Met police firearms

[Fedster + 1,307]

Officers told academics they detain self-harmers regardless of whether it is appropriate as they fear death following police contact repercussions.

A change in police culture to become more “risk-averse” may have significantly contributed to a rise in detentions under section 136 of the Mental Health Act, a study suggests.

Research led by Dr Allyn Thomas of Kent University found behaviour leading to detention, which 30 years ago used to be mainly violent, abusive or disturbing, was now overwhelmingly related to self-harm.

Officers are becoming more wary when dealing with those threatening self-harm because of a culture which fears death following police contact, making detentions almost inevitable.

The overwhelmingly strong view - shared by 15 of the 17 participants, and acknowledged by the other two - is officers are now reluctant to take risks and operate in fear of facing misconduct proceedings, thus strictly following force policy even when it could be judged as inappropriate.

Two participants nearing 30 years’ service reflected upon the changes over time.

One stated if they encounter a person threatening to self-harm they are detained “full stop,” with officers now directed by policies from above.

“If they jump or if they are hurt and there is police contact, any police contact, then we are the ones that get the blame,” they added.

Another officer spoke about being able to use their judgement in the past to take drunk people back to their home rather than to a cell.

“We did it and we did it time and time again, because it was easier than having a drunk and incapable person in the cells overnight.

“You pushed them in through the door and as long as they didn’t die everything was okay. But it’s now got to the stage where you are looking at what happened.

“As an example. What if I came across this person, they said they had taken tablets, I couldn’t see any, found his address and so took him home, they die of an overdose overnight. I think in this day and age its goodbye.”

In many cases the study found police officers were the only emergency service responding to a 999 call from someone threatening self-harm – also leaving them with no option but to detain the person.

During the last 30 years, the number of people detained for compulsory treatment under all provisions of the MHA 1983 has also increased from 40,000 in 2003/04 to over 63,000 in 2015/16.

Some causes for this rise are thought to be changes in social support networks, treatment and bed shortages, reductions in “care in the community” and early discharge resulting in relapse and early admission.

The researchers acknowledge changes to section 136 contained in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 require officers to engage in triage and this may result in the number of police detentions declining. But they argue in the “absence of access to alternative support for those in crisis”, the level of engagement by police with those who are mentally ill will continue to rise.

Whilst this study concerns one small force, informal focus group discussions in another larger force and management interviews in two other forces support these findings.

View On Police Oracle

[cookyy2k 536]

That's just it you can't rely on your own judgement and in the person's best interests anymore, that won't fly if the excrement hits the fan. Police have to be omniscient and no amount of justification will help if you fail in your ability to have perfect foresight.

[JulietAlpha1 + 515]

It’s a problem created by the system. If a single officer or officers can be blamed for an adverse outcome then they will be.

I personally have no faith in the investigation system and ensure that all my rationales are written up correctly either on logs/CADs or reports.

I try to work in a common sense and efficient manner but I don’t take unnecessary risks. If someone presents to me with self harm/suicidal intentions then they’re being detained until a AMHP tells me otherwise. Then their details are going all over the log and any interactions and phone conversations are made on BWV.

Given how the system is for Police in terms of personal accountability, it frequently frustrates and perplexes me how little accountability there seems to be for the other services.

A few nights ago, a male presented himself to our local station, in drink, and told officers if he didn’t receive help he would throw himself off a nearby bridge. The MH triage team were contacted who wiped their hands of him because he was drunk. No provisions were suggested for his well-being by them. Only persistence from the police resulted in them eventually accepting him as a patient to give him a safe place to sleep for the evening, otherwise it would have been A&E on a constant supervision until he had sobered up enough to be assessed. At one point we were advised to, “let him leave the station and see what he does.” Astounding.

[sierragolf95 + 55]

It's the same in event first aid. Patient comes in after cutting himself with a broken bottle, had no intention of killing himself but did have suicidal thoughts, if I deal with the wounds and say "yep, that's you done you're free to go" and he goes and commits suicide that's basically like getting thrown out of a plane without a parachute for me. Even if he left and had no further incidents I'd still be in a whole world of hurt for discharging him when the paperwork audit happens. He didn't want to go to hospital and it was my opinion that the best thing for him was to discharge him there and then rather than getting the ambulance service or police involved, he was drunk so he'd end up sitting in A&E for hours and nothing more would be done about it which would unnecessarily take up the time of police or ambulance and hospital staff but if he's having suicidal thoughts and I don't make that referral to further care you can bet your boots that I'll get dragged over the coals. If he got up and left of his own accord I wasn't stopping him, I have no right to and it wouldn't be the right thing to do, but until he does that or gets passed on to someone who can make that judgement then I'm stuck basically.

[SimonT + 1,185]

We have a mental health car which comes to advise on many 136 detentions. This gives officers the chance to release people with some confidence. 

However our conversion from 136 to detained under s2 is about 50%. That's pretty high. Being that we are untrained in the assessment and diagnosis of MH conditions and are just doing our best. 

There is very much a culture of fear around getting thrown in front of the bus for your decision making. And I would support officers who make those decisions because there is a very real bus waiting for them. Until we get supported it will happen. 

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

It's not just mental health. It's all areas of risk. 

We are needlessly employing resources, probably committing torts and definitely breaking common sense.

Calling an ambulance for every imaginable injury or illness, whilst also feeling some kind of superior need to take control of people. Thereby contributing to the current nationwide ambulance crisis. 

There's even cases of the appropriate agency taking control or making a decision and we disagree - retaining ownership and placing demand on ourselves.

Some of it is risk aversion and some of it is a misplaced superiority complex. I'm unpopular in my opinion at work - if a professional from a relevant agency makes a decision in their field of speciality I let them crack on. 

Many of these fields require people to have studied a specific degree, professional training, mentoring, registration/accreditation and continual professional development.

However, police officers who have completed less than 6 months training in well...policing... are then using policing mindsets to assess risk on ways they cannot reasonably have the expertise to do so.

There is a reason why the APP on welfare checks points out that all police officers can do and should agree to do is ABC (Alive Breathing Conscious) and then pass the responsibility back to the professionals. How on earth have we got to the stage where we have somehow accepted responsibility for making mental health screenings of people, medical screenings far in excess of basic first aid, child welfare assessments, decisions on suitability for placements of children?

I remember once being sent to assess a fire because the fire brigade were busy. I arrived. It was on fire. I updated that the building was in fact on fire and i should like a fire engine to attend. I'm not sure what premium I added to that other than to delay fire brigade attendance!

[Pavillion 43]

5 hours ago, MerseyLLB said:

It's not just mental health. It's all areas of risk. 

We are needlessly employing resources, probably committing torts and definitely breaking common sense.

Calling an ambulance for every imaginable injury or illness, whilst also feeling some kind of superior need to take control of people. Thereby contributing to the current nationwide ambulance crisis. 

There's even cases of the appropriate agency taking control or making a decision and we disagree - retaining ownership and placing demand on ourselves.

Some of it is risk aversion and some of it is a misplaced superiority complex. I'm unpopular in my opinion at work - if a professional from a relevant agency makes a decision in their field of speciality I let them crack on. 

Many of these fields require people to have studied a specific degree, professional training, mentoring, registration/accreditation and continual professional development.

However, police officers who have completed less than 6 months training in well...policing... are then using policing mindsets to assess risk on ways they cannot reasonably have the expertise to do so.

There is a reason why the APP on welfare checks points out that all police officers can do and should agree to do is ABC (Alive Breathing Conscious) and then pass the responsibility back to the professionals. How on earth have we got to the stage where we have somehow accepted responsibility for making mental health screenings of people, medical screenings far in excess of basic first aid, child welfare assessments, decisions on suitability for placements of children?

I remember once being sent to assess a fire because the fire brigade were busy. I arrived. It was on fire. I updated that the building was in fact on fire and i should like a fire engine to attend. I'm not sure what premium I added to that other than to delay fire brigade attendance!

I could not agree more with your comments.

I have a video of officers detaining a chap (mental health) in a place where public did not have access. The chap was articulate enough to ask what powers they were using to detain him and the OIC quoted the MHA sec136. This was before the changes to the act came into force to allow detainment in such a place.

The Officers physically restrained him even though he was compliant and completely articulate and calm.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Pavillion

[SimonT + 1,185]

22 hours ago, Pavillion said:

I could not agree more with your comments.

I have a video of officers detaining a chap (mental health) in a place where public did not have access. The chap was articulate enough to ask what powers they were using to detain him and the OIC quoted the MHA sec136. This was before the changes to the act came into force to allow detainment in such a place.

The Officers physically restrained him even though he was compliant and completely articulate and calm.

Have you considered why the officers are doing so? What is your take on it? 

 

There is a lot of fear in the police. Fear that, if you fail to act, even when it isn't necessarily legal or your job to act, that should something go wrong, it will be on you. 

It's not an unreasonable fear. And no one wants to be met with 5y of IPCC investigations and then trial by cps then management then coroners court, with the media all along the way. 

So, you are faced with a choice. accept the risk, reasoned and reasonable as it may be, and face the possibility of years of stress, investigation, job loss etx

Or, bend, stretch or blast through the law, remove the risk, maybe infringe someone's rights, waste resources and keep someone probably safe, rather than maybe safe. 

You would be surprised how little criticism the second way can get. 

[Hyphen + 693]

11 hours ago, SimonT said:

Have you considered why the officers are doing so? What is your take on it? 

 

There is a lot of fear in the police. Fear that, if you fail to act, even when it isn't necessarily legal or your job to act, that should something go wrong, it will be on you. 

It's not an unreasonable fear. And no one wants to be met with 5y of IPCC investigations and then trial by cps then management then coroners court, with the media all along the way. 

So, you are faced with a choice. accept the risk, reasoned and reasonable as it may be, and face the possibility of years of stress, investigation, job loss etx

Or, bend, stretch or blast through the law, remove the risk, maybe infringe someone's rights, waste resources and keep someone probably safe, rather than maybe safe. 

You would be surprised how little criticism the second way can get. 

Good post. I agree with the last part in particular. Surprisingly if officers bend procedure/laws or go against them in the best interests of a person then it’s likely a quiet word if anything if someone wasn’t happy about it. 

Stick rigidly to the law and procedure and let someone go who then kills themselves then it’s on the officer.

Policing and the related misconduct procedures and investigations are perverse.

[SD + 688]

On 27/04/2018 at 08:55, Pavillion said:

I could not agree more with your comments.

I have a video of officers detaining a chap (mental health) in a place where public did not have access. The chap was articulate enough to ask what powers they were using to detain him and the OIC quoted the MHA sec136. This was before the changes to the act came into force to allow detainment in such a place.

The Officers physically restrained him even though he was compliant and completely articulate and calm.

Upload it or it didn’t happen.

[Pavillion 43]

On 4/28/2018 at 21:20, SD said:

Upload it or it didn’t happen.

Are you suggesting I am a liar?

[Beaker 817]

17 minutes ago, Pavillion said:

Are you suggesting I am a liar?

He MAY be suggesting it, but TBH I'd suggest most of us are thinking it.