Father jailed for sending son 21st birthday greeting on Facebook

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Blogg, Jun 1, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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.
    • Like Like x 8
  2. Rather harsh, couldn't the beak have just unliked his post?
    • Like Like x 6
  3. 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.
  4. fu2

    fu2 LE

    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
  5. One notes the ex-wife is remarkably absent from this story...
    Who decided to bring the facebook post to the attention of the court?
  6. 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.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. If this is true, does it mean Habeas Corpus is well and truly in the gash bucket.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. 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.