Submitted by Cherfleur
As we approach our 70s and go beyond, we have to be weary and decide whether it pays to live to ‘that ripe old age’ then be stripped of all assets and control of our own welfare or whether to say goodbye at this point, with our faculties intact and muscles taut and able to fight back.
Today I learned, while attending what should have been the appeal for that matter Stephen Lashley blushed, that the elder and co-applicant died since January 21, 2021. Nothings pained like this. It was not murder it was by Pneumonia and Dementia. Seriously? Dementia can kill someone? Why is an elder contracting pneumonia when someone is responsible for their care? I am asking because I really do not know/understand.
This very end result was predicted and that was why I took the matter to court. In the UK and civilized spaces, once in/before the court the matter has to be dealt with properly. In this case there was no direction to the applicant to re file one way or other (although there were two sittings without the defendants) but a dismissal of the application in favour of another under the mental Health Act, which removes all ‘interested parties’ who are not blood relatives; to the detriment of the elder.
I turned my attention away in December 2020 and he, for all intent and purposes a good whole man, DIED IN JANUARY 2021. Itn’t it a pity!
The matter was thus withdrawn. The object of the appeal was to get ceases to exist
But Stephen Lashley had the presence of mind to mention cost. I honestly was so devastated that I can’t say whether he was offering it of otherwise.
Believe it or not, he complained to the three wise men that I like to go to the Press and give my perspective. Whose should I be giving? Why does my affair with the Press un-nerve him?
“Unless the Lion learns to write, tales of the hunt shall glorify the hunter”
A human died and that was Stephen Lashley’s concern. Members of that fraternity must now think me an upstart to saunter into their Club house and play that I can play ball. I merely wanted to bring attention to the plight of an elder that was being abused so greviously and he couldn’t get to his Attorney or any agency to complain. He was held hostage and denied some basic human rights. Lashley stated that there was ‘no evidence’ (proven/presented) of abuse.
The man is now dead. Lack of proper care! God knows what else. The State should be sued. But who will do it?
Since the application under the Human Rights Act was substituted for a Mental Health Act, how can such be proven? The Mental Health Act, simply because persons are older and it is given that they would be presenting with a deterioration of body parts and function, ip so facto, it is a presumptuous position and in my view an abuse of aging people and their rights.
The fight for elders’ rights is going to have to get fierce. Lawyers won’t do it. The fraternity will fight to lock laymen out of their midst but there needs to be some new ways and attitude in the region of how to protect these vulnerable people. Though the Judge’s Order addressed the other points I rose under my application, it failed to give protection (remove the offending parties) from the direct care and access to the elder. The Mental Health Act refers to them as ‘patients’. This Act, and under which Stephen Lashley’s clients brought their application, removed outsiders; persons or organisations which are knowledgeable and unbiased about the scourge of elder abuse from bringing a claim to court. His death so soon after the Order, which included that all receipts of his expenses be presented to the court each quarter and that only his expenses must be paid for from his money is testimony that such orders without protection are an invitation and recipe for their extinction. The Order also tells where we are as a region as regards the reality of elder abuse.
Think Hernandez Brothers.