Tag: Talking Life

A Chance to Reset Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards by Andrew Gambrill, Talking Life trainer

As suspected, the Cheshire West ruling has been challenged and overturned. My only surprise is how long it has taken. My suspicions were aroused when, just before the Supreme Court hearing, the current Labour Government announced a 2026 consultation on implementing the Liberty Protection Safeguards. Maybe I was putting two and two together and making five, or perhaps I was just plain naive to think this signalled a clear route to implementation. Or was it simply a coincidence? 

On balance, it was a poorly worded piece of legislation that caused a bureaucratic nightmare: a real blunt instrument when something more refined and precise was needed. This gives us an opportunity to reset and do things properly, while consulting the right people, including advocates, local authorities, social workers and, of course, those with lived experience and their supporters. 

Perhaps the real challenge is the timeframe, and the vacuum created by the absence of clear guidance or replacement legislation for DoLS. We need to tread the line between moving quickly and doing things properly or at least have some clear temporary guidance. 

Building on that point, this gives us the opportunity to add nuance, context and a multifactorial approach, so that we can distinguish necessary safety measures from genuine safeguarding situations. 

This also appears to be the direction of the Supreme Court’s reasoning. As Mental Capacity Law and Policy summarised it, the starting point is now “the specific situation of the individual concerned”, with an assessment that is “multifactorial” and takes account of “a whole range of factors including the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation” of the arrangements. 

It is important to acknowledge the administrative burden placed on already overstretched local authorities. I am sure all practitioners can recall having to submit an application where their own professional judgement told them the application was unwarranted or unnecessary. 

Alex Ruck Keene captured this practical reality neatly on Community Care’s Learn on the go podcast: “if it felt like a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application, it probably was.” For practitioners, that phrase describes the professional instinct many relied on under the old framework, even when the application itself felt disproportionate. 

This is an opportunity to take the spirit of the Care Act, Human Rights Act and Mental Capacity Act, and of course Making Safeguarding Personal, and apply protection in a pragmatic and person-centred way. 

However, the focus on the here and now is crucial. We need to move fast to create interim guidance for frontline practitioners. Leadership needs to step up with clarity and strength: to continue to protect those who need our support, but also to protect practitioners with sound guidance that is clearly worded and to the point. It is unrealistic to suggest this will be easy, or that it will not require frequent rethinking, reviews and strong communication when the inevitable bumps in the road occur. And when I talk about leadership, I also mean unified leadership throughout the land, rather than individual local authorities taking different approaches. I am sure this is going to require many difficult conversations, but a united front and consistency are perhaps what matter most here. 

Without firm guidance, practitioners will quickly lose confidence, and we risk defensive practice becoming the default option rather than defensible decision-making. The impact will be universal across every team in adult social care, but we must be resolute: the old system may have been too broad, but the new one cannot simply be “less scrutiny” by default. 

Community Care has described the ruling as having “radically changed the law on deprivation of liberty”, which is why the practical response cannot be left to individual interpretation alone. The legal position may have shifted immediately, but the practice response still needs structure, shared language and confidence. 

Another important issue for me is ensuring that training is well thought out and wide-ranging. Where we start to rely more on professional judgement, that judgement needs to be supported through strong training programmes in which guidance is clear, but conversations are encouraged so that practitioners can bring context to the discussion. 

At the forefront of training conversations should be professional curiosity, problem-solving, wishes and feelings, and, of course, proportionality. Proportionality was perhaps the main element missing from the previous ruling. 

Social workers will, of course, be at the forefront, but this would initially need to be devised by directors and assistant directors, who can bring their processes and procedures to life by working directly with trainers to ensure the message is delivered clearly. Equally, directors may need to respond to queries raised. 

This is not a niche legal issue, as it affects social workers, best interests assessors and approved mental capacity professional-related roles, care home managers, nurses and ward teams, commissioners, safeguarding professionals, legal teams and service managers. 
If the law is moving from a rule-based test to a more evaluative one, the workforce needs the confidence and capability to apply that judgement safely and consistently. 

The scale of the issue is significant. 39 Essex Chambers described the decision as one that will “redefine the domestic understanding of a deprivation of liberty” and affect approximately 400,000 people in England and Wales who are considered to be deprived of their liberty in health and social care settings. 

Right now, what is needed is leadership from government, with clear interim guidance, a best-practice framework and learning hubs with practice examples. All of this needs to be developed with bodies such as Mencap, Mind and the National Autistic Society, alongside disabled people’s organisations, advocacy groups, carers’ organisations, local authorities, NHS partners, legal experts and frontline practitioners. It also needs funding for national, coordinated training and regular feedback sessions to learn from practitioners on the frontline operating in this new phase. While we are in this period and feeling a little adrift, our anchors are the Human Rights Act and the values that have guided our profession throughout. If a priority is needed, though, we must consider those who were going through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards process and those who were transitioning from the Children Act to the Care Act. We cannot panic, but we must move at pace. 

In conclusion, this is an opportunity to bring about workable, pragmatic and proportionate legislation that works for everyone involved, moving us towards a less bureaucratic and more values-based system where professional judgement is able to cut through. But right now, the immediate task is clear: we need leadership, interim guidance, a consistent national message and practical methods to deliver it, so that practitioners have the clarity and confidence to support and protect those who need it. 

Andrew Gambrill is an independent practice educator with over 40 years of experience in social care. His professional background is in statutory social work with older people, but he has worked across all service groups throughout his career. He has been instrumental in the development of Newly Qualified Social Workers (NQSWs) and Practice Educators in training, serving as a Learning Development Officer for Social Care at a Local Authority. He has also been a Teaching Fellow at the University of Warwick. Andrew has written articles for Professional Social Work and has developed a number of theories in Practice Education. He is registered with Social Work England.

References 

Department of Health and Social Care and Stephen Kinnock MP, “Improved safeguarding and protections for vulnerable people”, GOV.UK, 18 October 2025. 

Stephen Kinnock MP, letter to Layla Moran MP, Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, “Announcement of Consultation on Liberty Protection Safeguards”, 18 October 2025. 

Community Care, “Alex Ruck Keene on the Supreme Court’s AGNI ruling and what it means for you”, 10 June 2026. 

Learn on the go: the Community Care podcast, “Alex Ruck Keene talks Cheshire West, the Supreme Court ruling and what it means for you”, Omny.fm, published 9 June 2026. 

Mental Capacity Law and Policy, “Supreme Court overrules Cheshire West”, 2 June 2026, updated 7 June 2026. 

Dealing with Difficult Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) Training Interviews– by Tim Curtis, Talking Life ABE Trainer

One element that we explore in detail on the Talking Life Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) training course is our ability, as practitioners, to develop strategies to deal with potentially difficult situations that might arise during our interviews. Whilst this might sound fairly obvious, recent research shows that interviewers are often uncertain how to deal with some questions that they are asked by their interviewees in order to stay within the acceptable guidance offered within the ABE manual. 

Do you have an ABE Strategy?

Because so many ABE interviews are visually recorded, the researchers were able to look at (and critique) a significant number of interviews of victims and witnesses. These were real interviews – not simulations – and so the findings make a strong impact on our day-to-day work practices. The researchers found that many interviewers didn’t appear to have any plan or broader strategies in place to deal with perfectly reasonable questions that they were asked by their young interviewees. What surprised the researchers was the fact that the more interviews they watched, the more often the same (or similar) situations cropped up or the same questions were asked of the professionals. This frustrated the researchers because not only did we not appear to have a strategy to deal with the situation, the situation itself was fairly predictable – making the lack of a plan or a tactic even more disappointing. 

The problem was many professionals knew the answer that they wanted to give – but were uncertain as to whether to give such a response would have breached the guidance. One could argue that this is an example of a practitioner just having a poor grasp of the guidance but I would challenge that assertion. The interviewer is there, in the moment, with a vulnerable interviewee in front of them and they have to deal with that ‘difficult situation’ then and there – not only in a manner that keeps within the guidance (and thus keeping it legally admissible) but also – and most importantly – in a way that is interviewee-centred. We should not be slaves to the ABE guidance, we need to be mindful of it, and respectful of it, but we should always put the interviewee at the heart of what we do and how we do it.

ABE Interview examples

Let me give you an example: the simple situation of a child interviewee asking you, during a visually recorded interview: “Do you believe me?” This seems like quite a straight forward and easy enough question to answer doesn’t it? And we probably instantly know what we want to answer – “Yes”. But, as trained interviewers we know we are being visually recorded. We know that our every word is going to be scrutinised and unpicked by a lawyer who will be looking for flaws in our approach. We also know that if we just answer, as we probably all want to, with the simple response “Yes” then we could be accused of giving, or at the very least, offering, the child ‘unconditional belief’. 

“Principles of Investigative Interviewing“

The original Principles of Investigative Interviewing, as published by the Home Office some years ago stated that we need to be prepared to believe what we are told by vulnerable and intimidated victims and witness – but we must be ready to check what we are being told against what we already know or can reasonably find out. This means that by implying (or even overtly giving) and no-conditions-attached belief to what we are being told by our interviewee runs a risk of jeopardising the admissibility of part (or the whole) of the interview. In practice, a defence lawyer could seek to have the interview edited so that an unacceptable response by the interviewer (along with some of what the child said surrounding that answer) is excluded from the evidence. Thus some of the child’s experiences may never be known to the jury or other decision makers. More worryingly it is very possible that everything that the child says after an interviewer answers “Yes” (to the “Do you believe me?” question) is edited out as being inadmissible – because the child had an implied permission to say whatever they wanted and they would be believed. Think now: if the child asks “Do you believe me?” half way through our interaction with them – and we answer it inappropriately – you could lose half of that interview. Half of that child’s experiences would never be heard in the court. Thus, through our lack of a strategy to deal with this perfectly anticipatable situation, we risk depriving the young person the access to justice that they deserve. They’ve taken a potentially life-changing decision to come forward and tell us of their experiences – and we have let them down. Not the courts, us. This is why we spend, on the third day of this staff development module, time to identify strategies and tactics to deal with all sorts of difficult situations and questions that might arise during the interview.

Do you believe me?

Let’s look again at that ‘difficult’ question we were being asked: “Do you believe me?”. Now let’s look at just one slight variation on that question: “You don’t believe me do you?”. At first glance these could appear to be saying the same thing – but they don’t. Thus our response (our strategy) needs to be different to stay within a child-centred / guidance-compliant area. Add to this another ingredient, namely our response may need to be different depending on when in the interview this situation arises. A child having spent the last seventy-five minutes telling us about the abuse that they have experienced then saying “You don’t believe me do you?” will almost certainly need a different answer to a child who makes that enquiry right at the beginning of the interview – before they’ve told us anything. 

Value of the Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) training course

The aim of this brief article is not to scare you away from ABE interviewing – in fact it is the opposite, it is to encourage you to come on the course. You will identify five, maybe six, different go-to solutions during the “Developing Strategies to Deal with Difficult Situations” session that will address pretty-much any situation that you are presented with. Having a strategy is the important end-game of the session. We can’t give you a script because, even if the question is the same, every child is different, every situation is different and, as discussed above, every timing-of-the-question makes it different. Thus your responses will be different – but, rest assured, you will have strategies and specific tactics in place to deal with them by the end of the session.

Don’t think that the above applies just to ABE interviews either. The strategies that we discuss will stand you in a much better stead to deal with some of the difficult situations and difficult conversations that you have on a day-to day basis within your working environment. Whether you are a police officer, a social worker, a health care professional or a member of an educational establishment you need these strategies in place. We’ll help you explore the problems and create solutions.

Read about our fully up-to-date Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) training course for either Adult’s Services or Children’s Services here

Read about our fully up-to-date ABE Refresher courses here

Talking Life Training’s Summer Social Value Training

In the summer of 2025, Talking Life Training proudly delivered its fourth, annual series of free training sessions as part of our ongoing commitment to social value. Designed to empower individuals, invest in and strengthen communities, and support our clients in fulfilling their own social impact goals, the programme offered 21 distinct topics ranging from Difficult Conversations and An Introduction to Autism to Suicide Awareness, Supervision, and Building Confidence.

Across the season, 12 expert trainers delivered 54 hours of free training, reaching 544 delegates from a wide range of sectors and backgrounds. Since we started this scheme in 2022 an ever increasing number of people have taken part in these sessions. The response has been overwhelmingly positive — not only from attendees, who gained fresh insights and practical skills, but also from our major clients, who welcomed the opportunity to extend this offering to their communities.

Accessible, relevant and impactful

“This is exactly what social value should look like — accessible, relevant, and impactful,” shared Julie Clark, Learning and Development Academy Manager at Birmingham Children’s Trust.  “It’s a tangible way to support our teams and the wider community.”

Why It Matters

At Talking Life Training, we believe that social value isn’t just a box to tick — it’s a chance to make a real difference. By offering high-quality, no-cost training on topics that matter, we help our clients demonstrate meaningful community engagement while giving individuals the tools to grow, reflect, and lead. We couldn’t do this without the full support of our trainers, who give up their valuable time and the Talking Life & In-Trac (our sister company) leadership team.

Cost-Free Professional Development

These sessions also serve as a professional development opportunity for staff, allowing them to refresh existing skills and explore new areas of learning in a supportive environment. Whether it’s Understanding Neurodiversity, Navigating Sensitive Conversations, or Building Personal Confidence, the feedback has been clear: these sessions are making a difference.

Strengthening Partnerships Through Action

Our summer initiative is just one example of how Talking Life Training contributes to the long-term success of our client partnerships. By aligning our expertise with their social value goals, we help organisations deliver on their commitments — not just in theory, but in practice.

We’re proud to be part of a movement that puts people first, and we look forward to continuing this work in the months ahead.

For those interested in the broader context of social value within UK training and procurement, the Supply Chain Sustainability School offers a comprehensive overview. Their resources explore how organisations can embed social value into everyday practice, align with government models, and contribute meaningfully to community wellbeing.

Visit Birmingham Children’s Trust website here:

You can find out more about the training Talking Life offers here

Zoom v MS Teams: Which is best for Online Training? – by Katy Bennett, MD, Talking Life

Since COVID-19 hit the world, classroom-based training has come to a grinding halt. Gone are the days – at least for the time being – of trainers travelling up and down the country to deliver face-to-face training to organisations and businesses. So what now?

In mid-March 2020 I (and I know I’m not alone in this) had never heard of Zoom – had no idea what it was. Now, as a business we have premium user accounts and train over it every day. It’s being used for virtual training classrooms, meetings, one to ones, training OUR trainers and the occasional quiz! We used to use Skype as a virtual meetings tool, but I can now safely say that I haven’t logged into our Skype account for months (which is good because I don’t think we ever got through one meeting without being cut off).

So what is Zoom? It’s a ‘videotelephony and online chat service through a cloud-based peer-to-peer software platform and its used for teleconferencing, telecommunicating, distance education and social relations’ Essentially, it’s an online meeting platform with some nifty tools that you can use to make your meeting much more interactive as if you were all in the same room. Is it any good? In a word, yes. As I mentioned it’s got some great tools that make the world of a virtual classroom very life-like. For example, the breakout room function allows you to move delegates into virtual rooms where they can discuss and brainstorm ideas. The ‘host’ can move virtually between these rooms and input on delegates’ discussions. The ‘polling’ function allows anonymous polling results to be fed back to the host instantaneously – something you can’t do in an actual classroom! It’s simple and easy to use.

It does have its downsides. Many businesses, including a lot of Talking Life’s customers, have security and privacy issues with it. Zoom say they have resolved this, however a lot of IT Departments are still not allowing its use within their organisations due to this issue.

Which leads us into the other preferred online training tool, part of the Microsoft Empire – MS Teams.

Finding positives regarding MS Teams is hard.  Here are some – it’s a simple yet effective tool and is relatively straight forward to operate. It doesn’t require long repeated training sessions on how to use it, because it is quite simple. Also, a lot of organisations use it on a day to day basis, so from a training point of view, most delegates understand how it works. However, its simplicity is also its downfall. It has many of the same functions as Zoom such as sharing screen, mute, chat, hide video and participants list (and actually has a ‘download participants function – something that Zoom doesn’t have!) However, you can only ever see 8 other videos at the same time and you can’t pick which ones you can see. There is no gallery and speaker view as in Zoom, which is again one of the neat features about Zoom. There are no breakout rooms – though you can do a manual workaround and actually this does work well if set up correctly. Additionally, MS teams has been set up to work as part of peoples’ own organisations and it doesn’t like to mix them. This makes it difficult when setting up training across different organisations – but again, there are some (albeit long winded) fixes that we as an organisation have figured out to make sure that if we have to use MS teams when training, we do it right and it works.  MS Teams has a handy app which is easy to use and can be employed when out of the (home) office. Word from Microsoft is that more video screens and breakout rooms are coming soon so watch this (cyber) space…

In summary, the review is simple. Zoom has been built to run training and MS Teams to run meetings. At present we are delivering our training equally off Zoom and MS Teams and in fact, we have not found that using different platforms has impacted the quality of our training. The great thing is it works, They both work, our feedback is excellent and our customers are really enjoying the learning experience. Will we ever get back to the classroom? We are starting to do so, on a small scale, but in the meantime, whilst classroom based learning is out of favour, this substitute is just as good.