Other thoughts

Keep on Running

“Every family that I am aware of that have fled have kept their kid yet in the UK they wouldn’t have that – to me speaks volumes.”

This is a post from Stella, a mother who has faced many care proceedings. She is now living in France with her baby son. She explains why she is a ‘mum who runs’ and makes some suggestions for what we could do to make the situation better/safe for other mothers and children in the UK. She makes a powerful case for more targeted support for parents – given the massive impact on families when a child is removed for adoption, surely it’s worth thinking about?

They are all running abroad ????……. But WHY???

That really is the million dollar question isn’t it? All are aware the UK child protection system is failing, we the parents know it, you the professionals know, hell even the big fella president Munby admits it.

But why what’s changed in the UK from 10/20 years ago ? Why when parents flee abroad do we sing the local authority praises keep our kids and vow to never return ?

Curious that the UK say we will never be “capable” “safe” “the risks outweigh the benefits “it’s not in the child’s best interests” “not in their time scales” “haven’t got the support required” sound familiar ?

Yet abroad France, for the example I plan to use here, in particular we are given the all clear and stay with our children. Personally the differences I’ve found that stick out in my mind predominantly are the level of support offered freely from everyone here, the level of care, the community compassion and oddly that I am yet to see a single child misbehave.

It’s not a resources and funding issue – its about a way of life

This isn’t a resources and funding issue, France is very much in my view a poorer country than the UK and very much behind in a lot of ways compared to the UK. People still get water out the well, the areas are rural and many buildings in desperate need of upgrades and proper plumbing yet they are very much ahead of the UK in many areas, yet oddly are how the UK child protection services used to be years ago and flourishing from it

It’s mainly a quality over quantity difference from what I’ve seen. Everyone goes the extra mile works together, chips in, there’s no snobbery or segregation most of the shops are second hand shops and most items are bought from boot sales you can pick up some of the most fantastic well made solid wood quality furniture for under the equivalent of £20 (I’m sad yes but I’m a sod for a bargain !) women are helped with their shopping doors are opened everyone is polite and evening meals involve a get together of friends and neighbours eating together, everyone brings a little bit of something – how I remember it being back when I was a kid.

What support is offered to new mothers by the health system?

Health care is another vast difference that immediately jumps out at you when you come here. Maternity care is very, very intense – lots of appointments blood tests, scans, internals, midwifes, nurses, consultants, doctors, anaesthesiologists etc ……. All well and good until you need to translate into French you’re a wimp scared of needles, blood and need the kids numbing Emla cream put on, someone to hold your hand another to hide them doing the bloods and ten minutes to stop the crying panic attack and throwing up. Yep I am THAT wimp and it’s not fun for monthly blood tests.

Following labour, after care is amazingly different to the UK – you stay in on average 4 days which unlike the horror that is a NHS hospital stay it’s like staying at the Hilton no kicking out the door after 6 hours with a healthy dose of mrsa and the flu for good measure here nope ….

You’re given your “room” which consists of a wardrobe, a table, a bed, a chair, a nursing chair, a meal table tray, a set of drawers, a bed side table and an ensuite with your basic vanity mirror sink toilet and shower facilities and also a baby goldfish bowl bed if you want your tiny human in the room with you and don’t want to take advantage of the attached room which is your personal tiny human nursery consisting of cot, baby bathing sink, and changing unit weighing scales, all medical equipment type stuff for newborns etc.

Bedding is changed daily, the rooms are cleaned daily, hairdryers, towels, nappies, underwear sanitary products, toiletries, vitamins, meals, tea, coffee, juice fruit etc is provided several times a day. DO NOT try and use your own products or help strip the bed or tidy up for them – you are there to rest and recover they are VERY strict on that.

You have a call button for your care and a telephone for babies care, they each use their own separate entrance doors to your room so you know whether to hand the tiny human over and breath a sigh of relief it’s not your turn or prepare to be prodded and poked temperature blood pressure and every other thing taken this happens several times a day and don’t for a second think hiding will make you safe. Even the food lady and cleaners are in on this prodding and poking torture treatment there’s something oddly disturbing having to share your toileting n personal hygiene habits with every single person that enters your room. They are VERY big on noting everything for baby and you but primarily if baby is gaining weight well they descend on you with a vengeance.

During your 4 day stay whether you are a first time mum or in my case on your 6th tiny human, you are shown how to do everything – change a nappy, give vitamins, clean eyes, nose, ears, cord, dress them, bath them, feed them. They make you watch them the first time round then they note if you can do it next time round. To be discharged you must complete the task to their standard – no skipping ahead and doing it yourself in day one thinking you get out quicker. You are banned from doing anything day one other than resting. Day two you get to do exciting stuff like watch them wash your baby, day three you get allowed to try stuff and baby gets their hearing test and by this 3rd day baby must be registered here for their birth certificate. On the 4th day bloods are done and they see if they will let you home.

You are given your health visitor appointment, introduced to them in the hospital before you can leave and you look back quite disappointed you’ll actually have to cease this being waited on hand and foot never did I think miss anti hospital here would want to stay longer ????

If they don’t think you’re managing you get referred to assistant social who will offer additional support. They also help with housing money childcare etc and visit you regardless before u leave to see if you want any help you are not punished for refusing this additional support and they leave with a smile and a card to show their door is always open.

What’s the attitude of the French local authorities? Back to basics social work

Which is really what you want to know what are the local authority is like here ….. Fantastic is the answer.

There’s a real air of get it right first time or fix it so it works here from the hospital birth onwards everything is geared towards making the family unit work which is the key difference “if it’s broke fix it don’t replace it” is a running theme from household items to their child protection system and it works.

Another key thing here is future emotional harm isn’t recognised your children only get taken if there has been actual harm such as sexual or physical. With neglect they tend to support rather than remove, such as help with housing food household items cleaners mother and baby units etc unless it’s alcohol or drugs in which case numerous drink and drug blood and urine tests are done to ensure your clean and capable but again rehabilitation is the aim all round here.

It’s primarily back to basics social work where social workers actually work with the community without fear of criticism or reprisal. None of the finger pointing and blame culture the uk now has against social workers who try to give families a chance resulting in social workers unwilling to take a risk and families not seeing the point in working with them as the decision is already made therefore the court system being fit to burst and the whole system being in tatters from start to finish.

Is the UK spending its money in the wrong places?

This isn’t a case of France having more funding and resources it’s more of money being well spent in the right places like their road tax only gets spent on repairing roads and ta Dar …. They’ve got the best roads I’ve ever seen !

Just think how much the UK spends on foster carers residential units, cp meetings, court costs contact workers, venue costs, shrink and psych assessments, therapy, counselling, parenting courses, mother and baby units etc etc for a single family …..

Then think of stopping all of that putting the money in a pot so that some of that money can go towards:

a basic child care course covering safe and practical care including bathing feeding dressing cleaning caring parenting playing and teaching a child that course could have maybe THIRTY parents on it in a big enough venue: Or
Cooking classes for another group of parents: Or
A playgroup day care day for a group of 30 kids so that their parents can have time to clean their house: Or
Cleaners for a parent that struggles to motivate to tidy: Or
To pay a wage to someone to ring the parents every morning to wake them up for school runs if they struggle with mornings or pop round and help them prepare the kids for school if they struggle managing them in a rush.

The possibilities are endless and after all that’s simply what some families need that bit of support, it clearly works because it’s worked and is still working here and used to work for the UK when it used to be like that there to. Every family that I am aware of that have fled have kept their kid yet in the UK they wouldn’t have that – to me speaks volumes

Yes it won’t work for every family but for the professionals here, think back how many cases you’ve thought if the family got this and that it could work but I darent mention that because if it goes wrong it’s on my head so didn’t dare say it. Or how many times you’ve seen the same families come through your door time and time again nothing changing because the support simply isn’t there to help them…

Where one might argue you are providing a better future for the child by removing are you really though – and what about the family as a whole, what about mums, dads, siblings, uncles cousins, aunts, grandparents etc. Having a kid removed rips the entire family apart there’s no heads nor tails about it it does. Then from that you lose the family bond and support network not to mention the mental scars and trauma left on all involved.

When surely if the current system clearly isn’t working admitted by all from top to bottom then it’s worth a try doing it the way that worked and is working ….. Surely ? ?

Mums on the Run #2. Tim answers some questions.

But not enough.

John Hemming’s gone very quiet, Tim is debating my mum’s vulnerability and the fact that I don’t have enough reported cases to my name to comment on the fact that Hemming and JFF appear to be encouraging vulnerable families to leave the UK and go to a house which is profoundly unsafe.

I have discussed all this in more detail here.

I have asked some questions of Hemming, JFF and Tim. I have got some answers from Tim via Twitter and his responses that thrown up even more intriguing questions.

For my own sanity here is a handy cut out and keep guide to the information we have at the moment. I will probably get it laminated.

Question put	Tim’s response	My comments.
When did JFF/JH/IJ start sending parents to Gena’s house	We never started	But a parent has provided a message from JH saying ‘why not go to Genas’? Tim confirms JFF had a meeting and agreed to continue ‘not to send’ people to Gena. What was discussed at that meeting? Why did JH buy Gena a caravan to house other parents if JFF weren’t sending them?
How much money has JFF/JH/IJ paid to Gena	Not answered	Gena says JH paid for a caravan at her address in France where parents could stay
If they paid her money, what was it for?	Not answered
Is source of money donations from public or from private purse of JH/IJ?	Not answered	We need to know if members of the public are being solicited for money by JFF
What checks/risk assessment do they carry out	Claims they have never sent any parents to Gena so never needed to assess her	But JH has clearly advised a parent to go to Gena’s. So this response is untrue and we need to know more about their assessment process. Why did JH buy Gena a caravan to house other parents, if JFF wasn’t sending them?
What did they know about the conditions at Gena’s house	Claims never sent any parents there so wouldn’t need to know.	So what on earth was being discussed at the meeting about Gena? Why does Tim say that JFF gave advice NOT to go to Genas? What did they know, and when did they know it?
When did they know that mothers were complaining about abuse and theft at Genas?	Not answered	Again, we need to know when the meeting was at JFF about Gena and what was said
When did they know that Gena was living with a man who poses a clear sexual risk to children?	Not answered	Again, we need to know when the meeting was at JFF about Gena and what was said
Do JH/JFF/IJ refer ‘mums on the run’ to any other people?	Claims not.	This is not supported by what others say. JFF need to be utterly open and transparent about their activities in this regard.

Some other issues

Attempts are now being made to show that the mother’s who have raised this issue with me are themselves mentally unwell and unfit parents.

So I ask JFF very clearly. You say you didn’t assess Gena because you weren’t sending anyone to her.

Then why were you advising and helping mothers to leave the jurisdiction that you are now describing as mentally unwell and unfit parents?

Just how many families have you helped leave the jurisdiction?

Gena says John Hemming has sent her 4 families.

Is this true.

Please be open and honest about what you are doing. Vulnerable children – and vulnerable mothers – are being put at considerable risk of harm by those who persuade them to leave the jurisidiction. If JFF and its advisers really are able to offer a good quality legal representation for parents, if they are ‘winning’ so many cases, then they don’t need to encourage parents to ‘flee’.

‘Mums on the Run’ – Where do they go? How safe are they?

For some time now I have been talking about and worried about the network of people who help parents leave the country if they are facing care proceedings. I am not convinced they are motivated by wanting to help people. I think they are more interested in showing they can get one over the ‘system’.

I have written about this before, particularly about how worried I am about John Hemming and Ian Josephs – who has given money to Marie Black, a convicted paedophile. I discussed their activities in more detail here: ‘Helping Parents Leave the Jurisdiction’.

John Hemming set up ‘Justice For Families’ [JFF] an organisation that;

campaigns to improve the operation of the family courts (including the court of protection) in order to treat families with respect.

John Hemming has often advised people to leave the country as they won’t get a fair hearing here – see Panorama ‘I Want My Baby Back’ in January 2014. There was a post on his blog in July 2015 about ‘mums on the run’ but that blog post no longer exists. The URL reads ‘Gena-and-kerry-mums-on-run-in-france’ [URL is an acronym for Uniform Resource Locator and is a reference (an address) to a resource on the Internet.] There is a reference to it on the ‘Brummie.net’ site which confirms the name ‘Gena’.

So I am going to assume that John Hemming knew about someone called Gena in 2015. I am also going to assume that John Hemming has been promoting Gena as a safe ‘host family’ in France for the ‘mums on the run’ as I have seen Facebook messages from John Hemming to a parent saying:

‘Why not go to Gena’s?’ …’The advantage with Gena is she knows the system where she lives.’

EDIT – the link between John Hemming and Gena is beyond doubt. Also, he knew that she had reported her partner as aggressive. See this article from the Sunday Times in December 2015.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire

I have recently been given some very disturbing information in copies of texts, emails and Facebook messages from three different parents who have had first hand experience of being ‘mums on the run’. All went to a house in France occupied by ‘Gena’ and her partner. All were given the details by John Hemming and/or Ian Josephs.

The mothers speak of horrible conditions in the house. Of being physically and verbally abused and having money either taken from them or not given to them so they could not buy even nappies for their children. One mother had to call the French police; the French authorities are now apparently investigating Gena.

I am told that one of the mothers told John Hemming and Ian Josephs about what was going on. I have seen a message to one parent from Tim Haines [one of the JFF Advisors] saying that JFF held a meeting and said they would no longer refer parents to Gena. I don’t know when the date of that meeting was or what actual discussions were had. It would be interesting to know.

Even more disturbing information came to light in September 2016. That Gena’s partner, who lives in the house with her, was found in court proceedings in the UK to pose a sexual risk to children. 3 children between the ages of 7-14 have made allegations that he sexually abused them.

Questions that need to be answered.

I am seriously worried about this. I have challenged Ian Josephs many times about what information he got about the parents he helped to leave the country and whether or not he followed up their cases once they had left. He carries out no risk assessment and no follow up. He has already given money to one mother who went on to be convicted of really serious crimes of sexual abuse against children.

But now it seems the problem is even bigger and even more dangerous – not only do John Hemming and Ian Josephs have little interest in the backgrounds of the parents they help leave the country, these vulnerable mothers are being encouraged to go somewhere which is not safe. Not for them or their children.

I have for a long time now accused John Hemming of not caring much for the parents or children he claims to ‘help’. I have said that he is more interested in promoting his own agenda. If I am wrong about that, no doubt John Hemming could assist me understand his actions/motivations better, by answering the questions I set out below.

I hope that someone does not have to get seriously hurt or abused before people start taking this seriously.

When did JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs start sending parents to Gena’s house?
How much money has JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs paid to Gena?
If they have paid her money, what was that money for?
Is the source of that money donations from the public or is it privately funded by either/or John Hemming/Ian Josephs?
What checks/risk assessment did JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs/ carry out on Gena and those living in her house before advising other parents to go there?
When did they know that conditions at Gena’s home were not acceptable?
When did they know that mothers were complaining about physical and verbal abuse and having their money taken/not given?
When did they know that Gena was living with a man who poses a clear sexual risk to children?
Do JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs refer ‘mums on the run’ to any other people abroad? If so, what checks/risk assessment have they done regarding these other people?

If you are a parent who is thinking about leaving the country rather than face care proceedings PLEASE be careful. PLEASE be wary of people offering to ‘help’ you – they may not actually have your best interests at heart at all. PLEASE get some good advice from someone you trust.

There are some links here to organisations/people who may be able to help you.

EDIT – some screenshots to support information given above.

Further, link to video from BBC programme in Feb 2015 where Gena states she was hospitalised by her violent partner.

EDIT BBC programme 26th September 2016 – further interview with Gena. She takes 8 families a year. And she isn’t going to stop.

Some strategies for dealing with on line harassment.

This post arises out of a recent discussion on Twitter about effective strategies for dealing with on line behaviour from others that you perceive as harassing or threatening. This is the product of my years of exposure to some very harsh on line environments. I hope its helpful, but of course, it is the result of my own particular experience, it may not resonate for you. In which case, ignore it. Or add some comments and suggestions of your own.

I have been active on ‘public electronic communications networks’ (for e.g. Twitter) since 2011. My communication style has changed over the years; I hope for the better. I am have become less sensitive to challenge and better able to set appropriate boundaries around my own and other’s behaviour.

At the same time, I have become increasingly concerned about the way people chose to communicate on line. Abuse, aggression and harassment are increasingly common. Those in charge of social media platforms appear to have limited ability and/or willingness to control it.

The upsides of social media are significant – without Twitter for e.g. my opportunities for exposure to other disciplines would be greatly reduced. it would be a shame to lose the opportunity offered to share and explore ideas with many others because you are driven off the internet by the aggression or abuse. So, it’s worth spending some time to think about how you handle people who are abusive on line.

Freedom of speech is a vital component of any civilised society and protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. You are going to have to put up with some exposure to those who say things you don’t like. But the right to freedom of expression is not limitless. The freedom to say outrageous things is not (as some would appear to assume) a duty or a compulsion to say outrageous things. The limits to freedom of speech are rightly set by the law; for example, you cannot defame someone with impunity, you cannot racially abuse them or threaten to rape them without consequence.

Those more extreme abuses of freedom of speech are easy to spot. What causes the problem is that one person’s robust and necessary contribution to a debate can be interpreted by another as offensive or harassing.

So what can you do to improve your on line experiences and/or deal more effectively with those people that you find offensive? I am not suggesting by ‘resilience’ that everyone simply ‘toughen up’ and simply laugh off or ignore disgusting behaviour on line. On the contrary, I believe that such behaviour should be challenged and I am confident I have the necessary personality traits to enable me to engage in such challenge without disproportionate cost to my own emotional well being. But challenge and confrontation doesn’t work for everyone and every situation; you will need to consider other strategies and approaches.

I offer some below.

Know Thyself

Know yourself. Why are you on line? Who is your audience? What do you want to communicate? If you are engaging in debate about controversial issues or ones that encourage polarised and strong views then you are going to meet people who don’t agree with you and who won’t be shy about saying so. If you find it difficult to deal with disagreement or confrontation in real life, the impact of this will be magnified ten fold on line. The combination of anonymity and distance from the recipient of abusive behaviour – ‘the on line disinhibition effect’ – often results in an increase in the intensity of people’s reactions.

Know what you are dealing with

The increase in intensity of reaction is of course a two way street. What you perceive as abuse or harassment, may be a reflection of your own strong feelings about a topic and your resistance to being challenged, particularly if the challenge is made in a blunt or aggressive way. As much of interaction via social media is written, a significant part of necessary information we need to understand another’s intent is lost; most particularly tone of voice and facial expressions. It is not surprising therefore that the nuance of a discussion suffers. Combine this with what appears to be the natural human predisposition to discern threat where none exists and it is not difficult to understand why so many on line engagements go sour so quickly.

I think problems with on line communications involve 4 broad categories of people, and its important to try and identify which is which, as this will inform the remedy you chose.

The Trolls – the true dark side of social media are those who have no genuine wish to communicate but instead gain satisfaction or sense of purpose from abusing others.
Ineffective communicators – those who genuinely wish to communicate but who are overwhelmed by emotion or circumstances that they cannot do so effectively.
Ineffective response to challenge – those who are particularly sensitive to challenge and react accordingly.
Basic misunderstanding – those who would have had little difficulty in communicating face to face but who misinterpret each other’s motivations on line due to absence of social cues.

But protect yourself

Criminal remedies

If the behaviour on line is serious enough to make you afraid for your safety then inform the police. Recent initiatives indicate that the police hopefully understand the need to engage more effectively with internet ‘hate crimes’ but we are still all finding our way and the responses of various police forces may vary in speed and effectiveness.

Harassment is both a criminal offence and a civil action under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The police can ask offenders to sign ‘Police Information Notices’ or ‘Harassment Warning Notices’ to show in possible future legal proceedings that a suspect was aware that their behaviour would count as harassment.

In general, ‘harassment’ is behaviour that a reasonable person would agree would cause you distress and alarm. The offence of harassment occurs where:

there has been a “course of conduct” (not just one event); and
the perpetrator knows or ought to know that their conduct amounts to harassment.

The police can also consider the Malicious Communications Act 1988 but as the age of that Act suggests, it wasn’t drafted with social media/online harassment in mind and is not a particularly useful tool. See this guidance from the CPS about prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media.

Some strategies to deal with behaviour that probably isn’t criminal

If the behaviour you are worried about however, is not so serious that it is likely the police will consider it a criminal offence, then you have to make a judgment call about what is going on and what you are going to do about it.

Have you considered the intensity of your own reaction to an on line challenge and are confident that others would agree that the other’s behaviour is unacceptable? For example, they use foul language, derogatory terms or repeatedly contact you after being asked to refrain. Being subjected to this is emotionally draining and often very upsetting. You owe it to yourself to set and enforce boundaries to protect your own wellbeing.

I suggest the following strategies

Ignoring

This is often the most effective strategy for a wide range of offensive on line behaviour. Many who troll do so to feed off the emotional response of their victims; the more upset you get and the more you show it, the better they like it. Ignore them and they will often move on to another victim.

I personally don’t like this strategy as it doesn’t sit well with my inherent combative tendencies and I don’t see why they should get away with it. However, in some circumstances ignoring is objectively not a sensible strategy, if it allows people to claim you do not take seriously criticism of your activities or integrity. You may have no choice but to engage. I therefore I often try the strategy of polite/persistent engagement.

Polite/persistent engagement

This has proved remarkably effective over the years. The true troll will get bored or annoyed very quickly and move on. Those who have genuine motivation to engage but who have been temporarily swept away by the intensity of their own reactions, can often respond well to this and I have managed to form some relationships of at least grudging mutual respect by this method.

As Lindy West comments

I feed trolls. Not always, not every troll, but when I feel like it—when I think it will make me feel better—I talk back. I talk back because the expectation is that when you tell a woman to shut up, she should shut up. I reject that. I talk back because it’s fun, sometimes, to rip an abusive dummy to shreds with my friends. I talk back because my mental health is my priority—not some troll’s personal satisfaction. I talk back because it emboldens other women to talk back online and in real life, and I talk back because women have told me that my responses give them a script for dealing with monsters in their own lives. And, most importantly, I talk back because internet trolls are not, in fact, monsters. They are human beings—and I don’t believe that their attempts to dehumanize me can be counteracted by dehumanizing them.

But its time consuming and requires patience. You are going to need to be confident that you can do it otherwise you are simply increasing the burden on you.

Refer on to other agencies

If its getting bad, you have the option to refer a complaint to the social media provider. For information about Facebook complaints procedures, see here; for information about Twitter see here.

I have never tried this, however, anecdotes from those who have, suggest that this isn’t going to be a very effective or swift remedy. Is there anyone you can raise a complaint with – such as the moderator of a forum discussion or the administrator of a Facebook page?

(EDIT – I have now tried this and complained to Twitter. My complaint has so far been ignored so I am now even less confident this route will have any success generally. Twitter, in particular is a social media platform that appears to elevate ‘freedom of speech’ above all else, even when that ‘speech’ is designed to do little else but cause alarm and distress).

Some professions – such as barristers, solicitors and social workers – are ‘regulated professions’ which means you could complain directly to their regulatory body about their behaviour on line, if of course they are identifiable. For more information about such complaints, see this post.

Civil law remedies

You have the option of applying for an injunction/damages under the Protection from Harassment Act or seeking to persuade the court that you have suffered defamation.

You will need to be very confident that it’s worth it. No legal action should be undertaken without serious thought. It will bring with it financial and emotional consequences, even if you win. I discuss defamation in more detail in this post. Its worth quoting again from Mr Justice Warby:

Defamatory imputations can cause injury to feelings which is out of all proportion to the harm they cause to reputation. That, so far as the earlier publications are concerned, is this case. So far as the later publications are concerned, and more generally, Mr Economou has made the error of seeing this case from his own perspective as a victim, paying too much attention to the impact on him and his feelings, and giving insufficient consideration to the other perspectives, indeed the other rights and interests, that demand and deserve consideration.

As I know now from bitter personal experience, even sending a few letters from your solicitors to theirs is going to cost thousands of pounds. The cost to your emotional welfare may be yet higher as even contemplating such legal action can absorb much of your time and energy. Don’t even start unless you have a clear idea of what it is likely to cost you. Trying – and failing – in court can also carry the risk that you have to pay some or all of the costs of the other side.

Getting evidence

If you are being harassed on line hopefully you can get screen shots’of any abusive posts/tweets etc. ‘Screenshot’ is the term used to for taking a picture of whatever is on the screen of your computer/phone/tablet etc. You don’t need any special software as all devices/operating systems should let you take a screenshot.

However, it may be that a screenshot by itself will NOT be considered good enough evidence. You will need to be able to show that the screenshot is genuine and you haven’t tampered with it. One way to do this is make sure that you have the URL for each screenshot. This is an acronym for ‘Uniform Resource Locator’ or a ‘web address’. It specifies a location on a computer network and a mechanism for retrieving it. Or you can use the web archive/wayback machine to save the URL.

I am grateful for the advice of one reader ‘Mr X’ who has provided the following advice to help you get useful evidence about any online harassment:

http://getfireshot.com/using.php#editing << that is the program I use for my screenshots (Fireshot) – it’s a bit hard to explain in an email how to take the screenshots. I basically find the tweet I want to capture by clicking on it, when you do that, at the top in the browser is the tweet url (https://www.whatevertweet.url etc) use fireshot to capture the tweet, in fireshot there are tools, I use “capture visible area”, then use “crop” tool, so I end up with just the tweet, then I highlight the tweet url (which is on your browser window), right click “copy”, go to the screenshot and choose where I want to put the url text, right click “paste” – then I save it. It took me a while to get the hang of this program – now it takes me a few seconds to do the screenshots as I’ve used this program for 7yrs!!
The web archive/wayback machine is what takes the time – this is the link https://archive.org/web/web.php – if you look towards the right hand side of the page there is “save page now” and the box where you paste the url link into, the webarchive starts to save the page “as is” – once it’s saved there is a new url which has “webarchive etc etc whatever url” – sometimes it can take up to 4mins to save one tweet, you can’t put multiple urls at once, they have to be done individually.
I don’t know what operating system your computer is, but there is a Windows feature called “snipping tool” – I use that sometimes when I don’t need to put the url’s on screenshots.

Take care of yourself

Don’t engage in on line debate/discussion if you are feeling particularly angry or upset about something. Take a break, check that you are not tired or hungry. Don’t make any quick decisions, don’t respond hastily – unless of course it is so serious you need to call the police. Don’t use offensive language or bring yourself down to their level. it is very difficult for outside agencies to ‘un pick’ who is the main offender when both parties are engaging with each other using abusive terms.

Who Guards the Guards? Expert witnesses and abuse of power

I am grateful for this post from one of our readers, who shares her own experiences of being assessed by an expert witness and her concerns about those in positions of authority who abuse their positions of trust. She raises some important issues regarding potential consequences that can flow from a relationship where the balance of power is weighted so heavily against the parent.

I AM therefore I CAN (with apologies to Descartes)

I recently read a blog post on Twitter by @suesspiciousminds. It was about an expert, a clinical psychologist who had misrepresented comments made by a mother and a child in public law care proceedings. In his blog, @suessspiciousminds writes:
“I am genuinely shocked by this. It undermines a lot of credibility of expert witnesses”

Sadly, I am not at all shocked by this. I was up against an expert in his field, a psychiatrist who not only assessed mothers facing care proceedings but who was also an expert witness. For reasons known only to himself, he wanted to have my children put up for adoption.

It started off with an allegation. A false one. My then husband and I had a row over money. We had two children aged 5 and 7 weeks. I was the only one earning at the time and under huge strain to get back to work as I was self-employed and we faced eviction. My husband had been promising for a while that a client would pay him. I found out it was a lie and so we rowed.
It was an almighty row – not physical but a lot of shouting. As he stormed out of the house, I shouted at him not to bother coming back until there was money. An hour or so later, the police came knocking on my door. My initial thought was that my husband must have died in a car accident, such was the speed with which he drove off. I was wrong. The policemen wanted me to come to the station to answer some questions. They would not tell me anything else. My 7 week old baby was already in the car seat asleep as I had intended to drive to see the landlord and plead with him not to evict us.

We were put in an interview room where we stayed all day. Every so often a police officer would walk in the room and tell me that my husband was doing his statement, that when he had finished, they would ask for mine. I remember not being worried. I was desperate to speak to the landlord and saw this as a hurdle to a more pressing problem. My husband lied. It was what he did and they would see it for what it was. At the time I did not know what ‘it’ was.

I started to get anxious after 3pm as my older child was due to finish school. It was all taken care of, the police officer told me. Arrangements had been made for my child to be picked up but they would not tell me what those arrangements were or how much longer I would be. They just kept repeating the mantra: When my husband had finished with his statement, they would ask me for mine. By this point I was getting scared. Why was his statement taking so long? What was he saying? He lies, that’s what he does I kept repeating to myself. They’ll find out.

At maybe around 5 to 6 pm, a police officer came into the interview room that my baby and I had been kept in all day. He told me that my baby was going to be checked over at hospital. I stood up as I fully expected to go too but one of the officers put his hand on my chest and pushed me roughly into a chair.
“You’re not going anywhere” he said.

At this point I became really alarmed as I watched my 7 week old baby being taken away by an officer as the other one kept me firmly in the chair. I started crying, “I need to go with my baby, I’m breastfeeding” I was still sobbing when some moments later the door opened. Two people walked into the room, looked at me crying, went back out. I could hear whispering behind the door. When it did open, I was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. I still had no idea what my husband had said.

In the psychiatric ward, I asked for a solicitor and a breast pump. I was told I could ask for a solicitor at 9 am the next morning but was denied a breast pump. “You won’t be needing it where you’re going” the midwife said to me.

By 11am the following morning, I had a solicitor to appeal the detention, a visit from a social worker, a family solicitor and a breast pump. I then found out my husband had alleged I had thrown our 7 week old baby across the room, that I had a history of severe psychiatric illness including schizophrenia. It was actually my sister who was schizophrenic. I also found out that my children had been taken to a foster carer at a secret location as I was deemed too dangerous to know their whereabouts. I asked why the children weren’t with their father. The social worker told me that anyone who leaves a 7 week old baby with someone who has just thrown them across the room was just as guilty.

I was under 24 hour observation to spot signs of aggression and mental illness for 2 weeks, until the appeal hearing. The hearing took less than 10 minutes. They had acted on information giving to them by my husband and they had failed to verify. My 7 week old baby was healthy and well looked after and I did not have a mental illness nor showed any signs of aggression.

End of story? Not quite.

I was told that proceedings had started and it would take about a year before the children could come home to me. I would need to be assessed with the children. The Guardian insisted that I be sent to an extremely expensive residential assessment centre which was run by a highly qualified psychiatrist who was also an expert witness to the court. The children and I would be there for a month.

The psychiatrist lived next to the assessment centre but, apart from watching him jogging, or seeing him when he came into the kitchen to use the washing machine, we hardly ever saw him. It was not until about the 3rd day that I had a ‘session’ with him. I walked into his office and the first thing he said was “You don’t like me, do you?”

I was thrown by this comment and all I could say was; “I don’t think it’s a question of whether I like you or not, I think it’s a question of whether we can work together.” Apparently it was not the answer he was looking for. Observations were done by the (largely) unqualified staff and he would then look over their notes and make his assessments from those notes and the weekly sessions he had with the residents. In my next session he spent the whole time telling me that my husband had not lied and that I had made it all up, refusing to believe me but then ending the session with “If it’s too good to be true it’s not true”. I felt as though he was trying to catch me out, as though there were answers he wanted to hear that I was not giving him. I could only answer as I felt but it felt wrong.

To pass the time, I baked bread and would bake a loaf daily for all the residents to share. One morning a staff member told me that he had cut the loaf in half and taken the half with him. That was the day he chose to keep coming in the kitchen – something he never did. He was obviously expecting a reaction from me so I told him that I had made the bread for the residents and that if he wanted some he should have asked as it meant there wasn’t enough to go round. Perhaps, not surprisingly, that did not go down well. I failed ‘the test’ again when he came in from his customary jog and put his running shorts in the washing machine. He had left his phone and car keys in the pocket and I burst out laughing.

I later found out that it was all deliberate (perhaps not the car keys/phone). He liked to press the residents’ buttons to see how they would react under pressure. This would include giving us various tasks. Asking us to do things when the children were hungry or upset or tired. He would probably justify it as making sure the mothers could cope with day to day life. I got a feeling that he had more than a sadistic streak to him.

The Court hearing was heart stopping. This ‘expert’ psychiatrist diagnosed me as of below average intelligence and it was his recommendation that my children would be best placed if they were put up for adoption. The Guardian agreed with him. The Local Authority did not.
On the day, of the hearing, the Guardian, Local Authority, and the lawyers had a meeting which excluded my solicitor. I remember my barrister, who had caught a train from London so arrived after everyone else, walking straight into their meeting saying something about not having a meeting without him.

I believe that in that meeting, the Guardian was trying to convince the Local Authority that my children should be put up for adoption. In Court, the Local Authority did not agree with the Guardian and the ‘expert’. The Judge agreed with the Local Authority.

I came so close to losing my children permanently based on I don’t know what reasoning. What I do know is that there are people in positions of power, who are trusted by the Court, in their capacity as experts in their field, who exploit and abuse that power. In the case of this psychiatrist, children were removed from mothers he diagnosed as mentally ill, as unable to parent. How many of these mothers were, in fact, capable?

Bullies and abusers use their position of power to intimidate those who, often, are unable to fight for themselves. I was incredibly lucky that a social worker was able to stand up to not just the Guardian but an expert’s opinion. But where this is not the case, who is there to keep us safe from the experts?

Freedom of Speech v Barbara Hewson

On May 25^th the internet magazine Spiked published an article by Barbara Hewson – The family courts make a mockery of justice‘. She published a tweet with a link to that article. I saw this and attempted to enter into discussion with her on this public forum, as one of the family lawyers she had dismissed en masse as ‘collusive’ and ‘incompetent’. Her response was immediate and aggressive, she told me to go to bed and ‘blocked’ my account. I responded in manner that was mocking and rude. I am sorry about that. It was fun at the time but it wasn’t constructive and it did nothing to bridge the gap between our positions.

I published a more reflective response via my blog on May 27^th ‘The woeful state of our debate about the family courts part 7: Barbara Hewson’

If I thought Ms Hewson’s initial response to my tweets was bizarre, what followed this blog post was even worse. She made two formal complaints to my Chambers and – astonishingly – directly tweeted a number of prominent Jewish lawyers and journalists to inform them I was an Anti-Semite. She later deleted those tweets – suggesting she realized she had gone too far. But of course, on the internet nothing is ever really deleted.

Freedom of speech – not just for the speech you agree with.

However, a much more serious issue emerged from our unedifying ‘spat’. This was Ms Hewson’s determined efforts to reduce the audience for my blog post. To understand my concern, it is important to note that Ms Hewson is not your typical abusive keyboard warrior, with limited following or influence. Not only is she a practising barrister, she is also a prominent contributor for Spiked.

Spiked describe their ‘mission statement’ in this way (emphasis added):

It’s the publication that puts the case for human endeavour, intellectual risk-taking, exploration, excellence in learning and art, and freedom of speech with no ifs and buts, against the myriad miserabilists who would seek to wrap humans in red tape, dampen down our daring, restrain our thoughts, and police our speech.

Well said. If ‘freedom of speech’ is reduced to ‘freedom to say things I agree with’, it is no freedom at all. Sadly, Ms Hewson does not seem to share Spiked’s enthusiasm for freedom of speech. She alleged that my blog post was both ‘inaccurate’ and ‘defamatory’. However, and interestingly, she didn’t make those allegations directly to me or request that I amend the post or take it down.

Shortly after publication of my post on Friday 27th May I sent a tweet with a link, as is my normal practice. It was retweeted by a number of others.

Ms Hewson sent an email to those who retweeted on Bank Holiday Sunday May 29^th, demanding that they ‘un-do’ their retweet. When some of the recipients asked – not unreasonably – to be informed what exactly was defamatory about my post, Ms Hewson not only refused to give details but replied to say that she would consider joining them in her proposed legal action against me. And this could carry consequences in terms of costs.

Entirely unsurprisingly, that threat worked and my tweet was subsequently ‘un-retweeted’.

Then, in the second of her formal complaints to my Chambers, Ms Hewson declared that she was giving serious consideration to informing the police of my activities on Twitter.

After I had picked myself up from the floor, to which I had fallen laughing, I got quite angry. This was after all quite an effective tactic of intimidation. Not because she frightened me, but because she was now putting my Chambers to considerable annoyance and fuss in attempting to sort out a complaint that – in my view – was without substance and which should never have been made. The suggestion that anything in my conduct on line or elsewhere merited the involvement of the police was absurd. That the suggestion was made by someone in her position is very worrying.

The Streisand effect

Ms Hewson’s efforts at indirect censorship did not have the desired effect of keeping my views out of circulation. She seems unhappily ignorant of the Streisand effect, where there is a direct correlation between the efforts you put in to keeping something hidden and the extra publicity for the hidden thing you generate by those very efforts.

Between May 27^th and June 2^nd that ‘defamatory’ post was the most popular on my website. And people weren’t just glancing at it – they were reading it. The post was seen 553 times during that period and the average time spent on the page was 6 minutes and 16 seconds. My original tweet containing a link to the blog post has now been seen 2,043 times and is my third ‘top tweet’ for the month of May. To put this in context, my tweets usually get about 300 impressions. The blog post has been ‘shared’ on line 242 times.

I have no idea how that compares to the analytics for Spiked on line. But its pretty good for my site.

Through out all of this I remain in the dark about what is defamatory about what I wrote. I suspect it is not that Ms Hewson is unwilling to tell me – but that she is unable to tell me. Because my original blog post isn’t defamatory. And I am more than happy to defend it in open court.

Debate and discussion – now dead in the water?

But what on earth are we coming to when the honest expression of an opinion about something significant – the family court system – meets with this response? This means that the debate about the family justice system isn’t merely ‘woeful’ as I have long feared, but is dead in the water.

For those who seek a public platform to publish and promote their views, bravery must go hand in hand with good judgment and reflection. Otherwise ‘bravery’ can easily slip into bullying cruelty on line or even worse – into a reckless assault upon our essential freedoms. The greater the status and influence of the person seeking to restrict others’ freedom of speech, the greater the danger that person poses.

Of course our freedoms are not limitless. The rights of your fist end where my nose begins. We have to engage in constant and sensitive recallibrations of our freedoms and our responsibilities and how they intertwine.

But I suggest that any attempts to limit the activities of your fist vis a vis my nose should come from the law , not the wrath of an individual. The criminal law can deal with threats and harassment, the civil law can deal with defamation. A further avenue for those of us in regulated professions can be to make complaint to the appropriate regulatory body.

Respect for essential freedoms cannot turn simply on whether a particular individual is upset and offended. The evil consequences of that are very clear. I agree Ms Hewson’s right to be wrong must be protected. I have disagreed with her – not attempted to silence her or get her arrested. But sadly, it seems she does not accord me the same respect and seeks to erode my freedom of speech in a particularly heavy handed and unpleasant way.

Bullying isn’t great – but hypocrisy is worse

Ms Hewson’s attempts to intimidate do not deflect me. At the time of writing it’s June 17th (and at the time of publication it’s August 13th 2016) and I haven’t been arrested or received any court papers, so I will assume her threats are empty. But I also reasonably assume that others of less robust temperament in my shoes over the last few weeks would have been very frightened and distressed. Even a cursory search of her name on Twitter shows that many others already have been frightened and distressed by her behavior on line.

Spiked may value this kind of behaviour from Ms Hewson as adding to their ‘edgy’ reputation. But I hope not. Rather, I hope that this whole sorry tale gives them some pause for thought about exactly whom they wish to support as a contributor to their site.

The family justice system impacts on the lives of many. It tries to protect the vulnerable against the imposition of unfair or abusive interference with their private lives, from either the State or other individuals. That it functions well is necessary. That it often falls short of what we need is sadly clear and worthy of debate.

No one has the right to try and stifle open and honest debate about something so important. Not least someone who claims to support freedom of speech.

I can understand, in a world where humans routinely make decisions to bomb children and hospitals or permit the mentally ill to buy military grade assault rifles to more easily murder cartoonists or gay people, my ruffled feathers over this may seem to some quite unimportant.

And you are entitled to that view – I won’t threaten you or telephone your boss if you express it. But I think it is important to challenge this kind of behaviour. Because this is how our essential freedoms are eroded, little by little and drop by drop. Until when the time comes that we wake up to what we have lost, there may be nothing left at all to defend.

Are Victims of Violence Also Victims of the Family Court?

I am grateful for this post from our regular contributor ‘Sam’ considering how the current system fails to deal adequately with issues of violence in relationships, putting victims and children at risk. What can we do to improve?

Recently the tragic case of Ellie Butler hit the media yet again. Despite having a history of violence Ellie’s father Ben Butler was exonerated by the family court and Ellie was left in his care resulting in her murder. As a result of this Sarah asked me to write something to put the jigsaw pieces together even though it was of course very close to home to me as any regular reader of this web site will know. I have banged my head against a brick wall for a number of years, firstly trying to escape from my abuser, then trying to be heard by agencies including the police and finally family court proceedings in the High Court, which left my ex husband with my children and myself on supervised contact. I have not seen one of my children who lives with him for over two years in breach of the court order. Once again even though he had a history of violence including threats to kill. Will it happen again to another child?

It is inevitable.

Crystal Ball Gazing

No I don’t have a crystal ball, but as well as my personal experience , I have connections with a considerable number of woman both on social media and in real life. Those of us who are parents have all have been through the family court system either in private or public law proceedings and we tell similar versions of same story. Hopefully this article goes some way into unpacking those stories and even start some change in awareness.

In 1971 the first women’s refuge opened in the UK. Unfortunately in 2016 we still need refuges despite the availably of court orders intended to keep the perpetrator away from the family home.

Anna is currently in a refuge, she fled from her allegedly abusive husband leaving her toddler behind. They were a respectable family on the surface, regular churchgoers and he was always with her, not in the pub like some men. Chris is now valiantly holding the fort as a single father, he has much sympathy within the community, where he likes to talk about how his wife couldn’t even cook a decent meal he had to teach her, was never interested in the baby from the day he was born. The accusations of abuse have come out of the blue, he knows nothing about abuse. Of course she was miserable when she was with him you could see that , rumour has it she may be mentally ill. If you probe a little deeper though it turns out that Anna and Chris had moved miles away from friends and family because a business he had set up had failed spectacularly. The toddler is clingy and far too quiet, though of course this delights the community who see him as a well behaved child not a damaged child. The family court has awarded residence to Chris.

Not only outsiders, but victims themselves do not initially see what is happening as domestic abuse, there is very little awareness , this both prolongs the abuse and leads to a time lag in reporting to the authorities.On average high-risk victims live with domestic abuse for 2.6 years before getting help – see safelives.org.uk.

What is domestic abuse?

The UK government’s definition of domestic violence is “any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to psychological, physical, sexual, financial, emotional.”

It is very rarely just one of them, Donna is gay, she realised she had been subject to domestic violence after listening to heterosexual women discussing what had happened to them. In fact she had been in two abusive relationships, in one she was physically abused including being thrown against a wall as well as financially abused and kicked out of the home she owned, with her abuser changing the locks.In another she was subject to what could be termed coercive control , refused all affection including sex, being put down and once again financially abused. She has never reported to the police or as far as I know told anyone outside of her circle of friends. She suffers from very low self esteem.

Domestic violence shrinks your world, however if you are already marginalized , poverty, disability, care leaver, spouse of someone respectable etc firstly you are far more likely to be a victim and secondly you will struggle even more to get help.

Just leave ?

85% of victims sought help five times on average from professionals in the year before they got effective help to stop the abuse. It has long been documented that women living with domestic violence are anxious about the involvement of social services.

Examples of poor practice whilst living with abuse included:

social workers visiting the family home to talk about domestic violence when the perpetrator was present;
women being told to leave with nowhere to go to;
the perpetrator not being held accountable for his actions; and
social workers attributing men’s violence to ‘cultural differences’

After leaving the concerns about social work practice included:

being made to go to meetings with the perpetrator;
the perpetrator continuing to make allegations about them which then had to be investigated;and
being held responsible for his behaviour.

Social services were making me go to meetings with this man. Solace wrote them a letter saying
that he’s high-risk, and in no circumstances should I have to attend meetings… They didn’t
listen… He just flew up off the chair, near enough hitting the table, and went to go for me. And
the social worker had to get in the middle (48, W4).
The dad hit the kids when they were on a visit to him. Social services were called in. We were
all interviewed, and he wasn’t. And it was signed off. But it went on for weeks on end. And I was
made to feel like the perpetrator (FG, W1).Even where women made complaints about poor practice, this did not make a difference.

As soon as you make a complaint against them they make your life hell (48, W3).

Many women expended considerable time and energy battling ‘the system’, and over the course of the study began to comment that their lives were now constrained by structural barriers. Some were even more explicit, arguing that they had swapped one form of control (by the abuser) for another – by the legal, welfare and housing systems.

You’ve battled to keep yourself safe; the children safe… and then there’s another battle with
housing, battle with the courts… it’s a constant battle for everything (FG, W1).

Thirteen long years, that’s how it feels, sort of ten years with him and three years of just battling
the system. You know I’m tired of it, just tired, and I want it to be over (36, W3).

Where women had the support of an advocate, usually via Solace, responses from other agencies improved, but our findings suggest there may be complacency about the extent of change there has been in agency responses.

Leah’s story: Leah is a professional woman,very talented in her field. Her perpetrator is also well thought of, he was in the forces and has several times been commended for bravery. They have a child with special needs. Leah is scared stiff of going to family court despite having won a civil action regarding his abuse. The CAFCASS officer has seen this report but still refuses to recognise the extent of the abuse nor will the police take criminal action. Leah like myself finds that agencies do not look behind the outer image a perpetrator presents, many are superficially charming, humorous,hard working and generous. Worse still agencies side with the perpetrator putting both children and victim at risk.

Family Court

Cases in the family court , like the one were Ellie Butler was handed back into her parents care are decided on the balance of probabilities, that is something is more likely to happened than not or conversely not more likely to happened than not.

Suzie’s story: Suzie was never physically beaten by her ex husband , he had however psychologically abused her, but had called the police when he punched one of her friends, she was fitted with secure locks and was seen as a high risk. During private proceedings, the social worker and CAFCASS both agreed that he should only have supervised contact. He wanted over nights or no contact at all. The judge ordered overnight contact. The children hated going, as their father left them to fend for themselves and got drunk. He paid no maintenance . Once he got into a new relationship he stopped seeing them altogether. Unfortunately his new girlfriend not only was psychologically abused she ended up being stabbed. Should the judge have weighed the case better?

How to stop another child dying

The short answer is you can’t, it is inevitable, but steps can be taken to lessen the chances that another father with a history of violence will kill his own child.

Knowledge is the final piece of the jigsaw. Firstly and most importantly victims do not have the knowledge to recognise signs of abuse when it is happening to them, normally it is not until they get some awareness and recover some self esteem that they do actually realise the extent of the control the perpetrator had over them. Being a victim is the equivalent of floundering into quicksand, you wriggle, shout for help and when none comes you stay still and quiet because every action makes matters far worse.

Professionals also need knowledge, especially being aware that domestic violence is multi faceted and do need to stop victim blaming. The victim needs a comfort blanket not a telling off, once they feel safe they will then be able to reflect, they can’t whilst they are still in fight or flight mode. There also needs huge awareness around the likely impact on the victim’s immediate presentation, they are going to seem unstable initially but once they are clear of the life threatening situation they have been living with they will get well.

Abusers do give out clues, even by watching them walk down the street with their family can be eye opening.

There are systematic failures of sharing of knowledge and evidence in this post Saville era. Police forces do not share reported incidents of child abuse unless there has been an arrest. In my view the failure to have specialist domestic violence courts adds to the problem, some judges simply do not understand, or want to.

Lastly and most importantly there needs to be a change in the public perception towards domestic violence, it needs to be as unacceptable as drink driving and as high profile.

So you’re thinking of suing me for defamation? Some Top Tips

Sarah Philimore writes – It appears that of late, a sadly frequent reaction to some of my postings is a threat to sue me for defamation. It seems that some of my readers are struggling with the both the general definition of defamation and its particular application to what I write, so in the spirit of helpful collaboration and in the face of a four hour train journey to Truro Magistrates Court, I hereby set out some Top Tips if you are considering legal action against me on the basis that I have defamed you.

EDIT March 11th.

On 10th March 2017 there was judgment in the case of Monroe v Hopkins relating to tweeting and defamation. As this is a topic close to my heart, I have expanded this post to consider in more detail this judgment and its implications. If you continue to think that ‘Freedom of Speech’ gives you licence to abuse, harass and vilify others you are wrong and you do not understand the law.

Understand what is meant by ‘defamation’

It is not enough to make a published statement defamatory because it says something about you that you don’t like, or you find irritating.

The Defamation Act 2013 sets out at section 1 the requirement that a statement can only be defamatory if it causes ‘serious harm’ to your reputation. If you are a body that trades for profit it is only ‘serious harm’ if the statement has caused or is likely to cause you serious financial loss.

Paragraph 23 in Monroe v Hopkins sets out the general principles in this way.

Libel consists of the publication by the defendant to one or more third parties of a statement about the claimant which has a tendency to defame the claimant, and causes or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.
A published statement is only defamatory if “it attributes views that would lower a person in the estimation of “right-thinking people generally” (see para 50 of judgment in Monroe v Hopkins). See further the common law principles identified in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130, Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) [2011] 1 WLR 1985, and Modi v Clarke [2011] EWCA Civ 937. The test is objective: what would the ‘ordinary reasonable reader’ think it meant? and would that meaning cause ‘right thinking members’ of society to react adversely to what they read?
Sometimes ‘what does this statement mean?’ can be influenced by facts outside the statement itself, which aren’t common knowledge. Therefore, an otherwise innocent statement may be defamatory, or an otherwise defamatory statement innocent, in the eyes of readers aware of the “innuendo facts”. The principles are stated in Fullam v Newcastle Chronicle & Journal [1977] 1 WLR 651 and McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) [49]-[55].
The court should be wary of ‘over analysis’ – as a general rule the court must always take into account the whole of the statement that contains the particular words complained of, and of the context in which that statement appears, and of the mode of publication.

Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433

Judgment was delivered on March 10th 2017. The case involved 2 tweets (one quickly deleted) sent by professional troll Katie Hopkins to food blogger Jack Monroe.

This judgment is also useful for its appendix explaining how Twitter works and for its comments about the need for litigants to preserve evidence – be careful about how many tweets you decide to delete, for example.

The court needed to determine

what Katie Hopkins meant when she sent the tweets
If what she meant was defamatory
and if so, what was the proof they caused serious harm

Ms Hopkins defence was put in the following terms

That Ms Monroe had herself extensively publicised the tweets complained of
Denying that Ms Monroe had suffered substantial distress and upset, instead taking considerable pleasure in threatening proceedings against Ms Hopkins

The judgment is well worth reading in full, comprising of a full and detailed analysis of Twitter and how things are published there. It is acknowledged that it is a fast moving medium with publications compressed into 140 characters, which may however contain links to many other publications – thus it is not always easy to determine who has read what publications or what they thought about them.

However, in the circumstances of this particular case the Judge was able to be clear. He commented at para 42 of the judgment:

an inescapable conclusion that the ordinary reasonable reader of the First Tweet would understand it to mean that Ms Monroe “condoned and approved of scrawling on war memorials, vandalising monuments commemorating those who fought for her freedom.” That is a meaning that emerges clearly enough, making full allowance for everything that seems to me relevant by way of context: the characteristics of Ms Hopkins and Ms Monroe, the nature of Twitter, and the immediately surrounding contextual material on Twitter…

The extent of publication – how many people read it? – will also need to be considered. But the Judge made it clear that precision in this matter would be impossible – but it wasn’t necessary. He was able to make a ‘sound assessment of the overall scale of publication’ and concluded that the Twitter analytics showed that over 25 hours the individual tweets generated between 21,000 and 252,000 impressions, and between 198 and 14,196 engagements.

The Judge considered further detailed arguments about ‘serious harm’ from paragraph 63 of the judgment. Clearly his analysis is particular to the facts of this case, but it gives a helpful indication of what issues the court will need to hear evidence about in future cases.

The extent of the publications
The transience of Twitter
The credibility of the publisher in the eyes of the publishers
Evidence about whether or not the allegation was believed.
Evidence of ‘harm done’ to reputation
The extent of the abuse suffered by the claimant following publication of the defamatory statement
The ‘existing reputation’ of the person allegedly defamed.

He was able to conclude at paragraph 74 of the judgement that

In all the circumstances and for the reasons I have given, whilst the claimant may not have proved that her reputation suffered gravely, I am satisfied that she has established that the publications complained of caused serious harm to her reputation, and met the threshold set by s 1 of the 2013 Act.

Ms Monroe was awarded £24,000 in damages plus her legal fees, estimated to be about £107,000 at the time of writing. This was a very expensive exercise for Ms Hopkins to be reminded that her ‘freedom of speech’ does not put her above the law.

The concluding remarks are well worth setting out in full

This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer. There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified. Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.

The second point is that there have been difficulties over disclosure especially on the claimant’s side, of which others should take note. The deletion of the First Tweet, at Ms Monroe’s request, meant the Twitter Analytics were unavailable. And Ms Monroe’s Twitter records were extensively deleted. I am not able to attribute responsibility for that on the basis of the evidence, and I do not. What I can say is that this highlights in the Twitter context the responsibility of a litigant to retain and preserve material that may become disclosable, and the responsibility of a solicitor to take reasonable steps to ensure that the client appreciates this responsibility and performs it.

Understand the defences to defamation.

The requirement of ‘serious harm’: See para 23 of Monroe v Hopkins:

…it is not enough to prove that a statement had a defamatory tendency. A claimant must prove as a matter of fact that their reputation suffered, or is likely to suffer, serious harm as a result of the publication complained of.

Truth is a defence – if I can prove it: if I have published a defamatory statement about you, I will have a defence to any legal action if I can show that my what I am saying, or what is imputed from what I say, is ‘substantially true’ or its my honestly held opinion. I could also claim a public interest defence. See sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 2013 Act.

Remember that I do not deliberately publish anything defamatory

I am not a defamation specialist. I can appreciate I have given only a blunt precis of the law and I am sure there are lots of other nuances I haven’t covered. But I think I have got the gist. And you need to assume that I would never intentionally publish anything that I know to be defamatory. Because I am not an idiot. Therefore if it is published, it is because I believe it to be true and worth saying.

If you are unhappy with what I publish – tell me, and tell me why

Therefore, you can assume any contact with me that is simply a demand to ‘take down’ a post because it is potentially defamatory is, without more, not compelling. Please – if anyone is unhappy with anything I write then let me know. You can contact me via twitter, or via the website – [email protected]. I am more than happy to alter or remove statements if you can show me good reasons why I should do so. I am always happy to publish guest posts or a right of reply. But a simple threat of legal action, without explaining what exactly I have published that you consider defamatory, is not going to get you anywhere.

EDIT 30/04/17 In light of recent events, I have had to amend my ‘always happy’ policy re right to replies. I will not respond to demands that I permit a right to reply. I will not permit replies or comments that are simply a vehicle to continue promulgation of abuse, offensive material or obvious untruths. If you are genuinely seeking to enlarge and expand upon discussions – I welcome you. If your motivations are clearly something other – please don’t waste my time and yours.

If you are not happy with my response – take it to the Bar Standards Board.

If you are not happy with my response and you want to take it further, please don’t bother my Chambers with this. When I publish on the internet it is as a private individual. My activities on line are nothing to do with Chambers. I don’t post with their endorsement or their encouragement. I can’t stop you contacting them but please don’t think that by so doing you will embarrass me or persuade me to remove a post. You won’t.

You just waste your time and theirs. If you think my conduct is sufficiently serious to merit formal complaint then you should contact the Bar Standards Board. I understand and accept that my conduct as a private individual is open to scrutiny by my regulatory body, if that conduct is so awful that I bring my profession into disrepute.

Have a word with yourself – what do you hope to achieve?

Empty threats are pointless. If you don’t genuinely intend to take legal action against me, threatening to do so doesn’t scare me or alter my behaviour – but it will make me think rather less of you, of your judgment, your integrity and your understanding. If you are instead annoyed or angry with what I write, consider if there are other avenues to express your frustration – or at least sleep on it.

The final paragraph of the judgment of Mr Justice Warby in Econonmou is worth citing:

Mr Gosden-Hood told me, convincingly, of meetings he had with Mr Economou in which he was told that Mr Economou wished to bankrupt Mr de Freitas. It has not been alleged, and I do not find, that this was his dominant purpose in bringing this claim. I do not believe it was. Mr Economou has pursued this case with sincerity but, as I find, in anger and with elements of vengefulness. Defamatory imputations can cause injury to feelings which is out of all proportion to the harm they cause to reputation. That, so far as the earlier publications are concerned, is this case. So far as the later publications are concerned, and more generally, Mr Economou has made the error of seeing this case from his own perspective as a victim, paying too much attention to the impact on him and his feelings, and giving insufficient consideration to the other perspectives, indeed the other rights and interests, that demand and deserve consideration.

Transparency, debate and Satanists: A Plea to the Family Courts

Do you REALLY think that I am in fact Ricky Dearman? In convincing latex mask? are you REALLY that stupid? https://t.co/RZxWM6Z8nB

— Sarah Phillimore (@SVPhillimore) July 20, 2016

I think it is important to challenge people who ‘are wrong on the internet’. Not because I am naive enough to think I will have much of an impact on individuals who are driven by something other than reason and logic. I will continue to crusade in defence of the general principle that evil will triumph if we just sit back and do nothing.

Further, I think challenge is important as many of those who obsessively campaign in aggressive and intimidatory ways on social media appear to rely on official indifference to their activities and the ease with which they can threaten others with apparent impunity.

There is a view often expressed that one should not give ‘the oxygen of publicity’ to such people and that attempting to tackle them is counter-productive. I understand and often agree with that view. But there is a significant subset of these campaigners who should be challenged as they have serious reach and influence. And they will not stop.

The Hampstead Hoaxers have the dubious accolade of being among the nastiest and most persistent of the obsessive conspiracy theorists which are abundant on the internet. If you don’t know what I mean by ‘Hampstead Hoaxers’ – I think you should. I commend the entirety of the Hoaxtead Research web site to your attention, and Anna Raccoon has provided a useful summary here.

In short, in 2014 allegations were made against individuals in Hampstead that they participated in organised satanic ritual abuse involving about 20 children. These children were routinely buggered at school and made to eat babies, who were turned into burgers at the local MacDonalds. These allegations were obviously insane and found to be so at a fact finding hearing in the High Court. Mrs Justice Pauffley issued injunctions against named individuals to prevent them further publishing their false allegations – in particular to refrain from continuing to publish on line videos of two of the children. As is obvious, such activities were very harmful to the children, given the high probability that a good proportion of the millions who have so far seen the videos were deriving sexual pleasure from them.

Those injunctions were never enforced – apparently on the basis that to cause any further fuss would just encourage the conspirators to keep on going. That may have seemed a reasonable decision at the time. But with hindsight, it was a grave error. The conspirators kept on going.

An attempt was made to bring to book two of the most virulent and prolific campaigners in July by charging them with witness intimidation. That failed as although intimidation was the inevitable by product of their campaigning, this wasn’t sufficient to establish the necessary criminal element of intention. But happily, the Judge made indefinite restraining orders against both, to prevent any further publication of allegations which at the outset of the trial all lawyers accepted were false. Details about the hearing and the astonishing behaviour of their lawyer Aseem Taj can be found at Hoaxtead Research.

News of this seemed to reanimate the Hoaxers on line who popped up on my Twitter timeline to make all kinds of astonishing allegations, including the apparently popular assertion that I (or anyone who challenges them) is actually one of the Satanists masquerading under a false identity.

Yup. As I suspected. I am not a barrister, I am actually Ricky Dearman! sigh. @HoaxteadR https://t.co/YLnP2qG3ax

— Sarah Phillimore (@SVPhillimore) July 20, 2016

I can laugh this off. Although it really isn’t funny. And it represents just a tiny fragment of what the residents of Hampstead have had to face for over two years now. In the face of an apparently indifferent and/or toothless Family Court that cannot or will not see its own injunctions enforced. I appreciate there are enormous difficulties in dealing with those who operate outside the jurisdiction – but many don’t. Many are right here, right now.

This is a personal tragedy for the individuals in Hampstead whose lives have been blighted and whose children’s safety has been compromised. But it is also a more general tragedy – for the robustness of our legal system, and the respect we are encouraged to have for it,

An issue of particular interest to me are the potentially damaging ramifications for the debate over transparency in the family courts. The Transparency Project – of which I am a member – has been commenting with increasing concern about the apparent stalling of the President of the Family Division’s ‘transparency agenda’, first announced in 2014. Apart from an increase in ad hoc publication of judgments from some individual judges, we seem no further forward in 2016. My worry is that this is due to the concentrated resistance to any increased transparency in family proceedings from certain groups of lawyers and social workers.

They fear that children will be the ones to suffer if there is any move to more openness in the way family court hearings are conducted and/or reported. Of course I understand that – it is a real and serious concern. But other jurisdictions are more open in what they will allow to be discussed and publicly available about family cases and we need to think more carefully about how they make it work and what we could be doing.

But it should not be allowed to stifle the debate to the extent that I am afraid it has. Because look what is rushing in to fill the gap we leave by our unwillingness to bring our practice and procedure out into the disinfecting sunlight. Look, and be worried.

We simply cannot go on ignoring these people and pretending this doesn’t matter.

Note to apologists for child rapists and murderers. It's a recording of the children's testimonies concealed by Met. https://t.co/Tds3aeEeSl

— Free the hampstead 2 (@hampsteadTBMC) July 20, 2016

Co-Dependency – what does it mean? and what are the consequences?

and one solution is – don't have children with someone you don't like and you don't respect. Talk to one another. https://t.co/TssY8Ko7LV

— Sarah Phillimore (@SVPhillimore) July 18, 2016

Co dependency – part of the answer?

This is a post by a contributor to the site, who wishes to remain anonymous but who tweets as @DVhurts. It arose after conversations on Twitter about what we can do to help parents when their relationships have broken down and their children are caught in the middle. Is it the primary responsibility of the family courts to fix this? Or do we need to take more ownership of the relationship choices that we make?

Sarah has been busy arguing on Twitter again, this time about why women have children with men they dislike. (Er, engaging in profound debate surely? Ed) Unfortunately I ran out of time to join in but it did start me thinking and this is what I believe is part of the answer. I am a codependent myself who is in recovery. This is only a very brief overview, please look at the resources listed to find out more.

Who is codependent?

Anyone can be is the short answer. More often than not though co dependents are adults who as children felt responsibility for a dysfunctional family member or a situation that was not their fault. They may have an addicted father, or be a young carer or simply they may be the first person in the family to be clever enough to go to university when that was their parents ambition. They take on too much at a young age and looking after people becomes their default setting.

Fear shame and guilt drive them. It can run in families and recovered addicts can be codependent themselves for instance as parents . They are overly serious and the responsibility for the world rest on their shoulders. They will give you the coat off their back and catch pneumonia themselves.

They form relationships with more laid back and sometimes downright irresponsible and try to change them. When they can’t they don’t quit, but try another tactic until they are worn out, bitter, broke etc… A codependent does not learn the lesson, unless they get help but tries again with the same type of partner.

Melody Beattie’s book explains their behaviour :

Codependents are reactionaries. They overreact. They under-react. But rarely do they act. They react to the problems, pains, lives, and behaviors of others. They react to their own problems, pains, and behaviors.

They react out of fear, they rescue people this may be a partner, a child, a client a relative or friend. They pay off debts that are not theirs, they make excuses about another’s unacceptable behaviour,they put up bail, they worry obsessively . They are attracted to “sick ” people , alcoholics, addicts, over eaters or a mentally or physically ill person because they are caretakers.

Their self worth is completely intertwined with the other person. A codependent can tell you everything about what the significant other needs but has no idea about what their own needs are. They have very low self esteem and even self hatred, they are over tolerant of abuse and unacceptable behaviour towards them. They can be angry, bitter, anxious, depressed and have significant mood swings:

Ever since people first existed, they have been doing all the things we label “codependent.” They have worried themselves sick about other people. They have tried to help in ways that didn’t help. They have said yes when they meant no. They have tried to make other people see things their way. They have bent over backwards avoiding hurting people’s feelings and, in so doing, have hurt themselves. They have been afraid to trust their feelings. They have believed lies and then felt betrayed. They have wanted to get even and punish others. They have felt so angry they wanted to kill. They have struggled for their rights while other people said they didn’t have any. They have worn sackcloth because they didn’t believe they deserved silk.”

Melody Beattie, Codependent No More: How to Stop Controlling Others and Start Caring for Yourself

Codependents can be male or female, though probably a higher percentage are woman as culture expects women to be carers

Could I be codependent?

Do you finish your partner’s sentences but don’t know what you think yourself?
Do you reject “boring” partners for the more risky ones and when they display risky behaviours forgive them time and again because it will be better next time?
Have you ever pretended that serious problems caused by your partner are not happening?
Are you being physically, emotionally,financially or sexually abused?
Do you ever feel abandoned by your partner and keep tabs on them?
Do you have unexplained physical problems, chest pain, stomach pain, numbness, headaches or sleep problems?
Is your partner the centre of your world and your think and talk endlessly about them?
Are you bottom of the queue when it comes to spending your money yet you splash out on others?
Do you constantly criticize yourself and reject praise.
Do you only feel truly alive when helping others?
Have you settled for being needed?
Do you have great difficulty saying no?
Have no trust in yourself?
Is your relationship chaotic and you daily feel out of control?
Is your head like a washing machine on spin cycle?
Do you have a life script: if I can make them go to rehab,stop them seeing certain friends ,get them a decent job we WILL live happily ever after.
Is it difficult to sit quietly?
Are you living with something that you would normally find unacceptable such drunkenness?
Are you lonely despite being in this very intense relationship?
Do you prefer to live in a dysfunctional relationship because you are too scared to live by yourself?
Have you sent your partner/parent/child/friend to counselling/rehab/hypnotherapy etc thinking this would be the solution and been enraged when it wasn’t?
Do you put your partners needs above everyone else including your children?
Do you constantly excuse and lie for your partner/child etc?
Are you ashamed of your feelings of anger , sadness?
Do you struggle to stay in the day but have thoughts of they should and what if constantly running through your mind?
Is your partner similar to your mother, father, brother etc?

It requires a hard look at what is, rather than what you hope will be. As you let go of managing and controlling, you must also let go of the idea that “when he changes I’ll be happy.” He may never change. You must stop trying to make him. And you must learn to be happy anyway.

Robin Norwood, Women Who Love Too Much

If you are ready to admit you need help.

Codependents rarely seek help until they are the bottom of a very deep hole, after all they are resourceful, and have numerous mechanisms for coping with what life throws at them. At some point though, normally after some years, the penny starts to drop.

The good news is there a lot of help for codependents and most of it is provided by charities who don’t charge but are run on voluntary contributions.

A number of those who identify as codependents will be in a relationship with an alcoholic, a gambler or someone else who has addictive traits. Many are 12 step programmes based on the original AA concept.”Hi I’m Joe and I ‘m an alcoholic.” That’s about as much as most people know about AA and other 12 step programmes.

In 2012 research from the Children’s Commissioner indicated that over 62% of care proceedings involved alcohol misuse. That’s without taking drugs into account.

It is said for every alcoholic six other people contacted with them are affected, It is said only an alcoholic can understand an alcoholic likewise only someone affected by a family member’s alcoholism can understand how their personality has adapted to deal with the circumstances. These family members can seek help through the Al Anon family groups and younger family members through Alateen. Likewise those affected by a family members drug addiction, gambling or eating disorder can also find strength and hope amongst those who have been in the same situation .

I would also recommend courses that increase self esteem and assertiveness. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) can turn off that washing machine head and offer options for what can seem to unsolvable problems.

http://www.al-anonuk.org.uk/

http://www.coda-uk.org/

http://www.gam-anon.org/

http://www.nar-anon.co.uk/

This is not an extensive list but a start. There is help, but it is the co dependent who has to put their needs first and start to look for it. They cannot change another person (came as a revelation to me!) but they can change their own lives for the better and that also leads onto healthier relationships.