Barristers in the south of England running a child protection project have added Researching Reform to a list of ‘undesirables’ within the child welfare sector.
The list also includes the Ministry of Justice.
In a post by Child Protection Resource entitled “Information about the Family Justice System: Who can you trust?” The project alleges that the Ministry of Justice:
“Easily make the cut following their bizarre decision to launch an Inquiry over 3 months into how issues of violence are dealt with in the family courts… and that law and policy are best discussed in the context of a raft of subjective and unchecked submissions from the pubic.” (We think the authoress means public).
Although the authoress says in the post that the observations are based in fact, we found very little evidence to support that claim.
Also on the blacklist is former MP John Hemming, who campaigned for family court reform and was in part responsible for making the public aware of issues inside the system through the national media. The authoress claims the following:
“I have no doubt [John] caused a lot of damage while a serving MP as his position gave him credibility. However his influence appears to have diminished since he lost his seat in 2015.”
No details about the kind of damage he is alleged to have done have been given. On another note, the careless comment could also open up the site and its managers to a defamation law suit.
As for Researching Reform, the site alleges the following:
” [Natasha] Runs the Researching Reform Website. Has connections with Hemming and at one point made Sabine McNeil her ‘star commentator’. As the comments on her web posts shows, she continues to interact largely with those who are identified ‘players’ on the conspiracy scene.”
Sabine was never earmarked or set apart from the many thousand commentators who have left thoughts on the site, and was never given star status. We consider all of our posters equal in discussion, and because we believe in freedom of expression we allow everyone to have their say.
While we haven’t engaged with John Hemming for quite some time, we did create, organise and execute all of his APPG meetings on family law. You can take a look at a summary of one of the meetings over on Family Law Week.
As for ‘players on the conspiracy scene’, once again, we allow all points of view on the site. That, of course, does not mean that we automatically condone them.
Researching Reform engages with every voice inside the system, from members of the House of Lords and House of Commons, who we have briefed for over a decade on child welfare issues, to families, charities and perpetrators of abuse, including offending paedophiles.
It is part of our remit to engage with as many voices as we can, and of fundamental importance in trying to understand the dynamics inside the child welfare sector.
The blog is at best garbled gibberish, and it’s a shame that the collective behind Child Protection Resource approved the post.
Despite the silliness of this effort, we will continue to signpost people to the project’s website, as it offers often, interesting and informative content about the child welfare sector.
Many thanks to Legal Action for Women for alerting us to this post.
If you’re undesirable, I dread to think how she is regarded; Her allies include @ciabaudo a German anti-Semitic troll, who is obsessed with pedophilia. A useful resource on the authoress is a twitter user by the name of @brookeporkpies – she/he exposes the authoress’s hypocrisy and undesirable dealings on a daily basis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a load of rubbish! You listen to all us and youre there for us putting your own time in to help us.
Number one blog in my eyes because you really do genuinely care about children and parents.
Theyve obviously not seen this-
Keep up the good work and ignore silly nonsense we know isn’t true Xxxxxx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for such a lovely post, it’s hugely appreciated. Thank you for your amazing support and for being so wonderful. Xxxxxxxxxxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Barristers’ Child Protection Project takes An Unprofessional Nosedive | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE
Natasha, I’m quite shocked that Sarah Phillimore has taken such a broad swipe at you. What have you done to incur her wrath? Are you in competition? Is she jealous? Is she mirroring?
Interestingly on Sarah Phillimore’s website there is a parents section. Having read the article about appealing against forced adoption & gaining post adoption contact the birth parents question the futility of opposing adoption orders. After all what is the point of having existing laws if the parents can never succeed regardless of what positive steps they take. So despite admitting that no one has succeeded in preventing an adoption what has been done by these Barristers to uphold the law? Those Barristers who are being paid to appeal knowing the parents will lose yet they bank the money and the parents are left empty handed. Morally that is corrupt.
I don’t for a minute think it stops there. All the child cases going to court pay for their lifestyles. Every case creates money, regardless if for or against. A win win for the Barristers.
“If you are neutral in situations of justice you have chosen the side of the oppressor”.
It’s no wonder that conspiracies abound when there are such injustices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, don’t we just love moralistic posts from those who benefit financially by having views that uphold and validate the system, rather than shine a light on the imperfections. I can just imagine these very barristers having dinner with some of the more questionnable judges, laughing about the general populus and their conspiracy theories….ha ha ha.
However, to simply rule out conspiracy theories on the basis that they lack evidence is to simply lack insight concerning the very foundations of the family court system. In order to highlight the imperfections in the system there is a need for evidence..
However, given the power of local authorities and cafcass the ability to gain this evidence is near on impossible, not because it doesn’t exist, but because of the structures and rhetorics. It questions the very notion that the local authority in procaliming to put children’s welfare first in all their fanfare, whilst in reality the outcome at the end of these inhuman processes is so far removed from the original supposed intention, that many family court orders and processes actually harm the child far more than if the status quo or some assistance had simply been provided.
In terms of conspiracy, in my area even the police will not get involved despite their being clear evidence against the local authority despite their supposed impartiality. Police officers worry about the effects on their own children.
Keep going Natasha…love the blog. Always thinking about those who are not given enough weight by the system. Thanks x
Dear Anon, thank you for your thoughts and your very kind encouragement, it’s really appreciated x
Charles Pragnell said:
Well done Natasha.!. I’m sure that I will be on the list somewhere too, having been a scourge and critic of the legal profession for a great many years. Its a great honour and award to gain distaste from such a select band.
When one of their number, now a Senior Family Court Judge, can state publicly the “Even paedophiles have a right to a relationship with their children.!”, while others actively work to persuade Family Court Judges to give contact and even custody of children to criminally violent, abusive, and toxic parents, then they have no right whatsoever to claim any concerns for protecting children.
Their claims to being child protectors are the equivalent of Boris Johnson claiming to be an anti-Brexiteer.!
Bon chance, mon ami.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No justice in the family court they’re all corrupt.