I am a bit late responding to the Panorama programme.
Being lucky enough to work in Social Care my call on what constitutes abuse is much less than other peoples - i.e. that I would notice and challenge certain subtle unprofessional conduct or incidents that I wasn't happy with. This is only my opinion and I certainly don't want to appear to be bragging.
An example of what I mean was when an assistant manager of a project supporting six adults decided to put chili through each of the main courses offered to both staff and clients (their terminology as I hate it). This person did this without asking or consulting the adults despite three of them having various communication methods enabling them to respond. The answer of "well, I have known them for X amount of time and they have always enjoyed such hot food" may seem to make sense but what it did was to take that choice away from people.
As always place yourself in the position of the person being supported. I love hot food but would be less than happy were I be asked if I wanted home made macaroni and cheese and to tuck in and find it was spicy and I doubt anyone reading this would feel any fucking different.
I must point out that this turned out to be a communication error between staff which affected the choice and that the project continues to provide incredible support but it is a relevant example of what could happen should that practice be accepted.
Needless to say there are occasions where choice can be curtailed such as if someone has an illness or on medication that would be affected by, say, soft fruit, spicy food or alcohol and it is equally unprofessional to be ignorant of this.
Anyhow my, long winded, point is that as shocking as it is this can happen so easily when standards drop. I have never seen it in my profession but did when I worked in the Civil Service. About ten years ago worked on a short term contract dealing with applicants searching for work in a jobcentre within the east end of Glasgow. As such we were serving one of the poorest catchment areas in Britain. The boss, who in his/her cliques eyes was shall we say reet-peteet, had a dreadfull manner towards clients. People shouldn't be supported to apply for more than two jobs at a time because "they can only be successful in one application", anyone in employment should be told to go through Bath street jobcentre as it "wasn't our interest" to help and so on, even if it was dead quiet "why should I help someone who has educational difficulties complete a form" yet I was criticised for "caring too much" when I put together a pack detailing local services for people in such a position and so on. Due to this his/her clique - which consisted of about a quarter of staff - had a similar attitude. I witnessed staff wind up clients flagged as potentially violent and smirk afterwards. The person given the hugely responsible role of matching clients to jobs would call many clients in their absence as "unemployable" publicly when dealing with other members of the public. This boss and her pals sneered at peoples. Rather than ask someone about personal hygiene deodorant was sprayed around them by as staff member shouting "Jesus Christ" People were forced to attend IT courses that they had recently gained qualified to teach. I could go on but would probably on serve to identify the location and individuals within which is obviously not a good idea.
I always encouraged those complaining about their treatment to take their concerns to both the area management and the local MP. I even brought this matter to the MP's attention.
Point is the work seventy-five per cent of the staff did was made redundant due to the general acceptance of this behavior so it is sadly no surprise to have seen such a similar circumstance here.
Sorry for the long post
M̶u̶t̶t̶l̶e̶y̶ you snickering floppy eared hound when courage is needed, you're ne'er around.
Those medals you wear on your moth-eaten chest should be there for bungling at which you are best.