A short piece on free speech – just for the fun of it.

Being an avid watcher of all things to do with family separation I am aware of Lucy Reed, a family law barrister by her own description and her blog Pink Tape (pinktape.co.uk). Having read some of what she writes I find that she has, at times, come quite close to an understanding of the difficulties that families face. Sadly this time, she has fallen far short of understanding and worse than that she has had a crack at poking fun at fathers and family separation, something she should perhaps have learned long ago, is not really material to be used in parody or play.

I left a comment on Lucy’s blog this morning, it read –


As a Parenting Co-ordinator and Family Therapist as well as the Director of the Centre for Separated Families, I found your original post about as offensive as you and others found Matt O C’s response.

Don’t poke fun at real life suffering, you may only see a tiny part of it but the wider picture is pretty miserable. It’s not material for fun and games and cheap jibes at spelling mistakes.

The Children Act 1989 is not fit for purpose, it is fairly meaningless as it stands and those of us working with family separation every day, trying to support families to build business arrangements around care and provision for children, need a clear legislative statement about the importance to children of mothers and fathers in their lives.

Liz Trinder may have done a good deal of research in the area but she is a stand point academic who maintains the status quo by interviewing the people that she has already told us make up the majority of separated families in the UK.

Gender Analysis demonstrates that research such as Trinder’s only shows one side of a very complex story. You might think dads who are diligent in their analysis of such research are obsessive. I consider that for these dads, the efforts to unpick the tightly woven mask that has been held in place by the likes of Liz Trinder for too long is the only way that they can survive the sense of loss, bewilderment and injustice that comes from being simply disposed of after family separation.

Whether you love or loathe F4J and their Children4Justice video, they represent a disenfranchised group of parents who are treated abominably in too many cases. The levels of discrimination that are acceptable around fatherhood are appalling in the UK. I hear it in the way that fathers are made fun of, belittled or simply suspected of being weird because they want to spend time with their children. Don’t add to it by using that suffering to have your own little bit of sharp-witted fun.

Cheap jibes at disadvantaged people might make you feel better and pompous responses about the etiquette of debate may ensure that you remain ‘on top’ in the comment thread, but it leaves this reader with a bitter taste. I hoped for better than this from someone I thought might ‘get’ what is really going on.

A few hours later, my comment appears to be still awaiting moderation. Perhaps Lucy is less comfortable in dealing with direct challenges from people who actually work in the family courts than she is in taking pot shots at father’s groups. I found her original comments on the government response to the Family Justice Review to be misleading and rather discriminatory in places but what really struck me was the thinly veiled sneering tone that emanates throughout. It is something that I have encountered time and again in my work with separated families; mothers and their support groups are venerated, whilst fathers and their support groups are airily dismissed as ranting and potentially abusive. Lucy goes down this road very quickly in her latest posts and I was sad to see someone, I had previously considered to be more balanced in her view, emerging as someone with an over inflated ego who is massively out of touch with the reality of family separation.

I differ in many ways on many issues with F4J and I may not support all of their tactics, but I respect the fact that they have verbalised and highlighted the misery that too many families face in this country and that for their supporters, this is the only hope that they have had in too many years. There may be more than a bit of peacock posturing from some of the caped crusaders and a large dash of self publicity at times, but who amongst us does not want to have our voices heard and our words read, particularly when we have lived the experience of family separation and know from personal experience the horrors it can inflict.

I dislike discrimination in all of its forms and from my perspective the pernicious mockery that runs through a lot of commentary about fatherhood issues was showcased in Reed’s latest posts. I am sick and tired of the way in which it is seemingly OK to make derogatory statements about men as fathers. It’s not OK and it’s not funny either. Family separation isn’t a subject for sarcastic sketches and using men’s disadvantage to show how sharp-witted you are? Well that’s not clever and it’s definitely not funny either. I’m all for free speech (though Reed it would appear is not given her selective posts of comments), but sneering at other people’s disadvantage just for the fun of it doesn’t impress me very much at all.

NB. 25.2.2012 At the request of Tom, I add that Lucy Reed has, apparently, published my comment and responded, I was asleep this morning so hadn’t looked, I shall head over now to see what She says.

3.15pm I have read Lucy’s ‘respnse’ to my post, which appears to suggest that the reason my words were not included is that she ‘hasn’t got time to sit around waiting for the next abusive comment’. My comment was not abusive, it was a considered response based upon my experience of working in the family courts. I remain disappointed and Tom, I think you are being somewhat disengenous in your reference to ‘dishonesty’. Lucy appears less concerned with meaningful debate and free speech than perpetuating the notion that anger/bad language/disagreeing with her views equals abuse. A common misconception in the world I work in. People who experience discrimination get angry, sometimes they use bad language, it does not make them bad, mad or dangerous and neither does it make them somehow lesser mortals than the ‘educated’ classes. I respect Lucy’s right to say whatever she wants to, But in saying it out loud, in words, for other people to read or listen to, means that others also have the right to disagree. In the field of family separation, where there are too many people perpetuating an unbalanced view of the realities that face dads after separation, anyone using that to have a bit of fun should be prepared for the response.


  1. Karen,

    Maybe she has bunkered down. My latest is awaiting moderation too. So I’ll post it here, and post your comment above on our blog.

    Take a look at http://www.sharedparentingresearch.info to see how the current system and those working within it are lining their pockets at the expense of the very children they purport to be ‘working in the interests’ of.
    So far as ‘working in the interests of children’ is concerned, take a look at this article:

    and this one for the MoJ admission that they have never monitored outcomes:

    and this one for NAPO trade union guidance alienating fathers:

    and this one for the intended effect of that advice, “Manufacturing Ghost Fathers” research:

    and here for the fraudulent academics whose bilge is soaked up by the socio legal professionals instead of the properly conducted research:

    and here for details of a corrupt and inefficient lawyer:

    and here for how Norgrove misrespresented the Australian experience to the Coalition.

    You want more? Just give me a shout. There’s loads. Somewhere, each of the smart, specious one liners spouted by family law professionals has been dealt with – but still we never hear the end of them.

    The entire family law industry runs on false claims and Lucy, you are either against it, or for it. You can’t have it both ways.

    If you can provide similar evidence to the above that the system and the use of lawyers and judges is appropriate I’ll jump over the fence and join you. But family law is the only legal area where hard evidence is routinely ignored.


  2. Yes, I think Lucy was expecting sympathy for being on the end of Matt’s colourful invective and she simply does not understand that hundreds of thousands of fathers would prefer that each day than to have to battle through the Courts to see one’s own children in a discriminatory and incompetent system.

    Well said Karen!

    My further post is still awaiting approval on her blog from this morning:

    The ‘cab rank rule’ where you pick up your ‘champion’ lawyer to win in the ‘adversarial family law’ courts are primary reasons why children’s needs are abandoned.

    If there is ‘abuse’ then the Police/CPS should be dealing with it in the criminal courts, not a half baked system with no real processes in place to ensure all the evidence is before the Court and the system has a chance of getting it right.

    Kids are already being left in abusive homes by the multitude because mothers are not treated as perpetrators except in extreme circumstances. There is little chance that this present family law system protects any more children than a proper evidence based and properly executed criminal trial system would do. In fact it would protect more children as emotionally abusive (many who are physically abusive) parents who make the most allegations and the wildest would be deterred or found out earlier.

    You are quite correct ‘familoo’ about F4J not allowing any comments they disagree with on their forums/facebook etc – F4J are renowned for their paranoia and inability to take any criticism or debate on their own home ground. However, it does not make their argument wrong.

    I simply don’t believe any lawyer or judge is really interested in children and their parents being treated equally if they do not support a ‘presumption of shared parenting’ in law. This inaction and the ignoring of the need for shared parenting legislation demonstrates a clear prejudice against fathers. Many fine words do not make up for this bias stance against dads.

    Marilyn Stowe & John Bolch who write blogs are in favour of shared parenting laws; I don’t agree with some of their other views but at least they see the need for change and how the present family law system is at the very least perceived by the bulk of the population of this country who are generally reasonable people i.e. a force of discrimination against fathers and failing children


  3. Wonderful article Karen! As usual you deal with the core realities of the subject seriously and with respect, but to many thier idea of the issue is seen as some sort of game of lets poke fun at those crazy dads that fight to see thier kids, and the more they fight the more they are falsely accused of narcissism. Fathers are caught in an absurd dilema, which ever way they turn they cannot win! I am one of those fathers, I have not seen my 9 year old son for 14 months, should I just give up on a son I love more than life itself? Is my love for him to be obliterated on the say-so of a corrupt and biased court? Is that it now, do I just wave goodbye and forget all about him? I am a human being I have feelings I live with them every day of my life, it is hell! I refuse to just go away as if I was just a sperm doner, was that all I was to my son? I think not!

    I am a member of RFFJ not one father there, who has spent his time striving to contact his children, is doing it for his own self gratification or just a joke or a laugh with the lads I can assure you of that. Our motives are simple and direct… WE JUST WANT TO SEE OUR KIDS, is that to much to ask? Many idiots in the media would have you believe that some fathers are going about it in the wrong, scaling towers and climbing on roofs, etc,. let me tell you that we have little choice in the matter! When the law refuses to listen, when the law keeps shifting the goal posts, when the law puposely refuses to even enforce contact orders that it itself made, THEN SOMETHING IS DAMN WELL WRONG WITH THAT LAW! Such is the breakdown and confusion of the present law, many fathers have lost all confidence in it totally. The obvious result, out of sheer frustration and anger, yes we stop the traffic, yes we climb those towers, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT US TO DO, JUST FORGET OUR KIDS? When I fought my 3 year battle through the children’s courts I did it for my son, for love, for the heartbreak I felt in missing him. In all the reports on the case this love was fully acknowledged by all parties, the judge, the lawyers, even the mother. However, this love was seen as worthless and meaningless, it was just a throw away remark to placate me. Just what idea of the word “love” do these judges and lawyers have? Few, so called professionals involved in this issue, seldom talk about that love, yes family love, affection, the instinctive need we fathers have to be there for our kids, why not? The concept has been forgotten, LOVE IS THE REASON WE FATHERS CARRY ON, is this so wrong of us?

    The whole modern idea of fatherhood has changed, the child does not need one it seems, it would seem only the mother can fulfill any meaningful role as parent, I tell you we have gone to far! My own country has let me down, I have lost my pride in this terrible state that sanctions child stealing. Who is to balme for this, it is not me I assure you, it is the fault of our gutless politicians, the brainless wealthy judges, the whole stinking money making racket of the chlldrens courts! Line up you lawyers, get your snout deep in that trough, it matters not that our kids are losing thier fathers, just fight for your client to win, and hang any idea of what the chlild wants, win and win at all costs! Along the way take a big swallow of your pig swill money! Forget about the word “Love”, forget that many fathers out there are grieving and committing suicide because they have lost all hope in seeing the chldren they love. Just forget that the future is going to be a world of families (if that word still has real meaning) without the need for a dad, just mothers, pass the the turkey baster ladies! God what a world we live in! God bless you Elliott my son, I love you, always will.


  4. Perhaps your comment wasn’t published instantly because people are at work and such and don’t just sit around all day moderating their blog comments?

    You really should edit this post to make it very clear that your comment has been published in unedited form and that Ms Reed has responded to it. To leave your snide accusations about free speech up here in that context just makes you appear dishonest.


    1. Thanks Tom, as I am busy too I hadn’t looked today. My piece will stay up though as a record of my concern about the way in which it is all to easy for people to perpetuate their unpleasantness towards men and fathers in their work. As you can see, I am more than happy for anyone to have their say on my blog too. best wishes. kare


  5. You didn’t wait long – I moderated it before I’d even seen your post! I think you were a bit hasty in your criticism of me on that score.


    1. I posted at 10.15am Lucy yesterday and it wasnt up there all day, Tom has just notified me that it is and you have responded. Perhaps I was hasty but It was hugely disappointing to read., I hoped for more. I enjoy your writing but I thought you were way off kilter and dads have too few supporters who really ‘get’ the problems they face.


  6. I’m glad to seek Karen’s post on Lucy’s blog now (over 24 hours later). Not sure why it was delayed until this afternoon while others ‘timed’ later had already been on for quite some time. Perhaps it was the discovery of this wordpress article that prompted it.

    I notice Stu G’s post is still not on Lucy’s blog tho, nothing wrong with it moderation wise surely?


  7. 3.15pm I have read Lucy’s ‘respnse’ to my post, which appears to suggest that the reason my words were not included is that she ‘hasn’t got time to sit around waiting for the next abusive comment’. My comment was not abusive, it was a considered response based upon my experience of working in the family courts. I remain disappointed and Tom, I think you are being somewhat disengenous in your reference to ‘dishonesty’. Lucy appears less concerned with meaningful debate and free speech than perpetuating the notion that anger/bad language/disagreeing with her views equals abuse. A common misconception in the world I work in. People who experience discrimination get angry, sometimes they use bad language, it does not make them bad, mad or dangerous and neither does it make them somehow lesser mortals than the ‘educated’ classes. I respect Lucy’s right to say whatever she wants to, But in saying it out loud, in words, for other people to read or listen to, means that others also have the right to disagree. In the field of family separation, where there are too many people perpetuating an unbalanced view of the realities that face dads after separation, anyone using that to have a bit of fun should be prepared for the response.


  8. Karen,

    Ms Reed finds it uncomfortable being on the wrong side of the argument through self interest that is her bed she has to lie in it. On a more positive note It is interesting to see how balanced the comments are on here Karen, you are the only blog of note that seems to attract such balanced debate.




  9. Posted on Lucy’s blog today but due to “moderation” delays no doubt you’ll read it first here

    3 things:

    Lucy said:
    “I am in favour of a presumption of shared parenting, it’s just that I think such a presumption already exists through case law.”

    Rubbish. With each case “judged on its own merits” there is no caselaw. And like I said before, these low achievers in administrative courts do not know statute, let alone case law.
    For instance, I satisfy every tick in the box to qualify for shared residence. Trusting in the (case) law of every successful relevant application in the Court of Appeal I engineered my life around qualifying before applying. Permission to Appeal refused in the High Court,Refused at Oral Hearing. Reason given; “has no chance of success.” No reason given as to why it had no chance of success and route to Supreme Court blocked because it was vetoed by the Court of Appeal, the very court the Supreme Court is supposed to monitor. I have since observed and Mckenzied others for free, including high profile public law cases, and can reliably say the Court of Appeal is as capricious as the lower courts.

    Nick Langford said:
    “There is ample evidence that lawyers have abused the legal aid system and they have only themselves to blame if some firms which previously relied on legal aid go out of business.”

    Quite right, Nick, as ever. Indeed, in my post containing the links above I include one leading to details of a corrupt and inefficient lawyer but Lucy chose (for legal reasons of course……) to delete the link. Don’t worry Lucy, I pledge to provide you the evidence, boxes of it, if that fool tries to approach you and have links removed. He knows about the information I have on him but he also knows he cannot rely on me being the legal pushover that Rick Kordowski, from Solicitors From Hell was in the civil court. Funny how this lawyer’s details are (thanks to Tim Line, another good dad with nerves of steel) all already all over the web, but another family lawyer protects him.

    Lucy, in all fairness, you probably know (or perhaps care to know) nothing more of the Haigh case other than what LJ Wall would have you believe. It is an absolute disgrace. Her jailing for three years when she met her child by chance and her child called out to her is despicable and a cover up. From what I understand, the injunction forbidding anybody from seeking information about the case from the family etc denies her the right of access, set in a previous House of Lords ruling for any imprisoned person who feels they are victims of an injustice, to an investigative journalist. Very clever. Whether Haigh is guilty (which seems increasingly unlikely, and anyway is not guilty to criminal standards of proof) or not; if this can happen to the guilty it can happen to the innocent too. Good sentiment, but you used the wrong case to make your point. Find another. ‘Spose you’ll delete this too, Lucy?

    I defer to John Levis’s comment to Lucy the family law barrister:

    “Unfortunately, as usual with your profession, the words don’t actually answer my question.”


  10. she describes her blog as a “theraputic escape valve”. the poor thing. surely its groups like F4J who are a theraputic escape valve for parents who have been denied a relationship with their children and vice versa?

    we are talking about loss here and its hard to find the humour or fun element in such tragedies. are the families involved in the “justice for the 96 campaign” fair game too? i think not.

    it smacks of smugness and dare i say it snobbery? i have no doubt that the legal eagles like to let off steam with a few glasses of wine and swap a few war stories. gallows humour may be a defence mechanism but it does not excuse the arrogance and lack of empathy that underpins the said blog.
    Im about to enter the court system inhabited by these people and the fact that my childrens future may be in their hands makes me shudder. soon the CAFCASS circus will be in town and i will have to prove what a good dad i am to a room full of strangers “wishes and feelings” will no doubt be utilised and the sad spectacle of a 9 and 11 year old having to choose between parents awaits.

    its bananas of course and its own little world inhabited by Lucy and her friends that could only have been written by Franz Kafka.


    1. Dermot, I entirely agree with you, it is a Kafkaesque world and I have just retired from the debate on that blog because I realise that we are living in parallel universe and I would rather spend my time doing what I can to help than proving how cool and dandy I am. You are correct about the smugness, I am glad to get out before it suffocated me.

      I hope that with your wits about you and a realistic head you will come out of your encounter with the family court system not only intact but with a relationship with your children. Take heart, all is not lost, you must remain calm and collected and focused. If we can help in any way let me know. We are a tiny team but we will do what we can where we can.



    2. Dermot, some advice for you. If the court gives full residence to the mother the eleven year old can refuse to leave your home and the Police are unlikely to penalise you. Not much the courts will do either. Eleven seems to be the tipping age. CAFCASS are unlikely to properly administer and interpret the wishes and feelings pack and the kids wont know what significance it has on their future.


    3. Dear Dermot.

      You have my sympathies if you are going to Cafcass for interviews with the court reporter. I do not want to discourage you in any way Dermot, but what I have to say here I hope you accept in the spirit it is meant. I have been involved with Cafcass for 3 years now, had I known at the start what thier tactics were and how I would be treated, then I would have gone about things very differently. I am not sure if Karen will allow me to say this, but I shall try. It is imperative that you have some means of recalling what you actually said, verbatim, when at Cafcass interviews, it is quite probable that what you say and what you meant will come across in the report in a whole different way. Opinions will abound in that report on what you say and how you say it, whether you like them or not. Your motives as to why you did things or said things will be surmised upon whether you like it or not. My advice to you is do not be alone with anyone at Cafcass, always take a Mackenzie. You will be told you are not allowed one, ignore it, do not proceed without one. I am not being Mr wise I assure you, but I wish I had someone to tell me what the score was when I started, I was so nieve and well green. Good luck with it all, and my advice to you is listen to Karen, you wont go far wrong. Regards. Paul.


  11. Personally I think using the ‘Haigh’ case as an example of the Courts failures, just assists the judiciary.

    Concentrating on the mass bulk of fathers who are at the mercy of a patently discriminatory system is far more helpful than championing the cause of an extreme and highly destructive mother.

    It merely dilutes our argument for parity in parenting which is supported by the bulk of the population by giving the impression we are suckers for a sob story and parent only focussed (whatever harm that parent has caused to a child).



  12. Just been accused of being misandric and mouthy on the Lucy ball show, when all I was trying to do was be serious with a hint of humour to lighten my meanings and questions, in fact so she didnt take offence, Blow me down thats just what happened, she took offence! It seems to me that Lucy’s blog is so high brow and superior that to make any kind of disagreement with her is to also bruise her ego. If she does’nt like what you say or you suggest to her that the court process is indeed biased against fathers and offer the evidence in writing there and then, she will then edit it, and than ask you to prove your point when in fact thats just what youv’e done! It’s a farce her blog, and slanted to her own bias as a barrister. She has little idea that we fathers, or many of us, have no trust in the law because we have been let down by it to many times, when we try and tell her how, she does’nt want to know. I am quite sincere when I told her that she wants to keep the present system going and she has a vested interest in it that way. I am sorry if you do not agree with me, but that comes from 3 years of grief and heart ache and missing a son that I love dearly. I dont trust that courts as far as I can throw them. I will continue climbing bridges I think. Anger is the logical outcome of injustices, if she or others do not see that, then all I can say is you, they, may lack empathy, I know that Karen has it in truck loads.


  13. i dont want to hog the blog as it were but just wanted to say thank you everyone for your responses. you have helped me before karen re. handovers. i was at my lowest ebb and the outcome? your advice benefited my children.empowered me as a parent and that is good for my children. i have also got PCF and indeed will take that into court with me.

    one last word on my situation. i am not going to mudsling come what may and have no interest in highlighting the things that have happened with my children to any court unless thay demand it and even then i would question why?. i am simply presenting my case with a MCK as mum loves kids i do too can we have some agreement and clarity and get on with parenting them? over to you CAFCASS et al..

    .that was a long last word so apologies!

    having diped my toe in pinktape (what can you say?) I have also heard the horror stories of the legal bandwagon that exploits parents and chidren

    Tonight i spoke with a father who has split up from his wife three years ago. Mum relocated to a town 50 iles away and is now looking at emmigrating to Australia with her new husband a doctor. Dad has had to fight tooth and nail to remain in his sons life. Contact has been frozen to every other weekend as given mums plans increased contact might prove emotionally harming to their son. He is a working class dad who clearly loves his son and it is clear that his son loves him. Mum is a nurse and has had a baby with new dad and wants to go to Australia and erase dad from her sons life.Dad hasnt slept a decent sleep since the bombshell was dropped on him and to date he has spent 9 grand on legal fees and has run out of money.

    he goes to a solicitor who tells him he has a 50/50 chance of blocking the move(reel em in and advised to put fees on a credit card) goes to a MCK who tells him the truth. he has a 20% chance of blocking the move.

    its a sad story. what struck me aside from the ambiguities about our legal friends was how can any society justify the removal of a child from a loving parent when those who initiate that are two well paid and qualified professionals who must alredy have a good quality of life?.

    these are the absurdities and abuses that are happening every day in this country. so what happens if he joins F4j? perhaps his lack of good manners and etiguette will be held up for all the world to see? for ridicule?

    one thing that can’t be ridiculed is his love for his 6 year old son. the same boy who cliung to his dads leg at the end of the last “contact ” and who deserves better.

    .i’m out of my depth here but one thing is for sure. the current system is not good for children or parents. if its broke then fix it.


  14. My latest post is still awaiting moderation on Lucy’s blog although others in support of her views are allowed through:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    March 7th, 2012 @ 9:22 am

    if you are an individual who defends a discriminatory failing system publicly then of course your views will be challenged.
    The Police went through the PACE reforms in the early 80s to try and eradicate systematic discrimination within its ranks. The family justice system needs similar.
    There are many working within the family law system who do not even understand they are practising discrimination on a daily basis because it has become normal for them, institutional discrimination.
    Generally they will promote mothers as the primary carers. They promote mothers as the victims of DV. They will remove children from the presence of a father who has had allegations made against him from mother but will seldom if ever do the similar if there are allegations from the father. They promote the mother care/father pay model. They promote alternate weekends as the ‘norm’ for separated parents. They promote contact centres for fathers on the basis of a mother requiring it. The list goes on….

    Discombobulated Lawyer,
    you really sum up why you and many other lawyers simply do not get it.
    To compare yourself to a nurse/doctor, when you as a lawyer take on cases where your instruction are to remove or minimise the other parents relationship with a child, would be funny if it were not so serious.
    Lawyers are hired guns who don’t care who pays them and the cab rule ensures they take on work where they are clearly working against the child’s interests many times. Doctors/nurses do not do this.
    Adversarial law, cab rank rule has no place in any child focussed family law system as it merely causes delay, increases costs and is wholly detrimental to child welfare.

    Last week I was assisting in 4 different cases:
    3 were LIPs on both sides; the result being that the judges congratulated all the parties after frank but positive discussions in Court and outside on their behaviour and the manner in which they had moved forward.
    These were cases where nonsense and exaggerated allegations of all kinds had been made but the Judges/Cafcass were able to speak plainly to the parties without the interference of a lawyer. Orders By Consent were obtained that satisfied all parties (2 were final Orders).
    The 4th case was where the mother was represented by a Legal Aid lawyer and the result being more time in Court with little or no progress, more delay and more cost to the taxpayer. The issues were not dissimilar to the other 3 cases but because the mother was protected behind her representative who came up with all sorts of ridiculous excuses the Judge (one from another case that week) simply put matters off and had it relisted.
    It is this kind of waste of Legal Aid monies and more importantly the ratcheting up of hostilities by a parties Legal Aid represention that causes much of the delay and problems in the family courts.
    If there were a panel consisting of a family judge (only family), psychologist, cafcass or similar make up then most cases involving children would be dealt with far more amicably and productively than having lawyers simply champion their clients cause whatever the consequences to children.
    Of course this would need the backing of a presumption of shared parenting in legislation to make it work far better for more children.


    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    March 8th, 2012 @ 9:13 am

    not sure why my post is still on moderation when other peoples posts are coming through.
    It seems when there are informed posts by those who work in the family court system who disagree with your views such as Karen Woodall, they are held up or not allowed to air on your blog. I am hoping I am wrong.


  15. Response:

    March 8th, 2012 @ 9:26 am
    Chambers – Yours is on hold because I wanted to respond to it and haven’t had time. Am in court today. Stop being paranoid – It’s not a conspiracy. I like to respond at the time I moderate or I forget. Got to go…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s