Agreed. It always looks like they want to hide what they are doing when they take objection to being filmed. That looks suspicious
Don't know. Probably the latter.
Greater openness all round may mean that the public stop doubting family court decisions.
There was a case a year or two back where a girl, I think aged 17, was not only banned from marrying her partner, but also was under notice that her unborn child would be taken from her as soon as it was born. The decision seemed utterly incomprehensible, and again, the public were not privy to the reasons behind the decision. I can't remember the names, but I know it was extensively discussed on here at the time.
There have been other decisions made where young children have been forcibly removed from their parents on the flimsiest of evidence.
For this reason it is vital in my view that the reasons are made public where serious objections are raised by any of the affected parties. This enables proper outside scrutiny of the reasons, and also might inhibit erroneous or corrupt decision making.
Can you provide us with examples of these cases of flimsy evidence? Otherwise it is just an ill conceived presumption based upon authority paranoia, an overinvested sense of entitlement to information about other people's private lives, and lack of understanding of the need for abused children not to suffer in the public eye to satisfy the unjustifiable doubts of the few.
Yup, right up to the bit where I mentioned how it was interesting that you were so argumentative over something you consider irrelevant.
For them to exclude photography would have to be for exceptional circumstances. Indeed the very fact that it's not exactly normal for a "contact contract" to refuse to allow any photography makes it "exceptional circumstances", which was exactly what I said it would be.
Correct, you refused permission for your child to eat the candyfloss, but you couldn't refuse permission for your sister to buy some.
You've done a good job of showing the difference. You cannot refuse someone permission to take a photograph of you or a child in your care in public or on property you do not control, because no permission is needed. Refusal of permission where there's no need for permission is no refusal at all.
You can refuse to allow your child to be in front of the camera. The two are very, very, different things indeed.
Incidentally I wouldn't let my kid have candyfloss either - but that's simply because it's pure sugar and pure sugar and kids isn't a very good idea
Just semantics again I am afraid. If you really don't get it then I can't help you by explaining again. And thanks for acknowledging your contributions about the law and photography has been entirely irrelevant.
It's not semantics, but important differences. Differences you were only too keen to discuss, but now when they're discussed in return become semantics.
And thanks for acknowledging your contributions about the law and photography has been entirely irrelevant.
I did no such thing, because they're not. I said that you consider them to be irrelevant - which makes it really very interesting that you're so keen to argue about it.
But hey, now you've had to stoop to twisting my words as well as pulling out the "semantics" card.
Why shouldn't there be openness if serious concerns are raised by any of the parties affected ? It's very unhealthy in my view to keep it all hidden away.
If there is a valid reason for a family court decision then we should hear it to allay public concern in cases where children are removed from their families.
Public concern is not as important as the child I am afraid. Parents can appeal via the courts. Many agencies are involved. As important as you may feel you are in the matter of people's private business,it really isn't the case,and your knowledge will not enhance justice. An imature and ego centric view point.
It's not semantics, but important differences. Differences you were only too keen to discuss, but now when they're discussed in return become semantics.
I did no such thing, because they're not. I said that you consider them to be irrelevant - which makes it really very interesting that you're so keen to argue about it.
But hey, now you've had to stoop to twisting my words as well as pulling out the "semantics" card.
I am happy to discuss the differences. I have done for many pages. I am not happy to make the same post for the sixth time. I am happy to discuss the rights of the child in this case, which I have done. If the LA does not want this child filmed, for his own best interests, it will not happen. Regardless of your irrelevant points about legal rights of photography. Do you get it yet?
Sorry, but nothing will convince me that we don't require greater openness to prevent things like this from happening.
The Family Courts are now open to journalists anyway - since last year. As someone who has been through the system, I find that 'openness' (which looks great in theory), a terrible thing. Because my kids' father was someone in whom the media had some interest, had the process been open several years back - my kids would have lost the safety of anonymity, no doubt and been dragged through the whole process in an open court with reporters staring at them and reporting on them. Their name is an unusual one and so they'd have come in for humiliation in the playground when everyone found out, too.
You have no idea how important the process being a private one, might be for the children involved.
This child deserves to have a father who respects his privacy and who won;t use him as a pawn in a game. Clearly in this man's case, the court made the right decision, as he appears to have more ego than concern for his child.
The Family Courts are now open to journalists anyway - since last year. As someone who has been through the system, I find that 'openness' (which looks great in theory), a terrible thing. Because my kids' father was someone in whom the media had some interest, had the process been open several years back - my kids would have lost the safety of anonymity, no doubt and been dragged through the whole process in an open court with reporters staring at them and reporting on them. Their name is an unusual one and so they'd have come in for humiliation in the playground when everyone found out, too.
You have no idea how important the process being a private one, might be for the children involved.
This child deserves to have a father who respects his privacy and who won;t use him as a pawn in a game. Clearly in this man's case, the court made the right decision, as he appears to have more ego than concern for his child.
Great post. There seems to be a strange train of thought that the courts not being an open process leads inevitabley to people drawing negative conclusions regarding services,and lack of evidence is not a problem in forming a view because full information isn't provided. A petulant and illogical stance.
Can you provide us with examples of these cases of flimsy evidence? Otherwise it is just an ill conceived presumption based upon authority paranoia, an overinvested sense of entitlement to information about other people's private lives, and lack of understanding of the need for abused children not to suffer in the public eye to satisfy the unjustifiable doubts of the few.
I've already provided examples a while back which show that it isn't "authority paranoia".
If mistakes are made, and they are, then why are doubts "unjustifiable" ?
Public concern is not as important as the child I am afraid. Parents can appeal via the courts. Many agencies are involved. As important as you may feel you are in the matter of people's private business,it really isn't the case,and your knowledge will not enhance justice. An imature and ego centric view point.
The child is all important, as is any vulnerable person who is having life decisions made on their behalf. Which is precisely why the decisions of the few should be open to scrutiny by the many.
You dismissal of my views as both "paranoid" and "immature/ego centric" highlights your inability to engage in reasonable debate without resorting to personal insults.
I am happy to discuss the differences. I have done for many pages. I am not happy to make the same post for the sixth time. I am happy to discuss the rights of the child in this case, which I have done. If the LA does not want this child filmed, for his own best interests, it will not happen. Regardless of your irrelevant points about legal rights of photography. Do you get it yet?
I "got it" ages ago. The bit you're not getting is that it would require exceptional circumstances for them to think that photography wasn't in the best interests of the child. I said ages ago it'd require exceptional circumstances.
As for being willing to discuss the differences, no, you really don't seem to be. You just dismiss it as semantics, or claim it's irrelevant, and then to top it off you go and twist what I say to try and make out that I considered it irrelevant.
As I said, it seems that you're just being argumentative.
I've already provided examples a while back which show that it isn't "authority paranoia".
If mistakes are made, and they are, then why are doubts "unjustifiable" ?
The child is all important, as is any vulnerable person who is having life decisions made on their behalf. Which is precisely why the decisions of the few should be open to scrutiny by the many.
You dismissal of my views as both "paranoid" and "immature/ego centric" highlights your inability to engage in reasonable debate without resorting to personal insults.
I am always the first to acknowledge that mistakes can be made. That doesn't mean that justice would be enhanced by a bunch of nosy parkers putting in their penniesworth.
I do indeed dismiss your views, if you find that insulting that is not really my problem.
I "got it" ages ago. The bit you're not getting is that it would require exceptional circumstances for them to think that photography wasn't in the best interests of the child. I said ages ago it'd require exceptional circumstances.
As for being willing to discuss the differences, no, you really don't seem to be. You just dismiss it as semantics, or claim it's irrelevant, and then to top it off you go and twist what I say to try and make out that I considered it irrelevant.
As I said, it seems that you're just being argumentative.
Because experience in childcare has taught me that high intakes of sugar in a short space increase the chances of bad behaviour exponentially
It would not take exceptional circumstances. It would just take circumstances particular to that child. What does it matter anyway? The fact is that this child is extremely unlikely to be filmed in contact given the case history, and it is this child and this case we are talking about. I do not find it relevant, what the rights of photographers are, you do.
You do seem perturbed at someone disagreeing with you on a forum. I think it is time to get over the shock now, you have mentioned it every other post.
And as you are still banging on at me about this, I am quite clear you still do not get it.
I am always the first to acknowledge that mistakes can be made. That doesn't mean that justice would be enhanced by a bunch of nosy parkers putting in their penniesworth.
Nonetheless there are (or were under the last government) moves being made to allow for greater openness. I don't see why those calling for this should be condescendingly dismissed as "a bunch of nosy parkers putting in their penniesworth" ~ click here
I notice you also conveniently ignored post No 174.
I do indeed dismiss your views, if you find that insulting that is not really my problem.
You are welcome to dismiss my views as long as it doesn't involve personal and totally unqualified speculative comments as to my psychological and emotional profile, which may not only breach community guidelines, but are also totally irrelevant to the debate. Thanks a lot.
It would not take exceptional circumstances. It would just take circumstances particular to that child. What does it matter anyway? The fact is that this child is extremely unlikely to be filmed in contact given the case history, and it is this child and this case we are talking about. I do not find it relevant, what the rights of photographers are, you do.
Why would the child be extremely unlikely to be filmed? Because the father chose to film and upload something shot in his own home? Unless they're expecting further confrontation (which would be unlikely after visitation has been negotiated), they'd have no concern about footage being uploaded and embarrassing the child (if it did in the first place).
There's usually not a problem with a parent taking photos at visitation. It's a perfectly normal thing for a visiting parent to want to do. That means that it'd be exceptional (thus requiring exceptional circumstances) to disallow photography during a visit.
You do seem perturbed at someone disagreeing with you on a forum. I think it is time to get over the shock now, you have mentioned it every other post.
I don't find being disagreed with perturbing, far from it, I just find it incredibly interesting that you're willing to be so argumentative (as opposed to discussing in disagreement) over something you consider irrelevant, and are willing to go to such lengths as deliberately twist what I've said.
Protip: stick to the photography discussion, you know what you're talking about in that department
Shush you
I've nothing against sugary snacks, I've just found that too much in too-short-a-space isn't good for their behaviour - and candyfloss is just about pure sugar (with colouring added).
Nonetheless there are (or were under the last government) moves being made to allow for greater openness. I don't see why those calling for this should be condescendingly dismissed as "a bunch of nosy parkers putting in their penniesworth" ~ click here
I notice you also conveniently ignored post No 174.
You are welcome to dismiss my views as long as it doesn't involve personal and totally unqualified and speculative comments as to my psychological and emotional profile, which may not only breach community guidelines, but are also totally irrelevant to the debate. Thanks a lot.
Oh get over yourself and report me if I have said such dreadfully insulting things. I can't be doing with the drama, 'your emotional profile'?
I can draw any conclusions I like about your opinions, and it isn't all about you I am afraid. I am equally dismissive of any SSD conspiracy theorist nonsense.
I haven't ignored that post for any convenient reason, I am not sure why someone else having the same opinion as you makes the argument any stronger. I still think it is ridiculous to suggest justice can't take place without the general public being kept informed of private family business.
Why would the child be extremely unlikely to be filmed? Because the father chose to film and upload something shot in his own home? Unless they're expecting further confrontation (which would be unlikely after visitation has been negotiated), they'd have no concern about footage being uploaded and embarrassing the child (if it did in the first place).
There's usually not a problem with a parent taking photos at visitation. It's a perfectly normal thing for a visiting parent to want to do. That means that it'd be exceptional (thus requiring exceptional circumstances) to disallow photography during a visit.
I don't find being disagreed with perturbing, far from it, I just find it incredibly interesting that you're willing to be so argumentative (as opposed to discussing in disagreement) over something you consider irrelevant, and are willing to go to such lengths as deliberately twist what I've said.
No-one is twisting what you said. I am not convinced it is me going to any great lengths either. And I am discussing in disagreement, the fact you feel differently just highlights a different view. People don't always interact as you wish, hey ho, such is life. You have a choice not to engage.
If you really think that this young person is going to be filmed by his father at contacts then there is not much I can say really. I very much doubt it. I am sure photo's of his son would be allowed, they are, as you say, normally encouraged. That doesnt make it exceptional though. I have known many cases for many reasons when it wasn't the case.
The Family Courts are now open to journalists anyway - since last year. As someone who has been through the system, I find that 'openness' (which looks great in theory), a terrible thing. Because my kids' father was someone in whom the media had some interest, had the process been open several years back - my kids would have lost the safety of anonymity, no doubt and been dragged through the whole process in an open court with reporters staring at them and reporting on them. Their name is an unusual one and so they'd have come in for humiliation in the playground when everyone found out, too.
You have no idea how important the process being a private one, might be for the children involved.
This child deserves to have a father who respects his privacy and who won;t use him as a pawn in a game. Clearly in this man's case, the court made the right decision, as he appears to have more ego than concern for his child.
There are ways of opening the judicial process to scrutiny whilst maintaining the anonymity of the case. When people campaign for openness within family courts they don't tend to mean all case details being open to the public or media, just that all evidence and procedure should be able to be scrutinised and regulated.
I'm lucky to live in an area where my son's asd was recognised, diagnosed and understood very early, but this isn't the case in all of the uk unfortunately. I frequent a number of forums for parents with asd's and some of the stories, while anecdotal and always with personal bias, are truly frightening! Especially as the same scenarios crop up with worrying regularity. Things like paediatricians making an official diagnosis only to retract it for fear of losing their jobs, Forced removal orders being rushed into place just to beat statementing deadlines, Parent's accused of Münchhausen syndrome despite not meeting any of the diagnostic criteria, I could go on.
I would even be willing to bet that if I were to go onto any support forum for any of the "hidden" disabilities and conditions (Bi-polar, schizophrenia, tourrettes, adhd, etc) I would find similar stories in similar numbers.
When the health authority, social services and education authority are all under the influence of the local councils, who are the ones required to fund support and treatment, it's inevitable that the system is going to be at risk of corruption. And that's without taking into account how easily mistakes can be made, with the best of intentions!
We have one for almost everything else, including the police and government, surely it makes sense to have one for family courts too, especially as their whole purpose is protecting and safeguarding children and their best interests.
Oh get over yourself and report me if I have made such dreadfully insulting things. I can't be doing with the drama, 'your emotional profile'?
I can draw any conclusions I like about your opinions, and it isn't all about you I am afraid. I am equally dismissive of any SSD conspiracy theorist nonsense.
I merely have this concept of civilized debate free of personal insults, such as "get over yourself" and the others I mentioned. A credibility gap soon opens up if you reply on that as your strategy. No, it isn't about me, but personal insults make it "about me" and must be addressed.
Moreover I don't accept that reasonable public concerns can be sweepingly dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Sorry but you really have totally failed to even try and debate the point I have raised.
I haven't ignored that post for any convenient reason, I am not sure why someone else having the same opinion as you makes the argument any stronger. I still think it is ridiculous to suggest justice can't take place without the general public being kept informed of private family business.
It lends weight to any argument if influential people such as judges and politicians hold the same opinion.
OK, you think it is ridiculous, but you have failed to say precisely why it is ridiculous or engage with me in meaningful debate about the points I have raised in its favour.
Given that I never made any such acknowledgement, you were twisting what I was saying.
Nope, as demonstrated above, you seem to be just being plain-old argumentative for the sake of it.
Nope, not twisting, I think that is an overstatement of faux injury. Perhaps, as you have now clarified your point, misinterpreting. There is nothing as sinister going on, I promise you, your own words are enough to disagree with without twisting being needed.
I will respond to your posts, yes. I am sorry if you find that argumentative, and given it is discussion you are engaging in, surprised you have that view at all.
I merely have this concept of civilized debate free of personal insults, such as "get over yourself" and the others I mentioned.
Moreover I don't accept that reasonable public concerns can be sweepingly dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Sorry but you really have totally failed to even try and debate the point I have raised.
It lends weight to any argument if influential people such as judges and politicians hold the same opinion.
OK, you think it is ridiculous, but you have failed to say precisely why it is ridiculous or engage with me in meaningful debate about the points I have raised in its favour.
So? Am I obliged to engage in debate as you would wish me to? I am not on this forum to meet your needs, I couldn't care less what you want from me! I have no time for the view and one of the many, many other threads where I have engaged for pages going through all the different issues would be just as good as me doing it all again. I didn't come on to a thread about family courts, and whilst I appreciate you seem to crow bar the same points into every thread vaguely related to social services, your view is not as interesting to me as it is to you.
Judge Pickles had opinions. Reverence for someone's role is dangerous territory.
Just watched the video there.The police where there to do their job & the father wasn't making it easy for them.I don't see what other choice the police had.
Of course you were. I just showed where you did it.
As I said, I don't think this was twisting, That is what I thought you expressed.You have now said you did not. You really are one for going over the same thing again and again.
Comments
Can you provide us with examples of these cases of flimsy evidence? Otherwise it is just an ill conceived presumption based upon authority paranoia, an overinvested sense of entitlement to information about other people's private lives, and lack of understanding of the need for abused children not to suffer in the public eye to satisfy the unjustifiable doubts of the few.
Just semantics again I am afraid. If you really don't get it then I can't help you by explaining again. And thanks for acknowledging your contributions about the law and photography has been entirely irrelevant.
But hey, now you've had to stoop to twisting my words as well as pulling out the "semantics" card.
Public concern is not as important as the child I am afraid. Parents can appeal via the courts. Many agencies are involved. As important as you may feel you are in the matter of people's private business,it really isn't the case,and your knowledge will not enhance justice. An imature and ego centric view point.
I am happy to discuss the differences. I have done for many pages. I am not happy to make the same post for the sixth time. I am happy to discuss the rights of the child in this case, which I have done. If the LA does not want this child filmed, for his own best interests, it will not happen. Regardless of your irrelevant points about legal rights of photography. Do you get it yet?
The Family Courts are now open to journalists anyway - since last year. As someone who has been through the system, I find that 'openness' (which looks great in theory), a terrible thing. Because my kids' father was someone in whom the media had some interest, had the process been open several years back - my kids would have lost the safety of anonymity, no doubt and been dragged through the whole process in an open court with reporters staring at them and reporting on them. Their name is an unusual one and so they'd have come in for humiliation in the playground when everyone found out, too.
You have no idea how important the process being a private one, might be for the children involved.
This child deserves to have a father who respects his privacy and who won;t use him as a pawn in a game. Clearly in this man's case, the court made the right decision, as he appears to have more ego than concern for his child.
Great post. There seems to be a strange train of thought that the courts not being an open process leads inevitabley to people drawing negative conclusions regarding services,and lack of evidence is not a problem in forming a view because full information isn't provided. A petulant and illogical stance.
I've already provided examples a while back which show that it isn't "authority paranoia".
If mistakes are made, and they are, then why are doubts "unjustifiable" ?
The child is all important, as is any vulnerable person who is having life decisions made on their behalf. Which is precisely why the decisions of the few should be open to scrutiny by the many.
You dismissal of my views as both "paranoid" and "immature/ego centric" highlights your inability to engage in reasonable debate without resorting to personal insults.
I "got it" ages ago. The bit you're not getting is that it would require exceptional circumstances for them to think that photography wasn't in the best interests of the child. I said ages ago it'd require exceptional circumstances.
As for being willing to discuss the differences, no, you really don't seem to be. You just dismiss it as semantics, or claim it's irrelevant, and then to top it off you go and twist what I say to try and make out that I considered it irrelevant.
As I said, it seems that you're just being argumentative. Because experience in childcare has taught me that high intakes of sugar in a short space increase the chances of bad behaviour exponentially
I am always the first to acknowledge that mistakes can be made. That doesn't mean that justice would be enhanced by a bunch of nosy parkers putting in their penniesworth.
I do indeed dismiss your views, if you find that insulting that is not really my problem.
It would not take exceptional circumstances. It would just take circumstances particular to that child. What does it matter anyway? The fact is that this child is extremely unlikely to be filmed in contact given the case history, and it is this child and this case we are talking about. I do not find it relevant, what the rights of photographers are, you do.
You do seem perturbed at someone disagreeing with you on a forum. I think it is time to get over the shock now, you have mentioned it every other post.
And as you are still banging on at me about this, I am quite clear you still do not get it.
Nonetheless there are (or were under the last government) moves being made to allow for greater openness. I don't see why those calling for this should be condescendingly dismissed as "a bunch of nosy parkers putting in their penniesworth" ~ click here
I notice you also conveniently ignored post No 174.
You are welcome to dismiss my views as long as it doesn't involve personal and totally unqualified speculative comments as to my psychological and emotional profile, which may not only breach community guidelines, but are also totally irrelevant to the debate. Thanks a lot.
There's usually not a problem with a parent taking photos at visitation. It's a perfectly normal thing for a visiting parent to want to do. That means that it'd be exceptional (thus requiring exceptional circumstances) to disallow photography during a visit. I don't find being disagreed with perturbing, far from it, I just find it incredibly interesting that you're willing to be so argumentative (as opposed to discussing in disagreement) over something you consider irrelevant, and are willing to go to such lengths as deliberately twist what I've said. Shush you
I've nothing against sugary snacks, I've just found that too much in too-short-a-space isn't good for their behaviour - and candyfloss is just about pure sugar (with colouring added).
Oh get over yourself and report me if I have said such dreadfully insulting things. I can't be doing with the drama, 'your emotional profile'?
I can draw any conclusions I like about your opinions, and it isn't all about you I am afraid. I am equally dismissive of any SSD conspiracy theorist nonsense.
I haven't ignored that post for any convenient reason, I am not sure why someone else having the same opinion as you makes the argument any stronger. I still think it is ridiculous to suggest justice can't take place without the general public being kept informed of private family business.
No-one is twisting what you said. I am not convinced it is me going to any great lengths either. And I am discussing in disagreement, the fact you feel differently just highlights a different view. People don't always interact as you wish, hey ho, such is life. You have a choice not to engage.
If you really think that this young person is going to be filmed by his father at contacts then there is not much I can say really. I very much doubt it. I am sure photo's of his son would be allowed, they are, as you say, normally encouraged. That doesnt make it exceptional though. I have known many cases for many reasons when it wasn't the case.
[Panto mode]: "Oh yes you did!". [/Panto mode]
Given that I never made any such acknowledgement, you were twisting what I was saying.
[Panto mode]: "Oh no you're not!". [/Panto mode]
As demonstrated above, you seem to be just being plain-old argumentative for the sake of it.
There are ways of opening the judicial process to scrutiny whilst maintaining the anonymity of the case. When people campaign for openness within family courts they don't tend to mean all case details being open to the public or media, just that all evidence and procedure should be able to be scrutinised and regulated.
I'm lucky to live in an area where my son's asd was recognised, diagnosed and understood very early, but this isn't the case in all of the uk unfortunately. I frequent a number of forums for parents with asd's and some of the stories, while anecdotal and always with personal bias, are truly frightening! Especially as the same scenarios crop up with worrying regularity. Things like paediatricians making an official diagnosis only to retract it for fear of losing their jobs, Forced removal orders being rushed into place just to beat statementing deadlines, Parent's accused of Münchhausen syndrome despite not meeting any of the diagnostic criteria, I could go on.
I would even be willing to bet that if I were to go onto any support forum for any of the "hidden" disabilities and conditions (Bi-polar, schizophrenia, tourrettes, adhd, etc) I would find similar stories in similar numbers.
When the health authority, social services and education authority are all under the influence of the local councils, who are the ones required to fund support and treatment, it's inevitable that the system is going to be at risk of corruption. And that's without taking into account how easily mistakes can be made, with the best of intentions!
Anonymity must be protected but their should be some kind of unbiased regulatory body that can be turned to in order to avoid situations such as this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6388655/They-wanted-to-take-away-our-child.html
We have one for almost everything else, including the police and government, surely it makes sense to have one for family courts too, especially as their whole purpose is protecting and safeguarding children and their best interests.
I merely have this concept of civilized debate free of personal insults, such as "get over yourself" and the others I mentioned. A credibility gap soon opens up if you reply on that as your strategy. No, it isn't about me, but personal insults make it "about me" and must be addressed.
Moreover I don't accept that reasonable public concerns can be sweepingly dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Sorry but you really have totally failed to even try and debate the point I have raised.
It lends weight to any argument if influential people such as judges and politicians hold the same opinion.
OK, you think it is ridiculous, but you have failed to say precisely why it is ridiculous or engage with me in meaningful debate about the points I have raised in its favour.
Nope, not twisting, I think that is an overstatement of faux injury. Perhaps, as you have now clarified your point, misinterpreting. There is nothing as sinister going on, I promise you, your own words are enough to disagree with without twisting being needed.
I will respond to your posts, yes. I am sorry if you find that argumentative, and given it is discussion you are engaging in, surprised you have that view at all.
Of course you were. I just showed where you did it.
So? Am I obliged to engage in debate as you would wish me to? I am not on this forum to meet your needs, I couldn't care less what you want from me! I have no time for the view and one of the many, many other threads where I have engaged for pages going through all the different issues would be just as good as me doing it all again. I didn't come on to a thread about family courts, and whilst I appreciate you seem to crow bar the same points into every thread vaguely related to social services, your view is not as interesting to me as it is to you.
Judge Pickles had opinions. Reverence for someone's role is dangerous territory.
As I said, I don't think this was twisting, That is what I thought you expressed.You have now said you did not. You really are one for going over the same thing again and again.