I can’t quite make sense of your criticism of the topic.
We’ve seen the arbitrary overreactions from schools who have been briefed and trained ‘how to spot radicalisation’ treating children mentioning ‘eco-terrorism’ in class as potential victims of terroristic radicalisation. Schools who’s explanation is that they are required to report all instances of the use of such language and treat them with zero tolerance.
Now we learnt hat there is legislation, which you condemn, that might remove children from their parents for similar behaviour without any transparent legal process and your first comment on the subject is to criticise the reporting of such as clickbait because it does not fully capture the complexity of the process of judicial review to your liking.
FTA:
essentially giving courts and law enforcement an absolute free pass to deny the court open access and review of the very intelligence that landed the case before it in the first place. This is a memo designed to create a court system by which Muslim parents will lose their children and won’t even be told why, or have the opportunity to rebut evidence against them, as no evidence need be presented.
This would seem to be the crux. Why are you focusing so immediately on the process of judicial review?
Serious question. I acknowledged your criticism of the legislation (which I imagine implies your contempt for the type of behaviour which the Tories seek to encourage) but can’t quite see why you’ve chosen the ancillary component of the piece, the judicial review process, as a hook upon which to hang the rest of the article as clickbait.
And even if we are to accept your criticism of the article being unclear on the official Judicial review process, I’m not really even sure it constitutes being germane to the central (or even really a tangential) point of Cory’s article…
Please to enlighten me sir.
