Gagged Dad’s lawsuit

A ground-breaking court case

I attended a quite glorious court hearing yesterday.  The outcome, for which many of the public who attended the hearing would have been praying, was a cause for godly jubilation.

The claimant (a.k.a. plaintiff) was Gagged Dad, a mystery guest blogger here who cannot be named in order to protect the privacy of his family.  The defendant was Cornwall Council, specifically its Social Services department.  The cause of action was the council’s direct infringement of Gagged Dad’s Article 8 right to respect for his family life.  I had drafted Gagged Dad’s Particulars of Claim against Cornwall.  I was permitted to represent Gagged Dad in court yesterday.

The anonymous father and occasional guest blogger on this blog who uses the pseudonym Gagged Dad in order to protect his family from being identified by readers of this blog, has so far contributed the following two guest posts to this blog:

Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad

Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”

With Gadded Dad in minded, last year, when the House of Lords was considering the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, I myself commented upon a glaring omission from the various amendments to that Bill tabled in the House of Lords, in my own post

Why foster carers, but not natural parents?


The story so far

When Gagged Dad referred his own two year-old son to social services, alarmed that the child’s mother had become a contact denier, social services vetted this natural parent for political correctness.  In the words of the judge yesterday, it was as though he Gagged Dad had been applying to become a foster carer with the local authority, rather than a concerned parent applying to the local authority for help in maintaining contact with his illegitimate son, in order to safeguard him from paternal deprivation.

Because Gagged Dad failed this political correctness vetting – Gagged Dad does not approve of same sex marriage or abortion – social services actively encouraged the mother’s contact denial, even to the extent of becoming proactive in many different ways between 3rd April 2013 and the present day, to prevent contact that would not have required any co-operation on the part of the mother.  For example, the council almost certainly intervened in order to frustrate Gagged Dad’s attempt to join the audience of proud parents at his son’s school Christmas play, as recently as last Thursday morning.

Another post of my own on this blog (about a different legal problem, which affects another of my clients) is entitled Human rights and harassment.  That post concludes as follows:

If the Tories, having read this little blog post, also repeal the PHA along with the HRA, or amend RIPA to route PHA claims against intelligence services to the IPT the way that HRA s7(1)(a) claims are routed to the IPT now, I suppose you will have to blame me for this, for having discovered the loophole in RIPA, and having mentioned it publicly, here, today.

I have a similar project on the go, by the way, this time to find a way of challenging child safeguarding social workers, without having to use other secret courts that are not much better than the IPT, the family courts.  I think I have made a discovery here that will be even more important, and a great blessing for children who have one parent whom they never see (for example).  I’ll leave it until another day to tell you about that though.

I reveal today how Gagged Dad managed to take on social services directly, without becoming embroiled in further stressful legal action in which his respondent would have been the mother (who is best left alone), and in which the social worker would have played the more-or-less unassailable role (again) of court-appointed expert witness, who prepared the Welfare Report for private family law proceedings under the Children Act, and whose expert testimony would therefore become (once again) more-or-less impossible to challenge, in the setting of a hearing held in secret.

How is Gagged Dad managing to make the local authority accountable in open court for its interference with his family life, without dragging his son’s mother through the courts, something that he does not wish to do, for noble enough reasons?  Gagged Dad is suing the local authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 section 7(1)(a), over its ongoing role in the contact denial that interfered with Gagged Dad’s private and family life, that was not related to its role as the employer of the expert witness (the social worker) in the private family law proceedings that ought not to be discussed openly by either of the parties.


What Gagged Dad accomplished yesterday

In August, Gagged Dad had defeated a strike-out application and a summary judgment application, by which Cornwall’s social workers hoped to put to death Gagged Dad’s challenge to their supposed right to vet natural parents as though they were mere applicants for jobs as foster carers.

Yesterday, Gagged Dad defeated more-or-less identical second strike-out and summary judgement applications, which would have had the same effect.  He also defeated an application on the part of Cornwall Council for hearings in his human rights lawsuit to be held in private.

The case continues, with a directions appointment in six weeks or so.


Credit where credit is due

Albert Einstein once remarked that he was disappointed that the great and the good of Germany, whom he expected to oppose the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, barely lifted a finger to oppose Hitler when push came to shove.  Instead, and to Einstein’s surprise, Hitler’s only persistent and determined opponents turned out to be the little people who were rank-and-file members of what Einstein called small religious sects, people whom Einstein had least expected to oppose Hitler at all.

My client Gagged Dad and I would like to thank those who turned out to watch yesterday’s hearing, and the God to whom many of them were praying silently for justice to be done.  Thirteen supporters of Gagged Dad attended the hearing, from Gagged Dad’s church, from Christian Voice, from Families Need Fathers and from UK Column.  Five of those who wanted to observe the proceedings had to wait outside for the judge’s decision to be communicated to them by those inside, because there was insufficient seating for everybody who wanted to observe the proceedings inside the room in which the hearing was held.


Tomorrow’s short court appointment

There is to be another short hearing tomorrow, in which Cornwall will request the relevant family court that material (including the Welfare Report) from earlier the private family law proceedings should be released into the evidence of the public human rights lawsuit.  Gagged Dad opposes this, in order to protect the privacy of his family, without the need for his human rights claim also to become subject to secret justice.  The mother of Gagged Dad’s son has also supplied a witness statement, in which she opposes any such confidential information being released into the public domain in this manner.



In the interests of the privacy of Gagged Dad’s family members, I would ask readers please not to speculate as to the identity of Gagged Dad or to publish this information if they think they know who Gagged Dad is.  Gagged Dad’s identity must remain a secret known only to a select few, at least for the time being.  However, the practice of vetting natural parents for political correctness as though they were merely applying to become foster carers, needs to be held up to critical public scrutiny.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Pregnant woman leaves prolife advocates speechless’ – A Response to a viral Pro-abortion/choice video

Originally posted on The Failed Atheist Blog:

There is a viral video circulating that shows an ‘articulate’ young woman stating her case against using accurate abortion imagery outside a London GP surgery that performs abortions, you can view it here.

What does Pro-life mean?Abort67

Francis Beckwith gives a short definition of what the Pro-life position entails, “The pro-life position is subject to somewhat varying formulations. The most widely accepted and representative of these can be defined in the following way: The unborn entity is fully human from the moment of conception. Abortion (narrowly defined) results in the intentional death of the unborn entity. Therefore, abortion entails the intentional killing of a human being. This killing is in most cases unjustified, since the unborn human being has a full right to life. If, however, there is a high probability that a woman’s pregnancy will result in her death (as in the case of a tubal pregnancy, for example)…

View original 1,765 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Pro-life

Rooks -v- crooks

Who says MI5 couldn’t use a trained rook or crow to harass a target?

There’s a great deal more to Philip Kerr’s harassment claim against MI5 than just the trained rook or crow of the tabloid headlines that ceased making its appearances abruptly in 2006.  This and every single other harassing course of conduct alleged, up to the present day, has included incidents that others besides Mr Kerr himself have witnessed.  These include more familiar methods of harassment, such as sleep deprivation and “theatre”.  The timing of incidents (including the historic crow or rook incidents from 2003 to 2006) has typically coincided with Phil having recently had conversations about sensitive matters.

MI5 attempted to get Mr Kerr’s case struck out without a public hearing in open court.  They have failed.  There will be a hearing.  Watch this space for news of the first hearing date, when this is announced.  Come and watch British justice at work at the Royal Courts of Justice on the day.  Invite the press along.

See also


Filed under Law, Targeted

Covert Harassment Conference 2014

The Covert Harassment Conference 2014, the first such, is to be held in Brussels, on Thursday 20th November 2014.

I plan to attend this one day event, God willing.  I have been asked to make a short presentation myself.  There are some fairly well-known other people speaking.  Please visit the conference website for details.  I don’t think that it will all be just speeches and presentations from dawn to dusk.  It is billed as a conference.

If enough people want to come with me, I hope to drive my minibus over to Brussels the afternoon before (Wednesday 19th), and back the morning or afternoon after (Friday 21st).  Anybody who wants a lift from London in my minibus, or from places to the west of London that are en route from Cornwall, please email me.

The conference website is

There is a hotel nearby that is cheaper than the one in which the conference is being held.

Nearer to the time, I hope also to arrange a meeting in London, either on Tuesday 18th, or on Saturday 22nd. Which do you think would be better?


Filed under Targeted

Nice curry, shame about the hate

David Cameron debunked

Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam then?  Is that Cameron’s latest thesis?  The clue isn’t in the name after all then?

Thank you, Mr Cameron, for educating the rest of us so well, provided, that is, we believe uncritically in the mere assertions of your democratically elected self (if that’s not overstating your coalition government’s mandate).

Cameron’s might seem like a pretty plausible stance, at first glance, to many a citizen.  Why, the speaker’s own “Parliamentary Conservative Party”, the bunch of legislators who (for example) are even willing meekly to advance the “smash the family” social engineering of their own Marxist Feminist infiltrators whenever Mr Cameron’s whips order them to do so, aren’t actually conservatives themselves nowadays, are they?  Not in deed as in profession.

What then could be more reasonable than that hypocrisy just like his own is what now fuels mayhem in Iraq and Syria?  Something as unconnected with what Islam really is, as he is with what conservatism really is?

But, hang on a minute, before swallowing, hook, line and sinker, what Cameron seems to be saying, to you. (It isn’t easy to work out what he is actually saying, objectively, to anybody who is listening, as he makes the noises that he thinks of as the right noises for him to be making now, with so many votes at stake.) Let us please think awhile, for a change.

I shall now use straw man rhetoric.  I use it not to prove a thought bite point of mine, though.  (Not that anybody is ever likely in the near future to challenge Mr Cameron to prove any such point that he makes, assuming he makes a point that we can all understand alike, and assuming that he is in the business of making proper points in the first place, rather than mere noises.)

I propose now to paraphrase some of the words of the real Mr Cameron, into the fictitious words of my “straw man” Cameron.   I do this merely in order to help me to make my point, to you, dear reader.  This small leeway for valid “straw man” rhetoric, rather than straw man argument, is surely allowed.  Once you have got my point, with the help of my Straw Cameron’s paraphrased speech, you are perfectly entitled to ask me to prove my point, although I am equally entitled not to be bothered to do that, because you could easily just read the Koran for yourself.

Isn’t Straw Cameron merely saying this? :-

Just as the (Parliamentary) Conservatives in the UK by-and-large aren’t really conservatives at all nowadays, likewise (“trust me on this, I’m a Prime Minister”) Islamist Extremists, far from being extremely Islamic as you’d naturally expect from the nomenclature, are, in fact, hardly Islamic people at all, perhaps not even true Moslems at all, not even moderately so.

My straw Cameron is here borrowing, and applying to Islam, on which he makes pretensions to having such expertise, a distinction of protestant theology said to have eternal consequences.  That is, the distinction between, on the one hand, “true believers” – born-again saints if you like – real Christians – people who are thought to be “saved” and who are collectively referred to as “the church invisible” – and, on the other hand, “hypocrites” and “temporary believers” (as I seem to remember that the Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession of 1689 refer to them) sojourning within what protestants used to call “the church visible”.

Isn’t what Straw Cameron is really saying also this, on the other hand? :-

That it’s really that nice Turkish chap at the kebab shop, or Bengali waiter at the “Indian” restaurant, who, for all we know, wouldn’t hurt a fly, eats pork chops served to him at table if it would offend a tactless English host not to (or because he just likes pork) who is the true Moslem? The so-called Moslem who drinks lager (but only socially, and very occasionally, of course, because Allah is merciful)?  The Moslem who quite possibly hasn’t visited a mosque or spoken to an imam in five years?  The nominal Moslem, like the seven Bosnian refugees who drank lager (at least, the adults did) and ate bacon butties, to whom I offered shelter in my house in Guildford over twenty years ago, when a local church was bringing Moslems over from war-torn Bosnia to the UK as refugees, by the bus-load?  The “moderate” Moslem next door who is not at risk of ever planting a bomb himself, or chopping off some other poor frightened chap’s head, possibly because he keeps his only copy of the Koran (and that hardly ever used) in a box in his attic?

If Islam is “the religion of peace”, Straw Cameron continues, then might not this peace-loving nice-guy stereotype be the “true” Moslem that Mr Cameron so enthusiastically envisages, even though Mr Cameron is at other times as cynical about truth as was Pontius “What is truth?” Pilate himself?  How convenient would that be!

Mr Cameron, I suspect, doesn’t relate well to any brand of what he’d call “fundamentalism”.  God knows he has gone out of his way to ensure that many Christian fundamentalists will never again vote Tory. Cameron is best known in the circles in which I move for betraying conservative fundamentals.  He is a kinder and wiser person, in some respects, than he would be, if he had insisted upon believing in, and acting upon, the literal truth of the whole counsel of the scriptures of Conservatism published in the last Tory manifesto.  I grant him that compliment.  But he has also done great harm which surely nobody in their right mind would ever have elected him to do, because he has disdained belief in the literal truth of his own manifesto, the scriptures of modern British Conservatism.

Straw Cameron’s argument is that Islamic Extremists aren’t even moderately Islamic, as he understands what it is to be Islamic; whilst Islamic Moderates, his sort of people, or at least people he can put up with, are extremely akin to his preferred mental picture of what it is to be Islamic in the first place.  N’est-ce pas?

Not approving of any sort of fundamentalism helps Mr Cameron to overcome the cognitive dissonance, whereby obeying the Islamic scriptures, specifically the Koran, interpreted literally, by becoming a terrorist (say), isn’t at all what he means by “Islamic”, whereas humbly serving drunk English lager louts bacon burgers in a take-away, never reading the Koran, and certainly never becoming a terrorist, is extremely Islamic to Mr Cameron’s imaginative and wishful way of thinking.

Islamic Moderates are thus extremely Islamic according to Mr Cameron, whilst Islamic Extremists aren’t even moderately Islamic.

Islam is what it is.  No matter how many millions believe what they hear from Mr Cameron, their mistaken belief cannot miraculously make a lie true. Wishing, and therefore declaring in a political speech what one hopes will turn out to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, that war-mongering Islam has really been a religion of peace all along, an unjustly misunderstood calming influence on the world stage for the past dozen centuries, isn’t going to fool the people.

David Cameron mocks the phrase “a clash of civilisations”, in a speech in which he describes exactly that!

I enjoyed making my point so much, I have no time left to prove it.  Anybody know whether it is true?  Would the real Islam please stand up?


Filed under Islam, Political, Satire and humour

Human rights and harassment

The Tories are now threatening to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).  If the Tories carry out their threat, it will no longer be possible to sue a public authority directly for infringing one’s Convention rights.  How shall those of us whose rights public authorities infringe obtain a remedy, if the HRA is repealed?

I believe I have had a partial answer to that question for about a year now.  I hope that there is a test case soon, that will establish whether I am right about this.

It so happens that about a year ago, I began to consider alternative ways of defending one’s rights against public authorities, without using the HRA s7(1)(a).  The impetus for this research on my part was my thinking about the hypothetical case of somebody who might one day be tempted to consider suing one of the intelligence services under the HRA.  It is possible to do this in theory. However, because of a provision of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), in practice, any case brought against an intelligence service under the HRA s7(1)(a), is not heard in open court, under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), but secretly, in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), under very different rules indeed.

In such a case, the IPT can only do one of two things:

(1) tell the claimant that his human rights have indeed been infringed, but not tell him how, when or why, nor put a stop to the infringements

(2) tell the claimant that his human rights have not been infringed, but not tell him either whether this is (a) because what he apprehends has been done to him has not been done after all, or (b) because this or that was done to him exactly as he apprehends (or something different), but all of it was lawful, being proportionate to a legitimate aim, or whatever other excuse there might be.

Up until the date on which civil servant Dr Elizabeth Fitton-Higgins at the Covert Surveillance Policy Team, within the Intelligence and Security Liaison Unit at the Home Office wrote back to me giving me the figures, the breakdown between outcome (1) and outcome (2) in the IPT was:

  • Outcome (1) – claimant wins – 0% of cases heard
  • Outcome (2) – defendant wins – 100% of cases heard

This depressing statistic made it potentially desirable to dream up a way, God willing, for somebody to sue an intelligence service, in open court, under the CPR.  (One never knows when somebody one might meet in everyday life might need to do something like this.)

To cut a long story short, I believe that I discovered last year that the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) would often be a suitable tool, for doing the job of protecting one’s rights against a public authority.  It is a tool that anybody could try to use even now, even against an intelligence service, if they did not fancy their (slim) chances with the tame and secretive IPT.  Provided, that is, the infringement of their rights (of the HRA rights the Tories plan to confiscate, that is) consisted of a course of conduct that amounted to harassment.  The PHA will presumably remain a tool that will still be able to be used against other public authorities, even if a future Tory government plunges British jurisprudence into utter turmoil, by repealing the HRA.

Another thing that is good about the PHA, apart from getting harassment claims against intelligence services into open court, is that the limitation period is six years (or maybe longer if the harassment has been continuous across the limitation threshold).  That’s a lot longer than the 12 month limitation period of the HRA s7(1)(a).

If the Tories, having read this little blog post, also repeal the PHA along with the HRA, or amend RIPA to route PHA claims against intelligence services to the IPT the way that HRA s7(1)(a) claims are routed to the IPT now, I suppose you will have to blame me for this, for having discovered the loophole in RIPA, and having mentioned it publicly, here, today.

I have a similar project on the go, by the way, this time to find a way of challenging child safeguarding social workers, without having to use other secret courts that are not much better than the IPT, the family courts.  I think I have made a discovery here that will be even more important, and a great blessing for children who have one parent whom they never see (for example).  I’ll leave it until another day to tell you about that though.


Filed under Human Rights, Law, Targeted

Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives

John Allman:

The post by Mallory Millet (sister of the notorious Kate Millet) almost took my breath away, when I first read it, some weeks ago. It makes for gripping reading.

Originally posted on The Libertarian Alliance Blog:

Note: “Julie near Chicago” originally posted the link to this article in a comment under the article “5 reasons why Christians should not obtain a state marriage license”. Promoted to front page. This article exposes the fundamentally religious nature of the struggle we libertarians are facing. We ignore it at our peril. It also makes clear that we will never win without convincing more women. M.n.

View original 201 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism, Human Rights, Political, Pro-life, Reblogged, Righteousness