Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Jemima Khan and Guido Fawkes



Playful banter or reality?

9 comments:

  1. @superinjunct - any progress on lifting that injunction preventing me from revealing your real name, address, and what offences you may have asked your friends and family to take the fall for?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is some news that you don't have. Gloria and Chiwar Musa are being helped by Christopher Booker to get their five children back from Haringey Council's social work vermin who have seized them. Haringey has taken out a superinjunction, needless to say, using tax payers money to do it. The family have promised to return to Africa the moment their children are freed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You can read Booker's account at this link: Free the Haringey Five!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is this the same Christopher Booker who denies climate change is happening? He has one source for the Gloria Musa story and that is Gloria Musa. He failed to attend any of the court hearing regarding Haringay Social Services taking the children into care. The man has about as much credibility as Freddy Patel and about as much concern about child welfare as well. He will deny blood on his hands if it becomes another Baby P or Victoria Climbe case. He's only tolerated at Private Eye because he is part of the furniture (a rather shabby part in an otherwise excellent organ). Frankly he's a cunt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Worried for familiesMay 25, 2011 at 1:42 PM

    @Anonymous (Booker hater) Since defence solicitors hoovered up £5500 without doing anything (including $2000 of Booker's own money) I seriously doubt Booker does not know all there is to know about this case. In my opinion, this is much more worrisome than the silly Ryan Giggs injunction, and we should press for action on the whole babies for money racket.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A social worker, are you, Anonymong? A sad little suburbanite with a pathetic poly degree and a puerile desire for status?

    Don't worry - you just wait until these cuts bite. Then, when you are doing something which I do not have to pay for, will you please remember that I do not have vinegar on my chips and I want the burger well done?

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a rare case of an abusive injunction. It would be interesting to read the open part of the order to see what the judge's reasoning was.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The injunction is clearly wrong, however that doesn't make Booker right. That's the problem with injunctions we don't get the truth. Read what George Monbiot (who isn't above criticism himself) has to say about Booker's armchair journalism
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/13/christopher-booker-misleading
    A key quote from it is:
    In a long and detailed refutation, Judge Bellamy shows that, in July and October 2010, Booker wrote two articles which wildly misrepresented a case before the family courts.

    "Booker had claimed that a couple had sought medical advice for the "faint bruising" they had found on their baby's arm. This, he said "proved to be the start of a nightmare, which led to them being arrested, handcuffed and driven off separately to a police station". He claimed that the couple was being persecuted on the word of a "controversial paediatrician" whom the judge in this case had previously excoriated.

    Here's what Bellamy had to say about these claims:

    "Far from suffering from 'faint bruising', the baby had a spiral fracture to his left humerus (upper arm bone) and six metaphyseal fractures (breaks close to the end of the bone)."

    Tom Cobbly - I'm posting as anonymous, so I have no desire for status. You sound like a snob to me with your
    "A sad little suburbanite with a pathetic poly degree"

    I'm off now for another Mojito on my yacht with JK.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So you are a social worker then? Get all twitchy and upset when someone dares to criticise you.

    Bingo!

    ReplyDelete