Vicky Haigh in Ireland

[johnhemming]

In my view not an acceptable way to treat a pregnant woman.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8500531/The-police-hunt-is-on-for-Vicky-Haigh-though-she-is-not-a-missing-person.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8485742/Vicky-Haigh-flees-the-babysnatchers.html

O for goodness sake Unity, free yourself from the shackles of logic and reason and the burden of actual professional qualifications and just remember that it was OBVIOUS to JH that she had capacity and anyone who said she didn't was a LA stooge, dependant on LA money to make a living.

jH put Unity out of her misery and quote from these later assessments which back you up. And er, not cos I in anyway doubt your probity but could you just confirm their qualifications while you are at it? That will be egg all over the Supreme Courts face won't it??

And just one other thing - I thought adoption targets were the brainchild of Tony Blair who was horrified on taking office at the length of time children spent in foster care after being removed from parents. So those children presumably hadn't been snatched to meet targets which weren't in place at time of snatching from their lovely weeping innocent parents, who doubtless were utter strangers to the booze, the heroin, the beating and the filthy homes.

Perhaps you could explain this to me as I have revealed the full extent of my stupidity by my appalling spelling.

After you explain how I misrepresented your position in RP case?

I can hold my breath for a very long tome you know.

Knowledge - I can spell, I was just rushing :)

ReindeerB - I am still waiting for JH from a thread now months old to confirm which bits of Ian Josephs manifesto he does or does not accept. IJ spouts truly amazing bollocks like parents aren't allowed to see LA evidence at the court hearing. IJ claims close kinship with JH.

Google him him you want to be a bit sick in your mouth. He is like JH on steroids and even madder,if poss. But the fact that JH won't explicitly disassociate himself from these types is quite chilling.

I am quite happy to say what I think about issues. I am, however, not going to read someone else's proposals and go through those in minute detail as to how my view relates to theirs.

spero As to the question you ask for an example of how you misrepresent my arguments I quote from your message
"despite it being so 'obvious' Wall LJ refused to accept it and went so far to ignore a crucial document which again had 'obviously' been forged, for reasons completely unknown, but you will argue it was to ensure that RPs baby was 'snatched' ( to be sold on to a paedophile sex ring??)."

When have I suggested that the baby was taken for a sex ring? It was taken for the adoption targets.

Yes it is true that the care system in England loses children (as in they leave care, but the local authorities don't know what the official reason is). However, I have not said that the RP case is anything to do with a paedophile sex ring.

RP herself explained the basis of her case in the Court of Appeal. She had been wrongly assessed.

This is not the only case of a wrongful appointment of a litigation friend (normally the OS). There is another which involved an IQ test being given through an interpreter. When this woman was re-assessed by someone who spoke her language she was found to have litigation capacity.

This is also in the European Court of Human Rights.

There are other cases where people have their litigation capacity wrongly removed as in the author of this website.
www.neebert.net/

and this one
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8346067/Disabled-man-to-be-evicted-after-secret-GP-report.html

paedophle rings/adoption targets/ufo's/vast right wing conspiracy -- That's but a detail, though, JH. You seem unable to separate general gist from small details, making any discussion with you a bit like picking up mercury with a fork. Misrepresentation of an argument involves twisting a whole argument, not using different examples.

JH true, you haven't mentioned sex rings. Someone who posted here did. I asked you if that causedyou any disquiet. These are the people you are stirring up, who support you as the great crusader.

I have never asked you to go through Joseph's ravings with a fine tooth comb. I asked you if you agreed with him on one specific point - that parents are routinely refused access to LA statements in court hearings. Asi have pointed out too many times to mention, this is utter tosh but no doubt serves to upset a great many people.

So, do you agree with him about that?

Fun though this has been, I doubt you are going to concede any points. So I will not give your links any priority but in the unlikely event I finish preparing for my four day final hearing any time soon, I will have a look.

Because as I am not actually a LA stooge I will look very careful at ALL the evidence to see if I can make a positive case for my client. And even if the positive case is slim indeed I will make it to the best of my ability because that is what the state pays me to do, adoption targets orpissed off LAs be damned.

So resign. Peddle your nonsense as a private citizen with all the other loonies. That I don't worry about.

Mr. Hemming, you made accusations earlier in the thread of widespread corruption in the judiciary. I invited you to identify a judge you believed to be corrupt. You declined. I asked you in terms were you accusing Wall P and you denied this. Have you now altered your position?

"IJ claims close kinship with JH."

I was arguing with him earlier today. He expressed the view that the human rights environment in England had declined since the thirteenth century.

What I would agree with is that parliament in the late 1600s acted more frequently to protect citizens (then called subjects) from acts which undermine democracy. I have checked the records personally to see this.

On the issue of corruption. I am only aware of one case which appears to be a judge that has been "bought". That case AFAIK does not appear to be in the Family Division.

My concern particularly about the family division is the unreliability of expert evidence and the tendency for the system to deliver what the apparatchicks of the state request. The influence of money tends to corrupt the system. There is also a tendency to then act to protect the system and not admit fault. this is a general tendency which acts also against whistleblowers. I think this in part comes from the way society is too vindictive against people who make what I would call honest mistakes.

I am aware of people who I know to be reliable and not to behave wrongly. I am also aware of others that do behave wrongly.

I have specific criticisms of Wall on my weblog.

There is a tendency to be complacent about human rights abuses committed by the courts. The worst in my view is the wrongful removal of the mental
capacity to instruct a solicitor - because that leads to others.

The problems, however, are more systemic than about bad people.

There are bad people, however. I was approached by a whistleblower who explained how one specific psychologist failed all the parents sent to him for assessments intentionally so that he would get more instructions. That person worked for the psychologist. Sadly the whistleblower did not want to go public.

Which judge has been "bought" as you put it?

patience

Why?

Because there are proper routes for these things to be handled through. I don't mind telling people the sorts of things that I am working on, but they should not expect full details until issues come to a conclusion.

You seem to be chasing me around asking questions in different fora. I do believe in politicians explaining what they are doing and asking questions, but there are other things to do in life beyond explaining things on Mumsnet.

I appreciate your time and courtesy. If the position is that you have provided your evidence to the police then I accept that no further comment would be appropriate.

"There are other things to do in life beyond explaining things on Mumsnet". Indeed. Please do feel free to go and do them.

Strange JH that you so frequently start and comment upon threads on this site when you have so much else that is worthwhile to do.

I am afraid I haven't been able to consider your earlier links as my bank holiday weekend has been largely spent with six lever arch files of paperwork - the paperwork that IJ tells me I am not allowed to see, the paperwork that you say is irrelevant because we are all somehow in the pay of the LA.

I would not wish to detract from the doubtless tireless work you put in on behalf of your constituents but if you could spare a minute I would be grateful if you could answer just two of my questions, which I have been asking you now for many months on different threads.

Do you accept that experts fees in care proceedings are not withheld if they fail to agree with the LA?

Do you agree that IJ is utterly wrong to asset that documents seen by the judge in care proceedings are not routinely shown to the parents?

The only time I have been refused sight of documents is when they related to issues of national security and terrorism. And that is ONCE in 13 years.

You come on sites like this, you stir up trouble, you fail to answer difficult questions, you exploit the vulnerable for your own aggrandisement and then you disappear with some contemptuous comment.

Resign.

'I am only aware of one case which appears to be a judge that has been "bought". That case AFAIK does not appear to be in the Family Division.'

'The influence of money tends to corrupt the system. There is also a tendency to then act to protect the system and not admit fault. this is a general tendency which acts also against whistleblowers'

'patience'

So you reserve the right to go about spreading innuendo but revealing no details, thus casting a shadow of suspicion on every single judge and court.

This is outrageous behaviour on the part of an MP.

What's wrong with saying "almost all judges have integrity". Some get sacked for various reasons.

I have my criticisms of the system and there are systemic problems, but it is not all bad. The general civil system works reasonably well. There tend to be more problems with secret hearings as there is a problem ensuring that the evidence is good (amongst other things).

"What's wrong with saying "almost all judges have integrity"."

I suppose it's no different from saying "almost all LibDem MPs have integrity", but you can see how someone might take offence.

Must. Resist. Coming. Back.

I suppose the only thing that gives me any comfort is that the usual suspects haven't turned up saying that we are being mean to JH, he is just like Nelson Mandela, etc, etc, etc.

Do you accept that experts fees in care proceedings are not withheld if they fail to agree with the LA?

That is a spectacularly disingenuous question. I have always said that the corrupt psychologists (not all are corrupt) do what the LA wants so that they can get instructions. The instruction leads to them getting their fees. However, if they said what the LA disliked they would still get their fee, but that would be the last one and they wouldn't get another instruction.

Oh please just resign. This is getting farcical. You must feel as though you're on a runaway train, horribly aware that you're going to hit the buffers soon. Why don't you just put on the brakes now?

Honestly, I do really try never to get personal with people on MN, but I'm beginning to feel a bit sick with myself for participating in this nonsense. The only thing that outweighs that is how totally offended I am that my taxes are helping pay your salary. It is an absolute scandal that your party are letting you carry on like this.

"However, if they said what the LA disliked they would still get their fee, but that would be the last one and they wouldn't get another instruction."

Can you identify a psychologist to whom that has happened?