Many people who have been affected by old secrecy laws should be pleased that this secrecy law will be changing soon.


http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/16/judge-transparency-family-court-judgments

Not everybody's case will fit exactly into the framework described in the article, but, as I read it, the fact that this law is being looked at now should help anyone to be able to talk openly, without fear, if they feel they have been wronged in any way. If they have suffered injustice, journalists will be able to listen and consider freely, without the awkwardness of saying they can't do so by law, even if they want to.
It is a step forward, but too late for some, unfortunately.

It's about time too. The Daily Mail has often exposed some appalling cases and I think The Times has campaigned on the issue too.

I agree it's a step in the right direction, but the ultimate openness would be a trial by jury with a press gallery.

Secret courts should never have been permitted. Ken Clarke is a great believer in secret courts, but then Ken Clarke is a secretive Bilderberger and enthusiastic Europhile.

I salute them! Especially if Melanie Phillips, who writes interesting articles in the Daily Mail, and Joshua Rosenberg, once the BBC Law reporter, have had something to do with the progress now being made to change the Law. I am looking forward to seeing more reaction in the papers and to see if journalists are as pleased as some members of the public must be that this breakthrough has, at last, come about.
I didn't realise that The Times had campaigned on the issue but there was a journalist whose articles I always found interesting called Polly Toynbee. I can't remember whether she was with The Times or The Telegraph. She wrote on Family issues in one of the two.

Members of the public who have written with their concerns to the Law Society, MP's and journalists may have actually been heeded as well. It shows that people who are genuinely concerned shouldn't give up on their beliefs so that, eventually, someone will start to look at the issues in question.

Westonman, with respect - this story is about Family Courts.

Ken Clarke supports secret courts applies only in terrorist cases where secret methodology (such as surveillance methods and similar information) needs to be kept secret - quite rightly IMHO

You have a point of course but the secrecy is also to do with the legality of how they gather the evidence as much as anything else. Of course in open court they would have to disclose it and the left would be up in arms.

Behind closed doors the judiciary can apply common sense without fear of their decisions coming under a microscopic press.

But all that said I see no need for secrecy in family courts. Everyone with a link to the kids involved should be allowed to hear the proceedings.

I expect more details will be known on the 3rd February as to how the Rules will work, but without the cloak of secrecy any more, there must be less risk of things being done wrongly and mistakes made, which could lead to unjust decisions. No people in high places would want their name publicised if they have made mistakes and failed in their duty of care etc. With no cloak of secrecy to hide behind, there must be the prospect of less miscarriages of justice and families being broken up for no good reason. Hopefully, journalists will have, or be given good training to cover cases in a reasonable and responsible way.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that reforms to this secrecy in family courts is well overdue. But it worries me when the word 'journalist' and 'responsible' is in the same sentence. Whilst many act professionally, there's a sizable chunk of the gutter press that would struggle spelling 'responsible'!

SOT, with equal respect to yourself; so-called family courts are responsible for causing a lot of unnecessary harm and damage to good families. They have literally ripped families apart without just cause, and in too many cases are responsible for stealing children away from good natural parents. An open court with a jury would stop most of this abuse in its tracks.

That video of a 1 day old baby being stolen from its parents that I posted on this forum some months ago was backed up by a secret 'family court', and the father bound over to keep his silence under threat of prison. That video I posted the link to was also banned by that secret 'family court. That one family has had all three of their natural children stolen by the state, and all backed up by a 'family court' in secret. That one family has been destroyed by a closed 'family court'. The justification for the stealing of these children was: SS claimed the mother has 'learning difficulties'. What kind of reason is that for stealing children from their natural parents? We can all experience 'learning difficulties' throughout our lives, so we can assume the state has the right to steal our children - and supported by a secret 'family court'.

With all the political correctness that is now actively controlling us, the possibility that we have our children stolen by the state under the orders of a secret 'family court' because we don't support same-sex marriage is now a real possibility. Even our disbelief in man-made global warming/climate change could be the reason for our children being by order of a secret 'family court'. The risks posed by these secret 'family courts' is just too great.

I disagree with almost everything Polly Toynbee writes. She's s Guardian columnist and also did a few years as a BBC Social Affairs correspondent.