Nobody going with *what is this complete nutter doing on the bench & how do we ensure he hasn't charge of any case in the future*? Dissing the journalist's whobroughtthe appeal here is somewhat missing the point to my mind (... strange puts it mildly).
Vos was retrained but found on all 3 grounds. I can't do a search for all William J's judgments to date but why exactly is that? If we believe in open justice & digitisation of our system let's pull down the shutters that so effectively *mask* our system of justice?
the problem with some journalists (it seems to me, and emphatically not JRKC) is that they can dish it out to others every day but are very thin skinned when they are criticized for slipshod or partisan reporting. The 2 journalists in this case are freelancers who depend on juicy stories from the family courts to generate copy and publication. the reporting of the family justice system is sadly replete with 'campaigning' on behalf of certain interest groups who will only report from the standpoint of a particular group, often tipped off by 'campaigning' lawyers (if there ever could be such a thing) to the said juicy cases and who are seeking to recruit the press and public to pressure a favorable outcome in the litigation. The Channel 4 programme was a case in point when any one who had actually read the judgments in those cases would have had a quite different take on the actions of those women abducting their children to the unrecognized territory of Northern Cyprus. The reporting in that programme was wildly unbalanced. Yes, this judge overreacted on the issue of judicial anonymity, but consider the context in which he and many others who do the daily heavy lifting in these cases have to operate: with vested interests standing ready to weaponize any vaguely arguable error for their own ends. Personally, I can see why he was worried.
Hmmmm. Well. Yes. Indeed. It’s only going to get worse I expect with parents being allowed to be interviewed about their cases whilst they are ongoing. I just think the public needs to be aware of the agendas at play in the reporting of many cases. I preferred the great Brian Farmer of the PA who we all trusted. Straight down the middle. To be continued!
"There now need to be real efforts to work out what went wrong in this heartbreaking case where a young girl’s life was stolen from her and what might need to change. Information and scrutiny are vital tools in this endeavour".
Sadly, what went wrong was that Sara had the grave misfortune to have been born to awful parents. Ultimately, parents are responsible for their children. Quite often it is social services, the criminal justice system, the police etc who are left to pick up the pieces arising from poor, inconsistent, lazy and inadequate parenting. The real focus must be on more responsible parenting.
A relatively sophisticated state apparatus has developed to *catch* children who fall into the hands of *irresponsible parents* - until all parents are responsible perhaps we should explore how it can be improved - don't you think?
... the prohibition on reporting in the Family Courts may have contributed to the failure of the state apparatus that has been put in place? How about we think on that going forward?
Nobody going with *what is this complete nutter doing on the bench & how do we ensure he hasn't charge of any case in the future*? Dissing the journalist's whobroughtthe appeal here is somewhat missing the point to my mind (... strange puts it mildly).
Vos was retrained but found on all 3 grounds. I can't do a search for all William J's judgments to date but why exactly is that? If we believe in open justice & digitisation of our system let's pull down the shutters that so effectively *mask* our system of justice?
the problem with some journalists (it seems to me, and emphatically not JRKC) is that they can dish it out to others every day but are very thin skinned when they are criticized for slipshod or partisan reporting. The 2 journalists in this case are freelancers who depend on juicy stories from the family courts to generate copy and publication. the reporting of the family justice system is sadly replete with 'campaigning' on behalf of certain interest groups who will only report from the standpoint of a particular group, often tipped off by 'campaigning' lawyers (if there ever could be such a thing) to the said juicy cases and who are seeking to recruit the press and public to pressure a favorable outcome in the litigation. The Channel 4 programme was a case in point when any one who had actually read the judgments in those cases would have had a quite different take on the actions of those women abducting their children to the unrecognized territory of Northern Cyprus. The reporting in that programme was wildly unbalanced. Yes, this judge overreacted on the issue of judicial anonymity, but consider the context in which he and many others who do the daily heavy lifting in these cases have to operate: with vested interests standing ready to weaponize any vaguely arguable error for their own ends. Personally, I can see why he was worried.
Fair point; though Lieven J has more regard for Tickle than you do: "There is a strong public interest in allowing Ms Tickle to report the generic concerns about the Family Justice System which arise." https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Tickle-v-Father-Ors-judgment-050923.pdf
I too can see why Williams J was worried. As I say, my concern is that he has made matters worse.
Hmmmm. Well. Yes. Indeed. It’s only going to get worse I expect with parents being allowed to be interviewed about their cases whilst they are ongoing. I just think the public needs to be aware of the agendas at play in the reporting of many cases. I preferred the great Brian Farmer of the PA who we all trusted. Straight down the middle. To be continued!
... if revealing his true nature here he's probably done us al a service. l
"There now need to be real efforts to work out what went wrong in this heartbreaking case where a young girl’s life was stolen from her and what might need to change. Information and scrutiny are vital tools in this endeavour".
Sadly, what went wrong was that Sara had the grave misfortune to have been born to awful parents. Ultimately, parents are responsible for their children. Quite often it is social services, the criminal justice system, the police etc who are left to pick up the pieces arising from poor, inconsistent, lazy and inadequate parenting. The real focus must be on more responsible parenting.
A relatively sophisticated state apparatus has developed to *catch* children who fall into the hands of *irresponsible parents* - until all parents are responsible perhaps we should explore how it can be improved - don't you think?
... the prohibition on reporting in the Family Courts may have contributed to the failure of the state apparatus that has been put in place? How about we think on that going forward?
I have asked you before to confine your comments to the issue I have raised. I shall not ask you again.
and there we go JR.....one really good example of why Williams J was so worried.