Main menu
Mam was discharged from dementia services in 2015 as her brain was perfect.
After the visit I say to the social workers: Mam wants help. I was met with same old -
In order of appearance:
Social Workers, CPN etc
Doctors & Consultants
They all lied about the whole situation from start to finish. But then there is the Judge in COP who allowed it all to be cemented into our lives. And never gave me a chance to show these charlatans for who they really are. On the scale of baddies they are all equal.
The Correspondence Regarding XXXX: A Timeline
1. Nina Identifies a Mistake
Date: January 27, 2025, 09:58 AM
Sender: Nina
Recipient: Social Worker
Nina writes to SW to clarify a previous mistake in her email regarding the timeline of a recording. She provides the correct link to the 2020 meeting for SW to review. Nina emphasizes her role as a UN Human Rights Defender and her personal stake as XXXXXX’s daughter.
2. SW’s Reply
Date: January 27, 2025, 12:51 PM
Sender: SW
Recipient: Nina
SW informs Nina that she no longer works for that Council and has redirected the inquiry to the another office. SW thanks Nina for the update but provides no further specifics about the reassignment.
3. Nina Seeks Further Details
Date: January 27, 2025, 1:38 PM
Sender: Nina
Recipient: SW
Frustrated by the lack of clarity, Nina requests specific information about where her email was forwarded and to whom. She asks if the recipient is likely to address her concerns.
4. Revisiting Past Grievances
Date: April 5, 2023, 07:04 AM
Sender: Nina
Recipient: SW
Nina raises serious concerns regarding SW’s actions during her tenure. She accuses SW of neglecting XXXX’s rights and well-
SW failed to challenge incorrect dementia diagnoses despite evidence to the contrary.
After XXXX was sectioned, SW initially assessed her as lacking capacity but later reversed her assessment, only for XXXX’s rights to be disregarded again.
Nina alleges SW ignored abuse disclosures from XXXX and did not arrange recommended therapy, citing interference from consultants as the reason.
SW reportedly downplayed abuse by labeling it as "alleged," which undermined XXXX’s narrative.
Nina declares her intention to expose these failures publicly, asserting that SW's actions breached several laws and ethical standards.
5. SW’s Lack of Response
Date: January 27, 2025, 09:26 AM
Sender: Nina
Recipient: SW
Nina follows up to request specific details of the consultant who dismissed her mother’s need for therapy. She references a 2022 meeting, providing an audio recording link to jog SW’s memory. Nina stresses the urgency of the matter.
6. Email Delivery Issues
Date: January 27, 2025, 09:26 AM
Sender: Mail System
Recipient: Nina
Nina’s email to SW’s XXXX Council address bounces back. The system reports SW’s email address as invalid, suggesting she may no longer be employed there or the contact information is outdated.
7. Nina’s Closing Remarks
Date: April 5, 2023, 11:09 AM
Sender: Nina
Recipient: SW
Nina informs SW that she will not engage in further correspondence during a pivotal week for her family. She concludes with a pointed note about prioritizing truth and healing.
Key Themes in the Correspondence
Accountability: Nina repeatedly seeks transparency and action, holding SWand the system accountable for perceived injustices.
Advocacy: As a self-
Systemic Failures: The emails highlight bureaucracy’s role in neglecting XXXX’s care, from unaddressed abuse claims to a lack of therapy and miscommunication.
Persistence: Despite bounced emails and vague replies, Nina persists in her pursuit of justice.