7 ms·

So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there. You can also find some righteous indignation from the social w

So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there. You can also find some righteous indignation from the social workers that caused some of these cases. In the past, nearly all the media has been critical of the court, including the Guardian

mootothemax 10y ago
> So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there. The details still seem pretty thin though, and finding a source which reliably summarises quite chunky texts is a job in itself. For example, here's one ruling linked from the Guardian which implies a very different story to that being told by the press: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html (a quite incredibly poorly-edited or mistyped or, I dunno, redacted ruling at that!) It doesn't take an age to read, but it does take a good amount of time to digest and understand - and even then you walk away with an incomplete picture. I'm still on the fence.
- paulhart 10y ago
  Seems very clear to me - the Court has ordered a stop to a pattern of behaviour, the person so ordered has not stopped, and so the court is "turning up the volume" by using the powers it has available to it. Regardless of what you may think of the duration of the sentence (and I'll assume that it's within the bounds of both legality and jurisprudence for the circumstances), the Judge takes into account that the ordered person probably didn't believe that the Court would follow through on things.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Or may have believed it but chose to stand by their family member in a time of need.
triplesec 10y ago
This is indeed the trouble here. Because the family courts are (for some very good reasons, like protection of children) held _in camera_, (which counterintuitively for english speakers means no cameras, nor direct reporting allowed), we don't have many details. This is of course something which we might be able to fix better with newer human-information technology approaches, or more oprn meta-processes regarding feedback loops for justice. But, it's a torny problem. We used to trust the authorities. Often, they mean well, but they can be corrupted by specific interests in specific cases (rich people networks), or make grave errors due to institutional cultural corruption.
- sbmassey 10y ago
  How is an absence of reporting meant to protect children?
  - Veen 10y ago
    Because sometimes reporting can be harmful to children. Think about the sort of cases with abusive parents and relatives. It does no one any good for the details of those cases to be splashed over front page of the Sun.
    - sbmassey 10y ago
      Wouldn't measures like just keeping the names and images of the people involved out of the press be sufficient?
      - DanBC 10y ago
        There's reform happening at courts of protection and the family division to publish more, with appropriate anonymisation. Remember that these courts deal with really vulnerable people. Have a read of some of these: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html
- Veen 10y ago
  Not really relevant here, but "in camera" means literally in a room or chamber, and hence private. The modern word "camera" derives from the same word: early "cameras" like the camera obscura were literally rooms. Dark room in the case of camera obscura, which is also now a photography term with a different meaning.

mootothemax 10y ago

> So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there. The details still seem pretty thin though, and finding a source which reliably summarises quite chunky texts is a job in itself. For example, here's one ruling linked from the Guardian which implies a very different story to that being told by the press: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html (a quite incredibly poorly-edited or mistyped or, I dunno, redacted ruling at that!) It doesn't take an age to read, but it does take a good amount of time to digest and understand - and even then you walk away with an incomplete picture. I'm still on the fence.

paulhart 10y ago
Seems very clear to me - the Court has ordered a stop to a pattern of behaviour, the person so ordered has not stopped, and so the court is "turning up the volume" by using the powers it has available to it. Regardless of what you may think of the duration of the sentence (and I'll assume that it's within the bounds of both legality and jurisprudence for the circumstances), the Judge takes into account that the ordered person probably didn't believe that the Court would follow through on things.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Or may have believed it but chose to stand by their family member in a time of need.

triplesec 10y ago

This is indeed the trouble here. Because the family courts are (for some very good reasons, like protection of children) held _in camera_, (which counterintuitively for english speakers means no cameras, nor direct reporting allowed), we don't have many details. This is of course something which we might be able to fix better with newer human-information technology approaches, or more oprn meta-processes regarding feedback loops for justice. But, it's a torny problem. We used to trust the authorities. Often, they mean well, but they can be corrupted by specific interests in specific cases (rich people networks), or make grave errors due to institutional cultural corruption.

sbmassey 10y ago
How is an absence of reporting meant to protect children?
- Veen 10y ago
  Because sometimes reporting can be harmful to children. Think about the sort of cases with abusive parents and relatives. It does no one any good for the details of those cases to be splashed over front page of the Sun.
  - sbmassey 10y ago
    Wouldn't measures like just keeping the names and images of the people involved out of the press be sufficient?
    - DanBC 10y ago
      There's reform happening at courts of protection and the family division to publish more, with appropriate anonymisation. Remember that these courts deal with really vulnerable people. Have a read of some of these: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html
Veen 10y ago
Not really relevant here, but "in camera" means literally in a room or chamber, and hence private. The modern word "camera" derives from the same word: early "cameras" like the camera obscura were literally rooms. Dark room in the case of camera obscura, which is also now a photography term with a different meaning.