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.

There is a form of debate which is to be personally critical of someone whose view you disagree with (ie playing the ball rather than the man). I am criticial of the malpractise in the family division of the UK courts. However, apart from denying self evidence truths and making false allegations the main approach of the apologists for the system is to be personally critical (the ad hominem attack).

I am not particularly fussed.

I have spent some time today worrying about someone who was imprisoned for 17 years for a crime he did not commit. Yesterday he was ejected from prison without a proper support system in place and ended up homeless on the streets.

All that happens with me is that people are a bit rude.

not engaged in this thread though have been an interested lurker but I interpret this:

"What I find interesting about the Italian judgment in comparison to the many hundreds of English judgments I have read is how it prioritises the family and values relationships such as sibling relationships and grandparents."

as saying that JH has interpreted this particular judgment as putting more priority on family etc. etc. compared with the various British judgments he's read. I don't think that actually means he's formed a view on the entire Italian family law system. It would be liked reading a Charles Dickens and assuming you knew everything about life in the 19th century as a result.

You say that....

thefuturesnotourstosee> is entirely right. I have, in fact, only read one Italian court judgment. The one in the instant case.

I have seen lots of English and Welsh judgments. These are driven as we have confirmed on this thread by care plans which are defined by management driven by government objectives.

I had some support from a senior social worker when I said to the minister and civil servants that Whitehall should not try to be driving the conclusions of care proceedings across the country. However, that was soon forgotten.

But John, I am critical of you as a human being (having had the chance to read up about you in the press, quite a lot of it in your own words) AND your view on this partaicular matter.

So I am happy to play the ball and the man. Becuase from my perspective, they are actually two balls. That happen to be on the same pitch. In fact.... I think you are so invested in the GESTAPO SS ! issue, that it is not actually possible for the balls to exist on differnet pitches.

Politicans don't get to whine "I am not a ball! I am a (free) man." Scrutiny of their every thought, word and deed in the public domain is part of what they signed up for. If they give up the priveledge and the power then nobody is going to get overly concerned that what they say and do .... casts a loooooooooooooooooong shadow over their suitability to play a role in the running of the country. So it is a good job you are so unfussed about it really. Unlike Juliet, who is in a constant state of being beside herself. (metaphorically speaking)

Don't panic about my playing two balls at once

I'm a woman.

We are (allegedly) good at multitasking.

Yes, but using ad hominem attacks is a sign of a weakness in your underlying argument. In fact it does not appear that you have an underlying argument.

right back at ya John.

Well what are you getting your knickers in a twist about then ? If you think you're "winning at mumsnet !"

So why do you keep threatening Spero?

We know now that your complaint to the Bar Association amounted to not much more than you are a twat, JH, and Spero try not to get into fights with him. But if he starts them over to you.

Anything more pertinent that I have missed?

it is pretty cuntish behaviour to evade all questions that are actually relevant to this case, while threatening other posters with specific penalties from their professional bodies.

Tell me John, what is the specific body I should complain to about your behaviour and postings here?

Would it be the Parliamentary Standards Committee?

I am sure you know, do please tell us.

Try the whips office MadameDefarge

www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/m01.pdf

You've been extremely disrespectful on these threads, JH, and outright rude and abusive to some posters, Nana and Spero in particular.

But anyway, I'm tired of all this. I agree with Spero: think we've been enticed into some longrunning psychodrama and we're just bit players in a game that has been running for years now. Juliet keeps telling us to stick to the issues but nobody on this thread is more pleased to make it all about him than JH.

If I wanted all this meshugaas I'd be heterosexual, frankly.

Night all.

The problem you have, Mr Hemming, is that you proclaim all allegations that support your views as self-evident facts when it is absolutely obvious to everyone else that they are not. We've seen it over and over again in this discussion - the social services departments that are not being paid to take babies into care; the child whom social services did not tear from her mother's womb; the social worker who was not sacked for recommending a child be returned to his parents; the lawyers who do not collude with social services to lose their clients' cases, etc - those are all claims you have made for which you gave been able to supply no evidence; or indeed, the evidence you have supplied proves your assertions to be completely wrong.

When pushed into a position where you cannot respond logically you either disappear or simply proclaim the same allegation again. So it becomes a bit difficult to play the ball when effectively you keep pretending it isn't there.

Yes. I feel John lacks a certain intellectual rigour .

Make case, back up case with evidence, entertain the notion against your assertions, assimilate assertions and evidence to provide a conclusion.

I think the formula is thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Most undergraduates would understand this.

Where DID you do your degree, John?

Degree of John

from wiki

.....

Hemming was educated at King Edward's School, Birmingham, where he won the Rickard Prize for Arithmetic and was a Scholar specialising in Theoretical, Atomic and Nuclear Physics at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he showed an early interest in politics, standing as the Liberal Party candidate for Secretary of the Oxford University Student Union. He was beaten into fourth place by the 'Silly Party' candidate – the pet dog of the master of St Catherine's College, Oxford.[1]..

....

I presume scholar means "doing a degree"

Oh that the dog had shown a long term interest in politics.

Thanks westmorland! I would still prefer John, who has joined this thread of his own free will, as an MP, whose behaviour should be beyond reproach, and who should adhere to higher standards that the people on the street in his daily undertakings and interactions,to answer the questions put to him by his own constituents, and others.

You cannot claim parliamentary privilege here, John.

But every evasion, refusal to engage, refusal to answer straightforward questions WILL be noted.

And you will be judged for it. Here. In your constituency, in parliament, and in broader spheres.

ooh! a dog beat him in an election at college!

That kind of explains his love of kitties.

Poor kitties.

Doggies rock!

By the way, it isn't an ad hominem attack when what is being attacked is your arguments and your regular failure to stand them up with any evidence. When you evade questions over and over again, such that there is no choice other than to believe that you are deliberately twisting the facts, then we as the people who are paying you a hefty salary are entitled to challenge you.

A Scholar is someone who does particularly well in the entrance exam. It used to qualify for a longer gown and hence in winter it was not as cold. Also there was a small additional payment in support of £60 per year.

This is a reasonably good definition of ad hominem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

back to the subject in hand:
Here is a story in a belgian newspaper.
www.lalibre.be/actu/international/le-royaume-uni-a-kidnappe-leur-fille-52abe17b3570105ef7d36dd8

Is your intention to keep posting links, coming from all over the world, of papers reporting lies over lies?

Because to any Italian it is clear papers are posting pointless lies.
Do you think British people are more stupid than Italians?
Wow.

So does the worldwide coverage make you feel important? In my opinion, I'm appalled you're even stooping this low.
Especially because you're an elected politician and you shouldn't make your consituents so ashamed.

Ad hominem: a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument.

Therefore, as I said, the vast majority of arguments presented against JH are not ad hominem arguments. To point out that a person regularly evades challenges and requests for evidence is hardly irrelevant.

As for that Belgian story, it is the latest in a long line of reports where parents complain to the press in circumstances where they know full well that social services are prevented from giving the other side of the story. It's the sort of thing the Mail loves. I always think parents in this situation would carry so much more credibility if they would agree to all the documents being released.

@johnhemming

Re: rude issues. If you post, on any forum, you expose yourself to some form of criticism or rudeness. That is part of the online game. If you presume that Parliamentary privileges make you exempt from that... maybe you shouldn't post at all.

I am quoting from court orders. If you are saying that court orders are always lies then that is more critical than I am of court orders.

@johnhemming

Where did you see a court order saying: "The United Kingdom kidnapped her daughter"?? Don't see any.

If such a court order, stating exactly that, has made public, please post it.... because I tend to believe that such a document doesn't exist.

By the way, you're quoting from papers, not court orders. So that is a lie in itself.