Crept from my sick bed today for a copy of the Times (no, not a hangover, a spot of flu – thanks for asking) as I had seen a headline I wanted to read more of. Got more than I bargained for – pages 19-23 of today’s Times are awash with, variously, irritating and interesting family law new stories.

So, let us begin…

Firstly, the thing for which I paid over my £1.20 to the Murdoch empire : Judge attacked over bid to hold family cases in public [link here for those who have subscription].

First off, although any judge is characteristically referred to as a “top” one by the proper tabloid press, it is most out of character for The Times to promote Munby to “country’s most senior judge” as they do here (it is evidently an editorial mistake as they correctly identify his job title subsequently).

Munby has, it is said, aroused concern and even hostility over his plans to open up the courts. Undoubtedly so. It goes on to say that “children’s groups and family lawyers warned that children will decline to give evidence if they know that the public may attend, even though names would be anonymised, because they fear inadvertent identification”. Undoubtedly so.

But the truth is that very few consultation responses have been published and we do not know what others may have been submitted. The only organisation which is referred to in the article is Resolution, and the views expressed in the article appear to me to be basically taken from their response. It is similar to the article that appeared on Family Law on 27 October simultaneous with the publication of their response.

Incidentally, I have found the ALC response here, the Resolution response here and the FLBA response here. The Transparency Project response is here and I think Suesspicious Minds published his own response, although I can’t immediately lay my hands on the link. NAGALRO published a response here – however that response refers to the response of the Interdisciplinary Alliance for Children which I can’t find published anywhere! The Children’s Commissioner, whilst having been vocal about the issue (through her Deputy Sue Berelowitz), has not apparently published a response, and nor has CAFCASS. David Burrows’ response is here. There may be others, but if there are I haven’t found them.

So yes, there are childrens groups and lawyers who have voiced concern, but I’m not sure that we can yet say that this correctly characterises the views across the board. We will have to wait and see whether that is the case. And more to the point, the fact that such groups have expressed concern does not mean that those concerns are insurmountable or determinative.

Resolution have questioned whether there is “genuine demand” for more openness – which rather makes one wonder where precisely they have been burying their heads for the last several years : as far as I can see there is a rather loud clamour for greater openness, but it is also clearly a view which is unanimously shared by lawyers or childrens’ groups.

I’m interested in the timing of this article when we are expecting a response from the President’s bunker soon, that suggests that the President may have to have a rethink. Someone is doing some lobbying here, which makes me uncomfortable – this is a topic which has already been sidelined for political reasons in the past and it deserves a proper debate this time around – I’d rather that were via Parliament but that isn’t going to happen, so I’m grateful to the President for having the cojones* to start the debate even though he will (as this article proves) be attacked by one or other camp for so doing. It would be sad if this debate were politicised to the extent that some organisations were briefing the press in an attempt to get traction. And somewhat incongruous if the same portions of the press who were clamouring righteously for an end to secrecy were to be involved in flip flopping on their position for the sake of a good story.

I’m perhaps more tetchy about this article than I might have been, given the rather rubbish reporting of the genuinely interesting and wide ranging debate about this very topic that was hosted by the Family Justice Council and chaired by the President in November, the full transcript of which can be read or listened to here. It was clear from that event that there were a range of strongly held and legitimate views, and the Press seem so far to be focusing on reducing the debate to a story about “judges under attack” rather than the “secret family courts” story of yesteryear. I am thinking in particular of the shameless cherry picking that the Daily Mail engaged in in their article : Opening up family courts ‘will cause child suicides’: Fury at claim by children’s tsar in secret justice battle. It makes me a bit crotchety when the press clamour for more openness on the basis that the public have a right to know, and then do rubbishy lazy reporting which does not add to public information and education one iota.

[coffee break]

Immediately above that article on page 19 is an article about the latest offering from Baroness Deech entitled : Divorce laws make women think all they need to do is marry a footballer. I should have known it would send me into a fit of pique but I read it anyway. Baroness Deech, now freshly released from her chairship of the BSB, is back on the divorce law reform malarky. Which is fine in itself. It does need reform. However, it’s the underlying messages about women that make me so narked. Just to start my dander on an upward incline, the good Baroness is quoted asking the reader to imagine going to an “Islington dinner party, go along to anything you like” (she swiftly adds). Now I once, a long time ago, *technically* lived in Islington (above the Euro Cafe, the flat with the word C**T charmingly graffitti’d on the door), but I don’t think that she is talking about the same type of dinner parties where I have ever been…

For sure, at dinner parties of every sort, and even at other less salubrious gatherings such as pubs and on The Face Book, people have their gripes about divorce. People bend my ears in all sorts of places about their divorce (most recently the bloke advising me about my remortgage who is divorcing his wife..he has no children but it is still taking too long because she is in Pakistan…er. can we get back to my mortgage?). But I tell you what – if Deech came to one of my dinner parties (a highly unlikely scenario for a multitude of reasons) and started banging on about how the law sent me a message that I should just go out and bag a footballer she’d be getting her missisippi mud cake down her frock before leaving. And yes, it would be a mississipi mud cake made by a large supermarket chain.

[Incidentally, during my Xmas clean up I have located enough Tesco crockery tokens to by a set of ramekins for £2.99 a pair – the kind you only ever use for faffy deserts at dinner parties – I was pondering whether it was worth the money since I am highly unlikely ever to get my house in a fit state for guests ever again. I am now going to buy them to prove a point. That’s aspirational shopping for ya…]

Anyway, my dander is up because….

Because, Lady Deech, most of us don’t know any millionaire footballers. And, Lady Deech, if we did we would NOT invite them to our dinner parties for the purposes of bagging them. Or even for the purposes of making jokes at their expense to entertain the rest of the guests. Because Lady Deech, we are women with a bit of self respect and an understanding that we are responsible for our own financial futures. And wouldn’t marry a premiership footballer even if he paid us (not even David Beckham though he is LUSH). And because we are not daft enough to marry purely for financial reasons.

Of course, there are women who don’t think that way and who have those Looney Tunes dollar signs in their eyes at the thought of copping off with a rich footballer. But really. Do you think they are representative of women in this country? Because that is, like, SOoooo depressing!

At any rate, most of them are likely to be disappointed on the basis that there aren’t really that many eligible premiership footballers to go around, especially if you discount the ones who have a history of offending, domestic abuse, racism or other unpleasantness (sorry all you footballers who are not like this).

And also, Lady Deech, because I don’t hear you telling my husband, or anyone else’s husband for that matter, that the law tells him to go and bag a rich lad (in point of fact he’s an ex (American) Footballer but I don’t think that counts). And because, Lady Deech, most of us are not really in the premier league when it comes to divorce, and if it came to it we’d be dividing up the debts and the assets based on good old fashioned need, and based on who was going to be working and who was going to be caring, not on the basis of aspirational budgets for manicures, dog grooming and boob jobs. The law certainly wouldn’t do me any favours – should I have gone for a footballer instead?

[Gin break. Make mine a double.]

Right. Onto David Aaronovitch and Abuse inquiry is now a fantasist’s playground.

This is an article in which Aaronovitch expresses his unease at how toxic and hysterical the reactions to the whole CSE inquiry have become, and the risks that the swirling and frenzied debate online and on social media, coupled with encouragement for victims to come forward and report increases the risk that false claims could be made and accepted. I have to say (at my own peril no doubt) that this really rings a bell with me. I have read some really concerning exchanges on twitter and elsewhere recently where there seems to be a complete inability to hold in mind or acknowledge the need for robust scrutiny of allegations and the need for a rigorous evidential approach – it is now totally taboo to suggest that some claims may be inaccurate (inadvertently) or untrue (intentionally) to the point that although I am not suggesting any particular allegation is untrue I feel like I am sticking my head above the parapet to suggest that any might be even inaccurate. Since Saville it seems to be the case that once someone has made an allegation it is somehow outrageous to ask questions. Gasps of horror etc. But Saville was dead. He could not be defamed. He had no right to a fair trial. Many of these alleged perpetrators are alive. And the recent allegations are made amidst a heightened environment which is likely (sadly) to propagate exaggerated or fantasised allegations in some instances. We can’t run this like Saville. And again, I feel I have to say in response to the inevitable comment – no I am not suggesting that Saville was not a sex offender. No I am not an apologist.

Whilst one starts from the proposition in dealing with victims that they are victims, it is quite possible to respectfully and sensitively examine and evaluate the evidence before reaching conclusions about what is and is not sustainable. And more to the point it is essential to do so, in order that valid claims are validated rather than undermined by association. We owe it to everyone involved – victims and perpetrators alike – to calmly and forensically examine allegations to establish their accuracy and to weed out the few that do not withstand scrutiny. Otherwise, if every allegation is treated as de facto, what is the point of an inquiry? And what, frankly, is the point of a trial?

It is that, I suspect, that Baroness [edit : Hale  Butler Sloss – oops!] was talking about when she expressed views (for which she has been lambasted in the Press) about the need to keeping victims at the centre of the CSE inquiry whilst also ensuring that they were not running the show (that’s on page 6 of my Guardian today – Abuse Survivors criticise judge’s hostage claim). She may have been right to resign as chair, but I think she was also right about that (Although I’m not sure if they need to be “establishment” as she suggests, or even what “establishment” means – probably she means someone with sufficient social standing to have the necessary authority but I doubt this is how it will be interpreted). There needs to be some objectivity and I’m struggling to see it at the moment.

And, after that marathon (during which I had a perfect excuse to ignore the children pretending quite convincingly to be werewolves) I feel better. I guess I just needed a dose of ranting…

* thank you Miriam Gonzales Durantes