PC Scudder ... denied that more information on his past, such as violent incidents and the fact his mental condition could deteriorate very quickly, would have made a difference to how they dealt with Kevin.
She earlier said that “all the information is better” but that “it doesn’t necessarily have an overall impact on the decision that is made, given what officers are presented with at that time”.
“We can’t judge people based on the past. We have to make a decision based on what is presented to us at that time.
“For example, if someone had been arrested for robbery 18 times, that doesn’t mean that he’s committed that robbery at that time,” she said.
Errr, well, no. But it does mean that, should you be scouring the streets for a robbery suspect, he'd be firmly at the top of your list, and worth stopping and questioning. Just as a mentally ill patient who has a history of decompensating rapidly should be considered more of a risk.
What are they teaching them at Hendon these days?
The coroner asked PC Scudder if the “tragic incident” had made any difference to how she “personally” conducts herself. Tearfully, the officer said: “This particular situation with Mr Clarke is incredibly heartbreaking.
“It’s something that I think about every single day.”
PC Scudder took a break after becoming upset.
On return she said: “In a situation like this, I believe it would be recommended to take a staff member with us at that time when trying to communicate with Mr Clarke.
“In my eyes, they are the professionals, and they maybe would be able to ask questions […] that may have changed the outcome of the situation.”
She said she would “pause and give people the opportunity to talk” and she would “ask more questions and not have the view that the [health professionals] would tell me what’s necessary”.
You're a police officer, and you think people will always volunteer information without the need for probing and questioning? Jeez! No wonder you cry when you can't get your own way...
To be fair, the police (especially the on the streets PCs) are not mental health experts, so why should they be expected to decide is to be sectioned or not? Surely that decision should come from a trained professional psychiatrist?
Its my experience of the UK NHS Mental Health profession that they largely act like the PC did in this case - they ignore the opinions of the people around a person suffering from a mental health crisis and will consistently refuse to act proactively when a person with a history of mental instability and multiple sectionings is acting in an unstable manner. They tend to wait until the person does something that involves the police and then once the police have made the decision for them will step in. But they blankly refuse to make that decision themselves.
I have a friend who has been sectioned multiple times, despite his family and friends repeatedly informing his CPN when his behaviour was deteriorating the Mental Health team would do nothing, preferring to wait until he did something that involved the police, and once they had made the obvious diagnosis that he was off his rocker, then the mental health would step in and accept him on a section. They NEVER initiated that themselves, based on their own assessment of his behaviour, they always waited for a crisis to occur before acting. By luck more than judgement those crises never resulted in any harm to anyone, but if they had it would have been down to the Mental Health's refusal to act previously, despite history showing a common pattern of behaviour and outcome.
Note in this story that deceased's CPN is nowhere to be seen. There's the people running the sheltered accommodation where he lived, who had a good working knowledge of his behaviour, and were undoubtedly reporting that to the CPN, and then there's the police, called when the inevitable crisis occurs. The actual professionals responsible for monitoring him, the local Mental Health team, are nowhere to be seen.
Not as if we are seeing a new weapon fired from the dock, JuliaM. Women have been shafting men in the Family courts with that one for more than fifty years.
Let's face it, the guy is a nutjob, but he's the same colour (-ish) as my keyboard and that means that you lock him up at your peril Needs cannabis - well fuck my old boots, everyone with a brain knows that makes a lunatic rather more insane than less.
Scudder - why recruit piss poor bints into the police in the first place.
From the linked article.
He was dependent on cannabis. Like food?
On prescription? For his illness.
Or was he just addicted? And got it illegally.
The poor dear needs counselling, followed by promotion to a position where only her minnions have to deal with the dregs.
But this is UK here we just wait until they commit a crime so we can lock them up and dump our mental health problems on the long suffering prison staff.
"To be fair, the police (especially the on the streets PCs) are not mental health experts, so why should they be expected to decide is to be sectioned or not?"
You'd think, though, with all the experience they get...but your friend's experience is sadly the norm. And it's about time a grip was taken on these useless, risk-averse units.
".. the guy is a nutjob, but he's the same colour (-ish) as my keyboard..."
"From the linked article.
He was dependent on cannabis."
A frequent factor in these cases. It's a bit chicken/egg, isn't it? What caused which?
Post a Comment