John Hemming's Web Log

The following is from WEST Midlands Police and benefits constituents who have 125cc Motorbikes Motorbike marking a UK first WEST Midlands Police are the first force in the UK to offer free motorcycle DNA marking for cyclists in a bid to beat bike thieves. Thieves are stealing 125cc motorcycles and breaking them up for parts. The parts, which are not individually marked, are then sold on making them difficult to trace and, if recovered, hard to reunite with their owners. In what is believed to be the first initiative of its kind in the UK, the Force have teamed up with six motorcycle dealers across the region to offer free DNA motorcycle marking. Each of the dealers has 150 marking kits, paid for by money under the Proceeds of Crime Act. The kits, which normally retail at about £30, consist of a bottle of DNA fluid, with which each part of the bike is painted.  This fluid dries and is not detectable by eye but contains micro dots that are then uniq...

The Lobbying Bill returned to the commons and the following lords amendments were agreed:  Increasing the spending limits in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the levels originally set out in the Bill, giving an uplift of £20,000 to each nation. . Removing all burdens from low-spending participants in a campaigning coalition by allowing larger campaigners to provide a single report on their behalf.  . Removing the requirement for a return, or a nil return, in relation to spending returns, donations reports and statement of accounts, if a recognised third party has not spent above the registration threshold.  . A review of the effects of the provisions of Part 2 of the Bill to report following the 2015 General Election, to ensure the regulatory system remains effective and proportionate. . Reducing the length of the 2014/2015 regulated period during which campaigners have to limit their expenditure from 12 to 7 ½ months, meaning it will now start after the...

First off, I would again like to thank to the British politician John Hemming MP, who notified me during the search for adequate solution in the case of Boor on the possibility for the Slovak Republic to enter into the proceedings before English courts as a third party. The judgment of Sir James Munby confirms that such approach of the Slovak Republic was accurate. It is a challenge also for the other countries claiming not to be able to help their citizens facing separation of children from their parents without relevant reasons in the United Kingdom, to intervening actively in a such proceedings before the family courts. At the same time it is very important for the intervening country to assess the cases also with regard to the ECHR case law. I remind that the PACE on 30 November 2012 adopted a resolution where it stressed that the children should be separated from their parents only in very exceptional circumstances. The adoption of the resolution was ba...

Further to our work and the petition that was raised on this matter last year, we recently met with a representative from Birmingham Community Safety Partnership and local Police Inspector James Gooderidge to discuss developments in how safety concerns on the A45 could be addressed. We presented the views of our constituents who have conscientiously written letters and emails to our office and from this, the following points have now been forwarded to the BCC Highways Department to look into further; The Tesco lane merger down towards to pedestrian crossing near Yew Tree Lane Visibility for  drivers on the A45 into City (at the traffic light junction with the Bill & Bull onwards) there are 4 lanes of traffic to cross and only a single traffic light column on either side Increased signage for pedestrians near to shops, parks etc to inform them where crossing are located. (i.e pedestrian crossing 50 meters this way → ) Continued monitoring of the data to as...

WOMEN AGAINST RAPE We are increasingly concerned about social services removing children from their mothers, especially after the mothers faced domestic violence. Mothers have come to us who, instead of getting support, were blamed for the situation and had their children taken into care or even adopted. In some cases, the children were given to the father without a thorough and independent investigation of the violence allegations. Mums are then sent to prison for breaking contact or gagging orders in order to defend their children and their relationship with them. At the same time, women and children who ask for protection are being raped and even murdered following neglect by police and social services. The benefit cap is also trapping women and children in violent relationship, impoverishing those who escape. See our petition about this: here To remove children from their mother or other primary carer is in itself irreparable child abuse and should never be undertak...

Today Face the Facts went into more detail about the various networks across Europe that are helping refugees from the English and Welsh Family Courts. It is a good programme and worth listening to. This and Panorama from Monday are, however, only one side of the argument. The key objective of the Child Protection System is to protect children. One way of measuring how well the system is doing is to consider how many children are dying from child abuse and neglect. There are a number of sources of information. One I use is the number of prosecutions for manslaughter or murder of a child (Baby P's). In 2011 according to the CPS there were 16, in 2012 there were 19 and in 2013 there were 34. There are also significant incident notifications sent to Ofsted. However, Ofsted have now decided that they will refuse to give me the anonymised list (something they have done up to 2012). This gives a larger number as obviously there will be cases where a child has died, but there i...

Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services PRESS RELEASE 13 January 2013 AIMS, run entirely by volunteers, has been a national pressure group for 53 years, for expectant and new parents. Because our help-line is totally confidential, we are trusted with a great deal of information which parents no longer give to doctors, midwives and nurses because information about children is now shared. Without their knowledge, every pregnant woman (and expectant father) is screened by the NHS to see if they may be a risk to the child, and they are monitored for risk factors like previous mental illness, domestic violence, being a teenager, unemployed, homeless, a former or current drug user, etc. They are then automatically referred to social services, who may hold child protection planning meetings before the baby is born. At a time when both the current and previous government demanded increased adoption numbers, and newborn babies are the most wanted and adoptable...

It is an error to say that because there are more children in care that there are "more children protected". a) The most important question is whether or not we are seeing a reduction in children being subjected to serious abuse. In particular those children that die from child abuse and neglect. b) The secondary point is that it is not true to say that just because a child is in care that that child is "protected". The situation in care at times is worse than it was whilst with the family.

The advice for pregnant women to emigrate to get a fair trial is nothing new. There are many cases of people who have emigrated (particularly pregnant women). I would highlight two cases (although there are others on my blog). A. Michelle Freedman whose case was reported here . It is important to note that she is a family court barrister. I tabled an EDM about her case here which says: That this House notes the withdrawal of care proceedings against Michelle Freedman by Barnet Council; further notes that Barnet Council has caused psychological harm to Michelle's elder daughter; further notes that had she not left UK jurisdiction both her daughters would have suffered further psychological harm; further notes that Ms Freedman is a family court barrister with over 10 years' experience and she left the jurisdiction because she was aware through her experience of similar cases that any local authority in this situation would be likely to invent allegations against her in or...

I have received a number of complaints recently about the failure of street cleaning across Yardley (and a considerable number specifically from Acocks Green). My constituents have asked why Solihull MDC can keep the streets clean, but not Birmingham. The Labour Party would like to say "money". Well I have the estimated budgets for the next financial year (which starts on 1st April 2014). For the next financial year Birmingham will be spending (including government grant) around £2,587.09 per dwelling and Solihull will be spending only £1,831.52 per dwelling. Hence Birmingham hasn't got enough money when it gets £700 per dwelling more than Solihull. Solihull has enough money. Birmingham does, however, have enough money to spend tens of millions of pounds on wheelie bins. Politics is about choices. Labour, now they have control of the city council, have clearly decided to accept rubbish on the streets. The Labour administration in Birmingham need to wake up and s...

For those that follow this issue. Stuart Syvret who as health minister in Jersey blew the whistle on maltreatment of children has been released from prison again. He was imprisoned for what he said. Yes I know it was contempt of court, but at the end of the day the offence was one of speech. Specifically speech criticising the failure of the authorities in Jersey to prosecute certain individuals. There is a blog posting about this with a short interview with him here

This story in The Independent looks at the issues of the variability of capacity proceedings (both in the court of protection, but more widely). The nub of the issue is that the interests of the state tend to predominate over people's wishes. Quoting from the article: Lawyers believe that patients who make controversial decisions are left vulnerable to the court assuming they lack capacity. “We have the impression that where decisions a person makes are contentious, there is often a swift conclusion that the person lacks capacity, and substituted decisions are made for them,” they wrote.

I have been contacted by a number of people to ask why I have been put on the naughty step by Mumsnet. There are a number of online fora in which I debate issues relevant to public policy. One is mumsnet.com another one is netmums.com . On Mumsnet there is poster whose user id is "spero". She happens to be a family court barrister who tweets as SVPhillimore . She and I have had a few disagreements in the past which are not worth going into. However, I posted the link above (the twitter link) on the mumsnet forum and a couple of other similar twitter links which were linking to the debate. Mumsnet then suspended my account saying: Hi, John. We're getting in touch as we've received a couple of reports about your posts on the 'child taken from the womb' thread, http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/a1938715-Child-taken-from-womb-Truth-into-darkness. It is against our talk guidelines (http://www.mumsnet.com/info/netiquette) to post information which...

On Wednesday there was an opposition debate. The motion can be found here and it said: That this House notes that the number of people using foodbanks provided by the Trussell Trust alone has increased from 41,000 in 2010 to more than 500,000 since April this year, of whom one third were children; further notes that over the last three years prices have risen faster than wages; further notes the assessment of the Trussell Trust that the key factors in the rising resort to foodbanks are rising living costs and stagnant wages, as well as problems including delays to social security payments and the impact of the under-occupancy penalty; calls on the Government to publish the results of research into foodbanks commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Ministers promised would be made public in the summer of 2013; and further calls on the Government to bring forward measures to reduce dependency on foodbanks, including a freeze on energy prices, a water...

A Local Authority v C 2013 is a case where a mother has not been told anything about the case, but essentially the police are authorised to remove the child at birth. The key about this is that there is no-one arguing the mother's side of the argument. The allegations made by the state are essentially something that are allowed to stand without any challenge. If, as is asserted in this case, someone is to be considered incapable of looking after her child then why also do they encourage her to get pregnant and hold out to her the chance of looking after the child. However, the nub of this is I would like to hear the mother's view on these issues as to what is true. suesspiciousminds has a good look at this and concludes: I have some problems with this judgment and decision (not as a matter of law, the Judge followed Re D and balanced things but as a matter of principle and human rights). The remedy here for the removal at birth is that the mother has the opportunity to...

Professor Kennedy's report into the practice of Ian Patterson at Heartlands Hospital has just been released.  It is a good report and demonstrates how confidentiality can at times be used to protect the interests of the powerful. The problem is a more general culture of the Health Service to cover things up rather than resolve issues. I have two cases at Heartlands Hospital where whistle-blowers have found themselves subject to disciplinary action.  I have raised these with the hospital, but am unhappy with the response from the hospital.  The whistleblowing does not relate to the care of patients, but the same principles apply. From his report: 14.36 It is wrong, as well as pointless, to seek to control the flow of information to outside bodies so as to contain the impact of any particular event or set of circumstances. It prevents others from taking appropriate measures. It ensures that partial information will emerge in an unsystematic manner, thereby damagin...

A constituent approached me in 2011 raising concerns about the failure to consider the new evidence  It seemed that this should be considered and the court of appeal has now considered this.  On behalf of my constituent I spent some time working with his lawyer to get the CCRC to consider this aspect of the case. I am mainly concerned about two things directly relating to the appeal: a) How long it took for this evidence to be considered as part of an appeal.  This is an issue as to how the CCRC works. b) That the system continues to punish people who maintain their innocence. Both of these issues need to be considered. This is in fact the third criminal appeal I have assisted with where the defendant was found either to be not guilty or to have been wrongly sentenced.  There are other aspects of the process that cause me concern.  One is that the barrister who handles the case at the court of first instance is the person who also writes the opinion as t...

I have been getting emails from constituents claiming that I am known to support the Pilot Cull.  This confused me because I thought I had voted against.  It is, of course possible, that I had made a mistake so I checked. It is quite clear from Public Whip here that I did rebel on the issue on an opposition day motion. And I voted in support of the words: "That this House believes the badger cull should not go ahead." I am trying to find out which organisation is saying otherwise, but it does not help when campaigners get their facts wrong on basic things like this. I know that opposition day first votes are a bit confusing in that the procedural resolution is in support of the original words remaining part of the motion hence to vote against any amendment you actually vote "aye". That, however, is the way it is.

I was intending to write more on this and issues relating to VBAC. Instead I will refer to two posts written on Birthrights and Mental Health and Capacity Law which explain the situation well. I will also refer to the following comments by AIMS. The decision to have a Vaginal Birth after Caesarean (VBAC) had been a huge issue in our postbag and maternity care for a long time, and is very much associated with women's desire for control, and also their mental health. Originally the obstetricians policy was "once a caesarean, always a caesarean" and it was women themselves - particularly here, but also in the US - who wanted a chance to have a normal birth and many opted out of hospital care in this country to have home births, with private midwives or even no care, because they were pushed into having CS in hospital.  (of course this is not all women's choice - but we support their right to choose whatever it may be)  Finally both the ACOG in the States...

The judiciary have now published the judgment in respect of the Caesarean. It is here . I remain concerned that it does not appear that she was told that this was being proposed. If it is true that she had previously elected to have a Caesarean then it sounds odd that she was not asked on this occasion, but instead driven through a legal and medical procedure in which she had no input. I remain worried about how mental capacity is removed and it does not appear that the representative of the official solicitor who was "representing her interests" actually spoke to her. One would think that if she had been asked she would have agreed given that she agreed previously. Reading between the lines of the judgment the main issue appears to have been that she did not want to give birth in England. (understandably in retrospect) There are a number of questions about the details of the judgment. (such as what her condition actually was, whether she was being treated for the wro...