Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Firstly, I was not asserting anything, but passing on a news item which I had read which was reporting on responsibilities of schools and local authorities, regarding children who disappear out of the school system.

But sorry to be unclear – state schools in England (I won’t answer for the other UK countries, as systems vary a bit) do not stand alone they are answerable to a local education authority (which is a part of the local government authority that deals will all local services) and then to the department of education.

It’s slightly complicated with the advent of academies and free schools (it would take somebody in the system at the moment to explain properly) but the end of the day the school is responsible to the authority up the chain. Who is answerable to the central government department of Education– these are what I meant by the authorities, shorthand for the higher up part of the chain that the school has to answer to. But basically a part of the same system.

You can of course report directly to the Local education department, about your child’s school movements (and in the case of home schooling you may have to) but most parents deal straight with their schools – and the school passes on the necessary information. But the education department will demand to know the details of your child’s schooling and what your intentions are and if they are not satisfied will take you to court.

I was, as I said, reporting something I had seen, I was not making any assertions myself. So if you don’t agree with what I said argue with the BBC. This was a news item saying that schools as the ones at the sharp end of the system the schools were to be vigilant and pass up the chain information about any unexpected non returning children.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
the very fact that a court order was necessary to achieve that result rather suggests that the legal situation was different before the court order!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
the very fact that a court order was necessary to achieve that result rather suggests that the legal situation was different before the court order!

---

It is precisely because the term consent (on the part of the hospital) has been used from the outset that I'm concerned. It illustrates a mindset that very possibly extends beyond the actual legal situation - if so, it tips the balance unlawfully in favour of the authorities.

---

quote:

---

Under section 46 of the Children Act 1989, where a police officer has reasonable cause to believe that a child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm, s/he may:

remove the child to suitable accommodation and keep him or her there; or
take reasonable steps to ensure that the child’s removal from any hospital, or other place in which the child is then being accommodated is prevented.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
latest news

The court has decided Ashya can be taken to Prague for treatment. The wardship order will be removed when he is admitted to the Prague hospital.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You might also find it instructive to read all the conditions and qualifications on that page, and more importantly in the legislation that it links to. Starting with the clear statements about informing the parents, that the police officer doesn't gain parental responsibility, and indeed the general lack of powers of the hospital itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
latest news

The court has decided Ashya can be taken to Prague for treatment. The wardship order will be removed when he is admitted to the Prague hospital.

---

What? But that's what the dangerous suspected criminals wanted!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
latest news

The court has decided Ashya can be taken to Prague for treatment. The wardship order will be removed when he is admitted to the Prague hospital.

---

What? But that's what the dangerous suspected criminals wanted!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You might also find it instructive to read all the conditions and qualifications on that page, and more importantly in the legislation that it links to. Starting with the clear statements about informing the parents, that the police officer doesn't gain parental responsibility, and indeed the general lack of powers of the hospital itself.

---

quote:

---

In such circumstances, the police should inform the child (if he or she appears competent to understand) and take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings.

---

quote:

---

An emergency protection order gives authority to remove a child, and places the child under the protection of the applicant.

---

quote:

---

43. If a constable removes a child under section 46 emergency powers, the child is deemed to be under police protection but neither the Designated Officer nor the Initiating Officer has parental responsibility for the child (see section 46(9)). However, the Designated Officer is responsible for doing what in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to safeguard or promote the child's welfare, having regard in particular to the length of the period during which the child will be under police protection. In practical terms, this may mean just the provision of food and shelter etc. In an emergency medical situation, the doctor would act in the patient's best interest without express consent, as technically the officer would be unable to consent on the child's behalf. Other non-urgent areas that a person with parental responsibility has to decide upon (bearing in mind the limited time-span of police protection) fall outside the officer's responsibility.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
Nothing on this page about informing parents.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

(4)As soon as is reasonably practicable after taking a child into police protection, the constable concerned shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to inform—

(a)the child’s parents;

(b)every person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; and

(c)any other person with whom the child was living immediately before being taken into police protection,

of the steps that he has taken under this section with respect to the child, the reasons for taking them and the further steps that may be taken with respect to him under this section.

...

(9)While a child is being kept in police protection—

(a)neither the constable concerned nor the designated officer shall have parental responsibility for him; but

(b)the designated officer shall do what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare (having regard in particular to the length of the period during which the child will be so protected).

(10)Where a child has been taken into police protection, the designated officer shall allow—

(a)the child’s parents;

(b)any person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for him;

(c)any person with whom the child was living immediately before he was taken into police protection;

(d)any person in whose favour a contact order is in force with respect to the child;

(e)any person who is allowed to have contact with the child by virtue of an order under section 34; and

(f)any person acting on behalf of any of those persons,

to have such contact (if any) with the child as, in the opinion of the designated officer, is both reasonable and in the child’s best interests.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I rather think that what it proves is that the parents weren't nuts for raising proton therapy as a treatment option in the first place. A few days ago the hospital was making public pronouncements about why there was no point to proton therapy.

Or have we forgotten that part?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
Nothing on this page about informing parents.

---

I said read the Act. Did you read the Act, or are you still relying on a summary supplied by someone else?

"This page" is not the law of the land. "This page", though, HAS LINKS to the law of the land. Instead of quoting me a paraphrase of section 46, how about you actually read section 46?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
Nothing on this page about informing parents.

---

I said read the Act. Did you read the Act, or are you still relying on a summary supplied by someone else?

"This page" is not the law of the land. "This page", though, HAS LINKS to the law of the land. Instead of quoting me a paraphrase of section 46, how about you actually read section 46?

---

This is the Act - Section 46 from which the information from the police guidance notes is taken. You read it. It shows clearly that the law of the land aims to protect children, if it is necessary, from the actions of their parents.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I rather think that what it proves is that the parents weren't nuts for raising proton therapy as a treatment option in the first place. A few days ago the hospital was making public pronouncements about why there was no point to proton therapy.

Or have we forgotten that part?

---

No, haven't forgotten-- but it doesn't change my point, nor does it prove the point you appear to be trying to make.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I rather think that what it proves is that the parents weren't nuts for raising proton therapy as a treatment option in the first place. A few days ago the hospital was making public pronouncements about why there was no point to proton therapy.

Or have we forgotten that part?

---

No, haven't forgotten-- but it doesn't change my point, nor does it prove the point you appear to be trying to make.

---

So, the parents WERE nuts for raising proton therapy as a treatment?

What does that make the judge for agreeing to it, over the Southampton doctors' continued objections?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Just criminally dangerous, then.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Just criminally dangerous, then.

---

I haven't seen anyone argue that either.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Current data do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend PBT in lung cancer, head and neck cancer, GI malignancies, and pediatric non-CNS malignancies.

---

quote:

---

a systematic review of published peer-reviewed literature reported previously and updated here is devoid of any clinical data demonstrating benefit in terms of survival, tumor control, or toxicity in comparison with best conventional treatment for any of the tumors so far treated including skull base and ocular tumors, prostate cancer and childhood malignancies.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I suspect, heart rending as it is, that the conclusion to not provide this therapy would be considered to be reasonable in this case after sifting through about 7 or 8 of these reviews.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The basis for the arrest warrant was not what was known, but rather what was unknown. It seems to me that in this case the law as it's been described here operated exactly as it was supposed to-- put the brakes on when there was a reasonable cause for concern, took the brakes off once those fears were relieved.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't issues arrest warrants as a means of enforcing a civil order!! You issue arrest warrants for criminal offences.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
The term 'consent' may be a way of referring to the usual process of discharge from hospital which requires medical staff to assess the patient's suitability for discharge and provide a 'discharge letter' which will be copied to the patient's GP. If doctors decide a patient is not fit for discharge but the patient insists on leaving then they are asked to sign a form to the effect that they are leaving against medical advice.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't issues arrest warrants as a means of enforcing a civil order!! You issue arrest warrants for criminal offences.

---

This is not true in the UK in all cases. You may want to look at how the mental health act works - and how recall to hospital works in the case of a community treatment order.

(To be fair, we were surprised when we discovered that NHS staff were expected to apply for a warrant.)

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Another article that resonates with me, because people have been citing various laws that are aimed at situations where parents are a threat to their child as if that makes any sense for a family that brought their sick child in for treatment and stayed at his bedside.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't issues arrest warrants as a means of enforcing a civil order!! You issue arrest warrants for criminal offences.

---

This is not true in the UK in all cases. You may want to look at how the mental health act works - and how recall to hospital works in the case of a community treatment order.

(To be fair, we were surprised when we discovered that NHS staff were expected to apply for a warrant.)

---

I'm looking at the Mental Health Act, and all that I can find about arresting people is in a part that is specifically about people involved in criminal proceedings.

If you are talking about powers to detain people, I fully accept that there are such powers in the Mental Health Act. But I cannot see anything that says these powers are exercised on an arrest warrant. Arrest warrants land you in jail not in hospital - in this case, a jail near Madrid.

Most of what I can find in that Act is about "an application for admission".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Arrest is a risk management process used in the course of investigation (and certain civil situations) it is not either charge or conviction.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't issues arrest warrants as a means of enforcing a civil order!! You issue arrest warrants for criminal offences.

---

This is not true in the UK in all cases. You may want to look at how the mental health act works - and how recall to hospital works in the case of a community treatment order.

(To be fair, we were surprised when we discovered that NHS staff were expected to apply for a warrant.)

---

I'm looking at the Mental Health Act, and all that I can find about arresting people is in a part that is specifically about people involved in criminal proceedings.

If you are talking about powers to detain people, I fully accept that there are such powers in the Mental Health Act. But I cannot see anything that says these powers are exercised on an arrest warrant. Arrest warrants land you in jail not in hospital - in this case, a jail near Madrid.

Most of what I can find in that Act is about "an application for admission".

---

Police can arrest you under section 136, to take you to a place of safety. "Sectioning" someone requires a warrant (AHPs have warrant cards). If you are recalled to hospital after the breach of the terms of a community treatment order, NHS staff have to apply for a warrant.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes, a risk management process - in the same way remand is a risk management process.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Arrest is a risk management process used in the course of investigation (and certain civil situations) it is not either charge or conviction.

---

You are going to have find for me something concrete that says it's permissible to say "you're under arrest" for anything other than a criminal investigation.

Risk management process? The right against unlawful imprisonment is one of the most fundamental rights in the entire system of English law (and hence most English-speaking countries). The Kings are suing for false imprisonment. I wouldn't dismiss their chances of success.

---

quote:

---

Whilst Section 136 does not use the term arrest, it is a preserved power of arrest under PACE and reasonable force may be used. Section 28 PACE requires an arrested person to be told that they are under arrest and the grounds for the arrest. Whilst a person detained under Section 136 is entitled to know that their liberty is being temporarily restricted, formally telling them that they are ‘under arrest’ may be counter-productive.

Therefore, the word arrest should be avoided, and instead the police officer should use tact and discretion in communicating to the person that they will have to come with police because of the officer’s concern for their well being, and that they have no choice in the matter. There is no requirement to caution a person detained under s.136 and this should not be done.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes, a risk management process - in the same way remand is a risk management process.

---

Oh wow. I'll have to take you on a visit round my jail some time and let you listen to some of the stories of people in there, awaiting trial (and thus presumed innocent), sometimes for years, and let you try that piece of semantics (Newspeak?) on them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Police can arrest you under section 136, to take you to a place of safety. "Sectioning" someone requires a warrant (AHPs have warrant cards). If you are recalled to hospital after the breach of the terms of a community treatment order, NHS staff have to apply for a warrant.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly.

Now, contrast that to having your name splashed across the media as being subject to an arrest warrant. And being taken to jail.

You might also take note of where a person detained under the Mental Health Act is required to be taken. I'll give you a clue: it's not a high-security prison, which is what happened to the Kings.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Police can arrest you under section 136, to take you to a place of safety. "Sectioning" someone requires a warrant (AHPs have warrant cards). If you are recalled to hospital after the breach of the terms of a community treatment order, NHS staff have to apply for a warrant.

---

Section 136 does not provide for arrest warrants. What it provides for are warrants to search for and remove patients. There is a huge difference.

---