Home Free (How The Misery Makers Of Social Services Twice Obstructed Mums Home-coming With A Live-in Carer).

I faced a terrifying prospect of guardianship over our lives. A hospital safeguarding warning, which is pretty much at the drop of a hat, sought “deprivation of liberties” no less. This suspicion of mother abuse, as baseless as it was base, and without exhoneration or apology, against an old man, they knew nothing of, who had no history or record of any offenses. Subjugating me would also subjugate my mother to state control. We would become wards of state without citizens rights.
Dilatory and doubting social services pressured me into giving-in to put Mum in a care home. She languished over one hundred days in hospitals. I had to commute by train to see her. The social worker said she was looking for a "placement," doubting my ability to cope at home, and not pursuing the live-in carer option, even when she answered her questions. Then saying she would have to look for care homes further afield. That is to say out of my reach, against which I protested. So I found a care home on the outskirts of town, for which "understanding" the social worker thanked me.
But it was another hospital environment, leaving Ella stuck in a chair from morning till night. (Private care home, with public hospital, harassed a visiting relative to supply their promiscuous laundry.)
Social services again blocked my mother from coming home with another live-in care agency. The social worker responsible was replaced by something of a cognitive twin. The social worker visited Ella to ascertain the wishes of the social worker.
I was manipulated. But when manipulation failed before the reality of Mums misery, compulsion followed, with misepresentation and manipulation of the reality of Mums wishes.
I am not criticising the undoubted inadequacies of care homes but the determination of social services to prevent my mother having live-in care, instead. Economics reduces care homes to patient parking zones. The staff may try to engage with their paying guests but are continually faced with attending to their basic needs. There have to be a lot of inmates to make the business pay, or wages are likely to be driven down. The care home manager (doing a real job) was on a different level to the social workers I had the misfortune to encounter.
Care homes are really on the hotel model, for active, not chair-bound, people. (I visited a brand new care home, and it reminded me of nothing so much as a plush hotel.) The chair is still the care homes basic utility. For many still active old people it is adequate. For the disabled, it can be a prehistoric instrument of torture, that needs replacing, in this scientific age, by more versatile equipment, fitted for the immobile, to prevent becoming living dummies, and able to exercise their restlessness, so they will not get seat sores.
I thought, in the old way, that people could check themselves out of hospital. Not so, with the care home, Ella was locked-in, like a safe deposit. It appears to be under-pinned by a sinister-sounding legality called "deprivation of liberties best interests", just another brick in the wall of the New Feudalism.
A live-in care agency says that 97% of people would prefer to stay at home, when needing care. A fact, towards which, social services have been strangely obtuse, in pursuing (We know) "best interests". This is not a reason, it is just social services asserting its dictatorship, thanks to politicians passion for autocratic administrative law.
While keeping a smile, Ella asked eloquently, amongst other things, why was she not allowed to go home? She was not a criminal. She hadn't done anything wrong. What are they doing this for? They do it because they can get away with it - Give themselves a job, I suppose.
The visiting masseur, she addressed, said Ella had compos mentis. She said: Don’t give up. But Ella would become too weak of mind and body. The social services sinecure was depriving her of all faith, hope and care.

"1133877449"
Home Free (How The Misery Makers Of Social Services Twice Obstructed Mums Home-coming With A Live-in Carer).

I faced a terrifying prospect of guardianship over our lives. A hospital safeguarding warning, which is pretty much at the drop of a hat, sought “deprivation of liberties” no less. This suspicion of mother abuse, as baseless as it was base, and without exhoneration or apology, against an old man, they knew nothing of, who had no history or record of any offenses. Subjugating me would also subjugate my mother to state control. We would become wards of state without citizens rights.
Dilatory and doubting social services pressured me into giving-in to put Mum in a care home. She languished over one hundred days in hospitals. I had to commute by train to see her. The social worker said she was looking for a "placement," doubting my ability to cope at home, and not pursuing the live-in carer option, even when she answered her questions. Then saying she would have to look for care homes further afield. That is to say out of my reach, against which I protested. So I found a care home on the outskirts of town, for which "understanding" the social worker thanked me.
But it was another hospital environment, leaving Ella stuck in a chair from morning till night. (Private care home, with public hospital, harassed a visiting relative to supply their promiscuous laundry.)
Social services again blocked my mother from coming home with another live-in care agency. The social worker responsible was replaced by something of a cognitive twin. The social worker visited Ella to ascertain the wishes of the social worker.
I was manipulated. But when manipulation failed before the reality of Mums misery, compulsion followed, with misepresentation and manipulation of the reality of Mums wishes.
I am not criticising the undoubted inadequacies of care homes but the determination of social services to prevent my mother having live-in care, instead. Economics reduces care homes to patient parking zones. The staff may try to engage with their paying guests but are continually faced with attending to their basic needs. There have to be a lot of inmates to make the business pay, or wages are likely to be driven down. The care home manager (doing a real job) was on a different level to the social workers I had the misfortune to encounter.
Care homes are really on the hotel model, for active, not chair-bound, people. (I visited a brand new care home, and it reminded me of nothing so much as a plush hotel.) The chair is still the care homes basic utility. For many still active old people it is adequate. For the disabled, it can be a prehistoric instrument of torture, that needs replacing, in this scientific age, by more versatile equipment, fitted for the immobile, to prevent becoming living dummies, and able to exercise their restlessness, so they will not get seat sores.
I thought, in the old way, that people could check themselves out of hospital. Not so, with the care home, Ella was locked-in, like a safe deposit. It appears to be under-pinned by a sinister-sounding legality called "deprivation of liberties best interests", just another brick in the wall of the New Feudalism.
A live-in care agency says that 97% of people would prefer to stay at home, when needing care. A fact, towards which, social services have been strangely obtuse, in pursuing (We know) "best interests". This is not a reason, it is just social services asserting its dictatorship, thanks to politicians passion for autocratic administrative law.
While keeping a smile, Ella asked eloquently, amongst other things, why was she not allowed to go home? She was not a criminal. She hadn't done anything wrong. What are they doing this for? They do it because they can get away with it - Give themselves a job, I suppose.
The visiting masseur, she addressed, said Ella had compos mentis. She said: Don’t give up. But Ella would become too weak of mind and body. The social services sinecure was depriving her of all faith, hope and care.

0.0 In Stock
Home Free (How The Misery Makers Of Social Services Twice Obstructed Mums Home-coming With A Live-in Carer).

Home Free (How The Misery Makers Of Social Services Twice Obstructed Mums Home-coming With A Live-in Carer).

by Richard Lung
Home Free (How The Misery Makers Of Social Services Twice Obstructed Mums Home-coming With A Live-in Carer).

Home Free (How The Misery Makers Of Social Services Twice Obstructed Mums Home-coming With A Live-in Carer).

by Richard Lung

eBook

FREE

Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
WANT A NOOK?  Explore Now

Related collections and offers

LEND ME® See Details

Overview

I faced a terrifying prospect of guardianship over our lives. A hospital safeguarding warning, which is pretty much at the drop of a hat, sought “deprivation of liberties” no less. This suspicion of mother abuse, as baseless as it was base, and without exhoneration or apology, against an old man, they knew nothing of, who had no history or record of any offenses. Subjugating me would also subjugate my mother to state control. We would become wards of state without citizens rights.
Dilatory and doubting social services pressured me into giving-in to put Mum in a care home. She languished over one hundred days in hospitals. I had to commute by train to see her. The social worker said she was looking for a "placement," doubting my ability to cope at home, and not pursuing the live-in carer option, even when she answered her questions. Then saying she would have to look for care homes further afield. That is to say out of my reach, against which I protested. So I found a care home on the outskirts of town, for which "understanding" the social worker thanked me.
But it was another hospital environment, leaving Ella stuck in a chair from morning till night. (Private care home, with public hospital, harassed a visiting relative to supply their promiscuous laundry.)
Social services again blocked my mother from coming home with another live-in care agency. The social worker responsible was replaced by something of a cognitive twin. The social worker visited Ella to ascertain the wishes of the social worker.
I was manipulated. But when manipulation failed before the reality of Mums misery, compulsion followed, with misepresentation and manipulation of the reality of Mums wishes.
I am not criticising the undoubted inadequacies of care homes but the determination of social services to prevent my mother having live-in care, instead. Economics reduces care homes to patient parking zones. The staff may try to engage with their paying guests but are continually faced with attending to their basic needs. There have to be a lot of inmates to make the business pay, or wages are likely to be driven down. The care home manager (doing a real job) was on a different level to the social workers I had the misfortune to encounter.
Care homes are really on the hotel model, for active, not chair-bound, people. (I visited a brand new care home, and it reminded me of nothing so much as a plush hotel.) The chair is still the care homes basic utility. For many still active old people it is adequate. For the disabled, it can be a prehistoric instrument of torture, that needs replacing, in this scientific age, by more versatile equipment, fitted for the immobile, to prevent becoming living dummies, and able to exercise their restlessness, so they will not get seat sores.
I thought, in the old way, that people could check themselves out of hospital. Not so, with the care home, Ella was locked-in, like a safe deposit. It appears to be under-pinned by a sinister-sounding legality called "deprivation of liberties best interests", just another brick in the wall of the New Feudalism.
A live-in care agency says that 97% of people would prefer to stay at home, when needing care. A fact, towards which, social services have been strangely obtuse, in pursuing (We know) "best interests". This is not a reason, it is just social services asserting its dictatorship, thanks to politicians passion for autocratic administrative law.
While keeping a smile, Ella asked eloquently, amongst other things, why was she not allowed to go home? She was not a criminal. She hadn't done anything wrong. What are they doing this for? They do it because they can get away with it - Give themselves a job, I suppose.
The visiting masseur, she addressed, said Ella had compos mentis. She said: Don’t give up. But Ella would become too weak of mind and body. The social services sinecure was depriving her of all faith, hope and care.


Product Details

BN ID: 2940163427772
Publisher: Richard Lung
Publication date: 12/22/2019
Sold by: Smashwords
Format: eBook
Sales rank: 195,396
File size: 1 MB

About the Author

My later years acknowledge the decisive benefit of the internet and the web in allowing me the possibility of publication, therefore giving the incentive to learn subjects to write about them.
I have been the author of the Democracy Science website since 1999. This combined scientific research with democratic reform.

While, from my youth, I acknowledge the intellectual debt that I owed a social science degree, while coming to radically disagree, even as a student, with its out-look and aims.

Whereas from middle age, I acknowledge how much I owed to the friendship of Dorothy Cowlin, largely the subject of my e-book, Dates and Dorothy. This is the second in a series of five books of my collected verse. Her letters to me, and my comments came out, in: Echoes of a Friend.....

Authors have played a big part in my life.
Years ago, two women independently asked me: Richard, don't you ever read anything but serious books?
But Dorothy was an author who influenced me personally, as well as from the written page. And that makes all the difference.

I have only become a book author myself, on retiring age, starting at stopping time!

From the B&N Reads Blog

Customer Reviews