Hyperbole and the Media.
The media, as we have long been aware, are selective when it comes to identifying the news which they think we should find important. ‘If it bleeds, it leads’ is not just a cliché.
Two stories today, which have been pushed to prominence by their alarming headlines; headlines which don’t quite add up when compared to the information in the story.
The first is from the excitable Christopher Booker. I used to be a fan of Mr Booker’s, as I was of John Hemming MP. They both had a commendable and justified interest in exposing ‘secret justice’. Since they have formed a close alliance, however, they appear to have followed Tom Watson down the ‘conspiracy theory’ rabbit hole as they feed off the stories told to them by their internet admirers. Take this morning’s headline from Christopher Booker – or rather don’t take it, for it is far from realistic:
“Will this OAP be robbed of her house and money?”
The definition of ‘robbed’, as I’m sure Mr Booker is fully aware, is to take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force. The story concerns a 94 year-old lady who has become the subject of a Court of Protection order. I am no fan of the Court of Protection, but even I would not attempt to argue that they ‘take’ money from ‘frail’ old ladies by force or unlawfully. They do attempt to ‘look after’ the money of frail old ladies, not always successfully, I will grant you, where they have been advised by Social Services, or indeed anyone, that perhaps the person concerned is not in the best of mental faculties and that other people may well attempt to take their money by force or illegally. They do so after a Doctor has confirmed that the person’s mental faculties are not up to a certain standard.
Mental faculties can vary intermittently, fine one day, wavering the next – Mr Booker’s friend, Ian Joseph’s, a Monaco resident who campaigns ceaselessly from an excruciating web-site along the lines of child adoptions being ‘punishment for parents who have committed no crime’, has obtained the services of another psychiatrist who has certified that on the day HE saw the lady, he ‘found her capable of carrying on a sensible conversation’. I would hope so – the vast majority of people with intermittent mental incapacity are capable of carrying on a sensible conversation. It is simplistic and offensive to assume that mental incapacity means that you are a dribbling idiot incapable of speaking for yourself. I have interviewed thousands of patients of the Court of Protection – probably only 5% of them were people you would have immediately summed up as ‘not having their full faculties’ – that doesn’t mean that the other 95% have the mental capacity to always act in their best interests. But Mr Booker then uses this report to describe the first psychiatrist’s report as ‘a questionable psychiatrist’s report’. Indeed. So is the second psychiatrist’s report, Mr Booker. The day two psychiatrists interviewing the same patient on two different days agree, Hell will freeze over.
The real question here is not whether two psychiatrists agree or not, but why Social Services, or whoever first raised concerns about the way in which she was handling her finances, was of the opinion that perhaps she wasn’t acting in her best interests. The fact that the order also seeks to evict her niece from her home suggests that possibly someone was concerned – even another family member – at the level of free will this lady was demonstrating within that household. The fact that Social Services has made the application only demonstrates that there is no other obvious family member to act as Receiver (manager) of her funds. Social services act as Receiver far more economically than a Solicitor who would be the only other option. The fact that Social Services is applying for her to live in a care home only demonstrates that, if the niece and her husband are no longer living in the house, it may be difficult for a 94 year-old lady in a wheelchair to continue to live alone.
This case is currently in the High Court, a High Court hearing that is now open to the public. That is as it should be. The facts are being argued in front of a judge, who will make a decision in a vulnerable lady’s best interests. Surely a time to wait and see what the outcome is, rather than use a twisted version of a Social Services application to have the matter looked at by, quote: ‘the sinister Court of Protection’ in order to rile up an internet fan club who firmly believe that all Judges are corrupt Freemasons, Social Services are a sinister organisation that exists only to steal children and sell them to ‘top Tories’ as an after-breakfast snack, and the Queen is a lizard.
This sort of newspaper reporting is the very reason why the Court of Protection has been so reluctant over the years to see the affairs of vulnerable individuals made public. Sad to see one of the supporters of transparency in the courts, proving them right after all.
Over in The Times (sorry paywall) we have the normally sober Frances Gibb claiming that:
“Family court judges are ‘in cahoots’ with social workers.”
This is in response to comments made by Mrs Justice Pauffley during a hearing of a particularly sad case. A mother of eight children, by a variety of Fathers, who had endured many years of ill health occasioned by alcohol, heroin and cocaine abuse, was applying to the courts not to have her eighth, and latest child, permanently adopted. Earlier children were already either in care, or living with their Fathers. However, happy ending to this story was that the Mother has now made ‘meaningful changes’ to her lifestyle, via a specialist treatment centre, and had established ‘good emotional interaction’ with her latest child. Mrs Justice Pauffley has ordered that the child be restored to her.
As part of her judgment, Mrs Justice Pauffley commented that the original order asking for foster care when the child was born, contained ‘facts and reasons’ that appeared to have been ‘copied and pasted’ from the Social Services report on the Mother. Given that Social Services is the organisation which is tasked to investigate such matters, it is difficult to guess, with due respect to Mrs Justice Pauffley, where else such ‘facts and reasons’ could have come from. It may well be that, in the light of Sir James Munby recent direction that all judgments in the family court should be open and transparent, that Mrs Justice Pauffley wants to see a system of independent court visitors, such as employed by the Court of Protection, to be set up in parallel to Social Services to provide parallel reports.
That is a reasonable argument – though for sure there would be a mass exodus from Social Services to take up such positions – same people, different hats.
I don’t see as ‘reasonable’ Ms Gibb’s deduction that this observation implies that “Family court judges are ‘in cahoots’ with social workers.”
Neither story makes any suggestion as to who should be entrusted with reporting to a judge on the affairs of vulnerable people. Journalists? Surely not!
The media has become the purveyor of horror, outrage, fear – and fear of institutions, including the government. We complain that (in particular) the Labour government sought to infantilise the nation – yet it is the media which continues to stoke the panic which we believe our ‘parent’, the government, should protect us from.
Daily we are fed headlines that suggest we are innocent children lost in a forest of malevolent wolves. Is this really just to protect their advertising revenues?
Discuss.
- expofunction
February 19, 2014 at 12:43 pm -
I don’t have access to the Times article (concerning Mrs Justice Pauffley), but I have formed a rather different understanding of what she found so concerning in this case.
She was highly critical of the ‘expert report’ and the manner and speed it was provided.
Mrs Justice Pauffley’s objection to the ‘cutting and pasting’ issue relates to the ‘Facts and Reasons’ report. These reports are – as I understand it – supposed to be written by magistrates to justify why they made a particular decision in a particular case. However in this (and apparently other similar) cases, Mrs Justice Pauffley found they are actually being written by counsel for the local authority and handed to the magistrates for them to ‘cut and paste’.
I think Mrs Justice Pauffley makes an important point, that even in cases where experts are involved the decision must be (independently and objectively) made by the judge. She wrote:
“It should always be remembered that in public law proceedings the local authority is the applicant. It is not and should never be seen as the decision maker. That is the role of the court. There is no room for confusion. Justice must be upheld. There is no scope for any dilution of that most fundamental concept.”
Although I really dislike the opening reference to “.. truly reveals the corruption which we all know exists in the family courts .. ” in the blog piece linked below, it does seem to provide a good account which is consistent with other reports I’ve read: (http://bit.ly/1kWpgmW)
- JimmyGiro
February 19, 2014 at 12:43 pm -
Not up to your usual high standards Anna.
The State, its laws, and its institutions, such as the Social Services, are all run by people with ‘quotas’ to fill.
Any system that lacks negative feedback, no checks and balances, but only has quota filling self interests, will suffer the catastrophe of positive feedback. Journalists, such as Christopher Booker, offer a modicum of negative feedback ; albeit merely a moral voice.
- Ho Hum
February 19, 2014 at 2:19 pm -
Bollocks
- Ho Hum
- Margaret Jervis
February 19, 2014 at 1:02 pm -
Yes – but obviously the media is fed by the excitable sources. John Hemming is a classic example of the ‘bunker mentality’ – which is the preserve of the dispossessed who frequent the like of Icke conspiracy blogs – difference being he is well-possessed and should know better.
Hemmings came across the rough justice in the family courts through events in his complicated private life. He then became a beacon of hope for many people without a voice who felt similarly afflicted – in many cases justifiably and even in the unjustifiable cases the ‘victims’ were often badly served by ss (for instance a mother who constantly claims that her child is being sexually abused by her former partner in assess visits would be ‘believed’ and encouraged in first instance – but then perhaps there would be a sudden reversal with her being seen as ‘Munchhausen by proxy’ or some such, so that what might have been a temporary fixation becomes reinforced and pathologised through the initial unquestioning belief).
But the scales having dropped from Hemmings’ eyes led him to adopt a conspiracy theory, it was not that many social workers were ideologically fixated and confused, but a grand and cynical plan to reach adoption targets. At the same time he bought into the idea that ‘social workers’ (ie teachers and care workers) were systematically sexually abusing children in care, handing out to paedophile rings etc
and supported the narcissistic Stuart Syvret in the Jersey coconut shell case that re-ignited the fantasies of the likes of Davison and Fay of old. I notice Booker shies away from the this – as well he should having been briefed re the Pembroke ‘ritual abuse’ travesty of a trial back in the early ninetieslThere is a pressing and urgent need to review and reform the entire family court, social services, police and criminal justice system .There are people out there who have a rational humane understanding of human beings – but the the ideologues are currently in the ascendency – the bunkerites are their dispossessed counterparts with the media (being equally gullible) performing a pick’n’mix role of shock/schlockertainment.
- Ho Hum
February 19, 2014 at 2:24 pm -
That man is so full of his own rectitude that he is one of the few people that I could really believe as being gifted enough to have the talent of actually seeing the light shining out of his own bottom
I won’t be saying any more on this thread. I’ll just get too angry.
- Margaret Jervis
February 19, 2014 at 9:44 pm -
Do tell. Arse over elbow? Not sure which man you are referring to. But you can email me through Anna
- Margaret Jervis
- Ho Hum
- Mr Pickey
February 19, 2014 at 1:06 pm -
“I have interviewed thousands of patients of the Court of Protection” – typo?
(even at 6 a day, this would take nearly a year)Also, I don’t think our dear Queen is a lizard. Prince Philip maybe, albeit one of the best
- Moor Larkin
February 19, 2014 at 1:18 pm -
Mention must be made of Grandma B – a classic of the genre.
https://grandmabarbara.wordpress.com/author/grandmabarbara/The secret courts just make themselves a patsy for all manner of nutcases, both those inside the “system” and those on the outside. The thing is, 99% are on the outside.
- Ho Hum
February 19, 2014 at 2:11 pm -
Discuss? If you mean the media as the purveyor of horror, outrage, and fear, the media’s stoking of the panics which we believe our ‘parent’, the government, should protect us from, that’s easy…..
Il y en a toujours l’un qui baise, et l’autre qui tourne la joue
- Atticus Flinch
February 19, 2014 at 2:17 pm -
Much wisdom and insight here. Great to see you writing as well as ever, too
- Paul Saunderson
February 19, 2014 at 2:19 pm -
It seems Lord Maginnis is party to these conspiracy theories:
“The Hofschroer case has been on my desk for several years now. A widow in her 80s was dispossessed of her home in a way that implies collusion between certain family members and the Social Services. A son who has come to the rescue has been harried by the North Yorkshire police (that particularly dubious constabulary merits careful investigation) to the extent that he and his aged mother have been pursued through an Interpol warrant to their “refuge” in Austria.
“Does anyone in authority care that social services and police in North Yorkshire have conspired in the persecution of Mrs Hofschroer and her son? Are details of dismissals, forced retirements and other shady and costly measures pertaining to North Yorkshire Police available to legislators in Parliament? “
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2012-05-15a.258.7&s=Hofschroer#g332.0:
- Carol42
February 19, 2014 at 6:02 pm -
I was involved in the Children’s Panel in Scotland at one time and it seemed to work pretty well with input from social workers, sometimes lawyers but most of all from ordinary parents and grandparents who had a common sense view. We quite often disagreed with social workers, sometimes they convinced us or we convinced them to look again at the case. I heard they are talking about changing the system now which seems a shame, I left when I moved to England.
- Paul Saunderson
February 19, 2014 at 6:08 pm -
Here’s an interesting one about how social workers carry out their jobs:
https://grandmabarbara.wordpress/york-council-corruption/mark-bednarski/
- Carol42
February 19, 2014 at 6:20 pm -
You can’t condemn them all because of the very bad behaviour of some, that guy should be in jail of course. I found some were very good and some were hopelessly out of their depth and too afraid of some families to properly do their job. It is not an easy job and I wouldn’t like to do it these days. That said there are people in the job that shouldn’t be anywhere near vulnerable people of any age.
- Paul Saunderson
February 19, 2014 at 6:27 pm -
Well, this is what lord Maginnis said about York Social Services in Parliament:
” A widow in her 80s was dispossessed of her home in a way that implies collusion between certain family members and the Social Services.”
And:
“Does anyone in authority care that social services and police in North Yorkshire have conspired in the persecution of Mrs Hofschroer and her son?”
Then the press describes as what is going on here as:
“institutional harassment” (http://www.real-pratby.co.uk/police-crime-commissioners-rabbits-headlights)
And:
“obscene” (http://youtu.be/vkBu5iDR0mY)
Social services – plural
Institutional harassment – organised abuse
This seems to be more than the “behaviour of some”
- expofunction
February 19, 2014 at 6:30 pm -
@ Carol42 I agree it’s neither an easy job nor one I would feel able to do and of course we shouldn’t condemn them wholesale. What’s perhaps less apparent is the creeping de-professionalisation of Social Work and other professions. I ought not to have been surprised perhaps, but this Radio 4 programme really concerned me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rl8nl
- Paul Saunderson
February 20, 2014 at 7:30 am -
York Social Services has been accused of committing serious crimes and of corruption in Parliament, in the press and on TV. It has issued neither a denial nor a rebuttal. Their silence says it all.
- Paul Saunderson
- Paul Saunderson
- Carol42
- expofunction
February 19, 2014 at 6:18 pm -
I believe it’s innovative effectiveness has sadly been diminished by all those involved tending to get themselves “lawyered up” in recent years. Less informality, ordinary common sense and collaboration for the sake of the youngsters now perhaps. However the 3 lay member panel format remains. This ought to be where we turn first – instead of the courts – when most decisions concerning the welfare of children are needed.
- Carol42
February 19, 2014 at 6:29 pm -
I am glad they have retained the three lay members, lawyers were rare in the early 90s when I was involved. Since all our concern was with the best interests of the children they were rarely needed and removing a child was very much a last resort. Still it could be quite funny when the ‘child’ of 16 turned up with their own baby, both under supervision.
- expofunction
February 19, 2014 at 6:36 pm -
Your anecdotes illustrate rather well the advantages of a collaborative approach over an adversarial one.
- Carol42
February 19, 2014 at 6:59 pm -
I make it sound a bit cosy and most times it was collaborative and we reached a decision but we dealt with some really bad cases of sexual and physical abuse you would find hard to believe. An entire family involved in abusing and selling their children for abuse, the mother who, when her children were finally taken into care, said take them I will just have some more . There were times we all wished sterilisation was an option. This was also when the ‘satanic abuse’ was at its height. We lay members were very sceptical from the start, the stories were simply unbelievable and we couldn’t see how anyone could take them at face value. However cooperation between parents, social workers and the panel generally worked very well in the interests of the children and kept the vast majority out of the court system. Most parents, however inadequate, did want to do their best for their kids and with the help of a homemaker they often learned to manage.
- expofunction
February 19, 2014 at 7:47 pm -
@Carol42 I don’t think I ever imagined it to be cosy. It’s clearly vitally important work for these children and their families. Your last point – about most parents wanting to do the best for their kids, seems too often overlooked these days in favour of some alternate version of better/best/ideal (middle class) parenting. Not so long ago many of these ideas were mocked and described as ‘political correctness gone mad’; today virtually all ‘right thinking people’ might never dare question them.
The idea that the state is a better corporate parent – and should therefore intervene – simply does not stand up to scrutiny in all but the most extreme cases. With the state’s seemingly growing appetite to intervene over parenting issues and introduce ever more legislation we risk losing sight altogether of the far more important benchmark of “good enough” parenting.
- Carol42
February 19, 2014 at 8:17 pm -
That was what we went by, good enough parenting. I remember one case. The mother in her 30s had a drinking problem, and her home was a mess. Her son, about seven was a delightful child the social workers wanted to put into care but the bond between mother and child was very clear, even when she said she had stopped drinking and the little boy piped up no mum you hid the vodka in the loo! Less polite as it was said in a broad Glasgow accent. He was a happy outgoing child with none of the nervousness we usually saw in neglected children, anyway we suggested we put a homemaker in to try and organise the household and last I heard it was working. It would have been tragic to separate them at that time.
- expofunction
February 19, 2014 at 8:45 pm -
@Carol42 What comes across in the re-telling of your experience is empathy which can so enrich those who may – to others – appear worthless. With that support, a little practical help then seems able to go rather a long way.
And your story of the little boy and his mum seems to illustrate rather well that attachment theory doesn’t apply to corporate parenting.
- Carol42
February 19, 2014 at 10:30 pm -
I don’t know what it is like now but we did everything we could to keep a child within the family, we had a lot of arguments with social workers about giving grandparents guardianship, especially in the case of drug addicted parents when the grandparents were willing and able to care for the child. Since we also dealt with children in care I saw the damage that can do, of course sometimes there is no choice but the outcomes are often poor with bitter resentful teenagers that we often saw a couple of years later in trouble. There are no perfect answers but I think the children’s panel was better than anything else I have seen.
- Paul Saunderson
February 20, 2014 at 7:28 am -
So right. The prisons are full of people who were in state “care”.
- Paul Saunderson
- Carol42
- expofunction
- Carol42
- expofunction
- Carol42
- expofunction
- Carol42
- Paul Saunderson
- Don Cox
February 19, 2014 at 6:24 pm -
“that doesn’t mean that the other 95% have the mental capacity to always act in their best interests.”
Does anyone have the mental capacity to always act in their best interests, other than Tony Blair ?
- Ted Treen
February 20, 2014 at 5:31 pm -
This is a difficult one on which to comment.
There are always reports in the MSM regarding the antics of ‘quotas-to-fill’ social workers – probably rightly condemning in many cases – but then wait a week or two and there will be a report of some hapless toddler being injured or killed by a mentally ill/incompetent or alcoholic/drug-addled parent, or maybe a report of a rather daffy old dear utterly ripped off by predatory relatives who have moved in, ostensibly to act as carers. Then the social workers are roundly condemned for not having acted on the “very clear” warning signs; usually signs which were only apparent upon detailed study and with hindsight.
I accept there is truth in the world-weary comment by some social workers that they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t; and that sometimes with court proceedings, it may be in the ‘subject’s’ best interests if identification is rendered impossible. Critical comment is generally made armed with the advantage of hindsight which, as we all know, has 20/20 vision.
Alas, the same cannot be said for supposed prescience. Therefore unless I knew far more about the history and circumstances of this case, I would be just another member of the mob screaming outrage – quite possibly based on misconception or worse, no conceptions at all.
Like many of your followers Anna, I have an almost visceral distaste for the present powers of the state behemoth since I genuinely believe it acts primarily in its own interests and those of its acolytes/adherents. It has generally forgotten that the machinery of the state is (or should be) there to serve the individuals who are members of that society.
We are not the property of the state, neither are we its servants. I also believe that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, although as I said earlier, sometimes with court proceedings, it may be in the ‘subject’s’ best interests if identification is rendered impossible.
My distaste for a powerful inhuman state machine does not (yet) extend to a belief in a vast world-wide conspiracy since I have adopted Hanlon’s Razor as part of my creed:- “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity” – the truth of which can be seen on almost any political TV/Radio programme, anywhere in the world.
I believe Mrs Thatcher’s words – invariably twisted & misquoted by the left – that “society” is at best an abstract concept, consisting of a multitude of individuals who sometimes all pull in the same direction, but more often don’t.
And long may it be so.
“Society” is not some overriding entity to which we are all subordinate, we are not a beehive or ant colony:- we are all individuals doing our best for ourselves (and others if we have sufficient moral standards), but we do not serve, or exist/toil for the benefit of “The State”.
As Forster said, “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country”
- John Galt
February 24, 2014 at 8:09 am -
Sorry, but this is the natural consequence of the chilling effect of the Leveson Report.
- Paul Saunderson
February 19, 2014 at 4:55 pm -
Thanks again for your trouble.
My original question was: “I’ve been trying to find a link between Lord Maginnis and the Hollie Grieg case. I’ve not been able to. Can you please point me in the right direction? Thanks!”
You then answered: “I am e-mailing you a link to the e-mail address you logged in with – if you don’t receive it for any reason, e-mail me at annaraccoon2010 at gmail.com. I am absolutely not putting a link to any of the Holllie Greig nutters on this blog!”
I then pointed out: “This link does not appear to link Lord Maginnis with the Hollie Greig case, which was my question.”
You replied: “I can’t help you with Lord Maginnis.”
Sorry, but it does not appear to me that you have answered the question.
So somebody you think is a nutter copies parts of Grandma B’s blog. That apparently discredits what she is saying.
If the same person copies parts of your blog, would that discredit what you are saying?
- Paul Saunderson
February 19, 2014 at 5:22 pm -
Do I get an invitation to the funeral?
- Paul Saunderson
February 19, 2014 at 5:25 pm -
Your material appears all over the place. Can’t think of where I’ve seen it recently though.
- Carol42
February 20, 2014 at 6:35 pm -
They seem to have a bit more common sense on the continent, at least they seemed to when I lived there. Trouble is I have little trust now that any extra powers won’t be abused here.
{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }