Comments for

Comment on WIN A FAMILY TRIP TO CORNWALL by Mark Glasgow

Mark Glasgow — Mon, 21 May 2012 15:07:54 +0000

Hi Michael,

This is the competition from our March/April issue. If you’re just receiving this issue then it must be an issue with your post office. Is your full address correct on the postage label (post code is the most important part here)

Comment on Queen’s speech: families bill promises flexibility and justice for parents by Bruno D'Itri

Bruno D'Itri — Sat, 19 May 2012 08:11:55 +0000

With the announcement in the Queen’s Speech recently, Mr Cameron and his Government finally appear to have got the message.
They plan to strengthen the legal right of a father to have meaningful access to his children, post separation/divorce.
They finally recognise that family law, as it stands, fails to serve children’s best interests in this extremely important respect.
Let us hope that any resulting modification to the Children Act (1989) will be robust enough to effectively safeguard children’s rights to be parented by both parents.
Shared Parenting does NOT, as many critics would have us believe, necessitate an exact split of parenting time. This would be highly impractical in most cases. Rather, it is expected to range upwards from 20%. Another objection from the critics is that it will endanger children. Plainly, Shared Parenting will ONLY be available to parents who are NOT a proven risk to their children (mere allegation from disgruntled ex-partners should not be enough!).
My personal interest concerns Relocation law, which, despite some slight improvement last July (Re K), still far too easily acts to separate children from one of their parents (in practice, usually their father) by thousands of miles.
Plainly, a father cannot hope to enact any semblance of a Shared Parenting Plan when his children are residing on the other side of the planet!
I, and many others, have campaigned vigorously on the issue. A significant turning-point was achieved in the case of Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 in 2010. In this particular case, the President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall, publicly conceded there was a significant risk that Relocation law – in the form of Payne v Payne (2001) – relegated the harm done to children by significantly and irrevocably damaging the child’s meaningful relationship with the left-behind parent. The case was widely reported in legal circles.
Despite this concession, however, Sir Nicholas did nothing to rectify the problem, and, sadly, later resiled from his own criticism of Payne v Payne. We had expected more from the President. When there existed a significant risk of harm to hundreds of children, the Precautionary Principle appeared to mean nothing to him.
My current hope is that, with the expected introduction of a legal presumption of shared parenting, Payne v Payne will finally be overturned.
I have already made my views known to Mr Loughton, the Children’s Minister. Perhaps others will join in!
Best wishes
Bruno D’Itri

Comment on WIN A FAMILY TRIP TO CORNWALL by Michael Ainsworth

Michael Ainsworth — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:08:09 +0000

Pretty good this! The magazine has just dropped through my door, I go to the website, and lo and behold, the closing date was the 2nd of May!! Todays date is the 16th!! Whoever wins I wish them a good holiday. As Lucinda states, really useful for out of holiday time!

Comment on Benefit cuts: Atos in the frame to deliver new disability tests by Jay

Jay — Mon, 14 May 2012 11:52:53 +0000

How much will this cost, surely there is a cheaper way to ensure the right people get the money

Comment on Boris Johnson attacks planned cuts to disability payments by Jay

Jay — Mon, 14 May 2012 11:50:50 +0000

Well done Boris!

Comment on Protesters prepare to fight disability living allowance cuts – video by Jay

Jay — Mon, 14 May 2012 10:58:12 +0000

This seems really unfair that you lost your disability living allowance, maybe when the changes come in in 2013 with Personal Independence Payments, you will get your benefits back, good luck to you.

Comment on Queen’s speech: families bill promises flexibility and justice for parents by Bruno D'Itri

Bruno D'Itri — Wed, 09 May 2012 17:28:49 +0000

Successive Presidents of the Family Division have presided over a blatant discrimination against fathers in family law, which has led to a generation of children growing up without a father. A presumption has existed that divorced fathers are a potential danger to their children unless it can be proven that allegations levied against them by a disgruntled ex-partner (intent on ‘using the children as weapons’, to coin Sir Nicholas Wall’s phrase) are false. Until that point is reached, they are denied meaningful contact with their children. In my own case, it took 4 years and £100,000 to regain contact with my children. In contrast, no such negative presumption exists against mothers. Instead, they are presumed to be good parents. Furthermore, the judiciary has ignored a plethora of contemporary scientific research and evidence which plainly demonstrates, beyond all reasonable doubt, that children fare better on a wide range of developmental indices when they are permitted to remain in meaningful contact with both parents. For example, eleven such scientific reports were presented to Sir Nicholas Wall in the case of Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50.
Interestingly, many family lawyers have resisted the call for a legal presumption of shared parenting. And so they might. They stand to lose much of their income. A good father will soon be permitted to share in the parenting of his children, by default, without the need for him to battle in the courts, at great financial expense. One can’t really blame the lawyers – they, like most of us, are looking out for their own interests.
However, it is a terrible pity that our learned judiciary could not understand or accept the premise that the best interests of a child are served by allowing a good father full access to parent his children.
Now, at last, David Cameron, a man who well understands the importance of being a hands-on dad, and who regularly accompanies his own children to school by delaying the start of cabinet meetings, is prepared to act in defence of the welfare of our children. Well done Cameron. Shame on Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division.

Comment on WIN A FAMILY TRIP TO CORNWALL by lucinda duxbury

lucinda duxbury — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:38:13 +0000

win a “FAMILY” holiday but can only be used out of holidays! great that is really useful

Comment on A clean start for St Rose’s students by Schools for the Disabled

Schools for the Disabled — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:44:38 +0000

It’s fantastic to read about these new facilities. I’m sure they will help students immensely.

Best wishes, Alex.

Comment on A permanent cure for tinnitus has been found. by Helena Maciel

Helena Maciel — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:29:15 +0000

please, I would like to have more informationa about this treatment,
I have tinnitus for 1 year and it’s really dificult for me.

Comment on Columnist: Maria Miller MP, Minister for Disabled People by Julie Shrive

Julie Shrive — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:41:26 +0000

How do I arrange a Meeting regarding Disability issues & the unfairness & discrimination I have found emanating directly from the Government since I was targetted out of employment as a Result of Thatchers policy of treating health as an exact science using statistics administered by directed labour. The NHS policy of ignoring the chronic relates directly to disability & fact the more disabilities & age you have the more you are blamed.

Comment on New Exercise DVD for Disabled People by Wendy Hamer

Wendy Hamer — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:21:45 +0000

When is this dvd available

Comment on Support for carers must be central to social care white paper by Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:49:36 +0000

At present it is suggest that some 10 million people in the UK have a disability, I refer to http://www.dlf.org.uk/content/key-facts and http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/disability-facts-and-figures.php

Comment on Support for carers must be central to social care white paper by Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:47:00 +0000

Through the reform of the Health and Social Care Bill, it wil be intreesting to see GP commissioning group use the Carers Budget, a report by Carers.org found money was still not be totally use, I refer to http://professionals.carers.org/health/articles/nhs-given-150m-to-support-carers,5615,PR.html

http://static.carers.org/files/no-breaks-for-carers-report-oct-09-4924.pdf and http://www.carers.org/news/many-pcts-failing-carers

Comment on Comedian Doug Stanhope accused of ‘bullying’ Telegraph journalist on Twitter by Levi

Levi — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:54:03 +0000

Just saw Doug Stanhope talking about this at his show. I’d not heard about this story before, but his defence of Nicklinson’s right to dignity, and his stand against Pearson’s bewilderingly callous article are both admirable.

Stanhope is an offensive, forthright and angry comedian in the tradition of Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks and George Carlin, and like his predecessors, has a steely core of moral righteousness beneath a facade of shocking and offensive jokes. Pearson is wilfully misrepresenting him as a bully in order to deflect criticism of her own cruel words.

Pearson implied that Nicklinson should hope for a “serious infection, highly likely for someone in his condition, then, without antibiotics, he will soon get the merciful release he seeks.” She suggested that “Tony Nicklinson could refuse food, but his wife objects that starvation is a horrible way to die. Yet isn’t Tony Nicklinson’s argument that his life is too horrible to live?”

Further, she misrepresented the right-to-die argument in the most fallacious manner possible, asserting it would open the door to legalised murder, and make it possible for medical staff to kill with impunity. This is a far cry from the actual proposed changes to the law, and ignores the fact that possibility is a major concern within the right-to-die campaign.

Worst of all, Pearson wrote an article three years ago, discussing a similar case, where she gave the exact opposite views on the issue. Not only is she a callous, cruel and vindictive woman, but an entirely disingenuous one to boot.