Thursday 7 April 2022

 That pivoting video waffle i have pivoted away from bothering to put up.

But did a new video waffle instead.

Here is the thing though. 

Naturally when one becomes a little associated with independent 'publishing'  - as i did - somewhere within the Appeal Court submissions i would rattle out  there is likely in UK developing law the first ever proper reference to self published blogs and the like.  I made clear legal representation that in the age just beginning of blogs, Facebook and the like obviously many will wish to tell their tales at the 'publish' button. legally 'publishing'. Their Lordships rather waffled of curse at the new fangled media however it was so notable that  reference was made in the big final judgement quite quite deliberately to your truly being a "campaigner"  with things to say on valid contemporary subjects. I.e. even if they didn't know what a  blog was, they knew  I should have the right to use one. I wonder if i was the first? In uk law officially sanctioned into the space age....  I attended a lesser test case a few months earlier of Pelling vs Ergina and Judge Judge didn't mention any new fangled  electronic media ...i bet i was...  hahh hahh....

But I never used this in any way to attack any officer or anyone else myself, except I wrote a very personal almost emotional blackmail blog 'to' Lord Justice Wall over a few months  challenging him alone to be a better Greek God than the one he rather fancied himself as. Because I knew, or thought - from several close up encounters, he may have had the soul to indeed be just that person.  He did care... i don't think he wished to be another one overseeing a huge retrograde mess that oversees the families of several hundred thousand citizens every year. 

But all the rest..... so called 'campaigners' all they could do was bark. often in a rather Essex accent. 

Now, all i know.... and in fact why I have slightly changed inside the last year especially, is that of maybe a dozen fairly well known acquaintances - half  a dozen new to me (in the flesh little online in my life despite what local online may imagine)  and all of a fairly well educated sceptical bent, near half are very sceptical about various changes in attitudes by the powers that be to Freedom of Speech/ freedom to be informed. And now maybe a quarter - and these tend to be the more 'powerful' in the community, speak of truly deep significant planned shenanigans. (i have banned the term 'great reset' within the distance from me you can throw a stick for a normal non conspiracy theorising dog to run after ). In other words a fair proportion of the citizenry are fairly adamant fowl play is afoot.

And i theorise there is a good audience for anything that encourages them to. maybe once in life take a stand.... just once. Most of them - my circle, never have. But we better not speak of that as my my it does cause hissy fits.  

But what is it really all about deep down. Well i  know only one thing works.  Heart. My second favourite Portuguese word  coração.

Anyway to the point. As someone who has given it to the man, I have over the years pricked up my ears at any film or other cultural event about that practice.   

And then there is Matt

Still at it frankly just yet another new slogan.  And one that makes me sad. Living rurally the choice of rejecting marriage and almost implicit, longterm relationships, simply is Apocalyptic. And is the real story of my own life the last decade....Looking after the land in smaller farms or smallholdings can only be done viably if there are two. Under the same roof. Lose that in our culture and the life goes from these rural fringes. It all  becomes only sour and lost.    

So as i am not in the business of starting any specific critique lets just say this. In resect of the face of "the most successful campaign group"  or words to that effect on The New Culture Forum interview, when i as first high profile case they spoke about (visiting me in the Stone Hotel in Portugal)  I just always thought that this rather brusque image simply is not for me - children, being with them, is only about sensitive and careful life.  Anyway i did of course float the notion that maybe some advice might be forthcoming how i would aproach THEIR 'test case - them being this public face of something.... and don't think i even got a reply. Certainly no help. It is as if een 'campaigning' often has to turn into lots of little atomised cults doing their own thing....

Thus i did MY thing...only me.... gentle.... always mix in lots of child stuff when talking with judges or anyone else. Because they must never forget the real life back home. You are no terrorist just a fairly ordinary citizen grappling with what moral tale you may tell your kid one day in the future.   "they did this in your name...well i mulled and decided that it was a stroke to far and maybe i made the wrong decision but i said to myself maybe just this once i do need to give it to them... not for me even but because just maybe i can.."

And even if the worst injustices in the world are done i am NOT ever going to get surly or smart on the telly.... a bit of grace at least, always....


unny thing the only thing i ever did lose was a little press thing i wrote at the table in the Sone Hotel...thought it was rather good. especially under the circumstances. Bt giving it to Mister O'Connor clearly he decided his bluster was the better way. I know mine was. But you cannot always control who speaks your words. 

So,  to a 'point'?

In the above video reference to

California’s 10 Tyrannical Bills; FDA Shows Cards in Booster Approval; Ex-Sky News Exec Blows Whistle on Government Censorship; V is for Vaccine; A Doc Who Wants to Defeat The Mandates

Guests: Amy Bohn, Mark Sharman, Josh Coleman, Jeffrey Barke, MD

Amy Bohn a key part of

I have ZERO interest in any covid or medical rights debate - i simply present her talk as a great example of the citizen fighting for rights - so so more maturely processed in USA> UK is still lost in this

It is the easy delivery and obviously fairly brave businesslike standing up for basic citizens rights that i would have myself been unable to imagine myself at.  Somehow creating a way in for others to think they could maybe have a go.  In cases to come - in any field of law or rights. I think there are very few cultural pieces that encourage. And this is why i wish to even seem the silliest twat in the universe seeing who the hell will have the balls to try and assist.

(far more balanced unhyped often very intelligent discussion on the necessary scepticism by Heather and Brett here - this was a good one...Bret and Heather 119th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: An Epidemic of Sophistry

69,791 views Streamed live on 19 Mar 2022 )

But then also straight from home territory. 

My own one most preferred  relaxation and learning place all my adult life, the radio 4 afternoon play.

Just the other day.  Now many say the BBC is bizarrely part of some (woke or oversensitive society 'problem'). But how interesting that in this play a few days ago a character speaking on behalf of the gutter press is presented in quite a sympathetic manner. His assertion that the Leveson Enquiry was problematical relative to other enquiries of the time allowed through (BBC thought police)  most persuasively. I had to laugh at the wonderful line i slightly paraphrase "children will think that some strange disease has broken out   kids in the newspapers these days always suffering from sort of pixelationitis.."  my work! - curing that. 

Mixed messages, curious inconsistency. No real overall understanding of sunlight the best disinfectant. And yes some may well get hurt by the spillages but that's for the overall betterment of democracy. Why the movie does need making. 

BBC drama Blame

Personally i wouldnt even wrap my chips in The News of The World, but i feel as this drama echoes that we have ended up the wrong side of some line nowadays. I have vaguely known a fair few famous people - incidentally, never sought. They all knew exactly what they were doing sticking their nose above the trenches...

And anyway as Voltaire would have maybe writ if he were here today, copyright me, from my cant be bothered to use twitter  - so dont 

which is far far more real life than may be imagined. I decided in spring 2020 to be happy. And was. Never fitter and more well rested and tanned. Many a day meandering ther lanes on my old bicycle. But it seems that a range of folk in my region became at last interested in besmirching me online. Bizarre. People would phone up and say 'read this'... 

The answer " why should i very few know me... just their sick warped imagination" more likely envy.... but one doesnt boast that way in normal real life.

It is on the other hand very serious in one respect that in rural areas people now use these tools as weapons of bizarre war - there is often far far more behind even a newspaper article pointing some finger. But when someone has children who's friends will see things, that is wrong.  That traumatises children. But it is never going to go it's time we grew up about all of this in my opinion... parents - the rare ones with brains left, need to lead the way. And thus i value all my experiences even the really mad sad ones of late.


A little from the official (homemade, no lawyers involved) written submissions regarding the silliest injunction in history....

Only when things are really really silly, such that even numbskulls like me can see they are silly, can you do things just because you...can.

But with all due respect to Mr Loach of

It has to have some laughs in it. Helen Steel did become ill from so much nonsense she had to work through. I didn't, because... well, that is the point of the film. 

   I had written to the Cardiff Registry for information regarding the injunction early on in 2005– to request a transcript and find out what papers they had – beseech the file, this was an attempt to begin to compile an appeal but was informed they had “lost the file”. The file remained lost for quite some time.



The only evidence used in the injunction hearing of 6th November 2004 was that of a private communication between myself and a BBC journalist which had been most improperly passed on to Mrs Clayton and subsequently I received a personal written apology from Mark Thompson, the BBC Director General which recognised that Ms Doel acted most improperly.


However since the residence case had been rather bitterly fought until then, though as Judge Singh said in his final judgement as he was transferring up to the High Court “ I do not regard the facts of this case to be any more complex than any other section 8 case I deal with day in day out” [taken from transcript of 12th July 05 hearing]




A little discussion was had on the matter of the Injunction prior to going into court. There was little time for this however once other matters had been dealt with though I did discuss it with Mother’s council, Mr Kirk QC, and her solicitor/previous council, Mr Boothroyd, who was present at all times. Over the proceeding 1 ½ days relations had improved immensely and there was genuine honest discussion and real trust developing. I mentioned my well known feelings that the injunction was unfair/ unnecessary. I made the point that a short press statement might be appropriate and mother’s counsel agreed. Mr Justice Hedley later referred to that in his judgement but was mistaken when he said that we had agreed an anonymised press-statement: mother was quite happy that the press-statement was not anonymous. I had earlier handed a 3 page draft that had been hurriedly written on the 26th July that appears appended to  this submission. Mr Kirk made a copy of this document and indicated he had no problem with such a document. It may have been specifically referred to in court later as acceptable [ Mention was made of a press release in Mr Kirk’s representation, I cannot recall the exact words in relation to the document I had provided]. Overall Mr Kirk was entirely unconcerned that there be any secrecy in the matter. He made no specific objection when I made an application that the “court doors be open” for the hearing. Mr Justice Hedley stated words to the effect that the Law would have to change for that to happen but although I am aware that that is not necessarily the case I did not have the skills to pursue that particular matter.


On 26th July NYAS were the only party who seemed in any way to object to any “publicity” or openness in the case either ongoing or of its resolution. And on 26th July NYAS were the only party who argued that the injunction continue. I query if their opinion should even carry any credence as on the 25th July both parents made clear agreements in a very open fashion – before both an audience of four - NYAS personnel and mother’s team, that we mutually agreed to withdraw all Section 8 applications and agree to the discharge of all Section 8 orders– one of which gave the only justification for NYAS being there in the first place. It was clear that NYAS had no further place in the case. Indeed I had specifically asked that NYAS come and say bye to Esti after the hearing and it took hours to get permission from their head office just for that. No more case no more  funding




The residence case featured many extensive formal complaints against CAFCASS between July and December 04. Judge Sigh removed CAFCASS from the case and asked  NYAS to become involved in December 04 saying “I agree with Mr Clayton that justice will not be done if CAFCASS Cymru remain involved in the case”. NYAS became involved and whilst I was clearly very much in favour of a very much better handling of the case overall by NYAS I made frequent complaints in writing about the conduct of NYAS, even though they were clearly very supportive of my application for shared care which NYAS reports prove. My policy is to complain at any shortcomings or bad practice and to openly copy those complaints to anyone conceivably connected to the case and I entered all correspondence into the bundle and copied all such correspondence to Mr Justice Hedley. Regarding NYAS my complaints were not so much concerning bad practice or bias or unfairness by any individual but that clearly NYAS did not have the capacity to involve themselves in the case as they should have – organise promised meetings, etc., and NYAS themselves admitted such problems citing staff shortage as the reason and were regretful that when they wanted to prioritise the case as bringing matters very quickly to an end was seen as paramount they did not have the resources to help properly. Mr Justice Hedley, being a patron of NYAS, has a conflict in respect of the fact that he well knows, as I am most open and copied all my complaints to him, that I am critical of this fact and do indeed wish to draw this sad fact to public attention.

There was no fair trial and no proper enquiry into the issue of my request to have the injunction set aside– a human rights issue. There was not even a “bundle” in respect of this injunction. I had for example sent to the High Court during the period 5th November to 9th November various correspondence and evidence including proof that Mrs Clayton had engaged herself with media – and even taken payment – something I myself have never done, but I have no idea if this evidence was available to Mr Justice Hedley.


Evidence that I had in my possession but did not have any chance to present or have tested was for example that my email to Ms Doel was one of a series of communications over a period of nearly a year instigated by Ms Doel. I wished to show in evidence  the relationship with Doel/BBC. She had taken advice from lawyers on the letter of the law in terms of what was legally permitted or not and not to be broadcast about a child/case ongoing – she was the only one who had, so I was corresponding with her in full knowledge she will not broadcast anything until there were some new reason she could. I had not given her any specific reason to seek that advice, it is simply that the BBC are the most cautious organisation (I have experience also of c4 s4c itv and radio). At the time it was a current issue for her – she sought an interview from me as I left jail in December 2003 (was waiting outside jail). She needed to clarify for herself what the relevant law was – in fact I told her that now we were in court there may be reasons she needs to restrict what can be broadcast. Doel had said to me a few months before it was crystal clear to her that the BBC couldn’t broadcast anything to do with family proceedings, I may have said that there may be a case they can make to do so if both parents wanted to speak to the media in unison especially if both parents were withdrawing by consent for example. But my point is that MS Doel was the one and only journalist who had made it crystal clear she could not broadcast anything about our ongoing case – well well before the email that appeared in evidence.


Regarding the welfare of Esti, my arrest was in the public domain so the resolution should be likewise to resolve the issue of adverse whispering information which still is likely problematical.


High Court hearings and endings are increasingly made public in part to address the rising public demand for the Family Courts to be more open. Openness being the oxygen of democracy.




To Mr Justice Hedley                          

Royal Courts of Justice                                             14/04/2005




Case: CF04 C 5888

Aneta Eva Clayton (Applicant)

Simon Anthony Clayton (Respondent)


Case no. ZMO4P00019, Private Law

Simon Anthony Clayton (Applicant)

Aneta Eva Clayton (respondent)

Child Concerned: Estelle Zalina Clayton dob 28.12.98


Add- apparently webmasters won’t remove



Dear Justice Hedley,


I am writing to you in respect of my application in Brecon County court for Joint residence, etc., in respect of my daughter, Esti, specifically on the issue of openness in Family Courts and specifically for two reasons that have recently emerged.


The first is that various very experienced colleagues have been analysing very carefully LJ Laws’ and Justice Pitchford’s findings in the case last week at the RCJ of AG v Pelling, which, albeit that Dr Pelling has stated he intends to appeal to their Lordships, we feel had some most germane points relevant to openness in Family Courts.


Secondly, that each time I appear (as Litigant In Person) in the Brecon case, I ask Judge Singh CBE the following:


1.    All further hearings be held in open court

2.    That all future judgements be made in open court.

3.    That all judgements may be published by me or anyone else.

4.    That any judgement given that is either made in  court or published may name all parties.


And that when I make these requests Judge Singh states that I must refer the matter to yourself as  he believes he himself is also bound by the injunction that you placed on me barring discussion of Esti in public. It is my contention that that is not so – that the injunction does not cover any actions of Judge Singh, or any other court, if he decides to comply with any of my requests at 1.-4., above. And I am fully aware that a Family Court can technically decide to hear matters in open court or allow reportage / publishing of any details if the Judge so wishes. A case in point is of course Blunkett v Quinn. I personally receive 100 circulated emails a day from those citizens active in the Family Justice debate, and to quote one recent correspondent “it seems there is one rule for politicians and another for plebs”. I believe with our case the courts have an opportunity to dispel precisely that feeling which I know is extremely prevalent.


My understanding is that Judge Sigh’s assertion is a clear misunderstanding of the law; if aspects of the case are appealed we would end up in open court anyway, and it is my intention to always request of any judge points 1.-4., above, every time we go to court


The only order made on Dr Pelling was for him to write to the webmasters / Internet service Providers, who host the Goldstein judgement, and ask them to take it down – he cannot be ordered to take them down himself as he has no control over them and many are apparently not in the UK jurisdiction anyway. As I write several still appear on the internet. And apparently those webmasters have said they will not take down the Goldstein judgement. And there is no way Dr Pelling can stop others publishing again this judgement on the internet in the future as many concerned with Family Law  - of whom there are now huge international band of activists, will have downloaded this material, stored it, and continue disseminating the material in the future to other interested parties. In some respects the same applies to our own case – I know very well that quite a few campaigners and others have stored electronically quite a large amount of material that appeared online and I will have no way in the future of controlling re-release of anything into the public domain.


The address of the one website that Dr Pelling himself took part in – the specific act that lead to his currently adjudged contempt, was deigned not to be further referred to in public. However it is extremely easy using internet search facilities to find Judge Goldstein’s judgement.


With all this in mind, I cannot see how there can be any conceivable potential harm to Esti from future publication. Her name has been to a very great extent, and continues to be, in the public domain.  Many websites are still up on the net that cover some – only some – mainly the worst bits, of the story – and many are factually completely incorrect, and these old news reports are regularly being resuscitated when other cases arise which have some link and our names get linked in to new reports.

Some family cases do end up being held in open court, especially if they get to the appeal stage, and if litigants fear (even wrongly) that a misdemeanour such as breaking court orders may enter the public domain, then other litigants fearing the same for themselves are much more likely to adhere to court orders. So some publicity – unanonymised, of some cases, is surely precisely just that likely deterrent. Surely – and fundamentally - in the best interests of all children who’s parent’s enter the Family Justice system. This is one fundamental reason I and others campaign for more openness in the family courts.