« Previous | Main | Next »

PM Glass Box.

Post categories:

Eddie Mair | 16:38 UK time, Wednesday, 20 January 2010


In this glass box every evening at 18.00, the PM production team meets to discuss the programme that's just finished. You're encouraged to do so here in this virtual glass box. Tonight's editor Jeremy Rawlins will read your comments and may well add one of his own.


  • 1. At 5:15pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    It seems there is no such thing as a mercy killing in the UK...unless you have the resources to fly out to Switzerland and do it or the court judge thinks you did it as a mercy killing. I have heard of elderly people killing their spouses due to their suffering. They didn't get tried for murder...? It seems that some people are more murderous than others!

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 5:17pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    If you look at the reflection in the glass box, you can see Eddies washing on the line.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 5:27pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Eddie, you didn't challenge the 'self defence' argument from the lad whose father and himself chased someone down the street and battered him with a cricket bat. Have I missed something I thought the court of appeal didn't quash the conviction? Why did't you bring this up. Week and cowardly journalism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 5:27pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Or just Weak maybe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 5:32pm on 20 Jan 2010, newlach wrote:

    It is good news that Mr Hussain is to be released from jail, but his brother will remain behind bars for 2 years. It is clear from the interview with Mr Hussain's son that the whole family are still suffering from their ordeal. The masked intruder who has a lengthy criminal record should get none of our sympathy. Criminals must be dealt with firmly by the justice system and not allowed to walk free and commit more crime.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 5:34pm on 20 Jan 2010, Lepus_Madidus wrote:

    Jane Jackson and her grad daughter? That felt a bit Home Truths. That's what happens when couples break up.

    The robbers that broke into that house deserved it. Cable ties, knives. And the others that escaped haven't been apprehended have they? Those held hostage and attacked in their own home have an excuse for resorting to violence, those drunk teens roaming the streets that beat householders when they complain or challenge them about their criminal damage don't.

    The moral is that if you enter someone's home with the intention of robbing them or harming them don't be surprised if occasionally you come off worse and get a well deseved hiding. Brain damage? People can get brain damage when they have road accidents.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 5:38pm on 20 Jan 2010, Ellis P Otter wrote:

    Eddie were you chewing nougat during the business news?

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 5:38pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Newlach (5)

    So its okay for Mr Hussain to take the law into his own hands, but not the loving mother wishing to release her own son from his suffering and the suffering of her family...but that this country for you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:41pm on 20 Jan 2010, Lepus_Madidus wrote:

    Surely votes been counted overnight it it leaves ballot boxes less vulnerable? A backwards step from the cradle of democracy busy force feeding it to the RoW?

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 5:43pm on 20 Jan 2010, Sindy wrote:

    fJd - you took the words out of my mouth - mercy for all, or mercy for none (other things being equal, of course).

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 5:44pm on 20 Jan 2010, Lady_Sue wrote:

    Will we have the opportunity to listen to a repeat of the "silver tongued" Mr. Mair having "silver tongue-twister" difficulties? Play fair Eddie - you put an extract of Nils' up on one of those "instant listen again" widgets.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 5:46pm on 20 Jan 2010, Chris wrote:

    Reference the unemployment figures.
    These are based on those claiming job seekers allowance and a few other benifits. After the age of 60 for men and occasionally at age 55 , the Job Centre as a matter of routine offer Pension Credits instead of JSA this is used to lower the unemployment figure. I know this from Job Centre employees and from family members who were offered Pension Creadits on their first visit to the Job Centre Plus on their first sign on. They possibly rightly assume you are unemployable after age 60? and massage their figures.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 5:47pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    LM (6)

    I'm not trying to justify criminal activity or house breaking but neither do I want to live in a society where, you can say, batter someone into brain damage and say, they deserved it when there was another course of action that could have been taken. Yes, I understand the anger, etc, etc but vigilantism...Mmm.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 5:48pm on 20 Jan 2010, newlach wrote:


    Juries do not always give verdicts with which I agree. On the face of it, this verdict is one which puzzles me. There is much that I do not know about the circumstances surrounding the death of the son, but keeping people alive who are brain dead until they die naturally is in my view madness.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 5:50pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Sid, (10)

    Thank you. You'd better be careful you'll be winning me over if you carry on like this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 5:54pm on 20 Jan 2010, newlach wrote:

    Interesting point made by the expert that the official figures for NEETS may in fact be only half the true figure. Laurie Taylor was talking today about young people who have a "psychological aversion to work" - he might be right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 5:55pm on 20 Jan 2010, Anne P wrote:

    As newlach says, there is much we don't know, but if the mother had already made one attempt on her son's life and was telling people that the hospital was filling him full of poison, should someone not have spotted that she needed help long before she made the second attempt.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 5:56pm on 20 Jan 2010, Colin McAuley wrote:

    Re.: Internet Explorer problems/Google/China. Mozilla Firefox has been my default web browser for years and it still runs rings around the bloated IE.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 5:57pm on 20 Jan 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    IE and Outlook have always been holed; fixe downloads on a weekly basis, always has been a work in progress.

    Firefox is by far the better browser and has none of the security problems of MS aps.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 6:00pm on 20 Jan 2010, Lepus_Madidus wrote:

    A couple of years ago, I chased a drunk and/or drugged teen off of my car. He was something to do with the young woman next door and her folks were away. Luckily for me it was a quite week day night. The police arrived. About 5 minutes after 2 police cars got here a car was blocked coming up the lane. It contained this young lad in the back and two larger, young men in the front.

    Why was he returning having runaway? Why did he return in the car with two larger, sober young men? What would have happened had the police not been here?

    I've no sympathy for the criminals.

    I think the effect that criminal and 'anti social' activity has on it's victims is largely overlooked.

    You can picture me with a Charles Bronson tash if you like. I won't be offended. Sadly 'them or me' is a choice that some will have to make in the next 24 hours.

    Entering a house armed with knives and cable ties? It's just bullying isn't it? Just another manifestation of the bullying which is endemic in Britain today.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 6:02pm on 20 Jan 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    The mother who took power away from the doctors who measure their success in length of life rather than quality had to be punished, the state doesn't allow compassion, as clearly underlined by the policeman who spoke. Jobsworths run the country, make the laws and enforce them.

    It wasn't the mother who needed help, it was the son who was being kept alive for no good reason, and it was left to her to help him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 6:03pm on 20 Jan 2010, normanmugabe wrote:

    The Americans supplied Italy, Holland, Belgium and Germany with nuclear weapons as part of the NATO deal. These weapons would have be used in the event of hostilities against the Soviet Union.
    NATO in Europe is now in intensive care; but the Americans seem in no hurry to demand the return of these weapons.
    These weapons, it has been reported, are thirteen times more powerful than those dropped on Japan. And the Germans seem in no rush to return them.
    A few days ago an attack on an Israelie ambassador on the Jordanian side of the Allenby Bridge, failed:

    Iran claims U.S., Israel behind blast
    AMMAN, Jordan, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- An attack on an Israeli diplomatic convoy in
    Jordan was carried out on instructions from Iran, Jordanian intelligence sources
    Citing sources close to Jordan's General Intelligence Department, The Jerusalem
    Post reported Tuesday the GID was looking into suspicions the explosives used in
    last week's failed assassination attempt were smuggled into Jordan by Iranian
    The Post's sources said the attack was apparently perpetrated by local al-Qaida
    figures who received money and explosives from Tehran, and was likely in
    retaliation for the assassination of Iranian scientist Massoud Ali Muhammad in
    Tehran last week.
    The Jordanian sources said the attack on the Israeli diplomatic convoy was
    similar to the assault on the slain Iranian professor, who died when a
    remote-controlled bomb on a motorcycle exploded.
    "We can see Iran's fingerprints on the roadside bombing," the sources told the
    Post. "The investigation is continuing in various directions."
    The al-Arabiya broadcast news network reported Tuesday an Amman taxi driver was
    arrested on suspicion of involvement in the Israeli assassination try, the
    newspaper said.

    The Massachusetts result will be very important in the great scheme of things.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 6:06pm on 20 Jan 2010, SirStarryKnight wrote:

    I agree with Lepus_Madidus at #6 regarding the plight of Mr Hussain. It makes me angry to think that this poor man and his brother were thrown into prison when in fact they should have been given awards for their courage. I salute them. What needs to happen immediately is for the brother to be released, and police attention directed towards catching the criminals rather than prosecuting the victims.
    And obviously the woman who gave her son a heroin overdose should be released without charge.
    With a General Election glimmering on the horizon, will any political party have sufficient moral fibre to repeal laws that persecute the innocent? That party will get my vote - how about you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 6:13pm on 20 Jan 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    It would have been ok if the intruder bashing had happened in the house, but to pursue someone down the street and then beat them to a pulp can't possibly be seen as self defence. While understanding the anger that caused it, I think the law is bound to treat an assault in the street as an assault and the conviction was correct, the actions of the appeal judges are aberrated, the sentencing judge will have taken mitigation into account already.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 6:16pm on 20 Jan 2010, Sindy wrote:

    No, March Hare - bullying is not endemic in Britain today. There is bullying, and it's worse in some places than others. But by and large people are friendly and get on well enough with each other. I'm afraid your attitude (which may be understandable in your circumstances) will only increase fear and aggression.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 6:18pm on 20 Jan 2010, Lady_Sue wrote:

    Anne@17: good point. Why didn't the mother claim "diminished responsibility"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 6:25pm on 20 Jan 2010, Lepus_Madidus wrote:

    The incident I had with the associate of the nighbours kid. I rapped on the window and told him to get off of my car, he stood upright and said 'Come on then'. He probably went through half dozen gardens running away and then came back. Why? Why return in a car with two others?

    Sadly for some of us you just can't clsoe your doors and hope trouble doesn't impact on your life. We've had needless aggravation from the kids that hang around with the kids that live each side. Kids today seemingly aren't taught 'don't mess on your own doorstep'. Are kids taught anything today.

    Would the police have ever caught them? They've not caught the other two have they? And the brain damaged robber is deemed incapable of dealing with their inquiries about the other crimes they want to talk to him about.

    If you'd chased three knife wielding assailants from your premises how would you ensure that you and your family were safe? How do you know that they won't come back?

    The robbers took a calculated risk and lost.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 6:28pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Re Mr Hussein;

    I can't agree that that violence is something to be applauded and honoured. It was not self defence, it was an assault that could have easily ended in death. For me to applaud this kind of behaviour, although these people were severely provoked, It would make me no better than the bullies who wanted to rob them. I believe the conviction was right, but I fear the realease of Mr Hussein will be seen as a justification for the the 'hang 'em high' floggers to come out of the woodwork. Yes, the would be robbers were wrong to do what they did but I don't want to become as bad as they are...don't quite know how to word it all...

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 6:30pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Lady Sue (26) Perhaps the love for her had never diminshed?

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 6:33pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Do you think the brain damaged robber will be able to claim compensation through the criminal injuries board, seeing as he was disabled through a criminal act?

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 6:34pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    My (26) insert 'son' where necessary.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 6:34pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    Sorry I meant my 29 insert son.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 6:36pm on 20 Jan 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    Yep, play the system; diminished responsibility, her brief gives an impassioned plea that she went temporarily insane with grief and fear, two years probation.

    She was honest though, accepted her responsibility like an adult, explained it for what it was, love, was rational and emotional, and got nine years for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 6:38pm on 20 Jan 2010, DoctorDolots wrote:

    30. funnyJoedunn yes, should be worth quite a few thousand.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 6:49pm on 20 Jan 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @newlach #14

    "Juries do not always give verdicts with which I agree. On the face of it, this verdict is one which puzzles me."

    If you have ever sat on a jury, and seen a 'questionable' case to its conclusion, then you'll know why. You don't get a choice. You're told what the law is - and are then asked to decide whether the person broke that law or not. There is no opportunity to say: half-guilty; an understandable reaction; he's guilty but shouldn't serve a sentence. It's guilty or not guilty. Did he/she or didn't he/she break this law?

    I think jury members should be able to determine the sentence based on the degree of guilt. In the case of Mr Hussein (the cricket batter) and Ms Inglis (the mercy mum) the jury may have decided their guilt, but should serve no sentence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 6:57pm on 20 Jan 2010, Chris wrote:

    The Americans actually supplied the missiles ( not the warheads we are told) but the actual rocket and guidance package for both the Polaris and Posideon submarine systems to both the UK and France. We cancelled or independant system both missile ( Blue Streak/Steel? ) and TSR2 aircraft as a condition of getting Polaris for the sub sea weapon. Even the submarines were copies of American designs.

    Strangely the older systems were never called back when they were upgraded, the warheads for the French and UK sytems were meant to be made locally to get around the nuclear proliferation treaties.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 7:06pm on 20 Jan 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    #35 continued

    It works the other way as well. As a jury member on another case, we'd heard the evidence against the defendant and most of the defence. It was very clear the defendant was guilty. After lunch break, the defence suddenly came up with an objection to the way one witness had been questioned. It was a technicality, and a very minor technicality. After deliberation for about an hour, the judge agreed. We were directed by the judge to return a verdict of not guilty, even though every single member of the jury thought otherwise. We were outraged, but had no choice.

    A man about 25 years old walked free that day with a clear record, and the offence - sexual relations with an 11 year old.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 7:12pm on 20 Jan 2010, outside wrote:

    The grandmother campaigning for more rights is overlooking something.

    After spending two years and thousands of pounds we didn't have, last year we got an order of no contact against my step sons psychopathic father who, along with his mother, had made our lives a misery for some years and had endangered the safety and welbeing of my stepson. Now we have to do the same thing to protect him from his grandmother.

    Parents know best, not the state. Because of the court action I have to find thousands of pounds to protect my child from someone he doesn't need to see. If I don't think my kids should see my parents then that is my decision!

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 7:14pm on 20 Jan 2010, Lepus_Madidus wrote:

    #25, Sid, I'll try and take it onboard, but talking to someone about my pre-xmas car accident with someone that was hit by a motorcycle passing on the inside as they were undertaking in the cycle lane as they were turning left into their drive way, both of them made counter claims. The accident I was in, the car behind drove into the back of me at a junction.

    Perhaps bullying is localised, but groups of teens against householders in the middle of the night looks like bullying to me.

    We do live in age where none of us are ever responsible for our own actions and there's always an excuse or two to be wheeled out.

    Sid, I'll try and look for some positives in my day's worth of volunteering between now and the weekend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 7:26pm on 20 Jan 2010, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @ Anne P #17
    "...should someone not have spotted that she needed help long before she made the second attempt."

    Maybe she didn't really need help. Maybe she did the right thing and acted humanely - but not legally.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 8:10pm on 20 Jan 2010, Michael Robinson wrote:

    Contact with grandparents.
    I am a Solicitor-but please read on! Your piece today was very annoying. The suggestion made was that enforced mediation and a legally binding agreement was better than the legal route in relation to contact. 1) How do you force anyone to take part in mediation? Do you cause a woman or man who has been abused to sit with their abuser to come to a mediated agreement? How successful is mediation now? How does a party know the agreement reached is appropriate? 2) How do you enforce compliance with the agreement? What's the penalty for non-compliance?

    Grandparents seeking leave in the experience of my firm were never refused leave. It is a pointless step for grandparents but it was not a real obstacle.
    The application to the Court made by a grandparent is to cause the Court to give effect to the child's right to have contact with a grandparent. Not applying to Court allows the control freak parent who is stopping contact to win. The lies that children may be told may be believed. " Why did you not try to see me Nana?" might be a hard question to answer in later life. All those missed years and experiences together! Oh what could have been!?

    The "legal route" involves trying to reach a consensus before court action is taken. Court action is the last resort. Court action may well be required to enforce the child's rights-but only if the grandparent wishs to pursue that path. The child would be protected by a Guardian /CAFCASS/ the Judge.

    You rarely report on the many sucessful family court cases and perpetuate the myth that the family court fails children and is a horrible, nasty experience for children and others who participate in it. Given that the media can access family cases one would have thought balanced reporting was now possible. Grandparents should adopt the legal route, if necessary, to enforce the right of the child to see the grandparent. Not to do so deprives a grandchild of his or her grandparents-and that is a wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 8:15pm on 20 Jan 2010, melly wrote:

    More on the estranged grandparents matter please. it is hugely important and my beautiful grandchildren, their father, their grandfather and I have suffered their absence for 3.5 years now. We miss them everyday, think about and love them all the time and will never give up hope that we will be reunited sometime. it wasn't their choice to rupture these bonds or lose their loving relationships and one cannot wonder if they are not very confused by the abrupt cessation of primary relationships. They were 3.5 and 2 at the time of seperation - they are now 7 & 5 - how could they possibly understand? They live very near us but their mother is determined to punish their father, them and us, their grandparents, for some infraction that none of us understand. About time the courts did something about this & the family courts stopped colluding with such viciousness. How dare one parent feel they have the right to deny their children love from members of the extended family? It has to stop.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 8:27pm on 20 Jan 2010, Michael Robinson wrote:

    Apparently running down a street to batter someone with a cricket bat is something to be applauded, because the person battered has just committed a crime and has a history of committing crime?!
    So If tomorrow morning I am driving to work and a yob wearing a hoody and playing really loud techno bass, in an uninsured car, crashes into me am I at liberty (because I am angry and fearful for the injury i may have been caused) to strike him about his head with the shovel I happen to have in my car because I needed it because of the snow? What wrong has to be done to me by what type (ie class and character) of person to justify my violent reaction?
    I can defend my house. I can defend myself. I can defend my family. Defending oneself or one's property or one's family does not include chasing after a bloke with a cricket bat and hitting him about the head.
    Will the burglar get compensation? I doubt it very much due to the circumstances and his character and the terms of the CICA scheme.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 8:44pm on 20 Jan 2010, elcej wrote:

    I am disappointed with the sympathy provided to the son of Munir Hussain. Suddenly Mr Hussain ("a businessman") has been given an air of respectability by the BBC. What's all this "how are the family coping" questioning. The guy beat someone so badly that he gave him brain damage. By giving him respectability the BBC seems to support vigilantism

    (5)newlach wrote: "Criminals must be dealt with firmly by the justice system and not allowed to walk free and commit more crime." I think this sums it up really. It is for the justice system to deal with criminals; not vigilantes

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 10:27pm on 20 Jan 2010, funnyJoedunn wrote:

    It would have been good to hear something from the editor tonight on a couple of these controversial issues and how they have been reported. I would like to know why it wasn't put to the Hussein family member that his father had been convicted of a seriuos criminal offence when he cited that they acted in self defence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 11:11pm on 20 Jan 2010, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    Brecht revised the play (Mother Courage) for this (Berlin) production in reaction to the reviews of the Zürich production, which empathized with the "heart-rending vitality of all maternal creatures." Even so, he wrote that the Berlin audience failed to see Mother Courage's crimes and participation in the war and focused on her suffering instead.

    Thus, Wikpedia.

    In a week when two more Britsh soldiers have died, inthe light of the London production of Mother Courage we have to ask whether our society is too full of mothers who glorify in the deaths of their children in war, thus making it easier for unscrupulous politicians (which our war mongers are)to go to war.

    The conflict between the US and Al Qieda was always in part a struggle for the privelege oil brings - to families like the Bushes and to Kuwaiti elites.

    Now, the people under arms (see today's Guardian article about offering land and jobs to Taliban fighters, the young men of their villages) in Afghanistan and the poor escaping unemployment here, are killing each other so that others might live in luxury.

    We MUST point this out now to the families who are sacrificing their children in this way.

    Something surely for Nigel to get his teeth into.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 11:31pm on 20 Jan 2010, Sindy wrote:

    Don't be a wimp. EtE - do it yourself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 00:08am on 21 Jan 2010, outside wrote:


    I'm sure not seeing your grandchildren is tough, but what aboiut my case. The grandmother presents a real danger to my step son (see #38), a danger that has been noted by the authorities. Yet to protect him I now have to finance another legal case ( I'm self employed and legal aid don't want to know).

    There are three issues getting mixed up

    1) the right for parents to bring up kids as they see fit
    2) the right for grandparents to see their grandkids
    3) the right of kids to see there extended family

    In order
    1) an important right, that should not be infringed by the state
    2) irrelevent. Only the childs welfare matters
    3) Dubious, plenty of kids either have no grandparents or don't see them and are apparently unharmed. If the parents find Grandparents conduct unacceptable then they should be free to withold conact for the benefit of the kids. If the parents are doing it to score points, well shame on them, but there are plenty of other examples of bad parenting that don't require court action!

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 00:40am on 21 Jan 2010, T8-eh-T8 wrote:

    Re: The Grandparents rights of access to Grandchildren

    There is a very simple premise here, the Grandparents have no rights. They also have no responsibilities, aside from where arrangements are made.

    There are many and varied reasons why a marriage may break down. These are no business of the Grandparents, even where this information is volunteered to them, it is still not their business. They can never actually know the intimacies and ongoings between a man and wife, regardless of how much they may protest otherwise. They may not have been informed of their adulterous son being the real reason for the failure of the marriage, or that their darling daughter flew into violent and abusive rages which her husband could no longer cope with. It is the prerogative of the parents how to live their lives and care for their children. The Grandparents have no option but to allow their children to make their own mistakes.

    It may not be fair in their eyes. But just as children may be casualties of divorce, so are other members of the family. The breakdown of a marriage can be a traumatic and destructive affair, without inviting four additional opinions, possibly blinded by their love for their own child, to hold some kind of legal right.

    As much as it may suck, the only option open is for Grandparents to be around for when the children are able to make their own decisions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 00:53am on 21 Jan 2010, outside wrote:

    #49 A fair analysis, except this 'please everybody' government gave granparents rights to access. It now seems the opposition are of the same mind. I feel like forming the 'get the government out of our lives' party

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 12:55pm on 21 Jan 2010, StratoNimbus wrote:

    Can't remember if this item was on last night's PM or earlier in the week. I heard an item on PM whereby the Scottish police force were asking for Buckfast Wine to be banned as it was implicated in several crime incidents. I've never personally heard a item on the BBC News where Buckfast Wine has been implicated in a crime incident. I have however heard of many crime incidents that have implicated baseball bats and cars. Perhaps we should ban baseball and cars too to cut down on crime!?!?!?

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 1:21pm on 21 Jan 2010, Michael Robinson wrote:

    This is what a Court considers as far as an application for leave to apply for an order is concerned:

    "Where the person applying for leave to make an application for a section 8 order is not the child concerned, the court shall, in deciding whether or not to grant leave, have particular regard to— .
    (a) the nature of the proposed application for the section 8 order; .
    (b) the applicant’s connection with the child; .
    (c) any risk there might be of that proposed application disrupting the child’s life to such an extent that he would be harmed by it".

    The application for a section 8 order (one of contact or residence)is to enforce the child's rights to see a grandparent. The Government haven't given grandparents any extra rights at all.

    As for legal aid, it is only available to those who satisfy the means test and the interests of justice test. The Government is restricting access to Justice by restricting access to legal aid on a daily basis. Apparently the country can only afford to bail out banks and fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    It is a matter for grandparents whether or not they take the legal route to enforce the child's rights or not. To advise grandparents, however, not to take the legal route and to try some alternative is, in my view, pretty poor advice. At any stage a grandparent can stop negotiations (always the first step on the legal route) or stop an application for an Order. My advice is take advice from a Solicitor who is a member of the Law Society's Family Law Panel or the Law Society's Children Panel (details of your local legal expert are available from teh Law Society's website) and ignore "support groups".

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS


Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.