Probably best not to look through until 11 June in that a few paragraphs need to be added in to simplify and clarify the overall picture. That was always the problem; in fact two very simple principles that I alone took forward, always were obfuscated by not only idiotic smartarse journalists (incidentally almost all were childless which is a further issue in all of this - these issues affect millions of people in theory who do have children and i can always smell the lack of fortitude and passion on those whom do not - no disrespect especially as on 9 June i found perhaps the only person i have ever met to whom that seemingly does not apply)

Furthermore documents and stuff need sorting out a bit better  - i forgot some key ones.  But i do have a lovely day ahead so will be in best ever mood to get the bugger finished!

Until this is all a bit more coherent do not think this applies to only children in fact being that thousands of old people have just been as good as done in by some bureaucrat and millions may soon enough be facing sanction for not having their jab (i express no opinion) ...it may all be rather more urgent: freedom of speech and all that...freedom to have the stories aired...

SO i am working backwards from the seemingly dull end point of (i.e. will improve first).

Page on media 2008 9 on straw and me i have put up but see that page which will be improved soon:

"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 - or largely excepting criminal law which runs to a different tune. None of the items in 'test case' 2006 affected me at all other than i just knew it was a Kafkaesque principle especially then applied to me who was already plenty televised in all sorts of ways. 

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

Or to put it another way, one of the many unintended consequences of the whole way society is organised in my opinion is just how many previously sane parents i have known who these days are obsessed with having an official  label for their child - one spectrum or other..... so they can retain housing benefit (fine as all the rich bout ALL the houses round me)  et a free bus pass whatever. Other reasons are failrly insane because if every child is ADHD or autistic or all those other labels whats the point as all the healthcare therapy or whatever is never going to be affordable even if we did stop being a major nuclear arms buyer so we read of late ...

And if they are 'wrongly' denied their rating i can bet your bottom dollar some will threaten to 'publicise this, to them,  child murder decision..' and i can also bet the same dollar someone  - usually rather a fat person, will at some point say  "it is not in the best interest of said [vulnerable person] you do that, so we may  just have to take measures to ensure you do not do that..."