HemmingGate: To ban or not to ban, that is the question MNHQ

[CarpeVinum]

Some of us would like to know if a certain politico will be banned, proper.

No rush.

We know you have a lot on your plate with ... stuff.

(I probably got two quotes mixed up in subject line. Don't panic! It's me not you. Am philistine. Italy is wasted on me. Not keen on art, prefer shopping.)

No, I don't believe the family law system views children as the possessions of their fathers - that is very far from what I experience.

Family law tries to respect and recognise the rights of the child and to approach all decisions as to what would be in the best interests of the child. thus contact disputes are always seen as it being the child's right to have a relationship with a parent, not a parent's right to have a relationship with a child.

BUT I do believe and have stated on numerous occasions that I think JH and his gang are motivated by desire to control the women and children in families. That is what really upsets him, that the State tries to intervene in the right of the patriarch to control.

Its not my blog as I am not a radical feminist. I agree with most of it however.

Fyi all, we've written to John Hemmings to let him know that we think it's best he didn't come back onto Mumsnet. Can't really see that how constructive debate could now take place given all the water under the bridge etc.

thanks for letting us know but in a way it is a shame as at least here he was easy to identify.

My worry now is what happens over at net mums.

Good decision, Justine, and a brave one, I think.

Spero, Netmums have their own team who can make decisions on the sort of people they want on their site. As Maryz says, you couldn't educate Netmums in any sense on this - you'd be banned before you started.

True. Futile to worry over things I can do nothing about.

At least he won't be spreading his poison over here any more.

thanks MNHQ.

Thanks, Justine. On a site "for parents" his presence was certainly a jarring one. The outing of posters RL names was beyond the pale.

Yes, brave I think too. I know a lot of us mere posters have felt threatened by him to varying degrees and so I appreciate that.

I think we are able to spot his cult/mistresses a mile off on here now anyway, let alone his ad hominem debates

o noes! does this mean Edward will now not be answering my questions???

Yay!!

Phew

for anyone who wants to see slightly more than a mumsnet ban...

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-british-prime-minister-mps-who-break-the-law-should-resign-hemmingate

bump for the petition

Petitiony bump

Signed.

I think I am no.18... some way to go yet.

I may have to watch panorama on iPlayer as apparently Insidious2 must be viewed chez PD tonight . Or an early night...

if anyone is worried about it you can sign it and the untick the box at the bottom so that it doesn't publish your name.

Bump for petition

ANother bump.

Link to petition

Signed

well, that could have been a lot worse.

They clearly focussed on apparent injustices based on low vitamin D.

Not bonkers targets for adoptions.

Oh, was it about that horrible case where the child presented with multiple unexplained fractures, was taking in to care by his/her grandmother (sorry, I don't know whether it was a boy or a girl) and it then turned out the family had some extremely rare genetic condition??

If it was that, then the whole program has very little to do with what we've been debating here. And even less with what may or may not be wrong with CP and family courts.

Conditions that are rare as hens' teeth are more liable to be missed and misinterpreted. Child abuse is sadly a lot more common than odd bony disorders.

Glad to hear it was not too bad - I am still hiding behind my laptop while the shite that is Insidious2 is on...

Indeed. I wonder if JH's contributions were cut short, because there is no actual substance to some of the claims he has been making ?

JH looked suitably unattractive and incapable of finding a decent fitting suit.

Shame.