please note all i do online is from the top of a mountain [sic], off grid, and i have never been happier, but don't have spare sparks to deal with typos...yet...
plus please note some links (below) - to my online mega.nz cloud filestore, audio and video files that can be downloaded, may not work at the moment as i need a big reorganise. I am however the most organised person on the planet and all files are safe and sound in triplicate saved for the...day...
+++++++++++++++++
So, fascinating....
What these absolutely useless so called journalists do not state is
" As was dealt with at greatest length in 2005 and 6, by yours truly", if there are any systems that are used to 'decide' which cases can be spoken about in 'public' then the administration - be it county councils, social services, their lawyers or even your OWN lawyers will make all sorts of complex hurdles and Kafkaesque statements and obfuscations because that's how they get paid! never mind that's why they have expensive conferences that Louise won't get invited to, where they plot strategies for returning to the most murky kind of hidden decision making - in essence as i wrote to the Appeal Court 2005 have 'Diplock Courts' [reality]. .....so in 2006 due one pesky Rottweiler, me, Lord Justice Wall and the head of the whole system, Sir Potter, made it crystal clear after gazillions of pounds of legal debate and government consultations, in my test case of the CULTURE of default to secrecy, that by default, unless there is obvious very very very exceptional good reason, the people connected to a case never mind media should be free to speak of in their own name the thing.... the Administration of Justice act still applies (or would after my 2006 culture change case) which states loosely that ...if i could be bothered to remember this last bit of Kafka accurately, that specific 'evidence' such as reports by shrinks and the like, and gruesome details of heinous acts such as the actual lies told on witness stands hand on bible, word for word, that can be remembered 20 years on it's such brutal mental rape... must be kept from the sunlight... but who is to know where the line is of what general overview may be shared and what specific nuggets of fact may be shared...
law is based on what the common woman hanging around on the streetcorner may consider common sense and fair and reasonable within the context of contemporary society. All the above was the simple final conclusion (via my work 2005-6 and several years of argy bargy within Whitehall regarding such in that what compromises will the powers that be make to satisfy the many calls for a more just and also MODERN, CULTURE within the whole system that is the state having power over the citizen be they infants or old people being starved in American owned old folks homes where the budget for gruel wont even buy hearty gruel.
The principles in my opening main paragraph here applied in 2005-6 and still obviously apply now as even the infants who Hereford council did a Nazi on and seperated as twins would be able to understand.
The matter that I concluded fully in summer 2006 was not followed through adequately (after about 2013) meaning citizens have to protect the advances made by me in 2006 where a default to openness was established for good ! (I was distracted with the actual reality of uk meaning Jack Straw and co make sure they take revenge on you one...day.. )
And so we end up with the 'story' (Panorama this year - Louise bless err..another rude one who doesnt answer cogent well written emails) ) being about how the journalist has to battle the establishment attempting to block her showing the actual stories that need to be out.
Every word here about journalists being restricted from showing stories about terrible injustices - in this case all to women, are the same words we would hear prior to my 2006 culture change test case. That was DELIBERATELY set up by the highest judges to deal with all this nonsense once and for all (using me as their monkey - i didn't need it and never sought publicity or attention i aint like that! but they knew i was honourable - REALLY honourable. And treated them as my equals who i will work with, not spit at them from the sidelines ).
BBC radio 4 Woman's hour
Starting at 37 minutes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0017cnw
And it becomes pantomime, when a so called ground breaking bit of Disney has actors acting most of the parents and children figures in stories of true evil... (which turns off people watching who SHOULD be supporting those treated so badly in the system - they're paying for it!)
The most bizarre piece of much heralded reportage i have ever seen.
Which also nowhere if i recall mentions that fighting the terrible system if possible a dad may be involved too.... I do not make that comment because i am a male person but because often when social services or others from the gravy train that profit from unwarranted interventions are acting so cruelly and ignorantly against a parent - usually the mother, then in legal cases that follow mother and father need to at least partly cooperate to fight back against the system and that often does work ( I have done cases where this happened).
