Mens Aid NI

Mens Aid NI

Tuesday, 27 July 2010

Equality

Below is a search result for accomodation for male victims of domestic violence.


Search results:

Accommodation type: Any second stage, Any specialist, Domestic violence, Single parents; Accept or target:People with children; Area: Belfast, Derry, North Eastern, South Eastern, Southern, Western; Accept: Any agency, Self referral; Gender: Men only

Sorry, there are no results that match your search criteria shown above. Click on Edit search criteria under Quick links to change or broaden your selection. Check that any text you have typed in is spelt correctly.

Search results:

Accommodation type: Any second stage, Any specialist, Domestic violence, Single parents; Accept or target:People with children; Area: Belfast, Derry, North Eastern, South Eastern, Southern, Western; Accept: Any agency, Self referral; Gender: Will accept men

Your search returned 3 records.




NameType
FHA&SS - Shepherds View Young Parents Project
Tel 028 7134 4309
Area(s): Derry
Medium support
SATH
Tel 028 7138 3098
Area(s): Strabane
Medium support
SL-eight Project
Tel 028 8225 9000
Area(s): Omagh
Medium support

Equality??

Below is a search result for accomodation for female victims of domestic violence.



Search results:

Accommodation type: Any second stage, Any specialist, Domestic violence; Accept or target: People with children; Area: Belfast, Derry, North Eastern, South Eastern, Southern, Western; Accept: Any agency, Self referral;Gender: Women only

Your search returned 13 records.




NameType
Belfast and Lisburn Women's Aid
Tel 028 9066 6049
Area(s): Belfast, Lisburn
Domestic violence
Causeway Women's Aid
Tel 028 7035 8999
Area(s): Coleraine
Domestic violence
Cithrah Foundation - Selah Accommodation Service
Tel 028 9336 3188
Area(s): Carrickfergus
Domestic violence
Cookstown and Dungannon Women's Aid
Tel 028 8676 9300
Area(s): Cookstown, Dungannon
Domestic violence
Craigavon and Banbridge Women's Aid
Tel 028 3836 2777 or 028 3834 3256
Area(s): Banbridge, Craigavon
Domestic violence
Fermanagh Women's Aid
Tel 028 6632 8898
Area(s): Fermanagh
Domestic violence
Foyle Women's Aid
Tel 028 7134 4499
Area(s): Derry
Domestic violence
Life House - Belfast
Tel 01926 421587
Area(s): Belfast
Single parents
Newry. Mourne, S. Down and S. Armagh Women's Aid
Tel 028 3025 0765
Area(s): Newry & Mourne
Domestic violence
North Down and Ards Women's Aid
Tel 028 9127 3196
Area(s): Ards, North Down
Domestic violence
Omagh Women's Aid
Tel 028 8224 1414
Area(s): Omagh
Domestic violence
Sydenham House
Tel 028 9065 6444
Area(s): Belfast
Domestic violence
Women's Aid ABCLN
Tel 028 2563 2136
Area(s): Antrim, Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Larne, Newtownabbey
Domestic violence

Saturday, 24 July 2010

Fw: Response to your emails - male victims of domestic violence

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device


From: "McGarrity, Naomhin" <Naomhin.McGarrity@dhsspsni.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:15:39 +0100
To: 'pete.morris74@googlemail.com'<pete.morris74@googlemail.com>
Cc: McIlhone, Marian<Marian.McIlhone@dhsspsni.gov.uk>
Subject: Response to your emails - male victims of domestic violence

Pete
 
Thank you for your two e mails relating to my letter issued on 21st July 2010.
 
I agree that a meeting between your organisation and officials with responsibility for delivering the Domestic Violence Strategy would be a useful way of addressing the issues you have raised regarding male victims.
 
Please forward some dates and times of when this would suit you and I will arrange.
 
Regards
 
Naomhin McGarrity
 
 
NaomhĆ­n McGarrity
Domestic & Sexual Violence Unit
Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
D3 Castle Buildings
Stormont Estate
Belfast
BT4 3SQ
 
Internal: 89607
Tel:        028 9076 5607
Email:   naomhin.mcgarrity@dhsspsni.gov.uk
 
 

Friday, 9 July 2010

Domestic Violence - abusive woman

Battered Husbands

Domestic Violence Against Men

Domestic violence and social services

nps7AA3.tmp.pdf - Google Docs

nps7AA3.tmp.pdf - Google Docs

nps7AA3.tmp.pdf - Google Docs

nps7AA3.tmp.pdf - Google Docs

0092065.pdf - Powered by Google Docs

0092065.pdf - Powered by Google Docs

Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2008/09 Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2008/09 - Powered by Google Docs

Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2008/09 Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2008/09 - Powered by Google Docs

Microsoft Word - PartnerabuseinEnglandWalesScotlandJan10.doc - Powered by Google Docs

Microsoft Word - PartnerabuseinEnglandWalesScotlandJan10.doc - Powered by Google Docs

npsA20F.tmp.pdf - Google Docs

npsA20F.tmp.pdf - Google Docs

Thursday, 8 July 2010

Accused told gardaĆ­ she helped bury husband

A murder trial has heard that a woman accused of murder told gardaĆ­ she saw her husband being killed, that she hit him herself, and she helped to bury him in a shallow grave.

Vera McGrath and her former son in law, Colin Pinder both deny the murder of Brian McGrath in 1987.

The court has been hearing statements given by Vera McGrath to gardaĆ­ in November 1993.

Advertisement

On the night Brian McGrath was killed, she said she told her daughter, Veronica, and Colin Pinder that her husband was still fighting with her and she wished he was dead.

She said Colin Pinder said he had the very thing and took a silver bar out of a wardrobe.

Mrs McGrath said Mr Pinder told them they would all have to agree on it and they all shook hands on this.

Mrs McGrath said Colin Pinder hit Brian McGrath outside the McGrath house at Lower Coole.

She said he kept repeating that she would have to hit him as well. She said she hit her husband as he was lying on the ground.

Mrs McGrath said she saw Colin Pinder hit her husband with a slash-hook a number of times and then told her 'it's all over'.

She said he told Veronica he did it for her because he loved her.

Mrs McGrath said the three of them dragged her husband to the top of the field and buried him in a shallow grave.

Some weeks later she said they burned his body. Mrs McGrath said she and Veronica helped Colin Pinder by banging on the body with shovels.

On 19 November 1993, the court heard, Vera McGrath went back to the house at Coole and pointed out various locations to investigating gardaĆ­.

After being cautioned she said: 'It doesn't matter now, anyhow.'

During her statement, she described her husband running down a lane to a ditch and said to gardai 'didn't he nearly make it?'

The trial continues tomorrow.

Wednesday, 7 July 2010

Football initiated DV

As communities plan World Cup 2010 parties and pubs prepare for record business, campaigners and support workers are warning about a rise in domestic violence.

During the 2006 football World Cup in Germany, social scientists noted a significantly increased trend towards marital and relationship tension, domestic violence and divorce in the aftermath of the competition.

As the 2010 tournament gets under way in South Africa, watched by 2.4 billion people across the world, including millions in the UK - and especially England - NGOs like the Stepping Stones Spurgeons Family Support Project in Small Heath, Birmingham, are prepared to give support to those who do not hit the newspaper headlines - including frightened women and children on the receiving end of violence.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has reported that violence in the home increased by an average of 25 per cent on England match days during the last World Cup.

Annually, reported rates of domestic abuse in Birmingham are among the highest in the country, points outs Stepping Stones manager, Jeanette Mulcare.

"The World Cup should be a time for celebration and fun, not fear," she declared.

During the past two seasons, football authorities and fan groups in the UK, through 'Kick It Out' campaigns, have encouraged awareness and response to violence against women in particular, and other kinds of bigotry and racism that can creep into the game.

Ms Mulcare has pioneered the 'Freedom' Programme in Birmingham, Britain's second largest city. This is a community based training and education course for women, delivered by Stepping Stones Spurgeons.

Those taking part gain a better understanding about both the myths and the true dynamics of abuse, she says.

The programme also provides access to other specialist support agencies and empowers women to make positive and informed choices. It is delivered at all times of the year, not just during football's international showcase.

"It gives women the chance to see they are not the only ones it happens to and that it is not their fault," says Ms Mulcare.

Stepping Stones Spurgeons launched the programme almost three years ago when Ms Mulcare recognised abuse as a major factor for four out of five families referred to the project.

The Birmingham Safety Partnership 2008's monitoring suggests that each year some 26,000 women will be affected by a significant incident involving violence, and 33,000 children will have witnessed one.

There are Spurgeons children's centres and family support projects across England. All work with families who have experienced domestic violence.

Meanwhile, Relate and other counselling organisations are prepared for clients who may be under relationship pressure over the summer.

They say that the media is talking up a supposed 'World Cup factor' in divorce somewhat.

Publicity has been galvanised by celebrity former 'WAG' and singing star Cheryl Cole, who has announced that she will be throwing a 'divorce party' during the 2010 World Cup after the high profile end of her marriage to her cheating husband Ashley Cole, the Chelsea football star - who is out in South Africa with Fabio Capello's England squad.

England takes on the USA in their first match on Saturday 12 June.

[Ekk/3]

Advertising Campaign

Please visit link to watch another sexist video purporting the male to be the offender.



An advertising campaign is being launched to raise awareness of domestic violence in teenage relationships.

The adverts will target boys and girls aged 13 to 18, urging them not to use violence against their girlfriends.

The £2m TV, radio, internet and poster campaign is part of a government strategy announced last year to reduce violence against women and girls.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said it was essential to change attitudes in order to stop abuse against females.

He said: "We want to see young people in safe and happy relationships and this means tackling attitudes towards abuse at an early age, before patterns of violence can occur.

"We hope this campaign will help teenagers to recognise the signs of abuse and equip them with the knowledge and confidence to seek help, as well as understanding the consequences of being abusive or controlling in a relationship."

Controlling behaviour

The campaign follows research by the NSPCC.

The study suggested a quarter of girls aged 13 to 17 had experienced physical violence from a boyfriend and a third had been pressured into sexual acts they did not want.

It's a message I fundamentally believe in, and it's what most of my films have been about - finding another way of leading your life
Shane Meadows
Film director

The children's charity said it was alarmed by the number of young people who viewed abuse in relationships as normal.

Diana Sutton of the NSPCC said she hoped the campaign would encourage teenagers to come together to tackle the problem.

"Many teenagers perhaps don't talk to their parents and maybe it's not that comfortable to talk to a teacher," she said.

"So any initiative like this that reaches out and gets them to talk about it amongst their peer group will be very important, and really say it's absolutely not appropriate to punch, or hit, or slap, or pressure your partner into early sex."

One version of the advert shows two teenagers lying on a bed watching television.

When the girl gets a text message from a friend the boy dislikes he loses his temper, throwing her phone to the floor and grabbing her by the hair.

'Powerful lesson'

The TV advert's award-winning director Shane Meadows said he wanted to highlight the problem of emotional violence, including verbal insults and controlling behaviour such as monitoring text messages.

"It's a message I fundamentally believe in, and it's what most of my films have been about - finding another way of leading your life. It's a very powerful and valuable lesson," he said.

Christine Barter from Bristol University, who led the study, said long-term intervention in schools was also needed.

"[They need] to look at what is happening in peoples' relationships, to say to them, 'This is a serious issue, we do take your relationship seriously, we take the concerns you have in those relationships seriously'.... to challenge the violence and intimidation and control that is in those teenage relationships as it is in adult relationships."

Psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos said the extent and pervasiveness of abuse outlined in the report were "quite startling".

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme many girls had an expectation that "boys will be boys" and violence would happen anyway.

"It is very interesting, the way it happens. It's much more about mind control. Through the language used, 'He doesn't allow me to do this, he wouldn't like me doing this'.

"It's as if the boy speaking to them like this is a way of them valuing them. As if they think, 'He cares enough to be jealous', and that is what is particularly worrying."


Monday, 5 July 2010

RFFJ Delegation present MensAid NI Business Plan at Stormont

Last week members of Rffj Northern Ireland branch attended a reception at Stormont, hosted by the Health Committee.

This was to discuss discrimination and misandrist policies, allocation of government funds to victims of domestic violence, currently less than 15% of funding goes on services to support men, mostly being anger management, males being victims are conveniently ignored in policy, front line services and funding streams.

Rffj Northern Ireland coordinator Peter Morris presented a business plan to open a Mensaid branch in Northern Ireland, also discussed the possibility of a refuge for male victims of domestic abuse.

After protracted discussions and presentations of research and evidence supported by first hand accounts from Rffj and Mensaid delegates, Health committee officials Dr Deeny and Jim Wells agreed that the lack of provision for men was indeed a sexist policy, they would support future funding for projects helping male victims of domestic abuse, further meetings were planned.

Said Rffj coordinator Peter Morris "Fathers are often the last people that would seek help, many refuse to acknowledge they are victims of domestic violence"

"Recently a guy came to me for support, he had his 3 kids all living in his parents spare room while he was sleeping on the floor"


"He had escaped an ex partner who was often violent towards him and the children after drinking, when he approached the council they told him there was no provision and they could not help him, as he was not the name on the child benefit award as far as they were concerned he had no children and was only entitled to apply for one bedroom accommodation"

"He contacted Women's Aid who told him they do not support male victims, he contacted Refuge and they told him they had no places for men"

"Until his ex partner agrees to change the name on the child benefit award he is stuck in limbo, with no state support or an escape route to a temporary shelter"

"The thing is he is lucky, without his parents supporting him he would be trapped in a violent relationship or on the streets"

"Policy makers and funders must address gender specific services that discriminate against fathers"

"There are over 600,000 stay at home fathers in the UK >Source<, and another 238,000 single fathers with residence of their children>Source<, yet the support is all for mothers"

"I hope by raising these issues here at Stormont it will go some way to opening the eyes of the politicians, as fathers our issues have been brushed under the carpet for too long, it's time laws and policies were changed to reflect the changes in society to give parity to both parents"
http://news.realfathersforjustice.org/index.php?itemid=387

C McDeviit lays out question for answer.

32. Mr C McDevitt (South Belfast)

To ask the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether he has any plans to set up a refuge for male victims of domestic abuse, in line with the equality provision set out in Section 75 and given the lack of such services.

AQW 8229/10

THE DISCARDED PROGRAMME of FAMILY LAW REFORM


Find out here about the family reforms sabotaged by DfES civil servants.

This programme of seminal social reform:

  • was devised and agreed by the judiciary, legal professionals, parenting groups and child development specialists
  • was accepted and funded by the Government in 2003
  • was announced by the Government as its flagship in 2004
  • but was discarded by DFES civil servants - who hoodwinked Ministers - by pretending these reforms were still in progress

The first two documents, set out the formal specifications:

PP - Conf is the 2003 reform submitted to Government - as approved by Ministers but discarded by Whitehall

Project 157 is the 2004 re-submission of that same reform to Government

This 2004 resubmission was made after it transpired that the DfES had thrown away the original 2003 submission (which the DfES was still pretending to work on)

The resubmission, Project 157, was again accepted by Government Ministers, and passed again to the same civil servant, who was again told to get on with it. On 15 July 2004 he again pretended to agree ('Yes Minister') and got rid of the project again - by pretending - again - that this time he was really going to do the job properly ('That was then, this is now'). Then he continued the same pretence. He replaced the agreed reform with something different and, indeed, useless. Meanwhile, as part of this package of deceit, the intended reforms were announced as the basis for the Government's 2005 package - which, of course, had already been killed by his clique within the DfES before it was publicly launched by the rest of the DfES.

Other documents listed under 'History' provide a minute proportion of other official documents recording this tragic farce.

The article below provides a useful summary of events as they unfolded.


CONFIDENTIALITY
- & -
THE SECRET HISTORY of FAMILY LAW REFORM

The ending of confidentiality in the family courts is a welcome forward step. But, of itself, the removal of confidentiality does not alter anything. Its effect is to allow things which are unaltered (the existing legal system) to be observed. Legal process, legal institutions and case outcomes will remain unchanged. In theory, their functioning will be ‘revealed’; in practice, if critics of the system are right, the main observable shift will be from a system which cannot be understood because it cannot be seen, to a system which can be seen – but still cannot be understood , because it borders on the incomprehensible. This vista may in due course provide a basis for a more-informed debate. Eventually the plans announced by Ms Harman might become a prelude to the elaboration of constructive proposals.

Thereafter, perhaps work might start – on a problem which has already been solved.

The seminal reforms, which everyone seeks, have already been devised, agreed, announced, funded - and passed for implementation by the Government in 2003. They still lie fallow.

These same reforms would already have introduced the long-overdue new model for the family courts. These measures, endorsed by the legal profession at senior level and approved by the Government, were killed in Whitehall without Ministerial knowledge. The blueprint remains in existence – fully articulated, fully-costed, fully-detailed and fully-endorsed, with an agreed management team geared to deliver the requisite procedural changes within nine months from start-up.

The suborning of this agreed professional reform is documented, beyond gainsay, in the professional journals; in the broadsheets; in Ministerial correspondence; in judicial pronouncements; in departmental records, letters and email; and in Hansard. Perhaps Ms Harman should be told.

DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITIES

How could a programme of orderly change supported by the High Court judiciary and endorsed by the Government simply ‘go missing’ in Whitehall? The June 2004 Green Paper, Parental Separation, expressly announced these reforms and the underlying principles on which they were based. Parliamentary time was set aside for the Children and Adoption Bill 2005 to enact them.

But, without Ministers knowing, the Green Paper had been subverted before it was published. The Children and Adoption Act 2006, designed to deliver the new procedural machinery, was stillborn. The meaures it was intended to enact had been killed by Whitehall officials three years before.

The history of this misadventure is bound up in the fate of the seminal NATC Early Interventions pilot project. On 8 October 2003 the detailed proposals for this project were submitted to Whitehall, after 8 years in development, on a wave of unprecedented professional support. As recited in Family Law 835 (November 2004) the project had the written approval of the President, High Court Family judiciary, the Family Law Bar Association, leading lawyers, parenting groups and - vitally - the leading child development consultants. It was no surprise that, in October ‘03, the NATC EI project received Ministerial approval from the DCA’s Lord Filkin. The funds to implement this flagship project were located in the DfES. EI was passed to the DfES for implementation.

A DEPARTMENT OUT OF CONTROL ?

In accordance with usual timescales, the inaugural meeting of the DfES Design Team to process the new measures happened some five months later, on 17 March 2004. The Team’s chair was Mavis Maclean CBE. It was at this stage that finely-honed NATC EI template should have been translated into institutional practice.

But, by that stage, the EI reform had already been utterly destroyed. Work on the EI project was stopped before it started. The project was stifled pre-birth. Neither Mavis Maclean nor (with a single exception) anyone else on the Government's Design Team had significant knowledge of the NATC EI project. The Design Team was not told about it. Scrutiny of the 17 March 2004 minutes confirms the NATC Early Interventions project was not mentioned - then or later. Nor was the NATC. Nor was the Early Interventions project. The EI project was never discussed. The Design Team jettisoned 8 years of specialist development work, without being aware of it, starting its labours anew, from scratch, on a blank sheet of paper. On 19 April ‘04 it emerged that the NATC EI documentation had been 'mislaid' by the DfES before the Design Team met. On 29 April ‘04 it transpired that the EI documentation was never read.

Appointments to the DfES Design Team had been on the basis of hand-picked ignorance of the NATC EI principles. But, since EI was then a dominant topic in family law, this meant that those on the DfES Design Team knew little of the practicalities of family law litigation. The Design Team's novices had their work cut out merely to arrive at an approximate understanding of what the existing legal system was – and, in due course, that was re-rolled out, instead, as the finished project. This was the misbegotten Family Resolutions project interposed for EI. Since this new Family Resolutions system was all but an identical to the existing legal system, in proportion as it was rolled out, Family Resolutions disappeared.

NEW ALCHEMY: GOLD INTO BASE METAL

Two officials were involved in the Whitehall process of substitution, one from CAFCASS (a Mr Brian Kirby) and the other a DFES "child protection" specialist (a Mr Bruce Clark). The latter had sole charge of the EI project in Whitehall, within the DfES, during the crucial period from October ‘03 to March ‘04 - when EI went in, and Family Resolutions started to come out. This individual knew nothing of significance about Private Law family law disputes. He assumed that the law was what everyone would like it to be, which is the opposite of what it actually is. To his DfES way of thinking (and he declined advice) it followed that the framework which the NATC EI project would have implemented was already in force. So the EI project was superfluous. And, by the same token, the benefits of the EI project could be announced (without the trouble of actually doing anything) as ground-already-made-good: as a platform on which the other Green Paper proposals could be built. These measures, similarly founded on nothing, have also disappeared along with the DfES flagship of Family Resolutions itself.

Mr Clark applied a well-worn Whitehall adage: ‘It is truth universally acknowledged that the best way to take control of a project is to get rid of anyone who knows anything about it’. In order to achieve this own-goal, Mr Clark dispensed with the EI project originators and anyone who had meaningful involvement with it. He set up the Mavis Maclean's uncomprehending Design Team to have a go at ‘whatever the project was’ in this area. This is a direct quote. He colluded with CAFCASS to swap EI for the Fam Res spoiler wanted by CAFCASS. But ‘Family Resolutions’ was not a project. It existed merely as a two-word name. It was a CAFCASS idea - to start thinking of an idea - to do something. It is probable the Fam Res proposal had not generated one side of A4 prior to its substitution as the official 'reform' project slated for national roll-out.

An awkward problem throughout the process of substitution, from October ‘03 up until the project’s launch and incipient demise as Family Resolutions in September ‘04, was that the approved project was actually EI. For months the lead civil servant, repeatedly put to the point, issued misstatements and false assurances to Ministers and legal professionals that he was still progressing the measures and principles in the NATC EI project. He said that the same project was being carried forward: only the name (‘Family Resolutions’) had been changed. These same assurances were relayed by Ministers to the House and to the Press. Both were misled. The mistake was embodied in the June 2004 Green Paper. Family Resolutions, which was never more than a spoiler, duely sank without trace at the moment of launch. Mr Bruce Clark (who seems to have previously indulged in a similar escapade relating to another family law sector) was later subject to an ‘internal investigation’ by his Permanent Secretary, Sir David Normington, who cleared him of all wrong-doing on 19 September 2005[1].

THE FUTURE ?

The upshot of these events is that both departments – the DCA and the DfES – are now unsighted. When the DCA passed the NATC EI project to the DfES in late 2003, it relinquished control over proposals to remodel the family court system – so much so, that DCA officials have yet to hear, for instance, that Family Resolutions has failed. For three years now, the DCA has countered representations on the EI/Fam Res fiasco with the response that it is not worth letting DCA Ministers (for instance, Harriet Harman) know about it. Family court reform is now a DfES responsibility.

But the DfES was never interested in the workings of the family courts. It is not something it knows about. Its officials do know what happened to Fam Res and EI, but to put things right would be to admit that things have gone wrong. The upshot is a ‘closed-ranks’ DfES strategy to prevent the restarting of useful work. Departmental damage-limitation succeeded to the extent that the next DfES Minister (there have been several) had no inkling that anything was wrong until he first presented the Children and Adoption Bill to Parliament on 12 October 2005. He did not know that his Bill had been voided of significance three years before by the DfES destruction of the EI project.

Thereafter, Whitehall-funded research (RR720) on the history of the Family Resolution debacle, conducted by the obliging Professor Trinder, similarly contrived to turn a blind eye. The Constitutional Affairs Committee, which deliberated on Section 8 reforms and the fate of the NATC EI project from Oct ‘04 to February ‘05, was likewise stage-managed by Whitehall staffers. The prime witness (the NATC) was not called. The DfES enterprise to obliterate the prospect of useful change in the family courts engineered by Mr Clark (perhaps inspired principally by ignorance, albeit self imposed) has at this writing been entirely successful.

The problem of ‘what to do next’ is rather delicate. The wheel, after all, has already been invented. There is no pressing need to waste decades, and billions of pounds, trying to re-invent family law reform or tinker at the margins. A modest first step may be to put Harriet Harman in the picture. Everything above will be news to her.

12 October 2006 - Consensus

This history of dire mismanagement is explained away on various conflicting grounds. All are bogus. First, it is said that Fam Res is an ‘adaptation’ of the NATC EI project. This is untrue. The two projects are opposites. Second, that the NATC project was replaced after a period of ‘consideration’. But the EI project was never considered. The papers were merely thrown away. Third, that the EI project was not designed for the British judicature. But it was designed for, by and with, British legal experts and British judges. Fourth, that the EI project never existed. Fifth, an odd red herring, called the ‘Florida project’, is wheeled into uncertain play. But there was no Florida project. And so on.

Total Pageviews