Pamela, who’d worked night shifts with Molly at the address for over a year, broke down as she gave evidence of the events leading up to her friend’s death at the inquest.
Asked how Mr Seddiki behaved when he was being changed, she said: “He is a very aggressive man. He can kick you, push you. […]
“Quite a few people had reported what was going on at that house but I don’t know why it was taking long to sort out.”
I do. It’s because no-one cares enough to protect the people who do this work.
The court heard how Mr Seddiki was mercurial on account of his dementia and could either be a “good man” or act violently towards the carers.
On May 24 he “didn’t want to be changed” and was shouting at them to leave or he’d call the police, Pamela told the court.
She said Molly put a spit mask on him at this time as a protective measure as he’d allegedly spat at them before when he was in such a state.
Interesting. There’s a huge campaign to stop the police using these on the people they arrest, yet not a peep out of the usual suspects about this. Is it because they don’t want to rock the boat?
During questioning by Oliver Lewis, for the family, Pamela said the patient was a “strong man” and that “a lot of people reported him hitting carers with [his] zimmer frame.
But no-one did a thing about the reports. Of course. Even when they did turn up, they did nothing.
Det Sgt Simon Cormack, who led the investigation into Molly’s death, revealed there was a previously logged police “incident” where the deceased had “locked herself in the bathroom” because she “felt threatened” by Mr Seddiki in February 2017.
No further action was taken and it wasn’t “flagged up to safeguarding to take any further,” Det Sgt Cormack said.
Everyone just shrugged, and moved on. Until the inevitable happened.
Pressed on how the police dealt with Mr Seddiki following Molly’s death, the chief said: “He was arrested. However, he never entered into any police station. It was determined it was not appropriate for him. He was taken to hospital and was assessed in hospital. They said that at that time he did not have the capacity [for police] to interview him under caution. Not fit to be detained, not fit to be interviewed, not fit to come into any police station.”
He said there were six cameras in the house, including one in Mr Seddiki’s room, but these only sent a live feed to the elderly couple’s daughter and nothing was recorded.
The daughter, you see, was far more concerned with ensuring that the people paid a pittance to look after her relative were monitored to stop them stealing from him or mistreating him.
It was claimed during her inquest that Mr Seddiki had struck her while she tried to change his clothes and bedding. But London Care’s lawyer suggested that had not been the case, and pointed out her colleague Pamela had not actually seen him hit Molly at any stage.
This week, a jury sided with the agency and rejected the claim that Mr Seddiki – who was initially arrested on suspicion of murder before being released without charge – had killed her.
Probably thinking that if they found him guilty, they might have trouble getting carers for their own relatives when the time came…
Molly’s family said: “We sat through the evidence over the last three days and we are very concerned Molly and her fellow care workers were given no practical help or guidance by their employers, London Care, or Islington Council, who funded the care, about how to manage a patient they were both well aware was challenging.
“We found it shocking Islington had no working system in place to carry out a rapid reassessment of a challenging patient’s changing care needs – something urgently needed to protect both care workers such as Molly and their patients.”
Well, quite. You can’t throw a stick in any state-run organisation without hitting a dozen H&S at work regulations. Why is this different?
“In this case it took six weeks for an assessment to take place and there was no evidence the council had communicated the outcome of that assessment to Molly or her employers prior to her death.
“It has been suggested by London Care that if things became too dangerous on a shift Molly and her coworker could withdraw or decline to provide the care which the patient needed and still be paid for a full 12 hours’ work however Molly was on a zero hours contract – meaning that she would only be paid for the hours that she actually completed.
“Nothing can bring Molly back but we hope lessons can be learnt from her death to ensure patients with challenging care needs are provided with an appropriate level of care by the state. [This case] highlights the challenges facing carers and it is important their safety is protected.”
It is. It’s vital, if we are to expect strangers to care for our elderly or demented relatives. But it doesn’t seem to be a priority.
I wonder why?