Compañeras needed (RIGHT to even use one's child's name [s] in public - see below)

 

Compañeras needed…. ( defn: a team member on a [good democratic] ‘cause’)

Rather than Compañeros

Obviously  - 20 years this has been my thing – even if part time, or it drives one nuts – as it as many, not me…:

Any media event  from book to Hollywood film to newspaper article, on domestic law or child services, requires taking forward  things with mainly women. Meaning the ‘gatekeepers’ of that world one comes up against -  from agents to producers (of mainstream media shows), to the main journalists, are almost always women. I know, I was immersed in it all for near a decade from 2003, from when the first BBC media luvvie documentary producer Jayne, came to have afternoon tea with me in the gaolhouse   then made a BBC documentary on me early 2004. (i never saw i havent had a telly 25 years - not interested in what made in the PAST - its what gets made NEXT always all that matters - i think you will find that your rather successful 'populist' modern day tyrants,  have EXACTLY that attitude - in other words grow the fuck up, thats how the world works, and why Don became their don)

 

A man, or a couple of men - a team of them, attempting to nicely hustle a project forward into that world  - get into the offices of the gatekeepers, or even zoom waiting rooms, does not go down well. Naturally there are ‘passions’ as there should be in respect of any important project that isn’t a fairy tale, rather a  real life gulag for many innocent parents. Most women nowadays mistake entirely necessary  'passion' about any issue, that all but murders children for example, for aggression.  This is so boring. The solution: a band of merry women on my side.

And as this film project is about world-record exposing Stalinist behaviour that affected far far more women than men, OBVIOUSLY the fairer sex should be involved,  but years one gets incorrectly stereotyped as a ‘fathers’ ‘campaigner’ and the best way forward with that is simply to be working with a few women. Have a few on side overtly - or a bit overtly.

THIER friends may just as easily have been tortured as per the fabulous film Listen.

(please remember this stuff has been ongoing 50, 60, 70 years... and the last few years much media has been aired about how so many thousands of parents had their whole life destroyed by Hitlerish unlawful child removal in the 50s and 60s...and i am a SCIENCE EXPERT - as most folk originally from farming backgrounds are: such  truly evil stress or as spoken of in Lucias interview, 'grief' causes LIFELONG negative health consequence for the sufferers - both parents and in fact children too. Those suffering the 'grief' 'stress' or in recent parlance 'PTSD' of years of this  -it always is years....die younger. built up stress negatively effects many bodily systems. People die earlier. It is not an exaggeration to refer to this as murder. Ex farmers like me never exaggerate. Flesh is damaged by  stressor hormones - adrenalin cortisol etc....and that costs farmers money     a spade is a ferkin spade - these parents DIE earlier and their bodies are damaged  this gulagish stuff)

 This case is not some routine dull little divorce battle, in fact basically it is, like those fine yankee cousins knew how to do 50 years ago, the common man, albeit not as pretty as Julia, suing the fuck out of the government. (not for money - - for the truth,  this only ever cost me ..years and years of no income work on it - especially in the following decade protecting my law). The only two legal people in the courtroom  addressing the Lords in February 2006 big test at the Royal Courts of Justice, case were  the extremely highly paid Brian Jubb QC appearing FOR the government ( CAFCASS' QC) and my ragtag team of ... winners. None of whom did much, by the way... my hardest job was to get  the 'junior' Wolanski to do what he had been told...by his [for the last few months] 'employer' - me.... albeit paid for by  GOVERNMENT [legal aid] money, only awarded (last minute after Wall and I had a love in in late 2005)  because this was seen as a megga test case on fundamental law   - in fact the denial of any legal aid despite two tribunals i had to go to, 2004 / 5...  the legal aid board said after my ten tons of faxes to them,  " we cannot fund your appeal against  [late 2004] High Court injunction as there is NO WAY in hell in this universe and the next, you have any chance of success - the law is cast iron"  is the truly poetically  Kafkaesque  way it all worked....

Thee years ago I started to focus on trying to get a few female mates – those I knew who actually DO take real life seriously (and are not frightened of it) to help out – brainstorm, hustle, plan a funding drive – even if it is just helping out a few hours a week trawling their contacts. Making one or wo cheeky calls a week to a rich relation perhaps...

And then the big bug came and stopped it all. As I live VERY rurally – West Herefordshire, the ability to reliable travel (out to me) more or less closed for two years.

But then I am one of those who believe everything happens for a ‘reason’. In fact it is all terribly timely.

As the financial crisis continues (CSFB snuffed out..what next ?)  the issues you see splendidly depicted in the film Listen  will only snowball.

 (though think British parent – in fact the social services far far rather go for natives – they often find international aspects  - the possibility of a child being adopted out of jurisdiction, complicate it all too much for them and they are far far less likely to terrorise a non-native parent in fact)

 

Your friend, relative, neighbour, may just as randomly as Lucia’s character, find themselves in hell… and as services and people are financially pressed, the injustices INCREASE.

 

In 2005 NO PARENT EVER was ‘allowed’ to speak with anyone except their lawyer and bedmate,  about ANY Stalinist behaviour in respect of a child – technically that  applied to potentially 200,000 parents at any one time – likely half or even a million. The law (as mentioned in the film  Listen– in the scene where they discuss absolute ‘secrecy’ ) being that total silence was required in respect of ANY child who had ever had their name mentioned in a  court,  until they are age 18. In fact likely that applied to several million.

I was the ONLY (non celeb – meaning, I wasn’t Geldof or Heather Mills or a royal, thank god) parent who’s name and ugly mug were often in the media  - voluntarily (as young Estelle really DID like to see, especially if she was with me around the lasses from the telly when they came to visit us - and it so so matured her seeing real society in action.... though pissed her off no end dad had more camera time than daughter) , meaning as a free non criminal person (by  late 2003) with a child named in a court case no one else but me got telly time..(whilst a child court case ongoing!!)

.... I behaved MOST thoughtfully, never even naming a wonky coparent as dodgy, or even the nasty Michael Shephard of CAFCASS…(the judge agreeing with me and booting him off the case :-) ...I blamed the ‘system’. " blessem they know not what they do...their nasty lawyers, all with such charming bedside manner... parasitise them getting them  to make up things against  other humans, against the human rights act  so as to only feather said lawyers own..nest... and her fellow vipers' nesting holes...[most family lawyers gradually becoming female]..."

By late 2005 it was obvious the law was to be almost entirely reversed  - by my case alone, that I alone pushed forward – no one else would help me, meaning it was to be encouraged by my law to come, that the citizen will be allowed to share most of their personal info publicly – names, of them and children, photos, story of the care proceedings, or any court  battles, ,unless an EXTREMELY good reason why not.  

And i have a perfect paper trail that proves exactly this - including all the internet (email messaging) forums of the time - two very good ones, i still have thousands of messages on there  where EVEN parents who EVERYONE knew were good people and had been subject to the worst injustices in respect of their children, were constantly told by many year child law experts - campaigners against it,  that they must not even use their childrens names on OUR 'internal' email private invite-only (non googleable in fact these were simple email chat systems)  forums... everyone lived in total fear as late as June 2006,  except me - the only one ever even used their childs name with anyone,  and then when the result of my test case came out, overnight, the whole thing reversed for many many thousands. And NO one said it was going to ...they thought i was nuts