On iz high horse.......Justiznibz.

The institutional malaise within the N.H.S. Trust (P.D.T.),appears to be from the top down an entrenched congenital condition. That government directive is required to reduce risk to patient/clients is an indictment of the offices of the executive. Duty of Care is not absolved by any legal indemnity or disclaimer. All individuals have a legal and moral obligation, as per E.U. directive, Health and Safety at work and Public Liability. All workers/employees are subject to industrial legislation, each patient/client is also subject to the same laws in respect of duty of care. We as citIZens must be seen to be acting responsibly toward all others without exception. Patient/clients are not empowered to exercise fully, the Fundamental Freedoms enshrined in law and may not be enabled by the mechanism of restrictive regimes to defend or protect themselves from violation of their Human Rights, they are vulnerable, in loco parentis. There is a greater burden of responsibility on the professional carers , equally and proportional to need in respect of their professional duty. To the extent that a patient/client/detainee may be disempowered to act within their civil responsibility to others and moral obligation to themselves, given that some may be prone to self harm, so the professional carers, contractually have a Duty of Care to obviate risk both of the patient/client/detainee to themselves or others and to obviate the risk of the patient/client/detainee being harmed by the institutional care. Loco parentis applies equally in respect of consideration to individual needs and attention to care, as in prisoners in custody, pupils in schools, soldiers in the army, workers in industry; to the extent that Rights and Freedoms are institutionally restricted, the individual who's freedoms are reduced must be compensated by the greater exercise of care by the "parent" body and all within its employ, to the disempowered individual. i.e. Exercise duty of care, by Positive Definition. The employee has failsafe mechanisms and representation towards rights and freedoms and may by self determined will exercise Moral Choice with the option of withdrawing co-operation and service. In loco parentis the patient/client/detainee is not empowered to defend rights, has no exercisable freedom, the moral choice exists but the self determined will may by the dominance of the institution, overpower or override the patient/client/detainee's true wants. That may be justifiable by clinical or medical need, it therefor must be seen to be wholly and justly so, verifiably. The Law in Spirit and intended Meaning is designed to protect the rights of all. The letter of the law may be changed to accommodate the progress toward more equitable execution of the intended meaning.
It is the moral and legal obligation of the executive to oversee and by directive, implement the discharge of duties within the bounds of the commonly understood intended meaning indicated by the letter of the law. Within the realm of professional specialisation it must be seen in context that the will of the executive is compatible with the greater meaning of the law as regards it's application to the population at large, that is: the domain of the executive responsibility must conform to the commonly perceived understanding as enshrined in Statute.
The definition of the Confidentiality Guidelines seems clear, what is not clear is the reason for them to be interpreted in such a way as to be contrary to the need for which it was designed, by the commonly understood meaning. Given that the nature of the complaint is broadly Criminal Assault and that the definition of the N.H.S. Trust's Confidentiality Guidelines, it would appear that the attack was Without Qualification condoned and authorised by the will of the executive, by accident, design,neglect and/or omission of duty of care.
With ironic reference to former times, the excuse if offered, that they only turned on the gas taps, would not absolve the functionaries of their culpability, given even that they had legal mandate. Man is autonomous by virtue of his elemental nature and may not absolve himself of his Moral Duty to resist and oppose tyranny and oppression. Our Common Duty is plain without exception. The higher the status or rank the greater the accountable responsibility to ensure that institutions behave Morally and Humanely in accord with the intended meaning of the law, without deference or submission to any Letter of the Law which opposes or contradicts it's own perceived intention. That is the domain of influence of executive responsibility. It may be seen, one reasons.
The professional carer who is executive must account for the corruption against the intended meaning of the law in the expedient interpretation, which appears wholly designed to cover up wrong doing by functionaries within their departmental responsibility. The perceived interpretation proffered, if applied democratically would endorse the notion ostensibly that the Psychiatric Services are by accident, design, neglect and/or, omission being deviated from the original moral purpose, that is, aiding the sick to recovery and the relief of suffering, in order to accommodate unmandated, anachronistic ideas, and wholly discredited malignant ideologies. That too may be seen, one does not argue.
With reference to the complaint in question by Frank O'Sullivan in his apologetic correspondence. That I did not enjoy my stay in Cenarth ward is of little consequence other than illustrating p.c. insensitivity to the short comings of his own professional domain. Was the definition of rights proffered by Frank O'Sullivan a reflection of the will of Parliament, the Home Secretaries office, of the Crown? The executive must be brought to account.
It may be seen that the instituted regime was not in accordance with the intended meaning of the law but by the moral and perhaps criminal Neglect of Positive Duty may be seen as an expression of the Chief Executives will alone.
Mr. F. O. volunteered his definition. It is believed by his tone, he presumed that the former patient/client/detainee (?) would be insufficiently able to discern the principle, the syntax or the point of our communication let alone remember.He acting with extreme deference to his own personal prejudice, bowing before unrighteousness, by his conduct condones the possibility of criminal malpractise without care, beyond token apologetic words, hollow academic cyphers, in complete ignorance of the Moral or the Positive implications,let alone the damning consequences to any unfortunate enough to be unjustly victimised within the responsibility of his domain.
"By our actions we are known." M.K.Gandhi.
So too by the omission of Moral and Positive execution of duty of care we may be seen to be criminally neglectful and thus by our own inaction we are condemned.
Mere palliatives,offered in writing is not effective remedy in retrospect for the neglect of essential service. F.O.'s definition of confidentiality guidelines allows carte blanche to any deviant wrongdoer in his domain. That cannot positively to be right. Who would notice, who would tell, who would care and who would believe a "crazy"who is prepared to do just that? It allows the expedient of Breach of Statute,thus by executive neglect, assistance to a criminal act, oversight the Nelsonian over view. The definition of the Confidentiality Guidelines offers effective camouflage that is not wholly transparent serving only to obstruct or pervert effective and just remedy against the best interests of the patient client's medical or clinical needs; that may be seen to be putting the persons health and life jointly and severally at risk, contrary to the stated constitutional aims of the P.D. N.H.S. Trust which Mr. O;Sullivan was contractually bound to serve. He brings the executive, it may be seen, into disrepute so too the trust and the Psychiatric Medicine as a whole.
In the event that the colleageat of his fellow professionals, his peers, rally in the defence of Mr. Frank O'Sullivan's definition they too must be brought to account in Law. The patient/client base is not in the care of the institution to serve the needs and academic wants of the carers. The profession is there to act-vocationally toward the best interest of the HEALTH of the patient/client, to that end they are sworn.
The notion that the patient/client must co-operate with willful neglectful and criminal abuse of the invested power of the professional office is an anathema, and may not be Morally or Positively justified. Conform or die is not the meaning of the evolved civil democratic Principle. Caesar is not our serving Monarch. The fasce is not the symbol of the crown's authority and may not then be interpreted as though it was. The Principle of Law must be seen to be equitable, that is in the Interest of the Common Good. The assault in violation of the trust Guidelines and thus a breach of Statute cannot be indemnified by the Clauses in the Human Rights Act in respect of Mental Health Detention. A place of safety is by definition a place that protects the long term interest of the patient/client's health and life, jointly and severally and by so doing protects the interest of the Society at Large. It may be possible to prove Medical Negligence that is the responsibility of the Profession ethically not the responsibility of the abused and victimised citizen nor his or her legal representative. Criminal Neglect that by the omission of Duty of Care contractually is not a matter of medical opinion let the medical theorists and academics argue amongst themselves. The wanton and neglectful breach of trust Code is jointly a breach of Statute and need not be confused by ambiguous medical opinion. It is a matter of Common Law. Each assistant to wrongdoing must account for their culpability to the extent of their contractual responsibility in Law, transparently. It is wholly in the Public Interest that the Principle of Law be upheld in respect of all individual Human Rights and Obligations as citizens mutually.
Judgement must be made in the light of the Principle meaning by Commonly understood definition of the Regulatory Code of Practice and the Statutes, they must be seen transparently to be in accord. All actions purporting to be rendered in accordance with Statute must be therefore be provably so and clearly seen.
Institutional neglect may be provable, it is not the responsibility of the abused victimised patient/client/detainee to prove retrospectively. But in defence against the neglect and abuse the victimised citizen may expect by virtue of Statute, effective remedy and by virtue of Statute may expect to be compensated for the unwarranted abuse of the person, in violation of the Law.