Hershman Levy Memorial Lecture – Munby LJ on Transparency

Lord Justice Munby recently delivered the annual Hershman Levy Lecture on the topic of Transparency and the Children Schools and Families Act 2010, in which he referred to my recent article in Family Law, republished here. You can read the lecture here on the Association of Lawyers for Children website (I’ve downloaded it here: HERSHMAN_LEVY_MEMORIAL_LECTURE_2010, as the link to the ALC website seems not to work all the time).

Horsing Around 4 Justice

Real / New / Fathers 4 Justice (or someone with unexplained access to one of their banners) have been messing with an ancient chalk horse monument in the name of open justice. I know that some F4J related chaps have a penchant for painting things purple but I’m at a loss to understand the symbolic significance of a big white horse in the context of an open justice / equality agenda. But then I’m also still secretly amused at the apparent naivety with which oh-so-macho superheroes gaily daub public monuments with a colour strongly associated with the gay pride movement. Juvenile I know – perhaps this qualifies me for honorary membership?

Cadbury's Dairy Milk

Image by PentaxFanatiK on flickr

Anyway, I was particularly tickled by the suggestion (in the BBC report of this – link above) by the Real F4J spokesman that they “should’ve picked a legitimate target like a court house“. A positively watertight defence to a criminal damage charge, that one.

Having become obsessed myself with the apparent purple fetish at large in the father’s rights movement, I am rather hoping that Cadbury’s Dairy Milk agree to sponsor New / Real / Popular People’s F4J and that they are able to borrow the Dairy Milk gorilla’s costume for use in scaling up the Statue of Justice at the RCJ. They could unfurl a glorious purple banner sporting the logos of both Cadbury’s and “[Insert prefix of choice here]F4J”, and could broadcast ‘Something in the Air Tonight’ from a large ghetto blaster hung off one of the scales of Justice. But on the other hand perhaps XF4J are not the ‘glass and a half full’ kind of guys that Cadbury’s are looking for to represent their brand. And perhaps that would in fact just be a stupid stunt that would rather tend to play into the hands of those who would argue that opening up the family courts would expose children to the risks that some individuals would publish information in ways that were detrimental to their welfare. Perhaps.

PS In case anyone has a sense of humour failure over this post I am in no way intending to suggest that Cadbury’s are associated with F4J (or any other Father’s Rights Group with similar name) or vice versa, nor that any Father’s Rights Group or member thereof resemble gorillas, have any particular sexual preference or fondness for the music of Phil Collins and I categorically do not express any view as to the existence of any superpower which any such individual may or may not be in possession of. And I do not condone vandalism, criminal damage, trespass or dressing up as a comic book or cartoon character when over the age of 18 on the grounds that they are, well, criminal. I have however eaten a whole giant bar of Dairy Milk whilst writing this post.

Splitting Headache


banana split

trial by banana split (Photo: arboltsef)

To split or not to split? That is the eternal question, answered here by new Prez in new guidance. In short: split only when it serves a purpose. And don’t forget split listing (or not) is a judicial decision. Lord Justice Wall (little known founder of Wall’s Ice Cream) also adds a reminder that splits of the banana variety are absolutely not to be eaten whilst the court is sitting. During the luncheon adjournment only please. (Okay, I made that last bit up, but it was a VERY dull post without it).

Guidance: Split hearings May 2010