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

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…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…