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?
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.”
Vote “Let every child have both parents” on 7th May in North Cornwall.
Please follow me on Twitter …
… and please obey your conscience when you vote on 7th May.
The 40 years-established registered charity Families Need Fathers (FNF), for which I designed the above poster by adapting an existing FNF poster, is not permitted officially to endorse the political party “Let every child have both parents”, or any other political party.
Watch a Head of School lie to the police, falsely claiming that there is a court order excluding a father from his four year-old son’s school Christmas play:
“Now we see the violence inherent in the system” 🙂
[Monthy Python and the Holy Grail]
Both parents. Every child. Wherever possible..
The registered political party “Justice for Men and Boys (and the Women Who Love Them)” (J4MB), which owns the above poster, does not officially endorse “Let every child have both parents”, or vice versa. There is no J4MB candidate in North Cornwall. There is no “Let every child have both parents” candidate in any of the constituencies in which there is a J4MB candidate. However, this coincidence is not because of any pact or alliance between the two parties.
“Let every child have both parents” was not a gendered issue in 1959, and there is no need to present it in a gendered manner today. (It’s a powerful poster though.)
Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel
Please do not misunderstand me, as a handful of angry voters did at last night’s hustings in Launceston. One often isn’t allowed enough time at every hustings to say everything that needs to be said. One cannot anticipate and prevent every possible misunderstanding.
The Declaration on the rights of the child merely states that every child has the right to the care of both parents, wherever possible. Not always. Not when that isn’t possible. But whenever it is “possible”.
Both parents. Every child. Wherever possible.