I think this is fairly ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that the word existed and was used before the Runnymede Report. Does that mean I'm debating that the Runnymede Report brought it center stage and made the world more aware. No. Absolutely not. However I think that the purpose of those wanting the Runnymede Report to be the starting point is to attempt to make it appear to be a neologism. I'm sorry but we have definite sources going back to 82 and a possible going back to 76. And realistically we have words that are newer than that which don't face the same scrutiny such as AIDS was also first used in 1982. The fact of the matter is I do believe that usage before the Runnymede Report was rare but most certainly existent and therefore think it should be mentioned in the history of the term.-