Well, that’s a wise judgement in response to a knee jerk reaction by Medway Council. Why on earth do they think they can keep trying to exert their power and abuse it? Who do they think they are?
There’s a father who melts by just looking at his son and a council that tries its best to sever that link and interrupt the boy’s development in school, synagogue, at home and abroad! They want his passport next, would you believe it!? “In the best interest of the child!?” It depends who decides, said Renate Weber MEP from Romania when we were with the Petitions Committee on 11/11/14!
Here’s the article in The Telegraph: Parents fight British social services ‘gag’ to petition European Parliament – Britain’s social services “unique” in EU for “threatening and bullying” of parents who speak out against forced adoption of their children, say MEPs.
And here’s the chronology of the victimisation and interference by the Council.
Before Mr Justice Peter Jackson on 14.11.14
No order on the application by Medway County Council for a Reporting Restriction Order.
Jackson J noted as follows (to be recorded on the court file):
- I can see nomatterforthisto be a without notice application to the other parties in the care proceedings.2. The Local Authority appears to have made no effective effort to follow the Practice Direction by giving reasonable notice to the media.3. I don’t wish to prejudice whatappearsto be a supposition that for anypublicityto be attached to a child is itself harmful.4. I saw this morning the papers sent to my clerk after 6pm yesterday. I wonder if this application is a wise initiative on behalf of the Local Authority.5. If an application for a Reporting Restriction Order is made – it should be properly made, on proper notice and so that all matters can be tested.
6. I say nothing about the current proceedings at Tunbridge Wells. This is entirely a matter for the Judge there as to whether there are welfare concerns for the child but I express that it’s further a matter for that Judge to enforce rules as to confidentiality of documents.
7. It is the court process not the facts that is privileged. Furthermore, it is for the media to express a concern at being served an order that prevents somebody from speaking to them and being expected to comply with this as if it were a Reporting Restriction Order.