Care homes/security cameras.

[margaret*e]

Invasion of privacy or a neccesity in exposing neglect and cruelty?.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31424424

"Decisions about using surveillance are extremely difficult - there is always a balance to be struck between protecting people and respecting their right to privacy - but this information will help families to the make the right choice for them."

But Nadra Ahmed, of the National Care Association, which represents providers, said it was "disappointing" that the guidance had been produced.

[joamur_gosof]

It is a hard one that,yes and no ,we know its the staff that are being monitored and thats right but it does take liberties with privacy of the people in there for care

[upthecreekyetagain]

My opinion is that covert cameras should not be allowed without a court order.

My reasoning is that the only reasonable justification for a covert camera is the belief that some form of wrong-doing is occurring.

Visible CCTV cameras should be allowed with the consent of residents.

[cee-dee]

If care homes object to covert cameras where the object is the "security and well-being" of a resident (rather than invaisions of the residents privacy), you have to ask "What have they got to be afraid of?"

[margaret*e]

Did anyone see the news this morning footage of two men abusing, hitting, swearing at and roughly handling a frail old woman?.

They were only caught because her son installed a camera.

Carers in other homes for vulnerable people have been caught the same way.

[joamur_gosof]

I didn't see this mornings but have seen that behaviour before and it's a disgrace. I think creeky is right and there should be cameras up where the residents want them,and all non camera areas should have them to,except they are controlled manually by the residents ,ie they have like a panic button that switches them on...something like that

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

If care homes object to covert cameras where the object is the "security and well-being" of a resident (rather than invaisions of the residents privacy), you have to ask "What have they got to be afraid of?"

---

And who decides the reason for the surveillance?

Covert cameras, alongside telephone tapping, email surveillance etc. are fine with the approval of a court - not on the whim of an individual.

Would you be happy with constant covert surveillance whilst at work? - it is not a matter of being 'afraid' of anything.  Most careworkers are in favour of open CCTV with the approval of residents.

[joamur_gosof]

Or just employ decent caring staff

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@marg*e wrote:

Did anyone see the news this morning footage of two men abusing, hitting, swearing at and roughly handling a frail old woman?.

They were only caught because her son installed a camera.

Carers in other homes for vulnerable people have been caught the same way.

---

And if those cameras, instead of being covert, had been visible then there is every likelihood that the abuse would not have occurred in the first place - the same argument as for traffic cameras.

[cee-dee]

Usually (from what I've read) covert survellance was set up after suspicions by concerned relatives.

People in positions of trust should be proud that when examined, their performance has been found to be impeccable. If no-one checks, how could anyone know otherwise?

I know this isn't quite the same, but years back, if you went from room to room in the houses of "the upper class", you'd often find small amounts of money (coins) in little pin-dishes or on a shelf. It's not as if they didn't trust "the servants"............ but the servants proved their trust by not pinching any.

[joamur_gosof]

If you went from room to room of the upper classes years ago and nicked all their pin money ..A.you would be a cat burglar and B end up living in the same street ...

But trust and pride seem out the window these days in  some care homes ..the managers and staff recruitment team need taking to task to,when things like this are caught on camera.

I am not sure a camera up would stop people who are so callous they abuse a pensioner in a care home tbh

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Usually (from what I've read) covert survellance was set up after suspicions by concerned relatives.

People in positions of trust should be proud that when examined, their performance has been found to be impeccable. If no-one checks, how could anyone know otherwise?

I know this isn't quite the same, but years back, if you went from room to room in the houses of "the upper class", you'd often find small amounts of money (coins) in little pin-dishes or on a shelf. It's not as if they didn't trust "the servants"............ but the servants proved their trust by not pinching any.

---

That's the problem - nobody knows how many secret cameras there are in such places, nor whether or not the person being cared for approves - you'll only ever read about those cases where something untoward comes to light.

If relatives have genuine concerns then I see no problem with them putting those concerns before a judge to get authority for covert surveillance.

It is not only careworkers who visit the private rooms of residents but also other guests - are they not entitled to know that they are being recorded?

[cee-dee]

No, you need not be a burglar. If you were there on "lawful business" you'd have seen what I used to see..........

[cee-dee]

If you mind, I think you'd have something to hide.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@joamur_gosof wrote:

If you went from room to room of the upper classes years ago and nicked all their pin money ..A.you would be a cat burglar and B end up living in the same street ...

But trust and pride seem out the window these days in  some care homes ..the managers and staff recruitment team need taking to task to,when things like this are caught on camera.

I am not sure a camera up would stop people who are so callous they abuse a pensioner in a care home tbh

---

My wife has been a careworker, (working with severely mentally and disabled adults), for many years - she loves the work and does it not for the money, (we'd have to be very hard up if that were the case), but because she finds it so rewarding in other ways.

The vast majority of careworkers are conscientious and hard working but as with any other group there will always be the odd 'bad apple'.  Unfortunately the consequences of an incompetent or callous carer working with vulnerable individuals can be far more serious than in other walks of life. 

I'm still not convinced however that secret surveillance is the best solution and that the loss of privacy and individual rights of those in care can be justified.  It's not a matter of the workers rights being infringed but looking for what is best for those being cared for.  How respectful is it to secretly film clients being assisted with going to the toilet or being bathed without their knowledge? - Would you be happy with such?

[blackburn_stevie]

May I add a quote from a discussion that we had on this very subject?

"The ruling does not go far enough"

. It was said earlier that the providers of Health care are being tested.

But what if they are doing their job to the best of their ability but people higher up the list are slacking?

Here's an example.

A woman works as a Warden in a Sheltered Housing Scheme. There are 40 housing units with 65 residents. One of the residents has a faulty oven and complains about it to the warden. The warden complains to head office about getting it fixed. Nothing is done for 3 weeks despite 6 phone calls. After the 3 weeks are up, the Warden's reputation is in tatters.

However, keep the same system but with one simple change. Have something like an iPad or laptop that is for the use of everyone (on official business) Any phone calls to head office could be copy/pasted to an e-mail and any answers from head office could be read by everyone. That way, proof could be shown that the Warden was doing her job

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

If you mind, I think you'd have something to hide.

---

I think you are missing the point - covert surveillance of a person in need of care, be that due to age, mental or physical disability is a form of abuse in itself - allowing the installation of secret camera surveillance without the means of ensuring that those being filmed approve is a form of abuse in itself.

How about the installation of secret cameras in public toilets or hotel rooms - that OK? - after all if you have nothing to hide why would you mind?

[astrologica]

Bring the cameras on....every person who has to live in these homes deserves to be treated with dignity and care, and if that means cameras then so be it. That film on the TV made me feel sick...if my mother had ever had to go into care then I would want cameras there.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@astrologica wrote:
Bring the cameras on....every person who has to live in these homes deserves to be treated with dignity and care, and if that means cameras then so be it. That film on the TV made me feel sick...if my mother had ever had to go into care then I would want cameras there.

---

In what way is a video of you, taken without your knowledge, being helped to go to the loo or having a bath considered as being treated with dignity!!!

[cee-dee]

It's not the resident that's under survellance, it's those not doing their job.

On the news not long ago was a report of a poor resident calling for help for 2½ hours and the neglect was only brought to book because the family had installed a covert camera.