John, you have proved only one thing: that beyond doubt you are a man whose probity, which should be beyond question, as an elected Member of Parliament, neither acknowledges the rule of law in this land, and indeed, considers himself above it.
Whatever the consequence.
The facts do indeed remain the same. This poor lady was so seriously unwell it was considered sensible to take responsibility for saving her life and that of her baby, as her MH issues meant she lacked capacity to make a decision IN THIS INSTANCE.
The baby was taken into care. Again, not an unreasonable act given her LACK OF CAPACITY to care not only for her existing children, but this little baby.
Whether you like it or not, if you are upon British soil, you are subject to British law, as the Italian, extremely confidential and not published in the public domain document showed, and therefore not subject to Italian law.
This is the meaning of sovereignty.
The Rome court said it might not accord with Italian law, but it certainly accorded with British law, over which it had no sovereignty in this case.
Your conclusions are at best foolish and ill-informed, at worst malign and using this poor lady to further your own weirdy agenda which makes NO SENSE AT ALL, however many times you try to put it out there.
Judge Munby is himself cross at your willful misleading of the media in this country.
You have made no friends over this, indeed, you have done yourself a great disservice. I used to think your posturing was that of a toothless buffoon.
Now I know better. You seem, by your actions and your posts, to be prepared to sacrifice the welfare of both this mother, and her poor children, to support your narcissistic desire for column inches.
And not only that, to contravene international law, Italian law and British law.
Because why? The roolz don't apply to you? I am glad to say they do apply to you.
Ignorance, is, as you well know, no defence in law.
You might have a cavalier attitude towards the application of law in this country (an astonishing, and rather ironic position for one who claims the law is being perverted by secret conspiracies to spend yet more of the tax payers money on adoption of vulnerable children).
Your posts, might I say, and your actions, lead me to suppose you are a man of no principle, few morals, and even fewer standards apart from those which support your self appointed sense of importance.
I find this very sad. I would be delighted it you would provide me with evidence my conclusions regarding your posts and actions could be proved misguided.