Angus – please excuse the length of this posting, I hope that you’ll read it. I don’t believe that being either disabled or able bodied necessarily leads to anti-social behaviour. Rather it’s the way in which people behave and the effect of their behaviour upon others, which leads to anti-social behaviour. Allow me if I may, to provide an example: A young man, in his late twenties lives at home with his parents in a five bedroomed house in an affluent area of London. This young man, who we will call Dave, has mental health issues, among them a psychotic disorder. Dave has suffered with this condition since his early teens. His middle class parents have supported him throughout, with support from the health authority education department and social services. Because of the years of strain, Dave’s father has just walked out of the family home, leaving Dave’s mother to look after him. Dave’s father has just been made redundant from the bank where he has worked since he was 16. After putting in forty years of service, Dave’s father finds himself jobless with little or no prospect of finding work as he nears retirement age. Dave’s mother has medial problems of her own which requires daily treatment; as such she can no longer look after Dave. Added to the medical problems of Dave’s mother, at 58 years of age she faces divorce from the man she has loved and cared for over the last 35 years, possibly losing her home, income and friends. Dave can see the effect of the separation of his parents upon his mother, Dave is confused leading to him going missing from home. Dave’s mother, father and brother are distraught. A week later Dave is found, without his medication, at a seaside resort after attempting suicide. The police intervene, social services are brought in and he is assessed. Dave spends some time in hospital but when it comes to his discharge date Dave’s mother is so unwell that she cannot look after him so Dave is technically homeless. In a very short period of time Dave has gone from living in a loving and caring home to becoming homeless.Dave’s social worker, we will call her Karen, contacts the homeless unit at the local council. Dave spends the next three weeks in a single persons hostel with some support from social services. Its not the ideal situation for Dave, he misses his parents and the safety and security of the parental home. Dave is offered a flat by the local council, which he moves into. Dave is assigned a supported housing officer and continues to receive support from social services. Dave does well in his new home; he’s in receipt of housing benefit, council tax benefit and is receiving benefits to support himself. Everyone seems happy. Dave has gone from living in a privately owned freehold home to living on a council estate. After all, the council has a statutory duty to home Dave. Its hardly Dave’s fault that he finds himself living in council accommodation but at least he has a home. Three months later Dave decides that he is no longer going to take his medication. The supported housing officer and social worker are unaware that on Monday morning Dave decides that he no longer wants his medication. After all, Dave didn’t tell anyone. Dave is disorientated by not taking his medication and falls in with a local drug dealer who proceeds to take over Dave’s flat, trading cocaine, heroine and amphetamines from the flat. The flat is in a tower block; the block has 104 flats, home to 246 residents. The door entry system to the block, which cost just over £20,000, to install has been vandalised, putting the safety and security of all 246 residents at risk. There is a cost to the council to rectify the door entry system, £1,846.00 a cost that all 246 residents have to contribute towards. At all hours of the day and night high numbers of visitors arrive at Dave’s flat, causing annoyance to Dave’s neighbours. In order to pay for their drugs young women and older women alike offer sexual services to residents, their children and visitors as they enter the tower block. Residents, their children and visitors witness drug users shooting up in the lifts, on the stairways and landings, used syringes and other drug related paraphernalia are found.The police, council and social services call a conference. Dave’s issues are discussed, as are the effects of the anti-social behaviour coming from the occupation of Dave’s flat. Dave is invited in for an interview, which he refuses. Dave’s housing officer, supported housing officer and social worker offer Dave an interview at home, again Dave refuses. Meanwhile the level of anti-social behaviour worsens as residents report furniture being thrown out of the windows of Dave’s 9th floor flat. Damage is caused to two vehicles parked in the car park; miraculously nobody suffered personal physical injury or were killed by the furniture falling on them. Residents inundate the council with complaints and information, demanding action. Ward Councillors become involved, even the local MP becomes involved – everyone wants action. The council are caught in an invidious position. The police raid Dave’s flat early one morning, they find 17 individuals in Dave’s flat. Alarmingly they find Dave locked away in a room, he is in a distressed and confused state. The police find rocks of crack cocaine, heroine, amphetamines, and a quantity of cannabis resin. Several arrests are made. Dave is taken into hospital, the council secure the flat and the police apply for a closure order under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. Normality is restored. Who has rights in this case? Dave, the individual with mental health issues or the 246 residents who suffered as a result of the anti-social behaviour? Feel free to debate this issue please. RegardsGareth
Gareth Evans ● 7435d