Skip to main content

Yesterday's exchange in the house

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): The Government have caused some confusion with the announcement about changes to public service agreement targets. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an oral statement on the issue of adoption targets and whether they are to be cancelled? Roughly between 15 and 20 children are wrongfully adopted every week and it would be useful to clarify the situation before the recess.

Ms Harman: We want to ensure that those children who cannot be with their parents because of the risk of neglect or abuse are properly taken into care. If a permanent placement can be found for such children with a family by way of adoption, we would all agree that that is much better than leaving them in a children’s home or moving them from one foster carer to another. On targets, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is reviewing targets. We want to make sure that we do not have more than are necessary and that they are mutually consistent, but we must not lose sight of the fact that people want the Government and public services to do important things. If a target is able to focus work in that respect, that is what we should do. One example is cutting waiting times for hospital treatment.


moira said…
I can't help feeling that Ms Harman is backtracking now she is the deputy leader.

Like a typical politician,no offence,she has ignored the issue. The question related to children who are wrongly taken not the children that genuinely need a home because of abuse.

I wonder if her feelings on opening up the courts have changed too,now her position in the government has changed.
mark harris said…
I'm so glad MP John Hemming has the guts to speak out about the corruption of the family courts. No other MP of any persuasion seems to have, (possibly because so many of them are Solicitors?) despite all their surgeries being regularly filled by disaffected parents complaining about what has happened to them in these places.

These secret courts also behave in the same dishonest and unlawful manner whether it's care, adoption or just contact disputes between seperating parents.

My own contact dispute lasted 10 years, went to court 133 times, cost the UK taxpayer in excess of £1,000,000 and during this process I was jailed twice for waving to my kids while the mother broke the contact order with impunity. The mothers' boyfriend was found to have abused my kids for years, but these secret court champions chose to ignore it throughout. Only when my three daughters took the law into their own hands was the case completely resolved. Now two of them have lived with me for years while the other comes over whenever she likes.

Without public scrutinty these courts can-and do-let farce, hidden agenda's, personal prejudices and injustice rule the day. Past errors and mistakes always get buried under the veil of secrecy.

One Lord Justice (we had 33 judges in all) even had the gall to call the case 'a very simple contact dispute'.

My eldest daughter & I have now written a book called Family Court Hell, which names and shames what all the court villians did this to us; judges, corrupt child psychiatrists and social workers, CAFCASS officials and many more. One eminent child psychiatrist we had (famed for taking part and giving opinions in adoption/care/abuse cases) even admitted in court-when cornered of course-to being 'very economicial' with the truth in his court reports- still had his fatally flawed opinions followed by the secret courts-with devestating consequences to us all.

We are the only family ever that is legally able to expose what took place in this way. AND WE HAVE! Named, shamed and quoted word for word.

These same people also ply their evil trade in adoption/care cases throughout the UK.

Now Harriet Harman's earlier declaration that family courts 'must' be opened up seem to have evaporated just as quickly as her previous bosses claims that the UK was 45 minutes from weapons of mass destruction....

Just enter a search under 'FAMILY COURT HELL' to read more or access a book, remember, this is the only publication that can and has exposed just what goes on.

Campaigners can use this.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…