A agree. They also mentioned mums mental health problems being an issue. But again this is part of the problem, about demonising people with certain conditions.
If you google housing for people with mental health problems, it always comes up with people who are alcoholics or those who engaged with substance abuse. It never mentions a bereaved widower with a history of abuse as a child.
They are denying her based of things that shouldn’t matter. There’s a basic rule in my line of work, it’s a bit more complex but the idea is “innocent until proven guilty.” Even then only the courts can decide who is guilty, even the police don’t have that power. So the fact that the CPS declared mums case to have no evidence whatsoever other than word of mouth (but it’s unreliable), then she is effectively 100 percent innocent and it should be end of. The fact that mums bail was extended related to a police officer was off sick and they have to investigate. It came out in the end that there was nothing to go off. Instead it actually became evidence of the other way around.
I can only report on fact, and well considering there has been no fact for nearly a year now proves there is nothing and therefore they should not discuss it. If she had been charged fair play, but there’s nothing to prove she did it.
The woman said to me “the fact she was placed on bail suggests there was enough evidence.” That is not strictly true, it’s based on reasonable grounds to believe it happened. The guy in question faked injury to imply it happened, he also reported it the day that he himself cane off bail for fracturing mums arm almost three weeks later. It was retaliation and the police knew it, but bail just means that someone is under suspicion it doesn’t mean they did it.
The bail ended in mid April last year almost a year ago, there have been no incidents with the male since. A non-molestation order was served on both parties (an effective just stay away from each other). There have been no real incidents since it was served. It ended in November last year. Nothing since,
I understand that there are residents in the facility who are vulnerable, but if anything that makes them liable to all this too. The fact that it is an open and go place means anyone of the residents could meet someone on the street and then bring them in for whatever reason. It’s then a duty of care for the staff to be aware of what’s going on.
But then I would argue my mum is absolutely brilliant with disabled people and if she didn’t have the problems she had she would be a real asset. I’ve seen her engage with disabled people and children and she just gets them more than she does everyone else. She grew up with my aunt who is severely disabled, so she knows it all.
She’s got about 57 years of first hand experience.
But the fact that she has now installed alarms is a good thing. Even the woman agreed it was. She said she would fight for us, but I do not believe it really. She is the one who’s initiated the review, no one else has to go through it.