Apologies if I have caused offence, this was not my intention. If you wish to discuss the topic then pm me as I really don't want to go into detail on this thread.
Maybe I will write an article about the subject.
We have the Freedom of Speech in this country and any said group can use their voice to make a difference. It is down to those groups to remove the people that no longer back the ethos and mission statement of the group if they wish their points to be taken seriously.
There are always going to be groups that are extreme in their outlook and will never realise that the way to change is to give an informed, research based arguement.
In the same vein groups such as Animal Rights & Greenpeace take action as they see fit and face criminal charges if they break the law, much the same as members of fathers 4 justice may do.
An Agenda for Change is needed but you cannot cut down the opposition parties prior to doing this.
If members of these groups really do want justice then they will realise or not that the way to go is to support the well researched, multi resourced approach that carries strength of knowledge not just individual angst.
My position on secret courts (by which I have assumed you mean that we hold closed hearings so that the public and press cannot wander in)?
To be honest, it is not something I have ever really turned my mind to greatly. From my point of view it wouldnt matter to me whether I did my job in private or public and I doubt it would matter to many, if any, judges.
However, my biggest concern centres around cases where there are allegations of sexual or other harm. How do we then protect the privacy of the mother or father who are accused? How do we protect the privacy of the child involved? While we can have reporting restrictions on the press, what about the public especially in a small community when the risk to the person accused is great?
I can only speak from my own experience, which in respect of public law cases was 5 years mainly in Liverpool. In my experience judgements which should be made public are made public. Professional witnesses who should be vilified are vilified and those who need reporting are reported. Costs orders are made in those cases that need it, and witness summons made to drag along witness not willing to come.
Conduct of judges which falls below par is swiftly put into check by either a requested that the judge is recused (steps down so another can take over) if the hearing is ongoing or by appealing a wrong decision if necessary. I must say here though that we have a fantastic group of circuit judges in Liverpool where both those instances are rare.
On balance, my concern is the loss of privacy to the parties. On that basis I think hearings should remain in private when children are involved. I think the risk of misuse of information gained is high and I think that if asked the majority of those going through these cases would like to see the privacy remain.
The evidence is there, that the courts are failing Britain.
Great injustices are happening everyday.
The worst offenders are child protection, who routinely lie, omit evidence or falsify data. As they are unaccountable, how can a parent challenge the evidence?
The judge will always believe child protection.
Where mothers have taped evidence, and child protection were PROVEN to be lying, the officers become defensive, sulk and refuse to speak to the mother and make her life hell on earth.
All we ask is for a factual report.
If child protection can't do that, then it really is time to open the secret courts.
It's protecting the wrong people, as in social workers, CAFCASS, and local authorities who are taking children, and getting £million in target bonuses for forced adoption.
For each of us, who've been lied about, raised EDM's, raised the issue to the House of Commons, had the evidence CAFCASS turn vicious, as we're criticising them vocally.
Look at the 2 latest OFSTED reports... CAFCASS social workers are \"dangerous\".
CAFCASS failed in 97% of its most serious categories.
CAFCASS kept confidential data unlocked, in a public waiting room.
CAFCASS don't record who call, or what they called about, or what action they took after whoever it was that called.
OFSTED were appalled.
OFSTED demanded immediate intervention in the cases of 7 children, one of which had suffered skull fractures.
CAFCASS aren't fit for purpose - as per the Governments own watchdog.
I might be being really thick here - and I am sure it will be pointed out to me if so , but I am not seeing the link between raising professional accountability especially for \"experts\" and opening the courts - who is going to hold them accountable if there was open access to the courts?