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?

 

Restore the Criminal Standard of Proof

Judges should return to their former practice of directing juries in criminal cases  that they can only convict the defendant if they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Why is this idea important?

Judges should return to their former practice of directing juries in criminal cases  that they can only convict the defendant if they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

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.

Repeal Part 7 CJA 2003 Trials on Indictment Without a Jury

Trial of all indictable offences should be restored to the public by means of the traditional 'trial by jury' only.  Trial of indictable offences by judge only, such as R v Twomey and others, should be abolished.

Bail for defendants accused of stealing over £1 million should no longer be within the gift of judges, eg Asil Nadir and Peter Blake [co-accused of John Twomey], but should be prohibited absolutely in the interests of justice being done and being seen to be done.

Why is this idea important?

Trial of all indictable offences should be restored to the public by means of the traditional 'trial by jury' only.  Trial of indictable offences by judge only, such as R v Twomey and others, should be abolished.

Bail for defendants accused of stealing over £1 million should no longer be within the gift of judges, eg Asil Nadir and Peter Blake [co-accused of John Twomey], but should be prohibited absolutely in the interests of justice being done and being seen to be done.

Right to Jury Trial

Repeal all law that restricts the right to trial by Jury.  This was a fundamental part of Magna Carta but was severly restricted in the 1960's as it was alleged that it had become too ponderous in a "modern" society!  There are currently moves afoot to remove the right from libel trials.  This should be rejected.  Also Grande Juries should be reinstated, a role currently undertaken by the Solicitor General; if in place Blair and his cohorts would most certainly have faced trail.  This clearly demonstrates the role of juries in enabling subjects of her majesty to exercise real control over their elected rulers.  It was juries that frustrated the creation of an absolute monarch, Charles I and they would have fulfilled that role again in the modern era if allowed.  The limitations imposed on the right to trial by jury have never been challenged in the House of Lords/Supreme Court; a bit of a mystery.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all law that restricts the right to trial by Jury.  This was a fundamental part of Magna Carta but was severly restricted in the 1960's as it was alleged that it had become too ponderous in a "modern" society!  There are currently moves afoot to remove the right from libel trials.  This should be rejected.  Also Grande Juries should be reinstated, a role currently undertaken by the Solicitor General; if in place Blair and his cohorts would most certainly have faced trail.  This clearly demonstrates the role of juries in enabling subjects of her majesty to exercise real control over their elected rulers.  It was juries that frustrated the creation of an absolute monarch, Charles I and they would have fulfilled that role again in the modern era if allowed.  The limitations imposed on the right to trial by jury have never been challenged in the House of Lords/Supreme Court; a bit of a mystery.