Skip to main content

Pauline Goodwin's story in the Independent on Sunday

The link is to Pauline's story in the Independent. Note the behaviour of the social workers. The Police would not harrass people in this way. I cannot understand why this behaviour is permitted from Social Workers.

Comments

Surely that should read "Note the ALLEGED behaviour of the social workers"? If Mr Hemming expects anyone to believe these claims he should be prepared to back them with evidence, which in this case would entail posting the judgments in question in their entirety. Presumably he would have the support of the woman in question and could overcome any legal constraints by virtue of the wide-ranging privileges offered to him by his office as an MP.
john said…
The fact that I am an MP does not permit me to post the judgments. It does permit me to do things in "proceedings in parliament".

However, that demonstrates the problems with the system. I have asked for permission to simply publish judgment anonymously. That request, however, is stuck in the judicial system.
Ian Walton said…
The behaviour of Social Workers Should Always Questioned! Social Workers and Local Authorty's are influenced with rewards of financial gains worth £Millions. I'd like to see people giving Mr Hemming support in his fight for justice in the Family Court System in the UK. Our UK Family Court System is always held behind closed doors, justice needs to be seen, to be done! With the amount of help Mr Hemming is and has given to people, he should be given a medal. Mr Hemming is an MP, who is helping people fight for justice. All this is done without a second thought. Keep fighting John, we are right with you.
In that case, I suggest Mr Hemming takes steps to reveal the truth of this case in its entirety in proceedings in Parliament. There is nothing to stop him making a speech in which he reads the material verbatim, in whole or in part, and then place the entire document in the House of Commons library.

Much noise is made about opening up the "secret" family courts, but if they were truly open and the full details of some of these cases came out in public I suspect Mr Hemming would have less success in persuading newspapers to support his crusade.

I agree with Ian Walton that Mr Hemming's actions are carried out "without a second thought" - for the unwarranted damage he is causing. As for giving him a medal, what exactly does Mr Walton think Mr Hemming is sacrificing? This campaign is conducted at no personal cost to him - indeed, it serves to raise the profile of an otherwise invisible Lib Dem MP. If anyone deserves a medal it is Mr Hemming's constituents, who might be forgiven for wondering how much of their time their MP is expending on matters of no concern to them.

To take just one not unrelated issue that, as far as I know, Mr Hemming has so far failed to address: according to the 2006 mortality statistics, Birmingham has one of the highest - if not THE highest - infant mortality rates in the whole country. In 2006 Birmingham and the Black Country suffered 587 infant deaths, not to mention 220 stillbirths. Highlighting and reducing this figure would, I suggest, be a cause worthy of any MP's attention, although perhaps not as easy a task as sniping at social workers and other professionals who are unable to defend themselves.
john said…
It is not that straightforward putting things into parlimentary proceedings although I am working to do this.

I have raised concerns about perinatal mortality in Birmingham on numberous previous occasions. I have also made it clear that one of my concerns with the current system is that it fails to protect children.
escape said…
I would like Jonathon Gornall to be a makensie friend for a while so he could see for himself what John Hemming is seeing. I have been into court with parents and seen first hand how they are abused by the LA and even the Judge in being dismissive towards the parents pleas. The reason Judges dont want parents to go self lit is because members of the public like myself get to see and hear what goes on in the family court room. The secret communications that go on before a court hearing is discusting, the Judges are pre warned about the case, the LA legal team write letters before a hearing has made an order, stating the order has happened and therefore gain information they are not yet entitled to. I have a huge list of wrong doings by Solicitors Barristers and so called Independant expert witnesses, this is the reason the Courts want to keep it behind closed doors, childrens names can be ommitted as is done already when a Judgement becomes public. Independant reviewing officers are non existant, as none of my cases know who they are. I see cover up after cover up with no redress apart from a letter of complaint, they dont even try to hide it in some cases, just rely on the parents being not bright enough to do anything about it. Untill you have met with and been in court to support some parents you have no right to challenge John, you know as well as I do that if he were to show you this evidence he would be in contempt as would the parents. Do you know how many parents are in prison at the moment for trying to get outside help to fight for the right ot have thier children with them, do you know that parents once in LA care are not allowed to tell thier children the LOVE THEM or they are fighting for them to come home. If they do this thier contact is stopped. Spend a week with me Jonathon and I will show you why things must change. I give my time freely for as long as I am needed. If more support for families were given in the first place through charities such as Wellcare millions would be saved and more families WOULD rightfully stay together. Maybe you never had a mothers love which is why you are cold and not into the idea of families loyalties. Why do adoptee's spend years after care trying to find their natural parents, its to know that they were loved and not given up for adoption but FORCED into adoption. Its only because the Adoptive parents want to soley own a child that contact does not happen with the natural parents, that is selfish as research shows that a natural bond is bigger than any unnatural bond forced onto a child, often the Judge is told the children will be adopted as a unit only for this not to happen and the children are split up, never to see each other again either, there needs to be reforms in Law, also there should be INDEPENDANT bodies to deal with complaints against Social Services (Children and families services) Caffcas and Solicitors. This way the Judges would only be dealing with truths and not lies slipped in to make the case stronger.
How convenient that the "secret" family court system allows Mr Hemming to tell only one side of these stories.

As for acting in respect of Birmingham's scandalously high infant mortality rates, I have been unable to find a single reference to this topic in any of Mr Hemming's speeches, Parliamentary questions or Early Day Motions. It is, of course, possible that I have overlooked something. If so, I would be grateful if Mr Hemming could highlight those occasions on which he has raised this important topic in the House of Commons.

Meanwhile, I see that he continues his singleminded crusade against Dr David Southall. Perhaps he would like to explain what he was getting at with the following written question, asked on October 8: "To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies were undertaken at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire involving children from overseas in the 1990s".

While he is at it, perhaps Mr Hemming could also explain what his obsessive pursuit of this doctor has to do with his constituents. Anyone unfamiliar with this extraordinary crusade may find a partial record of it at http://jonathangornall.squarespace.com/hemming-parliamentary-activity/
john said…
It was about 6 years ago that I was raising the issue of Birmingham's infant mortality.
So, therefore, not once in the two years and five months since you became an MP, compared with the more than 25 Early Day Motions, written questions and speeches in which you have pursued your extraordinary crusade against Dr David Southall (a paediatrician, incidentally, whose career has been spent saving children's lives and which you have spent the past year trying to destroy). Can you really justify this to your constituents as the best use of their precious Parliamentary time?
john said…
I do believe that Doctors should be held to account for their behaviour.
Doctors? Or just this one doctor?

I note you have failed to disclose what lay behind your written parliamentary question of October 8 ("To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies were undertaken at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire involving children from overseas in the 1990s").

Dawn Primarolo, a Minister of health, replied: "The information requested is not centrally held by the Department. The NHS West Midlands strategic health authority reports that University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust has recently written to the hon. Member following a similar request under the Freedom of Information Act."

This puts the trust's reply, at least, in the public domain. Would you care to share it with the public?
escape said…
Jonathan, do you not know its against the law to know a crime has been commited and not report it. David Southall has commited crime's, just as a lady I know who has been banned from speaking or seeing her children through the family court's won because of her ex husbands wealth and influence, she now faces prison because she dared to shout "I love you " across the street, her ex has taken her to court expecting her to be put in prison for commiting this crime.
Who are you protecting, what is your involvement with this issue, thats what I would like to know, as it has really got your goat, umm something financial I am sure.

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…