As usual he is focussed on the question of media access. This ignores the fact that there are a number of constraints on accountability that include the constraints on the media being involved.
There is the question of professional standards. As it currently stands the Health Professions Council remain of the view that they should not investigate psychologists who are reported by parties to family court cases without the permission of the judge. That is an unacceptable constraint.
Secondly, there is no academic access to the material as of right. That means that each case operates in its own isolated sphere of reality. Specialists cannot audit the evidence given.
Thirdly, when cases some to the court of appeal there is no publication of the original judgment.
Fourthly, the cases are oppressive for individuals who cannot bring in others beyond a mackenzie friend (and often an MF is refused). I remain of the view that anonymous reporting is best. It is, however, possible to achieve this through a number of routes including parliamentary proceedings.
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.