Author Topic: Minister for Disabled People thinks an Adult labeled 'Vulnerable' should not get access to the HMCTS  (Read 8807 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Quote
Tobes.

The recycling centre can't just go around handing free computers to anyone who wants them.

... and I'm not suggesting for a minute that they should be either... BUT;

Quote
If the computers had asset numbers on them, they are most likely SBC or SCS computers being stored for recycling by an approved company.

If so, you've potentially exposed a far greater scandal - ANY SBC computer might (almost certainly WILL) contain information covered by the Data Protection Act. It should not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES find itself casually tossed in a publicly accessible bin in the municipal dump if that hard-drive has not been destroyed, whether or not a member of the public was attempting to take them without permission.

I don't buy the cover up of commercial waste argument either... But is it possible that there was an overreaction because someone was nearly caught out not disposing of potentially sensitive council/public data properly? The municipal dump is NOT a secure place to keep old PCs.

Quote
As daft it might sound, the items at the recycling are not abandoned or ownerless. As soon as they leave your car boot and hit the skip they become council property.

yup.

Quote
What happens if the council sell you an old computer or electrical item for a few quid and it causes an electrical fire and burns your house down.

That I understand - which is why I clearly stated -

Quote
Why isn't the council offsetting some of the cost of our council tax by a cursory sort-through of all non electrical items to re-sell back to other members of the public?

so -

Quote
I am sure that members of the public innocently attempt to take these items all the time. In the majority of cases, a member of staff will say 'Sorry sir you can't take that'. 'Why not?' 'Because it's council property sir'. 'Okay, sorry I didn't realise'. Misunderstanding resolved and no need to call the police.

Me thinks, Geoff ignored staff, protested or kicked off.

Entirely possible. If so, that reaction was reasonable and predictable. Geoff - did you lose your temper or argue the toss when they caught you - and were you attempting to take the components during and ordinary day / usual open hours down the tip?

(If not, calling the police and then having him arrested appears like a complete overreaction - and set in course a series of events which have exposed another worrying issue regarding vulnerable adults)

« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 11:34:19 PM by Tobes »
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
... People might find the following interesting... : http://www.which.co.uk/technology/computing/guides/recycling-computers/council-recycling-advice/
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Spunkymonkey

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
If so, you've actually exposed a far greater scandal - ANY SBC computer might (almost certainly WILL) contain information covered by the Data Protection Act. It should not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES find itself casually tossed in a publicly accessible bin in the municipal dump, whether or not a member of the public was attempting to take them without permission.

Perhaps they are SBC computers that have already been wiped by the IT department or had the hard drives removed. It is all speculation and looking for conspiracies where there aren't any.

The problem with allowing members of the public to buy non electrical items is - who sets the price? Do the workman set one price for you/me and another for their mates. Do they sell for one price, declare another and pocket the difference? Do they bypass the paperwork by selling for a ridiculously price and then claim a few free beers from the buyer in the pub later?

The prospect of selling items this way is open to abuse.

I can't remember the details but I am fairly certain that the bikes are refurbished and either given to or sold on behalf of charities.

SBC/SCS might make mistakes through incompetence but I believe they are generally honest.

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Quote
Perhaps they are SBC computers that have already been wiped by the IT department or had the hard drives removed


I sincerely hope so! Though wiping a disk isn't normally enough without specialist skills and software to render the data safe.

Quote
I can't remember the details but I am fairly certain that the bikes are refurbished and either given to or sold on behalf of charities.


And I am telling you I was told unambiguously by an SBC employee at the tip that the bikes were shifted on to a second hand shop in Rodbourne...  :-\ I'm struggling to think of a reason why he would have lied about that. I guess its possible he was new and was mistaken - but he seemed pretty sure of himself... All the bikes? Some of the bikes? Who knows.

Again, as a regular visitor to the tip, and seeing a number of potentially useful/valuable items (golf clubs, a dyson vacuum cleaners etc) taken out of the disposal piles and stacked against/inside the staff portacabin (rather than placed in a specific bin or storage area), I simply don't share your view that they're always sold or given to charities. I don't begrudge the council workers who might be making use of unwanted items - but it would be a sad indictment of double-standards if the same workers choose to assist criminalising someone who shares any magpie-like intentions to reuse something which might otherwise go into landfill...   :-\

Quote
The problem with allowing members of the public to buy non electrical items is - who sets the price? Do the workman set one price for you/me and another for their mates. Do they sell for one price, declare another and pocket the difference? Do they bypass the paperwork by selling for a ridiculously price and then claim a few free beers from the buyer in the pub later?


I don't see this as a problem at all - £2 per item to cover the cost of sorting it and the salary of the bloke selling them. Given that we're always being told (flagellated more like) about the importance of recycling things to offset the huge cost of landfill, every ton of material less sent there is nothing but pure profit to SBC.

SBC are crazy about PFIs, are they not? Well, here's one not requiring brain surgeon levels of imagination or intelligence - and which comes with precedence:

http://www.loros.co.uk/news/list-in-the-press/2015/03/26/loros-charity-shop-to-open-at-city-council-tip-to-sell-and-collect-recycled-items
Quote
People will be able to enjoy a spot of charity shopping on their trip to the tip when a new recycling centre opens in Leicester next month.

Leicester City Council has teamed up with LOROS to launch a 'Reuse shop' within its new household waste recycling centre at Gypsum Close, off Barkby Road.

The new centre is due to open on Wednesday, April 15 and LOROS will have its newest charity shop open and ready for business on site.

People using the new centre will also be able to donate any reusable items to the charity or shop for a second-hand bargain, with profits going to the charity.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Geoff

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25
  • Hello !


I am sure that members of the public innocently attempt to take these items all the time. In the majority of cases, a member of staff will say 'Sorry sir you can't take that'. 'Why not?' 'Because it's council property sir'. 'Okay, sorry I didn't realise'. Misunderstanding resolved and no need to call the police.

Me thinks, Geoff ignored staff, protested or kicked off.


Yes I saw the computer getting dumped at the barnfield site when I was dumping some soil. The computer (a high end SUN micro systems possibly for CAD) along with monitor and other office equipment was dumped from a van that was not an SBC van. After I had finished dumping my soil I went to take the computer. You would be correct that the staff saw me and stopped me, however the interaction was rather different that you suggest it may have been.
I was grabbed and shouted at "put that back it's mine" I said that I had just seen it getting put their and it was clearly not household waist due to the stickers.
The man rather larger than myself continued shouting at me and told me "it is household waist you don't know what you'r talking about just put it back and f**K off and don't come back".
The man let go of me and I put the computer back as I suspected that if I did not I could end up in hospital!

However in reply to part 3 of Tobe points; a couple of days later I returned on a 'stealth' mission in the early hours of Sunday morning, I would have to admit that this was not a good idea on my part. I had not thought about doing it before hand, if I had I would either have done it sooner or not at all. At the time I had regular insomnia and would often go for long walks in the night. While walking I thought it would be a good idea to go back to my house collect a screw driver and then go to Barfield and take out the parts of the computer I wanted. By the time I got to Barnfield it was starting to get light. I slid under the main gate and found it very easy as the bottom of the gate was 11 inches above the ground. I had not considered the possibility of CCTV, barnfield never had any CCTV notices but they did have CCTV and as it was getting light I was observed and the Police called.  As I say it was not planned or thought out in any way.

I believe that the Police should have been called and I believe that they should have arrested me.
I explained to the Police in detail how I had seen the computer getting delivered with the PAT stickers and asset number stickers still on the parts and described the interaction with the SBC staff when I tried to take the computer.
I am not happy that the Police and Rob Ross considered it irrelevant that the items I wanted to remove where not items of household waist, I was after all arrested on suspicion of theft.

I do have Issues with SBC, and Dr Popli, however the issues I have mentioned in my expanded explanations are purely provided to give a fuller context.

My over riding concern remains the fact that I was told by the Police and then confirmed by Rob Ross that "it is irrelevant that you signed the form waiving your right to legal representation because as a Vulnerable Adult your signature has no legal validity" ...."your appropriate Adult insists you have legal representation"..."you have no say in the matter"
I was also told by the Police that I am not allowed to sign any form or document if anyone asks me to I have to tell them that I am classified as a Vulnerable Adult. The Police also said "it is a criminal offence to ask someone known to be a vulnerable Adult to sign anything"

SBC keep sending me forms so complete and sign and I return them unsigned.
It should be obvious that not being permitted to sign anything is a serious problem. I have signed my debit card on the basis that I do not consider it to be a document or form.
I have signed my Driving Licence application (photo cards have to be re issued every 10 years) but notified the DVLA that I am classified as a Vulnerable Adult, the DVLA took two years to return my licence.
I have not signed anything for SBC and despite them knowing that I am classified as a Vulnerable Adult they keep telling be I have to sign it's a legal requirement.
Justin Tomlinson was provided with all this information when he was my local councillor.
Now he is my MP I have asked Mr Tomlinson many times to pass my complaint about the Courts refusing to accept any papers I submit on the basis that as a person with a mental disorder I am not permitted to submit anything to the court. He has refused my request and (despite never having assisted) says he is unable to be of any further assistance.
 
Logically if Mr Tomlinson was unhappy with the possibility that a person considered to have a Mental Disorder can denied access to the courts then he would not refuse to pass a complaint to the PHSO about the court service refusing to accept papers from someone because they are considered to have a mental disorder.

From his continued refusal to pass the complaint to the PHSO I conclude that the Minister for Disabled People thinks that anyone with a Mental Disorder should be refused access to the Court Service.

My primary goal in starting this post is to raise awareness that the likelihood is Mr Tomlinson is not fit for the position of Minister for Disabled People.   
The NAS inform me it campaigns for awareness and change but does not assist in individual cases, I do hope they will consider campaigning for a change of Minister for Disabled People.
I hope someone in the media does see my posts.
I know people say the law is an ass, my opinion is the people entrusted to enforce the law sometimes act like asses because they themself don't know the law.

I do not wish to stop any discussion on recycling but I did not intend to start one in this post. Please would it be possible to move the recycling issues to another post or start a post on the topic?

Offline Phil Chitty

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
  • Gender: Male
  • The user formerly ph1lc
[I am not happy that the Police and Rob Ross considered it irrelevant that the items I wanted to remove where not items of household waist, I was after all arrested on suspicion of theft.

I do have Issues with SBC, and Dr Popli, however the issues I have mentioned in my expanded explanations are purely provided to give a fuller context.

My over riding concern remains the fact that I was told by the Police and then confirmed by Rob Ross that "it is irrelevant that you signed the form waiving your right to legal representation because as a Vulnerable Adult your signature has no legal validity" ...."your appropriate Adult insists you have legal representation"..."you have no say in the matter"

Under Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act - Rob Ross is absolutely correct. If the appropriate adult says you need legal representation, then you have no say in the matter.

This Code is clearly designed to protect the vulnerable - I don't think anyone will disagree with it.

Had you actually removed any items? if not you clearly couldn't be arrested for theft, although there were other grounds for your arrest.


Offline Geoff

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25
  • Hello !
I have tried to understand PACE section C but having dyslexia find it very difficult to make sense of.
Clearly others have a different understanding of PACE; moley said on June 8 in reply to my topic "However, the final decision as to whether or not to actually see or talk to a legal representative rests with the detainee."
It does seem unlikely that Rob Ross would not understand PACE however Today Wiltshire Police Jane Dibble seems to be taking steps backward from what Swindon Police stated and Rob Ross confirmed.
She says
"Dear Mr Sparks,
 
Thank you for your recent email pertaining to an incident when you were arrested 11 years ago (02/02/2004) and taken to Westlea Police Station.
 
That you were deemed a Vulnerable Adult at the time would have been for the duration of your stay in Custody only, particularly related to any police interview and subsequent process, and would not relate to any other matters outside this environment.
 
As this relates to such a historic incident, the matter is considered to be closed.
 
Regards
 
Jane Dibble
Customer Services"

My reply:

"cc Swindon NAS
cc Rob Ross
cc Justin Tomlinson MP
cc Dawn Harrison SBC

Dear Jane Dibble
The information you have provided is contrary to what I was told by the custody officer whilst I was in custody. It is also contrary to latter information provided in writing by Swindon Police confirming that I am a Vulnerable Adult because I "admit to asperger's".
My condition as with other mental disorders is permanent non-variable condition. It therefore makes no sense to me to suggest as you seem to be that I am only a Vulnerable Adult whist I am in Police Custody.

Jane please could you confirm if you are saying what I think you are saying; that Despite Swindon Police having on record my diagnosis of Dyslexia and Asperger's Syndrome and despite the suspicion of Asperger's Syndrome having been the sole reason for my having been classified as a Vulnerable Adult, neither diagnosis despite being diagnosis's of permanent conditions could be considered reason to classify me as a Vulnerable Adult should I be arrested by Swindon Police in the future.

To clarify I do not understand what you are trying to say and the only explanation I have received from Swindon Police that I do understand despite my disagreeing with is that I am and always will be classified as a Vulnerable Adult. This explanation that I am and always will be a Vulnerable Adult based on me having Asperger's was also validated by the IPCC.

I have been provided with a great deal of conflicting information by the Authorities about the criteria for classifying a person as a Vulnerable Adult.

The information you have provided seems to indicate to me that the Swindon Police have no criteria for classifying a person as a Vulnerable Adult. I hope that I am wrong in this conclusion, and if so I hope that you can clarify the rational for assessing the same person with the same disorder(s) as both a Vulnerable Adult and not a Vulnerable Adult at different times?

You will note that despite PACE stating otherwise SBC have stated that an Appropriate adult is not permitted access to any custody records of the detainee that they are representing, SBC have declined to tell me who gave them that information they just state it is fact, I wonder if the Swindon Police told them?

I fully understand that the HMCTS (Court Service) is a separate Authority to any Police Authority including the Wiltshire Constabulary. However the HMCTS has refused to process any papers I submit to the Courts because they assume me to have a Mental Disorder.
The Minister for Disabled People does not agree with my argument that all Government accountable Authorities should adhere to the same criteria of what constitutes a Vulnerable Adult. I do not think it acceptable in a modern society that an individual can be denied a right to appeal against the refusal to let them represent themselves.

Finally I would very much appreciate your opinion on the position that SBC have taken that TV Licensing (Capita) are not permitted to request an Appropriate Adult be present when they interview me under PACE.

Yours sincerely
Geoff Sparks"

The code may be designed to protect the vulnerable However if the a person is only classified as vulnerable while in Police Custody and the classification takes no account of the mental capacity of the classified person then I would suggest the Police are abusing the the power to classify someone as a Vulnerable Adult.

Hypothetically; if Richard Branson was arrested and classified as a Vulnerable Adult Due to Mental Disorder (Dyslexia) resulting in him being refused access to his own legal team and instead being represented against his wish by a solicitor appointed by the Appropriate Adult that was appointed by the Police that arrested him. Would you be surprised if he was unhappy about it?

RE: Had you actually removed any items? if not you clearly couldn't be arrested for theft, although there were other grounds for your arrest.
I had removed items from their locations within the recycling centre but I had not left the centre. I was still in the recycling centre when I was arrested and I was most certainly arrested on suspicion of theft. I was never re-arrested however during interviews before Rob Ross and then Mr Hoskins arrived Police did accuse me of being a terrorist, the Police searched my house and found ten large 1.2 volt cylindrical cells strapped together to make a battery pack. The police conducting the search of my house thought the battery pack was a bomb! I never received any paper work relating to the search because it was all given to the Appropriate Adult. Mr Hoskins report contains no reference to the search of my house or any paperwork being given to him. Due to the time elapsed I have given up on anything seized by the Police during the search being returned to me.
Mr Hoskins SWIFT report states "Geoffrey was arrested at 06.41 re. going equipped to steal at Barnfield road tip."......"Throughout the interview Geoffrey was calm and articulate."
Clearly I dispute Mr Hoskins Account of the charge on which I was arrested. One of the few thing that is accurate in Mr Hoskins account is that I was clam and articulate.


 Given the fact that I presented to a witness as calm and articulate and given the fact that having Asperger's by definition I am of high mental function with an above average I.Q. I do not think it unreasonable to conclude that the Police assessment that I am incapable of representing myself was arrived at for the benefit of the Police rather than myself.

 

Offline Alex

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
  • Gender: Female
    • Alex Coppock-Bunce Hypnotherapy & Counselling
Geoff it sounds like Robert Buckland is just the man to clarify  this  for you as according to Wikipedia : "In January 2013, Buckland was awarded the Grassroot Diplomat Initiative Award under the Social Driver category for his extensive work on advocating awareness at parliament for children with special educational needs, including those with autism both locally and nationally.[9]".

I realise this is to do with younger people, but he is know to have interests in those with "special needs" and being Solicitor General, couldn't be better placed to assist.


Offline Geoff

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25
  • Hello !
Thanks Alex.
I did contact Robert Buckland on 08/06/2015.

"Dear Mr Buckland.

I understand that Due to strictly enforced parliamentary rules no MP is permitted to act for or on behalf of another MP's constituents.
I am writing to you NOT as an MP but as the Solicitor General.

My MP Justin Tomlinson has refused to pass my complaint about the HMCTS to the PHSO.
As I understand it the legal process for a complaint about the HMCTS refusing to accept papers from an individual on the basis of an assumed mental disorder is to submit the complaint to the PHSO via the individual's MP. However Mr Tomlinson is of the opinion that submitting a complaint to the PHSO is interfering with the legal process.

I wonder if you could discuss this matter with the Minister for Disabled People.
In the event that Mr Tomlinson remains of the opinion that a person assumed to have a mental disorder should not be granted access to the Court Service, Please could you submit my complaint to the PHSO? "

I await a reply from Mr Buckland but fear my request will 'fall on deaf ears'.

Offline Geoff

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25
  • Hello !
It is two weeks since I wrote to Robert Buckland but I have had no reply yet. This morning I delivered another copy by hand to the M.P.'s constituency office in Milton Road.
As I have already tried and been turned away from the CAB, the Law Centre, Community Legal Advice, Parks Advice Point, etc... etc... I have followed the instructions of the DWP and gone to SEQOL for advice. Unfortunately I was not surprised to be informed that SEQOL is unable to advise me on the rights of Adults classified by the Police as Vulnerable.
However with respect to the Court Service refusing to process any papers I submit SEQOL said they cant legally do that and suggested that I contact the Ombudsman. SEQOL did not however seem surprised I informed SEQOL the Ombudsman for the Court Service (HMCTS) is the Parliamentary and Health Secretary Ombudsman and that any complaint has to be submitted by an MP (I think they already knew that),  they did not seem surprised when I showed them I had already asked Justin Tomlinson to pass my complaint to the PHSO and he has refused.

I explain P.A.C.E.  would dictate that Richard Branson would be classified as a Vulnerable Adult because it only considers Mental Disorder without regard to Mental Capacity.
SEQOL said yes but the Police would not classify Richard Branson as a Vulnerable Adult and force him to be represented by an Appropriate Adult;-  I reply yes because he is famous and the Newspapers would listen If he wrote to them, the Police think no one will listen to me and they seem to be correct.

It has only recently been suggested that the statement by the Police " it is a criminal offence to ask someone known to be a vulnerable Adult to sign anything"  only relates to the Police.
i.e. anyone other than the Police can ask me to sign documents.
People may say (and have said) I am stupid, people may even be right, but way would the law be different for the Police than for other people?
It doesn't make sense to me to suggest that I can represent myself at all times other than when in Police custody.

I think that P.A.C.E. should only consider Mental Capacity when classifying an Adult as Vulnerable. Yet as it stands P.A.C.E. is only concerned with Mental Disorder regardless of nature or severity.
Unfortunately neither Justin Tomlinson or Robert Buckland agree with me in this respect.

Offline Geoff

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25
  • Hello !
On 29th June 2015 I have received the following reply from Mr Buckland. (still no reply from Mr Tomlinson My MP).

Dear Mr Sparks,

 

Thank you for your email regarding a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

 

Regardless of my Ministerial position, I am not permitted to act on behalf of another MP’s constituent. A complaint to the PHSO must be referred through your Member of Parliament.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Robert Buckland QC MP



Offline Geoff

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25
  • Hello !
30th June 2015 I have sent this.

Dear Justin Tomlinson MP, and Robert Buckland QC MP.
Wiltshire Law Centre, University of Kent & European Citizen Action Service, Liberty, CAB.

I do have two Questions;

Question 1.
Does my MP have a duty do acknowledge and respond to my request that he refer to the PHSO my complaint that HMCTS staff refuse to process any papers that I try to submit based on an assumption that I am Mentally Incapacitated or Mentally Disordered?

Question 2.
In the event that my MP either fails to acknowledge my request or rejects my request that he refer my complaint to the PHSO. Does the Prime Minister have the authority to refer my complaint to the PHSO?



Yours sincerely
Geoff Sparks