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

Tsk Angela, don't you realise that to point out the facts in this annoyingly truthful way is simply persecution and harassment of this firm who are in no way misusing tax payers money to make unmeritorious applications in family proceedings.

And nor has anyone purporting to be employed by this firm ever come on mumsnet to tout for business amongst the frightened and the vulnerable.

O er wait a minute. They did didn't they? Only that thread got deleted so I can't take you to it.

Spero

I actually take the deletion of our posts as a good omen. We were clearly saying the truth about Brendan Fleming firm and it is obvious, also by anonymous' posts, that they are not able to take it.

Truth is not for everyone, isn't it? ;)

Doh! Me and my facts, when will I ever learn?

I find it delightfully ironic that if anonymous had not been moved to report my earlier quite bland post, i would not have felt moved to post all the stuff I just have and which (so far) is allowed to stand.

thanks anonymous!

Thanks very much for that link, very interesting. I will put it on childprotectionresource.org.

I am sure anonymous had a perfectly good reason for sending you a PM. At least, to him or her it would seem perfectly good.

Hi anonymous! Nice to see you are still reading.

O and btw if anyone has read that link and is worried, I can reassure you that in every case I have ever dealt with female clients are helped and supported to end violent relationships. The problems really start when they find themselves unable emotionally to separate and keep inviting man back into their homes.

It is difficult because I think the dynamic in a violent relationship can often be quite twisted and often it isn't as simple as saying 'victim' and 'perpetrator'. People feel attachments to one another, even if they are not healthy ones and this makes it hard for them to a) accept the violence is happening on first place and b) do something about it.

Spero how many cases have you represented where parents were accused of FII or physical abuse where the parents state they believed there was a medical condition?

Probably about 20 in ten years? The majority of my cases are ones of long standing neglect where family has been known to LA for years.

I'm quite concerned by some of the irresponsible allegations in that article, e.g. the uncritical report of an allegation that a child was "targeted for adoption" before birth and the nonsense about adoption targets generally.

O god re reading that article and I am afraid most of it is tosh. States 19,000 children forcibly adopted in 2012. That is completely wrong. True figure of ALL adoptions, including with family members nearer 5,000 for that year.

Usual scaremongering crap and sad to see it in the guardian. At least most of the commentators are on the ball.

Did you write that article anonymous?

Don't be sorry! Its given me an excellent springboard for the 'Myth Busting - Domestic Violence' section of the Child Protection Resource.

Honestly, this web site is just writing itself. I hardly need do a thing, there is so much stuff out there.

And if anyone would like to check it out I think its looking pretty fancy..
.
www.childprotectionresource.org.uk

The site looks great, Spero - I've just had a look around

Now you need it to be the first hit when anybody googles 'child protection'

stumbledintomayhem

Completely agree but... Is not that article a recycled one? Why does it say amended on the same day?

Feel a bit slow in the uptake - just realised that article was written by someone from Woman Against Rape who seem transfixed by JH,have met with him Parliament etc. Should have been immediately obvious from all the references to forced adoption etc.

At least she has corrected that pesky little slip of a finger!

this is a horrible example of if we feel its right, its right, FACTS be damned.

Btw the amazing look of the site is nothing to do with me. Without our Tech Goddesses I would still be sitting in front of my computer, crying, trying to work out how to add new pages.

Good Pink Tape blog post on that Guardian article here

thanks for linking nennypops - I love how one of the commentators is accusing the author of relying on 'hearsay' when she relies on her direct experience!

www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/01/30/polar-positions-wilshaw-hemming-fail-grasp-realities-social-work/?cmpid=NLC%7CSCSC%7CSC019-2014-0130

This is a continuation of the debate I linked to from communityLive last week. In between hemmings' rebutted the first article, you can find it if you follow links from article above. Some v interesting comments under all three.