Did you ban John Hemming (the MP) for outing me ?

[CarpeVinum]

Cos he isn't on The Thread.

And I'd like to know why.

I am immaginging that the party whip we've been phoning, emailing and twittering has tied him up and run off with his keyboard.

Can I hang on to that fantasy, or did you ban him ?

It's not the end of the world to me that he posted my twitter account, knowing it was me and knowing it was my real name. But I will quickly drum up some minding if required to purge MN of his presence.

Judges reasoning

I raised the question with Mr Jones during the course of his carefully presented argument as to whether or not it would be appropriate for me to indeed appoint the Official Solicitor (if he so agreed) to act on behalf of this mother, and for the Official Solicitor to be informed of the nature of the application (or indeed any order), in order that representations could be made to the court. However, I perceive that the Official Solicitor, or indeed any legal representative acting on behalf of a party, incapacitous or not, cannot be bound to withhold information which comes to their notice from their client. And it seems to me that this mother probably has the capacity to understand the nature of this application and that the local authority intends to remove the child from her. In my view, the only basis upon which a legal representative can agree not to disclose information to their client is if that client consents to that course of action, and in order to obtain such consent the Official Solicitor would have to alert the mother to the nature of these proceedings. Mr Jones tells me that the authority shares that concern.
I have come to the conclusion from the documents which I have read and the submissions that I have heard, that this is indeed a highly exceptional and unusual case and that the history of the mother's mental health problems, her mistreatment of her other children (and there are other assertions of ill-treatment as well as the injury to the baby), the mother's increasing volatility, irritability and inability to accept the concerns of others and indeed her deteriorating mental health, do give rise to an imminent, serious and present danger to the child when it is born, in particular of an inadvertent injury to the child if the child is sought to be wrested from her.
It seems to me that the only way in which that risk and danger can be guarded against is by way of an order that the baby be removed immediately upon delivery. I understand and acknowledge what a drastic step this is, how deeply distressing this will be to this mother (as it would indeed be to any mother newly delivered of a child), and I am in no doubt that she will understand what is happening to her in these circumstances. But I am persuaded, and indeed now convinced, that there is sadly no other way of safeguarding the interests of this child than by making an anticipatory declaration as I am asked, in order that intervention can take place at the earliest possible opportunity.

Do not test the patience of either MNHQ or its users.

Just popping in as a lurker on the threads, I have so appreciated what Spero, Madame, Carpe and Lake (and others) have posted.

I absolutely agree that there is a decided agenda to the anti-interventionists, although they seem to be very coy about admitting it.

We still don't take child welfare or rights seriously in this country. The system needs more funding and more support, not less.

So it's a highly unusual case, which you are reading about on a public forum.

If there really were sinister machinations here, do you really think you would be permitted to read this judgment?

Why so quick to think state sponsored conspiracy, rather than a very sad and distressing situation which has to be managed as best it can be?

Are all the doctors worried about this woman just lying?

By we still don't take child welfare seriously" - I mean fund and support it properly.

Ladies, if I might address you so...

Let us not forget the fact that some posters may well be in thrall to others.

In the absence of other evidence, shall we agree to not engage with johnny come latelies?

And just muster our compassion for those who are indeed in thrall to others agendas.

I don't think dhisaconspiracytheorist is JHem or his partner but still I am a bit bewildered why you have decided to randomly post something unrelated to the OP. Its fine - we can start a debate on that if you wish but I feel it is derailing the thread somewhat.

Is your point that you feel the case you have posted in some way proves that we have got it wrong about JH and actually he is right about everything (even when drunk?)

I can't be arsed to engage with folk who come 4 threads on to a debate.

Call me whatever you fancy.

Start a new thread, do please.

GoshAnneGorilla no as a society we don't. Nor do we properly fund support for the elderly, people with disabilities and a whole raft of other vulnerable people in society.

Society as a whole should be ashamed of itself. Particularly those who criticise the people who work in the system trying to do their best to support people, with both hands tied behind their back and an axe of redundancy constantly swinging around their heads because of the government cuts to essential public services.

People like MP John Hemming who actually have the power to vote for change should be doing whatever they can to get the best for the public.

The people who vote for their representatives in parliament should think long and hard about how they vote rather than doing what they have always done.

Those that don't vote at all should think even harder.

Twas just something nenny said on the other thread.

wotever.

ok... i'm lost.?

dhisaconspiracytheorist

Oi! I did not pick the thread title above by accident.

I'm am buggered if the pressing issue of political/MN poster conduct that arose from the original thread is going to be distracted from again by more of the same "dark muttering" with notalot.com to back it up.

There is a start thread link somewhere on the page. If you want to talk about stuff that is not covered by thread title... go make your own sand pit. Please. Thank you. Very much.

Don't mess with me. I have spent several days in Windows 8 and barstard youtuber hell with Anti-Christmas Fairies divebombing me!. I am a woman close to the edge of falling alseep on the iPad

S'not cricket.

Just saying that DHIS needs to cite a bit more on this thread.

If you have something to refer to, please refer to it.

DHIS I think a genuine poster, but one who needs to read everything and then come up with something worth engaging in.

Sorry, I don't want to derail the thread.

I just don't want any conspiracy theorists to say 'aha! you refused to answer my question, therefore I must be right'.

I appreciate that nothing will have much if any impact on someone who wants to sign up to conspiracy theories, but as ever, it is the lurkers who worry me.

haha just realised my post above sounds a bit like an anarcharist rant. What I meant was people just keep voting con/libdem/lab because thats what they/ their parents have always done. Increasingly people are starting to vote UKIP BNP which is very worrying. There are entire generations disenfranchised from voting at all.

We have in the grand scheme of things a wonderful, long fought for democracy. We should make better use of it.

Maybe I'm being dense but this thread title surely invites a yes/no answer. I'm not supporting either side but I was following the other threads. Jh appears to be a twat but a couple of his points were correct. The court of protection is not as secret as the dm would have people believe.

DH. MNHQ have already pronounced on the thread title.

They have no need to explain any further atm.

I can't see how your posts have been in any way a response to the title.

That's all. If that is your concern.

The other threads concerning JH are still open to posting. Maybe that would be a better place to post further info in your domain?

And a merry Christmas to you too! I thought they were full or I would have carried on posting there. I'll bugger off, know when I'm not wanted. I am a regular poster under a diff nn, just as this is my field, I have to keep this anonymous.

DH, we are all a bit knackered around this one.

It is not personal.

Shall we play again after Xmas?

DH - what is your field?

Someone posted, "Thread to convene on when this is full, cos it's about him now as much as it was about the orginal case

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1945638-Did-you-ban-John-Hemming-the-MP-for-outing-me?"

That's why I came over here, the thread is full.
I work for a local authority, adult social care law...

adult social care law... in a local authority?

So either a local authority solicitor then, or a social worker or at a leap a BIA or AHMP?

None of which are roles which would traditionally be of the view reflective of the points/posts you seem to be trying to make. Which leaves me just as confused as before.

Forgive me if I misrepresent you, but I recall you pitched up on the other threads as a full blown conspiracy theorist.

If you have evidence of such in your work, why haven't you blown the whistle? JH would help you surely.

If you haven't found evidence of such in your work, does that give you any pause for thought?