Skip to main content

Judges miss the point on Second Opinions

The link is to today's judgment in the Webster case. It should not require an application to the court of appeal for someone to ask around to find if there is an alternative legal position.

This creates a mass of legal costs and a substantial procedural threshold to get what is relatively straightforward.

Second opinions should be available as of right.

Comments

moira said…
Why can't they have their children returned? Why can't the children have their say in all of this.

It seems more about pleasing adopters again than doing what is right.

What is the point of admitting to a miscarriage of justice if there is no justice in the end.

children have been returned after 2 years in care. If the process wasnt so slow they could have got them back.

If the relatives had looked after the children they could have gone back to their parents.Social Services tactics are too make weak excuses for not allowing children to go to relatives,thus making sure the children will never see their parents again.

Draconian state.
Andrew said…
I like the way the judges whilst admitting an error occurred (in a limited way) justified that everything done was “sound”.

The judges can side with you but against you at the same time, it does not make sense.
McKenzief said…
Where is the judgement about 2nd opinions...the European Court judgement that allows 2nd opinions? well done for bringing this to the notice of the world. Yes 'experts' are beholden to Cafcass who give them work and yes in turn they write what the officer/guardian demands. a new judgement comes out next week re Contempt of Guardian in an application to dismiss a Guardian, heard by The President as it was his rules that were broken (well the judgement will say rules were broken or they were not - if not its fudged!).

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: