Gagged Dad has posted the following comment on
Parent vetted for political correctness – should the trial be in private?
I would like to thank the 21 who wrote to the judge and the 17 who attended the hearing, of whom four or more, three of them journalists, addressed the court. I would like especially to thank Stephen Green for his coverage before the hearing, in Christian Voice.
The hearing was bedevilled by the following problem: That the application for a private hearing was founded upon (I say) a false premiss, that my case was an attempt to have reconsidered family court proceedings that were properly held in private, in which the Defendant had played an expert witness role. I have not impugned in this case the outcome in the family court. It was said that the Defendant could not defend my claim without referring to those other matters, which ought not to be aired in public. The judge appeared to me to be taken in by this protestation, and to have insinuated that there was far more to this case than John Allman had brought to public attention.
CORNWALL SOCIAL SERVICES WANTS A SECRET TRIAL IN GAGGED DAD CASE
Please act now. Hearing is on 23rd October 2015.
Question 1: Should social services separate a child from his mum or dad, when mum or dad openly opposes a government policy that he or she considers to be morally wrong?
Question 2: If social services does this, and that parent sues the council under the Human Rights Act for interference with his family life and discrimination on the grounds of his beliefs, should the trial be held in secret?
The court in A v Cornwall (case number A88YJ875) will hold a three day trial in December to decide Question 1, as it applies to Gagged Dad. He disagrees with same sex marriage and abortion. Cornwall Council has therefore prevented Gagged Dad from seeing his son for just short of two and a half years. Cornwall didn’t want Gagged Dad to “indoctrinate” his two year-old son in his own pro-life and homophobic beliefs.
It is hard to imagine that social workers from Cafass and councils up and down the land do not realise what they are doing, every time they are faced with one implacably hostile parent, and another parent who has no hostility to the other parent. Yet, time and time again, I am hearing that social workers choose to empower overbearing child abusers to become the sole parent a child is allowed to see and to love, and to write the other parent out of a child’s life completely. They do this as an almost routine administrative decision.
The Hampstead Witch Hunt – parental alienation taken to extremes
Does someone you love hate you?
Pianist finally allowed to tell his story of sexual abuse
In the experience of Gagged Dad and others, those who testify to having engaged in homosexual behaviours during childhood or adolescence, but not in their maturity, are one of the most vehemently hated minorities in society today, not former victims whose testimony of abuse that they have survived other people want to hear.
Vitriolic verbal abuse is typically heaped (even some on this blog) upon those who out themselves as “ex-gay” as Gagged Dad and James Rhodes have done, even when (as for both men) their gay years came to an end before they reached adulthood, and in any case were inflicted upon them by older people of the same sex, who perhaps went on to chose a gay (and perhaps ongoing child-abusive) way of life permanently for themselves.
Survivors of homosexual abuse during childhood and adolescence aren’t even allowed to publish their testimonies of abuse they “got over” on the sides of London buses, on an equal basis with those who remained in homosexuality. Many people HATE former victims of underage homosexual abuse who speak out, accusing them of “hate speech”, because they out themselves as survivors of underage sodomy, as James Rhodes and Gagged Dad have done.
Any ex-gay survivor who goes public can expect a lot of hate mail, if Gagged Dad’s experience is anything to go by. James Rhodes should expect to be shouted down, by strangers who wish to insist that James should tell his story, using politically correct language of which they approve, in order to document what he endured, and has survived.
Readers who appreciate this post may also appreciate:
Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”
The homophobic manifesto
What’s in a name? There’s LOTS in a name!
B*ggers CAN be choosers!
Why foster carers, but not natural parents?
Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
UK Human Rights Blog
Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court
James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another,  UKSC 32
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in an appeal by the celebrated concert pianist, James Rhodes. You can read the judgment here and watch Lord Toulson’s summary here.
The case considered whether Mr Rhodes could be prevented from publishing his memoir on the basis that to do so would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm. Those acting on behalf of Mr Rhodes’ son were particularly concerned about the effect upon him of learning of details of his father’s sexual abuse as a child.
View original post 1,273 more words
Why the Ashers Baking Co Ltd were always doomed, and (I’m sorry to say) deserved, to lose their court case
The judgment handed down on Tuesday this week, in GARETH LEE -v- ASHERS BAKING, is attracting a lot of reportage and comment, much of it dumbed down, or even spiteful.
Yesterday, I was all fired up to take a strident pro-freedom of conscience stance on this case myself, putting me firmly into one of the two opposing camps battling it out in the comments following the various media coverages and blog posts. As I read the judgment, my heart was changed, and my entire stance changed by more-or-less 180 degrees.
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
The facts of the case are as follows: An individual ordered a cake, decorated with the slogan “support gay marriage”, from a baking firm whose owners supported the contrary “oppose gay marriage” political lobby. The bakers then reneged on the contract, because, they admitted, they wished (to use the appropriate term) to “no platform” the plaintiff, for reasons of their own lately-discovered consciences. (I have sympathy with them on this.)
Implacable hostility often isn’t mutual.
It is a myth promulgated by a cliché, that implacable hostility on the part of one of two separated parents towards the other, must necessarily, or even usually, be reciprocated. Most parents who separate manage to consider their children’s interests, alongside their own emotions. Unlucky indeed is the child with two alienating parents, caught in a “tug of love”.
Ricky Dearman speaks fondly of Ella Draper!
In the court’s judgment in Re P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding), the Hampstead Witch Hunt case, at paragraph 63, Mrs Justice Pauffley wrote:
- Mr Dearman was taken in evidence to the entire series of sexual and other allegations made against him. He denied there was truth in anything suggested. He does accept that the breakdown of his relationship with the mother both at the time and subsequently was acrimonious. But, said Mr Dearman, “There are two sides to the story. I’m not perfect. I’m a decent guy and a good father.” Of the mother, he said this – “When Ella is not doing crazy stuff she is a really beautiful person.”
7th May 2015.
This was my final post during the Parliamentary election campaign period, before the polling stations opened on Thursday.