Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

ALLOW PARENTS TO CONTEST EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Why is this idea important?

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Judges and Magistrates singing from the same hymn sheet

I'd like to see some evidence that the judiciary adopt a consistent approach to sentencing.

2 years for stealing a bottle of milk compared to 2 months for killing somebody doesn't seem right – I apologise for the exaggeration but there is a general theme there somewhere.

Why is this idea important?

I'd like to see some evidence that the judiciary adopt a consistent approach to sentencing.

2 years for stealing a bottle of milk compared to 2 months for killing somebody doesn't seem right – I apologise for the exaggeration but there is a general theme there somewhere.

MAKE IT EASIER TO PROSECUTE POLICE AND JUDGES

It should be that the law applies to all equally, but it doesn't. Too often we see the police and those within the judiciary get away with doing wrong. In the UK there appears to be a prevalent perception, or rather a misconception under which many people labour, and that is that the police and the judiciary do not make mistakes or do not do so deliberately. That those who enforce the law are actually above it, simply because they work within it. I am constantly amazed by how much the police get away with. Just look at the Menendes shooting or the Stephen Lawrence case – or if you want to go further back, look at those very high profile miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and so on. In each of those cases no police officers were ever prosecuted, even though they had fabricated confessions, beat the accused into giving false confessions and deliberately put innocent people in prison.

And it is not only infamous cases of miscarriages of justice that highlight police failings, miscarriages continue to this day; occurring because the police and even the courts are allowed to ignored vital pieces of information that begin in the police station. The system is not perfect but it does little to prevent miscarriages of justice happening in the first place.

Why is this idea important?

It should be that the law applies to all equally, but it doesn't. Too often we see the police and those within the judiciary get away with doing wrong. In the UK there appears to be a prevalent perception, or rather a misconception under which many people labour, and that is that the police and the judiciary do not make mistakes or do not do so deliberately. That those who enforce the law are actually above it, simply because they work within it. I am constantly amazed by how much the police get away with. Just look at the Menendes shooting or the Stephen Lawrence case – or if you want to go further back, look at those very high profile miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and so on. In each of those cases no police officers were ever prosecuted, even though they had fabricated confessions, beat the accused into giving false confessions and deliberately put innocent people in prison.

And it is not only infamous cases of miscarriages of justice that highlight police failings, miscarriages continue to this day; occurring because the police and even the courts are allowed to ignored vital pieces of information that begin in the police station. The system is not perfect but it does little to prevent miscarriages of justice happening in the first place.

The guilty escaping justice on technical points

The law should be changed/clarified to enable judges to over-rule technical points of law if they think that the balance of justice would be best served by doing so. Thus justice would be based more on right being done instead of rules being absolutely followed. A small change with big effects.

Why is this idea important?

The law should be changed/clarified to enable judges to over-rule technical points of law if they think that the balance of justice would be best served by doing so. Thus justice would be based more on right being done instead of rules being absolutely followed. A small change with big effects.

No testy tempered interruptions by judges in court

Judges, JPs, sheriffs (in Scotland), anyone presiding over a court, may not subject the other participants to interruptions, or to a level of testy temper that is not allowed to be shown back to them.

Everyone who is speaking shall be entitled to finish the sentence, and if they are in mid-explanation, to finish the explanation. The relevance of any explanation to the case may only be judged after it has been given and completed, not in an interruption made when it is still in progress.

It shalle never be contempt of court to stand up to browbeating, impatience, testiness, snapping, from the judge, by yourself treating the judge in exactly the same equal way in return. Thus shall the argument be kept fair.

Why is this idea important?

Judges, JPs, sheriffs (in Scotland), anyone presiding over a court, may not subject the other participants to interruptions, or to a level of testy temper that is not allowed to be shown back to them.

Everyone who is speaking shall be entitled to finish the sentence, and if they are in mid-explanation, to finish the explanation. The relevance of any explanation to the case may only be judged after it has been given and completed, not in an interruption made when it is still in progress.

It shalle never be contempt of court to stand up to browbeating, impatience, testiness, snapping, from the judge, by yourself treating the judge in exactly the same equal way in return. Thus shall the argument be kept fair.

Judges code of conduct and appeal review

There should be a stricter code of conduct for the judges. At the moment the only thing that covers them is they should not be racist or prejudice at all.

Judges should not be allowed to say remarks as 'you have a man of outstanding character with no previous criminal record, but you only have to look in a newspaper and he has been abusing children for years. But put that aside and forget about that!!!!!

If that is not being prejudiced what is. Barristers have said that "they go up to the fence but don't go over it!!!!!" that is leading a jury to find him guilty.

There is a flaw in the legal system and you don't want to admit it. How can an innocent person prove their innocence if there is no evidence on which they have been convicted and the justice system will not go against one of their own. There should be a review of the appeal process.

Jack Straw would not listen, but that is not a surprise considering his knowledge and experience as a judge of the legal system and was one of them. I hope you listen and change the law to protect the innocent.

Why is this idea important?

There should be a stricter code of conduct for the judges. At the moment the only thing that covers them is they should not be racist or prejudice at all.

Judges should not be allowed to say remarks as 'you have a man of outstanding character with no previous criminal record, but you only have to look in a newspaper and he has been abusing children for years. But put that aside and forget about that!!!!!

If that is not being prejudiced what is. Barristers have said that "they go up to the fence but don't go over it!!!!!" that is leading a jury to find him guilty.

There is a flaw in the legal system and you don't want to admit it. How can an innocent person prove their innocence if there is no evidence on which they have been convicted and the justice system will not go against one of their own. There should be a review of the appeal process.

Jack Straw would not listen, but that is not a surprise considering his knowledge and experience as a judge of the legal system and was one of them. I hope you listen and change the law to protect the innocent.

JUDGES MUST BE ELECTED BY PUBLIC

For too long now the criminal justice system has lived by its own rules, in particular the judiciary which enjoys privileges which ensure that true power belongs to only a few. In the present system, judges are 'appointed', usually by their own or other powerful people, like the PM. Instead of open, visible and true democracy, we have like for like choices; all of it done in true cloak and dagger style. We must be allowed to elect judges just as we elect our members of parliament and all of it must be 'visible' for it to be credible.

The judiciary need a fundamental shake up. If everyone has had one, it is more than high time they did too.

Why is this idea important?

For too long now the criminal justice system has lived by its own rules, in particular the judiciary which enjoys privileges which ensure that true power belongs to only a few. In the present system, judges are 'appointed', usually by their own or other powerful people, like the PM. Instead of open, visible and true democracy, we have like for like choices; all of it done in true cloak and dagger style. We must be allowed to elect judges just as we elect our members of parliament and all of it must be 'visible' for it to be credible.

The judiciary need a fundamental shake up. If everyone has had one, it is more than high time they did too.

Inability to Deport Foreign Criminals and Terrorist Operatives

The British government is prevented at present by a host of statutes, precedents and European court rulings from deporting foreign nationals and immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes or found to be members of proscribed, often terrorist organisations back to their countries of origin where those countries are thought not to place the same emphasis on so-called "human rights" as we do. We need not necessarily be talking about North Korea; quite often these "unsafe" nations are members of the Commonwealth, and objections can even be raised when deporting someone to the United States on grounds that the Americans retain the death sentence.

The state's first duty being to protect the law-abiding in general and its own citizens in particular, these impediments to the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorist operatives should all be swept away and the individuals concerned compelled to lie in the beds they have made for themselves.  I thought we weren't supposed to pass judgements on the cultures of others anymore, anyway?

Why is this idea important?

The British government is prevented at present by a host of statutes, precedents and European court rulings from deporting foreign nationals and immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes or found to be members of proscribed, often terrorist organisations back to their countries of origin where those countries are thought not to place the same emphasis on so-called "human rights" as we do. We need not necessarily be talking about North Korea; quite often these "unsafe" nations are members of the Commonwealth, and objections can even be raised when deporting someone to the United States on grounds that the Americans retain the death sentence.

The state's first duty being to protect the law-abiding in general and its own citizens in particular, these impediments to the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorist operatives should all be swept away and the individuals concerned compelled to lie in the beds they have made for themselves.  I thought we weren't supposed to pass judgements on the cultures of others anymore, anyway?

ROOT OUT AND EXTRACT CORRUPT JUDICIARY OF THE OLD POLICE STATE REGIME

I AM A MAGISTRATE APPLICANT TO WORCESTER MAGISTRATES CIRCLE 2007

THE CROWN COURT WAS DOMINATED AT THE TIME – IN 2007 – BY THREE JUDGES ONE OF THEM NASTY, MEAN, EVIL – I MET IN PRISON A LAD WHOM HE GAVE 8 YEARS FOR SHOPLIFTING

THESE WERE NASTY, EVIL, MEAN PEOPLE EMPOWERED AS JUDGES

TO REDUCE THE PRISON POPULATION YOU NEED A NEW GENERATION OF JUDGES – MODERN AND REHABILITATION-MINDED-HELPFUL

THE JUDGES WE HAVE AND HAD ARE OLD, OLD VICTORIAN ENGLAND – MEDIEVAL AND DARK AGES

MY IDEA IS TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH THE CORRUPTION OF JUDGES AND ABUSE COULD BE EXPOSED AND ACTED UPON

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SYSTEM – THE OFFICE OF JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS DOES NOT INVESTIGATE OR ACT ON CORRUPTION AND ABUSE

Why is this idea important?

I AM A MAGISTRATE APPLICANT TO WORCESTER MAGISTRATES CIRCLE 2007

THE CROWN COURT WAS DOMINATED AT THE TIME – IN 2007 – BY THREE JUDGES ONE OF THEM NASTY, MEAN, EVIL – I MET IN PRISON A LAD WHOM HE GAVE 8 YEARS FOR SHOPLIFTING

THESE WERE NASTY, EVIL, MEAN PEOPLE EMPOWERED AS JUDGES

TO REDUCE THE PRISON POPULATION YOU NEED A NEW GENERATION OF JUDGES – MODERN AND REHABILITATION-MINDED-HELPFUL

THE JUDGES WE HAVE AND HAD ARE OLD, OLD VICTORIAN ENGLAND – MEDIEVAL AND DARK AGES

MY IDEA IS TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH THE CORRUPTION OF JUDGES AND ABUSE COULD BE EXPOSED AND ACTED UPON

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SYSTEM – THE OFFICE OF JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS DOES NOT INVESTIGATE OR ACT ON CORRUPTION AND ABUSE

Stop Manslaughter with Provocation as a get out of murder clause!

I lost my only brother to premeditated murder, in court the perpertrator stood in the dock and when asked whether he was provoked by anything my brother said or did?  He replied HE WAS NOT PROVOKED BY ANYTHING MY BROTHER SAID OR DID!  So how can a Crown Court Judge ask a Jury to bring back such a perverse verdict, and allow a murderer to get away on a lesser offence of Manslaughter after brutally stabbing a defenceless man to death in front of 3 witnesses.  This is a get out clause for murder, another way of fiddling statistics of how many evil people actually are roaming our streets.

Why is this idea important?

I lost my only brother to premeditated murder, in court the perpertrator stood in the dock and when asked whether he was provoked by anything my brother said or did?  He replied HE WAS NOT PROVOKED BY ANYTHING MY BROTHER SAID OR DID!  So how can a Crown Court Judge ask a Jury to bring back such a perverse verdict, and allow a murderer to get away on a lesser offence of Manslaughter after brutally stabbing a defenceless man to death in front of 3 witnesses.  This is a get out clause for murder, another way of fiddling statistics of how many evil people actually are roaming our streets.

Repeal the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965

To repeal the 1965 Act removing the right of the courts to impose the death sentence on what were previously termed capital murderers – capital murder being murder committed in the course of or furtherance of theft; murder by shooting or explosion; murder while resisting arrest or during an escape; murder of a police or prison officer or persons assisting them; or two or more murders committed on different occasions.  Aspects of EU law preventing member states from restoring or introducing capital punishment would of course also need to be addressed.

Why is this idea important?

To repeal the 1965 Act removing the right of the courts to impose the death sentence on what were previously termed capital murderers – capital murder being murder committed in the course of or furtherance of theft; murder by shooting or explosion; murder while resisting arrest or during an escape; murder of a police or prison officer or persons assisting them; or two or more murders committed on different occasions.  Aspects of EU law preventing member states from restoring or introducing capital punishment would of course also need to be addressed.

RIPA – require a warrant for major stuff, and relax control for minor

Require a warrant from a Judge for invasive surveillance – telephone interception, e-mail interception, bugs etc.

 

Relax the RIPA controls on overt and relatively un-intrusive surveillence.

Why is this idea important?

Require a warrant from a Judge for invasive surveillance – telephone interception, e-mail interception, bugs etc.

 

Relax the RIPA controls on overt and relatively un-intrusive surveillence.

Judges to retire at 60

Time and time again we see Judges making really poor and obscene decisions, letting rapist and paedophiles off with little more than a warning. I believe that their poor decision making is sometimes age related. Younger Judges are more mentally alert than their older counterparts and would make better decisions.

Why is this idea important?

Time and time again we see Judges making really poor and obscene decisions, letting rapist and paedophiles off with little more than a warning. I believe that their poor decision making is sometimes age related. Younger Judges are more mentally alert than their older counterparts and would make better decisions.

JUDGES EXPOSED FOR CORRUPTION AND SACKED

THERE SHOULD BA AN AGENCY MANNED BY QUALIFIED CONCERNED CITIZENS TO RECEIVE AND INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS FOR CORRUPITON OF JUDGES

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SYSTEM – THE OFFICE OF JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS DOES NOT INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF CORRUPTION

JUDGES FOUND GUILTY OF CORRUPTION WITIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THEIR DUTIES SHOULD BE SACKED ON THE SPOT

BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

Why is this idea important?

THERE SHOULD BA AN AGENCY MANNED BY QUALIFIED CONCERNED CITIZENS TO RECEIVE AND INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS FOR CORRUPITON OF JUDGES

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SYSTEM – THE OFFICE OF JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS DOES NOT INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF CORRUPTION

JUDGES FOUND GUILTY OF CORRUPTION WITIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THEIR DUTIES SHOULD BE SACKED ON THE SPOT

BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

Requiring Judges to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998

Idea:

To repeal / amend the English Law that allows Judges to: not comply with the Human Rights Act 1998; carry out judicial acts that are made unlawful under Section 6(1) of the Human rights Act 1998 and; infringe a litigant's Convention rights in Civil Cases in the Royal Courts of Justice. 

There are Decisions made by Judges in the Royal Courts of Justice that clearly rule that a litigant cannot rely on the clearly stated provisions of Section 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in terms of their judicial acts.  However, the Judges refuse to disclose which English Law they are relying on to do this.

Those Convention rights are hard won freedoms / rights that have been lost by Judge's judicial acts.  The Judges have placed themselves above the Law.

Please contact me if you require any further information / evidence.

 

Why is this idea important?

Idea:

To repeal / amend the English Law that allows Judges to: not comply with the Human Rights Act 1998; carry out judicial acts that are made unlawful under Section 6(1) of the Human rights Act 1998 and; infringe a litigant's Convention rights in Civil Cases in the Royal Courts of Justice. 

There are Decisions made by Judges in the Royal Courts of Justice that clearly rule that a litigant cannot rely on the clearly stated provisions of Section 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in terms of their judicial acts.  However, the Judges refuse to disclose which English Law they are relying on to do this.

Those Convention rights are hard won freedoms / rights that have been lost by Judge's judicial acts.  The Judges have placed themselves above the Law.

Please contact me if you require any further information / evidence.