They normally are secret the lay person would not be aware of such measures that may be taken.
And that poses the question of why exactly this particular court
does operate in secret. If justice is being done, why can't people
see that it's being done? To use a line which this government has been trotting out regularly over the last few years, surely if the court is doing nothing wrong it has nothing to hide? So why the secrecy?
Aside from the fact that both of those statements cannot be true at the same time
Why not? What's to stop one department being quite effective at spying on citizens and collecting information while another department is totally inept at doing the job it's supposed to do?
I'd like to know how the readers of the Mail would propose to take care of elderly and disabled people, making sure their needs are met and they are not taken advantage of, without any government intervention at all.
What's wrong with the way it works for everything else? The government should intervene
if and
when there is a transgression which requires intervention, not turn the whole process of trying to care for one's elderly relatives into an expensive, bureaucratic nightmare for everybody.
The deterrent against robbing a bank is the prospect of spending several years in jail if you get caught. So what's wrong with having penalties for the deliberate misappropriation of a relative's funds which are severe enough to act as a powerful deterrent?