send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Thursday, 5 December 2013


The High Court just threw out Essex County Council's attempt to prevent Alessandra Pacchieri from being identified....a great day for British justice and a slap in the face for the repulsive Judge Mostyn. 
It was Mostyn who allowed Essex County Council to treat Miss Paccieri in a way the Chinese Government might consider a step too far.

This case is not the usual Hornet territory, but it resonates by showing what happens to a council with corrupt leadership. 
In the case of Essex, a crook like Lord Hanningfield.
This leader survived for years by surrounding himself with sycophantic and equally rotten fellow councillors. 
It reinforces the adage that a fish rots from the head.
But, it also reminds the Dame of the late Baroness Ritchie. 
Shireen ran Social Services with care and compassion. 
Yes, the Dame was harsh with Shireen over triple jobbing, but she would never have allowed officers to behave as Essex has. 
The reputation of Essex,already in tatters over the crooked activities of its former leader and officers, is now taking yet another battering.
Anyway, this exchange between one of the Dame's people and the Essex CC Cabinet member responsible for Alessandra says it all.... 

"I am not sufficiently briefed on the minutiae of this case"
Can you believe it? 
A Cabinet member not being cognisant of the most basic facts of the case! 
Like Pooter, Aldridge and fellow councillors, like to swan around in high end motors with personalised number plates...
Very Essex!

Dear Cllr Aldridge

Why did you not hire an ambulance plane and transport the lady back to Italy:a simple, expedient and compassionate solution. 
She and her unborn child were the responsibility of the Italian authorities and the extended family. Had you done this you would have exercised common sense and kindness.

You infer that the Court of Protection was somehow behind the appointment of Sir James.....
This is NOT the case. Sir James was concerned about the role of the Council and as President of the Family Division exercised his authority over the Court of Protection. And, as you also know full well, this highly regarded judge has grave misgivings about the role of social workers in such cases. 
My facts are correct in this matter: I happen to know a senior Family Division judge.

So, in essence there are two questions, one relevant to this case and the other to satisfy my curiosity.

1. What prevented your from returning the lady to her homeland
2. How on earth did you all not realise, that in the dreadful Hanningfield, you had a crook for a leader...

Dear xxxxxxx
I am not sufficiently briefed on the minutiae of this case to answer your specific enquiry. I hope that the reasons will become clear when reporting restrictions are lifted by the Courts.

Kind regards

John Aldridge CC


  1. Thank goodness we here at K&C now have a leader with clean hands

  2. There's the issue of a 20 year old waste management cartel, still to be addressed.


Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.