This is here - not indexed online meaning nor findable, and i am writing it here as i haven't even been able to get an email in. Several i sent November December bounced?

I was an internet bookseller 25 years ago and used to dealing with 100 emails a day so i know what i am doing with email.... but sad whats going on with libdems ... 

Purpose of this is very very simple. One purpose only.

In several chats i have tried to quiz you  - Sam especially, whether or not you (now) think that the SINGLE issue that i alone entirely reformed is useful. This was as PK's constituent 04-6, with very overt support of another Libdem, Hemming, from about 05-6 who actually mentioned my legal development in the house various times - in my name. And also in 08/9 and 2010 (washout preps) 

Meaning prior me 05ish, absolutely no one EVER even conceived that a story of injustice regarding a family may ever go anywhere near the media (or fledgling social media), because the CULTURE - from in courts, within SS and CAFCASS, and then ALL legal departments of mainstream media, assumed that it would NEVER be possible ever to name names or in any way identify. Instant dungeons if one did. 

My own 'story' 05/6 - this part I have long known SHOULD be made into a  feature film - many have said so and the last few years various serious media players have come out and said so in writing to me, from a senior person in Ken Loach's film organisations to J Sasson internationally acclaimed writer. 

It  - the central tenet, is that everyone said i was daft to try an Appeal (on gagging injunction that actually DID NOT really affect me day to day...as my story was already 'out' enough). AND that included truly fine minds on 'my own side'  - one a legal genius Eton educated Pelling who roamed the Royal Courts of Justice doing legal cases on behalf of the oppressed citizen. He had tried a few 'test' cases on smaller aspects of secrecy law, and he was a friend of mine - wouldn't help my appeal as he thought i was truly mad to try - he said we cannot get anywhere on the issue - he was then the UK supreme expert on secrecy and children's matters.

Your constituent (i was based Craswall 7+ years) just said "why not try" and then - the other important thing, not just some routine appeal on a case (as i had assumed hahh hahh) , but a full on staged probably biggest ever 'test case' was set up by the then top power LJ wall, with the President of fam courts on the panel too( so it would got straight into primary legislation - only happens with super senior judges on the pannel). It was set up. I was chosen as their vehicle to truly debate this issue once and for all. (and there had been TWO major HMG consultations into this issue that year and a few years before - stalled stuck. 

so...David vs Goliath...in theory

(on NEVER a penny to spare...often going hungry..)

And the pages here http://www.simonclayton2020.com/p/media-on-cases.html but especially here http://www.simonclayton2020.com/p/price-qc.html

Show that  - Price QC one of top few QC in London… hated family division….

Yet he features it as obviously a fundamental new precedent with massive effects in all areas of law…. NOT just child law in fact.

SO the question - we  - me and many senior journalists, debated the issue at the time (eg The Guardian article     http://www.simonclayton2020.com/p/media-on-cases.html   was ONLY there as i spoke with at length with Clare Dyer WHILST under fierce injunction. As the judges knew at the start of the case (seriously funny episode CAFCASS qc stood up at beginning saying i should be sent to the gallows immediately it was such a  cheeky outrage  ..Wall said in the ig grand finale day in court "yes mr Jubb..i read it over my cornflakes today...i thought i was rather a splendid piece.....myself")

Every journalist has always said to me " our editors and readers just hate the ' a parent who cannot be named for legal reasons' stories... first rules of journalism dictate they are usually NOT run....especially these days without a photo......." this of curse nowadays includes all sorts of 'triangulation' information - town, age of kids etc as people can put things together via facebok or the like far more easily 

They include Who, What, When Where, and Why. The 5 Ws are often mentioned in journalism (cf. news style), research, and police investigations. They constitute a formula for getting the complete story on a subject.7 May 2018


get a letter of suport easier to get a film made - even get grants

SO, it is my belief (for 5 years following the 06 finale) that no one EVER complained or ran any story highlighting a problem  that making it almost default that when proceedings were over there will usually be some identification.  There were no legal cases stating children were harmed by names coming out.

I think i can safely say so as because in 2008/9 when Jack Straw tried his 'hoodwink' (see my pages  http://www.simonclayton2020.com/p/media-on-defense-of-clayton-freedom-of.html ) there was absolutely no evidence anywhere that that was so. It would have ben aired in public (by his side) - but no he gave in to a campaign that I ALONE (my emails with Times etc shows) started to embarrass him in public... he hates me more than any human ever . see the ITV this morning  film he kindof squirms at the end....justa  bit. 

And again in 2010 when quite accidentally the CSF bill was allowed through in the washout then (which brought us back PRE my 2006 precedent) i was regularly in touch with Strathclyde of the Lords who said no EVIDNCE in debate we should change [my 2006] status quo.

Anyway it was interesting the trepidation 2 months ago in a chat with sam with which  i was informed that the cases that made up the panorama were whistlblown  from a certain office of the lds....

That was the culture i changed: prior 06 total trepidation. 06 my cultural reform stated that it is quite normal that  bad and also GOOD [my own 05 case] practice will go public ' after case concluded' . Of course everyone knew in REAL LIFE that would mean litigants would be daily in touch with journalists throughout a contentious case...  

Anyway point of this. I am not interested in a documentary and in fact a feature film that does get somewhere must have comedy. My own thing does. ( this one did - a misery flick, GREAT comedy and life afforming spirit...it made 400x on initial investment i believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untouchables_(film)    ) 

But the 'issue' behind the matter is quite complex for a civilian  - one sentence in my Thomas Paine like beautifully written appeal opening (rit by me) " secrecy does nothing to foster the best interests of children, only the judiciary.." or something like that.

A letter from your office being as the issue is live now - which helps in a way (me get backing to make a film) which simplifies THAT change then - how it made it far easier and 'NORMAL' for all concerned in injustices to invite media to be there and of course use media as the ultimate threat   the fourth estate - towards dodgy SS etc...even in courts would help.

PK wasnt expert in fact didn't really understand the issue (of 04-5) i went to see him about - but i was so glad i did he was incredibly friendly! 

JUST to get moral support... it is these genuine chunks of moral support that make ALL the difference when one is alone and sat in the dark thinking about whether one is stupid to even try... or maybe it will cause some terrible revenge on me ?? "nope...PK's smile today was genuine..."

the office is full of maybe even 10 letters to me over a few years from PK  - 2003 - 5 or 6.... they were terribly important to me. that made a tremendous difference

i also gave him a copy of T W N H A F

SO, iif my feature gets made of course his office will unequivocally get a mention - its a fact in the 'story'. Lucky thing is that 04-06 and then the rerun 08-9 not one jouro or media org ever hinted that in any way my work was in the slightest thing a bad devlopment. 

the q? then and yes still now ....