...... "I was frankly astounded to read your second paragraph. This is the first I have heard of `risk assessment', i.e., assessment of divorcing fathers to determine suitability for fatherhood in the future. How anybody can have come up with this idea is absolutely beyond me. They are not suggesting doing the same for divorcing mothers or divorcing female non-mothers! I should have thought that having had fifty years experience of "Government agents" in all their forms, judicial, Court Welfare Service, Probation Service and Social Workers, nobody would have wanted to go within a mile of Government agents". This is apart from the utter absurdity of the idea. You say it remained on the xxxxxxxxxxxx website for nearly a year. Who put it on there in the first place? I am unaware of what I assume is some kind of internal battle - I assume this from your reference to stopping xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and to xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx being wrongly thought to favour it. I would be interested to know how it got on and what its supposed purpose was to be and who are the promoters. I suggest you e-mail my 24th March letter on to xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx at the e-mail address you give.

As to your further analysis, you are absolutely right that the conceptual infrastructure does not exist or has been subverted. I have seen, for more than twenty years, members of various organisations who seem to think that if only Parliament ordained more clearly or the judges got a lecture on where they were going wrong, the situation would be put right. Most of the judiciary are well aware of what they are doing and perfectly satisfied with the consequences. You would actually have to begin again and you will only be able to begin again when sufficient MPs have been educated into what has been happening. This was a close thing in 1983 when 315 MPs put down an early day motion for investigation into this. The Government fobbed them off with a 1984 Act which only made things worse with the wholehearted co-operation of the controlling element in Campaign for Justice in Divorce virtually all of whom disappeared from activity shortly afterwards. Other organisations have tended to get going for a while and then fade out. I agree that Court secrecy and gagging of dissident opinion does prevent MPs to a considerable extent from having information on what the Courts are doing, until they are involved themselves, and often not then if they have gone to establishment law firms.

With kind regards.