Dangerous criminal!

[Nearly Sane]

Ok,  I am struggling with this, there may be something we are not being presented with but not sure what that could be


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/14/grandmother-71-sent-to-top-security-jail-after-refusing-councils/

[Owlswing]

Ok,  I am struggling with this, there may be something we are not being presented with but not sure what that could be


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/14/grandmother-71-sent-to-top-security-jail-after-refusing-councils/

Court of Protection created by Tony Blair's government in 2005/2007 as part of the Mental Health Act and unless it actually imprisons someone, as in this cade, all the cases it hears are heard in secret as are its judgments on those cases.

Justice must be done and seen to be done? In this case I hardly think so!

[Hope]

Wasn't there a similar judgement made on the parents of the little boy with a brain tumour [?] when they took him from a Bristol hospital to a hospital in Spain (iirc), because they wanted some sort of curring edge treatment which wasn't available in the UK at the time - Proton something or other

[Harrowby Hall]

Two things disturb me about this.

One is that the elderly man may well be a Portuguese citizen and be exercising his rights as such but Devon County Council seem to think that they can override his citizenship.

The second is that this isn't justice at work but bullying. I'm tempted to suggest that the judge should be sacked.

[Nearly Sane]

Wasn't there a similar judgement made on the parents of the little boy with a brain tumour [?] when they took him from a Bristol hospital to a hospital in Spain (iirc), because they wanted some sort of curring edge treatment which wasn't available in the UK at the time - Proton something or other

The details in terms of treatment don't seem the same to me. Can you outline the similarity?

[Hope]

The details in terms of treatment don't seem the same to me. Can you outline the similarity?

I'm dredging thoughts from the recesses of my memory here, so I may be wrong - but as far as I'm aware, the parents were jailed for failing to protect their child in the way that a UK court deemed approriate - though whether it was a Court of Protection case or not I have no idea (without looking the case up).  Isn't that why the elderly lady was convicted?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm dredging thoughts from the recesses of my memory here, so I may be wrong - but as far as I'm aware, the parents were jailed for failing to protect their child in the way that a UK court deemed approriate - though whether it was a Court of Protection case or not I have no idea (without looking the case up).  Isn't that why the elderly lady was convicted?

Don't know, your statement, justify it.

[floo]

Ok,  I am struggling with this, there may be something we are not being presented with but not sure what that could be


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/14/grandmother-71-sent-to-top-security-jail-after-refusing-councils/

On the face of it, if all that is correctly reported, it seems totally crazy to imprison the woman, let alone put her in a top security one.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Court of Protection created by Tony Blair's government in 2005/2007 as part of the Mental Health Act and unless it actually imprisons someone, as in this cade, all the cases it hears are heard in secret as are its judgments on those cases.

Justice must be done and seen to be done? In this case I hardly think so!

You are factually incorrect there, the Court of Protection existed long before Tony Blair, it was his government that changed the rules so that some of their cases were made public. The Court if Protection is mentioned within the sixties film "The Ruling Class", a court official examining Peter O'Toole's character informs him that the Victorian term "Master in Lunacy" was obsolete (A High Court "Master" is a junior judge, who hears applications in court cases before, and after judgement, eg more time to serve a defence, or arguing about the amounts of litigation costs).

[Owlswing]

You are factually incorrect there, the Court of Protection existed long before Tony Blair, it was his government that changed the rules so that some of their cases were made public. The Court if Protection is mentioned within the sixties film "The Ruling Class", a court official examining Peter O'Toole's character informs him that the Victorian term "Master in Lunacy" was obsolete (A High Court "Master" is a junior judge, who hears applications in court cases before, and after judgement, eg more time to serve a defence, or arguing about the amounts of litigation costs).

From Wikipedia

The Court of Protection in English law is a superior court of record created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It has jurisdiction over the property, financial affairs and personal welfare of people who it claims lack mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

The Court of Protection has been called the United Kingdom's "most secret court" as the cases are typically closed to the public.

But then again, of course, I had forgotten that the Labour party, regardless of how far Left it leans, can do no wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

The wiki article only covers the new Court of Protection.



https://www.cop-solicitors.co.uk/news/the-court-of-protection-a-history/

[Owlswing]

The wiki article only covers the new Court of Protection.



https://www.cop-solicitors.co.uk/news/the-court-of-protection-a-history/

It still states that te Court of Protection as it is now constituted, under which the old lady was jailed, started in 2007


To answer these questions, we need to look at the history of the Court of Protection and the changes it has undergone in recent years. The Court of Protection as we now know it was created in 2007. It does however continue the much more established “…inherent jurisdiction of the Crown to manage the property and affairs of persons who lack capacity

Like I said - anything to whitewash the Labour party.

[Nearly Sane]

It still states that te Court of Protection as it is now constituted, under which the old lady was jailed, started in 2007


To answer these questions, we need to look at the history of the Court of Protection and the changes it has undergone in recent years. The Court of Protection as we now know it was created in 2007. It does however continue the much more established “…inherent jurisdiction of the Crown to manage the property and affairs of persons who lack capacity

Like I said - anything to whitewash the Labour party.

Who has said anything about whitewashing the Labour party?

[Hope]

Like I said - anything to whitewash the Labour party.

In what way does this article whitewash the Labour Party, Owl?  If anything it would seem to suggest that it clarified (without changing) the legislation that covered this area of law, which would seem to be a positive attitude to that party.

[Owlswing]

In what way does this article whitewash the Labour Party, Owl?  If anything it would seem to suggest that it clarified (without
changing) the legislation that covered this area of law, which would seem to be a positive attitude to that party.

Anyone reding anything remotely related to politics on this forum, whether on the Politics and Current affirs topic or not, cannot fail to observe the, at least, 45˚ lean to the left of just about every post and the level od invective and abuse attached to any refernce to the Tories.

Mote beam eyes!   

[Nearly Sane]

Anyone reding anything remotely related to politics on this forum, whether on the Politics and Current affirs topic or not, cannot fail to observe the, at least, 45˚ lean to the left of just about every post and the level od invective and abuse attached to any refernce to the Tories.

Mote beam eyes!   

Since I merely posted a factual article and am not a Labour supporter now, nor in 2005, what do you base your position that I was attempting to whitewash the Labour Party on?

[Hope]

Anyone reding anything remotely related to politics on this forum, whether on the Politics and Current affirs topic or not, cannot fail to observe the, at least, 45˚ lean to the left of just about every post and the level od invective and abuse attached to any refernce to the Tories.

Mote beam eyes!   

And what relevance does this post have to the post I wrote and which you quote at the head of this post?

[Owlswing]

Since I merely posted a factual article and am not a Labour supporter now, nor in 2005, what do you base your position that I was attempting to whitewash the Labour Party on?

And I quoted the article from which I took the information that you were denying as fact.

If you so wish I will remove all my comments on the subject but I stand by what I quoted.

[Owlswing]

And what relevance does this post have to the post I wrote and which you quote at the head of this post?

Because by backdating of the legislation it absolved the Labour government of 2007 of resposibility for crating this horrendous Court that operates in almost total secrecy!

Whatever happened to "justice must be done and be seen to be done!"

[Nearly Sane]

And I quoted the article from which I took the information that you were denying as fact.

If you so wish I will remove all my comments on the subject but I stand by what I quoted.

No, I wasn't denying that the new Court of Protection came about in 2007. Indeed I stated that to be the case. So back to the question of what your justification is about the whitewashing Labour comments, are you admitting that you were wrong on that?

[Owlswing]

No, I wasn't denying that the new Court of Protection came about in 2007. Indeed I stated that to be the case. So back to the question of what your justification is about the whitewashing Labour comments, are you admitting that you were wrong on that?

Take a look at #8 - I consider that trying to backdate the Court of Protection to the Court of Lunacy or whatever it was called, I can't find the relevant entry again, to be trying to blame someone, anyone, other than Blair for the stabishment of a Court to work in secrecy and therefore to be unaccountable to anyone except, presumably, the government of the day - Labour at the time.

https://www.leighday.co.uk/FAQs/The-Court-of-Protection-and-the-Office-of-the-Publ

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the new Court of Protection

On 1st October 2007, part 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was repealed, and the office of the Supreme Court ceased to exist. At the same time the new Court of Protection was created to continue to safeguard the affairs of vulnerable people.

The jurisdiction of the new Court of Protection is wider than its predecessor.  The old court dealt exclusively with financial matters. The new court also deals with health and personal welfare. It has the same power in relation to health and welfare decisions as the High Court.

Like i said I am withdrawing as the majority on here will hear nothing negative about the Labour party, but I am not changing my opinion on this matter, but I know when I am on a hiding to nothing - I may be many things, a masochist is not one of them.

Oh - and no I am NOT a tory! I totally distrust ALL politicians of all parties. I have never said that any politician is two-faced - in my opinion they all have more faces than the town-hall clock and that has four!

[jeremyp]

Ok,  I am struggling with this, there may be something we are not being presented with but not sure what that could be

I think the implication is that the woman who was sent to prison took advantage of the man's vulnerability, to sell his house for her own gain and then packed him off to Portugal to get him out of the way.

At least, that's the only way I can explain the turn of events.