Skip to main content

International Miscarriage of Justice

There is an important extract from John Waters' story
Through the evolution of media custom and practice, however, a situation has developed whereby the very mention of “childcare proceedings” or “family law” is enough to have media lawyers and editors running for cover. Even though it is very often abundantly clear that the only purpose being served by a blanket suppression of information is the protection of judges, lawyers, State agencies and professionals, media practitioners continue to impose an interpretation of the in camera rule that implicitly assumes these outcomes to be legitimate.

This applies to the irish rules, however.#

He goes on to say
Such interpretations of the legal situation are grossly inimical to the interests of democracy.

Something deeply ugly is happening at the heart of our society and the manner of its governance in the most intimate areas of human life.

If social workers from a foreign jurisdiction are enabled to run whooping and high-fiving from an Irish courtroom because they have been permitted to snatch the child of a blameless Irish mother, is it not time we asked what is happening?

The media offers the only forum in which such questions can be put. Media practitioners therefore have a sacred duty to take their courage in their hands and shine harsh searchlights on those who are empowered to intervene in the intimate lives of citizens to a close-to-absolute degree.

If we cannot report on such matters, why bother reporting anything?

Does it matter whether the economy functions?

Why should we care who sits in Leinster House?

Whatever happened to “publish and be damned”?

Are we journalists or entertainers?

How seriously do we take our role in democratic society?

Are we concerned with the public consequences of the events we write about, or simply seeking adequately interesting material to fill space and time to shift “product”?

Unless journalists and editors are prepared to address these questions, we may as well pull the blinds down on the enterprise of journalism and leave the protection of our democracy to the bloggers and tweeters, who at least have the excuse of having no responsibility for what happens to human freedom.


Jerry said…
If the media were allowed more access to the case rather than just turning up to court and witnessing the odd hearing then I believe the media would report more, when the press enter a court room the situation changes for just that hearing, when the media do not turn up to the subsequent hearings for what ever reasons then the judge allows normal service to resume.

I know theres plenty of Members of Paliamnet and ministers who really want to make a change to the system only they have no clue how to achieve this, what happens then is something else takes over.

Theres a few select comittiees set up and differnt government committees like CARE MATTERS set up and running but these are facing the same problems there's not one simple problem that needs fixing, when they meet every 4 to five months or so its not going to achieve any changes, like the current care review currently being under taken, its going to take at least two years for any minute changes to take effect.

It needs to be tackled head on, the buck stops with the justice system.

Judges who don't judge, Social Workers who don't work and Guardians who don't guard.


Oh yeah the Media would not touch my own case with a barge pole, even though what they see is completely wrong.

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…

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:

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…