“So it would appear HL v UK, ironically, gave the UK government the excuse, to watertight its legislation to remove the liberty of the ‘incapable’ because it was in their ‘best interests’ avoiding any ECHR challenge on its lawfulness.
Article 5 litigation in the ECHR does not appear to inquire into the reasonableness and merits of the process by which liberty is removed, only that it is ’ lawful’.”
In an age of fought for gay marriage affecting 1.6% of the population, transgender toilets, and a Supreme Court pronouncement on wheel chairs on buses, we have the Local Authority’s encagement of over a million and increasing.
Before the Court of Protection was created, you had to be convicted of a crime or be so mentally unstable you were sectioned before you lost your liberty.
Now anyone declared ‘incapable’ can have their liberty removed for life and not just as a punishment or for treatment .
And worse still all aspects of their existence controlled.
So what law gives a court such God like power ?
s 4A MCA states;
This Act does not authorise any person (“D”) to deprive any other person (“P”) of his liberty.
But that is subject to the following provisions of this section, and section 4B.
D may deprive P of his liberty if, by doing so,
View original post 358 more words