From our own correspondent
The DCA Fudge that encourages perjury in the Family Court.
I have just heard the Rt Harriet Harman QC MP ( Minister for Constitutional
Affairs ) on a BBC radio programme. It is noticeable how pliant and tame the
BBC has been over the years, in failing to report the serious injustices
within the Family Courts.
The BBC put one tame question to Harriet Harman, about the Family Court. And
Harriet Harman batted it away to safety, with a one line reply.
It is her reply that I wish to focus on.
Harriet Harman informed the BBC, that next week, she ( Harriet Harman DCA )
will be issuing a 'consultative document' about transparency and the Family
Court. ....Now if this doesn't tell you what is going on.....You have not
been living in the real world.
Consultative documents from the DCA are as regular as John Prescott, our
roly poly Deputy Prime Minister, groping women, yet keeping his job.
There is no need for one more 'consultative document'.....Just get the press
into the Family Courts, on the same basis as they attend criminal courts.
That would include keeping the identity of the child/children secret.
.........But not in all cases.......
In trials in which the case was effectively dismissed by the judge and the
parents were awarded costs against the local authority,
where the child is Gillick Competent and is over the age of 12 and
the child too wishes to disclose all the details , for example a medical
case involving MSBP..........There is absolutely no reason why the press
should not publish even the identity of the child/children....If the
child/children so wish too!.
The secrecy of the Family Court proceedings, we are continually informed, is
' to protect the identity of the child/children'.......Yet it is manifestly
clear that every utterance of the court is to protect the ' public
officials' (social workers, pediatricians and others ) who instigate cases
and offer their evidence to the court.
However, this has allowed social workers, pediatricians ( public officials )
to brazenly provide false evidence to the court, in the knowledge that
because of the secrecy, they cannot be named and hence prosecuted. This has
led to the epidemic of false allegations in the Family Court that has
resulted in the court basking in the sobriquet' the gulag within an
industry'. Indeed, the Family Court is a complete misnomer. The family is
extraneous to this court. It is the 'public officials court'.
Lest I be misunderstood; I like many, am concerned that the Family Court is
now considered the court of ill repute. I wish it to resume its rightful
place as a court we can all trust....But that cannot be done by protecting
those who routinely give false evidence and have established a de
facto immunity within the court.
If the stated purpose of the secrecy of the Family Court is to protect the
identity of the child/children who are the subject of proceedings within the
court, why then are:
1........Social workers who instigate the cases and provide evidence to the
court not named ?
2........Pediatricians and other 'public officials' who provide evidence to
social workers and the court, not named ?
3.......All the reports presented to the court not allowed to be disclosed
to the press ?
4........All the evidence presented to the court is not allowed to be
published, with the children's identities anonyms ?
5.....Why is this allowed when 1,2,3and 4 are all almost completely paid for
out of public/state funds?
There is not one iota of independent scrutiny and accountability!
It must be perfectly obvious that the excuse of keeping the identities of
the child/children secret, is a ruse to keep all the rest in the court from
being disclosed....And that is what has caused the scandal of false
allegations.
Indeed, we now have a situation that known fraud in which false allegations
by social workers are documented, are protected by the judgments that ORDER
that the name of the social worker and the local authority are not
disclosed. In a case before Justice MacFarlane, about 3 months ago, Justice
MacFarlane awarded the parents £500,000 costs against the local
authority....Then he ordered the social worker and the local authority not
be named!!!!!!!
Sir Paul Beresford MP ( Conservative ) has voiced
his concerns about the failure to name the social workers and the local
authority. The social workers/pediatricians who give false evidence MUST be
named ....Then steps MUST be taken to recover the costs of the trial. That
would include a prosecution and bankrupting those involved, if necessary.
Or is the real reason for the secrecy.....To protect those officials giving
false evidence in the court.....It should be remembered that when the
Conservative Party was in government, Lord Jeffrey Archer ( Conservative )
served about 4 years in prison for perjury. Jonathan Aitken MP (
Conservative ) served about 3 years in prison for perjury........Is it now
the case that New Labour is protecting its own?
Is this why Harriet Harman MP has decided to issue ' a consultative
document' next week.
Save yourself a lot of 'spinning' Harriet......Another 'consultative
document' is but a load of humbug. Just get on with it and let the
press into the Family Court.....Then see what happens to those who have
already given perjured evidence!
|
