Mr Mills announced he will be backing a call from about 100 Tory MPs, calling for a curb on the power of judges to block deportation of foreign criminals who have family links to Britain but ignores the injustice and inequality faced by fathers in the UK.
Monthly Archives: January 2014
Superheroes 4 Justice
Here’s an invite to a rehearsed reading of my play Superheroes – it would be lovely to see you there if you are free. Tickets go on sale Feb 3rd, See IdeasTap link below. Also more info below and in attachment.
http://ideastap.com/home/takeover
I would very much like to invite you to attend my rehearsed reading of a selection of scenes of SUPERHEROES.
My play began its life in development (after collecting numerous newspaper clippings, reading, contact with New Father’s 4 Justice, my own life experiences and others) with Greyscale Theatre Company at The Bush Theatre.
My full length play recently won an award with IdeasTap along with five other up and coming playwrights to have rehearsed readings at their Takeover Festival.
My slot is, yes St Valentine’s Day, February 14th, Rich Mix, Venue 2, 35-47 Bethnal Green Road, London, E1 6LA from 1.30-3.00.
It’s an exciting subject matter, incredibly not brought to stage before and proves a true comedy/tragedy with great potential for physical theatre and accompanying music.
Synopsis:
‘Sam clambers on top of his ex-roof, Edmond accepts impending doom, Richard viciously winds up his solicitor, Sarah hopes to find a soulmate and heal all men of their disabling ‘well’ and Janice, knitterholic grandmother, joins them to form Superheroes 4 Justice. Clad in Spandex, tights, masks, ropes and capes together they fight the Injustice of Family Justice. Together a family. Together not defeated. Together changing political history. It’s brutal, hilarious, and honest. It’s life. It’s Superheroes.’
I hadn’t expected this project to create so much passion and excitement in others telling me their stories and wanting in any way to be cast or involved or help in making it happen for real.
“Stella Willow’s plays are modest and powerful and deserve our attention.” Simon Usher, Director
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Ghandi
Tony Ashby interviewed by Sonia Poulton on New Years Eve outside David Cameron’s home.
Journalist Sonia Poulton – and a small team – take a New Year’s Eve journey.
First they meet Tony, a family rights campaigner, who has been raising awareness of ‘children stolen by the state’ by camping outside David Cameron’s country home over the Christmas period.
Fathers 4 Justice group in Cornwall graffiti stunt
Nearly seven years on it is still visible near Launceston but it needs a bit of a touch up.
Damaged Parents protest causes stir at courthouse
Martyn Judd’s Story
In the Essex Chronicle
Tim Line found guilty of harassment for telling the truth
Report from http://www.demos4children.com
In the small and out of the way magistrate’s court in Yate, Mr Tim Line was today given a four week sentence suspended for 18 months for warning the public about the poor performance of Mr Adrian Bressington, who represented Tim’s ex-wife during their divorce. Harassment now seems a means of smoothing over serious wrongdoing, with awful consequences, at least where the wrongdoing is by a lawyer. The judge’s directions were the custodial sentence, a restraining order and a fine.
The court heard and saw how Mr Bressington bore sole responsibility for a routine and consensual divorce being protracted for four years, costing both parties tens of thousands of pounds more than necessary. Mr Line demonstrated in his criminal trial how Mr Bressington had lied to the family court in an attempt to smear him.
The court heard and saw how Mr Bressington bore sole responsibility for a routine and consensual divorce being protracted for four years, costing both parties tens of thousands of pounds more than necessary. Mr Line demonstrated in his criminal trial how Mr Bressington had lied to the family court in an attempt to smear him. Further misinformation given to the family court on behalf of his client Mrs Line was not corrected as per the Rules of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. He failed to respond in a timely manner, time and time again, to several letters from Mr Line’s solicitors. He ignored court orders and deadlines. He failed to particularise bills when requested – Mr Line’s family law representatives had said Mr Bressington’s bills were extortionate. As is normally the outcome when family law proceedings involving children are protracted, Mr Line’s daughters were prevented from seeing him by the unilateral contravention of the contact order by their mother. Techniques of alienation were used by their mother to subvert the reporting of at least one of the children so that a no contact order was achieved. Before Mr Bressington began to handle matters of contact, or rather not handle them either at all or very well, the three children were happily seeing their father.
Mr Line tried to obtain remedy for the extra costs caused by delays and additional letters by requesting direction from his own solicitors. They seem to have misinformed him that his only remedy was the Law Society. The Law Society told Mr Line they did not accept complaints about opposing solicitors. Mr Bressington’s own firm Awdry Bailey and Douglas ignored Mr Line’s written complaint to them because he was not a client of theirs. Several complaints by Mr Line’s lawyers over serial non performance and specifically a grave matter of misinforming the court, when that was proven to have happened, were shrugged off and casually dismissed by Awdry Bailey and Douglas. Mr Line avoided the SRA because Mr Bressington sat on its Family Law Panel. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal returned a complaint package containing sworn evidence and all the letters of the case because their procedures had recently changed. Sworn evidence was no longer accepted by this branch of the High Court and the complaint was now ‘on the wrong form.’ The SDT claimed they did not understand the nature of the complaint and stated the matter may be in the ‘wrong jurisdiction.’ That could mean some of the alleged wrongdoing by Mr Bressington was criminal in nature. The SDT allowed no overlap time for complaints to be submitted in the old format.
Apparently, the matter was considered by a single solicitor at the SDT who passed it on to a three man panel in line with normal processing of serious complaints, so it seems at least that solicitor was able to read. For the complaint to have been returned unprocessed seems to suggest that either they did not care to investigate serious allegations against a fellow member of the legal profession or the SDT Panel employs the three wise monkeys as adjudicators.
In Tim’s criminal trial the wrongdoing of Mr Bressington was suppressed by the Crown Prosecution Service under their advancement of his perception of having suffered harassment due to Mr Line having bought the domainwww.adrianbressington.co.uk and directing internet users to a website displaying the details of his case including the SDT complaint evidence bundle, some hundred pages plus in length. Added to the prosecution’s mix was a text message sent by Mr Line to Mr Bressington in 2011 saying he would continue to pursue him in the legal courts. Mr Bressington claimed but presented no proof that a threatening and anonymous email sent to his own website was from Mr Line who denied the communication, saying he much preferred to do things transparently and publicly, perhaps for the very reason that he may then avoid being falsely accused. The judge stated when sentencing that he did not consider the SDT complaint or the text to be harassing or the malicious communication to have come from Mr Line. This left the website as the only source of harassment; so harassment statute has now been extended into the realms of online censorship by a District Judge. I doubt if that was the intent of Parliament and suggest it’s high time harassment statute is reviewed to prevent further abuses by opportunistic judicial activists. The application in this instance of a custodial sentence, a fine, and a restraining order (the site has to be taken down in five days and Mr Line cannot post anywhere about Mr Bressington) as a mix seems excessive to say the least.
Stephen Young, defending Mr Line, conducted a detailed cross examination of his client’s family law case and ensured the court knew the truth of the evidence he presented on the website about Mr Bressington. The court could not have been in any doubt that Mr Bressington, in this case at least, had acted extremely unprofessionally (to say the least) during the Line’s divorce, pocketed far more than he was worth or due, and tried to pocket more. Defence suggested the website may embarrass, irritate or inconvenience Mr Bressington, due to the truths placed upon it, but the intention was not to harass him.
The CPS made excessive and overly repetitive use of toxic adjectives in cross examination to smear Mr Line as ‘vexatious’ and ‘embittered.’ The CPS claimed the sworn evidence he produced was false but did not pursue charges of contempt of court. The CPS also claimed Mr Line had not sought remedy through any official channels, that the SDT had not upheld his complaint, nor had he appealed the orders in the family court ( a different matter entirely) so he had effectively lost his right to take any further action concerning Mr Bressington. In true Kafkaesqque form, the CPS’s weasel-like barrister disingenuously dispensed with the common knowledge that many in the legal profession, perhaps including him, care for nothing more than smoothing over the wrongdoing of their colleagues. Mr Line was smeared as someone who continued a course of harassment after having been warned by the Police that Mr Bressington was ‘harassed’ rather than someone publicising a genuine and legitimate grievance which was extended because Mr Bressington refused to engage in any settlement of the matter.
What again was swept under the carpet was the Police had visited Mr Line with a Duty Solicitor a year or so before they issued the warning and gave him their opinion at that time that the website was not a criminal offence, and they were taking no further action. The Police got back in touch prior to issuing the warning for no reason other than Mr Bressington making persistent complaints and, because he was a solicitor, the Inspector decided to clear the matter off of his books.
In the absence of any effective quality control, consumer awareness or remedy for poor solicitors’ performance, the public is left to the likes of Mr Line to warn them of the extreme potential damage solicitors such as Mr Bressington are able to inflict on clients and opposing litigants. If Mr Bressington were a plumber or other tradesman, he could have starred on Rogue Traders; it would have been quite legal for the BBC to have set him up and film him, to expose his malpractice to the general public as a warning to them, to other traders and assist his victims to obtain compensation. The legal profession, however, is willing to go to extreme lengths such as imposing a criminal record on brave whistleblowers by suppressing logic and elevating selected semantics over others i.e. the judge finding Mr Line guilty of ‘harassment’ instead of his merely causing public embarrassment, inconvenience or irritation for Mr Bressington when universally demonstrating and displaying his mischief. The subjective claims of harassment by one member of a cult within a privileged profession were today upheld by another lawyer sitting on the Bench.
For most of the CPS cross examination, the judge looked bored. It almost seemed he was tired of the tedious and repetitive nature of the CPS lawyer’s attempts to persuade him and browbeat Mr Line into an admission of harassment. Stephen Young had to interject twice to complain to the judge that the agitated CPS lawyer was refusing to allow Mr Line to finish his answers when they did not suit. The judge had simply been watching it happen. He also simply watched on eight occasions when Mr Bressington left the public gallery to have extended whisper conversations in the ear of the CPS barrister.
It’s another nail in the coffin of a healthy society when the State is able to reverse the positions of perpetrator and victim in the service of power when it suits. If this decision today is legal we’ve lost sight of the purpose of the law. It’s become a process to serve the interests of a cult. If the cult wrongs you, you can’t claim you’ve been wronged by their members simply by producing the evidence to the public; their colleagues within dysfunctional regulatory bodies must first uphold your complaints to them. Their opinion matters more than your facts. Without their opinion, which cannot be obtained, you have no protection against them claiming distress when you reveal them for what they are. The law seems to be protecting the wrong people. Today was perhaps another classic example of how we are governed and controlled not by proper adjudication of factual evidence, but perverted perceptions, manufactured storylines and specious narratives.
True to form, Mr Bressington celebrated the conviction. He displayed similar victorious behaviour when Mr Line was issued the no contact order to his children.
Campaigner from Fathers 4 Justice splinter group who set up website harassing solicitor he blamed for losing custody of his children avoids prison
- Tim Line started website after blaming solicitor for four-year divorce
- Line wrote of experiences and encouraged others to do the same
- He has was sentenced to four weeks behind bars suspended for two years
- Was also handed a restraining order and told to pay £480 in costs
A campaigner from a Fathers 4 Justice splinter group who created a website harassing a solicitor has narrowly avoided jail.
Activist Tim Line, 50, started the website after blaming Adrian Bressington for a lengthy four-year divorce battle where he lost custody of his children.
He claimed the solicitor deliberately ‘delayed’ proceedings and on one occasion alleged he neglected to pass messages on to his ex-wife regarding visiting their children.
The father-of-three, of Trowbridge, Wiltshire, set up a website to write of his experiences and encouraged others to do the same, comparing the site to TripAdvisor.
He said: ‘The website is critical yes, but nothing wrong. There are plenty of websites out there that are critical, it’s just like TripAdvisor.
‘I mean TripAdvisor tells the world about crummy service or hotels and it is perfectly allowable.’
Line, who is a member of Real Fathers for Justice – a splinter faction of Fathers 4 Justice – was sentenced to four weeks behind bars, suspended for two years, after he was found guilty of harassment after a judge dubbed the case a ‘deliberate and continued course of conduct’.
He was also handed a restraining order and told to pay £480 in costs.
Sentencing him Deputy District Judge Champion told him: ‘This was a deliberate and continued course of conduct and it was pointed out to you that it was harassment.
Line (left) claimed Mr Bressington (right) deliberately ‘delayed’ proceedings and on one occasion alleged he neglected to pass messages on to his ex-wife regarding visiting their children
‘It crosses the custody threshold because he showed sheer unwillingness and ignored the CPS and the police when they warned him.
‘The nature of the harassment, the person you have harassed, the way you have done it and the fact you have been given every opportunity to stop it before you appeared in court all adds up.
‘I frankly don’t believe what you said about collecting other people to find information.’
North Avon Magistrates Court heard that Line began to target Mr Bressington after his wife went to him asking for help to divorce her partner she alleged was involved in a campaign of domestic abuse
The court heard Line (pictured) began to target Mr Bressington after his wife went to him asking for help to divorce her partner
The court was told Line contested many parts of the divorce – something he avidly denies – including arrangements with his children.
When specialist officers were brought in to speak to his three daughters, however, they all decided they did not want to see Line any more, an outcome he blamed the solicitor for.
Line created the website after becoming involved in a similar site, Solicitors From Hell, which was shut down in March 2012 following a number of successful libel cases against its owner Rick Kordowski.
But despite repeated warnings from police his website could be regarded as harassment, Line continued to maintain and post onto the site.
Speaking after the case Mr Bressington said: ‘He is just acting as if he has done nothing wrong.
‘I just think he has brought the whole thing on himself and it is very regretful that he has done that.
‘His ex-wife came to me alleging domestic abuse, what was I supposed to do, you have to take these cases seriously and I did.’
Line was also handed a restraining order demanding he remove the website and could not post anything on the internet about Mr Bressington ‘which would amount to harassment or encourage or facilitate anyone else to do so’.
New Fathers 4 Justice - Superhero Dads 