Okay, seeing as how Ash Walmsley introduced him into the discussion in her letter to me, now let's talk about social worker Martin Gourlay. When I first met him, he didn't strike me as willing to be particularly helpful, though, eventually, he appeared to come round to my way of thinking on a couple of issues and managed to get the Home to do likewise. Namely, ensuring my mother's door was shut at all times so that she wasn't subject to the gaze of visitors or other residents when she might not have been fully dressed, or lying in her bed. I wanted my mother's privacy and dignity to be preserved, not have her open to public scrutiny or intrusion when she wasn't very presentable (and even when she was).
The other thing was to get the Home to prepare my mother for bed by 10 p.m. as I had originally stipulated when she first went into the place. Staff were in the habit of letting her sit up until whenever time she wanted to, because some numpty of an alleged 'senior carer' decided that as my mother sometimes went to bed early of her own accord, she was then therefore perfectly capable of going to bed at 10 p.m. This led to my mother sitting up extremely late, resulting in her being too tired to get up at the allotted time in the morning. I'd visit in the evening, only to find her unresponsive because she was half-asleep. (Sometimes she was in a deep sleep, and I'd sit with her for a while and then come home.)
It occurs to me now that he only assisted me in this in order to keep me happy so I had less to complain about, which in turn kept the Care Home happy. However, staff continued to leave my mother's door wide open (or not close it when they saw it was open as they'd been instructed to do). I'll give you more details on that at another time. Like I said in a previous post, I had been trying to get my mother moved elsewhere, but Mr. Gourlay always hit me with the same spiel. "I'd advise against that as it wouldn't be in her best interests" he'd say, though as the relative with POA and a certificate of incapacity, that should have been my decision.
Given recent comments of his, it now seems clear that he was effectively sabotaging my efforts to have my mother moved by telling any Care Homes I applied to, that I was always moaning and complaining, inevitably resulting in them not wanting to know. Also, how absurd is it for someone from those Homes to visit my mother, then decide she seemed happy enough where she was? As I said before, my mother would've been happy anywhere as she didn't know where she was to begin with. (She sometimes thinks I live there and asks me what room I'm in.) Moving her to another Care Home would've had no more (if any) adverse effect on her than moving her to another part of the building, which has already been done. As she is deemed unfit to make decisions for herself (aside from minor things like what colour of cardigan she'd like to wear, and what she wants to eat), that decision fell within my purview.
(Also, he said that seeing faces of new staff might be disorientating for her, though there's new staff in the place all the time, they don't keep anyone for long. And I doubt my mother recognises any long-term staff anyway. Nothing but feeble and unconvincing excuses to avoid moving her. No Care Home wants residents removed due to families not being happy with them as it looks bad, and it seems to me Mr. Gourlay is far more concerned with what Care Homes want than what families want.)
When I was 'phoning through a list of lawyers, one told me she had the same problem as I had, but in reverse. Social Work wanted to take her mother into care, whereas she wanted her mother to stay at home and be looked after - as did her mother. That's the thing about social workers - they impose themselves into your life and try and take over, making decisions that should lie within the province of families or individuals themselves. His boss returns from holiday on August 10th; I'm then going to see if I can have him replaced as my mother's allocated social worker with someone else. Even if the Home reverses its ban on me, how can I ever go into the place again, with staff holding the upper hand and being in a position of being able to make any accusations against me they like and be believed? It would be an untenable situation.
Given recent remarks of his, he's clearly siding with Meadowbrook and its employees on this one, without letting me know precisely what I'm supposed to have said (something about sitting on my knee) and who said it, thereby denying me the ability to hold her to account (in a legal way) for it. I've used the line "Well, sit on my knee and tell me what you want for Christmas" around a dozen times in response to people telling me I look like Santa over the last couple of months (with no negative reaction), and I have a dim memory of saying, in response to a comment about there not being enough room to swing a cat in my mother's room, something like "I know - if you wanted to sit down, it'd have to be on my knee, 'cos you're not getting my chair." Sexual harassment? My perfectly formed and finely-chiselled @rse!
Whichever it was, there was no sexual intent behind it, and all lawyers I've spoken to are incredulous about it. (As are various women I'm friendly with.) Knowing the precise words and the identity of my accuser would assist me in having a clearer recollection and help cut through my brain fog. How do I even know my accuser is the person I spoke to? She may have heard a colleague laughing about my remark and appropriated it for her own sinister ends. Meadobrook don't care, as it provides them with ammunition against me.
That's why, whichever one it was, I suspect it's been seized upon in a blatant attempt to 'bring me to heel', in order to discredit my claims and complaints about some of the staff, and to deter me from making their many lapses public (as I threatened to do), out of fear that their (false) allegations of 'sexual impropriety' against me also become known. A scare tactic in other words. Or maybe even just to get their own back on me for making formal complaints about some of them. Hey, it could even be both, as neither possibilities are mutually exclusive.
Wish me well, Crivvies - and this isn't the end of this story - it's only the beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment