media on defense of Clayton freedom of speech law 2008 + 2009 against nutjob Jack Straw


"privacy". This is not about google knowing what brand of toilet paper you can afford.  And the confusion caused by all of that nonsense - it is chrome can be unloaded and reloaded fresh in about 10 minutes even with my slow broadband. And anyway it is quite clear that the baddies the hackers can get into DWP, DVLA NHS computers...or will always be able to tempt some wage slave with hooker money who works there to do a bit of a share.

THis is about the way that in many areas of quite ordinary life the establishment, 'the man' whatever terms for the wealthier gang who sup at the same expensive pubs, will try to use threat of suppression via even a gag if you threaten to try and court publicity for all sorts of injustice or inhumanity. You just wait until your beloved old grandparent is being starved or force fed pills she doesnt want in some industrialised old people unit, otherwise known as a home, and you hint maybe this should be taken to the papers. You wont believe how quickly someone will menacingly whisper in your ear "maybe that isn't such a good idea... the 'privacy'  [of one or other 'vulnerable' people] ... invasion  may mean that we will have to consider legal action to prevent this...blah blah...."oh and what about that expensive new extension you just built, on a mortgage too we see.."

The people of course have become even more  easy to blackmail as they are now obsessed also with 'their' privacy. So it's a bit more grown up than that. Especially when rather a lot of people just as one of many examples may soon be faced with industrial tribunals etc which often demand or create 'private' hearings, for not agreeing to go and get their jab...when jobs require it.
The point of this case was that if a child's 'privacy' was to be adjudged lesser to fundamental human rights meaning adult 'injustices' that needed fully airing, it is the ultimate new foundation to set in all 'privacy' and secrecy matters in all arenas of law. 

They kind of tried to hide that but even a 7 year old, she could figure it.

loads of this and that to stick in  regarding splendid successful attack pretty much alone on Mr Straw in 2009. 

though it is 2003 to 6 where the real fun is...

And maybe even good writing soon.

Right to business. What follows must be about the world record in getting a rather fond of himself senior minister to do a 'u-turn'. This only relates to the secrecy and gagging principles.  Round one 2004-6 was poor little Sampson vs Goliath. The principles - or 'test case' at that time believe it or not in fact  would have applied to 3 or 4 million people. This is not some fringe geek bit of law. It was all people who had been in any way official party to, and then likely just as many other who had been  concerned for a family member or friend, who's children had ever been named on a  court case - pretty much all of them excepting criminal. 
And then the general principle, that no citizen should be gagged or have a high court injunction against them unless there is a damn good reason also applies to many others. If the right precedent can be worked through by 'campaigners' which in effect means people like me and often on friendly terms with the more serious journalists who see encroaching restrictions then you could end up with a which for many years defined the line in respect of private material that should be in the public domain. That case precedent was used in all sorts of defences not just a family or child case. In other words, assuming one believes that the fourth estate is a fundamental pillar of real working democracy then these precedents are very much part of the freedom of that fourth estate.

And then we come to the real world. Having just said one 'works' alongside journalists if nothing other than for moral support, when they are so shabby that in the articles below one idiot actually states that in my own rather well documented child arrangements the parents "share alternate weekends with their child" I mean what fucking acedia is that....  
But the worst of all is ones own 'side'. In 2006 useless and obfuscatory and even by early 2009 not much better.

Another day.

 SO, on December 16th 2008 Mister Rendition makes this statement to the House of Commons. You may note the date. By definition many people concerned will be parents, who like i was, were just getting ready for that time of year and  a tad busy. This when the 'issue' had been back and forth for 6 or 7 years between various sham 'public consultations', all sorts of conferences and doubtless the bigwigs had spent many a day in a huddle on it all. Never mind a range of precedents building on my 2006 lead attack. 

Deliberate. Thinks he can sneek this through:

16 December 2008

Jack Straw has made an oral statement about the opening up of family courts.

The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice:

I have today laid before Parliament the document, Family Justice in View, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office and on my department's website.

Family courts play a crucial role in our society. They make far-reaching decisions: how to divide finance on divorce, what protection to give victims of domestic violence, for example. And they make life-changing decisions about the future of children: whether they should be given contact with their parents, whether they should be removed into the care of the state, and whether they should be placed for adoption.

The decisions of family courts have profound and long-term effects on the lives of those involved and cumulatively on society as a whole.

Family cases can be conducted in the magistrates' family proceedings courts, in county courts, and in the Family Division of the High Court. All of those with responsibility for these proceedings are well-trained and work to extremely high standards.

It is vital that these courts - like any others - command the confidence of the public, if the public - including the parties involved - are to accept their decisions. This can best be achieved if justice in these courts is seen to be done.

For entirely legitimate reasons, the privacy of parties to family proceedings must properly be protected. This is of enormous importance to adults, and an overwhelming imperative in cases involving children. At present, with some exceptions, neither the public nor the media is permitted to witness proceedings in these courts.

However, many argue that the current provisions to safeguard privacy and confidentiality go too far - leaving family courts unfairly open to accusations of bias or even injustice.

In contrast, there is a greater degree of openness in the youth courts. For example, the media are allowed to witness and report proceedings in the youth courts, so long as they do not identify juvenile defendants, and youth courts have a wide discretion to allow others to attend. These rules have worked effectively, and their spirit has been well respected by the media.

back to top^

Media attendance

Mr Speaker, the debate about opening up the family courts has intensified in recent years, and two successive consultations have been carried out in 2006 and 2007. The results of those exercises were inconclusive, with strong representations, on the one hand in favour of improving transparency, and on the other in favour of maintaining the current position.

In recent months, the Parliamentary Under Secretary with responsibility for access to justice, my honourable friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), and I have been actively considering how we can shed more light on family courts whilst preserving the imperative of the welfare of the child.

The government has now reached a conclusion. I am therefore announcing today that the rules will be changed to allow the media to attend family proceedings in all tiers of court.

The media will understandably be subject to reporting restrictions, similar to the youth courts. The courts will be able to relax or increase those restrictions in appropriate cases, and will have the power to exclude the media from specific proceedings altogether where the welfare of the child or the safety of the parties or witnesses requires it.

The overall effect of these changes will be fundamentally to increase the openness of family courts while protecting the privacy of children and vulnerable adults.

back to top^

Judgments pilot

As well as allowing the media to attend family proceedings, there is a need to increase the amount and quality of information coming from the courts.

At present, anonymised judgments of the Court of Appeal, and in some instances the High Court, are made public. But this is not the situation for the county courts or the family proceedings courts, which deal with the bulk of family law cases.

We have therefore decided to pilot the provision of written judgments when a final order is made in certain family cases.

The courts in the pilot areas - Leeds, Wolverhampton and Cardiff - will, for the first time, routinely produce a written record of the decision for the parties involved. In selected cases where the court is making life-changing decisions for a child, they will publish an anonymous judgment online so that it can be read by the wider public.

back to top^

Disclosure of information

Mr Speaker, the consequences of family proceedings are so significant that the parties involved will sometimes need to seek advice or support from a range of people, including legal advisers, family members, medical practitioners and elected representatives. To do so, they must be able to discuss and share information about their case.

In 2005, we made changes to the rules of court to allow people to disclose certain information to specified individuals. But after two years in operation, it became clear that those rules remained unnecessarily restrictive and complicated.

Following a consultation last year, the government has now decided to relax the rules on the disclosure of information in family proceedings.

Parties and legal representatives will be able to disclose more information for the purpose of advice and support, mediation and the investigation of a complaint, or - in an anonymised form - for training and research. In more cases, the person receiving the information will be able to disclose it to others for the purpose it was originally disclosed without seeking permission of the court.

But to protect the anonymity of children after proceedings have concluded, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Clayton v Clayton will be reversed.

Most of the key changes which I have announced today can be made by rules of the court, without the need for primary legislation. But some will require legislation, including the reversal of the effect of the decision in Clayton v Clayton and the potential opening of adoption proceedings. On the latter, we will be consulting about what approach would be most appropriate.


As a government, we are committed to improving the visibility of justice in this country; to lifting the veil which sometimes keeps justice from view.

The measures I have outlined will help to build a transparent, accountable family justice system which inspires the confidence of the people it serves, while continuing to protect the privacy of the parties and children involved.

I commend this statement to the House. 

So a few days later it is sent to me and i am busy with my lass. ON 28th December after lunch - always that day is changeover day, so I can start to ponder: "this doesn't apply to me, is of no interest to me, but i see straight through this "con trick", a month behind on the rent as it is I simply do not have a second to spare oh woe is me..... how can this be battled ... if i spend one minute on this i shall really have a shit year... never mind we will starve...never mind it takes many months always to fight this nonsense..."

The short version is an idiot decided have a quick go at it all, and on calling many year supposedly dedicated system fighters and activists i was gobsmacked that not one 'got' the issue - ALL would be pretty much be  rolled back to as it was before my 2006 Freedom of Speech case. How on earth do they not see this? its a nutjob statement - the last section at least - its clearly a personal attack they had to imply something wrong with me almost... (yes many a rude letter in to their mates over the year by which i mean extremely carefully written but cutting attack) ...not that i care one jot! 

And the same when I thought well i am the only one who can read, left, lets get back to a few journos... grown up ones...who similarly ... by early January now, seemed to have overdosed on egg nog  - journalsists had always been good with me but i was being treated like i was off on one.  And i refer to the 'award winning' well paid ones, who then get on BBC Question Time a lot.

SO in short by accident  - really by total happenstance after 7 or 8  weeks of that i run into someone who caused the first article to be published. 


And then a bit of a ball starts to roll. Be clear not one other person put anything in to fight the creep but me.... just for fun.

a few photos here may not belong to this page.

oh there's tons more however the above - hurtful personal idiot comment aside, is so interesting...

butwhat is even more interesting is just how thick a famous journalist - maybe one if the most famous in the land and still is, friend of mister Cameron too,  showed herself up to be in her emails of the time. On a simple matter too!

And then she 'claims' somehow to have campaigned successfully for it all, more or less. 

SO shall i put them up here i wonder? 

She is just a distraction and wonderful example of never ever trust any journalist as having a brain unless they regularly prove they do.   and certainly don't take any notice of 'award winning' anything.


one of the above is a tad ...well, fake.... it's extraordinary how with  a bit of nerve you can disinform via your telephone if it is likely tapped.  And just how gullible big government can be.

Anyway wonderful liar porkie pier  Frances Gibb oh we had a laugh. 

" i do not respond well to blackmail Simon [in writing]... "
she lied.
a Glorious little piece the following day

I have all of them and its the 'HOODWINK' one i like best that was my word.... 

I mean surely a world record - 3 months to the day from one of his showcase speeches of the year.... having to eat his words.

And the biggie

"dad..... why is the creep lying..... between slithering bodily jerks........gee wizz who can you trust...... you let me press the send button of the email when we sent Missus Gibb a scanned copy the day we got the letter... ?!"

that is called real education.

Jack Straw IV This Morning
April 2009 (check date)

eating shit

loaded up at slow broadband city
but how apt
sat next to her bloke..
having just met the most glorious person ever, indeed only on 

"smother" ...she got it
I have no interest in that place.

my own work
even if it started here by accident.
ITV Straw 
on our mantlepiece no matter what they say.

9 minutes in –  the greatest gift you can pass on to a yoof if you want them to know the world: “dad.... did you hear that.... what a pants of fire he is with his first time anyone knows today – we got the letter a few weeks back....when we  to Madam Gibb... “


But what the nation needs to know is these idiots should be sued for all their wages. In this excerpt The Justice Minister states he changed his mind that a precedent would be reversed. It may be a slightly mute point, the language simplified, but it is the fundamental matter in democracy  - constitution written or not, that a case in the courts cannot be “reversed” by parliamentarians. Ever.


But that is idiots of one or other ‘estate’ – fourth first or lost estates, I had by 2009 assisted quite a few parents with their legal cases as described in this clip – more women than men in fact as the women litigants would find me from articles online about going “public”. Almost always i would have to spend weeks explaining to them rant away and not listen “publicity maybe one day, but this utter shambles that your weasel worded scumbag lawyer has made thus far is why you are losing your kids unjustly....firstly we put that right can be done.... often with just one letter-statement into the court copied to the ‘STASI-Maoists’ to quote LJ Wall in 2010 or 11...otherwise known when he isn’t talking to The Times in his first King of The Castle interview, as social services...  then after a while if that does not work...then we go public..”

Incredible how few would listen even when the judges are coming round to their side.


But that aside, there are the real madnesses. It is disgusting how these people – Straw, and all the other highup spindoctors who would talk at fancy conferences like Wall himself i once was invited to listen to...cos the big expensive conference was on my stuff...  calling judges careful and professional and Wall that day paid weeping homage to endless professionalism. I still have in my files a judgement about a fathers life with his 3 kids which even a drug addicted alcoholic could see is madness, because the judgement says that the father can never see those kids again due especially to chronic alcoholism, when in a very straightforward case with few papers  - stapled to the final judgement indeed, the only expert report on blood and liver function tests states categorically no alcohol issues.