The "But for" test is used in negligence cases which can include professional negligence. It specifically encompasses and encapsulates "CAUSATION", which for those of you who operate in the courts is located at the earlier end of the list of documents and evidence bundles - the doctrine of equity ensuring that "the earliest in time prevails" is consistent with the needs and requirements of "natural" law and "REASON" when it gets to the Judgment and
ratio decidendi or perhaps even
obita dicta (where the law is anticipated or expected to PROGRESS in a particular direction - there is no '
cul de sac' in relation to law's ability to progress society - unless that is you are subjectively doing inequality and fail to issue writ, where circumstances dictate that you should do so - you are not meant to suffer in silence or
suppression or oppression or repression, etc. That being wholly different from being "UNEQUAL" in society and those who are provided authority, duty, obligation and "beyond reproach"credibility omitting to act when required to do so.
Acting or omitting to act are keystones of "tort" (in England & Wales), "
delict" (in Scotland) and I don't know concerning N.Ireland, presumably the same as E&W ...
*"The BUT FOR test" is the starting point for assessing whether the Defendant's breach of duty is a factual cause of the plaintiff's damage. This basic test is whether the damage would have occurred but for the breach of duty ... [be it contractual at common law, or statutory, or even custom, practice and tradition]. In most cases the but for test presents no difficulties. However where there are areas where the test presents problems, these are in relation to the degree of probability of damage occurring, negligent omissions and multiple causes of harm. The degree of probability of damage part of the but for test occurs where there is uncertainty as to whether the defendant's negligence has caused the damage, it has to be determined what degree of probability of damage occurring has to be established by the plaintiff. The other part of the test occurs when there is a "negligent omission": the but for test also presents problems where the breach of duty consists of an omission to act and where there is more than one cause it does not appear to provide an answer to causation problems - [SAVE the doctrine of equity places the evidence and pleading of both parties within a specific time frame - the earliest in time prevails!!]Multiple causes are therefore seen as successive or concurrent - [presumably because time stops for no man and time marches forward!] Where the causes are successive and the second defendant's breach of duty has caused the same damage as that of the first defendant, the but for test will exonerate the second defendant -[UNLESS THAT IS YOU PUT ALL DEFENDANTS ON THE SAME WRIT, presumably forcing the issue into "contributory negligence" which cannot be 100% but by degree 99% : 1%]. The problem is when a first defendant is sued and the second defendant has caused similar or greater damage? [Well, you cannot be compensated twice for the same damage or as a consequence of it? That does not follow, however, that you cannot prosecute each and every person for their part in the misadventure where the "omission to act" is being done specifically to ensure others later down the chain can evade or avoid the application of the rule of law. If you "omit to act" under WRIT, that is not a civil article 6 Human Rights Act "ivory tower" moment, that is a (contempt of court), an (obstruction of the course of justice), a (perversion of the course of justice) - the reason is that in order for Justice to occur via Judgment, there first has to be a writ issued (issuing a writ is not inequality, quite the contrary). There then follows a series of procedural rules designed specifically to capture evidence and testimony to assist the truth to surface at trial known as (PROCEDURE). You can win your case in this PROCESS prior to TRIAL as one side in receipt of relevant 'knowledge' will SETTLE or end up in a trial - CPR1 is supposed to assist. However, unfortunately, the PROCEDURAL RULES are used by Defendants and possibly plaintiffs and also by Judges who are NOT independent to abuse one or all parties and this shows up specifically when there is an "OMISSION TO ACT and/or act TIMEOUSLY within limits. This usually encapsulates deliberate activity so as to omit to act as a methodology BUT only exists so long as the Police also fail and omit to act and also politicians also fail and omit to act]. * John Cooke - Law of TortThe Woolf Reforms did much to the procedural rules and the objective was stated to be
"litigation will be avoided whenever possible". However, the ONE thing the Woolf Reforms could not remove or ever remove is TRADITION, CUSTOM AND PRACTICE or so I thought until today. It is the tradition, in Scotland anyway, that all Monarch's are given the Throne on the
premis of EQUALITY with the people. Equality is NOT removed from the court process of England & Wales under the Woolf Reforms, albeit Alternative Dispute Resolution (
ADR)/Informal Dispute Settlement (IDS)/or some just call it mediation, enabled the parties to agree to resolve their disputes themselves but located the concept in the judicial system and legal profession per
se (as opposed to keeping it in its own backyard out of the courts and law)where it undermines the application of the rule of law, something I call "contemporary equality". I needed to differentiate the ability of the parties to settle their cases themselves from the reason for issuing a writ, so that a Judge will reason via Judgment after trial or it will occur via the parties to the Writ settling in and through the court via a Judge.
Because we still have
"EQUALITY before THE LAW", I question WHY do we need an EQUALITY BILL?
This would place equality in the hands of the political arena of democracy and the State prior to the judicial arena of "natural law" and the Oligarchy that is supported by the Monarchy - how else does the Queen provide equality to her people, even although it is a ROYAL PREROGATIVE that enacts a Bill. If the State provides equality and not the judiciary the consequences are substantively different - judicial by reason of "ought" to be law (natural law); over political and "IS" to be law (posited or artificial law). If equality moves or shifts to the political sphere, there is not much need for Monarchy, or at all. The other pertinent issue is that when the law is "posited and 'artificial'" it cannot be changed, it really IS the law, unless through time there is another statute or a codification exercise OR someone "challenges" the IS law on the premis of a writ and the law is discovered by reason and becomes what the law OUGHT TO BE as a standard in society located in case precedent. This requires writs issued to "challenge"not "reiterate"what the IS law really is. Get it wrong ... (Anticipating it is not an Irish thing - you could always resurrect your monarchies ... even if you blew up your ancestry records, presumably you did not also blow up your title deeds ... genealogists new playground etc etc - England, Wales, Scotland - conveyancing deeds and securities clearly identifying who folks were, what they did, etc: might assist, rectify a few historical things too etc)My research showed (to me anyway) that the Access to Justice Act 1999 does actually do the opposite of its intention and I have been through the system x 3 cases with every judge and ancillary agencies establishing a pattern of "omitting to act" - there's a surprise then whilst actually proving my research. The surprise is that each case showed something ever-so-slightly different concerning legal systems and legal methods methodology (a) rule of law not applied; (b) application of a rule of law which is not applicable but not (a) application of the rule of law that does apply. (Jack Straw is creating new law instead of using the old stuff - to evade or avoid being caught in a crime rather than to make sure criminals including themselves are caught). I currently need advice on how to remove a judge from the Bench, for which my MP has not engaged the intellect of the Attorney
General's Office, Baroness Blackstone, nor having not sought advice from apparently any source on my behalf, raised my civil liberty issue of 2 years from the floor of the House. Now I do know it is possible to remove a judge via Parliament - I read it in a law book which I cannot at this time recall the name of and may still have. I have also asked the Police to arrest the Judges x 4 and Respondents' solicitors but I cannot expect ordinary PC constables to go from ordinary to double first in 45 minutes without running out the door, but I can expect them to speak to more senior operatives to include their Commissioner. (With Professors, lawyers, barristers, judges and politicians, seen to be failing in their duty etc you just would not want an exhaustive list and to omit a Commissioner of Police or anything if he "omitted to act" whilst engaging in similar or same "
wilfully blind to the obvious" activities. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, means that if you don't get Justice in a civil court it should go to the criminal division as perversion of the course of justice, malicious falsehood, some form of assault, etc - especially after 16 years (because Anne
Molyneux cannot switch on a computer in a computer specialist law firm or comply with company policy, nor her secretary (with the loud voice) at that time!) Pandora's box should lead to the word "responsible" and "accountable" when the lid is taken off, currently being changed by Jack Straw MP to "transparency", "accountability" and "probity" but not "responsible"!!! This is not a list you want to be on whilst failing to do your duty with authority in the current climate or at all - my cases have spanned the legitimacy of Jack Straw MP, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw MP the Foreign Secretary (with foreign issues of public interest in the case) and I am not quite sure how he constitutionally managed to secure a
questional legitimacy of Lord Chancellor and Justice Minister AS A
POLITICIAN, but NOT JUDGE or the REASON WHY / him and not
someone else more appropriate! DO WE HAVE A JUDGE IN CABINET UNDER ANOTHER GUISE! I also have a problem that the Queen is enacting legislation from the
DESPATCH BOX but not the
WOOLSACK unless that is the
despatch box is seen as some form of modernity - contemporary, alternative, privatised over traditional EQUALITY. What does "New" actually mean in "New Labour". No doubt someone knows the answer to that one and if so, let's have it.
Besides, if their are any issues relating to Monarchy - they can be dealt with via Europe - "Regulation", "Directive" or even "Decision" if a particular Monarch ...
Lets hope the Queen (UK/Scots) is not playing chess with the King (Greek). Aristotle was an oligarch, living in a democracy whilst educating a Monarch! Aristotle is a very good read over say Plato and Socrates, but he did not advocate much equality concerning women. Now our Queen, even if she is (Saxe-
Coburg) a Danish/German royal line with Russian associations inclusive in
ancestry and technically in exile on a British throne (Windsor), is required to provide EQUALITY to the people (even although the system may be Greek, it is underpinned by the position played out by the history of custom, practice and tradition upon which at least the Scots Monarchy exists and the need for the monarch to be equal to the people : it is therefore not something that can just have 70 days to rush through the not-quite-democratic process that we currently exist in and Nick
Clegg (Liberal democrats) is correct to make the points he has made in Parliament and raise the questions too - there being a serious need for a Constitutional Debate prior to any further enactment of laws and specifically the Equality Bill which is more than likely going to have to fail in the interim). The Queen being a woman should stick to doing what she knows she needs to do and not be broadsided by Equality Bills and words like older people, young people and poverty etc: once bitten, twice shy - the Access to Justice Act 1999 was just treachery in disguise - the clue was Lord
Mackay of
Clashfern's representations in
Hansard on or about 18 December 1998 in relation to the
Despatch Box. The clue in the Equality Bill saga is the raising of "positive discrimination" sometimes called "action" in the build up to the event: no matter how you dress the word "discrimination" it always impacts on at least one party to events and discrimination in any form can never be disguised as equality.
(A bit of mischief: the Queen could always pop down to
Oxfam and obtain 700-800 copies of the
Nichomachean Ethics (a) to assist the charity; (b) to do value added in relation to recycling of books; (c) and go the distance to assist
NOUSE in the democratic House ... Christmas wrapping presents for the princes and princesses -
magna carte or hemlock
giftwrap and tags would be appropriate too. A sign on the
Woolsack which is currently vacant could read "Equality before the law" especially at day 70 of the list of 13 bills. OR, we could all place bets at the bookies 13 bills passed by the legislature or their content passed into case law with universal application via the judiciary: 70 days - ready steady go).
So far as the 13 bills being proposed under the Queen's speech and the subsequent flak directed at politicians and the Queen and also my having watched BBC Parliament to view the pomp and ceremony and no substance for myself: I was left questioning why did the Queen just not sit there and rip up the paper she had and say not in 7 minutes but 7 seconds "Hang Parliament" - I reckon there would have been applause not
ridicule as a result. No one appears to me to be
lilly white across any political party.
BILLS BEING PROPOSED (headings only - the ideas are mine)
Financial Services Bill - this could all be dealt with via the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 - if you are a banker or anyone employed under contract, you should expect your bonus to be paid out of profit. Just as a shareholder anticipates their dividend out of profit. If you need to borrow your bonus, as opposed to wages, then you cannot be deemed to be credibly solvent or there is an administration, receivership or liquidator issue - how do you get past audit with a borrowed bonus. What's more you presumably need your available credit to assist your business client base and provide flexibility to ensure they tick over their wages and suppliers - you would not want a key player to go bust or anything! Borrowing a bonus and "biting the hand that feeds you" should ensure the collapse of the bank on issue of solvency and the appearance of solvency/
liquidated and unliquidated assets etc.
The other financial policy that may be useful is to look at bank charges concerning those on benefits or minimum wage. It may actually be necessary for such people to not have Direct Debits or Standing Orders as this would overburden them if they did not have enough in their account, possibly also incurring late payment fees and administration charges on top of a bank charge. Many services such as the TV Licence, Gas and Electric provide "payment cards" where you would not be able to incur a bank charge for late payment. Also you can also get a DD or SO payment as a payment slip/giro slip - walk round the bank named on the slip and pay it in: - some banks charge a fee of up to £10, or the Post Office up to £2, but that is a lot less than still having to pay the bill, plus the late payment fee and/or admin charge + the bank charge on top of approx £30. It is a quick way for people on benefits to very speedily get out of control, miss two direct debits and you wipe out your benefit payment via bank charges - its not easy to recover from such a direct hit whilst receiving the states minimum to survive. If anyone is experiencing this kind of problem now : liaise with Citizen Advice Bureau because they are a volunteer service, completely independent AND FREE and will deal with you holistically and there are no commission charges (but you might like to make a donation). Also, switch to payment card (processed by newsagents) or payment slip direct (at any branch of the bank where the payment is due). The Government should seriously look at this as financial policy - bank charges to those on benefits and minimum wage, child tax credit, pensioners etc can mean folks really struggling with largely unnecessary financial difficulty.
Fiscal Responsibility Bill - I would support the Broadband Tax. This would mean media and press professionalism was not so reliant on advertising and would ensure some degree of quality content and control, similar to that provided to the BBC via the Licence Fee. It would extend to online journalistic content but also impact on TV, Radio and Newspapers - which may also need a international court view, given human rights are engaging into the multi-national layer of parent/
subsidiary news and activities. I perceive there is a trend towards "celeb" "news gathering"
over say other potential trends such as "not much European material or Euro supplement, green, techies, nerdy/geek type info, real ordinary people" stories as trends, contra competent investigative and specialist news gathering. (People who live in poverty do not have to receive impoverished material to read, they can have good quality content in their newspapers, on TV, etc and it is merely a "presumption" that people prefer celeb material over-reading about ordinary people who are outstanding or truly famous people who are famous for a reason not only image only. There is an issue relating to deliberately creating impoverish material, which unfortunately appears to be specifically attractive to women. It is dangerous, if not unethical, especially if it is a socially constructed "trend" over say a balancing of other "trends"). A lot of people are in debt due to this false economy supported by easy credit. This may require attention under the auspices of "news gathering" per
se without due diligence and attention to human rights and specifically the right to privacy over freedom of expression and thought. It should not be that the courts pick up the mischief where a press
posse and
paparazzi has effectively stalked you to get their 'news gathering' of effectively information which is trivial, which may actually be false if at all believable or credible - there is some things in life you just don't need to know, but where do you draw the line - the reasonable MAN on the Clapham Omnibus or a correctly applied "public interest test" and whatsoever the standard IS. A broadband tax as fiscal policy could tie in Human Rights, Data Protection, Computer Misuse and ensure that news is legitimate, authentically obtained and objectively gathered to a degree that the competent journalist and photographer is under some form of professionalism and accreditation system as well as suspension and training. In all of laws application it is required that people "ACT IN GOOD FAITH", hence misrepresentation, mistake, slander, libel, defamation, malicious falsehood requires court intervention and printed apology, compensation, damages which can be severe concerning economic loss, whilst causing a lot of harm and suffering, to include harrassment and intimidation and duress may also be an issue, to include having to let the issue remain without challenge due to an inability to afford to litigate in person or via lawyer in today's society. Moreover, another danger occurred recently, facebook and twitter prevented a press gag and rightly so. Likewise, I am able to publish my legal documents because private domain material has legitimately passed to the public domain via court discovery, and because the Judgments have been defamatory, false and inaccurate. I effectively publish taking the risk that goes with doing so for myself, but not others as that is the consequence of an inaccurate or false judgment - they can fend for themselves. The only area where there is an issue concerning publishing court documents is where (a) the issue would be subjudice or (b) there is Crown copyright say on a transcript - these may need to be looked at in relation to court documents because in order to ensure the prevention of organised crime and corruption and its escalation it may actually be necessary to publish where the organised crime and corruption is inherent to the courts per se. In Jurisprudence, there is a term called "Unjust law" and you do not have to obey law that is "unjust", that is wholly different from you not liking the courts decision. You can only appeal on a "point of law" and very rarely an evidential point unless that piece of evidence goes substantively and/or specifically to the case before a lower court that it would overturn the decision or require a further enquiry such as judicial review. Therefore not any old piece of evidence can re-open a case, it would have to be substantial to overturn the courts decision: omission of evidence in the knowledge possession and control of say a police officer or prosecutor in the criminal division would inevitably have to be an enquiry issue if it was substantive to the outcome of the court's decision - this would be "deliberate", "reckless", "careless" withholding of knowledge which could have ensured a different outcome from proceedings (which may be compounded by the press/media legitimately reporting the outcome of the case) and would be organised crime and corruption, deliberate perversion of the course of justice (which I believe carries upto a 16 year penalty, ie a serious crime and (gross) misconduct in public office also, I believe, a 16 year penalty: however, if a judge is ill/unsound mind/inability to reason that is a Parliamentary issue, I believe). However, it is possible to "inadvertently" cause a miscarriage of justice due to lack of evidence, would not be anybodies fault, but that it should be extremely rare - there is a significant material difference. Our current stance in the UK, which I believe was printed in the Guardian a few years ago, was that data sharing is to occur unless there is a reason not to, which is completely new conceptually, and I am not quite sure whether data sharing has correctly entered law yet. The Information Commissioner is able to be used to access information in the "
public domain", but also bear in mind, that under the Data Protection Act 1998 you can now access information specific to you
directly, ie your name, initials, or
indirectly a code number, a nickname, a project name, or just a filing system of papers where you can be identified either directly or indirectly upon a specific request to receive the information: you only get the information relevant to you, everything else is blacked out! This is now law for both electronic data systems as well as manual filing systems of data: you cannot access third party data, although it will be there, but blacked out: its not for a "fishing expedition", but can be very useful to access "
private" information - especially concerning personnel records, where the organisation give you a document telling you one thing to your face whilst placing extra paragraphs on the same document on your personnel file! (There is also a need to get easier access to your NHS record, it should be the case you can show identification to the police and they sign the form ... it is just not that easy - someone has to know you for 2 years who is a professional - you really want that person to know you need to look at your personnel records and why). Some folks may also need to know that if there is an inaccuracy on a record, it remains but there is an addition amending the inaccuracy : albeit data that is historical and of no historical need can be removed - its a mine field. Criminals can also statutorily remove minor spent convictions or fines but have to ask to do so: low level crime/fines are not automatically removed - it may also be a block to your employability or how the police deal with you on any other criminal matter due to the need for disclosure in certain jobs). So linking all this into a Fiscal policy may actually be necessary in 21st Century Britain. Joined-up legislation, there is probably lots more bits n bobs of legislation and case law that could be tied into a Broadband Tax, some of necessity!
Personal Care at Home Bill - I liked the look of this one but a judge could achieve more in 70 days via Judgment on a procedural rule fortnightly cycle to trial - the application of the "ought" rule of law is UNIVERSAL.
(This is my bet for a winner at day 70: having once placed a bet on the Grand National - "Last Suspect" with everyone deriding me - 'you picked a donkey' - I was gobsmacked when the horse won.)Children, Schools and Families Bill - "guaranteed" education - is that a non
sequitur in modern Britain - what is that all about, so far as I was aware it was compulsory for kids to go to school under EXISTING LEGISLATION with a raised presumption they are to receive education. However, if you put the Child Benefit under the umbrella of CHILD TAX CREDIT and pay each child the same child benefit, you could link it to the means test level associated with child tax and ensure that the oldest child gets the same as the youngest and its meritorious. You could also give employees and workers who do
PAYE tax returns above a certain number of employees a CHILD right to maternity of 6 months and thereafter paternity of 6 months (with a child on solids!). This would greatly assist gender equality and child rights and remove maternity/paternity issues from employment tribunals to family courts.
Crime and Security Bill - with 3000 new crimes on the Statute Book under ex-PM Blair and a prison population that managed to reach 80,000 with talk of prison ships at one point - maybe there is enough already - evaluation, monitoring of what is already existent + codification might be a more appropriate exercise - you would not want to be seen to be not able or competent to catch criminals now - MACRO criminality might be a more appropriate emphasis in relation to new legislation - the MACRO layer appear to do far more damage than the MICRO layer on non-violent crime, otherwise known as WHITE COLLAR CRIME or corporate psychopaths on a vendetta contrary to good employment practices or even ACAS codes of conduct as guidelines.
Digital Economy Bill - I watched "Spooks" on BBC 3 last week, to only turn on to BBC 1 last night to watch the same episode again. Now, what is the world coming to when THE BBC is the repeat from the week before! on BBC 1. Did someone make a mistake ... in any event, on topic ... you cannot be a terrorist if you are issuing a Writ and demanding (a) equality before the law; (b) access to justice; (c) arrest of ... for contempt, obstruction, perversion of the course of justice or removal via parliament - will be evidentially certain - done deliberately, not inadvertently; (d) justice with the independence of the judge to APPLY the law without fear or favour - you should not expect the outcome from issuing a writ that the judge is the criminal and you should question when he is being accused of being a criminal or where politicians are not able to raise issues by their constitutents from the floor of the house .... in a democracy. Means there is something very wrong with Oligarchy, Monarchy, Democracy indicating lack of and can only be located at upper echelons and Cabinet level.
Energy Bill - grants for solar panels to be placed on houses over 15-20 rooms so that they keep the house warm and therefore ensure a decrease in dilapidation and maintenance, whilst enabling upgrade monies to be utilised where the need is most in order to save historic architecture for the nation. Also better use of underfloor heating over radiators and boilers and electric wall units. If you flip a switch it can heat the whole house, on ground level over keeping one room warm only - could be linked to solar panels too. Flipping a switch can mean you control heat when not in home or adjust when home.
Floods and Water Management Bill - I liked the look of this one - Insurers could assist here as well as linking it to non-violent crime work placement employment training and skills opportunity. Also - see post below.
Bribery Bill - you could usefully resurrect my response to the Corruption Bill, which did not succeed for some unknown reason ...
Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill - this looked like a good idea too.
Draft bills
House of Lords Reform Bill - I was appalled when the first round of reforms occurred - we threw out babies with the bath water. Just because someone is privileged does not also follow that they are uneducated fools etc. I watched a person who could speak 8 fluent languages being reformed out of the house ... to be replaced by what exactly. Whilst the ex-PM has a third class law degree I was not expecting him to lower the intellectual standing of the house to his level over and above the needs of the country concerning intellect. Noticeably I read today ex-PM Blair created 300+ new peers whilst Brown only 30! Speaks volumes to me. Desmund with Hons v Dora!!.
International Development Spending Bill - trade with the rest of the world, it is safer than doing war!
Carry-over bills
Equality Bill - scrap this - Equality is for judges to supply and for Jurisprudence to monitor and evaluate to ensure safe and just society - its a science and looks at why we have human law, why we obey it, when we have to and when we should not, etc. There should be very little an Equality Bill can do that a judge can also do right now. You just want to make sure you select judges on MERIT with
NOUSE - flip a coin 50:50 policy for FP8 in Europe - raise the meritorious level - you can always issue a writ if you want to. "Postive "NO" Discrimination.
Child Poverty Bill - I have sat in a room with young children speaking and I got a rude awakening, and they got a list of information sources off of me, plus business expansion ideas and the word TRY over can't. There may even be a need for legislation concerning paper delivery rounds with terms and conditions.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill - Lord Straw MP. The
Woolsack. the Directive on Mediation and an overhaul of the nonsense put in place by the Woolf Reforms, the Gill Reforms and anything falling out of the Directive via Europe. Wilfully blind to the obvious. There is also the small matter of a letter from Charles Kennedy MP ... my research is "extremely important" delegated to Menzies Campbell MP (a lawyer/barrister) and my inquiry concerning cushions and a list of people on an expenses scandal list and their voting in relation to Iraq. There is also the matter of Romano
Prodi, ex EU Commissioner requesting Blair to "separate the powers". I have not spoken to anyone professionally concerning my research, not even via Arlene McCarthy
MEP's processing of the Consultation Paper on the Subsidiary Principle in relation to the Directive on Mediation, and my specific request to be interviewed because I was advocating a "Competition model" correctly aligned to European modelling over a "Coercive Regime" model via Woolf whilst she then interviewed 5 experts she calls expert, but I don't. Cover-up or because there are intelligence issues in my court cases which are also public interest issues howsoever small etc. I have been in the courts relating to issues from 1993 to date on 3 litigations, I have judgments which are false, there are contempt of court requests which are not processed, everyone omits to act and ARE WILLFULLY BLIND TO THE OBVIOUS.
I require "Equality before the law" - my writ is validly issued - 6 years later, still waiting for trial. I have not received a "Decision"/"Judgment", therefore there cannot be an appeal - I have however, appealed an Order which I refuse to comply with and continue to do so - because the law does not apply to me, which the judge has been informed of twice by the Official Solicitor for England & Wales.
