Editorial
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-08-2017-0030 |
| Pages | 229-235 |
| Published date | 09 October 2017 |
| Date | 09 October 2017 |
| Author | Bridget Penhale,Margaret Flynn |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Bridget Penhale and Margaret Flynn
Welcome to this Autumn issue of the Journal of Adult Protection. As in most issues of the journal,
we present a number of news items relating to safeguarding that have appeared in the past few
months that readers may have missed, or which may be worthy of further consideration.
Please see below for a selection of these items, loss of bonus might not matter too much.
It was during April that Barclays, an established British bank, got into deep water about whistle
blowing. That is, the Barclays Chief Executive, Jes Stayley, admitted that he had sought to find
out the identity of a whistle blower with the assistance of the bank’s internal security team[1].
Two letters had made allegations about the conduct of an associate who Stayley had brought to
the bank. As a result, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England’s Prudential
Regulation Authority are investigating Stayley, and he is taking a significant cut to his bonus.
However, since his fixed pay is around £2.35 m […].
Whilst we are musing about banks, which were remorseful after the 2008banking crash, it is the
Bank of England’sturn to feel uncomfortable. It seems that“rigging”the London Interbank Offered
Rate, or Liborto those in the know (it refers to the rateat which banks lend to each other,setting a
benchmark for mortgages and loans for bank customers), was not wholly down to a handful of
phenomenallywell-paid traders[2]. Panorama’sThe Big Bank Fix showed that senior figuresin the
big banks were also involved. A treasury spokesperson uttered the all too familiar refrain:
“The government is absolutely clear that we must learn from the lessons of the past […]”[3].
There is a rare bit of good news for people with progressive conditions such as rheumatoid
arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease. Reason is prevailing
as MPs and patient groups are calling for an end to repeat assessments, which are resulting in
people losing some of their support, only to have it reinstated on appeal. Repeated tests to
establish their continuing eligibility for personal independence payments (PIPs) make no sense to
people with progressive conditions[4]. This will be welcome news to those people with dementia
who have had their payments stopped because their condition has miraculously improved[5].
However, see the final point in this section of news items to evidence that perhaps hopes of
improvements in the system were raised too soon earlier in the year.
Next is the impacts of inequality. Following a revelation in The Guardian that responsibility for
refugees and asylum seekers in England had fallen to less than a third of the country’s poorest
councils, the prime minister’s spokesman was nudged to propose that a more equitable spread
might be achieved[6]. The numbers confirm that the Labour-led authorities have taken
11.6 asylum seekers per 10,000 population compared with 0.7 in Conservative-led ones. It is
needless to note that the costs of education and health care are not factored at all into the
“asylum dispersal system”.
The image fromthe Spring of Saffiyah Khan smilingat the leader of the English DefenceLeague[7]
at a demonstrationwas astonishing and hopeful.She appeared unmoved by the angryman in the
same image, subsequently noting simply: “Idon’t like seeing people getting ganged up
on in my town”.
The beginning of Ma y heralded the tria l of Ann Corbett, Za hid Zaman, Myra Woo d and Kay
Rayworth who tortu red and killed Jimmy P rout, described a s a “vulnerable man”.Hehad
believed that these four were his friends[8]. Following a lengthy trial, the defendants were found
guilty of the charge s laid against them; C orbett and Zaman wer e jailed for substant ial periods
(27 and 33 years, respectively), whilst Rayworth and Wood were also jailed for shorter
periods (12 and 9 years, respectively) for causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable man[9].
DOI 10.1108/JAP-08-2017-0030 VOL. 19 NO. 5 2017, pp. 229-235, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 22 9
Editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial