Father jailed for sending son 21st birthday greeting on Facebook

#2
Secret courts....wtf?

What the hell sort of "law" is that?

Some judge slapped that on me and I would change my name and my kids names, After maybe shooting the ex bitch of course.

The law really is going mad.
 
#5
My spidey sense tells me not all the facts of the case are contained in that article ...
Almost certainly but that article will have been crawled over by lawyers, so unlikely to be far off.

But this is one of the core bits in there:


"......it is estimated by campaigners and MPs that up to 200 parents a year are imprisoned for contempt by the family courts. Because of the controversial secrecy rules, some have been sent to jail for discussing their case with MPs or charity workers advising them."

All done in secret, often with the "accused" being tried in absentia and/or without notice or legal representation.
 
#6
What kind of loony ruling is that ! he can`t name his sons in public (although both are now adults) for the rest of his life !!!
More proof that the world is going mad and people have no commen sense anymore
 
#7
One notes the ex-wife is remarkably absent from this story...
Who decided to bring the facebook post to the attention of the court?
 
#9
Almost certainly but that article will have been crawled over by lawyers, so unlikely to be far off.

But this is one of the core bits in there:


"......it is estimated by campaigners and MPs that up to 200 parents a year are imprisoned for contempt by the family courts. Because of the controversial secrecy rules, some have been sent to jail for discussing their case with MPs or charity workers advising them."

All done in secret, often with the "accused" being tried in absentia and/or without notice or legal representation.
Blog,

I've no doubt is passed the lawyers - all that means is that what is said isn't unlawful or potentially libellous, that doesn't mean that inconvenient facts have not been omitted.

As for the excerpt

"......it is estimated by campaigners and MPs that up to 200 parents a year are imprisoned for contempt by the family courts. Because of the controversial secrecy rules, some have been sent to jail for discussing their case with MPs or charity workers advising them."
'Estimated' and 'up to 200' - not really hard numbers

'imprisoned for contempt' - what does that mean? Are these people given a few hours in the cells to cool off after an outburst during very emotional hearings, or are they experiencing five years of slopping out in a Windsor Hilton? I've no idea.

'some have been sent to jail' - again, not really hard numbers.

I'm not defending the court system in any way, I don't have the knowledge. But I have never read a piece of journalism about a subject of which I did have specialist knowledge that was not either deliberately or accidentally inaccurate, driven by an agenda, selective in its facts or some combination of the three.
 
#12
If this is true, does it mean Habeas Corpus is well and truly in the gash bucket.
 
#13
Just goes to show that as far as judges are concerned, one of the most serious crimes known to man is to not show enough respect their learned selves and their courts.
 
#14
Blog,

I've no doubt is passed the lawyers - all that means is that what is said isn't unlawful or potentially libellous, that doesn't mean that inconvenient facts have not been omitted.

As for the excerpt



'Estimated' and 'up to 200' - not really hard numbers

'imprisoned for contempt' - what does that mean? Are these people given a few hours in the cells to cool off after an outburst during very emotional hearings, or are they experiencing five years of slopping out in a Windsor Hilton? I've no idea.

'some have been sent to jail' - again, not really hard numbers.

I'm not defending the court system in any way, I don't have the knowledge. But I have never read a piece of journalism about a subject of which I did have specialist knowledge that was not either deliberately or accidentally inaccurate, driven by an agenda, selective in its facts or some combination of the three.
Well said. It's standard Daily Mail hyperbole. You can tell the agenda when you get this:

"In a case which is certain top fuel concerns about Britain's shadowy network of secret courts..."

so high up in the copy. The hack knows he has to write it up in way that will fit the Mail's current campaign or he won't be working there much longer.

The "secret courts" line is OTT. Family courts or child welfare hearings are almost always heard in a cleared courtroom. Juveniles and those subject to orders rightly deserve protection. They're hardly secret, though.

If you breach an order or condition then it's common to go to the cells for an hour or so, or be sentenced for the offence if you haven't "purged your contempt". So again, nothing unusual about getting the pokey if you breach conditions which must be spelled out clearly by the judge and, usually in writing.

Journalists deployed as court reporters operate under strict liability so know the score inside out, but it would be easy for the unaware to read this piece and think, WTF?

It's just the Mail being the Mail again.
 
#15
Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of false allegations against men and the lack of any prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice when a false allegation has shown to have been made. Maybe someone will consider how Ghandi achieved great change by use of the principles of Satyagraha and non violent opposition. Maybe a lot of people will begin discussing these issues and read Ghandi's biographies and consider what they could do to achieve great change. Maybe you could spread the word. It's just a though. Keep it in mind.
 
#16
"Shadowy networks of secret courts..."? How do folks attend hearings if the courts are secret? Do they disguise them as swimming pools? Manufactured bollocks...


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Oh they are here I got "done" for not returning a log book in time to DVLA as I returned it a year after I split up with Ex and she'd applied for a new one Court hearing in Dec 09 was fined £250 (£150 fine and £100 costs) Only found out about the fine last Aug looking into it further the court hadn't even issued a summons to the hearing, Contested it back in Feb citing that I'm entitled to a fair hearing under the human rights act. Has gone deathly quiet from the court on the matter.
 
#17
Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of false allegations against men and the lack of any prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice when a false allegation has shown to have been made. Maybe someone will consider how Ghandi achieved great change by use of the principles of Satyagraha and non violent opposition. Maybe a lot of people will begin discussing these issues and read Ghandi's biographies and consider what they could do to achieve great change. Maybe you could spread the word. It's just a though. Keep it in mind.
I thoroughly agree. Can I suggest you employ satragyaha in the middle lane of the M25 and passively 'will' the traffic to come to a screeching halt.
 
#19
Well said. It's standard Daily Mail hyperbole. You can tell the agenda when you get this:

"In a case which is certain top fuel concerns about Britain's shadowy network of secret courts..."

so high up in the copy. The hack knows he has to write it up in way that will fit the Mail's current campaign or he won't be working there much longer.

The "secret courts" line is OTT. Family courts or child welfare hearings are almost always heard in a cleared courtroom. Juveniles and those subject to orders rightly deserve protection. They're hardly secret, though.

If you breach an order or condition then it's common to go to the cells for an hour or so, or be sentenced for the offence if you haven't "purged your contempt". So again, nothing unusual about getting the pokey if you breach conditions which must be spelled out clearly by the judge and, usually in writing.

Journalists deployed as court reporters operate under strict liability so know the score inside out, but it would be easy for the unaware to read this piece and think, WTF?

It's just the Mail being the Mail again.
Yep just the Mail being OTT again.

Except, hang on what's this?

The opposition to secret courts is gathering pace - Telegraph

Last-ditch bid to dilute secret courts plan fails | Law | The Guardian

Anonymity for those jailed by 'secret courts' is wrong, says Lord Chief Justice - Crime - UK - The Independent

But we can ignore it all as it is of course just the usual Daily Mail hyperbole..
 
#20
If these courts are so secret why are the papers all over them. Its hyperbole they are most definitely not secret but private. The whole non public hearing system in family courts is solely to protect the identity of individuals in non criminal matters. In this case rightly so.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top