Comments on: get a life – get a blog http://pinktape.co.uk/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/ a blog from the family bar Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:28:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: A Festive Message « Pink Tape http://pinktape.co.uk/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-3032 A Festive Message « Pink Tape Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:13:28 +0000 http://legalfamily.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-3032 [...] 21, 2009 by familoo I’ve been moderating comments on the Pink Tape for some time (see here also) to ensure that abusive or inappropriate posts are not published by those with little or no [...] [...] 21, 2009 by familoo I’ve been moderating comments on the Pink Tape for some time (see here also) to ensure that abusive or inappropriate posts are not published by those with little or no [...]

]]> By: John Power http://pinktape.co.uk/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-195 John Power Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:01:57 +0000 http://legalfamily.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-195 I see comment as a communication channel, how else would we know what the readers want? Its also a good way to build relationships. I see comment as a communication channel, how else would we know what the readers want? Its also a good way to build relationships.

]]> By: Nick Langford http://pinktape.co.uk/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-161 Nick Langford Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:14:20 +0000 http://legalfamily.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-161 Sorry, Familoo, I wasn't trying to rush you. Thanks to the family courts I now have a lot of spare time - and that isn't meant to sound as bitter as it might. We do need a debate, both about what our objectives should be and about how to achieve them. No one can plausibly continue to claim that there is no problem. I think we need to start from scratch with a new Children Act; one which is fit for purpose and recognises the massive social changes there have been in the last generation. The 1989 Act is nearly 20 years old and much of the thinking behind it is much, much older. The paramountcy principle which is so over promoted dates back to the beginning of the 20th Century, PR is a throwback to when illegitimacy was a stigma - should we really be discriminating against illegitimate children when nearly half are now born out of wedlock? Blogs like yours seem as good a place as any to conduct some of this debate - campaigners for change will inevitably gravitate towards them; I could set up my own blog as you suggest, but I don't imagine many lawyers would contribute to it! Sorry, Familoo, I wasn’t trying to rush you. Thanks to the family courts I now have a lot of spare time – and that isn’t meant to sound as bitter as it might.

We do need a debate, both about what our objectives should be and about how to achieve them. No one can plausibly continue to claim that there is no problem.

I think we need to start from scratch with a new Children Act; one which is fit for purpose and recognises the massive social changes there have been in the last generation. The 1989 Act is nearly 20 years old and much of the thinking behind it is much, much older. The paramountcy principle which is so over promoted dates back to the beginning of the 20th Century, PR is a throwback to when illegitimacy was a stigma – should we really be discriminating against illegitimate children when nearly half are now born out of wedlock?

Blogs like yours seem as good a place as any to conduct some of this debate – campaigners for change will inevitably gravitate towards them; I could set up my own blog as you suggest, but I don’t imagine many lawyers would contribute to it!

]]> By: familoo http://pinktape.co.uk/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-157 familoo Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:55:43 +0000 http://legalfamily.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-157 Hi Nick, You're right, I did provoke a sequence of postings - and I haven't deleted them precisely because some of the points made are valid and I do want to generate debate. As you will see I'm not stopping comments, I'm just managing them. I do want to read the document you sent me but I'm afraid I haven't had time to do so due to professional and personal committments. When I've read it I will post my thoughts. Just because I disagree with some of what you say and they way it is expressed doesn't mean its F4J bashing. As you say, I made a valid point. But I have made no general point about the validity or purpose of F4J. For what its worth my view is that F4J have generated some important debate about equality in the family courts, but I'm afraid I disagree with much in terms of the way it seeks to achieve its objectives. But thats a polite disagreement not a bash. Hi Nick,
You’re right, I did provoke a sequence of postings – and I haven’t deleted them precisely because some of the points made are valid and I do want to generate debate. As you will see I’m not stopping comments, I’m just managing them.

I do want to read the document you sent me but I’m afraid I haven’t had time to do so due to professional and personal committments. When I’ve read it I will post my thoughts.

Just because I disagree with some of what you say and they way it is expressed doesn’t mean its F4J bashing. As you say, I made a valid point. But I have made no general point about the validity or purpose of F4J. For what its worth my view is that F4J have generated some important debate about equality in the family courts, but I’m afraid I disagree with much in terms of the way it seeks to achieve its objectives. But thats a polite disagreement not a bash.

]]> By: Nick Langford http://pinktape.co.uk/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-154 Nick Langford Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:52:40 +0000 http://legalfamily.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/get-a-life-get-a-blog/#comment-154 Fair enough, it's your blog after all. But you did provoke this sequence of postings by criticising F4J for only making our documents available to members; it was a reasonable point. Graeme then made the Blueprint available to you and I offered the Family Justice on Trial document, which I wrote. You said, on the 14th of August, 'I'm open minded,' and offered to read these documents, but you no not appear to have read the Blueprint yet and you have not requested the other doc. You said, 'I’d genuinely like to read such documents', and spoke of 'debate'. I am willing to believe you remain open minded, but I am finding it more difficult to do so. You condemn us for 'lawyer bashing' but I'm beginning to wonder if your original posting wasn't just a bit of Fathers 4 Justice bashing. Fair enough, it’s your blog after all. But you did provoke this sequence of postings by criticising F4J for only making our documents available to members; it was a reasonable point. Graeme then made the Blueprint available to you and I offered the Family Justice on Trial document, which I wrote.

You said, on the 14th of August, ‘I’m open minded,’ and offered to read these documents, but you no not appear to have read the Blueprint yet and you have not requested the other doc. You said, ‘I’d genuinely like to read such documents’, and spoke of ‘debate’.

I am willing to believe you remain open minded, but I am finding it more difficult to do so. You condemn us for ‘lawyer bashing’ but I’m beginning to wonder if your original posting wasn’t just a bit of Fathers 4 Justice bashing.

]]>