For all of you who don't understand the disgust with the Daily Mail...

[Spero]

I have just been told they have published an article about John Hemming in which they name me. Both my real name and my user name.

Luckily for me I don't care. Luckily for me I decided long ago I would never put anything on line that I would be ashamed/upset/frightened for anyone else to read.

But for lots of people this would be a complete and utter disaster. People post really personal and sensitive stuff on this site about the worst times of their lives, looking for help and support. They must know that.

Note that they never bothered contacting me to find out which category I fell into.

So if anyone wants to start another wide eyed innocent thread - o I just don't understand why you all hate the Daily Mail so much!

Does this kind of thing help you understand a little more?

I will link to the scum bags but only because I hope people might leave some 'helpful' comments about JH.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532649/MP-John-Hemming-banned-Mumsnet-posting-Italian-woman-forced-courts-caesarean.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

We hope so, Fucklife! :)

I've been meaning to sign this for a bit and finally got around to it.

He is, for example, a twunt.

ThisIsMyOpinionTiggaxx

Tigga, what on earth have you done with your user name?

Ooops, did I totally accidentally and inadvertently bump the thread? I can only apologise for my clumsiness.

Sorry, I had a bad reaction to pictures of naked Shia LaBoeuff and was expressing my trauma, will change it back later. If, for no other reason, the thread deserves a bump for the petition.

SignItTiggaxx

@Tigga

Off topic, was that the only shocking thing about ShiaLaBeouf?

In my opinion he went downhill since he said in an interview he wanted to have sex with his mother.. This without counting his ego and his diva behaviour, him throwing punches to whoever he dislikes, and him plagiarising apologies and movies from others...

Many ex Disney movie stars went off the rails....

Mon 13-Jan-14 23:20:17 (SPERO) Yes, if I represent
parents accused of breaking a child's bones now I will certainly want to
investigate the possibility of Vit D deficiency and I imagine most
doctors will also be much more on the ball about this.
In cases involving bruising for e.g. there are tests about the child's blood
coagulation to see if there is a clotting problem.

Therefore it is evident SPERO acted as a barrister AND DID NOT CHECK BEFORE in her last 15 years representing parents. How many children, therefore, have wrongfully been removed where the parents have been accused of abuse where they have been represented by SPERO?

There are not always tests for bruising, yet there are medical conditions where bruising is known such as Ehlers Danlos. Again, how many families have you failed???

anonymous - I don't think I have 'failed' any families.

I have dealt with cases of haemorrhage in the brain which is indicative of shaken baby syndrome. In all of those cases there was expert evidence from numerous doctors; ones who examined the brain, ones who examined the eyes; ones who examined the X rays etc, etc.

but I had to be guided by their conclusions as I am not a doctor. I admit that sometimes I felt overwhelmed by the sheer mass of medical evidence and it was hard for me to unpick.

that is why we do need to be confident in our medical experts. It cannot be up to me to order a battery of medical tests - i wouldn't have a clue.

But I am confident in the experts I encounter. I haven't yet met a 'bad' medical expert. Arrogant and rude yes, but incompetent never.

I had one case where the child was covered in bruises and it was the efforts of one of the doctors to investigate the cause that discovered a virus which led to spontaneous bruising.

If you continually want to bring this debate back to incompetence, corruption and failings, be my guest. Its sad, because I thought there was room for us all to discuss what goes right, what goes wrong and how to make it better.

But I can't debate with someone determined to attack me as a 'failure'.

I think that is neither true nor fair.

Well said spero. Not really worth engaging with lowlife but worth pointing out that very few years ago most medical experts would not automatically thought of checking vit d...

anonymousUK - you seem to forget Spero is a legal representative, not a doctor, and is guided by the experts in the case - doctors. it is the responsibility of the expert to investigate all medical possibilities and present their evidence accordingly.

you wouldn't go to a GP for legal advice now would you...

I do take the point that it is important for me to have at least some general understanding of what is needed, otherwise I may not spot a doctor who is getting it wrong.

and that is why programmes like Panorama can be very useful - my understanding of vitamin D deficiency and rickets in this country was that it was very rare, so it wasn't something I would immediately be jumping up and down to demand was investigated.

But it is just impossible for one single person to be the 'expert' in every field of law and medicine - or at least I have never met anyone who came close to that! - so we do need to be able to work together and trust one another's expertise.

Brendan Fleming, Rachel Carter and all JFF and PAIN approved solicitors are aware of Vit D/ Rickets can be misconstrued as abuse/FII.

good for them - they are now about as qualified as the average panorama viewer.

I imagine that kind of case is once in a lifetime type stuff.

Are they equally aware of the more common reasons courts need to remove children, e.g. domestic violence, emotional abuse, physical abuse? Do they accept that some parents can be perpetrators of this kind of abuse.

As MNHQ are apparently unhappy with any criticism i make of Brendan Flemming and his firm, perhaps they would be ok with the criticisms made by a Judge in the High Court.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111671

Please see this case for Mr Justice McFarlane's serious concerns about the way this firm conducts itself.

APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED

Indeed it was anonymous, indeed it was.

But have a little read of what the Judge said about the conduct of this firm, why don't you.

I know you are probably very busy, so here's a short cut.

The failure to act in a co-operative and open way with the other parties is not seriously defended by Mr Shrimpton in his submissions. It was, in my view, a serious and gross failure and betrays an attitude on behalf of the parents' solicitors which sought to maintain and capitalise upon some perceived tactical forensic advantage that they had gained by obtaining the court's leave to instruct an expert at a without notice hearing. Such an attitude can have no place in family proceedings. In common with the full Court of Appeal, I agree with Thorpe LJ in Re McC that the approach to first instance family proceedings must by extension apply to the appellate process. The fact that these are appeal proceedings in my view does not significantly alter the need for openness, co-operation and candour between the legal representatives in a manner akin to that which is expected and required by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and its supporting Practice Directions. One only has to contemplate a case where permission to instruct an expert is given, that expert report comes in to the appeal process, the Court of Appeal is then persuaded to allow the appeal which inevitably leads to a re-opening of the fact-finding determination. At any re-opened process the "new" expert's report will fall to be considered alongside other expert material which has been prepared in accordance with the FPR 2010. It can be of no benefit to the child, the court and, more particularly, the party who has sought to adduce the new evidence, for the procedural integrity and validity of that new evidence to have been in some way compromised by the very sort of process that the FPR 2010 is intended to prevent and which the parents' solicitors undertook in this case.

A 'serious and gross failure' eh?

Note, not my words MNHQ as you pause over the delete button but the words of a High Court Judge.

In so far as ground seeks to obtain a costs order where none of the specific errors alleged against the solicitors have themselves been found to justify an order for wasted costs, I consider that this ground is misconceived. To award the costs of this hearing in favour of the local authority where it has failed to achieve the substantive order for wasted costs for which it has applied would be wrong in principle.

44. In the circumstances I dismiss the application for a wasted costs order against the parents' solicitors.

The firm, Brendan Fleming, whom you persistently attempt to persecute Appeal when they believe there may be a medical explanation which led to removal.
This has been the case for many, many years.

You have admitted it is only since the Panorama programme that you will pay attention to possible Vitamin D, deficiency. Therefore, it is evident they have more knowledge and insight than yourself and I dread to think how many families you have represented where there is a medical issue that has been overlooked. Based on this, In your 15 years balance of probabilities would indicate that children have wrongfully been taken as you have not defended correctly.

Dear Anonymous

It is not 'persistent persecution' to point out that serious criticisms have been made about the firm run by Brendan Fleming by a High Court Judge.

Further, it is not for you to judge my abilities and professionalism. That is done by the parents I represent and the Judges before whom I appear.

If any of them had suggested I had 'failed' I would want to know why and I would want to do better.

You will forgive me if I don't take criticism from you quite as seriously.

Wow, anonymous, you sound, er, almost like a solicitor yourself.

I really, really, do hope not.

But if you are a solicitor anonymous, do feel very free never to instruct me.

Well I read the judgment in the link Spero posted. My understanding of it is:

The application for wasted costs against Brendan Fleming failed.
Not because the criticisms of the firm were unmerited.
It failed because the deficiencies the judge found to have existed had not caused the opposing parties to incur additional costs.
Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Here, it's this bit:
Conclusion
"42...Despite litigation conduct which on occasions fell woefully short of that which is required in mounting a without notice application for permission to appeal in a child case where the Court of Appeal gives permission to the one party before the court to instruct a new expert, none of the errors that I have identified have been causative of costs being wasted by either of the opposing parties..."