Jump to content

Medusa

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

25 Excellent
  1. It's quite ok. But a suggestion. 'Sorry if advising is seen as 'campaigning' ' IS not a translation of: I commenced with: “I am publishing a complete exposure” _______________ 'you can't beat npower they are the state now' the objective is not to beat them, but NOT BE BEATEN BY THEM, they are predators NO DOUBT. __________________ 'Best just limit damage.' YES, to oneself. There is not enough anger in the population at large, because the PR, = spin doctor is an antonym of the fact in performance which is ACTUALLY= semantic butchery FRAUDULENTLY: conceived at a genetic modification level, so many cannot apprehend what enters below the limen -- sublimenal.
  2. HI, I hope this might help you, I am publishing a complete exposure of these people, I have challenged the CFO CEO and Directors, on alleged offences, FRAUD Act s2,3,4,12, and Data Protect6ion among others. ALL admitted by silence and NOT controverted by any DISCLOSURE under the Fraud Act. They threatened to close my electricity, and I asked them to DO SO immediately, provide me with the 2 week Human Rights Letter, and THEN have the board directors meet me in court for cross examination. Suddenly THEY are not so eager. I have invoiced them now for ten breaches of the Data protection Act, £50,000, to help them focus on truth, an IDEA they don't understand, all their arguments are fiction. 100 pages of exposure all being released... Here is the lead in, and link below text. Are you fed up with spin and rhetoric from SPINsters, properly labelled semantic butchers? Npower and previously others, tried to commit fraud with me in January 2012. They alleged I owed them about £3800 backdated to 2007, obviously contradicting all their bills for 5 years. The lead in started with 'we will write off £3000' please pay the remainder of about £800, (to give me relief and make me happy to pay the remainder) I said you will have to prove it all, then they reduced it by £300. I examined their evidence and told them it was far too obviously vague, After another exchange they wrote of all of it, and said they would pay £50 into my account as a gesture of goodwill. SOON after they tried the same approach again, backdating £800. By then I said SHOW me an agreement where I indemnified YOU for gross negligence and incompetence, OF COURSE there was none... NOTHING but SILENCE IN responses OED ' a reaction to a stimulus ' They never answer a direct question merely use the obvious rhetorical device known as anthypophora, answering a question NOBODY asked. MADE up in their minds. VERY MUCH LIKE: Q. Did you take cash for honours? --- A. there was no wrongdoing. TO which one should say, THANK YOU clever children, that answers the question: was there wrongdoing? TRY and focus on my question. I will make it easier for you... DID you receive £400, your proper wages, in your pay packet? (knowing there was £500. to which there is a standard Diamond's answer: I was not aware.... Looking over the pay packet and over looking its contents. Corporate amnesia games for ten year old children? I warned them to withdraw, and they cancelled a purported & alleged debt the result of 'an error' see that little word, backdated 5 years, just the one little error, and that letter they sent me, went out to thousands, which in like parallel means tens of thousands. So by my calculation that may be in the region of several hundred thousands of little errors, all because each year allegedly the meter readers could not count the number of dials correctly. Along with my own FULL 7 dial readings... Clever? When I stopped paying them I asked a simple question: PROVIDE ME with your sort code and account number, presented in copied letters to the BOARD directors many times over. THEY could not understand that simple question... Shakespeare called it...some 400 years ago. Your sense pursues not mine; either you are ignorant Or seem so, craftily; and that's not good. I have challenged them all on Fraud sections 2,3,4,12, and they have tacitly admitted, AND failed to controvert by DISCLOSURE s3, a mere 49 plus breaches, of some 100 plus. The direct link is here... http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/fraud.html or the main menu – top link – has several links here.. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/ or type the usual format http etc logiclaw.co.uk I will post more this is just the start of 100 pages of undisputed allegations. ALL FREE... OR GOOGLE two words... logic law you should find me at number 1 in 200 million. My last email to them Notification Offence DPA and CRIMINAL OFFENCES REBUTTAL REQUIRED Currently over 50 ADMIT and DISCLOSE under here Fraud Act, all taken as admitted under CPR, and not a shred of any controverting evidence. ALL their arguments are GAMES. The index section can be downloaded here or on th link below. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/np6web1.pdf Otherwise all admitted under CPR 16.5 Best regards to all. fraud...........
  3. lamma You can go further... Have a small vado camera fitted to the front windscreen on two velcro squares, as you travel. Always on. (£45 from argos) takes up to 2 hrs video of what is happening in front of you. If we move slowly towards despotism, as it looks, you may need these things the same as they do, that is called in law, equality of arms. Just a comment. Crem See CPR 75, TEC is a DEEMED court, with officers ACTING as court officers, and, here's the smart bit, it is a registration POINT. Get the point? A point in space time eh? The centre 75.2 (1) Proceedings to which this Part applies must be started in the Centre. (2) For any purpose connected with the exercise of the Centre's functions – (a) the Centre is deemed to be part of the office of the court whose name appears on the documents to which the functions relate or in whose name the documents are issued; and (b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is deemed to act as an officer of that court. ACTING is the polysemous word that can be interpreted in ANY sense you like. They have fun with words! Functions of court officer 75.5 (1) The practice direction supplementing this Part sets out the circumstances in which a court officer may exercise the functions of the court. Review of decision of court officer 75.5A (1)Any party may request any decision of a court officer to be reviewed by a district judge. (2) Such a request must be made within 14 days of service of the decision. (3) Unless – (a) the party requesting the review requests an oral hearing; or (b) the court orders an oral hearing, a request for a review under paragraph (2) will be dealt with without an oral hearing.
  4. We wondered what happened... Don't pay it. It all begins way back from the FIRST POINT. The ab initio. From which NO financial liability occurs. Definition below. Treat it as the empty threat it IS. If they try it on, a High Court action is the only way. There are two I am aware of on such issues, one involves a government official... There is also one on its way to several courts. Alleging -- with hundreds of pages of corroboration, FRAUD and Harassment. JUST the usual -- A suggestion. What they do is send pages of semantic muck that are anti-logical. One case with a major player in Central London, had a 3 page package of mental derangements, that took 30 pages to take out. Silence AND of course cancellation followed. The spin comes from central think tanks who haven't learned that the delirious semantics are so obvious they are logical fallacies. The word games are afoot, and they are very inexpert at it. DID you get asked for 2000 extra troops? We discussed some increase to 10,000. Thank you, that answers the question "did you discuss some increase to about 10,000" NOT what was asked. School children lose their exams with such attemps at 'Ignoratio Elenchi fallacies.' Definition below. Soon we will be ruled by people who deliver despotism in small mental traumas of semantic bundles like rubric cubes. Never mind, my views are from a minority so I must be wrong. See the logic? Might is right? Certainly not! Ab Initio Latin: from the start; from the beginning. A proposition in law that a court's jurisdiction, a certain document which purports to affect legal rights, or an act which purports to affect legal rights, is or was nul and void from the start, from its beginning, because of some vitiating element. Typically, documents or acts which are ab initio cannot be fixed and where jurisdiction, a document or an act is so declared at law to be void ab initio, the parties are returned to their respective positions at the time of the ab initio event. That last sentence should be re-phrased.... NOT unless the law courts are UPRIGHT and TRULY independent eh? The difference between judge brought in, or as in this case brought in. Sorry about the apparent spelling mistake, if you highlight the word it is clearer what it is and SHOULD be. Ignoration of the Elench, = a rare anglicized repr. of the more usual Scholastic Latin ignoratio elenchi (gnre lka), a logical fallacy which consists in apparently refuting an opponent, while actually disproving some statement different from that advanced by him; also extended to any argument which is really irrelevant to its professed purpose. OED.
  5. Scan the PATAS register, and you will see wholesale case law, with batches where some adjudicators RULE one way, and others FOOL the other, so invariably one gets a list of contrarieties, that enables the sharp shooter to select those to his best advantage. There is a short list for you to download here, that shows the high court ruling, split down the middle for choosers and losers. Logic Reasoning Thought Laws
  6. This needs updating also...? Scan the PATAS register, and you will see wholesale case law, with batches where some adjudicators RULE one way, and others FOOL the other, so invariably one gets a list of contrarieties, that enables the sharp shooter to select those to his best advantage. They of course reLIE on ignorance, remember "ignorance of the law is no excuse!" But overlook their Hippo-critic Oath... "Knowledge of the law forbits its abuse!"
  7. Like to keep the combat going as a point scorer do you? Scan the PATAS register, and you will see wholesale case law, with batches where some adjudicators RULE one way, and others FOOL the other, so invariably one gets a list of contrarieties, that enables the sharp shooter to select those to his best advantage. Councils have earned the name of beings certainly sharp shooters due to the amount of fraud they accomplish and palliate with NLP & Spin. If you need an example then try reading this...muck as an example of spin completely out of control.http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/aaahhh.html After reading it, I am sure your sympathies will go out to the hard pushed councils who are finding it more difficult to COIN in phrases to win. Case law at PATAS fails to appLIE consistently, surely everybody and particularly YOU know that. And that NLP is rife on the side of the councils and SPINsters. Truth and falsity are the rules; and have been since 2500 yrs ago, rulings are often foolings, as a reasoning person knows. People - throw things out, daily, does not mean that they ONLY throw out the rubbish, many a good diamond and sound rule is found by looking at the things thrown out. The particulars of the case are not of gerat import, the reasoning process is what counts, and it is a very hard search to find a properly reasoned argument.
  8. ---- G&M, playing his semantics yet again, did you take a common purpose training course or simply become a counc-ill-or? What?---- ---- Blue Badge abuse is a criminal offence and could result in Councils sharing data. -------- If anyone is clutching at straws its you in trying to win an argument, I am just stating fact,---- APPLAUSE! Here are some other facts, that you overlooked! It is a criminal offence to commit fraud, and many councils do precisely that. It is an offence to harass, for a false allegation, many councils do precise that. It is a criminal offence to perjure oneself in a 'caught', 'court' and many councils do precisely that! Want any more facts? The list is endless for COUNCILS.
  9. Yes, but Wayne P, John oh, and another have clarified that you are talking to NPC Service Ltd, and not TfL you may find that interesting?
  10. Have a look here. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/178369-thoughts-man-dies-during.html Murder by stress, is now called duress. NOT SUSPICIOUS EH? When will someone get angry and DO something, lawfully not awfully, these are fellow citizens.. hard working family people like YOU and ME. More here, and coming... indx It could be coming to your family
  11. It's a complete and utter disgrace.Councils KNOW the duress they put people under, we were better of with being criminals with 3 points than this...Look here. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/waynefine.html Councils want their £50 no matter how many lives they take.That's how disgusting it is.Then see how it is on the INSIDE of this pure evil... Council officer threw himself off 100ft bridge after becoming depressed with authority's 'immoral' involving 'huge amounts' of taxpayer's money, an inquest heard. Council officer threw himself off 100ft bridge after becoming depressed with authority's 'immoral' decisions | Mail Online There could be civil war in this country if this MURDER by stress goes on... I forgot this one...Daily Express TODAY's 'GRATE' BRITAIN, Thank you PMs for setting an example and leading Britain by example, away from spin. By Frederick Forsyth Have your say(0) I READ with disgust that a 61-year-old grandmother, hounded to sheer despair by debt collectors who claimed she owed nearly £16,000, finally ended her misery through suicide. Then it was discovered that the pursuing bank had got the wrong name and address. The real debtor was male and lived 200 miles away. Computer error, sorreeeee. Read full article.. Daily Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: Columnists :: Put a stop to corporate bullies
  12. --- I thought there was a remedy; prosecution under the fraud act would be a good start. Clearly the fraud act only applies to the peasants, not the apparachiks of Nu Labour and their partners in the 'blue' guard. BANG ON TARGET as usual....your aim is gold every time... It's an uncivil remedy. here at index Try throwing that lot at them. Camden went of SMARTING with £4000 costs. The claimant warned them NEXT TIME £1,000,000, AND filed it with the Judge. BTW still to come on that one, the court gave the claimant possession of the TOWN HALL, worth about £70 million? It all cost him nothing, but he lost 3 stone in the rattle. There's another brave person also going at TfL with an £1?.? million claim, the judges semantics in correlative adverbial pairs were awful. He couldn't balance them as in 'scales of justice'. What was worse is the BWMAN case here, the Judge bought in; oops sorry, dyslexia attack, and I mis - spell was the worst seen in a lifetime. Talk about councils compromising the integrity of everything they touch... SORRY that word was spelt wrong....compromising Should be COME PROMISING INTEGRITY! like all these visionaries that make the public mental health bill rise into billions and sicken us all.
  13. ---what does it take to change things? --- EASY There is no specific remedy { note the sighs of relief all around } in legislation for this, CREATE a remedy in legislation, these are the people in power, stop saying things like, (suggestions, and encouragement) and start DOING. { OH GOD... NO!! }After all he is talking in the Lords where these upright JUSTICERS en--act the laws. All the subliminals, highlighted above, that are adjuncts to the head words, that deliver the THOUGHT forms to satisfy appetite, but since they are FRAMED as thought forms dull the edge of resolve. It means upsetting a few people rather than the WHOLE population, that's all. It may mean postponing that move to the appelate bench. ELECTION? both main parties are probably well into 'common purpose' we need a move to the manic party to shake them, and to straighten some of the uncivil servants Mention those two words and watch the silence that you can CUT. “The BPA seeks a PCN defined by Statute plus bilateral proportionality” WHERE do I seek please?—The 'seeking' rooms 1st door left sir! Any HIDE and SEEK rooms? Yes sir, ALL the remainder of the rooms. Any bilateral proportionality rooms? Sorry sir that's too much of a mouthfull for me, you must seek a legal adviser.
  14. John OH! that's a great inspiration for all. As I think we are of like thoughts, and this is his speech, permit me please to disambiguate just a very very little. It's terrific visionary material. I wonder if many readers see how it shall: as Angelo says to Isa Bella; “Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushes That banish what they sue for; ”Look at the keywords that acts a touchstones to the subconscious minds, delivering palliation to the appetite for justice and proper retribution. { And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry } The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests that authorities should be made to refund any penalty charges paid when enforcement action has been taken when the local authority knows [ comment here, pretend ignorance ] from previous adjudication decisions that the relevant traffic signs are faulty [ prefer not prescribed] . { But this is where it gets tricky and sticky....} The Government have encouraged { AHH got it, go to the encouragemen rooms down the corridor, the ones with padded walls to keep the noise from getting out while you get put through the semantic mangler } local authorities to do this, but it is a local decision. If (conditional – often contrary to fact) the authority has taken enforcement action { NO we don't do that! we simply AWARD penalties they're not fines, do you recall Justice Jackson to Robin at the High Court, do you? ] when the provisions in place are not lawful, [ prefer outrageously and unjustly outlawed ] it may[ thinking in the optative mood? ] , be in breach of its statutory duty. There is no specific remedy { note the sighs of relief all around } in legislation for this, but a claimant may [ again wishful, especially when judicial reviews get refused without even a hearing ] be able to bring a civil action against the local authority for breach of statutory duty.The Audit Commission has the ability [ OH really! so we don't? ] to scrutinise {screw timorise --- AAHH just that eh? }a local authority’s parking management performance, and has published { Ooohh great, making money out of publishing books too, or simply spending revenue to inform the public what they can see and know. } a number of inspection reports on individual councils’ parking services. Concerns may also be referred to the district auditor, who acts {just acts eh? Aren't those actors, people that play in the theatre?} as watchdog of public finance. { to allow councils to take it, keep it and watch it, not return it } Any way,never mind, so long as they remain CONCERNS, they're still LOVELY!. Such fun with semantics in indirect narration, third person, subjunctive moods thought forms. On an more direct note, I met him in a HOL, meeting with the Westminster chief of barking- sorry parking. HE IS very charming and doing a very difficult job of SPEAKING UP! SORRY about all the spellos,I ain't at one of my better moments
  15. --- you have to pay for a 'trial', or for someone who doesn't directly benefit to decide about it, on limited grounds, no discretion allowed.--- Trials are in justice centres, you can question freely under oath. Hearings vary, some allow a question under sufferance, (yeeeesss uttered in a slow rising tone, from bass baritone to alto or castrati, depending on the sonority and gender, with emphasis on the last consonents) Now in the OFT, they state in their glossy self acclaimer, you cannot ask the question 'WHY' as if there aren't other easy ways of asking the same question. I need to qualify this. --- When Peter fights Paul, courts have reasonable integrity, it's when it comes to anybody v .gov.uk, that's when the fun d begins... ALL open and transparent of course... Many hearings are learings and snearings.Who benefits, AH! Since PATAS are independent, (from their adjudy's) it sounds nice to the ear of the undiscerning. BUT adjudictators are paid by..... guessed it yet?... NO! 'The joint committee of councils'. Who are they, AH, no secret really. they are the people who punish for trivia, trivialise their own offences, and then pay their own independant (from PATAS) 'solicitors' to act as judge, barrister and jury in YOUR case learing, oops clumsy of me, hearing. Hence their REAL independence has to be of some other kind, religious independence, political interdependence, or even parental indepen-dance. Ultimately it's all about scrabble, they play scrabble for money, and you play scrabble for the meaings in 'sense and references' of the words (Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell). The objective is to give you FARE justice, that's fare paying injustice of course. BTW --- Oh, and they don't do refunds --- IS what they SAY, but surely by now, you KNOW that what they DO is nothing that correlates with what they say.Someone here got one...and I am aware of others, but SHH keep it a secret. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/GLAMayor.html#admit Sorry about the spello's, just a few comments. It's just a bit of light hearted saturday fun for semantic players.
×
×
  • Create New...