Our thanks to Alan for this.
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I think we should write to the court/prosecution regarding her celebration of the common assault perpetrated against Our Dear Leader, Mike Buchanan too. I seem to recall some interesting tweets from her re: Johnny Depp too, which appeared to me to do exactly what this complaint is about specifically. She can have her opinions but surely as a representative of the law, she should conduct herself in public with more tact than encouraging assault and repeatedly expressing views that are contradictory to the spirit of the blind justice our system is supposed to express. May be of some use to flesh out her character generally for this case…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone know of a good feminist lawyer that can advise on section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998?
“Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
(1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
F2(ii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F3(iii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)any [F4article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.”
Advice needed on the issue of; if the intent wasn’t to cause distress or anxiety, why you wouldn’t appeal and provide evidence rather than posting it on twitter / x.
LikeLike
As much as I believe that family court cases should be open and transparent on the judgement, merits etc( along with the usual protection of identity),she has hit the exit ramp on sanity and professionalism. she could have made this a topic for debate in society on the need for reform of the system.
Proudman has obviously gone way beyond the issue of professional conduct. she should have stuck to the facts, made her own opinion( eg take the emotion out of it). Instead she has made what I can see from the limited amount of information a personal attack on another person( something she gets upset about if done to her).
I would say to proudman people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I haven’t forgotten her behaviour in the linked in case( and her apparent depature from the micheal mansfield chambers where she was working). As much as I couldn’t care less that she torpedoed her own career, I do care that she damages the prospects for her clients especially in the life changing impact of family courts…
I’m not sure if she realises( or just doesn’t plain care) that she is part of the problem not the solution.
Interesting to note the guardians comment about judges should not be members of organisations that practice discrimination, yet keep quiet about proudmans membership of a group that does exactly that….
she will likely get off the misconduct charges because they will be afraid of being accused of misgoncy. No doubt the guardian and their ilk will continue their hit pieces in order to” interfere”( and yes I use that term seriously) with the outcome of the judgement..
LikeLike
Poetic justice! If she’s decently, reasonably and fairly punished, which sadly is unlikely. What a rotten shrew!
LikeLike