John Hemming's Web Log John's Reference Website
Friday, August 29, 2008
  Results: Thursday 28th August 2008
Annesley and Felley PC, Annesley
LD Rachel Madden 168 (72.7)
Ind 63 (27.3)
Majority 105
Turnout 24.2%
LD gain from Ind

Camborne TC, Camborne South
Con 304 (29.9)
Mebyon Kernow 289 (28.4)
LD 263 (25.9)
Lab 161 (15.8)
Majority 15
Turnout 19.4%
Con gain from LD

Rotherham MBC, Wickersley
Lab 871 (31.1; -4.8)
Con 824 (29.5; -9.4)
BNP 538 (19.2; +19.2)
UKIP 373 (13.3; -11.9)
LD Steven Scutt 191 (6.8; +6.8)
Majority 47
Turnout 30.0%
Lab hold
Percentage change is since May 2008

Shrewsbury and Atcham BC, PimHill
Con 341 (45.6; -34.9)
LD Helen Woodman 331 (44.3; +44.3)
BNP 59 (7.9; +7.9)
Independent Anti Incinerator Candidate 16 (2.1; +2.1)
[Lab (0.0; -19.4)]
Majority 10
Turnout 46.5%
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2007
 
Friday, August 22, 2008
  Obseity and the Child Protection Register
The links is to a good article on Community Care where a GP argues:
There is no parallel between being underfed and overfed

Obesity cannot be connected with child abuse

According to David Rogers, public health spokesperson for the Local Government Association, "parents who allow their children to eat too much could be as guilty of neglect as those who did not feed their children at all".

The LGA's conviction that overweight children should become the subject of child protection procedures was reported under the headline "Fat children 'should be taken from parents' to curb obesity epidemic" (The Times, 16 August).

I first encountered this facile presentation of obesity as a form of child abuse at a case conference about a teenage girl some years ago. Social workers accepted that her parents were devoted and there was no hint of neglect. Nevertheless, they cited a case in the US in which authorities had been blamed for the death of a morbidly obese young woman and insisted that drastic action had to be taken.

I pointed out the inappropriateness of the parallel between the situation of an under-nourished and neglected infant and an overweight and pampered adolescent. In the former case, actual bodily harm is the direct result of parental abuse and is, at least in physical terms, readily susceptible to intervention. In the latter case, long-term risks to health are the result of a complex (and poorly understood) combination of factors, including the wider "obesogenic" environment - cheap, fast and fattening food, sedentary lifestyles, and so on - as well as the behaviour of the child and her parents.

(the rest is on the site)

The problem with the issues as to when to intervene is that they depend moreso on the personal views of the practitioners rather than any system of regulation where there are defined limits.
 
  Results: Thursday 21st August 2008
Melksham TC, Melksham Spa
LD Jon Hubbard 713 (51.4)
Con 562 (40.5)
Lab 112 (8.1)
Majority 151
Turnout 29.6%
LD gain from Con
 
Friday, August 15, 2008
  Result: Thursday 14th August 2008.
Rhondda Cynon Taff UA, Cilfynydd
Lab 331 (43.5; +5.0)
LD Stephen Powell 252 (33.1; -19.8)
Ind 85 (11.2; +11.2)
PC 67 (8.8; +0.2)
Green 14 (1.8; +1.8)
Con 12 (1.6; +1.6)
Majority 79
Turnout 35.5%
Lab gain from LD
Percentage change is since May 2008
 
Thursday, August 14, 2008
  Computer Programming and Writs
During the recess I have an opportunity to deal with things that I don't have time for whilst the House is sitting. This includes going to meetings in the Constituency and visiting constituents to look at issues that I cannot see otherwise.

I am also spending time on upgrading my casework computer system. I run a form of CRM that I have written myself in Java running on the JDatastore SQL server. Over the past few weeks I have had a real struggle trying to get JSP pages to work on Tomcat 6.0. I have found some interesting errors in the way in which Eclipse (the programming environment) creates the server.xml configuration page. It creates it with an incompatible parameter in the CONTEXT section which has to have the source parameter removed, but at the same time then the directory it looks for is not webapps, the wtfwebapps hence the parameter needs to be changed
on the basis of ..\wftwebabbs\(application)

The system still fails to properly initialise jasper and cannot find javax.servlet and it associated classes although jsp-api.jar and server-api.jar are in the classpath.

In the mean time, however, I am managing to improve the speed at which the system works (problems with SetMaxRows for the afficianados).

This week I have also sent off an application to the European Court of Human Rights for Rachel Pullen. She is happy to have her application published so we will do this at some stage.

This is where X v Croatia comes in. In essence it makes pretty well every adoption where the Official Solicitor is brought in and prevents the mother opposing the adoption unlawful.

We are presenting this argument next week in the Court of Appeal and it will be interesting to find out whether or not they accept the views of the European Court of Human Rights.

Now the case is no longer subjudice it becomes possible to talk about it in parliamentary proceedings. What is important here is that there are hundreds of cases like this every year.

Today we are also issuing proceedings against Jack Straw and Michael Wills. The arguments are as follows Section 6 (1) of the 1998 Human Rights Act states that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. Michael Wills MP and the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, acting as Ministers for Justice relating to the Crown Dependencies are such a public authority. In accordance with Articles 2 and 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and declared by Section 1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the Ministers jointly and severally have a duty to act to maintain the rule of law in Crown Dependencies.
 
Sunday, August 10, 2008
  Lenny Harper speaks out
From yesterday's telegraph (see link):

In his most outspoken criticism of the Jersey authorities, Mr Harper told the Telegraph: "I can quite clearly say that the investigation is being held up. There are people on the island who just don't want us going down the route of this inquiry"
 
Friday, August 08, 2008
  Principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults
COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
RECOMMENDATION No. R (99) 41OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES ON PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE LEGAL PROTECTIONOF INCAPABLE ADULTS
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 23 February 1999at the 660/I' meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,
Bearing in mind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948;
Bearing in mind the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966;
Bearing in mind the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950;
Bearing in mind the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of 4 April 1997;
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members, in particular by promoting the adoption of common rules in legal matters;
Noting that demographic and medical changes have resulted in an increased number of people who, although of full age, are incapable of protecting their interests by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties;
Noting also that social changes have resulted in an increased need for adequate legislation to ensure the protection of such people;
Noting that legislative reforms on the protection, by representation or assistance, of incapable adults have been introduced or are under consideration in a number of member states and that these reforms have common features;
When adopting this decision, the Representative of Ireland indicated that, in accordance with Article 10.2c of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings of the Ministers' Deputies, he reserved the right of his Government to comply or not with principles 5 and 6 of the Recommendation.
When adopting this decision, the Representative of France indicated that, in accordance with Article 10.2c of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings of the Ministers' Deputies, the following reservation should be made: France considers that the application of principle 23, para. 3 should be subject to a request by the person concerned.
2. Appropriate measures of protection or other legal arrangements should be available in cases of emergency.Recognising, however, that wide disparities in the legislation of member states in this area still exist;
Convinced of the importance in this context of respect for human rights and for the dignity of each person as a human being,
Recommends the governments of member states to take or reinforce, in their legislation and practice, all measures they consider necessary with a view to the implementation of the following principles:

PRINCIPLES
Part I — Scope of application
1. The following principles apply to the protection of adults who, by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are incapable of making, in an autonomous way, decisions concerning any or all of their personal or economic affairs, or understanding, expressing or acting upon such decisions, and who consequently cannot protect their interests.
2. The incapacity may be due to a mental disability, a disease or a similar reason.
3. The principles apply to measures of protection or other legal arrangements enabling such adults to benefit from representation or assistance in relation to those affairs.
4. In these principles "adult" means a person who is treated as being of full age under the applicable law on capacity in civil matters.
5. In these principles "intervention in the health field" means any act performed professionally on a person for reasons of health. It includes, in particular, interventions for the purposes of preventive care, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation or research.
Part II — Governing principles
Principle 1 --- Respect for human rights
In relation to the protection of incapable adults the fundamental principle, underlying all the other principles, is respect for the dignity of each person as a human being. The laws, procedures and practices relating to the protection of incapable adults shall be based on respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms, taking into account any qualifications on those rights contained in the relevant international legal instruments.
Principle 2 — Flexibility in legal response
I . The measures of protection and other legal arrangements available for the protection of the personal and economic interests of incapable adults should be sufficient, in scope or flexibility, to enable a suitable legal response to be made to different degrees of incapacity and various situations.
3. The law should provide for simple and inexpensive measures of protection or other legal arrangements.
4. The range of measures of protection should include, in appropriate cases, those which do not restrict the legal capacity of the person concerned.
5. I he range of measures of protection should include those which are limited to one specific act without requiring the appointment of a representative or a representative with continuing powers.
6. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of measures under which the appointed person acts jointly with the adult concerned, and of measures involving the appointment of more than one representative.
7. Consideration should be given to the need to provide for, and regulate, legal arrangements which a person who is still capable can take to provide for any subsequent incapacity.
8. Consideration should be given to the need to provide expressly that certain decisions, particularly those of a minor or routine nature relating to health or personal welfare, may be taken for an incapable adult by those deriving their powers from the law rather than from a judicial or administrative measure.
Principle 3 — Maximum preservation of capacity
1. 'the legislative framework should, so far as possible, recognise that different degrees of incapacity may exist and that incapacity may vary from time to time. Accordingly, a measure of protection should not result automatically in a complete removal of legal capacity. However, a restriction of legal capacity should be possible where it is shown to be necessary for the protection of the person concerned.
2. In particular, a measure of protection should not automatically deprive the person concerned of the right to vote, or to make a will, or to consent or refuse consent to any intervention in the health field, or to make other decisions of a personal character at any time when his or her capacity permits him or her to do so.
3. Consideration should be given to legal arrangements whereby, even when representation in a particular area is necessary, the adult may be permitted, with the representative's consent, to undertake specific acts or acts in a specific area.
4. Whenever possible the adult should be enabled to enter into legally effective transactions of an everyday nature.
Principle 4 — Publicity
The disadvantage of automatically giving publicity to measures of protection or similar legal arrangements should be weighed in the balance against any protection which might be afforded to the adult concerned or to third parties.
Principle 5 — Necessity and subsidiarny
1. No measure of protection should be established for an incapable adult unless the measure is necessary, taking into account the individual circumstances and the needs of the person concerned. A measure of protection may be established, however, with the full and free consent of the person concerned.
2. In deciding whether a measure of protection is necessary, account should be taken of any less formal arrangements which might be made, and of any assistance which might be provided by family members or by others.
Principle 6 -. Proportionality
1. Where a measure of protection is necessary it should be proportional to the degree of capacity of the person concerned and tailored to the individual circumstances and needs of the person concerned.
2. The measure of protection should interfere with the legal capacity, rights and freedoms of the person concerned to the minimum extent which is consistent with achieving the purpose of the intervention.
Principle 7 – Procedural fairness and efficiency
1. There should be fair and efficient procedures for the taking of measures for the protection of incapable adults.
2. There should be adequate procedural safeguards to protect the human rights of the persons concerned and to prevent possible abuses.
Principle 8 – Paramountcy of interests and welfare of the person concerned
1. In establishing or implementing a measure of protection for an incapable adult the interests and welfare of that person should be the paramount consideration.
2. This principle implies, in particular, that the choice of any person to represent or assist an incapable adult should be governed primarily by the suitability of that person to safeguard and promote the adult's interests and welfare.
3. 'This principle also implies that the property of the incapable adult should be managed and used for the benefit of the person concerned and to secure his or her welfare.
Principle 9 – Respect for wishes and feelings of the person concerned
1. In establishing or implementing a measure of protection for an incapable adult the past and present wishes and feelings of the adult should be ascertained so far as possible, and should be taken into account and given due respect.
2. This principle implies, in particular, that the wishes of the adult as to the choice of any person to represent or assist him or her should be taken into account and, as far as possible, given due respect.
3. It also implies that a person representing or assisting an incapable adult should give him or her adequate information, whenever this is possible and appropriate, in particular concerning any major decision affecting him or her, so that he or she may express a view.
Principle 10 – Consultation
In the establishment and implementation of a measure of protection there should be consultation, so far as reasonable and practicable, with those having a close interest in the welfare of the adult concerned, whether as representative, close family member or otherwise. It is for national law to determine which persons should be consulted and the effects of consultation or its absence.
Part III – Procedural principles
Principle 11– Institution of proceedings
1. The list of those entitled to institute proceedings for the taking of measures for the protection of incapable adults should be sufficiently wide to ensure that measures of protection can be considered in all cases where they are necessary. It may, in particular, be necessary to provide for proceedings to be initiated by a public official or body, or by the court or other competent authority on its own motion.
2. The person concerned should be informed promptly in a language, or by other means, which he or she understands of the institution of proceedings which could affect his or her legal capacity, the exercise of his or her rights or his or her interests unless such information would be manifestly without meaning to the person concerned or would present a severe danger to the health of the person concerned.
Principle 12 – Investigation and assessment
1. There should be adequate procedures for the investigation and assessment of the adult's personal faculties.
2. No measure of protection which restricts the legal capacity of an incapable adult should be taken unless the person taking the measure has seen the adult or is personally satisfied as to the adult's condition and an up-to-date report from at least one suitably qualified expert has been submitted. The report should be in writing or recorded in writing.
Principle 13 – Right to be heard in person
The person concerned should have the right to be heard in person in any proceedings which could affect his or her legal capacity.
Principle 14 – Duration, review and appeal
1. Measures of protection should, whenever possible and appropriate, be of limited duration. Consideration should be given to the institution of periodical reviews.
2. Measures of protection should be reviewed on a change of circumstances and, in particular, on a change in the adult's condition. They should be terminated if the conditions for them are no longer fulfilled.
3. I here should be adequate rights of appeal.
Principle 15 Provisional measures in case of emergency
If a provisional measure is needed in a case of emergency, principles 11 to 14 should be applicable as far as possible according to the circumstances.
1. National law should address the questions of the remuneration and the reimbursement of expenses of those appointed to represent or assist incapable adults.
Principle 16 -- Adequate control
There should be adequate control of the operation of measures of protection and of the acts and decisions of representatives.
Principle 17 – Qualified persons
1. Steps should be taken with a view to providing an adequate number of suitably qualified persons for the representation and assistance of incapable adults.
2. Consideration should be given, in particular, to the establishment or support of associations or other bodies with the function of providing and training such people.
Part IV – The role of representatives
Principle 18 – Control of powers arising by operation of law
1. Consideration should be given to the need to ensure that any powers conferred on any person by operation of law, without the intervention of a judicial or administrative authority, to act or take decisions on behalf of an incapable adult are limited and their exercise controlled.
2. The conferment of any such powers should not deprive the adult of legal capacity.
3. Any such powers should be capable of being modified or terminated at any time by a measure of protection taken by a judicial or administrative authority.
4. Principles 8 to 10 apply to the exercise of such powers as they apply to the implementation of measures of protection.
Principle 19 – Limitation of powers of representatives
1. It is for national law to determine which juridical acts are of such a highly personal nature that they can not be done by a representative.
2. It is also for national law to determine whether decisions by a representative on certain serious matters should require the specific approval of a court or other body.
Principle 20 - Liability
1. Representatives should be liable, in accordance with national law, for any loss or damage caused by them to incapable adults while exercising their functions.
2. In particular, the laws on liability for wrongful acts, negligence or maltreatment should apply to representatives and others involved in the affairs of incapable adults.
Principle 21 - Remuneration and expenses
3. The law should provide for remedies allowing the person concerned to be heard by an independent official body before any important medical intervention is carried out.2. Distinctions may be made between those acting in a professional capacity and those acting in other capacities, and between the management of personal matters of the incapable adult and the management of his or her economic matters.
Part V — Interventions in the health field
Principle 22 — Consent
1. Where an adult, even if subject to a measure of protection, is in fact capable of giving free and informed consent to a given intervention in the health field, the intervention may only be carried out with his or her consent. The consent should be solicited by the person empowered to intervene.
2. Where an adult is not in fact capable of giving free and informed consent to a given intervention, the intervention may, nonetheless, be carried out provided that:
— it is for his or her direct benefit, and
authorisation has been given by his or her representative or by an authority or a person or body provided for by law.
3. Consideration should be given to the designation by the law of appropriate authorities, persons or bodies for the purpose of authorising interventions of different types, when adults who are incapable of giving free and informed consent do not have a representative with appropriate powers. Consideration should also be given to the need to provide for the authorisation of a court or other competent body in the case of certain serious types of intervention.
4. Consideration should be given to the establishment of mechanisms for the resolution of any conflicts between persons or bodies authorised to consent or refuse consent to interventions in the health field in relation to adults who are incapable of giving consent.
Principle 23 -- Consent (alternative rules)
if the government of a member state does not apply the rules contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Principle 22, the following rules should be applicable:
Where an adult is subject to a measure of protection under which a given intervention in the health field can be carried out only with the authorisation of a body or a person provided for by law, the consent of the adult should nonetheless be sought if he or she has the capacity to give it.
2. Where, according to the law, an adult is not in a position to give free and informed consent to an intervention in the health field, the intervention may nonetheless be carried out if:
— it is for his or her direct benefit, and
— authorisation has been given by his or her representative or by an authority or a person or body provided for by law.
Principle 24 — Exceptional cases
1. Special rules may be provided by national law, in accordance with relevant international instruments, in relation to interventions which, because of their special nature, require the provision of additional protection for the person concerned.
2. Such rules may involve a limited derogation from the criterion of direct benefit provided that the additional protection is such as to minimise the possibility of any abuse or irregularity.
Principle 25 — Protection of adults with a mental disorder
Subject to protective conditions prescribed by law, including supervisory, control and appeal procedures, an adult who has a mental disorder of a serious nature may be subjected, without his or her consent, to an intervention aimed at treating his or her mental disorder only where, without such treatment, serious harm is likely to result to his or her health.
Principle 26 — Permissibility of intervention in emergency situation
When, because of an emergency situation, the appropriate consent or authorisation cannot be obtained, any medically necessary intervention may be carried out immediately for the benefit of the health of the person concerned.
Principle 27 — Applicability of certain principles applying to measures of protection
1. Principles 8 to 10 apply to any intervention in the health field concerning an incapable adult as they apply to measures of protection.
2. In particular, and in accordance with principle 9, the previously expressed wishes relating to a medical intervention by a patient who is not, at the time of the intervention, in a state to express his or her wishes should be taken into account.
Principle 28 -- Permissibility of special rules on certain matters
Special rules may be provided by national law, in accordance with relevant international instruments, in relation to interventions which are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of public safety, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others.


Note: This is from OCR'ing a scanned text. It has not been checked. Please check the original.
 
  Mental Capacity and Adoption
In working on an ECtHR application which hopefully over time we will publish I have reviewed X v Croatia that refers to two pieces of international law (nothing to do with the EU). The European Convention on Adoption is one. This shows how far out of line England is on these issues. The second is Principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults this is not available in a text form although I am going to try to run it through an OCR and post it later. In England we seem to use the mental capacity process to remove rights from people rather than protect their rights.
 
  Election Results 7th August 2008
Maldon DC, Maldon North
Con 339 (40.8; -8.2)
Green 200 (24.1; +24.1)
Ind 115 (13.9; +13.9)
BNP 107 (12.9; +12.9)
Ind 69 (8.3; +8.3)
[Independent Maldon Democratic Alliance (0.0; -51.0)]
Majority 139
Turnout 26.5%
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2007

Nottingham City UA, Wollaton West
Con 2769 (62.2; +15.6)
Lab 1042 (23.4; +3.0)
LD Glyn Johns 424 (9.5; -4.5)
UKIP 220 (4.9; -3.5)
[Church of the Militant Elvis Party (0.0; -2.0)]
[Green (0.0; -8.7)]
Majority 1727
Turnout 41.3%
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2007

Richmondshire DC, Newsham with Eppleby
Con 295 (59.4; -40.6)
LD Amanda Adams 130 (26.2; +26.2)
Ind 72 (14.5; +14.5)
Majority 165
Turnout 46.8%
Con hold
Con elected unopposed in May 2007

From Janet Battye: -

Hebden Royd TC, West End
LD Chris Sawer 176
Lab 131
Majority 45
Turnout 29.7%
LD gain from Lab
 
  Capacity to Litigate
The abuse of the provisions relating to the "capacity to instruct" a solicitor continues in the Family Division. It appears now that this is a special trick used by some social workers and legal departments to prevent people from fighting the system.
 
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
  X v Croatia
The link is to the judgment on Bailii. It raises some interesting questions as to the merits of appointing the official solicitor to remove individuals' rights as to act in family cases.
 
Sunday, August 03, 2008
  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.
 
Friday, August 01, 2008
  Results: Thursday 31st July 2008.
Cardiff UA, Pentyrch
Con 554 (41.9; -7.8)
Lab 542 (41.0; +10.2)
PC 129 (9.8; -10.0)
LD Alex Evans 97 (7.3; -0.6)
[Ind (0.0; -7.1)]
Majority 12
Turnout 48.2%
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2008

Cherwell DC, Kirtlington
Con Elected Unopposed (100.0; +26.6)
[LD (0.0; -26.6)]
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2006

Gateshead MBC, Whickham South and Sunniside
LD John McClurey 1612 (72.5; +4.4)
Lab 394 (17.7; +4.2)
Con 217 (9.8; -8.6)
Majority 1218
Turnout 32.3%
LD hold
Percentage change is since May 2008

Lincolnshire CC, Louth Wolds
Con 1013 (49.9; +13.5)
Ind 361 (17.8; -0.6)
LD Eric Needham 304 (15.0; -18.4)
BNP 219 (10.8; +10.8)
Lab 75 (3.7; +3.7)
UKIP 59 (2.9; -9.0)
Majority 652
Turnout 31.9%
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2005

Oadby and Wigston BC, Oadby Uplands
LD Samia Haq 774 (55.3; +1.0)
Con 625 (44.7; +16.4)
[Lab (0.0; -17.5)]
Majority 149
Turnout 40.3%
LD hold
Percentage change is since May 2007

Suffolk Coastal DC, Witnesham
Con 316 (53.7; -28.8)
LD Andrew Houseley 272 (46.3; +46.3)
[Lab (0.0; -17.5)]
Majority 44
Turnout 36.2%
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2007
 
  Surreal Government response to Haut de la Garenne
I have encountered a wide range of political responses to things, but yesterday's conference call with Michael Wills MP has to take the biscuit.

Here we have a situation in which a Crown Dependency's police investigation has clearly found evidence of 5 children whose bodies have been disposed of unlawfully and concealed in a childrens home.

We have a large number of witnesses to various forms of child abuse. Although three people have been charged there is a list of 5 people where the prosecution process has been halted. Jersey is a Crown Dependency that gives the Privy Council a power to intervene.

Senator Stuart Syvret, Austin Mitchell MP and I arranged a conference call to discuss this issue with Michael Wills MP (Minister for the Crown Dependencies). Michael Wills' response was to say that he didn't want to explain the government's view unless there was a meeting with all three of us present. He know that Austin was in the USA until September. Austin was quite happy for the meeting to proceed without him.

Obviously the government want to delay saying anything. However, this was a really silly political tactic. All they have done is to refuse to state their position and given specious reasons for this. The Minister also said that we should not comment publicly about it. I am not falling for that one.

We had put the Judicial Review of the Privy Council on hold. During the meeeting I took it off hold by email.
 

Click Here for access to higher resolution versions of the photos The license for use allows use of the photos by media as long as they are attributed.

better brent chart

ARCHIVES
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 / 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 / 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 / 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 / 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 / 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 / 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 / 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 / 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 / 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 / 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 / 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 / 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 / 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 / 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 / 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 / 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 / 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 / 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 / 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 / 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 / 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 / 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 / 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 / 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 / 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 / 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 / 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 / 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 / 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 / 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 / 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 / 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 / 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 / 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 / 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 / 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 / 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 / 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 / 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 / 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 / 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 / 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 / 01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010 / 02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010 / 03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010 / 04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010 / 05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010 / 06/01/2010 - 07/01/2010 / 07/01/2010 - 08/01/2010 / 08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010 / 09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010 / 10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010 / 11/01/2010 - 12/01/2010 / 12/01/2010 - 01/01/2011 / 01/01/2011 - 02/01/2011 / 02/01/2011 - 03/01/2011 / 03/01/2011 - 04/01/2011 / 04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011 / 05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011 / 06/01/2011 - 07/01/2011 / 07/01/2011 - 08/01/2011 / 08/01/2011 - 09/01/2011 / 09/01/2011 - 10/01/2011 / 10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011 / 11/01/2011 - 12/01/2011 / 12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012 / 01/01/2012 - 02/01/2012 / 02/01/2012 - 03/01/2012 / 03/01/2012 - 04/01/2012 / 04/01/2012 - 05/01/2012 / 05/01/2012 - 06/01/2012 / 06/01/2012 - 07/01/2012 / 07/01/2012 - 08/01/2012 / 08/01/2012 - 09/01/2012 / 09/01/2012 - 10/01/2012 / 10/01/2012 - 11/01/2012 / 11/01/2012 - 12/01/2012 / 12/01/2012 - 01/01/2013 / 01/01/2013 - 02/01/2013 / 02/01/2013 - 03/01/2013 / 03/01/2013 - 04/01/2013 / 04/01/2013 - 05/01/2013 / 05/01/2013 - 06/01/2013 / 06/01/2013 - 07/01/2013 / 07/01/2013 - 08/01/2013 / 08/01/2013 - 09/01/2013 / 09/01/2013 - 10/01/2013 / 10/01/2013 - 11/01/2013 / 11/01/2013 - 12/01/2013 / 12/01/2013 - 01/01/2014 / 01/01/2014 - 02/01/2014 / 02/01/2014 - 03/01/2014 / 03/01/2014 - 04/01/2014 / 04/01/2014 - 05/01/2014 / 05/01/2014 - 06/01/2014 / 06/01/2014 - 07/01/2014 / 07/01/2014 - 08/01/2014 / 08/01/2014 - 09/01/2014 /


Powered by Blogger

Published, promoted, and printed (well not really printed I suppose, more like typed) by John Hemming, 1772 Coventry Road, Birmingham B26 1PB. Hosted by blogspot.com part of Google.com 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043, United States of America. This blog is posted by John Hemming in his personal capacity as an individual.

Site Feed

If you want me to respond to any comment please either comment only on the past few entries or put something in your comment to make it clear what you are commenting on (the URL would help). Otherwise I will not be able to find the comment quickly and will not respond.

Links
Links (c) Peter Black (mainly Lib Dem)
Site
Meter eXTReMe Tracker