The blog just clocked up a quarter of a million visitors for the year , which is about a fifth more than last year
Click to access hm_-attorney_general_v_conde_nast_publications_limited_final.pdf
is accurate, I get about half as many visitors a month as a copy of GQ magazine sells in a month. So if you are Rolex, Aston-Martin or Armani and you want to place some adverts, I’m willing to think about it ]
Given that when I started it in February 2012, I wasn’t sure whether anyone would ever read it (and for about 2 months that was a fairly accurate prediction), and whether I would run out of stuff to say very quickly (nearly 800 posts later, it turns out not), that’s a very pleasant surprise.
Thank you very much to everyone who has come to the website, I hope you’ve found something of use, or something of interest, something that has helped or something that has made you think. Even if it made you think about how much you disagree with the decision I’ve been writing about, or my analysis of it.
I’ve just been reading Nick Bostrom’s book “Superintelligence”* and he says something lovely in his acknowledgements section, which I will gladly steal. Find “book”, Replace “blog”…
“Many of the points made in this book are probably wrong”
Thank you for visiting. Please, come again.
(*which is great. Somewhat terrifying, but great)
Thank you for continuing to dedicate your time to your blog, it’s always a very interesting read regardless of which side of the fence (or indeed sitting on it) you happen to find yourself.
All the best for 2016, may you be blessed with a 1000 internets.
I shall now return to the corner to lurk for another year… 😉
Well done and thank you for the many case laws that have save some butts … Seriously
I look forward to 2016 with many more butt saving to come
You are far too modest – i am certain that I speak for many other practitioners in congratulating you for providing an invaluable and much appreciated service. Long may it continue.
Thanks so much Andrew for providing a great resource for case lore and law. I’m not sure how many of the thnkful subscribers are in the maret for Aston Martin, if they had that sort of money they would probably spend it on a lawyer, but you provide a marvellous asset for the many LiP’s struggling to battle a generally callous and inept system.
Speaking of the marvellous resource that my quick typing does scant justice to, I find myself embroiled in more and more cases where asd is somehow involved, and can find very little case law relating to it and care and placement orders. Frequeuntly PAMS seems to be being used inappropriately for assessments, for instance, and I find it difficult to imagine this can’t have aisen in any cases. Any pointers please?
*arisen – like that star in the east that singled out the special child…
I suspect that the increased prevalance of PAMS assessments flows from some of the High Court decisions (and Court of Appeal decisions) which stress that parents with learning disabilities need to have a specialised assessment, PAMS being the model most commonly used for that purpose. For example Re A 2013 http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed123147
It might also be part of the implementation of the Care Act 2014 which does place duties on Local Authorities to conduct assessments of parents with such difficulties.
Yes, I understand the increase in the use of PAMS in that regard, but high functioning autism is not a learning disability, it is a neurological communication condition – and assessing it with PAMS is like curing veruccas with spaghetti bolognaise. Messy, and ineffective. More metaphors bubbling up … it is as accurate as simulating a moon landing on camembert.
I absolutely agree, I wouldn’t dream of using it for autism – completely and utterly the wrong tool.
Brilliant commentary on current topics and thank you very much – I learn more from here than anywhere else!
Merry Christmas and well done
Think about this,this is a subject which affects all of us,that means you lot,an bad for business.These websites are in the US an outside the jurisdiction of UK courts.
It is how you use it.
You can expect some parents will have used these websites to cross-reference evidence of wrong doing in secret courts.
Consider this,your experts ,exposed to next foreseeable victim.
Imagine reports being shared,compared,an then more families doing a runner.
Happy Christmas &New Year,keep coming back ,am sharing,am adverts in FB of happy children post court,verses your child at 8years out drinking alcohol 🍷 at a party an the courts ruled this was fine.
Now consider the general public working out the scale of legal child abuse/neglect .
All documents shared using legal protocol etc ..
Yes,we can all share blogs,an you can all scream top dog in your own little blogosphere,depends on if you are sharing the reality of how corrupt,an how evil some people will sell children out for.
At the end of the day,its all academic how many hits you got,it lacks clarity,truth,integrity,its only one sided court antics,with a few campaigners an parents,being still used for bait.
You have a nice day,am off to find mire miserable images of a broken child,lost in the system since 2005.
Wishing you all the best in 2016
Excellent site so many thanks for that !
Great news from Brian who runs our Irish support network for parents fleeing UK social workers ! Zlata Petkova, 27, from Lithuania, and her baby fled from Blackburn, Lancashire, by ferry to Dublin on Christmas Eve, and successfully boarded a plane for Lithuania where they arrived safe and sound. She was inspired by the Pugacova family whose successful return had just been broadcast on Latvian TV news. The Latvian authorities took over the Pugacova case from the UK and closed the file. The Pugacovas are now embarking on legal action against the UK authorities. The French woman in prison in Dublin was released on bail Christmas Eve. –
Could I please ask you to publish on your site Mr Justice Charles’ written judgments of September/October 2007FD06P01608 Surrey CC v Martin Buckley through his litigation friend the Official Solicitor Shirley Buckley litigant in person, Bucks PCT Ridgway trust. As you will see from the dates this must have been one of the first cases in the Court of Protection, and should provide a precedent “the OS’s case was a SHAMBLES”
I am not sure that I can find it. I believe that this is a judgment about the same circumstances, but it is a judicial review. It makes reference to an earlier judgment, but I simply can’t find it. This one doesn’t make any criticism of the O/S, but there obviously is from paragraph 1 another judgment. I’ve been through all the 2007 Court of Protection and High Court family division cases, but no luck in finding it
. It is also clear from paragraph 9 that the other judgment sets out the reasons why Charles J refused to make orders authorising the restraint of MB, so it is entirely credible that there would be some criticism within that judgment.
thanks for all your efforts. Once again a written judgment has disappeared into the maws of the Court of Protection. I have tried contacting Charles’ clerk and been ignored. Could I send you the judgment by good old fashioned post? For Martin’s sake I really do need to get all these judgments into the public domain
In the meantime may I draw your attention to the judgment you hold para 34 onwards. What I state is legally correct – Martin is not sectionable under the MHA – and what all the clinicians stated was medically and legally correct. The OS knew this, and held all the relevant documents. In spite of this he asked for a judicial review to get Martin sectioned- acting as Martin’s litigation friend! In the event Martin went voluntarily (he was coerced). Martin stated time and again that the lawyer acting for the OS was not helping him. (Martin has fluctuating capacity due to his Lennox Gastautsyndrome epilepsy-when he is OK he is OK) Hope I am not running on too much – thank youfor giving me space.
Not at all. It looks as if professionals in that case weren’t really sure as to the legal route that would be right for that case, perhaps because it was one of the early cases of Deprivation of liberty after the MCA 2005 came into force. I don’t think that I could publish the other judgment unless it goes up on Bailii even if I had a physical copy.
Hope you and Martin are okay and making the best of what sounds a very difficult situation – fluctuating capacity is such a hard thing to live with, I imagine.
Here I am again- your blogs continue to fascinate me now transparency. Martinand my case went wrong because of total mind blowing complete INCOMPETENCE. Charles said it was a shambles but allowed the case to continue. I was a litigant in person, and in Court it seemed to me that I was the only person who could read, and construct a simple sentence. Orders and judgments disappeared – it still seems I am the only one who holds the October 2007 one. I will try to get it on Bailii. Also thanks for the blog – so much common sense and humour too.(gratuitous is the right word)
Unfortunately the words uttered by many – good luck
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
Pingback: Humblebrag thanks | Children In Law | Scoop.it