Friday, 17 January 2014

hahahahahaha your fucked now you horrible scumcial workers and lying so called Experts hahahahahahahaha


Cookie Policy Feedback
Friday, Jan 17 2014 3PM  8°C 6PM 7°C 5-Day Forecast

At last! Victory on secret courts: Rulings in family cases to be made public after Mail campaign

  • Family Court and Court of Protection judgements will now be made public
  • Expert witnesses, including social workers, are to be named 
  • Councils applying to take children into care can no longer claim anonymity
  • New rules laid down by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
  • Daily Mail has exposed a series of major scandals over the past year
  • These have resulted from justice being conducted behind closed doors
PUBLISHED: 23:12, 16 January 2014 | UPDATED: 23:12, 16 January 2014
Landmark ruling: President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
+5
Landmark ruling: President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
Decisions by secret courts that can lead to children being taken from their parents or old people forced into care homes are finally to be opened up to public scrutiny.
Under rules set out yesterday, future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be.
Councils applying to take children into care or to take control of the lives of the old and sick can no longer hide behind a cloak of anonymity. 
Expert witnesses, including social workers, should also be named in public, as should anyone found responsible for wrongdoing.
The landmark changes break a silence that has surrounded family justice for nearly 100 years. 
They also mark a major victory for the Daily Mail which has campaigned against secret courts and exposed a series of major scandals over the past year resulting from justice being conducted behind closed doors. 
The new rules, laid down by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby, say that judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must always be publicised unless there are ‘compelling reasons’ why not.
Only children and adults caught up in disputes and members of their families should be protected by anonymity.

More...

The guidelines warn that secrecy prevents families who have been involved in cases from complaining when they believe they have suffered injustice.
Sir James said in guidance sent to judges that there would be ‘an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection’.
Changes: Future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must now be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be
+5
Changes: Future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must now be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be
How the rules have changed
+5
He added: ‘In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system.
‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by judges in its name.’ 
The Mail’s campaign revealed last April that the Court of Protection – set up by the last Labour government to deal with the affairs of those too ill to make decisions for themselves – had jailed a woman in secret and without publishing any record.
A Birmingham judge imprisoned Wanda Maddocks, 50, for contempt of court for trying to get her father out of a care home where he had been ordered to stay. 
Miss Maddocks had no lawyer to represent her, and no judgment was published. She served six weeks.
The Mail's campaign
+5
In December we revealed how an Italian mother who had been forced by the Court of Protection to have a caesarean begged a family court judge in vain to allow her to keep her baby. 
Everything that happened to the mother, Alessandra Pacchieri, was decided by the courts in secret.
In the same month we disclosed the case of the ‘irreproachable’ father who spent 12 years and £100,000 in the family courts trying to win the right to see his 14-year-old daughter – and who still has not won his case for access.
Currently, secrecy in the family courts – which can remove children from dangerous parents, order them to be adopted, and decide on their custody – is governed by 1960 law.
This makes it contempt of court to discuss a case when no judgment has been published, a crime punishable by two years in prison. Successive attempts to open up the courts have been thwarted. 
NO TO SECRET COURTS
+5
In 2006, Labour Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer blocked a law that would have allowed more light in because state-subsidised charities such as the NSPCC and the National Children’s Bureau opposed the idea.
Labour’s 2005 Mental Capacity Act, pushed through by Lord Falconer, set up the Court of Protection. Its rules say ‘the general rule is that a hearing is to be held in private’. 
Sir James Munby, who took over a year ago as President of the Family Division, which includes responsibility for both courts, said his new guidance would take effect from February 3. 
He added that further guidance and formal legal practice directions will follow. There may yet be full Parliamentary legislation, although Sir James said this is ‘unlikely in the near future.’ 
He said that current rules are ‘inappropriate where family members wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves and making use of the judgement.
‘Equally, they may be inappropriate in cases where findings have been made against a person and the court concludes it is in the public interest for that person to be identified.’
Share what you think
 View all
The comments below have been moderated in advance.


Justice has to be *seen* to be done. This is not an optional extra. It's how justice works.

4
96
Click to rate


About time too, secret courts are so wrong. There are enough provisions to keep sensitive issues out of the public's knowledge if need be. No courts should be secret in our once open society !!

3
104
Click to rate


Clearly by secrecy, you mean confidentiality?!

36
27
Click to rate


You cannot have secret courts in a democracy,but then again being a member of the EUSSR is hardly democratic is it?

5
92
Click to rate


Having watched Panorama's "I want my baby back", I hope this is a step in the right direction. The documentary brought me to tears, so heart breaking for the families involved.

5
90
Click to rate


Blair and Blair to thank for this injustice.

11
73
Click to rate


This is good. Now time to review the adoption laws. Currently adoptions cannot be reversed. where it is clear that an adoption was enforced with flawed evidence, as in the case of a Norfolk family, then the courts should be allowed to reverse the decision and return children to their real parents.

7
100
Click to rate


A few more changes that would really convince people there is serious concern about the family courts. 1. If we could get the courts to rule that children have a fundamental right to a father, a father's love, & a father's full & ongoing participation in their upbringing & life we would REALLY be making progress. As it stands the courts, the gov't, social agencies, & the entire cadre of socialist feminazi lobbies have reduced divorced & separated fathers to being simply a sperm donor & bank machine. 2. Crime statistics in Canada, the U.S., & the U.K. consistently show that men are victims of domestic abuse in numbers almost equal to women. The courts ignore it & in some cases even laugh in the face of men who report it. Is there any consideration whatsoever being given to having a REAL court system that will defend and protect men from their female abusers? 3. Finally, can we get a court system that does not include an automatic 'Gender Discount' for women who commit crimes?

15
71
Click to rate


Now you see why we need a press free from politicians and lobbying minorities because they're the ones causing all the trouble.

4
73
Click to rate


Family courts should be completely open otherwise justice cannot be seen to be done vis not honest and just.

5


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540919/At-Victory-secret-courts-Rulings-family-cases-public-Mail-campaign.html#ixzz2qfYrsaRX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




There's only one james munby, one ja.a.a.m.es munby, there's only one james munby

One james munby

There's only one james munby.

Chant along


At last! Victory on secret courts
www.dailymail.co.uk
Under rules laid down by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby, judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection will now be made public






Cookie Policy Feedback
Friday, Jan 17 2014 3PM  8°C 6PM 7°C 5-Day Forecast

At last! Victory on secret courts: Rulings in family cases to be made public after Mail campaign

  • Family Court and Court of Protection judgements will now be made public
  • Expert witnesses, including social workers, are to be named 
  • Councils applying to take children into care can no longer claim anonymity
  • New rules laid down by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
  • Daily Mail has exposed a series of major scandals over the past year
  • These have resulted from justice being conducted behind closed doors
PUBLISHED: 23:12, 16 January 2014 | UPDATED: 23:12, 16 January 2014
Landmark ruling: President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
+5
Landmark ruling: President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
Decisions by secret courts that can lead to children being taken from their parents or old people forced into care homes are finally to be opened up to public scrutiny.
Under rules set out yesterday, future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be.
Councils applying to take children into care or to take control of the lives of the old and sick can no longer hide behind a cloak of anonymity. 
Expert witnesses, including social workers, should also be named in public, as should anyone found responsible for wrongdoing.
The landmark changes break a silence that has surrounded family justice for nearly 100 years. 
They also mark a major victory for the Daily Mail which has campaigned against secret courts and exposed a series of major scandals over the past year resulting from justice being conducted behind closed doors. 
The new rules, laid down by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby, say that judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must always be publicised unless there are ‘compelling reasons’ why not.
Only children and adults caught up in disputes and members of their families should be protected by anonymity.

More...

The guidelines warn that secrecy prevents families who have been involved in cases from complaining when they believe they have suffered injustice.
Sir James said in guidance sent to judges that there would be ‘an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection’.
Changes: Future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must now be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be
+5
Changes: Future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must now be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be
How the rules have changed
+5
He added: ‘In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system.
‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by judges in its name.’ 
The Mail’s campaign revealed last April that the Court of Protection – set up by the last Labour government to deal with the affairs of those too ill to make decisions for themselves – had jailed a woman in secret and without publishing any record.
A Birmingham judge imprisoned Wanda Maddocks, 50, for contempt of court for trying to get her father out of a care home where he had been ordered to stay. 
Miss Maddocks had no lawyer to represent her, and no judgment was published. She served six weeks.
The Mail's campaign
+5
In December we revealed how an Italian mother who had been forced by the Court of Protection to have a caesarean begged a family court judge in vain to allow her to keep her baby. 
Everything that happened to the mother, Alessandra Pacchieri, was decided by the courts in secret.
In the same month we disclosed the case of the ‘irreproachable’ father who spent 12 years and £100,000 in the family courts trying to win the right to see his 14-year-old daughter – and who still has not won his case for access.
Currently, secrecy in the family courts – which can remove children from dangerous parents, order them to be adopted, and decide on their custody – is governed by 1960 law.
This makes it contempt of court to discuss a case when no judgment has been published, a crime punishable by two years in prison. Successive attempts to open up the courts have been thwarted. 
NO TO SECRET COURTS
+5
In 2006, Labour Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer blocked a law that would have allowed more light in because state-subsidised charities such as the NSPCC and the National Children’s Bureau opposed the idea.
Labour’s 2005 Mental Capacity Act, pushed through by Lord Falconer, set up the Court of Protection. Its rules say ‘the general rule is that a hearing is to be held in private’. 
Sir James Munby, who took over a year ago as President of the Family Division, which includes responsibility for both courts, said his new guidance would take effect from February 3. 
He added that further guidance and formal legal practice directions will follow. There may yet be full Parliamentary legislation, although Sir James said this is ‘unlikely in the near future.’ 
He said that current rules are ‘inappropriate where family members wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves and making use of the judgement.
‘Equally, they may be inappropriate in cases where findings have been made against a person and the court concludes it is in the public interest for that person to be identified.’



Comments (159)

Share what you think
 View all
The comments below have been moderated in advance.


Justice has to be *seen* to be done. This is not an optional extra. It's how justice works.

4
96
Click to rate


About time too, secret courts are so wrong. There are enough provisions to keep sensitive issues out of the public's knowledge if need be. No courts should be secret in our once open society !!

3
104
Click to rate


Clearly by secrecy, you mean confidentiality?!

36
27
Click to rate


You cannot have secret courts in a democracy,but then again being a member of the EUSSR is hardly democratic is it?

5
92
Click to rate


Having watched Panorama's "I want my baby back", I hope this is a step in the right direction. The documentary brought me to tears, so heart breaking for the families involved.

5
90
Click to rate


Blair and Blair to thank for this injustice.

11
73
Click to rate


This is good. Now time to review the adoption laws. Currently adoptions cannot be reversed. where it is clear that an adoption was enforced with flawed evidence, as in the case of a Norfolk family, then the courts should be allowed to reverse the decision and return children to their real parents.

7
100
Click to rate


A few more changes that would really convince people there is serious concern about the family courts. 1. If we could get the courts to rule that children have a fundamental right to a father, a father's love, & a father's full & ongoing participation in their upbringing & life we would REALLY be making progress. As it stands the courts, the gov't, social agencies, & the entire cadre of socialist feminazi lobbies have reduced divorced & separated fathers to being simply a sperm donor & bank machine. 2. Crime statistics in Canada, the U.S., & the U.K. consistently show that men are victims of domestic abuse in numbers almost equal to women. The courts ignore it & in some cases even laugh in the face of men who report it. Is there any consideration whatsoever being given to having a REAL court system that will defend and protect men from their female abusers? 3. Finally, can we get a court system that does not include an automatic 'Gender Discount' for women who commit crimes?

15
71
Click to rate


Now you see why we need a press free from politicians and lobbying minorities because they're the ones causing all the trouble.

4
73
Click to rate


Family courts should be completely open otherwise justice cannot be seen to be done vis not honest and just.

5


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540919/At-Victory-secret-courts-Rulings-family-cases-public-Mail-campaign.html#ixzz2qfYrsaRX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Cookie Policy Feedback
Friday, Jan 17 2014 3PM  8°C 6PM 7°C 5-Day Forecast

At last! Victory on secret courts: Rulings in family cases to be made public after Mail campaign

  • Family Court and Court of Protection judgements will now be made public
  • Expert witnesses, including social workers, are to be named 
  • Councils applying to take children into care can no longer claim anonymity
  • New rules laid down by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
  • Daily Mail has exposed a series of major scandals over the past year
  • These have resulted from justice being conducted behind closed doors
PUBLISHED: 23:12, 16 January 2014 | UPDATED: 23:12, 16 January 2014
Landmark ruling: President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
+5
Landmark ruling: President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
Decisions by secret courts that can lead to children being taken from their parents or old people forced into care homes are finally to be opened up to public scrutiny.
Under rules set out yesterday, future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be.
Councils applying to take children into care or to take control of the lives of the old and sick can no longer hide behind a cloak of anonymity. 
Expert witnesses, including social workers, should also be named in public, as should anyone found responsible for wrongdoing.
The landmark changes break a silence that has surrounded family justice for nearly 100 years. 
They also mark a major victory for the Daily Mail which has campaigned against secret courts and exposed a series of major scandals over the past year resulting from justice being conducted behind closed doors. 
The new rules, laid down by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby, say that judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must always be publicised unless there are ‘compelling reasons’ why not.
Only children and adults caught up in disputes and members of their families should be protected by anonymity.

More...

The guidelines warn that secrecy prevents families who have been involved in cases from complaining when they believe they have suffered injustice.
Sir James said in guidance sent to judges that there would be ‘an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection’.
Changes: Future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must now be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be
+5
Changes: Future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must now be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be
How the rules have changed
+5
He added: ‘In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system.
‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by judges in its name.’ 
The Mail’s campaign revealed last April that the Court of Protection – set up by the last Labour government to deal with the affairs of those too ill to make decisions for themselves – had jailed a woman in secret and without publishing any record.
A Birmingham judge imprisoned Wanda Maddocks, 50, for contempt of court for trying to get her father out of a care home where he had been ordered to stay. 
Miss Maddocks had no lawyer to represent her, and no judgment was published. She served six weeks.
The Mail's campaign
+5
In December we revealed how an Italian mother who had been forced by the Court of Protection to have a caesarean begged a family court judge in vain to allow her to keep her baby. 
Everything that happened to the mother, Alessandra Pacchieri, was decided by the courts in secret.
In the same month we disclosed the case of the ‘irreproachable’ father who spent 12 years and £100,000 in the family courts trying to win the right to see his 14-year-old daughter – and who still has not won his case for access.
Currently, secrecy in the family courts – which can remove children from dangerous parents, order them to be adopted, and decide on their custody – is governed by 1960 law.
This makes it contempt of court to discuss a case when no judgment has been published, a crime punishable by two years in prison. Successive attempts to open up the courts have been thwarted. 
NO TO SECRET COURTS
+5
In 2006, Labour Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer blocked a law that would have allowed more light in because state-subsidised charities such as the NSPCC and the National Children’s Bureau opposed the idea.
Labour’s 2005 Mental Capacity Act, pushed through by Lord Falconer, set up the Court of Protection. Its rules say ‘the general rule is that a hearing is to be held in private’. 
Sir James Munby, who took over a year ago as President of the Family Division, which includes responsibility for both courts, said his new guidance would take effect from February 3. 
He added that further guidance and formal legal practice directions will follow. There may yet be full Parliamentary legislation, although Sir James said this is ‘unlikely in the near future.’ 
He said that current rules are ‘inappropriate where family members wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves and making use of the judgement.
‘Equally, they may be inappropriate in cases where findings have been made against a person and the court concludes it is in the public interest for that person to be identified.’



Comments (159)

Share what you think
 View all
The comments below have been moderated in advance.


Justice has to be *seen* to be done. This is not an optional extra. It's how justice works.

4
96
Click to rate


About time too, secret courts are so wrong. There are enough provisions to keep sensitive issues out of the public's knowledge if need be. No courts should be secret in our once open society !!

3
104
Click to rate


Clearly by secrecy, you mean confidentiality?!

36
27
Click to rate


You cannot have secret courts in a democracy,but then again being a member of the EUSSR is hardly democratic is it?

5
92
Click to rate


Having watched Panorama's "I want my baby back", I hope this is a step in the right direction. The documentary brought me to tears, so heart breaking for the families involved.

5
90
Click to rate


Blair and Blair to thank for this injustice.

11
73
Click to rate


This is good. Now time to review the adoption laws. Currently adoptions cannot be reversed. where it is clear that an adoption was enforced with flawed evidence, as in the case of a Norfolk family, then the courts should be allowed to reverse the decision and return children to their real parents.

7
100
Click to rate


A few more changes that would really convince people there is serious concern about the family courts. 1. If we could get the courts to rule that children have a fundamental right to a father, a father's love, & a father's full & ongoing participation in their upbringing & life we would REALLY be making progress. As it stands the courts, the gov't, social agencies, & the entire cadre of socialist feminazi lobbies have reduced divorced & separated fathers to being simply a sperm donor & bank machine. 2. Crime statistics in Canada, the U.S., & the U.K. consistently show that men are victims of domestic abuse in numbers almost equal to women. The courts ignore it & in some cases even laugh in the face of men who report it. Is there any consideration whatsoever being given to having a REAL court system that will defend and protect men from their female abusers? 3. Finally, can we get a court system that does not include an automatic 'Gender Discount' for women who commit crimes?

15
71
Click to rate


Now you see why we need a press free from politicians and lobbying minorities because they're the ones causing all the trouble.

4
73
Click to rate


Family courts should be completely open otherwise justice cannot be seen to be done vis not honest and just.

5


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540919/At-Victory-secret-courts-Rulings-family-cases-public-Mail-campaign.html#ixzz2qfYrsaRX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Cookie Policy Feedback
Friday, Jan 17 2014 3PM  8°C 6PM 7°C 5-Day Forecast

At last! Victory on secret courts: Rulings in family cases to be made public after Mail campaign

  • Family Court and Court of Protection judgements will now be made public
  • Expert witnesses, including social workers, are to be named 
  • Councils applying to take children into care can no longer claim anonymity
  • New rules laid down by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
  • Daily Mail has exposed a series of major scandals over the past year
  • These have resulted from justice being conducted behind closed doors
PUBLISHED: 23:12, 16 January 2014 | UPDATED: 23:12, 16 January 2014
Landmark ruling: President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
+5
Landmark ruling: President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
Decisions by secret courts that can lead to children being taken from their parents or old people forced into care homes are finally to be opened up to public scrutiny.
Under rules set out yesterday, future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be.
Councils applying to take children into care or to take control of the lives of the old and sick can no longer hide behind a cloak of anonymity. 
Expert witnesses, including social workers, should also be named in public, as should anyone found responsible for wrongdoing.
The landmark changes break a silence that has surrounded family justice for nearly 100 years. 
They also mark a major victory for the Daily Mail which has campaigned against secret courts and exposed a series of major scandals over the past year resulting from justice being conducted behind closed doors. 
The new rules, laid down by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby, say that judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must always be publicised unless there are ‘compelling reasons’ why not.
Only children and adults caught up in disputes and members of their families should be protected by anonymity.

More...

The guidelines warn that secrecy prevents families who have been involved in cases from complaining when they believe they have suffered injustice.
Sir James said in guidance sent to judges that there would be ‘an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection’.
Changes: Future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must now be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be
+5
Changes: Future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must now be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be
How the rules have changed
+5
He added: ‘In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system.
‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by judges in its name.’ 
The Mail’s campaign revealed last April that the Court of Protection – set up by the last Labour government to deal with the affairs of those too ill to make decisions for themselves – had jailed a woman in secret and without publishing any record.
A Birmingham judge imprisoned Wanda Maddocks, 50, for contempt of court for trying to get her father out of a care home where he had been ordered to stay. 
Miss Maddocks had no lawyer to represent her, and no judgment was published. She served six weeks.
The Mail's campaign
+5
In December we revealed how an Italian mother who had been forced by the Court of Protection to have a caesarean begged a family court judge in vain to allow her to keep her baby. 
Everything that happened to the mother, Alessandra Pacchieri, was decided by the courts in secret.
In the same month we disclosed the case of the ‘irreproachable’ father who spent 12 years and £100,000 in the family courts trying to win the right to see his 14-year-old daughter – and who still has not won his case for access.
Currently, secrecy in the family courts – which can remove children from dangerous parents, order them to be adopted, and decide on their custody – is governed by 1960 law.
This makes it contempt of court to discuss a case when no judgment has been published, a crime punishable by two years in prison. Successive attempts to open up the courts have been thwarted. 
NO TO SECRET COURTS
+5
In 2006, Labour Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer blocked a law that would have allowed more light in because state-subsidised charities such as the NSPCC and the National Children’s Bureau opposed the idea.
Labour’s 2005 Mental Capacity Act, pushed through by Lord Falconer, set up the Court of Protection. Its rules say ‘the general rule is that a hearing is to be held in private’. 
Sir James Munby, who took over a year ago as President of the Family Division, which includes responsibility for both courts, said his new guidance would take effect from February 3. 
He added that further guidance and formal legal practice directions will follow. There may yet be full Parliamentary legislation, although Sir James said this is ‘unlikely in the near future.’ 
He said that current rules are ‘inappropriate where family members wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves and making use of the judgement.
‘Equally, they may be inappropriate in cases where findings have been made against a person and the court concludes it is in the public interest for that person to be identified.’



Comments (159)

Share what you think
 View all
The comments below have been moderated in advance.


Justice has to be *seen* to be done. This is not an optional extra. It's how justice works.

4
96
Click to rate


About time too, secret courts are so wrong. There are enough provisions to keep sensitive issues out of the public's knowledge if need be. No courts should be secret in our once open society !!

3
104
Click to rate


Clearly by secrecy, you mean confidentiality?!

36
27
Click to rate


You cannot have secret courts in a democracy,but then again being a member of the EUSSR is hardly democratic is it?

5
92
Click to rate


Having watched Panorama's "I want my baby back", I hope this is a step in the right direction. The documentary brought me to tears, so heart breaking for the families involved.

5
90
Click to rate


Blair and Blair to thank for this injustice.

11
73
Click to rate


This is good. Now time to review the adoption laws. Currently adoptions cannot be reversed. where it is clear that an adoption was enforced with flawed evidence, as in the case of a Norfolk family, then the courts should be allowed to reverse the decision and return children to their real parents.

7
100
Click to rate


A few more changes that would really convince people there is serious concern about the family courts. 1. If we could get the courts to rule that children have a fundamental right to a father, a father's love, & a father's full & ongoing participation in their upbringing & life we would REALLY be making progress. As it stands the courts, the gov't, social agencies, & the entire cadre of socialist feminazi lobbies have reduced divorced & separated fathers to being simply a sperm donor & bank machine. 2. Crime statistics in Canada, the U.S., & the U.K. consistently show that men are victims of domestic abuse in numbers almost equal to women. The courts ignore it & in some cases even laugh in the face of men who report it. Is there any consideration whatsoever being given to having a REAL court system that will defend and protect men from their female abusers? 3. Finally, can we get a court system that does not include an automatic 'Gender Discount' for women who commit crimes?

15
71
Click to rate


Now you see why we need a press free from politicians and lobbying minorities because they're the ones causing all the trouble.

4
73
Click to rate


Family courts should be completely open otherwise justice cannot be seen to be done vis not honest and just.

5


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540919/At-Victory-secret-courts-Rulings-family-cases-public-Mail-campaign.html#ixzz2qfYrsaRX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)