UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

December 8, 2012

CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE !

Advertisements

December 4, 2012

After nearly 7 years of hell at the hands of this local authority

They are now being sued never ever give up x

EXPECT ME !

May 25, 2012

Anyone with feedback on Staffordshire Social Services Family workers

My child nearly suffered injury three times by a family worker who works in care and court planning team.

1. She failed to strap child into buggy causing child to fall out .

2. She failed to remove tray from highchair and pulled child out of chair causing child extreme pain and sctaches on her legs.

3. She places hot drinks on floor where child is playing .

4. She used contact time to get her own personal photographs .

5. all she does in contact is plays SODOKU

And these idiots are meant to supervide us and they don’t know even the basics of safety and wellbeing for our children ?

April 25, 2012

Have you seen this child . She has just been snatched from a delivery suite by staffordshire county council

Thi is the picture of  JENNY Sahota social worker waiting in delivery suite to snatch child.      AMBER ALERT mising child snatched from delivery suite at Burton Hospital by Marian Richards et al team denying a child of its breastmilk is against the childs HUMAN RIGHTS justice munby. Image

September 3, 2011

BLOWING THE WHISTLE – CHILD STEALING BY THE STATE

BLOWING THE WHISTLE – CHILD STEALING BY THE STATE

( Sunday 23rd October 2011) – Part of a 2 day event on 22/23 October 2011

Conference – Kings Hall – Glebe Street – Stoke On Trent

This is not a conference to discuss ‘issues’ and ‘concerns’ with children. and to set out a way to ‘help reform the system’ as some MPs suggest

This is a conference to expose and bring to trial those helping the State to Steal and Abuse Children. We will Name Name’s, Departments, Authorities, Organisations, Judges, MPs, Police, Psychiatrists and more. With help of those attending, we will expose the real evidence for:

MASSIVE STATE SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE AND TRAFFICKING AND COVER-UPS BY THE STATE AND ITS AGENTS

Have you experienced any of the following:

Children taken under false pretences ?

Bullying by Children’s Services, Cafcass, Local Authority ?

False verbal and documentary evidence in Court ?

Collusion behind your back by your Legal Team with the Local Authority legal team ?

MPs ignoring you and your plight ?

Child(ren) being abused in the ‘care’ of Children’s Services ?

Mental breakdown because of the attack on your family ?

Do you hold information and evidence concerning:

State trafficking of children ?

Falsifying of Family Court Documents ?

Children disappearing into the care system ?

Police deliberately blocking investigations into child abuse rings ?

Misinformation by the BBC and mainstream media ?

False help and support groups, charities and people ?

We need you and your evidence. We need you in numbers, because the State hides the evidence by isolating victims or controlling the support to whom you turn. By making out that only a few isolated families are affected the State can control national media to hide the truth.

Have you attended meetings in Westminster that ‘pat you on the head’ and achieve nothing ? – then you need to attend and be an active participant in Blowing the Whistle – Child Stealing by the State.

Please provide a 2 page summary of the basic facts of your case and indicate evidence that you hold. We will provide a pro-forma to help you do this. Active participants will be asked to provide evidence for use at the conference. Real evidence is vital to stopping the unlawful abuse of families and children.

PLEASE CONTACT THE UK COLUMN – TEL: 01752 478050 – EMAIL: childstealingbythestate@ukcolumn.org

May 29, 2011

Mother tries to kill herself in court during care proceedings.

Noone actually gives a damn about the living nightmare that family court proceedings bring. The aftermath leaves families destroyed . So cruel is the system that parents are tossed by the roadside after being devoured in proceedings . During proceedings they are sent for psycholgical assessments where many are given diagnoses they never had before , none of the experts assessing them comment that their current mental state may well be as a result of losing their children. If the parent breaks down or is emotional during proceedings this is seen as a sign of their instability rather than a normal reaction to the abnormal stressors and should a parent kill themselves after losing their  children you will hear the social workers saying ‘ see that proves our point told you she was unstable.

There is absolutely no help provided for these parents or no recognition of their pain . The lucky ones find support from fellow parents who have been through the same on social networking sites and forums.

As for the children , well i guess we will see the impact of this on them over the coming years …….

Mum tried to kill herself in court during care review

Mum tried to kill herself in court during care review

A DESPERATE mother tried to kill herself in court in the middle of a losing battle to stop her two-year-old daughter being taken into care.

Two barristers scrambled to stop the woman swallowing a handful of paracetamol pills, as she fought to prove herself a competent mother at Derby County Court.

She was taken to hospital and was still there the following day when Judge James Orrell ordered her little girl to be taken into care.

In his ruling last year, he said Derbyshire County Council had been concerned about the “unhygienic and unsafe” condition of the family home.

The woman yesterday mounted a last-ditch bid at London’s Civil Appeal Court to overturn the ruling, arguing it had been unfair to reach the decision in her absence.

But, while recognising the woman’s “huge love” for her daughter, Lord Justice Thorpe said there could be “only one possible outcome” to the case and rejected her appeal.

Ruling that the mother’s appeal had no real prospect of success, he said: “Sad as it is for the mother, I have no alternative but to reject her application for permission to appeal.”

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Mum-tried-kill-court-care-review/article-3581449-detail/article.html

Suicide watch would have saved patient
By Paul Jenkins

A REPORT into the death of a woman patient at a Stafford hospital says she could have been saved had staff checked on her overnight.

An internal investigation is being carried out into the death of a 28-year-old Willow Simpson who was found by staff at St George’s Hospital hanging from the window in her room on February 12 this year.

A Cannock inquest into her death heard an independent report which said Miss Simpson should have been on suicide watch after two previous attempts to take her own life.

It also criticised the system of checks on patients at the hospital and the lack of information on individuals given to staff after it found Miss Simpson had been told only seven days earlier that her son was being given up foradoption and she was unlikely to see him again.

The author of the report, independent case worker Julie Lloyd Roberts, said: “Miss Simpson relocated from Wales to Stafford in 2003 when a relationship broke down and she sufferered deteriorating health.

“In April 2006, she was re-admitted to St George’s’ Brocton Ward after an earlier short spell in the hospital.

“After seven months on the ward, she was coming to the end of her period there and the mental health team were looking to place her in supported accommodation.

“She had a meeting with social workers on February 7 to finalise the adoption process for her young son and was told she would have to apply for access to see him and there was nothing she could do to stop the proceedings.

“Staff on the ward didn’t notice her subsequent change of mood and there was no allowance for the possible risk to her health after the outcome of the meeting.

“She should have been on suicide watch after two previous attempts and was completely irrational and very ill at the time of her death.

“Checks were not made on her overnight and I have no doubt she would still be alive if they had been. “I realise the system of checks had been relaxed because of concerns from female patients about privacy and the noise of the doors opening, but their health and wellbeing should have overcome these complaints.”

Stanley Nevin, a health care support worker who was on duty the night before Miss Simpson died, said she had seemed fine and was smiling and chatting in the lounge before going to bed at midnight.

But when he went to wake her up at 7.15am the next morning he found the door locked and had to get his colleague to open it.

They subsequently found her hanging from a window in her bathroom and were unable to revive her.

He admitted he had not checked on her overnight between midnight and 7.15am and was not aware of the meeting she had recently had with her social worker.

But he said there was no fixed system of checks on patients and when it was felt necessary to check on them, it was not every 15 miutes, but more like every hour.

Coroner Andrew Haigh, in recording an open verdict, said it was clear Miss Simpson had killed herself but she was more upset than she appeared after the meeting with social workers and it may have been a cry for help.

He said the health care trust which runs the hospital had been criticised in the report for the haphazard distribution of information and system of checks, and this was being actively investigated.

Amanda Godfrey from South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust said it took incidents of this kind very seriously.

She said: “Any untoward incident is thoroughly investigated in line with our procedures and the trust endeavours to learn from and improve services as a result of such events.

“As an organisation, we also welcome the opportunity to receive feedback from users of our services, their carers and families and take their views very seriously.”

Mother’s Death: Suicide Not Ruled Out

3:57pm UK, Saturday March 17, 2007

Suicide has not been ruled out as the cause of death of solicitor Sally Clark, who was wrongly jailed for the murder of her two sons.

180 sally clark & husband releasedMrs Clark with her husband

A Home Office pathologist is due to carry out a post mortem examination on Monday on the body of Mrs Clark, 42, who was found dead at her home in Hatfield Peverel, Essex.

She had been found guilty of the murder of her sons – eight-week-old Harry and 11-week-old Christopher – following a trial at Chester Crown Court in 1999.

But she was cleared by the Court of Appeal in 2003 following one of the most high-profile legal cases of recent times.

Essex Police have refused to speculate on the possible cause of her death. Sources said they were keeping an open mind at this stage but suicide was not being ruled out.

A spokeswoman for Essex Ambulance Service said an ambulance and rapid response vehicle were sent but nothing could be done to save Mrs Clark.

Sue Stapeley, the Clark family’s solicitor, said although Mrs Clark was not suffering from any kind of disease, she was not “in the best of health”.

A familystatement described Mrs Clark as a “loving and talented wife, mother, daughter and friend” who will be “greatly missed”.

It read: “Sally was released in 2003 having been wrongfully imprisoned for more than three years, falsely accused of the murder of her two sons.

“Sadly, she never fully recovered from the effects of this appalling miscarriage of justice.”

Angela Cannings, wrongly convicted of killing two of her babies, said she was “shocked” and “angry” by the news.

Mrs Cannings spent spent 18 months in prison before her life sentence for murder was quashed. She criticised the authorities for providing no support for women accused, then cleared, of taking the life of their child.

“I’m really speechless, I’m so angry. This lady suffered so much, now she’s died – I’m just shocked and stunned,” she told Sky News.

On appeal, Mrs Clark was found to have been wrongly convicted of the murders after new medical evidence emerged which had not been presented at her trial.

Professor Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence during her trial claiming the probability of two natural unexplained cot deaths in the family was 73 million-to-one.

The figure was disputed by the Royal Statistical Society and other medical experts who said the odds of a second cot death in a family were around 200-to-one.

Sir Roy was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the medical register.

However, both of these decisions were overturned on appeal at the High Court.

Mrs Clark’s family used to live in Wilmslow, Cheshire, but moved south to Chelmsford when she was imprisoned in Essex.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641256260

 

Teenage mother found hanged days after discovering her baby had been adopted

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Last updated at 3:24 PM on 1st June 2011

 

Tragic: Annabelle Lee Morris hanged herself when she found out that her son (face blanked) had been adopteTragic: Annabelle Lee Morris hanged herself when she found out that her son (face blanked) had been adopted

A tragic teenage mother’s body was found hanged days after she discovered her baby had been adopted by another family.

Annabelle Lee Morris, 19, could not cope with her son being taken into care and then put up for adoption.

Her father, Thomas James Morris, found her in her bedroom on March 18 last year – nine days after she found out that her son had new adoptive parents, York Coroner’s Court was told.

The authorities had intervened as she was struggling to look after him herself.

Speaking after the inquest, her cousin, Lorna Dawber, said: ‘She adored her son and had she accepted the help when it was there her future would have been completely different. In time she would have got there.

‘That was the one thing in life that was hers, she absolutely worshipped him.’

She said Annabelle would not have put her family through that deliberately.

‘She was a good soul and she had a good heart,’ she said.

The inquest heard that the child was taken into foster care when he was less than a year old.

Annabelle, from York, was still allowed to see him a few times a week, but when a psychologist raised further serious concerns, steps were taken to have the baby adopted.

 

Although it was arranged for Annabelle to meet mental health workers in 2009, she did not attend an appointment.

She saw her son, then 15 months old, for the final time in January 2010. At the time of her death she was on a doctor’s waiting list to see a counsellor.

Prior to the adoption, her social worker, John Corden, said Annabelle was ‘ambivalent’ about accepting the support offered to her as this would involve ‘putting boundaries around her lifestyle’.

But he said that he and other colleagues had been impressed by the ‘high quality of interaction’ between mother and child and that she had been ‘dignified and honest’ in her work with social services.

Mr Corden said ‘I had frequent discussions with Annabelle about the way the case was going. She never suggested to me that if adoption were the outcome she would harm herself.

‘Annabelle was blessed with a warm and benign personality. She could present herself as a well functioning and capable young lady.

‘In the fullness of time, that may have been a considerable asset to her.’

Coroner Donald Coverdale recorded an open verdict and said the cause of her death was asphyxia due to hanging.

Noting that she had strong support from a loving family and from social services, he said: ‘Miss Morris was a 19-year-old with a number of problems relating back to childhood.

‘In recent times she had gone through the trauma of having her child adopted.

‘The final meeting with her child had been in January and that time must have been the most difficult of all.

‘It seems to me that she had time to reflect on the unhappy course of events culminating in the adoption. My best guess is that what has happened was an impulsive act, it could be described as a cry for help.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393059/Teenager-mother-hanged-just-days-discovering-baby-adopted.html#ixzz1O6V1BMx1

The real scandal hidden by gags is what goes on in family courts

The real scandal hidden by gags is what goes on in family courts

The walls of secrecy surrounding snatched children are creating a one-sided justice system, argues Christopher Booker.

John Hemming MP is campaigning for greater transparency in our family protection system

John Hemming MP is campaigning for greater transparency in our family protection system Photo: PAUL GROVER
Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 28 May 2011

In all the fuss about the secrecy of our courts – after MP John Hemming named a footballer in the Commons – the point where the issue began has been almost entirely lost. Mr Hemming’s concern stems from his longstanding campaign to expose the secrecy surrounding our family courts, where one of the most shocking scandals in Britain today is flourishing, out of public view. This is the increasing number of children who are seized by social workers from loving, responsible parents, thanks to a system which often defies basic principles of justice, humanity and common sense. For example, last week, a woman was warned by a judge that if she raised her case with John Hemming or with a local MP, she would be imprisoned – contrary to one of the most ancient rights of a citizen.

It is hard to convey just how one-sided this system has become, behind its wall of secrecy. Another case I have been following concerns a devoted mother who lost her daughter, some years back, after complaining to social workers that the father was abusing their child. Astonishingly, although the couple had parted, the courts gave the father custody of the girl.

Two weeks ago, when the mother yet again told social workers that the father was abusing their daughter, they did nothing – but, independently, the police were called and the father was arrested. Social workers asked the mother to sign a document giving her child into foster care. She refused, asking for the girl to be returned to her, and was told to attend court at three o’clock last Monday to hear the council’s application for an emergency care order.

She arrived to find the council officials had not turned up, and was told to return at 10 o’clock on Tuesday. Again the officials did not show. Then the mother was told that the order had been given over the telephone the previous evening, by a magistrate at home, which appeared to break all the rules laid down for the granting of an emergency care order. This was apparently confirmed by a judge on Thursday – who nevertheless granted an order according to the proper procedures (the mother not being allowed to speak) and called them all back on Friday to hear an application for an interim care order. Thanks to the complications of the case, he then ruled that the council’s application should be heard in the High Court next month.

The mother’s only wish is to be reunited with her child – who apparently says her only wish is to be with her mother. But the implacable system, having made its error, seems determined to stand between them. Thus, hidden from public view, another unhappy family drama unfolds.

May 25, 2011

John Hemming Debate Re: Injunctions

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Members will be aware that I have a long-time concern about secrecy in court processes, which was highlighted in the story in The Guardian today. We have no true freedom of speech when people can be jailed for complaining about their problems. This country seems to have a penchant for covering up problems that would be discussed openly in others.

Florence Bellone, a Belgian journalist, recorded an interview with Carol Hughes and Lucille O’Regan in Ireland, which was broadcast on RTBF in Belgium. A copy was placed on YouTube, but access in the UK is now blocked as a result of what YouTube calls a “government request”. What can be so frightening about that interview that people in the UK are not allowed to see it, but it can be broadcast in Belgium?

The policy of international websites varies. The Twitter account containing the names of lots of people subject to super-injunctions is still there, and will remain there for some time, yet newspapers in the UK are not allowed to refer to it by name. It is clear that in the UK people are now recognising the oppressive nature of court secrecy in this country. For instance, I wrote and released a song about this in 2008, the lyrics of which would have been in contempt of court had they not already been spoken in the House. Since then, however, things have got even worse, with the force of money being used to prevent women from complaining about their ex-boyfriends. One woman who received a super-injunction said to me:

“The process is terrifying…For the first 2 months I shook! And I shake now when talking about it to someone”.

Questions have been raised about whether I should have discussed the row between Ryan Giggs and Twitter yesterday. I am not a party to the privacy case. I have not been served with the injunction. I have not actually seen the injunction and cannot guarantee that it actually exists. I have read his name in the Sunday Herald, and on Wikipedia and Twitter. I could obviously stand on a soapbox in Scotland and say what I said in the House of Commons. I believe I could probably say it on Hyde park corner, because it is in the public domain. For me to have abused parliamentary privilege, I would have had to use it in the first instance, but I do not think that the case has been made that it would have been contempt of court outside the House.

I remain concerned, however, that the process of issuing contempt of court proceedings has been kicked off against users of Twitter. Someone should not be able to hide behind anonymity to take action against others. I am completely unsure what the legal position is in respect of naming Giles Coren. I do not think it would be contempt of court to name him outside the House, yet The Times was worried enough yesterday not to identify him—and he is one of its journalists. I will not identify the footballer whom, it is rumoured, would like to see him prosecuted for tweeting.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): I fully approve of the hon. Gentleman’s campaign to ensure that injunctions and super-injunctions do not interfere with our constituents’ ability to contact us and speak to us about issues. However, will he explain to the House why he thinks he is judge and jury on whether certain people under court order should be named in this place? Why does he feel he has the right above anybody else? It seems very strange to use privilege in such a way.

John Hemming: I explained that those details were already in the public domain and accessible in Forbes Magazine, the Sunday Herald and many other places, so I do not think it would have been contempt of court outside the House. However, I accept the Speaker’s ruling on this issue.

I refer hon. Members to a story in The Guardian today relating to another injunction. I shall read out the first paragraph:

“A wealthy British financier is seeking to have his sister-in-law secretly jailed in a libel case, in the latest escalation of the controversy over superinjunctions and the internet, the Guardian can disclose.”

What we have here is true secret justice: somebody is being prosecuted in secret; they cannot be identified; and the person prosecuting them cannot be identified. As a rule, the Attorney-General does not prosecute civil cases, which the privacy cases are; one of the parties usually prosecutes.

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): That has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman did yesterday.

John Hemming: Actually, it has everything to do with what I did yesterday, because Giles Coren was subject to similar contempt proceedings. There is a great danger that a secret form of jurisprudence will develop that aims to jail people in secret and keep their identities out of the public domain for relatively trivial issues.

The law of confidentiality and privacy, as being developed by the courts, seems to be in opposition to the views of Parliament about whistleblowing. That is an important point. A number of the court orders in place act to prevent people from reporting issues, whether to the police, the General Medical Council, coastguards or whomever. The rule of law is undermined by the court orders preventing that information from being given. That is another important issue.

Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): Will my hon. Friend confirm that judges have also issued court orders naming Members of Parliament as people who cannot be spoken to?

John Hemming: Indeed. The issues of freedom of speech are not just about what goes in the newspapers; they are also about who communicates with whom and how tightly controlled things are. Some of the court orders issued prevent people from complaining to friends about what has been done to them; some prevent them from complaining to Members of Parliament; and others prevent them from going to the police with information. A dangerous system is developing. It is wrong to think that there is a difference between the ZAM case reported in The Guardian today and that of Giles Coren, because he could have faced exactly the same process.

John Cryer: What about Giggs?

John Hemming: The point I was making about Giggs was that his name was in the public domain already, so it would not have been contempt of court to name him outside the House. That is quite straightforward, and it does not, therefore, involve the use of privilege.

However, there is an argument about privilege where the legal position is uncertain, as it can be at times. We do not want to be unable to debate things because working out whether we can talk about them is so complex. Privilege is important and it needs to be used responsibly—there is no question about that—but my argument is straightforward. To have abused privilege, I would have to have used the name in the first instance, yet no one has evidenced to me the basis on which it would have been contempt of court for me to say outside the House what I said yesterday in it, and if it was not contempt of court outside, it cannot be an abuse of privilege within—

Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con): Why did you not say it outside then?

John Hemming: Because it would not have been reported.

Anyway, the accountability of judicial processes depends not only on there being a public judgment, but on people having the ability externally to challenge the evidence that the courts are using. The problem with secrecy is that this all breaks down. Indeed, the report in The Guardian today about the secret committal of the sister-in-law is an example of exactly that situation, where there is no possibility of checking externally the evidence for whether the assumptions are correct. There are great questions about the reliability of much of the expert evidence provided in the family courts. If we cannot rely on the expert evidence, we will have difficulty relying on the conclusions.

There are many, many problems, and I will obviously be submitting a detailed report to the Joint Committee on the difficulties with the various injunctions. We also have a difficult day today, so I will not use up all my time. The issue of secret jailing is one that we cannot drop. Obviously we cannot do much more about it over the recess, but we cannot allow a process to continue whereby attempts are made to commit more and more people in secret proceedings. This all arises from the objective of protecting relatively trivial secrets, but it is not even close to open justice. The balancing act has completely failed when we are trying to balance somebody’s liberty on one side against something relatively trivial on the other.

posted by john

http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/

May 24, 2011

John Hemming Strikes Again and shows what a farce these injunctions are.

I do have to applaud Mr Hemming for naming the footballer trying to silence at least 75,000 people who have named a footballer ( name rhymes with Bryan Spriggs ) using parliamentary privalege .

Some people though will not be aware of why Mr Hemming has an interest in these injunctions.

Injunctions are being dished out on a daily basis through our secret family courts and people are being secretly imprisoned for breaking them.

John quite rightly wants an end to these injunctions that prevent people from speaking out about injustice and protects noone other than the judiciary , social workers and so called expert witnesses.

These injunctions do not protect children as many children end up having to endure a life in a failed care system or being forcibly adopted because noone has been able to speak to anyone about any injustice that may have happened during the secret family court proceedings.

Hence rather than serve to protect children an injunction can  actively promotes the abuse of children by allowing these children to be ‘ farmed out ‘ to the care system based on lies and questionable evidence with no one being able to question those procedures.

I do hope this ‘ civil disobedience ‘ continues and that more MPs start to question who these injunctions are ACTUALLY protecting .

QUENTIN LETTS: Good man John Hemming brought an end to the farce

By QUENTIN LETTS

Last updated at 8:32 AM on 24th May 2011

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=146202712090395&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D2%23cb%3Df2a86f6288%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%252Ff8f8f61f4%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&colorscheme=light&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fdebate%2Farticle-1390215%2FRyan-Giggs-super-injunction-John-Hemming-brought-end-farce.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_GB&node_type=link&ref=LikeButtonTop&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=90

Maginot Line time. Our rulers huff and puff and tell us plebeians we must not even think about the identities of ‘bonking’ injunctors. We should not worry our heads with such matters. Move on, little people. Nothing for you to see here.

Then John Hemming (Lib Dem, Birmingham Yardley) rises in the Commons and with a blurt names Ryan Giggs (Manchester United association football player, m’lud) as one of those press-gaggers. Gasps. Tuts. Calls of ‘disgrace!’ from the Labour side.

Why on earth should socialist Labour rush to protect a multi-millionaire alleged womaniser? Maybe it’s because Mr Giggs is a left winger.

John Hemming names Ryan Giggs during a discussion on injunctions in the Houses of CommonsMoment of truth: John Hemming names Ryan Giggs during a discussion on injunctions in the Houses of Commons

Agent Hemming, good man, did his deed during a Commons Statement about the injunctions farce. Everyone was mincing around the identity of the footballer, even though it was all over the internet, a Scottish newspaper and assorted foreign organs (if ‘organ’ be the word).

The pomposity of the British Parliament at such moments knows few bounds. They are sent here by the populace yet they talk like semi-strangled gobblers from another era. Is it any wonder non-voters think politics is not for them?

Attorney General Dominic Grieve had spoken at length in a dry, lawyerly way. Mr Grieve gives every impression that he has just stepped from one of Mr Disraeli’s novels. His voice creaked, dust in its hinges. His words may have been scratched down by quill pen.

At one point he talked about ‘the blog-eau-sphe-ar’. Even his fellow pooh-bahs laughed at him for that. For heaven’s sake, matey, you’re a politician, not an extra from Downton Abbey.

Attorney Grieve left the distinct impression, by the by, that he regarded the Press and internet users as impertinent, malign hyenas. How dare they defy the legal establishment? Lord Prescott (gooser of Tracey) sat up in the peers’ gallery, grunting assent like an old porker.

On it went, the House stroking its big belly, lots of them laying into the Press Complaints Commission and, with greater justification, deploring newspapers’ misdeeds on phone-hacking.

Then Mr Hemming had his moment. ‘Mr Speaker,’ he said casually, ‘with about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs it is obviously impractical to imprison them all.’ The House took a moment to respond and Mr Hemming was ploughing further into controversy, saying that a newspaper writer, Giles Coren, was facing the threat of imprisonment.

At this point Speaker Bercow intervened, stopping Mr Hemming mid-flow and telling him that he should not flout the protocols of injunction law ‘for whatever purpose’. Translation: we all know you’re just doing this because you’re an appalling self-publicist, Hemming.

Chris Bryant (Lab, Rhondda) was outraged by Mr Hemming’s sally. Could this be the same Mr Bryant who laid into Prince Andrew in the Commons recently in an equally blatant bid for media coverage? It sure could be, folks. Others on the Opposition benches, and one or two on the Tory side, were disgusted by Mr Hemming. Maybe there was an element of envy – a case of ‘grrr, wish I’d said it first’.

The Sunday Herald newspaper in Edinburgh printed a barely disguised picture of Ryan Giggs on its front coverBreaking ranks: The Sunday Herald newspaper in Edinburgh printed a barely disguised picture of Ryan Giggs on its front cover

Mr Hemming, mission accomplished, sat contentedly in his place, unfazed by his fellow Members’ outburst of sanctimony. In the blink of an eye the Establishment had been confounded, the elite bypassed.

For years libel lawyers have held swanky sway over the public prints. They have menaced and manipulated and, in the process, charged their clients millions of pounds.

Now, thanks to Twitter and others, including Mr Hemming, their edifice has been left looking like one of those south-coast medieval castles which were once on the coast but are now stranded inland.

Earlier in the day I attended a gruesome event at the Royal Festival Hall where Ed Miliband tried, and failed, to connect with Labour activists. Few were there. The media turnout was particularly slim. Poor Mr Miliband seems to be attracting little interest at present.

Perhaps he should hire Messrs Schillings, legal advisers to Mr Giggs. From what one can gather, they are geniuses at attracting attention for their clients.

Speaker John Bercow immediately leapt out of his seat and rebuked Mr Hemming in an effort to protect the Manchester United player's identitySpeaker John Bercow immediately leapt out of his seat and rebuked Mr Hemming in an effort to protect the Manchester United player’s identity

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1390215/Ryan-Giggs-super-injunction-John-Hemming-brought-end-farce.html#ixzz1NH7wTLuX

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.