Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 02 December 2013, 19:53:02
-
I posted about this sometime during the day on Sunday, but was unable to get back online in the evening to see whether other members shared my outrage.
I apologise to those who read it/commented before but, with the demise of yesterday's posts and replies, I am reposting it and would welcome the views of others.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html)
:( :( :(
-
As yesterday, the general gist in reply to your post was;...(and the tone of today's post is completely different)
Of course its an outrage(?iirc? Words to that effect)as its a Nickbat post. They always are. :( ...and... One day the angry smileys will run out.
Sigh... Just join in instead of dragging us all into the pits of hell.
That, as you asked, was all really :)
-
I've just read this:
www.telegraph.com/Gixergetshisknoboutinreadingtowncentre :o
-
See. That's much better ;D
-
I've just read this:
www.telegraph.com/Gixer gets his knob out in Reading town centre :o
Two items on South Today reminded me of summat...
1. A&E departments have started trialing GP consultations to help screen patients so the emergency trauma teams can concentrate on their jobs.
2. A PC was mown whilst trying to sting a black car in the Reading area, (ok it wasn't an Omega)
Coincidences or what ;D
-
I've just read this:
www.telegraph.com/Gixer gets his knob out in Reading town centre :o
Two items on South Today reminded me of summat...
1. A&E departments have started trialing GP consultations to help screen patients so the emergency trauma teams can concentrate on their jobs.
2. A PC was mown whilst trying to sting a black car in the Reading area, (ok it wasn't an Omega)
Coincidences or what ;D
Wasn't me, I was in the curry house, and the couple meeting us there where stuck on the M4 which was closed both ways as a result of. Lower Early way runs parallel to the m4 on that section.
3 people charged with attempted murder.
-
Wasn't seriously suggesting it was ;) but the A&E story was on first... which got the grey cells' attention ;D
-
As yesterday, the general gist in reply to your post was;...(and the tone of today's post is completely different)
Of course its an outrage(?iirc? Words to that effect)as its a Nickbat post. They always are. :( ...and... One day the angry smileys will run out.
Sigh... Just join in instead of dragging us all into the pits of hell.
That, as you asked, was all really :)
I balance light-hearted posts (see the "missing posts" thread) with some serious ones. So, yes, I do join in.
If you think posting about serious issues is "dragging us all into the pits of hell", then I must disagree with you. This chat is for General Discussion, not just what you want to read. ::)
-
Whilst a serious matter .. I think "outrageous" is somewhat an "outrageous" headline .. :)
1. The matter occurred way back in 2012 .. so why suddenly go ballistic over it ?? ... headline making to sell papers IMHO
2. Knowing the way the Family Division works this will have taken some considerable Court time, with many legal and moral arguments at the time .. that the paper has no knowledge of (and apparently no interest in)
3. It has already been established that the Italian Courts were involved and agreed with the UK Courts
4. It appears that there are already 2 more children that the Italian courts have removed from this woman as she is incapable of looking after them
But NEVER, EVER let the truth get in the way of the outrage bus a good selling headline, because .. only sales count.. the truth is out there but it doesn't matter
-
As yesterday, the general gist in reply to your post was;...(and the tone of today's post is completely different)
Of course its an outrage(?iirc? Words to that effect)as its a Nickbat post. They always are. :( ...and... One day the angry smileys will run out.
Sigh... Just join in instead of dragging us all into the pits of hell.
That, as you asked, was all really :)
I balance light-hearted posts (see the "missing posts" thread) with some serious ones. So, yes, I do join in.
If you think posting about serious issues is "dragging us all into the pits of hell", then I must disagree with you. This chat is for General Discussion, not just what you want to read. ::)
I'd like to highlight the words balance, and general.
And remember, you did ask. ;)
-
Whilst a serious matter .. I think "outrageous" is somewhat an "outrageous" headline .. :)
1. The matter occurred way back in 2012 .. so why suddenly go ballistic over it ?? ... headline making to sell papers IMHO
2. Knowing the way the Family Division works this will have taken some considerable Court time, with many legal and moral arguments at the time .. that the paper has no knowledge of (and apparently no interest in)
3. It has already been established that the Italian Courts were involved and agreed with the UK Courts
4. It appears that there are already 2 more children that the Italian courts have removed from this woman as she is incapable of looking after them
But NEVER, EVER let the truth get in the way of the outrage bus a good selling headline, because .. only sales count.. the truth is out there but it doesn't matter
Hence the constantly "outrageous" headlines in the "Daily Fail to give a balanced view to much more general stories". There is always another side. ...much less outrageous once the full story is made clear.
Its also, constant, with no rest. Ever. No balance or general involved. Coincidence?
-
I don't buy a newspaper any more. No need. ;D
-
Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues :y
-
Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues :y
Shut up, you fanny ;D
-
Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues :y
Shut up, you fanny ;D
Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2 ;D
-
Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues :y
Shut up, you fanny ;D
Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2 ;D
You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained ;D
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest. ::)
-
Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues :y
Shut up, you fanny ;D
Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2 ;D
You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained ;D
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest. ::)
I wouldn't bother if you where'nt on. ::) :P
-
Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues :y
Shut up, you fanny ;D
Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2 ;D
You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained ;D
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest. ::)
I wouldn't bother if you where'nt on. ::) :P
Educating Gixer. There's a movie there. ;D
-
Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues :y
Shut up, you fanny ;D
Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2 ;D
You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained ;D
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest. ::)
I wouldn't bother if you where'nt on. ::) :P
Educating Gixer. There's a movie there. ;D
A bloody long one!.............. :D :D :D
-
Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues :y
Shut up, you fanny ;D
Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2 ;D
You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained ;D
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest. ::)
I wouldn't bother if you where'nt on. ::) :P
Educating Gixer. There's a movie there. ;D
A bloody long one!.............. :D :D :D
He got his apostrophe in the wrong place ;D
-
The other two kids live with her mum, which probably isn't that unusual in Italy.
The family courts in this country are notoriously secretive, even when they dont need to be. Some MP,s have been fighting to change this for quite some time, with little success so far. Hopefully, episodes like this will help their cause to some extent. The fact is that British "services" forced this woman to have a cesarian section against her will - would like to see an interview with the NHS doctors who carried that operation out - and then removed the child from her and have kept it ever since. And to add insult to injury are now apparently close to placing it with a couple in this country for adoption. Surely, it should at least be taken to Italy for the Italian authorities to deal with ? If that's not outrageous (even more so as she is an Italian citizen who was here on a training course) I will never understand what is.
Thanks for posting it Nick. It cant all be about fun & laughter all the time,but hopefully most of it.
-
Whilst a serious matter .. I think "outrageous" is somewhat an "outrageous" headline .. :)
1. The matter occurred way back in 2012 .. so why suddenly go ballistic over it ?? ... headline making to sell papers IMHO
2. Knowing the way the Family Division works this will have taken some considerable Court time, with many legal and moral arguments at the time .. that the paper has no knowledge of (and apparently no interest in)
3. It has already been established that the Italian Courts were involved and agreed with the UK Courts
4. It appears that there are already 2 more children that the Italian courts have removed from this woman as she is incapable of looking after them
But NEVER, EVER let the truth get in the way of the outrage bus a good selling headline, because .. only sales count.. the truth is out there but it doesn't matter
Ah, yes, of course, John Hemming MP and Brendan Fleming (the woman's lawyers) are only interested in newspaper sales.
I forgot that. ::)
-
Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues :y
I've always wondered about the spelling of "patronising". Should it actually be "patronizing"?
As with many words with a choice between "-ise" and "-ize", the "-ise" form is the most common in print in England: so "patronising" is quite acceptable. The Oxford English Dictionary, however, prefers the "-ize" form on etymological grounds (origin in Greek "-izein"), so "patronizing" is also fine. Indeed, some Oxford-educated people will tell you that it's the more educated version.
;)
-
As I said yesterday, it's more like a story from China than Essex.... :o :(
While it seems to me that there may be a bit more to this than meets the eye, if Social Services have the power to sedate and carry out forced cesarean sections for no particular medical reason, then I'm on that outrage bus! In fact I'll drive the damn thing!! >:(
So if you're 'sectioned' under the Mental Health Act do none of the provisions of New Liebores much vaunted Human Rights Act or The European Convention on Human Rights apply?? ::) As on the face of it they didn't offer this poor woman much protection..... :-\ :o
-
Not defending anything but original action was taken via Mental Health Act by NHS via Court of Protection on the Mother, nothing to do with social services, they picked up the case with the new born. I can not comment further as I do not know the facts of the case........ :)
-
What I really don't understand is how this is allowed, yet forcing the MMR jab following two court orders is not :-\
When the world gets this messed up, the robots don't seem like such a bad idea...
-
I think there is a lot more to this story than the paper has chosen to publish. The view presented is a sensationalised version, with a view to evoking the response the the OP has. To enforce a C-section will require multiple health care professionals, social services, psychiatrists and legal bods to come together and make such a decision. It is certainly not something someone does on a whim.
Having seen events in the NHS, which are then sensationalised by the media and a very one sided view presented to the public, purely to sell their paper; I have very little trust in these reports.
Give us all the facts, then make an decision. What the OP is demonstrating is a mob/lynch mentality. Which is exactly what these newspapers prey on.
-
Give us all the facts, then make an decision. What the OP is demonstrating is a mob/lynch mentality. Which is exactly what these newspapers prey on.
...and, it seems, everyone else is supposed to follow. Has to be said, there does appear to be a lot of baying for blood in that corner of the country. Maybe there's something the water over there ? ;D
-
Some more facts of the case here,including the judges statement. Having read it, I still find it outrageous. The baby should at least be sent to Italy for the authorities there to deal with. Its non of our business imo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/03/italy-woman-forced-baby_n_4377577.html?ncid=webmail1
Basically, the women is fine as long as she doesn't forget to take her meds. The judge has decided that she might forget to take her meds at some point in the future,so the baby has to stay in the UK and be adopted here.
-
I think there is a lot more to this story than the paper has chosen to publish. The view presented is a sensationalised version, with a view to evoking the response the the OP has. To enforce a C-section will require multiple health care professionals, social services, psychiatrists and legal bods to come together and make such a decision. It is certainly not something someone does on a whim.
Having seen events in the NHS, which are then sensationalised by the media and a very one sided view presented to the public, purely to sell their paper; I have very little trust in these reports.
Give us all the facts, then make an decision. What the OP is demonstrating is a mob/lynch mentality. Which is exactly what these newspapers prey on.
As the original poster (OP), I find your post somewhat offensive. Actually, it's downright rude. >:(
I have not in any way, shape, or form, demonstrated a "mob/lynch mentality". >:( >:(
Anyway, it would seem that this case has caused consternation in the higher circles:
"In an unusual intervention, Sir James Munby, the High Court's President of the Family Division has now said that any further applications in the case must pass through the High Court."
Perhaps he also has, in your view, a mob/lynch mentality.
Still, let's ban all newspapers/blogs and let the NHS, Social Services and Family Courts and all other government agencies and NGOs carry on unhindered. After all, they never make mistakes and never slip below 100% honesty. ::)
P.S. Why do the words "Stafford" and "Savile" keep entering my head? ;)
-
The actions of the authorities in this case would appear to be questionable on legal grounds:
In Britain, however, the law is unequivocal: compulsory surgical or invasive treatment of a male or female patient is illegal. It is as illegal to force a woman to submit to Caesarean section as it would be to force anyone to give bone marrow or a kidney, even to someone who desperately needed a transplant, and even if that person was his own child.
Case law: Draft Judgement in Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal before Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Robert Walker, Thursday 7th May 1998
http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm (http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm)
-
The actions of the authorities in this case would appear to be questionable on legal grounds:
In Britain, however, the law is unequivocal: compulsory surgical or invasive treatment of a male or female patient is illegal. It is as illegal to force a woman to submit to Caesarean section as it would be to force anyone to give bone marrow or a kidney, even to someone who desperately needed a transplant, and even if that person was his own child.
Case law: Draft Judgement in Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal before Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Robert Walker, Thursday 7th May 1998
http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm (http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm)
That's a "DRAFT" judgement . not a final Judgement .. so actually has no legal relevance. However IF ... big IF .. it was published as a Judgement it would stand ... however as it is not quoted as such i have my doubts .. :)
It is not permissable to quote draft Judgements as case LAW ... so Ms Kitzinger is being very selective, and a tad "outrageous" with her "statement"
-
One could never accuse the Daily Mail of either selectivity or outrageousness...
-
One could never accuse the Daily Mail of either selectivity or outrageousness...
That's two biggish words in one sentence, no good if you want Gixer to keep up.
-
One could never accuse the Daily Mail of either selectivity or outrageousness...
That's two biggish words in one sentence, no good if you want Gixer to keep up.
I'd go with outrageously depressing. Comes with free rope on Sunday. So on that front I have no intention of keeping "up" in any way. ;)
-
I think there is a lot more to this story than the paper has chosen to publish. The view presented is a sensationalised version, with a view to evoking the response the the OP has. To enforce a C-section will require multiple health care professionals, social services, psychiatrists and legal bods to come together and make such a decision. It is certainly not something someone does on a whim.
Having seen events in the NHS, which are then sensationalised by the media and a very one sided view presented to the public, purely to sell their paper; I have very little trust in these reports.
Give us all the facts, then make an decision. What the OP is demonstrating is a mob/lynch mentality. Which is exactly what these newspapers prey on.
As the original poster (OP), I find your post somewhat offensive. Actually, it's downright rude. >:(
I have not in any way, shape, or form, demonstrated a "mob/lynch mentality". >:( >:(
Anyway, it would seem that this case has caused consternation in the higher circles:
"In an unusual intervention, Sir James Munby, the High Court's President of the Family Division has now said that any further applications in the case must pass through the High Court."
Perhaps he also has, in your view, a mob/lynch mentality.
Still, let's ban all newspapers/blogs and let the NHS, Social Services and Family Courts and all other government agencies and NGOs carry on unhindered. After all, they never make mistakes and never slip below 100% honesty. ::)
P.S. Why do the words "Stafford" and "Savile" keep entering my head? ;)
And yet again another attempt at stirring up the mob mentality. Well done. I give up! Those chaps you quote must be correct. Lets let them run the country!
-
The actions of the authorities in this case would appear to be questionable on legal grounds:
In Britain, however, the law is unequivocal: compulsory surgical or invasive treatment of a male or female patient is illegal. It is as illegal to force a woman to submit to Caesarean section as it would be to force anyone to give bone marrow or a kidney, even to someone who desperately needed a transplant, and even if that person was his own child.
Case law: Draft Judgement in Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal before Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Robert Walker, Thursday 7th May 1998
http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm (http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm)
That's a "DRAFT" judgement . not a final Judgement .. so actually has no legal relevance. However IF ... big IF .. it was published as a Judgement it would stand ... however as it is not quoted as such i have my doubts .. :)
It is not permissable to quote draft Judgements as case LAW ... so Ms Kitzinger is being very selective, and a tad "outrageous" with her "statement"
I agree. Lots of sensationalism in that article again.
-
And yet again another attempt at stirring up the mob mentality. Well done. I give up! Those chaps you quote must be correct. Lets let them run the country!
For a minute, I thought you might apologise for falsely accusing me of having a mob/lynch mentality. But no, you continue in the same vein. >:(
And there was me thinking this was an adult, civilised forum, in which people can express views without fear of being smeared. ::) ::)
-
The actions of the authorities in this case would appear to be questionable on legal grounds:
In Britain, however, the law is unequivocal: compulsory surgical or invasive treatment of a male or female patient is illegal. It is as illegal to force a woman to submit to Caesarean section as it would be to force anyone to give bone marrow or a kidney, even to someone who desperately needed a transplant, and even if that person was his own child.
Case law: Draft Judgement in Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal before Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Robert Walker, Thursday 7th May 1998
http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm (http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm)
That's a "DRAFT" judgement . not a final Judgement .. so actually has no legal relevance. However IF ... big IF .. it was published as a Judgement it would stand ... however as it is not quoted as such i have my doubts .. :)
It is not permissable to quote draft Judgements as case LAW ... so Ms Kitzinger is being very selective, and a tad "outrageous" with her "statement"
Of course, it is relevant as all draft judgments are. Relevant only means pertaining to the subject. And you'll see (if you read my post carefully) that I stated that the action may be legally questionable, not necessarily illegal.
Still, any excuse to have a go at me, eh, Entwood? ::) ::)
-
Nick you are an evenly balanced person .. a chip on both shoulders ... however, if you want the right to post your opinions, you automatically give the right to others to post different views.
You have stated this matter is "outrageous" and published an article that purports to state that the decision was "illegal" ... without boring the pants off everyone else .. I will simply state that there are many, many, facts in this case that you and I will never, ever, know..... I at least have an open mind about it ... unlike some ...
"John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat member of the British Parliament who is also the Public Family Law Reform Coordinating Campaign chairman, is bringing the issue of forced caesarians, family adoption laws and the ‘misuse’ of the Mental Health Act in the United Kingdom to the floor for reform discussions this week. Forced caesarians are currently legally allowed inside the U.K. under certain circumstances, specifically when a pregnant woman appears to be mentally unstable."
So, Hemmings has a drum to beat .. and is doing it many months after the event (august 2012) .. one wonders why ?? and forced Cesarean's are actually legal under certain circumstances .. so that draft judgement you quote would appear to have never stood.
You may wish to read a more balanced article by Sophie Khan ..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10488040/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services-its-not-always-wrong.html
if you don't wish to read the whole article I'll just copy the last 3 paragraphs ...
" Sensationalising the story does not take into account the risk faced by the unborn child if the Court of Protection had not made such an Order. You may not agree with the decision by the Court but that does mean the decision was wrong.
The Court weighted up the competing rights of the mother and the unborn child and came to its decision that a forced caesarean section was in the best interest of the child. This is unconventional, unprecedented and highly unusual but within the remit of the Court. The mother had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and after five weeks still did not have the capacity to instruct a lawyer. The Court had to make the Order.
We must not forget that hard decisions need to be made to protect the welfare of the vulnerable. Criticising the judgment is unwarranted and even dangerous as it may diminish the authority of the Court. If the Court of Protection was inhibited from making hard decisions children’s lives could be put at risk. That is the real story."
So... lets stop willy-waving and think about the child ??? not political point scoring ?? (aimed at Hemmings not you) :)
-
Nick you are an evenly balanced person
Indeed, I am.
I would respectfully seek your indulgence to read the blog of the highly-renowned Cranmer.
"...secret courts have no place in the modern liberal democratic state. They can lead to manifest injustice, and must be abolished"
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-british-state-owns-all-eu-babies.html (http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-british-state-owns-all-eu-babies.html)
:y
-
We must not forget that hard decisions need to be made to protect the welfare of the vulnerable. Criticising the judgment is unwarranted and even dangerous as it may diminish the authority of the Court. If the Court of Protection was inhibited from making hard decisions children’s lives could be put at risk. That is the real story."[/i]
This, in my opinion is a dangerous assertion, are the courts infallible? Are we not allowed to question the Judiciary? I always thought that The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a free and democratic country, it seems we are becoming more and more like North Korea!! >:(
The Judiciary like any other public institution in the land must held to account and although they play their part in forming the laws of the land they cannot be above the law or indeed above criticism!! ::)
'dangle berries'!! The bloody Xmas smilies have popped up!! :o >:(
-
This, in my opinion is a dangerous assertion, are the courts infallible? Are we not allowed to question the Judiciary? I always thought that The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a free and democratic country, it seems we are becoming more and more like North Korea!! >:(
The Judiciary like any other public institution in the land must held to account and although they play their part in forming the laws of the land they cannot be above the law or indeed above criticism!! ::)
A most valid observation, Sir Tigger. :y
-
We must not forget that hard decisions need to be made to protect the welfare of the vulnerable. Criticising the judgment is unwarranted and even dangerous as it may diminish the authority of the Court. If the Court of Protection was inhibited from making hard decisions children’s lives could be put at risk. That is the real story."[/i]
This, in my opinion is a dangerous assertion, are the courts infallible? Are we not allowed to question the Judiciary? I always thought that The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a free and democratic country, it seems we are becoming more and more like North Korea!! >:(
The Judiciary like any other public institution in the land must held to account and although they play their part in forming the laws of the land they cannot be above the law or indeed above criticism!! ::)
'dangle berries'!! The bloody Xmas smilies have popped up!! :o >:(
If you have the money and ime this applies to civil and family courts - who can get the best Barrister wins - a generalisation to an extent, but I have seen this, particularly in contested contact between parents. In family matters I know of solicitors who will eak out a case just for the money, even when they know wrong has been done,......... :-X :-X
I have worked multiple cases, occasionally with the same Solicitor, who in one case you are against and on the next on the same side - you can only imagine how two faced they can be...... ::) ::)
-
The law and justice are distant cousins. ;)
-
Whilst a serious matter .. I think "outrageous" is somewhat an "outrageous" headline .. :)
1. The matter occurred way back in 2012 .. so why suddenly go ballistic over it ?? ... headline making to sell papers IMHO
2. Knowing the way the Family Division works this will have taken some considerable Court time, with many legal and moral arguments at the time .. that the paper has no knowledge of (and apparently no interest in)
3. It has already been established that the Italian Courts were involved and agreed with the UK Courts
4. It appears that there are already 2 more children that the Italian courts have removed from this woman as she is incapable of looking after them
But NEVER, EVER let the truth get in the way of the outrage bus a good selling headline, because .. only sales count.. the truth is out there but it doesn't matter
It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) as the Family Division's deliberations are confidential and as you have pointed out take a long time, might it just be the case that this matter has only now entered the public domain? Hence the sudden interest?
Indeed the facts seem to be fairly sketchy and I'm sure more will be revealed in due course, but I think that your thoughts that the papers are lying are incorrect, just working with what they have. Which due to the secretive nature of the Family Courts seem to be limited in this case. :-\
Let us never forget that although certain sections of our press do sensationalise and promote outrage to sell their papers (and are vilified for that!) they form part of the checks and balances of our (supposedly) free and democratic society. Without them cases like this would never see the light of day, and before long people who dare criticise powerful and unaccountable public officials or bodies are disappearing in the night...... :(
-
Seems to me, if Nickbat didn't have anything to be outraged about, he would be, well, outraged. ;D
-
Whilst a serious matter .. I think "outrageous" is somewhat an "outrageous" headline .. :)
1. The matter occurred way back in 2012 .. so why suddenly go ballistic over it ?? ... headline making to sell papers IMHO
2. Knowing the way the Family Division works this will have taken some considerable Court time, with many legal and moral arguments at the time .. that the paper has no knowledge of (and apparently no interest in)
3. It has already been established that the Italian Courts were involved and agreed with the UK Courts
4. It appears that there are already 2 more children that the Italian courts have removed from this woman as she is incapable of looking after them
But NEVER, EVER let the truth get in the way of the outrage bus a good selling headline, because .. only sales count.. the truth is out there but it doesn't matter
It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) as the Family Division's deliberations are confidential and as you have pointed out take a long time, might it just be the case that this matter has only now entered the public domain? Hence the sudden interest?
Indeed the facts seem to be fairly sketchy and I'm sure more will be revealed in due course, but I think that your thoughts that the papers are lying are incorrect, just working with what they have. Which due to the secretive nature of the Family Courts seem to be limited in this case. :-\
Let us never forget that although certain sections of our press do sensationalise and promote outrage to sell their papers (and are vilified for that!) they form part of the checks and balances of our (supposedly) free and democratic society. Without them cases like this would never see the light of day, and before long people who dare criticise powerful and unaccountable public officials or bodies are disappearing in the night...... :(
Judgement published in full February 2013
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/20.html
If I can find it one would have expected a SERIOUS journalist to be able to do the same ?? and the Chairman of a "reforming" committee would have numerous "staffers" do obtain the information.
Para 7 ....... She was also of course pregnant with P and an unusual order was made in the Court of Protection on 23rd August 2012 by Mr Justice Mostyn, who apart from giving various directions in relation to the Local Authority and others, gave permission for the birth by way of caesarean section. The Local Authority issued proceedings upon the birth of P , an interim care order was granted and has been renewed ever since.
Also .. the latter part of para 23 placed the Judgement firmly in the Public Domain.
So, perhaps not so secretive, unaccountable or "outrageous" .... :)
-
Entwood, the judgement to which you link was 9 months after the birth of the baby and it took that time for this case to enter the public domain. It deals primarily with the welfare of the child and gives scant details of the decision making process leading to the woman's incarceration for 5 weeks and subsequently giving birth by a forced cesarean section. This is the part of the story that lacks facts, and I continue to regard it as secretive, unaccountable and outrageous!
You clearly know your way around the legal system and where to find the information and I take your point that a serious journalist should be able to do the same. So why is it that this story was brought to the public's attention by the 'gutter press' and not one of the 'serious' news organisations like the BBC ? and why has it taken the 10 months from February 2013 for it to emerge? Maybe you are right that the papers had little interest, and on a slow news day they have dragged it from the files, but it seems that the respected news organisations had little interest either. This I find depressing! :(
What ever motivation that The Daily Mail had for publishing this story whether merely to sell papers or to whip up a lynch mob, they have shone a light on a desparetely sad story that in my opinion is in the public interest and which otherwise may well have gathered dust in the archives of Essex County Council. :-\
-
Entwood, the judgement to which you link was 9 months after the birth of the baby and it took that time for this case to enter the public domain. It deals primarily with the welfare of the child and gives scant details of the decision making process leading to the woman's incarceration for 5 weeks and subsequently giving birth by a forced cesarean section. This is the part of the story that lacks facts, and I continue to regard it as secretive, unaccountable and outrageous!
You clearly know your way around the legal system and where to find the information and I take your point that a serious journalist should be able to do the same. So why is it that this story was brought to the public's attention by the 'gutter press' and not one of the 'serious' news organisations like the BBC ? and why has it taken the 10 months from February 2013 for it to emerge? Maybe you are right that the papers had little interest, and on a slow news day they have dragged it from the files, but it seems that the respected news organisations had little interest either. This I find depressing! :(
What ever motivation that The Daily Mail had for publishing this story whether merely to sell papers or to whip up a lynch mob, they have shone a light on a desparetely sad story that in my opinion is in the public interest and which otherwise may well have gathered dust in the archives of Essex County Council. :-\
Eloquent and informative, Tigger. This is the crux of the matter I think.
-
Agreed. :y
-
Having read through this thread again and in particular Albs reply #28 of yesterday, where he links to a Huffington Post article which in turn links to the February 2013 judgement. The same webpage as Entwood linked to.
The Huffington Post states " .... in the newly released judgment from His Honour Judge Newton from February 2013..."
So if we are to believe The Huffington Post, this has just come into the public domain and hence the sudden media interest. :-\
Thankfully it also appears that there is at least one serious journalist out there and she works for the Huffington Post. Phew!! :P ;)
-
As the "argument" seems to be drifting from the facts of THIS case to discussing the "secretive" and "unaccountable" nature of the Courts of Protection, perhaps this link may assist
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/COP/
Whilst I accept that not ALL cases are reported there, in a similar fashion that not all Crown Court cases are reported .. the law of the land actually has rules on what can, and cannot, be reported.
However, the link above does, hopefully, show that many cases from the Court of Protection are published, although I envisage the nay-sayers instantly pointing out that no Childrens Cases are in that list
Any case that deals with a child is probably excluded from this database under Section 62 of the Children's Act 2004 which covers the Publication of Matters Relating to Legal Proceedings.
As to why this is suddenly in the public domain .. perhaps Mr Hemmings is the one to ask ??
http://www.justice-for-families.org.uk/index.php
Of course this is not even a pressure group .. or a government sub-committee as he tries to infer ... but a LIMITED COMPANY ... of which he is a director (and no doubt gets paid ??) - perhaps he wants an influx of donations to pay his xmas bonus ??
Company Details: Justice for Families (2010) Ltd, 1772 Coventry Road, Birmingham, B26 1PB Company No: 7303996
-
Justice for families is a 'Company Limited by Guarantee' not a Limited Company. There is a difference.
Companies limited by guarantee provide a legal structure for non profit making organisations and are commonly used by NGO's, charities, clubs, sports associations, and student unions etc There is no share capital and no shareholders. Members act as guarantors in the event that the organisation is wound up. Most organisations of this sort have provisions written into the company articles that profits cannot be distributed to members and any profits are usually kept within the organisation.
I'm sure that any salary or expenses that Mr Hemmings collects from Justice for families will be noted on The Register for Members Financial Interests at The House of Commons.
I'm not sure how trying to discredit Mr Hemmings helps the discussion to be honest. :-\