John,You are a naughty boy! :)As it happens, I do think we need another Review, with people on the panel who have experienced the system; I do think that makes a great deal of sense :)I would say though that the current review is well meaning, although painfully limited in its scope, which is a shame.But there is always room for progress. These are sexy times, John.*Kissy*
This Review isn't even finished, and you're calling for another one??? Seriously, I agree it was too limited in scope, but I don't agree with people calling for continual reviews until they get their own way.Sexy? Not quite how I'd put it...;-)
... I also can't see how 'people who use the system' can be on a review panel, as their direct experience would be so limited. After all, one only 'uses' the system for one's own case. The views of users can be taken into account in a consultation, as has happened with the FJR.
The current crop of FJR panellists are as likely to vote for sweeping reform as turkeys are to vote for Christmas.Does anyone, other than those who profit from family law, have faith in Norgrove and co?
I guess if they don't agree with you, then you won't have faith in them...
People have been demanding a review for a very long time, long before the current one was devised. It is obvious that Norgrove's is not the review they were demanding. The remit is very narrow, and even the Government admits it is 'independently chaired', acknowledging that Norgrove himself is the only member of the committee who is not part of the family justice establishment.No one is suggesting that the panel should be made up of randomly selected people who happen to have taken a case through the courts, but to suggest that there should be no representation at panel level from those who use and pay for the system is bizarre. If you want to improve a product you consult the consumer.Hemming has considerable support - some from unexpected quarters - and I wish him well.
Only 6 signatures since April?
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or* They breach court reporting rules; or* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).Please also note that I am unable to give advice.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.