The Rebel

Did you see our new “Justice for Chelsey” billboard? It just went up in Chelsey’s home town of Sunderland.



It’s a way to drive home our message that we will not stop until justice is done. We’ve had march after march — each bigger than the last. More than 115,000 people have signed our petition.

And now, 24 hours a day, this massive sign will remind the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that the whole country is watching.

This billboard isn’t cheap — it’s £1,263. But I think it’s worth it. If you agree, please click here to chip in — if we raise more, we can keep it up longer, or buy other ads too.

Yours truly,

Tommy Robinson

P.S. Please forward this e-mail to your friends and family, so they can see the billboard, and hear that Chelsey and the lawyer we’ve hired for her are making progress. If your friends don’t know Chelsey’s story, they can see our original short documentary by clicking here.

P.P.S. We rely 100% on viewers like you for our support. If you like this billboard, please click here to help us pay for it. Thanks!

The Rebel · Box 61056 Eglinton/Dufferin RO, Toronto, ON M6E 5B2, Canada



Scroll down for more posts!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

LEN LAWRENCE: “3.5 Billion Unknowingly Poisoned Each Year?” 22 June 17

To: len lawrence  Subject: Fwd: 3.5 Billion Unknowingly Poisoned Each Year? .

His Honour Judge Simon Oliver.
DFJ Reading County Court
Dear Judge Oliver,
                                Could you please explain to the Managing Editors of the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, also to RTTV who have visited and filmed me, why you are entirely satisfied that with acquired brain injury from organophosphate poisoning, and whilst incapable of legal discussion and understanding for 18 months, Slough and Reading County Court would not allow me access to a Court of Protection
Judge  when six, possibly more, Court of Protection Medical Certificates had been issued?   
Reading and Slough County Court is near to Heathrow Airport,  one questions how many other airline pilots, cabin crew and passengers have similar experiences to mine, evicted onto the streets of Buckinghamshire whilst incapable of legal discussion and understanding, whilst a patient subject to the Court of Protection, with hundreds of thousands of pounds of adverse cost and inference placed upon me  by  the court at the request of barrister,  Dominic Brazil, 1 Kings Bench Walk Chambers. 
HHJ  Simon Oliver what is puzzling is the hearing at Slough County Court on the 4 August 2005 for Mr Alastair Wilson FFAEM FRCS Clinical Director, Accident and Emergency, Royal London Hospital, and others, to be my guardian in the Court of Protection. 
The hearing lasted about 5 minutes, the application was refused, thereafter District Judge Fortgang placed upon me a £10,000 cost order.   District Judge Fortgang did not hold a Court of Protection authorisation!   The £10,000 taken from me went to BP Collins Solicitors, Gerrards Cross, and barrister Dominic Brazil, 1 Kings Bench Walk Chambers.
Leonard Lawrence  

New to our newsletter? You can sign up here. June 21st, 2017
View this email in your browser
Dear Reader,

It’s been five months since we sent out our first investigative report about the serious health hazards associated with modern air travel: “Asbestos of the Sky” – The Aviation Industry’s Darkest Cover-up.

I wish the title of the article were hyperbole,
 but it really is that dark, and the cover-up stretches over half a century, being no less devastating to public health than other agendas you may already be familiar with such as Big Tobacco’s Smoking-Cancer link and the CDC’s Vaccine-Autism cover-up.

The proof is in how many people still know absolutely nothing about the devastating health risks of bleed-air being fed directly into the cabins of planes directly from their engines. Hopefully you are an exception to this!

Thankfully, the tides are beginning to shift. There has been a flurry of global reporting on new research from Stirling University hosted on the WHO’s website that confirms there is a clear pattern of and chronic symptoms ranging from breathing and vision problems, to neurological ones like headaches and dizziness in those exposed to the air blown from engines into aircraft cabins.


The Daily Mail, reporting on the new study recently stated: 

‘There is a clear cause-and-effect relationship linking health effects to a design feature that allows the aircraft air supply to become contaminated by engine oils and other fluids in normal flight.

‘This is a clear occupational and public health issue with direct flight-safety consequences.’

The Telegraph’s headline is even more to the point: New health concerns – and cancer link – over toxic cabin air breathed by 3.5 billion passengers each year

If you or anyone you know flies, nothing is more important than to what you are being exposed to, and what you can do about it.  I am convinced that consumer pressure on the industry will be the critical factor in reforming the industry, and not top-down political pressure by lawmakers, which will come only much later.

The first positive sign is that Boeing has already developed a non-toxic alternative called the 787 Dreamliner which is the only plane that takes fresh air from outside instead of directly from compressors in the jet engines to supply the cabin. Unfortunately, at this time, it is only rarely used for domestic flights. But consumer education and subsequent demand can quickly correct that problem!

Please share this newsletter with friends, family, loved ones, and health practitioners. Together I know we can make a big difference!

Sayer Ji,
founder of GreenMedInfo

P.S. Like what we do? Please consider becoming a member today to support our mission!Special Investigative Report

The aviation industry hangs its hat on air travel being “the safest way to travel.” The truth, however, is that it has harboured a dark secret since its inception: it’s poisoning its passengers and crew due to deeply flawed aircraft design, de-prioritizing safety in favour of profit.   Click to Read
Featured Documentary 
This film is the first independent investigative documentary film of its kind about the history and the impact of what has become known as “Aerotoxic Syndrome“ over the past decades and which is termed by insiders as one of the aviation industry’s  “dirty little secrets“.  Watch Trailer 
Featured Database Section: Aerotoxic Syndrome
Support Independent Media – Become A Member! 
100,00+ Research PDFs Yours With A PRO Membership
Upgrade the evidence-base of your practice or health advocacy with over 100,000 research PDF’s. This amazing library is your free with a PRO membership!  Learn more
Food For Thought
Did you know there are no chemical sensors on aircraft to detect and monitor air quality issues?
Archive continues: 


LEN LAWRENCE: “Solicitors Susan Andrews and Graeme Fraser. The Spiders Web and the Court of Protection” 27 May 17

FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107NB: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

MAURICE KIRK: “Two Million Pound Damages Claim against South Wales Police edges closer” 21 June 17 + archive

Two Million Pound Damages Claim against South Wales Police edges closer

by mauricekirky

mauricekirky | June 21, 2017 at 10:51 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p13xk8-2bb

Archive continues [scroll down for more posts / use search box + words “maurice kirk”]:




FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:

NB: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


In the latest 19 June update below [please SUE ME, MR. DALTON if my allegations and libel are untruthful!…ed.], and the previous updates linked, Carol  goes into greater detail regarding what she is having to experience from those around her, all with, it seems, the full cooperation and assistance of the local authorities who command the numerous crimes and the actions of the numerous lowlife stalkers she is surrounded by.  Not only do these nightmare neighbours she is surrounded by steal her landline telephone and internet delivery lines running into her house, and misuse it on an almost daily basis by the lines being previously diverted to their more than likely ramshackle homes, they also steal her electricity too when they can [when Carol switches it on], and much more. Carol can hear her neighbours testing their electricity sockets after she has turned her power on from the main switch in her home. For this very reason her electricity supply is having to be almost permanently switched off for fear of it being hacked by these criminal neighbours, she lives by candlelight and she has had to live electricity free in her home for years because of these lowlives’ thieving alongside her home – many of them doting and ageing pensioners who steal her services because they can and do not get criminally charged with anything – courtesy of the fake authoritarian figures in place who should be in prison rather than be sitting pretty in a government office somewhere, local or otherwise. Fake IDs used by so many – if not all – of Carol’s criminal neighbours pay for many things through fake bank accounts, the money all ultimately coming from the UK taxpayer – the general public, as are the new cars given as rewards to certain neighbours paid for the same way – the road tax etc for these cars also paid for by the UK public, as are the numerous “Blue Badge” schemes many of these cars are concessioned with – all registered via false details but paid for out of the public purse. Authorities do nothing when told about these scams – how much longer can these outright crimes continue? 

Regarding the internet and phone lines running into her abode: Carol even witnessed the rewiring of such to cater for her neighbours criminal thieving when she came back home from being out one day – the lines being rearranged and diverted into her loft where the neighbour’s connections take place, and thus the ability for these thieves to steal her services. A bit of  detail about this stealing of Carol’s services – when Carol came back from being out one day, she noticed an ironing board, of all things, leaning against a wall in one of her rooms which wasn’t there before she’d gone out. On moving the ironing board, there on the wall was – crudely written in biro or whatever – the electrician or whoever’s drawing for the rewiring of the phone + internet lines being diverted into her loft – for the use of the thieving neighbours as already described. This is why, when out on later outings to wherever, tell-tale ironing boards would be left deliberately en route – leaning against walls or whatever – for Carol not to miss. Such is the cruelty of the minds involved in this entire gangstalking scenario CW is having and has had to put up with for so many years. Does any authority  do anything about any of this stealing of her phone or internet services when they’re notified? No they don’t – the same way as the CEO of Royal Mail ignores all notifications to him regarding misdeliveries of CW’s mail to assorted neighbours [see earlier posts on this]. Other authorities also contemptuously ignore other notifications of gross irregularities / crimes sent to them. Why? Go figure. Semantic battles with the R. Mail’s current CEO proved pointless when trying to report the numerous and longstanding deliberate misdeliveries of mail to the neighbours who give CW such a hard time. As for these loutish neighbours and their hostilities, it’s hard to argue, for example, when someone wearing a police officer’s uniform making out they’re a police officer is intimidating one and breathing down one’s neck giving one preposterous orders to harass and hurt a fellow citizen – but harass and hurt they do, putting aside any semblance of conscience or, dare I say it – guilt. Perhaps the gift of a new car – or two – paid for by the UK taxpayers – eases their conscience and helps these sad characters turn the other cheek and commit serious crime and also stalk so inhumanly someone who devoted her entire working life in service to others – as Carol has – trying to help children especially. These lowlives – and the lowlives controlling all the conspiracies against Carol Woods – have much to answer for, and let’s hope that day comes soon when they get their comeuppance – noone likes a corrupt traitor, especially those who are in the positions they’re in, whose sky-high wages are paid by the UK taxpayer, and its funny how things turn around and come back ten times worse for those perpetrating these obscenities. But that’s noone’s problem but theirs.

It is completely unjust and as outrageous and unfair that I am refused reporting – by 3 separate police forces – serious crimes, as correspondence, or rather ignored correspondences to these 3 police forces, would show. If one complains to higher authorities about this completely unacceptable situation, I would guess that the targeting I am experiencing almost on a daily basis – whenever I go out – would escalate to an unacceptable level, causing me to fear for my very own life. That is why also the updates from CW have been drastically curtailed here. So be it. William Burroughs, the great author, once said that if a person didn’t want to catch malaria, one shouldn’t go to an area where malaria is rife. I seemed to have stumbled into something similar. So be that also…

The question has been asked: “why would the “Powers That Be” target someone such as Carol Woods for so long [since 2006], involving so many perpetrators, committing so many serious crimes, funded by the public and local council taxpayers?”. Carol Woods is a 63 years old former Lancashire County Council Level 3 Social Worker and Child Protection Officer [who used to train social workers] and a former Probation Officer, amongst many other things. Perhaps the appalling and chronic targeting she has no choice but to put up with 24/7 is because she reported numerous seriously grave irregularities she discovered, including child abuse, when being employed by Lancashire county council, as described in the “IMPORTANT VIDEOS” at the foot of this post, and also because of what Carol has reported, especially here, from Feb. 2007:   “York LGO Blog and Lancashire CC”  http://criticalreader2006.blogspot.ae/. More is described here:   “Harassment as punishment for whistle-blowing: Lancashire” http://criticalreader17.blogspot.ae/2017/02/harassment-as-punishment-for-whistle.html.

When one realises that the very controllers of the targeting and stalking Carol is forced to endure are, very probably, very closely connected to the same departments and personnel who are described in the links above and the “IMPORTANT VIDEOS” shown below, which detail what was discovered when Carol worked as a Child Protection officer in Lancashire, then it should not be hard to understand these hostilities enacted against her. Put it this way: the Welsh scientist, weapons expert and authority on biological warfare, employed by the British Ministry of Defence David Kelly was supposed to have leaked serious information to the detriment of the PTB at the time – look what happened to him. Now, Carol is no weapons expert, but one doesn’t have to be one to upset the proverbial apple cart bigtime. And anyway, we are told there have been assassination attempts upon her life too – quite a few in fact, including ramming her car at speed, on a main road, by perpetrators unknown…well, almost unknown.

And why is there an illegal tracking device installed in Ms. Woods car – put there, apparently – by Lancs. police? The Chief Constable of Lancashire has been written to so many times about so many serious matters with no response it’s quite remarkable. Another 2 chief constables have been written to asking can serious crime be reported to their forces also with no response whatsoever, and I have tried on more than one occasion to notify my local police about serious crime at my local central police station to be totally ignored every visit, which is just another public scandal!

Many more serious crimes and misdemeanours committed against Ms. Woods are all completely ignored by whichever UK government agency one tries to take anything to, including: 

many murder attempts,

impersonation, ID frauds,

person[s] impersonating police officers in official government hearings, [or hearing[s]  purporting to be official],

Royal Mail frauds,

monetary frauds involving: dubious bank accounts at numerous high street banks, the DWP, town council[s] and other agencies,

illegal tracking of motor vehicle via GPS device [or similar],

a high number of motor vehicle “Blue Badge” [UK HM Government concession] frauds,

regular physical harassment / mental torture upon a person [aka “gangstalking”],

telephone / Internet Broadband  / electricity supply fraud,

wrongful arrest,

wrongful kidnapping[s] / incarceration[s] in UK HM Government units, police station[s], HM Prison[s] etc.,

home burglaries, 

– many other instances of serious crime and illegal activity exist, and many acts contravening not only the Data Protection Act 1998, but also the contravention of articles pertaining to the European Commission of Human Rights [particularly Article 8].

What is going on is maybe unbelievable, and at times complicated, but that is surely deliberate and part of this outrageous targeting of a law-abiding citizen  – a lone female – who dared to report serious irregularities she found during her employment as a Level 3 social worker and Child Protection Officer. As a result, apart from the crimes committed against her as described, her house and contents with a value of £400,000+ was stolen from her, and her employment tribunal award of £50,000 found its way to someone who conspired against her who fraudulently took Carol Wood’s ID. Other serious crimes exist and continue to  this very day…




2] Please listen to this vital radio show interview with Ms. Woods from the 12 March 2016


3] CAROL WOODS WHISTLEBLOWER ON RADIO lancashire police corruption county council 06 Febuary 2016



 SriLankerC 24 April 2016 


6] Carol Woods Social Worker Unlawfully Incarcerated In Psychiatric Gulag  https://youtu.be/-sMukHhkl4o   – 16 April 2016 by  GeorgeGreekTrucker



carol woods 
 19 Jun
to steve.finnegan, hq1-profession., andy.cooke, contact, chiefexecutive, clive.grunshaw

 19 June 2017 and hot on the tail of the lengthy data showing the lowlife thieves and fraudsters use to harass and more round LA2 9RP. THIS REPORT FORMALLY TO LANCS POLICE AS LIKELY FRAUD AND ID THEFT. PHOTOS ARE AVAILABLE AND FROM THE 5/9/12 and 20/4/14 FRAUDS AS REFERENCED.

JUNE WILLIAMS aka me was up hours earlier than usual after pretending to be out but hiding indoors on 18th as usual and she was to find something in green to hang on the line to pretend she had been me out on 18th as I wore green. (I saw her on 18th before I went out; she wore nothing like I wore and nothing even vaguely describable as ‘green’.) The item hung out was dry: she had not washed it; that is an old FRAUD to pretend something is FACT when it is FICTION. I took a photo of MY green item on my line and the things she has on her line supposed to be what I wore. She had on the TV from early also unusual, and then the usual loud mouths by 34 (another hiding drive way for fraudsters who want to pretend they called on me) with a tarty piece sneaking into 30 which was done on 20/4/14 as filmed by me then and, also today. The cheap old doxy then was said to be their daughter when she was almost as old as they are. The cheap tarty piece of 19th was dressed as if she was appearing on X Factor as all the dullards do when instructed and think this is their “chance” in life. Not long prior to her sneaking in at the rear I was in my front garden checking plants (which is why she sneaked in at the rear but sneaked out at the front as I was then hanging out washing in my rear garden), a loud phone ringing was heard from at least 100 yards away which is standard as that apparently is PROOF it is my phone.

That was done on 5/9/12 when I rented at 298 Oxcliffe Rd LA3 3EJ and the landlady there Mrs MARGARET MIDDLETON posing as my dead mother (now the old of the old fraudster in 32 Fell View) stood outside my caravan and like Williams was told to wear something that could be said to be what I wore juts because of the colour base, and have her landline sound so loud that I could hear it in my caravan when she then went indoors to take the call posing as me as if I was my dead mother. Jarvis did the same in 2014 from 41 Fell View and O’Conner from 39 has pulled out his car DG04 UXR waiting to drive off when I do as he is so deluded he thinks he is something to do with me. Why is he not working? He has done nothing for weeks except to move his car and drive off and on when I do.

I broke off typing this at 11am for the minute’s silence as per radio message (I have on my battery/wind up radio having no power on) in respect of the fire tragedy in London while Williams was screeching as usual, playing to her audience (Mr Williams and my dead mother) and thinking she had been so clever having another fraudster to call and PRETEND yet again.  

The MOTIVE and INTENTION: I guess that troll was sent by the most corrupt council reputedly calling to 30 to PRETEND they called on ME around this date in 2012 when I reported serious harassment of me as a tenant in caravan 1 @ 298 Oxcliffe Rd. Given the EXPOSURE of the SANTANDER FRAUD, the thugs and fraudsters had then a concerted effort to get me out. The council DID NOT WANT TO KNOW so thought they’d rewrite that NOW using known thieves and worse in 30 Fell View and PRETENDING 30 Fell View is a caravan miles away and 2017 is 2012 again! One has to remember that Williams was set up to be ME prior to my move. In that the old troll from 32 posed as HER mother to make MY DEAD MOTHER seem not to be dead and using Williams to be her daughter they were me with my mother! There is about 10 years age difference between Williams and Lamb in 32. MY FAXES OF OCCASIONS WHEN THE 2 WERE OUT AS ‘ME WITH MY DEAD MOTHER’ WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR MY SEC 7 SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST WHEN 8 COPIES OF FAXES I HAD SENT YEARS AGO HAD BEEN SENT TO MAKE ME THINK YOU COMPLIED WITH THE DPA 1998 AS IF I WAS AN IDIOT.

Over the last few weeks the deranged Mr Williams has been told what to do at the small garden shed they have in the tiny rear yard of 30 which apparently is a caravan site miles away. MR Williams was trying to act out events from 2012 @ 298 using a small old wooden shed and he totally inept and quite useless was hoping I’d think he was the odd job man at 298 working in the HUGE shed there outside my caravan! I could only look on in amazement at the lunacy. The car PJ65 WLL was not parked at 11 30am nor was PF08 WDJ which I apparently drive my dead mother about in but that means nothing: it does not man they are out; they spend many hours every day hiding indoors pretending to be out when they can use the phones and TV as if it is my use they claiming to be out.

In Morecambe library with the main computer room closed until 2pm I watched a pair of unemployed roughnecks race to use the 30 minute facility: gawped, were more interested in watching my log on as they were to be the yob T DALTON ordering his clothes from the INTERNET but not paying for them as he PRETENDS in fraud to be linked to me that is the use of 45 Fell View as reported often, The girl is to be the “mother’s baby” why are these not in work or college but available to commit E-CRIME? I was reminded of the 2 caught red handed in KENDAL library with their own lap top sent to the do the same behind my back and hope I did not find out.

I did not log on until their 30 minutes use was almost used up. Sent in then was another of the same type and he had the same surname of those in 18 fell view who pretend I live there being driven about by them: this one uses FACEBOOK and talks of drugs all boring, predictable and pathetic. I also record the roughneck sent in GREEN to wait parked and then walk s if with me or to be me as she was to be JUNE WILLIAMS with her “green” garment hung out to hope it could be said to be what she as me wore on 18th!

There is no such thing as coincidence as especially that woman waiting in her car had not paid on the pay and display and was a smoker as Williams is but I would ask, how did you know what Williams hung out DRY on her line to sound as if it was what I wore on 18th in order to advise the roughneck about 20 years younger than Williams to wear to wait while she could then walk out as if she was me just having parked my car. I took a photo of the COUNCIL sleazy stalking in PK59 KMG dark grey Mitsubishi pretending to have dropped me off so that the one smoking  in “green” with her car could be said to be me in mine while I apparently am someone else being driven!I am sorry the use of PK62 NXJ dark grey Peugeot is such an issue your fraud, your corruption and FOUND OUT. Carol Woods PS the MR printing off for Lancaster County Court reminded me of DAVID FABB this time a year ago from the Midlands a recruit of yours trying to steal MY documents from me so HE could use them as PROOF of FRAUD on his case as if he was MR CAROL WOODS. The DF of course to confuse the DF of yours, DAVID FAIRCLOUGH.

FOI 2002 Act. Request  21 June 17

carol woods 
 to customerservic.

Dear Lancashire County Council, Under the Freedom of Information Act 2002 NOT the Data Protection Act 1998, this is not a subject access request I require the costs to the tax-payer of ALL social work/semi qualified/ carers/ general staff posing as such from early 2013 in the LA3 3EJ and LA3 2QU areas of Lancashire PLUS all the payments and cars supplied for “family carers and drivers of “disabled”” round Caton area LA2 9RP.

To aid that I suggest you look at LA2 9RP and note these addresses: Fell View numbers, 2, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 32, 34, 36, 38, 42 even numbers plus, 11, 15, 17, 23, 29, 31, 33, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55 and 59 odd numbers.

There are properties on adjoining streets Leslie Ave such as 7, 16, 17.Copy Lane, 39, 2, 23.

Landgale nos. 5 and 17.

2 Hall Drive.

Many thanks: yours etc, Carol Woods Ms.

Cars used incl: LT59 FGN, PE08 ZRX, PE56 NXB,OEO8 AHF, OEO6 APF, BK53 EWE, PJ62 FGE, DK51 HVL, PE08 WMV, BF02 YKD,  PJ62 OGS, GN55 JNK, MV57 CFE, PE64 HGM, etc. I

hope this helps.

Example of TREASON Lancs. Misuse HRH letter.  21 June 17

carol woods 
to info, johnsonb, john.howarth, anne.owers, ben.ando, bae146, me, freedomtalkrad., editor, editor, telegraphedito., policing.minis., privateoffice.., look.north, enquiries, andy.cooke, ministers, homeaffcom, privateoffice, tom.winsor, amber.rudd.mp, fieldf, burnhama, ian.hopkins, ian.pilling

 Dear Sirs I send this to agencies who I am certain have been lied to about me. In the Masonic inversion nonsense practiced in Lancashire, they think it is clever to REVERSE fact to create fiction and then pass off the fiction as fact! Please feel free to quote me; as data subject I own the copyright and publishing rights of this letter attached and any other I have.

Please see the attached: every so often the Gestapo turn people against me by, for example, telling ethnic groups I am racist. Let us look at that important matter given the current climate: I was commended and recognised for my work combating racism when I taught in Lancaster Castle HM PRISON: I am qualified and experienced to teach which was why the fraudster JUNE WILLIAMS in 30 Fell View Caton LA2 9RP, who the Gestapo claim is me was given bogus ID IN MY NAME and found “work” as a volunteer in HMYOI Lancaster Farms trying to make her into me. Obviously she has no qualifications and is barely literate which is why she could act as volunteer: I took a first rate photo as PROOF of that, made it known I had the photos and she had to resign saying she could not manage the paperwork. The Gestapo used HMYOI as the Castle by then had closed as a prison. I had taught in HMYOI and also worked as inspector of prison education departments via the CfBT with then, the NRDC chairman asking me to critically read all research papers the NRDC were to publish as he valued my expert opinion and advice and acted on it. TREASON spoiled much of that with drafts sent to me “disappearing” and my education departmental reports also “disappearing” in computer misuse of which I was then beginning to learn more of.

From 2000 for years, 5 intensely, I supported a black worker from Lancashire social services who had been bullied to 2 breakdowns because of racists in the dept. That was while I was enduring the thuggery and worse because of my whistle-blowing (see Internet). LCC and the Gestapo are annoyed that I have various high level qualifications and thus have a CV that includes professional posts in different fields. (I had ‘a result’ for my black friend, incidentally, after 5 years.)

That then is the latest and I guarantee the Gestapo have decided to claim something in lunacy: the attached is an example of such and has to be the ultimate in TREASON.

In 2010 I was making headway in MY case with a high court judge, Justice MacKay instructing me to go home, forcibly remove anyone in my house, sue them and prosecute them. I also went to the FCO, had an appointment to speak to a manager after staff saw photos of MY wrecked house which apparently the lunatics said in 2015 I had made up as fact that MY house seized and looted was also wrecked with £70.000.00 knocked off its value in an afternoon. Yes, photos are apparently a figment of my imagination, all my neighbours and their photos are liars and so on. The FCO suggested that this being police led, that I might have to live abroad. Why should I? I don’t want to. They know who is running the show so deal with them not me. (The Gestapo in red Audi ACK 9Y of 19/6/17 will have a red face when he sees my photos of his aiding and abetting serious fraud and E-Crime and then there is the one on a series of photos aiding and abetting serious E-Crime from Aug 2014 using his RED Vauxhall (sorry escapes me for the moment) PLUS the one 9/9/08 at MY house involved in the wrecking and looting in PL05 XHZ (I have probably made that that licence plate up as well!).

But, on another return visit, the FCO had been sent a copy of a letter to me in regard to my work for the Prince’s Trust Teams. (Remember I was arrested 7/11/15 and said to be deluded only saying I had had the jobs I said I had had as if that is a crime, and locked up for 4 months), this letter suggests I had at least one job I said I had had; in fact I had mounds of work files going back years so the perjurers just claimed ANOTHER, DIFFERENT delusion; they decided that I was delusional about persons of high profile knowing of my case with LCC.

I produced this letter (along with others sent to me from high profile persons) and asked if HRH was high enough profile.

That was then Feb. 2016 and I was released. I was able to produce my work files because I was allowed to go with a staff member to collect some clothes from 28 Fell View after being incarcerated for 1 week, they INTENDING to make it as long as possible, but I collected my work files as well as clothes. They simply changed the delusion when they saw my work files; British justice as its best.                                                                                                           
BUT, among my files, by chance, I had this letter attached and some others, they started to exhaust their suggestions of “delusions”.

 The letter: 2010 this letter, which LCC knew I had but did not know the content of, learned via false friend, JANET WOODALL, where I kept the original. The person holding the original for me for safety was JACKIE HUNTER of 34 BUCKLEY ST SHAW OL2 5EX a neighbour of my sister’s. HUNTER was bribed in 2007 (more to send out will show how the Gestapo learned of Hunter and how they decided to claim after 2007 that she was me, AND all that is linked to the murder of GMP MIKE TODD. Anyone can ask and I am amazed and saddened that no one has; was his murder just something else for under the carpet like Gary Speed’s and Gareth Williams’?)

Hunter bribed, passed MY original to the Gestapo legal rep IAN YOUNG in County Hall Preston and he scanned MY original, made a photocopy using the heading and signature but then removing the original content and with headed paper and signature, he added his own content as if it was HRH dictating a letter to me.

I only attach a copy of the original for obvious reasons: anyone can ask to see the original regained from HUNTER by my sister and thus then to me in 2010.

The Gestapo then, learning of my high court “win” and my visit to FCO, (via illegal surveillance) sent round their REVERSE content drivel and agencies believed it was really HRH. Imagine the reverse then of this content in the real letter as attached. And thus many withdrew any support they felt they could offer me and many “royalists” were recruited to harass and more because they so stupid really thought HRH would write drivel of the kind YOUNG writes.

What was HUNTER bribed with? I wish someone would ask. It is all there for the telling of. I am Carol Woods Ms under duress 28 Fell View LA2 9RP and anyone could call to all the parasites, thieves and worse in Caton LA2 9RP or elsewhere and ask to see the original of this letter: If they are unable to produce it; we can suggest they are not me. I have no phone. Mail is stolen as routine and handed to those in 26, 30, 41, 43 etc who all claim to be me.

Lancs senior cop caught in the act.  21 June 17

carol woods  

to policing.minis., enquiries, publicenquiries, privateoffice.., look.north, info, me, homeaffcom, hq1-profession., steve.finnegan, info, johnsonb, privateoffice, haveyoursay, chiefexecutive, telegraphedito., hammondp, contact, david.morris.mp, cat_smith, ben.ando, bae146, freedomtalkrad., ssajid.javid.mp, editor

Please feel free to quote me: This records MORE Lancs. police corruption on camera and seen so clearly. I, Ms Carol Woods was at the university using the WiFi for a relatively short time prior to scanning some documents showing MORE amazing corruption which documents are to be sent out a.s.a.p. The photos referred to in this data have to be developed and scanned so will be sent a.s.a.p.  My routine is usually to scan my documents prior to leaving which the Gestapo know and arrange their educated idiot to send his text as to MY scanner use so the Gestapo can be “ready” to commit harassment and fraud. (Photo of that male.) I scan then leave,  expecting something and find a RED AUDI racing round at least twice the campus speed limit, ACK 9Y photo and see cop driving, not young, no jacket but clearly Gestapo uniform and probably senior staff given his age. What was that thug to be “confirming”? A silver Toyota Yaris was parked, WJ56 GDE and that was to be MY driver or even me. My RED YARIS remember does not exist although I paid to park at time of entry to campus, 3 30pm I took photos of the Yaris. I went back to the library to record the Gestapo up to no good and obviously tipped off my MI6 halfwit. In the library pretending to read was a scruffy lowlife old male used (YOU pay for him to be taken there by taxi) and he in GREEN was Mr CAROL WOODS “seen” as per my earlier data sent out of fraudsters in GREEN to be me from what I wore on 18/6/17. He was to go for a bus, so lots of “witnesses”, when he saw me leave as he was me and had been using my lap top to send my emails and I apparently only thought it was me.

I hand wrote my record of that bent cop harassment, scanned it knowing the Gestapo would see it ILLEGALLY and act in hysterics as usual. Leaving then after scanning that, I saw what the bent copper had been up to; the African I caught using MY emails in Brighton in 2011 as if he was me, was re-enacted with an African male sent to stand about in light aqua (green) and try to walk where I did as he on his phone was to be me having been using my email address and June 2017 was really June 2011 and hundreds of miles away in Brighton: the one used on 19/6/17 was older than the one I caught red handed. The Gestapo being racists won’t think I know the difference as they think all black people look the same. I took his photo after waiting and giving him the benefit of the doubt: he was a recruit.

A learner driver car waited to collect a male learner:  that was probably to be said to be me learning to drive as they pretended from Dec. 2012 making me someone of their imagination. The usual taxi set off as he was also driving me, my car was not there for me, apparently. The silver Toyota had gone when she knew she was noted and on camera.  I was in no rush to leave and noticed a yob with a baseball cap and grey hoodie with the hood up; a moron: he was to walk up to campus to REVERSE the same type weeks ago cycling OFF who was a “me”. The lout on 19/6/17 was so stupid he kept gawping so I got some photos so he can be identified and, all that gear in the boiling heat? That “uniform” is the uniform of those louts used who are just in a different uniform to the Gestapo but all are thugs; some are just paid more to be thugs. Thus considering the events and timing and I will confirm that the RED AUDI had driven that yob and dropped him off to walk up thinking I’d have driven off so that yob could then be seen to be MR Carol Woods on campus. I have photos of squad vehicles dropping off thugs and yobs to be MR Carol Woods seen at the university when none has read a word let alone a book. The Gestapo did in 2012 into 2013 collect KNOWN thieves and fraudsters from where they really lived in Morecambe and drop them off at 298 Oxcliffe Rd where they pretended to live and 5 FIVE pretended to be linked to me and all gained in FRAUD and DECEPTION when I rented caravan 1A there. Oxcliffe Rd was way out of Morecambe proper and there were no buses and the unemployed parasites and thieves couldn’t be expected to walk so, the Gestapo provided the free taxi service. They also escorted SANTANDER bank clerk fraudster ELIZABETH MASON who would arrive at 298 in PK07 EDX and she IN WORK TIME was to be at 298 with her frauds of arranging 5 FIVE false accounts linked to me from that bank where I have never banked. May 2014 they escorted CURWEN thieves and fraudsters from 24 Fell View who claimed to be me after an RTA! That fraud gave CURWEN parasites £50k as if one of that “3 some” was me. A jury will see HUNDREDS of MR and Mrs /Ms Carol Woods, all ages, all races.

Back in Caton, 5 miles east of Lancaster, driving the back roads on 19/6/17, I found the usual sent to race away from Caton and pretend whatever their delusions allow which always involves use of 2 addresses in FRAUD where they claim to live as WOODS while their addresses in Caton are their own names. One fine example was O’Conner from 39 Fell View deranged and corrupt and used more than I knew, DG04 UXR his car and an old trout from 39/41 Copy Lane off Fell View who thinks she’s MI6 now in her stupidity in allowing herself to be used. Mr JARVIS the insane was waiting ready in GN07 AHO at 41 Fell View and dressed in RED which he has been every single day for a couple of weeks at least now as he and his equally insane wife think they are me as Mr and Mrs Carol Woods and the RED is apparently MY red car thus he is out in my red car! In 2014, the unemployed for ever thug son of Agnes Jackson in 26 Fell View would call and stay about, he wore red and he spent 5 weeks trying to steal MY car. She wears her red jacket when she wants to pose as me and thinks her jacket is seen as MY car! In 2015 Jarvis decided they did not have me living with them being cared for and driven about by them but that they were actually me and she was found a part time job at Uni. Sports’ Centre as a cleaner as that is all she can do but her refs then to “UNI” were to be me with my work there. Now I suggest that Mr Jarvis has been found work as MR Carol Woods as DAVID MIDDLETON of 298 Oxcliffe Rd LA3 3EJ was found work as ME as MR in 2012 for BIBBY’s of Ingleton who knew Middleton was Middleton and that use of MY name was FRAUD and lunacy. As the Gestapo do the same old things time after time, this goes to HMRC.

Mr Williams in 30 Fell View had to wait for me to enter 28 on my return when he could exit by the rear door of 30 and PRETEND he had just entered WITH ME as if I was his horrendous wife, walked from front to back and then he started to water plants and pretended he had been out all day as if with me!  On 18 May 2014 she found out to be posing as ME with ID provided for her as if she was me, gaining with Gestapo help, work as a volunteer in HMYOI Lancaster Farms, had to resign. To do that, it being a SUNDAY when the dept. was closed, she opened their front windows so I would hear as that means it is MY telephone conversation, apparently.  With her inimitable maracas mouth, she resigned pretending to talk to someone saying she could not cope with paperwork. The 18 June 2017 being Sunday she could not repeat that in any form which was why they had the fraudster dressed for X Factor call on 19th and pretend somehow that Williams was me, and, to rewrite the 20 April 2014 when they again pretended to be me and trying to SELL MY HOUSE, they used the 19th June 2017 to mix both those frauds PLUS the 20th June 2017 at 11 30am she with her windows open was screeching into her phone; I hear thus it is apparently my call! In May 2010, that was done using an AgnieskaRachsfalzska, partner of my then landlord and she in the room next to me opened her door and shouted as if taking part in a call which I was to hear and think was proper. She, I found, had been claiming to be my daughter. The routine is that the GESTAPO take part in the calls and PRETEND to be bona fide persons.

At 18 minutes to 8pm on19th June 2017 the loud noise from MY bungalow told me that someone in the immediate area had linked up to a computer as if the use was mine via the ILLEGAL devices installed by BT AFTER I moved in when they gained entry while I was out. Keys of course provided by the council. Of course I can prove that. The RED Peugeot DG51 WGL was at 45 Fell View; thus Woodruff from 2 Fell View was with T Dalton and as they have done for over 3 THREE YEARS used his Internet as if they are me and linked to me. That was why another similar pair of unemployed lowlife was to try to use the computers when I did in Morecambe library; the data sent out as to their INTENDED FRAUD which failed as I noticed they sat waiting to log on and were far too interested in what I was doing: I did not log on: I sat and waited until they had nearly exhausted their 30 minutes free use before I did anything at all. I went to take a photo and Woodruff drove away not long after. Woodruff was ONE reason 28 Fell View was deemed “ideal” for me as she has auburn hair and the INTENTION had always been to claim she was ME with her RED car as “proof” and auburn hair. More recently I saw she had been told to bleach her hair to fair; that was the “new plan” to have the usual used but all with “fair hair” as the old doxies with their bleached hair who ALL claim to be me such as Mrs O’Conner in 39, Mrs Williams in 30, Mrs Jarvis in 41, Mrs Dalton in 45, PLUS those who claim to be my dead mother such as LAMB in 32, and they are unlikely to have an auburn haired daughter as WOODRUFF also tries to claim she is, thus she was to bleach her hair to validate THEIR claims they were me, or my dead mother and she a “daughter” as if WOODRUFF can be mistaken for WOODS.

Prior to leaving 28 Fell View, the Gestapo assumed as it was later than usual for me to go out, that I would not be going out so brought the thuggery and harassment TO me by the usual sleazy COUNCIL hiding in 41 Fell view to PRETEND she had collected Mrs Invisible AGAIN this morning to “move in” so she, Jarvis could “care for them and drive them about” with the COUNCIL employees in LT579 FGN and the latest used only twice YK14 RED and they set Jarvis up in FRAUDULENT claims that Mrs Invisible ME signs to receive extra DWP monies as “ill” and agreeing to pay JARVIS to be in 41 and driven about by her; she I consider in my professional opinion to be insane. WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM?

As I went out and took photos of the sleazy collecting at 41 AGAIN to do all that AGAIN, MILLS from 20 Fell View PRETENDED she too had collected ANOTHER INVISIBLE person, also ME who the COUNCIL using YOUR monies paid while they paid Jarvis from March 2014 to PRETEND MILLS also had ME living in 20 Fell View and being driven about by her. This is how they ALL have lost of large vehicles yet are unemployed. BUT using 16 Fell View, another sleazy “professional” called as I also live there and am driven about by them. I took photos and drove off amid the usual recruits along the way with now “14” plates being an issue and the Masonic type of male waiting to drive as if with me to PRETEND whatever his delusions allowed. Males are the issue so that I have to be someone else so that a male can be me. Thus I walk to this town library accompanied by a male who then PRETENDS to enter, switches on his phone Internet connection and walks off and thus MY link up using the public terminals is apparently his so, I am MR Carol Woods and I, as me, am in 20, 41, 16, 30, 26 etc Fell View. PJ65 WLL car was NOT parked; it had been hidden to look as if Williams was out when they were both in. That car is an issue as now for car insurance NI numbers have to be given and driving licences submitted so Mrs JUNE WILLIAMS in 30 Fell View has a serious problem as she thinks she is me and that car PJ65 WLL is ANOTHER registered as if she is me! She has had 5 FIVE. In 2010 the FCO told me when I was with one of my daughters that I was “up against the dark forces”: what are they exactly? A bunch of seedy old, unemployed, parasites, inept cretins and MI6 wannabes as far as I can PROVE plus the Gestapo instructing. This also to ‘benefits’ of the council as someone claims in fraud again plus, another person in a property, invisible or otherwise, has to be counted for council tax.

Archive continues:

The Shocking Carol Woods Coverup: How to make a person disappear? Delete all knowledge of the person’s MOTHER – 14 June 17 + archive


FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:

NB: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment


Freedom of Information Demand

by mauricekirky

17th June 2017                                                             Crown Court case number T20170239  

FOI and DPA Officer

Criminal Cases Review Commission

5 St Philip’s Place

Birmingham B3 2PW

Dear Sir/Madam


4Th Jury Trial on Breach of a Restraining Order Never Ever Served


I again write to request to be supplied with copies of all documents that are retained on the Criminal Cases Review Commission file in respect of my request to review my conviction at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on 1 December 2011 before DJ John Charles, and my subsequent appeal to Cardiff Crown Court dismissed by HHJ Hughes on 1 March 2012, and my trial and conviction at Cardiff Crown Court before HHJ Curran QC on 4 May 2012.

I do not appear to have had a proper disclosure, following my 7th August 2015 application, of the documents on file concerning me with South Wales Police, Cardiff Crown Court, Cardiff Magistrates and Crown Prosecution Service (Wales).

You may be aware that copies of originals are obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as a result of the recent Court of Appeal ruling in Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority v. Information Commissioner [2015] EWCA Civ 388.

Regarding the parts of the documents that I appear to be the “direct focus” under the Durant ruling, I request to be supplied with complete un-redacted copies under section 7(1)(a) of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Regarding the parts of those documents that I may not be the “direct focus” of, I simultaneously apply under section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I therefore apply for complete copies of all of the documents of which I am and am not the “direct focus” of, I request the complete and un-redacted copies under both the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 simultaneously.

While fully accepting that the Durant ruling permitted disclosure of “data” of which the subject is the “direct focus” of, so that material that didn’t constitute “direct focus” data could be redacted, this in my view would be inapplicable to a dual application as with the case here.

There also would appear to be nothing in either the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Durant ruling that prevents the additional none “direct focus” data in a document also being supplied simultaneously, provided that the data controller is a public body subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I make this application under section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or section 7(1)(a) of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Yours faithfully

Maurice J Kirk BVSc           copy to Her Honour Judge Eleri Rees, The Recorder of Cardiff.


Archive continues:

MAURICE KIRK: Applications Re: Specific Disclosure for trial 17/06/17 + archive

FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:

NB: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

1990 Rochdale “Satanic Abuse Case”: BBC v Rochdale Borough Council High Court 24 Nov 2005


BBC v Rochdale Borough Council High Court 24 Nov 2005

This is relevant to the 1990 Rochdale “satanic abuse” case, see 2017 Jun 16 Cathy Fox Blog Two articles on “Ritual Abuse” by Richard Scorer  [1]

There had been an injunction so that no one could identify the social workers involved, in order that the children were not identified.

The children were now grown up and were aggrieved about the separation from their parents and wanted to be able to tell their stories. Therefore the injunction preventing naming the social workers was therefore challenged by the BBC so that the programme could be broadcast.

The injunction was lifted.


Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[2005] EWHC 2862 (Fam)

Case Nos: WG 18, 19, 21, 24 and 28 of 1990


24th November 2005

Mr Justice Ryder

Between The British Broadcasting Company

v. 1. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

v. 2. ‘X’

v. 3. ‘Y’

Mr Adam Wolanski (instructed by the BBC Litigation Department) for the BBC

Mr Anthony Hayden QC and Ms Yvonne Coppel (instructed by the Borough Solicitor) for Rochdale MBC and X

Ms Jane Walker (instructed by Thompsons Solicitors, Manchester) for Y

Hearing dates: 12th and 13th September 2005


Mr Justice Ryder:

1. On the 7th March 1991 Mr Justice Douglas Brown gave judgment in open court in wardship proceedings concerning 20 children from 6 families, known as ‘the Rochdale satanic abuse case’. The judgment is reported as Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v. A [1991] 2 FLR 192 . All bar 4 of the children were returned to or remained in the care of their families and the allegations of satanic and ritual abuse were found not to have been made out. Injunctions were made to protect the identities of the children concerned.

2. It is the protection afforded by those injunctions that forms the background to these renewed proceedings. The key issue before this court is whether continuing protection should be afforded to two social workers, X and Y, whose identities were not revealed in the open court judgment that concluded the original proceedings.

3. The terms of the injunctions that continue in force (as distinct from the protections this court has put in place with the agreement of the parties pending decisions being made in these proceedings) are as follows:

“Any person whether by himself or by his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever or in the case of a company by its directors, officers, servants or agents or otherwise howsoever (is restrained) from 

1) publishing in any newspaper or broadcasting in any sound or television broadcast or by means of any cable programme service or by satellite any picture being or including a picture of the several minors whose names are set out in the schedule hereto or any particulars or pictures calculated to lead to the identification of the minors as being or as having been wards of this court or

2) causing or procuring any publication or broadcast of the type defined in paragraph (1) above or

3) soliciting any information relating to the said minors (other than information in the public domain) from —

a. the said minors or any of them

b. any natural person who has had the care of the minors since the minors became wards of court

c. the staff or pupils of any school which the said minors attend or have attended

d. the staff or inmates of any institution or children’s home at which the said minors reside or have resided…”

4. In respect of one of the families the non solicitation clause was drawn wider to include relatives, carers and parents.

5. On the 22nd May 2005 the BBC applied for an order that would have the effect of permitting the disclosure of evidence given in the original proceedings to the BBC, the solicitation of information relating to those proceedings and disclosure to the general public of the identities of X and Y, the social workers who were granted anonymity by Douglas Brown J.

6. The purpose of the BBC’s application is to facilitate the production of a documentary that the court has been told the BBC intended to broadcast later this year.

7. The local authority and the two social workers concerned have agreed with the BBC and the representatives of the former wards the disclosure of materials to the former wards, its use by the BBC and the relaxation of the prohibition against solicitation of information from the former wards among others. That involved a detailed consideration by the local authority of the materials that existed against the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. The court was able to assist the parties to reach agreement by the appointment of a clinical assessor whose instruction was to consider whether harm was likely to be caused to the data protection subjects by the disclosure requested.

8. At the end of the process there remain only two issues a) whether the two social workers can be named in the documentary and b) whether video footage which includes the images of the social workers as well as the children can be broadcast. The extent of the disclosure that has been agreed, evidenced by detailed orders that have been agreed by the parties and approved by the court, is such that the former wards and the BBC have been able to see and read almost all of the materials that were used in the proceedings. That which has been excluded can fairly be characterised by the description that it is intimate family business that may not have been known between generations and which is not relevant to the applications now before the court.

9. On the 16th August 2005 Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council issued an application on their own behalf and on behalf of one of the two social workers for an injunction restraining the BBC from publication of the names of both social workers or any material that might lead to their identification on the grounds that the social workers and their families would be harmed personally and professionally and it would not be in the public interest. On the 1st September 2005 an application was made on behalf of the other social worker in identical terms. Although one social worker had the advantage of representation through solicitors appointed by her union, the other was afforded the same protection through the local authority’s legal department.

10. I have had the benefit of hearing detailed submissions on behalf of the BBC, the local authority and both social workers. I am very grateful to leading and junior counsel for the benefit of their skill and industry. I have also taken steps to hear representations from the former wards. They are separately represented by solicitors who protect their interests in particular as to their discussions and agreements with the BBC and the separate civil compensation proceedings that have been instituted against the local authority.

11. I record the fact that each of the relevant adults concerned have come to binding agreements with the BBC about the use of their confidential information and I am satisfied that these protections need not be further investigated by this court in these proceedings. There are former wards and other adults who were concerned in the proceedings whose confidential information is not to be revealed and I am satisfied that their interests have likewise been protected.

12. I have considered detailed written evidence filed on behalf of the BBC, the local authority, both social workers and their respective employers. Opportunities were provided to call and examine that evidence but by a proper and proportionate use of the court’s permission to file evidence in reply, no examination proved to be necessary. I have not been asked to hear oral evidence and credibility is not in issue.

13. There is a relevant part of the judgment of the 7th March 1991 that is not to be found in the case report but which can be read in the transcript of the original proceedings. There the learned judge gave the following reason for the two social workers being granted anonymity:

“I do not give their names, because to do so could well lead to the identification of these children”

14. All of the professionals directly involved with the children with the exception of X and Y were named in public. The anonymity ruling was coincident with the purpose and detailed terms of the injunctions made at the end of the proceedings although it should be noted that an anonymity direction was not included in any order and hence was neither brought to the attention of any person who was not present in court nor, in particular, any media organisation.

15. In fact neither social worker played any further part in the lives of any of the children or their families and both left the employment of the local authority for other social care bodies. They remain in employments that are unconnected with the former wards and the court has been told, and it is not in issue, that both have had successful careers in the social care professions where their activities have positively benefited their professional colleagues and the vulnerable adults and children they have assisted.

16. By the time the BBC made its application to this court, the purpose of the original injunctions had been achieved in that the former wards were no longer children and save as to the specific agreements that have been come to, they are adults who wish to be identified. It is not suggested that any of the former wards are incapacitated in law and accordingly this court’s role in respect of the maintenance and/or enforcement of their anonymity must of necessity be limited. Indeed, where there is no evidence that the adults concerned lack the capacity to give consent, absent other arguments, the court must permit them to be identified. A failure to do so would be an unjustified interference with their Article 8 and 10 rights: Re Roddy (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 949 per Munby J. at paragraphs [37], [56] and [59] and E v. Channel Four, News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1144 per Munby J. at paragraphs [48] to [52].

17. If the former wards can be identified, then it is certainly arguable that the ancillary protection afforded to the social workers falls away. Although the injunctions were expressed to continue in force until further order, the former wards have made clear and informed decisions upon advice to waive their privacy. Accordingly, no-one has sought in these proceedings to argue from first principles whether the wardship orders should continue to survive the majority i.e. the adulthood of those they protected, although undoubtedly the wardship court did extend its protection beyond the age of majority where a public interest was identified that required it: see Re Manda (Wardship: Disclosure of Evidence) [1993] 1 FLR 205 CA per Sir John Megaw at 219.

18. It is in this context that cross applications were made on behalf of the social workers and the local authority for an injunction granting the two social workers privacy in any circumstances. As the BBC pointed out, the terms of the protection asked for would grant X and Y total privacy i.e. anonymity in all circumstances: a protection so far only afforded by the courts in exceptional circumstances to, for example, Mary Bell, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables and Maxine Carr.

19. It is not in issue that there is a legitimate public interest in the subject matter of the case. In the opening paragraph of the 1991 judgment Douglas Brown J. said:

“I am giving this part of the judgment in open court because I am of the view that this case gives rise to areas of genuine public concern and that it has implications not only for wardship proceedings but for proceedings taken under the Children Act 1989…”

20. Whether the outcomes are positive for the children concerned and for society generally of our child care procedures, law and practice is a matter for genuine public debate and interest, now as it was in 1991. I respectfully agree with Munby J. in Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] 2 FLR 142 at 181 paragraphs [99] and [103] where he says:

“The workings of the family justice system and, very importantly, the views about the system of…(those)…caught up in it are … matters of public interest which can and should be discussed publicly”

“We cannot afford to proceed on the blinkered assumption that there have been no miscarriages of justice in the family justice system. This is something that has to be addressed with honesty and candour if the family justice system is not to suffer further loss of public confidence. Open and public debate in the media is essential.”

The Facts Relied Upon:

21. What are the other facts upon which these applications rest?

22. The criticisms made by Douglas Brown J. that relate to the social workers and other professionals were serious and went to the heart of good child protection procedures and practices at the time. They are set out in full in his judgment and need not be repeated here.

23. What should be remembered, however, is that the learned Judge also found that:

“… the local authority employees I have been concerned with are decent people. They are not heartless or ruthless. They acted throughout with the best interests of these children in mind as they saw them. Nevertheless mistakes were made and it is greatly to their credit that most of them have been acknowledged.”

24. The BBC wish to illustrate the criticisms made in judgment by use of the video footage that exists, where that is practicable and appropriate. That would involve revealing clips of the social workers, albeit from 15 years ago and the use of the transcripts of their interviews. It should be noted that provided their identity is not revealed neither the local authority nor the social workers oppose the use of the videos or the transcribed material.

25. For the BBC it is said that:

1. There remains a strong public interest in examining the criticisms made by Douglas Brown J. in the context of a) contemporaneous national influences and child care practice, b) the lessons learned i.e. the changes that have occurred in child care law and practice and c) the effect upon the families and children concerned;

2. The former wards are now adults, they wish to talk about their experiences and that provides a unique opportunity to listen to their recollection of events, their experiences then and to date and their comments on the decisions made on their behalf by adults: parents and professionals alike;

3. The documentary would be a rare opportunity to discuss the then prevalent child care practices and best practice in the context of the circumstances that were their origin i.e. the recommendations of the Cleveland Inquiry, and subsequent case law;

4. The producers would also wish to discuss current child care concerns, for example cot death cases and allegations of fabricated illness and child protection examples that can be identified from the reports of recent legal proceedings, for example unfounded allegations of ‘black magic’ in the Western Isles and convictions concerning so called witchcraft practices in a discrete community in London;

5. The obscuring of the identities of the social workers is a slow technical process and unless permission is given to name them at a relatively early stage of the production schedule, two versions of the programme would have to be produced, one naming them and one preserving their anonymity: that is expensive and the latter course is in any event more difficult to sustain for interviewers and families alike;

6. An account which anonymises and obscures the identities of the social workers would be disembodied i.e. it would tend to lessen the cogency of the public interest questions that are being discussed and detract from the news value of the broadcast. It is to be noted that this is not the same as the argument accepted by Munby J. in F v. Newsquest and Others [2004] EWHC 762 (Fam) at paragraph [98] that ‘one should be able to put a face to a name’: a judgment that was in fact based upon the compelling public interest in being able to identify a convicted paedophile so as to be able to protect one’s children;

7. The BBC has no intention of identifying the families, addresses, occupations or employers of X and Y and to that extent, if their Article 8 rights are engaged, the interference will be minimal and only in accordance with the ordinary principle that there is no confidentiality in the identity of a witness.

26. X and Y say that:

1. Social workers as public servants working in a confidential environment should be protected by a cloak of anonymity save where there has been dishonesty or bad faith;

2. They support open public debate and do not oppose the making of the documentary;

3. They left the local authority’s employment as a matter of personal choice not in consequence of the judgment and have both in their different ways gone on to considerable professional success elsewhere;

4. Their professional competence has not been called into question since the judgment;

5. Their Article 8 rights are engaged and having regard to the nature and extent of the agreed disclosure the maintenance of their anonymity is a proportionate restraint whereas the publication of their identities would add so little of value that it would be a disproportionate interference;

6. They both fear:

a) A negative impact on their professional standing with colleagues and families with whom they now work;

b) A negative impact on future career prospects (I deliberately do not enlarge on this issue because it would tend to identify the social workers present professional activities and the BBC has undertaken not to reveal their present employments but I stress that I have considered the detail of that which is set out in the affidavits that have been sworn);

c) The possibility of an unfair or inaccurate portrayal of them including by any failure to consider the actions of others with whom it is asserted they acted at the time (e.g. management representatives);

d) Intrusive media interest;

e) Harassment and/or behaviour from others towards themselves or their families that they would regard as threatening;

f) A seriously detrimental emotional impact (described as enormous) upon their closest relatives, including children who do not know of their past involvement with this case and parents who are elderly.

27. What are the legal principles that I should apply?

The Identification of Witnesses:

28. As a matter of general principle there is nothing in the absence of an order to the contrary to prevent the identification of a witness who has given evidence in a case, including a witness in proceedings concerning the welfare of children. Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 does not prevent the identification of witnesses: X v Dempster [1999] 1 FLR 894 per Wilson J. at 901 and per Munby J. in Re B supra at paragraphs [76] and [82].

29. The breadth of what may be revealed is often misunderstood and, if I may say so, reference to the summary in Re B at paragraph [82] is a useful starting point as a description of the ‘automatic restrictions’. Historically, the court has authorised disclosure beyond these restrictions and/or imposed additional restrictions in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Although the principles to be applied to this application have been re-cast in the language of the Human Rights Act 1989, the principles upon which the inherent jurisdiction was exercised are still a helpful description of factors and interests: see, for example, the summary set out in Re B at paragraphs [83] to [86].

30. This is not the place to examine or re-examine the nature and extent of the privacy that does attach to family proceedings and the distinctions that can be ascertained in the language of the case law relating to private law and public law proceedings. It is sufficient to record for this application that in general, the legitimacy of our rules of court and the practice of holding family proceedings in private is rationalised in the context of human rights jurisprudence as follows:

“in order to protect the privacy of the child and parties and to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice. To enable the deciding judge to gain as full and accurate a picture as possible of the advantages and disadvantages of the various residence and contact options open to the child, it is essential that the parents and other witnesses feel able to express themselves candidly on highly personal issues without fear of public curiosity or comment …”

see B v. United Kingdom, P v. United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 529 , [2001] 2 FLR 261 at paragraphs [38] and [46].

31. That in itself is but an example of the balance of interests and rights that are in play and is merely a re-statement of the classic exposition of the reasons for privacy in wardship proceedings: Scott v. Scott [1913] AC 417 per Lord Shaw of Dunfermline at 482:

“The three exceptions which are acknowledged to the application of the rule prescribing the publicity of courts of justice are first in suits affecting wards; secondly in lunacy proceedings; and thirdly where secrecy … is of the essence of the cause. The first two of these cases, my Lords, depend upon the familiar principle that the jurisdiction over wards and lunatics is exercised by the judges representing His Majesty as parens patriae. The affairs are truly private affairs; the transactions are transactions truly intra familiam; and it has long been recognised that an appeal for the protection of the court in the case of such persons does not involve the consequence of placing in the light of publicity their truly domestic affairs …But I desire to add this further observation with regard to all these cases, my Lords, that, when respect has thus been paid to the object of the suit, the rule of publicity may be resumed. I know of no principle which would entitle a court to compel a ward to remain silent for life in regard to judicial proceedings which occurred during his tutelage…”

32. The fact that witnesses may be named illustrates the fact that the general practice of affording privacy in children cases does not extend to preserving the privacy of expert witnesses involved in the proceedings. The privacy of the expert participants is not always and may not generally be necessary to achieve the object of the proceedings.

33. Section 12 of the AJA 1960 does prevent publication of the evidence of witnesses, including expert witnesses, in such proceedings. However, in relation to such evidence it is well established that there cannot be an expectation that it will remain confidential in all circumstances: In Re Manda supra per Balcombe LJ at 215 and Re X (Disclosure of Information) [2001] 2 FLR 440 per Munby J. at paragraph [24].

34. In these proceedings, the court’s judgment on the evidence was published as were all but two of the names of the professional witnesses. The continuing public interest in open debate about the issues in the case has been reflected both by the voluntary disclosure of the materials used in the proceedings that has been agreed between the parties and the court’s approval of the same in response to the BBC’s application. All that remains is the question whether the identities of X and Y should remain unknown and barred from publication.

35. It is acknowledged that there may be cases where the identity of experts needs to be withheld because there are concerns, supported by evidence, that identification will have a negative impact upon the administration of justice, see for example Re B supra where an issue arose about the identification of doctors who had given evidence. The doctors, in support of their attempt to retain anonymity, provided evidence of a “continuing and massive backlash in the United Kingdom against child protection, which uses as a strategy the promulgation of disinformation and vilification of certain doctors through sensational and convincing media campaigns” which had contributed to a “drain on the pool of doctors willing to do child protection work”: see paragraph [88].

36. Munby J. considered that there was on the particular facts of Re B “an especially acute and difficult dilemma” given the public interest in further publicity of Family Division proceedings. He acknowledged that there may be “a powerful public interest in a discredited expert being identified; in the other case, there might be a powerful public interest in the public vindication of an expert who had been unjustifiably and unjustly attacked.”

37. He concluded that despite the general principle to the contrary, the doctors should retain their anonymity. Importantly, however, he emphasised that his concern was not primarily for the interests of the individual doctors in the case and the impact upon them of identification, but the public interest in ensuring that everything possible is done to address the problem of “the already inadequate number of experts willing to assist the courts in vitally important child protection cases”: see paragraph [130]. The doctors did not assert their Article 8 rights and accordingly there was no balance that involved Article 8 of the Convention.

38. Likewise, there is a public interest in encouraging frankness which is essential in cases involving the welfare of children. That includes promoting rather than deterring witnesses including professional witnesses from giving evidence. It should be noted that this interest is usually characterised as a need to preserve confidential sources and information rather than as an incident of any right to personal confidentiality or anonymity in the professional witness who relays that material to the court, though the various aspects of confidentiality will have greater or lesser weight on the facts of each case: see Munby J. in Re X supra at paragraph [24]. Such witnesses are not entitled to assume that their evidence will remain confidential in all circumstances nor that their identity will normally be protected for this purpose: see the analysis of Balcombe LJ in Re Manda supra at 211 to 215. The submission that social workers among others can expect that the ‘confidentiality of their identities’ will be respected unless there has been dishonesty or bad faith is not a correct statement of the law and has not been for some time, if it ever was.

39. This court has not received any direct evidence touching on the arguments of frankness, deterrence or the availability of child protection professionals, although strong submissions have been made to that effect. Despite this, I take notice of the fact that there is a continuing shortage of social care professionals, particularly in child protection and that there have been and are campaigns against them which can have a serious effect upon an individual’s private life. Further, there is a public interest in encouraging social workers and others to engage in this difficult work. Great weight is placed on this by the local authority and by X and Y, and although I should take these factors into account and I do, no-one suggests that they are the determinant or predominant factual issues in this case.

The Application to Restrain:

40. Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 the proper approach to applications concerning media reports in relation to children is for the court to identify the various rights that are engaged and then to conduct the necessary balancing exercise between the competing rights, considering the proportionality of the potential interference with each right independently.

41. In Re S (FC) (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47 , [2005] 1 FLR 591 HL Lord Steyn set out four propositions relying upon the opinions of the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 , [2004] 2 AC 457 :

1. Neither Article (8 nor 10) as such has precedence over the other

2. Where values under the two Articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary

3. The justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account

4. The proportionality test must be applied to each”.

42. The interaction between Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention is at the heart of the key issue in these proceedings. In essence the BBC asserts the right of the community as a whole to freedom of expression as do the former wards and both the social workers and the former wards assert their right to respect for their private and family life. Different constructions of the public interest are relied upon but all adopt the principle set out in Campbell v MGN Ltd supra as described and analysed in the context of family proceedings by the President in A Local Authority v. W, L, W, T and R [2005] EWHC 1564 (Fam), in particular at paragraph [53], namely the presumptive parity of Articles 8 and 10.

43. The public interest in open justice is important to the analysis and to the ultimate balance the court must conduct but it is not determinative of the outcome i.e. there is no presumptive priority to be afforded to Article 10. In any event, the balance to be conducted will necessarily be different (because of the different issues and factors involved) where the proceedings are a species of family justice rather than criminal justice: see the analysis of the President in A Local Authority v. W & Ors supra.

The Rights Engaged:

44. Article 8 of the Convention provides that:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence

2. There shall be no interference by any public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”

45. The former wards seek to assert their rights under Articles 8 and 10 to publish information about the proceedings to the BBC and others by telling their story. X and Y seek to assert their rights under Article 8 to keep their private life confidential by retaining their anonymity.

46. That the former wards’ Article 8 rights are engaged was recognised by Munby J. in Re Roddy (A Child) (Identification: Restriction on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), [2004] 1 FCR 481 where he said at paragraph [36]:

“Article 8 … embraces both the right to maintain one’s privacy and, if this is what one prefers, not merely the right to waive that privacy but also the right to share what would otherwise be private with others or, indeed, with the world at large. So the right to communicate one’s story to one’s fellow beings is protected not merely by Art 10 but also by Art 8”

47. In the context of this case, Article 8 protects the right to establish, maintain and develop relationships with other human beings, see Botta v. Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 241 at paragraph [32] and Bensaid v. United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 208 at paragraph [47]. The Article 8 protection also extends, among other factors, to a person’s name, identity and business or professional relationships, see Niemietz v. Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97 at paragraph [29] and Peck v. United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 41 at paragraph [57]:

“…private life is a broad term not susceptible of exhaustive definition. The court has already held that elements such as gender identification, name, sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Article 8. The Article also protects a right to identity and personal development and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and it may include activities of a professional or business nature. There is, therefore, a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of ‘private life’…”

48. Family life is a question of fact but the existence of a close personal relationship between adults and their children or as between adults and their own parents will of necessity be capable of being construed as family life: see, for example, K v. United Kingdom (1986) 50 DR 199 , 207 E Comm HR.

49. So far as X and Y are concerned, they each rely upon the fact that there is privacy in their identities as an aspect of their private (including professional) and family life quite apart from their identification as witnesses in a particular case. Once their identities are recognised as private (sometimes referred to as the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ threshold) the court must balance their interest in keeping their identities private against the countervailing interest of the recipient in publishing the same. Private individuals are not normally identified without their agreement but there are circumstances where the media are justified in revealing private information without consent: Campbell v. MGN Ltd supra per Baroness Hale of Richmond at 495G paragraphs [134] to [140].

50. Article 10 of the Convention provides that:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society…for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”

51. The exceptions to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression must be “narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established”. What is necessary “implies the existence of a pressing social need”. There must be proper evidence to justify any interference with the Article 10 right. The dangers inherent in restraint call for “the most careful scrutiny by the court”: The Observer and The Guardian v. UK (1991) 14 EHRR 153 at paragraphs [59] to [60] and Kelly v BBC [2001] 1 FLR 197 per Munby J. at 212 B and 229.

52. It is not, as was suggested by one of the social workers, for the BBC to satisfy the court that there is a public interest in publication.

53. That the court needs to be convinced of a pressing social need for restrictions upon freedom of expression is given statutory effect by sections 12(3) and 12(4) of the 1998 Act.

54. Section 12(3) HRA 1998 applies to these proceedings because the court is considering “whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the convention right to freedom of expression”. It provides that the court should not grant interim relief:

“so as to restrain publication before trial unless…satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed”

55. In Cream Holdings v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44 , [2005] 1 AC 253 the House of Lords made clear that “the general approach should be that courts will be exceedingly slow to make interim restraint orders where the applicant has not satisfied the court he will probably (i.e. “more likely than not”) succeed at the trial.

56. Section 12(4) provides that:

“The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to

(a) the extent to which —

(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or

(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published”

57. In this case, the Article 10 rights of the former wards and the BBC are engaged and the statutory imperatives apply.

58. Article 6 (1) provides that:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing within a reasonable time by an independent tribunal established by law.”

“Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice”

59. In addition to the public interest in the former wards and the BBC in the publication of details of the events of 1990/1991, there is a strong public interest in maintaining the confidence of the public at large in the courts. Article 6 is intended, among other things, to promote confidence in the judicial process. This is a point that has repeatedly been stressed by the Strasbourg court. In Prager and Oberschlick v Austria (1996) 21 EHRR 1 at paragraph [34] the court said:

“Regard must … be had to the special role of the judiciary in society. As the guarantor of justice, a fundamental value in a law-governed State, it must enjoy public confidence if it is to be successful in carrying out its duties.”

60. An important means by which such confidence is achieved and maintained is through permitting proper scrutiny of court proceedings. In Axen v Germany (1984) 6 EHRR 195 at paragraph [25] the court said:

“The public character of proceedings before the judicial bodies referred to in Article 6(1) protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny; it is also one of the means whereby confidence in the courts, superior and inferior, can be maintained. By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 (l), namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention.”

61. I recognise that there are clear distinctions to be drawn between the administration of criminal justice and family justice, but just as there are differences, so there are certain minimum protections and expectations that ought to be common both.

62. Reflecting this, particularly against the background of frequently expressed concerns about secrecy in the Family Division, there is increasing recognition of the need to permit greater openness in family cases. See, for example, the comments of Munby J. in Re B at [98] and Wall LJ. in Re H (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 1325 at paragraphs [26] and [29] to [32].

63. Set alongside the general principles, what comparative examples are there of the discretionary exercise I am asked to perform? It is said by the BBC, and I agree, that this is not a case, by comparison with Thompson and Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Ors [2001] 1 FLR 791 CA (the Jamie Bulger murderers), in which a privacy injunction is sought on the grounds of unique notoriety, widespread public interest or evidence of a serious threat to life such that Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention are engaged, involving rights which, if they were engaged, would not be capable of derogation.

64. In fact there is an element of fear expressed in the evidence of the social workers but in my judgement that falls within the description given by Thorpe LJ in Re W (Care Proceedings: Witness Anonymity) [2002] EWCA Civ 1626 , [2003] 1 FLR 329 at paragraph [13] where he commented in the different but comparable context of a plea for anonymity within proceedings that:

“social workers up and down the country, day in day out, are on the receiving end of threats of violence and sometimes actual violence from adults who are engaged in bitterly contested public law cases…social workers must regard this as a professional hazard”

“cases in which the court will afford anonymity to a professional social work witness will be highly exceptional”.

65. Neither is this a case like Campbell v MGN Ltd supra (where Naomi Campbell sought an injunction restraining publication of information about her attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings) in which an injunction is sought on the basis of the confidential nature of the information intended to be published. There is nothing confidential to the social workers about the fact that they were the subject of criticism in an open court judgment in 1991. Their only confidentiality then identified by the court was that attaching to the proceedings so as to protect the children concerned. Their only confidentiality now is their privacy i.e. the integrity of their professional and family lives as distinct from their identities as witnesses.

66. The injunction is sought on the basis of a feared detrimental impact upon X and Y, and their family members, as a result of the publication. The BBC submits that, in accordance with the principles set out above and the examples in the case law to which I have been directed, an injunction should only be granted to protect identification in an exceptional case. This is a short hand for the careful balancing exercise that is to be performed and I prefer to conduct that exercise without any preconception as to the result.

The Balance:

67. What are the rights and interests that I accept on the facts and that are accordingly engaged?

1. Having regard to Articles 6 and 8, the interests of a child will always be the major or at least a very important factor sufficient to justify a curtain of privacy or anonymity to protect the child thereby ensuring that the court’s primary object is satisfied, which is to secure that justice is done;

2. When the protected child achieves adulthood and is not incompetent he or she is entitled to decide what is in his or her own interest;

3. As adults, the former wards seek to assert their rights under Articles 8 and 10 to tell their story;

4. The BBC assert the rights of the media and others to receive from the former wards the information about the proceedings and to broadcast that story unless there is a pressing social need convincingly established for a restraint upon their Article 10 rights;

5. X and Y seek to assert their Article 8 rights to preserve the confidentiality of their identity and thereby protect their professional and family relationships;

6. There is a public interest in the confidentiality and privacy of family proceedings so as to encourage witnesses to participate and be frank and thereby to assist the court to achieve its primary object but there can be no expectation that that confidentiality will remain in all circumstances or for all time;

7. There is no necessary confidentiality in the identities of X and Y as witnesses. Where anonymity is granted in order to protect a child, that anonymity will not be necessary when the purpose of the proceedings is achieved unless there is a separate legitimate aim and lawful reason for its imposition;

8. There is a public interest in promoting the administration of justice in maintaining the authority of the judiciary and the confidence of the public in the family courts by open and public debate in the media;

9. The subject matter of the proceedings was of high public interest and remains so;

10. That high interest will not be reflected by a requirement that a published analysis be presented in a disembodied form so that it is less cogent or newsworthy;

68. In fairness to X and Y, it is necessary to examine in a little more detail the effect that they assert will be the consequence of the interference with their Article 8 rights by any publication of their identities. It should be noted that the arguments are and necessarily have to be presented as risks rather than facts to be found i.e. they are assertions which I have had to assess against a factual background that is not disputed by cross examination. It is said that:

1. Their career prospects including any academic studies will be prejudiced: there is a slight possibility of this but they have not been to date despite the fact that their employers have been aware of their involvement in this case as the anonymous social workers criticized in judgment by Douglas Brown J.;

2. There will be prejudice to their professional standing within the agencies for whom they now work, among colleagues, clients and with other agencies: this is a possibility with implications for the proper workings of child protection processes, but the court must be hesitant to protect someone’s identity so as to prevent justified public comment in the media of criticisms made in an open court judgment. Further, there is little or nothing to support the assertion that the activities of the agencies for whom X and Y now work will be damaged and even less that the interests of any vulnerable client would be prejudiced;

3. There will be harassment and intrusion from the activities of the media and worse from persons whose activities may be threatening: again this is possible in that it happened in 1991. Pressure groups can utilise information of this kind to great personal and professional detriment and their activities can be pursued almost unchecked. The actual impact on individuals can be much greater than the theoretical balance might suggest. The contrary argument is that with the passage of time there will be less intrusive interest and that in any event improper or illegal activity can be remedied or protected against without recourse to Article 10 restrictions;

4. There will be a prejudicial effect upon X and Y’s family: again that is a possible but certainly not a necessary consequence of publication. In any event the BBC offers and guarantees to protect from disclosure the names of family members, their whereabouts and employments. If and in so far as it is asserted that other media organizations will be less responsible in their reporting that can be protected against by a much narrower and proportionate restraint than that asked for;

5. There will be an unfair or inaccurate portrayal of X and Y and their respective roles: there is no evidence that this will happen and it is a matter for X and Y whether they take part in the public debate that they support, but any restraint that tends to make the documentary one sided will only hinder fair and accurate reporting by depriving the programme makers of part of the context.

69. There is no longer any interest of a particular child or children generally in retaining the anonymity of X and Y. The justification for the original anonymity ruling no longer exists.

70. The evidence served in support of the applications of the local authority and X and Y does not in my judgment convincingly establish a pressing social need for the restraint asked for. That restraint would in my judgement be a disproportionate interference with the Article 10 right. In the short hand, it does not establish an exceptional case for an interference with Article 10. Publication of the identities of X and Y will be an interference with X and Y’s Article 8 rights but one that is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely informed and open discussion in the media of the public interest issues relating to the proceedings and family proceedings generally. In my judgment that interference would be proportionate.

71. The Article 10 rights of the BBC and the former wards, and the public interest, reinforced by Article 6, in enabling public scrutiny of court proceedings and family justice, should on the facts of this case prevail over the Article 8 rights of the applicants.

72. Accordingly, I dismiss the applications of the local authority and X and Y for an injunction to restrain the BBC from publication of the identities of X and Y. I will hear further submissions upon whether there should be any relief to protect X and Y in the limited manner suggested above, namely to reflect the guarantees offered by the BBC.

The Effect of Delay on X and Y:

73. An issue of principle was raised on behalf of X and Y that their reasonable expectation of privacy cannot now be overturned without significant prejudice to them to the extent that so long after the original balance was conducted by Douglas Brown J. they cannot now get a fair hearing. It is said that this court cannot do justice to the balance because of the delay since the original hearing so that these proceedings are unfair: see H v. France (1989) 12 EHRR 74 at paragraph [58].

74. It is true that in 1991 X and Y were confronted with a difficult case in a markedly different professional environment to today. In 1991 the court’s judgment was that the interests of the children demanded that X and Y’s identity be withheld, and X and Y now say that that deprived them of the protection of explaining themselves in public. Whether they would have chosen to be named then had they been given a choice is impossible to know but it is true that the passage of time has allowed them to build careers and to pursue their professional and personal lives.

75. A balance was struck in 1991 and this court has been vigilant not to try and re-cast that balance in order to make its decision on these applications, it has simply relied upon the words used by the learned judge. Further, and as I have observed, that balance does not on the facts of this case persist in perpetuity. There is a separate balance to be conducted today.

76. There is in my judgement no delay in the determination of the civil rights and obligations of X and Y. There were separate balances to be performed then and now and the passage of time is not accurately characterised as delay. There is no procedural unfairness in the hearing of the applications before this court and there has been no difficulty, asserted or actual, in receiving evidence and argument and conducting the balance. If anything, the preliminary point goes to the existence and strength of the evidence that X and Y have relied upon in support of their argument that a) they have Article 8 rights to respect for their privacy and b) those rights have been breached in ways that are disproportionate. I have taken account of that evidence and the arguments in the balance I have undertaken.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]


[1] 2017 Jun 16 Cathy Fox Blog Two articles on “Ritual Abuse” by Richard Scorer  https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/two-articles-on-ritual-abuse-by-richard-scorer/


Source: BBC v Rochdale Borough Council High Court 24 Nov 2005


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment





-AND –  
 -AND –  

Statement of Case

  1. This matter relates to Hollie Greig, a Down Syndrome woman of 31 years, who is the subject of campaigns named ‘Google Hollie Greig’, ‘Justice for Hollie’ and ‘Hollie Demands Justice’.  On 22.04.10 as part of the campaign Hollie, her mother Anne Greig and their advocate Robert Green, gave an interview on Edge Media which was then uploaded to Youtube on 24.04.10.   On 28.04.10 Stuart Mills, Information officer of the Down’s Syndrome Association threatened a negligence action against Shrophsire Council for failure in their ‘duty of care’.  Stuart Mills states that “Psychiatric Advisor Professor Tony Holland concurs with the view of the DSA’s Information Team that the interview was abusive and highly inappropriate”. 1 Up until this date the Down’s Syndrome Association had been supportive of Hollie’s campaign and had been contemplating a press release themselves shortly before press officer John Smithie was dismissed on 26.10.092
  1.  Helen Ogilvy, a Social Worker instructed by the Carer’s Association, initially assessed Anne as a paid Carer for Hollie.  Helen Ogilvy was later Hollie’s appropriate adult during her police interview and produced a statement on Hollie’s media campaigns. The report was commissioned by Shropshire Council and has been dated 28.04.103  Helen Ogilvy recommends Hollie’s capacity is tested and that decisions are made by the Court in relation to Hollie, rather than by Anne, alleging that Hollie does not have the capacity to understand the consequences of making false allegations, which are potentially worse than the trauma, fear, hopelessness, suicidal feelings she would suffer from being separated from her mother.
  1. Adrian Johnson, Head of Community Learning Disability team at Shropshire Council, Tim Collard, Local Authority Solicitor and Nicholas O’Brien of Coram Chambers attended the Royal Courts of Justice on the afternoon of 12.05.10 without any notice to the named defendants Anne Greig and Robert Green 4.  They filed Adrian Johnson’s statement signed that day5 and issued a Claim form under CPR Part 8 by Claire Kathryn Porter, Assistant Chief Executive of Shropshire Council, that same day6.  The matter was heard in secrecy and exparte the same afternoon by Mrs Justice Hogg at which time a Media Injunction ordered that the continued campaign would be a contempt of court resulting in the imprisonment of the defendants7 if Hollie’s medical records are disclosed or if she attends events where her history of being sexually abused by influential Scottish Paedophile rings is discussed8.  The matter was listed to be heard with the defendants invited on 01.07.10.  The court papers were posted through the letterbox of Anne and Hollie’s home at 20:10 on Sunday 16.05.10  while they were away.  An unsworn statement was filed, falsely claiming that the injunction was left ‘ it in her presence because she refused to accept it’.9  Anne and Hollie were away visiting friends at the time.10
  1. The defendants have travelled from their homes in Shropshire and Cheshire to attend the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 01.07.10 and 14.06.11.  The defendants have requested disclosure of documents but such requests have been consistently denied.11  Hollie Greig has also attended Court.  Hollie and both defendants have attended with litigant friends.  Hollie’s litigant friend Mrs Hurst, the partially sighted wife of a retired policeman, was denied the opportunity to speak on behalf of Hollie and was wrongly described as Hollie’s carer12.  The Judgment of Mrs Justice Pauffley contains a number of errors of fact and law however the defendants were not properly advised to appeal it at the time having not had the opportunity to seek appropriate legal advice.
  1. Shropshire Council submits Hollie does not have the capacity to consent to taking part in the campaign, as she does not have the capacity to appreciate the real risk of significant harm which will result from the Campaign.  Shropshire Council have not stipulated how the real risk of ‘significant harm’ would manifest.   Hollie submits that a government ‘cover up’ will not protect her from significant harm.  Hollie has already experienced trauma, not only from being the victim of sexual abuse by influential paedophiles between the age of 6 and 20 years old, but also as a direct result of her bravely disclosing the abuse to the Police.
  1. Hollie has experienced the murder of her uncle shortly after he said the words “If you abuse her again, I will kill you”13 to one of Hollie’s abusers, the abduction of Hollies’ mother instigated and authorised by the friends and advisors of Hollie’s abusers14 claiming that Anne Greig’s reporting of Hollie’s allegations of abuse were symptoms of a paranoid illness.15   Hollie has been incarcerated in institutional care whereby her abusers were allowed access to her to tell her they would kill her.16  Hollie’s home was ransacked by Police and Shropshire Council on 03.06.10 in response to Hollie’s mum sending Shropshire Council a Notice of Claim of Right.17  On 3 occasions over 5 years Hollie has been threatened when she is out of sight of her mother in a public place.  These occasions have then been used to suggest that Hollie is imagining things as she has not had the benefit of witnesses to corroborate her evidence.
  1. Mrs Justice Pauffley has found that Hollie does not have the capacity to litigate and has therefore invited the official solicitor Julie Hine /Helen Clift and their Counsel to represent Hollie.   Judge Pauffley has denied Hollie the opportunity to instruct an LSC funded solicitor of her choice18.  When Anne Greig has attempted to instruct a solicitor she is told “we are unable to assist19” after being contacted by the Official Solicitor to warn them of the potential damage to their reputation20 or there has been a sudden withdrawal of legal funding leaving a large bill to be paid.21
  1. Anne Greig responds to the application by Shropshire Council in the capacity of Hollie Greig’s mother, full time (24/7)  sole carer of 11 years and legal guardian.  Anne Greig submits that she has an acute understanding of Hollie’s needs and her priority is to act in Hollie’s best interest.  Anne Greig requests that the court proceedings are struck out as an abuse of process and vexatious proceedings engineered to intimidate Hollie and deprive her of her constitutional rights, liberties and freedoms.  Until her case is proved Hollie requests to be party to proceedings, with the help of a litigant friend with whom she has an established relationship of trust.
  1. Anne Greig submits that, while Hollie may not have the capacity to represent herself due to her communication difficulties, Hollie’s intellectual ability and understanding gives her the capacity  to choose who should represent her.  Hollie has made it quite clear that she does not wish to be represented by the official solicitor.22  The official solicitor has produced a statement without the benefit of meeting Hollie, demonstrating a conflict of interest between Hollie and the official solicitor.23 The official Solicitors change too frequently for any meaningful relationship to build up necessary to adequately represent Hollie’s interests24.
  1. Hollie’s capacity to instruct a representative or litigant friend is evidenced by her previous instructions of a solicitor, Nicola Smith of Enable25, in an action for criminal injuries compensation.  Hollie through her representative, was successful in achieving 100% Level 14 compensation based on there being evidence that, on the balance of probability, Hollie had been sexually abused including medical evidence of penetration.26  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel relied on the evidence given by Hollie in police interviews, Medical Forensic report of Dr Frances Kelly27 and psychological assessments by Dr Jack Boyle28 and Dr Eva Harding29.  Hollie has proved herself to be a truthful and reliable witness despite her communication difficulties.30
  1. Hollie had to wait 9 years for justice by way of criminal compensation due to Grampian Police ensuring that the investigation into her abuse is ‘restricted’ to senior officers only31, giving the investigating officer DC Alison Durward sick leave during the panel meeting and calling Mr Raymond Cooper, who had been retired for 3 years and who, other than interviewing the main perpetrator Denis Mackie, had no knowledge whatsoever of the case , to give evidence at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Panel on 16.03.05.
  1. Hollie has a number of confidents in which she trusts to act in her interest.  Hollie does not trust strangers due to a number of abuses and traumas she has experienced, in particular;
  1.  Her sexual abuse by 21 named people32, including her own family and families of social workers, police, judges, head teachers and others in positions of trust.  The names of the abusers have remained consistent since her allegations were first made and throughout the subsequent 11 years.  Hollie has provided police interviews of 19.05.0033, 24.05.00, 17.06.0134, 08.09.0935 however the defendants have been denied access to the original recordings of the ABE interview.
  1. The  murder of her uncle Robert (Roy) Greig on 17 November 1997, being someone Hollie was very close to as she lived with him for 8  years immediately prior to his death.  Robert Greig died in very similar circumstances to Claire Morris, whom Malcolm Webster has been convicted of murdering 17 years after her death. Grampian Police would not investigate until there was pressure from Strathclyde and Leeds Police.  Robert Greig’s death has never been investigated, despite the suspicious circumstances of his death36 and the connections with the murder of Claire Morris, including two of Hollie’s abusers giving evidence as friends of Malcolm Webster.37  Information regarding the death is being closely guarded with only the autopsy being released after 12 years of requesting it, and the deceased’s Human Rights being used as an excuse.38 
  1. The attempted murder of Hollie’s mother on  02.12.9839.
  1. The sudden and unexpected abduction of Hollie’s mother 05.09.00, for a period of 72 hours.  Hollie observed her mother being forced to the ground by 3 police, 3 social workers and a doctor, injected with a sedative inducing unconsciousness, and taken away in an ambulance as she went to take the rubbish outside in the middle of preparing sandwiches.40 Hollie was then taken by police and a social worker to a Care Home.   She reports meeting the perpetrators of the sexual abuse upon her whom told her they would kill her during this period of detainment.
  1. A wife of a police officer threatening Hollie with the words “I will kill you, I will get you” while she is sitting in the car waiting for her mother to return from the co-op at about 6:30pm on 29.07.0641.
  1. A further stranger behaving aggressively towards Hollie while she waited for her mum’s treatment to finish from in the dentist waiting room on 13.09.06.
  1. A further stranger threatening Hollie with the words “We will get you” while waiting in the car at Morrisons on 20.05.10 .
  1. One of her abusers threatening her and behaving aggressively on 04.03.0242
  1. The Police raid on Hollie’s home on 03.06.10 in which she returns home to find clear signs of forced entry such as broken doors, and signs of a raid such as her and her mother’s belongings strewn around the home.  Since this time Hollie has been fearful of returning to her home.  This raid had been carried out the same day as a meeting where Shropshire Council had reported to West Mercia Police that Anne had filed a Claim of Right and had been attending public meetings to speak about Hollie’s abuse.  Shropshire Council were aware that there was a public meeting due to take place at a high profile venue in Aberdeen on 05.06.00.  Despite having contacted friends and neighbours of Anne and Hollie who had reported that they were safe and well, West Mercia forced entry into every room of their home simply because they were not in.  Shropshire Council now deny that they had instigated this break in or took part in it.  Police reports clearly state that a Shropshire Council Housing officer attended and that social worker Helen Ogilvy, instructed by Shropshire Council had recommended use of statutory powers.43  West Mercia Police indicated there was an intention to invoke s136 of the Mental Health Act in order to prevent Anne and Hollie attending the event in Aberdeen.44
  1. The arrest and imprisonment of Hollie’s good friend and advocate Robert Green for ‘Breach of the Peace’ while he was simply walking down the street, the consequence of which has been that Robert Green has been banned from Aberdeen and under bail conditions for two years requiring him to report to his local police station 3 times per week.45

13Hollie submits that while her abusers remain untried for their crimes there is a real and constant risk that she will be separated from the safety of her mother, incarcerated and placed at risk of sexual abuse, death threats and murder.  Hollie’s present psychological position is more clearly explained in the report of a recently instructed Psychiatrist and Psychologist46,  Counselling records 47 and  GP records 48.  Hollie’s way of dealing with her fears is to say “Mum, I need a hug”, knowing that hugs are freely given and are always close by.  On occasion Hollie is known to express her emotion using pen and paper as taught by her Counsellor to prevent her self harming.49  Since Shropshire Council have commenced proceedings against  Hollie and her mother.  Shropshire Council and Shropshire NHS have denied Hollie access to  therapy for her PTSD and instead insist upon Hollie taking medication which has dangerous side effects such as suicidal ideation.

14Hollie has disclosed the names of her abusers so that she may be protected from them, however her evidence, while considered to be truthful and compelling50 has not been followed up by a proper criminal investigation.51  The perpetrators of the abuse on Hollie are therefore still able to abuse others and abuse their positions of power by tormenting Hollie into keeping silent and commencing proceedings threatening incarceration of her or her mother if she continues to expose their abuse, either by contempt of Court or invoking emergency powers under the Mental Health Act.

15It is Hollie’s case that the proceedings to place Hollie in the Court of Protection is a further instance of the above described abuse, and will be used as a step to remove her from her mother.  Due to Hollie’s truthful allegations of sexual abuse having been ignored, the death of her uncle not being investigated, the unjustified abduction of her mother and unwarranted police raids on her home Hollie does not have faith that decisions will be made in her interest when they are made by government officials who have no personal and direct knowledge of her, have a conflict of interest whereby they have sworn an oath other than to uphold the Common law of God as in the bible, and who are protected by the secrecy of the Family Court and Court of Protection.

16On 28.09.04 Aberdeen City Council attempted to formulate a case to remove Hollie from her mother and sought supporting evidence from Dr Sneddon.52 This attempt failed as there had been no medical records since her case was closed from a psychiatric point of view on 23.01.01 by Dr Palin.  However, this unceasing harassment by the Scottish Establishment resulted in Hollie and Anne having to escape Aberdeen and set up home in Shropshire, where they had no previous history53.

17Unfortunately the influential paedophile ring seems to have influence over government workers in Shropshire, whereby Shropshire council joined by West Mercia police are justifying the raiding of Anne and Hollie’s home and removal of documents, laptops and photographs by alleging Anne and Hollie were ‘missing persons’ despite having no warrant to break into their home and there being no reason why Anne and Hollie should have been reporting to either government body, and despite police enquiries establishing that Anne and Hollie were safe and well at the time from a local solicitor and their advocate Robert Green.54  Dr Fiona Brodie Fraser also seems to have fallen foul of the influence of the Scottish Paedophile ring by taking steps to instruct a psychiatrist and manipulating the electronic consultation records by Anne and Hollie to suggest that they are suffering from paranoia and a hyperactive imagination.55  It can be evidenced that the notes of the GP who authorised the emergency detention of Anne, Dr Valerie Morris’ handwritten records were also manipulated to discredit Ann & Hollie’s allegations due to the additional writing that has been added at a later date.56

18Hollie knows from 31 years experience that it is her mother who protects her, rather than strangers.  Due to the abuses of position that they have been victims of, Hollie and Anne have become very careful of who they place their trust in and have been fortunate in the confidents they have found, who have included lawyers, doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, Members of Parliament, journalists and other qualified professionals.  Anne and Hollie consent to being assessed by those whom they trust.  They do not consent to being assessed by complete strangers whose identities require secrecy, such as Kevin L Baker.57

19  Throughout Hollie’s life there has never been any evidence of the following;

  1.  Hollie ever having suffered any kind of abuse at the hands of her mother.58
  1. Hollie making decisions that have not been in her best interest.
  1. Hollie lying.59
  1. Hollie’s mother making decisions that are not in Hollie’s best interest.
  1. Hollie’s mother having any impairment that would affect her decision making ability with regards to Hollie.60  While Hollie’s mother was detained for 72 hours as described above, she was released after the doctors found there being no grounds to detain her.  The concerns of ‘paranoid ideas’ in relation to Hollie’s sexual abuse, embezzlement of Robert Greig deceased’s Estate61 and threats of murder of Anne and Hollie62, that were raised as reasons to incarcerate Anne have since transpired to have been ‘probably’ true, whereby the lack of police investigation is evidence of the police being influenced by the paedophile ring.  It seems the incarceration was more likely to have been a tactic to discredit Hollie’s allegations and to frustrate Anne and Hollie’s claim against the perpetrators of the abuse.63  Anne Greig’s psychological position is more clearly detailed in her recent Psychological report64
  1. Hollie’s medical records being published.
  1. Hollie suffering as a result of attending events at which details of her abuse is exposed.
  1. The media attention in relation to Hollie’s exposure of abuse being used in any proceedings for defamation or libel by anyone that is alleged to have abused Hollie or their position of power.

20When considering Hollie’s interests, her mother has the benefit of understanding Hollie’s special needs for which she has endeavoured to meet ever since Hollie was born prematurely weighing only 2lb 10oz.65  Hollie has had hearing and speech impediments66 which her mother has sought to overcome by intuitively understanding what Hollie is saying.  Hollie feels more able to communicate when her mother is available to assist her.

21Neither Stuart Mills, nor Professor Tony Holland, as mentioned in his email have ever met Hollie.  There has never been any appropriate investigation into Hollie’s welfare by Shropshire Council.  Shropshire Council seek to rely on a statement by Adrian Johnson who is not registered by the GSCC and has never assessed Hollie, having only met her once in connection with direct payments, and a report by Dr Carolyn McQueen, a Scottish psychologist who has never met Hollie and Helen Ogilvy a Social Worker who has never assessed Hollie.67

22Hollie has a fault in the tissue of her heart and scoliosis of the spine entitling her to disability transport.  Hollie’s disability causes her discomfort and to tire quickly.  Hollie requires plenty of rest and it is therefore not considered to be in her interest to be out in the community, away from her mother, particularly when coupled with the recollections of Brokerage Services employed carers prostituting her.  It seems Shropshire Council’s only intention is to separate Anne and Hollie without taking into account Hollie’s very traumatic history of abuse.

23Hollie enjoys being ‘home’ with her mother, helping keep the home and garden, shopping, pets, bowling, soap operas, writing, reading magazines and watching sitcoms.  Hollie also enjoys meeting the carefully selected friends that she is introduced to, who show Hollie warmth and empathy.

24Hollie feels very angry about the abuse she has suffered as a child and as a young adult.  Hollie was prostituted by her father and her employed carer among families with powerful connections, such as Sheriff Graham Buchanan.68  Hollie would like the perpetrators of the abuse to be tried in a criminal court with a jury and requests that prosecution is initiated without further delay.  Until a proper criminal case is conducted, Hollie finds relief by sharing her experience of abuse with those who recognise that she is telling the truth as this gives her some hope that justice will be served and she will at last be protected from her abusers.

25Hollie submits that it is not in her best interest to prevent her from sharing her experiences of abuse, as this would deny her the opportunity to seek public support in placing pressure on Grampian Police to convict her abusers.  Hollie feels empowered when able to exercise her freedom of expression.  Hollie feels discriminated against when her disability associated with Down Syndrome is used as an excuse to take away her freedoms and liberty and to deny her a fair trial.

26Hollie would like her case to be heard in the public arena so that she can be tried by her peers before any decision is made to incarcerate her or take away her rights or liberties.  This is her fundamental right to freedom.69   However, Hollie does support the injunction of against Greg Lance Watkins and other government disinformers from publishing derogatory articles regarding Hollie and her mother.70

27Hollie would like her mother to be recognised as a safe full time carer for Hollie, who is able to recognise Hollie’s needs and act in their best interest.  Hollie would like to attend activities and counselling but only in the presence of her mother.

28In the interest of a fair hearing Hollie requires further disclosure in order to make out her case.  Hollie, Anne and Robert Green have attempted to retrieve the relevant information from various sources independently but are met with unreasonable delays and refusals.  Directions are therefore requested to assist in the disclosure of the relevant material held by various government agencies.71

source:  https://holliegreigjustice.wordpress.com/2017/06/17/hollie-greig-the-case-2/



video removed from Internet:

Robert Green On Hollie Grieg + Melanie Shaw – Andy Peacher Freedom Talk Radio Scotland 16-1-2017



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment