Tag: Self-harm

16 one evening in August

Posted on
He has a mental health problem.
He takes triple medication.
He reports self harm in the past.’
He was assessed in May.
‘He attempted an overdose six weeks ago
but he would not say what he took.’
In June, the Department told him
he was fit to work,
and that his support was being
withdrawn.
‘The evidence overall suggests
that he is not at substantial risk.’
In an appeal letter, he wrote:
‘I disagree with your decision.’
He had worked cleaning buses
for three years
but he could not cope.
‘I have serious mental health problems
that prevent me from doing everyday tasks
which means I cannot work at this moment in time.’
He was placed on strong medication
but his mental health had worsened:
sleeplessness, memory loss, paranoia.
He would claim people were trying to poison him.
He thought the police were following him.
‘I did try and explain this
to the medical examiner.’
He was informed in July of the Department’s final say.
They backed the decision.
One evening in August
he got a bus to the Forth Road Bridge
walked to the middle
and jumped.
He was recovered from the water
but that night in hospital
he died.
His father believes
he may have been a schizophrenic.
Since his death
his mother had been in hospital,
not eating.
The Department sent their sympathies to the family.

[Daily Record, 22/09/2013, Heartbroken dad blames benefits axemen for driving his ill son to commit suicide]

17 when questioned afterwards

Posted on
When questioned afterwards
the assessor claimed he couldn’t remember
if he had made any phone calls
to their son’s doctor or psychiatrist
for information about his mental health.
‘He reports self harm
in the past.
He reports he attempted an overdose
six weeks ago;
he would not say
what he took.
He reports he has had no thoughts
of suicide since.
The evidence overall suggests
he is not at substantial risk.’
The decision
was confirmed in a letter.
A month later
he took his own life.
His father said his son’s mental health
had deteriorated in the last couple of years
but he had previously been able to work intermittently
in agriculture
and labouring.
His final job was cleaning buses.
He was taking strong medication
anti-psychotics,
anti-depressants,
was experiencing
paranoid delusions.
His father said
‘his mind was gone’
He remembers finding his son’s assessment report
and his other official paperwork
scattered over the floor of his flat
after he died.
Several weeks later
Department officials
visited the family.
‘They said
“I don’t suppose it will help now
but we have reversed the decision.”’

[Disability News Service, 02/12/2019, DWP: The Case for the Prosecution]

18 Dirge 1: for when you think you will be well again

Posted on
The dispatcher noted on the call log that the patient wanted to die,
but this particular piece of information was not conveyed.
The information which the crew were given was:
Psychiatric/Abnormal behaviour/
Suicide attempt;
trying to slit wrists; Armed with a weapon –
glass.
Therefore
the crew were given adequate information
of the patient’s intent.
She was due to attend the Jobcentre on the fourth
to make her declaration of unemployment
in order to remain eligible for her benefit payment.
However, she contacted the centre that day
to say she was sick.
She subsequently attended on the seventh
where she explained that she had not come in on the fourth
because she was ill.
She was asked to complete a form
to formally declare her sickness.
She completed and returned the form,
then immediately left.
This meant that the Work Coach
was unable to discuss
the details of the statement she had made:
‘I was busy trying to kill myself,
drinking non-stop.’
There is a space on the form
for the date when you started being unwell
(she put the fourth)
and another
for when you think you will be well again
(she put the seventh).
The coach discussed his concerns with his line manager, and
recorded the incident
in accordance with Department procedures.
Policies state
that employees are empowered
to take any reasonable steps,
including contacting the emergency services,
if they feel the customer
faces clear and significant risks to their welfare
or safety. In this case,
based on the information he had,
the Work Coach made a judgement
that there was no immediate risk to the customer’s safety.
She died later that same day.
On the morning of the sixth,
she reported that a man had attempted to rape her in her home.
One of the first-responding officers,
on encountering her outside her address,
noticed blood on her clothing, and,
quite properly,
attempted to persuade her
to allow police to seize the clothing
for forensic examination,
and to dissuade her from immediately returning to her home,
the apparent crime scene.
A third party witness
expressed surprise at the intrusiveness of the questioning,
conducted by a male officer
in a public area;
a less than ideal situation.
The witness added that,
although the officers’ questions were not in any way inappropriate,
and they had explained why they needed to ask them,
she would herself have felt
uncomfortable
answering such questions
in such a way.
The second attending officer sought advice
from the Team Detective Sergeant
regarding how best to proceed with the agitated woman
who informed the officers that she had been
drinking throughout the preceding night. In line with best practice
a female Sexual Offences Investigation Trained (SOIT) officer
was tasked to attend.
Despite difficulties,
officers obtained
sufficient detail
to circulate a description of the suspect,
who was promptly arrested nearby.
(He was later released.)
It was clear that there was some tension
between the desire on the part of the initial attending officers
to achieve best evidence
and the manner and location of the communication
between the woman and those officers,
necessitated by the character of contact
between the parties.
She walked off towards her flat;
an officer followed
trying to prevent her from entering.
Once outside the address he and another officer
tried to explain to her
why the scene needed to be preserved
but she continued to be obstructive.
She continued to demand that she be allowed to enter her flat
and threatened
to kick her own door down. Eventually
she used her keys to enter the address
and closed the door.
Research indicated she was capable
of being volatile and violent
when intoxicated.
Reports for example
indicated she had assaulted police in her home
five months earlier
when they attended there
to check on her welfare.
The Detective Sergeant
decided that
in her present state of mind
she was no longer suitable
for an immediate SOIT officer deployment,
and instead arranged for an officer
to re-attend the address
with a colleague
the following day,
which was the seventh.
On arrival
the front door was closed.
The officer knocked several times
before a female voice from within said ‘Who
is it?’
It’s the police. Can you open the door please?
The voice
replied ‘Everything
is fine. There is
no crime here.’
Can you open the door?
I don’t want to force it open.
We just need to speak to you
that’s all.
The door was opened.
She said
‘I don’t need
you lot. You can
fuck off.’
The officer explained
they were asked to attend
on behalf of the ambulance service
as they had been contacted
by someone threatening
to harm themselves
with a piece of broken glass.
‘Well it’s not me. I don’t need
you lot here. I
never asked you
to come so can
you please fuck
off.’
Have you hurt yourself with some glass?
She replied
‘No.’
What’s your name?
‘You don’t need
to know my
name it’s all
on your systems.’
The officer stated he saw a letter
and a bank card
on the sofa
which confirmed her name.
He said
Have you called for an ambulance?
She replied
‘No. I don’t need
an ambulance and I don’t know
why
you are here.’
Could anybody else
have called an ambulance for you?
Have you phoned a friend or
anybody to say
you were going to hurt yourself
with some glass?
She replied
‘No. Look
I never
called
you lot
please
fuck
off.’
The ambulance crew arrived,
and took over the lead in continuing attempts
to rapport-build,
only to experience
similar difficulties.
It was during this period that the SOIT officer and a colleague arrived
having postponed their initial visit
from the previous day, the sixth.
No officer present briefed the ambulance crew
regarding the alleged sexual assault.
On this occasion too, having been briefed by the first officer
on the woman’s state of mind
and volatility,
and by the ambulance crew
regarding her
nevertheless
evident mental capacity
and lack of immediate welfare concerns,
all parties decided
once again
to leave.
About forty minutes later, she left her home.
She is seen on CCTV entering the station.
The train was not driver-operated.
It was travelling at only 15 miles per hour.
It happened so quickly, commuters
continued reading their papers.
They had no idea
what she was doing.
The proximate cause of death was injuries sustained
when she stepped in front of the train.

[Responses from the Metropolitan Police (17/03/2016), London Ambulance Service (11/03/2016) and the DWP (undated) to the Prevention of Future Deaths report made by Coroner ME Hassell, 20/1/2016; added details from The Guardian, 06/02/2016, Faiza Ahmed: how one woman’s cries for help were missed by every authority]

46 23 minutes

Posted on
The inquest,
which lasted two days,
heard that his medical assessment
took just 23 minutes.
He suffered from HIV,
hepatitus,
sciatica,
severe depression, insomnia,
dental pain.
He had a history of self-harm,
which stemmed from abuse
as a child.
His benefits
of ninety pounds a week
were stopped
on September eighteenth.
That same day
he went online.
After writing of his disapproval
of the system
he wrote
‘It’s time to say goodbye,
goodbye.’
On September twenty-fifth
(cocktail of drugs:
heroin,
cocaine
alcohol)
he was found dead in his house.

[Nottingham Post (via Internet Archive), 09/10/2013, Sneinton man overdoses after benefits stopped]