|
|
Welcome to UK Fathers
Free A-Z information and support resources index
----- Original
Message ----- Dr Phyllis
Starkey MP 7th January 2005 Dear Dr Starkey The Distortion of Family Policy Many thanks for forwarding Lord Filkin’s letter of 15 December about the substitution of the Early Interventions reforms. I’m not entirely sure that the picture painted by Lord Filkin is accurate. The truth is that a major family policy reform was hijacked by Whitehall. This is something of a disaster. The reforms stopped by Whitehall would have resolved the problems in the family courts I wonder if you would could pursue this? I attach two documents: (i) a background briefing (ii) a proposed letter to Lord Filkin Could you write to Lord Filkin again? Yours sincerely David Mortimer Family Policy – Background Briefing January 2005 Whitehall: Hijacking the Reform Process A bona-fide set of reform proposals developed by the legal profession was approved by Lord Filkin. The detailed specifications for this ‘Early Intervention’ reform were passed by the Minister to a DfES civil servant called Bruce Clark in October 2003. Mr Clark [1] was told to implement a finished design for a new model court system. Reform: Destroyed in Whitehall Mr Bruce Clark, of his own initiative: - decided to stop the approved reforms - decided to replace the approved reforms with his personal ideas Mr Clark, who had no relevant experience in this area: - devised a project which is the opposite of the agreed project - assured the Minister that he was producing the original EI reform project The Deformation of Family Policy The upshot is Mr Clark’s “Family Resolutions” project, which: - reverses the framework of the Florida system - abandons the proposed EI reforms - does not impinge on the existing legal system - consists of a pre-court non-legal Public Relations exercise - delays access to the existing court system Meanwhile, a Green Paper was prepared on the basis of Mr Clark’s assurances that the original EI reform project (which Mr Clark had destroyed) was nearing completion. The policies announced in the Green paper are in consequence incapable of fulfillment Corroboration A fully-documented ‘insider’ record, including day-by-day correspondence and emails up to Ministerial level, is available on request. Suggested letter to Lord Filkin Dear Lord Filkin, David Mortimer: Family Policy: The Early Interventions Project Thank you for your letter of 15 December. Mr Mortimer has asked me to say how very helpful he found your letter, in particular the paragraph that: “The Family Resolutions Pilot Project has not abandoned the principles of early intervention. Indeed in designing the Pilot Project we have drawn a great deal from the experience of other jurisdictions, particularly the Early Interventions model in Florida.” Mr Mortimer appears to think that this account is not fully supported by the written record. He claims that the Family Resolutions project (which he says is the opposite of the EI project) reverses the principles of Florida’s judicature. His point is that the approved EI reforms have been abandoned. Mr Mortimer claims that the legal profession accepts that the original EI project, which he says has been stopped, is the answer to the Family Court problem. He says that the wrong project has been built. My constituent wonders if there is truth in the stories that: (i) a lone Whitehall official decided to stop the EI project (ii) this same official concealed this decision by means of extended assurances to Ministers that he was completing the original EI project Mr Mortimer insists that there is an extensive written record to this effect. I have reassured him generally that his beliefs are misplaced. Perhaps you would assist with a reply specifically directed at points (i) and (ii) above?
Phyllis Starkey MP - will ask Parliament for a Gender breakdown of child abuse offenders 13th Dec 2004
Inciting Civil Unrest - the Befuddlement of Margaret Hodge 13th December 2004. Family Law Reform - Legal Presumption of Contact Named & Shamed MPs 2nd December 2004 HI-JACKING OF REFORM PROJECT BY WHITEHALL CIVIL SERVANTS - Submission To The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee October 22nd 2004:
----- Original
Message ----- Dr Phyllis
Starkey MP Dear Dr Starkey Early Interventions: The political risk The Management of Green Paper Family Policy Thank you so much for your letter of 21 September enclosing a reply from Margaret Hodge. I wonder if you would do a reply? I’m afraid that something has gone dreadfully wrong in Whitehall. The intended reform project - on which the Green Paper is based - has been deliberately destroyed, swapped for a Civil Service spoiler. They’ve been working on the wrong project. This is well known outside the Department. It is bound to become a major bone of contention over the coming months. I’ve enclosed a draft letter you might consider as the basis for a reply. Anything along these lines would do. Yours sincerely, David Mortimer SUGGESTED REPLY TO MARGARET HODGE Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BT Dear Mrs MARGARET HODGE The Early Interventions project David Mortimer Thank you for your reply of 17 September to my constituent David Mortimer in relation to his concerns about the Early Interventions pilot put forward in my letter to the Right Hon Charles Clarke of 25 August. Mr Mortimer has asked me to say how very helpful he found your reply. In particular he notes you say, at paragraph 3, that Family Resolutions “does not differ from the original project”. In addition he notes the suggestion, at paragraph 5, that ‘Early Interventions’ only existed as a briefly-considered name-change to the FR project ‘earlier this year’. In this connection,. Mr Mortimer has drawn my attention to your comment to the House the previous year (23 October 2003, Hansard 332WH) about ‘the early intervention schemes in Florida’ of which you say: ‘I have looked at the scheme… it is extremely interesting and we are considering whether we can take it forward with Mrs Justice Bracewell.” Mr Mortimer has asked me to raise the following points. He has seen documentation clearly showing that it was the fully-designed ‘Early Interventions’ project which was - as you told the House - submitted to the DCA and DfES on 8 October 2003. He also claims that Early Interventions was the project approved by Lord Filkin - as confirmed by Lord Filkin’s letter to the CEP on 29 April 2004 (‘The Early Interventions project which was developed by New Approaches to Contact (NATC) and others, is being developed and taken forward’.) Mr Mortimer claims there is no resemblance between the project which has come out of Whitehall (Family Resolutions) and the agreed project which went into Whitehall (Early Interventions). The core EI innovation was deliberately omitted. He claims that departmental officials spent a year working up a private project of their own - which is the opposite of the project submitted, the opposite of the project approved - and, incidentally, of no use. Since this Section 8 project was, as you say, intended to form a ‘key proposal’ in the Green Paper, Mr Mortimer wonders if the Green Paper will be undermined. In making these observations, Mr Mortimer claims that the attempted substitution of the Early Interventions pilot is well known to the press, parents groups and lawyers; he further claims that a full professional announcement to this effect, rejecting FR as the wrong project, is scheduled for publication. Mr Mortimer has asked me if you can find out which civil servant or civil servants decided to - as he puts it - ‘swap’ one project for another.
----- Original
Message ----- Dr Phyllis
Starkey MP 14th August 2004 Dear Clare
Megeary, It would be great if you could let me have copies of the letters you actually send. Many thanks, greatly appreciated. David Mortimer Drafts below: Dear Charles Contact cases: Mismanaging Family Law Reform? 14th August 2004 I write in relation to my constituent’s concerns about the “Family Resolutions” pilot announced in the Green Paper. My constituent claims that the present DfES ‘Design Team’ working on this project is inadequate. He claims that the project is being mismanaged. To this end he has shown me a sequence of articles in the press - and a pronouncement by a High Court judge in open court - making the same point. Mr Mortimer alleges that things miscarried in February 2004 when the DFES took over the “Early Interventions” project from the DCA. He says that the DfES’s remit was to implement the fully-designed EI project endorsed by the DCA Minister and the Family Division. My constituent makes the claim that DfES officials discarded the EI project papers, dispensed with the project originators, appojnted an in-house team unfamiliar with the EI project - and then attempted to work up a different project of their own. My constituent claims that the original EI project was re-instated (under the Family Resolutions badge) by Cabinet intervention in the days prior to the Green Paper. It is on this basis that my constituent queries the competence, expertise and good will of the DfES ‘Design Team’. He doubts if the project can be delivered. He asks why the original, successful management team was replaced. Mr Mortimer says that there is a direct link between F4J civil unrest and current mismanagement of the project. Of course I am sure that my constituent is misinformed. I would be grateful for your comments to help set his mind at rest. Yours sincerely, Lord Filkin Department
for Constitutional Affairs 54-60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW Dear Lord Filkin 14th August 2004 Mismanaging Family Law Reform: contact cases I write on behalf of my constituent in connection with his concerns over the Early Interventions pilot project. I take the opportunity of enclosing my letter to Charles Clarke on this topic. My constituent has two questions. First, he wonders if your Department is absolutely confident that the present “Design Team” is best-placed to deliver a useful project. Second, he wonders if you can shed light on why the original, successful EI project management team was dismissed. SPECIMEN SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Included: Times Law, 22 June 2004 McKenzie, August 2004 Mr Justice Munby, 1 April 2004, [2004] EWCH 727 (Fam) Not included: dozens of other critical pieces, e.g. Listen to the Children, Mrs Hodge, Observer 30 May 2004, Yvonne Roberts Warring Parents let down by Government, Guardian, 24 March 2004, Julie Wheelwright, Etc, etc, incl. radio and television http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-1152179,00.html CONTACT: A QUESTION OF TIME Times Law 22 June 2004. On October 8 last year an independent judicially led committee put forward proposals, known as "Early Interventions", designed to resolve most contact disputes before the couple's first court appearance. The initiative builds on a framework, developed by experts, which sets out what sort of arrangements are generally in the best interests of the children. It had endorsements from the Department for Constitutional Affairs Minister, the President of the Family Division, the High Court judiciary, the Family Law Bar Association, the chairman of the Solicitors Family Law Association, the Coalition for Equal Parenting and the leading child development experts. On May 25, 2004, an in-house Design Team of civil servants established by Margaret Hodge, of the Department for Education and Skills, confirmed the proposal would not be considered. Instead the DfES wants a substitute which fails to address the basic issue of every contact dispute: time. The DfES will make "quality of contact rather than simple quantum the more important issue". Under the DfES scheme, applications for more contact will merely elicit ruminations on quality. It is a green light to withhold any increase even where - as often happens - contact is just two hours a fortnight. Applications for more access can be dismissed because the alleged “quality” of the applicant’s existing contact is good - and hence sufficient - or bad, and thus too much. DfES thinking has not been discussed or reviewed. By contrast, the Early Interventions pilot arose from protracted consultation. Six years of preliminary research and development culminated in an international conference on March 27, 2002, chaired by Dame Margaret Booth, the distinguished former High Court family judge. Delegates heard that in many other countries contact was founded on a mental health perspective on what was best for the child. The conference suggested a comparable approach for Britain's children. On April 10, 2003, the Early Interventions pilot was presented at a multidisciplinary conference led by the Honourable Mrs Justice Bracewell of the High Court Family Division. She concluded: "This is the way forward … it would be incomprehensible if the pilot project did not receive official sanction from the DfES and the Department for Constitutional Affairs." The project's nuts and bolts are readily grasped. Is child welfare generally improved by the exclusion of one parent? Or by near-exclusion? Or by generous contact? If the objective is - as experts say - "generous" contact, the next step is a rough framework outlining what this means. Is it two hours a fortnight? Alternate weekends? 50/50? Or somewhere in between? Child development specialists believe that "frequent and continuous contact" promotes good child-parent relations, decent parenting and improved long-term outcomes. Children who keep both parents tend to be better adjusted, do better at school, form stable relationships and keep out of trouble. So the vexed issue of contact boils down to this: what is “frequent and continuous contact”? Most parents, judges, experts and professionals already agree. An ideal model of alternate weekends, half the holidays and midweek visits is hardly controversial. Once a general framework for negotiation is in place, parents no longer need litigate to find out what the child's best interests are. They can be told in advance. Parents can still reach arrangements based on their individual circumstances - but informed by the child-focused knowledge, backed by the courts, that proper contact means substantial overnights not two hours a fortnight. The DfES intends to replace the finished Early Interventions project with an unworkable programme preventing proper contact from being started. Nine years of consensual professional development was dismantled in order for a group of civil servants to start again from scratch. Oliver Cyriax The author is a former solicitor and founder of New Approaches to Contact The above article is to be reprinted in the August 2004 edition of McKenzie. It will appear with the following additional information: HOW THE EARLY INTERVENTIONS PROJECT DISAPPEARED The Early Interventions project, submitted to the DCA on 8 October 2003, gained immediate Government approval. Both Ministers made public declarations of support, Lord Filkin (DCA) on Newsnight and Margaret Hodge (DfES) two days later in Parliament on 23 October. CAFCASS, anxious for a look-in, circulated the notion within Whitehall that EI was “broadly similar” to an unknown project of theirs called “Family Resolutions” . This idea was taken up by DfES officials keen to run a project in-house. In fact, the two pilots were opposites. In November 2003 the Whitehall insiders decided to obtain public funding for an “EI / Family Resolutions” project on the basis that the two were the same, scrap EI, and run CAFCASS’s Family Resolutions in its place. The DCA Minister, unaware of the civil servants’ intention, proceeded with a proper evaluation of the EI project. After a sequence of meetings (3 November, 4 December, 9 February) the Minister forwarded the EI project, intact and approved, to the DfES for implementation. There the project disappeared: the DfES refused dialogue with the EI project originators; EI project documentation was not read - or seen - by the DfES Design Team; the papers were mislaid. Appointments to the DfES Design Team were on lack of familiarity with EI and practical inexperience in contact disputes. Now the DfES had money - and a free hand to produce a project of their own. But, when their Design Team first met on 17 March 2004, it transpired that Family Resolutions was a CAFCASS’s “Ideas, anyone?” project: a-plan-to-think-of-a-plan. The DfES had divested itself of informed input in order to follow a plan which did not exist. THE FOLLY OF A LAW THAT PUTS CHILDREN LAST It is wholly in the child's interest to maintain regular contact with any estranged but fit parent Deborah Orr , Independent, 29 June 2004 What is "quality time" with your child? Is it when you are both completely focused on doing some activity that each of you loves? Is it when you are combing lice out of her hair? Is it when you are cutting up the vegetables, and half-listening as he talks about the things he often talks about, and you fill in the gaps with "really?" and "uh-huh", without knowing what he said? Is it going swimming with her, or to the park, or to the zoo? Is it sitting cajoling him into doing his homework? Or is it cooking her favourite meal? Is it going to the supermarket, and telling him to behave as you load up the trolley? Is it engaging in a long lecture about how certain behaviour is unacceptable, because the needs and feelings of others have to be taken into account? Is it taking him to see granny? Or playing with her? Or cuddling him when he's ill? Or reading the paper while she amuses herself? The truth is that nothing defines "quality time" for parents. It is as important for your child to find something off her own bat to while away an hour, knowing that if things go wrong, you're there, as it is to be at the centre of your attention. It is as important to drop her off at the home of a friend she loves to play with, as it is to make sure you do things together. It is important, sometimes, to pick him up from school. But it's just as important to ensure that she isn't so clingy that only you can do this. In short, all time that a parent spends with a child is "quality time", because the relationship depends on intimacy, and on shared experience of all aspects of family life, rather than just on some. Even an hour spent in silence with an angry, sulky teenager, as she listens to music on her headphones and glowers, is quality time. It all is, unless the child is actually being abused. This idea that being brought up, and bringing up, is a holistic sort of experience, seems totally obvious. Which makes it all the more strange that the Department for Education and Skills, in all its infinite wisdom, has decided that "quality" rather than "time" should be the defining factor when discussing how much "contact" a child should have with a "non-resident" parent. At the moment, when the relationship between a child's parents breaks down, the child has no right to maintain a relationship with both parents. Instead, the non-resident parent's relationship with his or her child relies entirely on the goodwill of the resident parent. Yes, fathers - for it is usually fathers who find themselves estranged - can take their former partners to court, to petition for more "contact" with their children. But the bottom line is that even if "contact" is awarded, this is a privilege, not a right. And it is a privilege that, without the co-operation of the partner who was reluctant enough for the whole matter to end up in court in the first place, remains meaningless. It is for this reason that many of the various professional bodies and parenting groups, that concern themselves with these matters, have found themselves over the years more and more impressed with what is referred to as "the Florida Model". This is a legal rule of thumb that enshrines the idea that a non-resident parent can legally expect to see his children every other weekend, for a midweek visit and during half of the school holidays. In a direct lift from this model, this very proposal was put to the Dfes last October, as part of the New Approaches To Contact - Early Interventions project, a set of proposals that had been put together over a period of nine years. The Early Interventions Project is designed to resolve contact disputes before they reach court. The parents start with a definition of what reasonable contact is, and if they cannot agree to this or some other arrangement acceptable to father, mother and offspring, they go into compulsory mediation. If the latter sounds harsh, then the alternative is usually either a breakdown in the father-child relationship, or a protracted, embittering, expensive and often pointless procession through the courts (often followed by a breakdown in the father-child relationship). This, the present system, is much harsher, especially since it addresses none of the issues which scar the lives of the children involved in what we grotesquely call "tug of love" disputes. The Early Interventions plan does two things that are essential if shared parenting disputes are to be resolved in a manner which does what the Children's Act 1989 demands, and makes the child's welfare the paramount consideration. First, it has been shown, again and again, that it is wholly in the child's interest to maintain regular, meaningful contact with any estranged but fit parent. Second, and pretty obviously. This cannot be achieved until the parents have got it through their stubborn skulls that their relationship has not ended, but has simply changed. They may no longer be lovers, or partners, but they, together, are still the immediate family of their children. If they are unable to solve disputes over parenting responsibilities, it is safe to assume they have not recognised this fact. Only mediation can help them to achieve the realisation that they are not, by waging war through the agency of their children, putting them first. Which makes it all the more shocking that the Early Interventions blueprint has been completely rejected by the Dfes, even though it is supported by the high court judiciary, the Family Law Bar Association and the Coalition for Equal Parenting. Instead, the Dfes wants to implement its own project. This model rejects the idea that children should have the right to spend time with a non-resident parent and instead suggests that "it is the quality of contact between a child and his/her non-resident parent rather than the simple quantum of contact that is the more important issue". As for mediation, that will be voluntary. In other words, those implacably opposed to nurturing their child's relationship with a non-resident parent can go straight to court and attempt , quite legally, to make sure their child never sees their father. Why is the Dfes? Does Margaret Hodge, who heads the division putting together the pilot project, really believe that anyone can judge the "quality" of "contact", and decide it to be right. Does she not realise that more "contact" may lead to higher "quality" contact, just as less "contact" will almost inevitably lead to a lower "quality" of contact. And does she not realise that the disputes that end up in court are the very ones which are crying out for mediation most of all and the ones least likely to attend it voluntarily. Does she not realise, too, that by enshrining the right of a non-resident parent to see his child regularly, she would be sending the message that this was the state of affairs always to aspire to? When I ask myself why it is that the government is so reluctant to concede that children should have the right to an ongoing relationship with a non-resident parent, and that a parent who resists such a right should undergo mediation, I can only conclude that the answer is sexism. The assumption must be that criticisms women make of their ex-partners are always justified, and those male ex-partners make are never justified. The assumption, in short, is that men are likely to abuse their children, and that it is not in the interest of any child to have a right to a relationship with their father that is not sanctioned by their mother. This sort of discrimination should be against the law. Instead, it is the law. Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWCH 727 (Fam) In the High Court of Justice Family Division: In Open Court 1 April 2004 THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUNBY In the Matter of D (d.o.b 2 August 1996) Between: F - Applicant -and- M Respondent APPROVED JUDGEMENT Para 37 (extracted): Although there are now signs that things are moving… the response from Government has hitherto been slow and disappointing. Para 38 (in full): In April 2003 an independent organisation, New Approaches to Contact, held a seminar chaired by Bracewell J to unveil the exciting proposals contained in Contact Dispute Resolution: Early Interventions - Towards A Pilot Project. Reflecting experience in the United States of America, particularly in Florida, NATC proposed a system under which: (i) on issue of proceedings the parents are diverted into a non-court process involving (a) court issued information (b) parent education and (c) contact-focused mandatory mediation (ii) residual cases where agreement has not been reached re-enter the court system and are streamed into two categories: (a) non-serious cases admitting of rapid disposal and (b) serious cases which are given increased attention One of the advantages of such a system is that the number of cases requiring significant judicial input can be substantially reduced, enabling more court time to be devoted to those cases - which will, moreover, have been identified at an early stage - requiring greater judicial input. At the end of the seminar, and referring to the NATC’s proposals, Bracewell J said that “a pilot scheme… has my strong support… this is the way forward.” I wholeheartedly agree. There is, I believe, much we can learn from our transatlantic cousins. Para 39 (in full): In Re S at para 12, the President said this: “Recent proposals, supported by the Government, have been made to promote Pilot Projects for early intervention which it is hoped will encourage parents to resolve their differences over their children before any court hearing. Such initiatives are much to be welcomed.” That was said before the Government announced its most recent proposals. Some will be disappointed - and I can understand why - at the Government’s very recently announced proposals… Early Interventions v Families Resolutions ----- Original
Message ----- Dear Mr Mortimer, Dr Starkey has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail of 11th August and requested clarification of who or what the DCA is. She also requested that you expand on the project to help her decide how best to progress the matter. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Kind regards, Clare Megeary Secretary to Dr Phyllis Starkey MP ----- Original
Message ----- Dear Mrs Starkey
MP, What was the point of sacking the existing project management team? What purpose was fulfilled by losing the papers? Why weren't they read? Why weren't they distributed? Why was the work in progress abandoned? Why choose to talk only to the wrong people? Why no 'familiarisation' or dialogue? Why bring in novices and outsiders? Why replace professionals with amateurs? It seems someone figured the easiest way to control the project was to get rid of anyone who knew anything about the original and get a new crew in to reinvent the wheel. Some think the only original people left are the District Judge and CAFCASS - who have always opposed the project. It seems like Bruce has taken a low-profile local project and turned it into a national crisis. Some fear he will do the same for contact that he did for Munchausen's. This is a complicated, technical project with massive ramifications for the future of family law. I think this project must be commission out to an independent agency to ensure this reform is done properly or sent back to the DCA. Best regards Hodge dumps forced mediation 30th May 2004 Janet Croston Milton Keynes Light House Project - Misleading the public about domestic violence 23rd May 2004 Celia Smith Law Commission - Reform of the UK family court system 19th March 2004 ----- Original
Message ----- Dr Phyllis
Starkey MP 24th February 2004. Dear Veronica
Belcher PA to Dr Phyllis Starkey MP, David Mortimer ----- Original
Message ----- Thank you for your further email. I have explained to you before on the various occasions when you have asked me to sign EDMs that I am a PPS. I do not therefore have anything further to add to my previous response to your email which I repeat below for your conveniemce: Any MP that is not a Minister, Front Bench opposition spokesperson or PPS, may sign an EDM but they are unlikely to do so unless they are approached by one of their own constituents. If you have friends living in another constitunecy that share your views, they could ask their MP the questions you pose which are not appropriate to be put to the Minister. Yours sincerely Dr Phyllis Starkey MP ----- Original
Message ----- Dear Mr Mortimer Any MP that is not a Minsiter, Front Bench opposition spokesperson or PPS, may sign an EDM but they are unlikely to do so unless they are approached by one of their own constituents. If you have friends living in another constitunecy that share your views, they could ask their MP the questions you pose which are not appropriate to be put to the Minister. Yours sincerely Dr Phyllis Starkey MP In message 01ab01c3e968$162770e0$071e89d9@davemortimer, dave.mortimer@tiscali.co.uk
writes 2nd February 2004. Dear Dr Phyllis Starkey MP, On the 20th
January 2004, I wrote to you and asked you to sign this EDM (1) I asked you to kindly forward my request to an appropriate person who does sign EDM's in Milton Keynes (2) I asked you to confirm to me in your reply exactly who does sign EDM's in Milton Keynes as you state you do not. Please can you confrim if you have forwarded my request and who you sent it to in your reply this time. Also, on Sunday, January 18, 2004 I wrote to you and asked you to write to Mrs Margaret Hodge to ask her the same questions contained in that e-mail for me. Please can you confirm if you have written to Mrs Margaret Hodge and, if you have had a reply. If so, please can I have a copy of the letter that you sent to Mrs Margaret Hodge with your reply. Finally, I request that youl ask the following parliamentary questions from 1 - 10 listed below: 1. What is your understanding of the term "Domestic Violence"? 2. Is DV considered to be a crime? If so how many people have been convicted of it in each of the last three years? 3. Is it necessary for violence, as defined by the existence or fear of physical or psychological hurt, to be present in order for a crime to be classed as Domestic Violence? 4. Figures for domestic violence regularly suggest that it is a "crime" that affects one in four women. Is this figure accepted as correct and what is the source of the statistics. 5. Do statistics indicate any respective figure that is applicable to men and if so what is the source? 6. Should local authorities, police, and charities be allowed to quote the incidence of DV in one sex without quoting the respective figure for the other sex. 7. What percentage of cases where DV is alleged are successfully prosecuted resulting in a guilty verdict? 8. (Alternatively) Are there any figures for the numbers of charges made for DV and the number of successful prosecutions for DV. 9. To what extent are the police and CPS bound by the Joint Charging Standards agreed between those bodies? 10. What percentage of cases of DV are not proceeded with by the CPS between the time of charging and the final trial? I look forward to your reply. Regards David Mortimer Veronica Belcher ----- Original
Message ----- Dave: Thank you for this. She says she SUSPECTS, not that we did distort. In other words, she is guessing. I assure you we've distorted nothing! She is in the opposing camp and is probably immovable. I suggest we focus on those who will support this. There are many. The ones that are against us will not be moved. We must just counter their arguments, which is being done very effectively. We had a substantial delegation there, including Attorney and Children's Rights Council President, David L. Levy. Mr Levy repeated Margaret Hodge's words at a presentation he and I made to family court professionals in London that included a prominent judge. I issued a release which was circulated to her and her dept. immediately afterwards. She has not protested. Indeed, I am quite sure that is precisely her position on this issue. Best wishes, Tony
----- Original
Message ----- 20th January 2004. Dear Phyllis
Starkey MP, To illustrate this point, you signed EDM 247 relating to minimum wages for 16 and 17 year olds on 5 January 2004. Are you suggesting that you became a PPS after this date or that you consider take home pay to be more important to children than links with their natural families? I look forward to your further response. Yours sincerely David Mortimer ----- Original
Message ----- Dear Mr Mortimer Thank you for your email. As I have mentioned to you before, it is not appropriate for me to sign EDM's as I am a Parliamentary Private Secretary and EDM's are essentially an expression of backbench opinion. Yours sincerely ----- Original
Message ----- 20th January 2004. Dear Dr Phyllis
Starkey MP, ----- Original
Message ----- Dear Phyllis
Starkey MP, Please will you ask Mrs.Margaret Hodge for me how it is in the best interests of children for judges to make contact orders but not to enforce them? I can not see how if ministers are sworn to uphold the law, how her comments will install any public faith in her or the legal system that is supposed to protect children. Please ask her if she accepts that some men will sadly give up after reading her comments and commit suicide.The National Suicide Strategy identified suicide as the biggest cause of death in men under 35 in the UK and, 65% of these were fathers". There are more men taking their own lives every year in the UK than died in road accidents and I can not see how her comments will help those ministers who are committed to reducing the suicide rate by at least 20% by 2010, if the custodial parent can block contact and there is NOTHING that can be done. Yours sincerely David Mortimer ----- Original
Message ----- Dear Phyllis, ----- Original
Message ----- Dear Mr Mortimer Thank you for your email. I have nothing to add to my previous response. Yours sincerely ----- Original
Message ----- Dear Mr Mortimer Thank you for your email the contents of which I have noted. My understanding of MK women's Aid is that like other womens' refuges around the country, they were set up voluntarily by women themselves. These women presumably then applied for funding for these projects having established the need. It is the way that most voluntary organisations are established. I do not know if Milton Keynes Council has ever been asked to provide funding to a similar project to MK Women's Aid for men. I hope this is helpful. Yours sincerely Phyllis Starkey MP Is it illegal under Sect 29(1) of SDA 75 for local authorities to discriminate against men
THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
Hosted by Eastern Web - www.easternweb.co.uk |
