Skip to main content

Jersey's links to the Mainland and how Family Court Secrecy is relevant

The link is to a story in the Mail on Sunday about how children have been illegally placed in Jersey and then lost.

The existance of paeodophile networks in Child Protection is not a new story. What needs to be recognised is that the secrecy of the system allowed them and their actions to be kept secret.

There is, as can be seen from Liz Davies' comments, considerably more to be revealed about the links between England and Jersey. However, the government have decided to turn a blind eye to this issue. It is much like the government minister on Thursday being unwilling to say anything about the government's position during a phone call.

What Family Court Secrecy enables is the real threats of imprisonment (and frequent imprisonment) of those people who speak out about injustices and malpractise in child protection. That is how it protects abusers. It does not protect the children.

The aggressive nature of many local authority legal departments feeds this culture. Any criticism is covered up (although Ofsted has been a laudable exception recently).

The reason that the placements in Jersey are illegal is that Jersey is (as everyone including Wendy Alexander probably knows now) is not part of the UK although it is accountable to the Privy Council. Hence to place a child there requires a court order.

Did anyone ever bother to get one. I don't know. Nor does the government. Nor AFAIK have they tried to find out.

Comments

Andrew said…
It is about time the government took a “real” & transparent role in things like this, the government should not have to be pressurised into an investigation, they should just do one, they tend to want to sweep things under the carpet & it creates a dislike of government by the citizens.

The child is "paramount" line, is only relevant when it suits, the government should also follow the laws of the land, if the child is "paramount" damn well do something.

Who honestly takes anything the government says at face value anymore?

The invasion of Iraq was a farce.

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).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

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.

LORD HEWART CJ:
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…