Skip to main content

Secret Jailing in Birmingham

This case which is a public judgment involves the imprisonment of a woman for taking her father to see a solicitor.

Firstly, people should not be imprisoned in secret. That is a clear contravention of the rules of the court.

On the 12 October 2012 many of the old rules relating to committal were taken out of the rules of the supreme court see this. However, rule 81 was updated and states:
The hearing
(5) If the court hearing an application in private decides to make a committal order against the respondent, it will in public state –
(a) the name of the respondent;
(b) in general terms, the nature of the contempt of court in respect of which the committal order is being made; and
(c) the length of the period of the committal order.

This has not been done.

Secondly, people should not be imprisoned for attempting to get legal advice for someone else.

This is looked at in more detail on The Witchfinder General.
The same judge (HHJ Cardinal) has been part on two separate occasions of trying to stop people talking to me (their MP).


Jake Maverick said…
at the risk of sounding paranoid, this one sounds almost like a honey trap with those initials pointed directly at me...consdiering the worse started for me with Shefifeld City Council (suepcted employess of anyway)

"That’s the attitude of someone who is simply not going to obey court orders."

a decent honourable person then who will do everything she can to protect herself and family?
I 'refused to accept service' also froms ome yob who refyued to identify himself, it was only after the yob through a large binder at me and i looked inside i started to suspect he might be a govt employee...but regardless, they refuse to abide by the occasional order made against them what is the point?
did this judge even speak to the father? sound sto me like he's also being held in prison...I can't believe anybody would willingly be held in one of those places...

I don't buy this one somehow. state employees usual ways of silencing people is just sectioning them, planting drugs on or just murdering also seems highly unusual that you have actually obtained the name of the main perp!
how can you appeal against be sectioned anyway? it's not possible...

this all sounds a lil bit fishy to me....but in other news it seems that a young woman REALLY has been jailed for ten years, for being on the toilet. house burned down and one of her children was injured- cosntitutes neglect apparently! she certainly seems to have disappeared off face of planet...I have no way of finding out.

but at least if you have the perps name and where he/ she lives there'sstill the possibility of a private prsecution...if you have the reources. i can barely afford this rusty old hammer i sleep with...but even i escape the initial assault when they come crashing through the door again my only hoe is to kill myself before being taken alive again, and if u believe the rumours that is illegal to....

and if it is now considered a crime Or at least illegal) to speak to a3solicitor then why aren't all these solicitors being jailed (who advertise) for insitigating soembody to commit a criminal offence? um?

you'l be extraditing people to be tortured next on the basis of talking/ instigating people to defend themselves next...oh, you've already done least what Gary M was alleged to have done was illegal, bit over ten years of that was way OTT, at best....

you almost sounded like u were against this sort of thing there how can you stomach being on the govts payroll?
talking about it never actually achieves anything. you have to do far more than talk to achieve anything in this world...and you're abusinessman to?
Jake Maverick said…
i used to think it was even possible to be sent to a govt prison without a jury being involved or being accused of doing soemthing that is illegal....

what a bizarre notion! was it ever true? seriously question, hoping for an answer?
Jake Maverick said…

much more cost effective away of dealing with these problem people and kinder to your victims...

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. …

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…

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…