HemmingGate: To ban or not to ban, that is the question MNHQ

Carpe....you my love deserve to be flown over first class for the debate and sit in the royal box thingy.....I will treat meself to a Ryanair away day for the occasion.

Spero I wish I had known where you were in Wales because I would have come and found you and shaken your hand. The trouble with people is they quite often say 'it won't achieve anything' which is how lots of people get away with stuff, humans like to seek the path of least resistance and of course your friends don't want to see you hurt. The joy of MN is that there are enough people on here that the ones that say 'fuck it, this is worth a go and if we don't get everything we want we will at least have given it our best' can find each other. I'm no quitter so let me know how I can help.

Hmm Carpe, spirited you say .

O yes. I think it should be filmed and You Tubed.

The interesting thing about that blog I linked re MF is that after discussing her case it goes on at great length to discuss the case of German mother who was forced to hand her child over to her ex who was sexually abusing her. Thus the Judge and the doctors must have been 'in' on the conspiracy.

So the question is WHY? At least JH says there is a financial motive for snatching babies. What possible reason could there be for a Judge and doctors to concoct lies against a mother in order to make sure her child was handed over to an abuser? What is in it for them? Just the enjoyment of their sheer sadistic cruelty? That would appear to be what the blog implies.

My friends in Wales said they were worried that this was too 'personal' for me and that I wouldn't achieve anything. I said yes of course I do have deep personal antipathy for JH but he is simply a figurehead of a much larger movement and I think it is a matter of public interest to speak out against them.

The protection of children in this country is the responsibility and the business of us all. I don't think any of us should feel comfortable just sitting back and letting the debate be hijacked by these kind of people.

In 2012 she reported herself that her former partner had abused one of her children. So the LA were hardly 'making things up'.

Here is another blog which says the solution is NOT to report any abuse of your children.
rotemutter.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/what-the-case-michelle-freedman-vs-london-borough-of-barnet-child-protection-really-tells-us/

She seems to be back in the UK now and practising from her tweets. So presumably not that scared now that a LA will make stuff up to steal her babies.

Either I have been completely deaf, dumb and blind to such corruption in the past 15 years I have been a family lawyer or this is just more scaremongering nonsense.

What else is known about this case (Michelle Freedman)?
What happened with that motion?

Unless there is any kind of evidence of any substance to what he is alleging there, I just can't see how this was allowed to stand.

Yes. He says 'any local authority'. This is a clear allegation of systemic corruption that HE MADE IN PARLIAMENT and everyone seems to think 'o what an odd jolly little man he is!'

I find it incredibly disturbing on every level.

and she left the jurisdiction because she was aware through her experience of similar cases that any local authority in this situation would be likely to invent allegations against her in order to win the case had she remained

Spero, this is incredibly disturbing... :(

LostInWales

Sent you a PM, about twitter. Sorry, terribly busy these days! DH at home is worse than taking care of three children!!

and she left the jurisdiction because she was aware through her experience of similar cases that any local authority in this situation would be likely to invent allegations against her in order to win the case had she remained

If he won't debate, I want to know why not.
How on earth is he permitted as an MP to say this in Parliament? To accuse ANY local authority of INVENTING ALLEGATIONS?

aaaaarrrrg!!

This is an EDM by John Hemming which is quite astonishing.

Early day motion 1271
Print versionOpens in a new window
MICHELLE FREEDMAN AND THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET

Session: 2012-13
Date tabled: 16.04.2013
Primary sponsor: Hemming, John
Sponsors:
That this House notes the withdrawal of care proceedings against Michelle Freedman by Barnet Council; further notes that Barnet Council has caused psychological harm to Michelle's elder daughter; further notes that had she not left UK jurisdiction both her daughters would have suffered further psychological harm; further notes that Ms Freedman is a family court barrister with over 10 years' experience and she left the jurisdiction because she was aware through her experience of similar cases that any local authority in this situation would be likely to invent allegations against her in order to win the case had she remained; further notes that legal proceedings were initiated because Ms Freedman had made a complaint against a social worker; further notes that Barnet's case included a criticism of Ms Freedman that she had done what she had been asked to do by Barnet Council which it then claimed put her daughter at risk and that the rules of estoppel should normally have prevented this being used against Ms Freedman; further notes that the Government intends to reduce the access of parents to truly independent assessments which will make it easier for local councils to win cases by making things up; recognises that if a barrister has so little confidence in the system that she leaves the jurisdiction to avoid being subjected to false allegations by a local authority there are serious difficulties in the system; and calls for parliamentary committees and the Government to review this issue.

the path is windy but it might just have led us to a place loveliness...

sorry, I don't want to hijack the ban or not to ban thread.

I am just finding it so bizarre; we have such clear and compelling evidence of his behaviour but he still manages to apparently get away with being a chortle worthy buffoon.

O well. I am going to email the information commission tomorrow with link to @tim's piece and Guardian. They came down on me like proverbial ton of bricks when I had two files stolen from my car so hopefully they will be interested in a wilful misuse of personal data.

Exactly Spero, which is why I am here in the first place. I wish I was articulate like you lot, I get so angry when a 'clever' man uses his cunning to pedal an agenda which is dangerous to women and children. I do say clever as well, this only falls down because people can be arrogant and unthinking too, which is such a waste of a good brain.

Because he insists that babies are not taken for any good reason, no they are 'targeted' to meet fictitious adoption targets that he makes up on his spreadsheets and then uses to terrify individual women.

So many people on that LibDem website that tiredmamma (I think) linked to were saying 'well! What we learn from this is never tell your GP or a SW if you are having problems!'

These are - presumably - intelligent and well educated people.

HE IS NOT A BUFFOON. HE IS DANGEROUS.

Babies in this country are eight times more likely to be killed than any other age group in childhood.

That is one of the saddest sentences I've read in some time.

And yes, that is the kind of think that ought to be debated with him.

^Since the death of baby Peter around 100 babies under the age of one alone have been killed, the vast majority by their own parents or carers. To this day, the grim tally continues at around one baby a fortnight.

But there is hope. I firmly believe that the public awareness that baby Peter's death evoked has seen an increase in people willing to report child abuse and a higher sense of urgency from the authorities when it is reported. The number of care applications hit 10,000 for the first time last year. This awareness and response, of course, is very welcome and there are children alive today because of swift and firm action that has been taken, often because of a tip off from a member of the public.

However, this has presented its own challenges. A recent survey carried out by Community Care showed that 58 per cent of social workers have had increased workloads over the last 12 months and half have seen a colleague leave during the past year because of their work load. It's worth remembering that one of the reasons highlighted by some for the failures to protect baby Peter was that social workers were overworked.

Sharp funding cuts in children's services will only exacerbate this issue and will simply be a false economy storing up extra costs for later down the line. And whilst we wholeheartedly support efforts by the Department for Education to cut bureaucracy, and the mountains of guidance social workers have to work with, we must invest in the social workers themselves and retain our best and most experienced staff if this is to work. Otherwise we will leave a void where guidance and best practice once lived.

And baby deaths are still far too common. Babies in this country are eight times more likely to be killed than any other age group in childhood.^

with what part of this can JH disagree? Where does his conspiracy theory fit into this?
Why aren't these babies being snatched as opposed to killed?

Found this article, which could be good basis for debate.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-flanagan/baby-peter-connelly-uk-safe-children_b_1727255.html

I think I followed that, well at least half of it anyway . I have retweeted it anyway, a girl could really get used to having her name appended to that of a journalist she has always admired. That last sentence is probably a good indicator of why I have never been a great one for tweeting.

what was?