, in our 'Hate our Neighbours' culture, to 'shop' people for having no road tax, on cars parked outside their houses. Well, if your car is untaxed and on the road it is quite clear that you risk having the car clamped and even removed. It is a very expensive penalty and is usually inexcusable. Everyone should know (by now) that an untaxed car can be scrapped. They are often being driven illegally, without insurance. The law is tough for that reason. However, there are many people who are doing important social jobs, with families to maintain, on very poor pay, increasingly as single parents, who are unable to meet the expenses of repairing, or running their car for periods of time. They can legally take their car 'off the public highway' and 'Sworn' them. This is a scheme which was probably originally invented for those who are 'better off', so that they would not to pay road tax for their classic cars, when not being used on the road. None-the-less, to Sworn a vehicle is perfectly legal, if it is 'off road'. Now, what is 'off road'? This has become a little unclear recently. Cowboy clampers, some of them who are also contracted by Councils, Police and even the DVLA, are clamping and removing vehicles from 'off road' locations and having them scrapped. Others cowboys, knowing this practice, are doing 'copy cat' removals from people's gardens and other legitimate parking areas. The Police 'actively' do very little to stop this. Some of these vehicles are eyesores and it can be argued that it is a 'public service'. Well, we have legitimate means of dealing with any unreasonable dumping, or abandonment of car (or anything else for that matter). It is either a matter of complaint to the Local Council as a 'Public Nuisance' , or 'Environmental Health problem', or to the Police as a case of Obstruction, or unlawfully keeping of a vehicle on the public highway. The fair & lawful method, is to give notice (usually by a sticker). If you are lawfully 'off road' and Sworn, keep the vehicle safe and reasonably tidy for everyone's sake. The law has changed a little recently; any vehicle (mechanically propelled) on the public highway, without road tax, causing an obstruction, or presenting an actual, or potential danger to the public, can be removed without notice,' where the circumstances justify this'. It is not, however, a cart blanch to take any vehicle from anywhere 'in the public eye'. The basic tenants of law and our rights still stand. In all Contracts, 'reasonable notice & cause' must be given before 'possessions' can be restricted, or removed 'lawfully' and for good reason. Police, Council Officials and even the DVLA would like you to believe that they have awesome powers, unfettered by 'best practice', or 'good practice' guidelines. They actually do not. It is a form of 'intimidation' and these Official often know it. Some, however, really do believe they are all powerful (they are deluded). All agencies, operating as public services, or contracted by 'our public servants', are obliged to communicate & inform, taking account of any form of disability (whether registered as such or not). They have a duty to be seen to do this. Adverts in newspapers and on TV after midnight will not do. There have been many recent cases where 'Contractors', in their own right , or at the request of Councils, Police and the DVLA, have 'unlawfully removed vehicles from 'private land', or, 'share ownership' public access parking space, which is not part of the public highway (often 'owned' by Housing Associations & Landlords). Not only are they failing to 'inform' as they are required to, they are actively practicing 'unlawfully', sometimes knowingly, sometime not. When they inform you that ignorance is no defence they are right 'in respect of themselves particularly' (unless they are intellectually disabled). You have to understand that Local Police and Council Policy often 'interprets' the Law, so that they can put in place methods of dealing with genuine transgressions. Where the evidence and circumstances are clear and there is a transgression of the Law, there is little defence. However, the Law is not as uncompromising as people think. Most Laws have to be applied in the context of other, more fundamental and overriding Laws and even more fundamental 'Human Rights'. There are still appropriate 'due processes' in all instances of lawful practice and requirement to make reasonable attempts to notify. Basically, on any legal matter, if you are not given clear notice of 'restrictive' intentions, verbally or in writing, through a 'sticker' perhaps, or other reasonable method of communication, they are probably acting 'unlawfully'. Even solicitors get this wrong and give bad advice. You actually have more rights to make a stand than you realise. All officials have an obligation to get their facts right and to proceed on a reasonable basis, in the public interest (you are that public, they are its servants). In Human Rights terms you must be shown no favour, or prejudice, on any grounds, in any matter (mitigation allowed for). When Official's, or Official bodies, don't get it right their powers are no greater than the rest of us (which is usually the case anyway) and their credibility is substantially lower for making the error. When they don't get their facts right; any restrictive, possessive, or re-possessive action on their part means that they can be deemed to have acted 'Unlawfully' (and actually quite illegally most often). When they are politely and fully notified of this (with some 'evidence') they usually retract the action. I can tell you from wide experience, there are many employees of these institutions who are disgusted at how people's naivety is being abused in these kinds of cases. People are not told their full rights, even when the Official does have an effective understanding of them. The situation is becoming quite embarrassing, hence the Daily Mirror's stand against 'cowboy' clampers and governments recent interests in legislating against bad practice. This should not be necessary in a democracy and there are many other areas of unacceptable and unlawful practice to be addressed. It is now common practice, in the interests of saving money, to take action on the basis of a 'general rule' and rely on the fact that they will not be challenge, or questioned. This is Intimidation by any other definition. Don't put up with it. Complain politely, get your justice first and then sue if you fancy your chances and can be bothered. Our rights and entitlements have been eroded within our Institutions, but they still stand. We are just a bit rusty at asserting them. In fact, our basic rights have never been stronger, since joining Europe. By virtue of the International and the European Conventions on Human Rights (and associated responsibly to ourselves and our officials), our entitlements have never been clearer, or more directly under our control. 'Least Restrictive Practice' and 'Duty to appropriately Inform' are fundamental. Keep the stories coming in folks, I will pass on the juicy ones to the Press. Most people are getting fed up with the 'bully boy' practices of Officials of all kinds. Lets get some balance back in the power relationship between us and 'our public servants'. But remember, those you usually are talking to at the the end of a phone, or at coalface, are ordinary people like you. They also are often instructed, or bullied to deal with people the way they do. In challenging them and their managers, firmly and politely, you will soon discover who the real 'bullies' are. They can't help but be belligerent, don't give them genuine cause to be obstreperous, always stay polite. Then Shop them and take it all the way to the top. Lets get rid of these petit pompous bullies together. We need rules, of course we do, but there are too many. At the end of the day, the fundamental Laws and Rules apply and these are the once that produce 'Justice'. Accept nothing less. We are also interested in collecting 'classic official lines'. If you have been told something by an official, which is clearly ridiculous, contradictory, abusive, prejudiced, full of , or just plan stupid, or ignorant, let us know. We will publish these anonymously, for the purpose of illustrating the kinds of cock-ups that officials can make. We all make stupid comments from time to time, but some are so outlandish that they are entertaining (if you ignore some of the consequences). Go to: More to Follow Soon Local Stories that are on-going and will be available soon:
To understand our 'critical perspective', please follow this link: The Basis for Criticism Wilshire Services for Children with Disabilities: The community services to our Children, who happen to have disabilities, are so poor that they are seen (by some of our clients) as more disabling than the child's physical condition. The opportunities to live a normal life with normal expectations, with access and opportunities to a normal activities, does not extend much beyond access to school, libraries and disabled activities. This affects their expectations, social access & inclusion, and their general physical & mental health. Although the health service support is described as excellent and well organised; Teenage expectations are almost completely neglected, in terms of the Community Support. This has distressing effect upon them, at this important period of already stressful transition. Many teenagers with disability want access and transport mobility to 'normal' amenities. They hate having to relying upon volunteers, friends, parents and siblings. This causes stress within families. We can all understand why! The Mobility Allowance, which can be so beneficial to the independent mobility of an Adult (who can drive), has limited value for young teenage people with a disability, especially in Rural Counties. Even towns the size of Trowbridge have very poor facilities for young people. To get access to the common community resources is difficult enough. Unfortunately, apart from the basics; like the library, pubs and shopping centres, there is very little of interest in the town. Most want to go further afield for cinema and clubs. Young people with an impairment also have the same expectations and want to engage in 'normal' activities. The support services are so underfunded, to the extent that funds available for 'Social Inclusion' (a special Government Initiative) are said to be have been almost exhausted. Remember, also, that we are at the beginning of the financial year. If we compare the relatively good Direct Care Services and Direct Payment options to Adults with Disabilities and the Frail Elderly (where there is still need of improvements), Children appear to get as little as 20% of comparable support. Staffing of these services is also very low by adult service comparisons, which themselves are actually 'reducing', in real and relative terms. There is a real problem for some people, just to get around on the local streets in Trowbridge. This is a problem that affects everybody at some time, but people with physical disability and sight problems in particular. A young teenage girl has had real difficulties with crossing some of the roads on the Longfield Housing Estate. She has to get about with the use of a wheelchair and is restricted to what is, for her, an island of houses on Longfield Road. Her Mother requested the Council to install 'Drop Kerbs' to help her and others to safely get about. Drop Kerbs are essential for helping people with disabilities to safely cross roads. They are not only designed to provide a gentle slope for wheelchairs and pushchairs, they also act as guided pathways for elderly people and people who have sight problems. Mum did have some initial success with getting this work done, but this task was never completed, because funds ran out before they got to her patch. The area surrounding her home, a housing block enclosed by Brown Street & Longfield Road, was therefore neglected for years. An access slope on the Tesco side of Brown Street was already in place, as part of the Tesco's development agreement, but this is useless as there are no other Drop Kerbs opposite the Tesco slope, or anywhere else on her 'island'. The young lady involved, and her family, feel that this access problem affects other people also, including those with many disabilities, those who are elderly and parents using push chairs. She feels that there is not enough attention paid to the difficulties that people experience. She suggests that Local Councillors and Council staff should be required to try using a wheelchair for a day. This young person had one serious incident with her electric wheelchair, when it overturned. She has since lost confidence in using it on the street. This now seriously inhibits her 'independence' and restricts her safe access to Tesco shopping and to the Town Centre. It seems a little ironic that the two people who pointed out the lack of access and got an initial response, actually failed to get the Drop Kerbs installed in their part of the Estate. She resents being dependent upon others to do the simplest things for herself, some of which any young woman would expect. This puts a strain on all her relationships. We hope that this will now be sorted, in this new financial year and the new, 'One Council' arrangement. These two people are not convinced. It is a 4 year wait for them, so far, and the slopes were not there for others before that. In 2008 the United Nations produced an Internationally agreed Treaty, which has the status of Law in the UK. It clarifies the duties of National Governments and Local Authorities to ensure the basic Human Rights of People with Disabilities. It is not discretionary and the responsibilities are not avoidable, as some inexperienced legal advisers tend to suggest. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention This young lady is concerned not just for herself, but for all the others who are affected by the inadequate access and use of the community facilities, including access to trains, buses, shops and clubs, etc. She has the same expectations for life as any other teenager of her age and has become very distressed and frustrated at the slow rate at which things are changing. It is affecting her health. She feels that there are too many excuses for 'not doing things'. She is right, our research suggests that this is the normal situation for young people with disabilities, in our area and it is not adequate for adults with disabilities either. Our Local Authorities have a 'Policy' to restrict services to what is a now a 'crisis' service. In effect, you have to wait until things get so bad that there are immediate risks to a person, before any real service is provided. Too often she has been told that there is no money left, or the manager can not agree to increasing the support, because of restrictions of finances. I fact, they are even neglecting to record that there is a real need for support, so the shortfall in services is never really recognised and improved. This is not just a Wiltshire problem. Various Local Authorities use the same excuses and make the same mistakes in understanding Human Rights for people with disabilities of all kinds. They will often quote the fact that other Authorities use the same excuses, and restrict support on the same basis. This does not make any one of them correct. These Authorities rely upon the fact that few will complain and that the Law allows for restricted provision of services. In fact, it does not. It only allows for reasonable delays and reasonable limits to provide less costly arrangements. Here we are clearly talking about persistent absence of adaptations, long delays and poor, 'disabling' services, for many people who often do no automatically show up on the Local Authority's disability radar. According to our reliable sources, more time is spent by professionals (more than 50%) ascertain whether someone meets (or does not meet) their criteria, than on actually providing direct help. This is on top of the costs of providing the buildings, computers, managers and administrative support,' not' to do a more effective job. Professionals are rarely, wholly at fault here. The Policy and instructions they are required to follow, are similar to those which have produced such poor services in other sectors of Community Care and Social Work. We tend to hear abut them when a child, or older person dies in distressing circumstances. We do not hear about all these cases, and by comparison, the disabling effect of people being effectively 'trapped' in their own little worlds, is often of little interest, by comparison. Sadly more silent problems affect people adversely for the rest of their lives and cost the community greatly, because of the small failures in the early days. Strategies for Community Care meeting Need is often 'Wait till it gets worse' and call again:
To understand our 'critical perspective', please follow this link: The Basis for Criticism The strategy, which is designed to keep community care cost down, while meeting the needs of people 'in most serious distress', effectively means that the person with any serious problems (along with their families), have to wait until their difficulties are so great that they are clearly at risk. They must reach a point where the Authorities would be seen as negligent, not to get involved. New plans hope to improve the situation but there are not enough 'available' resources; the processes are time consuming. Because the various 'disabilities' are fragmented and are dealt with by 'specialist', contracted-in to provide a specific services (all restricted by the rules of 'Substantial & Critical' need), many people with multiple problems are passed from pillar to post. The delays often mean that the person's difficulties get worse and are further exacerbated by the distress of trying to get help. There seems to be no main focus where the more complex problems can be effectively dealt with. These cases are very complex, but are dealt with on the same basis as a need for a raised toilet seat. What could have been quite simple, inexpensive resolutions that would have kept the person independent and relieved of distress, become more compounded disabilities, which are then costly and create longer term dependencies. Where is the joined up thinking and the seamless services that were promised? Where is the evidence of improved access to early prevention and entitlements to choice, that were promised through the Convention on Human Rights, Disability Rights and the UK Law? Well, we have to keep asking, assuming we knew, or were told, what we can ask for in the first place. Fear of criticism is still the biggest constraint in getting these failures recorded (as required) and rectified. This fear of being seen to 'complain', filters down from the the very top, to the bottom, affecting professionals and service users. It is only when things go seriously wrong and someone sues, or speaks out to the media, that there is any real response. Sadly, the same underlying mistakes continue to be made, fear persists and the same problems re-surface later. The problems are inherent in the system. The principle of 'no shame no blame' is supposed to underlie professional and institutional practice. Who is listening? Wilshire Policing Services & Justice System: Did you now that there is a modern system of 'Summary Justice', supposedly an improvement on Judge Jefferies? Did you know that the allegedly guilty and the vulnerable and gullible; (including those with learning difficulties and mental health problems) are being energetically encouraged, by Police and even the person's own Defence Solicitor, to plead guilty to charges for crimes they have been accused of, even if they argued and can show they were not directly implicated. This is particularly unjust in the case of crimes which the person had previously insisted & demonstrated they did not commit and even where they had credible witnesses to the effect that they had not and could not, commit the crime. The argument is that the Magistrate, Court, Judge, or potential Jury, is likely to see them as guilty and they would not be 'credible' in their own defence (police & solicitors often unlawfully use the person's previous history as pressure for pleading guilty). I can understand the intention but the resulting, progressive injustice is very worrying. There are few inducements to encourage 'a true defence'. The accused are told that, by pleading guilty they will get a less harsh sentence than if they plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty, justly or not. To make this worse, witnesses for the defence, in giving neutral witness statements to the police, are sometimes (if not often) ''tied in as 'witnesses for the prosecution', thereby disabling them to act as witnesses on behalf of a person's defence. Attempts to get this rectified are delayed and effectively 'disqualify' the defence witness. In my community network support role I have seen this kind of conduct and even found myself 'disabled' as a witness in this way, on 3 distinct occasions. In all these cases I had credible evidence of the developing miscarriage of justice, including my presence at the time of alleged offenses. In all cases there was a level of learning difficulty and serous mental health problems. In all cases they were accepted as guilty, in spite of attempts to intervene in defence. Defence solicitors defended their own actions and resisted any appeal. This arrangement contravenes the most basic Convention on Human Rights.; Don't antagonise the police! Wilshire Wheel Clamping & Towing Policy (Complete Story): You are probably aware of the new wave of wheel clamping & Towing episodes, affecting people who park for even for briefest periods (sometimes seconds and with the person next to the car). This practice has particular impact on people with low incomes, confused and distracted by distress, frailty, or disability. The companies involved provide inadequate notices & allow 'no' leeway of error. The practice is clearly punitive, rather than being used to discourage illegal parking & punish serious perpetrators. There is another semi-legal 'scam' that affects disabled & distressed people with low incomes in particular. There is a vehicle recovery and recycling company (currently un-named for legal reasons), contracted by Police in Wiltshire, and based in Devizes. They are contracted to collect and store cars that are abandoned, fail legal requirements or, more particularly, are recovered from stolen. In the case of stolen cars, these are recovered & stored for forensic investigation & evidence, at the police request. Wiltshire Police and Wiltshire Council (you) pay for this service to be provided and you, once more pay for it when you, or your insurance company, wish to collect the stolen (or accident damaged) car. This arrangement is loosely based upon Government Guidelines, to reduce the cost to the public purse, but the person's entitlement to have these charges waved, or recovered is not disclosed, or adequately enabled. Those who are least aware of their rights receive disadvantaged, prejudicial treatment. Again, this has the most punitive effect on those with the least income and is effectively 'prejudicial', unfair and disabling to the quality of life of people who 'need' a car for rural living, access to work, & hospital, etc.. People on low incomes are likely to only have 3rd Party, Fire & Theft insurance policies on the road. Sometimes these stolen cars were in their gardens driveways, awaiting repairs. The excuses used for this injustice are usually even more 'prejudicial' in content and indicative of more general, underlying institutional prejudices towards the poor and less attractively disabled. To make matters worse, when people do go to collect their cars, the Contractor invariably advises that the car is 'unfit' for removal, even when it is being towed, or in fact, legally drivable. This means that the contractor gets their Police, or Wiltshire Council fee, the storage charges for the duration of impounding (for the purpose of forensic investigation), sellable parts from breaking the car, plus a significant scrap value of the car. It is a scam and is not Transparent accounting, compounded by Police negligence is recognising the problem. The whole arrangement is abusive of peoples rights and is blatantly unjust. The use of some Scrap Dealers for receiving stolen vehicles, with inadequate documentations and lack of adequate proof of identity of the person 'scrapping', is vey serious. This means that there is a good chance your stolen car will not be found, having been scrapped before its time. Further more, these apparently small cases of 'petty deceit' and injustice, have a tendency to 'grow', as do the resentful reactions of those who are disadvantaged. We all pay a price of injustice in the end. These injustices are nearly always judged upon the value of an item stolen, rather than the practical and economic benefit to the original owner. These are just further, clear case of social bias, ones that will require copious time to challenge & rectify, because there is no basic, institutional will to ensure equitable, unbiased justice. Human Rights are again suppressed. Professional Issues that are on-going (with Local / Regional Effects):
To understand 'Critical Perspective', please follow this link: The Basis for Criticism Social Work, as a socially supportive professions, is suffering an indignant demise: Over a year ago, on this web site, I proposed that Social Work is in serious crisis. Well, I now have to report that, to all intent and purpose, it may no longer be 'Social Work' as we know it (certainly within the Shire Counties). The pressure is on and the Title of 'Social Work' has been almost completely incorporated into the roles of 'Community Policing' and 'Budgetary Control'. Who do social workers serve, supposedly in the clients interests? Well, that depends upon who is deciding. The opportunities and the professional will, to utilise the skills of Social Workers, to intervene to directly avert personal and family crises, has been severely constrained. The next tranche of service reorganisation will see this role reduced further; to one of crisis management & service 'claw back'. This is very much a 'Care Co-ordinator', or 'Care Manager' role. This is quite legitimate but can be a very limited Social Work Role, one which can be undertaken by any competent and skilled Health & Social Care Professional. Come on all Social Care Professionals, show what you are made of. There is room for some good 'social work' professionals in organising advanced 'socially therapeutic' styles of social care. We need to regain the Copyright of 'General Social Work Practice', which integrates social care and community work, providing the foundations for good, effective and empowering social work, in its original sense and purpose. Social work needs a role potential that will provide proper, independent social care advice and support in much the same way as our GP. There is even room for Social Work Consultants. Indeed, I am one. I have decided to stop encouraging the best of the Social & Community Care professionals to advance careers, through becoming 'Institutional' Social Workers. I now recommend that we advance our professional practices and build up a new, professionally independent 'Social Work' profession. Independent that is, of the 'Agents of State', which 'institutional' forms of social work have become (and if we are not careful, will increasingly become). Social work needs to address skilled consultative, socially therapeutic roles as well as the equally important 'Crisis Intervention' and 'Emergency Protection' roles. My discussions with Social Workers (and other Social Care and Health Professionals) indicate that many are experiencing increased levels of anger & aggression, with reduced cooperation from clients (or patients), families, carers, neighbours and voluntary organisations. I certainly meet these difficulties and hear these concerns, on a weekly basis. The frustrations and anger are increasing, along with a corresponding reduction in aspirations and hope. This is very worrying for us all. Some of this aggression is due to the personality of the individuals concerned and we have learned to live with this. Much of it is now directly related to the frustration and distress caused by incompetence and poor insight of your predecessors and colleagues, within your own and other professions and services. It is important to identify which is the case. Some of the anger is wholly justified and understandable. This energy needs to be given direction and positive effect. We ethically have to help this process. It is essential that we remain open to criticism and 'transparent' in the recognising the limitations of our resources, poor utilisation of them, delays in providing them and mistakes in using them. In protecting resources in the way that we have, we have made access to them almost impossible for the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, it is the social work profession that was engaged to facilitate access to the range of resources and it is they who are now increasing used to protect just those they retain. By this criticism, I don't mean just the failings of health and social care resources. The difficulties extend to policing, housing & accommodation, assessable benefits, tax refunds and exceptions, fuel supplements, transportation and accessibility, legal entitlements and justice, schooling & educational opportunities, and so on. A complex of community of resources that social work was designed to link together, engage, heal and repair, into a cohesive community service. By most vulnerable, I don't mean some pathetic, down trodden, disempowered, discriminated, homeless, sexually & physically abused, intellectually impaired, alternatively sexually orientated, objectified female, single parent, of a minority racial group, addicted to alcohol and heroine. They gave up a long time ago and no longer have the 'media image' which can generate the sympathy and countermand the prejudice they once encountered. I mean anyone who finds themselves unable to understand the complexities and demands of these various institutions (providing protective and supportive resources) too complex, demanding and frustrating to even contemplate accessing, or requesting. Someone who, at any point in time could be any of us, given enough distress and serialised rejection. Rejection and consequential deprivation, so that they may become 'victims', who at some later, narrow point in time, may meet the politically correct criteria for 'vulnerable and at risk'. | Please note that the presence of adverts does not constitute a recommendation.
If you are unhappy with any particular advert, please notify me: Terry@visitweb.org
EDITORIAL: Hypnosis can help!
Self Suggestion, or
Self-hypnosis. This is a very useful Site with lots of free Guidence: 'Hypnosis Downloads'
|
|
