Example of a dialogue between a constituent and his MP

on his concerns about family law


In order to illustrate the representation available from an MP, we provide an example of a dialogue about the whole area of matrimonial and family law. This is between Barry Worrall and his MP, Jim Cousins (Newcastle Central). Barry, having moved home in July 2004, placing him in Jim Cousins' constituency. The entire dialogue is provided, in chronological order, so that you may follow it, and understand the level of service provided by the MP, and the level of democracy we have in the UK.


It is worth noting some aspects of this dialogue :

As well as noting the nature of the responses from the MP, which we comment on letter by letter, we will note when there is not yet a response.


We present the facts as we are aware of them. It may be that the MP has taken steps, of which we are not aware.


26 Nov 2004


Barry Worrall enquires about dates of surgeries for his MP Jim Cousins. On Jim Cousins' website, he finds them available on Friday 26 Nov 2004, 1-2pm at Newcastle Civic Centre, which as it happens is just across the road from Barry's office at Northumbria University. That day Barry very briefly outlines his concerns, and promises to send further information in the post, and to meet Jim Cousins at some future date. He writes to Jim later that same day.


26 Nov 2004 [l-MP-JC-01]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,

Matrimonial and family law


After our meeting in your surgery today, I’m sending the enclosed :


a) copy of Restoring Control

b) copy of my recent ebook Without Authority.


As I’ve briefed you on, the situation in this country is very serious.


For an overview of the general situation, please read (a). If you’d like to know what needs to be done, see section 7.4 of this report.


If you’d like to read a real life case history, of my own case, which triggered my concern and my subsequent involvement in men’s rights groups, read (b) Part 3.


I’d like to meet you again in a few weeks to discuss what can be done. Perhaps we can have a meeting outside of your normal surgery sessions.


As I’ve already briefed you on, the current committee of the Dept of Constitutional Affairs activities are totally inadequate to the present situation. The current processes of law making are entirely compromised, as those with vested interests are involved, and The People are almost entirely excluded.


Yours faithfully,

Barry Worrall


7 Dec 2004



Jim appears to be waiting for others to take the initiative, rather than himself or Parliament. However raising the issue with the current Select Committee is a useful step.


?? Dec 2004


Jim writes to Alan Beith, Chair of the Select Committee :



21 Jan 2005


He then writes to me with a reply from Alan Beith :




Jim Cousins sent these further items, even though they are only partly relevant to the issues I had raised. Perhaps he thought they were useful information anyway.





23 Feb 2005


Jim has not addressed the major issues I have raised with him (in section 7.4 of Restoring Control). I then decide to contact Jim again, to ensure that he has read and understood the material he had been sent.


23 Feb 2005 [l-JC-MP-02]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


Matrimonial and family law


Thank you for your letter of 21 Jan 2005 with enclosures.


Last November we had a brief previous meeting at your surgery, and I have sent you copies of :


  1. report Restoring Control

  2. recent ebook Without Authority


I’d like to meet again if that is possible. It would be preferable if beforehand you had time to read (a) and Part 3 of (b) above, but I could take you through the main issues.


At a meeting I’d see it useful to :


  1. explain and clarify what is going on in family law

  2. explore what you would be willing and able to do about this area.


I’d try to do this within an hour, but longer would be better. We only skimmed the surface of one or two issues at your surgery in November. Would you be able to suggest a time and place to discuss what can be done. Perhaps we can have a meeting outside of your normal surgery sessions. I have classes at Northumbria on Friday between 12noon and 3pm, so can’t make your surgery at the Civic Centre at that time.


Yours faithfully,


Barry Worrall


4 Mar 2005



I received this copy letter also at about this time, although it appears very loosely connected with my correspondence.



5 Apr 2005


My letter of 23 Feb 2005 has a reply :



I think that the "large number of things happening at the current time" may relate to the General Election, and I assume that Jim Cousins was working on getting himself re-elected.


?? Apr 2005 [l-JC-MP-03]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


Matrimonial and family law


Following my letter of 23 Feb 2005 with enclosures, and your reply of 5 Apr 2005, as the General Election is over, are you now able to give these issues some time ?


Yours faithfully,

Barry Worrall


28 Jun 2005



6 Jul 2005


And another, when it is unclear which of my correspondence this refers to.



It is odd that Jim Cousins refers to the fact that "there is no legislation in front of Parliament this feeds into", as Parliament is the body that needs to take action on its own initiative, not wait for others. However he appears still not to have addressed any of the major issues I have raised with him (in section 7.4 of Restoring Control). I decide to write again to remind him about the major issues.


19 Jul 2005 [l-JC-MP-04]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


Matrimonial and family law


Thank you for your letter jc/cm/vii/Worrall of 6 July 2005.


There are issues I believe which can be addressed now, without waiting for further legislation (which is not likely to be useful in any event).


Could I have an appointment to discuss these with you at length.


I would also like to discuss the level of democracy we have in this country, and the constitution, as both of these are seriously compromised by the present situation regarding family law, and I’d like you to appreciate how.


So I’d like to discuss with you :


1.      the present situation in family law

2.      democratic control of this

3.      the constitution as it affects this.


I don’t think we can sensibly deal with these issues in less than 2 hours. Do you have a slot available soon ?


Yours faithfully,

Barry Worrall


Aug-Sep 2005


There is now a bit of a break due to Summer holidays etc.



While there has been a 3 month break, and bearing in mind that it is easy to forget the thread of the dialogue in this time, I feel that we are now going round in circles, and that the major issues I had raised (stated clearly in my letter of  26 Nov 2004 with enclosures) have now been lost or forgotten. Note that the initial dialogue started 11 months ago, and that up until the present date, we are not aware of any action that has resulted in any significant remedy on behalf of his constituent.


A comment from a colleague about dealing with Westminster comes to mind : "it's like wading through treacle".


I decide to send a letter reminding Jim Cousins of his obligations as an MP, and in an accompanying letter, document the previous dialogue up to this point in time, and remind him that he has taken no action of which we are aware that has led to any remedies.


19 October 2005 [l-JC-MP-05a]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


My enclosed letter re : matrimonial and family law (also dated 19 Oct 2005)


If I may remind you that The People pay your salary for representing your constituents, and you are supposed to provide representation to any constituent who requests it.


I am both one of The People (who pays your salary) and one of your constituents (who you should be representing and who has asked for representation).


The enclosed letter is now posted on website at www.c-g.org.uk/issues/example-mp, [NB later amended to www.c-g.org.uk/issues/democracy/example-mp-dialogue], and is self explanatory.


If you do not agree with the facts in this letter, please write to me setting down your objections.


I shall also post your reply to the letter on the website, when that arrives, or post a note that you have not replied. This will allow The People and your constituents to assess the level of democracy we have.


Yours faithfully,

Barry Worrall


19 October 2005 [l-JC-MP-05]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


Matrimonial and family law


If I may remind you of the recent communications we have had.


Dec 2004 [should be 26 Nov]

Met you at your Surgery at Newcastle Civic Centre in Dec 2004.

Subsequently sent you a copy of my report Restoring Control and my ebook Without Authority. Both of these refer to further evidence online.

These provide a reasonably comprehensive description of both my own experiences and the general situation in this country.

I also asked for a further meeting to discuss at length what can be done.

7 Dec 2004

You write to me saying "I am happy to meet you again in a few weeks time", mention you intend to take the issues up with the Chair of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee which was then looking into some aspects, but you do not suggest a date for a meeting.

You later copy me a letter you sent to Alan Beith expressing disappointment that his committee would not allow me to present evidence.

Jan 2005

You copy me other correspondence, question to minister, etc, which does not address the major issues which I have raised with you.

4 Mar 2005

Your secretary sends acknowledgement of my request to meet you again.

5 April 2005

You write saying "a large number of things happening at current time" (presumably regarding the general election) and "once things settle down and I have had time to return to these issues perhaps we could meet again to discuss".

28 June 2005

You write saying that "This letter is acknowledgement that your letter has been received".

6 July 2005

You write saying "There is no legislation currently in front of Parliament this feeds into but I will study it very carefully".


I don’t think, based on your correspondence, that you have in any way addressed the central issues that I have raised with you. If I may remind you that innocent men are being stripped of their children, life savings, homes, and future income, all without any good reason, under the authority of what is called "law", and that these are very serious issues both for justice and for an orderly society.


Again to remind you that the central issues are :

It is not clear from your correspondence that you understand, or are interested in, these central serious issues which I have raised. I do not believe it is adequate that you wait, as you said in your letter of 6 July 2005, for "legislation currently on front of Parliament" for you to be able to do something about these issues. I believe it is for The People’s MPs in Parliament to resolve these issues with waiting for initiatives from others.


We are now 10 months after I first met you, and I do not think that you have represented me adequately. This raises the issue of the level of democracy that exists in this country.


I believe that you should do one of the following.

  1. reply to me, suggesting a way forward that will seriously address the central issues I have raised.

  2. resign your position as MP for Newcastle Central, and make way for someone who will deal with these issues.

If you do not wish to do either of these, please send me the name and address of your constituency committee chairman, so that I may brief the committee on the level of representation you have given me.


Yours faithfully,

Barry Worrall


26 Oct 2005





Jim says "it seemed to me that your main interest was in legal change and there is no immediate prospect of that". He seems unaware that I am asking him, my representative in Parliament, to act, not wait for others. I cannot accept the bland statement the "there is no immediate prospect", as it is his job in Parliament to act.


I decide to remind him again of the major issues, and do this with a letter which encloses printed versions of some of the previous information I have sent him, so that he does not even need to go to the trouble of retrieving this information.


3 Nov 2005 [l-JC-MP-06]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


Matrimonial and family law


Thank you for your letter of 25 Oct 2005.


I’ve previously (with my letter of 24 Nov 2004) sent you information about :


a)      The general situation, and what should be done to remedy the situation : this is in my report Restoring Control which has hyperlinks to online information and further evidence.

b)      My specific legal case, which is described briefly but concisely in Part 3 of my recent ebook Without Authority.


If you have not had time to read these, may I suggest that you do now. If it would be useful to save you time, we can meet and I will take you the essential parts of these, this would maybe take 2 hours. I have also attached to this letter sections from these which give a summary, and these could be read in maybe 10 minutes.


Essentially however, these documents previously supplied, show respectively that :


a)      The interpretation of law is generally corrupt, with senior judges having set illegal case precedents, particularly ‘no-fault’ divorce principle, also as they have had enormous discretion, they choose whichever principles they wish to apply in each case; further that the law-making process is seriously compromised, the wishes of ordinary people are not considered, and those with vested interests and agendas (lawyers and feminists respectively) are heavily involved when they should not be.

b)      The Lord Chancellor, as was during 1990-93 in my own case, has failed to provide me with an effective legal system, i.e. a legal system which provides laws laid down by Parliament, and which operates correctly such that would protect a good man; the corruption is blatantly obvious, with written law being ignored (‘no-fault’ divorce applied) and highly selective use of evidence which anyone can appreciate by looking at the key parts of judgements etc, blatant mockery of myself both in court and in judgements; further the inability to obtain justice against a very badly behaving solicitor, even in court.


My objectives are to :


1)      prevent unsuitable people from having input to future law making

2)      put proper laws in place that have the support of The People

3)      put measures in place to prevent further corruption e.g. adequate written law underpinned with ethical principles, and appropriate control mechanisms

4)      obtain compensation for myself and the other good men of this country who have had their lives violated, for no good reason, by the existing corrupt legal system

5)      bring those responsible, for individual cases and the general situation, to justice.


Please read the enclosed summary information about (a) and (b) above, and the brief list of problems (c) which I’ve just put together. You may begin to understand the objectives (1) to (5).


I really do not understand what you mean by “your main interest was in legal change and there is no immediate prospect of that”, because it is your job and Parliament’s job to change the law when necessary. If you find yourself helpless in this role, then get the Constitution changed so that you are no longer helpless.


The remedies to these serious issues are clearly not brief or simple. You need to carefully consider these then consider the way forward.


If you are lost to know where to start or the overall way forward, we can maybe discuss examples of what you can do at some time in the future after you have reached some understanding of the problems.


Yours faithfully,

Barry Worrall


Enclosed :


a)      Section 7 of Restoring Control.

b)      Paragraph “   “ from Part 3 of my recent ebook Without Authority.

c)      Problems in family law (a brief list).


 [I have not included this enclosed lengthy information here.]


14 Nov 2005



Instead of addressing the major issues, which could not have been spelt out more clearly than in my letter of 3 Nov 2005 with its enclosures, Jim decides to debate 'no-fault' divorce. This indicates that he has read some of my materials, but he is still not yet addressing the major issues on my behalf.


Consider this : I have written to my MP, Jim Cousins, describing a very serious situation, which is largely caused by the 'no-fault' principle being introduced, without the authority of either Parliament or The People, into family law by the senior judges. The significant amount of information I have sent him makes this quite clear. He then writes back to me, telling me that he thinks 'no-fault' divorce is "the way to go" i.e. it is a good thing. I am outraged that he should treat me, his constituent, in such a dismissive manner and with such contempt for my views, especially when it is clear to me that I have direct personal experience, and appear to have studied this subject more than he has.


Despite my outrage, I persevere with yet another letter.


21 Nov 2005 [l-JC-MP-07]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


Matrimonial and family law


Thank you for your letter of 14 Nov 2005.


I am sorry to insist that you represent me effectively, but you have not dealt with the issues I raised in my last letter of 3 Nov 2005.


Your comments in your letter


Instead of dealing with these issues (i.e. the general situation or my specific legal case) you have told me :

a) that “divorce is a very painful process” and then

b) your own opinion about the ‘no-fault’ issue.


With regard to (a), I know that divorce is a “very painful process”, it was so in my case and I know from studies of the general situation that it is the same for millions of other men. I don’t need to be told this thank you. However it is painful for perfectly innocent good men because of the corruption and degeneracy in the legal system, not because of their marriage and divorce.


With regard to (b), you need to realise that I have studied this subject for about 15 years, and have a national standing among men’s groups as someone who has studied this (e.g. one of the authors of The Emperor’s New Clothes which I have referred you to). I believe that I know much more about this subject than yourself, as you would not offer such a crass suggestion to me about ‘no-fault’ divorce.


Let me demonstrate how crass your suggestion is. What, in your opinion, should the law do about these two cases :


1.      a man finds his solicitor wife in bed with a colleague of hers, while she is supposed to be babysitting for a friend just a few doors away from their home ? She gets custody of the daughter and maintenance from him.

2.      a man’s wife deserts him, taking the two children 350 miles away, then deliberately goes about getting her hands on most of the family assets, ensuring he is thrown out of his home in the process ? She is never expected to explain herself to anyone, even though the man has done nothing substantively wrong.


Both these men had done nothing substantively wrong, they simply found that their wives no longer liked them. Both found themselves cut off from their children and robbed of much money they had earned through their own labour. Both suffered serious health problems as a result of being treated in this way by a wife and finding no protection in law. Both had honestly married the women involved.


In your letter you express concern that fault-based divorce is not the way to go as it would increase the legal process. I assume you are thinking of stress and costs when you say this.


You need to consider the costs to these good men of marriage and divorce. It was enormously costly for them in terms of destruction of their families, home, life savings, future income and health.


When you talk about costs you need to look at the wider issues. Perhaps you think that their wives should not have to bear the trouble and costs of “increased legal process” but to hell with what happens to these men. It would not surprise me if this is your attitude, as that is the current attitude prevailing in this country.


These two men are (a) a friend of mine and (b) myself. I know the cases well.


I am asking you what you think the law should do in these cases, to protect their interests (i.e. children, home, life savings, future income and health).


An over-riding issue


Your job is to represent me, not tell me what your opinion is. I believe your opinion is seriously ill-considered, so is not helpful here.


While I accept that you must have some real cranks contacting you, people that you could never agree with, and that you cannot waste your time with them, I am not a crank, and think that I know this subject better than yourself.


Your letter of 14 Nov gives me the impression, rightly or wrongly, that your attitude is very much along the lines of “I will not represent you as I know far better than you what is good for this country”.


With respect, I do not accept your attitude, and again ask that you deal with the issues I have raised in my last letter. My offer to meet and take you through the facts, concerning the general situation and my own case, still stands.


Yours faithfully,

Barry Worrall



It looks very much as though Jim has given up on me, perhaps because of the disrespectful tone of parts of the previous letter. Or perhaps he has been very busy discussing the issues raised with his colleagues in Parliament and the relevant ministers. Or with his family and friends.


As I was waiting on a reply for more than 2 months, I sent yet another reminder letter, to give him every opportunity to respond.


Possibly the last, as I'm getting to the end of my patience after spending more than 1 year trying to get my MP and Parliament to act.


1 Feb 2006  [l-JC-MP-08]


to :  Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


Matrimonial and family law


You do not seem to have acknowledged or replied to my last letter to you of 21 Nov 2005.


Perhaps you would at least acknowledge that you have received it, and indicate if or when you will be able respond in an appropriate way ?


In case you didn’t receive it, I enclose another copy of that letter.


If you are not able to take my concerns, about the corruption and degeneracy in family law, and act on them, please be straightforward and tell me that, giving your reasons.


If I could remind you that I have approached you initially in November 2004, with clear evidence, and that there is a need to :


1.      provide me with justice, and

2.      remedy the seriously corrupt laws that we have in this country, which provide no protection for many other good men.



Yours faithfully,

Barry Worrall

6 Feb 2006



So an acknowledgement has arrived, but when, if ever, will he respond to the issues raised in my letter of 21 Nov 2005 ? Not to mention the same issues that I raised in his surgery, on 26 Nov 2004, more than a full year ago.


Then another letter saying that mine of 21 November 2005 was never received. But it does say that there will be a response.


27 Feb 2006






FINALLY, 2 YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL MEETING IN HIS SURGERY, we write to Mr Cousins, and using a questionnaire, ask him to explain why he has taken no positive action that we are aware of.


29 Nov 2006  [l-JC-MP-11]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


My correspondence with you over last 2 years, about matrimonial & family law


Since I visited you on Fri 26 Nov 2004, I have provided you with large amounts of information, including my recent book on the subject.


This correspondence does not appear to have resulted in any positive action from yourself, or Parliament or the Government, that would remedy the serious situation that I have described to you.


I regard the situation as a complete breakdown in the rule of law, and of democracy, and intend to take these matters further.


I have documented the correspondence, my letters and your responses, on a website www.c-g.org.uk/issues/democracy/example-mp-dialogue.htm.


I would now like to tidy up the correspondence on this subject by asking you why you have done nothing about these serious issues, and will post your response on the website, just as this letter will be posted by the time you receive it.

PLEASE COMPLETE THE ENCLOSED QUESTIONNAIRE, and return to myself, when I will post it on the website, so that The People may understand your position.


Yours faithfully,


Barry Worrall



about correspondence with his constituent Barry Worrall

during Nov 2004 – Nov 2006


A - please answer YES or NO to the following questions :


Reply (tick box)




1 - I have received the information which Mr Worrall has sent to me



2 - I have read the information



3 - I understand the information



4 - I accept that the information is accurate



See B below

5 - I agree with Mr Worrall’s analysis of problems and remedies



See C below

6 - I have taken positive action over the information sent


See E below


See D&F below


B - if you have replied NO to Q4, please complete this section :

I do not think that the information Mr Worrall has sent to me is accurate, because :




C - if you have replied NO to Q5, please complete this section :

I do not agree with Mr Worrall’s analysis of problems and remedies, because :




D - if you have replied NO to Q6, please complete this section :

I have NOT taken positive action over the information sent, because :




E - if you have replied YES to Q6, please complete this section :

I have taken positive action over the information sent, as follows :




F – As you do not appear to have taken notice or positively acted on behalf of your constituent Mr Barry Worrall, please complete this section :


I have taken NO positive action over the information sent, and my opinion is as follows :

Please tick all relevant reasons :


I think Mr Worrall has sent me incorrect information


I think Mr Worrall does not understand the situation / is confused


I think Mr Worrall is mentally deranged / is a crank


I cannot be bothered


I am too busy to have to deal with such trivial issues


It is not my role to resolve Mr Worrall’s problems


It is not Parliament’s role to resolve The People’s problems


There are no remedies that I am aware of



Other reasons (please feel free to give vent to any conceivable reason why you have taken no positive action) :




G – and finally, your views on democracy in the United Kingdom :

My view of the state on democracy in the United Kingdom is as follows :




Signed :                                               Date :

(Jim Cousins MP)





5 Feb 2007



this accompanied by :




SO, THERE WE HAVE IT. AFTER 2 YEARS CORRESPONDENCE, FINALLY, it seems Mr Cousins, to use his words, does not believe "there is anything [he] can add to [this last letter]".


I write to remind him that this response hardly seems adequate :


15 Mar 2007  [l-JC-MP-13]


to : Jim Cousins MP


Dear Jim,


The representation which you have provided me with


Thank you for your letter of 5 Feb 2007, with copy of your previous letter of 14 June 2006.


You appear to me to live in a madhouse, or in a fantasy world that only exists within your own mind. You do not seem to me to live in the real world that I am obliged to live in.


You tell me that you “do not believe there is anything [you] can usefully add” to your previous letter.


But this letter simply tells me :


·        you don’t know what the Law commission or the Government may or may not do

·        you don’t know how long the Government may take

·        that the Law Commission’s role is a “sensible constitutional arrangement”, when it, and the Government, have :


This letter also tells me that “the reference to the Law Commission [will] … get the issues that most concern [me] in front of Parliament in the form of a Government Bill”. But I see no evidence whatsoever that these issues are being addressed. E.g. Alan Beith’s recent committee did nothing about them whatsoever.


If an honest decent man such as myself writes to his MP about such serious matters, I expect, in a civilised country, that matters will be put right. They have not been put right.


This being the case, we need to consider if MPs, such as yourself, are representing their constituents appropriately, and whether the political system in the UK works.


I would now like you to consider the following :


a)      what actual real-world representation you have given me over the last 2+ years

b)      whether the political system in the UK operates as it should

c)      what you will do about these issues.


I look forward to your response.


Yours faithfully,


Barry Worrall



Comment : how can we restore democracy ?