“I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.”

― Voltaire

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

XXX Cobb emails to publish

XXX Price QC webpage stick in

This is not about the yawn yawn 'family law'

Now, law is a funny old thing. You'll have to listen to the downloadable audios that are on another tab of this site. In fact law is so obtuse and absurd I recorded them a few years ago as outline of the story because every second i waste on the absurdity of law i resent.

It is actually rather easy to pick up law. In the recordings i may speak of a few years learning it all - not really. In fact it is a little homework - reading through the actually always well written judgments one may relay on as relevant (to ones own circumstances 'case law' - that says a lot the way the judges value their written clarity, shame they could rarely apply the easy to read caselaw); in fact it's mainly confidence and getting over nerves. And being real. It's all theatre really.

But in fact in jotting some of this now with splendid distance I remember well the real reason this is just as applicable today. And in fact can almost translate into any serious facet of modern life from cutting edge science to almost all forms of duelling with the so called professionalised world.

As i began to figure what next after my short stay in the Stone Hotel in 2003 i had an extraordinary new dimension to a previously fairly humdrum and bereft of people life - my life having been most rural and focused only on my daughter. All of a sudden i was getting acquainted with a whole range of ragtag legal campaigners, fathers campaigners and quite senior media and political people. The only hardknock ones in fact the only unpleasantness was dealing with ones own solicitor or barrister. Oh my...

That said, between the generally senior solicitors and barristers i had access to, and also the most senior and dedicated legal campaigners in the land I gradually found one matter to be most disconcerting. Although a minor aspect of my life then in that all I cared about was a return to what had always been the healthiest possible existence with lass, I had my bit of telly. And lets be clear I only did my bit of telly as I had some notion deep down - as if instinctual, that having a little minor public life may ensure that the courts which i had straight from the beginning back in late 2002, may be fairer and more just to me. I felt it was protection.

I told my various new acquaintances a different story - a lie if you will: that i knew i had good things to say in public for several current 'causes'. It was true but was not my rather desperate motivation.

But then a most disconcerting thing started to rear it's head. I simply had never thought of there being any 'restrictions' on speaking in public. (listen to audio recordings). I mean all the names and some stories even if largely rubbish were out there. But all lawyers if they dare stand up to me and most of these seasoned very with it campaigners would say to me " you better be careful as section 37 of the children's act is there to brutally supress even speaking of your case with your girlfriend never mind any journalist".

This initially gave me the willies but I am a rather intuitive person. In other words i know what is right and wrong. And i certainly am not going to waste one second of my wonderful life now with child once more, reading their dumbass law. Until one day i did have a glance at a photocopy of the relevant page and blow me " Im not even going to lower myself to concentrating that hard on their dumbass section 37... but reading it not too carefully, hang on i don't see that as saying I am silenced no matter what.."

And so i began to feel like the whole world was on drugs and i was the only person who could sense reality. It became quite destabilising "are they mad, is there some weird masonic hidden rule behind this law I am too not of them to see?" And of course i started to feel that i was on quicksands of molten glass with all the rest of law. Some which was important to my future.

Until a year or so later the very top judges in the land basically agreed with me that almost everyone else was misinterpreting current law. And there really wasn't any problem with some speaking out.

In other words some weird fog had overcome all of law in quite a pernicious way.

It was worth going through that experience. Just because you are a rather derided outlier of one. Doesn't mean you were not completely correct all the time, and all the others including a most senior High Court judge quite quite wring.

And then there is Mr kafka.

Boring bit alert: 'law' in fact is far more about rather dull little bureaucrats who are so uneducated in literature creativity poetry even they hAVE NO IMAGINATION. THEY CANNOT SEE THINGS IN ANY OTHER WAY THAN THEY SAW YESTERDAY, AND LAST YEAR. ACC CAP ... I HAVE TO WRITE FAST so the following is in fact applicable to so much so may not be that boring.

One person basically ditched all awful lawyers (sourced by the often just as awful BBC for me) early on... do it yourself.. on the other had a certain opposing party - child cases (excepting social services care cases) have names on the opponent corners as those named people have a choice to leave the ring, any time they want, used up many many thousands - probably hundred of them, of your taxpayer cash on a range of most vexatious attacks via in fact fraudulently obtained legal aid. (but then its not a crime as so many others do that bless em)

SO yes there you are a citizen nt wasting any taxpayer money by just going and telling your story in a court day in and out quite unnecessarily, as a heftily paid legal aid lawyer throws hurtful lie after hurtful lie (as proven) on your megga bux of taxpayer money.

And then even goes and spends even more of your money on a ridiculous ex parte injunction. That is not a government or court sought injunction but a citizen ...on your buckets of legal aid money.

As we know in fact talk about a silver lining, for many hundreds of thousands after me who then thought they may have the right to name and shame evil vested interests mucking around with their lives and children...or just be protected by potential sunlight .....so we will let them off i guess.

But then although i left it a little focusing on the more important matter, when i eventually did decide - I MEAN high Court injunctions sound scary, are, and do keep you up with stress,i should at least have a solicitor investigate this - i was way out of my depth, i was denied legal aid and then at an oral hearing with (only) the legal aid 'board' having appealed the initial paper decision to deny, I was told that "as the case - in other words me challenging this injunction or just getting advice ! [needing a barrister opinion] had no merit - meaning not a hope in hell - this injunction was so correct on me that they wouldn't give me legal aid to even enquire if it was... so i was denied legal aid.

Which should ring a Kafkan alarm bell. Hint they were very wrong. Quite a simple test case in fact proved they were. But i know one thing: everyone else they ever bat off. Stops. Is told that is that and there is now no way forward. I/m daft and just said dont be daft, how can that little man with his smiles and understanding he assured me so...being a little 'infamous' understand anything ..? hes just a robot i sense. And i was right, no disrespect to robots. Beware, law at all levels, is full of all sorts of just as nuts hurdles. From your 18 year old son's faulty probation report to your olds being...oh yes being denied basic human rights to go outside and have a wander with the grands....all last year.

You may need to know what i knew. Many many of you. SO buy shares! (that wasn't planned as no one has ever given me anything for years n years such notions are daft) I already said i have to be 100% on the level.

XXX link to the womans hour episode early 2010s

simonclayton2020

theres

A few snippets

“I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.”