Thanks for your answer I just read now.

I am for a Nanny State but won’t discuss it now as first I am exhausted and last I don’t have your level of education and culture.

My worst nightmare would be a Libertarian State where I also would not survive… human nature is terrible (mine included !) and I firmly believe that it should be controlled or… hell on earth would occure.

I will carry reading you as usual as well as Monsieur Bilger in France.

Yes, it is a true story, and I have never worked since – it is why I am now retired and living in France.

I am against the Nanny State, but there are some things – for instance maintaining an army to defend one’s territory – which have to be done by the State. Providing a safe haven for the vulnerable would be another. Being a Libertarian is not the same as being an Anarchist. I don’t advocate ‘no government’ just minimal government, only where essential. Of course Libertarians can argue for hours amongst themselves as to what is ‘essential’!!!!

Very interesting subject and as usual very well written indeed and powerful.

Yesterday, I was watching a documentary on French television about psychiatric hospitals and could only admire the doctors and nurses in charge ; that is what could be called “a calling” as it is so admirable that some people are willing to put themselves at risk with ultra-violent patients (as it was filmed in a special unit : “unite de malades difficiles” and the name is quite soft compared to what they are able of !).

I was just wondering if this is a real story which happened to you that prompted you to write : “It left me with a permanent fear of stepping into the world of such inadequates.” Nevertheless I find it disgusting that it is a reponsibility left to a lady to visit herself such dangerous people ; in such a case two people and preferably strong and physically impressive men should be dealing with such a job.

Also the “expert-psychiatrists” can release dangerous people with absolutely no risk for themselves or their family as it is highly unlikely their patients would end up living in the same neighbourhood…it is always for “the plebe” to bear the misery as usual.

I am surprised by your way of seeing things as I thought you were a libertarian and against “the nanny-state”.

I also think that whether in France or in England, some people would benefit from the old system as it existed previously as we can see the new one as proved disastrous.

My son is Autistic, but only mildly so. He is gullible and vulnerable in todays society, and especially lacks restraint when it comes to money.

So, he needs constant care. As my family’s life expentancy is pretty poor, naturally I wanted to get him into some sort of supported housing before I expired and he came to grief trying to support himself.

Would anyone help? No. He didn’t come under learning difficulties as he was too intelligent, nor did he come under mental health, because he didn’t have a “recognised” (i.e. treatable) mental health problem.

Such is care in the community where service providers use local government compartmentalisation and the “Its not our responsibility” line in order to shirk their duty of care. to those who need it.

So much for care in the community. I’ve always thought it was a scam to release the grounds of the old mental institutions to supermarkets to make a fast buck.

A very insightful article. Thank you.

You describe a systemic lack of empathy. Overflowing with sympathy perhaps but not able to see things through the eyes of the public, the ill or the staff tasked with caring for them. The notion that there are people who need to be protected from society has been replaced with the Fabian ideal that if you give people what they have not they will become model citizens.

Are these also the unintended consequences of fighting against abuse perpetrated in institutions? Rather than reforms and prosecutions they were torn down (or sold off for development). It is almost as if the buildings took the blame for the people staffing them.

Partisanship and advocacy has it’s place but perhaps that place is outside the bureaucratic system, which should be trying to best balance the interests of everyone. We see it today with so many things – smoking, education, climate change and all that. Stakeholders get a hand on the steering wheel and it becomes a slow-motion car crash. You game the system by first defining who is and isn’t a stakeholder. The public rarely is. Taxpayers even less so. Fake charities usually are. Corporate interests too. In this example the RSP clearly were as well. They provide a much reduced and convenient lump to co-operate with. Let others come up with ideas and all a bureaucrat can be blamed with is implementing them. This is how potty ideas become policy.

The Victorians weren’t always right but they weren’t always wrong either.