>> But in spite of all that it took 44hrs to 'realise' a prisoner who was
>> vulnerable on account of being both a minor and mentally ill was not eating or
>> drinking. That is the nub of the criticism. She should have been subject to much
>> closer attention and on the ambulance>casualty route MUCH sooner.
You miss the point.
They'd have realised she wasn't eating or drinking on the first occasion she was offered a drink... and in any case at a recognised meal time when offered a meal and drink. The offer and refusal would be electronically recorded on her individual custody record.
So at that point, possibly and probably relatively soon after she was incarcerated... would you advocate an ambulance then... or wait?
How long would you wait?
Would you call a police doctor and take his/her advice?.... I would.
Then when the doctor says, this has got beyond a joke, call an ambulance she's de-hydrated, you do so.
Then some clown from HMIC criticises you, as does a BBC article.. and a few armchair critics.
>>
>> While we all agree she shouldn't have been in a custody suite at all this
>> stuff happens with monotonous regularity. Procedure should cover it but it didn't get applied properly
>> in this case.
Which bit of 'procedure' do you think wasn't applied properly and how would you suggest they should have acted?
>> The report suggests that the Nottinghamshire force had a custody facility at Mansfield which was equipped for these sort of cases and she should have been there.
If that's the case, I'd agree with you, however not all cells at Mansfield would be so equipped and was someone already in it/them?
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 12 Feb 15 at 17:11
|
