NelliemoserOther papers, like the Independent and Observer, have had articles expressing concern about the powers of Social Services, particularly their use of the Court of Protection, whose work was covered by secrecy until the last few months. These articles have been published over the last six months and used, mainly, the same cases and the Neary case was very well publicised at the time.
This article cannot be dismissed as Daily Mail 'Writing a good conspiracy theory but not worry too much about looking at all the actual facts of the case'. In fact, if anything they are running the article well after publicity by newspapers of greater probity have already been effective in precipitating change that was, probably, on its way anyway.
My own experience of SS is of a refusal to carry out assessments as required, carrying out a hospital to home transfer without visiting client while in hospital or making any visit to the home or making any attempt to find out if the home was suitable and accessible for the person to be discharged (it wasn't), failing to provide a physically disabled patient with any aids to mobility at home on hospital discharge, failing to foresee that two people both suffering from severe dementia could not safely be left alone at home with carers calling in three times a day for half an hour.
They only took action when I made a formal complaint. They were then fortunate that the only action left to them by then was to find a care home with places immediately available suitable for a married couple. The speed and efficiency which they managed to do that was quite remarkable (the couple were self-funding).