|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Who knows best - the state or the parents?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You seem to be confusing the arrest, with remand. The latter was a court decision made afterwards - I have no idea why a Spanish court chose to put them in a high security prison. That is in no way inherent in an arrest warrant.
Where would you take an arrested person, then?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You seem to be confusing the arrest, with remand. The latter was a court decision made afterwards - I have no idea why a Spanish court chose to put them in a high security prison. That is in no way inherent in an arrest warrant.
If the police in a given country arrest someone on the basis of an arrest warrant at the request of another state, the only place they can hold them is in a prison following a pretty short and highly regulated period in police remand. The Spanish police basically had no other option.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
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.
Also, people the police think might be patients. Like arrest generally, it is not the same thing as having established is
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You seem to be confusing the arrest, with remand. The latter was a court decision made afterwards - I have no idea why a Spanish court chose to put them in a high security prison. That is in no way inherent in an arrest warrant.
If the police in a given country arrest someone on the basis of an arrest warrant at the request of another state, the only place they can hold them is in a prison following a pretty short and highly regulated period in police remand. The Spanish police basically had no other option.
If they felt at the hearing that they were not a flight risk they could have bailed them to a specific address, and they certainly weren't required to put them in a high security facility.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well what do you think remand is for then ? How is it legally justified ?
Risk of violence or reoffence and risk of flight basically. That doesn't mean those decisions are always right.
Of course remand is part of a risk assessment process. But in my view, using the term here conceals and depersonalises what actually happens, completely unnecessarily.
How long before people are "detained as part of a risk assessment plan" because the state thinks they are being irresponsible in some way?
And by the way, no arrest could be performed in this case until there was a warrant issued by the CPS on the basis of a criminal charge, in this case child neglect.
I pretty much agree with that latest Guardian article linked to. I think the hospital vastly misrepresented the danger, convinced the police that massive action was required, the police rushed to the CPS who feverishly thumbed through the law book looking for the nearest charge that might possibly stick to have an excuse to issue the EAW. Which they originally justified as being "a way to talk to the parents".
It was an extremely blunt instrument and terms of how the family might have reacted (in view of how the hospital depicted them), perhaps not the best outcome of a risk assessment. I had visions of a mass suicide on the part of the hunted family as a result of the disproportionate response until I saw the first video from them.
[ 06. September 2014, 06:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You seem to be confusing the arrest, with remand. The latter was a court decision made afterwards - I have no idea why a Spanish court chose to put them in a high security prison. That is in no way inherent in an arrest warrant.
Where would you take an arrested person, then?
The court could have bailed them to a hotel in Malaga if it wished to do so. As they had a police guard for Aysha at the hospital, I am unclear why they didn't - in the circumstances the one thing you could be reasonably certain of, was that there parents were not going to leave without their son.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well what do you think remand is for then ? How is it legally justified ?
Risk of violence or reoffence and risk of flight basically. That doesn't mean those decisions are always right.
Of course remand is part of a risk assessment process. But in my view, using the term here conceals and depersonalises what actually happens, completely unnecessarily.
How long before people are "detained as part of a risk assessment plan" because the state thinks they are being irresponsible in some way?
And by the way, no arrest could be performed in this case until there was a warrant issued by the CPS on the basis of a criminal charge, in this case child neglect.
I pretty much agree with that latest Guardian article linked to. I think the hospital vastly misrepresented the danger, convinced the police that massive action was required, the police rushed to the CPS who feverishly thumbed through the law book looking for the nearest charge that might possibly stick to have an excuse to issue the EAW. Which they originally justified as being "a way to talk to the parents".
It was an extremely blunt instrument and terms of how the family might have reacted (in view of how the hospital depicted them), perhaps not the best outcome of a risk assessment. I had visions of a mass suicide on the part of the hunted family as a result of the disproportionate response until I saw the first video from them.
Do you not think the choking hazard was an acute risk ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Did you read the met guidance ? It is an arrest under the Police And Criminal Evidence Act.
I hadn't read that post when I posted mine. I read Section 136 itself, which nowhere makes any reference to arrest. The met guidance it seems to me to be translating section 136 into police language to help the officers understand what they should be doing in their own language. It is not a legal document. It does not cover everything. Legally Section 136 is not making provision for arrest.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The court could have bailed them to a hotel in Malaga if it wished to do so.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Advice: do not get arrested in continental Europe in a country with an inquisitorial system of justice if you are not a citizen of the country in question. Your first port of call, in all probability, is going to be jail. Possibly for a long time pre-trial.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If they felt at the hearing that they were not a flight risk they could have bailed them to a specific address, and they certainly weren't required to put them in a high security facility.
Again bail is something that is granted to people who have been charged with an offence.
On that specific point, if Spain is anything like France, bail would have been pretty much an absolute impossibility. They would have had to have proved existing residence at a local address. A hotel or similar accommodation would not be accepted for these purposes.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do you not think the choking hazard was an acute risk ?
Possibly. But I'm sure that if the child had choked in the hospital and medical staff had failed to save it, they would be throwing their hands up in horror at the idea that they might face criminal charges (well, no, they'd be putting out bland press releases).
I'm not saying the family made the right decision. I'm saying that the means brought to bear were disproportionate and could have been counter-productive. And on the basis of the hospital's language ("consent") and other available evidence (of course more can emerge, there's a lot we don't know), most of the blame for that disproportionality lies with the hospital.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Legally, it is an arrest.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Also, people the police think might be patients. Like arrest generally, it is not the same thing as having established is
Yes of course - but the point is patients or potential patients not offenders or potential offenders.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do you not think the choking hazard was an acute risk ?
Possibly. But I'm sure that if the child had choked in the hospital and medical staff had failed to save it, they would be throwing their hands up in horror at the idea that they might face criminal charges (well, no, they'd be putting out bland press releases).
.
Yes, but, the choking hazard was increased and the ability to manage it was decreased.
And medical staff can be charged with neglect, if for example, they failed to check the tube was fitted properly and he drowned from the food going into his lungs.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Also, people the police think might be patients. Like arrest generally, it is not the same thing as having established is
Yes of course - but the point is patients or potential patients not offenders or potential offenders.
The reason I raised this in the first place was to point out the police use arrest for none offenders.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
]The court could have bailed them to a hotel in Malaga if it wished to do so. As they had a police guard for Aysha at the hospital, I am unclear why they didn't - in the circumstances the one thing you could be reasonably certain of, was that there parents were not going to leave without their son.
The court was in Madrid. They would not bail them to an address in Malaga, even their own address. They would have needed proof of residency in Madrid.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The court could have bailed them to a hotel in Malaga if it wished to do so.
Advice: do not get arrested in continental Europe in a country with an inquisitorial system of justice if you are not a citizen of the country in question. Your first port of call, in all probability, is going to be jail. Possibly for a long time pre-trial.
So they can't do it or they don't chose to ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
According to this, they could have chosen to bail.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Legally, it is an arrest.
The book you have linked to is not law. It is a book talking about the law. A quick search suggests that "detention under section 136" might "constitute arrest for PACE purposes". That is not the same as saying that it is legally an arrest.
I believe that it is this kind of confusion that leads at least in part to the kind of events we are looking at here.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The reason I raised this in the first place was to point out the police use arrest for none offenders.
For people who subsequently prove to be non-offenders yes. Not just for random members of the public. There has to be grounds for suspicion. Otherwise they would have to pay out far too much in compensation for wrongful arrest!
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
According to this, they could have chosen to bail.
Of course there would be a hearing, if the individuals requested bail. The likelihood of this being granted for reasons already explained is minimal.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
*bangs head against wall*
I was trying to demonstrate to orfeo that arrest is used in civil matters in the UK, sometimes.
PACE is a law, it interacts with other laws.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
According to this, they could have chosen to bail.
Of course there would be a hearing, if the individuals requested bail. The likelihood of this being granted for reasons already explained is minimal.
In other words, it was a choice the court made, that was not inherent in the issuing an arrest warrant. These were exceptional circumstances, they could have done something exceptional - they chose not to.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
In other words, it was a choice the court made, that was not inherent in the issuing an arrest warrant. These were exceptional circumstances, they could have done something exceptional - they chose not to.
I really don't think blame can be laid on the Spanish legal system for this. They did not initiate the process.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
*bangs head against wall*
I was trying to demonstrate to orfeo that arrest is used in civil matters in the UK, sometimes.
PACE is a law, it interacts with other laws.
And the word arrest is used only as an approximation - it is not the proper word to use in these cases.
PACE uses the word arrest because it is the "Police and Criminal Evidence Act".
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
PACE defines what arrest is.
I am not sure there is any value in pursuing this tangent any further.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
In other news, BBC Breakfast reported that Aysha will go to the main hospital in Prague, for chemotherapy, after that he will receive proton therapy. He does not stop being a ward of court till after he gets to the proton therapy centre - so presumably they are trying to ensure he receives chemotherapy.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If they felt at the hearing that they were not a flight risk they could have bailed them to a specific address, and they certainly weren't required to put them in a high security facility.
Again bail is something that is granted to people who have been charged with an offence.
On that specific point, if Spain is anything like France, bail would have been pretty much an absolute impossibility. They would have had to have proved existing residence at a local address. A hotel or similar accommodation would not be accepted for these purposes.
IRRC don't they already have a residence in Spain ? They were intending to sell it.
[ 06. September 2014, 08:26: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
IRRC don't they already have a residence in Spain ? They were intending to sell it.
They have a residence in Malaga, not in Madrid.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
IRRC don't they already have a residence in Spain ? They were intending to sell it.
They have a residence in Malaga, not in Madrid.
Sorry that's not right. Their residence is not in Malaga either. They travelled on to Malaga knowing that there was a good children's hospital there, having discovered their holiday home surrounded by police. In any case too far from Madrid for the judge there to consider it a local address.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Don't know about Spain, but in the uk you can be released on bail, without a specific requirement to live in any given place, just report into a specific police desk at specific intervals.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Don't know about Spain, but in the uk you can be released on bail, without a specific requirement to live in any given place, just report into a specific police desk at specific intervals.
My knowledge is of the French criminal justice system not the Spanish one, but I would imagine they are similar.
In France, while in theory a relase on bail is possible, this will decrease to approximately zero if you are a foreign national even if you are a long-term resident in France, because the judge will deem you a flight risk by virtue of your nationality. I spend not inconsiderable amounts of time explaining this to confused and shell-shocked foreign inmates on remand at the prison I'm chaplain at.
As I say, try not to get arrested, still less charged over here.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Yeah, I imagine you are less of flight risk if your seriously ill child is under police guard in a local hospital though.
Returning to the point that placing the parents in a maximum security prison for days was not an inherent consequence of seeking to arrest them. That was choice made in Spain by the local judge.
[ 06. September 2014, 13:34: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Maybe they take the European Arrest Warrant seriously - assuming that it won't be issued by police in any other country unless the situation is very serious? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Yes, but, they (the Spanish authorities) had the child under guard in a hospital - that changes the flight risk - you don't need a degree in human psychology to work that out. The judge did not need to make some massive leap of imagination.
They could no longer be actively neglecting the child if they didn't have custody, they couldn't take the child and leave if the child was guarded, and if it was believed that they acted - however misguidedly - out of a desperate desire to help their child and be with him - they were unlikely to bugger off leaving him in Malaga.
[ 06. September 2014, 14:07: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
]If they felt at the hearing that they were not a flight risk they could have bailed them to a specific address, and they certainly weren't required to put them in a high security facility.
But of course in this particular case, "are they a flight risk?" is sorta begging the question, isn't it? If the concerns had turned out to be accurate/true, they very much would have been a flight risk. It is only because we now know they were not accurate/true that we know they are not a flight risk.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Not really, see my post above.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Not really, see my post above.
Dang Pacific Standard Time. I'm always jumping into the conversation that's been going on for hours, trying to catch up before I've heard all the comments. Then by the time I've finished reading all the comments it's too late to delete/edit. Sorry.
[ 06. September 2014, 14:45: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yeah, I imagine you are less of flight risk if your seriously ill child is under police guard in a local hospital though.
Returning to the point that placing the parents in a maximum security prison for days was not an inherent consequence of seeking to arrest them. That was choice made in Spain by the local judge.
Have you ever had to try and actually explain something to an investigating magistrate after being arrested and charged? In my experience they will usually think "foreign = flight risk out of my jurisdiction = better safe than sorry = put them in prison while I investigate more". Their mind is made up.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
PACE defines what arrest is.
I am not sure there is any value in pursuing this tangent any further.
More accurately, removal to a place of safety under s136 of the MHA is not one of the powers abolished by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section 26 states: quote:
26 Repeal of statutory powers of arrest without warrant or order.
(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, so much of any Act (including a local Act) passed before this Act as enables a constable—
(a)to arrest a person for an offence without a warrant; or
(b)to arrest a person otherwise than for an offence without a warrant or an order of a court,shall cease to have effect.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) above affects the enactments specified in Schedule 2 to this Act. [The schedule is headed 'Preserved Powers of Arrest', although not all the powers preserved are powers to arrest per se]
It's rather over interpreting it to say that PACE defines that removal as an arrest. Code of practice C (PDF) to PACE distinguishes between criminal arrest and mental health detention thus: quote:
1.10 Subject to paragraph 1.12, this Code applies to people in custody at police stations in England and Wales, whether or not they have been arrested, and to those removed to a police station as a place of safety under the Mental Health Act 1983, sections 135 and 136, as a last resort (see paragraph 3.16).
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
But the MHA doesn't affect anyone who is only receiving treatment for physical conditions?
If we are all under the powers of the MHA as soon as we enter hospital of treatment, heaven help us.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sorry, but I don't see how it's possible to say the proton therapy doesn't meet a standard of reasonable care. The highest the argument of Southampton doctors has ever been is "it'll cost more, and it won't be any better".
If it's not their money, then the cost is no longer their business. If it's not any better, then it's just as good as their idea.
If they actually had any basis for saying that it would be worse then I'm sure they would have said so. We've now even had a court hearing with a judge allowing the proton therapy treatment. No-one, anywhere, has popped up to say that it's a quack treatment.
"Quack treatment" is overstated. Consider, if the proton treatment is ineffective, i.e., the data do not support its use, then using it is not sensible. I don't think the data support its use. The key issue is whether the doctors actually can offer some treatment that is better than an ineffective and expensive treatment (possibly placebo) and have reasonable data to show that their approach is more likely to be effective. In that situation, I see them as completely justified in asserting their course of treatment. If this is merely a disagreement about two ineffective modes of treatment, a preference and a belief basis only on the parental and physician sides, then the docs are justified in saying no to the funding and letting the parents pursue whatever they wish.
A judge allowing proton therapy is not the same as saying it is effective. Judges may or may not know science, they make decisions based on information presented to them, and are good at appraising argumentation, which is not at all what science it.
Treatments need to meet a science base, not a persuasive or belief basis, and a court is not the place to determine science. -- I review funding requests for a public insurer for novel treatments, and it matters not that a court (or often in our case a politician) believes something will work. Like "medical marijuana". You have to go with data. We had the interesting situation of a court ordering that a patient could have a non-evidence based treatment funded, but no-one would provide it, in that case surgery. This was the only reasonable decision medical people could make.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re arrest.
We have those in criminal proceedings in Canada. But arrest can also be made if a person is likely to harm themselves or someone else under the Mental Health Act. Police do arrest and escort to hospital under restraint for involuntary examination, and the person can be help for 15 days and then extended if certfied. Further, the person can be placed for medical or psychiartric reasons on a CTO (community treatment order) that requires them to attend for treatment of be arrested and again escorted.
With children, is is called "apprehension". We also have court orders that restrain conduct in certain matters "restraining orders". And we have have in Canadian Criminal Code, section 810 orders which provide for equivalent to parole for people who've not committed offences but might.
Although my information is Canadian, it appears that the UK proceeds in very similar ways, using different named processes.
All of these can be misused, and there is ultimately recourse to courts, but that's not at all how it goes. These are supposed to be cooperative efforts in legitimate situations of difficulty. In the SH situation, the key issue is the nature of relationship and its breakdown between parents and hospital.
[ 06. September 2014, 17:24: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
But the MHA doesn't affect anyone who is only receiving treatment for physical conditions?
If we are all under the powers of the MHA as soon as we enter hospital of treatment, heaven help us.
Yes, I was responding to Orfeo stating that the police only arrest in criminal cases - not asserting that the MHA applies to physical health.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
PACE defines what arrest is.
I am not sure there is any value in pursuing this tangent any further.
More accurately, removal to a place of safety under s136 of the MHA is not one of the powers abolished by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section 26 states: quote:
26 Repeal of statutory powers of arrest without warrant or order.
(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, so much of any Act (including a local Act) passed before this Act as enables a constable—
(a)to arrest a person for an offence without a warrant; or
(b)to arrest a person otherwise than for an offence without a warrant or an order of a court,shall cease to have effect.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) above affects the enactments specified in Schedule 2 to this Act. [The schedule is headed 'Preserved Powers of Arrest', although not all the powers preserved are powers to arrest per se]
It's rather over interpreting it to say that PACE defines that removal as an arrest. Code of practice C (PDF) to PACE distinguishes between criminal arrest and mental health detention thus: quote:
1.10 Subject to paragraph 1.12, this Code applies to people in custody at police stations in England and Wales, whether or not they have been arrested, and to those removed to a police station as a place of safety under the Mental Health Act 1983, sections 135 and 136, as a last resort (see paragraph 3.16).
Thank You. I was thinking of doing this research myself, but hadn't got around to it yet.
Why am I not surprised. My spidey senses were tingling in exactly this way, that the other Act said something like "this does not cover the Mental Health Act powers", and this is treated by people as "oh look, it says something about the Mental Health Act powers".
[ 06. September 2014, 22:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: For the precise reason that nothing in the Mental Health Act needs another Act to help it operate.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And if the police actually believe that the PACE Act does apply, then not telling a person they were under arrest would be flat out unlawful: section 28. A piece of Metropolitan Police advice saying 'best not to tell them' is hardly a substitute for the law of the land.
Section 26 clearly says that it is repealing various other Acts that provide arrest for offences. Almost everything in the PACE Act is about how to handle matters relating to offences. In other words, criminal matters.
To take a single word of a single heading of a single Schedule that's basically a list of things the PACE Act is not covering, including things that are clearly not offences and so which subsection 26(1) wouldn't override anyway, as establishing that something in another Act is an arrest is just foolish. Subsection 26(2) exists from an abundance of caution, that is all.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And I will refer you to this legal text book again.
The reasons it actually matters that it is technically an arrest, are the legal safeguards around an arrest and because by buggering up people's DBS checks it undermines their employability which is in nobody's long term interest.
I note people who believe this is an arrest include the metropolitan police, the care quality commission, the major mental health charities who advocate for service-users such as Sane, MIND and ReThink, every mental health professional I've met including those with specialist training on the Mental Health Act, and a number of service-users who have been quite upset about this fact. (Which is why many people, including the CQC and its predecessor organisation, want the law changed so it is not an arrest.)
And here someone's explanation of why a caution is not necessarily given.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) is quite careful to distinguish between arrest (i.e the act of apprehension) and a consequence which usually flows from it, namely detention. In common parlance (even in legal textbooks) this distinction is often not needful, and is not observed.
In most respects, any detention is treated under PACE as if it were an arrest, and Code of Practice C applies, though the code itself is careful to distinguish between arrest with its criminal connotations and detention under the Mental Health Act, as is, e.g., this jointly produced report.
Neither arrests nor MHA detentions show up on a standard DBS Disclosure, but either may show up on an Enhanced Disclosure which may show quote:
any additional information held by local police that’s reasonably considered relevant to the workforce being applied for
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Tsk hit Post instead of Preview.
I was going to say that I note the in their report Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2012/13 the CQC say the quote:
power, under section 136 of the Act, is technically a form of arrest
(their only use of the word 'arrest' in the report). They would be more accurate to say that the power to detain is treated as an arrest under PACE.
The whole area is a linguistic/semantic minefield with common usage (which doesn't always distinguish between (e.g.) arrest and detention) differing at times from technical legal usage which makes some very fine distinctions.
[ 07. September 2014, 16:23: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
