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.

Comments

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…