Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Tigger KC]

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...... 

[chrisgixer]

Seems to me, if Nickbat didn't have anything to be outraged about, he would be, well, outraged.

[Entwood]

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" ....

[Sir Tigger KC]

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. 

[MR MISTER]

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.

[albitz]

Agreed.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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!!   

[Entwood]

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

[Sir Tigger KC]

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.