Yesterday, John Hemming hid behind parliamentary privilege in order to name an individual who had recently (and allegedly) been hauled before the courts after disclosing information about a court case in which they were personally involved during a meeting conducted, in private, in the House of Commons.
Here’s the introduction to Hemming’s own take on his actions – I’m not going to link to his blog post, nor reproduce anything more than a heavily redacted version of his introductory remarks for reasons that will become patently obvious in a very short while.
Some confusion has reigned in the blogosphere about today’s points of order. My objective was to identify the parties in the [Name Redacted] / [Name Redacted] case where [Name Redacted] tried to Jail [Name Redacted] for talking in Parliament.
All the other details of the story are in the public domain, but an injunction prevented the parties being identified.
Now they can be identified.
This not a ‘superinjunction’ case nor are any of the parties involved in the case either a celebrity or a footballer, although one of the parties is allegedly ‘known to millions’ but only to the extent that her name will be known for her professional involvement in particular sporting activity by people who follow that sport closely. Following Hemming’s intervention, on a point of order that was raised in circumstances that were clearly contrary to the openly expressed wishes of the Speaker of the House, anyone one with a few minutes to spare can now readily identify all the parties involved in the case – and not just in the matter of the recent proceeding relating to the violation of an injunction but in the underlying case to which the now broken injunction related.
As far as Hemming is concerned, this is a case of ‘job done’ – so let’s look at what that actually means.
First things’ first – context.
There are two important things to note in relation to John Hemming before we get into the meat of this issue.
The first is that Hemming has a personal beef with social services and the child protection system which stems from an incident in 2005 in which Hemming’s then-pregnant mistress, Emily Cox, was briefly ‘investigated’ by Birmingham City Council’s Social Services Department after concerns were raised by her GP following an ante-natal consultation during which Cox admitted that she had failed to register the death of a stillborn baby when she was a teenager.
Hemming’s response to this investigation was to level a series of uncorroborated and overwrought accusations against social workers, who he predictably described as ‘acting like the Gestapo’ topped off with a writ seeking damages of £300,000 in which he claimed that his mistress had been "defamed, tortured and assaulted by social services and they [Hemming and Cox] had spent time which could have been spent earning dealing with the issues raised. The media coverage of this case follows the all-too-familiar pattern in which social workers are publicly pilloried by an aggrieved party who gets to put across their side of the story and make specific and damaging allegations while the social workers who conducted the investigation are precluded from defending their actions in all but the blandest of terms for legal and ethical reasons:
A spokesman for Birmingham City Council last night said: "The local authority took careful and considered actions as required by the law to investigate concerns about the welfare of a child.
"Birmingham City Council is confident of all the actions taken alongside police and health colleagues and will be vigorously defending the matter and its staff who at all times acted within the area child protection committee procedures and the law."
Hemming’s threatened lawsuit against Birmingham City Council came to nothing and was, so as I’m aware, quietly withdrawn without ever proceeding to a hearing.
The second thing to note is that Hemming has form for inserting himself into legal proceedings relating to decisions handed down by the family court. In 2008, Hemming attended the Court of Appeal as a McKenzie in a rather sad case in which the central issue at stake was that of whether a women with serious learning disabilities possessed the mental capacity to care for her disabled. Hemming’s intervention in the case prompted the following highly critical response from Lord Justice Wall, who has since (2010) been appointed to position of President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice for England and Wales:
My judgment is that his [Hemming’s] self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged…. Speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence.’
For brevity’s sake, I won’t run through the full ins and outs of this case, not least as it was more than adequately covered at the time by both PoliticalHack and myself. It is nevertheless worth noting that Hemming’s approach to this case was based entirely on levelling unfounded allegations of serious professional misconduct against both the Official Solicitor and the clinical psychologist who had assessed the mother’s mental capacity against the backdrop of a conspiracy theory in which social services departments were allegedly ‘stealing’ babies for profit without following due process in order to meet government adoption targets to which modest financial incentives had, at the time, been attached in an effort to speed up the system and get more out of care and into adoptive families.
Naturally enough, Hemming failed to produce any factual evidence to corroborate his allegations, which were in any case rejected by Wall LJ in the most unequivocal of terms:
125. Mr. Hemming’s allegation that HJ [the clinical psychologist] is part of an “evil” system only warrants comment because it comes from a Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make serious accusations when they are based on evidence. I am astonished that somebody in Mr. Hemming’s position should have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the public domain. I reject it unreservedly.
Through these proceedings, Hemming’s interventions fixated solely on the presumed rights of the mother with no regard whatsoever given to the welfare of the child, a point which did not go unnoticed by Wall LJ:
…the danger of the mother’s approach, reinforced as it has been in my judgment by Mr Hemming’s partial and tendentious advice, is that it has been entirely adult focused. Not once in his argument did he mention the welfare of KP [the child]. His emphasis, and that of RP [the mother], was entirely on her rights and the alleged wrongs which had been done to her.
Getting back to Hemming’s latest escapade, the case to which yesterday’s privileged disclosure relates in, once again, a matter that is currently before the family courts albeit one that, unlike the 2008, has yet to find its way to the High Court or Court of Appeal, which means that we cannot rely on a credible source such as Bailii for factual information about the case.
What can reliably ascertained is that this is a particularly complicated, unpleasant and acrimonious case which arose, initially, out of the breakdown of a relationship which gave rise, to begin with, to a dispute over a father’s access rights to a single child.
What elevates the case far outside the norm is that the mother who, to begin with had custody of the child, sought to deny the father access to the child by way of levelling a series of damaging allegations against the father, the most serious of which accused the father of sexually molesting the child.
Following a series of investigations and hearings in the family court over a period of five to six years or so, the current state of play in this case appears to be that the child is now in the custody of the father but still subject to a care order or care plan put together by the local Social Services department (this is not entirely clear due to certain issues with the source material I’m working from here that will become clear in a moment), while the mother has no access to the child at all, having been served with a non-molestation order by, seemingly, the Local Authority.
Precisely why this should be the case is, perhaps, best illustrated by the finding of fact handed down following a hearing early in 2010:
1. [The child] has not been sexually abused by the father, or at all.
2. The allegations of sexual abuse were made first by the mother, not by [the child], they were false and the mother knew them to be false.
3. As a result of inappropriate pressure and prompting, [the child] came to make and believe the allegations.
4. Once [the child] adopted the allegations, the mother may have deluded herself that they were true.
5. [The child] suffered actual and significant emotional harm.
My source for this information, from which a number of annotations have been removed, is a lengthy ‘account’ – which refers to itself as a ‘Truth Statement’ of the case produced by a supporter of the mother, Elizabeth J Watson of Discoveries International Limited, a Croydon-based company which lists its business areas on Companies House as ‘Other wholesale’, ‘Investigations and security’ and ‘Other business interests’. A personal biography of Watson can be found here of which perhaps the most interesting passage is that detailing her most recent interests and activities:
In May 2006, after watching "The Secret", I had a huge wake-up call and became fascinated with The Law of Attraction and taking ownership of "I create my own Reality". This has led to a very interesting ‘chapter’ in fact, the most interesting phase of my entire life, now that I have just ‘hit’ my 5th decade !! LOL
It means that I experiement with Quantum Physics on a regular and habitual basis now, and am having great fun with it and the learning that is taking place. Arising from this new ‘mind-set’, I have several wonderful projects I am now seeking, and beginning, to get underway. I will post more on these as they reach fruition, and manifest into Being. I am keen to meet like-minded people and business partners who are interested in being a part of a dynamic Team: the areas are: website production / design/IT Systems for an online Membership Club, also producing a Documentary, writing and publishing a book, helping with setting up and launching a specialised Managed FOREX Hedge Fund and "The Abacus Wealth Club" (due to launch shortly), amongst other things.
‘The Secret’ is a best-selling self-help book and film by Rhonda Byrne which, on its release in 2006, was heavily promoted by the reigning queen of American quackery, Oprah Winfrey. In essence its a rehash of the every popular positive-thinking and affirmations scam in which gullible idiots are sold the idea that they can have the perfect life and everything they want from it if only they make lots of the lists and wish really hard for it. For example, the book offers its readers the following sage-like advice on the subject of weight control:
"If you see people who are overweight, do not observe them, but immediately switch your mind to the picture of you in your perfect body and feel it."
Watson’s ‘account’ of the case, as you might expect, disputes the findings of the court – actually ‘disputes’ is hardly the right word to use as you’ll plainly see from this extract from the introduction to her ‘Truth Statement’:
The child of [Redacted], namely [Redacted], has been unlawfully abducted from her mother, who claims her full parental responsibility for the child whom she loves dearly. Mother and child have not seen each other even once since mid November 2010 save a brief 10 minute meeting in December 2010, because of State interference in their rights and liberties. The sacred parental responsibility of the mother, [Redacted], has been callously over-ridden and absurdly denied to her by the “Authorities”, with no grounds in Law to support this, and the action of depriving [Redacted] of the child has caused untold distress, humiliation and unquantifiable damage and unnecessary suffering, to both mother and child: but [Redacted] is innocent and has committed NO offence. Yet she has been treated like a criminal by [Redacted] Social Services, who have profited financially from the entire child-snatching exercise by acting in cold blood and deploying callous indifference to their fellow human beings.
The ‘bottom line’ is that [Redacted] has, effectively, been used as a financial instrument to fill the coffers and create revenue for the County Council in [Redacted]. The experience and worry caused to [Redacted] the mother, has been galling. The alarming status quo has been kept alive now for some 14 months since the two were formally parted from each other, seemingly in the iron grip of the damning effects of this unconscionable act on the part of the [Redacted] and their army of subservient cohorts.
It is entirely demonstrable however, that the father, [Redacted], on the other hand, has committed several offences, and incontrovertible evidence exists to show that he is guilty of [Redacted] and criminal acts of [Redacted] against his own child. There is also evidence to show that [Redacted] committed [Redcated] prior to the child’s birth, against the mother, [Redacted]: appallingly, all these crimes have been condoned and ignored by those masquerading as ‘Authorities’, with no explanation nor justification in Law. The Courts and judges involved have arguably played their part too, in perverting Justice on this case, partly through being misled by a woman parading as a “solicitor” when she had no such qualification or status for this, and partly because of the enormous problem with corruption inside CAFCASS who colluded with the [Redacted] for their mutual pecuniary advantage. Everything unjust on this Case traces back to vested interests of those ‘players’ involved.
The document is semi-anonymised, in the sense that initials are used to identify the various named parties in the document, which runs to a total of 26 pages, but I’ve nevertheless chosen to redact that information because the author has used the actual initials on named parties rather than stick to accepted court practice in which the letters given to anonymised parties are semi-randomised and chosen so as to avoid inadvertently provided any clues as to a particular individual’s real identity.
What we can see, therefore, is that Watson’s account of the case amounts to a lengthy conspiracy theory which repeats, and in the main text expands considerably upon the most serious allegations levelled against the child’s father, which were in any case rejected by the court for lack of corroborating evidence, in addition to a stream of unevidenced allegations of negligence and corruption against officers of the local authority, CAFCASS, the Police and the courts. It can hardly come as a surprise to anyone that the mother in this case was injuncted and forbidden to comment publicly on the case, not least as it appears that the court thought it necessary to obtain psychiatric reports on the mother.
Herein lies the major problem with Hemming’s ill-considered and reckless actions. ‘Truth’, when it comes to obtaining information about this case, mean ‘Truther’. the details of the story are not in the public domain, not so far as I can see when it comes to underlying case to which the injunction that Hemming breached yesterday is concerned. The court documents relating to the underlying access/custody case are not readily accessible and, so far as I can tell, may not even be available in the form of an anonymised ruling, which means that I may be risking a comtempt charge for providing even the limited information given in this post.
What is in the public domain and readily accessible via a Google search using the information disclosed by Hemming in parliament, are a number of blog posts on Truther websites and forums, some of which are to be found wallowing unashamedly in Zionist Reptilian Overlord country*, containing the text of emails which not only name several of the parties in this case, including the mother, father, child and officers of the Local Authority that dealt with the case, but which openly repeat many of the most serious and highly defamatory allegations of criminality and corruption contained in Watson’s full ‘account’ of the case – which, of course, I’m not linking to.
*My personal favourite is a site closely associated with one of the sources of the defamatory emails where the author, Ian R Crane, is confidently predicting that the Zionist New World Order™ will mount a false flag alien invasion of London during the 2012 Olympics as a precursor to establishing the city as the Zionist ‘New Jerusalem’ – apparently William Blake was in on this, as are (inevitably) the Freemasons, the Olympic organising committee and several past Olymipiads, including Munich, Los Angeles and Beijing. There are days when even the word ‘fucknut’ doesn’t come close.
It cannot be stressed enough that this is not case in which a wealthy sportsman or entertainer is attempting to keep his/her extracurricular activities off the front pages of the tabloids, it is an extremely serious and acrimonious custody case which Hemming has treated with callous and unthinking disregard for all parties involved in pursuit of a personal vendetta against the child protection system.
Hemming is, in my opinion, wholly unfit to hold public office and his actions yesterday stand as a flagrant and unacceptable abuse of parliamentary privilege.