to think that if those care workers had done what they did to NT kids rather than learning disabled adults the sentences would have been more severe?

[Greensleeves]

I watched the documentary about Winterbourne View and it was one of the saddest things I have ever seen. I think the sentences are a joke. Wayne Rogers in particular delighted in torturing powerless people who couldn't defend themselves.

I can't help wondering whether the sense of public outrage, and the severity of the sentences, would have been greater if the victims had not been SN adults?

and

(and what MrsDV said, yes)

Peachy I agree, I used to work in a different care home where I was physically attacked by one of the residents for six months. I never retaliated and I still looked forward to my work and I was proud that I was able to facilitate someone living a happy and successful life.

People who abuse anyone in a care home whether they are children, the elderly or people with disabilities are scum-fuck bullies, pardon my language.

... and if they were bored then they couldn't have been doing the job properly.

Part of that is surely facilitating the residents to undertake activities to pass time, to amuse and to help with their physical/mental needs. That would keep you occupied...

I have worked in rhe same special school fo nearly 20 years. I have noticed over the last few years a deterioration of the care for the children in care homes. It seems to be that too many are too young and haven't gone into the profession because they wanted to help and make a difference to the childrens lives. Years ago the staff had to have a qualification relating to the job. This no longer appears to be true, probably to save money. The younger staff members coming on a shift doesn't want to sit in and play or watch tv, with the children/young adults. The children are taken out every night mainly to shopping centers or somewhere like Stabucks, because that's what the carers want to do. The children come in too tired or over medicated because they staff find it easier at night.

I am a carer of vulnerable adults. They are elderly people with mental health problems.

If I treated them in any way like these vulnerable young adults were treated I would expect them to lock me up and throw away the key.

There is no way two years, which was the maximum sentence, is anywhere near enough. These were people in a position of power and they abused that power in a terrible way, day in day out.

Sorry miss a bit of, easier at night to medicate them to sleep.

Well it wasn't being televised or spoiling thousands of peoples' enjoyment so it was hardly very important was it ?

Cailin you said:

Certain situations appeal to the sadistic side that unfortunately the vast majority of people have.

Is that true? Where did you get this information? I'm incredulous.

My mother recorded that panorama show. She put it on for us to watch and after less than 15 minutes I covered my face and begged her to turn it off. I get a real, physical pain near my heart if I witness or imagine any form of abuse given to anyone or anything that is vulnerable.

I'm sorry, I just don't see foetuses (sp?) in the same way. They aren't feeling pain, confusion, suspicion, insecurity... they are completely unaware of anything at all when they are aborted. I support pro-choice.

As for the sentencing, because I didn't watch all of the programme I don't know how severe the abuse was but law is pretty complicated and there are recommended sentences which take into account both aggravating and mitigating factors and unfortunately sometimes they seem unduly lenient or harsh.

I definitely think a lot of it needs looking at, though, there are some mad sentences out there.

This thread has been horribly derailed with talks of termination. For me, the bottom line is, if you can terminate a pregnancy because you can't afford it or because you simply do not want to be mother, then you have to afford women the right to terminate a pregnancy when the foetus has a disability. Professionals cannot morally judge people's reasons and pick and choose what they feel is right. We either allow termination in all cases or we don't.

Back to the topic in hand....as a social work student, I have a great deal of interest in Winterbourne View case and I hope to work in an LD team when I qualify. I read the interim report and it's got some positive proposals, so I hope we will see some serious action sooner rather than later because at risk adults deserve to be protected. The sentences are far too short but I won't get into my opinions on the justice system except to say that there is rarely any real justice for the victims.

In fact crashdoll the rules ARE different for disabled foetuses, the cut off dates change and a disabled foetus can be terminated any time to term.

Sometimes that foetus faces a life of pain and I can understand the decision, but a massive shortage of support, and a correlation between disability and poverty (you can;t untangle those two in many cases), will always be a factor.

Calina I don't agree that there is a scheme to decrease the number of children born with Down's Syndrome, at all, and I think the onus is on you to prove that there is. Offering women the option of screening and aborting a fetus with DS is absolutely not the same as wanting them to abort the fetus.

The NHS offers women the morning after pill and abortions to prevent pregnancy after rape and to end pregnancies that have resulted from rape, does that mean that NHS wants women to abort fetuses conceived through rape?

Peachy I knew there was a later cut off date but I wasn't aware it was up to term. I assumed it was 24 weeks unless in seriously exceptional cases but I'm willking to be corrected.

I do understand what you're saying and from reading a couple of comments here about how parents fear for when their children are adults and need care, I'm aware this has an influence on decisions made. I still firmly believe women deserve the choice and while it may not be the decision that I make, I respect that other people may have to.

cocolepew tell me how these carers were able to prescribe medication which knocked out their clients/ service users? I don't believe for a minute that they mess with medication for their own ends. I've heard sentences like that before and I believed it until I worked in care myself. The rules and documentation of administering medication are very strict, as they should be. If service users are given medication which makes them drowsy, it's not the carers fault.

Incidentally when I worked in a respite home we had to call in agency staff to cover a night shift and I was not at all convinced she'd done much care work before. When I asked how long she'd been doing it she instantly said 'twelve months'. I was sceptical. She responded so fast, and didn't say 'a year' or 'mmm about 12 months' it was as though she trotted out a line that her employers had told her to say. Interestingly, our respite home wouldn't have anyone with less than 12 months experience looking after the service users...

She was asked to get a glass of Ribena for a service user. I was suspicious when I saw how dark it was so I tasted it. She'd poured neat ribena into the glass. I asked her to change a pad on a service user while I was in the next room with another service user and when I finished I came in to help finish up... and found her still looking at the pad and turning it this way and that way, glancing from pad to service user who chose that moment to have a pee directly on the bed because the agency staff hadn't bothered to put an inco sheet under before removing the soiled pad...

I'm pretty certain that some agencies at least are less than fussy about how much experience or what qualifications their staff have.

I worked for an agency supplying staff to a residential school for "challenging" children with autism. My training consisted of a film, about 15 minutes long, about the topic... I was also sent to do elderly care with no training whatsoever.

That was over a decade ago, but it seems nothing has improved.

(PS, I saw absolutely no hint or suggestion of abuse at the school. I was in fact very impressed with the caring attitude of the full-time staff. Though some of the paperwork was dodgy.)

OldLadyKnowsNothing I know someone who worked for Autism Initiatives who apparently received no training before he started working with them. My company didn't allow me to start working until I'd done at least 10 different courses (manual handling, safeguarding adults, medication administration etc) and a three day induction course.

MrsDeVere Fri 26-Oct-12 18:05:47

"What I object to is the way that as a pregnant woman I was expected to screen for it. There was a sodding obsession about it. I was questioned as to why I didnt want screening. i was booked in automatically for a nuchal fold scan. Even when I had said I didn't want one."

Same experience here, in fact I was pretty well made to feel irresponsible for not screening, as if that meant I cared less about my unborn child. As if the screening would somehow cure an undesirable condition and I was wilfully refusing to have that done.

Freaky, if a rape victim goes to the doctor, the doctor will not say "do you want to abort, are you sure you don't want to abort, why don't you want to abort? It's not a difficult process you know, have you opted out of abortion?" They might mention it, once, but there is no standard "abortion protocol" for rape victims and they are certainly not asked multiple times if they want an abortion or made to feel bad or irresponsible if they decide not to abort. The NHS makes abortion available, but it doesn't offer it to rape victims multiple times in a strenuous manner.

In contrast in this pregnancy and my last I've been asked at least 5 five times, each time, whether I want the DS screening, I've been asked why I don't want the screening and been told "it's not a difficult process" etc etc. Others on this thread have had a similar experience. So yes, I think it's fair to say that the NHS want you to have the screening with the understanding that once a positive is found 98% of people choose to abort. The testing doesn't prevent DS so it's not done as a preventative measure.

Cailin, so basically in a nutshell, you are accusing the NHS of steering women towards the screening and thus, towards a termination.

Yes crashdoll.

Yes,in my experience as well,I was booked in for screening despite saying I didnt want it.

MrsDevere

I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting I said that is offensive. Ok, horribly derailing was extreme but I feel very strongly about the the Winterbourne View situation and it stirs up very deep emotion in me.

I agree, people with disabilities are not only not valued but also systemically discriminated against. I don't think it's fair to assume that my view with regards to termination is related to how I personally treat people with disabilities. I work with people who experience barriers and I live with them. Just today I alerted a safeguarding issue regarding a lady who is being abused by her parents. I feel pretty bloody shit about the situation - useless and helpless. This has fuck all to do with whether OTHER people terminate pregnancies.

If my child were to be born with DS, I would want to know. Should it be pushed? Absolutely NOT. But I think it's a stretch to assume the NHS are trying to 'eliminate' people with DS.

Just to clarify, being forced for any unwanted test is categorically unacceptable but so is making big leaps.

So a few midwives encourage you to screen and that automatically means there's a systematic conspiracy in the NHS to encourage women to have an abortion and decrease the number of children born with Down's Syndrome?

I was offered screening, I had it explained to me, I declined and that was it. I'm also sure a lot of women have a similar experience to me.

So no, I am not convinced there is some massive secret conspiracy in the NHS, the onus is on YOU to prove that;
A) This happens with every woman who is pregnant.
B) Is not down to individual midwives who may be poorly trained or insensitive, but an actual NHS policy.
C) That it happens because the NHS wants to decrease the number of children born with Down's Syndrome.

As long as we push screening at women whether they want it or not with no real explanation as to why, we are setting the scene for 'these people are worthless'.

Offering women screening is not pushing it on women, whether they want it or not. It's also not done without real explanation, either, my pregnancy booklet has a detailed explanation as to why they offer the screening and it's given to every woman who is pregnant is my local area.

MrsDevere - What is the purpose of screening for DS? It is not life threatening in itself, it cannot be cured in utero, you cannot prepare someone for having a disabled child just by telling them a few months earlier.

Children with Down's Syndrome are more likely to have congenital heart defects and 15% of children will die before their 1st birthday - it is impossible to tell before a child is born how severely their health will be affected by Down's Syndrome. Some parents want to make an informed choice about whether they want to raise a child with Down's Syndrome, that's their decision to make and that's why people are offered screening. You are not obligated have to the screening.