Thomas Rawnsley-A Deadly Legal Gag ?

Art 10(1) HRA 98 provides that,
“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…”

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits  Congress from interfering with a citizen’s freedom of speech or petition.


I know in my heart if they had not gagged us again like that Thomas would be alive today as they wanted to go and get information over the next few days.

A week later Thomas was dead.

A secret trip by a senior, and in my view, vengeful local authority officer to the court resulted in me being gagged again.

I was unable to get to the people who could do something to help, and that cost Thomas his life.

It was under the pretext of being in his’ best interests’ that the application to silence me was made.

But it was because I criticised them for failing to look after my son properly and commissioning such appalling services’

Paula Rawnsley, mother of Thomas.

Anybody, can be gagged by the Court of Protection, if it is deemed to be in an incapacitated’s ‘best interests’.

So the Court of Protection found, a mother’s attempts, to gain help, for her dying son, was not in his ‘best interests’ .

Because, it would breach his right to privacy, and, as his services were being criticised, might affect future service provision.

So, Thomas, or, any ‘incapable’, is allowed, only one right that to right to personal privacy ?

Yet, they are not allowed a moment’s privacy, in their 24/7 surveillance living.

Nor, in any aspect of their life.

But, their own complaints and desperate cries for help are private, and must be protected , as must their abusive care provision?.

How could Paula repeating her son’s cries for help breach his privacy or not be in his ‘best interests ?

And how could a court, and all those paid and statutorily charged with protecting Thomas think that it was ?

So the secrecy of the Court of Protection is extended to anything the state thinks is in a deemed incapable’s ‘best interests’ with no possible legal challenge.

The Voice of Silence

From Great to Small
Its Empire grows
Silence knows
But dare not speak
Its evil flows
To such a peak
That, the faceless many are thrown in the pit
Where souls writhe
And gorge on spit.
But the voice of Silence slithers in the night
And the manacled hand gives up the fight.




  1. But HOW HOW HOW do we fight them – find me a barrister – no way – Im a litigant in person in principle, fightin them all the way. I paid a barrister £800 to tell me that there was a conflict of interest because I was Martin’s mother. I had a penal notice put on me forbidding me to influence Martin. The more I speak out the more they destroy. Martin is not allowed (!) to tell me what he is doing under the guise of privacy. Again God help us


  2. Yes Shirley, they even decide the deemed vulnerable’s privacy in their favour.

    No other country in the world, would dare to act like this.

    As far as I am aware, no other country has the power ie has dared to pass, and illegally implement an MCA

    Once targeted, there is no hope—————- loss of life and family.

    What sort of country is it, that deliberately makes up stories about loving parents, to steal their children’s lives, for profit ?

    The right to family life, and not to be deracinated ie root cutting, and to the privacy of your own choosing are fundamental human rights, but ignored.

    We are now, all, potential slaves, unless we join the cabal, or keep our heads well down.


  3. I think the MCA is easily used to cause harm by people who want to do that, and even a consultant psychiatrist told me it was a very confusing Act.
    It has limited uses, such as if a person in a coma can’t make a decision, and needs a decision there and then, when it can be used more properly.
    But those who can’t say what they think and answer clearly enough for those strangers ‘assessing’ them are often discriminated against for their language impairment or ‘impartial understanding’, which means they are not accepted as human, and not allowed or respected to indicate choices without words, so are disrespected totally.
    They should even be able to make an unwise choice, just like those with deemed ‘capacity’ can. If that’s what they want.
    For decades the study of the science of communication in our body language, and simply respecting wishes as age old wisdom tells us is the right thing, are were things we sort of getting more of before.
    Why not have a full blown debate?


    1. We have been trying for this debate since the Act came in in 2007. All that has happened is that the House of Lords Select Committee stated categorically that the Act is not fit for purpose in 2014 and Mr Justice Charles Vice President of the Court of Protection recently stated that there is an impasse between the judiciary and the government regarding the implemtation of the Act due to lack of money. That’s the debate


  4. Thank you Shirley for you comment I totally agree.

    From the Social Care Excellence’s MCA action day as I posted
    it would appear, that the executive – MOJ are intent on making us aware of the implementation of the Act, as evidenced by the submissions to the House of Lords Selection Committee ie illegally.

    And do nothing about this in depth consultation and the many critical responses.

    And, with such a mind set, debate serves little purpose, and in any event is not needed.

    We need action to implement the Act legally and/or amend it.

    We all know what the law is, it is not being implemented correctly and the systems have no independent checks to ensure it is.

    It is not a question of money, millions is being wasted on rubber stamping by lawyers and Judges in the Court of Protection, and more and more learning disabled, autistic etc, are being encaged, in away from family home living.

    It costs the tax payer, less than £180 per week for parent 24/7 care, whilst independent /supported living units cost on average over £3,500, and often far more, so an awful lot of money would be saved, if the Act were implemented legally and/or substantially amended .

    Hope you and Martin are as well as you can be under your ever existing dire circumstances.

    Best Wishes,



    1. We are caught in a web of a million marching army to one goal, in secret.

      All campaigns, legislation etc are just smoke screens, and manipulation, and even more ensnaring.

      The country is now ‘us’ and ‘them’.

      No law, no justice, no truth, but plenty of profit for the ‘us’, at the expense of the them, and indeed the country’s deficit.

      With, the literally now millions, your family has lost to the state fighting for justice, you certainly don’t need reminding that it is also your tax and proper services that are stolen.

      Best Wishes again. I wish I could give you some peace, or hope, or find you a lawyer, but even with one prepared to fight, how do you fight the courts ?.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s