Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:37 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653442/Secret-court-jails-gran-hugged-granddaughter-Pensioner-sentenced-three-months-disobeying-order-not-teenager.html

How can anyone not be appalled at this?

Quite besides the "we dont know the whole story" from those prepared to defend the governments social manipulations at any cost the brutal fact of this is we do not know even a fraction of the story - and in fair and open justice that should not be possible.

As for the bit about the teenager becoming more disruptive after contact with her family - in the 1940s and 1950s children staying in hospital were limited to brief visits from parents a couple of times a week because it was found they were less disruptive without contact with parents. It was believed at the time that the children got used to being apart from their parents and suffered less - the disruption seen when parents did leave being considered an expression of suffering from the contact. Over time it was learned that actually the opposite was the case - that the quiet, automaton like behaviour of the children away from parents was a sign of far more significant long lasting damage due to separation. Hospitals now try to make sure that there is parental company as near full time as the parents can manage because it is better for the children. It seems worryingly that social services either have not learned this or want to turn it on its head and are deliberately keeping family away from suffering children on pain of imprisonment.

That however is just an opinion and people may disagree which is fine - but surely nobody agrees that the secrecy is desirable, necessary or even remotely acceptable in our society?

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:12 pm

As you say sphinx - social engineering.

We need a lot lot less interference from the authorities, but it's going the other way.

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:35 pm

Actually Andy, it's the other way round. It has been going on for years and years, but finally we are finding out about it. I knew someone who had their lives wrecked by these courts 30 years ago. Their son suffered from brittle bone disease, but in those days not a lot was know about it. The slightest thing would leave him covered in bruises and his bones would break, sometimes just turning over in bed. He was taken away from his mother and father and put up for adoption, they fought and fought but they were threatened with all kinds of things if they dared talk about it. They lost their son. Years later they had another child, by then brittle bone disease was known about. They inlisted the help of a specialist so that the child could be tested as soon as it was born (it's normally genetic). He had it too, but Social Services never got their hands on him because of the specialist. I think people would be quite surprised to know how long these draconian courts have been working away in secret.

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:47 pm

Sassy wrote:Actually Andy, it's the other way round. It has been going on for years and years, but finally we are finding out about it. I knew someone who had their lives wrecked by these courts 30 years ago. Their son suffered from brittle bone disease, but in those days not a lot was know about it. The slightest thing would leave him covered in bruises and his bones would break, sometimes just turning over in bed. He was taken away from his mother and father and put up for adoption, they fought and fought but they were threatened with all kinds of things if they dared talk about it. They lost their son. Years later they had another child, by then brittle bone disease was known about. They inlisted the help of a specialist so that the child could be tested as soon as it was born (it's normally genetic). He had it too, but Social Services never got their hands on him because of the specialist. I think people would be quite surprised to know how long these draconian courts have been working away in secret.

The thing is though, were they actually in secret 30 years ago? There is a massive difference between not being reported because the newspapers are either not interested or think the courts are getting it right and the court of protection which has made rulings preventing people from even talking to their MP.

Could that person 30 years ago have taken it to the press or asked their MP to get involved?

by Lone Wolf Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:30 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
As you say sphinx - social engineering.

We need a lot lot less interference from the authorities, but it's going the other way.

AND all of that cruel and unnecessary tomfoolery is still happening under your beloved Tory conservative regimes, B'Andy ~ just goes to prove that all of your British bureaucracies are always capable of remaining inept and incompetent equally ~ no matter which side is supposedly in control of your cute and cuddly little country...

::d&f::

by nicko Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:38 pm

What happened to lurker? is he now deceased.will he ever stop taking the piss out of Britain.i think it's pure envy. [our boomerangs do come back!!]

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:43 pm

nicko wrote:What happened to lurker? is he now deceased.will he ever stop taking the piss out of Britain.i think it's pure envy. [our boomerangs do come back!!]

Odd as why do you never have a go at the British posters who constantly slag off our own country, calling it thrid world etc?

You do show the worst hypocrisy.

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:48 pm

So among all the flying insults trying to detract from my question.

Does anyone here of any political or social persuasion believe that the secrecy seen in this case is either good or the right way to do things?

by Raggamuffin Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:01 pm

How stupid. The girl is 18, and it's absurd that a court should decide she can't see her grandmother. They should stop interfering in people's private lives.

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:05 pm

Sassy wrote:Actually Andy, it's the other way round. It has been going on for years and years, but finally we are finding out about it. I knew someone who had their lives wrecked by these courts 30 years ago. Their son suffered from brittle bone disease, but in those days not a lot was know about it. The slightest thing would leave him covered in bruises and his bones would break, sometimes just turning over in bed. He was taken away from his mother and father and put up for adoption, they fought and fought but they were threatened with all kinds of things if they dared talk about it. They lost their son. Years later they had another child, by then brittle bone disease was known about. They inlisted the help of a specialist so that the child could be tested as soon as it was born (it's normally genetic). He had it too, but Social Services never got their hands on him because of the specialist. I think people would be quite surprised to know how long these draconian courts have been working away in secret.

A total disgrace , but sadly lack of technology was also the demon here, but it's terrible how quickly some will jump the gun on such a serious matter without getting together with other specialists for even some kind of diagnosis to properly eliminate any wrong doing by the parents.

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:34 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:Actually Andy, it's the other way round. It has been going on for years and years, but finally we are finding out about it. I knew someone who had their lives wrecked by these courts 30 years ago. Their son suffered from brittle bone disease, but in those days not a lot was know about it. The slightest thing would leave him covered in bruises and his bones would break, sometimes just turning over in bed. He was taken away from his mother and father and put up for adoption, they fought and fought but they were threatened with all kinds of things if they dared talk about it. They lost their son. Years later they had another child, by then brittle bone disease was known about. They inlisted the help of a specialist so that the child could be tested as soon as it was born (it's normally genetic). He had it too, but Social Services never got their hands on him because of the specialist. I think people would be quite surprised to know how long these draconian courts have been working away in secret.

The thing is though, were they actually in secret 30 years ago? There is a massive difference between not being reported because the newspapers are either not interested or think the courts are getting it right and the court of protection which has made rulings preventing people from even talking to their MP.

Could that person 30 years ago have taken it to the press or asked their MP to get involved?

They most definitely were secret Sphinx, that is why I said they were threatened with all sorts if they spoke about it. If they had spoken to the press they would have been jailed.

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:02 pm

There can be no place for secrecy in an honest civilization.

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:12 pm

sphinx wrote:There can be no place for secrecy in an honest civilization.

What about the defence of that honest civilization?

One of the best kept secrets of WW2 helped win the war, do you know what that was?

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:14 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:There can be no place for secrecy in an honest civilization.

What about the defence of that honest civilization?

One of the best kept secrets of WW2 helped win the war, do you know what that was?

These courts are not being used to keep those kind of secrets, they are used against families and individuals and have been shown to make some terrible decisions. One woman was sent to prison for taking her father out of a care home for a day so that he could have dinner with her and her family.

by eddie Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:17 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:There can be no place for secrecy in an honest civilization.

What about the defence of that honest civilization?

One of the best kept secrets of WW2 helped win the war, do you know what that was?

Teenage radio wizardry?

by eddie Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:19 pm

Or the Navajo Code talkers?

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:30 pm

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:

What about the defence of that honest civilization?

One of the best kept secrets of WW2 helped win the war, do you know what that was?

These courts are not being used to keep those kind of secrets, they are used against families and individuals and have been shown to make some terrible decisions. One woman was sent to prison for taking her father out of a care home for a day so that he could have dinner with her and her family.

Your point has nothing to do with my answer to Sphinxs claim.

Eddie, Ultra was the big secret, though so was your point on Navajo Code talkers.

Some things are kept secret for a reason.

Lets take this one step further, if scientists found out the world would end in 3 days time, would you want to know, with all the ontold panic it would cause or to just allow it to happen?

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:35 pm

back on topic
this is appalling
Im surprised its been reported tbh.
Usually that incurs more penalties if you speak outside court about it

by Guest Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:40 pm

So what didge is saying in a very roundabout way is he agrees with the use of secrecy in our society.

The way the argument goes is it is necessary to have secrecy in defence of the society - that in those circumstances secrecy prevents harm coming to the society. This is followed by some non defence occasion where it is demonstrable that had something been secret it would have prevented harm. This leads to the conclusion that where it can be demonstrated that secrecy prevents harm it should be allowed in society. This leads to the establishment of things like the court of protection, and secret trials of people we do not know the name of for crimes we are not told about.

So where is the fallacy in the above argument?

Try this one on for size - secrecy as used in defence of a society is not secrecy within that society but rather secrecy outside it. The focus is not on preventing the man in the street from knowing something to prevent harm to him but having him not knowing something because some one or something from outside that society could use it to destroy his society. There would be no issue with Mr Bloggs knowing the military had invented a new form of radar if it was not for the fact that the enemy could use that knowledge to blow Mr Bloggs house up. It is not necessary to keep knowledge from Mr Bloggs but it is necessary to keep it from the enemy.

So litmus test is "why do we not want the man in the street to know"

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:02 am

sphinx wrote:So what didge is saying in a very roundabout way is he agrees with the use of secrecy in our society.

The way the argument goes is it is necessary to have secrecy in defence of the society - that in those circumstances secrecy prevents harm coming to the society. This is followed by some non defence occasion where it is demonstrable that had something been secret it would have prevented harm. This leads to the conclusion that where it can be demonstrated that secrecy prevents harm it should be allowed in society. This leads to the establishment of things like the court of protection, and secret trials of people we do not know the name of for crimes we are not told about.

So where is the fallacy in the above argument?

Try this one on for size - secrecy as used in defence of a society is not secrecy within that society but rather secrecy outside it. The focus is not on preventing the man in the street from knowing something to prevent harm to him but having him not knowing something because some one or something from outside that society could use it to destroy his society. There would be no issue with Mr Bloggs knowing the military had invented a new form of radar if it was not for the fact that the enemy could use that knowledge to blow Mr Bloggs house up. It is not necessary to keep knowledge from Mr Bloggs but it is necessary to keep it from the enemy.

So litmus test is "why do we not want the man in the street to know"

Bloody hell that was a load of babble, though am interested also to know if you will share all your secrets to the world, will you?

Okay lets deal with this nonsense, as for example why does Mr Bloggs need to know his son is going to be landing on Normandy Beech on the 6th June, when his son does not even know either as many allied service men do not because such a breech of security would endanger the whole operation and the allies would lose the element of suprise and know doubt the landings would fail. So all the many secret weapons going to be used for D-Day are now common knowledge to the populace, which there was Nazi sympathizers in the country and word gets around and now the allies will receive a much reinforced Germany army and Luftwaffe at Normandy. Keeping secrets from many people helps prevent also loss of life because as seen you lose the element of suprise and hence why Mr Blogs has no requirement or need to know. There is also the risk people will sell the secrets to our enemies, or have you never heard of the Cambridge 5? Secrets are contained for a reason so information is kept to a minimum, thus ensuring safety for all, the less people know the less chance something is leaked, hence why Normandy was such a success because many of those involved knew very little about the location. So why does Mr Boggs need to know the location of D-day? Why should Mr Bloggs know the secret of how to make an Atomic bomb at the end of WW2? There is such a thing as called an advantage, by having more people unvetted knowing secrets you lose this ability to be one step ahead of your enemy, it is not just about him and the safety of others in this nation, but countless many abroad and those of our allies. Of course how much easier would Sphinx make life for spies residing in this country, when such state secrets are just about common Knowledge..

I will give you a good example of when this did happen, the attack on Goose Green, when the BBC fucked right up. The Brits were due to attack for May 28 and the BBC announced when the attack was happening and you know what, the Argentinians were watching, the attack could have been a disaster.

So you are pissed at some old dear sent to jail because you are a nosey parker so and so, who no doubt never tells all your secrets to anyone, but hey I agree with you civilian criminal cases should not be secrets
but defense is a different kettle of fish all together and too many people and the military edge is at risk, taking away and greatly diminishing their chances of success. .

What you should be asking is why the do you even think he needs to know, because he does not, and with him being ignorant of something not only protects him but countless others

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:50 am

Didge
None of what you say is relevant. This is nothing to do with the Nazis the Falklands or national security. Courts of protection sit in matters regarding people who lack capacity to make their own decisions. The court laid down the circumstances in which the grandmother could see the girl. The grandmother broke these conditions. That is all the judge is concerned with. His priority is that the court is obeyed, not the welfare of the girl. If you cannot understand how this differs from national security and how insidious and wrong it is that these proceedings are secret then there is definitely something wrong with you

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:10 am

Nems wrote:Didge
None of what you say is relevant. This is nothing to do with the Nazis the Falklands or national security. Courts of protection sit in matters regarding people who lack capacity to make their own decisions. The court laid down the circumstances in which the grandmother could see the girl. The grandmother broke these conditions. That is all the judge is concerned with. His priority is that the court is obeyed, not the welfare of the girl. If you cannot understand how this differs from national security and how insidious and wrong it is that these proceedings are secret then there is definitely something wrong with you

I am not debating about the Grand mother, I am answering to Sphinx, who if you read asked , why do we not want the man in the street to know after going on about defense as a reason, I am giving my view for reasons of defense and expanding onto this which can greatly do further.
Not bothered about the case, if you read, I stated it should be known, some things though should be withheld for a set amount of years.
So yes i agree with a certain amount of secrecy, as many people do so daily within their own lives, where take for example, not knocking Eddie either, she had that friend who placed a great burden onto her about her cheating on her husband then got back to him, yet Eddie still has to bare the burden of this secret.

Basically where do we draw the line on what Sphinx is saying, do we sue anyone that has withheld information an we later found out they did?
Do not forget Sphinx's is saying that in a decent society, there should be no secrets, which you can go off on tangent on many areas on this

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:18 am

Didge wrote:
Nems wrote:Didge
None of what you say is relevant. This is nothing to do with the Nazis the Falklands or national security. Courts of protection sit in matters regarding people who lack capacity to make their own decisions. The court laid down the circumstances in which the grandmother could see the girl. The grandmother broke these conditions. That is all the judge is concerned with. His priority is that the court is obeyed, not the welfare of the girl. If you cannot understand how this differs from national security and how insidious and wrong it is that these proceedings are secret then there is definitely something wrong with you

I am not debating about the Grand mother, I am answering to Sphinx, who if you read asked , why do we not want the man in the street to know after going on about defense as a reason, I am giving my view for reasons of defense and expanding onto this which can greatly do further.
Not bothered about the case, if you read, I stated it should be known, some things though should be withheld for a set amount of years.

Ah some things should be withheld. What things? Who should decide.
You are not bothered about the case? Doesnt surprise to be frank. You concentrate on the abstract airy fairy hypothetical and just ignore the reality of now

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:24 am

Nems wrote:
Didge wrote:

I am not debating about the Grand mother, I am answering to Sphinx, who if you read asked , why do we not want the man in the street to know after going on about defense as a reason, I am giving my view for reasons of defense and expanding onto this which can greatly do further.
Not bothered about the case, if you read, I stated it should be known, some things though should be withheld for a set amount of years.

Ah some things should be withheld. What things? Who should decide.
You are not bothered about the case? Doesnt surprise to be frank. You concentrate on the abstract airy fairy hypothetical and just ignore the reality of now

Do you have secrets your friends have confided in you?

My debate is on countering the point Sphinx made, which she replied to, so stop being silly, as the point on the case has been stated by me as to be known publicly, so your point on caring is a deflection making poor childish view points on me again.

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:40 am

Dont worry Nems its just didge doing his usual of not wanting to talk about the actual topic everyone else is discussing but instead wants to turn it to something similar but different so he can claim he knows everything and everyone else is wrong.

He introduced defence into the debate - I told everyone why he was doing it. He then jumps up and down and insists his further posts are answering me and nothing to do with people still talking about the original point which is secrecy within a society.

Most of his jumping up and down have been military examples and he has missed the clear explanation I gave in telling everyone what he was upto trying to derail the debate.

So just for you Didge the point is not that Mr Bloggs needs to know when and where his son is landing the point is that within the society it does not matter if he does know - the only danger is if someone outside of that society finds out.

With court of protection it does not matter if someone outside of the society finds out but the information must be kept from people within the society.

So again my point is there is no role for secrecy within a society.
Test - will this information allow someone outside of our society to inflict damage on our society if they knew it?

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:46 am

sphinx wrote:Dont worry Nems its just didge doing his usual of not wanting to talk about the actual topic everyone else is discussing but instead wants to turn it to something similar but different so he can claim he knows everything and everyone else is wrong.

He introduced defence into the debate - I told everyone why he was doing it. He then jumps up and down and insists his further posts are answering me and nothing to do with people still talking about the original point which is secrecy within a society.

Most of his jumping up and down have been military examples and he has missed the clear explanation I gave in telling everyone what he was upto trying to derail the debate.

So just for you Didge the point is not that Mr Bloggs needs to know when and where his son is landing the point is that within the society it does not matter if he does know - the only danger is if someone outside of that society finds out.

With court of protection it does not matter if someone outside of the society finds out but the information must be kept from people within the society.

So again my point is there is no role for secrecy within a society.
Test - will this information allow someone outside of our society to inflict damage on our society if they knew it?

What a fibber, you tried badly as seen and asked me why he should not be told, now back track from this when as seen you know you are going to get battered down the road of your original claim to there should be no secrecy in a decent civilization, you made this an absolute statement and as seen do the time honoured trick of seek support of another poster to deflect, when you cannot counter my view points, because you know your point is sunk before even starting

Behave and grow up love

You did not read my point, the point is if he does know and many others know, then there is less chance of keeping the element of suprise, which seems to have gone over your head. If more people know about something does the chance increase for other people to know through word of mouth alone?

take your time

So there is no role for secrecy, do you ever have private PM's on here?

please share them if you agree with your view.

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:50 am

Didge I have answered your point twice - more for everyone elses benefit that yours.

Now this topic was started, and from their posts other people wish it to remain, about secrecy of courts within society which is abhorrent, and not about military secrets which you wish to talk about.

If you insist on talking about military secrets go and open another thread as the rest of us want to discuss this topic.

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:53 am

sphinx wrote:Didge I have answered your point twice - more for everyone elses benefit that yours.

Now this topic was started, and from their posts other people wish it to remain, about secrecy of courts within society which is abhorrent, and not about military secrets which you wish to talk about.

If you insist on talking about military secrets go and open another thread as the rest of us want to discuss this topic.

No you have not, you have avoided all my points.

I countered your view, "there is no role for secrecy in a civilized society" which has gone on from that, you came back trying to look clever and it backfired. I am countering that and proved why with not only defense so far but can expand further as seen and now you choose to copout because you know you do not have a leg to stand on.

So are you going to advocate everyone's emails, for example are public knowledge to everyone?

How about your medical records to everyone?

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:57 am

sphinx wrote:There can be no place for secrecy in an honest civilization.

For all to see this is an absolute statement, basically stating no secrecy of any kind.

Do you wish to change this statement?

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:53 pm

sphinx wrote:Dont worry Nems its just didge doing his usual of not wanting to talk about the actual topic everyone else is discussing but instead wants to turn it to something similar but different so he can claim he knows everything and everyone else is wrong.

Should have realised!

He introduced defence into the debate - I told everyone why he was doing it. He then jumps up and down and insists his further posts are answering me and nothing to do with people still talking about the original point which is secrecy within a society.

Most of his jumping up and down have been military examples and he has missed the clear explanation I gave in telling everyone what he was upto trying to derail the debate.

So just for you Didge the point is not that Mr Bloggs needs to know when and where his son is landing the point is that within the society it does not matter if he does know - the only danger is if someone outside of that society finds out.

With court of protection it does not matter if someone outside of the society finds out but the information must be kept from people within the society.
Thats why its so insidious
So again my point is there is no role for secrecy within a society.
Test - will this information allow someone outside of our society to inflict damage on our society if they knew it?

by Sponsored content

Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter

Re: Grandmother ordered to jail for 3 months for hugging her granddaughter