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

"JimmyS - I was talking about the proceedings/case/application that related to Vicky's comments at the APPG not the care proceedings."

I want to make sure I have this right. You were not encouraging the public to discuss the care proceedings but rather to discuss the fact that they were not allowed to discuss the care proceedings. Is that it?

It is about petitioning the executive and legislature. I think it is important that people should be able to ask questions and raise things with the executive (and CAFCASS are this sort of body) and the legislature (ie me) without being threatened with jail.

The question Vicky asked did not identify herself, her daughter or ex-husband. She did identify Doncaster.

Now I think it is quite concerning if someone cannot come to the houses of parliament and criticise Doncaster without Doncaster trying to have them locked up.

The US first amendment is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Articles V and XIII of the English Bill of Rights are also relevant to this.

Note:
"to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Math,
You looked at the English pages of the Danish immigration site, try looking at the Danish pages. For some reason the rules appear quite diffierent - in fairness it is a nightmare trying to sort out immigration in DK using the English translations. But I myself know several babies, whose parents are not Danish who have been given passports. There are several other EEA countries that do the same. DFF try to make it difficult, but in practice it is a lot easier than the English translations appear. I think they get around it by saying the babies meet the requirements for adopting citizenship in the same way foreign adults can.
And if someone has not been convicted i.e is not escaping prison, then they have every right to leave the UK. The only people who have had this right removed are those suspected of terror activities, and or football hooliganism. The same goes for pregnant women, they are not allowed to be barred from leaving the country on the basis that they are pregnant even if soial services plan to take th echild after birth. One is not breaking any law by leaving the country, even if the children are already born and social services are threatening to take the children. And because foreign courts are legally bound to act in the best interests of the child, they are not legally bound to return a child to British social services. That is why so many people do it. You may not like it, but that is the law.

One is not breaking any law by leaving the country, even if the children are
already born and social services are threatening to take the children. And
because foreign courts are legally bound to act in the best interests of the
child, they are not legally bound to return a child to British social services.
That is why so many people do it. You may not like it, but that is the law.

Different countries respond differently. If there is a care order then it is an offence to remove the child from the country. However, I know of one case where someone removed their son (whilst pregnant) and went abroad and then successfully defended in the court attempts by the local authority (Devon) to get the son back to the UK.

On the other hand I also know of cases where this has failed. Furthermore I know of cases where the UK courts were given jurisdiction even because an application for a supervision order had been made (but not at that stage granted).

JH, you do realise that the UK is not the US, right? That the US Constitution applies to the US and the US only?

(Hopefully the answer is yes, considering JH's day job)

I think this is pretty clear on the subject of Danish nationality.

The Act itself is clear too.

Parliament, not the judges, has decreed that identifying a child in care proceedings is a contempt. For a parliamentarian to attack a judge for enforcing a statutory provision is absurd. If Parliament wishes to change the rules it can do so at any time.

Math,
The page you go to is the English site, for reasons best known to the immigration department, these facts are not accurate as they are practiced. In practice babies born and resident in Denmark (we are not talking about babies born at the airport whilst their mothers are passing through etc) are deemed to have fulfilled the requirements for getting a passport (a normal one not the refugee one). I am danish so I think I know the laws of my own country.

Are you really trying to say that every single English language exposition of Danish nationality law completely misstates the facts? And that the only way someone can get at the truth is by being a Danish speaker and therefore presumably not in need of information on how to secure Danish nationality?

Really?

math,
Sadly you are getting near the truth there. The Danish people's party is basiclly a racist party that does not like foreigners, but they have a lot of power, and it seems to be their policy that when they have to give foreigners rights they make damn sure they make it difficult to understand them.
The immigration office is very bad for telling people false information about their rights. I have several horror stories about them messing people around for no good reason over relatively simple things. It is disgusting, but the quickest way to get something done at the immigration office is to take a blue eyed dane with you, otherwise they just seem to go out of their way to misinform foreigners of their rights.
As for the passport thing, what they seem to do in practice, is say that the baby meets the requirements for the nationality test and therefore gets the passport. This is certainly what has happened to the babies I have known to get the passport. I know not all EU countries are like this (I know someone who ended up being stateless until they were seven years old as the country they were born in only gave out passports if their parents were from that country, but the country their parents were from, someowhere in south america, only gave out passports to people born there!).
Anyway did not wish to start an arguement, was just querying why more people do not do it, as once you cross a border it makes things difficult for the authorities. personally I do not think Vicky Haigh is the best exmple to use for the state behaving unfairly, as if I am correct she was the woman who tutored her daughter to make flase claims of sexual abuse against her father, and the little girls name and picture has been plastered all over the internet with details of these accusations.

mathanxiety clearly also has anxiety about the English Bill of Rights which has been in force since 1688. Article 5 is the relevant article which has similar effect to the first amendment.

JimmyS clearly confuses care proceedings with criminal proceedings to jail someone for saying the word "Doncaster" at a meeting in parliament.

That's life.

Well one of us is confused and I'm happy to admit it if it's me. What criminal proceedings are you talking about? Although I understand Ms. Haigh was charged in relation to an earlier incident this is the first I've heard of criminal proceedings arising from the committee meeting. Can you clarify this?

oh lol there. 'Anxiety' about the Bill of Rights. Yes. Very funny.

But you do understand that no matter what the First Amendment of the US Constitution says, it doesn't matter in the British context?

Can you try to define the term 'super injunction'? Would it provoke too much anxiety if I asked you to do so in the context of Parliament?s rules on matters considered sub judice, which are intended to prevent court cases being affected by publicity (of the sort you have gone out of your way to drum up) and hence prejudicial effects on the rights of citizens.

"I find it shocking that you persist in referring to Vicky Haigh as "having done nothing wrong"."

If I understand Mr. Hemming's original response to this story, he does not accept the findings of the Court in this matter.

math, did you just call people of my nationality nazi's, and then in the next breath say that foreigners can just pay for lawyers or translators if they want to get rights which they are owed?

And MPs in parliament are not restricted by superinjunctions.

Jimmy,
I remember ages ago there were several stories in the media about a woman being arrested after asking her MP a question during the meeting relating to Doncaster social services.

No, I implied that the last people on the face of this earth that you would think of as being Nazis are the Danes. And I didn't say either that foreigners can just pay for translators or lawyers to navigate the vagaries of Danish immigration law. I poured scorn on the idea that anyone would have to do this, given the reputation that the Danes have for standing up for the little guy, ever since WW2.

Parliamentary privilege doesn't apply to the sort of meeting of Parliamentarians to which VH was invited to speak by JH.

Just because one MP has an axe to grind wrt super injunctions or the authority of the courts in general doesn't mean he is not bound by the same law as everyone else just by dint of being an MP. To be engaged in a crusade against super injunctions and to name adults whose cases are the subject of super injunctions is one thing but it is another thing entirely to draw into your crusade the names or identities of minor children in the context of sex abuse claims in the family courts.

Scroll down to p. 6, parliamentary privilege for a discussion of whether or not there is a clearcut answer to whether MPs are bound to respect super injunctions and the way this question impinges on the relationship between Parliament and the Courts.

"I remember ages ago there were several stories in the media about a woman being arrested after asking her MP a question"

That's not what she was arrested for.

It is what she was arrested for -- in the parallel universe where rules are for other people.

There is, therefore, the debate about whether civil contempt is essentially of the nature of criminal proceedings. I think that is clearly the case. The main distinction is that it is a form of private prosecution rather than public prosecution, but as it potentially leads to imprisonment it needs to be seen as such from the procedural aspect.

So, not criminal proceedings, rather civil proceedings which you believe should be considered criminal. It is a civil contempt because parliament has decreed this. You and your fellow parliamentarians have the power to change this if you wish. Until then the position remains that you are attacking the Courts for enforcing parliament's instructions. And arguing this case plainly does not require disclosure of specific case information.