Rebecca Minnock Case Thread 2

[sonnyson12]

Further judgement released:

www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ethan-williams-private.pdf

Previous judgements:

www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/roger-williams-v-rebecca-minnock-and-ethan-freeman-williams-2-judgments/

A few weeks in prison wouldn't affect her relationship with her son - and let's face it, she was willing to do this to the father.

It might show RM (and others who have similar delusions) that this really wasn't a good idea.

I think it will just stir them up into a frenzy and encourage them to make her a martyr.

but equally I don't think we can bow down to the irrational and the stupid. I do think a clear message has to go out that we protect the rule of law - otherwise we are on a slippery slope to having disputes about children decided by some tribunal of Daily Mail reading neighbours.

you may be interested in my response to the Maypole Women piece about the importance of 'primary carers'....
www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/you-can-run-but-you-cant-hide/

And this is hilarious
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11689014/When-judges-defy-instinct-it-is-children-who-pay-the-price.html

Re: Spero, 16:14. Christopher Booker got paid to write that drivel?!

This is the same Christopher Booker that gave us the story of the Italian mother who allegedly was forced to have her baby by C-Section so that Social Services could take it away. IIRC he stuck to his guns even when it was clear that his facts were completely wrong. He also says that asbestos isn't dangerous. I'll bet you can guess his views on creationism and climate change.

What an idiot Booker is. I really do not know how anyone with half a brain can write such nonsense as "Even in the eyes of the judge, her only error had been to “obstruct” giving the father contact with his son by making “false” allegations against him." Is he seriously suggesting that he thinks preventing a child from any contact with his father and allowing him to grown up believing serious and fictional allegations about his father is trivial? I wonder if he would shrug it off so easily if it happened to him.

He is not only a purveyor of drivel, but also dishonest. Remember his commentary on Allessandra Pacchieri, when she had 'a bit of a panic attack' ??

That has now been amended to reflect the severity of her mental health episode, but with no acknowledgment that the original reporting (which stirred up so much hate and fear) was in error.

They are making her a martyr anyway - and I don't think the judge should give in to that, any more than he should provide a 'retrial for this miscarriage of justice', no matter what the irrational demand.

THIS piece of garbage, another example of the 'quality' of reporting on these really important issues.

O well, it saves me a lot of time - if anyone quotes Booker approvingly at me I can write them off as dishonest and stupid without further investigation.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11595216/A-judge-with-little-time-for-free-speech.html

That equals the standards of honesty and accuracy which Booker displayed in the Pacchieri case.

As for "... including that tireless campaigner for justice in the family courts, the former MP John Hemming (who sadly lost his seat on Thursday) ..." - if it was anyone but Booker I would assume they were being sarcastic.

Jesus, this is very sad in so many ways. When you see the stuff her family and friends are coming out with you understand the reasons why it has ended up the way it has.

Obviously she didn't have anybody sensible enough around her to say, listen Rebecca, enough is enough, let him have contact.

It's really sad, because you can tell that she's come from a background where vengefulness and spite are celebrated.

The comments on the Booker piece are quite reassuring however. Most people are noticing that his critical faculties are a little 'off'.

The Transparency Project has contacted the Telegraph to ask if they will print a rebuttal piece but I don't think they will.

The father has dropped the charges against Rebecca here

I think that is further proof, for me, that the dad is an eminently sensible individual who puts his son's needs first. I agree with him that the best thing to do, for the boy, is to draw a line under it.

I'm not sure whether that means the son stays with the father. I imagine that's not the end of it, but I think if I were him I would want to get on with some decent contact for the boy, looking towards the future.

I wonder how RM's more rabid supporters will cope with an event that doesn't tie in with their depiction of the father as a cruel abuser hell bent on imprisoning her at any cost. I have a nasty feeling that they will claim it as a victory for public opinion - anything to avoid giving him credit for conduct which shows her own conduct in an increasingly bad light.

Yep, they'll say he realised he was persecuting an innocent woman.

But you can't argue with stupidity, so don't even try :)

Whenever I think of arguing with stupidity, I think of this:

The judgment is brilliant

I think this is absolutely the right outcome
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/minnock_judgment_24.06.15.pdf

She can't claim she is being persecuted but he's made it very clear if she does it again she will go to prison and he would have given her 28 days if the father had pursued the application.

I think it speaks volumes about his character that he chose to drop it. But no doubt that will be twisted by some of the differently sane people who comment on this case.

I have previously described Ms Minnock’s actions in making off with Ethan as ‘utterly irresponsible’. I adhere to those words. It would be patently wrong to suggest that Ms Minnock was so overpowered by protective maternal instinct that she was driven to behave in the way that she did. Her behaviour was manipulative, attention seeking and truculent. It caused immense distress to many. It caused a very large amount of public money to be wasted.

Do we think she's rational enough to learn her lesson? I'm not entirely sure she'll absorb the very clear take home message.

Personally, I would have liked to see her get a small helping of Porridge, if only to deter others who think her actions are justifiable.

The Facebook supporters are still chuntering on about mother's instincts, we will never know the whole story and she can't be that bad if he dropped the charges.... etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

Read the judgement with a huge smile.

I'm not going to even bother reading the nonsense that those M4J lot spout. There is no educating them away from their 'poor demonised mother' victimhood.

Minnock and her Minions have shown that these kind of false beliefs are far more widespread in the family courts than the 'only 2% of allegations are false' brigade would like you to believe. There were even some on the previous thread and a fair few on mumsnet.

Hopefully the media can report this correctly this time (Booker).

I agree that this is absolutely the right outcome. I don't think sending her to prison would have served any useful person, I think it would have made her a martyr and also frightened Ethan. And it's interesting isn't it. That contact has already been restarted between Ethan and his mother despite the fact his mother did everything in her power to block it when the ball was in her court.

I really hope she's going to get some help with her issues. And I really hope going forward Ethan gets to have two parents who can coparent civilly.

She should not be allowed to see her son alone until she has went through extensive psychological testing and taken full responsibility for her actions.