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.


Unknown said…
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 Hemming 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.
Unknown 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.
Unknown said…
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 Hemming 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.
Unknown said…
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
John Hemming said…
It was about 6 years ago that I was raising the issue of Birmingham's infant mortality.
Unknown said…
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 Hemming said…
I do believe that Doctors should be held to account for their behaviour.
Unknown said…
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

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…