Category: English law


father-cunt

The BBC has refused to deny that they continue to hide the Anti-Government/Anti-Austerity marches under the stories of pictures of lovely kittens..

No-one wants to know what is really happening, the BBC didn’t say ‘they want to feel good about kittens and stuff happening in Peru…

We will continue to publish pictures of peoples dinners until these Demonstrations – which are not happening- stop happening…’

President Putin was not described as ‘Laughing his fucking arse off’ at the media white-out…

Advertisements

A Met detective employed as a child abuse investigator has admitted sexually touching a girl under the age of 13.

Detective Constable Christopher Maitland pleaded guilty today at London’s Southwark Crown Court to two counts of sexually touching the child in the summer of 2005.

The 40-year-old, who works in the Metropolitan Police’s sexual offences, exploitation and child abuse command, is currently suspended from duty.

Wearing a grey jumper and standing with his hands clasped and head bowed, Maitland spoke only to plead guilty to both charges.

He had pleaded guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in March to five charges of taking and seven charges of making indecent images of a child.

It is alleged the officer had 818 indecent images and videos, ranging from the most serious category A to the lowest category C.

Maitland, of Widey View, Plymouth, was originally arrested in November on suspicion of possession and distribution of indecent images of children and then re-arrested in March on suspicion of sexual touching after the offences were discovered to have been captured on film.

He will be sentenced for a total of 14 sexual offences on May 13 at Southwark Crown Court, Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith said.

Source: Met child abuse detective admits sexually touching schoolgirl | Crime | News | London Evening Standard

“Perhaps the most significant objection to cuts in legal aid for family law is the knock-on effect this will have on children”

Legal aid will no longer be avail­able in almost all aspects of family law, despite overwhelming opposition from legal practitioners and the judiciary. Only domestic violence and child abuse cases will remain eligible if government proposals are implemented. Families involved in cases such as divorce, con­tact with children, custody, access and adoption will be unable to get legal aid. The Government’s justification for cuts in these areas is that families should be encouraged to settle such issues through mediation, but this overlooks the fact that many legal aid clients are vulnerable and need legal representation, especially where mediation fails or is not appropri­ate.

Perhaps the most significant objection to cuts in legal aid to family law is the knock-on effect this will have on children. For example, safe and equitable contact arrangements must be reached for the benefit of the child, while ancillary relief orders aim to protect the financial inter­ests of children. If individuals who cannot afford representation have to put forward their own case, often dealing with these complex and developing areas of law, it is possible that the outcomes reached will not be the most suitable for the children involved. A number of responses to the Government’s consultation on the cuts to family law legal aid argued that the proposals may breach both Article 6, the right to a fair trial, and Article 8, the right to family life, of the European Conven­tion on Human Rights, which is incorpo­rated in the UK Human Rights Act.

http://www.thenewlondoners.co.uk/comment/102-comment/415-the-human-costs-of-legal-aid-cuts

By John Aston, PA News

A campaigner for fathers’ rights who publicised the full details of a private judgment on contact with his son was today found guilty of contempt of court.

Two judges ruled that Dr Michael Pelling’s actions were “an affront to justice” but decided not to jail him after he apologised “for getting the law wrong” and undertook not to repeat the offence.

Dr Pelling, of Forest Gate, east London, a co-founder of the Campaign for Open Justice, also agreed to take action to have the offending judgment removed from the internet

LONDON (Reuters) – Last week’s titanic parliamentary struggle over a new terrorism law looks set to prompt government calls to diminish the powers of the unelected House of Lords, newspapers say.

Constant amendments by the unelected upper house led to one of the longest stand-offs ever recorded between the Lords and the House of Commons before the law was finally passed on Friday.

The age-old question of what powers the Lords should have to oppose government initiatives is now bound to re-emerge, commentators said. [I say we lose Habeas Corpus to our later woe !]

%d bloggers like this: