Just unbelievable that things could go so wrong

[Dustinthewind]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17366756

I can understand the panic, but to treat him like an animal? Cuffed, caged and terrified?

I don't wanna click on that link do I?

I know it's just awful. Weird how the most vulnerable in society are treated as if they are dangerous.

Horrifying. Such ignorance.

That is exactly the sort of thing DS would do. I'm disgusted the police won't apologise.

Aarrgh I don't know

Gut instinct is to say 'awful awful'. But then I think to the case reported last week, of a man who had accidently fallen in to a pond, possibly having had a fit. Firemen and police officers allowed him to drown because they were not 'level 2 water trained.'

If this man had drowned, wouldn't we have been asking why someone didn't do something anything to help a vulnerable man who was known to have no sense of danger and unable to swim?

I can see that the restraint took things to a new level, and to be left alone in a van, horrifying. But, then, I wonder, if he was unable to communicate verbally, if he was displaying his distress to an extent that could conceivably cause him or others harm?

I'm not justifying anything. Just thinking...

A fully clothed man who is distressed and agitated, chest deep in water, flailing around - the potential there is not only to drown himself but to drown the people trying to 'save' him.

I don't know. If that was DD1, would I be upset with them? Yes. Would I be more upset if she'd drowned and they hadn't intervened? Certainly.

"The force was refused permission to appeal, although counsel for the Met Commissioner said the application would be pursued directly with the Court of Appeal."

I don't get this. They've been told they can't appeal but are applying to anyway?

It was on five live all morning. They had a phone in with serving police officers and parents of autistic children. The police officers were getting a grilling, rightly so.

"Most appeals to the Court of Appeal require permission to bring the appeal. The lower court may grant permission, but this is unusual - it is a way of saying that the judge accepts the decision may not be right. More often, permission is refused and one has to apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. It is vital to initiate this process quickly. One has to lodge an "Appellant's Notice" within three weeks of the decision to be appealed. This is relatively easy to do, as the information required is not great. Nevertheless, full documentation and a skeleton argument explaining why the appeal is sound, have to be provided within two weeks after that.

In cases where permission for judicial review is refused by the High Court, the Appellant's Notice must be lodged within one week " Source

So, basically, the lower court, in this case the High Court, can either

a) allow appeal

or

b) refuse appeal.

If they allow the appeal, then the case will be heard by the court of appeal. If they refuse permission to appeal, then they are saying that they think they are completely correct, and therefore the party (in this case Met. Police) have to seek permission directly from the court of appeal.

It goes on to say:

"A decision is made on paper by a Lord Justice of Appeal. If the decision is to refuse permission, one can renew the application to an oral hearing. That will usually be before one or two Lord Justices. The other party or parties are not normally invited, but in practice they will often turn up to the hearing. They may still not be allowed to make representations - the point is that the prospective appellant must show that the proposed appeal stands a realistic prospect of success. If permission to appeal is refused at that stage, that is the end of the matter. One cannot take it further to the House of Lords (on the basis that you have been refused twice - in the High Court and Court of Appeal). (In this sense the Court of Appeal is, therefore, a court of last instance and as a matter of law must refer points of European law that are not acte clair to the European Court of Justice. In practice in such cases the Lord Justice(s) hearing the application for permission will usually adjourn the matter to a full three person court for further consideration.) "

Nothing sadly suprises me anymore following how my own son was treated at his last CoE school by senior staff. My cynicism following last years events no longer has any limits. Human rights doesn't apply to the whole population so it's nice to see some state employees held to account for once.

However I'm VERY impressed by how the police have handled DS in the aftermath of his assault a couple of weeks ago and honestly can't think of a single thing they could have done better.

The interview to get the descriptions of the girls that attacked him was done the very next day, gently, calmly and kindly in a room and with adults of DS's choosing (he chose me and his HT to sit in). It was done at his pace & his way too iykwim. They've phoned every few days to let us know how it's progressing, (and spoken to DS as he's remembered a couple of extra details).

(I'm so tempted to suggest they replace the lumpen LEA staff with uniformed officers, as the contrast is like night and day! After all at least police are supposed to respect the law).

They are also brilliant with the 23 year old AS man who lives on my estate, (he does carry an NAS card).

Just trying to say that the police can & do get it right sometimes with regards to ASD.

'Just trying to say that the police can & do get it right sometimes with regards to ASD.'

Exactly, so if some can do it, then that should be the standard that all are held to.
I agree that initially rescuing him from a dangerous situation he wasn't equipped to deal with may have meant that they acted to save his life.
But to restrain him hand and foot with shackles, put him in the cage soaking wet and afraid?

'The judge, Sir Robert Nelson, said although the officers attending the incident were acting as they genuinely thought best, their responses were "over-hasty and ill-informed".

Matters escalated to the point where a "wholly inappropriate" restraint of ZH, who cannot communicate by speech, took place.

By failing to consult his carers, the police failed to understand the potentially serious consequences of applying force and restraint to ZH, who was said to have suffered moderate post-traumatic stress disorder.'

"But to restrain him hand and foot with shackles, put him in the cage soaking wet and afraid?"

I know. It sounds awful. It is awful. But, also, we need to bear in mind (from the report of BBC):

"two officers took hold of his jacket as he began to gather momentum, but he was much too big and strong....agitated and distressed"

So, you have a 16 year old who is big enough and strong enough to resist the attempt of two police officers, who presumably each used both their hands on his jacket to try and stop him.

Once out of the water he was agitated and distressed. We all know just how strong our children are when they are agitated and distressed. Even my weak, wobbly 6 yr old girl is a mass of strength when she's got wound up. It's almost superhuman.

I'm not saying it is right. I'm just saying that sometimes, just sometimes, there will be no 'perfect' response. There will only be the response which does the least harm possible whilst also preventing the clear and present danger that the situation presents.

My fear is that a child could die because officers are warned not to intervene because of a case like this.

I know. I went on a restraint course when DS had grown so big that I could still have stopped him in a dangerous situation, but I'd probably have broken him.
I wanted to learn how to do it right.
Better terrified and restrained than dead, but I think they panicked after getting him out of the water. I wonder what his carers were doing at the time, and why the police didn't take their advice? I'm not police-bashing at all, (Are you listening,vicar?) but what could be done better next time?

The riots last year kicked off because 300 young men died in metropolitan police custody in 2010. Mark Duggan was just the final spark. (I did say my cynicism knows no bounds). It's not just an SEN issue (for once).

I really should stop looking at these links :(

how could it be done differently? locate his carers wherever they were? consult a GP? apply sedation? kinder way that treating him like an animal :( tbh I think I would accept him being stunned quick with a stun gun, warm blanket and put in the van for calming with a carer than shackling him and leaving him alone caged.

Its all bitty reading though. He broke free.......so how close were the carers? lifeguards already to hand? or were they called first. If so plenty of time to phone a GP for med history? I dont know what a mess.

Makes you wonder what his carers were doing and why they didn't liase with the police.

According to the radio news this morning, the carers called the police when they couldn't get the boy to leave the building

It looks like a bit of a risk assessment issue here. There's different versions of the same story - all reported by the BBC.

What I heard on the radio was that it was a initial familiarisation visit with the whole school party. The teenager got excited just as the party was leaving and jumped in the pool fully clothed. It was the swimming pool staff who called the police and the issue in question was that the police refused to consult the carer or wait for contact to be made with the school or parents and restrained him.

The reason they got rapped was their gungho approach and refusal to listen to the carer. It was explained by the serving policemen on the show as.."if you call us, then we will do whatever we think is necessary. If you think you can deal with it better, then don't bother calling us." he got the hump when one of the other callers referred to him as a 'public servant'.. says it all really.

coff the lifeguards were there and the carer was there as well. The carer was waiting for support as the rest of the party had left. He had jumped in once fully clothed and was surrounded by the lifeguards in the shallow end to stop him going in the deep water. He was in no danger to himself or anybody else. When the police arrived they had managed to get him out of the pool and were trying to calm him down. All the police had to do was listen to the carer and offer him support, but they chose to overrule the carer and deal with him in their own way.

Then they should seriously pay for what they have done. And that quote from the policeman on the show well kick him out because his attitude of "we will do whatever" makes me very wary that he wouldnt do the same to any autistic child carrying a card with his disability or not.

All very sad and very cruel.

The courts did make the met police pay £28k damages to the boy for breach of his human rights.

The incident happened almost four years ago... It made the news yesterday as the judgement was made yesterday and the met police decided to appeal against the damages.

All police forces are routinely required to go on disability awareness courses including the ones run by NAS and they are given advice on how to deal with the situations. It's just that some of them decide to ignore it...
But judgement like these should bring some awareness if they have to think of the consequences. Hopefully...

A friend works in mental health wards. He cannot stand the methods of restraint the police use. Apparently the NHS staff get really irate with the police because they have been trained to use more 'humane' methods and they see the police methods as brutal and plain unnecessary.

NAS petition here