lord of the blog

« New City for London | Main | Press Complaints Commission »

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Olympic Games

I wasn't a great fanatic for getting the games to London but I have to admit to getting caught up in the emotional wave. So here's a big cheer for Seb Coe. Also Ken and Tony (working together - I like that!) and everyone else involved.

Particular thanks should go to Chirac! Never ever make comments about an opponent in the way he did - It has to be counter productive. Besides the food here is really good these days. He is badly out of date. It's probably good in Finland too. (Just thought I ought to add that in case there are any Finns tuned in!)

Sir, just found a response to my prior comment; I was unable to locate my original text.
However, in response to your reply: I have been in touch with the Law Society, 'Resolution' (formerly SFLA), the children's minister, CAFCASS head office.
The Law Society Family Panel have written to me to comfirm that their client's interests are their primary concern, not the best interests of the child in any family dispute. Whilst solicitors are supposed to follow guidelines depicted by 'Resolution' apparently endorsed by the Law Society, conformity is not required (compulsory) and rarely employed as it is not underwritten in law. Such is the root of evils that result in children being systematically emotionally abused by recalcitrant resident parents - and effectively the system, and the government.
I completely disagree that such situations are difficult to resolve. It is simply that the law continues to follow the hunter gatherer / mother at home and fails to acknowledge the role played now by many fathers in sharing all aspects of childcare and household income.
Laws must be passed to halt the potential for any parent to abuse their position as a resident parent, who by law, holds
ulimate power over a contact parent.
I spoke with lawyers: part of the problem is historical given that many within politics or law belong to the older generation who distinctly believe that children are best catered for in the care of their mothers - the phrase 'old boy network'; of course this pertains to many aspects of our legal system, not just family.
The entire system - both the legal system and the network associated with resolution of family dispute - requires overhaul. The most amusing is when MALE members of parliament, or MALE inviduals with careers in the legal
system find themselves victims to the current laws that they uphold when contact is denied.
In the meantime, my daughter tells me she dreamt that I took her to school with her baby step sister, and came to pick up her sister and leave her behind, then burst into heart wrenching sobbing and tears for over half an hour. The fact that I was once the main carer for my child has never left her as a little girl and clearly her childhood is being deperately damaged.
In then mean time, terrorist threats and farming subsidies haunt us extremeism and poverty take, understandably, first priority. Tomorrow I go back to court and my daughter has no choice but to fight her mother and fight for her rights if she wants things to change, She is only 9. Is that the way to spend one's childhood? This is standard verbiage, this situation is common and still no one listens. Apparently government are still considering some rather watered down review of our family courts system hotly challenged by those mums who simply steadfastly refuse to share the care of their children, or use the children as a method by which to control their ex male partner. There are no excuses for permitting such to continue. I'm certain that you will have heard before that this is 'legalised abuse through the back door'.

regards

Patrick Baroni