Hi Guys, Mark Dawes here, once again.
You may have seen this, which has been posted on Facebook or on the news. It’s the Guardian’s report into the MMPR Restraint Techniques that are used on children.
The headline said, “Approved Restraint Techniques Can Kill Children. The Ministry of Justice has found.” That’s your starter for ten and I shouldn’t laugh, and I’m not laughing at the risk. I’m laughing at the stupidity of this system because they’ve actually approved techniques that can kill children. I mean, how perverse is that?
Let me read you some of this, and I’ve put a link to this below, so you can go and read this for yourself, so you know I’m not making this stuff up.
The Ministry of Justice Have Approved Restraint Techniques That Can Kill Children
It says, “The Ministry of Justice is facing calls to scrap and rewrite the policy on restraining minors after it emerged that a report it commissioned,” so its own report, “found that some authorised techniques could kill children or leave them disabled.”
Astonishing. I mean, it says here, “An internal risk assessment of restraint techniques, obtained by the Guardian, shows that certain procedures approved for use against non-compliant children carry a 40% or 60% chance of causing injuries involving the child’s airways, breathing, or circulation.”
The consequences of which could be catastrophic and they go on to define catastrophic: “As injury, as death or permanent severe disability affecting every day life.” In their approved system.
This ‘Approved System’ Goes Against Current Research
Now there are techniques they’ve got in here, like the figure four leg hold, and those of you that have been at our conferences know that when Professor John Parkes spoke about this. Putting someone on the floor with a figure four leg hold cuts the ability to breathe by 30%, but let’s put that into context, as well.
Because in scientific trials it is used on people in a clinical environment, with no build up to that, so that has been no exhaustion, there’s been no fatigue and there have been no violent struggles.
They’ve just been people asked to lie on the floor, put legs in a figure of four leg lock, apply pressure to them, and in those clinical trials, 30% reduction in lung function. Well, we’re not doing it, but these fecking numpties are doing it after a restraint.
Still Using Head Holds!
It goes on. I mean, there’s all sorts of stuff in here. It’s tremendous. You’ve got to read it. Go to the link below and read this shit. It says, that they’re using head holds.
They’re actually still taking the head down to an angle there, and walking children in a head hold.
Now we haven’t used a head-hold for years, and the simple reason why, I mean, what risk, technically, does the head hold?
Why are we bending people forward?
Now in other research done by John Parkes, and this is stuff that we’ve implemented in our training, and our trainers have implemented into their training.
Research by Dr John Parkes
We know if you sit someone down and bend them forward at a particular angle, and obviously, there are variables involved, but John Parkes has measured the extreme of this to be an 80% reduction in lung function.
A seated bent forward restrained is actually more dangerous than a prone restraint with a rear figure four leg lock on it, but they are walking children after a violent struggle, bent forward, holding onto their head and their neck. I mean, this is … I mean, I’m an ex-prison officer and we were doing this 15 years ago, for Christ’s sake.
They’re still doing the same thing, but this is the bit I like. This is why I’m laughing. “Staff are trained with the use of MMPR by experts.” My fucking ass. Let me tell you about these experts.
The Independent Restraint Advisory Panel
There was a Restraint Advisory Board that was set up, and the person that Chaired that Restraint Advisory Board then went on to Chair the Independent Restraint Advisory Panel, and I was invited to go along to this panel with some colleagues of mine.
Because the Chairman of this Board and a few of their people sitting around them were interviewing training providers that used restraint techniques on children.
We picked up on a couple of things they said, which we challenged, and we challenged them because they were wrong.
They would not admit they were wrong, so we actually got a Lawyer, and this was a Lawyer, who is way up the food chain. We got him to write a letter to actually give us a legal opinion on the comments made.
‘Illegitimate Comments’
The lawyer said, “Her comments were illegitimate and have no basis in law.” I have a copy of that letter, but these are the people who’ve come up with this astonishing set of techniques that can kill people, but that’s okay when it’s approved.
The point I’m making in this video is people all the time are looking for approved and accredited training. You can get it here. You can get this approved and accredited training that will kill the people you’re trying to restrain. Let’s come back to a moot point. Why are we restraining people? Well, we restraining them, hopefully, to stop damage, keep people safe, and not to kill them. Now you can go back to 2000, a Draft Local Authority Circular that we still show people.
This now is 16, nearly 17 years old. Where it said: “You should not use techniques that interfere with diaphragm movement and lung function, or any technique that interferes with the ability to breathe.”
Not rocket science. Experts should have picked that up. There’s loads and loads of stuff out there that says you shouldn’t do this stuff. I mean, I’ve highlighted loads of stuff here. I’m going to leave it to you guys to read.
The Real Point of This Is The Liability Issue
This is the real point of this.
Whatever system, if you’re a commissioning agency, whatever system of intervention, or physical restraint, or safe-holding, or whatever you want to call it.
Whatever system you choose to accept with whatever accreditation it may or may not have, then you are liable for the system that you’re implementing for your staff to use on your service users or patients, children, vulnerable people, in your care, or whatever.
The liability is not necessarily with the numpties that wrote the system.
Bear that in mind, so don’t go looking for the Holy Grail to think that someone’s got something and it’s absolutely, it’s not going to get you in trouble. Every system carries risk. Every technique will carry a risk when you used in a certain set of circumstances.
What you got to look for is the best system for you, which is why we’ve had so much legal input into our system.
We have Health and Safety Reviews. We have Medical Reviews. We take feedback from the people who use the system. We look at the use of force reports to find out whether or not what we’re giving them is working, and the system changes.
Systems Must Evolve and Progress
The other thing to bear in mind is it’s every system should change. It should evolve over time to be much, much better and more fit for purpose.
There’s a link below this video. You’ve got to read this stuff, honest to God. I just can’t believe in 2016, nearly 2017, there are people so-called experts who are coming up with crap like this, which is basically old stuff revamped, really. It’s old stuff repurposed, given a new name, and shoved out there. Don’t use it!
Any comments, stick them below the video. I’ll be delighted to hear back from you, and yes, I’ve read the comments underneath the Guardian’s thing, and I know there are some very, very violent children out there, too, and there are people getting assaulted by violent children, and I’m not saying that these vulnerable children are not violent, therefore, they shouldn’t be restrained. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is use techniques that work, but which mitigate and reduce risk. Don’t use techniques that increase risk, because it’s a false economy. Okay. That’s my little rant over.
Please, comments. Below the video, guys, or below the blog post, wherever you are. Click on the link. Read the full thing from the Guardian Newspaper. It’s definitely well worth a read but take it on-board. Make sure what you’re teaching is fit for purpose, and commissioning agencies, you make sure what you buy is fit for purpose, so all this accreditation stuff, in a lot of cases, doesn’t mean jack. It actually doesn’t, and some of it is just self-accredited stuff. Doug Melia, if you’re listening, I’m pretty sure you want to have a rant on this. Guys, there you go.
To read the article in the Guardian click here: ‘Approved restraint techniques can kill children, MoJ found’.
If you’re interested in becoming a properly qualified Trainer then go to this link: BTEC Level 3 Advanced Restraint Trainer Award Course.
Thanks ever so much.
Speak to you soon.