Prime Minister Theresa May And Other Controversial Figures Set To Make Huge Profits From Cannabis Legislation.

I thought i recognised that name Dr Hibbert and Tadpole cottage xx

Researching Reform

UK Government officials, including Prime Minister Theresa May, look set to make massive profits from legislation that will legalise cannabis for medicinal purposes. The  case of 12 year old Billy Caldwell, who needs Cannabis oil to treat his epileptic seizures, made the headlines after the Home Office confiscated his medicine, and has reignited calls to legalise the class B drug in the UK.

The cannabis was taken from Billy’s parents at Heathrow Airport as the family returned from a trip to Canada, where the drug is cleared for medicinal use.

After the medicine was confiscated, Billy suffered two seizures that could not be controlled by any other medication and was driven to Chelsea and Westminster hospital by ambulance. The Home Office then decided to return the cannabis oil to the family, so that Billy could be treated. The reason for the government’s U-Turn on what has been a strictly…

View original post 836 more words

Advertisements
Standard

Brian Clare: the story of a TRUE WARRIOR! Institutional child abuse VIDEOs + archive 13 June 2018

VICTIMS OF THE STATE

Brian Clare

My Story

I was born on the 23rd January 1968. In 1977 at the age of nine years old I was taken into the care of the local authority by the then, Sunderland Borough Council’s, Social Services Department. As a child I was considered to be a ‘problem child’ and I lived with my mother who was a single parent. During my early years my behaviour was such that my mother enlisted the support of Sunderland Social Services, and together, they decided that the care home system was the only way to control me. I understand that the reason I was taken into care was due to the fact that I had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). On or about 25 January 1977 I was placed in a local authority assessment centre and I remained there for one a half years. Between 18 July 1977and 26 August 1977…

View original post 1,495 more words

Standard

Incoming Family Court President Misunderstands Nuances In Care Crisis

Great post Natasha with valid points. All i’m going to say is if you get your judgement and it misses out eg the fraud that was committed on your case then please make sure you raise it at your nearest opportunity and in writing. I am not confident that miscarriages or miscarriages of justice will not continue therefore which is all i can say xx

Researching Reform

The next President of the Family Division, Justice McFarlane, has delivered a speech in response to the publication of the Care Crisis Review, in which he makes a series of blunders about the care system and the processes currently in use.

Whilst he rightly points out that the care system is in a state of crisis – CAFCASS figures for May 2018, record the second highest monthly figure for care applications ever received – McFarlane clearly fails to understand the complex nuances faced by children, families and practitioners inside the sector.

In his speech, which was written to coincide with the Review’s launch, he says, “thank heaven for…. the 26 weeks and the reform package that Sir James Munby so effectively introduced 5 years ago”. The result was that, when the rise in numbers began to kick in, the judges and the courts were “match-fit” to process and determine the applications…

View original post 637 more words

Standard

Question It!

Researching Reform

Welcome to another week.

The European Court of Justice has just ruled that EU law does not limit child contact rights solely to parents, but that it also includes grandparents.

The case, which was brought by a Bulgarian woman wanting to see her grandson, confirms that rights of access refer not only to those conferred on parents in relation to their child, but also includes other people who are considered to be important to the child.

As the UK is bound by EU law for the time being, this ruling will have a significant impact on our Family Court and the way it interprets contact.

Our question this week then, is just this: would you like the President of the Family Division to comment on this recent ruling? 

Many thanks to Maggie for alerting us to this case.

face_question_mark

View original post

Standard