The end....
Even if my my it seems journalists never mind the almost always awful BBC 'presenters' can stop to think...or research....
Just hyping and saying the first thing that come into their mouths...as if the world changed because they were born with them.
China's AI win, transparency in family courts, refugee life close up
29 Jan 2025
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0027cv6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws
The Five Ws is a checklist used in journalism to ensure that the "lead" or "lede" contains all the essential points of a story. As far back as 1913, reporters were taught that the lead/lede should answer these questions:[1]
- Who? - Asking about a person or animal
- What? - Asking about an object or action
- When? - Asking about a time
- Where? - Asking about a place
- Why? - Asking about a reason or cause
- How? - Asking about the way something is done[2]
Even google AI not the brightest spark in the universe manages to highlight:
googling: "w rules of journalism"
" all reportable" (from the radio segment in link above)....
The clue, as in 2005-6. the 'openness' test case - the highest level of judges possible, and as LJ Wall said at the time to a shaking me in his dungeon at the RCJ (leave to appeal) "we need a TEST CASE on the whole issue"
As all journalists told me 2003-6 without the slightest hesitation " our editors dont want us bothering with ' a person who cannot be named for legal reasons' court cases, because the public just aren't interested .. they too know the five w's of journalism... "
* = Hence i very much doubt there will be much work for Hannah Summers in the longer run... never mind she will be very lonely sat for years to come, remaining the only one...
This was all the Clayton Lacuna was about. (that specific issue)
From 2006 to 2013 ( when the Children Schools and Families Act 2010 was rushed through Parliament in the 2010 'wash out' nevertheless the parts relating to 'who' did not 'come into force' for three years)
and no one even understood it never mind battled to keep all our hard work as the actual "transparency" prerequisite, protected by campaign and statute.
No REAL 'fourth estate' coverage - meaning few proprietors will fund proper scrutiny (cases often lasting for YEARS with many hearings over such periods) ...and thus the system can and will and do get away with anything (cruel and horrid towards parents of both sexes - i know as i have Mackenzie Friended more female actual victims of it than men)
THE POINT of the legal case 2006
https://www.simonclayton2020.com/p/media-on-cases.html
with round 2 i won HANDS DOWN in 2009
https://www.simonclayton2020.com/p/media-on-defense-of-clayton-freedom-of.html
was that if injustices or worse were potentially ongoing e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-61434785 that resulted in a BBC Panorama that spring (the papers were given to the BBC Panorama team by Lucy Hurds the Libdem councillor for Hereford i know as she told me personally ) the parent facing such heinous acts can THREATEN: " if you f*** with my family life then i will go to the media and expose you"
TENS OF THOUSANDS of parents, maybe even 100s of thousands, will have said just that from 06-13ish to the whole 'system': from judges to CAFCASS officers and even to their own lawyers (well known as the shabbiest of all lawyers in all the legal profession). And there was some meat in the threat. Now - since 2013, the system knows it will be almost impossible FOR these parents to get Fourth estate coverage...
(the whole point of this legislation in the first place, the first line in my official written representation to the Appeal Court test case in 2006 was " secrecy protects the vested interests rather than the children.." words to that effect in fact it was far ruder ).
De facto 'secrecy' - no journalists to go and watch all these cases ...as there is no cash in registering to be there.... is exactly that.
And all the weasels are back weasel wording around....
I think i must be the world record 'activist' ( a real one - that test case was REAL danger) - quite alone and quite successfully sorting out a whole legal culture quite deliberately, only to have it all entirely reversed ..by stealth... seven years later.
THE END
