Comments for pinktape.co.uk http://pinktape.co.uk a blog from the family bar Tue, 22 May 2012 21:55:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Children & Families Bill by familoo http://pinktape.co.uk/legal-news/children-families-bill/#comment-6060 familoo Tue, 22 May 2012 21:55:51 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3322#comment-6060 and possibly the ones who had been left in abusive homes would not be in a position to do so. and possibly the ones who had been left in abusive homes would not be in a position to do so.

]]> Comment on Children & Families Bill by forced adoption http://pinktape.co.uk/legal-news/children-families-bill/#comment-6059 forced adoption Tue, 22 May 2012 21:42:50 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3322#comment-6059 JJ Nothing short of certainty should be good enough to break up a happy loving home?Certainly. Would the children thank me? Wel those who were woken up in the middle of the night by around 6 police and a couple of social workers and weredragged off screaming for their mothers might well thank me.... JJ Nothing short of certainty should be good enough to break up a happy loving home?Certainly. Would the children thank me?
Wel those who were woken up in the middle of the night by around 6 police and a couple of social workers and weredragged off screaming for their mothers might well thank me….

]]> Comment on Gold Band : Gold Standard? by Simon Myerson http://pinktape.co.uk/equality/gold-band-gold-standard/#comment-6034 Simon Myerson Tue, 22 May 2012 17:04:40 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3329#comment-6034 The Judge MIGHT make a discriminatory decision... The Judge MIGHT make a discriminatory decision…

]]> Comment on Family Court a law unto itself? by How can we demonstrate ‘negative impact’, that changes are more harmful than the status quo? | Impact of Social Sciences http://pinktape.co.uk/cases/family-court-a-law-unto-itself/#comment-5997 How can we demonstrate ‘negative impact’, that changes are more harmful than the status quo? | Impact of Social Sciences Tue, 22 May 2012 10:02:56 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3268#comment-5997 [...] the “secret justice” of the family courts. (Although these articles were largely based on unrepresentative anecdotes that don’t fit with the bigger picture, they gained traction in the public debate because, as [...] [...] the “secret justice” of the family courts. (Although these articles were largely based on unrepresentative anecdotes that don’t fit with the bigger picture, they gained traction in the public debate because, as [...]

]]> Comment on Children & Families Bill by Jonathan James http://pinktape.co.uk/legal-news/children-families-bill/#comment-5996 Jonathan James Tue, 22 May 2012 09:49:40 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3322#comment-5996 FA, this means that if children are almost certainly being abused by their parents, you would still leave them in their abusive care? Anything short of certainty would not be good enough? This is, after all, the criminal standard of proof. Do you think the abused children would thank you for that? And do you seriously think that any civilised society should adopt that approach? Sorry, I don't think that you could be much more wrong about this. FA, this means that if children are almost certainly being abused by their parents, you would still leave them in their abusive care? Anything short of certainty would not be good enough? This is, after all, the criminal standard of proof. Do you think the abused children would thank you for that? And do you seriously think that any civilised society should adopt that approach? Sorry, I don’t think that you could be much more wrong about this.

]]> Comment on Gold Band : Gold Standard? by Jonathan James http://pinktape.co.uk/equality/gold-band-gold-standard/#comment-5992 Jonathan James Tue, 22 May 2012 08:18:25 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3329#comment-5992 I have to say that for me, Andrew Pack's post really is conclusive on the question of Sir Paul's fitness for office. The rationale is incapable of dispute. To argue that he is unfit for office is simply not capable of rationalisation when you examine it closely and dispassionately. I have to say that for me, Andrew Pack’s post really is conclusive on the question of Sir Paul’s fitness for office. The rationale is incapable of dispute. To argue that he is unfit for office is simply not capable of rationalisation when you examine it closely and dispassionately.

]]> Comment on Gold Band : Gold Standard? by supersister http://pinktape.co.uk/equality/gold-band-gold-standard/#comment-5967 supersister Mon, 21 May 2012 21:06:39 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3329#comment-5967 This is not about me and it is not about personal belief. But as for an example it's as clear as daylight if asked to choose between a married parent and a single, cohabiting or same sex partnered parent the Judge might choose married because in his opinion this is best. He is apparently biased. It is not a personal belief leaked to the press, he has set up a foundation! It doesn't help him in the eyes of the likes of me of course that his bias runs against my personal beliefs, naturally, and as with most and their ethical standards I consider mine absolute, but the law against discrimination is now squarely on my side also thankfully, however recently that liberty was won. And thousands of years of history hold few answers for women today as I and others tried to illuminate previously. But I'll bow out now as I've said my piece. I hope people understand why it might be easier said without having to reveal one's identity. This is not about me and it is not about personal belief. But as for an example it’s as clear as daylight if asked to choose between a married parent and a single, cohabiting or same sex partnered parent the Judge might choose married because in his opinion this is best. He is apparently biased. It is not a personal belief leaked to the press, he has set up a foundation! It doesn’t help him in the eyes of the likes of me of course that his bias runs against my personal beliefs, naturally, and as with most and their ethical standards I consider mine absolute, but the law against discrimination is now squarely on my side also thankfully, however recently that liberty was won. And thousands of years of history hold few answers for women today as I and others tried to illuminate previously.

But I’ll bow out now as I’ve said my piece. I hope people understand why it might be easier said without having to reveal one’s identity.

]]> Comment on Gold Band : Gold Standard? by Simon Myerson http://pinktape.co.uk/equality/gold-band-gold-standard/#comment-5951 Simon Myerson Mon, 21 May 2012 18:01:01 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3329#comment-5951 @Supersister; your liberties are not fragile in this jurisdiction and unless you are not "out" in your general life (I'm not asking) then your point is invalid. If you will tell your family, friends (and gay clients?) then you are either dodging the point or saying that the judiciary is a massive conspiracy. Nor do I find your casual connection of personal belief and bias based thereon a remotely true reflection of how the judiciary behaves. And, if you've been in practice any length of time, neither do you. Not to mention that it is still difficult to see what type of dispute might be subject to this bias. I am exercised about this because the legal profession is casually dismissed by politicians - "only in it for themselves", and the idiot fringe on any question who believe (or say they do) that "they" 'automatically hate us because we are right-wing/left-wing/anarchist/fathers/mothers/gay/straight/white/non-white/Christian/Muslim/Jewish/once took a holiday in Skegness." Lawyers owe it to their clients to be more responsible than that. Our profession has invested at least 1000 years in trying to defend the rights of people who lack power. You have "fledgling" rights, however fragile they might be and running around anonymously saying that Judges don't really believe in them is wrong. @Supersister; your liberties are not fragile in this jurisdiction and unless you are not “out” in your general life (I’m not asking) then your point is invalid. If you will tell your family, friends (and gay clients?) then you are either dodging the point or saying that the judiciary is a massive conspiracy.

Nor do I find your casual connection of personal belief and bias based thereon a remotely true reflection of how the judiciary behaves. And, if you’ve been in practice any length of time, neither do you. Not to mention that it is still difficult to see what type of dispute might be subject to this bias.

I am exercised about this because the legal profession is casually dismissed by politicians – “only in it for themselves”, and the idiot fringe on any question who believe (or say they do) that “they” ‘automatically hate us because we are right-wing/left-wing/anarchist/fathers/mothers/gay/straight/white/non-white/Christian/Muslim/Jewish/once took a holiday in Skegness.” Lawyers owe it to their clients to be more responsible than that. Our profession has invested at least 1000 years in trying to defend the rights of people who lack power. You have “fledgling” rights, however fragile they might be and running around anonymously saying that Judges don’t really believe in them is wrong.

]]> Comment on Gold Band : Gold Standard? by supersister http://pinktape.co.uk/equality/gold-band-gold-standard/#comment-5946 supersister Mon, 21 May 2012 16:52:57 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3329#comment-5946 The foundation does not promote marriage or civil partnerships it clearly promotes marriage only. Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are married, some even unapologetically, but just as many cohabit or are single and I am certain they would be none too thrilled about appearing before this Judge now either. The foundation does not promote marriage or civil partnerships it clearly promotes marriage only. Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are married, some even unapologetically, but just as many cohabit or are single and I am certain they would be none too thrilled about appearing before this Judge now either.

]]> Comment on Gold Band : Gold Standard? by Jonathan James http://pinktape.co.uk/equality/gold-band-gold-standard/#comment-5927 Jonathan James Mon, 21 May 2012 14:28:08 +0000 http://pinktape.co.uk/?p=3329#comment-5927 What is particularly weird about the whole complaint about Sir Paul thing is that same sex marriage is merely about labels. The law concerning civil partnerships gives same sex couples all the legal rights of married people. Sir Paul is not campaigning to remove those rights! So being perceived as being against the changing of labels puts him beyond the pale it would seem. Are there really no more important issues to become heated about? What is particularly weird about the whole complaint about Sir Paul thing is that same sex marriage is merely about labels. The law concerning civil partnerships gives same sex couples all the legal rights of married people. Sir Paul is not campaigning to remove those rights! So being perceived as being against the changing of labels puts him beyond the pale it would seem. Are there really no more important issues to become heated about?

]]>