Skip to main content

Bill of Rights debate yesterday including hyperinjunctions

The link is to Yesterday's bill of rights debates.

There is no sense me copying the whole of the debate here. You can simply click on the link

The issues looked at are:
1. Freedom of speech
2. Super and hyper-injunctions
3. People's right to talk to MPs
4. The lack of accountability of the official solicitor
5. Problems with secret courts

This will give the video.


BillBen said…
Well done, Mr Hemming. Thank you for highlighting the details of the Bill of Rights.
I would suggest that you now publicise in Parliament every unjust Family Court case that you can, knowing those same corrupt Family Courts will be unable to stop you or pursue you for Contempt Of Court.
All the best.
BillBen said…
Please, Mr Hemming, you need to start proceedings for Contempt of Parliament against various judges, the Official Solicitor and even some social workers. Then, maybe, this would concentrate their minds and ensure some justice.
All the best.
Smoking Hot said…
Well done John, people are spreading the issue that you so admirably high-lighted. Keep up the good work.
Dave H said…
Well done for pointing this out.

In the case where the state threatened to take the child into care if the father talked to you, there is an important issue that if there is danger to the child, care proceedings should be commenced regardless of any communications by the father. If the child is not in danger then surely the state is not acting in the best interests of the child by threatening to remove the child to care. As such, action should be taken against those state officials for such threats in the hope that it might make others think twice.
john said…

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. …

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).


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.

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…

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…