Child taken from womb? Truth into darkness....

[LakeDistrictBabe]

Ok, the old thread is nearly full. If you read the other three, I don't need to re-write everything again ;)

But you know I am referring to the case involving an Italian mother and the British social services.
Opinions welcome.

So does double bubble apply, or will just the one that trumps the other be applicable ?

Plus, as pinktape points out, anyone in a responsible position, particularly anyone with previous experience of proceedings of this nature, would know (a) that the interim order would be continued and (b) that you just don't publicise the names of children involved in care proceedings.

God I like mn so much better than twitter.

Twitter is like 27 active threads all thrown together in a muddle of posts.

And it is excceedingly stingy. I can't say anything that flaming short and still find room for an url.

nenny

Quite.

This, of course, ignores the facts that:
a) Were I to wish to name the child I could do so in proceedings in parliament
b) I clearly did not intend to name the child and do not
c) My Italian is not fluent

Still, life goes on.

Far better that the underlying issues as to the rights of the individuals concerned (including all the children and the extended family) are properly considered.

There's nothing quite like an admission of wrong doing and a sincere apology eh?

Never mind because 'life goes on'.

Incredible.

a) mumsnet isn't part of the Parliament, therefore it doesn't fall under your Parliament privilege (as noted by the author of the article on Guardian law)

b) you clearly can't read what you copy and paste, including names (which don't fall under translation mistakes)

c) if you don't speak another language, you don't post what's written in that language using google translator

d) I am starting to think you are really out of..... You broke privacy and human rights of children and you post that you care about children.

Man, you've problems.

I wonder if he has any understanding of the harm he does.

Mr Hemming claimed at the time to be able to understand quite a lot of Italian and also demonstrated his knowledge of the Google translation feature. I don't speak Italian though I can pick out a little using my rusty French and Italian. However, even I could see that there were names in that article. How on earth did a supposedly responsible MP who has more reason than most to be aware of the pitfalls fail to see that and why on earth didn't that flag up extensive warnings?

The right to use Parliamentary privilege to breach court orders is one which it is fully recognised is one that must be used with extreme caution and responsibly; it is a privilege that must not be abused. I find it very difficult indeed to understand on what basis it could possibly be justifiable at this stage in the case to name any of the children involved publicly. I suspect that if any MP did so he would be subject to Parliamentary discipline and it is difficult to believe that his party would continue to extend the whip to him. Very obviously, the fact that Parliamentary privilege does not allow them to breach court orders outside Parliament.

Some might think that relying on Parliamentary privilege to justify such a blatant breach is an abuse of that privilege, of course. I don't think any honourable MP would conceivably do so.

@nennypops I lost count of everything he claims he knows

Aside from the fact that parlimentary priviledge does not extend to mumsnet.. as clarified by the nice legal jouno at the guardian

b) I clearly did not intend to name the child and do not

Is "opps!" a legal defence ? Surely not becuase otherwise everybody would say "opps!" and nobody would pay the consequences of anything.

In terms of giving the benefit of the doubt, it was your responsibility to check the origin and content of legal documents, which can ALWAYS be reasonably expected to contain some sensitive information. Given the trust the mother invested in you, you owed her and her children at least that.

Given your postion you aren't supposed to just spash non public court docs around without checking their origin, status and content with reckless haste.

But I am not going to give benefit of the doubt. I can't find it in me to believe your "opps".

Not least becuase you set a massive elephant trap for me.

I am in Italy. I am within Italian jusrisdiction. I answer for any breeches I make of Italian privacy laws.

You indicated the doc was public when you stated it had been published in the Italian press. Yet some days (and many phone calls) later I discover the whole damn extract, not just the names, the whole thing, is covered by Italian privacy laws. (And I am more inclined to believe the presidente of the Tribunale di Minore, Roma, than you on that matter should hou feel inclined to argue the point)

For all you knew I (or any other poster/reader based in Italy) could have quoted from your post here on facebook, twitter, my blog, on comments sections in the Italian media. And left arse wide open legally. The whole damn extract was from a non public court judgement. Not just the names. The entire post.

Thanks a bunch for your care and consideration on our behalf.

c) My Italian is not fluent

Odd, since you previously claimed it was good enough to read the doc and undrstand it well enough to compare to British court docs.

John Hemming: Far better that the underlying issues as to the rights of the individuals concerned (including all the children and the extended family) are properly considered.

Including, of course, the highly important issue of their right to privacy.

I am personally feeling rather pleased I have not been deleted at all!

Clearly getting a handle on this tinterweb thingy...

(see Rowan? I can do it!)

What I would have liked to have seen from Mr Hemming MP

....

I stuffed up. I take responsibility. I have let AP, my party, my constiuents and myself down. I am truely sorry.

....

I, common or garden nobody, as soon as I realised I had misunderstood and wrongly attributed one poxy quote to Hemming on mumsnet .... managed to retract, correct and APOLOGISE.

Yet all he, elected offical, can manage is "opps", "sudden downgrading of language skills" and "well I can say the names if I want ...in parliment !"

Is there some sort of surgical proccedure that politicians go through when they take office that renders "mea culpa" physically impossible ?

Madame

So pleased to see you again!

Congratualtions on your "no delete" achievement.

What is going to be interesting is if and/or when transcripts of judgments do become more widely available will the media report more responsibly? My guess is no.

I agree. They only want to go for the lazy soundbite. As pinktape points out, had they been interested in the facts this is pre-eminently the sort of case where, if they had made contact with the courts before publishing, the judgments would have been made available because it is so obviously a case where that is in the public interest. They did not do so because they did not want to wait and, I suspect, they didn't want any pesky facts getting in the way of something that would really get their readers frothing at the mouth.

Fact checked and accurate stories do not internet hoo har and click generated revenue create.

So no.

I guess the upside would be that t'other sides' version would be a lot easier to access and counter wild claims a damn sight quicker.

Trouble is, the people who want to believe the wild claims will carry on doing so. Ad Infinitum. As we have observed.

All the essential components of the story are true. She was a visitor. The state imprisoned her, forced her to have a caesarean and put her baby up for adoption.

There are plenty of aspects of the whole incident that are plainly wrong and as the Rome court said contrary to law. We are supposed to follow aspects of international law.

But you miss out the central component.

All of this was in accordance with the LAW.

Statutory law.

And who is responsible for making statutory law?

That would be MPs.

Nothing that happened here was a result of a cabal of judges and social workers locked into some conspiracy.

Are you really unable to see that?

Spero

Like I said, those that want wild stories not accurate facts... ain't no persuading them.

Don't worry. I know nothing I can ever say will ever pierce the rhino hide of his invincible ignorance.

This is just on the off chance there is anyone left still lurking who might be inclined to buy into his nonsense.

I can only find pdf references to Essex's adoption targets, but here is a link to what Haringey are saying. Woe betide you if you are a poor polish woman whose baby is wanted for the adoption target (another case)
www.haringey.gov.uk/index/news_and_events/latest_news/haringeys-adoption-performance-improves.htm

The Italians say it is against the law, the slovaks say it is against the law. In our secret courts, however, the opinion of the local authou with its adoption targets is what counts.