Woman who 'threatened to jump' off intu Bromley's roof treated in mental health facility

The scene at intu Bromley shopping centre on Tuesday evening. Photo: @Kent_999s

The scene at intu Bromley shopping centre on Tuesday evening. Photo: @Kent_999s

First published in News
Last updated
News Shopper: Photograph of the Author by , deputy news editor

The young woman who reportedly threatened to jump off intu Bromley's car park roof has been sectioned under the mental health act.

The woman spent five hours on the shopping centre - formerly The Glades - roof between the hours of 4pm and 9pm on Tuesday (June 10) evening.

She has been taken to a local mental health facility for treatment.

 

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:17pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

The verb 'sectioned,' meaning 'detained under a section of the Mental Health Act,' began life as an informal, in-crowd contraction to describe the arrest type process in which individuals are taken into hospital when deemed a threat to themselves or others. Now the only obvious word, to those in the know, to describe the process, it unfortunately has another meaning - the dissection of a biological specimen. While the cruel double entendre might seem funny on first acquaintance, it isn't really funny to those cognizant of the medico-materialist intrusiveness of a psychiatry persisting thus unchecked into the 21st century.
The verb 'sectioned,' meaning 'detained under a section of the Mental Health Act,' began life as an informal, in-crowd contraction to describe the arrest type process in which individuals are taken into hospital when deemed a threat to themselves or others. Now the only obvious word, to those in the know, to describe the process, it unfortunately has another meaning - the dissection of a biological specimen. While the cruel double entendre might seem funny on first acquaintance, it isn't really funny to those cognizant of the medico-materialist intrusiveness of a psychiatry persisting thus unchecked into the 21st century. Richard Comaish
  • Score: 0

11:38pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Are you saying sectioning someone is wrong?
Are you saying sectioning someone is wrong? Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

'Sectioning' someone is nothing more or less than a euphemism for breaching Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.' It is effectively detention without trial, a feature of authoritarian practices of governance.
'Sectioning' someone is nothing more or less than a euphemism for breaching Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.' It is effectively detention without trial, a feature of authoritarian practices of governance. Richard Comaish
  • Score: -1

10:20pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

If that was the case, I am sure out of the many thousands of people who are detained each year someone would have successfully challenged their detention.

From the MIND website re Article 9
""(2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Summary: Article 9 protects the right to believe in and practice a religion or belief. This right can be interfered with for the reasons listed in paragraph (2) below but any such interference must be proportionate""
If that was the case, I am sure out of the many thousands of people who are detained each year someone would have successfully challenged their detention. From the MIND website re Article 9 ""(2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Summary: Article 9 protects the right to believe in and practice a religion or belief. This right can be interfered with for the reasons listed in paragraph (2) below but any such interference must be proportionate"" Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

You describe yourself as 'Dr' but, as any doctor worth his salt on the subject would know, thousands of patients do successfully challege the legitimacy of their detention, and quite rightly (see e.g., http://www.newsshopp
er.co.uk/news/nation
al/news/10013804.Sec
tioning_doctors__una
pproved_/) - I did so myself in 1986, at the age of 25.
You describe yourself as 'Dr' but, as any doctor worth his salt on the subject would know, thousands of patients do successfully challege the legitimacy of their detention, and quite rightly (see e.g., http://www.newsshopp er.co.uk/news/nation al/news/10013804.Sec tioning_doctors__una pproved_/) - I did so myself in 1986, at the age of 25. Richard Comaish
  • Score: -1

11:27pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

My username is Dr Martin (Doc Martin TV series) , I don't "describe" myself as a doctor.
I know several people successfully challenge their sections via a mental health tribunal or managers hearing, but for quite a few they don't stay out for long
In regards to the 18 month old article you mention which estimates up to 5000 people may have been incorrectly detained over a 10 year period. compare that with 50,000 uses of the act each year (approx) roughly equals 1 per cent
whilst not perfect (and I hope it improves) but not exactly earth shattering
My username is Dr Martin (Doc Martin TV series) , I don't "describe" myself as a doctor. I know several people successfully challenge their sections via a mental health tribunal or managers hearing, but for quite a few they don't stay out for long In regards to the 18 month old article you mention which estimates up to 5000 people may have been incorrectly detained over a 10 year period. compare that with 50,000 uses of the act each year (approx) roughly equals 1 per cent whilst not perfect (and I hope it improves) but not exactly earth shattering Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

So basically you came to stick the boot in?
So basically you came to stick the boot in? Richard Comaish
  • Score: -1

3:42pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

No not really, I would call it defending the service I work in
No not really, I would call it defending the service I work in Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:33am Wed 18 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

Nevertheless, the impression given is of someone pretending to be something they're not, to serve the ultimately lost cause of defending the status quo.
Nevertheless, the impression given is of someone pretending to be something they're not, to serve the ultimately lost cause of defending the status quo. Richard Comaish
  • Score: -1

1:20pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Richard Comaish wrote:
Nevertheless, the impression given is of someone pretending to be something they're not, to serve the ultimately lost cause of defending the status quo.
How do you come to the conclusion I am serving a lost cause?, not a great deal has changed or likely to in the future
[quote][p][bold]Richard Comaish[/bold] wrote: Nevertheless, the impression given is of someone pretending to be something they're not, to serve the ultimately lost cause of defending the status quo.[/p][/quote]How do you come to the conclusion I am serving a lost cause?, not a great deal has changed or likely to in the future Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Wed 18 Jun 14

amy jay says...

"she'll get put on a 136 ;I said; at green parks, then she will know what real misery is" making the police presence perk up around me when they have been subjected to the dravel of the uneducated morons of Bromley since the incident occurred. With stories such as they will arrest her and put her in prison and I know her she works in boots and similar rubbish
"she'll get put on a 136 ;I said; at green parks, then she will know what real misery is" making the police presence perk up around me when they have been subjected to the dravel of the uneducated morons of Bromley since the incident occurred. With stories such as they will arrest her and put her in prison and I know her she works in boots and similar rubbish amy jay
  • Score: 4

12:30pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

Judge Jeffreys and James Joyce: eat your hearts out! :D
Judge Jeffreys and James Joyce: eat your hearts out! :D Richard Comaish
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

The guy with a chip on his shoulder has woken up again
The guy with a chip on his shoulder has woken up again Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

At this point, I feel that a system supported with impunity by an abusive troll pretending to be a doctor & with all day to sit at a pc adjusting the comment ratings (ratings wonk) speaks for itself.
At this point, I feel that a system supported with impunity by an abusive troll pretending to be a doctor & with all day to sit at a pc adjusting the comment ratings (ratings wonk) speaks for itself. Richard Comaish
  • Score: -4

12:20pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Richard Comaish wrote:
At this point, I feel that a system supported with impunity by an abusive troll pretending to be a doctor & with all day to sit at a pc adjusting the comment ratings (ratings wonk) speaks for itself.
You tried your best (and failed)
[quote][p][bold]Richard Comaish[/bold] wrote: At this point, I feel that a system supported with impunity by an abusive troll pretending to be a doctor & with all day to sit at a pc adjusting the comment ratings (ratings wonk) speaks for itself.[/p][/quote]You tried your best (and failed) Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

The readers are the judge of that, not some troll determined to get the last word
The readers are the judge of that, not some troll determined to get the last word Richard Comaish
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Ha Ha nice try on the voting........
Ha Ha nice try on the voting........ Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Richard Comaish wrote:
At this point, I feel that a system supported with impunity by an abusive troll pretending to be a doctor & with all day to sit at a pc adjusting the comment ratings (ratings wonk) speaks for itself.
You chose to make a statement which I disagree with, please don’t bleat if I decide to challenge your original viewpoint, which offends me.
In regards to being “abusive” when have I been abusive to you? Abrasive and maybe antagonistic not abusive.
Trolling yes we are both guilty of it, however I choose to defend the service I work in, this is my right
And for having the last word,……. it’s not often it doesn't happen
[quote][p][bold]Richard Comaish[/bold] wrote: At this point, I feel that a system supported with impunity by an abusive troll pretending to be a doctor & with all day to sit at a pc adjusting the comment ratings (ratings wonk) speaks for itself.[/p][/quote]You chose to make a statement which I disagree with, please don’t bleat if I decide to challenge your original viewpoint, which offends me. In regards to being “abusive” when have I been abusive to you? Abrasive and maybe antagonistic not abusive. Trolling yes we are both guilty of it, however I choose to defend the service I work in, this is my right And for having the last word,……. it’s not often it doesn't happen Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

8:11pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

Dr Martin wrote:
Ha Ha nice try on the voting........
For the uninitiated, those who have not been party to the formation of this thread, or just taking a casual interest, let me recap a little. 'Dr Martin' - a false name, to disguise the poster's true identity, claims to be working in mental health, albeit not quite at the level of a doctor, it emerged at some point. He or she is determined to use this false ID to allow him or her to defend the status quo in psychiatry, particularly vis-a-vis the so-called 'sectioning' process. He/she is determined to get the last word in this debate, at all costs, replying to the thread at all hours of the day, and readjusting the comment ratings (the thumbs-up/down) repeatedly, with morbid determination.
What concerns me, here, from experience, is not that this person may be impersonating a medical professional (which remains a possibility). My worry, from patient experience, is that this is not the behaviour of the typical web troll, but in fact reveals a sinister authoritarianism found only in the junior (i.e., non-doctor) ranks of the mental health system. In other words, yes, this could be a so-called 'mental health professional' - but is this really the sort of person you would want looking after vulnerable friends, relatives or strangers?
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: Ha Ha nice try on the voting........[/p][/quote]For the uninitiated, those who have not been party to the formation of this thread, or just taking a casual interest, let me recap a little. 'Dr Martin' - a false name, to disguise the poster's true identity, claims to be working in mental health, albeit not quite at the level of a doctor, it emerged at some point. He or she is determined to use this false ID to allow him or her to defend the status quo in psychiatry, particularly vis-a-vis the so-called 'sectioning' process. He/she is determined to get the last word in this debate, at all costs, replying to the thread at all hours of the day, and readjusting the comment ratings (the thumbs-up/down) repeatedly, with morbid determination. What concerns me, here, from experience, is not that this person may be impersonating a medical professional (which remains a possibility). My worry, from patient experience, is that this is not the behaviour of the typical web troll, but in fact reveals a sinister authoritarianism found only in the junior (i.e., non-doctor) ranks of the mental health system. In other words, yes, this could be a so-called 'mental health professional' - but is this really the sort of person you would want looking after vulnerable friends, relatives or strangers? Richard Comaish
  • Score: -1

8:37pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

"readjusting the comment ratings (the thumbs-up/down) repeatedly, with morbid determination"

---just a little more determined than you
"readjusting the comment ratings (the thumbs-up/down) repeatedly, with morbid determination" ---just a little more determined than you Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

Dr Martin wrote:
"readjusting the comment ratings (the thumbs-up/down) repeatedly, with morbid determination"

---just a little more determined than you
Or a little more idle?

Again from patient experience, I picture a mental health nurse sitting in a ward office all day, playing about on the net instead of addressing the concerns of patients on the ward.

Or some superannuated administrator who feels they need to take time out to defend their nasty little empire.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: "readjusting the comment ratings (the thumbs-up/down) repeatedly, with morbid determination" ---just a little more determined than you[/p][/quote]Or a little more idle? Again from patient experience, I picture a mental health nurse sitting in a ward office all day, playing about on the net instead of addressing the concerns of patients on the ward. Or some superannuated administrator who feels they need to take time out to defend their nasty little empire. Richard Comaish
  • Score: 0

8:52pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

For the record - and reader enlightenment - I would like, if I may be allowed to, record the fact that, suddenly, the thread comment ratings have suddenly been frozen, for comments posted before 8:37pm Fri 20 Jun 14, in a way unfavourable to myself - i.e., the thumbs-up/down icons have suddenly been removed on posts prior to that date => All kind of secret things going on on this News Shopper (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International) forum to manipulate the appearance of 'local public opinion.' It isn't, of course, genuine local public opinion, but nasty Establishment trolls running riot and getting the last word on things. = Right-wing propaganda masquerading as public opinion.
For the record - and reader enlightenment - I would like, if I may be allowed to, record the fact that, suddenly, the thread comment ratings have suddenly been frozen, for comments posted before 8:37pm Fri 20 Jun 14, in a way unfavourable to myself - i.e., the thumbs-up/down icons have suddenly been removed on posts prior to that date => All kind of secret things going on on this News Shopper (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International) forum to manipulate the appearance of 'local public opinion.' It isn't, of course, genuine local public opinion, but nasty Establishment trolls running riot and getting the last word on things. = Right-wing propaganda masquerading as public opinion. Richard Comaish
  • Score: -5

8:55am Sat 21 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Richard Comaish wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
"readjusting the comment ratings (the thumbs-up/down) repeatedly, with morbid determination"

---just a little more determined than you
Or a little more idle?

Again from patient experience, I picture a mental health nurse sitting in a ward office all day, playing about on the net instead of addressing the concerns of patients on the ward.

Or some superannuated administrator who feels they need to take time out to defend their nasty little empire.
No I am more determined and better at it, for example if you tried, I mean really tried could you make all my comments "-10"?, and how long would it take you?
I see someone who has one very big chip on shoulder regarding events that happened nearly 30 years ago and has yet not been able to let go of it.
The mental health services do a very good given the resources it has been allocated, It helps many thousands of people recover from their illnesses, many many people are grateful for the help our services, yes mental health isn't an exact science so we don't always get it right, but don't tar the rest of us just because of your experience of nearly 30 years ago
[quote][p][bold]Richard Comaish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: "readjusting the comment ratings (the thumbs-up/down) repeatedly, with morbid determination" ---just a little more determined than you[/p][/quote]Or a little more idle? Again from patient experience, I picture a mental health nurse sitting in a ward office all day, playing about on the net instead of addressing the concerns of patients on the ward. Or some superannuated administrator who feels they need to take time out to defend their nasty little empire.[/p][/quote]No I am more determined and better at it, for example if you tried, I mean really tried could you make all my comments "-10"?, and how long would it take you? I see someone who has one very big chip on shoulder regarding events that happened nearly 30 years ago and has yet not been able to let go of it. The mental health services do a very good given the resources it has been allocated, It helps many thousands of people recover from their illnesses, many many people are grateful for the help our services, yes mental health isn't an exact science so we don't always get it right, but don't tar the rest of us just because of your experience of nearly 30 years ago Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

9:05am Sat 21 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Richard Comaish wrote:
For the record - and reader enlightenment - I would like, if I may be allowed to, record the fact that, suddenly, the thread comment ratings have suddenly been frozen, for comments posted before 8:37pm Fri 20 Jun 14, in a way unfavourable to myself - i.e., the thumbs-up/down icons have suddenly been removed on posts prior to that date => All kind of secret things going on on this News Shopper (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International) forum to manipulate the appearance of 'local public opinion.' It isn't, of course, genuine local public opinion, but nasty Establishment trolls running riot and getting the last word on things. = Right-wing propaganda masquerading as public opinion.
The voting system works fine , you just haven't deleted your cookies and refreshed your browser properly
The rest of your posts smacks of paranoia
[quote][p][bold]Richard Comaish[/bold] wrote: For the record - and reader enlightenment - I would like, if I may be allowed to, record the fact that, suddenly, the thread comment ratings have suddenly been frozen, for comments posted before 8:37pm Fri 20 Jun 14, in a way unfavourable to myself - i.e., the thumbs-up/down icons have suddenly been removed on posts prior to that date => All kind of secret things going on on this News Shopper (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International) forum to manipulate the appearance of 'local public opinion.' It isn't, of course, genuine local public opinion, but nasty Establishment trolls running riot and getting the last word on things. = Right-wing propaganda masquerading as public opinion.[/p][/quote]The voting system works fine , you just haven't deleted your cookies and refreshed your browser properly The rest of your posts smacks of paranoia Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

9:35am Sat 21 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Dr Martin wrote:
Richard Comaish wrote:
For the record - and reader enlightenment - I would like, if I may be allowed to, record the fact that, suddenly, the thread comment ratings have suddenly been frozen, for comments posted before 8:37pm Fri 20 Jun 14, in a way unfavourable to myself - i.e., the thumbs-up/down icons have suddenly been removed on posts prior to that date => All kind of secret things going on on this News Shopper (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International) forum to manipulate the appearance of 'local public opinion.' It isn't, of course, genuine local public opinion, but nasty Establishment trolls running riot and getting the last word on things. = Right-wing propaganda masquerading as public opinion.
The voting system works fine , you just haven't deleted your cookies and refreshed your browser properly
The rest of your posts smacks of paranoia
**post
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard Comaish[/bold] wrote: For the record - and reader enlightenment - I would like, if I may be allowed to, record the fact that, suddenly, the thread comment ratings have suddenly been frozen, for comments posted before 8:37pm Fri 20 Jun 14, in a way unfavourable to myself - i.e., the thumbs-up/down icons have suddenly been removed on posts prior to that date => All kind of secret things going on on this News Shopper (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International) forum to manipulate the appearance of 'local public opinion.' It isn't, of course, genuine local public opinion, but nasty Establishment trolls running riot and getting the last word on things. = Right-wing propaganda masquerading as public opinion.[/p][/quote]The voting system works fine , you just haven't deleted your cookies and refreshed your browser properly The rest of your posts smacks of paranoia[/p][/quote]**post Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

11:51am Sat 21 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

How dare I use a username that isn't my real name, like 95% of all people who post on this website. I choose to express my views like everyone else, so I am not doing not a lot different than what you are.
Move on Richard (if that is your real name) it's no longer 1986, Psychiatry and nearly everyone else has moved on...you should try it
How dare I use a username that isn't my real name, like 95% of all people who post on this website. I choose to express my views like everyone else, so I am not doing not a lot different than what you are. Move on Richard (if that is your real name) it's no longer 1986, Psychiatry and nearly everyone else has moved on...you should try it Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

At this point, it seems germane to quote the reaction of one of my personal email contacts to this seemingly interminable thread: 'It is sad that some people don’t have better things to do than give serious contributors a very bad time!'
At this point, it seems germane to quote the reaction of one of my personal email contacts to this seemingly interminable thread: 'It is sad that some people don’t have better things to do than give serious contributors a very bad time!' Richard Comaish
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

Dr Martin wrote:
How dare I use a username that isn't my real name, like 95% of all people who post on this website. I choose to express my views like everyone else, so I am not doing not a lot different than what you are.
Move on Richard (if that is your real name) it's no longer 1986, Psychiatry and nearly everyone else has moved on...you should try it
1. Yes of course you can use a nom de clavier. Is it 95%? Yes, you can use it to come on here and have a natter about this and that. But if you start to take on the persona of a vigorous defender of the Establishment and the status quo, it all falls down, because how are we, local people reading a forum supposed to represent our views, to know that you or not working for MI5, the Tory Party, News International, or some other bigoted, reactionary organisation? Plus, if you really needed me to spell that point out to you, you must be a bit dim/juvenile/ill-inf
ormed.
2. 'Nearly everyone else has moved on..you should try it.' Quite apart from being a cheapshot, bullying jibe, this seems to show a deep ignorance of the mental health system, sectioning, and 'care in the community.' A lot of people actually get caught up in the mental health system for years, an initial 'sectioning' resulting in years of stigmatisation and impoverished unemployment.
3. I wonder if you could agree on the terms of a truce - to agree, at least, that the term 'sectioning' is offensively ambiguous, for these days of political correctness, and should be banned, to be replaced with something more innocuous such as 'placed under a care order?' - doesn't seem a lot to ask, after all that, if you ask me
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: How dare I use a username that isn't my real name, like 95% of all people who post on this website. I choose to express my views like everyone else, so I am not doing not a lot different than what you are. Move on Richard (if that is your real name) it's no longer 1986, Psychiatry and nearly everyone else has moved on...you should try it[/p][/quote]1. Yes of course you can use a nom de clavier. Is it 95%? Yes, you can use it to come on here and have a natter about this and that. But if you start to take on the persona of a vigorous defender of the Establishment and the status quo, it all falls down, because how are we, local people reading a forum supposed to represent our views, to know that you or not working for MI5, the Tory Party, News International, or some other bigoted, reactionary organisation? Plus, if you really needed me to spell that point out to you, you must be a bit dim/juvenile/ill-inf ormed. 2. 'Nearly everyone else has moved on..you should try it.' Quite apart from being a cheapshot, bullying jibe, this seems to show a deep ignorance of the mental health system, sectioning, and 'care in the community.' A lot of people actually get caught up in the mental health system for years, an initial 'sectioning' resulting in years of stigmatisation and impoverished unemployment. 3. I wonder if you could agree on the terms of a truce - to agree, at least, that the term 'sectioning' is offensively ambiguous, for these days of political correctness, and should be banned, to be replaced with something more innocuous such as 'placed under a care order?' - doesn't seem a lot to ask, after all that, if you ask me Richard Comaish
  • Score: -5

9:10am Mon 23 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Richard Comaish wrote:
At this point, it seems germane to quote the reaction of one of my personal email contacts to this seemingly interminable thread: 'It is sad that some people don’t have better things to do than give serious contributors a very bad time!'
I make no apologies if I am giving you a "very bad time", but if you are going to tar a service that helps many thousands of people each year through their problems/ illnesses and difficulties and do so using the best evidenced practice and ultimately saves many hundreds of lives each year then yes I am going to continue to challenge your or anyone else's viewpoint.
I have sympathy for those who are denied their freedoms because they are sectioned (either at risk to themselves or to others), but overall it is done for good reasons.
Hopefully the lady in this story will make a full recovery and appreciate the help she maybe receiving at the moment.
[quote][p][bold]Richard Comaish[/bold] wrote: At this point, it seems germane to quote the reaction of one of my personal email contacts to this seemingly interminable thread: 'It is sad that some people don’t have better things to do than give serious contributors a very bad time!'[/p][/quote]I make no apologies if I am giving you a "very bad time", but if you are going to tar a service that helps many thousands of people each year through their problems/ illnesses and difficulties and do so using the best evidenced practice and ultimately saves many hundreds of lives each year then yes I am going to continue to challenge your or anyone else's viewpoint. I have sympathy for those who are denied their freedoms because they are sectioned (either at risk to themselves or to others), but overall it is done for good reasons. Hopefully the lady in this story will make a full recovery and appreciate the help she maybe receiving at the moment. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

9:16am Mon 23 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

You moan about me wanting the last say and adjusting the thumbs but you are guilty of both - hypocrite

I will leave the voting as it is for now
You moan about me wanting the last say and adjusting the thumbs but you are guilty of both - hypocrite I will leave the voting as it is for now Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:03am Mon 23 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Richard Comaish wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
How dare I use a username that isn't my real name, like 95% of all people who post on this website. I choose to express my views like everyone else, so I am not doing not a lot different than what you are.
Move on Richard (if that is your real name) it's no longer 1986, Psychiatry and nearly everyone else has moved on...you should try it
1. Yes of course you can use a nom de clavier. Is it 95%? Yes, you can use it to come on here and have a natter about this and that. But if you start to take on the persona of a vigorous defender of the Establishment and the status quo, it all falls down, because how are we, local people reading a forum supposed to represent our views, to know that you or not working for MI5, the Tory Party, News International, or some other bigoted, reactionary organisation? Plus, if you really needed me to spell that point out to you, you must be a bit dim/juvenile/ill-inf

ormed.
2. 'Nearly everyone else has moved on..you should try it.' Quite apart from being a cheapshot, bullying jibe, this seems to show a deep ignorance of the mental health system, sectioning, and 'care in the community.' A lot of people actually get caught up in the mental health system for years, an initial 'sectioning' resulting in years of stigmatisation and impoverished unemployment.
3. I wonder if you could agree on the terms of a truce - to agree, at least, that the term 'sectioning' is offensively ambiguous, for these days of political correctness, and should be banned, to be replaced with something more innocuous such as 'placed under a care order?' - doesn't seem a lot to ask, after all that, if you ask me
1. Richard I make many comments on many websites belonging to Newquest,South Wales Argus, Echo Essex, Newshopper, Oxford Mail etc. so I meet a lot of people on them a figure of 95% seems a good approximation it could be more it could be less who knows.
You really think that i am a member of M15, the Tory party or news international?, my you are paranoid aren't you, just for the record a humble NHS worker and fully paid up member of the Labour Party and Unison.
As to calling me "a bit dim" oh dear Richard, I won't forget that.....
2. Yes I am well aware many people spend most of their lives within the "system" for some it is perfectly justified, for others it is because they like being within the system ( cheaper accommodation, if they mess that up they will found another) have people help clean up after them, and if it all fails they get a hospital bed( free food, bed and no bills) "some" of these people have absolutely no intention of trying to stand on their own two feet but I suppose with all that support and some get £200 per week in benefits I can't say I would blame them.
3. I am not too bothered what they call it, still will mean the same
[quote][p][bold]Richard Comaish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: How dare I use a username that isn't my real name, like 95% of all people who post on this website. I choose to express my views like everyone else, so I am not doing not a lot different than what you are. Move on Richard (if that is your real name) it's no longer 1986, Psychiatry and nearly everyone else has moved on...you should try it[/p][/quote]1. Yes of course you can use a nom de clavier. Is it 95%? Yes, you can use it to come on here and have a natter about this and that. But if you start to take on the persona of a vigorous defender of the Establishment and the status quo, it all falls down, because how are we, local people reading a forum supposed to represent our views, to know that you or not working for MI5, the Tory Party, News International, or some other bigoted, reactionary organisation? Plus, if you really needed me to spell that point out to you, you must be a bit dim/juvenile/ill-inf ormed. 2. 'Nearly everyone else has moved on..you should try it.' Quite apart from being a cheapshot, bullying jibe, this seems to show a deep ignorance of the mental health system, sectioning, and 'care in the community.' A lot of people actually get caught up in the mental health system for years, an initial 'sectioning' resulting in years of stigmatisation and impoverished unemployment. 3. I wonder if you could agree on the terms of a truce - to agree, at least, that the term 'sectioning' is offensively ambiguous, for these days of political correctness, and should be banned, to be replaced with something more innocuous such as 'placed under a care order?' - doesn't seem a lot to ask, after all that, if you ask me[/p][/quote]1. Richard I make many comments on many websites belonging to Newquest,South Wales Argus, Echo Essex, Newshopper, Oxford Mail etc. so I meet a lot of people on them a figure of 95% seems a good approximation it could be more it could be less who knows. You really think that i am a member of M15, the Tory party or news international?, my you are paranoid aren't you, just for the record a humble NHS worker and fully paid up member of the Labour Party and Unison. As to calling me "a bit dim" oh dear Richard, I won't forget that..... 2. Yes I am well aware many people spend most of their lives within the "system" for some it is perfectly justified, for others it is because they like being within the system ( cheaper accommodation, if they mess that up they will found another) have people help clean up after them, and if it all fails they get a hospital bed( free food, bed and no bills) "some" of these people have absolutely no intention of trying to stand on their own two feet but I suppose with all that support and some get £200 per week in benefits I can't say I would blame them. 3. I am not too bothered what they call it, still will mean the same Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Tue 24 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

Dr Martin wrote:
You moan about me wanting the last say and adjusting the thumbs but you are guilty of both - hypocrite I will leave the voting as it is for now
You are simply spending a lot more time adjusting the thing than I actually have. It is obviously you because, quite apart from your own admiossion, there is very little interest in this discussion from others. Also you are posting during working hours. In other words, you seem to have more time on your hands than I, who am ostensibly unemployed. You are therefore abusing your time in the NHS and taxpayers' money. You are contributing to a negative picture of unions in general and Unison in particular by your actions here. You are a bully, committing disability hate crime openly online, and in work time, You think you can get away with it because your ID is safely secret - think again. Calling me, or anyone else here 'paranoid' because of the genuine possibility that you could be working for some spook outfit is just so wrong, on so many levels - it is abusive, it is hate crime, and it is just plain ignorant of what can and does happen online.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: You moan about me wanting the last say and adjusting the thumbs but you are guilty of both - hypocrite I will leave the voting as it is for now[/p][/quote]You are simply spending a lot more time adjusting the thing than I actually have. It is obviously you because, quite apart from your own admiossion, there is very little interest in this discussion from others. Also you are posting during working hours. In other words, you seem to have more time on your hands than I, who am ostensibly unemployed. You are therefore abusing your time in the NHS and taxpayers' money. You are contributing to a negative picture of unions in general and Unison in particular by your actions here. You are a bully, committing disability hate crime openly online, and in work time, You think you can get away with it because your ID is safely secret - think again. Calling me, or anyone else here 'paranoid' because of the genuine possibility that you could be working for some spook outfit is just so wrong, on so many levels - it is abusive, it is hate crime, and it is just plain ignorant of what can and does happen online. Richard Comaish
  • Score: -2

12:51pm Tue 24 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

Richard Comaish wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
You moan about me wanting the last say and adjusting the thumbs but you are guilty of both - hypocrite I will leave the voting as it is for now
You are simply spending a lot more time adjusting the thing than I actually have. It is obviously you because, quite apart from your own admiossion, there is very little interest in this discussion from others. Also you are posting during working hours. In other words, you seem to have more time on your hands than I, who am ostensibly unemployed. You are therefore abusing your time in the NHS and taxpayers' money. You are contributing to a negative picture of unions in general and Unison in particular by your actions here. You are a bully, committing disability hate crime openly online, and in work time, You think you can get away with it because your ID is safely secret - think again. Calling me, or anyone else here 'paranoid' because of the genuine possibility that you could be working for some spook outfit is just so wrong, on so many levels - it is abusive, it is hate crime, and it is just plain ignorant of what can and does happen online.
How do you know what my working pattern is? You do not, I am on a shift pattern which covers 24/7, (I am most definitely not a 9-5 Monday to Friday employee)
I haven’t used the reasons “why” you were sectioned in 1986; I have only referred to an event that happened nearly 30 years ago (and have used that event against the service I work for) no disability hate crime has come from me.
My goodness this guy now thinks I am a spook (watching too many spooks programs, have you), (don’t mention the P******* word).
[quote][p][bold]Richard Comaish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: You moan about me wanting the last say and adjusting the thumbs but you are guilty of both - hypocrite I will leave the voting as it is for now[/p][/quote]You are simply spending a lot more time adjusting the thing than I actually have. It is obviously you because, quite apart from your own admiossion, there is very little interest in this discussion from others. Also you are posting during working hours. In other words, you seem to have more time on your hands than I, who am ostensibly unemployed. You are therefore abusing your time in the NHS and taxpayers' money. You are contributing to a negative picture of unions in general and Unison in particular by your actions here. You are a bully, committing disability hate crime openly online, and in work time, You think you can get away with it because your ID is safely secret - think again. Calling me, or anyone else here 'paranoid' because of the genuine possibility that you could be working for some spook outfit is just so wrong, on so many levels - it is abusive, it is hate crime, and it is just plain ignorant of what can and does happen online.[/p][/quote]How do you know what my working pattern is? You do not, I am on a shift pattern which covers 24/7, (I am most definitely not a 9-5 Monday to Friday employee) I haven’t used the reasons “why” you were sectioned in 1986; I have only referred to an event that happened nearly 30 years ago (and have used that event against the service I work for) no disability hate crime has come from me. My goodness this guy now thinks I am a spook (watching too many spooks programs, have you), (don’t mention the P******* word). Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Tue 24 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

No Richard as far as the voting is concerned I am simply more efficient at it.
No Richard as far as the voting is concerned I am simply more efficient at it. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Tue 24 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

If you are outside of working hours when you are posting these reactionary messages, it seems that you need a break. You are taking work home with you, a 'busman's holiday.' You are working too hard, and the result is bad work. Yes, I can believe you are an NHS employee, and you are actually worse, in the end, than all those other possible groups I mentioned. The police or MI5 would not waste time like you are, they would go after the big guys. Even the Tories are more politically astute than to get bogged down in your petty abuse. Get a life!
I can also believe you are in Unison, the union notorious for absurdly lengthy legal disputes about somebody calling the union hierarchy 'three monkeys.' After such a performance, I could never see why union joiners can't simply drop that particular organisation as a toxic waste of space. There are other Labour-affiliated unions to join (altho admittedly there are big problems with some of the main ones other than Unison).
The NHS rests on the laurels of its idealistic founders, but fails to live up to them/their ideals. The serious ongoing abuse stories we read in the national press are mainly about NHS employees, not police nor intelligence staff.
What you are doing is disability hate crime because, instead of debating the issue properly, you are hectoring, cajoling, and trying to embarrass an individual who has come clean about certain items of personal history (as well as taking advantage of a weakness peculiar to this website, and adjusting the comment ratings over and over - a sad activity which you seem to take pride in).
You disagree? Well, the solution is very simple then, isn't it? - if I am mistaken, and you have done nothing wrong, unethical or criminal here, you can just go ahead and publish your real name and position, and save us all a lot of bother and uncertainty(?).
If you are outside of working hours when you are posting these reactionary messages, it seems that you need a break. You are taking work home with you, a 'busman's holiday.' You are working too hard, and the result is bad work. Yes, I can believe you are an NHS employee, and you are actually worse, in the end, than all those other possible groups I mentioned. The police or MI5 would not waste time like you are, they would go after the big guys. Even the Tories are more politically astute than to get bogged down in your petty abuse. Get a life! I can also believe you are in Unison, the union notorious for absurdly lengthy legal disputes about somebody calling the union hierarchy 'three monkeys.' After such a performance, I could never see why union joiners can't simply drop that particular organisation as a toxic waste of space. There are other Labour-affiliated unions to join (altho admittedly there are big problems with some of the main ones other than Unison). The NHS rests on the laurels of its idealistic founders, but fails to live up to them/their ideals. The serious ongoing abuse stories we read in the national press are mainly about NHS employees, not police nor intelligence staff. What you are doing is disability hate crime because, instead of debating the issue properly, you are hectoring, cajoling, and trying to embarrass an individual who has come clean about certain items of personal history (as well as taking advantage of a weakness peculiar to this website, and adjusting the comment ratings over and over - a sad activity which you seem to take pride in). You disagree? Well, the solution is very simple then, isn't it? - if I am mistaken, and you have done nothing wrong, unethical or criminal here, you can just go ahead and publish your real name and position, and save us all a lot of bother and uncertainty(?). Richard Comaish
  • Score: -2

9:33pm Tue 24 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

So the Union I am a member is not to your liking, they have looked after me when I have needed them, and I am sure other Unions would do a similar job to Unison (the main reason I like Unison is there is a shop steward to talk to in our hospital on most days)
With a very large organisation like the NHS which employs about 1.3million people there are bound to be a few that fall below the standards the NHS strives for but those numbers (Stafford Hospital apart - "One hospital") the vast majority are decent very caring and hard working people who care passionately about the NHS and the people we treat mostly battling with ever diminishing resources your constant b1tching about it largely based on an old and irrelevant experience nearly 30 years ago, as I have said before the NHS has moved on perhaps you should do likewise
You keep mentioning about me being bullied or abused from myself, I have challenged you and will continue to challenge your attacks on the NHS and in particular the mental health services I have never abused you, I don’t need to sink that low in a debate.
Oh the incessant whining “oh he keeps adjusting the ratings up and down” yet you do the same, yes I exploit something to enable me to do it, it is something I have learned over the past 2+ years of posting comments on various websites, White Rabbit9 I suspect it also very good at it, my comments have suffered in the past, due to the Rabbit, hopefully no longer.
Why should I ever reveal any more information about myself on this website, I spend a lot of time and effort on this and other Newsquest websites mainly commenting against the pro pot people who advocate legalising of their righteous herb being able to do this anonymously is very important to me, so I will ignore your plea of revealing information about myself it will achieve little anyway
On a final note I did try and start to debate with you about sectioning from my first comment, however once you said “So basically you came to stick the boot in” I felt this discussion veered towards what we have now
Although I am not sure are you just hung up on the term “sectioned” or are you against anyone being held against their will, perhaps you would like to elaborate?
So the Union I am a member is not to your liking, they have looked after me when I have needed them, and I am sure other Unions would do a similar job to Unison (the main reason I like Unison is there is a shop steward to talk to in our hospital on most days) With a very large organisation like the NHS which employs about 1.3million people there are bound to be a few that fall below the standards the NHS strives for but those numbers (Stafford Hospital apart - "One hospital") the vast majority are decent very caring and hard working people who care passionately about the NHS and the people we treat mostly battling with ever diminishing resources your constant b1tching about it largely based on an old and irrelevant experience nearly 30 years ago, as I have said before the NHS has moved on perhaps you should do likewise You keep mentioning about me being bullied or abused from myself, I have challenged you and will continue to challenge your attacks on the NHS and in particular the mental health services I have never abused you, I don’t need to sink that low in a debate. Oh the incessant whining “oh he keeps adjusting the ratings up and down” yet you do the same, yes I exploit something to enable me to do it, it is something I have learned over the past 2+ years of posting comments on various websites, White Rabbit9 I suspect it also very good at it, my comments have suffered in the past, due to the Rabbit, hopefully no longer. Why should I ever reveal any more information about myself on this website, I spend a lot of time and effort on this and other Newsquest websites mainly commenting against the pro pot people who advocate legalising of their righteous herb being able to do this anonymously is very important to me, so I will ignore your plea of revealing information about myself it will achieve little anyway On a final note I did try and start to debate with you about sectioning from my first comment, however once you said “So basically you came to stick the boot in” I felt this discussion veered towards what we have now Although I am not sure are you just hung up on the term “sectioned” or are you against anyone being held against their will, perhaps you would like to elaborate? Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

The discussion 'veered off,' initially, not because I got personal, but because you made a mistake and failed to admit to it: "If that was the case, I am sure out of the many thousands of people who are detained each year someone would have successfully challenged their detention." *Of course* sectionees successfully challenge their detention, which I then pointed out. Did you accept & apologise? Very grudgingly, if at all. This set the tone for the rest of your contributions. You continue doing so in your recentmost, with emotively loaded terms 'b1tching,' 'incessant whining' and 'hung up' - you clearly have an inferiority complex which makes you repeatedly try to make the addressee look small.
The irony is that if you had debated the actual issue from the start, instead of being abusive/defensive, it would have been more difficult to reply to.
Yes I am 'hung up' on the term 'sectioned' and I'll explain why. Recently I attended a discussion in which a ward nurse revealed that medical staff discuss patients disrespectfully amongst themselves 'not out of disrespect towards patients, but to relieve tension.' That's OK so far as it goes, but my feeling is that said disrespect sometimes leaks out openly towards vulnerable patients: the term 'sectioning' looks like a possible example, and one which has become routine, and even used, in the end, by patients themselves.
I suspect that 'sectioning' is used excessively - in fact I know from personal experience. If, for example, the young lady in the article were being offered a break, free board & lodging away from home by supportive, attentive staff, would she actually need to be 'sectioned?' I'm not sure.
If detention were deemed necessary, I would prefer the term 'Care Order'/'placed under a Care Order.' This could be routinely abbreviated to 'placed.'
So, you plead anonymity on the grounds that you oppose the legalisation of cannabis, setting yourself against a) the majority of adults, according to recent polls, and at the same time b) active criminals (technically speaking). If the illegal status of cannabis is giving you a sense of justification for anonymous virtual abuse, this just seems one more argument in favour of the majority view on the matter.
The discussion 'veered off,' initially, not because I got personal, but because you made a mistake and failed to admit to it: "If that was the case, I am sure out of the many thousands of people who are detained each year someone would have successfully challenged their detention." *Of course* sectionees successfully challenge their detention, which I then pointed out. Did you accept & apologise? Very grudgingly, if at all. This set the tone for the rest of your contributions. You continue doing so in your recentmost, with emotively loaded terms 'b1tching,' 'incessant whining' and 'hung up' - you clearly have an inferiority complex which makes you repeatedly try to make the addressee look small. The irony is that if you had debated the actual issue from the start, instead of being abusive/defensive, it would have been more difficult to reply to. Yes I am 'hung up' on the term 'sectioned' and I'll explain why. Recently I attended a discussion in which a ward nurse revealed that medical staff discuss patients disrespectfully amongst themselves 'not out of disrespect towards patients, but to relieve tension.' That's OK so far as it goes, but my feeling is that said disrespect sometimes leaks out openly towards vulnerable patients: the term 'sectioning' looks like a possible example, and one which has become routine, and even used, in the end, by patients themselves. I suspect that 'sectioning' is used excessively - in fact I know from personal experience. If, for example, the young lady in the article were being offered a break, free board & lodging away from home by supportive, attentive staff, would she actually need to be 'sectioned?' I'm not sure. If detention were deemed necessary, I would prefer the term 'Care Order'/'placed under a Care Order.' This could be routinely abbreviated to 'placed.' So, you plead anonymity on the grounds that you oppose the legalisation of cannabis, setting yourself against a) the majority of adults, according to recent polls, and at the same time b) active criminals (technically speaking). If the illegal status of cannabis is giving you a sense of justification for anonymous virtual abuse, this just seems one more argument in favour of the majority view on the matter. Richard Comaish
  • Score: -2

9:40pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

As regards to my phrase” If that was the case, I am sure out of the many thousands of people who are detained each year someone would have successfully challenged their detention” I was referring to a legal challenge to sectioning as a whole (as you claimed it breached Article 9 of the Human rights Act) not to individual cases that people bring before tribunals where a minority win their respective cases (based on personal observation) therefore I have nothing to apologise for.

I think it matters little what term they use, but I would say “Sectioned” is a dated term and could do with a change, however whatever term is used there will be a stigma attached to it because of what it actually means.

I would doubt sectioning is used excessively (although I have read it is being used as a tactic in order to get someone a bed), you only have to see the meagre amount of beds the mental health services have at it’s disposal (little over 20,000 within the NHS) compare that to 32,000 ten years ago, as I have reminded you Psychiatry has changed, it has had to, mostly for the better long gone the days you could just turn up at the door of the local Psychiatric unit and get admitted, or if you were sectioned having to endure stays of over 2 years in an acute mental health unit, Community care which finished at 5pm every day and was virtually non-existent at weekends, In Short you have to be very unwell to get a bed nowadays as the mental health services try their utmost to treat people outside of hospital (Home Treatment team/Hospital at Home)

In regards to the lady in the article I am sure if the professionals who made the decision to detain her tried other options first (Hospital at Home/Informal Admission etc.) but I guess felt they could not guarantee she would remain safe, these social workers/Doctors have to make these sort of calls every day had she been free to harm herself hey would have been dammed, you question if detention was necessary-how did you come to this conclusion?, become a social worker , work in mental health and let’s see how you get on.

I don’t plead anonymity just because of cannabis debates, if you use your own name then that’s your call, I will remain with the vast majority and remain behind my username, anyway what polls were you referring to?
As regards to my phrase” If that was the case, I am sure out of the many thousands of people who are detained each year someone would have successfully challenged their detention” I was referring to a legal challenge to sectioning as a whole (as you claimed it breached Article 9 of the Human rights Act) not to individual cases that people bring before tribunals where a minority win their respective cases (based on personal observation) therefore I have nothing to apologise for. I think it matters little what term they use, but I would say “Sectioned” is a dated term and could do with a change, however whatever term is used there will be a stigma attached to it because of what it actually means. I would doubt sectioning is used excessively (although I have read it is being used as a tactic in order to get someone a bed), you only have to see the meagre amount of beds the mental health services have at it’s disposal (little over 20,000 within the NHS) compare that to 32,000 ten years ago, as I have reminded you Psychiatry has changed, it has had to, mostly for the better long gone the days you could just turn up at the door of the local Psychiatric unit and get admitted, or if you were sectioned having to endure stays of over 2 years in an acute mental health unit, Community care which finished at 5pm every day and was virtually non-existent at weekends, In Short you have to be very unwell to get a bed nowadays as the mental health services try their utmost to treat people outside of hospital (Home Treatment team/Hospital at Home) In regards to the lady in the article I am sure if the professionals who made the decision to detain her tried other options first (Hospital at Home/Informal Admission etc.) but I guess felt they could not guarantee she would remain safe, these social workers/Doctors have to make these sort of calls every day had she been free to harm herself hey would have been dammed, you question if detention was necessary-how did you come to this conclusion?, become a social worker , work in mental health and let’s see how you get on. I don’t plead anonymity just because of cannabis debates, if you use your own name then that’s your call, I will remain with the vast majority and remain behind my username, anyway what polls were you referring to? Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

1. Actually, you are showing immense ignorance, again - sectioned mental patients (even patients in the community) simply do not have access to the patient-friendly human rights lawyers you imply - you have to be a criminal for that(!).
2. Good news that we agree on one point - there's something wrong with the term 'sectioned' - altho I'm not sure that humorous abuse towards patients was ever *not* out of date(!).
3. Interesting - it hadn't occurred to me, in all these years, that sectioning was a tactic to get a bed - but from a global, patients' perspective, this actually supports my allegation of 'unnecessary sectioning.'
4. Patients and carers were *always* told that resources were in short supply, 'you have to be very ill to get a bed,' etc.
5. My point about the young lady in the article was that she might well agree, without any resistance, to go to a retreat/place of safety, if that's what it really was. The fact is that she's going to go to a nasty, boring environment where she will be virtually forced into nursing fellow patients while you sit in the office playing with the Net. She may also get abused, with impunity, by one or two of them, like I was in 1986/7. And then there's the nasty, demeaning authoritarianism from 'little Hitlers' like yourself. :D
6. I do not wish to become a mental health worker until and unless you clean up the whole act, as per advice above.
7. I was referring to recent polls, in the news this year, which show a majority of adults, at last, in favour of the decriminalisation of cannabis.
8. I am replying from Herne Bay Library on a local Mind day-trip - does that qualify me for silver, in the Virtual Anorak of the Year stakes? :D
1. Actually, you are showing immense ignorance, again - sectioned mental patients (even patients in the community) simply do not have access to the patient-friendly human rights lawyers you imply - you have to be a criminal for that(!). 2. Good news that we agree on one point - there's something wrong with the term 'sectioned' - altho I'm not sure that humorous abuse towards patients was ever *not* out of date(!). 3. Interesting - it hadn't occurred to me, in all these years, that sectioning was a tactic to get a bed - but from a global, patients' perspective, this actually supports my allegation of 'unnecessary sectioning.' 4. Patients and carers were *always* told that resources were in short supply, 'you have to be very ill to get a bed,' etc. 5. My point about the young lady in the article was that she might well agree, without any resistance, to go to a retreat/place of safety, if that's what it really was. The fact is that she's going to go to a nasty, boring environment where she will be virtually forced into nursing fellow patients while you sit in the office playing with the Net. She may also get abused, with impunity, by one or two of them, like I was in 1986/7. And then there's the nasty, demeaning authoritarianism from 'little Hitlers' like yourself. :D 6. I do not wish to become a mental health worker until and unless you clean up the whole act, as per advice above. 7. I was referring to recent polls, in the news this year, which show a majority of adults, at last, in favour of the decriminalisation of cannabis. 8. I am replying from Herne Bay Library on a local Mind day-trip - does that qualify me for silver, in the Virtual Anorak of the Year stakes? :D Richard Comaish
  • Score: -25

10:07pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

1 Immense ignorance eh?, So there are roughly 50, 000 sectioned per annum, approx. 16 years of the Human rights Act, roughly 800,000 potential cases, I am sure some top lawyer would have challenged it in court during the past 16 years, just imagine the prize making virtually detention under the mental health act Illegal, nope it hasn’t happened, (I see even a QC defended a patient at a tribunal) reason outlined in my second comment ironically from the “MIND” website.

3 You clearly do not understand how people are accessed, for example if this lady may have been asked by those assessing her would you agree to informal admission to hospital or they might have deemed her so risky they felt they had little choice, mental health isn’t a precise science but I guess that hadn’t occurred to you .Do you think every sectioning is wrong?

4 But not as short supply as they are now…….

6. Obviously happy to whinge from the sidelines then

7 Which ones are you referring to? Got any links?

8 I had never heard of this competition, you obviously have, I guess you are the only one in it, the gold is yours since you have readily accepted the silver (coming second is becoming second nature to you isn’t it ;-)) )



And now for No5 …`



5 Your assumption that she has gone to a nasty boring environment probably very harsh and on the hospital unit she may be on at the moment; my you are a bitter man aren’t you. Just for the information I am not from Bromley (nowhere near) so it is very very doubtful she would be a patient where I work

As for calling me “ a little Hitler” Godwin’s Law you lose the debate , now just go crawl back under that stone it is where you belong
1 Immense ignorance eh?, So there are roughly 50, 000 sectioned per annum, approx. 16 years of the Human rights Act, roughly 800,000 potential cases, I am sure some top lawyer would have challenged it in court during the past 16 years, just imagine the prize making virtually detention under the mental health act Illegal, nope it hasn’t happened, (I see even a QC defended a patient at a tribunal) reason outlined in my second comment ironically from the “MIND” website. 3 You clearly do not understand how people are accessed, for example if this lady may have been asked by those assessing her would you agree to informal admission to hospital or they might have deemed her so risky they felt they had little choice, mental health isn’t a precise science but I guess that hadn’t occurred to you .Do you think every sectioning is wrong? 4 But not as short supply as they are now……. 6. Obviously happy to whinge from the sidelines then 7 Which ones are you referring to? Got any links? 8 I had never heard of this competition, you obviously have, I guess you are the only one in it, the gold is yours since you have readily accepted the silver (coming second is becoming second nature to you isn’t it ;-)) ) And now for No5 …` 5 Your assumption that she has gone to a nasty boring environment probably very harsh and on the hospital unit she may be on at the moment; my you are a bitter man aren’t you. Just for the information I am not from Bromley (nowhere near) so it is very very doubtful she would be a patient where I work As for calling me “ a little Hitler” Godwin’s Law you lose the debate , now just go crawl back under that stone it is where you belong Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:33pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Richard Comaish says...

1. I have never had access to mental health lawyers, and don't know anyone else locally who has.
3. You mean 'assessed.'
Your Point 3 misses my Point 5.
4. Yes, they always said/say that, too.
5. If you are not from anywhere near Bromley, your efforts to contribute to online public reaction to local events anonymously seem all the more misleading and insidious.
6. 'Whingers' 'happy?' 'Like a room without a roof,' perhaps?
7. Link re public views on cannabis: http://www.theguardi
an.com/commentisfree
/2013/oct/23/marijua
na-legalization-majo
rity-support

'Godwin's Law' (like everything else) = totalitarian.
1. I have never had access to mental health lawyers, and don't know anyone else locally who has. 3. You mean 'assessed.' Your Point 3 misses my Point 5. 4. Yes, they always said/say that, too. 5. If you are not from anywhere near Bromley, your efforts to contribute to online public reaction to local events anonymously seem all the more misleading and insidious. 6. 'Whingers' 'happy?' 'Like a room without a roof,' perhaps? 7. Link re public views on cannabis: http://www.theguardi an.com/commentisfree /2013/oct/23/marijua na-legalization-majo rity-support 'Godwin's Law' (like everything else) = totalitarian. Richard Comaish
  • Score: -2

11:54pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Dr Martin says...

1 wouldn't make much difference to sectioning as a whole anyway, if detaining or sectioning someone did breach Article 9 (which it doesn't) some lawyer would have challenged it by now
3 My point 3 was in answer to 3 not 5 ( Are you trying to confuse?)
4 well beds have been decline since they peaked around 1955 at around 150,000
6 Well you seem to be happy to tar (whinge) about the modern NHS based on your experience of 30 years ago or make false accusations about me (just because I defend the service I work for), when offered an opportunity to a) gain employment b) work within mental health you declined.Chances are the Doctors and Nurses and support staff of 1986/7 have all long gone, and perhaps even the hospital/unit itself may no longer exist, as I said mental health has moved on.....
7 oh dear I was hoping for a British survey not some american opinion polls , but whilst we are at it I see 15 poll results (mid page) "only 5" show more than 50% support for weed. so not much of a debate winner there

And once again I leave number 5 to last.....
I don't have to be a local person to debate on a story where this story is from is irrelevant, mental health professionals up and down the country are having to make judgments on how to keep hundreds of people safe every day with ever decreasing beds, that's a national issue. I would find just commenting on one paper boring it's nice to exchange views with different people, in short I debate NHS/Mental Health and cannabis/illicit drugs wherever they may be published.
1 wouldn't make much difference to sectioning as a whole anyway, if detaining or sectioning someone did breach Article 9 (which it doesn't) some lawyer would have challenged it by now 3 My point 3 was in answer to 3 not 5 ( Are you trying to confuse?) 4 well beds have been decline since they peaked around 1955 at around 150,000 6 Well you seem to be happy to tar (whinge) about the modern NHS based on your experience of 30 years ago or make false accusations about me (just because I defend the service I work for), when offered an opportunity to a) gain employment b) work within mental health you declined.Chances are the Doctors and Nurses and support staff of 1986/7 have all long gone, and perhaps even the hospital/unit itself may no longer exist, as I said mental health has moved on..... 7 oh dear I was hoping for a British survey not some american opinion polls , but whilst we are at it I see 15 poll results (mid page) "only 5" show more than 50% support for weed. so not much of a debate winner there And once again I leave number 5 to last..... I don't have to be a local person to debate on a story where this story is from is irrelevant, mental health professionals up and down the country are having to make judgments on how to keep hundreds of people safe every day with ever decreasing beds, that's a national issue. I would find just commenting on one paper boring it's nice to exchange views with different people, in short I debate NHS/Mental Health and cannabis/illicit drugs wherever they may be published. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree