[Closed] Mental health act - section 3, clarification needed, Does it include Paedophiles

I'm sending the Sun readers round your [s]house[/s] institution as I type.

can't quite make sense of it

It makes sense to me.

thank you sooooooooo much. No there's a planning app for a "residential institution" for the "mentally impaired" near me just gone in, which looks lovely, but when you see who's the supervising consultant, and their speciality is supervising the very worst types of offenders, and you dig a little deeper online where they are touting for trade, before being approved or CQC reg'd, they talk about taking mainly people

detained under the Mental Health Act particularly Section 37, 37/41, and 3 with forensic histories

so ernie are you saying it Does include Paedophiles?

Nimby is as nimby does. 🙂

Oh goody, you're already sharpening your pitchforks and preparing the torches.

[img] [/img]

Look, never mind the kiddy fiddling aspect; any institution of that kind near your property will kill the value of your home, rightly or wrongly, assuming you're a home-owner.

Fight it tooth and nail.

And next time, just ask properly, without the cloak and dagger routine.

so ernie are you saying it Does include Paedophiles?

That's how I see it. "Persons diagnosed with paedophilia can be detained in hospital" under the mental health act. I can't see anything in the wording which leads me to think otherwise.

But I'm not a psychiatrist, lawyer, or paedophile. And sometimes I can be a bit dopey and my english isn't very good - so don't take my word for it. I'm just saying that it seems clear to me.

thanks ernie,I thought so too.

Look, never mind the kiddy fiddling aspect; any institution of that kind near your property will kill the value of your home, rightly or wrongly, assuming you're a home-owner.

Fight it tooth and nail.

Where are they going to go if everyone thinks like that though?

Ap and Grum
We live in a remote rural setting. I have a 14 year old daughter. She has just last week started walking past this property to catch the bus to town on her own as we try to sensibly increase her independance levels. Please excuse me wishing to at least know the worst case scenario.
Residential home for the mentally and physically handicapped, not going to do the property value any favours, but there you go, we've all got to make room for one another on this crowded little island, and there but for the good grace of god go I or mine.
Paedophiles and violent sex offenders are another matter.

Grum - honestly? I wouldn't care, so long as it was far, far away from my hard, earned property. Windfarms? Yes, no worries. Sub-stations? Slightly less welcome, but hey. Nuclear waste site? No thanks. Institution for dangerous psychiatric patients? On yer bike.

Yes, it's nimbyism, but much as I love all God's creatures, my house is worth little enough (surrounded as it is by industrial enterprises of one sort or another) and something like that ^^^ would just be the end of my little family's chance at getting on a bit. Why not build it out in the countryside somewhere.... Oh wait....

thanks User-removed, i think..

Many years ago a planning application was put in for the house bang opposite me to made into a residential home for the mentally ill (sort of halfway house back into the community) My neighbour, an elderly lady who kept lodgers - all girls, and who I normally got on with extremely well, started up a petition to oppose the planning permission.

I refused to sign it on the basis that firstly, I didn't believe for a minute that they would allow dangerous people to live there, and secondly, because I accepted that the residential home had to be somewhere.

My neighbour was horrified when I refused to sign it and claimed that if any of her "girls" (her lodgers) were raped, it would be my fault 🙂

The planning permission was given the go ahead and the residents of the home have proved to be absolutely model citizens over many years - they are certainly better than some of the lo-lifes that stay in the bed and breakfast "hotel" next door to them. And no one would have any idea that it is a residential home for the mentally ill.

That's good to hear. And yes i could certainly see how it would be better than a doss house for job dodgers. But i need to know the truth of what this character potentially has in mind to be able to assess what we are looking at.

I know it's not the best option but...what about selling yer house before it's built and moving?

too late once a planning app is in. Has to be disclosed.
I guess a planning app for an institute for sex offenders is going to put some folks off, though i could be wrong of course.
Kind of reluctant to move form the home four generations of my family have built and grown up in too.

Move house? I think you should....you'd then have even more to fear and moan about with only prejudices to justify it.

Oh and did it occur to you that by the time this place is open your daughter will probably be close to 16 or over?

Do you really think its going to be full of predatory paedophiles who are going to be let out unsupervised to ravish the neighbours?

Far more likely it will have other mentally ill offenders under close supervision

It's threads like this that make me think I'm reading the Daily Mail rather than Singletrack!

I guess a planning app for an institute for sex offenders is going to put some folks off

I thought you said "residential institution for the mentally impaired" ? It's now become "an institute for sex offenders" ?

BTW with regards to your original question, I'm fairly sure that anyone held under the mental health act isn't placed in a residential home, but instead in a secure unit which involves going through several locked doors. Well that's my experience anyway.

So if the planning app is for a residential home then I can't see why it would be holding anyone held under the mental health act section 3, paedophile or not.

I think people under section can be placed in community hostels but not dangerous or violent folk.

Seems strange to hold someone against their will in a community hostel - why don't they just walk out ?

I've only ever known a couple of people that were sectioned and both were held in a secure unit, to do otherwise would have been pointless.

Locked door? i ain't certain tho.

Maybe this?

Section 117 (after-care arrangements)

This section applies to people who have been detained under the Mental Health Act under Sections 3, 37, 37/41, 47 and 48. This means that the care team has a duty to make arrangements for a person’s continuing support and care in the community.

jesus christ it's all gone a bit brass eye today.

look at that photograph. now look again, there's a care home for people with mental health issues, and its stacked full of paedos!

why is it that we can't talk about the british isles any more without the word 'paedoph' in front of it?

hmmmmm

Why not build it out in the countryside somewhere.... Oh wait....

You can b****r off with that idea!

We've enough inbred, shotgun toting landowners, and associated knuckle draggers out here already.

Topped up with a liberal sprinkling of egomaniac welfare to work company owners, lawyers, consultants and other assorted ne'er do wells.

Don't you think we have enough to cope with and deserve a break? 😀

Locked door? i ain't certain tho.

IIRC the last time I visited someone who had been sectioned it involved a fairly complex arrangement of going through locked doors. I also once changed all the locks (upgrade) in a mental hospital, the secure unit which held people who had been sectioned definitely had locks. And worryingly it also still had patients in it as I changed the locks.....with my chisels and other pointy tools 🙂

You started off with section 3, then casually threw in section 37 and 37/41 patients (hospital orders and home office restrictions). What kind of unit is he wanting to open? He'll really have to have his act together in order to satisfy the CQC requirements. Also, I would presume the prospective residents would be thoroughly assessed and deemed appropriate to be housed in this kind of setting prior to being allowed to do so, and with regards to anyone held under 37/41, would have to satisfy stringent home office restrictions. I've worked with this type of client group for a long time, both in forensic units and acute. Section 3 is for treatment of mental illness, for up to 6 months, then a further 6 and yearly after that, not necessarily for people with a forensic history - thats where section 37, etc, is generally used. Sadly, having a unit like this close to your property may well put people off buying your house, but as far as safety issues are concerned, If it's run and staffed by people who know what they're doing, there shouldnt be a problem.

ernie - there are various levels of security I think

ernie - there are various levels of security I think

Fair enough. I must've visited a proper nutter.

Simple answer to the original question is of course "paedophiles" can be sectioned under the MHA in the same way that "mountain bikers", "shop lifters", "vicars" and "judges" could also be sectioned under the mental health act if they had a mental illness that required compulsory admission to hospital for treatment.
The mental health act doesn't discriminate on the grounds of previous criminal convictions.
I think you are asking the wrong question somehow.

As per docrobster's reply - people can't be detained under the MHA purely because they are a paedophile - paedophilia is not a mental illness.
Secondly - 'residential institution' - sounds more like a care/nursing home type of set up. In which case, they cannot accept people detained under the act - it has to be a hospital setting with special approval.

FYI

Paedophile doth not = 'kiddie fiddler', despite what the great unwashed' media asserts.

No law against being a paedophile, which makes media claims that someone is a 'convicted paedophile' about as informative as calling someone a 'convicted driver'.

Paedophile only means an adult that finds children sexually attractive. It doesn't mean they actively DO anyone about such feelings.

How do we know all this? Because of the case of the school caretaker who admitted to finding young boys sexually attractive and was sacked for saying so. The courts ruled he was entitled to his beliefs and he had been sacked unfairly.

Of course exactly what 'children' means is a whole new topic. People under 21 as per the law in some countries? Under 14 as per other countries? Under 18 as per international guidelines? Under 16 as per UK? How about pre-pubescent individuals as defined by mother nature. Hardly 'unnatural' to find someone capable of breeding that mother nature has design to be sexually attractive to the opposite sex sexually attractive.

Northernhammer - People under section can, and regularly are, housed in 'care/nursing home types of set up', including section 37/41 patients. (The '41' part of this section indicates home office restrictions, which is what I presume you mean by 'special approval'.

as a manager of such a home i could clear up lots of questions asked in this thread...

but the attitude already showed towards people suffering from mental health problems and who have spent their time in prisons/forensic units serving their sentence for whatever violent/sexual crime they committed under the influence of a mental health problem puts me off doing so.

i'd feel more threatened walking through a town centre at pub closing time than i do sitting in a room with the clients i support.

what i will clarify is that it is possible to have section 3 patients as well as the forensic patients (sections 37, 41 etc) all in the same house in the community... they wouldn't be there if they hadn't been assessed as safe to be given such an opportunity, the level of support from community teams is pretty intense for such patients and this is in addition to the support given by the staff working in the home.

the owner of the property wont necessarily be the manager, i'd expect the manager to be a qualified RMN with forensic experience in such an instance. not only will it be up to a qualified manager/RMN to assess the clients but the hospital referring the clients will have a duty to only refer when they are as certain as they can be that the client is ready for the move, hospitals dont take this lightly, trust me!

as for locked doors, the homes i manage... well the only locks are on the residents bedrooms for privacy, and the front door to stop the public coming in uninvited.

And it's also true, as far as I am aware, that they can shoot laser beams out of their eyes, and in the winter, they turn into swallows.

There used to be a 'paedophile' test someone on the net, but I'll be buggered if I can find it. It showed fully clothed young people of both sexes in a variety of outfits and poses (none overtly sexual and therefore not breaking any laws). Viewers had to tick which ones they 'fancied'. And as you've probably guessed the youngest looking ones were actual adults whereas the adult looking ones were under 16, proving most viewers to be 'paedophiles' (in the great unwashed media sense).

And there are lots of them about, just question any groups of 15 year olds (either sex) and see how many date over 18s!

dont be silly b'mitch, its only broadmoor patients who can do that, hence the big brick wall around the site! fences dont stop lazers but bricks do 😆

on a serious note... at least the ones under a mental health section recieve an intense level of support in the community, mrsconsequence works with some horrifically violent offenders in prison and half of them are already on a day release type thing where they go out during the day and return to the prison in the evenings... the risk to your kids doesn't only come from people with psychiatric difficulties!

The other thing that should be mentioned is this: The vast majority of criminally disordered offenders that I've worked with over the years have commited their index offences with either members of their own families or people already known to them. Yes, there are predatory paedophiles, etc, that will target strangers, but more often than not, it's been relatives, etc. Also agree with phil regarding feeling safer at work than I do in town at closing time.

Tucker - the psycologists at HMP Albany used to have a PowerPoint presentation that sounded like that, they used to see how long the prisoners spent looking at each picture to help identify what turned them on and so in turn help the prisoner understand and recognise their own behaviour and avoid situations that could tempt them.

The vast majority of criminally disordered offenders that I've worked with over the years have commited their index offences with either members of their own families or people already known to them. Yes, there are predatory paedophiles, etc, that will target strangers, but more often than not, it's been relatives, etc

i'd echo that statement, parents, girlfriends, partners, forum members normally.

Paedophile doth not = 'kiddie fiddler', despite what the great unwashed' media asserts.

Paedophilia is generally described as fantasising about sex with kids under 13. Acting on it is generally described as sexual abuse. Either way, it's not really a healthy or morally correct lifestyle choice, is it?

Paedophiles should be hung.. to many nonce lovers out there. Like i say if you dont think nonces should all die then you must be a nonce.

And here's the voice of reason...

[b]Philconsequence/Barnsleymitch

[/b]Genuine query this. I'm an AMHP, and I suppose I'm wondering how somebody can be detained under s.2/3/37 into a residential provision, unless it has been defined as a hospital under s.34 MHA? In 10 years of ASW/AMHP practice I've never known this happen.

People can certainly be moved on [b]from[/b] hospital under a CTO, Guardianship or under the provision of s.41, but they can't [b]initially[/b] be detained to a setting [b]other[/b] than a hospital surely?

Apologies to all none MHA geeks who just read that.

northernhammer - perhaps a misunderstanding on my part - I had thought, from your first post, that you meant people on section couldnt be discharged or transferred to a residential setting, which of course they can, but yes you're right, first admission under section would be to a hospital setting or approved place of safety. Anyway, it looks like we're both wrong, and they should all be hung... 🙄

jumpupanddown - Member
Paedophiles should be hung..

That'll cause more damage to the kids, surely?

Surely this just boils down to the 'need' for such a facility in the location that OP is talking about. Rural location unlikely, larger population centre more likely. If the objections are sensible, everybody has the right to oppose a planning application.

To those in the mental health sector (workers, not residents), you have my admiration but arguments based on checks and balances that "should" be in place wouldn't convince me not to oppose such a planning application. Plenty of examples of things going wrong, which is almost a given when considering the lack of budget available for such care.

The point that philc makes of serious nutters on day release from prison is well made and shows that ignorance is bliss.

cb - Member
Plenty of examples of things going wrong

Really annoys me when people say things like that but don't provide any.

Where are they going to go if everyone thinks like that though?

Genuine query this. I'm an AMHP, and I suppose I'm wondering how somebody can be detained under s.2/3/37 into a residential provision, unless it has been defined as a hospital under s.34 MHA? In 10 years of ASW/AMHP practice I've never known this happen.

People can certainly be moved on from hospital under a CTO, Guardianship or under the provision of s.41, but they can't initially be detained to a setting other than a hospital surely?

our chaps were all originally detained in prison, secure forensic hospitals like broadmoor or secure units.... so not detained under s.2/3/37 into a residential provision, but transferred to the residential provision under various provisions, often under a CTO as you say 🙂

CTO's are getting more common which is great, the provision to recall them back to hospital is handy, especially when the temptations of the community such as drugs and alcohol get involved!

arguments based on checks and balances that "should" be in place wouldn't convince me not to oppose such a planning application. Plenty of examples of things going wrong, which is almost a given when considering the lack of budget available for such care.

ahh yes, the media loves to use the words 'mental' and 'nutter' don't they, fortunately just because the press has an example of something going wrong, doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of other similar patients living successfully in the community, doing your gardening, volunteering in your local charity shops, pulling your pints etc.

Budget is definitely an issue, its health and social care after all! there are cases where the cheapest care provider 'wins' the patient... the other side of this is that as much as everyone in charge of the funding is trying to cut costs, they're now obsessed with checks and inspections to make sure they're getting what they pay for, so placement monitoring is more intense than when money was less of an issue.

as ever, i have more trouble managing the public's perception of our residents and the stigma, than i do effectively helping my residents work towards further independence in the community.

Lifer - it may annoy you but this is internet conversation - I'm not running for office, I don't ned to resort to stats to justify an opinion. OP was concerned that the value of his house would fall - it will. If I were him I'd oppose it for that reason alone. Quoting figures or at insinuating that large numbers of mental health patients are successfully active in the community doesn't change that.

cb - where is the residential institution of a comparable profile to the one proposed for the OP's neighbourhood closest to you?

Drillski - Although I can appreciate that you do not want such an institution at the end of your road (I think most people wouldnt want it if their honest) please listen to reason!

Your 14 year old daughter I wouldnt have thought would be of any interest to a Paedo, afterall she will nearly be a woman. Shouldnt you be more worried about spotty Tim at school having is wicked way with your daughter, getting her pregnant, and giving her an STD at the same time?

I dont quite see how people with mental health issues, in a secure/monitored environment are more of a risk than Joe Bloggs (Mr Pedo) walking down the street that hasnt been arrested as yet, or identified as a Pedo.

cb - Member
Lifer - it may annoy you but this is internet conversation - I'm not running for office, I don't ned to resort to stats to justify an opinion. OP was concerned that the value of his house would fall - it will. If I were him I'd oppose it for that reason alone. Quoting figures or at insinuating that large numbers of mental health patients are successfully active in the community doesn't change that.

Then why bring up something you can't back up when 'you would oppose it for that reason alone'? The world would be a lot better if people just said what they meant instead of trying to hide behind made up 'evidence'.

Drillski - the bottom line is that you or your family are no more at risk from these residents than they would be from a new neighbour moving in next door. I think you've seen the phrase 'mental health' and worked yerself into a bit of a frenzy. The odds are that these residents will simply be people who struggle to live at home unsupported as a consequence of their illness - it doesn't make them dangerous.

To the OP, as above, your 14 year old daughter is genuinely more at risk of abuse from a friend or member of your own family than a random paedophile.

Not saying this to be an arse but it's a fact.

Please let's not demonise everyone with mental health issues. I've done some work in a secure unit before and the people there were mainly a danger to themselves, not anyone else.

is not a mental illness

WROOONG!

The medical community often considers it to be a psychological disorder.

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG

(i'm not even sure what i'm saying 'wrong' to, it just looked fun to type)

GOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNG

(I haven't even got a gong I just like onomatopoeia)

I haven't even got a gong

its perverts like you that need to be locked up! 😆

Not the same thing but we 'sucessfully' opposed planning permission to turn the shop downstairs into a takeaway. You can't oppose on the grounds that it'll devalue your property and you can only oppose on things that they cant quibble about. eg. if it was a prison you couldn't object on the grounds your house would be worth less becasue its near a prison, but you could onject to a building beign built in the first place and spoiling the view/countryside. And you couldn't claim "what if one of them escaped" as the answer would just be "we'll make sure the doors locked". It was quite bizzare what we could/couldn't onbject on, like the smell we couldnt complain about, but we could complain about the bin lorry having to use the car park more often or the shop being open for longer hours in general.

Not the same thing but we 'sucessfully' opposed planning permission to turn the shop downstairs into a takeaway.

A [i]paedophile[/i] takeaway?

Lifer - Member

cb - Member
Plenty of examples of things going wrong

Really annoys me when people say things like that but don't provide any.

Here's one - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-15749442 ]Shaun Tudor.[/url]

Thisisnotaspoon:
IIRC from our planning permission squabbles with the Peak Park Authority - there is no entitlement to a view. It has to block light entering an existing window.

OP you may like to enlist the help of your local Parish Council, whilst not a planning authority in their own right they can be a bloody nuisance when mobilised.

[s]OP you may like to enlist the help of [/s]your local Parish Council[s], whilst not a planning authority in their own right[/s] - they can be a bloody nuisance [s]when mobilised[/s]

FTFY 😉

Mr_C that link would suggest he was on section 17 ("day release") leave from a secure hospital, not already living in the community, if so then thats a different scenario..... people who are considered for refferal to places such as the places i manage have to have had 'day release' most days a week for months and months without any incident before i'll even consider going to assess them.

care to find some links to new stories of people who have sexually assaulted children that aren't on 'day release'... you know.. family members, priests, family friends, scout leaders etc? much more common so less likely to make the news 👿

EDIT - only going to end up in a bad mood if the thread continues in this direction, will leave you chaps to it.

I agree it's not a perfect example of what the OP is facing and that most cases of abuse are not committed by persons unknown to the victim, but the question was about things going wrong in the system. If someone who has admitted that if released they will offend again is then given a two hour unsupervised release (at school leaving time) then there surely has been a breakdown in the system somewhere - so it was just an example of possible failings.

The question was about 'plenty of examples' of things going wrong.

I can appreciate that you do not want such an institution at the end of your road (I think most people wouldnt want it if their honest)

I can't see why not. Most people wouldn't have a problem with a residential home for physically disabled people, so why should they have a problem with a residential home for people with mental health issues ffs ?

The house bang opposite me is a hostel for people with mental health issues and I'm not least bit bothered by that - why should I be ? Or why should anyone else for that matter ? People who suffer from depression, schizophrenia, dependency issues, or any other mental health problems, need to live somewhere, and I think it's taking the piss if some people insist that they don't live near them. No one has a right to demand who lives near them.

any institution of that kind near your property will kill the value of your home

so put all the institutions up north where property is cheap, so there is less to lose.

make sense, eh?