Sunday, September 23, 2012

Law Makers: David Norgrove

David Norgrove
David Ronald Norgrove was born on 23 January 1948 in Peckham, London. According to Wikipedia, he was educated at Christ's Hospital School and read Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Exeter College, Oxford. He gained a diploma in Economics at Cambridge University and then studied for a Masters in economics at The London School of Economics.

He worked as an economist at the Treasury from 1972 to 1985 and was private secretary to Margaret Thatcher between 1985 and 1988. Between 1988 and 2004 he held several positions with Marks & Spencer (in January 2004 he was sacked from his role as director of clothing, following disastrous Christmas sales) and in March 2004 he was appointed to the Board of the British Museum.

In 2005 he was appointed first chair of the Pensions Regulator, a post he held until 2010. He was also appointed Chairman of the Low Pay Commission in 2009.

In 2010 he was appointed Chair of the panel that would conduct the Family Justice Review ('FJR'). The rationale for appointing a man with apparently little or no relevant previous experience appears to be contained in the Ministry of Justice's biography of him: "As panel chair he will operate independently and objectively with no preconceptions about the way in which the family justice system currently operates." In other words, he was purposely chosen for his lack of connection with the family justice system.

The Final Report of the FJR was published in November 2011.

He received some criticism after the publication of the Report, including being described as "the man who hated children". His Wikipedia entry referred to above is also clearly biased against him: "However this economist has decided that fathers should not have equal rights to children."

In July 2012 the Government appointed him as the Chair of the new Family Justice Board. He will oversee the Board which is a "key part" of the reforms announced in the Family Justice Review.

9 comments:

  1. "The rationale for appointing a man with apparently little or no relevant previous experience appears to be contained in the Ministry of Justice's biography of him: "As panel chair he will operate independently and objectively with no preconceptions about the way in which the family justice system currently operates." In other words, he was purposely chosen for his lack of connection with the family justice system."

    This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

    If that's the rationale, then a garbage collector or football coach or hairdresser might have served just as well, and god knows they would have offered far superior advice than this cretin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I would hope that there was a better reason, but if there was I'm not aware of it, apart from his obvious experience in public service.

      Delete
  2. Come now, let's not be so innocent about this. I'd venture that he was chosen because someone knew they could count on him to regurgitate the age-old status-quo anti-father agenda that your one-time president of the Law Society Martin Mears highlighted so well in his Civitas publication.

    If nobody knows, don't you think there should be a committee set up to investigate the reasons formally? It would be in the public interest to hear the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, let's not forget that the recent cabinet reshuffle has just accidentally bumped off several MPs that were pro shared parenting, Tim Loughton among them.

    And we have someone named Appleby joining the ranks of Beith and Norgrove so as to keep us in the dark ages of broken Britain for another half century.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The game has moved on John. The public is getting smarter. It's no longer duped by those who put everything down by calling it a conspiracy theory. And it's just not very interesting to do this.

    When did you start practicing, by the way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The public is getting smarter."

      But not smart enough to know how to spell "practising".

      :-)

      Delete
  5. No, nor smart enough to know that Queen's English isn't the only English, it appears. Well, off with my head then....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but I find it very hard to take you conspiracy theorists seriously.

      Delete

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.