Family Justice Review : My Version!

Dedicated to Eddie and Matthew.

This Autumn The Ministry of Justice in London will publish its findings of the Family Justice Review to which I participated as part of the Partners Group who has contributed to this enquiry for the past 18 months. I have already detected a number of shortfalls, therefore I have set out my Version of how it should read from my first hand experience at entering Family Court in March 2004. My contact with Family Court Judges, Solicitors, Barristers, CAFCASS, Social Services and Police ultimately to the CSA and above all the impact this has on my Children for when this should have been ‘in their best interest’. Instead what I witnessed between March and October 2004 ranged from inconsistency to outright corruption. Therefore I embarked on what has become almost 8 years of research worldwide within input right across the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Greece and a number of European Countries. I have converted my findings into a frank and honest Blog and I regard this Blog as the defining culmination by this reluctant campaign.
I hope that any shortfall in the Ministry of Justice version on the Family Justice Review can be made up from my contribution here and both could lead to this God awful law being reformed!
C.S.A./CAFCASS: For me The Coalition Government could make immediate savings by disbanding both of these ineffectual organisations, neither have a place in Family Justice as I will show in the following paragraphs:-

SOCIAL SERVICES: I believe Social Services has no place in Family Court (they are ill-equipped) and rather like CAFCASS will offer the Family Judge a snapshot and spurious testimony to which a Judge feels duty bound to apply, making CAFCASS and Social Services his scapegoat for the future, to offer irreversible orders to whom nobody beyond that Judge can scrutinise.

Social Services should only be called upon in the case where there is a ‘History’ of Violence or Abuse prior to a couple coming to Court NOT as a weapon of false allegations once they have arrived at Court. Social Services should be left to concentrate on Child Welfare so Horror Stories, such as Baby P, Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq are reduced.

FAMILY COURT JUDGE: Of the 6 or so Judges I came before most were reasoned balanced people who even if I regard their view as against me I saw the reasoning behind it. I did however come before one patronising and biased Judge who seemed to perpetuate premise of Single Parenting and by strange coincidence at this time I read an article that said Ambitious Judges who go against the Father have greater chance of promotion and so was the case here. This D.J. reserved my case for her sole consideration but was made up to H.H.J. during the process so failed to appear at the final hearing, instead a fellow D.J. whom I regarded as her ‘Lacky’ sat in and just went along with the biased Judges’ rhetoric.

Closed Court precludes any balance analysis of proceedings and when Jack Straw as our one time Justice Minister attempted to ‘Open’ the Court, he was met by derision by the very Judges who should have been called to account. Camilla Cavendish, who won an award for her Family Law column in The Times, was one of the first Journalists to be invited into Family Court in Ipswich and it was clear to me that at that time the same safeguards put in place for sensitive criminal cases could apply to Civil Laws, i.e. Child A, Family XYZ or even a serial number Journalists could refer to a case when given out to news of Parliament.

Judges either willingly or otherwise collude with Barristers and Solicitors in perpetuating this corruption where financial gain can be achieved by their Court, rarely do they benefit either party, least of all the children involved and due to the closed nature of these Courts there is no accountability (if you appeal is it likely one Judge will contradict another).
Money is the fuel to injustice and closed courts hide this fact from public scrutiny!
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS: The moment a couple steps into the Family Solicitors office they are perpetual conflict and whilst some Solicitors claim to offer Arbitration services (mine and my ex-partners did not), this goes against the grain of what they want to do, which insures they plunder the Legal Aid system for Mum whilst rendering Dad bankrupt with no regard to the Child’s welfare as they are supposed to subscribe to in Court. The Barristers take a similar line, I spent an entire duration debating the safety of allowing my Children to ride on their Go-Karts near the Road and the last 2 minutes for me to be told to leave the Family Home! All Smoke and Mirrors I’m afraid which because claimants should they want to perpetuate false allegations, which on one occasion for me was that I was an alcoholic (in fact I drink less alcohol in a year than some do in one weekend) spurious as in fact at the time I was employed to drive 40 tonne trucks for Salisbury’s, Tesco and M & S, I doubt if these would have allowed such a person to take charge of a £100,000 vehicle and Loads of a similar value.
The Law Society, or whatever they call themselves these days, cannot make a complaint against a firm of Solicitors for fear of being sued, they do not have the teeth to regulate as they should!
GRANDPARENTS: At the beginning of June this year I read a copy of The Mature Times and was dismayed to learn that the Family Justice Review did not see the merit in giving Grandparents rights of contact with their Grandchildren. I am of the view that when Parents maybe in dispute and possibly separating, who better to offer stability and continuity to children than Grandparents or other Family Members where appropriate.( Thanks Sir Bob).
Surely this would be better then Social services making their trademark snap-shot appraisals that all too often can result in children ending up in irreversible care. The very people who Social Services and family court should be serving , the children end up living a life full on the regrets instilled by this very system. I have an example of a case where a parents dogs often barked, it turned out they had kennels so the RSPCA were called but no problems were found none the less the Social Services got wind inspected the home and an 8 year old girl was put into irreversible care even when it was later proved there was no problems here either!


Police: The police have no role to play in family (civil) law as they can only deal with criminal law but it does illustrate the starkest discrimination the law has to offer.
In my case the initial court order allowed contact with my children to take place via the schools so as to avoid conflict with the mother we would each collect and return them to school at our contact times and this worked fine for over one year.Sadly , and with the help of the biased judge contact was changed so it had to take place outside the former family home. So as per the revised court order I would show up at the prescribed time and place ready to take my sons on for the evening or weekend etc, but then the mother would start withholding the youngest which caused more problems when it later turned out she was bribing him to stay whilst my eldest was almost penalised for coming with me. When I objected to my son being with held, ( he was always pleased to see me after school) the police would be called and in spite of me waving my court order almost Chamberlain style they were unable to enforce it on the mother but were happy to arrest me for breaching the peace if I did not leave confusing the old boy so by 2007 he to was with held and to this date I have not had any of the Court appointed contact and all the police will say is take the mater back to court, what is the point? Mothers are regarded as ‘civil’ whilst Fathers are seen as criminal!

Childhood is such a short span of time we should protect it at all costs!

Children: Children in all walks of life have been given rights in order to protect them and this is right and proper.Except, I believe, between the ages of 11 and 16 where I feel Parental responsibility should not be overruled by a child’s right when all to often they are too young to reason the ramifications. It cannot be right that a child can sue a parent for a relatively minor dispute or indeed be allowed to make false allegations just ask the teacher too!
However in the sacred secret world of Family Court who’s continued rhetoric is ” in the children’s best interest!” seldom allow the children to be heard and all the judge has to work with is a contrived interpretation from a court reporter (SS or CAFCASS) where mother has been the dominating force so the children end up acting on her will not what they truly want which in most cases is to see as much of both parents as possible in spite of separation!
I will go into this more in the paragraph headed The Process further on. I do however believe that children who reach secondary school age should be given the right to alter a court order as their live will become more flexible in their teens and they may just wish o pop in and see either parent at odd times and should not be constrained by an order designed to show them routine and stability in their younger years. Also there may be times a child wants to play football and have dad there during mum’s contact and mum may want to take them to the cinema during dads contact this should be agreed amicably and not by seeking to score points off each other or try to show one parent in a better light then the other. Mothers should no longer be seen as the resident parent and father as the absent one, they should be equal in their parental responsibilities.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY: The most important role a person can have in life is that of a Parent. We all come to it with trepidation and rely on our Parents’ experience to handle the initial ‘shock’, but by the time a second child comes along skills are gained and we feel more relaxed, but nonetheless most parents will still have their childrens’ best interests at heart.
One of my children had a soft nature so would cry or object to the slightest thing when young. My other Son was more robust and would walk in with blood dripping from his knee from a football injury but would say nothing. As a caring Dad I would apply the same level of care to both children just in case.

I would link PR to equal Parenting, both Parents would appear on the Birth Certificate should be subjected in law to being responsible for their Child’s Welfare to the age of 18 or leaving home/full time education. Not only in the case of nurturing, education, feeding and home security but as a child gets older and is capable of breaking the law whilst their age all to often enables them to be immune from the law and at such times I believe the Parents (BOTH) should be liable for Fines, Reparation even imprisonment in the case of a Child committing a serious offence such as Rape or Murder.

This I believe would focus the minds of Parents from the start (and maybe would be under age Parents) that it is down to them to make the best effort to do the right thing for their children and not to enter into such an undertaking without considering such facts that could lead to legal ramifications.


I would give credit to much of my opinions on child welfare to Shaun Bailey. He is a wise head on young shoulders and certainly inspires me, I just wish others would listen to this quietly spoken champion of the young!
Education:
As a Sub-Heading to this paragraph I would seek to align School with a remit of PR. We entrust Teachers with the care and welfare of our Children for a larger part of their childhood than we see them ourselves so in respect to the Teachers and our responsibility as Parents we should share the task of instilling morals, respect and responsibility onto young minds. Children should be controlled and disciplined when needed by Parents and equally by Teachers. I would also suggest this points to the Education fraternity.

1.Children to be monitored throughout their Primary years including Pre-School and a Report drawn up in the Final Year of Primary School that outlines an individuals’ potential, so that any shortfalls are clearly identified before they move onto Secondary Education and endeavours are made to eradicate such shortfalls before the end of Year 6.
2.Year 6 should be seen as a preparatory year in readiness for what the Child will have to face at Secondary School and to be aware of Peer pressure, Media pressure, the importance of what they can attain from an appropriate Education, Legal Studies, so rights and ramifications can be investigated then finally Sex Education, as by age 11 children would have some understanding today.
3.A true appraisal of an individuals’ ability assessed, so those who excel in academia can follow that route. Those who do not, should be encouraged in aspects they do excel at, such as, Sports, Arts, Music etc and so long as they are supported in the basics of Reading and Writing, should from Year 7 be directed toward vocational training so they can learn Skills and Trades more appropriate to their ability.
4.National Service seems to carry some form of stigma who went through it in the Post War Years. I would however, advocate those children who seek to leave School without Qualification at the earliest leaving date, should be made aware they will only be eligible for Benefit which will only be paid by attending some form of apprenticeship or Further Education culminating in the completion within a minimum 3 Year Course, that they will then leave with a recognised Qualification or Vocational Skill, otherwise the previous 3 year benefit payment will be refundable to the Educational Authority.
It is important that we start now as this proposal will take at least a generation to come through in real terms and a better attitude will emerge by those given this opportunity as our Citizens of the future.
The last question asked on the M.O.J enquiry was ” What question should we have asked?” I offered the suggestion that the number of suicides attributed to failing Family Courts and CSA worldwide should be considered!

No good wearing a purple scarf Dave if you don't really mean it!
Would you prefer this;
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/family-justice-review-final-report.pdf
Or this? Davey's Law!

THE PROCESS: FAMILY JUSTICE REFORMED: Separating Parents should BOTH be eligible for £500 in Legal Aid so as to arrive at a conciliatory process for the ultimate benefit and security of the children and should submit their claims simultaneously to an Arbitration Service such as ACAS for a jointly agreed order referring to:-

Shared Care
Parental Responsibility
Contact (Reviewable when a Child reaches Age11)
Residency
Financial Settlement and Maintenance
This Contract should be binding and presented to a Senior Judge who will also confirm this is Legal and Binding and up to both parties to ensure it works otherwise it is enforceable on each Parent.

Solicitors and Barristers would not be required at this stage as there would be no disputes and therefore would not need to be perpetuated.

Social Services and CAFCASS need not apply, unless there is a history of Violence, Abuse or threat to the Childrens’ Welfare by EITHER Parent. If the Judge has any concerns he should have access to the Familys’ Medical history and thereafter order an investigation so as to prevent false allegations arising at point of separation.

Once it is made clear that this order is binding and enforceable on BOTH Parents, should they wish to return matters to Court it will have to be at the individuals’ own expense as no future Legal Aid will be available and this should focus minds by all concerned to get it right first time.
I have sought to remove the financial incentives and conflict from the Family Court so there would be very rare need for Solicitors, Barristers and social services there!
Grandparents should also have rights of access after separation, but where possible to have access to coincide with the Parents Contact, but above all to be there to show support, stability and continuity to very young children.

Childrens’ Schooling should not be disrupted and both Parents should stay in close contact with the School as often as possible.

Parents should also keep the Children with the same Family GP and notify each other of any concerns that may occur during their respective contact times.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13825737
See the full version including my latest letter from the Ministry of Justice by clicking on this blogs title,now we can see what we are up against;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8863960/Fathers-denied-a-right-to-see-children.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5juQe_YeTi1I4_YIQywdQh8L-aNhA?docId=N0425151320249992588A

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056869/Family-law-Fathers-grandparents-denied-right-children-divorce.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


Guido Fawkes offers a comprehensive view of British politics, but has no involvement in the Family Justice movement! http://order-order.com/

The potential for riots will not stop until you confront family justice!

The Prime Minister's words on Thursday condemning the riots and putting robust measures in place to deal with the aftermath in London then other parts of England does not go far enough to prevent such an uprising occurring again.



( Is that the Justice Minister asleep as the PM speaks?)

You may need to enforce parental responsibility and be aware that all too often the rights designed to protect children especially within the legal grey area between the ages 11 to 16 will undermine PR giving children to act in a manner they a rarely mature enough to understand the long term ramifications on their own lives. This also gives cause for concern in the classroom where a teacher has to tread carefully with any form of reprimand whilst the kids are free to abuse the adult with impunity. Is it therefore any wonder many have little or no regard for the law or the police who have to enforce it? If parents where made to be responsible for their children's actions in the form of fines or even imprisonment until they were 18 or leaving home, wouldn't this make them think twice of firstly having children when they are often still children themselves, and secondary make them more considerate in ensuring their children do learn right from wrong and the true meaning of respect from an early age, and not the street cred version!

David Cameron made some ill timed remarks on Father's Day seeking to ostrasise Dads further then they have been already,being discibed as absent, feckless of runaway when more often then not it is the very system that alienates many fathers from their children.

Nick Clegg said on the Nick Ferrari LBC Breakfast show he saw no coralation between the riots of this past week and the Governments policy of reducing police numbers. It would appear the deputy Prime Minister needs an education in common sense as anyone can see if you cut back front line officers you pave the way to lawlessness and he went on to suggest if you wish to protest you are welcome to attend Parliament Square in a law abiding manner.

Well I did ( and called Nick Ferrari and Vanessa Feltz to tell them) that I had parked my van in the late Brian Haw's spot in part as tribute to him , and sat there eating my Mcdonalds breakfast, but before long I had my details taken and was moved on I even coped for a congestion charge penelty for not leaving London early enough! (£120 fine, I have 36p in my account!)


It is time this Government and others wake up and smell the coffee as if the current Family Justice Review being carried out by David Norgrove at the Ministry of Justice proves to be the fudge many campaigners believe it will prove to be, then the malise generated by the Ministry of Justice will encourage mob Rule and Jeremy Kyle fodder will reign supreme!



You can read more on this at My other blogs via the side panel;

You can also write to The Daily Mail and encourage them to campaign and if you click on the title of this blog you will see my friend from Australia Matt Meurer's take on this subject too.

Family Values @ Gov.co.uk

Whilst I believe most right minded folk within our one year old Coalition Government will understand what true family values mean, it is clear that any attempt to improve matters shows they are coming at this emotive subject from the wrong direction.
Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife were dealt a tragic blow through the loss of their son Ivan, who suffered from Ohtohara Syndrome, a rare form of cerebral palsy which must be every loving parents worst nightmare, and I guess many would call me churlish to compare their loss to the loss I feel for my children through the injustice of family court, but is it? I recently attended a parents evening for my eldest son and whilst waiting to speak to a particular teacher found I was sitting next to the mother of one of my son's class mates who in her primary years was diagnosed with leukemia and had spent much of her time in a wheel chair and with drips attached,and looking generally very pale , but always, it seemed, with a smile on her face and chatting to friends. So when I saw her with here mum that evening I remarked how delighted I was to see her looking so much better after all she had gone through, and the mother said yes, but at least whatever she had gone through everyday she was able to hug her daughter and in fact felt for me and what I went through as I could not, it is like a living bereavement when in fact it was the courts inability to enforce a contact order designed to benefit the children and offer them some stability after separation, on the alienating mother!

The signs are promising at Gov.co.uk, as one of their first acts was to demand a review of all things family law including affiliated agencies by the Ministry of justice under the Chairman ship of Sir David Norgrove. Submissions are being considered until June 23rd 2011 and the findings are expected to be published in the Autumn of this year. I have and will continue to contribute to this review until June and hope, unlike the fears expressed by many of my peers that this could prove to be a whitewash or a fudge that it shows up the facts in an honest and robust manor and better still, enable this Government to act swiftly to reform this erroneous law!

The current draconian family law serves to undermine good caring parents whilst actively condoning alienating mothers and feckless fathers. They send their henchmen in in the form of CSA to persecute so called 'absent' dads who, like me, only live 1/2 a mile down the road and far from seeking some form of conciliation in order to benefit the children as they pretend to do they cause more anxiety and financial strife which only serves to alienate a parent more!

Why are fathers seen as easy targets to be branded criminals when all they want is to contribute to their children's wellbeing?

We need to get away from the 'Animal Farm' style of equality as purveyed by our previous Labour government and fully on display during Mr. Cameron's 'Calm down dear' episode.


Sixty or seventy years ago it may have seemed implausible for a father to leave the foundry or come up out of the mines and be able to offer child care in the home any better then a full time mother and housewife, unless divorced or having suffered a bereavement. In the meantime however women have fought for equality in the workplace as well as being able to raise a family and taking on work that has included top flight careers and in the main on parity with their male counterparts. so why not equality in parenting?

Today fathers are far more sophisticated, being able to mix baby formula, change nappies,prepare their child for school and be there with a reassuring word and hug. Once again from my own experience when my young son was born the mother was offered the opportunity to return to her career after child birth so I adopted a flexible working pattern enabling her to work 3 days in the week whilst I took care of my Son, then I worked the alternative days whilst she was home. I was able to bond with my son feeding him chatting, playing , even taking him to 2 play groups within earshot of Upton Park!

So the solution is clear women have equal opportunities in the workplace 21st century Dad should be afforded the same equalities in his parental responsibilities in the true best interest of the child and not the bogus statements spewd out in Family Court.

Stop making criminals of loving Dads!

Civil enforcement officers should ensure court orders are adhered to by both parents, mothers equally to fathers and penalties imposed on those failing to serve their child's best interest.

I am inspired by the so called 'quiet man' of politics the Rt Hon Iain Duncan- Smith MP and hope he can get his powerful message to the ears of those who can make a difference!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385364/Two-Coalitions-family-policies-failure--By-Iain-Duncan-Smiths-think-tank.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

(Click on blog title for even more on this.)

Family Law still a taboo at the BBC! WHY?

Family Law still a taboo at the BBC! WHY?

Click on origional blog title above to see when Davey last raised this issue.

At a time that our new coalition Government have empowered the Ministry of Justice to make a substantive review of the Family Laws in the UK at the moment and in spite of Lord Justice Sir Nicholas Wall's misplaced comments;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313829/Well-parents-use-children-weapons-divorce-says-judge.html (Does he not realise it is his laws he and Lord Justice Ward have hitherto been unable to reform of their own initiative that are at fault?) We still have the people's national broadcaster hiding from and manipulating broadcasts away from this subject as it does not fit their liberal minded over zealous PC brigade format. This I believe, is something exacerbated by the Ross/ Brand controversy which if it had been on any other non- BC medium would have gone unnoticed! couple this to the blatant episode of Question Time ( yes the show they thought pushed the boundaries when they invite Nick Griffin from the BNP on) which revealed our one time deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman instruct live on air David Dimbleby to stop Ian Duncan- Smith from raising the issue of broken homes and their effect on society and all in the wake of Micheal Jackson's sudden death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtANCL3lAoo
I did like Peter Hitchen's comment later when asked about voting for the Lib-Dem's and his reply was "what's the point?" From then on I refereed to them as the "What's the point Party"

A very clear comparison between BBC and commercial broadcasting can be seen daily and I feel sorry for intelligent presenters like 'Big George' Webley who's talents are constrained by the shackles of the aforementioned PC doctrine whilst maverick Broadcasters like Jon Gaunt are sacked for pushing boundaries and saying it as it is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/30/commercialradio.radio
Even James Whale who's son went through the family law hell the Lord Justice's remain blinkered on, at the same time James was diagnosed with Cancer ( a period of time he dedicated a chapter of his book too) and shortly after telly Davey to walk away from this hell on a late night call in to Talk Sport Radio ( wonder what happened to Ash?) was unceremoniously sacked for suggesting Boris would be a better Mayor then Ken (a fact that remains the case to this day) Ironically the two were to find themselves brought together as colleagues at LBC radio and are now evidently the best of friends, yet some of us question the integrity of a man who could use his high profile radio persona to forward his case to return to office of Mayor of London in 2012; http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sun_talk/3043137/Today-on-Martel-Maxwell-In-The-Afternoon.html#mySunComments
Davey had to do some rapid research as to just who Gavin Hansen was.Nonetheless I did tune in to this programme presented by one Tony Liversy, someone else new to me, Mike had his say in his usual broad Geordie and having given a little thought, and in view that I had just passed 36 months of Parental Alienation of my two son's on the 19th Sept. I thought I would raise the case for Dads who have their kids taken and raised by a stranger and denied the opportunity of contact. Well after holding on the phone for 30 Min's, at the BBC's expense thankfully, and listening to what seemed an absolute shambles of a programme with people calling in with instant mind numbing messages, then the news, weather& sports only to have little more then 30 seconds to make my case and then to be hung up on. I later learned that Mike had been ejected out of the studio simply for saying something about solicitors! A far cry from the slick professionalism & courtesy we were offered at Sun-Talk and a somewhat more intelligent line of questioning from Martell Maxwell. http://www.realfathersforjustice.org/news/index.php?itemid=419
By some consolation I was notified of yet another radio station who were to debate Social Services, I tried this once at BBC Radio London and Eddie Nestor went into one and again hung up before I could correct him yet as anyone who knows me through my blogs I will show reasoned and balanced views right up till the biased is too acute. ( I am sure the BBC never forgave be for spamming the Woman's Hour message board out of existence on Family Law issues and the same happened at the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1314131/The-cruelty-women-use-children-weapons-divorce.html when I suggested there should be a more in depth review of the Baby Peter Connolly case, something I still feel has not been fully researched to date for the benefit of Social Services and their care of children nationally. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315115/Separating-parents-forced-attend-custody-classes-realise-damage-children.html I think they may be getting the message of late!
Anyway I was glad to be introduced to Sunny Radio and the forthright approach taken by this programme on Social Services shortfalls which are a National Disgrace!

Enough said?

DC Rally for Family Rights 2010 : Be there!

FAMILY PRESERVATION FESTIVAL 2010
Here is one not to miss in World4Justice year 2010!
23rd July 2010 06:00AM
http://dcrallyforfamilyrights.com/
"Children Need Both Parents"
Host:Organizers and Groups to be announced
Type:Causes - Rally
Network:Global
Start Time:Friday, July 23, 2010 at 6:00am
End Time:Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 6:00pm
Location:Washington, D.C.
City/Town:Washington, DC

http://www.daveyonefamilylawmanblogspotcom.socialgo.com/events/profile/1

http://www.officialdcrallyfest.com/


Follow all the latest news in the USA and let us know your news here;

http://www.daveyonefamilylawmanblogspotcom.socialgo.com/forum/top/4

I have written to Her Majesty the Queen and…………………..!

I have written to Her Majesty the Queen and…………………..!
By Daveyone

http://daveyonefamilylawmanblogspotcom.socialgo.com/magazine/read/i-have-written-to-her-majesty-the-queen-and_179.html

HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and her Commonwealth Realms has been an important figure of the world for over fifty years, and a letter would be a great way of showing your respect to her whether you live in the United Kingdom or in any other country.
I am delighted to say I have today received a letter from Buckingham Palace and whilst it is accepted that our constitutional Sovereign is unable to intervene in matters of state, there is great sympathy and warmth for our cause to reform Family Law and encouragement to direct our views to our Prime Minister(s) I would also take from that Presidents too!

So there you have it , we must lobby and lobby we shall!

Davey's definitive blog........

..................will be published simultaneously on all these sites;

http://www.daveyonefamilylawman.blogspot.com/

http://world4justice.wordpress.com/

http://daveyonefamilylawmanblogspotcom.socialgo.com/magazine.html

http://antimisandry.com/justice4children/

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=100000518837437


On Monday 24th May 2010

BBC talks to WOMEN and the BNP but never about Family Law, WHY?

The " Impartial BBC" will once again show just how impartial they really are this week in the so called 'Week of women' with the ever impartial Question Time inviting a women only audience , though not a women only panel to discuss presumably their issues of the week!

I think the BBC are unforgivable, especially as they are supposed to represent all licence payers including men, for going over the top on PC after the Ross/Brand saga which would have gone unnoticed at channel 4 if the phone call had been made on Big Brother and as a result BBC presenters have to watch their P' and Q's unlike their commercial rivals and in the same weekend they allowed Lord Justice Woolf free airtime to promote his favorite charity ( his own) http://www.ilex.org.uk/about_ilex/news/ilex_news/psu_radio_appeal.aspx they refused to broadcast an appeal for Food water and medical supplies to the innocent victims caught up in the Gaza conflict so as not to offend Israel (who should be offended by saving kids in this world?) We have long since realised Family Law pays no attention to sex, race, colour,and age discrimination well so it seems neither do the 'impartial BBC!'


Jack Straw spoke for 6 minutes on courts in April 2 2009 on the newly announced 'Open Court' policy and 4 on courts in general (click on the link to hear just how uninterested they really are!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8020000/8020101.stm

We urgently need reform of Family Law and Child
Welfare in Britain that has such a devastating effect on
Children, families and society has a whole where in my opinion a bigger threat is posed then that of Terrorism!
Yet the BBC shy’s away from any such debate and I for one would be more then happy to sit in Nick Griffin’s seat on the Question Time panel and talk with Camilla Cavendish, John Hemming MP, Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, Deputy PM Harriet Harman and CSF Minister Ed Balls and bring this emotive subject higher on to the political agenda and remedy the root cause of ‘Broken Britain!’
We are all too familiar with the fabled edition of the 'impartial' Question time programme allowing Harriet Harman to unashamedly (as ever) tell David Dimbleby to shut up Ian Duncan-Smith because he had dared to raise the emotive issue of broken relationships; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtANCL3lAoo







I asked previously are Grandparents the answer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/2008_30_tue.shtml
Woman's Hour had an interview with Baroness Scotland and Vera Beard QC when they were appointed top legal advisers to the Government 2 years ago and when asked their view on Camilla Cavendish's campaign (Prompted by an e- mail from Davey) they told Jenni Murray that this was not their department but then spent the remainder of the interview backtracking! Later when Jenni interviewed or Deputy Prime Minister in connection with her plan to give more lenient sentences to woman who murder as a result of domestic violence and there was a discernible gasp from this renown reporter when the Minister was unashamedly pleased with her biased plan. Thankfully the pragmatic founder of the woman's refuge service, Erin Pizzey was heard to say earlier on Today that "Murder is murder!" thank god for reason in the face of biased! I wonder what Gloria Hunniford would make of this?




In War: Resolution.
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Goodwill
Winston Churchill

Justice, I wonder when we will see it?

Justice:
but not as we know it!

About ILEXAbout Legal ExecutivesStudyMembershipStandardsFor CentresMediaContact UsMy ILEXYou are here:
ILEX Home / About ILEX / News / ILEX News archive
Search NewsLegal NewsLegal News archivePresident's BlogILEX NewsILEX News archiveWho We AreConsultationConsultation ResponsesConsultation ArchiveFrom the Chief ExecutiveThe ILEX CouncilThe ILEX PresidentCorporate GovernanceAnnual ReportPro BonoEquality and DiversityPersonal Support Unit Radio 4 Appeal
The Personal Support Unit (PSU) will be the subject of the weekly Radio 4 Appeal on Sunday 18th January 2009 at 7.55am, when Lord Woolf will speak in support of the appeal.

This appeal was broadcast the same weekend that the BBC refused to broadcast an appeal for Food, water and urgent medical supplies fro the people of Gaza, the BBC refused as they did not want to be seen as imartial, yet they were not shourt of thses supplies across the border! Davey

The Personal Support Unit is an independent charity, based in the main building at the Royal Courts of Justice in Strand, London.

The Courts can be a daunting and intimidating place for those involved in legal proceedings. For those who do not have legal representation the difficulties are made worse. The PSU provides non-legal advice, help, information and support to litigants in person and to any member of the public attending at the Royal Courts of Justice who may need help or assistance.

The Right Honourable the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland QC says: "I have seen the Personal Support Unit at work and am very impressed by its professionalism and the way in which it meets a significant need. The volunteers at the Unit provide valuable support to litigants who are unrepresented and often unfamiliar with the court processes.

The support offered is very diverse and might range from accompanying the litigants into court, to speaking to court staff and judges' clerks on their behalf and even to providing quiet and safe areas for them to sit in before and after court appearances. I know that the Unit works hard within a very limited budget and both needs and deserves financial support."

The Right Honourable the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge also has praise for the PSU:

"The volunteers from the PSU, (Personal Support Unit), provide emotional and practical support to unrepresented litigants. Based in the Royal Courts, but also with offices in the Principal Registry of the Family Division, Wandsworth County Court and now firmly established in Manchester's Civil Justice Centre, this remarkable charity will grow and develop.

For people on their own in the civil and family courts, often vulnerable and with special needs, the presence of a calm and friendly volunteer ensures that their case is better presented so all those who participate are more effective. I know that the organisation runs on a shoestring and needs support.

ILEX members can give that support to the PSU through donations. They can donate on line at www.thepsu.co.uk/donate or write to: Radio 4 Appeal, PSU, Room M104, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Branches
Get involvedThe Legal Executive
The official JournalProfessional Standards
ILEX member regulatory issuesILEX Tutorial College
For flexible learningCareers
Your ideal pathJobs
Get that law jobTerms & Conditions Privacy Policy Copyright AccessibilityFeedback SitemapInstitute of Legal Executives, Kempston Manor, Kempston, Bedford, MK42 7AB
Tel: +44 (0)1234 841000 E-mail: info@ilex.org.ukOnce again the peoples broadcasting corparation (we pay for it) have shown just how impartial they are! (PSU; Posh word for McKenzie friend and as ever this is more money,albeit charity,going to fuel the injustice these Law lords can live their privaliged lives on! Davey

BBC talks to BNP but never about Family Law, WHY?

Jack Straw spoke for 6 minutes on courts in April 2 on the newly announced 'Open Court' policy and 4 on courts in

general (click on the BBC icons to hear just how uninterested they really are!)

We urgently need reform of Family Law and Child
Welfare in Britain that has such a devastating effect on
Children, families and society has a whole where in my opinion a bigger threat is posed then that of Terrorism!
Yet the BBC shy’s away from any such debate and I for one would be more then happy to sit in Nick Griffin’s seat on the Question Time panel and talk with Camilla Cavendish, John Hemming MP, Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, Deputy PM Harriet Harman and CSF Minister Ed Balls and bring this
emotive subject higher on to the political agenda and remedy the root cause of ‘Broken Britain!’

I asked previously are Grandparents the answer?

Woman's Hour had an interview with Baroness Scotland and Vera Beard QC when they were appointed top legal advisors to the Government last year and when asked their view on Camilla Cavendish's campaign (Prompted by an e- mail from Davey) they told Jenni Murray that this was not their department but then spent the remainder of the interview backtracking! Later when Jenni interviewed or Deputy Prime Minister in connection with her plan to give more lenient sentances to woman who murder as a result of domestic violence and there was a discernable gasp from this renown reporter when the Minister was unashamidly pleased with her biased plan. Thankfully the pragmatic founder of the woman's refuge service, Erin Prizzey was heard to say earlier on Today that "Murder is murder!"

In War: Resolution.

In Defeat: Defiance

In Victory: Magnanimity

In Peace: Goodwill

Winston Churchill