1745 Sn 030218 (Chloe, not ‘Claire’0 UK Westminster ‘Lords-of-the-Blog’

“We” have tonight submitted to the post by Lord Soley and other coimmenters the following two additional replies

To Dave H


JSDMiles-of-39B1   02/02/2018 at 11:21 pm  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

In drawing clear lines between ‘levels’ of “secrecy” and of “privacy” –

apart from the disgraceful neglect by the Establishment and the Law to accurately define such foggy terminology as
e.g. that “cars
[being instruments even weapons-of-environmental damage-and human-harm] should be classed as “private”
is an iatrogenicly-damaging -fault, as are so many other spin-doctored and non-negotiable terminologies.

– why doesn’t our “Separation of Powers” rule that the Judiciary record all meetings proceedings –
which may afterwards be heard/seen, by such people as the notional couple or single
that ‘covertly but legally’ recorded “private” life-sensitive factors in other peoples and vulnerable children’s lives-

possibly such recording could be even shown during proceedings of the meeting,
like ticker-texting on TV News and bottom RH corner Sign-Languaging.

There should also be an established “Peoples-Safeguard”
whereby the Judiciary can also be “watched” to be acting both disinterestedly and thoroughly.


Reply to Chloe (the  “quiestionable-recorder”)

I think that you are ‘right’ to say that such things as “the privacy of attendees should be protected”.

However, did you obtain prior permission from all other attendees and the ‘chair’ Lord Soley,
to make such “individually-private” but nonetheless potentially-injurious recording ?

[Please see also my reply to Dave H at the first Comment above].

————— 0009 St 030218 ———————-