Support for Non Verbal Disabled Families

About This Site

This website offers free, informal support and advocacy for parents and carers of non-verbal children in England.  

Practical guidance articles in pages links

The aim is to make SEND law, various related processes, communication, and behaviour, easier to understand, and to help families feel supported while navigating education and care systems.

About Me

Against many odds, in 1997, with the help of a very good non-practising barrister and other very determined parents, I successfully overturned a Special Educational Needs Tribunal decision and won a second tribunal on the same issue. This was a 'Landmark' case which made legal history.

 That case made applied behaviour analysis (ABA) available as a government funded provision.

I was informed by aba expert, Prof.Svein Eikeseth and others -in person and in our home and during a workshop consult, that my son would 'definitely speak'- sadly no- we later, after a few years in- worked on 'verbal behaviour' and used broader reinforcement strategies that gained approximations- e.g. my son would, when prompted properly -would say 'bees' for 'keys' etc - one therapist who assisted was called Amy H- very sadly his progress was halted due to tragic circumstances.

I am not currently supportive of all ABA practice and sometimes advise various bodies on changes that need addressing there- such as providing mandatory training and provision of AAC's to be incorporated in all therapy/teaching in non-verbal disability as a legal right.

An example of ABA not being helpful is the fact that a lot of non speakers have problems with processing speeds- making the 'instant reinforcement' aspect in parts of the ABA therapy- not only useless in many ways but potentially harmful too-and very tedious and/frustrating for the child.

 Personalised, varied reinforcement practiced in the community and not just at a table- for extended periods-can be really helpful. I made therapists do it in parks, supermarkets, and on trips to museums and in boats on the river! That is where progress began. Sunlight is a requirement for health.

 Former ABA service users report abuses and even PTSD due to unfavourable ABA practices.

 ABA uses coercive practice to eliminate behaviours that are natural, such as hand-flapping in Autism- though compassionate, tailored behaviourism is becoming more popular.

The coercion: ABA is about 'compliance' and repetion mostly- which brings disability, equality and discrimination law to seriously consider. 

I worked for four years as a behaviour therapist, employing and training therapists and occassionally advocating for others as a disabled parent.  

I have also, intermittently and informally, tried to research Autism causes since 1994. 

 Recent research includes news that autism and non-verbal developmental disability share many genetic pathways. 

The genes most consistently connected to absent or very limited speech are FOXP2, UBE3A,ARID1B, bvFTD, CACNA11, EHMT1, CNTNAP2, DDX3X, SHANK3, SYNGAP1, DYRK1A, ADNP, and MECP2. The future of genetic testing is looking very promising.

 My background includes certificates in DBT, ACT, Psychotherapy in PTSD and trained in Operant Conditioning-Skinnerian theory, as well as holistic nutrition therapy and herbal certs, I have a love of herbal teas and creating diy non-toxic soaps and deodorants.

How I Can Support You

I offer informal, experienced guidance and support for parents, carers, teachers or other professionals,who need help for non-verbal children, offering direct general support or directing them to appropriate SEND documents, services and helpful, free information.

If you’d like to get in touch for reasons listed, use the email icon or contact form below please.

 Messages are confidential, and I don’t store or share personal information.

It may take a while for me to respond. 

Aac help for non verbal children

Liz Lucy Robillard

'50,000' immigrants are not the problem- ECHR need remain- explained

 

Cohesion Over Headcounts: The Real Question Is How We Live Together

Focus: residents born outside the UK. References and statistics included.

The Core Idea

The health of a community isn’t decided by how many newcomers arrive, but by how people living here take part in civic and cultural life. This article looks only at residents born outside the United Kingdom — excluding British-born people entirely — to explore integration, participation, and cohesion.

The Numbers (non-UK-born only)

• Foreign-born population: In 2021, there were 10.0 million residents in England and Wales born outside the UK — 16.8% of all usual residents. In 2011, that figure was 7.5 million (13.4%). Source: ONS Census 2021
• English proficiency: 90% of migrants in England and Wales said they spoke English “well” or “very well.” Source: Migration Observatory
• Top countries of birth: India, Poland, Pakistan, Romania, and Ireland accounted for roughly 32% of the foreign-born population in 2021. Source: Migration Observatory
• Net migration trend: Net migration to the UK nearly halved to about 431,000 in 2024, after new visa restrictions. Source: Financial Times, 2025

What Cohesion Actually Means

Research consistently shows that integration has less to do with raw numbers and more to do with language, trust, and participation. The UK Home Office’s Indicators of Integration Framework (2019) highlights employment, education, housing, and social contact as the core drivers of cohesion.

<

Teaching kids empathy alongside critical thinking

 TEACHING CHILDREN EMPATHY AND CRITICAL THINKING WHILE STRENGTHENING IDENTITY AND RESPECT FOR PARENTS

Teaching children empathy alongside critical thinking while strengthening their identity and respect for parents requires an integrated, developmentally sensitive approach based on social and developmental psychology. The aim is to help children understand both themselves and others, including parents, as multidimensional human beings.

1. TEACH PERSPECTIVE-TAKING AS A THINKING SKILL

Empathy and critical thinking both depend on seeing the world from another point of view while maintaining independent thought.

Activity: Use role play or family storytelling. Ask the child to retell a recent disagreement from your perspective. Follow with questions like "why do you think I felt that way?" or "what might I have been afraid of or hoping for?" This strengthens intellectual empathy—the capacity to analyze emotions and motives without blind agreement.

Tip: Invite "why" questions about you as well as about the world. "Why do you think I got upset when you didn't call?" This builds cognitive flexibility and moral reasoning.

2. LINK IDENTITY FORMATION TO INTERGENERATIONAL UNDERSTANDING

Children develop identity through family narratives and by observing how parents make decisions.

Activity: Make a "parent timeline." Let the child interview you about your own upbringing, formative events, and values. Discuss together: "what do you think shaped how I parent?" and "what parts of my story surprised you?" This develops narrative empathy—the ability to connect emotionally and intellectually through life stories. It also helps children see parents as evolving people rather than fixed authority figures, which reduces adolescent rebellion and increases emotional regulation.

3. USE CONFLICT AS A LEARNING LAB

Disagreement can be reframed as a shared investigation rather than a power struggle. Encourage reflection during calm moments: "what did we each want in that argument?" and "how could we have understood each other better?" This models self-regulation, accountability, and reasoning about emotions.

REFERENCES

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.

Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2014). Empathy-related responding in children. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 459-485.

Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 748-769.

De Witte, S., & Vanhooren, S. (2021). The role of parental storytelling in children's moral and identity development. Journal of Moral Education.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child.

How To

Integrate empathy and critical thinking into school subjects like history and literature through perspective analysis.

Encourage parents to discuss ethical dilemmas together with children using real family examples.

Use emotion labeling during daily routines to teach self-awareness and vocabulary for feelings.

Practice guided reflection: after any disagreement, summarize what each person learned rather than who was right.

Use community or cultural storytelling to expand empathy beyond the family, reinforcing cultural identity and mutual respect.

ESTIMATED OUTCOMES

Children who engage with these approaches consistently show improved emotional regulation and reduced conflict intensity with parents by ages 8-10. Perspective-taking practice develops the neural pathways associated with theory of mind, leading to more sophisticated moral reasoning by ages 11-13. The parent timeline activity increases adolescents' understanding of parents as complex people, which research suggests reduces oppositional behavior during teenage years and strengthens intergenerational relationships into adulthood. 

Combined practice in perspective-taking and guided reflection demonstrates measurable gains in both empathetic responses and independent critical thinking, helping children maintain respect for parents while developing their own values and identities. Over time, these practices create families where disagreement becomes a pathway to deeper understanding rather than a rupture in relationships.

After the war-legacy

This is a temporary placement- my Medium account has disappeared since posting this there this morning

After every war, the fighting doesn’t end when the soldiers come home. It moves into the kitchen, the nursery, the silence between people who once loved each other. 

My father came back from World War II decorated by the King, later a naval commander for Canada. To the world, he was a hero. To his family, he was a man trying to live with the noise still in his head. He certainly had what we now call PTSD, though back then it was just “bad temper,” “discipline,” or “ungratefulness.” He hit the older brothers, quite badly assaulting them. He pushed my mum downstairs when pregnant and cut her. 

 No one used the word trauma. They just carried it. He felt ambiguous about her- she was nice- but pretty dumb (but fun at times) and poorly educated- he was quite the scholar with many associates- she was lost and isolated in a foreign country- a woman born in North London- with 4 kids- in French speaking Canada- with no way of knowing what was being said around the family dinner table.

My mother couldn’t carry it. She had been a performer once—a brief spark of talent and kindness, singing for burn unit patients—but when her marriage broke, so did her sense of self. Instead of rebuilding, she folded inward. She sometimes- rarely though- had hoped for reconciliation between branding him a 'selfish bastard' and hating it if we ever inquired about him- branding us 'traitors' if we did- real hard rejection

 Regret and resentment became her companions, and the bottle became her stage-and her inability to care for our emotions properly. Her children were left to raise themselves with their only moral compass coming from showbiz people- in the wreckage of two wounded adults: one broken by war, the other by bitterness.

What happens to a family when love collapses into self-preservation? Each person becomes the center of their own survival story. 

When Pain and PTSD Looks Like Narcissism

We’ve turned 'narcissist' into a moral diagnosis. It’s a word people throw around when someone withdraws, can’t connect, or fails to give us what we want emotionally. But not everyone who seems self-absorbed is self-worshipping. Many are simply fighting ghosts, embedded in their unconcious, cells and neurons—people whose trauma has taught them that closeness is dangerous and vulnerability- often fatal. Do your research. Cptsd is hell- but unique stories behind it all.

A traumatized person and a narcissist can behave in similar ways: emotional distance, defensiveness, flashes of rage, self-focus. The difference lies underneath. The traumatized person’s world is built on fear. The narcissist’s world is built on entitlement. One says, “I can’t trust you, I’ve been hurt.” The other says, “I deserve more than you, and you owe me.” Fine lines- always look at facts not conjecture nor fall for assumptions.

Trauma often mimics narcissism because survival mode narrows empathy. When someone is constantly scanning for threat, they often simply don’t have room to notice other people’s needs. But given safety and time, their empathy returns- especially when non judgemental, unbiased support comes in. A true narcissist doesn’t find their way back. There is no curiosity about others, no capacity for guilt, only calculation and self-maintenance.

Labeling every difficult person a narcissist helps no one (though I came across a properly 'covert narcissist' the other day- fkn monster that was) 

 It isolates the traumatized even more, leaving them ashamed for coping the only way they know how-and every unexpected noise firing off the nervous system. 

 What we need isn’t a sharper insult—it’s discernment. If we can learn to see when pain is masquerading as pride, we give people a chance to heal instead of condemning them for trying to survive.

If you complain about bad services as every dutiful citizen should- nothing changes if you don't- but if you do- you are massively at risk for being framed as a narcissist- 'vexatious' etc. So get your facts together and call out ad-hominem attacks- they are used to hide huge crimes and accountability- and numerous innocent victims suffer massively as a result. My dads efforts in ww2 carry me along daily as does my beautiful son and lovely friends.

Liz Lucy Robillard

ASSUMPTIONS- the worst enemy of every profession

 

Picture by Elimende Inagella- Unsplash

Assumptions duckie, are the velvet gloves that hide the iron fists of error. We make them quickly, often with the best intentions, and they lead us straight into the lion’s mouth. Let me walk you through a few examples.

There was a case in medicine where a woman came in with chest pain. The doctor assumed it was anxiety—she was young, female, not the “typical” heart attack candidate. They didn’t run the tests. She died. That assumption, that profile, cost her everything.

In law enforcement, we’ve seen it time and again. A man pulled over because he “looked suspicious.” No crime, no evidence, just a gut feeling and a profile. He was arrested, humiliated, and later released. But the damage was done. His dignity, his trust in the system—shattered.

Recruitment is another battlefield. A CV with a foreign-sounding name gets tossed aside. The candidate might have been brilliant, but the recruiter assumed they wouldn’t “fit.” No interview, no chance. Just a silent rejection based on nothing but a name.

In schools, children from certain postcodes are placed in lower sets. Teachers assume they won’t cope with advanced material. No one asks about their home life, their resilience, their dreams. They’re boxed in before they’ve even begun.

And in social services, a mother seeking help is profiled as manipulative for asking why her son has a disability. She’s questioned, doubted, denied.

 No one asks about her trauma, her history, her fight to survive. Just a tick-box form and a cold shoulder.

These are not stories from the shadows. They’re out there, in reports, in headlines, in the quiet corners of people’s lives.

 Assumptions are not just lazy—they’re lethal. If you want to understand someone, you must ask, listen, and dig deep. Otherwise, you’re just dressing prejudice up in a lab coat or a uniform.

Liz Lucy Robillard 

*Now, shall we act?

Measles- who suffers most?

 A 2024 case report describes a ten-month-old female who developed viremia, meningoencephalitis, and multi-organ failure after receiving the live-attenuated measles vaccine.

 Whole-genome sequencing revealed a homozygous loss-of-function mutation in IFNAR2, abolishing type-I interferon signaling and leaving the child vulnerable to severe viral disease.

 The authors note that defects in IFNAR2 define immunodeficiency-45 and that carriers of such mutations are at high risk for life-threatening complications from either natural measles infection or the live vaccine itself .

Poland and co-workers have repeatedly shown that common single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the measles virus receptors CD46 and SLAM, as well as in TLR3, TLR7, TLR8, RIG-I, and multiple HLA class I and II loci, significantly modulate cytokine release, antibody production, and cellular immunity after measles exposure or vaccination. Individuals carrying the “low-response” alleles mount weaker antiviral responses and experience higher peak viral loads, correlates that have been linked to increased risk of disseminated disease and post-infectious complications in subsequent outbreaks .

Clifford et al. demonstrated that specific variants of TLR7 and TLR8 reduce interferon-α/β secretion in infants challenged with measles virus, resulting in prolonged viremia and febrile seizures in a subset of vaccinees. The same study noted that a RIG-I polymorphism that lowers receptor expression doubled the likelihood of hospitalisation for measles-like illness during a community outbreak, implying that genetically impaired innate sensing converts an otherwise self-limited infection into a severe clinical course .

Taken together, these peer-reviewed data indicate that mutations or polymorphisms in IFNAR2, CD46, SLAM, TLR7, TLR8, RIG-I, and several HLA alleles can render individuals measles-susceptible and predispose them to adverse, occasionally fatal, outcomes following exposure to the wild-type virus or live vaccine.

Me and llm's - always check veracity with professionals 

Liz Lucy Robillard 

Lenny Henry- ww2 ring bells? TRAITOR?

 Lenny Henry’s Betrayal of Britain

By Liz Lucy Robillard

The Man Who Once United Us

Sir Lenny Henry was once the face of Britain’s better self — talent over privilege, laughter over division. A boy from Dudley who broke barriers through wit, timing, and graft. He represented the proof that this country, for all its flaws, still rewarded merit. Millions saw themselves in his rise: the Britain where race mattered less than effort.

Now, after a lifetime of success, he is calling for reparations from the nation that gave him everything. That is not courage; it is betrayal disguised as conscience.

Britain’s Record Deserves Respect

Britain did not invent slavery, but it did lead the world in abolishing it. Parliament outlawed the trade in 1807, and the Empire abolished slavery itself in 1833. British ships hunted slavers for decades at enormous cost. Tens of thousands of sailors fought and died intercepting slave vessels. Our ancestors paid in blood and treasure to end a global evil.

No nation has a perfect record, yet few have corrected their course as forcefully as we did. Britain’s story since abolition is one of reform, not oppression — of integration, not exclusion.

Integration, Not Injustice

Across the 20th century, Britain welcomed families from the Commonwealth. It opened schools, built the NHS, and offered citizenship and opportunity to millions. Generations of immigrants and their children became part of the shared national story — proud to call themselves British while bringing their own heritage with them.

That story includes Lenny Henry. This country gave him a stage, an audience, wealth, honours, and the security to speak freely. He is not a victim of Britain; he is one of its success stories.

Why Turn on Your Own?

To call for reparations now — two centuries after abolition — is to reopen wounds that most Britons have spent decades healing. It tells young people to inherit guilt instead of pride. It risks turning unity into resentment.

The claim that modern Britain owes a financial debt to its own citizens for crimes abolished generations ago is morally hollow. The past should be studied, not invoiced. A society that continually apologises for its ancestors eventually forgets how to stand tall.

The Cost of Fashionable Outrage

What drives this? Partly fashion. In a culture that rewards grievance, outrage is the new currency. Accusing your own country of moral debt makes headlines; praising it for progress does not.

Henry could have used his platform to remind us of how far we have come — of shared decency, humour, and fairness that still bind this island together. Instead, he has chosen to join the professional mourners of empire, people who mistake moral noise for moral action.

We Are Better Than This

Britain abolished slavery, defeated fascism, rebuilt Europe, and continues to send aid across the world. We have integrated cultures without erasing them. That is not the record of a hateful nation.

Lenny Henry owes his platform to that Britain — the one that opened its arms, not clenched its fists. To turn on that legacy is not justice; it is ingratitude. He has chosen the easy applause of division over the harder work of gratitude.

History will remember who built bridges and who burned them

Reform's Deportation Policy - 10's of Billions to UK Taxpayers?

REFORM and Deportation- The costs
Liz Lucy Robillard

The Real Legal Limits of the “Restore Britain” Deportation Plan

A new paper by Restore Britain calls for mass deportations of everyone living in the UK without legal status.

It sounds decisive and patriotic, but the plan breaks far more laws than it fixes — and would very likely collapse in the courts before the first charter flight took off.

This post unpacks what’s lawful, what isn’t, and who would actually make or lose money if any of it went ahead.

1. What They Want

The Restore Britain report demands:

Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR);

Repealing the Human Rights Act 1998;

Repealing the Equality Act 2010;

Introducing a “Great Clarification Act” letting Parliament override judges;

And deporting up to two million people within three years.

2. What the Law Actually Allows

Most of those measures are unlawful under existing UK and international law.

Here’s why.

A. Rule of Law and Separation of Powers

Courts, not ministers, decide if a detention or deportation is lawful.

Cases such as R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21 and R v Secretary of State ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 confirmed that no minister may overrule the courts or act contrary to fundamental rights without explicit parliamentary authority.

B. Unlawful Detention

The Hardial Singh principles (R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Hardial Singh [1984]) limit immigration detention to what is reasonable and necessary for removal.

Abolishing these limits would not legalise indefinite detention; judges would apply habeas corpus instead.

C. Equality and Fair Treatment

Even if the Equality Act 2010 were repealed, the courts would still enforce fairness through the common law (see R v Home Secretary, ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539).

Race-based or nationality-based mass removals would remain unlawful.

3. Leaving the ECHR: What It Means and Doesn’t

Restore Britain argues that leaving the ECHR would “unshackle” the UK from Strasbourg judges who block deportations using:

Article 3 – protection from torture or degrading treatment;

Article 8 – right to family life.

They are half right: those articles do restrict deportations.

But quitting the ECHR would not suddenly make mass removals legal.

Under Article 58 of the Convention, the UK must give one year’s notice before withdrawal.

During that year, all judgments still apply.

Withdrawal would also:

1. Breach the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, which embeds the ECHR in Northern Ireland law;

2. Undermine the UK–EU Trade & Cooperation Agreement, which assumes ECHR membership for security and data exchange;

3. Trigger legal chaos — the courts would still apply domestic fairness and proportionality tests even without the ECHR label.

So even outside Strasbourg, deportations would still face judicial review under UK common law and other treaties such as the UN Refugee Convention and Convention Against Torture.

4. The Only Lawful Parts

Not everything in the paper is impossible.

A few narrow reforms could legally accelerate deportations — but only for people whose cases are completely finished.

A. A “Returns Act” for Final Cases

A statute could allow a 28-day maximum detention window for people who have no remaining appeals, with:

72 hours’ notice before removal;

Automatic bail review by the Immigration Tribunal.

This would speed up removals and reduce costs while still respecting due process.

B. Expanded Voluntary Returns

Redirecting part of the Home Office budget into Voluntary Return Schemes is both lawful and effective.

These programs pay for travel and small reintegration grants.

They cost less and face no human-rights litigation because participation is voluntary.

C. Smarter Data-Sharing, Not Treaty Breaches

Instead of suspending EU data rules, the Home Office can use Prüm II and ECRIS-TCN databases to verify identities.

This works within the forthcoming Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, already cleared as “adequate” by the EU.

D. Legal Cover for Officials

When actions rest on Acts of Parliament and judicial oversight, civil servants are protected from misfeasance or false-imprisonment claims.

Everything else — like acting without court authority — remains personally risky and uninsured.

5. Who Would Benefit Financially

If mass deportations went ahead:

Private security and detention contractors (e.g., Serco, Mitie, G4S) would receive multi-billion-pound contracts for transport, catering, and guards.

Charter-flight operators and insurers would gain large emergency-service fees.

Litigation firms and human-rights barristers would also profit, because the volume of challenges would explode.

Taxpayers would foot the bill — estimates run into tens of billions over five years.

If the UK stayed within the law:

Home Office caseworkers, immigration tribunals, and voluntary-return contractors would still be paid, but at far lower public cost.

The Treasury would save money through faster processing and fewer lawsuits.

Britain would retain access to EU criminal-data systems and international trade privileges.

In short:

Leaving the ECHR might enrich contractors and create months of expensive legal drama; staying in, and using lawful fast-track removals, saves many billions and keeps the UK compliant.

6. Bottom Line

Only the court-supervised parts of the Restore Britain idea —speeding up removal of failed asylum seekers and expanding voluntary returns —can be done legally.

Once the plan moves into mass, automatic, or race-based expulsions, it becomes unlawful, uninsured, and politically explosive. Can't work.

Sources:

Immigration Act 2016

Nationality & Borders Act 2022

Human Rights Act 1998

Equality Act 2010

Key cases: ex p Hardial Singh (1984), Simms (2000), Pierson (1998), Evans (2015)

Treaties: European Convention on Human Rights, UN Refugee Convention 1951, Good Friday Agreement 1998

As with all stuff here- content subject to change

Liz Lucy Robillard

See my post on leaving the echr- who really benefits...

Who benefits from leaving the echr?

Whistleblower Press Contacts

Global SecureDrop & Whistleblower Submission Links

Use Tor or follow each outlet’s own guidance for full anonymity.

United States

• New York Times
• 
  
• Washington Post
• 
  
• Associated Press
• 
  
• ProPublica
• 
  
• WIRED
• 
  
• CNN
• 
  
• Bloomberg News
• 
  
• USA TODAY Network

United Kingdom

• The Guardian
• 
  
• BBC News
• 
  
• Financial Times

Ireland

• RTÉ Investigates

France

• Mediapart
• 
  
• Le Monde – Source sûre

Germany

• Der Spiegel
• 
  
• Süddeutsche Zeitung

Australia

• ABC News

Global Resources

• SecureDrop Directory – official list
• 
  
• Freedom of the Press Foundation guide

More soon

Brits in London Protesting Today - Jolly Good

London was on fire today—not with bombs or bullets, but with voices. Ordinary people, the kind who pay their bills, raise their kids, and love this country with a stubborn loyalty, finally had enough.

The British have always been suckers for fair play. It’s in the blood. Generous, tolerant, forgiving—we’ve never needed lectures about kindness. We’ve lived it. We welcomed strangers, helped them, called them friends. And now? Laws twisted, speech gagged, citizens treated like criminals for waving the flag that built this island. Hypocrisy never looked so cheap.

Extremists slipped in the back door while the politicians cashed their checks. Creeps with smiles and fake compassion sold out the soul of the country. The ordinary man in the street? He wasn’t to blame for the wars. Hell, we fought them to stop bullies and save people who couldn’t save themselves. But try telling that to the keyboard fascists screaming online.

 They sound more like Nazis than the Nazis ever did.

This isn’t a nation of violence. It’s a nation of memory. Kids once played together—different colors, different accents—without the poison now being pumped into every headline. There was mischief, there were squabbles, but never this madness of fear and division.

And here’s the dirty little truth: it didn’t creep in from the Left alone. It happened under the Tories—fourteen years of greed, corruption, and indifference. They let it fester, feeding the beast while ordinary people paid the rent.

But the curtain’s coming down. The crowd is loud, defiant, and not in the mood to take orders. You cannot erase England. You cannot re-engineer the people who built it.

The voices on the street today? That’s the sound of a nation remembering who it truly is- not some twisted lie

liz lucy robillard

Don't Blame The British for Past Horrors

 Don't Blame the British Public for Old Colonial Horrors- why it's a mistake.

Responsibility lies at the top - not with regular people.

The empire was about big business. Pure and simple. It created huge wealth and now the collective hangover guilt- especially among our more compassionate voters- is clearly messing up - people being arrested for 'thought crime' is apparently actually happening in the UK (and affecting not the terminally rich and spoiled)

Thought Crime Arrests

It is a tragic and dangerous habit of human beings to mistake the sins of power for the sins of the people. And some injured parties want to see the destruction of the UK as is evident here-

Britain Being Destroyed From Within

When nations inherit the bittero memory of empire, the fury is often directed at those least able to bear it: the ordinary citizens, the neighbour, the single mum, the shopkeeper, the labourer, the soldier who fought and bled without ever once sitting in a cabinet room or signing a trade deal.

People place trust in their leaders. 'Blind trust' a lot of the time- trust that has sometimes been ill deserved -and horribly exploited. 

The history of corruption is not the history of *ordinary* average people.

 It is the history of those silly elites. The effete. Those with lots of money and no common sense- out of touch with their authenitic selves-blinded by guilt but sheilded by their greed and ego- that messes up our world.

Cultivate self awareness and you won't often go wrong.

It is the story of governments, corporations, charities, and institutions who pursued profit and power under the cover of legality and respectability that's at fault.

 And the evidence for this is not speculative—it is written in case law, in court judgments, in criminal convictions.

Consider Britain. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.

 The expenses scandal put MPs in prison.

 The Post Office scandal ruined hundreds of lives because executives denied the truth about their own failed system.

 The High Court has struck down crony contracts—“VIP lanes”—in the awarding of public money. 

These are not fairy tales. They are judicial facts.

Look abroad too. Israeli prime ministers, South Korean presidents, American governors, Italian premiers—convicted of bribery, fraud, and plunder. 

The Philippines saw its president fall to corruption charges. The same pattern repeats itself everywhere. When power is unchecked, it is abused.

Even charities—those most trusted of institutions—have failed.

 Oxfam was found wanting in safeguarding.

 Kids Company collapsed under the weight of its own mismanagement.

 And the pharmaceutical industry, held up as saviour and science incarnate, has been fined billions for hiding data and promoting drugs unlawfully.

So what is the point? The point is this: the enemy is not your neighbour, not the citizen across the street, and not the immigrant who came to work in your town.

 The enemy is corruption at the top. It is the arrogance of leaders who manipulate nations for profit and control.

We must refuse collective blame.

 It is lazy, it is unjust, and it blinds us to the real culprits. The sins of empire were not authored by the people in the fields, the shops, and the factories. 

They were authored by elites who remain, even now, insulated from accountability.

A handful of decent lawyers, activists and journalists fight this- when desperately overworked and stressed.

The remedy is not resentment. It is responsibility. It is sunlight. It is demanding open government, independent audit, real checks and balances. 

It is solidarity with your neighbours and friends- at the level of ordinary life—where most of us want the same things: safety, dignity, honest work, honest leaders.

Liberty is not chaos. It is disciplined resistance to unaccountable power. 

And until we remember that, we will continue to fight each other while those at the top laugh at you and tighten their grip.

'The pen is mightier than the sword' 

How to address the legacy of historical abuses

• Teach accurate history: distinguish between decisions of ruling elites and the lives of ordinary citizens.

• Build cross-cultural solidarity: recognise that working people everywhere share more in common with each other than with those who ruled them.

• Demand transparency: open records, archives, and inquiries into past abuses rather than burying them.

• Promote restitution through practical means: investment in education, healthcare, and trade built on fairness rather than exploitation.

• Reject collective guilt: no one should inherit blame for crimes they did not commit.

• Focus on present accountability: stop repeating the same patterns of cronyism, secrecy, and power-hoarding today.

Concrete corruption case law and convictions (examples only)

• Miller v Prime Minister (2019, UK Supreme Court): prorogation of Parliament unlawful.

• R v Chaytor (2010, UK Supreme Court): MPs jailed for expenses fraud.

• Bates v Post Office (2019, High Court): Horizon IT system unreliable, Post Office conduct condemned.

• Good Law Project v Minister for the Cabinet Office (2021, High Court): contract award unlawful.

• Good Law Project & EveryDoctor v Secretary of State for Health (2022, High Court): VIP lane for PPE unlawful.

Elsewhere

• Israel: PM Ehud Olmert convicted of bribery (2014).

• South Korea: President Park Geun-hye convicted and sentenced for corruption (2017, upheld 2021).

• Philippines: President Joseph Estrada convicted of plunder (2007).

• USA: Governor Rod Blagojevich convicted on multiple corruption counts.

• Italy: Tangentopoli / Mani Pulite investigations; ex-PM Bettino Craxi convicted in absentia

Corporate/Charities

• Oxfam GB: safeguarding failures confirmed by regulator.

• Kids Company: collapse due to governance failings, scrutinised by courts.

• Pfizer: $2.3bn settlement for illegal promotion (2009).

• GlaxoSmithKline: $3bn settlement for unlawful promotion and hiding safety data (2012).

Closing note- remedy

The remedy is not resentment. It is responsibility. It is sunlight- or umbrellas if in the UK...

 It is demanding open government, independent audit, real checks and balances.

 It is friendship at the level of ordinary life—where most of us want the same things: safety, dignity, honest work, honest leaders.

Liberty is not chaos. It is disciplined resistance to unaccountable power. 

And until we remember that, we will continue to fight each other while those at the top laugh and tighten their grip.

What you can do- support your neighbours, support small business- demand transparency- demand accountablity (in the most pleasant way you can) and above all- educate people.

Transparency and Anti-Corruption

◇Global Witness◇–investigations and campaigning regarding the climate crisis profits

Global Witness 

◇OpenDemocracy◇ (UK investigative journalism) –

https://opendemocracy.net 

◇Centre for Public Integrity◇- non partisan non profit news org 

Centre for Public Integrity

 

◇Transparency International◇ - global movement to end corrupt practice

Transparency International

Civil Liberties and Accountability

◇Liberty◇ (UK human rights org) –

Liberty Human Rights UK

◇Good Law Project◇ resists hate to bring justice and free speech

–The Good Law Project

◇Open Rights Group ◇–rights to privacy and free speech

 Open Rights Group

◇Free Speech Union◇

 - Free Speech Union- promotion

 

◇Whistleblowing International◇ - defending and support

Whistleblowing International

◇Protect◇

 https://protect-advice.org.uk/history

Watchdogs on Global Power

 ◇Human Rights Watch◇ –

 Human Rights Watch- legal advice

◇Amnesty International◇- legal & political

Amnesty International

Those are the sorts of organisations that align with our messages- plus you can write to your MP online easily here

 ◇writetothem◇

Contact a politician online

Tip: Use the 'Tor' browser- Tor Browser (not 'dark web') to see best anonymous search results- top business hogs the top of Google, Bing and others- burying the good stuff.

Liz Lucy Robillard Contact

Psychiatry Sweetie

 

Psychiatry, sweetie, is the ultimate high-society hustle. A bit of a scam at times- really. 

 In Allen Frances’s book 'Saving Normal', the old (incredible) insider plays both sides. 

One moment he’s confessing that the DSM turned everyday quirks into gold-plated diagnoses. Then he’s condemning the system even more and telling us he's responsible for the autism surge. 

The truth? Diagnoses are invented in backrooms, voted into existence like casting calls at a Beverly Hills mansion.

 No blood tests, no scans, no hard evidence – just a committee deciding whether your heartbreak, your wild night, your traumatic abuse and it's injustices or your kid’s fidgeting- deserves a label not a resolution. 

 And every new label is another shot of champagne for Big Pharma- that let's face it- hasn't updated it's ethical framework in a while?

The drugs? Love- they don’t heal- they ,*mask* they sedate, they numb, they toy with your body chemistry like a bad boy with a trust fund. 

Akathisia, obesity, diabetes, kidney damage, anehedonia (subsequent suicide) early death – all hidden under sleek advertising that sells them as miracle pills. 

Antidepressants and antipsychotics sound glamorous, but they’re more like back-alley cocktails: unpredictable, addictive, and dangerous. Psychiatry knows this- but are they addressing it? 

Frances paints psychiatry as an innocent victim sometimes, manipulated by drug companies and insurance giants. Please.

 These psychiatrists aren’t babes in the woods – they’re power players in designer suits, cashing checks while telling us it’s all for our own good. 

The corruption - is big- and it runs deep.

 Characters with money, connections, and endless resources rising like phoenixes on Prozac. It’s fiction dressed up as science.

Here’s the real scene: millions of parents feeding their kids stimulants because schools can’t cope, while those same drugs are traded on the street like jewels.

 Millions of adults numbed, sedated, and told it’s “treatment" when the right nutrients and behavioural health plan would probably be way more helpful!

 Psychiatry has turned human pain into the sexiest industry in town – all gloss, no substance, and deadly underneath.

References

Moncrieff J. The myth of the chemical cure: a critique of psychiatric drug treatment. Palgrave Macmillan. 2009.

Whitaker R. Anatomy of an epidemic. Crown. 2010.

Healy D. The antidepressant era. Harvard University Press. 1997.

Gøtzsche PC. Deadly medicines and organised crime. Radcliffe. 2013.

Kirsch I et al. Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med. 2008.

Angell M. The epidemic of mental illness: why? New York Review of Books. 2011.

Frances A. DSM 5 is guide not bible—ignore its ten worst changes. BMJ. 2013.

Hengartner MP. How effective are antidepressants for depression over the long term? A critical review of relapse prevention trials. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2020.

Liz Lucy Robillard - working on the book

Contact me at Contact Liz

The Autism Mountain

 The so-called autism epidemic has been sold to the public as an unprecedented surge in children afflicted with a mysterious condition. In reality, it is an epidemic created by psychiatry itself. The numbers rose not because millions of children suddenly lost the ability to function in society, but because diagnostic boundaries were quietly expanded.

Dr Allen Frances, the psychiatrist who chaired the DSM-IV task force, has been unusually candid. He later said his “biggest DSM-IV regret” was that “our broadening the autism definition … led to such massive, careless over-diagnosis” (Allen Frances, Twitter, April 2023). In another interview he admitted he was “very sorry for helping to lower the diagnosis bar” (New York Post, April 24 2023). When the architect of the system admits diagnostic inflation—not hidden disease—is to blame, the foundations of the narrative begin to collapse.

Families have been trapped in this narrative for decades. They were not villains. They were misled. A child with sensitivities to sound, difficulty sitting still, or trouble making friends was suddenly said to be “on the spectrum.” Parents were encouraged to accept the label as scientific truth. And once that label was applied, an industry stood ready to sell services, interventions, and treatments. Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) became the flagship product. Marketed as the “only evidence-based treatment,” ABA was funded by governments, written into policy, and enforced in schools. Behind the slogans, it taught compliance, extinguished individuality, and often left lasting harm. Many autistic self-advocates have described ABA as abusive.

At the same time, it is crucial not to deny that real learning disabilities exist. Conditions such as dyspraxia, apraxia, dysphagia, dyscalculia, dyslexia, and other developmental challenges are genuine and can create serious difficulties in daily life. These conditions need recognition and support. But they require tailored responses—speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy—not a blanket autism label. Folding every difference into “autism” blurs the reality of those struggles and dilutes the help people actually need.

This is how a market sustains itself. Once a diagnosis becomes currency, schools need it to justify funding, providers need it to secure contracts, and pharmaceutical companies need it to sell drugs. Psychiatry’s initial misjudgment metastasized into a self-sustaining economy.

The pattern is familiar. We have seen diagnostic inflation before. Homosexuality was once classified as a mental illness. Multiple Personality Disorder filled clinics in the 1980s before collapsing under the weight of its own excesses. “Recovered memory” therapy destroyed lives before being discredited in court. Even the chemical imbalance theory of depression, once repeated as fact, has been quietly abandoned by researchers who now admit the evidence was never there.

Frances himself warned during the DSM-5 debates that the process risked creating “false epidemics” through “soaring ambition and weak methodology” (Allen Frances, DSM-5 commentary, 2010). He has continued to describe the current surge in autism as a “false epidemic.”

The autism bubble is held up by the same scaffolding. And the resistance to questioning it will be fierce.

First, the money. ABA providers, diagnostic services, and pharmaceutical companies have billions invested in keeping the label alive. They will lobby, fund awareness campaigns, and publish friendly research.

Second, the shield of compassion. Critics will be accused of cruelty: “You are invalidating autistic people’s lived experience.” It is a rhetorical trap. The real question is whether the label itself helps or harms.

Simple preferences, sensitivities and or trauma are not autism- so very many things are simply not.  The authorities do know this. 

Third, the inertia of academia. Universities trained a generation of professionals in the autism framework. Few professors will admit they spent careers teaching a mistake. Counter-articles will appear, wrapped in jargon, to protect reputations.

Fourth, the emotional hold on parents. For some families, walking away from the diagnosis feels like admitting they were duped. Service providers know this, and they will weaponize it: “Don’t let anyone shame you for seeking help.”

Fifth, diagnostic creep. Even if autism diagnoses decline, new categories will appear: sensory processing disorder, social communication disorder, pragmatic language impairment. The system does not shrink; it morphs.

Finally, the law. In courts and tribunals, lawyers will argue that withholding a label or therapy is negligence. Councils and schools, fearing liability, will keep pressing for diagnoses.

These defenses are predictable. They can be pre-empted. The financial motive must be named first: this is not about children, it is about an industry. The compassion shield must be pierced: no one denies that people struggle, but struggle does not equal autism. Parent guilt must be lifted: the guilt belongs to the sellers, not the buyers. Diagnostic creep must be exposed as a shell game. And the legal fear must be inverted: what is truly negligent is forcing children into unproven and harmful interventions.

History suggests how this ends. Manias collapse not when insiders whisper doubts, but when the public hears them. Once the mainstream hears that the “autism epidemic” was built on expanded criteria, and that the man who wrote the manual admits it, the authority of psychiatry is punctured. Media outlets love the story of a lie exposed. Politicians, wary of wasting money, begin to retreat. And what once looked like settled science becomes yesterday’s scandal.

This is not to say there are no children in need. There are, and always will be. But their struggles are varied: learning disabilities, sensory differences, trauma, attention problems, immune issues. To funnel all of this into a single word—and then build an empire on it—is not medicine. It is commerce.

The collapse will not happen all at once. It will follow the familiar arc. At first, resistance. Then doubt. Then scandal. And then silence, as the industry moves on to its next invention.

The autism epidemic is not a surge in broken children. It is a surge in broken diagnostics, amplified by money, fear, and misplaced trust. The sooner we see it for what it is, the sooner families can be freed from a system that was never designed to heal them.

Liz Lucy Robillard

Are Charities Bent or Daft?

Are Very Dozy Sheep in Charge of Charities?

Do charities care more for their mortgages than you? Let's look at evidence of some that are meant to assist disabled kids.

Disabled kids are not being catered to properly and people -sometimes -tend to get wealthy on their pain and vulnerability- sadly there are no doubts at all about that. 

Communication devices to non speakers:

I had a fey-kind but watery- response from the government regarding this-an attempt to shut me up (lol) - absolute evidence I am correct about all this...

Proof that professionals get it wrong across the board- kids are unique -but the stupid, very, very, painfully, lazy training - hasn't allowed for this absolute science. 

The funds go to pay all the bloody professions and NOT to the disabled kids themselves!!! It is RAMPANT exploitation by people with nice homes thank you- who purport to live and breathe for good causes- as long as they get all the mod cons and 4 holidays a year in Corsica and staff to do the - well- the 'work" of pushing around old data, re-worded but always the same *paperwork* that defies modern science but puffs the pockets of the- terminally dim -quota and paper pushers.

Huge lots of charities have done *not very f*cking much* to get effective and modern apps and communication devices out to kids who feel lost, alone & isolated -who do not have the correct devices to help them- shame on group-think, policy, speech therapists, educational psychologists (*&^$) - child shinks of *all descriptions* - shame shame shame on you short-sighted automatons! Stop being bloody sheep! 

Communication Rights for Disabled Children – Failure of AAC Provision

I am writing to demand urgent action on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for disabled children in the United Kingdom.

Every child is unique. Yet our current systems flatten children into averages as it fits the narrow frame that pays them- handsomely. 

 Charities, speech therapy services, and public bodies prefer blanket policies because they look neat in reports.This pays their salary.

But children are not data points. Or 'Targets'!

They are *individual HUMANS with rights*

Legal duties already exist. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by the UK, requires states to accept and facilitate AAC (Article 21). 

The Equality Act 2010 requires reasonable adjustments in communication. NHS England has issued a Specialised AAC Service Specification confirming these duties. The law is clear.

 The problem is compliance, not lack of law. (Thank you law)

The evidence is equally clear. Autism and developmental conditions are heterogeneous (Lord et al, 2020, Lancet Commission). 

Reviews confirm that AAC does NOT hinder speech; Speech 'often improves' (Millar, Light & Schlosser 2006; Schlosser & Wendt 2008). Success depends on matching the tool to the child and training the child’s circle of support (Baxter et al 2012).

More importantly (much more) we also have the testimony of AAC users themselves:

• DJ Savarese: “Begin by asking me a question and offering me a few choices written on a piece of paper.”

• Ido Kedar: “I communicate by typing on an iPad or a letter board.”

• Carly Fleischmann: “I am autistic but that is not who I am.”

• Amanda Baggs: “They are rich and varied forms of communication in their own right.”

• Jordyn Zimmerman: “I am only one nonspeaking autistic person… I can only share my experience.”

• Jim Sinclair: “Don’t mourn for us. We are alive. We are real.”

These are just a few voices that prove that lack of speech does not mean lack of thought. Get that in your F****** HEAD!!

Yet in practice, large charities such as Mencap, Scope, and Sense have failed to ensure AAC provision. This is vital to note.

Their focus remains on ads, branding, conferences, and awareness campaigns- but implementation? That's left to teaching assistants- mostly-low waged, under appreciated- stars -who sometimes fight huge battles unseen for their charges- when they don't have the tools they should have- empower them- they actually *care* and make a huge difference in lives that can be full of hardship and vulnerabilities.

 Thousands of children still sit without a reliable means of communication at home, school, and in hospital. 

Speech therapy services ration devices, dismiss typing and text AAC as unscientific, and force children into blanket programmes. 

This is not science at all. It is neglect by proxy. It is state sanctioned harm.

What needs to be done is simple:

• Presume competence. Offer AAC early without waiting for “proof of readiness.”

• Provide tools that fit the child—letter boards apps, text-to-speech, access to all modern apps, smartphones with 'Fluid' app for fun ( non-verbal folks like fun too!

 *also watch Neuralink.com and Elon Musk for developments

• Train families, teachers, and peers. A device without trained partners is useless.

• Protect rights by enforcing UNCRPD Article 21 and the Equality Act.

• Measure outcomes that matter—autonomy, social connection, and participation.

• Involve AAC users in policy decisions as equal participants.

In the UK context, regional AAC hubs exist (ACE Centre North, Barnsley Assistive Technology, Kent and Medway, and others). 

Local Trusts are expected to provide ordinary AAC. Yet provision remains a postcode lottery. *Take note London councils. The law is most definitely sniffing around YOU.

The Care Quality Commission has already flagged inconsistency. Big kudos.

I ask you directly:

• What steps will you take to ensure that every disabled child has timely access to AAC?

• How will you enforce compliance with existing law and specifications?

• When will AAC access be treated as a safeguarding issue by regulators?

Children are not averages. Communication is not a privilege. It is a right. The UK has the law, the evidence, and the testimony.

What is missing is enforcement. Who is responsible?  A seedy or stupid sort?

I ask you to act. Today. 

Yours sincerely,

Liz Lucy Robillard PS >

Free Stuff

#disability #nonverbal #speech #SEND

NHS- the 58 BILLION pounds of YOUR Money on Negligence

NHS negligence 58 Billion - National Defence budget is for the 2025/26  is planned at around £59.8 billion.

Tories were in charge. Labour footing the bill. Not one tory paper has covered this- doesn't say much for their *integrity* 

Let that sink in. .....

The NHS can be a helpful, good service, especially in emergencies and for people on exceptionally low incomes, and it is run by kind-hearted, usually very well-meaning staff. 'Do-gooders' have their place as do interfering busy-bodies!

Yet sometimes, healthcare in the UK becomes excessive, overreaching, and unnecessarily intrusive – which can be bloody dangerous.

Opt-outs from data sharing, it seems, are not preventing fragmented records from circulating across departments, public services, and authorities.

This risks erroneous data being passed around, which can cause huge harm, possibly life-changing or life-threatening outcomes as a result.

Digital records may offer a great fix, but change takes time. Busy GPs are not yet fully fluent in these systems, so confidence has not been built, and it may take years for that to shift.

Meanwhile, private providers are heroically stepping in.

Some online GP services now charge as little as £16 per consultation, a practical lifeline for people who would rather avoid the NHS unless absolutely necessary.

Here's one online GP service worth noting: DoctorSA

An NHS patient summed it up: "They collude using watered-down opinion but not facts, and got vital information very, very wrong." It is a blunt reminder that doctors are fallible humans and horrible mistakes happen.

Sadly NHS medical negligence is quite legendary – not small at all.

In 2023 to 2024 alone, the NHS paid out a record 2.8 BILLION pounds in compensation, the taxpayers’ burden – with hundreds of millions more in legal fees.

Of that, 1.1 billion went toward maternity-related claims. Source: The Guardian

Even bigger, by mid 2025, the NHS had set aside staggering 58.2 billion pounds for clinical negligence liabilities. (!!!!)

This is the second largest liability in government books, second only to NUCLEAR decommissioning. Source: The Guardian

Recent figures are no quieter.

In the year ending March 2025, NHS Resolution paid out 3.1 billion pounds across clinical schemes, including damages, lawyers’ fees, and associated costs.

That breaks down into 2.29 billion in damages, 621 million in claimant legal costs, and 181 million in NHS legal costs.

This marks an increase across the board. Source: NHS Resolution Annual Report 2024–25

Of those payouts, 1.3 billion related to maternity claims, which made up more than half the value of all clinical negligence payments. Source: Kingsley Napley Blog

Between 2010 and 2025, nearly 40,000 compensation claims arose from NHS delays alone, totaling more than 8.3 billion pounds. Source: The Times

This is not just about numbers. It is about families shattered by delay, misdiagnosis, or error. Traumatic injury courtesy of your caring NHS.

Given the stakes, it may be wise to swerve the NHS where humanly possible, at least until digital accuracy and accountability improve.

The alternatives (a good Google rummage brings up plenty) are not perfect, but for now, they may be less perilous.

Liz Lucy Robillard

Banned Vaccine Article

 28 Aug 2025, 23:59 BST 

Removed and banned from the Medium platform. How sweet. A note to trolls.

'There is a disturbing habit among some pro vaccine advocates. Not science, but sneering. They mock those who say they were injured, they dismiss their pain, and they call it protecting the public. It is not protecting the public. It is cruelty.

Medicine has never been risk free. Global safety data from the last ten years shows that around one in ten patients are harmed during healthcare and that much of this harm is preventable. This is what the World Health Organization itself has reported.

Vaccines are part of the same system. They help many, but they are not free of risk. Regulators, compensation programs, and courts have documented harm. Here are more than ten examples of legally documented iatrogenic harm in the last decade.

1. In Utah a judge awarded nearly one billion dollars to a family after a baby suffered severe brain damage from a botched delivery at Jordan Valley Medical Center.

2. In England the NHS spent 4.1 billion pounds over 11 years settling 1307 birth injury cases involving brain damage and cerebral palsy.

3. In Ireland Nottingham University Hospitals Trust admitted liability in the death of newborn Quinn in 2021, after repeated maternity errors.

4. In Ireland the HSE paid 20000 euros after a 13 year old girl was injected with a Covid vaccine using a previously used needle.

5. AstraZeneca admitted in court that its Covid vaccine can in rare cases cause thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Dozens of lawsuits are ongoing in the UK High Court.

6. In the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) a 57 year old woman with transverse myelitis from a flu vaccine was awarded about 148000 dollars plus an annuity in 2022.

7. An 83 year old man with shoulder injury from a flu vaccine was awarded 194139 dollars in 2022 through VICP.

8. A 62 year old man who developed Guillain Barre Syndrome after a flu vaccine was awarded 316851 dollars.

9. A 74 year old woman with shoulder injury from a flu vaccine received 180752 dollars.

10. In February 2025 a man was awarded 212014 dollars for Guillain Barre Syndrome after a flu shot.

11. In January 2025 a claimant was awarded 198610 dollars for severe shoulder injury from a flu shot.

12. In January 2025 a claimant was awarded 180000 dollars for Guillain Barre Syndrome after flu vaccination.

13. In March 2025 a claimant was awarded 170000 dollars plus nearly 55000 dollars to settle Medicaid lien for Guillain Barre Syndrome after flu vaccine.

14. In April 2025 a claimant was awarded 135287 dollars for brachial neuritis after a Tdap vaccine.

15. In April 2025 a mother of five was awarded 153000 dollars after flu vaccine caused Guillain Barre Syndrome.

16. In April 2025 a claimant was awarded 126000 dollars for shoulder injury from a flu vaccine.

17. In April 2025 a claimant was awarded 135938 dollars for Guillain Barre after pneumonia vaccine.

18. In April 2025 a child was awarded 105000 dollars for immune thrombocytopenia after MMR vaccine.

19. In March 2025 a former SWAT member was awarded 180000 dollars for Guillain Barre after flu shot.

20. In February 2025 a claimant was awarded 55000 dollars for shoulder injury from a flu shot.

21. In Ireland the CervicalCheck cancer scandal led to multiple payouts including one of 2.5 million euros to a woman misdiagnosed and later developing cancer.

22. In the Philippines the Dengvaxia vaccine controversy showed increased risk of severe dengue in some children and led to halted programs and lawsuits.

23. In Finland the BCG vaccine caused osteitis, disseminated infection, and deaths between 2000 and 2006, documented as iatrogenic harm.

24. In South Africa the Life Esidimeni scandal led to the deaths of 144 psychiatric patients after transfer to unsafe facilities; families received compensation in 2018.

These examples show what has already been admitted and compensated. This is not conspiracy, it is legal record.

When someone says “I was harmed,” the right response is not to sneer. The right response is to document, study, and support. Mature science and medicine face their risks honestly and compensate fairly.  

* mirrored & archived 

Liz Lucy Robillard 

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Free Speech & Authorities

 25 Aug 2025

Article 10: Free Expression as Europe’s Anchor

When religion and free speech collide, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the reference point every authority must understand. It is not just a legal clause—it is the backbone of democratic culture.

What Article 10 Says

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.

2. Restrictions are allowed only when “necessary in a democratic society” for reasons such as national security, prevention of crime, or protection of the rights of others. Those protections and attitudes must be considered in multiple ways from different perspectives.

The Core Principle

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed: free expression includes the right to offend, shock, or disturb. Democracies do not protect citizens from discomfort; they protect citizens’ right to speak.

Key Rulings that Shape Authority Practice

Handyside v. UK (1976): Established that free expression covers ideas “that offend, shock or disturb.”

Leroy v. France (2008): Cartoonist fined for glorifying 9/11; Court allowed it, showing limits when speech glorifies violence.

E.S. v. Austria (2018): Court allowed restrictions on speech deemed to stir intolerance, criticised as too deferential to religious feeling.

Overall Pattern: Restrictions are narrow exceptions. The default is protection.

Implications for Public Authorities

Police:

Your role is to protect people, not beliefs. If protests, art, or speech cause anger, the duty is to secure public order without silencing the speaker. Violence must be contained; expression must be defended

Teachers and Schools:

Showing material critical of religion (e.g. caricatures) is protected under Article 10. The law is on the teacher’s side. Fear of “offence” cannot erase curriculum content. Removing such content risks undermining the very values schools are meant to transmit.

Local Government & Policy-Makers:

Article 10 sets the floor. Local accommodations (e.g. prayer spaces, cultural sensitivity) cannot override the baseline right to open discussion and critique. Avoiding controversy is not a legal defence.

Judiciary and Law Enforcement Training:

Officials should be trained to distinguish between hate speech (which incites violence or discrimination against people) and blasphemy or criticism of ideas (which is protected). This clarity is vital for trust and consistency.

Lessons Learned from Past Failures

In the UK “Trojan Horse” schools affair, hesitancy to intervene for fear of accusations of Islamophobia delayed action. Article 10 should remind officials that upholding secular education is not bias—it is law.

In France, the murder of Samuel Paty revealed what happens when teachers are left unprotected. Article 10 must be lived in practice, not just cited in Strasbourg rulings.

The Takeaway for Authority

Article 10 is not optional. It obliges states to defend free expression—even when unpopular or offensive to religious groups. Authorities who yield to fear or intimidation allow the erosion of the very freedoms they are tasked to protect.

Simple Rule of Thumb:

Protect the person, not the idea. *Protection can mean 

1. Encouraging personal agency and

 2. personal empowerment through health and fitness therapy and training. 

Blanket government imposition of 'protection' from free speech will always backfire.

Punish violence, not speech.

Llm & liz lucy robillard

Lucy Letby and the 200 Facebook Searches

'Conviction unsafe' says the expert program, again.

This is hotly debated online, and I agree the number of searches sounds quite odd- so as per- I consulted a professional judges legal gpt - the prosecution argument obviously doesn't need more coverage and is left to the professionals involved - and so it should be - meantime-

" CCRC submission combining the unsafe conviction argument and comparative evidence.

ccrc submission – record search evidence

introduction

this submission concerns the reliance at trial on evidence that Lucy Letby accessed records of approximately 200 families of deceased infants under her care.

 it is submitted that the way this evidence was presented to the jury was misleading and prejudicial, creating a real possibility that the convictions are unsafe.

issue

whether the record search evidence was wrongly or unfairly used to suggest criminal intent, and whether its presentation without proper comparative context deprived the jury of a fair and balanced understanding.

legal framework

section 13 of the criminal appeal act 1995 empowers the ccrc to refer a conviction to the court of appeal if there is a real possibility that the conviction is unsafe. in r v pendleton [2001] ukhl 66, the house of lords confirmed that a conviction can be unsafe where a jury has been influenced by evidence given undue weight or misinterpreted. article 6 of the european convention on human rights guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the right to be free from prejudicial evidence of low probative value.

precedent

in r v hodgson [2009] ewca crim 490, the court quashed a conviction where conduct capable of innocent explanation was used to imply criminal intent. in r v b [2010] ewca crim 4, the court held that evidence of unrelated “odd” behaviour was prejudicial when it lacked a direct causal link to the offences charged.

application – ambiguity of the conduct

the conduct in question – searching for the families of deceased infants – is ambiguous. while it may breach professional confidentiality policies, it is not inherently indicative of homicidal intent.[profiling questioned]

 plausible innocent explanations include professional vigilance for mortality patterns, emotional processing after patient deaths, and lack of clear hospital policy prohibiting such searches.

application – weak evidential link

the prosecution’s use of these searches to infer malice or obsession was speculative and rested on assuming intent without excluding alternative explanations.

application – risk of prejudice

the emotional nature of infant deaths meant the jury could have been unduly swayed by this evidence. by placing the searches alongside the deaths in the narrative, the prosecution risked portraying them as inherently sinister without establishing a factual link.

comparative context

electronic records audits from nhs trusts show that searches of deceased patient files by healthcare staff are not unusual.

 in several nhs disciplinary cases, similar accesses led only to warnings or confidentiality training, not police referral.

– in 2018, at a london nhs trust, two nurses accessed deceased infant’s record post-mortem to review treatment decisions. the trust found no malicious intent and closed the matter internally.

– in a 2017 anonymised audit from a north west england hospital, multiple neonatal staff accessed deceased patient records for morbidity and mortality review preparation. 

although not strictly within clinical need, this was considered part of reflective practice and not misconduct.

impact of omitted context

the trial did not include this comparative information. without it, the jury was left with the impression that such searches were abnormal and uniquely sinister. this omission inflated the probative value of the evidence and increased its prejudicial effect.

conclusion

the record searches were weak evidence of guilt but carried a high risk of prejudice.

 their presentation without comparative context may have materially influenced the jury’s perception of lucy letby’s intent and character. 

given that other staff have engaged in similar conduct without suspicion or sanction, the portrayal of these searches as inherently incriminating was misleading. the ccrc should consider this an evidential imbalance capable of rendering the convictions unsafe and refer the case to the court of appeal.

1. full case citations

– r v pendleton [2001] ukhl 66, [2002] 1 wlr 72 – conviction unsafe where jury may have attached undue weight to certain evidence; emphasises the appellate court’s role in assessing whether the verdict might reasonably have been different.

– r v hodgson [2009] ewca crim 490 – conviction quashed where jury relied on ambiguous conduct capable of innocent explanation as evidence of guilt.

– r v b [2010] ewca crim 4 – prejudicial evidence of unrelated behaviour inadmissible where no direct link to the offence was established.

– roylance v general medical council (no. 2) [2000] 1 ac 311 – defines misconduct in professional contexts; notes that misconduct requires behaviour falling seriously short of acceptable standards.

– bolam v friern hospital management committee [1957] 1 wlr 582 – professional negligence standard; relevant here to show that practices accepted by a responsible body of professionals may not constitute misconduct.

2. nhs policy excerpts and guidance

– nhs confidentiality: code of practice (2003), section 8: acknowledges exceptions to strict confidentiality for public interest, audit, and quality improvement purposes.

– nhs digital information governance toolkit: reflective practice and clinical audit are recognised as legitimate grounds for accessing patient records post-event, provided access is proportionate.

3. comparative audit data (anonymised)

– case a (london nhs trust, 2018): two neonatal nurses accessed records of a deceased infant for treatment review. internal investigation found no malicious intent; sanction limited to confidentiality refresher training.

– case b (north west england hospital, 2017): six staff accessed deceased infant records over two weeks following death; purpose was morbidity and mortality meeting preparation. considered part of reflective practice; no sanctions applied.

– case c (midlands nhs trust, 2016): nurse accessed five deceased patient records during annual neonatal audit. no evidence of personal gain or harm; no disciplinary action taken.

4. psychological expert commentary on grief behaviour in healthcare workers

– dr e.j. wainwright (consultant clinical psychologist, nhs wales):

“it is not uncommon for healthcare workers to revisit records of patients who have died under their care. this can serve as a personal coping mechanism, an informal review of the case, or an attempt to find closure.”

– dr h. nguyen (lecturer in health psychology, university of leeds):

“accessing past patient information post-death, while often discouraged for data protection reasons, is psychologically explicable as part of post-traumatic processing, especially in high-mortality specialisms such as neonatology.”

5. relevance to ccrc review

the comparative evidence shows that similar conduct has been treated as non-criminal and often non-disciplinary in other healthcare settings.

 omission of this from the trial created a misleading impression of abnormality in lucy letby’s conduct.

psychological evidence further supports the view that such searches can occur without criminal intent, providing an alternative explanation for the jury to have considered.

combined with case law emphasising the dangers of undue weight on weakly probative evidence, these materials support a real possibility that the conviction is unsafe"

Liz Lucy Robillard 15/08/25

Lucy Letby - The Notes, Where The Law Failed

 14 August 2025

Why Private, Random Thoughts Should Never Be Used to Convict Someone

The human mind produces thousands of thoughts a day — neuroscientists estimate anywhere between 6,000 and 60,000, most of which are fleeting, contradictory, and involuntary. Many are never acted upon, and many are not even consciously endorsed. Yet in some criminal cases, prosecutors have presented diary entries, private journal notes, or scraps of written thought as “proof” of intent or guilt. This practice is scientifically flawed, psychologically dangerous, and legally unsound.

1. Thoughts Are Not Actions

From a neuroscience perspective, there is a clear distinction between thought generation and behavioural execution. Thoughts arise in networks such as the default mode network (DMN), which is active during mind-wandering. These spontaneous mental events are often exploratory or emotional “drafts” — not plans. Turning a thought into action requires activation of goal-directed executive circuits in the prefrontal cortex, engagement of the motor system, and environmental opportunity. A scribbled idea in a notebook does not demonstrate that this chain ever occurred.

2. Intrusive and Anxious Thoughts Are Normal

Cognitive psychology and clinical research (including OCD studies) show that unwanted intrusive thoughts are common — violent, absurd, or morally unacceptable content can occur in the minds of healthy people. Under anxiety or stress, the brain’s error-detection circuits (anterior cingulate cortex) and threat systems (amygdala) are overactive, making distressing ideas more likely to surface. Writing them down can be a coping tool, a way to process and discharge them — not a confession.

3. Written Fragments Lack Context

In linguistics and forensic psychology, meaning is highly dependent on context: what preceded the entry, what followed, the emotional state of the writer, and whether it was fictional, hypothetical, or metaphorical. Without this context, interpretation is guesswork — and guesswork in a courtroom undermines the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt.”

4. The Memory–Meaning Gap

Memory science shows that even the writer may not later recall exactly why a note was made. Emotional state, fatigue, medication effects, and dissociation can all affect both the formation and later interpretation of personal writing. Jurors and even experts risk retrofitting sinister meaning onto harmless or therapeutic self-expression.

5. The Chilling Effect on Mental Health

If people fear their private thoughts could be used as evidence, they may stop journaling or seeking therapy — removing a key outlet for emotional regulation. This has public-health consequences: journaling is linked to reduced stress, improved immune function, and better emotional clarity. Criminalising thought risks harming many to pursue a few.

6. Legal and Ethical Principles

The principle of mens rea (guilty mind) in law refers to intent at the time of the act — not stray musings before or after. Democracies also uphold the right to freedom of thought (Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) as absolute. Using random private thoughts as incriminating evidence trespasses on this right and edges into “thought crime” territory, a concept rightly condemned in free societies.

Case Study: When Private Thoughts Become a Courtroom Weapon

In 2008, in the UK case of Sally Clark (wrongly convicted of murdering her two children in 1999), private notes she had written during deep postnatal depression were presented in court as suggestive of guilt. In reality, the entries reflected grief, confusion, and the normal mental turmoil of a bereaved mother under suspicion. The conviction was later quashed after statistical and medical evidence proved the case against her was flawed — but the damage to her life was irreversible.

In the United States, the case of Andrea Yates (2001) also showed how mental health notes and statements taken out of context can be weaponised in court, sometimes without full understanding of psychiatric conditions or the nature of intrusive thoughts. In both cases, the interpretation of personal writings fed into a narrative that overrode scientific understanding of mental illness and cognitive processing.

These examples show that when justice treats the contents of a private mind as proof of criminal action, it risks catastrophic error. The human mind is not a crime scene — and random, personal writing should remain outside the reach of the prosecution’s hand.

Selected Scientific and Legal References

1. Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Smallwood, J., & Spreng, R. N. (2014). The default network and self-generated thought: component processes, dynamic control, and clinical relevance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316(1), 29–52.

2. Rachman, S. (2007). Unwanted intrusive thoughts. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(9), 2159–2166.

3. Brewin, C. R., & Andrews, B. (2017). Creating memories for false autobiographical events in childhood: A systematic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 2–23.

4. European Court of Human Rights. (2023). Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

5. Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. (1998). Forensic Psychology: A Guide to Practice. Routledge.

6. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2012). Juror decision-making about scientific evidence: The role of expert testimony on the psychology of false confessions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(3), 303–331.

Liz Lucy Robillard 14/08/25

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Child Psychologists v Educational Psychologists

 Child Psychologists v Educational Psychologists

The best help and I ever got with my learning disabled son, was from a regular child psychologist, Sharon. She gave very needed practical advice that was actually effective. I'll forever be grateful to her.

Child psychologists are essential when deciding care and probably education too- educational psychologists could be best used to identify specific learning styles and/ disabilities only, an example would be an autistic child could benefit from an ep input if dyspraxia/dyslexia/apraxia etc were an issue. 

The lines cross between the two professions and in my experience, I believe they really, really should not. 

 Ed Pychs are not really taught general mental health and should never be regarded as experts in that. 

Distressed children—whether labelled or learning disabled or not—need safety, understanding, and therapy, not punitive behavioural modification that is often mistakenly supported by Ed Psychs. 

Labels can be useful for clinical shorthand, but in education they often fail to secure the right provision. 

Each child’s circumstances are unique, and a label alone tells you nothing about their learning environment, trauma history, or emotional needs. 

Effective educational support starts from an individual needs assessment, not a diagnostic tick-box.

Disabled children are more likely to experience trauma and abuse (Jones et al., The Lancet, 2012). This is often compounded by controlling or narcissistic parenting, where a parent’s unmet emotional needs distort their capacity to attune to the child. (I knew I was in deep trouble when in reply to me stating our child was an individual, the ex said of our son "we own him" - repeatedly asserted this)

Because of attachment bonds, children are usually blind to the nature of this harm—they will instinctively defend and cling to the very figure who causes distress. The goal is not to sever attachment, but to coach the parent in emotional awareness, empathy, and genuine responsiveness.

Therapeutic models like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) can help both children and parents develop self-awareness, emotional flexibility, and values-driven action. ACT is well-evidenced for improving resilience in both neurotypical and neurodivergent populations.

Educational psychologists work only on learning access, school adaptations, special educational needs assessments, and systemic inclusion within education settings. 

They do not diagnose or treat mental health conditions.

Child psychologists work only on emotional and behavioural health across all life contexts. They assess, diagnose, and provide therapy for mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, trauma, and developmental disorders. They do not create or enforce school learning plans but their support is vital.

A clear divide means no shared assessments, no joint reports, and no overlapping responsibilities-impartiality could not be an issue.

 Educational psychologists do not make mental health recommendations. Child psychologists do not make educational provision recommendations. 

Each professional completes their work separately and communicates only the parts relevant to their own remit?

This prevents contradictory advice, reduces repeated questioning of the child, and keeps accountability with one professional per issue. 

Schools take instruction only from the educational psychologist on learning matters. 

Health and social care take instruction only from the child psychologist on mental health matters. This division ensures clarity, avoids service delays caused by role confusion, and keeps the child from being pulled between conflicting agendas.

Prior to advocating for behaviourism, ep's might want to consider the greatest man- Krishnamurti - as he observed: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” 

And as Jung warned: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”

In child psychology, this means looking beyond compliance and behaviour charts to the deeper currents—unmet needs, unconscious fears, and inherited patterns—that shape how a child learns and relates.

References & further reading

• Jones, L. et al. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 380(9845), 899-907.

• NICE. (2018). Social and Emotional Wellbeing for Children and Young People. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph12

• Hayes, S. C. et al. (2011). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The Process and Practice of Mindful Change. Guilford Press.

• Krishnamurti, J. Collected Works.

• Jung, C.G. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self.

Suggested child psychology & trauma-informed training

• University of Edinburgh – Child and Adolescent Mental Health (Coursera)

• Monash University – Trauma-Informed Care for Children (FutureLearn)

• Association for Contextual Behavioral Science – ACT training modules for parents and professionals

Liz Lucy Robillard 

Next up: the wealth of ex social workers questioned