Skip to main content

Agony Aunts and Journalists to speak to MPs

A group of Agony Aunts and Journalists will be speaking to MPs in a meeting on 25th February 2009 at 2.30pm to explain why they believe the care system and Family Courts in England is not working properly and needs more attention than the government is giving it.

House of Commons Committee Room 17 – 2.30pm.

Camilla Cavendish (The Times), Sue Reid (The Daily Mail), Denise Robertson (Agony Aunt - ITV's This Morning) will be talking to MPs.

Other journalists and Agony Aunts that support the group include journalists Cassandra Jardine (Daily Telegraph), Kate Hilpern (Freelance working for Guardian and Independent), Ben Leapman (Sunday Telegraph), Ian Griggs (Independent on Sunday) and Agony Aunts Lorraine Kelly (Best), Dr Pam Spurr (MSN and The Times), Keren Smedley (Womens Weekly), Jane O'Gorman (Daily Star, Sunday Express 'S' Magazine and Daily Star On Sunday) Susan Quilliam (That's Life Magazine) and Jane Butterworth (News of the World).

Proposals that will be suggested for improving the system improve:
Allowing social workers more time to see children and families and less time in front of computers
Continue progress towards transparency in the family courts
Allow parents to have a second opinion
Provide public support for appeals and contesting care orders
Provide some public support for Mackenzie Friends
Expert evidence should only come from regulated professionals
All hearings should have anonymous judgments
Clayton v Clayton should not be reversed
Serious Case Review chairs should be independent and appointed indepedently
National guidance is needed to define what "risk of significant harm" means
The extended family should be listened to and involved.

Comments

Andrew said…
The agenda sounds perfect.

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…