Jealously Protected

The Guardian runs a series of articles today about the Court of Protection: here (“The court of protection: defender of the vulnerable or shadowy and unjust?”), here (“Court of protection should be open to public scrutiny, says leading judge”) and here (“Court of protection must balance needs of vulnerable with rights of family”) in which variously the reader can hear of John Hemming MP complaining about the Court of Protection’s “mania for secrecy”, whilst the President of the Court of Protection Nicholas Wall simultaneously calls for the court to be open to public scrutiny, saying that there should be legislative reform and “provided we can protect the confidentiality of litigants and their families, there’s not a reason we can’t hear the cases in the presence of the media.” He doesn’t sound terribly manic. No doubt The Guardian has received it’s invite to sit in on John Hemming’s divorce proceedings.

 

10 thoughts on “Jealously Protected

  1. Any mother whose baby is confiscated at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” is threatened with jail if she dares to protest to the media.
    Sounds pretty “manic” to me ……..

  2. theUKhasbecomeajoke

    @ familoo

    Exactly what world do you live in?

    For a start please search the internet for “chris brooker, the telegraph”

    Countless stories confirming Ian’s comment!!!

    Possible like Ian:
    I’m not mentally ill.
    I was not abused as a child.
    Prior to my application to the family court for contact, I had no previous involvement with the abhorrent UK family justice system.
    To date I have never profited a penny from the current system.

    Which of the above are your reasons for you lack of integritity?

    • You are entitled to disagree with me. I would appreciate it though if you refrained from abuse. What do you know about my integrity? That our views do not align does not make me someone who lacks integrity.

  3. theUKhasbecomeajoke

    P.S.

    It is ver easy to be smug, when you moderate out the truth…

    Have you ever wondered why you need to?

    • I haven’t moderated any comments off this post. All comments (including yours) have been let through. Why do you need to resort to derogatory language?

  4. theUKhasbecomeajoke

    Daer, dear familoo.

    You are once again very much mistaking. Please research the MUSA which is now on going in Wood Green Crown Court.

    FYI, without any court authorisation social services accompanied by the police raided a maternity ward a few hours after a child was born. They then forcible removed the child from the mother, leaving her permanently impaired…

    [edited]

    IAN JOSEPHS: 1
    familoo: 0

    Sadly I fear this happens much more frequently than the “general public” may ever be allowed to know!

    familoo,

    MY REFERENCES ARE FACTS!!!!!

    • I’m not sure if you realise, but the police do not require a court order to remove a child into police protection under s46 Children Act 1989 so what you describe might be lawful.

      I wasn’t aware we were keeping score.

  5. theUKhasbecomeajoke

    The term “lawful” is absolutely black and white isn’t it? That’s why so many lawyers around the world make such handsome livings arguing both perspectives.

    It is noted, that on this occasion the term “lawful” may have been used to substitute the fetal position.

    In terms of keeping score, …

    If the “score” was monitored from beginning,the UK today would not have 1:3 (over 3,800,000) children living with no contact with at least 1 parent.

    Other than my reference to your financial gains, that have been obtained directly from the current disgrace which is the UK Family justice system. I have previously made no personal remarks directly at you.

    Ultimately I now acknowledge that it may be impossible for you to realise it is immoral for the Family justice system to remove children living in abject poverty from their biological parent(s) who receive up to £85 per month in means tested benefits per child. To then place the same children with “foster parents” or “children’s homes” who can receive between £400-1200 monthly. This utterly discuss and perplexes me, but the Family justice system refers to this process as a success.

    It is also immoral for Cafcass and children services to repeatedly fail children like Peter Connelly & Kyra Ishaq… Then use there photographs in a media campaign to secure further government funding. This is repugnant.

    I could very easily give you another 30 instances / reasons why Ian Josephs is correct and you aren’t, but I fear several of my points my affect Family Lawyers income. Thus my comment would never survive your moderation…

    • As I indicated before (in 2012 when you last commented) I rarely block comments and only edit for legal reasons. Although I disagree with some of your comment and struggle to understand other parts, and although it is plainly hostile I haven’t moderated it out or edited it. In future thought it would be great if any comments were less …erm…charged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *