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

I too would chortle, were it not for the fact that these views, albeit in a slightly less mad form, appear to be shared by a number of regular posters on mumsnet, who appear reasonable and intelligent on other topics.

This does seem to encapsulate the typical view
'Child snatching is being carried out by government agencies that have an interest in Adoption Agencies, Coram, BAAF and that take happy, healthy, young, bright children from innocent parents in the secret family courts. The court procedures are totally against the Human Rights of the parents and children in many ways, the trials are unfair, they are unjust punishment and torture, there is no right of free speech and no private family life'

I have tried over and over again on various threads to point out that this just isn't true and given clear examples of my own experience over the years, but clearly you can't reason with those who are not susceptible to reason. The problem is, this kind of warped and fantastical thinking does lead to people like Victoria Haigh abusing their children and what is incredibly worse than that, being assisted to do so by public figures who annoint themselves the Champions of Justice against the Evil Secret Family Court System.

For eg over the past few weeks I have represented the following 'innocent' parents whose 'young, bright' children have been snatched from their care:
four time convicted paedophile, mother who locked her child in a room and let her use a bucket as a toilet, mother with IQ of 65 who needs help with every aspect of parenting...

In every case these parents are fighting to have contact/to care for their children. Their cases are being heard by the courts, the tax payer is funding psychiatrists to assess them, the LA is paying for supervisors to help with contact. We may even be about to get a residential assessment for one of them, which will probably cost about £50,000.

I know this is pointless and banging my head against a brick wall, so maybe I am just as mad as they are for continuing to engage in this kind of debate.

PS My invitation to join the paedophile sex party in a luxurious venue has obviously been lost in the post for some time now. Or maybe only really senior lawyers get invited?

What made me chortle was that Vicky Haigh's Irish social workers thought she was fine and refused to co-operate with the UK Social Services. Chortling in a sad, head shaking kind of way. Because Ireland is full of 'happy, healthy, young, bright children' in families where no-one ever raises a voice or a belt in anger or throws a child out to 'play' on the streets all day as soon as they are out of nappies and the shine has worn off them.

(You probably have to be in some sort of old boys network to get an invite, Spero.)

Dammit. This is nothing short of discrimination. Luxury paedophile rings should be open to all lawyers, not just those who went to public school.

There was nothing new in the reports of the hearing on monday except for jailing Elizabeth Watson.

Vicky Haigh continues to challenge the court judgments as she did earlier this year. Hence she does not accept what the courts say. Now you might say that the courts are infallible and she should simply bow down and submit to the will of the state and not complain. The fact that the state refused to fund an appeal should be recognised by those that ask why she did not appeal.

It remains, however, that people should not be jailed in secret for talking to me. Nor is it right to propose to remove her baby at birth.

She and her new daughter are doing well in Ireland, but I presume Spero is not concerned about this.

I made no mention of the background to this case simply because I felt it was not in the interests of her other daughter. Clearly the courts felt that the reputation of her father and the courts were more important than considerations about the effects on the child. I presume spero agrees with the idea that the courts come before the interests of the child.

No "hope" there then.

How is the reputation of the father not important then? Is it just fine and dandy to call a man a child abuser without any basis for such a claim, a claim the relevant authorities are bound as a matter of duty to take seriously and investigate?

The fact remains that due process exists to protect both accused and accuser. It is not a perfect system but it is the best we have. To baldly say that VH does not accept what the courts say and to support her in this is outrageous conduct on the part of an MP. Either the process of law is good for all or it is good for none.

I have no sympathy for anyone who abuses a child, but a case like this makes it far more difficult for real accusations to be taken seriously, therefore those who genuinely go through much suffering at the hands of abusers find it infinitely more difficult to get justice. What you are doing, and what VH is doing with your support, is undermining faith in everyone who alleges abuse, and this in my mind is wrong in every level.

How is the reputation of the father not important then? Is it just fine and dandy
to call a man a child abuser without any basis for such a claim, a claim the
relevant authorities are bound as a matter of duty to take seriously and
investigate?
Of course the reputation of the father is important and evidence is needed to make such a claim. However, if you had read this thread you would have found that I have been quite clear in that I didn't think these allegations should have been made in the public domain.

My point is that the reason I did not talk about the underlying care case was that I thought the interests of the child were supposed to come first.

'Clearly the courts felt that the reputation of her father and the courts were more important than considerations about the effects on the child.'

please make your mind up. you have regularly posted your objections to the 'secrecy' of the family courts. now it appears it doesn't suit your agenda that details of this case have been made public.

Also, earlier in this thread you claimed to have a good knowledge of the irish constitution. once again - if this is the case i would very much like to hear from you about the irish constitution and the rights of the child.

as you appear to be so in favour of the system in ireland vs the uk you might like to actually look into social work in ireland.

"I made no mention of the background to this case simply because I felt it was not in the interests of her other daughter."

No, you made no mention of the background to the case because you felt it was in your interest - when pursuing your crusade - to cover up the fact that the person you portrayed as a victim was in fact a perpetrator of abuse.

Mr hemming, Wall LJ made it clear VH had not sought to challenge the findings made about her appalling behaviour. You don't need legal aid to appeal. You can be assisted by fine upstanding Mackenzie friends, such as yourself.

If her case is simply another example of a gross miscarriage of justice, why aren't you or one of your associates prepared to help her mount an appeal?

I do hope the Irish authorities are keeping a very careful eye on her and her baby. The findings about the abuse she purposefully inflicted on her 7 year old make me very worried about any other children in her care.

Further, my Family Law Newswatch email tells me that there are now numerous MPs calling for your resignation. Do you think they have a point?

I don't know how to cut and paste on my iPad so will link it when I get home. The email didn't give names but made it clear it was MPs plural. The original MP was David Mann, who is MP for VH's locality.

There is a lot of activity in blogs etc about this, I can link some of those if you are interested.

I really hope this is the case that flushes him out or lord only knows what his next trick will be.

He can be as duplicitous and as underhand as he likes and continue his campaigns but surely NOT as a MP taking wages from the tax payer??

mathanxiety: CAFCASS are instrumental in spending nearly £4Bn on legal costs alone, per year. Who gets that money? Solicitors and barristers. Where does it come from? The Public purse. EACH case that goes through public family proceedings burns through over half a million Pounds. EACH appeal goes through another half million. ALL from the Public purse.

So where is the money diverted from?

Cuts in public services**.
Cuts in policing**.
Cuts in infrastructure**.
Cuts in military spending**.
Cuts in medical services**.
Cuts in youth services**.

The ONLY Public sector positions that are still recruiting right now are child "protection".

Everything else is cutting and utilising very temporary positions created by employing through agencies where job security is a strange phrase.

*source: CAFCASS
**source: LAPAC

By the way, I think you're getting offtopic with the JFK thing, also it's reflective of your paranoia. As I said, I can and will prove everything I say.

mathanxiety
Either the process of law is good for all or it is good for none.

you have hit the nail right on the head, "its good for none"

pls be on the right side of hiistory.

The SS did not protect bady-P or Kirha Ishak et al, there were no fathers involved.
In these instances the mothers got a free ride.

Then you come to this case and without the case in the open its is difficult to judge BUT thats the point.

Being in the open would not cause as much damage to childen as that is being done to the vaste majority.

My children mother pulled all sort of tricks to get be jailed , but I'm the Silver Surfer and Super Hero to my children in their eyes.

yet she marries a voilent criminal they live there BUT have lots of time with me. He assualts here in front of JEC-12 BUT does nothing here father get the police involved he is arrested, THC-16 is already living with me is fuming that thecourts allowed THC-16/JEC-12 to live with the Wanker BUT they ignore THC-16/JEC-12 and myslef when we expressed concerns.
The paradox is glaring.

This is why there needs to be much much more openness

Also your TAX bill is much higher as a result.

Vicky Haigh came to me to try to challenge the original decision. It is, however, now a number of years after the original decision which makes it much harder to challenge. Hence I have been working in the background on processes relating to this.

There is nothing that can be read into the absence of an original appeal. The lawyers told her she could not appeal as there was no funding.

So because VH came to me to complain about the issue (and looking for assistance) at a meeting in parliament Doncaster tried to lock her up.

That remains an issue. My view on family court secrecy is that the information commissioner should hold control over what is released rather than the judges and that parties could simply indicate what they wish to publish and then the local authority would need to tell the ICO why that should not be published.

That is not a complete absence of secrecy, but instead a system of accountability and transparency so that parties are able to have external scrutiny on the processes.

It is well known that some family court judges simply ignore evidence they don't like. This would stop if they were more accountable for this. However, the system is in essence unaccountable.

JH et al

The Family Court System is a money making exercise for Judges socail workers , solictor unions and accademics etc. It it total publicly funded to a monsterous level.

It is no suprise that ALL of this organisation Oppose change and openess and its the victims that want change BUT these victims are not being heard in Parliament or on the various Committee reviews that are happening

those that oppose this change are being heard in all quaters TV,Radio,Newpaapers Parliament with the aid of state funds.

This goes to a fundamental issue of Democracy as a result

mr Hemming I agree with you about the need for accountability. But you have to accept that privacy is an issue in family proceedings given the often very distressing nature of the information discussed.

I agree we probably haven't got the balance right and more discussion is needed.

But time after time you denounce the family justice system as 'evil'. It is pointed out to you that many of the assertions upon which you base these conclusions are utterly untrue and easily disproved - such as your repeated assertions that all experts are simply sock puppets of a LA.

You are either mad or bad. I don't really care which but I am furious that I pay tax to pay your salary as an MP.

TheSilverSurfer --
In both the case of Baby P and Kyrha Ishaq there were male partners in the household.

Not necessarily the fathers of the victims, but they were there and they knew what was happening -- in fact they contributed to what was done to the children, and are now suffering the consequences.

This is taken from the DM, but here it is anyway '"Junaid told her 'you've won a prize, you've got a nice treat'. He gave her a jar of chocolate and told her to eat it all. It made her feel really ill and it made her vomit." (Junaid Abuhamza was the partner of Angela Gordon.). Here is a quote from a police officer who in investigated the case "The very people who should have been looking after Khyra, her mother and Junaid Abuhamza, killed her through systematic abuse." That's people, not person.

Do you remember the names of Stephen Barker and Jason Owen? Do you remember where they lived?

You didn't mention Victoria Climbie, but there was a man in her household too.

Your entire pov here seems to be nothing but one long Poor, Put-Upon Fathers' Rights/To Hell With Evil Mothers and To Heck With The Victims Too screed.

Money for prosecution of child abuse defendants is not diverted from anywhere else. It is earmarked specifically for such prosecutions and is used in a manner consistent with the guarantees of British law -- the Crown has a duty to protect all citizens and prosecute when crimes are committed. The Crown also has a duty to see that defendants receive representation in the interests of fairness and that appeals can be made.

Most taxpayers think it is money very well spent. MPS are also paid out of the public purse. Most people do not think that is money well spent in a lot of cases.

JH, your suggestion of parties agreeing to what they wish to publish about their case is laughably ridiculous. What you have in mind is in essence trial by public opinion of parties involved in cases of child abuse, even if those parties were able to peacefully agree on details to publish. The entire legal system, with anonymity of defendants and minors, etc., is set up to avoid that sort of lynch mobbism or the playing out in the public eye/newspapers of criminal trials. There is no need for a super system to guarantee accountability. What that would result in would be a massive increase in the sort of shenanigans you are engaging in, and the courts of the land would in effect not have the final word on criminal matters. Extralegal mayhem in other words, and the degradation of the courts.

You finish with a sly piece of innuendo 'It is well known that some family court judges simply ignore evidence they don't like...' -- it is completely outrageous of you to cast aspersions on the professionalism or the judgement of judges in this way in a public forum. Name them if you dare.

Coincidentally the very same Judge who has seriously criticised you and you methods.

If you have evidence that Wall LJ is corrupt or incompetent stop lurking on these boards and put this evidence in the public domain. Christopher Booker would no doubt be delighted to help publicise this very serious allegation.

Put up or resign.

In the RP case I made a number of points about a particular document that I still consider to be forged. These were:

1. That it had no received stamp unlike the other letters received.
2. That the date was wrong
3. That the address format was wrong
4. That almost uniquely this document was purported to be sent to the client with a comp slip rather than a letter.

All of these pointed to the document being forged. All of this was evidence of the document being forged. This evidence was ignored by the court.

The underlying principle behind this is that the person or people forging the document had no access to the solicitors firms letter head or received stamp and as such could not properly recreate such a document.

Your suspicions about a document do not equal 'evidence' that it is forged. There are rules about hearsay.

So no evidence to back up your claim wrt the judge?

So your case remains that a solicitor forged a letter in order to fool a court into believing RP had not been told she was represented by the OS?

As wall LJ himself said - why? What was in it for her? Was it to secure her invitation to one of these luxurious venues?

And how do you explain all the other letters and attendance notes in the file which show that the role of the OS was explained to RP time and time again by her solicitor and her barrister?

If you knew then that Wall LJ had got it so horribly wrong - no doubt to ensure he didn't get left off the next invite list to a luxurious venue - why did you not appeal to Supreme Court? raise it in Parliament as a matter of emergency??

you seriously allege that one of our most senior and respected judges was party to a serious miscarriage of justice and you do nothing about it but post on websites like this?

Sorry that should read - to fool the court that RP HAD been told.