The Buzz

28 Monday Oct 2013

It’s only Monday, but already there are some interesting things buzzing around the net for all you social work and family justice enthusiasts….

Local Government Ombudsman Launches New CYP issues newsletter – The case studies make for very interesting, and important reading. Newsletter aimed at child advocates and other support services
A Bill to Reduce the Voting Age Makes Its Way Through The House of Lords – we’re keeping an eye on this Bill, so watch this space
Probably one of the Worst Written Articles on Family Law We’ve Seen in A Long Time – From a journalist at the Daily Telegraph.

Voting Age (Comprehensive Reduction) Bill

28 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by Natasha in Children, Family Law, Update

≈ Leave a comment

Back in May, we mentioned a Bill slinking its way through the House, to reduce the minimum voting age to 16, and it’s back in business. The Bill is summarised on Parliament’s website as, “A Bill to extend the franchise for parliamentary and other elections, and for referendums, to all citizens over the age of 16 years.”

The Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 25th October, so next up will be the Committee Stage, though a date for this stage has yet to be set. In the meantime, you can catch all the action so far, below:

Transcript of the second reading in the House of Lords
A Copy of the text of the current Bill
Bill documents (just the Bill itself, at this stage)

Question It!

28 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by Natasha in Question It

≈ 31 Comments

Welcome to another Monday; the winds of change are certainly billowing through the narrow streets of Britain and the corridors of the family justice system, and whilst we hope boats gets rocked a little in this storm, we very much hope nothing gets tipped over before the calm sets in.

Our question this week focuses on the Judiciary. As the system gets set to publish more judgments than ever before, we ask about the judges who sit inside the family justice system.

Our question is simple: do we have the right to know more about our judges, the way they think, their backgrounds, and even their voting records, to create a level of transparency inside the system which treats all professionals as equal, or should they remain impersonal, distant figures who are to be judged purely on the merit of their work?