Now that the Case Management Order for the so-called Muslim fostering case has been made public, the press has a problem: so much prejudicial drivel was written in the past few days, but the iron code of press intransigence dictates that no-one is permitted to hold their hands up and say sorry. But the judge in the case has ordered a whole series of restrictions on reporting - not that you would know from the Mail.
What the f***'s wrong with a few more days' misinformed Muslim bashing, c***?!? Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay
This is what the CMO told our free and fearless press: “The court has reminded everyone that the general reporting restrictions on reporting public law family cases apply to this case. It is imperative that no information should be published which may, even by way of ‘jigsaw’ information, lead to the identity of the child being disclosed directly or indirectly”.
There was more. “In order to allow this case to progress expeditiously, the names of the mother’s solicitor, the child’s solicitor, the Child’s Guardian, the currently allocated social workers should not be identified in any publication”. And more still.
“The media shall not publish … Any information which will identify the child, the community in which the child lives or the child’s school … Any image of the child … Any image of the foster carers or any information which will identify them … The identity of the child’s solicitor, the Mother’s solicitor, the child’s Guardian or the allocated social workers”.
What was the Mail to do? The obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre had already told readers “Her parents allegedly 'begged' Tower Hamlets Council, where children's services were criticised by Ofsted earlier this year, to allow her to live with her grandmother”, even though we now know the girl’s biological father has not been found - so whoever he is, he wasn’t part of any “begging”.
But now that the CMO has revealed that the girl’s maternal grandparents are of Muslim heritage, although non practising, and the grandmother does not have English as a first language, with court documents having to be translated for her, the Dare doggies are duty bound to about turn. So forget the parents wanting the child to live with grandparents.
Brace yourselves for more headlines like these
Now, it’s “A row over a five-year-old Christian child sent to live with Muslim foster carers took an extraordinary twist last night when it emerged the girl’s grandparents are Muslims … The girl’s mother had claimed her foster care was inappropriate and a Family Court judge ruled she should be allowed to live with her maternal grandmother instead”.
Do go on. “But court documents revealed the grandmother is a non-practising Muslim, does not appear to speak English as her first language and wants to raise the British-born child abroad - against the wishes of the girl’s mother”. Ah, the get-out clause.
Leave aside that the mother has recent cocaine and alcohol issues, and appears to have criminal proceedings outstanding against her. Leave aside “The placement will be subject to a written agreement with the grandmother and the mother in order to safeguard the welfare of the child. The court has today approved the new care plan as it considers this to be in the child’s best interests, the welfare of the child being the courts paramount consideration”. Just keep milking the story. Our free and fearless press, everyone.
So the Mail, for one, will not be dropping this particular bone yet. No change there, then.