Wednesday 15 March 2023

Key issue – this is NOT a ‘man’thing.

 still need to merge this site (nota blog just a load of rants with deep truths in few would share, when the mood takes me)  with So, 'woke compliant' it is daft. And within - a few pages down - in an audio,  the greatest ever speech based on REAL life on why black people are wonderful. ("always try and share a cell with a person of colour" - your life may depend on it, and certainly is more fun than if with a lost sick whitey 'podmate' - all with terrible 'daddy issues'.  )In fact Steve McQueen should take it on. I watched Small Axe and wasn't that impressed

Key issue – this is NOT a ‘man’ thing. 

Since the mid 00s many cases of grave and lifechanging injustice have come to light in respect of child law mainly in regards to mothers. Of course many were ongoing for may decades prior.

There are a range of injustice cases – false allegations of shaken baby syndrome. etc., where women have ended up wrongfully imprisoned  - the worst of all penalties 

(think Birmingham six - the whole country KNEW they were guilty and should then be tarred and feathered in the slammer)

The point of this case  - the principle i took forward, was to PREVENT injustice… 

Already admitted by senior judges and senior (female) media well before 2006,  as rather prevalent

Track down the fabulous Sue Reid of The Mail and ask her - her swearing down my phone about the crooks of the system was a beautiful opera - a privilege to meet Sue. Sadly we cannot track down the late  Denise Roberts the ITV presenter (see film in the 2008 page    here of her   where it says  'mega filestore straw folder rr'  - for the full program, and here   abbreviated  ) who quite clearly bristled with anger on screen at the injustices done to women and their kids....and snivelly Straw squirming (dont worry folks I do believe he took his revenge on me a year later... but one never quite knows - he knew it was ONLY me driving the media to call him a liar email was tapped at the time 100% certain...i used to my advantage)

 Not in fact 'inform' the public as to "what happens in these tragic courts" as the whole spin operation of BBC and the judiciary now seems to wish to sell it as, though that was the VEHICLE (part f my test case) - and a useful side effect. 

The fact that in 2005 NOBODY ever got a case into the media (using their picture, telling their STORY)  meant that a system could ride roughshod wherever it wished (Loach Cathy Come Home showed you that in 1966 )


As the first civilian doing so – having the right to tell ones story (I never did!!!!) It was a signal – every campaigner, internet forum and child services officer in the UK knew of the case the day it was pronounced… “DO NOT ANY MORE GUARANTEE THE STORIES WONT GET OUT...and you cannot threaten any litigant any more with 4 years slammer [ real equivalent, no get out halfway for 2 year contempt sentances] if they ever tell anyone... their children were unlawfully stolen or worse”


That was the point.

And as I was doing this work a range of groups also flourished fast in my wake.



(far far more prominent than they are nowadays – in fact google ‘social services’ in 2006 and ten million hits,  used by many mainstream newspapers then to find stories of injustice was always page 1 of the google results)

Large sites about injustice against women used my work as their catalyst – I knew the founders… arguably I was one of theirs - mothers4justice was founded more or less because of the new ability to go public.

And incidentally apart from no one else thinking they COULD smash this retrograde law, also most were far too sheepish to WANT their name in ‘public’ – I would encounter that often. "in principle we should have the right to more open courts, but i wouldnt want to be named or use my case.."

 Until the REALLY nasty stuff starts, when of course all of a sudden EVERYone wanted to go public... and then found they arent even allowed to put a picture of their child on Facebook any more once any form of legal action is underway.  (this would apply to maybe 2 3 or 400,000 parents at any time, maybe even more - cases often ongoing years, gags often in place for decades.

2004-5 I was as shy as the next person – a very quiet private person living in the hills above Hay on Wye with my daughter

I did not ‘want’ my name in public again… 

And key point: It NEVER EVER in any way benefited me – to this day it still causes issues for me – people google, people  hear things (always wrong)…


BUT…the simply unquantifiable fact  - since this case.. hundreds, more likely THOUSANDS of mainly mothers have NOT had terrible injustices handed down to them BECAUSE of my 2006 case making it clear

 “ we can go public now….FULLY”

 In fact as soon as the 2006 judgement came out hordes would contact me - and i ALWAYS answered all calls emails (please note) "simon...we want wot you got.... bastards nicked my kids...."

To which i always replied: "probably not, yet ... what you WANT is your case to have been conducted proficiently in the first place....  and i can guarantee that will not have occurred despite the 100s of thou legal aid, let us start at the beginning, and do it properly...if in maybe a few months we cannot get correct application of standard current law for your children and you, then...only then will we think about publicity.."


What, above all, was the thrust of this whole test case in 2005-6?

What is interesting – though not ‘filmic’, is that in 2005 and 6 there was a whole raft of media reference to INJUSTICE in the (child) courts.

Let us get to the absolute heart of the thing. 

As part of what was ‘staged’  - using me, allowing me to be the one to ‘test’ this matter in front of the highest possible judges, one key moment occurred. But be clear no one asked me to, everyone (in autumn 2005) said I was nuts to try and I was in fact ostracised (by a fair few legal campaigners I had got to know by then)  as going nuts…campaigning friends actually stopped taking my calls (Aug 2005) when i started to ring around for ideas on possibility of appealing the reinforced High Court gag. 

So I forced myself upon the courts starting an Appeal – against a serious gag (High Court Injunction), that I didn’t need to take forward for myself - i already had my time on tv - many hours... .

 In late 2005 as soon as stage 1 of the  appeal was through Sir James Munby ‘wrote’*  a brilliant paper for public release, on how to almost quote  (I have ALL papers elsewhere but have a superb memory - minor corrections later ) “now the state no longer has the ultimate sanction on the citizen of capital punishment, removal of a child (or access to, of course)  is now the most draconian measure we have in our society” …

That paper came to my attention around Christmas 2005 and was the biggest Christmas present imaginable.

It was quite OBVIOUSLY written ‘for’ me… 

 But the best bit was yet to come. And no disrespect to James Munby, I make a little assumption:

In the hearing of February 2006  (main ‘trial’) this paper was used as ‘evidence’ - or at least as part of the presentation as no new 'evidence' goes into appeals. .It was a key part of my argument  for opening it all up. Exactly as he wished...hahh hahhhh

And that was THE moment…the glorious comedy (ok, one of several),  when the fairly fierce Lord Justice Wall who was in truth running the whole show, looked up to his ‘audience’ in front – what a showman, and uttered the words

[NB to film folk there are far far really comedic moments ]

* “ ...yes....hmmm..... I know the paper well..[big smile... he pauses for melodramatic effect] ....yessss..... I was sitting next to him in our club when he wrote it…” the biggest grin the old thing ever staged,  on his face.....for his audience

This was ONLY showbiz!

In other words THEY – concocted the thing especially for me to use against ‘them’. In fact more than likely from his Cheshire cat look, he in fact wrote it and gave it to Munby to ‘release’ as it wouldn’t exactly look good if he had been so obviously PRO openness when he is about to do my case - be one of the Lord Justices on it… their big showtrial on that very subject...


And therein is the rub. We can use fancy terms like ECHR etc etc.."precedents "…  The POINT of the action by me was that we ALL knew – litigants, miscellaneous rabble rousing ‘campaigners’, and ALL media that the possibility that a story MAY go public – names, photos, faces… (when prior to me not a whisper ever got anywhere near the media  - listen to audio below) 

  MEANT THAT the whole system – from judges, down through lawyers, through court officials, social services etc etc…and even god forbid LITTGANTS, who all may  behave  at times so so evilly.. often resulting in Munby’s ‘worst of all sanctions’

.......Will behave better!... that was the case. And THAT changed a whole legal culture.

I write this on the day of almost world record false allegations …

There are may many many who make up all sorts of rubbish..

The purpose of MAYBE–openness was ONLY to save children and parents from the pandemic of madness and cruelty in that system and also by their fellow civilian human who will lie through their teeth for god knows why mad reason.  

(IN FACT my true heroine Rachel Cusk,  did in around 2013 a superb interview  - made me cry - one HONEST BRITISHER...!!! there is hope...!!!! she admitted so bravely, that at divorce she literally went nuts and would make up the most horrid thongs about the father of her kids)

Rightly stated by Munby (in his 2005 paper for me) that if this involves even a wrongly restricted life with beloved child it is  worse than a life sentence (with no parole), thus worse than any other possible injustice…

(Wall himself often echoed in media pieces later on the frequency of injustice and extremely bad practice by social services etc,  as did Munby later on when he took over as boss from Wall)


And that is the point – in ALL areas of law – Munby himself later caused more openness in the court of protection (sick or old people) … I bet he referred to my case as a key precedent. SUNSHINE BEST DISINFECTANT…


In fact it is interesting how over the last few years one often hears in intelligent reportage on matters like metoo (I would recommend Meghan Daum  whistleblowers at all levels come forward having “ BROKEN THEIR NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT..”

In fact the recent matter of  - to quote the Moral Maze website this week in the debate on secrets

.....When the journalist Isabel Oakeshott broke her promise and passed Matt Hancock's personal WhatsApp messages to the Daily Telegraph, was she morally justified in doing so?...

In the opening round of the program they state there was a "Non Disclosure Agreement" in place. They accepted Oakeshott broke this binding agreement (always dubious in strict 'legally binding' sense, nevertheless possible serious sanctions) 

Nor is this only a 'family' / children, thing.

In fact in early 2020 I was planning to launch an effort to get this film made. But then the obvious stopped all thought for some time.

Ever since 2020 we have had one "crisis" after another according to the middle class chatteratti (personally i have had a splendid 3 years). 

Yes many spoke of 'Freedom of Speech' - or better put, Freedom to Be Informed, under threat in 2020

Lets not get into bug debates because in fact in any event something medium term FAR more serious is here already: 

And i don't do tin foil hat, i do do years of reading proper economists such as Yannis Varoufakis (his recent Cambridge Union appearance excellent). 

Fuel and food prices will NOT be reducing any time soon. In fact the rate of increase may stay the same for some months to come at least. Generally they will NOT reduce (relatively - i.e. in proportion to GDP/average wage rates)  for several years. At best. Likely they will carry on creeping up for years to come. Large energy price increases in farming and industry have not yet even been fully reflected in supermarket prices. 


And thus we - as a nation, as a people, are going to have to get far more yank and start taking all sorts of authorities and institutions to COURT....!!!!

Yet we seem to be as a people about 20 years behind the American approach... if not 50 years. 

With an almost inert political system - two party state, both coloured beige, then the citizen going to law  - taking civil cases forward on all sorts of issues, will have to be far far more the default it has been in the USA 

herein - THE 'how to' and as I riff below - make it at least a little bit fun ("hmm.... i wonder if anyone will notice this Bob Dylan line i used in my latest skeleton argument faxed earlier... hahh hahhhh  gotta 'own' the thing a bit for onesself") , or at least  how to keep spirits really up because THEIR #1 WEAPON - their wear you down...bit by bit... drown you in paperworks, delays and technicalities none which ever make one blind bit of difference.

Ask the man who's custody case i did in 2014 where the final written judgement had a report by the court 'expert' stapled to the back, stating that the father was NOT a heavy alcohol user at all [ scientific tests done on him] yet the judge actually stated in that judgement his alcoholism was reason from barring him seeing his two beloved kids...ever. And we have seen even nuttier stuff in cases done for women having their kids wrongly removed. And as a 99% teetotaller and anti drug person for most of last 30 years, and rural bumkin living with kids in lovely nature surrounded places, with many animals kept for them, and  the most sweet attentive life lived ONLY for them, i have a VERY high bar