The Learning Summary from the Significant Case Review of murdered toddler Liam Fee, uses the word “mother” twenty times. It does not even use the word “father” once. I couldn’t bear to read it, once I realised that. I really don’t think that any of them wanted to learn anything.
Category Archives: Children’s Rights
On and off, Gagged Dad and I have blogged on this website about his court case against Cornwall Council, and the facts behind it, for almost four years now. Judgment was at last handed down on 28th April 2017.
The blog posts that tell Gagged Dad’s story-so-far, are all together in one place now. The title of the earliest of those posts in the entire series, which first broke the news story, before it turned into a court case, and which told it simply, and (the High Court has confirmed) truthfully, as near as dammit, was
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?
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.
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 rejoice 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:
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another,  UKSC 32
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
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.
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.
Andrew Bull – “Both Parents Matter” candidate for Budshead ward in the Plymouth City Council elections
Andrew Bull is standing in the Budshead ward in the elections to Plymouth City Council as a “Both Parents Matter” candidate.
MY 2015 ONLINE ELECTION ADDRESS
North Cornwall Constituency Parliamentary Election, 7th May 2015
Men make lousy mums …
… but, then again, women make lousy dads.
The 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child, Principle 6, declared:
“The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.”
Both parents. Every child. Wherever possible.