Skip to main content


Showing posts from January, 2012

David Lammy is right about discipline

There has been quite a bit of press reporting about David Lammy's comments about the operation of the care system acting to undermine discipline. Clearly this is not the only reason that the looting occurred, but I know of a number of cases where the care system has undermined parental discipline to the clear and obvious detriment to the children. Hence I agree with him about the principle.

Australian Government Peak Oil Report

The link is to a copy of a report produced by the Australian Government in 2009 which was then as far as I can tell sat on and removed from the list of reports. The summary includes the following: The trends in discovery of oil can be used to project similar trends in the subsequent production of oil. Using a method developed here, forecasts of future oil/liquids production for 40 countries/regions around the world have been produced. The oil production prospects of different countries and regions vary immensely. However, on balance, when an aggregation is done across the globe, it is predicted that world production of conventional oil is currently just past its highest point (conventional oil is oil pumped from wells on land or in water less than 500 metres deep). A predicted shallow decline in the short run should give way to a steeper decline after 2016. However, deep water and non-conventional oil production are growing strongly, turning a slight decline into a plateau for total cr

Court of protection story in The Telegraph

The link is to a story where a local council attempted to stop an elderly lady with dementia from going on a cruise. In this instance the CoP found for the human beings. My experience is that it normally finds for the state however bad the arguments for the state happen to be.

Court of Appeal 'redefine' Liberty

The Court of Appeal Judgement in Cheshire West and Chester v P appears to redefine the concept of deprivation of liberty to exclude disabled people, in effect depriving anyone locked up by social services on the basis of an *alleged* disability of safeguards and appeal rights. This judgment has been criticised in this excellent article by Sam Smith - along with many others including Community Care magazine , 39 Essex Street Chambers and the Mental Health Alliance . I have argued for the reform of the Court of Protection for some time - and this judgement only underscores the serious problems with the system. The Mental Health Alliance will be proposing options for reform in a forthcoming report and it is to be hoped the Department of Health listens. This is one of the most pressing issues facing this country today. Extract from the report here .

(partially) Secret Committal Hearing in Northampton

The link is to a story from Northampton where a mother was given a 28 days suspended sentence for putting information about her case on Facebook. RSC Schedule 1 Order 52 states: (2)If the court hearing an application in private by virtue of paragraph (1) decides to make an order of committal against the person sought to be committed, it shall in public state – (a)the name of that person; (b)in general terms the nature of the contempt of court in respect of which the order of committal is being made; and (c)the length of the period for which he is being committed. I don't have any information about the case apart from what is in the Northampton Chronicle. Clearly the existence of the hearing is not secret, but the identity of the mother is. My own reading of Order 52 is that suspended committal orders are not distinguished from other committal orders. It remains that contempt of court applications are of a criminal nature and for the protection of the rule of law they should invol

Failed Adoptions create more homeless youths (in the USA)

The link is to a story (29/12/2011) in the New York Times about failed adoptions leading to homelessness. The USA started the obsession with adoption as a "solution" to care. They have about 50,000 "adoptions" from care each year. They don't actually track the total adoptions figure as the most recent total figure is from 2001 and is around 127,000. There is a very important distinction between adoption from care in the USA and England. In the USA there is often an adoption fee paid by the state which results in more children being "adopted". The question, of course, is what happens when the money stops. That is also why there are more older adoptions in the USA. In the UK the starting problem is that the care system often makes really silly decisions. We had the story in The Times about adoptees voting with their feet in their teens. It is important to note that this applies to children adopted in the 1990s. Our big push for adoption was from 2

Times Story about Adoption Reversals

The link is to today's story in The Times about adoptions reversing as children get older. There has already been some of this, but with the more aggressive approach to adoption there are many more wrongful adoptions. The story is behind a paywall. I will extract a few quotes The two leading adoption charities are deeply concerned about the big increase in online unplanned contact, which flouts guidelines on contacting adopted children and risks seriously disrupting the lives of already troubled young people. The problem affects children who were taken into care for safeguarding in the 1990s. In the worst cases, children traced by their birth parents suffer a complete breakdown in the relationship with their adoptive family, the charities warn. Research by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering found that 53 per cent of adopted children have used unofficial means, including Facebook, to trace birth parents. A quarter said that the outcome had been unsettling. Where I