Editorial

Citation

Penhale, B. and Flynn, M. (2013), "Editorial", The Journal of Adult Protection, Vol. 15 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/jap.2013.54915baa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: The Journal of Adult Protection, Volume 15, Issue 2

Welcome to the second issue of 2013.

We learned during December 2012, that five members of the wealthy Connors family who exploited 19 vulnerable male drifters and addicts, had been found guilty of conspiring to require a person to carry out forced labour. They have since been sentenced to between two and six years in prison. While the family enjoyed lavish lifestyles their victims lived in squalid conditions, were kept half-starved and were subject to frequent beatings, humiliating rituals and “hosing” with freezing water after having been required to strip. Such demonstrations of control and dominance are familiar to safeguarding practitioners. Although some men managed to get away, the family were adept at rounding them up again (there are echoes of Michael Gilbert’s circumstances – see Luton’s Serious Case Review). The Connors’ retained the men’s identity documents, enabling them to live off their earnings and their welfare benefits. It was the discovery of Christopher Nicholls’ body during May 2008, which led to the initial police investigation. He had been recruited by the Connors to work for their paving and patio businesses in England. The police secured video evidence of at least one man with learning disabilities being assaulted by a family member. The family’s property portfolio and “savings” will be investigated with a view to invoking the Proceeds of Crime legislation.

As the festive season approached we learned of the games played by wealthy sham “directors” in their efforts to side step paying tax. The schemes cross international boundaries and exploit weaknesses in legislation and international co-operation to hide assets from tax authorities. The scale is not yet known but at a time when Councils in England have cut £5 billion, it makes the concerns of adult safeguarding regarding theft and exploitation seem unduly tame.

Professor Shildrick of Teeside University and her colleagues helpfully confirm in Poverty and Insecurity: Life in Low-pay, No-pay Britain (Shildrick et al., 2012), that the “welfare scrounger” is indeed a myth. In the UK almost seven million working age adults are living in extreme financial hardship, despite being in employment, having a strong work ethic and being mostly independent of welfare benefits. Their “in-work poverty” prompts Shildrick and colleagues to ask whether or not we are witnessing the growth of a new class of “precariats.”

Dr Derek Keilloh, a GP in North Yorkshire has been found guilty of serious misconduct by the General Medical Council at a hearing that concluded shortly before the Christmas break. In a previous editorial, the journal gave coverage to the death of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi detainee who died while in the custody of the British Army in Iraq in 2003. He was a hotel receptionist who was arrested and brutally beaten, while hooded, by members of the Queens Lancashire Regiment. Dr Keilloh was the senior Army medic who treated Baha Mousa during the night that he died. Subsequently he denied any knowledge of Baha Mousa’s extensive injuries. Having been “struck off” for his misconduct, Derek Keilloh will not be able to work as a GP in the UK.

America’s appalling epidemic of gun violence in educational establishments, as seen at University of Texas, 1966; California State University, 1976; Cleveland Elementary School, 1989; University of Iowa, 1991; Westside Middle School, 1998; Columbine High School, 1999; Red Lake High School, 2005; West Nickel Mines School, 2006; Virginia Tech, 2007 amongst others, continues – and has yielded further victims, this time 18 small children and nine teachers of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. There appear to be some welcome cracks in the tolerance of the gun lobby’s mantras that they can and should “bear arms” and that people, not guns, kill people. The National Rifle Association (NRA) spent £12 million to prevent the President’s re-election (as a candidate during 2008, Barak Obama sought to reinstate the ban on assault weapons, explore curbs on high capacity ammunition and buying guns). It seems quite unbelievable that 30,000 firearms deaths occurring each year has not yet prompted decisive action. Perhaps consideration should be given to Seber’s (2012) idea:

…If the NRA is so powerful, a fresh approach could be to drop any idea of new gun control laws and to link real responsibility to that power. Might US legislators think about making the NRA responsible for approving gun owners and then holding the NRA accountable for how those owners use and store their weapons? There would probably be no need for an enforcement agency; lawsuits could end up doing the job.

This second issue contains a number of papers that should be of interest to the readership. The first paper, by Mary Gilhooly and colleagues from Brunel University reports on the findings of an Economic and Social Research Council funded research study, which considered financial abuse of older people. Specifically, the study explored the views and perspectives of social care, health and banking professionals about the triggers that might lead them to consider or suspect elder financial abuse and then to take action, or at least to report this possibility. Interestingly this paper considers the issue from within the framework of the model of bystander intervention and whether and how this model might be applied within situations of financial abuse and provides much food for thought.

The second paper, by Abbi Hobbs and Andrew Alonzi deals with the linked topics of the use of techniques of mediation and family group conferences within the context of adult safeguarding. Both of these approaches have been used for some time within child and family situations, but their use within adult safeguarding is relatively new. This paper, based on a piece of work originally undertaken for the Social Care Institute for Excellence, considers the practices that have developed, some of which are promising in terms of potential outcomes. It also considers how these approaches to adult safeguarding fit within the wider frameworks of personalisation and empowerment, particularly as these have developed within adult social care in certain parts of the UK. The paper also explores the implications of such approaches for the development of best practice and suggests future priorities within service development and research possibilities.

The following paper, by Emma Stevens tackles the thorny and longstanding issue of multi-agency working within adult safeguarding. The paper aims to highlight current issues and challenges involved in developing good practice within this area. This is achieved through an examination and review of a range of relevant literature and the evidence base that has been developing concerning this area in recent years. The paper emphasises that we have some way to go in terms of developing good practice in this area and points to continuing difficulties between the different professionals involved in safeguarding, particularly in terms of understanding different roles, responsibilities and accountabilities and reaching agreement on key areas such as definitions and thresholds.

The final paper in this issue is one of our regular legal contributions from editorial board member David Hewitt. It provides an in-depth report and analysis of a case relating to adult safeguarding that was heard in the High Court in England during 2012. The case concerned the actions taken by one local authority during a safeguarding investigation and the judge who heard the case was critical of the approaches and actions taken by the authority in the way that they dealt with the safeguarding case and the effect of these on the complainant, who owned a care home which was the subject of the safeguarding investigation. The case raises a number of issues and concerns, but importantly also links to an area of current disquiet on the part of a number of commentators that suggests that at times contemporary safeguarding practices may themselves be tantamount to a type of abuse. The paper considers these issues in a measured way and looks at the possible implications and lessons that might be learned following such an in-depth exploration of the case.

We trust that you will find some useful information and topics of interest this current issue and hope that you will find some time for further consideration of some of the issues presented here. Do get in touch with one (or even both) of the editors to provide feedback, ideas or suggestions about the journal, or to offer your services in some capacity.

Bridget Penhale, Margaret Flynn